What does it take to get the Feds attention?

[FN FAL]

You know by calling an 800 number unless you do it on a pay phone they have your info even if your number in unlisted!

They'll just take a sample of your voice on the phone then do a voice spectraphic analysis on it. The next time you speak on ATC, a little light will warn them that's you...then they'll know where you live.

 

[NW_Pilot]

They'll just take a sample of your voice on the phone then do a voice spectraphic analysis on it. The next time you speak on ATC, a little light will warn them that's you...then they'll know where you live.

Maby Wells should have said 2014 instead of 1984 hehehehe

 

[JAFI]

It doesn't say what you said on the website, cite a reference please.

Let's see... I went to faa.gov and typed in "Safety Hotline" in the Search Box... Second hit was:

http://www.asy.faa.gov/safety_products/hotline.htm

As far as bugging your phone call....

I'm told if you rap a wet towel or use tin foil around your head and only stand on your right leg, "they" have a harder time reading your mind......

Sorry FN FAL, no reference on this one.....

JAFI

 

[leardawg]

If what you are saying is true, that scenario is not a case of "hearsay". The FSDO inspector heard the person saying it. Completely different circumstances.

If FSDO advised me that someone was telling them stories out of school about me and they were unfounded, I'd be speaking with an attorney immediately and pursuing all lawful options available to me.

It happened (Albany NY area; late 1980s). I don't know if the guy passed or failed his 609 (as it was then called). I've never heard of a situation of someone being called to the carpet because of a statement or conversation overheard by a non-FAA source (hearsay, as you point out). The feds usually want irrefutable evidence and corroborating witnesses for an actual violation or incident, not a conversation of what someone might do or have done. In this case, I would guess they went on the premise that he was giving false and misleading instruction to his student, and thus questioned his competency to excercise his Instructor certificate. I suppose a good lawyer could have fought it, but after all he WAS a CFI!

 

[aussiefly]

Yeah as much as this guy is CFI toolbox I would stay right out of it. It's just as likely upon ringing your local FSDO that they will do nothing about this guy and then next time your up you happen to get a `random' ramp check.

I actually know someone that made a complaint about a 135 operator that he worked for (pencil whipping mx records). And the FAA came in and slapped the 135 outfits hands and fined them. They then went over the records and cited the pilots who had flown the aircraft. He had his license suspended eventually.

Sure, they were doing wrong but who of us can say that we have absolutely never broken a FAR.

IMHO I would prefer to let sleeping dogs lay rather than bring int he FAA and expose myself to litigation.

Anyway thats just my 2 cents.

 

[FN FAL]

It happened (Albany NY area; late 1980s). I don't know if the guy passed or failed his 609 (as it was then called). I've never heard of a situation of someone being called to the carpet because of a statement or conversation overheard by a non-FAA source (hearsay, as you point out). The feds usually want irrefutable evidence and corroborating witnesses for an actual violation or incident, not a conversation of what someone might do or have done. In this case, I would guess they went on the premise that he was giving false and misleading instruction to his student, and thus questioned his competency to excercise his Instructor certificate. I suppose a good lawyer could have fought it, but after all he WAS a CFI!

That makes sense to me.

 

[FN FAL]

Let's see... I went to faa.gov and typed in "Safety Hotline" in the Search Box... Second hit was:

http://www.asy.faa.gov/safety_products/hotline.htm

As far as bugging your phone call....

I'm told if you rap a wet towel or use tin foil around your head and only stand on your right leg, "they" have a harder time reading your mind......

Sorry FN FAL, no reference on this one.....

JAFI

I don't understand the "bugging your phone call" reference, but you do understand that the phone call you make to this number is recorded? You do understand that regarless of whether they would do it or not, that voice spectragraph could be used to make compairisons between voice samples? This is not the same as bugging someone's phone. In additon, you do understand that my reference to voice spectragraph and ATC possessing a monitoring system was humor?

With that said, look at the second link that you provided and notice...

Making Safety A Priority
A 24-Hour Hotline
The FAA Aviation Safety Hotline is available to the aviation community and the general public for reporting time-critical events that may require immediate action.

The Hotline is used to report violations of the Federal Aviation Regulations and:

• Suspected unapproved parts;
• Non-adherence to operational procedures;
• Improper record keeping; and
• Unsafe aviation practices.

I don't think that two dudes talking in an FBO is a...time critical events that may require immediate action.


In addition, notice this section...

Immediate Response
FAA personnel are available 24-hours a day to receive reports. When a report is made, Hotline specialists enter the information in the Safety Hotline Database. A preliminary analysis and technical review is made immediately and one of three actions is taken:

One of the three actions taken and the beauty is that the police are policing themselves:

The report provides insufficient information for action or is determined to be a non-safety issue and is closed.

Once a report is closed it is reviewed by FAA personnel. This review assures information is complete and any action taken was appropriate. In addition, any callers who request a response and provide their name and address receive a written summary of FAA action.

