Morality and rule systems in aviation laws and regulation.

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Before I get to your other questions, there’s one point that needs a bit more common ground for us. Proper context and verbiage is paramount in a discussion. So I’ve realized that some of my rebuttals to your points may have been due to your definition of certain terms vs the context of our discussion.

For example, the use of “criminalized” above may mean one thing to you, but in the context of aviation violations less than 5% of all aviation violations reach the level being criminal. So while it may seem nitpick, the use of that word changes the context of that statement within this topic.

I certainly agree that an agreed upon lexicon is needed for a discussion to be meaningful. I also agree that terms can have specialized meanings depending on the context. For example, medicine is full of cases where a term means something slightly different from it's common usage. I will spend some time on this here as I think it is needed to return to the examples.

In terms of "criminalized" I use it in the sense of the dictionary definition - "turn (an activity) into a criminal offense by making it illegal." from Oxford Languages.

Now I do understand that in the regulatory world one often distinguishes between those acts which are explicitly listed in a law versus those listed as violating a regulation. However breaking a regulation is itself illegal (search for example on Google for "is it legal to violate a regulation" and the AI overview returns

No, it is not legal to violate a regulation:
Definition

A regulation is a rule that has the force of law, even though it is not a law. Regulations are issued by government agencies at the federal, state, county, or municipal level.

Thus I think that to distinguish between these cases let us define two sub-categories of 'directly criminalized' to mean the case where the action is explicitly part of a statute and 'indirectly criminalized' to mean the case where the action is subject to a regulation and so breaking the regulation is illegal. The use of the more general term 'criminalized' by itself can mean either or both.

How does that sound?

Here’s another out of context word: force. By definition, it implies “coercion or compulsion, especially with the use or threat of violence.” Yet if an FAA ASI used coercion against a mechanic, the ASI would be disciplined or even arrested for that action as it is spelled out in policy and law.

Actually I like your definition here which seems to agree with most dictionaries. This is a rather broad general definition. For example, in the biomedical experiment world offering a very large sum to induce a patient to participate in an experiment can be considered "coercive" by the institutional review board and thus rejected.

However, from your other comments here and previously I suspect you want to distinguish between the direct application of force or violence and the threat of same. Thus I will suggest that again we agree on two sub-categories: 'direct force' can mean where the individual, such as an ASI, applies physical force to a person. 'indirect force' can be where the individual does not directly do so but there is a threat that the force will be applied either by that person or another agent in the future. And again I think the general term 'force' by itself should mean either or both sub-categories.

How does that sound?

If we can get the terminology agreed on, I think it will then be more interesting and meaningful to discuss the examples. I do not intend to ignore them.

You are correct about my having an interest in the meaning of words and phrases. From a very early age our father would pose questions like "What are the 4 meanings of the statement 'I saw a man eating shark.'?". It still brings a smile to my face when I think of him doing that.

 

[rotorwrench]

If we can get the terminology agreed on, I think it will then be more interesting and meaningful to discuss the examples. I do not intend to ignore them.

Agree. But I’ve always found it easier to simply follow existing guidance when it comes to terminology and context for a specific topic as it gives us both a singular point of establish reference vs a home-grown version with no outside reference.

So with this discussion, I believe Part 13, Order 8900.1, and Order 2150.3 will give us the proper terms, processes, and context for any aviation law or rule?

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

So with this discussion, I believe Part 13, Order 8900.1, and Order 2150.3 will give us the proper terms, processes, and context for any aviation law or rule?

Do either of those define the terms “force” or “criminalization” as appropriate to the context of this discussion? I had a quick look and didn’t see that.

Is there anything wrong with the definitions above, which largely agree with dictionaries, and those sub-divisions? Please feel free to suggest other terms to denote the same concepts. But we do need terms to denote those concepts; they can’t be simply dropped from the discussion because that is then essentially begging the question.

I should note that I don’t think those documents consider the moral aspects of such rule and regulations at all. Yet that is what this thread is about - just like it says in the title.

They do distinguish between regulations and regulatory compliance actions - ‘indirect force’ because of the possible escalation to legal criminal action - and criminal enforcement - indirect force ultimately escalating to direct force. But all such regulations and actions involve a use of force, in the general sense, by government employees. Just as I noted in my earlier post.

 

[rotorwrench]

Is there anything wrong with the definitions above, which largely agree with dictionaries, and those sub-divisions?

Yes. All of your sub-category definitions would require an ASI to engage in prohibited actions which are spelled out in the above references I posted. So in that context, what would be the purpose of your moral discussion if you require the other person must act in an “immoral” way to make your point?

