ASA DTW CP pulls IAD pilot offline for refusing aircraft

[Stifler's Mom]

The APU and packs are dererable too, even in the summer. Who here is taking that plane?

 

[ACL65PILOT]

I had a similar issue with a ATL CP back in 1999. Refused a E-120 because of no working radar. Area forecast showed TP in the vicinity. I refused the airplane with out a radar. This former CP freaked out, and then made me and him fly the trip. (Removed the FO to prove to me that it was not needed) Of course we got a new radar control panel and blasted off.
In the end the radar was needed, but the action desire for you to fly an airplane with a perfectly legal deferral was the same. Stand your ground, you do not have to sign the dispatch release. One thing I learned from this is, be tactful and forceful. Do not refuse a jet on a company radio freq, and call them on the phone.

If they want to have administrative action on a pilot, so be it, but you have a moral and legal obligation not just to the yourself, but to your passengers and FAR's. They will get over it, but if they do not the grievance and arbitration process are great at resolving these sort of things.

 

[PBRstreetgang]

Can't hand fly in RVSM....but I still get your point.

Pre RVSM days, planes did fly all the way up there before...

 

[Clutch]

nevermind * wrong thread

 

[BigPappa]

This would be the reply to a forceful CP from Captain Less Grossman (played by Tom C.).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S96DVTtvXqY&feature=related

 

[DeucesWild]

I thought we were paid to FLY airplanes? If we can not do that job without an autopilot, we need to find a different profession.

If you are one of the guys/gals who are not confident enough in your abilities to hand fly, you should be looking for a different job!

Good for the CP for pulling them offline.

 

[BigPappa]

It's not C.H....It's K.H. and he sounds like a really neat guy.

Unless you're him, who the F... cares!
I do have to say that if you refuse for "no AP" only, that on its own it is a bit lame.....

 

[IBNAV8R]

An autopilot deferred, by itself, is no problem. In fact I'm a staunch advocate of being able to hand-fly the airplane (raw data if need be) in any configuration at any time.

But, here's that thing:

Accidents (and incidents) are usually caused by many links in the chain. These links are usually not significant risks by themselves, i.e., deferred autopilot/pack/apu, weather, long day, FNG, short runway, etc. Many of these links are inevitable, and we willingly take them on knowing they are part of the task at hand.

At some point, though, the known links eventually, add up to make an unsafe situation - especially when we consider the latent risks inherent in any flight. It is up to pilots to decide when there are already too many links in the equation and either remove some of the links, or cut the chain altogether.

Unfortunately, the type and number of links allowed is not spelled out in black and white. And, there is only ONE person on the planet who can make that call.

 

[IBNAV8R]

P.S. I've had dispatch and MX change their tune most ricky-tick when informed their was a fed in the jumpseat right behind me.

 

[goahead]

fuad m. Is one of the best chief pilots asa has had in a while. He should teach new guys what effective leadership is. They could learn a lot from him.

bahahahahahahaha

 

[Brody1]

I had a similar issue with a ATL CP back in 1999. Refused a E-120 because of no working radar. Area forecast showed TP in the vicinity. I refused the airplane with out a radar. This former CP freaked out, and then made me and him fly the trip. (Removed the FO to prove to me that it was not needed) Of course we got a new radar control panel and blasted off.
In the end the radar was needed, but the action desire for you to fly an airplane with a perfectly legal deferral was the same. Stand your ground, you do not have to sign the dispatch release. One thing I learned from this is, be tactful and forceful. Do not refuse a jet on a company radio freq, and call them on the phone.

If they want to have administrative action on a pilot, so be it, but you have a moral and legal obligation not just to the yourself, but to your passengers and FAR's. They will get over it, but if they do not the grievance and arbitration process are great at resolving these sort of things.

The grievance and arbitration process are NOT great at resolving these issues. I can think of several cases where honest, well-intentioned pilots were hung out to dry. Not every time, mind you, but enough to know that you're rolling the dice when you choose to go through the process. Despite this, I strongly advocate standing your ground if you feel you're right. It's just as important for the 'next' pilot to back up the decision of the original pilot's refusal to fly. In my experience, backing up a fellow pilot's 'no-go' decision is extremely rare at the regional level. One does not have to necessarily agree with the pilot's decision, but just agree that every pilot does (and should) have the right-of-refusal. One day it might be you.

 

[SpaceShipEarth]

20 goes to 380???

 

[dustrpilot]

Screw that. Last flight of the day, no APU, fuel indicator problems, planes been making turds all day and now the A/P is broken too? No thanks.

 

[Simon Says]

You are either fatigued or not. It has nothing to do with the mtc discrepancies on the aircraft. You can't tell the CP that you're fatigued if the AP is deferred but not fatigued if you get an aircraft that has a working AP. Gotta be more to the story.

Absolutely you can.

 

[Simon Says]

An autopilot deferred, by itself, is no problem. In fact I'm a staunch advocate of being able to hand-fly the airplane (raw data if need be) in any configuration at any time.

But, here's that thing:

Accidents (and incidents) are usually caused by many links in the chain. These links are usually not significant risks by themselves, i.e., deferred autopilot/pack/apu, weather, long day, FNG, short runway, etc. Many of these links are inevitable, and we willingly take them on knowing they are part of the task at hand.

At some point, though, the known links eventually, add up to make an unsafe situation - especially when we consider the latent risks inherent in any flight. It is up to pilots to decide when there are already too many links in the equation and either remove some of the links, or cut the chain altogether.

Unfortunately, the type and number of links allowed is not spelled out in black and white. And, there is only ONE person on the planet who can make that call.

Very well said. I agree 100%

I have been here almost 14 years and just a few months ago I refused an aircraft. 4 factors played a role. I told scheduling/dispatch/chief pilot...I will go if you change just one of the factors, but all 4 I was not going.
1. No autopilot
2. Thunderstorms along route of flight
3. Flight is on the eastern sea-board
4. Green FO