New Chief Pilots at ASA

[79%N1]

This is absolutely the WORST advice I've ever heard with regard to the operation of an airliner.

This is the same thing as saying that the captain has the final say on busting minimums on an approach, disregarding W&B, ignoring duty time regs; you name the bad idea, if it's the captain's (dispatcher's, company's, or even flight attendant's) final word, you have to go along with it as a First Officer. WRONG. WRONG. WRONG.

Above all, if the Captain, who is both the legal and correct PIC for flight, (read: not the FO), makes a decision that is in accordance with part 121, or 91 if appropriate, that is per the FOM and OM, and makes plain good sense, it is your job and duty to support that captain and be a professional in every way. Within these paramaters, if you, as an FO, intentionally choose not to support that captain, you are more dangerous than the captain who makes poor decisions.

All that being said, it is your job to speak up when you perceive a safety, regulation, or procedural issue. If you speak up about a valid safety issue, and are ignored, it is your job as an FO to prevent an accident. If that takes refusing a flight, so be it.

If I were to receive company discipline for refusing such a situation, it would get ugly. First off, I'd have a chat with the chief pilot and attempt to resolve the situation peacefully. If that failed, then it would be time to have a chat with the safety reps for what ever collective bargaining entity I would be affiliated with at the time. Barring that, welll, there's a good reason that KATL is within sight of the Atlanta FSDO.

Bottom line, FOs support valid orders from Captains. If any of the three parts of that statement are in disagreement, do what ever it takes to prevent an accident.


(Extra credit: Without searching, can anyone define an accident in the eyes of the NTSB?)

Wow. I got your blood pressure up, I guess. I'm going to have to disagree with you a bit.

It is the Captain who has the sole responsibility for the aircraft, crew, passengers and cargo. Busting mins or flying into a level 5 is a different matter, and it is indeed the FO's responsibilty to ensure these things do not happen. Operating a legal and airworthy aircraft that may or may not be too hot is more subjective, and the capain is the one charged with determining this. The FO can, and in my case is expected to offer his opinion as part of the crew, but I assure you he/she will not be getting the phone call from the director of ops or chief pilot to explain it. If you want to make your own decision because you disagree and walk off the flight then have at it. You will do your own explaining. AM I saying FO's should shut up and keep their opinions to themselves? No, absolutely not. But I stand by my original statement that it is not your decision, because it is not. My FO told me last week how I needed to or had to tell flight control we would refuse the a/c after a roundtrip without an APU. But, guess what, clouds rolled into ATL and the outside temps cooled to about 25C. We parked at a jetbridge with ac, and I figured we were going off the north side and it would be a short taxi. Taking his opinion into consideration (and the FA) I decided to continue with the plane to try to keep some sort of scheduling integrity. Maybe you would have done different. But, the parameters set in our FOM were not met, Flight Control said it would take a long while to get a change in a/c, and that was my decision. It was not a democracy....but you keep on thinking that it is.

 

[Stifler's Mom]

Whoa slow down everyone. If we are not careful this thread my turn into one of substance that we can all learn from.

Good discussion for once around here.

 

[CFI2766]

Wow. I got your blood pressure up, I guess. I'm going to have to disagree with you a bit.

It is the Captain who has the sole responsibility for the aircraft, crew, passengers and cargo. Busting mins or flying into a level 5 is a different matter, and it is indeed the FO's responsibilty to ensure these things do not happen. Operating a legal and airworthy aircraft that may or may not be too hot is more subjective, and the capain is the one charged with determining this. The FO can, and in my case is expected to offer his opinion as part of the crew, but I assure you he/she will not be getting the phone call from the director of ops or chief pilot to explain it. If you want to make your own decision because you disagree and walk off the flight then have at it. You will do your own explaining. AM I saying FO's should shut up and keep their opinions to themselves? No, absolutely not. But I stand by my original statement that it is not your decision, because it is not. My FO told me last week how I needed to or had to tell flight control we would refuse the a/c after a roundtrip without an APU. But, guess what, clouds rolled into ATL and the outside temps cooled to about 25C. We parked at a jetbridge with ac, and I figured we were going off the north side and it would be a short taxi. Taking his opinion into consideration (and the FA) I decided to continue with the plane to try to keep some sort of scheduling integrity. Maybe you would have done different. But, the parameters set in our FOM were not met, Flight Control said it would take a long while to get a change in a/c, and that was my decision. It was not a democracy....but you keep on thinking that it is.

Sarcasm, joke, mood-lightening attempt at humor:

What makes you think my blood pressure is up? Did you entrap me on an aircraft with sub-standard air conditioning in Atlanta in May? :laugh:

I agree with 99.9% of what you said in the immediate, above post. And, frankly, I think you missed my point; probably my fault for not communicating clearly.

Therefore:

1) In a situation with a deferred pack, given the parameters listed above, it is absolutely the captain's call, and IMO, the correct call to take the flight.

2) I take a very dim view of FOs telling the Captain how to do their job or what decisions to make. In the situation that you spelled out mid-post, it's the FO who needs some education on how CRM is supposed to work. Ideally, some quiet words from an experienced captain behind closed doors should do the trick. Granted, there are FOs that this will not work with. In that case, Pro Stans should have a discussion with the individual. If no results, then there are other ways to deal with the situation. Clearly, it is the Captain's job and prerogative to make the final decision.

3) I think perhaps that my post gave you the impression that I'm solely addressing operations of an RJ with a deferred APU. That really wasn't my intent. You are right, though: your post did strike a nerve with me. Not very often, but I have worked with captains who have had an over sized view of both their capabilities and their decision making abilities to the point of compromising the safety of the flight. (If I had to guess, I would speculate that the number of these Captains is roughly equal to the number of FOs who would wrongly think that it is their job to tell the Captain how to do his/hers. In either case, it is not a pleasant pairing.)

Now then, the statement "Doesn't seem like it's your decision then" implied to me a misunderstanding of the FO's role in the cockpit, for the reasons I've already posted.

For reference, if a passenger dies on a flight, at any point after they have boarded the aircraft with the intention of flight, it is an accident that must and will be reported to the NTSB, and therefore, the FAA. It doesn't matter if you haven't taken off yet, much less if you haven't even closed the cabin door. If the passenger dies, provided it wasn't an aggravated homicide situation, the Feds (NTSB/FAA) will get involved.

If there is any divergence at all from FOM mandated SOPs, you can bet that the flight crew, BOTH the Captain and the FO, will be held accountable. Frankly, the company as well as the investigating agency will be closely looking at the SOPs to determine if fault can be placed on the flight crew. An FO assuming the position that it was entirely the Captain's decision, and therefore liability from a regulatory, and even legal, standpoint, is just plain incorrect.

Thus, the 0.1% where I disagree with you is your line about a democracy. It most certainly is: I won't be a part of a situation where the Captain is making a decision that clearly, intentionally jeopardizes passengers, crew, aircraft, or cargo. I do have a vote, it is with my feet. If necessary, I will walk away. What are you going to do, operate the flight single pilot?

If I'm right, and it wouldn't get to this point unless I was sure that I was, then we'll all have a sit down in the new chief pilots' office to discuss the situation. If I'm wrong, I'll live to find another job at a company that doesn't put me in this situation.

Yeah, I can live with that.

 

[DrunkIrishman]

Besides what if you took an airplane with a dead apu and you had a post shut down engine tail pipe fire. If that were to happen the faa would fault you for taking an airplane without an operable apu.

Then they would need to fault Bombardier too for allowing it as an MEL.

 

[Smacktard]

Kind of funny all this talk about RJs getting too hot. ASA flew bandits, dash-7s, brazilias, ATRs etc, all with zero or close to zero in the 'cool air' department and yet those were fine to operate in the summer out of ATL. But jeeez, step in to an RJ and watch the temps go into the 30's and all of the sudden it's a health hazard.

 

[buscap]

Kind of funny all this talk about RJs getting too hot. ASA flew bandits, dash-7s, brazilias, ATRs etc, all with zero or close to zero in the 'cool air' department and yet those were fine to operate in the summer out of ATL. But jeeez, step in to an RJ and watch the temps go into the 30's and all of the sudden it's a health hazard.

Just me, but I've flown the ATR and the CRJ. Defered APU RJ worse than a single pack ATR in similar conditions. ATR Recirc fans made the difference.

 

[buscap]

Wow. I got your blood pressure up, I guess. I'm going to have to disagree with you a bit.

