Suspended!! (unfortunately, this is not hypothetical)

[surreal1221]

It may be one of the differences between NOAA and DOD TAFs/METARs. . .but my time spent with a branch of the DoD it was standard practice to not use an intensity descriptor in our TAFs.

I wouldn't be surprised that, since the NOAA/NWS's customers depend on being able to dispatch. . .that they are using an intensity descriptor on their products.

The military. . .eh. . .not so much. We don't like getting icing on our extremely-super critical airframes (fighter jets). Heavies, it's a different ball game but as far as I remember only under certain circumstances will guys launch into known (observed) FZRA/DZ conditions.

[MD-11Loader]

Originally Posted by falconvalley

Man, what a bunch of crap. Augie wouldn't have pulled that! Sounds like you know what you're talking about and GG doesn't. He just doesn't know when to keep his mouth shut!

Augie was a stand up guy and GG is a massive tool. Remember that GG failed DC-9 training at YX twice and that's why he is at Skyway. Too bad you don't have Belmonti and Chris Martin there anymore to go to bat for you. Those two wouldn't take crap from anybody. I always enjoyed sitting in the ALPA office and listening to them get Velguth riled up.

[Cruise]

Originally Posted by zmiller4

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.

I think that's EXACTLY right. People generating the TAF/METAR understand that if they don't include the 'light' designation.....lots of money is going down the drain because of canceled/ diverted flights.

Here's a question......

I've looked through our winter operation manual and nowhere did I find anything to determine intensities of FZRA. For SN....the chart is there as a function of temp., vis., and day/night to determine intensities.

Anybody know how to determine the intensities of FZRA????

The reason I ask this, is a couple weeks ago in LGA it was FZRA, in my opinion(and the FO's), it was at the very least moderate intensity w/ occasional heavy. However, the entire time the ATIS was broadcasting light. We waited it out for a little while, got deiced and launched once, in my opinion, the intensity decreased to light. I'm certain(IMHO) the controllers at LGA purposely kept the ATIS 'light' the entire time to keep operations moving in/ out of the airport.

[BeechBoy]

Originally Posted by Cruise

I've looked through our winter operation manual and nowhere did I find anything to determine intensities of FZRA. For SN....the chart is there as a function of temp., vis., and day/night to determine intensities.

It's kind of funny that you bring this up. There have been times it was snowing so hard in Milwaukee that visibility was down to 1/2 mile. Using the chart we have for determining snowfall intensity this would be classified as "heavy". ATIS, no surprise, was broadcasting "light snow". On average the airport would shut down for an hour for snow removal, then it would open for 15 minutes, then have to shut down again for another hour for snow removal. Yeah, that sounds like "light" snow to me .

I'm not sure but they may do this with visibility, too. One night we were returning to MKE and the TAF was obviously blown. Visibility was supposed to be >6 but when we checked ATIS it was 1.25. As we approached, the RVR reports kept going down, down, down until the magic 2400 where it remained (convenient, huh?). We shot the approach down to minimums (had to go down to 100 above TDZE) got the runway in sight and landed. The visibility was so bad I could barely see the taxiway exit signs. I almost had to make my FO get out and lead the way with a white cane! As we were taxiing to the ramp (with the same atrocious visibility), ground control was advertising "RVR better than 6,000" .

With the best of intentions I made an illegal landing and only realized that I clearly busted visibility minimums after I was on the ground and saw for myself how bad the vis was. (If there are any Feds reading this the above confession was coerced after 16 straight hours of interrogation, beatings, and electro-shock treatment and cannot be used in a court of law ).

[SoCalAprch]

They always will give you just what you need to get in. In CVG a couple weeks ago they even asked someone what they needed to get in, a couple seconds went by a viola, new atis and the guy continued and landed

One thing I learned on IOE is that if you are asked about something there are not too many times where anything is severe. Never call severe icing unless you think planes will start falling from the sky. Had some 172 driver call severe icing and had to sit on the ground and wait for a PSA plane to call it light to get the airmet changed. Took a two hour delay and once we got off only the computer knew there was Ice, no build up on the wipers or anything and the weather was deteriorating. And WTF was a 172 doing in severe icing?

[chrisdahut1]

Originally Posted by SoCalAprch

They always will give you just what you need to get in. In CVG a couple weeks ago they even asked someone what they needed to get in, a couple seconds went by a viola, new atis and the guy continued and landed

One thing I learned on IOE is that if you are asked about something there are not too many times where anything is severe. Never call severe icing unless you think planes will start falling from the sky. Had some 172 driver call severe icing and had to sit on the ground and wait for a PSA plane to call it light to get the airmet changed. Took a two hour delay and once we got off only the computer knew there was Ice, no build up on the wipers or anything and the weather was deteriorating. And WTF was a 172 doing in severe icing?

lol that's quite a predicament. While light aircraft aren't approved into areas of known icing, it's possible to inadvertently fly into an area of unknown icing. Here's what sucks...severe icing is defined as an accumulation of ice that ice protection systems fail to remove. Since a C-172 has no ice protection systems outside of windshield defog, pitot heat and carb heat, even light rime ice could be considered "severe icing".