Please feel free to suggest other terms to denote the same concepts.

Enforcement and violation.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Yes. All of your sub-category definitions would require an ASI to engage in prohibited actions which are spelled out in the above references I posted. So in that context, what would be the purpose of your moral discussion if you require the other person must act in an “immoral” way to make your point?

I don’t see that at all. The actions of an ASI pursuing a regulatory violation action are an application of indirect force, thus also force. They are not direct force.

The question of whether they are moral or not is a separate one which does not depend solely on that definition of the terms or the existence of the concept. It depends on the moral viewpoint one is starting from.

From a legal authoritarian perspective, such actions are not immoral because they conform to the law and regulation. From a libertarian perspective they may or may not be immoral depending on who initiates or threatens the use of force, either direct or indirect.

Enforcement and violation.

So your proposal is that ‘enforcement action’ is the same as ‘direct force’ and ‘violation’ is the same as ‘indirect force’?

Or perhaps you are trying to make the argument that violations are not a use of force, in the general sense, at all? Let’s not confound a question of definition with a question of which actions belong to different classes.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

An example from our nation's history may help illustrate these distinctions.

For a long time slavery was legal in many states. Regardless of its moral status, enslaving a person and holding them in slavery involves at least an indirect use of force in the threat that they would be prosecuted and punished was used to prevent slaves from running away. In some cases that progressed to a direct use of force when the slave actually was physically punished. Most slaves chose not to try and run away to avoid punishment and so progression to actual direct force was fairly rare.

Whether such slavery was moral or immoral depends on the moral framework or perspective which one is using to evaluate it. That is independent of the question of whether force, direct or indirect was used.

 

[rotorwrench]

I don’t see that at all.

Per your “direct force” definition below, an ASI is prohibited from using physical force on an individual in the course of their duties.

'direct force' can mean where the individual, such as an ASI, applies physical force to a person.

Per your “indirect force” definition below, an ASI is prohibited for using threats or using a threatening manner in the course of his duties.

'indirect force' can be where the individual does not directly do so but there is a threat that the force will be applied either by that person or another agent in the future.

And so on.

However, if it is your position that in the course of an ASI’s required duties of performing a ramp inspection on your aircraft, mailing a Letter of Investigation (LOI) to you, or applying a certificate action due to a regulatory violation, that this is "an act of force" or a “threat”, then we will never find common ground on this point.

An example from our nation's history may help illustrate these distinctions.

Why not give me a realistic aviation example? Maybe then I might see your point as I see zero similarity with slavery and the aviation topic we are discussing.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

However, if it is your position that in the course of an ASI’s required duties of performing a ramp inspection on your aircraft, mailing a Letter of Investigation (LOI) to you, or applying a certificate action due to a regulatory violation, that this is "an act of force" or a “threat”, then we will never find common ground on this point.

Yes, it is my position that applying for a certificate action due to a regulatory violation is a use of indirect force. I think it quite clear that it is an indirect threat that violence will eventually be used against you if you don't cooperate.

We have discussed this before and that is what will happen per the rules and regulations if you don't cooperate, eventually.

Arguing that it is not a threat strikes me as akin to The Godfather telling you that you need to pay him the money or you will be visited by Luca. If you give Luca the money, he probably won't beat you up. And certainly The Godfather won't beat you up. But if you don't pay, Luca will beat you up. People know that and so they cooperate with him.

A similar example is a highway patrolman giving you a traffic citation. If you don't cooperate eventually violent things will happen to you. Most people cooperate and pay the fine because they know that. Similarly most pilots cooperate long before any actual enforcement action needs to take place because they know what will eventually happen if they don't.

Whether one regards the application for certificate action as immoral or not depends on the moral framework one applies. From a legal authoritarian framework it is not immoral. From a libertarian framework it depends on the nature of the violation.

It is my view that sometimes one has to use force, in the general sense, to ensure that laws, rules and regulations are followed. Indeed, the legal use of a threat of force is sort of what distinguishes the government from other large organizations. Thus the use of force is sometimes needed and not always immoral or bad.

It is up to you of course whether you will ever be able to agree to what these basic actions are and what they constitute. The only way forward that I could see would be for you to define exactly the steps that will happen in the case of a traffic citation and then we can consider whether a failure to cooperate eventually results in violence. However, if you can't agree to that or don't wish to discuss it further to justify why such application for a certificate action is not an indirect use of force, then I suppose we simply won't reach common ground, as you suggest. That is fine and I imagine you will understand what I am talking about in future discussions when I use those terms.

