US Airways Captain Escorted from Aircraft

[picollo]

Here is another article which might shed light on what went on

http://crankyflier.com/2011/07/28/us...ranky+Flier%29



Also the Union( USAPA) is now being sued by the company to the tune of $ 400 million for work slowdown.

[aviatorhi]

Just because it's "LEGAL" doesn't mean it's either prudent or SAFE!!!

You're not pilot in command of anything until you're actually on board and operating the aircraft.

What I'm saying is, if the company wants to "force" you to take it across the pond and it's legal in the book, then do your job and take the airplane. You may then continue doing your job and set down in Kangerlussuaq if trouble does arise.

[Shell Management]

picollo - so the Captain ran the battery flat showing that the APU was failed?

No one she was escorted away.

[aterpster]

Shell Management:

picollo - so the Captain ran the battery flat showing that the APU was failed?

No one (sic) she was escorted away.

The company wouldn't escort a crewmember off the property for incorrect procedure. They might, however, remove her from schedule and set her up for remedial training followed by a simulator check ride, then a line check ride.

She was apparently escorted off the property for making a quite inappropriate PA announcement to the passengers.

[Earl of Rochester]

Earl...you keep repeating your common theme..."but isn't there some way that???"...

You've been answered many times previously on this thread...IT'S THE CAPT'S DECISION, PERIOD!!!...regardless of what the MEL says...

Myself, I wouldn't fly any Boeing, Airbus, etal, across the ocean, Andes or anywhere else remotely similar with any dodgy electricial squawks...If the D/O wants me to fly it from MIA to ORD, well, that's another story...

Just because it's "LEGAL" doesn't mean it's either prudent or SAFE!!!

I am keen to know whether improvements could be made to the scope of information available to pilots. It seems to me that the options open to consideration in the event of one of more failed MEL items are numerous and ideally suited to processing by an on-board computer.

For instance if the computer determined that (in accordance with the MMEL) a simultaneous APU and BUS fail were not recommended for an ETOPS flight it might have made things easier for Captain Valerie.

A computer generated list of possibles/not possibles would bring (one assumes) greater standardisation in the analysis of multiple failed MEL items and place less burden on captains.

The captain should still maintain his/her prerogative as to whether to accept or reject the computer's recommendations.

She was apparently escorted off the property for making a quite inappropriate PA announcement to the passengers.

Has this been confirmed by either the union or airline? Are there any media reports stating this?

[aterpster]

Has this been confirmed by either the union or airline? Are there any media reports stating this?

The link in Post #101 seems to be credible.

[Ditchdigger]

A computer generated list of possibles/not possibles would bring (one assumes) greater standardisation in the analysis of multiple failed MEL items and place less burden on captains.

Computers don't make decisions. They only regurgitate that which a computer programmer has told them to.

It seems to me, from my seat here in the peanut gallery, that to put the "decision" in the hands of a computer simply shifts the actual decision from the Captain, here and now, to a programmer, warm and comfy in his cubicle, and distant from the immediate circumstances by perhaps thousands of miles and years of time.

[ironbutt57]

Sorry "aviatorhi"...but you've got it all wrong, and have no apparent understand of Commander's authority and responsibility....

Read the preamble to any MEL (if you know what that is), and any operator's OM-A, or equivilent, it is the sole decision of the commander to accept any airplane for any flight

This case however, reeks of "job action"...no person I know would attempt to start the APU after an auto-shutdown without ground power available, one runs the risk of depleting the batteries....

And if the media reports are accurate, the subsequent PA's to the pax were certainly out of order,

But you're first assertion Mr/Ms "aviatorhi" is most incorrect....

[aviatorhi]

Sorry "aviatorhi"...but you've got it all wrong, and have no apparent understand of Commander's authority and responsibility....

Read the preamble to any MEL (if you know what that is), and any operator's OM-A, or equivilent, it is the sole decision of the commander to accept any airplane for any flight.

If the regulatory guidance and manufacturer's manuals and/or accepted manuals clearly show the aircraft is capable of safely flying (ie. takeoff and landing somewhere, not necessarily the destination) then there is no reason to reject the flight. "Personal" reasons or not, we are pilots here and we are paid to fly the airplane, not find excuses to do otherwise. A true "commander" would advise the operations department of the possible consequences and let them make the decision if they want to operate the flight with the accepted risk of those consequences (ie. diversion to some extremely out of the way, and inconvenient, airfield). According to all official sources of information on this aircraft it was only the APU that was INOP and the associated BUS problem was related to a dead battery, which was quickly corrected. The APU, by itself, is not any reason whatsoever to decline to fly the aircraft.

