Tribunal
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
Interesting to read some of the posts on this topic. I have an upandcoming hearing (date TBA) in which I have been implicated in $1500 in fines for offences that I did not knowingly commit. The TC investigation has been awash in personal attacks (from TC to me) and hearsay by individuals in the TC circle of friends. They are essentially out to hang me for something that an AME did and I had no control over (i was PRM and the aircraft was released on a rental flight from his hangar assuming the inspection was completed in full, but wasn't). If anyone who as been there done that has any recommendations im all ears. The lawyers I have contacted in this province have all said they are too busy to help me, but have also said that they would charge more in fees than the $1500 fine. I refuse to pay because I know Im not at fault. Help!
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Herein lies your first mistake........
" i was PRM "
If you are in the Pacific Region I may be able to give you some advice regarding who to talk to in TC and who not to.
PM me if you are interested.
Cat
" i was PRM "
If you are in the Pacific Region I may be able to give you some advice regarding who to talk to in TC and who not to.
PM me if you are interested.
Cat
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
Prairie region unfortunately. I love how tc makes up these titles of positions like PRM, and acts like you are fully responsible for all aspects of maintenance despite not having an AME licence. Once again, a convienient place to lay the blame when there is a problem. tc is only there to destroy aviation, despite what they make you think.
172driver:
Here's my advice:
Option 1) If you know that you are right, and can back it up with the CAR's go in there and try to win.
Option 2) If you think you are going to lose, try to plead with them to reduce the fines.
This is important: Administrative Law courts (such as the TC tribunal) work on a balance of probablities - that means that which ever side proves their point BETTER wins. Criminal court is innocent until proven guily. It is a completely different system.
Here's my advice:
Option 1) If you know that you are right, and can back it up with the CAR's go in there and try to win.
Option 2) If you think you are going to lose, try to plead with them to reduce the fines.
This is important: Administrative Law courts (such as the TC tribunal) work on a balance of probablities - that means that which ever side proves their point BETTER wins. Criminal court is innocent until proven guily. It is a completely different system.
Your lack of intent, or knowledge that you were committing an infraction will not be a defence. You can be found guilty for either the commission of an act (did it yourself), or on the basis of an ommission that resulted in the act being committed (didn't do something you should have to prevent or stop it from occuring).
Your guilt or innocence will likely be measured in terms of what you had done, as PRM, to prevent this kind of thing from happening. Did you exercise a reasonable level of due dilligence to identify problems that might occur, and then take steps to prevent them. Was this a reasonably forseeable mistake? If so, what had you done to prevent it from happening? Was it a mistake at all, or did someone else intentionally circumvent procedures or deceive you?
If you want any hope of defending yourself, comb through all the regulations and documents relating to the responsibilities of a PRM. Did you fulfill all of your obligations? Send TC a request for disclosure of ALL evidence and statement they collected during the course of their investigation, not just what they plan to submit at the hearing.
If you did things properly and the infraction occurred because of something someone else intentionally did, mount a vigorous defence. Produce whatever documentation and procedures you had in place at the time, call witnesses who will say they knew what happened wasn't allowed, etc. Show you did what any reasonable PRM would do. If there are avenues of investigation and questions that TC did not persue, challenge them on this. Did they interview everyone who may have information about the incident, especially those who may support you? If they didn't and you have documentation indicating a "personal attack" by an investigator, submit it as evidence of a bias and incomplete investigation. Compare the evidence and statements TC disclosed to you, is anything missing? If so, it opens the door to having their charge tossed on the basis of a lack of fairness caused by them supressing evidence.
Hearsay evidence is admissible, but is considered less reliable than direct evidence. This is because you can't cross examine the person making the statement. If TC submits a verbal or written statement from a person not at the hearing, and that statement is not 100% accurate, vigorously challenge the validity of it and specifically raise the issue of your inability to question the person who made the statement. Listen for a TC investigator or other witness who says something like, "I heard XX say, or XX told me, or XX provided me with a written statement." These are all examples of hearsay, and you should insist XX appear as a witness if you have any issue with the accuracy, completeness, context or truthfulness of the statement, or if you have any other questions you would want to ask the person. If XX can't/won't appear, ask for their statement to be disallowed.
