kmox29
I'm open! I'm open!
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2005
- Posts
- 527
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.