What would you do?

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

What percentage of GA flights in the USA would you guess are made without any violation of FAA regs?

Exactly 0%.

91.103
"Each pilot in command shall, before beginning a flight, become familiar with all available information concerning that flight."

That is not humanly possible.

 

[RotorAndWing]

The difference IMO is that some inspectors are former private-sector pilots who understand the realities, and some are chicken-**** government employees whose only demonstrated excellence is the nuances of the rule book. We have some of each here, at least until Vito finds them.

Very true.

 

[poadeleted20]

Capitulating now? No one said it wasn't a violation. You read an Order (which I provided for you) and now making the statement the consequences are in stone even though you are not familiar with the process.

Never said that. I merely quoted the book. You're the one who said the consequences wouldn't happen, and I think that's a dangerous statement to make.

 

[weilke]

That's essentially the question I'm asking the Inspectors I know. And we're assuming that if/when contacted, "Bob" admits to the facts as presented. I'll pass on what I learn.

And what if he doesn't ?

Answers such as 'ah, fly down there once in a while, I wish someone paid me for it'.

Would your intrepid ASI send out the BLM SWAT team to raid Bobs ranch and seize his financial records to proove whether he made a cash deposit that day ?

The guys are buerocrats and understaffed. On each of their desks there is a pile of inspection files of stuff they have to do by statute and that their boss is breathing their necks down about.

A little glimpse into this world was the long-form report on the Oklahoma City Citation that augered in after hitting some Pelicans. Months before, people had lodged complaints about the illegal charter business with the FSDO. The operator just denied it and the FSDO had to pound sand as they couldn't do a thing if they didn't directly observe the illegal passengers boarding. Total time allocated for the investigation of a on-paper documented illegal charter operation: 2 hrs.

 

[wabower]

Yabut but we learned a lot about the size of pelicans, the altitudes of most bird strikes, the large pelican population in OK (didn't see all that many when I was a kid, WTF did they come from?) the airframe certification standards for jets and tailfeathers and the importance of speed relative to survivable damage.

And what if he doesn't ?

Answers such as 'ah, fly down there once in a while, I wish someone paid me for it'.

Would your intrepid ASI send out the BLM SWAT team to raid Bobs ranch and seize his financial records to proove whether he made a cash deposit that day ?

The guys are buerocrats and understaffed. On each of their desks there is a pile of inspection files of stuff they have to do by statute and that their boss is breathing their necks down about.

A little glimpse into this world was the long-form report on the Oklahoma City Citation that augered in after hitting some Pelicans. Months before, people had lodged complaints about the illegal charter business with the FSDO. The operator just denied it and the FSDO had to pound sand as they couldn't do a thing if they didn't directly observe the illegal passengers boarding. Total time allocated for the investigation of a on-paper documented illegal charter operation: 2 hrs.

 

[weilke]

Yabut but we learned a lot about the size of pelicans, the altitudes of most bird strikes, the large pelican population in OK (didn't see all that many when I was a kid, WTF did they come from?) the airframe certification standards for jets and tailfeathers and the importance of speed relative to survivable damage.

The one thing we didn't learn is how the FAA can do a better job enforcing the air-charter regulations (the punishment for the principal actors was that their application for an operating certificate would be expedited).

 

[poadeleted20]

And what if he doesn't ?

Then the issue is whether you can get away with lying to the Feds, not what happens to a pilot who does this and gets caught, and I thought the question was the latter.

 

[weilke]

Then the issue is whether you can get away with lying to the Feds,

Nobody is talking about lying. Just being uncooperative and forgetful.

 

[weilke]

the large pelican population in OK (didn't see all that many when I was a kid, WTF did they come from?)

When you where a kid, the Canada goose was near extinct. At the time someone thought that that was a bad thing

 

[poadeleted20]

Nobody is talking about lying. Just being uncooperative and forgetful.

I don't necessarily see the difference, but even if it is, it begs the original question about what a FSDO Inspector will do if the facts become known.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Never said that. I merely quoted the book. You're the one who said the consequences wouldn't happen, and I think that's a dangerous statement to make.

Nice spin.

 

[poadeleted20]

Nice spin.

It's always easy to spin the truth. And I maintain that your suggestion that the pilot involved in that "pay for delivery" flight would only get a telephonic admonition is a dangerous one for folks to act on. We'll see how many FAA Inspectors share your expectation.

 

[Ted]

What percentage of GA flights in the USA would you guess are made without any violation of FAA regs?

When I got my CFI ride, the head of the FSDO down there came in and gave me some free advice. He said there are four domains that exist in flying:

Safe and Legal
Not Safe but Legal
Safe but not Legal
Not Safe and Not Legal

"Safe and Legal is where we want to live. Not Safe/Legal and Safe/Not Legal are where we do live. Not Safe/Not Legal is where we want to stay away from."

He included himself and the FSDO in that regard.

So, I would say something around 0%.

Now children, go to your rooms, it's time for a time out.

 

[RotorAndWing]

When I got my CFI ride, the head of the FSDO down there came in and gave me some free advice. He said there are four domains that exist in flying:

Safe and Legal
Not Safe but Legal
Safe but not Legal
Not Safe and Not Legal

"Safe and Legal is where we want to live. Not Safe/Legal and Safe/Not Legal are where we do live. Not Safe/Not Legal is where we want to stay away from."

He included himself and the FSDO in that regard.

So, I would say something around 0%.

Now children, go to your rooms, it's time for a time out.

That's pretty good.

 

[RotorAndWing]

It's always easy to spin the truth. And I maintain that your suggestion that the pilot involved in that "pay for delivery" flight would only get a telephonic admonition is a dangerous one for folks to act on. We'll see how many FAA Inspectors share your expectation.

