My fight with the FAA

I say where I had posted using my I Pad and this was not set to unregistered. I just left it without deleting that post wondering if some sharp eyed reader would discover it. Now, I know. Good find.
 
Unregistered said:
I say where I had posted using my I Pad and this was not set to unregistered. I just left it without deleting that post wondering if some sharp eyed reader would discover it. Now, I know. Good find.
Click to expand...

:) Sounds like you're in Texas. I am too, there are actually a lot of POA folks "down south". Hope to get to meet you in person sometime.

Are you doing much flying now, 30 years later?
 
The part of this which does not ring true is that an inspector would offer assurances of "no penalty". That does not happen. I was a pilot that far back; and the senior pilots back then had the ethic "have the sense to let the bones lie where they lie".

The mechanism for that is now NASA reporting. The exemption was created precisely because of concern that data was being witheld for fear of punitive action. It has been productive. Comanche, you should go to the NASA site and read the provisions of the exemptions (there ARE some limitations) for making a timely NASA report.

One thing I tell students, however, is don't incriminate yourself in the title of the report, which is public. The rumors as to disciplinary action in spite of a timely NASA report, barring criminal behavior, are due to the pilot naming the report something like, "Busted Class Bravo" as opposed to "Identifying Airspace when ORD VORTAC is OTS".

Here's the link: http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/overview/immunity.html And this program WAS in place when you had the incident. ('76 is when it started, IIRC- and it was met with skepticism).
 
Last edited:
bbchien said:
The part of this which does not ring true is that an inspector would offer assurances of "no penalty". That does not happen. I was a pilot that far back; and the senior pilots back then had the ethic "have the sense to let the bones lie where they lie".

The mechanism for that is now NASA reporting. The exemption was created precisely because of concern that data was being witheld for fear of punitive action. It has been productive. Comanche, you should go to the NASA site and read the provisions of the exemptions (there ARE some limitations) for making a timely NASA report.

One thing I tell students, however, is don't incriminate yourself in the title of the report, which is public. The rumors as to disciplinary action in spite of a timely NASA report, barring criminal behavior, are due to the pilot naming the report something like, "Busted Class Bravo" as opposed to "Identifying Airspace when ORD VORTAC is OTS".

Here's the link: http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/overview/immunity.html And this program WAS in place when you had the incident. ('76 is when it started, IIRC- and it was met with skepticism).
Click to expand...

Dr. Bruce, since I was so clever and posted to my original "blind" post by responding to it from my IPad and didn't hide my identity I assure you and everyone reading this this that it did occur.

I was really shaken after the near miss. Foolishly, I thought I could do something beneficial by alerting the FAA. However, I do not think I am stupid. (my words, not yours) I called the FAA and before divulging my name or any details I specifically said I did not want any one to get in any kind of trouble and I was only sharing the situation if I could be assured that no one would be cited. The gentleman I spoke with told me in very clear English that this would not be punishable situation and they would not follow-up other than totry to improve
communications at that airport. I was dumbfounded a couple of weeks later when I got a certified letter and was required to reply. My daughter-in-law's boss, the attorney whom I solicited to assist me still has the documentation and if I have to prove that my word is true, I will do that. You know me only by our emails. I am the photographer whose medical is currently being evaluated.
 
denverpilot said:
Not just now. For almost four decades... and certainly in place back when this happened.
Click to expand...

At that time I had never heard of that program and had no clue what people were writing about when they mentioned this in this thread. From this thread alone, I learned about this progam and today, at lunch with a balloon pilot. He mentioned this program as he said how many times he nearly landed on someone's roof and did land on someone's property To protect himself, he would file one of these. From people having mentioned this NASA program in this thread, I did not appear totally clueless.
 
Yes, it did occur exactly as I specified. After landing, I was really a basket case. I thought how my wife and niece could have been killed. I went home and called the FAA thinking someway my incident could possibly improve communications at our airport. Had I known of the NASA program, I would have used that instead. I say instead as after this incident, I will never divulge anything to the FAA that I do not have to.

