rf3flyer wrote:A4 Pacific wrote:...This pilot didn’t just attempt to conceal their rule breaking...
You don't know that and, I suspect, neither do the FAA. You may and they suspect it and the FAA may have decided it the most likely scenario, but neither they nor you can know it.
Do you know the standard of proof required by the FAA? I suspect it would be ‘balance of probability’, though it probably satisfies ‘beyond reasonable doubt’? On either basis this pilot is bang to rights!
Plenty of squealing but no appealing! Pathetic, and a dreadful end to a flying career.
The FAA never openly discuss the details of cases such as these. However in this instance they are encouraging those with an interest in the investigation to submit a freedom of information request so the facts can be more widely circulated.
But then again, maybe Father Christmas and the Loch Ness Monster are real after all!
Edited to add:
For some reason the individual at the centre of this whole episode does remind me of a well known axiom. “The older I get, the better I was.”