A "seemingly-angry" United Pilot allegedly told his pax before departure that their 2-hour-delayed flight would encounter "horrific" storms en-route, including tornadoes.

He allegedly also told them that they should "get to know their neighbors", whatever the heck that was supposed to mean.

The plane ended up returning to the gate d/t a maint issue, the crew timed out, and it didn't take off for another 5 hours. So it didn't end up encountering storms in the end.

Apparently, a number of "freaked out" passengers got off when it hit the gate and demanded alternative transportation.

http://nypost.com/2017/08/24/pilot-frea ... o-warning/

If true, one wonders whether a frustrated pilot found a maint issue to avoid making the flight. It would seem, however, that if he was truly concerned about the conditions en route, he could decline to make the trip. I have seen plenty of accounts of pilots being pressured to fly in conditions they would otherwise reject, but the whole thing seems odd. I would love to see another account.

I can almost guarantee you the actual announcement was something like "sorry folks, were delayed due to severe weather including possible tornados at destination, yards yada yada".... "sorry we are frustrated to and might find out". Then a game of telephone ensued in the cabin where all of a sudden the "pissed of pilot wants to fly into tornados".

Jeez. Can you get hold of the writer of this article and tell him I have a beach front villa in the Sahara to sell if he is interested. Absolute nonsense that the pilot made those comments.

Could have had a breakdown.

Too soon to know.

N757ST wrote:

I can almost guarantee you the actual announcement was something like "sorry folks, were delayed due to severe weather including possible tornados at destination, yards yada yada".... "sorry we are frustrated to and might find out". Then a game of telephone ensued in the cabin where all of a sudden the "pissed of pilot wants to fly into tornados".

This is how I imagined it happened. People have a natural tendency to overreact, and even an innate urge, to overreact and hear what they want to hear , rather than what they actually hear.

Although the media has a tendency to exaggerate for the sake of ratings, I would not be surprised if this was truly how it happened. There was a female United captain earlier this year that ranted about politics, misogyny and her divorce while they were still parked at the gate. There were also a few other similar incidents, one with B6 I believe, so this is not too hard to believe. I guess we will see when a video surfaces.

A United pilot could fart in the wind and there would be an article somewhere on the internet about it.

"Hello ladies and gentlemen this is your captain speaking. Yeah we're going to be flying through a tornado and don't be afraid to see some lightning and severe turbulence. We're going to go ahead and turn the seatbelt sign on, sit back, relax and enjoy the rest of the flight."

SFOtoORD wrote:

A United pilot could fart in the wind and there would be an article somewhere on the internet about it.

...and the NY Post would be the first one to write about it.

The Onion is a more reputable news source

Gotta love the NY Post. at the end of the article there is "Related Video" (actual heading) and its of a snake on a plane of some airline somewhere.

This is why more and more pilots stay off the PA. Any safety critical info can be relayed through the FA's.

I saw this on a crew only FBook page a few days ago and literally LOLd. Unless a cell phone video of the diatribe pops up we can assume this accusation rests with someone p/o'd they didn't get ApologyMiles for a wx delay.

No pilot would make a public statement that indirectly questions their airmanship competency. If anything they tend to undersell en route turbulence as 'some light chop' as we hold on for dear life in the back.

If this actually happened, and there is no reason at this point to believe it didn't, than UA needs to apologize to all the passengers, offer a refund a revisit its policies on medical evals and psych evals. last thing you need is a lose nut like this actually flying a plane with a plane load of passengers.

United1 wrote:

SFOtoORD wrote:

A United pilot could fart in the wind and there would be an article somewhere on the internet about it.

...and the NY Post would be the first one to write about it.

The Onion is a more reputable news source

Its not only reported on the post. Plenty of other news outlets have also reported on this.

jumbojet wrote:

If this actually happened, and there is no reason at this point to believe it didn't, than UA needs to apologize to all the passengers, offer a refund a revisit its policies on medical evals and psych evals. last thing you need is a lose nut like this actually flying a plane with a plane load of passengers.

Guilty until proven innocent....Do you always believe the first thing you hear?

jumbojet wrote:

If this actually happened, and there is no reason at this point to believe it didn't, than UA needs to apologize to all the passengers, offer a refund a revisit its policies on medical evals and psych evals. last thing you need is a lose nut like this actually flying a plane with a plane load of passengers.

