United GRU-ORD Divert to MIA to Offload Purser

[rgbrock1]

Icepack. I was in the U.S. military (Army) for several years. And in combat as well. (Grenada in 1983). I agree with your assertion that it is the uniform that one respects.
However, if the uniform is inhabited by a complete fool then, yes, you follow his/her
orders regardless. But you do so not at all out of respect. You do so because the alternative, possible courts martial or demotion, is not palatable. Having said that, I've also served under many fine officers and NCOs who I would have gladly followed to the gates of hell. Respect is earned, indeed. Both ways.

[Cacophonix]

One can't be sure but the post is anguished enough to be genuine.

In all this one thing is for sure, whoever is responsible for CRM at UA has their work cut out for them.

[Juud]

Many here are unwilling or unable to see past the in-your face tone of some ;) of Rainboe´s posts. In some ways understandable, but unfortunate none the less.
Unfortunate especially for those who do not work within civil aviation yet come to PPRuNe because they are interested in our world. If you allow yourself to look beyond Rainboe´s tone, the man is a goldmine.
A goldmine when it comes to explaining what actually happens on-board but beyond the view of the pax.
A goldmine when it comes to explaining why things happen.
A goldmine when it comes to explaining how pilots think, how they work together, how the decision making process works on board and how professional cockpit and cabin personnel interact with each other and with various ground departments.
If you are here to learn, you can do a lot worse than absorbing a Rainboe-rant.
If you are here merely to opine on things you really do not know about, absorbing a Rainboe-rant is just the ticket as well.

****************************************************

The case at hand. None of us knows what really happens. From what we read by BoF, with Airbubba corroborating that the Captn in question is not for the moment flying, we can form an opinion. Based on scant facts.
Standard procedure in my particular airline is that when management or the authorities feel the need to look into the actions of crew members involved in whatever kind of incident (or behaviour that was unlawful/in contradiction of SOPs even if the behaviour did not lead to incident), all crew members directly involved are suspended from flying duties until the facts are clear and decisions have been made.
Do we know for a fact, other than from BoF, that the Purser in question was not suspended? We don´t.
And if she wasn´t, to me that seems very odd indeed.

In this post (http://www.pprune.org/5075364-post140.html) BoF describes what went down according to him/her.

The Captn informed the Purser that he wanted the crew decs.
The Purser, instead of complying, asked if she could supply them at a later time, more convenient to her.
The Captn informed the Purser that he wanted the crew decs immediately.
Instead of delivering them in the normal fashion, the Purser pushed them under the cockpit door.


BoF seems to think that the above scenario clearly puts the Captn in the wrong, and the Purser in the right.
Reading it with my CSD/Sr Purser half-spectacles on, I disagree with BoF.
If the Captan wants the crew decs right now, it´s the Purser´s job to supply the crew decs right now. Chain of command, easy peasy.
As per BoF, it takes 30 secs to fill them out. On an 11 hour flight, the Purser has the time to both fill them out, go through the procedure of getting into the cockpit and hand them to the Captn without this in any way shape or form impacting negatively on the service to the pax.
Yes it is inconvenient, yes it seems to the Purser unreasonable and illogical but as Purser, that´s what you have to deal with.
He´s the Captn, you´re the Purser, and as long as a request from the Captn doesn´t put people´s lives in danger, you deal with a Captn´s request promptly and courteously.
If you have understood during the trip that the guy is difficult, hard to please and a pain in the rear, it is your responsibility to deal with his requests even more promptly and more courteously to avoid exactly the kind of thing that happened here.

Many here harp on about how it is possible for a Captn to lose it. Yes it is possible, but it is very very unlikely. In 28 years on the line, I have never seen it happen, nor have I ever heard about it from colleagues.
I have seen guys who in my and other people´s opinion were not fit to be Captn, and invariably they were eventually retrained, retired or demoted.
In a large airline, where the pilot department is still run by pilots rather than beancounters, the system works. Not always quickly, but it works.
The chance that a mentally unstable individual becomes and remains Captain in a company like United is infinitesimal.
Difficult, arrogant, hard to work with, yes they exist.
Mentally unstable, very very unlikely.

As Purser, you have many different responsibilities, requiring a diverse set of skills. One of the responsibilities is dealing with Captains who are not to your liking and whose requests clearly demonstrate a lack of understanding for and empathy with their cabin crew.
Winding up a Captn who has an inflated sense of his own importance is the easiest thing in the world for any Purser worth his/her stripes.
Been there, done that. :uhoh:
Dealing with such an individual without anything escalating can make your blood boil and give you an instant ulcer, but it is the only professional option. That and reporting him after the trip for his unreasonable behaviour.
The ability to deal effectively with a well known ´difficult´ Captn should certainly be part of an experienced Purser´s skill set.

This Captain and Purser were unable to complete a normal 4 day trip together.
From what BoF writes, it reads to me as if both, in different ways, failed to uphold the professional standard demanded by their rank and their pay.

[eliptic]

I think there is far more to this incident than meets the eye. Even if I am completely wrong and the Captain did indeed suffer some major psychotic episode, I don't think it is very professional of you to come on a public forum and attack him in this way. Why not just give your account to UAL in private?


Did i misunderstand something here? or did he indeed post here because someone already did hang the purser before trial!?

Or the Purser are not of notice?

[Cacophonix]

But you do so not at all out of respect. You do so because the alternative, possible courts martial or demotion, is not palatable. Having said that, I've also served under many fine officers and NCOs who I would have gladly followed to the gates of hell. Respect is earned, indeed. Both ways.


I quoted Tony Kern (Major USAF) in an earlier post. His words on these USAF officers who followed one renegade officer to their deaths is a lesson to us all!

Industry CRM Developers - Situational Awareness Management Course Outline (http://www.crm-devel.org/resources/paper/darkblue/darkblue.htm)

[BoeingDriverUSA]

Based of facts. I speak on this issue having served in both sides of the cockpit door, currently a pilot for the airline. One thing we all must understand. The company and the FAA have named the Captain to be the person in command of an aircraft.

A similar issue occured years ago when I was an FO where the Captain and the purser disagreed on the middle of the flight. At that occasion the Captain simply "demoted" the purser and the second most senior FA took the purser functions for the duration of the flight.

I think it was absurd and unprofessional of this UAL Captain to divert for such a reason; however, if a situation is not critical or places the safety of the flight in questionk, one should do just like the Captain asked, then later report to their superiors; but until then (and that serves for FO's too) we need to understand Captain's authority. SUch Authority is his right; not needed to be earned.

I would send both to the full initial CLR 5-day remedial training.

Best wishes to all

[rgbrock1]

BoeingDriverUSA: So what does one do with a Captain who abuses his/her
authority? Is that not indicative of a more deep-rooted issue? I'm not asserting that
this is the case with the Captain in question. I ask in general terms.

[eliptic]

Juud (http://www.pprune.org/members/155668-juud)

Roger that,,
Regarding the case,,whatever the Captains or pursers wrong doing (as we don´t know) the question are still if it was necessary to involve the passengers in this vendetta by Divert?

[virginblue]

Why is nobody adressing the fact that the "threat" happened 30 minutes into the flight and the plane landed, err, 6h30mins into the flight to remove this "threat"?

For me, this looks as if the captain has got himself into a catch22 situation: Either he screwed up because he continued the flight for 6hrs after the incident or he screwed up because the situation allowed him to continue (read: no threat) and he still went to MIA. Whatever is true, going to MIA is difficult to be judged as the right decision - either you get rid of her as quickly as possible or you just go all the way to ORD. :=

As an aside, you may not like the story presented by "based on facts" and may doubt it - fair enough -, but there is absolutley no reason to hurl abuse at her and call her liar.

[Dawdler]

Quote Rainboe (#227)
It doesn't look good, but he obviously felt upset enough that he was not safe continuing the flight. There are two routes here- 1- he was emotionally unbalanced within himself, or 2- events occurred on the plane to make a reasonable person not safe to remain a pilot inflight. We are being frantically assured (1) applies by someone claiming to be onboard. It will be an ongoing investigation to assess how far provocation (2) could be implicated in his state of mind.

All of us can appreciate that occasionally things happen that are upsetting. The Captain asked for the crew decs before the time normally expected, ( he may have had good reasons) He got upset when the Purser apparently childishly stuffed the documents under the door instead of delivering them in a proper manner. It seems to a disinterested observer that neither of them behaved in a professional manner.

No doubt that UA will have (or even had) an enquiry into the happenings. They are under no obligation to publish their findings, we may never know officially what happened on the flight.

With regard to the state of mind of both individuals involved, I am reminded of an incident at Bristol a few years ago. The captain of a flight had a "vigorous exchange of views" with a member of the airside groundcrew just before the flight was due to depart. The Captain delayed the flight for a few minutes (about 10min as I recall) to "gather his thoughts". Perhaps this long thread and the sometimes mis-informed speculation, could have been avoided if both participants had spent a few minutes "gathering their thoughts" before the situation developed as it did. A word of apology from either of the parties could have defused the situation and allowed the flight to continue and the dispute to be settled after landing.

[kappa]

Some posters have questioned the role of MIA Customs & Border Protection (CBP) agents in questioning the CA about the reasons for the diversion. Obviously they are going meet and be present when the door is opened of any unscheduled international arrival aircraft – no matter what the circumstances for the arrival. Having an planeload of people and baggage to unexpectedly process is going to going to insure such action, even without any “incident” involving the law.

Having observed the occasional negative interaction between Customs agents and arriving Flight Crews (both cockpit and cabin), I doubt the CA played G-d when the rational for his actions were questioned by the CBP agent with a badge on his chest. Indeed, bof states that the CA remained in the cockpit.

It appears that only the Purser disembarked at MIA, the flight had adequate crew numbers and duty time remaining, and the CBP had no authority to challenge the decision, so UAL continued the flight. Since the CA did not make a case that would cause detention of the Purser, she alone was processed by CBP and sent on her way.

Knowing a little about the inter-connectivity of people who wear badges, even if that CA is cleared and/or regains his ticket, I would not want to be him presenting crew papers to Customs in the future. However, I somehow doubt he will again have that responsibility.

[MU3001A]

Mentally unstable, very very unlikely.
The diversion of a flight is quite within a captain's purview to command at any time, for whatever reason he alone ultimately deems necessary and the crew are required to comply with the decision. Unless they collectively believed the safety of the flight would be compromised by the decision. However, I would certainly expect any current captain to be cognizant of the requirement to do more than simply command a diversion without explaining his reasoning and to seek the input of other members of the flight crew, especially under circumstances where the operational reasoning is not patently obvious ie. mechanical problem or Wx. But given the circumstances outlined does anyone truly consider his decision to divert to be a reasonable one, or one issued by a well balanced individual who ought to retain his position of authority and responsibility? There doesn't appear to have been any face to face confrontation between the purser and the captain that might affect continued operations on the flightdeck, nor any prospect of one. So why divert, inconveniencing not only passengers but ground staff at the divert field and also the government agencies responsible for customs, immigration and transport security, all having invented some phony security problem to justify your action?

If I were part of the crew, after likely trying to reason with the captain but failing to change his mind I would ultimately have considered the safest option under the circumstances would be to comply with the captains order. However, I would be hoping that the company would see fit to replace both the captain and the purser before continuing the flight on to its destination, whatever the delay.

If you have understood during the trip that the guy is difficult, hard to please and a pain in the rear, it is your responsibility to deal with his requests even more promptly and more courteously to avoid exactly the kind of thing that happened here.It would seem that he was "difficult, hard to please and a pain in the rear" once too often and ended up unjustifiably inconveniencing passengers (read customers), unafiliated ground staff and government agents at MIA and incuring unwaranted cost to UAL, for which he is likely to suffer the consequences. Others inclined to defend the captains actions in the interests of preserving command authority, please take note.

[Rainboe]

Juud, nobody's ever called me a goldmine before! I've been called a **** frequently, and an ***, and I even had a ***** ** *** once (only once thank heavens), but goldmine? Not sure if I am not horrified!

Looking at my posts, nowhere have I sought to defend the Captain or accuse him, or blame it on the Purser. However, something caused a trivial incident to bend past breaking point. It may well be psychosis, painkilling drugs, discomfort, lack of sleep, fatigue. But to me, there is enough doubt about the incident that a valid judgement may only be made when in possession of more facts in this case. There are too many open ended questions- the role of the 2 copilots. If they unwillingly descended judging the decision flawed, why did they consent to continue with the same person? I would rather hear from them rather than another flight attendant who was not conversant with what was happening up front. If the incident was so bad, why did the cabin crew elect to continue? Don't carry on another 3 hours and then go grumbling he was crazy! Why carry on? If he was unbalanced enough to be 'dangerous' surely they wouldn't want to inflict him again on their precious passengers (as well as themselves) for another 3 hours?

Really unsatisfactory. Something smacks badly about 'it's OK to carry on another leg, then we are going to shout and scream that he is mad and should be grounded!' And now the battle lines are drawn, the poor guy, as well as having to explain himself, now has all this mud slinging going on from his own crew! Well folks, if he was good enough to continue the flight, someone has some explainin' to do about why? And the way to defend the Purser is to demolish the Captain? Bit sad and tasteless really, isn't it?

But what leaves the worst taste in your mouth is the instant verdicts spouted here from quite frankly, uneducated and unknowing fools. If a pschotic episode is involved, instant dismissal is not the answer. Considering the legions of cabin crew sent for alcoholic drying-out of their problems by the airlines, one would hope a calm and reassuring hand would be applied to treat the problem. We are led to believe instant dismissal has occurred! I very much doubt it! But I wonder how much of that is involved- the virulence of the attacks on the guy make me suspicious- that is all I will say there! I have seen very rarely such games and spiteful behaviour going on from behind the door. Any such behaviour will be 'outed', and dealt with I hope. It seems to be a big legacy airline thing. It happens where senior cabin crew become senior enough to start feeling they are 'Capitains de la Cabine'! Some of them mould around their crew perfectly, others rub up bad.

[Dani]

It is pretty clear why the capt diverted: He wanted to show the purser that he has more power and that the purser would get punished for this diversion.

If he judged the safety was in danger - he should have diverted much earlier in the flight. If his mission would have been to bring his plane and its load as safe and as fast as possible to ORD, he would have demoted her. Ergo he followed his personal agenda.

Obviously, this tactic has failed.

The fact that the capt misjudged this situation by such a great amount, is an indication that he was not up to his job. The question we have to ask: Why can it happen that a perfect suitable and well selected and trained captain of a major airline does such a mistake? It's exactly because he hears every day that he is the most important, the most respected and the most correct person on board. If you hear these phrases every day for 30 years, you suddenly start to believe it. There is not a small amount of capt here in the forum who also believe it.

In my starting airline (a very well known airline throughout the world) , we were shown an impressing training movie: V1 cuts are trained in every sim session, we are very good and can decide in split seconds what to do. After year long training, we start to believe that we really are good in decision making, and we can perform task within very short time with a correct outcome. But there are certain tasks in our environment where we are amazingly slow and sometimes incorrect, when it is about human factors, untrained situations and unknown causes. In these situations, we are like any other human being: Sometimes correct, sometimes not. Even worse: Because we think that we are the Masters of the Universe, we horribly fail. If we know that, we can maybe make the correct decision.

This UAL guy certainly forgot this lesson.

Dani

[eliptic]

from a "uneducated and unknowing fool"

Well folks, if he was good enough to continue the flight, someone has some explainin' to do about why?

I guess you the one to answer your own question by telling us what was the option? in the middle of night!? to take the plane and pax to its destination?

as i see it as just a stupid quarrel, the best solution was desided, let him bring the plane to destination and to deal with it there

[Rainboe]

Dani, yet another instant verdict of 'guilty as charged!'. You should know better. You are only hearing one side (allegedly!).

You might think you are a Master of the Universe. I was never troubled with such thoughts!

[Latearrival]

Posts from industry outsiders

Thanks to Juud for bringing her experience and another perspective to this discussion.

I think many non-aviation types are concerned about this issue because of the bigger picture. Correct me if I’m wrong, but in some parts of the world, the fact that First Officers may be afraid to question a Captain’s decision-making because one simply doesn’t question authority in those cultures, is thought to have been a contributing factor in accidents. Even though it may not seem reasonable to the pros, a Captain who appears to have the attitude “I have all the answers…question me at your peril” (even with cabin crew) raises the fear of what seems unthinkable—that the same dynamic responsible for accidents elsewhere, is possible in our countries. A Captain whose actions (or words) seem to indicate that he/she expects blind obedience”, is not the commander most would wish for on their flights. On the surface of things, it seems hard to believe that there wasn't a better way of dealing with the situation in question. Some of the Captains who have responded on this thread have given examples of how they have dealt with insubordination without diverting a flight.

In the end, we all have our strong opinions but hopefully we can be open-minded enough to consider that someone may occasionally present an idea in a way that will enable us to alter our thinking or improve our decision-making in some aspect of our work or personal lives. Someone once said, “a good idea doesn’t care who has it”.

PPRuNe has given me insights into the aviation world and above all, my preconceived ideas about pilots have gone out the window. Pilots are like anyone else and affected by the same human frailties (but under close scrutiny because of the incredible responsibility and expectations of professionalism inherent in the job). Some are obviously better than others on a number of fronts and that includes interpersonal skills. Childish disputes,if that’s what happened, have less place in an airplane than almost anywhere else. But I have to trust that modern aviation has enough checks and balances built into the system to compensate for the fact that no one is infallible.

[MU3001A]

If they unwillingly descended judging the decision flawed, why did they consent to continue with the same person? I would rather hear from them rather than another flight attendant who was not conversant with what was happening up front. If the incident was so bad, why did the cabin crew elect to continue? Don't carry on another 3 hours and then go grumbling he was crazy! Why carry on? If he was unbalanced enough to be 'dangerous' surely they wouldn't want to inflict him again on their precious passengers (as well as themselves) for another 3 hours?Good question. Commercial pressure, empathy for the passengers who would otherwise be stuck in MIA together with some understandable 'get home itis' I suspect. It's perfectly possible that the captain's behavior was otherwise exemplary and didn't concern them, save for his peculiar fixation with the purser. Offload the purser, problem solved. No way to run an airline though. Sad way to end his career, for sure. But ended it must be.

[Rainboe]

Another 'shoot from the hip' judgement! I'm intrigued though, how was he on the last leg ProofofthePudding or whoever you claim you are? If he was OK, how come he is accused of being crazy afterwards? You willingly flew on another leg with what is claimed to be a crazy 'for the sake of the passengers', then you land and all start making reports he's nutty? I see. God save the airline industry from crew such as you who to ensure your own sweet smelling survival are so happy to attempt to demolish an unpopular individual.

And tell us how was the preceding nightstop? Any comments? Attitude on the plane? This guy was carrying his reputation with him, not one of the most popular pilots. Exactly what provocation caused him to make what could be seen as an injudicious decision? Could it be there is a severe relationship problem with certain United crew?

If I was part of the investigating team, I would have the whole lot in individually until I teased out what the hell was going on, because fingers pointing very often point both ways! It's very possible he has a problem, it's also very possible the rest of the crew have a problem without realising it.

[overthewing]

When people react to an incident with vehement emotion that seems illogical and out of proportion, I have learned that they are usually reacting to something other than the situation at hand. In other words, they have unresolved problems of their own that have been triggered by the incident.

The facts as we know them suggest an intense overreaction on the part of the UA Captain. Presumably time will tell. However, I am more interested in the vehemence and illogic demonstrated on this thread.

I would hazard a guess that at least one of us has had 'issues' with CRM and crew relations during his career, or at the very least has had a damaging run-in with cabin staff.

[eliptic]

I would hazard a guess that at least one of us has had 'issues' with CRM and crew relations during his career, or at the very least has had a damaging run-in with cabin staff.

hoho..can´t wait for reaction on that one:cool: who first?

[Litebulbs]

You make a fair point in the last paragraph Rainboe and I am sure it will happen.

Flying aeroplanes does not make you a good leader. I am reasonably sure that leadership is not a prime measure, when promoting a first officer to command. It would never have been in the job role. Hiding behind the law of the sky, does not promote good leadership skills.

In most other jobs, leaders are selected because of their leadership skills. This is true for cabin crew. is it the same for flight crew?

[Rainboe]

I am reasonably sure that leadership is not a prime measure, when promoting a first officer to command. It would never have been in the job role. Hiding behind the law of the sky, does not promote good leadership skills.
Utter garbage. You have no idea. Why come here with such nonsense? How do you know from the depths of your avionicing?

Overthewing, how do you produce such an analysis as The facts as we know them suggest an intense overreaction on the part of the UA Captain. Presumably time will tell. However, I am more interested in the vehemence and illogic demonstrated on this thread.

I would hazard a guess that at least one of us has had 'issues' with CRM and crew relations during his career, or at the very least has had a damaging run-in with cabin staff.
when you are just
Speaking as a humble SLF with an interest in surviving my flight who also happens to live a few miles from Gatwick? Where does the 'us' come from? You see aeroplanes most days, so that makes you a CRM and leadership expert?

[MU3001A]

Another 'shoot from the hip' judgement! ... If he was OK, how come he is accused of being crazy afterwards?What strikes me most about this whole affair is the captain's sheer arrogance, bound and determined as he is to resolve his perceived personal dispute with another member of the crew he has scant reason to interact with until safely on the ground in Chicago, by diverting the flight to offload her. Absolutely no consideration for the degree of inconvenience visited on his passengers, the unaffiliated ground staff and government agents who must accommodate him or the damage done to the business reputation of his employer. Incredible. If the mere presence of the purser disturbed him so much that he felt he could not continue and had no other choice but to divert and offload her, perhaps it would have been better for all concerned if he had offloaded himself and appealed to his employer for consideration of his poor mental state occasioned by the dispute?

[Litebulbs]

Rainboe,

Bless.

[Rainboe]

Litebulbs- you have no idea of the trauma copilots go through to get that extra stripe. At a stroke, you are denigrating what they go through to get promoted, without really any idea, have you?

Incredible. If the mere presence of the purser disturbed him so much that he felt he could not continue and had no other choice but to divert and offload her, perhaps it would have been better for all concerned if he had offloaded himself and appealed to his employer for consideration of his poor mental state occasioned by the dispute?
Well if he shouldn't land (according to you), how does he offload anybody, himself included?
He actually took a safe course of action stopping the flight and getting everybody on the ground safely. The really bizarre course of events is continuing. Whilst his behaviour in diverting is raising questions, nobody seems to be questioning the bizarre behaviour of all the other actors in this drama subsequently! Am I to accept the logic of 'we thought it best to continue to get the passengers to their destination, then we started a hollerin' in Chicago that he was crazy and must be canned!' Er, say again, please?

[MU3001A]

Well if he shouldn't land (according to you), how does he offload anybody, himself included?

If he was that disturbed by the whole issue with the purser to divert the flight then he absolutely should land. But allowing himself to become that disturbed over something so inconsequential he should have been the one offloaded not the purser, regardless of the merits of who was in the right or wrong regarding the original dispute over paperwork.

[sharksandwich]

Sharksandwich said "If an experienced member of cabin crew wanted a flight aborted for any reason, his or her's view should take precedence over a captain." This may work in the world of medicine but it is an example of uninformed opinion which is ridiculous to any airline pilot. Pilot's need to listen very carefully to any information from cabin crew but it is not the cc who make decisions to abort the flight. At the end of the day a decision needs to be made and the Captain is the person who makes it. Sharksmith I have had cc tell me the right engine is abnormally noisey (loose door seal), "it must be too foggy to takeoff," (RVRs in limits), "there's a hydraulic noise in the cabin" (resonance from recirc fan), "we can't go because we are out of hours," (they weren't), "an engine has just exploded" (RB211 top of descent surge.)

I may well have over-stated my case.
I would not want to have a raw kid playing with my life- I would rather have a professional, qualified, responsible pilot. No question about this.
I was trying to refer to breakdown in comm. between an experienced cc and a receptive pilot.
To go all the way back to Kegworth - if the men up front had asked the cc to check which engine was burning out, without immediately taking corrective action...
The Tenerife disaster led to better teamwork in the office - perhaps each plane should have at least one experienced cc - with whom the office staff up front trusted...?
We all know the minutes and seconds leading to disaster and averted disaster demand all the time of the people in the office up front.
I was merely suggesting the info from a trusted cc may buy valuable time,before emercency action has to be taken.

[kenhughes]

Whether your idea of CRM aligns with 411A's or is more liberal, like Dani's, the one thing that guides - if not determines - good CRM is common sense.

While not flight or cabin crew, I work with pilots on a daily basis. My boss is an ex-DC10 freighter skipper and one of our part-timers is an ex-Part 135 PIC. ALL of the pilots and ex pilots I come into contact with have an abundance of common sense. I would say that it would be impossible to obtain a crew position on an airplane without common sense.

So why did common sense seem to go out of the window on this flight?

The Captain had just returned from a lengthy spell of sick-leave due, so we are told, to a knee injury. He has been on a four-day trip, in a less than comfortable position. Do we know what effect this has had on his injury? How much pain had he been enduring? Someone mentioned he may have been on medication - I doubt the airline medics would have passed him fit to fly had he been on anything too strong.

Did he hear the FO and FA talking about him behind the flight-deck door (as reported they did in BoF's earlier post). Was it the last straw? Did he feel the need to (re) assert his authority?

Based on Facts has given us one side of the story. I will not call BoF a liar, because I don't know the facts any more than the majority of posters on here. But it does seem to be, at least, a very biased report of the incident. (No criticism there - it's nice to see people sticking-up for their colleagues).

I simply think we should refrain from passing judgement on the skipper. 1. it's not our job. The airline and the FAA will do that, if necessary.
2. We may be doing him a grave disservice, especially if he took an action that he thought was necessary for the continued safety of the flight (ie, if he was getting agitated, it would not be in the best interests of the flight for the situation to continue).

The end result was that an airplane full of people reached their destination with no harm done. One purser had an overnight in MIA and was then returned to ORD.

[p51guy]

This event will be handled by UA and the truth will come out. Dealing with fragments of the story here is a real waste of everyones time. If this is a pissing contest gone bad then whoever loses will pay a price.

[Litebulbs]

Rainboe - Read it as you wish. I do not really care about "the trauma" an F/O goes through to get the 4th stripe, as I am sure a small minority will detail it at great length on this very site.

I deal with Captains every day. Some top people, highly educated and very professional. Most are even a pleasure to sit and have a beer with. Leaders? Probably about 80%. I can make that judgement because I am not in the chain of command. Decision makers? Absolutely. That is the pressure that pays the bucks. But bad decisions will be judged.

[mickjoebill]

What information was given to passengers regarding the diversion and an eyefull of waiting emergency vehicles ?

I'll bet the farm that the pilot didn't say they were diverting due to a conflict with crew.

Could a time come when passengers lose confidence in the purpose and accuracy of announcements from pilots, especially when diversions, delays or unusual activity is taking place?

I wonder if this will lead to passengers suing an airline, in this case one could argue that once the aircraft had landed passengers had a right to know that there had been a conflict among the crew? Is it unreasonable to expect that passengers and had a choice to disembark if they felt uncomfortable or troubled?

Perhaps this could be supported by the fact that the airline itself did not allow the pilot to fly his next sector.

Do we think it possible to loose the collective confidence of passengers?



Mickjoebill

[411A]

Problem:
disruptive person onboard.
Solution:
diversion, offloading of said disruptive person.
Costs:
one hour delay on arrival plus handling cost at diversion airport.
Benefits:
safe and smooth remaining flight.
I would say much ado about nothing.

Yup, well said.

[stilton]

Unfortunately, Rainboe your well written, logical and cogent position simply cannot be accepted by our 'Cabin Captains'


The real Captains authority in the US has been diluted so much (with managements turning a blind eye) that the occasions when one chooses to exercise his or her ultimate authority, as this Captain did in removing a crewmember are analysed and second guessed beyond belief in the name of political correctness.


This is a great step backward, there needs to be, at all times a single person in charge of the Aircraft. That person, is by definition, company policy and global law the Captain.


Decisions need to be made all the time, if they are compromised or second guessed by everyone involved in the process eventually nothing will get done and Anarchy will ensue.


This is already happening here. I am still firmly on the side of this Captain based on my personal experience of some horrifically unprofessional, obnoxious
and uncooperative Flight Attendants I have encountered in 23 years in the business. They simply do not have the credibility for me to give them the benefit of the doubt.


They are the disgrace of the industry and completely poisonous as mentors to the younger Flight Attendants. Their seniority 'excuses' any behaviour.


It is a gloomy paradox that on those most important, highest revenue long haul routes there are usually one or more of these dinosaurs spreading their misery.



The flight attendants that remain professional while exposed to this behaviour are the true professionals. Fortunately they are still the majority.



I only wish we had the ability to eject these idiots while still airborne.

:}

[Latearrival]

Problem:
disruptive person onboard.

Solution:
diversion, offloading of said disruptive person.

Costs:
one hour delay on arrival plus handling cost at diversion airport.

Benefits:
safe and smooth remaining flight.

I would say much ado about nothingIs it really possible to have that kind of tunnel vision and will you feel the same way if the guy loses his job over this?

I suspect the employer doesn't share your point of view.

[Wiley]

I have not read anywhere near every post in the 14 pages that make up this thread, but I think we could save a lot of bandwidth and a lot of future embarrassment if the moderators dumped every post on the thread except for the first post and Judd's post #251.

Well said, Judd. You sound like the epitome of the consumately professional flight attendant who (and oh, how I know this next comment will be misunderstood and leapt upon by all too many!!) knows her place in the chain of command on board an airliner. It would be a pleasure to work with you, (and judging from your post leading another current thread, very comforting to be up front with you running the cabin in an emergency).

How in the world can some of you pronounce judgement on something like this on the scant information you have to hand? It's the same attitude that lead to the burning of young women as witches in places like Salem.

[p51guy]

We need to get the whole story. What is being discussed here is not so why discuss it further.

[mickjoebill]

This is a great step backward, there needs to be, at all times a single person in charge of the Aircraft. That person, is by definition, company policy and global law the Captain.

Following up an earlier post lets consider the authority of the captain as seen by passengers too.
In the old days how much of the captain's authority was underwritten by the glamour, mystery and prestige of being in charge of large jets?
Also, compared to today there were fewer passengers understanding the principles of flight and airline procedures?

In contrast most flights today are occupied by a greater percentage of more seasoned travelers who have a reasonable understanding of
a) basics of how the aircraft is configured and takes flight.
b) of how airlines operate and manage flights and crew
c) accidents and their aftermath, thanks to you tube and the net.

So it seems logical to assume that over time passengers will become more savvy and also more vocal if they smell a rat vis-a-vis cockpit announcements of the pull the wool variety.

If so, does it follow that CC will find it more problematic to take command of passengers in a true emergency?



Mickjoebill

[MU3001A]

Problem:
disruptive person onboard.

Solution:
diversion, offloading of said disruptive person.

Costs:
one hour delay on arrival plus handling cost at diversion airport.

Benefits:
safe and smooth remaining flight.

I would say much ado about nothing.Pushing the requested documents under the door constitutes disruptive behavior justifying a diversion and all the inconvenience and expense that necessarily entails, just to offload the offending document pusher? Tell me you are kidding, right? Some contributors to this thread seem to have completely lost all sense of proportion, faced with prima facie evidence that one of their peers may have similarly completely lost it while exercising the privileges of command. Disturbingly many appear to be offering their opinion absolving the captain's behavior, as justified by their own outmoded interpretation of the rights and privileges of command sans the equally important responsibilities.

Again, no way to run an airline.

[stilton]

'Problem:
disruptive person onboard.

Solution:
diversion, offloading of said disruptive person.

Costs:
one hour delay on arrival plus handling cost at diversion airport.

Benefits:
safe and smooth remaining flight.

I would say much ado about nothing. '



Agreed.

[Cacophonix]

'Problem:
disruptive person onboard.


Not proven.

Solution:
diversion, offloading of said disruptive person.


A purser was definitely disembarked (the basis of the questions and arguments in this thread).

Costs:
one hour delay on arrival plus handling cost at diversion airport.


You seem to forget that passengers actually pay wages. The inconveniencing of a large number of people plus the reputational cost to UA.

This diversion may also cost a Captain his job and may potentially blight the careers of the First Officers and the Cabin Crew.

Benefits:
safe and smooth remaining flight.


Not proven. Questions about the crew's (not only the Captain's) competence to complete this flight remain.


I would say much ado about nothing. '



Stick to Shakespeare, your logic is flawed.

[411A]

The inconveniencing of a large number of people plus the reputational cost to UA.


The actual reputation of UA died a long time ago, and the ultimate dispuption of the few (many) old hags left in the cabin will be sure to keep it dead....irrespective of what any Captain does, now or in the future.

Fact.

[Semaphore Sam]

A salutary lession? You VILL Obey!
YouTube - Eric Cartman-Respect my Authority!!!!! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyf3rNzU99I&feature=related)

[massman]

First of all thanks for a very entertaining but slightly disconcerting thread. It has kept me enthralled during some of the pauses in my hectic life as senior manager with one of those companies that build those things you fly (in). Damn, let it slip - you got it - I'm another non pilot. However, just to add my tuppence worth.......
There seems to be a lota about responsibility and authority but very little on respect.

FC (and CC and many others) are employed by airlines
airlines are there to (try and) make money
they make money by flying paying SLF around
SLF expect safety and service (and low price)
The FC and many others on the ground (including little ol' me) are responsible for ensuring the safety (which is relatively well regulated)
The CC and other customer facing staff are the first line for service standards (in the eyes of the paying customers)
Both have different but equal levels of responsibility in ensuring the success of the business
Based on several of the contributions in this thread, if the relationship between managers and team members in my industry were the same as what appears to be on board an aircraft, then I think we would have greater difficulty in building a good aircraft.Anyway, as I said - "Light blue touchpaper..."

I'm off for a bit of hols, so I won't be contributing more and probably not reading for a while, so please discuss amongst yourselves.

[eliptic]

and the ultimate dispuption of the few (many) old hags left in the cabin will be sure to keep it dead

It is amazing how many nice words and respect you guys have on/for the passengers paying your salary and make it even a job to have.

I fully understand were the "Self loading cargo" comes from.

And you want to be taken as serious commanders?

i rest my case,,i go play with my kids,,

[Latearrival]

While it’s true that all the facts of the case aren’t known and there have been ill-informed comments from those outside the industry, some pilots have also questioned the Captain’s actions and said there must have been a more sensible way to handle the situation. (There have been illogical and questionable comments on both sides.) Yes, the Captain should not be pronounced “guilty” at this stage. But what is known has raised questions about management/leadership ability and common-sense—not who has legal authority to make decisions.

Furthermore, the gate swings both ways. Some of the accusations made against Based on Facts are equally unsubstantiated and a rush to judgment. I hope that the facts of the case do come out in a way that is credible. If I am wrong in suspecting that the Captain didn’t handle things appropriately, I will be the first to say I was wrong and hopefully learn from the situation. If it turns out that Based on Facts presented the facts accurately, I doubt that any apologies will come his/her way.

It is also too bad that some of the “dirty laundry” between some pilots and some cabin crew is being aired in public. 411A, judging by the way your fellow pilots react to you on other threads, those who don’t see things your way, are in good company. You often don’t seem to be in sync with others in your industry. Fact.

[cwatters]

'Problem:
disruptive person onboard.

Solution:
diversion, offloading of said disruptive person.


So why wasn't the disruptive person off-loaded this time? It wouldn't be the first time a Captain has declared himself unfit following an argument. Why is it so inconcevable to some people here?

Innocent until proven guilty is fine as long as it's also applied to the purser.

[captjns]

The situation here is not a disruptive passenger, but a disruptive flight crewmember. With the number of furloughed pilots, it is quite possible that one of the F/Os may have flowed back to the right seat… thus capable of assuming the duties of PIC, and continue to ORD.

The entire situation was a perfect made for TV soap opera.

[rogerg]

Fact.

Saying that does not make it so. Could I say "Fact"

[Curious Pax]

The Captn informed the Purser that he wanted the crew decs.
The Purser, instead of complying, asked if she could supply them at a later time, more convenient to her.
The Captn informed the Purser that he wanted the crew decs immediately.
Instead of delivering them in the normal fashion, the Purser pushed them under the cockpit door.


BoF seems to think that the above scenario clearly puts the Captn in the wrong, and the Purser in the right.
Reading it with my CSD/Sr Purser half-spectacles on, I disagree with BoF.
If the Captan wants the crew decs right now, it´s the Purser´s job to supply the crew decs right now. Chain of command, easy peasy.
As per BoF, it takes 30 secs to fill them out. On an 11 hour flight, the Purser has the time to both fill them out, go through the procedure of getting into the cockpit and hand them to the Captn without this in any way shape or form impacting negatively on the service to the pax.
Yes it is inconvenient, yes it seems to the Purser unreasonable and illogical but as Purser, that´s what you have to deal with.
He´s the Captn, you´re the Purser, and as long as a request from the Captn doesn´t put people´s lives in danger, you deal with a Captn´s request promptly and courteously.


Just a thought from SLF:

Captain wants crew dec now, but Purser can't do that due to SOP about a colleague covering the cockpit door.
Purser thinks laterally, and pushes them under the door - addresses both issues. Unfortunately due to a lack of communication/understanding between them the result of this is that the Captain thinks the Purser is being insubordinate by doing this, whilst the Purser wonders what he's making a fuss about. Result: situation escalates and you get a multi-page Pprune thread!

Only a theory of course, as like everyone else on here (almost?) I wasn't there.....

[Mornington Crescent]

I blame the door for the change in culture. It created them and us.

[Road_Hog]

Quite frankly I am astounded by the opinions of some captains here that think that this captain was justified in diverting the flight. Now I know it has been said that we don't know the full story, but these opinions are based on what is in this thread, so I shall do the same.

As a pax, I do not want to be incovenienced by a diversion just because the captain has a hissy fit and feels that the purser has undermined his authority. I understand that if there is a danger to the aircraft, then you dirvert, but in there situation, the only danger was the captain's hubris.

Having been in middle management with a top international firm, I have dealt with many issues with staff over the years. If you're in charge/the boss you get respect and obedience from managing your staff not bossing them. If there is an issue, you pull that person aside and deal with it or schedule an appointment with HR if it merits it. You do not start a row in front of other staff or suddenly call an event off, just because you feel that your authority has been questioned, you get through the event and deal with it after.

Now I know sales & marketing isn't the same as flying a plane and there are more immediate issues and lives at stake, but I do struggle to see that a diversion was necessary and feel that the captain could have carried on and dealt with this at destination with head office/HR if needed and put in a report. The fact that he had a tantrum and overreacted would worry me that he may be prone to making other irrational decisions if something annoyed him.

[emirmorocan]

A full enviroment of CRM like in that flight:






YouTube - Crimson Tide Re-Edit: Gene Hackman & Denzel Washington Argue (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-7FeUqkqrk)
:cool:

[Andy_S]

Quite frankly I am astounded by the opinions of some captains here that think that this captain was justified in diverting the flight.

I'm not sure I recall any professional pilots saying it was justified, only that until such time as the full story emerges it would be wrong to condemn this particular captain for having done so.

The fact that he had a tantrum

How do we know he had a 'tantrum'?

[rdr]

there are two breakdowns here, and unfortunately ego and emotions got in the way.

1. the purser refused to carry out a direct command and insulted the captain
by shoving the gd under the door

2. the captain was pissed off enough to divert HIS a/c

the rest is pheriperal mumbo jumbo and insinuation.
at these times, if one person backs down, everyone wins.

the purser could have complied, and then written the captain up.
the captain could have done the same, and if serious enough, called up the feds to meet the a/c and register a case of insurbordination.

[Michael Birbeck]

One earlier poster made, a tongue in cheek, comment about "a lover's tiff".

Obviously nobody is implying that this was a factor in this case but it does draw out one important CRM point. Romance has no place in the workplace, particularly in safety critical and demanding environments like an airliner moving at some 600 mph through congested skies.

I am not an airline pilot but to my eternal shame as a mere PPL I have literally lost it with a passenger, my then girlfriend, while flying just outside Class D airspace on a long cross country flight. The niggle factor got to me and white faced with rage I found myself 800 feet below my altitude and some 30 degress of course. I had completely lost situational awareness. I should not have flown at all that day and certainly not with her.

Rage of the cold white type is a form of madness and I believe it can overtake anyone. I think we should cut this Captain some slack.

It shouldn't but it could happen to anybody. We are all humans, airline Captains included, with the emotional and physical foibles and baggage that goes with that.

[eagle21]

Rdr the captain was pissed off enough to divert HIS a/c



Is not HIS a/c full stop.

[Andy_S]

Is not HIS a/c full stop.

Semantics. While it's in the air, he has absolute legal and operational responsibility for it.

[eliptic]

Semantics. While it's in the air, he has absolute legal and operational responsibility for it.

I guess he have a hell of a salary to pay the monthly plane mortgage:p

[eliptic]

Sheesh, 16 pages in this forum & in the CC forum 1. Says alot really

o yeaaa, can you imagine how many times that ad banner down under keeping PPrune alive have loaded under those 16 pages created and read?:D

Says alot really

It says 14 pages are defending the Captain and 2 blaming the Purser, 1 post defending the purser

NOone give the damn of the SLF get the final outcome

[fft100]

>RDR
there are two breakdowns here, and unfortunately ego and emotions got in the way.

1. the purser refused to carry out a direct command and insulted the captain
by shoving the gd under the door

2. the captain was pissed off enough to divert HIS a/c


1. What happens if the direct command cannot be carried out because it contradicts SOP (which was mentioned to have happened here).

