New FAA strategy... Maybe?

Had to go back and read the article to see where the "disconnect" is. Is this policy that they've adopted written somewhere? I myself am a bit skeptical about admitting a mistake to an agency that has the discretion of whether to take certificate action or not. If it's written down somewhere that tells them how to proceed, such that I can show it to a lawyer and have them held accountable to their policies for my defense, then yee haw I'm all for it.
 
Had to go back and read the article to see where the "disconnect" is. Is this policy that they've adopted written somewhere? I myself am a bit skeptical about admitting a mistake to an agency that has the discretion of whether to take certificate action or not. If it's written down somewhere that tells them how to proceed, such that I can show it to a lawyer and have them held accountable to their policies for my defense, then yee haw I'm all for it.

There's a flow chart of some type. Our ASAP rep referenced it the other day, but I don't personally have a copy.
 
You don't get it. This isn't a personal attack on you, it isn't a matter of believing you or not believing you. It's a matter of having heard this from the FAA over decades in different forms and iterations. Do you KNOW what "realigned" means in the FAA? It means promoted. Yeah, when you get an over zealous safety inspector it's just easier to promote him/her to DC than try to get rid of them. At least that's been my observation. Screw up, move up.
If they truly mean it this time maybe they will go back through their records and expunge the certification action they took against pilots for very minor offenses when training would have been more appropriate that ruined their careers. Maybe they'll send a letter to Joseph Brenell's family apologizing for hounding him to his death.

If, as you posted earlier you do continue to fly GA I strongly encourage you to purchase AOPA legal insurance as your union and corporate connections may not help if you run into some of the safety inspectors I have run into. And if you do, I also strongly encourage you to not assume they have the same safety philosophy you do. Keep your mouth shut around them until you have a lawyer.

I don't feel that it's a personal attack. It is just frustrating to try to inform people about a major positive change and watch it be undermined intentionally. You do realize that if you interact with an inspector the way you suggest you might get a worse result, right? Their discretion is largely dependent upon whether the pilot is compliant and receptive to training/criticism. If you appear to dig in and be obstinate, I promise you you'll get dealt with more harshly. But more power to you buddy. You'll need that AOPA attorney.

The same goes at any airline as well. Part of the ASAP process is being able to complete corrective action. If you don't participate openly with corrective action/training, you may face enforcement action or company discipline even within ASAP.
 
Had to go back and read the article to see where the "disconnect" is. Is this policy that they've adopted written somewhere? I myself am a bit skeptical about admitting a mistake to an agency that has the discretion of whether to take certificate action or not. If it's written down somewhere that tells them how to proceed, such that I can show it to a lawyer and have them held accountable to their policies for my defense, then yee haw I'm all for it.
The article says they've put the new guidance in the 8900.1, which is where you'd expect it to be. However if there's any document I hate sifting through it's that one. So hard to find what you're looking for.
Also, I'm not entirely sure how well pointing to the FAA's own guidance on how their inspectors are to do things actually holds up in Admin law. You'd probably need to talk to a lawyer about that.
I know with a POI of a former company that I talked with in the past, showed him in his own manual, what it said about a topic and he didn't seem to care much.
 
The article says they've put the new guidance in the 8900.1, which is where you'd expect it to be. However if there's any document I hate sifting through it's that one. So hard to find what you're looking for.
Also, I'm not entirely sure how well pointing to the FAA's own guidance on how their inspectors are to do things actually holds up in Admin law. You'd probably need to talk to a lawyer about that.

It's easy to find. It's the "Compliance Philosophy" section.

http://fsims.faa.gov/PICDetail.aspx?docId=8900.1,Vol.14,Ch1,Sec1
 
Last edited:
The same goes at any airline as well. Part of the ASAP process is being able to complete corrective action. If you don't participate openly with corrective action/training, you may face enforcement action or company discipline even within ASAP.

