FAA throws pilots under the Airbus

In article ,
says...


Bugger off - it's *bloody serious* - they're idiots!

They displayed a lack of due dilegence to the extreme.

I think their excuse is a one big lie too.



If you don't believe their story, than you have little to go on in judging
the seriousness of their actions.

I share the belief that the FAA action was hasty. I am not suggesting
leniency, but a suspension for the time it takes to complete an
investigation, then certificate action based on and proportional to the
results of that investigation would be a much more suitable position for the
regulatory authority.

VOR-DME wrote:
In article ,
says...


Bugger off - it's *bloody serious* - they're idiots!

They displayed a lack of due dilegence to the extreme.

I think their excuse is a one big lie too.



If you don't believe their story, than you have little to go on in
judging the seriousness of their actions.

I share the belief that the FAA action was hasty. I am not suggesting
leniency, but a suspension for the time it takes to complete an
investigation, then certificate action based on and proportional to
the results of that investigation would be a much more suitable
position for the regulatory authority.

Can you come up with a mitigating circumstance for the loss of control and
responsibility on the pilots' part that would justify any lesser remedial
action? If the outcome is inevitable, why should the FAA wait to act?

--
Neil

Can you come up with a mitigating circumstance for the loss of control and
responsibility on the pilots' part that would justify any lesser remedial
action? If the outcome is inevitable, why should the FAA wait to act?

Why can't the cops take the bad guy directly to the electric chair and skip all that pesky courtroom stuff? That's the same question. Maybe there are mitigating circumstances, maybe not, but a suspension gets the pilots out of the sky immediately, so public safety is "protected", while allowing the system to function properly.

When you are charged by the FAA, you'll be really glad there is some forum to defend yourself.

In article ,
says...


It's called due process. Maybe you've heard of it?



That’s correct.
It’s considered an inviolable, constitutional right in common law. Should we
be forced to accept a more arbitrary standard just because this concerns
aviation?
Don’t forget, an effort to understand the events is not only in the interest
of the "defendants" but the plaintiffs as well. It could be that a decent
investigation would lead to criminal charges in addition to suspensions and
revocations if the facts are serious enough.
Everyone benefits from due process, as opposed to knee-jerk, arbitrary
edicts.

Clark wrote:
"Neil Gould" wrote in news:hc9iq2$5a5$1
@adenine.netfront.net:

VOR-DME wrote:
In article ,
says...


Bugger off - it's *bloody serious* - they're idiots!

They displayed a lack of due dilegence to the extreme.

I think their excuse is a one big lie too.



If you don't believe their story, than you have little to go on in
judging the seriousness of their actions.

I share the belief that the FAA action was hasty. I am not
suggesting leniency, but a suspension for the time it takes to
complete an investigation, then certificate action based on and
proportional to the results of that investigation would be a much
more suitable position for the regulatory authority.

Can you come up with a mitigating circumstance for the loss of
control and responsibility on the pilots' part that would justify
any lesser remedial action? If the outcome is inevitable, why should
the FAA wait to act?


It's called due process. Maybe you've heard of it?

Not in relation to actions by the FAA. ;-)

--
Neil

Clark wrote:
If the outcome is inevitable, why should the FAA wait to act?


It's called due process. Maybe you've heard of it?


Gotta remember that one. When the boss says "You're fired!"
I need to say, "Hey, it's called Due Process".

Will that one work, do you think?

Brian W

Clark wrote:
..
Due process is required in judicial actions, not by private employers. Why
would you confuse one for the other?


Going way off track fast, here. But it is a source of amazement to
foreign nationals that we US citizens explicitly or implicitly sign up
for jobs that are "fire at will."
Expressing one's desire for employment with "termination for cause"
(describing the class of causes) is the remedy here.

Brian W

VOR-DME wrote:
In article ,
says...

Bugger off - it's *bloody serious* - they're idiots!

They displayed a lack of due dilegence to the extreme.

I think their excuse is a one big lie too.



If you don't believe their story, than you have little to go on in judging
the seriousness of their actions.

I share the belief that the FAA action was hasty. I am not suggesting
leniency, but a suspension for the time it takes to complete an
investigation, then certificate action based on and proportional to the
results of that investigation would be a much more suitable position for the
regulatory authority.


If they had an unblemished record up until now, then there should be
consequences for their actions, but not revocation of licenses. Look how
many drunk drivers get off after having a deadly accident (the drunk
driver normally does not die) and they are right back at it. There is
more of that than what has been talked about here. And, I am on the
highways more than in the air.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
Sold
KSWI

Originally Posted by Ross

VOR-DME wrote:
In article ,
says...

Bugger off - it's *bloody serious* - they're idiots!

They displayed a lack of due dilegence to the extreme.

I think their excuse is a one big lie too.



If you don't believe their story, than you have little to go on in judging
the seriousness of their actions.


I share the belief that the FAA action was hasty. I am not suggesting
leniency, but a suspension for the time it takes to complete an
investigation, then certificate action based on and proportional to the
results of that investigation would be a much more suitable position for the
regulatory authority.


If they had an unblemished record up until now, then there should be
consequences for their actions, but not revocation of licenses. Look how
many drunk drivers get off after having a deadly accident (the drunk
driver normally does not die) and they are right back at it. There is
more of that than what has been talked about here. And, I am on the
highways more than in the air.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
Sold
KSWI

I think any professional who has been doing his/her job flawlessly for 25 years who makes a mistake that results in no injuries to any persons, no damage to any equipment, and causes 144 people to be 40 minutes late deserves to have his/her livelyhood taken away for the rest of his/her life!

Danny Flyboy wrote:
I think any professional who has been doing his job flawlessly for 25
years who makes a mistake that results in no injuries to any persons,
no damage to any equipment, and causes 144 people to be 40 minutes late
deserves to have his/her livelyhood taken away for the rest of his/her
life!

Revocation doesn't mean a pilot can't get another certificate after a year
passes - cause one fellow has managed to have his suspended or revoked some
five times:

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news..._199964-1.html