United GRU-ORD Divert to MIA to Offload Purser [Archive] - Page 3

SeniorDispatcher

1st Aug 2009, 04:57

>>>Now, for our US pilots. To pick up on MerlinXX - I am interested in the level of involvement of dispatch in this whole affair, since I have never operated under FAR. What would have happened on arrival at MIA? I understand dispatch has significant authority on the conduct of flights, perhaps more than the Captain on the ground.

As far as the process, the dispatcher would have come up with another dispatch release, which is the legal document (Under 121 Domestic/Flag regs) that is authorizing the PIC to operate the flight from AAA-BBB based on the conditions (Fuel, route, MEL status, etc.) as set forth in the release. Neither the PIC or dispatcher are to sign the dispatch release unless they both believe the flight can be operated safely as planned. The two signatures indicate concurrence that it can be, and there's your joint responsibility.

OK, that's the process in a "normal" diversion (WX, MX, etc.). As far as the situation that UAL842 was in, I (thankfully) haven't had any of those, per se, but I've had a couple that came close.

A PIC called me on an early AM flight originating from Ice Station Zebra in the dead of winter, with a destination of a sunny Florida airport. He was calling to complain about the midnight dispatcher's selection (that I agreed with) of the takeoff alternate, which happened to be an off-line airport yet one that was solid VMC. This particular PIC didn't like off-line alternates, and proceeded to ask about other nearby on-line airports that he preferred. One by one, I pointed out why each of them was unacceptable (LIFR, a wide assortment of frozen precip, too far, etc.), and right in the middle of the conversation, the PIC hangs up. The takeoff alternate stays the offline airport, and off he goes.

He calls me from Florida (at my request), insists that he didn't hang-up, then apologies for hanging up, and then goes back to ranting about the previous use of the offline takeoff alternate. Most of his reasons were not operationally sound, and he finally loses it and loudly admits that he's been on the trip from hell for the last X-days, and our use of the offline takeoff alternate (despite its operational soundness) had just "put him over the edge." I thanked him for his time, and (at a domicle) off-duty he went.

Had this Florida conversation taken place while he was still on the ground at Ice Station Zebra, I simply would have conferenced in an on-duty Chief Pilot, and let the CP make the determination as to whether this chap was OK to fly, or whether he needed a bit of a time-out before being allowed to continue. If that's all it takes to push him over the edge, well, you know...

It's fortunately a rare event that such a situation presents itself, but it's really no different in theory to a dispatcher observing slurred speech when conversing with a PIC during a weather briefing, and taking the same steps in having a Chief Pilot get involved with the process of determining the PIC's fitness for flight. I seem to recall a JAL DC-8 at ANC with an intoxicated U.S. PIC some years back, and IIRC, although various folks (Hotel, Crew van, Ops) all noticed his behavior, the Gent still managed strap-on the jet and crash it on takeoff, killing the entire flight deck crew, some cargo handlers aboard, and about 40 gazillion hamburger's worth of beef cattle that were being transported and were inadvertently barbequed. That wasn't quite the same dispatch set-up (Part 129 ops, versus 121), but it seems reasonable to conclude that the accident could have been prevented by somebody speaking up.

Exactly what opportunity presented itself in MIA for someone to pose the inevitable question of whether or not the diversion there indicated sound judgement is something I can't say, and something that nobody may ever hear about. The only thing I can say is that had it been my flight, the question would have been asked. In my mind, and based on the facts that I'm aware of, citing F/A disrespect for his PIC authority for not getting Customs forms exactly when/how he wanted them as justifying a diversion was about as silly as having cited F/A disrespect for his PIC authority for his theoretically ordering the F/As to have conducted the meal service in the buff. PIC authority (in-flight) allows one to make such a request (or to order an investigation into the missing strawberries) but that doesn't preclude the questions that need to be asked, and should be asked later.

Just my 2 cents...

BOAC

1st Aug 2009, 07:23

SD - thank you for the (amusing) insight.

Bluestar51

1st Aug 2009, 14:32

I just do not believe that the other two pilots in the flight crew would have left KMIA if they had felt the Captain in question was not fit for command.

WB

wes_wall

1st Aug 2009, 15:01

I suspect that dispatch was doing a judicial selling job on the crew to continue to ORD. Otherwise, you got an airplane on the ground until crew rest will allow the crew to continue, or face flying a cockpit crew in to pick up the airplane, hotac for all the crew, then OAL all back to ORD, an issue with what to do with the PAX, and a domino effect with no telling how many tail numbers - scheduling and downline delays. Yep, this captain sure did the right thing getting on the ground - some inflight danger to all. :sad:

For my money, he had better have a better reason than a tardy GD.

SeniorDispatcher

1st Aug 2009, 15:30

>>>I suspect that dispatch was doing a judicial selling job on the crew to continue to ORD.

I can't say what happened in UAL842 case, but in others, you'd be surprised at the number of times it's a PIC or MX controller who's doing the sales job so they can make it back to their domicile and avoid an unscheduled RON, or get the aircraft back to the barn for overnight work and avoidance of a "road trip", and the dispatcher is the one saying "Nyet!"

Not saying that some dispatchers have never tried a potential sales job, just that it's not something that is exclusive to them, and never the others. It's inappropriate no matter who does it.

In discussing one of these kinds of MX items late one evening many moons ago, I flat-out told the MX controller that I too wanted to see the sick bird back at the MX base, but that it didn't matter to me whether the bird MX-ferried, or taxiied all the way via the Interstate. The response was "Well, we can't MX-ferry this aircraft" and letting out just a little more line, I asked why. "Well, it's in no condition to MX-ferry" was the reply, and I smacked this low-hanging curveball into the next county by asking the inescapeable next question of "Then why are you trying to con us into flying it with pax aboard?" I said I was refusing the aircraft, and the PIC (hooked into this 3-way call) concurred that he wasn't taking it either.

based on facts

1st Aug 2009, 17:27

There is no "easeing back into flying." Either you can fly or you can not. This was the schedule the captain "bid" for and he was awarded according to senority. In other words, this was his choice...not what United thrust on him. However, this is a moot point , as he is suspended from United and FAA has suspended his license pending further investigation. The purser on the other hand, is flying and is being lauded by United, her flying partners and the two F/O's for her professionalism in dealing with the situation.

cessnapuppy

1st Aug 2009, 18:43

The swinging moderator's axe does make some posts (i.e. mine) harder to read than my limited intelligence and grammar would otherwise fault!
I was referring to a post (since deleted) by "BasedOnFacts" which claimed that the 'diversion pilot was a 'picket line Scab' from an industrial action (strike) in 1985!

A second post (also deleted) suggested that gleefully reporting the pilot's alleged 'scab history/status' limits the reporter's credibility, a point which was "..my thoughts exactly" and led to the post you see below, now hopefully in context.

it certainly raises the specter of a continuous simmering mutiny, with a flight crew any time spent 'picking at an unhealed scab' is time taken away from customer service and safety. If THAT behavior is part of the culture at UA and this 'wayward pilot' exposed it with this drastic diversion, then more power to him!

Falling on his sword he may have, but I'd fly with him in a heartbeat vs a handful of geriatric backstabbers nursing the bitter milk of 30 year old grudge!

I guess you can make a "silk sow out of a purser's ear" after all! :ugh:

[Edited only to remove the 'title' to your post.
It was likely to be misunderstood because the post with which you were agreeing was deleted - together with BoF's "scab" post.]

RatherBeFlying

1st Aug 2009, 20:47

I'm interested in the mechanics of disciplinaries having authorised the flight to continue. This would raise a very difficult situation under UK law I think. Bit difficult to 'do one more flight, then you will be nailed' sort of thing. Leaving out the rights or wrongs of the case, it seems to me the Captain has a significant defence case. I suspect it will keep US lawyers busy for years!Management may have felt the pilot was competent to fly the plane home, but may have decided to no longer schedule this pilot on the basis that they'd rather not incur the expense and disruption of further diversions for capricious reasons.

Management would also want to make the point to other pilots that diversion for capricious reasons is career limiting.

It's harder to understand why the FAA would initiate a certificate action. Perhaps some part of DHS got upset with the pilot with what they perceived as a false alert and leaned on the FAA.

gatbusdriver

1st Aug 2009, 22:45

I guess it depends on what UA ops were told with regards to the reason for the divert. If they are being fed information from the captain, were they given the full story?

But once again this would come down to....we don't have all the facts......so a disciplinary may well go in favor or against the captain in question, that would depend on what the truth revealed.

There is a big disclaimer at the bottom of the page about postings on these threads ie sciolists eliciting reactions. I think you have to take these anonymous forums with a pinch of salt.

If the scenario has played out exactly as Based on Facts has written, then it seems like a pretty bad call, but I refer you to the statement above, and the fact that not everyone on here is who they say they are.

If on the other hand there is a lot more to the story...........then there are information/facts we are not privy to, so who can say.

I will admit that I find it difficult to get my head around the scenario and how it has been allowed to escalate to the point of diversion (but again I don't have all the facts). I have flown with only two senior cc who I have needed to speak to, one I took to one side, out of site of the crew to have a quiet word. The other thought she was obviously running the show, as she had over stepped the mark a couple of times. On the last occasion she was boarding without permission, so I sat there with the tech log open looking perplexed when she walked into the flight deck, I then said that we would have to delay boarding until the engineers had fixed a snag that required an engine run on stand, the look on her face was priceless. When I pointed out I was kidding she saw the funny side and got the message.

p.s. Rainboe

You write some great stuff, but I do keep cringing at the 600mph quotes.

All in all, is I am layed up with flu, I have found the thread rather entertaining.

Rainboe

2nd Aug 2009, 17:28

Look, that was one of my best lines, Buster! Just don't spoil it OK?

This guy has been getting so much adverse criticism (deleted) that something tells me it is not so cut and dried. There have been hints (deleted) that IR are not ideal over the last 24 years at UA. Some of the hysterical posts (deleted) suggests to me that something nasty has been going on and this may be the outwardly visible tip of a severe internal problem.

But then I might be imagining things. 411A knows. Speak!

Johnny767

2nd Aug 2009, 18:17

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:=

Are you sure? Is the fact not "Co-authority" until Airborne.

Then "Sole-authority" rests with PIC after that Aircraft is airborne.

Dispach then assumes a "flight watch" function.

SeniorDispatcher

2nd Aug 2009, 22:07

Are you sure? Is the fact not "Co-authority" until Airborne.

Then "Sole-authority" rests with PIC after that Aircraft is airborne.

Dispatch then assumes a "flight watch" function.

Reference: 121.533 (Domestic; 121.535 Flag is nearly identical)

§ 121.533 Responsibility for operational control: Domestic operations.
(a) Each certificate holder conducting domestic operations is responsible for operational control.

(b) The pilot in command and the aircraft dispatcher are jointly responsible for the preflight planning, delay, and dispatch release of a flight in compliance with this chapter and operations specifications.

(c) The aircraft dispatcher is responsible for—

(1) Monitoring the progress of each flight;

(2) Issuing necessary information for the safety of the flight; and

(3) Cancelling or redispatching a flight if, in his opinion or the opinion of the pilot in command, the flight cannot operate or continue to operate safely as planned or released.

(d) Each pilot in command of an aircraft is, during flight time, in command of the aircraft and crew and is responsible for the safety of the passengers, crewmembers, cargo, and airplane.

(e) Each pilot in command has full control and authority in the operation of the aircraft, without limitation, over other crewmembers and their duties during flight time, whether or not he holds valid certificates authorizing him to perform the duties of those crewmembers.

Back to your questions:

Are you sure? Is the fact not "Co-authority" until Airborne.

Although 121.533(b) only mentions PIC and dispatcher being "jointly responsible" in non-airborne periods, that is not to say that the dispatcher has no further authority, responsbility, or involvement regarding the flight.

Then "Sole-authority" rests with PIC after that Aircraft is airborne.

FAR 121.533(d) addresses this, but in pursuit of the KISS philosophy by some folks, other contextual situations and applications can get glossed over.

Dispatch then assumes a "flight watch" function.

Again, and with all due respect, that's a KISS-induced over-simplification. Again, "dispatch" (as well as "operational control", as per the FAR 1.1 definition thereof) are not singular events but a continuing duty and responsibility. In particular, as per FAR 121.533(c)(3), the dispatcher is also responsible for cancelling or redispatching a flight (as in heading it for an alternate) if, in his opinion or the opinion of the pilot in command, the flight cannot operate or continue to operate safely as planned or released. If that language sounds a tad familiar, it's because neither PIC or dispatcher was supposed to sign the dispatch release unless each believed the flight could be made with safety. Additionally, this wording synchs with that of 121.627(a), and in the event of a PIC/dispatcher disagreement as to what consitutes a continued safe operation, it's that disconnect that can also drive the declaration of an emergency, not just the reporting PIC/dispatcher parties mentioned in 121.557(a) and 121.557(b), respectively.

In closing, just because 121.533(b) is worded as it is, it's erroneous to conclude that the dispatcher has zero responsbility or authority over a flight after wheels-up. Clearly, "joint responsibility" still exists in the airborne phase of flight. I'll reiterate that all the above relates to ops conducted under US FAR 121 Domestic/Flag rules---should the rules of any other country contradict the above, it doesn't mean either posture is right or wrong---only what is applicable in one country and inapplicable in another. Likewise as to what "dispatchers" are here (and a select few other places) versus the airport-types elsewhere that meet/greet/turn flights.

cactusbusdrvr

3rd Aug 2009, 06:05

There are several scenarios where a dispatcher can divert a flight once airborne. As PIC I am responsible for the safe conduct of the flght but I do so with the dispatcher acting as the extra crewmember of the flightdeck. He has a better picture of downline weather or other destination conditions that may not make it a prudent choice to continue on to the destination.

The PIC has the final say in most respects but it is a fool that doesn't make the dispatcher part of the team.

Johnny767

3rd Aug 2009, 12:17

My interpretation, is not a KISS version. It is a "Canadian Air Regulation" version.

I asked the question, because, the aviation rules of our two countries are usually very similar.

In Canada (at least at our Airline) Dispatch reverts to "Flight Watch," once Airborne. Also, individual "Flight Operations Manuals" are approved by the regulator. As such, each Carrier could use their respective "Dispatch Operation" differently. As long as they get regulatory approval.

..not sure about the USA.

Frankly, I am surprised by the FAA version. I fully agree with you Cactusdriver, in practical terms.

However, sticking to the topic of the thread, on whether you need Dispatches concurrence to divert?

Under the Canadian rules, Dispatch is there for me (..as a tool to aid in a safe decision,) but the final decision rests with the PIC.

BOAC

3rd Aug 2009, 12:52

My initial enquiry on Dispatch was in terms of re-dispatch, not the decision to divert in the first place which undeniably lies in the cockpit. Certainly in the UK it is not unusual to take 'advice' from ground staff on the choice of a diversion where time is not presiing.

based on facts

4th Aug 2009, 23:55

You rock! You KNOW your "stuff" vs. spouting opinions. I know that w/UA dispatch is involved before a flight takes off to when it safely lands. No capt., however, great he thinks he is can do it w/o dispatch. Thanks for sharing pure, unadulterated facts!! Rainboe and the rest of your ego bloated trolls...take note!

PilotsOfTheCaribbean

5th Aug 2009, 00:11

"unadulterated" facts? Hmmmm. I seem to recall that you posted a rather colourful desciption of the Captain, concerning a strike that took place in 1985.

Although the moderators saw fit to delete it, it is a shame because it highlighted your "unadulterated" agenda perhaps?

So clearly "You Rock!" as well, or certainly the pedestal you are shouting from, appears to.

Will Fraser

5th Aug 2009, 00:14

At least you are subtle, and have disguised your agenda with care.

based on facts

5th Aug 2009, 01:19

one of rainboe's ego bloated group huh?? "My pedestal" is rock solid vs. your opion. Thanks for the "shout out!"

Will Fraser

5th Aug 2009, 01:30

based on facts

With respect, you can't have it both ways. You seem to be exhibiting the traits in real time of which you accuse the Captain, without facts. I don't know your position, but I'm hoping it isn't in aviation, and hopefully not with my company if you are. You are volatile rather than patient, resentful rather than accepting, and lack the grace of a true professional. I experienced the strike, and until now hadn't run into anyone so bitter as a result of events that occurred 24 years ago. I wish you well. I hope you overcome your apparent insecurities with your employment.

Will

based on facts

5th Aug 2009, 01:54

Actually Will, I must make one correction regarding your rant. I CAN accusse the captain...I was there , I witnessed actions on both the captains and Purser's part; therefore, I have every right to make an accusation vs. those of you who don't LISTEN/READ to the facts spend endless hours speculating :ugh:. Personally, I don't have hours to spend on mere speculation but, I'm more than willing to contribute/share what I do know, as I was there. I don't need/want it both ways. I know what happened and I'm just fine with that. As far as the strike goes, that seems to be boggy territory. I stated fact...again, it was food for thought and something to consider in the big picture. It is a part of the picture that our pilots still factor. 'nuff said

PilotsOfTheCaribbean

5th Aug 2009, 02:22

Yes, but you signed up for this forum simply to tell everyone who will listen or read, your version of the events. These are the "facts" as you see them. It is certainly interesting to hear something from somebody who was a witness to an unusual and newsworthy event. What is perhaps a little odd is your aggresive and rude stance to others who post. You have posted some 13 posts so far in this thread with little more than insult and some rather unpleasant name calling, of both the subject Captain and contributors to this thread.

No doubt you made your complaint through the company channels, and no doubt they didn't expect you to sign up to a bulletin board to deliver your verdict on their decision or ongoing investigation?

This is a professional pilots forum, and naturally many pilots are interested that a situation such as this one has developed. It is newsworthy by virtue of the fact it is so unusual. I have to say that as an eyewitness, your responses are also somewhat unusual.

Speculation it may be, but perhaps in the coming years this will become a case study in CRM courses around the worlds airlines. Your demeanor on this thread suggests that the CRM behavioural issues went beyond simply the Captains.

based on facts

5th Aug 2009, 03:05

P.S. Will, I'm not volatile, resentful or lacking in grace. What I am is sick of self righteous pilots assuming that our Purser is to blame and not able to accept that one of their is at fault. In fact, last week I flew and our capt. thought that the capt. that made the diversion is brillant. He said that this guy had to have the whole thing planned out. He'll most likely be have a medical discharge that will enable him to collect 55% of his pay vs. what he would collect if he had a "normal" retirement. So, when all is said and done...this seems to be a cleverly executed move on his part. to bad he created havoc for everyone else involved. For others to condone his actions are way off base.:=

RatherBeFlying

5th Aug 2009, 03:13

BoF could be a UAL employee, pensioner, spouse or other relative.

Likely he or she is not an employee because publishing details of personnel incidents and actions is not good for your career with any employer.

BoF was obviously offended by what he or she witnessed and seems privy to HR and FAA actions that are generally known to many UAL employees and a major topic of conversation among them.

Whatever BoF's credentials, he seems to be an eyewitness. He may have good reasons to keep his identity under wraps, as your average corporation would prefer to keep the information he has offered private.

cessnapuppy

5th Aug 2009, 04:43

Maybe "unadulterated" means 'without adults ..or grown ups?' What is perhaps a little odd is your aggresive and rude stance to others who post. not so odd :( there has been plenty of aggression and rudeness to go around even before BOF's untimely (to some) appearance. This is not the first time a member of flight crew was kicked off a plane by a pilot.. I know of at least two incidences. In the second, the remaining stews walked of the plane and the flight was eventually canceled (anybody wanting flight number, airline etc can PM me for confirmation) - it wasn't a US carrier though.:P ...p.s. I've officially filed a Freedom of Information request for any all transcripts, recordings or statements made pursuant to the diversion of the flight. Maybe I'll get something back -:D then *I* can be 'based of facts' too!

Rainboe

5th Aug 2009, 09:56

Well quite a rant there 'BasedonFacts'! Hysterical, but a rant. I'm not altogether convinced about you. However, since you included me by name, please reread my postings. Far from actively defending the individual involved, I have merely explained the legal basis of such a decision and asked that he be given discretion to make his case. He, in fact, had every legal basis to make such a decision, but he knew it would be a decision he has to justify to UA. If he felt his leadership was not recognised for some reason, and it has become apparent there are some severe historical human factors problems washing around UA, then he took a possibly very valid decision to 'remove a problem'. I have known it happen in a big British Airline, though always still on the ground.

