New Chief Pilots at ASA

[1080P]

now i know you are crazy. fl is a nice dude, but come on, he was worthless as a cp. did you ever actually go to him for anything? he was usually knee deep researching corvettes, great to talk to, hope you just didnt need anything. i will take the current bunch anyday over the old group. sure they had hours, but what the heck did that do for us?

i like the fact that these current guys know the airplane, and fly more than i ever saw the others. fl and rc didnt even have medicals for years. bd's uniform is the only thing that looked like it had 20,000 hours.

i have heard sh called a lot of things, never angry. dont know him any more than rgt and seeing him in the lounge, but he doesnt strike me as mean.

hours mean nothing, what you do matters. for the first time in years i feel the cps are there because they are smart and able. not just due to the fact that they have 20,000 hours.

Completely agree, as do most others

 

[JettBoii]

Maybe Leonard could be ne of the new assistant chiefs.....hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahaha. He already thinks he is.

BD has helped me out before. Nice guy.

 

[shamrock]

I had the no APU argument twice on my last 4 day. The first time I took it to Dispatch, MX, then finally CP Ken who's comment was "I disagree with you but it's your call", that was the end of it. The second was me telling DX I wasn't taking a plane to the panhandle, DX telling me there were no spares, me telling DX I still wasn't taking it, and DX miraculously finding another plane 5 minutes later.

To quote Nancy Reagan, just say no.

 

[Medeco]

you mean they passed the plane to someone who would.

I am curious, have you had any previous interactions with CP Smith? Because, he loves to come at people hard and see if you let him push you around.

Medeco

 

[shamrock]

you mean they passed the plane to someone who would.

I am curious, have you had any previous interactions with CP Smith? Because, he loves to come at people hard and see if you let him push you around.

Medeco

Yeah, it's SOP to pawn the plane off on crews until they find someone willing to take it so I'm sure it went somewhere after I refused it.

Haven't had any trouble with Ken, he's made his opinions known when I've dealt with him but he seemed to look for a workable solution rather than pushing me to do something I didn't want to do so I can't complain.

 

[Tarzan]

It should be interesting when the CA I am flying with is willing to take a plane and I'm not. We'll see what the CP's say then.

 

[79%N1]

Doesn't seem like it's your decision then.

 

[ohplease!]

It should be interesting when the CA I am flying with is willing to take a plane and I'm not. We'll see what the CP's say then.

I can tell you the answer to that one:

"trip failure"

 

[Smacktard]

It should be interesting when the CA I am flying with is willing to take a plane and I'm not. We'll see what the CP's say then.

Knock yourself out bro! Personally, I don't think you'll get too far with it, but it would be fun to watch.

 

[COOPERVANE]

takes two to fly it

 

[Tarzan]

Knock yourself out bro! Personally, I don't think you'll get too far with it, but it would be fun to watch.

I don't think I will either but when it's 95 degrees out an we have a deferred pack, I'm willing to give it a go.

 

[ohplease!]

I don't think I will either but when it's 95 degrees out an we have a deferred pack, I'm willing to give it a go.

rather than refusing to fly the plane, rufuse to fly with a pilot you consider "unsafe" for endangering passengers and possibly damaging the plane....

 

[Plainsman]

Last year took a pos plane single pack to GSO. FAA inspector in the back. After we got up to Greensboro he came up and asked us who was making the decisions up here, and why we took a plane we knew was broken on a hot afternoon. Said he was writing up the captain. Don't know what happened after that night but I sure wouldn't take one now. It's your neck on the line if someone passes due to heat exhaustion. Besides what if you took an airplane with a dead apu and you had a post shut down engine tail pipe fire. If that were to happen the faa would fault you for taking an airplane without an operable apu. Company has become better about taking planes with dead APUs but guys and girls got to stand there ground if one is down and it is warm, in the 200 at least.

 

[Tarzan]

rather than refusing to fly the plane, rufuse to fly with a pilot you consider "unsafe" for endangering passengers and possibly damaging the plane....

Ahhh Sensei, you are truly wise. I am but worm excrement in my level of knowledge.

Good point. I try to avoid conflict whenever I can and generally do well at it. But I can't see getting into an airplane and having the cockpit temps get to over 42C. It is unsafe when it gets to that level and I will not do it again if I can help it.

 

[Speedtape]

See what I mean?

You have to find the right guy who will stand up for you. If not, you have to go the other route and hope it doesn't get kicked up to SH. That guy is a menace-he has never flown the line in any rj (except for a round-trip every now and then to CHA,) and doesn't understand or care how hot it gets-his butt won't be on the plane.

I know someone who SH tried to browbeat into taking a non-apu plane to an outstation in Texas with no ground air conditioning and the OAT at the ETA was 97 degrees!

-Unacceptable!

Well, this is an age old issue. Let's run through the drill, again.

Who is the Pilot-In-Command?
As the Pilot-In-Command you are charged with not only performing your duties in compliance with the FARs. but also operating the aircraft in a safe manner that protects the well-being of your passengers and protects the aircraft and cargo. Remember, your well being is also important in that cockpit.