When I called initially, I was rather evasive. I made the man who answered the telephone assure me of what I was going to tell him was confidential and I wanted his promise and assurance that no one would be punished. He told me absolutely he would never use names or even the time that this occured. He just wanted the information to improve safety. That was in my mind the only reason for making the call. So, with that promise, I told the story. I was dumbfounded when I received the certified letter a couple of weeks later. When I saw the man whom I spoke with and told him of his promise to me, he could only say, "That was a serious situation, we had to pursue it."

Had I not been assured by him that this would not be pursued as a punishable offense, I woold have hung up the phone. Only after receiving his promise did I relate the situation to him. Big Mistake. It took several months with this hanging over my head to have this resolved and then only after a rather stinging letter from my attorney to the FAA general counsel and a copy to the FAA local office.
 
bbchien said:
One thing I tell students, however, is don't incriminate yourself in the title of the report, which is public.
Click to expand...
I heard this advice early in my training. And it didn't come from any of my CFIs.

Anyway, I have file about 20 ASRS and the closest I have come to 'admitting guilt' was in writing, "Possible runway incursion".

Caveat aviator. You have no idea what you're up against.
 
Unregistered said:
Yes, it did occur exactly as I specified. After landing, I was really a basket case. I thought how my wife and niece could have been killed. I went home and called the FAA thinking someway my incident could possibly improve communications at our airport. Had I known of the NASA program, I would have used that instead. I say instead as after this incident, I will never divulge anything to the FAA that I do not have to.

When I called initially, I was rather evasive. I made the man who answered the telephone assure me of what I was going to tell him was confidential and I wanted his promise and assurance that no one would be punished. He told me absolutely he would never use names or even the time that this occured. He just wanted the information to improve safety. That was in my mind the only reason for making the call. So, with that promise, I told the story. I was dumbfounded when I received the certified letter a couple of weeks later. When I saw the man whom I spoke with and told him of his promise to me, he could only say, "That was a serious situation, we had to pursue it."

Had I not been assured by him that this would not be pursued as a punishable offense, I woold have hung up the phone. Only after receiving his promise did I relate the situation to him. Big Mistake. It took several months with this hanging over my head to have this resolved and then only after a rather stinging letter from my attorney to the FAA general counsel and a copy to the FAA local office.
Click to expand...


Once again, you're rehashing the same story, as well as adding to it now.

And you have been asked several times to clarify that this all happened 30 years ago, yet you refuse to acknowledge that part.

So what's the deal here? :dunno:
 
Last edited:
Rotor&Wing said:
And you have been asked several times to clarify that this all happened 30 years ago, yet you refuse to acknowledge that part.

So what's the deal here? :dunno:
Click to expand...

Maybe the employer of the person requesting this information has something to do with it:

I say instead as after this incident, I will never divulge anything to the FAA that I do not have to.
Click to expand...
 
Steve Foley said:
Maybe the employer of the person requesting this information has something to do with it:
Click to expand...

Don't think so. This story is so full of misleading info.

First of all, the Inspector would have never promised confidentiality. He would have instructed the OP if he had the issue how to handle it.

Secondly, he claims his lawyer wrote the Chief Counsel. That in itself is a fallacy as the Chief Counsel wouldn't involve his office in a Regional Letter of Investigation. If the Chief Council did receive such a letter it would have been sent back to the investigating office.

Third, these events happened over 30 years ago, yet the poster is trying to mislead readers into thinking this is a current event. In Internet jargon this is called "flame bait".

Fourth, the writer tried hiding behind "unregistered" then when he's busted tries to blame his computer.

Fifth, if you read his post you see where he's changing the story as he goes.

Sorry, I just don't buy it.
 
Last edited:
Steve Foley said:
Maybe the employer of the person requesting this information has something to do with it:
Click to expand...
I'm not employed by the FAA and I'm curious too. Things don't quite add up. What was the purpose of the original call? What did the OP want the FAA to do? And what is the purpose of bringing it up now?
 
Yes, this occured 30 + years ago. I only brought it up as I was excited to see this board as after a 11 year sojourn I am starting to fly again. I just wanted to share an experience.

The big culprit here is and I think I said that in my first post, was me. Had I not tried to save a couple of minutes time and entered the pattern at a 45 degree angle none of this would have happened. Everything subsequent to the near miss was very unfortunate.

