yeah James, if you'd read some of the posts from last summer you'd see we havd enough good will from the faa. Someone got themselves banned from here for turning one of us in to the faa THat whole incident was the start of a lot of crap that has come down on this site... There are several threads on here that were originally intended to share information so's we could all learn from them but with the FAA here looking over our shoulder who in his right mind would offer up any experience they had . Hell we, well not me, but some of us land on roads sometimes and fly lower than we're supposed to in areas no one else will go... If you wanted to you could find fault or some violation in almost every story here. So why should we feel great about your participation when so many FAA people in the past have pushed their weight around...

I think a prudent assumption would be that yes-- an interested FAA inspector can read any of the posts on BCP. It's open to the entire internet. Any posting should be done with that in mind, we've gone over this. We're better off for knowing.

In this case, however, we have a pilot who happens to work for the FAA inspecting an accident, and has volunteered details of the accident, as well as been forthright about his role. The predictable, but shortsighted, response is to take your pound of internet flesh.

Perhaps it's best if we keep an open mind and glean what we can. I'd bet the Big Brothers who crawl these aviation forums looking for dirt on pilots are not the same guys who jump in and actually talk backcountry flying/planes/events on a first name basis. There's always a good guy to be found, even working for the Evil Empire. This is not intended as a political statement, but rather a tip for less stressful living on BCP.

I realize my youthful optimism may not be shared. (dodging shoes...)

I see we are still BC assholes dot org as much as pilots...

To perhaps place a slightly finer point on it than Zane's well thought out point:

Folks, if you are dumb enough to post something on the internet that would/could serve as evidence in a court (civil or criminal) against you, then it makes little difference who posts on these boards. Why not just send the FAA a full confession up front, and save us all the BS?

OR, maybe, we could keep these discussions within the realm of reality, dump some of the testosterone laced BS, and act like grown ups.

OK, sorry, I realize that nowhere on an FAA medical application does the FAA require that we state that we exhibit adult behaviour. All they ask is our age.....and that apparently isn't indicative of much in some cases.

If you want to bash the FAA, go for it. I have had legitimate beefs with the agency in past. May again in future. Nevertheless, I can and will carry on a conversation with any Inspector around.

As to James, I would hope that he wouldn't get his underwear in a knot. If YOU are goofy enough to identify yourself as an FAA type on one of these forums, you should expect a little pushback. You too just need to keep it professional.

As many have said, many times, we should all approach our flying as professionals, no matter what type of certificate we hold.

I would argue that perhaps we should all TRY to interact on an internet forum with the same approach.



MTV

Delete

I for one am a bit sorry to see James (the FAA guy) state that he's bailing out of these forums. It's not a bad thing to get a fed's take on some of this stuff. After the whole "snitch" deal last year, everyone should be careful posting about anything that could construed as borderline legal behaviour anyway.
I can't say as I blame James for bailing after some people jumped in his shit like they did. I didn't take any of his comments as a threat -- maybe a warning, however, as to what to expect per FAA policy if you screw up. A sandbar groundloop while solo shouldn't be any big deal to the feds, I agree, but if you hurt a passenger while involved in some "extreme aviating" maybe a wakeup call is in order? I read an article not long ago (in AOPA pilot?) about a guy who was giving a scenic ride to someone (a stranger) in his Stearman and screwed up-- hit a powerline or something doing some low level flying & crashed , killing the passenger. Now should he be able to just walk away, scot free? I'll bet that if it was your wife who was kilt, you'd want his head on a platter.

Eric

Don't get me wrong, we need rules and regulations. But if there's to be freedom in this country, agencies with the power to ruin your life have to have checks and balances of that power, and business has to be conducted above board and in public. You don't get that with the FAA.

The Bob Hoover incident is a perfect example of how the power and zealotry of even a low level functionary can be wielded with arrogance and impunity, with no logical thought or care to the damage being done to someone's life. Bob Hoover FAILED his reexamination, based upon the initial learned opinion of the inspectors. If it wasn't for the probably hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on his defense, Hoover would still be grounded. That would certainly make me feel safer and more secure sitting in my home.

Gump

hotrod150 wrote:if you screw up. A sandbar groundloop while solo shouldn't be any big deal to the feds, I agree, but if you hurt a passenger while involved in some "extreme aviating"

Forget airplanes for a second. You and a buddy are into extreme off-roading and go play rock crawling with your tricked out Jeep. Shit happens and you roll over and your buddy bumps his arm and needs stitches. Technically you have an injury accident that you are responsible for causing.

Should a police report be made? Should you be required to appear at a government hearing to defend against reckless and endangerment charges? Should you be required to submit to a reexamination of your highway driving skills with a government inspector riding in the passenger seat, grading your every move?

I'm not being glib here. What are you peoples thoughts on the issue? The above is exactly what happens in a situation with your private airplane.

Gump

Gump,

Your example doesn't NECESSARILY fit the aviation situation. If your buddy gets a laceration on his arm, and is stitched up, that's NOT an accident, by definition in aviation terms. Now, if you did do major structural damage to the airplane in the process, then it would be an accident, but the fact that someone received a minor injury in the process is not going to be considered in an FAA action. They can't.

