Airline Pilot Central Forums - Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)

- Delta (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delta/)

- - Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta? (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delta/36912-any-latest-greatest-about-delta.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ferd149 (Post 1665042)

Is John B associated with the project at all?

I heard he was. Perhaps he's the one who quit?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan Shore (Post 1665048)

I heard he was. Perhaps he's the one who quit?

yeah that's what I was afraid of when I read the comment:(

I hope we haven't taken delivery of the pads yet. One would hope that they're not sitting in OUR storage waiting for the bugs to get worked out. (I'm thinking of the bugs from "Men in Black", not little bugs):D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roadkill (Post 1665028)

Sorry but it sounds to me like cheap trick is a guy who pressures his fo to fly an extension then wants to put the blame on him for not manning up. Sorry but the rapist must bear some blame, not just the victim for wearing a hot dress.

Agree. Should be a team decision with the default (tie breaker) to not extending if there is concern. This "you can wuss out if you like, but you'll have to answer for it" BS is BS.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1664982)

I agree with what you have posted however it's all kind of a moot point. It's 30 seconds on the ACARS to allow or deny a extension. Make a decision and send a message. It's done.
I believe the company has not made a change in policy because it always made it clear the concurrence could be revoke at any time. In the FAA interpretation the option to revoke was not there. Again however it makes no real difference.

It does make a difference - the company says that by signing the release, you are agreeing to any potential, legal extension. Of course, if an extension is required, you can later change your mind - but according to the company policy, if you agree to the extension, no further action is required since you already signed the release. This is wrong. You cannot pre-agree to an unknown extension. You can only agree to an extension after it is known - affirmative action is required. The problem is, the is no official policy on how to accept an extension that comes up after you have signed. Do you ACARS? Sign the release again? Call dispatch? Call ALPA? Call the FAA? Who knows - but you have to do something. The signature you made before does not count.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirtdiver (Post 1665010)

Since it's history, I'm not gonna jump on the "I woulda/you shoulda" bandwagon, but ask you to do an FCR. These incidents need to be documented, if for nothing else our confusion over extension obligations.

I would add one correction to the above:

Do not submit FAR 117 issues via FCR.

FAR 117 issues should, IMHO, only be reported via ASAP.

Nu

Quote:

Originally Posted by GogglesPisano (Post 1665015)

Q1: Does the fitness-for-duty affirmation that the PIC signed prior to when he found out about the delay serve as concurrence to an extension?

Subsection 117.l9(a) allows an FDP to be extended up to 2 hours beyond the pertinent FDP limit in response to unforeseen operational circumstances that arise prior to takeoff. This extension is subject to a number of limitations, one of which is that the PIC and the
certificate holder must both concur with the extension.' A document that the PIC signed before he found out about the need for an extension would not be sufficient to concur with the extension because a person cannot concur with something that he or she does not know about. Instead, the PIC must affirmatively concur with the extension.

So we sign the FDRA and agree to an extension that's known prior to signing. But if a reason materializes after signing (after block-out), we have to agree via ACARS. Correct?

That's all correct, but we do not have an officially stated policy on how to agree to extension after you have already signed the release - ACARS makes the most sense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 1665018)

Blow the whistle on what?

Every once in while the feds get upset over constant overbooking. Depends on which muckety muck gets left at the gate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by badflaps (Post 1665091)

Every once in while the feds get upset over constant overbooking. Depends on which muckety muck gets left at the gate.

Well when some congressmen's kid gets left at the gate, you are probably right, but I don't expect it to really get any traction since there are reams of data on no shows to support those overbookings. I remember a flight from DFW to SLC years ago that was overbooked by 50+ every day. I actually got on that flight as a non-rev, new guy. Gate agent told me it was ALWAYS that way, and ALWAYS left with empty seats. (It was primarily oil workers going on to the north slope, and their plans changed quite a bit I guess). I think when the airlines can charge you if you book a flight and no show, it will stop, but I'm not holding my breath for that either...

I just read the release. The statement that says you agree to the max extension simply by signing is no longer on there. The FAA ruled against that practice a few weeks back. Edit: check e reposted on the previous page.

I repeat, signing the release no longer constitutes accepting a max extension.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mesabah (Post 1664709)

Delta is pressing the FAA to allow them to take guys under the ATP requirements if they go through Delta's "special" training program that is being setup. It's basically the Delta Academy 2.0.

I'm still not sure what we're talking about WRT this.

The DCI academy in FL was one of many Mullin/Reid buy high sell low blunders, but it or something just like it could be started again with a couple days profit or the cost of one line of thunderstorms through ATL.

The issue is in the details. If you're talking ab-initio like the DCI academy was, you could push candidates through with current ATP mins in well under 2 years. Possibly DL is trying to get rolled in to the already existing college program hour reduction of 800 TT instead of 1500. I would think they could easily get that approved with any kind of decent program. There's really little real advantage to even attempt to go lower than that, and I don't think it would be realistically aprooved anyway.

If there really will be a significant "shortage" at the student pilot level as well as the ATP mins level into the bottom of the regionals, then any kind of system like this is going to need instructors and lots of them. Getting around 500 hours out of an instructor (still extremely high churn) would only take 6-9 months at a busy school.

If, OTOH, you are implying some kind of puppy mill conspiracy theory where DL starts taking 300 hour wet tickets under a special dispensation, there is no way that's happening, and there wouldn't be anyone to train the next ones in the first place.