PA and BeachBum
 

Ops is subject to all manner of human foibles; the foibles will out. The decision not to fly ranks with dozens if not hundreds of similarly mystifying corporate calls on the other side of the jetway. This will unfold. If I hear anything juicy I'll fill you in. It wasn't a Hat.

airfoilmod;
I remember three as well and was the third for a short while - couldn't believe they'd get rid of a 3rd set of eyes, not for airplanes outside for the two guys up front... Today, the RP is worth his/her weight in gold.

Re your remark to River City, Exactly...brochures tell everyone it takes only a few hours to learn how to fly....it's learning when not to that takes a lifetime...

Of that, I have no doubt. Standing by...


PA-28-161:
If you're a working, professional pilot, I hope you carefully re-examine your priorities and hone your risk management skills for your, and your passengers' safety.

It is understood by every pilot who chooses the profession that some employers, all well known, will fire pilots for the slightest reason including what you describe as "histrionics" and what a true aviator would describe as an appropriate command decision. If that is the case with your employer, you need to document the issues, take them to the regulator and find another employer.

We have a case in Canada where the employer was known to pressure his pilots until amid complex circumstances as is always the case in an accident, one ran out of fuel, killed people and was eventually criminally prosecuted for his decision-making.

If you're management and you treat your organization's pilots this way, an accident is, for your organization, inevitable.

If you're not yet flying commercially (as perhaps indicated by your handle), read this thread and others on flight safety and SMS carefully and take them to heart if you want to enter the profession and stay alive.

BTW, even if you're not in aviation and an interested observer, learn that the same decision-making priorities apply in all of life and not just in the cockpit. It's what tells others who has cajones and who hasn't, who is to be reckoned with and who isn't.

Airline A
 

Enters bankruptcy, dissolves pensions, emerges with most wages cut 30 per cent, tries two half hearted consolidations, decides to eliminate 100's of A/C (including crew and support), then thinks it would be a wonderful idea to start a 130 MILLION dollar "benefits and incentives" fund for management. The Union fights back by encouraging flight crew to not wear hats. Does anything I've reported sound familiar?

Airfoil, let the discussion begin.

PJ2: Quite a bit of speculation about my role in aviation, all of which are wrong, but your comments are well received. I agree that there's much more to this story than we know.

However, I would like to respectfully add, playing the "The Lives Of Hundreds Of People Rest On My Shoulders" trump card does get a bit tedious. Yeah, we get it, safely piloting an aircraft full of people is indeed a great responsibility, but the notion that we are never allowed to question a pilot's decisions is absolutely wrong.

PA
 

Questioning anything is great fun, I encourage it. Value judgments flow from decisions that get questioned. Nobody is giving the Pilot a pass. For the fourth time, a command decision. People who don't understand the concept are questioning the concept. Commanders live with their decisions. How ridiculous to obliquely and unwittingly slag the principle because it was actioned by a Human whose judgment you question.

You fly a Piper. Does command rest with you? Whose command was UAL ? PA, read above for background. Post #44

Airfoil: I think we are in complete agreement. :ok:

PA
 

Thanks PA. Me, I like a high wing. (just kidding)

Regards, Airfoil

PA;
Thanks... Yes, the story will be interesting. Sorry, don't mean to appear to "lecture", passion notwithstanding...

Hats off to the guy/gal that was too stress to fly!!:ok:

PA28-161 ..... says it all really. Piper Cherokee !

I employ pilots and thank them for making the difficult decisions. Upset passengers are far easier to deal with than dead ones. Much much easier .... even if the passengers are not smart enough to know it.

WOW! Those United pilots really know how to show mamagement their solidarity.

By not wearing their hats ??!! That will do it.


Another loser idea by the union.

vrsc

No, CR2, you are not 'missing something', as it were.
The concerned Commander should be relieved of his command, and put back in the RHS where he quite frankly, truly belongs.
He was (and perhaps still is) very childish, in other words, a complete fool.

Medical Standards
 

This is the rule to follow for issuance of a First-Class Airman Medical Certificate, in the mental part of the pilot. If he was issued a certificate, then he was mentally O.K.

Title 14: Aeronautics and Space
PART 67—MEDICAL STANDARDS AND CERTIFICATION
Subpart B—First-Class Airman Medical Certificate

§ 67.107 Mental.
Mental standards for a first-class airman medical certificate are:
(a) No established medical history or clinical diagnosis of any of the following:
(1) A personality disorder that is severe enough to have repeatedly manifested itself by overt acts.
(2) A psychosis. As used in this section, “psychosis” refers to a mental disorder in which:
(i) The individual has manifested delusions, hallucinations, grossly bizarre or disorganized behavior, or other commonly accepted symptoms of this condition; or
(ii) The individual may reasonably be expected to manifest delusions, hallucinations, grossly bizarre or disorganized behavior, or other commonly accepted symptoms of this condition.
(3) A bipolar disorder.
(4) Substance dependence, except where there is established clinical evidence, satisfactory to the Federal Air Surgeon, of recovery, including sustained total abstinence from the substance(s) for not less than the preceding 2 years. As used in this section—
(i) “Substance” includes: Alcohol; other sedatives and hypnotics; anxiolytics; opioids; central nervous system stimulants such as cocaine, amphetamines, and similarly acting sympathomimetics; hallucinogens; phencyclidine or similarly acting arylcyclohexylamines; cannabis; inhalants; and other psychoactive drugs and chemicals; and
(ii) “Substance dependence” means a condition in which a person is dependent on a substance, other than tobacco or ordinary xanthine-containing (e.g., caffeine) beverages, as evidenced by—
(A) Increased tolerance;
(B) Manifestation of withdrawal symptoms;
(C) Impaired control of use; or
(D) Continued use despite damage to physical health or impairment of social, personal, or occupational functioning.
(b) No substance abuse within the preceding 2 years defined as:
(1) Use of a substance in a situation in which that use was physically hazardous, if there has been at any other time an instance of the use of a substance also in a situation in which that use was physically hazardous;
(2) A verified positive drug test result, an alcohol test result of 0.04 or greater alcohol concentration, or a refusal to submit to a drug or alcohol test required by the U.S. Department of Transportation or an agency of the U.S. Department of Transportation; or
(3) Misuse of a substance that the Federal Air Surgeon, based on case history and appropriate, qualified medical judgment relating to the substance involved, finds—
(i) Makes the person unable to safely perform the duties or exercise the privileges of the airman certificate applied for or held; or
(ii) May reasonably be expected, for the maximum duration of the airman medical certificate applied for or held, to make the person unable to perform those duties or exercise those privileges.
(c) No other personality disorder, neurosis, or other mental condition that the Federal Air Surgeon, based on the case history and appropriate, qualified medical judgment relating to the condition involved, finds—
(1) Makes the person unable to safely perform the duties or exercise the privileges of the airman certificate applied for or held; or
(2) May reasonably be expected, for the maximum duration of the airman medical certificate applied for or held, to make the person unable to perform those duties or exercise those privileges.
[Doc. No. 27940, 61 FR 11256, Mar. 19, 1996, as amended by Amdt. 67–19, 71 FR 35764, June 21, 2006]

I always remember the following:

§ 91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.
(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.

In this case the pilot might have been pressed in such a manner that he considered he was not fit to fly, even considering he has a valid medical certificate to do it. Then he made a decision not to fly, according to his authority. Was it legal that he makes a flight under those circumstances? I do not think so. I think he acted responsibly. Wonder if an accident happens, then the airline and the union, and all of us, would be blaming him for doing his job as some expect him to do even being fully stressed as he was.

Kudos for not taking the flight, he is a credit to the profession. Blue320, good post!

