"On June 16, captain Valerie Wells, a 30-year-pilot, was scheduled to fly an Airbus A330, which can carry nearly 300 passengers, on a flight from Philadelphia to Rome. But she declined to fly because of failures of both the auxiliary power unit, a backup source of electrical power, and the "hot battery bus," a primary source of electrical power.
...
After the crew and passengers had returned to the gate Wells, in a particularly unusual event, was escorted out of the airport by security officials. Subsequently, a second crew of three pilots also declined to fly; the aircraft was repaired and underwent a rigorous inspection, and a third crew took off about six to seven hours late."
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10621 posts, RR: 53 Reply 4, posted (7 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 27415 times:
Quoting jetfuel (Reply 1): You be shocked if you knew how many planes have unserviceabilities. Good on the pilot for upholding safety
Airliners have a MEL (minimum equipment list) indicating which equipment servicing can be deferred, and what the minimum equipment requirements must be properly working for any flight. A twin engine ETOPS airplane, like this A-330, needs to have additional equipment in good working order to fly out over the ocean.
If an airline flies any airplane with less than the MEL, it is subject to massive fines by the FAA, in this case, the EASA in the EU, or another regulatory authority. US could have faced two fines, one from the FAA for the flight leaving the US, and another, from the EASA, if they did not repair the airplane in Italy and flew it back to the US.
Obviously US felt the airplane meet this standard, but in reality it is the PIC who makes the final decision if the standard is met. Two crews said it did not, then US made enough repairs to satisfy the 3rd crew.
I normally don't side with unions, but in this case, they proved the aircraft was unsafe to fly. US made the needed repairs.
frmrCapCadet From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1322 posts, RR: 1 Reply 7, posted (7 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 25089 times:
The security people do as ordered by comeptent authority. Which is as it should be. The pilots may well ask security people who gave the orders and on what grounds. Interesting.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
Grid From Kazakhstan, joined Apr 2010, 617 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (7 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 24992 times:
It is interesting how the union sort of lays blame at the feet of the mechanics. It also sounds like management and mechanics have a bone to pick with pilots, which makes you wonder why. Otherwise, why management use mechanics as a proxy and, from the sounds of it, the mechanics oblige.
The union's statement is pretty over the top - it's pretty hard to read it with a straight face. Something is certainly going on here, a lot below the surface.
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 7344 posts, RR: 13 Reply 9, posted (7 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 24091 times:
To h*ll with the pro/anti union stuff.
Of course the union is going to try to use it to smear the company after the fact, that's what they do.
Of course the company is going to say their airline is 100% safe 100% of the time, that's what they do.
Why do we all need to get our bile flowing about the union/company stuff?
The most interesting part of the story is:
Quote:
Airline spokesman John McDonald said the incident is under investigation. He said "the fact that [Wells] was escorted off the property had nothing to do with safety," but declined to elaborate.
It doesn't seem that plausible to me that a an incident where a pilot's refused to fly a plane (allegedly with no power to the cockpit?) and is then escorted off the property has nothing to do with safety, especially after a second crew refused to fly the airplane.
Based on what we know so far, it seems to me that Ms Wells will be suing US Airways and will be back on the job after collecting back pay and damages.
dashman From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 49 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (7 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 23733 times:
This appears to be a new level of intimidation to keep planes moving (pilot pushing). My bet is this won't be the last time this happens. My hat is off to to all the pilots that stood their ground and upheld their responsibity for the safety passengers and crew.
apodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3259 posts, RR: 7 Reply 11, posted (7 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 23702 times:
I am going to say this much as an insider. On the surface, this appears to be a classic case of Pilot pushing by USAirways. This is happening a lot more often than you think at just about every carrier. Pilot pushing led to the Shuttle America E170 runway overrun in CLE a few years ago that led to that plane being down for months. Basically a pilot makes a decision based on safety, and rather than recognizing the captains authority, the Chief Pilot is brought in who basically intimidates the pilot into going. This is happening way too much, and its not right.
In this case, both the APU and another electrical source were MELed. I think the APU is actually a required ETOPS item. Also, given the nature of the Airbus, you want to make sure that you have a reliable electrical source, and with two of them on MEL, I can totally understand where the crew is coming from. Frankly if I was the dispatcher on this flight I would have serious reservations about dispatching an airplane in this condition. Not only that, plus the APU also provides Air Conditioning to the plane on the ground. I know this problem would resolve itself after being in the air, but given how hot its been lately, you could easily be looking at a very hot airplane on taxi out, which will not make the passengers happy. I think the crew did exactly the right thing in this situation as did the second crew as well.
As for the Maintenance, I don't know whose side they are on, but this also seems like a classic case of pencil whipping, which has become a common practice by mechanics who don't want to spend the time to fix the airplane, partly due to pressures to run an on time airline. The problem that pencil whipping creates is after the problem repeats a few times, the airplane actually spends more time out of service than it would have if the problem was just fixed right the first time.
Despite what I just said, USAPAs reaction to this is wrong. If they have safety concerns with USAirways, they need to address it privately with Doug and Company. Playing this out in the Media is not going to help them at all. It is going to scare passengers away from USAirways (The tragedy is that Sully had help give them a good safety reputation), which won't help them at all. I don't believe USAPA is intending to use this as a bargaining chip, and I believe they are legitimately trying to address safety issues, but this isn't the way to do it at all. Even so, Parker and Kirby have to take these seriously, they can't dismiss them as Union Propaganda.
USXguy From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 646 posts, RR: 7 Reply 12, posted (7 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 23649 times:
apparently the pilot was getting into arguments with dispatch & maintenance over the plane, and then the chief pilots office got involved. Company wanted her to fly the plane. She lost her temper over the PA on the plane and I guess at the gate.
MaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 13985 posts, RR: 51 Reply 13, posted (7 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 23499 times:
Quoting Grid (Reply 8): It also sounds like management and mechanics have a bone to pick with pilots, which makes you wonder why
Can you blame them? USAPA has used their "concern" for safety as a weapon against their employer because of a mess that the USAPA themselves created.
Quoting Grid (Reply 8): The union's statement is pretty over the top - it's pretty hard to read it with a straight face
And it's sad that in the long run, it does more disservice to pilots than it does to US. They've become the union that cried unsafe too many times, and the next time they cry wolf, again nobody will believe them. The problem is eventually they might actually be right.
Quoting apodino (Reply 12): I don't believe USAPA is intending to use this as a bargaining chip
It's hard to tell at this point, but judging from the reactions here it appears that few believe USAPA anymore.
Hiflyer From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2005 posts, RR: 5 Reply 14, posted (7 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 23311 times:
First 3 man crew returned to gate with mtc issues. Per the article chief pilot (mgt) want them to fly. Refused and escorted off property. 2nd 3 man crew declined. Repairs made and 3rd crew flew.
Declining a a330 etops trip due to failed electrical systems is a no-brainer.
Being escorted off the property by corporate security under request of management is a non brainer.
The FAA statement in the article is possibly misleading. Inop APU alone fails etops depending on certifications at more than just a few carriers....I can't count the number of crews that refused aircraft for etops on just apu inop issues. For domestic flying apu inop is normally no issue.
Now..just a thought...apu failed so maybe dispatch rerelased a new flight plan to solve that one problem ?(seen that done)..longer route...farther north...whatever. The captain still had the issue of the failed hot buss (possibly causing partial panel/) for a now extended overwater operation....and the batteries were flat from trying to start the apu but later tested ok when charged in testing.
26point2 From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 455 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (7 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 22653 times:
The USA Today ad stated the entire cockpit crew was taken off the plane and a replacement crew later also refused to fly the same plane when finally a substitute aircraft was provided.
Question: Why drag your employer through the mud in such a public forum as USA Today? It only makes the average reader and traveler, like me, want to avoid your airline. Certainly not good for the bottom line or job security. What is the objective?
type-rated From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 3527 posts, RR: 24 Reply 16, posted (7 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 22528 times:
You'd be surprised how many planes are operating with deferred repairs on parts of the plane. But if the plane has enough equipment for the minimum equipment list, you can still go.
A lot the pilots decision to fly the aircraft or not rests on the conditions of the flight. If you were going on a less than 500 mile hop on a clear day over land you could do the flight with just the basic minimums. But as already pointed out a flight TATL would need to be in tip top shape before departing.
IMHO, and according to FAA regs, the pilot has the right to refuse an aircraft based on maintenance issues.
Fly North Central Airlines..The route of the Northliners!
jetfuel From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 1972 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (7 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 22442 times:
Quoting 26point2 (Reply 16): The USA Today ad stated the entire cockpit crew was taken off the plane and a replacement crew later also refused to fly the same plane when finally a substitute aircraft was provided.
Question: Why drag your employer through the mud in such a public forum as USA Today? It only makes the average reader and traveler, like me, want to avoid your airline. Certainly not good for the bottom line or job security. What is the objective?
1. To protect your job with public support
2. Support Union
3. Shame the airline into improving safety
Where's the passion gone out of the airline industry? The smell of jetfuel and the romance of taking a flight....
EASTERN747 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 208 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (7 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 22450 times:
If the captain turns down an aircraft because of safety concerns, then that should be that. Crossing the Atlantic, while being normal these days, still needs attention to detail. No pulling off to the side of the road. I don't understand why she was escorted off....Tell the chief pilot if he thinks it is safe, then get his a** up and come fly it himself. Also what if the problem is real and they get to Europe with a broken plane......
MD88Captain From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1258 posts, RR: 24 Reply 19, posted (7 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 22044 times:
The Captain made a good call and a bad call. Refusing to take the aircraft is the correct and easy decision. (Easy to make but sometimes difficult to stick to under company pressure.) The bad decision was to fight/raise your voice/make PA(s).
You are the Captain. You release the parking brake. There is no need to argue or raise your voice. Just don't go. As Captain, you are the final authority on safety. State your reasons and leave the cockpit if necessary.
I suspect that she was very irritated over being pushed to take the aircraft. Reacting to that pressue is understandable but regretable. Now she is a story in the newspaper and a bone to be fought over between union and company.
dashman From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 49 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (7 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 21870 times:
Quote: apparently the pilot was getting into arguments with dispatch & maintenance over the plane, and then the chief pilots office got involved
As a PIC for 20 years, unfortunately in many cases this seems to be SOP. I don't think a person needs to get in an argument, just need to stand their ground and that is what these crews did.
Quote: She lost her temper over the PA on the plane and I guess at the gate.
If that is what happened(probably more to the story) professionalism dictates that we keep it behind the cockpit door between dispatch, MTX, and managment.
FAR. 91.3
Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.
(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.
As to why the aircraft was not accepted is immaterial but does make for good "over a beer discussion". I would bet there has been an instance where a PIC has abused this authority but by and large I'm sure PIC's used due dilligence and judgement in these types of situations. It just comes with the territory.
nutsaboutplanes From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 218 posts, RR: 8 Reply 21, posted (7 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 21772 times:
There is more to this story than what has been communicated. US Airways was found by the FAA in this case to have been in compliance with ALL established company policies and mx procedures. The aircraft was serviceable for E-tops flight and the aircraft DID fly the intended flight and was not taken out of service as was argued in the ad.
This is simple union posturing. Safety will always grab attention and this is simply a remarkably expensive tactic that USAPA decided to use in order to voice their on-going irritation. This move by USAPA lacks class, good judgement and any regard what so ever for the 30,000 plus people who have worked around the clock to make the noticeable improvements at US Airways that many on this forum have recognized. Take this for what it is....a short sighted and childish attempt to make a point.
PS....what point were they trying to make????who knows.
US Airways, Alaska Airlines, Northwest Airlines, America West Airlines, USAFR
BrouAviation From Netherlands, joined Jun 2009, 892 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (7 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 21545 times:
Quoting sankaps (Thread starter):
After the crew and passengers had returned to the gate Wells, in a particularly unusual event, was escorted out of the airport by security officials. Subsequently, a second crew of three pilots also declined to fly; the aircraft was repaired and underwent a rigorous inspection, and a third crew took off about six to seven hours late."
Quoting sankaps (Thread starter): Subsequently, a second crew of three pilots also declined to fly; the aircraft was repaired and underwent a rigorous inspection, and a third crew took off about six to seven hours late."
Good on them, they weren't even allowed to cross the pond without APU. How on earth can there even be a discussion?
Never ask somebody if he's a pilot. If he is, he will let you know soon enough!
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 7344 posts, RR: 13 Reply 24, posted (7 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 21277 times:
It seems to me that:
Quoting nutsaboutplanes (Reply 22): US Airways was found by the FAA in this case to have been in compliance with ALL established company policies and mx procedures. The aircraft was serviceable for E-tops flight and the aircraft DID fly the intended flight and was not taken out of service as was argued in the ad.
and
Quoting BrouAviation (Reply 24): they weren't even allowed to cross the pond without APU
are conflicting statements - which one is right?
And I'm not sure what the significance of "not taken out of service" is. The thread starter says the flight was delayed six or seven hours, so that's plenty of time for significant repairs to be made.
dashman From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 49 posts, RR: 0 Reply 25, posted (7 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 21908 times:
Quote: There is more to this story than what has been communicated. US Airways was found by the FAA in this case to have been in compliance with ALL established company policies........
What news wire did this come over on? I haven't seen this. It is hard for me to believe the union reporting and news reporting got it ALL wrong.
futureualpilot From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2421 posts, RR: 8 Reply 28, posted (7 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 22388 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 25): 30 year old A330 captain? In the United States?
