Flight time limits

[A Squared]

I'm sure you know more than me (and everyone else), but it seems that carless and reckless is usually tacked onto another violation. Have not read about too many if any that were just C&R.

So, exactly, how many have you read about? Or even approximately? I ask because 91.13 is a fairly common stand alone violation, so It raises the question, have you not read about many enforcements and you're just talking out your @ss?

 

[Lear Wanna Be]

So, exactly, how many have you read about? Or even approximately? I ask because 91.13 is a fairly common stand alone violation, so It raises the question, have you not read about many enforcements and you're just talking out your @ss?

Source? Show me. Not that I have read a lot of enforcement action letters. Just the occasional one in a trade magazine or one attached to an accident investigation. But I do know they tack it onto just about everything these days. It is also the first thing they drop in the bargaining process. Under the true letter of the law, it is hard to be careless and reckless. Straight out of an FAA Great Lakes region attornies mouth.

 

[A Squared]

Source? Show me.
Under the true letter of the law, it is hard to be careless and reckless. Straight out of an FAA Great Lakes region attornies mouth.

Absolute Horse$hit. neither you or your attorney friend know what you're talking about. Go to NTSB.gov and go to the orders and opinions section do a search for 91.13. I guarantee you will find *plenty* of stand alone 91.13 violations. And those on the NTSB site are those that have been appealed and most are sustained. So yes, 91.13 is often a stand alone violation and it does stand up on appeal

Do a little research before you start running your mouth....or keyboard as the case may be.

 

[Lear Wanna Be]

Absolute Horse$hit. neither you or your attorney friend know what you're talking about. Go to NTSB.gov and go to the orders and opinions section do a search for 91.13. I guarantee you will find *plenty* of stand alone 91.13 violations. And those on the NTSB site are those that have been appealed and most are sustained. So yes, 91.13 is often a stand alone violation and it does stand up on appeal

Do a little research before you start running your mouth....or keyboard as the case may be.

Let me see here, did you actually look at the case history or did you just run your keyboard as you like to say? Going back to 1/1/04 there are 1158 orders entered into the record that went to trial. 228 of those had 91.13 attached to the order. Of those, about 19 (+/- a couple) are 91.13 violations alone. Of those 3 are appeals that required another entry for the same case. Of the other 16 that were left, there are 2 for leaving the aircraft while it was running, 1 for using the wrong w&B forms on a B727, 1 for running out of fuel, 1 for making a precautionary landing on a farm field cause the guy thought he was going to run out of gas, 1 for rolling off the runway on landing, 1 for class B penetration without authorization, 1 guy should have seen the a fence before he hit it on take-off, 1 for a landing in a helo that scared horses, 1 for poor pre-flight left fuel cap off, 1 for exceeding aircraft's capabilites, 1 for landing short of a runway, 1 for landing on a taxi-way, 1 for a gear up, 1 for landing at the wrong airport, and 1 for damaging cars with jet blast. My guess is that 1/2 of those 16 started with another charge that was dropped. So 8 or so in 1158 cases is not a lot IMHO. And 4 of them where dismissed.

Now, before you go attacking what you think I do know or what I don't know, let me ask you; have you ever had enforcement action started against you? Have you ever gone through the appeal process? Have you ever fought the FAA for 16 months on an enforcement? Have you ever sat across the table from FAA head legal council with the investigating POI on the conference call? And if you have ever done this, did the FAA actually back down on a Presidential TFR violation (yes, the one they don't ever back down on because they have to answer to the Secret Service), which yes included 91.13....just days before trial? Now if you can still answer "yes", then you and I are just a couple pilots from a very small group that can say that. Yes I learned a lot. I thank AOPA legal department, the regional AOPA rep, my own POI, a couple attornies, and Kylie over at DUATS for helping prove that I did brief and there was no mention of a TFR. Now I admit that I am no expert on legal matters, but I would also say that I have had more experience with these matters than most pilots and I hope nobody here has to go through what I did. Very scarey when it happens to you. Oh, the NASA form was filed right away so no suspension. Fought it on principal and the fact that I did not want a violation(ever).