As a second SLF I would like to say that from my perspective, he made the right decision.

Yes it was perhaps stupid to get so worked up over an issue like a hat, but we have all done such things. Think back to your relationships with your significant others. Ever had a fight about stupid things that started off small and ended up heated and angry? I am talking of the perverbial toilet seat kind of things. It happens to even the best of people some times, and it seems to this pilot this time.

One point not raised above is if this is a pattern. If this pilot did this often and regularly over a period of time, then perhpas there is cause for concern. How ever nothing to date suggests this is the case. We have no reason to believe this is anything but a one off case.

It was also said above that he said he needed at least an hour to cool down. Good for him. The flight can wait an hour! Enough other people make F ups all over the airline industry causing much more than one hour delays that this is in the big picture virtually nothing. Even if it took the crew over duty times, then other things can be sorted out.

Would I like it if I was on the plane? No. Would I complain? No. Would I buy him a beer after work? Yes, and add that S happens and to forget about it.

A good decision made.

TME

Just wondering: to quote you "I employ pilots and thank them for making the difficult decisions." I take it this means that you own an airline business? There seems to be many professional people on this forum but you're the first airline owner I've heard from.

That's what make this forum great, we have both pilots and airline owners, all in one place!

TeachMe, excellent post.

It's easy to forget, sometimes, that pilots are human and suffer from all the related physical and mental conditions that everybody else does. Yes, if you're a "professional", most of the time you can put that to one side and carry on with SOPs, but rarely, something that seems quite trivial might just prove to be the proverbial "last straw" and leave you unable to concentrate on the job in hand.

The guy in question could have easily said that there was a delay of an hour because of an ATC slot/loading/bags/fuel/tech. problem, etc. No-one would have queried it. Instead he was honest and said he needed to cool down and collect his thoughts for a while before he went flying: he effectively went "tech" for a bit. To recognise this sort of problem within yourself and take remedial action shows great mental maturity and courage. Well done. :D

A real professional
 

During my aviation career ( since 1976 - 20 years flying military hardware and the rest in airlines) this is the 8th time of acknowledging a guy with guts.
Good job. :ok::D

To fly or not to fly - whose decision?
 

In August 2004 I elected not to fly as a co pilot whilst a training captain due to multiple roster changes and feeling very unwell with a poor memory and chronic fatigue.

This is how my airline dealt with me in a letter sent shortly after the incident from the General Manager.

" It is my opinion that you allowed yourself to become distracted by minor issues which then compounded to raise your stress levels such that you were unable to fly safely. Indeed, the captain himself had doubts as to your suitability to operate that day. I would expect a senior captain to behave in a more responsible manner and was disappointed by your actions on XX August 2004. If you have any concerns then I stongly suggest that, in future, you complete your duties and then present a formal grievance so the the matter can be properly investigated and, if substantiated be dealth with.

To simply make a stand as you did does not help. It promotes further roster disruption to your colleagues and does little to help with morale. This company looks to its captains for leadership and to present them as a role models to the rest of the work force."

This is a real extract from a real letter of a leading UK loco carrier.

Around 18 months later, after electing not to fly again, I was grounded due to 'chronic stress'.

In May 2006 I was diagnosed as suffering from 'chronic poisoning' - Yet another victim of contaminated air. I had no idea and nobody ever mentioned it to me.

My sympathy to the pilot who elected not to fly - I did the same three times - I look back on those command decisions as being the best, hardest ones of my life.

If in doubt - DON'T! You will be all on your own; but at least you (and your crew and your passengers) will be alive....

www.aerotoxic.org for anybody who needs assistance.

DB := :ok:

I think a newspaper headline of;

Page 6… “STRESSED OUT PILOT FLIES OFF PLANE IN A FIT OF RAGE SECONDS BEFORE TAKEOFF STRANDING PASSENGERS IN SALT LAKE CITY. “

is a far better read than;

Banner Headline… “BEFORE TAKEOFF FROM SALT LACE CITY, A VISABLY CRAZED PILOT WITNESSED BY HORRIFIED BYSTANDERS IN THE TERMINAL, TAKES HIS PLANE ALONG WITH HIS PASSENGERS TO THEIR FINAL DESTINATION!”

