Breaking News on CNN

Speaking of out-thinking pilots, whose airplane is it anyway? You sign, you decide how much fuel goes in the tanks and how much freight, self-loading or otherwise, goes in the back. If they want button-mashers, let em find some (I'm sure this board is populated with plenty of 300 hour wonders who would be happy to do my job just as the DO dictates. Most of them would probably even survive). As long as we're still "pilots", why don't we stand together and tell the bean counters that their power ends on the ground, whatever we think of the motivations of particular guys in particular circumstances. Maybe now it's them, but soon enough it will be the rest of us.

You are 50% correct on who signs the release in the 121 world, there is still the dispatcher. That being said, a captain calls and wants extra fuel, it is not a problem if it makes sense.

What I mean, going into LAX and sky clear and the Capt wants extra fuel because ATC will lower the altitude 200 miles out is understandable, but going to Omaha and sky clear all the way from start to finish should not require extra fuel. The dispatcher on the otherend usually realizes that there are plenty of good reasons to bring extra fuel, but their are a lot of bs reasons as well. There are pilots out there that will say "I will only land with 4000 lbs of fuel" when the company reserve is 3000 lbs or an hour and fifteen minutes, burning more fuel for no real reason.

Just one person's opinion
 
Me neither. In my short experience out here, I have yet to run into a captain that is doing that. Wouldn't surprise me, though because all this less fuel stuff is still relatively new if you only look back 10 years or so, which is how long I've had my instrument and been in the game. Has anybody ever encountered this behavior before? That being crews purposely burning as much gas as they could when fuel prices are going up?


No, but I read rumors of guys "sticking it to the company" back when everyone knew there was no hope for Lorenzo’s employees but that he himself was going to ride off into the sunset fully loaded no matter what. But with the current situation I couldn't understand someone trying to “stick it to them” now. I mean, your seniority number depends on how well the company holds out so why try to burn more fuel and sink profits on purpose? Wouldn't make sense to me.
 
Yep. I've seen it at Pinnacle before. Have yet to see it at AAI, but the union President claims that there are CAs flying at FL200 at max forward speed lately. It does happen, but it's usually rare.

But you said it was a USAir thing. So you are translating your observation at one airline as what happened at USAir.

Why would you retrain 5,000 pilots on a problem that is only an issue for 8 CAs?
If the program is really useful why not have all 5000 pilots see it?

The truth is that this never should have gotten to company training. The union should have handed it over to Pro Standards and schooled these guys. Most companies are usually thrilled to allow the union the opportunity to knock some sense into pilots rather than having to deal with official training.
We agree. Both parties probably wish they had a do-over. Still, it does appear as a shot across the bow.

The dispatchers issued the proper fuel loading on the release, only to have the CAs demand more. There isn't a dispatcher around that will outright refuse a CAs request. They'll ask for a reason, give him his fuel, and then file a report. I can see no reason to go after a dispatcher on something like this.
The dispatch is a joint agreement.

Sidesticks on airliners use fly-by-wire systems. I prefer some sort of direct connection to the flight controls, either through hydraulic PCUs like we had on the CRJ, or true direct connections like on the 717 that I fly now. I'm not a fan of computers that are designed to outthink pilots.
The entire software package for the -320 FBW is smaller than Word and with dis-similar redundancies, the computers are different, the control surfaces are controlled by different computers. Last time I checked, the 'computers' were Motorola 8088s and Intel 188.They sum zeroes and 1s. That's all. No thinking. The envelop is defined but there is no 'thinking'. And if it is just FBW you are opposed to, that is another argument as the 777 and the 787 have FBW. The new Falcon has FBW.And while there have been some problems with pilots knowing what mode the airplane was in, the only incident I know of where the airplane began acting 'funny' was a 777 a few years ago.

http://tinyurl.com/56bcnp

So you are with AirTran. We probably know some of the same guys. Old friends.. some of whom are APDs or check airmen. Good group of guys.

Oh, and if you were with a regional and now another carrier with an in-house union, what is your heartburn with USAPA?
 
But with the current situation I couldn't understand someone trying to “stick it to them” now. I mean, your seniority number depends on how well the company holds out so why try to burn more fuel and sink profits on purpose? Wouldn't make sense to me.


Funny thing is no one has proven any such 'stick it to the company' event at USAir actually occurred.. only the suggestion by one of the forum members.

Some have suggested a Capt was flying across the pond with the APU running. ??? But on the 'bus, EVERYTHING goes in the FDR and USAir has had a FOQA program for quite sometime. Every valve, switch, etc can be known. Not exactly something one could do covertly.
 
Funny thing is no one has proven any such 'stick it to the company' event at USAir actually occurred.. only the suggestion by one of the forum members.

