Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes

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.

Originally Posted by FXLAX

Are inspector not also bound by the administrator’s Just Culture directive? My whole point here is how does not allowing a crew who has a specific type of UAS unintentionally and for the first time, to be allowed into the ASAP program not be punitive to the one entity that is ultimately responsible for the safety of the flight, the crew in question? This is where a pilot group representative could’ve, I say should’ve, stood up had a conversation with the FAA inspector, maybe even work back channels within the FAA that are above the inspector with the ultimate threat of pulling out of the ASAP MOU entirely. Like it’s been done before with eventual success. So maybe, it’s all kosher and legal what the FAA did, but it doesn’t mean it’s the best way at solving the issue from the pilot groups point of view. And keep in mind that that is where I’m coming from on this discussion. I started it by saying the pilot group should’ve pulled out of the MOU entirely when that happened.

Originally Posted by FXLAX

Are inspector not also bound by the administrator’s Just Culture directive? My whole point here is how does not allowing a crew who has a specific type of UAS unintentionally and for the first time, to be allowed into the ASAP program not be punitive to the one entity that is ultimately responsible for the safety of the flight, the crew in question? This is where a pilot group representative could’ve, I say should’ve, stood up had a conversation with the FAA inspector, maybe even work back channels within the FAA that are above the inspector with the ultimate threat of pulling out of the ASAP MOU entirely. Like it’s been done before with eventual success. So maybe, it’s all kosher and legal what the FAA did, but it doesn’t mean it’s the best way at solving the issue from the pilot groups point of view. And keep in mind that that is where I’m coming from on this discussion. I started it by saying the pilot group should’ve pulled out of the MOU entirely when that happened.

Originally Posted by RI830

These incidents prove that it can happen to any of us! I distinctly remember after the Max crashes and other stall events that many around here boastfully stated.....”Us American pilots would have just taken control of that airplane and flown it, recovered and saved the day!......see what foreign trained crews did”

Be humble and remember this business is unforgiving!

Originally Posted by rickair7777

In a case where the FAA modifies the MOU to exclude something, that fact is well publicized in advance. It's not a surprise to anyone. In fact the way it even got to that point in the first place was that despite multiple urgent memos, recurrent training, and pleading emails from management it kept happening. For years. With very near catastrophic consequences in a couple cases... this was real scary. In fact I was on the fence about going to a major and this put me over the edge... I was afraid there would be accidents which would dramatically impact the company's viability and my long-term job security.

At some point the union would have to stop trying to enable the behavior and try to put a stop to it. I think they were past that point. It scared ME away.

The "Just Culture" is that you got plenty of warnings before they got medieval.

Originally Posted by dera

Everyone who has been stuck behind a SKW plane flying 0.65 knows why these events were happening.

Originally Posted by rickair7777

In a case where the FAA modifies the MOU to exclude something, that fact is well publicized in advance. It's not a surprise to anyone. In fact the way it even got to that point in the first place was that despite multiple urgent memos, recurrent training, and pleading emails from management it kept happening. For years. With very near catastrophic consequences in a couple cases... this was real scary. In fact I was on the fence about going to a major and this put me over the edge... I was afraid there would be accidents which would dramatically impact the company's viability and my long-term job security.

At some point the union would have to stop trying to enable the behavior and try to put a stop to it. I think they were past that point. It scared ME away.

The "Just Culture" is that you got plenty of warnings before they got medieval.

Originally Posted by rickair7777

That part is true. But the dispatch profiles were changed to get everyone off the back side of the power curve, and it STILL kept happening for years.

But give me a break... if people don't listen to the company, the FAA, and SAPA, they're not going to listen to a union. Slacker/bro culture got so bad that I up and QUIT. I'm a big fan of unions at mainline but it's not a religious thing with me... it's a business proposition. I know what they're good for, and what they're not.

Originally Posted by 303flyboy

You are absolutely correct ^. Sadly though the lesser developed pilot ego requires a lot of them to throw “lesser than themselves “ under the bus so that they can feel better about their self perceived skills and experience. Dangerous and sad thing.

The age old “this could have happened to me” would be much more applicable here and would actually show your maturity, in both your persona and flying skills.

I think it is very likely someone screwed something up, but more importantly is they flew out of it and now hopefully we can learn from it.

Originally Posted by ShyGuy

American pilots also come in all sorts of flavors. The worst kind being the Colgan and Atlas accident types, the ones who are not only incompetent but also choose to LIE about their backgrounds, employment, and failures. You could be flying with one and not know. So far, it seems these types end up at the somewhat non-desireable places of employment.