Scrutiny of Gulfstream Intensifies

[derg]

TCAS II saved my life more than once. I'm a believer.

Hallelujah, my friend.

 

[deadstick]

In my opinion, flying in and out of uncontrolled fields without TCAS with passengers in something like a 1900 is a little silly.

A plane that doesn't have a transponder (making TCAS irrelevant), probably will have a com. 4 eyes out front and 4 ears open. Make standard calls, monitor CTAF before getting to the end, and don't rely on the "any traffic please advise" crutch.

TCAS II saved my life more than once. I'm a believer.

Don't get me wrong, I love it, too, but that was only one of the items checked before launching from an uncontrolled field.

I'm sure TCAS is awesome, but if you can MEL it, it's legal to fly without it. Refusing a legal airplane seems like a pretty good reason for disciplinary action to me. Firing seems a little extreme.

I know this is coming down to the "can" vs "should" argument. The next flight was going through the alert area, right? He followed a risk assessment process by identifying new risks (the AA with an MEL'ed TCAS), but was anything proposed to mitigate the risk? The article mentioned that one of the issues was the planned altitude. We don't have the whole story. I can't see the whole article, but dx should not have had a problem with some modifications if the flight would get done. Heck, how many ATP or Riddle planes routinely fly above 10K?

 

[jynxyjoe]

A plane that doesn't have a transponder (making TCAS irrelevant), probably will have a com. 4 eyes out front and 4 ears open. Make standard calls, monitor CTAF before getting to the end, and don't rely on the "any traffic please advise" crutch.

Says the guy that can hover.

You do what you want man. I've said my bit. I think the ounce of prevention is worth taking a little extra time to switch an airplane or even to get it fixed.

 

[deadstick]

Ok, I just had another thought and didn't want to edit the last post *again.*

Does anybody know if the SOP at Gulfstream is/was to blastoff VFR and pickup the clearance in the air? I think we could if we stayed w/i 30 nm of the departure airport, but we had RCO's, etc. available and rarely had to do it. Just curios.

 

[kellwolf]

This was debated when it happened about a year ago.

It's a legit reason to terminate a pilot. Despite the fact that TCAS clearly adds a greater margin of safety.

However, this plus the A/C compressors from auto zone, and the falsified flight time records shows how management cuts corners.

I don't think it's a legit reason to terminate someone. If the guy has a history of refusing legal aircraft, maybe. If he refuses the airplane b/c he thinks the deferred TCAS would affect the safety of flight without having said history, they guy's looking at some form of written discipline maybe. Termination? Nope. By that line of thinking, if I refuse an airplane with a deferred APU b/c it's 98 degrees in Memphis, I can be sent to the street.


FYI, if the TCAS wasn't functioning, that's a no go item for us. We can have a "TCAS fail" on one side, but that pilot magically becomes the PM. Has to be functioning on the PF's side. Yes, I'm bored and have the -200 MEL on my desktop.....

 

[Screaming_Emu]

TCAS II saved my life more than once. I'm a believer.

Yup, twice here..and I've only been doing this for a year and a half.

 

[deadstick]

Says the guy that can hover.

You do what you want man. I've said my bit. I think the ounce of prevention is worth taking a little extra time to switch an airplane or even to get it fixed.

I was trying to stress that TCAS isn't the end-all-be-all to avoiding a midair because the 172 with an inop/off xpnder will make the same hole in the 1900 (with inop TCAS) as a 172 with an operating one.

If dispatch would not give him a higher altitude (seems like the easiest fix with an inop TCAS), why not? I still think there is more to this drama than we are reading in the WSJ. I just find it hard to believe that there was no other option available to complete the flight in an aircraft with a legal MEL.

I'm trying to remember, TAWS is required for 135 turbines with over 6 seats (or is that pax seats?), but TCAS isn't, right? So what about that KA350? That use to be the same type as the 1900 and that can be flown SP.

I still think there is some missing info.

 

[Firebird2XC]

A few years ago, I was flying a 1900 inbound to ISP. Busy airspace loaded with GA.

