One more lawsuit

[Zapp_Brannigan]

Cathay Pacific’s first female captain sues airline over 2015 emergency landing in Alaska (https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/hong-kong-law-and-crime/article/2156846/cathay-pacifics-first-female-captain-sues)

[Backupnav]

Playing devil's advocate here, but on what grounds does she sue them? :suspect:

[MadMajor]

Leelan Marasinghe also.

[Jnr380]

Are we not trained for such an event? Don't they pay us some what a higher than normal salaries for this reason? It's like a police officer suing for being shot in the line of duty, or a paramedic suing due to trauma of seeing a dead body. Sorry but I don't think she should be in that position if she can't handle an Emergency like she was trained

[FUANNA]

And then to be left alone with the mental and physical consequences?

How about some post-incident counselling/care?

It's not happening, because of possible liability issues.

It's obvious, isn't it?

[oriental flyer]

Sorry but this is a totally frivolous law suit . She is a captain in charge of the aircraft , stuff happens inflight , deal with it . That’s what we are paid for

[FUANNA]

Try breathing smoke for once on the flightdeck.

It changes your life forever.

[Progress Wanchai]

Are we not trained for such an event? Don't they pay us some what a higher than normal salaries for this reason? It's like a police officer suing for being shot in the line of duty, or a paramedic suing due to trauma of seeing a dead body. Sorry but I don't think she should be in that position if she can't handle an Emergency like she was trained

I think you’ll find it’s the coercion of the decision making following the incident that is the contentious issue. We’re talking about a prehistoric management that has a history of applying pressure to a crew member when pressure is the last thing they need. A psychotic control freak management that has a history of applying draconian repercussions onto crew who have acted contrary to the Monday morning quarterbacks has no place in a modern airline.

[LongTimeInCX]

Hard to see what sort of "personal injury, loss and damage" the captain could be claiming for, when to all intents and purposes, all she appeared to have done was exactly what we are all expected to do and paid to do as a Commander.
Unless...... there were some aspects of the diversion etc that have not been made public.
What about the other crew, were they not involved in whatever nefarious circumstances that have precipitated this high court action?
Also why wait so long if whatever it was that occurred, was so serious to merit High Court action? Unless that is the fastest speed that the HK legal system can cope with.

[ROW_BOT]

Best wishes to her or any pilot forced to sue an unreasonable and hypocritical employer.

[Flex88]

Hard to see what sort of "personal injury, loss and damage" the captain could be claiming for, when to all intents and purposes, all she appeared to have done was exactly what we are all expected to do and paid to do as a Commander.
Unless...... there were some aspects of the diversion etc that have not been made public.
What about the other crew, were they not involved in whatever nefarious circumstances that have precipitated this high court action?
Also why wait so long if whatever it was that occurred, was so serious to merit High Court action? Unless that is the fastest speed that the HK legal system can cope with.

DFO forgot to provide a "safe space" with kittens and puppies following event where Capt was subjected to high stress situation.. Draconian really !! Anna will be missed as was on path to rectify this oversight. Perhaps Jellyfish will oversee rectifying this situation following "Unconscious Bias" training program.

#TimeToWin

[FUANNA]

Google PTSD please.

Some individuals develop it years after an incident like this one.

Nobody is immune to it. And it can, in some instances, be the end of your flying career.

( Hint : It's not an STD )

[Veruka Salt]

Just a guess - possibly something to do with coercion to continue flight to destination without having first been examined by Doctor following smoke/fumes event.

[STW]

She obviously wants to milk her 15 minutes.

Pathetic and selfish.

[bluesideoops]

She'll have to PROVE that Cx was in some way unlawful and or negligent/reckless in their duty of care etc. in any of what they did which could prove to be quite a challenge and of course the Monday morning Quarterbacks will have a team of people grinding away against her - could turn out a costly and futile action in the long run. Hope she's got some good lawyers and good luck to her!

[Flex88]

Google PTSD please.

Some individuals develop it years after an incident like this one.

Nobody is immune to it. And it can, in some instances, be the end of your flying career.

( Hint : It's not an STD )
-Smoke was controlled
-2 Engines
-2 Autopilots
-Autothrottle
-Extra crew to assist
-SatCom
-Meals, Coffee, Snacks
-Been training this since near day one
-Gets paid to do this...

PTSD ?????
Coddled #Snowflakes, your SafeSpace bunks are coming soon.

[FUANNA]

Again, also for the last bully on here to grasp:

A scenario like that, in the middle of the night over the Pacific Ocean, is NOT what you want to see in reality.

Post-incident counselling and care is the absolute minimum you would want to expect. As most airlines do, by the way.

#snowflakesrule.

[Freehills]

Even if it is ambulance chasing, surprised to see that not everyone is cheering her on. Why not try and get some money out of CX?

[oriental flyer]

Fuanna, I have experienced smoke on the flight deck , it’s a scary experience but it didn’t change my life , just made me more aware of what could happen and to think a lot more about how I would deal with it going forward .
you get promoted to Captain to be in control in all circumstances , you can’t pick and choose , you just deal with the situations as they arise

[FUANNA]

Thank you!

But he is forgiven, because his Domina has her day off on Fridays.

I experienced a similar event before, and I can assure you this:

The impact on your private life is real and profound, while company support is limited at best.

Instead you gonna be busy writing ' Dear XYZ' letters for weeks to come.