At least that's my interpretation. Never really thought about that until now though.

[Maurus]

Originally Posted by Cruise

I think that's EXACTLY right. People generating the TAF/METAR understand that if they don't include the 'light' designation.....lots of money is going down the drain because of canceled/ diverted flights.

Here's a question......

I've looked through our winter operation manual and nowhere did I find anything to determine intensities of FZRA. For SN....the chart is there as a function of temp., vis., and day/night to determine intensities.

Anybody know how to determine the intensities of FZRA????

The intensity modifier is for the RA in FZRA. So it is light rain that happens to be freezing. Kind like when you see -TSRA. The FZ in FZRA is just a result of the temperature on the ground I would believe.

[JA Yawd Bwoy]

Originally Posted by Chief Captain

I'm still a PPL working my way up the ladder, but here are my opinions:

This is a disgrace. You had a decision to make and chose to err on the side of safety. That is commendable. I don't believe you should even be held accountable for such a decision, but to be reprimanded and disciplined is unthinkable. Have these people never flown an airplane? You contacted the manufacturer, and they affirmed that you made the correct decision. If the CP has chosen to suspend you, HE is remiss in his duties. I dare suggest that you inform the company in writing that if any further action is taken against you, you will be forced to consider legal action against them, and remind them that the press would just love to hear a story like this. With the recent public awareness of aviation safety, it'll be all over the news.

I would also suggest that you send a letter to your FSDO, as the CP is a required position at a carrier, with a FAR defined role. This is in clear violation of said role. You are in a position to file an official complaint, and that should get the FAA to start an investigation.

On a more positive note, maybe it's a blessing. It never looks good to be fired, but do you really want to fly for a company with this sort of attitude? I doubt a future employee will penalize you for your actions. Going against the grain is one thing. What you did was observe AFM limitations and demonstrate your competence as a commander.

Originally Posted by Number1atNumber2

Man that sucks dude! I'd say make sure you have as much recording of what the dir of ops and chief pilot have said to you thus far. Written recordings go farther than verbal accounts.

Personally, I'd be asking myself just how bad I want to keep working for these people?

I would seriously look for another employer at this point if I were you, so after you WIN the settlement you can still be flying

[Cruise]

Originally Posted by Maurus

The intensity modifier is for the RA in FZRA. So it is light rain that happens to be freezing. Kind like when you see -TSRA. The FZ in FZRA is just a result of the temperature on the ground I would believe.

Yep, you're right about the RA being what the intensity modifier is all about. The problem w/ the FZ portion is that in the AIM (7-1-19), it talks about RA intensities in a very ambiguous, subjective manner. This is much unlike SN where intensities are a function of vis./ temp./ day or night....like I mentioned above.

So, this leaves a great deal of interpretation of what's legal and what's not......MOREOVER, what's safe and what's not.

So, this brings me back to my original question of whether anyone knows of a way to determine the intensity of FZRA using objective means?

[ljg]

I think the determining factor here when estimating the intensity of rain is if "individual drops are easily identifiable" (light), "not clearly identifiable" (mod), or "not identifiable" (heavy).

[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.

[jlauzer]

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.

Skyway's flying is not done until the first week of April. The pilots have 4 weeks to go yet.....

[BeechBoy]

Here's some clarification on what exactly is meant by the warning in the AFM. To save you the time of scrolling back to the original thread I'll post the warning below:

"WARNING: Severe icing may result from environmental conditions outside of those for which the airplane is certificated. Flight in freezing rain, freezing drizle, or mixed icing conditions (supercooled liquid water and ice crystals) may result in ice build-up on protected surfaces exceeding the capability of the ice protection system, or may result in ice forming aft of the protected surfaces. This ice may not be shed using the ice protection sytems, and may seriously degrade the performance and controllability of the airplane."

The above warning is required by an AD as a result of the ATR that crashed in Roselawn, IN. It's required for all aircraft with deicing boots and unpowered controls.

The head of Skyway's safety department did some research and found some information that sheds light as to what the FAA's intent was with this warning. Here's the link: http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...F?OpenDocument

Comment #4 contains this wording: "These AD's do not prohibit flight into forecast or reported freezing rain or freezing drizzle. This means that the aircraft is not prohibited from takeoff, dispatch, or release simply because the forecast may indicate freezing rain or freezing drizzle, but is prohibited from continued flight in severe icing conditions."

