US Airways flight attendants spoke up - and face trial

derg

Apparently a "terse" writer
Staff member
US Airways flight attendants spoke up - and face trial

By Simon Hradecky, created Thursday, Jan 29th 2009 18:16Z, last updated Friday, Jan 30th 2009 20:27Z

Three US Airways flight attendants are facing a law suit filed by their pilot collegue demanding 2 million US$ in compensation for defamation, after they spoke up before departure on Jan 24th 2003, when they noticed ice accumulation on the wings of their airplane, which was to perform flight America West HP-851 from Calgary,AB (Canada) to Phoenix,AZ (USA). It took the common effort of all three flight attendants and three attempts, before the flight crew unwillingly agreed to de-ice the airplane. The airplane reached Phoenix on time and without incident.

The flight attendants reported the case to the FAA, which dropped proceedings against the pilots in 2006 stating, that they couldn't substantiate the allegations even though that doesn't mean, that they wouldn't believe the flight attendants. The first officer, put in charge by the captain to decide about de-icing, hired an attorney to represent him before the FAA, which cost him around 21000 US$. The first officer filed a law suit requesting 2 million US$ from the flight attendants in 2006.

US Airways let the flight attendants know, that they are on their own for that law suit, and wouldn't carry the bills for legal representation, even though they were on duty and following required crew cooperation procedures to ensure safety of flight.

Unknown to the flight attendants, Calgary Airport had filed an irregularity report as well, as ground staff had observed contamination of the wings and approached the flight crew asking, whether de-icing would be needed and received a blunt no.

The first officer admitted in a court deposition into the trial against the flight attendants, that there was frost on the wings of the aircraft indeed, but denied, that they were approached by the flight attendants until after having pushed back.

Contaminated wings have been cause of many crashes in the past. It is therefore required, that wings must be free from any contamination before takeoff.

The Aviation Herald has grave concerns about the repercussions, that this lawsuit filed by the first officer has with regards to future safety of flights.

Which flight attendant or passenger would dare to speak up in the future and insist, that rules are being followed for example on de-icing, if possible "retaliatory action" by flight crew is to be feared?

Would any flight by such a pilot in the future be safe at all, as he appears to have effectively shut down any query of/contradiction to his actions in the future? Where are the principles of Crew Resource Management and Safety First?

FAA spokesman Ian Gregor told The Aviation Herald seeking additional comment on the questions above, that the FAA has no authority over civil lawsuits even though safety issues may be touched, which also means, that the whistleblower act does not apply to civil lawsuits. The FAA will not follow up on this matter due to lack of legal authority, concluding "filing a civil lawsuit does not violate any Federal Aviation Regulation."

Hmm...
 
Don't know who was right or wrong in this instance because I wasn't there. I do know that "required crew coordination" procedures will take a massive hit because "USAir has informed thee FA's that they are on their own". The FA's, rightly or wrongly, thought they were complying with the rules of their job. USAir, by allowing the FA's to go it alone defending themselves, has potentially put a major chill on the next FA that sees something they are concerned about. My view is that you either have a policy where all crew input is welcome or you don't.

USAir seems to be an incredibly gutless company. Corporate has not seemed to take a side in the East vs. West battle, they don't back up the FA's who are being sued by a pilot, they don't give the crew credit for the Hudson ditching (at least the initial press conference) and I am sure the list would go on. Doug Parker seems to be paticularly adept at getting DUI's, but not much else.

Just my opinion. The behavior of airline executives (Arpey and his bonuses, Parker's gutlessness and DUI, Tilton's destruction of United) are particularly disgusting. Is it possible that an airline could have someone that actually has a backbone, operational intelligence, and financial acumen? Also, were airline executives in the past better, or did regulation of the industry simply cover for a lot of mismanagement (thinking TWA's forays into various non-TWA businesses like hotels, etc).
 
IMO, I would trust the pilots judgement on whether the aircraft needed de-icing or not over the FA's.

Advising the flight crew is one thing. Insisting and demanding is another, and then going one step further and reporting it to the FAA is a whole other thing.

I dont think US Airways should be responsible for the legal fees of the Flight Attendants.
 
Since the plane was deice, we will never know the "what if" of that situation. Beware of pilot arrogance in a situation like that. To dismiss a suggestion from you FA just because they are FA's is dangerous. I am not sure of a FA work schedule, but I would imagine they log more time in the air than pilots do. There are a lot of younger pilots out there flying around, and then you have a FA who has been in the business a lot longer than they have. The FA is a part of your crew, CRM extends to them as well. Do not dismiss one of your most valuable assets because of their duty. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Keep the shiny side up!:rawk:
 
Weeeeeeeeeell, it was written in a single perspective so perhaps the word arrogance may be a little strong.

