Pinnacle CA suspended
02-04-2010, 09:21 AM
#101
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,814
Let me ask this, If they were 20 minutes into the flight and the A/P quit should they have continued? Many of you seem to think that Capt's Authority means we can't be held accountable for our actions. If a pilot can't hand fly an aircraft for a couple hours, then they need to rethink the profession they have chosen. How many pilots fly everyday in aircraft with no A/P installed? Are those aircraft considered dangerous because of no autopilot?
02-04-2010, 09:31 AM
#102
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: Student Pilot
Posts: 849
This is the most annoying argument ever. The issue is not whether he made the right decision or not. That's not even relevant and not for anyone to decide except for the captain himself. Least of all any monday morning quarterback on this forum. These are the same people that, if the flight had ended up in an accident, would condemn the captain for taking the plane. With monday morning quarterbacks, it's damned if you do damned if you don't. Like the OP stated, the problem is that this captain exercised PIC authority and got suspended for it. Why any pilot should argue whether this was justified or not is truly appalling.
02-04-2010, 09:38 AM
#103
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: Jet Pilot
Posts: 797
A Pinnacle CA friend was recently suspended for 2 weeks without pay for refusing an airplane without an autopilot. Contributing factors to the decision were:
-No autopilot, scheduled block just over 2 hours
-Scheduled departure 10:16pm
-Destination wx 600 OVC, RA, winds gusting 25kts, 60 degrees of crosswind
-Line of thunderstorms between origination and destination
The CA refused the flight in the interest of safety with regard to enroute and destination weather, and was immediately removed from the flight and replaced with a reserve CA. Pinnacle didn’t have any spare planes to swap to, so scheduling simply replaced the crew. The reserve CA also initially refused the flight, but ultimately ended up going after a lengthy delay during which time most of the enroute and destination wx had cleared.
I simply cannot fathom how Pinnacle can completely ignore FAR 91.3, "Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command" and penalize the CA for the decision that was made.
-No autopilot, scheduled block just over 2 hours
-Scheduled departure 10:16pm
-Destination wx 600 OVC, RA, winds gusting 25kts, 60 degrees of crosswind
-Line of thunderstorms between origination and destination
The CA refused the flight in the interest of safety with regard to enroute and destination weather, and was immediately removed from the flight and replaced with a reserve CA. Pinnacle didn’t have any spare planes to swap to, so scheduling simply replaced the crew. The reserve CA also initially refused the flight, but ultimately ended up going after a lengthy delay during which time most of the enroute and destination wx had cleared.
I simply cannot fathom how Pinnacle can completely ignore FAR 91.3, "Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command" and penalize the CA for the decision that was made.
Contributing factors to the decision were:
-No autopilot, scheduled block just over 2 hours
-Scheduled departure 10:16pm
-Destination wx 600 OVC, RA, winds gusting 25kts, 60 degrees of crosswind
-Line of thunderstorms between origination and destination.
-No autopilot, scheduled block just over 2 hours
-Scheduled departure 10:16pm
-Destination wx 600 OVC, RA, winds gusting 25kts, 60 degrees of crosswind
-Line of thunderstorms between origination and destination.
Safety, in the opinion of the captain, could certainly be a valid argument. However, that would also call into question the captain's experience or lack thereof in the type of aircraft and/or flying in general. That, in turn could lead to opening up another can of worms - and that would be whether or not experience levels need to be raised when determining hiring minimums.
I am not chest-thumping here, but the vast majority of professional pilots would probably have taken this aircraft with the stated conditions. Sure, it would have made the other pilot's job a little busier than normal, but I don't think safety would have been compromised.
I simply cannot fathom how Pinnacle can completely ignore FAR 91.3, "Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command" and penalize the CA for the decision that was made.
Before anyone makes this argument, I know that legal does not always equate to safe. But, I also know that what is taught in the classroom in a college setting does not always reflect the way things happen in the real world of airline flying. One may meet the "minimums and experience" required for employment at a given carrier, but that doesn't always mean the individual is ready for this type of flying either.
Last edited by Lab Rat; 02-04-2010 at 12:29 PM.
02-04-2010, 09:40 AM
#104
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2008
Position: Livin' the dream
Posts: 626
They were not 20 minutes into the flight. Have you read the data provided by the original poster?
Can you please reference a reply to this thread where anyone who is or has been a 121 or 135 PIC has stated that "Capt's Authority means we can't be held accountable for our actions."
I know this thing is what, 11 pages now, so maybe I missed someone stating anything like that. I don't think anyone here who has actually been a 121 and/or 135 PIC has made an allusion to being excused for bad judgement calls. On the contrary, I think much of this thread is, when you get past the particulars of this incident, really about PIC responsibilities and culpability for bad judgement calls, how an individual pilot handles them, and whether any company is justified in taking the action it did in this exact incident.