 

[avbug]

My guess is ...

That pretty much says it all.

Wanna Be

That says the rest.

just days before trial

Trial? What trial? Do you mean initial appeal before an ALJ during a hearing? That's no "trial."

Now, before you go attacking what you think I do know or what I don't know, let me ask you; have you ever had enforcement action started against you? Have you ever gone through the appeal process? Have you ever fought the FAA for 16 months on an enforcement?

Now that you ask...yes. Twice. Succeeded...twice.

...fought the FAA for 16 months... just days before trial

Hmmm.

Now I admit that I am no expert on legal matters

My, we have a penchant for understantement, don't we? Fear not; the first step is admitting it.

No expert on duty times or maintenance either, so it would seem. Certainly no pre-requisite to be a "wanna-be."

Fought it on principal and the fact that I did not want a violation(ever).

On principal? The man who brags about exploiting loopholes and paying mechanics who work three hours for an eight hour day? What principal would that be, exactly?

 

[A Squared]

WHile I'm sure that you find the fact that you were the subject of an enforcment action for a TFR violiation absolutely fascinating, it really has absolutely no relevance.

By your own research there have been 16 stand alone enforcement actions of 91.13 in the last two years which have been appealed to the NTSB. Those are only those which have been appealed to the NTSB. That does not count those in which the pilot just accepted the violation without fighting. that doesn't include those in which the pilot appealed the finding to a law judge, then accepted the ALJ's finding. Remember, the opinions and orders you read are at the second level of appeal. Your accounting of the particulars of the cases you read is enthralling, but it completely misses the point. The point is, regardless of the reasons, the FAA can and does bring action solely for careless and/or reckless operation.

 

[100LL... Again!]

One sidebar is that I always though it a bit of a contradiction that one could be charged with careless AND reckless.

True they are somewhat related, but often one who is careless is not necessarily reckless.

And one who is reckless is way beyond careless. It's like charging a mass murderer with violating a noise ordinance after he goes on a shooting spree.

 

[Lear Wanna Be]

AVBUG...you sure are good at using quotes! Your personal attacks are among the best on the board. Classic I would say. You and A squared are so good at it, but then you are one in the same...just have two avatars, right? Do you get confused sometimes? Is that why you answer questions that are asked of A sq.?


Now for your A squared persona, It is very relavant, goes towards the experience I have had working with the feds on legal matters. I learned a lot. Among them, what little rights we pilots have. We have the burden of proof in "hearings' and how the FAA will except "hearsay" as evidence when it favors them. It is actually kind of scarey if you really think about it. Now, I have given you a 16 examples of cases going back to 1994. How about you? Where are your facts?

100LL, that was kind of the point of the statement I made earlier. You more or less said the same thing as the FAA guy that I spoke of earlier. Thanks and I am being sincere about that.

Now back to the point. The regs as we all know are very vague in a lot of areas. Perhaps that is good. When flying for hire the Ops Manual only makes it more restrictive and in many ways clears up any vagueness. Avbug has managed to escape two violations apparently, why he didn't learn his lesson the first time is hard to understand, but I suppose it has something to do with his hazardous attitude. In some way he or his attorney probably argued as to the vagueness of the reg. Might not be apparent, but in some shape or form that is what it came down to.

 

[A Squared]

Well, if you want to believe that I'm Avbug, have at it. No skin off my nose.

Among them, what little rights we pilots have. We have the burden of proof in "hearings' and how the FAA will except "hearsay" as evidence when it favors them. It is actually kind of scarey if you really think about it.

Umm, yeah, I wouldn't disagree with you on that much. That doesn't make it relevant to the question of whether or not 91.13 is used as a stand alone violation.

Now, I have given you a 16 examples of cases going back to 1994. How about you? Where are your facts?

Facts? what sort of facts do you want? we've already determined through your numbers that 91.13 *is* used as a stand alone violation. Incidentally, why is it that suddenly it's going back to 1994 now, when in an earlier post you said 1/1/2004? Cooking your data to make it look better?

