PDA

View Full Version : US Airways Captain Escorted from Aircraft


Savoia
24th Jul 2011, 06:58
.
On June 16, captain Valerie Wells, a 30-year-pilot, was scheduled to fly an Airbus A330, which can carry nearly 300 passengers, on a flight from Philadelphia to Rome. But she declined to fly because of failures of both the auxiliary power unit, a backup source of electrical power, and the "hot battery bus," a primary source of electrical power.

After the crew and passengers had returned to the gate Wells, in a particularly unusual event, was escorted out of the airport by security officials. Subsequently, a second crew of three pilots also declined to fly; the aircraft was repaired and underwent a rigorous inspection, and a third crew took off about six to seven hours late.

In seeking to publicize the incident, the U.S. Airline Pilots Association took out a full-page advertisement in Friday's edition of USA Today. The ad proclaimed that US Airways put "revenues first, safety second.

"The intimidation of flight crews is becoming commonplace at US Airways, [which] works to maximize their revenues by pushing their employees to move their airplanes regardless of the potential human cost," said the text. The ad referred readers to a website www.USAirlinePilots.org/SafetyFirst (http://www.USAirlinePilots.org/SafetyFirst).

In a letter to employees on Friday, Robert Isom, chief operating officer, wrote that "USAPA has embarked upon a smear campaign that in reality is all about contract negotiations, not safety.

"I can tell you unequivocally the union's claims are outlandish, false and a disservice to the 32,000 hard-working employees of US Airways," Isom wrote. "Safety has been and always will be the top priority at US Airways, as it is at any airline."

More (http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/story/11196015/1/us-airways-captain-escorted-from-airport.html?cm_ven=YAHOO&cm_cat=FREE&cm_ite=NA)

divinehover
24th Jul 2011, 08:06
Did the MEL allow her to dispatch or not? It's a very simple question.

aviatorhi
24th Jul 2011, 08:10
Too soon to know what happened, but even non-APU they could have dispatched via southern Greenland, the Hot Bus may have been a battery issue which could have been a quick fix. Don't want to say anything more than the following, but I heard the "escorting" was more related to words being used over the PA and when talking to Dx and Mx than anything else.

fireflybob
24th Jul 2011, 08:32
Did the MEL allow her to dispatch or not? It's a very simple question.

The Captain still has the absolute right to not accept the aircraft even if it is in the MEL - in fact all the MELs I have seen iterate this fact in the preamble. The Captain might deem that a certain combination of defects on that particular flight is not acceptable.

The operator may not agree but that's another matter.

I imagine these crew members might have a case against the Company for harassment/bullying?

clockwork
24th Jul 2011, 08:36
From a UK company Boeing MEL:

9. The MEL does not anticipate the effects of combinations of apparently unrelated unserviceabilities or allow for situations where systems are made inoperative for special purposes such as demonstration, test or crew training. Other provisions may apply to positioning of ferrying flights but these may not necessarily be included in the MEL.
10. The decision to operate the aircraft with multiple unserviceabilities should only be made after due consideration of possible inter-related or additive effects

Earl of Rochester
24th Jul 2011, 08:53
Question from a rotary-wing driver so patience please from the airline jocks: Don't MEL's detail possible combinations? And .. aren't MEL's required to be endorsed by the manufacturer?

If so, and given that MEL's are approved by the relevant aviation authority, then divinehover's statement: Did the MEL allow her to dispatch or not? It's a very simple question. would seem to be logical.

Airbus_a321
24th Jul 2011, 09:19
guess as an ETOPS flight, for shure a no go with APU inop. Well done lady Cpt.:ok:
And concerning Airbus MEL, it will allow you to fly the beast at anytime. Well almost anytime, maybe if one wing is missing or so ;)
NO DISPATCH is very, very rare in Airbus MEL.
So a good Captains decision is always needed to go or not to go.
TWO (heavy) electrical issues is one too much in this case and on this flight. IMHO.

Denti
24th Jul 2011, 09:25
@Earl, as quoted above MELs do not take into consideration combination of different defects. It is only a per singular defect consideration. Therefore the final authority lays with the commander of the flight. Sometimes a combination of malfunctions can have some very very weird follow up reactions.

To contain all possible combinations of malfunctions would be very difficult, not to mention the MEL would suddenly turn into a 100 part manual.

Earl of Rochester
24th Jul 2011, 09:41
Denti, thanks.

Meaning therefore that devinehover's statement was a paradox in that it is not possible for a MEL to sanction the dispatch of an aircraft with multiple (or combination) items inoperative as MEL's only address the omission of a single item?

Final 3 Greens
24th Jul 2011, 09:48
captain Valerie Wells, a 30-year-pilot

How typical is it for a 30 year old to be a wide body captain in the USA?

Nemrytter
24th Jul 2011, 09:56
It's not clear, but I understood that to mean that the person has been a pilot for the last 30 years.
(edit) That was in response to final 3 greens.

mokilu
24th Jul 2011, 09:58
Do you want to marry me, Valerie?:D

MEL is written by lawers, whilst airmanship is the "common sense on the air" whe should all have.

Unfortunattely there are also some pilots that are so company-minded that tend to forget that safety comes first.

Well done, Valerie! And well done second crew

His dudeness
24th Jul 2011, 09:59
Wells, in a particularly unusual event, was escorted out of the airport by security officials.

Funny how you all center on the MEL whilst I think THIS is the real issue.

Why is a captain escorted out of the airport when he/she refuses to fly with good reason (IMO) aka does what a captain should do???? What about the rest of the crew? How desperate is a company when it puts such stress and pressure on crews to fly aircraft with tech issues? What does it say about safety culture?
I´m just a lowlife executive pilot and got brushed by the 'airliners' as the risky dudes etc. when something happened in my field of aviation and its safety culture is apparently bad, now I can see thats that no different at the airlines...

I sure hope that the FAA fines US Airways real hard for such a behavior.

Cudos to the captain, crew and the second crew as well.

BTW it was: n this case, she was met by US Airways Corporate Security and escorted out of the airport! so not the airport security.

Lord Spandex Masher
24th Jul 2011, 10:04
You beat me to it His Dudeness, what the hell have airport security got to do with this?

I can't think of any other security "officials" at an airport unless they're talking about the police, but then why not say so!

I think my response would be to tell 'em to clear off.

WFLineage1000
24th Jul 2011, 10:04
How typical is it for a 30 year old to be a wide body captain in the USA?

They got it wrong. It should say "with 30 years of experience" ...
EDIT: As originally it is written 30-year-pilot, intended meaning might be the same, however it sounds a bit awkward ...

HotDog
24th Jul 2011, 10:15
With the need to know technology training these days, the more reason to carry a professional flight engineer with an inside knowledge and training of the airplane systems, rather than a second officer in flight scribe for about 4 years who knows nothing about the in depth systems that are down stream of the on off switch!

Final 3 Greens
24th Jul 2011, 10:38
Thanks for pointing the answer out.

As a Brit, this phrase is not intuitive to me and I read '30 year old pilot' instead.

Human factors at work, once agan :ugh:

Cornish Jack
24th Jul 2011, 10:39
Presumably, Hot Dog, that would include the FE who, in spite of being advised by me that the Bev fire system was ACTIVE, even with the Battery Master switch OFF, insisted on proving his superior knowledge by pressing a fire switch ... action closely followed by dull thump and drip, drip, drip!!:ugh:
Note, FEs were NOT original crew complement but and add-on to improve safety!! No doubt there are/were some very competent people out there but, like all varieties of crew member, not all!:(
Used to have this sort of 'conversation' re. the relative merits of the 747-400 v the Classic crewing. Never did find, or hear of, an FE who would/could monitor systems as many times per SECOND as the 400's system did.
Now retires to avoid incoming :E

aviatorhi
24th Jul 2011, 10:50
Your example is without merit since I've never found a pilot who could make as many minute corrections to an ILS approach as the A/P does.

More brains and more knowledge are always better than more computers.

SloppyJoe
24th Jul 2011, 11:19
a320

You will be surprised to hear that the APU in an A330 is not required for ETOPS.

They have an emergency generator that uses green hydraulics.

Graybeard
24th Jul 2011, 11:54
OK on going sans APU, assuming the hydraulics never fail. What about the hot battery bus?

iceman50
24th Jul 2011, 12:04
Sloppyjoe is correct the APU is a conditional dispatch item.

The "HOT Battery Bus", if that is the correct term, if it is one of these then there is no decision.

DC BAT BUS FAULT NO DISPATCH
DC BUS 1 FAULT NO DISPATCH
DC BUS 1+2 FAULT NO DISPATCH
DC BUS 2 FAULT NO DISPATCH
DC ESS BUS FAULT NO DISPATCH
DC ESS BUS SHED NO DISPATCH

Basil
24th Jul 2011, 12:38
We'd a situation where a captain required a MEL item repaired before dispatch.
It could have been done but, IIRC, Engineering decided that it was permitted and didn't call the part from a store an hour away.
Captain insisted. Result: Tea without biscuits.
Fortunately it ended at that otherwise I'd like to think there would have been no departures at all next day.

fireflybob
24th Jul 2011, 13:20
Meaning therefore that devinehover's statement was a paradox in that it is not possible for a MEL to sanction the dispatch of an aircraft with multiple (or combination) items inoperative as MEL's only address the omission of a single item?

Earl of Rochester, not quite sure what you mean here (I thought divinehover's post was a question rather than a statement).

Subject to the precise defects and the provisions of the MEL then yes it is possible to depart with multiple items inoperative. (But for clarification a specific MEL item might say you may dispatch with this item u/s BUT if so, something else MUST be serviceable, for example).

However, in law the Commander has the absolute right in not accepting an a/c with multiple (or even single) defects which the MEL allows! For example, would you despatch with the APU u/s if you know the destination has no ground power and/or air start facility?

As I have stated before, the operator may not like that but that is the authority which is legally vested in the Commander. In this incident, it is interesting that another crew was of the same opinion also.

In a way, the same applies to use of discretion wrt Flight Time Limitations. Only the Commander may exercise discretion to extend the duty day or reduce minimum rest - you might be having tea and no biccies with the CP to explain why but, legally, the operator cannot force you to go just because it's in the MEL.

divinehover
24th Jul 2011, 13:28
The A330 has a RAT so you can depart with the APU inop. I've done it.

Bobbsy
24th Jul 2011, 13:45
If anyone hasn't read the USAPA link in the original post, I recommend it. The facts are slightly different than in the press cutting quoted.

Well done to the pilot involved and brickbats to US Airways.

clunckdriver
24th Jul 2011, 13:47
Divenehover, In my company the F/O {Thats what you claim to be in your profile} does not make the MEL/Go/No Go decision, the Captain does with input from the crew and dispatch/ maint, but the buck stops in the left seat period! As for any company that treats a thirty year employee like a criminal, words fail me. I have instructed our travel department to add US Air to our "No Fly List", not a big Dead Heading acount, but maybe if they see more of us doing this it might give them pause to think.

SloppyJoe
24th Jul 2011, 14:05
I think it is more to do with the emergency generator as the APU does not supply hydraulic power. The RAT can provide power through the emergency generator by pressure in the green system but under 260kts this is very minimal. With the APU out on a 330 you still have three generators and all hydraulics. The issue of ground services in FCO is not a factor. If it was either hot bus 1 or hot bus 2 INOP also I honestly can't see why that would make going with the APU INOP any worse as the only things these do is connect to either battery 1 or 2. 1 battery is just as useless as 2 if that is the only power you have in an A330. There will be more to this story than we know.

Keylime
24th Jul 2011, 14:16
I don't need an engineer to tell me not to take a two-engine a/c overwater at night in Class II navigation regardless of the MEL. Some U.S. Airlines have a gentleman's agreement(although I haven't seen many gentlemen in airline mgt. the last few years) they won't dispatch under these conditions at night giving them the MEL relief to dispatch in the day. However, not a 'Bus driver. Newer Boeing(777, 787) have more backups. Won't do it on 757/767/737. Rather be tried by twelve than carried by six.

20driver
24th Jul 2011, 14:23
Something I have seen on more than one occasion is un connected events that later turned out to be connected, almost always in the electrical department. Resetting a switch or being told it is fixed is not the same as finding the cause of the problem.

I suspect there some friction between the captain and MX over what was acceptable.

A few years back I was sitting in 1A and witnessed just such a show down. The Captain wanted a part replaced. The mechanic said he could do it only after the captain talked with his boss. The captain refused, he said we are not moving till the part is replaced, stop wasting time and get it fixed. With the wrong people in the right mood the event could easily have escalated.

It will be interesting to see what gets made public on this.

iceman50
24th Jul 2011, 14:32
If this is the part concerned from the MEL easy decision.

BAT 1 (2) FAULT NO DISPATCH
BAT 1 (2) OFF Not applicable
BAT 1 (2) SYS FAULT NO DISPATCH

If it is NOT in the MEL then it is required.

