Are you attempting to say "OpSpecs," when you say "SOP's?"

OpSpecs are regulatory in nature in that they provide specific permissions and restrictions under the operating certificate to which they are issued. There is no OpSpec of which I am aware which limits a blue tooth feature in an aviation headset. Are you aware of such an Operations Specification?

If you're referring to company practices, policies, and procedures spelled out in an employee handbook or general operations manual, then no, those are not regulatory in nature. An employee is expected to adhere to the general operations manual procedures and may be held accountable for failure to abide those procedures as spelled out by the certificate holder, but for different reasons. I am aware of no company general operations manual or employee manual that prohibits blue tooth in a headset.

Are you?

 

No, not talking about OPSPEC. But SOP/FOM have some force of regulation, in that they're approved by our CMO and we'll get violated if we don't comply!

Interesting enough, our FOM explicitly bans the use of any PWCD, defined as anything that "transfers data between two or more physically unconnected points", unless otherwise permitted by SOP. I think this is written broadly, but I can see how they could interpret it that way. They're clearly telling us not to play with out toys, and using wireless capability as a common-denominator to define said toys. But I can still listen to my old (wired) ipod...

 

Enforcement action is taken on the basis of a violation of regulation.

How do you suppose that enforcement action would be written up?

When we start using slang terms like "violated," it's easy to begin muddying the waters. Surely your principle inspector won't rape you? You must not mean physically violated, then. Perhaps administrative action and regulatory enforcement? On the basis of what?

Where direction from the company comes in the form of policy in the operations manual, that policy might be the position of the company (only blue tic tacs may be sucked upon whist inside the lateral confines of the aircraft), or they may be based on regulation (one pilot shall wear and use his oxygen mask at all times while the other pilot is out of the cockpit for a tinkle). In the case of the former, while it's information in your FAA-approved operations manual, the consumption of red tic tacs does not imply, warrant, or provide ground for a "violation" or enforcement action. Failing to wear the mask, however, has a direct link to regulatory requirements (and authority) and because it's also a regulatory requirement, could lead to enforcement action for those disinclined to comply.

When the company tells you to wear your hat in the terminal (becuase they placed it in the handbook or even operations manual), and you don't, they can snipe at you as the employer for not following company protocol, but the FAA can't cuff you upside the head. It's an internal matter. Aside from that, tell them to pound sand. Wearing hats indoors is ignorant and stupid, and a very poor manner.