Can you believe this is a VIOLATED PILOT?

Ron Levy said:
Nice thought, but you can't fly anywhere if your certificate is suspended, unless you have another certificate from another country not based on your US ticket.
Click to expand...

Does the FAA notify all the other ICAO countries to bust you if you are there?
 
David Moeslein said:
Please be advised that I haven't mistaken "due process for irony". In this case, in fact, they are clearly separate.

So, maybe it is best to say: "Isn't it ironic that while due process what being followed - and occurring - the same pilot who violated federal security airspace designed to protect all of us from terrorist acts was allowed to continue to fly (nice of them) and . . . five years later . . . surrendered his certificate for 90 days".

I think that many of the posters here are not career pilots so that, for them, a 90-day suspension would merely be an opportunity to save some money not flying! I am clearly aware of the system and all that went on but I still can't help but scratch my . . . [head] . . . and marvel in what our government spends its time and OUR money pursuing. 75 days from now, when all is said and done and my certificate is returned (and they've told me that they will return it in sufficient time so that I can fly on the 91st day --- little do they realize that will no longer be an easy option) what will REALLY have been accomplished? Maybe you feel safer knowing that I am not in the air now, but for five years I was flying along in the same airspace with you!
Click to expand...
The way I see it they determined right away that you weren't a security risk or you wouldn't be flying. You got dinged because you violated their procedure. Rightly or wrongly you are getting your hand slapped. It's not that the country is going to be safer for 90 days because you're not flying. That was your punishment. It's the same reason they imprison non-violent offenders.

On another note, I've always thought suspensions were a stupid way of punishing pilots. 90 days later you'll be less proficient than you were before. Maybe they should just fine people, like a traffic ticket. :dunno:
 
Everskyward said:
On another note, I've always thought suspensions were a stupid way of punishing pilots. 90 days later you'll be less proficient than you were before. Maybe they should just fine people, like a traffic ticket. :dunno:
Click to expand...

So you want a Government Agency to implement policies using Common Sense. :fingerwag:
 
EdFred said:
Ah. Well, that reminds me...I should send $2 to OKC. ;)
Click to expand...
You have to sign a statement that your old certificate was lost or destroyed in order to get a new one that way. The replacement has a new issue date, and your old one becomes invalid. If the FAA catches you using the old one while your new one is suspended, they will revoke all your certificates, and probably put a 61.13(a)(2)(ii) note in your file. They may also levy a civil penalty of thousands of dollars against you. All in all, not a wise idea.
 
Ron Levy said:
...the FAA. And more than that, the US Court of Appeals says the FAA is, by Act of Congress, never wrong (well, almost never -- see Administrator v. Merrell and NTSB, 190 F. 3rd 571, 577 (D.C. Cir, 1999). All I say is if you want to pick a fight, pick one you can win, and a legal fight with the FAA over their rules ain't one of them.
Click to expand...

For those who might be interested, this is a principal that's fairly-well universal when dealing with adjudicatory matters in agencies that are given the authority to make their own rules.

The theory is that the agency charged with creating the rules is also the best judge of the intent/purpose/etc. of those rules.

It's certainly possible to win a challenge to an agency's interpretation of its rules - but you essentially have to show that the agency's interpretation has no possible basis in law, is clearly contrary to the regulation itself, is directly violative of a statute, or is so ridiculously arbitrary that it's beyond any concept of fair.

For instance, suppose there's a rule saying that to have your ticket revoked, you have to be flying below 500' and be wearing sunglasses. You were were wearing sunglasses, but you were above 500'.

But, suppose the agency judge disregards the "and" and reads it as "or" - meaning the judge thinks the FAA only has to prove one or the other. And, he clips your wings because you were wearing sunglasses. That's the type of thing that has no basis in law and is clearly contrary to the regulation, which requires that both be proven.

Absent some foul-up like that, the agency always wins.
 
EdFred said:
Ah. Well, that reminds me...I should send $2 to OKC. ;)
Click to expand...

Ed, we all know what happens if you fly without the proper paperwork...

b52tailless.jpg
 
Ron Levy said:
You have to sign a statement that your old certificate was lost or destroyed in order to get a new one that way. The replacement has a new issue date, and your old one becomes invalid. If the FAA catches you using the old one while your new one is suspended, they will revoke all your certificates, and probably put a 61.13(a)(2)(ii) note in your file. They may also levy a civil penalty of thousands of dollars against you. All in all, not a wise idea.
Click to expand...

Maybe for a part 91 operator, but not true for a 135/121 crewmember. We have in our GOM the procedure to obtain a fax from OKC to continue operations in the event of a lost certificate.

When I changed my certificates to "English Proficient" I was not asked to sign anything or turn in my old certificates.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
Maybe for a part 91 operator, but not true for a 135/121 crewmember. We have in our GOM the procedure to obtain a fax from OKC to continue operations in the event of a lost certificate.
Click to expand...
It's true for all crewmembers. The fax from OKC requires that you report the old certificate lost/stolen, and after sending the fax, they issue a new certificate with a new issue date, and void the old one. If they later catch you using the old "lost" one, which is now void, you are in deep trouble regardless of the operating certificate held by your employer.
 
Ron Levy said:
It's true for all crewmembers. The fax from OKC requires that you report the old certificate lost/stolen, and after sending the fax, they issue a new certificate with a new issue date, and void the old one.
Click to expand...
Just so that people know, the FAA has moved into the modern age and you can get an e-mail stating that you have a pilots' certificate and a medical and that you are authorized to use them. I did this a couple years ago when my wallet was stolen.
 