02-04-2010, 09:52 AM
#105
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: A320 Cap
Posts: 2,282
Wow. I am always shocked at how clear it is that we are our own worst enemy.
Someone asked what the opinion of a mainline guy was...
I would refuse an aircraft without an autopilot in the situation listed in the initial post.
It's not a question of whether I COULD fly it. I spent years flying commuter turboprops with no autopilot. The question comes down to the wording used by the FAA in the recent revocation letter to the NWA pilots in the MSP incident. Would I be conducting the flight at the highest level of safety? To me, this would be a big fat no. I don't need to be anyones hero and show off my flying skills. I quit worrying about that 10,000 hours or so ago. I need to be able to make sure that I can get my crew and passengers from Point A to Point B safely, and defend my decisions if something goes wrong.
What's worrying about this post to me, is that there are pilots on this board that are defending the stupid, illegal, and dangerous practice of Pilot Pushing. This should be an easy case for ALPA, but this type of behavior at ANY airline is despicable. Refusing an aircraft for a major system being inoperative if he feels he/she feels the HIGHEST level of safety can't be maintained isn't his/her right.... its his/her responsibility. We ought to be all standing behind this pilot, shoulder to shoulder, against Pilot Pushing at ANY level. If you want to be a hero in the air, apply to be a test pilot or an astronaut.
By the way, I now begin ANY conversation with my management with "I want to inform you that I am recording this conversation". This pilot was the PIC, and he/she was the one who was required by law to make the decision whether they were meeting the standard set forth in writing by the FAA. NOT management. And CERTAINLY not an arm chair quarterback on this forum.
Rant over.
Someone asked what the opinion of a mainline guy was...
I would refuse an aircraft without an autopilot in the situation listed in the initial post.
It's not a question of whether I COULD fly it. I spent years flying commuter turboprops with no autopilot. The question comes down to the wording used by the FAA in the recent revocation letter to the NWA pilots in the MSP incident. Would I be conducting the flight at the highest level of safety? To me, this would be a big fat no. I don't need to be anyones hero and show off my flying skills. I quit worrying about that 10,000 hours or so ago. I need to be able to make sure that I can get my crew and passengers from Point A to Point B safely, and defend my decisions if something goes wrong.
What's worrying about this post to me, is that there are pilots on this board that are defending the stupid, illegal, and dangerous practice of Pilot Pushing. This should be an easy case for ALPA, but this type of behavior at ANY airline is despicable. Refusing an aircraft for a major system being inoperative if he feels he/she feels the HIGHEST level of safety can't be maintained isn't his/her right.... its his/her responsibility. We ought to be all standing behind this pilot, shoulder to shoulder, against Pilot Pushing at ANY level. If you want to be a hero in the air, apply to be a test pilot or an astronaut.
By the way, I now begin ANY conversation with my management with "I want to inform you that I am recording this conversation". This pilot was the PIC, and he/she was the one who was required by law to make the decision whether they were meeting the standard set forth in writing by the FAA. NOT management. And CERTAINLY not an arm chair quarterback on this forum.
Rant over.
02-04-2010, 10:02 AM
#107
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: A320 Cap
Posts: 2,282
Just saw this and thought it was interesting...
This is from the Colgan statement regarding the NTSB hearing.
""By all accounts, Captain Renslow and First Officer Shaw were fine people. But they knew what to do in the situation they faced that night a year ago, had repeatedly demonstrated they knew what to do, and yet did not do it. We cannot speculate on why they did not use their training in dealing with the situation they faced.""
They will push you to take the airplane if its legal (and sometimes not) per the MEL, REGARDLESS of whether it is SAFE to do so or not given the conditions. And if something happens, here's the type of support you can expect.
They are NOT on your team. WE are all we have.
This is from the Colgan statement regarding the NTSB hearing.
""By all accounts, Captain Renslow and First Officer Shaw were fine people. But they knew what to do in the situation they faced that night a year ago, had repeatedly demonstrated they knew what to do, and yet did not do it. We cannot speculate on why they did not use their training in dealing with the situation they faced.""
They will push you to take the airplane if its legal (and sometimes not) per the MEL, REGARDLESS of whether it is SAFE to do so or not given the conditions. And if something happens, here's the type of support you can expect.
They are NOT on your team. WE are all we have.
02-04-2010, 10:06 AM
#108
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2009
Position: Right Seat
Posts: 136
Wow. I am always shocked at how clear it is that we are our own worst enemy.
Someone asked what the opinion of a mainline guy was...
I would refuse an aircraft without an autopilot in the situation listed in the initial post.