 

[midlifeflyer]

Well, if you want to believe that I'm Avbug, have at it. No skin off my nose.

...and, as much as I hate to say it, makes wannabe's self-portrait seem even more in line with avbug's description of him.

Wannabe? There really is a point at which saying more simply "removes all doubt."

 

[avbug]

You and A squared are so good at it, but then you are one in the same...just have two avatars, right?

I have an avatar?

In truth, A Squared is a lot sharper than I am...anybody who has read our posts here or elsewhere over the past few years would know right away that we're not the same person...but whatever.

When flying for hire the Ops Manual only makes it more restrictive and in many ways clears up any vagueness.

If you really did fly for hire, then you'd see the fallacy in that statement. Ops Manual, or OpSpecs, brightspark?

Legal interpretations clarify...but of what vagueness do you speak, exactly?

Now back to the point.

You have a point?? This should be good.

The regs as we all know are very vague in a lot of areas. Perhaps that is good.

How is that good, and how are the regulations vague? Specifics? They do appear that way when you haven't any experience using them, and when you don't bother to read them, don't they?

Avbug has managed to escape two violations apparently, why he didn't learn his lesson the first time is hard to understand, but I suppose it has something to do with his hazardous attitude. In some way he or his attorney probably argued as to the vagueness of the reg. Might not be apparent, but in some shape or form that is what it came down to.

My, my, mister wannabe. You're quite the expert. You have it pegged. Except that I didn't have an attorney. And there was no lesson to learn. I received pressure from the FAA in one case, via a false charge, to find and provide evidence to use against an employer. The inspector who threatened the enforcement action offered to drop it if I'd locate evidence he could use against my employer. When I didn't provide that evidence, he sent it to region, and after interacting with region for several months, I received a letter stating that there was no evidence to proceed, and the matter would be tabled, ending with a warning notice (administrative action) put in my records for two years.

The second matter was equally ridiculous, involving an overzelous inspector who had pushed his luck so far that he had been knocked to the ground by pilots twice in the past on the ramp. He screamed and yelled (and was again, subsequently transferred to another region, just as he had been several times in his career previously)...and called me one night after he began enforcement proceedings. He told me he'd drop the matter if I left him out of it, and then became enraged because in my response to the FAA, included his comments in quotes...implicating him in the matter and showing that not only was I not guilty of the violation, but that the center of the show and the cause of the incident had been the inspector. I received a phone call at ten at night, from the inspector, saying he would have dropped the matter, but that since I'd implicated him, not only would he not "drop it," but he was going to "nail" me to the "wall."

I spent a year interacting with the regional FAA, and in the end received a nice letter from the region saying that no evidence of wrong doing could be found, that the matter would be tabled...and that a letter of warning would be put in my file for two years, just as before.

Learned my lesson? No, I've got the matter well documented, particularly well established in light of the fact that it's documented at the regional level by the FAA, and the FAA published letters clearly stating that I was not found at fault...not to mention the fact that the incident was a big enough black streak that the inspector involved was transferred elsewhere. Go figure.

But other than having it exactly wrong, wannabe, I guess you got it pegged, didn't you?

Now, tell me all about that hazardous attitude, oh hijacker of threads...we know who you are. So who are we today...350driver, splitS, or the skylane expert of whom we dare not speak his name?

 

[Lear Wanna Be]

That's right avbug, avatar:a variant phase or version of a continuing basic entity.

You sure are a sharp one! With your quick whit, great ability to put people down...by of course ridiculing them and in your own lame way trying to discredit them, and your ability to spin things and accuse others of exactly what you do.

Continued fantastic use of the quote function. However, if you are going to quote someone, use the entire sentence. Don't just take a portion of it and try to spin what one said. You mentioned truly dense, well you qualify! You still have not figured it out, even though it has already been stated, but my mechs worked. I earlier just generalized what I see at other shops these days. But of course you already knew that and are just trying to continue to show your back side.

