Suspended!! (unfortunately, this is not hypothetical)

[BeechBoy]

Originally Posted by Mike734

Just a couple of thoughts.

1. Usually when they want to fire you it is because they want you gone and have for a while. Do you have a reputation?

2. Did you discuss the decision to return to your departure airport with your dispatcher? If you have one you should have.

3. What was the actual wx at the time of your approach? I don't mean the ATIS as that can be 1 hour old or more. Was there freezing rain/dz at the time of your arrival?

4. The decision is ultimately the captains but that does not mean it can not be questioned. If you have a reputation of making "bad" decisions according to your employer then you need retraining and/or more experience.

If your employer can only attract relatively low time pilots then they get exactly what they paid for. You made the right decision based on the information you had at the time because it was YOUR decision to make. Even if 99/100 pilots would do something different, if YOU don't feel comfortable then YOU made the right decision.

My advice would be to document as much as possible and get experts to defend you.

Good luck.

OK, here's the answers.

1. I have no reputation at Skyway. No failed checkrides, PC's, etc. No disciplinary actions prior (actually nothing even remotely close). I get along well with all my FO's and flight attendants. Essentially, I'm squeaky clean (until this).

2. I discussed the possibility of returning with dispatch BEFORE I took off. There was -FZRA in DAY when I left and I correctly assumed that it would probably continue for some time. I gave them copies of all my documentation just so they would know that it wasn't a decision that I just pulled out of the air. They just toed the company line that, "we've always done it and since we have holdover times for -FZRA that it must be peachy keen to fly through it". I told the CP's assistant the same thing. The consensus was typical Skyway: "Just go and we'll see what the weather does when you get there". God forbid that someone in that company would actually have the balls to make any kind of decision. (Side note: when the DO was chewing my ass for returning he specifically pointed out that he was displeased that I shared my "outside information" and "personal opinions" with dispatch.

3. They were just about to change ATIS as we were getting in range. The brand new ATIS also was broadcasting -FZRA (this condition continued until approx 9pm - the incident took place at 2pm).

4. I agree 100% that they have the right to question the decision. The thing that's frustrating is that the manufacturer says, "Takeoff into freezing rain, including light freezing rain is not permitted". How much clearer does it need to be. Instead of admitting they were wrong they just say that they disagree with that interpretation of the warning and will attempt to get it retracted. Also, I've spoken with 3 former research pilots from NASA who have extensive experience doing icing research (they fly the Twin Otter in those NASA training videos). All three of those guys said that I absolutely did the right thing and that even "light" freezing rain has plenty of moisture to potentially cause very serious trouble.

I agree with your comment about 99/100 pilots doing something differently. In ground school certain limitations are highlighted as being especially important and must be committed to memory (i.e. airspeeds, ITT limits, etc). This icing limitation was not among them. I just happened to stumble across it when I was browsing the AFM. I'm sure there are pilots at Skyway who are not even aware of it or, if they are, are not fully aware of the danger that SLD icing can cause and decide to play the odds. Thus we've created an environment of, "we've always done it that way". (Funny how they actually use that lame argument as an excuse).

[PCL_128]

Originally Posted by BeechBoy

The CP already has a job offer with Airtran.

You mean to tell me that we're getting stuck with this moronic ######bag? Is he getting a management position, or just a line pilot position?

As far as your situation, the case seems pretty cut and dry to me. Make sure your ALPA rep and Contract Administrator (aka, ALPA attorney) have all of the manufacturer documentation and any other material that you have to back yourself up. Don't speak with anyone in management from this point on without your union rep present. Don't talk to them in person, on the phone, via email, anything. Unless your union rep is there, you say nothing. In addition to your regular ALPA rep, talk to your safety committee reps and see if they can get any info to back you up from ALPA National's Safety structure. Use all available resources to back yourself up on this.

YOU WERE IN THE RIGHT!!! Don't let anyone convince you otherwise. The fact that your money grubbing DO and CP are questioning your judgment on this is reprehensible. I wish I was your union rep so I could rip these scumbags a new one.

[Soul Brotha']

B-Boy that is a sorry act by your company. A couple of questions to you. 1st) Was there any action taken against the FO on the flight? In the end your PIC and it's your decision but we work as a team up there and the FO's input is just as valuable as the Cappy. 2nd) Is there anything in your FOM/Standz/Ops that says you had to go? You mentioned that the Dornier manual says no flights into -FZRA. Is there something contradicting that in your company manuals? ALPA will be on your side and I don't see anything coming of this except a little egg on Skyway mngt's face.

