Can Pilots Violate Company FOM

U

Unregistered

Guest
We have had a very shocking set of events at a company my friend works for. A pilot got suspended for NOT violating the FOM and causing the company to ferry an aircraft.

The pilot had a gear issue and had to relay his information through ATC to his company per FOM. ATC did not relay any of the instructions the company told ATC to give to the pilot. So the pilot made the decision to fly to the nearest towered airfield, as told by ATC, to have the gear inspected since it was at night. The pilot believed the information being told by ATC was from the company and not ATC acting on it's own.

The company suspended the pilot for not going aganist the FOM and just flying the plane home. Part of the suspension is because the company now has to ferry the plane 100NM home.
 
Should be easy enough to pull up LiveATC and hear exactly what was said...
 
So it's a school?

I think this is more of a labor issue than safety issue. It sounds like management has it out for your friend for other reasons.
 
dans2992 said:
So it's a school?

I think this is more of a labor issue than safety issue. It sounds like management has it out for your friend for other reasons.
Click to expand...

It is..

What would y'all do if it was you. It sounds to me like he is being back into a corner.
 
Unregistered said:
It is..

What would y'all do if it was you. It sounds to me like he is being back into a corner.
Click to expand...

Either deal with it or find a different job. Not really any other option worth thinking about. Welcome to working for others.
 
Unregistered said:
It is..

What would y'all do if it was you. It sounds to me like he is being back into a corner.
Click to expand...

If this is like most 20-30k a year flight school jobs, just leave and find a new one, I'd wager he could get a new instruction job within a week or less.
 
LearDriver said:
New job time. It's the easiest fix. On his way out he could take the 141 certificate off the wall, go to the FSDO and surrender it.
Click to expand...

Did the school validate anything related to 141 or are you saying this because the school is being an ass?
 
Ask for a hearing (formal) to discuss the FOM and call the FSDO to be there also. Let them explain to you that you are being told to violate an FAA approved document in front of the FAA. The FOM is FAA approved and as such carries regulatory weight.
 
What is the specific verbaige in the FOM relating to handling an emergency? I operate under a GOM and there's nothing in there about pilot decision making in the event of an emergency. That's all covered in the aircraft flight manual.

Also I'd say ATC recomended the airfield to the pilot and not forced him to go there.
 
Last edited:
Velocity173 said:
What is the specific verbaige in the FOM relating to handling an emergency? I operate under a GOM and there's nothing in there about pilot decision making in the event of an emergency. That's all covered in the aircraft flight manual.

Also I'd say ATC recomended the airfield to the pilot and not forced him to go there.
Click to expand...

If there is no emergency that would make the pilot troubleshoot the issue, then the company is to be contacted via any means for further instruction.
 
Unregistered said:
If there is no emergency that would make the pilot troubleshoot the issue, then the company is to be contacted via any means for further instruction.
Click to expand...

So why didn't the pilot contact the company then?
 
There is something I don't understand.

While I suppose it might be in the flight ops manual, why is a gear issue an emergency that must result in a landing at the nearest airport?

I might understand some reluctance to land at a remote area with no emergency services, but it ain't that remote if there is a flight school there.

Unless the gear is on fire, I just don't see why landing away is necessary or even desirable. You can easily fly 100 miles with gear that won't extend by primary means. And if you want to land on questionable gear (e.g., no indication), you might want to burn the fuel off anyway. It might be "nice" to land at an airport that has more than one runway.
 
timwinters said:
He did...thru ATC...reading comprehension...
Click to expand...
But, from what I understand about the story, the message was not relayed and/or no answer was obtained, so the pilot did what he or she thought was best. I agree with the "time to find another job" solution.
 
My interpretation was that he thought the instruction was coming from the company at the time. Only later did he realize that wasn't the case???

: dunno:
 
Everskyward said:
But, from what I understand about the story, the message was not relayed and/or no answer was obtained, so the pilot did what he or she thought was best. I agree with the "time to find another job" solution.
Click to expand...

I agree with this too. I can't imagine low end jobs are hard to come by these days. What I wouldn't do is toss a grenade on the way out by getting the FAA involved. Assuming your buddy is looking to climb the ladder professionally, nothing good can come from stepping on d***s unless he has absolutely no other choice.
 
timwinters said:
He did...thru ATC...reading comprehension...
Click to expand...

??? That was really necessary? No where in the OP's did he say the pilot made contact with his company. Sounds like the pilot made a decision on best judgement.
 
Velocity173 said:
??? That was really necessary? No where in the OP's did he say the pilot made contact with his company. Sounds like the pilot made a decision on best judgement.
Click to expand...