I did have one freak out about oil on an 737-200 engine once. I went back to take a peek at it, it was a standard condition, I talked to her about it, she screamed at the captain when my explanation didn't suffice and she wanted off the airplane.

Ooook!

BTW, when the right engine on a -200 doesn't have a little oil on it, it generally means that it's probably OUT! ;)
 
Since the plane was deice, we will never know the "what if" of that situation. Beware of pilot arrogance in a situation like that. To dismiss a suggestion from you FA just because they are FA's is dangerous. I am not sure of a FA work schedule, but I would imagine they log more time in the air than pilots do. There are a lot of younger pilots out there flying around, and then you have a FA who has been in the business a lot longer than they have. The FA is a part of your crew, CRM extends to them as well. Do not dismiss one of your most valuable assets because of their duty. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Keep the shiny side up!:rawk:

I did not mean to imply that pilots are arrogant. I just said that its the Captains call, if he didnt think the plane needed to be deiced then I would trust his opinion over the FA's. Sure FA's are part of the crew and their advice should be considered, but to demand and then report something to the FAA because the Captain and FO disagreed is a whole other thing.
 
I dont think the FA should have acted like they did. They should have just informed the pilots because it is there final decision anyways.
 
Since the plane was deice, we will never know the "what if" of that situation. Beware of pilot arrogance in a situation like that. To dismiss a suggestion from you FA just because they are FA's is dangerous. I am not sure of a FA work schedule, but I would imagine they log more time in the air than pilots do. There are a lot of younger pilots out there flying around, and then you have a FA who has been in the business a lot longer than they have. The FA is a part of your crew, CRM extends to them as well. Do not dismiss one of your most valuable assets because of their duty. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Keep the shiny side up!:rawk:

I agree the 'crew concept' must extend to the FA's. The "one man show" was tried in the 60's--it failed. My philosophy is that anyone can vote "no go", but everyone must vote "go". The captain must consider all sources of input--if someone on the crew feels like it's a "no go", the issue should definitely be resolved if at all possible before proceeding.
 
Seems kind of strange that now it's the pilots suing. If in fact they needed to de-ice, but chose not to and only upon the flight attendants insistence did so, why wouldn't they just drop it? I wouldn't want to keep incident alive via a lawsuit if I was the one to screw up.

I see a difference between a FA bringing something to my attention and insisting upon something which she may/may not be qualified to judge. I'd be thankful if the FA brought wing on the ice to my attention after the FO missed it....and I've said it before, they miss it. But if there was water on the wing that looked like ice, and the FA insisted that we need to deice, that's a different story.
 
The Captain to this day still has the final say, and I believe in this concept. He is in command of the aircraft and bears the ultimate responsibility.

He should use all he has available including the FA's however he still has the final say and if he disagrees with the FA's then thats that and I would trust his opinion over the FA's. If the FA feels so strongly about it she can choose to get off the plane and explain her problem to the company. There is no need to throw a hissy fit and then inform the FAA. There are other ways to go about things, and IMO the pilots are in the right in their law suit.

These are US Airways captains, not GoJet Captains, you wont normally see an inexperianced captain flying for US Airways.
 
I think that's an excellent point. All crewmembers should feel like they have a voice in safety. Nearly this exact thing happened to my old CFI when he an RJ CA at Chicken Taco, except the people speaking were DH pilots from Comair.
 
Are you $*#&ing kidding me? I confess I've never gone through Flight Attendant training, so maybe there's a unit in there on complex aerodynamics and ice detection. If not, shut up and get me some coffee. Crew concept is great, but I think it's generally meant to appliy to people trained to be part of the crew for the task at hand. How far does this go? Should doctors make sure the orderlies agree with their diagnosis? Engineers defer to draftsmen? Flight Attendants are professionals, too, and part of being a professional is recognizing what your duties are and aren't. I don't tell you how to use the galley, don't tell me how to fly the plane.
 
Sorry Boris, wrong answer. There was a very well recognized incident at USAirways ( East ) where a flight attendant saved the day by speaking up. The flight was about ready for takeoff when a flight attendant noticed a flight spoiler in the up position. He quickly alerted the crew, who decided not to takeoff. The spoiler had a mechanical fault and was in the up postion with the spoiler handle down. This could have severely affected control of the aircraft in it's extended position.

At my airline we are required to acknowledge the concerns of the FAs or pax in regards to ice on the wings. We must perform a visual inspection if anyone in the cabin has expressed a concern. Whether or not we de-ice is still up to us.

I would say that it is imperative as a pilot to make sure everyone is in agreement as to the need to de-ice or not. That's just good CRM. If the captain has a good reason to not de-ice and explains it to the crew that should suffice.

