United flight canceled after upset pilot refuses to fly

[Airbubba]

Posturing before the inevitable next round of furloughs and pay cuts, United ALPA is bringing management to their knees by refusing to wear their hats.


United flight canceled after upset pilot refuses to fly

By Roger Yu, USA TODAY

United canceled a flight from Salt Lake City Thursday afternoon after the pilot announced to passengers that he was too upset to fly, according to one passenger on board.

The pilot, who may have been involved in a labor-related dispute with colleagues, said that he didn't feel he could fly safely, said Paul Jacobson, an energy company executive who was aboard United Flight 416 to Denver...

David Kelly, a spokesman for the Air Line Pilots Association, which represents United pilots, said the union won't comment on the incident.

The Federal Aviation Administration says it's up to the airlines to determine when and how pilots can walk away from the cockpit if they feel unfit to fly. "But we'd expect that if the pilots aren't fit to fly, they would not fly," said FAA spokeswoman Alison Duquette.

Jacobson said he saw the pilot in a heated cellphone conversation at the gate before he boarded, and overheard the pilot saying that "he was going to complain to the union."

After the passengers were seated, the pilot made his announcement.

"I'm roughly paraphrasing here, but the pilot came on the PA and said, 'some of you may have witnessed an incident I was involved in at the gate. I'm not going to go into the details, but it was an interpersonal confrontation that upset me significantly to the point where I'm not focused enough to fly you to Denver. I feel like I may not be calmed and focused enough to fly to Denver for another hour,' " Jacobson said.

The passengers reacted to the pilot's announcement with a collective groan. "I'm going to give him credit for standing in front of people and saying that," Jacobson added. "Still it was a very unusual situation."...

Jacobson said another passenger questioned the crew and that passenger told him the incident stemmed from crewmembers from another United flight observing the pilot wearing his hat. United's pilots union has been urging pilots to remove their hats when they "are likely to be viewed by management," as a form of protest, according to a notice on ALPA's website.

"In the concourse, on the jetway, wherever. Show solidarity with your fellow pilots, show management our solidarity. Don't wear your hat," it says...

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2008-06-20-upset-united-pilot_N.htm

[pattern_is_full]

Thanks for that.... USA TODAY is doing a better job of covering this than AP.

Doubt UA will do anything (even if they can) to discipline someone who was, effectively, (if the report is accurate) being ragged by union members for appearing pro-management. I assume (hope) ALPA will smooth things over between the pilots,

if pilots are allowed firearms in the cockpit, the last thing we need is to have them PO'd at each other.

[fourgolds]

He's got Kudos ! Many of us dream about having those sort of balls. Then again it is the old US of A. Where potential litigation and unions give him a huge safetly net.

[Dogma]

I would like to think we would all do it, I would :eek:

[captjns]

Kudos for the Captain... if he feels unfit for flight... don't take the flight!
Though … the consequences for his feat?
Likelihood of aircraft incident??? non existent. Likelihood certificate action??? none… Odds of company castigation??? I would say a pretty good shot… Probability of ALPA supporting this pilot??? NONE!

[Cremeegg]

Is it just me or is there a need for proper punctuation here?

[petermcleland]

The Trident crash at Staines springs to mind.

I take my hat off to this Captain who had the guts to do what he knew was right.

[411A]

Hmmm, seems to me that the chief pilot should send a note to the finance department to the effect of...deduct a days pay for this guy.
And then suspend him for three more...without pay.

Don't want to work?
Goodbye.
Plenty more where this malcontent pilot came from.
ALPO is no better...just a bunch of spoiled brats.

Collectively, pilots had better get used to changing conditions, for it ain't going to get better, anytime soon.

[captjns]

Hmmm… fines, penalties, and suspensions imposed by the D/O or Chief Pilot as such are knee jerk reactions… reminiscent of the lynch jobs of the Wild West… you know… a hanging without a proper trial and testimony from all those involved with the incident.

I would like to think that no D/O or Chief Pilot worth their salt would suspend any of his/her pilots without consideration of all the facts.

[Oxidant]

I find the "ignore button" works wonders for the likes of 411a.:yuk:
To miss-quote someone.........." Never let the truth get in the way of a knee jerk reaction!"

[Jumbo744]

:D:ok: to the pilot.

[Dysonsphere]

If you dont feel up to flying DONT DO IT its part of basic training.

[fastener]

Wus!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Blue320]

All though I applaud his honesty; since he had been seen and heard in a an argumentbut I think it was more damage control for himself and his company.

I would like to think that a pilot can put aside his personal issues for a few hours and do the job he has been trained to do. This is part of being a professional. If the avg. Joe didn't fly when he was upset at something then we'd never have an airplane in the sky!

