what would you do?

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Michael 182" wrote in message
news:cwGBc.70661$Hg2.7085@attbi_s04...
What does "report her" mean? Why should the FSDO care what I say when I
"report" a fellow pilot?

They are the ones in charge of enforcing the FARs.

Right, but it is my word against hers. Why should they believe me?


Is there a procedure for this?

Pick up the phone, dial the number, tell them what you saw and heard.

I don't know - I
just don't like the idea that an overly officious fellow pilot would
decide
to "report me" if they were unhappy with my piloting.

Me either. But still, what else are you going to do?

How do you feel about calling the police if someone breaks into your
house?
I mean, you wouldn't want YOUR neighbor calling the police tell them YOU
broke into THEIR house, would you? By your logic, you ought to just
ignore
the guy breaking into your own house.

No, that doesn't follow, Peter. I have no problem reporting (some) crimes to
the police. Her piloting may have been unsafe, but it was not a crime.


[...] I can just picture him "reporting" me, and having
to deal with a FSDO investigation or some such thing.

Had he reported you, I doubt anything of substance would have happened.
In
any case, you can always sue him for slander.

Ugh, litigation - the worst possible result.


Pete

Michael 182 wrote:

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

They are the ones in charge of enforcing the FARs.

Right, but it is my word against hers. Why should they believe me?

You forget. This is the FAA. Believing you gives them an opportunity to investigate a
pilot. She is guilty until proven innocent.

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


Michael 182 wrote:

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

They are the ones in charge of enforcing the FARs.

Right, but it is my word against hers. Why should they believe me?

You forget. This is the FAA. Believing you gives them an opportunity to
investigate a
pilot. She is guilty until proven innocent.

Yeah, that's kind of what I'm worried about...


George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

"Michael 182" wrote in message
news:KjLBc.69040$2i5.6820@attbi_s52...
Right, but it is my word against hers. Why should they believe me?

It's highly unlikely that a single report would cause anything to happen.
But if the FSDO hears from several people about the same person, there's
probably something to that. You can be assured that the FSDO isn't going to
base their entire case on your word. However, your word may be just what
they need to take a closer look at a pilot who needs a closer look.

How do you feel about calling the police if someone breaks into your
house?
I mean, you wouldn't want YOUR neighbor calling the police tell them YOU
broke into THEIR house, would you? By your logic, you ought to just
ignore
the guy breaking into your own house.

No, that doesn't follow, Peter. I have no problem reporting (some) crimes
to
the police. Her piloting may have been unsafe, but it was not a crime.

Of course it follows. The behavior not being a crime is irrelevant, and in
any case it may well be a crime (ever heard of "reckless endangerment"?).

The point is that you are saying that because you wouldn't want someone to
falsely report you of doing something, that you wouldn't want to truthfully
report someone else of doing the same thing. That attitude makes no sense,
and it really doesn't matter whether the "thing" being done has been
labelled as "illegal" or simply "against the regulations".

Had he reported you, I doubt anything of substance would have happened.
In
any case, you can always sue him for slander.

Ugh, litigation - the worst possible result.

So don't sue. I was just pointing out that it's not like a falsely accused
person doesn't have recourse. We're not really talking about you being
reported. We're talking about someone else being reported, and a person who
has actually done something worth reporting at that.

Pete

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 18:59:20 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

We're not really talking about you being
reported. We're talking about someone else being reported, and a person who
has actually done something worth reporting at that.


It shouldn't matter Who is being reported. How do you know this
person has done something worth reporting? Because of a post on the
internet? I've read the thread and have seen some people point out
imperfections in the procedures used by the original poster as well as
a very colorful story about what seems to be a pilot still in need of
some education. However I certainly did not learn a sufficient number
of facts on the "alleged incident" (for the lawyers out there) to
state anyone should be reported for possible legal action.

I really am amazed at how quickly this group seems to hang people and
almost unanimously declare that someone should be referred to the
authorities when all they really have to go by is one persons opinion.

It's almost as if no one here has ever made a mistake, and that they
are as close to perfect pilots as anyone can be.

My 2 cents.
z

"zatatime" wrote in message
...
It shouldn't matter Who is being reported. How do you know this
person has done something worth reporting? Because of a post on the
internet?

No one is proposing reporting a pilot solely on the basis of what they've
read on this newsgroup. The only person to whom it's being suggested that
the pilot be reported is the person who actually observed the actions.

