Module #9 Resolution

After several months of waiting for the NTSB to hear my appeal, a pre-hearing zoom conference was scheduled for January 19, 2023. Shortly before this, the FAA lawyer contacted me through email stating that the administrative law judge would be asking if we were attempting to negotiate a settlement and was I open for a discussion. 

I said that I was but doubted the FSDO would negotiate in good faith based upon their actions so far, specifically those made by my supervising inspector, and station manager, citing as an example; In the releasable portion of the Examiners Investigative Report (EIR), how at least 6 false statements were made along with several more misleading ones. Then several more regarding the initial conference call with Milwaukee FSDO 5 days after the accident. Essentially a 45' interrogation by the station manager with the assistant manager, accusing inspector and others listening in, then claiming things I never said or did, which was used as basis for termination of my Examiners designation and pending certificate action. They made it clear, from the beginning that this was to be an enforcement issue; never wanting to discuss it, not returning emails or calls, then blocking me so I didn't think negotiating was on the table. I reiterated my position, that from my perspective, I broke no laws, acted professionally and was honest from the beginning while FSDO rushed to judgement, repeatedly made false statements, misquoted me and twisted every statement to make me appear as irresponsible as possible. 

One week later, I was offered 2 options; To accept a 60 day suspension of both pilot and instructor certificates OR , 90 day suspension of flight instructor certificate.

I responded by requesting a third option; specifically, a 30 day suspension for both ATP & CFI certificates with dismissal of the careless and reckless charges because; if fair punishment or penalty was the objective, that it had already been accomplished many times already, and to please consider the following.

 • I was misjudged, second guessed then blamed for an unforeseen, undetectable,  mechanical problem that had no favorable resolution by me or anyone else and that, to date, no one has suggested a different course of action, let alone, a more favorable one. I don't believe any of the inspectors condemning my actions would have thought about using brakes to regain directional control, as only instructor pilots with emergency differential braking experience would have considered it in time to keep a violently divergent aircraft on the runway. Fortunately, I had this experience from flying cargo and instructing in heavy taildraggers, specifically, 2800 hours in the Douglas DC3.

 • Perhaps my teaching methods went too far but I did what I thought was necessary to train a proficient pilot and I have always taught in excess of FAA minimum standards; nevertheless, had I known FAA disapproved of my methods, I would have changed them.

 •  The Examiners designation was taken from me on the basis of operating outside the Airman Certification Standards during flight tests (landing with feathered engine), which I never did.

 •  I only did this during pilot training for the multi engine rating, as I tried to have each pilot land at least once with an engine actually secured,  (feathered and off), in order to demonstrate the aircraft's capability, instill confidence in their ability and make them less fearful during an actual emergency.

   • Although the Examiners Designation was difficult to maintain and frequently I was on my own to work out Administrative functions or other issues that came up, I still thought it was worthwhile having and that I was doing a service by putting safe airmen into the system. I took the designation very seriously along with my responsibility to the pilot and their future passengers.

 • I am now effectively out of the multi engine training business because I no longer own a multi engine airplane and if I ever do again, will make sure to never secure an engine below 3000 agl.

• My business of 38+ years has been adversely affected and we have not been able to provide many past services such as; demonstration flights, primary instruction, instrument competency checks, instrument instruction, multi engine training, etc.

 • My health has been adversely affected as a direct result of this situation and although trying to regain the medical, there is no guarantee it will happen.

To summarize all this; there has been some form of penalty ever since the accident; the damage to professional reputation, mechanical issues, the loss of privileges, service reductions to customers, business losses, financial hardships, health problems, adverse relationship with FAA, lost sleep, and more. 

This was all stated as justification to asking for the reduction of suspension and that although I wanted this settlement, didn't think i could admit to any intentional wrongdoing or punishment I didn't deserve, nevertheless, FAA accepted my offer, the suspension was served, my certificates returned and the case is finally over.