Remember the infamous cockpit joke, "I'm from the FAA; trust me." Highly sardonic humor.

Just as the 'church' used to conduct their mass in Latin, the FAA has effectively employed the same technique. By keeping the masses in a state of ignorance and bewilderment, they have their way. The first barrier a pilot runs into is that of 'data impairment,' quite similar to the old cliché, "sensory overload."

The effective part of this method is that it works not just on pilots and their attorneys, but also on the judges who preside in the appropriate courts. With their 'esteemed' position, an excess of time, resources and verbiage on their side, the FAA can outlast the opposition. It's just about that simple - but not quite.

There's another methodology -

In their history, pilots have earned a reputation for being overpaid, over-glorified, under-worked and just plain 'spoiled.' Don't think that flight attendants are far behind. To the uninformed, a shock is in waiting.

To simplify the issue, go back to the terrible United Airlines 232 accident. Ask any of the survivors or their families if they think Captain Haynes and his crew were overpaid. On his best day, Captain Haynes didn't come anywhere close to the salary of a professional football player of comparable prominence. Ask the same about the flight attendants who helped the surviving passengers get out of the wreckage.

Resentment doesn't authorize blatant discrimination. CEOs of major corporations dwarf pilots for image, salary and privilege. They don't risk life and limb with every day of duty. Are they to be segregated? Then why would pilots be treated differently?

Because pilots blindly allow it as the price for their self-image. The wound is self-inflicted with denial, apathy and cowardice. Unpleasant to the pilot, but true. Never have so few fought so little to abandon their own needs. The phenomenon is a psychiatrist's dream come true.

As a consequence of myth and associated image-resentment, pilots, in particular, have been segmented from the mainstream of cultural and judicial normalcy. Pilots have fewer rights than a bus driver, in every regard. Something is very wrong in that picture - WHY?

An elementary but powerful indicator is warranted at this point. Consider that for all the infamous "Gestapo" efforts of the FAA, they have, in turn, refused law, regulation and the Congress to enforce their own "flight crew rest" regulations. A long list of FAA Legal Interpretations have resolved any doubts as to the requirements of those regulations. Yet, the FAA enforces those regulations on an extremely selective basis.

Pay close attention to that fact, as it is the most powerful indicator of what you are about to read. Note also the all-too-frequent media illustrations that fatal crashes have happened and will probably continue to happen, as a direct consequence of the FAA's refusal. Focus your attention also on the bureaucratic excuses and outright lies, which are so thinly veiled, to avoid that enforcement. Above all, try to imagine the magnitude of corporate profits being enhanced and protected - at the constant price of safety. The victims (passengers) aren't given any warnings or options.

Despite all, the FAA maintains it's deadly and nefarious course. Mysteriously, no one opposes them. Amazingly, despite all their huff-and-puff and the submissiveness of their following, they have no actual power. Tragically they routinely abandon their primary mission of effecting safety, indulging in every, procedure, delay and possible excuse as to why they cannot do their own job. In the same time frame, they selectively attack pilots and carriers, often with felonious accusations for allegedly not doing their job.

The FAA has fought a long hard battle to effect what can be appropriately termed, "Civil Non-judicial Punishment," a forbidden term for all obvious reasons. Military veterans will instantly recognize the concept.

For the moment, disregard motive. How does this work in modern America?

To be brief, the courts have mysteriously allowed the pilots to be culled from normal society into what is termed the "regulatory environment." However the process worked, the pilots (and even the airlines themselves) have been segregated from the Constitutional umbrella which even protects illegal aliens to a large extent.

Consider the New York Trade Center bombing as an appropriate contrast. The U.S. Government opened our borders to terrorists (probably facilitated by the CIA for their Afghan war assistance). When they nearly completed an intended murder of hundreds, also nearly crippling of our economic system, they were then entitled to the 'due process' of a jury trial - paid for by the U.S. They would have been entitled to the same trial if they'd been totally successful - they came close.

Compare -

Laws were crafted which gave the FAA the power to suspend or revoke a pilot's license. All familiar know that suspensions and revocations can totally ruin a pilot's career and life. It's no accident that the term, "punishment" isn't mentioned in any associated text. The term is avoided with nefarious methodology; make no mistake about it. Any judicial recourse has been made so detail-intensive, time consuming and prohibitively expensive that the pilots are effectively locked out of the judicial system.

For the FAA to resort to felonies in the process of a violation is not uncommon. When they knowingly lie (extremely common) that qualifies as fraud and a felony under a variety of federal laws.

Guess what -

1. They never get seriously investigated.

2. If they did  'get caught,' &nbspthey would have the benefit of  'due process' &nbspand a jury trial.

3. They continue with impunity; amplifying their own power.

When the FAA employs the violation process, they have their own 'hearing.' If a pilot loses, he/she may appeal to the NTSB for another 'hearing.'

With extremes of convoluted rationalization, the FAA rarely loses. The NTSB is a devoted kangaroo court. The labyrinth has no entrance or exit for the pilot - it get's converted into an impossible maze.

To the serious researcher the statements above seem totally absurd, as there are so many laws, regulations and an Executive Order from an earlier President to prevent or correct such matters.

As unpopular as it is to say, the issue may as well be case 1936, Steinberg v. Hitler; Judge Himmler presiding. Anyone who has witnessed or experienced the 'process' will quickly tell you that the statement is no prostitution of demagoguery nor a leap of credibility. It's  'city hall' &nbspon a much grander scale.

In an NTSB hearing, the 'prosecutor' arbitrarily interprets ambiguous regulations. In worst case scenarios, he brings a trained witness to assert a narrow scope of testimony. The defense can't ask the same witness for expansion. Evidence is often hidden or not allowed. Often critical evidence is only turned over to the defense within days or hours of the 'hearing.' Inconsistent testimony isn't 'thrown out.' Mitigating circumstances are not allowed. Complicity is not permitted to be argued. Authority goes unchallenged. Defense arguments are unreasonably denied. 'Prosecution' cannot be stopped by any 'poison pills' such as felonious conduct by the 'plaintiff.' Ethics are often a sick joke. Hearsay is deemed credible if it serves the 'prosecutor.' Exposed new violations go un-enforced.