J.O.
24th Jul 2011, 15:18
The USAPA statement statement referred to in the original posting is well worth reading. I don't know if there's anything the airline could say that could possibly answer it effectively, short of a major mea culpa.

Hotel Tango
24th Jul 2011, 15:31
I don't know if there's anything the airline could say that could possibly answer it effectively

They already have - with the usual management BS one is to expect these days:

In a letter to employees on Friday, Robert Isom, chief operating officer, wrote that "USAPA has embarked upon a smear campaign that in reality is all about contract negotiations, not safety.

"I can tell you unequivocally the union's claims are outlandish, false and a disservice to the 32,000 hard-working employees of US Airways," Isom wrote. "Safety has been and always will be the top priority at US Airways, as it is at any airline."

CaptainProp
24th Jul 2011, 15:36
The Captain still has the absolute right to not accept the aircraft even if it is in the MEL - in fact all the MELs I have seen iterate this fact in the preamble. The Captain might deem that a certain combination of defects on that particular flight is not acceptable.

The operator may not agree but that's another matter.


Amen to that. :D

cwatters
24th Jul 2011, 16:28
The link in the original post says..

...in other words, the plane had no electrical power and no radio communications None.


Would that be correct? MEL?

Lou Scannon
24th Jul 2011, 16:58
As an old retired captain with etops and airbus type experience, I would point out that the good thing about this event is that US Air still have at least two cockpit crews who know their job and didn't take an aircraft that they considered wasn't serviceable for flight.

I wonder how far down the list of replacement crews the US management would have had to try to find out one that agreed with them and took the aircraft...and whether that crew would have made destination without a major event or diversion.

My respects to both crews who said no! I hope that there are many like them in US Air.

J.O.
24th Jul 2011, 17:17
They already have - with the usual management BS one is to expect these days:

In a letter to employees on Friday, Robert Isom, chief operating officer, wrote that "USAPA has embarked upon a smear campaign that in reality is all about contract negotiations, not safety.

"I can tell you unequivocally the union's claims are outlandish, false and a disservice to the 32,000 hard-working employees of US Airways," Isom wrote. "Safety has been and always will be the top priority at US Airways, as it is at any airline."

As you suggest, this is not even close to answering it effectively.

Savoia
24th Jul 2011, 17:29
.
And my concern .. is that for erring on the side of caution, safety and professionalism, Valerie Wells, her FO and the second crew could be stigmatised by US Airways management as a result of taking this stand - not least of all because the USAPA did a commendable job of jumping to the crew's defence and which support revealed USA in a less than favourable light.

The curious thing is that in the longrun safety always pays off whereas sailing close to the wind only yeilds short-term solutions which all too often result in costs [fiscal, human, reputation and otherwise] which undo the 'benefits' of the compromise to such an extent so as to render the choice ineffectual at best, high damaging and deadly at worst.

This realisation should be part the ABC's of airline management but .. one sees that it is necessary to repeat the obvious (with alarming regularity) to people who really should know better.

clunckdriver
24th Jul 2011, 18:28
"Safety has always been the top priority at US Airways, as it is at any airline".Mr Isom, have I got news for you! One only has to read TSB and NTSB reports to see how wrong this statement is, I for one quit a very lucrative flying job on the grounds of safety, I predicted they would bend two aircraft in five years, I was wrong, they bent four! In the last one a person from the corner office was also very bent, at least this finally got the attention of the bean counters!

Starbear
24th Jul 2011, 18:47
And the Feds say.......????

aviatorhi
24th Jul 2011, 22:32
And the Feds say.......????

The feds can't be reached at this time, they ran out of cash to operate.

Molokai
24th Jul 2011, 22:36
Bravo!, Captain Valerie Wells! You certainly deserve our respects and adulation:D:D.

To quote clockwork :

9. The MEL does not anticipate the effects of combinations of apparently unrelated unserviceabilities or allow for situations where systems are made inoperative for special purposes such as demonstration, test or crew training. Other provisions may apply to positioning of ferrying flights but these may not necessarily be included in the MEL.
10. The decision to operate the aircraft with multiple unserviceabilities should only be made after due consideration of possible inter-related or additive effects

There always hidden dangers and unforseen risks involved with dispatch with multiple failures, especially the scarebus! I read of a Malaysian guy who took an A330 despatched with an wingtip breaker problem down to ADL only to have the aircraft AOG over there after the f/o messed with the aircraft clock. Even the Airbus technical rep was flummoxed not realizing the undocumented tie between the cockpit clocks and the maintenace computer time base. It pays to tread carefully with the scarebus!

glhcarl
25th Jul 2011, 02:45
And .. aren't MEL's required to be endorsed by the manufacturer?


The Minimum Equipment List (MEL) is written by the operator!


It is based on the Master Minimum Equipment List (MMEL) which is written by a committee made up of the manufacture and operators, then approved by the regulatory agency that certifies the aircraft. The MMEL is part of the aircraft certification.


The operators MEL must be more restrictive than the MMEL.

fokker1000
25th Jul 2011, 02:48
Fireflybob's post [#4] is spot on.

If I had an aircraft with a few, or mulitple faults that, however unconnected they may seem, I feel could possibly cause a problem in the air, then I wouldn't take it. It's my neck up there aswell as the crew's, pax etc.

And I'm very glad to say I know I would get backed up by my management aswell without a shadow of a doubt.

Especially so as it's an Airbus. Well done Valerie!

Airbus759
25th Jul 2011, 05:01
All good comments regarding Captain authority and MEL, but this thing has very little to do with either and everything to do with the seniority battle between USAPA and the former America West pilots. The unfortunate thing is that if/when there is a legitimate safety issue in the future, USAPA will be the little boy who called "wolf."

SLFguy
25th Jul 2011, 08:42
"The issue is about the Capt being frog-marched off the aircraft by security officials."

Link to this info?

His dudeness
25th Jul 2011, 09:14
@SLFGuy: first post:
www.USAirlinePilots.org/SafetyFirst

Relevant line in my post (bottom) on page one:

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/458287-us-airways-captain-escorted-aircraft.html#post6591507

And the escorting was also confirmed by the airline:

Airline spokesman John McDonald said the incident is under investigation. He said "the fact that [Wells] was escorted off the property had nothing to do with safety," but declined to elaborate. Ray speculated the airline did not want Wells to tell the replacement crew of the problems she had with the aircraft.

(Thats in the second link of the first post.)

In fact this is even worse than everything else, NOT to have the crew tell the next crew about the defects. WTF? They should fire whoever is responsible for that and make sure he/she is not able to work in aviation again (Station Manager? Chief Pilot? Who does decide these things in US Air?)(yes, I read the speculation bit...)

clunckdriver
25th Jul 2011, 11:08
Airbus 759, what total nonsense your post is, the two issues are in no way conected, this is another case of the "bean counters" degrading flight safety and the Captains decision making authority, lets not give them any chance to obscure the real problem here by introducing a total red herring!

SLFguy
25th Jul 2011, 11:12
Apologies if I'm missing it, (it's Monday morning sigh), but neither of those links show me where the "Capt was frog marched off the aircraft".

J.O.
25th Jul 2011, 11:41
All good comments regarding Captain authority and MEL, but this thing has very little to do with either and everything to do with the seniority battle between USAPA and the former America West pilots. The unfortunate thing is that if/when there is a legitimate safety issue in the future, USAPA will be the little boy who called "wolf."

That's a very strongly worded first posting. Pilot unions usually aren't in the business of using operational safety issues as an excuse to win their seniority demands. Maybe I'm thick but I fail to see the connection. Care to enlighten us?

erwolff
25th Jul 2011, 11:54
I am merely an occasional passenger on commercial flights.

What a relief to know that captains still take their responsibility seriously - and what a worry to see that management wants a crew to fly against their better judgement ...

SLFguy
25th Jul 2011, 12:00
"Apologies to you too if my use of words was not included in the report.

Poetic licence and all... "

No problem - I only asked because that would've opened a whole diffrent can of worms.

atakacs
25th Jul 2011, 12:18
Is that the same Valérie Wells ? Flying Above the Glass Ceiling (http://books.google.com/books?id=zvLPwq-t0-oC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false)

matkat
25th Jul 2011, 13:39
MEL is written by lawers, whilst airmanship is the "common sense on the air" whe should all have.

Well no it is not! the MMEL is written by the manufacturer engineering of the relevent TC holder and passed on to the NAA of the relevent Country for approval, the Operator then looks through the MMEL and ammends it to suit their particular operation it is then submitted to the Authority of the country of registration for approval, this is very simplified but that is how it is done.

clunckdriver
25th Jul 2011, 13:40
JO, Im glad Im not the only one who finds the Airbus 759 post a little fishy, a member since 2006 and one post, methinks that this has all the signs of a management "Lurker", tracking the IP location gives me further cause to think this may be the case, care to coment Airbus 759?

SassyPilotsWife
25th Jul 2011, 14:09
Dear US Airways,

Your actions were foolish.....

Sully lands on water... the public has restored faith in air safety with US Air. Well trained and experienced Capt. who posesses the skills to think smart, adapt and make crucial proactive decisions = safer flight ( in our eyes).

Valerie refuses a flight, not only did she refuse, the crew following also refused.

Instead of backing your crew, you argued and tried to force a flight that other professional crew refused. Then you had the audacity to have her escorted and removed? :=

What does the same flying public think now? How many seats will you sell as this story grows ( and it will). Do they want to fly with a carrier who allows bean counters to determine safety? Be proud you have great crew members in charge. Let them do their jobs. :ugh:

I hope she tells US Air to kiss her very qualified and experience a**. Let us know where you wind up if you do Valerie, we will follow.:D

Regards,
John Q. Public

VFD
25th Jul 2011, 14:28
After reading the linked article it is interesting that the replacement crew had the same failure twice before giving up.
The incident sure not looking good for USAir trying to dispatch with multiple electrical problems and no comms.
One sure gets the impression of pilot pushing.
While not aircraft related the article also commented about the GSU not working either.
Mx does not appear to be one of this airline's strong points.

VFD

Piltdown Man
25th Jul 2011, 14:28
It appears that US Airways aren't brave enough to publicly state that crews who decided not to accept this aircraft were out of line and pointlessly over cautious. I wonder why? As an organisation they will have to accept that every now and again crews may refuse to take an aircraft which may be legal to dispatch but in the crew's opinion, unwise. But that's what you pay captains for. But as ever, I'm sure there's more this story than meets the eye especially as it looks like the aircraft returned to the gate. Personally, I wouldn't like to take an electric aircraft which had just had suffered multiple supply failures without a good explanation from an engineer or Technical Pilot.

PM

Johnny767
25th Jul 2011, 15:16
Randy Babbitt has sure been a huge disappointment, in support of the Piloting Profession.

The question for the USAPA is; why did any of your Aircraft operate the next day?

Instead of sitting around whining, the only way to get the attention of these little office monkeys is...

Set the Parking Brake!

aterpster
25th Jul 2011, 16:51
Johnny767:

Randy Babbitt has sure been a huge disappointment, in support of the Piloting Profession.

Sort of like when he was president of ALPA.:*

wozzo
25th Jul 2011, 16:59
... tracking the IP location ...
How did you accomplish that?

CasperFan
25th Jul 2011, 17:55
"she was met by US Airways Corporate Security and escorted out of the airport! Furthermore, members of her crew were threatened with arrest should they try to interfere.":mad:

Airbus759
25th Jul 2011, 17:59
I have friends on both sides of the union conflict within US Airways, so I will try to make this balanced. I was in flight ops management at AWA more than 20 years ago, but I do not believe that makes me a management lurker.

This incident is being used as a display in USAPA's "Safety First" campaign, which is in fact a wink, nudge effort to exert pressure on the airline to get along with contract negotiations. The stumbling block on the way to a contract is the seniority issue, and at the heart of that is USAPA's non-acceptance of an arbitrated seniority list.

Other posters are correct in that it is unusual for a union to mix safety with negotiation, but that is in fact what is going on here.

There are many sides to the A330 story, and the truth lies somewhere in the middle. What is certain is that the captain was not escorted off the property for merely refusing to fly an airplane.

surplus1
25th Jul 2011, 18:54
AirBus759,

Were you present when these events took place? If you were not, just how do you know how or why Capt Valerie was escorted?

Is there any chance that she is a formes USAirways pilot and not an AWA pilot?

You are of course entitled to your opinions but, are they "facts" or just your opinion? Just curious.

Disclaimer: I am not nor have I ever been either an AAA or AWA pilot/employee.

Waterskier
25th Jul 2011, 21:10
AirBus759,

It sounds like you're a current management pilot...

Please connect the dots:
(1)Captain refuses an airplane over multiple unexplained electrical defects in an Airbus.

(2) USAPA is upset with the seniority agreement / contract negotiations.

