IAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4723 posts, RR: 25 Reply 1, posted (9 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 14953 times:
Wow, I hope they get all they desire in the suit and whoever it was that was responsible for such insanity is the person or persons that get terminated.
Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
seabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 4277 posts, RR: 4 Reply 3, posted (9 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 14871 times:
Would like to hear the details, including what the safety issues were and why the company saw the captain's behavior as such an affront.
But if the allegation that the firing was announced to all the employees is true, that's damning all by itself.
Most gorgeous aircraft: Tu-204-300, 757-200, A330-200, 777-200LR, 787-8
DashTrash From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 1314 posts, RR: 4 Reply 4, posted (9 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 14858 times:
It may be (probably is) a biased news release, but asking crews to do things outside of the AFM is nothing new. I would bet money that any professional pilot has been directed by at least one of their employers to do something contrary to the approved way to operate the aircraft.
I have been asked to ferry aircraft with non-MEL'able items a few times. Torque gauges were a favorite at my last company. If you refused, it became a big deal within the company, usually a trip to the CP's office where you needed to bring union representation to point out the company was full of it. At that point they generally relented.
flyhossd From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 545 posts, RR: 1 Reply 5, posted (9 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 14522 times:
Quoting DashTrash (Reply 4): It may be (probably is) a biased news release, but asking crews to do things outside of the AFM is nothing new. I would bet money that any professional pilot has been directed by at least one of their employers to do something contrary to the approved way to operate the aircraft.
I have been asked to ferry aircraft with non-MEL'able items a few times. Torque gauges were a favorite at my last company. If you refused, it became a big deal within the company, usually a trip to the CP's office where you needed to bring union representation to point out the company was full of it. At that point they generally relented.
Yes, I'd like to hear the other side of the story, too, but to terminate someone for being conservative is scary.
And I can't help but wonder if there was an ATA (or similar) sponsored seminar about Captain's authority in the not-to-distant past. Do you remember the story of the USAirways A330 Captain that refused an airplane (so did two other crews, IIRC) and was escorted off the airport? As I recall, that airplane was finally repaired. It seems like there have been others, too.
My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
MSJYOP28Apilot From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 130 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (9 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 14179 times:
So the captain had a disagreement with the dispatcher and the dispatcher stuck to his guns and the captain refused the flight. The one unusual thing is the article cites an alternate without automated performance, bad weather and a fuel gauge not working as reasons for his refusal. There has to be a lot more to the story than that. Having issues like that is commonplace at every airline in the world. The vast majority of captains just do their job and dont complain. I mean pilots manually calculate approach performance all the time and in similar bad weather with worse MELs as a fuel quantity indicator with even less time than a cargo pilot would have. Many regional pilots are so overworked they dont even have time to read or check their dispatch releases.
It is equally unusual for an airline to fire a captain over something like this. Normally, if a captain refuses a flight that on paper and by the books is perfectly safe and legal the most that happens is he gets a trip to the chief pilot to discuss the situation. I mean pilots have refused for a lot more trivial things and dont even hear about it from the chief pilot.
In the industry, there is a common saying amongst pilots and dispatchers that a flight must be legal,safe,and smart. Every one of those is open to interpretation and how you can defend your point of view. This captain thought looking at all variables that it wasnt up to his standards for safe, legal,smart. The dispatcher and company disagreed.
From the article, it seems the crew wanted a different alternate. Normally, it is easier for a dispatcher to just give the captain what he wants, assuming it is legal. Some captains do demand dispatchers do things that are illegal and opposite happens as well. Unless weight and balance is an issue, a different alternate is rarely a hassle other than having to re-do all your work again.
I would need to hear all the details before making a complete judgment. The article likely leaves off key pieces of info. An alternate with no automated performance but with appropriate alternate methods of calculation, marginal weather and MELs are perfectly legal and FAA approved ways of operating. Whatever was against FAA regs as stated by the article wasnt mentioned in the article.
wjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 4557 posts, RR: 17 Reply 7, posted (9 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 12874 times:
ABX doesn't have a reputation of dogging its pilots to do stupid stuff (stupid-er stuff?).
Indeed, a few years ago, an ABX DC8 captain who was following the company policy refused a short takeoff at JFK and lined up at the end of the runway.
During the takeoff roll, an Israir (IIRC) 767 wandered onto the active in front of the departing ABX aircraft. ABX captain was able, with some stellar airmanship, to pull up early and avoid a collision without stalling his aircraft, for which he received many allocades. Had he not taken the cautious approach, lots of folks in the US and Israel would have become very aware of this incident.
wjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 4557 posts, RR: 17 Reply 8, posted (9 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 12815 times:
Unless ABX has done a lot of senior-pilot buyouts, I would think ABX would have a LOT of high-time captains these days, given their massive downsizing.
wjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 4557 posts, RR: 17 Reply 9, posted (9 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 12784 times:
Okay, now I have read the article. Yep, very senior guy.
I think the key words are "operating in Japan". ABX is flying contract cargo for a Japanese carrier. I think that there may be some union issues what with these guys based overseas, etc. Hard to know why the captain felt a need to take a stand given that nothing illegal about the flight was disclosed by the union, and hard to know why the company apparently decided to make an example out of him. Maybe stupid on both sides. Hope it all gets worked out.
wjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 4557 posts, RR: 17 Reply 10, posted (9 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 12515 times:
Okay. Now I pulled the lawsuit online and read attachment B to the lawsuit, the safety debrief.
Unless it is completely contrived, it makes complete sense.
According to it, Dispatch told the captain that the new alternate aiport, RJFR, was in the FMC database, and it wasn't. Maintenance had received an update to the FMC that included the airport ten days earlier, but hadn't loaded it because nobody told them it was urgent. JAL (the customer) wanted to start using that airport as an alternate because they have facilities there. Previously, they had used RJBB as the alternate. Captain was told Customer wanted to start using RJFR that night, and didn't want to offload freight to use RJBB. Captain asked if W&B would require offloading freight if used RJBB. Nobody knew. He asked if RJFF or RJFU were acceptable to JAL, so freight wouldn't have to be offloaded because they were closer. Captain was transferred to Captain Ezel (chief pilot?) who didn't want to discuss details and only wanted to know if he was refusing RJFR, and refused to help check whether other airports would be acceptable, as they were in the FMC. He was transferred back to dispatch and was told JAL said to use RJBB. Problem solved, one would think. No freight was offloaded.
Captain gives a laundry list of things he was concerned about given that he had no time to manually calculate a bunch of stuff that he didn't want to calculate on the fly, with low fuel, with a broken fuel gauge, in mountainous terrain, in an unfamiliar foreign country, with difficulty understanding ATC, etc., etc.
His statement, which was his official safety debrief, looks completely reasonable and as if he was earnestly trying to just work stuff out so he could fly safely. So ABX is going to have to show that this was some kind of in-your-face union action.
If true that they had the database update but hadn't installed it, and the Japanese client was okay with the original alternate, and it was no-harm-no-foul, and it was just a cluster-F that resulted in this circumstance, then it is at least a little on the company and on management.
Captain is likely to make a very good witness if it was indeed he and not the union attorney that wrote his safety debrief.
The ABX letter to him firing him basically said that the absence of FMC shouldn't have been an issue, that 16K of freight was offloaded, that JAL was pissed, that in the new arena pilots have to be prepared to operate blah blah blah and that his safety concerns were not objectively reasonable.
Had he flown that thing into a mountain, they would have blamed him for not being properly prepared.
And I have one other observation for his ABX masters that said that no individual item on his list of concerns made the flight illegal. I would say this: Fatal accidents don't happen in modern times because one thing goes wrong. It is the weight of multiple issues that cause fatalities. Maybe no one issue rendered the flight illegal, but the captain plainly envisioned a scenario where with all these things wrong, having to divert could jepordize safety, particularly if he didn't take a delay to figure out all the crap he would prefer to have in hand before departing.
If he can make this case compellingly under cross-examination, on a jury trial, ABX could be in a world of hurt. (They apparently have a tape or something that is a bit at odds with his recollection as reflected in the safety report, and that is the kind of thing that stupid lawyers hang their hats on; sometimes people have explanations for a recollection slightly at odds with a tape; none of us could ever perfectly recall a conversation; not much of the difference seems material to me as a civilian; if you try to blister a guy with an inaccurate recollection and fail, most juries will hate you and your client and go out of their way to break it off in your tuckus.)
Just because it is legal doesn't make it safe. But just because it is hard doesn't make it unsafe, of course. But the "you're a pussy" tone of the exchanges and the letter are disheartening.
exFWAOONW From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 284 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (9 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 11686 times:
I think announcing your termination publicly is highly irregular, unprofessional, and childish. Not positive on labor law, but I think you could make a case for invation of privacy on that and win punitive damages, as appropriate.
Quoting wjcandee (Reply 10): ...most juries will hate you and your client and go out of their way to break it off in your tuckus.)
kellmark From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 670 posts, RR: 8 Reply 13, posted (9 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 10905 times:
I have several questions about this.
