LOI for loss of seperation

[avbug]

When issued a letter of investigation, the only purpose is to obtain evidence to use against you. Don't respond without consulting an attorney. Don't engage in a teleconference or call to the FSDO without consulting with an attorney.

The hope that a "compliant" attitude will stave off enforcement action is slim and for the most part futile.

Certainly on the rare occasion a response to a LOI may result in a tabling of the matter, but in all cases, anything you say wil be used against you. If enforcement action takes place, you are presumed guilty until proven innocent, and convicted before you have an opportunity to defend yourself; your words get used against you in the appeal process.

Consult the attorney.

 

[Guillotine007]

I'm imagining that in order to accomplish a 180 in a lear on the taxiway leading to the runway, you're going to have to get pretty far into the runway area.

it can be done on a dime

get a lawyer
admit nothing

 

[FL420]

Review the FAA ASRP Immunity Policy in Advisory Circular 00-46D at: http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/immunity_nf.htm

Aviation Safety Reporting Program
This circular describes the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Aviation Safety Reporting Program (ASRP) which utilizes the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) as a third party to receive Aviation Safety Reports.

The easiest and most painless way out of this is to get the FAA to allow you to enroll in the FAA Runway Incursion Information Evaluation Program. The following quote explains:

The FAA Office of Runway Safety and Operational Services, in partnership with the AOPA Air Safety Foundation, announces a powerful new learning tool to help pilots and maintenance technicians taxiing aircraft avoid runway incursions. Click below to become enlightened!! If involved in a runway incursion, the FAA will normally be more lenient to those who have passed the Runway Safety course and who meets other criteria.


More info. can be found at:
http://www.faa.gov/runwaysafety/cockpit.cfm

The AOPA Air Safety Foundation Online Course Runway Safety Program can be found at:
http://www.aopa.org/asf/online_courses/

I recommend everyone take this course. It has good info. for all experience levels.

Be smart and good luck.

 

[ReverseSensing]

Not answering that phone call is the dumbest advice I could imagine given these circumstances.

Just so it's clear: I'm not suggesting not complying with the "call this number" instruction immediately after a situation like this -- I'm not sure it can be avoided. That's not the call you have to fear the most.

The follow-up call by an inspector is the one I would avoid until seeking legal advice.

 

[h25b]

Just so it's clear: I'm not suggesting not complying with the "call this number" instruction immediately after a situation like this -- I'm not sure it can be avoided. That's not the call you have to fear the most.

The follow-up call by an inspector is the one I would avoid until seeking legal advice.

I think everyone is misreading my opinion as generally good advice under all circumstances. I AM NOT and would generally agree with most of what everyone else is saying. I am just not going to blow smoke up this poor guy's rear because he's really in a bad way. In his case I would RUN (not walk) to the nearest U.S. Post Office and mail out the ASRS Form certified mail and accept the first FAA phone call (I doubt he's going to get one, he's just going to get the letter) while being polite just confirm previously volunteered information. He can nicely say that he would appreciate an opportunity to discuss the situation personally when he's had a chance to seek counsel.

I would suggest taking that initial call from the Inspector as a way to gauge what you're dealing with. You don't have to say really anything other than to confirm information already given and you're going to have to submit a letter no matter what.

 

[h25b]

Because I feel so strongly about this topic I'll recount my own personal experience because it is the only time that my integrity has actually worked to my favor.

I had an F.O. take a split second of my inattention while handling a radio call and turn it in to a situation that had me making the dreaded phone call after he made a wrong turn on a SID. It was the only time in all my years so far that I had ever even come close to screwing up this badly. But as the Inspector I got to deal with said, "there are those that have and those that will..." This one was my turn.

At any rate I had done of ton of research on this situation by the time I got the phone call from the FSDO Inspector. I just took the call and was very polite while candidly outlining exactly what had happened. He just told me that from looking at the radar plot that we barely lost separation with another aircraft so I would probably be looking at a Letter of Warning given my otherwise clean record. After speaking with him a bit more he told me that he appreciated how I was handling the situation by taking responsibility for the event while not in any way looking to throw my F.O. to the wolves. He said that if I would just write a quick letter explaining the simple facts of the situation he would make a strong case to his supervisor to just make our conversation a "counseling session" that would not be on my record leaving this whole matter within the FSDO essentially closing the case. So I wrote the letter and called him back the next day to follow up. He then just thanked me again and told me to consider the case closed.