So yes, I do sympathise with this Lady.

[Oasis]

Best luck to Annabel, not sure what the lawsuit is about, but I always respected her as a person and and as a professional, one of the best in our ranks.

[mr did]

Agreed, 100% support.

Whats the worst that can happen? She doesn't win and we all have to do another online course?

Or: CX are forced to have some sort of crew support plan, post incident, that doesn't involve a finger pointing sessions and libellous press releases to protect the brand.

[VforVENDETTA]

1. The article mentions "causing the incident". Was there a history of failure of the Recirc Fan and maintenance kept signing it off without adequate repair/replacement and thus it eventually failed in this manner and caused this bad possible scenario? I don't know. But we all know maintenance at cx has been declining rapidly and many many discrepancies keep getting signed off without adequate action being taken and the problem keeps occurring over and over again. This is actually a well known indicator of pending serious incidents/accidents to accident investigations when they look back in the records.

2. As the culture of lie is the the most core culture of cx, none of us know the real details of this incident so going past curiosity about what might have actually happened and openly judging is not appropriate. So please take the rest of what I say as hypothetical when it comes to the crew. Admittedly, I don't know ALL the facts since this organization does not inform and educate us after the fact so we can learn and not allow mistakes to be repeated in the future. I'll stick to the things I personally know first hand. I'm sure there's much more to the story.

3. Sticking to the facts, One thing is for sure if you take a step back and look at the big picture. An aircraft having successfully landed after such and event (smoke/fire on-board) taking off again without maintenance addressing the discrepancy on-site is a major mistake of several levels . Cx mx did not get to the aircraft before it departed for ANC. No qualified person was there to release the aircraft back into service. The departure of that aircraft from Shemya was illegal on many levels. The aircraft departed with several open discrepancies. The cause of the smoke was not known as it was not troubleshot by a qualified person on-site. It's very ignorant to think mx action or troubleshooting can be performed over the phone, especially regarding such a serious event. Cx mx was half way there on a chartered flight when the 777 took off for ANC. They were shocked to find out it had departed. Who re-stowed the oxy masks? This is a mx action and NONE of the crew are qualified or knowledgeable to perform it. IF smoke in-flight had occurred again and it easily could have since nobody qualified to perform mx troubleshooting touched the aircraft, would those oxy masks have deployed having been stowed by the flight crew or cabin crew who aren't qualified or authorized to perform mx action? Several sever lapse of judgement occurred from various directions. Mx control should have never relinquished it's professional responsibility and should have kept the aircraft grounded until properly released back to service after proper mx action was performed. Dispatch (yes i know, we don't have a dispatch department at cx since we don't have licensed dispatchers and they're a joke) should have never allowed this to happen. The fleet office individual or reportedly the GMO at the time who has on other occasions similar threatened the Capt. of the flight to operate or else should have been outed a long time ago and should now be investigated and put on record for his actions. This is very likely a big part of the lawsuit.

4. The decision to go along with this very bad decision willingly albeit via threats and coercion, is something the Capt. owns and the rest of the crew along with her. Any and all of them had could have showed some professional integrity and remove themselves form the flight to ANC. They chose not to have professional integrity by being willing participants. It's very possible they had no idea of seriousness of what they were doing especially if they started their professional careers as cx cadets and have no clue about the real world of aviation outside cx and never will unless they leave cx at some point. Either way, very embarrassing.

5. Knowing from personal experience, at other airlines, when a serious incident like this happens, there's transparency at an organizational level very early on to inform and educate the rest of the crew body about what occurred and lessons learned so the next incident can be avoided or handled better in the future. At cx, details are never made known and only rumors abound. There's a serious ORGANIZATIONAL problem at this outfit for such things to be possible to happen without any effort to prevent these decisions and events from happening in the future. It is the organization's responsibility to set the tone and demand it be followed. We all know this place has a big problem setting the right tone when it comes to safety. The tone they forcefully set is for COMMERCIAL reasons much more than SAFETY. This will catch up with them rile sooner or later in a bad way. It is the professional responsibility to have the integrity it takes to refuse to be part of such and event until reality of a horrible event due to willful disregard for regulations/SOPs, fatigue, etc. will force the organization to flush itself out.

[Starbear]

V for V

So many valid points in there, I for one will wait until after suitable rest period before commenting further. You have hit so many nails squarely on the head and clearly have some accurate knowledge or insight into this incident. Those of you condemning this Captain as a snowflake, demonstrate exactly the qualities of the Monday Morning Quarterbacks which you so readily condemn in other circumstances. If a single one of you can claim to have the knowledge as V for V in his/her posting perhaps you can demonstrate how and your postings may then also claim some validity.

[Air Profit]

Couldn't agree more. Let's not demonstrate the appalling qualities of our management. I hope she has a strong case, and holds CX management to account, if indeed her claims are valid. The main point is this: none of us know all the facts, nor her specific claims against the company. I for one hope she gives them a bloody nose, as there is obviously a profound change of management style needed at this airline. Good luck to her.

[Farman Biplane]

After this pilot wins the case for personal injury maybe there are a few candidates motivated to try a personal injury legal challenge for health/fatigue impacts of the incredulously bad rostering and regard for basic human needs on some of the published roster patterns?
Might be more successful than whinging on the AOA forums, yammer and pprune?

