What legal recourse do we have?

[James331]

Really bad advice. That could be construed as criminal harassment. Get legal advice before you try a stunt like that. I'm with R&W -- as long as you know you didn't do what this person said, just cooperate with the investigation and it will all go away. And make sure you put in a request for any radar tapes from that area before they're automatically wiped.

"....as long as you know you didn't do what this person said, just cooperate with the investigation and it will all go away"

Yeah ask Hoover how that worked out for him.

 

[bullwinkle]

So basically some guy can waste a bunch of people's time, falsely "accuse" them, and there's really nothing that can be done about it.

That's nothing. People who don't like guns have taken to spotting a person legally carrying a gun and minding their own business, and calling the police on them with talk like "there is a guy wearing XXX driving YYY car with a gun here, it looks like he's going to shoot the place up." Cops come in full-on active shooter tactical mode ready for a firefight.

They call it "SWATting" somebody. Nice, huh?

 

[Zeldman]

I'm a former ASI, and your diatribe is pure internet BS.

You have no clue as to what it takes to write a violation. It's not a quick process, and most Inspectors really don't relish the thought of doing a violation unless it's really necessary and there is no other recourse such as formal counseling or at worst a SNAAP.

Most ASI's have a full work load in their work program plus other duties, and getting a PD (pilot deviation) is just more pile on the desk, so the quicker to get it closed out the better. When someone decides "lawyer up" and refuse to cooperate, then yes they are taking a small situation and escalating it. "lawyer up" all you want, but remember all the Inspector has to do is issue you a 44709 letter and there isn't much your lawyer can do for you now.

I expected this and you did not disappoint me.

Notice I never advised "lawyer up" or "do not cooperate." I never said a violation investigation is a quick process. I never said feds are not busy. These are all your words.

You have no clue as to what it takes to write a violation.

That is an assumption. Can you tell me the definition of assume? (not the dictionary definition)

I agree cooperation goes a long way. Why do you have a problem with anyone seeking legal advice on a subject? I sought legal advice before I bought this company and the previous owner and the FAA had no problem with that. I still use an aviation attorney and our current POI has no problems with that. Seems to me that if a fed has a problem with someone seeking legal advice then that may be THE problem. God syndrome?

Most PD's are done and gone very quickly.

Oh, I thought you said it wasn't a quick process.

"lawyer up" all you want, but remember all the Inspector has to do is issue you a 44709 letter and there isn't much your lawyer can do for you now.

You have to use threats to keep pilots from seeking legal advice? Why is that?

Ok, I may be clueless, definitely ignorant on the subject, so I will ask. What is specifically wrong with having legal advice while being investigated? Do all feds feel the same way?

 

[poadeleted20]

"....as long as you know you didn't do what this person said, just cooperate with the investigation and it will all go away"

Yeah ask Hoover how that worked out for him.

Hardly an analogous situation. But if your objective is distortion in the interest of hysteria, your point is well made.

 

[brcase]

A couple of years ago I had an airline pilot report a near miss with me just outside of Class C airspace. Through a friend I heard that the FAA was looking for the pilot of the glider involved in the near miss report. As a result I called the ASI, and simply told him what had happened.

I had observed the Airliner 5 miles away headed toward where I was circling. I maneuvered to avoid and was a on a 90 degree diverging coarse when the airline passed about a mile behind me. AKA See and Avoid the way it is supposed to work. I didn't bother to mention that I had a GPS flight recorder on board.

The ASI requested I attend one of the regular Wings Safety presentations they do periodically. I attend these occasionally anyway. They had an Airline representative present how they would really like all aircraft to be transponder equipped and I got to explain the difficulties in installing and powering a transponder in a glider.

The ASI got to mark off that he had consulted with and provided training to all the parties involved. End of story.

Through this event I learned that a near miss with a glider as defined by this airline is code for the they saw a glider that didn't show up on the TCAS.

As you can tell I am generally in the camp of be cooperative until they give you some reason not to be. I have worked with the FAA enough to know it usually works out best when you can make their job easier.
Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

 

[Zeldman]

Not exactly true. You have most of the same rights as a criminal defendant (right to remain silent, right to counsel, etc) except the right to an attorney at government expense and to be given warnings of your right to remain silent and be represented before questioning, and even that has changed some with the PBOR.

Your are correct, and I should have expanded. But before the feds did not have to advise a pilot of their rights. All I have tried to do is advise folks on getting representation and yet I keep getting dumped on that it is not a good thing to do.