Impossible! You say. Ask 'Hoot' Gibson. He had one of the first rudder  'hard-over' &nbspincidents. No, you're not supposed to know that. 'Hoot' had two abrupt yawing motions before 'dutch-roll' took him over the top. Only the dual rudder of the B-727 delayed the final roll.

At the time, the airline industry was crippled by fuel prices, the grounded Braniff fleet was begging for bargain hunters. New aircraft were not an ideal option. Boeing was in no position to analyze and/or re-design & retrofit the military and civilian aircraft equipped with the suspected or actually flawed actuators. The truth may never be known.

Still impossible? Imagine the purported version you heard about -

The flight engineer comes back from delivering the food trays, first passing through a 20-minute time-delay warp. Being psychic, he knows the captain pulled the Leading Edge Device circuit breaker and extended the trailing edge flaps. When he enters the cockpit, he immediately turns on the lights, moves the uniform coats aside and 'instinctively' sees the culprit circuit breaker pulled. Without saying a word, he pushes it back in. Knowing that he just condemned a planeload of people to die (including himself), he rushed to get into his seat belt before he can be hurt by being battered all over the cockpit by the tumbling aircraft. Again, he was psychic; he knew 'Hoot' would save the day. Clever fella.

The "erased" CVR tape? Strangely, the tape did contain nine minutes of maintenance worker voices; recorded longer than thirty minutes after the pilots had left the cockpit. It had been erased, but not by the pilots. With the landing gear  'squat' &nbspswitch destroyed in the tumble from altitude, the missing  "on-the-ground" &nbspelectrical logic wouldn't permit the tape erasure without an extrodinary knowledge of the aircraft systems.

Rubbish! You say? Go to the record and drag up a single piece of testimony by the crew. They were allowed to testify that the flight engineer had taken the food trays back - hardly more.   &nbspSee - "Emergency - Crisis in the Cockpit" by Stanley Stewart.

It didn't stop with 'Hoot' Gibson.

In the current time frame is the uproar over the FAA's "Intrepretive Rule," regarding FAR 91.123 (following ATC clearances) In a sentence, the FAA has stated that it has arbitrarily and unilaterally siezed the power to overturn the NTSB! While the current issue regards the perfect-performance on the part of pilots listening to congested radio frequencies, the "Intrepretive Rule" becomes a rule-within-a-rule. If permitted, the FAA has set a self-serving precedent which usurps the very function of the NTSB, as adversarial as the NTSB already is to the pilots and carriers!

Anyone who has been to an FAA/NTSB hearing knows that the issue is quickly narrowed down to, "Did it happen, yes-or-no?" The NTSB does not (typically) indulge mitigating circumstances. Thus, in the instant case, the NTSB is forced to rule on the "embedded" rule, which essentially states that mitigating circumstances don't exist, therefore, the NTSB has been denied the actual judgement call; guilty - case closed.

Consider the paradox -

The FAA will not enforce the crew rest regulations which would provide for the FAA-required attentiveness. The FAA has also refused the NTSB's plea to implement Crew Resource Management at the cockpit level. Both of these issues have the only possible chance of preventing the very problem the "Intrepretive Rule" seeks to enforce!

Above Jane Garvey's signature, "....this interpertive rule merely provides the correct interpretation of a regulation as the FAA has enforced it...." Did she really say, "merely?"

It's called "Power Intoxication." ("Corruption," if you prefer)

"....one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all."

Makes you proud to be an American!


In the enforcement arena, more and more often, the FAA is resorting to their "emergency authority" to accomplish their ends.

It's interesting to see how the FAA achieves its ends. The 'system' would have you believe that the FAA has the legal [statutory] power to exercise an emergency revocation an pilot's or a carrier's certificate. Legally, the FAA has the power, only under certain conditions.

As you read this, make sure that you are clear as to the distinction between a normal certificate suspension (violation) process and an emergency suspension / revocation.

Interestingly, there is an unlimited number of people (including attorneys and judges) who believe in the FAA's right to arbitrarily wield its power and go along with the FAA whim, out of understandable ignorance. Here's how it works:

First of all is the unchallenged myth held by attorneys, judges and certainly pilots that the FAA is uniquely empowered. History certainly suggests that the FAA does have the power of God, as so many have gone along with the agency out of fear and ignorance. The belief is as absurd as the theme behind the 'Wizard,' in  "The Wizard of OZ." In a sentence, the blind faith renders a self-inflicted wound.

History continues to teach us that a passionately expressed lie is easily perceived as truth. Thereafter, it becomes myth, but often enough accepted as gospel.

To illustrate the statements above, remember the source of the statement, "All men are created equal." Popular myth aside, it is NOT contained in the U.S. Constitution and has no power of law! Granted, there are laws which appropriately attempt to effect exactly that statement.

The point being that a tremendous percentage of Americans will swear the 'equality' statement originates in the Constitution - purely a powerful myth. The statement IS known from the American Declaration of Independence and Lincoln's "Gettysburg Address." Idealism aside, there are practical limits - the blind will not pilot airliners; nor will short people be picked for the NBA teams.

Thus, it is necessary to look through the myth to the facts. It is totally sensless that in modern America, lives should be ruined without benefit of a speedy jury trial.

There is an interesting issue, in that a legal problem seems to have been overlooked. That being that the FAA is governed by the the Administrative Procedures Act (law), specifically 5 USC 558. Going to the language of that section, 5 USC 558(c), we find the obligation of the FAA to enact their emergency authority ONLY if safety is actually at risk, as opposed to an extreme of rationalization of safety.

5 USC Sec. 558.    Imposition of sanctions; determination of applications for licenses;
                           &nbspsuspension, revocation, and expiration of licenses

(a) This section applies, according to the provisions thereof, to the exercise of a power or authority.

