Can Pilots Violate Company FOM

[Ted]

Going the FSDO route ,will hurt you in the long run.

A lot of truth there, sadly.

Find a new job, and understand the company expectations will be to do what saves money unless there's a life-or-death scenario. This will be true at the next company more likely than not.

Welcome to "why check the weather, you're going anyway" airlines.

 

[danhagan]

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?

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.

1. He landed towered field
2. Gear "problem" might extend to full electrical at night

He's a CFI ... I'm sure most CFI's will teach to get the AC on the ground and figure it out there, especially at night. If it was daytime they *MIGHT* consider getting it back to base if all other gauges and indicators were normal.

 

[Palmpilot]

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.

I think it depends on whether the problem makes the aircraft no longer legally airworthy. 91.7(b) says "The pilot in command shall discontinue the flight when unairworthy mechanical, electrical, or structural conditions occur." Pilots have been busted for flying farther that the FAA thought they should have in those circumstances.

FAA Order 8130.2H provides a definition of the term "airworthy":

200. Definition of the Term “Airworthy” for U.S. Type-Certificated Aircraft. The FAA must find that an aircraft is airworthy before issuing an airworthiness certificate. Two conditions must be met for an aircraft to be considered “airworthy.” Title 49 of the United States Code (49 U.S.C.) 44704 and Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 21, Certification Procedures for Products and Parts, state the conditions necessary for issuance of an airworthiness certificate:

a. The aircraft must conform to its type design. For the purpose of airworthiness, conformity to the type design is considered attained when the aircraft configuration and the engine, propeller, and articles installed are consistent with the drawings, specifications, and other data that are part of the type certificate (TC). This includes any supplemental type certificate (STC) and repairs and alterations incorporated into the aircraft.

b. The aircraft must be in a condition for safe operation. This refers to the condition of the aircraft relative to wear and deterioration, for example, skin corrosion, window delamination/crazing, fluid leaks, and tire wear.

Note 1: If either of these conditions are not met, the aircraft is not
considered airworthy.

Note 2: Aircraft presented for the issuance of a certificate under § 21.191 do not need to conform to their type design, but must be in a condition for safe operation.​

(Since 91.213 provides exceptions to the prohibition on taking off with inoperative instruments or equipment, I assume those would also be considered exceptions to the requirement to discontinue a flight.)

 

[taters]

Pilots have been busted for flying farther that the FAA thought they should have in those circumstances.

a company leased a Debonair from me last year...on gear retraction they had an electrical failure (turned out to be a failed battery) anyway they flew 300 NM with no electrical system.passing several airports with full services .....got almost home and called the class C tower on a cell phone in flight and advised thier issue...they did a low pass "rolled the trucks" and landed safley...after the pilots called me (and were self impressed might I add) I told them to file an ASRS right away as the FSDO would most definitley get something on it....neither of them listned to me and the PIC was violated on a number of things about 30 days later.....bottom line if your going to take this kind of risk for operational conveinance then be prepared to do it without making a scene or get ready to face to potentialy nast consequences.

 

[jesse]

a company leased a Debonair from me last year...on gear retraction they had an electrical failure (turned out to be a failed battery) anyway they flew 300 NM with no electrical system.passing several airports with full services .....got almost home and called the class C tower on a cell phone in flight and advised thier issue...they did a low pass "rolled the trucks" and landed safley...after the pilots called me (and were self impressed might I add) I told them to file an ASRS right away as the FSDO would most definitley get something on it....neither of them listned to me and the PIC was violated on a number of things about 30 days later.....bottom line if your going to take this kind of risk for operational conveinance then be prepared to do it without making a scene or get ready to face to potentialy nast consequences.

At one point that PIC went something like three hundred miles, at night, in IMC, with passengers, with a magneto that was completely INOP during the runup...So not a big surprise

 

[James331]

After reading all this, sounds like the school is just ticked because it'll cost them more money to bring the plane back, or send someone out to work on it.

Doesn't sound like it has jack to do with regs and god knows nothing to do with saftey.


Sounds like PIC made the right and safe choice, only mistake we made was working for a scum bag school.

Still same answer from me, tell them to kick rocks and CFI elsewhere, heck maybe get your own freelance thing going, if you have the chops for it, you'll make more money with less of this type of BS.


Also if you did what the company wanted and returned to base, had a major problem due to that fault, you betcha the company would have hung you out to dry.

 

[taters]

After reading all this, sounds like the school is just ticked because it'll cost them more money to bring the plane back, or send someone out to work on it.

Doesn't sound like it has jack to do with regs and god knows nothing to do with saftey.


Sounds like PIC made the right and safe choice, only mistake we made was working for a scum bag school.

Still same answer from me, tell them to kick rocks and CFI elsewhere, heck maybe get your own freelance thing going, if you have the chops for it, you'll make more money with less of this type of BS.


Also if you did what the company wanted and returned to base, had a major problem due to that fault, you betcha the company would have hung you out to dry.

damn right...planes break and ferrying them is part of the deal...if your going to be in this buisness...dont bemoan ferrying a plane, part or mechanic..its part of this buisness. Good on the CFI , it will be a good TMAT story in an airline interview.

 

[James331]

OP, care to post the name of the school so other can avoid it?