After vectors away from noncompliant traffic, we responded to three sequential RAs in rapid timing.

I'm convinced TCAS was a life saver that day.

I believe it's an MEL-able system. At Eagle, refusing an MEL'd bird will get you disciplined, but it won't get you canned.

 

[Gonzo]

I believe it's an MEL-able system. At Eagle, refusing an MEL'd bird will get you disciplined, but it won't get you canned.

Word is CA's can refuse a blue chicken and not get disciplined.

 

[floridaCFII]

Nothing like a company that believes in PIC authority and judgement

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

I'm sure TCAS is awesome, but if you can MEL it, it's legal to fly without it. Refusing a legal airplane seems like a pretty good reason for disciplinary action to me.

So much for Captain's authority. I guess we should just put robots up front that have a built-in MEL database and don't think about anything other than what the MEL says.

This was debated when it happened about a year ago......It's a legit reason to terminate a pilot.

The hell it is. I would have refused that airplane in a split second. Flying through South Florida airspace with deferred pressurization and no TCAS? That's a frickin' death sentence. The Captain made the right decision. Thank God there was a Captain on that airplane that day instead of a mindless automaton that just follows what the book says.

Does anybody know if the SOP at Gulfstream is/was to blastoff VFR and pickup the clearance in the air?

Yes, at least it was about 10 years ago. I doubt it's changed.

 

[jdlilfan]

I still think there is some missing info.

From : eturbonews.com May 4, 2008

Ironically, well before he was terminated, Edwards had already turned in his resignation and informed Gulfstream that his last day would be Dec. 12. He had hoped to leave on good terms so he could use the airline as a reference.
Yet, airline officials fired him Dec. 10 after several events went sour, he said.
While flying from Nassau to West Palm Beach that day, the plane's traffic alert and collision avoidance system, or TCAS, sounded a warning that another aircraft was in the vicinity. That prompted Edwards and his co-pilot to immediately climb out of the way of a small Cessna.
On their next leg, from West Palm Beach to Tampa, the traffic avoidance system stopped working, Edwards said. Moreover, the plane had a pressurization problem, which would have required that it remain at a low altitude on the trip from Tampa back to West Palm Beach.
That caused concern because two days earlier, on Dec. 8, a twin-engine Piper arriving from North Florida and a small Cessna trainer based in Lantana collided in a student training area over the Everglades at the Broward- Palm Beach County line. Edwards said he would not have been able to fly around that area in his relatively large twin-engine airliner.
Because of a combination of darkness, thick clouds and the student pilot training area in his path, Edwards told company officials he would not make the flight without the traffic avoidance system in working order.
"One of my reasons was obvious," he said. "It had very likely just saved our lives."
While the plane was parked in Tampa, a mechanic found the system was operating properly. Edwards, however, didn't think it was and insisted he could not conduct the flight. At that point, Tom Herfort, the airline's director of operations, fired Edwards, according to the federal complaint.
In a subsequent letter to Edwards, confirming his dismissal, Gulfstream Chief Pilot James Bystrom said "the aircraft was legal to operate in revenue service. Your decision delayed the flight for over two hours and inconvenienced our customers without just cause."
Edwards said he now has been "blacklisted" from finding another pilot job because of a federal rule that makes his termination open knowledge to other carriers.

 

[MFT1Air]

I'm sure TCAS is awesome, but if you can MEL it, it's legal to fly without it. Refusing a legal airplane seems like a pretty good reason for disciplinary action to me. Firing seems a little extreme.

Boris, no one argues the "legality" issue. (At least not me; I really don't know) Refusing a legal airplane isn't synonymous with refusing to fly an airplane in a compromising position which is where this pilot felt he was. If the legalities of reporting a "near miss" in a conjested area is identified, no disciplinary action for me appears warranted. Safety is first not legality. Like anything else, for me, I'm a "trends" kinda person. "Repeated" incidents of refusing to fly "might be" cause for disciplinary action, but "trends" is subjective.

