13 off days per quarter.

exneophyte said:
I'd argue the lack of enforcement on the FAA's part creates the grey area. The letter of the law may make it illegal, but if there are no(or minimal) consequences it becomes a cost benefit decision for business management.

This was seen in North Dakota during the height of the oil boom. Businesses needed permits, but getting one took too long. With minimal fines and limited enforcement many decided it was worth it to pay the fine IF they got caught.
Click to expand...

"This is the way we have done this for years!"

Yep. I too have heard this one.
 
exneophyte said:
I'd argue the lack of enforcement on the FAA's part creates the grey area. The letter of the law may make it illegal, but if there are no(or minimal) consequences it becomes a cost benefit decision for business management.

This was seen in North Dakota during the height of the oil boom. Businesses needed permits, but getting one took too long. With minimal fines and limited enforcement many decided it was worth it to pay the fine IF they got caught.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on everything except that the FAAs involvement creates the grey area. The companies know its illegal, so they cook the books to make it look legal, and the FAA buys it. That happens in lots of ways. If these companies can't afford to pay you during training, or pay for nice hotels, or pay enough pilots do have defined duty days, whats to day they aren't cooking maintenance books, tax records etc etc. Lots of times it takes a crash to really open up a company and get into the details. The usual day to day is that the FAA performs an audit, you hand them a sheet of paper that shows duty/rest/flight periods for a crew, and to the FAA these crews get 19 hours off, 6 hours on duty, 2 hour flight for example. But those crews really were on call for 19 hours. Why do I know this? Because that's what my first jet charter job did and I saw it. When we tried to get them to do the right thing, they literally switched FSDOs to another facility out of state that literally said 24/7 on call isn't illegal.

There is no accountability for FSDOs that either make their own policies (they are absolutely not able nor allowed to make policy, only uphold regulations and LOIs from the chief counsel), or don't correctly uphold letters of interpretations, even more so, there is no avenue for companies to really be exposed as falsifying duty/rest records. That's why I say it takes an accident. Look at the Hawker crash that just happened. I know that company operates 24/7 on call, and if it starts looking like fatigue was a contributing factor, they might start questioning each pilot that works there. That would never happen during a standard audit.
 
We're all in agreement for the most part. The grey area exists not so much in that it exists (because it doesn't), but that operators will tell their unsuspecting "new guys" that don't know any better that it does.

Everybody has the FARs. Not everyone knows about legal interpretations. If you want to interpret rest to mean something, why not define it in the regs? It's not like they have a problem with the amount of words and pages they use in the regs. Just do it.

And then enforce it!
 
It sounds like we are mostly on the same page. I don't disagree with you that in a practical sense, it isn't the FAA breaking the rules. They have however created an environment where there is incentive to not follow the rules and the companies know they will almost certainly get away with it.

Inverted said:
I agree with you on everything except that the FAAs involvement creates the grey area. The companies know its illegal, so they cook the books to make it look legal, and the FAA buys it.
Click to expand...
Cooking the books is also illegal correct? So while it may be difficult to detect, it still is the FAA's responsibility to root out organizations that aren't following the rules and be absolutely ruthless in punishing falsification of records(which shows intent, not just naiveté). Creative fraud calls for creative detection solutions. Maybe the company is required to have their scheduling system submit the schedules ahead of time and then have an FAA system cross reference the actual flight information against that.

Inverted said:
When we tried to get them to do the right thing, they literally switched FSDOs to another facility out of state that literally said 24/7 on call isn't illegal.
Click to expand...
If all FSDO's applied the rules uniformly and appropriately, there would be no incentive to do this. It's the FAA's responsibility to remove that incentive.

Inverted said:
There is no accountability for FSDOs that either make their own policies (they are absolutely not able nor allowed to make policy, only uphold regulations and LOIs from the chief counsel), or don't correctly uphold letters of interpretations, even more so, there is no avenue for companies to really be exposed as falsifying duty/rest records.
Click to expand...
This seems to me to be the root of the problem. In the NFL, the NFC North doesn't get to interpret pass interference calls one way and the AFC north another. While individual referees may temporarily understand the rule incorrectly, the NFL provides frequent education and guidance on interpretation and if the referee doesn't shape up, they ship out.
 
I also think that there should be *some leeway* granted to a pilot who is forced by a 135 company to bend or even break the rules. Even more leeway if the pilot reports the 135 certificate holder to the FAA.

Of course all of this requires a regulatory agency that actually does something.
 
BEEF SUPREME said:
I also think that there should be *some leeway* granted to a pilot who is forced by a 135 company to bend or even break the rules. Even more leeway if the pilot reports the 135 certificate holder to the FAA.

Of course all of this requires a regulatory agency that actually does something.
Click to expand...
I agree. I think the company is the one that needs to be punished ruthlessly, not the pilots. The company is the one pressuring the pilot's to do it.
 
exneophyte said:
I agree. I think the company is the one that needs to be punished ruthlessly, not the pilots. The company is the one pressuring the pilot's to do it.
Click to expand...

