Quote:
Originally Posted by Av8tr1
Yet I am not the only one who had it wrong. I even studied the law in college (but I am not a lawyer). Yet how many companies out there are misinterpreting the regulations? I know of at least 3 just in my own employment history, 4 if you count BTQ. Hell in my past employment history one company has a pilot flying without a commercial license for the class of aircraft he is flying. Still flying despite an investigation 2 years later. That is black and white. You either have a commercial certificate for the class of aircraft or you don't. Doesn't get any simpler than that and we are talking about a nation wide 135 who still has it wrong.
Good god.
Now you're attempting to justify ignorance based on what an employer understands or misunderstands?
I've flown for a few more operators than you. Perhaps more than a few. I've never flown for a reputable operator that did not fully understand the regulation that applied to that operator, or that was allowed to operate outside the regulation. No, what we're talking about here is what you don't understand, and apparently didn't bother to try, for your last "few airlines" (by "airline," you appear to mean 135 operator).
It's pilot certificate. Not license. We don't issue pilot licenses in the USA.
You're claiming that a certificate holder (a "nation wide 135" certificate holder) utilized pilots that lacked the certification to fly? Are you referring to the case of a pilot who lacked a single engine land category and class rating on his commercial pilot certificate, to which you've alluded in other past posts? Which operator is this?
How many companies are "misinterpreting the regulation," as you put it, is irrelevant to whether or not you are required to know and abide it. Stop making excuses. The buck stops in the cockpit. Act like it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Av8tr1
Another company hired a pilot who didn't have the correct certificates and it wasn't till he got to flight safety that it was noticed. This after being interviewed by 4 different pilots including the chief pilot, HR and various other people involved in the onboarding process. Another company Chief Pilot told me a test light not activating as required from the POH meant the aircraft was still airworthy. Even showing him in plan English, direct out of the POH that the aircraft should not fly without that light illuminating the airplane could not take off, he still argued with me the lowly line pilot.
So I am not the only one who misinterpreted the regulations. Based on the BTQ story the previous FSDO did too or they were not doing their job.
Blame other operators. Blame the FAA. Still doesn't absolve you of knowing what you're doing. Perhaps you'd be better served putting your nose in a book rather than someone else's business, and learning your business. Spend less time trying to justify your failing, and more time understanding the policies and regulations that govern what you can and cannot do, and the longevity of your ability to hold a pilot certificate (and not lose it due to enforcement action).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Av8tr1
The fact of the matter is our system is broken. This is happening at far too many companies.
No, it isn't. You simply have no idea what you're talking about. You spent several posts in this thread trying to support bad information, were set straight, then continued by saying you realized how everything worked some time ago after flying for several "airlines," except that, of course, you didn't learn it very well...because in this very thread you've been espousing the exact opposite of the truth (and then trying to justify it by blaming everyone else).
The system is not broken. You're simply ignorant of the regulation, and operations specifications, which is quite remarkable, given that you've flown for three or four "airlines."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Av8tr1
. The very regulation we are discussing is confusing. It clearly says a SIC is required, but then there is a exclusion that you can't find in the FARs. You have to go look elsewhere to do it. You don't think that ends up leading to misunderstandings? Apparently even the FAA didn't get it right.
The FAA got it precisely right. The regulation is neither ambiguous, nor confusing. Your problem, it seems, is that you still don't know how an operations specification works, or how or why they're issued, or how they apply to you. Again, very remarkable, given that you've flown for three or four "airlines." You still don't understand Operations Specifications? How can this be?
As I provided you, with links, the regulation very clearly states what is required. If operated under IFR, a second in command is required. If an approved autopilot is provided, and the certificate holder holds the appropriate Operations Specifications assigned to that certificate holder, then the autopilot may be used in lieu of a SIC. This is not a new regulation. This not not a recent change. This is spelled out very clearly in the regulation, as I posted, as you quoted, and as provided with links to the ecfr.gov website which contains it, and references to the Federal Register sections in which the regulation was published, and the reasons for the regulation, with arguments for and against, clearly explained.
You didn't know you could go to the Federal Register to gain an understanding of the regulation, did you? It's the primary source for interpretation of the regulation. The second will be the Chief Legal Counsel letters of interpretation. The third is the regulation itself. The fourth, which does not set precedent, are administrative law judge findings and board decisions. Neither a certificate holder, nor anyone at the FSDO level, is empowered, or authorized to interpret the regulation. This includes the POI. Do you not know this?
You do now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Av8tr1
Add to that pointing out the obvious incorrect interpretation of the regulation is grounds for termination in aviation (ask me how I know). If you are a young pilot just starting out are you going to speak up in the middle of ground school to tell the Chief their interpretation of the regulation is wrong? I did that once it got me fired, FAA did squat about it. Now imagine you are a brand new pilot with a thirty thousand dollar training contract just starting your career.
Sounds like you needed to learn to keep your mouth shut.
You say "the FAA did squat about it," as if the FAA has some obligation to plead for your job after you mouth off in ground school. That's not the FAA's job. That's not what the FAA does. Apparently you don't understand that, either. A clear picture is forming of your past, and present state.
Seeing as you brought it up, however, you've tossed out the carrot, so 'fess up. You corrected the chief pilot by telling him how to do his job, in class, in front of others, got fired, and what happened to your "thirty thousand dollar training contract?" Who do you suppose was responsible for that contract? The FAA? Other pilots? Other companies? Whom might one blame for your breach of etiquette?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Av8tr1
You are 100% correct we should know this stuff. But clearly since so many get it so wrong so often something is more wrong than one pilot who didn't read the regs enough for your liking.
Repeat that sentence again in English, and we'll talk.