It is the Captain who has the sole responsibility for the aircraft, crew, passengers and cargo. Busting mins or flying into a level 5 is a different matter, and it is indeed the FO's responsibilty to ensure these things do not happen. Operating a legal and airworthy aircraft that may or may not be too hot is more subjective, and the capain is the one charged with determining this. The FO can, and in my case is expected to offer his opinion as part of the crew, but I assure you he/she will not be getting the phone call from the director of ops or chief pilot to explain it. If you want to make your own decision because you disagree and walk off the flight then have at it. You will do your own explaining. AM I saying FO's should shut up and keep their opinions to themselves? No, absolutely not. But I stand by my original statement that it is not your decision, because it is not. My FO told me last week how I needed to or had to tell flight control we would refuse the a/c after a roundtrip without an APU. But, guess what, clouds rolled into ATL and the outside temps cooled to about 25C. We parked at a jetbridge with ac, and I figured we were going off the north side and it would be a short taxi. Taking his opinion into consideration (and the FA) I decided to continue with the plane to try to keep some sort of scheduling integrity. Maybe you would have done different. But, the parameters set in our FOM were not met, Flight Control said it would take a long while to get a change in a/c, and that was my decision. It was not a democracy....but you keep on thinking that it is.

If you are on the 50 with 50 pax, you were wrong.

If you were on the 50 with 20 pax, no big deal.

700 or 900, no big deal.

Each case is different. It's four-striper sheeeet.



As for the FO refusing to fly???...???

And the FO had better speak his/her mind.

But as for refusing to fly a legal aircraft, which the Captain is willing to fly, well boys and girls, that is putting your job on the line.

Clearly state your concerns to the Captain. Then it's three-bags-full and a salute.

Because....it is a legal aircraft. And it's the Captain's judgement call.

Just be sure you know the hand you are playing.


As for me. I have never lost this argument. Just say no.

 

[WWEfan]

MESA SUCKS!

Can't believe we got to page 4 without this required post.

 

[ohplease!]

If you are on the 50 with 50 pax, you were wrong.

If you were on the 50 with 20 pax, no big deal.

700 or 900, no big deal.

Each case is different. It's four-striper sheeeet.



As for the FO refusing to fly???...???

And the FO had better speak his/her mind.

But as for refusing to fly a legal aircraft, which the Captain is willing to fly, well boys and girls, that is putting your job on the line.

Clearly state your concerns to the Captain. Then it's three-bags-full and a salute.

Because....it is a legal aircraft. And it's the Captain's judgement call.

Just be sure you know the hand you are playing.


As for me. I have never lost this argument. Just say no.

legal does not mean SAFE....and safe does not always mean legal...

If an FO has legitimate concerns about the safety of a flight FOR ANY REASON and he/she does not at the very least speak up, they are legally and morally responsible.

It happens every day at every airline....some crew flies around in a plane with some "minor" issue and writes it up when they are getting off on their last leg (home or overnight).

there are plenty of little "legal" things that in NO WAY affect safety

then there are plenty of "UNsafe" things that are perfectly legal

Its the CA's decision but its the FO's responsibility to break the link in the chain and stop the unsafe operation if they are aware of it...CRM folks.

I expect my FO's to speak up. If I get my feathers ruffled, too bad. thats my problem. If someone on the crew is uncomfortable FOR ANY REASON we need to talk about it....maybe I've missed something.

If you get in "trouble" for being safe, I'll go stand on the CP's desk on your behalf.....

P.S.- legitimate= use common sense and if you're not sure, ask someone about it....call me I'll at least give you another opinion

 

[bailout]

now i know you are crazy. fl is a nice dude, but come on, he was worthless as a cp. did you ever actually go to him for anything? he was usually knee deep researching corvettes, great to talk to, hope you just didnt need anything. i will take the current bunch anyday over the old group. sure they had hours, but what the heck did that do for us?

i like the fact that these current guys know the airplane, and fly more than i ever saw the others. fl and rc didnt even have medicals for years. bd's uniform is the only thing that looked like it had 20,000 hours.

i have heard sh called a lot of things, never angry. dont know him any more than rgt and seeing him in the lounge, but he doesnt strike me as mean.

hours mean nothing, what you do matters. for the first time in years i feel the cps are there because they are smart and able. not just due to the fact that they have 20,000 hours.

I havent been there in a few years so I can't comment on the new ones, but FL was BY FAR the best there was back a few years ago. He always had a line out his door with people waiting, as he was the only one who helped us. Comparing him to the newer ones isnt exactly fair if you werent around years ago. So maybe from todays point of view he may not be as good as you want, but dont say he wasnt ever good.