Fired for refusal to fly through ash cloud
 

A captain for Spanish airline Vueling, owned by Spanish flag carrier Iberia, was fired today after being deemed unprofessional for refusing flights through the volcanic ash cloud that has plagued the European airline industry since April. His contract was terminated after he made the decision not to operate flights out of Barcelona, Spain- air space that was contaminated by volcanic ash- this week due to safety reasons. He has been a pilot since 1992 and has been flying for Vueling for four years. His decision not to fly through space contaminated by volcanic ash is sound, based on thorough research of all available means and stands up for passengers rights to safety. He put safety first which resulted in him being a target for management with an agenda dictated by things like on-time statistics and profit. It is the Captain's belief that the company made an example of him and wanted to send a message to other pilots. The public should be aware of the message that this airline is sending to their fleet of pilots; make sound decisions based on the safety of passengers and crew and get fired?

Ridiculous! if that is true:*

why all of the threads about command decision lately ...is it really that bad these days?

Yes, sad but true. I have the paperwork to prove it. You will see this in the news shortly. Thanks for your support.

I've been operating in that area, and am nearby now...there's no ash cloud.

Don't sensationalize the issue if there's no issue to sensationalize.

Driver320, you began your post as though you were talking about another person. You're really talking about yourself? You're the captain in question?

You refer to the captain (you?) having obtained information on the ash through "private research" or study, is this correct? Not satisfied with the weather information you received, you've gone elsewhere, come to your own conclusions beyond that which was given you, and you're upset at being fired for refusing flights?

Many of us have been safely operating throughout the region precisely because we're not in the "ash cloud." Not you?

tienes que explicar mas ahora...:confused: [more explanation]

was there a reported ash cloud interfering with your flight enroute, at destination..?

I still think a commander's authority to refuse flights is sacred,...but why the third person narrative? I did not know 'him' meant 'you'

Did other flights operated at that time? Was airspace open? If yes I don't see why he shouldn't be fired.

Whether its a "him"/"Her" or "you"...I still think that PIC's decision is final ... no one should ever be penalized for being "extra-cautious"

It is amazing how many pilots jump at the opportunity to attack your fellow colleagues! What happened to the solidarity that once graced this profession?

I'm no test pilot, but if everyone else was flying, I'd be happy to.

Silly to lose your job for this. Different if you had even a hint of actual trouble.

Over active imagination is not a good thing in a pilot.;)

Captain's decision is/should be final and supported by all, including management, if they are interested in running a first class operation.

Unfortunately the days of strong unions must be over everywhere.
Best of luck to him, hopefully there will be enough support for him to clear his name.

Full circle back to the "Captain's Authority Questions" thread, I suppose..

Nobody has questioned the authority of the pilot in command, here. However, the notion that the authority of the PIC is absolute in all things is simply not true.

If a pilot makes a safety of flight decision, he or she is within his or her discretion, but is always subject to review after the fact. Always. Pilots have lost their certificates in times past for improper reactions, and for creating a bigger emergency than the one that existed. Simply being PIC does not mean one has carte blanche authority to do as one pleases.

If one can make a flight for example, but simply doesn't wish to do so, doesn't excuse one from the refusal to make the flight. PIC or not. If one feels that one is privy to evidence that the company doesn't have, then one had better provide that information to the company, or take the flight...or risk one's career and in refusing to do so.

One may take emergency action only so far as necessary to meet the needs of the emergency. If one is faced with taking flights that are scheduled, one had better be able to prove one's reasoning, if one refuses. The original poster claims he has proof. This sounds very much like a legal issue...so why is he trying to garner sympathy on a public rumor board? Get an attorney.

I don't, and didn't say that I did. Perhaps the area of his operation was affected. Perhaps the airline had no reason for firing him for refusing to fly there. Perhaps he has a case. Perhaps he should get an attorney and fight the company over the matter. Perhaps he should refrain from publicly airing the details of a legal case.