Now, your overall point is very well taken. In fact, the NTSB is SUPPOSED to be the oversight agency who oversees FAA enforcement actions, and reverses those that are unfair or?? Unfortunately, the NSTB almost never overturns the FAA's enforcement actions.

So, frankly, in my book it's the NTSB that is the real enemy. The FAA can do what they perceive as their job. We can then appeal that decision to the NTSB, but if the NTSB simply rubber stamps everything the FAA does.....

THAT is what sucks about the system. The NTSB is supposed to provide those checks and balances. They DO NOT.

Consider the question of low flight over a congested area, for example: The FAA has cited several aviators for flying too low over what someone in the FAA decided was a "congested area of a city, town or settlement, or an outdoor assembly of people". I think we all probably have sort of a notion of what WE think that means. Obviously, some in the FAA have a vastly different opinion of what constitutes a "congested area". See FAR 91.119 for the reg.

In the latest of these enforcement actions, every one of which the NTSB has refused to reverse to date, the area involved was waaaaaay far from being what I would call a congested area. The attorney who attempted to defend the pilot in that case argued to the NTSB that there is in fact, no definition of the term "congested area" in the FAR or anywhere else, and that there should be.

The NTSB refused to reverse the FAA's decision in that case, and noted that they didn't see any problem with there being no definition of "congested area" in place. The NTSB argued that that definition should be left to the FAA on a case by case basis.

So, you're flying around tomorrow, near the edge of a town, or out in the country, but there's a boy scout camp with a few buildings out there in the woods. You fly over it at 800 feet. Totally legal, correct??? Nope, sorry--congested area. So, how are we as pilots supposed to be able to tell whether we're legal or not?

It's the NTSB, Gump. If the FAA got reversed on a few of these things, and told that they were really dip shits in the process, by the very agency that is supposed to provide balance and fairness to the process, then we'd see a LOT less BS enforcement cases coming out of the FAA.

Just my opinion, and we all know about those.

MTV

The person(s) who jumped in James' shit seemed to assume that HE is one of the bad apples in the FAA barrel. Not necesarily so- he might be one of the good guys, we should all give him the benefit of the doubt until it proves out otherwise.
A guy based at my home airport was until recently an FAA op's inspector, I think he worked there 3 or 4 years. He has been in aviation all his life- float flying in southeast, 135 operator, corporate pilot- and has done his share of "yeehaw" stuff. He IS one of the good guys, just the sort of person I like to see with an FAA badge. Unfortunately for us, he left the FAA & moved on to making a living in another part of aviation.
Think about it- if we contimue to give the good FAA guys the sort of treatment we feel the bad FAA guys deserve, the good ones might get fed up & quit.... leaving nothing BUT the bad ones. Now how would you like them apples?
FWIW, I was just now thinking that there were/are some people participating on this site who were/are involved in law enforcement. Now personally, I've had more trouble with being hassled by cops than by the FAA -- but I don't sling mud on anyone here & now for problems I may have had with "bad cops" in the past. Substitute "cop" for "FAA guy" in these posts & maybe it'll give ya a different perspective.

Eric

GumpAir wrote:
Like the man says, it's our responsibility, and our duty to question authority.

Gump

It strikes me that when someone is talking about a third party, and another poster reads something personal into it, the problem resides somewhere else than the original poster.

I've been guilty of this in the past as much as anyone.

FWIW I think your question about the details of the 709 ride and backcountry ops is a good one, and I'd be very curious about the answer. Too bad we won't get that chance. At least not from James.

A lot of us have been innoculated against the ***hattery that takes place on this site, over time. New posters haven't, and any neighbor with a lick of human feeling should take that into account.

Delete

You know Gump, I had you pegged as a seasoned, elder pilot who had “done-it-all” which resulted in a well thought out opinion on almost anything life could throw at a guy and, you could express it in just a few articulate words.

I was wrong about the few words.

Power and Authority, whether it is the Cop or the FAA, you are at their mercy. Good cop, bad cop, FAA, TSA, FBI, push up or push down, the individual only has about only so much power. They are out to protect you from whatever THEY think is the hazard. This goes from the head master down to the Barney Fife's of the world. If it is percieved that you have screwed up there is always someone that wants to make you pay...these rules may or may not pertain to them but that is their discretion.
I know there are law enforcement and government,as well as individuals who may visit this site and draw their own conclusions.
We have laws that must exist because of the society that we want to live in so we put up with the loss of personal freedoms to protect ourselves from lawbreakers. If after a while there are soooo many laws written to protect us from all the unlawful things that are out there, we have given up all of our freedoms for a false sense of security and everything is now against some law.
I personally believe we have lost a lot of our freedoms....and will loose even more...because what is being sold is that by doing this we will be able to live in a much more secure world.
Probably all of us have had to deal with law enforcement at one time or other and some of us have HAD to deal with the FAA. These encounters may or maynot have been the most fun times of our lives, but I'm sure we have all learned something from it. We probably all learned that the individuals who represent the respective enforcement agencies will act differently according to our perspective..some good and some bad.
To James with the FAA out of Spokane...I appreciate your comment on the plane crash and the facts as you know them.
To others that may want to bash the FAA because of thier own perspective...more power to you!
I don't like everything that I see or hear BUT I am willing to try to change the things that I can with the system that is in place. Get involved with the political machine if you want to change what is going on. If you don't, there will be change and you may not like the way it changes.
HC

Skystrider wrote:I was wrong about the few words.