Maybe I'm just thick, but what's the problem with the announcement? Passengers deserve to know about bad weather. And "get close with your neighbors," while colloquial, isn't necessarily inappropriate.

wjcandee wrote:

A "seemingly-angry" United Pilot allegedly told his pax before departure that their 2-hour-delayed flight would encounter "horrific" storms en-route, including tornadoes.

He allegedly also told them that they should "get to know their neighbors", whatever the heck that was supposed to mean.

The plane ended up returning to the gate d/t a maint issue, the crew timed out, and it didn't take off for another 5 hours. So it didn't end up encountering storms in the end.

Apparently, a number of "freaked out" passengers got off when it hit the gate and demanded alternative transportation.

http://nypost.com/2017/08/24/pilot-frea ... o-warning/

If true, one wonders whether a frustrated pilot found a maint issue to avoid making the flight. It would seem, however, that if he was truly concerned about the conditions en route, he could decline to make the trip. I have seen plenty of accounts of pilots being pressured to fly in conditions they would otherwise reject, but the whole thing seems odd. I would love to see another account.

How exactly would a pilot "find" a mx issue to cancel the flight? You do realize that if he goes back to the gate with a mx issue, mx will be at the gate before it even reaches the gate to inspect the problem. What is the pilot going to do? Rip out the center console? The outlandish claims and guessing you make is laughable.

I concur with UAL763. People over react and dramatize. This is likely a ridiculous dramatization of a ho hum event.
My Brother was on a recent AA Eagle flight that was delayed due to a fuel leak from a vent in wing.
They had boarded but were sent back into the gate after the pilot announced the repair needed to be made with no one on the plane.
My Brother overheard a lady call her husband to report the plane was "not airworthy and would have exploded had we taken off."
"That leaking gas would have exploded the engines."
The Captain made no such announcement of exploding fuel or engines. For obvious reasons even if true!
AA switched equipment, re-boarded the same type aircraft and it operated with a 90 minute delay.
The same lady was seated near him and again was overheard her speaking to her husband "It looks like the same airplane so I hope it don't explode."
Add in a distinctive Southern accent for dramatization. Lordy I hope we don't burn and fall from the sky ya'll.
P.S. Not making fun of Southerners. A North Carolina boy here. Just sayin'.......

for someone who already saw an a320 of LATAM returning to gate because pilots suddenly decided they wanted fish in instead of beef, we can't rule out anything...

Get to know your neighbor means to find an activity to kill time like small talk with a stranger, not suggesting to find a companion to spend your last moments.

People are so sensitive nowadays.

B737Captain1980 wrote:

How exactly would a pilot "find" a mx issue to cancel the flight? You do realize that if he goes back to the gate with a mx issue, mx will be at the gate before it even reaches the gate to inspect the problem. What is the pilot going to do? Rip out the center console? The outlandish claims and guessing you make is laughable.

I suggest you mind your tone.

Then tell me you're actually a Part 121 Airline captain, because I can't imagine that somebody actually in the business would make a statement like that.

I just don't see a pilot even saying something like this over the PA. I am even more shocked this even made it to the news.

wjcandee wrote:

B737Captain1980 wrote:

How exactly would a pilot "find" a mx issue to cancel the flight? You do realize that if he goes back to the gate with a mx issue, mx will be at the gate before it even reaches the gate to inspect the problem. What is the pilot going to do? Rip out the center console? The outlandish claims and guessing you make is laughable.

I suggest you mind your tone.

Then tell me you're actually a Part 121 Airline captain, because I can't imagine that somebody actually in the business would make a statement like that.

Mind his tone? Unless you mis quoted a poster. I'm not sure what you are all twisted up about. Pilots don't just "find" MX problems to cancel a flight.

It does occur to me, now that someone has explained what "Get to know your neighbors" means, that the pilot could have been explaining the reason for expected delays on the ground, rather than the reasons for an expected inflight experience.

I have certainly heard the crew in the pointy end explain that the reason we're sitting here in the penalty box on the ground in sunny New York is that there are storms along our route and/or at destination that are so extreme that delays will occur, either because the destination airport is not receiving incoming flights d/t weather or ATC has only a limited bit of airspace through which to route flights. Sometimes descriptions like "violent thunderstorms with cloud tops to 60,000 feet" have found their way into descriptions that I have heard.

These were vivid descriptions of what's happening along our route that is preventing us from taking off, rather than vivid descriptions of what's happening along our route that we can expect to encounter once in the air. The "get to know your neighbors" is consistent with delay on the ground, not with a crazy expected flight.

As I said originally, I will be interested to see if we ever hear another account of what actually happened.

