Captain Charm School Impressions
02-20-2018 | 05:04 AM
#31
Number Last
Joined: Sep 2017
Posts: 442
Likes: 0
From: Boeing voice activated systems and ACARS commander
There’s no easy fix I’m sure, but I recently had a dispatcher on the jumpseat and the reasons he told us guys were refusing planes were amazing, like no acars for example. I had an fo from Denver to pdx who thought we should refuse the plane because our APU was on MEL, another with apubleed MEL thought we should refuse the plane because of light snow at the airport. I spent 5 years flying a plane with no APU in some pretty sh&t weather. Nobody is asking anyone to risk safety and our company always stresses safety above all else. But Jesus there a reason we carry an MEL
02-20-2018 | 05:29 AM
#33
Banned
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
From: CA
No worries totally agree! You’d hope common sense would prevail in desicion making, but doesn’t always. There are a few guys out there still also looking to stick it to the company over some perceived injustice from over a decade ago..... I commute with a guy who refuses to extend or ever help scheduling because in ‘07 “they screwed me on one trip”. Sigh....
02-20-2018 | 05:34 AM
#34
Number Last
Joined: Sep 2017
Posts: 442
Likes: 0
From: Boeing voice activated systems and ACARS commander
No worries totally agree! You’d hope common sense would prevail in desicion making, but doesn’t always. There are a few guys out there still also looking to stick it to the company over some perceived injustice from over a decade ago..... I commute with a guy who refuses to extend or ever help scheduling because in ‘07 “they screwed me on one trip”. Sigh....
02-20-2018 | 05:48 AM
#35
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,559
Likes: 0
From: A Nobody
Like everything else with the FAA, the MEL is regulatory to a minimum standard and has nothing to do with safety. After something happens the minimum standard may be adjusted usually at the suggestion of the NTSB. Until then the CAPTAIN has the ability to raise the standard above the minimum when required.
The reason for an MEL and things like ETOPS, in the FARs is because without them safety would only be in the eyes of the beholder. It provides a minimum level of protection/safety for the general population.
02-20-2018 | 06:03 AM
#36
Line Holder
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
No...he's right. You need only look at things like the different rest rules between 121, cargo, and 135 to see that many of the decisions that the FAA makes aren't in the interest of safety. If an 8 hour overnight isn't safe for a 121 pilot, why is it all of a sudden safe for a 135 pilot?
02-20-2018 | 06:19 AM
#38
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,559
Likes: 0
From: A Nobody
No...he's right. You need only look at things like the different rest rules between 121, cargo, and 135 to see that many of the decisions that the FAA makes aren't in the interest of safety. If an 8 hour overnight isn't safe for a 121 pilot, why is it all of a sudden safe for a 135 pilot?
There’s also differences between freight and pax operations, did you ask yourself why and whose safety is being protected?
Just so you know, when I started in this business part 121 had basically minimum rest requirements. Even after jumping 4 time zones and flying behind the clock 8 hours block to block was it. Only our ALPA contract made it more livable.
There history and it’s marked with graves, behind much of what you read and the safety of the pilot is not always what is at stake.
02-20-2018 | 06:21 AM
#39
Number Last
Joined: Sep 2017
Posts: 442
Likes: 0
From: Boeing voice activated systems and ACARS commander
The reason for an MEL and things like ETOPS, in the FARs is because without them safety would only be in the eyes of the beholder. It provides a minimum level of protection/safety for the general population.
MELs came about after accidents ... Basically bargained for by operators.
ETOPs came about after a close call where an L1011 (I believe) touched down after losing 2 of the 3 engines ... And the 3rd engine was on the way ... All three had an oil seal installed incorrectly.
No safety forethought involved in either MELs or ETOPs ... Both were reactive.
MELs came about after accidents ... Basically bargained for by operators.
ETOPs came about after a close call where an L1011 (I believe) touched down after losing 2 of the 3 engines ... And the 3rd engine was on the way ... All three had an oil seal installed incorrectly.
No safety forethought involved in either MELs or ETOPs ... Both were reactive.
02-20-2018 | 06:26 AM
#40
Number Last
Joined: Sep 2017
Posts: 442
Likes: 0
From: Boeing voice activated systems and ACARS commander
Another reactive case involved rest rule ... I forget the details but it involved reserve and being on call ... Had been on the books for years but not enforced because it would have excessive economic impact on operators ... After the AA accident in LIT (I think) the FAA decided to start enforcing the rule ... I believe this accident was also cited in the creation of FAR117.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
