United GRU-ORD Divert to MIA to Offload Purser

[Airbubba]

Yet another test of the 'modern' view of captain's authority?

DATE:16/07/09
SOURCE:Flightglobal.com

United flight diverts after captain and flight attendant argue
By Kieran Daly

United Airlines is conducting an internal investigation after one of its captains diverted a flight to deplane a senior flight attendant who he argued with.

Flight 842 from Sao Paulo, Brazil to Chicago O'Hare diverted to Miami early in the morning of 14 July midway through the scheduled non-stop flight of nearly eleven hours.

A source familiar with the incident says the captain ordered the purser of the Boeing 767 to leave the aircraft because he or she was "not respecting his authority"...


United flight diverts after captain and flight attendant argue (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/07/16/329737/united-flight-diverts-after-captain-and-flight-attendant.html)

Curiosities
04:40 pm - Friday

United Airlines: pilot argues with steward, flight diverted

Miami, USA - The captain landed to disembark the "Unwanted" assistant

(WAPA) - "Let's go outside and solve the question". This is what, very American-like, the pilot of United Airlines' flight UAL842, from Sao Paulo (Brazil) to Chicago (USA), must have thought after an argument with a flight assistant. The only problem was that he was on board of the aircraft, a Boeing 767/300, about half way on his route. For this reason he decided to land in Miami, Florida, to disembark the "Unwanted" steward.

"He was not respecting my authority", the touchy captain is reported as saying. The aircraft remained on the ground for about a hour, before taking off again towards Chicago without any further problem. The fact, happened on July 14, has been confirmed by a FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) spokeswoman, who explained that the pilot considered that the issue had to be solved on the ground...

Avionews (http://www.avionews.com/index.php?corpo=see_news_home.php&news_id=1107256&pagina_chiamante=index.php)

[PJ2]

Where's the problem here?....

[cwatters]

Did he say there was a problem?

Sounds like Rumour or News to me..or does this sort of thing happen every day?

[Duck Rogers]

Second time today.

[The Bartender]

Since it appears like there are no open threads on this subject, here's as new one...

Picked up this on another forum:

This is all I am going to say about this incident:

The Purser of flight 842 was female. The Captain of the flight wanted the general declaration so he could add his signature to it. The Purser was not in a position to grab another flight attendant right at that moment to monitor the area so the gen dec could be passed through the cockpit door. The situation escalated.

The Captain made the decision to divert to MIA to have the Purser removed from flight for undermining his Captain's Authority. The First Officers on flight 842 advocated for MCO, since MIA is no longer served by UA Mainline. The Captain chose to divert to MIA anyway.

The Purser was removed from the flight upon arrival at MIA and sent to a layover hotel, followed by a deadhead back to ORD after required crew rest.

The ORD-GRU-ORD trip was the Captain's first trip back to the line after extended sick leave. The Captain has been removed from the remainder of his flying schedule. The Purser who was removed, has NOT been removed from the remainder of her flying schedule.

Draw your own conclusions...

[Airbubba]

A longhaul divert due to crew issues is extremely rare in my experience.

Over a decade ago a Delta MD-11 flightcrew on an Atlanta-Seoul flight diverted to Portland, Oregon after deciding that they were 'fatigued'. The union and the company were battling over crew rest facilities and the pilots had a little tent that they pitched in front of the pax to sleep in. As I recall, the captain was near retirement and the matter was handled administratively. If there are any RD's left here they may have more insight.

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 seen. However, I can't think of another divert caused by such authority issues.

[RICCARDOVOLANTE]

We gave away the respect
You never notice the most of the time many cabin crew, ground crew and the ticket counters are wearing the same uniform of the pilots with epaulets? .
So many times , never the less I am Captain, I get confuse to who is who..
in any case we as pilots should start to respect our self first of all and than pretend respect from others .
Lets do not be ashamed to be called Captain if we have that title.
Lets do not remove our epaulets from our pilot shirt immediately after landing just because we do not wanna appears like superiors to others.
Lets pretend to be treated with respect in any way .
It start within our self.
If a pilot ground an airplane we shall not fly the same airplane just because we wanna show that we are better than others .
If an air company do not treat pilots with respect we should burn the ground around them let their airplane sit on the ground and see how they are going to change attitude.
Do not allow some HR,PR, that do not even know what is an airplane to decide if you are a pilot that fit for their company or not.
See how different the aviation world will be.
Riccardo Volante

[SLFguy]

"We gave away the respect
You never notice the most of the time many cabin crew, ground crew and the ticket counters are wearing the same uniform of the pilots with epaulets? .
So many times , never the less I am Captain, I get confuse to who is who..
in any case we as pilots should start to respect our self first of all and than pretend respect from others .
Lets do not be ashamed to be called Captain if we have that title.
Lets do not remove our epaulets from our pilot shirt immediately after landing just because we do not wanna appears like superiors to others.
Lets pretend to be treated with respect in any way .
It start within our self.
If a pilot ground an airplane we shall not fly the same airplane just because we wanna show that we are better than others .
If an air company do not treat pilots with respect we should burn the ground around them let their airplane sit on the ground and see how they are going to change attitude.
Do not allow some HR,PR, that do not even know what is an airplane to decide if you are a pilot that fit for their company or not.
See how different the aviation world will be."


Did you even read the last paragraph in post #5 :rolleyes:

[RICCARDOVOLANTE]

Captain his a captain .Many country around the world as issue for ATPL licensing without citizenship due to the legal power of the Captains.
If hierarchy is an issue well may be the job is not the right one for some people.
R.V.

[free at last]

There is only one person, that is responsible for ALL, The CAPTAIN, I have seen it many times, Thanks to the Captain to get the argumentive person of the flight, he /she was most likely not doing a good job for the company. And if there is any punitive action against the Captain. We should all stand in for the Captain's the right to control the operation in a professional manner. How about once and for all a stand down to get this industry back on track. World Wide!!!!:)

[GobonaStick]

Am I seeing a different story? I must be. :ugh:

[Taxi2parking]

.....well I was always told that respect is something you earn by the example you set - it rarely comes in a box with a set of stripes.....

....now something about this tells me that the problem seems to lie in the left hand seat here. Would a seemingly trivial altercation with a Purser over a Gen Dec be reason to divert an aircraft? No suggestion that the Purser had turned violent. Maybe a quiet chat on the Jetway might have been more appropriate.:hmm:

...anyway, where is 414A when you need some forthright opinion on Captaincy styles?:}

[belfrybat]

My reading of it is the captain didn't care to wait for the purser to round up whatever resource needed (someone to monitor the area?) to shove the piece of paper through the door. Instead he chose to blow his top over a trifle. Glad I wasn't on that plane.

[hetfield]

Well, if a Captain isn't happy with the Purser, he/she can release her/him of all flight duties anytime.

If this would justify a diversion....

To me - no.

[Mr A Tis]

Everyone pass their CRM course?:eek:

[lexxie747]

youll find it was 411A

[captjns]

As part of our document checks before departure either to or from the US, we need to see the General Declaration to ensure that is correct. After reviewing the document, I sign it and give it back to the Senior Cabin Crewmember so she/he can hand it over to the ground handler upon arrival.

As for the behavior of this captain, on the surface, it appears that all his oars were definitely not in the water.

I can't believe that anyone would divert a flight, especially and international flight, becuase a request was not complied with. I can't wait to hear the true spin on this event.

[ExSp33db1rd]

Respect for Captain ?

747 Freighter Captain offered a choice of crew meal for the next day, chose not to have crew menu as offered, could he please just have a roast beef sandwich ? No problem he was told.

Next day despatcher telephoned by ATC and asked status of freighter ? Gone said despatcher, departed about 30 mins ago. No said tower, still on the ramp. Despatcher attended aircraft, plugged in a headset and talked to crew, gotta problem ? Yes said the Captain, I haven't got my roast beef sandwich !

True story, many, many years ago.

[threemiles]

Why would a bothered cpt depart and divert when the gen dec signature shall happen before departure? There seems to be another story here.

[rmac]

Maybe a case of the straw and the camels back ?

Something started between them earlier in the trip and then niggle, niggle, niggle, pause, explode .........:eek:

I recognise the pattern from when I am not on good diplomatic relations with Mrs Mac and she wants to wind me up, she lights the blue touch paper and then stands back all innocent when the explosion happens.

Just a thought..

[411A]

...anyway, where is 414A when you need some forthright opinion on Captaincy styles?
411A is right here, with his considered opinion.

Seems to me the UAL Captain was just a tad, over the top.

In over thirty years of airline flying, I have off-loaded an entire cabin crew (except the cabin supervisor) only one time.
At RUH, the cabin supervisor told me that the CC were being totally uncooperative.
They were offloaded, pronto, and replaced by those on standby at the RUH station.
I submitted my report, the cabin supervisor submitted hers...the malcontent CC were terminated, forthwith.

[captjns]

Something started between them earlier in the trip and then niggle, niggle, niggle, pause, explode

I witnessed that when I was a Tyro some 30 years ago when I was doing my observation flights. It was between the PIC and the Sr. F/A. Day one was all was fun and games, and by day 4 all was a nightmare from Elm Sreet:}!

[Cacophonix]

An angry Captain is likely to be a distracted Captain. In the short term if removing the source of the inritation allowed him to focus on the flight and safely complete it then so be it.

[BOAC]

The ORD-GRU-ORD trip was the Captain's first trip back to the line after extended sick leave. The Captain has been removed from the remainder of his flying schedule. The Purser who was removed, has NOT been removed from the remainder of her flying schedule.

Draw your own conclusions...

This really says it all. He had other options. I suspect he was still probably not fit to operate. All very unfortunate. Hopefully he will get eventually get back to 'normal'.

[captjns]

An angry Captain is likely to be a distracted Captain. In the short term if removing the source of the inritation allowed him to focus on the flight and safely complete it then so be it.

Perhaps he was the source of his own irritation:confused:. Still no reason to divert a jet. If the Skipper was stalwartly felt the Purser to be inadequate and or noncompliant, as PIC of the entire crew, he should have given one of the F/As an infield promotion. Then he and those F/Os present during the incident prepare an in-flight incident report to be submitted to the C/P and C/FA for review and disciplinary actions.

In the long run probably a better alternative than to diverting a flight for a nonemergency, and inconveniencing passengers, remainder of the crew, and having an aircraft out of sequence for further use.

[foxcharliep2]

Still no reason to divert a jet. If the Skipper was stalwartly felt the Purser to be inadequate and or noncompliant, as PIC of the entire crew, he should have given one of the F/As an infield promotion. Then he and those F/Os present during the incident prepare an in-flight incident report to be submitted to the C/P and C/FA for review and disciplinary actions.



Would have been the proper way to manage the issue - exercise your PIC power, put her/him on Dead Head status, write a report, drink coffee with cookies later at HQ.

Avoids headlines and fuss.

[Captain Bob]

I think there is a lot more to this story than what has surfaced here. I have a couple of friends at UAL and so far they say there isn't much to be said. So I take what I read here with a grain of salt.

I only ask that what is the difference if you land a jet (doesn't matter if it is a Domestic or International Flight) because of some a passenger creating a problem or a Cabin Staff doing the same? The passenger more than likely will probably go to jail.

The Captain on this Flight had to make this decision. I am sure he talked to both of his First Officer's about what his intention was. I have seen Cabin Staff shenanigan's on many of flights over the years. I have left Flight Attendants behind, I have demoted the Purser to the back of the aircraft. I will do what is necessary to have a safe trip with as little tension as possible. They work for me, I don't work for them. It isn't a popularity contest in any form or fashion. It's a benevolent dictatorship.

I do remember many years ago after our Flight Attendant strike that there was a lot of Cat Fighting going on all the time. So and so wouldn't do this and that. Tensions were always high for a long time. It was mostly between the Cabin Staff but occasionally the Cockpit Crew would get involved.

This isn't the first time this has happened, it certainly will not be the last. I know it has happened at the airline I work for and probably every other one as well. Give it some time until the facts come out.

[hetfield]

I only ask that what is the difference if you land a jet (doesn't matter if it is a Domestic or International Flight) because of some a passenger creating a problem or a Cabin Staff doing the same?....

The Captain on this Flight had to make this decision. I am sure he talked to both of his First Officer's about what his intention was. I have seen Cabin Staff shenanigan's on many of flights over the years. I have left Flight Attendants behind, I have demoted the Purser to the back of the aircraft. I will do what is necessary to have a safe trip with as little tension as possible. They work for me, I don't work for them....ehrrrm

1. We are talking about a diversion of a major US carrier. Cabin Staff "creating a problem" must be very serious (Revolution a la Bounty /Terrorists?)

2. "I am sure he talked to both of his First Officer's about what his intention was."

I'm sure he did, as well. I'm not sure they agreed....

3. "They work for me, I don't work for them."

What is this? You both work for a big Airliner. You both should work as a team, not as a dictator...

regards

hetfield

Captain of a major EU Airline

[Captain Bob]

Yes I am well aware Hetfield. I know the differences very well. However there seems be a difference on what we do and how we do it. The only thing I can say is that you are the Captain of your aircraft and I am the Captain of mine. I don't subscribe to the Team Concept. There can only be one Captain on the Aircraft, period.

Respectfully,

Bob

[hetfield]

The million dollar question is:

"What behaviour of a purser would justify a diversion of an airliner"?

- sickness
- creating a "safety problem"
- .........


tell me.........................

[411A]

I don't subscribe to the Team Concept. There can only be one Captain on the Aircraft, period.



Yup, I would agree.

And further, the regulatory authorities also agree...just one is in charge, and that person is the designated Captain.
This does not mean, of course, that the Captain should not expect nor solicit the opinions of other crew members, however, the final decision rests with the Commander/Captain....not withstanding all the latest mumbo-jumbo CRM/team concept nonsense.

[powdermonkey]

Capt Bob,

As an FO I fully agree with you! There can only be ONE captain per flight, the buck stops with you on ALL matters, good or bad, bar one, safety! If a captain makes a bad call related to safety then the FO had got to do something, on all other matters, advice can be given by crew members but the flight is NOT run by a commitee!
That's why you earn the big bucks!!!!!

[KC135777]

The below regulatory guidance is clear enough, regarding crewmember compliance with the Capain's instructions.

I'm wondering why he didn't have the FBI meet the aircraft. One would think that, crewmember or passenger, noncompliance with flight crewmember instructions (ESPECIALLY the Captain) is a federal offense.

hmmmm......

KC135777


FAR 121.535 Responsibility for operational control: Flag operations.

(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.

[RoyHudd]

The trouble with cabin crew is that they do not understand their place in the work hierarchy. In general, they consider themselves as equals of pilots. In human terms outside of work, yes. In professional terms, in the workplace, absolutely not. (Any more than doctors and nurses, lawyers and clerks, managers and secretaries, etc.)

The required qualifications, and level and duration of training required to achieve purser or wide-body pilot are in no way comparable. Not even close.

In this instance, the Captain was exercising his professional duties.

[silverware]

"The trouble with cabin crew is that they do not understand their place in the work hierarchy. In general, they consider themselves as equals of pilots. In human terms outside of work, yes. In professional terms, in the workplace, absolutely not. (Any more than doctors and nurses, lawyers and clerks, managers and secretaries, etc.)

The required qualifications, and level and duration of training required to achieve purser or wide-body pilot are in no way comparable. Not even close.

In this instance, the Captain was exercising his professional duties"


Try posting this point of view in the cabin crew section if you like to get some real discussion going...

[BOAC]

Let's get this in perspective.

UNLESS there is a risk to the safety of the aeroplane, there is no need to divert. IF you have more than the minimum crew, the obvious solution is to stand down the 'offending', instantly 'promote' as necessary to fill the gap, and then throw the book at the offending on landing IF REQUIRED. There must have been an SFA that could have taken over. This 'I am the Captain and I'm in charge' stuff is not relevant as this has been presented to us. There is no 'threat' to the perceived status of the Captain by doing this.

