12 hr drinking rules and FAA action

[LowlyPropCapt]

Probably an academic question in this case. More than likely the crew involved is scra-hood no matter what.

 

[great cornholio]

Again though.....they never reported for duty. It doesn't matter if they were drinking up unitl 4 hours prior to duty-in, if the called in sick they can't do anything...the never reported for duty. Now, there may be some sort of behavioral/morality clause in the company manual that they could get them on, but unless they actually went to work over the limit they can't get in trouble for that. ALPA has fought that battle numerous times and gotten many folks there jobs back with lost pay.

I agree that with no proof that they were going to call in sick that they can't really get them for the 12 hour rule. I was just posting a hypothetical question and that was the example I could think of because it is a hot topic right now.

I'm still trying to see if anyone has any references to show if the FAA can pursue certificate action against someone who has violated something in their GOM which is more strict than the FAR the policy is based on.

 

[great cornholio]

Let me tell you a story. At my company about a year ago, we had a pilot who showed up at the airport that smelled like alcohol. A TSA agent discovered this and reported him. The airport police made him take a breathalizer test and while I don't remember what the exact result was, I do know that he was below FAA limits but was above our company's more restrictive limit. An investigation proved he had not had a drink within the FAA and company 8 hr rule. So his only violation was breaking the company policy of blowing too high a breathalizer score.

So what happened. He was fired by the company but a statement by our FSDO (the statement was published in the newspaper; I read it) was that he didn't break any FARS; he broke a company rule and it was a company matter so the FAA wasn't going to pursue it.


So tell me; You have a Fed in the jumpseat and your company SOP (FAA approved, right) says you're suppose to climb out at a certain speed but you climb at a different speed and violate company policy. There's no way unless you break a FAA speed restriction (ie: more then 250 below 10, ATC instructions or crossings), that a fed could violate you for that. A check airmen could whack you on that, on a linecheck or a checkride but there's no FAA violation here even though the FAA signed off on the SOP.

But then there's that "careless and reckless operation" thing they could get you on in certain circumstances I guess. But I think you all get the point.

This looks like it might be the closest thing to proof as to what would happen.

As far as the SOP goes, both companies I have flown for have notes in the SOP that goes something about the profiles being guidlines to fly the a/c and that the profiles can be changed to accodate current conditions and ATC requirements. So I don't really see a fed violating you over that as long as it wasn't unsafe.

 

[doh]

Sadly, I don't think it would surprise any of us if it existed...

Hey Walter,
On a side note, I was in Santa Fe last week. The guy I rode the elevator with is a camera man. He said they are filming a sequal to The Big Lebowski! Get your popcorn ready, dude!:beer:

 

[rickair7777]

I don't think the Feds can or will do anything. As has been stated, they never actually reported for duty. What actions the company takes is another story.

Correct. As far as the FAA is concerned, there is no way they could prove the pilots were going to go to work the next day...the FAA would lose the case on appeal, so why bother?

The company is in the same boat...they can't punish the pilots for violating the 12 hour rule, cuz they did not go to work.

They can punish them for a schedule deviation which is probably not a firing offense for non-probation pilots. If they try to fire them for a 12 hour violation, the pilots will just claim they lost track of time and would have called in unfit when they realized their "mistake".

Of course getting arrested is a whole 'nother issue...

 

[rickair7777]

I see it that way too. Although they may not be able to get you on the company's 12 hour rule, that's not to say they may not try pursuing a wreckless/careless charge.

No, they can't. MY company has an EIGHT hour rule, and I use it all the time. Nobody ever tried to accuse me of "careless and reckless" for drinking less than 12 hours out
:beer:

 

[rickair7777]

Now I've also heard that just putting the uniform on could be enough to show intent. So if you're driving to the airport and get stopped a block away and get busted for failing a breathalizer can the FAA violate you if they could show that you would of shown up to work within 8 hours of drinking if you hadn't been stopped?

I know of a case where a guy showed up under the influence (in uniform), got reported by TSA, and was arrested in his company ops area.

He got off the hook by simply stating that he had come in to work to explain that he was unfit, and was just about to call in, using the company phone. No way they could prove otherwise.

For this reason, LE will pretty much always allow a suspected drunk pilot to board the airplane before they grab him...pretty hard to talk your way out of that.

If they could nail you before you boarded the airplane, then the cops could go to any bar on Friday night, breathalyze everybody, and arrest anyone who was over the limit and had car keys in their pocket. You have to get into the vehicle before it counts...

 

[cale42]

You can most certainly be subject to FAA enforcement action for violating your company GOM/FOM... I've seen it happen.

Stabilized approach criteria is a great example, each company sets their own rules.. but you better believe you can get busted if you land from an unstable approach with a fed is the jumpseat.

cale

 

[siucavflight]

They didn't violate any FARs, so no FAA action but would probably get fired from TSA for violating company policy.

Absolutely wrong, when the companys rules are more stringent than the FAA's, then the FAA will adopt those company rules for their employees, so at TSA and most airlines the FAA requires 12 hours.

