SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    Argument between Cessna Pilot and Vegas ATC
Page 1 2 3 4 5 
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Argument between Cessna Pilot and Vegas ATC Login/Join 
Member
posted Hide Post
It's in your interest to call if advised by an attorney familiar with the FAA and administrative law.

Most pilots do not understand that the FAA cannot place them in the aircraft until the pilot puts themself there; much like law enforcement, what convicts is usually the offender, opening his or her big mouth.

When the FAA says, "You just violated Class B airspace," and the pilot replies, "I think I was just outside, becuase my GPS said I was outside," the pilot thinks he has presented his side of the matter. He has not.

What the pilot has done is admit to being in the airplane. Until he said that, and did it on tape, he could be insinuated to be in the airplane. He could be accused. But assuming it ever went as far as administrative or enforcement action, he had grounds to appeal. No more. He opened his big mouth.

When a letter of investigation is sent, the pilot has ten days to respond. The ONLY purpose of that response is to gather information to use against the pilot. It's an investigation against the pilot.

Sounds like you work for ATC. It doesn't sound like you've been through the enforcement process or understand how it goes, or have dealt with it beyond the FSDO level. ATC may table a matter with a phone call; that may be the end of it if the supervisor is happy. ATC may also pass it on, and often does, and that phone call, which IS recorded, WILL be used against the pilot. The pilot is best advised to make NO statements and NO admissions until having sought legal counsel.

I appreciate your perspective as FAA suggesting that it's in the pilot's best interest to make a statement (that phone call is a legal statement, whether you think it is or not). It is NOT in the pilots best interest to give a statement until counsel has been consulted.

That little binge the FAA went on a few years ago, about kinder, gentler, attitude of compliance, moving away from enforcement action...that didn't last long. The love fest is over.
 
Posts: 6650 | Registered: September 13, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Blume9mm
posted Hide Post
I'm not a pilot, well I am licensed as an unmanned (drone) pilot... so I can only say this and it is more from what I've learned over the years concealed carrying or open carrying...

If someone who is in authority or even appears to be in authority tells you to leave a space the best thing you can do is leave right then.... don't argue don't discuss just leave... maybe discuss if they follow you once you are out of that space. But your first obligation is to leave....


My Native American Name:
"Runs with Scissors"
 
Posts: 4441 | Location: Greenville, SC | Registered: January 30, 2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Political Cynic
Picture of nhtagmember
posted Hide Post
he should put jam in his pockets because he's toast
 
Posts: 53053 | Location: Tucson Arizona | Registered: January 16, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Certified Plane Pusher
Picture of Phantom229
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by sns3guppy:
It's in your interest to call if advised by an attorney familiar with the FAA and administrative law.

Most pilots do not understand that the FAA cannot place them in the aircraft until the pilot puts themself there; much like law enforcement, what convicts is usually the offender, opening his or her big mouth.

When the FAA says, "You just violated Class B airspace," and the pilot replies, "I think I was just outside, becuase my GPS said I was outside," the pilot thinks he has presented his side of the matter. He has not.

What the pilot has done is admit to being in the airplane. Until he said that, and did it on tape, he could be insinuated to be in the airplane. He could be accused. But assuming it ever went as far as administrative or enforcement action, he had grounds to appeal. No more. He opened his big mouth.

When a letter of investigation is sent, the pilot has ten days to respond. The ONLY purpose of that response is to gather information to use against the pilot. It's an investigation against the pilot.

Sounds like you work for ATC. It doesn't sound like you've been through the enforcement process or understand how it goes, or have dealt with it beyond the FSDO level. ATC may table a matter with a phone call; that may be the end of it if the supervisor is happy. ATC may also pass it on, and often does, and that phone call, which IS recorded, WILL be used against the pilot. The pilot is best advised to make NO statements and NO admissions until having sought legal counsel.

I appreciate your perspective as FAA suggesting that it's in the pilot's best interest to make a statement (that phone call is a legal statement, whether you think it is or not). It is NOT in the pilots best interest to give a statement until counsel has been consulted.

That little binge the FAA went on a few years ago, about kinder, gentler, attitude of compliance, moving away from enforcement action...that didn't last long. The love fest is over.
I am indeed an air traffic controller. For the most part, the vast majority of "offenses" are totally minor and a "no harm no foul" situation. Others are not. It's kind of like getting pulled over for speeding. Be kind and usually all is well. Be an asshole, no so well (and get internet memes made about you).