Please explain how the union is publicizing this incident to further their contract negotiations / seniority dispute. I see no correlation. Nowhere in their press release did they say anything about contract negotiations or seniority list integration!

This is about Captain's discretion and safety of flight. PERIOD!

autoflight
25th Jul 2011, 22:07
Pilot unions correctly devote a fair effort to flight safety. If airlines and other operators have a good safety culture, union effort required in this area is less. Where the management directed flight safety culture is deficient, the union effort required is greater, as in this case.
Confusion results from illogical linking with other conditions of employment including salary and seniority. Pilot unions do not seem to be in the habit of linking significant safety conditions with these other conditions. The uninformed may grasp at work to rules as a link, but try to concentrate on the actual known facts of this post.
I have been directly present during multiple crew refusals, like this case. Finally a management captain took it. By the time the new 737 landed, there was a telex informing the company that ACARS info indicated the warranty on one of the engines was now invalid.
Rejecting an aircraft is often not so clearly defined. For a start, it has normally been signed off as OK by company engineers. It is mostly up to the captain experience and all of the current circumstances. Captain will consider multiple factors and if there is no single outstanding reason to decline, will need to make a judgement call.
Management may discuss such judgements but is not authorised to over-ride the decision and no captain should allow themselves to be inappropriately pressured. This process is a lonely place to be.
Sure, let them find another crew. If new crew is willing to fly, that is new captain call. Airline attempting to hide the previous decline is morale busting behavious. Morale is a flight safety matter that unions should vigorously pursue.
Well done Captain Val. Only you can make such decisions.

aviatorhi
25th Jul 2011, 22:24
This is about Captain's discretion and safety of flight. PERIOD!

Do you believe everything you see on TV too?

boredcounter
25th Jul 2011, 22:25
Please do not think I wish to have a go at all.

'Valerie refuses a flight, not only did she refuse, the crew following also refused.'

I prefer 'were unable to accept the aircraft, for the planed flight, in accordance with the MEL'. This is usually followed by 'because'...............

As a humble Ops guy in the UK, it is a conversation I have in real time with Engineering, so a pet niggle so to speak, nothing more.

Given the joint responsibility for dispatch, who on the ground allowed a Crew change, with no defect rectification? A big no no, all Crew are trained to the same standard and rules.

Who was going to sign the release for the second Crew, when the first felt unable to accept iaw MEL?

RWEDAREYET
26th Jul 2011, 02:28
I'm a USAirways pilot and I do not think the Unions actions are based on contract negotiations....

At the end of the day, the Captain should have the final authority....does the aircraft go or not......Legal does not necessarily mean it's the best decision......lot's of factors out there....

I don't know what all the factors are, but if the Captain's decision was to get the airplane fixed, that should be the final decision.....

In some folks minds, the Union went over the top with the ad in the USA Today.....

But again, at the end of the day, the Union is trying to protect the Captain's decision making authority.......

Me, once again, at the of the day, I want the authority to get the aircraft fixed to my satisfaction before taking off......

Is that too much to ask???

Pontius
26th Jul 2011, 02:43
Rumour has it that having declined to accept the aircraft she then went to the gate and, using the gate PA, broadcast to the waiting pax that she was not going to fly an unsafe aircraft, that USAir was putting lives at risk by 'forcing' the pilots to fly unsafe machines etc. It was at this point she was escorted away ('Step away from the PA, Mam').

Not accepting the aircraft because of its engineering state is, in my mind, perfectly reasonable and should be supported by the Company. Broadcasting unsubstantiated vitriol to waiting passengers, in a bid to further the Union's 'safety' campaign in the ongoing wrangling, is not acceptable and one cannot blame the Company for wanting to stop her scaremongering.

If this rumour is true, I commend her decision to refuse the aircraft but her latter actions are unprofessional and should be left to the negotiating room, not foisted on the general public.

Small wonder this did not appear in the Union announcement and proves that it's not so black and white after all.........if it's true, that is ;)

RWEDAREYET
26th Jul 2011, 02:48
Pontius, interesting, I hadn't heard that rumor.....

bubbers44
26th Jul 2011, 03:12
We all know that the captain has the final authority no matter what the MEL says. What was with the theatrics of law enforcement escorting the crew off the plane.

I think the union should have been over there kicking their ass for such behavior. Do they have a bunch of limp d==ks or what? I worked for the competion so don't care. Seems like you should.

To clarify, I am talking about the union. About the limp di....., I mean.

rh200
26th Jul 2011, 03:12
If this rumour is true, I commend her decision to refuse the aircraft but her latter actions are unprofessional and should be left to the negotiating room, not foisted on the general public.Well this brings up another point, if you really think the aircraft is unsafe to fly, and peoples lives are in danger to what lengths do you go. Its one thing to refuse to fly, and then another pilot say,s, hay yea I think its fine.

It then crashes with every one dead, do you sleep well at night knowing that you did the correct thing. Or do you wonder that maybe you should have done more to prevent the aircraft from being used. Which then leads to the question how far do you go:(.

I could imagine a scenario where she thought it shouldn't go under any circumstances, and hence was worried about another crew taking it because they where under pressure, hence trying to get the passengers to boycott the aircraft would seem like the thing to do. I'm not saying that's what happened here, just a thought.

Electrical issue, bah humbug absolute pain in the ar#$, have had had seamingly simple unrelated issue be ignored only to end up in a complete meltdown. Requires a lot of thought to dismiss them as nothing, this is especially the case with aircraft.

Had an issue many years ago when I worked in the mines, where I threatened to put a sledge hammer though the sump of a large machine when the boss tried to send it back to work. We where working on large steep hills and it had lost ~40% of its emergency braking, it got fixed.

Graybeard
26th Jul 2011, 04:59
I wonder how much the mystery of AF447 weighs on A330 crews everywhere?

etrang
26th Jul 2011, 05:38
tracking the IP location gives me further cause to think this may be the case, care to coment Airbus 759?

How exactly did you do that clunckdriver?

Halfnut
26th Jul 2011, 06:31
Just make an entry in the aircraft logbook, "Captain refuses the aircraft due to yada yada yada."

No matter what happens to the current crew or if the company finds another plane for the original crew the next crew to man the aircraft can make their own decision if the problem has been fixed or Captain #2 gets out his trusty pen and inks another entry, "Captain also refuses the aircraft due to yada, yada, yada."

If enough Captains have some backbone the plane gets fixed.

stilton
26th Jul 2011, 06:41
'the truth lies somewhere in the middle'




That an easy rationalisation but no more than that.




It probably lies at one or the other end of the story / allegation.



If you look at US Air's management over the years i know what side I would support without a doubt.

pax2908
26th Jul 2011, 08:33
Well, as a PAX I surely would expect to know when a Captain has decided it is unsafe to fly the a/c. If it is against the rules to inform the PAX, then the rules should be changed.

Rollingthunder
26th Jul 2011, 08:55
It's a company culture. I spent 20 years going to MOC (Maintenance Operations Control) meetings at 0700. Attended by relevant heads of departments and all the chief pilots. We went over all snags and MELs to determine progress on fixes. Was the most important meeting of the day. It's the culture and determination to be safe.

Earl of Rochester
26th Jul 2011, 09:14
Airline jocks please be patient with this rotary-wing flyer!

An MEL is a step-down from the Master Minimum Equipment List which, one assumes, can only be drawn-up by the specific aircraft manufacturer? (Who else is qualified to indicate which items an aircraft can fly without?).

An MEL must therefore contain fewer options than an MMEL and is presumably devised to take operational factors into account?

From what I've read on this thread MEL's only specify single item failures and do not provide multiple-equipment-failure scenarios but can sometimes include provisions whereby one or more specifically identified items must be operative if a particular failed item is accepted?

If this is so (and wanting to address Capt. Valerie's actions from a purely technical perspective) then is it possible to know what Airbus have written in the MMEL regarding both bus and APU failure?

Finally, from those with experience, can you advise whether it is common or rare to accept an aircraft with a double electrical failure or, specifically, a bus and APU fail?

Thanks.

aviatorhi
26th Jul 2011, 10:38
An MEL must therefore contain fewer options than an MMEL and is presumably devised to take operational factors into account?

An MEL [may] therefore contain...

Ops factors are not taken into account (at least in the MELs I've seen) as each day will be different, limitations imposed by an INOP piece of equipment, though, are given.

From what I've read on this thread MEL's only specify single item failures and do not provide multiple-equipment-failure scenarios but can sometimes include provisions whereby one or more specifically identified items must be operative if a particular failed item is accepted?

Generally, yes. For instance, you may have CSD temperature sensing deferred and Generator Freq/Volt monitoring deferred and the MEL may not tell you how they are interrelated, having one but not the other still allows you some ability to monitor the condition of the CSD, having neither leaves you blind, though legal.

Finally, from those with experience, can you advise whether it is common or rare to accept an aircraft with a double electrical failure or, specifically, a bus and APU fail?

As far as I know, no aircraft manufacturer will draw up an MEL that allows for operation with an electrical bus inoperative (but I only know the NB Boeing products and Douglas). The list of equipment/capability you lose is too long. Failure of auto-paralleling circuits or bus ties are another story and are acceptable given certain conditions. The real question to me is whether or not I would have at least 2 good generators available to me, from the sound of it, in the Airbus there are at least 3 (not counting the APU). I'm not an expert on any Airbus so I can't comment as to the effect that electrical bus would have on safety. It is, however, rare to be presented with such a situation.



I had posted early on in this thread that I had heard rumors of something else happening other than a simple gate return. Seems as though the CA may have in fact been acting less then cordially. Getting on the PA and "warning" passengers is not an intelligent move and it's not something I would do even if I declined a flight for technical reasons (though I only fly boxes at the moment). The fact is that most people are not experts on aviation matters and would react with fear and possibly refuse to fly on that specific aircraft for no other reason than someone said it's dangerous (even though it would be fixed in the mean time). Also, it's a pretty bad image to give to the flying public.

Hell Man
26th Jul 2011, 10:44
Getting on the PA and "warning" passengers is not an intelligent move ...

Has is been confirmed that she did this?

Earl of Rochester
26th Jul 2011, 11:25
Aviatorhi thanks for your response.

It strikes me that the multiple scenarios on offer when presented by a failure of more than one item on a MEL offers an ideal opportunity for the numerous combinations of dispatch possibilities to be calculated by computer.

In other words the aircraft manufacturer could develop software which allows crews to enter the defects and then provides answers as to whether the proposed combination of equipment failures are acceptable. The programme would probably prompt crew to confirm the serviceability of other critical or related items as well as to define aspects of the intended flight ie. flight time, over water etc.

Such a programme could help in standardising the dispatch criteria for each specific aircraft type in relation to the acceptable combinations of unserviceable equipment.

Starbear
26th Jul 2011, 11:47
Its possible that the APU issue may be a bit of a red herring here (i.e. not that important . Others have suggested MEL may permit this even on Etops flights)
BUT if any important electrical BUS is inoperative then that is a very big deal as it is quite likey that no electrical source whatsoever can be applied to that BUS, even if you had 10 back up generators.
I cannot imagine any MEL allowing dispatch with any important BUS inop. Others may be able to provide further specific information for this A330.

Graybeard
26th Jul 2011, 11:52
The discussion of hot battery bus reminds me of the MartinAir 767 back in 1996.

Prior to departure, the flight crew noted anomalies with the airplane clocks. Once corrected, they proceeded with the flight. En route, the airplane experienced numerous electrical anomalies where various warning lights would illuminate, and then extinguish. These occurrences were also accompanied by uncommanded auto-pilot disconnects, changes in airplane zero fuel weight, as displayed on the control display unit (CDU) of the flight management system (FMS), and the blanking of transponder codes.Event Details (http://www.fss.aero/accident-reports/look.php?report_key=1388)

The cause was simple enough, but grounds are the usually last thing looked at, and often overlooked, when troubleshooting.

The investigation revealed that the negative cable for the main battery was not positively secured to the main battery shunt as a result of stripped threads found in the jam nut area on the stud. Additionally, the main battery shunt was not built up in accordance with Boeing specifications. An examination of other Boeing 767s in the Martinair fleet, and on the production line at Boeing revealed similar buildup problems with the battery shunt. Boeing personnel commented that a loose battery shunt may cause interruptions to the ground on the main battery bus of the airplane.

SLFinAZ
26th Jul 2011, 12:46
Here is a link to another article that may shed some light on what led to the Captain being escorted away....

US Airways Captain Escorted From Airport - TheStreet (http://www.thestreet.com/story/11196015/1/us-airways-captain-escorted-from-airport.html)

According to the article the plane sat at the gate with the passengers onboard with no A/C for roughly 5 hours before the captain chose to disembark them. The article speculates that her comments explaining the circumstances sparked her removal. Other possibility I see is if she "overrode" orders from operations the keep them (passengers) on the airplane...

hetfield
26th Jul 2011, 12:51
@SLFinAZ

It's already linked in post #1.

