Quote:
Somebody just didnt want to pick up the phone and ask someone else for guidance.
Or.....they did pick up the phone...and did ask...and the s___ simply hasnt had time to roll UP-hill....yet.
Either way, the pilot will be protected. Ignorance will be rewarded.
"Selective enforcement"? Just because some one else does something doesn't make it right. If the crew before me flew with an open squawk, that doesn't allow me to fly an unairworthy aircraft. Originally Posted by airline NooB
Hate to beat a dead horse.... but yet another "selective enforcement" issue.Somebody just didnt want to pick up the phone and ask someone else for guidance.
Or.....they did pick up the phone...and did ask...and the s___ simply hasnt had time to roll UP-hill....yet.
Either way, the pilot will be protected. Ignorance will be rewarded.
I doubt in the contract of carriage or in new hire, recurrent, or upgrade training was what types of restraints can be used for a passenger's extremities specifically addressed. The CA made a judgement call. Maybe the flight already had other wheel chair passengers and a few unaccompanied minors. Were that the case, it is unreasonable and irresponsible to expect a FA (even a super strong one) to be able to pull a whole bunch of people out of a burning aircraft.
Yes, a call might have brought about a quick resolution, or it might have taken an hour to track down the CP, Director of Ops, or whoever was willing to stick his neck out and make a decision.
The CA was put into a no win situation. He made a decision which DID NOT put the flight at risk, so in that respect he should be protected. If the company does not like the way he handled the situation, retrain him, pass out a policy clarification, and move on. No matter what, the CA has the spotlight on him now, and I will bet my paycheck his "ignorance," as you put it, will NOT be rewarded.