Flight Operation Manual

[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...