Only people who leave a name and address, get a report. Leave no name and address, you don't even get to know which of the three actions occured. They could just determine after you hang up that this is another unfounded report, write it so and file it after they review it themselves. You don't get squat. In fact, if you don't leave your name and address, you'll never know which of three actions were taken.

Maintain Confidentiality

If a caller requests confidentiality at the time of the initial report their name is withheld and they are protected by the Privacy Act.

Not only are "they" protected by the Privacy Act, so are "they".

If you call and tell them two dudes were talking in an FBO about flying in IMC while IFR and you don't leave your name, they have been left a way out. All they have to do is take the report, mark it as not needing immediate attention due to the fact that there was no "immediate safety issue". Your confidentiality was given in exchange for not giving you a report. You have no proof that they didn't do anything and everybody is happy. At least you got a feel good sensation and they have a paper on file that they need to prove your call was handled and the action was reviewed.

That's what I saw. If you saw different, feel free to elaborate.

Thanks for providing the information, as I learned a lot that was not related to the "two dudes talking" scenario and that is always a good thing. However, based on what the original poster said, I'm thinking an anonomous report on such a subject, will wind up in the "action number three file".

 

[FN FAL]

Having reviewed this FAA website and the other one brings back a memory from two or three years ago and the FAA websites provide an insight as to what happened at our drop zone.

My wife was working manifest and there was a continuous barrage of phone calls from an airport neighbor claiming their children were losing sleep because of nightmares of planes crashing into their house. They lived in an "estate" on the base to final turn for one of the runways. In addition, they also called to complain about the noise of airplanes and people performing "aerobatics" over their house.

Eventually, an FAA inspector showed up and did a ramp check in regards to a phone call made to the FAA. Obviously, there was nothing out of the ordinary going on, so he spent his day watching the operation for nothing.

This drop zone operator runs one of the most professional and squared away operations that I have ever seen. He keeps his planes up, the gear at the D.Z. is maintained meticulously and safety is starts in spring with a well organized safety meeting. Safety is stressed year round, nothing gets past the D.Z. with out his permission and even if you sneak something in, he will let you know where the other drop zones are and ask you to not come back.

Eventually, the complainer sold his house and hopefully moved back to Illinois. They owned one of those gas stations with a fast food restaurant built in, so it was funny that they would be complaining to the feds about noise "pollution".

I think that if the feds were to be kept busy physically investigating every anonymous tip made to the hot line, they would not be able to devote time and effort to cases that need real attention.

 

[siucavflight]

If you have his name, and you call someone you know at the FSDO and tell them what you have heard, and you are someone whom they believe, I gaurntee you that they will keep a close watch on this guy and his tail number. Dont sit back and mind your own business, I dont care if he kills himself, but dont take me down with you. Last week I got a traffic call out, "VFR traffic at your 10 3 miles same altitude opposite direction." Now I was in IMC came down from 10,000 solid, and now I was at 5,000 solid all the way down, and bottoms were being reported at 1500, I told the controller that I was solid, and that this guy was VFR in IMC, and that he is not being safe, they said that they were going to follow his target and see where he landed. I hope they found the prick and pulled his certificate, to keep me away from him they gave me a "climb to 7,000 best rate"

 

[FN FAL]

If you have his name, and you call someone you know at the FSDO and tell them what you have heard, and you are someone whom they believe, I gaurntee you that they will keep a close watch on this guy and his tail number. Dont sit back and mind your own business, I dont care if he kills himself, but dont take me down with you. Last week I got a traffic call out, "VFR traffic at your 10 3 miles same altitude opposite direction." Now I was in IMC came down from 10,000 solid, and now I was at 5,000 solid all the way down, and bottoms were being reported at 1500, I told the controller that I was solid, and that this guy was VFR in IMC, and that he is not being safe, they said that they were going to follow his target and see where he landed. I hope they found the prick and pulled his certificate, to keep me away from him they gave me a "climb to 7,000 best rate"

So, If the allegation is made by the first person, it automatically makes the second person guilty?

 

[NW_Pilot]

If you have his name, and you call someone you know at the FSDO and tell them what you have heard, and you are someone whom they believe, I gaurntee you that they will keep a close watch on this guy and his tail number. Dont sit back and mind your own business, I dont care if he kills himself, but dont take me down with you. Last week I got a traffic call out, "VFR traffic at your 10 3 miles same altitude opposite direction." Now I was in IMC came down from 10,000 solid, and now I was at 5,000 solid all the way down, and bottoms were being reported at 1500, I told the controller that I was solid, and that this guy was VFR in IMC, and that he is not being safe, they said that they were going to follow his target and see where he landed. I hope they found the prick and pulled his certificate, to keep me away from him they gave me a "climb to 7,000 best rate"

So you would rather be flying up there with someone with no certificate in IMC than someone with? Maybe at your 10 and 3 miles away it was VFR were you there in his exact location to know he was IMC?

