My fight with the FAA

Unregistered said:
At that time there was no ASRS in effect.
Click to expand...
How long ago was this?

Were you talking about Rio Airways which went out of business in 1987?

Rio Airways was a regional passenger airline headquartered in Killeen, Texas, United States.[1] This airline began operations in or before 1970, and went out of business in 1987.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
For what it's worth, Horizon/Alaska lands at our airport. We have a scanner and rooftop antenna we listen to when we're working on the plane or drinking beers in the hangar. We also have a handheld we take with us when sitting at the end of the hangars at night shooting the breeze. Rarely have I ever heard the airliner converse with the tower leading me to believe they have a special frequency they use or some other type of magic. After the tower closes at 8 PM, we never hear the last flight (8:15-8:30) announce their presence. I haven't seen any close calls but I'm very aware of their silence and use an abundance of caution after 8 and know their schedule. We've always thought it's just a matter of time when this bad habit catches up to someone. I know they don't have to talk on the CTAF but they should, especially at an airport this size.
 
Everskyward said:
How long ago was this?

Were you talking about Rio Airways which went out of business in 1987?
Click to expand...

Yes, I was referromg to Rio Airways. Wasn't sure when they went under, but their demise was because of the leans on the plane which was confiscated in what I believe was Ecuador because of a large load of drugs found on the aircraft. Mark Connell, the owner was the son of Ted Connerll a very large contributor to Lyndon Johnson. Even though he had Johnson's ear, the case was so well publicized that Johnson was very relunctant to intercede. The only winner and deservedly so was Mary jane Connell, Marks wife and a lovely lady. She inhereted the Copperas Cove branch of Connell Chevrolet and operated thai until just recently when many car dealerships were consolidated or closed. Mary Jane had no knowledge fo Mark's shady dealings and was able to rise above the nastines when the airline was dissolved.

As to their operational requirement to communicate on te Unicom frequency, i believe they were supposed to do that, but my argument was not with them. it was the two-faced FAA saying one thing and then going back on their word. Yes, I was naive. I believed when a man told me something he was telling the truth. Bottom line after getting the FAA's chief counsel involved the entire case against me was dropped. however I learned several lessons from that incident.
 
denverpilot said:
If you have friends who work at a FSDO that you know PERSONALLY, you MIGHT be able to have a frank conversation... otherwise, it's Russian Roulette.
Click to expand...

As a brand new private pilot I got myself a bit crossed up on a flight. Nothing dangerous, just that the CDI wasn't acting as I expected. :) I called up a local FAA man I knew pretty well. As soon as I opened my mouth he started to ask questions like, who told you that? what is there name?

I sensed he really wanted to nail someone so I went from wanting to gain knowledge to wanting to get out alive. Even those FAA guys who are 'kind enough' to drop by the monthly safety meeting seem to have shifty eyes and a keen ear to read between the lines of what a pilot might casually say. At such a meeting on special use airspace I did try to ask some questions. The FAA guy wanted my number and where I trained before even talking to me.

I have learned to avoid the FAA when possible and to never be casual when in the FAA's presence.
 
I'm reading it and just thought glad you had an engine you could help move out of the way. As the perpetual student - we practice "simulated engine" failure and do *straight in* for runways. We have a pietenpol airplane on site (an airplane that doesn't have radios and can't communicate) So we always make sure we haven't seen him in awhile.
 
To the OP: thanks for sharing your story - I imagine many of us can: (1) learn from your experience, thus avoiding future trouble; and/or (2) say, "Been there, done that..."

Long before I was a pilot, I took a course in aviation law, and we had a speaker who was from the FAA. He told us, in so many words, "Yes, we are here to help, but never forget - when you speak to us, you are speaking into the microphone and the tape is rolling, and when we hear something which adds up to a violation, we usually have to do something about it. So choose your words carefully."

He also told us that some of them were more committed to aviation safety than pure regulatory enforcement, and others did not realize that there was a difference between the two.

Again, great discussion.
 
Palmpilot said:
Unicom and CTAF are on the same frequency at many airports, especially uncontrolled fields.
Click to expand...
Thanks! Not the case in my neck of the woods, but good to know as I venture further from home.
 
Jim_R said:
(Um, am I missing something? I'd use the CTAF to make and monitor traffic calls around an uncontrolled field. In my limited experience, Unicom is used to talk to FBOs or others on the ground. Did "Unicom" and "CTAF" used to be synonyms back in the day or something?)
Click to expand...

No they were never properly synonyms. Unicom refers to the ground station. The frequency is almost always the same as the advisory frequency at uncontrolled airports (though back in the day when we had a plethora of local flight service stations, that may not have been true either).

People colloquially say UNICOM when they mean CTAF because they're often the same...
 
Unregistered said:
I have learned to avoid the FAA when possible and to never be casual when in the FAA's presence.
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:

If the FAA calls you, I suppose your reaction depends on your situation. If they call me, I'll be respectful and forthcoming. I can't afford a lawyer to defend my avocation. If I made a living with this I'd lawyer up and say nutin' without advice of counsel.

Yeah, they'll sound all lovey-dovey on the phone though.
 
Ron Levy said:
Probably nothing. But their Flight Operations Manual probably has something on the subject.
Click to expand...
But it's something we won't ever know because the company went out of business a long time ago. I looked up that crash involving the people from the college which the OP said happened after the incident, and it was in 1981.

20120206-nkkdax8hr9eiqhn8ufjd2a3fmn.png


http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=24431&key=0

That was over 30 years ago. I'm not sure what you can infer about the practices of commuter airlines or the FAA from that long ago but that is what we are talking about.
 
A shrink/psychiatrist claims to keep things confidential until you tell them you did something illegal. I believe they are mandated to tell authorities. The FAA is probably in the same boat.
 
Unregistered said:
Go back and read the original post in this thread. My point was that I did a straight-in approach and feel that was not the safest manner of landing. I said I rarely did those then, and almost never do them now. I was chastising myself for contributing to a possible collision. That said, had the other plane communicated with Unicom most likely they would have known the preferred anounced runway was 01. Or had they announced their intentions that also would alerted me that a plane was flying directly into my path of travel and I would have taken a different approach to the runway.

I was not blaming the other pilots although both of us did not contribute to safety. I feel the bad guys here are the FAA for saying one thing and trying to do another. Had I been more wimpy, I would have been given a suspension. By defending myself this did not occur as no violation occured. But you can be dead right as well as dead wrong. Either way, you are dead and no one is the winner. I felt I had learned two valuable lessons.
Click to expand...

I see the same events all the time at the mountain airports. Usually the traffic volumes are light and no tower. People fly every kind of traffic pattern you can imagine and operate both runway directions in calm winds, it all works out until someone doesn't use the radio. Nothing pis*es you off more than to make several calls starting at 20 miles out and have someone come outbound and miss you by 500' without saying a word just like you experienced.

I also agree that all of the charter traffic always comes straight in, generally expecting pattern traffic to move out of the way, and outbound they make one call taking the runway and then go immediately to center (relying on TCAS I guess).

Certain places this is just the way it is. What you experienced is nothing new or even uncommon in a lot of places. We all just have to do our best to stay safe, that is a better answer IMO than trying to get the FAA to play crossing guard.
 
Everskyward said:
But it's something we won't ever know because the company went out of business a long time ago. I looked up that crash involving the people from the college which the OP said happened after the incident, and it was in 1981.

20120206-nkkdax8hr9eiqhn8ufjd2a3fmn.png


http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=24431&key=0

That was over 30 years ago. I'm not sure what you can infer about the practices of commuter airlines or the FAA from that long ago but that is what we are talking about.
Click to expand...

Exactly. At first the post makes it seem as if this just happened recently.
 
Assuming this incident happened over 30 years ago:

1 - I agree with R&W that we may not have the whole story. I certainly know that when I look back at something I did that long ago I usually see myself in a gentler light than an impartial observer would have seen me at the time.

2 - I'm not sure how relevant it is to today's FAA - cultures change over time. While I'm sure (by reading appeals to the ALJ or NTSB that succeed) there are asshats with ASI credentials, I'm also sure that I haven't met any yet, and I'm sure that the attitudes on both sides either pour accelerants or extinguishers on the fire.
 
saracelica said:
A shrink/psychiatrist claims to keep things confidential until you tell them you did something illegal. I believe they are mandated to tell authorities.
Click to expand...
Not all illegal activities, just if you may do physical harm to yourself or someone else. They are still bound by confidentiality if you tell them you cheated on your taxes.

The FAA is probably in the same boat.
Click to expand...
The FAA is not in that boat at all. When speaking to an FAA inspector, it's like speaking to a cop -- there is no such thing as a guarantee of confidentiality no matter what they tell you. And unlike a cop in a custodial situation, they have no constitutional requirement to warn you of that fact (although there is some guidance on that in the FAA Orders governing Inspector conduct).
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
Not all illegal activities, just if you may do physical harm to yourself or someone else. They are still bound by confidentiality if you tell them you cheated on your taxes.
Click to expand...
As I understand it (at least as it applies to lawyers) confidentiality protections still apply to physical harm issues if they are in the past.