Situation awareness is defined as a continuous extraction of environmental information, integration of this information with previous knowledge to form a coherent mental picture in directing further perception and anticipating future events. Simply put, situational awareness mean knowing what is going on around you.
 
Posts: 7895 | Location: Around Lake Tapps, Wa | Registered: September 29, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of RichardC
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Gear.Up:
quote:
Originally posted by parabellum:
udas in the stew field


Been a while since I've seen that reference here. Big Grin


Please?


_____________________

Life's been good to me so far
 
Posts: 15827 | Location: Florida | Registered: June 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
אַרְיֵה
Picture of V-Tail
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Phantom229:

If given a phone number, it is in your best interest to call because they will find you.
I respectfully disagree. I am acquainted with an attorney whose practice focuses on aviation law. He knows whereof he speaks, he was CAG in the Navy, and he has been practicing aviation law for decades.

He does a one-hour presentation on legal matters during the 16 hour (minimum) flight instructor refresher seminars.

Much of the time, there are FAA representatives at these seminars, and they are not too happy when they hear him say, "There is NO PLACE in the FARs (regulations) that requires an airman to make that phone call. If you are given a number to call, be polite, thank the controller for the number, but DO NOT CALL IT! Everything (anything) that you might say during such a telephone conversation can and will be used against you, and you will not even have been given a Miranda warning. DO NOT MAKE THAT PHONE CALL."

He advises calling a lawyer instead, or AOPA (they have a legal assistance plan).

When he makes this little speech, he smiles at the FAA guys in the clasroom and asks, "Isn't that right, fellows?" They either agree, or remain silent, but they never challenge him on fact, because he is correct.

I have never been given "the number" to call (knock wood), but several of my students have had experience. When they ask me what to do, I repeat what the lawyer said. I have been able to help a few times and get things sorted out, other times I have said that it was more than I could handle and advised the student to call AOPA or a lawyer.



הרחפת שלי מלאה בצלופחים
 
Posts: 30498 | Location: Central Florida, Orlando area | Registered: January 03, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of aileron
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by jeffxjet:
I wish we could hear that phone call. SNS is right, we will only get the polite, professional ATC on the tape. That's their job, to be professional in the face of chaos. Once he's on the phone call, that's with an angry supervisor, and that voice is decidedly unpleasant, I've made a couple of those calls myself. They are not fun, and mine were all accidental. After apologizing and explaining what went wrong ATC is usually understanding(once they review the recorded conversation over the radio).

This guy I imagine got his ass chewed on the phone call. There WILL be an investigation based only on his tone over the radio. I'm sure this will result in a 90 day time out at the very least.


I've received two of these "advise when you are ready to copy a phone number" transmissions - not fun. One was the KLGB tower calling KPOC tower to say I'd busted their airspace by .2 miles! Review of the radar track indicated I was clear by .1 nm. The other was more serious; acro on a V airway, but way below the MEA and 2.5 miles off center line. No certificate action, but had to talk to 6 pilot groups about the dangers of acro in the LA basin. Nothing with a FSDO is good ...
 
Posts: 1472 | Location: Montana - bear country | Registered: March 20, 2013Reply With QuoteReport This Post
אַרְיֵה
Picture of V-Tail
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by aileron:

Nothing with a FSDO is good
One of my students used to say, "Bad news comes by registered mail."



הרחפת שלי מלאה בצלופחים
 
Posts: 30498 | Location: Central Florida, Orlando area | Registered: January 03, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
I did a column for years on regulation. I'm not an expert by any stretch, but I learned a long time ago that the best defense is to know one's shit, and there's a lot of shit in FAA legal. Consequently, I've spent considerable of my career deep in shit.

I've received several letters of investigation, handled each, and have never had to endure FAA enforcement action beyond receiving a letter of warning...which states that I was accused of xxx, no evidence was found to support it, but I was reminded that to do xxx was illegal...and that sat in my file for two years each time. Definitely career killers while they're in there. Trust me. Particularly onerous, given that there was no grounds for them, and in each case, it was a potshot by an inspector with a napoleon complex.

Bear in mind that recent vacancy announcements for FAA inspectors included, among other criteria, that the applicant couldn't have more than two aircraft accidents in the last five years, for which the applicant was at fault. If that doesn't raise a mountain of red flags, what else should?

