Fatal Flying on Airlines no Accident..
 

Dec. 30 (Bloomberg) -- On the evening of Dec. 10, 2007, pilot Kenny Edwards got the order to fly a Continental Airlines Inc. commuter flight from Tampa, Florida, to West Palm Beach. He told his dispatch supervisor he wouldn’t do it.

The plane’s collision avoidance system was broken, and a worn seal around the main cabin door made it difficult to maintain air pressurization above 10,000 feet, he told his bosses.

Gulfstream International Airlines Inc., which operated the Continental flight, ordered Edwards to fly the 19-passenger Beechcraft 1900D turboprop plane anyway, Edwards says. He refused. As a result, he was fired.

Edwards filed a complaint with the Federal Aviation Administration, bringing into focus the hidden dangers of flying on regional airlines, which account for half of all scheduled passenger flights in the U.S., Bloomberg Markets magazine reported...

Fatal Flying on Airlines No Accident in Pilot Complaints to FAA - Bloomberg.com

If the article is to be believed, I hope his union are 100% behind him and fund his action. Fortunately, it looks like there are deep pockets behind the other party so he shouldn't go away empty handed when he wins.

The Bloomberg article also highlights the potential perils of self selecting, self sponsoring zero to hero courses which include line training on the back of the course. The cheap airlines who benefit from this arrangement are, if they were people, the sort who would turn up at a party (un-invited) and not take any booze. They are also the people who should be named and shamed. Make them spend the money they save on not paying for training on marketing the idea that its OK not to pay their employee and legal fees for when it goes pear shaped.

Best of luck,

PM

My, oh my
 

If even 30% is true...
:mad:
:\
:mad:
God bless America for providing these means to "the Dream"...

P.S.: It is high time pprune dedicates a forum to educating the SLF. As far as I can remember from an article I read 2-3 years ago, the FAA is one of the most underfunded agencies in the USA. Obviously they alone can't do too much. If the SLF don't vote with their money or Uncle Sam doesn't step in himself, it will all end in much more tears.

The trend is already there (Flight Global article on safety) - human factor is the most contributing cause for mishaps for the first time in 10 years world wide!

Ms Salas obviously has a bit of a crush on Gulfstream International Airlines, but if half of what she alleges here is true then they deserve greater scrutiny, but that's the point isn't it - all of these alleged infractions are outside the current legal and regulatory framework, so who's supposed to be enforcing that? Oh, that's right, the FAA, your tax dollars inaction again.

Where's the outcry to make the regulatory body effective?

I'm fairly sure both those item's are MEL'able. Unless they were overdue on the tolerances, his only excuse medical ie: plugged ears etc... I think the highest thing in florida is the Six flags/disney rollercoaster at around 400'. That said if you mel the pressurization, you cannot use the rear baggage area, the way TC's was written anyway.


That said, if a pilot isn't comfortable don't fly the airplane. I hope that he gets compensation.

Here we go with the "pay for training" debate...I think 1500 Hrs for a 121 crewmember is a good idea...

What happened to flight instructing, banner towing, night freight/checks to bank, sighteeing tours, etc, to earn your stripes????

This is not an argument pro/con about pay for training...just my viewpoint that you can't "buy" the experience needed to fly my family commercially...

No!
You can, but be prepared to do it like the LH or AF or similar cadets in Europe. Where it costs them up to 100k EUR with the 10 years interest.
Not like in this criminal Gulfstream outfit.
Like the hookers - you get what you pay for...
IMHO

A SINGLE MEL item may warrant only 'normal' scrutiny, but ANY combination of multiple deferred maintenance items warrants close scrutiny by the Captain and his best judgement as to take the airplane or not. The Captain didn'n need an "excuse" -- he believed the airplane was not safe FOR THAT FLIGHT, IN THAT CONDITION.

A VERY reasonable scenario is easily visualized: The pressurization problem forces flight at 10,000' or less -- the area where most light civil GA flying is done. The lack of TCAS greatly increases the risk of collision in that environment -- an environment in which he would not normally be flying in the first place!

Well well well.

No it isn't. There are some masts up to 1500' just south of the approach to PBI. Oh, and there's that radar sonde that goes to 14000' near EYW.

