Source: http://www.aerolegalservices.com/Archives/2018_09_01_index.shtml
Timestamp: 2018-09-23 06:49:35
Document Index: 185302162

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 135', '§ 135', 'art 142', 'art 135', '§ 14', '§ 135', '§ 135', 'art 135']

Aviation Law Discussions Subscribe XML
If You Want To Be A Part 135 Check Airman Or Instructor In A Simulator, You Have To Fly The Plane
In a recent Legal Interpretation, the FAA reaffirmed its position that an individual acting as a check airman or flight instructor in a simulator must fly at least two flight segments for the type aircraft involved within the 12-month period preceding the performance to comply with 14 C.F.R. § 135.337(f). The Interpretation responded to an inquiry from a Part 142 Training Center asking whether a Part 135 check airman/instructor conducting turbine aircraft flight checks/flight instruction in a simulator could use a multi-engine piston aircraft to satisfy the requirements of §§ 14 C.F.R. § 135.337(f) or 14 C.F.R. § 135.338(f). Both sections require that the check airman/instructor
Fly at least two flight segments as a required crewmember for the type, class, or category aircraft involved within the 12-month preceding the performance of any check airman or flight instructor duty in a flight simulator; or
Satisfactorily complete an approved line observation program.
In its request the training center explained that it was either cost prohibitive or simply not feasible for a training center or contract check airman/flight instructor to be able to satisfy these requirements in an actual turbine aircraft. On the other hand, accomplishing the flight segments or line observation in a multi-engine piston aircraft was not only more economical, but was actually feasible given the availability of multi-engine piston aircraft for rent.
In response, the Interpretation states that
recency of experience in a light piston engine would not satisfy the recency requirements for serving as a check airman or instructor in an aircraft of a different type, class, or category aircraft. Because the purpose of the requirements is for experience in a similar aircraft, the aircraft type must be the same. If the aircraft does not have a type rating, then the class and category, in that order, must be the same.
So, if you are a conducting Part 135 flight checks or instruction in a simulator, you will need to make arrangements to obtain the required currency experience in a similar aircraft. Unfortunately, this will make it more difficult, and more expensive, for training centers to either obtain or maintain qualified check airmen/instructors.
If You Are Unhappy With Your ASAP Program, Suing DOT Won't Help.
An airman found this out the hard way in a recent case in Michigan. In Mark v. U.S. Dep't of Transportation the plaintiff was a flight engineer working for Kalitta Chartes II, LLC, an air carrier. During one particular flight, the captain nearly crashed the aircraft in what the Court characterized was a "nearly-disastrous unstable landing approach" which left the plaintiff "understandably shaken."
Shortly after the flight, the plaintiff failed a simulator proficiency exam and claimed his failure was the result of the post-traumatic stress disorder ("PTSD") he was suffering from the previous flight. The Plaintiff then filed a report under Kalitta's Aviation Safety Action Program ("ASAP") detailing his physical and mental condition which was then provided to the Event Review Committee ("ERC"). As you may know, ASAP programs are established via a memorandum of understanding ("MOU") between an air carrier and the FAA which detail procedures for participating in the program. The MOU establishes the ERC which includes a representative from each of the air carrier and pilot's union, as well as an FAA inspector.
In this case, the plaintiff alleged that the MOU required the ERC to report his medical issue to the FAA Regional Flight Surgeon and then comply with any instructions received in response to the report. However, the ERC did not follow this procedure, but simply determined that the plaintiff was fit to fly. Based upon this determination, the plaintiff submitted to another simulator proficiency check which he also failed, and he again claimed the failure was caused by his PTSD. After the second failure, the plaintiff's employment was terminated.
The plaintiff sued the Department of Transportation alleging that he would not have lost his job if the FAA inspector on the ERC had reported the plaintiff's medical condition to the Regional Flight Surgeon as required by the MOU. The plaintiff asserted claims against the DOT for ordinary negligence grounded in the alleged unlicensed practice of medicine by the FAA inspector and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The DOT then moved to dismiss the plaintiff's claims.
The Court agreed with the DOT and held that the plaintiff's claims were barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. The Court determined the plaintiff's allegations that the FAA inspector's alleged failure to comply with the MOU and the resulting termination of plaintiff's employment were really contract claims which are expressly barred by sovereign immunity and not covered under the Federal Tort Claims Act (which does permit some tort claims against the government). It also observed that the plaintiff had provided no evidence or case law to support his claims for unlawful practice of medicine or intentional infliction of emotion distress.
So, I think the takeaway from this case is that any disputes arising from an ASAP program are probably best pursued with the air carrier rather than the DOT. Although the government can be sued in tort (e.g. the plaintiff's negligence and intentional infliction of emotion distress claims), the burden is high to assert facts and precedent to support those claims. And as this case shows, contract cases against the government are, for the most part, completely barred.