United GRU-ORD Divert to MIA to Offload Purser
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
20driver,
Assuming Customs met the aircraft, boarded and spoke to the Captain, they would presumably be informed as to the reason for diversion and that after that they might conclude that it would not be their direct concern as to the exact detail of how the machine met Terra firma. I can't see them being overly challenging about alternative courses of action in the air, surely not their remit. There has been a diversion (happens now and again) and they would just eliminate their own concerns e.g Med divs etc. Put simply, there has been a diversion for whatever reason, the pax / crew are then processed in accordance with procedures by the authorities. Customs might wonder about it all, but 'speak sternly' to the Captain about a decision (right or wrong) to divert or to be angry about it, I'm not convinced about that.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I'm not sure whether the captain, L.S., was 'suspended' but it does appear in the UAL scheduling computer that his next trip was dropped.
And there are several ways you can be removed from flying by the feds, they can pull your license, take your medical or put you in TSA 'no fly' status until you prove fit to fly. I've seen all of the above in recent years after various incidents.
The fact that the captain continued on duty after the divert reminds me of what the pilots of the 89th MAW, the operators of Air Force One, are told: you are allowed one mistake and you won't be fired until you get home from the trip!
And there are several ways you can be removed from flying by the feds, they can pull your license, take your medical or put you in TSA 'no fly' status until you prove fit to fly. I've seen all of the above in recent years after various incidents.
The fact that the captain continued on duty after the divert reminds me of what the pilots of the 89th MAW, the operators of Air Force One, are told: you are allowed one mistake and you won't be fired until you get home from the trip!
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: US
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This has come up in several posts. I believe that UAL management had no time to gather all the personnel related facts before allowing the flight to continue and relied upon the acceptance of the continuing crew that the flight could operate safely with that crew.
Put simply, there has been a diversion for whatever reason, the pax / crew are then processed in accordance with procedures by the authorities. Customs might wonder about it all, but speak sternly to the Captain about a decision (right or wrong) to divert or to be angry about it, I'm not convinced about that.
I'm sure the captain picked MIA for its 24 hour, 1hr notice customs availability over the more onerous requirements for landing at MCO out of normal hours in the middle of the night, where United has a base. But as the captain appears to have received the documents he demanded and with no prospect of an ugly face to face confrontation with the purser unless the captain chose to initiate one, I can see no justification for the captains actions. That the rest of the crew, US customs and TSA were able to accomodate the diversion with the minimum of inconvenience to passengers does little to mitigate the captains strange decision and the still significant inconvenience suffered by the passengers and the government agencies tasked with processing them, nor the damage necessarily incurred to UAL's reputation or the significant costs involved. Sure, let's try to keep an open mind until all the details are in. But I'm having a hard time justifying the diversion, short of some percieved threat to the continued safety of the flight which only the captain seems to have been cognizant of. In short, not looking good for Queeg.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MU3001A
Based on the available and unless /until other info comes to the fore, I tend to agree with your sentiment in your final sentence. What I said re Customs however, I believe ditto Immigration. They process arrivals at the Port of Entry after landing. If the Pilot diverts the flight (rightly or wrongly) then they have an additional arrival to control. Unless the arrival was at an unapproved airstrip (obviously not) then they are presumably able to accommodate the odd diversion within operating hours. Arrivals are delayed all the time so are out of sequence anyway. I just found it odd that any of those agencies might 'speak sternly' even in these circs.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Rochester, NY
Age: 60
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CVR
I haven't seen any mention of the CVR. Would it have possible to have the CVR contents downloaded when they arrived at ORD? Not sure if this would even be legal or fesible, but the conversation between the Captain and FO would have be insteresting to hear.
Ckeough
Ckeough
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: chicago
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last Entry from Based on Facts
This is the last entry I will post on this board. While some of you think I am "lying," I'm not credible or I don't know the whole story...YOU ARE INCORRECT. I am not lying, I am credible and I DO know the WHOLE story...unlike any of you. Wherther you believe me or not...I could care less. I took time to wrute these posts to shed alittle light on a situation that I have info about that NONE of you do.
