Originally Posted by
acecrackshot
Nearly every recent Office of Legal Counsel letter regarding crew rest specifically has some cri de coeur where the correspondent asks "if X is illegal why is my FSDO allowing it?" to which the FAA lawyer replies with some version of "Their FSDO, their rules."
This has never been the case. The Administrator has never granted authority at the FSDO level to interpret the regulation. That has always been reserved for the Office of the Chief Legal Counsel and the Regional Counsel, speaking on behalf of the Administrator.
Cite a letter of interpretation which states or imports "their FSDO, their rules." That is contrary to FAA policy.
The Administrator has never allowed FSDO's to establish policy regarding rest for pilots.
Originally Posted by
acecrackshot
To me, its very clear that the Office of Legal Counsel at FAA would like a lot more uniformity in the application of fairly straightforward things like rest, the fact that Enforcement and Legal Counsel meet at the Administrator (IIRC) and the Enforcement side can always say "We are doing it this way."
There is no ambiguity regarding rest, and the Administrator has been consistent and clear.
I have no idea what you mean by "Enforcement and Legal Counsel meet at the Administrator" but whatever it is that you're trying to say is incorrect. The office of the Chief Legal Counsel speaks on behalf of the Administrator. The FSDO works at the field level on behalf of the Administrator and does not set, nor interpret policy.
The "enforcement side" does not have the option of saying "we are doing it this way." Never has. The Administrator provides clear guidance.
Become familiar with FSIMS and 8900.1.
Originally Posted by
acecrackshot
As long as operators see dollar signs in non-compliance with the rules and interpretations, and POIs are paid by the airplane, I don't see much hope for fair application.
POI's are not paid "by the airplane."
Operators who elect to fail to comply with the regulation are subject to enforcement action. Substantial penalties apply for failure to comply. If you're not familiar with the fines applies to operators and the magnitude of the cost, you should educate yourself. You may be shocked.
I've been involved with the issue of violations of rest policy, and in one case regarding a 121 operator who was back dating 1-in-7 24-hour rest periods, provided the documentation upon which the Administrator acted. The FAA was quite direct with the company and stopped that practice immediately.
There are no dollar signs by failing to comply with legal interpretations; legal interpretations are not regulations. They're explanations which help understand the regulation and which provide a more detailed understanding of a particular policy or aspect of the regulation. Failure to read and understand them is at the peril of the certificate holder.