US Pilots Labor Discussion
- Thread starter Richard
- Start date
- Status
L
luvn737s
Guest
Flying the Line is the History of ALPA.
Lying to Flyers is the title of the history of USAPA.
Lying to Flyers is the title of the history of USAPA.
L
luvn737s
Guest
When will you be able to hold CO in LGA or BOS? or PIT? Remember PIT?
I have explained to you why I reference the TA flying....sorry you're so dense. Show me a post where I have been bragging.
Obviously, you are just trying to get under my skin......won't work DH.
breeze
You had your your chance at Wye River, you screwed up.
East pilots acted.
Make a noise like a toilet flushing and click here.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2003
- Messages
- 16,512
- Reaction score
- 5,865
L
luvn737s
Guest
Keep tryin' for that Do-Over. Eventually, you've got to catch one of those wild geese you love to chase. Statistics are on your side!
Jim
Your were a former Piedmont pilot, you got yours right. Selective moral compass. Below is an excerpt of your demands with Empire pilots back then.
Hypocrite, make a stapler sound and read below.
"SENIORITY:
Seniority s h a l l continue t o be governed by the provisions of Section 19 of the
Basic Agreement except as follows:
A. Former Empire p i l o t s shall be placed on the Piedmont Pilot System
Seniority List on January 3, 1986 following the most junior Piedmont
p i l o t i n the same order that they appear on the Empire Pilot Seniority
List dated January 15, 1986."
So kind of you bongboy, you gifted the Empire pilots protection.
A. Former Empire Pilots whose names appear on the Protected F-28
Captain's List shall be frozen i n category and status i n the Syracuse
domicile for a period of tm (2) years from the c e r t i f i c a t e transfer
date.
Ok bongboy, teach us about the morality of seniority integrations for pilots oh wise one.
You got yours.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2003
- Messages
- 16,512
- Reaction score
- 5,865
Can you explain "its split 2 to 2"
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- Joined
- May 18, 2003
- Messages
- 8,175
- Reaction score
- 1,539
Compass Correction Coalition Update: October 12, 2011
The New Logbook
Fellow Pilots,
For those of you who have read the preliminary injunction handed down by Judge Conrad of the Federal Court in North Carolina, a point of contention with at least one of his orders should be obvious to all federally licensed Airline Transport Pilots.
Judge Conrad apparently orders us to stop “writing up all maintenance items” which is in direct violation of FAR 121.563.
The following is from Judge Conrad’s order:
Page 43
"Including in such notice a directive from USAPA to US Airways’s pilots who are engaging in a concerted refusal to perform normal pilot operations, including but not limited to, slow taxiing, writing up all maintenance items, calling in fatigued, delaying flights, refusing to answer a call from the scheduling, refusing to fly an aircraft that meets the requirements for flight, or refusing to accept voluntary or overtime flying, to cease and desist all such activity and to cease and desist all exhortations or communications encouraging same."
Some of the confusion may have been cause by Lyle Hogg’s testimony that possibly misled Judge Conrad as to the difference between a deferred maintenance item approved by the MEL and that of a reportable mechanical discrepancy.
Page 14
"While there is no prohibition against writing up any and all maintenance items, including very minor items (e.g., broken passenger light, a non-essential placard), pilots ordinarily exercise their authority and discretion to not write up deferrable minor items when it could produce a delay or cancellation of a flight. Pl’s Ex. 30 at ¶ 7: Hogg Decl. In a slowdown, discretion can be exercised as a pretext for creating flight delays and cancellations when pilots reject aircraft even though they have no genuine safety concerns. Id."
Page 15
"Notably, the rate at which East pilots are increasing their use of maintenance write-ups is far greater at airports where US Airways does not have its own maintenance personnel, thus making such write-ups much more likely to result in a flight delay or cancellation because the Company needs to rely on third party maintenance or even fly in a mechanic or part before the flight can depart. Id. At ¶ 16."
A review of the pertinent FAR’s follows:
Sec. 121.563
Reporting mechanical irregularities.
The pilot in command shall ensure that all mechanical irregularities occurring during flight time are entered in the maintenance log of the airplane at the end of that flight time. Before each flight the pilot in command shall ascertain the status of each irregularity entered in the log at the end of the preceding flight.