[A Very Civil Pilot]

I find the "ignore button" works wonders for the likes of 411a.

Oxidant, 411a has been on my ignore list for years now. Did he add anything of interest, as all I can see is This user is on your Ignore List.

[PaperTiger]

Ringgg, ringgg.
"Hullo"
"Captain X ?"
"Yes"
"This is R.Sole from the union"
"Sorry don't have time to talk now, my flight is boarding"
Click.

Have your hissy fits in private, not in front of the CUSTOMERS.

Or a meringue ?

[Rightbase]

Paper Tiger -

Spot on. Unions sometimes forget who is paying them.

[PJ2]

411a:
Don't want to work?
Goodbye.
Plenty more where this malcontent pilot came from.
ALPO is no better...just a bunch of spoiled brats.
And this is represents the safety culture established at your airline under SMS?

No wonder your contributions are put on auto-ignore.

For the record, I like Paper Tiger's scenario. BTDT. I've also got off a flight or two over the past 35 years which, through circumstances quite familiar to all line pilots, I wasn't fit to fly because my passengers' welfare came first and not my company's concerns over scheduling, aircraft routing or management's concerns over the actions of "another prima-donna pilot" as is the attitude succinctly expressed in your words.

Judgement within this forum is as swift as the lifetime of a Higg's particle but aviation human factors and particularly SMS requires, especially of management as SMS is implemented, precisely the opposite, where judgement is suspended in favour of curiosity at least until the facts are comprehended and can be dealt with intelligently. What does, "Goodbye" contribute to the dialogue? How does such an approach further SMS within your organization especially in the face of what appears to be a significant and responsible aviator's decision on flight safety?

Regardless of genesis, for the two must be separated as almost all have done here, the Captain made the correct choice even though he may be considering that genesis privately and perhaps envisioning alternative strategies to avoid such confrontations next time. These are issues about which pilots are passionate - the same passion in terms of exactitude that keeps their passengers safe.

Consider the statement offered and observe how it has not carried the dialogue on safety anywhere, but has instead turned it inwards when the opposite is required by all, to implement SMS well at major and small carriers alike.

[lomapaseo]

I can only relate to this from a human standpoint.

I'm reminded of the beginning of road rage. It comes on suddenly when perrhaps somebody cuts you off and then begins to harass you.

One needs to detox your own emotions, if its difficult, then pull off the road.

The pilot did the right thing. What caused it is the problem.

We (the reader) can support the solution, but we can't really solve the originating problem.

[Sir Osis of the river]

Blue320,

I think the pilot concerned was being very professional.

No matter what the cause, how major or minor the argument was, If he felt he was not fit to fly, then he made the correct decision.

Is that not what our medical certificates are based on? Self evaluation?

411A, I hope the next time I have a disagreement with the wife, nearly get taken out by some idiot on the road on the way to work and then find out that my leave is cancelled and I then go flying, that you and your family are in the back. Feel safe??

[Codger]

Hat's off to that pilot. I'd like to think that I'd cancel out if unable to concentrate 100% on the flight. Can be tough enough of a situation to cancel if feeling a bit sick or for tech reasons, but to call a stop to the flight over psychological reasons and then make that statement to all and sundry. I'd like to think that I'd make the right decision... but would I? Would you?
Temptation to get the right seat to run things until I could get my head together would not be insignificant......

[rcl7700]

Congrats on having the balls to do that. Personally I think I would've taken a few minutes to myself, maybe delay the flight a few minutes, and let my FO take that leg once I regrouped. That's got to be a weird PA to give to your pax.

rcl

[Dani]

Maybe I'm completly off the mark, but let me recapitulate:

-The guy refuses to follow the union's action not to wear a hat.

-Then the guy gets confronted with guys who follow the union.
-The guy gets upset.
-The guy gets so much upset that he cannot fly anymore,
much to the damage of the company he was so strongly affected to.
-Then the guy gets into an argument with the company.
-Then the guy says "I will call the union".

Is that the same union he refused to follow the guideline?

As I said, maybe I don't see clearly, but if you ask me, this guy has a mess in his head.

Obviously his personal judgement was good enough to give a speech in front of the customer. Why is he not able to fly? I guess there is another point there - hidden agenda.

Dani

[Rananim]

I cant agree with 411a on this.
Pilots must stand down if they are emotionally upset prior to taking a flight.Someone mentioned Staines and Dryden was also a case in point.Safety is paramount and an emotional upset leads to distraction which can have grave consequences.A good CP will always back his pilots 100% if their decisions were made on the grounds of safety.No questions asked.