Personally, I've been flying throughout the area affected by the volcano since it began; I flew in during the volcano before the airspace was closed, and found everything was being grounded as we approached to land. I kept flying and operating, and in fact two days ago took photographs of the volcano itself. At the moment I'm situationed just a short distance from where the original poster stated the events occurred...Barcelona. Do I know his routing, you ask? The original poster stated "His contract was terminated after he made the decision not to operate flights out of Barcelona, Spain- air space that was contaminated by volcanic ash- this week due to safety reasons." Perhaps you failed to note this. I'm here now, and still flying. You're not?

There has never been "solidarity" in this business. Nor should there be.

Nobody attacked this pilot. The pilot should not be posting his or her case on the internet unless directed to do so by his attorney...and an attorney isn't going to recommend that course of action.

I can think of a long string of dead pilots who did things they shouldn't. Would one engage in enough "solidarity" to defend them in their actions, were they alive today? Hardly. Foolish acts give us all a bad name.

We have a one-sided story here with little information given. I certainly have no need of solidarity with a one-sided story with no information. I can make observations about what's given, however, and here we are.

Barcelona was closed in northern Spain this last week, along with a number of other airports. Operation in or out of these locations wasn't a pilot discretion issue; the flights didn't fly, period.

Is the original poster, or the "friend" who whom he refers, asserting that the firing took place due to a refusal to fly out of a closed airport? A refusal to fly after the fields were opened? A refusal to fly based on his own weather information, rather than official sources that showed the airspace eventually open? We don't know, and the original poster (et al) hasn't elected to inform us.

I can tell you I've quit jobs before when I wouldn't compromise my professional position on a safety issue, and will do it again in a heartbeat. Perhaps that's what happened here. I can also tell you that I didn't get on the internet and begin crowing about how wronged I'd been, if indeed such was the case here.

Unfortunately, this is exactly one of the outcomes I feared would happen under the present circumstances.

These are, that the decision to close or not close an airspace is placed into the hands of the countries. Just a few days ago we had ash concentrations exceeding the recently stipulated manufacturer's limitations in Spain, Southern France and Northern Italy. Spain and Italy closed parts of their airspaces, France only issued a Notam reminding pilots and operators to check information available and determine themselves whether or not it's safe to operate on a given routing.

There was a discussion on the subject here on Pprune (now moved to the 'Volcanic Ash threatens Air Traffic' thread), where some expressed their concerns about this. If a country doesn't close airspace inspite of evidence that it is not safe to fly, flights will take place. Reasons?

- Commercial pressures on operators
- Operator pressure on pilots
- Lack of familiarity with the subject in operators and pilots
- Failure to check relevant Ash Warnings and Concentration Charts

Truth is, now the bucket stops with the PIC. If he does is job right and sees that he's supposed to fly through areas that exceed limitations, what other choice does he have but to ask for a rerouting, or if not possible, delay or cancel the flight? Seriously, the argument that everybody else has flown and nothing has evidently happened, is ridiculous. It has been said here before that this is foolish, just like yeah, everybody's been fine landing with the CB's near, so why worry?

If the captain who's been fired has sound evidence to support his decision (ash concentration charts of the time and relevant for the routing, etc.), there should be no question that his dismissal was illegal and that he should be reinstated. Further, this would be a case for the Spanish CAA/EASA to look into the practice of pressuring PIC's at one of their airlines.

After all, Spain did close airspace, not without reason.

Here we go again ASH!

No one has ever lost their lives due to an encounter with ash polluted air heavy or light (unless they smoke) and that is over 50 years in aviation history.
Maybe Volcanos are something new???

Pilots and PAX have lost their lives due to takeoff and landing in windy and turbulent conditions with shear. They have done so by flying into flocks of birds and sea birds. They have in thunderstorm encounters, Ice, etc etc etc.

As long as the flight was in conditions which met the new ash criteria I am not surprised he was dismissed as it comes over as trouble making more than a safety issue.

