US Airways Captain Escorted from Aircraft
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
From: HK
Sloppyjoe is correct the APU is a conditional dispatch item.
The "HOT Battery Bus", if that is the correct term, if it is one of these then there is no decision.
DC BAT BUS FAULT NO DISPATCH
DC BUS 1 FAULT NO DISPATCH
DC BUS 1+2 FAULT NO DISPATCH
DC BUS 2 FAULT NO DISPATCH
DC ESS BUS FAULT NO DISPATCH
DC ESS BUS SHED NO DISPATCH
The "HOT Battery Bus", if that is the correct term, if it is one of these then there is no decision.
DC BAT BUS FAULT NO DISPATCH
DC BUS 1 FAULT NO DISPATCH
DC BUS 1+2 FAULT NO DISPATCH
DC BUS 2 FAULT NO DISPATCH
DC ESS BUS FAULT NO DISPATCH
DC ESS BUS SHED NO DISPATCH
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 4,369
Likes: 3
From: UK.
We'd a situation where a captain required a MEL item repaired before dispatch.
It could have been done but, IIRC, Engineering decided that it was permitted and didn't call the part from a store an hour away.
Captain insisted. Result: Tea without biscuits.
Fortunately it ended at that otherwise I'd like to think there would have been no departures at all next day.
It could have been done but, IIRC, Engineering decided that it was permitted and didn't call the part from a store an hour away.
Captain insisted. Result: Tea without biscuits.
Fortunately it ended at that otherwise I'd like to think there would have been no departures at all next day.
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 3,991
Likes: 8
From: UK
Meaning therefore that devinehover's statement was a paradox in that it is not possible for a MEL to sanction the dispatch of an aircraft with multiple (or combination) items inoperative as MEL's only address the omission of a single item?
Subject to the precise defects and the provisions of the MEL then yes it is possible to depart with multiple items inoperative. (But for clarification a specific MEL item might say you may dispatch with this item u/s BUT if so, something else MUST be serviceable, for example).
However, in law the Commander has the absolute right in not accepting an a/c with multiple (or even single) defects which the MEL allows! For example, would you despatch with the APU u/s if you know the destination has no ground power and/or air start facility?
As I have stated before, the operator may not like that but that is the authority which is legally vested in the Commander. In this incident, it is interesting that another crew was of the same opinion also.
In a way, the same applies to use of discretion wrt Flight Time Limitations. Only the Commander may exercise discretion to extend the duty day or reduce minimum rest - you might be having tea and no biccies with the CP to explain why but, legally, the operator cannot force you to go just because it's in the MEL.
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
From: Queensland, Australia
If anyone hasn't read the USAPA link in the original post, I recommend it. The facts are slightly different than in the press cutting quoted.
Well done to the pilot involved and brickbats to US Airways.
Well done to the pilot involved and brickbats to US Airways.
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,306
Likes: 0
From: Canada
Divenehover, In my company the F/O {Thats what you claim to be in your profile} does not make the MEL/Go/No Go decision, the Captain does with input from the crew and dispatch/ maint, but the buck stops in the left seat period! As for any company that treats a thirty year employee like a criminal, words fail me. I have instructed our travel department to add US Air to our "No Fly List", not a big Dead Heading acount, but maybe if they see more of us doing this it might give them pause to think.
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,060
Likes: 62
From: HKG
I think it is more to do with the emergency generator as the APU does not supply hydraulic power. The RAT can provide power through the emergency generator by pressure in the green system but under 260kts this is very minimal. With the APU out on a 330 you still have three generators and all hydraulics. The issue of ground services in FCO is not a factor. If it was either hot bus 1 or hot bus 2 INOP also I honestly can't see why that would make going with the APU INOP any worse as the only things these do is connect to either battery 1 or 2. 1 battery is just as useless as 2 if that is the only power you have in an A330. There will be more to this story than we know.
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 68
Likes: 1
From: I bucked one and Tim bucked two
I don't need an engineer to tell me not to take a two-engine a/c overwater at night in Class II navigation regardless of the MEL. Some U.S. Airlines have a gentleman's agreement(although I haven't seen many gentlemen in airline mgt. the last few years) they won't dispatch under these conditions at night giving them the MEL relief to dispatch in the day. However, not a 'Bus driver. Newer Boeing(777, 787) have more backups. Won't do it on 757/767/737. Rather be tried by twelve than carried by six.
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 548
Likes: 15
From: US
Un connected faults
Something I have seen on more than one occasion is un connected events that later turned out to be connected, almost always in the electrical department. Resetting a switch or being told it is fixed is not the same as finding the cause of the problem.
I suspect there some friction between the captain and MX over what was acceptable.
A few years back I was sitting in 1A and witnessed just such a show down. The Captain wanted a part replaced. The mechanic said he could do it only after the captain talked with his boss. The captain refused, he said we are not moving till the part is replaced, stop wasting time and get it fixed. With the wrong people in the right mood the event could easily have escalated.
It will be interesting to see what gets made public on this.
I suspect there some friction between the captain and MX over what was acceptable.
A few years back I was sitting in 1A and witnessed just such a show down. The Captain wanted a part replaced. The mechanic said he could do it only after the captain talked with his boss. The captain refused, he said we are not moving till the part is replaced, stop wasting time and get it fixed. With the wrong people in the right mood the event could easily have escalated.
It will be interesting to see what gets made public on this.
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 980
Likes: 11
From: On the dark side of the moon
The USAPA statement statement referred to in the original posting is well worth reading. I don't know if there's anything the airline could say that could possibly answer it effectively, short of a major mea culpa.
Joined: Jun 1999
Posts: 3,423
Likes: 1
From: world
I don't know if there's anything the airline could say that could possibly answer it effectively
In a letter to employees on Friday, Robert Isom, chief operating officer, wrote that "USAPA has embarked upon a smear campaign that in reality is all about contract negotiations, not safety.
"I can tell you unequivocally the union's claims are outlandish, false and a disservice to the 32,000 hard-working employees of US Airways," Isom wrote. "Safety has been and always will be the top priority at US Airways, as it is at any airline."
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,658
Likes: 0
From: Up north
The Captain still has the absolute right to not accept the aircraft even if it is in the MEL - in fact all the MELs I have seen iterate this fact in the preamble. The Captain might deem that a certain combination of defects on that particular flight is not acceptable.
The operator may not agree but that's another matter.
The operator may not agree but that's another matter.
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 783
Likes: 0
From: The Deep South (Sussex)
As an old retired captain with etops and airbus type experience, I would point out that the good thing about this event is that US Air still have at least two cockpit crews who know their job and didn't take an aircraft that they considered wasn't serviceable for flight.
I wonder how far down the list of replacement crews the US management would have had to try to find out one that agreed with them and took the aircraft...and whether that crew would have made destination without a major event or diversion.
My respects to both crews who said no! I hope that there are many like them in US Air.
I wonder how far down the list of replacement crews the US management would have had to try to find out one that agreed with them and took the aircraft...and whether that crew would have made destination without a major event or diversion.
My respects to both crews who said no! I hope that there are many like them in US Air.
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 980
Likes: 11
From: On the dark side of the moon
They already have - with the usual management BS one is to expect these days:
In a letter to employees on Friday, Robert Isom, chief operating officer, wrote that "USAPA has embarked upon a smear campaign that in reality is all about contract negotiations, not safety.
"I can tell you unequivocally the union's claims are outlandish, false and a disservice to the 32,000 hard-working employees of US Airways," Isom wrote. "Safety has been and always will be the top priority at US Airways, as it is at any airline."
In a letter to employees on Friday, Robert Isom, chief operating officer, wrote that "USAPA has embarked upon a smear campaign that in reality is all about contract negotiations, not safety.
"I can tell you unequivocally the union's claims are outlandish, false and a disservice to the 32,000 hard-working employees of US Airways," Isom wrote. "Safety has been and always will be the top priority at US Airways, as it is at any airline."
Thread Starter
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,422
Likes: 3
From: Milano, Italia
.
And my concern .. is that for erring on the side of caution, safety and professionalism, Valerie Wells, her FO and the second crew could be stigmatised by US Airways management as a result of taking this stand - not least of all because the USAPA did a commendable job of jumping to the crew's defence and which support revealed USA in a less than favourable light.
The curious thing is that in the longrun safety always pays off whereas sailing close to the wind only yeilds short-term solutions which all too often result in costs [fiscal, human, reputation and otherwise] which undo the 'benefits' of the compromise to such an extent so as to render the choice ineffectual at best, high damaging and deadly at worst.
This realisation should be part the ABC's of airline management but .. one sees that it is necessary to repeat the obvious (with alarming regularity) to people who really should know better.
And my concern .. is that for erring on the side of caution, safety and professionalism, Valerie Wells, her FO and the second crew could be stigmatised by US Airways management as a result of taking this stand - not least of all because the USAPA did a commendable job of jumping to the crew's defence and which support revealed USA in a less than favourable light.
The curious thing is that in the longrun safety always pays off whereas sailing close to the wind only yeilds short-term solutions which all too often result in costs [fiscal, human, reputation and otherwise] which undo the 'benefits' of the compromise to such an extent so as to render the choice ineffectual at best, high damaging and deadly at worst.
This realisation should be part the ABC's of airline management but .. one sees that it is necessary to repeat the obvious (with alarming regularity) to people who really should know better.
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,306
Likes: 0
From: Canada
"Safety has always been the top priority at US Airways, as it is at any airline".Mr Isom, have I got news for you! One only has to read TSB and NTSB reports to see how wrong this statement is, I for one quit a very lucrative flying job on the grounds of safety, I predicted they would bend two aircraft in five years, I was wrong, they bent four! In the last one a person from the corner office was also very bent, at least this finally got the attention of the bean counters!