But the "Captain's Judgement" is the very thing that apparently fails with this outfit. They either have insufficient experience to be making multiple MEL calls, or they are basically indentured servants until they pay off the training debt, or they are overridden by a cavalier management culture which they are too vulnerable or exposed to challenge effectively. Or maybe it's all of the above.

Choices are be a Captain and hope it doesn't kill you, or be a (unemployed) hero and call it like it is. A culture of ethical and morally correct behavior can only exist if the entire organization subscribes to it. It's no good if only the flight crews understand that point if management will neither support or endorse appropriate command behavior.

As far as I can see, neither of those items require special procedures except max 10,000'.
I'd have taken the flight.

Miserlou; you can only say that if you are in possession of ALL the facts. I've refused to take aircraft in the past; thankfully my employer (usually) accepted that the captain was the guy taking the responsibility.

He made the right call
 

I notice that those second guesing this pilot tend to cover their real location and aviation knowledge in their files, maybe so they can trash sound decisions made by this pilot without revealing their own total lack of background to make these charges.Having just returned from that part of the USA there is NO WAY one should take a load of pax at low level without a TCAS or as I have ,a poor mans version of same in our 421, further to this I wonder if these folks have ever heard the howl of a leakey door seal?belive me I have had one so load we couldnt hear ATC! The pilot made a decision based on his view of things,its his butt, not yours so belt up if you wernt there! By the way I avoid flying on any conector in the USA, I felt safer on a Sqdn with a 50% loss rate per year than I do as a pax on any of them, at least we had a seat with a big red handle.

If I remember correctly, there was a lawsuit brought by the CA against the airline for unfair dismissal, or what ever it is called, but as Florida is am "At Will" state, meaning that you or your employer can terminate the employment without cause, there was no case to answer. Very screwed up system, especially when it comes down to safety. There should be some re-percussion for the airline when this happens. Their argument as I remember it was the TCAS was MELable, and thus the CA was out of line. Not that they had to prove anything anyway as I said. At will means just that. In the US you either have at will or unionised. Total left or total right.

Downin3green, lets not do the hours debate thing again. European carriers and US military trust 200 hr guys in the rights seat. Their accident record is as good as any other unless you can show otherwise. Although paying for time at a 121 carrier should be outlawed. How can it be competative, or how can the wrong people be weeded out if all that matters is if their cheque clears?

Why don't the FAA stop giving away licenses with frosties tokens and 3 months in a flight school? At least adopt the US military approach to training if not the rest of the civilised world civilian training. Get rid of part 61 for commerical, make all training for airline be approved under 141. Oh, and make the written tests harder so at least it's not an attempt at proving you really are smarter than a 5th grader!

Show me a list of accidents that have been caused or have even involved an FO with less than 1500 hrs at the time of the accident.

Fix the FAA first. Take them out of the airlines pockets. Get rid of POI's so that they get inspected by the next available inspector. Stop the cosiness!

Realistic...Regarding Fla's "right to work" law, that generally applies to unions, however, lawsuits (and settlements) are quite common...check out the Administrative Law Judge website...(sorry can't remember the exact name) and search "Custom Air Transport"...You'll find several pilots who were fired for dropping a dime to the feds....big money to the pilots involved....

Fly the aircraft at 10000ft not a problem as long as the airway starts below this altitiude/level, if their is an airway.

If not and it is class G airspace, tell the ops guys to fly it themselves, oh but they cant because they have not got a license and fly a desk

One cannot imagine the level of congestion in that airspace unless ou have experienced it, good decision by the Captain, bad choice to join a shonky outfit like that to begin with.

One can only hope after the Buffalo crash, the major airlines start being a bit more picky when they choose their regional partners...doubt it though:ugh:

Most SLF (or fare-paying passengers as we're otherwise known) who participate in PPRuNe are fairly savvy about issues of safety, and not just in the USA. I've flagged concerns with UK domestic and international carriers and also lobbied my Member of Parliament on aviation safety matters, especially when he was a junior transport minister in the government.

It's ironic that over on JB, someone recently suggested that PPRuNe should be for professional pilots only. While it's clearly a board for you folks, it's also an opportunity for engagement with people like me who are the end users of the service you provide. Long may that continue.

Maybe at your operation you don't use the MEL, most of the rest of us do, if you couldn't make this flight without theTCAS, maybe you should stick to a train or bus, you probably rely soley on these cute little instruments while you read the paper, what you are not aware of is that others may not have a transponder that you see or an operating TCAS, looking out the window that is supplied may be a good idea.

