The culture of the managment determines the safety level

[ozpilot]

In my experience the easiest decisions regarding safety are the ones that are black and white.

Black - bad weather, issues with the airplane, crews fatigued

White - VFR weather, planes perfect, crews well rested and ready to go

The difficult decision comes when the circumstances fit between these two, the so called Grey area.

Grey - marginal weather, issue with the airplane but its legal to fly, crew is tired but not 'fatigued' (Thats a whole other discussion).

I do have one or two hard criteria in the grey area. For example I'll shoot an ILS to minimums. If I have to go missed I'll even shoot a second. But theres no way I'll do it the third time unless I'm convinced the weather is now above minimums.

But for the most part decision making in the grey area is subjective, based on the information available, past experience and finally 'gut feel'.

Bear in mind it is unlikely that you'll die in either the White (low risk) or Black (your on the ground) areas. Its the Grey area that can kill you every time. I'm very interested in the thought process that pilots go through in making the go/nogo decision when they are in this area. I think thats what pilotyip is getting at.

FWIW here are some of mine.

I try and get as much information as I can to help support my decision. I'll call dispatch, weather, maintenance and/or the chief pilot as necessary. If any of those individuals express doubt we don't go.

Most importantly I discuss the issue with my partner and get their input. If he or she is uncomfortable we dont go. Its not a 4 stripe decision, its a 7 stripe decision.

Now heres the hard part. Everone says your good to go but you still have a nagging doubt. What next?

I assume that whatever concern I have is going to get worse and I look at what options I have to deal with it when it does. In my view options are key to safety. If you have options you can avoid the accident. If you find yourself in a situation where there are few if any options you are unsafe.

If I have options that mitigate the risk I'll accept it, if not we dont go.

Heres two examples that I had to deal with recently.

The first involved weather. The weather at the destination was marginal. I talked it over with dispatch and came up with a suitable alternative and added extra fuel. We departed. That gave us the option and a plan if the weather deteriorated.

The second involved the aircraft. During the preflight I noticed that the vertical stabilizer show rub marks from the horizontal stab. As we were at a maintenance base I had them take a look at it. They said it was within tolerance and good to go. Observing it from the ground there was no binding during the flight control test. I discussed it with the FO.

He commented "Sure it looks good on the ground, but whats it going to do when we're at 43,000 ft doing .90 half way across the country?".

Excellent point! If it were to jam what options would we have? None. With the full support of the company we refused the aircraft.

This is a great discussion that goes to the core of the responsibility we all bear as professional pilots. I'm very interested to see what other pilots viewpoints are.

 

[pilotyip]

Good example

A lot of it would situation driven. Hard to give a specific example. I saw someone mentioned weather, they would probably be the number one reason.

An expample of Mechanical would be long ago when I was with FLOPS. Preflighted an airplane that had a small "burn" looking mark coming from the back edge of the electric part of leading edge. Maintenance said they saw nothing wrong with it, Base ops said they released it from the write up and I was good to go. By regulation I could depart. I elected not to until someone pulled that leading edge off and found out what caused the mark.....they found a pretty big short that burned most of the leading edge cap. Stuff like that.

If fact the airplane should not have been released, it was not airworthy. But it was overlooked by a dept that should have taken action to ground the airplane. The PIC and the crew are important links in the safety cycle. By regualtion that airplane was not ready to fly, but other peole had missed it.

 

[realityman]

Management should ensure that thses policies are followed in the interest of safety. But the PIC is the only one who can determine if he is prpperly rested for that flight.

But it's not really so cut-and-dry. So the regs (under 135) say that under the 24-hour lookback method, if you've had 10 consecutive hours of rest, you're good to go. Management has policies and procedures in place that ensure compliance with the regs. And if the pilot is still fatigued (for whatever reason) after his rest, he can just say he's still tired and that's the end of it. Pretty simple. At Netjets, that's EXACTLY how we operate. Gotta give credit to management for the support.

BUT, it hardly ever seems to work like that most other places. Last place I worked, we followed the regs. And management made sure we had everything the regs mandated. Good policy, right? Except if you told them you were still tired and unsafe to fly after your regulatory mandated rest, you'd be yelled at and told "Hey, you got the required rest! Now get your ass out to that plane and fly the trip! Do you know how many resumes we have on file who would love to be flying for us?"

See the difference? Sure, in both cases it still comes down to the pilot deciding what is safest. But if you don't believe the tone set by management in my second example will factor into my decision as a PIC, you're only fooling yourself.

We have numerous pilots at NJA who came from the regionals. The horror stories they all tell about being pressured from management because, hey, "we've done everything required by the regs, and we don't care if you claim to still be tired or that the plane is unsafe.".

So I have to agree with the title of this thread. It's management who sets the tone and culture of safety in the company.

 

[o2bflyn]

If fact the airplane should not have been released, it was not airworthy. But it was overlooked by a dept that should have taken action to ground the airplane. The PIC and the crew are important links in the safety cycle. By regualtion that airplane was not ready to fly, but other peole had missed it.

Agreed. kind of my point. You can't always trust other people (mechanics, dispatchers, mgmt, etc...) to tell you if it is safe and legal to depart.

I think we are on the same page here. I originally thought your arguement was if everyone else was telling to its legal to depart, you should just depart. I certainly do not agree with that, and I am starting to think you don't either.

 

[pilotyip]

Agreed

Agreed. kind of my point. You can't always trust other people (mechanics, dispatchers, mgmt, etc...) to tell you if it is safe and legal to depart.

