FAA Safety Hotline 800-255-1111...The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

[WindOnHisNose]

We all have the ability to call the FAA Safety Hotline 800-255-1111 and report activity or circumstances or persons which we feel might be considered dangerous. These can be filed with identifying information regarding the informant or anonymously. The FAA takes these reports very seriously and investigates each and every one.

One one hand, the ability to use this system is necessary in order to make sure that issues which may affect others lives can be researched and, if true, neutralized. Further, these reports can be made anonymously so as to protect the caller (whistleblower) from retribution from the reportee.

I mention this at this time, just after the Lufthansa tragedy in which there were clearly many breaches of common sense and reporting responsibility, ultimately resulting in the loss of many innocent peoples lives. Should any of us have strong feelings about another pilots mental health, or physical health, or if we witness dangerous flying we are at least bound by our consciences to report this to the FAA.

Problem: this reporting can be abused.

Case 1: I received a communication from a supercub.org pilot who had received, out of the blue, a letter from the FAA essentially saying that they had been made aware of an unsafe medical condition existing in this pilot. Let's call him SC1. Let's call the person who reported him R1.

SC1's letter was a relatively nasty one from OKC, stating what their concern was, what was needed and what would be necessary for this airman to receive his medical certificate (at the moment I am unsure if they suspended his certificate). The demands were considerable. Letter from his primary care provider. Letter from a specialist. Three years worth records of all his transactions with his local pharmacy.

Why did he feel he received the letter from the FAA? Retribution. SC1 had reported a pilot who he knew was flying passengers without a valid credentials, that he was unsafe. R1 had found out he had done so and called the FAA Hotline to report that SC1 had a serious medical condition that would be medically disqualifying.

I became involved when SC1 contacted me with this information and I asked for his permission to contact our Regional Flight Surgeon to see if all this stuff really needed to be obtained (3 years worth of pharmacy reports requires the pharmacy to go up the chain of command considerably, takes much time) and I explained the predicament SC1 was in. They apologized for the letter from OKC and it was obvious to me that had someone called their RFS, rather than send out a reflex letter, and explained the situation a much less harsh letter would have been sent to SC1. They appreciated the phone call and the chance to help SC1, who will be coming to see me very soon. I am very confident he will prevail, and he will have his medical certificate.

Case 2. Two CFI's reported via the FAA Hotline that a student pilot had exhibited signs of being unreasonable, of being aggressive and of being, in their judgement, not of sound mind. This was brought to the attention of the student who apparently has filed legal action against the CFI's in question. The student is being required to undergo extensive psychiatric evaluation before the FAA will grant him a medical certificate. I am not aware as to whether the Hotline filing was done anonymously.

I bring these two instances to light to illustrate the complexities of the FAA Hotline and the serious repercussions that can come from being reported, and from reporting. There is a very big burden placed upon the person who has been reported and those who call the Hotline should understand that responsibility.

I am aware of this with my medical practice. It is a fact that the procedures we use to help people conceive do not always work, and once every 3 or 4 years a patient who is upset by the fact that they put considerable time and money into the process without success and they wish to blame someone. Namely, me. They can file a report with the state medical board, which results in a letter indicating that I have 30 days to respond, with copies of all medical records, to the complaint. It is extremely time consuming, to say the least, and I tend to take this personally given the fact that I provide good care to my patients and I stress, without exception, that not everyone is successful. Every complaint, no matter how trivial, results in this type of investigation.

So, be careful out there, do the right thing. Using the Hotline should be taken very seriously, and I would encourage you to do so anonymously if at all possible. Not to report unsafe pilots, however, has its own set of repercussions...as exhibited in the Lufthansa tragedy.

Randy

 

[bob turner]

I agree that really weird folks should be weeded out, but this hotline scares the crap out of me.

That Airbus FO is reported to have 650 hours total time. According to what little info I have seen, that is less than 100 hours per year, over his flying career. My slowest year on the Bus was 650 hours, and crew scheduling hated me for it - they wanted 1000.0 hours per year.

Any airline that thinks a pilot who has flown for six years and who has 650 hours total time is a worthwhile employee ought to have its certificate yanked. Opinion. A Hotline wouldn't have helped.

 

[WindOnHisNose]

Bob, I agree with you regarding the hotline.

I am afraid that as the pilot supply continues to dwindle, and as we have fewer and fewer military-trained pilots, and as we have more and more drone drivers, we will commonly see 600 hour first officers.

Randy

 

[Aviator]

Oh, that's just great. Build a culture of distrust and a society of snitches. What's next? Paying a pilot to rat on his fellows or locking him up if he doesn't? Sounds like something they dragged out from behind the Iron Curtain.

 

[WindOnHisNose]

Aviator, this isn't something new...the Hotline has been in existence for several years. It is just that not many know about it.

 

[Aviator]

... It is just that not many know about it.

Thanks, Randy. That in itself suggests most pilots find such methods distasteful. We can only hope the next generation of pilots will also find them repulsive.

 

[mvivion]

You won't see any 600 hour first officers in this country since the Congress in it's wisdom mandated that every first officer hold an ATP. Which in itself was a knee jerk in response to the Colgan Air debacle, which had nothing to do with total time, and everything to do with competence and fatigue.

MTV

 

[qsmx440]

Oh, that's just great. Build a culture of distrust and a society of snitches. What's next? Paying a pilot to rat on his fellows or locking him up if he doesn't? Sounds like something they dragged out from behind the Iron Curtain.

I completely agree with this post. This is soviet union stuff! Yes we need a hotline BUT not anonymous. You have a right to know who your accuser is and you should have the will to make yourself known if you plan to interfere with another persons life. Lawsuits are one of the reasons people keep their mouth shut when they should stand up. PC stuff.

 

[mam90]

I completely agree with this post. This is soviet union stuff! Yes we need a hotline BUT not anonymous. You have a right to know who your accuser is and you should have the will to make yourself known if you plan to interfere with another persons life. Lawsuits are one of the reasons people keep their mouth shut when they should stand up. PC stuff.

I also feel it should not be anonymous. Anyone with a grudge, disgruntled former employee, or someone who is himself unstable can put you in the position of having to respond and defend yourself from an unfounded accusation. If you feel strongly enough that something needs to be said, then you should sign your name to it.

 

[Cub junkie]

I think in regard to the comments on how low time the F/O was in the Luthansa tragedy it's a moot point. A mentally ill person is going to do something like this no matter the experience level. That kind of flight time for a graduate of the strict Luthansa training regime is not uncommon. I bet they have a lot of new pilots with that kind of experience. The captain didn't do anything wrong. He got up to go to the back and their procedure(although flawed) is to leave the aircraft in control of the F/O. When I used to be in the pax ops world I often waited till cruise and pointed in the right direction then go back for a minute. You can second guess and throw all the what ifs out there but this tragic event happened from the planning of a mentally ill (so far as we know) crew member. By the way, captains have flaked out too. As far as dropping a dime on a fellow crew member(with your company), if you are the caller you can also expect to be looked at too. Nothing wrong with that but that will happen.

 

[bob turner]

Nope. 650 hours in six years does not indicate a rigorous training regime. 650 hours in two years, maybe.

 

[Cub junkie]

Nope to you too. How much do you know about Lufthansa? Opinion.

 

[GeeBee]

Look, bottom line is Lufthansa failed in their duty to provide operational control. This guy was in a special program, according to Der Bild and his license was so marked. That program is like the program here in the US for recovering alcoholics where the designee's medical certificate is valid only piloting the sponsoring carrier's aircraft. Lufthansa put this guy back to work after a two months absence without so much as a question of what his sick leave was about, nor a demand he produce a wellness letter from his doctors. From a regulatory standpoint EASA should be seriously questioning Lufthansa's ability to track the airmen they sponsor in their recovery programs. From a civil standpoint? Lufthansa might as well throw their checkbook on the table and let the victim's families write their own checks.

As for this hotline, I had a lady one night who wanted the flight delayed so she could make her connection call and accuse me of being intoxicated. It caused me some grief and anxious minutes while I was evaluated to prove my innocence. I very quickly found out who she was and I got her ejected off the flight because I had an absolute case that she was a whacko. Not a fan of this hot line and given its construct it is ripe for abuse of all kinds. Even if a complaint is legit, there are no civil protections for the reporter. Not a good set up IMHO.

 

[Aviator]

...Lufthansa failed in their duty to provide operational control....

Only the PIC can exercise "Operational Control." An Airline is dutybound to "control Operations" as part of its OC. Not the same. Probably a moot point here - and I'm not trying to nitpick - but pilots have been known to hang themselves during investigative/disciplinary hearings by ignoring the difference.

 

[bob turner]

I never heard of that distinction. Of course, it has been a while . . .
Nope to you too. How much do you know about Luthansa? Opinion.

Not much, except that I have studied in the classroom with Lufthansa pilots and engineers, and know how to spell Lufthansa. But I do know something about airline training, and I do not believe any US airline would retain a pilot who flew roughly 100 hours a year.

I am not the world's most experienced doobie, but I have been to Boeing for training three times, have earned five type ratings, and have flown with all kinds of pilots, fom marginal to way better than me. A pilot with that background should have raised suspicions right off the bat.

 

[GeeBee]

Only the PIC can exercise "Operational Control." An Airline is dutybound to "control Operations" as part of its OC. Not the same. Probably a moot point here - and I'm not trying to nitpick - but pilots have been known to hang themselves during investigative/disciplinary hearings by ignoring the difference.

Nope, read FAR Part 1. Operational control to a flight means "the exercise of authority to initiate, conduct and terminate the flight." In air carrier operations the PIC usually cannot initiate a flight, he does conduct a flight but does so in co-authority with a licensed dispatcher and the factors and decisions to terminate flight rests with more than the PIC. In addition FAR 121.531(a) "Each Certificate holder conducting domestic operations is responsible for operational control".

 

[mam90]

I'm watching another group of "experts" on the news demand more psych testing for pilots. What really bothers me is this idea that we should live in a zero risk world. What about bus drivers? Couldn't one of them with 60 or 70 people in the back swerve into oncoming traffic and kill all aboard? How far do we go to remove all risk from society? Scarey to think there are some who think we could never go too far when it comes to "public safety". I don't know what the answer is, but I do know there are substantial risks in overreacting to isolated tragedies. Benjamin Franklin was correct when he said "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.". Just my opinion..

 

[skywagon8a]

I think in regard to the comments on how low time the F/O was in the Luthansa tragedy it's a moot point. A mentally ill person is going to do something like this no matter the experience level. That kind of flight time for a graduate of the strict Luthansa training regime is not uncommon. I bet they have a lot of new pilots with that kind of experience.

You are correct. I know of one case where the captain attempted to commit suicide with a 727 by attempting to dive it into the Atlantic ocean east of Jacksonville Florida. Fortunately the F/O and F/E managed to wrestle him off the controls. Needless to say that was his last airline flight. He much later blew his brains out.

Nope. 650 hours in six years does not indicate a rigorous training regime. 650 hours in two years, maybe.

I read in one article that the 650 hours was flown since 2013 when he went on the line. That seems about normal to me for a new pilot who likely was on reserve. Nowhere have I seen a total hours number for the time that he spent learning to fly in gliders up to and including his airline time. Perhaps his total time is much more? Not that it matters at this point.

 

[WindOnHisNose]

Gentlemen, thank you for carrying out a respectful, intelligent and passionate discussion. I am learning from you, and I appreciate all that each of you bring to the table.

I would like to say that bringing greater psychological evaluation onto pilots would only muddy the H2O. I am in an area of medicine that is relatively cut and dried, but it has it's Gaussian distribution in terms of biological variation and an element of the unknown. Psychology and psychiatry, while extremely important, is far less precise in terms of the ability to diagnose and to render an effective therapy. Applying an seriously imprecise discipline to aviation would be a disaster, imho.

Randy

 

[Aviator]

Nope, read FAR Part 1. Operational control to a flight means "the exercise of authority to initiate, conduct and terminate the flight." In air carrier operations the PIC usually cannot initiate a flight, he does conduct a flight but does so in co-authority with a licensed dispatcher and the factors and decisions to terminate flight rests with more than the PIC. In addition FAR 121.531(a) "Each Certificate holder conducting domestic operations is responsible for operational control".

