FAA line checks and must ride pass?

[DairyAir]

Just a question can a FAA inspector just show up and give a crew a line check without a must ride pass. On many occasions we have had a FED on the jumpseat ostentatiously to give a line check but after chatting for a while it was clear that they were just trying to get a free ride somewhere, and covering it as a line check. I know that the genuine inspectors always have a must ride pass issued by the FSDO that they are attached to. I.E. they know exactly who and when they are going to check in advance. This was told to me by someone else and I am not sure if it is true just wanted to throw the question out on the board. So if anyone knows for sure let me know. I would love to tell the feds to take a hike if they don't have the proper documents, or at least make 'em sit in the back.

Cheers
DairyAir

 

[mckpickle]

Sorry they own the jumpseat. Little trick though. If there isnt enough O2 for a 3rd crewmember than they cant go. Also, if the Jumpseaters seatbelt happens to be missing.........oh well.

 

[bigsky]

I believe you are correct although I can not remember the official name of the form! The inspector sould present Faa 110a and the form stating that they are conducting some official business- likewise ATC used to always try and bumb a ride- they really must have some form by their boss saying they are observing(I personally am glad to give them a ride although without this form preferred they sit in the back as they were not official to ride jumpseat--as far as inspectors go it is an awkward situation as one hates to make enemies.

 

[GCD]

Tread carefully!

If you use the O2 excuse, you better be able to show the inspector what the PSI is. If you do not have sufficient O2, you better write it up and get the MEL defferal before you takeoff, or you can get nabbed for flying an un-airworthy airplane by the inspector.

Don't even think about leaking the O2 to get the PSI down below three crew level, as that is a felony. I know of an airline who asked a guy to resign or they would call the FBI and report an aircraft sabotage after they caught him doing this.

Why would you be affraid to have an inspector on anyway? I've had some fun and made some great contacts by giving these guys rides.

 

[varicam]

Check your MEL before writing up a seatbelt, O2, etc for the jumpseat. While most MEL's will permit deferral of JS squawks, this approval is conditional. Bottom line is if the JS is inop and the FAA shows up for an enroute inspection, the airplane is unairworthy until the FAA goes away or the seat is fixed.

 

[mckpickle]

Check your MEL before writing up a seatbelt, O2, etc for the jumpseat. While most MEL's will permit deferral of JS squawks, this approval is conditional. Bottom line is if the JS is inop and the FAA shows up for an enroute inspection, the airplane is unairworthy until the FAA goes away or the seat is fixed.

Not true. A FAA inspector can not delay a flight except by grounding the aircraft, and he better have a good explanation. He has nothing to say about MEL's. If it is in the company manual than it is legal. As far as the O2.......jeez relax guys. Guess I should have put a "wink wink" in my last post. I'm not by any means affraid of the FAA, heck i've even taken them VFR down the Hudson before. They loved the view!

 

[varicam]

mckpickle:

Read your MEL before making rash statements. The jump seat belongs to the Administrator and as as long as he/she doesn't want it it can be broke. However, most MEL's make it clear that if the Administrator wants it and it's broke, the airplane is unairworthy. It's not the individual Inspector who's downing the airplane, it's the fact that it doesn't comply with the deferral requirements of the MEL.

 

[varicam]

Not true. A FAA inspector can not delay a flight except by grounding the aircraft, and he better have a good explanation.

Where did you get this info? The FAA makes every attempt not to interfere with the on-time departure of a flight, but this is policy, not law. The FA Act, which is the law, gives them the right to inspect anytime and anyplace. If they're unreasonable, legal action can be taken against them. But, thay have the right and the responsibility to ensure that crewmembers and equipment are legal and airworthy, even if the flight is delayed.

 

[80/20]

The forms is 110A, "Aviation Safety Inspector Credentials,"
An inspector that claims that he or she needs to do a check on a particular flight has first priority. The inspector can even bump company pilots during IOE, line checks and so on.

The FAA is advising all inspectors to check who is flying in order to avoid unnecessary interruption of company checking and training.

There are two types of cockpit checks, Cockpit Enroute Inspections and Line Checks. Your airline is responsible for, and will normally do, the Line Checks. Sometimes a FAA inspector may do a line check, typically if an airline don't have its own check airman. For examples a small 135 operator. Another example would be when a new aircraft is introduced into 121/135 service. The inspector must also be typed to give a line check. Most inspectors will just conduct Cockpit Enroute Inspections. This is a more general check of the entire operation. It is not a "pass/fail" check ride.

The inspector must inform you if violation has been observed and critical comments or further action is to be expected.

You can ask the inspector to mail you a copy of the report if it has critical comments.

 

[mckpickle]

mckpickle:

Read your MEL before making rash statements. The jump seat belongs to the Administrator and as as long as he/she doesn't want it it can be broke. However, most MEL's make it clear that if the Administrator wants it and it's broke, the airplane is unairworthy. It's not the individual Inspector who's downing the airplane, it's the fact that it doesn't comply with the deferral requirements of the MEL.

What are you talking about. If the jumpseat is in the MEL book than it can be MELed no if an or buts. No whinning from an inspector. They can try to say that the aircraft is unairworthy HOWEVER, the director of Quality control can (and has at coex) override that decision. We had an inspector try to pull somthing like this once. It had nothing to do with the jumpseat but basically the ispector said the a/c was unairworthy and the dir of q/c said yes it is fly the plane. The inspector then tried to take action against the pilots and was sumarilly told he was in the wrong.

 

[mckpickle]

Where did you get this info? The FAA makes every attempt not to interfere with the on-time departure of a flight, but this is policy, not law. The FA Act, which is the law, gives them the right to inspect anytime and anyplace. If they're unreasonable, legal action can be taken against them. But, thay have the right and the responsibility to ensure that crewmembers and equipment are legal and airworthy, even if the flight is delayed.

I thought this was common knowledge. It goes back to the FAA's dual role of promoting aviation at the same time as enforceing it. Granted they DO have the power to issue an emergency revocation to pilot certicicates or ground and airplane, but not for something that maint. control and q/c deems MEL able. As a checkairman for 3 years I've had many FAA guys in the jumpseat and they have all agreed when the subject has come up in conversation.

 

[varicam]

I thought this was common knowledge. It goes back to the FAA's dual role of promoting aviation at the same time as enforceing it. Granted they DO have the power to issue an emergency revocation to pilot certicicates or ground and airplane, but not for something that maint. control and q/c deems MEL able. As a checkairman for 3 years I've had many FAA guys in the jumpseat and they have all agreed when the subject has come up in conversation.

Well, my apologies!! Didn't realize I was addressing an expert in the field. However, you might want to take a peek at FAA Handbook 8400.10 page 6-128 which addresses air carrier inspection procedures for all types of inspections, including ramp and enroute inspections. I quote" "Most inspections will require some disruption to normal operations. Responsible operators engaged in air transportation understand the legal basis for FAA surveillance and are generally cooperative in responding to the needs of inspectors during the conduct of inspections. Operators are required to afford inspectors the opportunity to conduct inspections in a manner that effectively accomplishes the objectives of the inspections. Inspectors should, however, arrange their inspections so they will result in a minimum amount of disruption to routine operations."

Maybe you can enlighten the folks at FAA HQ so the handbook can be corrected.

 

[avbug]

Varicam,

Off subject, but P-2V? Saw the handle and wondered.

 

[varicam]

Varicam,

Off subject, but P-2V? Saw the handle and wondered.

Yeah, a loooong time ago in the Navy. Liked it a lot. You fly it as a tanker?