I have not gone completely through the PBOR, that is what I pay a lawyer for. I hope they now include advising a pilot of their rights when notified of a possible investigation action.

 

[poadeleted20]

Your are correct, and I should have expanded. But before the feds did not have to advise a pilot of their rights. All I have tried to do is advise folks on getting representation and yet I keep getting dumped on that it is not a good thing to do.

I have not gone completely through the PBOR, that is what I pay a lawyer for. I hope they now include advising a pilot of their rights when notified of a possible investigation action.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with consulting an attorney for advice in a case like this, and I hope I was not being construed as saying otherwise. In fact, that's one reason I have the AOPA Legal Services Plan -- so I can get a bit of "free" legal advice from a qualified professional in such an event. But in this particular case, I suspect the OP would not need more than one short consultation to confirm his rights and that there is little to worry about unless the ASI sends a Letter of Investigation, which seems unlikely to me (and apparently also to R&W, which ought to tell you something).

 

[Clark1961]

I have not gone completely through the PBOR, that is what I pay a lawyer for. I hope they now include advising a pilot of their rights when notified of a possible investigation action.

Ya hafta 'knowlege the PBOR before filling out the medical now...it's a freakin' joke...

 

[Fredbob711]

...

I never said a violation investigation is a quick process. I never said feds are not busy. These are all your words.

...

Oh, I thought you said it wasn't a quick process.

Just addressing these small sections of your post.

My interpretation of what R&W wrote was that investigating a Pilot Deviation is usually a quick process. Actually writing them up for a Violation as a result of the PD investigation is a time-consuming process that they don't like doing.

That's all I'm going to contribute to this conversation. I'll just keep reading with my popcorn.

 

[poadeleted20]

Ya hafta 'knowlege the PBOR before filling out the medical now...it's a freakin' joke...

You can thank Senator Inhofe for that valuable addition to the system. You also get that on any practical test, and pretty much any other interaction with the FAA. Give it a few years, and every pilot will know it by heart just as every kid on the street can parrot the Miranda warnings.

 

[RotorAndWing]

I agree cooperation goes a long way. Why do you have a problem with anyone seeking legal advice on a subject? I sought legal advice before I bought this company and the previous owner and the FAA had no problem with that. I still use an aviation attorney and our current POI has no problems with that. Seems to me that if a fed has a problem with someone seeking legal advice then that may be THE problem. God syndrome?

Now you are twisting.

Care to get back on subject?

Originally Posted by Zeldman
This is civil, not criminal. You have no rights except to be given notice that you are under investigation.

Shall we discuss just how ludicrous that statement is?

Oh, I thought you said it wasn't a quick process.

You clearly don't understand the difference between an enforcement and a PD (pilot deviation) or in the case of the OP, a complaint.

A complaint or a PD is not an enforcement. A complaint or PD can usually be resolved fairly quickly especially if there is cooperation with all parties involved.

You have to use threats to keep pilots from seeking legal advice? Why is that?

No one is advocating "using threats", nor is anyone saying "don't seek legal advice". However, start stonewalling or evading the Inspector and now what was something simple could escalate. Some pilots have the belief that if they get their attorney involved then they are now exempt from any further involvement.

Ok, I may be clueless, definitely ignorant on the subject, so I will ask. What is specifically wrong with having legal advice while being investigated? Do all feds feel the same way?

I'll agree with the clueless part.

Nothing wrong with seeking legal advice, that's your right. However stonewalling or trying to evade the FAA will do nothing but escalate what is a very small situation. Your statement not to give the Inspector anything in writing is indicative of saying "don't cooperate" because they will use it against you.

Originally Posted by Zeldman
Be very careful. An FAA guy could call you and ask for a quick paragragh to clear this up, and all they are looking for is a written self confession that can and will be used against you.

First of all, no one is looking for a "written self confession" . The Inspector needs to complete the PD, and part of that is to have the pilots side of events. He doesn't coach the pilot in how to write it, just tell what happened.

Originally Posted by Zeldman

The FAA are experts at issuing violations and know all the little tricks and traps to get a pilot to confess without proper representation.

Really? I guess I missed that part of my training at the Academy. I was taught (at the OJT level) when performing a PD to get all of the information, find out what went wrong then counsel the airman accordingly and close the file.

The large majority of PD's are closed out with no action or informal counseling. Some actually lead to other investigations which uncover problems with ATC, procedures, airports, etc.