 

[rotorwrench]

Yes, it is my position that applying for a certificate action due to a regulatory violation is a use of indirect force. I think it quite clear that it is an indirect threat that violence will eventually be used against you if you don't cooperate.

It is up to you of course whether you will ever be able to agree to the truth of the basic actions and what they constitute.

The only truth I've seen from our discussions is you do not believe in the principal that the aviation laws and rules apply to you personally. You further confirm this by defining the enforcement and punishment of those laws and rules as a threat of violence or an act of force. While you state you consciously follow these laws and rules, it appears you truly do not believe in what they stand for.

I put this firmly akin to a Sovereign Citizen belief that uses a similar argument to the one you use, to include similar terms.

Regardless, the reason most law-abiding citizens follow these laws and rules is not because they fear the possibility violence or other threats as you do, rather they believe it is their civic duty... and moral obligation... to follow those laws and rules, which ultimately protect the rights of ALL people and maintain the fabric of society. Just as I do and believe.

However, the only path forward I see with this discussion is if you can present a realistic aviation-based example. Not a medical example. Not a slavery example. And not a state trooper example. As you noted, this is a discussion on morals and aviation laws and rules. And I don't see how we can get to the moral side until you present a bonified aviation example to show your thought process on that side.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

The only truth I've seen from our discussions is you do not believe in the principal that the aviation laws and rules apply to you personally.

That is a bit of an over-generalization and borders on a straw man and a personal attack. I just don't think they are all proper or moral. Some laws and regulations are unjust and immoral. I honestly don't know many people who would deny that generally. That is one of the primary differences between a legal authoritarian moral viewpoint and others.

I put this firmly akin to a Sovereign Citizen belief that uses a similar argument to the one you use, to include similar terms.

There are similarities between the Sovereign Citizen movement and the broader libertarian community. The former is likely a subset of the latter. I do not share all the beliefs of the Sovereign Citizen movement.

Regardless, the reason most law-abiding citizens follow these laws and rules is not because they fear the possibility violence or other threats as you do, rather they believe it is their civic duty... and moral obligation... to follow those laws and rules, which ultimately protect the rights of ALL people and maintain the fabric of society. Just as I do and believe.

You might be right about 'most' I suppose. I would have to see an actual survey to judge. Certainly that is the purpose of those rules. I would maintain that those laws and rules which are immoral actually are destructive of the "fabric of society". Sometimes "most people" are simply mistaken and in most cases "most people" don't care enough to try and change immoral laws or rules so long as they don't have an immediate direct effect on them.

However, the only path forward I see with this discussion is if you can present a realistic aviation-based example. Not a medical example. Not a slavery example. And not a state trooper example. As you noted, this is a discussion on morals and aviation laws and rules. And I don't see how we can get to the moral side until you present a bonified aviation example to show your thought process on that side.

I should think it is just better to leave it at you don't agree with me that applying a certificate action is an indirect use of force and that you adopt a legal authoritarian moral framework. This tends to lead to different conclusions about which sort of actions should be criminalized than I would draw.

However, if you wish to continue I suggest you have already provided a suitable aviation example in post #3 of the prior thread, the Bubba example. I would suggest we thus acknowledge the differences in whether the such actions constitute an indirect use of force and moral viewpoints and return to that thread. But if you prefer we can continue here.

Come to think of it, let me suggest an exercise which might be helpful here. We will each adopt the other persons point of view and discuss the implications in terms of that example. It is often helpful to try and understand and explain the other parties point of view.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

I think there is another aspect of this which bears mentioning in terms specifically of why pilots and aircraft owners tend to follow the regulations. I suspect their primary motivation is that these rules and regulations often represent best safety practices and procedures, whether the FAA is enforcing them or not.

Consider the rule prohibiting flight into IMC without a proper clearance or IFR training. It is nearly suicidal to violate this rule. A lot of other FAA regulations are like this. So a good rule of thumb for how to operate is expressed by the FAAs antidote - “Follow the rules, they are usually right”. This is of course intended to apply to aviation rules and not as general moral guidance, but still illustrates why pilots and others in aviation tend to follow the rules.

 

[rotorwrench]

That is a bit of an over-generalization and borders on a straw man and a personal attack.

Not at all, just an observation. And which you basically affirmed with your sovereign citizen/libertarian comment. The fact both communities believe a majority of current laws and rules are “illegitimate and immoral and should be abolished", simply gives me more reference to your viewpoint and nothing more.

