United GRU-ORD Divert to MIA to Offload Purser
Guest
Posts: n/a
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: DORSET
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Generosity
I can't remember if I removed the original post, or if a mod did.
I am sure few would doubt that the reason this thread has run and run is because it is important.
Team work is essential if problems are to be avoided in any service industry, and obviously vitally important in any emergency.
In my original post, I pointed out the Capt had been off work for over a year, and I queried why (was told a knee injury).
Whatever, he was back to doing a high-stress job, may or may not have made an error of judgement, we just don't know.
We don't know for certain what stresses there may have been among the crew.
What I suggested was, we should not castigate the chap until we know the circumstances.
I ended the post with, "there but for the grace of...."
I am always amazed that colleagues, or those doing similar jobs are the first to attribute blame...
I am sure few would doubt that the reason this thread has run and run is because it is important.
Team work is essential if problems are to be avoided in any service industry, and obviously vitally important in any emergency.
In my original post, I pointed out the Capt had been off work for over a year, and I queried why (was told a knee injury).
Whatever, he was back to doing a high-stress job, may or may not have made an error of judgement, we just don't know.
We don't know for certain what stresses there may have been among the crew.
What I suggested was, we should not castigate the chap until we know the circumstances.
I ended the post with, "there but for the grace of...."
I am always amazed that colleagues, or those doing similar jobs are the first to attribute blame...
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
Quite right! The voices of reason are at last making themselves heard over the clamour of 'thumbs down' calls on this one. Contrary to some, I have not been defending anyone or making accusations in this thread. But the captain does have some explaining of his decision, as any pilot knows. He does not need a unanimous verdict of 'guilty' here based on 50% of the story. The 50% that comes from people who decided 'one more flight, then we'll do 'im!'. I think a lot of explaining should be needed from the whole crew in this bizarre saga!
We've had 'experts' from other fields give us the (irrelevant) advice they feel applies. How would a military man like it if I pontificated on terms of engagement and what the military should and should not do in Afghanistan? I think the answer would be 'thank you v much, but MYOB- you have no idea what it is like on the ground with booby traps everywhere!'. As for the most useless advice of all, 'business solutions to staff conflict', well thank you very much, but when your office is sliding along at 600mph and rocking 30 degrees either side, with limited endurance and thunderstorms to cope with, I will be glad to hear what your (amended) advice has changed to!
To the rest of the smart arses whose only CRM qualification is ownership of a keyboard, 'thanks, but don't bother (me) again with your pointless and ignorant opinions! You actually know rock-all about it!' And for Dani with your 'I am one of you, you are one of me, we are all equals together!' command philosophy, after that, if you ask for the GenDecs, you will probably be told 'why should I get them for you- get them yourself!'
We've had 'experts' from other fields give us the (irrelevant) advice they feel applies. How would a military man like it if I pontificated on terms of engagement and what the military should and should not do in Afghanistan? I think the answer would be 'thank you v much, but MYOB- you have no idea what it is like on the ground with booby traps everywhere!'. As for the most useless advice of all, 'business solutions to staff conflict', well thank you very much, but when your office is sliding along at 600mph and rocking 30 degrees either side, with limited endurance and thunderstorms to cope with, I will be glad to hear what your (amended) advice has changed to!
To the rest of the smart arses whose only CRM qualification is ownership of a keyboard, 'thanks, but don't bother (me) again with your pointless and ignorant opinions! You actually know rock-all about it!' And for Dani with your 'I am one of you, you are one of me, we are all equals together!' command philosophy, after that, if you ask for the GenDecs, you will probably be told 'why should I get them for you- get them yourself!'
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do we have any more news, or just conjecture? Anything from UA, 'Based on fact'? Anyone any of the 'inside'?
For those who don't know: Occam's Razor
Delightfully simple.
For those who don't know: Occam's Razor
Delightfully simple.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets see if I get this Oxcam’s theory
1)Simplest and most logical of two theories is usually the correct one
2)Since only reasonable legal reason to divert is that the purser was a threat to security, (possibly running wild threatening passengers with a hot pot of coffee)
3) Since most Captains, even 411A
would not demand papers not required immediately, delivered on the spot, if it means disrupting cabin service
4) Since most Captains have enough smarts to deal with staff problems without diverting. (Heard UAL’s new SOPs will include use of handcuffs for unruly flight crew)
4) Logical conclusion.The Captain “lost it” and made a bad decision…until it is proven that flying saucers really exist. But if they do, the Captain maybe made a good decision.
5)Or maybe the aluminum projectile was “sliding along at 600 and rocking 30 degrees either side” the whole time so CA and FO’s had no time to think about anything but flyin da plane. Except for requesting the diversion.
Blame Oxcam!
2)Since only reasonable legal reason to divert is that the purser was a threat to security, (possibly running wild threatening passengers with a hot pot of coffee)
3) Since most Captains, even 411A
would not demand papers not required immediately, delivered on the spot, if it means disrupting cabin service 4) Since most Captains have enough smarts to deal with staff problems without diverting. (Heard UAL’s new SOPs will include use of handcuffs for unruly flight crew)
4) Logical conclusion.The Captain “lost it” and made a bad decision…until it is proven that flying saucers really exist. But if they do, the Captain maybe made a good decision.
5)Or maybe the aluminum projectile was “sliding along at 600 and rocking 30 degrees either side” the whole time so CA and FO’s had no time to think about anything but flyin da plane. Except for requesting the diversion.
Blame Oxcam!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: US
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rainboe:
Not only throughout the thread, but here you even managed to contradict yourself within one paragraph. Incredible
I believe the captain and purser both were sliding along at 600mph, for whatever relevance that may have. Though I'm reasonably sure that rocking 30 degrees either side, with limited endurance and thunderstorms to cope with,were not factors.
Contrary to some, I have not been defending anyone or making accusations in this thread. But the captain does have some explaining of his decision, as any pilot knows. He does not need a unanimous verdict of 'guilty' here based on 50% of the story. The 50% that comes from people who decided 'one more flight, then we'll do 'im!'.
As for the most useless advice of all, 'business solutions to staff conflict', well thank you very much, but when your office is sliding along at 600mph and rocking 30 degrees either side, with limited endurance and thunderstorms to cope with, I will be glad to hear what your (amended) advice has changed to!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: us
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Les Shore,
An early account -- favorable to the purser's side of the incident, of course -- indicated that the pilot provided ATC in advance with the name of the person who represented a security or safety threat to the aircraft, the threat necessitating the diversion into Miami.
When the authorities (in the more dramatic re-tellings, the police are at the jetway with guns drawn) meet the transgressor, they are surprised to find that she is dressed in a United crew uniform.
In all other instances that I am aware of where a person(s) is put off a flight for safety or security reasons, they are immediately taken into custody at the point of debarkation. That the purser was immediately sent on her way to catch the next flight to Chicago probably reflects an instant judgment by the authorities that the captain's claims or assertions were without merit.
An early account -- favorable to the purser's side of the incident, of course -- indicated that the pilot provided ATC in advance with the name of the person who represented a security or safety threat to the aircraft, the threat necessitating the diversion into Miami.
When the authorities (in the more dramatic re-tellings, the police are at the jetway with guns drawn) meet the transgressor, they are surprised to find that she is dressed in a United crew uniform.
In all other instances that I am aware of where a person(s) is put off a flight for safety or security reasons, they are immediately taken into custody at the point of debarkation. That the purser was immediately sent on her way to catch the next flight to Chicago probably reflects an instant judgment by the authorities that the captain's claims or assertions were without merit.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Georgia
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pursuant to the Freedom of Information act...
TSA- [email protected] or call 1-866-289-9673.
Instead of beating our gums and unmentioned (perhaps unmentionable) anatomical areas, we could could call the number, chat them up and make some direct inquiries? Maybe even demand that they produce any and all logs, recordings and transcripts regarding the diversion! 
That I would do of course, but I would hate to then secretly be put on the 'Don't Fly List' or worse (or perhaps better, depending on your point of view) the "Full Body Cavity Search List"
.
All fun aside, it is really interesting to observe what a Rorschach Test this thread has proven to be!
Its notable that people dont seem to look at incidents as phenomena to be explored and analyzed but rather as validators of pre-conceived notions, biases and positions.
Like the black University professor who sees in every cop asking him the time of day, a racist attack dog siccing, baton wielding, jackbooted thug of the civil rights era or the cop who sees in every citizen whom he is sworn to "respect, protect, serve" an uppity fellow who "doesnt know who he's talking to and is gonna be taken down a peg, by golly!"
We not only jump TO conclusions, but rather wrap ourselves in them finally covering the eyes and ears and then, only then, do we sally forth, firmly protected from opposing ideas , positions or even facts!
I'm maybe 70% serious about calling up the Miami TSA and seeing if there is any info to be had (40% joking about not going on any TSA s**t list) so if anybody has a wiser note to add about me try this I'll wait before I venture foolishly
The Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) establishes a presumption that records in the possession of agencies and departments of the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government are available to the public. The FOIA sets standards for determining when Government records must be made available and which records may be withheld. The FOIA also gives requesters specific legal rights and provides administrative and judicial remedies when access to records or portions of records is denied. The FOIA statute requires that Federal agencies provide access to and disclosure of information pertaining to the Government's business to the fullest extent possible.
That I would do of course, but I would hate to then secretly be put on the 'Don't Fly List' or worse (or perhaps better, depending on your point of view) the "Full Body Cavity Search List"
.All fun aside, it is really interesting to observe what a Rorschach Test this thread has proven to be!
Its notable that people dont seem to look at incidents as phenomena to be explored and analyzed but rather as validators of pre-conceived notions, biases and positions.
Like the black University professor who sees in every cop asking him the time of day, a racist attack dog siccing, baton wielding, jackbooted thug of the civil rights era or the cop who sees in every citizen whom he is sworn to "respect, protect, serve" an uppity fellow who "doesnt know who he's talking to and is gonna be taken down a peg, by golly!"
We not only jump TO conclusions, but rather wrap ourselves in them finally covering the eyes and ears and then, only then, do we sally forth, firmly protected from opposing ideas , positions or even facts!
I'm maybe 70% serious about calling up the Miami TSA and seeing if there is any info to be had (40% joking about not going on any TSA s**t list) so if anybody has a wiser note to add about me try this I'll wait before I venture foolishly
Join Date: May 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 62
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In all other instances that I am aware of where a person(s) is put off a flight for safety or security reasons, they are immediately taken into custody at the point of debarkation. That the purser was immediately sent on her way to catch the next flight to Chicago probably reflects an instant judgment by the authorities that the captain's claims or assertions were without merit.
If one reads through this thread again, the "Miami" question was gently being hinted at by another poster very early on in this debate. So subtly, in fact, that one wonders whether or not he/she might be one of the "missing" UA pilots here.
However (whatever the case) this thread is not a court of law, a court martial or even a place where any justice is expected to be done. Almost all the opinions that have been adduced here (pro or con the Captain) have been tendentious.
The lessons that can be drawn from this very interesting thread are secondary (as another poster has said).
Despite appeals to their own authority by some posters, many of the lessons that can be learned here do relate to leadership and do not require arcane knowledge of a specific industry (although such knowledge, where relevant, certainly helps inform the debate).
The kind of special pleading that says comments on leadership are domain specific and therefore mutually exclusive, truly misses the point but is interesting in itself to psychologists and kindred specialists.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: US
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The kind of special pleading that says comments on leadership are domain specific and therefore mutually exclusive, truly misses the point but is interesting in itself to psychologists and kindred specialists.
well thank you very much, but when your office is sliding along at 600mph and rocking 30 degrees either side, with limited endurance and thunderstorms to cope with,
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A number of people have asked that if the problem occurred 30 minutes into the flight, why wait 5 hours to divert? My guess would be quite simply that Miami was the first US port along track. Diverting to a "furrin" port would have added a whole new dimension to an already rather "large dimensioned" decision (the entire circumstances of which, I'm looking forward to hearing some time in the future).
I've stood a cabin crewmember down once after he lead what amounted to a mutiny among a small number of very junior male cabin crew of similar nationalities to his own against a European female purser. (There were race/religion/gender issues involved that someone who has not lived in the Middle East would (a) not believe and (b) would have little chance of understanding.) Diverting was an option I must admit I did not consider even for a fleeting moment. After an indepth investigation, the gentleman involved was sacked upon our arrival back at home port.
...and anyone familiar with the Middle East will not be at all surprised to learn that he was re-instated two weeks later. But funnily enough, he never once appeared among my crew after returning to work with the company.
I've stood a cabin crewmember down once after he lead what amounted to a mutiny among a small number of very junior male cabin crew of similar nationalities to his own against a European female purser. (There were race/religion/gender issues involved that someone who has not lived in the Middle East would (a) not believe and (b) would have little chance of understanding.) Diverting was an option I must admit I did not consider even for a fleeting moment. After an indepth investigation, the gentleman involved was sacked upon our arrival back at home port.
...and anyone familiar with the Middle East will not be at all surprised to learn that he was re-instated two weeks later. But funnily enough, he never once appeared among my crew after returning to work with the company.
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
Have you considered that his mates may very well have extracted revenge on you without you being aware of it?
MU3001A- you have totally misread my position throughout. I greatly objected to instant 'guilty' verdicts being applied by people who know nothing, and less than nothing on the intricacies of commanding a long range airliner. It was always accepted he would be suspended while the validity of his decision was examined by the company. If he felt that the integrity of his crew had broken down, then there is indeed a case that a diversion decision could be construed as valid if the circumstances were serious enough. We have only been getting one side of the story! BUT, there is a possibility that a unanimous guilty verdict here could in some minor way affect the investigation ongoing by UA. He deserves in this case to be left alone to justify his decision. But we don't know anything of what was really going on and the atmosphere prevailing on that plane. He landed those people safely at destination with a minor delay having dealt with the problem to his satisfaction (and apparently others in the crew's satisfaction as well). Now it will be examined and UA will decide. But some of the untrue and over-exaggerated character assassination going on here by other crew members, who were perfectly satisfied to continue the flight, calls into question the validity of some of the remarks they made.
So where have I been biased other than expecting him to have a fair hearing with his side of the story also being heard? Too many people sprang to instant judgements based on a one sided story (like you)! You, more than anybody, sprang to such instant judgements. It would be interesting to hear your expertise and experience in large aeroplane, large crew, long range operations! Despite your enthusiasm, you have no concept of what goes on, yet your voice was most shrill in pointing a finger (with the thumb down!). What ignorance couple with arrogance!
MU3001A- you have totally misread my position throughout. I greatly objected to instant 'guilty' verdicts being applied by people who know nothing, and less than nothing on the intricacies of commanding a long range airliner. It was always accepted he would be suspended while the validity of his decision was examined by the company. If he felt that the integrity of his crew had broken down, then there is indeed a case that a diversion decision could be construed as valid if the circumstances were serious enough. We have only been getting one side of the story! BUT, there is a possibility that a unanimous guilty verdict here could in some minor way affect the investigation ongoing by UA. He deserves in this case to be left alone to justify his decision. But we don't know anything of what was really going on and the atmosphere prevailing on that plane. He landed those people safely at destination with a minor delay having dealt with the problem to his satisfaction (and apparently others in the crew's satisfaction as well). Now it will be examined and UA will decide. But some of the untrue and over-exaggerated character assassination going on here by other crew members, who were perfectly satisfied to continue the flight, calls into question the validity of some of the remarks they made.
So where have I been biased other than expecting him to have a fair hearing with his side of the story also being heard? Too many people sprang to instant judgements based on a one sided story (like you)! You, more than anybody, sprang to such instant judgements. It would be interesting to hear your expertise and experience in large aeroplane, large crew, long range operations! Despite your enthusiasm, you have no concept of what goes on, yet your voice was most shrill in pointing a finger (with the thumb down!). What ignorance couple with arrogance!
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Too many folk ascribing powers beyond reason here to what is a 'chat forum, where folk get awfully excited and tetchy sometimes. It is not a 'Court of Law', nor is it a 'Court Martial'. Just a chat forum where opinions are free to be expressed withinn reason. I doubt very much that UA management spend much time looking at arguments here.
Edited due to myopia. Thanks to the itinerant New Yorker.
Edited due to myopia. Thanks to the itinerant New Yorker.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Just over there....no there.
Age: 61
Posts: 364
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear if the jurno fraternity are reading this what the hell are they going to think.
It's obvious the captain had an irrational hissy fit. Guilty as hell. He shouldn't be in charge of a bouncy castle let alone an airliner.
It beggars belief some of the jumped up pompus attitudes of some of the people on this thread. It's about power to them not efficiency and safety. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts abolutley.
It's obvious the captain had an irrational hissy fit. Guilty as hell. He shouldn't be in charge of a bouncy castle let alone an airliner.
It beggars belief some of the jumped up pompus attitudes of some of the people on this thread. It's about power to them not efficiency and safety. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts abolutley.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,094
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's obvious the captain had an irrational hissy fit. Guilty as hell. He shouldn't be in charge of a bouncy castle let alone an airliner.
It's unlikely that UA will ever make a report on their conclusions in this matter public so there's really no point in persisting as no-one will ever know the truth except those directly involved.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: DORSET
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
les shore
4) Logical conclusion.The Captain “lost it” and made a bad decision…until it is proven that flying saucers really exist. But if they do, the Captain maybe made a good decision.
Kegworth, spanair, and Tenerife demonstrate decisions with hindsight (isn't hindsight lovely!) which killed people.
No-one was hurt (apart from feelings).
Leave him alone- this is not the Spanish Inquisition. and you are not an Inquisitor - thank God!