N380UA

So I guess we will just have to kill the messenger who brought the bad news!

For the A300-600 (and most twins, in fact), dispatch with an engine driven generator inop is permissible, provided the APU generator is used throughout the flight.

This story made the headlines here as the PIC, age 46, is Belgian. The company was going to give more details today. There were three other major incidents during the past ten days of which one was an emergency landing in Boucarest (?).

The preamble to any MEL I've ever seen includes the option for the commander to refuse the aircraft, regardless of the legality of the release...adviseable to have done your homework before doing so, but nevertheless...an option...hopefully this non-standard configuration requiring additional fuel would have been dealt with prior to takeoff no???

Looking at the CAA MMEL, a single engine or APU equipped generator may be U/S for non-ETOPS flights, provided that all indications on the alternate are normal, all busses can be powered and the faulty item is rectified within three days.

Conjecting wildly, one can see a Captain seeing that if he took the aircraft, the generator wouldn't be replaced within the 3 day interval - and his management feeling otherwise. (Which, just to repeat, doesn't change the fact that the Captain has responsibility to accept or decline the aircraft.)

G


(from http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/SRG_ACP_A300-600_REV3A.PDF , page 31)

The company is just out with a statement in which they say that the pilot got sacked because of
a/ unlawful absence during the past months
b/ alcohol intoxication causing delay

Assuming that's true, it proves that one shouldn't jump to conclusions!

G

Assuming nothing the company should still be banned since (at least in my understanding of the 'informatin' provided) they knew the CPT was intoxicated before they let him take the flight that returned (this now assuming that the company does actually say the truth about the captains intoxication).

The problem now is that should the company try to put some public attention on the CPT (in order to have a more peaceful and quiet time for themselves not to follow procedures ((and I am assuming here too)) ), then they should be not only banned but forced to permanently end operations with mamagement becoming no-go's for any new start-up bcause they actually first try to ruin a career deliberatly by untruthful statements in order to cover up...

Now since that again is speculation, what we really would need is the complete story.

garp

lets hope for the management of that outfit that their statement is true and not "misinterpreted" as PIC was down with the flue (absence) and had taken Vicks MediNight (alcohol).

Either which way, if the skipper was in violation of the charges brought up against him, them why was he allowed to take the flight after the fact and even allowed to ferry to Djerba?

So the airline, their management, is in fact a hazard to the sky. Either for their action of putting revenue over safety or for letting intoxicated crews fly the big heavy stuff.

Airline denies pilot's statement on dismissal
Thu 01/09/05 - The Turkish charter flight company, Fly Air, is not pleased with Peter Thys's unfair dismissal claim. According to Fly Air, the true reasons for the pilot's sacking are long-term absence and alcohol abuse.

Shortly after taking off from Paris last week, Thys noticed a technical problem and returned to the runway for an emergency repair. Later the pilot was informed by Fly Air that he was sacked for breach of company policy.

Yesterday Thys claimed that he had been dismissed for following standard safety procedure.

Today the airline company replied in a communiqué saying that the Paris incident had nothing to do with the pilot's sacking. Fly Air stated that his long-term absence and a flight's delay because of alcohol abuse are the true reasons.

Fly Air's ground operations manager in Brussels claimed on Wednesday that Thys's dismissal came as a result of personal problems between the pilot and the company.

Hmmm let me speculate with these events..
 

France are moving towards dissmissing airlines who have bad maintanence reputations...

Fly Air flight returns to france with tech problem... (no need to speculate if this is wrong or right)

Airline fears loss of face... and beiing put on the black list...

So to send message to pilots; sacks expendable contract pilot (whom has been giving them "problems" anyway, because he actualy follows the procedures to the letter, which is not flexible enough in their eyes)...

then Fly Air's worst nightmare comes to life... it gets picked up by the news media....

Fly Air fabricate charges (which they can not hold up) to save their reputation, knowing the public does not like to hear about drunken pilots...

Hmmm maybe not so far fetched???

Pointer :E

Many of us have on occasion been rude about aviation journalism here from time to time.

Here would be a good opportunity for an aviation journalist to prove both their aviation, and journalistic credentials. There's a story here, and the facts are far from clearcut.


Question is, will anybody rise to the challenge?

G

The aircraft was was an A300B2 (no center tanks).
I also hear that he was bound to ORY when the genny quit.

So there you are. Leave baggage to get all the fuel you need to fly lower (an apu with a history of shutting down) or ask them to replace a the gen.

Pointer, I believe you hit the nail on his head.

N380UA......

Well pointed out.

Thoughts go out to the pilot if he's being scapegoated.

Given that most of what we read in the press and see/hear on the media about our profession is complete and utter b0££0ck$ - (we make that point often enough on these fora!) - I would suggest that there is a better than 50% chance that:

a: we only have about 2% of the story
and
b: that 2% is probably not accurate!!!!

Don't know all the facts but this seems to be a case of pressurising pilots into taking risks.

Best wishes to the pilot concerned.