1. Was this flight operating under flag rules or supplemental rules? Under flag rules the captain and dispatcher must jointly agree to operate the flight and sign the dispatch release. Under supplemental rules it would be the captain and the Director of Flight Operations who are jointly responsible. If the flight was scheduled service, it would be flag. If it was nonscheduled charter type service then it would be supplemental. It makes a difference, because under flag rules, the captain generally has more protection from management pressure.
2. Why is this lawsuit being filed? Is there no grievance procedure under the union contract? That would normally preclude any action being filed in court, at least under the Railway Labor Act, which is what governs US unions. The grievance would then lead to an arbitration hearing, which is private and confidential. A termination of an employee like this should be an arbitration proceeding.
If there is a safety issue, then that is handled through the government authorities, who would investigate as they deem necessary.
wjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 4557 posts, RR: 17 Reply 14, posted (9 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 10828 times:
The theory of the lawsuit is that by telling him he had to sign a letter that "admits" that he was not reasonable in his exercise of authority, ABX bypassed and violated the RLA. According to the suit, they should have meted out whatever discipline and then gone to grievance and adjustment, but instead required him, before following the RLA procedure, to admit wrongdoing or face termination. He wouldn't admit wrongdoing, and was fired.
F9animal From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 4739 posts, RR: 30 Reply 15, posted (9 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 10778 times:
I am shocked that this resulted in termination! If anything, minimal discipline sounds appropriate or counselling. I have worked with ABX pilots before, and they are very safety focused. I think the captain has a valid argument, and reacted to what was dished to him appropriately. I think there is some political issues going on behind closed doors at ABX? I hope the captain gets his job back if the story I read is factual.
kellmark From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 670 posts, RR: 8 Reply 16, posted (9 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 10525 times:
Quoting wjcandee (Reply 14): The theory of the lawsuit is that by telling him he had to sign a letter that "admits" that he was not reasonable in his exercise of authority, ABX bypassed and violated the RLA. According to the suit, they should have meted out whatever discipline and then gone to grievance and adjustment, but instead required him, before following the RLA procedure, to admit wrongdoing or face termination. He wouldn't admit wrongdoing, and was fired.
Well, this will be interesting. I would expect the company to file a motion to dismiss. The intent of Congress in the RLA was to prevent these types of disputes from going into the courts. But we will see what happens.
Whatever reason they fired him for, he would still have the avenue of the RLA and grievance procedure under the contract. He could bring the evidence of the additional duress that the company put him under when they terminated him.
Like in many termination cases, there likely is more then meets the eye behind the whole thing. Perhaps a personality clash, etc. From what has been discussed it sounds like the captain was not being unreasonable. Would be interesting to hear what the company has to say. But they likely won't say anything, as it is in court now.
wjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 4557 posts, RR: 17 Reply 17, posted (9 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 10277 times:
Whether it gets dismissed or not, one probable purpose of the suit was to ventilate this publicly.
Plaintiff attached as exhibits to his complaint some documents that probably otherwise wouldn't be seen by the media.
Of course, the documents aren't pretty for ABX.
Makes them look like bullies and folks who are far more concerned that the Japanese offloaded a 16Klb container than about safety. Makes them look like they put pleasing the customer ahead of safety. Makes them look like the kind of people that take a 27-year ABX captain and move him into a foreign location, then intentionally don't provide safety tools on their aircraft that they actually have available for an airport that they know the client wants to fly into as an alternate, then put it on him when he balks based not only on the absence of one safety tool but also upon the increased likelihood that he will need it given the other circumstances. They look like the kind of people who then effectively call him a pussy, while the Chief Pilot proclaims that he did the same half-assed thing in Europe the other day and so should this guy. They look like they are piling on the same kind of stupid, half-assed crap that got Ron Brown and a bunch of corporate executives killed in an Air Force plane in a foreign land when the pilots were forced to use primitive navigation techniques in inappropriate circumstances because everyone wanted to "get there".
So the suit probably was good move, even if it gets dismissed.
flyhossd From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 545 posts, RR: 1 Reply 18, posted (9 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 10108 times:
Quoting wjcandee (Reply 10): Just because it is legal doesn't make it safe. But just because it is hard doesn't make it unsafe, of course
Bravo, one of the best statements I've seen on this site in a long time. Reply 10 was an all-around excellent post, thank you.
My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
wjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 4557 posts, RR: 17 Reply 19, posted (9 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 9870 times:
Quoting flyhossd (Reply 18): Bravo, one of the best statements I've seen on this site in a long time. Reply 10 was an all-around excellent post, thank you.
kellmark From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 670 posts, RR: 8 Reply 20, posted (9 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 7701 times:
Quoting wjcandee (Reply 17): Whether it gets dismissed or not, one probable purpose of the suit was to ventilate this publicly.
I am not sure that this is such a good strategy. Once everything is made public, it forces the company into a corner. They normally will now resist any and all attempts to resolve things. By keeping things confidential in arbitration, both sides can speak to each other freely, and there could be the possibility of a settlement with the employee. But this would not normally happen after a public attack like this one, where they now are exposed to harmful publicity. Now there is no way they would want the employee back on the property. And this is a man with 27 years invested with the company. If he doesn't go back, then he has to start somewhere else.
I have seen this happen in other cases, where employees went public, and often times it works against them to do so. Sometimes the union looks at these cases as a way to show what they are doing for their members. But this strategy may not be in the best interest of the affected union member himself.
I have seen cases with facts at least as bad as this, where the employee was hired back in the arbitration process, usually where the company realized it was a losing case, and then they sat down and brought the employee back. But it was under strict confidentiality requirements.
Also, I am assuming that a grievance was filed in a timely fashion in the case according to the contract/collective bargaining agreement, but perhaps not. If not then that may be why the union elected the lawsuit strategy.
727forever From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 783 posts, RR: 5 Reply 21, posted (9 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 7478 times:
Great assessment WJCandee.
From what I have read, this is a bogus firing. While you could land a 767 at an airport not in the data base, it is a really bad idea in rough terrain, using it as an alternate that you will probably go to, and not having a crew member onboard who has been there enough times to be familiar. You are intentionally aligning the holes in the swiss cheese from the start by accepting this situation. My company does Charters into airports not in the FMS database, but we require higher minimums, special airport training for that field, and they are not to be used as an alternate.
I'm certain that a grievance has been filed, but also filing a lawsuit does a couple of things. It acts to draw more attention to the case to get it moving faster, pressures the company reconsider it's actions and re-instate the pilot, and draws attention from the FAA as to the safety culture at the airline. It has a strong chance of getting thrown out in court due to the grievance process in place, but it's worth a try.
From what I know of ABX from jumpseating on them and having friends that worked there, this is no surprise. They have a culture of pushing and beating on labor there. They always have.
Aesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 4796 posts, RR: 9 Reply 22, posted (9 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 6255 times:
Quoting kellmark (Reply 20): I am not sure that this is such a good strategy. Once everything is made public, it forces the company into a corner. They normally will now resist any and all attempts to resolve things.
On the other hand it's not a passenger airline so I doubt it'll get that much attention outside the aviation world.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
seabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 4277 posts, RR: 4 Reply 23, posted (9 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 6165 times:
Quoting kellmark (Reply 20): Once everything is made public, it forces the company into a corner. They normally will now resist any and all attempts to resolve things. By keeping things confidential in arbitration, both sides can speak to each other freely, and there could be the possibility of a settlement with the employee. But this would not normally happen after a public attack like this one, where they now are exposed to harmful publicity.
The company, not the union, first chose to take the matter public. Announcing something to all the employees of the company is functionally the same as taking it public. I think the union probably felt they had to respond publicly in order to adequately defend the employee.
Had they not announced the termination to all the employees of the company (which I think, strategy aside, was just a classless move), I would probably agree with you.
Most gorgeous aircraft: Tu-204-300, 757-200, A330-200, 777-200LR, 787-8
kellmark From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 670 posts, RR: 8 Reply 24, posted (9 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 5969 times:
Quoting seabosdca (Reply 23): The company, not the union, first chose to take the matter public. Announcing something to all the employees of the company is functionally the same as taking it public. I think the union probably felt they had to respond publicly in order to adequately defend the employee.
Aesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 4796 posts, RR: 9 Reply 25, posted (9 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 6027 times:
I wanted to comment on that point, because it's really the worrying part. Even if we take as a premise that the captain was in fact far too cautious and clearly wrong about the safety of the flight, announcing publicly that he was fired for being too cautious sends a message that is very bad and I don't see how someone could have thought this was a good idea unless they have no understanding on what is meant by "safety culture".
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
kaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 11957 posts, RR: 37 Reply 26, posted (9 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 5934 times:
Quoting wjcandee (Reply 10): According to it, Dispatch told the captain that the new alternate aiport, RJFR, was in the FMC database, and it wasn't. Maintenance had received an update to the FMC that included the airport ten days earlier, but hadn't loaded it because nobody told them it was urgent. JAL (the customer) wanted to start using that airport as an alternate because they have facilities there. Previously, they had used RJBB as the alternate. Captain was told Customer wanted to start using RJFR that night, and didn't want to offload freight to use RJBB. Captain asked if W&B would require offloading freight if used RJBB. Nobody knew. He asked if RJFF or RJFU were acceptable to JAL, so freight wouldn't have to be offloaded because they were closer. Captain was transferred to Captain Ezel (chief pilot?) who didn't want to discuss details and only wanted to know if he was refusing RJFR, and refused to help check whether other airports would be acceptable, as they were in the FMC. He was transferred back to dispatch and was told JAL said to use RJBB. Problem solved, one would think. No freight was offloaded.
