Can an FO be violated for something the Captain does?

[Joepilot84]

In a 'hypothetical' circumstance, lets say that the captain of a transport category jet aircraft on a part 91 leg fails to contact maintenance or follow company guidance in the event of a maintenance discrepancy. Lets say said First Officer is unaware of the failure to contact maintenance and continues on with the flight to the home base. If the FAA were to later inspect that log and find the lack of compliance, could the FO be violated along with the captain?

 

[Patrick]

Not an attorney....but my general understanding is.... generally no. PIC is 99% ultimately responsible.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

Not an attorney....but my general understanding is.... generally no. PIC is 99% ultimately responsible.

The ultimate responsibility of the PIC does not mean someone else is not also responsible. The FO is a crewmember with responsibilities, not a passenger. I've seen more than one situation in which both have

But the answer to Joe's question isn't as simple as as clear yes or no. It will depend on a number of situation-specific factors.

So, "could?" yes. "would?" maybe.

 

[dasleben]

Not an attorney....but my general understanding is.... generally no. PIC is 99% ultimately responsible.

That's pretty oldschool. These days, the Feds hang crews, not just the captain. Though, the captain will get the brunt.

 

[PilotDefenseAttorney]

I agree with both MidlifeFlyer and dasleben. It is not at all uncommon to see a single event result in the violation of multiple persons/entities. This is especially true in the case of an air carrier wherein the responsibility for a flight or series of flights is effectively shared across a number of parties - pilots, DOO, DOM, Dispatcher, you name it, as well as by the company as a whole. So, "situation-specific factors" is the name of the game and it applies not just to a determination of liability but also to the severity of any sanction. So, the buck doesn't necessarily stop with the captain - but, he will definitely be in the crosshairs of any investigation.

 

[derg]

Not an attorney....but my general understanding is.... generally no. PIC is 99% ultimately responsible.

I'm not an attorney, but from experience violations generally come in pairs.

 

[Joepilot84]

Well, thanks for the responses guys.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

Not an attorney....but my general understanding is.... generally no. PIC is 99% ultimately responsible.

I'm not an attorney, but from experience violations generally come in pairs.

While I haven't had firsthand experience in gettin' violated, I can say that this mirrors my experience and observations as well. Feds tend to hand them out to both crewmembers.

Where I work, specific to the question above, both crewmembers are assigned responsibility (by the FAA approved FOM) for airworthiness acceptance, which means we both are supposed to look at the can, MEL, dispatch release, etc., for various career-modifying ways of getting sent to the Big Brown Desk.

 

[derg]

When I went to "The Big Brown Desk" with the Feds, the Chief Pilot and two ALPA reps, even the guy on break, snoozily snoring away was in the bullpen for a violation.

Do not let your captain get you violated. As a captain, if you let me get you violated, you're not doing your job and, well, the FAA will hammer your ass as well.

 

[Pilot Fighter]

I'm not an attorney, but from experience violations generally come in pairs.

And the key word in those nasty-grams is "attentiveness".

 

[z987k]

I think with with newish regs requiring and FO to be just as qualified on paper as the PIC, to the Feds, the joint responsibility would be even greater.

 

[Patrick]

I think with with newish regs requiring and FO to be just as qualified on paper as the PIC, to the Feds, the joint responsibility would be even greater.

I'd be inclined to agree with this.

 

[CFI A&P]

When I was talking to a FSDO inspector about something unrelated, we got off topic and started discussing the subject of violating a first officer. His exact words were "The Captain is always on the hook, and it is very hard for me to violate a co-pilot." We didn't get into details on what would it take to earn said violation, but that is what he told me.

That was in our FSDO too, @Joepilot84.

 

[Request]

I had a crew that missed an altitude on a SID and no question they both got letters of investigation and later letters of warning.. The PIC told the FAA that he picked up the clearance and the other pilot wasn't even in the airplane at the time. FAA inspector was very clear it was a two pilot aircraft and they both busted the clearance. BTW FAA was VERY helpful and professional in the entire deal....he really didn't want to do anything about it but had was able to follow his guidance and just give them letters of warning.

 

[SpiraMirabilis]

If the violation is from the operation of the aircraft then it will almost always come in a pair of violations. If the violation is more in terms of decision making then it depends on the company procedures or what who knew when. For example, if the violation is a take off without a flight release and in this company the FO never sees or signs the release then perhaps the CA alone may get a violation. It just depends.

He other extreme might be true too, we had an issue at my 135 company where an aircraft had a AFM which was 1 revision out of date for like a year. Even though the revision showed correct on our corporate pubs and the pilots couldn't have known everyone who ever flew that plane that year was recommended to file an ASAP. I certainly did.

 

[wainscottbl]

Violates, not violated. Or get a violation, I suppose, unless this is an idiom among pilots. I mean the Feds to like to rape people when they can. Bad jokes aside and being no lawyer or pilot, my guess is it depends on what the FAA thinks. Should he? If he didn't know at all, then no. And I would think that is how the law works, though someone can correct me. It sort of sucks for the innocent if it doesn't work that. way. I am assuming the FO did not neglect anything, but did everything in good faith and to the book. But to use the language where everything sounds profound, innocentes nocentibus satisfacere debet puniri administrationem. [The innocent must be punished to satisfy bureaucrats]

 

[Richkid]

If you are employed as a pilot and collect a paycheck how is it that you feel no responsibility in any given situation? A lot more FO's need to start acting and thinking like grown men instead of frightened confused children.

 

[pilotmec]

In a 'hypothetical' circumstance, lets say that the captain of a transport category jet aircraft on a part 91 leg fails to contact maintenance or follow company guidance in the event of a maintenance discrepancy. Lets say said First Officer is unaware of the failure to contact maintenance and continues on with the flight to the home base. If the FAA were to later inspect that log and find the lack of compliance, could the FO be violated along with the captain?

My answer to this.....yes the FO can be violated for something the Captain did, the DO or CP directed.
I saw it first hand and it was two years before it was corrected. The FAA screwed it up so badly that the inspectors should have been terminated, (failure to follow guidance) but didn't make it easier for the FO.
If you have access to an ASAP program, do it. Otherwise file a NASA report.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

If you are employed as a pilot and collect a paycheck how is it that you feel no responsibility in any given situation? A lot more FO's need to start acting and thinking like grown men instead of frightened confused children.

...yes, because some of them will be sitting on the left sooner than they thought!

 

[Vector]

If you are employed as a pilot and collect a paycheck how is it that you feel no responsibility in any given situation? A lot more FO's need to start acting and thinking like grown men instead of frightened confused children.

You are not paying them the big bucks to make those decisions; at least not at the regionals.