The FAA knows no limit to their pettiness

Lindberg said:
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 The guy got a letter from the FAA saying his designation was revoked and why.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.
Click to expand...
But that limited information available to the public appears to be coming from the former designee, not the FAA, and it’s got “cause” associated with it.

whether that cause is legit or not appears to be the biggest discussion point.
 
Sounds like a "Right to Work" state... where you can be fired without cause.
 
hindsight2020 said:
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!
Click to expand...

Appreciate the post (the whole thing, not just what I quoted). It's interesting to read how you see things on the military side of the fence. I will say this though - as a dude with a wife that's a doctor - I think you have it better than you may think you do. ;)
 
Clip4 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. But if there 'has to be more to this' as some have said, then the reason for firing before this latest 'incident' came up would be cause to fire him. Saying it was this latest is a pretty petty reason if it isn't the real reason. Especially when there were others on the call too that could have been called out for the same thing.

Just on the surface it looks to me that they basically just didn't like the guy for some reason and saw this as an opportunity to fire him if this is actually the real reason.
 
As a former designee, I can tell you the designee program is a license to steal. Most FSDOs only appoint a few designees, usually fewer than needed, usually because they don’t want to be responsible for oversight (more work) and most FAA inspectors become designees after retirement so they need to curtail supply to keep rates up.

The biggest issue is the FAA will not put any limits on what they can charge....no limits at all, and seeing there are so few, they all charge about the same in the area (arguable price fixing which is illegal in all other sectors as there is no real free market due to limited completion)..and the FAA won’t allow inspectors to do check-rides (DPE) or maintenance inspections (DAR) anymore: you have to go to a Designee regardless of wait time or cost.

I have a buddy that is waiting a month for his commercial check ride, costing him even more to stay current for the ride plus $600 for the ride. I’m not saying the ride should be free, but GA needs all the help it can get in the cost department to survive, and there are plenty willing and able potential DPE candidates willing to do it as not a career (as the program was intended), at far more reasonable cost.

the DPE program was intended to appoint experienced aviation professionals that wanted to give back and share their experience on a part time as needed basis. It quickly became a money-making career for a few with the FAA protecting competition regardless of the adverse affects on the industry. What other position allows such a monopoly protected by the government?

what if the department of motor vehicles required you take your drivers test or renewed your registration from an appointed designee regardless of cost? There would be an uprising, yet we just expect now in aviation and from the FAA.
 
AlphaPilotFlyer said:
As a former designee, I can tell you the designee program is a license to steal. Most FSDOs only appoint a few designees, usually fewer than needed, usually because they don’t want to be responsible for oversight (more work) and most FAA inspectors become designees after retirement so they need to curtail supply to keep rates up.

The biggest issue is the FAA will not put any limits on what they can charge....no limits at all, and seeing there are so few, they all charge about the same in the area (arguable price fixing which is illegal in all other sectors as there is no real free market due to limited completion)..and the FAA won’t allow inspectors to do check-rides (DPE) or maintenance inspections (DAR) anymore: you have to go to a Designee regardless of wait time or cost.

I have a buddy that is waiting a month for his commercial check ride, costing him even more to stay current for the ride plus $600 for the ride. I’m not saying the ride should be free, but GA needs all the help it can get in the cost department to survive, and there are plenty willing and able potential DPE candidates willing to do it as not a career (as the program was intended), at far more reasonable cost.

the DPE program was intended to appoint experienced aviation professionals that wanted to give back and share their experience on a part time as needed basis. It quickly became a money-making career for a few with the FAA protecting competition regardless of the adverse affects on the industry. What other position allows such a monopoly protected by the government?

what if the department of motor vehicles required you take your drivers test or renewed your registration from an appointed designee regardless of cost? There would be an uprising, yet we just expect now in aviation and from the FAA.
Click to expand...