Thanks for the summary and your post, which was superb; I was just trying to find out which airport was which, because I'm not that familiar with the ICAO codes: RJFR is Kitakyushu, RJBB is Kansai, RJFF is Fukuoka and RJFU is Nagasaki.
wjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 4557 posts, RR: 17 Reply 27, posted (9 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 5972 times:
I wish there was an easy way to post documents; I have the pdfs of the complaint and exhibits from the Court web site, but no easy way to provide them, and there is a charge on the court web site to link to them. I don't think they are copyrighted or anything, because in bankruptcy court the debtor usually hires a company to create a mirror site to provide access to the documents for free. Anyone who wants to pm me with an email address, I can send you the pdfs, because they are interesting.
seabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 4277 posts, RR: 4 Reply 28, posted (9 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 5883 times:
Thanks to wjcandee for sending the complaint and exhibits. In case there is any doubt, once filed in court, these documents are in the public domain and freely distributable. Here they are; have a particular look at Exhibit B.
wjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 4557 posts, RR: 17 Reply 29, posted (9 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 5852 times:
Thanks, SEABOSDCA!
I think that the ABX letter to the captain lays out its position pretty well. I will bite my tongue as to my opinion, but am eager to hear yours, as professional pilots and interested persons with knowledge of the industry.
One thing worth noting is that they state in essence that they concluded that he was just pissed that the alternate hadn't been loaded into the FMC and was going to hold the flight up for that reason.
I am also intrigued that they seem to have a culture and policy of dealing with captains that involves asking questions like, "So is the fact that the airport is not in the FMC the only reason that you do not accept that airport?" Pin them down. Pin them down. It's what I do for a living, but interesting that it seems to be their culture.
AmericanAirFan From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 397 posts, RR: 3 Reply 30, posted (9 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 5784 times:
SEABOSDCA thanks for sharing that!
I think what will play a huge factor in this case may all be seen in the last exhibit, exhibit I. Exhibit I is an except from the operating manual and it states:
"If the installed database is not appropriate or a "NOT IN DATABASE" message appears when entering route, notify Maintenance immediately; if time permits the correct database will be loaded. The preferred method of operation is to have the appropriate database installed. However to avoid delaying a flight, waypoints can be entered as LAT LON and the approach flown utilizing raw data for domestic operations ONLY.
Based on that excerpt alone it would not have been legal to fly a raw data approach at the alternate because it was not a domestic operation, and it clearly states in the ops manual that you can't fly a raw data approach if the airport is not in the FMC database and operating in a foreign country.
Looks like a lot of interaction on both sides. We will ultimately have to wait and see what happens to this pilot.
"American 1881 Cleared For Takeoff One Seven Left"
wjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 4557 posts, RR: 17 Reply 31, posted (9 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 5667 times:
Interestingly, haven't seen anything about this at pprune. Maybe I'm just not looking in the right place...
MCOflyer From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 8553 posts, RR: 14 Reply 32, posted (9 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 5485 times:
Can't a captain refuse to fly an aircraft due to fuel gauges being inoperable??
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19717 posts, RR: 56 Reply 33, posted (9 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 5360 times:
Quoting MCOflyer (Reply 32): Can't a captain refuse to fly an aircraft due to fuel gauges being inoperable??
Legally, a captain can refuse to fly an aircraft for any reason. That's not going to be very popular with the company, though. My policy is that if something is broken and it can legally be deferred, then I'll defer it in accordance with the established paperwork procedures and fly the flight (unless I really don't think it's safe). If it can't legally be deferred, I don't care how insignificant it seems, I'm not going (which might not be popular with the company if we cancelled a flight for a burned-out exterior emergency light, for instance, but that's what the regulations say and I'm not going to put my certificate in jeopardy just to appease some beancounter whose ability to continue beancounting is safe and sound). I don't know offhand whether the fuel gauges in the aircraft I fly are deferrable or not, but even if they were, I wouldn't want to fly with them not working unless we had some sort of procedure and training on establishing how much fuel was in the tanks prior to flying.
But this doesn't seem like a mechanical issue, it seems like a company policy issue. Those are the tricky ones, since nothing is technically broken, the only thing stopping a flight from going is words on a piece of paper. Apparently companies write down things they don't really mean, but then the regulators are going to apply the standard of what's written if something should go wrong.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
flyhossd From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 545 posts, RR: 1 Reply 34, posted (9 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 5151 times:
First, thanks to WJCandee and SEABOSDCA for the ability to see the documents.
FAR 91.3a is rather clear in my opinion and ABX's policy affirms that directive. Yet, IMHO, ABX has taken a position that is counter to the regulation and it's own policy. In essence, ABX is saying that we pay you to operate safely unless we disagree with your decision.
Is the pilot in command the "final authority" or not?
More than once in my career I refused an airplane or flight. The last time I did it was because of maintenance item which was legally deferred, but in my opinion, permitted an unsafe condition (the FO also refused the aircraft, btw). For refusing that aircraft, I received a disciplinary hearing (we completed the flight in another aircraft), but prevailed with the help of ALPA.
What part of FAR 91.3 (and others like 121.533d and .533e) allow the "certificate holder" to supersede the "pilot in command's" (a.k.a. Captain's) decision? Certainly, the Captain could be replaced and then it would be up to the new Captain, but that wasn't done here.
Firing a Captain for exercising his judgement and for conforming to FARs and policy is very chilling. Has the FAA become involved in this matter?
Quoting Mir (Reply 33): Apparently companies write down things they don't really mean
My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
wjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 4557 posts, RR: 17 Reply 36, posted (9 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4947 times:
ABX says that planning at the time figured they needed to dump 11,000 pounds. They dumped 16,000 instead. The aircraft took off, according to Plaintiff "14,000 to 16,000" underweight. Which really means 14,000 for our purposes. I think the key is that if they had a container with 2,000 lbs to pull off, they'd be right where they needed to be. My guess is that the container they pulled was either lower-priority, or the one easiest to get off without screwing up the W&B and having to move a bunch of containers around and thus taking a delay. It's a good point that they probably didn't need to pull off that much freight.
okie73 From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 427 posts, RR: 0 Reply 37, posted (9 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4894 times:
While I think the Captain valid concern to refuse the flight.....based on the excerpt from the ABX manual......I think he was a weak dick for doing so. He was not being asked to go into some remote airport in Kazakhstan where the accuracy of the charts may be in question and the skill on the controllers an unknown. He was asked to use an alternate in Japan, where the charts are very accurate and the controllers are very, very good.
Operating into and airport that is not the database is not that big a deal. If it is, the pilot should consider whether or not he/she is qualified to be a pilot at an international airline.
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19717 posts, RR: 56 Reply 38, posted (9 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 4864 times:
Quoting okie73 (Reply 37): While I think the Captain valid concern to refuse the flight.....based on the excerpt from the ABX manual......I think he was a weak dick for doing so. He was not being asked to go into some remote airport in Kazakhstan where the accuracy of the charts may be in question and the skill on the controllers an unknown. He was asked to use an alternate in Japan, where the charts are very accurate and the controllers are very, very good.
Operating into and airport that is not the database is not that big a deal. If it is, the pilot should consider whether or not he/she is qualified to be a pilot at an international airline.
Seriously? You're actually going to insult a pilot's abilities/courage/qualifications because he didn't want to do something that's not approved according to his operations manual?
It's not an issue of the alternate being remote in Kazakhstan vs. being in Japan. It's a matter of what the captain was asked to do being in violation of the airline's operations manual, which limits using airports not in the database to domestic (i.e. in the US) airports only. Whether or not it's a big deal to go to an airport not in the database is IRRELEVANT (and I can't emphasize that enough).
As a pilot, it's my job to know my operations manual, and what it allows and prohibits. It's also my job to abide by it. It is not my job to determine which sections of it I can disregard that day based on how big a deal I think doing something not approved is. The decisions on what goes into the manual are made by the higher-ups in the company, who have the benefit of being able to make them while sitting in a conference room with access to a huge amount of information to guide them in their decision, and with a vast amount of time in which to make that decision. I have neither of those things - I'm sitting at an airport on a pretty tight schedule, and I'm probably not aware of every issue that's been factored into the decision to prohibit something. Thus, while I might think that I should be able to do something, I have to trust that the people who have decided to tell me otherwise know what they're doing. Because the FAA is going to judge me based on that manual (which they also signed off on). It doesn't matter how safe I think a certain course of action is - if it's not approved in the manual, I could get in a lot of trouble for doing it. And so I won't.
You might call me a "weak dick" and question my qualifications to be an international pilot for making the decision to refuse a flight under those circumstances, but you should know that it wasn't me that made it. It was the company that made the decision to refuse the flight when they put that language into the operations manual. I am nothing more than their agent, faithfully making the decision that it is company policy to make when presented with those circumstances. If the company really wants me to fly international flights to airports not in the FMS database, maybe they shouldn't have prohibited it in writing in the first place.
