I'M FROM THE FAA AND I'M HERE TO HELP YOU

The whole purpose of the original poster (ME) was to present to the
group something interesting and relevant to aviation that is on the
news wires...
Your attitude is your problem...

denny

"Denny" wrote in message
oups.com...
The whole purpose of the original poster (ME) was to present to the
group something interesting and relevant to aviation that is on the
news wires...
Your attitude is your problem...

denny


Perhaps Bill thinks it is ok to interfere with a required crew member (yes,
the lowly flight attendant who serves you drinks and picks up after you, is
a crew member), or just as long as the captain does not get involved that
you may do what you wish in the back. He states himself that there are not
enough facts to determine cause and circumstance, but then goes on to say
the FAA personnel would "trump" the on duty, at his workstation, crew
member. Perhaps the FAA personnel (or off-duty policeman) has had a bad day
and tipped a few at happy hour before boarding the flight. Do we still want
them "trumping" the flight crew (bus driver)? Not on my flight!

allen

Could not a "ramp check" be construed as "interfering with a required crew
member"?

I agree that it is possible the FAA person was out of line.

And, as I originally pointed out, we don't have enough information to really
assess what happened.

But that also means that we don't have enough information to determine that
the FAA was acting beyond their authority, as might be inferred from the
subject line on the original post and by the various other comments that
have been posted.

Jumping to conclusions of any sort based on sketchy information is a bad
idea.

But it is not a bad idea to point out how someone else's knee-jerk
assumption might be wrong...





"Allen" wrote in message
m...

"Denny" wrote in message
oups.com...
The whole purpose of the original poster (ME) was to present to the
group something interesting and relevant to aviation that is on the
news wires...
Your attitude is your problem...

denny


Perhaps Bill thinks it is ok to interfere with a required crew member
(yes,
the lowly flight attendant who serves you drinks and picks up after you,
is
a crew member), or just as long as the captain does not get involved that
you may do what you wish in the back. He states himself that there are not
enough facts to determine cause and circumstance, but then goes on to say
the FAA personnel would "trump" the on duty, at his workstation, crew
member. Perhaps the FAA personnel (or off-duty policeman) has had a bad
day
and tipped a few at happy hour before boarding the flight. Do we still
want
them "trumping" the flight crew (bus driver)? Not on my flight!

allen

"Lakeview Bill" wrote in message
om...
Could not a "ramp check" be construed as "interfering with a required crew
member"?


A ramp check can be considered interfering with a crew member. You are not
required to go through the ramp check if the delay will affect the safety of
your flight (such as weather or airport closing) or hinder your business.
Let's say you are a corporate pilot waiting at an airport and your
passengers show up. If there are no obvious issues the FAA can not hold you
to do a ramp check.

allen

Lakeview Bill wrote:
Could not a "ramp check" be construed as "interfering with a required
crew
member"?

I agree that it is possible the FAA person was out of line.

And, as I originally pointed out, we don't have enough information to
really
assess what happened.

But that also means that we don't have enough information to
determine that
the FAA was acting beyond their authority, as might be inferred from
the
subject line on the original post and by the various other comments
that
have been posted.

From the article : "An FAA spokesman told the Star that interference
with flight-crew operations violates federal aviation law and is
subject to a civil fine of up to $10,000. "

It's pretty simple. The FAA person is not part of the flight crew
and has no business interfering with a flight crew in flight. What
other information to you need to come to the conclusion that a flight
standards rep cannot interfere with a flight crew? The law does has no
exemption for people that happen to work for the FAA.

The degree of interference may be in question, but it seems pretty
clear to me that the FAA person was clearly overstepping her authority.
As far as the law is concerned, she was just another passenger on
that flight.

BTW - In addition to the FARs, there are federal criminal statutes that
cover interference with a flight crew.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

By your logic, a TSA flight marshal would be powerless to intervene.

And you are making the assumption that the flight attendant was acting
properly.

Suppose a flight gets asked for a glass of water just one time too many and
starts beating an elderly woman with a fire extinguisher.

Would it be acceptable to you if a TSA officer intervened?

Would it be acceptable to you if an FAA employee intervened?

Would it be acceptable to you if an ordinary citizen intervened?

Or would you find it acceptable for everyone to just stay in their seats and
allow the flight attendant to beat the old lady to death?