You said earlier - in another post - that you don't really care about Canada. Fair enough. By that token, I suppose it's fair to say, Lufthansa doesn't really care about the U.S. or its FARs - nor does anybody else operating in the rest of the world.

Every jurisdiction has its own definitions and regulations, and they are by no means harmonized worldwide. Their constant revisions attest to that reality, especially in Europe, where they can't even seem to agree on what they want to call themselves (JAA, CAA, EASA...).

In Canada, "Operational Control" is defined as "the exercise of authority over the formulation, execution, and amendment of an operational flight plan in respect of a flight." (CAR 725.20). In other words, flight planning, operating a flight, and deviating from the flight plan - change routing, altitude, speed, contour thunderstorm, divert to an alternate, land at the nearest suitable airport, etc. This definition seems more of less in line with those of other states.

Operational Control is direct control, e.g., moving the stick or delegating that task to the PF. Control of Operations is indirect control, e.g., controlling the environment in which pilots operate flights but not the flights themselves. Operational control is holding a crab on final or restraining an unruly passenger: Control of Operations is establishing and enforcing methods and standards to assure pilots have the skills and motivation to do it. A boxer exercises (direct) Operational Control to win his bouts. His manager exercises (indirect) Control of Operations to assure his fighter can and wants to do it. Two different modes of control that can't be interchanged without chaotic consequences.

I admit, there's no shortage of misconceptions and deliberate misinterpretations in respect of this concept. The purpose of Operational Control is to prevent paralysis while maintaining natural justice, i.e., responsibility-authority balance. It migrated over from the military - along with much else - to authorize "commanders" to conduct their operations as they see fit. Unfortunately for us, that balance has since swung in favor of the Operator - especially since deregulation. Airline managements have successfully lobbied the Regulator for authority beyond their competence and lawful rights while keeping the burden of responsibility on the pilot to save their necks should anything go wrong. This is where we are today (in the Western world).

As for the role of dispatchers, one proposed wording change is "Operational Control does not imply a requirement for licensed flight dispatchers..." (ACJ OPS 1.195 Operational Control (See JAR-OPS 1.195)). This proposal suggests, it's wiser to keep Operational Control in principle where it is in fact - in the cockpit.

(Sorry about the long-winded rebuttal. I promise never to do that again - or drink, gamble, cuss, or ...)

 

[Cub junkie]

Wow, I'm glad all that is cleared up.

 

[scout88305]

In regard to the German pilot having low hours, I think this was well written

http://www.nycaviation.com/2015/03/lurk ... Rd66yzu0y4

 

[GeeBee]

You said earlier - in another post - that you don't really care about Canada. Fair enough. By that token, I suppose it's fair to say, Lufthansa doesn't really care about the U.S. or its FARs - nor does anybody else operating in the rest of the world.

Every jurisdiction has its own definitions and regulations, and they are by no means harmonized worldwide. Their constant revisions attest to that reality, especially in Europe, where they can't even seem to agree on what they want to call themselves (JAA, CAA, EASA...).

In Canada, "Operational Control" is defined as "the exercise of authority over the formulation, execution, and amendment of an operational flight plan in respect of a flight." (CAR 725.20). In other words, flight planning, operating a flight, and deviating from the flight plan - change routing, altitude, speed, contour thunderstorm, divert to an alternate, land at the nearest suitable airport, etc. This definition seems more of less in line with those of other states.

Operational Control is direct control, e.g., moving the stick or delegating that task to the PF. Control of Operations is indirect control, e.g., controlling the environment in which pilots operate flights but not the flights themselves. Operational control is holding a crab on final or restraining an unruly passenger: Control of Operations is establishing and enforcing methods and standards to assure pilots have the skills and motivation to do it. A boxer exercises (direct) Operational Control to win his bouts. His manager exercises (indirect) Control of Operations to assure his fighter can and wants to do it. Two different modes of control that can't be interchanged without chaotic consequences.

I admit, there's no shortage of misconceptions and deliberate misinterpretations in respect of this concept. The purpose of Operational Control is to prevent paralysis while maintaining natural justice, i.e., responsibility-authority balance. It migrated over from the military - along with much else - to authorize "commanders" to conduct their operations as they see fit. Unfortunately for us, that balance has since swung in favor of the Operator - especially since deregulation. Airline managements have successfully lobbied the Regulator for authority beyond their competence and lawful rights while keeping the burden of responsibility on the pilot to save their necks should anything go wrong. This is where we are today (in the Western world).