If you believe what was talked about at a safety conference I went to last year, the aviation industry is concerned about a lack of professionalism in the pilot ranks. The attitude you displayed in your post is a prime example of what they're concerned about, and of what needs to be fought against by every pilot who aspires to the image that the flying public expects.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
airportugal310 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3070 posts, RR: 2 Reply 39, posted (9 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 4825 times:
flyhossd From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 545 posts, RR: 1 Reply 40, posted (9 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 4795 times:
Quoting Mir (Reply 38): Seriously? You're actually going to insult a pilot's abilities/courage/qualifications because he didn't want to do something that's not approved according to his operations manual...
...The attitude you displayed in your post is a prime example of what they're concerned about, and of what needs to be fought against by every pilot who aspires to the image that the flying public expects.
Excellent post! Bravo, Mir.
Quoting airportugal310 (Reply 39): Your attitude on these boards scare the bejesus out of me.
Seems like its the pilots way or the highway with you...
What's your background?
Regulations actually make the pilot in command (a.k.a., the captain) the "final authority" (see F.A.R. 91.3a and others). Yes, "final authority," not "in there somewhere, maybe."
My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
spink From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 148 posts, RR: 0 Reply 41, posted (9 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4737 times:
Quoting airportugal310 (Reply 39): Your attitude on these boards scare the bejesus out of me.
Seems like its the pilots way or the highway with you...
Since long long ago it has always been the captain's way or the highway/plank/parachute. This has been true on rail, on sea, and in air. At the end of the day, the captain is who is responsible for the train/ship/airplane. It was like this a 1000 years ago and it will be like this 1000 years from now.
wjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 4557 posts, RR: 17 Reply 42, posted (9 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 4697 times:
I think one key is this.
As Mir says, when something is DIS-approved by the operations manual, no manager has the authority to tell you to do otherwise, and the FAA may, years later, use that violation of the procedures in the manual to jack you. Accordingly, if the manual supports declining to do something, you decline to do it. Frankly, there are just too many accidents that take place because either the airline doesn't have a policy that prevents it, or because someone violates the policy. A policy on departures under certain wind conditions is an example often used by a buddy whose Dad was a check pilot for a Big Airline, and who is himself now a captain at the same Big Airline. Briefly, he's sitting at Outstation in the mountains. Winds are X. His company's manual prohibits taking off in wind conditions X. So they are sitting there. Because the manual prohibits it, they are not doing it. Because, as an airline, management and the FAA have weighed the risks and determined that the acceptable margin is X. The airline with Marge Simpson's hair on the tail taxis past. Their manual doesn't prohibit taking off in winds X. Their limit is Y. Just after rotation, they get hit with a Z-knot tailwind. My buddy watches as, in his words, "I was certain he was going to lose it." It was as close as he had ever seen in person. "Guess that's why we have that policy." Or something as simple as Korean Air crashing a perfectly-good airliner on the Xth attempt to land in shifting, basically-below-minimums conditions. Many carriers would typically have a policy in the manual that limits the number of attempts to Y. A policy made by people without "Get-there-itis" or worried about being called a "weak dick" like the dude above.
One reason that safety has been improved so much in the past decades is that discretion TO do something potentially-dangerous is taken away, and discretion is given to REFUSE to do something dangerous. Remarkable to me in some respects, but a bureaucratic, paper-driven system actually has worked pretty darn well at this.
I get that the management of an airline which had been savaged by DHL's abandonment of the domestic US market and which is desperate for business is petrified of losing the JAL contract and wants to do everything to please the customer, a customer which expects perfect service and is from a country where the subway trains run on a schedule, have a clock in the cars, and leave at the exact second they are supposed to leave. What they miss is that folks in that country screw up, too. But what they then do is lots of apologizing. LOTS of apologizing. ABX managers probably don't like to do this; probably nobody would. So, when they fail to load the database that they have had for ten days that includes the airport that they know the customer wants to fly to, they just expect that captain to deal with it. And maybe, in the moment, they think that the Captain was being uppity, that maybe they think he should have taken one for the team and he was a pussy for not doing so, and that other people would have sucked it up. That is my opinion of the tenor of their letter to him. But like I said earlier, this is the first step down the slippery slope that, to borrow an excellent phrase from another poster, lines up the holes on the swiss cheese.
In my opinion, ABX should never forget what should be the lessons from their loss of a DC8 and crew, a tragedy that never should have happened, and which happened in part because the crew didn't follow the stall-recovery procedure developed after a prior loss of control during an evaluation flight (and because some idiot thought it would be okay to do a stall test of a post-modification aircraft at night in IMC, where you have no visual cues...hey, the accident crew would have been weak-dick pussies if they had refused, right?). http://flightsafety.org/ap/ap_sept97.pdf
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19717 posts, RR: 56 Reply 44, posted (9 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 4646 times:
Quoting airportugal310 (Reply 39): Seems like its the pilots way or the highway with you...
If you reread the second-to-last paragraph of what I wrote, you'll see I believe no such thing. This wasn't the pilot's decision to make - the decision was made for him by virtue of the ops manual. If the company doesn't like what he did, they have only themselves to blame.
If I were in the captain's position, I might not even want to refuse the flight. I might think it's fine to insert the airport with lat-lon and do a raw data approach. After all, it's isn't the middle of nowhere. But I don't have a say in the matter - my manual says I can't do it, whether I like it or not, and thus my decision is made for me. How is that me insisting on having it my way?
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
wjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 4557 posts, RR: 17 Reply 45, posted (9 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 4585 times:
Just a little more food for thought. From the Flight Safety Foundation piece (at page 9), excerpting the NTSB report on the uncontrolled-flight into terrain incident:
"'ABX had no specific prohibition against conducting an FEF at night,' the report said. ' In addition, the pilots' direct supervisor, the director of training and standards, stated that he had conducted FEFs at night and that he would have approved the operation of the accident flight at night had he been asked by the flight crew.' [emphasis added]
"The report said, 'In contrast to this practice at ABX, procedures established by a major U.S. airplane manufacturer for the first flight after a major modification stated 'If a flight cannot depart on time to be completed by nightfall, then it should be rescheduled for the next morning.'"
Compare the comments in ABX's letter to the pilot, talking about how they operate regularly at night as a reason to discount the pilot's listing "night" as one of the factors which, taken together, concerned him. It's as if ABX is saying that "night" can never, in their view, be included in the collection of factors that may militate towards deciding that an overall situation is too dangerous, because ABX pilots have to be ready to fly at night. It's weirdly-illogical, and one has to wonder whether this culture affected the crew back in '96. The culture should be, in my view, "We fly a lot at night, so we need to be aware of the special dangers of flying at night, and go above and beyond to identify and train on those dangers, and not become complacent about those dangers."
Also note the parallel between the managment pilot back then saying, "Hey, I've done that, so it's no problem" to the System Chief Pilot saying the same thing here. Interesting. Personally, I don't think that a manager saying, "I've done that," should mean a damn thing in an evaluation of the safety of a particular circumstance. Indeed, the opposite should be true, and that's one of the premises that should be questioned. "Does the fact that I have done it without having an accident mean that I am not paying enough attention to the dangers that might be inherent in doing it?"
It was also interesting to see that a DC-8 was worth $21 million in 1996 (and in 1996 dollars).
PS I am truly humbled by the kind words I am receiving, particularly because of the respect I have for you. Thank you for your kind words.
PPS Not to be a jerk about it, but did the System Chief Pilot, in his (apparently-recorded) conversation with the fired pilot, confess to operating in violation of the Ops Manual and encourage his subordinate to do the same? [Or is the lat/long for domestic use only thing a red herring, and in fact if you have the paper plates, it's legal and you don't even need the lat/long entries on the FMC? It's outside my knowledge base.]
OB1504 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2967 posts, RR: 8 Reply 46, posted (9 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4310 times:
Quoting okie73 (Reply 37): While I think the Captain valid concern to refuse the flight.....based on the excerpt from the ABX manual......I think he was a weak dick for doing so. He was not being asked to go into some remote airport in Kazakhstan where the accuracy of the charts may be in question and the skill on the controllers an unknown. He was asked to use an alternate in Japan, where the charts are very accurate and the controllers are very, very good.
Operating into and airport that is not the database is not that big a deal. If it is, the pilot should consider whether or not he/she is qualified to be a pilot at an international airline.
Are you a pilot for an international airline, by any chance? I find it hard to believe (or rather, choose to find it hard to believe) that anyone in such a position would willingly disregard what's written in black-and-white in the airline's operations manual. I pray that I never trust my life to a pilot with that attitude.
Quoting Mir (Reply 38): It's not an issue of the alternate being remote in Kazakhstan vs. being in Japan. It's a matter of what the captain was asked to do being in violation of the airline's operations manual, which limits using airports not in the database to domestic (i.e. in the US) airports only. Whether or not it's a big deal to go to an airport not in the database is IRRELEVANT (and I can't emphasize that enough).
Had the captain gone ahead with the flight, ABX could've felt like being dicks and disciplining the captain for ignoring the text in the operations manual. Damned if you do, damned if you don't...
