View Full Version : SWISS: pilot fired for criticism

29th Aug 2003, 07:39
On the very same day Swiss announced it has to cut down on its network due to the lack of pilots (after firing 526 of them…) and dismissed a pilot of the regional fleet, because of the strong criticism he voiced within the Swiss Pilots Association.

It is not yet clear whether the criticism were voiced at the extraodinary general meeting of the Swiss Pilots Association on August 8th, a meeting attended by the Swiss Board member Walter Bosch, or if his dismissal refers to internal papers of the Pilots Union. The later would mean that Swiss is spying on its pilots.

However, the dismissal looks to many as being illegal, since no one is supposed to be fired for criticism expressed within the frame of Union's activities.

29th Aug 2003, 23:36
ettore....you say it's illegal?
Not only that, it is outrageous!

If what you say is true, and your 'union' is willing to stand by and watch then it has no right to call itself a union.

29th Aug 2003, 23:52
So we can't raise our concerns anymore by the looks of it for the fear of getting fired!

30th Aug 2003, 00:30
"The more things change, the more they stay the same"

Rumour has it that it was immediate termination for the "character damaging statements made in the FORUM of the Swiss Pilots Association", and directed at certain managers at SWISS. I gather the lawyers who are now involved, will be the real winners.

The Forum is an internal, union member only, and password accessed and registration required discussion forum on the internet at www.swisspilots.ch

It may not be the first time an airline pilot has criticised his/her management in a union forum, and probably won't be the last. But you have to remember this is a company called Swiss International Air Lines where management abuse and discrimination especially of ex-Crossair pilots is an art form and legally established fact.

Goodluck to the poor b*gger. It will be interesting to see if this nice bloke, loyal union member, and FOREIGNER is supported by his union.

30th Aug 2003, 01:53
I wonder if the Swiss managers went to the same school as Cathay managers?

Any peanuts involved?
Just curious.

Wanula Dreaming
30th Aug 2003, 03:13
Hmmm, reminds me of this (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=98770) thread.

30th Aug 2003, 05:45
It's really frightening. Did the management spied on the Pilot's forum or did a "yellow" member forward the thread to his boss, the very result is that anybody will now think twice before expressing his opinion on the forum. It's not only a case for lawyers, it's a case for anybody willing to defend the very fundamental right of expression.
Not to mention the fact that some remarks under the topic "safety" did in the past contribute to avoid further problems in an airline strucked by two deadly crashes in the past three years: will a self-censure forced on the pilots endanger more lifes at Swiss International Airlines?

30th Aug 2003, 08:42
There was a case with similarities at FedEx several years ago. A pilot's wife claimed she accidentally saw messages from Captain Claude Barnhart on a closed union forum. The messages were threatening to her husband in her opinion, she reported them to FedEx and "Barnie" was ordered to a psych eval. He initially agreed to see the shrink but later backed out and FedEx fired him. This was in the wake of criticism that FedEx didn't take a closer look at Auburn Calloway, the DC-10 hijacker after earlier incidents.


FedEx Letter Brings Libel Suit
by Jacqueline Marino

A FORMER FEDEX PILOT WHO WAS a vocal member of the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), is suing members of the current union for allegedly libeling him in a letter to FedEx management.

In a February 16, 1996, letter sent to CEO Fred Smith and other FedEx executives, one union member's wife asserted that Claude Barnhart, a 22-year FedEx employee, was "unbalanced," "mentally unstable," and harbored "a deep-seated malevolence," among other charges.

"This thing about labeling someone crazy. This is why there's no way I can get another flying job," Barnhart says.

Along with the letter, Barnhart says the woman sent FedEx executives copies of his CompuServe messages from an online forum of ALPA, the former pilots' union. In the colorful Internet messages, Barnhart derides some of his fellow pilots as "scabs" who crossed the "invisible picket line" after receiving a directive not to fly under certain circumstances from the national ALPA. In court documents, FedEx says the Internet messages were legally obtained.

In a previous lawsuit filed against FedEx in U.S. District Court last spring, Barnhart asserts the company suspended him without pay for communicating such pro-union sentiments. FedEx later fired him, he says, for refusing to submit to a psychiatric exam. Last April, however, a medical doctor said Barnhart was physically and psychologically competent to fly commercial jets.

In October 1996, the independent FedEx Pilots Association (FPA) unseated ALPA as the pilots' collective bargaining organization. The national ALPA angered many pilots in 1995 when it printed negative advertisements about FedEx in some national newspapers.

On Monday, FPA president Michael Akin said the organization had not formally received Barnhart's complaint, which was filed in Circuit Court February 13th. But Akin says he considers Barnhart's accusations "frivolous and without merit."

Barnhart seeks restitution on four counts altogether, for invasion of privacy, defamation/libel, and two counts of breach of contract. He has asked for consequential and punitive damages and attorneys' fees in excess of $31 million.

The suit against FedEx is currently pending. Spokeswoman Darlene Faquin says the company has no further comment.



See also: http://members.aol.com/BobKutchko/UnionPride/page68.html

Captain Barnhart never got his job back, looks like he's got a Stearman for sale: http://www.aviatorsale.com/aix1576/

30th Aug 2003, 09:02
Some guys never come to fully realise that to bite the hand that feeds them is never a really smart idea....sometimes the hand bites back:ooh: :sad:

30th Aug 2003, 17:52
Wasn 't DH by any chance?

30th Aug 2003, 18:06
No, a Saab2000 driver from Downunder who started a bit further back in 1999.

30th Aug 2003, 20:11
411A....A good union has the biggest bite of all. :E

Kaptin M
30th Aug 2003, 21:55
Talking about bighting the hand that feeds you, 411A, surely a prospective airline magnate such as yourself - btw, I see the original L1011/B727/B742 basing has switched from Hong Kong, to Indonesia, and now Subic Bay...anyway, I digress.
2,339 posts, 411A and still no Personal Title to assist Danny and his team in some small way.
There are users, and there are users.