[Flex88]

Nobody, not the AoA or individual crew, or Cabin Attendants or Office Workers has the stones to fight back (in HK) against this septic company... Let's start with Age Discrimination and go from there. It's blatant and this other BS is just a minor distraction..

#CXit

[Kitsune]

:ugh:Nobody, not the AoA or individual crew, or Cabin Attendants or Office Workers has the stones to fight back (in HK) against this septic company... Let's start with Age Discrimination and go from there. It's blatant and this other BS is just a minor distraction..

#CXit
Aahhh, so now do you want a safe space with kittens and puppies for all the greedy crumblies Flex?

[cxorcist]

I seldom agree with V for V, but I think his post is spot on. Sadly, this case will undoubtedly be argued in a HK court which by default sides with employers over employees. Even if the pilots win, it will be appealed by CX for years all the way to the high court. Since the event occurred in US airspace, perhaps it should be litigated there, in full view of the FAA, NTSB, and American press / public. That would almost certainly be a better venue. Best of luck to the pilots!

[Shutterbug]

Cathay Pacific plane departs Aleutians after emergency landing | Juneau Empire - Alaska's Capital City Online Newspaper (http://juneauempire.com/state/2015-07-29/cathay-pacific-plane-departs-aleutians-after-emergency-landing)

Think V for V nailed it.

[Flex88]

:ugh:
Aahhh, so now do you want a safe space with kittens and puppies for all the greedy crumblies Flex?


Stop drinking Kitsune, that or read slowly so you can understand and digest what "words" strung out in a "sentence" actually mean.......

I'm for penalty boxes NOT #SafeSpaces

#CXit

[cpdude]

I can only imagine the sh*t storm had anything gone wrong on their way to ANC. Related or otherwise!

[Slasher1]

I can only imagine the repercussions if esteemed counsel for the diverting captain comes to realize US nationals (pax and/or crew) may have been involved, may have incurred damages, the incidents all allegedly occurred on US soil, and the matter as such might potentially be adjudicated in a US court with these individual’s assistance. Not to mention the involvement of regulatory agencies there if this thing escalated.

I think perhaps it might be wise for the company to reach out to the aggrieved captain and find a way to amicably solve their differences before plaintiff’s lawyer might go down this road. The fact she initiated legal action to me indicates she felt there was no other way to justly solve the issue.

[STW]

[QUOTE=VforVENDETTA;10207765]1. The article mentions "causing the incident". Was there a history of failure of the Recirc Fan and maintenance kept signing it off without adequate repair/replacement and thus it eventually failed in this manner and caused this bad possible scenario? I don't know. But we all know maintenance at cx has been declining rapidly and many many discrepancies keep getting signed off without adequate action being taken and the problem keeps occurring over and over again. This is actually a well known indicator of pending serious incidents/accidents to accident investigations when they look back in the records.

CX Maintenance has been declining rapidly, really? How do you you know? I never had to accept an aircraft that I wasn’t happy with. Ever. I never saw anything dodgy in the ACM book. Ever. I never witnessed negligence or any serious mistake by egineering. Ever. On what base do you rectify your claim? You mix up frictions in the grey area between clear ddg rules and reality with negligence. Any airline run with an engineering department of your dreams would be bankrupt in a week.

2. As the culture of lie is the the most core culture of cx, none of us know the real details of this incident so going past curiosity about what might have actually happened and openly judging is not appropriate. So please take the rest of what I say as hypothetical when it comes to the crew. Admittedly, I don't know ALL the facts since this organization does not inform and educate us after the fact so we can learn and not allow mistakes to be repeated in the future. I'll stick to the things I personally know first hand. I'm sure there's much more to the story.

Have you ever asked the responsible gents in the fleet office directly about what happened? Did you speek to engineering about wha happened? I did actually, and the answer I got were more satisfying. Culture of lies? This has nothing to do with contract negotiations or other industrial matters, this is a technical issue, and it was handled extremely well.

3. Sticking to the facts, One thing is for sure if you take a step back and look at the big picture. An aircraft having successfully landed after such and event (smoke/fire on-board) taking off again without maintenance addressing the discrepancy on-site is a major mistake of several levels . Cx mx did not get to the aircraft before it departed for ANC. No qualified person was there to release the aircraft back into service. The departure of that aircraft from Shemya was illegal on many levels. The aircraft departed with several open discrepancies. The cause of the smoke was not known as it was not troubleshot by a qualified person on-site. It's very ignorant to think mx action or troubleshooting can be performed over the phone, especially regarding such a serious event. Cx mx was half way there on a chartered flight when the 777 took off for ANC. They were shocked to find out it had departed. Who re-stowed the oxy masks? This is a mx action and NONE of the crew are qualified or knowledgeable to perform it. IF smoke in-flight had occurred again and it easily could have since nobody qualified to perform mx troubleshooting touched the aircraft, would those oxy masks have deployed having been stowed by the flight crew or cabin crew who aren't qualified or authorized to perform mx action? Several sever lapse of judgement occurred from various directions. Mx control should have never relinquished it's professional responsibility and should have kept the aircraft grounded until properly released back to service after proper mx action was performed. Dispatch (yes i know, we don't have a dispatch department at cx since we don't have licensed dispatchers and they're a joke) should have never allowed this to happen. The fleet office individual or reportedly the GMO at the time who has on other occasions similar threatened the Capt. of the flight to operate or else should have been outed a long time ago and should now be investigated and put on record for his actions. This is very likely a big part of the lawsuit.

Sticking to the facts? You just said you don’ t know the facts, now you want to stick to them. Interesting. Dispatch are a “joke”? How dare you. These guys are hard working professionals, very helpful and contientious. Never had a problem with them.Ever. There was surely no threat, what a load of BS. Facts you say? Then come forward with your evidence, can’t wait!

By the way, masks in the cabin are useless in a smoke situation. Funny you don’t know this.

4. The decision to go along with this very bad decision willingly albeit via threats and coercion, is something the Capt. owns and the rest of the crew along with her. Any and all of them had could have showed some professional integrity and remove themselves form the flight to ANC. They chose not to have professional integrity by being willing participants. It's very possible they had no idea of seriousness of what they were doing especially if they started their professional careers as cx cadets and have no clue about the real world of aviation outside cx and never will unless they leave cx at some point. Either way, very embarrassing.

Why did she operate the flight then? Who threatened her ? GL?? No way, impossible. By the way, she looked quite proud and content the weeks afterwards and on all those pictures. Traumatized? Give me a break. With what? You claim to have the facts. Bring it on. I say you got nothing, absolutely zero. It was a voluntary decision, the entire crew agreed.

5. Knowing from personal experience, at other airlines, when a serious incident like this happens, there's transparency at an organizational level very early on to inform and educate the rest of the crew body about what occurred and lessons learned so the next incident can be avoided or handled better in the future. At cx, details are never made known and only rumors abound. There's a serious ORGANIZATIONAL problem at this outfit for such things to be possible to happen without any effort to prevent these decisions and events from happening in the future. It is the organization's responsibility to set the tone and demand it be followed. We all know this place has a big problem setting the right tone when it comes to safety. The tone they forcefully set is for COMMERCIAL reasons much more than SAFETY. This will catch up with them rile sooner or later in a bad way. It is the professional responsibility to have the integrity it takes to refuse to be part of such and event until reality of a horrible event due to willful disregard for regulations/SOPs, fatigue, etc. will force the organization to flush itself out.]

A recirc fan got damaged, as it happens a thousand times, bit of a smell , which is also very common. Then the fan got deactivated, all indications were normal and the aircraft continued the flight, hours later. Do you really think Boeing never thought about the possibility of a fan having a short? Really? In your phantasy you see a burning fan wreaking havoc in the deep belly of your aircraft, ready to explode like the challenger or TWA any minute. Ridiculous. Imagine you evacuate your house because of a short circuit in the living room. And then you wait 10 hours outside until the fire department and the buliding company has cleared and checked the building. Thats you. There was no risk, do you understand that? I say iy again: there was no risk. Uncomfortable atmosphere during descent ? Yes, surely. I don't want to belittle the perceived risk. But actual risk? Zero. Just because you have Swissair in mind anytime you read or hear the word smoke doesn’t make it true, you need to understand, you are beeing paranoid. The transfer flight was of course double checked with engineering, again there was no risk ( at the time of the “ incidence”, during the " emergency landing” ( it was in fact a NORMAL landing at an unusual airport with a 10000 ft runway with suitable weather...) and during the flight onwards. Zero. And that is a fact.)

Your real motive is in your name. Vendetta. You are blindly shooting at everything that moves. Pure reflex.

Just because YOU feel treated unfairly you dare to throw sh. at everybody else, maintenance, dispatch, fleet office, you name it. How dare you. This has nothing, absolutely NOTHING to do with our current problems, contractual issues. NOTHING. You are blindly in rage, indiscriminately accusing every soul in Cx. That is not only morally wrong, it is also counter- productive. With your exaggerated claims you devaluate our very reasonable claims in other areas. Your blind Vendetta is childish, rightous and makes us a laughing stock. PTSD ( if that is really the base of the suit which I don't know !) 3 years after a precautionnairy landing involving zero actual danger?

You got to be kidding. Ridiculous.
[/QUOTE

[sickto the backteeth]

It is my clear understanding that the case will be referred to US durisdiction. But initialy it must be started in HKG and then the judge will allow US authorities to seize the case since it occurred in an American built aircraft in American airpsace.
Method in her madness.

[ACMS]

Well said.

[Air Profit]

"Well said"....ummm, well...up until point #5, where you mentioned "transparency at an organizational level". How long have you worked at CX? If it's more than a week you will know that is laughable. I surely don't recall much in the way of "transparency" regarding the facts of the incident. Years later, most of us are STILL in the dark as to what really happened. I suspect that this suit will be settled out of court, and WELL before it hits the USA legal system. At least, if CX doesn't want a complete (and expensive) circus on their hands. MTCW.

[mngmt mole]

Air Profit. Good response. However, CX seems to LOVE expensive legal circuses (personally, would love to see them torn to pieces in a US court, and I hope Annabelle is heading in that direction).

nb: regarding STW's post. Only 5 posts to his name, so most likely a management lackey.

[Landflap]

Gosh, really heated discussion over very little in the way of facts. Original news article refers to an "accident". Of course, we all know it was an "incident". Three years after the event the Captain Sues. Whaaaat ? What happened during the last three years? Why has she waited three years ? What personal injury ? What Loss of Licence ? Why depart after a serious incident with an aircraft not, technically cleared to operate ? (We think). STW, stoic defence but having asked around & got answers, care to tell us ? This was all an almighty mess & stinks of a cover up. But, that is far from unusual in aviation eh ? Been around long enough.When it becomes a "commercial" event, the cover ups stink to high heaven & everyone runs for cover leaving the most obvious target, the Captain, sticking up like a sore thumb. Guess that is why we get the really big bucks eh ? Yeah, right.