After the diversion, with FTL issues to consider, possible tech problems on turn-round, possible delays, passenger inconvenience, costs etc etc, where are you when you get airborne? 1 crew-member short. It sounds to me as if 2 heads needed banging together. What a waste of everybody's time and effort. I take it this was after a lay-over?

To add to the 'steak sandwich' story, many years ago, early 90's, I was listening (as a BA 'poor relation') to BA company freq in CPH to hear Rodney from Golden runways declare "WELL - I'm not leaving until we get the cheeseboard".:)

[FrequentSLF]

As a SLF I do wonder what all this fuss is coming out.
If the PIC decided to off load a purser the only reason is that he/she was a threat to the aircraft.
Any other reasons have no commercial standing.
I do no think that the issue is if the PIC has the right to offload the purser, the issue is if diverting was the right choice.
IMHO it was not, and in this case I would raise the question if the PIC was fit for duty. His/Her decision making was not up to the task.
I have seen passengers restrained on the plane, and the PIC did not divert to offload them, so if this purser was so unruly why was not restrained? I am sure that all aircrafts carry the necessary means to restrain any unruly person.
FSLF

[apaddyinuk]

OMG the holier then though opinions of some of you "professionals" is shocking and actually terrifying! The vast majority of industry experts if they were to read this would probably give up flying for ever for the fear of ending up on a flight with a power hungry pilot! :ugh:

[foxcharliep2]

Captain Bob
I don't subscribe to the Team Concept. There can only be one Captain on the Aircraft, period.


Too bad you don’t subscribe to the first part – agree on the second part.



411A
not withstanding all the latest mumbo-jumbo CRM/team concept nonsense

No surprise CRM is nonsense to you ….what else is new ??

[411A]

OMG the holier then though opinions of some of you "professionals" is shocking and actually terrifying! The vast majority of industry experts if they were to read this would probably give up flying for ever for the fear ....

They are welcome to their personal opinions, because....they are not in Command of an airliner.
We are, they ain't. A simple concept to understand.

No surprise CRM is nonsense to you ….what else is new ??
Not much else.:}
You are advised to stay firmly ground bound, if you don't like my arrangements.
Makes no difference to me, whatsoever, nor my present airline company.

[lomapaseo]

to me it's simple.

The captain has the last say in the air.

On the ground the company has the last say.

We (the rest of us) are just guessing what we would have done both in the air and on the ground.

[400drvr]

Once upon a time....The Captain was in charge!

[Desert Diner]

The captain has the last say in the air.

On the ground the company has the last say.



Furthermore, the captain is also entrusted by the company with an aircraft in order to generate revenue in a safe as well as cost effective maner.

Landing at MIA, as oposed to MCO (as per FO advice), or better yet continuing to ORD, over what seems to have been a disagreement with the purser, does not sound very cost effective.

Based on the "facts" so far, I seriously doubt that the company will entrust any more of their aircraft to this guy.

[overthewing]

Doesn't sound to me as if the flight was in any physical danger, or likely to be so. Diverting the flight if there are unruly passengers causing a physical threat is one thing - and rare. Insisting on diverting because of a personal issue with cabin staff, where the main threat is to the paperwork...seems a ridiculous overreaction. This is not the behaviour of a rational captain in sober command of his senses; it's Basil Fawlty attacking his car with a tree.

[wiggy]

What, you mean it was like this..:

YouTube - Fawlty Thrashing Car (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmQMYMcY6nI)

[p51guy]

The captain knew when he made his decision to land at MIA to get the purser who wouldn't follow his legal command orders he had to defend that decision. It must have been a defendable reason so he was probably right. Obviously the purser would not follow his instructions so he felt she could not be trusted to listen to his orders in an emergency. He chose this to flying with someone he could not count on. Any other reason would not be defendable.

[Rananim]

Difficult to judge without being there but diversion was a poor decision.Time to throw the book is after landing with passengers deplaned.Once airborne,you owe it to yourself,your crew and passengers to remain totally unflappable.

[p51guy]

I have dealt with out of control pursers and always made it to destination but some captains choose to make an example out of their insubordination and do something like this captain did. I am sure the purser will get some counseling on this one. It cost the company a lot of money. If the captain was wrong, he will get the same.

[lomapaseo]

Can somebody take a peek into the private CC forum and let us know how the discussion is going there on this one;)

[skywild]

It takes an exceptional personality to be a leader.
I expect pilots are trained in leadership and management to kill egomania and trust they know to manage their teams with EQ and IQ. Presidents/CEO's/surgeons/pilots need to be psychologically and intellectually excellent to have lives and fortunes entrusted to them. Real leaders live this as a personal philosophy........training notwithstanding.

From all accounts, this captain deserves to be fired.
It seems, unfortunately, he did not have the leadership/managerial skills to deal with the situation........

[VH-UFO]

The Purser of flight 842 was female. The Captain of the flight wanted the general declaration so he could add his signature to it. The Purser was not in a position to grab another flight attendant right at that moment to monitor the area so the gen dec could be passed through the cockpit door. The situation escalated.

A question regarding the above paragraph.

Am i right in understanding that a rule exists whereby a Flight Attendant MUST be present to monitor the area while another F/A passes something, in this case a general declaration, through the cockpit door?

[kenhughes]

I hacked into the system and gave you access to the private CC forum:-

http://www.pprune.org/cabin-crew/381532-captain-diverts-orders-purser-off-aircraft.html

(Not really - the CC forum isn't private :))

Less fuss being made by the CC than there is by the pilots. Strange?

[Desert Diner]

It must have been a defendable reason so he was probably right. Obviously the purser would not follow his instructions so he felt she could not be trusted to listen to his orders in an emergency. He chose this to flying with someone he could not count on. Any other reason would not be defendable.

You are joking, right?

[chapfromywg]

I wonder if the captain's decision is this situation will be deemed "ultra vires"

[SaturnV]

I know beancounters are detested here, but how much did this diversion into MIA cost United? There would have been a landing fee, perhaps the MIA per passenger departure fee as well, the cost of additional fuel, and whatever charges and fees were levied by the airline whose gate and services were used to disembark the offending purser (United not having a station in Miami).

According to the New England Journal of Medicine, the cost of a medical diversion can run from $3,000 to $100,000 (in 2002 dollars). Airlines are charging disruptive passengers for the cost of having to divert the flight and toss them off the plane, and the chaege is running in the tens of thousands of $. From a precedent standpoint, United would be ill-advised to indicate that this diversion was at little or no cost, given the precedent that might carry when they try collecting in the future from a disruptive passenger.

[Ex Cargo Clown]

Hang on a minute, for all those saying "the Captain's word is final", you are quite wrong with that.

It is unlawful to refuse a REASONABLE order by the Commander of an aircraft.

In this case, from the evidence supplied, the Captain decided that as his request for the Gendec was not immediately acted upon then this was an act of insubordination and hence a flight safety danger.

What utter tosh.

Ask yourself this, if an F/O had commanded a G/A on an unstable approach flown by the Capt, would they then be offloaded, as clearly they are also insubordinate ?

[captjns]

It was alleged earlier in this thread the captain was on extended sick leave. Perhaps he needs another extended period of sick leave until his 65th birthday. Who knows, perhaps this guy was a time bomb waiting to explode and the Relief and First Officers were either afraid to disagree with this nut job, or just happy to see this particular legend in his own mind off loaded too.

Could you imagine if this wonder boy was carrying a piece as a FFDO? I would hate to imagine the consequences when the Purser brought the Gen Dec into the cockpit.

[preset]

Seems to me it's a bit over the top to divert, I would have thought sending the relevant cabin crew member to work at the rear of the aircraft as far away from the cockpit as possible. If she was the Chief Purser then designate the second in charge to take charge etc.

Best I ever witnessed when a cabin crew was extremely disrespectful to the Captain (this was on ground before departure), the Captain instructed the CC to call crew control & get herself replaced :D
She had to explain to crew control why she was making the call etc :O

[TTex600]

An airliner made an unscheduled landing. Other than that, what are the true , known, FACTS?

Until further information is revealed, why comment?

In any case, as an airline Captain, I will give the benefit of doubt to the Captain until the FACTS prove him wrong.

[brakedwell]

I think there is more behind this than meets the eye!

[Rainboe]

Tx600, quite! People forget you are going at nearly 600mph. There is no time to have a discussion about 'command philosophy', 'reasonableness' or anything else. At that speed, entertaining guests up there is out of the question, and discussions of 'should you obey this command?' are also off the menu. Whilst it would appear the reaction is extreme, I hesitate to criticise anybody's actions. The investigation will examine it far better than the Pprune Courts Martial Board! It's too easy to fire off opinions from a keyboard (anonymously), unaware of most of the facts!

[747JJ]

I agree with Rainboe. There have been cases that I have been tempted to take similar action with a member of cabin crew. Luckily though I've managed to avert such extreme measures but have had some very serious words with these self appointed "Cabin Captains" after and sometimes during the flight.

[Litebulbs]

The Captain has absolute authority from accepting the aircraft, until handing it back to the relevant ground staff. The said Captain in this incident will now have to justify the actions taken, to whoever will be reviewing what went on.

Just because you have absolute authority, it does not follow that all decisions make with that authority, will be right.

[SaturnV]

There is an account that the flight was met in Miami by police and TSA staff, and that the captain declared that the purser was a terrorist. Third hand account to be sure, although presumably the captain had given some reason to ATC for why he was landing in Miami. (One test of the accuracy of this particular account would be if the plane was indeed met by police and TSA.)

For the account narrative, see post 40 or 41 here:
UA842 [GRU-ORD] Diversion to MIA on July 13 - Page 3 - FlyerTalk Forums (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/united-mileage-plus/974931-ua842-gru-ord-diversion-mia-july-13-a-3.html)

[SASless]

Last time I read the law....the Captain is Boss.

He made a decision and either will be supported by management or will be taken to task. Either way....the decision upon "HIS" action will made just as he made a decision on the "Purser's" action. There can only be one "Boss" in a crew.....and as much as some Cabin Crew hate it....they are Crew and not "Boss".

Not every "Boss" rise to the level of ability that all should aspire to....and in this case the management review will determine the situation in this bit of black comedy.

[AltFlaps]

I've had to deal with something similar a couple of times.

I suspect that this had nothing to do with a gen dec, and that it was just the fuse for what was very likely an ongoing dispute.

There are some pursers/cabin managers/number one's who have some major issues with authority. In fact, I'm not sure which is worse - 'the sassy gay guy' or 'the don't talk to me 'case I'm so precious female'.

Nobody seems to be prepared to accept an instruction anymore - everyone is just far too important starring is their own movies.

I remember a story from a BA flight some years ago (trans-atlantic) ... when the flight crew were filling in the techlog at the end of the sector, they noticed (from the cabin defect log) that 2 BCFs has been discharged in the cabin. This was news to the captain, and when asked, the purser told him that she was more than cabaple of dealing with the in-flight toilet fire without reference to him !!! :ugh::ugh::ugh:

[Dani]

well, looks like captains wish to be handed over the dec immediatly was completly irrelevant (of course, I could be wrong, but the odds are...)

I witnessed a very similar situation in a wide body cockpit of a major airline once. The captain refused to talk to the senior attendant. He talked (in presence of the senior) to the FO, the FO had to tell the senior, the senior replied, the FO had to narrate it to captain.

Let me guess: The captain was near his 60's.

These guys should just go. They never have understood CRM. Authority doesn't mean despotism. You can only order your subordinates if you understand them. Go and command an infantry platoon, if you don't believe me. These soldiers would just walk away giggling.

Dani

[rogerg]

Let me guess: The captain was near his 60's.

These guys should just go. They never have understood CRM


I can assure you that good CRM has nothing to do with age. Many youngsters think they know it all and dont need any help.

As they gain experience they may begin to see the whole picture.

This could even apply to you!.

[hetfield]

Let me guess: The captain was near his 60's.

These guys should just go. They never have understood CRM.

Are you serious?

[Airbubba]

There is an account that the flight was met in Miami by police and TSA staff, and that the captain declared that the purser was a terrorist.

Flying the IGS for Pan Am out of TXL we were taught the difference between a German purser and a terrorist - you can negotiate with a terrorist.:)

Here's the track and flight plan of the divert:

FlightAware > Live Flight Tracker > United Air Lines Inc. #842 > 13-Jul-2009 > SBGR-KMIA (http://flightaware.com/live/flight/UAL842/history/20090714/0020Z/SBGR/KMIA)

I do wonder why they would go to MIA instead of MCO, especially since the original route was over ORL. MCO has pretty much the same tactical assets as MIA from my experience, I've been based at both places over the years. Of course, at that time of night, you usually get directs in U.S. airspace anyway so routing was probably not an issue.

[SaturnV]

Airbubba, given the security controls in place these days, would you not have to assert some substantive reason for needing to land in Miami, where your airline no longer has a station. Otherwise, you might see fighters scrambled by a suspicious ATC.

[point8six]

Dani - most Captains of 60 or thereabouts nowadays, flew with many characters in the LHS to whom CRM stood for "Captain's Right Mate" and would not tolerate any conversation, unless instigated by them first.
CRM has come a long way since then, but is certainly not perfect.
Your posting hints at other agendas - perhaps you need another CRM course?

[Dani]

I can assure you that good CRM has nothing to do with age.

That is correct: There are also young guys who do not have a concept of good CRM. It's as always, biggest problem is the human factor. Everyone learns to fly, but not everyone can learn to handle people.

If there is not an important part of the story missing, I would say, this was the last flight of this captain - 60 or not.

Dani

[Atlanta-Driver]

While the measure to offload the purser seems somewhat drastic, I am sure that we do not have the full picture and all the details as to what happened. But as some contributors have implied, there is more to this than meets the eye.

It is funny how the concept of CRM has started to degenrate to a weapon for anti-authority mob both in the cabin and cockpit. The same lot seems to forget that there is only one person in charge on an aircraft: Captain or Commander. Some decisions are not subject to discussion and there are situations where the Captain does not have to explain his crew his actions, no time for example.

A crew is a team, but a team without a leader will be reduced to riff raff without direction. That is why there is a leader in the team and why conducting a flight operation is not a democratic decision making process where all points of view must be heard and then subject to a popular vote.

I have met people that have no concept of CRM and task sharing on all sides of aviation so lack of CRM is certainly not restricted so 60+ Captains. Most of the over 60 something Captains I know are actually quite good on CRM as they have the tolarance to take in the misgivings of the younger generation of aviation professionals and theire sometimes misguided ideas of managing a flight.

[Oilhead]

Do not understand the debate over MIA v MCO. UA has mainline ops in MIA as well as MCO.

[BobT]

Gentlemen, Obviously, the PIC is legally responsible for and empowered to act in (almost) any way needed for safe operation the flight. Nobody is questioning that.

But has it occurred that simply because one has a legal right to do X, that doesn't automatically make X right, correct, sensible or even sane in every situation?

Given the information available, this was clearly a very poor decision by what appears to be a troubled person, who probably ought not be responsible for hundreds of passengers right now.

[GobonaStick]

Effective leadership requires qualities and characteristics which I believe are usually the exact opposite of those that people imagine leaders ought to possess.

[Will Fraser]

Some readily confuse leadership with management, and use the two terms interchangeably. A leader may manage, but a manager seldom leads, that is why he/she is a manager.

[lomapaseo]

Effective leadership requires qualities and characteristics which I believe are usually the exact opposite of those that people imagine leaders ought to possess.

I sense that I'm going off topic here, but the catch all phase above. (my bolding), does not fit my experience.

Those in authority in my experience vary much. My sense is that once they are faced with huge responsibilities under pressure day after day, they respond sucessfully with good CRM.

When they are first put into a role of authority they tend to excercise that trait before CRM.

I rarely see poor CRM at the highest levels of responsibility. I tend to see poor CRM more often in so called straw bosses.