I think issue most of us with the 135/91 background see is in order to have a just safety culture, very first there must be a positive and trusting rapport between the two parties. The airlines and unions have largely established this. The FAA on the other hand has a 55 year history of the opposite. And they also have a very long history of local offices not complying with national even in the presence of mountains of evidence that they are wrong(because as pilots we don't have the money to fight it). Someone is going to have to test it(outside of 121 union backed land) first and the rest of us will have to see tangible results before letting our guard down.

I'm reading what you posted, and I hope that they actually make this happen outside of 121.
 
You do realize that if you interact with an inspector the way you suggest you might get a worse result, right? Their discretion is largely dependent upon whether the pilot is compliant and receptive to training/criticism. If you appear to dig in and be obstinate, I promise you you'll get dealt with more harshly. But more power to you buddy. You'll need that AOPA attorney.

This is where we disagree. ASAP is one thing, but if you're dealing with the FAA outside of that program, and enforcement action is even the smallest possibility, lawyer up and quick. I don't care how touchy feely they get, you're still better off with an attorney. I'm reminded of traffic tickets, where people frequently say the same thing: "just be nice to the cop, admit that you might have been speeding, and ask for a warning." Yes, that will probably work 75% of the time. The other 25% of the time you end up with a ticket, and you've admitted guilt so you can't fight it. Me? I never admit to anything, refuse to answer questions, but still be polite. I get tickets, but my lawyer gets them thrown out, and my record is completely clean. Dealing with the FAA is the same, only with much higher stakes.
 
This is where we disagree. ASAP is one thing, but if you're dealing with the FAA outside of that program, and enforcement action is even the smallest possibility, lawyer up and quick. I don't care how touchy feely they get, you're still better off with an attorney. I'm reminded of traffic tickets, where people frequently say the same thing: "just be nice to the cop, admit that you might have been speeding, and ask for a warning." Yes, that will probably work 75% of the time. The other 25% of the time you end up with a ticket, and you've admitted guilt so you can't fight it. Me? I never admit to anything, refuse to answer questions, but still be polite. I get tickets, but my lawyer gets them thrown out, and my record is completely clean. Dealing with the FAA is the same, only with much higher stakes.
"Am I being detained?"
 
Someone is going to have to test it(outside of 121 union backed land) first and the rest of us will have to see tangible results before letting our guard down.

ASAP for smaller operators is being used as we speak. There are now 9 part 91 and 15 part 135 flight departments that have adopted ASAP. As of last week the facilitator of that program indicated that there are have been over 300 reports generated since they began this program in 2013.

Here are several links that should help explain.

http://www.acsf.aero/asap-resources/

http://www.acsf.aero/assets/Uploads/pdfs/articles/BAA-WashingtonReport.pdf
 
This is where we disagree. ASAP is one thing, but if you're dealing with the FAA outside of that program, and enforcement action is even the smallest possibility, lawyer up and quick. I don't care how touchy feely they get, you're still better off with an attorney. I'm reminded of traffic tickets, where people frequently say the same thing: "just be nice to the cop, admit that you might have been speeding, and ask for a warning." Yes, that will probably work 75% of the time. The other 25% of the time you end up with a ticket, and you've admitted guilt so you can't fight it. Me? I never admit to anything, refuse to answer questions, but still be polite. I get tickets, but my lawyer gets them thrown out, and my record is completely clean. Dealing with the FAA is the same, only with much higher stakes.

So given the requirement for training/counseling to address an issue and keep it out of enforcement, how does one participate if you lawyer up? It seems to me that will drive the FAA to no option other than enforcement if you look at their flow chart above.

I guess we shall see.
 
So given the requirement for training/counseling to address an issue and keep it out of enforcement, how does one participate if you lawyer up? It seems to me that will drive the FAA to no option other than enforcement if you look at their flow chart above.

I guess we shall see.

The time to lawyer up is at step A. The lawyer would be involved at step B, and if no enforcement action is deemed necessary by the FAA, then his work is done and you move along with the other compliance options. But if they aren't willing to discard the possibility of enforcement action, you let the lawyer handle it from there.
 