[oriental flyer]

Admittedly I don’t know all the facts and I wish Her all the best with her legal claim .
I have refused to accept an aircraft or 3 separate occasions due to technical issues which were rectified prior to a delayed departure,
on one occasion I was uncertain about the DDO until the engineer muttered under his breath “ I wouldn’t fly in this thing “
that was enough for me . Sometimes you have just have to stand your ground despite the pressure .
Personally I would never have operated the aircraft onward from Shemya following a smoke incident . You never know how much each individual has been affected by smoke inhalation and I’m even more surprised that the CAD signed off on that flight . Having said that I wasn’t there and this is only my opinion nevertheless I wish her every success with her law suit

[FUANNA]

It's an airline based in Hong Kong, China.

'nuff said ?!

[tekling]

STW,

I'm not with CX anymore, so I very rarely post, but I feel I have to take issue with you on your very one-sided post in reply to V for V. I had a very interesting experience among many, and saw absolutely the worst of maintenance and dispatch.
When I was a TCC with CX operating the -400 in about 2010, I had a potentially very interesting problem on arrival at the aircraft, prior to dispatch on a HKG-PAR flight. Cut a long story short, from the Tech Log, in the previous 6 sectors, twice the autopilot when engaged, had dropped out on approach at 800' ish. However, maintenance had twice cleared the aircraft to subsequently depart, with no fault found (begs the question of why they didn't pull the QAR).
Now it happens that LVP was forecast for PAR, so I had a vested interest in a perfectly working autopilot. I remonstrated at length with both MX and despatch about the wisdom of taking this particular aircraft, but of course they just said there were no ADDs associated with this, so no reason not to go. I eventually had an argument with the DM, and got to the point where he threatened me and asked if I was refusing to take the aircraft. Loads of Europe flights go at that time of night, so I just wanted to swap aircraft.
Question, what would you do?

Moving on, we got to PAR. LVP in force and CAT3B required. ALT was Brusselles, temps
+5/+4. On the approach to PAR passing 800', guess what, autopilot drops out. G/A followed by Diversion to Brusselles. Autopilot could only be engaged in HDG SEL and ALT.
Fortunately had loaded heaps of extra fuel due total mistrust of CX Eng, Dispatch and DM. Arrived in Brussels in effectively a large Cessna, fit only for day VFR.
Manual ILS to land, and all ended fine, but Brussels fogged out about 15 mins after arrival.
On the ground for the next 4+ hours, HKG were trying to despatch me back to PAR. I refused and said I would only despatch in CAVOK conditions. Eventually stood down and arrived at hotel in PAR 25 hours after leaving HKG. Guess who I had a fight with back in HKG but the GMO, MH. Have a guess as to my opinion of him now?

Guess what my priority in my next SIM was? Yes, a manual ILS in CAT3B conditions. Very interesting let me tell you - concentrates the mind!

So in response to your post, you're either not a skipper in CX, have only been in the Company 10 minutes, had a charmed life in all your operations, or are indeed a Management stooge.

I have no axe to grind with CX, as I left on good terms in 2015 after 20+ years there, but on so many counts, the company was broken then, and the likes of GL (sadly) and MH seem to have completely lost the plot. So yes, V for V is very accurate in what he says, and knowing Annabel very well, she is a very calm, confident and capable individual, so will only be taking CX to court for a very good reason. Let it rest there STW, and bear in mind the saying - 'Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than open one's mouth and have all doubt removed'.

[Cpt. Underpants]

Well written tekling.

[DropKnee]

STW,
Are you serious??. CX despatch is the worst I have ever experienced. You have lost any credibility with believing that they are anything but good printing technicians
As far as our maintenance goes. It is sliding into the proverbial toilet.
No US airline would have continued after a derversion due to smoke in the cockpit. CX,once again got lucky.

[STW]

Dropknee, there was no smoke in the cockpit.

Tekling, I have no ground to question your report, but please keep in mind it is anecdotal and doesn' t automatically speak for the organization as such.
I think controversies between engineering and the cpt are part of the system, they are unavoidable. I think Cathay Maintenance is alright, in my experience, but ok, thats anecdotal as well if you like


Oriental Flyer,
you are entitled to your opinion, no question. Take the aircraft or don't. If you would have refused the flight from Shemya that would have been also fine. That is my point: in Cathay you can not accept an aircraft, you can refuse to operate. I do not know of any case this has led to personal problems.

Landflap and Airprofit, there was a damaged recuircuit fan. It smelled, so they landed in Pasy. Then, after hours on ground, they continued to Anc I believe. Thats it. What more information do you need? My point is: what is the big fuss? These fans fail occasionally, and then you can smell it for a few seconds. I am not questioning the decision to go to Shemya, far from it, just saying there was no actual danger.

Mng Mole: is that a hard rule, only 5 posts = management? Interesting. For the record: my point is that this kind of travesty is hurting our totally justified position elsewhere, where it counts, in the present negotiations. I said it in my post, we need to chose our battles, and not just blindly shoot at everything that moves.