AND HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT THIS WASN'T A SITUATION WHERE A FLIGHT ATTENDANT
WAS BEATING AN OLD LADY TO DEATH WITH A FIRE EXTINGUISHER? YOU DON'T!

As far as the law goes, why don't you define "interfere" for us, and then
I'll get 20 Federal judges to give you totally different definitions.

You may or may not know that in most jurisdictions, it is a violation to
interfere with a policeman making an arrest. But if the arrestee starts
fighting the cop and grabbing for a gun and you walk over and cold-cock the
bad guy with a beer bottle do you really think you are going to get
arrested?

Now, go back and read every word I have written on this subject, and you
will find that I did not in any way say that the action of the FAA person
was correct.

I simply pointed out circumstances under which it could have been correct.

You asked the question: "What other information to you need to come to the
conclusion that a flight standards rep cannot interfere with a flight crew?"

Well, to start with, a definition of "interfere".

You stated: "it seems pretty clear to me that the FAA person was clearly
overstepping her authority."

Given that she was not charged, and given the paucity of facts that were in
the article, if it "seems pretty clear to (you)", I can only believe that
your judgment is questionable.


"John Galban" wrote in message
oups.com...

Lakeview Bill wrote:
Could not a "ramp check" be construed as "interfering with a required
crew
member"?

I agree that it is possible the FAA person was out of line.

And, as I originally pointed out, we don't have enough information to
really
assess what happened.

But that also means that we don't have enough information to
determine that
the FAA was acting beyond their authority, as might be inferred from
the
subject line on the original post and by the various other comments
that
have been posted.

From the article : "An FAA spokesman told the Star that interference
with flight-crew operations violates federal aviation law and is
subject to a civil fine of up to $10,000. "

It's pretty simple. The FAA person is not part of the flight crew
and has no business interfering with a flight crew in flight. What
other information to you need to come to the conclusion that a flight
standards rep cannot interfere with a flight crew? The law does has no
exemption for people that happen to work for the FAA.

The degree of interference may be in question, but it seems pretty
clear to me that the FAA person was clearly overstepping her authority.
As far as the law is concerned, she was just another passenger on
that flight.

BTW - In addition to the FARs, there are federal criminal statutes that
cover interference with a flight crew.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

Lakeview Bill wrote:

By your logic, a TSA flight marshal would be powerless to intervene.

A law enforcement officer and a manager aren't even close to being the
same thing.


And you are making the assumption that the flight attendant was acting
properly.

That is a reasonable assumption lacking any evidence to the contrary.


Suppose a flight gets asked for a glass of water just one time too many and
starts beating an elderly woman with a fire extinguisher.

Would it be acceptable to you if a TSA officer intervened?

Would it be acceptable to you if an FAA employee intervened?

Would it be acceptable to you if an ordinary citizen intervened?

Or would you find it acceptable for everyone to just stay in their seats and
allow the flight attendant to beat the old lady to death?

AND HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT THIS WASN'T A SITUATION WHERE A FLIGHT ATTENDANT
WAS BEATING AN OLD LADY TO DEATH WITH A FIRE EXTINGUISHER? YOU DON'T!

Now you are being ridiculous. You really think that wouldn't have been
reported had that happened?

Matt

"Lakeview Bill" wrote in message news:%li5e.16161

By your logic, a TSA flight marshal would be powerless to intervene.

Unless there was a danger to flight, (or persons) situation, that is
exzacary right. He is only there for Security (thus the "S" in TSA), not
behavior policing.
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Lakeview Bill" wrote in message news:%li5e.16161

By your logic, a TSA flight marshal would be powerless to intervene.

Unless there was a danger to flight, (or persons) situation, that is
exzacary right. He is only there for Security (thus the "S" in TSA), not
behavior policing.
--
Jim in NC


Exactly....the sky marshals would not give up their identity over a minor
passenger incident. That would be a sure way for terrorists to get the
marshals to identify themselves.

PS. I'm still not going to let a Wal-Mart wrench touch my airplane. :-)

"Lakeview Bill" wrote in message
om...
Could not a "ramp check" be construed as "interfering with a required crew
member"?

During a ramp check the FAA cannot interfer with the departude of the
aircraft.