AirbusMech
26th Jul 2011, 13:41
As a licensed B1 Engineer on A320 and A330 a/c the MEL does not allow Dispatch for any ELEC BUS faults.

however, faults on the airbus show up and disappear all the time, especially on power-up and on starting engines, APU's etc; whenever high electrical loads are being consumed and also when the electrical power source supplying the ELEC busses is swapped from ground source, APU generator or engine generator.

These faults can appear/disappear due to the way the warnings are generated, the Airbus computers are constantly monitoring the A/C electrical systems and if a signal is lost for a specified length of time a fault message will appear and may disappear a second or two later when the signal is received, much the same as your laptop can do from time to time. Remember the airbus is primarily based on computer technology developed in the 1980's.

If a signal appears and then disappears it does not mean that there is a problem with that system, it could have been a momentary loss of one of it's many signal inputs, but it may indicate that there is an issue with this system and that some component/computer it may be indeed about to fail.

On the US Air issue, when the engine was selected to start the air pressure for the starter is supplied from the APU (which is already supplying the Electrical power to the A/C) the increase demand on the APU may have caused it to shut down, this is when the HOT BATT BUS should have supplied the A/C with power. the loss of the HOT BATT BUS may have been caused by the fact that it did not get time to kick in and supply the A/C and once the power was out that was it, lights out, literally!!!:*

the FACT that we don't have all the Facts means all of this is just coming from reading between the lines, when it comes to technical issues relating to modern aircraft we need to know exactly what happened, when, how and what were the warning signals generated as Airbus have a very detailed and specific Trouble Shooting Manual for finding the root cause of failures.

when the aircraft was brought back on stand and ground power supplied the fault was POSSIBLY not present and all tests may have had a SATIS result (total assumption based on experience with similar faults).

I have had strange failures occur on A/C that when tested have tested SATIS and have never returned. but serious consideration is needed when there are multiple MEL entries on failed components. The systems on these A/C are heavily dependent on signals from lots of other sensors, computers etc, having 2 or 3 concurrent computer problems as MEL entries is not a good idea as they may not seem to be interlinked but they may be.

As stated in previous posts The MEL is drafted by each operator based on the Manufacturer MMEL and must be more restrictive than the MMEL.
It does not take account of Multiple MEL items as it would be impossible to do, that decision is left with the Engineer approving the MEL entry/Deffered defect and the operators Maintenance control division whom the Approved engineer will have to discuss multiple MEL entries with, the operator's engineering department can get info from the manufacturer in relation to the consequences of specific multiple MEL/deffered defects/ U/S computers etc.

The Captain has the right to refuse the A/C if they feel that there has not been enough done to find the cause or the problem. We do not know what the subsequent flight crew's experienced either. Most airlines will back the captain up in such cases even if they are wrong, as safety is the primary consideration in aviation. to escort her with their corporate security is OTT to say the least as i believe she had a point.

But we really need ALL the facts before we condemn anyone whether it is the Flight crew, Management or Maintenance.

hetfield
26th Jul 2011, 13:52
however, faults on the airbus show up and disappear all the time,Indeed...,however, BUS FAULT messages are very, very rare. And if they occur they are real AFAIK.

hetfield

Busdriver since 1989 on A300, 320 family and 340

Starbear
26th Jul 2011, 14:23
Thank you for that very comprehensive explanation. I am reasonably familiar with most of what you say and have seen plenty of such examples as you suggest.

As you say the lack of actual detail of this particular incident renders everything up until now just speculation. But I am sure you will agree that for most of the "transient" or appparent faults you list, these would normally be very easily rectifiable by the crew or engineers with simple resets or even the the BIG reboot-all power OFF then ON again. Additionally, if the crew were familiar with the Airbus to any degree (and I am assuming these were) then they too would have encountered many of the scenarios you describe and the reasons behind them.

At face value, it would be difficult for most people to accept that any management could possibly try to pressurise crews into accepting an aircraft in the condition alleged so far. HOWEVER one only has to read John Warham's book on the Cathay 49ers Fragrant Harbour-pprune (http://www.pprune.org/fragrant-harbour/438697-forthcoming-book-49ers.html) to see what some managers are truly capable of, albeit in different ways.

misd-agin
26th Jul 2011, 15:44
Post #71, by a USAIR pilot. Said he doesn't have the facts. I'm curious, if a pilot for the company/union acknowledges he doesn't have all the facts why do people, who's only knowledge is the news reports(wow, that's a 100% reliable source) or the internet (better than 100%) just accept one side of the story?

I highly doubt the company was trying to force them to fly the airplane with the cockpit not "having any electirical power" as reported by a union spokesman. The FAA would be all over that.

And the whole, what did she, or didnt' she, say over the PA? Couple hundred witnesses maybe? Any eyewitness reports? None.

You guys have the cart a couple of counties ahead of the horse. Wait for facts? Why? Writing history from thousands of miles away is more fun!

Savoia
26th Jul 2011, 17:43
.
AirbusMech: Thank you for your post [#89] which was most informative. :ok:

twochai
26th Jul 2011, 21:33
It strikes me that the multiple scenarios on offer when presented by a failure of more than one item on a MEL offers an ideal opportunity for the numerous combinations of dispatch possibilities to be calculated by computer.

In other words the aircraft manufacturer could develop software which allows crews to enter the defects and then provides answers as to whether the proposed combination of equipment failures are acceptable. The programme would probably prompt crew to confirm the serviceability of other critical or related items as well as to define aspects of the intended flight ie. flight time, over water etc.

Such a programme could help in standardising the dispatch criteria for each specific aircraft type in relation to the acceptable combinations of unserviceable equipment.

Oh, great, absolutely excellent idea. Now we can dispense with good judgement and airmanship permanently!

NOT!

JamesT73J
27th Jul 2011, 15:31
I was pax on the same airline on am 330 ex CLT yesterday evening that had no APU, got fairly uncomfortable at the gate in Charlotte (left about 50 minutes late). Also a 90 minute stop was required in PHL 'for technical reasons' (I assume to rectify a MEL item before a transatlantic flight) but I felt everything was done by the book and the crew were excellent, if a little in the dark as to the details themselves. It only cost a couple of hours, in all.

Safety first.

Golf-Sierra
27th Jul 2011, 20:18
It strikes me that the multiple scenarios on offer when presented by a failure of more than one item on a MEL offers an ideal opportunity for the numerous combinations of dispatch possibilities to be calculated by computer.

Perhaps it is wiser to focus on eliminating the faults occuring rather than building solutions to accomodate them.

Golf-Sierra

aviatorhi
28th Jul 2011, 02:26
Has is been confirmed that she did this?

According to the rumor mill, yes. Reality has not been reached for comment as of yet.

Perhaps it is wiser to focus on eliminating the faults occuring rather than building solutions to accomodate them.

Nonetheless they will still occur, and procedures should be in place to deal with them, going sans APU is not a deal breaker, it would also be silly to delay a flight for GPWS, TAWS, individual guages, a HYD pump (one, if more than 2), aural warning etc. etc. not testing correctly/being "on the fritz".

matkat
28th Jul 2011, 08:15
I think you will find that with no APU on an ETOPS flight is a 'deal breaker'

boredcounter
28th Jul 2011, 09:48
APU inop is not a stopper on the B767-300 in my Co MEL. A reduction from 180 to 120, but crossing the pond, not a stopper.

aviatorhi
28th Jul 2011, 13:13
I think you will find that with no APU on an ETOPS flight is a 'deal breaker'

Except as mentioned before, it's not a deal breaker in the 330 or the 767. Nor is it a deal breaker on any of the trijets or quads which now fall under ETOPS.

DownIn3Green
29th Jul 2011, 23:01
Earl...you keep repeating your common theme..."but isn't there some way that???"...

You've been answered many times previously on this thread...IT'S THE CAPT'S DECISION, PERIOD!!!...regardless of what the MEL says...

Myself, I wouldn't fly any Boeing, Airbus, etal, across the ocean, Andes or anywhere else remotely similar with any dodgy electricial squawks...If the D/O wants me to fly it from MIA to ORD, well, that's another story...

Just because it's "LEGAL" doesn't mean it's either prudent or SAFE!!!

picollo
30th Jul 2011, 04:57
Here is another article which might shed light on what went on

http://crankyflier.com/2011/07/28/us-airways-pilots-union-earns-a-long-overdue-cranky-jackass-award-for-using-safety-as-a-negotiation-tactic/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CrankyFlier+%28The+Cranky+Flier%29



Also the Union( USAPA) is now being sued by the company to the tune of $ 400 million for work slowdown.:D

aviatorhi
30th Jul 2011, 10:52
Just because it's "LEGAL" doesn't mean it's either prudent or SAFE!!!

You're not pilot in command of anything until you're actually on board and operating the aircraft.

What I'm saying is, if the company wants to "force" you to take it across the pond and it's legal in the book, then do your job and take the airplane. You may then continue doing your job and set down in Kangerlussuaq if trouble does arise.

Shell Management
30th Jul 2011, 14:36
picollo - so the Captain ran the battery flat showing that the APU was failed?:eek:

No one she was escorted away.:mad:

aterpster
30th Jul 2011, 19:00
Shell Management:

picollo - so the Captain ran the battery flat showing that the APU was failed?http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/eek.gif

No one (sic) she was escorted away.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/censored.gif

The company wouldn't escort a crewmember off the property for incorrect procedure. They might, however, remove her from schedule and set her up for remedial training followed by a simulator check ride, then a line check ride.

She was apparently escorted off the property for making a quite inappropriate PA announcement to the passengers.

Earl of Rochester
30th Jul 2011, 21:09
Earl...you keep repeating your common theme..."but isn't there some way that???"...

You've been answered many times previously on this thread...IT'S THE CAPT'S DECISION, PERIOD!!!...regardless of what the MEL says...

Myself, I wouldn't fly any Boeing, Airbus, etal, across the ocean, Andes or anywhere else remotely similar with any dodgy electricial squawks...If the D/O wants me to fly it from MIA to ORD, well, that's another story...

Just because it's "LEGAL" doesn't mean it's either prudent or SAFE!!!

I am keen to know whether improvements could be made to the scope of information available to pilots. It seems to me that the options open to consideration in the event of one of more failed MEL items are numerous and ideally suited to processing by an on-board computer.

For instance if the computer determined that (in accordance with the MMEL) a simultaneous APU and BUS fail were not recommended for an ETOPS flight it might have made things easier for Captain Valerie.

A computer generated list of possibles/not possibles would bring (one assumes) greater standardisation in the analysis of multiple failed MEL items and place less burden on captains.

The captain should still maintain his/her prerogative as to whether to accept or reject the computer's recommendations.

She was apparently escorted off the property for making a quite inappropriate PA announcement to the passengers.

Has this been confirmed by either the union or airline? Are there any media reports stating this?

aterpster
30th Jul 2011, 21:12
Has this been confirmed by either the union or airline? Are there any media reports stating this?

The link in Post #101 seems to be credible.

Ditchdigger
30th Jul 2011, 21:45
A computer generated list of possibles/not possibles would bring (one assumes) greater standardisation in the analysis of multiple failed MEL items and place less burden on captains.



Computers don't make decisions. They only regurgitate that which a computer programmer has told them to.

It seems to me, from my seat here in the peanut gallery, that to put the "decision" in the hands of a computer simply shifts the actual decision from the Captain, here and now, to a programmer, warm and comfy in his cubicle, and distant from the immediate circumstances by perhaps thousands of miles and years of time.

ironbutt57
31st Jul 2011, 12:02
Sorry "aviatorhi"...but you've got it all wrong, and have no apparent understand of Commander's authority and responsibility....

Read the preamble to any MEL (if you know what that is), and any operator's OM-A, or equivilent, it is the sole decision of the commander to accept any airplane for any flight

This case however, reeks of "job action"...no person I know would attempt to start the APU after an auto-shutdown without ground power available, one runs the risk of depleting the batteries....

And if the media reports are accurate, the subsequent PA's to the pax were certainly out of order,

But you're first assertion Mr/Ms "aviatorhi" is most incorrect....

aviatorhi
31st Jul 2011, 12:32
Sorry "aviatorhi"...but you've got it all wrong, and have no apparent understand of Commander's authority and responsibility....

Read the preamble to any MEL (if you know what that is), and any operator's OM-A, or equivilent, it is the sole decision of the commander to accept any airplane for any flight.

