Fatal Crash XLL 9/28/2022 - CFI McPherson charged with Involuntary Manslaughter

UTLonghorn_1979 said:
As I said already, if you’re okay with a system that allowed this guy to continue flying under a temp airman certificate, after 2 accidents, a safety complaint and a failed check ride, I’m even more disturbed.
Click to expand...

I agree, you are disturbed. ;)
 
UTLonghorn_1979 said:
My point is this indiviudual WAS allowed to fly, after multiple incidences, and even after failing a checkride…albeit even if only for a 30 day time frame. He was even allowed to continue to instruct others because the FAA didn’t do their job; i.e. changing his FAA records so flight schools could know he was not certified to conduct such operations. He clearly wasn’t a proficient pilot and I question a system that would allow this person to get their PPL, let alone commercial, instrument and CFI designation.

Meanwhile, individuals that are in medical deferrals are unable to fly solely in regard to medical status, some of which are of questionable reasons, even though they are more than proficient from a safety, knowledge and skillset standpoint.
Click to expand...
In both cases, the FAA provides a path to being able to fly legally. In both paths there are pilots who comply with the requirements and regain flight privileges. In both paths there are people who choose to deviate from the proscribed path and choose to fly illegally.

Bitching about the FAA providing those paths doesn’t help your position.
 
MauleSkinner said:
In both cases, the FAA provides a path to being able to fly legally. In both paths there are pilots who comply with the requirements and regain flight privileges. In both paths there are people who choose to deviate from the proscribed path and choose to fly illegally.

Bitching about the FAA providing those paths doesn’t help your position.
Click to expand...
Agreed, the difference is we have data showing prior piloting issues SPECIFIC to the pilot in question. I.e. 2 accidents even before the FAA got involved; which was only after a 3rd red flag safety concern report to the FAA. He was able to continue to fly after 2 accidents with no question. So we have clear past data SPECIFIC to the pilot in question to predict future outcomes.

The medically deferred pilot, with an otherwise spotless piloting career, is grounded not based upon their specific performance or situation, but based upon the FAA’s trying to predict future outcomes based upon others’ expierances/data.

To put it plainly, the former is innocent until proven guilty, the latter is guilty until proven innocent.
 
UTLonghorn_1979 said:
After which accident? The first, second or the final one after he got a student killed? Or after the safety complaint made to the FAA after the 2nd accident and before the accident killing the student?

And no,the FAA didn’t take away his pilots license, he surrendered it. The same day the FAA gave him a temp airman certificate. Nor did the FAA update this so a flight school or student could check the validity of the instructors certificates.
Click to expand...
We can certainly come up with reasons it should have done more and there may be more information which the US Attorney has but is not at this point disclosing (standard procedure in federal criminal cases).

FWIW, pilots and instructors do not typically face immediate revocation or suspension after one or even two accidents where the only damage is to the aircraft. Reading through the events as alleged in the Indictment, I didn't see much out of the ordinary on the FAA's end. Then again, we don't "the rest of the story" at this point. And, of course, if you liked the old beat them over the head from the beginning FAA, I'm sure there are others who will agree with you.

Anyway, without taking sides, to answer your question, the Indictment indicates that after the second accident in March 2021, the FAA received the hotline complaint. After investigating it, the ASI scheduled a 709 ride in May. Yes, McPherson ignoring the 709 letter should have been a red flag, but the FAA will typically try to obtain compliance rather than pursue certificate action. So they rescheduled the 709 ride, which took place September 29, 2021. McPherson failed.

Instead of pursuing revocation, the FAA did what it usually does in this situation. Instead of revocation, the FAA accepted a voluntary certificate surrender and issued a temporary certificate such as the photo, which basically allows McPherson to fly solo to prepare for a re-test. It prohibits passengers and expired, as typical, in 1 month, here November 8, 2021. As of that date, revocation or not, McPherson had no pilot certificate at all.

The accident causing the victim's death was almost a year after he had no certificate of any kind.

Other than that McPherson continued to fly and instruct (9 times while he had the limited temporary and another 31 times when he had no certificate at all) we have no idea at this point what else occurred. Did anyone make another hotline complaint? Did the flight school do some extra due diligence? I doubt the FAA follows up on people who surrender their certificates absent complaints.


1723392853022.png
 
midlifeflyer said:
We can certainly come up with reasons it should have done more and there may be more information which the US Attorney has but is not at this point disclosing (standard procedure in federal criminal cases).

FWIW, pilots and instructors do not typically face immediate revocation or suspension after one or even two accidents where the only damage is to the aircraft. Reading through the events as alleged in the Indictment, I didn't see much out of the ordinary on the FAA's end. Then again, we don't "the rest of the story" at this point. And, of course, if you liked the old beat them over the head from the beginning FAA, I'm sure there are others who will agree with you.

