#3.This is how FAA "investigates"

Federal Aviation Administration abused it's authority by beginning an investigation having already concluded pilot error then contriving case against a US citizen. They "Investigate" by intimidation, innuendo, prejudice, misinterpretation, and misdirection. I was discriminated against because I asked about my rights and never was told, however, they did provide a brochure claiming THEIR rights to investigate and I would be treated fairly with emphasis on retraining versus suspension. Quite the opposite however, as there were many pointed questions asked during the initial interview and later during a conference call which were subsequently used as justification to suspend the examiner designation. Many irrelevant questions were asked as they probed for wrongdoing, referencing the secured engine, such as a 2kt crosswind, idling engine, generator/hydraulic pump location, and student capability should I become incapacitated on the single engine approach.

Common tactic by FAA was to twist words or use half truths to infer unsafe/illegal actions where there were none, make intentional misstatements or even alleging statements I never made in order to fit their narrative which made  almost every allegation an altered version of the what actually happened. Examples listed below.

• Performance deficiencies found during oversight activities or identified by other sources

None mentioned nor were there other sources, entire case built upon MY statements alone.

• Misconduct (for example, purposefully not following prescribed procedures for gain; etc)

Was no gain, only loss and suffered solely by myself. 30,000+, loss of the aircraft, the multi training program, 100,000 in future business, my health, and ultimately the business.

• He continued to conduct touch and go’s landings with the unsafe indication.

Light loading of nose wheel to verify position, not to continue lesson

• He intentionally shutdown and feathered the critical engine (left).

Nothing critical about it, not relevant or unsafe. Had nothing to do with the approach and landing.

• He conducted multiple cycling of the landing gear system in an attempt to confirm the nose gear position.

Part of unsafe gear procedures, to recycle along with several other actions. Non contributory.

• His troubleshooting of the gear problem included landing and “tapping the nose on the pavement to verify down position.” 

Was no procedure for issue we had, once standard checklist items completed, I added this to verify extension

• At no time did he state that the aircraft AFM/POH/ checklist was referenced. 

Told them several times exactly what we did, confirm gear handle return to neutral (pressurized down lines), verify gear position in cowling mirror, power levers to idle, recycle gear. I didn't flatly state AFM/POH was referenced and they never asked. They didn't know the procedure anyway.

•  He did not notify the ATC tower nor was an emergency declared

Simply not true as ATC was informed of our actions at all times, and an emergency wasn't declined because there was no emergency. There is no requirement to declare an emergency when there isn't one.

•  prior to landing on base leg he again intentionally shutdown and feathered the left engine. He stated he did this to “limit damage to a recently overhauled engine”. 

Industry standard if a gear collapse is possible to minimize damage.

• during conversation, he stated that he commonly conducts actual engine out operations to include feathering of the prop at altitudes below the minimums recommended in the FAA Private, Commercial ACS, CFI ME PTRS and The Airplane Flying Handbook Chapter 12 as amended. 

 From their own Order 8000.95A p 1.1 Guidance information is not mandatory, and previous to this day, last feathered landing in training was 18-24 months earlier. They also stated that I routinely did this during flight tests, which I NEVER did.

•  Possible non-compliance with 14 CFR 91.7(b) for continuing to operate the aircraft and cycling the landing gear after unsafe gear indications 91.13 for continuing to operate the aircraft with unsafe gear indications with a passenger on board and for intentionally securing the left engine twice with a passenger on board and over a congested residential area.• After landing, he lost directional control resulting in nose gear collapse

Once the failure occurs, I have no choice but to continue the flight and continue troubleshooting until everything conceivable has been tried, the flight originated with all equipment operating, flight was routine for 90', my private pilot student was the "passenger", first feathered landing approach was over the airport, done entirely by the student, and a normal approach made to intended touchdown. Second one conducted by myself to adjacent runway away from other traffic, and passed over 1/4 mile of houses on short final. Everything normal until I couldn't steer aircraft 3/4 through landing roll, then violent yaw against full opposite pedal, at which time I ordered student to use left brake. This reestablished directional control but strut eventually collapsed due to the heavy side load on the fully deflected nose wheel. I did not lose directional control, I regained it with differential braking. This was an unforeseen failure, impossible to predict, detect or resolve and nothing I did caused this accident, or could have  produced a more favorable outcome. 

FAA unilaterally dictates from a position of impunity without legitimate justification or oversight, acting as accuser, judge and jury then misrepresenting an appeals process where there isn't one. When there is a ruling or judgement that does provide for appeal, a favorite FAA tactic is to specify a certain time period to respond then fail to notify accused party until most of that time has elapsed. When my pilot examiner privileges were terminated, I received email notification 12 days into the 15 day appeal period, allowing me 3 to respond. 

 Despite their superior attitudes and posturing they appear to be inexperienced pilots, critiquing the actions of others that they are incapable of performing themselves. They seldom know much about the aircraft they are interrogating others about, the limitations or emergency procedures, instead just criticizing others. They display an unreasonable fear of engine out operations, even at altitude and appear not to have the decision making skills demanded of others.

Milwaukee FSDO does not comply with its own agencies orders/regulations, operating above the law without oversight by choosing which regulations to comply with and enforce, usually those against individual GA pilots are but not the military or the large national schools.

 These are the underhanded actions of a disingenuous district office that has been derelict in their obligations to the public for several years. Unreturned phone calls/emails, sarcastic responses to legitimate questions, and by being totally absent during the DMS implementation 4 years ago.