Some have suggested a Capt was flying across the pond with the APU running. ??? But on the 'bus, EVERYTHING goes in the FDR and USAir has had a FOQA program for quite sometime. Every valve, switch, etc can be known. Not exactly something one could do covertly.


Is it just me that think this way? You really think those guys sitting in the office has nothing to do and just randomly pick on pilots? You really think their job is to make sure we're all piss off? I'm pretty sure those top guys rather spend their time how to keep the company going rather with these pilots.
 
:yeahthat: plus PHL or BOS

Here is 1-2-3 rules for flying in the NE of USA I use to make my life easier.

1-2-3 stands for One rain drop, Two Clouds, Three Hours Delay.

:D
 
But you said it was a USAir thing. So you are translating your observation at one airline as what happened at USAir.

He asked a question about whether anyone had seen this at any carrier. I have. I wasn't referencing it to USAir.

If the program is really useful why not have all 5000 pilots see it?

Because the program isn't useful unless you're a dimwitted moron that thinks it's a good idea to stick it to the company as some form of ridiculous one-man vendetta. 99.9% of the pilot group doesn't need this "education."

The envelop is defined but there is no 'thinking'.

Semantics. I don't like a defined envelope. I like the airplane to go where I tell it to go. The idea that the computer can override the pilot's command to bank 90 degrees is disconcerting to me. I'm sure I'll have to deal with it at some point, since all planes are going to these FBW systems now, but I'll hang on to my old DC-9 airframe for as long as possible. :)

We probably know some of the same guys. Old friends.. some of whom are APDs or check airmen. Good group of guys.

Any in the 717 training department?

Oh, and if you were with a regional and now another carrier with an in-house union, what is your heartburn with USAPA?

I don't really have a problem with the idea of independent unions. I support the APA and the IPA, for instance. I would prefer for everyone to be under one union, as that increases our leverage, but I have no heartburn with a group that wants to be independent. My problem with USAPA has nothing to do with their independent status. The problem with USAPA is that the only reason they were created was to try to screw over the West pilots by stealing the seniority that they earned through the Nic award, a legally binding arbitration award. Creating a new union just to use it to screw over a portion of your own pilot group is reprehensible.

Funny thing is no one has proven any such 'stick it to the company' event at USAir actually occurred.. only the suggestion by one of the forum members.

The information has been independently verified by the company. They have taken their case to the media, and a company representative was on one of the morning shows today giving the true story.
 
Just reading the responses to the article on the USA Today website is hilarious:

Onthedole wrote: 2h 13m ago Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa WAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa; Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaa;
Whiners whiners & more whiners. Wait, I forgot, that's why they are pilots. If it wasn't for all the computers that acutally fly the plane, they'd all be city bus drivers somewhere complaining of the traffic!
 
Because the program isn't useful unless you're a dimwitted moron that thinks it's a good idea to stick it to the company as some form of ridiculous one-man vendetta. 99.9% of the pilot group doesn't need this "education."

We agree it is 'education' and not really an effort to inform.



Semantics. I don't like a defined envelope. I like the airplane to go where I tell it to go. The idea that the computer can override the pilot's command to bank 90 degrees is disconcerting to me. I'm sure I'll have to deal with it at some point, since all planes are going to these FBW systems now, but I'll hang on to my old DC-9 airframe for as long as possible. :)

I think we did this before. In a fighter, yes, no limits but when I hit windshear I would like to go to Max Alpha with full aft stick, get max perf and not have to hunt for it 'just in the shaker'. And it has shown that the roll rate to avoid traffic is sufficient to miss on-coming traffic. I think the term they use in the later gen fighters is 'care-free handling'.

Any in the 717 training department?
One is/was an APD and the other was a check airman. I spent some time in the DirTng office a while back discussing error management and policy/procedures in light of culture.


The information has been independently verified by the company. They have taken their case to the media, and a company representative was on one of the morning shows today giving the true story.

Odd. I spoke with some I know at USAir and they said it was just more pushing and shoving which is not unusual at U. I know many of the guys who were on the TV circuit explaining their take. There is probably more to the story than either side is telling. In the end, it will probably be just another small chapter in the history of adversarial management/labor relations at U.
 
PCL_128 said:
a company representative was on one of the morning shows today giving the true story.

ROFL. Remind me to dig that little gem up the next time you're bleating about contract negotiations.
 
ROFL. Remind me to dig that little gem up the next time you're bleating about contract negotiations.

I normally wouldn't give a second thought to anything that management says, but the sad fact is that USAPA's credibility is so horrible that management looks downright honest and trustworthy by comparison.
 
Back
Top