Revoked license.

[midlifeflyer]

This was interesting. Helpful and intuitive posts.
"Clip4" was the closest and we might have met recently.
Actually, the season for the revocation was flying between medical issuance.
I had re-applied for my 3rd class (SI) medical. I had an appointment so I had to fly to it.
Using a current sectional I proceeded to fly to the non-towered airport. When I got there
it was now a class D airport. (not shown on map as such)
Result, pilot licensed revoked for a year, then received the 3rd class medical from the FAA.
I was forthcoming to all of the instructors that I had encountered.

Wow! Not checking NOTAMs was the trigger and recent lack of current medical discovered during the investigation into the deviation? That sounds like very little to trigger a revocation rather than a short suspension. Especially if it happened since 2015 when the Compliance Program was born.

Even more to the point, neither sounds like the kind of thing that would concern me as a CFI. if you were forthcoming from the beginning, training you and taking your money with a refusal to sign you off at the end sounds pretty bad.

Then again, we are only hearing part of the story (and no, that's not a request for more).

 

[RyanShort1]

No, they were evasive or made nonsense excuses.

Not saying you're wrong, but there's usually two sides to a story. One individual, maybe, multiple, less likely. Are you 100% sure they'd agree with you?

I had a SI situation with a student pilot who was blind in one eye once and I worked with him for his SODA ride with the SAT FSDO. Somehow he passed with the FSDO examiner, but I would NOT have signed him off for a checkride. Despite that, his other instructor back in Maryland had ALREADY signed him off. He failed the first checkride on exactly what I told him he was weak on, passed the second checkride, and was dead about 6 months later. I don't regret helping him, but I feel like I was right about not wanting to sign him off without further effort. My personal opinion is that that the medical issue he was dealing with, as well as the lack of proficiency was a contributing factor to the crash, despite all his efforts.

Witnesses heard engine sputter before Orange plane crash that killed 2

The worker who refueled the craft at the Orange Airport said the engine sounded normal as the plane took off.

www.masslive.com

Joseph J. “Jay” Jaso Jr. dies at age 52

Joseph J. “Jay” Jaso Jr., an Ellicott City financial planner and adviser who realized a lifelong dream this year when he earned his pilot’s license, was killed Aug. 10 when a sing…

www.baltimoresun.com

It's sobering to see pictures of the seat you were in smashed to pieces. It certainly colors my sign-off decisions.

Cessna 172 crash in Massachusetts (N21363) | PlaneCrashMap.com

planecrashmap.com

Bird strike Accident Cessna 172M Skyhawk N21363, Tuesday 10 August 2010

After servicing the airplane with fuel, the pilots departed for the second leg of a cross-country flight. According to radar data and data from an on-board handheld GPS receiver, during t...

aviation-safety.net

 

[Groundpounder]

No, they were evasive or made nonsense excuses.

What were the "nonsense" excuses?

 

[A J Smith]

Just FYI, I had a commercial, instrument and multi with 400+ hours, good flying skills
according to a couple of CFIs that still wouldn't do a sign off.
So, thanks for the interesting posts. Bye!

 

[Salty]

I'm sure everyone is just out to get you.

 

[RyanShort1]

The system of relying on CFI integrity and judgment is really fascinating when you think about it. It certainly fails at times but it is still remarkable.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Way too many possibilities to even do a proper speculation.

That’s why I didn’t speculate. I guessed.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Just FYI, I had a commercial, instrument and multi with 400+ hours, good flying skills
according to a couple of CFIs that still wouldn't do a sign off.
So, thanks for the interesting posts. Bye!

“good flying skills” is a phrase used to sandwich what needs improvement between positive comments.

Commercial, instrument, and multi with 400+ hours means exactly nothing. I’ve seen one logbook where a far more experienced pilot needed 50+ hours of dual to get a flight review and IPC signed off. Based on what I saw, I’m quite sure the instructors weren’t milking him.

 

[mryan75]

I'm sure everyone is just out to get you.

Yeah this guy’s attitude makes it pretty obvious why none of the CFIs would sign him off. Looks like they made the right choice.

 

[Vance Breese]

Actually, the season for the revocation was flying between medical issuance.
I had re-applied for my 3rd class (SI) medical. I had an appointment so I had to fly to it.
Using a current sectional I proceeded to fly to the non-towered airport. When I got there
it was now a class D airport. (not shown on map as such)
Result, pilot licensed revoked for a year, then received the 3rd class medical from the FAA.
I was forthcoming to all of the instructors that I had encountered.

A J Smith may have some misconceptions on how and why someone gets endorsed for their practical test.

It is not unusual for someone to change flight instructors during their journey to become a certificated pilot.

It is my job as a CFI to actually see the learner fly to standards.

Saying I see in his log book that at one time he had the required skills does not work.

That is part of what the three hours of flight instruction is for before endorsing someone for their practical test.

I would place a special emphasis on flight planning and airport procedures.

I worked hard to have my endorsement mean something and I am naturally proactive of the value of that endorsement.

As a flight instructor if I have too many people fail their practical after I have endorsed them someone from the FAA will likely give me a call and I will have some explaining to do.

 

[midlifeflyer]

The system of relying on CFI integrity and judgment is really fascinating when you think about it. It certainly fails at times but it is still remarkable.

Heck, most of general aviation relies on pilot integrity and judgment

 

[dbahn]

Just FYI, I had a commercial, instrument and multi with 400+ hours, good flying skills
according to a couple of CFIs that still wouldn't do a sign off.
So, thanks for the interesting posts. Bye!

That just proves that a couple of CFIs know something that you don't.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Yeah this guy’s attitude makes it pretty obvious why none of the CFIs would sign him off. Looks like they made the right choice.

I dunno. Yeah, I hear how it comes across. But like we say, there are two sides to the story. Why assume his story is the wrong one? Assume his story is the real one: Certificate revoked. Comes to a flight school Discloses fully what happened. They take him in, charge him money, train him to checkride readiness. Then, they say, "oh, never mind. We've decided to never sign off on your checkride."

What would your attitude be at this point?

 

[Salty]

I dunno. Yeah, I hear how it comes across. But like we say, there are two sides to the story. Why assume his story is the wrong one? Assume his story is the real one: Certificate revoked. Comes to a flight school Discloses fully what happened. They take him in, charge him money, train him to checkride readiness. Then, they say, "oh, never mind. We've decided to never sign off on your checkride."

What would your attitude be at this point?

Do you really think that's what happened? Seems unlikely.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Do you really think that's what happened? Seems unlikely.

I don't know what really happened. Most likely? Somewhere between his stated best case and our imaginary worst case. As I mentioned earlier, the description of the reason for the revocation surprised me a bit.

 

[SebIp]

The story about revocation, are things that would have failed your check ride here in Canada.

I am not surprised he hasn't been able to find anyone to sign off. The whole story is full of hazardous attitudes

 

[Walboy]

I once had a gent come to me for a flight review and presented me with a letter he received from the FSDO advising, but not requiring, him to seek out additional instruction. The event that triggered the letter was landing at a Class D airport and then failing to get a taxi clearance. That's right, taxiing all around the airport with no clearance. He said he wasn't aware of the requirement. One ground session and one very short flight later, I advised this gent to start training from scratch. It was worse than awful. I advised him there was no way I would ever sign him off for a flight review and I had no interest in providing the instruction to get him back up to speed. This guy has no business sharing the NAS with anyone.

You bet I got paid for that too.

Maybe the CFIs in this case had a similar individual.

 

[RyanShort1]

I dunno. Yeah, I hear how it comes across. But like we say, there are two sides to the story. Why assume his story is the wrong one? Assume his story is the real one: Certificate revoked. Comes to a flight school Discloses fully what happened. They take him in, charge him money, train him to checkride readiness. Then, they say, "oh, never mind. We've decided to never sign off on your checkride."

What would your attitude be at this point?

I would be upset, but then the way he answered the questions reinforces the presumptions.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Then, they say, "oh, never mind. We've decided to never sign off on your checkride."

seems a far cry from “evasive or made nonsense excuses.”
but as you said,

Most likely? Somewhere between his stated best case and our imaginary worst case.

 

[midlifeflyer]

The story about revocation, are things that would have failed your check ride here in Canada.

Well sure, if I took a checkride and answered an examiner question by saying I would fly even though I was out of medical and never checked NOTAMS, I'd expect to fail the checkride. But if you are saying that Canada's revocations forever preclude reacquisition, that too bad. FAA revocations aren't intended to forever preclude reacquiring certificates. I've heard far worse revocation stories with successful checkrides after the waiting period. Including reacquired ATPs and type ratings which means multiple checkrides - at least private, commercial, instrument, and ATP.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I would be upset, but then the way he answered the questions reinforces the presumptions.

You'd be much milder than I would.

 

[SFDukie]

Not saying you're wrong, but there's usually two sides to a story. One individual, maybe, multiple, less likely. Are you 100% sure they'd agree with you?

I had a SI situation with a student pilot who was blind in one eye once and I worked with him for his SODA ride with the SAT FSDO. Somehow he passed with the FSDO examiner, but I would NOT have signed him off for a checkride. Despite that, his other instructor back in Maryland had ALREADY signed him off. He failed the first checkride on exactly what I told him he was weak on, passed the second checkride, and was dead about 6 months later. I don't regret helping him, but I feel like I was right about not wanting to sign him off without further effort. My personal opinion is that that the medical issue he was dealing with, as well as the lack of proficiency was a contributing factor to the crash, despite all his efforts.

Witnesses heard engine sputter before Orange plane crash that killed 2

The worker who refueled the craft at the Orange Airport said the engine sounded normal as the plane took off.

www.masslive.com

Joseph J. “Jay” Jaso Jr. dies at age 52

Joseph J. “Jay” Jaso Jr., an Ellicott City financial planner and adviser who realized a lifelong dream this year when he earned his pilot’s license, was killed Aug. 10 when a sing…

www.baltimoresun.com

It's sobering to see pictures of the seat you were in smashed to pieces. It certainly colors my sign-off decisions.

Cessna 172 crash in Massachusetts (N21363) | PlaneCrashMap.com

planecrashmap.com

Bird strike Accident Cessna 172M Skyhawk N21363, Tuesday 10 August 2010

After servicing the airplane with fuel, the pilots departed for the second leg of a cross-country flight. According to radar data and data from an on-board handheld GPS receiver, during t...

aviation-safety.net

Sobering, fits.
Thanks for your thoughtful instruction.

 

[Jeff Oslick]

I have a few good friends who are CFIs. First one who tells me it's time to hang it up, I'm going to follow their advice. The problem with hazardous attitudes is the one with the hazardous attitude will be the last to admit it.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I have a few good friends who are CFIs. First one who tells me it's time to hang it up, I'm going to follow their advice. The problem with hazardous attitudes is the one with the hazardous attitude will be the last to admit it.

The problem with hazardous attitudes is everybody has and displays them. You have to figure out how to combat your normal behaviors.

 

[schmookeeg]

I would be annoyed to fly with a current sectional and get caught by a "lol, jk, class d" situation. I've never seen that happen other than firefighting and TFRs.

I would be doubly annoyed if this surprise jack-in-the-tower then made a deviation out of it -- this seems like it called for grace given the current sectional, unless of course everyone in here reads every notam prior to every flight.

no opinion on the medical.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I would be annoyed to fly with a current sectional and get caught by a "lol, jk, class d" situation. I've never seen that happen other than firefighting.

thats why NOTAMs exist. And A/FDs.

I would be doubly annoyed if this surprise jack-in-the-tower then made a deviation out of it -- this seems like it called for grace given the current sectional, unless of course everyone in here reads every notam prior to every flight.

Most of the violations I’m familiar with are a culmination of several events, but the statement of violation is simply the most defensible one. The way I’m reading @Walboy ’s description is he taxied around the airport after finding out there was a tower.

 

[midlifeflyer]

would be annoyed to fly with a current sectional and get caught by a "lol, jk, class d" situation. I've never seen that happen other than firefighting and TFRs.

Less likely to happen now with Sectionals on a shorter cycle. Not to mention EFBs. But when they were only updated every 6 months plus prepublication deadlines, it was a little more common.

 

[schmookeeg]

The temp towers I'm familiar with would monitor the old unicom freq and sort of actively guide inbound planes to the new tower freq. Unless he was also NORDO I don't see how he ended up so deeply in the soup.

No matter, just idly curious about it. The story as-presented seems to be missing something to me.

 

[Vance Breese]

Less likely to happen now with Sectionals on a shorter cycle. Not to mention EFBs. But when they were only updated every 6 months plus prepublication deadlines, it was a little more common.

I thought the chart supplement was to keep information current.

 

[Dana]

I don't know what really happened. Most likely? Somewhere between his stated best case and our imaginary worst case. As I mentioned earlier, the description of the reason for the revocation surprised me a bit.

Right. Busting a delta and expired medical sound like grounds for a suspension or civil penalty, not a revocation, so I suspect there's more to the story than we've been told. Perhaps he copped an attitude at the "informal meeting" with the FAA, or refused to respond to the certified letter.

 

[flyingpreacher]

thats why NOTAMs exist. And A/FDs.

Most of the violations I’m familiar with are a culmination of several events, but the statement of violation is simply the most defensible one. The way I’m reading @Walboy ’s description is he taxied around the airport after finding out there was a tower.

I’m just trying to think through the “Swiss cheese scenario” where all the holes line up.

So, class E gets a new tower. Cool! Normally, you just keep the UNICOM and/or CTAF freq for the new tower, but in our area, several non-towered fields share a 122.7/122.8 resulting in New Class D getting a new frequency. So Pilot, in theory reading a current sectional, comes in and transmits on CTAF. Tower is on a new frequency that this sectional doesn’t indicate. Pilot lands and taxis off. “New Class D traffic, Bugsmasher 12345 is clear of the active, NCD.” Then he proceeds to taxi to FBO A.

Is this possible? Yes. Plausible? Marginally. Likely? No.

First of all, in a transitional period involving a new frequency, tower is likely to be monitoring and would probably reply, “Bugsmasher 12345, New Class D tower, please switch to my frequency, 123.75.”

Second, in all of the thing that DON’T make sense from a government agency, it is likely that NCD tower came on line in conjunction with the new sectional. Not a guarantee, because, again, government, but…

Then, assuming that this flight was in no way for hire, he has held a med cert after 2006, so could he have flown under basic med? If he HADN’T held one after 2006, then it calls into question a great many things: Current BFR? General rustiness? Lapse in IFR?

So long story short, is OP’s revocation reasoning and subsequent story within the realm of plausibility? Yes. But I would be very leery of signing off a guy for a checkride who displayed such open disregard for safety/medical standards, unless in his professed transparency, he said, “I was dumb. I learned from it, and I won’t do it again.”

If there is no repentance, then he is likely to continue being the poster child for invulnerability and anti-authority attitudes.

 

[Palmpilot]

I would be annoyed to fly with a current sectional and get caught by a "lol, jk, class d" situation. I've never seen that happen other than firefighting and TFRs.

I would be doubly annoyed if this surprise jack-in-the-tower then made a deviation out of it -- this seems like it called for grace given the current sectional, unless of course everyone in here reads every notam prior to every flight.

no opinion on the medical.

Makes me glad that I stopped resisting the Foreflight trend, which makes it easy to find the really important NOTAMs.

 

[MauleSkinner]

So, class E gets a new tower. Cool! Normally, you just keep the UNICOM and/or CTAF freq for the new tower, but in our area, several non-towered fields share a 122.7/122.8 resulting in New Class D getting a new frequency.

Keep in mind that the OP‘s revocation and the tower revocation mentioned are two different events.

But a control tower will always be a different frequency than a CTAF Or Unicom.

 

[Palmpilot]

I thought the chart supplement was to keep information current.

Those are on a 56-day cycle, so they wouldn't catch a tower that was commissioned between cycles.

 

[Half Fast]

But a control tower will always be a different frequency than a CTAF

????

I must not get your meaning.

All the D towers around here use CTAF. The frequency is tower frequency during tower operating hours and it becomes CTAF when the tower is closed.

 

[MauleSkinner]

????

I must not get your meaning.

All the D towers around here use CTAF. The frequency is tower frequency during tower operating hours and it becomes CTAF when the tower is closed.

No, Tower doesn’t use a CTAF frequency (122.8, 122.7, etc.) CTAF uses the tower frequency.

If a tower is put in at a previously CTAF airport, the frequency will change.

 

[dmspilot]

Keep in mind that the OP‘s revocation and the tower revocation mentioned are two different events.

He got his pilot certificate revoked twice?

 

[MauleSkinner]

He got his pilot certificate revoked twice?

My bad…I didn’t realize @Walboy worked with @A J Smith .

 

[dmspilot]

My bad…I didn’t realize @Walboy worked with @A J Smith .

The pilot in Walboy's story didn't have a revocation, but an advisory letter recommending additional training.

 

[Walboy]

My bad…I didn’t realize @Walboy worked with @A J Smith .

I didn't. The gent I dealt with was completely different person and circumstances. I only mentioned the event because he is an example of someone who received instruction that no sane CFI would endorse for anything.

Had there been follow up interaction between this guy and the FSDO, my guess is it could have resulted in a 709 ride for me had I signed off on a flight review. No one will touch him.

Behind my back, he tells a different story but that's ok.