Fed Bust the guy next to you ..

[mamba20]

Where is that? I have been told that goes for Medical Deficiency also. and now I am paired with a pilot fighting cancer and pro standards knows about this what was talked about in the meeting can not go out of this room. I think someone is going to hang me for flying with someone that I knew had a medical deficiency. If I called in sick every day I would use up all my sick days.
So where is it written if you "knowingly" knew and thank for your help and no thanks for all the comments that where uncalled for.

I think someone above posted it, but I got that directly from our company FOM which is essentially our 121 regs. I know its in the regular FAR's somewhere. I key word is "knowingly"

I was actually asked this question during an interview once and I said that I would give the guy a chance to call out sick, after that I'm worrying about my own butt and calling for him.

 

[mamba20]

hawker,

Sorry I didnt completely answer your question, I admit I didn't read your whole post. As far as knowingly flying with someone with a known medical deficiency? I have no idea about that.

 

[GuppyWN]

I would do two things.

1. Tell this individual that if he is in fact flying with Cancer that he needs to relieve himself from duty.

2. If HE CHOOSES NOT TO ABIDE BY THE REGULATIONS I would call scheduling, planning or whoever you use and get it on a recorded line that you are unable to continue the pairing because you know that your fellow pilot is illegal to continue duty.

Good luck. Sounds like you're really struggling with this. Remember, the career you save just might be your own.

Gup

 

[JAFI]

61.53 Prohibition on operations during medical deficiency.
(a) Operations that require a medical certificate. Except as provided for in paragraph (b) of this section, no person who holds a medical certificate issued under part 67 of this chapter may act as pilot in command, or in any other capacity as a required pilot flight crewmember, while that person:
(1) Knows or has reason to know of any medical condition that would make the person unable to meet the requirements for the medical certificate necessary for the pilot operation

 

[GogglesPisano]

91.13 / 91.17(b)

"91.17: (b) Except in an emergency, no pilot of a civil aircraft may allow a person who appears to be intoxicated or who demonstrates by manner or physical indications that the individual is under the influence of drugs (except a medical patient under proper care) to be carried in that aircraft."

The sticky parts here are "appears," and "intoxicated." Who defines this? We are not trained law enforcement and, as far as I know, receive no formal training to enable us to identify "intoxication." Further, this regulation does not differentiate between crew and passengers. So to take it to an extreme, if a passenger is randomely breathalyzed after boarding and is over the limit, the PIC is somehow responsible?

Let's face facts, most crewmembers who are nailed by the TSA at checkpoints do not "appear" intoxicated. It's on their breath.

To imply that an airline crewmember should have better training than a TSA agent in identifying who "appears intoxicated" falls flat on it's face.

Again, prove that I know. Apart from staying out all night with the guy, mentioning it to a third party, or admitting to it on the CVR, no one can prove you knew.

 

[ACL65PILOT]

The way out of this is that you are not a trained observer and are not trained for a reason. To you he seemed totally in control and no intoxicated. Might be a pita but you will not get busted unless the guy was way way way over the limit.

It is about liability, it is also why most airlines do not train their cabin attendants in CPR.

 

[GogglesPisano]

61.53 Prohibition on operations during medical deficiency.
(a) Operations that require a medical certificate. Except as provided for in paragraph (b) of this section, no person who holds a medical certificate issued under part 67 of this chapter may act as pilot in command, or in any other capacity as a required pilot flight crewmember, while that person:
(1) Knows or has reason to know of any medical condition that would make the person unable to meet the requirements for the medical certificate necessary for the pilot operation

Nowhere in that reg does it state I am responsible for someone else flying with a groundable medical deficiency.

In "hawkerfun's" case he states that... "Am I at Risk because he wants to keep on flying even though he has cancer and should not. I know the treament he is going through he is a tuff person. and while you are going through treament you can not fly. I know I had cancer 15 years ago." There are lots of different types of cancer. They come in various stages. Someone who has a simple skin cancer removed is not grounded. "Hawkerfun" implied that he has knowledge of a specific cancer which does make the pilot unable to meet the requirements for the medical certificate. If that is the case then 91.13 (careless and reckless) may rear it's ugly, one-size-fits-all head.

However, my question is: Why would anyone suspect -- and how would anyone know -- that Hawkerfun had knowledge of another pilot's medical condition?

"Hawkerfun" if you're really that concerned about it. Call ALPA legal.

 

[hawkerfun]

When you are stuck with someone for a month you end up talking alot or I do. I knew his treatment and he is done with radation but he he should not be flying yet. I have been there and done that. When I did have cancer other pilot told me not to report it. I thought better of it. for my family because if something happen down the road it will come out in the end. and that is what I am trying to tell him and this is not working and it is tearing me up inside.

 

[NuGuy]

The way out of this is that you are not a trained observer and are not trained for a reason. To you he seemed totally in control and no intoxicated. Might be a pita but you will not get busted unless the guy was way way way over the limit.

It is about liability, it is also why most airlines do not train their cabin attendants in CPR.

Heyas ACL,

This might be true in theory....

But there was a commuter captain back in the 1990s that had emergency certificate action due to his co-pilot's condition. The FAAs position was that "he should have known...he was 2 feet from the guy".

I know the CA tried multiple appeals, but I don't remember how it turned out. I do know that if you go up against the FAA before the NTSB board of appeals, you are probably going to lose.

Nu

 

[AC560]

Who defines this?

The FAA.

So to take it to an extreme, if a passenger is randomely breathalyzed after boarding and is over the limit, the PIC is somehow responsible?

Clearly yes, you can disagree but that is the way the regulation is written.

Again, prove that I know. Apart from staying out all night with the guy, mentioning it to a third party, or admitting to it on the CVR, no one can prove you knew.

Under Administrative law the burden of proof falls upon you.

There clearly is a point where it is obvious somebody is intoxicated to anyone (if the guy sitting in the seat next to you pulls out a bottle of Vodka and chugs half of it odds are pretty good he is intoxicated), in those instances do the right thing.