It's not a question of whether I COULD fly it. I spent years flying commuter turboprops with no autopilot. The question comes down to the wording used by the FAA in the recent revocation letter to the NWA pilots in the MSP incident. Would I be conducting the flight at the highest level of safety? To me, this would be a big fat no. I don't need to be anyones hero and show off my flying skills. I quit worrying about that 10,000 hours or so ago. I need to be able to make sure that I can get my crew and passengers from Point A to Point B safely, and defend my decisions if something goes wrong.
What's worrying about this post to me, is that there are pilots on this board that are defending the stupid, illegal, and dangerous practice of Pilot Pushing. This should be an easy case for ALPA, but this type of behavior at ANY airline is despicable. Refusing an aircraft for a major system being inoperative if he feels he/she feels the HIGHEST level of safety can't be maintained isn't his/her right.... its his/her responsibility. We ought to be all standing behind this pilot, shoulder to shoulder, against Pilot Pushing at ANY level. If you want to be a hero in the air, apply to be a test pilot or an astronaut.
By the way, I now begin ANY conversation with my management with "I want to inform you that I am recording this conversation". This pilot was the PIC, and he/she was the one who was required by law to make the decision whether they were meeting the standard set forth in writing by the FAA. NOT management. And CERTAINLY not an arm chair quarterback on this forum.
Rant over.
Someone asked what the opinion of a mainline guy was...
I would refuse an aircraft without an autopilot in the situation listed in the initial post.
It's not a question of whether I COULD fly it. I spent years flying commuter turboprops with no autopilot. The question comes down to the wording used by the FAA in the recent revocation letter to the NWA pilots in the MSP incident. Would I be conducting the flight at the highest level of safety? To me, this would be a big fat no. I don't need to be anyones hero and show off my flying skills. I quit worrying about that 10,000 hours or so ago. I need to be able to make sure that I can get my crew and passengers from Point A to Point B safely, and defend my decisions if something goes wrong.
What's worrying about this post to me, is that there are pilots on this board that are defending the stupid, illegal, and dangerous practice of Pilot Pushing. This should be an easy case for ALPA, but this type of behavior at ANY airline is despicable. Refusing an aircraft for a major system being inoperative if he feels he/she feels the HIGHEST level of safety can't be maintained isn't his/her right.... its his/her responsibility. We ought to be all standing behind this pilot, shoulder to shoulder, against Pilot Pushing at ANY level. If you want to be a hero in the air, apply to be a test pilot or an astronaut.
By the way, I now begin ANY conversation with my management with "I want to inform you that I am recording this conversation". This pilot was the PIC, and he/she was the one who was required by law to make the decision whether they were meeting the standard set forth in writing by the FAA. NOT management. And CERTAINLY not an arm chair quarterback on this forum.
Rant over.
After Colgan and the American incidents lately many, including pilots and especially legislators want to "make a law" to make aviation safer. No amount of armchair quarterbacking or laws forcing us to be safer will work.
The Captain's authority and any pilot's right to call in sick should be defended in all areas, because we are the last line of defense before the flight leaves the ground.
As many rules and regs we have this job is still subjective, so unless the Captain has an egregious history of refusing flights, then he should be supported by management....And all of YOU!
02-04-2010, 10:14 AM
#109
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: DC9 Flap Operator
Posts: 172
CA's refusing to fly for safety of flight, and getting suspended or terminated has been going on for years at colgan. Nothing new. They were negligent and responsible for the deaths of 3407, and its business as usual. They will continue to run this operation until the feds pull their certificate.
02-04-2010, 10:23 AM
#110
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2009
Position: Missionary
Posts: 309
How experienced is the captain? ...
- and that would be whether or not experience levels need to be raised when determining hiring minimums...
...Again, legalities. If the captain has absolutely no legal reason to refuse the aircraft with stated conditions, then this calls into question his level of competency and experience. ...
..
One may meet the "minimums and experience" required for employment at a given carrier, but that doesn't always mean the individual is ready for this type of flying either.
- and that would be whether or not experience levels need to be raised when determining hiring minimums...
...Again, legalities. If the captain has absolutely no legal reason to refuse the aircraft with stated conditions, then this calls into question his level of competency and experience. ...
..
One may meet the "minimums and experience" required for employment at a given carrier, but that doesn't always mean the individual is ready for this type of flying either.
I saw a Capt. refuse an aircraft for an inop. pack on a crazy hot day in the southeast saying he wasn't putting paying pax. in a sauna. This was a 25+ year Captain, and is the type of guy who takes the safety and comfort of transporting passengers seriously. The plane was airworthy wasn't it?
As others here have stated, this pilot made a command decision (doing his job), and the company nailed him for it. That's pathetic!!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Past V1
Regional
61
01-22-2009 07:17 AM
