FDX- ALPA MEC Positive Rate email 1/12/11
#91
You asked me to find a reference where the Administrator pursued legal action against a PIC. I found one. This case just happens to be the appeal with the NTSB. Why did he have to appeal? Because the FAA came after him, and found him guilty. Sorry I don't have the case log to every aviation trial out there.
From this case:
"In his preflight check, respondent's (The PIC) second officer reviewed the logbook, placards, and MCO's. He did not check the three MCO valves against the MEL, reasoning (in part) that Delta maintenance personnel would not have twice given MCO clearance had there been an MEL violation."
"The second officer reported the MCO to respondent, as required by the operating manual, and noted that maintenance had cleared the aircraft."
Footnote 6.
"there is no dispute that in this proceeding the direct responsibility for MCO/MEL matters lay with the second officer, not the PIC."
That's why the Captain was exonerated.
At FDX:
FOM 4.07
4.07 Reviewing Aircraft Maintenance Status
(FAR 91.3, FAR 121.563, FAR 121.628, FAR 121.701)
The Captain has final responsibility for determining airworthiness of the aircraft (FAR 91.3). Before each flight he reviews discrepancies of the preceding flight included in the Airworthiness Release Document (ARD) and the Aircraft Maintenance Logbook (AML). After the Captain reviews the ARD and AML, the crewmember assigned Preflight briefs the Captain on the aircraft status. The Captain also verifies the aircraft is in compliance with the MEL (FAR 121.628). When questions arise, the Captain consults with Maintenance, the flight crew and, if necessary, MOCC.
I think if this had been a FedEx airplane, this appeal may have had a different outcome.... MEL/ARD matters are the responsibility of the Captain.
From this case:
"In his preflight check, respondent's (The PIC) second officer reviewed the logbook, placards, and MCO's. He did not check the three MCO valves against the MEL, reasoning (in part) that Delta maintenance personnel would not have twice given MCO clearance had there been an MEL violation."
"The second officer reported the MCO to respondent, as required by the operating manual, and noted that maintenance had cleared the aircraft."
Footnote 6.
"there is no dispute that in this proceeding the direct responsibility for MCO/MEL matters lay with the second officer, not the PIC."
That's why the Captain was exonerated.
At FDX:
FOM 4.07
4.07 Reviewing Aircraft Maintenance Status
(FAR 91.3, FAR 121.563, FAR 121.628, FAR 121.701)
The Captain has final responsibility for determining airworthiness of the aircraft (FAR 91.3). Before each flight he reviews discrepancies of the preceding flight included in the Airworthiness Release Document (ARD) and the Aircraft Maintenance Logbook (AML). After the Captain reviews the ARD and AML, the crewmember assigned Preflight briefs the Captain on the aircraft status. The Captain also verifies the aircraft is in compliance with the MEL (FAR 121.628). When questions arise, the Captain consults with Maintenance, the flight crew and, if necessary, MOCC.
I think if this had been a FedEx airplane, this appeal may have had a different outcome.... MEL/ARD matters are the responsibility of the Captain.
Should captains exercise a little better judgement before they spill their beans on an FSR; undoubtably. Until the union comes out with a little better explanation of what was actually released to the FAA, I'll continue to view this as a mole hill that someone is trying to convince us is a mountain.
#93
Banned
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Position: 727
Posts: 78
Yet the company used an FSR to self-disclose to the FAA, and that means that the Captain and the FO were exposed to certificate action. This is the point of this thread. The company allowed the FAA to know the names of the people involved.
#94
Some valid concerns...but not anymore. When action was taken against this Captain, there was no VDRP. It began in 1998 and replaced the older program from 1992. The program covers the company and the crew (or mechanic) as long as all participants are disclosed by the operator.
Should captains exercise a little better judgement before they spill their beans on an FSR; undoubtably. Until the union comes out with a little better explanation of what was actually released to the FAA, I'll continue to view this as a mole hill that someone is trying to convince us is a mountain.
Should captains exercise a little better judgement before they spill their beans on an FSR; undoubtably. Until the union comes out with a little better explanation of what was actually released to the FAA, I'll continue to view this as a mole hill that someone is trying to convince us is a mountain.
Here's the section that applies to airmen.
12.
SEPARATE ACTIONS AGAINST AIRMEN OR OTHER INDIVIDUAL AGENTS.
a.
Voluntary Disclosure Application. The voluntary disclosure policy applies to individual airmen or other agents of an employing certificate holder, fractional ownership program, or PAH only when all of the following occur:
(1)
The apparent violation involves a deficiency of the employing entity’s practices or procedures that causes the employing certificate holder, fractional ownership program, or PAH to be in violation of a covered violation of an FAA regulation.
(2)
The airman or other agent of the employing entity, while acting on behalf of the employing entity, inadvertently violates the FAA’s regulations as a direct result of a deficiency of the employing entity that causes the employing entity to be in violation of the regulations. (The voluntary disclosure policy does not apply to the airman or other agent when his or her apparent violation is the result of actions unrelated to the employing entity’s deficiency).