It is very possible that this capt. had a "break from reality" as THIS WAS NOT PROVOKED by our Purser. She spent most of the flight helping in all 3 cabins and had very limited interaction with the captain. There was no arguement, tensions were not running high and absolutely no predisposing factor to warrant this landing. The Customs Agents were not told the exact nature of the unscheduled landing. They were told that we were landing due to a safety threat and something was happening on the airplane. They were prepared for the worst...they were not sure of what they were walking into. And yes, they asked, if the captain couldn't have found a better solution. In this country (USA) we take this sort of action very seriously and when they realized that the only reason the aircraft landed was because the captain didn't get papers within 30 minutes after take off, that he only needed upon landing and that the our Purser DID give him his Crew Decs. when he asked, they were dumbfounded that he actually landed. They then turned their attention to our Purser and asked if she was alright. In years past this might not have been as big of a deal as it is now. Due to "9/11," our country is always on alert for any suspect activity concerning air travel and the fact that this captain landed for such a lame reason is mind numbing to us all. Had it not been for our Purser the fkight would NOT have continued. We as a crew wanted to walk off with her but she asked us to please continue as someone had to think of the psgrs. The aircraft and psgs. needed to get to ORD. If she was such a threat...why did he wait until 6 hrs. into the flight to land. There are plenty of places, if there had been a real threat, to land...obviously there was not a threat but an ego bloated captain whose medical history puts a question mark in our minds as to whether he might have been on medication or not for pain etc. At least that would be an understandable reason for what he did. I have no knowledge of that, but I know this was his first trip back in 4 months due to knee surgery. He has a reputation/history of throwiing F/A's off the aircraft on a whim. Last year he threw someone off (on the ground) for not shaking his hand! This fact is documented.
Face it Rainboe and the rest of you who take up for this captain. I applaud you for your loyalty but sometimes that loyalty can be misplaced. Just as there are Flight Attendants that shouldn't be flying there are pilots that shouldn't be flying. For those of you who talk about "Jurassic Park" F/A's...I'll take them any day as they have the experience and knowledge to get me off an airplane should there be a need. While I don't have near the senority of our Purser, I do hope I can aquire her skill. I do know she comes with nothing but an outstanding reputation that she earned over years of service. The captain comes with a tarnished reputation that he also earned. It's time for you "dinosaur" pilots to come into this century and realize that you do not get respect just because you're in the left seat...YOU MUST EARN IT...just like the rest of us.
It is very possible that this capt. had a "break from reality" as THIS WAS NOT PROVOKED by our Purser. She spent most of the flight helping in all 3 cabins and had very limited interaction with the captain. There was no arguement, tensions were not running high and absolutely no predisposing factor to warrant this landing. The Customs Agents were not told the exact nature of the unscheduled landing. They were told that we were landing due to a safety threat and something was happening on the airplane. They were prepared for the worst...they were not sure of what they were walking into. And yes, they asked, if the captain couldn't have found a better solution. In this country (USA) we take this sort of action very seriously and when they realized that the only reason the aircraft landed was because the captain didn't get papers within 30 minutes after take off, that he only needed upon landing and that the our Purser DID give him his Crew Decs. when he asked, they were dumbfounded that he actually landed. They then turned their attention to our Purser and asked if she was alright. In years past this might not have been as big of a deal as it is now. Due to "9/11," our country is always on alert for any suspect activity concerning air travel and the fact that this captain landed for such a lame reason is mind numbing to us all. Had it not been for our Purser the fkight would NOT have continued. We as a crew wanted to walk off with her but she asked us to please continue as someone had to think of the psgrs. The aircraft and psgs. needed to get to ORD. If she was such a threat...why did he wait until 6 hrs. into the flight to land. There are plenty of places, if there had been a real threat, to land...obviously there was not a threat but an ego bloated captain whose medical history puts a question mark in our minds as to whether he might have been on medication or not for pain etc. At least that would be an understandable reason for what he did. I have no knowledge of that, but I know this was his first trip back in 4 months due to knee surgery. He has a reputation/history of throwiing F/A's off the aircraft on a whim. Last year he threw someone off (on the ground) for not shaking his hand! This fact is documented.