The time to lawyer up is at step A. The lawyer would be involved at step B, and if no enforcement action is deemed necessary by the FAA, then his work is done and you move along with the other compliance options. But if they aren't willing to discard the possibility of enforcement action, you let the lawyer handle it from there.
This.

Or, put another way, "what is your career worth to you?"
 
Pfffft. Force UPS to adopt part 117 and he can talk about FAA pushing safety. Until then, they are spewing typical BS.....

a80ae47f0d3e638937938578b70c8e80.jpg
 
The FAA has never considered being on call as being on duty.
Yet being on reserve (on call) still does not follow the reg. Here is the interpretation.
Your hypothetical example involves a pilot who is placed on reserve duty on Day 1 (we assume a calendar day of reserve duty, i.e., from 0001 hours to 24 hours), and is required to answer the phone and be available for a flight assignment for day 1. He is then scheduled for 6 days of flight duty. You seek confirmation that this example would violate section 121.483 (b) and section 121.503 (c) because the pilot did not receive 24 consecutive hours of rest in 7 consecutive days. Consistent with the rule restated above, if, in your example, one cannot find that rest period when one looks back 7 consecutive days from midnight of each day involving planned flight duty, the schedule would not be in compliance with section 121.483 (b) or section 121.503 (c). Since the reserve duty on Day 1 is not rest, it may not count as 24 consecutive hours of rest for any of the 6 days of flight duty.
 
Yet being on reserve (on call) still does not follow the reg. Here is the interpretation.

You're not reading it right. You can be on call 24/7/365. Nothing in that interpretation prevents that. What it prevents is a duty period beginning without seeing a 24 hour rest period in the preceding 7 days. So, I can leave you on call for 30 days straight without a rest period, for example. At 6pm on the 30th day, I call you and give a flight assignment for 6:01pm the next day, and I put you into rest. I have complied with the regulation and this interpretation. At no point did you begin a duty period without a 24 hour rest period in the 7 day look-back.
 
You're not reading it right. You can be on call 24/7/365. Nothing in that interpretation prevents that. What it prevents is a duty period beginning without seeing a 24 hour rest period in the preceding 7 days. So, I can leave you on call for 30 days straight without a rest period, for example. At 6pm on the 30th day, I call you and give a flight assignment for 6:01pm the next day, and I put you into rest. I have complied with the regulation and this interpretation. At no point did you begin a duty period without a 24 hour rest period in the 7 day look-back.
That would be the logical way of dealing with it but ad hoc freight usually doesn't have 24 hours of prep available and from what I read it sounds like operators don't have 24 hour callouts.

@Bandit_Driver In your experience have you found that 121 supplemental carriers use a 24 hour call out in order to comply with 121.503(c) or do they operate contrary to the regs like many 135 operators by counting a period of no calls as "rest".
 
This is where we disagree. ASAP is one thing, but if you're dealing with the FAA outside of that program, and enforcement action is even the smallest possibility, lawyer up and quick. I don't care how touchy feely they get, you're still better off with an attorney. I'm reminded of traffic tickets, where people frequently say the same thing: "just be nice to the cop, admit that you might have been speeding, and ask for a warning." Yes, that will probably work 75% of the time. The other 25% of the time you end up with a ticket, and you've admitted guilt so you can't fight it. Me? I never admit to anything, refuse to answer questions, but still be polite. I get tickets, but my lawyer gets them thrown out, and my record is completely clean. Dealing with the FAA is the same, only with much higher stakes.

Having dealt first hand with the FAA this is my point. It is one thing to be cooperative when you have an ASAP program in place backed by ALPA and hopefully airline management. It is something else entirely to be trusting of the FAA when you are standing by yourself.

