Notice from the FAA
06-03-2014, 03:28 PM
#31
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jun 2014
Posts: 33
[/B]
1st bolded statement.
You will GRANT them? Uh....as has already been explained multiethnic times, they have the legal right; unless you are the type that also ALLOWS the policeman to write you a speeding ticket.
2d bolded statement.
You must not have much experience will the legal system or the government. That IS them asking nicely. They don't send a personal note asking please. They use references.
1st bolded statement.
You will GRANT them? Uh....as has already been explained multiethnic times, they have the legal right; unless you are the type that also ALLOWS the policeman to write you a speeding ticket.
2d bolded statement.
You must not have much experience will the legal system or the government. That IS them asking nicely. They don't send a personal note asking please. They use references.
By granting them access, I am waiving my right to challenge their authority and especially their power to "take it" (logbook). Under the law it would take a SUBPOENA for them to "take" my logbook without my consent even thought they might have the "legal right" to demand it.
It is likely, they would only seek to "punish" me if I refused and that is something I could push all the way to a US Court, if necessary, and then seek damages and legal fees (if I could convince a judge that their request was unreasonable since nothing in my logbook is relevant to their investigation of the accident or any claim by me, or anyone, of having qualifications that are required).
The NTSB and FAA have to work within the limits of their power under the law. When I refused to acknowledge the authority of the NTSB (demanding that I fill out form 6120) they did not take action of any sort because they knew that I was correct in my interpretation of the requirements of 49 U.S.C. Part 830.5 and 830.15 and asserting my position forced them to seek another avenue.
The aviation attorney I spoke with today interpreted those regulations just as I have and anyone who can understand the FARs would easily come to the same conclusion. The attorney even stated that most of those guys collecting information are doing so using standard templates and are not always correct in their interpretation of the regulations. (He likened them to shoe clerks with law degrees.)
btw, If the NTSB doesn't send a personal note asking "please", then I will deny their request for an explanation (which I already have)... Just because they are a government agency and because they use "references", doesn't mean that I am required to be their obedient subject.
06-03-2014, 04:54 PM
#32
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,763
No certificate holder may operate an aircraft type certificated after October 15, 1971, that has a passenger seating configuration, excluding any pilot seat, of more than eight seats if any person other than the pilot in command, a second in command, a company check airman, or an authorized representative of the Administrator, the National Transportation Safety Board, or the United States Postal Service occupies a pilot seat.
06-03-2014, 07:07 PM
#33
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,839
A policeman writing a ticket does not make you obligated to pay it. They have the "legal right" to issue tickets all day, but that doesn't mean you have to waive your "legal right" to challenge it.
By granting them access, I am waiving my right to challenge their authority and especially their power to "take it" (logbook). Under the law it would take a SUBPOENA for them to "take" my logbook without my consent even thought they might have the "legal right" to demand it.
It is likely, they would only seek to "punish" me if I refused and that is something I could push all the way to a US Court, if necessary, and then seek damages and legal fees (if I could convince a judge that their request was unreasonable since nothing in my logbook is relevant to their investigation of the accident or any claim by me, or anyone, of having qualifications that are required).
The NTSB and FAA have to work within the limits of their power under the law. When I refused to acknowledge the authority of the NTSB (demanding that I fill out form 6120) they did not take action of any sort because they knew that I was correct in my interpretation of the requirements of 49 U.S.C. Part 830.5 and 830.15 and asserting my position forced them to seek another avenue.
The aviation attorney I spoke with today interpreted those regulations just as I have and anyone who can understand the FARs would easily come to the same conclusion. The attorney even stated that most of those guys collecting information are doing so using standard templates and are not always correct in their interpretation of the regulations. (He likened them to shoe clerks with law degrees.)
btw, If the NTSB doesn't send a personal note asking "please", then I will deny their request for an explanation (which I already have)... Just because they are a government agency and because they use "references", doesn't mean that I am required to be their obedient subject.
By granting them access, I am waiving my right to challenge their authority and especially their power to "take it" (logbook). Under the law it would take a SUBPOENA for them to "take" my logbook without my consent even thought they might have the "legal right" to demand it.
It is likely, they would only seek to "punish" me if I refused and that is something I could push all the way to a US Court, if necessary, and then seek damages and legal fees (if I could convince a judge that their request was unreasonable since nothing in my logbook is relevant to their investigation of the accident or any claim by me, or anyone, of having qualifications that are required).
The NTSB and FAA have to work within the limits of their power under the law. When I refused to acknowledge the authority of the NTSB (demanding that I fill out form 6120) they did not take action of any sort because they knew that I was correct in my interpretation of the requirements of 49 U.S.C. Part 830.5 and 830.15 and asserting my position forced them to seek another avenue.
The aviation attorney I spoke with today interpreted those regulations just as I have and anyone who can understand the FARs would easily come to the same conclusion. The attorney even stated that most of those guys collecting information are doing so using standard templates and are not always correct in their interpretation of the regulations. (He likened them to shoe clerks with law degrees.)
btw, If the NTSB doesn't send a personal note asking "please", then I will deny their request for an explanation (which I already have)... Just because they are a government agency and because they use "references", doesn't mean that I am required to be their obedient subject.
I look forward to your counter argument.
Good luck Michael.
