A question for you guys

mjg407

Well-Known Member
Just out of curiosity, what would be the penalty for a flight crew who intentionally violated a company SOP? Would it be suspension? Termination? Thanks.
 

BobDDuck

Island Bus Driver
That's a very general question. I'd need more info in order to answer it.

For example, in our manuals, we are required to set the ILS mins for an approach any time we use the ILS for guidance. So in other words, even if the weather is clear and a million, our altitude alerter has to be set for the IFR mins of the approach. On a nice weather day this number really doesn't tell you anything and it is much more useful to have 1000 AGL set as there is a standard "1000 foot" call and, in the event of a go around, we have our acceleration altitude already set. I would say about 80% of the crew routinely set 1000 feet and hence are violating SOP. There is a guy on this forum who does line checks at this specific company and he could probably better answer it, but I'd bet either a) people just follow SOP when getting checked, or if they forget they just smile and nod when they are reminded of the correct procedure.

However, more serious stuff... like going below mins with no runway in sight, that might get you pulled off line for a while, assuming you were caught.

And the getting caught aspect is a whole other issue. NORMALLY, when somebody does something wrong (intentionally) it goes to pro standards and they try to deal with it within the union infrastructure before the company gets involved. That way, they may be able to correct the problem and save the person's job. Unfortunately, they aren't able to solve the problem (or people go directly to the company first) and the person violating SOP gets some time off or let go.
 

little_cricket

Well-Known Member
Depends on what SOP, why, and how does the company know? There is too little info to answer the question, it could be the company does nothing or the company fires, but it depends on the situation.
 

mjg407

Well-Known Member
Sorry for being vague. I would assume that to have a FA in one of the seats during takeoff and landing is against most companies SOPs. Lets say that happened and she bragged about it to some friends. Let's say the copilot overhears and decides to snitch to the company. Would the captain be terminated, suspended without pay, or just a stern warning.
I'm just trying to see what the general consensous would be in another industry. Thanks and sorry for the vagueness.
 

Baronman

Well-Known Member
So the scenario is the FA is at the controls during a critical phase of flight...

Very poor decision by the captain to allow this. First off, it is not safe. Secondly it violates company/FAA regulations and third it just is a bad idea.

Additionally, thinking that the FA will keep his/her mouth shut about the experience is expecting a lot. They might not realize the ramifications should someone find out.

Finally, I would expect the company to suspend the captain pending an investigation. From there I would expect them to either get fired or be dequalified as a Captain.

Why the severe punishment? Intentionally violating a very important company/manufacturer and FAA requirement is just asking for trouble. One of the first Limitations in our ERJ manual is "Flight Crew of 2 pilots."

Personally, if pax were on board the aircraft, I believe the pilots should be fired. Either way it stinks of the PNCL accident.
 

little_cricket

Well-Known Member
Sorry for being vague. I would assume that to have a FA in one of the seats during takeoff and landing is against most companies SOPs. Lets say that happened and she bragged about it to some friends. Let's say the copilot overhears and decides to snitch to the company. Would the captain be terminated, suspended without pay, or just a stern warning.
I'm just trying to see what the general consensous would be in another industry. Thanks and sorry for the vagueness.
This situation unless the Captain has friends in high places, I would guess at most companies would be termination with a possible reference to the FAA for violation and/or 709 ride. Not a good situation to be in. The Captain won't be covered by the ASAP program either.

PS I hope the FA was hot and worth the captain's career.
 

mjg407

Well-Known Member
This situation unless the Captain has friends in high places, I would guess at most companies would be termination with a possible reference to the FAA for violation and/or 709 ride. Not a good situation to be in. The Captain won't be covered by the ASAP program either.

PS I hope the FA was hot and worth the captain's career.
Sorry, the FA was theoretical. We don't have them in my industry. Thanks for the inputs.
 

BobDDuck

Island Bus Driver
That specific scenario probably happens WAY more then people would think. Hopefully it's on empty legs, but I think the mentality is as long as nobody says anything, it's ok. That said, I personally wouldn't do it, but I know plenty of people who would/have.
 

kellwolf

Piece of Trash
Sorry for being vague. I would assume that to have a FA in one of the seats during takeoff and landing is against most companies SOPs. Lets say that happened and she bragged about it to some friends. Let's say the copilot overhears and decides to snitch to the company. Would the captain be terminated, suspended without pay, or just a stern warning.
I'm just trying to see what the general consensous would be in another industry. Thanks and sorry for the vagueness.
Well, that's actually worse than what I was thinking. FA on the JS of a revenue flight = termination. At least, that's what I heard.
 

TUCKnTRUCK

That guy
Who sits up front while the pilot/copilot uses the head?

Ours just says two crew members... read into it as you will.

It's all very situational. Airlines like to terminate those who violate SOP's, and have a record of it... their version of CYA.
 

Baronman

Well-Known Member
Who sits up front while the pilot/copilot uses the head?

Ours just says two crew members... read into it as you will.

It's all very situational. Airlines like to terminate those who violate SOP's, and have a record of it... their version of CYA.
Stepping out to use the head and having a FA occupy a seat is a totally different scenario than having a FA in a seat during a TO/Landing.

Having a FA in the JS on a reposition flight is one thing.

Having a FA at the controls during TO/Landing even on a repo flight = BAD

Having a FA at the controls during TO/Landing with pax on board = Very Bad. Throw the book at 'em.
 

TUCKnTRUCK

That guy
exactly... was just making the point that there are time sit is acceptable for an FA to sit up front...

I know many non airline pilots read this, and didn't want them to flip out if they saw a pilot relief swap happen.
 

kellwolf

Piece of Trash
Good point. Just to clarify, the situation I heard was about an FA that needed to get to work, and they let her ride the JS. Rumot only, though. Not sure if it's true.
 

woodreau

Well-Known Member
Just out of curiosity, what would be the penalty for a flight crew who intentionally violated a company SOP? Would it be suspension? Termination? Thanks.
The one crew I know of that got caught intentionally violating company SOP got a FAA violation on their airman record. (Backed a plane using beta - it's allowed by Raytheon/Beechcraft, but prohibited by the company flight manual) They weren't fired - they were awarded involuntary unpaid vacation for a month. The captain got busted down to FO for a year, has since reupgraded, but hasn't been able to get hired by anyone (laterally to another regional or up to a fractional/LCC) he's interviewed with this past year, even with the rash of hiring before it all stopped.

The other crew that violated company SOP (lost the prop blades while starting engines at the only station that did pushbacks - there was a vaguely worded prohibition in the general operations manual - nothing in the flight manual) well, they're not working for said airline anymore. A more strongly worded SHALL NOT do this was put in the engine start checklist in the flight manual as a result of that accident. The FAA is still talking to the two and are deciding what to do with them.
 
Top