Looks like Gulfstream got the WSJ's attention

ualdriver

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 21, 2003
Posts
1,400
Total Time
13Kish
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

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2004
Posts
1,622
Total Time
9K'ish
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

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 21, 2003
Posts
1,400
Total Time
13Kish
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.
 

glasspilot

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2004
Posts
1,622
Total Time
9K'ish
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

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 27, 2001
Posts
2,523
Total Time
6000+
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

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 27, 2001
Posts
2,523
Total Time
6000+
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. :rolleyes:
 

nwa_contrails

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Posts
267
Total Time
+
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?
 

cjdriver

Well-known member
Joined
May 3, 2005
Posts
736
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.
 

indianboy7

I'm Scerrrrd!
Joined
Jul 11, 2004
Posts
536
Total Time
20
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.

have you ever flown through florida practice areas before? pretty much like sun n' fun every day...
 

glasspilot

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2004
Posts
1,622
Total Time
9K'ish
I have never heard of any airline (majors included) where an item can be deferred and a pilot gets to trump the MEL out of hand. I agree it's safer with the TCAS, but you're crazy to turn down the flight just cause it's tango uniform. Things break. Be a professional pilot and get over it. I'm pretty sure TCAS is a Cat B so you only have 3 days to whine about not reading your USA Today while looking for traffic.

I would certainly not trust the word of some zero time, bought his job Gulfstream (i use the term loosely) "pilot" to be the authority of MEL safety. That's why I DON"T FLY GIA!!!
 
Last edited:

FmrFreightDog

Py-lote
Joined
Jul 31, 2003
Posts
1,238
Total Time
1.2
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 either Gulfstream management or you are an idiot. If the concept of mutliple MELs which, while safe on their own, are dangerous in combination is alien to you then you have no business flying people around for a paycheck.

Lots of stuff can be MEL'ed that shouldn't be under certain circumstances. Legal or not, taking an airplane with deferred items is almost always a 4 stripe decision (when it's an item that matters.... APU, Generator. A/C Pack, etc....)

I once turned down an aircraft that had half the cockpit lights deferred. It was a night flight, I had a new F/O, and I was too damned tired to fly to TLH with a flashlight in my mouth. Yes, it was a legal deferral. Yes, I most likely would have been able to get the airplane from A to B, but I (as PIC) felt like accepting the airplane would have put an unnecessary burden on me, on my FO and on the ever-enigmatic "safety of flight". Oh... and the MEL clearly stated that the deferral was subject to the "flight crew's concurrance that cockpit lighting was acceptable".

I refused the aircraft, and OCC cancelled the flight. 50 people were inconvenienced. 50 people spent the night in the Atlanta airport. I felt bad (as I drove home to spend the night in my own bed).

I'm quite sure that, in your mind, I should have been called on the carpet and fired for my refusal to accept an aircraft with a legal deferral. Funny how, after the fact, the chief pilots and the VP of flight ops agreed with my call (not that I cared one bit what any office dweller would think when I exercised my "Captain's authority")

You either have no real world experience with an MEL or you're posting here in a weak attempt to intimidate the Captains that work for your POS outfit (Gulfstream...) Which is it??

I secretly (ok..not secretly... very publicly) hope that, after having to endure your drivel, that I find out that you're the DO at GIA. That way I'll get some extra-special enjoyment out out your sodomization at the hands of the FAA and the NTSB.

If you're not yet affiliated with the airline industry, I apoligize for my accusations. At the same time, I hope you get run down by a taxicab or a freight train before you hire on somewhere and further infect the industry with your drivel. Nothing personal.....
 
Last edited:

glasspilot

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2004
Posts
1,622
Total Time
9K'ish
No, you had every right to cancel that flight. I would have too.

I understand multiple MELs and 10K without TCAS is fine. I'm not an idiot either. Relax. Lot's of planes in the Flight Levels don't even have TCAS installed. Settle down already!
 
Last edited:

jeroom

Well-known member
Joined
May 22, 2003
Posts
521
Total Time
6000
Looks like they got more attention from the feds....

WASHINGTON, May 22 (Reuters) - Gulfstream International Airlines may face a $1.3 million civil penalty for having crews work too many hours and improperly installing some equipment, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration said on Thursday.
The FAA said in a statement that violations include failing to keep accurate electronic records of its flight crew's schedules.
"Discrepancies resulted in scheduling crew members in excess of daily and weekly flight time limitations," the FAA said.
The FAA also said it found unapproved air conditioner compressors installed in the airline's aircraft, and improperly maintained vent blowers.
"Gulfstream International Airlines has 30 days from the receipt of the civil penalty letter to respond to the FAA," the statement said.
Gulfstream's aircraft fly primarily between Ohio, Florida and the Bahamas. It has alliances with Continental Airlines (CAL.N) and United Airlines (UAUA.O).
Gulfstream could not be reached for comment. (Reporting by Diane Bartz)
 

FmrFreightDog

Py-lote
Joined
Jul 31, 2003
Posts
1,238
Total Time
1.2
What's next? The TAF shows 1,000 Broken...I'm not goin.

