Fired for refusal to fly through ash cloud
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Third planet from the sun
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh come on guys. Actually this is very simple.
Did he refuse to fly in an area with ash concentration below what the manufacturers now say is safe (Is it 2000 micrograms/m^3?) and where everybody else was flying?
if yes, well then I think he was wrongly overcautious and he could have known he'd get in trouble. I don't feel sorry in that case.
Did he refuse to fly in an area where the concentration was predicted to be OVER the new limit? In that case I can understand his point of view and I do feel sorry for him.
And please let's stop comparing the actual situation over Europe with what happened to those BA and KLM flights that lost all 4 engines after flying through a DENSE THICK ASH CLOUD close to a volcano. Until now there has not been a single ash CLOUD over Europe. Perhaps merely ash concentrations so low that they remain invisible to the naked eye. I still haven't heard about a single MEASUREMENT which did confirm any significant ash concentration over Europe!
Did you?
Did he refuse to fly in an area with ash concentration below what the manufacturers now say is safe (Is it 2000 micrograms/m^3?) and where everybody else was flying?
if yes, well then I think he was wrongly overcautious and he could have known he'd get in trouble. I don't feel sorry in that case.
Did he refuse to fly in an area where the concentration was predicted to be OVER the new limit? In that case I can understand his point of view and I do feel sorry for him.
And please let's stop comparing the actual situation over Europe with what happened to those BA and KLM flights that lost all 4 engines after flying through a DENSE THICK ASH CLOUD close to a volcano. Until now there has not been a single ash CLOUD over Europe. Perhaps merely ash concentrations so low that they remain invisible to the naked eye. I still haven't heard about a single MEASUREMENT which did confirm any significant ash concentration over Europe!
Did you?
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Third planet from the sun
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
we do not care about your exemplary record
If this guy refused to fly without a good justifiable reason as it appears to be, then I might suspect that he has been a pain in the *ss before and this was just the excuse the company was looking for.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: sussex
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All this rot about "safety first" does get very tedious ! The FIRST obligation of any independent airline management is to make a profit ...............it is absolutely pointless having the safest airline in the world if it's continuously losing money.
The clever bit is to keep your airline safe at minimum cost. This means - among many other things - trying to fly your advertised schedule despite the weather.
Ask yourself - we could all make our cars or homes 1% safer by spending 50% more on running costs but do we do it ? No, because we consider that the additional safety margin wouldn't be worth the investment.
Would a commander be entitled to divert if the weather condition at his destination was above his landing limits ............but he had an opinion that it was dangerous to do a cat 3 landing - although everyone else was successfully landing ???
In terms of safety he's absolutely right - how unsafe is it to land on a runway you can't see..............but commercially it would be unacceptable.
The clever bit is to keep your airline safe at minimum cost. This means - among many other things - trying to fly your advertised schedule despite the weather.
Ask yourself - we could all make our cars or homes 1% safer by spending 50% more on running costs but do we do it ? No, because we consider that the additional safety margin wouldn't be worth the investment.
Would a commander be entitled to divert if the weather condition at his destination was above his landing limits ............but he had an opinion that it was dangerous to do a cat 3 landing - although everyone else was successfully landing ???
In terms of safety he's absolutely right - how unsafe is it to land on a runway you can't see..............but commercially it would be unacceptable.
airline pilots are expected to fly to the conditions listed in their Opspecs, so if RVR 3 is available based on equipage then they should operate...WRT to MEL's John Tullamarine wrote and excellent post about them, ditto CAT III/CAT II ops
but he said clearly
just saying... I don't know what's official or not...or the extent of any truths..
but he said clearly
if it's ok to fly I fly over, under or around the boundaries of this cloud
Fact: Routes to have been flown penetrated the official boundaries given by VAAC London
I would like to suggest reading the notes: they are supplementary to the official boundary charts by VAAC London. For legal purposes the VAACs have precedence.
Dispatchers have no knowledge nor training in providing updates on the situation, plus no guidelines were given from the company until TODAY, on what is acceptable or not. And on one occasion, if I had not ignored the "chief pilot" on insisting to proceed with my planned destination (I changed it to an airport outside the affected area)
just saying... I don't know what's official or not...or the extent of any truths..
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Neupielot
Just to enlighten you and your equally intelligent mate The best way to avoid dense areas of ASH CLOUDS is to see the things.
To see the things is best done in daylight.
Over the UK in the late spring and summer months we tend to get just a little bit more daylight hours than we do mid winter.
I hope you understand that but I doubt it.
Pace
"I would avoid flying at night which isnt a major problem at this time of year".
What the
?
haha i was thinking the same thing too. Wth....?
What the
?haha i was thinking the same thing too. Wth....?
The best way to avoid dense areas of ASH CLOUDS is to see the things.To see the things is best done in daylight.
Over the UK in the late spring and summer months we tend to get just a little bit more daylight hours than we do mid winter.
I hope you understand that but I doubt it.
Pace
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Inside
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by vanHorck
I would recommend that no pilot who has been dismissed in this matter comes here to post things.
Posting such matters in public exposes one to all who seems to unable to resist kicking a colleague when he is down.
I am really at a loss to understand what motivates such behaviour.
EU OPS
JAR-OPS1 and EU OPS 1 appear to be silent on the matter of acceptance of environmental conditions before flight. The closest item is 1.346's heading but the text fails to cover the same condition.
In many other countries there are local regulatory catch all provisions of the PIC not accepting flight where there are known risk factors posing a safety risk, (operational or environmental). Even FAR 91.13 Careless or reckless operation, would stop you...
Under JAR/EU (COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 8/2008 of 11 December 2007), 1.090, 1.290, 1.340, & 1.346 do not provide any real support for the pilot, however the operator often abrogates the responsibility of 1.195 to an extent to the pilot, which would give the out for other risks.
Which raises a question... why provide the ash cloud weather if there is no requirement to consider the inherent risks? Reminiscent of the "advised to use caution..." caveat on far too many NOTAM's.
This pilots response is dependent on the manner of his/her termination form VEULLING, the companies FOM terminology in respect to operational control/commencement of operation, and whether it is compliant to Spanish industrial law, and possibly defamation law.
As to the negative comments on airing this matter on a rumour network, hard to follow that logic. Does that writer work for VEULLING or other airline mgt?
I have worked in mgt for a number of airlines, and for NAA's, and I certainly would be disturbed by the actions of a company as described. The company would have some issues with a competent and comprehensive IOSA audit, in relation to implementation of a SMS, and specifically, section 1 of the checklist.
The cost of a single delayed flight is hardly worth the candle of potential adverse publicity following the airlines heavy handed response. The cost of a serious incident after a company pressures a PIC to conduct a questioned operation would be rather extensive in scope.
Passengers have a right to be aware of the level of disregard being accorded to their safety by both pilots and operators alike. Equally, the industry has an obligation to show the passengers it is serious and professional about their safety, notwithstanding that the system existing today is a consequence of the desires of the public for the cheap (nasty?) commodity of air travel.
you get what you pay for.
FDR
In many other countries there are local regulatory catch all provisions of the PIC not accepting flight where there are known risk factors posing a safety risk, (operational or environmental). Even FAR 91.13 Careless or reckless operation, would stop you...
Under JAR/EU (COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 8/2008 of 11 December 2007), 1.090, 1.290, 1.340, & 1.346 do not provide any real support for the pilot, however the operator often abrogates the responsibility of 1.195 to an extent to the pilot, which would give the out for other risks.
Which raises a question... why provide the ash cloud weather if there is no requirement to consider the inherent risks? Reminiscent of the "advised to use caution..." caveat on far too many NOTAM's.
This pilots response is dependent on the manner of his/her termination form VEULLING, the companies FOM terminology in respect to operational control/commencement of operation, and whether it is compliant to Spanish industrial law, and possibly defamation law.
As to the negative comments on airing this matter on a rumour network, hard to follow that logic. Does that writer work for VEULLING or other airline mgt?
I have worked in mgt for a number of airlines, and for NAA's, and I certainly would be disturbed by the actions of a company as described. The company would have some issues with a competent and comprehensive IOSA audit, in relation to implementation of a SMS, and specifically, section 1 of the checklist.
The cost of a single delayed flight is hardly worth the candle of potential adverse publicity following the airlines heavy handed response. The cost of a serious incident after a company pressures a PIC to conduct a questioned operation would be rather extensive in scope.
Passengers have a right to be aware of the level of disregard being accorded to their safety by both pilots and operators alike. Equally, the industry has an obligation to show the passengers it is serious and professional about their safety, notwithstanding that the system existing today is a consequence of the desires of the public for the cheap (nasty?) commodity of air travel.
you get what you pay for.
"If all economists were laid end to end, they would not reach a conclusion."
George Bernard Shaw (1856 - 1950)
FDR
Last edited by fdr; 16th May 2010 at 23:43. Reason: ref
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace
What do you suggest for long haul operators???
What do you suggest for long haul operators???
Going back over 50 years of aviation the few serious dense ash encounters have been at night. There have been NO serious daylight encounters.
Over the UK at this time of year we have daylight as early as 0500 until 2200 when most movements have occured meaning that aircraft arriving or departing the UK do so in daylight.
Obviously if the volcanic eruptions continue into the winter we will have a much worse problem as our daylight is from approx 0800 to 1600
As long as long haul arrive or depart into UK airspace between 0500 and 2200 they should be operating in daylight at the moment.
One other consideration is the 50 years without an ASH caused fatality. We talk as if this phenomina is new which it isnt. Jet aircraft of 20+ years ago did not have the technology or the sophisticated ash mapping that we have today yet the record still remains spotless regarding fatalities caused by ash.
There are other threats which do bring aircraft down on a continuing and regular basis and which we accept as pilots but to date ASH is not one of them.
Pace
Pace
Ok here's an example. The ash cloud is located from the uk to about 30 west and ETA is 0730 uk. I can assure you that when you first enter the Enhanced Procedures Zone mid atlantic, in this made up example, it sure won't be daylight! Yes the sun may be up in London but abeam Keflavik the most you would probably see is a faint glow in the east.
In fact the ash cloud when this all started actually got about as far east as Gander or thereabouts. Since then it's made it down to the Azores.
The average long haul jet in my company makes a round trip in about 24 hours. In order to avoid flying at night means you would lose one rotation. You might have a point IF the ash cloud was only affecting the UK but unfortunately it's not as easy as that. In any event I do not know if the CAA would allow a see and avoid method to be sanctioned.
Ok here's an example. The ash cloud is located from the uk to about 30 west and ETA is 0730 uk. I can assure you that when you first enter the Enhanced Procedures Zone mid atlantic, in this made up example, it sure won't be daylight! Yes the sun may be up in London but abeam Keflavik the most you would probably see is a faint glow in the east.
In fact the ash cloud when this all started actually got about as far east as Gander or thereabouts. Since then it's made it down to the Azores.
The average long haul jet in my company makes a round trip in about 24 hours. In order to avoid flying at night means you would lose one rotation. You might have a point IF the ash cloud was only affecting the UK but unfortunately it's not as easy as that. In any event I do not know if the CAA would allow a see and avoid method to be sanctioned.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In any event I do not know if the CAA would allow a see and avoid method to be sanctioned
There was a lengthy debate in the media today with various involved parties.
The Airlines were complaining that the new existing permissable levels were far too low. The example being half a thimbleful of talcum powder in the volume of a large five bedroom house!
We are not talking about the volume of ash which will cause long term damage if at all to jet engines which is a cost, accounting, management problem! but the density of ash which is a hazard to the aircraft and pax.
My own feelings are that if the ash density is dense enough to cause a safety threat it will be visible in either polluted cloud or mist form.
They are "feelings" but then it was admitted today that the new limits were also no more than a guess with the airline now wanting those limits tripled.
If its not visible it "may" cause a long term maintenance cost problem but there again may not.
Hence my referral to flying in daylight hours where pilots can see and avoid in VMC conditions.
Infact there have only ever been two serious incidents both at night and both into dense ash clouds.
I was only talking about the UK and aircraft in the climbing or descending portions of the flight rather than high altitude cruise where maybe the threat isnt so pronounced.
One question I would like to know is whether ash has been found in the tropopause which is much lower to the north?
Obviously not everyone can avoid night flight but the majority can at this time of year. If this goes into winter then the majority will not avoid night flight in ash areas.
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 17th May 2010 at 19:03.
Pace
Points taken. What is clear, if not the ash itself(!), is that the regulatory framework is rapidly evolving from avoid at all times to a more nuanced approach - no pun intended.
Points taken. What is clear, if not the ash itself(!), is that the regulatory framework is rapidly evolving from avoid at all times to a more nuanced approach - no pun intended.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: east of 10° west
Age: 62
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well...
let's forget about JARs....
fdr wrote:
Not only in many other countries..
If a country is in compliance with ICAO rules, the country has to have relevant paras in their national law..
and that is the case in every country in Europe..
If you as a PIC plan a flight through or into a SIGMET'ed ( also highlighted as NOTAMS) and something happens, it is considered "reckless" and they will accuse you of endangering the general public..
Look up your national law...you will find it..
sabenaboy wrote:
I have yet to find a tech rep from an engine manufacturer who will confirm to me that they agree on anything more than "zero ash"...
There is none, because all that bull... from the UK CAA, that engine manufacturers had agreed to a 2000 mg/ M3 tolerance is bull....it never happened..
anybody here in this forum from the UK who knows any clown from your CAA...what do these guys smoke...?? or do they have a drinking problem??
fdr wrote:
JAR-OPS1 and EU OPS 1 appear to be silent on the matter of acceptance of environmental conditions before flight. The closest item is 1.346's heading but the text fails to cover the same condition.
In many other countries there are local regulatory catch all provisions of the PIC not accepting flight where there are known risk factors posing a safety risk, (operational or environmental). Even FAR 91.13 Careless or reckless operation, would stop you...
In many other countries there are local regulatory catch all provisions of the PIC not accepting flight where there are known risk factors posing a safety risk, (operational or environmental). Even FAR 91.13 Careless or reckless operation, would stop you...
If a country is in compliance with ICAO rules, the country has to have relevant paras in their national law..
and that is the case in every country in Europe..
If you as a PIC plan a flight through or into a SIGMET'ed ( also highlighted as NOTAMS) and something happens, it is considered "reckless" and they will accuse you of endangering the general public..
Look up your national law...you will find it..
sabenaboy wrote:
Did he refuse to fly in an area with ash concentration below what the manufacturers now say is safe (Is it 2000 micrograms/m^3?) and where everybody else was flying?
There is none, because all that bull... from the UK CAA, that engine manufacturers had agreed to a 2000 mg/ M3 tolerance is bull....it never happened..
anybody here in this forum from the UK who knows any clown from your CAA...what do these guys smoke...?? or do they have a drinking problem??
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Langata, Kenya
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To the OP
From the article:
Do you have anything to say to the above? No right of reply in the article; many on here will feel vindicated on reading that last paragraph. In your defence?
'The source adds that the captain's dismissal was "based on disciplinary reasons", adding: "It must be clear that these reasons have no relation to safety. On the contrary, they are totally related to unprofessional behaviour that started long before the ash-cloud situation."'
Join Date: May 2009
Location: A whole new world now!!
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lamyna flo Did you really expect anything else from the press office of a loco who has just had their safety culture publically questioned or even exposed?
Of course they are going to try and personally discredit the OP here, what else do they have. I've seen this behaviour from another airline when one of their crew dared to question safety practices. It just didn't get so public.
If, as vuelling are trying to alledge, the OP was "unprofessional" over some time according to their release then it begs the question why they would be prepared to let him anywhere near a flight deck whist they conducted their investigations. They should have suspended him way before the ash cloud incident If he was so terrible.
That man was fired because he refused to take his plane into an ash cloud he, as the PIC, deemed unsafe and it cost vuelling money.
If vuelling are allowed to get away with this a dangerous precedent will be set for you guys.
Of course they are going to try and personally discredit the OP here, what else do they have. I've seen this behaviour from another airline when one of their crew dared to question safety practices. It just didn't get so public.
If, as vuelling are trying to alledge, the OP was "unprofessional" over some time according to their release then it begs the question why they would be prepared to let him anywhere near a flight deck whist they conducted their investigations. They should have suspended him way before the ash cloud incident If he was so terrible.
That man was fired because he refused to take his plane into an ash cloud he, as the PIC, deemed unsafe and it cost vuelling money.
If vuelling are allowed to get away with this a dangerous precedent will be set for you guys.
That article sounds very suspicious...without giving away to much personal stuff that I must not discuss...let's say that companies tend to lie when in legal trouble...
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: NW
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't see any pilot flying through serious visible volcanic ash, but of the micro non visible stuff that will most likely just ruin the blades after a few hundred trips...
So be it...if the powers that be want to ruin some engines....who am I to tell them they are wrong....
This thread is less about volcanic ash and more about capts arguing where thier authority starts and ends...
I don't intend this to be a cheap shot, but airlines that hire 250 hour marshmellows to sit right seat, probably have about the same confidence in the left seaters to make a decision.
So be it...if the powers that be want to ruin some engines....who am I to tell them they are wrong....
This thread is less about volcanic ash and more about capts arguing where thier authority starts and ends...
I don't intend this to be a cheap shot, but airlines that hire 250 hour marshmellows to sit right seat, probably have about the same confidence in the left seaters to make a decision.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Planet earth
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Postive change
I agree with the statement that this should not have been brought up here. I do support A320 driver.
Would prefer this thread dies but had to answer reach59
The Spanish pilots union SEPLA got involved and the rumour is that they got him his job back after a nationwide strike involving all major airlines was planned.
My wish is that this management makes some changes and learns from this.
That they make Changes in the way OCC operates and that they put people or a person in flight operations ( chief pilot ) and flight safety management with proper airline management experience.
Its normal to put people you know in place, but if these people in flght ops management do not have sufficient European or Spanish airline experience, then incidents such as this are more likely to occur.
So lets avoid in the future a thread like this on the internet, which I for one do not like. As there are many professional pilots, insrtuctors, operations engineering and otherpeople who work very hard at Vueling for decent standards.
I hope the management admit their error to the pilots and themselves ( the rumour is that they have admitted their error in private ) through a internal statement.
Captains normally do not get fired for one reason.
A320 driver did you or not have a problem with Vueling´s management prior to the Ash cloud incidents, three weeks prior ? Were you picking a fight ?
Is there money involved in all this ?
Would prefer this thread dies but had to answer reach59
The Spanish pilots union SEPLA got involved and the rumour is that they got him his job back after a nationwide strike involving all major airlines was planned.
My wish is that this management makes some changes and learns from this.
That they make Changes in the way OCC operates and that they put people or a person in flight operations ( chief pilot ) and flight safety management with proper airline management experience.
Its normal to put people you know in place, but if these people in flght ops management do not have sufficient European or Spanish airline experience, then incidents such as this are more likely to occur.
So lets avoid in the future a thread like this on the internet, which I for one do not like. As there are many professional pilots, insrtuctors, operations engineering and otherpeople who work very hard at Vueling for decent standards.
I hope the management admit their error to the pilots and themselves ( the rumour is that they have admitted their error in private ) through a internal statement.
Captains normally do not get fired for one reason.
A320 driver did you or not have a problem with Vueling´s management prior to the Ash cloud incidents, three weeks prior ? Were you picking a fight ?
Is there money involved in all this ?
Last edited by Jimmy Hoffa Rocks; 3rd Jun 2010 at 22:19.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was he the first person to fly on a day that the ash cloud had previously caused airspace closure, or was he one of hundreds of flights?
Sure, discretion is applicable, but if unreasonably applied, then he's on thin ice.
Sure, discretion is applicable, but if unreasonably applied, then he's on thin ice.