Just one more example of the exemplary ethics at the FAA. I wonder how long before some dingus comes along to defend the FAA and tell us how it’s all in our best interest.
 
UngaWunga said:
Sounds like a "Right to Work" state... where you can be fired without cause.
Click to expand...
You are talking about an "at will" state. 49 out of 50 are (Montana is the exception). An "at will" state says the either the employer or the employee (barring a contract/CBA to the contrary) can terminate the relationship at any time.

A "Right to Work" state bars employers and unions entering into agreements to only hire union workers. There are 27 such states.
 
Last edited:
flyingron said:
You are talking about an "at will" state. 49 out of 50 are (Montana is the exception). An "at will" state says the either the employer or the employee (barring a contract/CBU to the contrary) can terminate the relationship at any time.

A "Right to Work" state bars employers and unions entering into agreements to only hire union workers. There are 27 such states.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

Also, a DPE is NOT an employee, so this is NOT a "firing," whether for cause or otherwise.
 
AlphaPilotFlyer said:
As a former designee, I can tell you the designee program is a license to steal. Most FSDOs only appoint a few designees, usually fewer than needed, usually because they don’t want to be responsible for oversight (more work) and most FAA inspectors become designees after retirement so they need to curtail supply to keep rates up.

The biggest issue is the FAA will not put any limits on what they can charge....no limits at all, and seeing there are so few, they all charge about the same in the area (arguable price fixing which is illegal in all other sectors as there is no real free market due to limited completion)..and the FAA won’t allow inspectors to do check-rides (DPE) or maintenance inspections (DAR) anymore: you have to go to a Designee regardless of wait time or cost.

I have a buddy that is waiting a month for his commercial check ride, costing him even more to stay current for the ride plus $600 for the ride. I’m not saying the ride should be free, but GA needs all the help it can get in the cost department to survive, and there are plenty willing and able potential DPE candidates willing to do it as not a career (as the program was intended), at far more reasonable cost.

the DPE program was intended to appoint experienced aviation professionals that wanted to give back and share their experience on a part time as needed basis. It quickly became a money-making career for a few with the FAA protecting competition regardless of the adverse affects on the industry. What other position allows such a monopoly protected by the government?

what if the department of motor vehicles required you take your drivers test or renewed your registration from an appointed designee regardless of cost? There would be an uprising, yet we just expect now in aviation and from the FAA.
Click to expand...
This is true, and frankly, there are some real shenanigans' enabled by this. Although I don't have a problem with professionals making money...
 
PPC1052 said:
Exactly.

Also, a DPE is NOT an employee, so this is NOT a "firing," whether for cause or otherwise.
Click to expand...

Most definitions of State employment Boards would disagree. Not all. FAA gets away with it, but they have too much control over them to call them contractors under most labor laws.

They get a pass because... federal legal stuff.

They can call it whatever they want, and most States ignore their own rules about it because... Fed stuff.
 
denverpilot said:
Most definitions of State employment Boards would disagree.
Click to expand...
Curious. How would they disagree? Designees get zero compensation from the federal government and they sign no contract. They are not required to charge for their services or perform any services, however, if they do not perform any work then it may cause them to lose their designee. They're simply private citizens designated to act as a representative of the FAA through specific privileges. While they are given The Blue Badge, there's no certification or authorization associated with this designation. In my limited labor experience I fail to see how that qualifies a designee as an employee or contractor as no compensation is exchanged between the two parties?
 
denverpilot said:
Most definitions of State employment Boards would disagree. Not all. FAA gets away with it, but they have too much control over them to call them contractors under most labor laws.

They get a pass because... federal legal stuff.

They can call it whatever they want, and most States ignore their own rules about it because... Fed stuff.
Click to expand...
Really doubtful.
 
The FAA technically designates a designee, meaning they neither hire you or contract you, but simply designates that you represent them specific to the approvals you are given (such as only private pilot check rides), and that such designation may be revoked at anytime. You can have the designation pulled for a number of reasons, at the whim of the FAA.
 