No, she is a 30yr. veteran flying for Airways now. As in, 3 decades of professional airline flying experience.
Quoting BrouAviation (Reply 24): Good on them, they weren't even allowed to cross the pond without APU. How on earth can there even be a discussion?
You'd be surprised what companies will try and get pilots to fly without.
I'm surprised at the lack of support for the cause on an aviation forum. Three decades of experience behind her, and she likely used her best judgement and erred on the side of caution, and she gets painted to look like a fool by her company, then blasted on here. Pathetic.
I challenge any of you to work your rear end off, to reach what is likely the peak of your career after thirty years of what I can only assume is a safe and clean record, to be treated like this by your company, who preaches safety, and when you err on the side of safety you're essentially told you don't know what you're talking about by some MBA who is too interested in counting the beans the company has than fixing a problem and getting a flight where it needs to go with properly working equipment, and not be even mildly irritated. Sure, based on what we know it could have been handled better, but it never should have gotten to that point.
If a pilot calls with a concern for safety, and you want to say safety is paramount to your company, why not just fix it? We know how important it is to stay on time, and operate flights with as minimal delay as we can, and no flight crew wants to outright cancel or delay a flight without just cause. That this whole incident was allowed to escalate to the extent that it did, is absurd and reflects negatively on the culture at US. Sadly, this culture extends to most airlines in the states.
Given everything pilots and their fellow day to day laborers have conceded and been asked to do over the past few years, and the way they are treated now, they are ready to burn their company to the ground. And rightly so. Management will point fingers at everyone but themselves when it happens, too, yet they only have themselves to blame. Of course the union is posturing. Of course it is, they are looking to gain leverage any way they can.To say it is nothing but is false. These are the kinds of stories that should be made public, so they know what actually goes on.
The only people who truly care about the safety of your flight are the people at the controls, and the cabin crew. If safety was truly a primary concern, above all else, including the bottom line, this should have been fixed when it happened and the PIC called it in and been done with.
BrouAviation From Netherlands, joined Jun 2009, 892 posts, RR: 0 Reply 29, posted (7 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 22149 times:
Quoting Revelation (Reply 26):
And I'm not sure what the significance of "not taken out of service" is. The thread starter says the flight was delayed six or seven hours, so that's plenty of time for significant repairs to be made.
Indeed. I do not know what they did to tha aircraft during that 7 hours. What I do know is that a flight under ETOPS is not allowed with less than three sources of electrical power available.
Never ask somebody if he's a pilot. If he is, he will let you know soon enough!
nutsaboutplanes From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 218 posts, RR: 8 Reply 30, posted (7 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 22122 times:
Quoting dashman (Reply 27): What news wire did this come over on? I haven't seen this. It is hard for me to believe the union reporting and news reporting got it ALL wrong.
The source of the "NEWS" is only the ad that was paid for by the USAPA organization in USA Todays Money section.....this is not news but propoganda.
US Airways, Alaska Airlines, Northwest Airlines, America West Airlines, USAFR
MaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 13985 posts, RR: 51 Reply 32, posted (7 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 21772 times:
Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 30):
I'm surprised at the lack of support for the cause on an aviation forum.
It's the USAPA. That's why there's no support for them.
Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 30):
You'd be surprised what companies will try and get pilots to fly without.
While that may be true, the company has more data on more flights in a week than many pilots will fly in a life time, so while a pilot may have concerns about a unique situation, the company may have hundreds, thousands of similar situations on record to draw upon and decide what is and is not safe.
futureualpilot From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2421 posts, RR: 8 Reply 33, posted (7 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 21664 times:
Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 34): While that may be true, the company has more data on more flights in a week than many pilots will fly in a life time, so while a pilot may have concerns about a unique situation, the company may have hundreds, thousands of similar situations on record to draw upon and decide what is and is not safe.
True, but data on a computer screen doesn't make it acceptable to try and force a pilot to fly when he or she feels unsafe to do so. Pencil pushers will never understand what it means to sit in the left seat and be the one making the go/no-go call. You can tell me all about statistical evidence and past performance but that won't make me fly if I feel unsafe to do so. The situation still should not have escalated anywhere close to where it did. No amount of computer power can make up for thirty years, and 18,000 hours of experience sitting in the left seat.
kaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 11217 posts, RR: 41 Reply 34, posted (7 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 21593 times:
Quoting BrouAviation (Reply 24): After the crew and passengers had returned to the gate Wells, in a particularly unusual event, was escorted out of the airport by security officials. Subsequently, a second crew of three pilots also declined to fly; the aircraft was repaired and underwent a rigorous inspection, and a third crew took off about six to seven hours late."
It's a shameful way to treat any employee; granted, if the employee had been involved in wrongdoing, then ok, but in this case, this was clearly not the case (we can argue if making a PA call while frustrated/annoyed might not have been the best thing to do, but that isn't wrongdoing). Are there any reports from pax or cabin crew as to what was said by the captain in her PA call? Also, what was said to pax to explain the delay.
"Good evening ladies and gentlemen, sorry for the six hour delay, but we're the third crew they asked to fly this service, the previous two having refused because the aircraft wasn't up to scratch. We've got them to fix it now, so we'll be off shortly. Do hope you have a nice flight; we might be a tad late into our destination as well, but we'll try and make up as much time as we can".
I hope the original captain gets an apology for the way she was treated.
AirCalSNA From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 190 posts, RR: 0 Reply 35, posted (7 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 21617 times:
Since I don't work in the airline industry I have a hard time understanding the relationship between an airline and its pilots, at least as portrayed here.
When you guys refer to "pilot pushing," do you mean that the airline purposefully assigns a problematic plane to a pilot to provoke a reaction like this?
Or was the pilot intentionally over-reacting to something that she normally would have let go simply to give the airline trouble?
Either way, it makes both the airlines' union and the airline itself look really bad!
ual777newpaint From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 39 posts, RR: 0 Reply 36, posted (7 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 21474 times:
Quoting AirCalSNA (Reply 37): When you guys refer to "pilot pushing," do you mean that the airline purposefully assigns a problematic plane to a pilot to provoke a reaction like this?
I do not work in the industry either, but I believe that they mean that the airline tries to persuade pilots to fly planes that have not been deemed safe to do so by the pilot. Cancellations cost the airline money, so they try and make pilots fly even when the pilot has objections. That being said, I would be shocked if the airline would try and provoke a reaction like this.
BEG2IAH From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 678 posts, RR: 11 Reply 37, posted (7 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 21551 times:
Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 34): While that may be true, the company has more data on more flights in a week than many pilots will fly in a life time, so while a pilot may have concerns about a unique situation, the company may have hundreds, thousands of similar situations on record to draw upon and decide what is and is not safe.
Are you implying that US Airways flies a/c over the Pond with inop. APUs on a regular basis and relies on statistics and luck instead of MEL and ETOPS?
Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 35): Pencil pushers will never understand what goes into a PIC's decision making process.
Apparently she was pushed by a chief pilot to fly, not some MBA or accountant in this case.
BEG2IAH
Use of approved electronic devices is now permitted.
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 7344 posts, RR: 13 Reply 38, posted (7 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 21515 times:
Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 30): I'm surprised at the lack of support for the cause on an aviation forum. Three decades of experience behind her, and she likely used her best judgement and erred on the side of caution, and she gets painted to look like a fool by her company, then blasted on here. Pathetic.
The blasting has nothing to do with the captain, it's because many members here draw knives when they hear the word "union".
Quoting nutsaboutplanes (Reply 32): The source of the "NEWS" is only the ad that was paid for by the USAPA organization in USA Todays Money section.....this is not news but propoganda.
Really? The article from "The Street" in the thread starter is the source of the NEWS and while it refers to the ad, it also includes statements from US Airways' (non-union) COO.
futureualpilot From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2421 posts, RR: 8 Reply 39, posted (7 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 21442 times:
Quoting AirCalSNA (Reply 37): When you guys refer to "pilot pushing," do you mean that the airline purposefully assigns a problematic plane to a pilot to provoke a reaction like this?
Pilot pushing refers to the company, be it someone in management, dispatch, scheduling or another part of the company, generally in a non-flying role trying to get a pilot to operate a flight when the pilot feels there exists a condition that may jeopardize the safety or legality of flight.
Quoting AirCalSNA (Reply 37): Or was the pilot intentionally over-reacting to something that she normally would have let go simply to give the airline trouble?
Doubtful that she overreacted to give the airline trouble, especially at this point in her career. To jeopardize a 30yr career to stick it to the man, in a sense, would be a dumb move. We don't take delays or cancellations lightly, and if we can get something fixed and safely and legally operate a flight we certainly will.
futureualpilot From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2421 posts, RR: 8 Reply 40, posted (7 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 21394 times:
Quoting BEG2IAH (Reply 39): Apparently she was pushed by a chief pilot to fly, not some MBA or accountant in this case.
That doesn't make the CP right, in many cases they're more on the side of management than pilots. Not always, but there are plenty out there that engage in pilot pushing. I'm lucky in that the CP's at my company are generally very understanding and try their best to help the pilots when the need arises but I know plenty of people at other carriers where the opposite is the case.
Quoting Revelation (Reply 40): The blasting has nothing to do with the captain, it's because many members here draw knives when they hear the word "union".
Ah, well lets all get our feathers ruffled over a word and ignore what happened, or gathering information and trying to look at both sides of an issue. Unions wouldn't be necessary if we were treated like human beings and not pieces of machinery.
BrouAviation From Netherlands, joined Jun 2009, 892 posts, RR: 0 Reply 41, posted (7 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 21391 times:
Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 34): While that may be true, the company has more data on more flights in a week than many pilots will fly in a life time, so while a pilot may have concerns about a unique situation, the company may have hundreds, thousands of similar situations on record to draw upon and decide what is and is not safe.
They may have data, they have no right to decide what is safe.
Quoting BEG2IAH (Reply 39): APUs on a regular basis and relies on statistics and luck instead of MEL and ETOPS?
Actually, MEL and ETOPS are kind of based on statistics and 'luck'.
Never ask somebody if he's a pilot. If he is, he will let you know soon enough!
MaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 13985 posts, RR: 51 Reply 44, posted (7 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 20737 times:
Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 35): Pencil pushers will never understand what it means to sit in the left seat and be the one making the go/no-go call.
That's an oversimplification, as for every pilot who makes one call, there are other decision makers who have every right to disagree, and may even have much more information at their disposal to make that call, even if it's ultimately the pilot who makes the final call. We've heard many times, particularly from USAPA, that pilots are being "forced" to leave without enough fuel, when dispatchers have disagreed--the pilot may have a "feeling" but the dispatcher has the data on the flight, which probably is his/her umpteenth flight that day on the same route anyway.
Quoting BEG2IAH (Reply 39): Are you implying that US Airways flies a/c over the Pond with inop. APUs on a regular basis and relies on statistics and luck instead of MEL and ETOPS?
No, I think the union is implying that; I'm implying a carrier such as US wouldn't want to jeopardize hundreds of passengers any more than the USAPA would.
futureualpilot From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2421 posts, RR: 8 Reply 45, posted (7 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 20559 times:
Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 46): That's an oversimplification, as for every pilot who makes one call, there are other decision makers who have every right to disagree, and may even have much more information at their disposal to make that call, even if it's ultimately the pilot who makes the final call. We've heard many times, particularly from USAPA, that pilots are being "forced" to leave without enough fuel, when dispatchers have disagreed--the pilot may have a "feeling" but the dispatcher has the data on the flight, which probably is his/her umpteenth flight that day on the same route anyway.
No, it really isn't. I've been on the dispatch side of things, including the 121 world. I can tell you while a dispatcher is privy to all sorts of information, it is nothing like being in the flight deck. Unless you've been in the flight deck, be it your first, or your 14th hour of duty, first or 6th leg that day, and had to make the call, you don't know what it is like. Sitting behind a computer staring at data, or looking at radar returns is completely different than being the one asked to fly under whatever circumstances are making you question the safety of the flight. It is probably the pilot's thousandth time flying that route in their career. What is your point? Each flight is unique, and encounters its own set of factors that come into play. Surely if you work in the industry you know just how dynamic it is and how drastic things can be from one flight to the next, even on the same route.
Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 46): No, I think the union is implying that; I'm implying a carrier such as US wouldn't want to jeopardize hundreds of passengers any more than the USAPA would.
Have you ever worked for an airline? It doesn't sound like it. Pilot pushing isn't something we make up to garner sympathy from the public. It is a very real and present problem in today's airlines that needs to be done away with.
awthompson From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 298 posts, RR: 0 Reply 46, posted (7 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 20554 times:
Flight AWE718 on the night of 16/17 June was eventually flown very late with N278AY. Does anyone know if this was the substitute aircraft or the originally assigned aircraft after repairs were completed?
nws2002 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 670 posts, RR: 0 Reply 47, posted (7 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 20403 times:
Quoting Max Q (Reply 44): Your statement is out of line.
This Captain did what she was paid to do, take care of the safety of the Aircraft and its passengers.
US Air's response was outrageous.
Max Q and I have disagreed in the past, but I 100% in this case. The PIC acts as a buffer between the passengers and managements desire to make money. It is a lot of responsibility, but in the end this captain made a decision based on 30 years of airline experience, and I'm sure many more of aviation experience.
