Allegiant fires pilot after ordering an emergency evacuation
Another confusing thing about the transmission
"Unknown Airport Command RF 2 I'm telling you not to evacuate yet"
is the use of the word "yet".
So, does the bloke want the evacuation to go ahead but not just at this moment or what? A nonsense and confusing call even if made with good intentions.
"Unknown Airport Command RF 2 I'm telling you not to evacuate yet"
is the use of the word "yet".
So, does the bloke want the evacuation to go ahead but not just at this moment or what? A nonsense and confusing call even if made with good intentions.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once you hear of smoke in the cabin the next image that comes to mind would probably be a 'flash over' fire. The transition from 'some smoke' to an inferno takes milli seconds and what would an outside observer be able to tell you if the fire was, say, in the galley?
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=f...FYWspgod-s8Kqg
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=f...FYWspgod-s8Kqg
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: North by Northwest
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another confusing thing about the transmission
"Unknown Airport Command RF 2 I'm telling you not to evacuate yet"
is the use of the word "yet".
So, does the bloke want the evacuation to go ahead but not just at this moment or what? A nonsense and confusing call even if made with good intentions.
"Unknown Airport Command RF 2 I'm telling you not to evacuate yet"
is the use of the word "yet".
So, does the bloke want the evacuation to go ahead but not just at this moment or what? A nonsense and confusing call even if made with good intentions.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Queensland
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What remedy?
Captain has set in place the only reasonable remedy for the extreme harm that has been caused to him. This is going to be really serious for the airline. There will be big $ involved A simple negotiated settlement, a public apology and with other confidential terms may not be enough to satisfy him.
Can anyone suggest the likely court settlement amount, based on any previous cases? Multi million figures comes to mind. The airline would possibly collapse due no insurance company would then be in a position to offer affordable premiums.
The only reason to accept a negotiated settlement might be so that his fellow pilots can make orderly exits from the company. Hopefully they are already doing that. I wonder if they will be replaced with pilots of substance who also understand responsibilities of command, or by weaklings who will wait until the pax expire next time.
It is clear that any offer involving re-employment would have to be unacceptable.
Can anyone suggest the likely court settlement amount, based on any previous cases? Multi million figures comes to mind. The airline would possibly collapse due no insurance company would then be in a position to offer affordable premiums.
The only reason to accept a negotiated settlement might be so that his fellow pilots can make orderly exits from the company. Hopefully they are already doing that. I wonder if they will be replaced with pilots of substance who also understand responsibilities of command, or by weaklings who will wait until the pax expire next time.
It is clear that any offer involving re-employment would have to be unacceptable.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Mosquitoville
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by autoflight
What remedy?
Captain has set in place the only reasonable remedy for the extreme harm that has been caused to him. This is going to be really serious for the airline. There will be big $ involved A simple negotiated settlement, a public apology and with other confidential terms may not be enough to satisfy him.
Captain has set in place the only reasonable remedy for the extreme harm that has been caused to him. This is going to be really serious for the airline. There will be big $ involved A simple negotiated settlement, a public apology and with other confidential terms may not be enough to satisfy him.
Even if Allegiant knows that they are playing for a settlement they will still stall for a few years worth of time while they set aside money to charge off in way to reduce impact on shareholders and reduce taxes. If any of us remember in a year or two you can go check the little fine print in the 10k or other SEC filings since they are required to disclose probable payments from legal actions.
Anyway back the incident itself... I am wondering what the deal is when the captain questioned why he should wait to evac and GC also repeated the call to answer that question and in 45 seconds they received no response. That same person was awfully quick to respond a minute earlier when they heard the captain say evac. I mean information like that is beyond frustrating. I can just imagine that the captain could really be on the fence whether to evac or not but with lack of info it's better to be safe on side so he starts to call it...but then, this unknown person chimes in and can maybe give the crew more info to help them guide their decision... So the captain asks why... he's asking for help (why shouldn't I do this)...and he even wants to know enough to wait quite a while for an answer while temporarily obeying the request. When no answer comes then that whole 60 seconds or more of precious time was completely wasted. After that I can easily imagine the -captain right after that is saying eff it to himself...out of frustration and in his mind immediately goes back to his prior action before the distraction...and now the crew may feel even more rushed now that they just lost another minute to evac... who knows... maybe with more time the evac could have been done more orderly and there would have been no or reduced injuries.
I really hope a follow up is done of this situation as a learning tool for air and ground crews. I mean what if this plane had ultimately burned up... the captain would be a hero there would be a witch hunt being done on unknown RF2...whoever that turns out to be... since the danger of what he did would be much more obvious.
Last edited by Sorry Dog; 17th Nov 2015 at 03:44. Reason: typo
I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned the possibility of the unknown transmission coming from some unauthorised person with a handheld transceiver?
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: antipodies
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Setting aside the rights and wrongs of this case , it seems that this situation (fire,smoke after setdown) is very serious and the person in the firetruck can see stuff tht the pilot cant. why is there not some SOP that does include getting this information to the captain in an organised and structured manner? I am not suggesting "dont evacuate" but some structured keywords to describe heat, where and threat level
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned the possibility of the unknown transmission coming from some unauthorised person with a handheld transceiver?
