United GRU-ORD Divert to MIA to Offload Purser
Guest
Posts: n/a
I wonder what the old BOAC Captains, if there are any still out there, would have made out of this brouhaha?
In the midst of it all, I feel that we have not heard the Captain's story.
You don't make it to Captain in an organisation like UA by being a "bozo", as one unkind poster labelled this chap.
I find it hard to conceive of the fact that he would willingly divert his aircraft unless there was some major breakdown in crew relations.
As a mere PPL and sometime SFL on the larger stuff all I can say is that I tend to trust the people in the pointy end of those big jet things. I am very discriminating about what airlines I will fly with though.
With all due respect to the cabin crew (most of whom do an excellent job) I have yet not to reach my destination through the fault of a captain or his flying crew. I have though witnessed rudeness and intransigence from the folks in the back. Thinking back on just two examples I witnessed (one on a UA flight), I can easily conceive of why a Captain might divert to turf the cabin crew member off.
In the midst of it all, I feel that we have not heard the Captain's story.
You don't make it to Captain in an organisation like UA by being a "bozo", as one unkind poster labelled this chap.
I find it hard to conceive of the fact that he would willingly divert his aircraft unless there was some major breakdown in crew relations.
As a mere PPL and sometime SFL on the larger stuff all I can say is that I tend to trust the people in the pointy end of those big jet things. I am very discriminating about what airlines I will fly with though.
With all due respect to the cabin crew (most of whom do an excellent job) I have yet not to reach my destination through the fault of a captain or his flying crew. I have though witnessed rudeness and intransigence from the folks in the back. Thinking back on just two examples I witnessed (one on a UA flight), I can easily conceive of why a Captain might divert to turf the cabin crew member off.
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BasedonFActs, unless you can make a cool,level headed posting without even flinging abuse, I'm afraid your posts are not even going to get read.
I think you are lying here. Is it part of a desperate attempt to throw mud at the victim to try and keep yourself as clean as possible? Something was going on on that plane. i do not believe you- it being settled and the perpetrator thrown out. It is not settled that quickly, and legal people will be in on this.
If you respond, I suggest you try and do so coolly, and without abuse. For your information I am very much employed, and I know far more than you about command authority, responsibility, CRM (and what it REALLY means) and how to get the job done.
I think you are lying here. Is it part of a desperate attempt to throw mud at the victim to try and keep yourself as clean as possible? Something was going on on that plane. i do not believe you- it being settled and the perpetrator thrown out. It is not settled that quickly, and legal people will be in on this.
If you respond, I suggest you try and do so coolly, and without abuse. For your information I am very much employed, and I know far more than you about command authority, responsibility, CRM (and what it REALLY means) and how to get the job done.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: SINGAPORE
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
stillon,
i do concur with you. i have flown with around 120 yanks recently in an Asian carrier who have previous experiance on 6 diffent US carriers. And yes, all have without exception, maintained of problems with " Jurassic Park" in the rear. The stories i have heard are shocking.
Still, i do not feel that the diversion was neccessary, as it does indicate to all, an inability to handle a sticky situation.
If i may say in hindsight, the appropriate time to take action, is on the ground. And we may talk insurbordination, safety threat, or whatever.
i do concur with you. i have flown with around 120 yanks recently in an Asian carrier who have previous experiance on 6 diffent US carriers. And yes, all have without exception, maintained of problems with " Jurassic Park" in the rear. The stories i have heard are shocking.
Still, i do not feel that the diversion was neccessary, as it does indicate to all, an inability to handle a sticky situation.
If i may say in hindsight, the appropriate time to take action, is on the ground. And we may talk insurbordination, safety threat, or whatever.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Switzerland, Singapore
Posts: 1,309
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
stilton:
Your attitude is shoking.
The only place where the captain would have won is Asia. And a local captain. If expat, then fired immediatly. That's another reason to choose western airlines.
Dani
If this incident had happened outside the US there would have been a different outcome.
The only place where the captain would have won is Asia. And a local captain. If expat, then fired immediatly. That's another reason to choose western airlines.
Dani
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stilton wrote:
For your enlightenment Based on facts didn't actually say he NEEDED permission from flight ops to divert - just that he requested it and it was denied.
"For your enlightenment the Captain does not need 'flight operations permission' to land anywhere. Not even an 'angry customs agent' has this authority."
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At that stage, company communications are no problem. It doesn't look good, but he obviously felt upset enough that he was not safe continuing the flight. There are two routes here- 1- he was emotionally unbalanced within himself, or 2- events occurred on the plane to make a reasonable person not safe to remain a pilot inflight. We are being frantically assured (1) applies by someone claiming to be onboard. It will be an ongoing investigation to assess how far provocation (2) could be implicated in his state of mind.
