Flight Operation Manual

[sydeseet]

Some good info here. A lesson I learned from an ARGUS inspector is do NOT write it down unless you are always going to abide by it. Period. Otherwise, as it has been stated, you are throwing your own rope around the limb and then waiting for the opportunity to put the round end around your neck. Common sense says that if you're not going to abide by it then why go to the trouble of publishing it anyway? A FOM is worthless unless it is adhered to, enforced, and practical.

As far as the FAA enforcing the violation of a Pt 91 FOM but not of a FAR, I doubt they would have much ground to stand on in a legal proceeding. The inspector may get uptight about the FOM violation initially but it is not a legally binding document unless it is required and has a FSDO stamp on it. Otherwise 14 CFR 91 would rule.

This is legal wrangling defined in my opinion.

 

[Capthuff]

HMR - In another thread you stated this:
My stats for 2005:

Number of days flying= 48
RON's= 19
Total Hrs= 144.4 (including 27.8hrs for Hurricane Katrina Relief flying).
Number of days on call= ZERO

FWIW- I know at least 3 other guys locally with the same schedule who make more money than I do.

Now in this thread you just stated you need an FOM to get contract pilots up to speed.

How can you possibly need contract pilots???

I guess I'm just a little jealous

 

[HMR]

HMR - In another thread you stated this:
My stats for 2005:

Number of days flying= 48
RON's= 19
Total Hrs= 144.4 (including 27.8hrs for Hurricane Katrina Relief flying).
Number of days on call= ZERO

FWIW- I know at least 3 other guys locally with the same schedule who make more money than I do.

Now in this thread you just stated you need an FOM to get contract pilots up to speed.

How can you possibly need contract pilots???

I guess I'm just a little jealous

HA! Good point Capthuff!

We didn't think we needed a FOM but our attorney recently recommended we have one. What I've put together is very basic. The only value I can see it having is for a contract guy flying with us for the first time. In less than an hour he'll know to wear a polo shirt with slacks and to eat whatever and wherever he wants.

I don't know when we'd ever need a contract pilot but it's a nice option in case I need a vacation.

 

[NoPax]

If the aircraft is leased under Part 91... there would be a copy of the lease in the FSDO, and I'm sure part of the lease would relate to the operation of the airplane in accordance with the Flight Ops Manual. (a friend has done this recently).

So the FAA might not violate you, but I'd suspect that you put the operation in a precarious postion, legally, which may come back to bite you.

 

[H.Agenda]

Part 91K? what is that.

 

[h25b]

One other thing I would just throw in to the mix...

Some operators will submit their operations manual during insurance underwriting to try and convince them of the "extra level of safety" merit. So if you do not abide by the Company SOP manual in critical areas such as crew rest while your insurance premiums are somewhat predicated on compliance you could be in for some interesting problems when (notice I said "when", not "if") something happens.

 

[smfav8r]

Part 91K? what is that.

It's the new (2005) 91 rules governing fractional ownership. It's very similiar to 135, but you still operate under 91. You must have a FOM/GOM, more specific mx program, etc. It's a whole new section in 91 that came out in 2005 and I think most smaller fractional operators have gone the 135 way.

 

[AA717driver]

We use our FOM as kind of a pilot contract. It is a line in the sand that the owners don't push us to cross. But, I don't doubt for a second that the Feds would use the FOM against you if you dinged the airplane or had a violation that was caused or contributed to by not adhering to the FOM.

Spooky--I may be picking your brain in the future about IS BAO. We do so much international and it's getting so prickly in certain countries (bon jour!) that we may have to go that route.TC

 

[Brett Hull]

I'm no Lawyer, so this is worth what you paid for it...

I'm going to offer a dissenting opinion here.

From a former 135 puke, any change we made to our ops manual (that is required under Part 135, btw) regarding regulatory items had to be stamped "approved" by the FSDO, and signed by the inspector.

Conversely, the sections of the manual that did not deal with regulatory items were only stamped "accepted" by the FSDO. They could not "approve" them because they had no legal grounds to do so.

Now with a strictly Part 91 ops manual not required by any FAR, as long as you don't have anything that undermines Part 91, I don't see how it's any of the FAA's business since a 91 ops manual is not legally required. And like TC mentioned, the Part 91 ops manual serves the sole purpose of a contract between management and the pilots/mechanics/fa's/etc., regarding how the aircraft will be operated. I just don't agree that the FAA can use it against you.

 

[Spooky 1]

I'm going to offer a dissenting opinion here.

From a former 135 puke, any change we made to our ops manual (that is required under Part 135, btw) regarding regulatory items had to be stamped "approved" by the FSDO, and signed by the inspector.

Conversely, the sections of the manual that did not deal with regulatory items were only stamped "accepted" by the FSDO. They could not "approve" them because they had no legal grounds to do so.

Now with a strictly Part 91 ops manual, not required by any FAR, as long as you don't have anything that undermines Part 91, I don't see how it's any of the FAA's business since a 91 ops manual is not legally required. And like TC mentioned, the Part 91 ops manual serves the sole purpose of a contract between management and the pilots/mechanics/fa's/etc. I just don't agree that the FAA can use it against you.

I guess I would like to AvBug jump in here with an opinion?