FAA just turns a blind eye, or so I guess!

[UndauntedFlyer]

:beer:

I'm guessing that a fed spurned you or a close colleague at some point in the past?

Here's what happens in the majority of FAA "violations." Most of the time, the enforcing inspector is notified by way of an ATC deviation report which gets filled out if someone busts a clearance or clips some airspace or if the "snitch" goes off. The inspector reads the report, if the guy who filled it out has legible handwriting, and 9 times out of 10 will say something along the lines of "sheesh, I'm not violating him for something THAT stupid!" The inspector will the draw up a response to the deviation report and will in all probability do what they call "snapping it." Ever hear of that ticket program that AOPA and NBAA and everyone else decried as the worst idea ever? Well, actually it's a way to streamline the process and make it go quicker and easier for all involved. The inspector will check one of two boxes on the form, either for "no action" or for "warning notice," neither of which is going to be a dealbuster by anyone's standards. The form gets submitted and the computer does the rest.

Total elapsed time: about 30 minutes, depending on whether or not the guy knows how to type.

The point being, yes you're right that there will be action taken but it is because a deviation got put into the system and there is a REQUIREMENT to answer it in one way or another.

My source: I've got a few friends who are inspectors. Plus the POI for my former employer was very easy to work with and explained how the system "really works."

You also tagged on my remark about the "small stuff" being irrelevant. That was a direct quote from an FAA attourney who works for Eastern Region, one of my buddies heard this little gem during his training. I just wish I could get my hands on the actual legal term in latin.

Now, why don't we switch to debating over something that's REALLY important to a pilot: whether IPA or stout is a better beer.

Thanks for your reply and explaination.

 

[de Pez]

De minimis non curat lex - The law does not concern itself with trifles

 

[Princedietrich]

De minimis non curat lex - The law does not concern itself with trifles

AH, that's it! Thanks!


Ok so which is it Undaunted? IPA or stout? Personally, I'm a stout drinker myself but I'm always open to new brew.
:beer:

 

[nosehair]

This is also why the FAA isn't in any hurry to correct such 'trifles' as 'logging PIC' when you're not the PIC, and exactly when a night landing is a night landing or how you re-do a student x/c sign-off when the student diverts to an unintended airport or...on and on and on. These are 'trifles' that would never, in and of themselves, become violations. They can become added violations when related to a more serious violation.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

Everything we are all saying is true. But just the same, some small things are a big deal while others are not. Here, in the case of MDW, departing with 1000 & 3 is evidently not worth going after a pilot even though it is clear that the pilot was either too low or too close to clouds. Small things can be career ending while others are not.

I know of a you man who was 17 years old when he was stopped while driving and he said he had had one beer. In Illinois there is a zero tolerence rule for underage drinking and driving. He tested .03 which is so low it's still legal to fly an airplane. In any event he was arrested because he said he had had a beer. In the end he was given some kind of community service and told his record was clean, or so they thought.

A few years later he started taking flying lessons and got his Private Pilot certificate. On the medical application he answered the question about DUI's in a way that he though was correct and truthful since the state had said it wasn't really a DUI. However, when the FAA later saw an (unreported) alcohol related motor vehicle action (no matter the circumstances) that was all it took for the full force of the FAA to revoke his certificate and totally ruin any possibility of a career in aviation as a pilot.

This is a case of using a sledge hammer to swat a fly. And while they were at it, distroy the career of a nice young man who never did anything much different than most any of us may have in the same situation. In this case he misunerstood the importance of asking for a clarification of just what the situation was regarding his previous incident. He was also guilty of being too honest and truthful with the police who stopped him and too trusting of the authorities who processed his situation. His reward was a distroyed life if aviation was his interest.

I am also aware of a recent incident of a pilot who had reset a C/B on a Falcon (while on ground) to fix a problem, an unwanted transfer of fuel. The flight then departed. Next day the FAA was all over the pilot for this and said they were going to proceed with a violation that may result in certificate action. He later mentioned that he was an A&P too and that stopped the impending train wreck for this small incident. If he wasn't an A&P he would be in big trouble for something small that has probably been done by every pilot from time to time to fix an obvious problem, except in most peoples case it was worse because most pilots just reset the C/B in flight and that's the end of it. In this case, it was different because they landed enroute (as they should) because of the problem, the FAA was then aware and wanted answers as to how the airplane was fixed and returned to service (a serious item with the airworthiness group). Again, small things can be threating to a person's career depending on many varriables.

 

[The_Russian]

Everything we are all saying is true. But just the same, some small things are a big deal while others are not. Here, in the case of MDW, departing with 1000 & 3 is evidently not worth going after a pilot even though it is clear that the pilot was either too low or too close to clouds. Small things can be career ending while others are not.

What about the VFR pilot flying in the clouds when the area is clearly IMC or even marginal? What if he causes a mid-air in IMC killing tens or hundreds of people because he was trying "get somewhere". Why shouldn't the Feds go after every one of those guys? How many times have you had ATC tell you that you have VFR traffic at 12 o'clock, less than a mile at the same altitude when you know the cloud deck is 2000' below your aircraft?

 

[Princedietrich]

I will freely and openly agree that there are some federales out there who are way too zealous in the performance of their duties. I can guarantee that if I had a 110A in my pocket I wouldn't be slinging it around like Mjollnir (sp?), and I'm sure there are many who have the credential and use their powers for good. There are a lot of new folks heading over to the "dark side" in the ATC and the inspector roles, so hopefully the mentality of compliance through enforcement will fade out.

As for why they don't go after all of these small incidents, the answer is a simple issue of numbers. There just aren't enough folks out there to handle it, just like there aren't enough police to stop every single purse-snatching and vandalism. There also isn't enough funding being (properly) allocated to upgrade the gear that ATC has to work with. Some of those guys are using stuff that predates the Mercury program. That makes it tough to track down the moron that was scudrunning or who pulled some other VFR boneheadery. It's akin to getting tagged by a traffic camera but the light bulb in the flash was burnt out or not bright enough.