(3)
The airman or other agent immediately makes the report of his or her apparent violation to the employing entity.
(4)
The employing certificate holder, fractional ownership program, or PAH immediately notifies the FAA of both the airman or other agent’s apparent violation and the apparent deficiency in its practice or procedures.
b.
Procedures if Conditions are Met. When all the aforementioned conditions are met, a separate EIR is opened for the individual and closed with no more than administrative action in accordance with the current edition of FAA Order 2150.3, Compliance and Enforcement Program.
c.
Procedures if Conditions Are Not Met. If all the aforementioned conditions are not met, the PI will review all facts associated with the case and determine what action is appropriate for individual airmen or other agents of the employing entity.
d.
Application of this Provision. This provision does not apply to matters concerning qualifications to hold an airman certificate.
e.
Special Provisions. Special provisions exist for apparent violations by certificate holders, fractional ownership programs, or a PAH, when a voluntary disclosure is made based on information in an ASAP report. In such cases, the FAA may, at its sole discretion, accept the corrective action recommended by an ASAP event review committee (ERC) for an accepted ASAP report as the comprehensive fix for the voluntary disclosure. This is acceptable when the following conditions all apply (even when an apparent employee qualification or competency issue is involved):
(1)
The FAA determines that the violation is due entirely to the actions of the employee(s) and not to a systematic or procedural deficiency of the company.
(2)
The employee completes the corrective action recommended by the ASAP ERC to the satisfaction of the FAA.
From a legal standpoint, 12.a.2, 12.a.3 and 12.a.4.c are scary.
Wish we had a program where we could volunteer safety info to the company to cover 12.a.3. Oh wait. That's ASAP.
For now it's a phone call to your duty officer, or a FSR, or a pilot ops report, maybe post a sticky note somewhere in AOC...
Last edited by Jake Speed; 01-19-2011 at 04:33 AM.
#95
And ALPA's latest...
In early December we became aware of a situation in which the company released information obtained via an FSR to the FAA.
During our investigation, the Company admitted that they had in the past provided certain content from FSRs including identification of specific events to the FAA in an effort to minimize fines and penalties. The Company is not legally required to make such disclosures. Leaving the past aside, we attempted to resolve future usage while we engage in ASAP negotiations to no avail. We are hopeful that a future successful ASAP MOU implemented on this property will resolve most of this issue.
Section 26.A.7. of the CBA is unequivocal concerning Flight Safety reports. The contents are not to be provided to the FAA. The purpose of that protection is obvious; shielding pilots from certificate action based on self-reporting. Although no pilot has been harmed to date, we cannot guarantee that FAA action against one of our members will not occur in the future due to future Company actions. The fact that using FSR information to create a voluntary disclosure might save some money does not provide any justification to override Section 26.A.7.
Safety remains ALPA’s number one mission. Notwithstanding the dispute between ALPA and the Company, the FSR system remains a valid safety tool. Its mandatory aspects remain mandatory. The individual pilot should exercise caution when drafting narratives associated with a FSR, realizing that the content may be shared with the FAA.
As always, ALPA is available to assist you prior to the submission of an FSR.
DISCRETION LINE FROM SKYPINE27:
"(Mods: If anyone feels its wrong to have posted this here, feel free to take it down. I personally don't think it's privileged information and seems a lot of guys missed the original ALPA email)"
In early December we became aware of a situation in which the company released information obtained via an FSR to the FAA.
During our investigation, the Company admitted that they had in the past provided certain content from FSRs including identification of specific events to the FAA in an effort to minimize fines and penalties. The Company is not legally required to make such disclosures. Leaving the past aside, we attempted to resolve future usage while we engage in ASAP negotiations to no avail. We are hopeful that a future successful ASAP MOU implemented on this property will resolve most of this issue.
Section 26.A.7. of the CBA is unequivocal concerning Flight Safety reports. The contents are not to be provided to the FAA. The purpose of that protection is obvious; shielding pilots from certificate action based on self-reporting. Although no pilot has been harmed to date, we cannot guarantee that FAA action against one of our members will not occur in the future due to future Company actions. The fact that using FSR information to create a voluntary disclosure might save some money does not provide any justification to override Section 26.A.7.
Safety remains ALPA’s number one mission. Notwithstanding the dispute between ALPA and the Company, the FSR system remains a valid safety tool. Its mandatory aspects remain mandatory. The individual pilot should exercise caution when drafting narratives associated with a FSR, realizing that the content may be shared with the FAA.
As always, ALPA is available to assist you prior to the submission of an FSR.
DISCRETION LINE FROM SKYPINE27:
"(Mods: If anyone feels its wrong to have posted this here, feel free to take it down. I personally don't think it's privileged information and seems a lot of guys missed the original ALPA email)"
Last edited by Jake Speed; 01-18-2011 at 05:30 PM. Reason: Discretion line
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post