"Guilty" of Flying the Wrong Pattern?

From AvWeb:

"Larry S... was originally found guilty by an FAA administrative judge
of flying a right-hand pattern, in his personal aircraft, a Christavia,
at Chetek instead of the standard left-hand pattern. He appealed to the
National Transportation Safety Board and the charge was dismissed."

This struck me as a bit odd. He was "ratted-out" by another (I think)
non-FAA person who had a grudge against him. So can anyone report
things like wrong traffic patterns and/or pattern altitudes to the FAA
and get them to summon the pilot to a hearing of some sort?

Marco

Yep. Did you read that the Rat had also complained about this pilot's
actions previously, lost that case then settled out of court with the pilot
for an undisclosed amount of money when the pilot sued him in an
anti-defamation suit?

I would think that the normal course of action would be a request by the
local FSDO that the pilot pay them a visit for a 709 ride after a local
inquiry and investigation had been performed by the FSDO Safety Inspector.

I often tell students that if you hang around the airport long enough,
you'll see somebody do something stupid. The first point should be don't do
something stupid, the second is that somebody's watching. I guess this guy
makes a third point that if you've got enemies, they'll be watching
especially close. (whether they know what they are seeing is another matter)

Jim

Jim Burns wrote:
Yep. Did you read that the Rat had also complained about this pilot's
actions previously, lost that case then settled out of court with the pilot
for an undisclosed amount of money when the pilot sued him in an
anti-defamation suit?

Yeah, I read that but I would imagine tensions would need to be at that
level to follow-through with the FAA.


I would think that the normal course of action would be a request by the
local FSDO that the pilot pay them a visit for a 709 ride after a local
inquiry and investigation had been performed by the FSDO Safety Inspector.

That's why I found it odd. Why didn't the FAA just say or do that
instead of going for the hearing right away--especially if they knew
there was a previous history of bad blood between them.

I often tell students that if you hang around the airport long enough,
you'll see somebody do something stupid. The first point should be don't do
something stupid, the second is that somebody's watching. I guess this guy
makes a third point that if you've got enemies, they'll be watching
especially close. (whether they know what they are seeing is another matter)

I would say most--if not all--pilots have done something that could be
regarded as "stupid." The key is to keep it to a low-risk flub (like
leaving a chock in a wheel). But your point is a good one--try to keep
it low-profile!

Marco

Jim Burns wrote:

I guess this guy
makes a third point that if you've got enemies, they'll be watching
especially close. (whether they know what they are seeing is another matter)

Or competitors. I recall reading of a part 135 charter operator reporting
a competing operator to the FAA after the second operator flew an approach
through icing conditions in an aircraft not certified for known icing.

--
Peter

"Peter R." wrote:

Or competitors. I recall reading of a part 135 charter operator reporting
a competing operator to the FAA after the second operator flew an approach
through icing conditions in an aircraft not certified for known icing.

Sorry, that should have read, "a part 135 FREIGHT operator," not charter.
--
Peter

I wonder if the pilot objected to a requested 709 ride and instead appealed
the complaint somehow?
Jim

"Jim Burns" wrote in message
...
I wonder if the pilot objected to a requested 709 ride and instead appealed
the complaint somehow?
Jim



IIRC, the rest of the story is that the pilot is a cop and was flying in the
performance of his duties. If he actually flew a wrong pattern, it was to
investigate something on the ground.

Jay B

Yep, that was in the article, also something about the state owned aircraft
being out of service and he was using his personal aircraft at the time.

Does anybody know the procedure of what he may have faced? Such as if
you're asked to take a 709 ride and refuse are you automatically found
guilty of the charged offense but you have the right to appeal?

Rick D. you out there? Any ideas?
Jim

"Peter R." wrote:

"Peter R." wrote:

Or competitors. I recall reading of a part 135 charter operator reporting
a competing operator to the FAA after the second operator flew an approach
through icing conditions in an aircraft not certified for known icing.

Sorry, that should have read, "a part 135 FREIGHT operator," not charter.
--
Still, that sounds like a good way to get people killed. The second
operator should have been busted.

Ron Lee

Ron Lee wrote:

Still, that sounds like a good way to get people killed. The second
operator should have been busted.

That's a pretty bold statement considering you weren't there to know all
the circumstances of the second pilot's decision making.

--
Peter