Oh well… tough break for those Pulitzer wannabe members of the fourth estate.:suspect:

Transactional Analysis
 

Not for me to comment on the rights and wrongs of the pilots' decision, but I have a question? Is TA something that is covered in the CRM side of training? All the management/team training I have had included it. Sounds like both he and the union guy could have benefited from it and avoided the situation in the first place.

Doesn't have to be juicy, I'd like to hear any background about it. Can't believe this was a single out-of-the-blue phone call which caused Capt to go all postal. "Playing games" as someone else said much more likely, games having started some time prior.

I agree with #8 here, the similarities to the Papa India accident are startling. I was in the BEA crew room and witnessed the argument, which was union related.

It taught me that if you have just had a violent altercation with someone, don't fly till you've calmed down. You are a walking accident looking for somewhere to happen.

the wood for the trees
 

Let me ask, if we take away the incident that perhaps caused the Captains state of mind ( because we know little of the facts) and just say that this Captain felt unfit to fly. Surely, then , inconvenience be damned, IT IS HIS RESPONSIBILITY AND DUTY to remove himself ?

Later, on reflection and perhaps self examination, the Captain can assess , what went wrong and how it could have been prevented to avoid further similar situations in the future.
As pilots, part of the reason that we are respected in our profession, is the ability to make tough decisions. To not be affected by "getthereitis" or any other distracting and irrelevent factors.
Knowing what we know as facts in this case and subject to future revelations we can only and should only base our response on:

A) the Captain deemed himself unfit to fly
B) the Captain removed himself from the task of operation of the A/C that day.

We must stand with him in his decision given only these facts and leave the second guessing out of it.
Thankyou.

No argument; if Capt feels he is unfit to fly then he doesn't fly.

However I don't think the circumstances of this incident can be excluded, assuming what went on has been accurately reported. The announcement to the passengers was TOTALLY unprofessional and unnecessary; it would seem to have been done solely to make a point in public. Not on in my book and deserving of a bollocking (at least) from the Chief.

Pull yourself off yes, but have the purser or ground agent announce it as "crew incapacitation" or somesuch.

[QUOTE] The announcement to the passengers was TOTALLY unprofessional and unnecessary; it would seem to have been done solely to make a point in public./QUOTE]

Once you make a decision like this,you as the Captain must have the decency to stand up and explain it to the folks you're about to inconvenience.Only then can you hope to earn their respect.You wont get their thanks but you might just get their respect.

I agree Paper Tiger

The heated phone conversation in front of the PAX, and the PA make me doubt that he he was in fit state in the first place.

The chain of events just compounded his frustration and decision making.

I feel for the guy, and it maybe that his co-pilot did not help the situation by not noticing his stress level rising prior to that incident and making him aware of it.

Incapacitation can take on many forms and at any time.

halas

A wee anecdote (I like anecdotes). A few years ago I went along to one of those Alan Carr stop smoking seminars. Sat through it & emerged hours later as a firm, confirmed non-smoker. 3 minutes later, I had a call from my recent wife. What she said was so preposterous that within seconds of hanging up the phone, I was trying to smoke a whole packet of cigarettes simultaneously. Well, maybe not. I was incandescent for some time and I would like to stress that it takes a hell of a lot of provocation to get me that annoyed. If our gallant captain was suffering from anything like the same leveles of anger/frustration I was going through, then his actions are highly commendable & correct.
One small thought though, I hope that his actions weren't meant to highlight a situation he wasn't happy with. That would seem like more of a sulk to me. Quite prepared to be shot down in flames on the last point.

That was my sense of it, from the limited info available to me. Could easily be wrong though...

