Fatal Flying on Airlines no Accident..

[Capt Pit Bull]

Remember, the MEL permits you to take the aircraft, it does not require you to do so. I just find it lacking in professional courtesy to berate someone without knowing the facts. Just off the top of my head, what about the Met. Maybe flight below 10K was going to leave the aircraft flogging through icing close to the 0 degree isotherm. Or maybe the MEL time limit was exceeded. Maybe it had been out for 10 days and then miraculously 'tested and found serviceable" only to "fail" again on the following trip. The point is as soon as you get into multiple MEL items, especially if one is a biggy like pressurisation, you are rapidly moving into the realms of the 'less safe'.

From time to time I have declined to accept an aircraft inspite of the MEL.

tell the ops guys to fly it themselves, oh but they cant because they have not got a license and fly a desk

QFT

[clunckdriver]

Dream Land, {an apt title for sure!} Do you have any clue as to the amount of VFR traffic, flown by folks with the ink still wet on their PPL, are floging around in this airspace? not to mention the hordes of overseas students with piss poor comand of English who are training at the many "puppy farms" located in Florida? No, low level VFR with a load of pax in the typical haze and crap in this part of the USA is not smart, as for me looking out the window, belive me my generation had lots of practice in buble canopies during our miss spent younger years, and old habits die hard!You claim to be a "buss driver", before the age sixty rule caught up with me I spent a fair bit of time checking and training on the "mini Bus", cant tell you how many times I had to tell folks to look out the friggin window and stop pissing around with a PBD or some other piece of non essential stuff.

[Dream Land]

From time to time I have declined to accept an aircraft inspite of the MEL.

Sorry, I don't work at an airline that operates like that, if the aircraft is legal, why would you turn down the flight?

You say that the aircraft is more unsafe, maybe you are smarter than the aircraft manufacturer?

Not trying to make a joke here, clunckdriver, no I haven't operated in that area for years, but it's been busy for many years, by the way this story is as old as the hills, several years old.

[GlueBall]

Capt Bit Bull: "Remember, the MEL permits you to take the aircraft, it does not require you to do so."

Are you from the flying club where pilots individualize procedures?

Let's see: Your auto pressurization system is DMI'd today, and you're about to strand 400pax because you don't feel inclined to work manual pressurization because it's a 14hrs flight? . . . Yes, you can be sure that your services will no longer be "required" henceforth.

The MEL and CDL are accepted procedures approved by the manufacturer and respective airworthiness authorities.

[Beanbag]

DreamLand, your attitude worries me: "if it complies with the letter of the law it's irrefutably safe, even if the Captain thinks it isn't".

I'm only SLF, but it seems to me that in this respect aviation isn't that different from other areas of life, where legislation provides a minimum general safety level but the circumstances of a particular case might make something that's legal quite unsafe. 50mph on a snowy country lane, for example.

I'm much more inclined to say "if it worries the Captain it worries me, whatever the regs say"

[Intruder]

Sorry, I don't work at an airline that operates like that, if the aircraft is legal, why would you turn down the flight?

You say that the aircraft is more unsafe, maybe you are smarter than the aircraft manufacturer?

Once again, "the manufacturer" considers each MEL item IN ISOLATION. There is NO consideration given for multiple MEL items, unless specifically stated. Therefore, ANY combination of multiple MEL items requires the Captain's close scrutiny and consideration.

I have not done it often, but in 11 years of flying the 747 I have refused toatake off due to a combination of MEL items. Generally it's a case of not wanting to delay a schedule, or even pure maintenance laziness, rather than not having the ability to fix it at a particular station. They fix one or more; we go flying.

[seat 0A]

Ah....Dreamland, Glueball.....
I hope you are far, far away from your first command.
I also hope that you and your future crew/pax will be fortunate enough that you actually get to learn why it is that the commander is the one who gets to decide if a plane is safe to fly under the actual conditions
Aviation is not an exact science that lets itself be captured in written rules and regulations. It takes responsibility (and accounability for that matter).

[swish266]

Hear, Hear

S 0A I cannot agree more!

[Miserlou]

There seems to be a lot of black and white opinions on this rather grey matter.
I still maintain that on the facts presented, it is a go rather thin excuse not to fly.

There are plenty of factors which are not presented which may alter my take on this. If the worn seal is a howler then the company should be replacing it for the passengers' sake. There is no mention of time of day, schedule, congestion, weather or maintenance bases. These would all be taken into account in the decision making process.

Very often people who fly for the kind of outfit which Gulfstream appear to be have a bit of an axe to grind with them. I wouldn't be surprised if this also plays a part in the process.

I have known of people who try to find reasons NOT to fly rather than to carry out the job for which they are paid.

[rmac]

I seem to remember that nervous pax are reassured by the wise words that "The pilots are always the first to arrive at the scene of the accident, so if they are happy to fly, so should you be.." , I think that just about says it all in the context of this discussion...

