Watch out FOs on Before T/O PAs

[CA1900]

So please Mr. Fed, say what you want about how I operate per my FAA APPROVED FOM, but you better know what it says...

:laugh:

I remember a few years back doing the ILS to 15R in BOS, changing to a visual approach to 4L when the airport was in sight. (It's a procedure they used for years... Circling towards the southwest was prohibited on the 15R approach, so this was a clever workaround that worked very well for marginal VFR weather.)

The thing is, by staying over the river as the tower instructs, you roll out on final at about 300' AGL. After the flight, we get ramped checked by two feds, one of whom starts laying into me:

"What do you think you were doing?"
"What do you mean?"
"That little low-altitude maneuver. 45 degrees of bank 100 feet off the ground!"
"I did what the tower instructed -- 'Keep it inside the river,' which I did with a 25 degree bank til 300 feet. What's the issue?"
"You need to be wings-level by 500 AGL."
"Why do you say that?"
"It's in your manual!"
"No it isn't."
"Yes it is."
"No, it is not."
"Show me."
"You want me to show you something that's... not in my manual?"
"Yes."
"Uhhh... OK...." I page through the entire landing section in front of him. "Not seeing it here, you want to have a look?"

Frustrated that he was dead-wrong about our manual, he walked around the plane twice looking for something to ground it. Unable to find a thing wrong with the airplane, he said the stairs had excessive glycol, and were unsafe. I said, "Fine, I'll write it up and go get a Dunkin coffee while our mechanic addresses this imminent hazard," shut the door to the plane, and walked away. They sat there in their car next to the plane and watched to make sure the mechanic actually came.

I've met many a down-to-earth, reasonable fed. I don't know where they found Dumb & Dumber for this ramp check, but they were wholly unreasonable. The line between enforcement and harassment is pretty broad, but they barreled right through it.

 

[JAFI]

This is such a joke. Thank God the people that wrote our manual did not get wrapped up on BS like this. Our manual states "Announcements during the following times are REQUIRED, ALTHOUGH THE EXACT CONTENT MAY BE VARIED TO MEER SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES:

Prior to takeoff has the recommended statement and it is required per our FOM.

So please Mr. Fed, say what you want about how I operate per my FAA APPROVED FOM, but you better know what it says. Now please, get to the important stuff, like making sure MX is done properly so we do not blow holes in planes again. Ensure control towers are properly staffed so that we do not have to use common traffic calls in a Class B airspace during nap time. Love how it took 3 weeks of media attention for them to staff and change rest rules for controllers.....yet it took what, 50 f@cking years for the pilots to even be considered. Now we have to wait and see if Congress will allow it....based on PROFIT IMPACT to the airlines. How bout you Mr. Fed get off our backs for petty $hit that has little to no saftey impact, and have our backs on something that really, via SCIENTIFIC STUDY and countless ACCIDENTS, is a saftey issue. Babbitt and his panel are not going to be enough. Inspectors need to put some pressure on the airlines too help. Like not allowing discipline for Fatigue Calls, and monitoring schedule manipulations to make it legal.

Take a breath, again, now one more ...... lets get some blood back in your face, .........easy, .............get that blood pressure down........

Because a manual is approved once does not mean it doesn't need improved or updated, or need to meet a requirement that the manual doesn't address.

Real change starts at the top in this industry. At the Pilot or Inspector level we only follow procedures, changes are above our paygrade unless you address the powers that can cause change, IMHO.

 

[bri5150]

This is such a joke. Thank God the people that wrote our manual did not get wrapped up on BS like this. Our manual states "Announcements during the following times are REQUIRED, ALTHOUGH THE EXACT CONTENT MAY BE VARIED TO MEER SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES:

Prior to takeoff has the recommended statement and it is required per our FOM.

So please Mr. Fed, say what you want about how I operate per my FAA APPROVED FOM, but you better know what it says. Now please, get to the important stuff, like making sure MX is done properly so we do not blow holes in planes again. Ensure control towers are properly staffed so that we do not have to use common traffic calls in a Class B airspace during nap time. Love how it took 3 weeks of media attention for them to staff and change rest rules for controllers.....yet it took what, 50 f@cking years for the pilots to even be considered. Now we have to wait and see if Congress will allow it....based on PROFIT IMPACT to the airlines. How bout you Mr. Fed get off our backs for petty $hit that has little to no saftey impact, and have our backs on something that really, via SCIENTIFIC STUDY and countless ACCIDENTS, is a saftey issue. Babbitt and his panel are not going to be enough. Inspectors need to put some pressure on the airlines too help. Like not allowing discipline for Fatigue Calls, and monitoring schedule manipulations to make it legal.

How about manual updates? While I believe it is important and professional to keep your manual up to date, why do Feds put such a high priority on it when I have never heard of an accident/incident occuring because of out-of-date manuals?

 

[BOX OFFICE]

How about manual updates? While I believe it is important and professional to keep your manual up to date, why do Feds put such a high priority on it when I have never heard of an accident/incident occuring because of out-of-date manuals?

Because they're government employees. They like to pick the low hanging fruit. If they wanted to work hard, they wouldn't have gone to the FAA, they'd still be doing what we do.

 

[kmox29]

Because they're government employees. They like to pick the low hanging fruit. If they wanted to work hard, they wouldn't have gone to the FAA, they'd still be doing what we do.

Nicely stated. Keep the generalizations coming you spiky-haied, backpack'ed, sunglasses-in-the-terminal wearing, inexperienced, puddle-jumping, commuter pilot.

Or, was that not fair either? Look, we definately have some "winners" here at the FAA. However, I surely wouldn't generalize all regional pilots like the guy I saw last week in MSP...who looked just like my opening paragraph.

