Unusually high number of people getting fired?

Eric,
Bob Owens is right...there have been a slew of complaints to the FAA regarding coercion when it comes to aircraft maintenance.
But that is about to change, because a recent incident at JFK regarding a supervisor ordering a crew chief to release an ETOPS trip BEFORE all the paperwork was complete has finally got the FAA's attention.

Now tell me, WHY would a supervisor risk his license and job?
Maybe pressure from his/her boss?

A big part of the problem is the FAA has a dual role.....PROMOTE the aviation industry and ENFORCE it!
I agree that the pressure is probably coming from above but I think that the Supervisor expected that the Crew Chief would put his license at risk. If anything happened he would have sworn up and down that he had nothing to do with it,"look I didnt sign it, he did", like we've seen in the past.
 
I agree that the pressure is probably coming from above but I think that the Supervisor expected that the Crew Chief would put his license at risk. If anything happened he would have sworn up and down that he had nothing to do with it,"look I didnt sign it, he did", like we've seen in the past.

With apps for the Blackberry and iPhone which turn them essentially into tape recorders, stuff like this shouldn't be that hard to prove, guys...
 
With apps for the Blackberry and iPhone which turn them essentially into tape recorders, stuff like this shouldn't be that hard to prove, guys...

Recording a conversation without all participants concurring is a legal mismatch, in that differing state and federal laws come into play:
1) the activity recorded may well be illegal, but;
2) the recording of the activity, without the expressed permission of all of the participants, is illegal.

No AMT employed by a Certificated Air Carrier should ever rely on a hidden recording of conversation as relieving themselves of liability for knowingly allowing the specific performance of an operation outside of the FARs'.
 
Recording a conversation without all participants concurring is a legal mismatch, in that differing state and federal laws come into play:
1) the activity recorded may well be illegal, but;
2) the recording of the activity, without the expressed permission of all of the participants, is illegal.

No AMT employed by a Certificated Air Carrier should ever rely on a hidden recording of conversation as relieving themselves of liability for knowingly allowing the specific performance of an operation outside of the FARs'.

I remember watching a 60 MINUTES episode from the late 80's. An Eastern Airlines mechanic in Boston recorded a supervisor ordering him to ignore a fuel leak under the wing. The supervisor was heard saying "I DON'T GIVE A #### ABOUT THE MANUAL". This was during the final days of that Airline's existence, and supervisors were firing mechanics left and right.

The mechanic was fired for insubordination and went to the FAA, then a civil court, then 60 Minutes....
He got his job back, FAA pulled the supervisor's licenses...Eastern Airlines fined.

So all in all, illegal,,,,yes maybe......but it does not change the scope of what Eastern allowed to happen.

How do you think the FAA would react today with their imaged badly tarnished?
 
Recording a conversation without all participants concurring is a legal mismatch, in that differing state and federal laws come into play:
1) the activity recorded may well be illegal, but;
2) the recording of the activity, without the expressed permission of all of the participants, is illegal.

No AMT employed by a Certificated Air Carrier should ever rely on a hidden recording of conversation as relieving themselves of liability for knowingly allowing the specific performance of an operation outside of the FARs'.

Not entirely true, Boomer. If you're a third party, it may be illegal if there's an expectation of privacy, or depending on the state you're in.

If it's a conversation *YOU* are personally involved in, then in most cases, one-party consent is sufficient.

The only states I know of requiring all parties to consent to recording are CA, CT, FL, IL, MA, MI, MR, MT, NV, NH, PA and DC.

There's case law to support whistleblower style recording, provided that it's not being done for illegal or tortious purposes (e.g. blackmail), and there's no implied privacy. I suspect being out on a hangar floor or around an aircraft doesn't imply privacy by any measure.


In NY, People v. Kirsh, 176 A.D.2d. 652 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991): "A party to the conversation may surreptitiously record a conversation. In addition, those who talk in the presence of a non-participating third party may have no expectation of privacy with respect to statements overheard by the third party. "

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17426927963481556111&q=People+v.+Kirsh,+176+A.D.2d.+652&hl=en&as_sdt=40002

You also have People vs. Gibson, which is perhaps more relevant:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13011672042630503915&q=People+v.+Gibson,+23+NY2d+618+-+NY:+Court+of+Appeals+1969&hl=en&as_sdt=40002&as_vis=1
 
Not entirely true, Boomer. If you're a third party, it may be illegal if there's an expectation of privacy, or depending on the state you're in.