[cxorcist]

STW is the old Sam Ting Wong. He’s an FO on the 747 and probably fancies himself experienced. I flew with him once many years back when he was an SO. Not impressed. Nuff said!

[cpdude]

Curious what altitude the flight SYA/ANC was conducted at?

[tekling]

STW,

I don't want to labour a point so this is my last example, but only helps to reinforce my poor opinion of Mx, Despatch, Ops, and Management:

Passengers all loaded (on a 777 ER) 20 min to push back, so we start the APU. after 30sec, the fire bells sound and we get the red EICAS warning FIRE APU. Meanwhile 2 engineers on the jump seats have their heads in the MAT. I turn to them and ask if they're doing fire tests or some such thing. Guess what, they just sat there like stunned mullets, and offered no response at at all!!
So FO and I carried out the drills, and fired the extinguisher. Couldn't get any response for anyone on the ground, so despatched the FO outside, and spoke to the cabin crew by doors 5. FIRE APU still on the upper EICAS.
Cut another long story short, established there was no fire, so false warning. Then the Engineer tried to despatch us with a red FIRE APU on the upper EICAS!! Quite unbelievable.

Had a long chat with IOC who just wanted to swap the APU fire card for an identical one from one of the engines - quite extraordinary. So FIRE ENG L/R was going to be my next fun exercise! I eventually demanded one of the senior engineers from IOC come down to the aircraft.
He did, but this guy 'grumped' into the cockpit, and the first thing he did was demand to know why we had fired the APU fire extinguisher. Then a big row ensued, and I kicked this guy out of the cockpit, and said don't come back until he knocked on the door, said good morning and apologised. He eventually did this, but having had enough, I offloaded the pax, and left the aircraft, and told him not to bother me until he found another aircraft.
This they eventually did, and we despatched.
The wash up was that I was summoned to the 3rd floor and had a huge row with MH. Eventually got a very begrudging apology from him, but how unprofessional of him, and indeed all the engineers involved....... And you say you've never experienced anything bad from them! I'm speechless!!!
Enough said I think?

[Slasher1]

Dropknee, there was no smoke in the cockpit.

Tekling, I have no ground to question your report, but please keep in mind it is anecdotal and doesn' t automatically speak for the organization as such.
I think controversies between engineering and the cpt are part of the system, they are unavoidable. I think Cathay Maintenance is alright, in my experience, but ok, thats anecdotal as well if you like


Oriental Flyer,
you are entitled to your opinion, no question. Take the aircraft or don't. If you would have refused the flight from Shemya that would have been also fine. That is my point: in Cathay you can not accept an aircraft, you can refuse to operate. I do not know of any case this has led to personal problems.

Landflap and Airprofit, there was a damaged recuircuit fan. It smelled, so they landed in Pasy. Then, after hours on ground, they continued to Anc I believe. Thats it. What more information do you need? My point is: what is the big fuss? These fans fail occasionally, and then you can smell it for a few seconds. I am not questioning the decision to go to Shemya, far from it, just saying there was no actual danger.

Mng Mole: is that a hard rule, only 5 posts = management? Interesting. For the record: my point is that this kind of travesty is hurting our totally justified position elsewhere, where it counts, in the present negotiations. I said it in my post, we need to chose our battles, and not just blindly shoot at everything that moves.

No actual danger ?

Really ? We knew this this for sure when the aircraft departed SYA for ANC ? How ? Did a MX crew qualified on the 777 find, isolate, and inspect (with Boeing's blessing if necessary) what had happened and effect field repairs ?

Did the crew know this for sure prior to departing for ANC that the problem was fixed ? Was the aircraft THOROUGHLY inspected following an in-flight fire (a reportable event by NTSB standards--and based on where this occurred they would have the appropriate primary jurisdiction) and properly signed off by maintenance personnel qualified on the 777 and subsequently accepted by the skipper following this event ? Was there a complete lack of coercion toward continuing the flight ? Were they completely sure prior to dispatching for the second flight (and properly dispatched with all the I's dotted and T's crossed) that the electrical power to the offending circuit (s) had been properly secured (by MX) and what the offending circuits actually were ?

Was the source of the smoke and fumes positively identified (by aircraft inspection) and crew (and passengers) offered medical attention as needed ?

I agree a recirc fan packing it in is probably not a huge deal. But was the crew certain of this (and that there was no lingering smoldering in the ducting or fan) after a thorough aircraft inspection ?

FWIW Smoke and fume events are a big deal amongst US carriers. And not to be taken casually.

And recirc fans are specifically addressed as a potential source of in-flight fire in FAA AC_120-80A

49 CFR 830 delineates the reporting requirements for accidents and incidents which occur in US jurisdictional areas. 830.5 is the section where immediate notification is required.

Did this happen as a part of the event as it was required ? (I am sure in time an ASR would address this but I wonder how the NTSB--or FAA-- after notified would look at the re-dispatch of an airplane which had encountered an in-flight fire unless that aircraft had had a proper and comprehensive inspection) :§830.5 Immediate notification.The operator of any civil aircraft, or any public aircraft not operated by the Armed Forces or an intelligence agency of the United States, or any foreign aircraft shall immediately, and by the most expeditious means available, notify the nearest National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) office,1 when:


....

(4) In-flight fire;

[spannersatcx]

Would of been more prudent to ask if it was OK to start the APU first!