(b) A sanction may not be imposed or a substantive rule or order issued except within jurisdiction delegated to the agency and as authorized by law.

(c) When application is made for a license required by law, the agency, with due regard for the rights and privileges of all the interested parties or adversely affected persons and within a reasonable time, shall set and complete proceedings required to be conducted in accordance with sections 556 and 557 of this title or other proceedings required by law and shall make its decision. Except in cases of willfulness or those in which public health, interest, or safety requires otherwise, the withdrawal, suspension, revocation, or annulment of a license is lawful only if, before the institution of agency proceedings therefor, the licensee has been given -

(1) notice by the agency in writing of the facts or conduct which may warrant the action; and

(2) opportunity to demonstrate or achieve compliance with all lawful requirements. When the licensee has made timely and sufficient application for a renewal or a new license in accordance with agency rules, a license with reference to an activity of a continuing nature does not expire until the application has been finally determined by the agency.


"Except in cases of willfulness or those in which public health, interest, or safety requires ....."

" .....is lawful only if ..."

While the FAA can't be faulted for filing an appropriate normal violation, their current and increasing abuse of the emergency authority is without excuse. There are extremely few cases where safety actually requires emergency authority.

For the FAA to identify a mistake which doesn't pose an ongoing threat is normally sufficient and prudent. A violation proceeding is often enough appropriate. However, if a reasonable person would agree that the situation will in all probability continue or repeat, then clearly an emergency action is indicated. ONLY in such a circumstance.

That being true, let's go to to the heart of the issue, being the question, "Then, how does the FAA pull it off???" The answer is relatively simple, but it's not going to be popular to describe it.

The following statements are not intended to be insulting or unkind to pilots; only to describe the violation process as requiring a mysterious element of  'permission' from the pilots involved. It stings like hell, but there is one fact of history which stares every pilot in the face -

Despite the admirable education, achievements, skills and bravado in the cockpit, pilots are otherwise a pack of highly resented 'wooses.' Again, pilots are the only group of people in the United States who are not availed a day in court in the same fashion as a bus driver – but, they lack the intestinal fortitude to fight for their own rights which should be a function of the U.S. Constitution. Amazingly, a high percentage of airline pilots are former military combat veterans who risked their very lives to protect that sacred document and all that it represents.

It's appropriate to recall the circus elephant tethered by an insignificant piece of rope. It's called, "conditioning" - it works!

As the TV show, "Sixty Minutes" recently pointed out, pilots won't even fight for a decent night's sleep with their lives at stake! Fact; not fiction. The FAA passionately pretends to care. Can you imagine the arrogance, nigh unto idiocy, of the FAA stating that they have not, but intend to (maybe) enforce their own safety regulation??

There is an explanation as to how this comes about. To be brief, it is necessary to understand that the psychology which dominates a pilots thinking (or lack thereof) is two-fold:

1. For mostly common reasons, a pilot first wants a bigger-than-life image (wings on his chest, 'scrambled eggs' on his uniform hat or a bank account, etc.) badly enough that he/she is typically willing to risk death before sacrificing that image. In actual incidents and accidents, the mental/emotional psychological mechanism of 'denial' is all too obvious, just prior to the crisis / crash, itself. Popular or not, the numerical dominance of the male population rules the cockpit environment, especially on the global scale - psychology included.

2. With a highly controlling economic system in place, a pilot (and flight attendants) fall victim to the psychological mechanisms which effect the (hostage) behavior known as the "Stockholm Syndrome." In American history, the Patty Hearst kidnapping is one of the best examples. For survival itself, and the illusion of 'control (safety),' the victim mentally and emotionally swings over to the perpetrator's side. In a temporary situation, most can understand such. In the long term, there is no valid excuse for this to continue. Hence, pilots pose an incredible enigma. Perhaps the appropriate term is "Cultural / Corporate Stockholm Syndrome." There can be no doubt that a similar mechanism worked for Hitler.

To be brief as to the history, flying was initially regarded as a deadly fad. Flying was extremely slow to be recognized as a valuable part of the industrial culture. As a consequence, flying got put into an administrative environment and was trapped there, long after flying became a mainstay of global transportation. Time and tradition created blind acceptance.

The driving force behind the issue is obviously money, nothing new. When you examine the billions of dollars of cash-flow in the airline industry, raking off a small percentage gives the recipients an enviable fortune. Beyond immoral-but-not-illegal cash manipulations, risking safety significantly adds to that pile. On the subject of money, it is naive to ignore the associated issue of stock price 'creativity.' As the perverse side of human nature goes, the volume of money is worth killing for.

Enter the FAA -

From 1926 onward, various government offices from the Commerce Department to the CAA, and the FAA/NTSB have been charged with facilitating aeronautical safety with a secondary mission of promoting commerce. At one point, the safety mission was extremely successful; then things changed. Since 1993 and the enactment of Public Law 103-272 The previous provisions of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 was entered into statute. The FA act of 1958 (609) was rendered as a historical reference, as an appendix (1429) to Title 49 of the USC.

From a pilot's perspective, how does the legal battle he/she faces work?

Let start with the fact that the career / life of a pilot is contained in a system of "rationalization" laws which deny the pilot the avenue of Constitutional legal justice; otherwise sacred to any American.

For the moment, disregard history; just know that it's true. If anyone has any doubt, ask a pilot who has been subjected to a full violation proceeding - a nasty, painful, humiliating and bewildering experience!

The bad news is the far-reaching popularity of the myth, "It's okay." Until the Constitution of the United States is abolished; it's NOT "okay."

Only the sanctity of the American Constitution and the courage of pilots can change that.

Let's get to the core of the 'system' workings.

Suffice it to say that the Federal laws are on the books; they mandate the enforcement of the regulations. The Federal laws also stipulate the power of the FAA to suspend or revoke a license in the kangaroo court system (hearings) of the NTSB. Despite regulations to the contrary, the NTSB system walks away from the legal system with impunity. In the meantime, the FAA commonly resorts to the commission of felonies under Title 18 to achieve their ends. Fraudulent representation is the most common tool.

