Originally Posted by JohnBurke

Good god.

Now you're attempting to justify ignorance based on what an employer understands or misunderstands?

I've flown for a few more operators than you. Perhaps more than a few. I've never flown for a reputable operator that did not fully understand the regulation that applied to that operator, or that was allowed to operate outside the regulation. No, what we're talking about here is what you don't understand, and apparently didn't bother to try, for your last "few airlines" (by "airline," you appear to mean 135 operator).

It's pilot certificate. Not license. We don't issue pilot licenses in the USA.

You're claiming that a certificate holder (a "nation wide 135" certificate holder) utilized pilots that lacked the certification to fly? Are you referring to the case of a pilot who lacked a single engine land category and class rating on his commercial pilot certificate, to which you've alluded in other past posts? Which operator is this?

How many companies are "misinterpreting the regulation," as you put it, is irrelevant to whether or not you are required to know and abide it. Stop making excuses. The buck stops in the cockpit. Act like it.



Blame other operators. Blame the FAA. Still doesn't absolve you of knowing what you're doing. Perhaps you'd be better served putting your nose in a book rather than someone else's business, and learning your business. Spend less time trying to justify your failing, and more time understanding the policies and regulations that govern what you can and cannot do, and the longevity of your ability to hold a pilot certificate (and not lose it due to enforcement action).



No, it isn't. You simply have no idea what you're talking about. You spent several posts in this thread trying to support bad information, were set straight, then continued by saying you realized how everything worked some time ago after flying for several "airlines," except that, of course, you didn't learn it very well...because in this very thread you've been espousing the exact opposite of the truth (and then trying to justify it by blaming everyone else).

The system is not broken. You're simply ignorant of the regulation, and operations specifications, which is quite remarkable, given that you've flown for three or four "airlines."



The FAA got it precisely right. The regulation is neither ambiguous, nor confusing. Your problem, it seems, is that you still don't know how an operations specification works, or how or why they're issued, or how they apply to you. Again, very remarkable, given that you've flown for three or four "airlines." You still don't understand Operations Specifications? How can this be?

As I provided you, with links, the regulation very clearly states what is required. If operated under IFR, a second in command is required. If an approved autopilot is provided, and the certificate holder holds the appropriate Operations Specifications assigned to that certificate holder, then the autopilot may be used in lieu of a SIC. This is not a new regulation. This not not a recent change. This is spelled out very clearly in the regulation, as I posted, as you quoted, and as provided with links to the ecfr.gov website which contains it, and references to the Federal Register sections in which the regulation was published, and the reasons for the regulation, with arguments for and against, clearly explained.

You didn't know you could go to the Federal Register to gain an understanding of the regulation, did you? It's the primary source for interpretation of the regulation. The second will be the Chief Legal Counsel letters of interpretation. The third is the regulation itself. The fourth, which does not set precedent, are administrative law judge findings and board decisions. Neither a certificate holder, nor anyone at the FSDO level, is empowered, or authorized to interpret the regulation. This includes the POI. Do you not know this?

You do now.



Sounds like you needed to learn to keep your mouth shut.

You say "the FAA did squat about it," as if the FAA has some obligation to plead for your job after you mouth off in ground school. That's not the FAA's job. That's not what the FAA does. Apparently you don't understand that, either. A clear picture is forming of your past, and present state.

Seeing as you brought it up, however, you've tossed out the carrot, so 'fess up. You corrected the chief pilot by telling him how to do his job, in class, in front of others, got fired, and what happened to your "thirty thousand dollar training contract?" Who do you suppose was responsible for that contract? The FAA? Other pilots? Other companies? Whom might one blame for your breach of etiquette?



Repeat that sentence again in English, and we'll talk.