Back to subject - he must have hit a raw nerve to have illicited that sort of knee-jerk reaction.
What was it he said?

A salary pays for services received, 411A - employers don't "give" things away, and their paying a salary doesn't guarantee employee loyalty.
That is earned by the way staff are treated.

Simply because you pay someone to do work, doesn't entitle you to their respect, nor mean that they have to like you.

30th Aug 2003, 23:27
No, my good Kaptin, they don't have to like the company, but if they want to continue eating, perhaps is best to keep opinions to ones self.

Many guys have lost sight of the fact that it is generally better to fly the bus and go home...and move elsewhere if the green fields have suddenly turned brown on their 'home' turf.

Oh, and to digress...you still ain't got it right...'tis CRK, and always has been.
And no union guys accepted, that's for sure. Far too many problems with 'em.

31st Aug 2003, 00:00
That, quite frankly, is [email protected] CRM. Keeping opinions to yourself encourages poor prantice to continue, and will one day lead to you, 411A, killing yourself.

In an ideal world labour economics allows movement of your work. Not now in today's job market, and with seniority and pensions to consider, it is a fantasy for labour to do just that. Don't talk about what you don't understand - it makes our lives easier.

It is your BS that leads to threads becoming unreadable rubbish, and of no information to the casual user.

Shut it.

Back to the subject, I assume that Swiss labout laws are fairly comparable with EU allowing him to make an attempt to regain his job or compensation?

31st Aug 2003, 00:12
Where exactly did you learn management 411A?

Many guys have lost sight of the fact that it is generally better to fly the bus and go home...and move elsewhere if the green fields have suddenly turned brown on their 'home' turf.

So zero employee input. That should work. I guess all that "Putting people first" is why Southwest, Jet blue and easyJet are such miserable failures.

Oh..but wait... they have real aircraft making real profits, not "Imminent" (for the last two years to my knowledge) operations of fantasy aircraft.

Kaptin M
31st Aug 2003, 04:46
From this topic on PPRuNe
comes the following:-

Swiss airline defends faulty maps for pilots

A Swiss airline admitted yesterday that inaccurate navigation maps were being supplied to its pilots, but insisted that passenger safety was not compromised. "Pilots have computers on board for navigation and they can call air traffic control," said Dominik Werner, spokesman for airline Swiss.

He was reacting to reports on the faulty maps in the Swiss Sunday newspapers Le Matin Dimanche and SonntagsBlick. The two papers pointed out printing errors for radio frequencies and guidance signals, approach angles and landing altitudes.

Peter Nussbaumer, a federal air accident investigator, had concluded that navigation maps had a direct relation to aircraft safety.

The spokesman for Swiss said there was absolutely no danger to passengers as a result of discrepancies appearing on maps to some European destinations, adding that the airline had no plans to rectify the errors.

Now you pilots had better keep your opinions about (the Safety issue of this) to yourself, according to 411A, who says, ".......but if they want to continue eating, perhaps is best to keep opinions to ones self."

And on another matter, 411, "Oh, and to digress...you still ain't got it right...'tis CRK, and always has been."..CRK is Clark AB, at Subic Bay, Phillipines. You had previously stated that your fantasy was going to be Indonesia-based, where CKG, Cengkareng, is one of the major airports.
"And no union guys accepted, that's for sure. Far too many problems with 'em." IF your fantasy were ever to become reality, 411, it is people like you who make forming unions a NECESSITY to protect the employee! :ok:

31st Aug 2003, 05:13
Kaptin M,

SFS, Subic Bay, Philippines
CRK, Clark (DMIA) Philippines

Looks like you were not paying attention in geography class.

Wiz & Lucifer,

Safety is one thing, company management style quite another.
The CX 49 found out first hand, and am not at all surprised that the outspoken critic at Swiss was from downunder...as they have plenty of experience sticking their foot in mouth.
The only thing missing were the peanuts...:ooh:

31st Aug 2003, 06:24
411A, you really are a piece of work.

I could almost fathom your benighted mentality while you simply insist that those unwilling to toe the company line should just quietly leave. Let's face it, that's the kind of schoolyard logic you've demonstrated in other threads.

However to hold up the 49'ers as an example of 'best management practice' and 'what is in store' for anyone who dares open their mouth...well, you are the reason unions exist, and you are the reason why they will continue to do so.

I do hope you meet your match and get what you truly deserve in the Phillipines.

31st Aug 2003, 08:44
Swiss Pilots Association's lawyer, Dr Stephan Suter is working on the file. SPA President Bieli rang some managers and talked over this matter with a Board Member. He reacted pretty pissed off - or pretended to - and promissed to look into this case.
I don't believe that any of the party is willing to go for another round of legal fight. No money left for lawsuits (on either sides), no time to waste before grounding the company.

Ignition Override
31st Aug 2003, 12:12
Airbubba: the "lady" you referred to, a Mrs. Dawn **a**, found the perfect timing to run to FEDEX mgmt and use her amateur psychiatric diagnosis (probably with her FEDEX pilot-husband's strong support), based on reading Internet ramblings from a pilot who called himself "Captain America", to persuade the company to find a scapegoat for the awkward FEDEX battle against ALPA. She used his nickname Captain America as part of her proof that the guy was dangerous, implying that he could be as psychotic as Auburn Callaway. Incidentally, according an article I read years ago in the "Wall Street Journal", one of their rabid anti-ALPA types challenged a pro-ALPA pilot to a fight with tire irons: a 'gentleman's sport'. Someone should have checked the macho guy for hydrophobia and rabies.

