Doc Holliday
En-Route
Would that rule you refer to be 49USC 44709?
Got a Call from FSDO Today..
- Thread starter AKBill
- Start date
Would that rule you refer to be 49USC 44709?
Read it again - if you didn't SIGN for it, you didn't get it - the Post Office is the sender's agent. . .certified mail (and I believe registered, as well) usually comes with signature service, if I recall.
I did do a real estate settlement a while back where the lender tried to slip in a "First Class mail" notification condition, but we had that changed. . .
Doc Holliday
En-Route
The attorney will step in and clarify this but, under administrative law if you refuse mail service (refuse to sign) the Agency can proceed with revocation of your certificates. Yes you may still have your plastic one, but once you try to exercise the privilege then they FAA can come after you for flying without a license. And at that point they will turn it over to a federal agency with arrest powers.
What we have here is a failure to communicate.
Let me clarify what I think Sundancer meant: "If it didn't come by a form of mail service that required your signature, you didn't get it."
Better?
Doc Holliday
En-Route
As far as I know the FAA always uses certified mail especially if it involves a certificate action (enforcement). Just because one would refuse to sign for the certified letter doesn't absolve them of the investigation. This is why it's written in the regulations that you keep a current mailing address on file with the FAA.
SkyDog58
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2015
- Messages
- 14,600
- Location
- My own special place.
- Display Name
Display name:
Canis Non Grata
I did some reading and wonder if the following is what might have taken place in the OP's situation.
1. Bill aborts his takeoff.
2. ATC follows their guidance in Order JO7210.632 which in part lists the events that a controller must report into their system. One is:
"Any instance in which any part of the aircraft has crossed over the runway hold-short line and the controller cancels the take-off or the flight crew aborts the take-off."
3. This report is sent to the FSDO by ATC management or automatically by the computer.
4. The FSDO follows their guidance in Order 8020.11C which in part states:
"Occurrence (Flight Standards) - an event, other than an accident or incident that requires investigation by the Flight Standards Service for its potential impact on safety. Includes the following when no injury, damage, or 49 CFR 830.5 reporting requirements are involved: (1) Aborted takeoffs not involving a runway excursion. (2) Air turnbacks where the aircraft returns to the departure airport and lands without incident. (3) Air diversions where the aircraft diverts to a different destination for reasons other than weather conditions.
5. FSDO calls Bill and they have a polite and professional conversation.
Maybe some of the ATC folks on here can enlighten us how or if they follow JO7210.632. This seems to be the trigger and once ATC does their part, the folks at the FSDO might just have no choice but to do what their policy instructs.
I bet in most cases it is a rather benign and non confrontational process. Bill's event certainly sounds that way. Of course, if the pilot did something unsafe or contrary to the regs or if he takes a hostile posture towards the FAA then it might not be so benign.
1. Bill aborts his takeoff.
2. ATC follows their guidance in Order JO7210.632 which in part lists the events that a controller must report into their system. One is:
"Any instance in which any part of the aircraft has crossed over the runway hold-short line and the controller cancels the take-off or the flight crew aborts the take-off."
3. This report is sent to the FSDO by ATC management or automatically by the computer.
4. The FSDO follows their guidance in Order 8020.11C which in part states:
"Occurrence (Flight Standards) - an event, other than an accident or incident that requires investigation by the Flight Standards Service for its potential impact on safety. Includes the following when no injury, damage, or 49 CFR 830.5 reporting requirements are involved: (1) Aborted takeoffs not involving a runway excursion. (2) Air turnbacks where the aircraft returns to the departure airport and lands without incident. (3) Air diversions where the aircraft diverts to a different destination for reasons other than weather conditions.
5. FSDO calls Bill and they have a polite and professional conversation.
Maybe some of the ATC folks on here can enlighten us how or if they follow JO7210.632. This seems to be the trigger and once ATC does their part, the folks at the FSDO might just have no choice but to do what their policy instructs.
I bet in most cases it is a rather benign and non confrontational process. Bill's event certainly sounds that way. Of course, if the pilot did something unsafe or contrary to the regs or if he takes a hostile posture towards the FAA then it might not be so benign.
WannFly
Final Approach
Dude...no one said anything about not signing. What was said is, if it's not registered or whatever that requires signature, u didn't get it. Like first class mail
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
Doc Holliday
En-Route
Dude.....Since when does the FAA not use certified mail?
