Allegiant fires pilot after ordering an emergency evacuation
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Queensland
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Municipal Dunny Man
Whatever information or instruction received over radio by the crew of an operating flight need not be acted upon by the captain if he can reasonably justify contrary choices. Where any instruction is received twice from an unidentified source, there exists substantial doubt about the authenticity when a callsign is reluctantly given on the third call.
If I had extreme doubt about the correct action, I might take some notice of information, regardless of the origin. Where the selected action is more obvious, It would be completely reasonable to ignore the particular calls as being just pure crap.
I am baffled about the sanity of company management who are sure going to be held to account!. I am reminded of a song:
"The municipal dunny dump was full up to the brim ..... The municipal dunny man fell in and couldn't swim ... And as he sank beneath the foam, you could hear the maggots cry .... There ain't no place like home" etc etc
Management seem a lot like this this bloke.
If I had extreme doubt about the correct action, I might take some notice of information, regardless of the origin. Where the selected action is more obvious, It would be completely reasonable to ignore the particular calls as being just pure crap.
I am baffled about the sanity of company management who are sure going to be held to account!. I am reminded of a song:
"The municipal dunny dump was full up to the brim ..... The municipal dunny man fell in and couldn't swim ... And as he sank beneath the foam, you could hear the maggots cry .... There ain't no place like home" etc etc
Management seem a lot like this this bloke.
Setting aside the probable criminal offence of transmitting orders aimed to confuse without proper identification or authority in an emergency of this nature, just what policy does this cowboy airline teach in simulator?
Assuming that they even DO simulator, surely they train crews to evacuate on the ground in the presence of smoke or fire?
As for a few ingratiate pax whining because the cabin crew yelled at them to get their miserable hides off the aircraft in case it blew up - you are fools to have flown with this mob in the first place, and bigger fools for not understanding why the cabin crew are really there.
So what these airline management morons are really saying to the Captain who took his years of training seriously, and acted on it in a real event is :" How irresponsible of you to risk minor injuries while conducting an approved and entirely appropriate procedure. You have brought unwelcome but deserved publicity to the airline so you are fired".
Perhaps CEOs and bean counters should write all aircrew training programs to reflect commercial priority over safety and try having the FAA approve them.
Assuming that they even DO simulator, surely they train crews to evacuate on the ground in the presence of smoke or fire?
As for a few ingratiate pax whining because the cabin crew yelled at them to get their miserable hides off the aircraft in case it blew up - you are fools to have flown with this mob in the first place, and bigger fools for not understanding why the cabin crew are really there.
So what these airline management morons are really saying to the Captain who took his years of training seriously, and acted on it in a real event is :" How irresponsible of you to risk minor injuries while conducting an approved and entirely appropriate procedure. You have brought unwelcome but deserved publicity to the airline so you are fired".
Perhaps CEOs and bean counters should write all aircrew training programs to reflect commercial priority over safety and try having the FAA approve them.
If that mysterious transmission was made by a fire truck or emergency
vehicle they should have clearly identified themselves as such and given the
reason for their recommendation not to evacuate.
And recommend is all they can do, the Captain is the ONLY individual
with final authority in an evacuation decision.
Since the transmitter never identified themselves I find it very unlikely
it was emergency services, why would they not do so ?
Seems a bit more nefarious to me
vehicle they should have clearly identified themselves as such and given the
reason for their recommendation not to evacuate.
And recommend is all they can do, the Captain is the ONLY individual
with final authority in an evacuation decision.
Since the transmitter never identified themselves I find it very unlikely
it was emergency services, why would they not do so ?
Seems a bit more nefarious to me
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Read the transcript:
2042:22 GC Be advised when you guys are making transmissions identify yourself first so everybody knows who's talking to who
2042:29 864 Yeah Allegiant 864 who's telling us not to evacuate
2042:34 Unknown Airport Command RF 2 I'm telling you not to evacuate yet
2042:37 864 All right
2042:29 864 Yeah Allegiant 864 who's telling us not to evacuate
2042:34 Unknown Airport Command RF 2 I'm telling you not to evacuate yet
2042:37 864 All right
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: EU
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aside from the discussion whether the evac was necessary or not, I would like to say to those who think: "captains decision, end of discussion" that is certainly true at the actual moment. However that doesn't mean that a captain cannot be held accountable for his/her decisions afterwards.
