Gulfstream International Responds to FAA Fine

TurdBird

Well-Known Member
Gulfstream International: Fort Lauderdale commuter airline to respond to FAA fine



Officers of Fort Lauderdale<!--blurb soflanews-topic-link-ad-PLGEO100100403070000 not found-->-based Gulfstream International Airlines are preparing their response to a $1.3 million fine by federal overseers, who claim the company improperly scheduled flight crews and violated other aviation rules.

The regional air carrier, operating flights within Florida and to the Bahamas, was hit with the fine last month by the Federal Aviation Administration.

The FAA investigation into Gulfstream's records began last summer, after a fired pilot complained about flight scheduling and aircraft maintenance.

In response to the FAA findings, Gulfstream President and CEO David Hackett said that in a couple of "extremely isolated instances," records show scheduling discrepancies that were the result of "human error."

"In no case, did anyone here do anything wrong on purpose," Hackett said. Occasionally, "scheduling [pilots] may extend out because of a storm or something."

In the agency's review of Gulfstream records, inspectors found discrepancies between company's electronic record-keeping system and aircraft logbooks for hours worked by crew from October 2007 to June 2008.

In some cases, the electronic record-keeping and aircraft logbooks did not agree, but the FAA maintains that both showed First Officer Nicholas Paria was to work more than 35 hours between Dec. 4 and Dec. 10, 2007.

In another case, First Officer Steve Buck was scheduled to fly 11 days without a day's rest between June 4 and June 14, 2008, the FAA said.

FAA regulations prohibit pilots from flying more than 34 hours in any seven consecutive days. Pilots also must have at least 24 consecutive hours of rest between a scheduled block of seven consecutive work days.

Laura Brown, an FAA spokeswoman, said the agency has no evidence the airline deliberately made record-keeping errors. But the errors make it impossible to prove Gulfstream pilots followed FAA work rules, she said. In its May investigation report, the agency noted a total of six pilots whose rest times had been violated, and hundreds of discrepancies in flight-time records from a June 2008 inspection.

Regional airlines have to balance the cost of fueling and maintaining aircraft but with fewer seats filled by paying passengers than major airlines, said Robert Gandt, a former Delta and Pan Am pilot and the author of several books on aviation.

Gulfstream's Hackett acknowledged that regional airlines, including his own, look for ways to trim costs. But those tough business decisions do not compromise safety, he said.

"The company is better and safer than it has been in the history of the airline," Hackett said.

Gulfstream has more than 150 scheduled nonstop flights daily, most in Florida. The airline also partners with Continental Airlines to offer routes between Cleveland and six neighboring airports.

Hackett said most of Gulfstream's 150 pilots live near their work, so the airline doesn't face the fatigue-related problems of regional carriers with a work force of commuters.

Former Gulfstream pilot Kenny Edwards says he was fired in December 2007 for refusing to fly a Gulfstream aircraft he considered unsafe. He filed a whistleblower complaint that prompted the FAA's review of the airline's flight records and maintenance procedures.

Edwards said he and his colleagues were often "ordered" to work beyond FAA rules so the company could complete scheduled flights.

"They ordered me to go over 16 hours of duty time because they had no one else to fly to Key West," Edwards said. He said he refused the flight.

The FAA requires pilots to have at least eight continuous hours of rest in a 24-hour period. Other pilots have felt pressured to make similar flights even though the pilots would exceed their hours, he said.

"Some of those guys flying are young, and they're scared and intimidated," he said.

Aviation experts say commuter airlines often hire young, inexperienced pilots who go deeply into debt to become pilots and are willing to work for low hourly wages in hopes of gaining enough experience to be hired by large commercial carriers.

Pilots beginning their careers at some regional airlines make as little as $21 per hour, while their counterparts at major carriers earn more than double that rate, according to airlinepilotcentral.com, which tracks the industry's pilot pay scales.

Poor pay, coupled with aspirations to work for major carriers, can compel inexperienced pilots to fly as much as they can, said Robert Breiling, a Boca Raton-based airline accident analyst. In many cases, commuter pilots will become flight instructors to get more experience, even though they often have little more flight time than their students, he said.

Breiling said he considers regional airlines less safe than major air carriers.

