New Chief Pilots at ASA

[Tarzan]

Knock yourself out bro! Personally, I don't think you'll get too far with it, but it would be fun to watch.

I don't think I will either but when it's 95 degrees out an we have a deferred pack, I'm willing to give it a go.

 

[ohplease!]

I don't think I will either but when it's 95 degrees out an we have a deferred pack, I'm willing to give it a go.

rather than refusing to fly the plane, rufuse to fly with a pilot you consider "unsafe" for endangering passengers and possibly damaging the plane....

 

[Plainsman]

Last year took a pos plane single pack to GSO. FAA inspector in the back. After we got up to Greensboro he came up and asked us who was making the decisions up here, and why we took a plane we knew was broken on a hot afternoon. Said he was writing up the captain. Don't know what happened after that night but I sure wouldn't take one now. It's your neck on the line if someone passes due to heat exhaustion. 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. Company has become better about taking planes with dead APUs but guys and girls got to stand there ground if one is down and it is warm, in the 200 at least.

 

[Tarzan]

rather than refusing to fly the plane, rufuse to fly with a pilot you consider "unsafe" for endangering passengers and possibly damaging the plane....

Ahhh Sensei, you are truly wise. I am but worm excrement in my level of knowledge.

Good point. I try to avoid conflict whenever I can and generally do well at it. But I can't see getting into an airplane and having the cockpit temps get to over 42C. It is unsafe when it gets to that level and I will not do it again if I can help it.

 

[Speedtape]

See what I mean?

You have to find the right guy who will stand up for you. If not, you have to go the other route and hope it doesn't get kicked up to SH. That guy is a menace-he has never flown the line in any rj (except for a round-trip every now and then to CHA,) and doesn't understand or care how hot it gets-his butt won't be on the plane.

I know someone who SH tried to browbeat into taking a non-apu plane to an outstation in Texas with no ground air conditioning and the OAT at the ETA was 97 degrees!

-Unacceptable!

Well, this is an age old issue. Let's run through the drill, again.

Who is the Pilot-In-Command?
As the Pilot-In-Command you are charged with not only performing your duties in compliance with the FARs. but also operating the aircraft in a safe manner that protects the well-being of your passengers and protects the aircraft and cargo. Remember, your well being is also important in that cockpit.

If there is a deferral on an aircraft that compromises the safe operation of those passengers due to conditions that jeopardize their safety or well being, (ie., high outside or inside temperatures) then you would be careless and derelict in your duties as a Pilot-In-Command to operate that aircraft. It may not pass the test of "What would a reasonable person do?" As a trained professional, carrying passengers for hire, you have a higher standard to meet in the reasonable test issue. If someone is injured as a result of your action/decision, such as heat stroke, heart attack, or dehydration, you will be held personally liable. Again, Who is the Pilot-In-Command?

If you know your job, you don't need to get the Chief Pilot's approval or opinion, or for that matter, anyone else's. They are not the Pilot-In-Command! If you are a people pleaser, then you have signed up for the wrong job.

Sometimes it's hard to take the position of being right. However, if you are consistent, and use the "reasonable person test," you will never be disciplined. Sometimes, it just takes steadfastness and reasonable justification. Sometimes, you have to stand tall.

I carry a small temperature thermometer in my flight bag for this purpose in the summer time, as I followed that practice of another older, wiser pilot. If they want carry animals when the temperature is above 85 degrees outside, and your air cylce machine is not achieving something better than that, why would you carry people? And the temp is always hotter in the cockpit, why would you subject yourself to unsafe conditions?

 

[CFI2766]

Doesn't seem like it's your decision then.

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?)

 

[CFI2766]

rather than refusing to fly the plane, rufuse to fly with a pilot you consider "unsafe" for endangering passengers and possibly damaging the plane....

This is good advice, IMHO.

If the situation deteriorates to the point where you can not resolve it in the cockpit, CRM is not working for that crew.

Deferred packs are an unpleasant gray area. However, recent events with airliners full of people being stuck on closed ramps making the headlines should give flight crews more latitude, this summer, at least, when making decisions about taking an airplane with less than optimal environmental control systems.

 

[Tarzan]

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

When the White Dragon does something that causes you to mess your pants?

 

[CFI2766]

When the White Dragon does something that causes you to mess your pants?

Easy now, you might turn this into another race thread...

 

[Speedtape]

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

Sorry, I had to search. Thanks for pointing that out. It should clarify the issue at hand.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The NTSB and the FAA use definitions for accidents and incidents that are described below. Note that there are several terms in the definition of an accident that also have specific meanings when used by the FAA and the NTSB. AirSafe.com is focused for the most part on fatal events, a term that has a specific definition in this site but one that is not defined and used in the same way by the NTSB, FAA, or any other civil aviation regulatory body.

Accident
As defined by the NTSB, this is an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft where as a result of the operation of an aircraft, any person (either inside or outside the aircraft) receives fatal or serious injury or any aircraft receives substantial damage. The occurrence is also not caused by the deliberate action of one or more persons and that leads to damage or injury. The NTSB definition, which is also used by the FAA, divides accidents into four categories:

1. Major - an accident in which a 14 CFR 121 aircraft was destroyed, there were multiple fatalities, or there was one fatality and a 14 CFR 121 aircraft was substantially damaged.
2. Serious - an accident in which there was either one fatality without substantial damage to a 14 CFR 121 aircraft, or there was at least one serious injury and a 14 CFR121 aircraft was substantially damaged.
3. Injury - a nonfatal accident with at least one serious injury and without substantial damage to a 14 CFR 121 aircraft.
4. Damage - an accident in which no person was killed or seriously injured, but in which any aircraft was substantially damaged.

 

[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.