Jake Speed

No worries ptarmigan...

Per the Advisory Circular

8.
LEGAL ENFORCEMENT ACTION. Except as specified in the subparagraphs a. and b. below, the FAA ordinarily will not forgo legal enforcement action if the certificate holder, fractional ownership program, or PAH informs the FAA of the apparent violation during, or in anticipation of, an FAA investigation/inspection or in association with an accident or incident.
a.
Exceptions-Aviation Safety Action Program (ASAP) Report. If the FAA has learned of an apparent violation by a certificate holder, fractional ownership program, or PAH from an ASAP report as described in the current edition of AC 120-66, Aviation Safety Action Program (ASAP), a voluntary disclosure can still be accepted by the FAA, even though the FAA has already learned of the violation from the ASAP.
b.
Exceptions-Joint Audit. Similarly, if a regulated entity voluntarily agrees to conduct a joint audit (inspection) with the FAA during which an apparent violation is discovered either by the company or FAA members of the audit (inspection) team, the FAA may accept a voluntary disclosure submitted by the company, even though the FAA has already learned of the apparent violation during the course of the joint audit (inspection).

Key word, ordinarily... The VDR info is not used for enforcement against the company, that's why they filed it. It's their equivalent to a NASA ASR.

I still think, if they choose, the FAA could pursue against the pilot(s) in question. Do I think they will? Probably not. Maybe a Letter of Warning if it were to go any further.

It's very likely the issue would've been discovered during a QA inspection.

Again, the problem here is the process and associated protection. It was discovered from a FSR and, as a result, the company self disclosed. The company's covered, the pilots if the FAA were to pursue, may not be. ALPA wants ASAP/FOQA to provide a level of protection for the pilots. I think ALPA's issue is the way this all went down, but I may be wrong. FSR's are for Flight Safety. Not for CYA.

ptarmigan

I agree, but once it is discovered, regardless of the process, it is hard to argue that the company should ignore the obvious VDR submission. I do agree we need ASAP/FOQA asap! Hopefully we will see it soon.

Jake Speed

Absolutely! Like I've written before, I completely understand the company wanting to protect itself. In this media day and age, it's an absolute necessity.

Blue Skies!
JS-

HIFLYR

If a ASAP program is to be a good thing at FedEx is dependent on who the FAA and the company put on the ERC board. We have one FAA guy who combined with some of the management guys that would make it very bad, remember it has to be a consensus for the report to be accepted.

Here is the link for the AC
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/61c319d7a04907a886256c7900648358/$FILE/AC120-66B.pdf

Fresh Hot Pizza

why allt he attacks on alpa? non union carriers have captains who top out at $150 per year. alpa is a dog turd, but it has GREAT amounts of $, and if they want, they can pretty much shut down any airline they represent. Remember that. spriit airlines got SPANKED earlier this year when they went on strike, and pilots from other airlines showed on the picket lines. comapare this with the teamsters union, where the offiicials are all on the take, and management really controls the union via dollars and cents! I think a lot of people came to fedx from the military and have never worked at a non-union carrier; I was at expressone before fedex after the air force, and I got an education there! that management would TELL you to fly a broken airplane, and if you resisted they fired you on the spot! NON-union airline!
the company will screlw you on the spot if they can get out of a fine, and only alpa can prevent that from happenig.

TheBaron

I don't think anyone is attacking ALPA or disagreeing with the obvious necessity of a union. Just pointing out the rather large disparity in the two versions of the events. As is usually the case, I imagine the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

TheBaron

I think you (and others) are remembering too much from your private and commercial written exams. Under part 121 operations, the operator (FedEx) is responsible for the airworthiness of the airplane. There are hundreds of required maintenance items, inspections, AD's that you are not privy too and are not listed in the AML/ARD.
Do you check the oil in the engine? Ever sump a fuel tank? Highly doubtful. The open MEL's are there for us to determine if any special considerations may be necessary for a given flight segment.
And your second point (highlighted in red) refers to flight crew responsibility for a failed item after block out but before take off. Here you are basically acting in concert with maintenance. If something breaks after takeoff, are you going to get busted by the FAA for flying an airplane with a known failure...I think not.

Just in case.....
121.363 Responsibility for airworthiness

(a) Each certificate holder is primarily responsible for—
(1) The airworthiness of its aircraft, including airframes, aircraft engines, propellers, appliances, and parts thereof; and
(2) The performance of the maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alteration of its aircraft, including airframes, aircraft engines, propellers, appliances, emergency equipment, and parts thereof, in accordance with its manual and the regulations of this chapter.
(b) A certificate holder may make arrangements with another person for the performance of any maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations. However, this does not relieve the certificate holder of the responsibility specified in paragraph (a) of this section.
[Doc. No. 6258, 29 FR 19210, Dec. 31, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 121–106, 38 FR 22378, Aug. 20, 1973]

Fresh Hot Pizza

i don't agree at all. alpa is a train wreck in the worst case, eberyone knows it. biut ALPA is the only reason we get paid what we get paid. our engine blows exhaust in our face, but we get rich as a result. do you want to be a poor guy with clean air? try flying at express one for a while.

Busboy

Do you think that maybe, ascertaining that the the correct deferral was used, might be part of the PIC's responsibility?

Sec. 121.563 Reporting mechanical irregularities.

The pilot in command shall ensure that all mechanical irregularities occurring during flight time are entered in the maintenance log of the airplane at the end of that flight time. Before each flight the pilot in command shall ascertain the status of each irregularity entered in the log at the end of the preceding flight.
------------------------------------------

Sec. 121.628 Inoperable instruments and equipment.

(a) No person may take off an airplane with inoperable instruments or equipment installed unless the following conditions are met:

...blah, blah, blah... (Lots of FAA talk about how to use an MEL)

and, just in case...

from that pesky FOM:

4.07 Reviewing Aircraft Maintenance Status

The captain has final responsibility for determining airworthiness of the aircraft. (FAR 91.3)

Jake Speed

FOM 4.07 with a little more info:

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.

Highlighted in Red text:

In the MEL, Flight crew MEL/CDL procedures, first paragraph prior to Flag items:

The Flight Crew is responsible for complying and/or verifying compliance with the MEL whenever an equipment malfunction occurs while the aircraft is on the ground.

Note it says on the ground, not after "Block Out".

Note the word(s) "occurs" and "complying and/or verifying".

"Occurs" can be defined as "exists".
From Google dictionary:
2. Exist or be found to be present in a place or under a particular set of conditions:
"radon occurs naturally in rocks such as granite"

Replace "occurs" with "exists" in the MEL manual sentence.

From wiki:
Use of and/or in the legal profession
The phrase has come under considerable criticism in the legal profession in both American and British courts. Judges have called it a "freakish fad," an "accuracy-destroying symbol," and "meaningless." The Wisconsin Supreme Court referred to it as "that befuddling, nameless thing, that Janus-faced verbal monstrosity." Perhaps most crushing of all, the Kentucky Supreme Court said it was a "much-condemned conjunctive-disjunctive crutch of sloppy thinkers." It is particularly damaging in legal writing, in addition to being generally sloppy writing, because a bad-faith reader of a contract can pick whichever suits him, the "and" or the "or."[2] Courts called on to interpret it have applied a wide variety of standards, with little agreement.


Taxiing out and something breaks you comply with the MEL, not verify the MEL.

I'll stipulate, for example flight control movement, that one may have to verify an MEL after block out.

I'll err, or should I say interpret, this provision on the prudent side.