2. Why does he have to wait 6 hours to divert the aircraft ?

It appears to me (being frequent long haul SLF) that on a long haul flight the busiest times for the CC are the first couple of hours and the last couple of hours. It seems reasonable for the flight crew to realise this and schedule paperwork (and other matters) around that.

[SaturnV]

Airbubba wrote:
I'm not sure whether the captain, L.S., was 'suspended' but it does appear in the UAL scheduling computer that his next trip was dropped.

And there are several ways you can be removed from flying by the feds, they can pull your license, take your medical or put you in TSA 'no fly' status until you prove fit to fly. I've seen all of the above in recent years after various incidents.

If the reason he gave to Miami Center for his diversion indicated that there was an unexplained safety issue with the flight, information on the diversion could have been passed on to the Department of Homeland Security's Operations Center. The more enigmatic or cryptic the explanation, the more likely that flags would be raised. (If the flight was indeed met at the gate by police and TSA officials, you can draw your own conclusions on whether the diversion was reported to the DHS Operations Center.)

On receiving this information, the DHS Operations Center may, in turn, have generated an alert to its network, or part of its network, about an incoming international flight requesting a diversion to Miami with an unexplained safety issue. (When the incident was resolved, a subsequent message would update and close out the incident.)

For the TSA to conclude that the captain's reason for diverting was spurious or mis-leading, the consequences could be dire.

(Post 9/11, if I recall correctly, as a condition of re-opening KDCA, all pilots flying flights in and out of the airport had to be specially vetted as not posing a potential security threat, and get on an approved list by the government before they were allowed in the cockpit of a KDCA flight.)

[Captain Bob]

You said,

Is not HIS a/c full stop.

It is his aircraft. From one end to the other. He is responsible for everything on the aircraft.

[wideman]

The Captain has absolute authority of the a/c, and he must always uphold the best interests of the company or agency who entrusted that authority to him.

To consider the first part of that sentence without also considering the second part is disingenuous, simplistic, or both. (If you think that a finger is pointing at the "case closed" crowd, among others, you would not be mistaken.)

[rgbrock1]

I see a bit of back and forth about whose aircraft it is. I think we're playing with
semantics here. It is the Captain's aircraft as far as responsibility, command and flight is concerned. As long as he/she is on the aircraft. Aside from those specific items, the aircraft is, and will always remain, the property and ownership of the airliner for which the Captain works.

[eagle21]

It is not his aircraft, he is in charge but the aircraft belongs to the airline. The Captain also has to follow orders from it's managment in operational matters ( as long as safety is not involved) , and this can also happen inflight. Via ACARS , the company might order you to divert for whatever reason somewhere and you as captain if safety is not involved will comply.

[Dani]

No, the aircraft belongs to the leasing company :ugh:

[rgbrock1]

Leasing company? That's a new one on me. (SLF, what do you expect?!!!)
I always ASSumed that the airlines owned their aircraft. I guess not?

[MU3001A]

1. the purser refused to carry out a direct command and insulted the captain
by shoving the gd under the doorThis thread is shaping up to be the perfect Rorschach test for exposing all the latter day Queegs amongst the Pprune commentariat. Disturbingly, many appear to be the self declared professional peers of the captain in question.

2. the captain was pissed off enough to divert HIS a/c
Merely pissing off the captain is no reason to divert a flight to offload a crew member. Except perhaps in the most extreme situations imaginable, involving a credible threat to continued safe operation of the flight. Obviously not the case here. Captains, even senior captains of an airline's flagship aircraft are not free to resolve their petty differences with other crew members in such a capricious manner with complete disregard for the inconvenience visited on passengers, ground staff and government agencies, without serious consequences ensuing. I suspect this captain became aware through subtle clues, that he had lost the confidence and respect of his crew and chose to make an example of the purser in an attempt to restore a percieved accompanying loss of authority. But he chose an inappropriate method of doing so that will likely cost him his job and career.

[beamender99]

You make a fair point in the last paragraph Rainboe and I am sure it will happen.

Flying aeroplanes does not make you a good leader. I am reasonably sure that leadership is not a prime measure, when promoting a first officer to command. It would never have been in the job role. Hiding behind the law of the sky, does not promote good leadership skills.

In most other jobs, leaders are selected because of their leadership skills. This is true for cabin crew. is it the same for flight crew?


A few years ago I attended a presentation by BA for wannabee pilots.
The question was "Who wants to be a pilot with BA?"
Lots of hands went up. The reply was :-
" Well we are not looking for pilots but are looking for those who can manage a multi £M piece of equipment, CC, passengers etc. We will then teach them to fly"
That made a few of them think!

[atco-matic]

I have to say if I had been an FO on an aircraft, I would have seriously questioned the ability of a Captain to continue operating safely if he had got himself so wound up that he felt the need to divert to offload another crew member. It also seems incomprehensible to me that the airline allowed the Captain to continue operating- if there had been a incident on the subsequent flight caused by a seething Captain mulling over what had happened and the pending inquiry, I dread to think what the repercussions would have been for the airline!

I'm only a humble ATCO so you'll have to excuse me, but I have to say I find some of the opinions expressed by flight deck personnel on this thread shocking, to say the least.

[Litebulbs]

Beamender99-

I would never say that a Captain would not be able to manage as you have said. If I had any doubt, I would not fly.

People do not like being managed by bad managers, but you would follow a good leader anywhere!

[Rainboe]

Litebulbs, please get your logic sorted out! You saidFlying aeroplanes does not make you a good leader. I am reasonably sure that leadership is not a prime measure, when promoting a first officer to command. It would never have been in the job role. Hiding behind the law of the sky, does not promote good leadership skills.

In most other jobs, leaders are selected because of their leadership skills. This is true for cabin crew. is it the same for flight crew?
So do you have any doubt the pilot has leadership skills or not? Because to say I would never say that a Captain would not be able to manage as you have said. If I had any doubt, I would not fly. is a contradiction. this thread is convoluted enough without people making contradictory statements! You evidently don't have confidence that leadership/management skills are adequately assessed at 'promotion to captain'-time!

[rgbrock1]

Rainboe,

If one does not know the pilot in question personally then one can make absolutely no valid judgment, at all, as to his leadership skills or lack thereof.

[Will Fraser]

It is a good thing Command is not a democracy. This thread is a case in point. I know this company well, I do not know the individuals.

Someone, a person who has extensive experience and confidence, is chosen to command a carriage, a jet transport. He has ultimate authority, because of said experience; it has been proven over time. Any individual who makes a display of purposeful disrespect to this person is endangering the purpose for which this person was chosen to lead. Disrespect seems insignificant to some, I will tell you it is a matter of life and death.

People in danger are afraid, and look for a leader to lead them to safety.
Confidence inspires self-confidence in those who are fearful. Undermining authority is insidious and can be lethal. This may be off thread, because in all honesty I don't know a thing about this flight. But it is my concept of leadership, and of the threat to all when it is gratuitously challenged.

[Dawdler]

Dart Herald quote:
Unless I am going completely bonkers, I seem to remember what I considered to be an extremely astute post yesterday afternoon that seems to have been removed. IMHO it was so on the nail that I was tempted to comment as such but got distracted by other things.

There do not appear to be any missing numbers in the post sequence.

[rgbrock1]

Will Fraser,

I'm sure this will be off the thread, sort of, but I understand where you are coming from as far as command, respect and leadership are concerned. Somewhat.
I have a different set of values for each of the above. I derived some of those values from my own upbringing, some from life experiences and some from combat experience leading other men. (United States Army 1st Ranger Battalion, 75th Infantry during Operation Urgent Fury on the island of Grenada - Oct-Dec 1983)
There are many aspects to the subject of command and leadership. Command is given, or earned. Command is sometimes learned, sometimes innate to the person in a command responsibility. And command sometimes is given to those who are not deserving of it. At all. Leadership, on the other hand is not usually a learned skill but is often a character trait indigenous to an individual. Command and leadership are not always two skills that go hand in hand seamlessly. One can have command but lack leadership skills. One can have leadership skills but have no command. Yes, those who are commanded must, in most cases, obey the LAWFUL orders
of those doing the commanding. However if I in a commanding position issue an order which can be deemed unlawful and puts at risk those who are being commanded, then that order MAY be called into question. As a leader I should have acquired the wisdom and skills to know that an order, based on a command and questioned by my subordinates may actually have a basis to be questioned. And I should know how to resolve the issue underlying the disconnected between the command and those being commanded without undue risk to all involved.

Hope this makes sense.

[MU3001A]

purposeful disrespect ... Undermining authority ... gratuitously challenged.

Nothing related so far about the origins of this incident ought to come anywhere near significantly bruising the ego of the caliber of person entrusted with the responsibility of commanding a flagship long haul aircraft for a major carrier like UAL.

Just saying.

[Will Fraser]

rgbrock1

I cannot disagree with any of your post, it is accurate and I subscribe to the beliefs expressed. Short of an unlawful command, any requests are a subtle form of command. There is a protocol in an uncharged environment.
If I may, and with no concrete knowledge of this incident, what appears to have happened is a challenge to heirarchy. Whether by misunderstanding, pride, or short temper, the fundamental chain cannot be compromised, it is as Juud has written: touchy Captain, deferent staff.
The touchier, the more respect is called for. This is not fair, it isn't agreeable, it isn't gentlemanly, and it may be mitigated at another time.
If on the same team, and Captain has drawn his sword, leave yours in its sheath. A challenge of any sort disrespects the entire crew.

[411A]

Lets face facts here.
Amateurs, and this includes SLF, actually have positively no idea whatsoever of the operation, and especially the Command of, a civil jet airliner, so....all of their opinions, thoughts, and diatribe is totally without merit, whether they think so, or not.
These folks will go on posting their nonsence, of course, however it will be totally ignored by the airline professionals on ths board.

IE: those in the back of the bus have no say in the matter, whatsoever.
Like it or not....and I expect many won't.
Tough:D

[rgbrock1]

411A wrote:

Lets face facts here.
Amateurs, and this includes SLF, actually have positively no idea whatsoever of the operation, and especially the Command of, a civil jet airliner, so....all of their opinions, thoughts, and diatribe is totally without merit, whether they think so, or not.
These folks will go on posting their nonsence, of course, however it will be totally ignored by the airline professionals on ths board.

IE: those in the back of the bus have no say in the matter, whatsoever.
Like it or not....and I expect many won't.
Tough.>

And you sir, have absolutely no idea whatsoever of the command and responsibility involved in taking hundreds of men into harm's way. No idea at all. The underlining notion here involves command and responsibility. To a lesser degree: leadership.
Whether you're an aircraft captain on a flight, a military man leading men into combat, or a first responder leading others into a disaster zone, the underlining notions are still the same. To think otherwise underscores your inherent ignorance of the issues involved.

[Michael Birbeck]

@rgbrock1

Some of the opinions espoused by some of the people here are pitched to rile the reasonable man.

I have a great deal of respect for the airline professionals. Sir, I have a great deal of respect for you.

The days of the Queegs, the Arnheiters... (continue as you will) are over. It will be painful for them. In a sense, tough.

MB

[411A]

rgbrock1, are you an airline Captain with many years of expereince in the job?

If not, your comments are without merit.
Period.
Sorry to disappoint you.:}

[rgbrock1]

411A,

I am not going to stoop down to your level and engage in an online pissing contest.
It would get me nowhere. However, I will add this. Under your profile it states
Airline Captain. Fine. However, if you are an airline captain in the U.S. then every time I fly and it happens to be the airline for which you work, then I am indirectly paying YOUR SALARY. With that in mind, I will continue to espouse my opinion
about any matter in which I deem fit.

If you don't like that. Tough.

[MU3001A]

411A, are you an airline Captain with many years of experience in the job?

Please tell me you are not.

Because your comments on this thread have been invariably without merit for someone occupying such a position of responsibility.

Regards.

[stilton]

Have to agree with 411A here. Passengers are just that, while they are welcome to their opinions they are clueless when it comes to the actual operation of the Aircraft, the responsibilitys and authority of the Captain.


As to comparing that with leading men into battle, while you have my utmost respect for your service it's not even close to being the same thing.




On a different subject :


'A few years ago I attended a presentation by BA for wannabee pilots.
The question was "Who wants to be a pilot with BA?"
Lots of hands went up. The reply was :-
" Well we are not looking for pilots but are looking for those who can manage a multi £M piece of equipment, CC, passengers etc. We will then teach them to fly"
That made a few of them think! '



This is the kind of, to their minds clever management 'gotcha' thinking that is pointless and counterproductive.


What would they have said if no one put their hand up ,the presentation was for 'wannabee Pilots' wasn't it ! ?



Idiots...

[ChrisVJ]

First, and with the greatest of respect for those I have admired and envied for forty years: The idea that because a person is not aircrew they may have no useful comment or opinion is really rather silly, especially in view of the avowed need for aircrew to be open minded thinking people. In a field of endeavour I joined just a few years ago (School Trustee,) it is exactly the lack of outsiders and consideration of their ideas that has lead to stultification of thought and failure to pursue simple and well proven ideas, in turn leading to stagnation and failure to improve academic results. Ironically many of the ideas we don't consider are those from the aviation industry, including the reporting of incidents without censure (unless appropriate,) safety management (the principle that all members should be considering results of their actions in a particular light,) recurrent training, check rides and even CRM!

In any such conversation there are always extremes and off the wall suggestions but it is not too hard to sort them. To characterise all such comment as worthless, however frustrating they may be, is to cast yourselves as arrogant and intolerant.


Second, to castigate both sides evenly: In a world where an experienced captain is a valuable asset to his company and the aviation industry and where the watchwords are retraining, help and support and where pilots come back from the depths of alcoholism, depression and other malaises, to be calling for this pilot to be ‘permanently removed,’ even before the evidence is in, is similarly arrogant and intolerant and not worthy of the members of this board, (though sometimes I wonder.)


Third and last; It seems that the very anonymity that allows us to join in discussion and contribute to all sorts of subjects that interest us without the retribution of a knuckle sandwich or even the face to face embarrassment of being taken down a peg or two in public is also the spur for some to express views that they would not dream of expressing in that face to face encounter and the increasing stridency adds nothing to the advance of the argument. This is even more apparent in political discussion that in the almost technical pages of PPRUNE. It would be an altogether more pleasant world if we would, perhaps, apply the test of “Would I say this to his face? Would I say it to the inspector? Would I say it to the judge?” before posting.

JMHO, of course.

[p51guy]

411A I think won this pissing contest if that is what you want to call it. Captains gather all the information they can in all aspects of flight and make decisions like a CEO does for a corporation. His responsibility is for the safe and efficient operation of his aircraft. He will be the man to explain why he did what he did in a situation. The cabin crew can offer suggestions but his decision is final. Democracy doesn't work very well in an aircraft where the majority rules. The captain has to justify all of his many decisions during his flight and seldom does the company question him. Occasionally if an FA writes up a report questioning you the chief will call to get your side. That is usually the end of the problem as it should be.

[Michael Birbeck]

411A I think won this pissing contest if that is what you want to call it.


Yeah, he sounds a little like a piss artist or more like a taking the piss version.

Coat, door...

[Dani]

Guys, don't get involved with 411A, he spreads foul ideas for years. This is not the first - and it wont be the last - thread he demonstrates his inability of understanding modern aviation.

Back to the topic: Leadership and command. Problem is, that those captains (who think they "own" the ship and its crew), don't know how hard it is to be a real good leader. They think, that they are born leader, since they are checked out after upgrading.

They have lived a good life in a major airline, sat on the right seat for 10 years or longer, waited for that moment it finally was their turn.

But they never had to lead outside of their job. As a pilot, everything is pretty much laid down in their books. There it says, that they can do whatever they deem necessary. But they have never understood that it is a big burden to lead. Look at Winston Churchill, Nelson Mandela, Abraham Lincoln etc aso. They lived for the job, and they sometimes died for it. Every day in their position to lead was a struggle. And they had to give everything to receive something from their subordinates. To be on top, they had to go down very low. And they were rewarded for it.

When I read some statements here in this thread, from some captains, when I hear the talk of "I can do everything necessary aboard my ship", I really have to smile, and I realize that they know nothing about real life. And it's not the first time I write this in this forum, but it is so true: I'm sooo glad that I don't have to fly with you!

Dani

[Cacophonix]

Guys, don't get involved with 411A, he spreads foul ideas for years. This is not the first - and it wont be the last - thread he demonstrates his inability of understanding modern aviation.



You are right. Amen to the new spirit of professional aviation. With respect to you guys and girls, cabin and flying.

[Rainboe]

And you sir, have absolutely no idea whatsoever of the command and responsibility involved in taking hundreds of men into harm's way. No idea at all. The underlining notion here involves command and responsibility. To a lesser degree: leadership.
ChrisVJ and RGBock1, all the command theory is great and makes a lot of sense. However, sorry to disappoint you, but at 600mph, there is no time to discuss or question what the Captain wants (within a large band of reason). You can apply all the theories of 'good commanders' and the rest of it, but it ends behind the flight deck door, like it or not. At almost 10 miles a minute, I am not explaining and very often not even asking opinions (I will- of all the crew only- when there is time!)- it is not a luxury we have. 411A is indeed perhaps the longest standing and most experienced airline pilot of the first order that you will ever hear on this board. As one of the other more experienced members, I would prefer no other to entrust my life to anywhere near as much! That doesn't mean we have to like him because even I find his opinions sometimes jar, but always, they are right, brutal, but right. And he's right here! Right here!

So thanks for all the philosophy, but we ain't got time. And as for passenger opinions? They can stay right behind that door! We are entrusted with shifting their carcases with safety from A to B, maintaining as much comfort as we can. what their opinions are of any aspect of the operation is for Customer Services, not me in front of that door. I neither listen nor desire to know that part of the operation. They pay the airline for me to transport them, not to foist their opinions down the crew or the staffs' throats. Sit there, STFU and let us get on with the job, because 400 voices trying to make their feelings known at 600mph is untenable. So NOBODY claim because you are paying $50 for your seat, you have a voice I want to listen to! I can't, and no passenger can preach to us what they think airline captains should do or how they should behave.

That is why these sudden instant CRM experts and their opinions in this thread are unwelcome. Until you've been there and had the responsibility, I'm sorry, but you know nothing, and your opinions are valueless. why avionics engineers and members of the public think they can come here and preach to us and question our ethics and values and give us lessons is one of life's little mysteries! Brutal, but nobody seems to understand or take the point! People spend years learning this stuff- why do others think they have it at their fingertips enough to be able to give us their opinions? Purrlease!

Dani, your views are downright damaging to yourself. I can't believe some of the weirdness you are coming up with. I will tell you straight- I would rather 411A flew me than anybody else (myself included!). And certainly not your style operation!

[parabellum]

I believe the stark reality is that being in command of a public transport aircraft, like a B767, is one of the few jobs that one really has to be there and have done to fully understand it, all the theory in the world may not always help. When flying we are, as humans, outside our natural earthbound environment and this effects people in different ways and requires solid training and practice to overcome, again, you have to have been there and done that to fully appreciate this phenomena.

No where does the above show itself more than in the simulator when a first officer is doing his first command training. Flying from the other seat is no problem, the systems are all the same as are the procedures but the mental transition is the hard part, finally realising that everyone is looking at you and you are the final decision maker. Some handle it well, others don't and need a second go, some don't ever make it.

Regarding this particular incident I reserve my opinion until, if ever, both sides of the story are public knowledge.

[DownIn3Green]

Para...

The most intelligent post of the entire thread....Period...Nice Job and great insight....

Dani...BTW...411A may be beyond "your" concept of "modern aviation", but without him and many, many others like him (E.K. Gann and Dick Merrill come to mind) you wouldn't be where you are today (if in fact you are anywhere)...

Read some Robert Serling and learn about "Kimes, White, Caroll and Duescher", or soak in some "From The Captain To The Colonel", or "Wings Of Man", or even "Probable Cause" (the story of the L-188 Electra) and then try to enter a pissing contest w/ 411A or anyone else her who knows what "Command Authority" is all about...

[GreenEyedTraveler]

It is a good thing Command is not a democracy. This thread is a case in point. I know this company well, I do not know the individuals.

Someone, a person who has extensive experience and confidence, is chosen to command a carriage, a jet transport. He has ultimate authority, because of said experience; it has been proven over time. Any individual who makes a display of purposeful disrespect to this person is endangering the purpose for which this person was chosen to lead. Disrespect seems insignificant to some, I will tell you it is a matter of life and death.

People in danger are afraid, and look for a leader to lead them to safety.
Confidence inspires self-confidence in those who are fearful. Undermining authority is insidious and can be lethal. This may be off thread, because in all honesty I don't know a thing about this flight. But it is my concept of leadership, and of the threat to all when it is gratuitously challenged.


Three words:

General Robert McNamara

'nuff said.