However, if you wish to continue I suggest you have already provided a suitable aviation example in post #3 of the prior thread,

I don’t believe any of my examples matter as they do not reflect your personal view on how the FARs are applied and enforced. What I’ve learned assisting people who have violated the FARs is that a vast majority of people do not fully understand how the FARs are applied or enforced. And that includes people who work in the aviation industry.

As I’ve consistently stated, aviation has many differences in scope and practice than other industries and situations. Its my hope using your example will demonstrate those differences. So I believe it is paramount that if we are to try and “adopt” each other’s point of view, I need to see how you perceive the application of those FARs in a realistic example and in your own words.

I think there is another aspect of this which bears mentioning in terms specifically of why pilots and aircraft owners tend to follow the regulations. I suspect their primary motivation is that these rules and regulations often represent best safety practices and procedures, whether the FAA is enforcing them or not.

Not really as on average 25-50% of owners do not follow the FARs in their entirety, depending on ops type with recreational Part 91 owners on the high side. And thats regardless if its suicidal or causes other people harm. For example, to use your IMC scenario, statistically the numbers of IMC and IMC related accidents/ incidents have remained the same for years with 70%+ of the IMC events resulting in fatalities. Yet other accident causes have dropped in that same timeframe. If "Follow the rules, they are usually right”" was actually practiced those numbers should drop to zero.

Ironically there is a similar phrase in the rotorcraft world: Land and Live. But even with the vertical capabilities over a fixed wing, helicopters pilots lawn-dart in for the same reasons airplane pilots do when clouds are around. And as I recall, there have been a number of weather-related accidents involving helicopters/airplanes in the past several months.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

I don’t believe any of my examples matter as they do not reflect your personal view on how the FARs are applied and enforced. What I’ve learned assisting people who have violated the FARs is that a vast majority of people do not fully understand how the FARs are applied or enforced. And that includes people who work in the aviation industry.

That post contains a fair amount of useful information (as is usual for your posts). I am going to change around the order a bit here to deal with some of the more concrete issues first.

Not really as on average 25-50% of owners do not follow the FARs in their entirety, depending on ops type with recreational Part 91 owners on the high side.

Do any owners follow the rules in literal entirety? I would find that surprising as there are so many. I would expect there are some inadvertent violations by just about everyone. Perhaps it would be better to say follow them to more than 95% or something.

For example, to use your IMC scenario, statistically the numbers of IMC and IMC related accidents/ incidents have remained the same for years with 70%+ of the IMC events resulting in fatalities.

I understand your general meaning though do tend to regard these things as tradeoffs between costs and rates of reduction. I imagine there are a fair number of VMC->IMC scenarios that occur due to errors in judgement. I mean what is truly the distance from a cloud? They tend to have somewhat diffuse boundaries. Obviously continuing to fly in IMC conditions without a clearance or proper training does happen, but I wonder how frequently.

Yet other accident causes have dropped in that same timeframe. If "Follow the rules, they are usually right”" was actually practiced those numbers should drop to zero.

Probably not literally zero given errors in judgment, but I see the point about a substantial reduction.

So I believe it is paramount that if we are to try and “adopt” each other’s point of view, I need to see how you perceive the application of those FARs in a realistic example and in your own words.

All right, if you wish. Here is my understanding of the Bubba scenario from post #3 of the prior thread:

Capt. Bubba is a commercial pilot who offers for-hire services with his aircraft. After several years, times get tough, so he decides to cut costs. He elects to forgo his required maintenance inspections, and instead forges those inspection entries with various mechanics names/numbers.

A year later, Bubba has a minor incident and during the FAA investigation it is determined the aircraft has no valid 100 hour or annual inspection, so he receives an FAA LOI.

In the following weeks/months, the FAA enforcement process moves through the steps and subsequent appeals from the FSDO up to a full board appeal, but Bubba loses and has his pilot certificate revoked and his aircraft’s AWC is pulled. At this point the FAA is done. No further FAA enforcement action is possible.

However, Bubba decides to move to a different state, buy another aircraft, and set up for-hire ops again. 6 months go by. Then Bubba gets ramp checked. And during this new FAA investigation, it is discovered Bubba has no valid certificate or medical. Except now he himself… not the FAA… has crossed the dreaded red line to the Federal Criminal Aviation level. All’s the FAA is permitted to do is refer the investigation to the DOT OIG and they are basically done with the matter.

I think the first part is fairly easy from a libertarian moral framework (LMF). Bubba forged other people's names and numbers. That is fraud and is an indirect use of force. That justifies the use of force, which is a defensive use, in response. So the analysis is sort of done then on this part.