We could go on all day with personal experiences of FAA stupidity, but suffice it to say that the typical inspector is someone who couldn't make it in the private sector...and one can usually spot them coming because their socks don't match...

As for calls to the tower, I've had a few. One, quite a few years back, occurred when I'd been turning 360's abeam the numbers at a busy international. I was coming back from an ambulance flight in a light twin. I was eventually cleared to land, no delay, minimum time on the runway. Rolling out of the turn and landing still meant configuring and slowing down, and they put a 757 behind me. The 757 went around. I was told to call the tower.

I called, and the controller read me the riot. None too polite, he told me I'd just cost xxx airlines a shit-ton of money. I told him that he just cost my employer a new set of brakes, and reminded him that the runway was MINE until I vacated, having received a clearance to land. A supervisor came on the line and apologized for the controller and told me that would be all.

One can make the call, but one had better know what to say, what not to say, and when to leave well enough alone.

I was once summoned to a FSDO, and there told by the FSDO manager that I would immediately go out and buy his secretary a dozen red roses, or he'd find a way to violate me. I kid not. One can't make that shit up.

As for obeying authority in flight: the pilot in command is the final, and ultimate authority regarding the conduct of the flight. The PIC is also the one who takes full responsibility for the flight. One can violate any regulation to meet the demands of safety; what gets one into trouble is having created the emergency in the first place. When an "authority" makes a demand of the PIC, including Air Traffic Control, it is still up to the pilot in command to accept or deny that clearance.

Had the pilot arriving in the Las Vegas TCA (Class B) been on fire, that would have been one thing. In this case, he simply wanted to transition the Class B airspace to get to Henderson, which lies beneath and outside the Class B. He could simply have gone around the Las Vegas airspace, or gone beneath it. He chose to do neither one. In this case, he didn't have a leg to stand on, and the only saving grace he might have had would be to declare an emergency and to have actually had one to declare. That never occurred.

I have been in airspace, including the Las Vegas Class B, and been given direction by ATC, and refused that direction. By example, I advised ATC I was deviating for weather, with a thundnerstorm, inside the LAS Class B. ATC told me to maintain my heading, and I repeated that I wasn't asking for a deviation, I was advising ATC what I was doing. ATC again told me negative, maintain heading. I deviated for weather, advised I had done so, and then accepted a new vector away from the weather. The PIC remains in command. It behooves the PIC to be sure of his position and not do something stupid, and to act in the safe interest of the flight. The Centurion pilot in the video at the start of this thread did none of those things.
 
Posts: 6650 | Registered: September 13, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Rumors of my death
are greatly exaggerated
Picture of coloradohunter44
posted Hide Post
This tape doesn't really give you all the details. Not enough info as to what happened prior to this. The pilot did nothing good and was an ass. The controller might have been a little easier on him too. I never violated a pilot in 29 years, but I sure could have. Why mess with someone's livelihood unless they really deserve it.



"Someday I hope to be half the man my bird-dog thinks I am."

FBLM LGB!
 
Posts: 10892 | Location: Commirado | Registered: July 23, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
All the time
Picture of Gear.Up
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by RichardC:
quote:
Originally posted by Gear.Up:
Been a while since I've seen that reference here. Big Grin


Please?


Think of it like "Charlie's in the wire."
 
Posts: 2320 | Location: East TN | Registered: July 28, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Certified Plane Pusher
Picture of Phantom229
posted Hide Post
In my 12 years I've seen maybe 2 that were complete assholes that shouldn't have been flying in the first place.

I can see instances for not calling to protect yourself. A lot of the time the call the tower without a Brasher Warning is "something didn't go right, let's talk about it off frequency" type of thing. I am part of the Pilot Outreach program for my airport on Facebook. We take a ton of questions and it's a good way to open the lines of communication outside recorded phone lines.

Till the day I die I will always remember a particular Mooney pilot who was an asshole. He would take 7000 of the 9000 feet of the runway, even though he put it on the numbers, because he didn't want to touch his brakes. He once turned into a 737 and ignored my control instructions to turn right to avoid the traffic. He said "I don't see him so I'm going to turn left". F That Guy.



Situation awareness is defined as a continuous extraction of environmental information, integration of this information with previous knowledge to form a coherent mental picture in directing further perception and anticipating future events. Simply put, situational awareness mean knowing what is going on around you.
 