[halas]

As a regular contributer to the Middle East forum as 411a is, and as someone who talks through his ar$e most of the time, I now but have to agree with him.

Emotions and other causes should be dealt with before sign-on. Not during boarding.

I don't know what this fellow said or had to say during the boarding of the PAX on his cell-phone, but that is unprofessional in it's self.

Any issues should be dealt with prior to sign-on. If not stand-down

An emotional halas

[nosefirsteverytime]

Fully brhind the decision not to fly.

If you feel you cannot do the job and give due concern to your passengers and crew, then Do Not Fly.

It goes above your lack of paperwork, your lack of trouble, your pay, your job, your ease of career.
Better a planeload of annoyed pax gathered at the gate than a meeting with no tea and biccies over a pranged plane, or worse....

[airfoilmod]

Disagree. Vehemently. What caused the upset is absolutely irrelevant to the decision NoGo. Commanders make the call, given conditions instant. What somebody "should have done to prevent the cause of upset" is crap until debrief and a better way to handle prior issues is addressed. This is a narrow command call. Subject to judgment? Probably. Correct?

BY DEFINITION.

[KeysCapt]

Totally agree with the above. Only he knows his true state of mind, and only he can make the decision. It may have been a ridiculous matter to begin with, but he did the right thing, in my book.

[RiverCity]

SLF here. While I agree that it's responsible to step aside when you know you should not be flying...

(a) There are two people on the flight deck, and the calm one is qualified to drive the a/c to its destination while Capt Upset cools down.

(b) This is not Egypt Air, where the primary goal is to off oneself and to Hades with the pax.

(c) It was a short flight, not a milk run thru short runways in the mountains.

[PJ2]

RiverCity;

Thank you for identifying yourself as "SLF" - I don't like the term because it's "SLF's", you, that pay our salary, but there it is - fought it and it stays..:)

WRT your 3 points -to varying degrees, b perhaps being the most rare and extreme "justification" to press on, yes, from the passengers' point of view those may be perceptive and valid points - in fact, we could go so far as to say, that is what our long-established SOPs for crew member incapacitation are for, but, no, none of the points count from a professional airman's pov. The last SOP for example, is an emergency reponse and not a daily operational procedure intended to deal with pre-departure events and occurences. Yes it can be done - but it is demonstrably poor risk management and, as so often can occur when one thing lines up and then another, can place the flight and ultimately the organization at risk. Accident literature is full of exactly this kind of story.

Among the miriad of daily operational scenarios which come your aircrews and airline managements alike in the 35,000+ daily flights over the US alone, this is exactly the kind of safety response that is required of individual employees working under SMS, and especially crew members. If management cannot support a decision such as this made by one of their Captains then their SMS safety culture requires re-examination.

In the previous post, I obliquely referred to the fact that crew members continually self-assess, self-criticize (relentlessly, it seems). Any crew member involved in an out-of-the-ordinary event will replay it over and over, seeking learning, improvement and the best response for the next time - it is the nature of the work and of the profession, something which is incomprehensible to bean counters and many hand-maidens to those focussed only on the bottom line and who have long-since checked their aviator's hat at the door to management.

SMS is a key strategy, but there are a number of threads on PPRuNe discussing this very approach to organizational safety as the regulator steps back to take an "oversight" role.

[airfoilmod]

You miss my point, and revert to "confusion default". This is a command decision, the flight deck is not a democracy. I am generally a good deal more long-winded, but again, this was a command decision. End of story.

[RiverCity]

PJ2 --

Thanks for the informative and reasoned response. Again, I go with knowing when it's time to fly and when it's time to step aside and cool down.

I presented them as thoughts to see how they went over with the people in the pointy end. The view in that section of the plane is often far different than those of us closer to the back lavs.

[airfoilmod]

And may have been hasty and seemingly dismissive. If you "go with knowing when to fly" and "knowing when to step aside and cool down" you'd be a fine pilot. Just so you know that if the Captain is "stepping aside", then the trip won't fly, it wants two fully qual, aviators in the pointy end. Used to be more than two, but I'm old.

rgds. Airfoil

(Travel to White Haven often, familiar?)

[RiverCity]

I take the White Haven road occasionally out to a friend's house at Penn Lake. Used to work at Sikorsky Aircraft, knew Igor, but never been in one of the products.

[eagle21]

RiverCity
(a) There are two people on the flight deck, and the calm one is qualified to drive the a/c to its destination while Capt Upset cools down.

(b) This is not Egypt Air, where the primary goal is to off oneself and to Hades with the pax.

(c) It was a short flight, not a milk run thru short runways in the mountains.



I can only disagree with your thoughts:

Because you need two fully fit pilots on normal operation , no matter who is PF, in fact I find that PNF can be much more demanding, specially on short flights.

I can only but support this proffesional since he went for the safer option.:D

[RiverCity]

eagle--

RiverCity here. I had three thoughts, but one primary statement which overshadowed the rest: I agree that it's responsible to step aside when you know you should not be flying. The others were merely points of argument that you might find in the imaginary discussion forum when an SLF meets some pilots. Like, here.

[PA-28-161]

Although this pilot seems like a hero to many of you, quitting a flight minutes before it is scheduled to depart full of paying customers is very bad form. In any other industry histrionics like this would result in immediate termination. Either he's an emotional basket case or he's playing some sort of game.

[beachbumflyer]

He was right for not flying if he thought he was not fit to fly.
But, he is responsible for not preventing the event (hanging up the phone,etc.) that made him upset.
And he is responsible for not controlling his temper. If not, this
situation could happen again.
He is going to need to learn some anger management.

[CR2]

Correct me if I'm wrong, 'coz I may well be.

Upset over a hat?

Paxload inconvenienced over a hat?????

I must be missing something. Sure hope I am.

[airfoilmod]

You are missing something, how much, time will tell. The story's just begun.

[airfoilmod]

Ops is subject to all manner of human foibles; the foibles will out. The decision not to fly ranks with dozens if not hundreds of similarly mystifying corporate calls on the other side of the jetway. This will unfold. If I hear anything juicy I'll fill you in. It wasn't a Hat.

[PJ2]

airfoilmod;
I remember three as well and was the third for a short while - couldn't believe they'd get rid of a 3rd set of eyes, not for airplanes outside for the two guys up front... Today, the RP is worth his/her weight in gold.

Re your remark to River City, If you "go with knowing when to fly" and "knowing when to step aside and cool down" you'd be a fine pilot.
Exactly...brochures tell everyone it takes only a few hours to learn how to fly....it's learning when not to that takes a lifetime...

It wasn't a Hat.
Of that, I have no doubt. Standing by...


PA-28-161:
Although this pilot seems like a hero to many of you, quitting a flight minutes before it is scheduled to depart full of paying customers is very bad form. In any other industry histrionics like this would result in immediate termination. Either he's an emotional basket case or he's playing some sort of game.
If you're a working, professional pilot, I hope you carefully re-examine your priorities and hone your risk management skills for your, and your passengers' safety.

It is understood by every pilot who chooses the profession that some employers, all well known, will fire pilots for the slightest reason including what you describe as "histrionics" and what a true aviator would describe as an appropriate command decision. If that is the case with your employer, you need to document the issues, take them to the regulator and find another employer.

We have a case in Canada where the employer was known to pressure his pilots until amid complex circumstances as is always the case in an accident, one ran out of fuel, killed people and was eventually criminally prosecuted for his decision-making.

If you're management and you treat your organization's pilots this way, an accident is, for your organization, inevitable.

If you're not yet flying commercially (as perhaps indicated by your handle), read this thread and others on flight safety and SMS carefully and take them to heart if you want to enter the profession and stay alive.

BTW, even if you're not in aviation and an interested observer, learn that the same decision-making priorities apply in all of life and not just in the cockpit. It's what tells others who has cajones and who hasn't, who is to be reckoned with and who isn't.

[airfoilmod]

Enters bankruptcy, dissolves pensions, emerges with most wages cut 30 per cent, tries two half hearted consolidations, decides to eliminate 100's of A/C (including crew and support), then thinks it would be a wonderful idea to start a 130 MILLION dollar "benefits and incentives" fund for management. The Union fights back by encouraging flight crew to not wear hats. Does anything I've reported sound familiar?

Airfoil, let the discussion begin.

[PA-28-161]

PJ2: Quite a bit of speculation about my role in aviation, all of which are wrong, but your comments are well received. I agree that there's much more to this story than we know.

However, I would like to respectfully add, playing the "The Lives Of Hundreds Of People Rest On My Shoulders" trump card does get a bit tedious. Yeah, we get it, safely piloting an aircraft full of people is indeed a great responsibility, but the notion that we are never allowed to question a pilot's decisions is absolutely wrong.

[airfoilmod]

Questioning anything is great fun, I encourage it. Value judgments flow from decisions that get questioned. Nobody is giving the Pilot a pass. For the fourth time, a command decision. People who don't understand the concept are questioning the concept. Commanders live with their decisions. How ridiculous to obliquely and unwittingly slag the principle because it was actioned by a Human whose judgment you question.

You fly a Piper. Does command rest with you? Whose command was UAL ? PA, read above for background. Post #44

[PA-28-161]

Airfoil: I think we are in complete agreement. :ok:

[airfoilmod]

Thanks PA. Me, I like a high wing. (just kidding)

Regards, Airfoil

[PJ2]

PA;
Quite a bit of speculation about my role in aviation, all of which are wrong, but your comments are well received. I agree that there's much more to this story than we know.
Thanks... Yes, the story will be interesting. Sorry, don't mean to appear to "lecture", passion notwithstanding...

[Cripple 7]

Hats off to the guy/gal that was too stress to fly!!:ok:

[Just wondering]

PA28-161 ..... says it all really. Piper Cherokee !

I employ pilots and thank them for making the difficult decisions. Upset passengers are far easier to deal with than dead ones. Much much easier .... even if the passengers are not smart enough to know it.

[VRSCSE2]

WOW! Those United pilots really know how to show mamagement their solidarity.

By not wearing their hats ??!! That will do it.


Another loser idea by the union.

vrsc

[411A]

No, CR2, you are not 'missing something', as it were.
The concerned Commander should be relieved of his command, and put back in the RHS where he quite frankly, truly belongs.
He was (and perhaps still is) very childish, in other words, a complete fool.

[kwick]

This is the rule to follow for issuance of a First-Class Airman Medical Certificate, in the mental part of the pilot. If he was issued a certificate, then he was mentally O.K.

Title 14: Aeronautics and Space
PART 67—MEDICAL STANDARDS AND CERTIFICATION
Subpart B—First-Class Airman Medical Certificate

§ 67.107 Mental.
Mental standards for a first-class airman medical certificate are:
(a) No established medical history or clinical diagnosis of any of the following:
(1) A personality disorder that is severe enough to have repeatedly manifested itself by overt acts.
(2) A psychosis. As used in this section, “psychosis” refers to a mental disorder in which:
(i) The individual has manifested delusions, hallucinations, grossly bizarre or disorganized behavior, or other commonly accepted symptoms of this condition; or
(ii) The individual may reasonably be expected to manifest delusions, hallucinations, grossly bizarre or disorganized behavior, or other commonly accepted symptoms of this condition.
(3) A bipolar disorder.
(4) Substance dependence, except where there is established clinical evidence, satisfactory to the Federal Air Surgeon, of recovery, including sustained total abstinence from the substance(s) for not less than the preceding 2 years. As used in this section—
(i) “Substance” includes: Alcohol; other sedatives and hypnotics; anxiolytics; opioids; central nervous system stimulants such as cocaine, amphetamines, and similarly acting sympathomimetics; hallucinogens; phencyclidine or similarly acting arylcyclohexylamines; cannabis; inhalants; and other psychoactive drugs and chemicals; and
(ii) “Substance dependence” means a condition in which a person is dependent on a substance, other than tobacco or ordinary xanthine-containing (e.g., caffeine) beverages, as evidenced by—
(A) Increased tolerance;
(B) Manifestation of withdrawal symptoms;
(C) Impaired control of use; or
(D) Continued use despite damage to physical health or impairment of social, personal, or occupational functioning.
(b) No substance abuse within the preceding 2 years defined as:
(1) Use of a substance in a situation in which that use was physically hazardous, if there has been at any other time an instance of the use of a substance also in a situation in which that use was physically hazardous;
(2) A verified positive drug test result, an alcohol test result of 0.04 or greater alcohol concentration, or a refusal to submit to a drug or alcohol test required by the U.S. Department of Transportation or an agency of the U.S. Department of Transportation; or
(3) Misuse of a substance that the Federal Air Surgeon, based on case history and appropriate, qualified medical judgment relating to the substance involved, finds—
(i) Makes the person unable to safely perform the duties or exercise the privileges of the airman certificate applied for or held; or
(ii) May reasonably be expected, for the maximum duration of the airman medical certificate applied for or held, to make the person unable to perform those duties or exercise those privileges.
(c) No other personality disorder, neurosis, or other mental condition that the Federal Air Surgeon, based on the case history and appropriate, qualified medical judgment relating to the condition involved, finds—
(1) Makes the person unable to safely perform the duties or exercise the privileges of the airman certificate applied for or held; or
(2) May reasonably be expected, for the maximum duration of the airman medical certificate applied for or held, to make the person unable to perform those duties or exercise those privileges.
[Doc. No. 27940, 61 FR 11256, Mar. 19, 1996, as amended by Amdt. 67–19, 71 FR 35764, June 21, 2006]

[kwick]

I always remember the following:

§ 91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.
(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.

In this case the pilot might have been pressed in such a manner that he considered he was not fit to fly, even considering he has a valid medical certificate to do it. Then he made a decision not to fly, according to his authority. Was it legal that he makes a flight under those circumstances? I do not think so. I think he acted responsibly. Wonder if an accident happens, then the airline and the union, and all of us, would be blaming him for doing his job as some expect him to do even being fully stressed as he was.

[Dream Land]

Kudos for not taking the flight, he is a credit to the profession. Blue320, good post!

[TeachMe]

As a second SLF I would like to say that from my perspective, he made the right decision.

Yes it was perhaps stupid to get so worked up over an issue like a hat, but we have all done such things. Think back to your relationships with your significant others. Ever had a fight about stupid things that started off small and ended up heated and angry? I am talking of the perverbial toilet seat kind of things. It happens to even the best of people some times, and it seems to this pilot this time.

One point not raised above is if this is a pattern. If this pilot did this often and regularly over a period of time, then perhpas there is cause for concern. How ever nothing to date suggests this is the case. We have no reason to believe this is anything but a one off case.

It was also said above that he said he needed at least an hour to cool down. Good for him. The flight can wait an hour! Enough other people make F ups all over the airline industry causing much more than one hour delays that this is in the big picture virtually nothing. Even if it took the crew over duty times, then other things can be sorted out.

Would I like it if I was on the plane? No. Would I complain? No. Would I buy him a beer after work? Yes, and add that S happens and to forget about it.

A good decision made.

TME

[PA-28-161]

Just wondering: to quote you "I employ pilots and thank them for making the difficult decisions." I take it this means that you own an airline business? There seems to be many professional people on this forum but you're the first airline owner I've heard from.

That's what make this forum great, we have both pilots and airline owners, all in one place!

[FullWings]

TeachMe, excellent post.

It's easy to forget, sometimes, that pilots are human and suffer from all the related physical and mental conditions that everybody else does. Yes, if you're a "professional", most of the time you can put that to one side and carry on with SOPs, but rarely, something that seems quite trivial might just prove to be the proverbial "last straw" and leave you unable to concentrate on the job in hand.

The guy in question could have easily said that there was a delay of an hour because of an ATC slot/loading/bags/fuel/tech. problem, etc. No-one would have queried it. Instead he was honest and said he needed to cool down and collect his thoughts for a while before he went flying: he effectively went "tech" for a bit. To recognise this sort of problem within yourself and take remedial action shows great mental maturity and courage. Well done. :D

[block52]

During my aviation career ( since 1976 - 20 years flying military hardware and the rest in airlines) this is the 8th time of acknowledging a guy with guts.
Good job. :ok::D

[Dream Buster]

In August 2004 I elected not to fly as a co pilot whilst a training captain due to multiple roster changes and feeling very unwell with a poor memory and chronic fatigue.

This is how my airline dealt with me in a letter sent shortly after the incident from the General Manager.

" It is my opinion that you allowed yourself to become distracted by minor issues which then compounded to raise your stress levels such that you were unable to fly safely. Indeed, the captain himself had doubts as to your suitability to operate that day. I would expect a senior captain to behave in a more responsible manner and was disappointed by your actions on XX August 2004. If you have any concerns then I stongly suggest that, in future, you complete your duties and then present a formal grievance so the the matter can be properly investigated and, if substantiated be dealth with.

To simply make a stand as you did does not help. It promotes further roster disruption to your colleagues and does little to help with morale. This company looks to its captains for leadership and to present them as a role models to the rest of the work force."

This is a real extract from a real letter of a leading UK loco carrier.

Around 18 months later, after electing not to fly again, I was grounded due to 'chronic stress'.

In May 2006 I was diagnosed as suffering from 'chronic poisoning' - Yet another victim of contaminated air. I had no idea and nobody ever mentioned it to me.

My sympathy to the pilot who elected not to fly - I did the same three times - I look back on those command decisions as being the best, hardest ones of my life.

If in doubt - DON'T! You will be all on your own; but at least you (and your crew and your passengers) will be alive....

www.aerotoxic.org for anybody who needs assistance.

DB := :ok:

[captjns]

I think a newspaper headline of;

Page 6… “STRESSED OUT PILOT FLIES OFF PLANE IN A FIT OF RAGE SECONDS BEFORE TAKEOFF STRANDING PASSENGERS IN SALT LAKE CITY. “

is a far better read than;

Banner Headline… “BEFORE TAKEOFF FROM SALT LACE CITY, A VISABLY CRAZED PILOT WITNESSED BY HORRIFIED BYSTANDERS IN THE TERMINAL, TAKES HIS PLANE ALONG WITH HIS PASSENGERS TO THEIR FINAL DESTINATION!”