During difficult economic times the problem is compounded. 135 certificate holders are more likely to plan something dodgy and PICs are less likely to have other employment options.

There has to be relief in there for the crew
 
BEEF SUPREME said:
I also think that there should be *some leeway* granted to a pilot who is forced by a 135 company to bend or even break the rules. Even more leeway if the pilot reports the 135 certificate holder to the FAA.

Of course all of this requires a regulatory agency that actually does something.
Click to expand...
Mandatory ASAP for common carriers. ASAP it every time the company requests you do something illegal. The FAAs representative at the table will see it and the pilot's representative can come prepared. Although, you can't knowingly break a rule and have ASAP protect you. Which is what you are doing if you accept the assignment.
 
z987k said:
Mandatory ASAP for common carriers. ASAP it every time the company requests you do something illegal. The FAAs representative at the table will see it and the pilot's representative can come prepared. Although, you can't knowingly break a rule and have ASAP protect you. Which is what you are doing if you accept the assignment.
Click to expand...

Maybe mandatory financial support for those fired over saying no to a proven illegal trip?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
z987k said:
Well we know the real answer we're going to get to here after a few more ideas is union.
Click to expand...

Sure would be nice but I'd settle for some support from the FAA on following existing regulations. Rather than put my job on the line every time I say no.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
z987k said:
Well we know the real answer we're going to get to here after a few more ideas is union.
Click to expand...

There is a reason they exist. And having worked for both Union, and non union companies, I am in support of a union.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
exneophyte said:
Cooking the books is also illegal correct? So while it may be difficult to detect, it still is the FAA's responsibility to root out organizations that aren't following the rules and be absolutely ruthless in punishing falsification of records(which shows intent, not just naiveté). Creative fraud calls for creative detection solutions. Maybe the company is required to have their scheduling system submit the schedules ahead of time and then have an FAA system cross reference the actual flight information against that.
Click to expand...

That is my point though. If it looks legal, what actions does a governing body have to go beyond that? Cooking the books is illegal but it is hard to prove that it is even being done. The company is responsible for self certifying lots and lots of things. Did that oil change get done? Sure it did, says so right here... Do you keep your crews on call 24/7? Absolutely not, says so right here...

Like I said, it takes an accident to expose this stuff. When they can test the oil, look at part numbers of failed components, review CVR and FDR data, open the books further than the top page, interview employees etc. I posted an NTSB report in the general section of a pilot that took off with one engine inop on a 2 engine jet, because he was gonna compression start the other one in the air, and the "FO" was a non rated seat warmer. How many times did that plane fly illegally before it took an accident to expose that crap?

I hate to keep bringing up the Ohio Hawker crash as it is still fresh and no reports have been made, but when you have a perfectly good airplane with 2 pilots on board, go below minimums and crash on an approach, you start to wonder about the other things like fatigue, SOP etc. Stuff like that happens every single day, and the FAA has no control over it. It will only change if they can prove pilot error and can pin fault on the company for something related to the accident. Lets hope that if that is the case, that the FAA does take action for it.

The stuff my first charter company pulled ( left in 2013) would blow your freaking minds. They employed captains that had no business being behind the wheel, multiple checkride failures, on call, terrible mx, fishy money handling (they had the amex accounts foreclosed, and our credit cards would routinely get denied on the road), no SOP, no standards in for the cockpit or anywhere else for that matter. One of the captains failed his initial, and his recurrent twice in one airplane, so he was placed back in the airplane he had more experience in. Think the FAA wouldn't like to know why a 63 year old man that has 3 checkride failures in 6 months in one airplane, is allowed to command anything other than a toaster? I could go on and on and on, and the FAA is none the wiser.
 
One solution is to randomly interview a crew member. "Hey this time where it says you were on rest for 127 hours, were you tied to your cell phone or were you actually off?" But then again, the FAA has to want to go that extra step...
 
averettpilot said:
One solution is to randomly interview a crew member. "Hey this time where it says you were on rest for 127 hours, were you tied to your cell phone or were you actually off?" But then again, the FAA has to want to go that extra step...
Click to expand...

How ready are you to lose your job by telling the FAA the truth? I will say that I think that is a necessary first step so I agree with you. But there has to be a safe environment for people to tell the truth. Just like ASAP reports. If you have to fear for your job when you fill out an ASAP, the process doesn't work.
 
Inverted said:
How ready are you to lose your job by telling the FAA the truth? I will say that I think that is a necessary first step so I agree with you. But there has to be a safe environment for people to tell the truth. Just like ASAP reports. If you have to fear for your job when you fill out an ASAP, the process doesn't work.
Click to expand...
Quite ready since I left a job for this, of course I did it before I ever busted a reg. If this is what it takes for pilots to across the board say no to this bs so be it. Either the FAA busts the operators or starts auditing pilots and forcing them to be accountable, I don't care which cause I know I won't be caught on it.
 
Problem is, that since it's only defined in LOI's and not hard regs, that ten years from now a new chief council can come along and say "LOLJK! On Call = Rest!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top