Sec. 91.7
Civil aircraft airworthiness.
(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condition.
(B) The pilot in command of a civil aircraft is responsible for determining whether that aircraft is in condition for safe flight. The pilot in command shall discontinue the flight when unairworthy mechanical, electrical, or structural conditions occur.
A careful reading of the FARs and a abundance of case history involving enforcement action against Pilots who carry maintenance items should have our Union's attorneys (who ever they are this week!) seeking clarification on this conflict.
While we believe our Union and each Pilot need to comply with the Court order, an interpretation could be that this order allows Pilots to carry a maintenance discrepancy, to a convenient maintenance station; this of course, is not the case, per the Federal Air Regulations.
A letter to the FAA Deputy Chief Counsel should have been drafted by USAPA and sent seeking the FAA’s opinion as to Judge Conrad’s mandate. In addition, communication and coordination with US Airways Flight and Training Department on guidance from US Airways on their interpretation of the FAR 121.563 and Judge Conrad’s order.
But as of yet, silence.
It appears management was looking for a fly swatter but instead received a hammer from the Court. What a fine mess Cleary and the boys have gotten us into!
Fraternally,
Dave Ciabattoni
AB 320 PHL
Eric Rowe
AB 330 PHL
Woody Menear
B-767 PHL
You can also visit the Compass Correction website using the following link: http://compasscorrectioncoalition.com
More information on FAR 121.563 follows:
See also Administrator v. Schoppaul, NTSB Order EA-3410 at 10 (1991), in which we held that an airman having "even a 'small worry'" about the functioning of an aircraft component is required to enter that item in the maintenance logbook under § 121.563.
***************************************************
May 2001
Central Air Safety Enhancing Our Mechanical Quality and Reliability
Terry McVenes (PHL)
Chairman, Central Air Safety Committee
I get a fair number of telephone calls that concern the maintenance condition of a certain airplane or fleet type. While I am sometimes able to verify and resolve a problem, I often find that there is no supporting documentation to validate the claim. In other words, the mechanical discrepancy was never written up in the logbook.
The desire to be good employees who get our passengers to their destination on time encourages us to try to get an airplane through the day without a write-up. However, "carrying" an airplane with a mechanical discrepancy benefits neither you, your fellow pilots, nor the Company. Not only can it be an unsafe practice, you could find yourself facing a potential FAA violation.
Federal Air Regulation 121.563 states: The pilot in command shall ensure that all mechanical irregularities occurring during flight time are entered in the maintenance log of the airplane at the end of that flight time. Before each flight the pilot in command shall ascertain the status of each irregularity entered in the log at the end of the preceding flight.
Recently, an airline pilot (not from US Airways) had his pilot certificate suspended for violating this FAR. In this particular case, the airman flew a series of flights with a thrust reverser accumulator discrepancy that he did not write up until he returned to his home base. In issuing the suspension of this pilot's license, the law judge made the assumption that
The term "mechanical irregularity," as stated in FAR 121.563, includes any deviation from the normal functioning of an aircraft component, no matter how slight or momentary.
Aside from the potential FAR violation, it is important to remember that the only way to get a mechanical discrepancy repaired is to write it up. While it may be temporarily placed on the MEL, which I know at times can be frustrating, it will eventually get fixed. When you do write it up, be as clear and concise as possible, so that maintenance personnel can adequately troubleshoot the discrepancy and make the appropriate repairs. The depth and quality of the write-up goes a long way toward expediting the repair and ensuring the proper solution to the discrepancy.
Occasionally, you may notice an airplane that has a history of mechanical irregularities. The Maintenance Department refers to these as "chronic airplanes" and has developed a Chronic Airplane Program to address these troublesome airplanes. Recently, Maintenance has increased its focus on this Chronic Airplane Program, and is putting a high priority on getting these airplanes fixed. Again, we can help Maintenance by paying close attention to these airplanes and reporting valuable information to Maintenance via the aircraft logbook.
As pilots, we can play a significant role in helping to maintain the quality of the aircraft we operate. While "carrying" an airplane may provide a short-term remedy, it is not indicative of prudent safe operating practices. Besides subjecting you to possible FAA sanctions, it reduces the Maintenance Department's ability to provide better long-term corrective measures to enhance the mechanical reliability of our fleet.
