Pinnacle CA suspended
02-04-2010, 10:25 AM
#111
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: Jet Pilot
Posts: 797
Here is my conclusion after reading this thread:
Safe or not safe is in the opinion of the PIC.
Experience could and may determine level of safety.
Legal does not always equate to safe.
Any decision may have to ultimately be defended.
Safe or not safe is in the opinion of the PIC.
Experience could and may determine level of safety.
Legal does not always equate to safe.
Any decision may have to ultimately be defended.
02-04-2010, 10:34 AM
#112
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: Jet Pilot
Posts: 797
If you had bothered to read this thread, the OP who knows this Capt. had approx. 2000 hrs. as a new hire + 5-6years on the RJ. So roughly 6,000hours+/-...that enough for you?
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!!
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!!
If you had bothered to read this thread, the OP who knows this Capt. had approx. 2000 hrs. as a new hire + 5-6years on the RJ. So roughly 6,000hours+/-...that enough for you?
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?
Last edited by Lab Rat; 02-04-2010 at 10:50 AM.
02-04-2010, 10:41 AM
#113
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: A320 Cap
Posts: 2,282
I would agree with all the above.
The last one is of particular relevance here. I'd MUCH rather defend my decision not to take a plane to my crappy employer who has a history of Pilot Pushing than I would to the FAA who wants my ticket for flying a plane that they (in hindsight) think I should have refused in the name of operating at the HIGEST level of safety - their words, not mine.
THREAD DRIFT>>> By the way, in my opinion, THIS is where having a union is vital. Defending yourself without one gets PRICEY.
02-04-2010, 10:43 AM
#114
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: Jet Pilot
Posts: 797
757/767 can go with 1,2, or 3 A/P MEL'd. 1 or 2 it's a Cat C fix and with all 3 out its a Cat B fix. Does it ever happen in real life that all 3 A/Ps would be broken, I doubt it. As far as second guessing his decision, no. His choice. His refusal should have been Wx based IMO however.
As to another post, the FL410 lear was prior to RVSM. It does end at 410 though.
As to another post, the FL410 lear was prior to RVSM. It does end at 410 though.
The wx was above minimums and I'm guessing within the limitations of the aircraft's operating manual. Maybe a fatigue call would have sufficed?
02-04-2010, 10:48 AM
#115
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: Jet Pilot
Posts: 797
I would agree with all the above.
The last one is of particular relevance here. I'd MUCH rather defend my decision not to take a plane to my crappy employer who has a history of Pilot Pushing than I would to the FAA who wants my ticket for flying a plane that they (in hindsight) think I should have refused in the name of operating at the HIGEST level of safety - their words, not mine.
THREAD DRIFT>>> By the way, in my opinion, THIS is where having a union is vital. Defending yourself without one gets PRICEY.
The last one is of particular relevance here. I'd MUCH rather defend my decision not to take a plane to my crappy employer who has a history of Pilot Pushing than I would to the FAA who wants my ticket for flying a plane that they (in hindsight) think I should have refused in the name of operating at the HIGEST level of safety - their words, not mine.
THREAD DRIFT>>> By the way, in my opinion, THIS is where having a union is vital. Defending yourself without one gets PRICEY.
Also, and I think it goes without saying, that two scenarios which require a decision merited upon safety are not going to be identical, nor will one scenario be the same for two different individuals. Either way, a decision should be made and prepared to be defended. And as you stated, it's much, much easier to defend your job than it is to defend your ticket.
Last edited by Lab Rat; 02-04-2010 at 12:34 PM.
02-04-2010, 11:46 AM
#116
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Posts: 332
02-04-2010, 11:51 AM
#117
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start.....
Posts: 193
02-04-2010, 12:26 PM
#118
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: CL-65 captain
Posts: 2,244
yup. can we end this discussion on Lab Rat's cliff notes?
02-04-2010, 01:09 PM
#119
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Posts: 888
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, 01:48 PM
#120
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
For all you chuck yeagers and Pinnacle mgmt candidates that posted in this thread- this one phrase sums it up nicely.
If anything, my time at Pinnacle taught me how to say no. All anyone cares about is moving the metal, and they will say anything it takes to get you to go. If you let them, they'll push you right up past the point of violations and possibly hurting people just to move an airplane.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Past V1
Regional
61
01-22-2009 07:17 AM