Spend some time searching out previous cases that are reasonably similar to your own, or where a similar type of defence was successfully used. Decisions from a higher court will generally be binding case law on a lower level tribunal, but even other tribunal decisions, although not binding, will weigh heavily for the sake of consistency.
If you are found guilty, your lack of knowlege and intent can be brought in as a mitigating factor during the penalty phase of the hearing. You can ask for a reduced penalty becuase you didn't intend to commit an infraction, would not have if you had known what was going on, cooperated with TC (if you did), economic hardship (if true), otherwise swell guy who doesn't break rules (if true), etc, etc.
Good luck, it's hard to provide good advice without all the facts.
Your guilt or innocence will likely be measured in terms of what you had done, as PRM, to prevent this kind of thing from happening. Did you exercise a reasonable level of due dilligence to identify problems that might occur, and then take steps to prevent them. Was this a reasonably forseeable mistake? If so, what had you done to prevent it from happening? Was it a mistake at all, or did someone else intentionally circumvent procedures or deceive you?
If you want any hope of defending yourself, comb through all the regulations and documents relating to the responsibilities of a PRM. Did you fulfill all of your obligations? Send TC a request for disclosure of ALL evidence and statement they collected during the course of their investigation, not just what they plan to submit at the hearing.
If you did things properly and the infraction occurred because of something someone else intentionally did, mount a vigorous defence. Produce whatever documentation and procedures you had in place at the time, call witnesses who will say they knew what happened wasn't allowed, etc. Show you did what any reasonable PRM would do. If there are avenues of investigation and questions that TC did not persue, challenge them on this. Did they interview everyone who may have information about the incident, especially those who may support you? If they didn't and you have documentation indicating a "personal attack" by an investigator, submit it as evidence of a bias and incomplete investigation. Compare the evidence and statements TC disclosed to you, is anything missing? If so, it opens the door to having their charge tossed on the basis of a lack of fairness caused by them supressing evidence.
Hearsay evidence is admissible, but is considered less reliable than direct evidence. This is because you can't cross examine the person making the statement. If TC submits a verbal or written statement from a person not at the hearing, and that statement is not 100% accurate, vigorously challenge the validity of it and specifically raise the issue of your inability to question the person who made the statement. Listen for a TC investigator or other witness who says something like, "I heard XX say, or XX told me, or XX provided me with a written statement." These are all examples of hearsay, and you should insist XX appear as a witness if you have any issue with the accuracy, completeness, context or truthfulness of the statement, or if you have any other questions you would want to ask the person. If XX can't/won't appear, ask for their statement to be disallowed.
Spend some time searching out previous cases that are reasonably similar to your own, or where a similar type of defence was successfully used. Decisions from a higher court will generally be binding case law on a lower level tribunal, but even other tribunal decisions, although not binding, will weigh heavily for the sake of consistency.
If you are found guilty, your lack of knowlege and intent can be brought in as a mitigating factor during the penalty phase of the hearing. You can ask for a reduced penalty becuase you didn't intend to commit an infraction, would not have if you had known what was going on, cooperated with TC (if you did), economic hardship (if true), otherwise swell guy who doesn't break rules (if true), etc, etc.
Good luck, it's hard to provide good advice without all the facts.
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
172 Driver, Wilbur has written a well thought out outline of how you may defend yourself.
However may I ask a couple of questions?
How many aircraft are you responsible for?
What was the advantage to taking the position of PRM?
Cat
However may I ask a couple of questions?
How many aircraft are you responsible for?
What was the advantage to taking the position of PRM?
Cat
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
-
Corporate Pilot
- Rank 3
- Posts: 114
- Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 9:41 pm
- Location: Canada
That part about being PRM do you not understand??172driver wrote:They are essentially out to hang me for something that an AME did and I had no control over (i was PRM and the aircraft was released on a rental flight from his hangar assuming the inspection was completed in full, but wasn't). ... I refuse to pay because I know Im not at fault.
What does "PRM" stand for ??? It is "Person RESPONSIBLE for Maintenance".
(You might want to repeat that phrase over and over to yourself as you prepare for the Tribunal hearing. And keep in mind that, not only are the CARs clear on this subject, the Tribunal hearing officer also is aware of that. Don't delude yourself into thinking that you can con them or abrogate your responsibilty!!)
Suck it up Princess! The AME is never responsible in this situation; you are. Period.
Sorry Bud.
Appreciate the info wilbur
I am mainly trying to get a feel for what the tribunal process actually is like, and your post helps. I have some limited legal knowledge/experience which will help me in defending myself, however I know that I have a big mountain to climb here. tc is never wrong dont you know. their inspectors are complete professionals who never act unprofessionally or inappropriate. Ha (coughing and gagging)...\
Catdriver, we had 2 aircraft and I only did the PRM thing because it was a small company that I owned and I had no other option than to be the PRM.
Without spilling all the details, I issued a written work order to the AME to complete a 100 hour inspection including all AD's. He took 3 weeks to complete the inspection, but by telephone told me the inspection was done and my rental pilot who was itching to go on this big trip could take the plane according to him. My work order was signed off by the ame as "inspection completed as per log book entry". This is where the old bugger screwed me over. In the logbook, which he knew I wouldnt see before the flight departed, he wrote, AD so and so not completed as per customers request.
So tc has taken this "written documentation" over my request for completion of the inspection.
Are emails admissible? Especially when they have nothing to do with the charges? They are trying to use emails between myself and the aircraft owner over a dispute in account balance as evidence (of my "bad" character i assume). This is just one example of them trying to dig up dirt because I believe their case to be weak otherwise.
There is even notes the inspector wrote that they were discussing directions to my house with the aircraft owner. How is that professional???? Like was the inspector going to get a lynch mob together and come and get me????
They also have minutes from a local council meeting for the county where I had made a request at that meeting. How does that have anything to do with the investigation???
Anyone else's thoughts/advice is surely appreciated.
Everytime I read through the disclosure from tc I find new discrepancies (such as dates being reversed, and points they make being negated by something else they have in evidence. If I have enough time to keep going through the pile of papers, they wont have a case left!
I am mainly trying to get a feel for what the tribunal process actually is like, and your post helps. I have some limited legal knowledge/experience which will help me in defending myself, however I know that I have a big mountain to climb here. tc is never wrong dont you know. their inspectors are complete professionals who never act unprofessionally or inappropriate. Ha (coughing and gagging)...\
Catdriver, we had 2 aircraft and I only did the PRM thing because it was a small company that I owned and I had no other option than to be the PRM.
Without spilling all the details, I issued a written work order to the AME to complete a 100 hour inspection including all AD's. He took 3 weeks to complete the inspection, but by telephone told me the inspection was done and my rental pilot who was itching to go on this big trip could take the plane according to him. My work order was signed off by the ame as "inspection completed as per log book entry". This is where the old bugger screwed me over. In the logbook, which he knew I wouldnt see before the flight departed, he wrote, AD so and so not completed as per customers request.
So tc has taken this "written documentation" over my request for completion of the inspection.
Are emails admissible? Especially when they have nothing to do with the charges? They are trying to use emails between myself and the aircraft owner over a dispute in account balance as evidence (of my "bad" character i assume). This is just one example of them trying to dig up dirt because I believe their case to be weak otherwise.
There is even notes the inspector wrote that they were discussing directions to my house with the aircraft owner. How is that professional???? Like was the inspector going to get a lynch mob together and come and get me????
They also have minutes from a local council meeting for the county where I had made a request at that meeting. How does that have anything to do with the investigation???
Anyone else's thoughts/advice is surely appreciated.
Everytime I read through the disclosure from tc I find new discrepancies (such as dates being reversed, and points they make being negated by something else they have in evidence. If I have enough time to keep going through the pile of papers, they wont have a case left!
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
172 Driver I can apreciate your problem and frustration having owned several OC's myself.
What puzzels me is how TC became aware of the fact that the airplane was put back in service with an entry that an AD was not completed?
Ever thought of getting into a business that has less risk of going broke?
Weird.
Cat
What puzzels me is how TC became aware of the fact that the airplane was put back in service with an entry that an AD was not completed?
Ever thought of getting into a business that has less risk of going broke?
Weird.
Cat
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
-
beentheredonethat!
- Rank 1
- Posts: 33
- Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 11:04 am
- Location: OutWest
172 driver
"Without spilling all the details, I issued a written work order to the AME to complete a 100 hour inspection including all AD's. He took 3 weeks to complete the inspection, but by telephone told me the inspection was done and my rental pilot who was itching to go on this big trip could take the plane according to him. My work order was signed off by the ame as "inspection completed as per log book entry". This is where the old bugger screwed me over. In the logbook, which he knew I wouldnt see before the flight departed, he wrote, AD so and so not completed as per customers request. "
You have no idea how much that drivel smells to high heaven.
Sounds like you didn't CYA and got F++ked over for whatever reason.
I'll bet dollars to donuts this isn't your first run in with TC or if it is use the experience to learn. What does your MCM say about remote base releases??
Thats where you'll loose because if it like most MCM's it STILL the PRM's ass and if you are too stupid/inexperienced to account for that well then as another poster succinctly put it "...SUCK IT UP"
What part of "responsible" don't you clowns get??
I hope TC goes for cost recovery for wasting everyones tiime moron
"Without spilling all the details, I issued a written work order to the AME to complete a 100 hour inspection including all AD's. He took 3 weeks to complete the inspection, but by telephone told me the inspection was done and my rental pilot who was itching to go on this big trip could take the plane according to him. My work order was signed off by the ame as "inspection completed as per log book entry". This is where the old bugger screwed me over. In the logbook, which he knew I wouldnt see before the flight departed, he wrote, AD so and so not completed as per customers request. "
You have no idea how much that drivel smells to high heaven.
Sounds like you didn't CYA and got F++ked over for whatever reason.
I'll bet dollars to donuts this isn't your first run in with TC or if it is use the experience to learn. What does your MCM say about remote base releases??
Thats where you'll loose because if it like most MCM's it STILL the PRM's ass and if you are too stupid/inexperienced to account for that well then as another poster succinctly put it "...SUCK IT UP"
What part of "responsible" don't you clowns get??
I hope TC goes for cost recovery for wasting everyones tiime moron
There is never time to do it right but there is always time to do it over!
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
172 Driver, I do not know any of your background nor the details surrounding your issue with TC.....but... beentheredonethat seems prone to making unfounded inflamitory accusations without having the faintest clue of what he is talking about....
...he posted this about me in another thread...
" If find it absurdly ironic that you should fault TC for fining Sonic Blue
for NOT following the maintenance schedule as I recall that was the very issue that started your precarious ride downhill with TC in the first place.
I'm sick and tired of the West coast aviation 'I know better than ..."
He then said this to you....
" I hope TC goes for cost recovery for wasting everyones tiime moron "
In my case he is making a very untrue accusation from anonimity, however if he has any balls maybe he could PM me and let me know just who he is so I can avoid him like AIDS if he lives in my region.
Cat
...he posted this about me in another thread...
" If find it absurdly ironic that you should fault TC for fining Sonic Blue
for NOT following the maintenance schedule as I recall that was the very issue that started your precarious ride downhill with TC in the first place.
I'm sick and tired of the West coast aviation 'I know better than ..."
He then said this to you....
" I hope TC goes for cost recovery for wasting everyones tiime moron "
In my case he is making a very untrue accusation from anonimity, however if he has any balls maybe he could PM me and let me know just who he is so I can avoid him like AIDS if he lives in my region.
Cat
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
OK, here's a couple ideas for you.
1. The AME's notation seems to be based on an alleged phone conversation with you. He is saying that you told him something. That makes his entry "hearsay." However, the fact he wrote it down helps to increase the reliability of his hearsay evidence. If you did not tell him to defer that AD, I would try a couple approaches. First, do you have a history of deferring items on inspections, or do you have a record of issuing and following through with work orders requiring all AD's to be complied with, all snags fixed, etc? Best case for you is that you always have all required work done thereby making this situation unusual. That would significantly reduce the reliability of his heresay testimony.
2. When does he say this call occurred? Was anyone with you at the time who can testify as to what you said on the phone? Did a call even occur when he claims? Can you produce a witness placing you somewhere else at the time he alleges he spoke with you, cell phone record, credit card reciept, etc.