If there is a deferral on an aircraft that compromises the safe operation of those passengers due to conditions that jeopardize their safety or well being, (ie., high outside or inside temperatures) then you would be careless and derelict in your duties as a Pilot-In-Command to operate that aircraft. It may not pass the test of "What would a reasonable person do?" As a trained professional, carrying passengers for hire, you have a higher standard to meet in the reasonable test issue. If someone is injured as a result of your action/decision, such as heat stroke, heart attack, or dehydration, you will be held personally liable. Again, Who is the Pilot-In-Command?

If you know your job, you don't need to get the Chief Pilot's approval or opinion, or for that matter, anyone else's. They are not the Pilot-In-Command! If you are a people pleaser, then you have signed up for the wrong job.

Sometimes it's hard to take the position of being right. However, if you are consistent, and use the "reasonable person test," you will never be disciplined. Sometimes, it just takes steadfastness and reasonable justification. Sometimes, you have to stand tall.

I carry a small temperature thermometer in my flight bag for this purpose in the summer time, as I followed that practice of another older, wiser pilot. If they want carry animals when the temperature is above 85 degrees outside, and your air cylce machine is not achieving something better than that, why would you carry people? And the temp is always hotter in the cockpit, why would you subject yourself to unsafe conditions?

 

[CFI2766]

Doesn't seem like it's your decision then.

This is absolutely the WORST advice I've ever heard with regard to the operation of an airliner.

This is the same thing as saying that the captain has the final say on busting minimums on an approach, disregarding W&B, ignoring duty time regs; you name the bad idea, if it's the captain's (dispatcher's, company's, or even flight attendant's) final word, you have to go along with it as a First Officer. WRONG. WRONG. WRONG.

Above all, if the Captain, who is both the legal and correct PIC for flight, (read: not the FO), makes a decision that is in accordance with part 121, or 91 if appropriate, that is per the FOM and OM, and makes plain good sense, it is your job and duty to support that captain and be a professional in every way. Within these paramaters, if you, as an FO, intentionally choose not to support that captain, you are more dangerous than the captain who makes poor decisions.

All that being said, it is your job to speak up when you perceive a safety, regulation, or procedural issue. If you speak up about a valid safety issue, and are ignored, it is your job as an FO to prevent an accident. If that takes refusing a flight, so be it.

If I were to receive company discipline for refusing such a situation, it would get ugly. First off, I'd have a chat with the chief pilot and attempt to resolve the situation peacefully. If that failed, then it would be time to have a chat with the safety reps for what ever collective bargaining entity I would be affiliated with at the time. Barring that, welll, there's a good reason that KATL is within sight of the Atlanta FSDO.

Bottom line, FOs support valid orders from Captains. If any of the three parts of that statement are in disagreement, do what ever it takes to prevent an accident.


(Extra credit: Without searching, can anyone define an accident in the eyes of the NTSB?)

 

[CFI2766]

rather than refusing to fly the plane, rufuse to fly with a pilot you consider "unsafe" for endangering passengers and possibly damaging the plane....

This is good advice, IMHO.

If the situation deteriorates to the point where you can not resolve it in the cockpit, CRM is not working for that crew.

Deferred packs are an unpleasant gray area. However, recent events with airliners full of people being stuck on closed ramps making the headlines should give flight crews more latitude, this summer, at least, when making decisions about taking an airplane with less than optimal environmental control systems.

 

[Tarzan]

(Extra credit: Without searching, can anyone define an accident in the eyes of the NTSB?)

When the White Dragon does something that causes you to mess your pants?

 

[CFI2766]

When the White Dragon does something that causes you to mess your pants?

Easy now, you might turn this into another race thread...

 

[Speedtape]

(Extra credit: Without searching, can anyone define an accident in the eyes of the NTSB?)

Sorry, I had to search. Thanks for pointing that out. It should clarify the issue at hand.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The NTSB and the FAA use definitions for accidents and incidents that are described below. Note that there are several terms in the definition of an accident that also have specific meanings when used by the FAA and the NTSB. AirSafe.com is focused for the most part on fatal events, a term that has a specific definition in this site but one that is not defined and used in the same way by the NTSB, FAA, or any other civil aviation regulatory body.

Accident
As defined by the NTSB, this is an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft where as a result of the operation of an aircraft, any person (either inside or outside the aircraft) receives fatal or serious injury or any aircraft receives substantial damage. The occurrence is also not caused by the deliberate action of one or more persons and that leads to damage or injury. The NTSB definition, which is also used by the FAA, divides accidents into four categories:

1. Major - an accident in which a 14 CFR 121 aircraft was destroyed, there were multiple fatalities, or there was one fatality and a 14 CFR 121 aircraft was substantially damaged.
2. Serious - an accident in which there was either one fatality without substantial damage to a 14 CFR 121 aircraft, or there was at least one serious injury and a 14 CFR121 aircraft was substantially damaged.
3. Injury - a nonfatal accident with at least one serious injury and without substantial damage to a 14 CFR 121 aircraft.
4. Damage - an accident in which no person was killed or seriously injured, but in which any aircraft was substantially damaged.