Refused, Fired, Quit Game

[leardawg]

Tarps' story sounds sincere, and it seems like he did the right thing. Lord knows there are many similar situations in this industry. There are, however, usually two sides to every story (and the truth usually lies somewhere in between.) Often disgruntled employees will seek to "get back" at a former company and/or employees be embelleshing or outright lying. They may also exaggerate the sins perpetrated by the company in an attempt to justify their situation and actions to avoid accepting any blame themselves. I've seen this happen on numerous occasions. And some people are simply inveterate and incurable malcontents who will be unhappy and grouse no matter where they work. It's simply the way they're "wired". Again, I'm not referring specifically to Tarps' narrative. His story is not uncommon. There is pressure to "find some way to get it done" on occasion no matter where one works. The key is knowing where to draw the line and just say no. A good company will respect and abide by a Captains' decision, even if they don't like the inconvenience it causes. And they will never intentionally put a pilot in a position to do something blatantly illegal or unsafe.

 

[G100driver]

As much as I would like to be sympathetic to what happenend to you, I have to agree. If every pilot asked for all the logbooks, insurance papers, 135 certificates for every trip with a different a/c....well, lets just say it would be a mess. I think you fulfilled your obligation by asking the questions, any more than that, you are just being a pita. And before the flaming starts, how many of you ask for all these documents when flying a different a/c? Avbug may, but I doubt many others do. I also believe there is more to this story than just this one incident.


AK

Not to be arguementative, but ever heard of a MX dispatch release. If you are 135 have you DOM sign your MX dispatch release with a status sheet of next MX due by hours, cycle and days for the following 30 days, 50 hours and 30 cycles. This can be maintianed with CAMPS or AvTrak.

Documentation should always be readily aviable to to any crew member in the event that he/she gets ramped.

Whne I used to ferry A/C for our MX department I always asked for the following:

-Insurance showing me as named or open pilot requirements
-Date of last annual and .411/.413
-Current weight and balance with loading graph. I had one guy remove seats without a new loading graph. I refused the flight until he put the seat back into the airplane.
-And of course ARROW.

 

[AngelKing]

Not to be arguementative, but ever heard of a MX dispatch release. If you are 135 have you DOM sign your MX dispatch release with a status sheet of next MX due by hours, cycle and days for the following 30 days, 50 hours and 30 cycles. This can be maintianed with CAMPS or AvTrak.

Documentation should always be readily aviable to to any crew member in the event that he/she gets ramped.

Whne I used to ferry A/C for our MX department I always asked for the following:

-Insurance showing me as named or open pilot requirements
-Date of last annual and .411/.413
-Current weight and balance with loading graph. I had one guy remove seats without a new loading graph. I refused the flight until he put the seat back into the airplane.
-And of course ARROW.

Never had a fed ask for insurance papers, never once in 30 years. Only the Mexicans have asked for that.

What is 'arrow"


AK

 

[timeoff]

What is 'arrow"

Airworthiness Certificate
Registration
Restricted Radiotelephone Operator Permit
Operating Manual
Weight and Balance data

It falls under part 91.203....Does this still apply to 135?

 

[G100driver]

Insurance was CYA for myself. Would not want someone to hand me the bill if I bent it.

 

[Capt1124]

Even a Part 91 flight requires a maintenance status sheet. You as PIC must know, and must be able to show an inspector, that required scheduled maintenance has been done.

Asking to see the logbooks might be excessive, but if they aren't willing to give you some written statement of when things are due and the times they were done at you can't fly the airplane.

 

[kingairyahoo]

Even a Part 91 flight requires a maintenance status sheet. You as PIC must know, and must be able to show an inspector, that required scheduled maintenance has been done.

...unless of course you have a 135 release number

 

[Corona]

hmmmm...

• part 91 aircraft goes down
• company replaces it
• pilot asks questions
• questions answered
• pilot declines to do trip

i guess i'll be in the minority also. if i let the "scuttlebutt" around here drive my decision to take or decline a particular flight, i would have been out of a job many moons ago.

Not quite.

If the owner's airplane is down, you can't just "substitute" another airplane in its place, regardless of whether it's the same type, etc.

If you are flying someone in an airplane they don't own, for hire, it must be a Demo flight or 135 charter, with all appropriate paperwork. It sounds to me like the pilot acted appropriately; moreover, it sounds like this probably was not the first company maneuver of this type. Everyone here knows 135 charter is populated with bottom-feeders.

C

 

[kingairyahoo]

If the owner's airplane is down, you can't just "substitute" another airplane in its place, regardless of whether it's the same type, etc.

actually...you can, as long as they have pre-arranged it. we have quite a few owners who have a sort of letter of authorization so that they can swap time in each others aircraft and its all done under 91.

 

[81Horse]

... and its all done under 91.

Part 91 has gotten to be a pretty big tent.

 

[Rick1128]

Not quite.

If the owner's airplane is down, you can't just "substitute" another airplane in its place, regardless of whether it's the same type, etc.

If you are flying someone in an airplane they don't own, for hire, it must be a Demo flight or 135 charter, with all appropriate paperwork. It sounds to me like the pilot acted appropriately; moreover, it sounds like this probably was not the first company maneuver of this type. Everyone here knows 135 charter is populated with bottom-feeders.