I work part-time for a charter operator, their rule is "all to go, one to say no". Basically anyone in the company can stop a flight from departing if they have a safety concern. I've often wondered if the airline world needed something similar.
futureualpilot From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2421 posts, RR: 8 Reply 48, posted (7 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 20342 times:
Quoting nws2002 (Reply 47): I work part-time for a charter operator, their rule is "all to go, one to say no". Basically anyone in the company can stop a flight from departing if they have a safety concern. I've often wondered if the airline world needed something similar.
AirCalSNA From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 190 posts, RR: 0 Reply 49, posted (7 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 20243 times:
Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 39): Pilot pushing refers to the company, be it someone in management, dispatch, scheduling or another part of the company, generally in a non-flying role trying to get a pilot to operate a flight when the pilot feels there exists a condition that may jeopardize the safety or legality of flight.
Okay, maybe I'm crazy, but why would management try to override a concern about safety or legality expressed by a captain? It seems the captain is the expert in this area and management should defer to him or her. Are airlines so callous, or do they have very little faith in the opinions of their captains? I'm really rather shocked about this.
futureualpilot From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2421 posts, RR: 8 Reply 50, posted (7 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 20052 times:
Quoting AirCalSNA (Reply 49): Okay, maybe I'm crazy, but why would management try to override a concern about safety or legality expressed by a captain?
To get a flight to run on time, and ultimately to make money.
Quoting AirCalSNA (Reply 49): It seems the captain is the expert in this area and management should defer to him or her.
That is the idea, but the reality is far from it. The authority of the PIC has eroded over the past several years.
Quoting AirCalSNA (Reply 49): Are airlines so callous, or do they have very little faith in the opinions of their captains? I'm really rather shocked about this.
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 7344 posts, RR: 13 Reply 51, posted (7 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 19928 times:
Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 40): Unions wouldn't be necessary if we were treated like human beings and not pieces of machinery.
I agree. I know unions are far from perfect, but having no union lets management run amok, and the airline biz is a good example of it.
Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 44): That's an oversimplification, as for every pilot who makes one call, there are other decision makers who have every right to disagree, and may even have much more information at their disposal to make that call, even if it's ultimately the pilot who makes the final call.
You finally got it right in the end. Ultimately it's the pilot who the FAA/JAA/etc give the authority to make the call, and who the FAA/JAA will punish if they depart with an unsafe aircraft.
Quoting AirCalSNA (Reply 49): Okay, maybe I'm crazy, but why would management try to override a concern about safety or legality expressed by a captain?
Maybe because they feel they are pouring money into tons of radars and computers and don't understand the concerns of the pilot who actually has to fly the plane?
AirCalSNA From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 190 posts, RR: 0 Reply 52, posted (7 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 19285 times:
Quoting Revelation (Reply 51): Maybe because they feel they are pouring money into tons of radars and computers and don't understand the concerns of the pilot who actually has to fly the plane?
Are they all that bad, or are some airlines better than others in terms of their relationship with the pilots?
goblin211 From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 1209 posts, RR: 0 Reply 53, posted (7 months 4 days ago) and read 19148 times:
Is it me or are there more and more problems with US than ever? the pilot and other crews felt the plane was unsafe to fly and that's the bottom line. sometimes CEOs need to have a little reality check and not a bonus check!
futureualpilot From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2421 posts, RR: 8 Reply 54, posted (7 months 4 days ago) and read 19152 times:
Quoting AirCalSNA (Reply 52): Are they all that bad, or are some airlines better than others in terms of their relationship with the pilots?
No, they're not all that bad. A handful have a decent, if not positive working relationship with their labor. Most, including the legacy carriers and almost all regional carriers fall into the poor relationship category, however. Ironically, one of the best is Southwest, yet WN is one of the more heavily unionized carriers.
SonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 487 posts, RR: 0 Reply 55, posted (7 months 4 days ago) and read 18875 times:
Quoting AirCalSNA (Reply 49): Okay, maybe I'm crazy, but why would management try to override a concern about safety or legality expressed by a captain? It seems the captain is the expert in this area and management should defer to him or her. Are airlines so callous, or do they have very little faith in the opinions of their captains? I'm really rather shocked about this.
There must be more info we're missing.
Quoting BrouAviation (Reply 29): Indeed. I do not know what they did to tha aircraft during that 7 hours. What I do know is that a flight under ETOPS is not allowed with less than three sources of electrical power available.
That's the rule as I've understood it, less than three sources of available power means no ETOPS. Its apparent to me there was no spare a/c at PHL that night so they had to make do with that a/c. Perhaps there was a difference in interpreting the issue with one of the "broken" electrical sources. A chief pilot is still a pilot and the ETOPS rule is still the rule. The fines on this sort of thing not to mention the PR problems and likelihood of an FAA audit make me think a chief pilot would be nuts to insist on a dispatch with an a/c that wasn't ETOPS compliant.
MaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 13985 posts, RR: 51 Reply 56, posted (7 months 4 days ago) and read 18669 times:
Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 45): What is your point? Each flight is unique, and encounters its own set of factors that come into play
Each flight is the product of many decision makers, all of whom prioritize safety, all of who see very different pictures, and while the pilot is the final arbiter, that doesn't mean the other stakeholders can't/shouldn't disagree.
Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 45):
Have you ever worked for an airline? It doesn't sound like i
Why would a business, whose life/death depends on its public impression of safety, engage in consistently unsafe practices? And in this case, where an out of touch union has shown many times before it will do anything to publicly discredit its employer, why should we believe them?
Quoting Revelation (Reply 51): having no union lets management run amok, and the airline biz is a good example of it.
futureualpilot From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2421 posts, RR: 8 Reply 57, posted (7 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 17979 times:
Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 56): Each flight is the product of many decision makers, all of whom prioritize safety, all of who see very different pictures, and while the pilot is the final arbiter, that doesn't mean the other stakeholders can't/shouldn't disagree.
Absolutely, although to say they all prioritize safety is quite untrue. Although if any of them see something unsafe, I would hope they would speak up. It is their responsibility and their job to do so, and to offer the information they have available, but that is no excuse to push a pilot to fly if they feel it is unsafe. There is a big difference between offering up the information you have, to allow the flight crew to make a more informed decision, and pushing a pilot to fly when they feel it unsafe, and/or illegal to do so.
Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 56): Why would a business, whose life/death depends on its public impression of safety, engage in consistently unsafe practices?
To make money. You can say it doesn't happen all you want, but the truth is, it does.
Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 56): And in this case, where an out of touch union has shown many times before it will do anything to publicly discredit its employer, why should we believe them?
They must have had a reason, especially since an ad in the USA Today isn't going to be cheap. I should think that USAPA would justify it as an attempt to generate interest among the public and garner sympathy, but thats just a guess.
Funny, we get B6 jumpseaters all the time and over the past year or so, they all say it isn't the same as it used to be. Many of them were previous AA, UA, DL, US etc. pilots and they all say it is becoming more and more like those carriers are now. They just held a drive to bring ALPA on board, and I believe did so because they now feel they need representation. SkyWest is in the same boat, if not more so. Every time I give, or catch a ride with them they say the SkyWest of old is long gone. The abuse, the pushing, etc is all getting worse. Management takes advantage of the fact that they are non-union more and more now.
Further, the number of carriers where the management/labor relations are bad, are far, far greater than those with good relationships.
AirCalSNA From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 190 posts, RR: 0 Reply 58, posted (7 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 17383 times:
Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 56): Each flight is the product of many decision makers, all of whom prioritize safety, all of who see very different pictures, and while the pilot is the final arbiter, that doesn't mean the other stakeholders can't/shouldn't disagree.
Are you saying that some decision-makers don't make safety as high a priority as the captain, and that they can overrule him or her because they're willing to have the airline take that chance despite the captain's concerns? Very odd.
multimark From Canada, joined Jul 2006, 652 posts, RR: 0 Reply 59, posted (7 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 16909 times:
Bravo to the pilot for standing her ground. Unlike the pencil pushers in their offices, the crews' lives are also on the line if they take out an a/c they feel to be unsafe.
MD88Captain From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1258 posts, RR: 24 Reply 60, posted (7 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 16854 times:
It is possible to be legal to fly with certain aircraft equipment deferred (inop), but legal doesn't always mean safe or smart. It is up to the Captain (and dispatcher) to determine the legality AND the safety of any particular situation. Certain combinations of inop equipment can be legal but ultimately below the crews comfort level. No airline's MEL can account for the infinite number of situations possible. Again it comes down to the Captain (and dispatcher) determining that a safe operation can continue.
It is very easy for someone else - Chief Pilot, Maintenecne, etc. - to tell you that you are legal and should fly. However, the PIC makes the final decision. Everyone has a point of view. Everyone has an agenda. Safety should be everyone's No 1, but we do not live in that world. The stories of crews being pressured to keep the operation going are not uncommon.
I fortunately work where pilot pushing is very rare. I've never been pressured when talking about safety concerns. I do remember an L1011 Captain (senior) I flew with trying to decide whether to take an L10 Anchorage to ATL w/ an inop generator and an inop apu. It was legal. Maintenance didn't fix it because the MEL said he could take it. The dispatcher said its legal - off you go. He stewed about it and took it. When we got to ATL he stormed into the Chief Pilot's Office and complained about the situation. The CP pointedly asked him why he accepted the aircraft. This senior Captain was basically counseled that he SHOULD HAVE turned down the aircraft if he was uncomfortable with the situation. That was what his company expected him to do. He would have been supported. That support still exists where I am at, but it is possible to have a difference of opinion on what is smart/smart and what is legal.
LTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 11491 posts, RR: 8 Reply 61, posted (7 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 15692 times:
Probably the PIC was very vocal as to their concerns, perhaps heard by pax on the a/c or others that it really caused a scene they US didn't like. Perhaps to prevent her from continuing to make complaints in front of other pax for other US flights, they escorted her, probably back to her car in the parking lot with security to keep her quiet. There should be a suitable investigation (which may be delayed due to a budget impasse in Congress over wanting to cut the FAA's budget) with input of all involved.
If the initial PIC was playing union games, then push her into retirement. If the initial PIC was right in her views but acted with questionable professionalism to her superiors and in front of pax, then suspend her for a few weeks for her behavior.
LoneStarMike From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 3442 posts, RR: 45 Reply 62, posted (7 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 15644 times:
FWIW, here's US' response to their employees (2 separate e-mails reposted on FlyerTalk)
July 22, 2011
Dear Fellow Employees,
By now some of you may have seen an advertisement in today’s USA Today paid for by our pilots’ union, USAPA. As you know, USAPA has been embroiled in an intra-union seniority dispute for several years and is also working to negotiate a joint contract. Those efforts have been severely complicated and delayed by their inability to resolve the seniority dispute, and because of this dispute, USAPA has embarked upon a smear campaign that in reality is all about contract negotiations, not safety. Today’s move is simply the latest in a series of misguided efforts to put pressure on the Company as part of those negotiations, and while we are disappointed that USAPA has chosen to use safety as a negotiating tactic, I can tell you unequivocally the union’s claims are outlandish, false and a disservice to the 32,000 hard-working employees of US Airways.
Safety has been and always will be the top priority at US Airways, as it is at any airline. On the specific issue that the advertisement focuses on, I’d note that USAPA’s account is highly inaccurate and its claims about the aircraft in question were wrong – it flew that day and performed flawlessly, and has done the same ever since.
Simply put, our safety facts stand for themselves:
* US Airways has just passed the International Air Transport Association’s highest worldwide standard for safety and security – the IOSA audit – with flying colors. This audit, the airline industry gold standard for safety, shows that we are in compliance in every safety area.
* Our safety team also knows how well we are doing on all safety measurements. Our Flight Safety Index, which measures how we’re doing in all areas, is at the highest level in the history of the company. Aircraft damages are 50% better than industry average, and deferred maintenance items are at an all-time low.
* The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has cited US Airways as the model for other airlines to follow with our significant investment of time and resources into the voluntary Safety Management System (SMS) program. We are one of only two airlines to implement SMS in every area of the airline. We also are the first U.S. airline to have our SMS program validated by the International Civil Aviation Organization.
That exemplary record is due to you – the 32,000 outstanding aviation professionals of US Airways who put safety first every day. Please keep that focus and don’t be dissuaded by the misguided and outdated negotiating tactics of a labor union. We will continue to work with USAPA to get to a joint contract, but as they well know, they must resolve their internal seniority dispute before that can happen. We are attempting to facilitate that effort, but expect it will take some more time. In the meantime you will likely hear more defamatory and baseless language from USAPA, but please consider the source and keep doing your jobs in the exceptionally professional and safe manner that you always have.
We have a great team of aviation professionals at US Airways and I am proud to work with you. Thank you very much for all you do and please keep up the great work.
and...
July 22, 2011
Earlier today we issued a communication related to an ad by the pilot’s union, USAPA, that ran in USA Today. We also felt that the following statement by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), regarding the incident mentioned in the ad, would be informative for employees:
The FAA manager assigned to the US Airways certificate reviewed the June 16, 2011 incident. The APU shutdown the aircraft experienced is a failure that pilots are well aware can happen and that they are trained to recognize. The battery apparently was depleted by attempts to restart the APU. Flying an aircraft with an inoperative APU is not an unusual event and normally poses no safety issues when proper limitations are applied. The Captain simply chose to exercise her pilot-in-command authority of not accepting an aircraft. Our information indicates that US Airways followed their approved MEL procedures, and all maintenance procedures were followed in accordance with the operator’s approved maintenance program. We found no violations of Federal Aviation Regulations.
zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 6583 posts, RR: 72 Reply 63, posted (7 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 15202 times:
Quoting apodino (Reply 11): I think the APU is actually a required ETOPS item.
One can dispatch ETOPS with the APU inop on the A330, it is a conditional dispatch, i.e. one cannot dispatch where the APU is required for redundancy, for example if departing with a MEL for engine 1 bleed inop, it needs the APU to be available in case the other engine 2 bleed becomes inop.
The hot battery bus is a no-go item, it is not even in the MEL.
I think something more is to this story, an experienced Captain, and experienced CP would not be locking horns over an MEL item, when everyone knows it is the PICs final say if they are willing to accept being dispatched with a MEL item.
tockeyhockey From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 887 posts, RR: 0 Reply 64, posted (7 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 14857 times:
why is there so much anti-union fervor, especially in this thread about US? US has a sub-standard contract right now, even with a union. imagine if they didn't have a union! they'd be on a third world pay scale.
and for those of you who don't think the world needs unions anymore, you need to wake up. every day we slide back closer to the days when oligarchic power ruled the world, and we we all nothing more than serfs. you get rid of the unions, and you accelerate that slide.
and yes, there are some successful non-unionized outfits out there. but guess what: they're only successful because of all the things that unions have fought to make standard across the industry over the last several decades. unions aren't perfect, but they are so much better than the alternative, it's not even worth debating.
jetblast From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 1016 posts, RR: 11 Reply 68, posted (7 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 13866 times:
Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 28): The only people who truly care about the safety of your flight are the people at the controls, and the cabin crew.
What about the ground staff? They see the passengers off; do you think I could care less if an airplane full of paying customers I just checked in and boarded at the gate runs into the ground?
Or the mechanics? They sign their name on the line certifying the safety of the aircraft.
With all respect, I find your statement to be incredibly ill-informed.
futureualpilot From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2421 posts, RR: 8 Reply 69, posted (7 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 13670 times:
Quoting jetblast (Reply 68): What about the ground staff? They see the passengers off; do you think I could care less if an airplane full of paying customers I just checked in and boarded at the gate runs into the ground?
In my experience the gate agents care only about an on-time departure. They understand if we have to delay, but they really don't care why, as long as the delay isn't placed on their heads. I've had them try to board passengers without asking while we were on a weather delay, bring passengers out after we handed out the paperwork, after departure time, only to put a delay on the flight crew when we couldn't get a push crew to get off the gate. Once we close the door as long as we don't come back to their gate they seem to be very effective at scattering. I have yet to have one ask me about the safety of the flight, it seems to always be when can we board?
Quoting jetblast (Reply 68): Or the mechanics? They sign their name on the line certifying the safety of the aircraft.
Once the fix is done, if they've done their job I doubt they think about it. I take my hats off to mechanics, they work their tail ends off and given what they have to work with, they're great at what they do. I've learned a lot about the airplanes I fly from them, but every time I've talked to them they are more concerned with getting the airplane fixed and moving on to the next one, rather than whether or not we should go with bad weather or an MEL'd item or 6. Yes, I have seen 6 MELs on a dispatch release. I've seen more than that, too. Not just at my carrier, either.
That being said, I can see where this is headed so how about this. Everybody cares deeply about the safe operation of the flight, right from the CEO down to us lowly flight crew scum, bag handlers, gate agents, even the guy that watched the airplane taxi by in the terminal while he was busy getting lost trying to find 5 Guys cares. Better?
At any rate, I do believe this thread is in the process of getting hijacked. Back to your regularly scheduled Monday morning quarterbacking.
flyhossd From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 246 posts, RR: 0 Reply 70, posted (7 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 12790 times:
Quoting zeke (Reply 63): ...when everyone knows it is the PICs final say if they are willing to accept being dispatched with a MEL item.
No, "everyone" doesn't know that. In addition to some of the posts above, there are U.S. airline management types that aren't familiar with F.A.R. 91.3a and 91.7b. I speak from personal experience.
Those regulations put the entire responsibility for the safe operation of a flight upon the shoulders of the pilot in command (a.k.a., the Captain) - NOT the "certificate holder" (F.A.A. speak for "the airline) or the Chief Pilot.
I say "Bravo" to both crews that refused this airplane.
My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
B727LVR From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 583 posts, RR: 0 Reply 71, posted (7 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 11226 times:
Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 66): Quoting Grid (Reply 65):
Seriously? Really? I can prove that statement wrong: I truly care about the safety of the flight I am on.
Alright, fine, the only people other than the passengers. Better?
Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 69): Once the fix is done, if they've done their job I doubt they think about it.
Umm... As a mechanic I do care. I have to care. I am responsible for that fix until that part/system requires fixed again (due to normal reasons obviously). You are right I do think about moving on to the next job, but I care about every fix I make, because I have pride in my job and lives count on me.
Quoting apodino (Reply 11): which has become a common practice by mechanics who don't want to spend the time to fix the airplane, partly due to pressures to run an on time airline.
As a mechanic I take offense to this statement, as should other mechanics. I have never pencil whipped a sign off and never will! I understand that there are shady people out there, and those A&P's that are need to be weeded out. I do what I can to verify every write-up presented to me. Some discrepancies cant be reproduced every time. And when I get discrepancy that this happens with, as long as it checks out per the AMM I will sign it off, and I am not wrong in doing so. As a mechanic, these are the types of discrepancies I tend to hate the most, because sometimes they can prove to be more difficult to pin-point the problem right away. I do not know the history of this aifcraft, but Kudos for the pilots for sticking to her guns. Blasting the mechanics from the air conditioned spaces of dispatch not knowing the full story is straight up wrong. Yes there is pressure in aviation to get the job done quickly. But the mechanic, pilot, and yes you as a dispatcher have everyright to tell management that you believe everyone needs to step back and re asses the situation, if there is good reason to do so, and there is nothing they can do about it. If a person doesnt have the self-confidence or willingness to stand up and say something, they shouldnt be there.
I'm like a kid in a candy store when it comes to planes!
The only people who truly care about the safety of your flight are the people at the controls, and the cabin crew. If safety was truly a primary concern, above all else, including the bottom line, this should have been fixed when it happened and the PIC called it in and been done with.
Just, wow.
Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 54): Most, including the legacy carriers and almost all regional carriers fall into the poor relationship category, however. Ironically, one of the best is Southwest, yet WN is one of the more heavily unionized carriers.
Ok, that's about ten percent true. Perhaps. Even. I've worked at a regional or two in my time, and they can vary greatly that way. I also happen to know quite a few folks over at WN, & guess what? It's not always the worker's paradise a.net thinks it is. They do a few things differently, but they don't crap roses by any stretch. At the end of the trip, it's a job like any other in the business. You should know that.
By way of example, explain Delta, since you know everything. I certainly don't love DL by any stretch, but they have a pretty great relationship between employees & mgmt, and lats I checked, they're a legacy. I really don't care how unionized they are or aren't, but they are not the likes of UA or AA.
Quoting zeke (Reply 63):
The hot battery bus is a no-go item, it is not even in the MEL.
Yeah, that got my attention too. I've canned a flight or two for that one, in one case before the flight crew showed up, while inspecting an unrelated item.
Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 69): Once the fix is done, if they've done their job I doubt they think about it. I take my hats off to mechanics, they work their tail ends off and given what they have to work with, they're great at what they do. I've learned a lot about the airplanes I fly from them, but every time I've talked to them they are more concerned with getting the airplane fixed and moving on to the next one, rather than whether or not we should go with bad weather or an MEL'd item or 6. Yes, I have seen 6 MELs on a dispatch release. I've seen more than that, too. Not just at my carrier, either.
There is almost always something to think about once "the job is done." You're clearly not all that familiar with the amount of liability there is downstairs at MX.
And wow, 6 whole MELs, on one plane? I've released planes with twice that many into service, and not rarely either. I guess you have yet to spend quality time with a Dash 8-100, or a 732. MELs are a fact of life. I'd wager a donut that you'd see that on some 787s in the next few months. Things break, but if the plane's safe & legal (equal importance to me), the show goes on. That's kind of how it works here.
Also, why would/could MX care about bad WX? That's more of a dispatch problem. Unless it's local, when it belongs to the Tower. Otherwise dispatch decides if you can tanker more fuel for a longer trip. I've done both MX & dispatch and I'm not seeing why you think WX is an MX concern...
Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 69):
That being said, I can see where this is headed so how about this. Everybody cares deeply about the safe operation of the flight, right from the CEO down to us lowly flight crew scum, bag handlers, gate agents, even the guy that watched the airplane taxi by in the terminal while he was busy getting lost trying to find 5 Guys cares. Better?
Really no need to talk to people like that. But speaking as an A&P, and one who's caused a few flight cxcels against PIC wishes (I know you guys want to get home too sometimes), I know there are a lot of folks here who are going to take exception to the position that only pilots care about safety. In fact, I'm pretty sure a lot of the pilots on this forum would take exception as well.
Quoting B727LVR (Reply 72):
Umm... As a mechanic I do care. I have to care. I am responsible for that fix until that part/system requires fixed again (due to normal reasons obviously). You are right I do think about moving on to the next job, but I care about every fix I make, because I have pride in my job and lives count on me.
Damn Straight!
Quoting B727LVR (Reply 72): Blasting the mechanics from the air conditioned spaces of dispatch not knowing the full story is straight up wrong. Yes there is pressure in aviation to get the job done quickly. But the mechanic, pilot, and yes you as a dispatcher have everyright to tell management that you believe everyone needs to step back and re asses the situation, if there is good reason to do so, and there is nothing they can do about it. If a person doesnt have the self-confidence or willingness to stand up and say something, they shouldnt be there.
Yup. I think this lady, and the subsequent crew, did the right thing. That hot battery bus especially. And I don't care what company policy is, ETOPS means APU works, even if the 330 can Kludge around it with both engine bleeds. I know if I were still working at US MX, I'd totally support cxcling ove APU inop. I'm almost surprised 'Airways fought her on that. They really have been a lot better about stuff like that lately...
Makes me wonder if there is more to the story. If not,, this pilot did the right thing...
PurdueAv2003 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 237 posts, RR: 2 Reply 73, posted (7 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 9730 times:
I know some of the mechanics that worked that night and got their side of the story. According to them, the APU was NOT on MEL, but failed to start. The pilot drained the battery while trying to start the APU. Mx was called out to check out the APU, and were able to get the APU operational. Mx signed the log book and presented it to the PIC, and she was not satisfied with the mechanic's fix. When Ops questioned her about refusing the aircraft, she became upset and started telling the passengers that if they wanted to live, they should get off this plane and find another flight. That is when she was escorted out.
I understand the idea of a PIC refusing the aircraft, and firmly believe that should be the pilots' right. However, with the way contract negotiations have gone and the vitriol from the pilots (ask a US employee about the lanyards), I believe this is being used as a political stunt. If the pilots were wanting any kind of support from mechanics, though, that ship has sailed. The guys I have talked to are PISSED about this and feel like they've been thrown under the bus. There is little to no sympathy for the USAPA amongst the other employee groups.
HAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 29834 posts, RR: 61 Reply 74, posted (7 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 9592 times:
Quoting apodino (Reply 11):
As for the Maintenance, I don't know whose side they are on, but this also seems like a classic case of pencil whipping, which has become a common practice by mechanics who don't want to spend the time to fix the airplane, partly due to pressures to run an on time airline. The problem that pencil whipping creates is after the problem repeats a few times, the airplane actually spends more time out of service than it would have if the problem was just fixed right the first time.
Pencil whipping is a dangerous trend & should never be tolerated in Aviation maintenance ever.
BrouAviation From Netherlands, joined Jun 2009, 892 posts, RR: 0 Reply 75, posted (7 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 9543 times:
Quoting PurdueAv2003 (Reply 74): The pilot drained the battery while trying to start the APU.
Interesting. How is that even possible? The only thing she has to do is switch the APU-switch to 'start' and the thing should light itself. It's not a piston Lycoming where you can empty your battery by constant cranking without adding fuel, is it?
If the APU was really not able to start itself from the battery (assuming the battery was properly charged), I wouldn't accept that either. It's like accepting your car at the garage while it still needs to be started using starter cables. Yes, the engine itself is fine, but the car still pretty useless. It makes no sense?
Never ask somebody if he's a pilot. If he is, he will let you know soon enough!
HAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 29834 posts, RR: 61 Reply 76, posted (7 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 9511 times:
Quoting BrouAviation (Reply 76):
If the APU was really not able to start itself from the battery (assuming the battery was properly charged), I wouldn't accept that either. It's like accepting your car at the garage while it still needs to be started using starter cables. Yes, the engine itself is fine, but the car still pretty useless. It makes no sense?
APU can be externally started & the battery is Rechargable.
PurdueAv2003 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 237 posts, RR: 2 Reply 77, posted (7 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 9419 times:
Quoting BrouAviation (Reply 76): Interesting. How is that even possible? The only thing she has to do is switch the APU-switch to 'start' and the thing should light itself. It's not a piston Lycoming where you can empty your battery by constant cranking without adding fuel, is it?