*************************************************
DAVID R. HINSON,
Administrator,
Federal Aviation Administration,
Complainant,
v.
GARY R. CALHOUN,
Respondent.
Docket SE-10955
OPINION AND ORDER
Respondent has appealed from the oral initial decision of Administrative Law Judge William R. Fowler, Jr., issued on December 3, 1991, following an evidentiary hearing.1 The law judge affirmed an order of the Administrator suspending respondent's airline transport pilot certificate for 30 days for violating 14 C.F.R. 121.563.2 We deny the appeal.
The Administrator charged that respondent, as pilot in command, had, over a few days, listed numerous "mechanical irregularities" (as the term is used in § 121.563) on hotel note paper, rather than timely entering them in the aircraft log.3 In other instances where entries were made, respondent is alleged to have delayed entering the discrepancies in the log. The law judge made summary findings that respondent's notes reflected mechanical irregularities, not all of which were logged as required.4
...
The issues were clear: was respondent obliged to enter all of the listed items in the aircraft log; did he fail to do so; and did he fail to do so within the time the rule requires? The testimony at the hearing, as well as case law obviously known to the law judge (see Tr. at 178), was straightforward and, accordingly, the law judge saw no need to belabor the matter. Id. at 176-177. This approach was not an abuse of discretion, especially because, as the Administrator points out, proof of failure to enter just one of the items would satisfy the complaint.
...
Having broken equipment repaired as a result of a pilot's communicating concerns to maintenance personnel does not preclude the finding of a § 121.563 violation, nor does a determination that the aircraft was not rendered unairworthy as a result of the irregularity. The rule requires only a finding that a mechanical irregularity has not been timely logged.
As to the timeliness of the log entry, to the extent that entries may have been made, yet made after the flights on which the problems were noticed, the Administrator argues that the current rule corrected the problem noted in Leighton, and now requires that entries be made at the end of the flight time in which the irregularity was noticed. The record supports a finding that entries were not made after relevant flight times, and respondent has not demonstrated, as was done by the respondent in Leighton, that the intervening time did not compromise safe operation so as to mitigate the sanction. Here, for example, there is no showing that other crews could not have used the aircraft.7 See also Administrator v. Lambert, NTSB
Order EA-3852 (1993).
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. Respondent's appeal is denied;
2. The 30-day suspension of respondent's airline transport pilot certificate shall begin 30 days from the date of service of this order.
The New Logbook
Fellow Pilots,
For those of you who have read the preliminary injunction handed down by Judge Conrad of the Federal Court in North Carolina, a point of contention with at least one of his orders should be obvious to all federally licensed Airline Transport Pilots.
Judge Conrad apparently orders us to stop “writing up all maintenance items” which is in direct violation of FAR 121.563.
The following is from Judge Conrad’s order:
Page 43
"Including in such notice a directive from USAPA to US Airways’s pilots who are engaging in a concerted refusal to perform normal pilot operations, including but not limited to, slow taxiing, writing up all maintenance items, calling in fatigued, delaying flights, refusing to answer a call from the scheduling, refusing to fly an aircraft that meets the requirements for flight, or refusing to accept voluntary or overtime flying, to cease and desist all such activity and to cease and desist all exhortations or communications encouraging same."
Some of the confusion may have been cause by Lyle Hogg’s testimony that possibly misled Judge Conrad as to the difference between a deferred maintenance item approved by the MEL and that of a reportable mechanical discrepancy.
Page 14
"While there is no prohibition against writing up any and all maintenance items, including very minor items (e.g., broken passenger light, a non-essential placard), pilots ordinarily exercise their authority and discretion to not write up deferrable minor items when it could produce a delay or cancellation of a flight. Pl’s Ex. 30 at ¶ 7: Hogg Decl. In a slowdown, discretion can be exercised as a pretext for creating flight delays and cancellations when pilots reject aircraft even though they have no genuine safety concerns. Id."
Page 15
"Notably, the rate at which East pilots are increasing their use of maintenance write-ups is far greater at airports where US Airways does not have its own maintenance personnel, thus making such write-ups much more likely to result in a flight delay or cancellation because the Company needs to rely on third party maintenance or even fly in a mechanic or part before the flight can depart. Id. At ¶ 16."