But if you were present as you claim, you could provide some answers. After the expulsion of the IFM, if you were so concerned about the Captain, why were you so happy to continue with him one more flight? Was it 'after this next flight, we will nail him and claim him to be unbalanced/wife beater/paedophile etc and really take the guy apart? How is he different now than at MIA? At MIA he was given your endorsement to continue in charge of a flight of your UA passengers and your own good self. Why did that change at ORD? Did he do a bad landing or something? You claim out of concern for your passengers, you continued. If you were truly concerned about his judgement and decision making and the possible effects on your passengers, you would have refused to continue. I don't understand what changed once you decided 'he was OK to continue, one mo' time'. I think you, if indeed you were really onboard, have a little explaining to do yourself. Perhaps you are still fighting a bizarre 24 year old battle nobody really cares about anymore.

I do find it very repellent you were happy to subject your passengers to what you allege was an unsuitable pilot for one more flight, then you jump up and down screaming he's unbalanced and unsafe and all the rest. How on earth could you subject your customers to such a 'hazard'?

Jim Boehme

5th Aug 2009, 10:24

Would a seemingly trivial altercation with a Purser over a Gen Dec be reason to divert an aircraft? As for the behavior of this captain, on the surface, it appears that all his oars were definitely not in the water Instead he chose to blow his top over a trifle. Glad I wasn't on that plane. A diversion somewhat drastic but very difficult to see the whole event from what is essentially a snapshot. Other side of the coin is plenty of time for the purser to have usurped the capt's authority along the way to and from SBGR. Senior, middle-aged Legacy crew not always the best attitude toward authority, management, captain - we've all seen it.

Just off sick leave perhaps this captain's buttons more easily pressed by a carefully difficult purser. Subtle insubordination is a practiced artform with some crew unfortunately.

Rainboe

5th Aug 2009, 12:13

An example of the damage these spiteful human factors and malicious behaviour can have is hot off the press:
Hero BA pilot who crash-landed jet and saved 151 lives quits over 'smear campaign' | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1204476/Hero-BA-pilot-crash-landed-jet-saved-151-lives-quits-smear-campaign.html)

Only a pilot who can understand the severe pressures that arose in an instant can truly appreciate the enormity of what happened. That the pilots were subject to such a 'whispering' campaign is, indeed, a tragedy. That it seems to have succeeded makes it even worse. Companies have a moral obligation to ensure that such bad feelings are not allowed to continue and fester. BA never attempted to stop it, UA appear to have done little to ensure the future was not poisoned, as evidenced by the rantings of BasedonFacts! The outcome is people who just decide they aren't going to put up with such garbage anymore, even if their employer is happy to. The more I hear, the more it seems to me the Captain has a case to be heard.

Passagiata

5th Aug 2009, 12:28

Pardon me for piping up purely as a passenger, but on balance I'm probably with the captain. I'd rather the captain's emotions were looked after and the captain had as low-stress a flight experience as possible, than anyone else on board, regardless of "right" or "wrong". Minutiae about who is to blame should be set aside I would have thought. Cabin crew can please leave resentments of all kinds at the door and practice some upward management!

Johnny767

5th Aug 2009, 14:43

It is amazing how everyone wants 'in on' the decisions from the Flight Deck.

However, having spent many years doing "Pilot Association" business I can assure you.

Everyone scatters like cockroaches when it comes time to hang someone out to blame.

All fingers miraculously point at the:

Pilot In Command

based on facts

5th Aug 2009, 15:28

We have now been asked not to discuss situation. 'bye

Bronx

5th Aug 2009, 15:50

based on bias
We have now been asked not to discuss situation. 'bye

'bye. http://www.smileyhut.com/happy/bye.gif

http://www.smileyhut.com/happy/clap2.gif

Will Fraser

5th Aug 2009, 16:22

The downfall of the industry started when people started being hired who had to be told how to use discretion.

Les Shore

5th Aug 2009, 16:34

Cabin crew can please leave resentments of all kinds at the door and practice some upward management! It sounds like you and others are now assuming that resentments were brought on board. Possible, but no more valid than other assumptions being made.

I will admit that I find it difficult to get my head around the scenario and how it has been allowed to escalate to the point of diversion (but again I don't have all the facts). I have flown with only two senior cc who I have needed to speak to, one I took to one side, out of site of the crew to have a quiet word...The above Captain and other airline Captains all over the world (including some who have contributed to this discussion), have proved themselves level headed enough and smart enough to deal with staff issues every day without diverting to an airport unserviced by their company.Whatever the history, if this Captain couldn't deal with the stress of a staff issue without taking the extreme measure that he did, his ability to deal calmly with other on the job stresses could legitimately be called into question. That's not the same as saying he is 100% guilty of anything

Also, if United Airlines had any doubt about the purser's behavior in this, wouldn't she be on suspension until further investigation? The fact that they didn't suspend her says a lot.

Johnny767

5th Aug 2009, 16:45

Pilots and F/A's are held to substantialy different standards.

...and so they should be.

I have personally seen cases where a Captain has been held out of service and a F/A continued to (...ride in the back.)

The Captain was 100 % in the right and the F/A 1000% in the wrong.

The Airline needs resolution that, all is well with the person in Command of the Airplane.

Don't read to much into it.

Rainboe

5th Aug 2009, 16:55

We have now been asked not to discuss situation. 'bye
BasedonFacts, you're still not quite getting it. One thing you have not done is 'discuss'. From you we got a hysterical newsbite followed by major character assassination, probably from a desire to strengthen the IFManager's case by demolishing the Captain involved. The fact the IFManager 'is still flying' does not actually say a lot. The Captain was also 'still flying' after the incident, apparently with the endorsement of the crew!

Without accusing or defending anybody, a 'situation' developed on board that escalated out of sensible limits. It is the responsibility of all on board to defuse such occasions, not stand back and watch it develop. Anyone with HF training should be aware such situations don't develop themselves, and are not usually developed by one person without input from others. That is why I said I suspect there is more that has not come out, and a proper investigation is needed. It seems this person carried the added burden of extreme unpopularity and possibly prejudice from other crewmembers. So again, when you point your finger at him, it is pointing 2 ways. Anybody showing extreme unfriendliness or prejudice is helping carry some of the blame for a shameful situation that developed, and it seems to me it cannot just be written off as the unreasonable behaviour of one person. That is why I was so adamant that indeed there was a case to answer. There is also a case to be heard.

Will Fraser

5th Aug 2009, 17:20

The Commander makes the call. There is no room for anyone to 'stand their ground' against the Commander, unless it is the F/O and he/she better be 100% correct, and it has to be the safety of the a/c. Anyone, anyone, who creates a 'situation' with the Commander, when what is at stake is less than stated safety, and within the purview of their own power to acquiesce, doesn't understand the nature of the environment. Now this can be egregious, or it can be incremental, either way, to play chicken with the Captain or any designated pilot is inexcusable, drawing a line in the sand if you are not in command is asking for correction. The Commander's job is to draw said lines, for those who don't 'get' the process. This is up to the hearing, and I remain surprised why people are still guessing without facts. BoF had her/his own facts, such as they are, and those will get an airing. NOT HERE. Discretion.

Jetlegs

5th Aug 2009, 23:15

Johnny767, Rainboe, Will Fraser; there are Pursers/No1s/CSDs out there who are loyal and believe in the captain´s final say and final responsibility.
And who get punished for exactly that.

I know of a case, in a well known airline, where 3 CSDs were suspended by the cabin crew department during an investigation and later received a disciplinary. For not opposing their respective captains when they broke a rule.
A rule that is broken by captains every and day company wide because it is silly and impractical.
The captains were not suspended by the pilot department because the chief pilot knows that his captains break that particular rule every day, because he agrees that the rule is daft and because he knows the company is in the process of changing the rule to fit the practice.

3 CSDS suspended for a week, 3 CSDs with a disciplinary in their file for believing in the chain of command, for believing that the captain knows best and for simply sticking with their captains. All because their cabin crew department is having a crack down regarding the rules, and sends it stooges out among the crews to snitch.
3 captains completely unaffected career wise, but going to bat for their CSDs.
Without any effect whatsoever.

The captain is the boss yes, but apparently only as long as that suits the employer.

SaturnV

6th Aug 2009, 01:18

In another forum, two United pilots discussed this flight and the diversion. If it was deemed that the CA could not continue the flight as PIC, the two FOs could not have continued the flight from MIA to ORD. The flight would remain on the ground in Miami until a replacement CA was flown in. The requirement that a CA be PIC of the flight is part of the union contract. (If the CA had become ill, the FOs could continue to fly the aircraft either to its destination or to a diversion airport. However, once on the ground at a diversion airport, a new CA would need to be placed in the cockpit to continue the flight.)

The FOs ability to affect the decision on whether the CA could continue piloting the aircraft was limited to their assessment on whether the safety of the flight might be compromised by having him remain as CA.

Mention was also made that the CA is more likely to be on medical leave rather than being suspended, which lends credence to the rumour that the CA may be seeking a disability-based pension.

p51guy

6th Aug 2009, 02:19

Can this thread end now? We will probably have no more information six months from now than today. Nobody knows why the captain decided MIA was the answer to the problem in flight. Until we know that discussion is meaningless.

Airbubba

6th Aug 2009, 02:47

The requirement that a CA be PIC of the flight is part of the union contract.

Also, the FO's, even though type-rated have not had captain IOE and a captain line check as far as the feds are concerned.

bugg smasher

6th Aug 2009, 02:52

This thread is a shocking embarrassment to the civil aviation community at large, and to UAL specifically.

Am I to believe the designated commander of an intercontinental widebody airliner, the enormous responsibility concomitant with that position, was not able to deal effectively and safely with a minor emotional outburst of a crewmember under his command? Land it half-way in MIA on a half-baked hunch? Or an uncomfortable bowel movement perhaps?

Dementia, ADD, Alzheimers, or just plain UAL systemic seniority syndrome, don’t know, but off with his farcical head. High time to go play forever-golf at the Shady Pines retirement home in southern Florida, God’s own little waiting room.

We’ll all be there one day not so distant…

Bronx

6th Aug 2009, 06:41

bugg smasher
Am I to believe ..... Sensible and fair-minded folk are waiting to hear both sides of the story before they decide what they believe.
off with his farcical headI see you're not one of them.
This thread is a shocking embarrassment to the civil aviation community at largeI agree 100%. :ok:
That's exactly what I've been thinking about this thread for the past few weeks, and every post like yours makes it more embarrassing. We don't even know the captain's explanation of what happened on the flight yet but a lot of folk here are already condemning him anyway.

p51 guy Nobody knows why the captain decided MIA was the answer to the problem in flight. Until we know that discussion is meaningless. Exactly.
Just the sort of thing we criticize the media for when they do it.

B.

SaturnV

6th Aug 2009, 12:17

An observation, probably my last one.

I don't believe any pilot who has commented on this thread has said he/she would have acted similarly given the circumstances described. (I believe there was a comment or two that if the continued safe operation of the flight was compromised, e.g., cabin crew became intoxicated, they would divert.)

I don't believe any poster has cited a similar situation having occurred elsewhere in which disrespect, insubordination, or failure to follow a Captain's command has led to an in-flight diversion. Numerous instances cited of conflicts being handled on the ground before or after a flight, or in-flight by relieving a F/A of his/her duties.

IIRC, the time from when the CA did not promptly get the document he sought and it was slid under the door, and the time the plane landed in MIA was about five hours. Usually, sufficient time for the heat of the moment to have cooled, and calmer heads come to the fore. Allegedly, a FO suggested that if the CA was going to divert, that they divert to Orlando which was enroute and where United has a station. The CA declined this suggestion.

So a highly unusual incident, indeed it meets the definition of unique. And leading to this perhaps not-so-hypothetical question: what if United management asks this captain if he can guarantee that this won't happen again, and he replies, he can't guarantee that. With such a response, would United put him in the front seat of an airplane ever again? ---Or is he pensioned off?

Rainboe

6th Aug 2009, 13:16

With such limited information, I don't think hypothetical questions help in this instance.
Can this thread end now? We will probably have no more information six months from now than today. Nobody knows why the captain decided MIA was the answer to the problem in flight. Until we know that discussion is meaningless.
Sorry, but don't agree. In the face of almost universal condemnation (on very limited information), and a 'BiasedonFacts' testimony of what went on, I felt I had to point out that judgements without further information are not valid, and there could be many instances where a Captain may feel for the safety of the operation, an en route landing would be the best option. I never 'defended' or 'accused' him, just pointed out that there are circumstances where such a decision could be justified.

It does expose something nasty in the core of human relations in some companies. Long festering old industrial grievances permeate some companies. This case is like an iceberg breaking the surface- something is going on in UA. We had another awful example in the 1989 Australian indurstrial dispute- I still get shocked hearing some of the words coming from Australian mouths concerning that. Companies have every need to eradicate such emotions and thoughts, just as they have over the last 20 years eradicated prejudice in race, sex and sexual orientation. They have not done so. The poison permeates industrial relations for 24 years. It's largely a legacy airline thing.

parabellum

6th Aug 2009, 13:22

So, if we go right back to the beginning, the Capt asked for some papers, the Head of Cabin said she didn't have spare crew at that time to cover the opening of the flighty deck door, (security requirement), so she slid the required document under the door, anyone have a problem with that?

Now, Capt asks for some documents and head of Cabin says to herself, ''Stuff you, I have better things to do" and in full view of other CC then slides documents under the door with the observing crew saying, "That will show him, way to go gal!"

Two totally different scenarios and after 536 posts we still are none the wiser.. 'Based on Fact' you had an opportunity to lay this whole thing cold on page one but you chose to dramatise, shame on you.

Johnny767

6th Aug 2009, 13:44

bug smasher:

You are correct, the only thing embarrassing is when posters add no value by sharing their own, ridiculous assumptions.

Jetlegs:

Sounds like the Cabin Crew Department needs a reality check. A common ailment of North American Airlines.

It is unfortunate that the Flight Ops side (without knowing the details) has some useless rule in place.

Again... it all sounds to familiar.

One side of this story has been blabbed all over the Internet, that of the F/A's.

- I find it very difficult to believe that the two F/O's wouldn't have talked some sense into the Captain.

- For that matter, the two F/O's could have legally removed the Captain of his Command.

If the story is, as told by the F/A's.

There is WAY more to this story.

Until then, I side with the Pilot In Command.

SaturnV

6th Aug 2009, 13:58

Johnny767, what legal basis would the FOs have to remove the CA from his command in this instance?

Johnny767

6th Aug 2009, 15:10

The "Captain," is in Command of the Aircraft - from tip to tail.

The "First Officer," is 2nd in Command of the Aircraft.

The "Second Officer" (in the old days,) or now the - Augment First Officer - Cruise Relief Pilot - Second Officer, is 3rd in Command of the Aircraft.

If the Captain is not doing his / her job:

As per the Airlines (Standard Operating Procedures,) the Regulators (FAA's) rules, exhibiting abnormal behavior, is incapacitated by illness etc.

The First Officer is obligated to take Command of the Aircraft.

That is why they are there and that is why there is a "Chain of Command."

...you just - better be right!

I would fully expect a F/O, that is in strong disagreement with the decision of a Captain.

To do something about it.

For me, there is the question. Not ONE but TWO First Officers ended up on the ground in Miami.

Leads me to ASSUME, they agreed with the Captain.

Nigd3

6th Aug 2009, 15:13

Rainboe

I realise you are not defending if the captain was correct or not and also that he has the right to divert if he determines it to be necessary. However can you give me an example of how it could be seriously considered that flight safety was compromised.

Sure a p%ssed off FA is not nice but I still do not realise how this could lead to "anarchy" on the flight, as some have quoted.

This is not a dig at you but I really want to have some examples.

As for BoF, his/her rants, or at least the style of writing that comes across as a rant, does nothing to portray the Senior CC member in a good light.

Will Fraser

6th Aug 2009, 15:13

Johnny767

Because there is a 100% probability that one career is over, and the other mortally wounded.

wozzo

6th Aug 2009, 15:16

There is WAY more to this story.

I totally agree. I don't buy it that a seasoned captain would suddenly loose it only because a flight attendant pushes papers under the door. I guess the captain surprised all on board when he diverted because of that! They were stunned.

Maybe he really wants to be "out". From what I gather he is not very much liked or respected for some reasons, and he reportedly showed his colleagues a reciprocal attitude.

That he diverted to Miami instead of Orlando (which is, like, 30 Minutes away?) intrigues me: He put his company in bind: Disrupt service even more or let him continue to fly? From what I gather from the information on this thread, this strengthend his position when it comes to a profitable retirement settlement.

I know, speculation ... but if true, very well played, Sir!

SaturnV

6th Aug 2009, 15:45

Johnny767, I agree that if the CA is ill or incapacitated in some manner and not capable of safely flying the airplane, he loses command.

A CA who disconnects the autopilot and begins muttering "Tawakkalt ala Allah", loses command.

A CA who is thoroughly p*ssed about some work-related or labor issue, or is an absolute stickler about rules or authority, but is otherwise fully capable of safely flying the aircraft, I doubt he loses command.

Few dispute that the CA possessed the inherent authority to divert if he so chose, and provided he safely and competently executed the diversion, and the diversion itself placed no additional risk to the flight and passengers -- such as his choosing to divert to an airport where fuel minimums might come into play, or if the evicted purser had left the cabin with too few crew to legally continue -- then his rationale and judgment are for subsequent discussion between himself and management, and management will evaluate and decide.

Rainboe

6th Aug 2009, 16:02

Nigd3d
However can you give me an example of how it could be seriously considered that flight safety was compromised.
Human factors considerations have come a long way since they really started being examined seriously back in the 70s. We had an example in 1972 where a Captain was involved in a furious industrial row with another pilot/s preflight. He then went out to fly an aeroplane with about 140 people on board. It was involved in premature flap retraction resulting in death to all on board. The autopsy revealed severe heart problems that could have indicated a heart attack at some stage pre-crash that could have contributed to the disaster. Something very peculiar happened that killed everyone on board. Google G-ARPI to learn more.

Flying in a correct frame of mind is essential for the safety of all on board. This covers attitude, mood, sustenance and fatigue, as well as training and flying skills. We see here failures in 2 of those, possibly more. Was there an attitude on board where food or drink was being parsimoniously supplied up front as a result of bad feeling? Was the nightstop before the flight a 'bad experience'? I would make sure all these things were opened up, including IR issues which seem to be unpleasantly at the forefront. All these things could contribute to a severe anger from certain crew behaviour which could lead to a decision to divert- one that could just possibly be well justified. What speaks loud and clear is there was more going on in this case alone than has come out. That is why it is wrong to condemn here without adequate consideration of the human factors. Will UA do the right thing? Er...no!

Nigd3

6th Aug 2009, 16:34

Rainboe

Sorry not convinced with your arguement yet.

The "lets get this FA off the aircraft because she is severely p%ssing me off and I don't want to be distracted in a while when we are in a crucial phase of flight" theory, seems almost ridiculous, when written in a very simplistic form as I have.

The actual example of a possible heart attack that may or may not have been influenced by a blazing row pre flight has too many "maybes" in there to convince me either, for now anyway.

I agree, there is probably more to this than meets the eye but as a a senior professional captain, with two FOs also on board, I still do not see the flight safety implications.

No problem with being corrected but I just haven't grasped the flight safety concept being put forward as a reason for the divert.

Les Shore

6th Aug 2009, 19:01

Was there an attitude on board where food or drink was being parsimoniously supplied up front as a result of bad feeling? Was the nightstop before the flight a 'bad experience'? I would make sure all these things were opened up, including IR issues which seem to be unpleasantly at the forefront. All these things could contribute to a severe anger from certain crew behaviour which could lead to a decision to divert- one that could just possibly be well justified.Yeah, but even if all of those scenarios were at play, as several Captains have said, it is hard to believe other more reasoned options weren't available. Those options as stated by pilots who have contributed to this thread, included standing down the purser (even having her confined to her seat for the rest of the flight as the Captain has the authority to do) and having her duties carried out by the next most senior flight attendant. That kind of solution or a variation of it would have demonstrated the Captain's authority without resulting in a costly diversion and we wouldn't be having this circular discussion.

