Pilots not allowed to have enough fuel?

[nycbusdriver]

The FAA has even said it sounds like an issue between the company and the pilot's union. They only give it a smidge of concern because they have to take any safety concern seriously even though they know this is typical union tactics during contract negotiations.

The FAA is the biggest joke of the airline industry. This is a cop out that they've used many times before and in the process put the flying public at risk. During the Frank Lorenzo tenure of EAL, the pilots wrote up many blatant maintenance violations which, with even a smidgen of FAA investigation, would have shown that corners were actually being cut. But, in typical fashion, the FAA just wrote it off as "labor problems" and not worth their time.

One instance that comes to mind is a writeup of the cabin floors in a 757. The floor was bowing down whenver anyone walked over it. The pilots wrote it up and some maintenance stupidvisor pencil-whipped it. The FAA refused to investigate even when the IAM mechanics made it clear that there was damage to the supports underneath that needed fixing. The FAA didn;t want to hear any of it; "strictly a labor issue" was their cry.

The FAA is easily one of the most inept, bumbling bunch of yahoos ever to grace the aviation scene. They're politicos and nothing more.

 

[N965VJ]

<SNIP> Just because a captain thinks he has the authority to grope a flight attendant doesn't make it right.

Oh, Gloria Holtz doesn’t mind, especially after Mr. Holtz was diagnosed with ED.


This post is double ROT-13 encrypted to abate the snoops in Tempe.

 

[Phoenix]

The president of the dispatchers' labor group said Thursday that the charge by pilots is "nothing more than hot air."

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080717/pilots_fuel.html?.v=2

The president of the dispathers' labor group didn't even address the correct question. He showed he doesn't even understand the problem.

The company has accused 8 pilots of demanding too much fuel for a flight and have subjected them to "special training" on the apparent premise that they ARE requesting too much fuel for a safe departure. The relevant question is "Are pilots egregiously demanding too much fuel to conduct a safe flight?"

You will be hard pressed to find a particular dispatcher responsible for a particular flight who will accuse the pilot (responsible for the same flight) that the pilot is requiring too much fuel for a safe departure.

 

[Phoenix]

Sure, he has the "authority" to make the decision while the flight is in operation (pre-flight, in-flight and post-flight), but his actions are subject to review.

Bingo. You win the prize.

What due process of review occurred prior to the punitive, remedial training? If the Captain requires additional training then company has a legal responsibility (authority) to administer it. And just like the pilot's actions are subject to review, the exercise of company authority to administer remedial, punitive training is also subject to review.

The company evidently proved unwilling to disclose or prove their justification for remedial training for these 8 pilots. If they can disclose it or prove it, now would be a good time. Better late than never.

 

[Phoenix]

Hi Oldie.

I have a question if you don't mind.

Is the quoted remark the full issue, or is another issue that if the pilots are in a training environment that the FAA can make an unannounced visit and if the training being received by the pilot is contrary to the FAR's, the IOM and any other pertinent requirement that the pilot and his/her license was now in potential jeopardy? I thought I had read that somewhere and, if true, it makes a compelling argument to me.

Thanks.

Hi HP,

Oldie has proposed the essential question in its entirety. You have pointed out plausible negative consequences if we all agree to answer Oldie's question by saying, "No. Captains, based on experience and education, do not have the authority to add a few minutes extra fuel for contingencies."

Punitive, remedial training (absent a proved abuse of that Captain's authority) necessarily asserts a "NO" to Oldie's question, with the possible negative consequences you have pointed out. There are many more negative consequences of much greater concern that could follow. One or two pilots loosing a license is pretty small in the big picture.

The question that Oldie has identified must be unequivocally answered in the affirmative.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

Hi Oldie.

I have a question if you don't mind.

Is the quoted remark the full issue, or is another issue that if the pilots are in a training environment that the FAA can make an unannounced visit and if the training being received by the pilot is contrary to the FAR's, the IOM and any other pertinent requirement that the pilot and his/her license was now in potential jeopardy? I thought I had read that somewhere and, if true, it makes a compelling argument to me.

