Looks like Gulfstream got the WSJ's attention

[Tarzan]

glasspilot,

You really don't get it. I also doubt you've flown down in the Carib. The entire premise of you argument is false. While an MEL does equal legal, it does not always equal safe. After all, you can fly VFR with 1 mile of vis if you stay in Class G. Legal? Yup. Safe? Not very.
You need to step outside your box you're stuck. Thought processes like yours will get you killed if you come up on a scenario not cover in your QRH. The checklist does NOT always direct the correct action. The MEL does NOT always mean safe.

 

[glasspilot]

So none of you fly with deferred TCAS? Really? Has it just never broke or do you actually call the CP and deny the flight...

There have been quite a few post revisions on this thread where a reply was sent after a post has been edited. This has gone pretty fast...

All I'm saying is if a pilot refuses a flight just because something is deferred then I too would expect disciplinary action unless that pilot had a good reason. The article offered no reason. Someone here mentioned 10,000' restriction and I don't find that to be a good reason either. And to top it all off we're talking about some GIA pilot whose judgment is already suspect by the fact that he's employed at GIA.

Oh, and the fact that TCAS isn't even required equipment for all aircraft in the flight levels really sticks it to you're argument that it's a "must have". Is it great? Yes, absolutly, but days come where it's broke. Take it up with the FAA or ALPA or AOPA or whoever, but it's not my decission.

 

[glasspilot]

glasspilot,

You really don't get it. I also doubt you've flown down in the Carib. The entire premise of you argument is false. While an MEL does equal legal, it does not always equal safe. After all, you can fly VFR with 1 mile of vis if you stay in Class G. Legal? Yup. Safe? Not very.
You need to step outside your box you're stuck. Thought processes like yours will get you killed if you come up on a scenario not cover in your QRH. The checklist does NOT always direct the correct action. The MEL does NOT always mean safe.

Oh, I get it. I've flown in the Carib. I know legal doesn't equal safe. Flying without TCAS is less safe. Flying with TCAS is less safe than not flying. So what? It's in the book so it can be deferred. The PIC has to concur it's safe. But there needs to be a frickin REASON it's not safe. Someone brought up half an instrument panel without lights at night. Sure, that's not safe. The MEL was written for ONE light being out. Not half the panel. I wouldn't take that flight either. Like I said, there has to be a reason. You can't just say, "I know it's deferrable, but I still don't like it". Why don't youy like it? There should be a reason or expect a reaction from management...like what happened.

Once aging, TCAS is great...one of the best safety devices in the plane. But crap breaks and that's life. The planes do have windows to look out of and it's only a 3 day MEL.

 

[bizicmo]

Just because its legal means you should do it, that works out well most of the time. Look at the housing market. People qualified for loans on multiple houses they could never afford, but hey it was legal. How did that work out? Additionally, in taking the passengers side, I'm sure they purchased tickets hoping that there were as many items broken as possible.

 

[DrunkIrishman]

Glasspilot-

You are focused on one MEL and are ignoring the pressurization MEL that also affected the flight (allegedly). Multiple MEL's call for a PIC to make judgement calls. Theoretically, you could have numerous MEL's on a flight...is that safe. I had a personal record of 6 MEL's on one plane that I had for a day and a half...but they were items that did not reduce safety.

GLA had a plane land gear up in ORD because the GPWS was deferred as well as the flaps. Afterwards, the company decided not to allow that MEL combination. TCAS is there to help improve SA, not to replace it...but there is a reason that engineers wanted to make something that would help us with SA.

 

[glasspilot]

Is the entire Regional thread like this? Ya'll need to get a grip and take a bite of REALITY.

1. It's in the MEL...I didn't write the MEL

2. It's not required equipment. Even if YOU have TCAS there are planes around you that do not.

3. If a PIC is going to usurp the MEL then he better have a fricken reason.

4. I own my house and am making payments just fine. I qualified for many loans in the past that seemed crazy and I turned them all down. How's that apply here?

5. There is no five. I'm done here. I can't believe you people. Different worlds I guess.

 

[glasspilot]

Glasspilot-

...but there is a reason that engineers wanted to make something that would help us with SA.