06-04-2014, 07:08 AM
#34
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jun 2014
Posts: 33
This is one of those things shady 135 operators do - take a single pilot airplane and dress up an unqualified guy in a uniform and pass him off to the passengers as a second pilot. He's listed as a passenger on the manifest. I see this garbage a lot with King Air operators around here.
1. Violation of op-spec requirements which carry the weight of a FAR violation. Company could be facing suspension, revocation and/or fines.
2. Did he charge the passengers for a second pilot? = Fraud (and of course endangerment). This would prompt a full investigation of his flight activity to count the number of infractions. The FAA would have a field day with this and he could also be facing a long line of legal battles from the companies and passengers he defrauded.
3. Would an accident have occurred if a second qualified and required crewmember was on board? = Insurance company would certainly push some liability if not all upon the operator. That alone could become a nightmare in the legal system when the attorneys argue the "shouldof, wouldof, couldof" possibilities.
4. Since the PIC was also the operator, he will likely be facing revocation or suspension of his certificate not to mention the criminal liability he could also be facing.
5. Even if he survives the wrath of the FAA and legal system, he would never ever be able to find an insurance company who will sell him a policy to operate under. We're talking a claim of 3+million here. His future premiums would be unbearable for any charter company.
06-04-2014, 08:24 AM
#35
Line Holder
Joined APC: Dec 2008
Position: Wrong
Posts: 57
I foresee the operator/PIC taking a big hit on this one.
1. Violation of op-spec requirements which carry the weight of a FAR violation. Company could be facing suspension, revocation and/or fines.
2. Did he charge the passengers for a second pilot? = Fraud (and of course endangerment). This would prompt a full investigation of his flight activity to count the number of infractions. The FAA would have a field day with this and he could also be facing a long line of legal battles from the companies and passengers he defrauded.
3. Would an accident have occurred if a second qualified and required crewmember was on board? = Insurance company would certainly push some liability if not all upon the operator. That alone could become a nightmare in the legal system when the attorneys argue the "shouldof, wouldof, couldof" possibilities.
4. Since the PIC was also the operator, he will likely be facing revocation or suspension of his certificate not to mention the criminal liability he could also be facing.
5. Even if he survives the wrath of the FAA and legal system, he would never ever be able to find an insurance company who will sell him a policy to operate under. We're talking a claim of 3+million here. His future premiums would be unbearable for any charter company.
1. Violation of op-spec requirements which carry the weight of a FAR violation. Company could be facing suspension, revocation and/or fines.
2. Did he charge the passengers for a second pilot? = Fraud (and of course endangerment). This would prompt a full investigation of his flight activity to count the number of infractions. The FAA would have a field day with this and he could also be facing a long line of legal battles from the companies and passengers he defrauded.
3. Would an accident have occurred if a second qualified and required crewmember was on board? = Insurance company would certainly push some liability if not all upon the operator. That alone could become a nightmare in the legal system when the attorneys argue the "shouldof, wouldof, couldof" possibilities.
4. Since the PIC was also the operator, he will likely be facing revocation or suspension of his certificate not to mention the criminal liability he could also be facing.
5. Even if he survives the wrath of the FAA and legal system, he would never ever be able to find an insurance company who will sell him a policy to operate under. We're talking a claim of 3+million here. His future premiums would be unbearable for any charter company.
06-04-2014, 08:39 AM
#36
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2013
Posts: 834
Michael,
Don't take this as legal advice and obviously you need a competent attorney. Of course the operator is in big trouble. Whether or not you are guilty of anything, you unfortunately have a part in this by the simple fact that you were present. You might have been an unwitting and unknowing participant. However if you do not proceed properly you could easily find yourself in even bigger trouble than the operator, especially if attempting to cover for them. The troubles relating directly to the aircraft might end up being the least of your concerns. You might want to familiarize yourself with terms/subjects such as; Impeding an investigation, Obstruction, Aiding and Abetting, Perjury, Deposition, Cross examination and of course the old standby, "What are they going to say at the hearing?"
Good luck...
Don't take this as legal advice and obviously you need a competent attorney. Of course the operator is in big trouble. Whether or not you are guilty of anything, you unfortunately have a part in this by the simple fact that you were present. You might have been an unwitting and unknowing participant. However if you do not proceed properly you could easily find yourself in even bigger trouble than the operator, especially if attempting to cover for them. The troubles relating directly to the aircraft might end up being the least of your concerns. You might want to familiarize yourself with terms/subjects such as; Impeding an investigation, Obstruction, Aiding and Abetting, Perjury, Deposition, Cross examination and of course the old standby, "What are they going to say at the hearing?"
Good luck...
06-04-2014, 08:50 AM
#37
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,992
06-04-2014, 09:18 AM
#38
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2013
Posts: 834
Michael,
Some references that apply to both Scheduled and Un Scheduled FAR 135: FAR 135.113, 95, and 85 Maybe you can just tell the Fed's you were an animal handler...
Some references that apply to both Scheduled and Un Scheduled FAR 135: FAR 135.113, 95, and 85 Maybe you can just tell the Fed's you were an animal handler...
06-04-2014, 10:24 AM
#40
Banned
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Posts: 962
Why are you presenting what they asked for? What happens if you just don't respond? Is there anything to take? Are they going to take those pilots licenses you don't use? Are they going to fine YOU for being a passenger?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
