Do DOT hours of service apply when flying?

I am coming late to this conversation... so, I didn't see the original posted info. If it's DOT numbers and LIC plate info - it's public info. Public is public, whether it's on a city street, county highway, or the internet.

Again - based only on the description of the posted info, I don't follow this at all. If the information posted is publicly available, posting it publicly is in no way "wrong". My address is public information, my telephone number is not (unpublished). My marital status is public information. My health recors are not.

they are still more than welcome to ignore his posts - just as you are welcome to ignore mine.

So long as the information provided is publicly available, it is in no wise wrong.

 

I have no badge, and no commander, the FMCSA has credentials and Division Administrators. You are welcome to call if you have concerns.

The FMCSR has no exception from the regulations for single person operations. The documentation prepared is for safety. A few years ago a driver was terminated from one employer for failing a random drug test. The driver applied with another carrier signing a sworn affidavit he was unemployed for the time he worked for the carrier where he tested positive.

The driver was prosecuted for falsifying his application and had to see a SAP before starting his own company and was required to have the six follow-up drug tests in 12 months.

While it may seem like bureaucratic BS it has a rhyme and a reason.

Are you saying as a result of the Safety Audit a case was built for no application? Please..... Please tell us how much did the state make from you filling out an application.

I spent 10 years active duty; 06/73 - 08/74 USN and 10/76 - 09/85 USA. I consider myself to be the last Specialist Six to be discharged from the USA. On more than one occasion I was a section leader or sergeant. On more than one occasion I wrote the Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for several programs including Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical (NBC) Operations and rapid deployment procedures for electronic communication equipment. I spent six years as a Department of Defense contrator installing, repairing, and maintaining communication stations.

If there was one thing I learned, there's no substitute for training and contingency plans. When people are ill prepared and uninformed other people may die as a result of the sloppy performance.

I know from my experience that when things go south that drivers and company officials have been jailed or lost a significant amount of their worldly possessions.

IMHO you need to understand that ignorance of the law is no excuse and when bad things happen you will be held accountable.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I learned many years ago perception is personal and each individual perceives issues based on their back ground.

Well there you have it, have I ever even hinted that drivers are dumb? My post ask; "Are drivers so bold to believe they do any thing and get away with it?"

Please provide where I said drivers are dumb!

I inform safety directors on a regular basis that drivers fully understand what they are doing and do so because the safety department is not monitoring the HOS. I've informed safety directors that once they start to monitor the HOS they will see a change.

I do not believe in terminating one driver that is discovered to have problems with their log books. I believe education is the key as the carrier has no idea what they will get as a replacement driver. If the carrier is happy with the driver's performance they are encouraged to take the appropriate actions to train the driver how to comply.

I have approximately 1,000 hours training in electronics, five years experience in logistics, 400,000 miles of over-the-road miles from 08/1992 - 03/1996, an associates degree in general studies using a Serviceman's Opportunity Contract, and two years with the Port of Entry in Cortez, CO. I'm not here as a driver. I'm here as a different opinion of the consequences drivers and carriers face when things go south.

I do not write tickets against drivers. I have prepared multiple cases against carriers for drivers' activities.

On more than one occasion I've been told the information I offer is beyond the scope of many drivers' understanding of the HMR and FMCSR. My response? Well maybe one person listened instead of developing an attitude and tuning the information out.

In 2000 I volunteered to be a judge at the ITA Professional Truck Driving Championships. I missed 2001 and 2002; however, I've been back every year since 2003. The event occurs on a Friday night and Saturday morning; there is no pay or comp time for performing the service. Similarly I do a significant amount of research to locate and provide motor carriers and shippers with the applicable regulation so they may comply before the DOT shows up and cites them for any violations.

I guess if you cannot stand the heat get out of the kitchen; IOW, if you don't care for my post. Ignore them.

Nothing personal otherhalftw but the information posted was public information obtained from a public access web site.

I am fully aware of the ethics associated with PII and what must be protected. I have NEVER posted ANY information on ANY individual on ANY web site; to do so would jeopardize my job and may result in prosecution.

I don't wear a badge.