Anyway, without taking sides, to answer your question, the Indictment indicates that after the second accident in March 2021, the FAA received the hotline complaint. After investigating it, the ASI scheduled a 709 ride in May. Yes, McPherson ignoring the 709 letter should have been a red flag, but the FAA will typically try to obtain compliance rather than pursue certificate action. So they rescheduled the 709 ride, which took place September 29, 2021. McPherson failed.

Instead of pursuing revocation, the FAA did what it usually does in this situation. Instead of revocation, the FAA accepted a voluntary certificate surrender and issued a temporary certificate such as the photo, which basically allows McPherson to fly solo to prepare for a re-test. It prohibits passengers and expired, as typical, in 1 month, here November 8, 2021. As of that date, revocation or not, McPherson had no pilot certificate at all.

The accident causing the victim's death was almost a year after he had no certificate of any kind.

Other than that McPherson continued to fly and instruct (9 times while he had the limited temporary and another 31 times when he had no certificate at all) we have no idea at this point what else occurred. Did anyone make another hotline complaint? Did the flight school do some extra due diligence? I doubt the FAA follows up on people who surrender their certificates absent complaints.


View attachment 132335
Click to expand...
I agree with everything you said. My point, and issue, is the light handed touch the FAA brings to these situations vs. the heavy handed touch towards medical deferral situations.

Question, can you surrender or have your private pilots license revoked and then go on to fly under sports pilot license?
 
UTLonghorn_1979 said:
Question, can you surrender or have your private pilots license revoked and then go on to fly under sports pilot license?
Click to expand...
It is your pilot certificate that is revoked or surrendered, whatever it is. For example, if you have an ATP certificate and it's surrendered or revoked, you don't have a pilot certificate. Even the piece of plastic is gone. You don't suddenly have an automatic commercial certificate.

So no, the private pilot who surrenders their certificate or has it revoked has no certificate and cannot fly as a sport pilot. Not unless they meet the requirements and take a checkride for a sport certificate.
 
midlifeflyer said:
It is your pilot certificate that is revoked or surrendered, whatever it is. For example, if you have an ATP certificate and it's surrendered or revoked, you don't have a pilot certificate. Even the piece of plastic is gone. You don't suddenly have an automatic commercial certificate.

So no, the private pilot who surrenders their certificate or has it revoked cannot fly as a sport pilot. Not unless they meet the requirements and take a checkride for a sport certificate.
Click to expand...
I asked the question poorly…does a pilot that has their private pilot certificate revoked or surrendered have the OPTION to get their sports pilot certificate? If I lose my private certificate today, could I get issued my sports certificate without any FAA requirements other than check ride?
 
UTLonghorn_1979 said:
I asked the question poorly…does a pilot that has their private pilot certificate revoked or surrendered have the OPTION to get their sports pilot certificate? If I lose my private certificate today, could I get issued my sports certificate without any FAA requirements other than check ride?
Click to expand...
Sure. They also have the option to get their private certificate with a checkride. They need to meet FAA requirements for the certification level, but if one was a private pilot, they already do, except for needing a current knowledge test and the three hours of instruction with the 2 calendar months prior to the application.

That's one area where the surrender will be different than a revocation. There's a regulatory 1 year waiting period after revocation.

There are other options floating around. For example, with the 709, the FAA could reduce certification levels. For example, if I have a private certificate with an instrument rating and my failed 709 is because I can't fly an instrument approach if my life depended on in, it's my instrument rating, not necessarily my private certificate which is at stake.
 
Last edited:
midlifeflyer said:
Sure. They also have the option to get their private certificate with a checkride. They need to meet FAA requirements for the certification level, but if one was a private pilot, they already do, except for needing a current knowledge test and the three hours of instruction with the 2 calendar months prior to the application.

That's one area where the surrender will be different than a revocation is the regulatory 1 year waiting period after revocation.
Click to expand...
Thank you for confirming. That’s the answer I expected.

In contrast, that is NOT an option for someone that’s been deferred/denied a class 3 medical. Unless they spend the large amounts of $ and the often 18-24 months jumping through FAA hoops.

1 group is basically given every opportunity to prove they should not fly. The latter has to prove without a shred of doubt they should be able to fly.
 
MauleSkinner said:
So again, the point of this thread is to highlight your woes.

No, but you can reapply for a new certificate, just like with your medical issues.
Click to expand...
The point is to demonstrate the difference in how the FAA addresses one thing vs another using my specific situation. I can’t speak for anyone else’s situation. You don’t have to read OR respond to my post. This is an open forum last time I checked.

I addressed your second comment in my response to Midliflier. The situations aren’t handled anywhere near parity.
 
I've merged the three threads we have going on this crash together in the Aviation Mishaps forum.
 
MauleSkinner said:
In both cases, the FAA provides a path to being able to fly legally. In both paths there are pilots who comply with the requirements and regain flight privileges. In both paths there are people who choose to deviate from the proscribed path and choose to fly illegally.

