Comair pilot sues for job back
 

federal Labor Department administrative judge has reinstated a Comair pilot fired for refusing to fly what he believed was an unsafe airplane in an unusual whistleblower lawsuit.
The successful suit by pilot Shane Sitts of Batavia is one of the only such suits ever to reach this level at Comair, and highlights the everyday tension between a pilot's authority to determine whether a plane is airworthy and an airline's mandate to keep passengers moving.
"Shane is a whistleblower in the truest sense of the word," said Sitts' lawyer, W. Kash Stilz Jr. of Covington. "He stood up for something he felt was wrong, and was vindicated in the end."
Comair officials declined comment. The Erlanger-based regional airline, a subsidiary of Delta Air Lines, has until the end of the day today to appeal the decision to an administrative review board, which oversees such whistleblower lawsuits.
Airline officials also declined to answer any questions about safety policies or procedures or whether the judge's decision would lead to a change in its policies.
In December 2007, Comair fired Sitts after he declined to fly a plane the previous month that had a broken power device that helps open and close the main cabin door. Such a malfunction requires the heavy door to be opened and closed by hand.
It was the third time in five years that Sitts had refused to fly for this reason, and he had been suspended for 30 days over a previous refusal. According to his testimony, it was also the fifth time in five years that he had seen the problem, which he said could lead to questions about integrity of the plane in flight since doors would bang heavily on the ramp area concrete when opened incorrectly. In addition, he said ground crews were continually endangered by the broken doors.
On July 31, administrative law judge Joseph E. Kane ruled that Sitts was within his rights to refuse the assignment for "reasonable safety concerns."
"Sitts adequately described his concern and reasonably objected to (Comair's) proposed solution," Kane wrote. "I further find that Sitts' refusal to fly meets all of the criteria for protected activity" under the law that allows whistleblower protection.
Kane reinstated Sitts with more than $125,000 in back pay, $25,000 in damages and ordered Comair to pay Sitts' legal fees.
It was one of the first such lawsuits at the company, and the first involving a pilot, according to officials with Comair's pilot union.
"This is huge not only for Shane, but for the entire pilot group," said Matthew Lamparter, chairman of the Comair branch of the Air Line Pilots Association. "We're quite frankly surprised it got as far as it did, and that concerns us.
"But it reinforces the notion that it is the pilot's ultimate authority," Lamparter said. "The company shouldn't be questioning the captain's decision; he's flying the airplane - they're not. Throughout the industry, we've noticed over the years that there has been an ongoing effort to take that authority away ... and that is the scary part of this."
Citing the potential for a Comair appeal, Sitts declined comment through his lawyer.
But in his testimony, Sitts said he had seen broken doors nearly hit ground crews in the head, while other doors bounced several times on concrete because of broken door motors.
He also cited an incident in October 2005, when he was told to fly an empty plane from Boston to Cincinnati at low altitude without pressurizing the cabin after its door had been damaged when it hit the concrete. Sitts testified he believed that only tape was holding the door shut for that flight.
FAA officials said the door part in question (called the Passenger Door Power Assist Motor) is on the "master minimum equipment list," or the list of equipment that needs to work before the plane can take off.
But operators have the right to fly the plane "provided the operator verifies that the door can be opened and closed manually," FAA spokesman Ian Gregor said in an e-mail.
Gregor added that the minimum equipment list (compiled by a panel of airline, aircraft makers and regulators) "advises that people should stand clear of a door with an inoperative (power device) because it opens faster than usual."
When asked if the FAA would make it mandatory that the device work in all situations, Gregor said he was "unaware of any plans to remove the conditional allowance" that allows the planes to be flown with a broken door motor.
He said that if the door had hit the ground, damaged the plane and wouldn't properly close "would obviously be a situation where the carrier's maintenance personnel would have to examine the door and determine if it was safe to operate the aircraft."

It's truly scary to think that the industry has cut costs to the point of being unsafe. Our current set of regulations really need to be evaluated as they were set up to be "once in a while" occurrences like minimum rest overnights and maintenance deferrals. When pilots are pushed to the limits constantly and airplanes fly with continuously defered items just to save a buck you know there's something wrong.