[SaturnV]

Oilhead, any United flights out of Miami are code-shares (e.g., US Airways), or Shuttle America. United ceased flying its own planes to and from Miami on June 3, 2009. United had steadily reduced its service, and, at the end, it was two flights a day to IAD, two to ORD, and one to DEN.

[Oilhead]

Thanks didn't realize that - I had taken a flight on an UA Hairbrush down there in May! My statement was true eight weeks ago! :}

[BOAC]

Let's just refresh on the post by The Bartender at the start

The ORD-GRU-ORD trip was the Captain's first trip back to the line after extended sick leave. The Captain has been removed from the remainder of his flying schedule. The Purser who was removed, has NOT been removed from the remainder of her flying schedule.

Draw your own conclusions...It appears that the airline made its decision. One assumes they knew the facts. No-one has told us he has returned to flying duties.

Command is not about 'just do it because I'm the boss'. This is not about 'challenging' the authority of the Captain. Command is about exercising your authority in a responsible and measured way. It is about leading as a leader and HANDLING situations in a sensible and ratiuonal way. There appears to have been no 'emergency' requiring decisive and dramatic action - a piece of paper, in fact, which is not really required until in Customs at destination, for heaven's sake. By all accounts the purser was acting correctly in terms of company SOPs. On the information I have seen here, the airline's action is indeed correct. This Captain has done a lot of damage to the status of the aircraft commander.

747JJ said There have been cases that I have been tempted to take similar action with a member of cabin crew. - I cannot imagine what on earth it could have been to cause you to seriously think about diverting your flights!

[GrumpyOldFart]

There's not much being said here about the actions (or lack thereof) of the two FOs. Were they fully aware of the situation? And at what point do the experts on here feel they should have become involved?

[Human Factor]

There's not much being said here about the actions (or lack thereof) of the two FOs. Were they fully aware of the situation? And at what point do the experts on here feel they should have become involved?

I have no knowledge of this incident other than what I've read here. However, assuming they knew what was going on and expressed contrary opinions to the Captain, if he then decided to ignore those opinions, there's not a great deal they could do about it. I would suggest that although the decision which was made may well have been flawed, the course of action taken was safe and to try to prevent that course of action may have jeopardised that. I have no doubt the management will have questioned the FOs in some depth as to their role in the proceedings.

Ultimately though, the commander makes the final decision (right or wrong) and should be able to justify it later. If he can't, he must deal with the consequences.

[wes_wall]

Pitiful is all I can say. This Captain was lucky the remainder of the crew did not walk off stating lack of duty time. Also, what about minimum FA staffing - one for every fifty paxs? Could have had a real mess, not to mention customs and imigrations.

[kenhughes]

An update posted today (Sunday, July, 19th) in Kieran Daly's blog on Flight Global:

Unusual Attitude (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/unusual-attitude/)

According to various United sources the captain was on his first trip back after extended sick leave.

About 45min into the flight he asks for a document called the crew declaration. There's a delay because the in-flight service is underway and for various reasons relating to security procedures the female purser eventually ends up pushing it under the door.

Fast forward a bit and the captain apparently ends up yelling at her and still later the cabin crew is suddenly told that the aircraft is about to land at Miami. Nobody really seems to know what is going on and eventually they end up at the gate at Miami with, so I'm told, police, TSA and fire department in attendance.

One way or another the purser ends up on the ground and the aircraft departs for Chicago where it is met by appropriate UAL officials. Captain still off flight duty.

I don't think this has much to do with CRM, though obviously there are some HR and procedural questions that UAL and the FAA will be talking about. But in my view it's just life.

Doesn't really add much, but makes the event even more mysterious.

[Latearrival]

Taken from another forum:
Given the disruption and cost implications nobody would divert for any other reason than those related to the perception of safety.
Granted that all the facts aren't known and there may have been extenuating circumstances but on this thread, several seem to be saying or implying that if the Captain diverted to assert his authority, he was justified in doing so.

I understand the Captain's legal and operational authority but it seems obvious that in addition to all his other responsibilities, a Captain is responsible for ensuring crew members do their jobs well. People don't do their best work in an atmosphere of intimidation or feeling that their opinion isn't respected or considered. Megalomaniacs don't make good bosses. A good boss/leader in any field finds a way to bring out the best in people. Expectations of blind obedience (unless it's a safety issue with no time for discussion) don't seem any more reasonable in aviation than they are in any other field.

Although generalizations are dangerous, I suspect that if a poll were taken, a trend might appear based on age and country of origin/culture. However, I don't think many would disagree that an older, experienced Captain with good technical and people skills (along with maturity and common sense) would be the complete package. It seems many PPRuNe contributors would fit that description. Others....not so much.

But I'm just lowly SLF.....so what do I know--just in case anyone wanted to point that out.

[eagle21]

The problem is that many people get confused between authority and leadership.


Authority is given to you by your working title of Captain


Leadership are some skills that hopefully your airline would have made sure you had before they upgraded you to Captain. Leadership is the ability to motivate others to follow you towards the achievemt of a goal. Only you can work on your people skills to become a leader.

Obviously this captain lacked leadership this is why he won't fly again.


It is interesting to note that many airlines upgrade FOs to Cpts based on seniority and not on their competence and leadership skills , now they suffer stupid diversions such as this one.

[Human Factor]

It is interesting to note that many airlines upgrade FOs to Cpts based on seniority and not on their competence and leadership skills , now they suffer stupid diversions such as this one.

One would hope in that respect, most airlines follow the example of BA. When you reach the appropriate seniority level, you may apply for a command. If your bid is successful, you do the appropriate courses and if you pass, you get the command.

I hope it isn't automatic anywhere.:eek:

[Ancient Observer]

The whole "seniority" system in Aviation is terrible and should be abolished. Just because someone has been in a particular employer for longer than someone else is no grounds for getting benefits that someone else does not get.
One day I do hope that the Age discrimination police get hold of this and have it abolished.

[boardingpass]

I'm a senior cabin crew member and have certainly seen a few Captains acting a little irrationally, usually it is about food and drink rather than paperwork though. In the past, I have heard a Captain shouting at a senior (I was guarding the F/D door) because his hot meal wasn't ready yet... But they waited until the duty was finished before they debriefed on the ground.

My question is, though, if a captain begins becoming too irrational (maybe he's been drinking in the toilet, maybe he's having a mild stroke, maybe his wife's in hospital and he's having a breakdown), is there a mechanism in place to stand him down and the F/O take command? I'm not talking mutiny, but perhaps an F/O deciding for 'medical' reasons that the captain is 'incapacitated' and therefore assumes command, even if the Captain feels otherwise?

[BOAC]

Cabin crew drinking in the lavatory becoming inebriated and starting a brawl would certainly qualify for considering a diversion rather than continuing. I was there, you where not.- thanks for your advice - I have only just stopped laughing. I have actually had a 'real life' in which many issues with c/crew have arisen and have been handled in a reasonable and professional manner although I never experienced that - and now I am retired .

The example you quote is ludicrous. Are you suggesting you experienced this and you are putting this forward as an example where you only 'considered' diverting? I see you have no stated flying experience in your profile, so I shall treat your contribution accordingly. Even the newest least experienced airline pilot knows that the example you quoted renders the crew unfit for duty and therefore a landing asap is required.
There have been cases that I have been tempted to take similar action with a member of cabin crew. Luckily though I've managed to avert such extreme measures but have had some very serious words with these self appointed "Cabin Captains" after and sometimes during the flight.

[Andy_S]

My question is, though, if a captain begins becoming too irrational (maybe he's been drinking in the toilet, maybe he's having a mild stroke, maybe his wife's in hospital and he's having a breakdown), is there a mechanism in place to stand him down and the F/O take command? I'm not talking mutiny, but perhaps an F/O deciding for 'medical' reasons that the captain is 'incapacitated' and therefore assumes command, even if the Captain feels otherwise?

Not quite the same, but there was a recent case of a co-pilot needing to be restrained:

Pilot restrained after yelling to God on flight - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1577015/Pilot-restrained-after-yelling-to-God-on-flight.html)

[747JJ]

As I said, you where not there dear BOAC. Keep laughing, makes you live longer. End of information J.

[Landroger]

Having read the whole thread, I am left with an uncomfortable image from a well known movie. It makes me wonder if the Captain in question had any tendency to roll 5/8" ball bearings in one hand and have concerns about ice cream?

As an SLF, I would like to think that is only a movie image. I really do not want someone like that flying my aeroplane.

Roger.

[Rainboe]

It's not for you to decide. You do not know what went on or any of the circumstances. Don't make shoot from the hip judgements. The airline is well able to handle it and will present you with a licensed and proper crew to fly your aeroplanes when you go passenger. It is not for you to presume to chose who is good enough to fly you.

[Landroger]

It's not for you to decide. You do not know what went on or any of the circumstances. Don't make shoot from the hip judgements. The airline is well able to handle it and will present you with a licensed and proper crew to fly your aeroplanes when you go passenger. It is not for you to presume to chose who is good enough to fly you.


I'm not sure that I made a judgement Rainboe - I merely read the thread and many parts of it seem to indicate that the Captain appears to have over reacted somewhat. And I beg to differ - it is for me to presume who is good enough because, if the Captain were to be in the ball rolling, ice cream counting mould, I would be right not to choose such a pilot.

I know airline pilots, I am even related to one of them and they are all strikingly good at dealing with people and reacting with rare prescience. On the evidence presented here, landing that aeroplane other than at its destination does seem a worrying excentricity at the very least. Unless of course the Purser was on fire. :)

Roger.

[finfly1]

There is a website which archives US ATC radio traffic. It would be MOST interesting if someone more techie than I (which is most people) would post a link to the radio traffic which ensued as this event unfolded.

[Airbubba]

There is a website which archives US ATC radio traffic. It would be MOST interesting if someone more techie than I (which is most people) would post a link to the radio traffic which ensued as this event unfolded.

Here's the site:

ATC Audio Archives | LiveATC.net (http://www.liveatc.net/archive.php)

However, they do not appear to have a MIA feed at the present time.

[SaturnV]

finfly, indeed they (the radio transcripts) would.

If this captain materially mis-represented the reason why he was diverting to Miami, then he could be in trouble with the government. (And may already be, if the unverified claim that his pilot's license has been pulled is correct.)

It would seem that explanations of a physically disruptive person interfering or potentially interfering with the crew, or a person exhibiting manifestly suspicious or threatening behavior would warrant the appearance of police and TSA staff (supposedly with guns drawn) at the gate.

An explanation that an insubordinate member of the crew had to be off-loaded in Miami might raise suspicions in ATC that something more sinister was happening on that plane, and this also might warrant police and TSA being at the gate.

Suppose, the captain refused to give a reason, simply stating that he needed to divert to Miami and he would explain when he landed, --would not ATC be suspicious of what was actually happening on this flight and ensure the appearance of police and TSA with guns drawn at the gate?

[glob99]

Will there be an FAA report on this incident?

[egbt]

It's not for you to decide. You do not know what went on or any of the circumstances. Don't make shoot from the hip judgements.

I agree with all of that but in a general sense not with

It is not for you to presume to chose who is good enough to fly you.

I will decide which airlines I care to fly with from my perception of their professionalism, safety & service record - there are several I will not fly with for these reasons also at least one for ethical reasons (ie how I perceive they treat their staff). If you think that SLF do not care, at least about some of these points then you are mistaken.

The airline needs to put this to bed quickly or it could cause them problems as they will be perceived as having unprofessional crews and a poor management culture. And yes I know they need to do it sensitively with regard to a number of people – and not just the Captain.

[Rainboe]

Landroger
I really do not want someone like that flying my aeroplane.
That looks pretty judgemental to me. There is a lot of comment being made that appears to indicate that a judgement has been made. The airline will look into it. Nobody knows the circumstances yet. There are some quite stupid presumptious shoot from the hip comments being made. We just don't know the circumstances. How can people be so judgemental at this stage?

[p51guy]

I think most of us agree that the facts are not known so until then we should not be trying to judge what happened.

[Litebulbs]

The Captain will be either right or wrong. That is what comes with absolute authority.

Now, if the decision is wrong, then is dismissal the right action? If the crew member is wrong, is the same consequence right? The crew member could not insist that the flight is diverted.

It does not matter about which job is the most qualified. If the Purser turns out to be the employee acting correctly, then all of the "I would do the same" chaps/ess, are wrong.

[parabellum]

Slight thread drift to those winging about the seniority system.

Seniority doesn't get an automatic command. On reaching the top of the seniority system the potential captain has to have sufficient experience, as set out in the ops manual, the appropriate licence and be considered, by his peers, to be suitable.

The fact that a more junior pilot may be better does not enter into it as all pilots are assumed to be up to standard and have to pass periodic checks and assessments to prove this, if they are found to be wanting then they will get extra training and may have to be re assessed at a later date for command suitability, more junior pilots may well overtake them.
(If a qualified captain should fail to demonstrate his competence and /or suitability at a later date he may well lose his command or even his job).

If all requirements are met so far then the First Officers now have to pass a command course and demonstrate their proficiency to fly and command an aircraft with crew and passengers, not everyone makes it the first time and some don't make it at all, despite extended training.

The seniority system , combined with an efficient and fair training system, works well.

[Dawdler]

The problem is that many people get confused between authority and leadership.

Whilst agreeing with the above, I would add that some people equally get confued between Responsibility and Authority.

The latter can be delegated, the former cannot.

D.

[captjns]

It would appear that Captain Ding Dong will have another extended leave of absense... hopefully til his 65th birthday.

[etrang]

What is somewhat concerning is how the usual suspects here have rushed to defend the indefensible. However, its clear that this pilot will be doing all of his flying in the back of the plane from now on.

[Atlanta-Driver]

Have not seen defending the actions of the Commander of the UAL flight, but I have seen a lot of questions wanting to know the full story behind this incident before reaching conclusions.

I have also seen is people jumping the gun and condemning either the Captain or the Purser when it could be that the fault lies in either or both of them and when there is no background info on what the circumstances where.

[Andy_S]

What is somewhat concerning is how the usual suspects here have rushed to defend the indefensible.

No more so than those who have rushed to label the incident as "indefensible" without knowing the full story......

However, its clear that this pilot will be doing all of his flying in the back of the plane from now on.

Says who?

[Roger Andout]

Anyone want to discuss the airline responsibility here? They presumably made the decision to return the pilot to duty after a prolonged illness.

[crippen]

Thats a very good point.The management/medical staff must bear some responsibility!:=

[Andy_S]

Oh for goodness sake! Now we've apparently decided that this Captain's actions were directly attributable to his previous illness (even if we don't know what that illness was).

[Toprotectandserve]

Some of the things I`ve read here make me think that some people have absolutely no idea of what it means to have authority or to be in charge.

It´s not just about power…it`s about responsability...

And it is more of a burden than a privilege...

So, I`m the captain. I`m the one. I have power. I decide. And that`s that.

Team effort? Rubbish! The billybobs in the back waggling around with mealtrays and pots of coffee? Part of a team? No way, they aren`t even my equals…

The kids that sit on my right with three stripes on their shoulder? Not yet on my level but, if they pay close attention during the time they (fortunately for them) spend with me, they might learn something. And, who knows, some of them may, one day, be worthy of sitting in a left-hand seat like me…

CRM? Another heap of trendy rubbish…just like that team effort thing…

OK, on a very happy day I might ask one of them for his/her opinion. But, rest assured, if it doesn`t go along with mine I will declare him totally uncooperative and kick him / her out of my plane. Speaking of which I fully expect to have every single order, wish or whim, on my behalf, fully carried out with no issues raised, or else I´ll find that I cannot trust him and I´ll activate the kicking procedure again…

It doesn`t really matter if they may not trust me…

It doesn`t really matter if I´m eventually breaking rules…

It doesn`t really matter if, by means of insufficient information, lack of common sense or plain bad judgement, my poor decision making may be placing them in discomfort, a tight spot or even in danger…

And the passengers? What about them? If they don´t agree with my views they can always stay on the ground. All of them. Even if my airline goes down the drain, I lose my job and my flying is limited to a few rides in a flying club Cessna every Sunday, I will still be a capitan…

To the many, many sensible and decent captains on the block, my apologies for writing this. But I truly thought that commercial aviation in the 21st Century was well and truly past these issues…

Rather sad to find it isn`t, after all… :(

[birrddog]

Toprotectandserve, you start off good...