If the regulatory guidance and manufacturer's manuals and/or accepted manuals clearly show the aircraft is capable of safely flying (ie. takeoff and landing somewhere, not necessarily the destination) then there is no reason to reject the flight. "Personal" reasons or not, we are pilots here and we are paid to fly the airplane, not find excuses to do otherwise. A true "commander" would advise the operations department of the possible consequences and let them make the decision if they want to operate the flight with the accepted risk of those consequences (ie. diversion to some extremely out of the way, and inconvenient, airfield). According to all official sources of information on this aircraft it was only the APU that was INOP and the associated BUS problem was related to a dead battery, which was quickly corrected. The APU, by itself, is not any reason whatsoever to decline to fly the aircraft.

ironbutt57
31st Jul 2011, 13:27
A true commander accepts responsibility for the safety of the aircraft, no pencil pusher, or mahogany airplane pilot has the right to interefere in that decision, thus the statement in the MEL preamble, simple.....we dont have access to any other failure history, or anomalies recorded in the the tech log of said aircraft, so really this is a fruitless discussion.....case in point...

IDG mel'd apu to provide power source..all MEL'd properly and legal to go......however tech log reflects several unexplained shutdown of the APU in the last 8 sectors....aircraft...LEGAL...refuse, during the ensuing "discussion, APU shut down again.....would you really want to accept the aircraft because it's "legal"?? think about what you are saying...board YOUR family and I'll happily launch at night into the monsoons of India with this "legal" (therefore safe in your eyes) aircraft....no further comments from me...

aviatorhi
31st Jul 2011, 22:47
Yep, I'd go, and I wouldn't have a problem letting anyone, family or otherwise, go along as well.

DutchRoll
1st Aug 2011, 00:12
If the regulatory guidance and manufacturer's manuals and/or accepted manuals clearly show the aircraft is capable of safely flying (ie. takeoff and landing somewhere, not necessarily the destination) then there is no reason to reject the flight.

That's actually quite a gross misunderstanding of how airline manuals, such as the Dispatch Deviation Guide, or the Minimum Equipment List (the MEL is contained within the DDG), are designed to work, and what authority Government regulations grant to the Captain of an aircraft. Our FAA approved DDG (for a Boeing aircraft), for example, has the following statements among numerous others:

a) If the Captain is available, the Captain's agreement shall be obtained prior to application of the MEL by the engineer.

b) If the Captain is not available, the MEL may be applied. However the Captain must subsequently be satisfied that any resulting operational restrictions are acceptable for the flight.

NOTE: Consideration should be made of the operational implications of increased workload, level of safety, or multiple inoperative items affecting airworthiness or weather conditions for departure, enroute, or destination.

Pretty crystal clear, right? Not "the Captain's agreement might be considered on the day if you feel like it". Not "it's best done to the Captain's satisfaction, but it doesn't really matter if it's not".

A true "commander" would advise the operations department of the possible consequences and let them make the decision if they want to operate the flight with the accepted risk of those consequences (ie. diversion to some extremely out of the way, and inconvenient, airfield).

No, a true "commander" is the person on the spot who must approve the final risk analysis, take responsibility for what is about to occur under their command, and make the final decision. A true "commander" does not simply defer to other departments and let them make the decision for them, although they of course may (and should) consult with other departments to assist them in making that decision.

According to all official sources of information.....
Ah well there you have it. Must be right then. :rolleyes:

You're not pilot in command of anything until you're actually on board and operating the aircraft.
So, you're not allowed to make the decision on how much fuel will be loaded when you're doing the flight planning?

aviatorhi
1st Aug 2011, 04:43
Here we go with the games and twisting of words...

So, you're not allowed to make the decision on how much fuel will be loaded when you're doing the flight planning?

Albeit there are decisions to make prior to the flight, the statement I made is a simplification of the reality that the inclination of many towards sitting on the ground and watching the clouds go by is not an appropriate course of action.

As to the other comments... are you seriously suggesting that an APU being INOP in and of itself is a reason to cause delay to a flight, when it is not a required piece of equipment for the safe conduct of that flight?

A true "commander" does not simply defer to other departments and let them make the decision for them...

The Captain of any flight is not the "be all, end all" authority on the initiation of that flight (there are DOs, CPs, Dispatchers, etc. etc. who also SHARE this authority/responsibility), if the company wishes to accept the possible consequences, as outlined by the captain prior to departure (for instance, an increased likelihood that he flight may be forced to divert or return to the origin once enroute), then it is a pilots responsibility to accept the work that he is assigned and conduct it to the best of their ability, it is also his responsibility to turn around and return or divert if that becomes necessary at a later point. Let the company make the decision whether or not they want to initiate the flight (with, as I have said previously, input from the captain as to possible consequences). Pilot's aren't paid to make those decisions, they're paid to execute them safely once they have been made.

ironbutt57
1st Aug 2011, 05:39
aviatorhi...never mind, glad I dont work for you..:ugh:

aterpster
1st Aug 2011, 06:26
ironbutt:

aviatorhi...never mind, glad I dont work for you..:ugh:

If you did work for him and he made management the final authority on the MEL, the union and eventually the FAA would be dealing with him rather unfavorably.

nitpicker330
1st Aug 2011, 08:34
viatorhi>>> the Captain of any flight is not the "be all, end all" authority on the initiation of that flight

Ha, you are a funny man.

The Captain most certainly is the final word in the go no go decision, and the regs say so.

quote from the A330 DDG:-


APPLICATION CRITERIA FOR DISPATCH (COMMANDER RESPONSIBILITY)
A330
20 AUG 10
DDG conditions and limitations do not relieve the Commander from determining that the aircraft is in a fit condition for safe operation with specific unserviceablities.
If a failure occurs after the start of taxi and before the start of the take off roll, any decision to continue the flight shall be subject to the Commanders judgment and good airmanship. The applicable ECAM/Operations Manual procedures shall be actioned and the Commander should refer to the DDG before any decision to continue the flight is taken.
It is within the authority of the Commander to accept a defect without consulting a ground engineer after the doors are closed provided the defect does not require a maintenance (M) specific procedure and it is covered in the MEL.
No flight shall take place with any item of aircraft equipment inoperative or outside the requirements of the Operations Manual, if in the opinion of the Commander the lack of such equipment or the relaxing of an Operations Manual requirement will jeopardize the safe conduct of the flight.
The decision of the Commander to have allowable inoperative items corrected prior to flight will take precedence over the provisions contained in the DDG. The Commander may request requirements above the DDG, whenever in his judgement such added equipment is essential to the safety of a particular flight under the conditions prevailing at the time.
The DDG does not take into account multiple unserviceabilities. Therefore, before dispatching an aeroplane with multiple inoperative DDG items, it must be assured that any interface or interrelationship between inoperative items will not result in a degradation in the level of safety and/or unduly increase crew workload. When assessing the effect of multiple unserviceabilities, in particular those involving related systems, it is essential for the Commander to exercise good judgement based on the specific circumstances at the time, including enroute airport availability, navigation facilities and weather conditions.
The Commander should be aware of the operational and technical consequences of a given failure and must satisfy himself that the failed component or system is properly isolated or deactivated.


I suggest you read this again mate, "Commander" is used quite a bit in there.

If your company doesn't agree then they are certainly within their rights to replace you with another commander. BUT they can never force a Commander to accept an Aircraft if in the opinion of the Commander it is not airworthy.

If the Commander is wrong then he will receive a bollocking in due course.

aviatorhi
1st Aug 2011, 13:41
Does this:

the Captain of any flight is not the "be all, end all" authority on the initiation of that flight

mean something different than this:

the Captain of any flight is the final authority as to the safe operation of that flight


????

Initiation and continuation/operation are two different concepts. If the plane is able to get in the air safely and legally (albeit with possible operational restriction and consequences which should be communicated by the CA) then if the company wishes to operate that flight is it up to the CA to do so.

I agree with the latter part of your statement though.

J.O.
1st Aug 2011, 17:09
Every decent flight operations manager I have ever worked for was someone who did not engage in second guessing their captains decisions or in forcing them to take an airplane if the captain felt it was a better decision to stay on the ground. There simply is nothing good that can come from doing so. All it takes is one time where a captain is ordered to go when they don't want to and an accident ensues. The responsible manager will be in for a long and miserable fight as they try to climb out of the hole the dug for themselves. So to those of you who really think you are smart enough to second guess a line captains decisions, I would strongly suggest that you take out a healthy E's & O's insurance policy.

Ditchdigger
2nd Aug 2011, 01:22
The Captain of any flight is not the "be all, end all" authority on the initiation of that flight (there are DOs, CPs, Dispatchers, etc. etc. who also SHARE this authority/responsibility), if the company wishes to accept the possible consequences, as outlined by the captain prior to departure (for instance, an increased likelihood that he flight may be forced to divert or return to the origin once enroute), then it is a pilots responsibility to accept the work that he is assigned and conduct it to the best of their ability, it is also his responsibility to turn around and return or divert if that becomes necessary at a later point.


Initiation and continuation/operation are two different concepts. If the plane is able to get in the air safely and legally (albeit with possible operational restriction and consequences which should be communicated by the CA) then if the company wishes to operate that flight is it up to the CA to do so.


Let me make sure I'm reading this right, cause I really am a ditchdigger, but I come here to learn, and I try not to ask stupid questions--If the Captain and the company aren't certain that the flight can get to its destination, but the company is willing to bet that it'll be able to land somewhere, that's good enough? :confused:

J.O.
2nd Aug 2011, 01:32
I couldn't possibly say it an better, DD. :ok:

autoflight
2nd Aug 2011, 02:37
Accepting company requests with less consideration for your own due consideration and experience is a one-way street. Any diversion resulting from the company request also puts extra pressure on captain to use discretionary duty time extensions to complete the mission. Such a captain will be seen as cooperative and will be first on the list for future dodgy missions. The time to make a stand it at the beginning. Start as you will finish.

aviatorhi
2nd Aug 2011, 07:41
-If the Captain and the company aren't certain that the flight can get to its destination, but the company is willing to bet that it'll be able to land somewhere, that's good enough?

That's absolutely correct, the Captain is not running the business, he is running the flight.

Crews are not hired to make economic decisions on behalf of the company, they are hired and paid to execute them once they have been made.

fireflybob
2nd Aug 2011, 07:51
Crews are not hired to make economic decisions on behalf of the company, they are hired and paid to execute them once they have been made.

You are joking, I hope!

So the Captain of an aeroplane isn't paid, amongst other things, to make "economic decisions"?

Gee, I have had it wrong for all these years!

aviatorhi
2nd Aug 2011, 09:14
So the Captain of an aeroplane isn't paid, amongst other things, to make "economic decisions"?

When do you have the CA of an aircraft deciding whom to purchase fuel from, which airport to serve when multiple airport are available, whom to contract for loading the aircraft, obtaining overflight permits, doing the actual flight planning (at your average airline anyway), arranging accommodation, setting prices etc. etc. etc.

Which airline expects this of their CAs?

If you're talking about speeds, obtaining better routing once en route and general management of the flight then this falls under the responsibility he has to operate the flight. The company still decides whether or not they want to operate a particular flight.

I'd love to see you get in an aircraft and decide to start serving Oslo from Nairobi without consulting the people who own/manage the place because you, as Captain, are making your own "economic decision".

Savoia
2nd Aug 2011, 11:35
.

When this sort of problems ensue it is usually not the "captain" vs the "company" but the "captain" vs an "individual within the company" that is in an ego/power trip that makes him/her unable to accept the superior knowledge and decision making capability of somebody he/she considers a subordinate.

Sad, and made worse by the fact that it is all too often true.

matkat
2nd Aug 2011, 11:35
As an Engineer it is not my job to make economic decisions if it is unsafe I will not and never will sign off an aircraft if the repair will constitue major cost then so be it, I am not an accountant.

fireflybob
2nd Aug 2011, 12:20
aviatorhi, I think it's a question of semantics.

Of course in any company we are all part of team which hopefully is working together to operate economically and safely.

The simple point I was making is that it is part of the Captain's remit to operate economically. In a well run organisation this will be done in consultation with Ops etc.

An example? Did a flight last year and the destination was forecasting CAT 2/3 but our a/c had been downgraded to CAT 1. A call to Ops (they were not aware) suggesting an a/c swap which they agreed to. Result? We didn't have to divert and incur extra expense/delay etc.

aviatorhi
2nd Aug 2011, 12:40
An example? Did a flight last year and the destination was forecasting CAT 2/3 but our a/c had been downgraded to CAT 1. A call to Ops (they were not aware) suggesting an a/c swap which they agreed to. Result? We didn't have to divert and incur extra expense/delay etc.

Which is pretty much exactly my viewpoint and the point I've been trying to make. You became aware of an impractical situation, from being on the scene and professional knowledge you were able to provide a suggestion as to a resolution, company made the decision, you executed, rather than simply walking away because the assigned A/C was CAT 1 only. On the other hand, if the company decided they wanted to operate the CAT 1 aircraft and delay the flight or hold over the airport until weather improved (with sufficient fuel) or flag stop at an intermediate airport etc. etc. etc. I (personally) would have no problem doing that as well.

Reality is that at some point, in aviation, you will end up "rolling the dice" (if you didn't then no aircraft would ever move). Far too many pilots sit back and do nothing, then blame the company for infringing on their authority.