Oh well… tough break for those Pulitzer wannabe members of the fourth estate.:suspect:

[DuncanF]

Not for me to comment on the rights and wrongs of the pilots' decision, but I have a question? Is TA something that is covered in the CRM side of training? All the management/team training I have had included it. Sounds like both he and the union guy could have benefited from it and avoided the situation in the first place.

[PaperTiger]

If I hear anything juicy I'll fill you in. It wasn't a Hat.Doesn't have to be juicy, I'd like to hear any background about it. Can't believe this was a single out-of-the-blue phone call which caused Capt to go all postal. "Playing games" as someone else said much more likely, games having started some time prior.

[moosp]

I agree with #8 here, the similarities to the Papa India accident are startling. I was in the BEA crew room and witnessed the argument, which was union related.

It taught me that if you have just had a violent altercation with someone, don't fly till you've calmed down. You are a walking accident looking for somewhere to happen.

[flyboymurphy]

Let me ask, if we take away the incident that perhaps caused the Captains state of mind ( because we know little of the facts) and just say that this Captain felt unfit to fly. Surely, then , inconvenience be damned, IT IS HIS RESPONSIBILITY AND DUTY to remove himself ?

Later, on reflection and perhaps self examination, the Captain can assess , what went wrong and how it could have been prevented to avoid further similar situations in the future.
As pilots, part of the reason that we are respected in our profession, is the ability to make tough decisions. To not be affected by "getthereitis" or any other distracting and irrelevent factors.
Knowing what we know as facts in this case and subject to future revelations we can only and should only base our response on:

A) the Captain deemed himself unfit to fly
B) the Captain removed himself from the task of operation of the A/C that day.

We must stand with him in his decision given only these facts and leave the second guessing out of it.
Thankyou.

[PaperTiger]

Let me ask, if we take away the incident that perhaps caused the Captains state of mind ( because we know little of the facts) and just say that this Captain felt unfit to fly. Surely, then , inconvenience be damned, IT IS HIS RESPONSIBILITY AND DUTY to remove himself ?No argument; if Capt feels he is unfit to fly then he doesn't fly.

However I don't think the circumstances of this incident can be excluded, assuming what went on has been accurately reported. The announcement to the passengers was TOTALLY unprofessional and unnecessary; it would seem to have been done solely to make a point in public. Not on in my book and deserving of a bollocking (at least) from the Chief.

Pull yourself off yes, but have the purser or ground agent announce it as "crew incapacitation" or somesuch.

[Rananim]

[QUOTE] The announcement to the passengers was TOTALLY unprofessional and unnecessary; it would seem to have been done solely to make a point in public./QUOTE]

Once you make a decision like this,you as the Captain must have the decency to stand up and explain it to the folks you're about to inconvenience.Only then can you hope to earn their respect.You wont get their thanks but you might just get their respect.

[halas]

I agree Paper Tiger

The heated phone conversation in front of the PAX, and the PA make me doubt that he he was in fit state in the first place.

The chain of events just compounded his frustration and decision making.

I feel for the guy, and it maybe that his co-pilot did not help the situation by not noticing his stress level rising prior to that incident and making him aware of it.

Incapacitation can take on many forms and at any time.

halas

[everynowandthen]

A wee anecdote (I like anecdotes). A few years ago I went along to one of those Alan Carr stop smoking seminars. Sat through it & emerged hours later as a firm, confirmed non-smoker. 3 minutes later, I had a call from my recent wife. What she said was so preposterous that within seconds of hanging up the phone, I was trying to smoke a whole packet of cigarettes simultaneously. Well, maybe not. I was incandescent for some time and I would like to stress that it takes a hell of a lot of provocation to get me that annoyed. If our gallant captain was suffering from anything like the same leveles of anger/frustration I was going through, then his actions are highly commendable & correct.
One small thought though, I hope that his actions weren't meant to highlight a situation he wasn't happy with. That would seem like more of a sulk to me. Quite prepared to be shot down in flames on the last point.

[PaperTiger]

One small thought though, I hope that his actions weren't meant to highlight a situation he wasn't happy with. That would seem like more of a sulk to me. Quite prepared to be shot down in flames on the last point.That was my sense of it, from the limited info available to me. Could easily be wrong though...

You wont get their thanks but you might just get their respect.Or you could scare the **** out of them and/or drive them away from your airline. :ouch:

[merlinxx]

Though his application of using a cell phone on the jetway is not excusable, the fact that he took himself off duty is a good call. In hind sight, if the PIC of 'Trident PI' had made the same call, we'd not have seen 'PI' in the middle of the pit at LHR!

Good call and very professional, he considered himself unfit to fly, so he said so, and apologised to the 'pay check paying' punters.


Rant when are going to get English English as the default, not Ameri-English?

[Searider]

[non pilot speaking]. I have no problem with the Pilot making the decision, if fact I can not imagine that anyone would have the authority to tell the pilot that he has to go back into the plane and fly. To me, the issue would be around what is being done to help this (and other?) pilots recognise the signs that led to this decision earlier and what processes could be put in place, if needed, to mitigate the effects. In other words, what changed in the moments leading up to the decision that prevented the pilot of making this decision hours previously and giving more time to mitigate the resulting scheduling problems.

[Robert Campbell]

Maybe it should be English and Ameriglish.:ugh:

[IFLy4Free]

He has been removed from flying...and is no longer on the schedule. Call it as it is, suspension. If he was too upset to fly over a "hat" disagreement then I do not want to be on his plane in an emergency... If he cannot handle a union dispute then how on earth can he handle an emergency.

[Rananim]

Poor decision by United.Their judgement cometh and that right soon.

[411A]

Call it as it is, suspension. If he was too upset to fly over a "hat" disagreement then I do not want to be on his plane in an emergency... If he cannot handle a union dispute then how on earth can he handle an emergency.

Yup, my point exactly.
IF the concerned pilot ain't fit, send him home until he is fit...whenever that might be.:}

[PJ2]

IFly4Free, 411a;
If he cannot handle a union dispute then how on earth can he handle an emergency.
Nonsense.

The comparison is ridiculous bordering on the polemical as opposed to the merely-operationally-safe. At least one of you should know that emergencies in the air are heavily trained for and are intended and designed with human factors in mind, not excluding human factors.

Passionate argument does not belong in or around an airplane though heaven knows there are plenty of sources for same in our industry today. It occurred and it was dealt with appropriately.

We don't know the man's history nor the circumstances of the discussion.

If there is a history of wild upset followed by booking off, that needs to be dealt with in a far different manner than respecting the fact that even airline pilots are human at times...

An enlightened organization with a healthy safety culture, (or even a just culture) does not view firing, suspension or other disciplinary measures as solutions. The problem either requires intelligent, informed intervention by trained individuals from the Pilot Assistance program or it requires a discussion with a respected manager to see if there are deeper issues or if the blow-up was a once-off and the individual has learned. The operator certainly has a moral and legal due-diligence responsibility to come to terms with the issue and resolve it as a matter of record. Talk of firing or suspension, especially if it was a once-off with an otherwise good employee is simply old-fashioned chest-beating and a hold-over from bygone days.

[Airmotive]

I wonder who will get the first of the 950 furlough notices.....:bored:

[DocSullivan]

I was reading stuff on the public section of the website of ALPA's United MEC earlier today, and -- for what it's worth -- I noticed this little nugget on the Update/Week in Review (http://crewroom.alpa.org/ual/DesktopModules/ViewDocument.aspx?DocumentID=43183), dated June 20, 2008:

Differences of Opinions in the Workplace

There have been several recent reported incidents of differences in opinions that have crept into the workplace and affected our work environment. As pilots, we must remember that our utmost responsibility is to our passengers and to the safe conduct of carriage. Our workplace goes beyond the confines of the cockpit. It begins with preflight planning and continues after the airplane is parked. Differences and diversity are certainly allowed, but must be managed so as to not create conflict anywhere in the workplace. This relates to, among other things, political views and differences in how employees interact with their unions and company, etc. Maintain a safe work environment at all times.

Methinks this may have been prompted by the incident discussed in this thread.

[PJ2]

DocSullivan;
Methinks this may have been prompted by the incident discussed in this thread.
I don't think there's any "methinks" about it - almost certainly it was as a result of this and it is entirely appropriate.

While some may characterize a pilots' association/union in intentionally disrespectful and even extreme terms, such organizations actually have a huge vested interest in the professional side of airline work as well as the industrial side. That side, and the safety side, are largely unspoken but do good work in keeping the expensive resources working as opposed to off the line. The attitudes expressed here by some are very familiar - heard it, seen it over the past 35 years. Such utterances are signs that the bottom line and profit are ruling the organization and that they have forgotten the business they're in is aviation.

There isn't any way this approach equates to a get-out-of-jail card; professional standards absolutely must be maintained, and watched carefully especially in times of high financial stress and the consequent (for most) emotional stress such circumstances generate. Management has a due diligence responsibility to ensure it's crews are performing safely and are up to standard. But there has been a great deal learnt since firing a pilot was the only response to such issues.