Believe it or not, many of us (in the field) are just as frustrated with the pace of change at HQ (Washington, D.C.)...and equally frustrated with "bad" Inspectors.

There are actually many good FAA Inspectors out there who go to bat for pilots all the time. Unfortunatly, it's the bad ones who get all the "press".

OK...off my soapbox. Back to your regurlarly schedued FAA bashing... :beer:

 

[kmox29]

So please Mr. Fed, say what you want about how I operate per my FAA APPROVED FOM, but you better know what it says.

I hope you've had time to calm a bit...

As a norm, FOMs are not "approved" by the FAA, they are "accepted". Unless your airline is an exception, the FAA can't enforce your FOM (unless a procedure is tied to a specific regulation). Notice that this is different than a POM (or CFM). Those manuals are "approved" as they are used in lieu of the AFM.

I fully agree with the last part of your sentence. As an Inspector, if I'm going to critique a crew on a procedure, I better know their procedures. Seems like that is common sense...but then again, we're the FAA.

Inspectors need to put some pressure on the airlines too help. Like not allowing discipline for Fatigue Calls, and monitoring schedule manipulations to make it legal.

We do monitor schedule manipulations, but those are done on a frequency schedule based on risk. I believe in your post (which not all is quoted here), you wanted us to fix the fatigue issue, stop holes from appearing in aircraft, etc. I agree with you and that those are important issues. I'd rather work on those, than focus on monitoring your schedule 24/7.

Finally, we have very limited power to put pressure on the airlines for anything that is not regulatory. Think of it this way: every airline meets the regulations (the MINUMUM for safety). Any procedure that is more restrictive than a regulation is negotiated.

Truth be told, we can kick and scream all we want if we think a carrier should be operating a particular way, but if there is no violation occurring, then we have very little ground to stand on.

I've seen what happens when Inspectors "put pressure" on a carrier. Generally, the carrier thinks it's unfair and complains to everyone (including Congress) that they're being held to a "higher standard" than other carriers.

Be safe out there.

 

[Always deferred]

Believe me kmox, HQ inspectors were just as frustrated..

 

[kmox29]

Believe me kmox, HQ inspectors were just as frustrated..

Roger that. :beer:

 

[laserman2431]

There is a pretty good chance this Fed was getting a free ride on a Monday morning or a Friday afternoon and possibly bumped a pilot who was trying to JS to work.

Even if the Fed was techincally right, he was being a DB for making an issue about a minor thing while getting a free ride.

The best way to deal with this is for everyone to make sure that no Fed gets his way for a month or two. When you see some out of shape dork wearing a cheap ugly tie and looking all self important around the ramp and gate, open your oxygen valve until you have enough left for two crewmembers but not enough for three. When you explain the problem to the FAA puke, follow it up by asking him, on an unrelated note. if the FAA is violating pilot for making TO PA's. They'll get the message!

Yes, some innocent Feds will get f'ed but that's OK. These POS's want to get a free ride and be a dick at the same time. Let them know they can't have it both ways.

 

[laserman2431]

There has always ben a kind of unspoken detent agreement. It benefits no one for one side to start picking on the other. Look at the way ATC has been getting kicked in the balls the last couple of weeks. I really feel sorry for them. The latest one I heard was that some Air Force small penis types reported the Cleveland tower guy because they could hear a TV in the background. What was the point of that. Work it out on the spot and keep the violations out of it unless there is a real safety hazard.

What do you think that CLE tower guy is going to do the next an Air Force guy makes a mistake in his airspace. I can tell you what I would do.

KMOX sounds like a reasonable type of person. Everyone know that the 10%ers in the FAA inspector ranks really add up to about 40%. The sad thing is that the airline guys let them get away with it.

 

[JAFI]

laserman, your education may be expanded if you decide to act on your rant.

I only ask that when you decide to act, let it be me.



Some CFR's that you need to review:

PART 25--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRPLANES
25.785 Seats, berths, safety belts, and harnesses.
(l) Each forward observer's seat required by the operating rules must be shown to be suitable for use in conducting the necessary enroute inspection.

PART 121—OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, AND SUPPLEMENTAL OPERATIONS
121.581 Observer's seat: En route inspections.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, each certificate holder shall make available a seat on the flight deck of each airplane, used by it in air commerce, for occupancy by the Administrator while conducting en route inspections. The location and equipment of the seat, with respect to its suitability for use in conducting en route inspections, is determined by the Administrator.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

One question you need to ask your self:

If the jump seat was not required by code for enroute inspections, would your company really pay to have it installed and maintained only to assist pilots get to work?

I think they would just make you move to your base like many companies do.


The observers seat is there for use by the Administrator or his/her proxy. If you work for a Air Carrier or fly a part 25 airplane, You do not have a say in when an Inspector uses it for inspections.

 

[johnpeace]

Isn't the j/s deferrable?

 

[JAFI]

Isn't the j/s deferrable?

Look at your MEL and the Catagory. It should be short term. As for O2, again look at your MEL. I will have to check but not having enough O2 is not a reason for "defering" the jumpseat. I just means you have to call maintenance to get it filled. Been down that road more than once.

 

[ace6453]

Look at your MEL and the Catagory. It should be short term. As for O2, again look at your MEL. I will have to check but not having enough O2 is not a reason for "defering" the jumpseat. I just means you have to call maintenance to get it filled. Been down that road more than once.

Actually it is deferrable due to not enough O2. Yes it is short term and it must be fixed, however you can't delay the flight and wait for contract mtc to fill the O2 just so the fed can ride the JS.

 

[sunlitpath]

Gentlemen, be careful on going to battle with the FAA (if you are considering it). It's a battle they will win 99.99% of the time.