The FAA knows no limit to their pettiness

[Narwhal]

The irony of conveying this message on the internet is not lost on me, but:

In aviation, especially if you pursue it as a career, it pays to stay off the internet. Yes, you may gain some level of notoriety or fame by publicizing your aviation exploits. However, the second you trip up, the circling virtual vultures will descend to finish you off. They will take pleasure in it. It's not unlike the larger doxing/cancel culture so prevalent today. One inconsequential slip up erases decades of accomplishment.

 

[RyanShort1]

(d) Inability to work constructively with the FAA (for example, exhibit a cooperative attitude, etc.)

Based on three different situations and various conversations, it is my personal opinion that this was interpreted as broadly as possibly down in San Antonio with regards to the DPE that signed my initial checkride off, and also the DPE that signed off my instrument, and based on that article, now Ken, who I would say gave me some really good advice over the years, was NOT one of the "easy" examiners, and actually has held high standards for the pilots he flies with. There were also reasons to believe (including a checkride profile deal that I saw and heard discussed, and several conversations) that the DPE's were under some pressure to help the Redbird Sim folks "prove" the sim stuff while those of us sending students Part 61 were likely to have harder checkrides... and when they weren't cooperative enough, that became a problem.

When I was down in Ken's territory he was as cautions as they came, didn't take risks with tailwheel, and was a pretty good model for actually working WITH the FAA.

Regarding waterskiing - I've never done it, I'm not suggesting anyone do, but in the hands of a many-thousand hour tailwheel / bush pilot that works with people in Alaska regularly, I'm sure it "could" be interpreted as "careless and reckless" by some FAA guy at a desk, but OTOH, it might not actually be for SOME experienced pilots... meanwhile other things go uninvestigated.

The irony of conveying this message on the internet is not lost on me, but:

In aviation, especially if you pursue it as a career, it pays to stay off the internet. Yes, you may gain some level of notoriety or fame by publicizing your aviation exploits. However, the second you trip up, the circling virtual vultures will descend to finish you off. They will take pleasure in it. It's not unlike the larger doxing/cancel culture so prevalent today. One inconsequential slip up erases decades of accomplishment.

At what point is this actually a problem though? We shouldn't always have to hide? So you ground-looped? Did you learn from it? Did it hurt your wallet? Why does the FAA need to punish you more if it was just an accident? Should the 709 be intimidating and potentially career ending, or should it actually be as objective as possible? Why can't pilots enjoy sharing their experiences with others without being cancelled if they make a mistake?

 

[Narwhal]

At what point is this actually a problem though? We shouldn't always have to hide? So you ground-looped? Did you learn from it? Did it hurt your wallet? Why does the FAA need to punish you more if it was just an accident? Should the 709 be intimidating and potentially career ending, or should it actually be as objective as possible? Why can't pilots enjoy sharing their experiences with others without being cancelled if they make a mistake?

From the FAA:
"Our continuing mission is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world."

The safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world is one that doesn't include general aviation, statistically. The FAA has no mandate to encourage GA. It would benefit them to abolish it. If you understand this, their actions make sense. The combined forces of insurance and government are slowly working toward this (and guess who the 2nd largest contributor to goverment corru....whoops, I mean "lobbying" as an industry is, behind only pharma.). They would be happy to hold pt 91 operators to 135 or 121 standards. That is what has been happening through insurance - ever try to rent a plane from a flight school/FBO only to find a requirement for quarterly "checkouts" with their CFI, regardless of currency? That's an even higher standard than 121.

But it's not only the FAA and insurance working against you. Remember Premier 1 driver? Any rando can try to get you nailed for the most petty garbage when they know who you are.

 

[Palmpilot]

If GA went away, where would pilots get the hours and skills needed to qualify for airline flying? I'm under the impression that the military can't supply them in sufficient numbers by themselves (at least before the pandemic hit).

 

[Narwhal]

If GA went away, where would pilots get the hours and skills needed to qualify for airline flying? I'm under the impression that the military can't supply them in sufficient numbers by themselves (at least before the pandemic hit).

European style cadet academies. Still technically GA, but tightly regulated like a 141 school on steroids. This was already starting in the USA before covid.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

European style cadet academies. Still technically GA, but tightly regulated like a 141 school on steroids. This was already starting in the USA before covid.

Indeed. It also produces terrible aviators.

 

[Palmpilot]

European style cadet academies. Still technically GA, but tightly regulated like a 141 school on steroids. This was already starting in the USA before covid.

You said it would benefit the FAA to "abolish" GA. While GA is not as robust in Europe as it is here, it has not been abolished, and it's hard to see how the European academies could realistically function without GA airports at which to train.

Are these academies providing their students with the 1500 hours of experience that are required here?

