great statement

 

Safety of flight doesn't mean just safety for the passengers. Crew, ramp workers, etc...your co-workers...need to be considered as well. So what do you do when OPS doesn't answer the radio (because most likely half of their positions had been cut)...and a ramper comes up to open to door and gets wacked? You're the PIC, the FAA will point fingers at you...its easier for them to place blame on an individual than to blame a company. Protect yourselves.

 

I'm torn on this one. Being a pilot I believe in the PIC's ability to exhert that authority. On the other hand as a mech that works on the CRJ I know that the pax door motor is not a major item to refuse an aircraft. The motor only controls the speed that the pax door lowers. It's real main function is to raise the door hydraulically. With the motor inop it requires the ground crew to help lower and raise the pax door and requires a little effort on the part of the FA to close and lock it. It's only initially when the motor fails that the door drops and or bounces, but as long as the gas springs are good it shouldn't drop like a rock and or bounce. The pax door motor has nothing to do with keeping the door closed and locked. As long as the door closes and locks it's not a safety of flight issue. I think its a Cat C MEL which is a ten day deferral. Sometime it might have to remain MEL'd for a time until we can get a new motor or one back from repair if one is not in stock at a mx base.

 

Amen to that!! I know of too many CAs that have gotten hosed because they refused to fly a plane, only to have another CA who wanted to "get done" take the flight anyway.

You, sir, deserve a medal for that statement

Round of a applause for you. This is our responsibility as pilots. We are at the aircraft, flying it, NOT dispatch, NOT the CP.

Again, round of applause here

You can be my wingman anytime!

I'm glad that someone else acknowledges this. As long as you're in that left seat, EVERYTHING that happens on that aircraft and the people on it is your responsibility. So you better be aware of everything going on around your aircraft and the idiots that are sometimes working around it.

 

According to the captains testimony, he had had prior experiences with it nearly injuring a ground crew, and also witnessed a door slamming to the ground and bouncing back up several feet. I don't see how that couldn't cause any damage to the hinges or frame. Maybe it wouldn't be obvious but still could be internal. Also, a mechanic had come out to that captain and said this is very dangerous, to just let the door fall open...regardless of what the MEL said.

So we need to realize what the captain was thinking. He had seen this situation before and based on his experience, he made decision. Many of us have probably not seen this situation, so we would probably take the airplane. Point is, we've all had different experiences in one way or another, and base our decision making upon that.

 

I agree whole heartedly. Every situation is different, and every pilot will look at it a different way, no matter how similar the view points are. One pilot might feel comfortable taking a plane when another pilot doesn't just due to past experiences or more background knowledge on the situation.

We should all look at each situation individually and not crucify another pilot's decision (not that anyone here is, don't get me wrong). No matter what version of the story we hear, it will never been the exact same as actually being in that pilot's shoes and having to make the decision on the spot.

 

The problem is that MX and airline management are using the MEL these days to NOT have to fix things, until they are forced to. 10 day deferral? Perfect, let's let them fly around for 9 days and then we will get around to it. The MEL was designed to get the airplane back to where MX can be performed, not let the airline run around for days doing turns from a MX base.

When I was at Comair they wouldn't fix Lavs or APU's in CVG because they wanted the plane to fly all day until it got line MX on the overnight. I had to scream many times to get them to fix a lav on a CVG-NAS-CVG turn, or threaten to refuse the plane.

Captain's Authority is just that. Use it when it is safe and prudent.

 

3 issues -
1. Why didn't ALPA support his fight to get his job back?
2. Why is ALPA "surprised" that he got his job back?
3. Why is ALPA "concerned" that it went to court and he won?

Seriously, is there another side to this story?

 

Good question's. I would be interested in knowing those answers myself.

 

Every time this device has been deferred, our station has received a phone call before-hand from Flight Control to make us aware of this. Not sure if that occurs at other airlines or not...? I have seen the door bounce off the concrete about halfway back into the air, and I have also seen it almost land on top of one of my coworkers.