Don't forget Line Maintenance in HKG is done by HAECO not CX Engineers, not saying HAECO are all bad and CX Line maintenance are all good but you do need to differentiate.

[Scoreboard]

STW is an idiot,,,,,”i have never experienced any mx problems,,,,” wow good luck to you your total contribution to the total cx movement of aircraft is neglible so your inference of your total experience is again neglible. Some pilots never ever divert their whole career......doesnt mean planes dont bloody divert. I havent had the gamut of teklings walks to the 3rd floor but i sure has hell had some rotten mainentance with the argurments, telephone calls to IOC and angry managers on the phone harunging me to accept.

That being said I have had dealings with dedicated engineers who wouldnt release aircraft to me...which sends CX ENG into fits of rage and the follow on attempts to coerce me into bullying the engineers for a release...mind boggles doesnt it that management are trying to convince you to accept an unsafe aircraft amd now drag you into bulling the engineer to release unsafe aircraft to you!!!!!

VforVendetta nailed it.....we dont know but what we do know is that the company is neglient and wilful in its lack of transparency....threre is little in the way of feedback or support...and quiet a few if us have been put into the unenviable position of being bullied ...its just another nail for the coffins that something bad is coming.

[DropKnee]

Would of been more prudent to ask if it was OK to start the APU first!

Don't forget Line Maintenance in HKG is done by HAECO not CX Engineers, not saying HAECO are all bad and CX Line maintenance are all good but you do need to differentiate.
Permission to start the APU is not required. If they don’t want you to start it. Put a note in the logbook

[oriental flyer]

I have to agree with slasher , following a smoke / fire event of electrical origin one has to consider if the electrical cabling to that particular unit or other cables in the same loom were heat damaged from a short circuit thereby degrading the insulation. The potential for another inflight event without thoroughly inspecting all the cabling is significantly greater.
There are a number of un answered questions surrounding this event that still have to come out
What ever the outcome of the legal action I’m sure she would only have taken this action if she felt she had a case

[Trafalgar]

Facts be damned. Hope she gives CX a good pasting. Too many unanswered questions after all these years. And who would wager against CX mgmt having broken procedure and policy? Call me a cynic ��

[Landflap]

STW: my interest remains as this is a public forum for rumours and news and my questions were not answered by you having informed us that you had discussed the incident and obtained satisfactory answers. Was it unidentified smoke/fumes or was it identified. The decision to divert to the nearest suitable alternate suggests that the Commander felt the need for urgency. Even if it was identified (the recirc fan), fumes can overcome very rapidly. "Big fuss"?Oh yeah ! I remain interested in the time lapse. Three years to bring a court case ; WHY ? Talk of Licence loss. Did she, didn't she ; WHY ? WHO ? Really interesting. Once on the ground, was she under immense commercial pressure to operate an uncleared aircraft ?If you are satisfied with the answers you got, I simply ask that you share those answers.

[Shot Nancy]

Would of been more prudent to ask if it was OK to start the APU first!

WTF? Prudent to ask who? Why?
Take off the slippers, put down the soy latte and get down on the line.
Surely you are not making engineering decisions?

[spannersatcx]

WTF? Prudent to ask who? Why?
The 2 guys working on the MAT, obviously communication was not forthcoming either way!

I didn't say ask for permission I said ask if it was ok, seems communication was rather lacking from both parties.

[OK4Wire]

I kind of agree with spanners, if they are around, asking out of an abundance of caution doesn't hurt, and if the aircraft is not yet released, is polite.

[tekling]

Spannersatcx,

I didn't want to get back onto these forums, but I felt I had to call out your ignorance. You are very clearly an armchair engineer working in IOC, similar to the one who visited the cockpit, and you only serve to illustrate the attitude that leads to so many complaints.
In my APU incident, the aircraft had been cleared for flight, I had signed for it. No ADDs. As has already been pointed out, the crew do not need permission to start the APU. If engineers do not want the APU started at the normal time, it should be annotated in the tech log, there should be a red and white sticker on the switch, and I should at least be advised of this - enough? Oh and the aircraft should not have been released for flight.
I am well aware that the engineers that attend the aircraft are HAECO ones. The engineer who came down from IOC was CX.
The HAECO engineers looking into the MAT a) should not have been doing so after I had accepted the aircraft, and b) should at least have spoken some English.
This was another problem on the line in that so many people waltz in and out of the cockpit prior to push back, with no reference to the skipper, just doing there own thing.
With all due respect, Spannersatcx, your post only serves to illustrate why there are so many problems like this in the company. Find out the facts before you comment!

[morningcoffee]

There's a pandora's box here regarding the crew actions and checklists and I for one would rather they didn't get aired on a public forum. Nor can I see it is going to help our cause (for want of a better term) when specialists from Boeing and everywhere else pull the events apart in court. Contrary to what's on here GL shared much of was learnt from the tech issue and subsequent diversion. At the end of the day it's her choice I suppose.

[Air Profit]

MC, thank you for slithering out of your cubicle and commenting. Your rather laconic, "not really necessary to comment here" dismissive attempt at obfuscation is all the confirmation I need to realize that you and the rest of your management lackeys are obviously scared to death of this lawsuit. Perhaps you could reflect on the fact that this airline has more legal trouble with their staff than BHS and Philip Green. This airline is permanently broken, because of the morally vacuous individuals like yourself who think the ends justifies the means. You and your kind are toxic.