Please don't try to persuade us that a manager from the airline just happened to be hovering around airside watching the incident unfold, just happened to have a handheld on the right frequency, and decided to call himself Airport Command RF2 so that he could prevent an evacuation and save a bit of money at the possible expense of passenger and crew lives.
And if your theory is that someone else did it, who? why? etc etc.
It was someone from the RFFS, probably the Duty Commander or equivalent, aka Fire Chief, and my guess is that he said it just before getting off the truck at the scene, hence the words "he's on the ground" or whatever it was. From what he could see he probably thought it was justified, but he should not have framed it as an instruction which he was powerless to give, he should have offered it as advice, WITH REASONS. The word "yet" may have meant "I'm taking a closer look, hang on". None of which justifies the way it was done, but may well explain it.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In my seat
Posts: 822
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So why on Earth are the Allegiant crews still flying instead of refusing to operate until their colleage is reinstated and formal, public apology given?!?!
All it takes is one day of disruptions and management WILL succomb to crew demands. Especially for a thing like that.
It is the responsibility of the crews to insure that Management do not overstep their responsabilities and threaten the Safety of operation and chain of Command and Hierarchy.
it is YOUR DUTY AS OFFICERS TO STOP MANAGEMENT TO THREATEN YOUR COMMAND POSITION.
All it takes is one day of disruptions and management WILL succomb to crew demands. Especially for a thing like that.
It is the responsibility of the crews to insure that Management do not overstep their responsabilities and threaten the Safety of operation and chain of Command and Hierarchy.
it is YOUR DUTY AS OFFICERS TO STOP MANAGEMENT TO THREATEN YOUR COMMAND POSITION.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it is YOUR DUTY AS OFFICERS TO STOP MANAGEMENT TO THREATEN YOUR COMMAND POSITION.
What so many forget is that tomorrow it may be you. "Let's not rock the boat" is appeasement.
What so many forget is that tomorrow it may be you. "Let's not rock the boat" is appeasement.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I noticed the union is not representing the Captain -- he is suing Allegiant on his own.
The meat of the suit is very tricky. US FARs are regulations, not law. Only the regulator (FAA) can enforce FARs, and litigations normally go through the NTSB administrative law process.
A private individual cannot sue another private entity in a State Court on the basis of FARs, e.g., to enforce FARs or to allege interference with PIC authority under 121.533.
So many if not most the Captain's arguments in the civil suit may be thrown out by the Nevada court on the basis of jurisdiction alone.
Another complication is that Nevada is an "at will" employment state. Reading through the suit, I can't find any constructions to specific alleged violations of state employment law. E.g., there is no "Allegiant violated employment law under Nevada Revised Statutes xxx.yyy due to zzz", which is troubling.
The strongest part of his case might be for defamation, as Allegiant seem to have made some procedural errors when firing him.
The meat of the suit is very tricky. US FARs are regulations, not law. Only the regulator (FAA) can enforce FARs, and litigations normally go through the NTSB administrative law process.
A private individual cannot sue another private entity in a State Court on the basis of FARs, e.g., to enforce FARs or to allege interference with PIC authority under 121.533.
So many if not most the Captain's arguments in the civil suit may be thrown out by the Nevada court on the basis of jurisdiction alone.
Another complication is that Nevada is an "at will" employment state. Reading through the suit, I can't find any constructions to specific alleged violations of state employment law. E.g., there is no "Allegiant violated employment law under Nevada Revised Statutes xxx.yyy due to zzz", which is troubling.
The strongest part of his case might be for defamation, as Allegiant seem to have made some procedural errors when firing him.
My sneaking suspicion is that the RFFS radios are installed in the trucks and that when RF2 exited his truck to examine the scene from closer up, he did not have a handheld; so was out of communication with the pilots.
Somebody else in the truck was covering for his boss and did not want to say anything his boss would take offense over
Somebody else in the truck was covering for his boss and did not want to say anything his boss would take offense over
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Asia
Age: 62
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
phylosocopter: Setting aside the rights and wrongs of this case , it seems that this situation (fire,smoke after setdown) is very serious and the person in the firetruck can see stuff tht the pilot cant. why is there not some SOP that does include getting this information to the captain in an organised and structured manner? I am not suggesting "dont evacuate" but some structured keywords to describe heat, where and threat level
The actual communications are also cryptic, ambiguous and deficient in information. There is a tendency to rush RT communication during emergencies, but really only a few more seconds of talking can prevent significant problems.
Confirmed information is of critical importance in emergency response, but communication, and command and control confusion are common problems identified in debriefs.
It's not up to anyone outside to start OR stop an evacuation.
They can give vital information to the commander in order for him to make an informed decision BUT it will always be the decision of the Aircraft commander or his delegate to make any evacuation command.
End of story.
They can give vital information to the commander in order for him to make an informed decision BUT it will always be the decision of the Aircraft commander or his delegate to make any evacuation command.
End of story.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 71
Posts: 842
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At Will is not the defense you might believe it is
Caveat first: I'm not bothering to read the complaint. Or to go digging into Nevada case law.