It´s not just about power…it`s about responsability... (sic)

And it is more of a burden than a privilege...


And then...


......
OK, on a very happy day I might ask one of them for his/her opinion. But, rest assured, if it doesn`t go along with mine I will declare him totally uncooperative and kick him / her out of my plane. Speaking of which I fully expect to have every single order, wish or whim, on my behalf, fully carried out with no issues raised, or else I´ll find that I cannot trust him and I´ll activate the kicking procedure again…

It doesn`t really matter if they may not trust me…

It doesn`t really matter if I´m eventually breaking rules…

It doesn`t really matter if, by means of insufficient information, lack of common sense or plain bad judgement, my poor decision making may be placing them in discomfort, a tight spot or even in danger…

And the passengers? What about them? If they don´t agree with my views they can always stay on the ground. All of them. Even if my airline goes down the drain, I lose my job and my flying is limited to a few rides in a flying club Cessna every Sunday, I will still be a capitan…
Can also be perceived as "I'm the Captain of this 'yer mighty 747 and that mountain better move out of my way or I'll fly straight through it... I'm the Captain of a 747 for :mad: sake"

Don't get me wrong, I am a supporter of Captains authority and responsibility, it's the burden part you mention IMO is causing the outrage.

Part of the burden is accepting that you can and will be judged for your actions, you are fit (in all meanings of the word) to perform your actions, and that you can explain your actions after the fact with more than "I'm the Captain" and expecting that to be a free pass without having to provide a rational explanation as to your thought process at the time.

It's called discretion - Engine on fire - do what you like to have a happy ending - it's your right and time is of the essence.

Personal spat with a staff member - is it really worth "becoming famous" for?

It's your call, you are The Captain, after all.

And please don't make the assumption that all FO's are junior wet behind the ear pilots. There are plenty of valid reasons and situations where you will find more experienced FO's than you. Fortunately they believe in CRM.

[BOAC]

Cue for a song again................:)

[Andy_S]

And then...

Can also be perceived as "I'm the Captain of this 'yer mighty 747 and that mountain better move out of my way or I'll fly straight through it... I'm the Captain of a 747 for :mad: sake"

Birrdog,

I think there might have been just the tiniest element of irony in TPAS's message. Go back and read it again. I think you'll realise he's saying something entirely different......

[birrddog]

Andy_s/TPAS, apologies if it appeared I was taking on the statement directly; that was not my intention.

Edit: Like my misinterpretation of the Irony, I was afraid others might have heartily agreed based upon some of the posts in this thread!

[AlpineSkier]

Having read what "toprotectandserve " wrote I think he is mad, insane and should not have a buspass let alone control of an aircraft ( if he actually does ).


What does his "slightest whim " mean ? "Throw the passenger in 13c out of the door ( circumstances permitting) because he didn't look at me respectfully enough ? "

This ridiculous example should show that the captain's authority is limited, so no he doesn't have total authority/powers, just those which fall within normal laws.

There seem to be a surprising number of respondents who feel total unrestrained powers are/should be in order. My opinion is that these should be jettisoned down the same egress as the blue water.

[two green one prayer]

I want to fly with Toprotectand serve. Until God gets an ATPL.

[singpilot]

OK, OK, tongue firmly planted in cheek here....

Do you remember when you first learned to drive with Dad/Grandad? I'm old enough to not know what 'Drivers' Ed is. I lived in a ranch in California, and was allowed to drive to school and back at age 14.5....

Best advice I EVER got about driving was from Grandad (a U.S.Marshall, and was at that time Sheriff of the county we lived in). Advice was "Beware of old men in hats, and old ladies with blue hair".... I swear, to this day, that is good advice. I started laughing as he told me, because, at the time he told me, he was wearing his cowboy hat.

Fast forward to PriFly. Naval Instructor's best ever advice; "Beware short Captains with big watches"..... You know the rest.

After 37 years and 24K+ hours aloft, was the most important thing I ever learned about flying.

BTW, I am 5' 10" and never wore more than a 'plain jane' small Casio or Timex.

[Lamyna Flo]

AlpineSkier, do you not understand the concept of the word "irony"? Go check it out in the dictionary and then re-read TPAS's post :rolleyes:

[Latearrival]

TPAS...Your post and the ensuing replies gave me a better laugh than anything on Jet Blast. I wonder how many others didn't get it;)

[AlpineSkier]

@Lamyna Flo

Yes , I really do understand irony and would say that it is my default state and adore many kinds of comedy ( Monty Python being one but not exclusively).

Irony does however need at least a clue to indicate that the author is not serious.

Can you please point out where this is in the post we are discussing ?

[Carbon Bootprint]

Can you please point out where this is in the post we are discussing ?
Sure. How about the penultimate paragraph?

To the many, many sensible and decent captains on the block, my apologies for writing this. But I truly thought that commercial aviation in the 21st Century was well and truly past these issues…

Good enough for me. :rolleyes:

[AlpineSkier]

@CB + LF (and TPAS)

Ouch ,

Sorry. TPAS was too good there and my ire was running high and I (must have ) skimmed over the last para.

Mea culpa

[617SquadronDB]

Agreed! I enjoy 411A's posts.

[411A]

Quote:
There seem to be a surprising number of respondents who feel total unrestrained powers are/should be in order

They absolutely are, for the Captain, whilst airbourne, make no mistake.
The regulatory authorities have so said, in air navigation regulations.
However, they are subject to critical review, afterwords.

And afterwords, better have ducks lined up, properly.
No?
Expect repercussions.
Again...

Quote:
There seem to be a surprising number of respondents who feel total unrestrained powers are/should be in order.

Actually, Alpine Skier, you clearly are not an airline Captain, therefore, your comments are totally without merit.
Why am I not surprised?:rolleyes:

Case closed.

[mutt]

BOAC, i believe that 747JJ was talking about Hajj operations in 2008, the flight was operated by a certain asian airline.

Mutt

[BOAC]

Mutt - it matters not who was 'operating' - the point I was making that there can be no question of merely 'considering' a diversion with a drunk, brawling crew and by implication not doing it. The flight had become illegal, having insufficient or incapable crew. It could not continue unless it was a matter of extreme urgency. There appears to be zero correlation with this bizarre event.

[Desert Diner]

Diverting a fligth to offload someone that has become a danger to the flight is one thing. But diverting the flight to offload the purser for "disrespecting" the captain by shoving paperwork underneat the door is something quite different.

As has been said before, I hope there is more to this story that we do not know, because if there isn't, it is truly a pathetic display of "authority":rolleyes:

[747JJ]

Of course there is a question wether to divert to or not when you fly a longhaul aircraft and diversion can be as close as destination on extended overwater flights. I looked at your profile BOAC and saw that you fly 737's so I can leave give your comments the credit they deserve on the subject. (Sounds familiar eh, types current on added on profile for BOAC).

[muduckace]

This is why I love Freight!!! I feel like a lesser person for reading this drama. My bet the "drama queen" was probably the captain just to perpetuate this ****e.

[LeandroSecundo]

Hi,

Can't believe my eyes .. must be not real ... :ooh:
Already more than 130 posts for a non event

Bye.

[Maresias]

the thing most of you foreign pilots dont understand is that we do not have young subservient cabin crew at the american legacy carriers. We cant even call them 'cabin crew' -they are "Flight Attendants!" At Delta we have 500+ over 70yrs old. United is worse. And the old obnoxious ones are on these international flights. It's not hard to figure out why Singapore, Cathay, etc are always the favorites among passengers. -I'm afraid to even ask our flight attendants for a coffee. Thank god there are still captains who will stand up to them (and their cats)!

[cactusbusdrvr]

TPAS - time to remove tongue lodged firmly in cheek.



What's the difference between God and a Captain?

Answer: God doesn't believe he is a Captain.

[stilton]

Very well said Maresias, and, I suspect a big part of why this situation got out of control.

[based on facts]

I was a crew member on this flight. Some of your postings are quite amusing while some are not only neanderthal in thought but scarey in reality. FYI: United Airlines is backing the Purser (a female...NOT a male) 110% as are crew (flight attendants) and the other 2 pilots on the flight. The captain did not request but demanded the CREW DECS not the GEN DECS. The Purser had completed the Gen Decs immediately after take off and passed them to the cockpit when the "bunkie" came out for his break. In fact the "bunkie" had stated that this had been the longest 4 day trip of his career. An example of what he and fellow F/O had to deal with was, they could not call this captain by his name but had to address as "Sir" or "Captain." She asked if she could send them up to the cockpit with the first round of meals (they were being cooked at the time) as she was helping in another cabin and also it was one less time to open cockpit door. Figuring we still had over 10 hours of flight time left and crew decs. are only used by us after landing to go through customs and take approx. 30 seconds to fill out...providing you can read! The captain demanded them right then. She was gathering them up to give to them when he called again (less than 1 minute after the last exchange) and screamed he wanted them NOW!! She said she was getting them. She slide them under the door and timed that they were not picked up by anyone in the cockpit for 37 minutes. She then assisted with security for 2 cockpit bathroom breaks later in the flight w/o problem and no interaction or conversation with the captain. Then while on her break, 6 hours later she was notified that the plane was landing in Miami in 40 minutes and she was being removed. The Customs Agents that met the flight were stunned that the captain diverted because he didn't get his crew decs 30 minutes after take off. We (the crew) heard the lead agent directly ask the captain, "if he realized the seriousness of landing the aircraft for such an "inane reason" and "if he couldn't have possibly handled this situation with a better solution." The captain lost it and said the Purser was looking at jail time. Well, the captain made a GRAVE error. He has been relieved of his position at United Airlines. They will NEVER trust him with a multimillion dollar aircraft and passengers again....ever. His license has been suspended by the FAA, pending further investagation. While he might have temporairly relieved the Purser of her duties, he relieved himself permanetly of his career. The Purser has not only her position, but the support of United Airlines, fellow crew members (flight attendants & pilots alike) as well as industry wide flight attendants and pilots.To those of you pilots who think that teamwork approach is a waste of time and that you should be treated like "Kings," are not only over indulged with ego but out of touch and dangerous. To begin with, respect is earned...not a given, the days of thinking fellow crew members are below you are OVER...deal with it. You're a dime a dozen...you're no more special than John Doe on the street. This Purser was not a safety threat, no FARS were violated. She has flown for 30+ years with United and is known for a spotless reputation and top notch in her position. This was a case of a Captain who wasn't fit to fly. This was his first trip back from a 4 month leave for knee surgery. He had a pronounced limp. He was more of a threat to this flight than anyone. Makes one wonder if he might have been "under the influence" while flying...one thing is for sure ...he was not psychologically or physically stable.If you still have questions email me. but deal in fact...not rumor or wishful thinking.

[based on facts]

You bet case closed...the captains case is closed and he lost. Looks like YOUR opinion is moot as are your attutudes and expectations.

411a is an idiot and dangerous!!!

411a seems to think more of himself than anyone and is his own biggest fan. His sense of self importance is as bizarre as the United captain. I am an airline person and captains or any other pilot with this attitude should be grounded for life! Ego's like his get people killed...

Says who??? Says the FAA!:=

"We are, they ain't." What are you, one of the Clampetts??

We, the crew told the Purser that we indeed wanted to walk off with her for several reason. Support, loyalty and we did not feel safe with a captain who made such a poor judgement call and was displaying such erratic behavior. Thanks to our Purser who displayed concern for our welfare and showed us what professionalism truly is, she asked us to continue on to ORD as the plane had to get there, the passengers needed to get there and she did not want us to suffer any potential negative repercussions. She was concerned about the passengers and crew alike...unlike the captain, who basically needed to feed his ego. Hope he enjoyed it as it cost him his career!!

[Rainboe]

The fact remains he was in charge of the flight, and if he felt his authority was no longer respected and the chain of command was broken, then at 600mph, there is no time to discuss it. Whatever, he chose to terminate the flight. It sounds like he had a right little rebellion going on in the cabin! He obviously felt he could not continue under such an atmosphere. There was obviously a big build up to this.

I doubt it has all been settled yet. The crew should have stuck with their responsibility to respond to reasonable commands and act as a crew. I am sure the behaviour of the whole crew will come under the spotlight as well. It wasn't for you to make a decision on what you perceived to be a 'judgement call'. Your responsibility was to do your darn job! Nobody will come out well from this. So what drove it to that situation where the Captain felt the flight could not safely continue? What was going on- was there a state of war across the flight deck door? Who can fly safely like that? We have seen an accident in the UK killing many which is fairly certainly a result of a furious row and atmosphere on the flight deck.

[based on facts]

We were doing our job...to bad the captain wasn't doing his. Yes, we should and we did/do fulfill our responsibility to reasonable commands. This captain was NOT reasonable. He was erratic in behavior and had volitile mood swings. He was mad he didn't get his "crew decs" 25 minutes after takeoff of a 11 hour flight. Our Purser complied with his request immediately...it seems that "immediately" wasn't fast enough for him. And actually, you're right, this isn't over yet. It is for the flight attendants and the 2 F/O's but not for the captain. He has lost his job and license has been sispended by the FAA upon futher investigation. United Airlines will NEVER trust him with a multimillion dollar aircraft and passengers again...ever. So, yes he terminated the flight as well as his own career. Our Purser on the other hand...is still flying, United Airlines backs her 110% as do her flying partners and the other 2 F/O's from our flight as well as system wide crew members...flight attendants and pilots alike.

[BOAC]

Whatever, he chose to terminate the flight.- no he did not! He chose to continue the flight with a less than full crew compliment that had been put through an unusual and possibly confusing situation. I'm sure that had the airline management known all the facts they would have terminated the flight at MIA in the interest of safety.

Your statementThe crew should have stuck with their responsibility to respond to reasonable commands and act as a crew. is based on what knowledge of what actually happened? Are you telling us that you know they did not? Impressive indeed. Like all of us, we have only the information here, and you do not know that they did not indeed "respond to reasonable commands and act as a crew".

Now I'm being told by someone with no apparent flying experience that I should know that one should be 'considering' a diversion when there is nothing closer than destination (747JJ). Who are these people? Flt-simmers run amok?

The whole episode is, in my opinion and BASED ON INFORMATION HERE, a sad 'aberation' by the Captain which has affected many. We will see.

[captjns]

There was definitely a more mature way to deal with the situation rather than putting passengers, cabin crew, and two F/O’s, who were the victims in this melodramatic soap opera, in the middle of such a petty squabble. It’s appears to be complex, and rather simple at the same, the skipper lost it, and I’ll wager the F/O’s were debating whether to take the crash axe out and rest it in their lap in case the captain really decided to go postal

Yes, without a doubt, there must be a chain of command starting with the left seat. Dealing with insubordination at FL350 is not the best place, unless safety is compromised. That’s why the Chief Pilot, Chief of In-flight, and Director of Operations have an office to hash out these issues. At the end of the day, I’m sure the phone patches would reveal that they wanted the jet to continue to ORD, unless there was a potential for the situation to escalate out beyond the scope of a safe operation. Who knows, perhaps the captain posed as a threat to safety, and Ops thought it better that this Bozo divert the jet.

Interesting project for the CRM Instructors:ok:.

[based on facts]

The ONLY thing toxic about this entire situation was/is the captain in question! I know...I was there and was working the flight. I must add, I also find your comments on this situation that you had no "first hand experience" of VERY toxic and ignorant.

[Rainboe]

It takes two to tango. The situation was levitated up to a level it should not have reached. If that is indeed the final outcome, I feel sad for a career that has ended on a sour note. But I would be examining very carefully the atmosphere and attitudes prevailing on that flight. Whatever the situation, he had ultimate responsibility for safety on that flight, and he felt that he could not continue. It's all very well fingers pointing at the supposed culprit, but if I were a manager looking into this, I would want to know what the hell was going on that drove the situation to an unsustainable level.

I find it extraordinary you accuse me of toxicicity considering your personal comments aimed at others above here. You seem a little hysterical. I also think you should not be yapping away about this here. Is the incident positively closed?

[BOAC]

Assuming we can take 'based on facts' as genuine, I think post #147 wraps this up very neatly.
I would want to know what the hell was going on that drove the situation to an unsustainable level. - it appears thay do know?

Rainboe - give up. Its over - and I've seen posers dancing with themselves in front of a mirror. As far as we know, there was only one person who decided to divert the a/c, although the F/Os may well have agreed in the hope that they were getting off.

[based on facts]

I'm not hysterical, I'm very irritated at the ignorance of person's such as yourself that "are so sure that tensions were high etc." They were not, that is why this diversion was such a shock to all of us, including our Purser. You know, it IS possible that the captain was 100 % wrong in his judgement and put the rest of us in jepordy on a number of levels. And, yes...case is closed for us...the crew.

[Cacophonix]

Without the full details of this case it is impossible to make a fair judgement on these events.

The case does however beg the question, is the command structure on a modern intercontinental commercial jet a collegiate democracy? I am sure some would have it so but the exigencies of command and safety require, no demand, that the Captain has overall authority.

What can be expected of the Captain is a form of benign dictatorship strengthened by a civil and a mutually respectful relationship between him/her and the crew. The respect is built both ways based upon demonstrated competence and fitness for duty.

Clearly these factors broke down in this case.

[Rainboe]

Well I'm sorry. IF you were on the flight, you may be unaware what was going on if you were in a different section. Tensions were high- high enough that the Captain felt a diversion was necessary. I'd place a bet if I were a betting man that attitudes throughout the crew were rather high as well. This did not come out of nowhere.

And do try and not come flinging abuse at people here. You score 2 on this page alone!

Namib, that sounds good- it is the regular line. However, at 600mph, there is no time for a discussion and a mutual hug. It only works when one person is in charge and his commands are obeyed without a discussion every time. One person in charge, one person bears a responsibility. But, the rest of the crew are also responsible for the safety and security of the flight, and that means working with everybody else.

[based on facts]

A) attitude(s) were NOT high...the captain's was. I saw the interactions.
B) Yeah, this pretty much did come out of no where...that's what makes this whole situation so bizarre. There's a solid reason this captain is no longer employed by United Airlines.
C) I'm not "flinging abuse" at anyone.
P.S. so glad you can count.

[Cacophonix]

C) I'm not "flinging abuse" at anyone.
P.S. so glad you can count.

Is it possible that some of these people do have an attitude problem? This is certainly aggressive.

[based on facts]

No, this is not aggressive... apologies if it's taken that way. Just tired of the false accusations against our Purser who by a lot of folks here, seem to be the cause of our diversion and she was not. This is still quite a shock to all of us involved and it is upsetting. To be on an aircraft as a crew member and not to feel safe with the captain in charge is a very terrifying feeling and you feel very vunerable with absolutely no control. Thanks to the efforts of our Purser, we were able to "keep it together" until we landed.

[Cacophonix]

You are obviously not being agressive. I withdraw my previous comment.

[VH-UFO]

Rainboe, if the Captain has been suspended and the F/A hasnt, what does that tell you?

In fact why dont you print this thread off, take it to the CFI of your 'virtual airline', and let him read your replies to the posts of 'based on facts', and see how long it takes them to ground you and send you on a CRM course.

[Rainboe]

If he is 'suspended', that means whilst an investigation is rightfully ongoing into his decision. Therefore, it is not completed. If he has been dismissed, then that is very sad, but a fact of life, and the investigation is over. An unpleasant end to a career (IF that is the case). But it would be interesting to examine it and see what provoked a minor situation into a loss of control. This is very often where other parties also have some explaining to do. Also needing examining is the role of the 2 copilots and what steps they took to calm the situation. It could be the Captain had a severe problem and the rest of the crew were totally without blame. Then it goes back to licensing and medical matters. Command decisions ultimately need to be justified, but onboard, they are to be obeyed unless plainly wrong.

What's the rest of that crap about a 'virtual airline'? From a PPL? Really!

[Dani]

BoF, thanks for that interesting piece of information. Don't fight with them, they will never get it. The majority gets the picture. I think the case is closed, and it's a relieve. I posted very early in the thread and came to the exact same conclusion.

The bigger problem that still remains: Imagine how many over-ego's are still flying around and treat their crew (FO, CAs, ground handling) still the same way. If you watch this threat closely, there is still a big number of (older) captains around that think they are so much better than all the rest - although they are just older.

It's really a pain to see how these younger crew members suffer from such superiors. Mostly these are long haul crews, and as some mentioned, these are really terrible rotations. It doesn't have to go as far as a diversion. Alone the mood in the cockpit/aircraft/bar is so bad.

Well, we could argue, having a good atmosphere in the cockpit is a luxury we cannot afford (for the sake of good hierarchy?). But it goes much further, and finally everyday's safety is impaired.

I tell my crew several times every day, that they should never assume that I'm the "boss", that they are equaly to me, that they are my best life insurance. That they are the hands, the eyes and the ears of my crew. I guess I have to tell them, because other captains give them the opposite feeling.

I think it's also no coincidence that this incident happened in a major airline. And in the US. These well established big airlines still afford and promote an working atmosphere that is - mildly spoken - not the best environment. This is one of the reason why those airline do not have a better safety margin above newer airlines with less sophisticated safety structures, less staff per labor unit and lower pay. btw Captains like the one in this case tend not only to frustate their own staff, but they also decide often against their own company, which isn't profitable at all. A captain like this in a budget airline would never have been hired in the first place.

Dani

[cwatters]

deleted and a few characters to make 10.

[silverware]

Rainboe,

As long as the captain and the purser weren't pulling each others hair out his diversion seems somewhat unnecessary to say the least.

This is a multicrewed flightdeck on a plane flying on autopilot, it is not that the captain has to fence off the purser while he is struggeling to keep it in the air at 600mph.....

The mere fact that ANYONE, regardless of rank, diverts for not getting his paperwork on time seems like a very wrong way of personally getting back at someone.

[Rainboe]

Not good, I think! Certainly not my way or to be encouraged. Whilst we can see the disadvantages of swinging one way, this is too far the other way!
I tell my crew several times every day, that they should never assume that I'm the "boss", that they are equaly to me, that they are my best life insurance. That they are the hands, the eyes and the ears of my crew. I guess I have to tell them, because other captains give them the opposite feeling.
Please can non-professional pilots, PPLs and SLFs refrain from passing opinion here!

[silverware]

"Please can non-professional pilots, PPLs and SLFs refrain from passing opinion here!"


Be careful, you might learn a thing or two from "them" :)

[TWT]

Rainboe,Dani isn't in any of these categories according to his profile.

[747JJ]

Dear BOAC. 9000 some post and 737 on your profile makes you credible? I think not. But it would explain your lack of knowlegde on long range operations or are you just ignorant by nature or are you just intimidated by younger Captains flying considerably larger aircraft than the aircraft type on your profile you once might or might not have flown?

As far as the diversion is concerned, I am pleased to read some first hand info on the matter.

[Cacophonix]

Please can non-professional pilots, PPLs and SLFs refrain from passing opinion here!


So would you explicitly exclude anyone who may equally have relevant command experience i.e. army officers, naval captains, ex military pilots who don't fly commercially, ex commercial pilots etc?

With respect to you Rainboe your comments here seem reasoned and well thought out but the last one makes you appear arrogant which undermines your case.

[Tonic Please]

Rainboe,

What would you have done on your flight if you asked me for something that you could have had 8 hours later, and, although not receiving the required 'thing' 1 minute ago, did indeed receive it under the door, (as was written) in the end?

From what was written by someone present and in the loop, it was during this time that the captain did not see (obviously nor did anyone else) that the paperwork had been slipped under the door, that he decided to divert.

Could you honestly imagine yourself doing that? It is utterly irrelevant if moods were high before, after, in another part of the plane, over ATC, or personally from your life due to an ingrown toe nail. It reminds me of not bringing your work home. I think as a pilot, that one should not bring problems to work, either.

Personally, since I equally 100% respect authority, and 100% demand respect by anyone I am working with as a simple civility of life (yes, even from a Captain or even the Queen), just as I 100% respect people in life, colleagues or not (it works for me every time with successful results), I can assure you that I would, with either a call to the FD, or a knock on the door, be telling you exactly what a disater you are to the flight, how you do not earn any respect by such angry and rushed demands and that you can forget any respect from me from the moment this aircraft touches down - bearing in mind I would respect you, per se, during the flight whilst I am under your 'command'. Allow me to expand...

Given that I did indeed place the paperwork under the door, and you made the angry, 'huffed' decision to divert during this time, I would also tell you that you have made huge, potentially tragic observational errors, along with impatience. Why? With your impatience, you failed to note that I had indeed placed the paperwork, as requested, ASAP, under your door, but in your fretted, OTT and non-thought-out manner, you made a decision. Is Captain decision making based on impatience, frustration, ego-feeding and lack of observation? I think that you are most certainly in agreement with me when I say "No". Do you miss EICAS messages too, when sulking? What about circuit breakers? Think about that.

Do you honestly think that you would do this? It doesn't matter if you're a Captain, or a Space Shuttle pilot. You do not act in this way. It is a disgrace to the profession. It is not right, or useful to discussion, to confuse 'respecting the Captain' with 'being human'. You are a human being and so is the FA. On 'your' plane, you are also a human, and so is the FA.

When you are frustrated, impatient and making rash decisions which have huge knock-on effects, you're not acting as a professional Captain who is demanding respect. You are also putting the flight in danger if this is how you act under pressure. You're acting like an assh*le who demands no respect at all for the reasons I am including in this post. Again, don't miss/mix the idea of 'I'm a Captain, do what I say' with 'If you're too busy, please do it ASAP...I respect you as a human and I am aware of how I present myself to the world and what effect my behaviour in this authoritive position has bewteen us on this plane'. Get it?

Could you imagine exactly the same circomstances but in a different situation? It could be with ATC, push-back workers, refuelers. Getting impatient beause you didn't receive your clearence? Not being allowed to have straight-in vectors because of something you can't be patient for elsewhere and having to hold 3 or 4 times at OCK? Having to wait for de-icing equipment? You would become frustrated, you would have a decrease in observational skills (such as this Captain not seeing that the paperwork had indeed been given to him during his rash decision) and you would perhaps start #1 engine in a rush and ingest somebody. Using your logic, the fact you're a Captain means that you can make rash decisions due to assh*le-ness, thus putting other innocent people outside the loop in danger.

The role of a person in charge is to have a self-awareness, followed by an awareness of how people see you. If you have this two-way channel awareness, you are able to make more intelligent decisions, and give orders and directions to those in the knowledge that they are happy to receieve them and work with you, as a Captain demanding respect in his role.

It is not everything I have written about above.

Perhaps, before you run into a brash, non-thought-out response causing a further misunderstanding and placing more people against you on this forum, resulting in a lack of observational skills regarding what I have written due to your frustration at my post and an unawareness of how people conceieve you, rather than trying to make it work for you to produce more successful communications and results, you would like to imagine this situation well and think about the ear-bashing I would rightly give you once we are on the ground and I am no longer under your authority; human to human. Also, about how you would have reacted, as a Captain who would have my utmost respect during the flight, having given you the papers ASAP but you not seeing them and making a very uninformed, unintelligent decision as 'Captain'.

I anxiously await your response, Rainboe.

(p.s - I had to write this since I was getting more fidgety each time I read one of your posts. Feel better now, having thought through my words).

[Dani]

Tonic, thank you so much for your post.

But to find captains yelling around being ridicoulous is a no-brainer. With my post I wanted to hint at the more subtle exageration of a captain's power in every day operation. It's far more common and in the end far more safety-relevant. I know of so many accidents where the CA or the FO didn't want to bring something up, just because they knew that the captain would have put him/her down.

Dani

[Rainboe]

But you have just levelled the playing field! When yoou ask for something to be done, it is likely you will be told to do it yourself!
So would you explicitly exclude anyone who may equally have relevant command experience i.e. army officers, naval captains, ex military pilots who don't fly commercially, ex commercial pilots etc?
My comment was in irritation at being rebuked by PPLs and young sim flyers who know nothing about what we are talking about, or the job itself.

[BRE]

I don't think the question has been asked:

If the captain was indeed losing it, why did the F/O's, airline ops and FAA allow hin to continue from MIA to ORD?

[sharksandwich]

The trouble with cabin crew is that they do not understand their place in the work hierarchy. In general, they consider themselves as equals of pilots. In human terms outside of work, yes. In professional terms, in the workplace, absolutely not. (Any more than doctors and nurses, lawyers and clerks, managers and secretaries, etc.)

The required qualifications, and level and duration of training required to achieve purser or wide-body pilot are in no way comparable. Not even close.

In this instance, the Captain was exercising his professional duties.


From personal experience, this is factually incorrect.
In a hospital, nurses call the shots (literally), as they are usually more experienced than the doctor on duty.
In the same way, a Seargent Major "runs" a regiment of soldiers even although he is non-com and he can give orders to officers ( it is dressed up as advice).
This is also personal experience.
If an experienced member of cabin crew wanted a flight aborted for any reason, his or her's view should take precidence over a captain.
I personally would be more interested in the views of any CC with ten years experience than any Captain with less years - and the Captain should take the same view.
In an emergency,unless it is so technical that CC cannot help, then the Captain has to call all the shots - otherwise, teamwork is the best way of problem-solving.

[Rainboe]

Mmmm. I've known of a female cabin crew in SYD who caused a 747 to be cancelled 'because she could smell smoke'. Nobody else could. She had had a very pleasant stay with her boyfriend and didn't want to leave. A whole flight was cancelled for her. I think not!

[BOAC]

BRE - a valid question and one that has been puzzling me for a while. Given that UA would know if xxx had scratched his backside from all the available data, it would be of great interest to plug this part of the unknown. 'Based on fact' - can you cast any light on what happened on the ground in MIA - as far as you were informed, anyway? Was there any 'meeting' between senior crew and F/Os and/or Captain? Was the purser 'marched' off by security?

[Cacophonix]

My comment was in irritation at being rebuked by PPLs and young sim flyers who know nothing about what we are talking about, or the job itself.

I appreciate your clarification and acknowledge your justified irritation.

I was looking at this case and trying to find precedents where a contributory factor in a reported incident or accident may have been friction between the cabin and flying crew.

One case that does come to mind is the tragic Glen Stewart "November Oscar" incident. Tragic in the sense that the Captain, an honourable man and an excellent and diligent pilot (shown by his record), was driven to suicide by the injustice of what happened to him.

If my memory serves me correctly, a subtle underlying theme, in the many contributory causes, in that incident was the fact that the flying crew were dehydrated (one was prostrated by a stomach bug). It was suggested at the time that due to an earlier conflict with a member of the cabin crew, they (the flying crew) had received no coffee or liquid refreshment.

[Dani]

why did the F/O's, airline ops and FAA allow hin to continue from MIA to ORD?


I guess after the offload of the senior, the capt calmed down and showed again as a normal human being. That's why it was sensible for United ops control to release the flight again.

Only after all reports had been recollected and all parties involved interrogated, the capt had to be grounded. Pretty much standard company procedure, me thinks.

[Andy_S]

If an experienced member of cabin crew wanted a flight aborted for any reason, his or her's view should take precidence over a captain.

I always wondered when someone would suggest that CC should outrank the captain. Now I know.

[sharksandwich]

Mmmm. I've known of a female cabin crew in SYD who caused a 747 to be cancelled 'because she could smell smoke'. Nobody else could. She had had a very pleasant stay with her boyfriend and didn't want to leave. A whole flight was cancelled for her. I think not!


I'm not talking about silly people. I am talking about experienced staff with serious concerns.
I have been involved with health care and the forces before retirement, and my personal experience of both is that intelligent, experienced staff, can be more helpful in emergencies than seniority without experience.
I could pm you with harrowing examples.

[BOAC]

Pretty much standard company procedure, me thinks. - I would hope not, unless a complete fabrication was delivered by the Captain to company! Surely it warranted a 'chat' with the senior F/O as well. I'd like to know his/their position. BoF?

[Wannabe Flyer]

My comment was in irritation at being rebuked by PPLs and young sim flyers who know nothing about what we are talking about, or the job itself.


Rainboe, appreciate your irritation as this is primarily a site for professional Pilots, however the fact is that this site is open to all who have an interest in aviation or share a curiosity. Flying is the single most amazing feat of mankinds conquest over nature and will always hold that special place in everyones imagination. If you still feel this site is an exclusive domain for Professional Pilots please do tell the site managers and have them remove us.

We might know little or nothing about flying, but that does not mean we know nothing about other aspects of management or life which might share similarities with your career, so please do bear with us as it might save a life someday.

I would love it if people asked questions and were curious about my career, unfortunately it is not as "glamourous" as yours, but still equally meaningful.

Just my 2 bits with no prejudice. :ok:

[Cacophonix]

If an experienced member of cabin crew wanted a flight aborted for any reason, his or her's view should take precidence over a captain.

One must assume that the poster did not mean this literally because as this statement stands it is clearly preposterous!

[Dani]

- I would hope not, unless a complete fabrication was delivered by the Captain to company!

It depends. If he says he is fit to continue, and he finds a crew to follow him, that would be fine for ops to dispatch. At this moment, it was not clear who was right and who was wrong. If you want to wait until NTSB reports are out, you would need to ground a much bigger number of aircraft every day.

I guess it was also easier to find a replacement for the senior (most probably within the existing crew) than finding a capt. Escpecially in a non-base airport like MIA.

Dani

[teddybear44]

Had I been a revenue pax on this flight I would have been incandescent to find that my passage had been disrupted, apparently over a petty squabble concerning a piece of paper not critical to the safe operation of the flight. The Aircraft commanders legal authority aside, two words seem relevant here - 'reasonable' and 'proportionate'. Does anyone think this test was passed? Whether benevolent dictatorship or a team, I would be expecting a different outcome here

[sharksandwich]

Absolutely!
Helios?
NY river?

[IcePack]

Why Teddy. If for whatever reason communication has broken down between the commander & the crew it is a Flight Safety Risk and so has to be resolved.
To take it to extreme. Evacuate Evacuate er No or Crew return to normal duties er No I know better I'm evacuating.
The crew Must have respect for each other or it just becomes anarchy.

[Rainboe]

When it becomes anarchy, for the safety of all on board, you terminate the flight. The question is- was it anarchy? It would be interesting to hear from the other side of the door. Whatever, after the event, the Captain, if he is indeed the boss, and carrying the responsibility for the flight, must justify his decisions to the Flight Manager.

It has been reported it is all over. Somehow, knowing the speed these things work at, and the fact legal people get involved, I doubt it is over, done and dusted, despite those reports.

[snaproll3480]

I am a big proponent of CRM and team problem solving. It can be a very useful problem solving tool. However, the PIC is ultimately (and legally) responsible for everything that happens on board and therefore is granted the authority commensurate with that responisibilty. Demonstrating leadership means exercizing that authority in a way that makes the most effective use of all resources available in order to accomplish each mission. Sometimes people respond to a friendly leadership style and do their level best to help accomplish the task. Other times, you have to put the proverbial boot up their ass to get results. A great leader knows when to use either technique and the infinite shades of gray between them. Recognizing each team members strengths and making them a part of the team, even if your dismiss their opinion, will foster the mutual respect required to get the job done.

One other thing, Shartbait, some of that crap was ridiculous, CC being the final word on diversion, whatever. I would take what they said very seriously, but thats all. We have many other sources weighing in on diversion decisions, i.e. medlink, dispatch, ATC, Wx, management (unfortunately), and others. Cabin Crew are one, albeit very important, piece of the puzzle that the PIC is tasked with completeing.

[Rananim]

Dani's democracy is as bad as this skipper's dictatorship(alleged).Nothing in life is black and white.Treat others with respect and politeness but know that a rudderless ship always ends up on the rocks.Keep any histrionics for after landing with the people off.UA doesnt need this kind of publicity in a sluggish economy.
Could she have been playing mind games?TRying to provoke him into a bad reaction?Ever so subtle obstruction tactics?Maybe but it doesnt matter.Beat her at her own game,write the report after landing,and make sure she doesnt fly with you again.I actually feel sorry for the guy;one stupid decision has cost him everything.Crazy.A top-notch FO could have defused the situation by calling her in to the flight deck and getting them to bury the hatchet with some carefully-chosen words.Another reason not to have kids in the right seat(not that UA does I know).

[Cacophonix]

Some of the thoughtful comments in this thread have been most interesting.

One text that stands out in terms of flight management and leadership is Tony Kern's Flight Discipline.

In fact this aviation tome is useful as a mangement text per se in any industry.

Kern cites the ludicrous example of Captain Wow who was obviously a Captain with authority "issues".

Flight Discipline - Google Books (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Wk1E8d0EuRYC&pg=PA130&lpg=PA130&dq=captain+wow+tony+kern&source=bl&ots=Wmq4aDtfnv&sig=tnPWooHyRZ_NyRyZrqOkFwp3zB4&hl=en&ei=j_xmSs_ZBJfajQft1v2bAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1)

[teddybear44]

My own reasoning is that there are many walks of life where there is a 'chain of command' but the principles that I referred to in exercising command decisions still exist, in my view. Much has been made of 'legal authority' but proportionality, reasonableness and even restraint must be a factor in enforcing it (Case law precedent: Sledgehammer v Nut). It might do well to consider this whilst considering options. I just can't find it credible that there was not another option other than the extreme one taken. It seems a trifling matter, simmering, until ka-booom! Disagreements happen but I don't think this sounds like anarchy at all, nor with potential for it, just weird.

[Desert Diner]

Tensions were high- high enough that the Captain felt a diversion was necessary.

Perhaps the tension was high between the captain and purser. Unless the purser was violent (which apparently she was not), the captain could have used his power to have ordered her off duty and continued. Instead he chose to abuse his power and diverted the flight to off load her.

[suninmyeyes]

As a professional pilot I frequently wonder if allowing aviation enthusiasts access to freely discuss matters on this forum is a mistake. There is a serious lack of respect to people like Rainboe who knows what he is talking about from people with theories but no experience in running a flight. Like Rainboe I believe there is more to this story and it would be interesting to hear why the Captain behaved in the manner he did.

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

On the Emirates A345 tailstrike thread a SLF wrote that he was concerned about aircraft doing flex/derated takeoffs and it would be safer if they used full power. If he was a professional pilot positioning on a reputable airline he would not give it a thought as he would trust the flight crew to make the appropriate decision. As always a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

On the AF447 thread there have been ridiculous suggestions like the crew had taken minimum fuel and because of that may have decided not to go around thunderstorms. The AF thread contains a lot of implied criticism towards the dead crew which is wholly inappropriate until the facts come out. On the Speedbird 38 thread after the accident there were comments implying lack of piloting ability such as failing to cope with windshear. One person stated they must have run out of fuel as there was no fire. Again criticism of pilots before any facts came out.

On so many threads there are comments from well intentioned amateurs. Sometimes they are corrected by the professionals and when the professional comments go against the amateur's ideal scenario the amateur writes "I would not want you as the pilot of my plane". That sort of comment is ignorant and inflammatory. It is quite possible that the pilot you have just criticised has been assessed as exemplary in his last check and is highly respected by his colleagues. It is not for you to judge his professional ability.

Would the amateurs please show a little respect for the professional pilots on this website and we will help educate you. Wild theories and inflammatory comments from amateurs tend to spoil debate and deter professionals from posting. You also spoil it for the many intelligent amateurs who post on the site with thoughtful comments and well crafted points.

Suninmyeyes (widebodied Boeing Captain 15,000 hours)

[SaturnV]

"Based on facts" account is consistent with earlier narratives that initially appeared on other forums regarding the incident.

IMO, the most telling point is that the captain was not supported by the two FOs. If either had endorsed his action as appropriate for the circumstances, or warranted given the state of the inter-personal conditions on-board, hard to believe that United would have so quickly removed him from flying status, and the FAA would have pulled his license. And one does not know how he explained what he did to United management; he might have been his own worst enemy.

Given privacy laws, the condition that led to his being on an extended medical absence prior to this trip will and ought not be revealed. That's between the captain and United's medical staff. One may surmise however, that the prior condition may have a bearing on his actions on this flight,
__________________
There were sufficient CC on-board to make the flight legal between MIA and ORD without the purser.

[BOAC]

If he was a professional pilot positioning on a reputable airline he would not give it a thought as he would trust the flight crew to make the appropriate decision. - don't you think our 'professional pilot positioning' might have been a bit disappointed on the Emirates flight?

[bigjames]

it has to be clear that individuals vested with authority, ie captains of commercial passenger jets, are in command, and those that serve under him/her follow commands. end of story. yet in all the millions of flights that take place per year, is it not statistically possible that in one case, a captain loses it (for whatever reason) and engages in inappropriate behaviour? so the question is, when do you make the exception to the rule that the cap is in charge? i fully respect those with tens of thousands of miles of experience under their belt. yet i find it disturbing that some people refuse to even consider the possibility that, in this case, the captain might have made an error in judgement. yes, we may not know the whole story. (certainly we don't.) but we must still consider it possible that the captain lost it and made a mistake. i just think we need to keep an open mind to all possible causes of this event.

[suninmyeyes]

BOAC

Agreed he might have been a bit disappointed on that particular flight!

However it would be wrong for him to get on every flight and worry about decisions being taken in the flight deck re derate/flex power.

Back to the thread. Agree with bigjames' fair comment above.

[Nigd3]

If the purser got really pissed (as in off), what would she really be able to do that would compromise the safety of the aircraft? I mean in actual practical terms.

She can't even lamp the person who is annoying her, as he is behind a locked door.

Are we actually talking about adults with some common sense on this flight, or a playground spat.

Whoever is at fault, it makes the airline industry look pretty silly

[DartHerald]

So close to 200 posts and apparently some people think only professional pilots can have an input on this subject?

In any walk of life you will always get the uninitiated and where the internet is, you will get lots more. Many may well have views that are way off the mark and my opinion is to just ignore those and concentrate on what is relevant.

However just because someone is a professional pilot does not mean they are going to talk sense about all aviation matters and conversely because someone is not a pilot does not mean they are going to talk rubbish.

I am so fed up with the arrogance of some pilots who think that unless you have an ATPL with 20,000 hours in the left hand seat, you don’t know what you are talking about.

This particular subject does not require technical expertise of flying and could better be addressed by that old life skill – ‘common sense’. I know all about CRM and what crews go through from ab initio training to recurrent checks but for goodness sake can some people please get real.

If the Captain messed up then just accept it. People make mistakes and pilots are no different and it doesn’t take an expert to recognise it. If he didn’t make a mistake then I am sure it will come out in the report but to treat cabin crew and other so called amateurs as meaningless contributors is arrogance personified.

For my own six penny worth, I suspect the outcome will be that the situation was very poorly handled and the senior Flight Ops Management will tell him so. It may even be that the Purser and other crew will also need to learn a lesson but so could many other people. If it turns out his actions were fine then we have all just wasted a chunk of our lives in a meaningless debate.

[overthewing]

I'd be interested to know, from captains, what behaviour on the part of a senior cabin crew member would justify a flight diversion?

Refusing to let the CC serve food/drink?

Threatening passengers/crew?

Attacking passengers/crew?

Refusing to service the flight deck?

Trying to open doors/smash windows?


Since, as far as we know, none of these things happened on the UA flight, Can captains suggest what other behaviours would justify their getting the aircraft on the ground asap?

[BOAC]

Are we actually talking about adults with some common sense on this flight, or a playground spat.- I think sadly we are actually dealing with a medical/psychological issue. Like some others here, the Captain was not, in my opinion (and yes, I've seen some fruit cakes in the cockpit) able to act rationally. I cannot susbcribe to the notion that having a piece of paper thrust under my locked door 'at 600mph' constitutes an 'emergency' requiring a diversion. I think I could have handled that drama. As I said earlier, with more than the required crew on board, I would, if necessary, have dealt with any major issues between me and my senior differently. If there was, indeed, some sort of emergency, then the diversion may well have been the only option. However, these days with HR in full flow, it is now 'normal' to ground a crew following an in-flight emergency less their 'balance' and judgement has been impaired by the events. I suspect there was not and 'based on facts' (if 'genuine', which I believe) confirms that.

There are (welcome!) posters here from outside the industry who bring an incredulous view to this. Admittedly the aviation 'world' is vastly different to the one they frequent, but never-the-less they ask justifiable questions and it is our DUTY as ex/current professional pilots to try and address any sensible questions. The issue of whether 'outsiders' should intrude on the 'important' world of the Captain with a big watch and several divorces has rattled on here for a decade and it has always been decided they should.

There is instant uproar when anyone dares to challenge the absolute power and authority of the Captain - with some justification, as a former 'Big Airline' I worked for tried hard to degrade that. However, this 'power and authority' MUST be balanced with reason. Without that it is pure danger.

[virginblue]

So it took the captain 6 (!) hours to figure out that the purser was a threat to the safe operation of his aircraft? That alone should get him into hot water because if there was a real threat 30 minutes into the flight, how on earth could he continue the flight for another six hours? And if he could continue the flight for another six hours to make it conveniently to MIA, maybe it was because there was no threat at all and he simply decided to go on a bit of an ego trip, deciding to discipline the purser in a rather unusual way? Of course he is free to do so, but as with authortiy comes responsibility, he will have to face the music for his apparently rather poor decision-making.

[FrequentSLF]

BOAC
- I think sadly we are actually dealing with a medical/psychological issue. Like some others here, the Captain was not, in my opinion (and yes, I've seen some fruit cakes in the cockpit) able to act rationally. I cannot susbcribe to the notion that having a piece of paper thrust under my locked door 'at 600mph' constitutes an 'emergency' requiring a diversion.

If you are right, (big IF), a person that is not able to act rationally should have been in command of the MIA-ORD leg?

[Dani]

Rananim:Dani's democracy is as bad as this skipper's dictatorship(alleged).

Taking your crew members/co-workers seriously is not the same as a democracy. When I say "you are my hands, my eyes and my ears", then it assumes that I'm the brain. To continue this picture, the best brain cannot make correct decisions if you don't get the proper input.

That's exactly the case in crews with a big gap between chief and indians: They don't try to challenge the boss. That's what happened in this case, and in most accident where human factors played a prominent role. I could tell you endless stories about all those FOs who rather would have died (and in fact did) than to challenge the authority of the captain.

But, as I said, it doesn't have to go to this very extreme unequal way of commanding a ship. I see it every day, how those guys treat their subordinates, how they kill every seed of motivation, how they destroy the once excellent working atmosphere...

Dani

[Maresias]

American Captains put up with so much **** from the flight attendants it's unbelievable. I have flown with many Euro captains in previous jobs and they definetly would not tolerate half of what I see at Delta on a daily basis.

In order for this captain to have diverted, it must of been bad.

