Legal issues and new DO?

[icefr8dawg]

A buddy of mine just got a job as the DO of a small 135 outfit but they've got some major compliance issues. He's wondering how much of the past problems he's liable for? Once he gets it cleaned up I'd assume everything will be ok. I'm just wondering if there are any self disclosure requirements for day one on the job.

 

[kilroy]

A buddy of mine just got a job as the DO of a small 135 outfit but they've got some major compliance issues. He's wondering how much of the past problems he's liable for? Once he gets it cleaned up I'd assume everything will be ok. I'm just wondering if there are any self disclosure requirements for day one on the job.

Is this a Fl. gig??

And no the D.O. will usually not get a violation for any compliance issues on the certificate. But the certificate itself can get violations and fines.

 

[icefr8dawg]

Ha, no it's not a FL gig but it was run like one. We were just talking about how much a DO has to carry and what the liabilities are. It could be a scary proposition.

 

[avbug]

The Director of Operations always has operational control. If something goes wrong, he's on the hook for it because he had operational control. If he was unable to control it, he's on the hook for it because he's lost control. The DO shoulders the operation. Others along the way are also responsible, but the DO is always responsible.

If you're talking about compliance issues of the past which are here and now, in other words, the company is out of compliance now because of past errors...the DO now must fix it and must answer for it.

 

[icefr8dawg]

Well that'll be his challenge then. Big task at hand.

 

[pilotyip]

Is he a flying DO? Where the flight schedule comes first and he can get around to the DO stuff when he are not flying. Does he really have operational control? He can not say no and not get fired when he says to the boss this crew is not legal, but hte boss has already promised a customer an airplane. If he can not say no and flies as hios primary duty, he is not really a DO and he should run from the job..

 

[avbug]

I didn't see anything about flying vs. not flying...the issue appears to be a problem operation and the troubles that the new DO may have inherited with it.

This buzz-word "self-disclosure" keeps popping up. When the original poster says "self-disclosure," what does he mean?

That's a very loaded phrase, and a potentially dangerous one.

A new DO needs to take stock of the situation. If he's on the certificate as the DO, the always has operational authority and control, and is always responsible for every aspect of the operation. He can delegate authority, but but can never abdicate respnsibility. When he grants authority to another person, even a required officer of the company such as the Chief Pilot or Director of Maintenance, he still holds the ultimate authority. Others may be grated elements of operational control, to include releasing a fight, but the DO is still ultimately responsible.

On arrival, a new DO needs to look over the operation with a critical eye. Chances are very high that the operation has problems...many 135 outfits are rife with problems, and a smart manager will find them and fix them rather than covering them up or continuing to run the operation business-as-usual.

The problem for the DO is that once the OpSpecs are ammended to show him as the Director of Operations, he's responsible for the whole shooting match. If the duty records are improper, for example, or if the aircraft are being operated on an improper maintenance schedule or program, he's responsible to explain to the FAA what has gone wrong.

I took over a 135 operation as DoM, (not DO), and the first thing I did was critically review the maintenance program. I found almost every aspect of what was being done to be inadequate, including the fact that the aircraft was being inspected in accordance with a program that was three years out of date. It was out of compliance in nearly every respect. I immediately brought in outside party assistance, and brought the aircraft current through not only the present inspection, but one more, and ensured that every service bulletin and AD was attended, as well as changing the tracking and maintenance program to reflect current practice and policy. This then went straight to the FAA for approval. I did not want to go to the FAA without a clear plan and proof that it was being swiftly handled.

That's not self-disclousre...that's finding fires and putting them out while they're small. The changes were expensive, and sweeping. The owner of the company had a meltdown, and I gave him a choice; hang the going out of business sign in the window today, or fix it. I didn't give him the choice of getting rid of me to cover it up, either; I let him know the problems were manifest, documented, and were in play. I left him no choice. When you are holding out your reputation as a named party to the operation, and the duty, liability, and responsibilities have become yours, the only thing to do is to take full ownership of the problem and fix it. Be proactive.

Document, document, document. A very big problem for the incoming DO is one who doesn't know the regulation. If you're going to to be a named officer in the company, you had better know that regulation better than the FAA, or it will bury you.

The FAA's big buzzword is "attitude of compliance." The FAA is very big on that, and I agree with that philosophy. If you can make clear that you're serious about being safe and legal, and taking great strides to make that happen, then in most every case the FAA will help you do it. Any wavering in sincerity will shoot you in the foot, however, so take care.

Manual re-writes are common, and necessary. Generally it's more like a General Operations Manual overhaul. This can be a good thing because as long as a concept is reasonable, the FAA will allow a very big amount of latitude in setting company policy via the GOM, and ultimately the OpSpecs that allow the operator to go to work. Remember that the GOM be used to hold the DO's feet to the flame. There's no FAA regulation that requires pilots to wear blue shirts with epaulettes and paisley ties, but if that's shown as a requirement in the company ops manual, the pilots can be held to it every bit as much as if it were FAA regulation...The DO will likewise be held accountable for every approved age in that manual, and had better know both the regulation and the manual to know where he or she truly stands.

 

[icefr8dawg]

Insightful as always. I 've heard the buzzword "self disclose" over the years and took it to mean telling the FAA what's wrong when you find the problem. In reality I suppose it's all laid out in the inspector's handbook.

 

[avbug]

Well...it's also dangerously close to "self-incrimination."

 

[climbhappy]

i'm miffed by the term self disclosure requirements.

i ran a small 135 cert years ago. i owned it. my poi said we have to do two base inspections a year. if paper was out of order. he would point it out. he'd come back. it better be fixed. a fine is 10,000 bucs.

if your friend sees that their are compliances issues which is what you said originally, and his name is on the cert, then he needs to fix them. if the owner refiused, call the fed in.

i just heard of this pissing contest. two guys owned a repair station . one put the money in and the other ran it. they got pissed at each other, so smart guy (money and no brains) decides to pack up all the manuals, the cert on the wall and the records and takes it. the other guy ( no money, but with brains) called the PMI and said "we're in violation of our ops specs, you need to come down here. the PMI went saw what happened and revoked the certificate. idiots just can't come in and take pretty much everything with the fed stamp on it and leave. now the guy with money is $ship out of luck.

so my point is, if you have the brains fix it or tell the idiot with the money to let you fix it or leave and "drop the dime"

don't work somwhere that may kill you (flying) while doing your job.