A classic point is the FAA employment of their emergency authority, when there is clearly no emergency - that's criminal fraud when they communicate the falsehood. That's the tip of the criminal (but widely accepted) iceberg.

Let's go to a classic case, Air Micronesia flight 985 – 24 March, 1997. With a background of the FAA selectively looking the other way on the issues of crew rest and maintenance standards, a tired captain ended up in a bone fide emergency with a broken DC-10 trying to get into Hong Kong.

The Hong Kong situation evolved into an aircraft with an electrical problem, two failed ILS receivers, marginal and deteriorating weather, a captain experiencing the dramatic effects of chronic fatigue, no support from company operations and the fuel supply getting low.

Using everything he knew, including the science of Crew Resource Management, the captain asked a highly experienced and well rested deadheading captain to take the left seat to maximize safety and effect rule 3 of CRM - 'land as soon as possible.' The image of the United Airlines flight 232 accident was still fresh in his mind. Continental had appropriately used it as a safety example. Murphy's law was about to destroy another DC-10, loaded with passengers. The Hong Kong airplane landed safely with a precision radar approach - no damage. If things have to go bad, that's the desired result - a safe landing.

The FAA Response -

The FAA took FAR 121.543 (getting out of the pilot's seat during flight) severely out of context (criminal fraud – for starters), lied as to the events themselves and threatened the captain with the all-time favorite, FAR 91.13 (careless & reckless operation). Mysteriously (well, considering the financial stakes, maybe not-so-mysteriously), the union and company facilitated the violation.

[Worth noting also is that the FAA will preferentially resort to FAR part 91 whenever possible, as FAR 121 gives more defense capability to pilots. Persecution is their object in this arena; not safety or justice.]

Knowing the track record of the FAA / NTSB, the captain appropriately panicked and 'settled' on the nonsensical violation of getting out of his seat in flight to make a personal appeal to the deadheading captain, brief the flight attendants & use the lavatory – during a non-critical phase of flight [above 10,000 feet].

With no previous record, he got a 500% of the maximum penalty; a 150 day suspension of his license.

Selectively, the actual maintenance and scheduling violation issues were never allowed to be mentioned, nor investigated.

Getting to the nuts 'n bolts of the matter -

Under U.S. law, 49 USC 44709 gives the FAA the power to suspend / revoke certificates. That happens at an FAA hearing (kangaroo court).

If the FAA decides to flex their power, they can resort to 49 USC 46105, employing their emergency power. With that event, the pilot is entitled to go directly to the NTSB with an appeal of either the FAA's abuse of authority and/or later for a full appeal of the revocation. Remember the REQUIREMENT for safety to actually be compromised, for this statute to be used.

The NTSB is guided by 49 CFR 800. They are supposed to follow the rules of ethics and the standards of a courtroom - guess what??

With enough money behind him/her, the pilot can eventually get it into a courtroom. Strange, the Constitution didn't mention that, "…..the rich shall have the right…."

Now, look to the Alaska flight 506 pilots and the exercise of the FAA emergency authority–

While the pilots admitted their mistakes leading to the dropping of the passenger oxygen masks, nothing happened for two months, until the news media picked up the story. In the background, there was a strong indicator that there was an independent problem with the pressurization controller; the aircraft was a week old.

Approximately 3 1/2 months after the event, the Alaska 506 pilots had been grounded and fired by the company. They were finished. However, the FAA exercised their infamous ‘emergency authority’ to revoke the licenses of the pilots. It’s amazing that no one within the FAA felt that an emergency existed until approximately 3 1/2 months after the event, with no changed circumstances and no intervening investigative fact-finding processes. Clearly there was no threat to the public in any manner of speaking; no emergency existed. Referring to 5 USC 558, safety didn't require an emergency action.

By any reasonable standard, all pilots are entitled to be treated according to responsibly determined facts. Pilots do not deserve such extreme rationalization. By any standard which is to be considered reasonable and legitimate, the FAA is compelled to fairly determine whether or not pilots’ actions are, in fact, so extreme as to create an event so urgent that an "emergency" existed.

The fact that no one within the FAA felt that an emergency existed until approximately 3 1/2 months after the event, with no changed circumstances and no significant investigative fact-finding processes, is the most powerful indicator of the political reality.

In the context of the FAA's application, there is no pertinent definition of the term "emergency," other than to associate it to "safety in air commerce or air transportation," typically as a semi-clever lie. Any dictionary typically defines the term, emergency, as " A serious condition or occurrence which happens unexpectedly, demanding immediate action," or; “A condition of urgent need, requiring action or assistance."

In the case of Alaska 506, consider that the FAA had to commit criminal fraud to achieve their ends. Not only did they do it, but the criminal issue was raised all over Washington D.C.

No response!

Adding insult to injury, the Alaska Flight 506 pilots had legitimately filed the NASA ASRS reports and had demonstrated their honor by honestly self-disclosing the events of the flight in a timely fashion. The self-disclosure (ASAP) procedure should have ended the enforcement issue. No enforcement action was warranted, as opposed to corrective action to identified safety problems, which still remains to be achieved. So much for trusting the FAA.

The FAA has a long history of being able to engage in totally arbitrary and capricious actions, prostituting the "emergency" provision in section 49 USC 44709. The FAA is the only federal regulatory agency with such draconian powers. Even the IRS has to take you to court!

In the background was the famous “Hoover Bill,” intended to halt those abuses. It appears that the Hoover Bill is destined to become a virtual joke in aeronautical history.

The only solution to the blatant FAA power abuse was to grant certificate holders the right to an immediate review of an emergency revocation "to determine whether or not a true emergency exists." That was finally enacted as section 49 USC 44709(e)(3).

