I got reported to the FAA (not a ******* Satire)

jimhorner said:
My point is that it was a phone call from a random individual and a random email. There’s nothing about either a phone call or an email which can confirm that they are, in fact, originating from the FAA. Both the phone call and the email could be from someone trying to yank 6PC’s chain. The contact should be by certified mail. To me it could be like all these spam phone calls purportedly from the IRS.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Click to expand...
Exactly how does certified mail confirm that they are who they say they are? Give me your address. I'll be happy to send someone a verified letter claiming it is from you.
 
I guess Bryan needs a disclaimer for his Facebook posts similar to the one in the video in the other thread:


BrYan Disclaimer.png
 
midlifeflyer said:
Exactly how does certified mail confirm that they are who they say they are? Give me your address. I'll be happy to send someone a verified letter claiming it is from you.
Click to expand...

It's unlikely phishers and scammers will go to the trouble and expense of sending written, certified mail en masse. On the other hand it's probably also unlikely they'll pretend to be the FAA and target pilots but that's just because we're a tiny portion of people. Still, it's the principle of the thing. I think if I got a written certified letter from the FAA I would still look up the number independently before responding. I've gotten into the habit of doing that with every unsolicited contact I receive.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Exactly how does certified mail confirm that they are who they say they are? Give me your address. I'll be happy to send someone a verified letter claiming it is from you.
Click to expand...
registered mail has official stamping on the item & leaves a paper trail of a delivery to a house,

a person receiving a registered letter chooses whether to sign (or not) & accept it to begin with & not sure if a postie requires id beforehand, but doubt it, prob just are u so & so

then if there is a signature, including all of the above, an easy match would pretty much confirm a delivery to the right person
 
Last edited:
Rushie said:
It's unlikely phishers and scammers will go to the trouble and expense of sending written, certified mail en masse. On the other hand it's probably also unlikely they'll pretend to be the FAA and target pilots but that's just because we're a tiny portion of people. Still, it's the principle of the thing. I think if I got a written certified letter from the FAA I would still look up the number independently before responding. I've gotten into the habit of doing that with every unsolicited contact I receive.
Click to expand...

I have a brilliant plan:

Step 1) fraudulently get pilots to show me their log books

Step 2) ???

Step 3) profit!
 
vman said:
registered mail has official stamping on the item & leaves a paper trail of a delivery to a house,

a person receiving a registered letter chooses whether to sign (or not) & accept it to begin with & not sure if a postie requires id beforehand, could just be are u so & so

then if there is a signature, including all of the above, an easy match would pretty much confirm a delivery to the right person
Click to expand...
Registered mail is more expensive than certified mail.
 
PPC1052 said:
I have a brilliant plan:

Step 1) fraudulently get pilots to show me their log books

Step 2) ???

Step 3) profit!
Click to expand...
you are joking rt? right? right? .... get a footnote before someone send this to FAA :happydance:
 
hey hey, someone might take a snapshot of a comment made here, then complain to the almighty faa, lol, then..

gimme your stuff for a chit chat

eff formalities, coz maan, vip stuff here that needs to get done/sorted pronto.. & starts with

i can't talk to you (..unless)
Click to expand...
??? uhmm, no kidding.. guess its called due process in the faa style world

A dude says "This is Ad*m H*nderson (that could be any name) from the North Texas FSDO"
My first thought is that @EdFred is jacking with me.

I go "sure dude! what's up?"

He says "I can't talk to you. I need to send you an email, you need to respond that you have received and understand it and then you can call me back and we can talk"[/QUOTE]
Click to expand...

you comply tho, too bad, at this point, a verbal/email exchange with a request to meet with your goods,

tons of folks in the loop on this one tho, mostly watching the faa & what's next
 
Last edited:
I think this thread has that the objective is 100% complete.....

tempest_in_a_teapot.png
 
Aside from the fact that perhaps they have a desire for a government retirement and to be home on the weekends, aviation safety inspectors aren't really much different from anyone else working in the the aviation industry. Their tolerance for BS might be slightly higher due to the nature of the job, but they know what is a legitimate safety issue and what just needs to be closed out, and will do so in the most efficient way possible. The FAA philosophy of compliance and risk-based oversight and enforcement supports this from the top up; something that did not exist in the dark Bob Hoover days. What the FAA ( and the inspector) cannot do is close out a complaint without at least speaking to the pilot in question. From FAA order 8900.1, "It is FAA policy to respond to all complaints that come to the attention of the Flight Standards Service, whether by mail, email, phone, or in person."

While Bryan may have to meet up with the inspector, I would expect it to be quick and painless. Believe it or not, many ASIs are active GA folks and read web forums and watch youtube videos with a sense of humor like the rest of y'all. While folks on the front lines tend to deal with the worst of the worst because of the nature of their work investigating complaints, accidents, etc., FAA folks laugh at Bryan's stuff just like you do.
 
Rushie said:
It's unlikely phishers and scammers will go to the trouble and expense of sending written, certified mail en masse. On the other hand it's probably also unlikely they'll pretend to be the FAA and target pilots but that's just because we're a tiny portion of people. Still, it's the principle of the thing. I think if I got a written certified letter from the FAA I would still look up the number independently before responding. I've gotten into the habit of doing that with every unsolicited contact I receive.
Click to expand...
I do too.
 
vman said:
registered mail has official stamping on the item & leaves a paper trail of a delivery to a house,

a person receiving a registered letter chooses whether to sign (or not) & accept it to begin with & not sure if a postie requires id beforehand, but doubt it, prob just are u so & so

then if there is a signature, including all of the above, an easy match would pretty much confirm a delivery to the right person
Click to expand...
That confirms the recipient. He said he was concerned about verifying the sender.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
Why do they want my logbooks? What currency requirements are there for facebook posts?
I could see if they saw a video of me flying through a cloud or something but this is NOT aviation related at all.

I will go to the FSDO next week and I will play nice but this is ********
Click to expand...

I haven't read through all of the postings in this thread, so maybe this has been addressed... In the privacy act in the OP's first post, the last item says that he is not required to respond. If he chooses not to respond, the FAA will make a determination without his input. Without an actual accusation and evidence from someone who claims to have received flight instruction, what benefit does the OP have from providing his logbooks? It seems that the FAA could just go on a fishing expedition with the OP's logbooks, and could find a violation that isn't addressed in the complaint. Since there likely isn't somebody saying "I paid this guy for instruction," couldn't the OP just decline to respond? Burden of proof is on the accuser?
 
Brad Z said:
Aside from the fact that perhaps they have a desire for a government retirement and to be home on the weekends, aviation safety inspectors aren't really much different from anyone else working in the the aviation industry. Their tolerance for BS might be slightly higher due to the nature of the job, but they know what is a legitimate safety issue and what just needs to be closed out, and will do so in the most efficient way possible. The FAA philosophy of compliance and risk-based oversight and enforcement supports this from the top up; something that did not exist in the dark Bob Hoover days. What the FAA ( and the inspector) cannot do is close out a complaint without at least speaking to the pilot in question. From FAA order 8900.1, "It is FAA policy to respond to all complaints that come to the attention of the Flight Standards Service, whether by mail, email, phone, or in person."

While Bryan may have to meet up with the inspector, I would expect it to be quick and painless. Believe it or not, many ASIs are active GA folks and read web forums and watch youtube videos with a sense of humor like the rest of y'all. While folks on the front lines tend to deal with the worst of the worst because of the nature of their work investigating complaints, accidents, etc., FAA folks laugh at Bryan's stuff just like you do.
Click to expand...

Aside from that Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?

I'm sure you're right, they are normal people like the rest of us. But a federal pension with benefits is a HUGE incentive to make sure you justify the continuation of your position, wouldn't you think? I'm not saying Mr. H*nderson specifically would beef up this investigation but he said himself if Bryan remembered the conversation verbatim: "I get it but My job is to investigate these things and if I don't investigate it, there is no need for me to have a job". Post #47

So either Mr. H*nderson is confessing to bias because of personal interest, or he is joking. If he has no sense of humor wrt Bryan's joking then I must assume the former.
 
I don't think there is an ASI in the country who is lacking for work.
 
Rushie said:
Aside from that Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?

I'm sure you're right, they are normal people like the rest of us. But a federal pension with benefits is a HUGE incentive to make sure you justify the continuation of your position, wouldn't you think? I'm not saying Mr. H*nderson specifically would beef up this investigation but he said himself if Bryan remembered the conversation verbatim: "I get it but My job is to investigate these things and if I don't investigate it, there is no need for me to have a job". Post #47

So either Mr. H*nderson is confessing to bias because of personal interest, or he is joking. If he has no sense of humor wrt Bryan's joking then I must assume the former.
Click to expand...