. . .but you're right, termination sounds extreme.

While the plane was parked in Tampa, a mechanic found the system was operating properly. Edwards, however, didn't think it was and insisted he could not conduct the flight. At that point, Tom Herfort, the airline's director of operations, fired Edwards, according to the federal complaint.

If the mechanic was correct, grounds for termination, after a warning, would be appropriate.

 

[Hacker15e]

It is amazing to me that portions of the aviation industry have gotten to the point that flying VFR without TCAS is considered....how did he say it....a "death sentence".

 

[granlistillo]

I know this is coming down to the "can" vs "should" argument. The next flight was going through the alert area, right? He followed a risk assessment process by identifying new risks (the AA with an MEL'ed TCAS), but was anything proposed to mitigate the risk? The article mentioned that one of the issues was the planned altitude. We don't have the whole story. I can't see the whole article, but dx should not have had a problem with some modifications if the flight would get done. Heck, how many ATP or Riddle planes routinely fly above 10K?

Ok I am going from memory here, and I think it was discussed on JC. As I remember there was multiple MELs, one limited the aircraft to 10000 ft msl and below. This may or may not have been true. I totally agree with the Captains call not to go crossing florida with 21 SOB at 10k with out TCAS.

 

[Goonie]

It is amazing to me that portions of the aviation industry have gotten to the point that flying VFR without TCAS is considered....how did he say it....a "death sentence".

:yeahthat:

Really?? You're going to cancel a flight because you dont have TCAS??

Its pretty sad to get fired from a job you paid for in the first place.

 

[granlistillo]

It is amazing to me that portions of the aviation industry have gotten to the point that flying VFR without TCAS is considered....how did he say it....a "death sentence".

While maybe a slight overstatement, I would say it is a matter of perspective. You fly a jet responsible for yourself and one other. Both of you have ejection seats. Also, that bubble canopy certainly aids the mark one eyeball's visibility in a VFR scan. I suppose you have a SSR, probably an APX of sorts on flavor of APS radar your carrying. You have much time flying transport aircraft?

The person you are quoting use to fly for that airline doing the same stuff everyday. You have much time flying a B1900 around Florida?

Does the Air Force give you a jet with the ACES II inop?

BTW, VFR flying in a 121 operation is very rare and for a short duration only.

 

[MFT1Air]

It is amazing to me that portions of the aviation industry have gotten to the point that flying VFR without TCAS is considered....how did he say it....a "death sentence".

Small portion indeed. Some have merit in extremely isolated situations, but generally speaking, you're right - the premise is false.

Portions of the aviation industry perceive military pilots to not be as well-trained or experienced as their cilivian counterparts.

Small portion indeed. Some have merit in extremely isolated situations, but generally speaking, you're right - the premise is false.

 

[jynxyjoe]

It is amazing to me that portions of the aviation industry have gotten to the point that flying VFR without TCAS is considered....how did he say it....a "death sentence".

*shrug* Florida isn't the best place to be be-bopping around without a TCAS. Of course, if Center clears out a whole MOA/restricted area for you I suppose it's tough to relate.

Quick show of hands. Who has landed more than once at an uncontrolled airport with passengers when people in the pattern are not position reporting or responding to a single radio call?

*raises hand*

Furthermore, of those raising your hands, who has actually been admonished by the GA dummy for trying to talk to them directly while they are on the ground holding short of the opposite runway you are 500' to touch on? "It's an uncontrolled field I don't have to talk to anyone if I don't want to!"

*raises hand*

How many of you have so many experiences landing at non controlled fields with people who refuse to talk on the radio or use a traffic pattern you take a little offense to the notion a captain erring on the side of caution is a firing offense?

*raises hand*

 

[mjg407]

I'd say south Florida in a tprop without TCAS, even legally MEL'd could be a serious safety (based on judgement) no-no, purely based on the number of lower altitude mid-airs...

Of course, IMHHAO....

Interesting, but there is no TCAS in most military planes.