A review of the pertinent FAR’s follows:
Sec. 121.563
Reporting mechanical irregularities.
The pilot in command shall ensure that all mechanical irregularities occurring during flight time are entered in the maintenance log of the airplane at the end of that flight time. Before each flight the pilot in command shall ascertain the status of each irregularity entered in the log at the end of the preceding flight.
Sec. 91.7
Civil aircraft airworthiness.
(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condition.
(B) The pilot in command of a civil aircraft is responsible for determining whether that aircraft is in condition for safe flight. The pilot in command shall discontinue the flight when unairworthy mechanical, electrical, or structural conditions occur.
A careful reading of the FARs and a abundance of case history involving enforcement action against Pilots who carry maintenance items should have our Union's attorneys (who ever they are this week!) seeking clarification on this conflict.
While we believe our Union and each Pilot need to comply with the Court order, an interpretation could be that this order allows Pilots to carry a maintenance discrepancy, to a convenient maintenance station; this of course, is not the case, per the Federal Air Regulations.
A letter to the FAA Deputy Chief Counsel should have been drafted by USAPA and sent seeking the FAA’s opinion as to Judge Conrad’s mandate. In addition, communication and coordination with US Airways Flight and Training Department on guidance from US Airways on their interpretation of the FAR 121.563 and Judge Conrad’s order.
But as of yet, silence.
It appears management was looking for a fly swatter but instead received a hammer from the Court. What a fine mess Cleary and the boys have gotten us into!
Fraternally,
Dave Ciabattoni
AB 320 PHL
Eric Rowe
AB 330 PHL
Woody Menear
B-767 PHL
You can also visit the Compass Correction website using the following link: http://compasscorrectioncoalition.com
More information on FAR 121.563 follows:
See also Administrator v. Schoppaul, NTSB Order EA-3410 at 10 (1991), in which we held that an airman having "even a 'small worry'" about the functioning of an aircraft component is required to enter that item in the maintenance logbook under § 121.563.
***************************************************
May 2001
Central Air Safety Enhancing Our Mechanical Quality and Reliability
Terry McVenes (PHL)
Chairman, Central Air Safety Committee
I get a fair number of telephone calls that concern the maintenance condition of a certain airplane or fleet type. While I am sometimes able to verify and resolve a problem, I often find that there is no supporting documentation to validate the claim. In other words, the mechanical discrepancy was never written up in the logbook.
The desire to be good employees who get our passengers to their destination on time encourages us to try to get an airplane through the day without a write-up. However, "carrying" an airplane with a mechanical discrepancy benefits neither you, your fellow pilots, nor the Company. Not only can it be an unsafe practice, you could find yourself facing a potential FAA violation.
Federal Air Regulation 121.563 states: The pilot in command shall ensure that all mechanical irregularities occurring during flight time are entered in the maintenance log of the airplane at the end of that flight time. Before each flight the pilot in command shall ascertain the status of each irregularity entered in the log at the end of the preceding flight.
Recently, an airline pilot (not from US Airways) had his pilot certificate suspended for violating this FAR. In this particular case, the airman flew a series of flights with a thrust reverser accumulator discrepancy that he did not write up until he returned to his home base. In issuing the suspension of this pilot's license, the law judge made the assumption that
The term "mechanical irregularity," as stated in FAR 121.563, includes any deviation from the normal functioning of an aircraft component, no matter how slight or momentary.
Aside from the potential FAR violation, it is important to remember that the only way to get a mechanical discrepancy repaired is to write it up. While it may be temporarily placed on the MEL, which I know at times can be frustrating, it will eventually get fixed. When you do write it up, be as clear and concise as possible, so that maintenance personnel can adequately troubleshoot the discrepancy and make the appropriate repairs. The depth and quality of the write-up goes a long way toward expediting the repair and ensuring the proper solution to the discrepancy.
Occasionally, you may notice an airplane that has a history of mechanical irregularities. The Maintenance Department refers to these as "chronic airplanes" and has developed a Chronic Airplane Program to address these troublesome airplanes. Recently, Maintenance has increased its focus on this Chronic Airplane Program, and is putting a high priority on getting these airplanes fixed. Again, we can help Maintenance by paying close attention to these airplanes and reporting valuable information to Maintenance via the aircraft logbook.
