FAA hotline complaint

Unfortunately, Bob Hoover is not relevant in this context. Unfortunately, he surrendered his certificate, and the FAA refused to return it.

He went through his ordeal to get requalified for a license.

As a result of the FAA position in that case, if any officer, FAA or other, asks to see your license, you show it to them, they do not have the right to hold it in their hand or even touch it. Make a stupid rule for a specific case, pay the price for future cases. There may be a newer chief counsels letter replacing that opinion, of course.

Members of our flying club made copies of that ruling, and carried them in our wallets for years, and we had a copy in the plane document case.

Flying out of KCGS, College Park MD puts us close to FAA headquarters, and visits by officials are common.
Dude, it's not like the ASI asks for your certificate, you present it for inspection and let him hold it, and they take off "Ok thanks see ya!" "Man I can't believe he fell for that!" That's just simply not how it works.

The ASI must give your certificate back to you upon completion of the inspection.

There's a process that must be followed for surrendering a certificate.
 
Jon Wilder,

Are you claiming as a fact that they gave his certificate back to Bob Hoover?

The rules may have been changed again, but that is not the INTERPRETATION of the rules then that the FAA took to keep his certificate.

I first met Bob before that incident, and several times after. One of those visits with him was at sun 'n Fun, when he did his last airshow with the Commander, a borrowed plane. I treasure a gold Mustang with Hoovers name on it.
 
That's why an investigation takes place, to see if there is any supporting evidence. If there isn't any, then the investigation closes.
I’m sorry but me calling the FAA and reporting you as a crackhead should not result in you having to go through HIMS to disprove that. It’s preposterous.
 
I wonder if you could prove they did it, sue for damages.
Probably not. There is a strong public policy in favor ensuring the pilot population is as safe as we can make it.

The answer is the individual pilot cannot sustain an indefinite suspension. Put a time limit on it. If the FAA cannot get probable cause within 30 days, give the pilot his certificates back. There is always time for an emergency revocation should that be necessary.
 
I’m sorry but me calling the FAA and reporting you as a crackhead should not result in you having to go through HIMS to disprove that. It’s preposterous.
Absolutely, what is the effect if some nefarious group started making these false accusations in mass? Ground the entire airline fleet until it gets sorted out? Seriously this seems like a really bad vulnerability to the system if it is officiated policy without any policy in place for common reason. But then again “idiocracy” does seems to be becoming more of a documentary than a comedy each year since it was made.
 
I’m sorry but me calling the FAA and reporting you as a crackhead should not result in you having to go through HIMS to disprove that. It’s preposterous.

Again, how do you sort the wheat from the chaff?

What happens when the crackhead manages to convince the feds no investigation is needed, it was a hoax and all, then two weeks later he crashes and kills several only to find out he was high?
 
Jon Wilder,

Are you claiming as a fact that they gave his certificate back to Bob Hoover?

The rules may have been changed again, but that is not the INTERPRETATION of the rules then that the FAA took to keep his certificate.

I first met Bob before that incident, and several times after. One of those visits with him was at sun 'n Fun, when he did his last airshow with the Commander, a borrowed plane. I treasure a gold Mustang with Hoovers name on it.
That happened 32 years ago. Move forward.
 
The point is that the Hoover case has nothing to do with the present cases, and should not be referred to in this discussion.
 
Jon Wilder,

Are you claiming as a fact that they gave his certificate back to Bob Hoover?
Hoover was asked to voluntarily surrender his medical certificate, and he did so because he thought he had to.

Surrendering your certificate and presenting your certificate to an Aviation Safety Inspector for inspection are two completely different things.

No one took his certificates on site at the event. The F.A.A. required Mr. Hoover to have a comprehensive psychiatric evaluation which he did (at his own expense). The F.A.A. reviewed the results with its first psychiatrist, opining that Mr. Hoover was fit to hold a second class medical. However, its chief psychiatrist disagreed. They called Mr. Hoover and told him that he was not medically qualified and that he should turn in his medical certificate to his medical examiner.

This is not the same has handing your certificates to an Aviation Safety Inspector for inspection at a ramp inspection. ASI's don't have the authority to just up and take your certificates presented for inspection.
 
Last edited:
Again, how do you sort the wheat from the chaff?

What happens when the crackhead manages to convince the feds no investigation is needed, it was a hoax and all, then two weeks later he crashes and kills several only to find out he was high?
Crack is a bad example as the FAA could immediately request a drug screen for said example.

You can’t stop every potential bad scenario from never happening. Don’t eat in the cockpit, you might choke and crash killing passengers.