As a captain you have enormous powers on board but that doesn t mean it cannot be accessed afterwards...
As a captain you have enormous powers on board but that doesn t mean it cannot be accessed afterwards...
Golf,
No one I think is suggesting the Captain should not be held accountable, of course he should. But his accountability involves him making an informed decision as the Captain and not being instructed from the outside what to do.
No one I think is suggesting the Captain should not be held accountable, of course he should. But his accountability involves him making an informed decision as the Captain and not being instructed from the outside what to do.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unknown Airport Command RF 2 I'm telling you not to evacuate yet
I have met several such, in the UK and Middle East, who believe that they call the shots on what a Captain should do next, as opposed to offering information to assist a Captain, such as "Your starboard main landing gear is burning fiercely."
This attitude stems from the fact that so far as the actual fire-fighting, and rescue from inside the aircraft, are concerned, they are in command. But it takes careful training to make them understand where the Captain's responsibility ends and their's starts, and some never get it.
It is also possible that this person's behaviour was affected by his awareness, and maybe personal experience of the operational standards of the airline involved.
The company's decision to sack the Captain would seem to be on a par with its management standards, ie crap.
Last edited by Capot; 16th Nov 2015 at 09:07.
Quote:
"Unknown Airport Command RF 2 I'm telling you not to evacuate yet"
That sounds to me exactly like an RFFS Duty Commander (or equivalent) identifying himself as requested, ......
"Unknown Airport Command RF 2 I'm telling you not to evacuate yet"
That sounds to me exactly like an RFFS Duty Commander (or equivalent) identifying himself as requested, ......
I am in agreement with peekay4's post just a little further up. The convention used to list the radio transmissions could be improved by using some punctuation but I strongly believe it is indicating that the 'Unknown' person transmitting, not identifying themself, is telling 'Airport Command RF' to not evacuate yet, i.e. the transcript would be more clearly written as:
2042:34 Unknown: "Airport Command RF 2, I'm telling you not to evacuate yet."
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's not quite my take. The transcript is ambiguous.
"Unknown" could mean "we have no idea who that was (even now)", or, "we don't know who that was, at the time of the transmission".
But to me it's strange that someone unknown would be telling RF2 specifically not to evacuate the plane, rather than asking the pilots not to evacuate the plane.
So Capot's scenario seems more likely.
We're only seeing part of the picture here. "Various parties" have presumably interviewed RF2 in person, and others on the ground, to see what happened that day.
It's an easy question to ask: "hey RF2, was that you on the radio?"
This RF2 business is potentially a big weakness for the Captain's case in a jury trial. But as I mentioned before, I think Allegiant also made a series of mistakes (and have a huge PR problem) so it's in everyone's interest to settle.
"Unknown" could mean "we have no idea who that was (even now)", or, "we don't know who that was, at the time of the transmission".
But to me it's strange that someone unknown would be telling RF2 specifically not to evacuate the plane, rather than asking the pilots not to evacuate the plane.
So Capot's scenario seems more likely.
We're only seeing part of the picture here. "Various parties" have presumably interviewed RF2 in person, and others on the ground, to see what happened that day.
It's an easy question to ask: "hey RF2, was that you on the radio?"
This RF2 business is potentially a big weakness for the Captain's case in a jury trial. But as I mentioned before, I think Allegiant also made a series of mistakes (and have a huge PR problem) so it's in everyone's interest to settle.
RF2
Was RF2 actually at the plane and able to observe the interior conditions, or was he/she in the tower, or somewhere else observing via binoculars?
It was the captain's decision,and a good one IMHO.
It was the captain's decision,and a good one IMHO.
I have to disagree with you Capot.
I am in agreement with peekay4's post just a little further up. The convention used to list the radio transmissions could be improved by using some punctuation but I strongly believe it is indicating that the 'Unknown' person transmitting, not identifying themself, is telling 'Airport Command RF' to not evacuate yet, i.e. the transcript would be more clearly written as:
2042:34 Unknown: "Airport Command RF 2, I'm telling you not to evacuate yet."
I am in agreement with peekay4's post just a little further up. The convention used to list the radio transmissions could be improved by using some punctuation but I strongly believe it is indicating that the 'Unknown' person transmitting, not identifying themself, is telling 'Airport Command RF' to not evacuate yet, i.e. the transcript would be more clearly written as:
2042:34 Unknown: "Airport Command RF 2, I'm telling you not to evacuate yet."
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I strongly believe it is indicating that the 'Unknown' person transmitting, not identifying themself, is telling 'Airport Command RF' to not evacuate yet,
If an unknown person wanted to give a "command" not to evacuate, he would address that "command" to the Captain, not to someone in a fire truck. Telling 'Airport Command RF2' not to evacuate makes no sense whatsoever.
In any event, the conspiracy theory of some senior company person suddenly appearing on the airfield as this emergency took place, and then acquiring a radio on the airport's ground operations frequency, and using it to issue anonymous orders to the aircraft Captain just doesn't stack up.
My money's on a Fire Chief with a misunderstanding of his responsibilities and authority, which is not to say that he is not totally competent otherwise.
The Time Line
2042:03 864 Yes right here we're going to be evacuating
2042:05 RF 864 roger
2042:07 Unknown 864 hold off on your evacuation please
2042:13 864 Who said to hold off
2042:15 Unknown Yes please hold off on your evacuation
2042:16 864 Yes who is this
2042:22 GC Be advised when you guys are making transmissions identify yourself first so everybody knows who's talking to who
2042:29 864 Yeah Allegiant 864 who's telling us not to evacuate
2042:34 Unknown Airport Command RF 2 I'm telling you not to evacuate yet
2042:37 864 All right
2043:01 864 Allegiant 864 why do you want us to hold
2043:17 864 We need answer please why do you want us to hold on the evacuation
2043:27 GC RF 2 Command safety ground did you copy Allegiant's transmission
2043:36 GC Ops 1 are you on St. Pete ground
2043:44 GC Okay are there any emergency vehicles any of the RF vehicles on ground frequency
2043:51 RF3 Affirmative RF 3 on
2043:53 GC Okay RF 3 on Allegiant 864 is requesting why do you want them to hold on the evacuation they need an answer please
2044:04 RF RF 3 give me one second I'll contact the man on the ground
864 says "All Right" and waits 24 seconds before asking why they should delay.
Then, he waits another 16 seconds before asking again.
Another 47 seconds elapse until the end of this info.
That's a long time to wait if something is happening in the cabin.
2042:05 RF 864 roger
2042:07 Unknown 864 hold off on your evacuation please
2042:13 864 Who said to hold off
2042:15 Unknown Yes please hold off on your evacuation
2042:16 864 Yes who is this
2042:22 GC Be advised when you guys are making transmissions identify yourself first so everybody knows who's talking to who
2042:29 864 Yeah Allegiant 864 who's telling us not to evacuate
2042:34 Unknown Airport Command RF 2 I'm telling you not to evacuate yet
2042:37 864 All right
2043:01 864 Allegiant 864 why do you want us to hold
2043:17 864 We need answer please why do you want us to hold on the evacuation
2043:27 GC RF 2 Command safety ground did you copy Allegiant's transmission
2043:36 GC Ops 1 are you on St. Pete ground
2043:44 GC Okay are there any emergency vehicles any of the RF vehicles on ground frequency
2043:51 RF3 Affirmative RF 3 on
2043:53 GC Okay RF 3 on Allegiant 864 is requesting why do you want them to hold on the evacuation they need an answer please
2044:04 RF RF 3 give me one second I'll contact the man on the ground
864 says "All Right" and waits 24 seconds before asking why they should delay.
Then, he waits another 16 seconds before asking again.
Another 47 seconds elapse until the end of this info.
That's a long time to wait if something is happening in the cabin.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's a long time to wait if something is happening in the cabin.
Did he? What did the FAs told him? "All clear!"? or "Smoke is chocking us to death!"? Or did the Captain made his decision in isolation?