[GreenEyedTraveler]

Lets face facts here.
Amateurs, and this includes SLF, actually have positively no idea whatsoever of the operation, and especially the Command of, a civil jet airliner, so....all of their opinions, thoughts, and diatribe is totally without merit, whether they think so, or not.
These folks will go on posting their nonsence, of course, however it will be totally ignored by the airline professionals on ths board.


"totally ignored"?

Yet, you keep responding. (oh, btw - that's a "fact" :p)

[bugg smasher]

The enormity of airliner command responsibility is not readily evident, as are the most stringent of personal and professional requirements imposed as a result, to those who have not found their way, strived to overcome personal setbacks, or otherwise fought hugely to achieve the position. The odds are very much against many who try. Once there, paradoxically, that existential weight, once fully understood, is something in my opinion very few would willingly carry.


Where this captain is concerned, anomalies do happen, aviation is no different in this respect, perhaps best left to the corporate spin masters that must, by necessity, deal with such annoyances.

[Luvs2FlyPurser]

I am a Flight Attendant who would prefer to be a stewardess, because they had all the glamour. The role of flight attendant has changed, but there is always a minimum of 2 of you up there. Now we do double the work with half the crew. Those were the days when the Captains & F/O were courteous & didn't demand respect, they were respected due to their actions and their attitudes. This unfortunatly is not unique to the airline industry, it has alas made it's way into many aspects of society. Pilots, mechanics, ramp, Customer Service & cabin crew were respectful and considerate to each other & to the people who were there for a service which they paid for. Now we are constantly standing at the front of aircraft & trying to say hello as harried PAX roll over our feet with their "imitation" TravelPro while they hit us with the bag they are slinging over their shoulder & talking on their phone. Then as they proceed to roll down the aisle bumping every other person's head with their bag, they get to the first available bin, shove their bag in half-way, look around to see if anyone notices that it won't fit & try to slink away to their seat 20 rows away with the empty bin above their seat. Yet there is always someone who says to me, "thank you for making that guy move his bag to his seat". Humanity has yet to fail me. Perhaps I should be more jaded.

My biggest champions have been my fellow crew. I always have a water bottle on each pilot's seat, & gen decs & crew decs on the captain's seat. There is always a call to the front before I start my service to ensure their needs are met before I get into the critical part of my service, and I follow the break with an estimate of how long I expect to be in a critical phase of flight for me and my crew. As cabin crew we can eat, drink & pee at our leisure. Our pilot's post 9/11 cannot. If I think it's time for coffee or a bathroom break, I think of you first. I hear F/A's say why do the pilots always call right when I'm ready to start eating my crew meal? Don't they know I've been working all this time & I haven't even had a chance to eat!?! Guess what? NO they don't!! They have been locked in a cubicle. A quick phone call "Hey guys I wanted to check on you to see if you need anything before I sit down & eat my crew meal" works wonders. :ugh: I get an 18000 ding to tell me when critical phases of flights are for the pilots. Consider a courtesy call to the pilots as an 18000 ding.

My point is, we all need to be kinder to everyone & be more considerate to all no matter what sense of importance we feel we have.

On that note, the Captain on this flight has had a long history of cancelling flights & causing delays. Customer Service knows when they see his name on the crew dec it's a 50/50 chance the flight will not go, or will go the next day. This Captain has a number of F/O who have placed him on their NoFly list, and everyone knows to be on egg shells around him. Yes, I have flown with him, no I am not a dinousaur (nor do I hope to be called one even when I'm 60 & still flying ;)) Sorry, I have a wonderful husband who makes great money, but I really love what I do! I do love the flying & have fun with my PAX (I even married one)

I know the Purser & she is well respected by all and I am not surprised that the crew & F/O's backed her. We are taught for security purposes to minimize the number of times the door is opened and the amount of time the door is opened. It is not unheard of for the pilots to ask for us to slip things under the door because they do understand the time it involves to set up the necessary barriers & gather crew to open the door. We jokingly refer to it as the ATM. (Change for Duty Free & drinks) Perhaps we are overly cautious here at United, but for us it is difficult to put the memory of 9/11 behind us. Those of you who champion the youth & beauty of asian carriers forget we are the ones who were in the trenches when the world changed.

[grumpyoldgeek]

Having been in middle management with a top international firm, I have dealt with many issues with staff over the years. If you're in charge/the boss you get respect and obedience from managing your staff not bossing them. If there is an issue, you pull that person aside and deal with it or schedule an appointment with HR if it merits it. You do not start a row in front of other staff or suddenly call an event off, just because you feel that your authority has been questioned, you get through the event and deal with it after.

Absolutely non sequitur.

Here's a small list of activities where the boss is the boss and any lawful order must be carried out quickly and without question:

1. Military
2. Ship at sea
3. Aircraft in service
4. Film or video production shoot

Now there's nothing wrong with questioning an order, either to the boss or up the chain of command after you carry it out, but in all cases, questions at the time of the order will put you in a world of hurt.

There are plainly two issues here. Was the purser insubordinate? Did the captain abuse his authority by diverting and ejecting her? I don't know the answers.

[Crayon]

I'll bite.

411A and Rainboe be right, so is Juud. I do not know all the facts either but if the captan decided to divert, there must have been a reason. He has the right to do so. Given.

Questioning this right? take it with the allmighty(ies) that set that rule.:)
In the mean time; accept and oblige.:ok:

[stilton]

Film or video production shot :confused: :confused: :confused:

[Crayon]

You pick. Get some popcorn. As seen, you'll need it stilton.

[MU3001A]

There are plainly two issues here. Was the purser insubordinate? Did the captain abuse his authority by diverting and ejecting her? I don't know the answers.Three issues.

Assuming the particulars of the incident as previously laid out in this thread are reasonably accurate, notwithstanding we haven't heard and are unlikely to hear from the captain or the other flight crew members. Is someone who would divert a flight to offload a member of the cabin crew over such a petty and insignificant matter the kind of fit and proper person to be holding such a position of responsibility?

My vote would be no and I suspect his employer feels the same way.

The Captain has been removed from the remainder of his flying schedule. The Purser who was removed, has NOT been removed from the remainder of her flying schedule.Read it and weep dinosaurs.

[7x7]

A few have alluded to this already, but in my opinion, whether he was right or wrong, if the investigation results in the captain getting shafted, (as some are saying he already has been) as the result of the diversion, what's really going to interesting is the attitude of some (stress 'some') of the blue rinse UA FAs with 'attitoode' to any command they don't like from any captain in the future.

I think the most insightful post in all 17 pages of this thread was Judd's - a flight attendant.

[Crayon]

MU3001A, all you can do is "copy/paste" someone's post giving you the "scoop" (and feed your agenda). Fine.
Ask yourself this: would the driver be over the flying hours limit had he continued to ORD after the delay?

Do you know if he was/has been suspended all together from any other flights?

Bet you, he is flying souls now.

[MU3001A]

MU3001A, all you can do is "copy/paste" someone's post giving you the "scoop" (and feed your agenda). Fine. I can show you how to do it if you like.

Ask yourself this: would the driver be over the flying hours limit had he continued to ORD after the delay?He did continue the flight 1 hour later, so I assume not. The diversion probably added no more than 30 minutes to his total flight time for the trip which would not have exceeded the 12 hour limit of 121.483.

Do you know if he was/has been suspended all together from any other flights?No idea, all I have to go on is what I have read here and in the news. I have no inside information and just offer my opinion for what it's worth based on accepting that information others have provided is reasonably close to the truth.

Bet you, he is flying souls now.Doubt it.

Assuming the particulars of the incident as previously laid out in this thread are reasonably accurate, notwithstanding we haven't heard from and are unlikely to hear from the captain or the other flight crew members. Is someone who would divert a flight to offload a member of the cabin crew over such a petty and insignificant matter the kind of fit and proper person to be holding such a position of responsibility as captain of a flag carrier? Did he think to check or did he even care how many passengers might be inconvenienced by missing their connections because of his decision to divert? Did airline management have any input to the decision or did the captain go completely rogue. A scary thought indeed, a rogue captain full of his own self importance and seemingly oblivious of or indifferent to the impact his decision would have on others, in charge of a 767 hurtling through the air at 600 mph. Sure he has the right and the sole decision making authority when and where to divert the flight under his command, but he better have a damn good reason for doing so.

My vote would be no and I suspect his employer feels the same way.

[20driver]

This case is clearly so unique and bizarre that I really doubt it will have any impact on anything.
For a start we still don't know what happened. There are versions posted but nothing confirmed. (I do not accuse anyone of lying, I just prefer to get corroboration) I suspect we will never know. United clearly is not going to say anything publicly. Have they even acknowledged the event? There may be something in crew channels eventually and I am sure the insiders will figure out something from the rosters. This does not seem to qualify as an incident or an accident so there will be no FAA action.

If, and that is an if, the FAA did pull a license I am not sure that they have to provide a public explanation, or even a notice. Short of a lawsuit by the impacted party we will have no idea what the FAA has done with this.

End of the day, in the air the captain calls the shots. How the captain does their job is between him (her) and the company. No one else gets a vote. The punters, I'm one often enough, you can pay your money or go elsewhere. There is no way in hell I will get on a plane where the passengers get to vote on how it is flown, what CRM is in vogue etc.

Like any job if you take a course of action that costs the company money or unwanted publicity you better be able to explain why you did it. Many a career has ended on the rocks because the boss was not amused.

20driver

[Latearrival]

Parabellum, it’s hard to disagree with anything you said so eloquently and without putting anyone down. The discussion about the original incident probably would have been laid to rest long ago, but for the tone of some posters—on both sides of the issue.

There is one last thing I want to say about something that is particularly difficult to understand. To some of the Captains and F/O's....I can understand your frustration and distain for those who don’t know your world and dare to comment. But not only do you disparage posters who aren’t pilots, you also disparage pilots who disagree with you, like Dani. His management style obviously works for him and doesn’t jeopardize safety. Surely there should be some tolerance for alternate styles of crew management. And is the ATCO who expressed his concerns, completely ignorant of the realities behind the cockpit door and therefore guilty of another meaningless opinion? I’d hope not.

The way several of you have chosen to state your case seems to reflect an attitude of “no one except me knows anything” and “A Captain is always beyond reproach (unless he happens to disagree with me)” You come across as people whose minds are not only closed, but nailed shut. Sadly, I think many would agree that doesn’t reflect well on your profession. And some of those might even be your peers.

There is another thing that is hard to understand……“At 600mph, there is no time for a discussion and a mutual hug. It only works when one person is in charge and his commands are obeyed without a discussion every time.” Anyone but an idiot realizes that there are lots of times when “do it now” (no questions asked) is essential to guaranteeing the safety of all aboard. However, no one has suggested there was an immediate threat to safety in this case. To suggest that "discussion" or attempting to clear the air with the "offender" wasn't an option because there was no time for it (especially with two First Officers on board) on a lengthy flight, seems to be just blindly defending "one of yours" and is ludicrous. Given similar situations, I'm sure there have been Captains who made the time to deal with staff problems, however they saw fit and resolved them without diverting. Why this particular Captain was unable or unwilling to do that, who knows?

Finally, remember that some SLF do know and may even be related to pilots, and that provides some insights. (It has even been rumoured that occasionally on the flight deck there is time for conversations not related to a particular flight;)) So, we are aware of some of what goes on in the inner sanctum, even though we haven’t experienced it directly.

[MU3001A]

Like any job if you take a course of action that costs the company money or unwanted publicity you better be able to explain why you did it. Many a career has ended on the rocks because the boss was not amused.


To which I would add unwanted attention from government authorities and agencies and the prospect of a war between cabin crew and flight crew.

[Crayon]

MU3001A, seems you chose to play kids stuff. You will not drag me into it.

I guess I presented my view and so you did yours.
I still say, the skipper had the final say and chose to divert. His call and right. Part of a job.

[MU3001A]

MU3001A, seems you chose to play kids stuff. You will not drag me into it.

?

I don't question the fact that the skipper has the final say when and where to divert, or that the crew should comply without reservation as they did, absent clear evidence that a particular command by the skipper may compromise the safety of the flight. His call, sure. I only question his reasoning for commanding the diversion. Would the skipper have been by his rights to divert the flight to MIA to pick up groceries for dinner?

[Crayon]

I only question his reasoning for commanding the diversion.

You and few others...:)

He still had the right to do it. He'll have to answer for it to the higher up(s).

The rest of how you can show us how to "copy/paste" and dinner comment..is kid stuff.:(

[MU3001A]

Kid stuff.

So IMHO, was the decision to divert just to offload the purser. Assuming the rationale for that decision put forward to date and implicitly defended by some, is reasonably close to the truth.

But yes he still had the right and the authority to behave like an arrogant fool and he did. :)

Peace.

[Crayon]

You see MU3001A, the problem with your argument is that you are, as you put it: assuming. You have no clue/idea what prompted diversion.

Based on assumption, gossip, etc.. you believe the diversion was because the PIC might have an ego problem.

Takes a lot more to divert an airliner than just to offload a feisty hostie.

[MU3001A]

Takes a lot more to divert an airliner than just to offload a feisty hostie.I think we can both agree, such is how it should be.

I freely admit that my opinion is based on certain assumptions about what transpired on United Flight 842. But after all, we are both commenting on PPRUNE not collaborating on a factual report. I have no problem with those expressing the opinion that we should wait until both sides of the story have been heard before passing judgment. Only with those who have claimed the captain's absolute right to do what he did ascribed to his inherent command authority, regardless of the circumstances or reasoning.

[eliptic]

I am not going to stoop down to your level and engage in an online pissing contest.
It would get me nowhere. However, I will add this. Under your profile it states
Airline Captain.

Remember this is a anonymous forum and i highly doubt that a professional (in real world) Captain come in here talking so much "i am so important big ego crap" like 411 and many others do.

Who know,,maybe he just are a abused kid with crashed aviation dreams in front of the computer 24 hours.

I still believe the Crew i fly with are not pprune ego muppets

[Roger Dixon]

Gentlemen, gentlemen, please! May I briefly comment on a tangential issue which has emerged (more than once) from these discussions about the UA diversion?

As SLF I read and learn but I post here rarely, on the average once a year - calculated over a period of one year - for fear of being committed to the village stocks for reasons of premeditated and wilful insubordination.

In a previous post I pointed out that, as SLF long-in-the tooth of many leagues here and there, when an aircraft makes wobbly sounds - problematic or no - I can assure you that I suddenly lose my marginal interest in God and rapidly conclude that the only people in the whole world that matter to me are the guys (and gals) up there behind the sacred door. No-one else matters. Period.

Following such an admission, gentlemen of the air, I would respectfully ask not to be referred to as a "carcass" to be transported from point A to point B. (There have been other derogatory references to SLF.) I was under the impression that we contributed directly to your income. Yep, air-freight does the other bit I s'pose, but don't confuse the two.

Not all SLF are low IQ imbeciles; some of us are respected professionals in our own areas of endeavour. And believe me, I can tell you, you need our skills. Let's be friends.

Just a point, - thank you for your time.

[Crayon]

What I am arguing MU3001A, is the total authority of the skipper in command. While driving, it is his/her call.

Once on the ground, he/she'll have demons to face.

[eliptic]

Dani

Your post #352 make very much sense to me and explains many behaviors

[eliptic]

They pay the airline for me to transport them, not to foist their opinions down the crew or the staffs' throats. Sit there, STFU and let us get on with the job, because 400 voices trying to make their feelings known at 600mph is untenable.

I believe this discussion was regards to the Commander/Leader/Captain/Pilots capability to sort out a problem he/she had with ONE other flight crew member ,,not 400 Pax.

Dani was talking about that , the merits/experience of leading other people in a proper way for the situation.

You may be the best aviator in the world but leaving those sticks,, i really wounder how many have the leader skills needed as a commander

[eliptic]

Those of you who champion the youth & beauty of asian carriers forget we are the ones who were in the trenches when the world changed.

:D my humble thanks for your input!! and i think it is not just the youth and beauty that we champion with Asian airliners,,, it is "you" and your mentality we appreciate.

Keep up the good work:p

[Mornington Crescent]

Its the door.

L2FP has said most eloquently why times have changed and why these situations arise. She has also given some detail about this individual CDR.

Rather than bang on about who is boss we should be considering how to recover the joy of crew operations.

Let's start with how to get rid of the door!

L2FP has my vote for boss of United.

There, that should do it!

[Dani]

Rainboe:
sorry to disappoint you, but at 600mph, there is no time to discuss or question what the Captain wants

Oh, again. Let me just say: The said flight was 13 hours long. There was plenty of time to think.

There are things in Aviation that need to be decided in split seconds. That's what I wanted to emphazise with the story of the trainings movie (V1 cuts, see my previous post). There is no time to discuss if we should abort a take-off or not. But most CRM problems are long lasting stories. Most of the time, it starts already before the flight.

About flying together with 411A: Good luck. You two would fit perfectly together. One ego against another. Recipe for a CRM desaster!

Dani

[epc]

Here's a small list of activities where the boss is the boss and any lawful order must be carried out quickly and without question:

1. Military
2. Ship at sea
3. Aircraft in service
4. Film or video production shoot

Now there's nothing wrong with questioning an order, either to the boss or up the chain of command after you carry it out, but in all cases, questions at the time of the order will put you in a world of hurt.

A good leader should know how and when to give an order. Asking for immediate delivery of a document not immediately needed, from a crew member already engaged in other duties, yes, it's a lawful order. But is it a wise order?

Yes, the crew's compliance to the captain's order is unsatisfactory in the captain's opinion. Yes, the captain has the right to make that judgment and has the right to take actions. But is diverting the flight 6 hours after the said incident appropriate?

People should pay attention to Luvs2FlyPurser's message. Here's another eyewitness's account to the incident. She backs up based_on_facts' account, and provides even more backgrounds in a very calm and reasoned tone.

[cockney steve]

Those who ignore history's lessons ,are doomed to repeat the mistakes.

To all the arrogant. pompous and egotistical Commanders - I refer you to one martinet Captain Bligh.

Whilst his Command was ,no doubt, lawful, his CRM was sadly lacking and he paid the price.

Taking the reported facts on face-value, the Commanders reactions were totally disproportionate to the problem....His reaction to an alleged insubordination, showed a lack of clear decision-making....therefore he was not fit to command and was himself, a danger to the safe conduct of the flight.

There are Protocols for those situations where a FO may relieve a Commander ........the fact that the crew on the day chose to keep shtum,but the Captain was subsequently relieved of further duties (allegedly) says much.

"smoke, fire?

Before the flak...this is a rumour network, -right?

[BOAC]

Hmm Roger - I see your 9/11 post has 'gorn' - just as well - you'd have been 'popular'..................:)

I'm amazed this is still rumbling on. It is over. Decisions will have been taken on the 'careers' of the participants by now. I do find it amazing though, and lack of information is the problem here, that one of Rainboe's death-defying razor sharp command decisions (as required in his 600mph aluminium death tube) appears to have taken just under 6 hours.

For those 'outsiders' who just do not understand the problems we sky gods face, let me enlighten you on how command appointments 'happen' in commercial aviation

1) You acquire the necessary licence
2) AVERAGE time to command over the whole industry throughout recent history has been around 9 years, ranging from 'instant' command in a particular airline to 20 years plus for those with the necessary qualifications. You sit for x years in the right hand seat learning from the anarchic sky gods in the left seat, for whom cabin crew are a bit of a necessary nuisance, WOMEN c/crew - ugh! and don't get me started on gay stewards.
3) Evenually the A S G either dies or retires or there is expansion. You (subject to on-going assessments as 'suitable'), are put on a 'command course'. Virtually no part of this course involves learning management skills outside the cockpit. Cabin crew 'inter-reaction' is not covered. Providing you take the sensible decisions on the operating problems you are presented with (making the correct announcements to the crew) you pass the course
4) Now you are an A S G and the cycle begins all over again

Several of you from industry and military backgrounds do not comprehend the complete lack of leadership training involved. Unless you have previous experience in 'leading' your folk in difficult or dangerous situations, that is it. Outside civil aviation a lot of time is spent on various facets of team leadership, as you are all aware.

Some of you would be amazed at some of the A S G decisions our resident A S G's have taken, including refusal to divert for a very sick stewardess, but to continue 4 hours plus to base, resulting in severe loss of prospects of maternity for the lady. Had to be done. Just a silly womens' problem, don't you know. I know best, I'm the Captain, after all. Very sad.

We are not ALL the same.

[virginblue]

The said flight was 13 hours long. There was plenty of time to think.

From what we have heard it apparently took him more than 5 hours after the incident to come to the conclusion that the FA - who was not even demoted before (which would have to be expected if the CA for some reason decides to continue a flight with a threat to the safe operation of the aircraft on board) - needed to be offloaded. So assuming for the benefit of doubt that there was indeed a threat caused by the purser, it either it took him 5 hours long to make a decision or he did not address the threat right away, but only after 5 hours. Whatever alternative applies, it is easy to see why United now keeps him away from its hardware.

Could he exercise his authority in the way he did? Sure, and nobody doubts it. But the only infallibility I can think of is papal infallibility - and even that is challenged.

The funny thing is that in the end, this will probably end up in a court of law with the captain and the airline fighting over the termination of his contract. The one who will be calling the shots then is a judge - someone who may have never seen a cockpit from the inside or even flown. So just sit back, close your eyes for a moment and try to imagine how a judge as a layman in aviation matters - or as some here would put it, "SLF" or "a carcass" - will rule after listening to the defendant arguing in a way we have seen it on this threat over and over again and after having heard all members of the cabin crew, the first officers and some first class passengers as witnesses. You want to place your bets?

[Michael Birbeck]

Just a brief diversion. I had to laugh.

Came off the phone this morning to an old friend of mine who is a South African cargo pilot. He doesn't post here but occasionally scans PPRuNe and apparently he saw Rainboe's comment today and will tell the crew when he flies tomorrow. He reckons they will be tickled pink (literally) as they are currently hauling carcasses.

Give Rainboe his due, when he is not flying his 600 mph death tube and outraging people, he obviously knows his stuff and there is always something to learn by reading between the lines (and carcasses).

[LH2]

Off-topic, but...

If you allow yourself to look beyond Rainboe´s tone, the man is a goldmine.

One begs to disagree. She is certainly no stranger to vociferating on an issue without having the faintest, which in my book is a zero on credibility across the board.

OTOH there are plenty of posters here with real knowledge and real ability to communicate it. Those are the goldmines. :cool:

[Litebulbs]

BOAC

Very well put.

[sharksandwich]

I have read these posts with interest.
We do not know why the captain had been on extended sick leave.
We know he has been relieved of command since, but do not know why, or for how long.
Why not cut the chap some slack?
There but for the grace.....

[parabellum]

I read on a previous post the captain was on sick leave after knee surgery, didn't I?

L2FP - Great post!

[Union Jack]

Offered purely as punctuation in this fascinating exchange of opposing views, and apologies if it has already been mentioned without me spotting it. Surely it is possible that the reason for the so-called "delay" (not the decision to do so) of five to six hours in offloading the Purser was to ensure that she was safely landed at the first US airport that was more or less en route, and with the prospect of a quick onward flight to ORD, rather than leaving her stranded at a foreign airport without proper back-up?

Jack

PS I'm too scared to offer a view on the decision itself, even though I have one - and, yes, it's based on command experience!

[BOAC]

A very possible reason, Jack, but it kind of knocks out the '600mph death machine drama queens', no? I would have thought that having flooged all that way, a little more with the purser in leg irons would not have been a problem?

[FrequentSLF]

I think 411A, Rainboe and others on the same wave length should read carefully the BOAC post.
Unless you want to discredit him as factual or a lier, those words on the last paragraph should make you think quite a lot...they made me think!
BOAC
I believe that was the most sensible post on this thread
FSLF

[Cacophonix]

with the purser in leg irons


Don't give some of these Captains ideas. A number of them are clearly an ILS or two short of a landing.

[Dr Brian Evans]

For instant deletion -

Perhaps the Captain had also been in leg irons some time back - hence the sick leave for his knee.

Have we stumbled upon secret UA corporate culture ?

Brian

[MU3001A]

Offered purely as punctuation in this fascinating exchange of opposing views, and apologies if it has already been mentioned without me spotting it. Surely it is possible that the reason for the so-called "delay" (not the decision to do so) of five to six hours in offloading the Purser was to ensure that she was safely landed at the first US airport that was more or less en route, and with the prospect of a quick onward flight to ORD, rather than leaving her stranded at a foreign airport without proper back-up?
Well that kind of consideration sorta undermines any 'imminent security threat' rationale used to justify offloading her doesn't it? Which brings us back to our self styled Queeg deciding to institute summary punishment for some perceived slight, with no consideration for the disruption caused to pax, UAL or anyone else involved. And, he had 5 hours to calm down and talk himself out of it, yet still went ahead with it!

No way to manage a crew or run an airline.

Just my 0.02c

[Ancient Observer]

I'm afraid that BOAC is correct. There is a distinct lack of leadership skills and leadership training in the Aviation sector compared to other sectors that I've worked in. Even where such training is on offer, some of the Nigels/Ruperts are unable to learn from it.
I have no idea whether or not that applied in this case.

[eliptic]

BOAC:ok:


Finally, i wounder why the H! Rainboe, 411...not apply for the carrot cargo flights instead of winning about how bad all SLF and F/A idiots are.

Reading the Cargo forum they have all time to both chit chat and play cards on 600mph flight,AND they have NO other souls to get upset on,, just dead non argumentative carrots:ugh:

In the discussed case it is proved in my mind,, either are the Captain crazy, the Purser or even both, how does that PR look for the UA?

[sharksandwich]

Well that kind of consideration sorta undermines any 'imminent security threat' rationale used to justify offloading her doesn't it? Which brings us back to our self styled Queeg deciding to institute summary punishment for some perceived slight, with no consideration for the disruption caused to pax, UAL or anyone else involved. And, he had 5 hours to calm down and talk himself out of it, yet still went ahead with it!

No way to manage a crew or run an airline.

Just my 0.02c

No, it is not the way to manage a crew.
Going back to past posters, I have personally managed a section of men going into harms way.
They will obey you,but obey you better,if they trust you to be first.
I believe many Pilot's have little regard for leadership qualities, because they are not taught it.
I thought Tereriffe brought this to the forefront.

[RatherBeFlying]

This Captain has a number of F/O who have placed him on their NoFly listThe last multi-national corporation I worked for (with the usual deep-seated inherent institutional foibles) had an annual Employee Satisfaction Survey where questions were asked of your immediate boss' effectiveness, fairness etc. and you were invited to make narrative comments. The survey was returned directly to the survey firm where the responses were anonymised. Any boss with six or more reports saw the anonymised responses. If his subordinates were unhappy, his boss would require him to make a plan to improve in the eyes of his subordinates by the next survey. Bosses with consistently poor survey results did not climb the career ladder.

I have myself been subjected to student surveys when I was teaching. Yes, I could not please everybody and there were some things for me to work on. My management and students saw that I took their concerns seriously.

I would not take it as untoward that a Captain had a small number on FOs on his "No Fly" list as there will be the inevitable personal incompatibilities. When that "No Fly" list gets past a certain percentage, management needs to inquire more deeply.

[MU3001A]

Tereriffe


Probably a spelling error, but an apt description none the less.

Perhaps it's time to institute training for captains in how to manage other personnel on the flight who work outside the cockpit and some rules of the road about interacting with co-workers under your authority. I'm sure FA's get some instruction during their training about how to interact with flight crew but not apparently, flight crew themselves?

[virginblue]

Offered purely as punctuation in this fascinating exchange of opposing views, and apologies if it has already been mentioned without me spotting it. Surely it is possible that the reason for the so-called "delay" (not the decision to do so) of five to six hours in offloading the Purser was to ensure that she was safely landed at the first US airport that was more or less en route, and with the prospect of a quick onward flight to ORD, rather than leaving her stranded at a foreign airport without proper back-up?

To pick an airport for a diversion by considering that someone who is a threat to the safe operation of an aircraft might get stranded and inconvenienced at a foreign airport if off-loaded would demonstrate, as I said earlier, poor decision-making, nothing else. A threat is a threat is a threat.

If the CA was concerned about inconveniencing anyone, I find it more likely that he was concerned about his own fate. Off-loading the purser could easily have resulted in some sort of mutiny by the rest of crew (BoF said earlier in this thread that the purser had to talk the remaining cabin crew into continuing the flight for the sake of the passengers) - and being deserted by your crew in Miami is probably less annyoing than getting stranded at Salvador da Bahia.

Waiting for 5 hours, the captain obviously was not addressing a true risk, but held his own sort of court martial - instead of reporting the purser for insubordinance or demoting her on the spot. As I said earlier, all well within his authority, but probably sufficiently poor decision-making to cost him his job.

[FrequentSLF]

If the CA was concerned about inconveniencing anyone, I find it more likely that he was concerned about his own fate. Off-loading the purser could easily have resulted in some sort of mutiny by the rest of crew (BoF said earlier in this thread that the purser had to talk the remaining cabin crew into continuing the flight for the sake of the passengers) - and being deserted by your crew in Miami is probably less annyoing than getting stranded at Salvador da Bahia.

Wow...that is really stretching the reality. You do not off load someone because you afraid of mutiny...what kind of situation will be an emergency more that a possible mutiny?
My God...where do we stop? We are now creating excuses for a mutiny just to justify the actions? All of this based on allegations? Where will you go if those allegations will be proven?
FSLF

[Rainboe]

Did airline management have any input to the decision or did the captain go completely rogue. A scary thought indeed, a rogue captain full of his own self importance and seemingly oblivious of or indifferent to the impact his decision would have on others, in charge of a 767 hurtling through the air at 600 mph. Sure he has the right and the sole decision making authority when and where to divert the flight under his command, but he better have a damn good reason for doing so.

Well the Captain is getting a bad press (again). Let me point out that he sat and considered what to do for many hours. Whatever his thought process, he evidently decided it was not a safe operation to continue, and elected to land (safely) and 'remove' what he considered to be the problem. I'm looking for 'rogue' for someone who landed safely and continued safely? Evidently it worked for him because he continued with the rest of the crew who were evidently confident enough in him to continue, until they apparently got to destination where they suddenly reconsidered their opinions and decided he apparently had to be slated. Very, very strange. By his action in recognising that it was probably not (for him and his own mind) a safe course of action to continue, one could say his decision was justified. It is not so cut and dried as to 'he had a mental blowout and should be, and has been dismissed'. I would be very surprised to find he has been dismissed. As I pointed out earlier, any employee may expect to be suspended with pay whilst decisions are reviewed.

BOAC has chosen to publicise an irrelevant incident where a diversion was not available at 51N30W- exactly mid point between Newfoundland, Shannon, Keflavik and Santa Maria. This was completed supported by Flight Management following (yes)- a suspension. What are we to say about a captain who is under enforced early 'retirement' (without option) for a rather daft and bizarre action? I'd probably say 'Good decision making there mate! Perhaps 600mph decision making was 500mph too fast for you?' Strangely, things have never looked up better since! Don't come back.

[FrequentSLF]

Rainboe
considered what to do for many hours. Whatever his thought process, he evidently decided it was not a safe operation to continue, and elected to land (safely) and 'remove' what he considered to be the problem.

Perhaps 600mph decision making was 500mph too fast for you?'

Would you be so kind to explain why the first decision took about 5 hours when he was trained to make a decision in a split second (at 600 mph, or even slower at 500 mph).

The above quotes are from your same post!

FSLF

[Cacophonix]

@SLF

There is an extremely nasty edge to these posts. I'd keep well out of it.

[Rainboe]

Frequent SLF- no I wouldn't thank you! It's not for me to explain, just to point out that it is not so clear cut as posters are trying to make out. A good lawyer will take his cause very well if it comes to a fight

Perhaps if the mods would remove BOACs nasty personal comments, the nastiness will go away? But I can respond to it very well if mud is being flung at me over an unfortunate incident not of my making, and considering the accuser who is every bit as bizarre as this incident is shaping up to be!

[FrequentSLF]

But I can respond to it very well if mud is being flung at me over an unfortunate incident not of my making, and considering the accuser who is every bit as bizarre as this incident is shaping up to be

That is an interesting statement...
I found your post of utmost interest, but sometimes you give away your judgement just to protect the category. Note that most of the guys here are not pointing any finger to the category...however seems (at lest to me) that anytime that someone is criticizing a pilot you came on his/her defense...while a few post before you have stated the same argument
FSLF

[eliptic]

Perhaps if the mods would remove BOACs nasty personal comments

BOAC??

It is you and your co-pilot that can´t even write 2 sentences without being rude and nasty to everyone without 5 stripes,,

[One Outsider]

...however seems (at lest to me) that anytime that someone is criticizing a pilot you came on his/her defense...

The monday morning quarterback second guessers, who infest every thread around here with their insistence on commenting on everything they have no experience, insight, understanding or knowledge of, needs to be told they are just that.

People who don't know what they don't know, don't know much.

[Rananim]

Well,people are entitled to their opinions.Captains have different command styles.Some even call themselves flight managers.I come form the old school;I believe in the chain of command,I loathe political correctness,I believe the job title is pilot not flight manager,I know from experience that both pilots and FAs can be difficult SOB's,but above all I believe in the skipper's duty to his crew,passengers,and his profession.Integrity.You never let a little thing like this disturb you at FL350.Your duty is the safe completion of the flight and care of your crew,passengers and aircraft.If you cant work it out amicably,stand her down and replace her with second most senior FA.Explain calmly why youre doing it and what you will say in the report after landing.Speak with a firm but quiet voice;no need for a shouting match.Heart rate stays at 70 during the whole scenario.IMHO,thats what a good skipper does.Over and out.

[Rainboe]

The monday morning quarterback second guessers, who infest every thread around here with their insistence on commenting on everything they have no experience, insight, understanding or knowledge of, needs to be told they are just that.
Thank you, words I could not have expressed better myself. Any idiot with a keyboard here suddenly decides he is well qualified to comment and criticise anybody, and make it public! In this case, a specific target is mentioned and known. It is not black and white- he was not caught with a smoking gun standing over a dead body. Nobody has given him any benefit of doubt that maybe in his case he took a right decision that fitted him and kept everybody safe and sound- what is actually meant to be the only priority!

LovestoflyPurser makes an impassioned accusation against himOn that note, the Captain on this flight has had a long history of cancelling flights & causing delays. Customer Service knows when they see his name on the crew dec it's a 50/50 chance the flight will not go, or will go the next day. This Captain has a number of F/O who have placed him on their NoFly list, and everyone knows to be on egg shells around him. Yes, I have flown with him, no I am not a dinousaur (nor do I hope to be called one even when I'm 60 & still flying ) Sorry, I have a wonderful husband who makes great money, but I really love what I do! I do love the flying & have fun with my PAX (I even married one)

I know the Purser & she is well respected by all and I am not surprised that the crew & F/O's backed her.

All unsubstantiated and completely exaggerated accusations to make against anybody.

The crew and F/Os backed her? They didn't in MIA, did they? Why should they wait until ORD? When I see a case of mud flinging to point a finger of blame, I remember the pointed finger that points both ways. There is indeed a strong suspicion that the rest of the crew have a lot of explaining to do about what I see as their extraordinary behaviour as well.

[Dawdler]

Rainboe Quote:
The crew and F/Os backed her? They didn't in MIA, did they? Why should they wait until ORD? There is indeed a strong suspicion that the rest of the crew have a lot of explaining to do about what I see as their extraordinary behaviour as well.

I seem to remember an earlier post where it was stated that the off-loaded Purser, persuaded the rest of the CC to continue the flight to attenuate the inconvenience to the paying customers.

I am saddened to read L2FP's apparently honest post dismissed as All unsubstantiated and completely exaggerated accusations to make against anybody
You may have knowledge of the individuals concerned, but to dismiss another UA employees's post in such a way shows an intolerance of other's views.

[MU3001A]

Rainboe: Let me point out that he sat and considered what to do for many hours. Exactly, and the best he could come up with to resolve the situation during that extended period of time, was to divert the aircraft and offload the purser in MIA? What situation? Using your own argument that the rest of the crew apparently only started talking bad about the captain after reaching chigago and after signing up for the final leg to ORD. What intolerable situation existed during the 6 hours to MIA that didn't exist on the 3 hour leg to ORD? The mere presence of the purser back in the cabin? Makes no sense. There doesn't seem to have been an actual ongoing problem or situation for the captain to resolve. It doesn't take four stripes to devine the captain's motivations here, doesn't take any IMHO. He was acting out retribution and punishing her, pure and simple.

As I have said, no way to run an airline.

I would be very surprised to find he has been dismissed. As I pointed out earlier, any employee may expect to be suspended with pay whilst decisions are reviewed.I agree. This will be a tricky one for UAL to resolve without sparking a civil war throughout the company, between the flight deck and cabin. Extended 'sick leave' and anger management counceling for the captain followed by some desk job in the training department, maybe some notional re-training for the purser would be my guess.

[epc]

All unsubstantiated and completely exaggerated accusations to make against anybody.

The crew and F/Os backed her? They didn't in MIA, did they? Why should they wait until ORD? When I see a case of mud flinging to point a finger of blame, I remember the pointed finger that points both ways. There is indeed a strong suspicion that the rest of the crew have a lot of explaining to do about what I see as their extraordinary behaviour as well.

3 UA employees have posted in this thread.

1 claimed he/she was on the flight.

1 claimed he/she knew the off-loaded purser personally and knew of the captain by internal reputation.

Both backed the purser. But Rainboe doesn't believe them.

Another UA employee claimed that the purser indeed stayed on the fly schedule, while the captain did not. Does Rainboe not believe this one, either?

3 UA emloyees have made many statements. This board is read by many other UA employees. Not a single UA employee has come out and contradicted anything these 3 employees has said.

3 UA employees and air transport industry news have all reported that only the captain was removed from fly schedule by the company, which is the only entity that knows the history of either individuals involved, and can interview the 2 FO's and other crews on board.

This entity has 4 options: 1) keep both flying; 2) keep both on the ground; 3) keep only the purser on the ground; and 4) keep only the capt on the ground. It chose to do 4), the one that most prejudicial to the capt.

That says a lot.

I am not passing any personal judgment on the capt. I am only noting that others who know the capt professionally better than even you, Rainboe, have passed a judgment, which is to immediately stop him from flying.

[CR2]

Damned poor customer service.... Times are tough in this business; inconveniencing pax should be avoided. If the Purser was running around with a machete shouting "Down with (insert your choice)" then fair enough. This was a pissing contest by all that I see reported here.

Of course.... we DO NOT know all of it. But Rainboe, you know that too; I fully understand where you are coming from & largely agree. However.... There is something that doesn't sound right with this entire incident. I will say this though... If it does turn out to be what I suspect (guess, surmise etc), then the Commander needs his head looked at.

As an aside, why did the Capt need to sign the G/D in the first place? The signature box bottom right says "Capt or Authorized Agent". I always signed ours myself (Loadmaster at the time) and distributed them as needed (ok agree small freighter crew is not the herd you pax peeps have to deal with). Strange that. I wouldn't think of bothering the Capt with something so trivial.

:uhoh:

[Latearrival]

On the surface, things don’t look good for the Captain but more will be revealed at a later date (one way or another) and we should reserve final judgment. Agreed.

HOWEVER, as others have said, what is most disturbing about this thread is the attitude of some who appear to be representing the profession. While other pilots have supported the comments made by LovestoflyPurser, Rainboe has now dismissed them as having no merit. What a surprise.:DShe is after all just another lowly purser and we all know that cabin crew go to work every day with the mission of making life miserable for pilots. And when someone like BOAC provides a little background insight it becomes “mudslinging”. After all the mud that has been slung in the other direction……

LTFP is right. The problem is no respect. No respect for cabin crew, no respect for pilots with a different point of view, no respect for professionals in related fields, no respect for paying passengers. Respect begets respect.

What’s the difference between a pilot and God? God doesn’t think he’s a pilot. Said in jest but made for this thread. Fortunately, most of us over the age of five realize that just because someone speaks last or loudest, it doesn’t make him right.

Apologies to Captains and First Officers who aren’t dinosaurs, have respect for others and have brought sanity to this thread….. Parabellum, BOAC, Dani and Rananim and others. I still have a lot of respect for your profession—one of the most demanding imaginable.

[Rainboe]

On that note, the Captain on this flight has had a long history of cancelling flights & causing delays. Customer Service knows when they see his name on the crew dec it's a 50/50 chance the flight will not go, or will go the next day. This Captain has a number of F/O who have placed him on their NoFly list, and everyone knows to be on egg shells around him.

This is garbage! I don't know the chap, but the first two solid statements are sheer gossip and I would say 100% unsubstantiated, bearing no truth whatsoever. So I am reluctant to believe the rest of this character assassination. I have flown with people of similar bad reputation- I never knew of them killing anybody. They got where they did by proving something. He is almost certainly grounded pending review of his decisions- a natural state of affairs for the commander of an aircraft involved in a situation that requires further investigation. Unfortunately some people cannot see this is one of the responsibilities that comes with command.

Lateonarrival- don't overdo the respect! One of those got himself sacked for extraordinary reasons and is unemployed, another abrogates his command responsibilities with some weird 'I am one of you, I am not your Boss!' mission statement.

We will eventually find out what the outcome of the investigation is. I find it dreadful the Pprune courts martial board convenes and find a guilty vote so easily based on very limited (and biased) alleged eyewitness accounts whilst the commander is still having his case investigated. Shame on some of you 'quick draw' judges! I hope similar impatience is shown to you one day. It really is for United management to decide, not some public Roman amphitheatre spectacle of idiotic public holding their thumbs up and down as the instant urge takes them. This person is facing unpleasant accusations, and it seems his main cross to bear is his alleged unpopularity with the cabin crew!

[lomapaseo]

Fellow Pruners I am sick and tired of personalities being assigned to posters by name. Every time you do that it engenders a personal attack and rebuttal not conducive to a discussion by a broader audience (nobody wants to be painted by the same brush with nails in it).

Stick to the multiple issues and keep it simple if all you're doing is expressing a different opinion or supporting same.

Damn I think we ought to have a poll on these kind of threads after the 3rd page of issues and be done with it


OK moderators delete this :ok: and we'll go on :)

[Rainboe]

Well while post 364 stands- I didn't go nuclear first! The last paragraph is actually wrong, but it is not anybody's business anyway.
Fact remains, the poster got himself canned, and is no longer in the industry anyway. With great relief from the pilots he flew with.

[kilomikedelta]

Its seems that the conflicts inherent in this thread reflect those of the recent transition to a new millennium. The feudal attitudes in public administration ("I'm the decider" - by one who was not a very good pilot), medicine (doctors writing "orders" for other health professionals) - the military I won't touch, they require decades - are understood by most professional scholars and practitioners to be antiquated and counterproductive. I have never been the captain of an aircraft (although I have dealt with the detritus of misadventure by one). I do have the experience of being the responsible individual of a trauma centre in the early 1980's and found that it was much more efficient if we all understood that we worked as a team. I can assure everyone that the volume of the codspiece contents bears no relation to professional competence.

[Dani]

Rainboe, don't you think that you're not very balanced when you say in every post that all arguments against the UAL captain are unsubstantiated, while every little argument supporting him you state as truth?

I think we have some very strong signs - if not evidence - that most probably the captain :mad: it up greatly. It's like in every evidence trial (not court martial): If we don't find the smoking gun, we stick to the most probable order of events. It also doesn't help if you ridicule some witnesses, even if they are angry. (Of course they are!) You wouldn't make a great judge.

It's like in every other thread about incidents and accidents where we crossed our swords: Put back your sword and take Occam's razor, and you will find the solution. It's pretty sure that the captain was to blame.

If you still cannot agree (I guess it's your nature), I gladly agree on a bet about every sum or good you want. But I won in the THY/AMS thread, in the Hudson case and surely in the AF thread. Why? Occam's razor is a sharp tool!

btw it's useless to attack me. Just accept the bet or not, then we can pause until the facts are here.

Until then,
Dani

[SaturnV]

epc, the narratives appearing on other forums are based on or derived from the several accounts that have appeared here and/or elsewhere, which is basically giving the purser's side of the story.

There are several posts in another pilots forum by an individual identified as a 777 FO who suggests that the captain was hired by United in the Spring of '85 because he was 'current and qualified and went to work at a time of labor unrest', i.e., a union scab, and declares that the captain has a long history of "dreadful" behavior.

This might explain why there has been no postings by United pilots supporting the captain, or rebutting the accounts by the cabin crew.

[aviator]

This might explain why there has been no postings by United pilots supporting the captain, or rebutting the accounts by the cabin crew.


Bingo

A lot can be learned from what is not said....

[cessnapuppy]

Or it may be that UA pilots have more sense than cabin crew and wont publicly post anything, anywhere in a situation where litigation may be pending??

[Flying Lawyer]

virginblue….. this will probably end up in a court of law with the captain and the airline fighting over the termination of his contract. The one who will be calling the shots then is a judge - someone who may have never seen a cockpit from the inside or even flown. So just sit back, close your eyes for a moment and try to imagine how a judge as a layman in aviation matters will rule …..I have no idea how the judge would rule, but I do know this: The judge would want a great deal more information before coming to a conclusion - including the captain’s side of the story. (As Rainboe has sensibly been urging.)
A judge reading this thread would be amazed at the way some posters condemn the captain on so little information, especially without knowing his side of the story, and surprised that those who have never operated an airliner express an opinion at all. (Unless the judge had been reading PPRuNe for years and had seen it happen many times before.)
“The judge may have never seen a cockpit from the inside or even flown.”
True, and would probably have no expertise in the operation of airliners. That's why the parties would probably call expert evidence from people who have. ie Experienced airline captains.
Neither side’s lawyers (unless they were spectacularly incompetent) would attach any weight to the opinion of someone who wasn’t and never had been a professional airline pilot and based his/her opinion upon being a frequent traveller, or having managerial experience in some other field or holding a PPL.

One Outsider The monday morning quarterback second guessers, who infest every thread around here with their insistence on commenting on everything they have no experience, insight, understanding or knowledge of, needs to be told they are just that. Harsh, but fair comment.
I too wish that, when aviation matters involving specialist knowledge and expertise are being discussed, those who have neither would just read and learn from the various opinions offered by those who have. It wouldn't then be necessary to wade through the chaff to get to the wheat.

Dani
I’m not an airline pilot so I wouldn’t presume to challenge your earlier post about how an airliner should be commanded (forgive me for using that word) but I do wonder if, upon reflection, you might think your most recent post is perhaps a little childish? If you still cannot agree (I guess it's your nature), I gladly agree on a bet about every sum or good you want. But I won in the THY/AMS thread ……… Well done, if you did (Congratulations!), but that doesn’t detract from the force of what Rainboe is arguing here. You wouldn't make a great judge. With respect, based upon your exchanges with him in this thread, Rainboe would make a better judge than you. Perhaps you think judges jump to conclusions based on limited and untested information/without hearing both sides and are ‘great' judges if they turn out to be correct. (Wrong.)


.

[DownIn3Green]

Saturn 5...."labor unrest" pilot or not, (and I certainally get your drift) should have no bearing in this context....He was eitheir qualified or not....as you said, that was 1985, this is 2009....

Do the math....24 yrs ago who knows what his situation was, but if he was a "direct hire" Capt during "labor unrest" and is still with the Company...he must be the "King T#rd on the ****epile+...

Call me wrong, but when I buy a ticket on an airline, I don't care who is flying, "labor unrest" crew or not...

Irrationational decisions, however, would greatly concern me....

BTW...I worked for EAL before and after...

Guess I'm a "labor unrest" pilot as well...

You have to be there to make a judgement...my dice are in my hand until all the facts are known....

[p51guy]

You scabbed? If so you deserve no respect at all.

[DownIn3Green]

OK...I backed it up after my last 2 posts...

2 Posters do not claim to be pilots (on their public profile)

RGBROCKHEAD1 or whatever...combat (and kudos to you sir if they are deserved) have nothing to do with "airline flying".

Command in combat is totally different from Command of a commercial jet...You case and opinion is closed...IMHO...


MU1002345A put all the numbers you want to up in your handle...
Your profile doesn't agree with your grammar... i.e.-you claim to be from the US, yet you refer to the CAPTAIN as the "Skipper"...

Grow up child...

And DANI....Please don't keep picking on 411A...I've supported him before, and will do again re: this thread....he may not always have an opinion that is popular, but read my previous posts...without 411A and many more like him you all would be driving Yellow Cabs in NYC...if you could get a license....

BTW...Do any of y'all actually know what a license is and if so....do anyone one of y'alls have one???

If I did "scab" as you seem to think, 1. that's my business...2. I find it very interesting that this thread has more "posters/members" that are either "probationary" or registered within the last 2 months than any other in recent memory....All UAL ALPO guys stand up and be counted, as well as "wanna-bees" who joined during the Air France thread...

[p51guy]

BTW...I worked for EAL before and after...

Now there is no question about your scab status. I've been on this site for years but recently changed to a different ID. You will never be forgiven for your decision so it is our business.

[rmiller774]

I am completely uninformed about this unfortunate happening. I do wish, however, that United Airlines would consider giving employees such as this Captain, who was returning from several months of sick leave, less stressful assignments than having them make 12 hour non-stop flights so soon upon their return. Ease them in steps back into the regular "grind".

[MU3001A]

DownIn3Green: MU1002345A put all the numbers you want to up in your handle...
Your profile doesn't agree with your grammar... i.e.-you claim to be from the US, yet you refer to the CAPTAIN as the "Skipper"...

Grow up child...

Wtf?

You're free enough with the gratuitous insults fella, but coming up short on logic or the ability to present a counter argument. Go figure?

My profile lists my location as the US and if you had read the thread you would have understood that the term "Skipper" was introduced by CRAYON who also lists his location as USA, not me. How'd you like them apples?

[MU3001A]

Flying Lawyer: I too wish that, when aviation matters involving specialist knowledge and expertise are being discussed, those who have neither would just read and learn from the various opinions offered by those who have. It wouldn't then be necessary to wade through the chaff to get to the wheat.This is what gets me about some of the attitudes in evidence on this thread. I have no problem with those expressing the opinion that we should reserve judgment until all the facts are in, save for the obvious counterpoint that we are after all commenting on the Professional Pilots Rumour Network. But the idea that the discussion on this thread requires a familiarity with aviation matters involving specialist knowledge and expertise to contribute to the discussion or to figure out what was going on, is just plainly ridiculous. This was a minor spat between two employees, one senior and in a position of authority over the other. Of the type that happens all the time and across all occupations every day of the week. The only material difference being this spat occurred on board an airliner in the flight levels and resulted in a diversion to an alternate airfield rather than one party or the other storming of to the managers office to register a grievance.

Sense of proportion people.

[Les Shore]

I wasn't going to wade into this but happened across this exchange on another forum. It might reassure some pax who think there are nothing but out of control egos in the cockpit. (You need to have a healthy ego to be a pilot;))


FA: "I will question a captain's request or offer an alternative if I feel it's in the best interests of the crew or passengers."

CA:"That's fine. I would hope you would. I won't mind in the slightest and encourage all my crews to do so, especially if they think-rightly or wrongly-that I'm about to make a mistake, or could maybe do something better. I'll listen and consider carefully what you've said. You might well know something I don't that affects or changes the situation. If you do, rest assured, I'll thank you and modify my request or plan accordingly.

However, if after having heard and considered what you have to say, I stick to my original request, despite your objections, and you then still refuse, be in no doubt you will suffer the consequences.

We should all work well together to complete a flight safely and with the best service for the passengers. That's the way it is supposed to work."
.
Don't think that was the management style at UAL that day. It might have saved a whole mess of problems.:)

[pattern_is_full]

...to hear the captain's side.

Not because I think the alleged crew posts here are unsubstantiated and thus false, but because they are unsubstantiated and thus unsubstantiated (two very different things).

I don't see any clear facts so far that justify some of the over-the-top comments on either side of the issue.

-------------

In the interests of accuracy, since the subject was raised, I'll just point out that in The Caine Mutiny, Captain Queeg (note spelling) was not on trial. His subordinate officers were on trial - for mutiny. It was their defense attorney who turned the tables on Queeg - with mixed feelings - not a prosecutor.

And it was not Queeg's command decisions in the face of enemy fire, and a storm, that were his real downfall - it was a fuss he made about missing strawberries or ice cream or some such in the ship's mess (and his reaction under questioning about it) that ultimately brought his judgement into question before the court.

Fiction, in any event.

(Although I'll offer up this quote for the next time a FBW fracas begins: Lieutenant to new Ensign: "The first thing you've got to learn about this ship is that she was designed by geniuses to be run by idiots.")

[411A]

I think 411A, Rainboe and others on the same wave length should read carefully the BOAC post.

Don't know about the others you mention, but I ignored BOAC long ago and quite frankly am not the least bit interested.
As for Dani...out to lunch would be my assessment...don't pay much attention to him, either.

As for CC on my flights, now or in the future, we get along just fine, so long as they do what I tell 'em to do, period.
If not...offloaded, pronto.
And, what's more, the company backs me up, every time.

Case closed.

[Atlanta-Driver]

Seems that the lot here is out to lunch. Take a chill pill ladies and gents the issue (What issue?) is not worth popping a vein in the head.

It's very simple;

If the Captain made the wrong decision he will be skinned if not then I fail to see where there's a problem.

[fullforward]

Congrats!
Perfect, finally something making sense here.
After 30 years in this industry and watching many bozos using CRM letters to disseminate useless BS, many of us are really fed up on how things degraded today, re captain real roles. Because WE let this happen in first place.

Example: I was commuting on paid ticket on a long haul flight back home, with Continental. I was in uniform and requested the FA permission to salute the guys in the FD, if possible, of course. It was conceded.
I chatted with them for a few minutes and the captain, after finding out I was dispatched in coach, kindly invited me to business (nothing unsual, I always invite fellow captains and pursers that show up properly to business class and receive the same treatment). There was plenty of C empty seats on this particular flight.

I went to my firstly assigned seat, waiting for someone direct me to the new seat. After take off and level off, I nicely asked the purser about the captain invitation.
She rudely answered: yes, but I will not put you in business.

While I was disembarking the captain intercepted me at the door, and visibly embarrassed said: "look were our industry is dragging us all! Next time they will decide on who fly the leg!".

Need to say more?:mad:

[MU3001A]

411A

Would doing what you tell 'em to do include dropping everything to provide you with completed crew decs in the middle of cabin service, early in an 11 hour flight? Then if the combination of security SOP's and lack of available crew meant the decs were pushed under the cockpit door instead of handed to you in person. Would this constitute reasonable grounds for chewing out the individual responsible for this shocking breach of protocol within the hearing of 1st class passengers, stewing over the matter for a further 5 hours then electing to divert the flight to offload the offender with no thought given to the disruption ensuing to passengers, operations or other parties on the ground in MIA?

I fully realize that having no experience of being a 4 striper entrusted with the command of a flag carrier aircraft in long haul operations, that I may struggle to comprehend your explanation of the justification for the captain's actions in this instance, but please try.

Bless.

[fullforward]

My above statement in any way support this captain decision in first place.
I would consider this extreme measure only in case the purser or anybody else onboard could jeopardize flight or individual safety.

[eliptic]

my conclusion

to me it gets more and more clear that this happening are "as it looks", and moreover it will probably happen again as long some individuals are on command.

anyway i did learn something new, i didn't know there was so much frictions between the crew

it´s like a downstairs upstairs soap opera

Hmm..or maybe not just between the crew:

Pulled Off Plane Before Flight Last Week



"The airport's executive director says the arrest resulted from a "clash of personalities" between the plane's captain and an airport screener."

New Information about AirTran Pilot Arrest - wtvr (http://www.wtvr.com/wtvr-airtran-pilot-arrest-090721,0,968002.story)

[Les Shore]

411 A, if you asked CC to strip naked to do the meal service would you expect them to follow that order? You do have absolute authority.:ok:

[Flying Lawyer]

MU3001A This was a minor spat between two employees, one senior and in a position of authority over the other. Of the type that happens all the time and across all occupations every day of the week. Was it? :confused:
You are clearly convinced of that - you've made 20 posts on this thread.
If it was, then FWIW (very little - I'm not an airline pilot) the captain appears to be OTT.
However, I wonder if it will turn out to be quite as simple as just the one incident described when all the facts are known.

_______________


Re "I think 411A, Rainboe and others on the same wave length should read carefully the BOAC post."
Most posts which contributed nothing to the discussion except 'I agree with X,Y or Z' have been removed by the Mods. I assume that SLFguy's suggestion was missed in the cull.
(He'd already made up his mind by post #8! :rolleyes: )

[TiiberiusKirk]

Frankly I'm amazed that so many conclusions have been drawn, and people taking such entrenched positions, with only two sides of the story having been told - a press report, and one (allegedly) involved party.
I expect that there are perhaps another three or more sides to this event yet to be told, with the real truth lying somewhere between them all.

[411A]

Would doing what you tell 'em to do include dropping everything to provide you with completed crew decs in the middle of cabin service, early in an 11 hour flight? Then if the combination of security SOP's and lack of available crew meant the decs were pushed under the cockpit door instead of handed to you in person.

Since you asked...so long as I recived the requested documents in a reasonable period of time, it would make absolutely no difference to me whatsoever how they were delivered...under the door would be quite satisfactory.
However...you should realise that my particular situation is quite different than those Captains at UAL.
I do contract seasonal flying now, and the cabin supervisors provided are all ex-Royal Jordanian, with at least 20 years in the business.
The rest of the CC are generally quite young and inexperienced, and require constant supervision by the cabin supervisor, to ensure that our 362 passengers are served in a reasonable manner, without the cabin being thrown into a constant state of chaos.
So, if I needed a certain item, I would have the courtesy to ask at a less busy time, so that the cabin supervisor could do his/her job without undue disruption.
In this way I receive the respect and cooperation I expect, and the CC has my cooperation so that they can do the job for which they were hired in the first place.

[Michael Birbeck]

The rest of the CC are generally quite young and inexperienced, and require constant supervision by the cabin supervisor, to ensure that our 362 passengers are served in a reasonable manner, without the cabin being thrown into a constant state of chaos.

So, if I needed a certain item, I would have the courtesy to ask at a less busy time, so that the cabin supervisor could do his/her job without undue disruption.

In this way I receive the respect and cooperation I expect, and the CC has my cooperation so that they can do the job for which they were hired in the first place.


Sounds suspiciously like that CRM mixed wth that leadership BS to me!

[SaturnV]

Downin3Green,

Here is a thread about a CA exercising command discretion in not allowing a non-flying UAL pilot to ride in the jumpseat of a UAL 757 in 2006, which suggests there is lingering animosity 20+ years later. (The thread gets interesting about half-way down, with discussion of a "jumpseat protection list"... (Nice euphemism, BTW. Potential CRM issues associated with such would take this thread too far afield.)

Why would UA pilot refuse to allow non flying United pilot to fly in jumpseat? [Archive] - FlyerTalk Forums (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/archive/t-584125.html)

That aside, I think a diversion because of an issue arising between the pilot(s) flying and the cabin crew is exceedingly rare, and perhaps unique in the post 9/11 era; where, at least in the United States, bells and whistles are likely to sound at the TSA for any diversion of an inbound international flight. IMO, the CA may have more trouble with TSA about the diversion than with UAL management, depending on the reason he gave Miami Center for having to divert, and its correspondence to the truth.

[virginblue]

I have no idea how the judge would rule, but I do know this: The judge would want a great deal more information before coming to a conclusion - including the captain’s side of the story. (As Rainboe has sensibly been urging.)
A judge reading this thread would be amazed at the way some posters condemn the captain on so little information, especially without knowing his side of the story, and surprised that those who have never operated an airliner express an opinion at all. (Unless the judge had been reading PPRuNe for years and had seen it happen many times before.)
“The judge may have never seen a cockpit from the inside or even flown.”
True, and would probably have no expertise in the operation of airliners. That's why the parties would probably call expert evidence from people who have. ie Experienced airline captains.
Neither side’s lawyers (unless they were spectacularly incompetent) would attach any weight to the opinion of someone who wasn’t and never had been a professional airline pilot and based his/her opinion upon being a frequent traveller, or having managerial experience in some other field or holding a PPL.

The underlying question would be pretty straightforward: Was there a threat - and if so, was it justified to wait for 5 hours to divert because the decision was so difficult to make?

So it all boils down to the factual scenario - what did acutally happen on board of that aircraft? First come the facts, than the expert witnesses who assess the facts as provided by the witnesses. So there will most likely be a plethora of witnesses (including independent witnesses with no affiliation to either side) who will describe it in the way it has been described by BoF in this thread (totally true or only partially true, whatever - the sheer numbers will not be in favour of the captain). The CA will tell his side of the story as well, and I am pretty sure that every judge will take into consideration that he is the most senior professional on board and that he has the authority to take whatever action is needed to guarantee the safe operation of the aircraft, i.e. address any real threat or reasonably assume that a certain situation is threatening even if it turns out after review that it was not. However, I doubt that a judge will take the view like many on this thread that the definition what facts amount to a threat for the safe operation of the aircraft is COMPLETELY up to the captain when a review takes place. The captain will have the utmost discretion to decide this, but there are clearly some limits - evidently so if the airline takes a wholly different view than the captain. What next? No sugar with the coffee is a threat just because the captain says so? In short, of course there will be expert witnesses, but they do not assess a theoretical scenario, but the facts as they are presented by the court after hearing all witnesses. And as far as expert witnesses are concerned in a case such as this - United will easily find a Dani-style expert witness, the captain a Rainboe-style expert witness. In the end it is up to the judge to assess as a layman what expert evidence thrown at him is more convincing to him. Expert witnesses enable the judge to make a somewhat learned decision, but if there is, as so often, conflicting expert evidence, not much is won from the judge's point of view. Unless he tosses a coin, as a human being faced with such a dilemma he will apply common sense and a test reasonableness as long as the burden of proof and evidence presented to hin allows it.

Just in case if oyu are wondering, I am no layman as far as law is concerned, quite to the contrary. The theoretical application of law is one thing, how it works out in the court-room is another. You will know that as much as I do. Based on an assessment what the most likely evidence presented to a court would be, I would be very very hesitant to tell the captain that his case is rock solid and that he has nothing to worry about. So how about a golden hand-shake?