Everskyward said:
Just so that people know, the FAA has moved into the modern age and you can get an e-mail stating that you have a pilots' certificate and a medical and that you are authorized to use them. I did this a couple years ago when my wallet was stolen.
Click to expand...

We're still behind. I'll send a message to out Flight Ops and let them know and make a revision for the GOM.
 
Everskyward said:
Just so that people know, the FAA has moved into the modern age and you can get an e-mail stating that you have a pilots' certificate and a medical and that you are authorized to use them.
Click to expand...
That's good to know, and folks don't have to be a 121/135 crewmember to take advantage of either the fax or email temporary replacement options.

However, regardless of whether the replacement is by snail mail, fax, or email, you still have to report your old certificate as lost/stolen (or being replaced for the EPE or paper-plastic exchange), and the new one has a new issue date while the old one is voided. That's the critical issue, which stems from the earlier suggestion that one might be able to get a replacement, stash the old one, and then, if one's certificate is suspended, use the old certificate while the new one is locked up at the FSDO. If you get caught doing that, you will find yourself in the deepest legal water the FAA has.
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
Of course, being out of the country...
Click to expand...
Fax and email still work outside the USA, FAA inspectors are stationed around the world, and foreign inspectors still check paperwork. Of course, they may not check back with the FAA, and you may not otherwise draw sufficient attention to get caught, but if you are, it's the aviation death penalty. So you have to ask yourself this question -- do you feel lucky? Well, do ya, Ed?
 
Ron Levy said:
Fax and email still work outside the USA, FAA inspectors are stationed around the world, and foreign inspectors still check paperwork. Of course, they may not check back with the FAA, and you may not otherwise draw sufficient attention to get caught, but if you are, it's the aviation death penalty. So you have to ask yourself this question -- do you feel lucky? Well, do ya, Ed?
Click to expand...

I can't remember if it was 5 sanctions or 6...
 
David Moeslein said:
:confused: Same guy - entrusted by these dignitaries - violated by the FAA and given a 90-day suspension!
Click to expand...

That could just be a reflection of the fact that there really isn't any way for charter customers to find out about pending certificate actions against pilots, or if there is a way, they are not likely to know how to go about it.

TO CLARIFY ---- Flew these people (and for 5 years after the "violation flight") before surrendering my certificate. Point is this --- after 5 years, you'd think there would be a process where you could go to the FAA and say, "Hey - this thing has been hanging around for 5 years . . . during which time I've flown 1,000+ hours, gotten TWO type ratings, and even had Clinton & Cheney on board (receiving a glowing letter from Clinton) --- Can we just consider this suspension as having been served?" BUT - the long history/precedent with the FAA is that the period of suspension is not served until the certificate has ben surrendered. As a side note, they are also not interested in "economic hardship".
Click to expand...
That could also be used as a reason why there should have been an emergency suspension, so it might not be a good argument to make to the FAA.

As for the glowing letter from Clinton, is she really qualified to judge how safe a pilot is?
 
Yeah - that whole english proficiency thing was/is a crock! If the government wanted you to have a new certificate they should have issued it without charge OR issued new certificates as "English NOT proficient" if that was the case!

Even funnier, I had a 21 day trip into Canada,Bahamas and South America ---- clearing Customs on multiple occasions --- and did not have the ENGLISH PROFICIENT statement yet -- an it was never mentioned! BFD in my opinion but it looked like somebody was doing soemthing in the FAA.

Now - even funnier - tbe whole national security issue -- and as House noted --- they issue the English Proficient certificate and don't ask for the prior certificate to be returned! So - in my "surrendered" status, I still have a certificate (NO - I'M NOT GOING TO FLY WITH IT -- just more irony and our government hard at work).

Don't even want to suggest what someobod with ill intentions would PAY for a certificate like this - ATP with 2 type ratings!

m
Rotor&Wing said:
Maybe for a part 91 operator, but not true for a 135/121 crewmember. We have in our GOM the procedure to obtain a fax from OKC to continue operations in the event of a lost certificate.

When I changed my certificates to "English Proficient" I was not asked to sign anything or turn in my old certificates.
Click to expand...
 
David Moeslein said:
Now - even funnier - tbe whole national security issue -- and as House noted --- they issue the English Proficient certificate and don't ask for the prior certificate to be returned! So - in my "surrendered" status, I still have a certificate
Click to expand...
But, of course, not a valid certificate. In any event, I understand it was the French driving the English Proficient issue, just as they drove the SIC type rating issue.
 
1. Unfortunately the ARG/US and the Weyvern agencies - that rate charter companies - assign "negative points" against a charter operator with pilots who are either violated OR under investigation. That is what screwed me up wit this nice little charter gig I had . . .

2. I guess Hillary Clinton may not be qualified to judge how safe a pilot is, but not too many people have been told, "That flight was as nice as any I've had on Air Force One" . . .



Palmpilot said:
That could just be a reflection of the fact that there really isn't any way for charter customers to find out about pending certificate actions against pilots, or if there is a way, they are not likely to know how to go about it.



That could also be used as a reason why there should have been an emergency suspension, so it might not be a good argument to make to the FAA.

As for the glowing letter from Clinton, is she really qualified to judge how safe a pilot is?
Click to expand...
 
Well, I may have gone flying with an invalid certificate last night. Or not. :dunno:

I had ordered and apparently received my new "English Proficient" certificate. It was sitting on the kitchen table, unopened, and I had not seen that it had arrived.

However, I looked through the sheet that came with it and didn't see anything that said that previously issued certificates were invalid or revoked. Nor did I see anything to that effect when I requested it.

Not that it really matters, of course. I'll just put the old certificate next to my duplicate ground instructor certificate. I still have no idea why I received two identical copies of that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top