An APU is just another turbine engine. To start it, you have to have the compressor and turbine spinning and air moving through the combustion section before it can be lit. All APU's have an electrical starter motor to get them moving, and I believe some may have a pneumatic starter, similar to the main engines, as well.
BrouAviation From Netherlands, joined Jun 2009, 892 posts, RR: 0 Reply 78, posted (7 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 9361 times:
Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 77):
APU can be externally started & the battery is Rechargable.
Quoting PurdueAv2003 (Reply 78):
An APU is just another turbine engine. To start it, you have to have the compressor and turbine spinning and air moving through the combustion section before it can be lit.
All those things I know, but that doesn't take away my point: The APU (not the pilot!) was not able to start itself with the juice it got from the battery. Now, other than a drained battery due to long AOG for example, that just is not acceptable. When you need your APU for bleed air/electricity at FL390 above Southern Greenland, where is that mechanic to start that thing externally? In bed, most likely.
[Edited 2011-07-24 04:04:29]
Edit: changed dead battery to drained battery.
[Edited 2011-07-24 04:09:41]
Never ask somebody if he's a pilot. If he is, he will let you know soon enough!
PurdueAv2003 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 237 posts, RR: 2 Reply 79, posted (7 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 9280 times:
Quoting BrouAviation (Reply 79): All those things I know, but that doesn't take away my point: The APU (not the pilot!) was not able to start itself with the juice it got from the battery. Now, other than a dead battery due to long AOG for example, that just is not acceptable. When you need your APU for bleed air/electricity at FL390 above Southern Greenland, where is that mechanic to start that thing externally? In bed, most likely.
That's where an A&P mechanic came out, made the APU operational, and signed the log book that the aircraft was airworthy. I do not know exactly what the problem or fix was. At that point, I can still understand the pilot refusing the aircraft. Making a scene in front of the passengers was COMPLETELY uncalled for and unprofessional. In most other jobs, she would have been fired on the spot for that type of behavior. That is where the problem lies.
nws2002 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 670 posts, RR: 0 Reply 80, posted (7 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 8854 times:
Quoting PurdueAv2003 (Reply 74): I know some of the mechanics that worked that night and got their side of the story. According to them, the APU was NOT on MEL, but failed to start. The pilot drained the battery while trying to start the APU. Mx was called out to check out the APU, and were able to get the APU operational. Mx signed the log book and presented it to the PIC, and she was not satisfied with the mechanic's fix. When Ops questioned her about refusing the aircraft, she became upset and started telling the passengers that if they wanted to live, they should get off this plane and find another flight. That is when she was escorted out.
IF, and that is a big if, this is true, she did cross the line and should be fired for what she told the passengers, not for refusing the aircraft. We can all disagree behind the curtain, but we don't need to drag passengers into our intra-company disputes.
GALLEYSTEW From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 150 posts, RR: 0 Reply 81, posted (7 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 8790 times:
Kudos to the Captain for standing her ground. I work behind the door..............I can't tell how many times the company wants us to be dispatched with things not working in the cabin. Is it safety related?? No!! Passengers who have paid big money for business class tansatlantic should at least have one lavatory working in their cabin and expect seats to work as they should. Without the unions standing their ground on thse issues, pilot or flight attendant, nothing would be fixed. As crew, we honestly do care about our passengers experience on our respective airlines.
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 9754 posts, RR: 54 Reply 82, posted (7 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 8207 times:
Quoting PurdueAv2003 (Reply 74): she became upset and started telling the passengers that if they wanted to live, they should get off this plane and find another flight.
If this is true, do all the people that have said kudos to the captain stand by their comment?
Grid From Kazakhstan, joined Apr 2010, 617 posts, RR: 0 Reply 84, posted (7 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 7575 times:
Quoting flyhossd (Reply 83): GIven the limited information that I've seen, yes, I still say kudos to BOTH crews that refused the aircraft for safety and airworthiness reasons.
However, no, I don't support making angry statements to the passengers.
Don't forget that TWO crews refused the airplane.
I place less weight on two crews refusing to fly the airplane. Union employees will often back each other up whether right or wrong. If the second crew had no idea of the previous crew's decision and also refused to fly, then it would be more of an open and shut case.
jetfuel From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 1972 posts, RR: 0 Reply 85, posted (7 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 7582 times:
NO APU on a 330 at night over the ocean. After the AF accident I dont blame the captain. It might be legal with a u/s APU but that doesn't make it safe practice
Where's the passion gone out of the airline industry? The smell of jetfuel and the romance of taking a flight....
Flighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 6488 posts, RR: 3 Reply 86, posted (7 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 7447 times:
Quoting Grid (Reply 84): Union employees will often back each other up whether right or wrong.
Yes. The second crew's refusal doesn't mean anything to me. Could they very well disrespect the original pilot, turning their backs on her? Not very well.
It sounds like everybody was trying to do their job well. This type of "experience" is a good thing. It is a good thing people are talking about safety and double checking. Everyone should be proud of that.
Consider this. The PIC may have been emphasizing her position that there _was_ a safety problem, and a valid reason to delay the flight. It sounds like under stress, a degree of professional demeanor was lost. But that's better than the alternative. Sometimes safety is stressful. Sometimes the professional demeanor _is_ lost and in a safety dispute, that might be the right step to take. If it gets things done.
MaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 13985 posts, RR: 51 Reply 87, posted (7 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 7369 times:
Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 57): although to say they all prioritize safety is quite untrue
I think if you saw every side of the story you'd probably disagree
Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 57): They must have had a reason, especially since an ad in the USA Today isn't going to be cheap.
Um, it's the USAPA. If this union were a person s/he would be a sociopath. They've shown plenty of times their first priority is to throw their employer under the bus, usually under the guise of "safety". Their priority is not safety, but getting their way, no matter if it means stepping on their fellow "union" brethren, never mind fellow US employees.
Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 57): Funny, we get B6 jumpseaters all the time and over the past year or so, they all say it isn't the same as it used to be.
I'm sure it isn't--it has grown exponentially.
Quoting AirCalSNA (Reply 58): Are you saying that some decision-makers don't make safety as high a priority as the captain
I'm saying they do. And each of those decision makers may not understand what the other is seeing, so when they're second guessed, they feel slighted, and that the other party is "unsafe". It's human nature.
Quoting wn700driver (Reply 72): I also happen to know quite a few folks over at WN, & guess what? It's not always the worker's paradise a.net thinks it is
And it's going to get ever more complicated with the FL merger and ever more competition with lower cost producers.
Quoting wn700driver (Reply 72): But speaking as an A&P, and one who's caused a few flight cxcels against PIC wishes (I know you guys want to get home too sometimes)
Everybody can talk about safety, but it also comes at the expense of their self interest.
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 7344 posts, RR: 13 Reply 88, posted (7 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 7344 times:
Some comments on the airline's statement:
Quoting LoneStarMike (Reply 62): As you know, USAPA has been embroiled in an intra-union seniority dispute for several years and is also working to negotiate a joint contract. Those efforts have been severely complicated and delayed by their inability to resolve the seniority dispute, and because of this dispute, USAPA has embarked upon a smear campaign that in reality is all about contract negotiations, not safety
The logic is not consistent. US frames it as an intra-union dispute and says because of an intra-union dispute the union is smearing US. Of course, US isn't pointing out that they are actually paying less for labor while the dispute runs.
Quoting LoneStarMike (Reply 62): This audit, the airline industry gold standard for safety, shows that we are in compliance in every safety area.
From what I've seen of audits, I don't think I'd hang my hat on that statement.
Quoting LoneStarMike (Reply 62): The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has cited US Airways as the model for other airlines to follow with our significant investment of time and resources into the voluntary Safety Management System (SMS) program. We are one of only two airlines to implement SMS in every area of the airline. We also are the first U.S. airline to have our SMS program validated by the International Civil Aviation Organization.
I appalud this.
Quoting LoneStarMike (Reply 62): That exemplary record is due to you – the 32,000 outstanding aviation professionals of US Airways who put safety first every day.
Seems to be another inconsistent statement given they are pointing fingers at some of their 32,000 outstanding aviation professionals.
Quoting LoneStarMike (Reply 62): The FAA manager assigned to the US Airways certificate reviewed the June 16, 2011 incident. The APU shutdown the aircraft experienced is a failure that pilots are well aware can happen and that they are trained to recognize. The battery apparently was depleted by attempts to restart the APU. Flying an aircraft with an inoperative APU is not an unusual event and normally poses no safety issues when proper limitations are applied. The Captain simply chose to exercise her pilot-in-command authority of not accepting an aircraft. Our information indicates that US Airways followed their approved MEL procedures, and all maintenance procedures were followed in accordance with the operator’s approved maintenance program. We found no violations of Federal Aviation Regulations.
US is fully engaging and antagonizing the union and not at all addressing why they chose to walk the Captain off-property.
Quoting zeke (Reply 63): One can dispatch ETOPS with the APU inop on the A330, it is a conditional dispatch, i.e. one cannot dispatch where the APU is required for redundancy, for example if departing with a MEL for engine 1 bleed inop, it needs the APU to be available in case the other engine 2 bleed becomes inop.
The hot battery bus is a no-go item, it is not even in the MEL.
Thanks for the clarification.
Quoting zeke (Reply 63): I think something more is to this story, an experienced Captain, and experienced CP would not be locking horns over an MEL item, when everyone knows it is the PICs final say if they are willing to accept being dispatched with a MEL item.
Indeed so.
Quoting B727LVR (Reply 71): As a mechanic I take offense to this statement, as should other mechanics. I have never pencil whipped a sign off and never will! I understand that there are shady people out there, and those A&P's that are need to be weeded out.
Since you admit there are shady A&Ps out there, you should not be taking offense to the statement.
Quoting PurdueAv2003 (Reply 79): Making a scene in front of the passengers was COMPLETELY uncalled for and unprofessional. In most other jobs, she would have been fired on the spot for that type of behavior. That is where the problem lies.
As a traveller, I'm concerned that a Captain with 30 years experience was driven to the point she did the things that you are saying she did, and am concerned that US is not dealing with that aspect and are using this opportunity to engage and antagonize the union.
Trucker From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 155 posts, RR: 1 Reply 89, posted (7 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 7183 times:
Quoting PurdueAv2003 (Reply 77): An APU is just another turbine engine. To start it, you have to have the compressor and turbine spinning and air moving through the combustion section before it can be lit. All APU's have an electrical starter motor to get them moving, and I believe some may have a pneumatic starter, similar to the main engines, as well.
OK, I'm trying to understand this. So the APU doesn't work, or at least won't start. The PIC runs the battery down trying to start it. IMO not a smart thing to do if the battery was needed for the flight and the APU wasn't. MX basically jump starts the APU with an external power source and tells the PIC the APU works just fine and they can be on their way. But the PIC says, "Hey wait a minute. I can't get a jump start over the ocean. I've got to be able to start the APU with the battery". Seems to me they needed to charge up the battery and be sure they could start the APU with the battery before they were good to go. I'm kind of siding with the PIC here on her call not to go but involving the passengers was wrong. Simply telling them there was a mechanical problem and the flight would be delayed would have been the way to go.
What charges this battery? The APU, the airplanes engines, a ground unit, or all of the above.
genybustrvlr From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 242 posts, RR: 0 Reply 90, posted (7 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 7102 times:
Quoting legacytravel (Reply 5): As a strong anti union person.. Kudos to the pilots whom stood their ground on this. For the record I am more anti public union than private union.
Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 28): I'm surprised at the lack of support for the cause on an aviation forum. Three decades of experience behind her, and she likely used her best judgement and erred on the side of caution, and she gets painted to look like a fool by her company, then blasted on here. Pathetic.
Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 32): While that may be true, the company has more data on more flights in a week than many pilots will fly in a life time, so while a pilot may have concerns about a unique situation, the company may have hundreds, thousands of similar situations on record to draw upon and decide what is and is not safe.
Doesn't every accident report start out with an opening ramble about how the cause was a series of unrelated events which combined in some unusual set of circumstances? Based upon information available, it appears that this aircraft was in a "barely legal" position at best. As a passenger, I want to PIC who is going up in the air with me making the go/no go call.
UnitedTristar From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1177 posts, RR: 5 Reply 91, posted (7 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 7037 times:
Quoting AirCalSNA (Reply 49): Okay, maybe I'm crazy, but why would management try to override a concern about safety or legality expressed by a captain? It seems the captain is the expert in this area and management should defer to him or her. Are airlines so callous, or do they have very little faith in the opinions of their captains? I'm really rather shocked about this.
I think some of this is also because there is also a concern (founded in truth or not) that some one is trying to either disrupt service as part of labor negotiations or some one who simply is trying to get out of work for some reason.
Speaking as both a pilot and a passenger, I think that it should be the pilots decision regardless of concerns, now if patterns of problems arise with a particular pilot then that can be handled but don't risk safety.
-m
Welcome aboard United Airlines L1011 Friendship Service to Osaka!
MaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 13985 posts, RR: 51 Reply 92, posted (7 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 7009 times:
Quoting genybustrvlr (Reply 90): Doesn't every accident report start out with an opening ramble about how the cause was a series of unrelated events which combined in some unusual set of circumstances?
Often including the pilot's decisions
Quoting UnitedTristar (Reply 91): I think some of this is also because there is also a concern (founded in truth or not) that some one is trying to either disrupt service as part of labor negotiations or some one who simply is trying to get out of work for some reason.