So avbug, today it is worked at a repair station, huh? Did that take up a lot of your time? Well, with you being a corporate pilot, fire bomber pilot, airline pilot, 135 line pilot, airline mechanic, chief airline mechanic, and business owner (yes I have read some of your BS in other threads too)? Man you are sure are a busy man. Not really, huh? We all know you are full of it. It is OK...keep living your dreams on this board, just stay out of the skies that I so often frequent.

If you truly had such things happen with the FAA and it really went down the way you mentioned, then why would you get a letter of warning? You had the letter right there that said "no evidence of wrong doing was found". In fact, you had two of them. Why would you accept this? Are you some kind of moron, well yes, but everybody knows that. However, in this case it is because you are full of BS. With your attitude on this board, your overwhelming desire to put people down, and above all, your need to be Alpha, you sure would not have. Unless, you were said inspector(s) and are just trying to turn your ridiculous stories around. FAA inspector, there ya go, yet another job avbug has mastered. Even if your ridiculous stories are true, don't dare think that your experiences with FAA legal are anywhere close to mine. I wish it had never happened to me and that I could not say that. Unfortunately, it did and I feel I am one of the lucky ones with the results.

 

[avbug]

You truly are dense, but entertaining...you aren't able to spout off all those vague regulations you dont' understand, but you're entertaining. You've been 100% wrong aboug every single thing you've posted so far...so let's continue, shall we?

So avbug, today it is worked at a repair station, huh? Did that take up a lot of your time?

Yes. A LOT. And that's worked at a repair station, as in past tense. I no longer work in the repair station, where I served as a mechanic and inspector.

Well, with you being a corporate pilot, fire bomber pilot, airline pilot, airline mechanic, chief airline mechanic, and business owner (yes I have read some of your BS in other threads too)?

You really don't like this quote function, do yo? It reveals you. Where did I claim to be a chief airline mechanic, exactly? Post the URL for us all. Which business is it that I own(ed), to which you refer? Back up yourself here, if you can. Oooh, you're a sharp one. Forever incorrect, but a sharp one.

You still have not figured it out, even though it has already been stated, but my mechs worked. I earlier just generalized what I see at other shops these days.

No, you told us as mechanics that we're all "greedy bastards," that you ran a shop for five years in which your mechanics worked three out of every eight hours, and spent the rest of the time in the restroom, on the phone, and smoking. Anybody who doesn't believe that can visit the mechanic forum and read the thread for themself. Now you say you generalized what you saw at other shops...these days. In other words, you lied.

FAA inspector, there ya go, yet another job avbug has mastered.

I am not now, and never have been, in the employment of the FAA. I have served as a volunteer representative in the form of an aviation safety counselor, and nothing more. Nor have I EVER claimed otherwise. Your need to lie is pathological, then?

If you truly had such things happen with the FAA and it really went down the way you mentioned, then why would you get a letter of warning? You had the letter right there that said "no evidence of wrong doing was found". In fact, you had two of them. Why would you accept this?

Well...there goes any credibility of expertise you might have pretended, in these matters. Doesn't it?

You really don't understand the system, do you?

Not only do I have the letters, but I've provided them to employers in interviews at their request to show that indeed I was cleared without difficulty...and those letters have been accepted by every employer without difficulty. Not that it requires explaining to you, the seeker of loopholes, exploiter of regulation, and payer of non working mechanics for five years.

Oh, and did I forget...liar?

 

[Lear Wanna Be]

No, you told us as mechanics that we're all "greedy bastards," that you ran a shop for five years in which your mechanics worked three out of every eight hours, and spent the rest of the time in the restroom, on the phone, and smoking. Anybody who doesn't believe that can visit the mechanic forum and read the thread for themself. Now you say you generalized what you saw at other shops...these days. In other words, you lied.



Oh, and did I forget...liar?

I did? Here is the quote that you mentioned, where does it say that? Had my own shop among other things for 5 years. Right up until the airport was closed to put houses on. Never met a mechanic that was worth his own weight in....well anything. You guys work an 8 hour day, but actually turn wrenches about 3.5 of that. Other time is spent smoking, talking on the phone, hitting the head, trying to figure out the fiche reader, wishing you had become a pilot, and trying to figure out what that smell is. Well it is you.

