US Airways Captain Escorted from Aircraft
 

.
On June 16, captain Valerie Wells, a 30-year-pilot, was scheduled to fly an Airbus A330, which can carry nearly 300 passengers, on a flight from Philadelphia to Rome. But she declined to fly because of failures of both the auxiliary power unit, a backup source of electrical power, and the "hot battery bus," a primary source of electrical power.

After the crew and passengers had returned to the gate Wells, in a particularly unusual event, was escorted out of the airport by security officials. Subsequently, a second crew of three pilots also declined to fly; the aircraft was repaired and underwent a rigorous inspection, and a third crew took off about six to seven hours late.

In seeking to publicize the incident, the U.S. Airline Pilots Association took out a full-page advertisement in Friday's edition of USA Today. The ad proclaimed that US Airways put "revenues first, safety second.

"The intimidation of flight crews is becoming commonplace at US Airways, [which] works to maximize their revenues by pushing their employees to move their airplanes regardless of the potential human cost," said the text. The ad referred readers to a website www.USAirlinePilots.org/SafetyFirst.

In a letter to employees on Friday, Robert Isom, chief operating officer, wrote that "USAPA has embarked upon a smear campaign that in reality is all about contract negotiations, not safety.

"I can tell you unequivocally the union's claims are outlandish, false and a disservice to the 32,000 hard-working employees of US Airways," Isom wrote. "Safety has been and always will be the top priority at US Airways, as it is at any airline."

More

Did the MEL allow her to dispatch or not? It's a very simple question.

Too soon to know what happened, but even non-APU they could have dispatched via southern Greenland, the Hot Bus may have been a battery issue which could have been a quick fix. Don't want to say anything more than the following, but I heard the "escorting" was more related to words being used over the PA and when talking to Dx and Mx than anything else.

The Captain still has the absolute right to not accept the aircraft even if it is in the MEL - in fact all the MELs I have seen iterate this fact in the preamble. The Captain might deem that a certain combination of defects on that particular flight is not acceptable.

The operator may not agree but that's another matter.

I imagine these crew members might have a case against the Company for harassment/bullying?

From a UK company Boeing MEL:

9. The MEL does not anticipate the effects of combinations of apparently unrelated unserviceabilities or allow for situations where systems are made inoperative for special purposes such as demonstration, test or crew training. Other provisions may apply to positioning of ferrying flights but these may not necessarily be included in the MEL.
10. The decision to operate the aircraft with multiple unserviceabilities should only be made after due consideration of possible inter-related or additive effects

Question from a rotary-wing driver so patience please from the airline jocks: Don't MEL's detail possible combinations? And .. aren't MEL's required to be endorsed by the manufacturer?

If so, and given that MEL's are approved by the relevant aviation authority, then divinehover's statement: would seem to be logical.

guess as an ETOPS flight, for shure a no go with APU inop. Well done lady Cpt.:ok:
And concerning Airbus MEL, it will allow you to fly the beast at anytime. Well almost anytime, maybe if one wing is missing or so ;)
NO DISPATCH is very, very rare in Airbus MEL.
So a good Captains decision is always needed to go or not to go.
TWO (heavy) electrical issues is one too much in this case and on this flight. IMHO.

@Earl, as quoted above MELs do not take into consideration combination of different defects. It is only a per singular defect consideration. Therefore the final authority lays with the commander of the flight. Sometimes a combination of malfunctions can have some very very weird follow up reactions.

To contain all possible combinations of malfunctions would be very difficult, not to mention the MEL would suddenly turn into a 100 part manual.

Denti, thanks.

Meaning therefore that devinehover's statement was a paradox in that it is not possible for a MEL to sanction the dispatch of an aircraft with multiple (or combination) items inoperative as MEL's only address the omission of a single item?

How typical is it for a 30 year old to be a wide body captain in the USA?

It's not clear, but I understood that to mean that the person has been a pilot for the last 30 years.
(edit) That was in response to final 3 greens.

Do you want to marry me, Valerie?:D

MEL is written by lawers, whilst airmanship is the "common sense on the air" whe should all have.

Unfortunattely there are also some pilots that are so company-minded that tend to forget that safety comes first.

Well done, Valerie! And well done second crew

Funny how you all center on the MEL whilst I think THIS is the real issue.

Why is a captain escorted out of the airport when he/she refuses to fly with good reason (IMO) aka does what a captain should do???? What about the rest of the crew? How desperate is a company when it puts such stress and pressure on crews to fly aircraft with tech issues? What does it say about safety culture?
I´m just a lowlife executive pilot and got brushed by the 'airliners' as the risky dudes etc. when something happened in my field of aviation and its safety culture is apparently bad, now I can see thats that no different at the airlines...

I sure hope that the FAA fines US Airways real hard for such a behavior.

Cudos to the captain, crew and the second crew as well.

BTW it was: so not the airport security.

You beat me to it His Dudeness, what the hell have airport security got to do with this?

I can't think of any other security "officials" at an airport unless they're talking about the police, but then why not say so!

I think my response would be to tell 'em to clear off.

They got it wrong. It should say "with 30 years of experience" ...
EDIT: As originally it is written 30-year-pilot, intended meaning might be the same, however it sounds a bit awkward ...

With the need to know technology training these days, the more reason to carry a professional flight engineer with an inside knowledge and training of the airplane systems, rather than a second officer in flight scribe for about 4 years who knows nothing about the in depth systems that are down stream of the on off switch!

Thanks for pointing the answer out.

As a Brit, this phrase is not intuitive to me and I read '30 year old pilot' instead.

Human factors at work, once agan :ugh:

Presumably, Hot Dog, that would include the FE who, in spite of being advised by me that the Bev fire system was ACTIVE, even with the Battery Master switch OFF, insisted on proving his superior knowledge by pressing a fire switch ... action closely followed by dull thump and drip, drip, drip!!:ugh:
Note, FEs were NOT original crew complement but and add-on to improve safety!! No doubt there are/were some very competent people out there but, like all varieties of crew member, not all!:(
Used to have this sort of 'conversation' re. the relative merits of the 747-400 v the Classic crewing. Never did find, or hear of, an FE who would/could monitor systems as many times per SECOND as the 400's system did.
Now retires to avoid incoming :E

Your example is without merit since I've never found a pilot who could make as many minute corrections to an ILS approach as the A/P does.

More brains and more knowledge are always better than more computers.

a320

You will be surprised to hear that the APU in an A330 is not required for ETOPS.

They have an emergency generator that uses green hydraulics.