Or you could scare the **** out of them and/or drive them away from your airline. :ouch:

Though his application of using a cell phone on the jetway is not excusable, the fact that he took himself off duty is a good call. In hind sight, if the PIC of 'Trident PI' had made the same call, we'd not have seen 'PI' in the middle of the pit at LHR!

Good call and very professional, he considered himself unfit to fly, so he said so, and apologised to the 'pay check paying' punters.


Rant when are going to get English English as the default, not Ameri-English?

What is the learning
 

[non pilot speaking]. I have no problem with the Pilot making the decision, if fact I can not imagine that anyone would have the authority to tell the pilot that he has to go back into the plane and fly. To me, the issue would be around what is being done to help this (and other?) pilots recognise the signs that led to this decision earlier and what processes could be put in place, if needed, to mitigate the effects. In other words, what changed in the moments leading up to the decision that prevented the pilot of making this decision hours previously and giving more time to mitigate the resulting scheduling problems.

#72 Rant
 

Maybe it should be English and Ameriglish.:ugh:

United Pilot
 

He has been removed from flying...and is no longer on the schedule. Call it as it is, suspension. If he was too upset to fly over a "hat" disagreement then I do not want to be on his plane in an emergency... If he cannot handle a union dispute then how on earth can he handle an emergency.

Poor decision by United.Their judgement cometh and that right soon.

Yup, my point exactly.
IF the concerned pilot ain't fit, send him home until he is fit...whenever that might be.:}

IFly4Free, 411a;
Nonsense.

The comparison is ridiculous bordering on the polemical as opposed to the merely-operationally-safe. At least one of you should know that emergencies in the air are heavily trained for and are intended and designed with human factors in mind, not excluding human factors.

Passionate argument does not belong in or around an airplane though heaven knows there are plenty of sources for same in our industry today. It occurred and it was dealt with appropriately.

We don't know the man's history nor the circumstances of the discussion.

If there is a history of wild upset followed by booking off, that needs to be dealt with in a far different manner than respecting the fact that even airline pilots are human at times...

An enlightened organization with a healthy safety culture, (or even a just culture) does not view firing, suspension or other disciplinary measures as solutions. The problem either requires intelligent, informed intervention by trained individuals from the Pilot Assistance program or it requires a discussion with a respected manager to see if there are deeper issues or if the blow-up was a once-off and the individual has learned. The operator certainly has a moral and legal due-diligence responsibility to come to terms with the issue and resolve it as a matter of record. Talk of firing or suspension, especially if it was a once-off with an otherwise good employee is simply old-fashioned chest-beating and a hold-over from bygone days.

I wonder who will get the first of the 950 furlough notices.....:bored:

Differences of Opinions in the Workplace
 

I was reading stuff on the public section of the website of ALPA's United MEC earlier today, and -- for what it's worth -- I noticed this little nugget on the Update/Week in Review, dated June 20, 2008:

Methinks this may have been prompted by the incident discussed in this thread.

DocSullivan;
I don't think there's any "methinks" about it - almost certainly it was as a result of this and it is entirely appropriate.

While some may characterize a pilots' association/union in intentionally disrespectful and even extreme terms, such organizations actually have a huge vested interest in the professional side of airline work as well as the industrial side. That side, and the safety side, are largely unspoken but do good work in keeping the expensive resources working as opposed to off the line. The attitudes expressed here by some are very familiar - heard it, seen it over the past 35 years. Such utterances are signs that the bottom line and profit are ruling the organization and that they have forgotten the business they're in is aviation.

There isn't any way this approach equates to a get-out-of-jail card; professional standards absolutely must be maintained, and watched carefully especially in times of high financial stress and the consequent (for most) emotional stress such circumstances generate. Management has a due diligence responsibility to ensure it's crews are performing safely and are up to standard. But there has been a great deal learnt since firing a pilot was the only response to such issues.