is company policy as good as FAR?

[91100 100 set]

Okay, weird title, I know.

Reading another thread about the Mesaba crew getting canned for the 12 hour rule, I got to wondering about something I had heard years ago. This is not a debate about the 12 hour rule, drinking on trips (legally or not) or bashing anybody, so there should be no need to comment on airing laundry on a public forum.

So here it is. When a 121 company publishes a policy (say a 12 hour drinking rule) and it is in writing in a manual, be it a GOM, FOM, GPM, or whatever, does that policy then become FAR and enforcable as such? I had heard this a few years back when some of my fellow instructors were debating a few issues published in my school's FOM. Is there some statement declaring this somewhere in the certification regulations?

Going farther, when a company publishes an SOP regarding how to operate the plane, does that then become FAR? Where does one draw the line between required procedure, recommended technique, and "common line practice". We all know that all three exist out there, and they can occasionally be contradicting information in that department.

Just looking for some thoughts or comments.

 

[pilotyip]

The GOM, COM etc are approved FAA documents required by an airline to operate. The airline must comply with all of its procedures or it is in violation of its approved procedures. However the violation of a company procedure that is more restrictive than the underlying FAR does not bring the same level of violation that violating the FAR would bring.

 

[Dave Benjamin]

My understanding is that we follow whatever is more restrictive - FAR or company policy.

I've also heard that violating the Ops Specs is akin to violating the FAR's. In this case the Mesaba crew violated the FOM so it wouldn't be an FAA enforceable violation.

I'd rather fly with someone that had one beer 8:01 before show time than someone who had 8 beers 12 hours prior.

 

[Yank McCobb]

Company manuals such as FOM, COM, etc. (as stand-alone documents) are accepted by the FAA. Changes can be made to these manuals without prior submission. Therefore, they are not regulatory in the sense that you can be violated for deviating from a company policy or procedure. The company may take action, up to and including discharge, but the FAA cannot violate you solely based on a deviation from company policy. By solely I mean you did not also violate a regulation in doing so. For example, (and yes, this is extreme, but illustrates the example) our manual has certain grooming and uniform standards for pilots. If the company decided to press it, they could make an issue out of continued deviation from these policies. However, no matter what, the FAA can't violate you for having long hair and not wearing a hat.

Conversely, other documents, such as Ops Specs are FAA approved. Meaning any changes to these must be submitted to the FAA for approval prior to their implementation. These are regulatory in nature, and carry the same weight as any FAR. You can be subject to both company and FAA action by deviating from these.

One final note. Many items in the COM, FOM are based on Part 121 or an Ops Spec, etc...and by that nature are regulatory. However, the regulation is typically listed with the paragraph of the FOM/COM to which it applies. However, if you deviate, it is the regulation that it is based upon that causes you the problem, not the deviation from the FOM.

Again, company manuals are FAA accepted. Ops Specs are FAA approved. There is a big difference in accepted and approved.

 

[labbats]

My understanding is that we follow whatever is more restrictive - FAR or company policy.

I've also heard that violating the Ops Specs is akin to violating the FAR's. In this case the Mesaba crew violated the FOM so it wouldn't be an FAA enforceable violation.

I'd rather fly with someone that had one beer 8:01 before show time than someone who had 8 beers 12 hours prior.

This is pretty much what I was going to write.

 

[jjetpilot]

How about 12 beers 4 hours before show.......then you both call in sick and then keep drinking?