Enormous Cultural Gap.
#131
#132
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?
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?
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
#133
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
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.
#134
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
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 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.
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.
#135
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.
Last edited by APC225; 03-20-2013 at 08:31 PM.
#136
Banned
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 690
Likes: 0
From: IAH 737 CA
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?
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?
#139
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.
#140
(retired)
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 422
Likes: 0
From: Old, retired, healthy, debt-free, liquid
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.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post



