United Pilots sue
09-27-2011 | 04:24 AM
#11
Abused Spouse of PBS
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 455
Likes: 6
From: 756 CA
There is cooperative culture--on time checks continue to flow. There are pockets of highly competent safety awareness at most levels of ops, but corporately it's essentially "how much will this cost?"
Their response to this lawsuit says it all. "Our training procedures, which are fully approved and closely monitored by the FAA, meet or exceed safety standards, and we are a safe airline." This is the classic "the FAA hasn't shut us down, ergo, we are by definition safe." Sound familiar? It's what Colgan said after the Buffalo accident. It's a lawyer's definition.
Line CAs in right seat? Must be safe since the FAA allows it.
Coach rest seats? Must be safe since the FAA allows it.
Eight hour rest? Must be safe since the FAA allows it.
Train by CBT? Must be safe since the FAA allows it.
The FAA is in the business of preventing the last accident. A safety culture is organic to the organization itself and is focused on preventing the next one.
Their response to this lawsuit says it all. "Our training procedures, which are fully approved and closely monitored by the FAA, meet or exceed safety standards, and we are a safe airline." This is the classic "the FAA hasn't shut us down, ergo, we are by definition safe." Sound familiar? It's what Colgan said after the Buffalo accident. It's a lawyer's definition.
Line CAs in right seat? Must be safe since the FAA allows it.
Coach rest seats? Must be safe since the FAA allows it.
Eight hour rest? Must be safe since the FAA allows it.
Train by CBT? Must be safe since the FAA allows it.
The FAA is in the business of preventing the last accident. A safety culture is organic to the organization itself and is focused on preventing the next one.
09-27-2011 | 04:49 AM
#12
Line Holder
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 15
From: 737 CAPT
How about having the Captain start the engines during pushback? He is busy communicating with the ground crew and looking for the "thumbs up". Who's watching the engine???
The F/O will now sit there doing nothing as the Captain handles EVERYTHING during pushback and engine start. That's a good use of resources.....
The F/O will now sit there doing nothing as the Captain handles EVERYTHING during pushback and engine start. That's a good use of resources.....
If the FO is doing "nothing" why wouldn't he watch the engine start as well. You know....for safety?
09-27-2011 | 06:18 AM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
I welcome the extra "me" time on engine starts. I can continue my conversation, send out those last minute texts, check my banking balance or finish that last level of angry, angry birds!
*** is positive rate? It is and always should be positive climb. LAME!
*** is positive rate? It is and always should be positive climb. LAME!
09-27-2011 | 02:48 PM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,130
Likes: 0
From: B737 CAPT IAH
Remember how the UAL safety culture became agnostic and cooperative after the SFO 747 incident? ALPA and the UAL management worked hand-in-hand to do what was right with respect to safety, no politics. It was truly something to be proud of as a UA pilot and despite contractual disputes that were going on at the time, UA and ALPA were partners in safety. UA management invested big bucks in safety/procedures training because they saw the benefit of increasing the margins of safety throughout the system.
By all appearances, the cooperative safety culture has been gutted and corporate cost savings have become the driving force behind everything UAL is doing. A pilot license belongs to a pilot, not the company - protect yours.
I wonder how well the UA MEC will do presenting all the references to aircraft specific SOP in our CBA
I can't find a single one, but to the company this is all about contract negotiations?
By all appearances, the cooperative safety culture has been gutted and corporate cost savings have become the driving force behind everything UAL is doing. A pilot license belongs to a pilot, not the company - protect yours.
I wonder how well the UA MEC will do presenting all the references to aircraft specific SOP in our CBA
I can't find a single one, but to the company this is all about contract negotiations?Another poster talked about how it must be safe because the FAA said so. They (FAA) say all kinds of things are safe. Oops, make that "legal." Safety is really the responsibility of each pilot, ALPA, and a working relationship with the company to pursue same.
Again, don't know the exact nature of the CBT training. It sounds woefully inadequate based on other reports. If so, it needs to be fixed before something bad happens.
Legal doesn't equate to safe in my mind. No different than a pilot calling KIO for fatigue. Everything is "legal" on paper but there are times when it isn't safe.
The company, however, counts on pilots to be their type A self and do it for free on their own to get up to speed. Charity of that level with the number of significant changes I've heard about is total BS. Company mandated the changes in a vacuum and sold the POI on a minimal expense solution. And, I have no doubt the final version of the training went only as far as they had to to satisfy the POI. Never did the concept of safety or proper training come up in my opinion.
I would be curious to find out what process DAL/NWA went through in this regard. Anyone got any info. Might make a great precedent for the court.
Frats,
Lee
09-29-2011 | 11:27 AM
#17
Widebody
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 777
Likes: 0
From: 777 CAP
what happens when you ignore red flags?
I don't believe in karma , but if there was ever a set up for an epic tragedy, this is it.
(Reuters) — United Continental Holdings Inc. may combine the flight operations of its merger partners on Friday, a federal judge ruled, over the objections of United pilots who said they lacked proper training in the company's new procedures.
U.S. District Judge Sterling Johnson on Thursday denied United pilots' request for a temporary restraining order to block the flight integration. The pilots' argument, that the training shortfall would endanger the public, was "too speculative" to justify pushing back the deadline, he said.
United and Continental, which merged last year, planned to begin operating flights under a unified set of procedures Friday, as it seeks approval from the Federal Aviation Administration for a single operation certificate as soon as November.
The United chapter of the Air Lines Pilots Association filed suit in Brooklyn on Monday asking the court for a delay until the union could negotiate its members' concerns before a labor arbitration board.
A United spokeswoman said the airline would continue to proceed with its training procedures, which had been developed in consultation with the FAA.
A spokesman for the APLA could not immediately be reached for comment.