Whether Mrs. **a** (I know her real name: send e-mail if you want it) was sincere or not is difficult to answer, but it was very convenient that the allegedly "unstable" pilot was very pro-ALPA, and how about after the terrible, attempted takeover by Callaway? Never mind that the other guy, Barnhart, was NOT about to face a hearing (i.e. regarding a lie on his job application), as Callaway had faced before he "went postal". The guys who tried to introduce ALPA there, at that time with certain tactics, seemed to have assumed way too much about the political landscape, both within their company and the city, at least as much as Napoleon misunderstood the physical landscape at Waterloo, and how motivated certain Allied commanders were to get rid of Him.

A friend's ex-spouse flies certain aircraft there and apparently only a minority of FEDEX pilots trust good old Fred these days.

Flight Detent
31st Aug 2003, 15:39
Hi Guys,
Air Atlanta have been 'firing' flight crew members for years for speaking there mind, usually when they are faced with mindbending stupidity over and over again.
Some guys can handle the frustration, others 'explode' after several times down the same track, so to speak!


31st Aug 2003, 21:58
My God, am I happy to be working where I am !! My blood pressure is at a happy 110/60 and I don't have to fear m....s like 411A. We may have a few tarty managers but by God it would take until the rest of time to match you 411A !

Lucifer, unfortunatly for our Swiss friends, Swiss laws are far from kind to employees in cases like this and beside, it would be losing face now if they baked down. I'm afraid the guy's toasted.
Never heard of unfair dismissals like this within the EEC.............Come to think of it, I think Captain Clapson BA ( forgive me if I don't spell the name correctly ) was sacked in a rather bullish way.

1st Sep 2003, 09:36

Glad you are happy where you're at...so am I.

My first experience with a large international carrier was in 1977.
During the interview (for a direct entry Captain position) the big man himself (DirFltOps...SK Chan) mentioned that...."we know how to run the airline, so just please do it our way, and we'll all get along just fine."

Some of the best advice I ever received.

Some guys however, like to rock the boat.
Never understood why.:E

Kaptin M
1st Sep 2003, 09:50
411A, your Alzheimers is really taking over. From another topic written just a few hours earlier by 411 comes THIS gem, "...and the CrossAir guys wanting big aeroplane upgrades (even tho most wouldn't know what to do with a heavy jet if it bit 'em)...", who then goes on to state here, "My first experience with a large international carrier was in 1977 (for a direct entry Captain position)."
Sad...very sad. :(

1st Sep 2003, 10:16
Well my good Kaptin...that last post of yours might make sense to you, but sure doesn't to me.

But wait, maybe it does...? I think.

Large company...many aircraft (in this case, more than say, 25-30.
Larger than CX at the time, anyway.

Small company...less than 25.

Got the picture?

Burger Thing
1st Sep 2003, 10:22
Kaptin M, can you please enlighten us, what you mean? I just woke up, so I might be still a little bit blur, but even after being half way through with my coffee, your response to 411A was a little confusing to me. :\ :}

3rd Sep 2003, 00:22
Now I understand why swiss has fired another pilot unfairly just before official rdundency plan was declared. I was told the pilot was non-swiss. That guy should have contacted the union for such unfair treatments.

4th Sep 2003, 06:01
Any purpose to contact the union when they don't have money to defend their cases..... will it work for one member when 559 other pilots have been sold down the drain for a cheap package..... after the union had the trump card IN their hand...:yuk: :yuk:
If the concerned pilot is not a European passport holder, will the union do their best to put up a GOOD fight in his favour,....hhmmmmm ???
I have experience from this union NOT fighting for the foreign members.

So 411A, you are most happy when some-one else [email protected] all over you, you will keep your opinion to yourself... I wonder, so when the maps are inaccurate and ATC [email protected] on you, what are you gonna do??

Ettore ".....and promissed to look into this case.
I don't believe that any of the party is willing to go for another round of legal fight. No money left for lawsuits (on either sides), no time to waste before grounding the company"

That is my reason for the comment above.

Maybe a certain mr M.... B... can explain that he, in a public place, acknowledged that is his task to get rid of all foreigners in Swiss. That he will now deny, but word has got around to other pilots in this company and elsewhere, who are unknown to him!!!

4th Sep 2003, 06:21
How...you ask, 124.8?

Worked for a company a short time back that steadfastly refused to provide Eastern European Jeppesen enroute charts, even tho sometimes we received re-routing thru this airspace.
So....called Jeppesen in FRA and had 'em send me a few charts, for myself as well as others.
To Jeppesens credit they did so, without charge, especially when they found out that I subscribed to a Western USA coverage for my private aircraft.
All it takes is the effort to ask...not so hard, is it?

Oh, can hear it now....the company should provide proper charts.
Of course they should, but when they don't, there are other ways to obtain the proper documentation, without causing a confrontation with the airline.

Likewise, a year later, same company...#2 engine on one aircraft would not develop rated thrust. After many complaints and no action, uplifted the pax, departed at a lighter weight, and diverted enroute for more fuel.
After just one of these diversions, they fixed the engine.

It's called....CYA.

4th Sep 2003, 07:56
So you loaded up an aircraft with unsuspecting passengers, even though you knew the engine 'would not develop rated thrust'.

In other words, an engine that was incapable of producing full thrust? Is that what you mean sir?

If so, did you consider the consequences if the 'good' engine failed? Do you think an aircraft flying on one engine which cannot produce full thrust is capable of meeting the performance margins it is required to?

You appear to be prepared to do whatever is necessary to give yourself an easy life...including risking the lives of your crew and pax. Thats a pretty spineless way to live...not to mention stupid and deadly.

I hope my family and I never travel on an a/c you are responsible for. :oh:

4th Sep 2003, 09:00
If this story is accurate, Swiss have just cocked up in a grandiose manner. I guess bhe motivation levels of the Swiis staff are sky high when they know that criticism is gonig to be met in such a way. My only question is, was this guy over the top i.e. unfound allegations etc. in his criticism? If that is not teh case then firing a guy for criticising the company is a big mistake. Swiss should know that MBWA (managing by walking about) can lead to much better staff motivation levels, better staff performance and better profits for the airline. With the current attitude, if staff notice a loss making proceudre they will keep their mouth shut!

