Search

Notices

Enormous Cultural Gap.

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 03-20-2013 | 09:34 AM
  #131  
oldmako's Avatar
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 3
From: The GF of FUPM
Default

Originally Posted by Mwindaji
......Special Tracking have you ever been a Captain at a major airline ....You must be a hoot to be with on a 4 day trip.
He has, and he is.

Grenades NEED to be tossed at this place. The acquiescence and apathy among the Stepford pilots is sickening. Keep it up Rev!
Reply
Old 03-20-2013 | 11:29 AM
  #132  
SoCentralRain's Avatar
Line Holder
 
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by SpecialTracking
I realize this question this paints with a broad stroke but I ask it with all sincerity.

There is a maintenance issue with an airplane that can be legally deferred. The Captain is wants to accept the plane, but the F/O(s) is/are genuinely uncomfortable flying with the deferral. Is the prevailing sentiment at sCAL to tell the F/O's to fly the plane or get off the ID since the Captain will not refuse it, or will the Captain refuse the aircraft out of the F/O(s) concern?
Excellent discussion point.

Here's an example: #1 Pack MEL'd on a 757. Hot day.
Another: APU Gen inop/MEL'd on a 737/320. IFR or night trip.
Another: Lav 3 on a 757 MEL'd unusable. IAD-CUN turn. Full both ways.

So...if an FO is uncomfortable with the aircraft--and says so to the captain (the captain is fine with the aircraft), how does the conversation go?

And what if the FO thinks it's prudent to add more gas, but the captain does not? (both understanding the performance limitations, of course)

I used to keep track of these "crew refusals" (as UAL called them) or "crew precautionary" (as CAL called them) while working in the NOC. Other than the disparity in aircraft age, there were a hell of a lot more of these on the UAL side than the CAL side. More MEL's, too. Just don't think there's a direct correlation between the two groups.

What say you all?

SCR
Reply
Old 03-20-2013 | 01:36 PM
  #133  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Default

This thread is just another example of how we have allowed our profession to be negatively driven by our tribal mentality. Furthermore why would our illustrious federal government certify different procedures for flying the same aircraft just because they have different paint colors? There is no reason for the FAA to have people assigned to each airline for the purpose of approving different procedures except to draw more money from each airline for the federal coffers and make-work jobs for civil servants. Can anyone truthfully say why someone at airline "A" should fly their 767 any different from someone flying the same 767 at airline "B", in the same airspace to the same airports? Have any of you ever stopped to think about how ridiculous our industry is? Maybe it is the way it is so pilots will continue to fight and argue over the minutia and ignore the more pressing issues.
Reply
Old 03-20-2013 | 07:50 PM
  #134  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by SpecialTracking
V,

I can appreciate that. It was my intention to be vague with the understanding that the F/O had a valid concern. Yes it would be a legal def of a major system, but nothing along the lines of a ldg light out, a video monitor inop, or anything else to be considered minuscule. I didn't want to get into a "what would you take" discussion but rather one of "would the Capt stand up for the F/O."

Mwindaji, albeit from his perspective, gave me some insight.
I would stand up for the F/O if his concern were valid after a conservative discussion and it affected the safety of the flight, ie. multiple deferrals that compounded a situation based on variables and made a flight threat level excessive or borderline unsafe albeit legal. However, given that the OIL/MEL list is FAA/CO approved documented procedure, there had better be a very valid reason, defensible with data and logical reasoning (aside from an emotional "beef" with the company ie. not bending over arguments, contractual lamentation etc...).

The question being asked here seems to be a general one that would somehow seek to hold gravitas toward a methodology / 'ism' of a pilot group culture (sCAL) that would respond the same way regardless of situation, namely, the CA holding the FO in contempt or left to his own devices if concern should rise. I have never been privy to that situation in all my years when I was an FO. I was always made to feel as part of the crew (well lets be real - 97% of the time) and my concerns if any always carried weight and were considered.

