Would you take the plane?

[J.Otto]

This discussion is getting quite boring now...

make it more interesting. Throw in another factor so we can stretch this thread for another 10 pages!

 

[CX880]

This discussion is getting quite boring now...

The site has been boring for a while know. It' just a bunch of ASA FOs complaining that their planes are broken and if they should fly them. BORING

 

[Captain X]

It is truly amazing how quickly our scan can go to crap. If your SOP will let you, turn off the magic from time to time to keep your scan up.

this.

 

[CaribPilot]

Chuck Norris would take the plane. He doesnt shoot approaches...he murders them.

 

[buscap]

Hauling people around texas in bandits 25 years ago is irrevalent. Lawyers have stepped and and killed it. Deferred pack, no APU in the summertime, plane doesnt go. The subsequent lawsuit is not worth it. Thats judgement. There was an outcry due to lack of judgement on the Expressjet captain that diverted to an outstation where there was no ground support and left the pax on the plane all night long. Common thread, pax convienence and comfort. Remember, they pay your salary. If they aren't there, you aren't there in some degree. Those of us that have been in the 91/135 world, we get it. Deferred F/D and autopilot, fly the damn airplane.

Good points, but i hope you realize you validated my "don't feel like it, and here's why" argument.

"Is it legal and if so, is it safe?" is not a do all end all question for any situation.

The no AP/FD scenario is obviously legal as stated and perfectly safe...and well within most folk's skillset. But do they feel like it? Maybe so. Maybe not.

That might mean they are concerned with other issues such as certificate action, or the general work atmosphere at their workplace.

Kinda like being worried about taking a perfectly legal and safe, defered APU.

 

[CutEmUp]

I think the real argument here is (or should be) restrictions to pilots hand flying aircraft raw data. If using all of the automation in all segments of flight is a limitation, then the limitation should require this automation to be operable for every flight.

By mandating the full use of automation all of the time the airline is de facto saying it is unsafe to hand fly raw data. Does it all of a sudden become safe again when the equipment is MELd?

I don't know the specifics of airlines that require full use of automation (I think I'll start a new thread on that), but I'm lucky enough to be able to "stay current" by using as much or little automation as I want on any leg (using discretion, of course).

 

[Moustache]

I assume this happened to you today. How about you don't try to second-guess your Captain?

Once you upgrade, you will get to make the big decisions that I know you crave to make. When that happens I'm sure you'll appreciate your FOs calling you out on Flightinfo.

I hope my FO can keep me honest and are comfrotable speaking up when they are concerened, hopefully when we are in the A/C and not on the overnight on FI.

 

[CX880]

Chuck Norris would take the plane. He doesnt shoot approaches...he murders them.

Chuck Norris doesn't need to take the airplane, the airplane comes to him.

 

[Salukipilot4590]

Depends....is there a hot half Indian girl waiting for me at the hotel?

 

[shamrock]

The point is use your company manuals and answer this question - can the flight be completed within the manual limitations? If it can - take it. Don't let your 'judgment' get in the way of a sound decision. .

A CRJ with an APU deferred "within the manual limitations" can easily reach 100+ degrees in the cabin with an OAT of 60. Have fun with that. And as for the bold part, well I just don't know what to say about that kind of logic...

 

[kf4amu]

A CRJ with an APU deferred "within the manual limitations" can easily reach 100+ degrees in the cabin with an OAT of 60. Have fun with that. And as for the bold part, well I just don't know what to say about that kind of logic...

If you deferred an inop APU at Piedmont you'd never fly, and they'd find some way to fire you quickly.

CRJ inop APU = Dash 8 with operating APU.

 

[Wankel7]

I guess it's different because there are people in the back.

But that sounds like what was a normal day flying the shorts doing on demand cargo. No AP, the FD was unreliable, and you were on the O2 mask for over half of the flight. On a duty day where we saw the sun set and the sunrise. Fun.

 

[AvroJockey]

To all the replies saying no way, it's not safe, etc, wow!

How did airlines ever function before we had all this fancy technology to turn us into mindless In Touch reading zombies in the cockpit?!!!

Here's my take. This isn't taking a weekend romp in the Cessna with your mom and the weather exceeds your "personal minimums". You are an airline pilot. Your job is to safely get the passengers where they're going. If they don't have a spare, it's very likely they will cancel the flight should your captain refuse the airplane. Are you then doing your job to get those people where they paid to go? Let's be honest here. This isn't about safety, it's about inconvenience. Flying raw is work, and we spoiled by technology pilots don't like hard work.

If you truly feel it's unsafe because your skills in flying raw data aren't up to par, then you probably need to rethink your career decision or get yourself some remedial training!

Sometimes the hardest decision is the one to walk away.

