For all you chuck yeagers and Pinnacle mgmt candidates that posted in this thread- this one phrase sums it up nicely.


If anything, my time at Pinnacle taught me how to say no. All anyone cares about is moving the metal, and they will say anything it takes to get you to go. If you let them, they'll push you right up past the point of violations and possibly hurting people just to move an airplane.

I think all the stud-muffin Chuck Yeagers here who belittle autoflight systems and simultaneously trumpet their hand-flying skills with chest-thumping perfection should join together and petition the FAA to have these embarrassing devices removed. This would allow these new up and coming stallions of the industry to demonstrate their spectacular aeronautical prowess more often, dazzling those pilots they feel inferior and passengers alike to awe-inspiring worship and euphoria.

Maybe they'll get more chicks.....................:cool:

I don't think anyone on this thread is belittling automation, nor do I think this thread is an "I can hand-fly better than the autopilot" discussion either. As mentioned earlier, a decision was made based on stated criteria and the bulk of the conversations thus far have centered around the merits of that decision.

The camps seem to be split on whether or not one should accept an aircraft with an inoperative autopilot. As I mentioned earlier, that would depend not only on the individual, but also on the circumstance(s) as well.

If the aircraft is approved to be dispatched with an inoperative autopilot, then it can be operated legally. Is it dangerous to do so? All things being equal, this really should be a non-event for most people.

Now, if the weather is down, the crew has had a long day, and the flight will be operated into very congested airspace, then the PIC must make - and be prepared to defend - his or her decision if the PIC elects not to accept the aircraft. That decision may be based on factors such as fatigue, experience, and proficiency.

Legally, if the aircraft can be dispatched without the autopilot and the weather is such that it does not negatively affect operating within the bounds of that deferral, then the PIC is going to have a tough time defending his decision based solely on the autopilot being deferred. In other words, why is it a safety issue if one must hand fly? That answer depends on the individual and one answer will not suffice for each and every individual.

Some may refuse to accept the aircraft and some may not refuse to accept it. In either case, both may be correct.

Were talking Pilots here. They are ALWAYS right :D

There is a BIG difference between a MX problem occurring in flight, and one occurring before you even board the aircraft.

But as stated by others, this is not about a pilot being able to fly with an autopilot or not. We do not have all of the information this captain did at the time of his decision. We also do not know how tired the he was, we do not know how competent or fatigued his F/O was. This is about a company trying to erode captains authority. And we should all be appalled at the fact a captain is faced with suspension and forfeiting of pay for exercising his federally granted authority.

I didn't have time to read all 13 pages of this thread, but is the suspension related to the ongoing contract negotiations at Pinnacle? A guy I recently flew with had a conversation with a Pinnacle guy and said something like, "Well, eventually you guys will get sick of it and go down the same road we (ASA) did," and the Pinnacle guy said "Oh no, we couldn't do that, management will suspend us if we start writing stuff up."

I wouldn't be surprised if a management pilot came in and did the flight, but I can't believe they got another line guy to take the plane after it had just been refused. Couldn't he find something else to write up? They can suspend one guy, but they can't suspend every guy. (I'm not insinuating this was some kind of job action by the pilot, but that management could be trying to punish that sort of thing)

I love how every CA is a "he". Interesting to see how it went from "CA" to "he" in a couple pages. Just something I noticed amoungst the discussion.

mine's still a plural transexual.......they;)

As you and countless other folks have stated, this was the sole reason I posted in the first place. It had nothing at all to do with the a/c refusal, but EVERYTHING to do with the suspension/disciplinary action.

he is the captain of the airplane. he refused the airplane. end of story. why all this BS about hand flying and this and that and weather and shoulda/coulda/woulda. HE REFUSED THE AIRPLANE! HIS WORD IS GOLD! HES THE CAPTAIN!