Posts: 7895 | Location: Around Lake Tapps, Wa | Registered: September 29, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Certified Plane Pusher
Picture of Phantom229
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by sns3guppy:
As for obeying authority in flight: the pilot in command is the final, and ultimate authority regarding the conduct of the flight. The PIC is also the one who takes full responsibility for the flight. One can violate any regulation to meet the demands of safety; what gets one into trouble is having created the emergency in the first place. When an "authority" makes a demand of the PIC, including Air Traffic Control, it is still up to the pilot in command to accept or deny that clearance.

I have been in airspace, including the Las Vegas Class B, and been given direction by ATC, and refused that direction. By example, I advised ATC I was deviating for weather, with a thundnerstorm, inside the LAS Class B. ATC told me to maintain my heading, and I repeated that I wasn't asking for a deviation, I was advising ATC what I was doing. ATC again told me negative, maintain heading. I deviated for weather, advised I had done so, and then accepted a new vector away from the weather. The PIC remains in command. It behooves the PIC to be sure of his position and not do something stupid, and to act in the safe interest of the flight.
100%. Old joke. "Pilot screws up, pilot dies. Controller screws up, pilot dies." Pilots have to do what they have to do. They teach us that if a pilot is deviating for weather, it's not a request, they are doing it. Bad weather days, you start to give more separation because they are going to deviate for weather.



Situation awareness is defined as a continuous extraction of environmental information, integration of this information with previous knowledge to form a coherent mental picture in directing further perception and anticipating future events. Simply put, situational awareness mean knowing what is going on around you.
 
Posts: 7895 | Location: Around Lake Tapps, Wa | Registered: September 29, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Not a joke. It's true.

Controller screws up, controller gets a "deal."

Mechanic screws up, mechanic gets a violation.

Pilot screws up, everybody on board doesn't make it home.

I once had an employer who told me to do whatever I had to do to get down safely. He added that if I survived, I should set fire to the aircraft so that he could collect on the insurance. Then he added that having done that, I should run, because if he caught me, he'd kill me.

He wasn't kidding, either.
 
Posts: 6650 | Registered: September 13, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
SF Jake
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by sns3guppy:


I once had an employer who told me to do whatever I had to do to get down safely. He added that if I survived, I should set fire to the aircraft so that he could collect on the insurance. Then he added that having done that, I should run, because if he caught me, he'd kill me.

He wasn't kidding, either.




Doesn’t exactly give you the warm fuzzies working for someone with that type of demeanor


________________________
Those who trade liberty for security have neither
 
Posts: 3109 | Location: southern connecticut | Registered: March 20, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
He was actually a nice guy once you got to know him. In a murderous way. Sort of.

He warned a helittack crew about overflying the airplane when returning to the helipad, several times. One evening they overflew the airplane; really shook it, hammered the flight surfaces with rotorwash. He knocked on the helicopter door while the rotors were still turning, and dragged the hellitack foreman out by the throat and had a brief meeting behind a trailer, to discuss the mattter.

We were never overflown again, and when the helittack foreman regained proper function, I think a new bond and level of respect was established.
 
Posts: 6650 | Registered: September 13, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Go ahead punk, make my day
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by sns3guppy:
We could go on all day with personal experiences of FAA stupidity, but suffice it to say that the typical inspector is someone who couldn't make it in the private sector...and one can usually spot them coming because their socks don't match...
Indeed.

We fly some specially modified planes, all the FAA paperwork is legal and correct... but the one time we landed at an airport that we planned to operate out of for a week and saw that there was a FAA FSDO (Flight Standards District Offices). We gassed the planes and departed immediately (thankfully those chodes don't work on the weekend!). Even then some of their boot licking goons were giving us the nth degree while we gassed up and prepped for launch. We departed VFR, with no destination airport given.

It's now one of our basing site checklist items - "Ensure no FAA / FSDO facilities are present, otherwise choose a new locations to operate from."
 
Posts: 45798 | Registered: July 12, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
I am a leaf
on the wind...
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by V-Tail:
quote:
Originally posted by Phantom229:

If given a phone number, it is in your best interest to call because they will find you.
I respectfully disagree. I am acquainted with an attorney whose practice focuses on aviation law. He knows whereof he speaks, he was CAG in the Navy, and he has been practicing aviation law for decades.

He does a one-hour presentation on legal matters during the 16 hour (minimum) flight instructor refresher seminars.