I have no doubt whatsoever that had I ignored that phone call or just told him that I had a lawyer I would, at the very least, have a Letter of Warning in my file.

 

[h25b]

oops, double post...

 

[No Delay]

Not that my advise is worth that much...but I will share my experience with the FAA.

I had just started training with an airline. I was still instructing on the side (merely trying to finishing a couple students I had already started). One of my students was flying with me an another instructor. About 2 weeks into my airline training I get a call and learn that this student has just crashed. Hard landing, bounce, off the side of the runway, hits a runway light, collapses nose gear, and tears up the airplane.

My solo endorsement limited him to 5 kts of wind. His new instructor 2 days prior signed him off for a x/c solo and increased it to 8 kts. The winds that day were 8 kts.

Of course, I was expecting that dreaded phone call and received it about 2 days later. The inspector began asking me questions about the student and the training I had provided. During this, I mention the limitations on my endorsement. He responded, "You are absolutely right. As far as I am concerned you really have nothing to do with this."

He was just about to let me go and then said..."what a minute!" Gulp!

(A little background info: I live closer to another airport than where this guy keeps his airplane. The day I did his solo flight, another pilot friend had flown with him to my local airport to pick me up. We flew a while, he was doing great so I got out, said "Give me your logbook. Take her around a few times. I will fill out your logbook while you are flying.

While he was flying, I realized I really needed to fly with him at "his" airport and sign him off for solo there. After he landed I explained this and we agreed to get together a couple of days later to get him signed off properly. And we did just that!)

The inspector noticed he had some solo time 3 days prior to his endorsement! I explained the whole situation and he said, "I have a real problem with this. We don't just let people do what they want to and then come back later to do all the paperwork." He explained I would be getting a letter of investigation. When I received it, write up a reponse explaining everything just as I had just did, and then he would take it from there. I explained that my intent was not to short cut the system. And when I realized I had messed up, I tried to back up and correct the situation. I told him I thought I was doing the right thing by waiting.

Well, after a little more talking and a little more ass chewing he agrees to just send me a letter of warning and this would be the end of it. I tell him that would be wonderful. I had just started with this airline job and really didn't need anything like this. Of course, this turns into a lot of chit chat about the airlines and flying and yada yada yada. He then says, "Well, you seem like you have a good head on your shoulder. I see you realize you made a mistake and at least you were trying to correct it....you know, I am looking at this page where he logged solo...I don't see your name on it. I guess I really don't have enough information to pursue this any futher."

And that was the end of it.

My advise: NASA report (should protect any certificate action) and then face it like a man. I mean no lawyer can prove it didn't happen and the faa certainly can prove it did. Save all that lawyer money. I think the worst that will happen is a letter of warning.

 

[ReverseSensing]

Nothing wrong with taking the high road. I've had the "call this number" before and a full mea culpa made the problem go away with no paperwork.

But a runway incursion loss of separation is pretty high stakes. I still say take it slow as far as providing any more self-incriminating testimony without legal counsel.

 

[h25b]

My advise: NASA report (should protect any certificate action) and then face it like a man. I mean no lawyer can prove it didn't happen and the faa certainly can prove it did. Save all that lawyer money. I think the worst that will happen is a letter of warning.

My point exactly. They have this guy dead to rights and I would be willing to bet that a lawyer wouldn't be able to do any better than what he would do on his own by just being cooperative.

 

[PC800]

I'm not prepared to get into an argument about what anybody should or shouldn't do in the situation described, but thought I'd provide this data point:

I'm retired now. but as a supervisor at O'Hare Tower, when a pilot was told to "call the tower", I was the guy they were calling. In my 20 years at O'Hare, I took hundreds of calls from pilots to discuss infractions such as landing without clearance (a daily occurence), departing without clearance, crossing runways without clearance, altitude busts, flying the wrong localizer (cleared for the ILS 27L, intercepted and flew 27R), landing on the wrong runway, even landing at the wrong airport.

In an overwhelming majority of cases (I'd guess 95%+), when I hung up the phone after talking to the pilot, it was over-- no further action taken. I, and every controller I know, abhor paperwork. There were only a few reasons why I'd fill out paperwork on a pilot:

1. The incident was newsworthy. If it was likely to make the papers, I had no choice but to make sure that every i was dotted and t crossed.

