Some DOT investigators are too easy on trucking companies - but they are not doing you any favors.
An owner of a small trucking company contacted us this week to get some help with his safety management controls - he knows there are things he needs to do but he hadn't been doing them.
He is a smart man and he knows his assets are at risk - the DOT can be thorough and fines get pretty high, and there are rumors of lawsuits when things go wrong.
This small carrier has been around more than 2 years, so I asked if they had a safety audit – if there were any violations on the SA the fixes are important - no need letting yourself in for repeat violations, as this CAN lead to maximum penalties.
Why, yes, the man said, they have had a safety audit, in March last year. And after rummaging around in some files for a few minutes, they did find the safety audit document. But there are no violations here – not one. How can this be?
The carriers DQ Files are less than 40% compliant, their D & A testing program is less than 6 months old, they have a hit-and-miss HOS monitoring program with a few examples of flagrant false logs, some minor 11 and 14-hour violations, and countless form and manner violations, his maintenance folders have none of the required elements. Let’s just say there is MUCH room for improvement.
So why was there such a contradiction between what I found and what a safety auditor found 18 months ago? The safety auditor said there were NO VIOLATIONS.
Now, I suppose it is possible this carrier was doing EVERYTHING right in March 2008 and just let things go to heck since then. Or, maybe the carrier never got around to doing anything but the safety auditor didn't do a very thorough job. My money is on the second explanation.
Sadly, I have seen this numerous times since we started our small consulting practice a couple years ago. Safety auditors and investigators doing compliance reviews are sometimes so lenient, carriers think the DOT has no teeth.
Sounds like a good world right?
You try and make a living, and when the DOT sends enforcers out, they are creampuffs.
But overly lenient investigators don’t do carriers any favors, encouraging complacency in the motor carrier community.
I feel sorry for the honest business people who TRY to do the right thing.
They have a Compliance Review, the investigator points out one or two little things, they throw some effort at these things and forget about DOT requirements.
Then, one day a terrible accident takes place. Where are those friendly, overly lenient DOT investigators now? Nowhere to be found, I assure you.
This time you have a CR and the investigator is very thorough indeed. This time they leave no stone unturned. The fines may still be inconsequential, but that doesn't matter. Once a federal agent puts down on his scorecard that you were doing something that was a violation of a DOT Reg., the plaintiffs attorney (who may be an expert on DOT Regs) goes after the full amount of your insurance limits AND any assets you have or that you might EVER have.
You thought that lenient investigator was doing you a favor, eh?
The best thing DOT investigators can do for you is conduct thorough, tough Compliance Reviews. Sadly, most investigators are not very thorough at all.
A safety audit is supposed to be a lightweight CR, and nearly everyone passes. But, it is meant to be an education event for the carrier.
Most safety auditors don't do a very thorough job either.
The one I just looked at yesterday was, by definition, one of the worst, but it is a trend that I see all too often.
Any idiot can get a DOT number – it only takes a few minutes. Even the ones who TRY to follow the regs should have several violations when they have a safety audit. It is nearly impossibly to do everything right. But too many safety audits are done showing a carrier was doing nothing wrong when, in truth, the carrier was doing very little right.
Don't Chew Your Fingernails
Cell phone usage is a sign of the time
Cell phone usage is a sign of the time.
Remember when, if the MRO called to speak with a driver, you had to contact the driver on a radio, have them pull off the road and call the MRO on a payphone?
If that happened today, you would have to tell the driver to pull the truck over and call the MRO on his cell phone. (We wouldn't want THAT conversation to happen while they are driving would we?)
Distracted driving is an issue today -- no question, there have been fatal accidents caused by drivers who were talking on cell phones. So let's just write a policy statement that says NO CELL PHONES IN TRUCKS. Problem solved right? - Hardly.
Every driver, just like every teenager, has a cell phone in his/her pocket, some of them have two. (Why they do that, I don't know -- maybe in case one breaks) and they talk or text constantly. As a motor carrier you can SAY "Don't talk on your cell phone when you are driving" but it is pretty hard to enforce. Use of a hands-free device apparently does NOT make cell phone calls any less of a distraction.
Maybe we need to give some thought to driver training and rulemaking. Instead of making a rule we cannot enforce (no cell phones) and blaming the driver if he has an accident while talking on it, some sensible rules and some education would be an option.
How about this policy:
Drivers, please keep your cell phones on.
If your family members need to get in touch they can. If you want to speak with your family members occasionally, briefly, you can do that.
But don't talk for an extended period of time; it's a communications device, not a form of entertainment.
That's why you have a satellite radio. (all trucks do have satellite radios, don't they?)
When drivers put the AM/FM radio on a DVIR, I'm usually the first one to say "Don't gripe too much, I'll put a delete plate there" but for the first time I am thinking the AM/FM can be considered safety equipment, if it keeps them off the cell phone.
We should train our drivers to make responsible decisions, like no extended conversations, turn it off when you get in traffic, be aware of no-cell-phone-zones in your operating area, etc.
But saying No to Cell Phones is like saying "Don't ever exceed the speed limit." We can't enforce it and it gives drivers another reason to think the carrier's rules don't matter.