If the job of the FAA and every governmental body is to make sure nothing bad happens, ever, then no one should be allowed to do anything.

**** happens. Bad people to bad stuff. People fly without licenses or medicals already in part 91 operations. Hell, we all read about the instructor that kept instructing after he failed multiple proficiency checks, had already wrecked a plane and had his certificate taken away.

People still have medical events when issued class 1,2 or 3 medicals.

It ultimately comes down to the person/pilot practicing good and sound judgment. Given we are all human, that will never be at 100%.

Given the barriers of entry for flying, I’m much more concerned about the average driver and how easily drivers licenses are handed out vs being concerned with the average general aviation pilots flying for leisure.

Probably better for another thread though…
 
Crack is a bad example as the FAA could immediately request a drug screen for said example.

You can’t stop every potential bad scenario from never happening. Don’t eat in the cockpit, you might choke and crash killing passengers.

If the job of the FAA and every governmental body is to make sure nothing bad happens, ever, then no one should be allowed to do anything.

**** happens. Bad people to bad stuff. People fly without licenses or medicals already in part 91 operations. Hell, we all read about the instructor that kept instructing after he failed multiple proficiency checks, had already wrecked a plane and had his certificate taken away.

People still have medical events when issued class 1,2 or 3 medicals.

It ultimately comes down to the person/pilot practicing good and sound judgment. Given we are all human, that will never be at 100%.

Given the barriers of entry for flying, I’m much more concerned about the average driver and how easily drivers licenses are handed out vs being concerned with the average general aviation pilots flying for leisure.

Probably better for another thread though…
How about the student pilot, Chad Wilson, that flew him and his girlfriend to Las Vegas in a Piper Malibu and got caught in bad thunderstorms, causing him to drive the plane right into the ground due to spatial disorientation?

Yes, he was a student pilot. First mistake.

His CFI said "He (Chad) seemed to fly well, but was anti-authority and impulsive with tendencies of pushing the aircraft he was flying to fly fast with higher than normal power settings".

He had issues getting his medical, which he received a denial for in the end.

Why the denial?

This guy had two misdemeanor convictions for DWI in 2007 and 2008 and two felony convictions for DWI-third or more in 2012 and 2016, plus violated his felony probation by failing to provide evidence of AA attendance to his probation officer.

The pilot had purchased a Cessna 182, which he was doing his training in. Upon hearing of the denial, the CFI quit flying with the pilot.

He then purchased a Piper Malibu, despite his application for a medical certificate being denied.

The first leg of the flight was uneventful. He had a fuel stop about halfway to Vegas. However, he failed to obtain an updated weather briefing prior to leaving the fuel stop. There were thunderstorms forming along the 2nd leg of his route, with towering cumulus as high as FL390.He couldn't go above them, and by the time he could try to go around them, the storm basically swallowed him up quicker than he could come up with a sound decision.

Here's someone who shouldn't be within 20 feet of the controls of an aircraft. Yet despite what the feds did (and they actually got it right this time), he flat out didn't care. He was going to fly anyway, "big gubment don't tell me what to do!". In the end, his anti-authority attitude got both him and his girlfriend killed.
 
Again, how do you sort the wheat from the chaff?
I totally understand where you’re coming from and people need to be able to make anonymous reports regarding safety matters, but what happened to the OP here is absurd. There has to be a middle ground.
 
Crack is a bad example as the FAA could immediately request a drug screen for said example.

You can’t stop every potential bad scenario from never happening. Don’t eat in the cockpit, you might choke and crash killing passengers.

If the job of the FAA and every governmental body is to make sure nothing bad happens, ever, then no one should be allowed to do anything.

**** happens. Bad people to bad stuff. People fly without licenses or medicals already in part 91 operations. Hell, we all read about the instructor that kept instructing after he failed multiple proficiency checks, had already wrecked a plane and had his certificate taken away.

People still have medical events when issued class 1,2 or 3 medicals.

It ultimately comes down to the person/pilot practicing good and sound judgment. Given we are all human, that will never be at 100%.

Given the barriers of entry for flying, I’m much more concerned about the average driver and how easily drivers licenses are handed out vs being concerned with the average general aviation pilots flying for leisure.

Probably better for another thread though…
Nah, I ain’t talking about peace, love and happiness either. The accusation made here was that the OP is an alcoholic and mentally unstable. There has to be a way to establish the facts quickly enough to let the guy get back to providing for his family without missing more than a few days’ work while at the same time protecting the public.
 
