TillerTemptress

No. ASAP program is anything that's a safety hazard, potential or actually realized.
"Well, the rampers keep trying to walk in front of the engines, but until one actually gets sucked up we can't ASAP it so, oh well.."
Go read AC 120-66B.

BobbyLeeSwagger

I don't read ACs. But I would crew report that, not necessarily ASAP (although, sure, you could)

Edit: ok I'll meet you halfway. I looked at our ASAP MOU. It's primary purpose is to report a safety event and we know intentional non compliance is excluded from the program..

So in context to what I brought up earlier.... I don't think you can asap a sick flight attendant flying on your watch. I don't see how you would asap a flight attendant who is afraid of getting fired for calling sick either.

Would you asap the above?

Fpmx772

I think i would be like tha facckkkk, then I would prob laugh and then be like, what an idiot and then dig into the snack basket


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

BobbyLeeSwagger

That's check airmen material right therrr folks lol

popcopy

Does this mean this is the 2000th post?

Neat! I like your Snackbasket options too.

MuPpET

2001st post, 2000th reply.

TillerTemptress

I would, and you can. That's nothing to do with intentional noncompliance. That's talking about rejecting a report. If a mechanic intentionally takes a shortcut on a maintenance task and it causes a major incident, he can't just ASAP it and go "whelp I'll be fine I filed an ASAP, even though I knew the correct procedure and wasn't trained on it". However I meant in this context that the flight attendants feeling pressured to fly instead of calling in sick (and I have heard of them being sick and then suddenly well after getting a call from an inflight supervisor and getting stressed about getting an MFA etc), those ones should file an ASAP and get that in front of the FAA, who are definitely not OK with any crewmember being pressured to fly when not fit for duty.

As for crew reporting it vs ASAPing it... well it goes into the same system. Biggest difference... a pilot ASAP report goes to company, ALPA and FAA. Crew report goes to ... company only. FAA can't see it, ALPA can't see it. (The FA ones go to AFA instead of course)

BobbyLeeSwagger

Ok so I just want to make sure we're talking about the same thing. The examples you are giving with the ramper and the mechanic I totally agree with you but I'm asking about something more like this:

Captain shows up to the flight, FA is sick, Captain is upset that the FA is pressured to fly sick and files an ASAP at the hotel after the flight. Hasn't the captain now accepted liability for blocking out with a sick crew member and therefore how can his ASAP be accepted? Moreover, now he would have to file a crew report and the ntsb would also have to be notified per the required report table in the FOM, right?

Btw, didn't know the crew reports were not seen by the FAA & ALPA. Good to know.

TillerTemptress

Because the CA cannot determine the FA fitness for duty, only the FA can do that. If the FA says "I am not fit", then yeah you need a crewmember. The problem, as we know it, is the FA saying they are not fit for duty, suddenly they call CS or an inflight supervisor, get an earful about MFAs and all of a sudden they say they're fit for duty while they're doubled over in pain or coughing up a storm etc.
You're not filing an ASAP that you knew the crewmember was sick and let them fly, you're filing that due to operational pressures magically a flight attendant you know damn well is sick is now saying they are OK and you think that those recorded tapes should be pulled and listened to by the FAA.

Intentional disregard for safety or intentional disregard for regulations is a sticky subject, but ultimately very few ASAPs are rejected for it. If someone lands with a 14 kt tailwind on a clear day and they just didn't realize it, that's not necessarily an intentional disregard for safety. If the FO says to the captain three times "hey this tailwind is over our limit, we can't accept this", now it is. So that language has to be in the advisory circular/MOU for a reason. If it turns out the reason the CA did it is, they got boxed into a corner without enough gas to get anywhere else and there's thunderstorms off the other end of the runway and it's become an emergency situation, now landing flaps full with a 14 kt tailwind might be the safest course of action. There is context and color to everything.
I still would try to knowingly avoid flying with a sick FA, I mean, gotta put your foot down at some point if it's a safety issue. "Destination safety says I can pause the operation if I feel like something is unsafe, and this seems unsafe, so I'm pushing the pause button..."

Bike Handles

Something has to be done. BLS, can you negotiate for different snack basket options? Perhaps the following?
BC3F1A01-9EC2-451F-AC1E-586C0D993261.jpg