Emergency Revocation of License

J

JohnWF

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Aug 5, 2012
Messages
194
Display Name
Display name:
John at Salida
I ran into an older pilot who no longer owns a plane nor flies. I recall that a few years back he had an electrical total failure nearing sundown in a mountain valley in Colorado. He landed on a rural road in near darkness because he was fuel critical. No injury or damage. He got fuel and flew home the following morning...highway patrol closed off the road so he could take off. FAA had been notified.

He tells me yesterday that the FAA demanded he turn in his PPL license and called it an emergency revocation.

No damage, no injury, nobody on the ground hurt, no other people's property damaged, yet they pulled his PPL. No hearing, appeal or other administrative action...just raw demand to surrender his PPL. FSDO DEN was office that acted per this pilot's version.

Seems odd, doesn't it?

As an aside, when he landed he passed over a van on the road. It was loaded with illegal immigrants who thought the plane was ICE, so they bailed out of the van and scattered !
 
Why was he fuel critical? If he had landed because of approaching darkness and no way to turn on runway lights then that is one thing but running out of gas is something else...
 
Yes, I also suspect that I didn't get the full story.
 
There is something fishy about this story. The FSDO can't revoke a certificate without proper notice and a hearing.
 
sarangan said:
There is something fishy about this story. The FSDO can't revoke a certificate without proper notice and a hearing.
Click to expand...


There's more to this story than is being told.

I doubt it was an "emergency revocation", but a "give us your certificate and expect a 44709 re-evaluation".
 
Last edited:
RotorAndWing said:
There's more to this story than is being told.

I doubt it was an "emergency revocation", but a "give us your certificate and expect a 44709 re-evaluation".
Click to expand...

Where's Paul Harvey when you need him for the rest of the story?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
 
Agreed. If it was an emergency revocation, it has to say why they are revoking. I have only seen that when someone has lied about having no DUIs on their medical, not for errors in judgment while flying.

If it is an emergency revocation, he has a very short time period in which to appeal 1) the determination of the existence of an emergency, and 2) whether to revoke. He needs to get on it today, if it's not too late already.
 
PPC1052 said:
If it is an emergency revocation, he has a very short time period in which to appeal 1) the determination of the existence of an emergency, and 2) whether to revoke. He needs to get on it today, if it's not too late already.
Click to expand...

If he no longer has an airplane, or flies as reported by the OP...why does this matter, other than principle?

An emergency revocation comes from some type of "recent" activity. If he no longer flies, and this event was years ago, that's not very recent. Me thinks that he has recently done some type of flying that generated an action. Another "incident"? Caught flying without a medical?
 
ggroves said:
An emergency revocation comes from some type of "recent" activity.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Again, when I have seen this, it is for failure to report DUIs on the medical app. In one such case, it was for DUIs over 10 years old, and they just happened to finally catch it, and it wasn't right after the medical application, either.
 
ggroves said:
Caught flying without a medical?
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. The presumptive penalty for operating without a medical certificate is 30-90 days, unless you do it with a disqualifying medical condition. In that case, it's a revocation.
 
ggroves said:
If he no longer has an airplane, or flies as reported by the OP...why does this matter, other than principle?
Click to expand...
You are correct. If he doesn't care to ever fly again, he can just send in his certificates. If he ever wants to fly again though, he will have to reapply and take all of the written and practical exams if he doesn't fight the revocation.
 
sarangan said:
There is something fishy about this story. The FSDO can't revoke a certificate without proper notice and a hearing.
Click to expand...
He didn't say FSDO; he said the FAA. The turn-n order would be to a FSDO; the Order itself would be signed by an FAA attorney. (assuming to begin with it was an emergency revocation order).

The FAA has authority to issue an emergency revocation order. Like any other FAA order, it is subject to appeal, but the timeline is very, very short and technical and best to have an attorney.

The pilot has 48 hours to appeal the "emergency" aspect of the revocation (was there an emergency), together with all supporting evidence (not the whole case). That part is resolved within 5 days (probability of pilot success less than 5%).

Because, unlike non-emergency suspensions and revocations, the pilot is without his certificate while the case is pending, the case itself is on a short timeline and is supposed to be resolved within 60 days (that's mostly the result of the Hoover debacle).
 
Last edited:
PPC1052 said:
Agreed. If it was an emergency revocation, it has to say why they are revoking. I have only seen that when someone has lied about having no DUIs on their medical, not for errors in judgment while flying.
Click to expand...

The emergency revocations I've been aware of we're in one case continuing to fly 134 1/2 after the FAA informed him that the operation was illegal, and one for falsifying Part 135 duty time records.

I heard rumors about a third one for 135 violations, IIRC, but the guy died in a plane crash shortly before the revocation was to take place.

It appears to me that a willful, repeated violation can result in emergency revocation.

There would have had to be something more than the OP is aware of for it to happen.
 
Last edited:
JohnWF said:
No hearing, appeal or other administrative action...just raw demand to surrender his PPL. FSDO DEN was office that acted per this pilot's version.
Click to expand...
That "pilot's version" is not consistent with the FAA's rules for how such situations are handled. While there may not be a hearing prior to an Emergency Revocation, there is and always has been an appeal process which can go through the NTSB and even to the US Court of Appeals. Further, as a result of the so-called "Hoover Bill", you can within 48 hours of your receipt of the notice of Emergency Revocation file an appeal of that action and obtain an expedited formal hearing before the NTSB with a result within a week. Finally, a FSDO cannot order an Emergency Revocation by itself -- that requires elevation to either the Regional Counsel or the Assistant Chief Counsel for Enforcement via the Regional Flight Standards office.

FAA Order 2150.3B said:
When FAA investigative personnel believe an emergency certificate action is appropriate, they immediately notify their supervisor, who notifies the regional office, and the Regional Counsel or Assistant Chief Counsel for Enforcement. The investigation and report of an emergency certificate action is generally given priority over all other work. The NTSB must hear and decide an appeal of an emergency certificate action within 60 days after the FAA files its complaint with the NTSB. Because appeals of emergency cases receive accelerated handling, FAA investigative personnel must be ready to assist legal counsel in preparing to try the case within several days of the issuance of the emergency order, including confirmation of the location of witnesses and other evidence.
Click to expand...

So, I suspect you got only one small and distorted part of the story.
 
Last edited:
PPC1052 said:
Agreed. If it was an emergency revocation, it has to say why they are revoking. I have only seen that when someone has lied about having no DUIs on their medical, not for errors in judgment while flying.
Click to expand...
I've seen such.
emergency revocation; operation of an aircraft when certificate under suspension; lack of qualifications; careless or reckless operation; credibility determination
Click to expand...
ATP; FI; PIC; initial decisions, requirement of all findings in; PIC; duty station of ; PIC, duty to remain in cockpit; aircraft, pilotless; relief pilot, duties of; standard of care.
Click to expand...
student pilot; student, prohibition against passengers; credibility.
Click to expand...
ATC clearance; PIC, identification of; preponderance of evidence; hearsay; circumstantial evidence; credibility; admissibility of evidence.
Click to expand...
commercial pilot; compensation or hire; Part 135, pilot qualifications for; pilot qualifications; IFR; preponderance of evidence; burden of proof; ice; credibility
Click to expand...
aileron roll; passenger-carrying flight; crewmember, definition of; acrobatic roll; emergency defense; credibility; due process; participation at hearing by non-party counsel; practice and procedure; FAA destruction of computer tracking data; ferry flight, definition of; sanction, consistency with "written agency policy guidance available to the public"; sanction, consistency with precedent; sanction for acrobatic roll in non-certificated aircraft; summary judgment; sanctions against FAA; discovery in emergency cases; discovery, extent of compliance with; discovery, extent of in emergency cases; oral argument
Click to expand...
ATP; helicopter; airworthiness; single engine takeoff; chip light; running takeoff; credibility
Click to expand...
...which was appealed to the US Court of Appeals, remanded to the NTSB, and upheld on remand.
ATP; passenger-carrying Part 121 flight; fuel exhaustion; failure to complete checklist; emergency declared but misdescribed to ATC; FAA's interpretation of its regulations rejected; deference due FAA; modification of sanction
Click to expand...
notice of appeal treated as appeal brief when no brief filed; practice and procedure; pro se; right-of-way rules for landing; failure to give way; collision hazard; pattern approach versus straight-in approach
Click to expand...
...and that's from only 7 out of 22 pages of Emergency Revocation actions appealed to the NTSB (not counting, of course, those which were not appealed).
 
PPC1052 said:
Not necessarily. Again, when I have seen this, it is for failure to report DUIs on the medical app. In one such case, it was for DUIs over 10 years old, and they just happened to finally catch it, and it wasn't right after the medical application, either.
Click to expand...
Only a very small fraction of the Emergency Revocations. Go check the NTSB Legal Matters site for more. Search for "Emergency Revocation" under "Sanction".
 
Seems I remember reading a couple of years ago about some jerk flying ~30' agl along a beach full of people and vehicles, with much screaming and jumping out of the way as he rocked his wings and swooped repeatedly over the people. It ended in an emergency revocation, as his face and N# were clearly visible in the several videos posted online.

What is required to initiate an emergency revocation? I plan to never personally find out! But Ron has provided a pretty good list above.
 
Hank S said:
What is required to initiate an emergency revocation?
Click to expand...
Here's a few generaly guidelines from FAA Order 2150.3B:

  • Failure to Submit to Reexamination or Reinspection.
  • the Administrator finds that an emergency exists and safety in air commerce or air transportation require the order to be effective immediately
    [*]    the FAA believes the certificate holder lacks the qualifications to hold the certificate and the certificate holder is capable of exercising the privileges of the certificate [i.e., the certificate holder has the means to continue exercising those privileges thus further compromising safety].
    [*]
    when the certificate holder does not hold a currently valid airman medical certificate, it nevertheless is appropriate to take emergency certificate action if it is known the certificate holder has operated an aircraft despite the lack of a currently valid airman medical certificate.​
 
Ron Levy said:
The OP did say it was the FSDO.
...which is where the fishiness of the story starts.
Click to expand...
Or just as likely, the order came from the FAA to be complied with through the FSDO.

Your assumption is something fishy. Mine is the storyteller not understanding what he received (or not communicating it well).
 
Meh....this is standard procedure from what I hear.

They probably want him to do a 709 ride....until then they want his paper. They'll likely get him on improper preflight or planning.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Or just as likely, the order came from the FAA to be complied with through the FSDO.
Click to expand...
That is indeed possible.
Your assumption is something fishy. Mine is the storyteller not understanding what he received (or not communicating it well).
Click to expand...
By "fishy", I meant only that the story told does not fit with what really happens in an emergency revocation action, so I think we're just saying the same thing in different words.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
Meh....this is standard procedure from what I hear.

They probably want him to do a 709 ride....until then they want his paper. They'll likely get him on improper preflight or planning.
Click to expand...

For a 709 ride, you get to keep your paper prior. By Ron's post, it looks like REFUSAL of a 709 ride can result in Emergency Revocation.
 
JohnWF said:
...highway patrol closed off the road so he could take off. FAA had been notified.
Click to expand...

The FAA may have been "notified" but they never "agreed to". I've been on more than one call where this same thing happened and the AFS inspector told them to get a wrench and a trailer.
 
It sounds to me like he was supposed to get a 709 ride a few years back, never did, and finally they are doing the revocation.
 
Henning said:
It sounds to me like he was supposed to get a 709 ride a few years back, never did, and finally they are doing the revocation.
Click to expand...

The FAA won't wait a few years. If one is giving a 709 letter they must coordinate with the Agency. If they let the time expire or ignore the letters, then the revocation begins.
 
ISaidRightTurns said:
The FAA may have been "notified" but they never "agreed to". I've been on more than one call where this same thing happened and the AFS inspector told them to get a wrench and a trailer.
Click to expand...

AFS has no authority in the matter. There is no rule prohibiting it, he can only make recommendations on the matter.
However, if he says "ok do it" and you crash, your family's lawyer will have a field day with that, so he will recommend you to trailer it out, it is the low risk answer. It is not in any way a legal restriction. In the end it's up to the Highway Patrol to settle the question of "may I" and PIC for "will I".
 
RotorAndWing said:
The FAA won't wait a few years. If one is giving a 709 letter they must coordinate with the Agency. If they let the time expire or ignore the letters, then the revocation begins.
Click to expand...

They haven't really been on top of this stuff for a while, they seem to be having real problems budgeting any time/resources for GA ever since the big budget slashes a few years back. I know what they are supposed to do, but it appears the process is pretty broken at this point, so it was a maybe.
 
Ron Levy said:
I've seen such.






...which was appealed to the US Court of Appeals, remanded to the NTSB, and upheld on remand.


...and that's from only 7 out of 22 pages of Emergency Revocation actions appealed to the NTSB (not counting, of course, those which were not appealed).
Click to expand...


Yeah, my wording was pretty sloppy. I can see where you might call those "errors in judgment." The FAA has stated that the criteria for emergency revocation is as follows:

d. Criteria for Emergency Action.​


(1) Emergency action is taken only:
​
When the certificate holder lacks qualification, or there is a reasonable basis to question whether the holder is qualified to hold the certificate; and
When the certificate holder is reasonably able as a practical matter to exercise the
privileges of the certificate.​

​
FAA Order 2150.3 B
​
It would have been better if I had said that.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
They haven't really been on top of this stuff for a while, they seem to be having real problems budgeting any time/resources for GA ever since the big budget slashes a few years back. I know what they are supposed to do, but it appears the process is pretty broken at this point, so it was a maybe.
Click to expand...

They are on top of it, an open EIR gets tracked, as well as any open PTRS's.

The recent fiasco with Inspector currency has been resolved and had nothing to do with budget.
 
RotorAndWing said:
The FAA won't wait a few years. If one is giving a 709 letter they must coordinate with the Agency. If they let the time expire or ignore the letters, then the revocation begins.
Click to expand...

well ya, but it isn't "automatic". Some pinhead :rofl: hasta do something.

If the inspecter has a change of heart....the revocation can be discarded or erased. :D
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
well ya, but it isn't "automatic". Some pinhead :rofl: hasta do something.

If the inspecter has a change of heart....the revocation can be discarded or erased. :D
Click to expand...

Uh, no. :no:

The Inspector works under the FLM and office manager. "Erasing" an enforcement isn't going to happen. EIR's are like letting the genie out of the bottle, once out almost impossible to get back in. EIR's can't be erased, they must be closed, and a reason for closing. "Change of Heart" isn't one of those reasons.

An Inspector cannot open an EIR without concurrence from the FLM, and usually the office manager to preclude an errant EIR from being opened.

As far as the "automatic" part, to a degree it is. These are tracked on "dashboards" and if no action is noted (turns red) then questions start to be asked. Managers do not want to answer to Region why there are red items on their dashboard.
 
Last edited:
ya but....I know of a case where a 709 was asked of....and they were told to pound sand.

....it invovled an accident and fatalities....and there was no revocation and no 709 ride. :D

maybe no EIR was issued?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top