Looks like Gulfstream got the WSJ's attention

[FmrFreightDog]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.....

 

[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.