The FAA is not in that boat at all. When speaking to an FAA inspector, it's like speaking to a cop -- there is no such thing as a guarantee of confidentiality no matter what they tell you. And unlike a cop in a custodial situation, they have no constitutional requirement to warn you of that fact (although there is some guidance on that in the FAA Orders governing Inspector conduct).
Click to expand...
"We're from the government and we're here to help....
... ourselves."

Question: Is it a crime to lie to an FAA inspector?
 
Ron Levy said:
saracelica said:
A shrink/psychiatrist claims to keep things confidential until you tell them you did something illegal. I believe they are mandated to tell authorities. The FAA is probably in the same boat.
Click to expand...
Not all illegal activities, just if you may do physical harm to yourself or someone else. They are still bound by confidentiality if you tell them you cheated on your taxes.
Click to expand...
I was under the impression that they were bound by confidentiality for anything that happened in the past but had to inform authorities if you told them of an intent to cause physical harm to yourself or others. Of course, this impression is from watching television, so it's highly suspect!

Not sure that this translates at all into dealings with the FAA.
 
Unregistered said:
Not the OP here. I want to know what the Op Specs of the commuter says about communications at non twoered airports.
Click to expand...

You won't find that in OpSpecs. C077 in part C speaks to operating VFR in the terminal area, but does not address communications.

Also bear in mind that this incident happened 30 years ago.
 
gismo said:
As I understand it (at least as it applies to lawyers) confidentiality protections still apply to physical harm issues if they are in the past.
Click to expand...
That's my understanding, too, but the question was psychiatrists (although the same applies to all psych counselors).

Question: Is it a crime to lie to an FAA inspector?
Click to expand...
You bet your freedom it is. See 18 USC 1001.
§1001. Statements or entries generally
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.
Click to expand...
That's a Federal criminal felony, and it doesn't get more serious than that.
 
My odd question - what is (or was at the time of event) the radar coverage like at the airport in question?

If the landing aircraft was still at TPA or above shouldn't he have been visible to ATC? If so, shouldn't the commuter twin have been advised of traffic in the path of their climbout?
 
gprellwitz said:
I was under the impression that they were bound by confidentiality for anything that happened in the past but had to inform authorities if you told them of an intent to cause physical harm to yourself or others.
Click to expand...
I think we're on the same page there, but the issue is harm, not breaking the law.

Of course, this impression is from watching television, so it's highly suspect!
Click to expand...
I got this from a discussion with a rabbi and a defense attorney.

Not sure that this translates at all into dealings with the FAA.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't. Nothing you tell an FAA Inspector is privileged in this context, although the FAA may be required to keep certain proprietary information from your competitors.
 
Morne said:
My odd question - what is (or was at the time of event) the radar coverage like at the airport in question?
Click to expand...
Hard to say at this point.

If the landing aircraft was still at TPA or above shouldn't he have been visible to ATC?
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. There are plenty of places in this country (even the lower 48) where radar coverage ends well above TPA.

If so, shouldn't the commuter twin have been advised of traffic in the path of their climbout?
Click to expand...
Probably not. When departing from a nontowered airport under IFR, the standard procedure is to obtain your IFR clearance and release on the ground before taking the runway. At that point, you switch to CTAF to conduct the normal nontowered airport departure comm procedures and then switch to ATC once clear of the traffic pattern area, especially in VMC where VFR traffic is likely to be present. So, at this nontowered airport the commuter would usually not have any "heads up" from ATC about other aircraft in the traffic pattern area before takeoff. Of course, they should have also been listening on CTAF and making their normal nontowered airport departure calls, too, and that part of the AIM hasn't changed in the last 30 years.

There are some nontowered airports where there is both radar coverage down below TPA and direct radio communication with the TRACON/Center via a Remote Communications Outlet (RCO), and in that case, ATC may be able to advise of traffic they see when they issue the IFR release. But that's sort of a special case, and constitutes only a small fraction of nontowered airports.


In any event, about the only things I can say for sure we should learn from this discussion are:
  1. If you're departing a nontowered airport from any runway other than the one favored by the wind, be extra careful checking for folks using the wind-favored runway and don't rely on the radio to alert you to their presence.
  2. If you're landing at a nontowered airport, never assume everyone is using the same runway you've chosen, and don't rely on the radio to alert you to their presence or intentions.
  3. Don't rely on the radio to alert you to the presence or intentions of other aircraft in the pattern or on the runway.
 
Last edited:
In my original post I mentioned I had learned three things.