However, the permitted time frame of the appeal (two days) for review of the FAA application of their emergency authority is arbitrarily far too short to effect universal relief in the application of this right. It's difficult enough to get an attorney's attention within two days, let alone file an appeal. With a Friday delivery of the 'emergency order,' - the pilot is as good as sunk. For the moment, it's the best relief available.

Lacking jurisdiction, the NTSB has never has defined the term, "emergency." Where there has been sufficient money made available to achieve a court date, the courts have historically treated the issue on a factual basis, individually examining situations alleged to constitute an "emergency." There is no precedent on the ‘emergency’ issue which serves the pilots.

The emergency authority issue obviously demands that the definition of "emergency" also has to rely on the element of common sense. Elementary thought demands the necessity that the ‘emergency’ situation described in a revocation order be examined to establish that the situation is, in fact, so immediate and compelling that it warrants overriding 'due process' for the sake of the REQUIREMENT of safety; not the rationalization.

Amazingly, the FAA's directions to its inspectors is quite clear: Emergency certificate actions may be taken only when clearly needed in the public interest. If anybody cares in the FAA, they are not politically foolish enough to stand up.

Conversely, the application of the FAA emergency authority must also be questioned with respect to whether or not the authority application is a fraudulent method for the FAA to override due process. (Remember the term,  "punishment" &nbspbeing avoided?) In such cases, legal precedents and common sense beg to be applied against a history which often betrays the following:

- The FAA failure to establish any reliable factual basis for the violation in question.

- The FAA often being complicit in the particular event by virtue of negligent oversight in the instant case as well as other similar situations. Such negligent FAA oversight history often betraying a pattern found in accidents and incidents.

- The FAA failure to initiate ANY action to be legitimately considered as ‘timely.’

- The FAA failure to take any corrective action to amend notorious and obvious processes which precipitated the event in question (crew rest and CRM failures, for example).

- The FAA common reliance upon inconsistent information or statements which would compel the emergency action; or any enforcement action against the pilots.

- While the FAA is often placed on notice of the negligible (possibly false) merits of their allegations, the FAA takes no steps to re-access their action with respect to diminishing or withdrawing their complaint.

- With increasingly rare exception, the FAA allegations do not legitimately identify a violation of the FARs, let alone an "emergency."

- While the FAA is often on notice of certain safety violations by the company involved, the FAA often distinguishes itself by taking no appreciable steps to either investigate or correct the more obvious background violations of the company.

- The FAA essentially prostitutes their emergency authority, seeking to revoke the license of the pilots in lieu of more appropriate corrective or enforcement action against the company involved.

- The FAA's efforts often effect malicious slander and libel, attacking the integrity of the pilot(s) by asserting that the pilots operated an aircraft "in a careless or reckless manner."

- The Emergency Order often arbitrarily and capriciously makes the assertion that the pilots presently lack the qualifications to hold a certificate. The assertion is often lacking any pre-existing record supporting the implied ‘instantaneous self-disqualification.’

The most damning fact in so many abuses of the FAA Emergency Authority is that the allegations against the pilots are often not only incorrect, they are quite obviously politically driven, in favor of some other agenda, if not to obviously protect the company the pilots work for. Often, in the greatest clarity, the allegations are uniquely regulatory rationalization, bordering on criminal fraud. In no manner should any such unsupported conclusions be used to rationalize or justify the existence of an emergency.

Until pilots, as a whole, stand up for their own rights, they are stuck with a self inflicted wound -

"Dulles Approach Control; Right Bird 471, say spacing on the traffic ahead."

"Right Bird 471; 2 1/2 miles."

"Dulles Approach Control; say controller's initials."

"Right Bird 471; initials bravo-bravo. Turn right zero-eight-five; climb and maintain seven thousand. Contact  'approach'  on one-two-six decimal five."

"Right Bird 471: understand  'go around,' &nbspcopy zero-eight-five on the heading; climb and maintain seven thousand. Verify seven."

"Right Bird 471; I didn't say,  "Go Around."  [paperwork] Affirmative; seven thousand."

"Right Bird 471; going over to  'approach' &nbspon one-two-six decimal five."


"Dulles Approach; Right Bird 471, with you on one-two-six decimal five, out of four-point-five for seven thousand."

"Right Bird 471, roger, seven thousand. Be advised that this spacing demand and excess radio chatter over the  "Intrepretative Rule" &nbspis CREATING a safety hazard; you guys aren't accomplishing anything."

"Approach, you don't have your license on the line in a kangaroo court. Tell Flight Standards to start enforcing the crew rest regs. We're doing the best we can. They made the rule. We'll explain it to the two Senators on board. Seems they caught the last plane to make their meeting on time."

"Right Bird 471; copy."

"Approach; Right Bird 471, we're approaching minimum fuel; requesting vectors for our alternate airport, Baltimore."


"Reagan Approach [formerly Washington National]; Straight Arrow 123, say spacing on the traffic ahead."

"I'm from the FAA; trust me."

       The materials below should give any FAA inspector pause for      &nbspconcern that FAA "NORMS" might just be extremely serious
       violations of Federal Law, leaving the individual inspector
       vulnerable at any time.

       If the laws and regulations below are valid and enforceable;

       Maybe it's time for pilots to get their own attorneys involved.




Sec. 1962. Prohibited activities

(c) It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.

(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section.

Pursuant to:

18 USC Sec. 1961




Sec. 1961. Definitions

As used in this chapter - (1) ''racketeering activity'' means:

(B) any act which is indictable under any of the following provisions of title 18, United States Code:

section 1341 (relating to mail fraud)

section 1343 (relating to wire fraud)

section 1503 (relating to obstruction of justice)

section 1512 (relating to tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant)

This matter relies on the definitions contained within this title (18 USC Sec. 1961)

(3) ''person'' includes any individual or entity capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property;

(4) ''enterprise'' includes any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity;

(5) ''pattern of racketeering activity'' requires at least two acts of racketeering activity, one of which occurred after the effective date of this chapter and the last of which occurred within ten years (excluding any period of imprisonment) after the commission of a prior act of racketeering activity;

(9) ''documentary material'' includes any book, paper, document, record, recording, or other material

In reference to 18 USC Sec. 1341:




Sec. 1341. Frauds and swindles

Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud - as defined in 18 USC Sec. 1346 (listed below):




Sec. 1346. Definition of ''scheme or artifice to defraud''

For the purposes of this chapter, the term ''scheme or artifice to defraud'' includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services.

