United GRU-ORD Divert to MIA to Offload Purser
The plane landed, Immigration met the flight, Purser walked off and Immigration spoke at length with the capt. They asked him to step off aircraft and he refused, they asked to board to talk to him...again he refused.
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
When I was a copilot, it was common practice with many captains to only call them 'Sir' or 'Captain'. It passed out of being the norm in the 80s. If that is what he wishes, that is what he should be called- he is the captain of the 'ship'! If he wanted me to call him 'Bunny', 'Bunny' it would be.
What we have here is a resentful crew manufacturing enormous resentments and a few untruths. I would like an explanation how others can hear a phone call through a door inflight! sounds to me like their resentful behaviour drove a captain already suffering tensions to a mental state where continuation of the flight at that time was plainly unsafe. This leads to 2 queries:
1- why did he feel that with this crew, his safest option was to land?
2- why did they all feel they could happily continue afterwards?
If the captain was as disturbed as made out by BoF, I'm afraid I find the crew's decision to continue utterly bizarre- in fact, dare one say, as crazy as the condition they accuse the pilot of!
Understand, none of you come out of this well, BoF. Your job on that plane was to be an effective, co-operative crew to your flight deck crew. It seems to me your 'chips on shoulders' outweighed your usefulness. Your endorsement of his leadership by continuing shows bizarre judgement. Maybe a man in a fragile mental state was provoked into fury by a resentful, unco-operative crew. I have seen this sort of thing infrequently and as a co-pilot, I found it my duty to put a stop to it decisively so the captain was able to function at 100% for all our sakes! I've flown with some very difficult, notorious captains. Sometimes it's hard to do your job effectively, but just get on with the job, do as you are told, and you do the right thing for the passengers. Its not your place to provoke, but to co-operate. I have seen the most extraordinary cabin crew behaviour at times like this, it seems with some personalities, a near state of war can develop across the flight deck door, and it so desperately needs someone to put a stop to it. Ask yourself, rather than provoking the situation, did everybody do what they could to calm it, to deflate the situation. Nothing would have stopped all of you going to see your management afterwards. But instead the situation was elevated to crisis point. It takes 2 sides to do that! Both sides here appear to have preferred going to crisis rather than climbing down. Wherever has the CRM gone in your outfit? CRM does not just mean 'the flight deck must not ask us for anything when we are busy!' as so many cabin crew seem to think! You had a duty to be an effective crew to your captain, believe it or not. Everything I see in this incident reads like a bunch of resentful, vengeful teenagers. It does not come across well.
All it would have taken was to give him his bloody GenDecs! I find it very sad he is the only one apparently to go! You're so convinced you are all so innocent, yet I read this as you all provoked him to this situation, and you cannot see that. Maybe he was in an elevated mental frame of mind, but undoubtedly, your behaviour moved him even higher rather than deflated it.
Truly, the hysteria level on that crew was such that none of you should have continued. To United's shame, they let you. But what a disgraceful saga for all of you! Can't you see that?
What we have here is a resentful crew manufacturing enormous resentments and a few untruths. I would like an explanation how others can hear a phone call through a door inflight! sounds to me like their resentful behaviour drove a captain already suffering tensions to a mental state where continuation of the flight at that time was plainly unsafe. This leads to 2 queries:
1- why did he feel that with this crew, his safest option was to land?
2- why did they all feel they could happily continue afterwards?
If the captain was as disturbed as made out by BoF, I'm afraid I find the crew's decision to continue utterly bizarre- in fact, dare one say, as crazy as the condition they accuse the pilot of!
Understand, none of you come out of this well, BoF. Your job on that plane was to be an effective, co-operative crew to your flight deck crew. It seems to me your 'chips on shoulders' outweighed your usefulness. Your endorsement of his leadership by continuing shows bizarre judgement. Maybe a man in a fragile mental state was provoked into fury by a resentful, unco-operative crew. I have seen this sort of thing infrequently and as a co-pilot, I found it my duty to put a stop to it decisively so the captain was able to function at 100% for all our sakes! I've flown with some very difficult, notorious captains. Sometimes it's hard to do your job effectively, but just get on with the job, do as you are told, and you do the right thing for the passengers. Its not your place to provoke, but to co-operate. I have seen the most extraordinary cabin crew behaviour at times like this, it seems with some personalities, a near state of war can develop across the flight deck door, and it so desperately needs someone to put a stop to it. Ask yourself, rather than provoking the situation, did everybody do what they could to calm it, to deflate the situation. Nothing would have stopped all of you going to see your management afterwards. But instead the situation was elevated to crisis point. It takes 2 sides to do that! Both sides here appear to have preferred going to crisis rather than climbing down. Wherever has the CRM gone in your outfit? CRM does not just mean 'the flight deck must not ask us for anything when we are busy!' as so many cabin crew seem to think! You had a duty to be an effective crew to your captain, believe it or not. Everything I see in this incident reads like a bunch of resentful, vengeful teenagers. It does not come across well.