However, it is quite clear that 'instant' dismissal for anyone is totally inappropriate. We either have a case of mental disturbance or a case of bizarre cabin crew behaviour. On the one hand treatment is appropriate in accord with FAA rules, or disciplinary procedures instituted with certain cabin crew members.
The Captain took the decision he was not able to continue under the circumstances current, and took the plane and passengers down for a safe landing. I'm looking for what is so wrong with that that instant dismissal is being demanded. Something provoked him to an enormous extent. But the answer is not wholesale sackings, disciplinaries or whatever. It is an unfortunate outcome to the flight, but what shines out is the circumstances and attitudes need official examination.
Then we come to the continuation of the flight. Having permitted this, the company has condoned the ongoing employ of the Captain. Subsequent official action has to look into why the flight was allowed to continue.
We are not getting the proper story from the person claiming to be involved. I would say no way has it been buttoned up and closed.
However, it is quite clear that 'instant' dismissal for anyone is totally inappropriate. We either have a case of mental disturbance or a case of bizarre cabin crew behaviour. On the one hand treatment is appropriate in accord with FAA rules, or disciplinary procedures instituted with certain cabin crew members.
The Captain took the decision he was not able to continue under the circumstances current, and took the plane and passengers down for a safe landing. I'm looking for what is so wrong with that that instant dismissal is being demanded. Something provoked him to an enormous extent. But the answer is not wholesale sackings, disciplinaries or whatever. It is an unfortunate outcome to the flight, but what shines out is the circumstances and attitudes need official examination.
Then we come to the continuation of the flight. Having permitted this, the company has condoned the ongoing employ of the Captain. Subsequent official action has to look into why the flight was allowed to continue.
We are not getting the proper story from the person claiming to be involved. I would say no way has it been buttoned up and closed.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 62
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pending new information, Rainboe's last post seems to succinctly and fairly sum up the position.
Given that this was not an incident nor an accident it is highly unlikely that we will ever get an "official" view of what happened here unless one of the parties seeks legal redress and even then out of court settlements or agreements may preclude public review of the detail of the case.
Given that this was not an incident nor an accident it is highly unlikely that we will ever get an "official" view of what happened here unless one of the parties seeks legal redress and even then out of court settlements or agreements may preclude public review of the detail of the case.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have read 'Based on facts' post and one thing strikes me as odd. Why would the customs agents be so concerned with the reasons for the divert after them being given by the aircraft commander. They have their realm of authority and whilst they may find it all a bit odd, I can't see them challenging a pilots decision to divert his aircraft. Surely they would have left that as being 'his business'. I did post before about reasonableness an proportionality but yes, now I wonder if all is yet known.
We fare paying passengers have been warned away from this thread. However, from the sidelines some of us have beeing viewing it with increasing dismay.
The only source that pertains to be anything close to a first hand account has been dismissed as biased and inaccurate. The reason? Apparently that a qualified captain could not possibly be so far off-beam in decision making for it to be true. This somewhat circular argument has then been used to pour increasing scorn and vitriol on the alleged eye witness account.
Whatever the final conclusions on this, this thread has done the profession a severe disservice in they eyes of those of us who nornally offer it our highest respect.
The only source that pertains to be anything close to a first hand account has been dismissed as biased and inaccurate. The reason? Apparently that a qualified captain could not possibly be so far off-beam in decision making for it to be true. This somewhat circular argument has then been used to pour increasing scorn and vitriol on the alleged eye witness account.
Whatever the final conclusions on this, this thread has done the profession a severe disservice in they eyes of those of us who nornally offer it our highest respect.
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't Hang Up- if that is your analysis, then you are misled by your own judgement. Outright verdicts at this stage on the flimsiest of news are built on sand. The alleged eyewitness report is plainly wrong and to call it biased would be an understatement. There is not enough data to produce a final verdict...period.
It may be the Captain may have had a breakdown, it may be there was sufficient provocation to create an unsafe environment to continue the flight. Whichever, the aeroplane and passengers were placed safely on the ground and continued to their destination with minor delay. The airline will find out what pertained. Pprune will have to rein in its usual 'shoot from the hip' damning judgements!
The least the crew deserve are privacy to put their cases and resolve the issue. But as far as I can see, the safety of all on board was ensured at all times. It therefore becomes a private airline issue and is of only use for professionals to discuss from a CRM point of view. Apart from the passengers being delayed slightly, there was no question of anybody's safety being compromised. Therefore uninformed comment from people who have no idea of the CRM issues involved are misleading to professionals who need to discuss such issues.