2. Due to the nature of the incident, it was likely to be reported by another party. Ie., if Airliner A has to abort because of a runway incursion by Airliner B, there's a good chance the crew of Airliner A is going to write it up-- so I had to write it up as well.

3. There's a loss of separation that will result in an operational error being charged to the controller. If an operational error is caused by a pilot deviation, I'm going to have to write up the pilot to get my controller off the hook.

4. If a pilot gave me attitude (ie, refused to accept responsibility for an obvious screwup). Not calling when asked to was generally considered bad attitude, as well.


It's a different time now (I retired in '99) and as noted in a message above, things are fairly dicey between NATCA and the FAA-- which tends to generate more paperwork than normal. But if the situation described at the top of the thread had occurred on my shift, it would come nowhere near qualifying for FSDO followup. It's a relatively minor infraction and happens fairly often. Unless the Lear was actually on the runway, then there was no loss of separation by 7110.65 rules-- and absent pressure from another source, that's generally all ATC cares about.

 

[HS125]

He was just about to let me go and then said..."what a minute!" Gulp!

This is why you should be very careful speaking with an Inspector when they want to talk to you about an incident/accident, whether you are involved or not. The phone call is a fishing expidition. Even if your'e guilty as charged and you know they know it, why give them more information to hang you for that incident. Worse yet, why give them an opportunity to blind side you with a second or different violation. That is exactly what this phone call is for, (ie. how many hours had you been on duty, how many hours have you instructed in the last 24hrs etc.). You are already flustered because you are talking to someone who has your livelihood in his/her hands. The FAA knows this, and unless you are able to think fast on your feet under a stressful situation, you just may let the cat out of the bag and get hung for a totaly different violation.

He explained I would be getting a letter of investigation. When I received it, write up a reponse explaining everything just as I had just did, and then he would take it from there.

Thank you Mr. pilot for that useful information, I'm going to send a Letter of Investigation. It would be most helpful if you respond in writing your own words, within 10 days so that I can hang you with your own words. Once the Inspector sends that letter of investigation, the FAA regional office gets involved.

The Inspector is nothing more than a detective gathering evidence for the the DA (FAA Regional Attorney). The FAA attorney is the one who will make the decission to persue the violation and will be the one twisting your own words against you. The inspector may be able to influence the attorney as to what should happen to you, but I sure wouldn't bet on it. It's not uncommon for the Inspector to tell you to cooperate and he will do whatever he can to make this go away or lessen the penalty. Thats just a classic move to make you spill the beans on yourself.

 

[HS125]

Unless the Lear was actually on the runway, then there was no loss of separation by 7110.65 rules-- and absent pressure from another source, that's generally all ATC cares about.

All the more reason to get a Lawyer who knows the rules and can make a case to defend you. The feds will probably try to violate for more than the runway incursion. I wouldn't be surprised to see at least a 91.13 violation added for good measure.

If you do get the dreaded phone call form the local FSDO, just listen to what the Inspector has to say and acknowledge only the facts (yes I was the pilot of a/c Nxxx on dd/mm/yyyy). Don't give the them anything to hang you on (it's up to them to prove your guilt not you). Be compliant without being stupid. If the Inspector is calling you, he/she has most likely already made the decision to proceed with the violation and there is not much that you can say at this point to stop it. Why dig your hole deeper?

If you get the letter of investigation that requests that you respond in writing within a certain number of days (10 I think) let an atorney write the letter for you. The letter of investigation will spell out the facts of the incident and what violations you are accused of.

I'm not even sure that you even need to respond in writing at all (probably not a good idea) and if you do respond, should you say anything more than that you have received the letter of investigation. Someone once told me that you should respond with a letter that states nothing more than that the FAA's facts are considerably wrong and nothing more. Let them prove their own darn case (that's probably not a good idea either). Get the lawyer.

 

[H.Agenda]

Just a little off the subject..

I sent a NASA form in about a month ago when should I expect to receive notification that it has been reveiwed?

 

[Vspeeds]

LOI Vs Warning Letter!

Is there a "Statute of Limitation" on an LOI? (Warning Letter is 2 years)
So if somebody gets a "LOI" & later all charges are dropped & case closed, is that LOI needs to be mentioned on future interviews?

Be Safe!