By all accounts, the FSDOs are understaffed with inspectors (and plenty of open ASI positions across the country on USAjobs.gov if you're interested). There's no shortage of work to be done and no need to justify his position. There is an internal quality management system within flight standards that ensures inspectors are doing what they're supposed to be doing. If person 'A' provides evidence that person 'B' was violating the regs, the inspector is obligated to follow up with person 'B' and document that the allegation was not substantiated. Also, we don't know if person 'A' added to the story beyond what was posted online. Here's the thing, once the report goes into the ASI's queue, there's no latitude to close with no action (unless it's a situation in which person 'B' cannot be identified). Whoever processed the original complaint (we don't know if that came from the safety hotline or went directly to the FSDO) took the comment at face value, without knowing Bryan's sarcasm and humor, as there's nothing in the statement that textually says it was a joke.
 
Brad Z said:
By all accounts, the FSDOs are understaffed with inspectors (and plenty of open ASI positions across the country on USAjobs.gov if you're interested). There's no shortage of work to be done and no need to justify his position. There is an internal quality management system within flight standards that ensures inspectors are doing what they're supposed to be doing. If person 'A' provides evidence that person 'B' was violating the regs, the inspector is obligated to follow up with person 'B' and document that the allegation was not substantiated. Also, we don't know if person 'A' added to the story beyond what was posted online. Here's the thing, once the report goes into the ASI's queue, there's no latitude to close with no action (unless it's a situation in which person 'B' cannot be identified). Whoever processed the original complaint (we don't know if that came from the safety hotline or went directly to the FSDO) took the comment at face value, without knowing Bryan's sarcasm and humor, as there's nothing in the statement that textually says it was a joke.
Click to expand...

Yes actually I am. Thanks for the idea! :D
 
Brad Z said:
By all accounts, the FSDOs are understaffed with inspectors (and plenty of open ASI positions across the country on USAjobs.gov if you're interested). There's no shortage of work to be done and no need to justify his position. There is an internal quality management system within flight standards that ensures inspectors are doing what they're supposed to be doing. If person 'A' provides evidence that person 'B' was violating the regs, the inspector is obligated to follow up with person 'B' and document that the allegation was not substantiated. Also, we don't know if person 'A' added to the story beyond what was posted online. Here's the thing, once the report goes into the ASI's queue, there's no latitude to close with no action (unless it's a situation in which person 'B' cannot be identified). Whoever processed the original complaint (we don't know if that came from the safety hotline or went directly to the FSDO) took the comment at face value, without knowing Bryan's sarcasm and humor, as there's nothing in the statement that textually says it was a joke.
Click to expand...
No shortage of work. . .no latitude. . .might be related to bad process, like a policy to investigate all complaints, even ones obviously, clearly, ridiculous. Working hard isn't the same as working smart - you can put a lot of energy into tasks that are very low value. I believe you when you say ASIs are busy - but harbor deep skepticism about the necessity of some of the work they are required to do.

Bashing the FAA also isn't the same as bashing the people there, especially the ones at the delivery end. FAA is deeply flawed, probably on the left side of the bell curve of guv orgs; structure right out the 60s, multi-layered and redundant management, uncoordinated efforts - the people working there are trapped in that morass. And we have to deal with it, too.
 
Sundancer said:
No shortage of work. . .no latitude. . .might be related to bad process, like a policy to investigate all complaints, even ones obviously, clearly, ridiculous. Working hard isn't the same as working smart - you can put a lot of energy into tasks that are very low value. I believe you when you say ASIs are busy - but harbor deep skepticism about the necessity of some of the work they are required to do.
Click to expand...

+1 & is totally on them, for all to see,

wanna put the screws to someone? just make a complaint, all it takes is something petty like this, that might as well be as lame as u can get, but gung ho stuff for the faa to waste time & energy on..
Someone posted on a Texas pilots facebook group asking "can someone recommend a local CFI to teach me to fly?"

I responded:

"I can teach you but I am not a CFI so it won't be legal which is why I have a cash only, under the table policy but I'm good :) "
Click to expand...
on this one instance alone, that can be found all over the place,

talk about totally out of touch, if not out to lunch..
 
Last edited:
I haven't been keeping up with this thread. When is the day of the big meeting with the FAA?

Will you video it for a future edition of Just Plane Silly?
 