 

[Norman]

If you don't know your Miranda you deserve what you get. I've watched a few talk their way right into jail.

 

[Jeff Oslick]

After you demonstrate to the FAA that you were at a legal altitude, suggest to them that if this guy really is an ATP, he needs to be investigated because his ability to estimate distances is clearly compromised and this medical condition poses a threat to air safety as an ATP.

At least a suggestion that maybe will keep him from bothering the FAA again.

 

[Tom-D]

When this is all sorted out, the dust has settled, and you find out who the Airline pilot was, report him to the head DR. at FAA, for not being able to make good decisions. let him play with that for a while.

 

[KA550]

So basically some guy can waste a bunch of people's time, falsely "accuse" them, and there's really nothing that can be done about it.

Just like the Oklahoma Boy Wonder did a few months ago. Of course his girlfriend was under the low flying airplane.

 

[BillTIZ]

Through this event I learned that a near miss with a glider as defined by this airline is code for the they saw a glider that didn't show up on the TCAS.

Two summers ago local TRACON and FSDO approached our glider club wanting to talk about a near miss reported by an airliner. They brought a copy of the radar tape for viewing. They were concerned about us climbing over the airport, outside the class B.

The radar displayed 3 transponder mode c equipped gliders (1202) climbing in a thermal and a 4th primary only return. It also shows the controller vectoring a line of airliners directly torwards the 1202 codes. The gliders stretched out in a line towards the NW and the controller did nothing to turn his inbound line of airliners farther west or to advise that there was a 4th primary only return.

Two airlines passed through the line of gliders slightly above the glider altitudes, the 3rd airliner was lower, reacted to a TCAS warning to turn right and the saw the wing flash of the 4th glider about a half mile away. That airliner filed the near miss complaints.

They were not looking to find the glider pilots, just to inform so we would be aware (avoid) "their" airspace.

I challenged the wisdom of the controller not turning his inbound line away from the beacon returns and not advising of a 4th return (alt unknown). Also there were no class b airspace violations and the non transponder glider was climbing in an area identified in the LOA for glider operation and well above the top of class b airspace at the time of the near miss.

FSDO was completing their portion of the near miss reporting by educating the local glider population.

 

[Unregistered]

Ok, so I was a pilot flying an aerial photography mission, let's say two weeks ago. Get a call from an FAA guy about whether or not I was PIC on aircraft NXXXXX. He says that some airline captain got our tail number and said that we were cruising around his neighborhood for 30 minutes at 3-500 feet. Now not only is this not true, but it is a false accusation. We were at or above 1000' over the nearest obstacles at all times and were only on station for 15 minutes, not 30. I'm quite confident that the radar tapes will show this in addition to the pictures the photographer took. We are fully cooperating, but nagging questions remain.
So, generally, there is supposed to be a right to face your accuser, no? What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Why would some airline pilot falsely accuse us and report us to the FAA?

Sorry to hear of your plight. As a note - I don't answer the phone if the caller is unknown. This solves a lot of problems because many will give up the hunt if forced to contact you formally. A formal contact will result in the opportunity to review the data and allegations before providing any information to anyone. My friend of 35 years, an attorney, loves to say "if they can't serve you they can't sue you".

 

[RotorAndWing]

Sorry to hear of your plight. As a note - I don't answer the phone if the caller is unknown. This solves a lot of problems because many will give up the hunt if forced to contact you formally. A formal contact will result in the opportunity to review the data and allegations before providing any information to anyone. My friend of 35 years, an attorney, loves to say "if they can't serve you they can't sue you".

As far as administrative law is concerned, your attorney is wrong.

If the FAA cannot contact you by phone, they will send you a certified letter. If you fail to respond to that, the FAA will continue the investigation without your input. This may work in your favor, or maybe not.

"Do you feel lucky?"

 

[Lindberg]

As far as administrative law is concerned, your attorney is wrong.

If the FAA cannot contact you by phone, they will send you a certified letter. If you fail to respond to that, the FAA will continue the investigation without your input. This may work in your favor, or maybe not.

"Do you feel lucky?"

He's wrong about criminal and civil law as well.

 

[F01LA]

He's wrong about criminal and civil law as well.

So.. you're saying in this case that internet wisdom is better than a lawyer? :wink2:

 

[wsuffa]

And meanwhile I heard Mary Schiavo interviewed on the radio today calling for more regulations and a tougher a FAA....