Referring also to 18 USC Sec. 1341:




Sec. 1341. Frauds and swindles

Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud..... for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice or attempting so to do, places in any post office or authorized depository for mail matter, any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by the Postal Service, or deposits or causes to be deposited any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by any private or commercial interstate carrier, or takes or receives therefrom, any such matter or thing, or knowingly causes to be delivered by mail or such carrier according to the direction thereon, or at the place at which it is directed to be delivered by the person to whom it is addressed, any such matter or thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. If the violation affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.

Additionally referencing 18 USC Sec. 1343:




Sec. 1343. Fraud by wire, radio, or television

Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud......for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. If the violation affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.

Referencing also 18 USC Sec. 1503:




Sec. 1503. Influencing or injuring officer or juror generally

(a) Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede ..... or corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice.....

Additionally referencing 18 USC Sec. 1512:




Sec. 1512. Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant

(b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation .......threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to -

(1) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;

(2) cause or induce any person to -

(A) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding;

(C) evade legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness, or to produce a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or

(3) hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation, parole, or release pending judicial proceedings; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(c) Whoever intentionally harasses another person and thereby hinders, delays, prevents, or dissuades any person from -

(2) reporting to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation, parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;

(e) For the purposes of this section -

(1) an official proceeding need not be pending or about to be instituted at the time of the offense; and

(2) the testimony, or the record, document, or other object need not be admissible in evidence or free of a claim of privilege.




Sec. 2. Principals

(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.

(b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.

Sec. 4. Misprision of felony

Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

Sec. 7. Special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States defined

The term ''special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States'', as used in this title, includes:

(1) The high seas, any other waters within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States and out of the jurisdiction of any particular State, and any vessel belonging in whole or in part to the United States or any citizen thereof, or to any corporation created by or under the laws of the United States, or of any State, Territory, District, or possession thereof, when such vessel is within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States and out of the jurisdiction of any particular State.

(2) Any vessel registered, licensed, or enrolled under the laws of the United States, and being on a voyage upon the waters of any of the Great Lakes, or any of the waters connecting them, or upon the Saint Lawrence River where the same constitutes the International Boundary Line.

(3) Any lands reserved or acquired for the use of the United States, and under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction thereof, or any place purchased or otherwise acquired by the United States by consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of a fort, magazine, arsenal, dockyard, or other needful building.

(4) Any island, rock, or key containing deposits of guano, which may, at the discretion of the President, be considered as appertaining to the United States.

(5) Any aircraft belonging in whole or in part to the United States, or any citizen thereof, or to any corporation created by or under the laws of the United States, or any State, Territory, district, or possession thereof, while such aircraft is in flight over the high seas, or over any other waters within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States and out of the jurisdiction of any particular State.

(6) Any vehicle used or designed for flight or navigation in space and on the registry of the United States pursuant to the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies and the Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space, while that vehicle is in flight, which is from the moment when all external doors are closed on Earth following embarkation until the moment when one such door is opened on Earth for disembarkation or in the case of a forced landing, until the competent authorities take over the responsibility for the vehicle and for persons and property aboard.

(7) Any place outside the jurisdiction of any nation with respect to an offense by or against a national of the United States.

(8) To the extent permitted by international law, any foreign vessel during a voyage having a scheduled departure from or arrival in the United States with respect to an offense committed by or against a national of the United States.




Special Federal Aviation Regulations

SFAR No. 72

Subpart A - Investigative Procedures

Sec. 13.1 Reports of violations.

(a) Any person who knows of a violation of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended, the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act relating to the transportation or shipment by air of hazardous materials, the Airport and Airway Development Act of 1970, the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 as amended by the Airport and Airway Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1987, or any rule, regulation, or order issued thereunder, should report it to appropriate personnel of any FAA regional or district office.

(b) Each report made under this section, together with any other information the FAA may have that is relevant to the matter reported, will be reviewed by FAA personnel to determine the nature and type of any additional investigation or enforcement action the FAA will take.




Special Federal Aviation Regulations

SFAR No. 72

Subpart C - Legal Enforcement Actions

Sec. 13.23 Criminal penalties.

(a) Sections 902 and 1203 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 U.S.C. 1472 and 1523), provide criminal penalties for any person who knowingly and willfully violates specified provisions of that Act, or any regulation or order issued under those provisions. Section 110(b) of the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. 1809(b)) provides for a criminal penalty of a fine of not more than $25,000, imprisonment for not more than five years, or both, for any person who willfully violates a provision of that Act or a regulation or order issued under it.

(b) If an inspector or other employee of the FAA becomes aware of a possible violation of any criminal provision of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (except a violation of section 902 (i) through (m) which is reported directly to the Federal Bureau of Investigation), or of the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, relating to the transportation or shipment by air of hazardous materials, he or she shall report it to the Office of the Chief Counsel or the Regional Counsel or Assistant Chief Counsel for the region or area concerned. If appropriate, that office refers the report to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution of the offender. If such an inspector or other employee becomes aware of a possible violation of a Federal statute that is within the investigatory jurisdiction of another Federal agency, he or she shall immediately report it to that agency according to standard FAA practices. (See "Misprision of a Felony" - above)

18 USC Sec. 2071




Sec. 2071. Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally

(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term ''office'' does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.


Disqualification from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit, additional grounds for, see sections 592, 593, 1901, 2381, 2385, and 2387 of this title.

18 USC Sec. 1001




Sec. 1001. Statements or entries generally

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully -

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;

(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or

(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party's counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.

(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to -

(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or

(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.


