I agree!!
The original poster had No Idea what he was talking about. BUT!! it IS in the alpa contract to fly type2 ferries if there are no flight restrictions. We don't care either way who flies the flights as long as the plane goes where we want it and to do what we need to do. I KNOW there are plenty of pilots in ALPA who COULD fly test flights because I KNOW they flew them in the military. ALL this malarkey about contract is a bunch of BUNK!! To be honest?? We shouldn't NEED engineering crews at all, and wouldn't have them IF we had enough crews who knew what they were doing.. I do recognize the skill SHOULD demand some premium money. And ALPA needs to address that. All this BS about Maint? is just that BS! There are things We can'rt control like Lightning strikes! The damage in itself is minor but the number of placed that lightning hits might be all over the fuselage. the inspection repairs? try looking at every INCH of your living room floor looking for loose fibers in your carpet and you'll get the drift. I think that if the ALPA crews didn't want the ferry flights then they should refuse to fly them as part of the contract! Then we wouldn't be discussing this. The test flight manual is pretty specific about proceedures Tom Tilden and the Engineering pilot crews are just Pilots who fly Test flights. I Fail to see why any other line pilot can't fly them as well, and at ANY other Airline except UNITED? I'll make book they DO!! This shouldn't BE part of a diatribe when it comes to contract because we all KNOW that after the contract is settled? You guys will care LESS about who flies the ferry flights as LONG as it's not YOU!!

 

strfyr,

To an extent, I understand what you're saying. Then again, I disagree. The engine run issue aside (the history there is long and well documented) type II ferries are usually for issues that keep the aircraft from pax service but have no impact on potential airworthiness. Did a few in my days at UAL.

As to other "test" flights, I disagree wholeheartedly. You referenced the military where I will tell you we kept a small cadre to perform FCF/OCF and OTE flights to ensure a degree of standardization and training. I've been an FCF pilot in multiple airframes in the Air Force and didn't blink twice about it. But, the preflight was different, the procedures were different, and say, shutting down an engine for restart in flight was different for example. Not rocket science believe me. However, I was trained to a standard and the cadre was kept small for a reason. We wanted to limit the folks to keep the standards high and the standard deviation small regarding major phase checks and maintenance performance.

So, if UAL trains the pilots and gives them recurrent on whatever procedure you are talking about, I'm sure there can be some middle ground in this topic assuming they are kept current. The pay could also be hashed out and that qualification should be voluntary given potential risks involved.

Now some reality to the situation you describe. I was trained and everyone I trained routinely did a quick MIL to IDLE stop check in the EOR in the T-38 and AT-38B....particularly the Smurf as going full blower to idle occurs quite often in O or D BFM. Now, I had an AT-38 come out of major phase with dual engine change. Did the "personal" check on the first FCF.....both engines flame out. Call to MX and a tow. Two days later, did the same check. Same result...dual engine flame out. Now, nothing in the checklist required it. It was a standard that was performed by all the FCF pilots I supervised as QA.

Needless to say, in the AF, a flameout is a reportable incident. LG Colonel was livid about how that isn't required and why was I doing it? I answered the Colonel that I don't want the first line crew to find that out during a BFM sortie. OG told the LG to sit down and shut up and fix the issue.

When it comes to intentionally doing things like shutting down engines or disabling systems intentionally, basic line training doesn't provide that training IMO. Not saying the training would be that intensive, however, the pilot needs to be trained and maintain currency in the established manufacturers procedures for functional check flights.

Now, type II ferry, I have no problem with. However, if U is not offering legal flights to line pilots first, they are in violation of the CBA.

You take care,
Lee

 

Thankfully, you don't represent pilots or their interests but with statements like this there is little room for interpretation.

That's the crux, the company does have a history of speeding on this section of the contract, if it's still happening all pilots need to be aware.

 

Glenn Tilton? Is that you?

 

Here's a question for you. What's the total number of maintenance items CAL can defer per fleet on average vs UAL? I think the answer might explain the refusal rate at UAL.