 

[LDJones]

As a pilot, a photographer and a lawyer I'd suggest providing the information the investigator asks for and it will likely go away. Modern digital cameras record a ton of metadata with each image. There's enough there to calculate your actual altitude by virtue of the lens used, the focal length at which it was captured, etc. The images are also time stamped so your time over target is all verifiable information.

 

[EminiTrader]

I have a question OP - if you were not that low - how DID the complainer get your tail # ?? I live right on the approach end of an airport and I have planes flying over me all day long and I know about where they are altitude wise because I fly the same approach.

I couldnt come close to seeing a tail #..

 

[ClimbnSink]

I have a question OP - if you were not that low - how DID the complainer get your tail # ?? I live right on the approach end of an airport and I have planes flying over me all day long and I know about where they are altitude wise because I fly the same approach.

I couldnt come close to seeing a tail #..

Flight aware, radio, binoculars, send up a drone

 

[jsstevens]

I'm a former ASI, and your diatribe is pure internet BS.

You have no clue as to what it takes to write a violation. It's not a quick process, and most Inspectors really don't relish the thought of doing a violation unless it's really necessary and there is no other recourse such as formal counseling or at worst a SNAAP.

Most ASI's have a full work load in their work program plus other duties, and getting a PD (pilot deviation) is just more pile on the desk, so the quicker to get it closed out the better. When someone decides "lawyer up" and refuse to cooperate, then yes they are taking a small situation and escalating it. "lawyer up" all you want, but remember all the Inspector has to do is issue you a 44709 letter and there isn't much your lawyer can do for you now.

Most PD's are done and gone very quickly. Cooperation goes a long way in making it go away.

That certainly fits my experience. See this thread for details:
http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=39513

John

 

[EminiTrader]

Flight aware, radio, binoculars, send up a drone

Greg - sure all plausible. Drone - the one I have won't go that high - but I am sure they could.

Not sure I'm convinced, but thanks for answering the question

 

[Jaybird180]

However, start stonewalling or evading the Inspector and now what was something simple could escalate.

Why would stonewalling escalate the situation? Are you saying that inspectors are naturally suspicious and if you make then investigate, then they will find something because they actually had to do some work?

 

[ChrisK]

Why would stonewalling escalate the situation? Are you saying that inspectors are naturally suspicious and if you make then investigate, then they will find something because they actually had to do some work?

Come on. People are lazy and busy. No one wants to do any more work than is required in most cases. If a pilot interview clears up the case and convinces the investigator there is no further reason to investigate, why would the investigation continue?

 

[RotorAndWing]

Why would stonewalling escalate the situation? Are you saying that inspectors are naturally suspicious and if you make then investigate, then they will find something because they actually had to do some work?

Think about this for a moment (in the case of the OP). The Inspector would like his side of the story. If the OP refused to cooperate, the radar tapes/ATC tapes were inconclusive, his investigation only has so much information to draw a conclusion. Since the OP is refusing to cooperate (supposedly), is he doing this because perhaps because the complaint reporter is correct? How is the Inspector to know if he won't cooperate? Now the Inspector has no choice but to issue a LOI (which opens a EIR file) to try to get the information he requested. The EIR is now going to require even more information and time.

Now go back to the OP story. The Inspector calls the OP, states a complaint was made. The OP gives his side of the story, the Inspector looks at ATC/radar info then says "OK, no problem here" and advises the OP to make sure next time to avoid the complainer's area and be sure to watch his altitudes. The PTRS is closed out and life goes on.

What would you choose?

 

[RotorAndWing]

Come on. People are lazy and busy. No one wants to do any more work than is required in most cases. If a pilot interview clears up the case and convinces the investigator there is no further reason to investigate, why would the investigation continue?

Exactly (except for the lazy part )

 

[Jaybird180]

Think about this for a moment (in the case of the OP). The Inspector would like his side of the story. If the OP refused to cooperate, the radar tapes/ATC tapes were inconclusive, his investigation only has so much information to draw a conclusion. Since the OP is refusing to cooperate (supposedly), is he doing this because perhaps because the complaint reporter is correct? How is the Inspector to know if he won't cooperate? Now the Inspector has no choice but to issue a LOI (which opens a EIR file) to try to get the information he requested. The EIR is now going to require even more information and time.

Now go back to the OP story. The Inspector calls the OP, states a complaint was made. The OP gives his side of the story, the Inspector looks at ATC/radar info then says "OK, no problem here" and advises the OP to make sure next time to avoid the complainer's area and be sure to watch his altitudes. The PTRS is closed out and life goes on.

What would you choose?

You are welcome to retract the escalation statement. I won't hold it against you unless I misunderstand.

 

[RotorAndWing]

You are welcome to retract the escalation statement. I won't hold it against you unless I misunderstand.

 

[Fredbob711]

You are welcome to retract the escalation statement. I won't hold it against you unless I misunderstand.

He's saying the situation escalates because the OP didn't give the inspector the information needed to complete his investigation. By stonewalling, the OP would be giving the inspector no choice if he wants to do his job and close out his investigation of the complaint after completing his due diligence.

What if an enforcement action is carried out against the pilot later on and the complaint is pulled up during a search for cases of previous misconduct? If all the information isn't there including the pilot's side of the story, that inspector could get in trouble for not doing his job properly. In addition to reflecting poorly on the pilot since the only information available is the complaintants side of the story and whatever radar/radio records are available, which may not tell the true story.

Point being, it's not necessarily a malicious act on the part of the inspector. Which, correct me if I'm wrong, seems to be what you're implying. It's the inspector attempting to do his job with the methods made available to him.

 

[RotorAndWing]

He's saying the situation escalates because the OP didn't give the inspector the information needed to complete his investigation. By stonewalling, the OP would be giving the inspector no choice if he wants to do his job and close out his investigation of the complaint after completing his due diligence.

What if an enforcement action is carried out against the pilot later on and the complaint is pulled up during a search for cases of previous misconduct? If all the information isn't there including the pilot's side of the story, that inspector could get in trouble for not doing his job properly. In addition to reflecting poorly on the pilot since the only information available is the complaintants side of the story and whatever radar/radio records are available, which may not tell the true story.

Point being, it's not necessarily a malicious act on the part of the inspector. Which, correct me if I'm wrong, seems to be what you're implying. It's the inspector attempting to do his job with the methods made available to him.

You are correct.

Something else to add, when the Inspector closes the file it gets reviewed by his manager. If he just closes an incomplete investigation (pilot refused to comment) the FLM is going to question the Inspector on how he closed it without all of the information available.

But, no matter what is written here or elsewhere, there are those who are convinced the Inspectors will always have devious intentions and are out to get anyone and everyone. I've tried to give a perspective from someone who's actually been involved in the process and how it works, but hey, what do I know.

 

[Palmpilot]

Thanks for providing the insight.

 

[flyingron]

Two airlines passed through the line of gliders slightly above the glider altitudes, the 3rd airliner was lower, reacted to a TCAS warning to turn right

TCAS only gives vertical instructions in RAs.

 

[flyingron]

And meanwhile I heard Mary Schiavo interviewed on the radio today calling for more regulations and a tougher a FAA....

Puke. Scary Mary. I about through a brick through my TV when CNN had her on as an aviation expert during the MH370 stuff.

 

[Jimmy cooper]

Back in the "good ole days" people did lots of buzz jobs. Low. Back then, The person who reported it had to have the n number correct or the FAA was not very interested. Did they have yours? They probably will not tell you who turned you in. I'd tell them what you were doing and why. Doesn't sound too problematical to me. I remember a pal who flew corsairs in the guard out of willow grove. Buzzed his mom often. Nothing ever said. These were impressive buzz jobs.

 

[PaulMillner]

So basically some guy can waste a bunch of people's time, falsely "accuse" them, and there's really nothing that can be done about it.

Maybe. We had an airport here in California that was bearing down on GA 'cause of hundreds of noise complaints a month. Legal wrangling got us copies of the complaints... All from the same five people!


Our counsel reminded these five, in writing, that they were creating an excellent record under CA real estate law that their properties had a mandatorily disclosable defect on sale... That is, excessive aircraft noise.


The five parties quit complaining. The airport decided the problem had been solved...


Paul

 

[wsuffa]

Puke. Scary Mary. I about through a brick through my TV when CNN had her on as an aviation expert during the MH370 stuff.

She was as close as you can get to claiming that lithium batteries brought down MH370.... she claims there was a pallet of batteries on board. She claimed there were enough loopholes in the FAA's rules to allow too many batteries on board, and the only way to stop it is with many more FAA rules and inspections. Oh, and she took a swipe at the FAA for creating rules only as a reaction (rather than proactively) - and that such has been the case since the 1980's.