Regarding the service provided you can climb down off your high horse. There are millions of people that perform services that without the service would cause the economy to collapse or make life difficult. If believing you're an American Hero is what gets you up out of bed in the morning then so be it. However, I learned long ago no one is irreplaceable as the job will get done regardless of your presence. The job may not be done the same and there will probably be a change for the better or worse for the service; however, the fact is the job will get done.

There are a significant number of Category A and B carriers that must receive a compliance review due to management issues and/or crashes. Carriers often complain they have no control over the driver's actions; especially O/Os. Carriers that are discovered to have Critical or Acute violations usually receive Notice of Claims, especially carriers with Acute violations. Having a copy of the regulations is of little use unless you read and understand the regulations. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

You have certainly accepted a huge amount of culpability if you park illegally. That's why it's important to plan your route and know where to find parking places before you run out of hours.

You carry $1,000,000 cargo insurance or do you carry $1,000,000 of liability insurance? Cargo insurance is for cargo, most carriers carry $10,000. Liability insurance is for accidents with motor vehicles.

Thanks Rick, its all person perception and the suspicion I used black helicopters to acquire the information.

In the LEO world it's called suspicion. Regardless of what I suspect I cannot cite or prosecute without evidence to support the allegations. But here the members are judge, jury, and executioner based on perceptions.

If you suspect the information was acquired using information not available to the public you should file a complaint with the FMCSA. However, I can assure you that you the information was all acquired from public sources.

Let me ask you WCP, what additional information could I have possibly used to research and post the information? I don't have your CDL number.

Until I posted the inspection information I didn't have your license plate or VIN. All I had was California and the name you used before the change NOTHING ELSE! So just where did I pull the information from? Are you implying I used your ISP or other identifying information to obtain your company's information? If so please advise the forum of what additional information I had!

It as a simple matter of using portions of your screen name and "Contains" or "Starts With" for carriers based in California on the A & I web site.

Keep in mind I can sue for false allegations and slander the same as any other citizen. Accusing me of illicit acts is slander.

You inferring I used official information is slander; I hope you can back that up with facts. Seems to me the management here is lop sided regarding disparaging remarks.

ALL of the information provided is public. If you have failed to visit A & I to confirm the presence of the data you are burying your head in the sand and wishing it all wasn't true.

Are you inferring I have access to your EIN (Tax ID) number? I'll ask again aside from the information posted here what additional information did I supposedly use to find your company? As an experienced researcher I was able to find you based solely on the information used previously.

Do you know you can become responsible for all defense fees and lost wages when the allegations are proven to be unfounded or untrue?

Then you should consult with them before making accusations you cannot back up.

Did you use the option of "Contains" "Mars" for carriers based in California? The list is one page and list Mars Associates. Look at Mars Associates and see dba as Mars Trucking. Not rocket science. I guess since the information hit a nerve it was the correct company.

I'll ask otherhalftw. What information could I use that was not presented on this forum? If Ron Mars Trucking is a factious name what other information could I garner to do the search??????

Are you saying based on WCP post you couldn't figure out he's from California?

It appears some here do not have the ability to use search engines to their greatest ability.

Really? Do you know by using www.google.com and the word "otherhalftw" I found three post you made to one other site and two post here? Using RickG on Google netted 10 pages of hits. It appears RickG is a busy person. Seems like a good start to me.

There was no person information provided only public information.

I encourage you to visit http://ai.volpe.dot.gov/, select "Safestat Carrier Search" click the "Continue" button, and type "Mars" into the block for "Starts With" and type in "Mars" for carrier based in "California." You should get a page with 10 hits and the first carrier as "Mars Associates". When you click the link you'll see Mars Associates, Inc. dba Mars Trucking.

Now click on the "Driver" tab. At the bottom of the page is an option "New Reports" with "See all Driver Inspections." You will see the three inspections with license plate numbers and VIN. By clicking on the number "1", "2" or "3" a window will pop up with all of the information, i.e. inspection number, license plate, and VIN. Now click the "Vehicle" tab and select "All Vehicle Inspections." You will see one tractor inspection with license plate number and VIN.

As stated at least 15 times.... The information posted is available to the public. The license plate number and VIN are posted on A & I for ANY person to see. Follow the instructions provided to the otherhalftw to see for yourself.

The information provided was public information, how is changing the rules here going to stop the DOT from posting the information on A & I for all to see?

Lurchgs, thank you for posting the obvious. Hopefully some here will visit the A & I web site to verify the information provided is public information and quit harping on the injustice served, and accusing me of usurping my authority.

Be safe.

 

These statements are true, however, when we paint with a micro brush, to many problems remain unchecked. As an active member of DOT, isn't the responsibility of the Department of Transportation supposed to be concerning ALL arenas of transportation, Commercial, Air, Rail, and the PRIVATE SECTOR? How is it, that so many times the rules and regs are used against the CDL holders, yet the Carriers, Shippers, assume no culpability in incidents? Maybe I am seeing this with bias since I am a driver. The fact of the matter is, 4 wheeelers, LEOs, get away with murder (don't use the term literally...not intended that way) and get little, if any backlash or culpability to the incident.

If the DOT, FMCSA, or any state agency wanted to begin to solve the problems with rules and regs, wouldn't the logical first step be to clean their own system? There are only two regulatory books (I am aware of..there could be more) that are more diluted, contradictory, overly redundant than the rules and regs we as drivers work under. Those are the US Tax Code, and the Nuclear agencies. If the different levels of government were to reduce the regs to pertinant offerings, wouldn't the "average Joe trucker" be more apt to follow the guidelines, work and live within the rules, and not be "paranoid" of infringing on the laws?

In your capacity, wouldn't your time be better served, or better utilized, if the Carriers were forced to teach the drivers the actual rules and regs, rather than just handing them a book and stating this is the section that pertains to you..you need to know this..here are your keys! How can the DOT, or the FMCSA allow the "driver mills" or the "quickie driver course" of three weeks, and allow someone to be qualified to operate a 40 ton (or more) vehicle on todays highways?

Can't argue that one!

In my post, I used quotation marks with "dumb truck drivers" it was a reference to old perception that once was a common misconception. This was not an accusation of anything you said directly. I then followed with examples of the education levels and achievements drivers have today. It was a comparison to your experience and education background to RickG.

This goes back to what I asked earlier, if the carriers were actully concerned about drivers knowledge, the orientation wouldn't be 2-3 days, the schools to get the CDL wouldn't be 3 weeks. Drivers do not fully understand even the rules and regs pertaining to logs, let alone the other sub-sections, and especially Haz Mat rules. If the carriers were to comply with the rules, not twist them to an ill-concieved perception, filled with heresay and inuendo, (which BTW is prevelant in log classes and orientations..I know I have attended many) then the drivers would stand a better chance of understanding and abiding by these rules.

I never once said you were not educated, either at the experience level, or book learning, nor did I ever question your background. It was obvious from how you responded with pertinent information of the topic being discussed or questioned. What I did say was that your rhetoric was condescending...but that was my perception..in the future I will adjust my thought pattern when reading your posts.

Perhaps instead of using drivers infractions against companies, you guys might try using Carrier infractions against carriers..we as drivers have to deal with the carriers "I don't give a ####" attitude day in and day out (well now I am not in this group..the carrier I drive for treats their drivers with respect and actually listens to the drivers complaints and deals with the issue first hand). Don't you think, logically, that what you present, if it is "beyond the scope of drivers", then there is a flaw in the system, maybe at the initial delivery to the drivers. Maybe we are talking about...get the lawyers legal ping-pong jargon out of the system so the common man can understand...but that is definitely beyond your scope I know..that is the lawmakers and your powers that be.

Thank you for your voluntary cooperation to the rodeo contestants...me I would be the one wearing the barrel in case one of the trucks bucked off the driver and came after that driver...every rodeo needs a clown to keep everybody safe.

Why should you be preclearing a carrier, don't they have the responsibility to keep their own house clean? The drivers aren't getting much pre-screening and additional education from these carriers, just enough to keep the carriers looking good. Schneider was the last carrier I know of that offered continued education for their drivers, they at least kept a strict policy of "improvement thru education" with their drivers..

