Originally Posted by
kalyx522
WRONG. This is NOT simply the case. Do you really think that something being legally allowed to be MELed must mean it's safe? I've seen plenty of MELs that are just plain dumb or dumb in wx situations and MELs don't always state stipulations either - necessitating the crew to judge potential threats for themselves. The rules did not say he could go, the rules say captain ultimately has authority to decide to go or not. Why cant you people accept this so simple fact???????????
It is the case...In the mitigation of risk, we rely on the government, our employer, and the unions to make aviation safe. Like I said, in 121 ops we are baby sat and in most situations our hands are tied. This is not a poke at the captain, it's just the way it is. If we all did not assume a certain amount of risk, we would not fly airplanes. We would not drive cars. We would not walk down the street.
If you don't like the way an MEL item is executed, change it.
##-##-##
Inopertive Autopilot
1) Operational Requirements
1)Day operations only
2)Ceiling greater then 1000'
3)Blah blah blah........
The reason these were not stated on the MEL??? Because in the opinion of the FAA and the company, these restrictions are not required for safe operations.
If you don't think the MEL is written with safety in mind......Write an ASAP report, write a NASA report, consult your director of safety, address your union safety committee. If you believe something is unsafe, be proactive before the situation presents itself. Just don't leave the passangers and the company in a bind. Have you done any of these things? Are you going too?....By the way, IMO I think many of the people that refuse to fly without an opertive autopilot are plain lazy. I'm not saying this was the case in this situation, but in many I have witnessed.