Having said the above though, the Captain is the PIC. His/her name is on the release and thus, the one who is ultimately responsible for the aircraft. The FO is a crew member and a valid member of the think tank but in the end it is the Captain's decision.
Reply
Old 03-20-2013 | 08:21 PM
  #135  
APC225's Avatar
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,866
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by SoCentralRain
I used to keep track of these "crew refusals" (as UAL called them) or "crew precautionary" (as CAL called them) while working in the NOC. Other than the disparity in aircraft age, there were a hell of a lot more of these on the UAL side than the CAL side. More MEL's, too. Just don't think there's a direct correlation between the two groups.
Was given the tour of the TMOC (mx). Shift supervisor (former CAL) said there were two eye-openers when they merged. One, LUAL pilots refused as many aircraft in two weeks as LCAL pilots refused in a year. It was a major shock. They dug into it and saw philosophical differences in the way mx treated write ups. LUAL's was keep ‘em flyin'. IOW, defer, defer, defer to MEL to limit. LCAL‘s was fix it ASAP to keep 'em flyin'. Both were valid but the LUAL method meant the LUAL pilot might have multiple MELs and rightfully refuse aircraft, while the LCAL pilot rarely had any MELs to consider at all therefore few refusals. It wasn't a matter of "low T" it was a matter of zero vs multiple MELs.

Last edited by APC225; 03-20-2013 at 08:31 PM.
Reply
Old 03-20-2013 | 08:43 PM
  #136  
Banned
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 690
Likes: 0
From: IAH 737 CA
Default

Originally Posted by SpecialTracking
I realize this question this paints with a broad stroke but I ask it with all sincerity.

There is a maintenance issue with an airplane that can be legally deferred. The Captain is wants to accept the plane, but the F/O(s) is/are genuinely uncomfortable flying with the deferral. Is the prevailing sentiment at sCAL to tell the F/O's to fly the plane or get off the ID since the Captain will not refuse it, or will the Captain refuse the aircraft out of the F/O(s) concern?

Sidebar.......what's an ID?
Reply
Old 03-20-2013 | 09:13 PM
  #137  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Default

I think it's what they call Pairing's...
Reply
Old 03-21-2013 | 05:09 AM
  #138  
cadetdrivr's Avatar
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,639
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by vspeed
I think it's what they call Pairing's...
It is. And the acronym dates so far back I doubt any current sUAL pilot could tell you what it even stands for.
Reply
Old 03-21-2013 | 05:12 AM
  #139  
cadetdrivr's Avatar
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,639
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by APC225
Was given the tour of the TMOC (mx). Shift supervisor (former CAL) said there were two eye-openers when they merged. One, LUAL pilots refused as many aircraft in two weeks as LCAL pilots refused in a year. It was a major shock. They dug into it and saw philosophical differences in the way mx treated write ups. LUAL's was keep ‘em flying'. IOW, defer, defer, defer to MEL to limit. LCAL‘s was fix it ASAP to keep 'em flyin'. Both were valid but the LUAL method meant the LUAL pilot might have multiple MELs and rightfully refuse aircraft, while the LCAL pilot rarely had any MELs to consider at all therefore few refusals. It wasn't a matter of "low T" it was a matter of zero vs multiple MELs.
Thanks, that makes much more sense than the whole "my dad can beat up your dad" crap.
Reply
Old 03-21-2013 | 05:18 AM
  #140  
(retired)
 
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 422
Likes: 0
From: Old, retired, healthy, debt-free, liquid
Default

Originally Posted by APC225
Was given the tour of the TMOC (mx). Shift supervisor (former CAL) said there were two eye-openers when they merged. One, LUAL pilots refused as many aircraft in two weeks as LCAL pilots refused in a year. It was a major shock. They dug into it and saw philosophical differences in the way mx treated write ups. LUAL's was keep ‘em flyin'. IOW, defer, defer, defer to MEL to limit. LCAL‘s was fix it ASAP to keep 'em flyin'. Both were valid but the LUAL method meant the LUAL pilot might have multiple MELs and rightfully refuse aircraft, while the LCAL pilot rarely had any MELs to consider at all therefore few refusals. It wasn't a matter of "low T" it was a matter of zero vs multiple MELs.
One of the many reasons why the SVP of Tech Ops (Keenan - lual) was removed and replaced (Hart - lcal) recently.
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Jones14
Flight Schools and Training
9
10-15-2011 01:23 PM
bcpilot
Hiring News
15
08-05-2011 02:12 PM
todd1200
Career Questions
19
02-11-2009 05:40 PM
whitt767
Major
3
04-25-2007 03:51 PM
mazaite
Flight Schools and Training
2
08-30-2006 03:34 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices