What would make you "turn in" someone to the FAA?

[peek 21]

Hell, I haven't said anything controversial for a while, so here goes:

What would make you "turn in" someone to the FAA?

By this I mean, (for situations in the US) how serious of an FAR violation would concern you so much that you would turn in someone to the FAA knowing that it would be likely that they would have an FAA certificate (pilot, rigger, mechanic) revoked or suspended, or if they had no certificate, would have legal (civil) action taken against them? ("Turning in" being defined as writing a letter of formal complaint and identifying yourself.)

To answer my own question first: "I don't know". I'll have to think about it a while.

[mgattini 0]

A pilot letting an intoxicated jumper jump.

[AggieDave 6]

I know I wouldn't turn a jumper into the FAA, since that typically only gets the pilot in trouble. There are other avenues for us to police ourselves to persue prior to getting outside agencies inolved.

Honestly, I think getting the FAA involved to stop a jumper is piss-poor. The FAA can inact a fine against the jumper, but in the history of our sport how many times has that happened? How many times have pilots been fined and worst in our sport for "allowing" jumping actions?

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[yjumpinoz 0]

As a aircraft mechanic, I would have to seriously consider it if I knew there was an unsafe aircraft. I would stop jumping it early and probably recomend others do the same, but to avoid a fatal accident I think it would be worth it. I personally know our FAA rep, and he is not out to get us.

[Remster 30]

Repeated aircraft maintenance or operation issues.

Remster

[kkeenan 14]

Quote

A pilot letting an intoxicated jumper jump.

Pilots at busy / large DZs frequently take on a load of jumpers without ever leaving their seat in the cockpit. If a drunken jumper were sitting next to you in the back of the a/c would you consider it the pilot's responsibility to deal with that issue ? And if the jumper injured or killed themselves or someone else, would you consider the pilot responsible for it ?

In the eyes of the FAA, the pilot is the only person in the above scenario who can be held responsible.

Kevin

_____________________________________
Dude, you are so awesome...
Can I be on your ash jump ?

[Scrumpot 1]

Came close once (but didn't) with a GROSSLY NEGLIGENT rigger.

coitus non circum - Moab Stone

[nicknitro71 0]

Definitely not someone packing a BASE rig with the intention or not to jump from a balloon with it.

For bigger problems like a gross rigging error or a stoned or drunk pilot for instance, I honestly would try to solve the problem w/out getting the FAA involved because in the end it will hurt all of us.

The more the feds stay away from skydiving the better off all of us will be but you seem not to get this message so keep ratting out.

Memento Audere Semper

903

[peek 21]

Quote

Definitely not someone packing a BASE rig with the intention or not to jump from a balloon with it.

... you seem not to get this message so keep ratting out.

Come on Nick, that was way too easy of a shot! I'm starting a new thread here.

Quote

For bigger problems like a gross rigging error or a stoned or drunk pilot for instance.

Thank you, that's the kind of discussion I'm trying to provoke.

[tr027 0]

I would only rat out as a last resort when a jumper is putting others in clear/imminent danger.

edit: 'last resort' meaning no other solutions have worked, and ratting is the only way to save lives, which I'm pretty sure would never happen.

"The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it. " -John Galt from Atlas Shrugged, 1957

[Tink1717 2]

Do I know this person?

Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off.
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

What would make you "turn in" someone to the FAA?

Nothing would. I'm not that kind of person. If I'm concerned about the safety of a given DZ operation, then I will either talk to the DZO/S&TA or I would take my business to a different DZ. But ratting on someone to the FAA is not my way of resolving issues. The FAA is not our buddies and given the choice, I'm sure they would love to shut skydiving and general aviation down. Why the #### do you think organizations like AOPA exists? They exist to protect general aviators from the FAA.

This all reminds me of a recent incident between an Air Force cadet and local rigger. The cadet wants to jump on a given day and knows that their rig is out of date. The cadet pleads to the rigger to do something ASAP so that the cadet can get airborne. Since the rigger was ultra busy that morning and couldn't repack the reserve on the spot as the cadet was asking, the rigger was also the person to pack the reserve the last time and the rigger and cadet come to a verbal agreement that the reserve card will be updated on the spot so that the cadet can jump that day and that at the end of the day the rigger will indeed repack the reserve. Well the cadet goes off to tell his buddies and superiors what the rigger did and the next thing you know the air force is coming down hard on the rigger. Was the rigger right for his pencil pack? Well by the law we know that he wasn't (even though we know that a reserve is a reserve and just because it's been packed for 121 days doesn't mean that it ceases to be a reserve). But what about the rat ... the cadet. This goodie-two shoes will never be trusted again and good luck getting anyone to help him at this DZ. The cadet has been black listed as someone who can not be trusted in this sport.

If you want to go ratting on your fellow jumpers, then that is your right. But don't ever expect to be respected because we now know that you can't be trusted. Trust and respect need to be earned and you've thrown those out the door with your actions at Rantoul.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[Scrumpot 1]

Yes, you probably do. But no Tink, "bad" as you are, in this case (and for "the record") it was not you! -LOL (you opened yourself up for THAT one!)

Blues,
-Grant

coitus non circum - Moab Stone

[Scrumpot 1]

That is not an "apples-to-apples" story (example) and did not put anyone into any relative danger (except maybe the rigger himself, in danger of losing his own ticket)! So that example aside Canuck, you are saying that if you knew of a person, or a situation, that was a REAL and present DANGER to others, and you HAVE already taken as much other "appropriate actions" (like just turning your back on it and walking away?), and exhausted ALL other reasonable avenues, you would just let it drop at that? And "allow" the clear, REAL and present danger to continue?

coitus non circum - Moab Stone

[peek 21]

Quote

Trust and respect need to be earned and you've thrown those out the door with your actions at Rantoul.

I could have sworn I started a new thread.

[MattM 0]

Quote

Quote

Trust and respect need to be earned and you've thrown those out the door with your actions at Rantoul.

I could have sworn I started a new thread.

That doesn't erase the fact of what you did though. I hate to break it to you but it won't be easily forgotten.

Anyway - I would only notify the FAA if the "chain of command" failed.... S&TA, DZO, etc.... FAA is the last link in that chain.

Matt

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

That is not an "apples-to-apples" story (example) and did not put anyone into any relative danger (except maybe the rigger himself, in danger of losing his own ticket)! So that example aside Canuck, you are saying that if you knew of a person, or a situation, that was a REAL and present DANGER to others, and you HAVE already taken as much other "appropriate actions" (like just turning your back on it and walking away?), and exhausted ALL other reasonable avenues, you would just let it drop at that? And "allow" the clear, REAL and present danger to continue?

The FAA is not our buddies. Given the opportunity they would shutdown skydiving and general aviation and think nothing of it. If you've got safety concerns, talk to the pilot and/or owner of the operation. If you don't like their actions, don't jump there. But keep the FAA out of it. They are not our buddies.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[wildWilly 0]

Quote

A pilot letting an intoxicated jumper jump.

and how would a pilot know if a jumper was intoxicated?
Most DZs I have been to the pilot doesn't get much time out of the plane
let alone have much contact with the jumpers getting on the plane as they are usually going back to back.

Willy

growing old is inevitable, growing up is optional.

[peek 21]

Quote

I hate to break it to you but it won't be easily forgotten.

I think that anyone who brings it up in a new thread does not hate to break it to me, but is eager to.

I am happy to take everything that everyone throws my way, but it sure is easier responding in one thread and one forum.

[HydroGuy 0]

Quote

I could have sworn I started a new thread.

Certain transgressions can/will follow you forever...

Get in - Get off - Get away....repeat as neccessary

[yjumpinoz 0]

The FAA is not our enemy either. We have a good relationship with ours. He will come out on occasion and just watch. Should we be concerned? Not if we are doing what we should...

[peek 21]

Quote

Certain transgressions can/will follow you forever.

Tell the Principal to place that in my Permanent Record.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

I think that anyone who brings it up in a new thread does not hate to break it to me, but is eager to.

Sort of like how reading your story you were smiling and were very happy to skip the entire process and go straight to the FAA to get a jumper and a pilot in trouble.

Now I understand all of those stories I've heard from a large number of jumpers in your region.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[Scrumpot 1]

I don't necessarily completely disagree. Put it this way though. You overtly state an ADVERSARIAL relationship with the FAA (our like-it-or not "regulating" body). Then you claim to want "self policing". But you are UNWILLING to actually effectuate that policing. I see that as a contradiction in terms that would instead INVITE them down on us for that very purpose then, and if "allowed" we most assuredly would not like that!

In order to be allowed to remain self-policing, we MUST also earn that credibility, which entails I submit, agreeably some pretty tough choices.

Just "food for thought" that's all.
Seems there are some pretty definitive "nerves" being struck in here, that I am also CLEARLY not privvy to (nor do I want to be). So I will just quietly "bow out" of this one entirely methinks, from here.

Hope you all "work it out", whatever the (obvious underlying) issues are, etc. that are going on. Certainly did not mean to step into anything.

As snaggle-puss used to say (anyone remember him?)... I am now instead, EXITING.... stage left! ...Or Right evennn.n.n.n.......

Blues,
-Grant

coitus non circum - Moab Stone

[riggerrob 643]

Repeated violations after the guilty bastard has been reminded of the air regulations and told me to "f### off," told the S&TA to "f### off," told the DZO to "f### off." etc.