bravo24

Yeah, why listen to the FA's? After all, we all know that pilots are infallible.

frozenboxhauler

That's true, after all, some of thes F/As' have been doing their jobs for over 50 years.
fbh

Lalo37

Yeah and that qualifies them to fly the airplane and make decisions for us

III Corps

How so? No indications in the cockpit of something amiss. No systems problems. No handling problems. Pressurization okay. Yes.. a problem but where was the evidence of an 'explosion'?

The problem seems that the F/As assumed the missing panel justified their concerns obviating the fact that NOTHING happened and they landed successfully. Missing panels? CDL???

bravo24

Yeah, except the 767 CDL doesn't let you fly without this panel. The fact that the flight was completed and the aircraft landed safely doesn't mean the crew necessarily made the right decision. They were lucky The crew continued the flight with an unknown condition. Even if they did know that the door was missing they don't know what the effects are on fuel burn or long term operation of the pack - and I guarantee you that AA maintenance control didn't know either.

shdow29

Bravo24
Just a correction a CDL is a reference guide while you are on the ground, not while airborne. So you’re correct the crew out of CDG would not have been able to take-off like that.
Well you know the line, “never let the truth get in the way of a good story.” I think this was the case here. I agree with the previous post, that the F/As are an invaluable tool. They often hear, see or even smell things that the cockpit does not.
That being said, if you do not pass those concerns on to the cockpit then you are part of the problem (or if you wait till your behind your computer and send out slanderous e-mail, then your credibility will be brought into question).
I guess my some of my questions might be; 1. Why didn’t any of the F/A query the FB (additional FO that is in the cabin during cruise) the entire flight? 2. After the initial conversation with the cockpit, why didn’t they call back if they were still concern? 3. Why did only 1 out of the 9 experience F/As in the back have a problem with the Captain’s actions (and not until the saw the panel missing)? 4. If it was truly a safety concern, why didn’t the F/A contact FAA or AA first instead of circulating an e-mail amongst the other F/As before deciding to go the Captain’s base chief pilot and the news organization? (was the F/A trying to test the waters)?
What was the one piece of information that was missing from the whole incident (keeping in mind the Captain called everyone, loads dispatch and Tulsa tech(maintenance)), a caution light or an actual view of the missing panel. And if you think that Captain would not have diverted back to DFW, you’re wrong.
The Captain did an excellent job with all the information he had at the time…
Flame away.
Shdow29
How do plan on funding your retirement?

johnso29

I agree, I think that based on all the info the CA had, he made the right decision. It's a good ways from DFW to BOS, with a lot of suitable airports along the way. The FAs info is definitely invaluable. That being said, I would say that the only info the CA had that might sway him to go back was the FA's info/input. All other info he had gave him the feeling he could press on. Let's say he did come back, he would have had to dump 80,000 LBS of jet fuel at +3.50 gal. Not to mention the money lost from the delays and rebookings, and the grumbling from the pax. From the info that we the public have, I feel the CA made the right decision.

Spaceman Spliff

Because the only thing the flight attendant community loves more than derogatory gossip or a shoe sale is the opportunity to throw pilots under the bus.

JungleBus

Eh, a *certain segment* of the FA community, to be fair...

III Corps

I didn't say the panel could be CDLed. I just mentioned that planes do fly without panels.

Do you always know the condition of your airplane? I would suggest the only way you know is from indications and after the shudder there were no more indications of problems.

As for fuel burn, I think they keep a fuel log and could ascertain if there was a huge discrepancy in planned versus actual fuel burn. And too, one does get used to seeing x EPR or x% N1 in cruise. Had a much higher power setting been required to compensate for the drag, it would have been noticeable.

So, we can conclude that every time there is some question about something that happens, return to base? It won't work. Every operation tries to operate with conflicting mandateS Speed versus fuel. Time in route versus schedule. Absolute safety versus challenging conditions. Costs versus benefits derived. Conflicts. I would have continued.

We do the best we can.