UPS Accident - BHM
#191
USMCFlyer
As an FAA inspector it would be refreshing to see the FAA take a close look at the untenable schedules we are flying at night...the only time I see the FAA is when they are jumping our flights or sims to inspect us, the pilots, yet the biggest threat we face is the company streching and squeezing our schedules to the max. I only wish that the recipient of FAA scrutiny is UPS's scheduling practices and not UPS pilots.
As an FAA inspector it would be refreshing to see the FAA take a close look at the untenable schedules we are flying at night...the only time I see the FAA is when they are jumping our flights or sims to inspect us, the pilots, yet the biggest threat we face is the company streching and squeezing our schedules to the max. I only wish that the recipient of FAA scrutiny is UPS's scheduling practices and not UPS pilots.
#192
#193
If this were true there would not allow the many scumbag 135 unsafe operators go under the radar in Florida and the LA area. FSDO chiefs take payoffs to look the other way....LMAO at safety.......money trades hands, eyes look the other way and LEARS and GIV's fly way over flight and duty times....
Don't get me started on maintenance logs being altered......
POI's are getting RICH RICH RICH.....all under the table cash for their "responsibility and global leadership"
I used to think working in a FSDO/being a POI would be way less income then a 121 captain.....I should have become a POI in either VNY or Lake Havasu, SDL, south florida ETC ETC.
So when I hear of an FAA inspector giving a 121 crew a hard time because they forgot to dot an I or cross a T on some minor Bull Crap issue I laugh my "a s s" off at what they let slide in the FSDO with 135 operators...
At least give the 121 pilots the same chance for a cash payoff before busting them...
Don't get me started on maintenance logs being altered......
POI's are getting RICH RICH RICH.....all under the table cash for their "responsibility and global leadership"
I used to think working in a FSDO/being a POI would be way less income then a 121 captain.....I should have become a POI in either VNY or Lake Havasu, SDL, south florida ETC ETC.
So when I hear of an FAA inspector giving a 121 crew a hard time because they forgot to dot an I or cross a T on some minor Bull Crap issue I laugh my "a s s" off at what they let slide in the FSDO with 135 operators...
At least give the 121 pilots the same chance for a cash payoff before busting them...
So all airlines are connected to each other too.
So I can take your most hated airline (and especially airline management teams) and lump you right in there with them?
Vito. I have all the same trials and tribulations with AFS as all if you do. You understand that Flight Standards (the *enfircement arm of the FAA) is just one part of an organization. I KNOW you know this but many seem to forget this fact.
And FrontSeat - if you have personal knowledge of POIs or any member of a FSDO taking bribes then you should present your evidence and be part of the solution.
#194
Line Holder
Joined APC: May 2013
Position: Fire Lieutenant
Posts: 50
Well in this case it's not the job, it's what's in the back that determines the level of safety acceptable to the government.
The FAA is not providing passenger pilots a higher level of safety than cargo pilots...they are providing passengers with a higher level of safety than boxes.
The pilots in either case are just along for the ride. There are more dangerous aviation (and non-aviation) jobs than 121. I guess they take the view if loggers, electrical linemen, etc can be in daily danger, why not pilots?
But keep lobbying, the squeaky wheel might get some grease. One can argue, correctly, that a loaded widebody poses a danger to people on the ground as well as the pilots.
The FAA is not providing passenger pilots a higher level of safety than cargo pilots...they are providing passengers with a higher level of safety than boxes.
The pilots in either case are just along for the ride. There are more dangerous aviation (and non-aviation) jobs than 121. I guess they take the view if loggers, electrical linemen, etc can be in daily danger, why not pilots?
But keep lobbying, the squeaky wheel might get some grease. One can argue, correctly, that a loaded widebody poses a danger to people on the ground as well as the pilots.
And while I do not in any way paint all FAA employees with one brush(I believe the rank and file are dedicated to their job) I do believe that the upper levels of the FAA, in bowing to pressure from industry lobbyists and our beloved Congress and accepting 2 sets of rest rules, made a politically based decision to wantonly and willfully compromise safety in lieu of commerce.
They are the same aircraft, with the same crew sizes, flying in the same NAS, using the same airports. There is just no damned difference between the two jobs. Doesn't matter if it is babies or boxes in the back. It should be the same set of rules.
For what it is worth, it is the same in my industry, only the third rail is staffing and not rest rules. Municipalities routinely ignore safe staffing levels because they just don't want to pay for more firefighters. So I'm left to make command decisions on whether to commit my company to a situation based on handcuffed staffing. Even the FAA gets into the act, mandating the number of ARFF units, but not the number of firefighters on them, when they index airports.
I'm not naive enough to believe that this will ever change, regardless of how morally wrong it truly is.
The two lives lost yesterday were just as important, just as special, just as irreplaceable as any pilot in the industry. Regardless of what, or who, was riding behind them.
Last edited by gdube94; 08-15-2013 at 03:13 PM.
#196
A change in the FAA's mandate?
President Clinton signs the Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of 1996. Following public outcry over the ValuJet Flight 592 crash, lawmakers approve changes to the FAA's mission that appear to remove the agency's dual mandate of regulating safety and promoting industry development.
Timeline - The Faa And Airlines | Flying Cheap | FRONTLINE | PBS
But a closer look at the bill tells a different story. "There's a footnote in that legislation before Congress," Schiavo explains. "The footnote says: 'Although we're changing the terminology from "promote" to "encourage," we do not intend to change the way we do business. This is a change for the public consumption, and we're not changing how we work at the FAA.' It was simply a sleight of hand."
#197
Kit Darby is an aviation expert with more than 30 years of experience.
"When they got down closer to the airport they found themselves too high and too fast and they really made a very steep descent," said Darby.
quoted from CBS Atlanta website....
[email protected]
There is his e-mail...told him to ****
"When they got down closer to the airport they found themselves too high and too fast and they really made a very steep descent," said Darby.
quoted from CBS Atlanta website....
[email protected]
There is his e-mail...told him to ****
#198
#199
Kit Darby is an aviation expert with more than 30 years of experience.
"When they got down closer to the airport they found themselves too high and too fast and they really made a very steep descent," said Darby.
quoted from CBS Atlanta website....
[email protected]
There is his e-mail...told him to ****
"When they got down closer to the airport they found themselves too high and too fast and they really made a very steep descent," said Darby.
quoted from CBS Atlanta website....
[email protected]
There is his e-mail...told him to ****
#200
By the looks of it, this guy is a lawyer / law firm involved in suing over aviation accidents. How fitting that he'd jump on TV spewing BS.
KITDARBY.COM - About Us
KITDARBY.COM - About Us
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post