DutchRoll
2nd Aug 2011, 13:44
The Captain of any flight is not the "be all, end all" authority
Mate, I don't know who you work for or what your knowledge of regulations is, but here's a snippet of ours for you to digest (and they are based closely on US FARs). These regulations are l-a-w. There are significant penalties for breaching them.

Civil Aviation Regulation 224 (3)
The pilot in command shall have final authority as to the disposition of the aircraft while he or she is in command and for the maintenance of discipline by all persons on board.

People here have been trying to give you the hint. I don't know how we can make it any clearer.

SeniorDispatcher
2nd Aug 2011, 14:34
The Captain still has the absolute right to not accept the aircraft even if it is in the MEL - in fact all the MELs I have seen iterate this fact in the preamble. The Captain might deem that a certain combination of defects on that particular flight is not acceptable.

In my airline's (FAR Part 121) MEL Preamble secion, under "Responsibility For Decision", it states that the Captain and the Dispatcher have the ability and responsibility to decline an aircraft, irrespective of MEL permissiveness, if either don't feel the aircraft is safe for the intended operation.

There are probably some out there that will interpret this as a dilution of a PIC's authority, but it's actually a backstop to it. It's not as if a dispatcher's "yes" can overrule a PIC's "no", but rather a potential situation of a dispatcher's "no" overruling a PIC's "yes". I've had more than one situation over the years where an overzealous PIC (or MX controller) really wanted to move a sick aircraft to a point where the crew domicile or maintenance facility was located, and have had to be the one to put the kabosh on the operation, both for the benefit to the passengers and the corporate enitity itself. PIC authority is not unfettered, that's why FAR 91.3 doesn't actually apply to operations conducted under Part 121, and FAR 121.533/121.557 (Domestic) and 121.535/121.557 (Flag) do.

The reason I bring this up is because since USAirways is a Part 121 Flag carrier, what was their dispatcher's role in all this? Were they also saying "no" to the proposed operation? If they were agreeable to it, that doesn't change the PIC's ability to decline the aircraft--I'm just curious what role they had in the process.

Dawdler
2nd Aug 2011, 14:38
As you guys are mostly pilots on here, how many of you can say hand on heart that you have never taken off in a aircraft that had a defect you were concerned about?

I was once on a aircraft taking off from Schiphol. Some way down the runway the captain changed his mind about completing the take off. He had the good grace to come on to the PA and tell us that there had been a computer fault which he thought he could override. Apparently the faster the aircraft went, the more insistent the warnings became that he should not do so. Eventually he conceded that aborting the take off was the wise thing to do. In order to rectify the fault we had to sit on an unused taxiway, whilst he re-booted the computer. This took about twenty minutes (perhaps ATC delays contributed to this) So we landed a bit late.

I have never really made up my mind whether I commend him for admitting his mistake or blame him for making it in the first place. It makes me wonder how many times I have been on an aircraft in which the safe arrival has been a bit marginal.

I did once fly with a small airline across the North Sea, in which the flight deck door was a curtain. Sometime into the flight the curtain moved and we could see that several of the instruments were not working , indeed at least two of them were smashed! Needless to say we arrived safely, but it was all a bit worrying.

ironbutt57
2nd Aug 2011, 15:38
Im sure after all things considered, they apparently accepted the aircraft for dispatch, if the information we all have about the incident is complete and accurate, I would have as well, but methinks there is more to this than meets the eye, and yes dispatcher, I agree with you whole heartedly!!:ok:

BobT
2nd Aug 2011, 17:39
I have no idea about the condition of the a/c. I start from the assumption that she was entitled to refuse it and so she did. Whether this refusal was wise, or consistent with other similar situations, few seem to have gotten around to discussing much.

Such refusals have occurred in the past, and they didn't end with the pilot being escorted out of the airport. So what's the difference here? Could it be the nature of the PAs provided to customers (which also have gone unremarked upon here)? Just a coincidence that US pilots have had a long-standing labor dispute with US (or more precisely, US pilots have had a long-standing dispute with former HP pilots)? Just a coincidence that the union took out a full-page ad to criticize the airline? Just a coincidence that the pilot involved was a higher-visibility, easier to defend (from a politically-correct POV) person?

I believe one is naive to believe this episode was unrelated to that dispute.

ironbutt57
3rd Aug 2011, 05:08
I believe you are entirely correct Bob T

aviatorhi
3rd Aug 2011, 10:14
People here have been trying to give you the hint. I don't know how we can make it any clearer.

We've thoroughly beaten this into the ground and I've said before that the CA is fully in charge of the aircraft in terms of operating it, but not in determining which assignments are given to them. My point is that instead of categorically rejecting an aircraft for a particular flight and going into a tirade on the PA this CA (and others in similar circumstances) should simply provide the company with what is possible given the current condition of the aircraft and expected performance enroute. Much as fireflybob said regarding an aircraft switch to accommodate a flight rather than reject it.

J.O.
3rd Aug 2011, 11:01
So now in addition to carrying the responsibilities of command, we're going to expect a captain to act as a dispatcher, SOCC manager and Maintrol supervisor? What a load of rubbish. The captain's job is to do their best to complete the mission as assigned, i.e. take an A330 from PHL to FCO. If that is not possible in the captain's eyes, their job is to articulate why, to stay on the scene to manage the effects and ensure the passengers are cared for and then let the other above-mentioned blokes deal with it.

UGAWINGS
3rd Aug 2011, 13:14
That's the way to go, "without safety, no revenue".

SeniorDispatcher
3rd Aug 2011, 14:38
Mate, I don't know who you work for or what your knowledge of regulations is, but here's a snippet of ours for you to digest (and they are based closely on US FARs). These regulations are l-a-w. There are significant penalties for breaching them.

Civil Aviation Regulation 224 (3)
The pilot in command shall have final authority as to the disposition of the aircraft while he or she is in command and for the maintenance of discipline by all persons on board.

People here have been trying to give you the hint. I don't know how we can make it any clearer.

What also seems clear is that "close" only counts with horse shoes and hand grenades. While your cited 224 (3) I'm sure is applicable in your neck of the woods, the reg applicable to the USAirways flight is FAR 121.535, as follows, with my emphasis in bold:

§ 121.535 Responsibility for operational control: Flag operations.
(a) Each certificate holder conducting flag operations is responsible for operational control.

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

(c) The aircraft dispatcher is responsible for—

(1) Monitoring the progress of each flight;

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

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

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

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

(f) No pilot may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger life or property.

Here, the distinction is made whether the flight is on the deck, or in the air. On the ground, there are other entities involved.

Cheers...

aterpster
3rd Aug 2011, 15:19
SeniorDispatcher:

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.

And the implication that necessarily follows is the the pilot in command must assure that all aspects of the aircraft, its loading, and its passengers, must be to his/her's satisfaction, otherwise he or she may not be able to satisfy the cited regulation once engaged in flight time.

woodyspooney
3rd Aug 2011, 20:32
The lady captain's decision was a technically and professionally correct one.

Having said that, in the real world, any captain's decision that goes against the company's commercial interest will be badly frown upon and the powers that be will try their very best to get their pound of flesh. Any decision that goes against the other trolls' who think they know best with the best of the company's interest at heart will be taken as a deliberate attack on their superiority.

A few years ago, a colleague of mine had a small fuel leak ( which went undetected by even the sophiscated, high tech real time maintenance monitoring ) decided to go against the company's decision to continue to destination as their maintenance control reckoned the skipper was wrong in assessing a small anomaly as a fuel leak. When he insisted on diverting, they demanded he returned to base. However with the prevailing tailwinds, a 180 degrees return to base entails a 7 hour diversion whereas an enroute diversion would have been only a 2.5 hours; seeing the stupidity of the operations control/maintenance control, he countermanded the company's decision, wrested a grudging approval to divert to a suitable enroute airport where he was proven right that there was indeed an engine fuel leak. Technically, operationally and safety wise, he was vindicated. But the company put him through hell, grounded him for several weeks, trying every trick in the book to trip him during the various enquiries. He maintained technical and professional integrity throughout; he was finally released back on line with " no comment " on the incident. When he enquired further, he was quietly pulled aside and told that in the interest of his future contract ( it was a commuting contract ), he should " let go ". Of course he took the advice under protest. This was taken unkindly and true enough some time later he found himself " failed " a sim check under dubious circumstances. THE MESSAGE WAS CLEAR.

I hope our lady captain come away totally unscathed but be warned; the knives will be out and pain can come at the most unexpected time when you think everything has blown away......just my 2 cents!

aterpster
3rd Aug 2011, 20:48
woodyspoony:

I hope our lady captain come away totally unscathed but be warned; the knives will be out and pain can come at the most unexpected time when you think everything has blown away......just my 2 cents!

Your contract pilot didn't have the protection of a union.

Although pilot unions are not all that effective in some respects, they are very effective when it comes to any attempt at reprisal of that nature. First, there is the training committee that will be all over such a bust. Second, there is the union's governing council, which can really make management squirm if it engages in such action.

Finally, the check pilot who does such a bust will be a star witness for the union at the grievance hearing (or hearings, if it goes to an arbitrator).

kinteafrokunta
3rd Aug 2011, 21:43
Woody, aterpster is absolutely right. Your contract pilot DID NOT HAVE A CHANCE!

In the USA, the union will have a great poster lady!

dlcmdrx
4th Aug 2011, 15:48
The other day in my flight school one of my fellow instructors did a interview for the regional skywest. Among other congratulations another instructor said:

"And best of all, no unions in skywest"

No wonder why regional pilots are in such a bad position in the us. But no pitty, its clearly their fault with attitudes like these, hopefully after my visa expires i can land a job in a country where pilots are respected

kinteafrokunta
4th Aug 2011, 19:18
As Harry Reid has alleged, the Republicans wants to prevent the unionization in the upcoming air carriers as cooateral to the current funding crisis to the FAA.

SeniorDispatcher
4th Aug 2011, 23:40
Oh Senior Dispatcher - get yourself an ATPL and come back when you know what the Skipper's job entails you d1psh1t

Actually, since the written test for the FAA's ADX certificate shares about 98% of its material with the FAA's ATP written test, for all practical intents and purposes (save the actual flying bit) I already have one, thanks...

After 30+ years of doing this, suffice it say that I know full well what the PIC's job entails, what mine entails, and how each party can (and should) better interface. I've done about 300 hours of jumpseat observation time (if not more) over that 30 years to see the crew's world, but I've yet to see a PIC (or F/O) sit down with me for 3 hours of Dispatch observation time to see our world, let alone 300 hours. You don't know what you're missing...

I don't know what regs you operate under in whatever part of the world you're in, but if they're different than the FAA's Part 121 that was being discussed, so be it. If you do have dispatchers where you work (and I don't mean "dispatchers" who work airside, boarding flights, etc.), maybe your visiting your own would be informative, and generate a valid operational discussion or two.

Of course, tossing out an obscenity to a compete stranger is so much easier--Not professional or classy, mind you, just easier...

Have a nice day...

misd-agin
5th Aug 2011, 00:58
SD - "I've done about 300 hours of jumpseat observation time (if not more) over that 30 years to see the crew's world, but I've yet to see a PIC (or F/O) sit down with me for 3 hours of Dispatch observation time to see our world, let alone 300 hours"


Hmmm, every time I've visited dispatch you weren't there.

aterpster
5th Aug 2011, 01:18
Senior Dispatcher:

Actually, since the written test for the FAA's ADX certificate shares about 98% of its material with the FAA's ATP written test, for all practical intents and purposes (save the actual flying bit) I already have one, thanks...

Not hardly. There is the small matter of the minimum flight time to qualify for an ATP. Then, for an air carrier type rating, B767 for example, there is ground school, then a considerable amount of simulator. And, if it is the first air carrier type, then there must be some airplane time before flying in scheduled operations. If it is a subsequent type rating, then there is IOE with a check airman in line operations.

When I was in student captain class at my airline in 1967 the director of training said, "I can rate a monkey in a DC-9 (the class we were in). Qualifying to fly the line is a very different matter."

Amen to that I say.

As to your riding the jump seat that was easy enough for you. My dispatch office was in New York and I was based in Los Angeles.

The senior director of flight operations at TWA in the 1970s wanted to do away with the dispatch function. He felt captains could do it all quite nicely, coupled with a good company weather department. I felt he was right.

But, politics prevailed.

three eighty
5th Aug 2011, 06:12
hopefully after my visa expires i can land a job in a country where pilots are respected

Your search may well end in disappointment!

SeniorDispatcher
5th Aug 2011, 16:30
msid-agin said:
Hmmm, every time I've visited dispatch you weren't there.

Thanks for visiting, and sorry I missed you—maybe next time… ;)

aterpster said:
Not hardly. There is the small matter of the minimum flight time to qualify for an ATP.