B737Captain1980 wrote:

wjcandee wrote:

A "seemingly-angry" United Pilot allegedly told his pax before departure that their 2-hour-delayed flight would encounter "horrific" storms en-route, including tornadoes.

He allegedly also told them that they should "get to know their neighbors", whatever the heck that was supposed to mean.

The plane ended up returning to the gate d/t a maint issue, the crew timed out, and it didn't take off for another 5 hours. So it didn't end up encountering storms in the end.

Apparently, a number of "freaked out" passengers got off when it hit the gate and demanded alternative transportation.

http://nypost.com/2017/08/24/pilot-frea ... o-warning/

If true, one wonders whether a frustrated pilot found a maint issue to avoid making the flight. It would seem, however, that if he was truly concerned about the conditions en route, he could decline to make the trip. I have seen plenty of accounts of pilots being pressured to fly in conditions they would otherwise reject, but the whole thing seems odd. I would love to see another account.

How exactly would a pilot "find" a mx issue to cancel the flight? You do realize that if he goes back to the gate with a mx issue, mx will be at the gate before it even reaches the gate to inspect the problem. What is the pilot going to do? Rip out the center console? The outlandish claims and guessing you make is laughable.

A pilot or a mechanic doesn't have to look hard for a MX issue I have worked the line as a mechanic for 30+ years and it never happened often I have seen pilots get out of flying in severe WX. I remember a DC-9 the female FO was terrified of taking that airplane back out they had such a bad ride coming in. Don't blame her but don't say it doesn't happen I am telling you I have seen it happen.

It seems like I'm the only one that has ditched the concept of "news" at this point. I suggest that everyone joins me. This is disgusting, but 6-foot tall infants who can't buy groceries or catch a flight without b**ching or moaning are ruining corporate identities. Do America a favor and don't support a bad cause by providing the CNN's and Buzzfeeds of the world with views. On a higher note, long live UA!

UAL777UK wrote:

Jeez. Can you get hold of the writer of this article and tell him I have a beach front villa in the Sahara to sell if he is interested. Absolute nonsense that the pilot made those comments.

Yup, got a lot of pranksters here.

gregn21 wrote:

It seems like I'm the only one that has ditched the concept of "news" at this point. I suggest that everyone joins me. This is disgusting, but 6-foot tall infants who can't buy groceries or catch a flight without b**ching or moaning are ruining corporate identities. Do America a favor and don't support a bad cause by providing the CNN's and Buzzfeeds of the world with views. On a higher note, long live UA!

Post of the day

"I'm not sure what you are all twisted up about. Pilots don't just "find" MX problems to cancel a flight."

Yes, they do. And sometimes the reasons they come up with are much more farcical than a MX issue. Bottom line is that crews sometimes do whatever they can to get out of flying a flight or trip. And if they do get out of it by ulterior means, and even if a flight cancels, rarely do they face any consequences for it.


Tchau

DA-

gregn21 wrote:

It seems like I'm the only one that has ditched the concept of "news" at this point. I suggest that everyone joins me. This is disgusting, but 6-foot tall infants who can't buy groceries or catch a flight without b**ching or moaning are ruining corporate identities. Do America a favor and don't support a bad cause by providing the CNN's and Buzzfeeds of the world with views. On a higher note, long live UA!

Is there a CNN or Buzzfeed link here? I see only the famously conservative NYPost.

But you chose to pick out CNN and Buzzfeed instead. Admitting to a bias yourself is not smart if you are trying to complain about bias in the media. Can't bring yourself to bash conservative media and their endless outrage of the day machines.

wjcandee wrote:

B737Captain1980 wrote:

How exactly would a pilot "find" a mx issue to cancel the flight? You do realize that if he goes back to the gate with a mx issue, mx will be at the gate before it even reaches the gate to inspect the problem. What is the pilot going to do? Rip out the center console? The outlandish claims and guessing you make is laughable.

I suggest you mind your tone.

Then tell me you're actually a Part 121 Airline captain, because I can't imagine that somebody actually in the business would make a statement like that.

lol are you serious?

stratosphere wrote:

B737Captain1980 wrote:

wjcandee wrote:

A "seemingly-angry" United Pilot allegedly told his pax before departure that their 2-hour-delayed flight would encounter "horrific" storms en-route, including tornadoes.

He allegedly also told them that they should "get to know their neighbors", whatever the heck that was supposed to mean.

The plane ended up returning to the gate d/t a maint issue, the crew timed out, and it didn't take off for another 5 hours. So it didn't end up encountering storms in the end.

