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

Palmpilot said:
If a non-CFI holds out that they are willing to give flight instruction, but does not actually give any flight instruction, is it still a violation?

Not arguing, just asking. (I'm trying to figure out how careful we need to be when joking about stuff online.)
Click to expand...

You mean like possession with intent?
 
In one of Shakespeare's plays, getting rid of lawyers was offered as the first step in establishing tyranny.
 
SkyDog58 said:
So I guess the peanut gallery got tired of dumping on the FAA and decided to throw attorneys into the mix. Gotta love it.
Click to expand...

well after the initial "someone claimed this, which isn't true" and most of us clearly see that, wtf else is there to talk about?
 
eman1200 said:
well after the initial "someone claimed this, which isn't true" and most of us clearly see that, wtf else is there to talk about?
Click to expand...
Cirrus.
Low wings.
Nosewheel.
Millennials.
AoA.
*random uncalled for attack on someone*
:popcorn::stirpot:
 
SkyDog58 said:
So I guess the peanut gallery got tired of dumping on the FAA and decided to throw attorneys into the mix. Gotta love it.
Click to expand...

Lol I was thinking the same thing, now it’s a lawyer thread.
 
Sundancer said:
...So tell 'em, in a civil manner, that they are out of line - get a lawyer to send them a letter, unambiguously stating it was satire, and if they want more follow-up, to contact him. Seriously, if they catch a sh*t storm on every one of these asinine fishing expeditions, maybe getting some bad press, some congressional inquiries, et., it'll reign in some of this nonsense.

Rant complete.
Click to expand...
61.51 authorizes them to inspect our certificates, logbooks, and required records. I'm sure that a good lawyer can be helpful, but I don't see any way of getting around that requirement.

(i) Presentation of required documents.

(1) Persons must present their pilot certificate, medical certificate, logbook, or any other record required by this part for inspection upon a reasonable request by—

(i) The Administrator;

(ii) An authorized representative from the National Transportation Safety Board; or

(iii) Any Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer.​
 
eman1200 said:
well after the initial "someone claimed this, which isn't true" and most of us clearly see that, wtf else is there to talk about?
Click to expand...

How about POTUS, SCOTUS, Congress, the military, ICE, TSA, and other government entities which get threads locked down quickly while bashing the FAA doesn’t.
 
Palmpilot said:
In one of Shakespeare's plays, getting rid of lawyers was offered as the first step in establishing tyranny.
Click to expand...
There was a really good sci-fi novel (the title escapes me at the moment) that changed this idea to "greeting card salespersons". Wish I could remember the title.... it was a lot like Bryan, with large quantities of wit, humor, and satire.
 
AggieMike88 said:
There was a really good sci-fi novel (the title escapes me at the moment) that changed this idea to "greeting card salespersons". Wish I could remember the title.... it was a lot like Bryan, with large quantities of wit, humor, and satire.
Click to expand...
If you think of it, please post the title; sounds interesting.
 
AggieMike88 said:
There was a really good sci-fi novel (the title escapes me at the moment) that changed this idea to "greeting card salespersons". Wish I could remember the title.... it was a lot like Bryan, with large quantities of wit, humor, and satire.
Click to expand...

Was it on the Hallmark Channel?
 
Sorry to hear about what happened to Bryan.. that's going to be a whole ordeal to go through now.. there's a lesson in here somewhere:

The internet feels like a "fake" place, like an alternate reality with fewer rules and social norms and less (or no?) accountability.. but, in many ways, especially on public forums, social media, etc., what you say and do on the internet is no different than going out in the world and doing it in reality. While it is evident that Bryan's FB comment was tongue in cheek I can understand how, strictly in a written sense, having written what he wrote could become problematic. I can also understand that if you didn't know Bryan, or were just a "dense" person in general, you may see that post and genuinely take it seriously..

My problem is, why report it? Live and let live. If you are dumb enough to take that comment seriously, and take issue with it, then move on.. no one will force you to patronize his fake-joke-not-a-business-business. Leave the law enforcement (or whatever this would be called) up to the people we pay a very HEALTHY amount in taxes to enforce it. Does that same person get on the phone when someone passes them without a turn signal and report the license plate number to the local constabulary? Maybe... there are people like that out in there world.. luckily they're in the minority

AggieMike88 said:
There was a really good sci-fi novel (the title escapes me at the moment) that changed this idea to "greeting card salespersons". Wish I could remember the title.... it was a lot like Bryan, with large quantities of wit, humor, and satire.
Click to expand...
Was it by Stanislaw Lem? An older author but he wrote a lot of quirky SciFi stuff

Palmpilot said:
In one of Shakespeare's plays, getting rid of lawyers was offered as the first step in establishing tyranny.
Click to expand...
That's from Henry VI, right? Ironically, much like Bryan's comment, I think that was also partially tongue in cheek or satirical when stated in the play. Shakespeare had an interesting take on lawyers.. Honestly, it's easy to hate on lawyers.. but they do fill a required role in society. What bothers me more is when judge's hear stupid cases. It's one thing if you want to privately pay a lawyer.. it's another when a tax payer paid judge hears a dumb case.. what we need is common-sense-tort-law-reform

IBTL
 
Sundancer said:
So tell 'em, in a civil manner, that they are out of line - get a lawyer to send them a letter, unambiguously stating it was satire, and if they want more follow-up, to contact him. Seriously, if they catch a sh*t storm on every one of these asinine fishing expeditions, maybe getting some bad press, some congressional inquiries, et., it'll reign in some of this nonsense.
Click to expand...