The purpose of the AD (and the warning that it requires) is not to prevent flight into freezing rain/drizzle but to give pilots clear warning signs of when they are in severe icing conditions (the warning continues to list these warning signs - ice buildup aft of protected surfaces, ice buildup on side windows, etc). Before this warning came out, pilots may have seen ice on the side window and not recognize that this was a warning that ice is also accumulating aft of protected surfaces.

If I had been aware of that I would have flown the airplane into -FZRA with a clear conscience and not felt that I was taking an unreasonable risk with my passnegers' lives.

However, there's a fly in the ointment. Remember the e-mail I got from Dornier, the one that said, "Takeoff into freezing rain, including light freezing rain is not permitted"? Now, despite the fact that the AD doesn't prevent takeoff (or landing) into known freezing rain, the Type Certificate Holder says we can't do it! Now what???

Skyway sent a VERY pointed e-mail to Dornier 328 Support Services essentially demanding that they retract that statement immediately. Dornier's response: "If there is evidence of freezing drizzle and freezing rain (= severe icing conditions) a take off/flight is prohibited."

I'll admit that, after reading the FAA's intent with the AD, I'm a bit puzzled as to why Dornier is so adamant about not flying the 328 into FZRA. Nonetheless, the fact remains that they clearly say, "Y'all better not go there!".

[PCL_128]

What's the latest? Is the company still pushing for discipline?

[BeechBoy]

I'm not really sure what they're doing right now. My guess is that their main priority right now is keeping Dornier's prohibition about operating in freezing rain a secret.

My ASAP report on the incident has been accepted and my ALPA attorney thinks that will be a barrier to any disciplinary action by Skyway.

[PCL_128]

If your ASAP has been accepted, then you should be golden. Any discipline would be a violation of the ASAP MOU that the company has with not only with the union, but with the FAA.

[ppragman]

We had a couple of guys ice up a tail real bad the other day for similar reasons (snow through that melted then refroze), and it almost killed them. You are in the right. Those poor bastards ran out of nose down trim. They were scared ####less, and had to wait for the ice to subliminate in the climb to get out of trouble. You did good.

[Codyjp]

I would guess this has been asked before but why would you want to continue working for this company? There would have been smoking footprints as I hit the front door running if I had this happened to me!

[deadstick]

Originally Posted by Codyjp

I would guess this has been asked before but why would you want to continue working for this company? There would have been smoking footprints as I hit the front door running if I had this happened to me!

It was the Airlines Formerly Known as Skyway.

[WacoFan]

My understanding was that the company had suspended him, and he was appealling. In the meantime, SkyWay goes TU. SO, when he applies to another airline, does he have to report that he recieved discipline at this job, even though he was appealling the suspension when the company ceased operating?

I certainly hope this does not follow him around - he seemed to make a good decision.

[DE727UPS]

So where is Doug's post Skyway operations dirt? I read all this way, and nothing.....

[Bumblebee]

Originally Posted by DE727UPS

So where is Doug's post Skyway operations dirt? I read all this way, and nothing.....

He's prolly pre-occupied w the goin's on at his airline . . . I heard tell there what some big happenings around his neck o' the woods

[UPSpilot]

Originally Posted by BeechBoy

For those of you who have been following my thread on freezing rain in "Technical Talk" the issue reared it's ugly head again today. To make a long story short I was flying from Milwaukee to Dayton. Freezing rain was in the forecast so I suspected there might be trouble. Sure enough ATIS was broadcasting light freezing rain at the surface and the forecast said there was more to come for the next several hours.

Due to the warning in the AFM and several conversations I had with the icing experts at NASA I elected to return to Milwaukee. The Director of Operations suspended me and is going to try to get me fired.

I've already talked to our ALPA rep, the FSDO, and NASA and have their support when the battle starts. I was just wondering if there's any further advice anyone can give me.

Thanks!

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.

[falconvalley]

With all the information present, sure, they could have "a" point. Our friend got a bad feeling in his gut about freezing weather and decided not to continue. Not only is that siding with safety, the ops manual for the 328 is very confusing about freezing rain. So, when the company confronted him about his decision, he not only had Captain's authority on his side, he had NASA and what's left of Fairchild backing up his decision. They decided to suspend him based on THEIR interpretation of the manual. Does that sound like good judgement? Not to me. It sounds like they were just angry. I would laugh anyone out of my sight if they tried to tell me a manual said I can fly in freezing rain so I should have gone.

[UPSpilot]

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