Where do I say that I let my mechs get away with such behavior...as stated, it was generalization of what I see in our industry. I have even seen it at a well known 121 carrier's hangar. Also, as you admitted earlier, it was an over exaggeration that was very apparent...lying, I think not.

You said, also in that same thread, "If I employ a mechanic, he is most definitely NOT unsupervised." Statements like that would lead one to believe you are a business owner.

Liar? Well come on avbug, who has been discredited now?

You also said, "Not only do I have the letters, but I've provided them to employers in interviews at their request to show that indeed I was cleared without difficulty." Why do you go on so many interviews? Can't hold down a job? Is it because of your abrasive personality, your lack of qualifications, or because you are always on flightinfo.com? Or are you one of the before mentioned mechs?

Truly I was getting bored by this and the other thread, now I am completely entertained. I am sure at this point you and I and your other avatar are the only ones still reading this, so keep slinging it! You are only here for my complete amusement. Wish I would have found this website and you sooner.

Get a grip poser!

 

[avbug]

I don't have an avatar. That's the little picture that goes under your name, in case you didn't know. A Squared's is a DC-6...appropriate as he's a captain on the type. I don't fly a DC-6. A Squared lives in Alaska works extremely hard, hasn't just been there and done that, but is there and doing that, and has the ground upon which to stand and speak. I am not A Squared, as he already told you.

Yes, I can hold down a job. Presently as Captain, thanks. I do get a lot of offers for interviews, and I've always believed that one shouldn't turn down an interview...you never know what opportunities might arise. Certainly I've seen enough businesses in the industry fall flat that one should always be seeking a safety net in case your own company downsizes furloughs, folds, whatever. I continue to interview regularly. It doesn't mean I take every job..but a fairly safe bet is that my employment history contains a much broader experience base than yourself in this industry, or most others here, too. That doesn't mean unemployable, it means I get around. There's a difference...one you wouldn't understand.

Liar? Well come on avbug, who has been discredited now?

Okay, I wasn't going to say it, but you asked. Lear Wanna Be.

Happy, now?


Now, tell us all about those difficult to understand, vague regulations to which you referred. The ones that your vast experience in the industry has lead you to become an expert on...but that somehow at the same time escape your intellectual or intuitive grasp. You introduced the topic, so I'm all ears. And paws...you're a little like a small pathetic mouse that deserves to be bounced around a little before being dismembered...so play on.

 

[Lear Wanna Be]

Since you are a little slow, here it is again.....Avatar: a variant phase or version of a continuing basic entity. Does not just have to do with a photo.

Continue to interview frequently, huh? Going to jump ship at the first better than what I have now offer? Yeah, you're a real company man. Something to be very proud of. Kind of reinforces what I said earlier about the mech situation. Well, maybe that is why your background is so diverse. I don't know that I would be proud of that. For me, been doing the same job for about 10 years now. Broader experience than me, well that may be true and it may not (you don't really offer anything to back yourself up). Experience is different things to different people. I know for sure that I see a lot of different scenarios when flying boxes day or night in all kinds of weather in an unpressurized aircraft.

As for my handle, since you are so enthralled by it, it was meant to be self-deprecating. All subtlety is lost on you, I realize that. Part of your "alpha" instinct...see weakness must pounce....must put people down because it makes me feel good about myself. Except for A square, which you actually paid a compliment to. It's a first! Is it because you are one in the same? The evidence is building.

The regs, yeah I have an understanding of the ones that apply to me. No violations or letters of warning or correction have ever been in my file. Does not appear to be the same case with you. Now, if you can't admit that at least a few of the regs are vague, then you are as naive as you are dense.

You never answered my question. Do you fly a Falcon? I might have seen you at MDW before.

Show that fight....and expert use of the quote function.

 

[avbug]

Geez oh pete, moderators. Where's that ignore button we used to have?