Much of the time, there are FAA representatives at these seminars, and they are not too happy when they hear him say, "There is NO PLACE in the FARs (regulations) that requires an airman to make that phone call. If you are given a number to call, be polite, thank the controller for the number, but DO NOT CALL IT! Everything (anything) that you might say during such a telephone conversation can and will be used against you, and you will not even have been given a Miranda warning. DO NOT MAKE THAT PHONE CALL."

He advises calling a lawyer instead, or AOPA (they have a legal assistance plan).

When he makes this little speech, he smiles at the FAA guys in the clasroom and asks, "Isn't that right, fellows?" They either agree, or remain silent, but they never challenge him on fact, because he is correct.

I have never been given "the number" to call (knock wood), but several of my students have had experience. When they ask me what to do, I repeat what the lawyer said. I have been able to help a few times and get things sorted out, other times I have said that it was more than I could handle and advised the student to call AOPA or a lawyer.


From a legal perspective that is correct, from a go-along to get-along it is totally incorrect. The FAA WILL find you and talk to you. If you get a number and call(I've had 2 so far, one with New York Center, so you can guess how that was) the controller is wanting to find out what happened, read you the riot act and move on if he thinks you are sincere and made an honest mistake. You can smooth a lot of wrinkles with that phone call.

If the controller is angry and told you to call and you don't call, now you are on the list and have made him even madder because he has to track you down. Your problems are only going to get worse, not better. If you are going to get violated you are going to get violated, there are now two ways around it. If you are polite and contrite and sincere you can (on the phone call) get that violation down to a verbal scolding. If you get told to call, you've already violated an FAR. How far ATC wants to pursue that violation is now in your court. You can perhaps ease the pain by calling, You will almost certainly get a full investigation if you don't. I've gotten 2 Letters of Investigation(no phone call) and 2 phone calls, I will take the phone call every time.


_____________________________________
"We must not allow a mine shaft gap."
 
Posts: 2113 | Location: Elizabeth, CO | Registered: August 16, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of arabiancowboy
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by sns3guppy:
He was actually a nice guy once you got to know him. In a murderous way. Sort of.

He warned a helittack crew about overflying the airplane when returning to the helipad, several times. One evening they overflew the airplane; really shook it, hammered the flight surfaces with rotorwash. He knocked on the helicopter door while the rotors were still turning, and dragged the hellitack foreman out by the throat and had a brief meeting behind a trailer, to discuss the mattter.

We were never overflown again, and when the helittack foreman regained proper function, I think a new bond and level of respect was established.


There were certainly some interesting characters in the early days of OIF/OEF contract flying on the SOF ramps. Not sure if that was the context of your story.

They would be crushed nowadays, but back then we thought we could win if we tried hard enough and so accepted eccentric personalities if they delivered.
 
Posts: 2389 | Registered: May 17, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
אַרְיֵה
Picture of V-Tail
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by jeffxjet:

If you get told to call, you've already violated an FAR.
Not always. Case in point, I was contacted by a Good Guy whom I had trained for instrument rating.

He had flown from Our Little Airport (X04, Orlando-Apopka) to KHWO (North Perry, down near Lauderdale). He had filed IFR, was on an IFR clearance all the way even though the weather was severe clear.

After landing, he was given the phone number. He contacted me first. I took Colorado Hunter's advice (he is ex Air Traffic Controller) and I contacted KHWO tower to see what was going on.

The accusation was that my guy had flown in to a tower controlled field without talking to anyone, landed on RWY 28R with no clearance when runways 1L and 1R were in use.

My guy swore to me that he was on an IFR clearance, approach control turned him over to tower, tower cleared him to land RWY 1R, which he had requested for easy access to self service fuel after the landing roll-out.

It took a an hour or so on the phone, but it turned out that KHWO tower had falsely accused my guy, they confused him with a different Cessna 310 that landed wrong runway with no clearance. Tower finally admitted their error after I asked them to review the tape; my guy did have clearance and landed the proper runway.

So, it's not always true that "If you get told to call, you've already violated an FAR." ATC guys (and gals) can make mistakes, too.



הרחפת שלי מלאה בצלופחים
 
Posts: 30498 | Location: Central Florida, Orlando area | Registered: January 03, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2 3 4 5  
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    Argument between Cessna Pilot and Vegas ATC

© SIGforum 2024