All it would have taken was to give him his bloody GenDecs! I find it very sad he is the only one apparently to go! You're so convinced you are all so innocent, yet I read this as you all provoked him to this situation, and you cannot see that. Maybe he was in an elevated mental frame of mind, but undoubtedly, your behaviour moved him even higher rather than deflated it.
Truly, the hysteria level on that crew was such that none of you should have continued. To United's shame, they let you. But what a disgraceful saga for all of you! Can't you see that?
Last edited by Rainboe; 29th Nov 2009 at 09:22.
Trash du Blanc
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: KBHM
Posts: 1,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given the state of UAL and the industry as a whole, I'd compare all this to fiddling while Rome is burning.
Or a circular firing squad.
Yeah, keep telling yourself that. Then go fly a leg on SQ or CX.....
What's sad is what a mighty, wonderful airline this was, back in the day.
Or a circular firing squad.
We are a very friendly airline
What's sad is what a mighty, wonderful airline this was, back in the day.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In a far better place
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the captain was as disturbed as made out by BoF, I'm afraid I find the crew's decision to continue utterly bizarre- in fact, dare one say, as crazy as the condition they accuse the pilot of!
If I were a first officer on that flight listening to the rants of the skipper, I would want to be on the ground as fast as possible too. The captain's behaviour, while not being responsible, is strong argument to NO GUNS in the COCKPIT
! Seems like he could have used a bit more time on the ground before returning to duty
.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Somerset
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good post, Rainboe.
I personally think that CRM teaching has quite a lot to answer for. Whilst a great deal of good has come from it, it is quite clear that the authority of the flight deck has been badly eroded.
Incidentally, where have you been?!
I personally think that CRM teaching has quite a lot to answer for. Whilst a great deal of good has come from it, it is quite clear that the authority of the flight deck has been badly eroded.
Incidentally, where have you been?!
Takes one to know one
'Are you people THAT dense??? The "Pretty" comment is nothing more than pure, unadulterated sacrcasm for the tight ass men who spout so many opinions without the FACTS.'
Unfortunately my company has a prefered arrangement such that we fly United. I'll get a seat near the front next time if this in-flight entertainment is on the menu. More seriously, I want a calm crew with nothing remotely distracting the people steering the thing.
Seems to be two choices: a) assume this is the whole story and the captain was breaking down, b) there is more to it than has been told.
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
According to BoF, it is (a) 'Captain breaking down'. How very, very strange they were apparently content to continue 'one more flight!' . Whether it be to get home or to get to a lovely destination they were going to spend a week at makes no difference. They don't understand they endorsed his command and leadership. So suddenly at ORD, he's 'unfit to be a captain' according to this lot. I have to say I if I was an airline chief executive, I would have been sacking this crew wholesale! They provoked a man in apparently a mental state and tipped him over the edge, intentionally? They should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves, and the exultation and glee telling us 'he's gone'- unbelievable. So he was unpopular. They are proud they got him out! It would actually be funny if it wasn't so tragic.
Scimitar, I have actually been working hard and dealing with family crisis. After the jokers on the Aer Lingus thread, I have to say things are settling and normal service will be resumed. Who's next to get eaten?
Scimitar, I have actually been working hard and dealing with family crisis. After the jokers on the Aer Lingus thread, I have to say things are settling and normal service will be resumed. Who's next to get eaten?
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: formally Alamo battleground, now the crocodile with palm trees!
Posts: 960
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In a situation like this (assuming it happened as described) would not Immigration have the authority to board the plane or prohibit its subsequent take off?
I believe immigration can hold the plane for immigration and customs issues only but not for any issue involving the dear FAA...
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree that Rainboe’s post #685 was excellent. In it, he made the comment:
I suspect there’d be few of us who spent what used to be an average time as an FO have not.
A very wise Fleet Manager told me something about flying with such captains after I’d crossed swords with one, (and told him - after returning to home base – that I thought he was dangerous).
“Captains are allowed to have idiosyncrasies, Wiley, First Officers are not.”