Quoting Mir (Reply 38): If you believe what was talked about at a safety conference I went to last year, the aviation industry is concerned about a lack of professionalism in the pilot ranks. The attitude you displayed in your post is a prime example of what they're concerned about, and of what needs to be fought against by every pilot who aspires to the image that the flying public expects.
Quoting spink (Reply 41): Since long long ago it has always been the captain's way or the highway/plank/parachute. This has been true on rail, on sea, and in air. At the end of the day, the captain is who is responsible for the train/ship/airplane. It was like this a 1000 years ago and it will be like this 1000 years from now.
If anything goes wrong, it ultimately rests on the captain's shoulders. Had this flight ended in an accident, the first thing most of would be doing is ripping on the captain (and rightly so) for violating his company's procedures. I always think about that whenever determining whether a flight is safe or not: "If something was to happen, what would the NTSB say about the pilot's contribution to the accident?"
flyhossd From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 545 posts, RR: 1 Reply 47, posted (9 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4189 times:
Quoting wjcandee (Reply 45): [Or is the lat/long for domestic use only thing a red herring, and in fact if you have the paper plates, it's legal and you don't even need the lat/long entries on the FMC? It's outside my knowledge base.]
That's a good question, but without the entire ABX Flight Ops Manual, we can't know the answer.
It may well be that it IS permissible to fly a "foreign" instrument approach with just the paper approach plates (or electronic flight bag).
Nonetheless, I find it particularly chilling that ABX places (as all carriers do) so much emphasis on safety, but when this Captain exercised caution, he was terminated for it. Is safety "Job 1" or not? The on-scene-manager (the Captain) is the person best in position to make that determination. If in his or her opinion, it's not safe, then it's his or her DUTY to not operate the flight (under those conditions).
Quoting Mir (Reply 33): Apparently companies write down things they don't really mean, but then the regulators are going to apply the standard of what's written if something should go wrong.
My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
wjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 4557 posts, RR: 17 Reply 48, posted (9 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3991 times:
Quoting flyhossd (Reply 47): Nonetheless, I find it particularly chilling that ABX places (as all carriers do) so much emphasis on safety, but when this Captain exercised caution, he was terminated for it. Is safety "Job 1" or not?
Agreed. I think the fact that they emphasize over and over in all their communications that "you caused freight to be unloaded" is a particularly bad thing if your culture is one of safety, because it means that safety is perceived as relative. I think it speaks volumes about the old ABX that this 27-year captain's initial response may have been along the lines of "Well, that's not really my problem..." when the issue of possibly not being able to carry all the freight was raised. THAT IS THE RIGHT ANSWER.
That the "new" ABX has pilloried the guy for that answer is, in my opinion, something that deserves some deep thought.
kellmark From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 670 posts, RR: 8 Reply 49, posted (9 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3843 times:
Quoting OB1504 (Reply 46): Had the captain gone ahead with the flight, ABX could've felt like being dicks and disciplining the captain for ignoring the text in the operations manual. Damned if you do, damned if you don't...
Now that we know that the manual expressly prohibits what the company demanded of the captain it goes against everything that the FAA says in their oversight guidance of air carriers, and that is basically that the company must have an "attitude of compliance" of the FARs , and approved company standards, policies and procedures. Policies like what we see here are in a manual which is approved by the FAA and no company official has the arbitrary authority to change that policy.
I would suggest that the Captain would have better served his interests by simply stating that he wasn't going to use that particular alternate because the company manual absolutely prohibits it in international operations without it being in the FMS. It is unfortunate that the freight was offloaded, but he cannot violate mandated company policies in the manual. There was a reason that the company put that policy in the manual, and no one can just change it.
All of the stuff about raw data and night and mountainous terrain operations and the inop fuel indicator is all good, but he didn't even need to go there.
wjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 4557 posts, RR: 17 Reply 50, posted (9 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3778 times:
Quoting kellmark (Reply 49): All of the stuff about raw data and night and mountainous terrain operations and the inop fuel indicator is all good, but he didn't even need to go there.
Absolutely right.
What is unfortunate, however, is that the guy was probably just being truthful about his decision-making process and why he though the quantum of factors militated towards using a different alternate, preferably one of the two he suggested that clearly wouldn't require an offload of freight.
Now we're expecting him to think like a lawyer instead of a pilot. Sad.
Remember, it was the customer that chose the alternate that was ultimately used, which was the same one that they had been using, which may or may not have required a freight-offload. They could have chosen one of two other alternates that were perfectly-acceptable to the captain. Question: if they are all basically taking the position that you're not going to need the alternate (which is really what this seems to be about), then why does anybody care whether there is JAL fuel, etc., there? If it's just a paperwork deal in the eyes of management, then who cares if you plan East Bumbleseed with one fuel truck as the alternate, as long as in the longshot case that you end up there, you can get out again? It's inconsistent. JAL could have just said, "Go ahead and use KXXX or KYYY", and there would have been no freight offload. Most likely the bureaucrats in JAL OPS were afraid to authorize those alternates in case they did get used; covering their own ass was paramount, and the freight offload would be on ABX.
MCOflyer From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 8553 posts, RR: 14 Reply 51, posted (9 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 3433 times:
I have high hopes that this Captain will win and/or retire with full benefits. There is more than enough evidence to support the Captains decision. This case, providing it wins, will no doubt have an impact on operations at ABX. I commend and thank members such as wjcandee and Mir for their imput. If this case looses, I still believe it will have an impact on aviation and operations at ABX.
Burkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4249 posts, RR: 2 Reply 52, posted (9 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 3422 times:
"including the assignment of an alternate airport not listed in the aircraft’s onboard computer database requiring the flight crew to manually calculate an approach, a lack of preparation time, marginal weather, and an inoperable fuel quantity indicator."
The first point I do not see, a pilot must be able to calculate an approach manually. Was the time to do so lacking? Or was he so used to have the computer do his work? Marginal weather - every day flights start in marginal weather. Is the fuel quantity indicator on the mandatory item list?
Up to now I have more questions than answers in this article...
planespotting From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3438 posts, RR: 5 Reply 53, posted (9 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 3407 times:
Quoting airportugal310 (Reply 39): Seems like its the pilots way or the highway with you...
Um, more like "it's the pilot's way or create your own crash investigation timeline ... "
Quoting wjcandee (Reply 42): like I said earlier, this is the first step down the slippery slope that, to borrow an excellent phrase from another poster, lines up the holes on the swiss cheese.
Yeah. Anyone who's ever had a "Human Factors in Aviation" class or attended a lecture or read a book on it will instantly think of swiss cheese just reading Exhibit B.
Quoting wjcandee (Reply 45):
"The report said, 'In contrast to this practice at ABX, procedures established by a major U.S. airplane manufacturer for the first flight after a major modification stated 'If a flight cannot depart on time to be completed by nightfall, then it should be rescheduled for the next morning.'"
And if an accident does happen and the private company's procedures are more lax than the manufacturer recommends, a jury is going to look at that and wonder what the heck the company was thinking ... then increase the $$$ in the judgement.
Quoting wjcandee (Reply 48): "you caused freight to be unloaded" is a particularly bad thing if your culture is one of safety, because it means that safety is perceived as relative.
Who's to say that if this situation was allowed to happen, the next time a captain had to call the chief pilot during the planning process due to alternate minima requirements and weight/balance issues, the chief pilot wouldn't just say "well, 2,000 pounds isn't really overweight by much - just change the manifest so that last pallet is 2,000 pounds lighter ...?"
Quoting kellmark (Reply 49): Now that we know that the manual expressly prohibits what the company demanded of the captain it goes against everything that the FAA says in their oversight guidance of air carriers, and that is basically that the company must have an "attitude of compliance" of the FARs , and approved company standards, policies and procedures.
And now isn't there a legal record/admission of the chief pilot disregarding the FOM (flying to a non-FMC entered airport outside the U.S)?
stasisLAX From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3267 posts, RR: 6 Reply 55, posted (9 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 3210 times:
Quoting 727forever (Reply 21): From what I know of ABX from jumpseating on them and having friends that worked there, this is no surprise. They have a culture of pushing and beating on labor there. They always have.
This issue become a clear problem when DHL took over ABX/Airborne Express.
Quoting wjcandee (Reply 42): I get that the management of an airline which had been savaged by DHL's abandonment of the domestic US market and which is desperate for business is petrified of losing the JAL contract and wants to do everything to please the customer, a customer which expects perfect service and is from a country where the subway trains run on a schedule, have a clock in the cars, and leave at the exact second they are supposed to leave.
This is SPOT ON! The crap that used to go on a the now-defunct "GlobalPort" DHL hub (aka March AFB) was exactly that - ABX management was scared to death of pissing off DHL executives, just like they're scared crapless of pissing off ANA and JAL management - because the company is hanging by a thread financially.
[Edited 2012-08-06 21:54:00]
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety!" B.Franklin
Or, more likely in this case, an out of work dick because the FAA took action against your certificate for operating out of compliance with your operations manual.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
FX1816 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 1400 posts, RR: 5 Reply 57, posted (9 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2958 times:
Quoting stasisLAX (Reply 55): This issue become a clear problem when DHL took over ABX/Airborne Express.
DHL did NOT take over ABX Air, they took over Airborne Express. ABX had split off to become it's own entity before the merger in 2003.