Exactly what added-value can unaffected passengers bring to the discussion? Safety was not compromised at all, so exactly why is your 'respect' affected? In short, your input is totally superfluous, and misleading to the issues involved for the professionals who have to work with this system. You can save your 'respect', but what is being discussed is really nothing to do with the paying public. It is an industry matter being discussed in a 'Professional Pilots Forum'. There is a clue in the title!
It may be the Captain may have had a breakdown, it may be there was sufficient provocation to create an unsafe environment to continue the flight. Whichever, the aeroplane and passengers were placed safely on the ground and continued to their destination with minor delay. The airline will find out what pertained. Pprune will have to rein in its usual 'shoot from the hip' damning judgements!
The least the crew deserve are privacy to put their cases and resolve the issue. But as far as I can see, the safety of all on board was ensured at all times. It therefore becomes a private airline issue and is of only use for professionals to discuss from a CRM point of view. Apart from the passengers being delayed slightly, there was no question of anybody's safety being compromised. Therefore uninformed comment from people who have no idea of the CRM issues involved are misleading to professionals who need to discuss such issues.
Exactly what added-value can unaffected passengers bring to the discussion? Safety was not compromised at all, so exactly why is your 'respect' affected? In short, your input is totally superfluous, and misleading to the issues involved for the professionals who have to work with this system. You can save your 'respect', but what is being discussed is really nothing to do with the paying public. It is an industry matter being discussed in a 'Professional Pilots Forum'. There is a clue in the title!
Join Date: May 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 62
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only source that pertains to be anything close to a first hand account has been dismissed as biased and inaccurate. The reason? Apparently that a qualified captain could not possibly be so far off-beam in decision making for it to be true. This somewhat circular argument has then been used to pour increasing scorn and vitriol on the alleged eye witness account.
Of course this thread is not a court nor does it purport to uphold justice or fairness. The forum deals in rumours and the contributors are anonymous. Nothing here is as it seems!
The alleged eyewitness report is plainly wrong and to call it biased would be an understatement
-The flight was diverted.
-The purser was offloaded.
-The captain was suspended.
-The purser was not suspended.
Against those facts, the alleged eye witness account does not stand out as 'plainly wrong'. I say no more or less than that. I acknowledge that the captain may be completely vindicated at some point in the future.
My opinion (judgement if you must) is only that the tone of this thread does not do justice to the profession it represents.
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The captain was not suspended. I understand he continued on duty. The situation was therefore resolved and the flight continued with the captain involved. He has presumably be taken off the roster whilst the circumstances are investigated. I doubt whether he has been instantly dismissed as one poster is trying to lead us to believe. That is plainly not a satisfactory outcome. The investigation into the actions will take some period.
Being 'suspended'/taken off the roster is a normal occurrence following any incident that requires investigating. It is not to be taken as an admission of culpability. I have had such an event several times where further investigation is needed. It does NOT mean 'it was his fault'. This is where people here have no understanding of airline procedures, but the fact it has happened here implies to them 'guilt'.
Being 'suspended'/taken off the roster is a normal occurrence following any incident that requires investigating. It is not to be taken as an admission of culpability. I have had such an event several times where further investigation is needed. It does NOT mean 'it was his fault'. This is where people here have no understanding of airline procedures, but the fact it has happened here implies to them 'guilt'.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: us
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NamibFox, you are likely to be quite right.
One of the perils of the Web is that if one version of a story gets Web-published and disseminated, it tends to gain in credibility if it is not challenged and/or corrected. Some of the assertions in Based on facts account have been out there for a week or more, without refutation that I've seen, e.g., the actions supposedly taken by both United and the FAA against the captain. Those are not matters of nuance or interpretation.
__________________
Kappa, thanks for noting where I missed that point re: the captain's medical condition in Based on facts account.
__________________
And can people, even pilots, lose it emotionally in unexpected and sudden ways? Yep. Once after a catastrophic, aerospace-related accident, an individual became so distressed that he said something that suggested he had become momentarily unhinged. I'm not going to identify the individual or his position, but to crudely analogize to AF 447, it would be as if the Chairman of Air France had told (with great and obvious sincerity) the Chief Pilot (or the Chief Pilot telling an assembly of AF pilots) that he 'had spoken to God, and God had assurred him that Air France would have no more accidents.' I still remember my reaction on hearing this, which was roughly 'WTF? its not even his machine!'
One of the perils of the Web is that if one version of a story gets Web-published and disseminated, it tends to gain in credibility if it is not challenged and/or corrected. Some of the assertions in Based on facts account have been out there for a week or more, without refutation that I've seen, e.g., the actions supposedly taken by both United and the FAA against the captain. Those are not matters of nuance or interpretation.
