Ex-Gulfstream International Airline pilot files complaint with FAA

[Piper877]

not if you're hauling boxes part 135.

Yeah I was gonna say...I've done quite a few flights in the caravan with no tcas. In fact, 1200 hours worth.

I think it might have to do with passenger carrying and/or number of seats.

 

[LearLove]

If the information in theis arcticle is correct:

I hope he sues and wins big time.

Of course you can go with an mel'd tcas. But this capt had multiple and vaid reasons why not to conduct this flight without it.

1. no press so your down low where there is added traffic and more of the kind of traffic that doesn't have tcas at all.

2. flight thru/in the vicinity of known student training area

3. weather which would inhibit visual contact with other traffic

sounds like fine judgement to me (based on the information in the article)

just because something can be mel'd doesn't mean its safe for flight all the time.

 

[LearLove]

walter - read my above post. your right a mel'd/defered tcas is perfectly legal however legal doesn't alway mean safe. the ca of that flight had valid reasons to cx the flight.

 

[propsarebest]

INOP TCAS will ground an airplane?

That' what I don't get.

I know you need it for RVSM airspace.

I guess looking out the window doesn't count anymore.

Ok I get... they fly in the south where there is a lot of solid IFR condition.

TCAS is NOT required for RVSM operations, except in China and India.

Granted without it, it is a PITA.

 

[andyd]

according to the artical the tcas was fixed and signed off by a mechanic in TPA....therfore there was no reason to refuse it on that basis. There were other "issues" with this particular Captain and past refusals and this event was more than likely just the icing on the cake. Sometimes the sqeaky wheel gets the grease...sometimes it just gets replaced. I know both Herfort and Bystrom personally and professionally....I can tell you from first hand experience that if you have a VALID beef then they will back you BUT if you don't then they will hang you as well....that is thier job and they both do it well. No one should go to GIA if you don't expect to work your as@ off. The reward is a pretty decent contract, above average $ for a 1900 and home nearly everynight not to mention building 121 turbine pic like it's going out of style. This is a small commuter, problems should be expected, no outfit is flawless. But in defense of GIA., I was impressed with thier maintenance and keeping things running. The Mel's serve a purpose and they are approved by the FAA...it's it's legal and safe to go with it mel'd then that's what you are expexted to do....whether at GIA or NASA and all stops inbetween. Not sugar coating my time there, I had a few phone calls with both Bystrom and Herfort where we had "discussions" about legality and the right thing, bottom line is you have to pick and choose your battles wisely. But if the guy who signs your paycheck says to you that you have a choice: fly it or be fired. I can guarantee you that Tom Herfort would NEVER say that if it were NOT legal. This guy made his choice and now he has to live with it. He will be able to recover his career and chalk this up as learning experience. I think in the meantime though he's waisting time and $$ in court.

Flame away!

 

[CA1900]

according to the artical {sic} the tcas was fixed and signed off by a mechanic in TPA....therfore there was no reason to refuse it on that basis.

No, according the article, the mechanic said it was working fine:

While the plane was parked in Tampa, a mechanic found the system was operating properly. Edwards, however, didn't think it was and insisted he could not conduct the flight.

In other words, "Could not duplicate, ops check good." It worked fine? Riiiiight.... Rolling the wheel and hearing "TCAS test passed" doesn't mean it's actually working.

The Mel's serve a purpose and they are approved by the FAA...it's it's legal and safe to go with it mel'd then that's what you are expexted to do....

Exactly. Legal and safe. The PIC is the safety valve for the "safe" part.

Legal doesn't necessarily mean safe, as you should well know. The pressurization can be safely MEL'd. The TCAS can be MEL'd. But flying through that airspace, down low, with an MEL on both of them, is unsafe. I'd have refused the flight too.

But if the guy who signs your paycheck says to you that you have a choice: fly it or be fired. I can guarantee you that Tom Herfort would NEVER say that if it were NOT legal.

How about legal but unsafe? He answered that when he fired him.

 

[andyd]

If it is signed off then there is no argument. If it is mel'd, then the FAA has deemed it to be both legal AND safe. This guy does not have a legal leg to stand on.

He might have had better luck having the union try and get his job back or at least have the termination removed from his record. Now because he's chosen this path and it's on his PRIA AND in the newspapers that he ran to the FAA crying foul.....Good luck getting past HR for the next job. He's better off flying cargo, 135 or ex-pat flying. He's pretty much screwed himself for 121 work here in the US. JUST my opinion here....and they are like as$holes, we all have them.

 

[cale42]

For how much FI likes to throw guys under the bus I can't beleive this is what pilots are supporting.

