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?
Last edited: