United GRU-ORD Divert to MIA to Offload Purser

[Rainboe]

Nigd3d

However can you give me an example of how it could be seriously considered that flight safety was compromised.

Human factors considerations have come a long way since they really started being examined seriously back in the 70s. We had an example in 1972 where a Captain was involved in a furious industrial row with another pilot/s preflight. He then went out to fly an aeroplane with about 140 people on board. It was involved in premature flap retraction resulting in death to all on board. The autopsy revealed severe heart problems that could have indicated a heart attack at some stage pre-crash that could have contributed to the disaster. Something very peculiar happened that killed everyone on board. Google G-ARPI to learn more.

Flying in a correct frame of mind is essential for the safety of all on board. This covers attitude, mood, sustenance and fatigue, as well as training and flying skills. We see here failures in 2 of those, possibly more. Was there an attitude on board where food or drink was being parsimoniously supplied up front as a result of bad feeling? Was the nightstop before the flight a 'bad experience'? I would make sure all these things were opened up, including IR issues which seem to be unpleasantly at the forefront. All these things could contribute to a severe anger from certain crew behaviour which could lead to a decision to divert- one that could just possibly be well justified. What speaks loud and clear is there was more going on in this case alone than has come out. That is why it is wrong to condemn here without adequate consideration of the human factors. Will UA do the right thing? Er...no!

[Nigd3]

Rainboe

Sorry not convinced with your arguement yet.

The "lets get this FA off the aircraft because she is severely p%ssing me off and I don't want to be distracted in a while when we are in a crucial phase of flight" theory, seems almost ridiculous, when written in a very simplistic form as I have.

The actual example of a possible heart attack that may or may not have been influenced by a blazing row pre flight has too many "maybes" in there to convince me either, for now anyway.

I agree, there is probably more to this than meets the eye but as a a senior professional captain, with two FOs also on board, I still do not see the flight safety implications.

No problem with being corrected but I just haven't grasped the flight safety concept being put forward as a reason for the divert.

[Les Shore]

Was there an attitude on board where food or drink was being parsimoniously supplied up front as a result of bad feeling? Was the nightstop before the flight a 'bad experience'? I would make sure all these things were opened up, including IR issues which seem to be unpleasantly at the forefront. All these things could contribute to a severe anger from certain crew behaviour which could lead to a decision to divert- one that could just possibly be well justified.

Yeah, but even if all of those scenarios were at play, as several Captains have said, it is hard to believe other more reasoned options weren't available. Those options as stated by pilots who have contributed to this thread, included standing down the purser (even having her confined to her seat for the rest of the flight as the Captain has the authority to do) and having her duties carried out by the next most senior flight attendant. That kind of solution or a variation of it would have demonstrated the Captain's authority without resulting in a costly diversion and we wouldn't be having this circular discussion.

It all comes down to the fact that in addition to technical skills,someone with the position of Captain is paid for common sense, good judgement, having a level head, being a good problem solver etc. That is why this case is so unusual because it appears that some of those qualities may have been missing at the time of this particular incident. The only good that may come out of this incident is that it will certainly be featured in CRM discussions and could help others to formulate improved methods of dealing with staff issues.

[Rainboe]

The "lets get this FA off the aircraft because she is severely p%ssing me off and I don't want to be distracted in a while when we are in a crucial phase of flight" theory, seems almost ridiculous,

Don't underestimate the dangers of distraction in a flying environment. You have to stay ahead and be on top of the aeroplane with your attention on what is happening, not other problems. I remember long ago, the US Navy discovered that pilots with problems playing on their mind (from home usually) or in marital breakups had a significantly higher accident rate. Quite simply if you try and fly in that frame of mind, you become a significant danger. That is why I have been saying all along that such a decision can be shown sometimes to be a justifiable course of action if it removes the problem. There's too much here to produce instant guilty verdicts I'm afraid. Something ugly going on. The company needs to sort it. It sounds to me like the company has allowed these people to carry a very unpleasant burden for 24 years.

[Basil]

Rainboe,

Flying in a correct frame of mind is essential for the safety of all on board.

Amen to that.
I recollect once permitting myself to get into an RT confrontation with our company despatcher which, although resolved technically safely to my satisfaction, left me in a 'cat in a fight' frame of mind which was not at all conducive to a safe departure.
I post this sort of thing in the hope that others will see that 'it's not just them' and will avoid my errors.

Re the thread - who knows what really happened?