3. What did the AME say to the renter at the time he gave him the airplane? Is the AME's version and the renter's version the same. Any significant difference can be used to discredit the AME. Did the renter watch the AME fill out the log book? What did he say when doing it? Was it before or after he says he spoke with you?
4. Point out to the tribunal that you issued a written work order to have that work done, and enter the document as evidence. Deny you gave any instruction to the AME contrary to what was on that work order. Your work order document is "real evidence" and make sure you remind the tribunal that it deserves greater weight than the AME's "hearsay" that you assert is untrue.
5. Point out that the AME has a vested interest in lying to TC and making a false log book entry. If he doesn't make that false entry in the log book, he could be civilly liable if an accident occurred. He could also possibly be charged by TC for signing off on work he did not do.
6. If the AD was not done, and the aircraft therefore not airworthy, what did the AME do to prevent the airplane from flying? Did he tell the renter the airplane was not airworthy? Did he immediately report the matter to TC? If he did not, it speaks directly to his integrity and credibility.
7. E-mails are admissible. Sounds like they are trying to establish a pattern of miscommunication or disagreements about facts with you. They know their case hinges on heresay he said I said evidence. They will be working hard to discredit you and build up their witness. Asking another person/witness for directions to your home is not unprofessional, nor is writing them down. Don't allow yourself to be distracted by emmotion. Stick to directly related facts.
8. Call the tribunal office and ask if they have a case law library you can access. They may or may not. If they deny access, but the TC lawyer attempts to use a previous tribunal ruling, argue that this is a violation of fundemental justice because TC is given information that your are denied. If the tribunal doesn't maintain a library, you may find some cases that were appealled to the Federal Court. They probably have an online searchable case database. Ideally you will find a case where TC successfully argued to have the court rely on an original document over subsequently occuring hearsay conversations. It scores big points when you can use their own earlier arguements against them. Your case law examples do not need to be restricted to just aviation.
If anything else comes to mind I'll post it.
1. The AME's notation seems to be based on an alleged phone conversation with you. He is saying that you told him something. That makes his entry "hearsay." However, the fact he wrote it down helps to increase the reliability of his hearsay evidence. If you did not tell him to defer that AD, I would try a couple approaches. First, do you have a history of deferring items on inspections, or do you have a record of issuing and following through with work orders requiring all AD's to be complied with, all snags fixed, etc? Best case for you is that you always have all required work done thereby making this situation unusual. That would significantly reduce the reliability of his heresay testimony.
2. When does he say this call occurred? Was anyone with you at the time who can testify as to what you said on the phone? Did a call even occur when he claims? Can you produce a witness placing you somewhere else at the time he alleges he spoke with you, cell phone record, credit card reciept, etc.
3. What did the AME say to the renter at the time he gave him the airplane? Is the AME's version and the renter's version the same. Any significant difference can be used to discredit the AME. Did the renter watch the AME fill out the log book? What did he say when doing it? Was it before or after he says he spoke with you?
4. Point out to the tribunal that you issued a written work order to have that work done, and enter the document as evidence. Deny you gave any instruction to the AME contrary to what was on that work order. Your work order document is "real evidence" and make sure you remind the tribunal that it deserves greater weight than the AME's "hearsay" that you assert is untrue.
5. Point out that the AME has a vested interest in lying to TC and making a false log book entry. If he doesn't make that false entry in the log book, he could be civilly liable if an accident occurred. He could also possibly be charged by TC for signing off on work he did not do.
6. If the AD was not done, and the aircraft therefore not airworthy, what did the AME do to prevent the airplane from flying? Did he tell the renter the airplane was not airworthy? Did he immediately report the matter to TC? If he did not, it speaks directly to his integrity and credibility.
7. E-mails are admissible. Sounds like they are trying to establish a pattern of miscommunication or disagreements about facts with you. They know their case hinges on heresay he said I said evidence. They will be working hard to discredit you and build up their witness. Asking another person/witness for directions to your home is not unprofessional, nor is writing them down. Don't allow yourself to be distracted by emmotion. Stick to directly related facts.
8. Call the tribunal office and ask if they have a case law library you can access. They may or may not. If they deny access, but the TC lawyer attempts to use a previous tribunal ruling, argue that this is a violation of fundemental justice because TC is given information that your are denied. If the tribunal doesn't maintain a library, you may find some cases that were appealled to the Federal Court. They probably have an online searchable case database. Ideally you will find a case where TC successfully argued to have the court rely on an original document over subsequently occuring hearsay conversations. It scores big points when you can use their own earlier arguements against them. Your case law examples do not need to be restricted to just aviation.
If anything else comes to mind I'll post it.
I'd be interested in seeing the bill too, depending on how the bill was laid out "ad's completed for X dollars" you could also bring that with you as evidence...Wilbur wrote: 4. Point out to the tribunal that you issued a written work order to have that work done, and enter the document as evidence. Deny you gave any instruction to the AME contrary to what was on that work order. Your work order document is "real evidence" and make sure you remind the tribunal that it deserves greater weight than the AME's "hearsay" that you assert is untrue.
"W/O says it must be done, he charged me for doing it, but he wrote not done in log book"
Appreicate all the positive ideas guys, thanks. I would do the same for you if I could in the future. Ive lined up another AME/AMO that I had dealings with to act as a witness to the fact that I was very thourough and particular with my maintenance, which is a pretty strong defence. I guess it sounds like I need to fight fire with fire (they attack character, so I defend my character and past). Sounds like that is a good way to approach it. Wilbur you have given me enough ideas to get a feel for how to approach the hearing, thanks. If you think of anything else, let me know.
As for beentheredonethat, I suspect he/she is either a tc (note I dont capitalize tc) inspector or interested party. I know I may sound negative towards tc, but they have done nothing to improve aviation in the last number of years that I know of, and I resent that. Aviation is my passion, but they have done everything they can to interfere in my company and make it next to impossible to make a dollar.
Catdriver - i am pleased (in a way) to note that I no longer have an aviation company, and operate a company in another (money making) business without the hassles and headaches brought on by tc. I would love to operate a flying school without the red tape, as it was my passion, however tc has made sure that there is plenty of red tape to go around. Don't get me wrong, im sure there are some good people at tc, but they do not have the power required to make the necessary changes.
As for beentheredonethat, I suspect he/she is either a tc (note I dont capitalize tc) inspector or interested party. I know I may sound negative towards tc, but they have done nothing to improve aviation in the last number of years that I know of, and I resent that. Aviation is my passion, but they have done everything they can to interfere in my company and make it next to impossible to make a dollar.
Catdriver - i am pleased (in a way) to note that I no longer have an aviation company, and operate a company in another (money making) business without the hassles and headaches brought on by tc. I would love to operate a flying school without the red tape, as it was my passion, however tc has made sure that there is plenty of red tape to go around. Don't get me wrong, im sure there are some good people at tc, but they do not have the power required to make the necessary changes.
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
If you want to teach free of interfeerence from TC maybe you should consider what I am going to do.
Use a homebuilt Cub and only give training to licensed pilots.
Cat
Use a homebuilt Cub and only give training to licensed pilots.
Cat
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
Catdriver, just read your post a few back. I cannot imagine owning a few oc's, one was enough for me.
To make a long story short, they found out about the AD because the owner pointed it out to them (him and the AME who made the entry are friends). Essentially either the owner or the AME lost the journey logbook (a story in itself) and are accusing me of holding it back (the dispute I was having via email with the owner). So little old owner strolls down to local tc enforcement office and claims that I am witholding his logbook. tc starts digging and before you know it, tc investigator is calling me up saying that they are going to charge me for blah blah blah because he looked through the tech log to do a reconstruction of the journey log. He convieniently noticed that the AME had signed out the plane as AD not being completed.
Do you see the picture here??? Circle of friends to the extreme. This is why I need to discredit as much of their evidence as I can.
Oh and beentheredonethat!, the tribunal is here just for cases like this, for people like myself who know they are being railroaded by tc inspectors who have nothing better to do than meet their quota. If anyone gets costs, it should be me by the time this is said and done. If only you could claim costs from the inspectors personally (not just the govt. purse ie. taxpayers). Remeber THEY are the ones who started this fight. I am going to apologize to noone for defending my rights/reputation.
To make a long story short, they found out about the AD because the owner pointed it out to them (him and the AME who made the entry are friends). Essentially either the owner or the AME lost the journey logbook (a story in itself) and are accusing me of holding it back (the dispute I was having via email with the owner). So little old owner strolls down to local tc enforcement office and claims that I am witholding his logbook. tc starts digging and before you know it, tc investigator is calling me up saying that they are going to charge me for blah blah blah because he looked through the tech log to do a reconstruction of the journey log. He convieniently noticed that the AME had signed out the plane as AD not being completed.
Do you see the picture here??? Circle of friends to the extreme. This is why I need to discredit as much of their evidence as I can.
Oh and beentheredonethat!, the tribunal is here just for cases like this, for people like myself who know they are being railroaded by tc inspectors who have nothing better to do than meet their quota. If anyone gets costs, it should be me by the time this is said and done. If only you could claim costs from the inspectors personally (not just the govt. purse ie. taxpayers). Remeber THEY are the ones who started this fight. I am going to apologize to noone for defending my rights/reputation.
But I would still need a pilot licence and medical through tc, cant avoid them, too bad
Tribunal
Gentlemen;
I cannot comment on 172s position as I am not familiar with both sides but I can sympathize with his unfortunate circumstance.
I find the PRM position to be one that is little understood by many of the people who are performing this function. As an engineer since the early 60s, I am more and more amazed at the people in small companies who accept this position with very little real maintenance knowledge. Under the present rules, the position is a real sucker trap. Small companies have people doubling up on jobs and the regulator knows this. I do take them to task on this and more emphatically on the fact that PRMs can defer defects. In the area where we operate, most of the PRMs I know are a tribunal/court case away from disaster. An audit will usually make them realize what they have got themselves into. A PRM should download and read TCs audit checklist and then ask themselves if they feel they have the background and information to be in that position. It is all rosy when things are going well but be prepared for the day the shit hits the fan as you will probably wind up being some of that shit.
A young pilot in our area asked last year if we could help him prepare for the PRM interview. He knew as much about being responsible for maintenance as my dog does but he did pass the interview and is now a PRM.
Good luck with your case 172 but until the right people are chosen for this position, especially in 703 ops, I think we shall see more and more cases as presented here.
Regards
carholme
I cannot comment on 172s position as I am not familiar with both sides but I can sympathize with his unfortunate circumstance.
I find the PRM position to be one that is little understood by many of the people who are performing this function. As an engineer since the early 60s, I am more and more amazed at the people in small companies who accept this position with very little real maintenance knowledge. Under the present rules, the position is a real sucker trap. Small companies have people doubling up on jobs and the regulator knows this. I do take them to task on this and more emphatically on the fact that PRMs can defer defects. In the area where we operate, most of the PRMs I know are a tribunal/court case away from disaster. An audit will usually make them realize what they have got themselves into. A PRM should download and read TCs audit checklist and then ask themselves if they feel they have the background and information to be in that position. It is all rosy when things are going well but be prepared for the day the shit hits the fan as you will probably wind up being some of that shit.
A young pilot in our area asked last year if we could help him prepare for the PRM interview. He knew as much about being responsible for maintenance as my dog does but he did pass the interview and is now a PRM.
Good luck with your case 172 but until the right people are chosen for this position, especially in 703 ops, I think we shall see more and more cases as presented here.
Regards
carholme
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
PRM is another example of a very important position within a company that was put in place without any real thought by the regulator.
Having owned several OC's and observed some of the people that have been approved as PRM in other companies I agree with carholme that the airport dog would have as much understanding of maintenance issues as some PRM's.
However from the stand point of the regulator the onus is on the PRM once approved.
As the situation now stands calling it stupid would be about as close as I could come to describing .
Having owned several OC's and observed some of the people that have been approved as PRM in other companies I agree with carholme that the airport dog would have as much understanding of maintenance issues as some PRM's.
However from the stand point of the regulator the onus is on the PRM once approved.
As the situation now stands calling it stupid would be about as close as I could come to describing .
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
Further to Carholme's comments about reviewing the audit checklist prior to accepting the PRM responsibility, I might add that it really behooves a person to review the regulations and standards one is required to demonstrate knowledge of as part of the interview/approval process for PRM, Operations Manager and Chief Pilot.
The very regulations you are supposed to study and become familiar with in order to pass an interview clearly outline the areas of liability you are accepting by taking on a particular position.
In our present liability-based system, one would do well to seriously consider all the implications and "what-if's" before accepting a position which smaller companies often require as a condition of employment, usually for little or no extra pay.
Although the company is also liable for any mistakes, omissions, violations etc. incurred while you are in whatever role, you are personally liable - something that could have drastic consequences for your career in a worst case scenario.
On the flip side, it never ceases to amaze me that most companies continue to treat these positions in a cavalier way and they too are oblivious to the consequences of not dotting all the i’s and crossing all the t’s. You know what they say: “you get what you pay for” so if no benefits or extra pay is given to staff for taking on the liability and ass-covering paperwork of these positions, then companies have only themselves to blame for the lack of care, attention and due-diligence – usually discovered at audit time when it is too late.
When will people realize that a thorough understanding of the regulations and standards governing our industry not only protects both personal and company liability, it gives us a very powerful tool to protect ourselves from a regulatory agency run amuck with the many contradictory policies, procedures and regional disparity that are in direct contravention with those same regulations.
Cheers,
Snoopy
The very regulations you are supposed to study and become familiar with in order to pass an interview clearly outline the areas of liability you are accepting by taking on a particular position.
In our present liability-based system, one would do well to seriously consider all the implications and "what-if's" before accepting a position which smaller companies often require as a condition of employment, usually for little or no extra pay.
Although the company is also liable for any mistakes, omissions, violations etc. incurred while you are in whatever role, you are personally liable - something that could have drastic consequences for your career in a worst case scenario.
On the flip side, it never ceases to amaze me that most companies continue to treat these positions in a cavalier way and they too are oblivious to the consequences of not dotting all the i’s and crossing all the t’s. You know what they say: “you get what you pay for” so if no benefits or extra pay is given to staff for taking on the liability and ass-covering paperwork of these positions, then companies have only themselves to blame for the lack of care, attention and due-diligence – usually discovered at audit time when it is too late.
When will people realize that a thorough understanding of the regulations and standards governing our industry not only protects both personal and company liability, it gives us a very powerful tool to protect ourselves from a regulatory agency run amuck with the many contradictory policies, procedures and regional disparity that are in direct contravention with those same regulations.
Cheers,
Snoopy
“Never interrupt someone doing something you said couldn’t be done.” Amelia Earhart
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
" When will people realize that a thorough understanding of the regulations and standards governing our industry not only protects both personal and company liability, it gives us a very powerful tool to protect ourselves from a regulatory agency run amuck with the many contradictory policies, procedures and regional disparity that are in direct contravention with those same regulations. "
O.K. Snoopy maybe my cognitive process is jammed, but how will knowing the regulations and standards allow you to protect yourself from unjust actions by the regulator?
When I used them to try and rectify their missinterpertatoins and oughtright ignoring said regulations all I got was several years of hearings in a kangaroo court that when they were found guilty I was still without protection...
So help me out here and tell me where I went wrong?
Snoop, please do not take this the wrong way because your post was very good, it is just that regardless of what transpires they have to power to whatever they want, right and wrong does not enter into their thought process.
Cat
O.K. Snoopy maybe my cognitive process is jammed, but how will knowing the regulations and standards allow you to protect yourself from unjust actions by the regulator?
When I used them to try and rectify their missinterpertatoins and oughtright ignoring said regulations all I got was several years of hearings in a kangaroo court that when they were found guilty I was still without protection...
So help me out here and tell me where I went wrong?
Snoop, please do not take this the wrong way because your post was very good, it is just that regardless of what transpires they have to power to whatever they want, right and wrong does not enter into their thought process.
Cat
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
Word of advice. (I've been through it) Unless you are an excellent speaker and have experience in law do not go in and present your case on your own.
Bring representation for yourself. TC will for themselves...and rest assured they have done it many times before.
Bring representation for yourself. TC will for themselves...and rest assured they have done it many times before.
"Going to the Dark Side"