Just my two cents worth
Mike England, President
DOT Compliance Help, Inc
847-836-6063
www.dotcompliancehelp.com
Gripe Sheet
About a month ago I was on the way to Tulsa on a pretty small plane – only about 17 rows of three seats each.
The cabin attendant was courteous and professional – she acted just a bit goofy, but I could tell she was there on a mission far more important than just getting each of us a can of pop.
When the plane was landing, a thin molding where the overhead luggage rack joined the bulkhead on the left popped loose. You know, these little Regional Jets might be 2 or 3 years old or they might be 6-7 years old, and I’ve been flying constantly for more than a year, and this is the first time I ever saw a loose part on one of these planes.
As I was getting off, it was clear they were emptying the plane as quickly as possible to load 40 more people on it to go somewhere else. At first when I hesitated in front of an airline employee on the jetway she almost scolded me, telling me I should keep moving because they had to get the plane back in the air. But, when I said I saw a loose part and wanted to know who to speak to, she directed me to the cockpit.
I spoke to the captain and he said three words. “Show me please”. I walked him back to my seat and showed where the molding had popped loose. I guess I thought it would go on his “Gripe Sheet”. . . someone told me that’s what they call it when a pilot lists maintenance concerns with his craft.
But he said he was going to delay loading until a mechanic could address the problem.
He quickly explained “It probably won’t hurt anything, but there is a remote chance someone could cut themselves on the sharp edge of this plastic. The real reason we won’t load the plane though, is that it LOOKS as if something is amiss.”
Then I spoke to my wife (to let her know I landed safely yet again). She was reading the newspaper in Elgin IL where a youngster had made the news by shoving his sibling into a gun safe in a store.
So picture this; two kids between 8 and 12 rough housing in a giant 2-story sporting goods store when one of them shoves the other in a gun safe and pushes it shut. No problem, the store guy knows the combination; he’ll get him out in a jiffy. But wait, there’s more.
The combination lock malfunctioned. So the youngster was stuck in the gun safe for a quarter of an hour. It was really small. The reason for the gun safe is, in case the store catches fire, there are guns And ammo in there and it is imperative the safe is airtight.
So why didn’t the boy suffocate?
Well, there is a little-known safety device built into the safe. . . it is NOT airtight until there is a fire. This is so in case someone gets locked in by mistake they don’t suffocate. Sure is a good thing that invisible mechanism worked.
Now, I will finally get to the point.
I liked the attitude of the airline. Why would anyone do anything different? Even if the molding is not really important, if you let it hang down it gives the IMPRESSION the plane is not properly maintained.
If the airlock on the safe didn’t work a child WOULD be dead.
The preventive maintenance program on a fleet should incorporate the same concepts. If it LOOKS broken, or if it doesn’t work the way it was made, it must be fixed. If it is not a safety-related issue, it is OK to let it hang down until the truck comes in for the next regularly-scheduled maintenance event (LOF, PMCS, whatever you want to call it.). But it has to be fixed at that point.
There are too many reasons to fix everything that is part of the truck, and there are no GOOD reasons to let things fall off our trucks. If we allow minor maintenance violations to NOT be fixed, it seems as if our trucks are not well-maintained, which is harmful to drivers morale. If you take good care of the equipment and make it clear to the driver you expect him to do the same, maintenance costs and OOS Rates will both drop.
Mike England
DOT Compliance Help, Inc
www.dotcompliancehelp.com
847-836-6063
All Drivers lie on their logs?
Some people say “All Truck Drivers Lie on Their Logs” and the sad truth is, far too many of them do.
The reason it happens is not something that’s easy to put a finger on; some say it’s low pay in the industry, some point to the custom of paying drivers by the mile (some say this should be outlawed); others point to any number of issues. Larger companies are more likely to have meaningful controls in this area, not to prevent it, but to control it. Owners of small trucking companies often express they feel they must disregard the requirements of part 395 to be competitive.
THE CARRIER’S FAULT?
I met a gentleman in Missouri a few days ago who explained to me in order to make a decent living, he has to drive far more than the law allows, and routinely lies on his logs in order to facilitate this. The carrier doesn’t force him to do it, but applauds him for getting the load delivered and getting another load, when they know (or should know) he is operating illegally.
The carrier may have made a business decision to do this and risk being fined by the FMCSA or worse, but it is more likely the carrier has taken the path of least resistance.
THE DRIVER’S FAULT?
I have known carriers who say they schedule drivers to operate legally and the driver does not start the trip when he is told; instead spending extra time at home, leaving late, driving straight through, and falsifying logs to make it appear as if they left when they were told to.
On the return trip, the same thing happens, with drivers skipping their last rest stop in favor of getting home. I cannot fault a driver for WISHING to spend time with his family, but I do have an issue with breaking the law and endangering the lives of others in order to get there.
I used to get conniptions about this but the fact is, the carrier is taking the path of least resistance
THE FAULT OF THE USDOT?
I often hear this explanation; the rules are unrealistic or unenforceable, or the FMCSA does not enforce it evenly so ‘we have to cheat because our competitor cheats’. Many still feel the HOS regulations are too restrictive.
Recent comments by the NTSB seem to reflect that agency has stopped talking about HOS and seem to be focusing on driver fatigue. No one ...<< MORE >>
DOT Compliance Help Mike England
www.dotcompliancehelp.com
847-836-6063