As pilots, we can play a significant role in helping to maintain the quality of the aircraft we operate. While "carrying" an airplane may provide a short-term remedy, it is not indicative of prudent safe operating practices. Besides subjecting you to possible FAA sanctions, it reduces the Maintenance Department's ability to provide better long-term corrective measures to enhance the mechanical reliability of our fleet.
*************************************************
DAVID R. HINSON,
Administrator,
Federal Aviation Administration,
Complainant,
v.
GARY R. CALHOUN,
Respondent.
Docket SE-10955
OPINION AND ORDER
Respondent has appealed from the oral initial decision of Administrative Law Judge William R. Fowler, Jr., issued on December 3, 1991, following an evidentiary hearing.1 The law judge affirmed an order of the Administrator suspending respondent's airline transport pilot certificate for 30 days for violating 14 C.F.R. 121.563.2 We deny the appeal.
The Administrator charged that respondent, as pilot in command, had, over a few days, listed numerous "mechanical irregularities" (as the term is used in § 121.563) on hotel note paper, rather than timely entering them in the aircraft log.3 In other instances where entries were made, respondent is alleged to have delayed entering the discrepancies in the log. The law judge made summary findings that respondent's notes reflected mechanical irregularities, not all of which were logged as required.4
...
The issues were clear: was respondent obliged to enter all of the listed items in the aircraft log; did he fail to do so; and did he fail to do so within the time the rule requires? The testimony at the hearing, as well as case law obviously known to the law judge (see Tr. at 178), was straightforward and, accordingly, the law judge saw no need to belabor the matter. Id. at 176-177. This approach was not an abuse of discretion, especially because, as the Administrator points out, proof of failure to enter just one of the items would satisfy the complaint.
...
Having broken equipment repaired as a result of a pilot's communicating concerns to maintenance personnel does not preclude the finding of a § 121.563 violation, nor does a determination that the aircraft was not rendered unairworthy as a result of the irregularity. The rule requires only a finding that a mechanical irregularity has not been timely logged.
As to the timeliness of the log entry, to the extent that entries may have been made, yet made after the flights on which the problems were noticed, the Administrator argues that the current rule corrected the problem noted in Leighton, and now requires that entries be made at the end of the flight time in which the irregularity was noticed. The record supports a finding that entries were not made after relevant flight times, and respondent has not demonstrated, as was done by the respondent in Leighton, that the intervening time did not compromise safe operation so as to mitigate the sanction. Here, for example, there is no showing that other crews could not have used the aircraft.7 See also Administrator v. Lambert, NTSB
Order EA-3852 (1993).
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. Respondent's appeal is denied;
2. The 30-day suspension of respondent's airline transport pilot certificate shall begin 30 days from the date of service of this order.
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- Joined
- May 18, 2003
- Messages
- 8,175
- Reaction score
- 1,539
Leonidas Update: October 12, 2011
Late yesterday, Judge Silver issued an order for a scheduling conference to be held December 1st, 2011 at 10AM. You can read the here. We are glad that the declaratory action case is moving again as nothing will advance at the negotiating table until seniority is settled in the courts.
We would also like to remind our West readers of the meet and greet with the West attorneys on November 11th at 5PM. This is your chance to speak to Marty, Andy, Katie and Kelly directly, so come prepared with your questions. Complimentary refreshments will be available, including a keg. We look forward to seeing you there.
Thanks for your continued support. Remember, justice isn’t free.
Sincerely,
Leonidas, LLC
Late yesterday, Judge Silver issued an order for a scheduling conference to be held December 1st, 2011 at 10AM. You can read the here. We are glad that the declaratory action case is moving again as nothing will advance at the negotiating table until seniority is settled in the courts.
We would also like to remind our West readers of the meet and greet with the West attorneys on November 11th at 5PM. This is your chance to speak to Marty, Andy, Katie and Kelly directly, so come prepared with your questions. Complimentary refreshments will be available, including a keg. We look forward to seeing you there.
Thanks for your continued support. Remember, justice isn’t free.
Sincerely,
Leonidas, LLC
One of the "I got mine" boys. Is he trader's father?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
