Boutique doing Boutique things

[Rosstafari]

Not sure how closely most of JC follows the 135 world, but Boutique has had some... unfortunate developments lately.

It kicked off about ten days ago, when the Fargo FSDO -- which Boutique switched to last year -- informed management that Boutique's Pilot Development Program was not up to spec and that it should discontinue using First Officers. All were immediately furloughed, and those at outstations found themselves riding home in the back.

It ramped up today. This morning, the CEO released a letter he sent to the FAA protesting the decision. That's nice, but what the letter revealed -- and what pilots were not informed of previously -- is that the FSDO has also determined that all First Officers' flight time should be invalidated. The letter's attached, if you're the kind that enjoys watching spiders swirl around before being flushed down the drain.

As for Boutique's FOs... I don't know. I'm one of them (formerly), and I received the news about fifteen minutes before an interview with Skywest today. If it's accurate, 250 hours just evaporated from my logbook and I'm going to have to go back to trying to find an hour building job. That's turning out to be exceedingly difficult when you at the 1000+ hour range, because most low hour gigs don't want to hire people with such "high" time, given most head off to the airlines soon after.

Incidentally, if anyone knows of an opportunity, especially in Seattle or Denver, please let me know... because I'm kind of f'd. I've already lost two flight jobs due to COVID, but this latest turn... it's a rough one.

 

[Screaming_Emu]

Bootycare!

 

[Roger Roger]

Sucks for the employees but if BTQ didn’t do their homework when they moved FSDOs (why’d they do that?) I have a hard time feeling sorry for the company itself.

 

[GypsyPilot]

Wow. That’s absolutely BS. I’m really sorry to hear that’s happening to you.

 

[milleR]

Isn’t an SIC required under scheduled 135 unless the company elects to exercise the autopilot exemption?

 

[msmspilot]

Isn’t an SIC required under scheduled 135 unless the company elects to exercise the autopilot exemption?

Yes, but some interprets are that the autopilot must remain off during that leg for the time to count. So if they have the exemption, but they’re not deferring autopilots, an FAA inspector could get a crazy notion…

I in no way am endorsing this position, but when I was at a 135 with the autopilot exemption, that was the letter of the law.

 

[Roger Roger]

Yes, but some interprets are that the autopilot must remain off during that leg for the time to count. So if they have the exemption, but they’re not deferring autopilots, an FAA inspector could get a crazy notion…

I in no way am endorsing this position, but when I was at a 135 with the autopilot exemption, that was the letter of the law.

Yeah as long as I’ve been around it’s definitely been a “ask 4 POIs get 5 answers” kind of thing.

 

[milleR]

Yes, but some interprets are that the autopilot must remain off during that leg for the time to count. So if they have the exemption, but they’re not deferring autopilots, an FAA inspector could get a crazy notion…

I in no way am endorsing this position, but when I was at a 135 with the autopilot exemption, that was the letter of the law.

Right, I simply don’t see how they can invalidate every hour for every SIC en masse without reviewing every single flight. Guaranteed there’s plenty of flights with a MEL’d AP that’s perfectly legit.

 

[Roger Roger]

Right, I simply don’t see how they can invalidate every hour for every SIC en masse without reviewing every single flight. Guaranteed there’s plenty of flights with a MEL’d AP that’s perfectly legit.

Anyway the issue here doesn’t sound like that? It’s more that the new FSDO didn’t like their training program for SICs?

 

[🦈💜]

I honestly have to side with the operator here. This sounds capricious and idiotic on the part of the FAA, despite any warts Boutique might have.

 

[FL350]

That could set a wild precedent. Would they strip people of their ATP that earned it with those hours?
How are they going to take them away or invalidate them retroactively?

Hey FAA, this kind of thing is why you’re not liked.

 

[CFI A&P]

That could set a wild precedent. Would they strip people of their ATP that earned it with those hours?
How are they going to take them away or invalidate them retroactively?

Hey FAA, this kind of thing is why you’re not liked.

This is how DPEs come up with wild ass (you can totally say ass here) ideas about things like time in the traffic pattern is local in nature even though you're in the middle of a cross country therefore that .1 or .2 doesn't count as cross country time.

 

[Itchy]

The FAA can’t see the forest for the trees. Insanely stupid of them. God forbid some has a *really* bad day out there, (I hope not), but my first response would be if I were DO:”You know, the pilot had a sudden medical emergency. If only there was someway we could have backed him up. I feel so bad for those six passengers”.

 

[Boris Badenov]

I would roll in to the interview armed. This is what I was told, this is what has happened. Will you get hired? Probably not (right now). Will you be on the short list of people they want to work there? If I was on the hiring committee, definitely yes. You can't control the vagaries of fate, but you *can* act ethically. All other things being equal, that will not go unnoticed. The people who hire pilots want you to be able to A) Fly the airplane, but also B) not be a GD headache just waiting to show up again. Being open and honest about your history goes a long way towards satisfying requirement B.

 

[Box hauler]

Why in the world would the FAA stop a company from operating in a crew environment? To what, snub the guys flying in the right seat because they don’t see that time as “worthy”?
I’d fly with someone all day long with 500 hours in that environment over someone teaching steep turns for 500 hours. Completely idiotic…… that said I think it was a good letter that was written and I’d probably push my interview back a month or so in hopes that the decision is overturned due to lack of common sense.

 

[Itchy]

Shouldn’t the thread be titled FAA doing FAA things?

The whole thing is absurd.

 

[USMCmech]

Why in the world would the FAA stop a company from operating in a crew environment? To what, snub the guys flying in the right seat because they don’t see that time as “worthy”?
I’d fly with someone all day long with 500 hours in that environment over someone teaching steep turns for 500 hours. Completely idiotic…… that said I think it was a good letter that was written and I’d probably push my interview back a month or so in hopes that the decision is overturned due to lack of common sense.

You're attempting to apply logic and reason to the FAA, that's a good way to drive yourself insane.

 

[Roger Roger]

You're attempting to apply logic and reason to the FAA, that's a good way to drive yourself insane.

to be faiiiirrrr I’ve seen enough stupidity in 135 that without knowing the full story I’d give at least 50% odds that it’s more on the operator being inept or willfully out of compliance than on the FAA.

 

[USMCmech]

to be faiiiirrrr I’ve seen enough stupidity in 135 that without knowing the full story I’d give at least 50% odds that it’s more on the operator being inept or willfully out of compliance than on the FAA.

Oh, I don't doubt that one bit.


OTOH, having a SIC development program is actually a good idea if it were properly run. The PC-12 or the 208 should easily be handled by a competent pilot (or even a former Jarhead Wrench) but having a pair of eyes for passenger ops does add a level of safety. The FAA should be encouraging such programs.

 

[Roger Roger]

Oh, I don't doubt that one bit.


OTOH, having a SIC development program is actually a good idea if it were properly run. The PC-12 or the 208 should easily be handled by a competent pilot (or even a former Jarhead Wrench) but having a pair of eyes for passenger ops does add a level of safety. The FAA should be encouraging such programs.

It IS literally a law that you have to have an SIC program. So in that respect they kinda do encourage it. It’s just a law that a lot of places choose to work around.

It is certainly high time for them to clarify the whole SIC but also autopilot in lieu of situation because some of the interpretations of that I’ve heard over the years have been bananas, like the one above where if you’re operating with an SIC but your company has autopilot in lieu you can’t engage the autopilot.