A person's attitude can mean the difference between success and failure, winning and losing, living and dying. During pilot training we practice recovery from unusual attitudes to make certain we can survive real life emergencies. But how often do we practice recovering from our own bad or unusual attitudes when it comes to daily living? Practicing one's behavior, and how we relate to other people or situations, may be the key to success in all aspects of life.
   Reflecting on my own experiences as a pilot and lawyer, as well as studying cases of others, leads me to believe that, while not a sure panacea for all of life's travails, a good attitude goes a long way. Over the years I have taken many check rides with both designated examiners and "real" FAA employees. I accumulated Commercial license, instrument rating, CFI, CFI-Instrument, CFI- Multi-engine, and ATP certificates, all without ever failing a test. I feel the key was not so much in my flying abilities as it was in my attitude. When I took my private pilot check ride in 1968 after going through a three month period of instruction at Burnside-Ott in Florida, my skills were hardly those of an ace. The examination ride came on a fairly windy day. The air work was not as good as it should have been, and I could see the designated examiner was not all that happy. But my landing in a strong cross-wind was excellent, as was my attitude. I asked questions, listened intently as explanations were given, and was willing to learn. I passed. I recall my multi-engine check ride many years ago, and how I almost blew the oral. When asked to explain Vmc, the explanation that emanated from my lips was hardly that of a knowledgeable multi-engine pilot. Nonetheless, due to the my attitude, I passed. I can say the same about each of my check rides; the flying was O.K., but attitude was good.
   About 14 years ago I was flying my Cessna 195 to San Diego for a court appearance. The typical Spring marine layer carpeted the coast and the Pacific Ocean. I was running late, and my mind was focusing on an angry judge awaiting my arrival. To make things worse, landings at Lindbergh Airport were from the West, thus necessitating a lengthy over water segment while being vectored onto the ILS between much faster airliners. The ATIS information indicated about a 500' ceiling, which was ample for a successful landing. Because I was rushed, nervous about being so far out over the ocean, and believing the weather was well above minimums, I did not even glance at the missed approach procedure. At decision height, I found myself still in the clouds and uncertain what to do. I declared a missed approach and started to climb. When I popped up out of the fog I saw the buildings of downtown San Diego straight ahead, so I decided to turn right. Unfortunately, this put me into the airspace of an adjacent Naval Air Station.
Approach Control was quick to point out my error, and put me on a proper course. I asked for the weather at nearby Montgomery Field, but was shocked to learn it too was below minimums. Gillespie Field to the East was VFR, so that is where I headed. On the ground, I was given a number and told TRACON would like to speak with me. I shut down the engine, regained my composure, and made the call. I don't know whether I was just lucky, or whether the controller I spoke with was persuaded by my cooperative attitude, but I heard nothing else from the FAA about this incident. I believe it was my attitude that put the matter to rest. Had I been combative, defensive, or stupid, I am certain the FAA would have pursued the matter. What I did was to face up to my error, explain the situation, provide all information requested, and listen when spoken to.
   Listening seems to be a problem with many people, especially lawyers. We love to hear ourselves talk. However, a good lawyer knows when to keep his mouth shut. For instance, when a judge is making favorable rulings, or when it appears you have won the argument, there is no need to say a word. Still, it is amazing how many lawyers keep talking in court, despite the fact they have already won the argument. The ability to listen, and comprehend what is being said goes much further than attempting to get in the last word. The same goes with piloting skills. Often, perhaps because of our built in defense mechanisms, pilots don't listen when meaningful instruction or criticism is given. Rather, excuses rule the day. "It's too bumpy to hold altitude." "That darned controller!" "I thought you checked the fuel!" The number of excuses a pilot can give is directly proportionate to his or her bad attitude.
   Recently an examiner friend of mine related an experience he had giving a letter of authorization ride to a pilot in a L-39 jet. The pilot was unable to hold altitude, and had an overall lousy attitude. He would not listen, was defensive when it came to criticism, and exhibited poor judgment. The examiner failed him, but was upset about it. I told him he had done the right thing. It is better to fail pilots who not only exhibit poor flying techniques, but a bad attitude as well.
   Sometimes it is the examiner who shows off the bad attitude, and pays as a result. The case of Grillo vs. NTSB relates the experience of a designated examiner who had his ATP and CFI certificates revoked for making false representations to the FAA. He advised the FAA that three pilots he had tested failed, when in fact they had passed their flight checks. He explained that by lying, he was attempting to meet what he thought was the FAA's required failure rate. He further argued that there was no detriment to air safety because the pilots he signed off were actually qualified. The NTSB and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal disagreed, ruling that the "integrity of the airman certification system" is what counts. Just as there is no room in our skies for airmen with bad attitudes, there certainly is no place for examiners with warped attitudes.
   When I represent clients in FAA enforcement matters, I stress a cooperative attitude. Unfortunately, the climate in the FAA is different today than it was when I made my mistake in San Diego. Often FAA investigators will take cooperation and throw it right back in your face after informal meetings or statements. Thus, it is my advice to never give any statements to FAA personnel without the assistance of a knowledgeable aviation attorney at your side. Nonetheless, when able, and without saying too much, cooperation and attitude still go far in helping to win your case. I proved this in a case which went up on appeal to the NTSB named Administrator vs. Wawrzniak. The case evolved from a crash after a low time pilot ran out of gas. He had become disoriented at night, landed at one airport to get his bearings, took off again, got lost, landed at a military base, was allowed to depart several hours later, and then lost power on top of an overcast after running out of gas. He and his passenger were seriously injured, but miraculously lived. The pilot accepted a 180 day suspension, during which he was unable to fly anyway due to his physical ailments. The FAA insisted that he undergo a recertification ride, to which we agreed. However, we advised that he would not be able to do so until physically able to do so. The FAA attorney kept calling and insisting that the recertification ride take place, and I kept agreeing - as soon as he was able. That was not good enough, and the FAA again suspended his license. The matter went to a hearing, which we lost. But on appeal to the full NTSB, we prevailed. The Board held:

"In these circumstances we are compelled to hold that respondent's willingness to submit to re-examination when medically able precludes a suspension based on an alleged refusal to take the test."