Wanula Dreaming
4th Sep 2003, 15:43
411A Oh, can hear it now....the company should provide proper charts.Of course they should, but when they don't, there are other ways to obtain the proper documentation, without causing a confrontation with the airline.
Hahahahaha! What planet are you from? What do you suggest? They should call 1-800-WX BRIEF? Carry (and pay!) for their own Jepessen? Likewise, a year later, same company...#2 engine on one aircraft would not develop rated thrust. After many complaints and no action, uplifted the pax, departed at a lighter weight, and diverted enroute for more fuel. After just one of these diversions, they fixed the engine.
Any suggestions ("Without causing a confrontation with the airline") here? Pay for your own mechanic, or a new engine?

Please tell me, what airline do you work for where this is the company philosophy? :confused:

4th Sep 2003, 22:33
Idunno, (an apt discription)

As you clearly know absolutely nothing about large aircraft performance, will endeavor to enlighten your limited knowledge (if possible, and will use simple terms).

1. Aircraft with a full load (360) pax, and required fuel to destination (plus required reserves) unable to depart limiting runway due to performance considerations.

2. In order to leave no one behind, uplifted fuel to airport short of planned destination (for refueling) and departed meeting all performance criteria.

Easily done by someone who knows what to do under the circumstances, so will exclude you from this discussion.

Wanula Dreaming,

It may come a a huge surprise to you, but a few carriers really have limited thinking with regard to required equipment (very seldom used maps/charts, for example) and as it is up to the Commander to be sure they are provided, did so.
At no cost, to myself and others.

If you think otherwise, well....you must really be Wanula 'Dreaming'.

Just noticed you are from 'lalaland', so can understand you limited knowledge.:ooh:

4th Sep 2003, 23:44
could someone from swiss shed some light upto which seniority were effected by this redundency ? I know some nice guys including former chief training pilots but getting no response from them, wondering if they are ok with job.

5th Sep 2003, 01:38
411A your original comment sounds like the kind of waffle that might ingratiate you with a dimwitted prospective employer during an interview, but this is not an interview and many of the people you are lecturing here are not 150 hour wannabes, and are thus neither fooled nor impressed by your bluster.

I'm entertained by your second post wherein you attempt to justify your act of lunacy but again only succeed in digging a deeper hole for yourself.

Planning a FUEL TECH STOP is not a new concept. You sound proud of yourself to have thought it up though. :hmm:

However the planning of a TECH STOP in order to allow departure from a (quote) 'limiting runway' in an aircraft with a dodgy engine unable to deliver full thrust, with a full load of pax on board...now that is a new one on me.
And all to avoid upsetting your equally looney employer.
I'm sure they'd have backed you to the hilt if you came a cropper, huh? Even if you crashed and killed your 360 pax?

I know there are places in the world where pilots feel forced to accept major deficiencies in the operation. Places like Africa or certain areas of South America and Asia. Third world countries usually, with third rate standards for everything.

411A, it takes a certain type of person to work in those kind of places. I've met people like you before. Someone who is willing to not only drop their standards to suit the 'local norm' in order to keep a job or ingratiate themselves, but to bend over backwards to do so, and to seemingly enjoy it (the 'let's keep the show on the road no matter what' brigade).

I've been in those places and I know what goes on.

However most of the pilots I met there had fallen on hard times, knew the operation was bullsh1t and knew the risks they were taking in such crummy jobs. They spent their days praying to get out alive and with their licence and livelihood intact. They certainly weren't happy with the situation (except for a few who went bush) and they certainly weren't the kind of guys who'd come on a website like this and crow publicly about the corners they had to cut, and risks they were forced to take to keep their irresponsible employers happy. They deserve sympathy.

You on the other hand seem to have no difficulty in compromising yourself, and even profess to make a virtue of it, and lecture the rest of your peers on their poor attitude in having a different (higher) set of personal standards. You deserve to be stripped of your licence (if you still own one).

You are welcome to your low standards, and you are an education to every young pilot reading this BB....how NOT to do it.

(PS The comments about my handle...getting sad and old. I guess irony is lost on you. You're a Yank aren't you.)

5th Sep 2003, 04:14
Idunno....(clearly the name fits:8 )

Unless you have been there (the carrier in question operated to JAA standards...or so they said) you really don't know what you're talking about.

Using derated (flex) thrust (even if it's all you can get from one engine) is nothing new. Weights are adjusted to fit the temperature/field length/obstacle/engine inop conditions that prevail at the time.

Do you really not know this?:ooh:

5th Sep 2003, 05:10
411A, I found your comment about derated thrust interesting.
Of course it's use saves fuel, engine wear etc., but at my airline
there are certain conditions that require max thrust, such as
tailwind, engine anti-ice,wet runway, windshear etc.
My question is if you know you have an engine that will not
produce max thrust,and you plan on a derated thrust takeoff,
what do you do if conditions change and you had already left the gate planning on such a takeoff?
Do you taxi back and tell the pax, or just go anyway?

Kaptin M
5th Sep 2003, 05:15
As Idunno commented in his previous post to you 411A, you attempt to deliberately - or out of genuine ignorance - cloud the issue by throwing in topics such as redispatch planning, and now derated thrust, to condone one of the most stupid, deliberate acts of unprofessional and irresponsible acts I have heard anyone voluntarily confess. And not only in the confines of somewhere where 1 or 2 others might be privvy but on a public website for the whole WORLD to read!

For the uninitiated, Take-offs using de-rated (flexi) thrust are done to try to extend engine life due to lower engine temperatures during take-off being achieved, by the use of less than full power, when the aircraft weight for the ambient conditions is less than maximum.
This de-rated power is a calculated setting, which in the event of FULL power being required [eg. partial or full failure of the other engine(s)] is possible.

In the case that 411A cites - "#2 engine on one aircraft would not develop rated thrust." - the degree of degradation is unknown, therefore the performance of the aircraft is not guaranteed.
His statement wrt the redispatch planning, that, in THIS case, the a/c "departed meeting all performance criteria.", is nothing short of deception, as this aircraft's performance was UNKNOWN, due to #2 engine delivering some power, the amount of which was UNKNOWN nad UNRELIABLE!

By your very own admission, 411A - "After many complaints and no action.......they fixed the engine.". You admit to taking a known, unserviceable aircraft and risking the lives of ALL on board through your STUPIDITY.
Knowing your character from previous posts, let me guess the TRUE scenario probably more went something along the following lines.
411A, a known bully, threatened the First Officer and F/E unless they agreed to accompany him on this flight of lunacy. It would be impossible to imagine that there would be 2 other idiots as well as 411A, willing to risk all, by flying an aircraft in this condition.
The redispatch flight plan, was no doubt forced upon 411A by the other 2 crew members, one or both of whom grounded the aircraft once it landed at its first tech stop, much to 411's chagrin no doubt. Did you try to have them sacked 411? It wouldn't surprise me in the least.

Thank goodness that someone who possessed the LACK of professionalism and airmanship is out of this industry. It is INDEED safer with your removal, 411A.

Fell free to respond, but it was YOU who cooked your own goose, with such an admission! :uhoh:

5th Sep 2003, 05:26
Clearly if you cannot/do not have the performance available for the encounted conditions, you cannot depart.
And, yes have taxied back to the stand on several of these circumstances, whether the company liked it or not.

On the other hand, do not think it prudent to strand an aircraft at an outstation, just because one 'wants too'...there are usually ways to make the best of a bad situation, and still be legal. Companies have a responsibility to maintain their aircraft properly, but if there is a condition that the Commander thinks is unsuitable, then parked it will stay.

Suspect that 'Idunno' is one of those elite types, where everything just has to be perfect....or back to the hotel.

Kaptin M,

Think you need to go back and revisit heavy aircraft performance. You have some very strange ideas.

Derated thrust for example.
When used properly, assures complete adequate performance in the event of an engine failure.
Been this way for a very long time. Long before even you.
Maybe you were asleep in class?

Suggest you leave the 'guessing games' for fortune tellers.:p

Wanula Dreaming
5th Sep 2003, 05:45
411A Using derated (flex) thrust (even if it's all you can get from one engine) is nothing new. Weights are adjusted to fit the temperature/field length/obstacle/engine inop conditions that prevail at the time. ...#2 engine on one aircraft would not develop rated thrust. Aha, so now you are calling it a "derated" engine. Since when do you derate/flex one engine only...? :rolleyes:

5th Sep 2003, 06:07

You don't dear boy, all of 'em.
In fact, done all the time when engine intermix is used, in accordance with the AFM.

Haven't flown a twin, so cannot speak about those.
Only a 3/4 engine heavy jet guy.;)

Although....been asked to fly a GIV, fancy clocks in those.:D

5th Sep 2003, 07:47
When operating in 3rd world environments you expect to find standards like 411A's, but its a sad state of affairs when a company like Swiss...which once had an untouchable reputation...is now dragged down to this level.
But that is what happens when a few bean counters lose the run of themselves and are given the lead by the likes of him.

I hope that the Swiss pilots union can see beyond any petty issues of nationality (if thats truly whats going on in their minds) and realise that if they don't defend each and every member against summary dismissal then it won't be long before those left behind will be living in fear of a similiar fate.

The only constraint on the nuts in charge of some companies is the pilots, who have the backbone to say STOP when necessary, and where they are empowered to do so by a Professional Association which will back them to the hilt.

When someone like 411A finally splatters himself and his passengers all over the landscape...try finding the managers and beancounters who helped him do it. You won't see them for dust.

411A, go teach your granny to suck eggs.

Kaptin M
5th Sep 2003, 08:29
Perhaps there is real ignorance of P charts, and their applications on the part of 411A, who perhaps UNKNOWINGLY was suckered in to taking an unserviceable aircraft on a revenue flight.
Had he had an accident, he - along with the other cockpit crew members - would have had their licences pulled, and the insurance companies involved (if any were, in what sounds like a shonky operation) would not have accepted liabilty.
Your ignorance of performance is highlighted, 411A when you post sentences such as"Derated thrust for example.
When used properly... " - the FACT being that YOU did NOT use "de-rated thrust"! You may have superficially applied what you guessed the de-rate may have been, however you were operating a degraded performance engine, the RELIABILITY of which was extremely suspect.

And again, 411A you trip over your own feet when, in response to Wanula Dreaming's question of using de-rated/flexi thrust, your response is, "In fact, done all the time when engine intermix is used, in accordance with the AFM."
In these special cases, the aircraft and engine manufacturers produce INDIVIDUAL P-charts, SPECIFIC to that operation only, for engines operating to known standards.
The situation which you admit to, in which you KNOWINGLY placed the lives of ALL on board at risk, bears NO resemblance to what you state above - which leads me to believe that perhaps you are GENUINELY ignorant of aircraft performance, 411A.

No-one of sane mind would admit - and then further, try to defend - the actions you have here, 411A. :sad:

Burger Thing
5th Sep 2003, 10:18
Well, if in 411A's case the engine was limited to a certain EPR or N1 setting, than you could use to my understanding indeed the performance charts to adjust your takeoff weight accordingly.

Have you haver hold a Jepperson Performance charts in your hand? If so, than it should be clear, what 411A was talking about. You can use derated thrust or Flex Thrust if circumstances and performances permits. Means: if your takeoff weight is below the Climb- or Runway limitation. You use the difference in weight to determine the amount of thrust (EPR setting) which can be reduced. That caters also for the case of an engine failure.

Our SOPs says in case of engine failure at V1: no action below acceleration altitude. Means: you don't touch anything. after that you set max con thrust, which is most probably lower than your derated thrust anyway.

So if 411A calculates the weight which he can safely lift with the EPR setting available (mostly the performance charts in conjuntion with SOPs give a greater saftey margin anyway) it makes perfectly sense to me.

Or do you do every Take Off with Full Thrust? Don't think so.

5th Sep 2003, 10:22
All actions accomplished in accordance with the graphs/performance data in the specific aircraft AFM, Kaptin M, something i'm sure by your comments, you are ignorant of...

Oddly, the asst chief Flight Engineer (ex CX) was onboard, and he did the paperwork. Very knowledgeable fellow, manufacturer trained in the specific aircraft type.:ok:


In the case of Swiss, suspect that the infighting of the flight crews/management will be to the detriment of all.:(
A rather sad state of affairs.

5th Sep 2003, 14:50

You're pushing it up hill I'm afraid.

The fact that a de-rated takeoff can be made doesn't mean that you can dispatch an aircraft which doesn't have

It's kinda like the life rafts. You may have no intention of using it, but it is a requirement to have it.

If you dispatched with an engine not capable of rated thrust, your actions were as un-professtional as others here are stating. If these are the standards you intend to impose on your new workforce, thank god you're carrying freight and not human cargo.

5th Sep 2003, 15:22
Sorry Wizofoz, quite wrong.
The regulations in use permitted same, consistant with performance limitations and airfield temperature.

No requirement to have more thrust available than meets those conditions. Nice to have of course, but not specifically required.
All clearly spelled out in the AFM, and approved by the regulatory authority concerned.
This is for 3/4 engine aircraft, don't know about twins, as I didn't fly those.

Kaptin M
5th Sep 2003, 15:50
But hang on a minute, 411A (I think your amnesia may be playing tricks with you, again), in your original post on this matter you boasted, "- "After many complaints and no action.......they fixed the engine.".

If the company had gone to the trouble and expense to have the engine tested, to determine its capability, and then have charts drawn up predicated on the tests, why would they bother to "fix" the engine?

Fact is, 411A, you made an admission earlier on that you took an aircraft with a sick engine on a flight. You are now trying to cover your ass.
I think you speak with forked tongue, 411, and that you`re making it up as you go along.

5th Sep 2003, 16:54
The following is a link to an article in the Swiss media ( in French ) that may provide some further light on the firing:


The Swiss pilots union board has called the dismissal illegal and has promptly provided legal support. The fired pilot via the union's designated lawyer has initiated action and is waiting for a first response from Swiss International Air Lines (SWISS).

As other contributors have noted, the driiver was allegedly dismissed without notice or discussion, and without reference to the union, for making damaging character statements directed at SWISS management. These statements were made on the pilot union internet discussion forum under a section/sub forum called: "Ask the Board".

It will be rather interesting to see what protection or rights individual pilot union members have in raising issues related to their welfare and directed against company, management or safety practices. The Swiss pilots union internet forum is an internal (intra union) facility and working tool. Its membership and use (viewing and posting) is only open to union members upon application, registration and then via password access. Postings can be made anonymously with psuedonym or with immediate recognition by use of company staff designated alpha code. It would appear that this driver stupidly took the open and transparent option instead of hiding behind anonymity within this closed union forum.

Anyone care to comment on Swiss laws on libel or defamation? Perhaps if SWISS management feel aggrieved they would be entitled to take civil action against the dismissed pilot and possibly the union subject to the union forum's rules and conditions for use, disclaimers etc.?

5th Sep 2003, 20:48
Hiccups, your last sentence hits the nail on the head. Not only can they dismiss the individual concerned, but if there was a proven 'libel' its quite likely they may sue the union and/or the individuals in charge of maintaining the BB as plaintiffs in that libel action. I hope they are fully indemnified!

There is often a dilemma with these websites whereby certain managers who are also nominally 'union members' retain full rights to access the union BB.

In my own company it is well known by all that the union BB content is downloaded on a daily basis by one such manager and passed 'upstairs' to senior management for review. This fact acts as a form of intimidation on the members, most of whom are afraid to make any kind of comment in case they raise their 'profile' on the management radar (our website does not allow anonymous posting).

In my view anyone gaining a management post ought to be required to resign from the union (a dog cannot have two masters) or at the very least should be blocked from any legal right to access the union BB. It won't necessarily stop the spying and tattle telling, but it can certainly make it less easy for the traitors in our midst.

5th Sep 2003, 20:50
It never ceases to amaze me how a topic involving 411A doesnt just creep in another direction, but goes there at full throttle!!!!! :)

Kaptain M, the procedure that 411 is talking about involves knowing that one engine is only capable of producing an EPR which is below maximum, i would guess that they then entered the EPR chart to find the corresponding temperature, this temperature would then be used as an Assumed Temperature for the takeoff weight, hence the requirement for the enroute technical stop. The complete takeoff calculation would be based on the lower EPR, there is no requirement for the crew to use maximum takeoff power following an engine failure.

Technically this is a procedure which we use everyday..... HOWEVER, this is the first time that i have heard of someone using it because of a sick engine. From a legal point of view, he based his takeoff using a derated thrust, which is perfectly legal.

Now would you please allow this topic to get back to the subject of SWISS. :)


Kaptin M
5th Sep 2003, 21:18
Please tell me the name of this "procedure", mutt.
You are talking, perhaps, of a procedure where engines are specifically de-rated to a KNOWN value.
This was NOT the scenario in 411A's case.

The situation 411A describes would mean that the manufacturer would need to produce 3-engined take-off charts for 4-engined aircraft, or 2-engined P charts for 3-engined a/c.
To the best of my knowledge, there ain't no such animal in existence, but 411A in conjunction with "the asst chief Flight Engineer (ex CX) " apparently decided between themselves that as the sick engine USUALLY delivered no less than say 80% T/O thrust, that that would be okay to use for their illegal flight.