Good luck D.L.

Remember, the MEL permits you to take the aircraft, it does not require you to do so. I just find it lacking in professional courtesy to berate someone without knowing the facts. Just off the top of my head, what about the Met. Maybe flight below 10K was going to leave the aircraft flogging through icing close to the 0 degree isotherm. Or maybe the MEL time limit was exceeded. Maybe it had been out for 10 days and then miraculously 'tested and found serviceable" only to "fail" again on the following trip. The point is as soon as you get into multiple MEL items, especially if one is a biggy like pressurisation, you are rapidly moving into the realms of the 'less safe'.

From time to time I have declined to accept an aircraft inspite of the MEL.

QFT

Dream Land, {an apt title for sure!} Do you have any clue as to the amount of VFR traffic, flown by folks with the ink still wet on their PPL, are floging around in this airspace? not to mention the hordes of overseas students with piss poor comand of English who are training at the many "puppy farms" located in Florida? No, low level VFR with a load of pax in the typical haze and crap in this part of the USA is not smart, as for me looking out the window, belive me my generation had lots of practice in buble canopies during our miss spent younger years, and old habits die hard!You claim to be a "buss driver", before the age sixty rule caught up with me I spent a fair bit of time checking and training on the "mini Bus", cant tell you how many times I had to tell folks to look out the friggin window and stop pissing around with a PBD or some other piece of non essential stuff.

Sorry, I don't work at an airline that operates like that, if the aircraft is legal, why would you turn down the flight?

You say that the aircraft is more unsafe, maybe you are smarter than the aircraft manufacturer?

Not trying to make a joke here, clunckdriver, no I haven't operated in that area for years, but it's been busy for many years, by the way this story is as old as the hills, several years old.

Are you from the flying club where pilots individualize procedures?

Let's see: Your auto pressurization system is DMI'd today, and you're about to strand 400pax because you don't feel inclined to work manual pressurization because it's a 14hrs flight? . . . Yes, you can be sure that your services will no longer be "required" henceforth. :{

The MEL and CDL are accepted procedures approved by the manufacturer and respective airworthiness authorities.

DreamLand, your attitude worries me: "if it complies with the letter of the law it's irrefutably safe, even if the Captain thinks it isn't".

I'm only SLF, but it seems to me that in this respect aviation isn't that different from other areas of life, where legislation provides a minimum general safety level but the circumstances of a particular case might make something that's legal quite unsafe. 50mph on a snowy country lane, for example.

I'm much more inclined to say "if it worries the Captain it worries me, whatever the regs say"

Once again, "the manufacturer" considers each MEL item IN ISOLATION. There is NO consideration given for multiple MEL items, unless specifically stated. Therefore, ANY combination of multiple MEL items requires the Captain's close scrutiny and consideration.

I have not done it often, but in 11 years of flying the 747 I have refused toatake off due to a combination of MEL items. Generally it's a case of not wanting to delay a schedule, or even pure maintenance laziness, rather than not having the ability to fix it at a particular station. They fix one or more; we go flying.

Ah....Dreamland, Glueball.....
I hope you are far, far away from your first command.
I also hope that you and your future crew/pax will be fortunate enough that you actually get to learn why it is that the commander is the one who gets to decide if a plane is safe to fly under the actual conditions
Aviation is not an exact science that lets itself be captured in written rules and regulations. It takes responsibility (and accounability for that matter).

Hear, Hear
 

There seems to be a lot of black and white opinions on this rather grey matter.
I still maintain that on the facts presented, it is a go rather thin excuse not to fly.

There are plenty of factors which are not presented which may alter my take on this. If the worn seal is a howler then the company should be replacing it for the passengers' sake. There is no mention of time of day, schedule, congestion, weather or maintenance bases. These would all be taken into account in the decision making process.

Very often people who fly for the kind of outfit which Gulfstream appear to be have a bit of an axe to grind with them. I wouldn't be surprised if this also plays a part in the process.

I have known of people who try to find reasons NOT to fly rather than to carry out the job for which they are paid.

I seem to remember that nervous pax are reassured by the wise words that "The pilots are always the first to arrive at the scene of the accident, so if they are happy to fly, so should you be.." , I think that just about says it all in the context of this discussion...

