Nine days to respond, and whatever gets written becomes the case FAA decides on.

A charter pilot lands after a runway incursion and, two weeks later, opens a Letter of Investigation from the FAA: a plain request to submit a written statement within 10 days, no lawyer mentioned, no hearing scheduled. It reads like paperwork. It is not. Whatever the pilot writes becomes the factual record the FAA relies on to decide whether this becomes a training conversation or a certificate suspension, and there is no do-over once it is submitted.

Nobody at the flight department has drafted an LOI response before, including the aviation counsel who handles leases and charter agreements for a living. The response is due in nine days, and the chief pilot is the one who has to decide what it says.

The Letter of Investigation is already a search, and the response becomes the record

FAA enforcement against airmen, air carriers, and Part 145 repair stations almost always starts the same way: an inspector or air traffic control report generates a Letter of Investigation, giving the recipient a short window, typically 10 days, to respond in writing before the FAA decides what happens next.

The trigger is almost always a specific event: an LOI following a reported deviation, a Notice of Proposed Certificate Action, or a civil penalty notice with a proposed dollar figure. None of these wait for the recipient's usual counsel to learn the FAA's enforcement process from the letter forward.

General aviation counsel is a real resource for leases, purchase agreements, and charter contracts, but the FAA's enforcement and compliance decision process, including how an LOI response actually gets used, is a narrow specialty most aviation lawyers touch only occasionally. A chief pilot or director of operations facing an active LOI is not waiting to learn that process from the letter forward.

This is enforcement and certificate-action defense, not transactional aviation work. A company that needs an aircraft purchase reviewed or a lease negotiated is looking for a different kind of aviation attorney entirely; this practice exists for the airman or operator already inside an FAA inquiry or a proposed action.

What a buyer is actually searching

The airman or operator with an active LOI types FAA Letter of Investigation response, Notice of Proposed Certificate Action appeal, FAA civil penalty defense attorney, almost always with the actual letter in hand and a response deadline already running. An operator building or renewing a certificate searches differently: Part 135 certification attorney, Part 145 repair station certificate, FAA safety management system consultant, focused on the foundational work rather than an active enforcement clock.

A generic "aviation law" campaign misses both buyers, catching general aircraft-transaction traffic instead of the airman or operator with an actual FAA enforcement letter in front of them.

Objections we hear

Our aviation counsel already handles regulatory matters. Most aviation counsel built their practice on transactions, leasing, and insurance coverage disputes. Responding to an active LOI or defending a certificate action before the NTSB is a different, more procedural discipline most transactional aviation lawyers handle rarely.

I already sent in my written statement. That statement is now part of the record the FAA uses to decide the case. If it was written without understanding how the FAA's enforcement decision process actually works, the damage from an unhelpful admission is not something a later, better-lawyered response can undo.

This is the same as an NTSB accident investigation. It is not. The NTSB investigates accidents to determine probable cause under its own separate authority, and it also happens to hear appeals of FAA certificate actions, a second, unrelated function. An FAA enforcement letter is not an NTSB accident inquiry, even when both bodies eventually touch the same event.

The same finding can become a training conversation or a suspension, and the file decides which

Since adopting its current compliance philosophy, the FAA diverts inadvertent, non-deliberate deviations, honestly and promptly disclosed, into a non-punitive compliance action, additional training or a procedural fix, with no certificate suspension and no civil penalty.

Reckless or intentional conduct, or a response that reads as evasive or incomplete, gets routed into traditional enforcement instead, where a certificate action or a civil penalty is squarely on the table. The dividing line between those two outcomes is not the underlying event. It is how the file, starting with the LOI response, presents that event to the person deciding which path applies.

Ready to grow your pipeline?

Share a few details and we'll follow up with exactly how this works for a firm like yours.

Leave blank

Name *

Firm / Company *

Email *

Phone

Send

What runs, and what we will not do

Google ads built around the specific search an airman or operator actually types, an LOI response, a certificate action appeal, a civil penalty defense, not one generic "aviation law" campaign competing for transactional and insurance-dispute traffic it was never meant to win. Foundational web presence, so the click lands on a firm that reads as an FAA enforcement specialist, not a general aviation attorney who handles this occasionally.

LinkedIn placements aimed at aviation insurers, flight departments, and other aviation lawyers who send this work once they already know which firm actually works FAA enforcement and NTSB appeals, run as paid placements only, never InMail, connection-request sequences, or direct messages. We do not run that channel, and it is not part of this program under any name.

What we will not do: write into the investigation. We do not build a solicitation list of airmen or operators, and we do not mail, email, or call a pilot or company that has not searched or asked. We do not draft the response or run the certificate application ourselves. We make the firm findable. The firm does the work.

Why a generalist agency gets this practice wrong

An agency selling "aviation law" leads at scale cannot tell a pilot with an active Letter of Investigation apart from a buyer researching aircraft purchase financing, and the bidding shows it. They also cannot tell the difference between a certificate action headed to the NTSB and a civil penalty headed through a completely different track, two paths the FAA's own enforcement decision splits apart from the start.

This campaign is built for the buyer who already has a letter, a notice, or a proposed penalty, not the operator browsing what Part 135 certification even requires.

Referring counsel matter as much as the search itself

Transactional aviation lawyers and insurance defense counsel see enforcement letters and certificate actions regularly but rarely handle the FAA's specific administrative process or an NTSB appeal themselves, and a client with an active LOI puts counsel in the position of naming a specialist fast, often with days left on the response clock. That referral relationship deserves deliberate attention, not whichever firm happens to come up first.

The LinkedIn side of this program exists for that purpose: a small number of paid placements in front of the lawyers who send this work, built as material worth their time, not an ad asking for a meeting.

How this is billed

This is Visibility Program work, not the outbound program. You pay ad spend directly to the platforms, Google and, where it runs, LinkedIn. ROI Wire bills a retainer that scales with that spend, not a flat project fee and not a percentage of closed files.

A landing page may be included at no additional cost. A full website build is always quoted and billed separately. Copywriting, directory work, and the reputation surfaces an airman or operator checks before trusting a firm with an active letter sit under this track as the credibility layer that holds the traffic, not as a correspondence program running in parallel. Ads can be live in under a week. Approval on your side, the keywords, the spend, the page the click lands on, usually determines the timeline, not the platforms.

Who this fits, and who it does not

This fits firms that actually respond to Letters of Investigation, appeal certificate actions before the NTSB, defend civil penalty proceedings, and build Part 135 and Part 145 certification programs, with the capacity to move inside a 10-day response window. The lead worth the spend is an airman or operator with a real letter, notice, or proposed penalty already identified.

It does not fit a firm whose real book is transactional aviation law, aircraft finance, or insurance coverage disputes with no FAA enforcement experience. That work deserves its own specialist too, just not this one, and this page exists for the enforcement side alone.