I think that wise adage could be extended to “... and neither are Cabin Crew.”
If the cabin crew in this incident think they've been vindicated, there're coming from a very strange place (in their heads).
I've flown with some very difficult, notorious captains.
A very wise Fleet Manager told me something about flying with such captains after I’d crossed swords with one, (and told him - after returning to home base – that I thought he was dangerous).
“Captains are allowed to have idiosyncrasies, Wiley, First Officers are not.”
I think that wise adage could be extended to “... and neither are Cabin Crew.”
If the cabin crew in this incident think they've been vindicated, there're coming from a very strange place (in their heads).
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Antartica
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree on CPT bailed out.
First: of all Sorry for my english.
Second: In Europe, in a charter company, the CPT, acting like this one, would have been vaporized immediately from his company.
Reasons?
1) No Security and/or Safety issues.
2) No CRM managed from the CPT toward his crew.
3) Costs of a divertion not needed.
4) Poor customer satisfaction management.
5) Poor decision making.
6) Leadership lost for free.
Sorry.
We have to stop people yelling in a tube at 30,000 and some feet.
Captain with no carisma are simply not Captain.
Leadership in a crew is something you earn. Not given because of 4 stripes on a shirt.
Second: In Europe, in a charter company, the CPT, acting like this one, would have been vaporized immediately from his company.
Reasons?
1) No Security and/or Safety issues.
2) No CRM managed from the CPT toward his crew.
3) Costs of a divertion not needed.
4) Poor customer satisfaction management.
5) Poor decision making.
6) Leadership lost for free.
Sorry.
We have to stop people yelling in a tube at 30,000 and some feet.
Captain with no carisma are simply not Captain.
Leadership in a crew is something you earn. Not given because of 4 stripes on a shirt.
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
Typical rubbish European 'we are all equal here now. I will be really nice to you and I would be grateful if you could do what I ask please! Let's all hold hands now in a group hug before we set off to work!'. Sorry, doesn't cut it with me at all!
Leadership is not 'earned' in order to get the crew to follow you! If the crew don't follow, they won't get paid for long! The crew are there to do their job under the guidance and leadership of the local manager (in this case the captain). 'Shape up or ship out' is the expression!
'No CRM managed from the captain to his crew'? Have you read this thread? How much CRM did the crew supply to their captain throughout the flight? Yes- funny, isn't it? CRM actually works both ways, but as I said according to many cabin crew, CRM can mean to them 'don't ask me to do anything when I am busy or tired!'.
Since the captain was guilty of all your points, how come he was OK to operate the last sector, then have the whole crew screaming like a herd of monkeys that he was 'guilty', but not at MIA, but at ORD? Don't you think that is peculiar?
A shameful episode for all concerned. One man's long career is apparently terminated, a cabin crew exulting that they have forced out an unpopular character....and we are supposed to accept they 'won'? Sick. Where was the level headed person who could defuse a situation? Not anywhere on board United that night!
Leadership is not 'earned' in order to get the crew to follow you! If the crew don't follow, they won't get paid for long! The crew are there to do their job under the guidance and leadership of the local manager (in this case the captain). 'Shape up or ship out' is the expression!
'No CRM managed from the captain to his crew'? Have you read this thread? How much CRM did the crew supply to their captain throughout the flight? Yes- funny, isn't it? CRM actually works both ways, but as I said according to many cabin crew, CRM can mean to them 'don't ask me to do anything when I am busy or tired!'.
Since the captain was guilty of all your points, how come he was OK to operate the last sector, then have the whole crew screaming like a herd of monkeys that he was 'guilty', but not at MIA, but at ORD? Don't you think that is peculiar?
A shameful episode for all concerned. One man's long career is apparently terminated, a cabin crew exulting that they have forced out an unpopular character....and we are supposed to accept they 'won'? Sick. Where was the level headed person who could defuse a situation? Not anywhere on board United that night!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Costa del Thames
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A pilot who knows her said he naturally heard about the situation and once he found out SHE was the Purser , he KNEW there was something wrong with the capt. That's the the general party line.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: formally Alamo battleground, now the crocodile with palm trees!
Posts: 960
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An airline as old and experienced as UAL surely would have guidelines published in their manual. I would be very interested to take a look in their CRM section. I cannot imagine UAL laking a guideline for CRM issues.
Any UAL'ers?
Any UAL'ers?
UAL Divert
The problem with this thread, from day 1, is we have only hear from one "source". It takes two to tango and at least that many to split so I it seems very odd we have never heard a peep from anyone but BoF who seems to be very dedicated to keeping this thread going.
Too many odd bits.
If the captain was out of it why did the FD crew continue on? Why did the company let him? I'm sure the FAA has had a little look in as well.
Do we know the captain is not flying again? If so by whose choice.?
As for denying US immigration access to a N registered plane, any plane for that matter, that pitches up in MIA, I don't think so. They will go wherever they like, talk to whoever they like, and look at whatever they like. And if they snap on the rubber gloves, bend over, because you have no rights.
The majority of this story we have no clue to and I suspect we never will.
20driver
Too many odd bits.
If the captain was out of it why did the FD crew continue on? Why did the company let him? I'm sure the FAA has had a little look in as well.
Do we know the captain is not flying again? If so by whose choice.?
As for denying US immigration access to a N registered plane, any plane for that matter, that pitches up in MIA, I don't think so. They will go wherever they like, talk to whoever they like, and look at whatever they like. And if they snap on the rubber gloves, bend over, because you have no rights.
The majority of this story we have no clue to and I suspect we never will.
20driver
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am amazed at how many believe a story from a person who doesn't put her name behind it.
The flight landed in MIA and a flight attendant was put off, not the captain.
The flight continued without the flight attendant.
Those are facts.
The rest is dross, posted by someone who clearly has an ax to grind and doesn't have one iota of credibility.
The flight landed in MIA and a flight attendant was put off, not the captain.
The flight continued without the flight attendant.
Those are facts.
The rest is dross, posted by someone who clearly has an ax to grind and doesn't have one iota of credibility.
DEFPOTEC Hit's the nail on the head.
Rainboe, your post was the most well thought out, rational and reasoned response to 'Based on facts' an obviously very bitter person of indeterminate profession and zero credibility.
It keeps coming down to this 'BOF' if this Captain was such a 'danger' why would anyone agree to another flight with him ?
Perhaps he was not the easiest to get along with, so what , how may bosses are in this world ? He was unquestionably the boss whether you like it or not.
As Rainboe says it would have been very easy to stop this situation from escalating. It would also have been the professional thing to do. The 'offended' flight attendant could easily have talked to the Captain about it AFTER THE FLIGHT and avoided all of this. DO THE JOB FIRST.
What you might be gleaning from this is, like Rainboe, many of us, myself included have seen Cabin Crew behave in the most appalling, unprofessional manner so they don't start out with the benefit of the doubt in this story.
Christ, if I had a dollar for every 'prickly' Captain I flew with in 19 years in the right seat..
Rainboe, your post was the most well thought out, rational and reasoned response to 'Based on facts' an obviously very bitter person of indeterminate profession and zero credibility.
It keeps coming down to this 'BOF' if this Captain was such a 'danger' why would anyone agree to another flight with him ?
Perhaps he was not the easiest to get along with, so what , how may bosses are in this world ? He was unquestionably the boss whether you like it or not.
As Rainboe says it would have been very easy to stop this situation from escalating. It would also have been the professional thing to do. The 'offended' flight attendant could easily have talked to the Captain about it AFTER THE FLIGHT and avoided all of this. DO THE JOB FIRST.
What you might be gleaning from this is, like Rainboe, many of us, myself included have seen Cabin Crew behave in the most appalling, unprofessional manner so they don't start out with the benefit of the doubt in this story.
Christ, if I had a dollar for every 'prickly' Captain I flew with in 19 years in the right seat..
Last edited by stilton; 30th Nov 2009 at 05:26.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Eagan, MN
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I flew as Aircraft Commander (4-engine military) in 72, until 78. Then, with airline, as F/E, F/O, then Captain starting in 83, until retirement in 2005. (737,L1011,747 Classic and 400).
