Bumblebee
Commodore
or worse . . .it beats the alternative of flying in SLD and getting your card pulled for a violation.
or worse . . .it beats the alternative of flying in SLD and getting your card pulled for a violation.
Just out of curiousity the company only has 6 days left so what all happens to your CP & DFO do they go the way of the rest of Skyway? Will the suspension even exist on a record in a week? I think some one already asked or said it, but did you talk to your POI or MKE FSDO about the -FZRA issue prior? Sorry for the 20 Q's, but this just is a double slap in the face for you I hope it gets resolved. Have you found a new job yet? Hopefully you do and one where they encourage a safe decisions.
Just a couple of thoughts.
1. Usually when they want to fire you it is because they want you gone and have for a while. Do you have a reputation?
2. Did you discuss the decision to return to your departure airport with your dispatcher? If you have one you should have.
3. What was the actual wx at the time of your approach? I don't mean the ATIS as that can be 1 hour old or more. Was there freezing rain/dz at the time of your arrival?
4. The decision is ultimately the captains but that does not mean it can not be questioned. If you have a reputation of making "bad" decisions according to your employer then you need retraining and/or more experience.
If your employer can only attract relatively low time pilots then they get exactly what they paid for. You made the right decision based on the information you had at the time because it was YOUR decision to make. Even if 99/100 pilots would do something different, if YOU don't feel comfortable then YOU made the right decision.
My advice would be to document as much as possible and get experts to defend you.
Good luck.
The CP already has a job offer with Airtran.
he specifically pointed out that he was displeased that I shared my "outside information" and "personal opinions" with dispatch.
Forcasts are BS but the actual is very important. Do you have a copy? If not, get one.3. They were just about to change ATIS as we were getting in range. The brand new ATIS also was broadcasting -FZRA (this condition continued until approx 9pm - the incident took place at 2pm).
I too believe you were 100% correct IF you can produce the document that says it is prohibited. That should be your get out of jail card.4. I agree 100% that they have the right to question the decision. The thing that's frustrating is that the manufacturer says, "Takeoff into freezing rain, including light freezing rain is not permitted". How much clearer does it need to be. Instead of admitting they were wrong they just say that they disagree with that interpretation of the warning and will attempt to get it retracted. Also, I've spoken with 3 former research pilots from NASA who have extensive experience doing icing research (they fly the Twin Otter in those NASA training videos). All three of those guys said that I absolutely did the right thing and that even "light" freezing rain has plenty of moisture to potentially cause very serious trouble.
I agree with your comment about 99/100 pilots doing something differently. In ground school certain limitations are highlighted as being especially important and must be committed to memory (i.e. airspeeds, ITT limits, etc). This icing limitation was not among them. I just happened to stumble across it when I was browsing the AFM. I'm sure there are pilots at Skyway who are not even aware of it or, if they are, are not fully aware of the danger that SLD icing can cause and decide to play the odds. Thus we've created an environment of, "we've always done it that way". (Funny how they actually use that lame argument as an excuse).
Buddy, you may have just won the Lotto jackpot. American Eagle fired a pilot in 1996 for essentially the same thing. In 2000 a jury awarded the pilot $10,000,000. Your DO and CP are tools and are going to cost the company far more money than you cost it in lost revenue for the flight.
The company is ceasing to operate. By the time a case winds its way through the system, there will be no company to get any money from.
B-Boy that is a sorry act by your company. A couple of questions to you. 1st) Was there any action taken against the FO on the flight? In the end your PIC and it's your decision but we work as a team up there and the FO's input is just as valuable as the Cappy. 2nd) Is there anything in your FOM/Standz/Ops that says you had to go? You mentioned that the Dornier manual says no flights into -FZRA. Is there something contradicting that in your company manuals? ALPA will be on your side and I don't see anything coming of this except a little egg on Skyway mngt's face.
Boys and girls this is why some sort of representation is very valuable.
I understand why your DO/CP doesn't think that a letter from Dornier Support Services is enough to prohibit flight into -FZRA, but I bet that it will help you keep your job.
BeechBoy help me understand. What does Type IV have to do with landing at your destination? Type IV is only applicable for allowing you to take off. It has nothing what ever to do with flight.
It could be that your DO and CP thought you should have continued to your destination without incident and used the type IV to take off again. This is a totally different question than flight in to light freezing drizzle or rain. Was your problem flying in to -fzdz because you might not be able to take off again? Or was it just flying in to the wx to land at the destination?
BeechBoy help me understand. What does Type IV have to do with landing at your destination? Type IV is only applicable for allowing you to take off. It has nothing what ever to do with flight.
It could be that your DO and CP thought you should have continued to your destination without incident and used the type IV to take off again. This is a totally different question than flight in to light freezing drizzle or rain. Was your problem flying in to -fzdz because you might not be able to take off again? Or was it just flying in to the wx to land at the destination?
BeechBoy's whole point was that a holdover chart has nothing to do with whether a manufacturer says not to fly in certain conditions. Holdover tables aren't even aircraft specific, so if the DO is going to try using the tables for an argument, then he's going to hit a dead end.