FAA Covers Colgan's Ass

[QOL_is_great:)]

Colgan makes the front page

June '09 issue of AVIATION INTERNATIONAL NEWS and Colgan is smack on the front page.
Hope they clean up their act and the hiring/training gets better. I also hope the pilot group starts to stand up for itself and demand better pay, training and hiring practices. Until then it's a good thing I am not required to fly on any airframe this company operates. Whew!!!

 

[kmox29]

I have tried 3 times to get on with the FAA with the intent of being a whistle blower the second they even tried to pressure me to look the other way while some airline skirted the intent of the law...

Being an FAA Inspector, I can tell you that it's not the norm that offices "look the other way" and "pressure" inspectors while airlines violate regulations. Just as it would be unfair to say that all Pinnacle pilots are as reckless as those two that crashed in Missouri. There are A LOT of people at the FAA who want to ensure the very safest operations out there.

As far as being a "whistle blower", the FAA has many programs which allow for that type of activity. (especially after the Southwest Airlines mess) Additionally, you would find that enforcing the "intent" of the law is brutally difficult. The airlines have VERY good lawyers. You can't bring an airline into court on a violation saying that the regulation really means this or that. You have to go by the letter of the law. No more, no less. It's a challenging, but rewarding work environment.

I'm dead certain they know my agenda as I've never heard back, and I'm sure, based on their application and the high level of value placed on management work (such as Chief Pilot, DO, etc..) they're looking for "company man" types for these posts.

You couldn't be any more incorrect. I was hired and was never a "management" employee at an airline. I was a regular line pilot. Furthermore, if you went into an interview and told a supervisor that your intent was to be a whistle blower the first time you felt that another inspector disagreed with your assesment, you probably won't be hired.

That's not to say that the FAA doesn't want someone with your dedication to safety, however, there are processes in place to handle those issues. It would be better to explain that if you had a disagreement that you would "follow the chain of command" and "utilize processes in place at the FAA" to make sure your concerns were properly addressed.

Best of luck in your career and fly safe!

 

[HA25]

thanks Kmox.. I feel better about re-applying. To be honest, I've just worked at to too many airlines where you hear "Our POI is great because he lets' us.. bla bla bla"... And whether it's the 135 outfit that would work you "unlimited" duty days because it was "legal" so long as you didn't fly more than 10 hours in 24 "under part 135" (nevermind the 91 legs), or the 121 (ACMI) that would send you out to the airport to fly a trip, then after hours of delay due to circumstances beyond the crews control, ask you to begin the flight, which is slated for 10-14 hours duty day... a sort of perpetual reserve without being actually on the "clock".. These were both small outfits without the big money of United, Delta or even RAH.. Yet they had these overly lax inspectors that instead of being lax should have been diligent.

I can't help but think that if an inspector was diligent, there would be many calls to his managers from the airline he's over demanding his replacement.. But I am glad it's not always the case, thanks for the response.

btw, I'm a huge Rush fan from way, way, back..

 

[kmox29]

thanks Kmox.. I feel better about re-applying. To be honest, I've just worked at to too many airlines where you hear "Our POI is great because he lets' us.. bla bla bla"... And whether it's the 135 outfit that would work you "unlimited" duty days because it was "legal" so long as you didn't fly more than 10 hours in 24 "under part 135" (nevermind the 91 legs), or the 121 (ACMI) that would send you out to the airport to fly a trip, then after hours of delay due to circumstances beyond the crews control, ask you to begin the flight, which is slated for 10-14 hours duty day... a sort of perpetual reserve without being actually on the "clock".. These were both small outfits without the big money of United, Delta or even RAH.. Yet they had these overly lax inspectors that instead of being lax should have been diligent.

Without knowing the full details, it's hard to comment on the above. I can only say that as there's a variety of pilots, there's a variety of Inspectors. The workload for an Inspector is tremendous, even more so for those on the General Aviation side (91/135/etc.) The FAA simply doesn't have the budget from Congress to hire everyone we need to oversee everything.

Don't give up on the job if it's something you want.

I can't help but think that if an inspector was diligent, there would be many calls to his managers from the airline he's over demanding his replacement.. But I am glad it's not always the case, thanks for the response.

There may be a lot more to the story than what you've seen or heard. Again, hard to say. I know that in our office, issues like that would be handled properly.

btw, I'm a huge Rush fan from way, way, back..

Likewise. Saw them twice on their last tour through MSP. Unbelievable shows. :beer: