Yes you got me there Intruder, but please tell me the impact of the pressurization has on a short trip in Florida? :ugh:

What an MMEL does take into account:
• Impact of the item’s failure on the safety of the flight.
• Results of flight and/or simulator tests.
• Impact of the failure on crew workload.
• Impact of multiple unserviceabilities.
• Impact of the next critical failure

Would anyone suspect, as I do, that this was not an isolated incident where the boss simply decided not to go, but the straw that broke the camel's back?

Has anyone considered that, for example, this guy had had the door seal or the TCAS DDR'd previously on the aeroplane and was fed up of it not being fixed? Maybe there were things inop on the aeroplane that he didn't actually include in his reasons for refusal, but were between them enough for him to say 'enough is enough'?

I reckon this sounds like he could be an exasperated captain making a stand against an airline that, in his opinion, is heading for disaster, and as usual the only people that see it coming are the guys who fly the things every day.

Dec. 30 (Bloomberg) -- On the evening of Dec. 10, 2007,
 

As a practical matter, very few midairs occur at night, so the risk for this flight without TCAS was miniscule.

If you read the full article, there were events leading up to this.

GB

I already did, in Post #8.

I'm not familiar with the airplane or its MEL. However, after reading the article, I could add that having a minimally qualified FO and/or an airplane that pressed the limits of the MEL (e.g., seal leaking worse than when first reported/deferred) might well have exacerbated the situation.

Don't forget FAR 91.3:
Neither the dispatcher nor the mechanic who signs off a deferral has that responsibility or authority. If either one of them is being "pushed" by the company to release airplanes that are unairworthy or marginally airworthy, then the PIC is obligated to use that authority to stop the operation.

and FAR 121.533:
Note that in 121.533(c)(3), the company, in the form of the Dispatcher, is REQUIRED to cancel the flight if in "the opinion of the pilot in command, the flight cannot operate or continue to operate safely."

Finally, remember that FAA and MEL limitations are limitations IN ANY CASE, and specific circumstances may warrant more stringent limitations. Again, the final call is the RESPONSIBILITY of the pilot in command.

Depends on the conditions as to how dangerous (or not) this could be.

Even aircraft without transponder should paint a primary, and being a commercial flight it is under IFR rules, with all that entails for RADAR coverage.

Then of course, there is always the Mk.I eyeball. :ok:

ECAM Actions.

Many ATC radars are set up to NOT paint primary returns, so airplanes without transponders will be invisible to them.

When IFR below 10,000' in VMC, there are still likely to be MANY VFR light civil airplanes out there, with varying degrees of lookout discipline...

@ miserlou:

Precisely.

However, sensible people would regard that fact as flagging concern about the "outfits", not (as you infer) about the pilots.

<weird partial post>

I fully agree, and I think it goes without saying that occasionally this situation will come up, I believe most real pilots on this thread fully understand this point.

Well, i think Intruders answer covered that one. (Thanks Intruder)

Well, I'm certainly the guy that gets killed if they are wrong.

I certainly don't make a habit of declining to fly based on the MEL. I think maybe two or three times in my career. I remember one situation well; two fairly serious snags, both manageable in isolation, but the two, combined with the circumstances, were clearly unsafe. Ops jumped up and down when I said no, and werent interested in listening to why, and phoned the Chief Pilot with a "CPB won't fly" whine, he called me, I explained the circumstances (which took about 15 seconds), he said "too right" and "explained" the situation to them.

And tbh, what is it with the 'godlike' omniscience that some pilots ascribe to manufacturers anyway. People make mistakes, manufacturers and their staff are no exception. You ought to bear in mind that when a new aircraft gets launched to its first customer, there really isn't a lot of practical day to day experience around in flying the thing. Its really touching that you think the manufacturers and test pilots have considered every combination of failures but they haven't, thats why the responsibility for interpreting the MEL rests with the Captain, not some dude in Ops.

Am I smarter than the manufacturer? Overall, probably not. But I do hold an engineering degree as well as an ATPL, and two heads are better than one (or N+1 is better than N). In my current role I do talk to the chief test pilot at a major manufacturer on a fairly regular basis about systems failure procedures and quite often I query him about the MEL and Abnormal checklists. Those conversations (very occaisionally) have led to changes in procedures. So, you see, the manufactures use feedback from the line.

pb

. . . And getting back to the thread; where the topic is leaky door seal and inop TCAS for a short hop from the west coast of Florida to the east coast of Florida.

Let's get real: How high would you need to go in a King Air to fly 150 miles?

I'd say no more than 10,000' [press not required] in non RVSM airspace [TCAS not required]. IFR or ATC flight following available.

It's just a statement of fact, not an attempt to vindicate the operator's alleged other violations. :ooh:

Quiz time!
 

Who wrote: "Rule books are paper, they will not cushion a sudden meeting of stone and metal"?

Been there done that. Door Seal

Fed up with pax complaining about the noise like a pig getting its throat cut.
Fed up going down the back and trying to shove a plastic bag to seal it.

Go at sub 10,000 and have to clean up all the barf bags.

Tell the Engineers about it they lub it, all this seems to do it change the tone.
Put it in the tech log they sign it off as inspected and SATIS while lubing it again.

Eventualy it becomes that bad you can't pressurise. Goes in the techlog defered as a pressurisation problem. Ops need the aircraft and the when the engineers fit a new seal the aircraft isn't left long enough for the glue to cure. 2 days later same problem, full flying program the prospect of having to work with this heap for another 3 days before it gets looked at again....

Yep ground it or it will never get fixed until the next major maint.

What would some of you guys done 20 years ago when there was no TCAS???

Oh, I forgot, you were still in grade school....

Yes, and my father flew intercontinental routes before there was weather radar. Now I wouldn`t dream of doing that, would you?

To answer your question: I flew across Africa at night before TCAS, including during the Hadj. No I would not do that again.

Times change, technology advances and that changes the ballgame.

Capt Pit Bull
 

Am I smarter than the manufacturer? Overall, probably not. But I do hold an engineering degree as well as an ATPL, and two heads are better than one (or N+1 is better than N). In my current role I do talk to the chief test pilot at a major manufacturer on a fairly regular basis about systems failure procedures and quite often I query him about the MEL and Abnormal checklists. Those conversations (very occaisionally) have led to changes in procedures. So, you see, the manufactures use feedback from the line.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I completely agree, Capt PB.

I have had the great good fortune to work with Transport Canada and several manufacturers in developling MMEL's.

And mostly, the result works - we can legally, and safely, operate with some stuff inop.

But I have also seen some utter MEL gong shows. Any pilot or engineer with a good grasp of the mechanical systems involved would conclude NFW! This especially apparent with combos, as many don't understand the interelated systems risk.

Problem is, the smart Capt's who understand the systems know when to say no, but the dummies just press on - in complete bovine stupidity - just because the MEL says so. Yikes!:bored:

A U.S. aviation inspector recommended grounding regional airline Gulfstream International Group Inc. in 2008 for violations including giving pilots too little rest, deferring plane maintenance and falsifying records.
The Federal Aviation Administration inspector’s recommendation, which hasn’t previously been disclosed, was rejected by FAA attorneys.

FAA Inspector Urged Gulfstream Be Grounded for Violations - Bloomberg

Really?? So all flight 250kts below 10k is unsafe? My first perception was that this captain made a good decision. Logically the 10k cap due pressurization negates it's self due to the speed restriction. Sounds like a frusterated pilot who threw a tantrum, if he wishes to do this to bring light to gulfstream's operation it's his career on the line, his choice.

This is not a flight safety issue. It is being bent here into another reason why gulfstream should not operate as it does.

Mud...

I agree completely...

I flew BE-99's throughout Fla and the Northeast when I was with Bar Harbor, not to mention my long ago hours on the C-402 with Valley Airlines...ALL below 10,000 feet in ice, rain, low ceilings with no TCAS or R/A...should I go on?

Whether Gulfstream should be fined or have their Certificate suspended or revoked IS a matter for the FAA...

However, while they are still operating, the "Captains" there should be happy for a job, not trying to destroy the company from within...

If you don't won't to work there, leave...That's what I did at Falcon Air Express and Custom Air Transport...and look where those 2 defunct 121 carriers are now (they're not)...Don't trash the company, especially if you don't have the horsepower to get hired somewhere else...

Do you honestly think (probably not) or believe (probably) that your next airline won't check your previous employment???

Once a ****e stirrer, always a ****e stirrer....Good luck dudes...I wouldn't hire you whiners...

(If I was H.R. at an airline)

What has TCAS to do with poor WX?

So if a pilot isn't happy with his company's maintenance practices he should just shut up and be happy he's got a job?
Reminds me of some socialist airlines....

Just because you did it doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.
It could also be that someone wants to work there but would also like to see their company improve its practices.


You are not in the position to hire anyone because you are not an HR at an airline and the reason you are not is probably because someone has been checking your previous employment history.....:E:E:E:E