WannFly
Final Approach
I don't know if it's followed everywhere. Few weeks back I aborted one before rotation, the seat belt came off. Event gotten a call on that. I did tell tower that my seat belt came off, so.may be they already put it in the form. One more today, will see if I get a call
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
WannFly
Final Approach
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
FTFY
Hank S
En-Route
What we have here is a failure to communicate . . . .
mscard88
Touchdown! Greaser!
WannFly
Final Approach
Donno man. Kate just wants to fly, whether I am ready or notUh, why are you aborting takeoffs so much?
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
WannFly
Final Approach
It's fine. It's last in the order or business anyway...
Aviate, navigate, communicate
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
Lindberg
Final Approach
Unless you are willing to perjure yourself, this isn't likely to work out so well.
I did read it again. Same as the first time. Unless I misunderstood, you are saying if you don't sign for the certified mail, you legally didn't get it.
In most situations, that is either not true or doesn't matter. For example, if the FAA mails you something to your designated address, the clock starts rolling even if you choose to never pick it up. That's true for most notices required to be by certified mail, at least most of those I've become familiar with through the years.
Close enough. It's not so much you didn't get it as proof the sender met it's notification burden. Point is, certified mail (or, these days, often any service which provides tracking), in addition to showing date of delivery, is also about proof of sending. Refusing it is often a bit of a bonus for the sender since, in most cases, the clock runs anyway and the sender can take post notification steps without dealing with the recipient's objections. At worst, the sender knows the kind of person it's dealing with.
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
"Delusional" is the word that's thrown around in this area.
wsuffa
Touchdown! Greaser!
And the way bureaucracies work, failing to deliver the mail (return to sender, undeliverable) will cause the agency to take action based on "failure to supply a current and accurate address". And/or they'll send out the US Marshals to collect your license.
Youse guys R missing my point, or I didn't articulate it well; if it comes "First Class", regular snail mail, then "you didn't get it". Nothing in there about refusing delivery of a certified or otherwise "tracked" letter.
More accuratley, if the sender has an obligation to notify, and to be able to prove they notified, then without signature service, or another proof of delivery, it didn't happen.
More accuratley, if the sender has an obligation to notify, and to be able to prove they notified, then without signature service, or another proof of delivery, it didn't happen.
AKBill
En-Route
Thanks for all the posts. I would just like to make a few points about my conversation.
1. I truly did not care that they called, totally surprised, but not upset. Was he fishing? "I don't think so"
2. I explained what happened "No airspeed indication when plane was ready to rotate"
3. That's about as far as it went.
4. Did they need to call, "NO". Why did thy call? "No idea". Do I care "hell no, other than you have a PAIM calling me about a non indecent and not being productive"...
1. I truly did not care that they called, totally surprised, but not upset. Was he fishing? "I don't think so"
2. I explained what happened "No airspeed indication when plane was ready to rotate"
3. That's about as far as it went.
4. Did they need to call, "NO". Why did thy call? "No idea". Do I care "hell no, other than you have a PAIM calling me about a non indecent and not being productive"...
BigBadLou
Final Approach
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2014
- Messages
- 5,173
- Location
- TX - the friendliest state
- Display Name
Display name:
Lou
When they called me recently after my engine-out emergency landing, the young man on the phone explained first that there is no investigation, it is merely an inquiry so that he can "close a folder". Whether a paper folder or digital folder, he did not mention.
He only requested me to describe the nature of the emergency and asked what will be done to the airplane, to which I responded that the engine is being repaired as we speak and will be airworthy within a week. He seemed pleased and ended the conversation.
I don't think most of these phone calls are fishing for trouble. Lots can be attributed to paperwork, whether as follow-ups, safety checks or plain statistics gathering. Doesn't matter. I didn't violate any regs and didn't volunteer any more information than what he was asking. Case closed. The new gentler FAA is really much nicer now.
He only requested me to describe the nature of the emergency and asked what will be done to the airplane, to which I responded that the engine is being repaired as we speak and will be airworthy within a week. He seemed pleased and ended the conversation.
I don't think most of these phone calls are fishing for trouble. Lots can be attributed to paperwork, whether as follow-ups, safety checks or plain statistics gathering. Doesn't matter. I didn't violate any regs and didn't volunteer any more information than what he was asking. Case closed. The new gentler FAA is really much nicer now.