First of all if it is properly MEL'ed and deferred the captain has very little ground to refuse a flight. You can use the multiple MEL's make it unsafe arguement here but it is pressing it.

Second, all the 1900's I have flown have TCAS I only.. no RA's. In fact FOM at the last place specifically said do not climb or descend in response to a TCAS advisory as it may be incorrect(and often was).

Oh.. TCAS definitely can be deferred on 121 turbine passenger carrying ops.. depends on the plane, but some can do it.

Finally I'm pretty sure on the ground authority is jointly shared by the captain and dispatcher, only after leaving the gate is the captain "the final authority"

Sounds like this guy had a beef and pressed his luck..

 

[WalterSobchak]

For how much FI likes to throw guys under the bus I can't beleive this is what pilots are supporting.

First of all if it is properly MEL'ed and deferred the captain has very little ground to refuse a flight. You can use the multiple MEL's make it unsafe arguement here but it is pressing it.

Second, all the 1900's I have flown have TCAS I only.. no RA's. In fact FOM at the last place specifically said do not climb or descend in response to a TCAS advisory as it may be incorrect(and often was).

Oh.. TCAS definitely can be deferred on 121 turbine passenger carrying ops.. depends on the plane, but some can do it.

Finally I'm pretty sure on the ground authority is jointly shared by the captain and dispatcher, only after leaving the gate is the captain "the final authority"

Sounds like this guy had a beef and pressed his luck..

I agree with you almost completely (especially with that last part )...and I'm sure there were other factors at work involved with the firing.

I don't make habit of arguing with a captain who is not comfortable with a situation like this...I'm not the one in the airplane. I will, however, state my feelings on the matter, remind him of the company policies, and make sure that the MOD/Chief Pilot is involved before any final decision is made. But, when it comes to what he deems an "unsafe" equipment situation, that final decision is still the captain's...and that is where there will be some grey area as far whether or not he has a leg to stand on in a lawsuit.

 

[Jmoney]

Wrong.....

For how much FI likes to throw guys under the bus I can't beleive this is what pilots are supporting.

First of all if it is properly MEL'ed and deferred the captain has very little ground to refuse a flight. You can use the multiple MEL's make it unsafe arguement here but it is pressing it.

Second, all the 1900's I have flown have TCAS I only.. no RA's. In fact FOM at the last place specifically said do not climb or descend in response to a TCAS advisory as it may be incorrect(and often was).

Oh.. TCAS definitely can be deferred on 121 turbine passenger carrying ops.. depends on the plane, but some can do it.

Finally I'm pretty sure on the ground authority is jointly shared by the captain and dispatcher, only after leaving the gate is the captain "the final authority"

Sounds like this guy had a beef and pressed his luck..

The capt and the dispatcher must jointly AGREE that the flight can be operated safely, but the Capt. is still the Final Authority......

The other consideration is the legal system.... Let's say that they clipped wings with a Cessna enroute after the company talked him into taking the airplane. Let's further speculate that this Cessna crashed right into an Orphanage and tragically killed Tiny Tim and 350 other poor children in the middle of a midnight mass service. Don't you think the lawyers would have a little to say about the Captain's judgement? Some jobs just aren't worth it.

I wish I had an aviation job to offer this guy-it takes guts to do what he did-and no one really thinks judgement is important until people die.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Captains cannot cancel flights.... only delay.

 

[PUNISHER]

Yeah I was gonna say...I've done quite a few flights in the caravan with no tcas. In fact, 1200 hours worth.

I think it might have to do with passenger carrying and/or number of seats.

§ 135.180 Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System.

(a) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, after December 31, 1995, no person may operate a turbine powered airplane that has a passenger seat configuration, excluding any pilot seat, of 10 to 30 seats unless it is equipped with an approved traffic alert and collision avoidance system. If a TCAS II system is installed, it must be capable of coordinating with TCAS units that meet TSO C–119.

Part 121 has the same 10 to 30 seat requirement in addition to any aircraft having more than 33,000 pound MGTOW requires TCASI and if it is turbine it requires TCASII installed.

So you can fly around all day in a learjet fully loaded with passengers in RVSM with no fishfinder installed in the aircraft.

 

[Cardinal]

One more vote: The combination of TCAS + Pressurization MELs has long been on my B1900 no-go list. I'd have told 'em to pound sand.

For the CFIs that don't have either: It's different. Similar speeds, less heads down time, while monitoring practice area frequencies mitigate the risk. Meanwhile blowing through the same practice area at 275 ktas while talking to center and performing airline procedural B.S. is a whole different level of risk.

 

[Captjiggles]

Just Fly Da Plane MAANNNN!!

 

[zasca]

Yeah, every airline's ops specs has the administrator's waiver for TCAS being INOP as an MEL.