[BlunderBus]

Could be forgiven for wondering if the burning smell came from the several tonnes of lithium ion and metal batteries they insist on carrying on transpac passenger flights 😜
And HK CAD once again conspicuous in its lack of effective oversight.

[controlledrest]

I have flown with the Capt concerned. A very down to earth, level headed, sound operator.

I have no confidence the Fleet Office would have my back if it suited them to shaft me.

My experience of IOC is it is best to tell them what the options are (if there is more than one) and let them choose, but only after I have decided what would be acceptable. I have had some utterly stupid suggestions from them.

I support anyone who drags this awful company into the modern age with respect to looking after their staff.

Those who have posted remarks about being soft / snowflakes show real ignorance with respect to how people react to stressful situations. You just don't know until you have been there.

[Air Profit]

Suggestion: Why don't we ALL just automatically support our colleague, until and if FACTS suggest otherwise. Her willing to go to court tells me that there are probably many FACTS about this case that CX hope will just go away. Time will tell. In the meantime, anyone who is willing to stand up to our management gets my vote.

[OK4Wire]

:ok:



more characters added.

[BusyB]

controlled rest,

Couldn't agree more

[spannersatcx]

Spannersatcx,

I didn't want to get back onto these forums, but I felt I had to call out your ignorance. You are very clearly an armchair engineer working in IOC, similar to the one who visited the cockpit, and you only serve to illustrate the attitude that leads to so many complaints.
In my APU incident, the aircraft had been cleared for flight, I had signed for it. No ADDs. As has already been pointed out, the crew do not need permission to start the APU. If engineers do not want the APU started at the normal time, it should be annotated in the tech log, there should be a red and white sticker on the switch, and I should at least be advised of this - enough? Oh and the aircraft should not have been released for flight.
I am well aware that the engineers that attend the aircraft are HAECO ones. The engineer who came down from IOC was CX.
The HAECO engineers looking into the MAT a) should not have been doing so after I had accepted the aircraft, and b) should at least have spoken some English.
This was another problem on the line in that so many people waltz in and out of the cockpit prior to push back, with no reference to the skipper, just doing there own thing.
With all due respect, Spannersatcx, your post only serves to illustrate why there are so many problems like this in the company. Find out the facts before you comment!

Tekling, thanks for pointing out my ignorance, clearly I have no clue, so I will leave it at that. :rolleyes:

[morningcoffee]

Suggestion: Why don't we ALL just automatically support our colleague, until and if FACTS suggest otherwise. Her willing to go to court tells me that there are probably many FACTS about this case that CX hope will just go away. Time will tell. In the meantime, anyone who is willing to stand up to our management gets my vote.
You are aware I assume that it also involves CAD and therefore Boeing? If you feel strongly enough that the Manufacturer’s procedures were incorrect maybe you could take the stand in court and advise as such.

[Apple Tree Yard]

MC, where did AP say that he felt "the manufacturers procedures were incorrect"?. Did you have a late night out in LKF MorningCoffee? A bit too much of the powdered magic dust that many of the management seem to use? Also your grammar: "you are aware I assume".... Why would any of us be aware of what you "assume" ? (or care for that matter). Seriously, Why don't you and your other management sycophants start your own blog, say, PMRUNE. Then you can quietly go round in circles with your own kind and stop embarrassing yourself on our site.

[Slasher1]

All I can say in the big picture is if a well respected and conscientious Captain with a decent track record is forced to take the Company to court in order to address important issues then the culture of the Company must have become very bad indeed.

[cxorcist]

You are aware I assume that it also involves CAD and therefore Boeing? If you feel strongly enough that the Manufacturer’s procedures were incorrect maybe you could take the stand in court and advise as such.


Now you are just embarrassing yourself. The only question is whether you are a non-pilot, pilot manager or one of those non-pilots CX hires to be seat warmers.

[Air Profit]

All I can say in the big picture is if a well respected and conscientious Captain with a decent track record is forced to take the Company to court in order to address important issues then the culture of the Company must have become very bad indeed.
Sadly, it's very far beyond "very bad indeed". The company has become a travesty, brought there by years of inept and self-serving management, ably represented by our new fleet management, who can now apparently order us to fly when unfit, and dictate what we can and can't discuss in flight. Nothing to see here, move along....

[arse]

https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/qantas-crew-settle-lawsuit-decade-after-computer-sent-plane-into-dives-20180802-p4zv71.html

[positionalpor]

https://www.aerotime.aero/clement.charpentreau/21630-qantas-crew-reach-agreement-with-airbus-on-autopilot-incident?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=aussie_airlines_can_scrap_two_person_cockpit_ru le_should_they_aerotime&utm_term=2018-08-07

[Air Profit]

The way our Fleet office is going recently, there will be many more employee lawsuits to come. CX managements arrogance always does them in in the end. Recent developments adhering to that formula. Fascinates me that our CP would put into print a blatantly illegal statement regarding calling in sick after a reserve call out. Have that one downloaded and printed, waiting to give to your lawyer one day if needed. Now he wants to control our conversation as well, telling us we can't talk about "industrial" issues in the cockpit. Hmmm...what else DO we talk about? Signs of panic from the 3rd floor. All we have to do is hold our discipline and resolve. You can see the cracks appearing.