Seaslap8

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."

iPilot

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!

ComairFO

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.

Truman_Sparks

AMEN!!!!!!!!!

saxman66

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.

rickair7777

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.

KC10 FATboy

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?

deadstick35

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

Paid2fly

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!!!

757upspilot

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.