Just more parts of the puzzle we don't have.
The full facts might completely be in favor of the Captain. Or they may throw big doubts about his claims in front of a jury. We just don't know.
Lastly, this incident happened at the tail-end of a tough labor action from the pilots's union. Did that affect anything, e.g., Allegiant's perception of the incident?
Join Date: May 2010
Location: The blasted heath
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given what I have read I would also stand with the captain.
My own personal take on it is that after I stopped flying I worked on the ground.
The times 'upwardly mobile' ground personnel would attempt to influence/pressure/question decisions made by flight crew were legion.
It was luck that, in those days, there were sufficient people with enough knowledge to not let them get away with it.
Or, perhaps, to point out to them that their selfish decisions may later backfire.
My own personal take on it is that after I stopped flying I worked on the ground.
The times 'upwardly mobile' ground personnel would attempt to influence/pressure/question decisions made by flight crew were legion.
It was luck that, in those days, there were sufficient people with enough knowledge to not let them get away with it.
Or, perhaps, to point out to them that their selfish decisions may later backfire.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Lastly, this incident happened at the tail-end of a tough labor action from the pilots's union. Did that affect anything, e.g., Allegiant's perception of the incident?
Traditionally getting fired during contract negotiations opened a chance for a return to work through the bargaining process.
In years past, pilot contract negotiations would drag out for months and years under the arcane rules prescribed in the Railway Labor Act of 1926 (as amended).
Almost always, some of the rah-rah union rabble rousers would go out and do something stupid to 'stick it to the company' and get themselves fired. They 'knew' that they would get their jobs back when the new contract was settled. The union would call these folks 'hostages' and 'making them whole' would be part of the final contract settlement, usually covered in 'side letters' to the tentative agreement.
Inevitably, a few folks who had been fired for stuff that had nothing to do with contract negotiations would wrap themselves in the union mantle and claim that they were terminated in retaliation for their legally protected union activities. Sometimes they would successfully return to work with the other 'hostages'.
I remember a colleague who embezzled thousands of dollars with phony overseas kids' tuition bills coming back after a couple of years flying night freight and later retiring from an airline based near the Barbecue Kitchen. The airline VP of Ops was in the same Boat School class and that helped get Hank included in the contract settlement.
Another guy got caught lying about his simultaneous employment at two airlines and got fired at both. He was able to later claim that he was 'on the bus in 1985' with United and got one of his jobs back with 'adjusted' seniority.
Not sure how this will play out at Allegiant. Times have changed, the pilots are working on their first contract and this union is not noted for representing the best interests of pilots in my opinion.
Last edited by Airbubba; 17th Nov 2015 at 12:57.
Quite aside from the firing, the apparent issue of a "don't evacuate" command by RF2 brings up the issue of the possible conflict of authority between the Captain's Part 91 FAR authority and the authority of the Incident Commander of the ARFF response to a situation. Can something be learned from this incident relative to that?
TWB
TWB
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Age: 85
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dunny or Gongfermor
Hi,
Is your dunny song yours alone or is there a link to it. Google is silent. It is far too good to be left to languish in the hallowed pages of prune.
Best regards,
TGOP
Is your dunny song yours alone or is there a link to it. Google is silent. It is far too good to be left to languish in the hallowed pages of prune.
Best regards,
TGOP
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Quite aside from the firing, the apparent issue of a "don't evacuate" command by RF2 brings up the issue of the possible conflict of authority between the Captain's Part 91 FAR authority and the authority of the Incident Commander of the ARFF response to a situation.
§121.557 Emergencies: Domestic and flag operations.
(a) In an emergency situation that requires immediate decision and action the pilot in command may take any action that he considers necessary under the circumstances. In such a case he may deviate from prescribed operations procedures and methods, weather minimums, and this chapter, to the extent required in the interests of safety.
(a) In an emergency situation that requires immediate decision and action the pilot in command may take any action that he considers necessary under the circumstances. In such a case he may deviate from prescribed operations procedures and methods, weather minimums, and this chapter, to the extent required in the interests of safety.