Face it Rainboe and the rest of you who take up for this captain. I applaud you for your loyalty but sometimes that loyalty can be misplaced. Just as there are Flight Attendants that shouldn't be flying there are pilots that shouldn't be flying. For those of you who talk about "Jurassic Park" F/A's...I'll take them any day as they have the experience and knowledge to get me off an airplane should there be a need. While I don't have near the senority of our Purser, I do hope I can aquire her skill. I do know she comes with nothing but an outstanding reputation that she earned over years of service. The captain comes with a tarnished reputation that he also earned. It's time for you "dinosaur" pilots to come into this century and realize that you do not get respect just because you're in the left seat...YOU MUST EARN IT...just like the rest of us.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sweden
Age: 63
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
based on facts
I donīt think you need to defend your self nor the Purser,,especially not here on the "professional pilot forum"
common sense rules as always
I donīt think you need to defend your self nor the Purser,,especially not here on the "professional pilot forum"
common sense rules as always
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 929
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Respect? Yes one has to earn it. But just like in the military it is not the person who you respect necessarily but the uniform and what it represents. Or as I said earlier you just have anarchy.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cardiff
Age: 59
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Sad State of Affairs
It's time for you "dinosaur" pilots to come into this century and realize that you do not get respect just because you're in the left seat...YOU MUST EARN IT...just like the rest of us.
Your immature rantings, factual or not, seem back to front to me. Maybe I'm old fashioned but someone who has attained the left hand seat of a large jet transport at a major carrier, has certainly earned my respect. In fact, as a general rule, I respect other people until such time as their behaviour or actions warrant a re-appraisal of my position.
I have no idea whether you are genuine or an internet troll, either way, we have not heard the Captain's side of this story or the Purser's. You appear to have some other axe to grind over and above this particular incident.
BTW, if your account is genuine, why were the papers pushed under the door in the near certain knowledge that the flight crew would probably not notice them. Seems a tad provocative to me.
I think there is far more to this incident than meets the eye. Even if I am completely wrong and the Captain did indeed suffer some major psychotic episode, I don't think it is very professional of you to come on a public forum and attack him in this way. Why not just give your account to UAL in private?
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Patterson, NY
Age: 66
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Icepack. I was in the U.S. military (Army) for several years. And in combat as well. (Grenada in 1983). I agree with your assertion that it is the uniform that one respects.
However, if the uniform is inhabited by a complete fool then, yes, you follow his/her
orders regardless. But you do so not at all out of respect. You do so because the alternative, possible courts martial or demotion, is not palatable. Having said that, I've also served under many fine officers and NCOs who I would have gladly followed to the gates of hell. Respect is earned, indeed. Both ways.
However, if the uniform is inhabited by a complete fool then, yes, you follow his/her
orders regardless. But you do so not at all out of respect. You do so because the alternative, possible courts martial or demotion, is not palatable. Having said that, I've also served under many fine officers and NCOs who I would have gladly followed to the gates of hell. Respect is earned, indeed. Both ways.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 62
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One can't be sure but the post is anguished enough to be genuine.
In all this one thing is for sure, whoever is responsible for CRM at UA has their work cut out for them.
In all this one thing is for sure, whoever is responsible for CRM at UA has their work cut out for them.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many here are unwilling or unable to see past the in-your face tone of some of Rainboeīs posts. In some ways understandable, but unfortunate none the less.
Unfortunate especially for those who do not work within civil aviation yet come to PPRuNe because they are interested in our world. If you allow yourself to look beyond Rainboeīs tone, the man is a goldmine.
A goldmine when it comes to explaining what actually happens on-board but beyond the view of the pax.
A goldmine when it comes to explaining why things happen.
A goldmine when it comes to explaining how pilots think, how they work together, how the decision making process works on board and how professional cockpit and cabin personnel interact with each other and with various ground departments.
If you are here to learn, you can do a lot worse than absorbing a Rainboe-rant.
If you are here merely to opine on things you really do not know about, absorbing a Rainboe-rant is just the ticket as well.
****************************************************
The case at hand. None of us knows what really happens. From what we read by BoF, with Airbubba corroborating that the Captn in question is not for the moment flying, we can form an opinion. Based on scant facts.
