Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

12 hr drinking rules and FAA action

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
I still think the FAA can get you because the manual is a "FAA approved document". Although kind of a mute point because the required background check for any 121 carrier would show the violation or violation of drug and alcohol policy.

I could see both sides of the argument. On one side there was no FAR violation so there should be no certificate action. On the other side I have heard that since the GOM is signed off and approved by the POI which represents the FAA then the GOM is as "enforceable" as the FARs. I haven't seen anything in writing or references as to what would happen FAA wise in a situation where someone broke a GOM policy that is more restrictive than an existing FAR although the FAR was not broken.
 
I could see both sides of the argument. On one side there was no FAR violation so there should be no certificate action. On the other side I have heard that since the GOM is signed off and approved by the POI which represents the FAA then the GOM is as "enforceable" as the FARs. I haven't seen anything in writing or references as to what would happen FAA wise in a situation where someone broke a GOM policy that is more restrictive than an existing FAR although the FAR was not broken.

I'm pretty sure none of us want to find out the technicalities when it comes to any of this.

I'm sure the FAA could force their case against a pilot breaking their company's FOM/GOM/whateveryoucallit. When the government flexes, it's hard (and expensive) to overcome....
 
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.
 
On another note but still related-

All of the DOT Ptests and breathalizers I have taken have stated .02% as DOT max. Never been an issue, but I have always wondered what would happen if I fell somewhere between the DOT and FAA limits???
 
On another note but still related-

All of the DOT Ptests and breathalizers I have taken have stated .02% as DOT max. Never been an issue, but I have always wondered what would happen if I fell somewhere between the DOT and FAA limits???

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.


Originally Posted by great cornholio
I could see both sides of the argument. On one side there was no FAR violation so there should be no certificate action. On the other side I have heard that since the GOM is signed off and approved by the POI which represents the FAA then the GOM is as "enforceable" as the FARs. I haven't seen anything in writing or references as to what would happen FAA wise in a situation where someone broke a GOM policy that is more restrictive than an existing FAR although the FAR was not broken.

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.
 
Last edited:
If I remember correctly, FAR 121 is written as a "generic template" to model your GOM/FOM. If your company has a more restrictive policy, then that becomes your "custom" FAR 121 and I believe that Feds can violate you based on that.
 
If I remember correctly, FAR 121 is written as a "generic template" to model your GOM/FOM. If your company has a more restrictive policy, then that becomes your "custom" FAR 121 and I believe that Feds can violate you based on that.


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'm sure the FAA could force their case against a pilot breaking their company's FOM/GOM/whateveryoucallit. When the government flexes, it's hard (and expensive) to overcome....

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.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top