It all comes down to the fact that in addition to technical skills,someone with the position of Captain is paid for common sense, good judgement, having a level head, being a good problem solver etc. That is why this case is so unusual because it appears that some of those qualities may have been missing at the time of this particular incident. The only good that may come out of this incident is that it will certainly be featured in CRM discussions and could help others to formulate improved methods of dealing with staff issues.

Rainboe

6th Aug 2009, 22:23

The "lets get this FA off the aircraft because she is severely p%ssing me off and I don't want to be distracted in a while when we are in a crucial phase of flight" theory, seems almost ridiculous,

Don't underestimate the dangers of distraction in a flying environment. You have to stay ahead and be on top of the aeroplane with your attention on what is happening, not other problems. I remember long ago, the US Navy discovered that pilots with problems playing on their mind (from home usually) or in marital breakups had a significantly higher accident rate. Quite simply if you try and fly in that frame of mind, you become a significant danger. That is why I have been saying all along that such a decision can be shown sometimes to be a justifiable course of action if it removes the problem. There's too much here to produce instant guilty verdicts I'm afraid. Something ugly going on. The company needs to sort it. It sounds to me like the company has allowed these people to carry a very unpleasant burden for 24 years.

Basil

6th Aug 2009, 23:23

Rainboe,
Flying in a correct frame of mind is essential for the safety of all on board.
Amen to that.
I recollect once permitting myself to get into an RT confrontation with our company despatcher which, although resolved technically safely to my satisfaction, left me in a 'cat in a fight' frame of mind which was not at all conducive to a safe departure.
I post this sort of thing in the hope that others will see that 'it's not just them' and will avoid my errors.

Re the thread - who knows what really happened?

SaturnV

6th Aug 2009, 23:33

Rainboe, if the situation was that distracting and upsetting of the CA's frame of mind, the expedient thing for him would be to divert earlier to San Juan where United has a station and which was enroute.
____________________________________

As for the CA, he was no longer rostered for flights the week following the incident, and as nobody has subsequently announced (trumpeted might be the better word) that he is back to flying, an inference can be drawn that he remains in non-flying status three weeks after his diversion. As the adage goes: Silence speaks volumes.

MU3001A

6th Aug 2009, 23:39

Rainboe: Don't underestimate the dangers of distraction in a flying environment. You have to stay ahead and be on top of the aeroplane with your attention on what is happening, not other problems. You make a good case for an option Queeg doesn't appear to have considered, namely giving himself an extended break in a comfy seat in 1st class and allowing the two FO's to complete the flight to ORD, sans the disruption of a diversion to MIA.

Rainboe

7th Aug 2009, 00:13

You show your complete ignorance of airline operations and acceptable behaviour. If he is upset enough to have to do that, he is not in a mental state conducive to flying passengers. Your suggestion is nonsense.

A suggestion of San Juan instead should be treated with the doubt a complete lack of background knowledge of the events shows. I have no idea. But a Captain with years of experience chose a particular course of action. Someone reading the sparse information here is in no position to say they know a better way! And I'm not so sure silence speaks as loudly as you think!

MU3001A

7th Aug 2009, 00:28

If he is upset enough to have to do that, he is not in a mental state conducive to flying passengers.Agreed, which is why adopting my suggestion would have been better than what Queeg actually came up with. I wonder if either of the two FO's had the temerity to raise something similar with him?

Cacophonix

7th Aug 2009, 00:35

Agreed, which is why adopting my suggestion would have been better than what Queeg actually came up with. I wonder if either of the two FO's had the temerity to raise something similar with him?

MU3001A

Your pejorative use of the name Queeg implies that you have already damned this man and therefore any attempt at balanced debate about this affair seems impossible given your conviction.

Bluestar51

7th Aug 2009, 01:21

Rainboe,

a Captain with years of experience chose a particular course of action. Someone reading the sparse information here is in no position to say they know a better way! And I'm not so sure silence speaks as loudly as you think!

I do not think the other two pilots would have allowed the Captain in question to remain in command and the aircraft to depart KMIA if they had felt he was not capable of command.

I find it interesting that the unions involved (assumption on my part) are being very quiet about this matter.

MU3001A

7th Aug 2009, 01:30

Namibfox

Substitute Captain for Queeg if you like, the rest of my comment reads the same either way.

Bluestar51

I don't think the quiet is all that unusual since both of the unions and UAL management would probably prefer that civil war didn't break out between cabin crew and flight crew over this sorry incident. Oops sorry Rainboe, I meant occurrence.

cessnapuppy

7th Aug 2009, 03:47

To no one in particular.... isnt it somewhat amazing how Darwinian Evolution manifests itself - no matter the location, no matter the circumstances? See how the lowly captain, via natural selection (of debate) has evolved from a mad whimsy - diverting an aircraft in a fit of pique (albeit delayed a few hours) to a Machiavellian plotter, deviously conspiring to cull himself a cushy 'medical retirement'? From madman to fraud, pausing at 'knuckle dragging ape', if only for a moment as our ancestors did. :ugh: (d) Each pilot in command of an aircraft is, during flight time, in command of the aircraft and crew and is responsible for the safety of the passengers, crewmembers, cargo, and airplane. (e) Each pilot in command has full control and authority in the operation of the aircraft, without limitation, over other crewmembers and their duties during flight time, whether or not he holds valid certificates authorizing him to perform the duties of those crewmembers. That removes 'discretionary power' from EVERYONE on board. do as ordered. simple. no brain cells to activate. Just do. None of this "I cant believe it's not butter" bs where people substitute what they feel like doing, when they feel like doing it- for a direct order. Her job is to just do as ordered, when ordered (and perhaps complain to management afterward if so inclined) I'm sure some will advocate a different world, a kinder, gentler kumbayah world where maybe there is some discussion and perhaps even consensus reached before making arbitrary demands or 'snap decisions'. (I pretty sure the purser would have lots to say about Alternate Law and such and should probably be consulted if either pilot is thinking of a TOGA -not the Greek outfit) Maybe I'm old school...or just old. :) I'm curious, if she slid the documents under the door (like bread and gruel slipped to prisoners in the Gulag) and some pilot/co pilot got up and not seeing the paper, stepped and slid on it..what then? I really doubt this was an incident or action totally unique and standing alone, logic tells me to suspect there is additional history, not told in all of this.

MU3001A

7th Aug 2009, 04:08

cessnapuppy

UAL want's its airplane back and its customers safely delivered to their destination and both UAL and the regulatory authorities give captains the sole authority in matters of command once out of the chocks, in order to achieve those objectives. This captain safely delivered both the aircraft and its passengers to their destination, albiet after exercising his sole authority to include a short diversion to MIA. The question now for UAL and perhaps also the FAA, is whether the captain will ever get the opportunity to exercise that authority again.

stilton

7th Aug 2009, 04:33

I think he will, perhaps he did not use the best possible judgement in this case however the f/a in question certainly contributed to the situation.

As has been stated, some of these 'cabin captains' and their actions have to be seen to be believed.

etrang

7th Aug 2009, 05:11

namely giving himself an extended break in a comfy seat in 1st class and allowing the two FO's to complete the flight to ORD, sans the disruption of a diversion to MIA.

Yes that would have been an alternative solution.

If he is upset enough to have to do that, he is not in a mental state conducive to flying passengers. Your suggestion is nonsense.

Well that is the whole point. If the captain had steped-down he wouldn't be flying anyone. The suggested course of action would no doubt have had a negative impact on the captain's future career but so it seems have his actual actions. If someone had suggested, before this incident occured, that a captain might divert and land at an unscheduled airport just to off-load a member of cabin crew you would probably have described that as nonsense.

Rainboe

7th Aug 2009, 07:58

I have known of several occasions in BA where aircraft have 'diverted, from thier course to offload an unco-operative cabin crew member. It has happened, it has delayed passengers. They happened on the taxi out pre-take off. I have known crewe being offloaded before departure, for similar reasons. In what way is that 'different' pray?

Nigd3

7th Aug 2009, 08:18

Morning Rainboe

For me the difference would be that IF the reason for the divert was a disruptive CC, he still has to conduct a safe approach to the divert airport, when he could have carried on and also conducted a safe approach to his original destination.

Get the SFO to interact with the CC for the rest of the flight, if she is such a pain in the backside and then do any disciplinary proceedings on the ground at the original destination.

I understand that distractions can be a factor in incidents and accidents, however if UA come down in the favour of the captain in this one, they may be setting a dangerous (costly) precedent.

Bluestar51

7th Aug 2009, 13:28

In what way is that 'different' pray?

We could do a lot of things when Jet A/JP-4 was twelve cents a gallon we can't do now.

I've never had any real problems with crew and passengers.

cityfan

18th Aug 2009, 03:55

You Da Man, eh?!

Let's just say (hypothetically, of course!) that (hypothetically) the FAs got an email out quickly and spread it as quickly as possible to get THEIR "version" of the story "out" as the Gospel...regardless of the truth, and BEFORE any company investigation, of course. And, let's say it is company policy to remove CAPTAINS from service ANYTIME there is a flight/safety investigation being conducted and that the FA has ZERO LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY OR AUTHORITY that is being investigated and thus returned to service....BEFORE any findings are finalized. The CAPTAIN, however, might (hypothetically, of course) have LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY AND AUTHORITY under question and thus be REQUIRED to be removed from service until the issue is closed. Maybe, it would have been EXACTLY THE SAME REGARDLESS OF THE EVENT, even something like a high speed abort that caused ZERO aircraft damage.

And say this issue revolved around a purser who refused to accept simple direction, refused to remove herself from the Purser position when directed, was calling the Captain derogatory and inflammatory names to other crew members within earshot of passengers, and just MAYBE she threatened the efficacy of the Captain's meal. Hypothetically, of course.

So, now whatcha all think of him dumping her off at the first USA location?

Also, what if she then proceeded to tell the Captain she was taking ALL the crew off the aircraft with her if he tried to drop her off? And what if the rest of the crew refused to leave with her?

What if the CAPTAIN in question was a multi-decade union stalwart who was recently the VICTIM of company harassment on a completely separate issue. Perhaps, a flight attendant or two knew this and have tried to FURTHER besmirch this outstanding PROFESSIONAL PILOT and YOU LOT have been suckered in by the rumor and innuendo distributed by people who were serving their own self interest and ulterior purposes? ALL hypothetically, of course! (Sounds like a BA "Whisper Campaign" doesn't it?!!!)

So, what now?

I came on here to read some PROFESSIONAL PILOT discussion on issues of the day and maybe find out what was going on with the decimation of this profession across the globe. Imagine my surprise to see some of the absolute drivel written here by SUPPOSED professionals about one of their own.

If this public hanging is any thing to go by, I may have wasted my time looking for "insight" into what goes on elsewhere and may have been mistaken in believing there were professionals on here that would give one of their own the benefit of the doubt/rumor/innuendo. I noticed a few did, and my hat is off to them. The rest, well, tut-tut is about all I can say.

:ouch:

MU3001A

18th Aug 2009, 04:57

Hey it's a rumour network.

The basic fact of the diversion is enough to inspire speculation on what could have justified the captain's decision to divert, as opposed to simply alerting the company of the situation and waiting until reaching Chicago to resolve things. Most have concluded that short of an imminent threat or some sort of insurrection, it is difficult to imagine a situation that could justify the decision to divert. So if you have some insights to share particularly as it might pertain to the captain's side of the story, be our guest and spill the beans. Are you familiar with the version of events as related by other members of the flight crew, or just the captain? I'd be willing to bet the version of events likely to be closest to the truth, would be that related by the other two pilots on the flight deck that day.

Regards

cityfan

18th Aug 2009, 06:15

Yes, "rumor" network, indeed. However, since when does "rumor network" mean denigrating fellow professionals in lieu of facts and debasing Captain's exercising their legal authority to maintain command and control over the entire flight operation.

Let me ask you, if the First Officer was refusing to do what the Captain said, and was mounting an insurrection with other crew members, threatening his food and telling him HE was in control of the crew, what would you say THEN?

Forgive my ire, but we finally have a Captain who is willing to go to the mat to MAINTAIN the Captain's Authority too many are willing to give away to crusty, old, "I know better" Flight Attendants, and we hang him on hearsay and say things like "well, silence is telling" and "he is not working and she is, so that tells a story" and other such BS.

All I am asking for is some reasonable respect for a fellow professional. I was hoping that was not too much to ask, especially in a PILOT forum.

Take care.

Dave Gittins

18th Aug 2009, 06:27

It may well be a rumour network but more often than not it is an "opinion" network and often somewhat judgmental.

Sadly the opinions are often given with scant reference to any facts (more like preformed bias and bigotry) and the absence of facts does not make them any less likely to be offered or judgement passed on the basis of the, frequently highly subjective and biased opinions alone.

Ah well .. that's entertainment.

BOAC

18th Aug 2009, 07:04

cityfan - whilst you may have particular personal reasons for your 'hypothetical' post, you have effectively brought the thread back to the top after it lay (thankfully) dormant for 11 days. It appeared to be 'over' here on this 'Rumour' network at least until some more FACTS arose. I'm not sure that was the right thing to do. Now it will all kick off again - unless the thread is closed. Despite your 'appeal', none of us can do more than pass opinion on what is presented here, without real facts.

Your post 'hints' at 'mutiny' which is indeed a serious event. However, why should we give your 'hypothetical' posts any more creedance than others here?

Nigd3

18th Aug 2009, 10:01

Cityfan

I think you need to have a read of what little we know went on here. No one, or not many, are questioning the captains authority to divert but more his reasons for doing so, as MU3001A also stated.
Insurrection, are you actually serious about this? Pitch forks at the flight deck door and all that? He landed and off loaded the purser, no one else and then carried on. If there had been a full scale mutiny happening don't you think one or two others might also have been asked to stay in MIA.

Your ill thought out hypothesis has not helped in trying to give the captain on that flight a break.

parabellum

18th Aug 2009, 11:49

your ill thought out hypothesis has not helped in trying to give the captain on that flight a break.

Nigd3 - It has occurred to me that as this matter is by no means settled, Cityfan can only offer his submission as an 'hypothesis' at the moment when in fact it could well be only millimetres from the truth and not 'ill thought out' at all. "Never let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy":)

Heliport

18th Aug 2009, 20:21

Nigd3 says: Cityfan

I think you need to have a read of what little we know went on here
Reading the thread shows just how little we do know about what went on here.

At one point it looked as if we were getting some facts and then it turned out that the (newly registered) poster who claimed to be a F/A on the flight and claimed to be giving the 'facts' was (ab)using PPRuNe to pursue a grudge against the captain. :rolleyes:

Still no facts on which to base a sensible opinion about the captain's decision, yet still it goes on ..........

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v140/Rotorheads/anim76.gif

cityfan

19th Aug 2009, 03:35

I think I have said more than I should have already, so I will bow out safe in the knowledge I did as much as I could to defend the professionalism of the Captain in question.

As is always the case, some see red where blue is presented, and there is obviously nothing more I can do for those of you who need more. The issue is still "under investigation" and, as such, I should probably not have put as much in public as I have. However, this forum has a tendency to undermine pilots and, in this instance, and because I doubt he reads this forum, I felt I needed to defend his honor.

Believe what you will. I know the truth and believe we should all hold our opinions, especially when they undermine us all, until further is known. I have given as much (more!) as I can.

My best to you all.

411A

19th Aug 2009, 04:28

However, this forum has a tendency to undermine pilots ...
'
Yes it does, and the negative comments (from actual pilots) normally comes, I expect, from rather junior First Officers who truly believe all the latest 'CRM' nonsense.
Later on, of course, they might come up against some gruff 'ole Captain or Fleet Manager, who will change their attitude, rather quickly.:}

cityfan

19th Aug 2009, 04:41

And he will become universally known as an asshole amongst that young 'uns peer group, because they were too stupid to see what he was trying to do FOR them, not TO them.

I remember, early days on the 727 (a notoriously difficult, swept wing aircraft to land IMHO), I lowered a runway by at least a foot and possibly more. As we taxied in, I remarked to the Captain that I had better stand at the cockpit door and apologize for that. He turned to me without missing a beat and said, ":mad: that! If they want to go through the years of training and sacrifice you have gone through to get here and then give it a shot themselves, then fine. Until then, safety is what they paid for and safety is what they got." And not a smile or curved lip in sight!

All I could say was "Thank you, Captain," but it clearly left an indelible mark on my pilot psyche. I am pretty sure he had probably never heard, nor wanted to hear, the word "mentor," but that is exactly what I took from the encounter and what I try my damnedest to instill in my FOs. Thankfully, most of them are technically excellent and there is nothing but encouragement and praise to be shared.

411A

19th Aug 2009, 05:02

If they want to go through the years of training and sacrifice you have gone through to get here and then give it a shot themselves, then fine. Until then, safety is what they paid for and safety is what they got.

Makes perfect sense to me.:}
Any pilot who makes an apology for a firm, but otherwise completely safe landing, is looney.

Les Shore

19th Aug 2009, 05:38

......that is exactly what I took from the encounter and what I try my damnedest to instill in my FOs
Cityfan is a Captain so he wasn't an FO on the flight. So unless he is the captain, he wasn't there as a direct witness and is going by what he was told. It's still a "he said, she said" situation; Captains defending Captains. FA's defending FA's. Nothing has changed until we hear the company's decision on whether the diverson was justified in the circumstances. That will likely leak out some day.
Let me ask you, if the First Officer was refusing to do what the Captain said, and was mounting an insurrection with other crew members, threatening his food and telling him HE was in control of the crew, what would you say THEN?

Interesting comment, especially the "threatening food" part. How exactly would that work?

Heliport

19th Aug 2009, 07:14

Les Shore "threatening food". How exactly would that work?

There have been several threads on this topic over the years.

Here's an example that will answer your question: http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/222040-ba-cabin-crew-threaten-poison-pilots.html

H.

PilotsOfTheCaribbean

19th Aug 2009, 07:42

The only reason this topic was ever splashed across the media, and is now a thread of nearly 30 pages and 600 posts, is because it was a reported event that was in itself so bizzare. Whatever the reasons for the event, and whatever the outcome of the investigations, it seems fairly clear that they are not something that United feels it either wants to or can share with anybody else, for whom there might be a lesson to be learned.

From the snippets of information here, it appears that there are some fairly disturbing undercurrents that might or might not be unique to this particular flight, this corporate culture, or perhaps more generally? It has now been over a Month since the event made news, and given that it wasn't an accident, and all the parties are available, it is not unreasonable to expect there might have been either a public or an industry relevant statement on this event by now? There can be little doubt that from a P.R standpoint the company would want the interest in this event to simply evaporate. There may well be underlying issues and tensions that neither the company nor the participants wish to have aired in public. It also sounds as if there are issues that need handling in a supremely diplomatic manner in order to prevent them from escalating or causing further damage to an already fragile and embattled industry player. The problem from a P.R standpoint is that the Genie is already out of the bottle, and seems reluctant to be pushed back in.

Cactusjack

19th Aug 2009, 08:48

The 'eyedrops in the coffee' is nothing new rumour, it is something that has 'allegedly' taken place on more than one occasion around the world.It is 'allegedly' done to troublesome passengers and nasty crew not for the purpose of 'poisoning them to cause death' but rather to 'make them sick and give them a bad case of the squirts' in an act of revenge.
I do stress the 'allegedly' component in this response, however I do know for certain that a 'former Chief Executive Officer at an Australian airline which only just posted a profit statement just today' would never eat or drink absolutely anything while using his airline for travel and especially fears the Eyedrop product.
Furthermore,the trick with the Eyedroppers was first 'introduced' by workers in the 'Hospital' field, apparently Doctors can be as self righteous as Pilots. Who would have thought !!!!!!

Rainboe

19th Aug 2009, 09:39

It most certainly was, and may well still be, a very common event in legacy airlines! I know I have been 'nobbled' on several occasions. I have heard crew boasting about doing it when the alcohol takes over and out it pops. It is one step away from insanity to intentionally poison your pilot, but it happens. Those tending to do it are the older, embittered females with a grudge, real or imagined, or the young aggressive 'why are you paid more than me? We all do the same job'-type males with a real problem about 'overpaid pilots'. But that is a complete new subject that is not encouraged.
It has now been over a Month since the event made news, and given that it wasn't an accident, and all the parties are available, it is not unreasonable to expect there might have been either a public or an industry relevant statement on this event by now?
What 'event' needs a 'statement' pray? In airline annals, it is one of the lesser important 'events'. A flight diverted, a crew member left the flight, flight continued, everybody landed safely after a minor 1 hour delay. What more do you need?