"Hi-ho Silver"......talk about a cowboy operation!! :mad:

5th Sep 2003, 21:30
mutt, you should take your own advice and stick to the topic. Thats what I've tried doing, but you insist on digressing...so since you insist...here we go again, once more with feeling.

A) Flex (or reduced thrust) take offs are legal and common.
B) Taking off with an engine with a technical problem is neither legal nor common (IMHO).

Trying to rationalise (B) by applying (A) is self delusion.

There may have been some very good and clear reason why the engine was not capable of producing full rated thrust, but he doesn't tell us that. All he says is it couldn't. Given that bald fact any sensible pilot would think to themselves 'Why Not?'. Logically he would conclude that the engine has a technical/mechanical problem. That technical/mechanical problem might be trivial...or it might be catastrophic in nature (e.g. a potential for uncontained failure or fire).

Given the lack of facts about the problem, only a dumb shmuck or management toadie would put his life and licence on the line by opting to fly the thing.

Clear enough?

If you persist I can give you a detailed example of a lethal fatal accident caused by exactly this kind of engine indication symptom.

6th Sep 2003, 00:57
Kaptin M

Hmm, just to correct a statement about take off charts. I remember that we used to have three engine T/O charts for four engine aircraft (DC-8/ Viscount etc) and two engine charts for three engine aircraft. (B-727).

It used to be a requirement for Captains to demonstrate this skill on checking out on the equipment. Only management pilots performed this procedure later because line pilots considered it to risky.

These charts were used when ferrying engine out aircraft to a suitable maintenance base and were off course non-revenue flights.


6th Sep 2003, 01:10
Errr...Tan, he said he had a load of pax. 360 of them. Yes we've all heard of reduced thrust takeoffs, and yes we've all heard of engine out ferry flights. Any other excuses to offer?

6th Sep 2003, 02:31
You all seem to be forgetting one little thing.

What did the MEL/MMEL say?

If the book says it's OK and there's a procedure, then fair enough, you can go.

If it says nothing...you're in uncharted territory. Dangerous.

If it BANS takeoff....dohhhh! You don't go!

6th Sep 2003, 03:59
Ref 411a,
The man is an arrogant fool, always was. His departure, from the airline where he is presumably taking this quote from, was made unavoidable given his attitude and stupidity.They made the obvious choice and dumped him at the earlyst opportunity. I know I was there!
411a it is just this type of garbage and ignorance which has got you where you are, basically unemployed and unemployable. Except of course in la la pipe dream land, where you are a legend only to yourself.
In ref to your not flying aircraft anymore, this is definetly a good thing, judging by your total lack of appreciation for very basic performance principles and saftey of flight issues.
No aircraft in the world is presumed to be within AFM limitations if it is unable to generate full rated power as stated in the perf man for Alt.Temp. limits. This IS the "basis" for being able to do a derate, being that in the "event"..then you have the margin of full / GA thrust available after V2 is reached to meet your first second and third segment criterea "safely".
Firstly not knowing how much thrust was truely available negates this totally (idiot). Secondly the very fact that the engine was unable to generate the required full thrust value indicates a verifiable reliability issue with that engine. (dangerous idiot)
The fact that the aircraft is "able" to depart on flex or derate is neither here nor there, as your saftey margin is not there!
Your antics at air ice cream where well know and not appreciated by anyone, which is why your contract was never and will never be renewed.
I for one do not wish you well in any of your aviation endeavours as you are a total fruit cake and a dangerous one at that.
Please note any future employer or any one who has anything to do with this maniac that this opinion in well versed by anyone who knows this moron.

6th Sep 2003, 04:10
Errr..Idunno I wasn't commenting on the rights or wrongs of the discussion but merely correcting a misconception concerning a statement that was made.

You really should get out more...

6th Sep 2003, 07:54
Ah, here comes Flybob again, harbouring that long held resentment about his so called 'check/training experience' which the said company found to be without merit.
Nothing more can be said about that...sorry sport, didn't fly then, and won't now.

Mutt clearly stated the procedure used, and all quite legal (as pointed out) in accordance with AFM documentation.

The fact that some don't know about the procedure used, is irrelevant. Also not relevant is whether this particular procedure is used by others (it is, as Mutt pointed out), as conformity with other companies/regulatory authorities approval of procedures has no bearing on this particular flight.

The concerned regulatory authority approved, the company approved, and the pilots (except perhaps Flybob) approved.
Perhaps a few were too lazy :oh: to read the book, let alone understand same.

Kaptin M
6th Sep 2003, 10:28
I see the "edit" button has had a bit of a workout, 411A. For those who missed the original, non-professional act that 411A admitted to, here are a couple of the RELEVANT points around which this (subverted) discussion evolves,

"#2 engine on one aircraft would not develop rated thrust."
"After many complaints and no action.......they fixed the engine.".

411A is NOW trying to tell all, that the operation he carried out was just a normal, run-of-the-mill one, done with all of the correct performance charts, in which case it would have been no big deal.

Mendacity appears to perhaps be your best talent, 411A!

6th Sep 2003, 11:54
No edit necessary Kaptin M...and the operation carried out as reported.
But do keep guessing.:p
After all, why let the facts get in the way of your diatribe.:E

8th Sep 2003, 18:17
This thread has been dragged far enough off course by you 411A.

The thread started with the report of a pilot being dismissed for 'voicing his criticism' of management. All the guff about Flex take-offs is just a distraction.

Your response was: Some guys never come to fully realise that to bite the hand that feeds them is never a really smart idea.

Is it your opinion that anyone who raises their voice to criticise bad management should to be fired for it, or just that they can expect to be fired because of it? I'm not totally clear on your angle.

There is plenty of history to show that sometimes employees need to speak out against corrupt and unscrupulous employers. There is also plenty of history about the kind of illegal behaviour some companies will engage in to cover their guilt when exposed. This goes as far as murder in some cases!