Nah, I ain’t talking about peace, love and happiness either. The accusation made here was that the OP is an alcoholic and mentally unstable. There has to be a way to establish the facts quickly enough to let the guy get back to providing for his family without missing more than a few days’ work while at the same time protecting the public.
Totally agree. You’d think they could just call some family members/emergency contacts and ask “is this guy a crackhead."

I was more so commenting on Doc’s comments about the hypothetical crackhead killing passengers because some FAA investigator didn’t investigate.
 
Crack is a bad example as the FAA could immediately request a drug screen for said example.

You can’t stop every potential bad scenario from never happening. Don’t eat in the cockpit, you might choke and crash killing passengers.

Outside of 121 and 135 (or a scenario at the airplane where law enforcement believes the pilot has or is about to operate the aircraft intoxicated), what authority does the FAA have to demand that a pilot submit to a random (or on-demand) drug or alcohol screen? I think the answer is none.
 
Outside of 121 and 135 (or a scenario at the airplane where law enforcement believes the pilot has or is about to operate the aircraft intoxicated), what authority does the FAA have to demand that a pilot submit to a random (or on-demand) drug or alcohol screen? I think the answer is none.
Honest question, what authority does the FAA have to make HIMS deferrals do the same for a year?
 
They don't have ANY authority to force one to submit to the torturous system. At the same time, they have ALL of the authority to let you keep your Medical, or not. Do you want to fly?
 
They don't have ANY authority to force one to submit to the torturous system. At the same time, they have ALL of the authority to let you keep your Medical, or not. Do you want to fly?

True, to an extent. But the FAA's authority to revoke medicals does operate within certain boundaries, fluid as they may be.
 
At the same time, they have ALL of the authority to let you keep your Medical, or not.

Which is another great reason to use Basic Med if you can and let your FAA medical expire (unfortunately not an option for the OP). The FAA cannot revoke an expired medical.
 
You’d think they could just call some family members/emergency contacts and ask “is this guy a crackhead."

That was my question earlier (post # 11) i.e. isn't the person making the complaint obligated to show some evidence that the accusations are true?
 
Which is another great reason to use Basic Med if you can and let your FAA medical expire (unfortunately not an option for the OP). The FAA cannot revoke an expired medical.
Likewise for Sport Pilot and Glider. The advantages stack up pretty quickly for some folks.
 
Which is another great reason to use Basic Med if you can and let your FAA medical expire (unfortunately not an option for the OP). The FAA cannot revoke an expired medical.
That's how I chose to roll...but, unfortunately, my insurer stated that they will not cover me in a C210 under BasicMed once I reach 70. :rolleyes: If I still am flying one at that time (just turned 62) I hope that the restrictions relax before that time comes.
 
How about the student pilot, Chad Wilson, that flew him and his girlfriend to Las Vegas in a Piper Malibu and got caught in bad thunderstorms, causing him to drive the plane right into the ground due to spatial disorientation?

Yes, he was a student pilot. First mistake.

His CFI said "He (Chad) seemed to fly well, but was anti-authority and impulsive with tendencies of pushing the aircraft he was flying to fly fast with higher than normal power settings".

He had issues getting his medical, which he received a denial for in the end.

Why the denial?

This guy had two misdemeanor convictions for DWI in 2007 and 2008 and two felony convictions for DWI-third or more in 2012 and 2016, plus violated his felony probation by failing to provide evidence of AA attendance to his probation officer.

The pilot had purchased a Cessna 182, which he was doing his training in. Upon hearing of the denial, the CFI quit flying with the pilot.

He then purchased a Piper Malibu, despite his application for a medical certificate being denied.

The first leg of the flight was uneventful. He had a fuel stop about halfway to Vegas. However, he failed to obtain an updated weather briefing prior to leaving the fuel stop. There were thunderstorms forming along the 2nd leg of his route, with towering cumulus as high as FL390.He couldn't go above them, and by the time he could try to go around them, the storm basically swallowed him up quicker than he could come up with a sound decision.

Here's someone who shouldn't be within 20 feet of the controls of an aircraft. Yet despite what the feds did (and they actually got it right this time), he flat out didn't care. He was going to fly anyway, "big gubment don't tell me what to do!". In the end, his anti-authority attitude got both him and his girlfriend killed.

An extreme case, but I can tell you not an isolated one. There is no need to have a license to purchase an aircraft, just cash. Anyone can walk in off the street and buy an airplane and go fly it. The FAA can start civil actions to fine the person, but it takes a while before it they can make it criminal and get the person physically arrested.

I'm sure most of us know someone that has flown without a medical, or after theirs expired. I've even heard of people that never got their license.