[BOAC]

Well, it is obviously difficult without knowing personal details to which we should not be privvy. It is more than possible the return to duty was justified, and that some underlying serpent leapt up and bit. We have seen the sad events many times in the UK where parole boards have assessed X as fit for release and X then goes on to commit heinous crimes. I have also seen (in military days) a premature return to flying duties due to manpower pressure with unfortunate results. I really do not think we should pry too deeply into this man's behaviour. The flight did not crash. Everyone got where they were going, albeit late, and it is said the Captain will not be flying again.

I do think however there are worthy questions as to the conduct of the crew, including the co-pilot/s and the way the airline handled the subsequent departure. The purser may well have needed some 'guidance' also, who knows?

[PilotsOfTheCaribbean]

There will be people who have a very in depth understanding of the actual events and circumstances in this case. As with many of the other readers and posters here, I am not one of them. However some of the issues raised lead to very polarized points of view. Perhaps it is time to take a more sideways or lateral viewpoint?

This type of event is very rare. Pilots, Captains and First Officers as well as Cabin crew and the passsengers in their charge are human and therefore subject to the occassional failures, illness and breakdowns that sporadically occur within any cross section of a society. There are procedures and checks and balances that seek to minimize the risk that even these rare occurences might bring, however in an imperfect world they can never be totally eliminated. In extremely rare cases "accidents" and serious incidents have resulted from physical, emotional and behavioural breakdowns that range from suicide, through depression to mental breakdown and exhaustion or simply the spectrum of fatigue.

One of the primary checks and balances in place, is the use of multiple system redundancy protection. In the human element this involves the use of more than 1 crewmember who can assume the mechanics of a particular role. When a failure occurs, it is often the case that the individual is carefully monitored rather than isolated as the best cause of action. Resource management is about the careful management of what is available, rather than establishing a hierarchy or pecking order for no particular imperative.

In a situation where the emotional behaviour or any other serious aspect of the health of a person, is having or is likely to have a serious impact on the safe operation of that flight, it is entirely proper that the best place for that aircraft is safely on the ground. Arguments about who did what to who, and the commercial implications of the chosen location, or the cost and inconvenience can then all be addressed at leisure. Although the behaviourial elements are a part of everybodies conscious existence, it is very rare that they overspill into an event such as this one. The matter will no doubt be investigated and where necessary the lessons learned and the treatments or rectifications will be applied.

However inconvenient, unusual or disruptive, the decision to prevent a bad situation (from whatever cause) escalating, or having the serious potential to escalate into a much worse one cannot in itself be faulted even if the person responsible for that decision is themselves the cause, or contributory to the causal event.

[RatherBeFlying]

Given the reports that the Captain's license has been suspended by the FAA, I am left wondering why Dispatch released the flight to continue with this Captain. Was there an attempt at a private contact between the FOs and Dispatch?

Yes, I know the pax would be majorly inconvenienced waiting for a new crew front and back. But releasing a flight when there are questions about the Captain's fitness is not on either.

[BOAC]

RBF - MIA turn-round time 40-60 minutes? FAA reaction time (to the nearest day)? They have to find out about it first, which means a report from the company. Who questioned his 'fitness'?

[RatherBeFlying]

BOAC - I suspect the Captain's decison to divert to MIA raised questions in the FOs' minds about his fitness.

[Dani]

American Captains put up with so much **** from the flight attendants it's unbelievable. I have flown with many Euro captains in previous jobs and they definetly would not tolerate half of what I see at Delta on a daily basis.

Isn't it amazing that one gets the CA's/FA's he deserves?

You have these hierarchy problems only in those airlines, where there is a big difference in status in one crew. You have these problems very seldom in smaller crews, where - as one could assume - the gap is smaller and the CA power to stand up would be greater. You don't have these problems in LCC, where captains also do lots of ground handling duties, help with the cleaning of the cabin (yeaaah, that exists) aso.

It also seems that it happens more in majors, where captains have more power, are older and show more authority. And it happens more in the USA, where there seem to be most of the defender of the United captain.

That all shows me that you fall in a trap of perception. It's not the problem of the CA's, its yours! Never in my live did I ever have a problem with a cabin attendant. And never had a CA had a problem with me. And never has a senior CA questioned my authority, even when I helped her to clean the cabin just moments before.

Dani

[AlpineSkier]

@411A

"Actually .... you are clearly not an airline captain and your comments are without merit . Why am I not surprised ?"

Wow, we're getting a MasterClass in condescension here .

Tell me, when you're in uniform, do you not find that the arrogance you exude stains your shirt ?

Anyway 411, you obviously think you deserve it, so take a promotion.

From now on you shall be known as 7 -11 ( and go easy on the ketchup on those fries).

[eliptic]

Rainboe

If he is 'suspended', that means whilst an investigation is rightfully ongoing into his decision. Therefore, it is not completed. If he has been dismissed

if if if.... get real...wake up..when will you ever admit that even a Captain could get coconuts?:ugh:

[Rainboe]

Can we leave out stupid posts like that in this forum from people who apparently have nothing to do with the industry but fly as a passenger now an then? And don't presume to come here abusing some of the most senior members please!

I will make no judgements at this stage about anybody's behaviour. it sounds bizarre, but there are definitely 2 sides to this story, and more that needs exploring. I was for years a copilot and captain on 747s across the Atlantic. We usually flew 2 crew, sometimes 3 pilots. When you are the copilot, a lot of responsibility devolves on you to help the Captain make his decisions. Advise, suggest, and await the outcome. if you don't agree, sometimes you have to be assertive, but whatever the final outcome, you back him up. With 2 copilots, that responsibility is easier and you get listened to more. It would be interesting to hear why they did not step in more forcefully if they were willing subsequently to continue to final destination. Whatever, the captain has my sympathies- he felt he was driven into a corner, rightfully or wrongfully, necessitating an extraordinary diversion. There were a lot of issues going on here that need exploring. the fact we are seeing such adamant accusations from someone who claims to be involved raises my suspicions. They would have been told not to discuss it!

Once again, the Pprune Courts Martial has been convened and already delivered its brutal verdict, based on the flimsiest of facts and zero evidence! Face it- you are not going to hear what the findings of the investigation are! It was not even an 'incident'. It was just a diversion.

Snaproll/Suninmyeyes- 2 well written, sensible posts from people who understand the issue and what the problems may have been. Incredible the stupidity from people delivering snap judgements and making such rude remarks. It is a fact the professional pilots do need to discuss these issues without being overwhelmed by idiotic opinions delivered on a zero knowledge base be every idiot with a keyboard. What gets me is the personal abuse heaped at experienced pilots because they don't agree with an occasional passengers opinion!

[p51guy]

I had a FA one time on a B727 I picked up for a 30 minute flight in the carribean that got in a fight with the agent, a passenger, crew scheduling then with me because she was in a pissed off mood. She wanted me to throw the through passenger off because of a baggage in closet dispute she was having. I took the passengers side, which I normally wouldn't do, but watching her behavior knew she was losing it. I told her to sit in her jumpseat and not get up and let the other flight attendants handle the cabin for our inter island 30 minute flight. Thank God she got off there.

I probably should have had her removed in San Juan but didn't. Those judging the United captain need to get some facts before they judge.

As we all know, the captain has the final authority and can do what ever he feels necessary. He also has to justify what he did after the fact so must be prepared to do that. I was justified in removing her but didn't because the simplist sollution was have her remain seated in her jumpseat until she could readjust her attitude. Talked to one of the FA's at her base a few months later and told her the story. She said she always fights with everybody on her flights.

[kappa]

SaturnV posted:
Given privacy laws, the condition that led to his being on an extended medical absence prior to this trip will and ought not be revealed. That's between the captain and United's medical staff. One may surmise however, that the prior condition may have a bearing on his actions on this flight
Based on facts posted this at #140:
This was his first trip back from a 4 month leave for knee surgery. He had a pronounced limp.
Rainboe may not think as former military SE pilot, I am sufficiently rated to express an opinion on this board; but, having had four knee surgeries, I don't think his surgery should have had a bearing on the captain's actions.

[ChrisVJ]

Interesting that a few posts mentioned Capt. Quigg. If I recall correctly, the twist at the end was the contempt shown by the counsel for the officers who failed to support their captain when he was having problems.

[based on facts]

I can only hope you are retired and not a threat to crew or psgrs. anymore. You say no one should be on this site but professionals but you must remember that the population in general puts their lives in our hands each and every time they board an aircraft, therefore; they have EVERY right to read and commemt.
As for your opinion (however twisted) about the captain being the almighty and everyone should bow and grovel to them (actually you always say, "him"...there ARE female captains...I'm sure that drives you to distraction) and that he's the "be all, end all."

Well, our country suffered a tragic "sucker punch" that we refere to as "9/11." Ever since that day, our cockpit and F/A's act as "one" and we count on each other and back each other up. In the cabin we (the Flight Attendants) are the eyes and ears for the cockpit. They trust us and respect us...we earn it. We give the same to them as they've earned it. It's when one of us, on either side of "the door" does something grossly inappropriate, does that respect disappear.
The captain on this UAL flight was grossly inappropriate in his actions and it cost him his career. He requested from our flight ops. to land in MIA and he was denied...he landed anyway.Both of the F/O's on the flight tried in vain to talk him out of this action and gave him multiple reasons and alternative solutions...he deisregarded all of them.
We as crew members ARE allowed to discuss this as this was a "diversion" not an airline incident. I was there when the plane door opened and the captain didn't have the balls to open the cockpit door until after our Purser walked off. The Customs Agents that met the trip talked to the captain and at one point in a loud stern voice asked, "you didn't think you had any other choice than to land this plane in the middle of the night because you didn't get your papers that you didn't even need until after you landed???" It was at that point the captain didn't have much top say. To say the Custom Agents were infuriated would be an understatement. They asked our Purser if she was ok and assured us (her crew) that they would make sure she was on the first flight to ORD...and she was. She received a VERY warm welcome from management and crew alike. While this captain was met and taken behind closed doors for hours.
What does it tell you that he lost his job and his license suspended pendinf further investigation.
Face it, he was dead wrong...there were no heightened tensions between he and the Purser, there was no fighting...he had a breal from reality and he paid for it and rightly so. Can you possibly put yourself in the Purser's position?? She held herself together when really she was trying to figure out what the hell was happening, she held us together and she held her head high. You would have been lucky to have flown with her....we were and we will be again.

[stilton]

Very good point ChrisVJ.


'Based on facts' is an interesting moniker to preceed a speech full of such innacuracies.


For your enlightenment the Captain does not need 'flight operations permission' to land anywhere.


Not even an 'angry customs agent' has this authority.



As was stated earlier this situation was allowed to escalate needlessly, probably because the Captain felt backed into a corner. If the flight attendant in question had backed down and swallowed his pride it could have been avoided. (See ChrisVJ's comment)


If this incident had happened outside the US there would have been a different outcome.



Unfortunately this incident will only encourage the not inconsiderable number of senior 'dinosaur' flight attendants to be even more difficult, recalcitrant and unprofessional when dealing with the flight deck (for many of you that is hard to imagine) and our vital passengers.



For those Flight Attendants I offer you this, your 'it's all about me' attitude is our overseas competitors best ally.


There is a very good reason why passengers avoid US Airlines and flock to Cathay, Singapore, British Airways etc..


And one of the main reasons why US Airlines are in financial tatters.


Worth pondering on one of your extended 'breaks' down the back while hiding from the passengers.


:ugh:

[411A]

...about the captain being the almighty and everyone should bow and grovel ...

About sums it up nicely, thank you.;)
For your enlightenment the Captain does not need 'flight operations permission' to land anywhere.

Absolutely correct.
For those Flight Attendants I offer you this, your 'it's all about me' attitude is our overseas competitors best ally.


Spot on.

[Wannabe Flyer]

There is a very good reason why passengers avoid US Airlines and flock to Cathay, Singapore, British Airways etc..


And one of the main reasons why US Airlines are in financial tatters.



Hmmm interesting analogy, trying to look up and see which airline is not in financial tatters at the moment including most noteably BA as mentioned.

That said some airlines do have the liberty of retiring F/A at 26 years of age and some do not, so if this is counted as service, well I have seen some real class acts on the airlines mentioned above and would not hold that as the sole reason for a demise of an airline. Personally I find nothing wrong with US airlines F/A. Infact some of them have a great sense of humor to lighten up situations.

That said passengers nowadays share equal blame for some of the resultant attitude they give F/A and ground staff. After all we are now liviing in an era of instant gratification and no less is acceptable to all, including captains, FA, passengers, and internet junkies too!

I think the issue lies more in the times we live in where we all are under pressure and a cloud over our heads.

[Wannabe Flyer]

Can we leave out stupid posts like that in this forum from people who apparently have nothing to do with the industry but fly as a passenger now an then? And don't presume to come here abusing some of the most senior members please!


Hmmmm. Isnt this the same passenger that pays the fare to airlines that pays captains like yourself?

Rainboe the internet is a great leveler of society and free speach. Learn to understand that.

:\

[lilzeppelin]

if captains don't get what they ask for, what about the poor passengers:confused:

[canadianexpat]

Have to admit that I have enjoyed this thread if only for the humour. That being said, CRM went out the window and everyone paid the price, the captain, the crew and the ones that pay the wages.

[hetfield]

Face it, he was dead wrong...

That's it.

THREAT CLOSED;)

[Michael Birbeck]

I wonder what the old BOAC Captains, if there are any still out there, would have made out of this brouhaha?

In the midst of it all, I feel that we have not heard the Captain's story.

You don't make it to Captain in an organisation like UA by being a "bozo", as one unkind poster labelled this chap.

I find it hard to conceive of the fact that he would willingly divert his aircraft unless there was some major breakdown in crew relations.

As a mere PPL and sometime SFL on the larger stuff all I can say is that I tend to trust the people in the pointy end of those big jet things. I am very discriminating about what airlines I will fly with though.

With all due respect to the cabin crew (most of whom do an excellent job) I have yet not to reach my destination through the fault of a captain or his flying crew. I have though witnessed rudeness and intransigence from the folks in the back. Thinking back on just two examples I witnessed (one on a UA flight), I can easily conceive of why a Captain might divert to turf the cabin crew member off.

[Rainboe]

BasedonFActs, unless you can make a cool,level headed posting without even flinging abuse, I'm afraid your posts are not even going to get read.

I think you are lying here. Is it part of a desperate attempt to throw mud at the victim to try and keep yourself as clean as possible? Something was going on on that plane. i do not believe you- it being settled and the perpetrator thrown out. It is not settled that quickly, and legal people will be in on this.

If you respond, I suggest you try and do so coolly, and without abuse. For your information I am very much employed, and I know far more than you about command authority, responsibility, CRM (and what it REALLY means) and how to get the job done.

[rdr]

stillon,

i do concur with you. i have flown with around 120 yanks recently in an Asian carrier who have previous experiance on 6 diffent US carriers. And yes, all have without exception, maintained of problems with " Jurassic Park" in the rear. The stories i have heard are shocking.

Still, i do not feel that the diversion was neccessary, as it does indicate to all, an inability to handle a sticky situation.

If i may say in hindsight, the appropriate time to take action, is on the ground. And we may talk insurbordination, safety threat, or whatever.

[Dani]

stilton:If this incident had happened outside the US there would have been a different outcome.

Your attitude is shoking.

The only place where the captain would have won is Asia. And a local captain. If expat, then fired immediatly. That's another reason to choose western airlines.

Dani

[cwatters]

Stilton wrote: "For your enlightenment the Captain does not need 'flight operations permission' to land anywhere. Not even an 'angry customs agent' has this authority."

For your enlightenment Based on facts didn't actually say he NEEDED permission from flight ops to divert - just that he requested it and it was denied.