Next this pilot will refuse to fly in the bird migration season or into coastal airports on safety grounds :E Aircraft have been downed flying into birds on numerous occasions but as yet not into ash :ugh:

Pace

Have to agree with SNS Guppy

Unfortunately I've seen a small number of pilot's use the "safety" card when they just didn't want to fly for a number of reasons.

While we never want to undermine the PIC's authority, pilots are employed for their professional judgement as much as flying ability.

Part of that judgment is the knowledge when it is safe to go and when not, and it's always a compromise of safety versus commercial outcome.
Let's face it...if one were to ONLY use safety, then we would never even start the engines. However, commercial realities vs risk says that we can manage it provided procedures are followed.
There was probably no reason to refuse the flight as others were obviously going with little if any issues, therefore the refusal to fly has to be taken in that context.
If there was en route risk, why wasn't an alternate route proposed. That is where the judgment of the PIC is paramount.

What if the flight was supposed to take place through airspace that didn't meet those criteria? As I said in my post above, not all countries closed their airspace but left this to operators and pilots to decide.

Would you still say this is trouble making?

Even though you are probably right in saying there hasn't been a loss of life, but what option do you have when you have bulletins from the manufacturers with established criteria, and they say it's not safe to pass through a higher than certain concentration? Do you have better knowledge than them? Do you go below a minimum because you know better?

?

Kerosene

Where have I ever recommended operating in ASH which is known to be higher than the new ash criteria levels?

Pace

SNS3Guppy,

Despite there are some isolated arguments I agree with you , it`s clear to see that you are one of those pilots which believe yourself better than others and in which no one can rely on.

It`s because of guys like you ,that one day is moved up to a chief pilot position or equivalent and or with some power that one Captain nowadays is fired overnight for beeing maybe "extra cautious".

To me is not important at all to know if the topic was opened by the Capt. himself, father , friend or sister.To me what really worries me is the fact of a Capt.beeing fired because of a Capt`s decision.Good or wrong.

It`s also because there are guys like you ,that maybe are not chiefs yet (but eager to be believing themselves with competence to) that the unions are losing power and we find ourselves beeing fired without even beeing questioned about.

I`ve been in Clickair before it merged with Vueling.And I can say that I had never seen or heard about one job where so many Capts were fired overnight for stupid issues. The environment there, was of terror,created by incompetent chiefs and one of the worst trainings departments I`ve ever seen in my life.
I was instructor there and quit.One year after I left the company for greener pastures.

There are lots of crap jobs around. Fortunately I quit and I`m well today. But not everybody has the same chance , because of experience , family issues , etc ,etc.

Unfortunately this profession is no longer a profession of gentleman.This is a profession of starving dogs fighting to....keep their ego as high as they can.
And to achieve this , evrything is valid!!! Becoming a chief is the first one and the ultimate goal of this dogs. But to reach there ....they have to kill a lot of coleagues....

I`m 39 , but eager to have 55 and leave this crap world dominated by Sh#$%y chiefs which to keep their position are day by day selling their coleagues and profession to the comercial interests imposed by the modern generation of bean counters.

A-3TWENTY

Why don't you just elaborate on the story, give us a few more facts. SNS3Guppy is saying he would not offer any support until the full story is known.

If I refuse to fly due to LVP's being in force.....is that a sackable offence? Surely it is my decision as the commander.....not forgetting that I have the safety of the pax in mind, as I feel it is much safer to fly on days that are cavok!

Volcani Ash
 

Guppy....You are full of your self.

I've been a Captain worldwide for 19 years and cannot say that I would speak like you. You are so hot? This guy had an an issue with volcanic ash. How many times in your life do show up to dispatch and deal with volcanic ash? All I know is the video in training about the BA that flamed out all four engines, have you seen it? All I know in my measly 15000 hours is that I have never experienced that and would not want to. WOW I guess that makes me inexperienced, and probably this guy too. If you have the tips of how to fly volcanic ash please do pass it on to the inexperienced so we can learn from you and not get fired by making a safety call.

just take that to your sleep. :{

Fired Spaniard for refusing to swallow volcanic ashes...
 

