Looks like Gulfstream got the WSJ's attention

[ualdriver]

Just saw this on another forum.....

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124329348135552551.html?mod=dist_smartbrief

On Dec. 10, 2007, Kenny Edwards, then a captain with Gulfstream International Airlines, noticed that the collision-avoidance system on the Beech 1900 turboprop he was scheduled to fly was malfunctioning.
The system had helped the commuter aircraft narrowly avoid a midair collision with a private plane on the leg he had completed just hours earlier, from the Bahamas to West Palm Beach, Fla. He says he told airline management he wasn't "comfortable" flying another leg in and out of clouds at dusk if the equipment wasn't working properly, particularly at low altitudes, which are often crowded with small aircraft.
He was fired on the spot for insubordination. In a termination letter dated the following day and viewed by The Wall Street Journal, the airline's chief pilot at the time said the plane had been legal to operate and that the pilot's refusal to fly it delayed the departure for more than two hours "and inconvenienced our customers without just cause."

 

[glasspilot]

All the crap Gulfstream does and THAT'S what the WSJ writes an article about?!?

Probably one of the few just firings GIA has on the books. Not that the article has very many facts, just that some pilot didn't want to fly a plane with a differed TCAS.

 

[ualdriver]

All the crap Gulfstream does and THAT'S what the WSJ writes an article about?!?

Probably one of the few just firings GIA has on the books. Not that the article has very many facts, just that some pilot didn't want to fly a plane with a differed TCAS.

Perhaps you should send both authors an e-note with verifiable facts? They might be interested in what you have to say, especially if enough people write to them.

 

[CA1900]

... just that some pilot didn't want to fly a plane with a differed TCAS.

And deferred pressurization, meaning he was stuck below 10K. I'd have refused it, too.

 

[glasspilot]

Then you should have been fired too. I wouldn't have liked it, but if equipment is deferred iaw the MEL then there shouldn't be a problem. The FARs do state the PIC has to agree the operation can be conducted safely, but as a professional pilot there would have to be a solid reason, like you're going to sun'n fun, to justify it. A normal flight stuck at 10,000 with no TCAS sux, but can be safe and legal. No reason to turn it down.

Besides, how fast does a 1900 go? It's not like you're doin 335kts looking for traffic.

 

[DoinTime]

Then you should have been fired too. I wouldn't have liked it, but if equipment is deferred iaw the MEL then there shouldn't be a problem. The FARs do state the PIC has to agree the operation can be conducted safely, but as a professional pilot there would have to be a solid reason, like you're going to sun'n fun, to justify it. A normal flight stuck at 10,000 with no TCAS sux, but can be safe and legal. No reason to turn it down.

Besides, how fast does a 1900 go? It's not like you're doin 335kts looking for traffic.

You are the least safe kind of pilot.

 

[DoinTime]

Just saw this on another forum.....

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124329348135552551.html?mod=dist_smartbrief

On Dec. 10, 2007, Kenny Edwards, then a captain with Gulfstream International Airlines, noticed that the collision-avoidance system on the Beech 1900 turboprop he was scheduled to fly was malfunctioning.
The system had helped the commuter aircraft narrowly avoid a midair collision with a private plane on the leg he had completed just hours earlier, from the Bahamas to West Palm Beach, Fla. He says he told airline management he wasn't "comfortable" flying another leg in and out of clouds at dusk if the equipment wasn't working properly, particularly at low altitudes, which are often crowded with small aircraft.
He was fired on the spot for insubordination. In a termination letter dated the following day and viewed by The Wall Street Journal, the airline's chief pilot at the time said the plane had been legal to operate and that the pilot's refusal to fly it delayed the departure for more than two hours "and inconvenienced our customers without just cause."

Had Gulfstream been ALPA he probably would have gotten his job back.

 

[nwa_contrails]

Then you should have been fired too. I wouldn't have liked it, but if equipment is deferred iaw the MEL then there shouldn't be a problem. The FARs do state the PIC has to agree the operation can be conducted safely, but as a professional pilot there would have to be a solid reason, like you're going to sun'n fun, to justify it. A normal flight stuck at 10,000 with no TCAS sux, but can be safe and legal. No reason to turn it down.

Besides, how fast does a 1900 go? It's not like you're doin 335kts looking for traffic.

What are those hazardous attitudes again?

 

[Cardinal]

Besides, how fast does a 1900 go? It's not like you're doin 335kts looking for traffic.

Not 335kts. 275kts. Way safer. Just ask PSA and AeroMexico.

 

[cjdriver]

I fly my wife and daughter below 10k without tcas all the time. It is safe. Not as safe as with tcas, but not as safe as staying home either.