[Rainboe]

At that stage, company communications are no problem. It doesn't look good, but he obviously felt upset enough that he was not safe continuing the flight. There are two routes here- 1- he was emotionally unbalanced within himself, or 2- events occurred on the plane to make a reasonable person not safe to remain a pilot inflight. We are being frantically assured (1) applies by someone claiming to be onboard. It will be an ongoing investigation to assess how far provocation (2) could be implicated in his state of mind.
However, it is quite clear that 'instant' dismissal for anyone is totally inappropriate. We either have a case of mental disturbance or a case of bizarre cabin crew behaviour. On the one hand treatment is appropriate in accord with FAA rules, or disciplinary procedures instituted with certain cabin crew members.
The Captain took the decision he was not able to continue under the circumstances current, and took the plane and passengers down for a safe landing. I'm looking for what is so wrong with that that instant dismissal is being demanded. Something provoked him to an enormous extent. But the answer is not wholesale sackings, disciplinaries or whatever. It is an unfortunate outcome to the flight, but what shines out is the circumstances and attitudes need official examination.

Then we come to the continuation of the flight. Having permitted this, the company has condoned the ongoing employ of the Captain. Subsequent official action has to look into why the flight was allowed to continue.

We are not getting the proper story from the person claiming to be involved. I would say no way has it been buttoned up and closed.

[Cacophonix]

Pending new information, Rainboe's last post seems to succinctly and fairly sum up the position.

Given that this was not an incident nor an accident it is highly unlikely that we will ever get an "official" view of what happened here unless one of the parties seeks legal redress and even then out of court settlements or agreements may preclude public review of the detail of the case.

[teddybear44]

I have read 'Based on facts' post and one thing strikes me as odd. Why would the customs agents be so concerned with the reasons for the divert after them being given by the aircraft commander. They have their realm of authority and whilst they may find it all a bit odd, I can't see them challenging a pilots decision to divert his aircraft. Surely they would have left that as being 'his business'. I did post before about reasonableness an proportionality but yes, now I wonder if all is yet known.

[Dont Hang Up]

We fare paying passengers have been warned away from this thread. However, from the sidelines some of us have beeing viewing it with increasing dismay.

The only source that pertains to be anything close to a first hand account has been dismissed as biased and inaccurate. The reason? Apparently that a qualified captain could not possibly be so far off-beam in decision making for it to be true. This somewhat circular argument has then been used to pour increasing scorn and vitriol on the alleged eye witness account.

Whatever the final conclusions on this, this thread has done the profession a severe disservice in they eyes of those of us who nornally offer it our highest respect.

[Rainboe]

Don't Hang Up- if that is your analysis, then you are misled by your own judgement. Outright verdicts at this stage on the flimsiest of news are built on sand. The alleged eyewitness report is plainly wrong and to call it biased would be an understatement. There is not enough data to produce a final verdict...period.
It may be the Captain may have had a breakdown, it may be there was sufficient provocation to create an unsafe environment to continue the flight. Whichever, the aeroplane and passengers were placed safely on the ground and continued to their destination with minor delay. The airline will find out what pertained. Pprune will have to rein in its usual 'shoot from the hip' damning judgements!

The least the crew deserve are privacy to put their cases and resolve the issue. But as far as I can see, the safety of all on board was ensured at all times. It therefore becomes a private airline issue and is of only use for professionals to discuss from a CRM point of view. Apart from the passengers being delayed slightly, there was no question of anybody's safety being compromised. Therefore uninformed comment from people who have no idea of the CRM issues involved are misleading to professionals who need to discuss such issues.

Exactly what added-value can unaffected passengers bring to the discussion? Safety was not compromised at all, so exactly why is your 'respect' affected? In short, your input is totally superfluous, and misleading to the issues involved for the professionals who have to work with this system. You can save your 'respect', but what is being discussed is really nothing to do with the paying public. It is an industry matter being discussed in a 'Professional Pilots Forum'. There is a clue in the title!

[Cacophonix]

The only source that pertains to be anything close to a first hand account has been dismissed as biased and inaccurate. The reason? Apparently that a qualified captain could not possibly be so far off-beam in decision making for it to be true. This somewhat circular argument has then been used to pour increasing scorn and vitriol on the alleged eye witness account.

You are right about the seeming injustice of this but it is more or less what would happen in court in a legal system with an adversarial system.

Of course this thread is not a court nor does it purport to uphold justice or fairness. The forum deals in rumours and the contributors are anonymous. Nothing here is as it seems!

[Dont Hang Up]

The alleged eyewitness report is plainly wrong and to call it biased would be an understatement


The only incontravertible facts appear to be:

-The flight was diverted.

-The purser was offloaded.

-The captain was suspended.

-The purser was not suspended.

Against those facts, the alleged eye witness account does not stand out as 'plainly wrong'. I say no more or less than that. I acknowledge that the captain may be completely vindicated at some point in the future.

My opinion (judgement if you must) is only that the tone of this thread does not do justice to the profession it represents.

[Rainboe]

The captain was not suspended. I understand he continued on duty. The situation was therefore resolved and the flight continued with the captain involved. He has presumably be taken off the roster whilst the circumstances are investigated. I doubt whether he has been instantly dismissed as one poster is trying to lead us to believe. That is plainly not a satisfactory outcome. The investigation into the actions will take some period.

Being 'suspended'/taken off the roster is a normal occurrence following any incident that requires investigating. It is not to be taken as an admission of culpability. I have had such an event several times where further investigation is needed. It does NOT mean 'it was his fault'. This is where people here have no understanding of airline procedures, but the fact it has happened here implies to them 'guilt'.

[SaturnV]

NamibFox, you are likely to be quite right.

One of the perils of the Web is that if one version of a story gets Web-published and disseminated, it tends to gain in credibility if it is not challenged and/or corrected. Some of the assertions in Based on facts account have been out there for a week or more, without refutation that I've seen, e.g., the actions supposedly taken by both United and the FAA against the captain. Those are not matters of nuance or interpretation.
__________________

Kappa, thanks for noting where I missed that point re: the captain's medical condition in Based on facts account.
__________________

And can people, even pilots, lose it emotionally in unexpected and sudden ways? Yep. Once after a catastrophic, aerospace-related accident, an individual became so distressed that he said something that suggested he had become momentarily unhinged. I'm not going to identify the individual or his position, but to crudely analogize to AF 447, it would be as if the Chairman of Air France had told (with great and obvious sincerity) the Chief Pilot (or the Chief Pilot telling an assembly of AF pilots) that he 'had spoken to God, and God had assurred him that Air France would have no more accidents.' I still remember my reaction on hearing this, which was roughly 'WTF? its not even his machine!'

[20driver]

I can imagine customs were not in the least happy with the captain.
A plane load of people suddenly showing up on your doorstep happens but I'm sure it adds a lot to the night shift workload. If it appears not to be a real emergency but what looks like the toys flying out of the pram some one has to answer.
As said earlier in the air it is the captains call, no question. On the ground you better have a good story.
This incident cost the airline a lot of money and worse bad publicity. The man in front will have to answer for it all.

Something about the whole thing has a fishy smell to it.

20driver

[belfrybat]

I have no reason to doubt BoF's account, but it would be nice to hear the FD side of things. Knee operations are quite painful healing, and if the captain was taking some strong medication for it, is it possible that he had an adverse reaction, to say the least? Even a low level but constant nagging pain can lead some people to distraction.

[Bobbsy]

As another SLF (daily reader, rare poster) I'm going to stick my head above the parapet to comment on this thread rather than the specifics of this event.

It's patently obvious to anyone looking at this objectively that both sides of this debate are indulging in something that all too often happens: reaching conclusions based on unsupported facts.

In the course of this topic we've seen a highly experienced airline pilot accused of a psychotic episode, a medical diagnosis. Maybe...but we simply don't know enough to justify this conclusion.

At the same time we've seen a senior FA accused of refusing to obey a lawful command from the captain. However, we don't even know this for sure--there's a huge difference between "no" and "give me a moment--I need to find somebody else to guard the door when I open it". Either could be true--again we don't know.

Even the facts (which I assume to be true) that the purser is working while the pilot is suspended are circumstantial at best. There could be other reasons for this besides a final resolution to the incident.

Frankly, most of the posts here are telling me more about the personalities of those contributing than about the rights and wrongs of the actual incident.

Bob

[eliptic]

Gibon2 (http://www.pprune.org/members/218309-gibon2)

What a great post!! thanks

But sadly Rainboe will tear that facts apart also,,remember,,,NEVER question a Pilot or/and especially not a Captain, if you do,,,

( The attitude in here tells me that the story the "eyewitness" telling could be much possible true)

[MU3001A]

If 'based on facts' recounting of the dispute that led to the captains decision to divert the flight to MIA and offload the purser is essentially correct. Then it would appear his career as a modern day Queeg is likely over, as it should be. My only concern is that UAL management waited until the aircraft and its passengers were safely back in Chicago to make that determination.

[teddybear44]

Assuming Customs met the aircraft, boarded and spoke to the Captain, they would presumably be informed as to the reason for diversion and that after that they might conclude that it would not be their direct concern as to the exact detail of how the machine met Terra firma. I can't see them being overly challenging about alternative courses of action in the air, surely not their remit. There has been a diversion (happens now and again) and they would just eliminate their own concerns e.g Med divs etc. Put simply, there has been a diversion for whatever reason, the pax / crew are then processed in accordance with procedures by the authorities. Customs might wonder about it all, but 'speak sternly' to the Captain about a decision (right or wrong) to divert or to be angry about it, I'm not convinced about that.

[Airbubba]

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

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

The fact that the captain continued on duty after the divert reminds me of what the pilots of the 89th MAW, the operators of Air Force One, are told: you are allowed one mistake and you won't be fired until you get home from the trip!:)

[lomapaseo]

If 'based on facts' recounting of the dispute that led to the captains decision to divert the flight to MIA and offload the purser is essentially correct. Then it would appear his career as a modern day Queeg is likely over, as it should be. My only concern is that UAL management waited until the aircraft and its passengers were safely back in Chicago to make that determination.

This has come up in several posts. I believe that UAL management had no time to gather all the personnel related facts before allowing the flight to continue and relied upon the acceptance of the continuing crew that the flight could operate safely with that crew.

[MU3001A]

This has come up in several posts. I believe that UAL management had no time to gather all the personnel related facts before allowing the flight to continue and relied upon the acceptance of the continuing crew that the flight could operate safely with that crew.If UAL management polled the crew and received assurances from them without undue pressure or coercion that the flight could continue safely on to Chicago with Queeg still at the helm. Then I would be happy with that explanation.

Put simply, there has been a diversion for whatever reason, the pax / crew are then processed in accordance with procedures by the authorities. Customs might wonder about it all, but speak sternly to the Captain about a decision (right or wrong) to divert or to be angry about it, I'm not convinced about that.Immigration and TSA on the other hand ...

I'm sure the captain picked MIA for its 24 hour, 1hr notice customs availability over the more onerous requirements for landing at MCO out of normal hours in the middle of the night, where United has a base. But as the captain appears to have received the documents he demanded and with no prospect of an ugly face to face confrontation with the purser unless the captain chose to initiate one, I can see no justification for the captains actions. That the rest of the crew, US customs and TSA were able to accomodate the diversion with the minimum of inconvenience to passengers does little to mitigate the captains strange decision and the still significant inconvenience suffered by the passengers and the government agencies tasked with processing them, nor the damage necessarily incurred to UAL's reputation or the significant costs involved. Sure, let's try to keep an open mind until all the details are in. But I'm having a hard time justifying the diversion, short of some percieved threat to the continued safety of the flight which only the captain seems to have been cognizant of. In short, not looking good for Queeg.

[teddybear44]

Based on the available and unless /until other info comes to the fore, I tend to agree with your sentiment in your final sentence. What I said re Customs however, I believe ditto Immigration. They process arrivals at the Port of Entry after landing. If the Pilot diverts the flight (rightly or wrongly) then they have an additional arrival to control. Unless the arrival was at an unapproved airstrip (obviously not) then they are presumably able to accommodate the odd diversion within operating hours. Arrivals are delayed all the time so are out of sequence anyway. I just found it odd that any of those agencies might 'speak sternly' even in these circs.

[ckeough]

I haven't seen any mention of the CVR. Would it have possible to have the CVR contents downloaded when they arrived at ORD? Not sure if this would even be legal or fesible, but the conversation between the Captain and FO would have be insteresting to hear.

Ckeough

[based on facts]

This is the last entry I will post on this board. While some of you think I am "lying," I'm not credible or I don't know the whole story...YOU ARE INCORRECT. I am not lying, I am credible and I DO know the WHOLE story...unlike any of you. Wherther you believe me or not...I could care less. I took time to wrute these posts to shed alittle light on a situation that I have info about that NONE of you do.
It is very possible that this capt. had a "break from reality" as THIS WAS NOT PROVOKED by our Purser. She spent most of the flight helping in all 3 cabins and had very limited interaction with the captain. There was no arguement, tensions were not running high and absolutely no predisposing factor to warrant this landing. The Customs Agents were not told the exact nature of the unscheduled landing. They were told that we were landing due to a safety threat and something was happening on the airplane. They were prepared for the worst...they were not sure of what they were walking into. And yes, they asked, if the captain couldn't have found a better solution. In this country (USA) we take this sort of action very seriously and when they realized that the only reason the aircraft landed was because the captain didn't get papers within 30 minutes after take off, that he only needed upon landing and that the our Purser DID give him his Crew Decs. when he asked, they were dumbfounded that he actually landed. They then turned their attention to our Purser and asked if she was alright. In years past this might not have been as big of a deal as it is now. Due to "9/11," our country is always on alert for any suspect activity concerning air travel and the fact that this captain landed for such a lame reason is mind numbing to us all. Had it not been for our Purser the fkight would NOT have continued. We as a crew wanted to walk off with her but she asked us to please continue as someone had to think of the psgrs. The aircraft and psgs. needed to get to ORD. If she was such a threat...why did he wait until 6 hrs. into the flight to land. There are plenty of places, if there had been a real threat, to land...obviously there was not a threat but an ego bloated captain whose medical history puts a question mark in our minds as to whether he might have been on medication or not for pain etc. At least that would be an understandable reason for what he did. I have no knowledge of that, but I know this was his first trip back in 4 months due to knee surgery. He has a reputation/history of throwiing F/A's off the aircraft on a whim. Last year he threw someone off (on the ground) for not shaking his hand! This fact is documented.
Face it Rainboe and the rest of you who take up for this captain. I applaud you for your loyalty but sometimes that loyalty can be misplaced. Just as there are Flight Attendants that shouldn't be flying there are pilots that shouldn't be flying. For those of you who talk about "Jurassic Park" F/A's...I'll take them any day as they have the experience and knowledge to get me off an airplane should there be a need. While I don't have near the senority of our Purser, I do hope I can aquire her skill. I do know she comes with nothing but an outstanding reputation that she earned over years of service. The captain comes with a tarnished reputation that he also earned. It's time for you "dinosaur" pilots to come into this century and realize that you do not get respect just because you're in the left seat...YOU MUST EARN IT...just like the rest of us.

[eliptic]

based on facts (http://www.pprune.org/members/306144-based-on-facts)

I don´t think you need to defend your self nor the Purser,,especially not here on the "professional pilot forum";) common sense rules as always:ok:

[IcePack]

Respect? Yes one has to earn it. But just like in the military it is not the person who you respect necessarily but the uniform and what it represents. Or as I said earlier you just have anarchy.

[chisja]

It's time for you "dinosaur" pilots to come into this century and realize that you do not get respect just because you're in the left seat...YOU MUST EARN IT...just like the rest of us.

based on facts,

Your immature rantings, factual or not, seem back to front to me. Maybe I'm old fashioned but someone who has attained the left hand seat of a large jet transport at a major carrier, has certainly earned my respect. In fact, as a general rule, I respect other people until such time as their behaviour or actions warrant a re-appraisal of my position.

I have no idea whether you are genuine or an internet troll, either way, we have not heard the Captain's side of this story or the Purser's. You appear to have some other axe to grind over and above this particular incident.

BTW, if your account is genuine, why were the papers pushed under the door in the near certain knowledge that the flight crew would probably not notice them. Seems a tad provocative to me.

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