Employment at will as a matter of state law, even in those states which hold it within the realm of the highest and most worthy of legal principles, is not a head-to-toes defense. As a prior poster impliedly noted, violation of any applicable employment-related law in effect "trumps" the at-will doctrine. More importantly for this matter, violation of a public policy (yes, that phrase is tricky to define) also is grounds to set the at-will doctrine aside. Thus, IF Nevada law indeed is the applicable law and IF it recognizes aviation safety rules as such a public policy, for example in the form of FAA regulations, the at-will doctrine will see lots of play in lots of ink spilled by defense lawyers, perhaps, but technically it is not a winning defense (that is, IF the pilot can show his actions consistent with the applicable safety rules).
Besides, the pilot retained a former highly-ranked FAA attorney. As a defense counsel, this would give me pause in assuring my client that much money will have to be spent (whether directly or through an insurer) on motion practice and discovery, prior to having to fish or cut bait ("settle", for the non-lawyers reading).
As for the wisdom of the pilot's actions, I'm deferring to the people who know what they're talking about . . .
Employment at will as a matter of state law, even in those states which hold it within the realm of the highest and most worthy of legal principles, is not a head-to-toes defense. As a prior poster impliedly noted, violation of any applicable employment-related law in effect "trumps" the at-will doctrine. More importantly for this matter, violation of a public policy (yes, that phrase is tricky to define) also is grounds to set the at-will doctrine aside. Thus, IF Nevada law indeed is the applicable law and IF it recognizes aviation safety rules as such a public policy, for example in the form of FAA regulations, the at-will doctrine will see lots of play in lots of ink spilled by defense lawyers, perhaps, but technically it is not a winning defense (that is, IF the pilot can show his actions consistent with the applicable safety rules).
Besides, the pilot retained a former highly-ranked FAA attorney. As a defense counsel, this would give me pause in assuring my client that much money will have to be spent (whether directly or through an insurer) on motion practice and discovery, prior to having to fish or cut bait ("settle", for the non-lawyers reading).
As for the wisdom of the pilot's actions, I'm deferring to the people who know what they're talking about . . .
Last edited by WillowRun 6-3; 18th Nov 2015 at 00:07. Reason: clarity, mostly
Most likely the eminent lawyer is retained on a contingency fee. Lawyers don't take cases on contingency unless they think there is a much better than even chance of collecting 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Rennes
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Allegiant had better hope that its lawyers do manage to get the case dismissed on procedural grounds. Because if it gets anywhere near a jury, Capt. Kinzer is going to be the next owner of the airline.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... and IF it recognizes aviation safety rules as such a public policy
A couple of years ago there was a similar case where a Captain of a cargo ops was fired because he requested a different alternate for safety reasons. That required more fuel and offloading of some cargo. Management wasn't happy and fired him.
The Teamsters brought a wrongful termination civil suit on behalf of the Captain before Federal Court on the basis of public policy and PIC authority under FAR 91.3. The U.S. District Court threw out the case on jurisdictional grounds.
You can bet one of the first filings from Allegiant will be a Motion to Dismiss for the same reason.
The case was Airline Professionals Association, Teamsters Local Union No. 1224 v. ABX AIR Inc.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 71
Posts: 842
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
peekay4
Just a couple of points, since the subject has been opened...
First, the ABX case was filed in federal district court in Ohio. Although efforts to locate the case report failed, even without reading it, if the court applied any State's law, it surely would have been Ohio law, not Nevada. The point is, the place of refusal to violate safety rules, as a public policy exception to the at-will doctrine, varies by State. As noted earlier, the forum isn't the place for briefing Nevada law, but I can say the result under Ohio law would not be controlling.
Second point, the facts of the ABX pilot employment termination (even disregarding the different State law) were quite distinguishable from the key fact here - smoke in the aircraft, and an emergency evacuation. While the pilot in the ABX case plainly did rely upon safety concerns to justify his exercise of authority, at least from the news reports surrounding the termination and the union's lawsuit, there is no indication that an emergent situation confronted the PIC.
There is a further technical point about whether a dismissal for failure to state a claim is jurisdictional - actually it is not - but by now, I'm entitled to at least a few "you get paid by the word" digs, I suppose (actually, also not so).
First, the ABX case was filed in federal district court in Ohio. Although efforts to locate the case report failed, even without reading it, if the court applied any State's law, it surely would have been Ohio law, not Nevada. The point is, the place of refusal to violate safety rules, as a public policy exception to the at-will doctrine, varies by State. As noted earlier, the forum isn't the place for briefing Nevada law, but I can say the result under Ohio law would not be controlling.
Second point, the facts of the ABX pilot employment termination (even disregarding the different State law) were quite distinguishable from the key fact here - smoke in the aircraft, and an emergency evacuation. While the pilot in the ABX case plainly did rely upon safety concerns to justify his exercise of authority, at least from the news reports surrounding the termination and the union's lawsuit, there is no indication that an emergent situation confronted the PIC.
There is a further technical point about whether a dismissal for failure to state a claim is jurisdictional - actually it is not - but by now, I'm entitled to at least a few "you get paid by the word" digs, I suppose (actually, also not so).