As for the role of dispatchers, one proposed wording change is "Operational Control does not imply a requirement for licensed flight dispatchers..." (ACJ OPS 1.195 Operational Control (See JAR-OPS 1.195)). This proposal suggests, it's wiser to keep Operational Control in principle where it is in fact - in the cockpit.

(Sorry about the long-winded rebuttal. I promise never to do that again - or drink, gamble, cuss, or ...)

One thing is for sure, as the rest of the world rushes to adopt the US standard of cockpit entry and exit procedures, a little more "operational control" (US definition) is what is taking place.

 

[RAC cubs]

I think they mean 650 total time. 250 in training 400 on line. One kid working for me just got on with AA but won't start training for months.So they say he was with AA for months and no flying?

 

[bob turner]

Thanks for the link. I agree - 650 hours of Airbus time in the first two years is not a red flag. It took us almost a half- year to get the first batch of Bus pilots ready, and we had lots of outside help.

But everything I have read says this guy had 650 hours total time. Last I heard, total time includes glider and yanking gear time. It can, but not always, include simulator time. If one is in a more or less rigorous full-time pilot training program for six years, yet amasses what most of us get in a year and a half of Cub flying for fun, then the reasons for program interruptions should - must - raise red flags. As you can see, they are, belatedly, raising those flags.

 

[WindOnHisNose]

Case 1: I received a communication from a supercub.org pilot who had received, out of the blue, a letter from the FAA essentially saying that they had been made aware of an unsafe medical condition existing in this pilot. Let's call him SC1. Let's call the person who reported him R1.

SC1's letter was a relatively nasty one from OKC, stating what their concern was, what was needed and what would be necessary for this airman to receive his medical certificate (at the moment I am unsure if they suspended his certificate). The demands were considerable. Letter from his primary care provider. Letter from a specialist. Three years worth records of all his transactions with his local pharmacy.

Why did he feel he received the letter from the FAA? Retribution. SC1 had reported a pilot who he knew was flying passengers without a valid credentials, that he was unsafe. R1 had found out he had done so and called the FAA Hotline to report that SC1 had a serious medical condition that would be medically disqualifying.

I became involved when SC1 contacted me with this information and I asked for his permission to contact our Regional Flight Surgeon to see if all this stuff really needed to be obtained (3 years worth of pharmacy reports requires the pharmacy to go up the chain of command considerably, takes much time) and I explained the predicament SC1 was in. They apologized for the letter from OKC and it was obvious to me that had someone called their RFS, rather than send out a reflex letter, and explained the situation a much less harsh letter would have been sent to SC1. They appreciated the phone call and the chance to help SC1, who will be coming to see me very soon. I am very confident he will prevail, and he will have his medical certificate.

I received GREAT NEWS for SC1!!! Here is the message I received from our Regional Flight Surgeon less than 24 hours after emailing the requested information:

"I don’t see any show stoppers with this Airman. If otherwise qualified you can issue."

I share this because this demonstrates that cooler heads can prevail, and that with a little effort we can gain positive results. I am relieved for SC1, and am reassured that we have a Regional Flight Surgeon who "gets it" and who, once again, demonstrates sound judgement.

Randy

 

[Ruffair]

I never heard of that distinction. Of course, it has been a while . . .
Nope to you too. How much do you know about Luthansa? Opinion.

Not much, except that I have studied in the classroom with Lufthansa pilots and engineers, and know how to spell Lufthansa. But I do know something about airline training, and I do not believe any US airline would retain a pilot who flew roughly 100 hours a year.
I am not the world's most experienced doobie, but I have been to Boeing for training three times, have earned five type ratings, and have flown with all kinds of pilots, fom marginal to way better than me. A pilot with that background should have raised suspicions right off the bat.

Come on now Bob.....

with all those type ratings, time and career, You might ought to take some of that coin you saved by NOT buying the USAToday all those years and contribute as a "paid" member to this fine organization..... Huh...?? :smile: Bet others will do the same too....

(Sheilds Up)

Kem