First. Enter the traffic pattern when flying VFR at at the 45 degree to downwind angle. That is the safest.

Secondly. Do not ever tell the FAA anything. If we had at the time the ability to write a an ASRS and I had known about the function, I would have done that. I did not even learn about the ASRS until writing this thread. I made the call to the FAA with their assurances that this would not result in any punitive action. (Now, I know better) I was flat lied to. My naive purpose for calling them was maybe, somehow they could improve communications at that airport.

Third. Do not post comments on this board as all it will do is open up a fire storm of 2nd guessers.

I only wrote this citing my near disaster as an alert to others how dangerous a straight-in VFR approach can be. Gray Army Airfield montiters the Killeen Unicom 24 hours daily and had a really alert controller been on top of things he/she would have known that they had just given clearance to the comuter plane to depart on the on the opposite end of the runway that I had announced I was landing.
 
Unregistered said:
In my original post I mentioned I had learned three things.

First. Enter the traffic pattern when flying VFR at at the 45 degree to downwind angle. That is the safest.

Secondly. Do not ever tell the FAA anything. If we had at the time the ability to write a an ASRS and I had known about the function, I would have done that. I did not even learn about the ASRS until writing this thread. I made the call to the FAA with their assurances that this would not result in any punitive action. (Now, I know better) I was flat lied to. My naive purpose for calling them was maybe, somehow they could improve communications at that airport.

Third. Do not post comments on this board as all it will do is open up a fire storm of 2nd guessers.

I only wrote this citing my near disaster as an alert to others how dangerous a straight-in VFR approach can be. Gray Army Airfield montiters the Killeen Unicom 24 hours daily and had a really alert controller been on top of things he/she would have known that they had just given clearance to the comuter plane to depart on the on the opposite end of the runway that I had announced I was landing.
Click to expand...

And please clarify this all took place over 30 years ago.
 
Unregistered said:
I only wrote this citing my near disaster as an alert to others how dangerous a straight-in VFR approach can be.
Click to expand...
No more so than a midfield crossover, or a direct entry to the crosswind, or even the AIM-recommended 45-downwind. They can all be equally dangerous if we don't all play by the rules and do our best to see and be seen as well as talk and listen on the radio. And that is the important lesson it does not appear you learned from that experience all those years ago. :sad:
 
Geico266 said:
Whoa. I missed something. :confused:
Click to expand...

Everskyward said:
But it's something we won't ever know because the company went out of business a long time ago. I looked up that crash involving the people from the college which the OP said happened after the incident, and it was in 1981.

20120206-nkkdax8hr9eiqhn8ufjd2a3fmn.png


http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=24431&key=0

That was over 30 years ago. I'm not sure what you can infer about the practices of commuter airlines or the FAA from that long ago but that is what we are talking about.
Click to expand...

Appears this all happened 30 years ago.
 
Unregistered said:
In my original post I mentioned I had learned three things.

First. Enter the traffic pattern when flying VFR at at the 45 degree to downwind angle. That is the safest.

Secondly. Do not ever tell the FAA anything. If we had at the time the ability to write a an ASRS and I had known about the function, I would have done that. I did not even learn about the ASRS until writing this thread. I made the call to the FAA with their assurances that this would not result in any punitive action. (Now, I know better) I was flat lied to. My naive purpose for calling them was maybe, somehow they could improve communications at that airport.

Third. Do not post comments on this board as all it will do is open up a fire storm of 2nd guessers.

I only wrote this citing my near disaster as an alert to others how dangerous a straight-in VFR approach can be. Gray Army Airfield montiters the Killeen Unicom 24 hours daily and had a really alert controller been on top of things he/she would have known that they had just given clearance to the comuter plane to depart on the on the opposite end of the runway that I had announced I was landing.
Click to expand...
Well, had you not brought this up you (and others) would have been unaware of the ASRS program, so I disagree with point 3.
 
comanche said:
I don't know what ASRS is. From what I am reading, it's some kind of confidential reporting unsafe acts, but I had not heard of iy until this thread.

Guess I will Google it now. Just looked it up. No, we did not have it when this occurred. Maybe our letter to the general counsel might have had something to get it started. Hope so.
Click to expand...

Dontcha just hate it when you're trying to post anonymously and then you post in the clear? :mad2: :mad2: :mad2:

Good thread, thanks for posting it. It's a good reminder for me to always (weather or emergencies permitting) fly a normal traffic pattern at airports. If nothing else, the extra minutes saved let me get a view of the runway, taxiways, other moving aircraft, windsock, and any obstructions or other impediments to a safe landing that I might not see as easily on a straight in approach.
 
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