sinsilvia666

thats bull

Kilgore Trout

Copperhead,
Nice level headed post.
I am wondering though if you have ever been a 121 PIC, or 135 PIC, and how you feel about the Captain in question having a 14 day suspension because of this incident?

IC ALL

I gotta say, as an impartial observer type, that this is about the most even agree to disagree argument I've seen here. It's been a pretty flame free discussion and, personally, I can see both sides of the issue.

My only point is to honor the agree to disagree principle in discussions like this. Both sides have made good points that should make us think twice no matter which side of the issue we are on.

aviatorhi

I noticed that this might seem out of context since the post I was referring to failed to quote, it was in reference to refusing a flight because it is similar to a time you "scared" yourself.

I have no respect for people who make a no go decision based on one or two similarities to a previous time when they let themselves go too far down the rabbit hole.

I stand by the point of, if the company dispatches you and there is nothing that prevents you from conducting a safe flight (ie. actually getting in the air, not necessarily landing at the intended destination), you should go, said CA didn't accept a safe airplane for a safe flight, there was nothing outstanding about the weather or the aircraft that says it could not have taken off and if necessary returned to the point of departure.

Furthermore, if you are making go/no-go decisions based on times that you scared yourself in the aircraft none of us should ever move beyond the times that we scared ourselves as student pilots in a crosswind of merely 8 knots (as a very basic example). There were times when I myself thought that 500 feet and 2 miles of visibility wasn't enough to take off and get somewhere, I think and know differently now.

Also, do you think the CA would have been suspended had he gone out on the flight and attempted the approach only to return to the point of departure?

Groundhog

How 'bout this. The highest level of safety at all times. That's what our passengers expect. Granted, some of the Jerry Springer crowd are ready to roll the dice for the $29 ticket, but in the end, we all want to go home and see our families.
The Captain determined that based on the information in hand, whether it was the destination wx, the mx situation of the aircraft, the current and expected rest condition of the crew...or any combination of the above...it doesn't matter. That day, that night, that airplane, that crew, that set of circumstances, the Captain decided that in the interest of safety it was better to either have the autopilot operational or cancel the flight.
End of story.
It doesn't matter how good you are at hand flying the airplane to minimums. No one cares about your analysis of the handling qualities of the CRJ 200.
The Captain decided that in the interest of safety, it would be prudent to have the AP fixed.
That's it.
Unless you are a bean counter, there is no reason to question the decision.
I think we have all seen the result of situations in which the pilots have been "pushed" into similar situations. I would agree that there is a "get'er done" attitude in the pilot ranks, but to what end?
This board is a great resource for aviation information, but the second guessing of Captain's authority is detrimental to our profession.

Hog

Blueskies21

Bottom line being we just don't know the other circumstances. If this guy has a record of turning down flights maybe, but I'm guessing he doesn't. No matter how awesome a pilot YOU may be and whatever you've done in an airplane, I think we should all agree that if a captain doesn't feel like it's a safe flight he should deny it and that should be the end of story.

Kilgore Trout

Aviatorhi, I'm not trying to be a jerk, although sometimes I can't help it. I apologize. The thing that bothers me most about this incident is that it penalizes a Pilot In Command for exercising his judgement. That freedom to make judgement calls as PIC is golden. It's something that all pilots should treasure and protect. Importantly too it is something that a good company will treasure in it's pilots. That judgement, sometimes admittedly too cautious, is what protects the company. It's a two way street, and to penalize a Captain for exercising his judgement towards what they believed was the safest path is wrong. It sends the wrong message to your junior crews, dispatchers, mechanics, and passengers.

I would never fly or wrench for a company in Alaska that would penalize me for something like what this Captain did.

Groundhog

This is all part of the current RAA and ATA agenda. Fortunately they have plenty of allies within the pilot ranks who are happy to surrender Captain's Authority.
Pilots are complicit in the erosion of Captains' Authority by coming on anonymous industry blogs and commenting on how big a pu$$y a Captain is by refusing to fly an aircraft that the "on scene" crew has determined to be unsafe.
Welcome to our future. It will only go "maritime" from here.

Hog

AirWillie

That's because it's not a jet.


This captain did the right thing. Although having the AP inop is not cause for declaring an emergency it could be a big problem if you are not proficient. Larger jets have an AP for a reason. Add in the weather, fatigue etc he did the right thing. But it sucks that ironically the crew behind them had to wait for the weather before going so he could have just waited.

Swedish Blender

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.