Originally Posted by
FXLAX
So where does the FAA’s Just Culture directive fall in all this? How does, unilaterally excluding certain types of events from ASAP, coincide with Just Culture if presumably the crews aren’t intentionally putting the aircraft in a UAS? It seems like the FAA trying to talk through two sides of its mouth. Just one pressure point that could’ve have been pointed out before the FAA played this card.
Excluding events is within compliance of the MOU, if falls under the criteria for which something can be excluded. I'm not sure where you are seeing a conflict. Again, it's rare, but one of the situations where this could happen is repeated non-compliance of a specific nature.
There is a Compliance Program outlined in FAA Order 8900.1, Volume 14, Chapter 1.
There is a directive to use the CP, which includes addressing compliance issues in an ASAP-like manner, to fix the problem, rather than punishment. Under this, a pilot that had a non-compliance issue would likely be able to proceed if it wasn't a repeat issue for that pilot and they were willing and able to address it. There are still exclusions though and whether it is accepted into that program depends on these and the facts surrounding the issue. Enforcement cases (things that result in suspension, revocations, etc.) are very rare these days. They still happen, but usually for intentionally reckless actions, egregious lapses of judgement, generally situations where multiple 14 CFR regulations were violated due to the conduct of the flight.
The FAA inspectors that provide oversight are bound to use the 8900.1 Order.
The big difference between CP and ASAP is ASAP information is not FOIA-able. In both cases, they are looking for the company to fix the issue with the pilot and any surrounding issues with their systems. It also might invite more FAA investigation into the company, since the ASAP committee is not doing the investigation and the FAA may "dig" until they root out the issue, vs. the consensus of an ASAP ERC. Consensus doesn't mean each member gets what they want, it's always a compromise, so there could be a tendency towards less compromise if it's investigated separately.
You could also stall an aircraft unintentionally and at the same not not demonstrate the degree of care and judgement that is expected of the holder of that certificate. There's a lot of scenarios that could present. ATC could direct you to climb to an altitude that you can't maintain or is not safe. There could even be a problem with the aircraft, or how it's dispatched, but ultimately the responsibility comes down to the PIC for the flight conduct, unless it can be shown that there was something outside their control. Blindly following an instruction that is contrary to an aircraft limitation that should be known because all of that information was given to you is not something outside your control.