 

[dojetdriver]

No, they can't. MY company has an EIGHT hour rule, and I use it all the time. Nobody ever tried to accuse me of "careless and reckless" for drinking less than 12 hours out
:beer:

Are you sure? Don't think you understood what I was getting at.

You said your company has an 8 hour rule, so why would more than 8 and less than 12 even be a factor for you? Don't really see how YOUR specific case applies. You're confusing a company policy with an ACTUAL FAR.

IF the company had a 12 hr rule (which yours doesn't) and the pilot(s) were caught drinking outside 8 but inside 12, who's to say the FAA wouldn't try to go after them for violating the company's policy?

Not related to this specific FAR, but 2 guys from my former company got nailed to the wall by an FAA guy that had basically no other intention than being a flat out prick.

They got a random FAA line check, the CA was 2 revisions behind, the FO had just come off vacation, had 1 revision in his flight case but hadn't had a chance to touch it yet.

FAA charged the CA with a careless/reckless and wanted to give a 30 day suspension. The FO got lucky, all he got was a warning letter.

Point I'm getting at, if the FAA wants to be total dicks, they will find a way to stick you with something.

 

[pilotyip]

The "mooning pilots" made it onto the first few minutes of Inside Edition the other day and at the end of the report they mentioned that the two might have been drinking inside of TSA's 12 hour rule. My question is if they were found to be drinking within 12 hours, but outside of 8 hours can the FAA enforce any kind of certificate action? Obviously if they were drinking within 8 hours then they would have violated the FARs and certificate action would most likely follow. If someone is found violating a policy in their companies GOM can certificate action follow?

it is a class B violation, it is not a violation the FAR's but it is a violation of a written FAA apporved procedure. The company will have to show it is taking action to correct this, but there will be no fine or violation. Just a letter of correction. Based upon my experience, not drinking, with a mechanic doing an engine run-up without completing company training.

 

[submachXJ]

Correct. As far as the FAA is concerned, there is no way they could prove the pilots were going to go to work the next day...the FAA would lose the case on appeal, so why bother?

The company is in the same boat...they can't punish the pilots for violating the 12 hour rule, cuz they did not go to work.

They can punish them for a schedule deviation which is probably not a firing offense for non-probation pilots. If they try to fire them for a 12 hour violation, the pilots will just claim they lost track of time and would have called in unfit when they realized their "mistake".

All manuals are written different but unless you have changed or eliminated your show time you can still be tagged for violating your companies 8-12hr alcohol policy. Within a 12 hour period prior to an assigned duty period. No room for just calling in sick before you get to the airport. And you can and will be tagged for an opp's if it's inside 12. A few people have diappeared for this. This is blunt but this is what has happened in the past.

 

[tomgoodman]

The other certificate

If the FAA does anything, it could be in connection with the medical certificate rather than the airman certificate. It would depend a lot on whether any reportable convictions result and whether a pilot has any relevant prior history in his file.

 

[rickair7777]

All manuals are written different but unless you have changed or eliminated your show time you can still be tagged for violating your companies 8-12hr alcohol policy. Within a 12 hour period prior to an assigned duty period. No room for just calling in sick before you get to the airport. And you can and will be tagged for an opp's if it's inside 12. A few people have diappeared for this. This is blunt but this is what has happened in the past.

They can fire you for anything, but will it hold up in court?

Just because you were scheduled to report at a certain time does not mean you were going to do so. If it's an outstation, of course we all know they were going to work in the morning, but proving it by preponderance of evidence is hard.

I suppose it could depend on how it was written...there's a difference between just drinking within the window vs. actually reporting for work after drinking within the window.

For the FAA, they have to prove that you definately intended to operate the airplane...I think you would actually have to baord the airplane. Walking towards the car with keys in your hand is not enough...maybe you were getting something out of trunk?

 

[go!ng for broke]

How do you know if you are to drunk to fly??

YOu don't take a drink to the plane with you.

 

[submachXJ]

Yep just talking about company policy. The FAA you are correct has more ways around it. And depending how your company writes its policies they are a little more difficult. I imagine all say something to the affect no alcohol XX hours before show so unless you called in sick or the time is changed a person could (and has) gotten dismissed for this. It could go to court but your only going to be told to hit the bricks if there was a bonefide case with concrete evidence.

 

[ReverseSensing]

I think many posters misunderstand how little of a company's FOM is actually an "approved" document. A few sections (like deicing) are and obviously the ops specs are, but very little else.

I asked our POI how I know which sections he reviews and signs off on and which ones he doesn't. He said there was no way to know without asking him or the DO. Several months later, the FOM list of effective pages started showing which pages and sections were actually approved by the FAA.

If the FAA can't violate you for not wearing your hat when your company requires it, it's doubtful they can violate you for not complying with a company 12-hour rule.

Anything that falls under careless and reckless or a specific FAR obviously is a different matter.