Sorry, that line grabbed me. Engineers had nothing to do with it. ALPA instigated and pushed through TCAS. Read Flying the Line Vol II.

I am not arguing TCAS. It's the best thing in the plane for safety. But it does break and I don't think we need to shut the airline down because of it. It's not just me either, it's in the MEL.

Yes, multiple MEL's need discretion, but flying at 10,000 without TCAS is no different that flying at FL370 without TCAS. Might even be safer as there is less traffing right at 10,000.

 

[ualdriver]

Why weren't you upset that the next guy called went in the same plane? Why upset with me?

I guess because the next guy who took the airplane didn't come on flightinfo.com and write this:

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.

If a Captain takes an airplane with a deferred TCAS and subsequently ends up involved in a mid-air, I can GUARANTEE you that he will be crucified by just about everyone, and most certainly and thoroughly by the family's attorneys.

 

[JimmyKool]

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!!!

You really haven't been around long.

 

[glasspilot]

Glasspilot:

7,000 plus hours.
FSI instructor. SwissAir Contract
Closed down Independence Air. ACA/Indy 5.5 years.
CRJ exp 4,500 hrs plus
CRJ PIC 1,200 hrs plus
Trubine PIC 3,000 hrs plus
Types: CL-65, B-727

Kiss my ass "JimmyKool". MEL is a MEL. Deal with it or serve tacos for a living.

 

[CA1900]

Kiss my ass "JimmyKool". MEL is a MEL. Deal with it or serve tacos for a living.

The MEL determines that it's legal. It's the PIC's job to determine it's safe.

Most of the time, an MEL'd item is perfectly safe. Sometimes it isn't, due to conditions or due to another piece of broken equipment. That's where the PIC's judgment and experience come into play.

I'll pick a random example: I had one of the two RMIs crap out on a Beech 1900 a while back. Can it be MEL'd? You bet! Good for 10 days, if memory serves. But there's a catch: If you have a dual generator failure (and I have), that broken RMI is the one that would (normally) still be powered by the battery. If it were inoperative in this scenario, you'd have no nav information and only the wet compass for heading information. On a typical day with clear skies or high ceilings, that's not really an issue, and I've taken planes in that condition. On one of those low-IFR-everywhere days in New England, however, it's not a smart idea. I've refused in that case on the grounds of safety. Nobody fired me.

Do you seriously think I should be fired for exercising sound judgment because the authors of the MEL didn't cover every possible scenario?

 

[glasspilot]

No, you have a valid reason for the RMI issue. I'd imagine though the MEL should state somewhere the VFR restriction if that truley is the only heading source in a power loss situation. Anyway, you sound like you have a valid reason for turning down that flight.

Just shutting it down for a broken TCAS is crazy. And a 10,000' ceiling doesn't get you much sympathy.

 

[Nindiri]

Some of you people are so addicted to technology, it's scary. You're pilots; you can fly without multiple electronic boxes holding your hand.

 

[Flyin2low]

I'm with you, GlassPilot

 

[SEVEN]

Glasspilot:

7,000 plus hours.
FSI instructor. SwissAir Contract
Closed down Independence Air. ACA/Indy 5.5 years.
CRJ exp 4,500 hrs plus
CRJ PIC 1,200 hrs plus
Trubine PIC 3,000 hrs plus
Types: CL-65, B-727

Kiss my ass "JimmyKool". MEL is a MEL. Deal with it or serve tacos for a living.

You are right. Not accepting an aircraft with a TCAS MEL'ed is unacceptable. But multiple deferals must be considered. Some pilots "comfort level" is not always the same as others. I happen to be more comfortable flying in icing conditions, while newer guys who flew in FL get a little nervous. My point: Maybe the Capt. had good reason to deny the flight. Maybe Not. I tend to agree with you though. There are always a few pilots in a group who stand out for "ultra" safety reasons. The majority of the other pilots at that company would have probably taken the aircraft, that's why Flight Ops was so P*ssed. Who the heck knows....I'm done.

 

[JustaNumber]

Glasspilot:

7,000 plus hours.
FSI instructor. SwissAir Contract
Closed down Independence Air. ACA/Indy 5.5 years.
CRJ exp 4,500 hrs plus
CRJ PIC 1,200 hrs plus
Trubine PIC 3,000 hrs plus
Types: CL-65, B-727

Kiss my ass "JimmyKool". MEL is a MEL. Deal with it or serve tacos for a living.