Quoting stasisLAX (Reply 55): This is SPOT ON! The crap that used to go on a the now-defunct "GlobalPort" DHL hub (aka March AFB) was exactly that - ABX management was scared to death of pissing off DHL executives,
Did you work at JIO, the hub at March ARB? If so please do tell about the crap that went on there, just an FYI though, I was there off and on from the opening in September of 2005 to October 2006 and then I was there full time from October 2006 to February 2008.
Hopefully it does work out for this captain though, I met alot of great people with ABX and even Astar during my time with DHL.
fxra From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 681 posts, RR: 3 Reply 58, posted (9 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2840 times:
I'll weigh in here and do some amateur lawyering . First, as far as challenging PIC authority/responsibility for the safe operation of flight is well codified and should be adhered to. That being said, I have dealt with airline captains who, for lack of a better phrase, seem "afraid to fly". Yes they are responsible, but call for some one in the chain of command to validate decisions and want that validation in writing prior to departure... which to me seems to abrogate the PIC responsibility.
Now, after reading, albeit not incredibily thoroughly, the briefs above, here's why the Captain can potentially lose this.
1. According to the Company Letter (Exhibit C), the company indicates at no time during the initial phone call did the captain say "unsafe". I assume that this dispatch office, like every other one in the US, records the phone conversations. If the company pulls the tapes and the Captain, throughout the conversation, does not mention safety then he's got a problem.
2. I'm suspicious of initial complaint where they quote FAR 121.537(e).... but not the whole statement. leaving off the "in compliance with this chapter and the operations specifications." part of the statement.It has been argued that the entire statement refers to the random breaking of rules of part 121 and/or the ops specs. An old dispatch joke a crew member reads FAR 121.189 "a) No person operating a turbine engine powered airplane may take off that airplane." and stops saying he can't fly the jet.
3. Violation of company operational procedures, ie the Aircraft Operations Manual (Exhibit I): According to the procedure in the exhibit, the language does say "and the approach flown using raw data for domestic operations only." Seems cut and dry. I would however like to see the proceeding pages to that one to see the section heading... there's little things like that in our AOM that can really change the context of the following sections. The second page of this exhibit looks like it was included to point out the warning section referencing RNAV SIDS/STARS.. which should be a non issue. I hope they aren't using that as support for his case.
4. The captains safety report is... well almost like justifying the decision after the fact with extraneous info. For example the concern over a wind shift. Why was he concerned? Does the wind often shift at unforecasted times in that area of the world? But wait, above that he said he had "limited flight experience int his region", that he is not "familiar with most of Japan's airways, fix names, navaids, locations...", and not familiar with "radar services available at RJFR". He really should have left this out of the write up. Sounds like they have a training issue for international operations at ABX and he's not familiar with his operating environment. And admits it in a safety brief that submits to the court. It almost sounds, to me, he's generally uncomfortable flying in Japan. From experience, Japan has an abundance of information available referencing navigation facilities, airport services, outages, etc.. almost overloading amounts of info.
5. The bumped freight issues. Total conjecture. but sounds like to carry the longer alternate they had to either add fuel or reduce the payload to have the fuel to make it back to RJBB. Depending on the fueler response time I can see just pulling payload to make it work. Or they may have well be under the max payload, but what about landing weights/take off weights for the additional fuel. I find it hard to believe the boxes were indiscriminately left behind.
If this goes to a court and further up the legal ladder, could change how far the PIC's authority can be set. The slippery slope was mentioned above. Can a captain refuse to operate a flight if there are no diet cokes in his catering? I'm not going to an extreme, I've had a captain refuse to depart until he had 3 diet cokes in cooler. Luckily $1.50 and a coke machine solved that fairly quickly, but he was quite adamant.
I won't even try to say how this will come out, but there's lots of room for the captain and the company to hang themselves.
Quoting wjcandee (Reply 50): Remember, it was the customer that chose the alternate that was ultimately used, which was the same one that they had been using, which may or may not have required a freight-offload. They could have chosen one of two other alternates that were perfectly-acceptable to the captain. Question: if they are all basically taking the position that you're not going to need the alternate (which is really what this seems to be about), then why does anybody care whether there is JAL fuel, etc., there? If it's just a paperwork deal in the eyes of management, then who cares if you plan East Bumbleseed with one fuel truck as the alternate, as long as in the longshot case that you end up there, you can get out again? It's inconsistent. JAL could have just said, "Go ahead and use KXXX or KYYY", and there would have been no freight offload. Most likely the bureaucrats in JAL OPS were afraid to authorize those alternates in case they did get used; covering their own ass was paramount, and the freight offload would be on ABX.
There's the concept of the "paper alternate". Put an airport on the release to satisfy the regulatory requirements. Any airport that fits the needs (runway length, distance from destination, approach facilities, etc...) can be used in a Supplemental operation. The destiantion airport can have 20 runways and severe clear weather, but you still need an alternate. We usually throw on the closest alternate available to satisfy the need (for instance for ZSPD I'd use ZSSS if available). But, from the FAA inspectors mouth.. "if that's a 'paper alternate', what's the real one?" I've found in past experience that Asian airlines who charter you can be very questioning of anything on the release they don't expect, often demanding explanation even when there was no issue with the operation. Not knowing the particular weather conditions for this operation, I will say that RJBB is a lot of really good airports away from ZSPD.
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19717 posts, RR: 56 Reply 59, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2746 times:
Quoting fxra (Reply 58): Yes they are responsible, but call for some one in the chain of command to validate decisions and want that validation in writing prior to departure... which to me seems to abrogate the PIC responsibility.
Not necessarily. If I come across a scenario in which I'm not clear if a certain ops manual restriction applies or not, I'm going to call someone in the chain of command to get clarification. I'm not looking to pass my decision on up the chain of command - my decision has already been made - I'm just looking to make sure that my decision won't be against the established company policy that management has expected me to adhere to. And if I am told something that directly contradicts what I read in the manual, then I will want it in writing, just for CYA purposes. I can't use the principle of PIC responsibility to explain a violation of the ops manual in a non-emergency situation to the FAA. In fact, that's what they'll use to hang me with.
Quoting fxra (Reply 58):
1. According to the Company Letter (Exhibit C), the company indicates at no time during the initial phone call did the captain say "unsafe". I assume that this dispatch office, like every other one in the US, records the phone conversations. If the company pulls the tapes and the Captain, throughout the conversation, does not mention safety then he's got a problem.
Does he have to? If what he's being asked to do doesn't conform with that's in the operations manual, whether it's safe or not doesn't matter. I can think of a number of things that I firmly believe are safe but that I'm not authorized to do.
Quoting fxra (Reply 58): Can a captain refuse to operate a flight if there are no diet cokes in his catering?
Does the ops manual say there have to be Diet Cokes in the catering? If not (which I assume is the case), then it becomes an issue of what requirements seem reasonable. I think the average person would agree that requiring Diet Cokes is not really reasonable, and thus I'd expect some disciplinary action for that captain if he made that call.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
Maverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 4744 posts, RR: 6 Reply 60, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2679 times:
As often happens, people are misinterpreting just what PIC authority is. It does not mean they cannot be questioned or held accountable for their actions.
Comparing a pilot not leaving without cookies to a pilot not leaving without a legal or comfortable alternate is worse than an apples/oranges comparison; apples and oranges are both fruits. The other two have little in common.
One must look at the specifics of the case to get the full story. For example, US Airways was recently granted an injunction barring the East pilots from taking certain work actions (like intentionally slowing down taxi times, and in one case, refusing to pull into a gate for nearly 30 minutes to make sure they arrived 15 minutes late).
In this case, the pilot appeared to have had legitimate issues with the flight, and management (as they so often do) decided to put the almighty dollar (or yen) in front of established procedures. That in and of itself is not unheard of, but what was particularly cruel was the very public firing of the pilot, intended to coerce other pilots in the company to do the company's bidding whether they like it or not.
DashTrash From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 1314 posts, RR: 4 Reply 61, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2607 times:
Quoting flyhossd (Reply 47):
Nonetheless, I find it particularly chilling that ABX places (as all carriers do) so much emphasis on safety, but when this Captain exercised caution, he was terminated for it. Is safety "Job 1" or not? The on-scene-manager (the Captain) is the person best in position to make that determination. If in his or her opinion, it's not safe, then it's his or her DUTY to not operate the flight (under those conditions).
All carriers put safety first until it has a negative impact on the operation or the ledgers.
Quoting kellmark (Reply 49): I would suggest that the Captain would have better served his interests by simply stating that he wasn't going to use that particular alternate because the company manual absolutely prohibits it in international operations without it being in the FMS. It is unfortunate that the freight was offloaded, but he cannot violate mandated company policies in the manual. There was a reason that the company put that policy in the manual, and no one can just change it.
Yes he would have, but hindsight is always 20/20. I've seen more than one arbitration go pear shaped in which the company blatantly violated the contract, but the pilot used the wrong verbiage or took the wrong action. Termination upheld....
Quoting wjcandee (Reply 50): Now we're expecting him to think like a lawyer instead of a pilot. Sad.
