Terminations at Flight Options

[Diesel]

Firing the most senior pilots really is the wrong way to go. Most of your A team pilots come from the higher up senior ranks because they were there when the company started to grow and feel they have some ownership from it. Firing an FO who's only got a couple of years with the company and has no ties with the place while makes less financial sense scares the herd a whole heck of a lot less.

 

[hammer2]

Yes I am sure.

http://www.law.emory.edu/1circuit/aug99/99-1888.01a.html

United States Court of Appeals​

For the First Circuit​

No. 99-1888​

AVIATORS FOR SAFE AND FAIRER REGULATION, INC.,​

Petitioner,​

v.​

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION,​

Respondent.​

ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF​

THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION​

Before

Selya, Boudin and Lynch,​

Circuit Judges.​

John M. Edwards with whom John C. Blessington and Kirkpatrick & Lockhart LLP were on brief for petitioner.​

Charles W. Scarborough, Appellate Staff, Civil Division, Department of Justice, with whom David W. Ogden, Acting Assistant Attorney General, and Robert S. Greenspan, Appellate Staff, Civil Division, Department of Justice, were on brief for respondent.​

BOUDIN, Circuit Judge. Petitioner, Aviators for Safe and Fairer Regulation, Inc. ("Aviators"), is a trade association of about fifty on-demand air charter companies. It brings this case to challenge a so-called notice of enforcement policy issued by the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") that purports to interpret, and to express its intent to enforce, a preexisting regulation governing how much rest pilots or other flight crewmembers must get between flight assignments.​

Air charter companies furnish "air taxi" service to customers on demand rather than on a scheduled basis. The FAA regulates such companies under Part 135 of its regulations, 14 C.F.R. pt. 135 (2000). The regulation at issue in this case, id. ? 135.267(d), was adopted in its current form in October 1985 and aims to ensure that pilots have adequate rest for purposes of air safety, see 49 U.S.C. ?? 40101(d), 44701(a)(4)-(5) (1994 & Supp. II 1996). It states, in relevant part, that each flight assignment to unscheduled one- and two-pilot crews "must provide for at least 10 consecutive hours of rest during the 24-hour period that precedes the planned completion time of the assignment." 14 C.F.R. ? 135.267(d).​

The term "rest" is not defined in the regulation. On several occasions, the FAA sought to refine the term through rulemaking but those efforts were abortive. (1) Then, on June 15, 1999, without prior notice or rulemaking proceedings, the FAA issued a "notice of enforcement policy." The notice said that it was merely reiterating the FAA's "longstanding interpretation of its regulations" concerning rest requirements and continued in pertinent part:​

[T]he FAA has consistently interpreted the term rest to mean that a flight crewmember is free from actual work from the air carrier or from present responsibility for work should the occasion arise. Thus the FAA previously has determined that a flight crewmember on reserve was not at rest if the flight crewmember had a present responsibility for work in that the flight crewmember had to be available for the carrier to notify of a flight assignment.​

If I were the Captain forced to resign... FLOPS would be hearing from my lawyer. Fired for not being able to contact a crewmember who was in Required 135/91K prospective Rest? I don't think so.

.I agree with you 100%, and I don't want to get into a pissing contest. The problem seems to be with the POI . Flops operates soley 135, and I'm sure they have some sort of fatigue clause, eg can't work to tired sorry.. Going back to bed, see ya. Which if you read foot note 2, and you have to read the whole petition to get a more clear picture, we to have a right to turn down a duty assignment, wouldn't be smart but we can. We now can be considered duty-to-be-available. Which any head of a flight department can talk his ole buddy POI into hosing Mr. Aviator while on rest. You do not have to answer the phone, nor do you have to accept the assignment, that is how my 2nd grade educated mind reads this footnote---Pertinently, the FAA notice says that the crewmember must be "free . . . from present responsibility for work should the occasion arise." 64 Fed. Reg. 32176, 32176 (1999). By contrast, in the duty-to-be-available scenario, it is much less clear that the crewmember has a "present responsibility for work" since the assignment can be declined.

 

[jpilot]

The rest of the story

This Captain was "finally" fired for a bogus reason. He should have been canned some time ago with many letters in his file from other pilots who felt he was unsafe.

I hate to see anyone fired or asked to leave but from what I've been told it should have happened alot sooner.

 

[hammer2]

starting to make sense

 

[gunfyter]

Hammer,

Since he was fired... or made to resign... I would take that as Proof they can't argue he had the right to refuse the trip.....

 

[hammer2]

Good point. I think it would then hold up in court,if you had the money and time. but this will continue until 135 mirrors 91k. Does anybody know when this will happen? I'm looking foward to finally understanding and enjoying rest.

 

[400pilot]

As luck would have it, I witnessed this unfold. I was riding in the Atlantic van when the fired pilot was picked up from his hotel. He was pretty pissed off at the time, and for good reason. Here is what happened (according to him):

1. They were assigned a duty-on period of 1000 local at the FBO for a 1330 trip.
2. The captain said that they discussed it between them and decided to go out around 1200 because the plane was already fueled and ready. They could be airborne shortly if they had too.
3. Just after 1000, dispatch called and assigned them a recovery trip. He then tried to get ahold of his copilot (who was actually another captain), but was unable to. He called his room, called his cell, went to his room, etc.
4. The captain went out to the airport to get the plane ready. The ended up leaving around 1330 on their original trip.

The captain was definitely not for the union. He referred to the other captain as "one of these hard-core union guys who won't answer his phone" and complained about the practice because we "are a charter outfit, not an airline."

At Options, we are not required to answer our phone before the duty-on period, and a majority of us do not. This, according to scheduling, is why they put us on duty at the FBO. They were supposed to be on duty at the FBO and were not.

 

[Diesel]

That explains it. They were supposed to be on duty at the fbo but they weren't. Figuring they could be airborn in 15 min and might as well stay at the hotel.

That makes a lot more sense. Still interesting story though because they didn't go after the FO.... he wasn't at the airport either. I think this was the straw that broke the camels back. Of what I don't know.

Where is NJW's card when you need it?

 

[gunfyter]

Thats a horse of a different color. Knew there had to be more...

 

[jetwash]

I heard the same about the Captain before this happened but needed someone else to verify it.
I am am not saying it is true but there has been some talking going around for a while. I was also told he was fond of OT when others were not doing it.


It looks management is out to weed out a few higher paid pilots.