Bitching about the FAA providing those paths doesn’t help your position.
Click to expand...
Don’t hurt either.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Depends who’s watching.
Click to expand...
If complaining about the FAA process is something I should be worried about, then we’re more Orwellian that I thought. Or do the Pilot’s Bill of Right mean anything?
 
MauleSkinner said:
See numerous threads with comments about the FAA noticing illegal or unsafe activities by people voluntarily posting them on the internet for the world to see. I can’t imagine they wouldn’t notice medically-related postings, either.
Click to expand...
I’m trying to have honest discourse, until someone states/demonstrates otherwise.

If this website is truly anonymous/using user names vs. posting your name and PI number, how would this at all be legal? If calling out a gov agency for having inefficient and questionable practices is cause for FAA investigation, that’s scary.

If pointing out that maybe the FAA should take a second look at pilot proficiency being the cause of likely 90%+ of the pilot error caused incidences (vs. medical issues) is contraversial or “unsafe," and pointing out that better training and pilot standards is a good idea, I’d ask “why?"
 
Salty said:
That whooshing noise you hear is the joke going over your head.
Click to expand...
Salty, you’re like a child that wanders into the middle of a movie. You’re wrong again on interpreting prior comments.
 
MauleSkinner said:
No, he’s not.
Click to expand...
So this comment and your further comment was an incredibly hilarious joke?

MauleSkinner said:
Depends who’s watching.

MauleSkinner said:
See numerous threads with comments about the FAA noticing illegal or unsafe activities by people voluntarily posting them on the internet for the world to see. I can’t imagine they wouldn’t notice medically-related postings, either.
 
UTLonghorn_1979 said:
As I said already, if you’re okay with a system that allowed this guy to continue flying under a temp airman certificate, after 2 accidents, a safety complaint and a failed check ride, I’m even more disturbed.
Click to expand...
Being so easily disturbed can contribute to conditions that cause loss of a medical certificate. Might wanna take Sgt. Hulka’s advice right about now.
 
ateamer said:
Being so easily disturbed can contribute to conditions that cause loss of a medical certificate. Might wanna take Sgt. Hulka’s advice right about now.
Click to expand...
Someone lost their life because of this. He already flipped a plane with another student in it which could have resulted in the same. Guess I’m easily disturbed.
 
Salty said:
When I said blind rage earlier, the key word was blind. You’re wrapped so tight around the axle you can’t see anything else.
Click to expand...
I think I’m pretty honest and open in that I think the FAA’s handling of many things is non-sensical. I’m sure you’re a very capable person and can walk and chew gum at the same time. I can adhere to the FAA regulations but disagree with them at the same time.
 
dmspilot said:
The government can't prevent people from breaking the law.
Click to expand...
Correct. I’m questioning the decisions and actions of the FAA, in general, as well as specific inactions by the FAA to minimize this guy’s ability to act as an instructor at a flight school. This guy was employed at a flight school as a “certified flight instructor" for 10 months after he surrendered his license!!! It’s one thing to just buy a plane and go fly it without a license, it’s a whole other SNAFU to allow him to get employed and give lessons for almost a full year without being certified to do such.

All done here, agree to disagree.
 
The FAA did not allow him to be employed as an instructor. If you want to the FAA to have so much oversight of flight schools that it never could happen again, you’ll need to convince Congress to increas their budget by magnitudes. They’d have to distribute, on a daily basis, every certificate action, inspect every flight school and operation weekly to include reviewing their employee lists, and ramp check everyone. Anything short of that could result in humans being humans.

Being that this was such an unusual circumstance, it’s pretty solid evidence that the existing system works well.
 
hindsight2020 said:
I think mods made a mistake merging an MCS-riddled non-sequitur impostor thread with the bona fide McPherson case discussion threads.
#dontcancelme
Click to expand...
In deference to the bona fide thread, I have deleted my more irrelevant posts that were intended for the irrelevant thread.
 
Last edited:
UTLonghorn_1979 said:
Yes, grounded after 2 accidents and a safety complaint…and given a temporary airman certificate even after he’s already failed a check ride. Good work FAA!

My point is this indiviudual WAS allowed to fly, after multiple incidences, and even after failing a checkride…albeit even if only for a 30 day time frame. He was even allowed to continue to instruct others because the FAA didn’t do their job; i.e. changing his FAA records so flight schools could know he was not certified to conduct such operations. He clearly wasn’t a proficient pilot and I question a system that would allow this person to get their PPL, let alone commercial, instrument and CFI designation.
Click to expand...
The 30 day temp license was essentially a student pilot license. It gave him the opportunity to remedy the issue. Very short leash I might add. He wouldn’t be able to satisfy the FAA criteria without it.
Regarding the medical stuff. The FAA has been making, albeit slow, progress in the last few years in this arena. Government agencies as a whole are large and slow moving beasts.
 
:) I kinda think it's hilarious. And related.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top