Management is doing things right but Leadership is doing the right thing.

Glueball
 

I think Capt Pit Bull was referring to situations where multiple MEL items would cause him to think carefully about the situation. He didn't state that he would not accept an aircraft with a pressurisation problem.

To help make it clearer for you Capt Pit Bull starts a statement
Regards
Exeng

Good for you multi cpl...glue and dream...rules (MEL for example) are made for people with no common sense...I was on a crew (as FE) on a scheduled flight out of MIA to South America (Panama City, Lma, La Paz and terminating at Ascencion, Paraguay)... # 1 Generator MEL'D inop...Legal, yes, however the Captain said "No"..."I'll fly this A/C to Chicago or L.A., but not across the Andes at night"...

Now go back to your fantasy world, you 2....

My airline had a L1011 with a L1 door down route that would not lock closed.....
There was only one copy of the L1011 Mel in those days back at base and the ops manager basically sat on this secret in his office and issued dispensations like God .... most line Captains were unaware of this Mel manuals existence and simply did what they were told by the ops manager.
The delayed Captain who was aware of the new Mel system cheekily asked ops if he "Could take the aircraft and fly the schedule on time with passengers provided he left open the R3 door to normalize the airflow through the cabin from the L1 door and he considered this would avoid a delay?"
The level of knowledge by our leaders in ops caused them to ask the
ops manager who did not know much about the L1011 anyway to urgently consulted his secret Mel....being unsuccessful in his search for a dispensation he phoned the engineering department who asked for the Captains name...on receiving it they said "Oh him! He is just taking the piss!

-"to carry out the job for which they are paid"?
 

In the case of Gulfstream International Airlines, a lot of pilots actually pay to carry out the job for which they should be paid.

Yes, not a very complicated concept, that is not the issue here, the thread is about a pilot that refuses to fly because the TCAS is u/s.

I see so 3 operating generators was not sufficient to go across a few little hills?

Maybe it was in another era, where I work we must accept aircraft that are legally dispatched, no go back to your rocking chair.

It was about 1972 when a UAL 727 dispatched from LAX with one gen inop. On climbout, an engine with good gen failed, and in the confusion with the new FE, the cockpit went dark for a short time. They stalled and went in.

The MEL is governed by the regulatory authority. I believe it's TSO-119c for TCAS. Those of you who read the entire article know the fix for the squawk in this incident was to remove the TCAS unit, rub off the connector pins and replace it.

GB

No Balls? No one whether Management or not and no Book MEL,CDL etc. will decide whether I accept an aircraft...

I will take into consideration the MEL, situational circumstances, Management input and engineering input. then and only then will I MAKE THE DECISION whether to accept it or not.

Saddens me that we have so called professionals on here who perhaps fear management repercussion or perhaps lack the abilities to make a decision on whether it is acceptable or not.

The book says it's ok therefore it must be ok.......:rolleyes:

I have been concerned about the direction the industry is heading with regards to safety for some time now & what I am reading here just heightens my concern.

The MEL does not decide if the flight goes or not - that is the sole responsibility of the Captain. The MEL is provided to assist with that decision due to the compexity of modern aircraft. Sure, if the problem is an airworthiness issue & cannot be MEL'ed, then the decision has been effectively made. However, just because a unservicable item can be MEL'ed, doesn't mean that the aircraft is safe to fly in the conditions that exist at any particular point in time. The Captain needs to weigh everything up & decide if it is safe to fly - for every sector.

Some MEL's are very grey as well. Our TCAS MEL states the following -

Installed: 1; Required: 0. It then goes on to say "May be inoperative provided: a) system is deactivated and secured; b) enroute or approach procedures do not require it's use; c) it is not reasonably practical for repairs or replacement to be made"

Just what "enroute or approach procedures do not require it's use" means exactly, is open to interpretation. And I would put it to you that the Captain is the one who gets to do the interpretation.

It would seem that management behaviour has forced most, if not all, pilots these days into a position of second guessing their decisions & endevouring to have a covering clause in the manual for their actions. This is leading to a deterioration in airmanship & sound decision making skills in the cockpits of today. And that trend will only end in more accidents as we constantly erode the safety buffer that has been hard won over the previous decades with blood & tears.

Where did you read that? I read that the Captain refused to take an aircraft because of a bad door seal AND an u/s TCAS...