[SaturnV]

Rainboe, if the situation was that distracting and upsetting of the CA's frame of mind, the expedient thing for him would be to divert earlier to San Juan where United has a station and which was enroute.
____________________________________

As for the CA, he was no longer rostered for flights the week following the incident, and as nobody has subsequently announced (trumpeted might be the better word) that he is back to flying, an inference can be drawn that he remains in non-flying status three weeks after his diversion. As the adage goes: Silence speaks volumes.

[MU3001A]

Rainboe:

Don't underestimate the dangers of distraction in a flying environment. You have to stay ahead and be on top of the aeroplane with your attention on what is happening, not other problems.

You make a good case for an option Queeg doesn't appear to have considered, namely giving himself an extended break in a comfy seat in 1st class and allowing the two FO's to complete the flight to ORD, sans the disruption of a diversion to MIA.

[Rainboe]

You show your complete ignorance of airline operations and acceptable behaviour. If he is upset enough to have to do that, he is not in a mental state conducive to flying passengers. Your suggestion is nonsense.

A suggestion of San Juan instead should be treated with the doubt a complete lack of background knowledge of the events shows. I have no idea. But a Captain with years of experience chose a particular course of action. Someone reading the sparse information here is in no position to say they know a better way! And I'm not so sure silence speaks as loudly as you think!

[MU3001A]

If he is upset enough to have to do that, he is not in a mental state conducive to flying passengers.

Agreed, which is why adopting my suggestion would have been better than what Queeg actually came up with. I wonder if either of the two FO's had the temerity to raise something similar with him?

[Cacophonix]

Agreed, which is why adopting my suggestion would have been better than what Queeg actually came up with. I wonder if either of the two FO's had the temerity to raise something similar with him?

MU3001A

Your pejorative use of the name Queeg implies that you have already damned this man and therefore any attempt at balanced debate about this affair seems impossible given your conviction.

[Bluestar51]

Rainboe,

a Captain with years of experience chose a particular course of action. Someone reading the sparse information here is in no position to say they know a better way! And I'm not so sure silence speaks as loudly as you think!

I do not think the other two pilots would have allowed the Captain in question to remain in command and the aircraft to depart KMIA if they had felt he was not capable of command.

I find it interesting that the unions involved (assumption on my part) are being very quiet about this matter.

[MU3001A]

Namibfox

Substitute Captain for Queeg if you like, the rest of my comment reads the same either way.

Bluestar51

I don't think the quiet is all that unusual since both of the unions and UAL management would probably prefer that civil war didn't break out between cabin crew and flight crew over this sorry incident. Oops sorry Rainboe, I meant occurrence.

[cessnapuppy]

Darwinian Evolution in a no Winian situation!

To no one in particular.... isnt it somewhat amazing how Darwinian Evolution manifests itself - no matter the location, no matter the circumstances? See how the lowly captain, via natural selection (of debate) has evolved from a mad whimsy - diverting an aircraft in a fit of pique (albeit delayed a few hours) to a Machiavellian plotter, deviously conspiring to cull himself a cushy 'medical retirement'? From madman to fraud, pausing at 'knuckle dragging ape', if only for a moment as our ancestors did.

(d) Each pilot in command of an aircraft is, during flight time, in command of the aircraft and crew and is responsible for the safety of the passengers, crewmembers, cargo, and airplane. (e) Each pilot in command has full control and authority in the operation of the aircraft, without limitation, over other crewmembers and their duties during flight time, whether or not he holds valid certificates authorizing him to perform the duties of those crewmembers.

That removes 'discretionary power' from EVERYONE on board. do as ordered. simple. no brain cells to activate. Just do. None of this "I cant believe it's not butter" bs where people substitute what they feel like doing, when they feel like doing it- for a direct order. Her job is to just do as ordered, when ordered (and perhaps complain to management afterward if so inclined) I'm sure some will advocate a different world, a kinder, gentler kumbayah world where maybe there is some discussion and perhaps even consensus reached before making arbitrary demands or 'snap decisions'. (I pretty sure the purser would have lots to say about Alternate Law and such and should probably be consulted if either pilot is thinking of a TOGA -not the Greek outfit) Maybe I'm old school...or just old. I'm curious, if she slid the documents under the door (like bread and gruel slipped to prisoners in the Gulag) and some pilot/co pilot got up and not seeing the paper, stepped and slid on it..what then? I really doubt this was an incident or action totally unique and standing alone, logic tells me to suspect there is additional history, not told in all of this.

[MU3001A]

cessnapuppy

UAL want's its airplane back and its customers safely delivered to their destination and both UAL and the regulatory authorities give captains the sole authority in matters of command once out of the chocks, in order to achieve those objectives. This captain safely delivered both the aircraft and its passengers to their destination, albiet after exercising his sole authority to include a short diversion to MIA. The question now for UAL and perhaps also the FAA, is whether the captain will ever get the opportunity to exercise that authority again.

[stilton]

I think he will, perhaps he did not use the best possible judgement in this case however the f/a in question certainly contributed to the situation.


As has been stated, some of these 'cabin captains' and their actions have to be seen to be believed.

[etrang]

namely giving himself an extended break in a comfy seat in 1st class and allowing the two FO's to complete the flight to ORD, sans the disruption of a diversion to MIA.

Yes that would have been an alternative solution.

If he is upset enough to have to do that, he is not in a mental state conducive to flying passengers. Your suggestion is nonsense.

Well that is the whole point. If the captain had steped-down he wouldn't be flying anyone. The suggested course of action would no doubt have had a negative impact on the captain's future career but so it seems have his actual actions. If someone had suggested, before this incident occured, that a captain might divert and land at an unscheduled airport just to off-load a member of cabin crew you would probably have described that as nonsense.

[Rainboe]

I have known of several occasions in BA where aircraft have 'diverted, from thier course to offload an unco-operative cabin crew member. It has happened, it has delayed passengers. They happened on the taxi out pre-take off. I have known crewe being offloaded before departure, for similar reasons. In what way is that 'different' pray?

[Nigd3]

Morning Rainboe

For me the difference would be that IF the reason for the divert was a disruptive CC, he still has to conduct a safe approach to the divert airport, when he could have carried on and also conducted a safe approach to his original destination.

Get the SFO to interact with the CC for the rest of the flight, if she is such a pain in the backside and then do any disciplinary proceedings on the ground at the original destination.

I understand that distractions can be a factor in incidents and accidents, however if UA come down in the favour of the captain in this one, they may be setting a dangerous (costly) precedent.

[Bluestar51]

In what way is that 'different' pray?

We could do a lot of things when Jet A/JP-4 was twelve cents a gallon we can't do now.

I've never had any real problems with crew and passengers.

[cityfan]

How quick we are to bury our own

You Da Man, eh?!

Let's just say (hypothetically, of course!) that (hypothetically) the FAs got an email out quickly and spread it as quickly as possible to get THEIR "version" of the story "out" as the Gospel...regardless of the truth, and BEFORE any company investigation, of course. And, let's say it is company policy to remove CAPTAINS from service ANYTIME there is a flight/safety investigation being conducted and that the FA has ZERO LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY OR AUTHORITY that is being investigated and thus returned to service....BEFORE any findings are finalized. The CAPTAIN, however, might (hypothetically, of course) have LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY AND AUTHORITY under question and thus be REQUIRED to be removed from service until the issue is closed. Maybe, it would have been EXACTLY THE SAME REGARDLESS OF THE EVENT, even something like a high speed abort that caused ZERO aircraft damage.

And say this issue revolved around a purser who refused to accept simple direction, refused to remove herself from the Purser position when directed, was calling the Captain derogatory and inflammatory names to other crew members within earshot of passengers, and just MAYBE she threatened the efficacy of the Captain's meal. Hypothetically, of course.

So, now whatcha all think of him dumping her off at the first USA location?

Also, what if she then proceeded to tell the Captain she was taking ALL the crew off the aircraft with her if he tried to drop her off? And what if the rest of the crew refused to leave with her?

What if the CAPTAIN in question was a multi-decade union stalwart who was recently the VICTIM of company harassment on a completely separate issue. Perhaps, a flight attendant or two knew this and have tried to FURTHER besmirch this outstanding PROFESSIONAL PILOT and YOU LOT have been suckered in by the rumor and innuendo distributed by people who were serving their own self interest and ulterior purposes? ALL hypothetically, of course! (Sounds like a BA "Whisper Campaign" doesn't it?!!!)

So, what now?

I came on here to read some PROFESSIONAL PILOT discussion on issues of the day and maybe find out what was going on with the decimation of this profession across the globe. Imagine my surprise to see some of the absolute drivel written here by SUPPOSED professionals about one of their own.

If this public hanging is any thing to go by, I may have wasted my time looking for "insight" into what goes on elsewhere and may have been mistaken in believing there were professionals on here that would give one of their own the benefit of the doubt/rumor/innuendo. I noticed a few did, and my hat is off to them. The rest, well, tut-tut is about all I can say.