If you flew out of VRB, then you should know the extremely high risk of midairs in that area. I probably know you, I was in the Saudi contract. I also know my Saudi friends buried one of their own while I was there, due to a midair. I remember at least one midair a year in central FL, just involving the major flight schools. To me, that may be a risk a private pilot is willing to take, but is completely unacceptable in 121 ops. Paying pax on board deserve a higher level of safety. In this captain's opinion, low level flight in central Florida cannot be accomplished with an adequate level of safety without TCAS.

I also don't understand your total abdication of captain's authority. Maybe a captain errs on the safe side, maybe he errs on the dangerous side. But it works best if the guy actually on board is the one best qualified to make those decisions. If you always defer to the company, how can you maintain any level of authority to conduct operations in as safe a manner as you see fit? Would you always call your chief pilot's office to determine an appropriate level of safety? How's that going to work out if his rear is not the one in the pointy end? Seems to me you would want to keep your authority for when you actually need to use it.

 

[WSurf]

Who's right and who's wrong? If that Captain took the plane and had a midair and killed 19 pax wouldn't there be people on FI saying, "Damn, I can't believe he took that Airplane thru central florida with no TCas and pressurization."

Sometimes common sense can out way a MEL.

I am not saying what he did was right, but I can see his side of the story. I know when I flew Corporate out of Cental Florida our main goal was to get above 10,000' fast has hell. We knew how many GA's were flying low level in FL.

 

[machophil]

Yes, multiple MEL's need discretion, but flying at 10,000 without TCAS is no different that flying at FL370 without TCAS. Might even be safer as there is less traffing right at 10,000.

refer to your regulations, nobody at 370 is allowed to be without a transponder (making ATC separation possible). Below 10, no transponder required for part 91 ops (making see and avoid your only option). Midair collisions below 10 on vmc days in florida happen every year. No flight level midairs come to mind.

Sec. 91.135 Operations in Class A airspace.

(c) Transponder requirement. Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, no
person may operate an aircraft within Class A airspace unless that
aircraft is equipped with the applicable equipment specified in Sec.
91.215.

Sec. 91.215 ATC transponder and altitude reporting equipment and use.

(1) All aircraft. In Class A, Class B, and Class C airspace areas

5i) In all airspace of the 48 contiguous states and the District of
Columbia at and above 10,000 feet MSL

 

[glasspilot]

In this captain's opinion, low level flight in central Florida cannot be accomplished with an adequate level of safety without TCAS.

I also don't understand your total abdication of captain's authority.

"In this Captain's opinion" you have already flown around low level in central Florida without TCAS, or did you bring a hand held TCAS with you in your PA-44?

The pax deserve the safety of TCAS? No they don't. They deserve the safety of each and every FAR their government sets forth. Those FARs allow for an MEL and that MEL allows for the damn TCAS to be deferred. I should be charging a ground instruction fee here.

As to my "total abdication of Captain's authority"... Where did I do that? I supported the half the panel lights out at night guy. I even supported the RMI is only heading info if the Gens quit guy. I do not support the TCAS is broke so I ain't goin guy...plus he's a GIA weenie so right away I'm sure he's screwing something up.

I know it's tough to make it three whole days without your paper in flight, but put it down and look out the window and do your job.

 

[glasspilot]

refer to your regulations, nobody at 370 is allowed to be without a transponder (making ATC separation possible). Below 10, no transponder required for part 91 ops (making see and avoid your only option). Midair collisions below 10 on vmc days in florida happen every year. No flight level midairs come to mind.

Sec. 91.135 Operations in Class A airspace.

(c) Transponder requirement. Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, no
person may operate an aircraft within Class A airspace unless that
aircraft is equipped with the applicable equipment specified in Sec.
91.215.

Sec. 91.215 ATC transponder and altitude reporting equipment and use.

(1) All aircraft. In Class A, Class B, and Class C airspace areas

5i) In all airspace of the 48 contiguous states and the District of
Columbia at and above 10,000 feet MSL

Yeah, ummmm. A transponder is not TCAS.