I am trying to find mitigating circs to justify this Captain, but, (and I'm sure I will undergo censure by my fellow pilots), this sad circumstance reflects poorly on everyone, especially the Captain. It reminds me of the 'Old Yellowstain' situation, where the Captain of the Caine (Bogart in the flic) acts in an unreasonable way, and the crew is left to pick up the pieces (Caine Mutiny). A very sad situation...the Captain obviously was under great strain and mental pressure. In the movie, the defence attorney properly castigates the crew for not supporting the Captain...in this case (United), what were the cabin crew to do, other than what they did? They did not take over command (as in the movie), or order the diversion. They FOLLOWED ORDERS. My total sympathy is with the Captain, but, in this circumstance, his mental state, sadly, seems to have been...less than optimum? A diversion, in this circumstance, seems totally unjustified...and to those pilots justifying martinet behavior, in the name of pilot solidarity, again, sadly, you undermine the profession. I am open to more evidence in the Captain's favour, but, in this case, a diversion seems beyond the pale. I beg for mitigating evidence. Sorry, Sam
I am trying to find mitigating circs to justify this Captain, but, (and I'm sure I will undergo censure by my fellow pilots), this sad circumstance reflects poorly on everyone, especially the Captain. It reminds me of the 'Old Yellowstain' situation, where the Captain of the Caine (Bogart in the flic) acts in an unreasonable way, and the crew is left to pick up the pieces (Caine Mutiny). A very sad situation...the Captain obviously was under great strain and mental pressure. In the movie, the defence attorney properly castigates the crew for not supporting the Captain...in this case (United), what were the cabin crew to do, other than what they did? They did not take over command (as in the movie), or order the diversion. They FOLLOWED ORDERS. My total sympathy is with the Captain, but, in this circumstance, his mental state, sadly, seems to have been...less than optimum? A diversion, in this circumstance, seems totally unjustified...and to those pilots justifying martinet behavior, in the name of pilot solidarity, again, sadly, you undermine the profession. I am open to more evidence in the Captain's favour, but, in this case, a diversion seems beyond the pale. I beg for mitigating evidence. Sorry, Sam
Last edited by Semaphore Sam; 30th Nov 2009 at 06:09.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Greece
Age: 84
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
incredible, fascinating thread
A diversion, in this circumstance, seems totally unjustified...and to those pilots justifying martinet behavior, in the name of pilot solidarity, again, sadly, you undermine the profession...
One can never really know the result of a 'path not taken'. It is clear though that this was a captain without a crew. If the account above is correct, the First Officer saw fit to complain to the stewardesses: "the Captain made us call him Captain!"
"in this case (United), what were the cabin crew to do, other than what they did?"
a whole lot, I would imagine.
For starters, they could have behaved less like childish little
with playground scores to settle, or whiny bitches, maybe, if they saw that the "captain had a problem-or they with him" refuse to fly - especially from Mia on. That itself is the most damming part of this spectacle to an onlooker. I would say, the minute the plane was landed safely in Mia, they should either have authorities seize the plane, the captain but not continue merrily on. Anything else seems somewhat hollow and false to me.
One can never really know the result of a 'path not taken'. It is clear though that this was a captain without a crew. If the account above is correct, the First Officer saw fit to complain to the stewardesses: "the Captain made us call him Captain!"
"in this case (United), what were the cabin crew to do, other than what they did?"
a whole lot, I would imagine.
For starters, they could have behaved less like childish little
with playground scores to settle, or whiny bitches, maybe, if they saw that the "captain had a problem-or they with him" refuse to fly - especially from Mia on. That itself is the most damming part of this spectacle to an onlooker. I would say, the minute the plane was landed safely in Mia, they should either have authorities seize the plane, the captain but not continue merrily on. Anything else seems somewhat hollow and false to me.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Round and round and round we go
In the above quote, it would be just as easy to substitute 'offended flight attendant' for 'offended Captain'. As other Captains have said earlier in this thread, they would have DONE THE JOB FIRST and dealt with the purser on the ground.
Well put, SS. That has been the issue all along. It is difficult to understand why a well-balanced individual who has attained the level of Captain of a major airline, couldn't have found a better way to deal with a purser who didn't obey his commands at lightning speed. No one is questioning the Capain's authority. It's his decision-making ability and mental stability at the time that are in question.
The 'offended' flight attendant could easily have talked to the Captain about it AFTER THE FLIGHT and avoided all of this. DO THE JOB FIRST.
My total sympathy is with the Captain, but, in this circumstance, his mental state, sadly, seems to have been...less than optimum? A diversion, in this circumstance, seems totally unjustified...and to those pilots justifying martinet behavior, in the name of pilot solidarity, again, sadly, you undermine the profession. I am open to more evidence in the Captain's favour, but, in this case, a diversion seems beyond the pale.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Round and round and round we go
For his own ulterior and IMHO highly suspect motives, so called Based on Facts has chosen to resurrect a thread which has been dormant since August with yet more bitching about someone against whom he clearly has a grudge.
Whether he was or wasn't on the flight, I've seen nothing to make me regard BoF as a reliable source of information about what actually happened. On the contrary, I'd be extremely hesitant to condemn anyone based on BoF's allegations.