Here's the middle paragraph from the OP:
The pilot had a gear issue and had to relay his information through ATC to his company per FOM. ATC did not relay any of the instructions the company told ATC to give to the pilot. So the pilot made the decision to fly to the nearest towered airfield, as told by ATC, to have the gear inspected since it was at night. The pilot believed the information being told by ATC was from the company and not ATC acting on it's own.
Click to expand...

So he attempted to contact his company as per the FOM. It just didn't work.


John
 
jsstevens said:
Here's the middle paragraph from the OP:


So he attempted to contact his company as per the FOM. It just didn't work.


John
Click to expand...

Exactly, but what I'm getting at is what type of means does this operation have to contact his company? If ATC is his only means, well that's not reliable. That's an additional service based on workload. It's pretty bad if they have no other means to contact them while airborne but yet they hold the pilot responsible for using best judgment.
 
Velocity173 said:
Exactly, but what I'm getting at is what type of means does this operation have to contact his company? If ATC is his only means, well that's not reliable. That's an additional service based on workload. It's pretty bad if they have no other means to contact them while airborne but yet they hold the pilot responsible for using best judgment.
Click to expand...

Your post which I responded too said:
No where in the OP's did he say the pilot made contact with his company. Sounds like the pilot made a decision on best judgement.
Click to expand...

He made the attempt based on FOM. Does the mechanism suck? Yes. Is it prone to failure? Yes. But in the OP it says he did and it certainly sounded as if you missed that. No biggie (and I think the reading comprehension crack was over the top) but it was there in the OP.

John
 
Unregistered said:
No emergency.

On the other topics he pilot made the decision based on the information he was receiving. The issue was mearly based on complying with the company FOM.
Click to expand...
So he was receiving information? What information did he receive?
 
Everskyward said:
So he was receiving information? What information did he receive?
Click to expand...

Nothing, the information the company tried to relay through ATC was never transferred to the pilot. ATC did not relay the instructions as told by the company. So the pilot said he made his decision on the fact he assumed ATC's "voice" was the company "voice".
 
Company ---- ATC -------Pilot

A--------A/B---------B

Pilot does B thinking its A
 
Unregistered said:
Nothing, the information the company tried to relay through ATC was never transferred to the pilot. ATC did not relay the instructions as told by the company. So the pilot said he made his decision on the fact he assumed ATC's "voice" was the company "voice".
Click to expand...
Then it's really not anyone's fault, just a communication problem. I don't think the company should be blaming the pilot for anything.
 
Unregistered said:
Nothing, the information the company tried to relay through ATC was never transferred to the pilot. ATC did not relay the instructions as told by the company. So the pilot said he made his decision on the fact he assumed ATC's "voice" was the company "voice".
Click to expand...

This pilot informed his company that the instructions were never relayed?
 
Unregistered said:
It is..

What would y'all do if it was you. It sounds to me like he is being back into a corner.
Click to expand...

Walk away, he has no Union rep so even if he wanted to remain in a hostile environment, his chances of doing so long term do not exist, so might as well leave now.
 
Velocity173 said:
This pilot informed his company that the instructions were never relayed?
Click to expand...

He did so when the company accused him of violated the FOM.


dans2992 said:
Should be easy enough to pull up LiveATC and hear exactly what was said...
Click to expand...

Unregistered said:
The pilot has the tapes and showed them to the higher ups. They still didn't care.
Click to expand...

I'd look for another job. Circumstances beyond the pilot's control resulted in the landing at another airport.

He thought he was doing the right thing. But the company's argument may be what another poster mentioned, that a landing gear issue doesn't require an immediate landing. The pilot could have flown to home base without compromising any safety protocols.

It's just one of them deals where no one is going to say they were wrong. Time to move on.
 
Yep I'd go looking for a new job. The company I work for would never suspend me for erring on the side of caution. You have an issue that's not specifically covered in the EPs of the operators manual then leave it up to the PIC to decide what to do with the aircraft. If that means the company has to contract out maintenance away from base or send a company mech out, so be it.
 
Aviation is a small community,have a discussion with the boss,if your not satisfied find another job. Going the FSDO route ,will hurt you in the long run.
 
Your friend should run, not walk away from that company.

And he needs patience. At some point he will have the chance to step on those that threw him under the rug for no reason.

I have had individual pilots and individuals in companies try to ruin my flight career. When I have had the chance to return the favor, I did so with a vengeance.

That does not make me right and I hate being that way but the only thing I did wrong was work with/for that person that tried to ruin me.

As said, what goes around comes around.
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top