 

[FN FAL]

So you would rather be flying up there with someone with no certificate in IMC than someone with? Maybe at your 10 and 3 miles away it was VFR were you there in his exact location to know he was IMC?

In reality, if SIU was in a cloud and 500 feet away from it's boundary and the VFR plane was 3 miles away and had the required flight vis and maintained horizontal and vertical separation from surrounding clouds, the "VFR" plane could be "VMC" by a wide margin.

The controller was merely providing the required separation services to an IFR flight by requesting that SIU climb.

We get this type of problem at the drop zone all the time. Some joker in an airliner 5 miles away, will look straight down and see an undercast when he is advised by ATC of our traffic. Meanwhile, over our dropzone, there is the required vfr cloud clearance requirements being met.

They will always make some unbased comment to the controller. I wish they would just do their job and either report "traffic in sight" and take responsiblity for their own separation, so I can continue my climb and they continue their descent. Or, they should just shut the hell up, because they are just tying up the frequency.

 

[PolarTwins55]

i had a teacher threaten to turn me in to the feds today. she told me "i used to live in washington, and someone two doors down from me worked with the faa, and i'm sure they wouldn't be happy to hear about your 'attention' problems'"

boy am i scared.

 

[siucavflight]

So you would rather be flying up there with someone with no certificate in IMC than someone with? Maybe at your 10 and 3 miles away it was VFR were you there in his exact location to know he was IMC?

It was solid IMC from at least 10000 down do about 1200 feet, and I was in it for at least 200 miles, and another 50 or so past that, maybe this guy was in the one hole, but somehow I doubt it, but either way I hope he was violated.

 

[flyinlow67]

I say let's not say anything to anyone and let these idiots spin out of control into a school, and then just take our lumps from the "experts" on CNN who know everything about aviation. That should do wonderous things for our lively hood.
Yeah, the bury my head in the sand option sounds real freakin good!

 

[fastback]

You can fly in IMC conditions outside of controlled airspace with no IFR flight plan, so long as the pilot is IFR rated and the aircraft meets IFR requirements. In which case, there is no talking to controllers, unless you just want to tell them "hi!"

This is one of the most commonly repeated misrepresentations of the FARs regarding IFR. I think you are referring to this rule:

§ 91.173 ATC clearance and flight plan required. No person may operate an aircraft in controlled airspace under IFR unless that person has—

(a) Filed an IFR flight plan; and

(b) Received an appropriate ATC clearance.


Pilots still have to adhere to 91.155, and with no IFR clearance in IMC in uncontrolled airspace, a pilot would be violating Class G cloud/vis mins.

 

[unreal]

Maby Wells should have said 2014 instead of 1984 hehehehe

...Orwell.

Carry on.

 

[FN FAL]

This is one of the most commonly repeated misrepresentations of the FARs regarding IFR. I think you are referring to this rule:

§ 91.173 ATC clearance and flight plan required. No person may operate an aircraft in controlled airspace under IFR unless that person has—

(a) Filed an IFR flight plan; and

(b) Received an appropriate ATC clearance.


Pilots still have to adhere to 91.155, and with no IFR clearance in IMC in uncontrolled airspace, a pilot would be violating Class G cloud/vis mins.

Nice guess, but you guessed wrong.

http://www.ntsb.gov/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/3935.PDF

6096​

Respondent has appealed from the oral initial decision
issued by Administrative Law Judge Joyce Capps at the close of an
​

evidentiary hearing held in this matter on July 8, 1991.

In that decision the law judge found that respondent's takeoff from
an uncontrolled airport into clouds without a clearance or
release from air traffic control (ATC) was not a violation of 14 C.F.R. 91.155(a), but was in violation of 14 C.F.R. 91.13(a).​

She ordered a 90-day suspension of respondent's commercial pilot certificate in lieu of the 180-day suspension sought in the Administrator's order. For the reasons discussed below, we deny respondent's appeal and affirm the initial decision.​

The Administrator's complaint in this case alleged as...​

 

[FN FAL]

If ATC cannot and does not guarantee aircraft separation below the base of controlled airspace, that would mean an IFR flight departing an uncontrolled field or arriving at one with an ATC clearance, would have to assume that it is possible that someone else could be out there flying in IMC conditions outside of controlled airspace without a clearance. Which would make such an operation reckless as well.

 

[FN FAL]

Page 2, 4th paragraph...AOPA's Air Safety Foundation's own words...

http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/sa02.pdf

Many pilots do not know that IFR flight without a clearence is permitted in uncontrolled airspace, provided that the pilot is instrument-rated and the aircraft is equipped for instrument flight.​

A OPA A i r S a f e t y F o u n d a t i o n - S a f e P i l o t s . S a f e S k i e s .​

Copyright 2005, AOPA Air Safety Foundation​

421 Aviation Way • Frederick, MD 21701​

Phone: (800) 638-3101 • Internet: www.aopa.org/safetycenter • E-mail: [email protected]
Publisher: Bruce Landsberg • Editors: Kevin D. Murphy and Leisha Bell​