You'll get several interpretations no doubt. That is if you present the situation as presented by the OP and not try to place your usual spin on the situation. Like I said earlier, you simply don't understand the process and are too rigid to try to understand. As someone else previously posted and you fit the bill perfectly, "whose only demonstrated excellence is the nuances of the rule book."

 

[Ted]

That's pretty good.

Thanks, I considered it to be good advice, so I've shared it with others.

 

[gismo]

Never said that. I merely quoted the book. You're the one who said the consequences wouldn't happen, and I think that's a dangerous statement to make.

I see no danger in making such a statement, especially on a forum like this. Believing and operating on the basis of such a statement might be "dangerous" to your certificate. Personally I suspect there's a strong measure of truth to the notion that some if not many FSDO GA inspectors would ignore such an incident as has been discussed here if they felt they could get away with it (i.e. not suffer repercussions themselves as a result) but that doesn't mean I'd take pains to notify the local FSDO in writing if I had been involved in that transgression myself.

 

[poadeleted20]

I see no danger in making such a statement, especially on a forum like this. Believing and operating on the basis of such a statement might be "dangerous" to your certificate.

My point exactly.

 

[Aztec Driver]

Man I hate waiting, the suspense is killing me.

 

[poadeleted20]

Finally got some answers. Both FSDO Inspectors I reached (at different FSDO's) said they would investigate the situation to determine just what happened. They both made clear that they would be investigating, but that any FAA action would depend on the results of the investigation beyond the bare bones facts described. Based on that investigation, one wrote:

I would take the information about the hypothetical rock you describe, sitting in the pasture, and peek under it to see if there is any grass growing under it.

If the grass is still fresh – a verbal counseling, would occur while putting the rock back in the rock pile where it came from. If the grass was dead, from the rock being in the wrong more than this one time and there was lots of things growing under the rock, I would document all the stuff under the rock and send it to legal.

The other said, "I'd be looking to find out if this was intentional or just stupid." He said that this is a technical violation with no direct safety implications, which puts it on a lower level of interest to the FAA. He went on to say that if it appeared intentional (i.e., that the pilot knew it was wrong but did it anyway), he'd check that pilot's records and then process it in accordance with the EDT, which, depending on the pilot's record and attitude and anything else that turned up in the investigation, might result in anything from counseling to administrative action to an enforcement action with a suspension under the EDT criteria. He said that if the pilot simply didn't understand the rules, and had an otherwise clean record, he'd take the pilot in a room somewhere for counseling, and then file this in case the pilot's name came up again.

And, FWIW, if you've read this thread, you won't be able to honestly claim you didn't know better. So I'll stick with my original advice which was to fly the wallet, pay your own expenses, and be a gracious guest the next time they take you out to dinner someplace pricey or for a round of golf where the greens fees are in three digits, and then you'll never have to answer that question from an Inspector.

 

[Ted]

Thanks for the info, Ron.

 

[NBPD336]

I would think the inspector would, like we do, use his/her disgression. If the pilot were a "frequently flyer" (no pun intended), out comes the magnifying glass.

 

[poadeleted20]

I would think the inspector would, like we do, use his/her disgression. If the pilot were a "frequently flyer" (no pun intended), out comes the magnifying glass.

I think they both were saying the magnifying glass comes out either way, and their action depends on what they see through it.

 

[RotorAndWing]

I think they both were saying the magnifying glass comes out either way, and their action depends on what they see through it.

Just like I said.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Finally got some answers. Both FSDO Inspectors I reached (at different FSDO's) said they would investigate the situation to determine just what happened. They both made clear that they would be investigating, but that any FAA action would depend on the results of the investigation beyond the bare bones facts described. Based on that investigation, one wrote:

The other said, "I'd be looking to find out if this was intentional or just stupid." He said that this is a technical violation with no direct safety implications, which puts it on a lower level of interest to the FAA. He went on to say that if it appeared intentional (i.e., that the pilot knew it was wrong but did it anyway), he'd check that pilot's records and then process it in accordance with the EDT, which, depending on the pilot's record and attitude and anything else that turned up in the investigation, might result in anything from counseling to administrative action to an enforcement action with a suspension under the EDT criteria. He said that if the pilot simply didn't understand the rules, and had an otherwise clean record, he'd take the pilot in a room somewhere for counseling, and then file this in case the pilot's name came up again.

And, FWIW, if you've read this thread, you won't be able to honestly claim you didn't know better. So I'll stick with my original advice which was to fly the wallet, pay your own expenses, and be a gracious guest the next time they take you out to dinner someplace pricey or for a round of golf where the greens fees are in three digits, and then you'll never have to answer that question from an Inspector.

When I tried to tell you the same thing you absolutely wouldn't listen.

Anyway, that's how it works.


BTW, I do respect that you put out the answers that you did.

 

[poadeleted20]

Third county heard from -- retired from Flight Standards with both FSDO and HQ experience. He felt that the most likely outcome would a warning notice (which stays in your record for two years), and counseling was less likely even if there was no prior record or problems with that pilot. He pointed out that even if you are just counseled, a record is made of that and kept for two years. In any event, he felt the decision on administrative or enforcement action would be made by the Inspector's manager, not the individual Inspector.

He also said that the response would likely vary between regions, as some regions are harder on enforcement issues than others (e.g., Eastern Region is buried in SFRA/P-40 actions, and doesn't want to handle less serious matters, but Southern Region has more available resources for enforcement actions), and have given the FSDO's in their regions appropriate direction on how to handle various sorts of cases. That means the consequences for any particular offending action may vary by location -- not, I'm sure, what anyone wants to hear.

All in all, it ain't the sort of thing which anyone should contemplate doing unless they have a level of risk tolerance such that I wouldn't want to fly with them.