I probably could have made it clearer, but I was referring to the knowledge requirement similarities between the FAA/ATP exams, and in any event, I did say “..save (except for) the actual flying bit”. My mentioning 300+ hours of jumpseat time wasn’t intended to compete with anyone’s thousand hours of flight time, but was only in context and in comparison to the minimal (if any) number of hours crew spend with us. Dispatchers get exposure to crews and their environment, but the converse is rarely the case.

It’s a shame that you were never able to visit TWA’s office at JFK, as I knew several of their folks and they were all good eggs. Ditto for Ozark’s STL office, pre-merger. The comments you attributed to that TWA Sr, Dir. of Flt. Ops are not all that surprising, as it’s been my experience (multiple airlines) that most management types misunderstand dispatch (and operational control) just as many pilots misunderstand. Not all pilots, mind you, but many. The myths and misconceptions are plentiful, and most would be easily dispelled with some office visits. I think we have much more in common than we have differences, and we fight many of the same battles.

As an aside, you may find it ironic that TWA was the airline that I always wanted to work for. Attending Jr. HS in Overland Park in the late 1960s, myself and another student arranged a career day field trip to TWA’s sims that (at the time) were located downtown, across the river from MKC. In fact, my folks were renting a house owned by a TWA pilot who was flying freighters over in Saudi. Dave Meyer..something, IIRC…

Cheers...

[/THREADCREEP]

cyflyer
6th Aug 2011, 07:25
Because I read some mentions that the captain 'may' have been involved in an unauthorised annoucement to passengers before being escorted away,
this just caught my eye on cnn, and I thought, does this mean Quantas pilots are going to be escorted away by security from the FD during flight LOL/after arrival, when making these 'unauthorised' announcements also ?


Qantas pilots industrial action | CNNGo.com (http://www.cnngo.com/sydney/visit/qantas-pilots-make-unauthorized-flight-announcements-strike-kicks-154759)

aterpster
6th Aug 2011, 08:34
SeniorDispatcher:

As an aside, you may find it ironic that TWA was the airline that I always wanted to work for. Attending Jr. HS in Overland Park in the late 1960s, myself and another student arranged a career day field trip to TWA’s sims that (at the time) were located downtown, across the river from MKC. In fact, my folks were renting a house owned by a TWA pilot who was flying freighters over in Saudi. Dave Meyer..something, IIRC…

The sims and the ground schools for pilots and flight attendants were in an old building at 1301 Baltimore Avenue that TWA rented for $800 per month in perpetuity. That was the way it was when I started in January, 1964. Several years later the simulators moved out to MCI and the flight attendant training moved to Overland Park.

I was based at MKC for my first captain assignment on the DC-9 for part of 1967 and 68, then I returned to LAX. My then-wife and I lived in Mission, KS. I didn't know it at the time but the (in)famous Dr. Phil was a high school student right down the street in, I believe, Merriam (sp?)

For my first 8, or so, years TWA had dispatch in LAX, MKC, and JFK. So, I interacted with both LAX and MKC dispatch on a regular in-person basis in those days. One of them at LAX was outstanding and quite helpful. The others were just there.

The senior vice president of flight ops was Ed Frankum, aka "The Black Knight." :)

TWA was a great airline until the bankers took over and formed Trans World Corporation. Then, the slide downhill began, at first ever so slowly. TWA was bigger than AAL before the bankers took over and almost as big as UAL. They could have grown, but the bankers used the airline as a cash cow for other ventures.

Basil
6th Aug 2011, 08:58
SD,
Your remark re FD JS time moves me to make a point here, not just to you personally but to the majority of non-pilots.
Sitting looking is nothing like doing the job. I have flown as Systems Panel Operator and FO on the TriStar. It is an absolute piece of wee-wee to sit there and observe small errors taking place
Even some flight engineers who, of course, know the machine technically and, by training and/or observation, understand the aerodynamics and navigation think it's a piece of cake. In one airline, we had a Flight Engineer Entry Pilot Scheme for our younger redundant FEs. A few of the guys had the grace to admit that, once you're in the hot seat, it's nothing like as easy as it seems from the back.

I can assure you that my RAF training was the most difficult thing I'd ever done, followed, some way behind, by the Cathay command course.

One of the slightly confusing areas is that the USA dispatcher's responsibilities are rather different from most of the rest of the world. I recollect falling foul of a rather silly woman in Tampa who went so far as to complain to my boss in the UK about my method of load and balance calculation. She saw a poor old 60+ two bar FO but didn't realise that a year before, he'd been a B747 captain.

I don't approve of name calling.

p.s. who's going to be first to spot the hypocrisy?

Lord Spandex Masher
6th Aug 2011, 09:13
(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.

Ok then. I'll accept the aeroplane if you decide that I should.

As soon as it moves under it's own power I'll decide that it's not airworthy and come back on stand, then...

I'll accept the aeroplane again and as soon as it moves under it's own power I'll come back on stand, then...

:E

SeniorDispatcher
6th Aug 2011, 12:41
That rental house owned by the TWA freighter pilot was technically in Mission, KS, and was a mere two blocks from the Breen F/A training facility at Nall and US. 50.. I remember when it was under construction.

SeniorDispatcher
6th Aug 2011, 13:08
LSM said:
Ok then. I'll accept the aeroplane if you decide that I should.

As soon as it moves under it's own power I'll decide that it's not airworthy and come back on stand, then...

I'll accept the aeroplane again and as soon as it moves under it's own power I'll come back on stand, then...

With all due respect, you seem to have missed the part (back in #131) where I stated (now bolded for your convenience):

In my airline's (FAR Part 121) MEL Preamble secion, under "Responsibility For Decision", it states that the Captain and the Dispatcher have the ability and responsibility to decline an aircraft, irrespective of MEL permissiveness, if either don't feel the aircraft is safe for the intended operation.

There are probably some out there that will interpret this as a dilution of a PIC's authority, but it's actually a backstop to it. It's not as if a dispatcher's "yes" can overrule a PIC's "no", but rather a potential situation of a dispatcher's "no" overruling a PIC's "yes". I've had more than one situation over the years where an overzealous PIC (or MX controller) really wanted to move a sick aircraft to a point where the crew domicile or maintenance facility was located, and have had to be the one to put the kabosh on the operation, both for the benefit to the passengers and the corporate enitity itself. PIC authority is not unfettered, that's why FAR 91.3 doesn't actually apply to operations conducted under Part 121, and FAR 121.533/121.557 (Domestic) and 121.535/121.557 (Flag) do.

I can genuinely and honestly say that anytime a PIC has ever refused one of the aircraft that’s been assigned to me, I’ve supported their decision, even though in a few rare cases I personally thought it was completely safe –and- legal to have operated. I don’t subscribe to “pilot pushing.” In the relatively few cases where I was the one to refuse an aircraft, the PIC wasn’t necessarily in disagreement as to the non-airworthiness of the aircraft, but didn’t want to complicate their own schedule by fessing up and saying “nyet” themselves. The well-known “get-there-its” virus has many different strains…

Cheers…

Lord Spandex Masher
6th Aug 2011, 14:00
Just funning ya SD;)

SeniorDispatcher
6th Aug 2011, 15:50
Around here, one never quite knows... ;)

Cheers..

SeniorDispatcher
24th Aug 2011, 14:37
Just noticed this story on my morning email run... An update on the legal actions...

US Airways Pilots Say Safety, Not Union Slowdown, Is Causing Flight Delays - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-22/us-airways-pilots-say-safety-not-union-slowdown-is-causing-flight-delays.html)

misd-agin
27th Aug 2011, 00:29
SD - and Captain Wells testified in court -

US Airways captain describes airport eviction

TheStreet.com, Aug. 20, 2011

For the first time, a US Airways(LCC) captain has publicly described an incident where two security officials escorted her from the airport's secure area after she would not fly a plane from Philadelphia to Rome because of electrical system problems.

Captain Valerie Wells, a 30-year pilot, discussed the June 16 incident on Friday in U.S. District Court in Charlotte, where she was the star witness in the pilots union's defense against the airline's suit alleging that a safety campaign is actually an illegal job action.

The airline is seeking an injunction to halt the "safety slowdown." Testimony will continue Monday.

"I was exercising my authority as captain to operate the aircraft safely," said Wells. "It was indeed my obligation, but I feel stronger about it than my job. Those passengers are friends of the family. (And) that's an aircraft the company owns."

Besides the passengers and the aircraft, Wells said, her concerns included the airplane's crew. "I felt especially that night that all those things were in danger," she said.

The case has become a cause célèbre because, on July 22, the U.S. Airline Pilots Association took out a full-page advertisement in USA Today. The ad described the incident and proclaimed that US Airways put "revenues first, safety second." The airline has called the ad's claims "outlandish, false and a disservice to (its) 32,000 hard-working employees," but has said little about specifics of the Wells case. In court on Friday, the airline's attorneys declined to cross-examine Wells.

On June 16, Wells was scheduled to fly an Airbus A330 with nearly 300 passengers. But the auxiliary power unit failed with the plane at the gate waiting to push back, she said. In an aircraft, the engines are the primary power source: the APU is a backup source of electrical power.

The APU's failure, Wells indicated, exposed a second failure in the "hot battery bus," another source of electrical backup. With both systems out, navigational screens in the cockpit went blank, the cockpit radio failed to operate and the cabin air conditioning shut off. The only way to communicate, Wells said, was to open the cockpit's sliding window and yell to ground workers.

Subsequently, two mechanics boarded the aircraft and restarted the APU. Since the airplane can fly without a functional APU, the mechanics wanted to put the failed device on a list of matters to be addressed at a future date so the flight could depart. But Wells, who during the afternoon had heard various reports of electrical system irregularities, no longer trusted the aircraft.

So Wells spoke by phone with the airline's chief pilot in Philadelphia. Wells said he kept asking whether she was refusing to fly. "I responded that I want to fly," she said. "I want an airplane that's good. I want this airplane fixed (or another airplane). He asked me five times, with me giving him the same answer." Given that the union's safety campaign was underway, the airline was apparently concerned that pilots were causing frequent delays by being excessively meticulous in pursuing safety concerns.

Wells returned to the cockpit. Mechanics had turned the APU off, so the cabin lacked air conditioning. A flight attendant said some passengers showed signs of heat stress, and Wells decided to let passengers disembark. By then, the departure had been delayed about five hours. As Wells waited in a secure area, two airline security officials approached, and told her "the ramp tower had said to remove me from the gate area. I said 'Why?' They did not know why."

It is extremely unusual for airline security to escort captains from the airport. "In all my years, I had never seen or heard anything like this," Wells said. "I got my bag and my first officer walked with me, and the two men followed us ten feet behind." The airline removed her from flying status, the prelude to a disciplinary action, on June 16, but then restored her on July 6, she said.

The airline has said only that Wells' removal "has nothing to do with safety," and has not commented specifically on the safety event. However, the Federal Aviation Administration has issued a statement, saying the APU shutdown in the aircraft "is a failure that pilots are well aware can happen and that they are trained to recognize. The battery apparently was depleted by attempts to restart the APU." The agency said aircraft often fly with inoperative APUs, without a safety risk, but "the captain simply chose to exercise her pilot-in-command authority of not accepting an aircraft." It said US Airways maintained the aircraft in accordance with regulations. The FAA did not mention the hot battery bus failure.

Subsequently, another crew also declined to fly the airplane, mechanics replaced an electronic computer board in the cockpit, the batteries were inspected by a third party, and the flight departed with a third crew the following morning.

In the Charlotte case, the airline is alleging that a union safety campaign is actually an illegal job action that violates the Railway Labor Act, because the two parties are still negotiating a contract and the union therefore does not have the right to change the status quo or take job actions.

The airline's witnesses Friday included an aviation statistician who said that since May 1, the airline has seen a vast increase in flight delays in Charlotte, where the union has its most loyal following. Airline executives said the delays have meant lost revenue and a decline in customer satisfaction. They said a predecessor union, the Air Line Pilots Association, sought to work together with the airline on safety and to separate safety from "political" and contract issues.

Following the hearing, the pilots' attorney, Brian O'Dwyer, told reporters: "We showed there has been a lack of a safety culture at US Airways, and pilots went out of their way to make sure each and every aircraft was safe." He said delays in Charlotte could be explained by weather, frequent thunder storms, congestion and runway construction.

In discussing flight 718, Wells was a convincing witness, but the airline's suit alleges that pilots violated the Railway Labor Act. Its attorneys will no doubt seek to keep the case focused on that issue.

cactusbusdrvr
28th Aug 2011, 00:56
Well's account on the face of it makes you sympathize with her decision. And you could definitely make the case that she has every right to decide if a discrepancy is OK for flight, even if the MEL ays so. An inop APU on an EOPS flight is certainly one I would have to consider as a No Go.