My example. I was very trusting of the FAA. I worked with several FSDOs through the FAAST program. I was often used by a FSDO to train pilots for 709 rides or for training in lieu of 709 rides. I gave seminars and classes in cooperation with the FSDO. It was the "newer, gentler FAA".
I changed locations and came into contact with a new FSDO. Initially the safety inspectors I met there were like those at other locations. Then it happened.
I won't go into the details, but I was giving flight instruction at a quiet, non-towered airport. One sleepy day I did two things. The first was a bone head move. One of those LTC Nicholson moments from the end of the "Bridge at the River Kwai" when you go "What did I just do." No harm, no one or thing put in danger, no one even around (or so I thought). I immediately told myself, "Self, don't do that again."
The second thing I did could technically be viewed as a violation as well, but I felt there were extenuating circumstances that warranted a deviation from FAA procedures. Again, no one put in danger and, I thought, no one around.
Someone was there, however, and reported me to the FAA. I was called in "for a chat". I was told nothing would probably come of it. Since I was a CFI they might ask me to give a class on the events as a learning tool, but that was it. If I wanted a lawyer I could bring one. I called AOPA legal and explained to them what happened. They said I could bring a lawyer, but the entire thing was pretty minor. Worst case I might get a letter in my file for a few years. So, thinking this was the newer, nicer FAA I'd been told about I went without a lawyer and decided to cooperate. Big, big mistake.
There were three safety inspectors. Two I knew and they were sympathetic. They commented that the bone head mistake was a good teaching event, while the second thing I did they felt they would have done the same thing. The other safety inspector? Well, let's just say he felt differently.
He was extremely confrontational, demeaning and belligerent. I was caught off guard and the other two safety inspectors started to become uncomfortable. At one point I really wanted to reach over and punch the guy out, but remained calm and polite.
I was told at the end of the meeting that I would be asked to give a class and that would be the extent of things. Several weeks went by. I called one my friends at the FSDO and received a shock. The safety inspector had recommended certification action against me and everything I said in that meeting was being used against me. Too late I got legal representation.
When I got the certification notice I was once more shocked. It recommended a 45 day suspension and the description of the meeting was nothing like I remembered. It made me out to be a real jerk. I immediately sent my two friends from the FSDO emails apologizing for my behavior at the meeting as I did not realize I was being a confrontational. Both called me back instead of emailing me. They said the safety Inspector's characterization of the meeting was false. I was extremely cooperative and polite in the face of his belligerence. Unfortunately neither was willing to put that in writing unless my lawyer subpoenaed them.
So now I have a lawyer. Things go on for 2 1/2 years. In the interim, at one point, the FAA lawyer tells my lawyer that this whole thing is kind of silly. Would I be willing to give a class on this as a learning tool and call it even? Of course I accepted. Months go by. My lawyer asks the FAA lawyer when I can give the class and is told by the FAA lawyer that he has been instructed to take the deal off the table. It was not in writing, so too bad.
Finally we get to the point where we can see a judge and my lawyer tells me more good news. The FAA delay tactics have chewed up my free AOPA legal insurance. Anything forward would be out of my pocket. Best case- we win and the FAA does not appeal to the NTSB (fat chance), I'm in the whole tens of thousands of dollars. I ask him to get the best deal he can.
It's reduced to a 15 day suspension. Now comes the really good part. The FAA loses my certificates. Since I surrendered them I can't fly until I get them back. The FAA finally finds them and returns them to me.... at the 45 day point.

So if people want to say I'm crazy, paranoid, not taking the FAA at their word, so be it. I will continue to recommend to pilots that if they go to the FAA without legal protection (which I consider ASAP to be), they are a fool
 
That would be the logical way of dealing with it but ad hoc freight usually doesn't have 24 hours of prep available and from what I read it sounds like operators don't have 24 hour callouts.

@Bandit_Driver In your experience have you found that 121 supplemental carriers use a 24 hour call out in order to comply with 121.503(c) or do they operate contrary to the regs like many 135 operators by counting a period of no calls as "rest".

Frankly, I doubt this is happening. Too blatant a violation for any carrier to be getting away with for any significant period of time. Most likely what you're hearing about is just people who don't understand the reg and don't know the difference between a duty period and an on-call period. But if it is happening, then someone should self-report, not to the FSDO, but directly to the General Counsel.
 
Back
Top