[Barkly1992]

I think - and I do - that it is quite interesting that an on board dispute is getting as much attention as a fatal RPT accident.

And I will take a risk - the egos are just as up front.
:ok:

[captjns]

You can bet the Crew did not pull the CVR CB after they blocked in. The good news is that’s there’s one less Captain Solo in the skies that some poor unsuspecting F/O and CC have to worry about.

When flying long haul, during the brief with the entire crew, I laid out a time line of events during the trip where crew swaps were to be made. I also told that cabin crew, before I turning off the fasten seat belt sign I would inform them of any special request, such as a potty break, or coffee infusion, so as to minimize any disruption. Also during crew swaps issues relating to crew meals, paper work, and potty breaks were tended. With this in mind, again, there was minimal disruption of their routine cabin service.

After all running a trip isn’t as complicated as launching the space shuttle, is it??? or perhaps for some more so.

[jehrler]

MU3001A

Would doing what you tell 'em to do include dropping everything to provide you with completed crew decs in the middle of cabin service, early in an 11 hour flight? Then if the combination of security SOP's and lack of available crew meant the decs were pushed under the cockpit door instead of handed to you in person. Would this constitute reasonable grounds for chewing out the individual responsible for this shocking breach of protocol within the hearing of 1st class passengers, stewing over the matter for a further 5 hours then electing to divert the flight to offload the offender with no thought given to the disruption ensuing to passengers, operations or other parties on the ground in MIA?

I will admit that my airline experience has been in finance and marketing.

But, I also think that I have a perspective that has not been heard here.

I view the captain as a platoon leader. Within the orders given, the captain has the responsibility and authority to carry out the safe, timely and cost effective operation. That is beyond question.

However, the captain is not the general leading the overall operation. That belongs to the airline as a whole and *they* are the ones who give the captain *his/her* orders. The captain is limited by the then current FOM and SOPs (not to mention regulatory bodies). And the captain and his/her actions will be judged by the airline on that basis.

In addition, the *other* members of the crew also have orders from the general. They are to carry out their duties as assigned (including seeing to the passengers) and adhere to their rules and SOPs and will be judged accordingly.

Putting aside the diversion (which seems a tough decision to justify IMHO), what constitutes order compliance v. insubordination will be judged on the basis of these (sometimes conflicting) duties/rules/SOP for both the order giver and order taker.

[cessnapuppy]

The underlying question would be pretty straightforward: Was there a threat - and if so, was it justified to wait for 5 hours to divert because the decision was so difficult to make?
We dont know if the decision (whatever it was) was "so difficult to make".
I dont believe it has to be a "threat" in an immediate and direct sense.
If the purser was being insubordinate or 'coping an attitude' he could fairly decide,
"I want her off this plane. Once having decided that, he could implement that decision whenever he chooses to." behavior like that is poisonous and contagious. Kicking her off in their point of origin could have led her to to "take the crew with her" - In the US, not so big a deal. -who knows?

He is still subject to review, as all judges are.

I think - and I do - that it is quite interesting that an on board dispute is getting as much attention as a fatal RPT accident.
Interesting, but not in the least surprising, conjuring up as it has, visions of mutiny, pilots run amok.

I do know that if there have been issues 'simmering' with the crew and the captain did what he did, even as SLF i would be behind the capt. 100% as he did his true prime directive, which was to get me from point A to point B safely.

If the captain had erred into a runway incursion or some other incident and the inquiry turned up 4 days of passive aggressive laden BS goading him to distraction as a contributory cause, every one would have been saying, you should have "Tossed the b** off with or without parachute!" :ugh:

- everyone...ok a lot -of us have this purser up as some kind of 'Mother Theresa' and that she may be, but I dont buy it. "Miss Congeniality" plays well only for Sandra Bullock.

I suspect that the REAL issue for the pilot's career is not so much the diversion (and UA's position on that) but any declaration he made to the TSA /Federal authorites/FAA regarding the whole incident.

UA would then have it a lot easier as they wouldn't have to do much from their end, just allow the FAA to throw the book at him, then say, "<shrug> our hands are tied...we have to let you go! :="

overall, the whole thing has me quite sad, really. :(

[MU3001A]

jehrler

I don't see any reason to assume the captain intended security SOP's be bypassed to comply with his request. He probably expected the purser to grab one of the FA's busy doing cabin service, if that's what it took. The Purser seems to have come up with a compromise on her own initiative, that didn't require interrupting cabin service. But she should probably have called the captain to let him know she had pushed the decs under the door, which would have been easy enough to do. Still, nothing that a reasonably well adjusted person needs to get all worked up about, still less something that rises to the level of diverting the aircraft merely to offload the perceived insubordinate crew member. Old time pirates may have pulled that kind of crap with crew members who fell out of favor or were surplus to requirements, but such behaviour has no place in modern airline operations.

I agree that staff discipline as it relates to this incident remains UAL's call. But there is also the little matter of the reason given government agencies for the diversion, which according to as yet unconfirmed reports may have involved a false claim by the captain of a compromised security situation aboard the aircraft. I'm given to understand that the TSA would tend to frown upon such things and has the power to levy large fines and worse.

[Flying Lawyer]

virginblue

The underlying question would be pretty straightforward: Was there a threat - and if so, was it justified to wait for 5 hours to divert because the decision was so difficult to make? You assume there was only one incident, and that there was a delay of 5 hours between that single incident and the decision to divert. Your assumptions may turn out to be correct but, at the moment, they are merely assumptions based upon limited information. Judges base their decisions upon facts found to be proved.
So it all boils down to the factual scenario - what did actually happen on board of that aircraft? Not all, but it would be the starting point.
the sheer numbers will not be in favour of the captain Maybe, but judges consider quality as well as quantity.

"United will easily find a Dani-style expert witness"
I'm sure they could but I doubt very much they would want to. No competent lawyer would. Just a few examples:
Post #67: "Let me guess: The captain was near his 60's. These guys should just go.
"Post #158: "I think the case is closed" and: "I think it's also no coincidence that this incident happened in a major airline. And in the US."

"The captain a Rainboe-style expert witness"
Possibly not for a case of this nature, but Rainboe has qualities I always looked for in an expert witness when I was a barrister: Long experience, depth of knowledge, a 'facts first, conclusions second' approach, says what he thinks even if it's not what others want to hear.

"if there is, as so often, conflicting expert evidence, not much is won from the judge's point of view."
That is not correct.
Judges are well practised in assessing the respective quality of experts giving conflicting opinions. (And they would have done it for decades even before becoming judges.)

Based on an assessment what the most likely evidence presented to a court would be, I would be very very hesitant to tell the captain that his case is rock solid and that he has nothing to worry about. So how about a golden hand-shake? There we differ.
Firstly, circumstances in which any (competent) lawyer would tell any client that his case is rock solid are very rare.
Secondly, no (competent) lawyer would give the captain an opinion either way until he was in possession of, and had closely examined, all the available evidence.
That includes the captain's account of what happened and his reasons for doing what he did.

The theoretical application of law is one thing, how it works out in the court-room is another. You will know that as much as I do. I've been working in the courts for 35 years, fighting cases for the first 33 of them and now in a different capacity. You can safely assume that I know a great deal about how judges approach cases. ;)
.

[SASless]

BOAC,

I always heard it was far easier to supervise a hundred Men than three Women.

Throw in today's standard set of Cabin Crew and I reckon along with the Leadership training we ought to include Sensitivity Training, Diversity Training, and education on how not to brutalize sensitive emotions brought on by intimidation by authority figures. Granted most American airlines today probably ought to be given credit for hiring the elderly.

[MU3001A]

Granted most American airlines today probably ought to be given credit for hiring the elderly.

Would that be the flight crew, cabin crew or both?

[jehrler]

MU3001A

The Purser seems to have come up with a compromise on her own initiative, that didn't require interrupting cabin service. But she should probably have called the captain to let him know she had pushed the decs under the door, which would have been easy enough to do. Still, nothing that a reasonably well adjusted person needs to get all worked up about, still less something that rises to the level of diverting the aircraft merely to offload the perceived insubordinate crew member.

Agree 100%. In fact, in an earlier draft of my comment, I stated that I hoped she had, in fact, told the flight crew of the "under the door" disposition.

Still, even if she had done it silently "to just show him" I still don't see how he could use that as justification to his UA "generals" for the diversion.

I hope, for the captain's sake, that there is some big smoking gun hiding in the ether.

[p51guy]

In the last 8 years most US major airlines have not hired anybody as crew members. The pilots I saw after 9/11 were turning in their manuals and none have been called back and probably won't be for a long time. If they can maintain their recall rights they will be senior citizens when they come back. We have a lot of senior flight attendants, years wise, who may never come back.

[West Coast]

Would that be the flight crew, cabin crew or both?

New FMC option making it's way to the flight deck, braille and super sized keys.

[BOAC]

I always heard it was far easier to supervise a hundred Men than three Women.- I think I might even increase that ratio:)

However, on a serious note, the problems with the 'leadership by osmosis' group do not lie specifically in gender-related issues but in overall attitude to 'inferior folk'. Obviously those (male) ASGs who consider women 'inferior' have added issues which can affect their judgement.

[wozzo]

BOAC,
I always heard it was far easier to supervise a hundred Men than three Women.


What year have we, 1956?

No wonder some pilots have problems managing their crew.

[Heliport]

wozzo
What year have we, 1956?

No wonder some pilots have problems managing their crew.

We have 2009 and a pilot with a mischievous sense of humour who often uses it to stir the pot.

He usually catches someone.
This time it was you.

[captjns]

Captain's defense with ALPO at his side.

"Hurt my knee countering the effects of "P" factor on my last 767 flight:(... had surgery. Lots of pain after the operation:{. Took pain pills to kill the pain:ok:. Guess I popped one one too many pain pills before the flight:eek:!!! Please... put me in rehab:{!!!"

Need to keep the job since the old ESOP account went to just about zero:{!

Hmmm since the company office is moving to the Sears aka Willis Towers in Chicago... I wonder if I can get a discount on my Hager Pants with a my UAL ID:E?

[Airbubba]

Captain's defense with ALPO at his side.

This is not much of a stretch from what I've seen in recent years. If you can somehow invoke medical, alcohol, substance abuse, gender or diversity issues in a hearing, you are almost guaranteed to keep your job. In some cases you must do mea culpas and go through rehab but it is very hard to fire a union worker covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act.

From some of the earlier comments, I'm not sure the captain is in ALPA, though.

[Wiley]

...a union worker... A member of good standing of ALPA after (as reported here on Pprune, so it must be true :):)) blowing in to UAL as a direct entry captain during an industrial dispute in 1985?

Life just gets curiouser and curiouser Alice...

[Rainboe]

No it doesn't. Completely and utterley irrelevant to anything!

Dani, you are posting some very weird stuff!
If you still cannot agree (I guess it's your nature), I gladly agree on a bet about every sum or good you want. But I won in the THY/AMS thread, in the Hudson case and surely in the AF thread. Why? Occam's razor is a sharp tool!
'You 'won' in the THY/AMS thread,Hudson case and surely the AF thread too'? Won what? Do you think this is some gladiatorial arena with people slugging it out until one is left standing? What a strange way to view it. Try and view it as a discussion place, with no egos to be plumped up. Are you really walking around thinking you 'won' in those threads? Judging by some of your opinions here which seem bizarre, who is deciding? I don't remember these 'slug-fests' you seem satisfied to have 'won'!

[SASless]

Aw gee Heliport....and the fishing is so good here!

It seemed this has been a tempest in a tea pot with all sorts of ego (on both sides) getting into the affray.

As I posted way back towards the start of this.....the Captain's actions and those of the Purser would be reviewed and corrective action if needed, would be done in the cold light of day.

I would have thought most folks would have waited until they had the facts before launching off on their diatribes but I see Mr. Obama is in good company here.

[eliptic]

And who the hell is 'Occam'?

lex parsimoniae
"The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenon) should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis) or theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory)."

[wozzo]

We have 2009 and a pilot with a mischievous sense of humour who often uses it to stir the pot.
He usually catches someone.
This time it was you.

Thanks. Fair enough. I was for a while concerned, social attitudes of some professional pilots weren't up to speed. Not that it could explain at least some of the corrosion in chains of command. :)

[sharksandwich]

I can't remember if I removed the original post, or if a mod did.
I am sure few would doubt that the reason this thread has run and run is because it is important.
Team work is essential if problems are to be avoided in any service industry, and obviously vitally important in any emergency.
In my original post, I pointed out the Capt had been off work for over a year, and I queried why (was told a knee injury).
Whatever, he was back to doing a high-stress job, may or may not have made an error of judgement, we just don't know.
We don't know for certain what stresses there may have been among the crew.
What I suggested was, we should not castigate the chap until we know the circumstances.
I ended the post with, "there but for the grace of...."
I am always amazed that colleagues, or those doing similar jobs are the first to attribute blame...

[Rainboe]

Quite right! The voices of reason are at last making themselves heard over the clamour of 'thumbs down' calls on this one. Contrary to some, I have not been defending anyone or making accusations in this thread. But the captain does have some explaining of his decision, as any pilot knows. He does not need a unanimous verdict of 'guilty' here based on 50% of the story. The 50% that comes from people who decided 'one more flight, then we'll do 'im!'. I think a lot of explaining should be needed from the whole crew in this bizarre saga!

We've had 'experts' from other fields give us the (irrelevant) advice they feel applies. How would a military man like it if I pontificated on terms of engagement and what the military should and should not do in Afghanistan? I think the answer would be 'thank you v much, but MYOB- you have no idea what it is like on the ground with booby traps everywhere!'. As for the most useless advice of all, 'business solutions to staff conflict', well thank you very much, but when your office is sliding along at 600mph and rocking 30 degrees either side, with limited endurance and thunderstorms to cope with, I will be glad to hear what your (amended) advice has changed to!

To the rest of the smart arses whose only CRM qualification is ownership of a keyboard, 'thanks, but don't bother (me) again with your pointless and ignorant opinions! You actually know rock-all about it!' And for Dani with your 'I am one of you, you are one of me, we are all equals together!' command philosophy, after that, if you ask for the GenDecs, you will probably be told 'why should I get them for you- get them yourself!'

[BOAC]

Do we have any more news, or just conjecture? Anything from UA, 'Based on fact'? Anyone any of the 'inside'?

For those who don't know: Occam's Razor (http://www.2think.org/occams_razor.shtml)

Delightfully simple.

[Les Shore]

1)Simplest and most logical of two theories is usually the correct one

2)Since only reasonable legal reason to divert is that the purser was a threat to security, (possibly running wild threatening passengers with a hot pot of coffee)

3) Since most Captains, even 411A;) would not demand papers not required immediately, delivered on the spot, if it means disrupting cabin service

4) Since most Captains have enough smarts to deal with staff problems without diverting. (Heard UAL’s new SOPs will include use of handcuffs for unruly flight crew)

4) Logical conclusion.The Captain “lost it” and made a bad decision…until it is proven that flying saucers really exist. But if they do, the Captain maybe made a good decision.

5)Or maybe the aluminum projectile was “sliding along at 600 and rocking 30 degrees either side” the whole time so CA and FO’s had no time to think about anything but flyin da plane. Except for requesting the diversion.:)

Blame Oxcam!

[MU3001A]

Rainboe: Contrary to some, I have not been defending anyone or making accusations in this thread. But the captain does have some explaining of his decision, as any pilot knows. He does not need a unanimous verdict of 'guilty' here based on 50% of the story. The 50% that comes from people who decided 'one more flight, then we'll do 'im!'.Not only throughout the thread, but here you even managed to contradict yourself within one paragraph. Incredible

As for the most useless advice of all, 'business solutions to staff conflict', well thank you very much, but when your office is sliding along at 600mph and rocking 30 degrees either side, with limited endurance and thunderstorms to cope with, I will be glad to hear what your (amended) advice has changed to!I believe the captain and purser both were sliding along at 600mph, for whatever relevance that may have. Though I'm reasonably sure that rocking 30 degrees either side, with limited endurance and thunderstorms to cope with,were not factors.

[SaturnV]

Les Shore,

An early account -- favorable to the purser's side of the incident, of course -- indicated that the pilot provided ATC in advance with the name of the person who represented a security or safety threat to the aircraft, the threat necessitating the diversion into Miami.

When the authorities (in the more dramatic re-tellings, the police are at the jetway with guns drawn) meet the transgressor, they are surprised to find that she is dressed in a United crew uniform.

In all other instances that I am aware of where a person(s) is put off a flight for safety or security reasons, they are immediately taken into custody at the point of debarkation. That the purser was immediately sent on her way to catch the next flight to Chicago probably reflects an instant judgment by the authorities that the captain's claims or assertions were without merit.

[cessnapuppy]

TSA- [email protected] ([email protected]) or call 1-866-289-9673.
The Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) establishes a presumption that records in the possession of agencies and departments of the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government are available to the public. The FOIA sets standards for determining when Government records must be made available and which records may be withheld. The FOIA also gives requesters specific legal rights and provides administrative and judicial remedies when access to records or portions of records is denied. The FOIA statute requires that Federal agencies provide access to and disclosure of information pertaining to the Government's business to the fullest extent possible.

Instead of beating our gums and unmentioned (perhaps unmentionable) anatomical areas, we could could call the number, chat them up and make some direct inquiries? Maybe even demand that they produce any and all logs, recordings and transcripts regarding the diversion! :D
That I would do of course, but I would hate to then secretly be put on the 'Don't Fly List' or worse (or perhaps better, depending on your point of view) the "Full Body Cavity Search List":rolleyes:.

All fun aside, it is really interesting to observe what a Rorschach Test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rorschach_test) this thread has proven to be!
Its notable that people dont seem to look at incidents as phenomena to be explored and analyzed but rather as validators of pre-conceived notions, biases and positions.

Like the black University professor who sees in every cop asking him the time of day, a racist attack dog siccing, baton wielding, jackbooted thug of the civil rights era or the cop who sees in every citizen whom he is sworn to "respect, protect, serve" an uppity fellow who "doesnt know who he's talking to and is gonna be taken down a peg, by golly!"

We not only jump TO conclusions, but rather wrap ourselves in them finally covering the eyes and ears and then, only then, do we sally forth, firmly protected from opposing ideas , positions or even facts!

I'm maybe 70% serious about calling up the Miami TSA and seeing if there is any info to be had (40% joking about not going on any TSA s**t list) so if anybody has a wiser note to add about me try this I'll wait before I venture foolishly:O

[Cacophonix]

In all other instances that I am aware of where a person(s) is put off a flight for safety or security reasons, they are immediately taken into custody at the point of debarkation. That the purser was immediately sent on her way to catch the next flight to Chicago probably reflects an instant judgment by the authorities that the captain's claims or assertions were without merit.


A good use of Occam's razor and a significant point.

If one reads through this thread again, the "Miami" question was gently being hinted at by another poster very early on in this debate. So subtly, in fact, that one wonders whether or not he/she might be one of the "missing" UA pilots here.

However (whatever the case) this thread is not a court of law, a court martial or even a place where any justice is expected to be done. Almost all the opinions that have been adduced here (pro or con the Captain) have been tendentious.

The lessons that can be drawn from this very interesting thread are secondary (as another poster has said).

Despite appeals to their own authority by some posters, many of the lessons that can be learned here do relate to leadership and do not require arcane knowledge of a specific industry (although such knowledge, where relevant, certainly helps inform the debate).

The kind of special pleading that says comments on leadership are domain specific and therefore mutually exclusive, truly misses the point but is interesting in itself to psychologists and kindred specialists.

[MU3001A]

The kind of special pleading that says comments on leadership are domain specific and therefore mutually exclusive, truly misses the point but is interesting in itself to psychologists and kindred specialists.Doesn't take a trick cyclist to apply Occam's razor to those same comments either.

[etrang]

well thank you very much, but when your office is sliding along at 600mph and rocking 30 degrees either side, with limited endurance and thunderstorms to cope with,

Most pilots are quite capable of handling a 600mph "office" and dealing with crew management issues during a 13 hour flight without unscheduled landings to offload "terrorist" crew members.

[MU3001A]

11 hours, but everything else was spot on.

[Wiley]

A number of people have asked that if the problem occurred 30 minutes into the flight, why wait 5 hours to divert? My guess would be quite simply that Miami was the first US port along track. Diverting to a "furrin" port would have added a whole new dimension to an already rather "large dimensioned" decision (the entire circumstances of which, I'm looking forward to hearing some time in the future).

I've stood a cabin crewmember down once after he lead what amounted to a mutiny among a small number of very junior male cabin crew of similar nationalities to his own against a European female purser. (There were race/religion/gender issues involved that someone who has not lived in the Middle East would (a) not believe and (b) would have little chance of understanding.) Diverting was an option I must admit I did not consider even for a fleeting moment. After an indepth investigation, the gentleman involved was sacked upon our arrival back at home port.