Lindberg said:
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.
Click to expand...
Here you go. This is from Ken, posted on his Facebook page. I've never met Ken in person, but I've spoken to him on the phone. I found him to be a very nice guy and I've always heard great things about him. I've heard of people avoiding him for checkrides because he it's known that he won't cut you any slack! Read what he wrote for yourself, seems like the kind of guy that would represent the FAA very well.

Also, I will say I didn't sign the petition. Like I said, I've never met Ken in person. That means I've never flown with him or interacted with him as an FAA representative. I can only speak to what I've heard and I don't feel like that's enough for me to sign.

Fired by the FAA!

The San Antonio Flight Standards District Office informed me yesterday that they have terminated my Designated Pilot Examiner authority. The reason given was “failure to represent the FAA in a positive manner and to exhibit integrity”.

A bit of history is in order. I was conducting a CFI Practical Test on September 8, 2020, when I received an email from my Principal Operations Inspector at the San Antonio FSDO, Mr. Christian Morales, informing me that my access to the Designee Management System (DMS) had been suspended “pending an investigation in relation to a video we received in which you were a part of.”
Because Designated Pilot Examiners are contractors, not FAA employees, who serve at the pleasure of the FAA, they can be terminated at any point and for any reason. As we say in Texas, “It ain’t right but it’s fact.”

So, after ten years as a Designated Pilot Examiner with over 2500 practical tests administered, this chapter in my aviation career is over. Now that I have had a bit of time to reflect on this,
here is what I will miss:
• Watching applicants achieve their aviation dreams, celebrating their successes and comforting and reassuring them when they fail. I have always tried to treat them kindly, to be responsive to their questions and to conduct the tests in a professional manner while working to reduce the inevitable stress of their checkride.
• Mentoring an amazing group of pilots and certified flight instructors who are out there every day doing the hard work of teaching aspiring aviators. I have had the immense pleasure of watching many of them move through the various ratings and certificates on their journey to becoming a professional aviator. I hope that all of you could sense my absolute joy in your achievements, and how proud I am of you. if I was able to contribute in some small way to your success, then I hope you will remember our time together as fondly as I.
• And finally, working with the other Designated Pilot Examiners with whom I have been so fortunate to share the skies. Like any new examiner, at first, I felt overwhelmed by the challenges and responsibilities involved. When I reached out to ask questions, seek advice and counsel or simply to share a “You’re not gonna believe this…” story, Charlie, Roger and the others were unfailingly supportive and willing to help. The current group of examiners will continue to do a difficult and at times dangerous task with a level of professionalism that helps assure the standards are met and that applicants will have the skill, knowledge and judgement required. It has been an absolute honor to be a part of the team.

So, back to the investigation… As I mentioned, the FAA felt that I had not exhibited integrity and had not represented the FAA in a positive manner. I will leave it to others to decide, but I can assure you that integrity and honor are important to me and that I have always tried to act accordingly. I reject any implication or suggestion otherwise. The major disappointment in all of this concerns the local FAA office’s approach to the investigative process. I thought we had a very positive working relationship based on professional respect and collaboration. Unfortunately, this turned out not to be true.

So, where do we go from here?

First, I will continue to support and foster excellence in aviation training. I want to expand the information available to help students and applicants acquire the skill and knowledge required to understand the nature of the FAA Practical Tests, to be better prepared when test day arrives and more importantly, to know how to be truly ready for the challenges of “real world” aviation activities.