 

[Katamarino]

Are these academies providing their students with the 1500 hours of experience that are required here?

No, there isn't a 1500 hour requirement. But they do push out some pretty snooty 200 hour wonders who think they're God's gift to aviation and have always flown their 172s while wearing full uniform.

 

[denverpilot]

As usual you rant but do not read. If you where to actually read the existing FAA enforcement guidance you would find there already is, and has been, a published list of infractions and their associated penalties, both time and money based. X, Y, and Z. All laid out by law and regulation which are public record. No agenda or secrets. And since it's obvious you have zero or very limited personal experience in actual FAA enforcement actions, it may shock you to know that a lot, if not the majority of those violations are handled quietly, without attorneys, or other issues... just like your motor vehicle examples. It is what it is. But if you choose not to educate yourself on those established facts or provide alternate specific examples to your points, well, as I've told you in the past, I can't help you any further.

And just to keep things on topic, when it comes to FAA designees as with the DPE from the OP, they do not enjoy the same protections as regular aviators as they fall under a completely different set of laws and rules.

As to your continued use of the term "hobbyist", how do you define that that term in an aviation sense? To me, at best, an aviation hobbyist may include people who fly E/ABs, Part 103 or small drones. Then again I don't of know too many hobbies that require a federal certificate and a medical to enjoy.

I read just fine but thanks for the condescension. I even had to put it in one of 10-20 FAA websites that someone tested me for that.. LOL.

The answer above IS the problem. If you don’t have a simple— less than five page — summary document with a table stating what happens to 90% of hobby aviators who break a rule by accident and what their exact expectations should be... just say so.

“Can’t you read? It’s an enormous document on one of twelve to twenty separate websites — but we’re awesome, we follow it to the letter!”

Nobody cares. It’s way too complex for a hobby. They have to hire a lawyer. Only FAA dweebs, CFIs, and the occasional internet aviation nerd reads that crap. Let alone hunts Google to find it.

(You know how many websites I need for my radio hobby? One. FCC.gov. It’s all there. You know how many for even the most obscure tax question? One. IRS.gov. Even much more complex agencies have figured THAT out by now.)

Like I said. I couldn’t have cared less about this thread or the DPE thing. That’s employee relations. None of my business.

What got me to say anything was this condescending typical attitude of “Oh it’s all in a document on a website somewhere and we’re awesome because we follow that document to the T.”

Never said they didn’t. Tried to give an example of why the average Joe or Jane absolutely loathes dealing with the agency on any topic BEcAuSe of that.

You guys asked. I answered.

If the response is “What can’t you reeeeeeeead?” and I have to use Google to even find which web server it’s on, let alone the document — well, there’s the best possible example I could ever give.

The complexity level of even just the public web server strategy, for a hobby, is waaaaaay too high.

(By the way, have you heard of our Lord and Savior, IACRA? I hear it’s the Website to Rule Them All, someday. The instructions are only larger than most high school textbooks because the user interface is so bad...)

Anyway... thanks for making the point and even tossing in insults and attitude. Like someone said, it indicates a cultural problem.

As far as the question about what is a hobbyist?

Gosh, let me suggest you read a 200 page document on the definition of a hobbyist, or you truly just won’t get it. I’ll send you a vague numerical document title. Go fish. LOL.

You know what a hobbyist operating a motor vehicle is — just from a lifetime of knowing what it is in your personal car.

That actually WAS the example I used.

How much clearer can this concept be? Not hobbyist friendly.

As far as web strategy goes... What modem organization even ALLOWS departments to have their own web servers and no single website strategy in 2020?

We allow two maximum. A public site and a customer site. That’s it. Billing and Ops and Security and such don’t get to publish their own.

The response was truly ridiculous, but at least it highlighted the problem.

If the real world is that 90% don’t have any significant enforcement action taken, and the average fine is $250 or less, then just SAY SO in writing as a summary right on the front page of the Enforcement section of a single cohesive website. This stuff isn’t that hard.

You know what’s on the front page of our customer website? A privacy policy explaining exactly where your data goes in plain English. You know why it’s there? Some nobody on Twitter complained he couldn’t find it on the second page of the site. We responded by moving it in less than five minutes because, he was a nobody, but he was right. That one is important enough it belongs on the front page.

I mention that because most modern sites are at least close to that responsive. A week tops.

FAA could have that summary page up by when, maybe 2026? LOL. Nah. I’m thinking 2030 before they even have a single cohesive website... hahaha.

Ugh. It’s so bad it probably can’t be fixed without burning every web server to the ground and starting over.

Just for fun I tried a modern web thing. Where would YOU go on any other company website if they sold and published books to find their books...?

books.FAA.gov sounds like a good idea...

Bzzzzt. Nope. So much for thinking 15 year old web design might work. Hahaha.

Oh. Of course. They’re under “Regulstions and Policies” because “Physics for Naval Aviators” belongs under that. Hahaha.

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/

They even got the title of a book published in 1965 wrong. Super freakin’ job.

“Aeronautical Chart User’s Guide certainly belongs under “Regulations and Policies” too, of course.

You know what I don’t see there? The much touted Policies about enforcement. Huh.

Hey wait, here’s an easy one. Where’s the AIM and why isn’t it here?

Oh of course. It’s over under “Air Traffic Plans and Publications”.

Sure, why not? Makes total sense.

Advisory Circulars? Oh of course. Under “Airports”. Then “Resources” then the vague “ACs, Forms and Other Publications”. Because you know, there must have been a limit on either characters in the folder field so it had to be shortened to “ACs” (not to be confused with the ACS!) or a limit on links so those three things couldn’t be separated.

https://www.faa.gov/airports/resources/publications/

But wait. That’s actually the correct location because those are “Series 150 ACs” like anybody knows what that means. The actual airport building ones. Huh. So where are the ones pilots need to read...?

Ahh back in that Regulations and Policies area.

Here’s a fun one. This is the ENTIRE page dedicated to what a pilot should know about the AeroMed process.

No mention of disqualifiers. No mention of NOT applying if one might desire to go BasicMed. No mention of absolutely anything.

Notice that BasicMed isn’t listed at all up one level under “Medical”?

Hey for fun I followed the navigation to something that looked relevant to the thread.

Looks promising right? Let’s click on that “Designee Management Handbook” link.

261 pages. Ahh a little light reading for insomnia. LOL.

Let’s see. I thought I’d check and see if that statistic about enforcement actions or even how many there are might be under here... “Data and Research”.

https://www.faa.gov/data_research/

Nooooooope. Guess we know where they can put it when they write it. Not that anyone will actually be able to find it without a Google search.

What an absolute cluster**** that website is.

 

[Salty]

I read just fine but thanks for the condescension. I even had to put it in one of 10-20 FAA websites that someone tested me for that.. LOL.

The answer above IS the problem. If you don’t have a simple— less than five page — summary document with a table stating what happens to 90% of hobby aviators who break a rule by accident and what their exact expectations should be... just say so.

“Can’t you read? It’s an enormous document on one of twelve to twenty separate websites — but we’re awesome, we follow it to the letter!”

Nobody cares. It’s way too complex for a hobby. They have to hire a lawyer. Only FAA dweebs, CFIs, and the occasional internet aviation nerd reads that crap. Let alone hunts Google to find it.

(You know how many websites I need for my radio hobby? One. FCC.gov. It’s all there. You know how many for even the most obscure tax question? One. IRS.gov. Even much more complex agencies have figured THAT out by now.)

Like I said. I couldn’t have cared less about this thread or the DPE thing. That’s employee relations. None of my business.

What got me to say anything was this condescending typical attitude of “Oh it’s all in a document on a website somewhere and we’re awesome because we follow that document to the T.”

Never said they didn’t. Tried to give an example of why the average Joe or Jane absolutely loathes dealing with the agency on any topic BEcAuSe of that.

You guys asked. I answered.

If the response is “What can’t you reeeeeeeead?” and I have to use Google to even find which web server it’s on, let alone the document — well, there’s the best possible example I could ever give.

The complexity level of even just the public web server strategy, for a hobby, is waaaaaay too high.

(By the way, have you heard of our Lord and Savior, IACRA? I hear it’s the Website to Rule Them All, someday. The instructions are only larger than most high school textbooks because the user interface is so bad...)

Anyway... thanks for making the point and even tossing in insults and attitude. Like someone said, it indicates a cultural problem.

As far as the question about what is a hobbyist?

Gosh, let me suggest you read a 200 page document on the definition of a hobbyist, or you truly just won’t get it. I’ll send you a vague numerical document title. Go fish. LOL.

You know what a hobbyist operating a motor vehicle is — just from a lifetime of knowing what it is in your personal car.

That actually WAS the example I used.

How much clearer can this concept be? Not hobbyist friendly.

As far as web strategy goes... What modem organization even ALLOWS departments to have their own web servers and no single website strategy in 2020?

We allow two maximum. A public site and a customer site. That’s it. Billing and Ops and Security and such don’t get to publish their own.

The response was truly ridiculous, but at least it highlighted the problem.

If the real world is that 90% don’t have any significant enforcement action taken, and the average fine is $250 or less, then just SAY SO in writing as a summary right on the front page of the Enforcement section of a single cohesive website. This stuff isn’t that hard.

You know what’s on the front page of our customer website? A privacy policy explaining exactly where your data goes in plain English. You know why it’s there? Some nobody on Twitter complained he couldn’t find it on the second page of the site. We responded by moving it in less than five minutes because, he was a nobody, but he was right. That one is important enough it belongs on the front page.

I mention that because most modern sites are at least close to that responsive. A week tops.

FAA could have that summary page up by when, maybe 2026? LOL. Nah. I’m thinking 2030 before they even have a single cohesive website... hahaha.

Ugh. It’s so bad it probably can’t be fixed without burning every web server to the ground and starting over.

Just for fun I tried a modern web thing. Where would YOU go on any other company website if they sold and published books to find their books...?

books.FAA.gov sounds like a good idea...

Bzzzzt. Nope. So much for thinking 15 year old web design might work. Hahaha.

Oh. Of course. They’re under “Regulstions and Policies” because “Physics for Naval Aviators” belongs under that. Hahaha.

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/

They even got the title of a book published in 1965 wrong. Super freakin’ job.

“Aeronautical Chart User’s Guide certainly belongs under “Regulations and Policies” too, of course.

You know what I don’t see there? The much touted Policies about enforcement. Huh.

Hey wait, here’s an easy one. Where’s the AIM and why isn’t it here?

Oh of course. It’s over under “Air Traffic Plans and Publications”.

Sure, why not? Makes total sense.

Advisory Circulars? Oh of course. Under “Airports”. Then “Resources” then the vague “ACs, Forms and Other Publications”. Because you know, there must have been a limit on either characters in the folder field so it had to be shortened to “ACs” (not to be confused with the ACS!) or a limit on links so those three things couldn’t be separated.

https://www.faa.gov/airports/resources/publications/

But wait. That’s actually the correct location because those are “Series 150 ACs” like anybody knows what that means. The actual airport building ones. Huh. So where are the ones pilots need to read...?

Ahh back in that Regulations and Policies area.

Here’s a fun one. This is the ENTIRE page dedicated to what a pilot should know about the AeroMed process.

No mention of disqualifiers. No mention of NOT applying if one might desire to go BasicMed. No mention of absolutely anything.

Notice that BasicMed isn’t listed at all up one level under “Medical”?

Hey for fun I followed the navigation to something that looked relevant to the thread.

Looks promising right? Let’s click on that “Designee Management Handbook” link.

261 pages. Ahh a little light reading for insomnia. LOL.

Let’s see. I thought I’d check and see if that statistic about enforcement actions or even how many there are might be under here... “Data and Research”.

https://www.faa.gov/data_research/

Nooooooope. Guess we know where they can put it when they write it. Not that anyone will actually be able to find it without a Google search.

What an absolute cluster**** that website is.

You skipped the low hanging fruit: iacra

 

[RyanShort1]

From the FAA:
"Our continuing mission is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world."

The safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world is one that doesn't include general aviation, statistically. The FAA has no mandate to encourage GA. It would benefit them to abolish it. If you understand this, their actions make sense. The combined forces of insurance and government are slowly working toward this (and guess who the 2nd largest contributor to goverment corru....whoops, I mean "lobbying" as an industry is, behind only pharma.). They would be happy to hold pt 91 operators to 135 or 121 standards. That is what has been happening through insurance - ever try to rent a plane from a flight school/FBO only to find a requirement for quarterly "checkouts" with their CFI, regardless of currency? That's an even higher standard than 121.

But it's not only the FAA and insurance working against you. Remember Premier 1 driver? Any rando can try to get you nailed for the most petty garbage when they know who you are.

We need to work together against this fascist attitude supporting big biz over and against private individuals and small biz. Everyone should have a place at the table.

 

[MauleSkinner]

We need to work together against this fascist attitude supporting big biz over and against private individuals and small biz. Everyone should have a place at the table.

Too late. COVID got the small biz. It’s all Amazon now.

 

[Doc Holliday]

From the FAA:
"Our continuing mission is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world."

The safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world is one that doesn't include general aviation, statistically. The FAA has no mandate to encourage GA. It would benefit them to abolish it. If you understand this, their actions make sense. The combined forces of insurance and government are slowly working toward this (and guess who the 2nd largest contributor to goverment corru....whoops, I mean "lobbying" as an industry is, behind only pharma.). They would be happy to hold pt 91 operators to 135 or 121 standards. That is what has been happening through insurance - ever try to rent a plane from a flight school/FBO only to find a requirement for quarterly "checkouts" with their CFI, regardless of currency? That's an even higher standard than 121.

But it's not only the FAA and insurance working against you. Remember Premier 1 driver? Any rando can try to get you nailed for the most petty garbage when they know who you are.

 

[Lindberg]

Seems to be a lot of that going around lately.

 

[wsuffa]

We need to work together against this fascist attitude supporting big biz over and against private individuals and small biz. Everyone should have a place at the table.

Yabut in a regulated society it is far easier to regulate a few larger entities than a lot of small ones. And better for the environment, too (just one of several reasons why mass transit is pushed and funded and personal transportation is frowned on). Politics are involved, too, but I won't go there other than to mention it in passing.

 

[Lowflynjack]

In aviation, especially if you pursue it as a career, it pays to stay off the internet. Yes, you may gain some level of notoriety or fame by publicizing your aviation exploits. However, the second you trip up, the circling virtual vultures will descend to finish you off. They will take pleasure in it. It's not unlike the larger doxing/cancel culture so prevalent today. One inconsequential slip up erases decades of accomplishment.

If not for the internet, I wouldn't be doing aviation photography. I got most of my jobs through the internet. However, when speaking with an FAA employee the other day, he asked me, "Aren't you the photography guy?" I have to admit, I don't like being on their radar at all, even though I'm doing nothing wrong!

 

[Tarheelpilot]

Seems to be a lot of that going around lately.

Seems like a lot of it is closer to the truth than ever before which is really disconcerting.

 

[Bell206]

It’s an enormous document

Ha. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. And what exactly are we to get from your normal, succinct… enormous 3 volume reply above? Perhaps you can also provide a summary document with your posts as well?

As to using faa.gov maybe you’re just over qualified to use it? With the pertinent documents referenced above (2150.3), 2 clicks, a review of the TOC (summary) brings you to Ch 9 Legal Enforcement Action Sanction Policy. All 19 pages. Took maybe 3 minutes tops from faa.gov. You now have all the information you want on enforcement actions to include the legal references, background, and how it works. But if those 19 pages are still too much information for you to handle, just peruse the Ch 9 tables for the specifics on cost and/or time for each violation. Simple. Matter of fact it probably took you more time to format your reply than to read all 19 pages in Ch 9.

If you didn’t have the document number then the search process from faa.gov adds 2 or 3 more entries/clicks to get to the same 2150.3, adding perhaps several minutes more depending on your skill set. And considering all the information an owner, operator, pilot, or mechanic needs can be found/accessed from the faa.gov home page, I don’t quite follow why you struggled so much to find and read the sanction tables in 2150.3… especially with your IT skill sets. Unless it didn’t fit your narrative to want to read them…

 

[Witmo]

From the FAA:
"Our continuing mission is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world."

The safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world is one that doesn't include general aviation, statistically. The FAA has no mandate to encourage GA. It would benefit them to abolish it. If you understand this, their actions make sense. The combined forces of insurance and government are slowly working toward this (and guess who the 2nd largest contributor to goverment corru....whoops, I mean "lobbying" as an industry is, behind only pharma.). They would be happy to hold pt 91 operators to 135 or 121 standards. That is what has been happening through insurance - ever try to rent a plane from a flight school/FBO only to find a requirement for quarterly "checkouts" with their CFI, regardless of currency? That's an even higher standard than 121.

But it's not only the FAA and insurance working against you. Remember Premier 1 driver? Any rando can try to get you nailed for the most petty garbage when they know who you are.

Your post reminds me of something I've heard discussed when I was active duty air force. Aeroclubs were once common at Air Force bases and they were an economical way to earn a pilot certificate and engage in aviation for the many airmen and family who weren't privileged to be Air Force pilots in their day job. Many enlisted and non-rated commissioned officers earned advanced ratings and went on to careers at the airlines at the conclusion of their service. USAF aeroclubs are a rare commodity today. Base commanders and senior leadership see aeroclubs as a liability to their careers. You don't get promoted to General if somebody has an accident in the aeroclub on your base so what's the upside to having them? Morale? Visit the bowling alley or gym, is the prevailing attitude. It's really sad that the Air Force cannot see the value of promoting flying for flying's sake because risk avoidance is considered easier than risk mitigation and any accident reflects negatively on a commander regardless of culpability.

 

[ahw01]

Indeed. It also produces terrible aviators.

They train at US academies

 

[Palmpilot]

BasicMed came about because they WOULDN’T change behavior to be reasonable to hobbyists, not because they COULDN’T under their original Congressional mandate.

The way I heard it, the FAA had a proposal in the works, but it was stonewalled by DOT.

 

[denverpilot]

Ha. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. And what exactly are we to get from your normal, succinct… enormous 3 volume reply above? Perhaps you can also provide a summary document with your posts as well?

As to using faa.gov maybe you’re just over qualified to use it? With the pertinent documents referenced above (2150.3), 2 clicks, a review of the TOC (summary) brings you to Ch 9 Legal Enforcement Action Sanction Policy. All 19 pages. Took maybe 3 minutes tops from faa.gov. You now have all the information you want on enforcement actions to include the legal references, background, and how it works. But if those 19 pages are still too much information for you to handle, just peruse the Ch 9 tables for the specifics on cost and/or time for each violation. Simple. Matter of fact it probably took you more time to format your reply than to read all 19 pages in Ch 9.

If you didn’t have the document number then the search process from faa.gov adds 2 or 3 more entries/clicks to get to the same 2150.3, adding perhaps several minutes more depending on your skill set. And considering all the information an owner, operator, pilot, or mechanic needs can be found/accessed from the faa.gov home page, I don’t quite follow why you struggled so much to find and read the sanction tables in 2150.3… especially with your IT skill sets. Unless it didn’t fit your narrative to want to read them…

As far as my length of posts. Covered before here. You’re here for a discussion and of your own accord, and I don’t work for you. If I did, I’d happily write you summaries or whatever you like.

Of course once again you resort to insults and missed the point. Hint: Were any of those documents filed under sections that made any sense? Took me what, ten minutes to find and screenshot them?

Is there anyone at FAA who can create a useable, single, website?

Thanks again for the confirmation that the attitude is always “But it’s right there in the document. I only had to read 19 pages into it!”

LOL. That’s why I posted it with the rest Avs said “hey look, there it is...” Figured anybody who cared about this DPE thing — I still don’t — could read it and still not have enough information.

Meanwhile the whooshing sound of the point of how bad that website and ALL of the MULTITUDE of FAA websites went screaming over your head in full afterburner.

And you tossed insults again in an online discussion. I haven’t.

(Well unless you’re the curator of the FAA websites. If you are you definitely deserve any insulting things I or anyone else has said about them.)

Ever try to search items in the Wings website? A retarded chinchilla could code a better user interface.

Still missing the point. I suspect on purpose now. Not user friendly and way too complex for hobbyists — and a massive waste of time (without Google) for even a professional in the biz.

“It’s out in the shed somewhere. Go fish.” Thats still all you’ve got. Send the link to the five page doc.

 

[hindsight2020]

Your post reminds me of something I've heard discussed when I was active duty air force. Aeroclubs were once common at Air Force bases and they were an economical way to earn a pilot certificate and engage in aviation for the many airmen and family who weren't privileged to be Air Force pilots in their day job. Many enlisted and non-rated commissioned officers earned advanced ratings and went on to careers at the airlines at the conclusion of their service. USAF aeroclubs are a rare commodity today. Base commanders and senior leadership see aeroclubs as a liability to their careers. You don't get promoted to General if somebody has an accident in the aeroclub on your base so what's the upside to having them? Morale? Visit the bowling alley or gym, is the prevailing attitude. It's really sad that the Air Force cannot see the value of promoting flying for flying's sake because risk avoidance is considered easier than risk mitigation and any accident reflects negatively on a commander regardless of culpability.

Indeed, but it was also more than that. It was a power play between the aeroclubs and the pedestrian agencies on base that compete for the installation monies. When the IFT construct was alive, it was a cash cow and nobody complained on base, especially since the operation ran a surplus, one which the pedestrian agencies took advantage of. The second the IFT construct went away, boom, it became blasphemy for the housewives and Karens on the residential side of the installation to have some "glider club or whatever" siphon away money on an overhaul or insurance cost, since rentals by the mid 00s were objectively not enough to sustain the operation, post IFT money.

The other element that couldn't be blamed on the dependas, was the interest in flying on-base was simply not there anymore compared to IFT, on a cost basis. By the mid 00s the proposition of cost for a PPL had simply turned upside down, good bad or indifferent. The rules of dealing with light aircraft around PL 1 or 2 assets became more squeeze than juice was worth for the installation CCs, and at that point getting your flying off base was more convenient. There was no subsidy to be had. In fairness to the off-base civilians, if you need an AF subsidy to foment your personal interest in flying?....Don't answer that I'm merely being rhetorical. Bottom line, the cost proposition was simply no longer there compared to the "golden days" of the Cold War.

The fact remains the AF working population's lack of interest in flying is no different than the FAA's or any other govt behemoth. Most support personnel would be functionally indifferent if they were supporting printer cartridge production the next day. The mil-ind complex is a jobs program; I've never had any expectation people would be emotionally invested in what we do. Is there contempt for us 1%ers in flying Ops as a result? Sure, but that's just a Tuesday around here. Would I be in the AF if I wasn't a pilot? For me, hell naw, I'd be some medical professional stacking coin and flying competitive aerobatics as a hobbyist on my days off. So I'm not gonna cast stones from my glass house. BL, the AF has zero problem recruiting officer candidates from off the street to fly their F-22s, since most arithmetically aren't needed, myself included.