Standard procedure in my particular airline is that when management or the authorities feel the need to look into the actions of crew members involved in whatever kind of incident (or behaviour that was unlawful/in contradiction of SOPs even if the behaviour did not lead to incident), all crew members directly involved are suspended from flying duties until the facts are clear and decisions have been made.
Do we know for a fact, other than from BoF, that the Purser in question was not suspended? We donīt.
And if she wasnīt, to me that seems very odd indeed.
In this post BoF describes what went down according to him/her.
BoF seems to think that the above scenario clearly puts the Captn in the wrong, and the Purser in the right.
Reading it with my CSD/Sr Purser half-spectacles on, I disagree with BoF.
If the Captan wants the crew decs right now, itīs the Purserīs job to supply the crew decs right now. Chain of command, easy peasy.
As per BoF, it takes 30 secs to fill them out. On an 11 hour flight, the Purser has the time to both fill them out, go through the procedure of getting into the cockpit and hand them to the Captn without this in any way shape or form impacting negatively on the service to the pax.
Yes it is inconvenient, yes it seems to the Purser unreasonable and illogical but as Purser, thatīs what you have to deal with.
Heīs the Captn, youīre the Purser, and as long as a request from the Captn doesnīt put peopleīs lives in danger, you deal with a Captnīs request promptly and courteously.
If you have understood during the trip that the guy is difficult, hard to please and a pain in the rear, it is your responsibility to deal with his requests even more promptly and more courteously to avoid exactly the kind of thing that happened here.
Many here harp on about how it is possible for a Captn to lose it. Yes it is possible, but it is very very unlikely. In 28 years on the line, I have never seen it happen, nor have I ever heard about it from colleagues.
I have seen guys who in my and other peopleīs opinion were not fit to be Captn, and invariably they were eventually retrained, retired or demoted.
In a large airline, where the pilot department is still run by pilots rather than beancounters, the system works. Not always quickly, but it works.
The chance that a mentally unstable individual becomes and remains Captain in a company like United is infinitesimal.
Difficult, arrogant, hard to work with, yes they exist.
Mentally unstable, very very unlikely.
As Purser, you have many different responsibilities, requiring a diverse set of skills. One of the responsibilities is dealing with Captains who are not to your liking and whose requests clearly demonstrate a lack of understanding for and empathy with their cabin crew.
Winding up a Captn who has an inflated sense of his own importance is the easiest thing in the world for any Purser worth his/her stripes.
Been there, done that.
Dealing with such an individual without anything escalating can make your blood boil and give you an instant ulcer, but it is the only professional option. That and reporting him after the trip for his unreasonable behaviour.
The ability to deal effectively with a well known īdifficultī Captn should certainly be part of an experienced Purserīs skill set.
This Captain and Purser were unable to complete a normal 4 day trip together.
From what BoF writes, it reads to me as if both, in different ways, failed to uphold the professional standard demanded by their rank and their pay.
of Rainboeīs posts. In some ways understandable, but unfortunate none the less.Unfortunate especially for those who do not work within civil aviation yet come to PPRuNe because they are interested in our world. If you allow yourself to look beyond Rainboeīs tone, the man is a goldmine.
A goldmine when it comes to explaining what actually happens on-board but beyond the view of the pax.
A goldmine when it comes to explaining why things happen.
A goldmine when it comes to explaining how pilots think, how they work together, how the decision making process works on board and how professional cockpit and cabin personnel interact with each other and with various ground departments.
If you are here to learn, you can do a lot worse than absorbing a Rainboe-rant.
If you are here merely to opine on things you really do not know about, absorbing a Rainboe-rant is just the ticket as well.
****************************************************
The case at hand. None of us knows what really happens. From what we read by BoF, with Airbubba corroborating that the Captn in question is not for the moment flying, we can form an opinion. Based on scant facts.
Standard procedure in my particular airline is that when management or the authorities feel the need to look into the actions of crew members involved in whatever kind of incident (or behaviour that was unlawful/in contradiction of SOPs even if the behaviour did not lead to incident), all crew members directly involved are suspended from flying duties until the facts are clear and decisions have been made.
Do we know for a fact, other than from BoF, that the Purser in question was not suspended? We donīt.
And if she wasnīt, to me that seems very odd indeed.
In this post BoF describes what went down according to him/her.
- The Captn informed the Purser that he wanted the crew decs.
- The Purser, instead of complying, asked if she could supply them at a later time, more convenient to her.
- The Captn informed the Purser that he wanted the crew decs immediately.
- Instead of delivering them in the normal fashion, the Purser pushed them under the cockpit door.
BoF seems to think that the above scenario clearly puts the Captn in the wrong, and the Purser in the right.
Reading it with my CSD/Sr Purser half-spectacles on, I disagree with BoF.
If the Captan wants the crew decs right now, itīs the Purserīs job to supply the crew decs right now. Chain of command, easy peasy.
As per BoF, it takes 30 secs to fill them out. On an 11 hour flight, the Purser has the time to both fill them out, go through the procedure of getting into the cockpit and hand them to the Captn without this in any way shape or form impacting negatively on the service to the pax.
Yes it is inconvenient, yes it seems to the Purser unreasonable and illogical but as Purser, thatīs what you have to deal with.
Heīs the Captn, youīre the Purser, and as long as a request from the Captn doesnīt put peopleīs lives in danger, you deal with a Captnīs request promptly and courteously.
If you have understood during the trip that the guy is difficult, hard to please and a pain in the rear, it is your responsibility to deal with his requests even more promptly and more courteously to avoid exactly the kind of thing that happened here.
Many here harp on about how it is possible for a Captn to lose it. Yes it is possible, but it is very very unlikely. In 28 years on the line, I have never seen it happen, nor have I ever heard about it from colleagues.
I have seen guys who in my and other peopleīs opinion were not fit to be Captn, and invariably they were eventually retrained, retired or demoted.
In a large airline, where the pilot department is still run by pilots rather than beancounters, the system works. Not always quickly, but it works.
The chance that a mentally unstable individual becomes and remains Captain in a company like United is infinitesimal.
Difficult, arrogant, hard to work with, yes they exist.
Mentally unstable, very very unlikely.
As Purser, you have many different responsibilities, requiring a diverse set of skills. One of the responsibilities is dealing with Captains who are not to your liking and whose requests clearly demonstrate a lack of understanding for and empathy with their cabin crew.
Winding up a Captn who has an inflated sense of his own importance is the easiest thing in the world for any Purser worth his/her stripes.
Been there, done that.
Dealing with such an individual without anything escalating can make your blood boil and give you an instant ulcer, but it is the only professional option. That and reporting him after the trip for his unreasonable behaviour.
The ability to deal effectively with a well known īdifficultī Captn should certainly be part of an experienced Purserīs skill set.
This Captain and Purser were unable to complete a normal 4 day trip together.
From what BoF writes, it reads to me as if both, in different ways, failed to uphold the professional standard demanded by their rank and their pay.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sweden
Age: 63
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think there is far more to this incident than meets the eye. Even if I am completely wrong and the Captain did indeed suffer some major psychotic episode, I don't think it is very professional of you to come on a public forum and attack him in this way. Why not just give your account to UAL in private?
Did i misunderstand something here? or did he indeed post here because someone already did hang the purser before trial!?
Or the Purser are not of notice?
Join Date: May 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 62
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CRM is real
But you do so not at all out of respect. You do so because the alternative, possible courts martial or demotion, is not palatable. Having said that, I've also served under many fine officers and NCOs who I would have gladly followed to the gates of hell. Respect is earned, indeed. Both ways.
Industry CRM Developers - Situational Awareness Management Course Outline
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sticky issue
Based of facts. I speak on this issue having served in both sides of the cockpit door, currently a pilot for the airline. One thing we all must understand. The company and the FAA have named the Captain to be the person in command of an aircraft.
A similar issue occured years ago when I was an FO where the Captain and the purser disagreed on the middle of the flight. At that occasion the Captain simply "demoted" the purser and the second most senior FA took the purser functions for the duration of the flight.
I think it was absurd and unprofessional of this UAL Captain to divert for such a reason; however, if a situation is not critical or places the safety of the flight in questionk, one should do just like the Captain asked, then later report to their superiors; but until then (and that serves for FO's too) we need to understand Captain's authority. SUch Authority is his right; not needed to be earned.
I would send both to the full initial CLR 5-day remedial training.
