Flight Operation Manual

[FlyaLear35]

I work for a fairly large Pt 91 management company, managing jets and turboprops for some clients. We have an FOM which talks about all the things it probaby should, everything from dress code to company minimum weather and duty times. It's substantial and compehensive.

Let's take a duty time issue. A nice contentious issue we all love to talk about. We have a 14 hour duty, 10 hour rest restriction in the FOM, similar to 135. It doesn't say we can exceed it, and it also says if we do exceed it we get extended rest. It also says the pilot has discretion about continuing a flight if he becomes too tired to fly.

My question is: If we don't abide by the rules in the FOM, is the FAA going to care? If we had an incident and we had exceeded the 14 hour duty day, (even though Pt 91 has no duty limits), what's going to happen?

Is the FAA going to look at our FOM, or just Pt 91?

 

[Spooky 1]

I work for a fairly large Pt 91 management company, managing jets and turboprops for some clients. We have an FOM which talks about all the things it probaby should, everything from dress code to company minimum weather and duty times. It's substantial and compehensive.

Let's take a duty time issue. A nice contentious issue we all love to talk about. We have a 14 hour duty, 10 hour rest restriction in the FOM, similar to 135. It doesn't say we can exceed it, and it also says if we do exceed it we get extended rest. It also says the pilot has discretion about continuing a flight if he becomes too tired to fly.

My question is: If we don't abide by the rules in the FOM, is the FAA going to care? If we had an incident and we had exceeded the 14 hour duty day, (even though Pt 91 has no duty limits), what's going to happen?

Is the FAA going to look at our FOM, or just Pt 91?

Yes, they are going to care a lot about your not abiding by the manual so don't write it down, if don't want to relive it at the end of the long green table.

 

[SCT]

Spooky, I disagree with your answer. Being part 91 I believe the Feds would not care about a companie's ops manual concerning duty time. Now if it was 135-121-125, they would be very interested. Now on the otherr hand, if there was an incident or accident involving the company a/c, a lawayer would probably be very interested in the information.

I used to work for a large 91 department in the midwest that had a company ops manual. But the manual was written to be very sketchy at best. Also, if there was a statement like duty times or runway minimums, there was always an * next to it saying the CP could over rule. Except for the dress code, the manual was worthless.....

 

[fokkerjet]

We had a former NTSB official come and talk to us and he said that the NTSB would be very interested in why you violated your Ops Manual........if you can't live by your own procedures, why write them into the manual?

 

[Spooky 1]

Spooky, I disagree with your answer. Being part 91 I believe the Feds would not care about a companie's ops manual concerning duty time. Now if it was 135-121-125, they would be very interested. Now on the otherr hand, if there was an incident or accident involving the company a/c, a lawayer would probably be very interested in the information.

I used to work for a large 91 department in the midwest that had a company ops manual. But the manual was written to be very sketchy at best. Also, if there was a statement like duty times or runway minimums, there was always an * next to it saying the CP could over rule. Except for the dress code, the manual was worthless.....

Reading my answer again I would agree with your assessment more than mine. The issue is, if you are going to create a FOM, or what ever you want to call it, you should plan to operate in accordance with it at "all times", otherwise your just setting yourself up for a big problem if you are found outside the limitations, policy, and protocals written down in the first place. We are just wrapping our arms around an IS-BAO document that is hugh in scope and I'm sure that the first time someone gets on the wrong side of the language, they are risking both their jobs and the rath of the FAA. Perhaps duty time is a poor example, but there are a mirid of other opportunities to screw the pooch in a manual that is as conclusive as the one we are working with.

 

[smfav8r]

Are you operating under 91K?? 91K operators are now required to have an approved FOM (2005). It's more like 135 then 91....I think they would care more if you were a 91K operator.

 

[Spooky 1]

Are you operating under 91K?? 91K operators are now required to have an approved FOM (2005). It's more like 135 then 91....I think they would care more if you were a 91K operator.

We are Part 91, but we also operate a couple of our larger aircraft on Part 125 with a Part 91 exemption. FAA Part 125 is very mild to say the least and many issues are not even addressed so we use the Part 91 manual as an underlying document for how we fly our aircraft. An example of where Part 125 ignores the obvious is oxygen requirements above FL250 for crewmembers. There simply is no reference to it in our Part 125 manual so we observe the FOM language.

This all about to change as Part 125 has been under review byt the FAA for the last 24+ months and they are about to issue a revised and much more compreshensive document soon. It will look a lot more like Part 135.

 

[HMR]

My question is: If we don't abide by the rules in the FOM, is the FAA going to care? If we had an incident and we had exceeded the 14 hour duty day, (even though Pt 91 has no duty limits), what's going to happen?

Is the FAA going to look at our FOM, or just Pt 91?

Wierd! I was just working on our FOM and asking myself this same question 2 minutes ago. Personally, I'm keeping the language as vague as possible.

Our dept is small and the Captain's decisions are never questioned by the owner so we don't run into the same issues (i.e., duty time and rest requirements) as bigger dept's. When writing your manual I say only include what HAS to be in there for your particular operation. Don't hang yourself with your own rope.

 

[Spooky 1]

Wierd! I was just working on our FOM and asking myself this same question 2 minutes ago. Personally, I'm keeping the language as vague as possible.

Our dept is small and the Captain's decisions are never questioned by the owner so we don't run into the same issues (i.e., duty time and rest requirements) as bigger dept's. When writing your manual I say only include what HAS to be in there for your particular operation. Don't hang yourself with your own rope.

Probably sage advice but when you set out to be IS BAO complient, it is difficult if not impossible to brush issues under the rug. There are some advantages to the IS BAO approval, and it does not come cheap or easy to comply with their doctrine, but it would appear to be a pretty sound program all in all.

 

[HMR]

Probably sage advice but when you set out to be IS BAO complient, it is difficult if not impossible to brush issues under the rug. There are some advantages to the IS BAO approval, and it does not come cheap or easy to comply with their doctrine, but it would appear to be a pretty sound program all in all.

Agreed.

A neighboring flight dept. just paid the big bucks for the IS BAO. It's a pretty serious manual and necessary for the large # of pilots they employ and the frequent international trips they fly. I looked into it awhile back for us but couldn't justify the cost for our little operation. I was able to get an excellent manual from a large, well known PT91 dept. I pared it down to about half it's original size. We're so small, there really isn't much that needs to be in our manual. It's main purpose is to get contract pilots up to speed before a flight.

 

[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?

 

[smfav8r]

But if your operating under 91K everything in the manual needs to be stamped with FAA approval....that's why I asked if they were operating under 91K....91K is much like 135 when it comes to a FOM/GOM.

 

[NoPax]

deleted

 

[JetPilot500]

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.

I used to work for a large Part 91 Operator where two of our pilots were involved in a major accident (no one injured). The FAA didn't care what our Ops Manual said. However, the company used the Ops Manual to fire the pilots! Funny thing was, we were always told to disregard the manual because it was only a guideline.

Watch your A$$!

JetPilot500

 

[some_dude]

As far as the FAA is concerned, "ops manual? What ops manual?"

As others have pointed out, insurance or company management might have an issue, though...