This pilot may have done everything right (loudspeaker rant notwithstanding), but the pattern of USAPA's behavior has thrown into doubt what would likely be an otherwise undisputed decision at another carrier.
BrouAviation From Netherlands, joined Jun 2009, 892 posts, RR: 0 Reply 93, posted (7 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 6920 times:
Quoting jetfuel (Reply 85): It might be legal with a u/s APU but that doesn't make it safe practice
It is not legal with u/s APU.
Quoting Trucker (Reply 89): IMO not a smart thing to do if the battery was needed for the flight and the APU wasn't.
The APU WAS needed for the flight, as was the battery. The pilot can't do anything about draining a battery by APU start.
Quoting Trucker (Reply 89): What charges this battery? The APU, the airplanes engines, a ground unit, or all of the above
All of them I believe.
Quoting zeke (Reply 63):
One can dispatch ETOPS with the APU inop on the A330, it is a conditional dispatch, i.e. one cannot dispatch where the APU is required for redundancy, for example if departing with a MEL for engine 1 bleed inop, it needs the APU to be available in case the other engine 2 bleed becomes inop.
I really fail to understand how that is possible. I always have learned the APU is required for redundancy in all situations, and I went into several books and company manuals again to be 100% sure and I can't come to another conclusion. Bleed air is not the main problem, electricity is. Rule is: ETOPS flight are not allowed with less than three independent functioning AC power sources. That is a solid rule believe without exceptions. This is a rule that goes for all ETOPS-certified aircraft, so no APU = no flight. Same goes for EDG's. When an EDG is u/s, you are not allowed to fly under ETOPS, even with APU.
Quoting PurdueAv2003 (Reply 79): That's where an A&P mechanic came out, made the APU operational, and signed the log book that the aircraft was airworthy.
Nobody said the aircraft wasn't airworthy, actually non-ETOPS is allowed without the APU as long as both EDG's are functional. It's just that ETOPS are not allowed without.
EDIT:
A part from KLM's ETOPS-manual (an airline also operating A330's):
Associated requirements are a.o. :
- a minimum of three hydraulic systems,
- a minimum of three electrical power sources. Because the APU generator is a required source , it
must be reliable. An APU must have inflight-start capability if extended range operation necessitates
inflight start and running of the APU, for 180 minutes operations a fourth power source is required.
- adequate equipment cooling,
- cargo compartment design and fire protection adequate to suppress cargo fire during the maximum
diversion time plus 15 minutes,
- adequate airframe and propulsion ice protection; especially for prolonged exposure to lower altitudes
associated with the single engine diversion, cruise, holding, approach and landing.
[Edited 2011-07-24 10:48:32]
Never ask somebody if he's a pilot. If he is, he will let you know soon enough!
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 17847 posts, RR: 17 Reply 94, posted (7 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 6866 times:
Quoting BrouAviation (Reply 75): Quoting PurdueAv2003 (Reply 74):
The pilot drained the battery while trying to start the APU.
Interesting. How is that even possible? The only thing she has to do is switch the APU-switch to 'start' and the thing should light itself. It's not a piston Lycoming where you can empty your battery by constant cranking without adding fuel, is it?
"Should" start but may not. Noted following Transport Canada incident report last month:
TSB reported that the Lufthansa Airbus A330-300, registration D-AIKN, operating as flight DLH 490, was approximately 100 NM northeast of IKLAR reporting point (N68.00, W90:00) en route Frankfurt to Seattle, when the No. 2 generator failed. Attempts to start the auxiliary power unit (APU) in level flight were unsuccessful and an emergency was declared. Additional attempts to start the APU at altitudes down to 10,000 feet were also unsuccessful, and the flight diverted to Calgary where it landed without further incident. Following replacement of the APU igniters and igniter box, the flight continued to Seattle with the APU operating and the No. 2 generator inoperative.
BrouAviation From Netherlands, joined Jun 2009, 892 posts, RR: 0 Reply 95, posted (7 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 6821 times:
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 94):
"Should" start but may not. Noted following Transport Canada incident report last month:
Exactly, that is what I am saying. If it doesn't start, it must be broken. (with exception of drained battery to start with) Because you can't 'drain' a battery by starting your APU like you can drain your battery with cranking a Lycoming.
BTW: This incident immediately describes why leaving with a broken APU on an ETOPS flight is not a good idea.
Never ask somebody if he's a pilot. If he is, he will let you know soon enough!
wn676 From Bosnia and Herzegovina, joined Jun 2005, 573 posts, RR: 4 Reply 96, posted (7 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 6716 times:
If the batteries on an Airbus are below their minimum voltage to begin with, is it possible that they can be drained further by any attempts to start the APU? In other words...was the problem solely with the battery state and not the APU?
Tiny, unreadable text leaves ample room for interpretation
borism From Estonia, joined Oct 2006, 431 posts, RR: 0 Reply 97, posted (7 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 6504 times:
Quoting LoneStarMike (Reply 62): The FAA manager assigned to the US Airways certificate reviewed the June 16, 2011 incident. The APU shutdown the aircraft experienced is a failure that pilots are well aware can happen and that they are trained to recognize. The battery apparently was depleted by attempts to restart the APU. Flying an aircraft with an inoperative APU is not an unusual event and normally poses no safety issues when proper limitations are applied. The Captain simply chose to exercise her pilot-in-command authority of not accepting an aircraft. Our information indicates that US Airways followed their approved MEL procedures, and all maintenance procedures were followed in accordance with the operator’s approved maintenance program. We found no violations of Federal Aviation Regulations.
This vague statement from "FAA manager" quoted by US Airways management in a letter to employees does state that APU was inop.
Now how could an "FAA manager" not be knowledgeable of legality of operating ETOPS flight with such condition?
What was the item that m/x fixed that made the third crew accept the aircraft?
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 13123 posts, RR: 55 Reply 98, posted (7 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 6444 times:
Quoting PurdueAv2003 (Reply 79): Making a scene in front of the passengers was COMPLETELY uncalled for and unprofessional. In most other jobs, she would have been fired on the spot for that type of behavior. That is where the problem lies.
It's an interesting ethical question.
You are the PIC of an aircraft that will be carrying passengers. You determine that the aircraft is not safe for flight based on company policy and FAA regulations. The company responds by removing you and calling in a second crew. You have no idea who it is, but they might well manage to be brow-beaten into flying this unsafe aircraft with all the passengers aboard. You personally would not fly aboard this aircraft, whether you were crew or passenger.
Do you have an ethical obligation to warn the passengers that the aircraft they are about to board is unsafe? Or does that ethical obligation lie with the new crew?
Bennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 5776 posts, RR: 2 Reply 99, posted (7 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 6363 times:
LoneStarMike
'Safety has been and always will be the top priority at US Airways, as it is at any airline. On the specific issue that the advertisement focuses on, I’d note that USAPA’s account is highly inaccurate and its claims about the aircraft in question were wrong – it flew that day and performed flawlessly, and has done the same ever since'.
This statement may sound conclusive. However, if the aircraft was totally unairworthy initially, but was airworthy after a 6 hour repair, then the statement would still be true.
par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 4898 posts, RR: 7 Reply 100, posted (7 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 6322 times:
Quoting MD88Captain (Reply 19): The Captain made a good call and a bad call. Refusing to take the aircraft is the correct and easy decision. (Easy to make but sometimes difficult to stick to under company pressure.)
Easy how, manamement obviously thought she was wrong, who exactly is the employer and employee?
Quoting MD88Captain (Reply 19): As Captain, you are the final authority on safety.
Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 32): While that may be true, the company has more data on more flights in a week than many pilots will fly in a life time, so while a pilot may have concerns about a unique situation, the company may have hundreds, thousands of similar situations on record to draw upon and decide what is and is not safe.
This is where the age old rule about the captian being in charge and responsible for the flight needs to be changed, as you say, management has information on multiple flights per day, week, month, year, they know more than individuals and they have computers and analyst to provide factual information, change the rule, have someone on the ground take responsibility for the flight leaving. It does notthing for the industry to have this quasi situation where pilots decisions are questioned with attempts to brush aside, put in your contract what is an accepted practise or code of conduct and work with it.
To stir the pot, if management wanted the a/c to operate the flight with a route much closer to land throughout burning more fuel than the profitability computers say should be used, obviously that would be accepted since management made the decicion, but if a pilot suggested the same...................
Quoting AirCalSNA (Reply 49): Okay, maybe I'm crazy, but why would management try to override a concern about safety or legality expressed by a captain?
I guess for the same reason why they publicly escort one of their employee off the a/c, bolster pax confidence. In the world of glass half full, was the PIC not bolstering pax confidence by delaying their flight until the a/c was safe?
Quoting Grid (Reply 84): I place less weight on two crews refusing to fly the airplane. Union employees will often back each other up whether right or wrong.
So US Airways bought a management crew out to finally fly the a/c across the pond?
I did not read that in the article, I though I read a third crew.
Grid From Kazakhstan, joined Apr 2010, 617 posts, RR: 0 Reply 101, posted (7 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 6035 times:
Quoting par13del (Reply 100): Quoting Grid (Reply 84):
I place less weight on two crews refusing to fly the airplane. Union employees will often back each other up whether right or wrong.
So US Airways bought a management crew out to finally fly the a/c across the pond?
I did not read that in the article, I though I read a third crew.
No, eventually the employees will have made their point after several reasons. The reason is to make a point and one or even two refusals won't get the point across.
par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 4898 posts, RR: 7 Reply 102, posted (7 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 6056 times:
Quoting Grid (Reply 101): No, eventually the employees will have made their point after several reasons. The reason is to make a point and one or even two refusals won't get the point across.
Except refusing to fly an a/c without a documented failure or MEL violates union rules and pilots code of conduct which carry disciplinary actions. New crew are required to carry out their own physical checks, verify log and maintenance books, as per company policy, they cannot be waived for expediency sake, so the second crew quite likely flagged the a/c as non-flyable. Now how long it took to fix the a/c quite likely determined why a third crew was called, I do not know US procedures, but if the second crew was on standby then activated they could have "timed out" for the length of the flight, since the original crew was already "removed", it was either this crew or a new one.
PurdueAv2003 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 237 posts, RR: 2 Reply 103, posted (7 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 5792 times:
Quoting par13del (Reply 102): Except refusing to fly an a/c without a documented failure or MEL violates union rules and pilots code of conduct which carry disciplinary actions.
And here is the crux of this argument. The mechanic signed off that the APU was operational, the aircraft was airworthy, and, since there is also a required ETOPS sign off, would have had to sign off that the A/C is certified for ETOPS flight. The pilot subsequently refused the aircraft AFTER the mechanic had signed off. WHY? If there was some action that the mechanic performed that the pilot didn't trust, what was it? If the mechanic had failed to sign off the log book or performed questionable maintenance, she should report it, but if you don't trust an A&P signature in a log book, then you shouldn't be flying at all.
GoBoeing From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 2564 posts, RR: 15 Reply 104, posted (7 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 5719 times:
Quoting PurdueAv2003 (Reply 103): If there was some action that the mechanic performed that the pilot didn't trust, what was it?
Obviously that part has not, and probably will not, make it into the news.
Quoting PurdueAv2003 (Reply 103): if you don't trust an A&P signature in a log book, then you shouldn't be flying at all.
You don't go 20-25,000 hours flying and not trust mechanic signatures.
Something was obviously up here, and I don't think anyone in this thread will ever know the whole story.
Separate thought -- there is obviously a difference between legal and safe. Lots of things are legal but not necessarily a great idea.
For example, it is legal for a crew to start a workday at 20:00 after having been awake all day since 08:00. Is it safe to then use the full 16 hours on duty allowed, and work until noon the next day? I think not. Just an example.
MD88Captain From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1258 posts, RR: 24 Reply 105, posted (7 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 5699 times:
Some of you guys just don't get it. It can be legal and a Captain can still turn it down. If fact, that is usually the case. If I don't want to take an aircraft that has an inop apu, then I can refuse to do so. Yes, it can be perfectly legal to do so and I can still turn it down. For example, aircraft get turned down for inop autopilots. Is it legal to fly without an autopilot? Sure, but it isn't always smart. It I'm flying into DCA and DCA is covered in T-storms, I'm insisting on an autopilot. The Chief Pilot, Maintenance control, et al may raise hell but it doesn't matter - I won't go without the autopilot. It is an easy call that has nothing to do with unions or power or whatever. It is just about safety for the operation.
stratosphere From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1480 posts, RR: 4 Reply 106, posted (7 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 5607 times:
Quoting MD88Captain (Reply 105): Some of you guys just don't get it. It can be legal and a Captain can still turn it down. If fact, that is usually the case. If I don't want to take an aircraft that has an inop apu, then I can refuse to do so. Yes, it can be perfectly legal to do so and I can still turn it down. For example, aircraft get turned down for inop autopilots. Is it legal to fly without an autopilot? Sure, but it isn't always smart. It I'm flying into DCA and DCA is covered in T-storms, I'm insisting on an autopilot. The Chief Pilot, Maintenance control, et al may raise hell but it doesn't matter - I won't go without the autopilot. It is an easy call that has nothing to do with unions or power or whatever. It is just about safety for the operation.