Conspiracy to defraud Government in regard to false claims, see section 286 of this title.

Conspiracy to defraud United States, see section 371 of this title. Fraudulent claims, generally, see section 287 of this title.

18 USC Sec. 3




Sec. 3. Accessory after the fact

Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact. Except as otherwise expressly provided by any Act of Congress, an accessory after the fact shall be imprisoned not more than one-half the maximum term of imprisonment or (notwithstanding section 3571) fined not more than one-half the maximum fine prescribed for the punishment of the principal, or both; or if the principal is punishable by life imprisonment or death, the accessory shall be imprisoned not more than 15 years.

18 USC Sec. 1503




Sec. 1503. Influencing or injuring officer or juror generally

(a) Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any grand or petit juror, or officer in or of any court of the United States, or officer who may be serving at any examination or other proceeding before any United States magistrate judge or other committing magistrate, in the discharge of his duty, or injures any such grand or petit juror in his person or property on account of any verdict or indictment assented to by him, or on account of his being or having been such juror, or injures any such officer, magistrate judge, or other committing magistrate in his person or property on account of the performance of his official duties, or corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b). If the offense under this section occurs in connection with a trial of a criminal case, and the act in violation of this section involves the threat of physical force or physical force, the maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for the offense shall be the higher of that otherwise provided by law or the maximum term that could have been imposed for any offense charged in such case.

(b) The punishment for an offense under this section is -

(1) in the case of a killing, the punishment provided in sections 1111 and 1112;

(2) in the case of an attempted killing, or a case in which the offense was committed against a petit juror and in which a class A or B felony was charged, imprisonment for not more than 20 years, a fine under this title, or both; and

(3) in any other case, imprisonment for not more than 10 years, a fine under this title, or both.

18 USC Sec. 1515




Sec. 1515. Definitions for certain provisions; general provision

(a) As used in sections 1512 and 1513 of this title and in this section -

(1) the term ''official proceeding'' means -

(A) a proceeding before a judge or court of the United States, a United States magistrate, a bankruptcy judge, a judge of the United States Tax Court, a special trial judge of the Tax Court, a judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims, or a Federal grand jury;

(B) a proceeding before the Congress;

(C) a proceeding before a Federal Government agency which is authorized by law; or

(D) a proceeding involving the business of insurance whose activities affect interstate commerce before any insurance regulatory official or agency or any agent or examiner appointed by such official or agency to examine the affairs of any person engaged in the business of insurance whose activities affect interstate commerce;

(2) the term ''physical force'' means physical action against another, and includes confinement;

(3) the term ''misleading conduct'' means -

(A) knowingly making a false statement;

(B) intentionally omitting information from a statement and thereby causing a portion of such statement to be misleading, or intentionally concealing a material fact, and thereby creating a false impression by such statement;

(C) with intent to mislead, knowingly submitting or inviting reliance on a writing or recording that is false, forged, altered, or otherwise lacking in authenticity;

(D) with intent to mislead, knowingly submitting or inviting reliance on a sample, specimen, map, photograph, boundary mark, or other object that is misleading in a material respect; or

(E) knowingly using a trick, scheme, or device with intent to mislead;

(4) the term ''law enforcement officer'' means an officer or employee of the Federal Government, or a person authorized to act for or on behalf of the Federal Government or serving the Federal Government as an adviser or consultant -

(A) authorized under law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of an offense; or

(B) serving as a probation or pretrial services officer under this title;

(5) the term ''bodily injury'' means -

(A) a cut, abrasion, bruise, burn, or disfigurement;

(B) physical pain;

(C) illness;

(D) impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty; or

(E) any other injury to the body, no matter how temporary; and

(6) the term ''corruptly persuades'' does not include conduct which would be misleading conduct but for a lack of a state of mind.

(b) As used in section 1505, the term ''corruptly'' means acting with an improper purpose, personally or by influencing another, including making a false or misleading statement, or withholding, concealing, altering, or destroying a document or other information.

(c) This chapter does not prohibit or punish the providing of lawful, bona fide, legal representation services in connection with or anticipation of an official proceeding.



Sec. 302.1 Applicability and description of part.

(a) Applicability. This part governs the conduct of all economic proceedings before DOT whether instituted by order of DOT or by the filing with DOT of an application, complaint, petition, or a section 412 contract or agreement. This part also contains delegations to administrative law judges and to the DOT decisionmaker of DOT's function to render the agency decision in certain cases. The decision of administrative law judges is subject to review by the DOT decisionmaker, pursuant to authority delegated by the Secretary. Decisions of the DOT decisionmaker are subject to review at the discretion of the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs. In appropriate cases, the Secretary may exercise the discretionary review authority. The provisions of part 263 of this chapter of the Economic Regulations are applicable to participation of air carrier associations in proceedings under this part. Proceedings involving ``Alaskan air carriers'' are governed by the rules in this part, except as modified by part 292 of this chapter.

(b) Description. Subpart A of this part sets forth general rules applicable to all types of proceedings. Each of the other subparts of this part sets forth special rules applicable to the type of proceedings described in the title of the subpart. Therefore, for information as to applicable rules, reference should be made to subpart A and to the rules in the subpart relating to the particular type of proceeding, if any. In addition, reference should be made to the Federal Aviation Act, and to the substantive rules, regulations and orders of DOT relating to the proceeding.\1\ Wherever there is any conflict between one of the general rules in subpart A and a special rule in another subpart applicable to a particular type of proceeding, the special rule will govern.

Sec. 302.2 Reference to part and method of citing rules.

This part shall be referred to as the ``Rules of Practice''. Each section, and any paragraph or subparagraph thereof, shall be referred to as a ``Rule''. The number of each rule shall include only the numbers and letters at the right of the decimal point. For example, ``302.8 Service of documents'', shall be referred to as ``Rule 8''. Paragraph (a)(2) of that rule, relating to service documents by the parties, shall be referred to as ``Rule 8 (a)(2)''.