He offers passengers of commuter lines the same advice he gives his children about flying on them: "If the weather is bad or if it's a little dark out, go get a hotel room, because it's not worth it."

Information from The Associated Press and The New York Times was used in this report.

Jaclyn Giovis can be reached at 954-356-4668 or jmgiovis@sunsentinel.com.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/communi...stream-fatigue-c060709sbjun07,0,1143858.story
 
Gulfstream's really in the frying pan.

The pilot may also be in the flight plan. He "stated that he was "ordered" to fly illegally. So he's going to do something in direct violation of the regs and risk his career because the company says he has to? :confused:
 
Gulfstream's really in the frying pan.

The pilot may also be in the flight plan. He "stated that he was "ordered" to fly illegally. So he's going to do something in direct violation of the regs and risk his career because the company says he has to? :confused:

It said he refused the flight.

"They ordered me to go over 16 hours of duty time because they had no one else to fly to Key West," Edwards said. He said he refused the flight.
 
Gulfstream's really in the frying pan.

The pilot may also be in the flight plan. He "stated that he was "ordered" to fly illegally. So he's going to do something in direct violation of the regs and risk his career because the company says he has to? :confused:

There's nothing actually unusual about that, to be honest. Union reps will usually tell you to take a flight, even if you know it to be illegal, if management is directly ordering you to take it or face discipline. The key is to get the pilot to make sure that gets the order over a recorded line and get the supervisor to place a statement in the remarks section of the dispatch release stating that the manager certifies that he is legal to fly. If you do that, then the FAA will come down on the company and not the pilot.
 
I'm under the assumption that it's on me if I do something illegal. Sure the company is at fault if they try to make me do something so blatently illegal, but it's my certificates on the line. Therefore I'm not doing it. I've seen certificate action brought against a pilot doing something the company told the pilot to do. I'm not going there for the "team".
 
There's nothing actually unusual about that, to be honest. Union reps will usually tell you to take a flight, even if you know it to be illegal, if management is directly ordering you to take it or face discipline. The key is to get the pilot to make sure that gets the order over a recorded line and get the supervisor to place a statement in the remarks section of the dispatch release stating that the manager certifies that he is legal to fly. If you do that, then the FAA will come down on the company and not the pilot.
I'll fly a plane that violates the regs when the company faxes me a signed authorization from the administrator. I hope I never get fired for it, but that's one of the things the union is there to fight for me about.
 
There's nothing actually unusual about that, to be honest. Union reps will usually tell you to take a flight, even if you know it to be illegal, if management is directly ordering you to take it or face discipline. The key is to get the pilot to make sure that gets the order over a recorded line and get the supervisor to place a statement in the remarks section of the dispatch release stating that the manager certifies that he is legal to fly. If you do that, then the FAA will come down on the company and not the pilot.

Wow. I'd have to say that advice is really bad. You're right about the recorded line, but "just following orders" doesn't cut it when they are blatantly illegal.
 
I'll fly a plane that violates the regs when the company faxes me a signed authorization from the administrator. I hope I never get fired for it, but that's one of the things the union is there to fight for me about.

That's your choice, and you'll probably win in arbitration, but you'll be out of a job for 1-3 years while it's fought. The arbitrator may or may not award back pay.
 
That's your choice, and you'll probably win in arbitration, but you'll be out of a job for 1-3 years while it's fought. The arbitrator may or may not award back pay.
I think maybe you and I have different scenarios in our heads. You're saying in a situation like "my 16 hours is up in 30 minutes, I'm not flying this plane from LGA to LAX" and management says "yes you are" you would tell the pilot to take the flight?

Or are you considering some nuanced multiple-legitimate-interpretations of a confusing scenario, go with the company's direction?
 
I think maybe you and I have different scenarios in our heads. You're saying in a situation like "my 16 hours is up in 30 minutes, I'm not flying this plane from LGA to LAX" and management says "yes you are" you would tell the pilot to take the flight?

I would advise the pilot to not refuse a direct order from his chief pilot, yes. I would instruct him to get it on a recorded line, note the time, and then demand a written order from the CP or VP-Flight Ops. At that point, what almost always happens is the CP and VP look closer at the pairing and realize that they are wrong to be demanding that the pilot take the flight and they back down. If they don't, it's almost always because the pilot is calculating his times wrong. Believe it or not, most pilots seem to have a lot of trouble with simple addition and subtraction when it comes to their times, and they're wrong more often than they're right.

I've never seen or heard of a pilot having action taken against him by the FAA when he was ordered to do something by management or face discipline. I've seen multiple cases of pilots agreeing to fly under those circumstances and the FAA not pursuing action against the pilot.
 
If it's outright in violation of the FARs, don't fly it. If it seems like a grey contractual interpretation, call your duty pilot (if you've got one) or the CPO.

Don't go to the big brown desk with the FAA because they are NOT lenient or care what the companies interpretation was. Been there, done that, have the t-shirt.
 
Ha, I just received a brochure in the mail from Gulfstream Training Academy. Says for $30,000 I can be at the Majors in 3 to 4 years. Definitely seems like the way to go.

Okay, not really.
 
Wow. I'd have to say that advice is really bad. You're right about the recorded line, but "just following orders" doesn't cut it when they are blatantly illegal.

Deadstick, this is why ALPA has become such a paper tiger. Instead of standing up long ago and holding carriers accountable with documented cases of "pilot pushing," they tell members to "fly, file a NASA report to cover your ass, then greive it." So the pilot flies tired or in violation of the FAR's, the company moves the passengers, and ALPA saves thousands of dollars on a potential arbitration.

If they had balls or guts, they'd stand up and publicly highlight the company violating the FAR's, protect the crewmember and expose the problem. But according to them, an arbitration costs about $20,000.00 in cost to them. And they don't want to spend it unless they have to.

Years ago, a pilot stood up to EAL. Back then ALPA backed him and went public and the company backed down. ALPA took the arbitration forward anyway and waxed Lorenzo's ass. They have the precedent. They just don't have the balls to use it.

That's why the only recourse a pilot has is three magic words: "I am fatigued." Tired, beat, worn out...mean nothing. The FAR's are specific about "fatigue." It stops the clock.

Even an ALPA lawyer will tell you that.

But you have to ask, because they won't tell.
 
Ha, I just received a brochure in the mail from Gulfstream Training Academy. Says for $30,000 I can be at the Majors in 3 to 4 years. Definitely seems like the way to go.

Okay, not really.

Dude, I got the same thing yesterday too. I already signed up, Delta 2012 here I come!

I am VERY surprised to hear that ALPA would recommend accepting a FAR illegal assignment. In fact I swear seeing something around the house that the sequence of questions for accepting an assignment is:
Is it FAR illegal? if yes refuse it.
Is it FAR legal but against the contract? If yes, Fly it and grieve it

I don't believe for one second that the feds would take it easy on a pilot that willfully flew an illegal flight, just because he was threatened discipline by the company.
 
I'd not recommend an illegal assignment.

FAR illegal is FAR illegal.

If the company wants me to do that, they can order all they want.

If they can me, they'll eat my union representation, and a wrongful termination suit, to boot.
When I get my job back later with pay, I'll laugh all the way to the bank.

Granted, I'm a bit more militant than most, but still- nobody's required to fly an illegal flight. That's a staple here.

Then again, maybe it's cause our MEC throws the smack down on issues like that. I can't say that Gulfstream's union does the same.
 
Deadstick, this is why ALPA has become such a paper tiger. Instead of standing up long ago and holding carriers accountable with documented cases of "pilot pushing," they tell members to "fly, file a NASA report to cover your ass, then greive it." So the pilot flies tired or in violation of the FAR's, the company moves the passengers, and ALPA saves thousands of dollars on a potential arbitration.

I'm pretty sure that one of the rules of NASA's ASRS is that the violation was not an intentional act. I think the statement "I flew under a bridge to show off for my girlfriend, please save me from the FAA." would get the same response as "My boss made me take off when I had 15.9 hrs of duty time for that day." or whatever corporate-pressure scenario you can come up with. Heck, the company can afterthefact file a self-disclosure report with the feds "We just realized that this flight was operated illegally. Gee I guess the pilot didn't catch it." The company gets a walk and the pilot get fried.

The ultimate responsibility for the operation of that flight lies with the PIC. Don't lets somebodyelse's agenda jeopardize your careers.
 
Back
Top