The aviation industry is no different. It has had its dirty stories too. In particular I'm thinking of the Mount Erebus accident where NZ Air management actually burgled the dead Captains home to retrieve documents that were unfavourable to the attempted cover up of their own culpability in that accident.

Keep speaking out folks...it's your bounden duty!

8th Sep 2003, 23:44
Expect the possibility Maxalt....and have seen guys in the past talk themselves completely out the door.

16th Dec 2003, 06:34
After 4 months of silence, the Swiss pilot fired for posting his strong opinion about two Swiss managers in the supposingly closed and protected Swiss Pilots Association forum (therefore legally supposed to be a private sphere) is back in business, at least in the trade union's one, if not in a cockpit.

He just declared in the same forum that he is now running for the presidency of the Swiss Pilots Association. Sorry ladies, but that guy has guts, as shown below.

Better than my broken english, he few points extracted from his programm a pretty much telling.

"Key points” for the duty period (until March 2006) and how these goals should be achieved

*I personally promise and undertake to ensure that not a single SPA member is deserted by the Board and treated with the same unprofessionalism, disrespect and contempt that I have been subjected to in the last 4 months by this current retiring Board. The new Board can do better, and in fact must do better if it is to retain the support and confidence of the membership. The survival of SWISS PILOTS Association is at stake in this election.

*I will welcome a diverse Board with a variety of different skills and attributes. I will promote "Board Resource Management” and Team Work in the SPA within and outside the Board. By example I will seek to impose a professional and disciplined approach, and unlike the current retiring Board, I will not be afraid to hold individual Board members to account for their repeated failings to represent member interests.

*Promote and achieve timely and transparent communication with membership.

*Greater membership consultation and democracy through better use of existing forums including SPA Website, information meetings, and plebiscite/referenda/polling of members if major strategy and policy changes are contemplated and proposed.

*Respect diversity and genuine and constructive debate and argument, welcome and encourage member input, and to provide the membership with all available and meaningful and costed options.

*Commitment to professional Board behaviour and to treat all SPA members equally and to hold no personal grudge against individual members unlike the practice of the current Board.

*To promote a safe and healthy working and flying environment by working forthrightly and constructively with Aeropers, SWISS Flight Safety, Training, Flight Operations, Maintenance, Cabin Crew etc. etc. and the BAZL etc.

*To improve the use and output of Commissions and to make their work and membership more open and transparent.

*Work constructively with, and for, a safety minded, law abiding, fair and nondiscriminatory SWISS management, and where necessary highlight and hold SWISS management to account, all for the betterment of SWISS and the jobs and future of SPA members. Strive for industrial peace and undertake to cultivate and maintain a positive image of SWISS.

*Enhance the working relationship and increase joint action with other SWISS unions such as Aeropers, Kapers and Gata etc. to protect and support the interests of SPA members.

*To fight against RACISM and unfair discrimination within SWISS in all its forms.

*To immediately join SWISSALPA, IFALPA, European Cockpit Association, and the Oneworld Cockpit Crew Coalition and gain the benefits of joining with our worldwide professional aviation colleagues in our common interests.


Not bad for a guy who has been sacked from Swiss Airlines for simply telling is opinion (privately), and most probably because he simply is a foreigner, coming from a different culture than the Swiss one...

White Knight
16th Dec 2003, 19:05
very interesting read so far - I know 411a is out in Arizona but I didn't realise he was such a COWBOY:sad: :sad:

What no-one has pointed out so far is that if the engine is not capable of producing full rated thrust, then it's a SICK engine - that could just well go bang at a really bad moment....performance planned take off or not. It's an engine that needs engineering attention, maybe even by the manufacturers themselves.

Not a chance I'd let my family fly with people like 411a.

17th Dec 2003, 00:50
News on the progress regarding XY instant dismissal

Dear Colleagues

Due to the fact that the negotiations have not been terminated yet and that we are bounded by confidentiality SWISS PILOTS are not ready to commenting on the status of the ongoing case. I fully trust for the understanding of all members that SWISS PILOTS is also not commenting on certain statements within the application of our Member XY, which seem to be focused against the existing board.

Thanks for taking notice.

Felix Wirth

PS: would pros and contras 411A be kind enough to go an play elsewhere? This thread was opened and intented for a pilot who got fired for posting his opinion on the Swiss Pilots trade union forum about the management of the Swiss Airline. Not about flying an aircraft. Thanks. :E

17th Dec 2003, 00:54
Everybody (including cowboys) :

Hats off for this gutsy individual !!

PS. Putting 411a on your ignorelist is maybe a tip for you, White knight.

17th Dec 2003, 01:03
It is high time that all swiss pilots should act together to get rid of all the useless managers including Fredi Lu......before the ship sinks.Swiss has the highest number of VP and Managers that no airlines could afford.

17th Dec 2003, 01:39
What's the point firing managers? Swiss re-hires them as consultants and pay them three time better. See what happened with former LX-CFO Th... H...

He gets 3'600 Swiss Francs per day (I say per DAY) for ten days of work for SWISS per month. It makes 36'000 Swiss Francs a month, i.e. 432'000 CHF (280'000 euros) a year, as a consultancy fee – not as a salary – nota bene.

Isn't life at Swiss great?

By the way, while setting up the proper Aktiengesellschaft to lower the tax burden on his consultancy fee from 8,65% to 7,23% (the next «Kanton» has cheaper rates), there is another CFO at Swiss, Mr. Svensson, who gots fully paid for the job... So, what do you worry about? Obviously, there is still plenty of money to be burned there. Just help yourself as managers do.

Sorry for getting sarcastic about the issue. It's simply getting :yuk: :yuk: :yuk:

17th Dec 2003, 02:05
After reading this thread I would like to offer my thanks to all you idiots for providing such great entertainment. It's really sad how a threat can become playground for a bunch of kids who claim to be professional pilots. In future try to act your age rather then your IQ...Geeez!!!