The case is Air Line Pilots Association v. United Airlines Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, no. 11-4661.
(Reuters) — United Continental Holdings Inc. may combine the flight operations of its merger partners on Friday, a federal judge ruled, over the objections of United pilots who said they lacked proper training in the company's new procedures.
U.S. District Judge Sterling Johnson on Thursday denied United pilots' request for a temporary restraining order to block the flight integration. The pilots' argument, that the training shortfall would endanger the public, was "too speculative" to justify pushing back the deadline, he said.
United and Continental, which merged last year, planned to begin operating flights under a unified set of procedures Friday, as it seeks approval from the Federal Aviation Administration for a single operation certificate as soon as November.
The United chapter of the Air Lines Pilots Association filed suit in Brooklyn on Monday asking the court for a delay until the union could negotiate its members' concerns before a labor arbitration board.
A United spokeswoman said the airline would continue to proceed with its training procedures, which had been developed in consultation with the FAA.
A spokesman for the APLA could not immediately be reached for comment.
The case is Air Line Pilots Association v. United Airlines Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, no. 11-4661.
09-29-2011 | 12:32 PM
#18
Moderate Moderator
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 5,681
Likes: 0
From: Curator at Static Display
Different Strategy
I'm not surpirsed the ALPA suit lost---judges are more about "Law" than "What is the best SOP?" There isn't a clear "law" which governs this.
But from the get-go, I wondered: couldn't ALPA have gone to the POI(s) and voiced a complaint? The FAA, after all, is mostly concerned about "best SOP." The legal-ese of the Feds is crafted after they have decided upon the (supposedly) best course of action.
So, my question: could ALPA have gone directly to the POIs of both carriers? Can they still? Or are pilots barred, by company policy, or FAA mandate, from talking to the Feds?
One would think, if a whistle-blower said to a POI: "My company is doing something ill-advised, we've told them, they won't stop, and we are concerned," that said POI would be required to step-in.
But from the get-go, I wondered: couldn't ALPA have gone to the POI(s) and voiced a complaint? The FAA, after all, is mostly concerned about "best SOP." The legal-ese of the Feds is crafted after they have decided upon the (supposedly) best course of action.
So, my question: could ALPA have gone directly to the POIs of both carriers? Can they still? Or are pilots barred, by company policy, or FAA mandate, from talking to the Feds?
One would think, if a whistle-blower said to a POI: "My company is doing something ill-advised, we've told them, they won't stop, and we are concerned," that said POI would be required to step-in.
09-29-2011 | 01:25 PM
#19
Keep Calm Chive ON
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,086
Likes: 0
From: Boeing's Plastic Jet Button Pusher - 787
Having had a few Pilots (CAL) in the JS doing their weekly pilgrimage from IAH-DEN working on various Flt Ops stuff with their UA counterparts, it's been interesting to hearing what's been going on out at TK as both side work on 'developing the future'.
As of a few months ago, one of these Pilots did express the subtle dynamics of 'jockeying' between the two POI's as to who would potentially get the nob as the successor in the new Company. As sad as it is (and as much as one does not want to think it goes on to some degree), I wonder how much future 'job security' plays into how much a POI would be willing to "texture the waters" on something like that? I sure hope 'he' would do the right thing.
09-29-2011 | 01:29 PM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,559
Likes: 0
From: A Nobody
"The FAA, after all, is mostly concerned about "best SOP.""
Untrue!
Having been the lead in developing SOP, training and the receiving FAA "stamp of approval" in the past, I can tell you this and most of other statements (including the UAL/CAL Mgmt's "developed in consultation with the FAA") and any notion the FAA seeks the "best SOP" or even the "most safe" training, checking and operational methods is completely without merit and untrue. The proper phrase should rather be, "adequate and in compliance with FAA guidelines and regulations."
The facts are it is up to the airlines and corporate aviation departments to develop and establish programs within the regulations and guidelines of the FAA and this does not mean the "best," it means the minimum. In the non-121 world the corporations who insure the flight operations are by default the regulators and not the FAA. Why? Because the requirements for insurance coverage are more restrictive than those of the FAA.
Therefore anyone who expects a "whistle blower" who cries wolf about a FAA approved operation will receive attention by the POI who gave the approval is just kidding themselves. In the case of UAL it is John Martin, the FAA POI, who has put his stamp upon the "multi-phase" SOC process who holds the cards and it is highly unlikely his superiors will intervene and over-ride his decisions. Additionally, when the SOC process is complete it is highly likely he will retire from the FAA.
ALPA did a good thing by filing the suit but they lost, so let's move on and get our joint contract.
Untrue!
Having been the lead in developing SOP, training and the receiving FAA "stamp of approval" in the past, I can tell you this and most of other statements (including the UAL/CAL Mgmt's "developed in consultation with the FAA") and any notion the FAA seeks the "best SOP" or even the "most safe" training, checking and operational methods is completely without merit and untrue. The proper phrase should rather be, "adequate and in compliance with FAA guidelines and regulations."
The facts are it is up to the airlines and corporate aviation departments to develop and establish programs within the regulations and guidelines of the FAA and this does not mean the "best," it means the minimum. In the non-121 world the corporations who insure the flight operations are by default the regulators and not the FAA. Why? Because the requirements for insurance coverage are more restrictive than those of the FAA.
Therefore anyone who expects a "whistle blower" who cries wolf about a FAA approved operation will receive attention by the POI who gave the approval is just kidding themselves. In the case of UAL it is John Martin, the FAA POI, who has put his stamp upon the "multi-phase" SOC process who holds the cards and it is highly unlikely his superiors will intervene and over-ride his decisions. Additionally, when the SOC process is complete it is highly likely he will retire from the FAA.
ALPA did a good thing by filing the suit but they lost, so let's move on and get our joint contract.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