The second part, after moving is more interesting. I think an analysis under the LMF would focus on two things. Did what Bubba did actually use force, direct or indirect, on anyone? What was Bubba told at the beginning of the ramp check to ensure his compliance?

 

[rotorwrench]

Do any owners follow the rules in literal entirety?

Yes. But they tend to be a top shelf, select group of owners. Their aircraft rarely hit the public sale market, don’t require prebuys, and are just a pleasure to maintain. However, its more an owner mind-set that drives this, and in my experience, that mind-set is dying off at the same rate the recreational market is.

I would find that surprising as there are so many. I would expect there are some inadvertent violations by just about everyone. Perhaps it would be better to say follow them to more than 95% or something.

And so did I. However, you’ll find ignorance drives a majority of those numbers with a solid minority of owners who intently do not follow the FARs in principle. Unfortunately, that latter group has been steadily growing since the mid-2000s.

So “95%” is a bit of a reach in general. I usually use the following as a general example of Part 91 recreational owners:

The top third owners know the FARs and are in compliance. The middle third owners have a tiered knowledge of the FARs and their compliance depends on what knowledge level they are at. The bottom third owners are a mixed bunch. Some may have a good knowledge of the FARs but are not in compliance by personal decision. Some are just stupid when it comes to owning an aircraft even though everything they need is out there, freely available to them. And some, the bottom 10%, are only out to make a buck and play the FARs to their benefit.

So which third do you think you are at?

Obviously continuing to fly in IMC conditions without a clearance or proper training does happen, but I wonder how frequently.

The various annual reports (Nall, GAMA, etc) give the numbers.

I think the first part is fairly easy from a libertarian moral framework (LMF). Bubba forged other people's names and numbers. That is fraud and is an indirect use of force. That justifies the use of force, which is a defensive use, in response. So the analysis is sort of done then on this part.

I’ll meet you in the middle and agree in a literal sense, but not in the context. Force and threats of force are improper terms and have specific meaning when discussing the FARs in context.

The second part, after moving is more interesting. I think an analysis under the LMF would focus on two things. Did what Bubba did actually use force, direct or indirect, on anyone?

Doesn’t matter if Bubba used force or not. By law and rule, Bubba opened himself up to the ramp check and its consequences by operating the aircraft.

What was Bubba told at the beginning of the ramp check to ensure his compliance?

Does not matter for same reason above. Once he operates an aircraft, he is legally liable.

Now where you can take it down a rabbit hole, is say after moving to the new state and starting ops again, he is personally ramp checked next to the aircraft registered his name. But in this case, he has never operated the aircraft, only ground taxied from the storage hangar to the FBO flightline for use by another pilot.

So outside of any aircraft airworthiness issues or aircraft registration issues, there is zero violation available to the ASI or against Bubba for his lack of certificate or medical simply because he did not "operate" the aircraft.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

So which third do you think you are at?

It's not about me as this is a general discussion.

I’ll meet you in the middle and agree in a literal sense, but not in the context. Force and threats of force are improper terms and have specific meaning when discussing the FARs in context.

They are not defined there any differently than the definitions above.

Doesn’t matter if Bubba used force or not. By law and rule, Bubba opened himself up to the ramp check and its consequences by operating the aircraft.

That is certainly the correct analysis under a legal authoritarian moral framework. However that is not what was posited in my response.

It appears that the suggested exercise has failed and either not been understood or not followed up on as per your prior request.

Thus I will be leaving the discussion of this subject with you for now as per your prior suggestion and conclude that you do not agree with me on when force is used and either do not wish to or do not know how to try and consider a moral framework other than a legal authoritarian one.

If we should have a related discussion sometime in the future, I will assume you understand the meaning of the terms which I have defined above.

 

[rotorwrench]

you do not agree with me on when force is used and either do not wish to or do not know how to try and consider a moral framework other than a legal authoritarian one.

Not at all. I’m very familiar with all kinds of social/moral frameworks and have had many discussions over same. However, while I do very much respect your views, I only consider those frameworks that have actually worked and have a historical presence. As I mentioned, I am a realist at my core.

Nor do I believe we follow a true “authoritative” moral framework as we have a social-moral fabric based on the principle “of the people, by the people, for the people.” Which to me is closer to the libertarian principle: one does not exist to serve society, but the society exists to serve the one.

Regardless, this was a good discourse, and something I’ve missed in this day and age. Perhaps we can attempt this again on a more relatable aviation topic in the future?