Clip4 said:
For giggles when this is over file a FOIA request for the entire investigation file which will include the complaintant if the complaint was not Anon.
Click to expand...
Requesting information via FOIA isn't free, either. They charge based on what the use of the information is, then how long it takes to acquire the documents and how many pages there are. It depends what category your request falls into for the cost though. You also don't know how much it will be and you have to give them a threshold of what you're willing to spend. Then wait weeks for it to show up in the mail.


I've found the local FSDO and the ASI's to be great. At least at my FSDO they're normal people and easy to work with. The drug abatement division though.... I don't wish those guys on my worst enemy. I think I'd rather be nose-to-nose with an ASI over a Facebook post than deal with the drug people ever again.

Good luck Bryan. Be respectful and sympathize with their issues. It's just easier than voicing your true opinion.
 
When I made an FOIA request for my FAA medical records, they said they weren't charging me because the "cost of process" was less than $20. It was about three-quarters of an inch thick, too.
 
Rushie said:
But a federal pension with benefits is a HUGE incentive to make sure you justify the continuation of your position, wouldn't you think?
Click to expand...
What "huge federal pension." Such certainly does not exist now, nor did it ever really exist. I was under the old CSRA and it was hardly huge. My wife retired under FERS and about the only thing it really gave us much was allowing us to continue to buy into federal health insurance plans (we're not Medicare age yet, so that was "moderately" large).
 
Fed pensions aren't all that great these days. Around here, for the same job, folks try to get into the county and city systems rather than the feds. Fed is good if you are law enforcement, retire early and double-dip.
 
Thunderbird83 said:
It seems that the FAA could just go on a fishing expedition with the OP's logbooks, and could find a violation that isn't addressed in the complaint.
Click to expand...
There was a guy in flying club I used to belong to who saw fit to line up with the runway edge lights instead of the center line lights when he was getting ready to take off one night. He clipped off a couple lights with the prop before he figured it out. The FAA wanted a sit down with him after that. He ended up with a certificate action not because he clipped the runway lights but because they found in his logbook where he had either logged flights while his medical was expired or while he was out of BFR (can't recall which). If the FAA is looking at your book, everything in there back to day one is far game.
 
Sundancer said:
No shortage of work. . .no latitude. . .might be related to bad process, like a policy to investigate all complaints, even ones obviously, clearly, ridiculous. Working hard isn't the same as working smart - you can put a lot of energy into tasks that are very low value. I believe you when you say ASIs are busy - but harbor deep skepticism about the necessity of some of the work they are required to do.
Click to expand...

THANK YOU. You articulated way better than I did what I was trying to say. Think of all the taxpayer money not only in Mr. H*nderson's time but the portion of his pension potentially 30 years after he retires. What productive benefit does the economy get back from that? The miniscule chance he averted a death or two because he might have caught someone accepting money? I think the odds of payback to the taxpayer in this case is somewhere between 0 and 0.0000000001. And then there is the loss on the side of the airman.

That's not to say there aren't things they do with better odds than that of actually making something safer but if any anonymous stranger can force the FAA and the airman to waste time and money over a social media post there is something seriously broken, and the thing broken IMO is not that this will make the skies safer but that it's all CYA.

And that gives a lot of power to the petty anonymous jerk who reported the post. It is a vehicle for anyone to use against an airman for any reason or no reason.

Bashing the FAA also isn't the same as bashing the people there, especially the ones at the delivery end. FAA is deeply flawed, probably on the left side of the bell curve of guv orgs; structure right out the 60s, multi-layered and redundant management, uncoordinated efforts - the people working there are trapped in that morass. And we have to deal with it, too.
Click to expand...

Thank you again for saying it better than I could. Even if Mr. H*nderson is consciously aware of needing to be busy chasing ridiculous accusations for the sake of his 30 year retirement paycheck plus benefits, that doesn't mean he is unusual or evil or even has a choice. The more government creates bureaucracies that don't actually produce tangible things for the economy, the less money is available in that economy for jobs, therefore an individual takes what job he can and finds the very government positions that created this shrinkage of the real economy, open and available.

We are all trapped in this morass. It's not that the FAA does nothing for safety, it's that there is a marginal rate of return. I think we have well exceeded it now, if they're coming after clowns like Bryan (no offense 6PC, that's meant as a compliment to your comedic skills).