C

Actually that is how the fractionals work. The chances of flying in the aircraft that you own a share of can be quite small.

 

[G100driver]

Part 91 has gotten to be a pretty big tent.

yep. We used to get wet lease agreements all the time between owners. At the end of the day you can settle with cash or time trade ... without FET taxes. You will still have to report SIFL, however.

PS you POI will bless this. Put the letter on file at your local FSDO

 

[kingairyahoo]

ok....ill bite.

i know what FET is, but what the heck is SIFL???

 

[81Horse]

... what the heck is SIFL???

Don't fret -- SIFL is treatable.

 

[timeoff]

But don't scratch it....it will spread

 

[Pilot_Ryan]

Late to the thread. My first reaction was, "Well, he did what he thought was right and I can't blame him for that." And I still feel that way now at the end of the thread. But, to me, the sequence of events as described don't quite add up to a wave-off the day before, without even arriving to the aircraft.

Your company went by the book and subbed one aircraft for another. Yeah, sucks that it was the mx hog, but that was theoretically their perogative. You're told over the telephone by the CP that the aircraft is insured and that the paperwork for mx is in order. OK -- given that, I'm just curious why you're so quick to disbelieve him? Was there a history of other problems like that? If I were in that scenario I don't see myself refusing the night before. Upon arriving at the aircraft and performing a pre-flight inspection, that could change, but if the aircraft checks out, again, I'm not refusing the flight on the basis of this alone. Demanding logbooks and insurance paperwork at 9:30pm the night prior for a morning flight also seems a little excessive, but again assuming there was some basis of trust with the people you worked for. I'm guessing you didn't have that, and maybe that's really the issue at hand more than anything else.

However, easy for us to second-guess from the comfort of a message board. I suppose it's up to the individual company. If that occurred at my company I wouldn't have any problem accepting the aircraft for the flight, assuming there aren't any discrepancies uncovered during the pre-flight that would make it a no-go.

 

[G100driver]

ok....ill bite.

i know what FET is, but what the heck is SIFL???

SIFL: Standard Industry Fare Level. On part 91 flights individuals might be subject to the tax on SIFL. Thanks to Congress, this is now a moving target.

 

[kingairyahoo]

ahhhhh...gotcha!

 

[AMANSWORLD]

OK,

Here we go in the latest version of the game called refused, fired, quit.

You know the drill. I don't like the circumstances and refuse the trip. Of course, I'm the only CA available so the trip doesn't go without me. You'll take the trip or your fired. I'm not fired, I quit.

So let's see how you guys would think about this.

We are a charter and a management firm. Seven airplanes from a KA-200 down to a Baron.

One aircraft is an owner only aircraft - Part 91 stuff - never goes out on Charter. This aircraft gets sick the day before a big flight and is grounded.

Our contract says that we may use one of the company aircraft (Part 135) in replacement mode.

The company owns 3 planes of their own. One is a hangar queen that has mostly donated parts to other aircraft. Before this year the last annual on the airplane was performed in 2001.

The company had enough of the hangar queen and we were having a good year, so some money was spent to put the missing parts back in, get an annual and hang a "for sale" sign on the plane. With me so far.

The company has a cabinet with all the maintenance logbooks for aircraft in neat little file cases. Six airplanes, one nowhere in sight.

The scuttlebutt around the company was that the hangar queen went off insurance the same time it went off certificate. Ergo, it's N-number is not listed in our 135 Ops and I as a lowly captain can not determine if the plane is insured or not (and especially at 9:00pm when assigned the trip for first thing in the morning).

So, here we go. The CP assigns me a Part-91 trip in the hangar queen replacing the "owner" aircraft that is sick. The "owner" of said aircraft is a businessman who gets shuttled around and pays us a management fee plus pilot wages. This trip would take the owner and two clients to visit a manufacturing plant. I ask if it's legal. "Of course it's legal!" I ask about the logbooks. The maintenance guys must have them. I ask about the insurance. It's insured I'm told. I ask about the 135 listing and I'm told that it's a part 91 trip. You should note that this would be the first revenue flight this airplane would have done in 5 years.

I got reamed for asking all the questions I did.

So, I refused the trip and am now out of work.

I just couldn't reconcile all the pieces and of course there's a history of pushing things to the limits in the past and ignoring little lights and dials that are deamed unnesessary at the time and a lot of ahems and ah-huhs.

So what do guys think? Shut up and fly the trip. Dear Lord, run away as fast I can.

I guess my biggest problem was the lack of paperwork and clarity in an operation that has fairly decent paperwork. The FSDO comes in every so often. We are fairly tight. But there was nothing on this airplane except verbal assurances. I actually saw a little daydream of my certificates flying out of my wallet and towards OK City.

Anyway, just another out of work pilot.

Sounds like a call to the FAA is in order. As well as a lawyer. It is time these scumbag operaters start to feel the pain. Any company who is going to send its crews and its clients in bad airplanes under less than normal ops needs to be put out of buisness. My guess is they also pencilwhip most of their inspections with everyones a/c they "manage". Also I would let the owner know about it and suggest a good management company. FWIW

 

[pilothouston123]

if it was a legit company, you would not have been fired. Sounds like He had something to hide.