Did the FAA cave? Duh!

Blinded by arrogance or just blind? We'll probably never know. The issue of courtesy and consideration of the safety of others is a valid one (doubt this ever crossed Inhofe's mind). What about the passengers in his plane?

The aviation world is a cross-section of the general population which itself has no shortage of inconsiderate, discourteous, self-centered individuals.

Absolutely! Sen. Inhofe's actions were reckless and smack of the attitude, "I am a Senator, and rules don't apply to me." As a senator he also has shown a reckless attitude and is a devout global warming "denier" and a supporter of a constitutional ban to same-sex marriage. In other words, "reckless" all around. The FAA should have thrown the book at this clown.

Somebody's head is up their (cave) if you can't figure out a good ole boy antic. Anybody else would be eating tadpoles right now for a living. Perhaps the good thing is that this sets a precedence for "our " future screw-ups.

Of course they caved in did you expect anything else. Do you think any of us "regular folk" would have received the same treatment if we said we didn't do anything wrong?? Talk about "hazardous attitudes"!!!! Rules don't apply to me.

Inhofe is the poster-child for Washington arrogance. There are always some that are "more equal than others".

If you have Ray LaHood as a buddy, you do own the system.

There are some people who should not work in service industries, and, reading between the lines, I guess the manager at the airport is one of those people. (He will not be the only on, many of the worse offenders are ex military used to having lots of brass bird poo on their shoulders.) If the manager refuses to take calls from a pilot, for whatever reason, doubts are raised. It could even be that the work was programmed deliberately on a day the Senator was due to fly in, which may be a mitigating factor and explain the sentence.

The arrogance is stupefying to me. When I worked in airport ops, if we closed a runway, the Xs were painted big enough for even a septugenarian pilot to see at a far enough range to initiate a go-around.

Paul nailed it when he said Inhofe's "committed to land" argument was BS. Even if he hadn't checked NOTAMS ahead of the flight, the huge Xs *should* have been enough to keep anybody off the runway.

I just saved a copy of the FAA letter. If I ever do anything they challenge me on, I'll use the Inhofe defense.

In the Seventies the FAA was more like a benevolent grandfather. Counseling and retraining was the norm. It was only after the law-enforcement-helicopter crowd arrived that everything turned into "enforcement actions" for violations. I think Sen. Inhofe's treatment was appropriate. I hope this is a signal of a return to re-training rather than punishment for those who stray from the FARs.

I would agree with the above if his attitude had changed with his retraining. The purpose of enforcement action be it in aviation or motor vehicle is to prevent accidents and change driving/flying habits/attitudes. If the lesser action of retraining had changed his attitude I would applaud it. His continued statements show it has not.

Paul - A good perspective in your article, as usual. Under normal circumstances not involving a senator, most pilots would be upset at the FAA for a suspension in this type, in lieu of retraining and/or a 709 ride. And, often the retraining and 709 ride is what is done if the miscreant's attitude is good. The difference, here, is (a) the office held, which raises the spectre of favoritism if non-punitive resolutions are allowed in the counsel's office discretion,(b) the attitude of the pilot, as exemplified by stating that he doesn't check notams (!), and (c) the possible vision/proficiency issues that have come to light. I'd think he'd at best be a borderline case for retraining alone.

<>

Hey, Oklahomans:

In 2014, remember this jerk's attitude about safety and his concern for others.

"If I ever do anything they challenge me on, I'll use the Inhofe defense."

Spot on. The arrogant senator just gave all of us an excuse for poor flight planning that is in violation of FARs.

As a professional I take great exception to the notion that "people who fly regularly" never check NOTAMs. I ALWAYS check them. It's not hard now that most flight planning happens online and the NOTAM section is right there on your screen. You cant tell me that this US senator was treated like any pilot. If this was me, I'd likely be looking at certificate action from the FAA. A 180 day suspension of my ticket/livelihood would be devastating to my family. It is correct to deduce that the real culprit here is attitude and judgement. The pilot community can see right through the BS about 'committed' to the approach. The FAA missed an enormous opportunity to publicly demonstrate it's commitment to safety by taking this potentially disastrous event seriously.

I might interpret "committed to the approach" as "I was low on gas in my twin and I have no alternate planned". Bad preflight planning snowballed?

Spot on this time around, Paul. Thanks for the follow-up on this story.

I've worked on closed runways and closed airports. Senators aren't the only ones that do this. With no consequences.

I commute to work in my Arrow - same places every week and I always check the NOTAMS, etc. prior to departure. I wouldn't want anybody like Inhofe in the airplane w/me and I can only imagine what his students are like.

A flight physical should include at least a perfunctory vision exam. He should be required to pass such a test with a physician in another state. Also any pilot who is so rushed that he can't find the time to check NOTAMs should seriously consider hiring a professional pilot.

Paul wrote, "....I took a look at the FAA database on infractions and penalties and was surprised to find that many are of this nature: A corrective letter, training or a 709 ride in lieu of penalty."

So what's the beef? The FAA decided to go with what in does the majority of the time. Paul, et al, might have done differently, but it was not their decision.

The attitude factor is not an official issue. And it is filtered through an intelligent, unbiased local media ?? Anyone here do a direct interview with the Senator?

No direct interview. Good point. But I think the ink-stained wretches got the NOTAMs quote right. He said it in two different interviews.

@Mark Neeser "As a senator he also has shown a reckless attitude and is a devout global warming "denier" and a supporter of a constitutional ban to same-sex marriage. In other words, "reckless" all around."

The notion that CAGW skepticism is a marker of recklessness is bogus. There's tons of people, scientists, engineers, etc that are highly skeptical of the claims of Gore, Hansen, et al. To call them reckless is intellectually dishonest at best.

As far as same-sex marriage goes, that's a purely political matter. I'd really hope that people can have disagreements about political issues like that without such name calling.

As to the incident in question, he certainly was reckless. No disagreement there. A better penalty would have involved license suspension until retraining was completed.

Senator Inhofe's actions were reckless at a minimum, but the punishment reflects the truth of the final "Law" of George Orwell's Animal House - "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

Of course the FAA caved. I think Inhofe should have been treated as any other pilot would have been treated. Inhofe committed not only stupidity but also violated the FAA's regulations. Any other pilot would have had the book thrown at him/her. Inhofe's attitude is beyond forgiving: he had three others on board whose lives he held in his hands, plus those of the workers on the runway. He could have been killed and/or so could the others. I hope Inhofe's former student (now an instructor) covered the importance of checking NOTAMs. Inhofe not only needs a lesson in humility; he also needs lessons in common courtesy and in aviation safety.

God I hate defending the FAA but in this case they couldn't win no matter what. If they had gone full slam dunk on Inhofe they would have be criticized for being over zealous because he's a Senator. So now that they have done what they did they are being criticized for going to easy on him. No win situation.

I was as perplexed by a couple of sophomorically and intellectually STUPID statements by, what I would assume were/are pilots, as I was by the Senators' statements. Fortunately Andrew Upson replied before I had a chance to hit the "Submit Comment" button. His response was far more collegial than mine was. Thanks Andrew.

Checking Notams is a pain. At least on Duats or other FAA databases. When you ask for a weather and Notam update prior to a flight, you get information for everything within 1000 miles of your route. Its no wonder some pilots don't bother. The main reason I check Notams is so I don't get a surprise or a FAA sanction. FAA has not always been friendly either, they were so adversarial for a while I sold my plane. Happy to be back flying and hope they stay friendly.

Checking Notams is a pain. At least on Duats or other FAA databases. When you ask for a weather and Notam update prior to a flight, you get information for everything within 1000 miles of your route. Its no wonder some pilots don't bother. The main reason I check Notams is so I don't get a surprise or a FAA sanction. FAA has not always been friendly either, they were so adversarial for a while I sold my plane. Happy to be back flying and hope they stay friendly.

I want to give the Senator the benefit of the doubt because we all do or say something stupid (some people more than once). My problem lies with the apparent 'the rules don't apply to me' attitude. I wonder what would would be the FAA response if a Presidential TFR would have been affected; hopefully the Senator will have learned his lesson and correct his future performance.

I agree with the FAA's response to the incident, although a checkride probably would have been more appropriate. Crucifying people for errors is - I think - counter-productive in an industry where continual learning is required. We've all made mistakes.

What DOES burn me up though, is the guy's attitude. I wish there was a clinical way of testing people for this level of arrogant stupidity, and preventing them from ever setting foot in a plane again.

It never ceases to amaze me how quickly pilots are ready to throw another pilot under the bus. The FAA has built a hostile relationship, but the pilot community itself seems even worse. There is really very little to go on about what was where, why, and when. As correctly pointed out, there is nothing illegal or even reckless about landing on an occupied closed runway -- and bear in mind this is an 8,000 ft. runway with the crew said to be at one end. Inhofe could have landed nearly a mile from the crew, but we don't know because the precise facts have not been reported. Why? Why was the "work crew" there with no notam? Could that difficult Airport Manager have sent a crew out in an attempt to screw up Inhofe? Why were alternative runways not maintained in usable condition (they are rated "poor"), operations moved to the taxiway, or threshold displaced as is common practice during runway repairs? You just shut down the only runway in good condition? The whole thing smells like a dead fish to me and I'm not buying it. There's more to this story and given that, the benefit of doubt has to go to Inhofe.

Mr Newman said it perfectly. The pilot community has become an intolerant lot - so quick to condemn - We used to all have each others back - knowing it could just as easily be us on the carpet. Look in the mirror, gentlemen, it could be you next time.

A couple of observations:

Whether the runway closure was NOTAM'ed or not, in the TFR age of pilotage, one is an absolute fool not to check NOTAMS before every flight.

IMHO, a 709 ride would be the minimum requirement to rectify this... if a pilot can't see a runway closure from a one mile final and execute a successful go around in a 340, they have no business flying a high performance aircraft.

I've already squirreled away a copy of the article next to my medical and license as a hope-I-never-need-to-use-it Get out of Jail Free card

It is absurd to suggest that landing a perfectly healthy airplane on a closed runway with men and equipment working on it is not reckless. Inhoffe does not deserve the benefit of the doubt in this situation when he continues to maintain that he did nothing wrong and that the NOTAM system is archaic and ineffective. It is very hard for me to imagine that an airport manager saw him coming and then rushed a crew with heavy equipment out onto the runway and painted giant yellow X's on it to really get him. There was only one person flying the plane that day. Nobody on the ground made him land on a closed runway. He unapologetically makes us look bad.

I think Inhofe was wrong in his actions and attitude. I believe the FAA let him off lightly for the patently obvious reason.

That said, the NOTAM system is very difficult to navigate on any kind of longer flight. The amount of chaff vastly outweighs the amount of wheat, and with all the abbreviations it's sometimes difficult to tell what is the stuff that's going to bite you. So to some degree he has a point, though he doesn't make it very well.

Inhoffe got off with this stupid and dangerous landing for the same reason that Tim Geithner wasn't penalized for fileing a fradulant tax return.

Rules are for the little people, not for our masters in Washington.

Granted the NOTAM system is archaic. HOWEVER, there a several programs and apps out there (including one on the FAA site) that translate the gobbley gook into plain english on the fly. (pun INTENDED ;-)

And yes, Jon, checking every NOTAM along your route of flight for a long trip is a bit of a pain. I don't normally check all of them myself. But I darn sure check for my intended destination and any alternate.

Someone with flight simulator skills should post an image of what the yellow 'X's look like on a 3 degree glide slope, 1 mile final, under what light conditions?

How many people have a good impression of what the downward visibility is from the 340 if he overflew the airport? Were there CTAF communications? Was a NOTAM in effect? There seems to be some doubt.

If you're paying for the care and feeding of expensive TIO-520s you might not do a go-around if your vision of the runway on short final suggested a safe landing could easily be accomplished.

None of the critics here were in the cockpit, therefore do not know what the facts are. I'm sure the FAA investigators (my Dad was one) had more conversation with the Senator than any of the local news media where the published quotes of "arrogance" originated. They made the call.

If you're paying for the care and feeding of expensive TIO-520s you might not do a go-around if your vision of the runway on short final suggested a safe landing could easily be accomplished.<<

Edd? Really?

You're gonna but the care of feeding of a couple of engines ahead of the physical safety of people working on a runway? That's like saying you don't want to tap the brakes in a construction zone because those Mercedes brake pads are too expensive. Or believing the notion at some point, you can't abort a landing.

I'll concede none of us were in the cockpit and had the crack about not checking NOTAMs not been made twice--once before and once after the event--it wouldn't be fair game. But the comment goes against the grain of what's actually going on out there and reflects poorly on the pilot population at large because it shows a lack of care and consideration.

I'm not too inclined to be tolerant of that. No one should be, in my view.

Note, I qualified the care and feeding of the engines relative what might have been (and did prove to be) a safe landing in the judgement of an experienced pilot.

You or I don't know where workers or equipment were relative to where the landing took place. I'm pretty sure the FAA investigators asked that, or, similar questions.

I wouldn't condone the public arrorgance issue either, if I were confident the issue was accurate. Too many times I see quotes repeated amongst the media, and soon they become fact. How many times did we hear the Facebook and Twitter were key elements in the Tunisia event, when it turns out essentially no one (<0.03%) had access to such.

For all we know, the Senator might also have come across as arrogant during their interviews, or not. But, as I said, they made the call.

Let's get back to something important, like the drop-in replacement for 100LL. You're good at that. Thx.

"...For all we know, the Senator might also have come across as arrogant during their (FAA) interviews, or not. But, as I said, they made the call...."

The sentence above should be edited accordingly. Sorry.

Well written Paul.

I once flew as instructor for a guy going to take a 709 ride for having done precisely what Inhofe did.

Distracted flying, unprofessional flying from an unprofessional pilot.

And, as most of us expected, the dotgov took care of its own.

Incumbents of all stripes get corrupted in a short time and we voters should vote them out. Voter imposed term limits are the wave of the future. Sen. Inhofe has been in the Senate way too long

I would be much more likely to accept the FAA’s penalty for Sen. Inhofe if I thought for even a second I would be treated the same way in this circumstance. There should have at least been a suspension.

I hadnt seen it mentioned, but didnt read em all. How about the proper approach entry? No way even a half blind dummy could miss the big X while on downwind. I misght ad that I got a 30 day suspended for a way more minor infraction than his. Average Joe pilot would have gotten much worse punishment.

By the way, this guy has had several other questionable flying "incidents." It pains me to criticize a Senator who had putatively done a 'lot' for aviation but he thinks his shit doesn't stink. It does.

I owe a certain debt to Senator Inhofe because his advocacy of the age 65 retirement rule got me back into the pilot's seat. Having said that, his attitude is inexcusable. The term "compliance disposition" often appears in regard to certificate actions. That is, a history of intentional violations is a predictor of future bad behavior. Senator Inhofe not only admits his violation of the "all available information" clause but essentially tells us that he will continue to violate it in the future. If he were not a senator he might well suffer a full revocation for this.

Except for the political partisans here, who, even if Inhofe had crashed into a school yard full of kids would find no fault with him, the real point is he was out of control, put peoples lives in jeopardy and gets a free pass. If I'd done that I'd be facing suspension--at a minimum. Pleaaase. Not thinking he got a pass has all to do with funding and job security for the senior FAA types.

Tapes of the interviews of the work crew foreman and airport manager are now online at:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/bizarre/inhofe-scared-crap-out-airport-workers-192645

Sounds like it was a VERY close call. And for what? Impressing his newly-hired employee? Laziness? Arrogance? From Inhofe's own words it's clear that his actions were intentional. INTENTIONAL. Given that there was no emergency, not even any particular rush (he was, after all, flying in to his vacation home) AND there were other OPEN runways, what is the excuse for this behavior?

C'mon all you apologists. Better make it good, 'cause Jimmy-Boy himself is laughing at you now.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/bizarre/inhofe-scared-crap-out-airport-workers-192645

http://tinyurl.com/3q6n978

Let's try this again. This site is not showing the url.

http://tinyurl.com/3q6n978