Suspended!! (unfortunately, this is not hypothetical)

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

I couldn't have said it better myself but (and this is what is so frustrating in this) Skyway management (and Dispatch) seem to think that having a holdover time means that it is 100% safe to launch into the stuff and they aren't about to let anyone change their mind. They are pitifully ignorant that there is a DRASTIC difference between "known icing" (for which the aircraft is certified) and SLD.

They do realize that your Holdover Tables for the Beech and Dornier are the exact same tables I have for the Boeing, right? Those tables only deal with the performance of the fluid, not the aircraft itself. Your DO and CP are complete idiots.

 

[KLB]

They do realize that your Holdover Tables for the Beech and Dornier are the exact same tables I have for the Boeing, right? Those tables only deal with the performance of the fluid, not the aircraft itself. Your DO and CP are complete idiots.

:yeahthat:

Their arguement makes no sense.

 

[deadstick]

These are the same folks who have been telling DoJet pilots about a cruise temperature restriction that was misinterpreted (or something of the like) in the AFM.

I thought it was interesting that mgt decided to follow the -48 restriction and ignore the icing one. The info came from the same place.

 

[viper548]

The FAA can and will violate you for ignoring an aircraft limitation. They will not violate you for refusing a flight. If your chief is going to continue pushing the issue, you should consider leaving the company before the doors close

 

[BeechBoy]

The FAA can and will violate you for ignoring an aircraft limitation. They will not violate you for refusing a flight. If your chief is going to continue pushing the issue, you should consider leaving the company before the doors close

The problem is that the FAA does not consider the icing warning a limitation! If you're walking along and see a sign saying: "WARNING: Minefield Ahead" you can argue that it doesn't mean you CAN'T walk there, only that you may die if you do so. Therefore, it's not a limitation. This is the way the company is looking at it. It only says you MAY go out of control and die so what's the problem?

 

[MQAAord]

I have one word for your company management:

Roselawn.





(Simmons Airlines dba American Eagle 4184 31OCT94)

 

[tonyw]

It sucks that they may fire you, but ask yourself this.

Would you rather be unemployed or dead?

 

[surreal1221]

Just remember (the meteorlogist in me talking). . .

Freezing Drizzle will produce Moderate Clear Icing

Freezing Rain will produce Severe Clear Icing

Also know that very RARELY will an intensity be affixed to any FZ prcepitation. You'll see it in METARs and TAFs as simply FZRA or FZDZ, rarely will you see it as -/+FZRA/DZ.

 

[taseal]

good luck on your fight man. but they will most likely say 'how come you were the only plane grounded? all the other flights in the area made it just fine'

to which you can reply with showing the metar, and the AFM.

 

[zmiller4]

Also know that very RARELY will an intensity be affixed to any FZ prcepitation. You'll see it in METARs and TAFs as simply FZRA or FZDZ, rarely will you see it as -/+FZRA/DZ.

That's interesting, because I've seen -FZRA a *lot* in the last couple of months (check out the current TAF's for KAUG and KSYR, for example). Our FOM changed recently (sometime within the last two years maybe?) to specifically allow us to operate in light freezing rain. I wonder if TAF's/METAR's have used the "light" designation more to allow more flights to go.

 

[surreal1221]

It may be one of the differences between NOAA and DOD TAFs/METARs. . .but my time spent with a branch of the DoD it was standard practice to not use an intensity descriptor in our TAFs.

I wouldn't be surprised that, since the NOAA/NWS's customers depend on being able to dispatch. . .that they are using an intensity descriptor on their products.

The military. . .eh. . .not so much. We don't like getting icing on our extremely-super critical airframes (fighter jets). Heavies, it's a different ball game but as far as I remember only under certain circumstances will guys launch into known (observed) FZRA/DZ conditions.

 

[MD-11Loader]

Man, what a bunch of crap. Augie wouldn't have pulled that! Sounds like you know what you're talking about and GG doesn't. He just doesn't know when to keep his mouth shut!

Augie was a stand up guy and GG is a massive tool. Remember that GG failed DC-9 training at YX twice and that's why he is at Skyway. Too bad you don't have Belmonti and Chris Martin there anymore to go to bat for you. Those two wouldn't take crap from anybody. I always enjoyed sitting in the ALPA office and listening to them get Velguth riled up.

 

[Cruise]

That's interesting, because I've seen -FZRA a *lot* in the last couple of months (check out the current TAF's for KAUG and KSYR, for example). Our FOM changed recently (sometime within the last two years maybe?) to specifically allow us to operate in light freezing rain. I wonder if TAF's/METAR's have used the "light" designation more to allow more flights to go.

I think that's EXACTLY right. People generating the TAF/METAR understand that if they don't include the 'light' designation.....lots of money is going down the drain because of canceled/ diverted flights.

Here's a question......

I've looked through our winter operation manual and nowhere did I find anything to determine intensities of FZRA. For SN....the chart is there as a function of temp., vis., and day/night to determine intensities.

Anybody know how to determine the intensities of FZRA????

The reason I ask this, is a couple weeks ago in LGA it was FZRA, in my opinion(and the FO's), it was at the very least moderate intensity w/ occasional heavy. However, the entire time the ATIS was broadcasting light. We waited it out for a little while, got deiced and launched once, in my opinion, the intensity decreased to light. I'm certain(IMHO) the controllers at LGA purposely kept the ATIS 'light' the entire time to keep operations moving in/ out of the airport.

 

[BeechBoy]

I've looked through our winter operation manual and nowhere did I find anything to determine intensities of FZRA. For SN....the chart is there as a function of temp., vis., and day/night to determine intensities.

It's kind of funny that you bring this up. There have been times it was snowing so hard in Milwaukee that visibility was down to 1/2 mile. Using the chart we have for determining snowfall intensity this would be classified as "heavy". ATIS, no surprise, was broadcasting "light snow". On average the airport would shut down for an hour for snow removal, then it would open for 15 minutes, then have to shut down again for another hour for snow removal. Yeah, that sounds like "light" snow to me .

I'm not sure but they may do this with visibility, too. One night we were returning to MKE and the TAF was obviously blown. Visibility was supposed to be >6 but when we checked ATIS it was 1.25. As we approached, the RVR reports kept going down, down, down until the magic 2400 where it remained (convenient, huh?). We shot the approach down to minimums (had to go down to 100 above TDZE) got the runway in sight and landed. The visibility was so bad I could barely see the taxiway exit signs. I almost had to make my FO get out and lead the way with a white cane! As we were taxiing to the ramp (with the same atrocious visibility), ground control was advertising "RVR better than 6,000" :insane:.

With the best of intentions I made an illegal landing and only realized that I clearly busted visibility minimums after I was on the ground and saw for myself how bad the vis was. (If there are any Feds reading this the above confession was coerced after 16 straight hours of interrogation, beatings, and electro-shock treatment and cannot be used in a court of law :nana2.

 

[SoCalAprch]

They always will give you just what you need to get in. In CVG a couple weeks ago they even asked someone what they needed to get in, a couple seconds went by a viola, new atis and the guy continued and landed :crazy:

One thing I learned on IOE is that if you are asked about something there are not too many times where anything is severe. Never call severe icing unless you think planes will start falling from the sky. Had some 172 driver call severe icing and had to sit on the ground and wait for a PSA plane to call it light to get the airmet changed. Took a two hour delay and once we got off only the computer knew there was Ice, no build up on the wipers or anything and the weather was deteriorating. And WTF was a 172 doing in severe icing?

 

[chrisdahut1]

They always will give you just what you need to get in. In CVG a couple weeks ago they even asked someone what they needed to get in, a couple seconds went by a viola, new atis and the guy continued and landed :crazy:

One thing I learned on IOE is that if you are asked about something there are not too many times where anything is severe. Never call severe icing unless you think planes will start falling from the sky. Had some 172 driver call severe icing and had to sit on the ground and wait for a PSA plane to call it light to get the airmet changed. Took a two hour delay and once we got off only the computer knew there was Ice, no build up on the wipers or anything and the weather was deteriorating. And WTF was a 172 doing in severe icing?

lol that's quite a predicament. While light aircraft aren't approved into areas of known icing, it's possible to inadvertently fly into an area of unknown icing. Here's what sucks...severe icing is defined as an accumulation of ice that ice protection systems fail to remove. Since a C-172 has no ice protection systems outside of windshield defog, pitot heat and carb heat, even light rime ice could be considered "severe icing".

At least that's my interpretation. Never really thought about that until now though.

 

[Maurus]

I think that's EXACTLY right. People generating the TAF/METAR understand that if they don't include the 'light' designation.....lots of money is going down the drain because of canceled/ diverted flights.

Here's a question......

I've looked through our winter operation manual and nowhere did I find anything to determine intensities of FZRA. For SN....the chart is there as a function of temp., vis., and day/night to determine intensities.

Anybody know how to determine the intensities of FZRA????

The intensity modifier is for the RA in FZRA. So it is light rain that happens to be freezing. Kind like when you see -TSRA. The FZ in FZRA is just a result of the temperature on the ground I would believe.

 

[JA Yawd Bwoy]

I'm still a PPL working my way up the ladder, but here are my opinions:

This is a disgrace. You had a decision to make and chose to err on the side of safety. That is commendable. I don't believe you should even be held accountable for such a decision, but to be reprimanded and disciplined is unthinkable. Have these people never flown an airplane? You contacted the manufacturer, and they affirmed that you made the correct decision. If the CP has chosen to suspend you, HE is remiss in his duties. I dare suggest that you inform the company in writing that if any further action is taken against you, you will be forced to consider legal action against them, and remind them that the press would just love to hear a story like this. With the recent public awareness of aviation safety, it'll be all over the news.

I would also suggest that you send a letter to your FSDO, as the CP is a required position at a carrier, with a FAR defined role. This is in clear violation of said role. You are in a position to file an official complaint, and that should get the FAA to start an investigation.

On a more positive note, maybe it's a blessing. It never looks good to be fired, but do you really want to fly for a company with this sort of attitude? I doubt a future employee will penalize you for your actions. Going against the grain is one thing. What you did was observe AFM limitations and demonstrate your competence as a commander.

:yeahthat:

Man that sucks dude! I'd say make sure you have as much recording of what the dir of ops and chief pilot have said to you thus far. Written recordings go farther than verbal accounts.

Personally, I'd be asking myself just how bad I want to keep working for these people?

:yeahthat:

I would seriously look for another employer at this point if I were you, so after you WIN the settlement you can still be flying

 

[Cruise]

The intensity modifier is for the RA in FZRA. So it is light rain that happens to be freezing. Kind like when you see -TSRA. The FZ in FZRA is just a result of the temperature on the ground I would believe.

Yep, you're right about the RA being what the intensity modifier is all about. The problem w/ the FZ portion is that in the AIM (7-1-19), it talks about RA intensities in a very ambiguous, subjective manner. This is much unlike SN where intensities are a function of vis./ temp./ day or night....like I mentioned above.

So, this leaves a great deal of interpretation of what's legal and what's not......MOREOVER, what's safe and what's not.

So, this brings me back to my original question of whether anyone knows of a way to determine the intensity of FZRA using objective means?

 

[ljg]

I think the determining factor here when estimating the intensity of rain is if "individual drops are easily identifiable" (light), "not clearly identifiable" (mod), or "not identifiable" (heavy).