If that person cannot make a final determination as to whether to report the
person, who can? All we are saying is that if the events transpired as
described, that's a reportable offense. Nothing more, nothing less.

It's almost as if no one here has ever made a mistake, and that they
are as close to perfect pilots as anyone can be.

I have no idea where you got that impression. Perhaps you could quote some
posts that led you to it. It sure seems like you pulled that conclusion out
of your ass, given the utter lack of supporting statements within this
thread to justify it.

Pete

Ok... suppose YOU were the FAA... and the incident occured exactly the way it
was portrayed in the original post, and it was reported to the FAA (you).

What would you (were you the FAA) do?

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...
Ok... suppose YOU were the FAA... and the incident occured exactly the way
it
was portrayed in the original post, and it was reported to the FAA (you).

What would you (were you the FAA) do?

Generally speaking, "keep an eye on her". I have no idea what the FAA
actually would do, or how they "keep an eye on" someone.

I wouldn't expect them to actually write a violation on the basis on that
single report, but they might contact the pilot to talk to her. Of course,
if she incriminates herself in the process, that's a different matter.
Knowing the FAA, if the pilot actually incriminated herself while talking to
the FAA, I'd expect them to throw whatever book at her they have.

If this were the fiftieth report (for example) of bad behavior on her part
that the FSDO received, I'd expect them to start *some* sort of proceedings,
if only a review (what do they call it? 409? I don't remember).

Pete

"Teacherjh" wrote in message

Ok... suppose YOU were the FAA... and the incident occured exactly the way
it
was portrayed in the original post, and it was reported to the FAA (you).

What would you (were you the FAA) do?

Oooh. Me me me!!! :

Assuming there wasn't some huge bureaucratic procedure, and I could just
pick up the phone and begin an investigation, I'd let the pilot know she had
been reported and ask her a few basic questions: What is her opinion of
what happened, how current is her ticket, last flight review, logged hours,
how often she flies, were there circumstances that caused her urgency, etc.
Not adversarial, just an attempt to get an idea of the person who has been
reported and the full details of the situation. That might, as a side
effect, be enough to make her aware of her activity.

If she balked or gave unsatisfactory information, I'd contact the owner of
the aircraft and let that person know that his/her aircraft might
potentially be involved in an FAA investigation, and why. Would have had to
have gotten that information anyway to find out who was PIC of the reported
aircraft, but I wouldn't rat out the pilot during that process.

I -might- ask to review her logbook and then advise her of what she did
wrong, the problems it might cause, etc. If the FAA never heard another
report about her flying again, it shouldn't be a problem to anybody at all,
but if further activity was reported the matter would have to be escalated.

Would that be satisfactory?

-c

Can you spell L - A - W - Y - E - R?

Nobody in their right mind would answer questions like that for someone who
just called them up on the phone, and if someone from the FAA or LEA showed
up at the door with credentials the pilot wouldn't talk to them without a
lawyer present.

It would be nice if we could still resolve situations like this with a phone
call, but that went out the door when the 20th century came in.



"gatt" wrote in message
...

"Teacherjh" wrote in message

Ok... suppose YOU were the FAA... and the incident occured exactly the
way
it
was portrayed in the original post, and it was reported to the FAA
(you).

What would you (were you the FAA) do?

Oooh. Me me me!!! :

Assuming there wasn't some huge bureaucratic procedure, and I could just
pick up the phone and begin an investigation, I'd let the pilot know she
had
been reported and ask her a few basic questions: What is her opinion of
what happened, how current is her ticket, last flight review, logged
hours,
how often she flies, were there circumstances that caused her urgency,
etc.
Not adversarial, just an attempt to get an idea of the person who has been
reported and the full details of the situation. That might, as a side
effect, be enough to make her aware of her activity.

If she balked or gave unsatisfactory information, I'd contact the owner of
the aircraft and let that person know that his/her aircraft might
potentially be involved in an FAA investigation, and why. Would have had
to
have gotten that information anyway to find out who was PIC of the
reported
aircraft, but I wouldn't rat out the pilot during that process.

I -might- ask to review her logbook and then advise her of what she did
wrong, the problems it might cause, etc. If the FAA never heard another
report about her flying again, it shouldn't be a problem to anybody at
all,
but if further activity was reported the matter would have to be
escalated.

Would that be satisfactory?

-c