TonyC

Is that how you do your job as a mechanic? Do you follow Federal Regulations unless company guidelines say something different, and then you have to balance?


All this time I've been under the impression that The Company's rules can be more restrictive than the FAA's rules, but not more permissive. Under that philosophy, there should never have to be a balancing act.


What other sort of company rules do you have to balance with regulatory policy? Can you give us some specific examples?



==============================

[EDIT TO ADD:



Hey, I was thinking the same thing!



I guess I type too slowly.








.

HKFlyr

Tony,

Remember rule no. 1, don't argue with an idiot...well, you know the rest...

Hope your doing well. Miss seeing you over in HK, although I know you don't miss the commute.

FlyerOnWall

Yeah, it would be nice if everything was in black and white. But, you all know, there are plenty of rules and regulations (both company and FAA) with gray areas (open for interpretation). You can pretend there aren't any, all you want. No, I'm not going into specifics on a public forum.

Nitefrater

VERY, VERY, TRUE. And the point that you inadvertently, yet so ineloquently make, is that security screening of the operating aircrew is pointless eyewash.

However, if that is what scares you, then I strongly suggest you avoid airplanes with pilots in them. At which point, your jumpseat "privileges" become moot.

Begone, Troll! Back to your manglement cubicle!

FlyerOnWall

LOL I have nothing to do with manglement, I'm in the fix manglement business. I'm not scared at all. Not scared to fly with any of you or with anyone else with FAA certification in the aircraft.

FlyerOnWall

You would think so, however;

There are some FAR's that have very clear policy, such as:
121.371 Required inspection personnel.
(c) No person may perform a required inspection if he performed the item of work required to be inspected.

There are other FAR's that simply allow Company guidelines, such as:
121.367 Maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations programs.
(a) Maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations performed by it, or by other persons, are performed in accordance with the certificate holder's manual;

Having worked for several airlines. I can attest that requirements in those manuals can differ quite a bit from one company to another.

FlyerOnWall

As I pointed out, there is some very clear guidance in FAR's and there is some quite wide open guidance. Within company manuals, there can be very explicit instructions, and there can be very general instructions, such as; follow some other manual(i.e. MM, SRM, CMM, etc.). Those manuals may provide explicit instructions or they may be quite vague, in which case you may have to go to FAA AC 43.13. It is a balancing act.

kronan

Just to make sure I know the status. FedEx Mgt {finance ;-) } managed to convince our rubber stamp of a POI that AMTs should be a class of employee allowed into the cockpit at anytime. Mgt took this action without coordination with our union, who originally seemed to be PO'd at being left out, then concerned with the 12 hour request, and lately seem in agreement with Tony C's assessment of the FARs that AMTs are not a permitted class and our POI overstepped the authority granted him by The Administrator.

UPS AMTs have been riding to\from for an unstated period of time-and, unless I've missed a posting, all of UPS seats are considered cockpit seats.

FedEx Mgt has a history of challenging PIC actions, and there is the perception of here we go again.

One of our APC posters feels that with our "safety record" it's crucial to have a sleeping AMT on board to point out the Window Heat isn't on (even though that's a MEL item that pretty sure is permitted to be inop on most airplanes)

For a long period of time FedEx didn't have "dispatchers", per se, we have since gone to Flag Ops and now have regulated dispatchers. Some people would say a Rose by any other name would smell as sweet, but, names are very important to bureaucrats and the level of responsibility is quite different. Certainly doesn't the folks generating the dispatch\release\flight plan are performing different functions now, it's just a name change and they are an essential part of the PIC support system. But, the bottom line is that since the PIC is the last to see the plan, PIC has the final call. (I was once fortunate enough to listen in to a PIC\dispatch call. PIC wanted something changed that dispatcher disagreed with---PIC said, well, okay then, guess the next Capt might agree with you. Dispatcher said, what do you mean Next Capt? Capt said, as I understand you and I both have to agree, so, since you're adamant that the plan isn't going to be changed-I naturally assumed you were going to replace me as the PIC....needless to say, the plan changed. BTW-it was kind of silly, MSP-MEM and the dispatcher was thinking the reroute request via Rochester was Rochester NY

Kids call-hold that thought

FDXLAG

And I wonder how many pilots troll the AMT boards.

FlyerOnWall

Thank you. Another sign of the maturity level up there.

It was a Gulfstream 1, windshield heat. It's primary purpose is to bird proof the windshield. It's not deferrable.