However, for the rest of the story - she depleted the battery doing multiple APU starts, ignoring the start cycle limitations and displaying a lack of systems knowledge. Then she compounded the situation by making two announcements, one on tHe aircraft and one at the gate after the aircraft was deplaned, telling the passengers that US Airways was unsafe and they wanted her to take an unsafe aircraft. Capt. Wells also told the passengers to refuse to board any other US Airways aircraft and to force the company to reaccomodate them on a different carrier. That was when the company had her leave the terminal.

willl05
28th Aug 2011, 15:05
So Wells spoke by phone with the airline's chief pilot in Philadelphia. Wells said he kept asking whether she was refusing to fly. "I responded that I want to fly," she said. "I want an airplane that's good. I want this airplane fixed (or another airplane). He asked me five times, with me giving him the same answer." Seems like a lot of pressure.

westhawk
28th Aug 2011, 15:31
Seems like a lot of pressure.

Yeah, it sure does.

That's the nature of mixing labor disputes, flight safety and a long history of poor relations between different labor groups, management and each other. Some of those East pilots have been living with that discord since the '80s. For them, it doesn't appear there will be any letup until mandatory retirement. It's not my fight, so I won't comment on who's right or wrong. I'll just say that some the people I've known or met who are involved tend to feel very strongly about it. That creates allot of pressure. Battle lines are drawn and loyalties compete with objective reasoning. Good luck folks.

misd-agin
28th Aug 2011, 17:36
cactusbusdvr - "However, for the rest of the story - she depleted the battery doing multiple APU starts, ignoring the start cycle limitations and displaying a lack of systems knowledge. Then she compounded the situation by making two announcements, one on tHe aircraft and one at the gate after the aircraft was deplaned, telling the passengers that US Airways was unsafe and they wanted her to take an unsafe aircraft. Capt. Wells also told the passengers to refuse to board any other US Airways aircraft and to force the company to reaccomodate them on a different carrier. That was when the company had her leave the terminal."


How many starts? Was the source of your information from one of the other pilots in the cockpit, her official reports, or from someone that wasn't there?

What was said in the two announcement? What is your source for the version you heard?

As a guy said in recurrent training - "they start talking about an event, how screwed up it got, how the pilots screwed up...and then I realized they were talking about an event that happened to me and the version they were telling left out significant, and important, details that altered the whole perception of the event. My actions made sense however as told in training it was an example of bumbling pilots. After hearing the real version the instructor realized there were two, similar but ultimately conflicting, versions of what happened."

Teevee
28th Aug 2011, 19:49
Just SLF here, but one whose family I'm proud to say quietened a couple of angry pax in the UK after their flight returned to the gate twice one morning. The angry pax were complaining loudly until daughter said that actually she'd rather go up late in a plane that the crew thought was safe rather than on time playing the percentages ... however ... one thing I don't understand is this lady captain is supposed to have made inflammatory announcements to pax to whom one assumes the press would have had immediate access. The press are not noted for their discretion in such matters; so how come its taken nine pages even on pprune to be given some idea of what she (allegedly) might have said .. and even then it isn't specific and in my view isn't really very convincing?

IcePack
28th Aug 2011, 22:57
A330 has a separate APU battery & it charges pretty rapidly on GND power. Something is not right in this story.:confused:

J.O.
28th Aug 2011, 23:02
But if there was a BCL fault, it may not have been charging properly. Given the other faults they were experiencing, I suspect that was the real cause.

busmech
1st Sep 2011, 00:43
Can we at least agree that if this capt lived at the destination and had to attend one of her kids wedding/graduation/first day of school/hockey game, the flight would of left early?

two green one prayer
1st Sep 2011, 15:00
Busmech. The Capt. and her license had survived thirty years of professional flying. She would not have "risked it" however important her missed date seemed to her. If "risk it" was her mindset she would not have been flying, and, quite probably, not alive.

BTW. I'm not an aviator but I have done lots of inherently dangerous jobs and have reached 72 years and counting by being cautious. My respects to the lady.

stormyweathers
1st Sep 2011, 18:19
I just dont know why she cant just say to her chief pilot that "yes she refuses to operate the flight". The CP had to ask her 5 times. She still wouldnt say these words..

S76Heavy
1st Sep 2011, 19:21
Because refusing the flight is refusing to work.

Rejecting an aircraft for technical reasons is not refusing the flight nor work, it is doing your job as a commander to ensure the safety of the operation.

Big difference, especially in a labour conflict situation.

40&80
1st Sep 2011, 19:47
IMHO The chief pilot needs retraining in CRM or better still IMHO busting back to flying the line.
Captains get responsibility with no authority....and nobody guards the guards or in this case manages the managers.

SeniorDispatcher
3rd Sep 2011, 15:39
The angry pax were complaining loudly until daughter said that actually she'd rather go up late in a plane that the crew thought was safe rather than on time playing the percentages ...

Kudos to your daughter...

I had a seatmate make similar gripes during a maintenance delay several years ago. After enduring what seemed like hours (which was in reality only about 20 minute's worth) of their venting about the situation, I finally spoke up and asked them: "Would you rather be down here wishing you were up there, or up there wishing you were down here?" I didn't hear another peep out of them for the rest of the flight.

Some people just need to be hit smack dab in the forehead with a clue-by-4 before they "get it.." ;)

Cheers...

Golden Rivit
4th Sep 2011, 02:45
Go to Airline forums dot com to topic 51555-update-on-flight-718june-16-2011, For maintenance's slant.

cwatters
4th Sep 2011, 10:05
Thanks for that. Well worth a read.

scumbag
4th Sep 2011, 10:40
There has been much written and said about this incident by parties outside of the maintenance organization. Many members of the company have requested more facts about this incident particularly regarding maintenance’s role. The purpose of this memo is to explain why the aircraft did what it did, to communicate that the aircraft worked as designed,and to reiterate that our maintenance team handled the situation extremely well and ensured safety of flight.
In this event, an A330 was on APU power getting ready for pushback from the gate. Very soon after push back started, the electrical power from the APU to the aircraft was disconnected reverting the aircraft to battery power only. (Note: published reports have stated the APU auto shutdown and could not be restarted by the crew. An examination of the Electronic Control Box (ECB) fault log file retrieved from the ECB by the repair vendor has confirmed that there was neither an auto shutdown of the APU or any failed attempts to restart the APU.) Within 5 minutes of the APU being hutdown, the aircraft went dark. The jet bridge was re‐attached to the aircraft and ground power was re‐connected to the aircraft.
When our two mechanics got to the flight deck, the flight crew reported to them that the APU had an auto shutdown and that the APU failed to restart. The mechanics performed a series of BITE checks via the MCDU maintenance pages and could not find any faults with the APU. They, then, proceeded to restart the APU and it started on the first attempt without hesitation. After it started, the mechanics told the flight crew that in their assessment the APU was in serviceable condition and they were okay to sign it off however, they needed the crew to complete a log book entry with their discrepancies. That is when the crew pushed back saying that they did not feel comfortable with the status of the APU and that they wanted it “fixed.” The mechanics then gave the crew another option to have the APU deferred on an MEL. After some continued conversation with the flight crew, the flight crew finally elected to have the APU MEL’ed so hey completed a log book write‐up for “APU failed at gate, unable to restart.” The mechanics removed the logbook after the log page was completed by the flight crew so that they could complete the MEL deferral for the APU. More than a couple of hours after the first logbook page was filled out by the flight crew, the mechanics were given a new logbook write‐up for the same APU failure and unable to restart plus it contained a discrepancy for the batteries lasting only 3‐4 minutes and unable to communicate on VHF #1 after the aircraft lost battery power. The mechanics after consulting with MOC regarding the alleged battery failure were requested to perform two A330 AMM Tasks. One was a BITE Test of the BCL and the other was the Operational Test of the DC BAT BUS and DC ESS BUS Isolations. Both of hese tasks checked okay. The VHF #1 was also tested and it, too, checked okay. Maintenance cleared these reported discrepancies and closed out the log page without any deferrals except for the APU MEL from the previous log page. Maintenance later learned that the original flight crew was being replaced as they did not feel comfortable with the aircraft particularly with the APU being on MEL and the aircraft batteries only providing 3‐4 minutes of power to the aircraft on the ground. It should be noted that at no time did maintenance personnel pressure the crew into taking the ircraft. They did explain the limitation of the APU being on MEL which was that the aircraft would be limited to 120minute ETOPS. But, they did not question the Captain’s authority to refuse the MEL. uring the transition from the original flight crew to the replacement flight crew, maintenance personnel did clear the APU MEL after the ECB was replaced. When the replacement flight crew showed up in the flight deck, they started to perform an undocumented “aircraft battery drain test” and got the same results that the previous crew got at pushback – only 3‐5 minutes of battery power before the aircraft went dark. When this replacement flight crew was asked by maintenance personnel where this “test” was coming from, the mechanics were told by the flight crew that it did not come from any manual. However, they did say that they were told in flight training that the aircraft batteries needed to provide at least 30 minutes of power. Maintenance observed this “test” being done again and witnessed the same results. After further consultation with MOC to confirm that there are no battery drain tests in the AMM, the aircraft batteries were changed as a precautionary measure. The “test” was performed again with the fresh batteries and the aircraft remained powered for 30 minutes. It should be noted that the aircraft at this time was not in a flight configuration, as previously “tested”, meaning the electrical draw on the DC ESS and AC ESS buses was less. The replacement crew, then, told maintenance that they were okay taking the aircraft as is; however, since the ETOPS Check had expired, a new ETOPS Check was required to be ompleted. After the ETOPS check was completed and the passengers were re‐boarded, the flight left almost 11 hours late. It should be noted that the ECB that was removed to clear the APU MEL came back from the repair vendor as No Faults ound. Also, both batteries were returned from the battery vendor after inspection with no corrective actions needed on either battery. n summary, our entire team handled this situation extremely well. They thoroughly reviewed each FDML write‐up, took very precaution to ensure they were addressed, and delivered a safe and airworthy aircraft to the flight crew.

Technical Clarification: One technical issue raised during this event that Maintenance could not quickly explain was why the aircraft batteries only provided power for less than 5 minutes. Detailed below is a technical clarification on that issue:
In this situation, with an A330 on the ground with no AC power available (No Integrated Drive Generator (IDG), Auxiliary Power Unit (APU), or ground power), BAT1 and BAT2 will power the DC BAT, DC ESSENTIAL, and AC ESSENTIAL buses when the BAT pushbutton switches are in AUTO. The DC ESSENTIAL SHED bus is disconnected when on battery power only. Once one of the battery voltages drops below 23V for 16 seconds and the LGCIU detects the nose landing gear downlocked and compressed; the Battery Charge Limiters (BCLs) will disconnect both batteries from the DC BAT, DC ESSENTIAL, and AC ESSENTIAL buses. This is done to prevent completely discharging the batteries while the aircraft is on the ground (Reference AMM 24‐38‐00). When the BCL disconnects the batteries from the DC ESSENTIAL us, the VHF 1 radio become unavailable. To reconnect the contactors, the flight crew must switch the BAT push button switch to OFF, then AUTO. This would restore the VHF 1 radio. (Reference ‐ USA A330 Controls & Indications Manual) The amount of time the batteries will power these buses will be dependent on the capacity of the batteries and the lectrical load they are holding. The nominal capacity of an A330 battery is either 37 Amp‐Hour or 40 Amp‐Hour,
depending on the battery part number. In the air, the AC and DC buses will be supplied by the IDGs and if running, the APU. If both IDGs and the APU become unavailable, the Constant Speed Motor/Generator (CSM/G) will supply the AC and DC buses. The CSM/G is powered by the green hydraulic system as pressurized by the engine driven hydraulic pumps or the Ram Air Turbine (RAT) should power be lost in both engines. If the CSM/G is unavailable then the aircraft batteries will power the DC BAT, DC ESSENTIAL, and AC ESSENTIAL buses. The BCLs will not disconnect the batteries when one is discharged below 23V; hey will continue to power the hot battery buses, DC BAT bus, DC ESSENTIAL bus, and the AC ESSENTIAL bus as long as possible.
There was some discussion during this event that the aircraft batteries must provide at least 30 minutes of power as the aircraft was certified to that. To clarify that point, the A330 is certified to provide battery power to the DC BAT, DC ESSENTIAL, and AC ESSENTIAL buses for at least 21 ½ minutes while in flight. There is no certification requirement for how long the batteries need to power the A/C on the Ground before the BCLs disconnect the Batteries.

guidavide
4th Sep 2011, 11:26
Interesting...

Now provided the above is true I see the balance between safety and union labor issues shifting considerably...

Now for the comments about crew professionalism (and I'm a flight crewmember).

Regards,
Davide

ironbutt57
4th Sep 2011, 11:55
Whatever happened technically, it's the Capt's call right or wrong, but...if the bit about the PA's to passengers after the fact in the terminal is true and actually happened, that is a bit over the top.....would be interesting to see an actual transcript of that....