If you've ever flown the Fokker 28 or DC-9-10 then you might have some knowledge into the adverse affects of even 1/32nd of an inch of contamination on the leading edge. Fully 5% of all DC-9-10s have rolled inverted and crashed on takeoff as a result of leading edge contamination. There have been two high profile Fokker 28 crashes in similar situations. Icing is not something to be taken lightly.



Typhoonpilot
 
Sorry Boris, wrong answer. There was a very well recognized incident at USAirways ( East ) where a flight attendant saved the day by speaking up. The flight was about ready for takeoff when a flight attendant noticed a flight spoiler in the up position. He quickly alerted the crew, who decided not to takeoff. The spoiler had a mechanical fault and was in the up postion with the spoiler handle down. This could have severely affected control of the aircraft in it's extended position.

At my airline we are required to acknowledge the concerns of the FAs or pax in regards to ice on the wings. We must perform a visual inspection if anyone in the cabin has expressed a concern. Whether or not we de-ice is still up to us.

I would say that it is imperative as a pilot to make sure everyone is in agreement as to the need to de-ice or not. That's just good CRM. If the captain has a good reason to not de-ice and explains it to the crew that should suffice.

If you've ever flown the Fokker 28 or DC-9-10 then you might have some knowledge into the adverse affects of even 1/32nd of an inch of contamination on the leading edge. Fully 5% of all DC-9-10s have rolled inverted and crashed on takeoff as a result of leading edge contamination. There have been two high profile Fokker 28 crashes in similar situations. Icing is not something to be taken lightly.



Typhoonpilot

I think you missed the point. An FA can ADVISE the pilots and let them make the decision on what to do.

What an FA should not do is freak out after the pilots disagree with her and then call the FAA in. Like I said if she felt that strongly about it she could have gotten off the plane and then explained her feelings to the company.
 
Most of my point was, if you are going to have a program in place regarding crew coordination and allow them to have a voice, then all parties must comply. There must be something in place where the FA's can speak up, but also understand who has final say. The bad part about this story is that the FA spoke up, the FO had to defend himself for $21k, now the FA's have to defend themselves. If you are going to have a company encouraged program, but then leave the employees to pay their own expenses for complying with it, then it isn't much of a program.

1) Have a program that is clear, with accountability items.

2) Don't have a program.

All the present system seems to have done is generate legal expense for the individuals as well as bad publicity for the airline. Again, I place the blame on leadership.
 
I think you missed the point. An FA can ADVISE the pilots and let them make the decision on what to do.

What an FA should not do is freak out after the pilots disagree with her and then call the FAA in. Like I said if she felt that strongly about it she could have gotten off the plane and then explained her feelings to the company.

^ This is what I should have said. I recognize the need for open paths of communication and the danger inherent in a tyranical attitude. I also recognize the need for authority. Not for its own sake, but because just as certainly as bad things happen when there's one unquestioned dictator, they also happen when there's no leadership and no clear delineation of responsability.
 
This really is a tough situation, because while I obviously wasn't there to witness this specific situation, those F/As must have been pretty sure of what they were seeing. F/As are not stupid. Ones that have been around a while have seen a lot. I've even flown with MANY F/As who are also pilots! I do not know the individuals in this case, their backgrounds or how long they have been flying.

It does ultimately come down to one person having to have the final authority over the operation of the flight, and that one person is, of course, the CA assigned to that flight.

I know it sounds like Monday-morning-quarterbacking to say this, but if it was me, I would explain my concerns to the CA in a non-confrontational way, not using emotion but facts of specifically what I was seeing that is raising my concern. If the CA decides to ignore the logical presentation of my concerns, that is his/her decision, and I as a F/A do not have the authority to demand anything other than demanding to be let off the plane. If I felt my life was in danger by an unsafe operation of the flight, I would do just that... BUT please believe that I would really have to believe my life was in very real danger in order to actually take it so far as to walk off my duty assignment, it's NOT something I would do on a whim or without serious deliberation.
 
I know it sounds like Monday-morning-quarterbacking to say this, but if it was me, I would explain my concerns to the CA in a non-confrontational way, not using emotion but facts of specifically what I was seeing that is raising my concern. If the CA decides to ignore the logical presentation of my concerns, that is his/her decision, and I as a F/A do not have the authority to demand anything other than demanding to be let off the plane. If I felt my life was in danger by an unsafe operation of the flight, I would do just that... BUT please believe that I would really have to believe my life was in very real danger in order to actually take it so far as to walk off my duty assignment, it's NOT something I would do on a whim or without serious deliberation.

Very well said.
 
USAir seems to be an incredibly gutless company... they don't give the crew credit for the Hudson ditching (at least the initial press conference)

Don't quote me on this but I think that has more to do with the fact that the "official" results aren't out yet.
 
Back
Top