Few airline pilots lack the skills and motivation to accomplish the mission. In fact, given the right circumstances, I would look at this as a fun and extraordinary task...something you don't get to do every day. However, unlike the "Regular Pilots" you speak of, we are paid to accept or decline the mission based on it's entire context. Analyzing the flight based on threat assessments and risk management is what Captains get paid the big $$$ for. That's why you have every other pilot on the board saying there isn't enough information to make a proper decision.

Saying yay or nay to a dispatch based on legalities should be left to...well...Dispatch.

 

[Mud Eagle]

Sometimes the hardest decision is the one to walk away.

Sometimes that hardest decision is the best decision.

In the case of the scenario the OP mentioned, it's probably not.

For some reason over the last couple decades, the aviation industry has continued to lower the performance bar and chosen to instead rely more and more on automation. In addition, the most conservative answer has wormed it's way into becoming the default "best" answer. The combination of these two has bred the situation we see debated over the pages of this thread.

Situations like the OP poses would have been normal day-to-day operations decades ago. Not only would nobody have blinked an eye at it, but they would have made fun of anyone who thought they needed to tap the safety card to not fly it.

 

[buscap]

Sometimes that hardest decision is the best decision.

In the case of the scenario the OP mentioned, it's probably not.

For some reason over the last couple decades, the aviation industry has continued to lower the performance bar and chosen to instead rely more and more on automation. In addition, the most conservative answer has wormed it's way into becoming the default "best" answer. The combination of these two has bred the situation we see debated over the pages of this thread.

Situations like the OP poses would have been normal day-to-day operations decades ago. Not only would nobody have blinked an eye at it, but they would have made fun of anyone who thought they needed to tap the safety card to not fly it.

It's not a safety issue.

It's not a matter of ability.

It's a matter of whether or not I feel like it-for many other reasons.

 

[AvroJockey]

Sometimes that hardest decision is the best decision.

In the case of the scenario the OP mentioned, it's probably not.

For some reason over the last couple decades, the aviation industry has continued to lower the performance bar and chosen to instead rely more and more on automation. In addition, the most conservative answer has wormed it's way into becoming the default "best" answer. The combination of these two has bred the situation we see debated over the pages of this thread.

Situations like the OP poses would have been normal day-to-day operations decades ago. Not only would nobody have blinked an eye at it, but they would have made fun of anyone who thought they needed to tap the safety card to not fly it.

Not that i'm disagreeing with you, but the safety record decades ago wasn't something to brag about.

With this said...we could never fly and never be at risk of crashing an airplane. It's all about threat analysis and risk assessments. Would I accept the aircraft? Normally, yes. However, like others have indicated, what leg is it? How long have I been on duty? I feel fine now, but do I see fatigue at the end of the leg? What is the experience of the crew? Is there something in my past experience in this aircraft that parallels this scenario? Did I just have a raving argument with my wife over which drawer pulls to buy? Are there wiser alternatives such as swapping the aircraft to a VFR destination? Are there other MELs that could compound crew workload?

Look...none of us wants to baby-proof ourselves out of a job, but if the industry wants to hire bare-bones experienced pilots whom rely on the technological advances of today rather than stick-and-rudder skills and then train them to be button pushers, they need to live with a occasional refusal to go to minimums in a -200 raw data. Airlines have made this bed.

I have only refused 1 flight in my entire career thus far. Initially, I was all set to do the leg, but as I sat down and started asking myself some of the same questions, the more this flight looked like the AA accident in Little Rock, AR. Pilots, by personality, want to accomplish the mission. I still think its harder to make the decision not to.

 

[AvroJockey]

It's a matter of whether or not I feel like it-for many other reasons.

Yep...and sometimes it just that...a "feeling" that somethings not right about this picture. You know, when the hair stands up on the back of your neck.

 

[buscap]

Yep...and sometimes it just that...a "feeling" that somethings not right about this picture. You know, when the hair stands up on the back of your neck.

No. That's not it. I really don't feel it's outside my skillset or a safety issue.

It's simply a matter of not wanting to risk my sheepskin for some bullcrap altitude bust at cruise.

Send the bird on shorter hops or fix it.

 

[AvroJockey]

No. That's not it. I really don't feel it's outside my skillset or a safety issue.

It's simply a matter of not wanting to risk my sheepskin for some bullcrap altitude bust at cruise.

Wouldn't that be outside your skillset then? Since when do we make decisions based on certificate action? I found if you do your job like your trained to do there is little if zero risk of violations.

 

[buscap]

Wouldn't that be outside your skillset then? Since when do we make decisions based on certificate action? I found if you do your job like your trained to do there is little if zero risk of violations.

Well then, we agree to disagree. But I do totally get the "quit yer whining and put your big boy panties on and just fly it" argument.

And as far as skillset, even the PTS allows deviations which will set off altitude busts in some airspace.

Now, if my beer and date happen to be at the destination..??..well, that's different. Definitely changes the certificate risk assessment.

:beer: