FAA Enforcement

ColoPilot

ColoPilot

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Feb 2, 2012
Messages
604
Location
Colorado
Display Name
Display name:
ColoPilot
The thread from the Alaska pilot with 400 hours and no PPL reminded me of a urban legend I heard when I first started flying: An old, long time commercial pilot flying (charters or cargo with his own plane depending on the story), is discovered to have never had any pilot certificates. The FAA can't figure out what to do, so they issue him a PPL so they can suspend it.

So my question -- what can the FAA do to someone like this? Do they have the power to fine or jail egregious violators of the FARs? I've never heard of any punishment worse than permanently losing a certificate.
 
Is there any statistics on safety, accident rate, fatalities etc. in Alaska as compared to the rest of the US (at least the parts with comparable weather)?
 
ColoPilot said:
So my question -- what can the FAA do to someone like this? Do they have the power to fine or jail egregious violators of the FARs? I've never heard of any punishment worse than permanently losing a certificate.
Click to expand...
It's called a "civil penalty," not a "fine," since it's done under administrative rather than criminal law, but it has the same effect. Those flying without licenses who violate the rules generally face civil penalties of several thousand dollars. See Administrator v. Hopkins, involving an unlicensed pilot flying an ultralight in violation of the rules on ultralights, for one example. See Administrator v. Reid for how it is used when a suspension/revocation fails to impress a licensed pilot.

If they continue to fly illegally after being assessed a civil penalty, the FAA can get a Federal judge to jail them for contempt -- and that means you stay in jail until you convince the judge you won't do it again. However, I know of no cases where that was actually done.
 
ColoPilot said:
The thread from the Alaska pilot with 400 hours and no PPL reminded me of a urban legend I heard when I first started flying: An old, long time commercial pilot flying (charters or cargo with his own plane depending on the story), is discovered to have never had any pilot certificates. The FAA can't figure out what to do, so they issue him a PPL so they can suspend it.
Click to expand...

Urban legend.

ColoPilot said:
So my question -- what can the FAA do to someone like this? Do they have the power to fine or jail egregious violators of the FARs? I've never heard of any punishment worse than permanently losing a certificate.
Click to expand...

Civil penalties. And yes it does happen. You can go read FAA Order 2150.3B and it has a section that covers civil penalties.
 
Ron Levy said:
It's called a "civil penalty," not a "fine," since it's done under administrative rather than criminal law, but it has the same effect. Those flying without licenses who violate the rules generally face civil penalties of several thousand dollars. See Administrator v. Hopkins, involving an unlicensed pilot flying an ultralight in violation of the rules on ultralights, for one example. See Administrator v. Reid for how it is used when a suspension/revocation fails to impress a licensed pilot.

If they continue to fly illegally after being assessed a civil penalty, the FAA can get a Federal judge to jail them for contempt -- and that means you stay in jail until you convince the judge you won't do it again. However, I know of no cases where that was actually done.
Click to expand...

It's interesting to see those cases. I'm surprised that the civil penalties were so small ($1500 and $5000).

Regarding the second case, I can't fathom what a guy would hope to gain from not surrendering his certificates after receiving a valid order to do so. It's not as if keeping the suspended and revoked certificates would have made it legal for him to keep flying.
 
Ateaist said:
Is there any statistics on safety, accident rate, fatalities etc. in Alaska as compared to the rest of the US (at least the parts with comparable weather)?
Click to expand...

Yes. Pretty sure the AOPA Air Safety Foundation has compiled that. The accident/incident rate in Alaska is far worse than the lower 48, and due to the relatively high number of aircraft per capita up there, the bad stats for Alaska are bad enough to significantly influence the overall accident/incident rate for all of GA when you take the US GA fleet as a whole.
 
Palmpilot said:
.

Regarding the second case, I can't fathom what a guy would hope to gain from not surrendering his certificates after receiving a valid order to do so. It's not as if keeping the suspended and revoked certificates would have made it legal for him to keep flying.
Click to expand...

I personally know one individual ( former co-worker) who had his certificate suspended facing a 44709 evaluation for his type and ATP. He refused to hand over his certificate.

As if it has done him any good, it ended his career and he never flew anything again.
 
During the five-year period that I researched NTSB accident rates for the Cessna 180-185 fleet, ~25% of the reported accidents occurred in AK. I'm told by locals that the number of unreported accidents is substantially higher than those that make the paper.

Jeff Oslick said:
Yes. Pretty sure the AOPA Air Safety Foundation has compiled that. The accident/incident rate in Alaska is far worse than the lower 48, and due to the relatively high number of aircraft per capita up there, the bad stats for Alaska are bad enough to significantly influence the overall accident/incident rate for all of GA when you take the US GA fleet as a whole.
Click to expand...
 
Heard an attorney say once....You can sue anyone. But if that person has no money good luck collecting.
 
90% of the guys and gals flying what they call ultralights, if you where to put them on a scale and weigh them they would be outside the rules or laws so this is not just happening in alaska, its just more GA related in alaska where down here in the 48 its not only GA related but SP related too.

But down here in the lower 48 we have the same issue's as Alaska. I drive over 3 hrs for flight training, and some wonder why others drop out of training.

I am really close to calling it quits and selling my airplane. I have already lined up a couple buyers, I just have not pulled the triger but am really close.
 
1600vw said:
Heard an attorney say once....You can sue anyone. But if that person has no money good luck collecting.
Click to expand...
The FAA has the authority to seize any aircraft owned by anyone owing a civil penalty from an FAA enforcement action and auction it off to pay the penalty. There are other Federal powers to collect such debts, too. And as noted above, failure to pay a civil penalty can result in imprisonment.
 
1600vw said:
90% of the guys and gals flying what they call ultralights, if you where to put them on a scale and weigh them they would be outside the rules or laws
Click to expand...
As shown in the Hopkins case cited above, ultralights are not "outside the rules or laws."
 
ChrisK said:
I do not think that is what he meant.
Click to expand...




Some do not mind jail time...They get 3 squares a day and sex to boot.....Some are very happy their.......

Some will say the foods sucks....Go without any food and see how much it sucks.....There was a time I would have given anything to have some food even if it was from jail....Try going with out food for a few months and see what you become...But this is not about that....But you are...

Correct. I did not say above the law or rules but outside the rules, meaning not complying with the rules or laws...Not above...
 
1600vw said:
Some do not mind jail time...They get 3 squares a day and sex to boot.....Some are very happy their.....
Click to expand...

You'll see spikes in burglaries in many Canadian cities just before the start of winter...coincidentally, the sentence generally gets them out just after the spring thaw.
 
Ron Levy said:
It's called a "civil penalty," not a "fine," since it's done under administrative rather than criminal law, but it has the same effect. Those flying without licenses who violate the rules generally face civil penalties of several thousand dollars. See Administrator v. Hopkins, involving an unlicensed pilot flying an ultralight in violation of the rules on ultralights, for one example. See Administrator v. Reid for how it is used when a suspension/revocation fails to impress a licensed pilot.

If they continue to fly illegally after being assessed a civil penalty, the FAA can get a Federal judge to jail them for contempt -- and that means you stay in jail until you convince the judge you won't do it again. However, I know of no cases where that was actually done.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the links, interesting reading -- especially Reid. He lied on his medical and then did everything he could to make it worse for himself.
 
That's what this country needs -- more people in prison for non-payment of fines. It won't be long until we're back in the 8th century with racks. Hey, lets bring back the cat-o-9-tails, that could be fun too!
 
Ron Levy said:
It's called a "civil penalty," not a "fine," since it's done under administrative rather than criminal law, but it has the same effect. Those flying without licenses who violate the rules generally face civil penalties of several thousand dollars. See Administrator v. Hopkins, involving an unlicensed pilot flying an ultralight in violation of the rules on ultralights, for one example. See Administrator v. Reid for how it is used when a suspension/revocation fails to impress a licensed pilot.

If they continue to fly illegally after being assessed a civil penalty, the FAA can get a Federal judge to jail them for contempt -- and that means you stay in jail until you convince the judge you won't do it again. However, I know of no cases where that was actually done.
Click to expand...


This was not an ultralight, for if this was an ultralight no license is needed to fly one of these.

Nothing with two seats qualifies as an ultralight. So this was an unlicensed pilot flying a faa certifiable airplane, I am sure the airplane was not registered either or we would not be calling it an ultralight, if it had had an N-number no one would have ever called it an ultralight.

I had a gent tell me an faa man came out after an incentent and stuck his head in the hanger. He looked did not see any n Numbers on the little N3 Pup and other similar airplanes and said....Oh these are all ultralights and some are very nice and walked away.

This mans point was...Do Not N Number your small airplane and no one will be the wiser or care......when I say small I mean under 50 hp single seater.
 
My point is there are a lot of people flying a lot of things without any certificates. You will never see any posting on a forum as this not using thier name anyway. But there are a lot out there.
 
ColoPilot said:
The thread from the Alaska pilot with 400 hours and no PPL reminded me of a urban legend I heard when I first started flying: An old, long time commercial pilot flying (charters or cargo with his own plane depending on the story), is discovered to have never had any pilot certificates. The FAA can't figure out what to do, so they issue him a PPL so they can suspend it.

So my question -- what can the FAA do to someone like this? Do they have the power to fine or jail egregious violators of the FARs? I've never heard of any punishment worse than permanently losing a certificate.
Click to expand...

Here you go, and this only happened in 2010:
A fake Swedish air pilot has been fined £1,700 and banned from flying for 12 months after confessing to flying passenger jets for an astonishing thirteen years without a licence.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Thomas-Salme-flies-Air-One-jets-13-years.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Salme
 
Ron Levy said:
The FAA has the authority to seize any aircraft owned by anyone owing a civil penalty from an FAA enforcement action and auction it off to pay the penalty. There are other Federal powers to collect such debts, too. And as noted above, failure to pay a civil penalty can result in imprisonment.
Click to expand...

I doubt that will make much difference if they don't start making the dollar amounts of the penalties much higher.
 
Last edited:
What I don't understand is why the FAA still demands that documents be physically returned. Its not 1980 anymore, we have these awesome things called computers now.

Imagine if your drivers license was suspended and they made you return it or face some sort of penalty. That's just dumb.
 
SkyHog said:
What I don't understand is why the FAA still demands that documents be physically returned. Its not 1980 anymore, we have these awesome things called computers now.

Imagine if your drivers license was suspended and they made you return it or face some sort of penalty. That's just dumb.
Click to expand...
No it's not. You can still present the decomisioned document, say to a rental company and fly away their 182....
 
SkyHog said:
What I don't understand is why the FAA still demands that documents be physically returned. Its not 1980 anymore, we have these awesome things called computers now.

Imagine if your drivers license was suspended and they made you return it or face some sort of penalty. That's just dumb.
Click to expand...



When I had my bike wreck, I had to surrender my license. I also lost the privelage to own a car. I had to either sell all my cars trucks motorcyles..ect or the goverment was coming after them and I would never get them back, and no I did not get a DUI. But I did get a complete book of tickets thrown at me and they all where "agravatied". So agraviated speeding over 100 mph, agravaited fleeing and eluding...ect.
 
RotorAndWing said:
I personally know one individual ( former co-worker) who had his certificate suspended facing a 44709 evaluation for his type and ATP. He refused to hand over his certificate.

As if it has done him any good, it ended his career and he never flew anything again.
Click to expand...
Maybe he just wanted something to remember his career by.
 
Most assuredly NOT an urban legend.
My next door neighbor commuted from Stormville to Albany and back nearly every working day for 40 years. He flew a PA-11, sometimes at treetop level following the Taconic Parkway when the weather got really bad. He never had an incident of any kind. He never had a certificate of any kind. He flew Martin Marauders during WWII, first in combat then as an instructor. He didn't feel the need to invest anymore time, money or effort in government "foolishness". On the day he retired, he put the plane up for sale and never flew again.
 
And then there is the story of the guy that was acting as a flight instructor doing BFRs...

Cornie Gene Lowe was ordered by a U.S District Court judge in Del Rio, TX, to pay a $5,000 fine and spend 6 months in jail for piloting a plane without a pilot’s license and lying to the FAA. Lowe flew as pilot-in-command from Del Rio to Ruidoso, NM, even though FAA revoked his pilot's license in December 2001. He also made false entries in airman logbooks as though he were a certified flight instructor and signed off biennial flight reviews of other pilots when he was not authorized to do so. Lowe co-owns Fontera Aviation, Inc, an aircraft fuel business at Del Rio International Airport in Texas. OIG conducted the investigation with assistance from FAA.
Click to expand...
Shepherd said:
Most assuredly NOT an urban legend.
My next door neighbor commuted from Stormville to Albany and back nearly every working day for 40 years. He flew a PA-11, sometimes at treetop level following the Taconic Parkway when the weather got really bad. He never had an incident of any kind. He never had a certificate of any kind. He flew Martin Marauders during WWII, first in combat then as an instructor. He didn't feel the need to invest anymore time, money or effort in government "foolishness". On the day he retired, he put the plane up for sale and never flew again.
Click to expand...

Sounds like my dad... flew B-25s during and little after WWII. From 1950 to about 1960 something he was flying with no rating. Finally did the work when he wanted to take and teach his kids flying...
 
Last edited:
1600vw said:
Correct. I did not say above the law or rules but outside the rules, meaning not complying with the rules or laws...Not above...
Click to expand...
And I repeat -- ultralight pilots must comply with the law, specifically, 14 CFR Part 103. If they don't, what happened to Mr. Hopkins may happen to them.
 
bbchien said:
No it's not. You can still present the decomisioned document, say to a rental company and fly away their 182....
Click to expand...

Good point. I didn't think of that.
 
Palmpilot said:
Good point. I didn't think of that.
Click to expand...

Hmmm..

You would think a FBO about to rent a $100,000 or more 182 to a total stranger would spend a minute or so and use a couple of key strokes on the computer to browse the FAA database.:dunno:..
 
Ron Levy said:
And I repeat -- ultralight pilots must comply with the law, specifically, 14 CFR Part 103. If they don't, what happened to Mr. Hopkins may happen to them.
Click to expand...

This brings up one of those interesting corner cases, or splitting of the hair if you will.

Situation: There you are, on your airport with your alleged 'UL aircraft'. The FAA comes up and wants to investigate. A ramp check, discussion, safety check, etc. Asks for your cert - you have none, don't need it. Then he wants to find out if your UL meets the definition under part 103. Which can't be done without an inspection of the engine, fuel quantity, and weight. He doesn't even know if you flew it or not, as he didn't observe any actual flight. As a non certificated person, with a non-certificated 'UL', you decide to not cooperate, load your 'UL' in the trailer and drive off, la-de-da.

Have you committed a violation?
 
docmirror said:
This brings up one of those interesting corner cases, or splitting of the hair if you will.

Situation: There you are, on your airport with your alleged 'UL aircraft'. The FAA comes up and wants to investigate. A ramp check, discussion, safety check, etc. Asks for your cert - you have none, don't need it. Then he wants to find out if your UL meets the definition under part 103. Which can't be done without an inspection of the engine, fuel quantity, and weight. He doesn't even know if you flew it or not, as he didn't observe any actual flight. As a non certificated person, with a non-certificated 'UL', you decide to not cooperate, load your 'UL' in the trailer and drive off, la-de-da.

Have you committed a violation?
Click to expand...

Ha....

What flight.:dunno:;)
 
I knew a Montana rancher with a Piper Cub that he flew on mogas that never had a licence and admitted never had an annual since he owned the aircraft...checked his cows on the 40,000 plus acres the family owned...he figurered the goverment taught him to fly 105's and since he spent his time at thier disposal there was no need to do anything else. Truck, tractor, horse or Cub...just another tool...
 
docmirror said:
This brings up one of those interesting corner cases, or splitting of the hair if you will.

Situation: There you are, on your airport with your alleged 'UL aircraft'. The FAA comes up and wants to investigate. A ramp check, discussion, safety check, etc. Asks for your cert - you have none, don't need it. Then he wants to find out if your UL meets the definition under part 103. Which can't be done without an inspection of the engine, fuel quantity, and weight. He doesn't even know if you flew it or not, as he didn't observe any actual flight. As a non certificated person, with a non-certificated 'UL', you decide to not cooperate, load your 'UL' in the trailer and drive off, la-de-da.

Have you committed a violation?
Click to expand...

I believe ramp checks are usually done after the inspector has actually witnessed flight, to avoid this issue. I was ramp checked once, a few years ago. The inspector approached me as I was beginning to fuel immediately after landing. (I politely asked him to wait a few minutes until after I was done fueling, as I didn't want a distraction in the middle of fueling. He had no issue waiting.)
 
N801BH said:
Hmmm..

You would think a FBO about to rent a $100,000 or more 182 to a total stranger would spend a minute or so and use a couple of key strokes on the computer to browse the FAA database.:dunno:..
Click to expand...

They typically have you fill out a ground review form and fly with one of their instructors. Whether they see enough suspended or revoked certificates for them to bother checking the FAA database, I don't know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top