Suspended!! (unfortunately, this is not hypothetical)

[Bumblebee]

Originally Posted by UPSpilot

I think that a more "seasoned" captain would have continued that flight and made an uneventful approach and landing.

Certainly, a less conservative captain would have. Or, possibly an equally seasoned and more careless captain. I don't know . . . there are probably situations I would avoid more readily than checkairmen I respect, but I'm certain if I made a judgement based safety and upon my understanding of the FOM/SOP and could back it up, my company wouldn't roast me for it.

[deadstick]

Originally Posted by UPSpilot

I think that a more "seasoned" captain would have continued that flight and made an uneventful approach and landing.

How many "seasoned" captains, who want do silly things like keep their tickets and not break planes/people, would go and deliberately do something after the manufacturer tells them "DON'T DO THAT?" I think that is called a limitation. The DO might as well have told him to take off 10,000 lbs over gross.

UPS...if you are one of those "seasoned" captains and you are flying for Big Brown, please stick to flying boxes.

[Bumblebee]

Originally Posted by deadstick

How many "seasoned" captains, who want do silly things like keep their tickets and not break planes/people, would go and deliberately do something after the manufacturer tells them "DON'T DO THAT?" I think that is called a limitation. The DO might as well have told him to take off 10,000 lbs over gross.

This is cool . . . more of a discussion on the issues.

Originally Posted by deadstick

UPS...if you are one of those "seasoned" captains and you are flying for Big Brown, please stick to flying boxes.

this is kind of unnecessary more of a personal attack.

[PCL_128]

Originally Posted by UPSpilot

I think that a more "seasoned" captain would have continued that flight and made an uneventful approach and landing.

You're right. I have flown with a lot of pretty stupid "seasoned" Captains, and that's what you'd have to be to disregard manufacturer limitations.

[Number1atNumber2]

Originally Posted by UPSpilot

I think that a more "seasoned" captain would have continued that flight and made an uneventful approach and landing.

Are you serious??? I hope you're kidding. Is that not the "invulnerability" attitude we warn private pilots about? If the manufacturer of the aircraft says it's not to be done, I don't know how much more clearly DON'T DO IT! can be said.
Sure you MAY get away with it once, or even a few times, but if an accident happens the pilot will have no one to blame but themselves.

[canadian_atc]

Originally Posted by UPSpilot

I think that a more "seasoned" captain would have continued that flight and made an uneventful approach and landing.

That has to be one of the most unprofessional remarks from a supposed professional pilot I've ever heard.

[WacoFan]

The Captain of the KLM 747 on Tenerife in 1977 was exceptionally seasoned too - Check Airman in fact. The crew of EAL FL 401 was pretty seasoned as well.

I think the greatest attribute a person can have is knowing what they are comfortable with or not, and having the strength to say "I am not comfortable, and I am not doing this". To me, that is what being a Captain is all about - it seems to be a sign of emotional maturity and judgement. What some on here are comfortable with is irrelevant if they are not the Captains of a particular flight. Just my opinion.

[ozziecat35]

Quote:
Originally Posted by UPSpilot
I think that a more "seasoned" captain would have continued that flight and made an uneventful approach and landing.

That has to be one of the most unprofessional remarks from a supposed professional pilot I've ever heard.


I know there was a thread discussing the fact that people should be required to disclose their fying "background" licenses, etc....

Beech Boy, I hope eveything will fall in your favor...you excersized your authority as PIC...end of story.

[falconvalley]

Originally Posted by UPSpilot

I think that a more "seasoned" captain would have continued that flight and made an uneventful approach and landing.

You ever fly a jet with deice boots?

[Cruise]

Originally Posted by UPSpilot

I think that a more "seasoned" captain would have continued that flight and made an uneventful approach and landing.

Maybe.....maybe not. That is a very arrogant statement and the old saying about old/ bold pilots comes to mind.

Good on you if you've made it through using all balls and no brains. However, to me, that type of thinking typifies one who lives on borrowed time. Sooner or later, the debt collector WILL find you.

[BeechBoy]

Originally Posted by WacoFan

Here is my question and I spologize if it is stupid. My understanding is that this gentleman works for a carrier that ceased operation in the near past (last week I believe).

If he was "suspended" and now the carrier is defunt and not operating, does he have to tell everyone he interviews with that he was "suspended" at his last carrier and tell this story? Is there anyway he can get this overturned on his record? It would absolutely suck for him to have this follow him around on his record and not have the ability to have it overturned.

Sorry of this was an ignorant question - just wondering about the scenario. Sounds like good judgement was used.

No, that's not an ignorant question at all (at least if it is it's the SAME ignorant question I've been wondering about).

The word from ALPA is that "suspended with pay" = administrative leave with no stigma attached. I also checked with HR and they told me that the letter in my personnel record removing me from flying status will NOT be included in any PRIA info sent to other airlines.

That being said, however, the issue DID come up when I interviewed with Spirit. Among other things I was asked if I ever had to see the Chief Pilot. I didn't mention the "suspension" but I did mention that I did have to talk to the Chief Pilot regarding my decision to not fly in freezing rain (I was also sure to include the statement that Dornier specifically said not to do so). 20 minutes later they offered me a position so I guess they didn't think it was that big of a deal.

I want to thank everyone for their support on this. There were many times when I was wondering if I just scuttled my career and the overwhelming support from you guys helped me more than you can imagine.

I'm off to start my new career at Spirit so I'll be out of touch for a couple of months.

[deadstick]

Originally Posted by bumblebee

this is kind of unnecessary more of a personal attack.

I can see it as "unnecessary." Once again, I posted without stepping back and breathing. Two wrongs don't make a right, etc. I got my point across in the first part. I do not see the "personal attack," though. A professional one, you bet. That mentality is as out dated as "flying the beam" and the CAA.

[BeechBoy]

Originally Posted by UPSpilot

Does your ops specs allow you to land in LIGHT freezing rain? Most do. I think your company has a point if your ops specs allow you to operate in conditions that you decided to not even attempt.

Our ops specs do not mention flying in any type of freezing rain/freezing drizzle. I know many airlines allow flight into light freezing rain but not moderate. These airlines also have aircraft with hot wings (we only have boots and horn heat for airfoil deicing).

[PCL_128]

Congrats on the job at Spirit!

[deadstick]

Originally Posted by BeechBoy

These airlines also have aircraft with hot wings (we only have boots and horn heat for airfoil deicing).

This was part of the FAA's "cookie cutter" regulating that drives me nuts. Of course, it helps the industry for them NOT to regulate everything. You'd think the air carriers wrote the ops specs themselves, or told the FAA what to write. We all know the FAA doesn't roll over that easily. You have to buy them a drink or something sparkley first.

[Number1atNumber2]

Glad to hear you're getting on with Spirit!! Nice!

[BigPoppa]

I got a lot out of this thread on the proper way to approach a potentially unsafe situation. Doing the right thing may be a pain in the ass, but it's still the right thing.


Congrats on the new job, and it's probably best that you don't have to deal with those same guys ever again.

[phoenix 23684]

Congrats on your new position at Spirit,

Now here is a thought, since there seems to be such a hype on airline safety and FAA poor oversight, one way to put some pressure on your former carrier may be informing the local news about this development, everyone knows that no one likes bad media, and after reading through this forum it sounds to me that your former company has some serious safety issues, that should be known to the public. Good job on not letting them pressure you into a bad decision.

[towhook]

Originally Posted by BeechBoy

Our ops specs do not mention flying in any type of freezing rain/freezing drizzle. I know many airlines allow flight into light freezing rain but not moderate. These airlines also have aircraft with hot wings (we only have boots and horn heat for airfoil deicing).

Considering your boss/chief probably has more experience then you it might do you well to try and see it from their perspective. You seem pretty darn sure you made the right decision even though it got you suspended. Have you considered you might have been too cautious? We are to be safe, but also to get the job done.

[Number1atNumber2]

Originally Posted by towhook

Considering your boss/chief probably has more experience then you it might do you well to try and see it from their perspective. You seem pretty darn sure you made the right decision even though it got you suspended. Have you considered you might have been too cautious? We are to be safe, but also to get the job done.

More experience doesn't always equal smarter. True, understanding another perspective can be helpful, but in this case he made a decision to not fly when he was uncomfortable and not only that, he actually contacted the aircraft manufacturer and they told him he absoultly made the right call. I don't see how it gets any more clear. Plus, the chief pilot was not PIC on the flight. The company's actions on this were deplorable. Why is anyone playing Devil's Advocate here???

Seriously!

[deadstick]

Originally Posted by towhook

Considering your boss/chief probably has more experience then you it might do you well to try and see it from their perspective. You seem pretty darn sure you made the right decision even though it got you suspended. Have you considered you might have been too cautious? We are to be safe, but also to get the job done.