I will also continue working with the many industry professionals who contribute so much to the culture of aviation safety that we have today. I have had the pleasure of meeting and working with the best aviation educators in our industry. Many have become close friends through our shared effort to advance the cause of aviation education. From my involvement with dedicated folks at the Society of Aviation and Flight Educators (SAFE), who continue to work closely with the FAA to develop programs and policies that actually work in the field, to the professional instructors at the Bonanza and Baron Pilot Training Program (BPT) who continue to provide the very best type specific training, all have been, and continue to be, so important to me both personally and professionally. I will continue to conduct specialty training for Beechcraft Bonanza owners. Type-specific training is a critical element in the safety equation.
By the way, I include many of the FAA inspectors and managers at both the local and national level. Many of these folks share our common vision of aviation safety. I have found most of them to be hard working and dedicated to doing a difficult job with complete professionalism. But, like any large group, there are some who fail to measure up. It’s easy to denigrate these few “bad apples” and to view the remainder with a jaundiced eye. However, my experience has been almost universally positive. When Charlie Hamilton and I developed the Aviation Instructor Outreach Program a few years ago, I could not have hoped for a better partner. He supported, encouraged and garnered support within the local and regional FAA levels.

Third, I will continue my involvement with various advocacy groups such as the Recreational Aviation Foundation, Seaplane Pilots Association and others who share my interest in exploring the back country in a general aviation aircraft.

I apologize for the lengthy report, but I wanted to share the story with you directly, as honestly as I know how. So for now, the journey continues but I want to thank my family and all of you again for the friendship, mentorship, support and shared commitment to excellence that has meant so much to me over all these years.

Fair Skies,
Ken
 
Lowflynjack said:
Read what he wrote for yourself, seems like the kind of guy that would represent the FAA very well.
Click to expand...
Thank you for sharing. Like they say, if that's all there is to it, he got a raw deal. But there's definitely at least one side to the story we haven't heard. I will say that I hope he has a fair opportunity to make his case to the appropriate authority.
 
Lindberg said:
Really doubtful.
Click to expand...

In my state if your employer claims to not be your employer but has nearly any mandatory control over your time (e.g. mandatory meetings) you aren’t legally a contractor.

Rarely enforced but we enjoyed the overtime for years in what were otherwise salaried jobs when someone who got laid off sued and exposed that he wasn’t legally a temp contractor to hire like California HR thought he was, and that OT technically has to be paid to salaried employees here.

Nobody ever fights using any of it when they’re happy with their paycheck and ignorant of State law, which is pretty much everybody. The Denver HR folk were sure caught by surprise that they lost the case.

CO “time control” law is technically more strict than the IRS definition usually discussed online about whether someone really is a “contractor”.

I’m a bit amazed more people don’t sue, really... it’s quite a well kept “secret”.

Don’t ask anyone salaried to work more than a normal 8 hour day here and be dumb enough to make them document it as required... they’ll win the back pay case as long as they make it inside the statute of limitations. They’ll also win unemployment bennies if they weren’t eligible.

That dude made off with a very big check for as bad of a technician as he was, but he also triggered me being hourly for years at my salaried rate, and I had a lot of overnight conference calls with telecom carriers and maintenance windows.

Got paid a lot of money thanks to that dude. Can’t complain. Always wondered if that guy went back into tech support after his couple of paid years off...
 
Not that Colorado has jurisdiction over the feds, but here are the requirements for independent contractors in Colorado:

  • The company does not require the individual to work exclusively for the person for whom services are performed, except that the individual may choose to work exclusively for the said person for a finite period of time specified in the document,
  • The company does not establish a quality standard for the individual, except that such person can provide plans and specifications regarding the work but cannot oversee the actual work or instruct the individual as to how the work will be performed.
  • The company does not pay a salary or hourly rate but rather a fixed or contract rate.
  • The company cannot terminate the work during the contract period unless the individual violates the terms of the contract or fails to produce a result that meets the specifications of the contract.
  • The company does not provide anything more than minimal training for the individual.
  • The company does not provide tools or benefits to the individual, except that materials and equipment may be supplied.
  • The company does not dictate the time of performance, except that a completion schedule and a range of mutually agreeable work hours may be established.
  • The company does not pay the individual personally but rather makes checks payable to the trade or business name of the individual; and the company does not combine their business operations in any way with the individual's business, but instead maintains such operations as separate and distinct.
Click to expand...

