FAA Monitoring Of Avionics And Forums?

U

Unregistered

Guest
I was talking with a friend of mine today and he mentioned that at a recent Flight Safety recurrency session, one presentation was viewed by a FSDO inspector who made a few comments at the end of the session.

The FSDO rep said that the FAA (the friend said the FSDO) has people who's job is to monitor online media such as forums, YouTube and similar venues for the purpose of finding citable infractions. They are allegedly looking for pilots they can link to the information and sometimes act as a troll to get a pilot to confirm a relationship to a communication.

I've read, as you all have, comments that it is not wise to post anything illegal about flying, and I don't disagree with that. My question is, does anyone know for sure - can anyone verify - my friends message? I'm not so much asking "is this possible or is this likely" but rather am asking "do you know for personal certain that this is happening".

The only apocryphal story I've heard is the Sonex that was registered as an LSA and then busted for posting YouTube videos that showed it consistently exceeding 120 Vh, but I don't know for personal certain if that happened.

TIA
 
That would be a waste of resources unless the FAA was trying to confirm something - e.g. they were looking for incriminating evidence against the owner of N12345, who may or may not have flown inverted under the Golden Gate Bridge, and might (or might not have) posted a Youtube video of the act.

Otherwise, I seriously doubt it.

Because you can post *anything* on the internet.
 
If that's true we have way too many overpaid civil servants and should cull the heard a little.
 
Where all the 'this forum would be better if everyone used their real names' folks now?:lol:
 
There was a guy from the FAA who showed up at 6Y9 one year...he even made a (sorta) low pass on departure...
 
ClimbnSink said:
Where all the 'this forum would be better if everyone used their real names' folks now?:lol:
Click to expand...


Absolutely. I won't use my real full name on anything internet except personal emails. And even those have a "delete if this ain't you" disclaimer.

Too many nut jobs, do-gooders, thieves, and scally-wags. Not to mention Big Brother.

I was having this conversation with a friend the other day about facebook and how dangerous it is. Just go on there and use the 'N' word where it get's taken wrong and see what may happen to you, your business, and your entire life for example. People are playing with fire on social media. :rolleyes2:
 
I'd never hire anyone who took facebook that seriously.
 
I dont buy it... nothing to stop someone from registering as someone else if they knew just enough about something...

I've no doubt FAA people are on the forums - just like everyone ELSE is on the forum(s)

I wouldn't sweat it.
 
If that were true we would hear about a lot more enforcement actions. I could find a hundred violations a day for quite some time by just browsing what's online.

Not true. Does the FAA sometimes see something online and take action? Sure. But they sure don't have a team of people spending 8 hours a day on their computers looking for it.
 
Hmm?? Do unregistered folks have an IP address???

Probably not...they should be safe!!:rolleyes:
 
jesse said:
If that were true we would hear about a lot more enforcement actions. I could find a hundred violations a day for quite some time by just browsing what's online.

Not true. Does the FAA sometimes see something online and take action? Sure. But they sure don't have a team of people spending 8 hours a day on their computers looking for it.
Click to expand...

Yep. More likely if they get a call (or multiple calls) reporting a violation worth going after, they may look into it further.

We've had a number of FAA employees who have been active members of this forum in some way, shape, or form. I stayed at one's house last year, even.
 
So does this mean that I shouldn't mention any illegal entry into PDX Class B airspace I may or may not have made several times? And that if I do I shouldn't use my real name?






:wink2:
 
No, it just means that if ya busted the Bravo ya shouldn't open yer yap about it.
 
Clark1961 said:
No, it just means that if ya busted the Bravo ya shouldn't open yer yap about it.
Click to expand...

Suppose the person admitted such a bust directly to the FAA, but there was no supporting evidence or records. You think that admission is all they need to take action?
 
Jim Logajan said:
Suppose the person admitted such a bust directly to the FAA, but there was no supporting evidence or records. You think that admission is all they need to take action?
Click to expand...

with a confession, yes
 
Even if there is a confession, there is no proof that it is an accurate confession, considering that we are under no oath, and they cannot easily prove accuracy to the statement.

For instance: "Today I flew a Cessna 152 through the center of the St. Louis Arch"

There would have to proof that 1) it had really happened 2) I was truly in the plane at that time and 3) I was the pilot in command.
 
Clark1961 said:
with a confession, yes
Click to expand...

That is not my understanding of the law. A confession with no other evidence a crime was committed would not be accepted by a court. I'm assuming the corpus delicti rule applies to FAA actions.
 
Do they have to specify the date in the violation notice? If so, could one just not post that information?
 
Since I got ADS-B, I have received emails from the FAA, asking me how reception was on "the flight from A to B you took on thus and such a date".*

With ADS-B, they won't need to scan Pilots of America. They know your every move.

* - This from a guy inside the FAA whom I am helping to fine-tune the ADS-B system on the Texas Gulf Coast, but still. I was squawking VFR, and had NOT told him I was planning to fly that day!
 
ahkahn said:
Even if there is a confession, there is no proof that it is an accurate confession, considering that we are under no oath, and they cannot easily prove accuracy to the statement.

For instance: "Today I flew a Cessna 152 through the center of the St. Louis Arch"

There would have to proof that 1) it had really happened 2) I was truly in the plane at that time and 3) I was the pilot in command.
Click to expand...

You sure? Remember it is administrative law, the best kind of law(for tyrants.) Granted if you are a kook clearly lying about something that only wonder womans jet could have done unnoticed of course they are going to ignore you. Admit to something they heard about and see what rules they need to hang you.
 
My PMI once told me, he read these forums like a comic book. And never saw any thing he would pursue.
 
If the Feds really wanted to bury you they would just charge you with conspiracy.
 
Generally, unless it "goes viral" no one is going to act on a YouTube video without reason. Now, I'm sure an inspector has googled a tail number and uncovered videos, but even still he had reason to search in the first place. Inspectors work within their regions; there's no one sitting at FAA HQ watching YouTube videos all day...well at least not for enforcement purposes.
 
Jim Logajan said:
That is not my understanding of the law. A confession with no other evidence a crime was committed would not be accepted by a court. I'm assuming the corpus delicti rule applies to FAA actions.
Click to expand...
You're assuming criminal procedure applies to administrative law cases, and it doesn't.
 
Jay Honeck said:
Since I got ADS-B, I have received emails from the FAA, asking me how reception was on "the flight from A to B you took on thus and such a date".*

With ADS-B, they won't need to scan Pilots of America. They know your every move.

* - This from a guy inside the FAA whom I am helping to fine-tune the ADS-B system on the Texas Gulf Coast, but still. I was squawking VFR, and had NOT told him I was planning to fly that day!
Click to expand...

If you're helping and he pulled all flights with your tail, then of course it'll show up :)
 
They wouldn't need to monitor anything. There's always gonna be at least one dweeb out there with the FAA on speed dial just in case they read a post where someone seems to be contemplating a technical violation.
 
cowman said:
They wouldn't need to monitor anything. There's always gonna be at least one dweeb out there with the FAA on speed dial just in case they read a post where someone seems to be contemplating a technical violation.
Click to expand...
I saw this plane flying the other day, should I turn them in?
 
I am not sure anything that is said on a forum can be used for anything other than for an initial inquiry. How can they prove that it is actually me that is posting?
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top