Originally Posted by
N271FE
A Pinnacle CA friend was recently suspended for 2 weeks without pay for refusing an airplane without an autopilot. Contributing factors to the decision were:
-No autopilot, scheduled block just over 2 hours
-Scheduled departure 10:16pm
-Destination wx 600 OVC, RA, winds gusting 25kts, 60 degrees of crosswind
-Line of thunderstorms between origination and destination
The CA refused the flight in the interest of safety with regard to enroute and destination weather, and was immediately removed from the flight and replaced with a reserve CA. Pinnacle didn’t have any spare planes to swap to, so scheduling simply replaced the crew. The reserve CA also initially refused the flight, but ultimately ended up going after a lengthy delay during which time most of the enroute and destination wx had cleared.
I simply cannot fathom how Pinnacle can completely ignore FAR 91.3, "Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command" and penalize the CA for the decision that was made.
How experienced is the captain? I do agree that it is better to err on the side of caution and
generally not second guess a person's judgment on safety. However, given the conditions:
Contributing factors to the decision were:
-No autopilot, scheduled block just over 2 hours
-Scheduled departure 10:16pm
-Destination wx 600 OVC, RA, winds gusting 25kts, 60 degrees of crosswind
-Line of thunderstorms between origination and destination.
I don't see why, unless restricted by FAR's, company procedures, and/or a limitation in the aircraft operating manual, the captain would refuse to fly the aircraft because of an inoperative autopilot.
Safety, in the opinion of the captain, could certainly be a valid argument. However, that would also call into question the captain's experience or lack thereof in the type of aircraft and/or flying in general. That, in turn could lead to opening up another can of worms - and that would be whether or not experience levels need to be raised when determining hiring minimums.
I am not chest-thumping here, but the vast majority of professional pilots would probably have taken this aircraft with the stated conditions. Sure, it would have made the other pilot's job a little busier than normal, but I don't think safety would have been compromised.
I simply cannot fathom how Pinnacle can completely ignore FAR 91.3, "Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command" and penalize the CA for the decision that was made.
Again, legalities. If the captain has absolutely no legal reason to refuse the aircraft with stated conditions, then this calls into question his level of competency and experience. Could it be a safety issue? Absolutely, but one could also correlate one's experience level with safety as well. If the conditions were too much for the captain to handle, and he made a safety call based on his personal experience and accepted personal minimums, then he made the right call. However, one must also realize that 121 operations are not built upon one's personal minimums, but rather what is legal and what is not legal. Unless you have legality on your side, it is going to be difficult to defend your actions.
Before anyone makes this argument, I know that legal does not always equate to safe. But, I also know that what is taught in the classroom in a college setting does not always reflect the way things happen in the real world of airline flying. One may meet the "minimums and experience" required for employment at a given carrier, but that doesn't always mean the individual is ready for this type of flying either.