But DPEs aren't employees or contractors, they're designees.
 
Lowflynjack said:
Here you go. This is from Ken...
Click to expand...

I like and respect Ken. The implication is the FSDO made a petty decision. At this point, I’m making lemons out of lemonades and it sounds like that’s where Ken is getting to and I hope that’s the case.

This is one of those instances where if I felt like I could go back to .gov service, I’d go back to clean it up and set it on the right track...I believe the mere appearance of impropriety by a .gov agency is the same as impropriety. This is falls in the category of what I used to counsel junior officers on...doesn’t matter what you did, it’s the perception.
 
denverpilot said:
Most definitions of State employment Boards would disagree. Not all. FAA gets away with it, but they have too much control over them to call them contractors under most labor laws.

They get a pass because... federal legal stuff.

They can call it whatever they want, and most States ignore their own rules about it because... Fed stuff.
Click to expand...

I am not licensed to practice in more than one state, so I have no opinion about what "most definitions" would be.

But, I will say that as applied in this setting to the revocation of a DPE's authority, state law is clearly going to be preempted to the extent that any state were to try to impose any kind of liability or limit on the ability of the FAA to do so. 49 U.S.C. § 44702(d)(2) states that the FAA can rescind the grant of authority at any time for any reason the Administrator deems appropriate. So, "federal legal stuff?"-- yeah, that.
 
Bureaucrats working on their pension almost often make me queasy...and threads like these are the reason why.

I would be interested in seeing the performance reviews and complaints against this petty cat.

Getting away with malfeasance always empowers idiots.
 
Llk said:
Bureaucrats working on their pension almost often make me queasy...and threads like these are the reason why.

I would be interested in seeing the performance reviews and complaints against this petty cat.

Getting away with malfeasance always empowers idiots.
Click to expand...
Some people aren't going to be happy when they fail to meet the standards. Maybe some of them didn't deserve to pass, either, and in the environment Ken was working in, he would've been gone a lot sooner if he was an "easy" examiner... which by all accounts I've heard, he wasn't. I'd be more interested in a way for the public to give performance reviews to the guys above him. It's difficult because some people do need to fail, or have enforcements, but if you are TOO harsh, things can swing the opposite direction and you have the situation I witnessed where a majority of the other CFI's I worked with were taking their students out of district.
 
PPC1052 said:
I am not licensed to practice in more than one state, so I have no opinion about what "most definitions" would be.

But, I will say that as applied in this setting to the revocation of a DPE's authority, state law is clearly going to be preempted to the extent that any state were to try to impose any kind of liability or limit on the ability of the FAA to do so. 49 U.S.C. § 44702(d)(2) states that the FAA can rescind the grant of authority at any time for any reason the Administrator deems appropriate. So, "federal legal stuff?"-- yeah, that.
Click to expand...

Like I said, they make up their own rules.

(And when they forget they just get some magic clerics in black robes to do some “jiggery-pokery” to say it was cool.)

Anyone not a moron knows DPEs are employees and can be fired, in plain English. The paperwork will always say whatever it needs to.

All I was saying was it would be fun to watch someone make them show their constant inconsistencies. Always is.
 
I thought employees were paid by employers. The FAA doesn’t pay a DPE AFAIK. No check, no 1099, no W2 just gives the DPE the authority to conduct check rides. If the the DOE collects zero or $10000 per ride, the FAA has no say.

Of course since we have too many lawyers, I’m sure there’s a law somewhere someplace that proves me wrong. If no law some precedent will replace the law as written and prove me wrong that way.

Cheers
 
X3 Skier said:
I thought employees were paid by employers. The FAA doesn’t pay a DPE AFAIK. No check, no 1099, no W2 just gives the DPE the authority to conduct check rides. If the the DOE collects zero or $10000 per ride, the FAA has no say.
Click to expand...
My thinking also. If DPEs are FAA employees, CFIs and AMEs must be too.
 
Lindberg said:
My thinking also. If DPEs are FAA employees, CFIs and AMEs must be too.
Click to expand...
Tell me the FAA can't pull a CFI's ticket? Tell me they can't stop an AME from his duties...

They aren't employees, they're essentially licenced practitioners. The licence can be pulled.
 
If only the FAA cared as much about things that actually matter.
 
Lindberg said:
My thinking also. If DPEs are FAA employees, CFIs and AMEs must be too.
Click to expand...

They are. They can yank my ticket at any time. Or any of theirs.

The effect is the same out in the real world.

Doesn’t really matter where the check comes from. They can stop those checks forever.

They say you don’t eat, you don’t eat.

If they control your time and your income, they’re your boss and you work in their world — no matter how many fancy Latin words any lawyers used to wrap a story of fiction around it.

The former DPE seems to understand reality pretty well, judging by his public reaction. He knows he got fired and won’t be doing the job any more.

Nipped all the fake internet drama, acting like he has any real recourse, right in the bud.

Smart guy. He knows his former employer doesn’t care about decades of good work, just today’s perceived behavior, off the clock even.

It’s their training industry. We just serve at their pleasure. The entire system could be changed tomorrow and none of us could do anything about it. Nor any of our customers.

(Well most of us anyway. A handful of puppy mills bought some politicians to get special ATP rules. You get as much justice as you can afford, as always. Personally I can’t afford to buy off any of FAA’s bosses. Maybe you’re blessed with enough money to do so.)

* Note: They don’t control my time, but they do control DPE’s time. All I was saying is that’s enough to be called an employer in any other business here locally. I also said those common sense rules the locals acknowledge, as simple straightforward fact, don’t apply to the writers of nonsensical fiction aimed at maintaining the farce that they’re not the real bosses.

I tend not to believe fiction. It causes extra problems and work time lost in my day job when people believe that stuff.

“The contract says if we do X we get paid.”

“No, you’ll also be required to send 22 people — so far, we’ve kept count — all working for the same government agency — the same “required document” you sent in March, and June, and now December... to actually get paid. Probably more. They don’t even understand how to forward e-mails or create file shares. Been here done this! Got the t-shirt. They’re the real bosses. The contract doesn’t say you only have to send it once and they won’t lose it or refuse to share it with their co-bureaucrats. You’ll have to appease each and every one of them before you’ll see any money. Just plan to get it at least a year after services were rendered and it’ll work out.”
 
Lindberg said:
If that's the standard, then everyone who flies for money is an FAA employee. This is absurd.
Click to expand...

Is it? It’s just common sense. Who do you really work for?

We’ve mentioned Hoover before. He had international friends but his career was over without fame and a public outcry and an Australian government that wasn’t mentally deficient.

Remember ... they get 20-50% of your paycheck before it hits your bank account, or slightly thereafter as soon as you buy anything.

Takes a lot of money to maintain all that word salad that isn’t even close to true and get people like you to believe it.

If you can’t do a job without an unelected bureaucrat approving you to do so, you really don’t work for yourself.

That’s just the way it truly is. They approve you to work and then take their cut first, upon threat of imprisonment.

All rise and hail to the mighty bureaucrats.

Like I said, I’m up to 22 individuals just in a single State approving payment for services already rendered because they can’t file a document properly and share it.

Any one of them may disapprove at any time.

You? Ever actually made anything of value and sold it to them? Or anyone?

It’s a true treat, wasting valuable time resending e-mails to them all.

Here’s looking forward to a new year soon of them taking 30% of what I make and pretending it pays for all of them.

The ratio on the most recent meeting was 22 to 4. 4 people who make things, 22 who push paper and approve us to do so.

