Notices
Aviation Law Legal issues, FARs, and questions

Fit for Duty

Old 05-09-2022, 03:35 AM
  #11  
Disinterested Third Party
 
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 5,923
Default

FAA Chief Legal Counsel Letters of Interpretation are not an example of cowboy actions. That someone might think so exposes a gross ignorance of the regulatory process and the administration of the regulation.

There are three primary means of understanding the regulation: the first are the Federal Register preambles; the second are FAA Chief Legal Counsel letters of interpretation. The third is the regulation itself.

A fourth means, which does not interpret the regulation or set precedent, are ALJ renderings regarding specific cases; these do not define or interpret the regulation, but do give some insight into how it has been applied in specific cases in the past. Such cases do not set precedent for future application of the regulation.

Chief Legal Counsel letters of interpretation are not examples of the FAA "making it up as they go." The FAA Administrator is charged with regulating, promoting, and enforcing aviation, and the Administrator has authorized the Chief Legal Counsel to interpret the regulation. Chief Legal Counsel interpretations are defensible and are a legitimate means of interpreting and understanding, as well as applying the regulation.

The FSDO level does not have authority to interpret the regulation. The FAA Chief Legal Counsel and in specific cases, regional legal counsels) do have authority to interpret the regulation, and these interpretations are searchable and represent a legitimate, authorized interpretation that an airman, operator, or the FAA may hold up as official, bona fide interpretations.

The FAA does not "send them out" and they are not published in the federal register, nor are they found codified in the regulation. The FAA Chief Legal Counsel interpretations are just that: interpretations of the regulation. While the Federal Register preambles will provide the rational and intent of the regulation and the regulation itself will provide the codification of the rule, the Chief Legal Counsel interpretation will explain in detail answers to specific questions by parties of interest on given subjects applicable to the regulation (such as the prospective nature of rest, for example, or questions regarding Part 61.51, logging of flight time, etc).
JohnBurke is offline  
Old 05-09-2022, 08:52 AM
  #12  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,097
Default

I know exactly how it works. In this case I think they are making it up, although there's some grey area.

Like I said, the underlying rationale is reasonable but there's not enough regulatory meat to justify where they took it.

FAA should simply amend the reg in this case, rather than jam through enforcement. Bad precedent. I'd like to know, in writing, what my regulatory boundaries are, and not have to guess. Example: "Good Moral Character"... they could have a real field day with that one. And BHM FSDO would apply it quite differently than OAK FSDO.
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 05-09-2022, 09:10 AM
  #13  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Mar 2021
Posts: 1,060
Default

Originally Posted by redbone View Post
Are we required by the FARS to be fit for duty for a Sim training event just like we are to fly? If so can you please link to or cite a source.
not a lawyer but why give the company any ammo to do anything? show up to the sim event just like you would show up to the real airplane. fit for duty, rested, etc. you are on "company time" (correct?) and at a company event.

my 2 cents. worth the same value
hercretired is offline  
Old 05-09-2022, 11:24 AM
  #14  
Disinterested Third Party
 
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 5,923
Default

Originally Posted by rickair7777 View Post
I know exactly how it works. In this case I think they are making it up, although there's some grey area.

Like I said, the underlying rationale is reasonable but there's not enough regulatory meat to justify where they took it.

FAA should simply amend the reg in this case, rather than jam through enforcement. Bad precedent. I'd like to know, in writing, what my regulatory boundaries are, and not have to guess. Example: "Good Moral Character"... they could have a real field day with that one. And BHM FSDO would apply it quite differently than OAK FSDO.
In the context of this thread, then, where the question regards being fit for duty, is this really a grey area in which we need it spelled out? Is there any question whatsoever that when one is sent to training, one is expected to be fit and ready to train?

I had a experienced captain show up to a simulator briefing, drunk. It wasn't a training event; it was an informal prebriefing at the sim center the night before the sim sessions the following day, and a preparation for an oral. It wasn't an assigned event; the meeting was an invitation, not a duty assignment. Never the less, for anyone to show up at a simulator training center intoxicated, is an idiotic and unprofessional act. Might he have been subject to disciplinary action? Enforcement action? Just guilty of being an idiot? Did it really need to be spelled out, or should he have been responsible enough to know?

The goof moral character clause of the ATP requirements has been subjectively applied to the carriage of drugs in an aircraft, and even to a pilot handing his naked rear end out the window of a DC-3 while taxiing. It would be very hard to codify hanging one's butt out the window as a specific regulatory item, and one shouldn't need to have every detail spelled out to know that it's an unprofessional and stupid act, to say nothing or careless and reckless. The pilot in that case became subject to enforcement action and a sanction against his pilot certificate.

I was given a long duty day, including multiple international legs, a long deadhead, long car ride, then what amounted to a very short rest, with commercial travel the following day to get to a training event, where I would go right into the proficiency training event. I called fatigue. No way to get adequate rest, no way to be fit for the sim. Regardless of whether checking or training is taking place, every trip to the sim is a jeopardy event, and let no one be foolish enough to believe otherwise. My training was delayed, and I eventually got there, got rest, and completed the training.

Whether one goes into a training event intoxicated or so tired one has the same mental impairment as intoxication, it becomes a matter of professional judgment to know better. One shouldn't need to have that spelled out. If one can't figure that out, one may be undeserving of the job.

If one is sent to a training event with insufficient rest and the pressure to take the assigned schedule means that the pilot is concerned for the security of his job, or the potential damage to his record or reputation, he may or may not have resources available to call upon. Union representation? Contract? Company policy? Nature of the training and the specific circumstance? Type of operation? One needs to know what applies and what doesn't to one's specific situation. This determines if one has a leg to stand on .

The regulation cannot possibly be written to cover every single unique, specific situation. There are many cases which go to enforcement action that involve decisions by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), which do NOT set precedent, but to lend some insight into application of the regulation in that specific case. How the regulation is applied in another case may be different, because specifics matter. It's for that reason that I asked the original poster to expand on his or her question. The original poster has thus far elected not to do so.

Regarding your comments, nobody is "making up" anything. You're responding to a poster who cited an old, dated ALPA article referencing a legal interpretation, and you're asserting that this is making things up. It's not. The article, as quoted, suggests that the FAA had an "little-known and little-disseminated" clarification: a legal interpretation. The article suggests that somehow the FAA has failed to distribute this to the public, and failed to publish it in the federal register, or to codify it in the regulation. This is because legal interpretations are direct responses to a specific enquiry, and are made available for those who wish to search them, and are not regulation. They are interpretations of the regulation. Obviously they are not published in the federal register; anyone who would expect so displays gross ignorance of what the letter of interpretation is and also of the regulatory system. The FAA is not responsible for disseminating letters of interpretation to the public. The FAA will not come to your house or flight school and teach you the regulation. You are expected to know it and abide it, and that responsibility is on you, and each airman who is subject to the regulation. This isn't a "made up" interpretation, nor a "cowboy" action. It's part of a well known, well-established process, and those who don't take the time to know the regulation cannot use ignorance of the regulation, it's meaning, or interpretation, if they become subject to enforcementa action. "I didn't know" is an indictment on the person making the statement: a profession of ignorance.

There is nothing professional about ignorance.
JohnBurke is offline  
Old 05-09-2022, 12:47 PM
  #15  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2018
Posts: 1,082
Default

Originally Posted by JohnBurke View Post
You are expected to know it and abide it, and that responsibility is on you, and each airman who is subject to the regulation.
Outside of this particular issue, are you knowledgeable about every regulation, interpretation, and clarification that exists for pilots subject to the CFRs?
jaxsurf is offline  
Old 05-09-2022, 01:21 PM
  #16  
Disinterested Third Party
 
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 5,923
Default

That is irrelevant. I am responsible for knowing the regulation and abiding it. Failure to educate myself and then abide the regulation is at my peril.

And yes, I do regularly review the regulation, the Chief Legal Counsel Interpretations, and the Federal Register preambles. That information defines what I am allowed or not allowed to do, every bit as much as OpSpecs, aircraft limitations, employer limitations, etc.

I am obligated to know. As are you.
JohnBurke is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
astec
Flight Schools and Training
9
03-06-2009 01:02 PM
jnava121
Technical
23
03-01-2009 02:12 AM
Paddles
Cargo
59
08-11-2008 04:32 AM
STILL GROUNDED
Regional
177
07-31-2006 05:46 PM
cs10281990
Flight Schools and Training
34
07-23-2006 04:49 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are Off
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices