Airline Pilot Central Forums - Pinnacle CA suspended

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

- Regional (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/regional/)

- - Pinnacle CA suspended (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/regional/47889-pinnacle-ca-suspended.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lab Rat (Post 757764)

How experienced is the captain? ...

- and that would be whether or not experience levels need to be raised when determining hiring minimums...

...Again, legalities. If the captain has absolutely no legal reason to refuse the aircraft with stated conditions, then this calls into question his level of competency and experience. ...
..
One may meet the "minimums and experience" required for employment at a given carrier, but that doesn't always mean the individual is ready for this type of flying either.

If you had bothered to read this thread, the OP who knows this Capt. had approx. 2000 hrs. as a new hire + 5-6years on the RJ. So roughly 6,000hours+/-...that enough for you?

I saw a Capt. refuse an aircraft for an inop. pack on a crazy hot day in the southeast saying he wasn't putting paying pax. in a sauna. This was a 25+ year Captain, and is the type of guy who takes the safety and comfort of transporting passengers seriously. The plane was airworthy wasn't it?

As others here have stated, this pilot made a command decision (doing his job), and the company nailed him for it. That's pathetic!!

Here is my conclusion after reading this thread:

Safe or not safe is in the opinion of the PIC.
Experience could and may determine level of safety.
Legal does not always equate to safe.
Any decision may have to ultimately be defended.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoStep (Post 757809)

Quote:

If you had bothered to read this thread, the OP who knows this Capt. had approx. 2000 hrs. as a new hire + 5-6years on the RJ. So roughly 6,000hours+/-...that enough for you?

In other words you are saying there is a direct correlation between the quantity of hours in one's logbook and the quality of one's experience and competency? Based on that logic, we're all the same whether we have 5,000 hours of hard IMC flying or 5,000 hours of doing turns about a point.

Quote:

I saw a Capt. refuse an aircraft for an inop. pack on a crazy hot day in the southeast saying he wasn't putting paying pax. in a sauna. This was a 25+ year Captain, and is the type of guy who takes the safety and comfort of transporting passengers seriously. The plane was airworthy wasn't it?

Of course the aircraft was airworthy. But as YOU so emphatically stated, the captain refused the aircraft in the interest of passenger comfort and not because he felt uncomfortable flying the jet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lab Rat (Post 757814)

I would agree with all the above.

The last one is of particular relevance here. I'd MUCH rather defend my decision not to take a plane to my crappy employer who has a history of Pilot Pushing than I would to the FAA who wants my ticket for flying a plane that they (in hindsight) think I should have refused in the name of operating at the HIGEST level of safety - their words, not mine.

THREAD DRIFT>>> By the way, in my opinion, THIS is where having a union is vital. Defending yourself without one gets PRICEY.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swedish Blender (Post 757523)

757/767 can go with 1,2, or 3 A/P MEL'd. 1 or 2 it's a Cat C fix and with all 3 out its a Cat B fix. Does it ever happen in real life that all 3 A/Ps would be broken, I doubt it. As far as second guessing his decision, no. His choice. His refusal should have been Wx based IMO however.

As to another post, the FL410 lear was prior to RVSM. It does end at 410 though.

Swede,

The wx was above minimums and I'm guessing within the limitations of the aircraft's operating manual. Maybe a fatigue call would have sufficed?

Quote:

Originally Posted by gettinbumped (Post 757826)

I agree with your statement, one would be hard-pressed to find one who doesn't. The premise of this entire thread, in my opinion, is simply to be prepared to wear many hats while on duty - pilot and lawyer at the top of the list.

Also, and I think it goes without saying, that two scenarios which require a decision merited upon safety are not going to be identical, nor will one scenario be the same for two different individuals. Either way, a decision should be made and prepared to be defended. And as you stated, it's much, much easier to defend your job than it is to defend your ticket. ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by turbodriver (Post 756874)

You're so full of $hit..... ever try hand flying after a long day to crappy wx? give it a try before you hang the guy.

Try flying the BE-1900 and then talk. yep every 1900 I flew was no auto pilot and 16hour days with 7.5 hours of flying up hill both ways.

Quote:

Originally Posted by chignutsak (Post 756891)

Did these heroes also conclude their flights with single-engine, inverted, full NDB's, timed with an hourglass, to minimums landing on a 3000 foot ice slick with 50-knot gusts directly across the runway?

DUDE I almost squirted milk through my nose.....THAT'S HILARIOUS!!!!!!!:D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lab Rat (Post 757814)

yup. can we end this discussion on Lab Rat's cliff notes?

Quote:

Originally Posted by gettinbumped (Post 757773)

Wow. I am always shocked at how clear it is that we are our own worst enemy.

Someone asked what the opinion of a mainline guy was...

I would refuse an aircraft without an autopilot in the situation listed in the initial post.

It's not a question of whether I COULD fly it. I spent years flying commuter turboprops with no autopilot. The question comes down to the wording used by the FAA in the recent revocation letter to the NWA pilots in the MSP incident. Would I be conducting the flight at the highest level of safety? To me, this would be a big fat no. I don't need to be anyones hero and show off my flying skills. I quit worrying about that 10,000 hours or so ago. I need to be able to make sure that I can get my crew and passengers from Point A to Point B safely, and defend my decisions if something goes wrong.

What's worrying about this post to me, is that there are pilots on this board that are defending the stupid, illegal, and dangerous practice of Pilot Pushing. This should be an easy case for ALPA, but this type of behavior at ANY airline is despicable. Refusing an aircraft for a major system being inoperative if he feels he/she feels the HIGHEST level of safety can't be maintained isn't his/her right.... its his/her responsibility. We ought to be all standing behind this pilot, shoulder to shoulder, against Pilot Pushing at ANY level. If you want to be a hero in the air, apply to be a test pilot or an astronaut.

By the way, I now begin ANY conversation with my management with "I want to inform you that I am recording this conversation". This pilot was the PIC, and he/she was the one who was required by law to make the decision whether they were meeting the standard set forth in writing by the FAA. NOT management. And CERTAINLY not an arm chair quarterback on this forum.

Rant over.

I was the one who asked for a mainline opinion and that was part of the reason. Just because you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD, I don't understand why it has to be a ****ing match. I, for one, also have nothing to prove. If you want to think I'm a worthless pilot for saying I won't go flying under certain circumstances well I guess that's your right, it really doesn't bother me. That a captain could be suspended for such is ridiculous, you really want guys going NO MATTER WHAT. Sounds like an terrific aviation safety program. I guess I just don't feel like I've got anything to prove.....