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."