Boys and girls this is why some sort of representation is very valuable.

[Mike734]

Originally Posted by BeechBoy

he specifically pointed out that he was displeased that I shared my "outside information" and "personal opinions" with dispatch.

This statement bothers me the most. Your DO is obviously a tool. Your POI probably knows this. Being a tool though makes him dangerous. Your best hope is that he gets a job before this gets much bigger. That probably won't happen though because he is a tool. Anyway, your dispatcher is part of the team. The 3 of you, (Capt, FO and Dispatcher) are required to operate the aircraft. You are SUPPOSE to share your concerns with him/her.

Originally Posted by BeechBoy

3. They were just about to change ATIS as we were getting in range. The brand new ATIS also was broadcasting -FZRA (this condition continued until approx 9pm - the incident took place at 2pm).

Forcasts are BS but the actual is very important. Do you have a copy? If not, get one.

Originally Posted by BeechBoy

4. I agree 100% that they have the right to question the decision. The thing that's frustrating is that the manufacturer says, "Takeoff into freezing rain, including light freezing rain is not permitted". How much clearer does it need to be. Instead of admitting they were wrong they just say that they disagree with that interpretation of the warning and will attempt to get it retracted. Also, I've spoken with 3 former research pilots from NASA who have extensive experience doing icing research (they fly the Twin Otter in those NASA training videos). All three of those guys said that I absolutely did the right thing and that even "light" freezing rain has plenty of moisture to potentially cause very serious trouble.

I too believe you were 100% correct IF you can produce the document that says it is prohibited. That should be your get out of jail card.

Originally Posted by BeechBoy

I agree with your comment about 99/100 pilots doing something differently. In ground school certain limitations are highlighted as being especially important and must be committed to memory (i.e. airspeeds, ITT limits, etc). This icing limitation was not among them. I just happened to stumble across it when I was browsing the AFM. I'm sure there are pilots at Skyway who are not even aware of it or, if they are, are not fully aware of the danger that SLD icing can cause and decide to play the odds. Thus we've created an environment of, "we've always done it that way". (Funny how they actually use that lame argument as an excuse).

Ice can be a real problem. We lost an aircraft at my airline back in '89 for tail icing. It was a Jetstream and it crashed as soon as they selected full flaps.

The problem you are going to have in this situation is that even if you win, and I believe you will, the D.O. is going to look foolish. He'll be pissed and probably look for some way to get you in the future. It is time to move along if you can.

Alternatively you should look to defuse this situation by letting him save face if possible. Perhaps he is not aware of the written prohibition about flying in to know freezing rain. If he won't budge you are going to have to go to war. Just be prepared for lots of lying on his part. I've seen this kind of thing before and it can get very ugly.

Good luck.

[Blackhawk]

Buddy, you may have just won the Lotto jackpot. American Eagle fired a pilot in 1996 for essentially the same thing. In 2000 a jury awarded the pilot $10,000,000. Your DO and CP are tools and are going to cost the company far more money than you cost it in lost revenue for the flight.

[JEP]

Originally Posted by Blackhawk

Buddy, you may have just won the Lotto jackpot. American Eagle fired a pilot in 1996 for essentially the same thing. In 2000 a jury awarded the pilot $10,000,000. Your DO and CP are tools and are going to cost the company far more money than you cost it in lost revenue for the flight.

The company is ceasing to operate. By the time a case winds its way through the system, there will be no company to get any money from.

[Jason]

Originally Posted by JEP

The company is ceasing to operate. By the time a case winds its way through the system, there will be no company to get any money from.

Not necessarily - they are ceasing flight operations but it's my understanding that the company is going to continue operations providing airport services.

[zmiller4]

First off, I'm not questioning your decision at all--if you're not comfortable with something, don't do it.

Reading your other thread, though, it looks like you have had some run-ins with your CP/DO before on this same issue. If you've cancelled a flight and they got pissy about it, then you were most likely on their radar.

It sounds like there's some ambiguity between what the manufacturer, your AFM, and holdover tables say. If there is a published prohibition on flight into light freezing rain somewhere, then it's ludicrous that they're giving you any crap. If there's only a prohibition into "freezing rain", then I understand the confusion because your holdover tables seem to allow for it. If all your AFM says is "no flight into SLD conditions", then you probably are authorized to land in -FZRA (I don't think light is necessarily considered SLD).

