Odd requirement for US ATPL?

[Les Habitants]

I noticed that one of the requirements in the US for an ATPL is to be of "good moral character." If so, that rules out 90% of the pilots I know

Am I the only one slightly tickled by this? And how do they define what is "good moral character?"

[Beefitarian]

Pretty amusing in a way but, I suspect they can use it to pull your license if you annoyed the wrong FAA dude.

[KK7]

They have a secret test to determine what kind of character you have. While you are waiting for your new licence to be signed off, they put you in an empty room, except for one chair, but initially you're all by yourself.

They send in a single fly to buzz around, and see if you're going to kill it or not.

If you pass that one, then they send an old lady into the room who struggles with the door, and you must get up and help her and offer your seat.

Then they send in a hot young blonde, and you must immediately present yourself as a pilot, boot the old lady from the chair and offer it to the hot girl.

If you pass all this, you get your licence. If you fail an item of this test, they come back into the room and explain to you there is some conflicting information somewhere in your logbook from about 15 years ago that you must trace back to an aircraft journey log that is no longer in existence.

[Nark]

KK7, they've since changed it.

I got my ATP in a cracker Jack box. It also came with a secret decoder ring, which I show the TSA. That way I don't have to take off my shoes.

[Panama Jack]

It is not unlike some of those other questions that are used by the US Government (so no lawyer can say that they didn't ask and if you lied then it is perjury) such as "Have you ever advocated or knowingly associated with a group advocating the overthrow of the U.S. Government, or have you participated in an armed strike of force against the U.S. Government? If yes, please explain:"

In my company's Operations Manual, amongst other prerequisites, one of the qualifications for certain postholders is for them is “to be of good moral character” also. Makes sense to me, but how to quantify that remains the daunting question. About 15 or so years ago, while I was in university, this discussion came up. The only known case of where an FAA Inspector refused the issuance of an ATP based on the applicant having been assessed of “lacking good moral character” was because the applicant was a homosexual.

I doubt that would pass litmus test in the courts today. It would, however, be interesting to see a similar requirement on the books in Canada and see how it would be applied towards some of the more unscrupulous chisel charter types out there. As far as I am concerned, there is plenty of lack of good moral character in the aviation industry.

[cdnpilot77]

Can they withhold an OC on the same grounds with an operator lacking "moral character"? I am guessing not, why would it just be the pilots subjected to this?

[Panama Jack]

In my opinion, cdnpilot77, it should be both. After all, a corporation is an "individual" in the eyes of a law and typically acts like the child of the "parents" who manage and direct the corporation.

[challydriver]

With regards to the FAA Certificate, being of "Good Moral Character" means you do not have a criminal record. It can (but not always) disqualify you from being issued an FAA medical which means your ATP certificate is no longer valid. The FAA can also revoke your medical/certificate based on a "change in your moral character."

Notice on line 18 v. of your application for an FAA medical you have to declare your "Convictive and/or Administrative Action History." This is where the FAA is looking for you to declare your "moral character."

Transport Canada does not (probably the better word is cannot) ask you this on your medical application and therefor cannot disqualify you based on this.

Big difference between FAA & TC, eh?

[Hedley]

deleted

[Panama Jack]

Notice on line 18 v. of your application for an FAA medical you have to declare your "Convictive and/or Administrative Action History." This is where the FAA is looking for you to declare your "moral character."

Actually, I always thought that this line was the FAA's tool to enforce § 61.15, which covered all pilots, flight and ground instructors. Granted, a certificate holder violating § 61.15 probably is lacking in moral character.

There is a good discussion discussion on the requirement that an ATP applicant, "Be of good moral character" in the first chapter of Sal Fallucco's book "Aircraft Command Techniques.

Again, it is hard to quantify good moral character. But I recall Albert Einstein's quote: "Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted."

[swordfish]

Actually you guys are all out in left field.

The requirement for "Good Moral Character" replaces the former requirements to:

• 1. Be able to exercise a modicum of good judgment.
  2. Be able to speak on the radio clearly and enunciate properly in English.
  3. Refrain from using slang and key-clicks on the radio.
  4. Be able to think prior to speaking on the radio
  5. Be able to prepare ahead of time rather than reacting.
  6. Be able to anticipate problems and proactively apply appropriate remedial action to prevent deterioration of a situation.
  7. Demonstrate good airmanship in flight, developed from obvious experience in the industry.
  8. Demonstrate courtesy and good airmanship when on the ground and in congested areas.
  9. Avoid arrogance, sarcasm, egotism, and shallowness in dealing with other people in the industry, specifically by developing tolerance, patience, foresight, and circumspection with your crew, support infrastructure, and external suppliers.
  10. Treat refuelers, air traffic controllers, subordinate crew, and student pilots with dignity and respect.
  11. At all times, convey an image of professionalism, self-control, and command to those around you.

[Brewguy]

...After all, a corporation is an "individual" in the eyes of a law...

Have you ever seen the documentary film "The Corporation"? It examines the question, if a corporation is a "person", what kind of a person is it? The answer, is that a corporation is a psychopath.

The documentary shows the development of the contemporary business corporation, from a legal entity that originated as a government-chartered institution meant to effect specific public functions, to the rise of the modern commercial institution entitled to most of the legal rights of a person.

One theme is its assessment as a "personality", as a result of an 1886 case in the United States Supreme Court in which a statement by Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite[nb 1] led to corporations as "persons" having the same rights as human beings, based on the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The film's assessment is effected via the diagnostic criteria in the DSM-IV; Robert Hare, a University of British Columbia psychology professor and a consultant to the FBI, compares the profile of the contemporary profitable business corporation to that of a clinically-diagnosed psychopath. The documentary concentrates mostly upon North American corporations, especially those of the United States.

The film is in vignettes examining and criticizing corporate business practices. It establishes parallels between the way corporations are systematically compelled to behave and the DSM-IV's symptoms of psychopathy, i.e. callous disregard for the feelings of other people, the incapacity to maintain human relationships, reckless disregard for the safety of others, deceitfulness (continual lying to deceive for profit), the incapacity to experience guilt, and the failure to conform to social norms and respect for the law.

So if a company were required to be of good moral character, each and every one should technically fail that test.

[Panama Jack]

A large organization, unlike a private individual, can act unjustly or highhandedly without fear of being brought to account.

The opinion of Manwood, chief Baron [c 1580], was this, as touching Corporations, that they were invisible, immortall, and that they had no soule; and therefore no Subpœna lieth against them, because they have no Conscience nor soule.
[1658 E. Bulstrode Reports II. 233]

Lord Chancellor Thurlow said [c 1775] that the corporations have neither bodies to be punished nor souls to be damned.
[c 1820 J. Poynder Literary Extracts (1844) I. 268]

Why, you never expected justice from a company, did you? They have neither a soul to lose, nor a body to kick.
[a 1845 S. Smith in S. Holland Memoir (1855) I. xi.]

A corporation is just like any natural person, except that it has no pants to kick or soul to damn, and, by God, it ought to have both.
[1932 Ernst & Lindey Hold your Tongue xii.]

[challydriver]

I used to be an FAA Training Center Evaluator & Check Airman.

I asked our Training Center Program Manager how do I evaluate/check candidates for "good moral character?"

His response, "it's done by the results of section 18 v. on the FAA Medical Application Form."

It's not done by the TCE or Check Airman; there's no guidance for the evaluation in the Practical Test Standards.

It's really that simple.