First my sympathies go to the skipper and his family...I trust he has contingencies planned for this.

I flew with a company that was like that.They forced me to fly for two weeks whilst limping due to a knee injury and their 'chieftain' even refused to look at my sick note from a well known orthopoedic specialist...God forbid had an engine faiure develop at a critical stage when I was flying the plane...I was a co and yes...i was given sometimes 7 sectors per day!

The best treatment for such cowboys i suggest is to force down their throat a taste of their own medicine.Yes...do fly, as far as you can get, even hold whilst 'deciding' what to do next...then just do a 180 if you already have an idea how far you can go from sat weather etc.. and come home to their chagrin and let them foot the bill and the pandemonium from passengers denied of their service due to...well we can save the rest! What reasons can they fire you for then...you did fly...and you decided based on SAFETY and am sure SOP(IF THEY HAVE OR FOLLOW EM) to divert back...or better still to an enroute destination!THAT'LL TEACHEM A LESSON:}!!!!!!!!!!

Look folks. It's very clear (to me anyway).

If I was to pop up and say 'I'm not going-and that is final' then I know that one of two things is going to happen.

Either;

1. I'm going to explain why. I will justify my action based on sound airmanship or some other provable, fact based explanation for my actions that at the very least will establish that at the time I said 'no' there was every chance I was acting wisely, even if it later turns out I got it wrong.

2. I will be subject to the companies disciplinary process.

You can't just do as you please without a damn good reason. Not knowing the facts, of course, maybe this guy had such a reason.

I hope so, but I doubt it.

We are captains to fly in more than a CAVOK day with an airplane clean of technical issues with the best FO, the most professional cabin crew staff and with the most civilized pax, that is the reason we are captains.

Does it mean that his/her colleagues that actually did the flights were unsafe? we have to be careful with this type of statments. I think thius doesn´t ma doesn´t make any benefit to his company colleagues.

I can´t imagine airlines making nonsense with such a public issue like the ashes, unless somebody wants to use this matter against the company for his or her own benefit .Everything looks a bit strange

Pace wrote:

...an later:

Pace, you haven't.

But, sorry, your whole post sounds like a dismissal of any ash related risk.

Kerosene

I am repeating my position from the original thread on Ash. You talk about the manufacturers but their position was anything over zero ash was not acceptable.

The press and media blew everything up to a hysterical level which is the usual media way and the unknowing public responded in an equally hysterical way with some equally "way over board claims in the forum". One was that ash had a mystical property which unlike any other air particles was invisible.
Patent it and stick it on the next Stealth Bomber ;)

So some of us were trying to be realists and to bring some sense into the arguement.

The fact is that no one yet really knows at what density Ash will cause serious and immediate damage that could bring an aircraft down.
The new criteria are a sock it and see guess.

As for piloting I would avoid in known ash areas flying into any visible clouds or mist areas especially pollution coloured clouds if at all possible.
The good old see and avoid.
My guess is that if you cannot see it then it will not do immediate damage.
Long Term damage is for the Airline accountants to work out and not our problem.
I would avoid flying at night which isnt a major problem at this time of year.

I would stick with the new ash criteria until the authorities get more field experience where they may raise or lower those acceptable limits.

Flight is a risk and many other threats like bird strikes are accepted yet other threats do have repeated fatality records over the last 50 years in aviation.

To date Ash has never killed anyone unless your a smoker ;)

But I am only a bottom of the pile corporate jet Captain so what do I know?

Pace

In the case of this 'ash' thing only.

How, for heavens sake, are you or I going to come up with a defendable case that we know better than the 'experts' who've said it's safe to fly?

All right, if your aircraft is covered in a six inch thick layer of volcanic ash, then fine.

Otherwise, you're on the thin ice.

Get real matey
 

@Pugilistic Animus - Post #5

What planet do you live on?
Nobody, I repeat this for you, nobody's authority is sacred. Do you think I think there is anything sacred about my authority? If the airspace is open and everyone else is flying you just get on with it, like everyone else. What do you think the rest of the crew were thinking? Did he bother about this?