I think we are on the same page here. I originally thought your arguement was if everyone else was telling to its legal to depart, you should just depart. I certainly do not agree with that, and I am starting to think you don't either.

There are many people involved in the safe relaese of an airplane, including the PIC. Management support of a system that increases safety awareness is one of hte vital keys to a safe airline.

 

[gunfyter]

Yip and Reality,

I am not aware of any non-scheduled operation that obeys the 135 rest regulations with prospective rest.

In fact 50, 135 companies sued the FAA when the FAA announced they were going to enforce prospective rest.

see 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.
​

In my experience, Operations called you in and you had to answer the phone nearly 24/7. You never knew when your duty period would be or when your rest would be or when it began or when it ended....

 

[realityman]

Gun,

I see what you're getting at. But I wasn't referencing prospective rest. Just the fact that when your rest period is over, if you don't feel you should fly, for whatever reason, management will set the tone about such matters.

Will it be an NJA sort of response, where you call in and tell them you aren't able to fly (for whatever reason), and they back you up? Or will it be like my other example where they yell at you and coerce you with implied threats ("Do you know how many resumes we have on file of people ready and willing to do these flights?")?

Of course, it's always up to the PIC to make the safest decision. But maybe it's not so easy to find the boundaries of the safety envelope when you are being pressured from management ("Well, maybe I'm not so tired that I couldn't fly just a couple more legs. That way, I keep my job and everyone's happy."). Rationalizing becomes much easier when management pushes you.

My point being, it's not always so straightforward for the PIC to make the right decision when management doesn't set a good tone towards safety.

 

[gunfyter]

What is done, or what was done is ... You get called out after 10 hrs or so of "Rest" that you did not know prospectively when it was going to end ....

You fly 135 trips for 14 hours, drop off your freight or pax ... now you're done. Its time to go to the hotel right?

Wrong... We need the plane back at home plate for the next crew. Ferry it back 91 for 5 hrs to Pittsburgh. You can do it. Its 91!

That's what some operations want to be able to do. Yep pilots will do it because they want to keep their jobs....

This is why B19 hates unions. They cause "over staffing" by protecting people who don't want to fly for 20 hrs in one day .

 

[brokeflyer]

My point being, it's not always so straightforward for the PIC to make the right decision when management doesn't set a good tone towards safety.

then he should'nt be PIC. I've had this same crap tried on me before. I told them to go show me the resumes of all those that are willing to violate the regs and be unsafe. I won that discussion.

I understand what you are saying though, but if it's clearly a safety issue then the PIC needs to treat it as such. The only way management will change their BS attitudes is to have more pilots stop worrying about their jobs and start worrying about being safe.

How often do you hear of hospital management questioning the decisions that a surgeon makes?

 

[pilotyip]

The question has never been "Rest". he beer rule applies, if you can not have a beer, you are not in rest. A 135 crewmember who is given 10 hours of rest is legally rested. The question is duty. I do not believe "Duty" has ever been addressed.

 

[pilotyip]

Tail end ferry

Wrong... We need the plane back at home plate for the next crew. Ferry it back 91 for 5 hrs to Pittsburgh. You can do it. Its 91! .

What if the crew wants to do a tail end ferry, much rather spent the night at KLRD than MMIO. Tailends were the option of the crew, if they wanted to do it it was up to them. If they went to bed, then they would be full legal and would most likely be held at the rest location for another trip.

 

[brokeflyer]

What if the crew wants to do a tail end ferry, much rather spent the night at KLRD than MMIO. Tailends were the option of the crew, if they wanted to do it it was up to them. If they went to bed, then they would be full legal and would most likely be held at the rest location for another trip.

that is correct....if they wanna ferry home it is up to them. BUt most dirtbag 135 operators pressure them. That is why OFF is off and ON is on.

If you at home waiting for the phone to ring then you are not OFF.....but they all do that cause they fear for their job. Which is BS.

 

[gunfyter]

Should not be allowed to do the tail end ferry. Look at the incidence of mishaps after 12 hrs or more of duty....

 

[acaTerry]

We have numerous pilots at NJA who came from the regionals. The horror stories they all tell about being pressured from management because, hey, "we've done everything required by the regs, and we don't care if you claim to still be tired or that the plane is unsafe.".

The problem is that these guys are taking that regional mentality over here. They have the idea that our fatigue policy, sick policy etc are "too good to be true" and don't use them. I don't know if it's pride or disbelief or what.
I wish they'd "get it" and start using the policies we have. I've used the policies as needed and never, ever, even gotten a nudge of push from the co. If I'm tired, I'm tired. If I'm sick, I'm sick. Either way I don't push it like I did before I knew better.
I think this is why we keep getting these 3 leg days on first and last day of tours, which used to be just travel and maybe a ferry. But I am seeing more of these:

0805 show
1005-1215 airline / gnd
1445-1600 flight with 7 pax and a dog
1700-1805 ferry
1905-1950 pax flight
Then the "autoshutdown" to keep the OT at one quarter. 10 hour turn. Repeat as directed.

More and more guys I see in the FBOs are seeing it, and complaining that they're not too excited about it, but not ready to call the F bomb on day one....everyone just says "oh well". We have these policies so use them. NJA will not take away your birthday. Just use it when you need to.

 

[acaTerry]

then he should'nt be PIC.

Bingo. The CA is paid more because he has to say NO sometimes.