Even worse that a pilot has to sue the company to hold up what is rightfully our right to refuse a flight on the grounds of safety!

What is just as ridiculous is that Comair has repeatedly put an emphasis on cutting costs during these trying times, yet they have no problem spending 6 figures on legal fees and court costs to go after a pilot for refusing to fly an airplane with the safety of others in mind.

AMEN!!!!!!!!!

If anyone wants to read the actual transcript I can email it to you. Its pretty jaw dropping to read to companies testimony from the chief pilots. In summary, the Comair director of flight ops, pretty much said that the PIC authority does not always apply. A CP can override a captain, and that an MEL deferral automatically overrides PIC authority and means the aircraft is perfectly safe to fly.

On another note, rumor has it another OH captain was just fired for refusing to fly with a broken APU....on a hot summer day. Stay safe out there. Better stand up for what you think is right and safe. It's you and you passengers' lives. Not your company's.

An MEL has to be considered in the context of multiple factors...other Mx items, Wx, etc.

Sometimes an legally MELed item might be a no-go in reality, ex. FMS MEL for a short, low-alt leg in complex airspace with a non-prec approach into an uncontrolled field at night in a blizzard. We are just not that proficient at raw data.

But honestly, in the case of the pax door on a CRJ: Very simple MEL, very simple work-around. Communicate the issue to ramp and FA so they know not to drop the door. I don't agree with the need to cancel the flight over that...rampers do a dangerous job every day, following proper procedures to avoid being injured by equipment should not be anything new to them.

If the door DID get dropped, yeah I would need Mx to check it out before flight.

This is a tough one. The FAA, the manufacturer, and the company decides what goes into the MEL. So since door motor was allowed to be inop, was this really a safety of flight issue?

I understand the company's side of the story. They have a pilot who is refusing to fly over an item that is MEL'able (if that's a word). More so, the item is to ensure the door doesn't hit the ground ... when opened incorrectly. So, how is this going to put passengers lifes in danger?

P-R-E-C-I-D-E-N-T. :cool:

No, it's not really a "very simple MEL"...The way it is written, it basically allows the company to use the MEL to get an A/C from an outstation back into a base which has MX available, to continue flying it after that point gets a little "gray". Also, I guess you've never flown into a station where it is impossible to get their ops to answer the radio, even after repeated calls(kind of hard to communicate with them). This can be especially true at non-company stations, but lately has also been an issue even trying to get ops to answer radio calls at some of our own stations!!!

The problem is not with the pilot who excercised his authority but with the other pilots at the company who fail to excercise the authority and give the company the option of replacing the pilot who has drawn the line in the sand. PIC authority has been undermined by the lack of spine in the left seat.

After reading the judges finding, more information comes to light. According to the MEL, "Ground personnel should be instructed to only assist during the closing of the door..." , "Stand clear of door when opening(door opens faster). If the PIC allowed the door to open unassisted, that door would have bounced off the ramp. Possibly causing damage to said door.

But if the MEL says to let it bounce...then maybe it's not that big a deal.

The PIC authority extends to taking into account extenuating circumstances, which combined with a legit MEL, might create a problem.

I'm not sure the PIC has carte-blanche to simply refuse an aircraft because he does not like a particular MEL. IMO he needs a good reason...other than just the exercise of his ath-or-i-tay.

Perhaps there's more to this story, but in any case it's always better to have a precedent (correct spelling) that errs on the side of caution.

Or...

P-R-E-C-E-D-E-N-T. :)

Seems simple to me, but I'm willing to make reasonable accommodations to safely work around the occasional glitch. Call the station on the land-line before you leave (perfectly reasonable delay) or open the galley door when you get there to talk to them.

I would draw the line at normalized deviance, where the same problem recurs repeatedly over time. Maybe he saw the same problem too many times.

Comair hired him to make decisions. He made one.

Many companies hire many people to make decisions. Hundreds or maybe thousands get fired every day for making the wrong decision. Being a captain at a regional airline does not grant you dictator-like powers anywhere within 500 yards of an airplane.

We are granted the most leeway (more than most other professions) during in-flight operations because it may not always be practical or expedient to consult with other folks.