Apparently, a number of "freaked out" passengers got off when it hit the gate and demanded alternative transportation.

http://nypost.com/2017/08/24/pilot-frea ... o-warning/

If true, one wonders whether a frustrated pilot found a maint issue to avoid making the flight. It would seem, however, that if he was truly concerned about the conditions en route, he could decline to make the trip. I have seen plenty of accounts of pilots being pressured to fly in conditions they would otherwise reject, but the whole thing seems odd. I would love to see another account.

How exactly would a pilot "find" a mx issue to cancel the flight? You do realize that if he goes back to the gate with a mx issue, mx will be at the gate before it even reaches the gate to inspect the problem. What is the pilot going to do? Rip out the center console? The outlandish claims and guessing you make is laughable.

A pilot or a mechanic doesn't have to look hard for a MX issue I have worked the line as a mechanic for 30+ years and it never happened often I have seen pilots get out of flying in severe WX. I remember a DC-9 the female FO was terrified of taking that airplane back out they had such a bad ride coming in. Don't blame her but don't say it doesn't happen I am telling you I have seen it happen.

I don't need to be scared of taking anything back out. If I see something that concerns me on the radar I'd be calling the dispatcher and sharing my concerns. After we both agree on a solution life goes on. Weather systems usually pass pretty quick. So many people on here dramatize every little event. Some of the best FOs I've flown with were females.

cvg2lga wrote:

"I'm not sure what you are all twisted up about. Pilots don't just "find" MX problems to cancel a flight."

Yes, they do. And sometimes the reasons they come up with are much more farcical than a MX issue. Bottom line is that crews sometimes do whatever they can to get out of flying a flight or trip. And if they do get out of it by ulterior means, and even if a flight cancels, rarely do they face any consequences for it.


Tchau

DA-

I too have heard pilots refuse aircraft for seemingly minor reasons. I say "seemingly" because what sounds like a minor issues to me (someone who is not a ATP rated pilot) may very well be an issue worth refusing a plane. Pilots have the final say as well they should. Pilots are people too who care about their own well being as much as any other person. While a delay or cancelation may be woefully inconvenient at times, it is better than ending up on the 5 o'clock news. Which is exactly what I tell myself when I encounter a delay or cancelation. I also don't believe there should be "consequences" for a pilot refusing a plane or a trip if the pilot(s) feel that the safety of the passengers, crew and integrity of the aircraft is at risk. Pilots are paid to fly, if a pilot is willing to forgo getting paid by refusing a plane or trip, I'd tend to believe they have a good reason for doing so.

77H

cvg2lga wrote:

"I'm not sure what you are all twisted up about. Pilots don't just "find" MX problems to cancel a flight."

Yes, they do. And sometimes the reasons they come up with are much more farcical than a MX issue. Bottom line is that crews sometimes do whatever they can to get out of flying a flight or trip. And if they do get out of it by ulterior means, and even if a flight cancels, rarely do they face any consequences for it.


Tchau

DA-

I have 14,000 hours of flight time, and I've flown FAR 121 for 14 years. I have never observed a crew "make up a MX write up to get out of flying".

There are standards by which every frame must meet. If a pilot finds something wrong with a jet, they write it up. There aren't exactly many things that can ground an aircraft that can be pulled out of thin air. Vibrations are about the only thing I can think of.

N757ST wrote:

cvg2lga wrote:

"I'm not sure what you are all twisted up about. Pilots don't just "find" MX problems to cancel a flight."

Yes, they do. And sometimes the reasons they come up with are much more farcical than a MX issue. Bottom line is that crews sometimes do whatever they can to get out of flying a flight or trip. And if they do get out of it by ulterior means, and even if a flight cancels, rarely do they face any consequences for it.


Tchau

DA-

I have 14,000 hours of flight time, and I've flown FAR 121 for 14 years. I have never observed a crew "make up a MX write up to get out of flying".

There are standards by which every frame must meet. If a pilot finds something wrong with a jet, they write it up. There aren't exactly many things that can ground an aircraft that can be pulled out of thin air. Vibrations are about the only thing I can think of.

You don't have to ground the aircraft, if a crew is close to timing out a minor mechanical issue can delay them out of time. I've seen it several times.

N757ST wrote:

cvg2lga wrote:

"I'm not sure what you are all twisted up about. Pilots don't just "find" MX problems to cancel a flight."

