Info On Sk Logistics, Inc

[LR25]

being on a pager is not in violation. It should be though.

 

[Hopeless_in_GA]

I think SK Logistics is one of those companies we all know someone from, meaning they have a bad rep.

I knew one of their Lear jocks that said it wasn’t half bad but he and I left the same GA based company for much the same reasons folks leave SK except he went to SK I went to Burger King.

At least the pay was better.

 

[FlyingMoose]

being on a pager is not in violation. It should be though.

I hope this doesn't turn into a rest/duty thread but.... If you are required/obligated to respond to that pager and/or are obligated to report to an assignment then you are NOT IN REST, and that is what can lead to a violation.

Sure, LR25, you can be on a pager/cell or on call 24/7 and that in itself is no violation (as long as you get the required 24 hour rest periods depending on what part you operate under). But if you were obligated to do so and report to an assignment immediately following then you and your company are violation of applicable FARs (135 Subpart F, 121 Subpart Q, 125.37, and possibly the catch all 91.13...)

And, as referenced above, technically there are instances where being "on the pager" or on call can in itself cause the violation, i.e. the required 24 hour REST periods required either per week or per quarter (135).

Every time this topic comes up whether here or out on the line, it sometimes comes across as a bunch of whiney weenie talk... "but the regs say this or that". But IMHO, if the vast majority of employers (that I have dealt with) didn't abuse these principles and exploit crews when allowed to, then we could use a lot of common sense, safety and airworthiness as the metric and would not have to rely on a lot of convoluted rules that half the POI's can't even seem to comprehend! Yeah right, sounds like one of those "Here in Perfect..." adds.

 

[LR25]

I hope this doesn't turn into a rest/duty thread but.... If you are required/obligated to respond to that pager and/or are obligated to report to an assignment then you are NOT IN REST, and that is what can lead to a violation.

Sure, LR25, you can be on a pager/cell or on call 24/7 and that in itself is no violation (as long as you get the required 24 hour rest periods depending on what part you operate under). But if you were obligated to do so and report to an assignment immediately following then you and your company are violation of applicable FARs (135 Subpart F, 121 Subpart Q, 125.37, and possibly the catch all 91.13...)

And, as referenced above, technically there are instances where being "on the pager" or on call can in itself cause the violation, i.e. the required 24 hour REST periods required either per week or per quarter (135).

Every time this topic comes up whether here or out on the line, it sometimes comes across as a bunch of whiney weenie talk... "but the regs say this or that". But IMHO, if the vast majority of employers (that I have dealt with) didn't abuse these principles and exploit crews when allowed to, then we could use a lot of common sense, safety and airworthiness as the metric and would not have to rely on a lot of convoluted rules that half the POI's can't even seem to comprehend! Yeah right, sounds like one of those "Here in Perfect..." adds.

Its whatever the managment sells to the POI, and what the POI will consider as in compliance, or not.

Becuase of all the grey area, it then rests in the latter, the POI. The only thing that is not in question usualy, is the rest required, either reduced or normal, everything else is up to whatever looks right to certian individuals, ie, POI.

Its sad, but it is the fact from my experience, under 135 and 121(Supplemental).

 

[CDogg]

I work for a company similar to SK, and have been on call 24/7 (even though I've been on the road) since Mid-July...as long as they don't call you during your 10 hour rest period, they can pull any type of bs they can...

 

[FlyingMoose]

Its whatever the managment sells to the POI, and what the POI will consider as in compliance, or not.

Becuase of all the grey area, it then rests in the latter, the POI. The only thing that is not in question usualy, is the rest required, either reduced or normal, everything else is up to whatever looks right to certian individuals, ie, POI.

Its sad, but it is the fact from my experience, under 135 and 121(Supplemental).

I'll agree with your last statement, and most people that have been in aviation for any considerable time have most likely experienced the same.

That being said, the fact is it is not a grey area, it is just one of the areas that for some reason a lot of people can't, don't or "won't" understand. The FAA and the FAR's are very clear (they could be written better, but still clear) on the rest issue.

It really comes down to what the individual pilot or group of pilots are willing to do or what they are willing to tolerate, not the POI's opinion. Another thing people can't seem to grasp is what authority the POI has and what his role is, He is an inspector, not a regulator. The FAA has been very clear on this matter as well, POI's do not have the authority to interpret or make regulations, their role is to inspect and insure compliance to the regs.

Your second point regarding "required rest" kind of plays into to my arguement. That is the main issue with being "on-call", any period of time you are on-call does not qualify as a "rest period".

None of us are niave enough here to not realize that plenty of operations regularly and by design are not in complaince with these rules and plenty of pilots accept assignments when they will be in violation of the current rest requirements. The sad fact is things usually don't get changed or enforced until people or property are lost.

We all know that beyond the most important principle of safety, we as pilots have to look out for our own livelyhood. The least little incident or accident can open the door to all this being looked at (regardless of it is fatigue related or anyhting you had direct control over). The FAA will hold the pilots ultimately responsible. You won't get far with the "but my Chief Pilot said our POI said it was legal" arguement.

For what it is worth, for all those that are working under similar conditions. See if your POI will give you a signed statement as to the legality of you being "on-call" and in rest at the same time; I'm betting it won't happen.