Just one hour ago it was reported that the pilot responsible for the Lufthansa flight safety department resigned over a controversy concerning the controlled VFR flights of LH aircraft during the airspace closure due to vulcanic ash warnings. Now we know were they put safety: out the door. :eek:

Not much of a team-worker, eh? :ugh:

I just can't stand captainy captains. I've seen enough of them when I was an F/O. I've seen enough power-crazed ar$eh0les when I was in the Forces. I think authority and bossyness are a bad thing and I disagree with people who feel they should defend it.

To me the problem lies with the appearance that this was the only pilot that day to refuse to go flying, while others with presumably the same information decided that flight was safely possible.

I don't know the airline concerned nor its internal ethics, but when a commander fails in convincing his chief pilot that based on his information a flight cannot be safely performed and he is the only one to feel that way (seemingly), I'm sure management would wonder about the decision making capabilities of said commander, as those safe/unsafe decisions do affect the bottom line and should not be taken lighheartedly, either way.

I also wonder if the sole reason for dismissal was a one off refusal to operate a flight or whether there is more of a history.

In any case, lacking more information all I can do is think about the general issue of command responsibility without coming to a conclusion about this particular case.

"I would avoid flying at night which isnt a major problem at this time of year".

What the :mad:?

Hello all, thanks for the responses.A few points:
I have legal advise, but it should not prevent me to discuss things openly. I have nothing to hide. Fact: Routes to have been flown penetrated the official boundaries given by VAAC London. Company support material exclusively existed of the aircraft manufacturer's advisory, where it is clearly stated that flights through ash should be avoided by all means. Dispatchers have no knowledge nor training in providing updates on the situation, plus no guidelines were given from the company until TODAY, on what is acceptable or not. And on one occasion, if I had not ignored the "chief pilot" on insisting to proceed with my planned destination (I changed it to an airport outside the affected area), I found myself enroute - like maybe a few of you on that day - when not only the original destination airport, but also my alternate were suddenly closed. Since I anticipated these events and using good judgment, plus an extra ton of fuel on board, I proceeded calmly to my new destination knowing I could land there and wouldn't be turned away, because the tarmac is full of diverted planes.And I didn't end up in a low-fuel potential emergency situation. As far as judgment goes, if it's ok to fly I fly over, under or around the boundaries of this cloud, but they don't pay me enough money to put the safety of my flight at risk and fly through it. Just because a few pilots are willing to do it, doesn't mean I'm gonna do it. I believe in operating within the legal boundaries of the profession. I am neither a test pilot nor an expert on volcanic ash. But I can interpret the available information and base my professional decisions on that. Commercial or peer pressure means nothing to me.

Was this captain fired for refusing to fly through areas with the newly defined safe ash concentrations. (red areas in these charts.), then I understand that the company has some problems with the captain's decision and might fire him.

If however his flight was planned to go through one of the areas with ash concentrations above the manufacturers new limits, ( black areas in the same charts.), -even if the airspace is open- then I do feel sorry for this captain and think that his dismissal was very unfair.

My company will not fly through these "black areas" -even if they're open, simply because no insurer would cover you if something happened.

If fired for the wrong reason, I would suggest the captain to seek legal assistance and take this to court.

Best regards,
Sabenaboy

Seems like the old problem if you've never experienced it or heard of it all will be fine ...that is until someone goes down,only this week at my home airport Belfast City a fr 737 made an emergency landing when pax and cabin crew noticed a strong burning smell after takeoff aircraft returned safely,word is.... wait for it traces of ash were discovered in the engine.
I agree that the captains decision final regarding safety however on the flip side of the coin if we refused to fly for every little grievance that arisies we'd get nowhere.
Personally i dont think the pilot in question has anything to worry about as if in a tribuneral is can be proved that ash was predicted anywhere near the aircrafts flight path he will be vindicated.