Sec. 302.4 General requirements as to documents.

(a) Contents. In case there is no rule, regulation, or order of DOT which prescribes the contents of a formal application, petition, complaint, motion or other authorized or required document, such document shall contain a proper identification of the parties concerned, a concise but complete statement of the facts relied upon and the relief sought, and, where required by Sec. 312.12 or Sec. 312.14 of this subchapter, such document shall, at the appropriate time, be accompanied by an Environmental Evaluation, a representation and explanation with respect to Sec. 312.9(a)(2) of this chapter, or an Environmental assessment, in conformity with those sections or orders issued thereunder.

(b) Subscription. Every application, petition, complaint, motion or other authorized or required document shall be signed by the party filing the same, or by a duly authorized officer or the attorney-at-law of record of such party, or by any other person; Provided, That, if signed by such other person, the reason therefor must be stated and the power of attorney or other authority authorizing such other person to subscribe the document must be filed with the document. The signature of the person signing the document constitutes a certification that he or she has read the document; that to the best of his or her knowledge, information and belief every statement contained in the instrument is true and no such statements are misleading; and that it is not interposed for delay.

(c) Designation of person to receive service. The initial document filed by a person shall state on its first page the name and post office address of the person or persons who may be served with any documents filed in the proceeding. It is requested, but not required, that the telephone number of that person also be included.

(d) Prohibition of certain documents. No document which is subject to the general requirements of this subpart concerning form, filing, subscription, service or similar matters shall be filed with DOT unless:

(1) Such document and its filing by the person submitting it has been expressly authorized or required in the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, any other law, this part, other Department regulations, or any order or other document issued by the DOT decisionmaker, the chief administrative law judge or an administrative law judge assigned to the proceeding, and

(2) Such document complies with each of the requirements of Secs. 302.3 and 302.8, and is submitted as a formal application, complaint, petition, motion, answer, pleading, or similar paper rather than as a letter, telegram, or other informal written communication:

Provided, however, That for good cause shown, pleadings of any public body or civic organization may be submitted in the form of a letter:

Provided further, That comments concerning tariff agreements, which have not been docketed, may be submitted in the form of a letter.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2
See subpart L, Sec. 302.1206 providing for the filing of comments with respect to undocketed agreements.

(e) Documents improperly filed. A document which is filed in violation of the prohibition imposed by paragraph (d) of this section, or in violation of a requirement imposed by any other provision of this part, will not be accepted for filing by DOT and will not be physically incorporated in the docket of the proceeding. The sender of such document and all persons who have been served therewith will be notified informally of DOT's action thereon.

(f) Motions for leave to file otherwise unauthorized documents.

(1) DOT will accept otherwise unauthorized documents for filing only if leave has previously been obtained, from the administrative law judge or the DOT decisionmaker, on written motion and for good cause shown. The written motion may be incorporated into the otherwise unauthorized document for which admission is sought. In such event, the document filed shall be titled to describe both the motion and the underlying documents.

(2) After the assignment of an administrative law judge to a proceeding and before the issuance of a recommended or initial decision, or the certification of the record to the DOT decisionmaker, these motions shall be addressed to the administrative law judge. At all other times, such motions shall be addressed to the DOT decisionmaker. The administrative law judge or DOT decisionmaker will promptly pass upon such motions.

(3) Such motions shall be filed within seven days after service of any document or order or ruling to which the proposed filing is responsive, and shall be served on all parties to the proceeding. Answers thereto may not be filed.

(4) Such motions shall contain a concise statement of the matters relied upon as good cause and there shall be attached thereto the pleading or other document for which leave to file is sought.


Subtitle A - Office of the Secretary of Transportation


Subpart A - General

Sec. 99.735-1 Cross-reference to ethical conduct standards and financial disclosure

Employees of the Department of Transportation are subject to the executive branch-wide Standards of Ethical Conduct at 5 CFR part 2635, the Department of Transportation regulations at 5 CFR part 6001 which supplement the executive branch-wide standards and the executive branchwide financial disclosure regulations at 5 CFR part 2634.

Sec. 300.Oa Applicability of 49 CFR part 99.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each DOT employee involved in matters covered by this chapter shall comply with the rules on "Employee Responsibilities and Conduct'' in 49 CFR part 99.

(b) The rules in this part shall be construed as being consistent with those in 49 CFR part 99. If a rule in this part is more restrictive than a rule in 49 CFR part 99, the more restrictive rule shall apply.

Sec. 300.1 Judicial standards of practice.

Certain of DOT's functions involving aviation economic and enforcement proceedings are similar to those of a court, and parties to cases before DOT and those who represent such parties are expected - in fact and in appearance - to conduct themselves with honor and dignity as they would before a court. By the same token, any DOT employee or administrative law judge carrying out DOT's quasi-judicial functions and any DOT employee making recommendations or advising them are expected to conduct themselves with the same fidelity to appropriate standards of propriety that characterize a court and its staff. The standing and effectiveness of DOT in carrying out its quasi-judicial functions are in direct relation to the observance by DOT, DOT employees, and the parties and attorneys appearing before DOT of the highest standards of judicial and professional ethics. The rules of conduct set forth in this part are to be interpreted in light of those standards.

Sec. 300.5 Prohibited conduct.

No person shall: (a) Attempt to influence the judgment of a concerned DOT employee by any unlawful means such as deception or the payment of money or other consideration; or

(b) Disrupt or interfere with the fair and orderly disposition of a DOT proceeding.

Sec. 300.6 Practitioners' standards of conduct.

Every person representing a client in matters before DOT in all contacts with DOT employees, should:

(a) Strictly observe the standards of professional conduct;

(b) Refrain from statements or other actions designed to mislead DOT or to cause unwarranted delay;

(c) Avoid offensive or intemperate behavior;

(d) Advise all clients to avoid improprieties and to obey the law as the attorney believes it to be; and

(e) Terminate the professional relationship with any client who persists in improprieties in proceedings before DOT.

| HOME |