Bealzebub

19th Aug 2009, 10:29

What 'event' needs a 'statement' pray? In airline annals, it is one of the lesser important 'events'. A flight diverted, a crew member left the flight, flight continued, everybody landed safely after a minor 1 hour delay. What more do you need?

Well on that basis you're right, a complete non-event! Except that of course it wasn't quite that simple. This was a flight that seemed to have some (outside of your sphere) very unusual behavioural difficulties that caused an international flight to divert for no other known technical reason. Flights divert every day without anybody batting an eyelid. This one attracted the attention of the media and certainly the aviation media, by virtue of some seemingly unusual circumstances. On the basis that of the 582 contributions to this thread so far, no less than 7% (42) of them have come from you! Having so much obvious comment or interest yourself, it is a little autocratic to suggest that anybody else with a degree of interest, should keep on walking!

Much of the interest is borne out of, just how unusual a situation this appears to be. However your experience and comment would suggest it is not as unusual as some might think? From a professional standpoint that might clearly raise some alarming markers. Whether United make any further comment on this issue is clearly a matter for them and the individuals concerned, but the underlying issues and their greater or lesser concerns to the wider industry are clearly cause for comment and debate here, as you yourself so obviously demonstrate.

BOAC

19th Aug 2009, 10:50

Bea - I guess anyone who has been 'nobbled' on several occasions. would be more sensitive to it?

As we know the thread is divided essentially by peoples' view of 'command'/'leadership' issues.

cityfan

19th Aug 2009, 17:01

Don't hold your breath waiting for UAL to say ANYTHING further about this matter. Now that it has become a union-company issue, and personal behavior is the main thrust of the discussion, it will ALL be done behind closed doors, possibly (hopefully) by the respective unions Professional Standards Committees in concert with the company officials reviewing the case. As such, it will be confidential.

As stated earlier, because a flight attendant got an email out to their peers and the Captain kept the matter in-house (following company protocols regarding safety reporting), only one side of the story got out into the ether. I was merely attempting to provide some context to the "what was his problem?" aftermath, especially given his inability to respond personally. Unfortunately, therein lies the rub, but I can assure you that you have the Captain's side of the tale.

I should have let the thread die a natural death, knowing that some already "get it" and others never will. C'est la vie.

Will Fraser

19th Aug 2009, 17:33

lomapaseo

19th Aug 2009, 21:15

To me the most important facet of the ordeal is the amount of attention it's drawn; as such it is a poor commentary on the state of the level of professionalism and cooperation in the Industry. Rumors are interesting, but gossip is deplorable. The difference?? Gossip is a rumor that's been dipped in poison. Plenty of that here, and it bodes ill.

That's the nature of an internet discussion board. It starts with rumor and progresses to gossip sic.

I do not consider an internet discussion thread a measure of the state of professionalism of the industry by any stretch. It is nothing more than a collection of opinions by annoymous people who claim to be part of the industry.

I decided to leave the misspelling as a humorous spoonerism

SaturnV

19th Aug 2009, 21:25

Rainboe

19th Aug 2009, 21:29

I can't get over the deadly serious 'pious and self righteous' judgements being handed down about the industry in general, and professional crew in particular.......usually I suspect from people who evidently are not in one and know nothing and have no experience of the other! Yes- an anonymous posting criticising the industry is going to have a devastating effect on it (not)!

Let's just let sleeping dogs lie now- there was a discipline problem of some sort, and an experienced Captain dealt with it the way he saw fit, with minimal disruption to his passengers and no effect on safety issues. Really a non-event for United to deal with internally, in whatever way it sees fit. Whatever people accuse me of saying in this thread, I have always called for dispassionate discussion, not the violently prejudiced opinion most people seemed to have before they even read up what little facts have been posted! It doesn't need so many thundering sound-offs here from people delivering instant judgements mainly from a basis of lack of information and inexperience of what is involved. Experience of lobbing grenades at 'Charlie' in 'Nam does not translate well to managing airline crew CRM, though I have to confess there were times when I thought it might be more appropriate.

Bealzebub

19th Aug 2009, 22:33

Something ugly going on. The company needs to sort it. It sounds to me like the company has allowed these people to carry a very unpleasant burden for 24 years.
I know I have been 'nobbled' on several occasions.
It is one step away from insanity to intentionally poison your pilot, but it happens. Those tending to do it are the older, embittered females with a grudge, real or imagined, or the young aggressive 'why are you paid more than me? We all do the same job'-type males with a real problem about 'overpaid pilots'.
At one point it looked as if we were getting some facts and then it turned out that the (newly registered) poster who claimed to be a F/A on the flight and claimed to be giving the 'facts' was (ab)using PPRuNe to pursue a grudge against the captain.

Although I have been flying for many years, and have come across a few people who warranted a healthy chat on the ground, I can honestly say that I have never even come close to having to consider a diversion to deal with a problem of this nature. Further, I cannot recall anybody else I know having to do this.

From the quotes above and others, it would appear that this is a more endemic problem in some companies than I and probably many other people would seem to appreciate. If so, then it is clearly a CRM issue with significant adverse aspects with regards to the safety and regularity of certain flights.

Why would you want to "let sleeping dogs lie", if as you state you have "been nobbled on several occaissions" yourself? It sounds like in some quarters there are potentially serious safety issues that are clearly not being addressed. CRM is not something that should break down to the level where aircraft are diverted to offload offending crewmembers as a matter of routine to be dismissed.

It seems there is a conflict between an open safety culture and some disturbing allegations of totally unacceptable and certainly unprofessional behaviour. If you are going to advance the argument that this should be quickly swept under the carpet, and kept "in house," then it might be better the results of such actions are not plastered across CNN!

This isn't a rush to judgment, it is a concern of some of the darker aspects being suggested in this thread. If this flight had diverted to remove a crewmember or passenger who was unwell it wouldn't likely have lasted a day in this forum or made the news. If it had diverted for an unruly or violent passenger, it probably wouldn't have grown beyond a page or two. The reason that it has, is because there is clearly more to this issue than simply a normal diversion that didn't inconvenience everybody too much.

411A

19th Aug 2009, 23:05

The entire problem of malcontent cabin crew can be delt with by simply having them sign on with (for example) four year renewable contracts, renewable at the descrition on management. Many asian/middle east airlines do this...time for other companies to fall in line.
This way, problem solved....cheaper too.
My company would not hesitate to terminate any cabin crew member who did not perform up to expectations...at any time.
Downroute, if necessary.
The CC, knowing this, are fully co-operative in nearly every respect, and quite frankly, a pleasure to fly with.
A done deal.

NB.
Now, I expect some will say...well, the CC have 'rights.'
Sorry, on the airplane they do not, and if they do not measure up, out they go, bag and baggage.
Ahhh, peace and tranquility.:ok:

Les Shore

20th Aug 2009, 01:06

Now, I expect some will say...well, the CC have 'rights.'
Sorry, on the airplane they do not, and if they do not measure up, out they go, bag and baggage. and
The entire problem of malcontent cabin crew can be delt with by simply having them sign on with (for example) four year renewable contracts, renewable at the descrition on management. Many asian/middle east airlines do this...time for other companies to fall in line This in addition to calling cabin crew "old hags" and other disrespectful and juvenile comments. Maybe some of the problems could be solved if Captains had four year renewable contracts and had to prove their ability to manage a crew (different from barking orders) in addition to flying a plane.The only light at the end of the tunnel is that some dinosaur Captains must be getting pretty damn close to retirement age.:ok:

cityfan

20th Aug 2009, 01:22

cityfan,

--with respect to several points in your hypothesis. The claim that the purser threatened to tamper with the captain's meal was posted in another forum around the end of July, and labeled there as third-hand hearsay. (Unless the captain heard the threat directly, it would be second-hand hearsay at best.) So that point, presumably favorable to the captain, has been 'public' for a while.

It was firsthand.

From your post, the captain has yet to return to flight status, and the incident is now about five weeks old. Perhaps United's investigations of such matters move at a glacial pace. His certificate has not been suspended by the FAA.

This is not the first "I am the captain aft of the cockpit door" incident at UAL and is being handled with kid gloves because of previous harassment of this Captain by the company.

Curiously, you raised the possibility that this incident was manufactured by two or more conspiring cabin crew who were aware that the captain was a recent victim of harassment by United.

I don't believe it was "manufactured" in any way, by anyone. It was an unwillingness to acquiesce to Captain's Authority that escalated and, as means of self-defence and pre-emptive investigatory attack, it was characterized as something wholly different by parties who were NOT central to the incident.

For them to test/provoke the captain in such a way suggests that there was a previous incident of questionable judgment or temperament on his part, else why would they embark on such a course of action?

LOL! I guess you have not worked at UAL (or many other carriers) in the post-9/11, post-bankruptcy era, so I would be unkind if I mocked the comment. However, I can assure you there was no previous incident on his part. He is a BIG C Captain (as we call them here) and too many old, think-they-know-it-all F/As take liberties all the time with the crew....from waiting 30 minutes to open the door for a pee break to waiting for an hour for meals, etc, etc....and he was not going to allow this one to get away with a direct and open threat to him.

As you can tell, I applaud his actions and MIGHT even have had her arrested in Miami if it had been me. Interference with the crew is a federal offence and, once he had made the point that they were going to divert and he was to remove her, she DEFINITELY DID interfere with the crew.

As previously stated, I am intimately familiar with what happened and much of it has been greatly distorted on this message board. I realize this is a "rumor" mill and rumors turn to gossip and gossip leads to facts not in evidence being used as the Gospel. I just wanted to set the record straight: he is not a nutter and he WILL return to duty once this has blown over. Either that, or he will "retire" with a seven figure check in his back pocket. As mentioned, the FAA has not lifted a finger for the exercise of his authority FOR GOOD REASON.

Best to all.

MU3001A

20th Aug 2009, 01:47

previous harassment of this Captain by the company.

This was not his 1st experience with recalcitrant cabin crew then?

cityfan

20th Aug 2009, 01:56

Nope. COMPLETELY unrelated matter. Sorry.

Nothing to see here! He was right, she was wrong, but HE had all the LEGAL responsibilities and so the company has to ensure they dot the i and cross the t before washing their hands of this. Last time they tried to spank a Captain and make a point, she ended up walking away with a rather large (enough to comfortably retire on the interest sized) "settlement." I am not sure they want to go down that path again, so he gets an nice extended summer vacation WITH FULL PAY and time heals all wounds ;)

Les Shore

20th Aug 2009, 01:56

Cityfan, with all due respect, I'm not sure how you could have "intimate" knowledge of what happened without being on the scene. That's puzzling.

There is another thing thing.The threat to the Captain's food must have been made within earshot of other flight deck members, if it was made directly. It is hard to believe a senior purser would risk her career by doing that. Regarding the "mutiny", again, if that threat was made directly, would it not have been made within hearing distance of others? Another career limiting move.

cityfan

20th Aug 2009, 02:02

Les,

Indeed, sir, indeed. Exactly the reason this issue is moving very slowly.

Please do not fixate on HOW I know what happened, but rest assured it is true. (your choice to believe me or not, of course)

When something is said directly between the two combatants, it can become a "he said-she said" issue. In this case, his actions CLEARLY indicate he believes wholeheartedly that she meant what she said and, based on her previous interactions with his "authority" and the language she was using to describe him to other crew members, he chose to give her the OPTION of relief from purser duties or the jetway. She CHOSE the jetway and he obliged. She said she was taking the rest of "HER" crew with her. Clearly, she did not, perhaps because THEY understand what "mutiny" means and that SHE was not worth THEM losing their jobs.

We are a litigious bunch south of the border, as you know, and there are LEGAL issues here.

'nuff said, I hope.

MU3001A

20th Aug 2009, 02:40

cityfan: Last time they tried to spank a Captain and make a point, she ended up walking away with a rather large (enough to comfortably retire on the interest sized) "settlement."

She being the flight attendant or the captain? I'm confused.

Les Shore

20th Aug 2009, 03:10

Cityfan, thanks for the information and your patience. If others took the same moderate tone in replying, this thread wouldn't have gone into some of the sub-themes that have developed.

Since there appear to have been witnesses who (reading between the lines) would verfify the Captains's version of events, it should almost be a slam dunk for him. I'm surprised that the purser was allowed to continue working, given your description of the situation and the fact that in early debriefings the FOs should have supported the Captain's story. Hopefully justice will prevail and we'll be reassured that this whole event wasn't based on someone's power trip or temper tantrum.

411A

20th Aug 2009, 03:55

Maybe some of the problems could be solved if Captains had four year renewable contracts and had to prove their ability to manage a crew (different from barking orders) in addition to flying a plane.

Oddly enough, Les, I have always worked for airlines on a contractural basis, renewable...and every one was renewed.
Have I had a 'problem' with cabin crew?
Only one time...and they were all terminated by the airline...all seven of them.
These malcontent CC tried to railroad the Cabin Supervisor, and I would have none of that nonsense.
It's called, shape up or ship out.
An easy concept to understand.:}

Les Shore

20th Aug 2009, 04:51

Oddly enough, Les, I have always worked for airlines on a contractural basis, renewable...and every one was renewedIs it possible that these airlines were based in countries without labour standards that are the norm in North America and Europe?:suspect:

To quote another poster
I've heard of a flight attendant being offloaded at an outstation for failing to properly greet the captain when he boarded 'his' aircraft. It was in the Middle East and egos tend to be ramped up a little there from what I've seenAh, for all the bluster, I'm sure you're not all bad 411A. You did say that you wouldn't disrupt cabin service unless you had a darn good reason or something like that. Oh sh$%. FULL CIRCLE.

Cityfan, last question, scout's honour. It has been rumoured that the Captain's demand to have the general dec presented to him in the middle of cabin service was the start of this sorry mess. The questions around what motivated him to do that and make an issue of it (if it's indeed true) are what has sparked a lot of the ensuing discussion. We all know he had to authority to make the request and even ask that they be served on a platter, if he wanted, but it's hard to understand the urgency given that they weren't needed for some time after:confused: So, if you can answer this,did a request for the general dec start the whole thing?

captjns

20th Aug 2009, 09:29

Is it possible that these airlines were based in countries without labour standards that are the norm in North America and Europe?http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/cwm13.gif

Labour standards?:ugh:

Damn... coffee's all over the damn computer.:}

Rainboe

20th Aug 2009, 09:55

Les Shorebut it's hard to understand the urgency given that they weren't needed for some time after So, if you can answer this,did a request for the general dec start the whole thing?
It's quite obvious that it was just a catalyst in a developing situation- don't flog it to death!

What we are seeing here is the first possibility for some of you to consider that there are 2 sides to every story. HF in disagreements like this is not usually a solo developing process. There was a situation that he felt needed handling with some urgency. Whether you agree with that is immaterial- at the end of the day, it is an internal United process of no business of any interferers. Perhaps we could all review our tendency to leap to instant judgements over a keyboard and loudly trumpet them. The forest of 'thumbs-down; signals here were blinding, but now we hear the gladiator who was condemned to instant dispatch may have a side to his story.......like your own Rainboe was trying to say all along.

He may still be judged wrong, in which case he will go with a monumental settlement. He really has done nothing 'wrong'. It may be judged 'not the best course of events', but that is sub-judice now. The reason I made 42 posts in this thread (and counting) is that in all the howls of accusation, there was hardly anybody else talking of the possibility that just maybe, he had a case to make.

captjns

20th Aug 2009, 10:08

We were introduced to the situation after the movie started. This situation could have been festering for many months as they could have had many unpleasent experiences together. But alas... we'll never know. Oh well back to the soap operas.

Ancient Observer

20th Aug 2009, 11:08

Can't we close discussion on this until the United wheels have turned, and cityfan comes back to tell us the closing?

The whole thread was fast asleep until a couple of days ago.

SaturnV

20th Aug 2009, 11:25

Rainboe, "He may still be judged wrong, in which case he will go with a monumental settlement."

Is this suggesting he may be pensioned off?

He is type-rated for 727s, 747s, 757s, and 767s, among others, so almost certainly very senior at UAL.

Rainboe

20th Aug 2009, 12:44

I've no idea! Nobody knows how the internal procedure at United will work out. The case is not clear cut. The fact remains, he did nothing wrong. He was the commander of the aircraft and he took a safety decision. Not really a disciplinary offence such as misloading weights and tailstriking as happened to a sandpit crew. It seems to be a distinction that has passed some people by.

cessnapuppy

20th Aug 2009, 15:29

Can't we close discussion on this until the United wheels have turned, and cityfan comes back to tell us the closing? The whole thread was fast asleep until a couple of days ago. Then read it not, lest your eyes burst forth from their sockets on viewing this outrage, or your heart beat within your breast so fiercely that your blood foams frothily like the saliva of a RABID DOG (or as in this case, CAPTAIN/PURSER) :P

Union Jack

20th Aug 2009, 16:47

He is type-rated for 727s, 747s, 757s, and 767s, among others, so almost certainly very senior at UAL.

Saturn V - On a point of detail, and to avoid any Anti Airbus conspiracy claims, Cityfan said on another thread that he was posting "As a middle aged Captain, typed on the 737, 757, 767, and A320 family, plus a few thousands cycles in a 727...."

Absolutely no argument with the latter part of your quotation!:ok:

Jack

cityfan

20th Aug 2009, 17:06

MU3001A: Yes, that Captain was a female.

Les Shore: (last answer ;))Yes, it was the initial, completely disrespectful, response to the request for the GenDec that precipitated the entire event. Sadly, it is all too easy to believe what was said and done, being as it was a United flight. Had the initial response been more respectful and explanatory, things probably would have evolve very differently. Unfortunately, the response is one that is heard all too often at UAL, and this particular Captain tried to remind the Purser who was in charge, but the Purser was having none of it! Ergo, an incident that should have been avoided, but sadly could not be.

All: I will update this thread when I hear of the conclusion. Hopefully, it will not be too long, although for the Captain's sake, I hope he enjoys an extended summer break on the company's dime!

SaturnV

20th Aug 2009, 17:42

Union Jack, the certificate, assuming I read the correct certificate and I am quite sure the one I read fits, included type ratings for the 320, but not the 737. But as you said, a point of detail. The captain is a very experienced aviator.

p51guy

21st Aug 2009, 00:07

Some days flight attendants can puo as much as your wife can. We have all probably wanted to drop our wife off anywhere and drive home in peace. Maybe this gen dec thing was the last straw for him that night. By itself unlikely. Must have been something leading up to it. Some day we may know.

rmiller774

21st Aug 2009, 02:23

... an incident that should have been avoided but sadly could not be.

If the captain had been "cool" and simply flown on to Chicago wouldn't that have forestalled such a situation? Unfortunately this event developed into a real-life actual test of the captain's decision making under pressure and that is what UA and various authorities are now judging. I hope nobody gets marked up because I feel it wasn't that big a deal.

Michael Birbeck

21st Aug 2009, 02:41

and this particular Captain tried to remind the Purser who was in charge, but the Purser was having none of it! Ergo

If this was the case then surely the Captain was justified in taking the action that he did?

The principle or the point that he was reinforcing when he dropped this purser off was that you can only have one Captain on board for the good and safety of all.

I wish this Captain all the best for his future.

Was his decision the best course of action? No alternatives?

He certainly had other alternatives but one suspects that the incident may have been the final straw and that he purposely chose this course.

I know nothing about the culture at UA and my next proposal is a supposition.

If a situation pertained in the company where a senior pilot in that company felt that his position was being undermined by a culture of insubordination and lack of respect within that company then maybe he chose to confront that head on. Within that context I would say, within his own rights, this Captain made the most valid decision he could.

etrang

21st Aug 2009, 04:33

If this was the case then surely the Captain was justified in taking the action that he did?

If this was the case he was justified in disciplining or off-loading the person in question, but as captain he was also required to take into consideration the financial cost of the unscheduled landing and the inconvenience of the passengers. He had a responsability to consider alternative courses of action and to choose the best one.

Rainboe

21st Aug 2009, 08:09

He is evidently of the opinion he did!
If the captain had been "cool" and simply flown on to Chicago wouldn't that have forestalled such a situation?
So if there was virtual mutiny or complete disregard for the authority of the Captain, you are suggesting henceforth the Captain shuts up and just carries on, in all situations? He was the one on the ground, so to speak, and felt that dealing strongly with the situation was the best option.

Airlines have been turning a blind eye to this sort of situation developing amongst certain characters, and the captain's authority being significantly diminished. They had a responsibility to deal with it and they left it to the crews to handle as best they could. As a result, the CRM situation has at times developed into an ugly situation. This guy was left with the result. You can't make him captain, leave him totally responsible for everything to do with the flight, then start taking his authority away, brick by brick. He was well experienced, knew what he was doing, and presumably handling the situation the way he felt it needed handling. He got no patience from most of you here! But I assume there is a point to be made- the captain is responsible for the flight, only the captain is boss. When someone else starts disrespecting that authority, then it's time to hand the keys back and say 'you fly it then'. I suspect ALPA will be giving him full support. But how this has gone from being the actions of someone 'mental' (to some of you) to possibly having a justifiable basis. Nobody was exposed to any danger, the delay was insignificant. The situation was handled. It's up to United.

Nigd3

21st Aug 2009, 11:02

Rainboe

"The delay was insignificant" is not your call as you weren't inconvenienced and a subjective opinion anyway.

I agree he is within his rights to divert, now it is up to UAL and whether they also agree that his decision, as any decision, is justifiable.

Rainboe

21st Aug 2009, 11:15

It was his call! And he, being commander, made it, as he had every legal right to do so. So, I repeat, despite it 'not being my call':
Nobody was exposed to any danger, the delay was insignificant. The situation was handled. It's up to United.

Nigd3

21st Aug 2009, 11:22

Legal right does not mean the best/most sensible course of action.

As you say and I also agree with, it is now up to UAL to decide.

SaturnV

21st Aug 2009, 13:46

The captain was recently victimized and harassed by United [management, presumably]. [cityfan's account, favorable to the captain]

On returning to flight status from a medical leave of several months, apparently for a knee operation, the captain encounters a purser who does not promptly provide him a requested customs document. [account(s) favorable to the purser]

This then escalates into further disrespect of the captain's authority, including insubordination, by the purser and perhaps other members of the cabin crew [cityfan's account].

At some point in this incident, the captain hears the purser threaten to tamper with his crew meal. [cityfan's account, stating that the captain heard this "first-hand"; i.e., the captain directly hears the purser make such a threat].

Cityfan then hypothesizes that perhaps the captain felt the purser and perhaps other cabin crew members knew of his having been recently victimized and harassed by United, and were now deliberately engaging in disrespectful and insubordinate conduct to see what might happen.

Given at least one action done by the purser that was not to the captain's liking (purser's account) and several actions of insubordination and one threat (cityfan's account) the captain chooses to divert the flight to Miami, and off-load the purser.

At the gate, the purser is met by police with guns drawn. and questioned. The captain is also questioned, and allegedy describes the purser as a 'terrorist'. [purser's account]

The flight is soon released by United dispatch (on the ground at Miami for about an hour) and continues to its original destination, Chicago. Authorities at Miami airport quickly let the purser go on her way, and United puts her on the next available (non-United) flight to Chicago. [purser's account].

There is a disconnect in the above narrative, and it is this:

If the purser represented such a threat to the continued safe operation of the flight (after all, she allegedly threatened to tamper with his meal, presumably for the purpose of incapacitating him in some way), then the flight should not have been released by United; the purser should have been taken into custody for further questioning; and the authorities in Miami should have taken statements from the captain and all other members of the crew with respect to the purser's conduct, with the idea of possibly prosecuting her. The taking of the statements would have delayed dispatch of the flight by some hours, quite possibly requiring United to fly in a new crew to fly the plane to Chicago.

"Section 46504 of Title 49, United States Code (formerly section 1472(j) of Title 49 Appendix) sets forth the offense of interference with a flight crew member or flight attendant within the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States, which is defined in 49 U.S.C. § 46501(2). The statute applies to any "individual on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance of the duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties." The statute provides for up to 20 years imprisonment, and further provides for imprisonment for any term of years or life if a dangerous weapon is used. Interference with a flight crew member or attendant is a general intent crime, and does not require a specific intent either to intimidate the flight crew member or attendant or to interfere with the performance of his or her duties."
Instructions to U.S. Attorneys by the Department of Justice.

cessnapuppy

21st Aug 2009, 14:54

There is no "disconnect" and you are applying binary (on/off, yes/no) rules and logic to a totally analogue situation 1. "Threat to Captains meal" top of scale: "I am -at a time of my choosing, perhaps even now, introduce something to your meal that may cause you incapacitating harm or even death" Lower end of scale: Tone of voice. "I prepare the meal,sight unseen, that YOU eat" A bland statement of fact? yes. also a threat? perhaps - In context, I would say yes. Power to arrest or detain. This is not binary.. this is totally analogue. In all jurisdictions of the United States, you can be taken into full custodial arrest for ANY traffic infraction. The officer has discretionary powers to cite, ticket or arrest. Similarly, in many cases after aresst, the judge/magistrate has the ability to set bail at various levels or even NO BAIL (release on own recognizance ) Binary: viewed in absolute terms either one way or another. A threat to poison or tamper with food is a terrorist threat. It introduces terror/fear not only in meals not eaten but food eaten prior. Many times, police, customs, different LEO ( Law Enforcement Organizations) give jurisdictional deference to certain things, for instance the police may say, "this is not our dispute, its a 'civil matter'...or..'this is an internal airline disciplinary matter' oft because they cant be arsed to take up a long laborious paper work exercise . Your first flaw is "If the purser represented such a threat to the continued safe operation of the flight (after all, she allegedly threatened to tamper with his meal, presumably for the purpose of incapacitating him in some way), then the flight should not have been released by United;" .. the purser was already evicted in MIA so she was no longer an issue. Cityfan then hypothesizes that perhaps the captain felt the purser and perhaps other cabin crew members knew of his having been recently victimized and harassed by United, and were now deliberately engaging in disrespectful and insubordinate conduct to see what might happen. I dont believe Cityfan alleges that particular chain of events. However, I read his posts, so I may have a different perspective. Captain: "Prepare the passengers for a crash landing" CC: "Why?" Captain: excuse me? CC: "I was already back there,giving them meals Why go all the way back there? cant you just turn on the Seat Belt Sign?" Captain:We ingested two birds and... CC: "wont be the first time you 'ingested two birds" what is that,some kind of sexual reference?? I'm all over you Mr Capitan (no pn intended) I'll be writing a complaint to HR as soon as we land, in fact, now! (reaches over and grabs pen out of captain's shirt pocket) ELECTRONIC VOICE: TERRAIN -PULL UP ....weeks later Puzzled NTSB investigator: "Cant figure out this last remark: 'How did you like that 'mayonnaise', sir?? :)

BOAC

21st Aug 2009, 16:34

Ah well - since the usual protagonists are all intent on dragging this out, I'll have another go!

1) I have applied 'Occam's Razor' to 'cityfan' and his posts - I'm sure you can all work that out for yourselves.

2) IF, as stated by CF, there was an overheard threat to 'interfere with crew food', surely commonsense dictates that it would not be prudent to continue the flight from MIA in case said purser (the 'terrorist'?) HAD interfered with the crew provisions - as Saturn says?

3)At one point it looked as if we were getting some facts and then it turned out that the (newly registered) poster who claimed to be a F/A on the flight and claimed to be giving the 'facts' was (ab)using PPRuNe to pursue a grudge against the captain. :rolleyes: - and what does the helicopter pilot construe from cityfan's arrival on the scene?

SaturnV

21st Aug 2009, 16:53

cessnapuppy, I'll put aside a tangential romp in the realm of American jurisprudence.

cityfan, who appears to have great knowledge of the whole affair from the captain's perspective, categorizes United's investigation as a "flight safety" investigation.

cityfan also states that if it had been him, he might have had the purser arrested in Miami for interference with the crew. And cityfan also posits that after the diversion to Miami was made known, the purser "DEFINITELY DID interfere with the crew".

So, IMO, from the captain's standpoint, the situation on board had deteriorated to the extent that, in his judgment, flight safety was being compromised or potentially compromised, and a diversion to Miami was necessary and appropriate. That is the crux of the issue, and presumably the focus of United's investigation. There is little disagreeing that the captain had the authority to do what he did, and the issue seems to be whether he had a well-founded basis (flight safety) for exercising that authority.

SaturnV

21st Aug 2009, 17:20

BOAC and captins, a United pilot posted in another forum around the end of July that the story going around United operations was that the purser had allegedly threatened to tamper with the crew meal, and this pilot suggested that such a threat would make a decision to divert perhaps more understandable.

I surmised that the captain sitting in the cockpit had heard of the threat either second or thirdhand, but cityfan corrected my erroneous presumption by stating the captain knew firsthand. So either the purser told him directly that she was considering/planning doing this, or he was present within earshot when she voiced the threat.

Whether the captain repeated the tampering threat to the authorities at the gate in Miami, or discussed it with dispatch has not been made public. But if he had done either, one would think the purser would not have so quickly been sent on her way by the authorities and United both.

Les Shore

21st Aug 2009, 20:51

Since the threat to food has become a key aspect of this discussion and has been posed an understandable rationale for the Captain's unusual action, the following may be useful since eye drops are considered to be a likely source of food contamination. (Yes, Rainboe it was an unusual action because no other Captain has come forward to say he/she ever had to undertake this type of diversion (cost estimate roughly $10,000) to deal with an unruly crew member. In fact several have said they haven't ever heard of a fellow Captain doing so.)
While the side effects of ingesting eye drops may be dire, one of them is not a bout of diarrhea.... according to the myth busting site |Snopes.com However. Drinking or otherwise taking eye drops (active ingredient tetrahydrozoline) internally can lead to blurred vision, low body temperature, an elevated then sharply dropped blood pressure, nausea and vomiting. If enough has been ingested, the person can experience seizures, tremors or even slip into a coma. Anyone who would even consider doing this to someone else, especially someone entrusted with their safety, is an absolute idiot.

Those who have supposedly suffered the runs from eyedrops and see this as confirmation of food tampering as a regular occurance may have to consider another cause.

Carbon Bootprint

21st Aug 2009, 23:09

Those who have supposedly suffered the runs from eyedrops and see this as confirmation of food tampering as a regular occurance may have to consider another cause.Les, yesterday I went to the Snopes site and saw the same thing. Yes, Snopes says the reports that Visine (the brand cited, as others aren't mentioned and perhaps some ingredients vary) causes diahrrea are false.

However, as the remainder of your post shows, the results of ingesting Visine can be dire. Idiot or not, any threat that someone might resort to such trickery should not be taken lightly. :=

PA-28-180

22nd Aug 2009, 02:07

First, as a medic, I totally agree with the above 2 posts regarding the ingestion of Visine, or other eye drops containing these medications and it's effects. Without naming them, there are many different substances that can cause the 'squirts'....but this ain't one of them. :eek:

Second, as to why the purser was not held and was quickly flown out of KMIA....as has been previously stated, this is an IN HOUSE issue at UAL - and more importantly, it's a safety of flight issue. Perhaps UAL was trying to KEEP this in house and behind closed doors and LIMIT the amount of PR damage it would cause - not to mention possibly trying to keep the information/evidence surrounding this incident 'sterile' so as to protect BOTH sides of the issue. Unfortunately, the horse had already bolted on the purser side of the story. In many companies I've worked for, releasing confidential information - ESPECIALLY information relating to HR issues - is grounds for immediate termination! :mad:

Just my 2 cents!

Les Shore

22nd Aug 2009, 02:44

Carbon Bootprint, no disagreement. The more people who know about how serious this could be, the better.

For those who believe this practice happens regularly and point to their own trips to the bathroom as "proof", that isn't the case.That gives me hope there are fewer nutters out there than some would think. Saying that, if someone is stupid enough to make that kind of threat, it is a serious matter and that person should be permanently removed from any position of responsibility.An FA who would do this has clearly lost it just as much as a Captain who would divert without a legitimate safety concern. In this event, at least one person had a brain freeze.

rmiller774

22nd Aug 2009, 03:30

cityfan: Your comments in your post # 595 make it sound as if you were there on the aircraft hearing the conversations between the captain and the FA. And in that same post you say "Please do not fixate on HOW I know what happened, but rest assured it is true". That's nice but anyone reading your posts would place more weight in what you say if you could offer a further peek into how you know what words were exchanged on the aircraft. An earlier poster asked this same general question but your answer seemed vague to me. You admit that you are supporting the captain and thus have "taken sides". Therefore you should be more open about how you "know" what happened.

A good start would be for you to answer this specific question: Were you on the aircraft? Your answer will help much in evaluating your comments.

Les Shore

22nd Aug 2009, 04:27

Rmiller774

To be fair, cityfan is caught between a rock and a hard place. He can't confirm that he was on the scene because to do so would get him in hot water with UAL. It is understandable that they would have put crew under a gag order. If he says he wasn't at the scene, we'll pounce on him like vultures.:D

overthewing

22nd Aug 2009, 10:28

It would certainly be interesting to know if Cityfan is flight crew or cabin crew.

Michael Birbeck

22nd Aug 2009, 10:41

I think the most concerning point to have come out of this whole thread is the suspicion of a well respected PPRuNe commentator and Captain that he has had his food knobbled.

The implications for airline transport safety inherent in the validity of these comments is serious indeed.

If the general tenor of this thread is correct then CRM appears to be in tatters in some airlines and even parts of the world. Is this really true?

BOAC

22nd Aug 2009, 10:45

MB - if it puts your mind at rest, I have flown in the same two airlines and it never happened to me. It is a rare event indeed.

cessnapuppy

22nd Aug 2009, 14:51

Because my ex wife was cabin crew I used to hang around a LOT of them. Let me tell you, hearing them discuss pilots they l didn't like made me sure not want to raise their ire! lol Sometimes we tend to forget the power of a woman (who never forgets) surrounded by shrewish mates. I'm not even agreeing with CityFan (whom for all his balanced 'other side' seems to me the vinyl record that has 'BasedonFacts' on the other side :) Here's some of the stuff thats recounted to me - (truly bizarre passive agressive sh*it) 1. hold a document ever so slightly out of reach. 2. Look to the FO (or anyone else) right after he gave a direction (as if, is it ok to follow that particular order? ok? well all right then, I'll go do it! :) little things that if you were to report it yourself, you'd look like an incredibly petty fool. Having been in 'Harms Way' and being taken in harms way under leadership of others, I can tell you that 'safety issues' are more than one particular patrol or flight. Perhaps he didnt have to divert - perhaps she WASTNT going to go total 'bat*****" on THIS particular flight. But a bitter corrosive force doesnt cut cleanly, rather it eats away and rots what it comes into contact with. The issue wastnt the 'Gendecs' despite CityFans comments to the contrary. A legitimate, legal order from a PIC is to be followed. Period. 2nd guessing is to be done on the ground. When you run YOUR cabin, and command YOUR staff, you perhaps think it's YOUR airplane, the same way my dog takes ME for a walk! Was the Captain, 'over the top' ? perhaps. But sight unseen, unmet, I am going to trust his judgment. I firmly believe that his action taken is not just to be viewed in the context of this one flight but of future flights not yet taken. If there is a CRM issue a simmering, then he has brought it to a boil - perhaps to force reluctant cooks to look into the pot!

Rananim

22nd Aug 2009, 16:54

I would definitely revise my initial take on this if:
i)Purser made a threat to tamper with a crew meal
ii)Purser referred to the remaining FA's as "her" crew
iii)Purser tried to interfere with the chain-of-command(ie,refused a reasonable order/refused to stand down/attempted to take "her" crew with her at MIA)
Like many,I may have rushed to judgement.I saw it as a simple spat that escalated unnecessarily.If theres any truth to (i),(ii) or (iii) then I would say he was justified in removing her asap,except for (ii) alone in which case the CA should give her every opportunity to retract.If she doesnt retract,then it would require a stand-down and if that failed,a diversion would be justified.Diversion for mutiny(direct or indirect)is of course justifiable.If (i) is true,then legally it could be labelled a "terrorist" act and perhaps that explains why the FAA havent tried anything because they know "legally" he may well have been right to characterize her actions as "terrorism".But how do you prove something like that?Theres the rub.You'd need it on tape or a corroborating witness.Very difficult.

Les Shore

22nd Aug 2009, 17:22

It would certainly be interesting to know if Cityfan is flight crew or cabin crew.Overthewing, you have to reread cityfan's posts. Among other things he said.
I remember, early days on the 727 (a notoriously difficult, swept wing aircraft to land IMHO), I lowered a runway by at least a foot and possibly more. As we taxied in, I remarked to the Captain that I had better stand at the cockpit door and apologize for that.

TWT

22nd Aug 2009, 18:01

Cityfan's profile says he/she is a Captain at a US major

overthewing

22nd Aug 2009, 18:16

Cityfan's profile says he/she is a Captain at a US major

So...one of the F/Os? Or the Captain himself?

Otherwise, what he says is just as much hearsay as Basedonfacts'.

SaturnV

22nd Aug 2009, 18:19

TWT, I'll even speculate further that cityfan is ex PanAm, and learned his spelling on the other side of the pond.

Will Fraser

22nd Aug 2009, 19:25

cityfan could well be x-PA. The eighties were tumultuous times, with the strike, esop. and absorbing Pan American pilots, all of whom were (and are) great people. The equipment, not so much.

MU3001A

22nd Aug 2009, 19:26

That would explain his screen name too, not a Busby babes fan.

Cacophonix

22nd Aug 2009, 19:36

By demanding the crew decs at an inappropriate time, when he new the cabin crew would be busy with service he managed to provoke the reaction he wanted and made the best of the FA's tardy response to press home his advantage, calling her to the cockpit for a little chat

Like this guy didn't just have a couple of other things to do. He was flying a commercial airliner for goodness sake!

If he wanted to provoke a confrontation, why didn't he just do it at a crew layover or stop?

Do you think he was stupid enough to risk his career by going to these kinds of lengths in mid air?

You don't make it to senior airline Captain by being the kind of kook you are trying to make this guy out to be!

MU3001A

22nd Aug 2009, 19:53

Cacophonix

22nd Aug 2009, 20:01

Well if you have a better explanation of how a simple request for a set of unimportant documents became the catalyst for a confrontation which spiraled out of control leading to a diversion solely to offload a crew member, then have at it.

The guy's position was being subverted within his company, maybe a whispering campaign (hang over from previous industrial unrest... who knows).

An uppity purser provokes an outbreak of insubordination amongst the CC and things come to a head, ultimately by chance, over the Gendecs.

The Captain decides enough is enough and takes a perfectly legitimate course of action and removes the ring leader.

Command decision made.

Job done!

MU3001A

22nd Aug 2009, 20:16

I don't believe things came to a head by chance, it smells of having been engineered. A put up job, designed to allow the captain to exercise his authority over the purser in the most prejudicial manner available to him. Either that or he simply lost his cool over something totally inconsequential and things escalated from there. Take your pick.

One Outsider

22nd Aug 2009, 20:40

That chip really is weighing you down. Not a particularly attractive trait to put on display.

Les Shore

22nd Aug 2009, 20:52

The guy's position was being subverted within his company, maybe a whispering campaign (hang over from previous industrial unrest... who knows).Possibly, but the allegation that he was a scab was refuted on another website--a poster said it was confusion of two names.
You don't make it to senior airline Captain by being the kind of kook you are trying to make this guy out to be! True! What initially gave this story legs. was that given the limited and sketchy details first presented, kookiness, really bad decision making or an out of control ego seemed like possibilities. To think that an airline Captain would suffer from any of those conditions is what many find disturbing. We now have totally opposite accounts and perspectives given by two people claiming to have been on the scene.
Either that or he simply lost his cool over something totally inconsequential and things escalated from there I don't agree that the threat to the Captain's food or a staff mutiny was inconsequential!Was there a better way to handle the situation? Possibly but maybe not, depending on the specific circumstances. And those we'll probably never know.

cessnapuppy

22nd Aug 2009, 22:03

The guy's position was being subverted within his company, maybe a whispering campaign (hang over from previous industrial unrest... who knows). -------------- Possibly, but the allegation that he was a scab was refuted on another website--a poster said it was confusion of two names. True, but in a (deleted) post from BasedOnFacts, the same 'scab' allegation was raised - which points to me that it's not material if he (the captain) was or was not a scab, only that people could have thought and acted as if he was (which we know to be true) I don't believe things came to a head by chance, it smells of having been engineered. A put up job, designed to allow the captain.. Then it seems, you ultimately agree with me when I say the Gendecs themselves could not have been the trigger for the incident (the pretext perhaps - but not the trigger) Knowing that he is dealing with a shrewish Katherine*, he cunningly asks for some trivial document (the gendecs) at a time less than conducive to her schedule , but legally appropriate for him to request. Her expected 'creative interpretation' of his direct request (and the possible safety implication of sliding a piece of paper under a door - where others could slip and fall by stepping on it) would give him a further justification to give her a stern talking to, her blood already at a boil (and the meal service nigh) her sharpened tongue (already laden with bitter entreaties) would easily let loose a threat - one directly actionable with a response, vs her usual snide, sotto voce derisions aimed at and oft heard only by HIM! This is truly a brain of Machiavellian schemes and cunning! *See Taming of the Shrew I have no doubt we will hear the end of this - we didnt expect CityFan but he arrived unbidden, the truth has a way of finding its way, as they say :D till then, lets rechew these tidbits like cows (or even worse,like rabbits)

MU3001A

23rd Aug 2009, 01:51

Les Shore: I don't agree that the threat to the Captain's food or a staff mutiny was inconsequential!

The threat to his food/mutiny, if there was any. Occurred after the incident with the crew decs, not before.

p51guy

23rd Aug 2009, 01:59

nobody know what happened. Lets wait til the captain makes his report. If the FA made a comment about contaminating his food or drink the result is obvious.

DownIn3Green

23rd Aug 2009, 21:30

nambiFox is right on target...as is 411A...IMHO...period...

SaturnV

24th Aug 2009, 00:27

Accepting cityfan's statement that United's investigation is a flight safety investigation, the principal parties (through their proxies) have raised three situations where flight safety could have been compromised:

a.) the purser asserting that providing the captain with the customs declaration document when he sought it would have violated security protocols re: door coverage;

b.) the captain asserting he directly heard the purser threatening to tamper with the crew meal;

c.) the captain asserting that the purser (and perhaps other cabin crew) was insubordinate.

With regard to c.) its unclear why the captain would think the safety of the flight would be more compromised by continuing to its scheduled destination of Chicago, rather than by first diverting to Miami. (cityfan asserts that once the captain announced the diversion, the purser deliberately interfered with the safety of the flight, but that occurs after the diversion decision was made.)

so for the moment, IMO, its a.) vs, b.)

And FWIW, the captain has been a long-time contributor to ALPA's PAC.

based on facts

28th Nov 2009, 03:21

Well, here it is, almost into December 2009 and the captain in question in this thread of July 2009, has never been returned to flying for United Airlines (and never will :D) yet this Purser that many of you were so sure had caused a problem is flying to her hearts content. She has had and continues to have all of her crews support...especially the cockpit. So for those of you who posess the "know it all attitudes, as an authority on the situation or claim you were there," can all start removing your foot from your mouths. The facts speak the truth...you on the other hand were/are only making suppositions and, you are and were wrong, regardless of what you have posted or I'm sure will post. The purser will continue to enjoy her holidays while the captain will be on the unemployment line...as he should be. What really boggles the mind, is that, those aforementioned, just can't grasp that this captain was grossly flawed in his actions....yes, I said it...a captain was wrong...oh my God...any of you having chest pain? It's a new world out there guys. Captains aren't given respect just because they are a "captain." They have to earn it...the "left seat" doesn't guarantee it any longer, just as someone who is a physician doesn't automatically have respect. They too, must earn respect over time. Many people have important jobs and they have to earn respect everyday. Ya know, I'd think some of you must become frightfully tired with the effort of, not only putting yourself so high on your pedestal but keeping yourself there.

411A

28th Nov 2009, 05:43

Ya know, I'd think some of you must become frightfully tired with the effort of, not only putting yourself so high on your pedestal but keeping yourself there.

Gosh, the attitude displayed above is bizarre.
In my airline, the Captain absolutely rules, make no mistake.
IF I say the purser is 'gone'...the purser remains gone, never to return.
And, the company management backs me up every time.

UAL...to be avoided.
Especially, if the above referenced post is indicative of the trolly-dolly limp-wristed attitudes of CC folks that are in the employ of said aircarrier:}

stilton

28th Nov 2009, 05:56

You've been waiting all this time to let us know this Captain has not returned to flying yet and you think this proves something ?

There are many potential reasons he has not returned to the Cockpit yet and I doubt you are in on them.

'Based on facts' seems an odd moniker for someone who provides none.

merlinxx

28th Nov 2009, 06:10

The Captain is The Captain:ok: You respect the uniform and rank, you don't have to respect the person wearing said uniform displaying that rank:ugh:

A personality clash is just that:suspect: The Purser/IFD etc., is part of the crew under the Captain's authority:ok:, the Captain is the head of that crew, the senior Cabin Crew member only assumes full authority in an emergency once the aircraft has come to a full stop, when the Captain relinquishes authority to the senior cabin crew member to evac the the pax.

You sound like a very twisted cabin crew member to me, and to most others, I'm glad I've never come across this attitude in all my years in the industry.

captjns

28th Nov 2009, 07:30

Perhaps the captain would still be flying today if he exercised better judgement by requesting administration to be present upon arrival into ORD. Oh well… must have been the pain killers.

L337

28th Nov 2009, 08:01

based on facts:

Your post tells us allot about you, and nothing about anything else.

cityfan

28th Nov 2009, 09:07

Well, here it is, almost into December 2009 and the captain in question in this thread of July 2009, has never been returned to flying for United Airlines (and never will )

How VERY silly of you. And you KNOW "based on the facts" that he will never return to flying for UAL? Well, let me tell you the FACTS....he will either walk away with AT LEAST SEVEN FIGURES or he will return to the cockpit within 90 days...FACT!

yet this Purser that many of you were so sure had caused a problem is flying to her hearts content. She has had and continues to have all of her crews support...especially the cockpit.

Yes, because SHE does not have ANY authority, so has no case to answer for exercising same. As for the "support" you suggest, where was it the might of the incident when she extolled ALL the FAs to disembark with her?!

So for those of you who posess the "know it all attitudes, as an authority on the situation or claim you were there," can all start removing your foot from your mouths. The facts speak the truth...you on the other hand were/are only making suppositions and, you are and were wrong, regardless of what you have posted or I'm sure will post.

Au contraire. I would politely suggest that you are taking the fact that SHE is working and that he is not as evidence of something OTHER THAN the facts of the situation. As has been said MANY TIMES HERE, there are certain "issues" the company has with this GOOD UNION MAN....most of which have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the incident....which, if YOU were "in the know" would already know!

The purser will continue to enjoy her holidays while the captain will be on the unemployment line...as he should be.

AND THERE IT IS! Judge, jury and executioner....all in the form of a bitter FA who forgot to check the "PILOT" box on the application and is now distraught over being a servant, err, I mean "safety professional."

What really boggles the mind, is that, those aforementioned, just can't grasp that this captain was grossly flawed in his actions....yes, I said it...a captain was wrong...oh my God...any of you having chest pain?

Right, wrong, lack of judgment in exercising authority/responsibility or not, YOUR complete lack of professionalism is clearly saying volumes about you...as is

It's a new world out there guys.

Sexist!

Captains aren't given respect just because they are a "captain."

Again, you are mistaking your disdain for legal standing. Did you miss the first day of CLR? Just in case you did, the FIRST THING THAT WAS SAID...AND WRITTEN... is "The Captain Is In Charge." Or simply read your FAOM!!!

As for respect, as a FA, what would you know about it? Why is it that when things get too hot for FAs to handle, they come to the Flight Crew? Must be because they are big strong fellows....or COULD it be that CAPTAINS HAVE ALL THE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO DO AS THEY PLEASE, BECAUSE THEY ARE THE LAW AT 35,000 FEET?!

They have to earn it

They already did, most over a 20+ career and thousands of hours of doing what escapes you!

...the "left seat" doesn't guarantee it any longer, just as someone who is a physician doesn't automatically have respect. They too, must earn respect over time. Many people have important jobs and they have to earn respect everyday. Ya know, I'd think some of you must become frightfully tired with the effort of, not only putting yourself so high on your pedestal but keeping yourself there.

And THIS is the mindset that is killing airlines like United Airlines. Somehow, somewhere along the way, Flight Attendants FORGOT who they are and what they are. Sure, you know how to shout a few commands and open a few doors..BFD! How many times in a career do you do that?! So, what is it that you DO ACTUALLY DO? Ah, yes..."chicken or beef?" "More tea, sir?"

The Captain in question was asked, as part of the aftermath to the safety investigation do what UAL calls "a psychological evaluation." As I have said, he is a high profile union man and UAL, which sued ALPA in 2008 (and he may have been one of the people under scrutiny during that period), has sought to lay the groundwork for future action, should it be warranted.

Having filed the required Flight Safety paperwork, he CANNOT be fired for this event. However, as stated above, he has recently had surgery, is concluding his company mandated evaluations and is about to enjoy a nice Christmas and New Year at home, with full pay and a return to service after a routine, required Sim Check in the new year.

So, you have your details. The company is after him, for reasons OTHER THAN this event. The FA in question was returned to service, as usual, because without proof that she followed through with her threat, and because the threat was NOT said directly to the Captain, but THROUGH a First Officer, it ended up being a "he said, she said." For those of you who do not live in the USA, that means an almost certain lawsuit if the company did what they SHOULD have done, fire the mutinous FA! Did I mention it was a "she"? And I will leave race out of it!:=

'Nuff said or is it?...............

HERE IS A PRIVATE MESSAGE I RECEIVED, COMPLETELY UNSOLICITED YESTERDAY ABOUT THIS INCIDENT. AS YOU MIGHT NOTICE, THERE IS MORE THAN A LITTLE "THREATENING" LANGUAGE IN HERE, WHICH SEEMS TO BE THE NORM WITH UAL FAS THESE DAYS...MUST BE THAT LACK OF RESPECT THING THEY HAVE GOING FOR THEM..

FOR ALL TO SEE:

United diverts to MIA
City Fan,
You might be fooling some of the people in this thread but not me. I was there...you weren't. The Gen Decs had been completed and passed to cockpit approx. 12 minutes after take off. In your post, I read that the Gen Decs started the entire incident...how wrong you were. You led everyone to believe that you know the truth and that I do not...we both know you're full of **** and a liar. Now, should you actually be the captain from this flight...you're still full of ****, a liar and out of a job and we at United are thrilled you're gone...you are a dangerous pilot.

If you post anymore "stories" leading readers to think you were there and know what happened first hand, there are eleven fight attendants and a First Officer that are just waiting to pounce on you and show everyone that you have NO clue what took place....we do!!! Make this email public if you chose...makes no difference to me...or are you embarrassed to do it? I'd be VERY embarrassed if I were you.

Based on Facts

As you can see, "Based On Feces," I am nether embarrassed nor afraid of your stupidity or threats. As for pouncing on me, I would prefer you save that for your layovers with your "buddy bidder." (That IS why you fly those flights to South America, right?) What gave you the impression that I was your bitch?! Or would act like it here?!

Hate to tell you, but I am not exactly quaking in my boots from keyboard cowards like you, who threaten people in Private Messages. YOU can say whatever YOU want. Unless you were the purser, then EVERYTHING YOU THINK YOU KNOW IS SECONDHAND CYA AT BEST! AND, if you thought it was all so cut and dried, what is YOUR reason for not leaving with the Purser in MIA? You could be a hero with your buddies if you had done that, couldn't you? Oh wait, it would be YOU on the unemployment line, right? Tough market for someone with "coffee, tea, or me?" skills, isn't it?!

Sorry, but you picked the wrong person to TRY and intimidate, you silly little person.

Rainboe

28th Nov 2009, 09:14

I think 'Based of Facts' needs therapy. He needs to know without the full 'facts' little can be gleaned from the apparent outcome. It could well be that the Captain can no longer stand flying with such hysterical juniors in the cabin and has taken what we call 'the Kings Shilling' and departed for a well earned (and subsidised) retirement.

Altogether, less hysteria was needed about this. Lessons to be learned? Respect for authority and chain of command. Less desire to erect inter-crew walls. A united approach to the task. But don't worry, I've seen similar in another Big Airline with the same colours.

I still feel immensely sorry for the captain. Trying to fly safely at 500kts with a nest of vipers under your feet is exceedingly hard! Maybe he just had enough of their nauseating attitudes! Certainly we have it in full display here.

The_Steed

28th Nov 2009, 10:47

You beat me to it Rainboe - Although I work in IT and not aviation, the principle is the same in that we have both gone through training to be able to fly the plane/ fix the PC. Being told forcefully by people with a limited knowledge how I should be doing my job all the time is enough to have made me say 'gtf' to some previous employers!

411A

28th Nov 2009, 13:05

...nest of vipers

Hmmm, I had one of those only one time.
I turfed the lot off (except the purser, who was just fine) at base and asked for the standby crew.
The fleet manager said 'well done' and the offending CC received don't come Monday letters, pronto.

based on facts

28th Nov 2009, 19:24

City Fan, you and your cronies are SUCH entertainment!! I knew that the posting from last pm would produce a hail storm of entertainment and I was so right. The thread had been dead for so long, it sure doesn't take much to get all of the "big, self important men to get so puffed up." Don't worry boys...you're ALL pretty! Thank you for the laughs.

You mentioned several items that I will address as you are off track as usual...

1)You mentioned some blather about missing the first day of CLR...maybe had the captain utilized that valuable tool...he would be flying and not incurring the ire of his colleagues and this whole situation would not have taken place. Guess he must have missed the entire course.

2) NO threat in any way shape or form was made to/about the captain. The rumor of food tampering is just that...rumor. Knowing the Purser, I do know,there is no death wish there. The capt. is flying the ******* plane for God sake...think about it!!

3) No one to my knowledge has EVER said a capt. is not in command. It has been said, and rightfully so, it's the RESPECT that is earned, authority has never been questioned.

4) The Purser was not "returned to service." The Purser never left.

5) No one cares if he walks away with a sizeable amount of money, as a domestic captain said last week..."just as long as he walks away...there is no amount of money you can place on a life."

6) As far as why we, the fellow F/A's did NOT deplane with the Purser?...we were asked by the Purser to remain with the plane and get psgrs. to Chicago as they had already been flying for hours. The Purser seemed to be the only one who cared about the people who pay our salaries. When we said we didn't feeel safe with the capt., the Purser said, of course we could deplane, but if there was any way we could possibly get the plane and passengers to Chicago, please do but our decision would be supported whatever we chose. FYI: if ANY crew member does not feel safe at any point we are free to refuse to fly and there are NO negative repercussions. SAFETY comes first and foremost at United Airlines!

7) The masss majority of our pilots, regradless of seat they occupy, are just amazed that the 2 Frst Officers onboard continued to fly with the captain. They would not have!

So, you see...you need to get your facts straight. Yes, these entries have been written with facts AND yes, some emotion esp. after reading from "arm chair" persons that were not there and do not know the facts....just as yourself, little man. Don't fear...I'm sure you're pretty too.

Mr Optimistic

28th Nov 2009, 20:23

What ? Did UAL's 'diversity' policy get out of hand to the extent that good looking individualism is more valued than obedience and service ?

DownIn3Green

28th Nov 2009, 20:58

Maybe "Just The Farce" is living in one of "those" states where public displays of affection are legalized...

I've had many F/A's on my flights who suscribed to the "alternate" lifestyle, and never had a problem....However, I don't think I've ever met a crewmember on my airplane who is so "outgoing"....

Even the US Military has the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy...Maybe "Just the Farce" should consider what his "bidding buddy" is making him type on the Prune before he pushes the send key...

based on facts

28th Nov 2009, 23:18

Are you people THAT dense??? The "Pretty" comment is nothing more than pure, unadulterated sacrcasm for the tight ass men who spout so many opinions without the FACTS... Call me whatever you wish...like I care??? I do , however; KNOW what happened...you don't. I enjoyed sharing the FACTS but you chose to take what you wanted and add your two cents so it made sense to you. The whole problem with this pilot is,...what he did DOESN'T make sense...that's why FAA is going after him with everything they have. Is it THAT hard for ANY of you to believe that one of your own actually used poor judgement? It's that kind of thinking that makes some of you dangerous. If ANY of you say, "I've never used poor judgement" it either makes you a fool or dangerous or a dangerous fool. It's unfortunate but EVERYONE at some point screws up...face it. If you recall 2 Northwest Pilots screwed up...they were so busy on personal issues, they forgot to land!! Now, are you going to argue, speculate and defend that captain and co-pilot??? Geeze...sounds like the captain MADE A MISTAKE.... Does he have my respect because he wears a uniform and sits in the left seat??? Hell no!!! Hasn't and NEVER will earn it. OK...for all of you "know it all's, I'm the captain and what I say is law..." hate to break it to you, you're human like the rest of us.

cessnapuppy

29th Nov 2009, 00:11

[quote=Does he have my respect because he wears a uniform and sits in the left seat??? Hell no!!! Hasn't and NEVER will earn it. OK...for all of you "know it all's, I'm the captain and what I say is law..." hate to break it to you, you're human like the rest of us[/quote]

Wow. Is every venue and moment in life to be some great parliament democracy demanding a vote or some kind of communal mob consensus?

If I am a passenger on an aircraft, YOU are immediately afforded some respect SOLELY DUE TO YOUR UNIFORM and the fact that United put you in the position that you have! I do this and provide this respect immediately and not at the end of several flights where I judge your mettle and decide that you are worthy.

It is obvious, despite your posting of what may or may not be 'inside information' that you are not flight crew at United or ANY AIRLINE nor even a passenger on that particular flight!

In fact, If you exhibit the same 'vibe' in person as you do in your posts, I am really doubtful you would have made it past screening!

(arent you on a 'dont fly list' somewhere?? :p)

Cacophonix

29th Nov 2009, 00:15

Well in the new spirit of our times, I really do hope the chief pursar can fly a NDB approach at minimums to land. Coffee and a good feeling will, obviously, not be optional!

I wish this Captain the best!

based on facts

29th Nov 2009, 00:26

namibfox, it's not the job of a Purser to take off, fly or land an aircraft...that's for the pilots...fyi

based on facts

29th Nov 2009, 00:45

My "beef?" Many on this thread seem to believe that the Purser without a doubt is at fault and the captain is right...NO MATTER THE CIRCUMSTANCES!! If the situation were reversed...I'd defend the one that was wronged, but I get quite weary of person's "KNOWING WITHOUT A DOUBT" that the Purser was in the wrong and the almighty captain is above reproach...in this situation, this is not the case. While the Purser is not allowed to make a defense....there are those of us who will put through a defense for the wronged.

.. You never answered...do you defend the NORTHWEST PILOTS??

Cacophonix

29th Nov 2009, 00:50

Based on Facts

I am not pointing any fingers here. We all seek the truth. I know you do. You appear to be privy to the basics here. Put your emotions aside and lay down the facts as if in a court! Can you do it?

Justice demands nothing less!

411A

29th Nov 2009, 01:02

I'm sure you're pretty too....

Hmmm, just has to be some tart trolly-dolly with a bad attitude.
No wonder UAL is last in line with customer service.:}

based on facts

29th Nov 2009, 01:05

That's just what I did in the very beginning of this therad and because people couldn't actually believe that a captain might be less than Godly and certainly not wrong...whatever I wrote people attempted to discredit the facts...can't be done. The truth prevails and ALWAYS will...luckily for me...I'm not bothered by the barbs...I know the truth.

Cacophonix

29th Nov 2009, 01:08

411A

With respect sir. Insults will not suffice here.

Based on Facts, what is the truth as you see it?

based on facts

29th Nov 2009, 01:09

Try reading Post #663 and feeling so threatened.