"NO" was the answer from the people who built the airplane.

"YES" was the company answer.

I'd go with the real experts who built the bird and know it's limitations, short comings, and deficiencies. Another way of looking at it: can you get violated by the feds for not doing something your DO/CP tells you to do OR by doing something contrary to the limits set by the manufacturer?

The FAA's policies on hold over times and icing is the least painful (they don't have to do additional work) or "cookie cutter" approach to regulating. No two aircraft are exactly alike. As bb stated, the Dork Jet is a straight wing bird with silver pneumatic boots (silver to make it look like a real jet with hot wings ). Just look at the ATR and Caravan. Those planes have been flying for decades and the jury is still out on those models and FIKI. I believe that FIKI is one reason that ATR is looking at scrapping the 42/72 model in favor of a whole new design.

I'm not one for "big government," but the FAA needs to change its reactionary MO of addressing problems, get out of the sack with the air carriers, and get some of these problems solved before we need more blood legislation.

Ok...rant over.

[towhook]

Originally Posted by Number1atNumber2

More experience doesn't always equal smarter. True, understanding another perspective can be helpful, but in this case he made a decision to not fly when he was uncomfortable and not only that, he actually contacted the aircraft manufacturer and they told him he absoultly made the right call. I don't see how it gets any more clear. Plus, the chief pilot was not PIC on the flight. The company's actions on this were deplorable. Why is anyone playing Devil's Advocate here???

Seriously!

There is more then one side to a story. I am not passing judgment on anyone as I was not there at the time. I am trying to bring another perspective to the thread (as others have attempted). What was the company thinking when they suspended him? Do you think they did not have any reasons? Usually pilots don't get suspended just for being safe. Now too safe or not safe enough... that is another story.

Being "uncomfortable" with something does not mean it is unsafe. I think that we have all been uncomfortable in aircraft at times. Maybe it is your first stall, picking up ice, or having to land in a ferocious x-wind by yourself. With time we can learn what will really bite, if we make it that long. If you are going to err, do it on the side of caution.

Did anybody else get in?

[deadstick]

Originally Posted by towhook

There is more then one side to a story. I am not passing judgment on anyone as I was not there at the time. I am trying to bring another perspective to the thread (as others have attempted). What was the company thinking when they suspended him? Do you think they did not have any reasons? Usually pilots don't get suspended just for being safe. Now too safe or not safe enough... that is another story.

Being "uncomfortable" with something does not mean it is unsafe. I think that we have all been uncomfortable in aircraft at times. Maybe it is your first stall, picking up ice, or having to land in a ferocious x-wind by yourself. With time we can learn what will really bite, if we make it that long. If you are going to err, do it on the side of caution.

Did anybody else get in?

The company went as far to demand that tech support withdraw the statement that BB sites. They refused to do so and repeated that the 328Jet was not to operate in those conditions.

Those were the final days of Skyway and the management team, I imagine, was under a great deal of pressure to complete fights (so not to tarnish the delicate Midwest image for life after Skyway -- my opinion). For an operator based in MKE, any serious ice limitation is not a good thing.

I agree with the "uncomfortable" statement, but this was different. This was a significant change in what was perceived to be the proper interpretation of the limitation. I do not know if it was a translation (German to English) issue or what, but, just as you mentioned above, he brought another perspective to the interpretation, and according to the manufacturer, he was correct. He stood his ground because he felt, and again it is my opinion that he was correct, that the manufacturer knew more about what that plane can or cannot do than either the DO or the CP. How many times have you been told to do something a certain way "because that's the way it's always been done."

Did anybody else get in? Aside from a couple of 135 oufits, nobody flies this type of aircraft. This is one of the other points: every aircraft is unique in design and capabilities. The blanket (FAA approved) procedures for one cannot be safety applied to another because the air moves about the airframes differently. Just look at the ATR. At one point, it passed the test for FIKI. It wasn't until after an accident that people realized there was something different about that wing.

[SlantG]

Originally Posted by UPSpilot

I think that a more "seasoned" captain would have continued that flight and made an uneventful approach and landing.

Or a smokin' crater.

The goal of ailrine flying is to prolong an inevitable death as long as possible, not to invite it at every chance.

[UPSpilot]

He should have been replaced by a captain that was "more comfortable" with the situation. It's perfectly safe to fly into light freezing rain. I've done it many times.