I was not trying to Flame the FAA. Just let people know the bad experience I had when trying to (in a very naive manner) let the authorities know of an almost fatal near miss and thinking they would be able to address this at our airport to strengthen communicatins and other safety practices. That did not occur. Instead, a man gave me his word and then did the opposite. In no way do I think that one FAA employee is indiciitive of the people that work there. Of course not. I was an Army Officer for 22 years. We have a few bad members of the military, but for the most part, they are great people. The FAA is no different.

Also, I answered a question about other accidents at KILE. If I inferred in any way that the FAA had contributed to the fatal crash identified above that was not my intention. It was a simple foolish mistake by three very experienced pilots not to refuel their airplane when twice they stopped at airports and had the opportunity to refuel,but they did not.
 
Just remember that the FAA folks are the cops, badges and all.

If you admit to wrong doing to them, well their hands are tied. If I told my PMI that a plane nearly crashed because I forgot to complete a required task during an annual I'd expect a reaction, same as if I told a cop I shot at my father in law.
 
Unregistered said:
The big culprit here is and I think I said that in my first post, was me. Had I not tried to save a couple of minutes time and entered the pattern at a 45 degree angle none of this would have happened.
Click to expand...
Problem is, that simply is not true. The 45-downwind entry does not provide any guarantee that someone else won't be in your way, or that you won't be in someone else's way. It doesn't even make you legally invulnerable if you cut off someone already established on final, even if they're on a straight-in. So please -- go back up to post #66, where I said:




Ron Levy said:
...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.
Click to expand...
...and in case I didn't say it before, don't rely on the radio! Even at tower-controlled airports, there's always the chance of someone who's lost or confused or headstrong doing something or showing up somewhere unexpected/uncommanded.
 
Last edited:
Unregistered said:
The big culprit here is and I think I said that in my first post, was me. Had I not tried to save a couple of minutes time and entered the pattern at a 45 degree angle none of this would have happened. Everything subsequent to the near miss was very unfortunate.
Click to expand...
As others have mentioned, that is not true. There's nothing wrong or unsafe about doing a straight-in approach. Even if you had entered on the 45 you would have ended up on final in the opposite direction of the traffic taking off. You might have had more opportunity to see it but who knows. The airliner taking off should have made an announcement on CTAF (I think it was just called Unicom at that time but I don't remember) as that is a good practice but it is not a regulation. They also might have mistakenly been transmitting on the wrong frequency after getting their IFR clearance or something. It's not like that never happens. :redface:

Unregistered said:
I was not trying to Flame the FAA. Just let people know the bad experience I had when trying to (in a very naive manner) let the authorities know of an almost fatal near miss and thinking they would be able to address this at our airport to strengthen communicatins and other safety practices. That did not occur. Instead, a man gave me his word and then did the opposite. In no way do I think that one FAA employee is indiciitive of the people that work there. Of course not. I was an Army Officer for 22 years. We have a few bad members of the military, but for the most part, they are great people. The FAA is no different.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but your first post came across as flaming the FAA which turned out to be for something that happened in the murky past. The only reason that I care at all is that many pilots have an unreasoning fear of anything to do with the FAA and this only feeds their fear. Sure you should be careful about what you say and it probably isn't a good idea to call them up about something and act evasive and upset in the process.
 
Ron Levy said:
Problem is, that simply is not true. The 45-downwind entry does not provide any guarantee that someone else won't be in your way, or that you won't be in someone else's way. It doesn't even make you legally invulnerable if you cut off someone already established on final, even if they're on a straight-in. So please -- go back up to post #66, where I said:




...and in case I didn't say it before, don't rely on the radio! Even at tower-controlled airports, there's always the chance of someone who's lost or confused or headstrong doing something or showing up somewhere unexpected/uncommanded.
Click to expand...

Ron, All you say is good. I never totally rely on the radio. However, there were situations or ommisions that occured all of which led up to the near trajedy. First, when I announced my position twice on the Unicom I was told twice the favored runway was 01 and there was no current traffic at the airport. I do not blame Unicom as the comuter aircraft never checked in with them. Also, this the radio is manned by a secretary with the additional job of giving wind and airport advisories. This, is an additional duty she is required to do besides her clerical work. Even today at that airport the Unicom operator is in an office with no view of either end of the runway. Unfortunately, they rely on wind indicators at their consol and radio transmissions from pilots using the field. However, the comuter plane was talking to Gray clearance delivery getting their clearance. Gray monitors the Killeen Unicom 24/7 as they are just six miles away. I heard nothing from Gray. The comuter pilots were not on the Unicom frequency and obviously did not hear me state my position twice. Also, the comuter aircraft was departing on runway 19 not the favored runway 01 as told to me by Unicom. More than likely, if I had entered the runway at a 45 and then gone downwind I would have most likely seen the larger two engine plane departing from 19 as I was on my downwind leg to land on 01 or by the time I had turned onto the base leg. That was the primary point I was trying to make. By entering at a 45 it would have given me a lot more time to take evasive action.
 