The copilots VSI is out...not safe.

Auto temp control is out...not goin.

Anti-Ice boots on a flight to Nassau in June inop...can't do it.

Pax tray broken...get a new plane, not gonna do it.

sheesh....
Apparently you would have the FARs rewritten to strike the term "Pilot in Command" in favor of "Pilot first in line of Subservience".

How about you weren't there. You don't know the circumstances. You're in no place to second guess the PICs decision. It's good enough for the rest of us.

And, for the record....Copilots VSI Inop is a valid no-go item in several instances that come to mind right off the bat. What the hell do you fly? A "2" crew King Air??? What a f'ing loser.....
 

ualdriver

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 21, 2003
Posts
1,400
Total Time
13Kish
I have never heard of any airline (majors included) where an item can be deferred and a pilot gets to trump the MEL out of hand. I agree it's safer with the TCAS, but you're crazy to turn down the flight just cause it's tango uniform.
So glasspilot, let me ask you question. Let's say your loved ones were on board an airliner, and God forbid, your cell phone rings and you find out that their aircraft was involved in a mid-air collision with another light aircraft. You see pictures like this all over the news (feel free to read about PSA 182). Later, during the investigation, you find out that the Captain, in order to "maintain a schedule" chose to depart with the TCAS inop, which was legal per the MEL.

Would you sue? Would you tell the court that you thought the Captain was negligent in taking an aircraft with an inop TCAS through busy airspace known to have a high concentration of light aircraft? Would you think the Captain of your family's flight made a good decision or a bad decision to go with the TCAS inop?
 

glasspilot

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2004
Posts
1,622
Total Time
9K'ish
If ya'll don't like TCAS being in the MEL then you're taking it up with the wrong guy. Turns out I don't make regulation.

Did you know TCAS is not required equipment? Yup, you're up there right now with planes that don't even have it installed! So I guess a 3 day Cat B isn't so bad after all is it?

As far as PIC agreement that safe operations can continue despite the MEL. I mentioned that in my first couple of posts. I agree. But just cause it's out doesn't make it unsafe. Put you flame away, you're pointing it at the wrong guy. I like TCAS, I'm on the record as saying, "I'd rather fly a plane without seatbelts", but it doesn't change that fact that a deferral is a deferral. In and of itse'f doesn't make it unsafe. And adding a 10,000 limitation doesn't really add that much to it.

If I were the guys Chief Pilot I would have told him that it is a legal deferral and see if he had any further reasons not to go. The 10,000 foot limitation is not a deal breaker in itself so he would have had a hard time explaining a decission to not go.

Why weren't you upset that the next guy called went in the same plane? Why upset with me? I wasn't the next pilot and I didn't write the MEL.
 

waterski45

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Posts
49
Total Time
abunch
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.

Ah, yes of course. If it's legal, it must be safe.
 

FmrFreightDog

Py-lote
Joined
Jul 31, 2003
Posts
1,238
Total Time
1.2
If ya'll don't like TCAS being in the MEL then you're taking it up with the wrong guy. Turns out I don't make regulation.

Did you know TCAS is not required equipment? Yup, you're up there right now with planes that don't even have it installed! So I guess a 3 day Cat B isn't so bad after all is it?

As far as PIC agreement that safe operations can continue despite the MEL. I mentioned that in my first couple of posts. I agree. But just cause it's out doesn't make it unsafe. Put you flame away, you're pointing it at the wrong guy. I like TCAS, I'm on the record as saying, "I'd rather fly a plane without seatbelts", but it doesn't change that fact that a deferral is a deferral. In and of itse'f doesn't make it unsafe. And adding a 10,000 limitation doesn't really add that much to it.

If I were the guys Chief Pilot I would have told him that it is a legal deferral and see if he had any further reasons not to go. The 10,000 foot limitation is not a deal breaker in itself so he would have had a hard time explaining a decission to not go.

Why weren't you upset that the next guy called went in the same plane? Why upset with me? I wasn't the next pilot and I didn't write the MEL.
Three words....

1) Management's

2) Wet

3) Dream

I have more, but I sent it via PM. Didn't feel the need to embarass you further when you clearly have a finely tuned ability to embarass yourself.....
 
Top