Best wishes to all
A similar issue occured years ago when I was an FO where the Captain and the purser disagreed on the middle of the flight. At that occasion the Captain simply "demoted" the purser and the second most senior FA took the purser functions for the duration of the flight.
I think it was absurd and unprofessional of this UAL Captain to divert for such a reason; however, if a situation is not critical or places the safety of the flight in questionk, one should do just like the Captain asked, then later report to their superiors; but until then (and that serves for FO's too) we need to understand Captain's authority. SUch Authority is his right; not needed to be earned.
I would send both to the full initial CLR 5-day remedial training.
Best wishes to all
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Patterson, NY
Age: 66
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BoeingDriverUSA: So what does one do with a Captain who abuses his/her
authority? Is that not indicative of a more deep-rooted issue? I'm not asserting that
this is the case with the Captain in question. I ask in general terms.
authority? Is that not indicative of a more deep-rooted issue? I'm not asserting that
this is the case with the Captain in question. I ask in general terms.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sweden
Age: 63
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Juud
Roger that,,
Regarding the case,,whatever the Captains or pursers wrong doing (as we donīt know) the question are still if it was necessary to involve the passengers in this vendetta by Divert?
Roger that,,
Regarding the case,,whatever the Captains or pursers wrong doing (as we donīt know) the question are still if it was necessary to involve the passengers in this vendetta by Divert?
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why is nobody adressing the fact that the "threat" happened 30 minutes into the flight and the plane landed, err, 6h30mins into the flight to remove this "threat"?
For me, this looks as if the captain has got himself into a catch22 situation: Either he screwed up because he continued the flight for 6hrs after the incident or he screwed up because the situation allowed him to continue (read: no threat) and he still went to MIA. Whatever is true, going to MIA is difficult to be judged as the right decision - either you get rid of her as quickly as possible or you just go all the way to ORD.
As an aside, you may not like the story presented by "based on facts" and may doubt it - fair enough -, but there is absolutley no reason to hurl abuse at her and call her liar.
For me, this looks as if the captain has got himself into a catch22 situation: Either he screwed up because he continued the flight for 6hrs after the incident or he screwed up because the situation allowed him to continue (read: no threat) and he still went to MIA. Whatever is true, going to MIA is difficult to be judged as the right decision - either you get rid of her as quickly as possible or you just go all the way to ORD.
As an aside, you may not like the story presented by "based on facts" and may doubt it - fair enough -, but there is absolutley no reason to hurl abuse at her and call her liar.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Rugby
Posts: 883
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote Rainboe (#227)
All of us can appreciate that occasionally things happen that are upsetting. The Captain asked for the crew decs before the time normally expected, ( he may have had good reasons) He got upset when the Purser apparently childishly stuffed the documents under the door instead of delivering them in a proper manner. It seems to a disinterested observer that neither of them behaved in a professional manner.
No doubt that UA will have (or even had) an enquiry into the happenings. They are under no obligation to publish their findings, we may never know officially what happened on the flight.
With regard to the state of mind of both individuals involved, I am reminded of an incident at Bristol a few years ago. The captain of a flight had a "vigorous exchange of views" with a member of the airside groundcrew just before the flight was due to depart. The Captain delayed the flight for a few minutes (about 10min as I recall) to "gather his thoughts". Perhaps this long thread and the sometimes mis-informed speculation, could have been avoided if both participants had spent a few minutes "gathering their thoughts" before the situation developed as it did. A word of apology from either of the parties could have defused the situation and allowed the flight to continue and the dispute to be settled after landing.
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.
No doubt that UA will have (or even had) an enquiry into the happenings. They are under no obligation to publish their findings, we may never know officially what happened on the flight.
With regard to the state of mind of both individuals involved, I am reminded of an incident at Bristol a few years ago. The captain of a flight had a "vigorous exchange of views" with a member of the airside groundcrew just before the flight was due to depart. The Captain delayed the flight for a few minutes (about 10min as I recall) to "gather his thoughts". Perhaps this long thread and the sometimes mis-informed speculation, could have been avoided if both participants had spent a few minutes "gathering their thoughts" before the situation developed as it did. A word of apology from either of the parties could have defused the situation and allowed the flight to continue and the dispute to be settled after landing.