When you earn your fourth stripe you absolutely HAVE to think like an attorney. You have to know how to interpret the manuals and keep yourself out of trouble. There will be a time when you are at odds with dispatch and interpretation comes in to play. I've seen a captain get talked into taking an aircraft he didn't believe was airworthy, then violated when the company decided they were wrong about it and self disclosed. It happens. You have to CYA.
Quoting Burkhard (Reply 52): "including the assignment of an alternate airport not listed in the aircraft’s onboard computer database requiring the flight crew to manually calculate an approach, a lack of preparation time, marginal weather, and an inoperable fuel quantity indicator."
The first point I do not see, a pilot must be able to calculate an approach manually. Was the time to do so lacking? Or was he so used to have the computer do his work? Marginal weather - every day flights start in marginal weather. Is the fuel quantity indicator on the mandatory item list?
Makes no difference. It wasn't legal for him to do so.
Quoting fxra (Reply 58): Can a captain refuse to operate a flight if there are no diet cokes in his catering? I'm not going to an extreme, I've had a captain refuse to depart until he had 3 diet cokes in cooler. Luckily $1.50 and a coke machine solved that fairly quickly, but he was quite adamant.
WHat does the CBA say? If it says I'm entitled to 3 Diet Cokes every leg and this is the third flight in a row without them, I'm setting the parking brake until the damn things are delivered.
Diet Cokes are a poor example however. A better one would be a crew meal. My old airline was required to provide them if you didn't have a scheduled 45 minute break within 6 hours of duty. I've been told before come meal time that they were out, more were on the way, but wouldn't be available for another hour. I'd have to wait until I was back from the next round trip. I get back from that turn, guess what? Still no meals. Screw it. We're either delaying a flight so I can go inhale a taco or the company is getting me lunch before I spin an engine again.
Quoting Mir (Reply 59): Does the ops manual say there have to be Diet Cokes in the catering? If not (which I assume is the case), then it becomes an issue of what requirements seem reasonable. I think the average person would agree that requiring Diet Cokes is not really reasonable, and thus I'd expect some disciplinary action for that captain if he made that call.
Right on. Depends on the operation though. At NJA we would be expected NOT to fly without the catering, however it wasn't for crew consumption.
fxra From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 681 posts, RR: 3 Reply 62, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 2582 times:
First, i'm enjoy the discussion so I may or may not be, at times, taking the inverse argument of what I'd actually do in a real world situation. all for pure amusement and being, at times, devil's advocate. so...
Quoting Mir (Reply 59): Not necessarily. If I come across a scenario in which I'm not clear if a certain ops manual restriction applies or not, I'm going to call someone in the chain of command to get clarification. I'm not looking to pass my decision on up the chain of command - my decision has already been made - I'm just looking to make sure that my decision won't be against the established company policy that management has expected me to adhere to. And if I am told something that directly contradicts what I read in the manual, then I will want it in writing, just for CYA purposes. I can't use the principle of PIC responsibility to explain a violation of the ops manual in a non-emergency situation to the FAA. In fact, that's what they'll use to hang me with.
So, by getting a "CYA" letter, are you not attempting to abrogate the PIC responsibility? You've made a decision that this situation conforms to your interpretation of said manual. If the Director or Ops (or whoever) says "you're wrong move the plane" and you say ok, give me it to me in writing, you're attempting to move that responsibility to some one not PIC for that operation. In a "the director of Ops said it was OK" situation, you're gonna lose with the FAA. Seen it happen. It sounds that, as PIC, you want the authority to make the decision, but not the responsibility for the decision if it's wrong later. From my side of the phone, it happens with dispatchers too. Some harp on the "joint authority" aspect but when it comes to who's responsible, well.. "not it!".
Quoting Mir (Reply 59): Does he have to? If what he's being asked to do doesn't conform with that's in the operations manual, whether it's safe or not doesn't matter. I can think of a number of things that I firmly believe are safe but that I'm not authorized to do.
He doesn't have to. But reading the material presented (or skimming), it seems that the lawsuit is based on an after the fact decision. It sounds, and this is my opinion only, that he didn't express his concerns in the real time but after the operation decided it was "unsafe". Based on the material presented in the exhibits, he was totally in the right when it comes to operations manual references. Intuition tells me there's more to it than is being presented, on both sides.
Quoting DashTrash (Reply 61): WHat does the CBA say? If it says I'm entitled to 3 Diet Cokes every leg and this is the third flight in a row without them, I'm setting the parking brake until the damn things are delivered.
Diet Cokes are a poor example however. A better one would be a crew meal. My old airline was required to provide them if you didn't have a scheduled 45 minute break within 6 hours of duty. I've been told before come meal time that they were out, more were on the way, but wouldn't be available for another hour. I'd have to wait until I was back from the next round trip. I get back from that turn, guess what? Still no meals. Screw it. We're either delaying a flight so I can go inhale a taco or the company is getting me lunch before I spin an engine again.
Quoting Mir (Reply 59): Does the ops manual say there have to be Diet Cokes in the catering? If not (which I assume is the case), then it becomes an issue of what requirements seem reasonable. I think the average person would agree that requiring Diet Cokes is not really reasonable, and thus I'd expect some disciplinary action for that captain if he made that call.
I agree the diet coke example was extreme, but it's also something that has happened. No the CBA or Ops manual doesn't specifically state that. But, if Captain A says I can't have anything drink with sugar in it due to being diabetic and water isn't acceptable (in his mind) for an 8 hour flight, does he have justification? At what point does the concept of ultimate authority become questionable. (in this case it was an hour flight). My point is, while the PIC has the authority per the FAR, he/she may be called to answer for the decisions made. I think that's where some issues arise. The "Skygod" is long gone from aviation, for better or worse. I get the feeling that some captains are truly offended and get indignant when you ask them "Why?"
Quoting DashTrash (Reply 61): All carriers put safety first until it has a negative impact on the operation or the ledgers.
Unfortunately, this I have to totally agree with.
In hindsight, this all seems like there were lots of ways to avoid the issue going this far. Update the nav database. Tell the customer you have to use airport B as an alternate to carry the requested volume. it sounds at some point, egos got involved and no one budged.. and here we are.
Back to conversing with my friend Jack Daniel... tear away!
thegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2612 posts, RR: 0 Reply 63, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 2582 times:
Quoting DashTrash (Reply 61): I've seen more than one arbitration go pear shaped in which the company blatantly violated the contract, but the pilot used the wrong verbiage or took the wrong action. Termination upheld....
I'm very sorry to hear that. It speaks ill of both our society and justice system in the western world.
stasisLAX From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3267 posts, RR: 6 Reply 64, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2587 times:
Quoting FX1816 (Reply 57): DHL did NOT take over ABX Air, they took over Airborne Express. ABX had split off to become it's own entity before the merger in 2003.
Notice the slash between the two titles......
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety!" B.Franklin
flyhossd From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 545 posts, RR: 1 Reply 65, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2549 times:
Quoting fxra (Reply 62): So, by getting a "CYA" letter, are you not attempting to abrogate the PIC responsibility? You've made a decision that this situation conforms to your interpretation of said manual. If the Director or Ops (or whoever) says "you're wrong move the plane" and you say ok, give me it to me in writing, you're attempting to move that responsibility to some one not PIC for that operation.
It may not be a shifting of responsibility at all - but rather an authorization. If it's OK, then give me authorization in writing. I can think of incidents where "put it in writing" was requested, but somehow (amazingly!), the company's decision was reconsidered. Gee, you mean it wasn't OK after all...?
Quoting fxra (Reply 62): In a "the director of Ops said it was OK" situation, you're gonna lose with the FAA. Seen it happen.
Yes, that's the risk. So as a Captain, you have to ask yourself - even if the Director of Ops (etc.) says it's OK, what will our P.O.I. think? I can recall an example of a ferry flight that I refused - I stood my ground because I hadn't been trained for that situation. Other pilots refused it, too. Eventually, the Chief Pilot and a Check Airman did the ferry; when the FAA found out, violations were issued! I had refused it do to the lack of training (I had safety concerns), unbeknownst to me, it also violated our Ops Specs (thus, the violations).
I'm very grateful that part of my career is over.
My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19717 posts, RR: 56 Reply 66, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2493 times:
Quoting fxra (Reply 62): So, by getting a "CYA" letter, are you not attempting to abrogate the PIC responsibility? You've made a decision that this situation conforms to your interpretation of said manual. If the Director or Ops (or whoever) says "you're wrong move the plane" and you say ok, give me it to me in writing, you're attempting to move that responsibility to some one not PIC for that operation.
I can't be moving that responsibility, because I never had it in the first place. I don't get to make calls on following or not following the ops manual - that's the company's job.
Quoting fxra (Reply 62): It sounds that, as PIC, you want the authority to make the decision, but not the responsibility for the decision if it's wrong later.
Incorrect. I don't have the authority to operate contrary to the ops manual, except in an emergency, and I don't want that authority. What I want is the higher-ups to use their authority (which they have) to say that a certain flight is in compliance with the manuals, or to issue a waiver for the flight. That's their job. Once they've done that, then I can worry about my authority, which only extends to the conduct of the flight itself.
That way, should any investigation pop up, I can show that I wasn't overstepping the grounds of my authority.
Quoting fxra (Reply 62): No the CBA or Ops manual doesn't specifically state that. But, if Captain A says I can't have anything drink with sugar in it due to being diabetic and water isn't acceptable (in his mind) for an 8 hour flight, does he have justification?
The no sugary drinks thing is acceptable in my mind, the refusal of water is not. So I would say there is no justification for that.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
Maverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 4744 posts, RR: 6 Reply 67, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2356 times:
Quoting fxra (Reply 62): At what point does the concept of ultimate authority become questionable.
Ultimate authority only applies to the safe and legal operation of the flight. Diet Coke is not required for either of those (absent a doctor's note, which in such a situation I would hope would preclude one from obtaining a First Class medical anyways), therefore, the pilot has no expectation of immunity from discipline.
thegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2612 posts, RR: 0 Reply 68, posted (9 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2287 times:
Quoting Mir (Reply 66): What I want is the higher-ups to use their authority (which they have) to say that a certain flight is in compliance with the manuals, or to issue a waiver for the flight. That's their job. Once they've done that, then I can worry about my authority, which only extends to the conduct of the flight itself.
Interesting. So in this case, ABX could have issued a waiver for the manual condition and the decision would have fallen back to the captain? Sounds like he still would have been inclined to refuse the flight.
okie73 From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 427 posts, RR: 0 Reply 69, posted (9 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2243 times:
Quoting Mir (Reply 38): As a pilot, it's my job to know my operations manual, and what it allows and prohibits. It's also my job to abide by it. It is not my job to determine which sections of it I can disregard that day based on how big a deal I think doing something not approved is.
Ever waited til you got to a base to write up a maintenance problem? Ever held a little bit longer than you should have when you knew the weather was fine and you were going to be able to land? Ever turned on the beacon to block out even though the ramp agents were still loading bags because you knew they would be ready in a few minutes and you would be on time to the destination?
If you have never done any of these things then I question whether or not you are really a pilot. If you have done one or more of these things, then let's not argue about flying by the book. All pilots at one point or anorther bend the rules a bit to keep the operation running and do what's best for the customer as long as we can be safe. Let's face it, if pilots operated strictly by the book every airline would shut down, and you know it.
And if you can't safely operate into an airport without it being in the FMS database then you should not be a pilot at a major or international airline.
Maverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 4744 posts, RR: 6 Reply 70, posted (9 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2198 times:
Quoting okie73 (Reply 69): And if you can't safely operate into an airport without it being in the FMS database then you should not be a pilot at a major or international airline.
Great idea. Let's just pressure all these pilots into doing something that's going to cause them to be "helped" by the FAA at best, and at worst, plow it into a hillside.
You are clearly not a pilot, so don't go around telling lies like you know how it works.
MATURRO727 From Colombia, joined Apr 2004, 297 posts, RR: 0 Reply 71, posted (9 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2155 times:
Quoting okie73 (Reply 69): Ever waited til you got to a base to write up a maintenance problem? Ever held a little bit longer than you should have when you knew the weather was fine and you were going to be able to land? Ever turned on the beacon to block out even though the ramp agents were still loading bags because you knew they would be ready in a few minutes and you would be on time to the destination?
If you have never done any of these things then I question whether or not you are really a pilot. If you have done one or more of these things, then let's not argue about flying by the book. All pilots at one point or anorther bend the rules a bit to keep the operation running and do what's best for the customer as long as we can be safe. Let's face it, if pilots operated strictly by the book every airline would shut down, and you know it.
And if you can't safely operate into an airport without it being in the FMS database then you should not be a pilot at a major or international airline.
Well am a pilot (F/O actually) for a "major and international airline" and in the time I’ve been working for them I have never seen such things you mentioned above from any of the captains I’ve flown with nor hear that we had an incident because of that. And I am glad and it makes me feel that am working for a great company every time I hear from instructors, chief pilots, captains and even the management of the company that our 5 company values are the most important thing, being safety the number one priority. And am sure we are not the only ones, iv heard wonderful things about the competition as well. Sure, many times you’ll loose a client because they mostly don’t really get what’s going on behind the wide operation of an airline, for most of the passengers is just as simple as "why our flight to X destination is delayed by weather while the competition is taking off right now??" and let me tell you, i have seen it hundreds of times. Some other will understand that we do it for a good reason and ultimatly for their safety. The book is the book and what’s written in ink is your best friend, keep it simple adhere to it and you will stay out of trouble. At least that’s what many people have taught me in my so far short career as an airline pilot and it has worked so far.
DashTrash From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 1314 posts, RR: 4 Reply 72, posted (9 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2042 times:
Quoting okie73 (Reply 69): Ever waited til you got to a base to write up a maintenance problem? Ever held a little bit longer than you should have when you knew the weather was fine and you were going to be able to land? Ever turned on the beacon to block out even though the ramp agents were still loading bags because you knew they would be ready in a few minutes and you would be on time to the destination?
We've all done some of it (except that guy below). Most of us have carried something back to the hub. You know the reason why, and it's wrong. Held up a little longer than you should? I dunno about that one. Anytime I was in a hold dispatch and I worked out a fuel plan that had me heading to an alternate at a certain level. I always held to that if not bail a little sooner if I thought dispatch was wrong. Tripped the ACARS early? Didn't have ACARS, but yeah, I'd call the flight on time in a situation like that. Many reasons for it too. It helped keep a station out of trouble and starts the pay clock. If I'm going to be responsible for the pax back there with an APU turning I'm going to do my best to get paid for it. The airline getting the fake on time is a side effect. I'll let them have it.
Quoting okie73 (Reply 69): If you have never done any of these things then I question whether or not you are really a pilot. If you have done one or more of these things, then let's not argue about flying by the book.
There's by the book, and there's "what will get me violated?". Most of the time the stuff you listed up there will never get you violated.
Quoting okie73 (Reply 69): All pilots at one point or another bend the rules a bit to keep the operation running and do what's best for the customer as long as we can be safe.
You're correct. It comes with the "get it done" mentality that seems to be encoded into pilot DNA. It can be your own worst enemy as well and you have to know when to suppress it.
Quoting okie73 (Reply 69): Let's face it, if pilots operated strictly by the book every airline would shut down, and you know it.
Probably.
Quoting okie73 (Reply 69): And if you can't safely operate into an airport without it being in the FMS database then you should not be a pilot at a major or international airline.
This captain was being told by the company to violated the FOM, thus violating the FARs. I can literally guarantee you the company would have self disclosed the violation sometime down the road getting the pilot certificate action. He would not have been covered under an ASAP report as the violation was intentional. He had no choice but to turn that alternate down.
Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 70): You are clearly not a pilot, so don't go around telling lies like you know how it works.
He's got a decent grasp on how the system works, but little grasp on when to draw the line.
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19717 posts, RR: 56 Reply 73, posted (9 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1931 times:
Quoting okie73 (Reply 69): If you have never done any of these things then I question whether or not you are really a pilot.
Question away. I've done things that I later realize I shouldn't have done, but I don't look at that the same way as knowing something is wrong but doing it anyway.
Quoting okie73 (Reply 69): All pilots at one point or anorther bend the rules a bit to keep the operation running and do what's best for the customer as long as we can be safe.
I will go out of my way to provide good service for the customer. If I have to get creative, or put in some extra effort in planning or research to find a way to get the job done properly, I will gladly do it. But only within the limits I am allowed by the company, and by extension the regulators - the risk of certificate action just isn't worth it. I've put a lot of effort into making a career of this, and no one flight is worth jeopardizing that. If my company is going to ask me to do something that isn't in line with their policy, I want to know that they're going to have my back if the FAA should come calling (i.e. something in writing), and not just throw me to the wolves. I don't think that's too much to ask.
Quoting okie73 (Reply 69): Let's face it, if pilots operated strictly by the book every airline would shut down, and you know it.
Then the solution would appear to be rewriting the book in a manner that allows the airline to operate.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
flyhossd From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 545 posts, RR: 1 Reply 74, posted (9 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1872 times:
Quoting okie73 (Reply 69): And if you can't safely operate into an airport without it being in the FMS database then you should not be a pilot at a major or international airline.
So you're publicly advocating that a pilot intentionally violate company policy?
Quoting Mir (Reply 73): ...only within the limits I am allowed by the company, and by extension the regulators - the risk of certificate action just isn't worth it.
One violation that results in a suspension will cause an income loss far, far greater than the value of the one trip that generated the violation, not to mention the potential impact on safety. The risk is truly not worth it.
My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
mercure1 From French Polynesia, joined Jul 2008, 605 posts, RR: 2 Reply 75, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1655 times:
here were the METAR/TAFs for the dest/altn in question (via http://www.ogimet.com/metars.phtml.en)
Per paperwork it appears dept time was 1620Z 15JUN12. ETA 1820Z based on normal ETE?
DashTrash From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 1314 posts, RR: 4 Reply 76, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1594 times:
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 545 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2005, 793 posts, 
From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2612 posts, 
Best phrase I've heard all day. 
From France, joined Nov 2009, 4796 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 11957 posts, 
From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4249 posts, 
From Colombia, joined Apr 2004, 297 posts, 
From French Polynesia, joined Jul 2008, 605 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