To prove what a novice to this "puter stuff" I am...what the hell is "IOW"?

As I stated 5 or more times...yes the information is public, garnering this information is open and available to anyone..IT IS WHAT YOU DO WITH THIS INFORMATION THAT CAN BE INVADING ANOTHERS PRIVACY! If the information you posted here on this forum about that driver and his company wasn't legal, why then did you come back and delete it from the open record, under your moniker? Purveyance of culpability maybe?

I will finish rebutting your rebuttal (which was very good I might add) tonight, I got to get to work...now that my log shows me legal to do so. Thanks for the good retort!

 

What you do with the information is the problem. The fact that you can't see that is an even deeper problem. The fact that you even make a statement in your sig line that disclaims your "official interpretation" is testimony of your knowlege that you're overstepping your authority.

Sir, you represent the law but you are not the law.

Righ is right and wrong is wrong. You posting that information on this forum was wrong. It doesn't matter who supports you, it's still wrong. There are rules on this forum and you abused them.

 

There's the rule book then there's reality. If I don't get paid for it then it didn't happen. I'm taking a bus trip from Idaho Falls to Memphis. Just because I dropped a truck off at Id Falls and will pick up a new one in Memphis doesn't mean I'm not taking a personal trip.

 

Within the US DOT are modal agencies, i.e., FAA, FRA, FMCSA. Each agency is responsible for the mode of transportation it has jurisdiction over. The US DOT is responsible for commercial operations. There is not an agency within the US DOT that regulates the non-commercial sector.

The private sector is regulated by state laws. Some state have implemented TACT (Ticketing Aggressive Cars and Trucks) http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/safety-security/tact/. TACT is a state run program using federal grants.

State enforcement personnel issue drivers citations. The FMCSA issues HM shippers and motor carriers Notice of Claims for violations. When the carrier fails to submit a timely appeal or pay their penalty their MC number is revoked.

State officers enforce state laws. States adopt the FMCSR in varying degrees to receive federal grants. When a driver receives a ticket it is for a violation of a state law.

The FMCSA enforces federal regulations, i.e. FMCSR. When an employee of the FMCSA performs a roadside inspection or performs a compliance review the driver/carrier is being cited for violations of federal violations.

I can attest that motor carriers and HM shippers pay penalties.

I doubt you have been inspected by a federal DOT inspector. It's possible; however, not very likely. If a federal inspector performs a roadside the driver will not receive a ticket as FMCSA personnel do not write tickets. Any enforcement action would be initiated by a Notice of Claim (NOC.)

The US DOT is considered as the OST (Office of the Secretary of Transportation). The OST oversees all modes of transportation; however, has little to do with the day-to-day operation of the modal agencies.

The FMCSA is a modal agency responsible for implementing the rules passed by congress that apply to highway transportation when motor carriers use commercial motor vehicles as defined by Part 383.5 and 390.5. The FMCSA enforces the HMR via memorandum of understanding with PHMSA. PHMSA writes the HMR and is the ruling agency of how the rules apply.

State agencies enforce state regulations.

Just as the constitution guarantees you your rights, it guarantees states their sovereign rights to govern within their state. The constitution also guarantees separation of power regarding the judicial, executive, and legislative. IMHO the constitution was compromised by the Patriot Act when the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was born. DHS has far reaching powers. The US Coast Guard was moved from the US DOT to DHS. The FBI was moved from the Department of Justice to DHS. US Customs and Immigration were taken from their parent agencies and combined into one agency now called ICE which is part of DHS.

We must be cautious in granting any one agency too much power. Separation is good.

The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Start at Title 1 and go up to Title 50. Each Federal Agency has jurisdiction set by the applicable Title the agency was formed to enforce. The US DOT is responsible for Title 49. If it's not in Title 49 the FMCSA cannot enforce it.

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&tpl=%2Findex.tpl

The link is to the electronic CFR.

I have come to the conclusion the government is reactive, not proactive. If there is a rule it's because someone was hurt or killed or lost money or ????

The rules set the limits of an agency's jurisdiction. Make the rules too broad and you unwittingly increase the power of the government. Make the rules too constraining the rule is filled with loopholes that allow the offenders to go unpunished. The rules have to have a sibilance of balance.

How would you prove a carrier failed to offer the training required by 390.3(e)? The rules have no requirement to document the training required by Part 390.3(e). How do you prove the case? In Part 172.704 of the HMR there is a requirement the HM employee be trained, tested, and documentation be retained to prove the training was performed. The FMCSR has no such requirement for Part 390.3(e).

Part 380.501 - 513 covers entry level driver training. The FMCSA is working on what amount of road time is suitable for a driver trainee. I wouldn't set my sights too high as it's difficult to enforce and dictate an acceptable level of training to acquire a CDL.

I learned a long time ago class only teaches you enough to develop an interest. The rest is up to you how far you take the information offered.

The FMCSA cannot develop a single CDL qualification test as each operation is different. Is the carrier a tanker operation or flatbed, or van, o refer, or all of the above? Is the carrier cross town or cross country? Does the carrier have one truck or 1,000? Each circumstance is different requiring different training.

Regarding the HMR, they are best learned over time with much repetition. I have often left classes regarding the HMR with more questions than when I arrived. Practice, practice, practice is my motto.

GIGO is a carry over from computer programmers....

Garbage In Garbage Out.

If the source of the information is corrupted the output is corrupted. There are too many self proclaimed experts that are clueless.

The FMCSA is an administrative law agency responsible for enforcing safety regulations. The FMCSR covers Parts 300 - 399. Several of the FMCSR make the carrier dependant on the driver to properly complete their paperwork, i.e. log book and daily vehicle inspection reports. If the carrier fails to manage the documentation process they have violated the FMCSR.

The FMCSA is not on site 24/7. They may only enforce the sections they find in violation. I have yet to hear a dispatcher, safety director, or company officer say; "Screw the regs I'm doing it my way." Accepting a statement from a driver regarding what another person said is hearsay and unacceptable for enforcement cases. The driver would have to admit to the violation and offer their side of the conditions that led to the violation.

I'm not sure... Sometimes I go really deep and the information offered is aimed at higher echelon managers than a driver operating the truck.

I feel your pain; however, it's beyond my pay grade.

Some questions are relatively simple; others require an understanding of the HMR and FMCSR. The questions come from motor carriers, HM shippers, MROs, physicians, drivers, law enforcement, other governmental agencies, and physicist (that's another story.)

The FMCS is not a consultant; however, we will answer questions from the public regarding which rule applies.

If a person calls with a question the question is answered.

In-other-words

I didn't pull the post The Trucker's Report Management pulled the post then later locked the thread.

Opposing views are always welcome. If one driver had the question 1,000 drivers had the question.

Paranoia at it's best.

No the disclaimer is there to ensure any visitor understands the information is offered during my free time based on my knowledge of the regulations and that in no way does the information offer them a free ride for any violation incurred for failing to seek legal advice.

Wrong again, read the disclaimer.... I represent my opinions based on my knowledge nothing more.

Seems to me that WCP posted his company name and asked I review any information found. Since the task was performed at the request of WCP I see no harm no foul.

Seems to me too many people are guilty of selective reading and memory. I performed a task at WCP request. Obviously he didn't appreciate the results and cried foul.

The rules state:

I fulfilled a request; therefore, it was harassment. I made no threats. If WCP was embarrassed one has to ask why. The information offered was public information (not personal) from a public web site. If the post caused WCP duress one has to ask why he through down the gauntlet.

Since the information pertained to a US DOT number WCP is a publicly known person.

Since WCP previous screen name was similar to his publicly known company name. I did not release any information WCP had not already revealed.

The information offered was associated with the company's US DOT number associated with a corporation. I did not provide any personal contact information.

Technicalities? Yes.

Valid points? Yes.

Like I said, it's all based on your perception of the situation.

Be safe.

 

Aw yes the bold entitlement of a BBR.

Let's just hope you're not in a severe accident in the next 30 days. Because if you are then your HOS will be under the microscope and the long arm os the law will probably disagree with your assessment of the trip.

Since you're transferring from one truck to another it's a service for the motor carrier.

Be safe.