Yeah, I know... Shut up Gump!!!!!

I will.

Gump

GumpAir wrote:

Skystrider wrote:I was wrong about the few words.

Yeah, I know... Shut up Gump!!!!!

I will.

Gump

Actually Gump, I am very impressed with your reasoning as I am with some of the others comments by other members being made. You, in particular, have gone right to the heart of the matter describing the abuses that power leads to when not balanced by the threat of consequences. I find that the two brain cells I have are rapidly heating up because they are furiously rubbing against each other thinking about this discussion.

it's our responsibility, and our duty to question authority.

This. And, as with hicountry's post, at some point, we give up so much of our decision-making ability and personal responsibility to those who desire power... that eventually freedom will exit, stage left.

Aviation, though long the target of the regulators, is one of the last, best activities for those who love freedom. I mean, what better freedom than that of a bird? Though there are quite a few examples of folks who aren't as responsible as they oughta be... they exist despite the "best" efforts of the FAA and NTSB.

Checks and balances? How are two bureaucracies going to provide the checks and balances needed to protect individual liberty? It's like expecting a group of ferrets to work with a fox to protect the chicken coop.

Most of my personal experiences with officialdom were, at best, politely strained. The inspector I dealt with most often would sneak out and ramp check our airplanes at night, even if they were tagged and waiting for repair outside the repair shop. Never asked anything about 'em, just red-tagged 'em out of... hell... I don't even know. Do they have a quota to fill?

I'm sure there are good guys, just like cops. Unfortunately, they've sworn to uphold laws that are blatantly unconstitutional.

I'm an optimist about people. I believe that we tend to do the right and safe thing, given a chance. The folks who don't... they'll just try a little harder to avoid attention, but they still operate unsafely even with an enormous bureaucracy hanging over them like the sword of Damocles.

At least, for the FAA guys' sakes... there is now the TSA to absorb some of the ire.
Hell. We had to take all the shirttails down off the solo wall, after some TSA goons wandered in and started taking names. They wanted "Papers, Please!" even for those who'd been up there long before all that documentation had been required. After we explained that to 'em, they gave some boilerplate "no exceptions" crap, and we had to track everyone down.

Some of the geezers managed to squeeze a few words out of them as they "worked", and found that these Masters of Aviation Security didn't know squat about airplanes and aviation.

As has been said...

..."he who is willing to sacrifice freedom for security gains neither." maybe not a direct quote.

Then as my father once said...."Mussolii and his Fasists made the trains run on time."

Glad that I won't be around to see what happens within a generation.

Bob

Spacer,

To nit pick a bit, the federal aviation regulations are in fact supported by the US Constitution. Now, if you're a strict constructionist, you'll argue that NO regulations are constitutional, but frankly that's a nonsense argument.

Point is, however, when it comes to police powers, there are checks and balances. If you get a traffic ticket, and don't agree that you were in violation of the REGULATION, you will have your day in court. The Judicial branch will oversee the Executive branch in this case, and decide whether the case has merit or not. The judicial in this country is pretty seriously independant of the executive, as it should be. Granted, there's some variation there.

But, consider that ALL the FAR's are purely civil regulations. They are legal, but our judicial has no oversight of them. If you are cited, you go to the FAA. You petition the FAA Chief Counsel, who determines whether he thinks you're wrong (guess which way that usually goes). Now, you can appeal the case to an administrative law judge (NOT a judge in the criminal sense) who works FAR stuff largely. Those folks almost always come down on the side of the FAA Inspector.

Now comes your big shot--the "balances" part of checks and balances: the NTSB. Show me a case where the NTSB did NOT side with the FAA. I've heard it happens, but not very often.

Finally, you FINAL chance: The NTSB full Board-which is supposed to be the equivalent of the Supreme Court in these civil cases. Most times, they look at a case and choose not to weigh in on it, in other words, you're hosed. Even in cases where they do choose to hear the case, they almost always uphold the FAA.

My point was and is, not that the SYSTEM is screwed up, but rather the NTSB, which is supposed to provide the checks and balances, isn't doing it's job.

And, by the way, you DO NOT want the NTSB making aviation regulations either....THEY can be real nut balls when it comes to some of the stuff they recommend to the FAA. The FAA actually refuses to implement a lot of the stuff that the NTSB proposes, and often that saves US a lot of heartburn.

MTV

GumpAir wrote:

Skystrider wrote:I was wrong about the few words.

Yeah, I know... Shut up Gump!!!!!

I will.

Gump

No one is saying that. It would be nice if people could articulate their ideas - or their displeasure about someone else's - without murdering the messenger, for a change. I guess I am an optimist