At my company, the CRJ is approved into -FZRA, -PL, and a number of combinations and intensities of various precip types that are confusing as anything. They recently published a new holdover table that has a separate table of types of freezing precipitation and states clearly whether we're authorized to dispatch to, takeoff into, and land into them. It's incredibly useful and takes some of the ambiguity out of the situation.

I understand why your DO/CP doesn't think that a letter from Dornier Support Services is enough to prohibit flight into -FZRA, but I bet that it will help you keep your job.

I think that you made the correct decision based on the ambiguity of your AFM. Captains and I have refused a couple of airplanes that theoretically were "legal" but were a bad, bad idea, and the company was mostly supportive of the decision. It sucks that they're taking this stance with you. Good luck, let us know how it turns out.

[BeechBoy]

Originally Posted by Soul Brotha'

B-Boy that is a sorry act by your company. A couple of questions to you. 1st) Was there any action taken against the FO on the flight? In the end your PIC and it's your decision but we work as a team up there and the FO's input is just as valuable as the Cappy. 2nd) Is there anything in your FOM/Standz/Ops that says you had to go? You mentioned that the Dornier manual says no flights into -FZRA. Is there something contradicting that in your company manuals? ALPA will be on your side and I don't see anything coming of this except a little egg on Skyway mngt's face.

Boys and girls this is why some sort of representation is very valuable.

No action was taken against my FO which is how it should be. Although he supported me I'm thankful that he's been left out of this. There is nothing in our FOM or OPSPECS that says anything about -FZRA. The only thing they have is the fact that, since there's a holdover time for type 4 fluid in -FZRA that it's OK to take off (and we all thought that Type 4 stops providing protection as soon as the aircraft is off the ground - silly us! ).

I'm just afraid that when this goes to a hearing that my "judge, jury, and executioner" are going to be the CP & DO. If that's the case it leaves little to the imagination as to how they're going to decide.

[BeechBoy]

Originally Posted by zmiller4

I understand why your DO/CP doesn't think that a letter from Dornier Support Services is enough to prohibit flight into -FZRA, but I bet that it will help you keep your job.

I'm confused on your statement here. If Support Services says, "Don't do it" what possible justification could they have for wanting to ignore it (other than canx flights and less $$$ in their wallet?).

[Mike734]

BeechBoy help me understand. What does Type IV have to do with landing at your destination? Type IV is only applicable for allowing you to take off. It has nothing what ever to do with flight.

It could be that your DO and CP thought you should have continued to your destination without incident and used the type IV to take off again. This is a totally different question than flight in to light freezing drizzle or rain. Was your problem flying in to -fzdz because you might not be able to take off again? Or was it just flying in to the wx to land at the destination?

[PCL_128]

Originally Posted by Mike734

BeechBoy help me understand. What does Type IV have to do with landing at your destination? Type IV is only applicable for allowing you to take off. It has nothing what ever to do with flight.

It could be that your DO and CP thought you should have continued to your destination without incident and used the type IV to take off again. This is a totally different question than flight in to light freezing drizzle or rain. Was your problem flying in to -fzdz because you might not be able to take off again? Or was it just flying in to the wx to land at the destination?

I think what he was saying was that the DO's only defense is that they have a Type IV Holdover Chart for -FZRA, so he's trying to claim that flying in -FZRA is ok. BeechBoy's whole point was that a holdover chart has nothing to do with whether a manufacturer says not to fly in certain conditions. Holdover tables aren't even aircraft specific, so if the DO is going to try using the tables for an argument, then he's going to hit a dead end.

[falconvalley]

Get this. The DO, CP, and POI are all relatively new to their jobs. In fact, when I did my recurrent in Dec, my checkairman was getting certified and we had to use our old POI, who is now based in Chicago, because our new POI isn't certified for signoffs of checkairmen and new captains. I wonder what our old POI, a former Beech and DoJet captain with us, would think about this. He would probably have alot of insight on rewriting manuals and such as he saw alot of the justification for rewrites and new ops specs in their actual occurence. I'm not suggesting he would necessarily agree with BB decision to return, but he might have a few things to say about safety and how you go about supporting change. There is plenty of literature and media out there that supports the fact that flight in freezing precipitation is a crapshoot. I think the Germans were smart to put that warning in the AFM and that syx management is crazy out of their minds to pursue the captain for this. These are the same folks who have been telling DoJet pilots about a cruise temperature restriction that was misinterpreted (or something of the like) in the AFM.

[BeechBoy]

Originally Posted by Mike734

BeechBoy help me understand. What does Type IV have to do with landing at your destination? Type IV is only applicable for allowing you to take off. It has nothing what ever to do with flight.

It could be that your DO and CP thought you should have continued to your destination without incident and used the type IV to take off again. This is a totally different question than flight in to light freezing drizzle or rain. Was your problem flying in to -fzdz because you might not be able to take off again? Or was it just flying in to the wx to land at the destination?

Sorry about the confusion on this. The whole Type 4 issue came about because about 10 days prior to this incident I had refused to depart Louisville, KY (SDF) for the same reason. One of their arguments was that since we have a holdover time for -FZRA I was safe to go. I disagree (so does Dornier and NASA).

The issue for the Dayton flight for which I was suspended was that I wasn't going to shoot an approach into -FZRA.

[BeechBoy]

Originally Posted by PCL_128

BeechBoy's whole point was that a holdover chart has nothing to do with whether a manufacturer says not to fly in certain conditions. Holdover tables aren't even aircraft specific, so if the DO is going to try using the tables for an argument, then he's going to hit a dead end.

I couldn't have said it better myself but (and this is what is so frustrating in this) Skyway management (and Dispatch) seem to think that having a holdover time means that it is 100% safe to launch into the stuff and they aren't about to let anyone change their mind. They are pitifully ignorant that there is a DRASTIC difference between "known icing" (for which the aircraft is certified) and SLD.

[PCL_128]

Originally Posted by BeechBoy

I couldn't have said it better myself but (and this is what is so frustrating in this) Skyway management (and Dispatch) seem to think that having a holdover time means that it is 100% safe to launch into the stuff and they aren't about to let anyone change their mind. They are pitifully ignorant that there is a DRASTIC difference between "known icing" (for which the aircraft is certified) and SLD.

They do realize that your Holdover Tables for the Beech and Dornier are the exact same tables I have for the Boeing, right? Those tables only deal with the performance of the fluid, not the aircraft itself. Your DO and CP are complete idiots.

[KLB]

Originally Posted by PCL_128

They do realize that your Holdover Tables for the Beech and Dornier are the exact same tables I have for the Boeing, right? Those tables only deal with the performance of the fluid, not the aircraft itself. Your DO and CP are complete idiots.

Their arguement makes no sense.

[deadstick]

Originally Posted by falconvalley

These are the same folks who have been telling DoJet pilots about a cruise temperature restriction that was misinterpreted (or something of the like) in the AFM.

I thought it was interesting that mgt decided to follow the -48 restriction and ignore the icing one. The info came from the same place.

[viper548]

The FAA can and will violate you for ignoring an aircraft limitation. They will not violate you for refusing a flight. If your chief is going to continue pushing the issue, you should consider leaving the company before the doors close

[BeechBoy]

Originally Posted by viper548

The FAA can and will violate you for ignoring an aircraft limitation. They will not violate you for refusing a flight. If your chief is going to continue pushing the issue, you should consider leaving the company before the doors close

The problem is that the FAA does not consider the icing warning a limitation! If you're walking along and see a sign saying: "WARNING: Minefield Ahead" you can argue that it doesn't mean you CAN'T walk there, only that you may die if you do so. Therefore, it's not a limitation. This is the way the company is looking at it. It only says you MAY go out of control and die so what's the problem?

[MQAAord]

I have one word for your company management:

Roselawn.





(Simmons Airlines dba American Eagle 4184 31OCT94)

[tonyw]

It sucks that they may fire you, but ask yourself this.

Would you rather be unemployed or dead?

[surreal1221]

Just remember (the meteorlogist in me talking). . .

Freezing Drizzle will produce Moderate Clear Icing

Freezing Rain will produce Severe Clear Icing

Also know that very RARELY will an intensity be affixed to any FZ prcepitation. You'll see it in METARs and TAFs as simply FZRA or FZDZ, rarely will you see it as -/+FZRA/DZ.

[taseal]

good luck on your fight man. but they will most likely say 'how come you were the only plane grounded? all the other flights in the area made it just fine'

to which you can reply with showing the metar, and the AFM.

[zmiller4]

Originally Posted by surreal1221

Also know that very RARELY will an intensity be affixed to any FZ prcepitation. You'll see it in METARs and TAFs as simply FZRA or FZDZ, rarely will you see it as -/+FZRA/DZ.

That's interesting, because I've seen -FZRA a *lot* in the last couple of months (check out the current TAF's for KAUG and KSYR, for example). Our FOM changed recently (sometime within the last two years maybe?) to specifically allow us to operate in light freezing rain. I wonder if TAF's/METAR's have used the "light" designation more to allow more flights to go.