Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Looks like Gulfstream got the WSJ's attention

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
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...
 
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:
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:
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:
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)
 
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.....
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.....
 

Latest resources

Back
Top