In regards to the "new charts" I would like to suggest reading the notes: they are supplementary to the official boundary charts by VAAC London. For legal purposes the VAACs have precedence. I've been doing this long enough to know, that only one rule really matters in this industry: CYA (cover your ass).
But I also have never had to deal with such a level of incompetence and complacency from operations and management.

@driver320

Does that mean that you based your refusal to fly on these charts, even if these new charts showed your flight-planned route to be clear of the black areas?

IF that's so I feel already less sorry for you and don't think you have much chance of winning in a court.
Good luck anyway!

Actually he's correct
 

These charts supplement the official Volcanic Ash Advisory Graphics and Volcanic Ash Advisories. They are to be used with caution

The official Volcanic Ash Graphics and Volcanic Ash Advisories take precedence in all circumstances.

So as per his comments these charts are basically totally useless and unsuitable for operational use at any time they conflict with the superseding information

I do agree with Guppy. The Captain dis, The captain dat...Blah balh balh. We as Captains should drop the ego crap and remember that we are administratively responsible to operate the airplane in accordance with agreed operating standards taking into consideration all factors. If this Captain had credible information that would put the airplane in an unsafe situation then he should be commended. However, If his decision is based on personal beliefs then I think he should be reprimanded. Firing might be too harsh. Ironically, there was no mention of the copilot. Wasnt there one or he didnt count. Sometimes management use the book to get rid of individuals who have constantly caused grief and due to union protection were not able to do anything. I remember a captain I flew with many years ago in the states who would delay the flight when on the west coast so he can go home. He would use delay tactics using maintenance etc, etc so that he would time out. Company couldnt prove anything. After all, he is the CAPTAIN He was a very experienced Captain with over 20 years command. They eventually fired him when they got the chance for something less severe. All that proved is that an incompetent idiot at year 1 becomes moreso with time. Unfortunately, SOMETIMES due to unions, FO's are promoted to Captains purely by seniority number and the ability to pass a sim rides as was the case in the pre crm days. . It is generally those Captains who grade their abilities on years at the seat and would let everyone who would listen know. Why is he the only pilot in Europe to refuse to fly because he FELT it was unsafe or was the rest of the European pilots so incompetent and oblivious that they were unable to see this great danger.Maybe he was the only Pilot to be assigned that route. I will never knowingly fly in or thru volcanic nor do I know anyone who would and I have flown all regions in the world but I will not use MISS CLEO or my ego as the source of my data. We must rely on our support system to guide us towards a safe flight. If we continiously start to question maintenance,dispatch,catering etc etc etc, then its time to pack it in and change careers where the sole decision is made by the individual. Thank god I have flown with a few video generation copilots as I have learn so much from them. nuff said man!!

Solidarity
 

Quote:
It is amazing how many pilots jump at the opportunity to attack your fellow colleagues! What happened to the solidarity that once graced this profession?

May I say something about solidarity amongst pilots.

It was 1974 and I was a very young (27) captain on a Caravelle working for a charter company in northern Europe. I refused an aircraft with a hydraulic leak. The dispatcher send me home and phoned a seasoned captain to operate the flight to Tel Aviv. He asked the dispatcher the reason for the change of his schedule and the dispatcher told him a young inexperienced captain refused to accept the plane. He wanted to explain the deficiency to the captain but before he could do so the captain said.

"If it is not good enough for him it it not good enough for me, you don't have to explain the details."

The captain was Joe Allen working for the CAA and freelancing for my company.
He should be in his 90' ties if he is still alive. So yes there was and hope still is solidarity. Yes ,time has changed but I have faith in the pilot community.


Good Flying to all of you!


John Telders

I guess you work for the post office:rolleyes:


'everyone else' is on the ground and therefore useless---

but I think those who've read some of my 'Prattling on" would know exactly what I meant

Driver320

if the situation was how you described then you made the Correct decision.. based on the OEM and other notices...using all official and available information....good luck with your proceedings..:)


.you can't just sway in every little 30kt breeze or drift along helplessly in the wind...and hope everything will be just fine:=