If it's a conversation *YOU* are personally involved in, then in most cases, one-party consent is sufficient.

The only states I know of requiring all parties to consent to recording are CA, CT, FL, IL, MA, MI, MR, MT, NV, NH, PA and DC.

There's case law to support whistleblower style recording, provided that it's not being done for illegal or tortious purposes (e.g. blackmail), and there's no implied privacy. I suspect being out on a hangar floor or around an aircraft doesn't imply privacy by any measure.


In NY, People v. Kirsh, 176 A.D.2d. 652 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991): "A party to the conversation may surreptitiously record a conversation. In addition, those who talk in the presence of a non-participating third party may have no expectation of privacy with respect to statements overheard by the third party. "

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17426927963481556111&q=People+v.+Kirsh,+176+A.D.2d.+652&hl=en&as_sdt=40002

You also have People vs. Gibson, which is perhaps more relevant:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13011672042630503915&q=People+v.+Gibson,+23+NY2d+618+-+NY:+Court+of+Appeals+1969&hl=en&as_sdt=40002&as_vis=1


You know Eric,

An AMT at American Airlines should not have to rely on case law to be able to just do the job right. An AMT at American Airlines should not have to try and secretly record something contrary to the CFR's.

American Airlines flies millions of people all over the world and with that has the responsibility to provide and environment for the AMT to do the job by the procedures without pressure. The lack of leadership at this company should not be pinned on the AMT at the gate so he has to decide between right and wrong.
 
Eolesen and Hopeful,

I ended my statement with: "No AMT employed by a Certificated Air Carrier should ever rely on a hidden recording of conversation as relieving themselves of liability for knowingly allowing the specific performance of an operation outside of the FARs'."

The end state is that a certificated individual that knowingly violates the FARs': is guilty of violating the FAR's. It does not matter that a Superior orders me to violate that FAR; it only matters that I knowingly did so.

No normal human being goes to work wearing a wire for the purpose of surreptitiously recording "a chance conversation," resulting in a legal finding of coercion. Tin Foil Hats would be the uniform of the day.

In an environment where threats and coercion are commonplace, a call to the "Authority Having Jurisdiction," is usually sufficient: with the option of wearing a lawfully court ordered wire given the situation.

Isolated things happen, but, they are isolated. Systemic things get blown open due to too many operators having some type of, "skin in the game."

Eolesen,
"Not entirely true, Boomer. If you're a third party, it may be illegal if there's an expectation of privacy, or depending on the state you're in.

If it's a conversation *YOU* are personally involved in, then in most cases, one-party consent is sufficient.

The only states I know of requiring all parties to consent to recording are CA, CT, FL, IL, MA, MI, MR, MT, NV, NH, PA and DC."

OK, we have a RICO violation:
1) an International Airline; and,
2) leasing communincations access across state lines; and,
3) with bedroom communities across state lines and close to the Capitol; and,
4) adjacent to points of presence; and,
5) with layers of management; and,
6) discussing the treatment of various situations although they are geographically dispersed;

All for the purpose of having their Aircraft Mechanics violate the FARs' ? Lucy, Order More TinFoil.
 
Boomer,
the problem is that the FAA usually shrugs off this type of action. Supervisors will deny having given a direct order violating an FAR even WITH witnesses.
So, if a mechanic will be fired for refusing a direct order and wait for an arbitrator to rule, should the outcome not be fair, then that mechanic can go to a civil court where a judge and jury could give a rat's you know what about FARs...

In my nearly forty years in this business, I have seen more than one instance where a discharged mechanic sought to be made whole went to a civil court and won.

We have supervisors who sign log books off without doing the work. I could care less about the legality of recording an illegal action especially should a "supervisor-sign-off" cause an accident.

