Originally Posted by
JungleBus
Two airlines I worked at previously required a rerelease if the aircraft had moved under its own power. I know that's not the case at Delta but it seems very strange that the FAA would approve both of those FOMs (one of which was written by NWA people and patterned after the NWA FOM) if that proviso was contrary to the regulations.
The FAA wouldn't have approved it if it was in contravention of an FAR. That's exactly the point. There is only an FAR that states your flight must be released by dispatch. There is no FAR that talks about returning to the gate and requiring a re-dispatch. A re-dispatch requirement can be made by airlines for many reasons and not be in contravention of an FAR...because such an FAR doesn't exist.
Originally Posted by
JungleBus
OTOH, sailing is 100% correct that many of the provisions of the FOM have the full force of regulations.
The only instance where that's true is when the FOM mirrors an existing FAR. When they don't, the FAA doesn't get involved.
Originally Posted by
JungleBus
For example, there is no FAR 91 or 121 requirement to fly a stabilized approach, it's a FOM requirement...but I have no doubt that if I continued an unstabilized approach to landing with a fed in the jumpseat, I'd get a violation.
You might if the unstable parameter was really egregious, but it wouldn't be because you violated an FOM requirement. It would be because of an FAR such as reckless operation of an aircraft. There has to be an FAR to back up any FAA enforcement action.
This nonsense of FAA violations for FOM violations raises its head occasionally by LCA's or others who try to scare people into compliance with company policy. Truth is, there's probably not a single flight we ever fly where we are not in violation of some company proscribed policy.
Carl