United GRU-ORD Divert to MIA to Offload Purser

[sharksandwich]

namibfox

Absolutely!
Helios?
NY river?

[IcePack]

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

[Rainboe]

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

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

[snaproll3480]

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

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

[Rananim]

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

[Cacophonix]

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

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

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

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

Flight Discipline - Google Books

[teddybear44]

Ice

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

[Desert Diner]

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

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

[suninmyeyes]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suninmyeyes (widebodied Boeing Captain 15,000 hours)

[SaturnV]

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

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

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

[BOAC]

Originally Posted by sun

If he was a professional pilot positioning on a reputable airline he would not give it a thought as he would trust the flight crew to make the appropriate decision.

- don't you think our 'professional pilot positioning' might have been a bit disappointed on the Emirates flight?

[bigjames]

authority

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

[suninmyeyes]

BOAC

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

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

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

[Nigd3]

dumb question maybe

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

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

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

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

[DartHerald]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[overthewing]

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

Refusing to let the CC serve food/drink?

Threatening passengers/crew?

Attacking passengers/crew?

Refusing to service the flight deck?

Trying to open doors/smash windows?


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

[BOAC]

Originally Posted by Nigd3

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

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

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

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

[virginblue]

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

[FrequentSLF]

BOAC

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

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

[Dani]

Rananim:

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

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

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

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

Dani