Show them that you mean business ! Right on ! Fix the administrative state one one lawyer letter at a time. Better call Saul !




Ah, no. They are investingating a complaint. Reviewing the airmans logbook to check whether there are pages upon pages of 'dual given' entries is a reasonable request in that context. A lawyer can do a couple of things, the first one is to set the right expectations on the limits of such a prelimnary investigation. I doubt there is an aviation lawyer out there who would tell Bryan to blow them off in that manner.
 
Tantalum said:
Was it by Stanislaw Lem? An older author but he wrote a lot of quirky SciFi stuff
Click to expand...
After googling that author, that's not him.... book titles included characteristics of pin up girl genre, like "atomic blond bombshell" or something like that.... IIRC, there was a series of 4 to 6 books. If I think of the title, I'll let the gallery know.
 
about 8 months back, i took a selfie while flying and posted it on FB, got a lot of comments and one of my coworkers jokingly commented "if you are focused on taking a selfie, who is looking out for other traffic?". that was my last pic / comment I ever posted on FB. (i did write a clarification that i was flying on AP inside TRSA, talking to controllers etc, but that doesnt mean jack to any non-pilot)

sorry Bryan you are going thru this crap and hope it doesnt become a huge issue. belated happy 25th
 
WannFly said:
about 8 months back, i took a selfie while flying and posted it on FB, got a lot of comments and one of my coworkers jokingly commented "if you are focused on taking a selfie, who is looking out for other traffic?". that was my last pic / comment I ever posted on FB. (i did write a clarification that i was flying on AP inside TRSA, talking to controllers etc, but that doesnt mean jack to any non-pilot)

sorry Bryan you are going thru this crap and hope it doesnt become a huge issue. belated happy 25th
Click to expand...

reported :ihih: :nono:
 
Palmpilot said:
If a non-CFI holds out that they are willing to give flight instruction, but does not actually give any flight instruction, is it still a violation?

Not arguing, just asking. (I'm trying to figure out how careful we need to be when joking about stuff online.)
Click to expand...
The issue is whether you do something that triggers, "we need to ask about it." PITA.

Some years ago on a CFI board I joked ther was a TSA fform called an 8710-BS. Some ASI at the Chicago FSDO took umbrage and contacted the forum host. Nothing ever happened, but I thought it was pretty funny.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Some years ago on a CFI board I joked ther was a TSA fform called an 8710-BS. Some ASI at the Chicago FSDO took umbrage and contacted the forum host.
Click to expand...
tenor.gif
 
weilke said:
Show them that you mean business ! Right on ! Fix the administrative state one one lawyer letter at a time. Better call Saul !




Ah, no. They are investingating a complaint. Reviewing the airmans logbook to check whether there are pages upon pages of 'dual given' entries is a reasonable request in that context. A lawyer can do a couple of things, the first one is to set the right expectations on the limits of such a prelimnary investigation. I doubt there is an aviation lawyer out there who would tell Bryan to blow them off in that manner.
Click to expand...
Concur, they do get to look - just don't go in hat-in-hand; in his position, and with deep pockets, I might say "No problem, you can meet me at my lawyers office", unless there is something black letter that requires visiting the FSDO. Then yes, go - with lawyer in tow. Easy for me to say, I know, but it feels like a fight I'd like to have, given the resources to see it through.

FAA bashing is fun, but then again, they have earned it. I get the new "kinder, gentler, PBOR" thing is the attitude du jour. But not (yet) willing to give them too much credit for a posture that should have been assumed decades ago. I mean, it's like wanting credit because you no longer beat your wife. . .it's great that you stopped, but you still deserve an a$$-kicking.

Let's see how it goes over a few more years - if the capricious, arbitrary, and nonsensical stuff slacks off, if they get consistency across FSDOs, if they compress the regs and make 'em readable, if they EVER get their act together on testing, etc. I think we put up with too much from these clowns. I hear FAA, I think Hoover, sleep apnea, etc.

I'd like to see a growing intolerance for this kind of intrusive silliness, and a method for making it hurt when it happens - budget impact, statutory limitations, etc., having to pay the fees when they loose on a NTSB appeal (without it being budgeted - straight out of their general fund- "sorry guys, no conference in Denver this year - we took a butt-whippin' on several cases).

I don''t usually "rant" (OK, maybe sometimes) but this one is left-field junk, unworthy of investigation - if it's their "policy", then per usual, they formulate policy like old people ice skate. Buy a computer. Use Google. See the obvious satire. Call it investigated, call the pin-head who made the complaint, tell him it was satire, close the books.
 
PS

I'm not a lawyer, don't hate lawyers. I even know and like an administrative law judge, and he likes beer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top