Cacophonix

29th Nov 2009, 01:11

Based on Facts

Give us the facts. Damn it!

p51guy

29th Nov 2009, 01:30

We still don't have any real facts but nothing so far shows the captain was wrong by removing her from the aircraft for insubordination and possibly food issues. Lets wait for the facts before we judge. He was the captain and did what he thought was necessary.

based on facts

29th Nov 2009, 01:49

While I don't appreciate your last demand, I will REPEAT the info that I offered after the incident. To many pages to sift through to guide you to it.
The capt. & purser had a preflight briefing...no problems. Take off without incident. First Officer came out imediately it was safe for his break. He complained that the capt. made he and other First Officer call him, "Sir" or "Capt." for their 4 day trip and he made their trip miserable. At United this is VERY odd. We are a very friendly airline and usually have very good relations between ALL crew members. The purser was in back of aircraft for a short period of time. During that time capt. called for "Crew Decs." Gen Decs had already been completed and given to capt. immediately after take off. Purser returned to the First Class cabin and was given the message that capt. wanted Crew Decs. She called capt. and asked if she could bring them up in 10 minutes when she was to bring up their meals. He literally yelled he wanted them now!!! She said, "ok." She was in the process of retrieving them when her phone rang. She answered and the captain was now screaming that he wanted the Crew Decs NOW!! He was loud enough that others heard him through the closed door. (There are witnesses) She answered, "I'm getting them, I'm right here." She slid them under the door, as is a common practice, as she didn't have anyone there to open the door, per regulations. She covered the cockpit for 2 bathroom breaks when they were requested with no problem. About six hours after the last time she saw the capt. (bathroom break) she was awakened from her break by another Flight Attendant saying that the capt. wants to talk to her as they were landing in Miami in 40 minutes. She jumped up asked what happened and at the same time gave orders to prepare for landing by closing galleys etc. She went right up to her phone, called cockpit and told capt. she's right there and will be right up. Capt said," no you won't." It must be said that, she thought they were preparing for the worst...a cabin prep. Once the capt. said she was not to come in the cockpit...she feared there had been another "911" type situation where US cockpits were sealed. She asked what were her instructions (in US, we wait for whatever instructions our capts. give us) He told her they were landing in Miami in 40 minutes and SHE was being removed. She was stunned to say the least...thankfully, there was more than one witness on various interphones. She asked was she the only one being removed and what did she do? She was informed she was a security concern. When she again asked what had she done, she was told she could talk to a supervisor in Chicago about it. The only annoucement the capt. made to the psgrs. was that they were landing in Miami in 20 minutes. The very unfortunate part was that Air France had JUST "gone down" coming out of Brazil to Paris...several psgrs. began to cry, fearing th worst.The plane landed, Immigration met the flight, Purser walked off and Immigration spoke at length with the capt. They asked him to step off aircraft and he refused, they asked to board to talk to him...again he refused. They were shocked at his rational for landing an aircraft for not getting Crew Doc when he wanted, when in reality he DID get them. There was NO fighting, no chaos no nothing. That's what makes this so unbeliveable and such a question. Our pilots as a whole support our Purser, the capt. for putting her through hell, although she has handeled it and herself quite well. To date this capt. is not flying and from all accounts FAA is going after him for numerous FAR violations. It should also be mentioned that our pilots are stunned that the 2 First Officers continued to fly with this guy. The Purser asked her crew if they could possibly remain onboard and get the aircraft and psgrs. to Chicago...this is why we did not deplane with her. For all of us...pilots included...she's our hero. A pilot who knows her said he naturally heard about the situation and once he found out SHE was the Purser , he KNEW there was something wrong with the capt. That's the the general party line.
Believe me, I know the whole thing sounds absurd! That's why I think everyone not only on this blog but others as well just can't comput it.
So, there you have it. ok everyone....have at it...again...

based on facts

29th Nov 2009, 01:59

I must add to the above post that there was never a "threat" to capts. food (remember...she as well as the rst of us were onboard!!) If that had been the case she would be gone and she's flying a regular schedule and has since July.

Cacophonix

29th Nov 2009, 02:00

Based on Facts

Thank you.

If we were in court the next witness would be the Captain.

based on facts

29th Nov 2009, 02:08

You are welcome. Sure blew some life in this thread....

411A

29th Nov 2009, 02:09

Hmmm, still sounds to me that we have a purser with an 'issue'...perhaps only she knows for sure.
Of course, we have been presented with only one side of the 'disagreement'...would be interesting to know what the concerned Captain thinks/knows.:}

based on facts

29th Nov 2009, 02:29

What would your assessment be if the Purser did NOT have an "issue" and there was no argument?

cessnapuppy

29th Nov 2009, 02:39

He complained that the capt. made he and other First Officer call him, "Sir" or "Capt." for their 4 day trip and he made their trip miserable. At United this is VERY odd. We are a very friendly airline and usually have very good relations between ALL crew members

1. The purser was in back of aircraft for a short period of time.

2/During that time capt. called for "Crew Decs."

i.Gen Decs had already been completed and given to capt. immediately after take off
3. Purser returned to the First Class cabin and was given the message that capt. wanted Crew Decs.

4. She called capt. and asked if she could bring them up in 10 minutes when she was to bring up their meals.
i. He literally yelled he wanted them now!!! She said, "ok."

5.She was in the process of retrieving them when her phone rang. She answered and the captain was now screaming that he wanted the Crew Decs NOW!! He was loud enough that others heard him through the closed door. (There are witnesses)

i.She answered, "I'm getting them, I'm right here." She slid them under the door, as is a common practice, as she didn't have anyone there to open the door, per regulations.

Some discrepancies in your testimony

At 2.1 you state the following
2i.Gen Decs had already been completed and given to capt. immediately after take off

However later you state:
3. Purser returned to the First Class cabin and was given the message that capt. wanted Crew Decs.

4. She called capt. and asked if she could bring them up in 10 minutes when she was to bring up their meals.
i. He literally yelled he wanted them now!!! She said, "ok."

What really happened?

I also note, according to the transcript, she addressed him with "Ok" as opposed to "Ok Sir" (which you previously noted the Captain preferred to be addressed "Sir"-as was his right, according to his station, rank and position)

Your narrative looks very much like that of someone was not even there, to be honest...
Can you give a time span between 3..4 and between 4..5?

411A

29th Nov 2009, 02:49

What would your assessment be if the Purser did NOT have an "issue" and there was no argument?

Note, I did not refer to an 'argument', only a possible disagreement.
And, I would reserve judgement until I heard the Captains explanation.

This seems entirely reasonable to me.

based on facts

29th Nov 2009, 02:58

You truly are the slow one in the group..fear not..I'll help you along.

1) There is a difference between "Gen Decs" and "Crew Decs." Gen Decs are signed by Purser and capt. Crew Decs are given to each crew member to fill out and present upon first port of entry in US. So you see, what I wrote is correct...Gen Decs were given AFTER take off and Crew decs were demanded at a later point in time.

2) The Flight Attendants were not asked/told to call the capt. anything, in fact he never introduced himself...he just launched into preflight briefing on aircraft. That was only said to fellow pilots upon beginning of their 4 day trip together. They did not fly the 4 day trip with us (F/A's). We only flew with them that one segment.

etrang

29th Nov 2009, 04:11

The plane landed, Immigration met the flight, Purser walked off and Immigration spoke at length with the capt. They asked him to step off aircraft and he refused, they asked to board to talk to him...again he refused.

In a situation like this (assuming it happened as described) would not Immigration have the authority to board the plane or prohibit its subsequent take off?

Rainboe

29th Nov 2009, 09:11

When I was a copilot, it was common practice with many captains to only call them 'Sir' or 'Captain'. It passed out of being the norm in the 80s. If that is what he wishes, that is what he should be called- he is the captain of the 'ship'! If he wanted me to call him 'Bunny', 'Bunny' it would be.

What we have here is a resentful crew manufacturing enormous resentments and a few untruths. I would like an explanation how others can hear a phone call through a door inflight! sounds to me like their resentful behaviour drove a captain already suffering tensions to a mental state where continuation of the flight at that time was plainly unsafe. This leads to 2 queries:
1- why did he feel that with this crew, his safest option was to land?
2- why did they all feel they could happily continue afterwards?

If the captain was as disturbed as made out by BoF, I'm afraid I find the crew's decision to continue utterly bizarre- in fact, dare one say, as crazy as the condition they accuse the pilot of!

Understand, none of you come out of this well, BoF. Your job on that plane was to be an effective, co-operative crew to your flight deck crew. It seems to me your 'chips on shoulders' outweighed your usefulness. Your endorsement of his leadership by continuing shows bizarre judgement. Maybe a man in a fragile mental state was provoked into fury by a resentful, unco-operative crew. I have seen this sort of thing infrequently and as a co-pilot, I found it my duty to put a stop to it decisively so the captain was able to function at 100% for all our sakes! I've flown with some very difficult, notorious captains. Sometimes it's hard to do your job effectively, but just get on with the job, do as you are told, and you do the right thing for the passengers. Its not your place to provoke, but to co-operate. I have seen the most extraordinary cabin crew behaviour at times like this, it seems with some personalities, a near state of war can develop across the flight deck door, and it so desperately needs someone to put a stop to it. Ask yourself, rather than provoking the situation, did everybody do what they could to calm it, to deflate the situation. Nothing would have stopped all of you going to see your management afterwards. But instead the situation was elevated to crisis point. It takes 2 sides to do that! Both sides here appear to have preferred going to crisis rather than climbing down. Wherever has the CRM gone in your outfit? CRM does not just mean 'the flight deck must not ask us for anything when we are busy!' as so many cabin crew seem to think! You had a duty to be an effective crew to your captain, believe it or not. Everything I see in this incident reads like a bunch of resentful, vengeful teenagers. It does not come across well.

All it would have taken was to give him his bloody GenDecs! I find it very sad he is the only one apparently to go! You're so convinced you are all so innocent, yet I read this as you all provoked him to this situation, and you cannot see that. Maybe he was in an elevated mental frame of mind, but undoubtedly, your behaviour moved him even higher rather than deflated it.

Truly, the hysteria level on that crew was such that none of you should have continued. To United's shame, they let you. But what a disgraceful saga for all of you! Can't you see that?

Huck

29th Nov 2009, 10:29

Given the state of UAL and the industry as a whole, I'd compare all this to fiddling while Rome is burning.

Or a circular firing squad.

We are a very friendly airline

Yeah, keep telling yourself that. Then go fly a leg on SQ or CX.....

What's sad is what a mighty, wonderful airline this was, back in the day.

captjns

29th Nov 2009, 10:44

If the captain was as disturbed as made out by BoF, I'm afraid I find the crew's decision to continue utterly bizarre- in fact, dare one say, as crazy as the condition they accuse the pilot of!

If I were a first officer on that flight listening to the rants of the skipper, I would want to be on the ground as fast as possible too. The captain's behaviour, while not being responsible, is strong argument to NO GUNS in the COCKPIT:=:*! Seems like he could have used a bit more time on the ground before returning to duty:{.

Scimitar

29th Nov 2009, 11:07

Good post, Rainboe.

I personally think that CRM teaching has quite a lot to answer for. Whilst a great deal of good has come from it, it is quite clear that the authority of the flight deck has been badly eroded.

Incidentally, where have you been?!

Mr Optimistic

29th Nov 2009, 12:35

'Are you people THAT dense??? The "Pretty" comment is nothing more than pure, unadulterated sacrcasm for the tight ass men who spout so many opinions without the FACTS.'
My goodness ! Take it you didn't recognise the sarcasm in return ? If you want to sway opinion do you think your stream of consciousness posts with the part capitalisation is the way to do it ? Is this the sort of latent emotional level in UAL crews ?

Unfortunately my company has a prefered arrangement such that we fly United. I'll get a seat near the front next time if this in-flight entertainment is on the menu. More seriously, I want a calm crew with nothing remotely distracting the people steering the thing.

Seems to be two choices: a) assume this is the whole story and the captain was breaking down, b) there is more to it than has been told.

Rainboe

29th Nov 2009, 16:15

According to BoF, it is (a) 'Captain breaking down'. How very, very strange they were apparently content to continue 'one more flight!' . Whether it be to get home or to get to a lovely destination they were going to spend a week at makes no difference. They don't understand they endorsed his command and leadership. So suddenly at ORD, he's 'unfit to be a captain' according to this lot. I have to say I if I was an airline chief executive, I would have been sacking this crew wholesale! They provoked a man in apparently a mental state and tipped him over the edge, intentionally? They should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves, and the exultation and glee telling us 'he's gone'- unbelievable. So he was unpopular. They are proud they got him out! It would actually be funny if it wasn't so tragic.

Scimitar, I have actually been working hard and dealing with family crisis. After the jokers on the Aer Lingus thread, I have to say things are settling and normal service will be resumed. Who's next to get eaten?

Squawk7777

29th Nov 2009, 16:39

In a situation like this (assuming it happened as described) would not Immigration have the authority to board the plane or prohibit its subsequent take off?

Not really. On international diversions it is common practice to let the aircraft sit on the ramp until the situation improves (after refuelling etc.).

I believe immigration can hold the plane for immigration and customs issues only but not for any issue involving the dear FAA... :eek:

Wiley

29th Nov 2009, 20:38

I agree that Rainboe’s post #685 was excellent. In it, he made the comment: I've flown with some very difficult, notorious captains.I suspect there’d be few of us who spent what used to be an average time as an FO have not.

A very wise Fleet Manager told me something about flying with such captains after I’d crossed swords with one, (and told him - after returning to home base – that I thought he was dangerous).

“Captains are allowed to have idiosyncrasies, Wiley, First Officers are not.”

I think that wise adage could be extended to “... and neither are Cabin Crew.”

If the cabin crew in this incident think they've been vindicated, there're coming from a very strange place (in their heads).

Blob Fluid Killer

29th Nov 2009, 22:00

First: of all Sorry for my english.
Second: In Europe, in a charter company, the CPT, acting like this one, would have been vaporized immediately from his company.
Reasons?
1) No Security and/or Safety issues.
2) No CRM managed from the CPT toward his crew.
3) Costs of a divertion not needed.
4) Poor customer satisfaction management.
5) Poor decision making.
6) Leadership lost for free.

Sorry.
We have to stop people yelling in a tube at 30,000 and some feet.
Captain with no carisma are simply not Captain.
Leadership in a crew is something you earn. Not given because of 4 stripes on a shirt.

Rainboe

29th Nov 2009, 22:49

Typical rubbish European 'we are all equal here now. I will be really nice to you and I would be grateful if you could do what I ask please! Let's all hold hands now in a group hug before we set off to work!'. Sorry, doesn't cut it with me at all!

Leadership is not 'earned' in order to get the crew to follow you! If the crew don't follow, they won't get paid for long! The crew are there to do their job under the guidance and leadership of the local manager (in this case the captain). 'Shape up or ship out' is the expression!

'No CRM managed from the captain to his crew'? Have you read this thread? How much CRM did the crew supply to their captain throughout the flight? Yes- funny, isn't it? CRM actually works both ways, but as I said according to many cabin crew, CRM can mean to them 'don't ask me to do anything when I am busy or tired!'.

Since the captain was guilty of all your points, how come he was OK to operate the last sector, then have the whole crew screaming like a herd of monkeys that he was 'guilty', but not at MIA, but at ORD? Don't you think that is peculiar?

A shameful episode for all concerned. One man's long career is apparently terminated, a cabin crew exulting that they have forced out an unpopular character....and we are supposed to accept they 'won'? Sick. Where was the level headed person who could defuse a situation? Not anywhere on board United that night!

Brenoch

29th Nov 2009, 22:50

A pilot who knows her said he naturally heard about the situation and once he found out SHE was the Purser , he KNEW there was something wrong with the capt. That's the the general party line.

Would you, BoF, care to elaborate as to "the general party line" being within the crew regarded or within UAL as a whole? If the latter it would be of great interest to me if that could be substantiated by someone else in UAL, and preferably by someone not involved in this "incident", personally or otherwise.

Squawk7777

30th Nov 2009, 00:31

An airline as old and experienced as UAL surely would have guidelines published in their manual. I would be very interested to take a look in their CRM section. I cannot imagine UAL laking a guideline for CRM issues.

Any UAL'ers? :suspect:

20driver

30th Nov 2009, 01:15

The problem with this thread, from day 1, is we have only hear from one "source". It takes two to tango and at least that many to split so I it seems very odd we have never heard a peep from anyone but BoF who seems to be very dedicated to keeping this thread going.

Too many odd bits.

If the captain was out of it why did the FD crew continue on? Why did the company let him? I'm sure the FAA has had a little look in as well.

Do we know the captain is not flying again? If so by whose choice.?

As for denying US immigration access to a N registered plane, any plane for that matter, that pitches up in MIA, I don't think so. They will go wherever they like, talk to whoever they like, and look at whatever they like. And if they snap on the rubber gloves, bend over, because you have no rights.

The majority of this story we have no clue to and I suspect we never will.

20driver

DEFPOTEC

30th Nov 2009, 01:16

I am amazed at how many believe a story from a person who doesn't put her name behind it.

The flight landed in MIA and a flight attendant was put off, not the captain.

The flight continued without the flight attendant.

Those are facts.

The rest is dross, posted by someone who clearly has an ax to grind and doesn't have one iota of credibility.

stilton

30th Nov 2009, 04:32

DEFPOTEC Hit's the nail on the head.

Rainboe, your post was the most well thought out, rational and reasoned response to 'Based on facts' an obviously very bitter person of indeterminate profession and zero credibility.

It keeps coming down to this 'BOF' if this Captain was such a 'danger' why would anyone agree to another flight with him ?

Perhaps he was not the easiest to get along with, so what , how may bosses are in this world ? He was unquestionably the boss whether you like it or not.

As Rainboe says it would have been very easy to stop this situation from escalating. It would also have been the professional thing to do. The 'offended' flight attendant could easily have talked to the Captain about it AFTER THE FLIGHT and avoided all of this. DO THE JOB FIRST.

What you might be gleaning from this is, like Rainboe, many of us, myself included have seen Cabin Crew behave in the most appalling, unprofessional manner so they don't start out with the benefit of the doubt in this story.

Christ, if I had a dollar for every 'prickly' Captain I flew with in 19 years in the right seat..

Semaphore Sam

30th Nov 2009, 05:26

I flew as Aircraft Commander (4-engine military) in 72, until 78. Then, with airline, as F/E, F/O, then Captain starting in 83, until retirement in 2005. (737,L1011,747 Classic and 400).

I am trying to find mitigating circs to justify this Captain, but, (and I'm sure I will undergo censure by my fellow pilots), this sad circumstance reflects poorly on everyone, especially the Captain. It reminds me of the 'Old Yellowstain' situation, where the Captain of the Caine (Bogart in the flic) acts in an unreasonable way, and the crew is left to pick up the pieces (Caine Mutiny). A very sad situation...the Captain obviously was under great strain and mental pressure. In the movie, the defence attorney properly castigates the crew for not supporting the Captain...in this case (United), what were the cabin crew to do, other than what they did? They did not take over command (as in the movie), or order the diversion. They FOLLOWED ORDERS. My total sympathy is with the Captain, but, in this circumstance, his mental state, sadly, seems to have been...less than optimum? A diversion, in this circumstance, seems totally unjustified...and to those pilots justifying martinet behavior, in the name of pilot solidarity, again, sadly, you undermine the profession. I am open to more evidence in the Captain's favour, but, in this case, a diversion seems beyond the pale. I beg for mitigating evidence. Sorry, Sam

tailstrikecharles

30th Nov 2009, 06:06

A diversion, in this circumstance, seems totally unjustified...and to those pilots justifying martinet behavior, in the name of pilot solidarity, again, sadly, you undermine the profession...

One can never really know the result of a 'path not taken'. It is clear though that this was a captain without a crew. If the account above is correct, the First Officer saw fit to complain to the stewardesses: "the Captain made us call him Captain!"

"in this case (United), what were the cabin crew to do, other than what they did?"

a whole lot, I would imagine.
For starters, they could have behaved less like childish little :mad: with playground scores to settle, or whiny bitches, maybe, if they saw that the "captain had a problem-or they with him" refuse to fly - especially from Mia on. That itself is the most damming part of this spectacle to an onlooker. I would say, the minute the plane was landed safely in Mia, they should either have authorities seize the plane, the captain but not continue merrily on. Anything else seems somewhat hollow and false to me.

Les Shore

30th Nov 2009, 06:13

Round and round and round we go

The 'offended' flight attendant could easily have talked to the Captain about it AFTER THE FLIGHT and avoided all of this. DO THE JOB FIRST.In the above quote, it would be just as easy to substitute 'offended flight attendant' for 'offended Captain'. As other Captains have said earlier in this thread, they would have DONE THE JOB FIRST and dealt with the purser on the ground.

My total sympathy is with the Captain, but, in this circumstance, his mental state, sadly, seems to have been...less than optimum? A diversion, in this circumstance, seems totally unjustified...and to those pilots justifying martinet behavior, in the name of pilot solidarity, again, sadly, you undermine the profession. I am open to more evidence in the Captain's favour, but, in this case, a diversion seems beyond the pale.Well put, SS. That has been the issue all along. It is difficult to understand why a well-balanced individual who has attained the level of Captain of a major airline, couldn't have found a better way to deal with a purser who didn't obey his commands at lightning speed. No one is questioning the Capain's authority. It's his decision-making ability and mental stability at the time that are in question.

Heliport

30th Nov 2009, 06:56

Round and round and round we go True, and with just as few facts to go on as the last time this thread went round and round and round.

For his own ulterior and IMHO highly suspect motives, so called Based on Facts has chosen to resurrect a thread which has been dormant since August with yet more bitching about someone against whom he clearly has a grudge.

Whether he was or wasn't on the flight, I've seen nothing to make me regard BoF as a reliable source of information about what actually happened. On the contrary, I'd be extremely hesitant to condemn anyone based on BoF's allegations.

Rainboe

30th Nov 2009, 12:42

Semaphore Sam
My total sympathy is with the Captain, but, in this circumstance, his mental state, sadly, seems to have been...less than optimum? A diversion, in this circumstance, seems totally unjustified...and to those pilots justifying martinet behavior, in the name of pilot solidarity, again, sadly, you undermine the profession. I am open to more evidence in the Captain's favour, but, in this case, a diversion seems beyond the pale. I beg for mitigating evidence.
I see an experienced captain who felt the flight could not safely continue and willingly risking his judgement being called into question with a diversion to sort a problem out! We don't know the processes going on in his mind- remember we are only getting one extremely biased account. But without doubt- when you 'lose' a crew, through their fault or your own, there is a point where you had better stop travelling at 500kts without delay! I've only once lost it with a totally unco-operative and bizarre co-pilot. I nearly grounded him from a 737 at Basle, but I gave him the chance to redeem himself, which he did subsequently. But in effect, I endorsed him for another chance. That was my prerogative.

The credibility of the whole crew subsequently falls down with their unanimous decision to continue under his command. It goes no deeper than that. Once they get to their final destination, suddenly the captain in not 'fit for command'? They lost all credibility continuing, and their dreadful attacks on him since have no depth whatsoever. A sad, sad affair, but it speaks volumes for the state of CRM and flight deck/cabin crew relationships in this airline.

Spooky 2

30th Nov 2009, 13:12

Rananim

30th Nov 2009, 13:49

Well,its a fascinating read but ultimately futile.We cant be judge and jury here,we only know one side of the story.There's merit in both opposing viewpoints;from Rainboe and 411 right through to the other end of the spectrum(basedonfacts).The only viewpoint I'd discard up-front would be the politically-correct one.We must deal in reality not CRM niceties.

The captain is in command.There's no cabin-Captain.The purser is in charge of the service.Does this mean that the purser must obey an unreasonable command?No.Does it mean the Captain is always right?No.If he's wrong and makes an unwarranted diversion,he WILL pay for it.Thats the balance.You put all the authority in one person because you dont want chaos,and you balance that risk by making that person legally responsible for his/her actions.Noblesse oblige.A skipper who abuses his authority is as bad as a purser who doesnt recognize/respect authority.The trick is to follow this tried and tested system and enjoy the day out at the same time.Many achieve this,some keep trying,only a very few fail.

rgbrock1

30th Nov 2009, 19:15

If you want to read, what could very well be, the Captain's view of this incident then I suggest Firefox-ing, or Internet Explod-ing, over to airlinepilotforums.com

Within the "Majors" section you'll have to do a search for this incident.

It may not be the Captain responding but the consensus on that forum seems to be that it was indeed him. (The vast majority of posters on airlinepilotforums.com seem to be, indeed, pilots.)

I'd provide a direct link but it was awhile ago and I don't have time to do the research. But it was quite interesting when I read it.

parabellum

1st Dec 2009, 00:40

Just been right through the whole ten pages and couldn't find anything that I would attribute to the captain, which username were you thinking of?

Rapid D

2nd Dec 2009, 02:34

Yea I remember that incident. ATL to NRT. The AC was at the controls and the Co Capt. was in the bunk. The design and location of the bunk on the MD11 was a hot button issue. Without even discussing the issue with the guy in bunk, the AC took it upon himself to start the diversion process in to PDX on his own. The Co Capt was surprised at the developing action but like a good soldier stood by and followed through. Interstingly the Co-Capt was a General in the Air Force, but I guess he knew who the boss was. The AC was a guy who took every opportunity to stir the ALPA agenda at Delta and while forget the outcome, none the less the rank and file were very divided on the terms of his discipline

So since it seems you did not work at Delta during this time, would you agree there might be "more to the story" Spooky?

I was a Delta pilot during this incident, and I would say there was not much division at all about the Captain's decision to divert or his "discipline" as you said. There was no discipline. "Fatigue". End of story as far as that goes.

Captain claimed crew fatigue and they went into PDX. PDX was a MD-11 base at the time, and new crew flew pax onto NRT. Reserve crew had plenty of notice. And due to crappy performance of MD-11 during winter winds, this flight sometimes had to go into PDX for gas anyway. Not a big deal operationally.

In this case, it was to make a statement. MGT was stonewalling on b.s. foldout/curtain crew rest contraption - it was far from a "bunk" - and ALPA was insisting on a better/more restfull area. It finally took a CA with some gnads to make some change. And it worked. Much better crew rest area was created.

While there were some that did not agree with the Captain's decision or tactics, the rank and file were not "very divided" as you stated. The rank and file were mostly supportive.

There was a very anti-pilot mgt group at the time led by then CEO Leo Mullen (all top officers cashed out with millions during BK by the way) and they refused to believe this was a safety issue and not just pilots getting one over. It took this action to make reasonable man change happen.

To most of us, this captain was our hero for standing up for all of us. "Every opportunity to stir the ALPA agenda" is b.s. too. Makes for a better story I know, but did you work at Delta or know this guy personally?

At the time, this pot stirring effected change and all MD-11 crews were grateful.

WhatsaLizad?

2nd Dec 2009, 03:21

Rapid D,

We dealt with a related issue at my carrier. There was an endless changing of airplanes at Sao Paulo after a 8-10 hour flight from MIA/JFK. The crew was supposed to wait at GRU for the DFW airplane, more than 2-3 hours after an all night flight.

Meanwhile both crews would switch planes, and both planes would end up back in the the same damn place, GRU, that night after their Rio and Ascuncion turns.

Then one morning a real Captain showed up on the flight from JFK. He was told he would wait 3 hours for the DFW inbound plane, company said tough, "you wait pilot boy". He offered to take his JFK plane to Rio, company said "tough, you wait pilot boy". The Captain said, I'm fatigued, goodnight, I'll be resting at the hotel.

I arrived that morning in GRU marveling at the chaos. When I heard the story, and knew the total BS of the cubicle dwellers behind it, I finally smiled to myself as I thought "damn, there's a real Captain". It's amazing what an airline will do to drive an actual Admiral in the US Navy Reserves to such an action.

A few years later he retired.

Not long after that he was a passenger in the aircraft that hit the the Pentagon on 9/11 along with his wife of many years.

cityfan

2nd Dec 2009, 06:28

A few things:

1) There is NO FAA action being taken against this Captain, so BoF is wrong.

2) The international FA crews at UAL are some of the worst in the industry and, as you can see from the attitudes, it does not take a rocket scientist to see that labor relations as a result of years of bankruptcy, cutbacks, and generally letting the FAs get away with murder, have not helped that any.

3) Not everyone is easy to get along with, and I have never suggested this Captain is either. However, we have ONE Captain at a time and UNLESS there is a SAFETY PROBLEM, then HE is in command at all times and HAS EARNED THE RESPECT that goes with the uniform.....maybe it was just not on the ONE SEGMENT BoF flew with him.

4) Notice the interactions with the FOs and the FAs....The entire interactions (from the FA perspective) is that the FOs came back to complain about the Captain. However, from the Captain's perspective, and from what ACTUALLY HAPPENED, it is clear that the Captain was bolstered by the input of the FOs, who were the ones that relayed the "food issue." the WHOLE situation, especially from BoF's perspective, smacks of insubordination and lack of respect for authority.

SO, we KNOW the aircraft landed in MIA and we KNOW the FAs and the Captain did not see eye to eye. Now, did he MAKE IT ALL UP or was there something substantive that happened? Did the FOs say, "No, Sir/Captain, YOU will be in ALOT of trouble if we divert over NOTHING!" Did the Purser leave in MIA? YES! Did anyone else (and there was ABSOLUTELY NO NEED FOR AN EXTRA FO FROM MIA TO ORD)? NO! No FOs got off the aircraft, just one FA.

Now, simply ask yourself a few even easier questions:

Has the Captain been fired? No!
Will the Captain be fired? No!
Has the FAA sought to sanction the Captain in ANY way? No!
Does the Captan have the discretion to act as he pleases within the bounds of safe operation, while being answerable for those actions? Yes!
Is he being forced to answer those actions? Yes!
Has this Captain had previous run ins with the company du to his strong union affiliation? Yes!
Does ANYONE think THAT might have ANYTHING to do with what the Captain is being forced to do before returning to the line? I DO, you decide for yourself!

Is the Purser some angel who is loved by all and the Captain some devil who is hated by all, as BoF would have us believe (weak d!ck captains and fos supposedly gossiping with some FAs about a fellow pilot! What BS!)? No!

SOMETHING DID HAPPEN AND THE FAS DO NOT LIKE WHAT IT WAS, BECAUSE IT SHONE THE SPOTLIGHT ON SOME OF THEM WHO HAVE A LACK OF RESPECT FOR AUTHORITY, ESPECIALLY CAPTAIN'S AUTHORITY.

WHETHER THE CAPTAIN WAS RIGHT OR WRONG, WHETHER IT COULD HAVE BEEN HANDLED A DIFFERENT WAY, OR EVEN SHOULD HAVE BEEN HANDLED A DIFFERENT WAY, IS FOR THE COMPANY AND THE CAPTAIN TO WORK OUT, WHICH THEY ARE, WITH A JAUNDICED EYE IMHO....NOT A FA WITH AN AXE TO GRIND AGAINST PILOTS.

Done.

etrang

2nd Dec 2009, 07:35

cityfan, since you seem to have some inside knowledge, could you tell us;

what exactly IS the captain being forced to do?
what the Captain is being forced to do before returning to the line?

What exactly DID happen (as far as you know)?
SOMETHING DID HAPPEN AND THE FAS DO NOT LIKE WHAT IT WAS,

cityfan

2nd Dec 2009, 16:23

He has been asked to take a psychological interview/evaluation, apparently because the company feel he overreacted to a situation that THE COMPANY was unable to substantiate (the food issue).

As you may know, there have been cases where pilots have been "visined" by cabin crew. Such threats against one's food are not only a threat, but also complete insubordination, as in this case.

Hope that answers your question?

Just for context, there have been cases at UAL where the Captain has had a negative interaction/relationship and has sought to move the Purser from the forward cabin/cockpit interaction position and into the back cabin. The Pursers have REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE CAPTAIN'S DECISION under the auspices of "I have the seniority to hold Purser and you do not have the authority to usurp my seniority!"

While the OVERALL relationship between cockpit and cabin crews is generally quite good, especially in the narrowbody/domestic arena where crews seem to have greater camaraderie over the crummy schedules they both fly. Sadly, the same cannot be said for the mainly VERY SENIOR, OLDER crews who fly internationally. It seems to me there is some "entitlement" mentality and, especially among SOME of the very senior FAs, even the STATED mentality that "he might be in charge from the cockpit door forward, but I am in command of the cabin." Hate to say it, but I have seen it, heard it and even heard of some of the discipline cases that have resulted from same.

IMHO, this WHOLE THING would and should have normally been a Professional Standards issue. However, in this instance, the Captain CLEARLY felt that a threat had been made against him, and more especially his food, AFTER negative interactions between himself and a member of the cabin crew AND his FOs and a/some member(s) of the cabin crew. Therefore, he felt it was within his authority to descend and land in MIA to relieve the crew member. I believe THAT DECISION is the ONLY THING being questioned by the company and the reason that, based on previous negative interactions with the company (that have NOTHING TO DO WITH EVENTS LIKE THIS), this pilot was seen as a "soft target" for a psych interview. Because this issue is NOT covered by the CBA, the union has little or no recourse against the company seeking this outcome, which is why the Captain is complying with their wishes...albeit possibly unwillingly.

Funny how the company had never had a problem with this pilot until a few months before the recent lawsuit against ALPA, when he was supposedly seen posting a notice about another person who was engaged in ANTI-UNION activity. I have no details on that issue, but do know it happened.

That's it. I have said as much, if not more, than I should, but only because SOME PEOPLE on this Forum are quick to condemn a 20+ year experience professional aviator because a hysterical Flight Attendant (with no appreciation for what it takes to become a widebody Captain at a major airline) seems to think he has a problem. Amusing that the person with the biggest problem I have seen in this incident is BoF!!!

Good luck, and tailwinds, to us all.

SaturnV

2nd Dec 2009, 20:43

cityfan,

One point and one question. You assert that there were past instances of cabin crew poisoning the food of flying crew, and imply this occurred at UAL. I presume that if such did occur, the perpetrators were arrested and tried in court.

The question: Under UAL's CBA, if the Captain were to retire (or be retired) because of disability, would his pension be greater than if he retired simply because of age?

stilton

2nd Dec 2009, 22:01

Very well said CityFan.

I have seen numerous examples of these senior dinosaur f/a's with this entitlement mentality and the attitude they are accountable to no one.

We have suspected the 'visine' trick at my airline but, to my knowledge it has never been proved.

My sympathies remain with the Captain who acted completely within his rights as the ultimate authority on the Aircraft.

I hope he can return to the line soon, unfortunately, as disgraceful as it is he will be a 'marked man' to many of these f/a's.

cityfan

3rd Dec 2009, 02:00

Did you say "pension?" We are talking about United Airlines, right?

SaturnV

5th Dec 2009, 11:27

cityfan, as you know, United's defined benefit pension plans are now the responsibility of the Federal government (Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp), and are administered by the government. I believe the PBGC does provide a higher pension payment for disability-related retirements, even if someone retired on disability after UAL's ownership of the plan ended in 2005. I also believe the PBGC honors the general terms and conditions of plans it administers as were in effect at the time that PBGC assumes ownership from the corporation terminating its plan. I assume this captain is but one of the thousands of UAL pilots whose defined benefit pension became the responsibility of the PBGC in 2005.

WhatsaLizad?

6th Dec 2009, 01:18

SaturnV,

Perhaps a little clarification is in order for the lurkers to understand what you posted.

While it is true that the US goverment backed PBGC does guarantee the UAL pensions, it does so at a much reduced rate. While I don't know the post Age 65 retirement benefit, the Age 60 benefit maximum for retiree is around $2500 US per month.

I don't know the original pre-bankruptcy numbers, but it's safe to say the UAL pilot retirement was $10,000/mth or greater.

Ask the divorced UAL retiree how things are going on their $1250 month US.

based on facts

20th Dec 2009, 03:00

City Fan: while you profess to "be in the know..." here are afew facts, you neglected to state: 1) the captain in question was ORDERED into Anger Management Therapy. 2) ALPA has contacted the Purser 3 different times, through 3 different means (AFA EAP, her Inflight supervisor and people at OSAP) for a "Mediated Conflict Resolution Meeting" with the Capt. She said, "absolutely not...HE had the conflict...not she." Is he a "marked man?" You bet...with PILOTS and Flight Attendants alike. Had the captain acted like a leader and utilized a token of our CLR program...NONE is this incident would have happened. He, as the captain should have utilized CLR and he opted not to. FYI: authority comes with the uniform.... Respect is earned...period.

martinmax69

20th Dec 2009, 03:39

Don't feed him:ugh:

based on facts

20th Dec 2009, 05:01

korrol

20th Dec 2009, 09:06

Some clarification please: As someone who flies mostly as SLF these days I'd never heard of "visining" until I read this thread so may I just check that I've got it right?

As I now understand it, a malcontent member of the cabin crew deliberately pours Pfizer "Visine" eyedrops (as used by flight attendants who wear contact lenses) into food being prepared for the Captain. The captain consequently suffers from stomach cramps and diahorrea - but has no way of proving that his food has been - there's no other word for it - poisoned

If this is true it's absolutely outrageous and, it goes without saying, extremely dangerous. Is this common? Does it happen on many airlines? What on earth are these lunatics playing at?

A Comfy Chair

20th Dec 2009, 09:54

Another point "City Fan"...the minute this captain opted to land an international flight after dispatch denied his request to do so...took this situation way beyond "professional standards." IF there was a "safety concern" he would have landed this aircraft way before 7 hours into this flight.

I hope that you aren't a crewmember. The decision to land the aircraft at other than the destination is ENTIRELY at the captains perogative - it has NOTHING to do with dispatch approving or denying a request! They can certainly be consulted for input in some decision making processes, but have no more influence than that.

How do you know the "safety concern" started earlier? The threat, or safety issue, may well have arisen far later into the flight. To take the "visining" example: If I were a crewmember that was told that someone had poisoned (or threatened to poison) my (or another crewmembers) meal, I can see no alternative but to land the aircraft at the nearest practical airport. The sky is no place to be when potentially affected by any form of toxin.

Korrol - I've heard of it apparently happening, but never seen it in action. I would hope that cabin crew are smart enough to not incapacitate a pilot, but I guess it would be hard to ever really know.

parabellum

20th Dec 2009, 11:02

ALPA has contacted the Purser 3 different times, through 3 different means (AFAR EPA, her In flight supervisor and people at SOAP) for a "Mediated Conflict Resolution Meeting" with the Capt. She said, "absolutely not...HE had the conflict...not she."

If the CA felt totally exonerated she would welcome the opportunity to a forum that gave her the chance to give her version of events. By deliberately avoiding it casts doubt on her side of the story, would it stand up to examination? I suspect her union are instructing her and they know thin ice when they see it.

There is a fairly thick tome produced by the USAF that deals with crew rest patterns, flight deck lighting and crew meals and eating patterns. This document emphasises the need for crew to maintain their blood sugar levels and thereby their alertness. If this captain did not feel safe to eat his meal then yes, there is a big safety issue as about seven hours or earlier into the flight he should be considering a meal so he had the choice of eating a possibly contaminated meal and falling sick or not eating the meal and losing his required level of alertness and ability to fly and make decisions safely.

This captain chose the extreme option but that doesn't make it or him wrong.

Checkboard

20th Dec 2009, 12:29

There is an urban myth that Visine eye drops will cause diarrhea without any serious other damage to the individual. THIS IS INCORRECT!

snopes.com: Visine Prank (http://www.snopes.com/medical/myths/visine.asp)

The one thing it DOESN'T do is cause diarreah, it does suppress the central nervous system, and even 2-3 ml can kill children. :hmm:

based on facts

20th Dec 2009, 15:38

I know that the Purser feels this particular event is history and views it as such, and that the captain has had his 15 minutes of fame. Having that meeting would "help ease him back into flying" as was told to her. She has no desire to help ease him into flying!! So, it's not that she is concerned about "her story" holding up. She doesn't want to waste anymore of her time or thought on this matter. And, she is not now or ever has been on "thin ice." She was NEVER taken out of service and the crews, pilots & flight attendants alike are STILL asking how she's doing etc. Pilots and Flight Attendants alike will trade or do what they have to to not fly with him. We depend on the male/female in the left seat to keep us safe...he lost credibility with us. We all wonder what in the world happened to the 2 F/O's that they agreed to continue with him. One of them said he (capt.) was most intimidating towards them. Well, their credibility is shot as well. While all of us like to fly we need to not just feel safe but need to actually be safe. If a captain makes a bizarre decision, just as this guy did...well, there are consquences. As for "the tampering with food." Are you people for real!?! He's flying the damn airplane!! I don't think ANYONE on our crew had a death wish! I have heard that Visine rumor for decades, althought I've never seen or heard of anyone who actually did it. There are all sorts of rumors within the US flight industry and 99% have become folklore...this is probably one as well. IF anyone ANYWHERE was caught doing this...an arrest needs to be made. This was obvisously not the case here. What I have heard...from within our own airline...if a captain has a dislike of a F/A for whatever reason, they'll say, they fear for their food and the F/A is removed with pay. That's about as extreme as I've ever witnessed.