Really the only limitation is if you had to get a loan against the airplane, the bank requires insurance, and the insurance company verifies you are licensed and insurable before giving the bank proof of insurance. If you paid cash and could stay off the radar, you could get away with a lot.
 
An extreme case, but I can tell you not an isolated one. There is no need to have a license to purchase an aircraft, just cash. Anyone can walk in off the street and buy an airplane and go fly it. The FAA can start civil actions to fine the person, but it takes a while before it they can make it criminal and get the person physically arrested.

I'm sure most of us know someone that has flown without a medical, or after theirs expired. I've even heard of people that never got their license.

Really the only limitation is if you had to get a loan against the airplane, the bank requires insurance, and the insurance company verifies you are licensed and insurable before giving the bank proof of insurance. If you paid cash and could stay off the radar, you could get away with a lot.

I'm not sure to what extent the insurance company actually verifies anything. I've never given a copy of the license or medical to my insurance company. I write down the cert number and issuance dates on the application, but it wouldn't shock me if they don't actually verify.

Why would they? If you lied on the application, they'll just void the policy and won't pay. Really, no skin off the insurer's back if they issue a policy based on a lie about license/medical, as they'll have received the premium (and had the ability to use/invest that premium during the policy term) and won't have to payout.

All they give the bank is a certificate of insurance showing they've issued a policy. I think there's less vetting going on there than you might think. Really, most of the vetting comes when it's claim time...
 
That was my question earlier (post # 11) i.e. isn't the person making the complaint obligated to show some evidence that the accusations are true?
As long as anonymous complaints are allowed, I don’t see any way to do that.
 
As long as anonymous complaints are allowed, I don’t see any way to do that.

Why can't the person making the complaint give references as proof of their accusations? They could claim a recent DUI that could be verified, give names of people that know that the person is a bit whacked, or reference the local bar where many witnesses would be found. They can do all this without revealing who they are. I get it that this is administrative law but doesn't a person have the right to face their accuser?

It might also be asked that anyone making such accusations against another at least identify themselves to the person taking the report who is bound to keep their identity private.

But the system is pretty hosed up to allow people to be thrown under the bus without even knowing who is driving the thing ...
 
I'm not sure to what extent the insurance company actually verifies anything. I've never given a copy of the license or medical to my insurance company. I write down the cert number and issuance dates on the application, but it wouldn't shock me if they don't actually verify.

Why would they? If you lied on the application, they'll just void the policy and won't pay. Really, no skin off the insurer's back if they issue a policy based on a lie about license/medical, as they'll have received the premium (and had the ability to use/invest that premium during the policy term) and won't have to payout.

All they give the bank is a certificate of insurance showing they've issued a policy. I think there's less vetting going on there than you might think. Really, most of the vetting comes when it's claim time...

Insurance companies would prefer that you are unlicensed, medical expired, out of currency, or never get an annual done. Under those circumstances they will not have to pay out. But they do get to keep your premiums.
 
..for what it's worth I've known two people over the years who got a complaint. Someone clipped a delta and got tagged by the tower of the delta. Someone else was "flying low" (out over the water off shore, about 500 AGL.. low enough for someone in a beachfront home with nothing else to do spend an afternoon on flightaware, etc.)

Both instances were a phone call and "case closed" with no further action.. although in each time about 6 months had gone by between the "event" and the FSDO getting involved

I understand it's annoying - but I don't mind and I get it. If they get a report it would be negligent not to check it out. You can call the police and say your neighbor is doing X.. they will also likely come check that out. You have no requirement to prove said party "guilty" .. as said above no way to separate the genuine vs personal grudge issues, so they have to explore each one. The risk is simply too great otherwise.

Sidebar - goes without saying but protect your rating and your medical. Don't drink and drive, take care through your walks in life.. so easy to lose this awesome ability it's scary!
 
Why would they? If you lied on the application, they'll just void the policy and won't pay. Really, no skin off the insurer's back if they issue a policy based on a lie about license/medical, as they'll have received the premium (and had the ability to use/invest that premium during the policy term) and won't have to payout.
They don't get to be their own judge that the policy was fraudulently obtained and let themselves off the hook. The legal process is messy and costly. Perhaps the lender, airport, or some other entity that relied on that certificate of insurance is a bit put out that the policy isn't paying and believes that the insurer should verify these things before giving them assurances that there is coverage. The courts would likely agree with those aggrieved parties.
 
Insurance companies would prefer that you are unlicensed, medical expired, out of currency, or never get an annual done. Under those circumstances they will not have to pay out. But they do get to keep your premiums.
Not so. My response above was not hypothetical.
 
Back
Top