Fed Bust the guy next to you ..

[GogglesPisano]

Pretty Orwellian stuff.

Again, two issues on this thread:

#1. A "known medical deficiency" in a fellow pilot one is paired with. Hawkerfun, what does you calling in sick accomplish? Your colleague still flies, no? If you're worried about some investigator digging this deep and being able to prove that you had knowledge, you'd still be responsible for allowing him to fly. I wouldn't be too concerned about my responsibility for a colleague flying with a "known medical deficiency" that is not readily apparent to an outside observer.

#2. A fellow pilot under the influence of alcohol. OTOH, your chances of getting nailed for flying with a colleague who reeks of alcohol are much higher. (I realize this really isn't the subject at hand in this discussion.)

Again, if you are concerned, get professional legal advice from ALPA. On Monday morning!

 

[737tanker]

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

I remember this, he was a Captain with an ALPA Commuter and lost on appeal. ALPA did set up a fund for contributions so he could do all the checkrides to get his ratings back, from Private to ATP. His company helped by putting him on LOA so he didn't lose any seniority when he came back. All because the FAA felt, on the one and only leg that he flew with the F/O, he should have known that the F/O was intoxicated.

 

[JAFI]

All because the FAA felt,

And you forgot the next part - The NTSB Judge agreed and the NTSB appeal Judge agreed also......

 

[JAFI]

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

.

The Judge decided that you must watch out for the other person. Judges make the final ruleing "what" a regulation means.

 

[GogglesPisano]

The judge's ruling concerned intoxication (issue #2 that hawkerfun raised.) I have yet to see any ruling concerning having knowledge of a colleague's "known medical deficiency" (ie: a chronic disqualifying disease. Issue #1 that hawkerfun raised.)

If anyone can cite any instance where a pilot was violated for not doing something about another pilot's non-alcohol-related groundable "known medical deficiency," it could shine a lot of light on hawkerfun's dilemma.

 

[PFTEXPJET]

I know some of you drink a lot but when did pilots become professional police officers that have been trained to determine weather a person is drunk or not? If you have no formal training and accuse someone of drinking and they have not, you're going to get sued! As you should!

 

[AC560]

If anyone can cite any instance where a pilot was violated for not doing something about another pilot's non-alcohol-related groundable "known medical deficiency," it could shine a lot of light on hawkerfun's dilemma.

These issues are largely common sense, and 91.13 covers all common sense issues. If your Captain shows up and has two steak knives driven through his eyes blinding him, then perhaps he shouldn't be flying.

I know some of you drink a lot but when did pilots become professional police officers that have been trained to determine weather a person is drunk or not? If you have no formal training and accuse someone of drinking and they have not, you're going to get sued! As you should!

Or lose your certificate as pointed out by 737tanker.

 

[GogglesPisano]

These issues are largely common sense, and 91.13 covers all common sense issues. If your Captain shows up and has two steak knives driven through his eyes blinding him, then perhaps he shouldn't be flying..

And if he shows up displaying no symptoms, the Feds cannot nail you for something you could not possibly know. Common sense. On this we can agree.

 

[AC560]

And if he shows up displaying no symptoms, the Feds cannot nail you for something you could not possibly know. Common sense. On this we can agree.

The Feds can and will nail you on whatever they want to, common sense or otherwise.

 

[JAFI]

The Feds can and will nail you on whatever they want to, common sense or otherwise.

Remember - it is the NTSB Judge who decides, common sense or no. In my experence they are real safety minded. If you can convince them you acted on the safety side they may agree with you. If you say "prove I didn't", remember in Administrative Law it only take 51% (sometimes less) to convince a NTSB Judge.