Yes, they do. And sometimes the reasons they come up with are much more farcical than a MX issue. Bottom line is that crews sometimes do whatever they can to get out of flying a flight or trip. And if they do get out of it by ulterior means, and even if a flight cancels, rarely do they face any consequences for it.


Tchau

DA-

I have 14,000 hours of flight time, and I've flown FAR 121 for 14 years. I have never observed a crew "make up a MX write up to get out of flying".

There are standards by which every frame must meet. If a pilot finds something wrong with a jet, they write it up. There aren't exactly many things that can ground an aircraft that can be pulled out of thin air. Vibrations are about the only thing I can think of.

Man, you've been lucky to be around an upstanding group. Perhaps you've spent most of your time working with only a single honorable captain, rather than serving every one in the fleet. Every airline I've worked for, come contract time the pilots start getting much more nitpicky. Placards that have started to fade - say, the landing strut inflation placard or the hydraulic reservoir replenishment selector valve placard - start getting written up. I've had colleagues who felt they were illegally displaced so their retribution was to write up so much stuff they hardly ever flew. They knew the little stuff that took the longest to fix, the trivial parts that weren't kept in stock, and so on. I've been on planes (CRJ) with so many transient faults that if you wrote up every one you'd do nothing but writing. SOP might require a writeup for every fault, but line reality is you learn to separate the signal from the noise and don't bother with the noise. Unless you want to 'stick it to the man'. Those tired old RJs are so beat up you could always find something to write up.

As an old time pilot, and current very frequent flyer, I have my suspicions as to what was actually said. Many have alluded to it, but here would be my guess:

"Ladies and gentlemen, we have been talking to air-traffic control and there are severe storms in our path and at our destination. We even heard a report of a tornado. Of course, your safety is our first concern, so we won't be leaving until we get the all clear. It may be a while, so you might take the chance to get to know the person you're sitting next to you."

N757ST wrote:

cvg2lga wrote:

"I'm not sure what you are all twisted up about. Pilots don't just "find" MX problems to cancel a flight."

Yes, they do. And sometimes the reasons they come up with are much more farcical than a MX issue. Bottom line is that crews sometimes do whatever they can to get out of flying a flight or trip. And if they do get out of it by ulterior means, and even if a flight cancels, rarely do they face any consequences for it.


Tchau

DA-

I have 14,000 hours of flight time, and I've flown FAR 121 for 14 years. I have never observed a crew "make up a MX write up to get out of flying".

There are standards by which every frame must meet. If a pilot finds something wrong with a jet, they write it up. There aren't exactly many things that can ground an aircraft that can be pulled out of thin air. Vibrations are about the only thing I can think of.

I'm at 12000 TT most of it 121 but it seems these guys are much more informed than we are on these scenarios even though they are literally talking to the same guys that are making these decisions Day to day. But it's the internet so....

Navy57 wrote:

As an old time pilot, and current very frequent flyer, I have my suspicions as to what was actually said. Many have alluded to it, but here would be my guess:

"Ladies and gentlemen, we have been talking to air-traffic control and there are severe storms in our path and at our destination. We even heard a report of a tornado. Of course, your safety is our first concern, so we won't be leaving until we get the all clear. It may be a while, so you might take the chance to get to know the person you're sitting next to you."

Lol the most believable post I've read on this thread this far.

The validity of this story is not an issue I care to try to address in this post.

I was just reading the posts as a way to get to know the members of our Community here.

The reason I am posting is because one member posted something like not wanting a pilot with a mental condition flying a plane with a load of passengers. Or something like that.

I'm afraid it stuck in my brain as I continued reading the thread and the thought that entered my brain wouldn't leave even as I got to the end of the thread.

You see, I wouldn't care if it were passengers or just empty space in the aircraft. If you have a fella or gal piloting any sort of aircraft and they are not right in the head, they can do harm with or without passengers.

By the way, I say that is also true of those drone things that folks can buy now. Those things can also be dangerous. And there ain't no human inside one of them.

That's all. Not even sure why I felt a need to post that thought.

A part of Command Training usually includes what to say and not to say when talking to passengers.

Things like "Cruising around unstable air" sounds much more comforting than "Dodging thunderstorms". The effect is the same, bumpy air with your seat belt on, but you'd likely be more relaxed. So, I'd be a bit suspicious that the United Captain really did relay the horrors mentioned.

I always recall many years in my past, the Captain saying we were "bucking a headwind". A few passengers in the noisy rear of the aircraft swore the Captain said "f**king headwind". (I added that to my list of things not said on the PA).