...and anyone familiar with the Middle East will not be at all surprised to learn that he was re-instated two weeks later. But funnily enough, he never once appeared among my crew after returning to work with the company.

[Rainboe]

Have you considered that his mates may very well have extracted revenge on you without you being aware of it?

MU3001A- you have totally misread my position throughout. I greatly objected to instant 'guilty' verdicts being applied by people who know nothing, and less than nothing on the intricacies of commanding a long range airliner. It was always accepted he would be suspended while the validity of his decision was examined by the company. If he felt that the integrity of his crew had broken down, then there is indeed a case that a diversion decision could be construed as valid if the circumstances were serious enough. We have only been getting one side of the story! BUT, there is a possibility that a unanimous guilty verdict here could in some minor way affect the investigation ongoing by UA. He deserves in this case to be left alone to justify his decision. But we don't know anything of what was really going on and the atmosphere prevailing on that plane. He landed those people safely at destination with a minor delay having dealt with the problem to his satisfaction (and apparently others in the crew's satisfaction as well). Now it will be examined and UA will decide. But some of the untrue and over-exaggerated character assassination going on here by other crew members, who were perfectly satisfied to continue the flight, calls into question the validity of some of the remarks they made.

So where have I been biased other than expecting him to have a fair hearing with his side of the story also being heard? Too many people sprang to instant judgements based on a one sided story (like you)! You, more than anybody, sprang to such instant judgements. It would be interesting to hear your expertise and experience in large aeroplane, large crew, long range operations! Despite your enthusiasm, you have no concept of what goes on, yet your voice was most shrill in pointing a finger (with the thumb down!). What ignorance couple with arrogance!

[BOAC]

Too many folk ascribing powers beyond reason here to what is a 'chat forum, where folk get awfully excited and tetchy sometimes. It is not a 'Court of Law', nor is it a 'Court Martial'. Just a chat forum where opinions are free to be expressed withinn reason. I doubt very much that UA management spend much time looking at arguments here.

Edited due to myopia. Thanks to the itinerant New Yorker.

[Bronx]

BOACI doubt Wiley will bother to answer you
So do I, because Wiley will probably notice that Rainboe was responding to MU3001A who's posted on this thread 27 times!!

[CyclicRick]

Oh dear if the jurno fraternity are reading this what the hell are they going to think.
It's obvious the captain had an irrational hissy fit. Guilty as hell. He shouldn't be in charge of a bouncy castle let alone an airliner.
It beggars belief some of the jumped up pompus attitudes of some of the people on this thread. It's about power to them not efficiency and safety. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts abolutley. :yuk:

[parabellum]

It's obvious the captain had an irrational hissy fit. Guilty as hell. He shouldn't be in charge of a bouncy castle let alone an airliner.



You may be right but on the basis of what has been posted here on PPRuNe you simply cannot make that statement. Do you know something the rest of us don't? Don't be in a rush to offer yourself for jury service, please.

[TWT]

It's unlikely that UA will ever make a report on their conclusions in this matter public so there's really no point in persisting as no-one will ever know the truth except those directly involved.

[sharksandwich]

4) Logical conclusion.The Captain “lost it” and made a bad decision…until it is proven that flying saucers really exist. But if they do, the Captain maybe made a good decision.



Leave him alone.
Kegworth, spanair, and Tenerife demonstrate decisions with hindsight (isn't hindsight lovely!) which killed people.
No-one was hurt (apart from feelings).
Leave him alone- this is not the Spanish Inquisition. and you are not an Inquisitor - thank God!

[MU3001A]

Rainboe:
So where have I been biased other than expecting him to have a fair hearing with his side of the story also being heard? I believe I supplied a direct quote.

Rainboe, I freely admit that I have no actual expertise and experience in large aeroplane, large crew, long range operations to impart, though I'm not convinced of the relevance of that to my offering comments or an opinion here. I do get the benevolent dictator thing, I really do. Thing is, absent the benevolent part the dictator part can't work in isolation except in the most extreme circumstances.

I along with others have speculated and offered opinions that draw on the factual elements of the story which are not in dispute:
In the early morning of 14 July United Flight 842 from Sao Paulo, Brazil to Chicago O'Hare diverted to Miami international some 8 hours into a scheduled eleven hour non-stop flight. The flight was on the ground for about 1 hour during which time the purser was the sole person to disembark before the aircraft took off again and continued on to Chicago where it arrived safely a little over one hour later than originally scheduled. The purser was not arrested or placed in preventative custody.
A United spokeswoman has been reported as saying: "The pilot chose to divert the flight due to a crew issue".
An FAA spokesman has been reported as confirming that the captain felt the matter needed to be resolved on the ground, and that the aircraft landed without incident in Miami and was on the ground for less than an hour before departing to Chicago.Hearsay has it that the origin of the 'crew issue' was the captain's request that the purser provide him with the crew decs, hardly a critical issue, though I don't discount the possibility that there may be more to it than that. I'm sure the captain will have the opportunity to present his side before the people who matter to his future employment prospects, UAL management. I don't expect him to post a defense of his actions here, nor do I expect to see much in the way of a public statement from UAL explaining the incident or how they intend to resolve the personnel issue within the company. So why hold fire on what is billed as a rumour network?

Now if you want to speculate using the same basic facts and offer an opinion that exonerates the captain's behavior, then have at it. But a blanket assertion of command authority as many have offered in the captain's defense simply doesn't cut it, and asserting that we should all just shut up and await the captain's side of the story we are never likely to see or wait for the results of an investigation that will likely never be made public is a cop out.

Oh, and life isn't always fair. Even for folks who have managed to scale the heights of command within a flag carrier but then screw up over something as stupid and insignificant as would appear to be the case here.

Post #28 for all those keeping count.

[Rainboe]

we should all just shut up and await the captain's side of the story we are never likely to see or wait for the results of an investigation that will likely never be made public is a cop out.

Oh, and life isn't always fair. Even for folks who have managed to scale the heights of command within a flag carrier but then screw up over something as stupid and insignificant as would appear to be the case here.
There will be no results of an investigation because there was no 'incident'! It's an internal matter for UA. But I cannot understand your fascination with crucifying the guy so vehemently when:
1- you don't understand what it is all about. Are you even a real pilot?
2- you only have one side of the story.
3- you don't know what went on to lead up to the 'incident' (which didn't happen).

And you attack someone trying to say we don't have enough information to deliver a verdict on anybody almost as vehemently! 20% of all your postings on this board have been trying to deliver a hammer blow to the Captain. A triffle bizarre don't you think? Do we have to have a damning verdict from you 28 times?

[MU3001A]

Post #29

To be honest I don't find the actual incident (generic English, not aviation specific lingo) as interesting as the number of my postings on this thread might suggest. But the Rorschach test aspect? now that has been interesting.Are you even a real pilot? Depends how you would define real. By your lights, probably not.

[Will Fraser]

The aspects of this thread that actually pertain to the title, have been long exhausted. I promise on my honor no more than a few people will ultimately know what happened before and after the unfortunate situation. In the interests of the Line, the Forum, and Aviation, could we consider moving along ?

Will

[Les Shore]

Jeez, some have done a lot to destroy the image of the cool, unflappable airline pilot. Not likely you’ll be invited to work in the PR department after you retire. :=
Rainboe you say there was no incident. Those in the profession use the word “incident” in a special way but the rest of the ignorant world (according to you) uses “incident” to talk about something that happened, which is the case here.As for the fact that the crew flew the last leg with him, it could just mean they didn’t want to upset the passengers even more with another delay, and with two FOs to wrestle this Captain to the ground if his attitude affected his airmanship, maybe they felt safe enough to get on with the day.:D

Even though there won’t be an official report, someone will probably leak whether this guy is working a few weeks down the road. (Especially, if rumours are true-this is a rumour network- that he wasn’t the most popular dude and insisted that the FO’s called him “Sir” even on the layover.)Then we’ll know whose been betting on the wrong horse.

[Rainboe]

You daft individual! Can't you read? Has the meaning of this thread passed you by totally? I have not bet on any 'horse'. I have merely wanted more information before forming any opinion about the professional actions of someone who proved himself in aviation before half the readers of this forum were unfortunately dragged into this world to subsequently wail he should be sacked without knowing the details! And if your understanding of airline operations is as in that post, you should crawl back under the stone you came from! That posting defiles the profession! What are you doing here commenting like that? True idiocy.

[Cacophonix]

Barring a last minute revelation from an insider, it appears that this thread has run its course.

One wishes all the UA personnel involved the best. Whatever happened that night it seems tough that experienced and dedicated staff who have given their all to fly (both cabin and flying crew) might lose their jobs or have damaged their careers in what might have been a petty and ultimately futile dispute.

[Rainboe]

Well said Namibfox. I think the idiots have really come out of the woodwork now, and it is time I stopped before I get a ban. In fact, I hereby ban myself from this thread! One hoped for a bit of intelligent communication, but it disappeared into the ether like a wisp of cigarette smoke.

Read it and weep what Pprune has come to!
As for the fact that the crew flew the last leg with him, it could just mean they didn’t want to upset the passengers even more with another delay, and with two FOs to wrestle this Captain to the ground if his attitude affected his airmanship, maybe they felt safe enough to get on with the day.

[Desert Diner]

Wiley

I've stood a cabin crewmember down once after he lead what amounted to a mutiny among a small number of very junior male cabin crew of similar nationalities to his own against a European female purser. (There were race/religion/gender issues involved that someone who has not lived in the Middle East would (a) not believe and (b) would have little chance of understanding.) Diverting was an option I must admit I did not consider even for a fleeting moment. After an indepth investigation, the gentleman involved was sacked upon our arrival back at home port.

...and anyone familiar with the Middle East will not be at all surprised to learn that he was re-instated two weeks later. But funnily enough, he never once appeared among my crew after returning to work with the company.


I am assuming:


You were flying for a ME Carrier
Said Male crew member was a national
You realized that a diversion (no matter how justified for this purpose) was going to help your long term employment options with the airline.


End of the day, it doesn't matter what justification the captain had. His decision to land at MIA cannot be questioned as he had the authority.

All that has happened is that he has lost credibility and trust with his employer. This is the true issue at hand.

[MU3001A]

Childish abuse deleted.




Post #30.

His decision to land at MIA cannot be questioned as he had the authority. All that has happened is that he has lost credibility and trust with his employer. This is the true issue at hand. Well if his decision can't be questioned then he doesn't have a problem does he? Cannot be questioned by whom? He had the authority to divert at any time for any reason he deemed necessary, provided he could subsequently justify the decision to his employer and the regulatory authorities. There is also the little matter of his allegedly passing false information to the authorities at MIA regarding a security problem on board as his reason for the diversion, to consider. Any captain's authority is limited under the concept of operational control and can be withheld by his employer, the regulatory authorities or both, once he is back on terra firma. With significant consequences for his continued employment and career. Which is why I still question UAL's decision to allow him to continue on to ORD.

[411A]

Which is why I still question UAL's decision to allow him to continue on to ORD.

I doesn't matter what you might personally question, MU3001A...as you do not have the authority, in a legal sense, to do so.
All you can do is express an opinion, which can be discarded by others, without reservation.

Now, as to the actual authority of the Captain (generally speaking).
Once airbourne, it is unlimited, IE: the Captain is in charge, period, unless he becomes medically incapacitated. In many cases this is also true on the ground.
Case in point.
Some years ago, whilst waiting for start-up clearance at DEL, we are informed that there will be a VIP movement, and the airfield is now closed for two hours to normal operations.
As the passengers had not yet boarded, they remained in the departure lounge.
So far, so good.
However, as we were to depart for a long haul flight, it became quite apparent that our normally allowed duty period would be exceeded, so I told the cabin crew of my decision to use SCD to complete the flight, and one objected, so she was promptly off-loaded.
As we had one extra anyway, it made no difference.
Apparently slightly miffed at being off-loaded, she complained to the relevant regulatory authority, which just happened to be the UKCAA.
She was told, by a senior CAA inspector (whom I happened to personally know) that....the Captain has the final say as to whether the duty time shall be extended, and there was absolutely nothing she could actually do about it.
She gambled...and lost, as expected.
She was also promptly terminated.

Now, as to the 'suitability' of the Captain in the UAL case to continue to the destination (ORD), I firmly expect that this will come up in any hearing and...the Captain has a very good case, as clearly UAL allowed him to continue, yet UAL reasonably can not now say...he is unsuitable.
This will head for the courts I suspect, and I also expect the Captain will prevail...IE: collect the big bucks...if it comes to that.
However, I expect it will be settled out of court, to the Captains benefit.

[Les Shore]

MU3001A, you silly boy. You still don't understand.

Unless you have an ATPL, don't dare comment about something that is more about people skills, common sense and ego than anything requiring specialist knowledge. To use the logic of some, if you are on a bus and the bus driver behaves strangely, don't even think about it because you don't understand what's involved in driving a bus. When your eating at a restaurant and the meal isn't right, don't assume there's anything wrong with it because your not a chef. When the drycleaner ruins your shirt, don't suggest that he could have done something wrong. You don't understand his job and it could be all the fumes he has to inhale.:rolleyes: Makes as much sense.

It's true we don't know the whole story and it's possible that the diversion can be justified. Time will tell if the real authority, UAL management agrees, not to mention the judgement of the regulatory authorities. There will be no fat settlement if it is decided false claims were made.What galls me is the mentality that "he couldn't possibly be wrong because he's one of us" and everyone who suggests otherwise (PPLs, ATCO's, SLF, etc.) is a liar, an idiot and so on.

I salute all the Captains who amazingly deal with their staff without diverting and
possibly declaring them terrorists, even though you've got the authority. Also, those smart enough to figure out that my comment about the two FO's "wrestling" with the Captain was made in jest. The point was that the crew, CC in particular, might have continued the flight (as one poster said) because the purser urged them to consider the passengers. To dismiss that possibility is just as bad as passing final judgement on the Captain.

[Michael Birbeck]

His decision to land at MIA cannot be questioned as he had the authority. All that has happened is that he has lost credibility and trust with his employer. This is the true issue at hand.


This is a non sequitur. UA most certainly can question the Captain's decision to land at MIA (they obviously have) despite his authority to do so.

Clearly any employee who loses the confidence of their employer has a major career problem (true in any industry).

We don't know that he has lost UA's confidence though. In fact we don't much at all about the detail of this case and as some posters have been saying, we may be flogging a dead horse here.

Never has so much been made by so many out of so little detail.

[Toprotectandserve]

Captain`s authority unlimited??

No sir, it is not! Put it that way and someone will start thinking any airline captain is a true god with power absolute!!!

Some captains tend to think that the law is resumed to the rules and regulations applied to their job inside a flight deck. Well, here are some news: it’s not. There a whole lot of law outside the aircraft doors and whatever you do as well as those rules and regulations must not go against it. Unless you want to have it barging into your life, on the wrong stand, that is…

On another note, an airline captain is also part of a chain of command. The crew may be below him but there may be quite a lot of people above. If at any imaginable moment of decision he does have full authority (99% of the time, that is…) that does not mean that he cannot be held accountable for his decisions. On the contrary, he will explain and justify his actions to his bosses and may even be required to do so to regulatory authorities, courts of law, police, customs, etc…And if eventually he screws up he will pay the price, just like anyone else.

That’s one of the many reasons why aircraft captains should be, by definition, balanced, reasonable and sensible people. And, thank God, most of them are...

On the question at hand I will, however, agree with Rainboe on one respect: there is still insufficient information for a clear analysis of what happened. Not wishing, in any way, to demerit what was posted here by CCs on the flight I would still want to know what went on in the captains head before passing any sort of judgment. But that has to work both ways: if, at this stage, you can’t pin the medal on the purser you certainly cannot pin it on the captain, either. So instead of just advising it, let’s keep our options open shall we?

As to the lack of sense, arrogance and derogation I´ve seen in certain messages on this thread just two simple thoughts:

- We’re not talking about technical issues of flying an airliner, here. We’re talking about issues such as human interactivity, exercise of authority, command and leadership skills and, yes, possible legal issues. And, in that respect, I fail to see where airline captains are more qualified to discuss such matters than a lot of other people. So some hardliners here should step down from their self-built pedestal. Who knows, they actually may end up learning something…

- As for the arrogant, even rude, way in which some hardliners refer to passengers ( or SLFs as you call them) let me remind you of this: if you are actually flying an airliner that’s because you have an airline (i.e. a job). And if the airline exists that’s because there are enough SLFs to fill your airliners cabin. Yes, that’s right, all those carcasses behind your flight deck door are keeping your airline in business and paying your salary. So, next time you refer to them please try a little more respect, unless your ultimate goal in life is to fly paper planes from your back yard. In which case please go away and let others earn their living in peace!

Again, my apologies to the many decent people around here. Including the majority of the airline captains in the house.

Ah…and if someone, eventually, wishes do demerit, or devaluate my opinion, let me tell you honestly – I couldn’t really care less!:cool:

Cheers!

[Michael Birbeck]

Childish abuse deleted.


My first ever experience of the vast power of airline Captains came at the tender age of 12 years old when being flown back to school in Cape Town from (then) South West Africa.

Facing a group of shouting and yelling 12 year old desperadoes the Captain walked up to the front of the aircraft, grabbed the nearest boy and lifted him up by the lapels of his blazer and glaring told us all that if he heard another word from any of us throughout the flight, he would come out and beat us.

Silence and respect reigned. The flight was completed in absolute safety and we all shuffled off the plane wanting to be airline Captains.

[fox niner]

- We’re not talking about technical issues of flying an airliner, here. We’re talking about issues such as human interactivity, exercise of authority, command and leadership skills and, yes, possible legal issues. And, in that respect, I fail to see where airline captains are more qualified to discuss such matters than a lot of other people. So some hardliners here should step down from their self-built pedestal. Who knows, they actually may end up learning something…

(JAR OPS ATPL holder typing, flying B777 for major european airline)
----> so I actually know what I am talking about.

Well, you are quite right. Let's suppose that both the senior FA and the Captain of this flight are both allowed to continue their jobs with United. That would mean that the captain has apparently "won" the argument whether he was entitled to make the Miami stopover for whatever reason.
So in a purely legal sense, he was right. He had the command authority to do as he pleased.
But that is more or less where it ends. The rest of his command authority has been destroyed by his own actions. His position as an effective captain has been undermined by himself.
Crew members will refuse to fly with him, and probably for the wrong reasons, but nontheless...

One of the specific tasks our company has attributed to the captain, is team building. Creating a positive working atmosphere. I am sure UAL has the same sort of system. Apparently this captain has forgotten about this very important, non technical aspect of leaderhip.

So I would probably guess that in a few years, this incident will serve as an example in CRM classrooms.

If I decide to divert and offload a crew member due to safety concerns, (whether justified or not) that would automatically mean that I have to file a so-called Air Safety Report. Which automatically makes it an "Incident".

[parabellum]

At the risk of being thoroughly boring I'm going to repeat something I said earlier as quite obviously posters are jumping into the thread without having read the previous posts:

"I believe the stark reality is that being in command of a public transport aircraft, like a B767, is one of the few jobs that one really has to be there and have done to fully understand it, all the theory in the world may not always help. When flying we are, as humans, outside our natural earthbound environment and this effects people in different ways and requires solid training and practice to overcome, again, you have to have been there and done that to fully appreciate this phenomena."

If the cap fits, wear it.;)

[merlinxx]

Auth to div is between Capt & dispatch, they both share equal auth for the conduct of the flt. This was a UA op. Non FAA/US operators cannot comment on a FAR121 Flag Carrier Op:=

[Wiley]

Michael B, if there were awards for 'best post' her on proone, I'd put yours up for a Grand Palm with Crossed Thimagigs and Bars. Wonderful stuff. Today, the parents of the kid whose blazer was ruffled would have the captain up on assault charges and half a dozen of the other boys would have been 'scarred for life' after witnessing such 'brutality'.

[MU3001A]

411A: It doesn't matter what you might personally question, MU3001A...as you do not have the authority, in a legal sense, to do so. All you can do is express an opinion, which can be discarded by others, without reservation.Exactly so.

I agree that UAL would seem to have placed themselves in an awkward position in allowing the captain to remain in command of the flight to ORD, vis a vis any decision on the captain's continued employment consequent on this incident. I'm sure UAL's POI will also be taking a keen interest in what develops and any rationale put forward justifying decisions made, especially those related to the issue of operational control.

I have assumed the captain coordinated the diversion and subsequent flight to ORD with UAL dispatch, who would have had to re-dispatch the flight to ORD. It might be interesting to hear whether this was in fact the case. My understanding of the limited operational control afforded me as PIC is that should I divert for whatever reason, operational control will revert to the operator/certificate holder once I am back on the ground at the divert field. Requiring me to get re-dispatched before any subsequent flight continuing on to the original destination. If I am wrong and perhaps ignorant of some other provision under the regulations governing international ops by flag carriers I await your correction.

Regards.