After all isn't it the FAR ENFORCING AGENCY, THE FAA the same agency that got caught being too cozy with the airlines....notably SWA and AA?

FARS are only enforced when disciplinary action is required, not moving the tin.
 
Boomer,
the problem is that the FAA usually shrugs off this type of action. Supervisors will deny having given a direct order violating an FAR even WITH witnesses.
So, if a mechanic will be fired for refusing a direct order and wait for an arbitrator to rule, should the outcome not be fair, then that mechanic can go to a civil court where a judge and jury could give a rat's you know what about FARs...

In my nearly forty years in this business, I have seen more than one instance where a discharged mechanic sought to be made whole went to a civil court and won.

We have supervisors who sign log books off without doing the work. I could care less about the legality of recording an illegal action especially should a "supervisor-sign-off" cause an accident.

After all isn't it the FAR ENFORCING AGENCY, THE FAA the same agency that got caught being too cozy with the airlines....notably SWA and AA?

FARS are only enforced when disciplinary action is required, not moving the tin.

TWU Local 562 won a landmark arbitration case against AA, it was AA v. Krueze, I believe. I've repeatedly asked for an electronic copy of the arbitration ruling: without success.

Bottom line is that the Arbitrators ruled that there is no disciplinary action available to AA for the discrepancies found and noted by Flight Crews or Mechanics so long as they are true and that the findings are communicated within the chain of command and dealt with according to the potential for grounding of the aircraft.

As far as the FAA: it was the Flight Standards Inspectors that filed against the FAA, bringing to light the degree to which the relationship between FAA Managment and the Airlines had become inappropriate. Many of these individuals placed their careers in jeopardy by choosing the safety of the traveling public over their personal conveniance.

In my 20+ years at AA, I've seen far too many willing to blame others for the problems they "identify" and far too few willing to do what Krueze and a handfull of Flight Standards guys have already done.

To my knowledge: none of those that have actually done anything did it while recording every every conversation they had, over the days, weeks, months, years they did it.
 
Boomer,
the problem is that the FAA usually shrugs off this type of action. Supervisors will deny having given a direct order violating an FAR even WITH witnesses.
So, if a mechanic will be fired for refusing a direct order and wait for an arbitrator to rule, should the outcome not be fair, then that mechanic can go to a civil court where a judge and jury could give a rat's you know what about FARs...

In my nearly forty years in this business, I have seen more than one instance where a discharged mechanic sought to be made whole went to a civil court and won.

We have supervisors who sign log books off without doing the work. I could care less about the legality of recording an illegal action especially should a "supervisor-sign-off" cause an accident.

After all isn't it the FAR ENFORCING AGENCY, THE FAA the same agency that got caught being too cozy with the airlines....notably SWA and AA?

FARS are only enforced when disciplinary action is required, not moving the tin.

TWU Local 562 won a landmark arbitration case against AA, it was AA v. Krueze, I believe. I've repeatedly asked for an electronic copy of the arbitration ruling: without success.

Bottom line is that the Arbitrators ruled that there is no disciplinary action available to AA for the discrepancies found and noted by Flight Crews or Mechanics so long as they are true and that the findings are communicated within the chain of command and dealt with according to the potential for grounding of the aircraft.

As far as the FAA: it was the Flight Standards Inspectors that filed against the FAA, bringing to light the degree to which the relationship between FAA Managment and the Airlines had become inappropriate. Many of these individuals placed their careers in jeopardy by choosing the safety of the traveling public over their personal conveniance.

In my 20+ years at AA, I've seen far too many willing to blame others for the problems they "identify" and far too few willing to do what Krueze and a handfull of Flight Standards guys have already done.

T
 
Staying legal should go without saying.

All I'm suggesting is that you usually know who is going to ask you to push legalities to the extreme or ignore them outright.

If it's a situation you're likely to want a shop steward present for, being ready to take your own "CYA" measures isn't exactly the dumbest thing you can do.

I'd be curious to know what the union's position would be on having recordings available to rebut a CR-1 discussion or 29F finding. Verifiable proof makes all the difference between getting a subsequent grievance approved or denied...