Suspended!! (unfortunately, this is not hypothetical)

Here is my question and I spologize if it is stupid. My understanding is that this gentleman works for a carrier that ceased operation in the near past (last week I believe).

If he was "suspended" and now the carrier is defunt and not operating, does he have to tell everyone he interviews with that he was "suspended" at his last carrier and tell this story? Is there anyway he can get this overturned on his record? It would absolutely suck for him to have this follow him around on his record and not have the ability to have it overturned.

Sorry of this was an ignorant question - just wondering about the scenario. Sounds like good judgement was used.
 
WacoFan said:
Here is my question and I spologize if it is stupid. My understanding is that this gentleman works for a carrier that ceased operation in the near past (last week I believe).

If he was "suspended" and now the carrier is defunt and not operating, does he have to tell everyone he interviews with that he was "suspended" at his last carrier and tell this story? Is there anyway he can get this overturned on his record? It would absolutely suck for him to have this follow him around on his record and not have the ability to have it overturned.

Sorry of this was an ignorant question - just wondering about the scenario. Sounds like good judgement was used.
Click to expand...

Skyway's flying is not done until the first week of April. The pilots have 4 weeks to go yet.....
 
Here's some clarification on what exactly is meant by the warning in the AFM. To save you the time of scrolling back to the original thread I'll post the warning below:

"WARNING: Severe icing may result from environmental conditions outside of those for which the airplane is certificated. Flight in freezing rain, freezing drizle, or mixed icing conditions (supercooled liquid water and ice crystals) may result in ice build-up on protected surfaces exceeding the capability of the ice protection system, or may result in ice forming aft of the protected surfaces. This ice may not be shed using the ice protection sytems, and may seriously degrade the performance and controllability of the airplane."

The above warning is required by an AD as a result of the ATR that crashed in Roselawn, IN. It's required for all aircraft with deicing boots and unpowered controls.

The head of Skyway's safety department did some research and found some information that sheds light as to what the FAA's intent was with this warning. Here's the link: http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulator...CE4EBD1269CF04AC86256A22006FECBF?OpenDocument

Comment #4 contains this wording: "These AD's do not prohibit flight into forecast or reported freezing rain or freezing drizzle. This means that the aircraft is not prohibited from takeoff, dispatch, or release simply because the forecast may indicate freezing rain or freezing drizzle, but is prohibited from continued flight in severe icing conditions."

The purpose of the AD (and the warning that it requires) is not to prevent flight into freezing rain/drizzle but to give pilots clear warning signs of when they are in severe icing conditions (the warning continues to list these warning signs - ice buildup aft of protected surfaces, ice buildup on side windows, etc). Before this warning came out, pilots may have seen ice on the side window and not recognize that this was a warning that ice is also accumulating aft of protected surfaces.

If I had been aware of that I would have flown the airplane into -FZRA with a clear conscience and not felt that I was taking an unreasonable risk with my passnegers' lives.

However, there's a fly in the ointment. Remember the e-mail I got from Dornier, the one that said, "Takeoff into freezing rain, including light freezing rain is not permitted"? Now, despite the fact that the AD doesn't prevent takeoff (or landing) into known freezing rain, the Type Certificate Holder says we can't do it! Now what???

Skyway sent a VERY pointed e-mail to Dornier 328 Support Services essentially demanding that they retract that statement immediately. Dornier's response: "If there is evidence of freezing drizzle and freezing rain (= severe icing conditions) a take off/flight is prohibited."

I'll admit that, after reading the FAA's intent with the AD, I'm a bit puzzled as to why Dornier is so adamant about not flying the 328 into FZRA. Nonetheless, the fact remains that they clearly say, "Y'all better not go there!".
 
I'm not really sure what they're doing right now. My guess is that their main priority right now is keeping Dornier's prohibition about operating in freezing rain a secret.

My ASAP report on the incident has been accepted and my ALPA attorney thinks that will be a barrier to any disciplinary action by Skyway.
 
If your ASAP has been accepted, then you should be golden. Any discipline would be a violation of the ASAP MOU that the company has with not only with the union, but with the FAA.
 
We had a couple of guys ice up a tail real bad the other day for similar reasons (snow through that melted then refroze), and it almost killed them. You are in the right. Those poor bastards ran out of nose down trim. They were scared ####less, and had to wait for the ice to subliminate in the climb to get out of trouble. You did good.
 
I would guess this has been asked before but why would you want to continue working for this company? There would have been smoking footprints as I hit the front door running if I had this happened to me!
 
Codyjp said:
I would guess this has been asked before but why would you want to continue working for this company? There would have been smoking footprints as I hit the front door running if I had this happened to me!
Click to expand...


It was the Airlines Formerly Known as Skyway.
 
My understanding was that the company had suspended him, and he was appealling. In the meantime, SkyWay goes TU. SO, when he applies to another airline, does he have to report that he recieved discipline at this job, even though he was appealling the suspension when the company ceased operating?

I certainly hope this does not follow him around - he seemed to make a good decision.
 
BeechBoy said:
For those of you who have been following my thread on freezing rain in "Technical Talk" the issue reared it's ugly head again today. To make a long story short I was flying from Milwaukee to Dayton. Freezing rain was in the forecast so I suspected there might be trouble. Sure enough ATIS was broadcasting light freezing rain at the surface and the forecast said there was more to come for the next several hours.

Due to the warning in the AFM and several conversations I had with the icing experts at NASA I elected to return to Milwaukee. The Director of Operations suspended me and is going to try to get me fired.

I've already talked to our ALPA rep, the FSDO, and NASA and have their support when the battle starts. I was just wondering if there's any further advice anyone can give me.

Thanks!
Click to expand...



Does your ops specs allow you to land in LIGHT freezing rain? Most do. I think your company has a point if your ops specs allow you to operate in conditions that you decided to not even attempt.
 
With all the information present, sure, they could have "a" point. Our friend got a bad feeling in his gut about freezing weather and decided not to continue. Not only is that siding with safety, the ops manual for the 328 is very confusing about freezing rain. So, when the company confronted him about his decision, he not only had Captain's authority on his side, he had NASA and what's left of Fairchild backing up his decision. They decided to suspend him based on THEIR interpretation of the manual. Does that sound like good judgement? Not to me. It sounds like they were just angry. I would laugh anyone out of my sight if they tried to tell me a manual said I can fly in freezing rain so I should have gone.
 
I think that a more "seasoned" captain would have continued that flight and made an uneventful approach and landing.
 
UPSpilot said:
I think that a more "seasoned" captain would have continued that flight and made an uneventful approach and landing.
Click to expand...
Certainly, a less conservative captain would have. Or, possibly an equally seasoned and more careless captain. I don't know . . . there are probably situations I would avoid more readily than checkairmen I respect, but I'm certain if I made a judgement based safety and upon my understanding of the FOM/SOP and could back it up, my company wouldn't roast me for it.
 
UPSpilot said:
I think that a more "seasoned" captain would have continued that flight and made an uneventful approach and landing.
Click to expand...

How many "seasoned" captains, who want do silly things like keep their tickets and not break planes/people, would go and deliberately do something after the manufacturer tells them "DON'T DO THAT?" I think that is called a limitation. The DO might as well have told him to take off 10,000 lbs over gross.

UPS...if you are one of those "seasoned" captains and you are flying for Big Brown, please stick to flying boxes.
 
deadstick said:
How many "seasoned" captains, who want do silly things like keep their tickets and not break planes/people, would go and deliberately do something after the manufacturer tells them "DON'T DO THAT?" I think that is called a limitation. The DO might as well have told him to take off 10,000 lbs over gross.
Click to expand...
This is cool . . .:) more of a discussion on the issues.

deadstick said:
UPS...if you are one of those "seasoned" captains and you are flying for Big Brown, please stick to flying boxes.
Click to expand...
this is kind of unnecessary:whatever: more of a personal attack.
 
UPSpilot said:
I think that a more "seasoned" captain would have continued that flight and made an uneventful approach and landing.
Click to expand...

Are you serious??? I hope you're kidding. Is that not the "invulnerability" attitude we warn private pilots about? If the manufacturer of the aircraft says it's not to be done, I don't know how much more clearly DON'T DO IT! can be said.
Sure you MAY get away with it once, or even a few times, but if an accident happens the pilot will have no one to blame but themselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top