I get it and I was a line mechanic for over 20 years and have been a maintenance controller for over 5 years and for the most part crews who refuse an a/c for a legal MEL have a pretty good reason for doing so. Most of the time the MEL has some kind of restrictions like icing that keeps the crew from having to refuse it. But say an autopilot it depends on the a/c type as well. The DC-9 single autopilot in all my years I only had 2 pilots who actually took it on MEL and it was a short flight same with auto pressurization. Some A/C like an A320 might handle well without an autopilot. RVSM airspace you have to have a functioning autopilot. In this case with a twin engine a/c flying ETOPS while legal I can understand any crew member having concerns for particular problems. In the several airlines I have worked at including my current one I have never seen anyone try to push the crew into taking an airplane they didn't want to take unless it was a baseless reason and even then if the capt was insistent they would just get another crew. I have seen a few not many make some frivolous write ups to avoid flying for whatever reason usually it was during bad weather.
charliecossie From Germany, joined Oct 2001, 447 posts, RR: 12 Reply 107, posted (7 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 5389 times:
Quoting BrouAviation (Reply 93): really fail to understand how that is possible. I always have learned the APU is required for redundancy in all situations, and I went into several books and company manuals again to be 100% sure and I can't come to another conclusion.
Look mate, you don't know what you're talking about. An inop APU carries a 120 or 138 minute ETOPS restriction (depending on type). 138 is plenty to cross the atlantic on any routing, 120 is fine for NA to Europe.
Basically, all ETOPS twins have 2 engine driven generators, an APU generator and a fourth item you don't seem to know about. Company restrictions may require an APU for all ETOPS flights but neither the manufacturers nor the regulators require it.
Best stop making a fool of yourself.
Chris.
Licensed engineer 37 years.
737, 747, 757, 767, 777, DC10, L1011, A330.
ETOPS qualified since they invented it.
Well, you obviously do and besides that, you seem to be gifted with the talent of sharing knowledge in a friendly and kind way. How nice for you, thank you very much.
Oh, and I am not your 'mate'.
EDIT: To make things clear, I naturally stand corrected. I presume I was confused by differences between company procedures and legislation.
[Edited 2011-07-25 01:47:14]
Never ask somebody if he's a pilot. If he is, he will let you know soon enough!
charliecossie From Germany, joined Oct 2001, 447 posts, RR: 12 Reply 109, posted (7 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 5289 times:
Quoting BrouAviation (Reply 22): Good on them, they weren't even allowed to cross the pond without APU. How on earth can there even be a discussion?
Quoting BrouAviation (Reply 29): What I do know is that a flight under ETOPS is not allowed with less than three sources of electrical power available.
Quoting BrouAviation (Reply 75): If the APU was really not able to start itself from the battery (assuming the battery was properly charged), I wouldn't accept that either.
Quoting BrouAviation (Reply 78): When you need your APU for bleed air/electricity at FL390 above Southern Greenland, where is that mechanic to start that thing externally? In bed, most likely.
Quoting BrouAviation (Reply 93): This is a rule that goes for all ETOPS-certified aircraft, so no APU = no flight. Same goes for EDG's. When an EDG is u/s, you are not allowed to fly under ETOPS, even with APU.
BrouAviation From Netherlands, joined Jun 2009, 892 posts, RR: 0 Reply 110, posted (7 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 5238 times:
Quoting charliecossie (Reply 109):
Zeke (a Cathay pilot) said it nicely and you told him he was wrong.
I didn't. Zeke didn't reply until my reply 93, after which I told him I failed to understand how that was possible, and put my knowledge on the table to describe why I could not understand how that was possible, in (as far as I am concerned) a polite manner. I didn't blatantly tell him he was wrong, as I do know he flies with CX. The only thing I did is describe the facts I had and the conclusions I draw therefrom. I even put one of my sources on the table (which is most likely the culprit). What else do you expect me to do? Say amen and praised be thy name as soon as someone says I am wrong?
If I disagree with someone, I am open for correction, but only by valid arguments/proof. Not by status or length of career.
norcal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2282 posts, RR: 4 Reply 112, posted (7 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 4995 times:
Quoting GoBoeing (Reply 104): Separate thought -- there is obviously a difference between legal and safe. Lots of things are legal but not necessarily a great idea.
Absolutely, take pilot schedules for example. The NTSB has been stating for years that the flight time and duty time rules must be changed (and they finally are being changed). We've had so many crashes where fatigue was contributing factor. You often find the schedule was "legal" but it wasn't safe.
Same thing goes for the fuel amounts dispatchers try and give us. Carrying extra fuel is extra weight which increase fuel burn. It's no wonder that every airline out there is continually pressuring pilots to carry the legal minimum amount of fuel. That doesn't make it safe though. You always need to leave yourself an out and if that means carrying a little extra fuel because of unusually bad weather then that shouldn't ever be an issue, but it often becomes one.
It's easy for a dispatcher or chief pilot or other management to tell the pilots that something is safe and they should operate the flight. After all they are sitting in a nice climate controlled office and not strapped into the plane with all the lives in back in their hands. If something happens guess who is ultimately held responsible and the first one to get thrown under the bus by the company, the Captain.
If the captain had listened to the company and had taken the flight and an emergency developed that led to an accident or incident do any of you honestly think the company would stand behind the pilot? No they would have thrown her to the wolves. Then instead of this debate you'd all be having a debate about how bad of a pilot she was
Quoting stratosphere (Reply 106): I get it and I was a line mechanic for over 20 years and have been a maintenance controller for over 5 years and for the most part crews who refuse an a/c for a legal MEL have a pretty good reason for doing so.
One common one off the top of my head is refusing an aircraft with an inoperative APU or a pack inop on a super hot day. Sure the MEL says it's legal but it isn't safe to take a plane full of passengers and sit in line for take off when you can't cool the cabin effectively. That's how people get heat stroke. Would the company stand behind you the? Nope they'd throw you to the wolves!
"Rapid decompression leads to involuntary exiting of the Aircraft"
Grid From Kazakhstan, joined Apr 2010, 617 posts, RR: 0 Reply 113, posted (7 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 4924 times:
Quoting par13del (Reply 102): Quoting Grid (Reply 101):
No, eventually the employees will have made their point after several reasons. The reason is to make a point and one or even two refusals won't get the point across.
Except refusing to fly an a/c without a documented failure or MEL violates union rules and pilots code of conduct which carry disciplinary actions. New crew are required to carry out their own physical checks, verify log and maintenance books, as per company policy, they cannot be waived for expediency sake, so the second crew quite likely flagged the a/c as non-flyable
I am not saying that the pilots were wrong. I am no saying that they were right. I am saying that if the first pilot had been wrongfully stating something was wrong with the aircraft, the second pilot, because they are union, would have been very likely to "find" the same problem.
It was more or less an explanation of how unions back each other up, right or wrong, which not any different from other groups in other areas of life.
sankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 615 posts, RR: 0 Reply 114, posted (7 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 4845 times:
I am not quaified to say whether or not the Captain did the right thing in refusing to fly. Perhaps she was within her rights to do so, I have no problem with that at all.
However IF she really did make those announcements to the pax over the PA system, then I think she certainly used poor judgment. No excuse for that whatsoever!
par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 4898 posts, RR: 7 Reply 115, posted (7 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 4806 times:
Quoting PurdueAv2003 (Reply 103): The mechanic signed off that the APU was operational, the aircraft was airworthy, and, since there is also a required ETOPS sign off, would have had to sign off that the A/C is certified for ETOPS flight. The pilot subsequently refused the aircraft AFTER the mechanic had signed off. WHY?
Quoting MD88Captain (Reply 105): Some of you guys just don't get it. It can be legal and a Captain can still turn it down.
The company may not like it and view the captain as a "problem" pilot, but they are well within their rights as the PIC to refuse an a/c with a MEL. In my time as a despather we had pilots who refused a/c for the least "problem" and others we could call in to take the same a/c to operate the flight.
Quoting Grid (Reply 113): It was more or less an explanation of how unions back each other up, right or wrong, which not any different from other groups in other areas of life.
I understood your point, and it is entirely possible even though I think that was not the case since something has to still have been listed on the a/c for the second crew to legally refuse the a/c, I say legally since they were not escorted off the premises which I would expect to happen if it was a union solidarity thing. As for the third crew conspiracy has to be around for them to know they were going to be called and the union protest was already over.
As I said its possible but I doubt it, US airways is a large carrier and issues like this MEL takes place all the time, this one made the news for how it was handled not the facts of the matter.
norcal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2282 posts, RR: 4 Reply 116, posted (7 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 4750 times:
Quoting Grid (Reply 113): It was more or less an explanation of how unions back each other up, right or wrong, which not any different from other groups in other areas of life.
This is not true at all. Aviation is a very small world so we often hear a lot of what's going on from talking to each other in the crew room. There have been many conversations where some of us question why a Captain refused to take an aircraft and instances where one Captain refused the aircraft and the next crew took it.
It is an individual choice about whether to take a plane or not. You have to get their yourself and asses the situation and decide if you should take the plane. We of course tell each other, "hey we had this thing happen in flight you might want to get it checked out" but we don't take the word of another pilot to make the decision for us. We look at it ourselves and use all the available resources (MEL, Company policies, MX, weather, etc.) in order to arrive at a decision.
We don't like canceling or delaying flights because its a big hassle for us just like it is for our passengers. If I refuse an aircraft its because I have decided that it isn't safe not because someone else told me it isn't safe.
You better be able to explain your actions to your chief pilot when you end up in his office. "Well, so and so said it wasn't working so I refused it too," isn't a good reason. If someone else messed up I won't back them up just because they are my union brother or sister. If I back them up it's going to be because I arrived at the same conclusion they did.
"Rapid decompression leads to involuntary exiting of the Aircraft"
Grid From Kazakhstan, joined Apr 2010, 617 posts, RR: 0 Reply 117, posted (7 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 4667 times:
Quoting norcal (Reply 116): Quoting Grid (Reply 113):
It was more or less an explanation of how unions back each other up, right or wrong, which not any different from other groups in other areas of life.
This is not true at all. Aviation is a very small world so we often hear a lot of what's going on from talking to each other in the crew room. There have been many conversations where some of us question why a Captain refused to take an aircraft and instances where one Captain refused the aircraft and the next crew took it.
It is an individual choice about whether to take a plane or not. You have to get their yourself and asses the situation and decide if you should take the plane. We of course tell each other, "hey we had this thing happen in flight you might want to get it checked out" but we don't take the word of another pilot to make the decision for us. We look at it ourselves and use all the available resources (MEL, Company policies, MX, weather, etc.) in order to arrive at a decision.
We don't like canceling or delaying flights because its a big hassle for us just like it is for our passengers. If I refuse an aircraft its because I have decided that it isn't safe not because someone else told me it isn't safe.
You better be able to explain your actions to your chief pilot when you end up in his office. "Well, so and so said it wasn't working so I refused it too," isn't a good reason. If someone else messed up I won't back them up just because they are my union brother or sister. If I back them up it's going to be because I arrived at the same conclusion they did.
I was speaking generally, and it is true. Just read any book on the labor movement in the United States.
norcal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2282 posts, RR: 4 Reply 118, posted (7 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 4643 times:
Quoting Grid (Reply 117): I was speaking generally, and it is true. Just read any book on the labor movement in the United States.
We aren't talking about the "labor movement" in general we are talking about one specific case. Applying what happens at the UAW or government unions for example to anything airline union related is an erroneous comparison.
Management has nearly all the power in the labor management relationship in the airline industry. Its actually borderline ridiculous how far the scales are tilted in their favor.
"Rapid decompression leads to involuntary exiting of the Aircraft"
zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 6583 posts, RR: 72 Reply 119, posted (7 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 4526 times:
Quoting PurdueAv2003 (Reply 73): According to them, the APU was NOT on MEL, but failed to start. The pilot drained the battery while trying to start the APU.
Well that is normal, the crew entry would be something like "APU auto shutdown on start" MX would be called, after investigation and testing they would either fix the problem or raise a the MEL. The pilots do not raise the MEL.
I do not buy this "pilot drained the battery" line, if passenger were onboard as it has been reported, external power would have been supplied to the aircraft. The APU would have been started from the external power via AC BUS 2/APU TR.
I do however think it is plausible that they reached the APU starter limit "After three consecutive start attempts without cool down, a 60 minute cooling interval before next start must be observed."
Quoting PurdueAv2003 (Reply 73): Mx was called out to check out the APU, and were able to get the APU operational.
That does prove it can be restarted later. What was the history of the APU fault ?
Quoting PurdueAv2003 (Reply 73): Mx signed the log book and presented it to the PIC, and she was not satisfied with the mechanic's fix.
Which to me means that something was still not working as the Captain wanted. For example they could still have had a fault with the APU BCL, or the line contactors.
I do not think that is what happened, not with external power connected. The APU battery voltage can get low, if the APU battery line contactor fails, the APU may not be recharged.
Quoting BrouAviation (Reply 75): If the APU was really not able to start itself from the battery (assuming the battery was properly charged), I wouldn't accept that either.
I have dispatched many times ETOPS with the APU inop, that does not mean I will accept it for every situation. Dispatching ETOPS does not mean that one will always be more than 60 minutes from a suitable airport.
Quoting PurdueAv2003 (Reply 79):
That's where an A&P mechanic came out, made the APU operational, and signed the log book that the aircraft was airworthy. I do not know exactly what the problem or fix was.
Making the "APU Operational' at that time does not mean it will work later, and/or the APU can be operational and still unable to supply bleed air or electricity to the rest of the aircraft.
Bit of a loaded statement you have made, making the Captain look bad when "I do not know exactly what the problem or fix was." I would suggest a lot of the details are not being made public.
Quoting PurdueAv2003 (Reply 79): Making a scene in front of the passengers was COMPLETELY uncalled for and unprofessional.
Who said the Captain did ? It is the Captains job to keep the passengers informed of any delays.
Quoting Trucker (Reply 89): OK, I'm trying to understand this. So the APU doesn't work, or at least won't start. The PIC runs the battery down trying to start it. IMO not a smart thing to do if the battery was needed for the flight and the APU wasn't.
The Aircraft has 3 main batteries, 2 for the aircraft and one for the APU. The APU can be started using either its battery, external power or normal aircraft supply.
Quoting Trucker (Reply 89): But the PIC says, "Hey wait a minute. I can't get a jump start over the ocean. I've got to be able to start the APU with the battery".
It can be started from the normal aircraft supply in-flight, i.e. from an engine generator. On ground or in the air, when starting using other than the battery, AC bus 2 feeds the APU transformer/rectifier when then powers the APU start sequence.
Quoting Trucker (Reply 89): Seems to me they needed to charge up the battery and be sure they could start the APU with the battery before they were good to go.
That may have been the case, however it normally on a 20 minute or so wait to get enough charge into them.
Quoting BrouAviation (Reply 93):
I really fail to understand how that is possible. I always have learned the APU is required for redundancy in all situations, and I went into several books and company manuals again to be 100% sure and I can't come to another conclusion.
The A330 has more than 3 independent power source, the electrical power generation comprises :
• Two engine-driven AC generators, nominal power 115 kVA
• One auxiliary power unit (APU) AC generator nominal 115 kVA
• One emergency generator (Constant Speed Motor /Generator or CSM/G), nominal power 8.6 kVA, hydraulically driven by the Green system.
• One static inverter fed by two batteries and working either on the ground or when CSM/G inoperative.
• Two ground connectors, power 90 kVA
• DC network supplied via two main Transformer Rectifier Units (200 A) and one essential (100 A). A fourth TR (100 A) is dedicated to APU start or APU battery charging.
• Three batteries nominal capacity 37 Ah, 28 V each :
- Two batteries used :
- One dedicated to APU start
. in emergency configuration to feed some equipment during RAT deployment or when CSM/G not operating.
. On ground to provide an autonomous source
Quoting BrouAviation (Reply 93): ETOPS flight are not allowed with less than three independent functioning AC power sources.
ETOPS dispatch with APU inop is allowed, e.g. from the FAA A330 MMEL
11-01 APU System C 1 0 (O)Except for ER operations beyond 120 minutes, may be inoperative provided the APU MASTER sw is set to OFF.
C 1 0 (M)(O)Except for ER operations beyond 120 minutes, may be inoperative provided APU is deactivated or removed.
Quoting BrouAviation (Reply 93): When an EDG is u/s, you are not allowed to fly under ETOPS, even with APU.
One can, again quoting the FAA MMEL
24-22-01
AC Main Generation (IDG, GCU, Line Contactor)
B 2 1 (M)(O)Except for ER operations beyond 120 minutes, one may be inoperative provided:
a) APU generator operates normally and is used throughout the flight,
b) All busses can be powered,
c) Indications for the remaining AC main generation and AC auxiliary generation operate normally,
d) There is no ELEC IDG 1(2) OIL SYS FAULT caution associated with IDG of the operative AC main generation displayed on ECAM E/WD,
e) There is no FUEL APU AFT PUMP FAULT caution displayed on ECAM E/WD,
f) Automatic switching of essential electrical network power supply from AC BUS 1 to AC BUS 2 is checked operative daily when AC main generation 2 is inoperative,
g) APU aft fuel pump shedding in land recovery configuration is checked operative weekly, and
h) Operator ensures that APU oil quantity is adequate for the intended flight.
Quoting wn676 (Reply 96): If the batteries on an Airbus are below their minimum voltage to begin with, is it possible that they can be drained further by any attempts to start the APU?
Yes
Quoting borism (Reply 97):
Now how could an "FAA manager" not be knowledgeable of legality of operating ETOPS flight with such condition?
The FAA would have a copy of the companies approved MEL/DDG.
Quoting PurdueAv2003 (Reply 103): The mechanic signed off that the APU was operational, the aircraft was airworthy, and, since there is also a required ETOPS sign off, would have had to sign off that the A/C is certified for ETOPS flight. The pilot subsequently refused the aircraft AFTER the mechanic had signed off. WHY?
Thank you very much, I obviously mixed up KL's company procedures and legislation. Knowing the law requires three separate AC-sources, and seeing the APU mentioned as a requirement for ETOPS in KL's procedures, I mixed up. Thanks for clearing that up!
Question: If the APU fails to start from battery, but mechanics were able to start it externally, is the APU then considered u/s? IOW: Does it need to be proven that the APU is able to start from on-board power sources to be considered operational?
Never ask somebody if he's a pilot. If he is, he will let you know soon enough!
zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 6583 posts, RR: 72 Reply 121, posted (7 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 4417 times:
Quoting BrouAviation (Reply 120): If the APU fails to start from battery, but mechanics were able to start it externally, is the APU then considered u/s?
The APU maybe operational, and yet another system/component inoperative. No black and white answer.
Quoting BrouAviation (Reply 120): Does it need to be proven that the APU is able to start from on-board power sources to be considered operational?
From the FAA A330 MMEL, the battery can inop as long as it can be started from the AC bus.
24- 38-01 Battery DC Generation
1) Battery C 3 2 (O)APU battery may be inoperative provided APU starting using AC power is verified to operate normally.
C 3 2 (O)APU battery may be inoperative provided APU is not used.
2) Battery Charge Limiter (BCL) C 3 2 (O)APU battery charge limiter may be inoperative provided APU battery is not used.
apodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3259 posts, RR: 7 Reply 122, posted (7 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 4335 times:
Quoting norcal (Reply 112): It's easy for a dispatcher or chief pilot or other management to tell the pilots that something is safe and they should operate the flight. After all they are sitting in a nice climate controlled office and not strapped into the plane with all the lives in back in their hands. If something happens guess who is ultimately held responsible and the first one to get thrown under the bus by the company, the Captain.
BINGO. As a dispatcher, this is why I find familiarization flights so valuable, because it gets me a chance to see the other side of things and apply it to when I am actually behind the desk. We are required to go once a year, and personally I think it should be more than that. Many dispatchers would frown at the idea though. As a dispatcher I have actually grounded flights that the pilots were willing to take, because I didn't feel it was safe. In one case, I grounded a few planes in PHL because I didn't feel we had holdover time for Deicing after interpreting the chart. Others in the room disagreed and even accused me of talking pilots out of going. I held my ground, and the next day I found out that I was correct in my interpretation.
The Captain may be the first to get thrown under the bus, but the dispatcher can be right behind him, and in some cases even before him because of things that they will see before the captain. I remind some people constantly that its my certificate on the line and I am not going to jeopardize it to run all our flights if safety is in an issue. They hate hearing me say it, but its the truth.
Grid From Kazakhstan, joined Apr 2010, 617 posts, RR: 0 Reply 123, posted (7 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3978 times:
Quoting sankaps (Reply 114): I am not quaified to say whether or not the Captain did the right thing in refusing to fly. Perhaps she was within her rights to do so, I have no problem with that at all.
However IF she really did make those announcements to the pax over the PA system, then I think she certainly used poor judgment. No excuse for that whatsoever!
Agreed. I don't know that making the anno
Quoting norcal (Reply 118): We aren't talking about the "labor movement" in general we are talking about one specific case. Applying what happens at the UAW or government unions for example to anything airline union related is an erroneous comparison.
Management has nearly all the power in the labor management relationship in the airline industry. Its actually borderline ridiculous how far the scales are tilted in their favor.
B727LVR From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 583 posts, RR: 0 Reply 124, posted (7 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3473 times:
Quoting Trucker (Reply 89): Since you admit there are shady A&Ps out there, you should not be taking offense to the statement.
I took offense to the individual implying that most A&P's act in this manner. The majority of all A&P's are good reliable mechanics, the number of "shady" mechanics is extremly small, and not as big of a problem and poster made it seem.
Quoting Trucker (Reply 89): What charges this battery? The APU, the airplanes engines, a ground unit, or all of the above
All the above
Quoting wn676 (Reply 96): If the batteries on an Airbus are below their minimum voltage to begin with, is it possible that they can be drained further by any attempts to start the APU? In other words...was the problem solely with the battery state and not the APU?
It is possible. Somtimes batteries reach a point where the no longer will accept a charge and must be "Deep Cycled," this is a maintenence procedure thats time consuming, so if the battery was bad it would have been replaced. But the aircraft was not being powered by the APU at the time of its start, so it was on EXT PWR which should be charging the ships batteries. Assuming normal procedures are to start the APU at the gate prior to pushback, which means EXT PWR would be connected. I find it hard to believe how the batteries would be drained during starting when EXT PWR should be charging them and would be the power used for starting the APU, unless there is switchology problem, or another fault. To me things arent adding up, but then again we dont know the full story.
I'm like a kid in a candy store when it comes to planes!
norcal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2282 posts, RR: 4 Reply 125, posted (7 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3413 times:
Quoting apodino (Reply 122): The Captain may be the first to get thrown under the bus, but the dispatcher can be right behind him, and in some cases even before him because of things that they will see before the captain. I remind some people constantly that its my certificate on the line and I am not going to jeopardize it to run all our flights if safety is in an issue. They hate hearing me say it, but its the truth.
The company will employ an army of lawyers to place the blame everywhere else but itself in the event of an accident or incident. They would never admit to the pressure and pencil whipping that *occasionally* goes on in order to keep flights operating. In the end of the day the CEO or chief pilot or director of ops isn't sitting in the plane and will wash their hands of the situation if something goes wrong. It's up to us as employees to protect ourselves because all the micro managers above us often never have a clue about what is going on with a specific flight.
Quoting Grid (Reply 123): I was talking about the labor movement.
Which really has nothing to do with this discussion. If you want to crusade against unions go somewhere else. This is a very specific incident that should be analyzed separate of any greater trends in the business world.
"Rapid decompression leads to involuntary exiting of the Aircraft"
MaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 13985 posts, RR: 51 Reply 126, posted (7 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3346 times:
Quoting norcal (Reply 125): Which really has nothing to do with this discussion. If you want to crusade against unions go somewhere else. This is a very specific incident that should be analyzed separate of any greater trends in the business world.
The USAPA has long set the scene for incidents like this to play out against, in the attempt to use it as leverage against the company. They've made it part of the discussion; had they not we wouldn't even be discussing this--it probably would not have made the news.
Exactly. Allthough I almost always side with my Union! I am a VERY pro union individual. Even if you aren't. Tis better to have them and NOT need them, than to need them and NOT HAVE THEM! Just some food for thought. I still am puzzled why she needed security to leave the airport? Oh well, I guess we will never know that.
yeelep From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 270 posts, RR: 0 Reply 128, posted (7 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3267 times:
Quoting charliecossie (Reply 107): Look mate, you don't know what you're talking about. An inop APU carries a 120 or 138 minute ETOPS restriction (depending on type). 138 is plenty to cross the atlantic on any routing, 120 is fine for NA to Europe.
Basically, all ETOPS twins have 2 engine driven generators, an APU generator and a fourth item you don't seem to know about. Company restrictions may require an APU for all ETOPS flights but neither the manufacturers nor the regulators require it.
Best stop making a fool of yourself.
Maybe you should stop making a fool of yourself by making blanket statements. Case in point, the 737NG requires a operating APU during ETOPS operations, as required by the manufacture and regulators. Next time, stick to the type of aircraft being discussed.
Grid From Kazakhstan, joined Apr 2010, 617 posts, RR: 0 Reply 129, posted (7 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3048 times:
Quoting norcal (Reply 125):
Which really has nothing to do with this discussion. If you want to crusade against unions go somewhere else. This is a very specific incident that should be analyzed separate of any greater trends in the business world.
I don't intend to crusade against unions and I don't intend to go elsewhere. At the very least, however, you should take your hostility and lack of civility elsewhere, and not to another thread.
In fact, I have stated that I don't think the pilot was in the wrong, except for maybe airing the dirty laundry to the passengers. The union and management have made her pawn, which is very unfortunate.
A specific incident does not necessarily needs to be analyzed separate from greater trends. Indeed, one can use the greater trends to analyze the specific incident in order to draw conclusions. How else do people draw conclusions? People don't analyze events in isolation; in fact that would be nearly impossible given that we are always drawing comparisons and contrasting with past incidents and what we learned from them.
Therefore, overall operations and tactics of unions can be used to analyze this situation. It should not be conclusive or the sole factor, but it would be helpful to analyze this specific incident using all of our knowledge.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 615 posts, 
From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 1972 posts, 
From Kazakhstan, joined Apr 2010, 617 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Jun 2009, 892 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 11217 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 298 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jul 2006, 652 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 6583 posts, 
From India, joined Jan 2001, 29834 posts, 
Everybody can talk about safety, but it also comes at the expense of their self interest.
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 17847 posts, 
From Bosnia and Herzegovina, joined Jun 2005, 573 posts, 
From Estonia, joined Oct 2006, 431 posts, 
From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 4898 posts, 
From Germany, joined Oct 2001, 447 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