There needs to be a consequence for bringing frivolous accusations. If we are going to waste government resources on this silliness, the FAA should bill the tipster the cost of the investigation and of the innocent airman's time and money if it turns out to be nothing, and pay the airman back his portion. People need to be sure there is a "there" there before ratting out each other.
 
flyingron said:
What "huge federal pension." Such certainly does not exist now, nor did it ever really exist. I was under the old CSRA and it was hardly huge. My wife retired under FERS and about the only thing it really gave us much was allowing us to continue to buy into federal health insurance plans (we're not Medicare age yet, so that was "moderately" large).
Click to expand...

weilke said:
Fed pensions aren't all that great these days. Around here, for the same job, folks try to get into the county and city systems rather than the feds. Fed is good if you are law enforcement, retire early and double-dip.
Click to expand...

Correct me if I misunderstand. A Federal pension pays for life. So if it's only say $40,000 a year which doesn't sound big, you live 30 years that's $1,200,000. That's not crumbs to a lot of people.
 
Rushie said:
Correct me if I misunderstand. A Federal pension pays for life. So if it's only say $40,000 a year which doesn't sound big, you live 30 years that's $1,200,000. That's not crumbs to a lot of people.
Click to expand...

Please go read up on how the FERS system works. The employees pay into that system, it's not a total freebie. It's also not as lucrative as some would try to have you believe.
 
I don't disagree with the "work smarter not harder" but there are some things that the FAA can not compromise on. The FAA is under constant scrutiny by Congress to ensure every single possible complaint involving safety is investigated. Along with that are inspector general investigations, GAO investigations, etc., to ensure that the FAA is doing their job. So even if the FAA inspector gets the joke, the IG investigator might not, and may ding the agency for not following through. There have been too many situations in the past of complaints not being investigated of operators who later crashed. Whether those complaints would have made a difference is unknown, but in the eyes of Congress, the FAA should follow up on every complaint they get.

Unfounded complaints are actually quite common. They come from ex spouses, former business partners, competitors, etc. Some may be legitimate safety issues, but many are not, however. ASIs get really good at efficiently sorting out which is which. Some of these complaints are truly absurd, and read like the script for a daytime soap opera.

As far as retribution to reporters of false claims, Congress designed an anonymous "whistleblower" reporting system. there are trade offs in such a system, but for what it's worth, the FAA will generally try to encourage a complaintant to go on the record as an anonymous complaint is more difficult to investigate.
 
Rushie said:
Correct me if I misunderstand. A Federal pension pays for life. So if it's only say $40,000 a year which doesn't sound big, you live 30 years that's $1,200,000. That's not crumbs to a lot of people.
Click to expand...
Under the FERS system, retirement comes from three sources- social security (like everyone else), your TSP (basically a 401K that you pay into with an employer match), and a pension. The pension is relatively small- 1% of your high three for each year of service. So if you worked for 30 years and made a max of $100k for three years, your pension would be $30k. I'm not sure if that adjusts for inflation but I don't think so.

This system seems to work best for former career military who can count military service as part of their total federal service, and double dip on retirement plans.

For the rest of us, it's not bad, but it's not the same juicy retirement that feds from the 80s enjoy.
 
Brad Z said:
Under the FERS system, retirement comes from three sources- social security (like everyone else), your TSP (basically a 401K that you pay into with an employer match), and a pension. The pension is relatively small- 1% of your high three for each year of service. So if you worked for 30 years and made a max of $100k for three years, your pension would be $30k. I'm not sure if that adjusts for inflation but I don't think so.

This system seems to work best for former career military who can count military service as part of their total federal service, and double dip on retirement plans.

For the rest of us, it's not bad, but it's not the same juicy retirement that feds from the 80s enjoy.
Click to expand...

Also, FERS requires an employees contribution. I think it's up to 4 or 5% now.

Again, not the Nirvana that people claim it is.
 
What most folks don't realize about ASIs and their jobs (especially in our prevailing "us vs them" mentality) is that "busting pilots" is not a primary duty. In the civilian world job description, it fits into the "other tasks as may be assigned" category. It's extra work which takes away from their primary safety duties. While, as in all enforcement, there are definitely those who get off on power, by far most I have met would be as excited about it as any of us would be with a time-killing task outside of our basic job. I would not be at all surprised if the poor ASI who was assigned to this one thought exactly the same thing as most of us did: "Oh crap! Now I have to deal with this BS!"
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top