Apply some reasonable common sense...you have to comply with things like the OPSPEC and MEL at a minimum. But in the interest of economics, airlines are not going to like it if you create your own standards, higher than those approved by the FAA. Of course you take into account extenuating factors, but if there are none you usually need to go by the book.

I don't think the door is a big deal. However, intimitating a PIC and taking away the authority we have is wrong. It is his certificate on the line not the airlines.

One of the PIC's biggest responsibilities is risk management...considering all information, past experiences, and written guidance in order to best manage the risk to the airplane, passengers, operation, and crew's certificates.

To me, it sounds like that's exactly what this captain did.

Yes, at times your decision may differ from dispatch or management...but they're trying to run an airline and you're trying to get an airplane full of people that you're responsible for safely from point A to point B.

Kudos to this captain for leaving the parking brake set and risking his job for what he thought would provide the best and safest transportation for his passengers.

In the past I can think of only a few times when I had a MEL item deferred and I would not take the plane flying. As I am sure most MELs do, our's state the MEL does not relieve the operator from determining if it is safe and that operators must exercise necessary operational control it ensure safety.

Without getting into detail, I'm SURE this PIC was terminated for more than this one event. The door operation without assist is not a major problem. Letting it slam to the ground, in my opinion, IS. If you are able to get hold of ops prior to arrival, having two ramp agents open it is an excellent plan. Terminating a PIC because he wouldn't fly an aircraft with no APU, is wrong. It's not really the flying that's an issue, but that pesky 2+ hour taxi in Jfk in 100*, that's the safety issue. These sh$tboxes are uncomfortable as is, pack 50 piggys in there and it's horrible. NO APU on hot days don't bother coming to my gate in Ny. Weighing the Pro's and Con's is our jobs.. Managng risk. CA and FO's alike. On a side note I hope he comes back to Comair and takes an early out, that would be perfect!!!!!

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! :cool:

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. :rolleyes:

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.

How about sending a message through the "Box" to dispatch (if you get ahold of them) to let the next station know about the door. Demand a response back acknowledging that it has been done...therefore you have it documented that you as PIC have done your duty to protect the ground workers...use all available resources to CYA (cover your actions) lol

Because ALPA is worthless, especially at Comair.

Comair is too cheap and does not have ACARS, so that option is out.

1. How do you know that ALPA didn't support his fight? I don't work there anymore so I don't know for sure either. I read the part about Comair paying his legal fees, but that doesn't mean they aren't paying an ALPA lawyer.

2. I think ALPA is surprised that Comair management was willing to take this all the way to court to try and break Captain's Authority.

3. I think ALPA is concerned that Comair managment would take this action all the way to court to try and break Captain's Authority.

Is it necessary to make an ad-hominim attack when you freely admit that you don't know, but rather what you think?

Man keep it coming. I love these intellectual diatribates. Balls in your court Mike. :cool:

Yeah, that was a cheap shot, I'll edit it out. While I'm not certain of #1, after working there for 9 years, I'm pretty certain of #2 and #3.

In all my time there I can't recall a single time where Captain's Authority was ever talked about from management. It wasn't until I flew at UAL that I truly saw Captain's Authority.

As a former PIC of CRJ at CMR, I had to weigh in. First of all, this guy is a moron. Was standing up for something so dumb, worth all the stress and time for a door motor, give me a break. Sounds to me like this clown has issues with being in charge. And mark my words Comair will NOT welcome him back with open arms. First, I have flown with this MEL at least 20 times and it is not a big deal at all. And there is NO way the door bounced "several" feet into the air. It would be nearly imposible to see that from the pit assuming he saw it from there. Also, all you have to do is tell the ground crew about the free falling door and the FA to stand waaay back when they close the door, not too hard. If I ever get on a flight and I see this fool at the controls, I am getting off. This job is way too easy to make hard.


Also, to whom ever wrote about that this wasn't the only thing the guy did to get fired hit the nail on the head. There was a guy at CMR when I first got hired, Peter M**k. Pete finally got fired after several write ups and letting the FA in the PIT on the approach to LGA while a FAM was on board after 9-11. Airlines don't need stupid people

Has anyone else ever flown with this guy? I did a few high speeds with him last year and he is a complete tool. I'm surprised it took this long for him to get canned.

Took a few pages to get to it, but now this story is making more sense...