I say all this after trying to push for and reopen an aeroclub in my O-2/early O-3 days, so I have the receipts on how that entire multi-year process fizzled at the Wing/CC level despite all our volunteered time and effort. Admittedly, I did learn a lot about the non-flying side of installation funding. As such, I became a lot less indignant to see why the aeroclub was a pipedream, once I understood the politics of the majoritarian, "pedestrian" AF. I hear ya on the recruitment spiel, but numerically it's just isn't a tractable argument. People were simply using it as a cheaper way of getting a PPL vice outside base, especially since GI Bill doesn't cover the PPL for your aforementioned retiring veterans with an eye on that regional RJ. Once that cost paradigm vanished, so did that interest, which demonstrates it was always rather transactional. Don't shoot the messenger.

On a personal level as an aircraft owner, I want nothing to do with conflating my recreational flying with the quicksand that is .mil ops and installations. I am profoundly glad I went all the way to CFII before I touched a .mil plane. The DOD flying would have cured me from flying outright if it had been my initial exposure to aviation. YMMV and all that jazz, I'm just relating my n=1 anecdote. Cheers!

 

[Palmpilot]

As to your continued use of the term "hobbyist", how do you define that that term in an aviation sense? To me, at best, an aviation hobbyist may include people who fly E/ABs, Part 103 or small drones. Then again I don't of know too many hobbies that require a federal certificate and a medical to enjoy.

I don't know how Nate defines it, but it seems to me that a hobbyist pilot would be one who flies without getting paid, and does so for recreation. I would not view the regulatory classification of the aircraft as making a difference in that. For example, if someone gets paid to fly a small drone, that would not be a hobby activity. Some movie stars, on the other hand, have flown types of aircraft that are commonly flown commercially without getting paid for it, which would probably qualify as a hobby activity.

 

[Van Johnston]

@hindsight2020

IFT?

 

[Tarheelpilot]

They train at US academies

I know. They still suck and have no business in an airliner.

 

[hindsight2020]

@hindsight2020

IFT?

My apologies with respect to military slang, it's a function of habit. That stands for initial Flight Training. It was essentially a program designed to have the Air Force give a pre upt pilot candidate reimbursement for the first 25 to 50 hours for the completion of a PPL. Given the poor bargain shopper that is the government, part 61 outfits were making out like Bandits, Aero clubs included.

Like every gold rush economics dynamic, ifs which stands for initial flight screening, supplanted ift and with it the well ran dry. The rest is history.

 

[ahw01]

I know. They still suck and have no business in an airliner.

Thanks. Thats really useful.

 

[Bell206]

Of course once again you resort to insults

And you tossed insults again in an online discussion.

Again? Well I read my posts over again and don't see what the issue is. If how I express myself gets to you then it is what it is and we'll leave it at that.

Were any of those documents filed under sections that made any sense?

Yes, like searching for "enforcement"......

Is there anyone at FAA who can create a useable, single, website?

Curious. What would you do to make the FAA home page more user friendly?

 

[Tarheelpilot]

Thanks. Thats really useful.

You are welcome. I’m glad to be of service.

 

[Bell206]

but it seems to me that a hobbyist pilot would be one who flies without getting paid,

I had never heard the hobbyist term used within aviation till here. But to me, getting paid or not isn't a qualifier for something being a hobby as quite a few of my friends earn money through their hobbies. While it may still be done for recreation, so long as there are additional federal conditions, limitations, and knowledge requirements put on that recreational activity it becomes a step up from a hobby as compared to Part 103 or E/AB which have minimal conditions, limitations, or knowledge requirements, i.e., more a hobby. But to each their own.

 

[denverpilot]

The way I heard it, the FAA had a proposal in the works, but it was stonewalled by DOT.

Perhaps. Change “FAA” to “government” then?

Who cares? My “contact point” as a customer is FAA. I really don’t care about squabbles with their bosses. If FAA can’t deliver, they can’t deliver.

The results speak for themselves.

The served don’t really care why it’s dysfunctional.

The first question out of my customer’s mouth if I said two departments fought and killed something they needed would be, “So what are you implementing to make sure that never happens again?”

There’s really no fix for it. But they asked why we dislike or mistrust it all, so we responded.

Add “useless Departmental infighting and the blame game” to the list of things customers hate everywhere. My customers won’t put up with it.

 

[Palmpilot]

I had never heard the hobbyist term used within aviation till here. But to me, getting paid or not isn't a qualifier for something being a hobby as quite a few of my friends earn money through their hobbies. While it may still be done for recreation, so long as there are additional federal conditions, limitations, and knowledge requirements put on that recreational activity it becomes a step up from a hobby as compared to Part 103 or E/AB which have minimal conditions, limitations, or knowledge requirements, i.e., more a hobby. But to each their own.

I don't feel any need to make up my own definitions of words. From the Merriam-Webster site:

Definition of hobby

: a pursuit outside one's regular occupation engaged in especially for relaxation​

 

[Clip4]

Over the years the FAA has yanked quite a few DPE appointments. I have yet to read one fired DPE say they deserved ir. Many times the FAA doesn’t provide an explanation nor are they required to. The DPE revocations kinda fall into 6 areas.

Unsafe operation practices, FAR violation, Pattern of failing to properly submit required reports or incorrect reports, getting into disagreements with FAA inspectors, becoming a writer for a aviation publication, bad mouthing the FAA.

 

[Bell206]

I don't feel any need to make up my own definitions of words.

And people wonder why the "hobby" side of GA is dying on the vine. Perception is everything. But it will be interesting when the day comes that a drone operator has more clout, more airspace access, and more new equipment than a GA hobbyist...... As the rotor turns.

 

[Van Johnston]

My apologies with respect to military slang, it's a function of habit. That stands for initial Flight Training. It was essentially a program designed to have the Air Force give a pre upt pilot candidate reimbursement for the first 25 to 50 hours for the completion of a PPL. Given the poor bargain shopper that is the government, part 61 outfits were making out like Bandits, Aero clubs included.

Like every gold rush economics dynamic, ifs which stands for initial flight screening, supplanted ift and with it the well ran dry. The rest is history.

Thanks. I am retired Air Force, and a product of the flying clubs, and I can usually keep up with you, but I think that acronym was after my time.

 

[denverpilot]

Over the years the FAA has yanked quite a few DPE appointments. I have yet to read one fired DPE say they deserved ir. Many times the FAA doesn’t provide an explanation nor are they required to. The DPE revocations kinda fall into 6 areas.

Unsafe operation practices, FAR violation, Pattern of failing to properly submit required reports or incorrect reports, getting into disagreements with FAA inspectors, becoming a writer for a aviation publication, bad mouthing the FAA.

Interesting list.

There’s at least two people here who say half of those aren’t allowed by their “Orders” and procedures and can never happen.

Still don’t care how they treat pseudo-staff, but it’s funny. Pseudo-staff knows what they’re getting into on the way in... pretty much like any other private sector job. Fired at will.

I am glad I’ve only ever been involved once in gathering IT data to put on a firing form to make it legal though. Apparently, “caught jerking off in a trash can by a female co-worker” wasn’t what they wanted to type into the official form. LOL!

The browser history and network traffic logs took care of it.

Most firing documentation has facts that are worthy of a firing, but often it’s not the true reason for the firing. Really common.

Which is why I never believe anyone who says all firings are documented and justified by some behavior list.

Yeah buddy, so are ours... wink wink. “Employee repeatedly used company computer and network resources for personal use unrelated to work tasks, outside of company policy.”

Thats what the document says. Must be true.

Of course it was. It always is. We left out the jerking off part, and which websites he was going to.

Didn’t need ‘em.

I can “justify” firing nearly everyone with the time stamps of our badge readers and the outside video camera footage, no matter what the real reason their boss had to want them gone. At least in a non-Covid year...

Most places can find twenty fully legal reasons to fire anybody whenever they like. Not hard.

But I like your list. It’s real-world enough to be plausible vs anyone who says they always follow a published list.

Of course they do. We all do. LOL.

Life tip: Never tick off your boss. They know how to get rid of you. And nobody will ever hear or see the real reason if they don’t want to document it. Just a different legitimate one.

There’s a doctor running around town who was fired for the same official reason given above, by the head of Security at a major local hospital.

They left off that he was surfing kiddie porn on the shared break area patient charting computer.

This is why I never even bother weighing in about anything related to a firing unless I was personally involved with it. Secrets and lies abound.

 

[El Reverendo]

All of which is irrelevant as to whether or not a DPE is retained or fired if cause exists.

The FSDO doesn’t need cause to terminate a DPE, and that’s pretty much what this whole issue is about from what I’ve read.

 

[MauleSkinner]

The FSDO doesn’t need cause to terminate a DPE, and that’s pretty much what this whole issue is about from what I’ve read.

DPEs can be removed “for cause” or “not for cause”. In this case, it appears he FAA is saying “for cause”, as it is his actions that resulted in losing his designation...at least based on the limited information available.

 

[Lindberg]

DPEs can be removed “for cause” or “not for cause”. In this case, it appears he FAA is saying “for cause”, as it is his actions that resulted in losing his designation...at least based on the limited information available.

It's the limited information that's the issue for me. The guy got a letter from the FAA saying his designation was revoked and why. He hasn't personally spoken up or shared the letter that I've seen. But his youtube supporters are out asking everyone to accept their version and sign petitions based on it.