Ron Levy said:
Maybe not now, but you did then, else you would have seen that plane on the runway. And the rest is just rationalization.
Click to expand...


You guys like to cherry pick every comment to make your point seem more valid. It does not make one feel welcome or inclined to post on this board.
 
Unregistered said:
I say where I had posted using my I Pad and this was not set to unregistered. I just left it without deleting that post wondering if some sharp eyed reader would discover it. Now, I know. Good find.
Click to expand...

Is there a statute of limitations for aviation stuff? If so, I would guess that it has run out after 30 years.
 
bbchien said:
One thing I tell students, however, is don't incriminate yourself in the title of the report, which is public. The rumors as to disciplinary action in spite of a timely NASA report, barring criminal behavior, are due to the pilot naming the report something like, "Busted Class Bravo" as opposed to "Identifying Airspace when ORD VORTAC is OTS".
Click to expand...

How does a title like that make any difference in the sanction applied? If they've gotten to the point where they're deciding whether the exemption applies, they've already determined that the pilot violated the reg in qestion.

Now, if the title said "intentionally busted class B," or "smuggled drugs," that would obviously take it outside the scope of the exemption.

I suppose people might be concerned about the title and date alerting the FAA to a violation they might not otherwise have discovered, but does the FAA have access to that information if the pilot doesn't show them the NASA identification strip?
 
Unregistered said:
Had I not been assured by him that this would not be pursued as a punishable offense, I woold have hung up the phone. Only after receiving his promise did I relate the situation to him. Big Mistake. It took several months with this hanging over my head to have this resolved and then only after a rather stinging letter from my attorney to the FAA general counsel and a copy to the FAA local office.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that the law allows the feds to lie to us :)(), but it doesn't allow us to lie to the feds.
 
I e-mailed the Ops Inspector yesterday that did my CFI checkride with a question - he replied today in a friendly helpful manner.
 
Skylane81E said:
If you admit to wrong doing to them, well their hands are tied. If I told my PMI that a plane nearly crashed because I forgot to complete a required task during an annual I'd expect a reaction, same as if I told a cop I shot at my father in law.
Click to expand...

My problem was that I liked my inlaws better than I liked my wife!
 
I find it funny some POA members did not know what a NASA Form is. I have to fill them out with every preflight. :eek:

BA da ding. Goodnight everybody! Please tip your waitress, I'll be here all week. :rofl:
 
Ron Levy said:
Problem is, that simply is not true. The 45-downwind entry does not provide any guarantee that someone else won't be in your way, or that you won't be in someone else's way. It doesn't even make you legally invulnerable if you cut off someone already established on final, even if they're on a straight-in. So please -- go back up to post #66, where I said:




...and in case I didn't say it before, don't rely on the radio! Even at tower-controlled airports, there's always the chance of someone who's lost or confused or headstrong doing something or showing up somewhere unexpected/uncommanded.
Click to expand...

What do you think about my suggestion that flying the pattern might have given him a better chance of seeing the non-communicating pilot taking the opposite runway?

I'm not trying to be argumentative or ask for a guarantee here - I'm just trying to evaluate what procedure is safer for my own flying.
 
The head of the local FSDO use to hangar at my airport. Friendly guy, been a friend for years even when he was flying commercial jets. He told me once he is on duty if he has his ID card around his neck, and when he carried it in his pocket. ;)
 
Unregistered said:
You guys like to cherry pick every comment to make your point seem more valid. It does not make one feel welcome or inclined to post on this board.
Click to expand...

It takes a thick skin to post on the Internet.
 
Last edited:
Morne said:
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?
Click to expand...

That is the $10,000 question. I have stated that Gray Clearance Delivery was in contact with the comuter planes pilots while they were on the ground and most likely until they were stable enough in theri takeoff to switch to their enroute controller. Granted, I was squalking 1200, but I still should have been visible to them. Additionally, they (Gray) monitor the Unicom (now referred to as the CTAF) and I announced twice my intentions and position.

I have to this day, no idea why the Gray controller did not alert the comuter pilots as to opposing trafffic.

As to having a thick skin to post on the internet. I probably should toughen it up. However, I was alerting other POA members of a dangerous situation that occured to me and as this is the Lessons Learned segment of this board, I thought is was appropriate.

Did not realize this posting would have set so many off. At that time 30 years ago, I was a rather low time private pilot just working on my Commercial Instrument.
 
Unregistered said:
That is the $10,000 question. I have stated that Gray Clearance Delivery was in contact with the comuter planes pilots while they were on the ground and most likely until they were stable enough in theri takeoff to switch to their enroute controller.
Click to expand...
That isn't how it works when you depart IFR from an uncontrolled airport, though. You get your IFR clearance from clearance delivery or some ATC facility then switch back to CTAF/Unicom for the takeoff. ATC will have given you a frequency to contact them when airborne but there is a period of time when they are not talking to you. They are not required to separate you from VFR traffic anyway.
 
Last edited:
Everskyward said:
That isn't how it works when you depart IFR from an uncontrolled airport, though. You get your IFR clearance from clearance delivery or some ATC facility then switch back to CTAF/Unicom for the takeoff. ATC will have given you a frequency to contact them when airborne but there is a period of time when they are not talking to you. They are not required to separate you from VFR traffic anyway.
Click to expand...

I stand corrected. It has been so long since I have departed from a non-towered airport IFR, that I forgot they were leaving the airport in uncontrolled airspace where ATC has no control so pilots in this situation should be on the CTAF.

This kinda makes my point that the comuter pilots had not switched to the Unicom to obtain local traffic information. If they had, they would have known a plane was landing on the runway opposing their departure.
 
Unregistered said:
This kinda makes my point that the comuter pilots had not switched to the Unicom to obtain local traffic information. If they had, they would have known a plane was landing on the runway opposing their departure.
Click to expand...
I actually ran into some commuter pilots today (in a lobby) and asked them if they make radio calls when at an untowered airport (thinking about this thread). They said typically that they don't and it's not to be disrescpectful (or rude, I forgot their exact word), but they said that they get so busy with stuff, then they look down, see the runway and land. :dunno:
 
Unregistered said:
I stand corrected. It has been so long since I have departed from a non-towered airport IFR, that I forgot they were leaving the airport in uncontrolled airspace where ATC has no control so pilots in this situation should be on the CTAF.

This kinda makes my point that the comuter pilots had not switched to the Unicom to obtain local traffic information. If they had, they would have known a plane was landing on the runway opposing their departure.
Click to expand...
I completely agree that they should have been on CTAF since that is the best and safest practice. However, they were not legally obligated to be on CTAF or, as I pointed out before, they might have screwed up and been transmitting on the wrong frequency. In any case, no one should be have been completely depending on the radio. I'm curious as to what you expected, or would have wanted, the FAA to do about this.
 
Everskyward said:
I completely agree that they should have been on CTAF since that is the best and safest practice. However, they were not legally obligated to be on CTAF or, as I pointed out before, they might have screwed up and been transmitting on the wrong frequency. In any case, no one should be have been completely depending on the radio. I'm curious as to what you expected, or would have wanted, the FAA to do about this.
Click to expand...

Just came back from a soccer game and the dad of one of the players is a controller at Gray Army Airfield. I asked him what the current procedure is for a IFR flight departing Killeen. He said at both KILE and at KTPL (Temple) they have a dedicated frequency on the ground. They request that when an aircraft gets ready to depart IFR they contact Gray on that frequency. They will then hand off the plane to the enroute controller. He said, it is not manditory, but just about every pilot complies as it's another safety net.

As to what I expected the FAA to do was to improve safety. Remember, I was a low time private pilot back then and I was probably being naive, but I thought somehow they could hold classes or something. Remember, I almost lost my wife and niece and my life. Was I thinking straight? Probably not. My intentions were good, but overly simplistic.
 
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