Bless their hearts... as the southerners say.
 
denverpilot said:
Is it? It’s just common sense. Who do you really work for?
Click to expand...
In the metaphysical, existential sense or the legal sense? Because you represented that under Colorado law DPEs would be deemed FAA employees. That's what's absurd. If you just want to philosophize, have at it.
 
Lindberg said:
In the metaphysical, existential sense or the legal sense? Because you represented that under Colorado law DPEs would be deemed FAA employees. That's what's absurd. If you just want to philosophize, have at it.
Click to expand...

Yes under Colorado law they would be, but I also clearly federal agencies get to make up their own fiction as they please. And always do.

Read the whole thing again, including every word, not just the part you don’t like emotionally and irrationally.
 
denverpilot said:
Yes under Colorado law they would be, but I also clearly federal agencies get to make up their own fiction as they please. And always do.

Read the whole thing again, including every word, not just the part you don’t like emotionally and irrationally.
Click to expand...
Federal law supersedes state law. Usually. Which is why many corporations want more federal laws so there's one uniform set of laws. Many people want more federal laws in order to supersede (what they think are) weaker state laws. Hence the push for big government.
 
wsuffa said:
Federal law supersedes state law. Usually. Which is why many corporations want more federal laws so there's one uniform set of laws. Many people want more federal laws in order to supersede (what they think are) weaker state laws. Hence the push for big government.
Click to expand...

Never said it didn’t. Said the stories are inconsistent.

And in this case, the Feds are the non-sensical version. LOL.

“I’m not your boss.”

“But you control my time and my pay.”

“Never mind those facts. We say we aren’t your boss.”

“Okay whatever, it’s your world, we just live in it.”

“We also take 30% of that pay before you ever see it.”

“Of course you do. Hey did you know my State is actually not insane on this one?”

“Yeah we don’t care. Make sure you pay them too.”

“Why? To make rules you don’t follow and don’t apply anyway?”

“Exactly.”

“You guys are all truly amazing. You know that, right?”

“Of course we’re amazing. Haven’t you watched our YouTube videos saying we all are?”

“You literally don’t have any competition. Why do you make marketing videos?”

“It takes a lot of effort to be this awesome. You should be more grateful.”

“Uhhh ok. Could you guys at least organize your website?”

“It is organized! By department!”

“Yeah, I was kinda thinking by topic, since the department names are non-sensical and you filed the documents by number instead of titles... but nevermind. I’ll Google it. You’re busy being awesome.”

“Of course we are.”
 
Why was that level of abuse permitted in the first place? Where is the oversight? Why are we always trying to remedy horrendous abuses by government?
 
wsuffa said:
Many people want more federal laws in order to supersede (what they think are) weaker state laws. Hence the push for big government.
Click to expand...

I believe “big FAA” comes because a lot of people see the FAA as a way to prevent people from flying wrong. The same probably happens in a bigger vein, but we must not discuss that here.
 
I don’t think the issue here is about the relationship- the feds don’t control when he starts or stops, or pay him for how much work he does. Based on the specifics of the relationship I struggle to see how he is an employee. He has a license to practice. He had that license taken away.

The issue is the lack of transparency. A bureaucratic agency pulls a designation (their entitlement), but does so in a manner that is either cryptic, petty or unsubstantiated. Now Ken may be a Jack wagon, but our tax dollars pay for that agency and as such we deserve a level of transparency, particularly given the size of the man’s clientele. I’ve seen federal government agencies knowingly do wrong crap many times under the protection of protracted and costly litigation.

Usually government agencies will slither out of explanations by the usual horse crap of “under investigation” or some such privacy crap which allows bugs to squirm away from the light much longer.

In this case. I would expect much better from that FSDO given its location, but I guess bureaucratic spinelesness has only grown more rampant in recent generations. It is this type of petty, unaccountable behavior from the government to the community they serve and who pays their salaries that needs a substantial and unforgettable correction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top