__________________
Kappa, thanks for noting where I missed that point re: the captain's medical condition in Based on facts account.
__________________
And can people, even pilots, lose it emotionally in unexpected and sudden ways? Yep. Once after a catastrophic, aerospace-related accident, an individual became so distressed that he said something that suggested he had become momentarily unhinged. I'm not going to identify the individual or his position, but to crudely analogize to AF 447, it would be as if the Chairman of Air France had told (with great and obvious sincerity) the Chief Pilot (or the Chief Pilot telling an assembly of AF pilots) that he 'had spoken to God, and God had assurred him that Air France would have no more accidents.' I still remember my reaction on hearing this, which was roughly 'WTF? its not even his machine!'
Customs being upset
I can imagine customs were not in the least happy with the captain.
A plane load of people suddenly showing up on your doorstep happens but I'm sure it adds a lot to the night shift workload. If it appears not to be a real emergency but what looks like the toys flying out of the pram some one has to answer.
As said earlier in the air it is the captains call, no question. On the ground you better have a good story.
This incident cost the airline a lot of money and worse bad publicity. The man in front will have to answer for it all.
Something about the whole thing has a fishy smell to it.
20driver
A plane load of people suddenly showing up on your doorstep happens but I'm sure it adds a lot to the night shift workload. If it appears not to be a real emergency but what looks like the toys flying out of the pram some one has to answer.
As said earlier in the air it is the captains call, no question. On the ground you better have a good story.
This incident cost the airline a lot of money and worse bad publicity. The man in front will have to answer for it all.
Something about the whole thing has a fishy smell to it.
20driver
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Brazil
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have no reason to doubt BoF's account, but it would be nice to hear the FD side of things. Knee operations are quite painful healing, and if the captain was taking some strong medication for it, is it possible that he had an adverse reaction, to say the least? Even a low level but constant nagging pain can lead some people to distraction.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Queensland, Australia
Age: 71
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As another SLF (daily reader, rare poster) I'm going to stick my head above the parapet to comment on this thread rather than the specifics of this event.
It's patently obvious to anyone looking at this objectively that both sides of this debate are indulging in something that all too often happens: reaching conclusions based on unsupported facts.
In the course of this topic we've seen a highly experienced airline pilot accused of a psychotic episode, a medical diagnosis. Maybe...but we simply don't know enough to justify this conclusion.
At the same time we've seen a senior FA accused of refusing to obey a lawful command from the captain. However, we don't even know this for sure--there's a huge difference between "no" and "give me a moment--I need to find somebody else to guard the door when I open it". Either could be true--again we don't know.
Even the facts (which I assume to be true) that the purser is working while the pilot is suspended are circumstantial at best. There could be other reasons for this besides a final resolution to the incident.
Frankly, most of the posts here are telling me more about the personalities of those contributing than about the rights and wrongs of the actual incident.
Bob
It's patently obvious to anyone looking at this objectively that both sides of this debate are indulging in something that all too often happens: reaching conclusions based on unsupported facts.
In the course of this topic we've seen a highly experienced airline pilot accused of a psychotic episode, a medical diagnosis. Maybe...but we simply don't know enough to justify this conclusion.
At the same time we've seen a senior FA accused of refusing to obey a lawful command from the captain. However, we don't even know this for sure--there's a huge difference between "no" and "give me a moment--I need to find somebody else to guard the door when I open it". Either could be true--again we don't know.
Even the facts (which I assume to be true) that the purser is working while the pilot is suspended are circumstantial at best. There could be other reasons for this besides a final resolution to the incident.
Frankly, most of the posts here are telling me more about the personalities of those contributing than about the rights and wrongs of the actual incident.
Bob
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sweden
Age: 63
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gibon2
What a great post!! thanks
But sadly Rainboe will tear that facts apart also,,remember,,,NEVER question a Pilot or/and especially not a Captain, if you do,,,
( The attitude in here tells me that the story the "eyewitness" telling could be much possible true)
What a great post!! thanks
But sadly Rainboe will tear that facts apart also,,remember,,,NEVER question a Pilot or/and especially not a Captain, if you do,,,
( The attitude in here tells me that the story the "eyewitness" telling could be much possible true)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: US
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If 'based on facts' recounting of the dispute that led to the captains decision to divert the flight to MIA and offload the purser is essentially correct. Then it would appear his career as a modern day Queeg is likely over, as it should be. My only concern is that UAL management waited until the aircraft and its passengers were safely back in Chicago to make that determination.