[ironbutt57]

A true commander accepts responsibility for the safety of the aircraft, no pencil pusher, or mahogany airplane pilot has the right to interefere in that decision, thus the statement in the MEL preamble, simple.....we dont have access to any other failure history, or anomalies recorded in the the tech log of said aircraft, so really this is a fruitless discussion.....case in point...

IDG mel'd apu to provide power source..all MEL'd properly and legal to go......however tech log reflects several unexplained shutdown of the APU in the last 8 sectors....aircraft...LEGAL...refuse, during the ensuing "discussion, APU shut down again.....would you really want to accept the aircraft because it's "legal"?? think about what you are saying...board YOUR family and I'll happily launch at night into the monsoons of India with this "legal" (therefore safe in your eyes) aircraft....no further comments from me...

[aviatorhi]

Yep, I'd go, and I wouldn't have a problem letting anyone, family or otherwise, go along as well.

[DutchRoll]

Originally Posted by aviatorhi

If the regulatory guidance and manufacturer's manuals and/or accepted manuals clearly show the aircraft is capable of safely flying (ie. takeoff and landing somewhere, not necessarily the destination) then there is no reason to reject the flight.

That's actually quite a gross misunderstanding of how airline manuals, such as the Dispatch Deviation Guide, or the Minimum Equipment List (the MEL is contained within the DDG), are designed to work, and what authority Government regulations grant to the Captain of an aircraft. Our FAA approved DDG (for a Boeing aircraft), for example, has the following statements among numerous others:

a) If the Captain is available, the Captain's agreement shall be obtained prior to application of the MEL by the engineer.

b) If the Captain is not available, the MEL may be applied. However the Captain must subsequently be satisfied that any resulting operational restrictions are acceptable for the flight.

NOTE: Consideration should be made of the operational implications of increased workload, level of safety, or multiple inoperative items affecting airworthiness or weather conditions for departure, enroute, or destination.

Pretty crystal clear, right? Not "the Captain's agreement might be considered on the day if you feel like it". Not "it's best done to the Captain's satisfaction, but it doesn't really matter if it's not".

A true "commander" would advise the operations department of the possible consequences and let them make the decision if they want to operate the flight with the accepted risk of those consequences (ie. diversion to some extremely out of the way, and inconvenient, airfield).

No, a true "commander" is the person on the spot who must approve the final risk analysis, take responsibility for what is about to occur under their command, and make the final decision. A true "commander" does not simply defer to other departments and let them make the decision for them, although they of course may (and should) consult with other departments to assist them in making that decision.

According to all official sources of information.....

Ah well there you have it. Must be right then.

You're not pilot in command of anything until you're actually on board and operating the aircraft.

So, you're not allowed to make the decision on how much fuel will be loaded when you're doing the flight planning?

[aviatorhi]

Here we go with the games and twisting of words...

So, you're not allowed to make the decision on how much fuel will be loaded when you're doing the flight planning?

Albeit there are decisions to make prior to the flight, the statement I made is a simplification of the reality that the inclination of many towards sitting on the ground and watching the clouds go by is not an appropriate course of action.

As to the other comments... are you seriously suggesting that an APU being INOP in and of itself is a reason to cause delay to a flight, when it is not a required piece of equipment for the safe conduct of that flight?

A true "commander" does not simply defer to other departments and let them make the decision for them...

The Captain of any flight is not the "be all, end all" authority on the initiation of that flight (there are DOs, CPs, Dispatchers, etc. etc. who also SHARE this authority/responsibility), if the company wishes to accept the possible consequences, as outlined by the captain prior to departure (for instance, an increased likelihood that he flight may be forced to divert or return to the origin once enroute), then it is a pilots responsibility to accept the work that he is assigned and conduct it to the best of their ability, it is also his responsibility to turn around and return or divert if that becomes necessary at a later point. Let the company make the decision whether or not they want to initiate the flight (with, as I have said previously, input from the captain as to possible consequences). Pilot's aren't paid to make those decisions, they're paid to execute them safely once they have been made.

[ironbutt57]

aviatorhi...never mind, glad I dont work for you..

[aterpster]

ironbutt:

aviatorhi...never mind, glad I dont work for you..

If you did work for him and he made management the final authority on the MEL, the union and eventually the FAA would be dealing with him rather unfavorably.

[nitpicker330]

viatorhi>>>

the Captain of any flight is not the "be all, end all" authority on the initiation of that flight

Ha, you are a funny man.

The Captain most certainly is the final word in the go no go decision, and the regs say so.

quote from the A330 DDG:-


APPLICATION CRITERIA FOR DISPATCH (COMMANDER RESPONSIBILITY)
A330
20 AUG 10
DDG conditions and limitations do not relieve the Commander from determining that the aircraft is in a fit condition for safe operation with specific unserviceablities.
If a failure occurs after the start of taxi and before the start of the take off roll, any decision to continue the flight shall be subject to the Commanders judgment and good airmanship. The applicable ECAM/Operations Manual procedures shall be actioned and the Commander should refer to the DDG before any decision to continue the flight is taken.
It is within the authority of the Commander to accept a defect without consulting a ground engineer after the doors are closed provided the defect does not require a maintenance (M) specific procedure and it is covered in the MEL.
No flight shall take place with any item of aircraft equipment inoperative or outside the requirements of the Operations Manual, if in the opinion of the Commander the lack of such equipment or the relaxing of an Operations Manual requirement will jeopardize the safe conduct of the flight.
The decision of the Commander to have allowable inoperative items corrected prior to flight will take precedence over the provisions contained in the DDG. The Commander may request requirements above the DDG, whenever in his judgement such added equipment is essential to the safety of a particular flight under the conditions prevailing at the time.
The DDG does not take into account multiple unserviceabilities. Therefore, before dispatching an aeroplane with multiple inoperative DDG items, it must be assured that any interface or interrelationship between inoperative items will not result in a degradation in the level of safety and/or unduly increase crew workload. When assessing the effect of multiple unserviceabilities, in particular those involving related systems, it is essential for the Commander to exercise good judgement based on the specific circumstances at the time, including enroute airport availability, navigation facilities and weather conditions.
The Commander should be aware of the operational and technical consequences of a given failure and must satisfy himself that the failed component or system is properly isolated or deactivated.


I suggest you read this again mate, "Commander" is used quite a bit in there.

If your company doesn't agree then they are certainly within their rights to replace you with another commander. BUT they can never force a Commander to accept an Aircraft if in the opinion of the Commander it is not airworthy.

If the Commander is wrong then he will receive a bollocking in due course.

[aviatorhi]

Does this:

the Captain of any flight is not the "be all, end all" authority on the initiation of that flight

mean something different than this:

the Captain of any flight is the final authority as to the safe operation of that flight

????

Initiation and continuation/operation are two different concepts. If the plane is able to get in the air safely and legally (albeit with possible operational restriction and consequences which should be communicated by the CA) then if the company wishes to operate that flight is it up to the CA to do so.

I agree with the latter part of your statement though.

[J.O.]

Every decent flight operations manager I have ever worked for was someone who did not engage in second guessing their captains decisions or in forcing them to take an airplane if the captain felt it was a better decision to stay on the ground. There simply is nothing good that can come from doing so. All it takes is one time where a captain is ordered to go when they don't want to and an accident ensues. The responsible manager will be in for a long and miserable fight as they try to climb out of the hole the dug for themselves. So to those of you who really think you are smart enough to second guess a line captains decisions, I would strongly suggest that you take out a healthy E's & O's insurance policy.

[Ditchdigger]

The Captain of any flight is not the "be all, end all" authority on the initiation of that flight (there are DOs, CPs, Dispatchers, etc. etc. who also SHARE this authority/responsibility), if the company wishes to accept the possible consequences, as outlined by the captain prior to departure (for instance, an increased likelihood that he flight may be forced to divert or return to the origin once enroute), then it is a pilots responsibility to accept the work that he is assigned and conduct it to the best of their ability, it is also his responsibility to turn around and return or divert if that becomes necessary at a later point.

Initiation and continuation/operation are two different concepts. If the plane is able to get in the air safely and legally (albeit with possible operational restriction and consequences which should be communicated by the CA) then if the company wishes to operate that flight is it up to the CA to do so.

Let me make sure I'm reading this right, cause I really am a ditchdigger, but I come here to learn, and I try not to ask stupid questions--If the Captain and the company aren't certain that the flight can get to its destination, but the company is willing to bet that it'll be able to land somewhere, that's good enough?

[J.O.]

I couldn't possibly say it an better, DD.