[fireflybob]

Management is doing things right but Leadership is doing the right thing.

[exeng]

Glueball

I think Capt Pit Bull was referring to situations where multiple MEL items would cause him to think carefully about the situation. He didn't state that he would not accept an aircraft with a pressurisation problem.

To help make it clearer for you Capt Pit Bull starts a statement

The point is as soon as you get into multiple MEL items

Regards
Exeng

[DownIn3Green]

Good for you multi cpl...glue and dream...rules (MEL for example) are made for people with no common sense...I was on a crew (as FE) on a scheduled flight out of MIA to South America (Panama City, Lma, La Paz and terminating at Ascencion, Paraguay)... # 1 Generator MEL'D inop...Legal, yes, however the Captain said "No"..."I'll fly this A/C to Chicago or L.A., but not across the Andes at night"...

Now go back to your fantasy world, you 2....

[40&80]

My airline had a L1011 with a L1 door down route that would not lock closed.....
There was only one copy of the L1011 Mel in those days back at base and the ops manager basically sat on this secret in his office and issued dispensations like God .... most line Captains were unaware of this Mel manuals existence and simply did what they were told by the ops manager.
The delayed Captain who was aware of the new Mel system cheekily asked ops if he "Could take the aircraft and fly the schedule on time with passengers provided he left open the R3 door to normalize the airflow through the cabin from the L1 door and he considered this would avoid a delay?"
The level of knowledge by our leaders in ops caused them to ask the
ops manager who did not know much about the L1011 anyway to urgently consulted his secret Mel....being unsuccessful in his search for a dispensation he phoned the engineering department who asked for the Captains name...on receiving it they said "Oh him! He is just taking the piss!

[Ladusvala]

-"to carry out the job for which they are paid"?

In the case of Gulfstream International Airlines, a lot of pilots actually pay to carry out the job for which they should be paid.

[Dream Land]

Once again, "the manufacturer" considers each MEL item IN ISOLATION

Yes, not a very complicated concept, that is not the issue here, the thread is about a pilot that refuses to fly because the TCAS is u/s.

Now go back to your fantasy world, you 2....

I see so 3 operating generators was not sufficient to go across a few little hills?

Maybe it was in another era, where I work we must accept aircraft that are legally dispatched, no go back to your rocking chair.

[Graybeard]

It was about 1972 when a UAL 727 dispatched from LAX with one gen inop. On climbout, an engine with good gen failed, and in the confusion with the new FE, the cockpit went dark for a short time. They stalled and went in.

The MEL is governed by the regulatory authority. I believe it's TSO-119c for TCAS. Those of you who read the entire article know the fix for the squawk in this incident was to remove the TCAS unit, rub off the connector pins and replace it.

GB

[dekka007]

Maybe it was in another era, where I work we must accept aircraft that are legally dispatched,

No Balls? No one whether Management or not and no Book MEL,CDL etc. will decide whether I accept an aircraft...

I will take into consideration the MEL, situational circumstances, Management input and engineering input. then and only then will I MAKE THE DECISION whether to accept it or not.

Saddens me that we have so called professionals on here who perhaps fear management repercussion or perhaps lack the abilities to make a decision on whether it is acceptable or not.

The book says it's ok therefore it must be ok.......

[Oakape]

I have been concerned about the direction the industry is heading with regards to safety for some time now & what I am reading here just heightens my concern.

The MEL does not decide if the flight goes or not - that is the sole responsibility of the Captain. The MEL is provided to assist with that decision due to the compexity of modern aircraft. Sure, if the problem is an airworthiness issue & cannot be MEL'ed, then the decision has been effectively made. However, just because a unservicable item can be MEL'ed, doesn't mean that the aircraft is safe to fly in the conditions that exist at any particular point in time. The Captain needs to weigh everything up & decide if it is safe to fly - for every sector.

Some MEL's are very grey as well. Our TCAS MEL states the following -

Installed: 1; Required: 0. It then goes on to say "May be inoperative provided: a) system is deactivated and secured; b) enroute or approach procedures do not require it's use; c) it is not reasonably practical for repairs or replacement to be made"

Just what "enroute or approach procedures do not require it's use" means exactly, is open to interpretation. And I would put it to you that the Captain is the one who gets to do the interpretation.

It would seem that management behaviour has forced most, if not all, pilots these days into a position of second guessing their decisions & endevouring to have a covering clause in the manual for their actions. This is leading to a deterioration in airmanship & sound decision making skills in the cockpits of today. And that trend will only end in more accidents as we constantly erode the safety buffer that has been hard won over the previous decades with blood & tears.

[Intruder]

Yes, not a very complicated concept, that is not the issue here, the thread is about a pilot that refuses to fly because the TCAS is u/s.

Where did you read that? I read that the Captain refused to take an aircraft because of a bad door seal AND an u/s TCAS...