Thanks.

It's both. I must emphasize that the FAA is not really a threat, per se. If you're doing everything the correct way, as everyone is attempting to do, you have nothing to worry about. One could have a "bad day", I suppose. I perceive the issue to be the APPEARANCE of the company intimidating captains into accepting something which is not within their "comfort factor". While legal and sufficient to get the job done if everything goes as planned (which does not always happen), Captains need to be able to factor in experience into the formula.

I must also add that no pilot I know of enjoys being "under the gun" in the simulator, so just being put into that environment can be perceived as punitive.

IMHO, neither the company nor the pilots are seeking to do anything unsafe here as far as operation of the airplane is concerned, but if the company wants to reduce the number of diverts for additional fuel they need to allow the Captains to make logical additions. IF and note, I used a BIG IF, anyone is intentionally burning fuel in some misguided attempt to cost the company money, then they should be disciplined. NO ONE has made that allegation, besides a few outsiders on other websites, that I know of.

 

[USFlyer]

Bingo. You win the prize.

What due process of review occurred prior to the punitive, remedial training? If the Captain requires additional training then company has a legal responsibility (authority) to administer it. And just like the pilot's actions are subject to review, the exercise of company authority to administer remedial, punitive training is also subject to review.

One day, company paid training is not punitive.

 

[Phoenix]

.. IF and note, I used a BIG IF, anyone is intentionally burning fuel in some misguided attempt to cost the company money, then they should be disciplined. NO ONE has made that allegation, besides a few outsiders on other websites, that I know of.

From the USAPA Presidnet's message, 10 July.

As you most likely know by now, Management has picked out eight senior US Airways Captains, seven B-767 International, and one B-767 Domestic, for a day of "training" that includes classroom and simulator work. These pilots were singled-out for no other reason than adding what amounted to be 10-15 minutes of arrival fuel on certain flights, which were almost entirely Atlantic Ocean crossings.

 

[Phoenix]

One day, company paid training is not punitive.

Being paid to participate has no bearing on its nature.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

Being paid to participate has no bearing on its nature.

True. The folks that make license plates get paid, but you can bet they'd be somewhere else, given the choice!

 

[nycbusdriver]

One day, company paid training is not punitive.

If it's on one of your precious few days off it is.

 

[hp_fa]

Thank you for the replies.

 

[Phoenix]

True. The folks that make license plates get paid, but you can bet they'd be somewhere else, given the choice!

Yes. Even so their actions led to their incarceration, and is arguably justified. At the conclusion of their sentence, can we just double their pay and make them stay.

 

[ussnark]

His/her actions are subject to audit and review. These are normal checks and balances. The pilot is not a "god" who can never be questioned. NO ONE has a job like that, they don't exist.

Suppose a pilot decides to fly to LGA in lieu of EWR, on his "final authority", just because he didn't want to fly to EWR. Are you telling me this is ok? Of course not. Suppose a pilot opts for enough fuel to fly PHL-LAX when he's simply flying PHL-PIT. Is this ok? Of course not. Sure, he has the "authority" to make the decision while the flight is in operation (pre-flight, in-flight and post-flight), but his actions are subject to review.

Sir, you are confusing authority with responsibility.

 

[PHLFlyer]

Let's say that I'm a lead flight attendant and am constantly popping slides during my safety checks which cost the company a lot of money. My reason being is it's the safest way to know if they really work. Don't you think the company has the right to call me in, retrain me on my doors and also question my actions to find out if I know something that they don't.

I do not know who these pilots are. Maybe they do have the best and safest intentions in mind, But if not then what harm is it to find out.

The pilot I talked to was merely questioning their true motives becuse he knows some, that would be SOME pilots, do engage in intentual fuel burning and they have been reported and called-in in the past

It's a shame USAPA is using this issue under the guise of captain's authority to scare our customers and crew into thinking they may not be safe on our own airline.

If they are doing nothing then let's find out. Those pilots should share what they know because maybe my captain tonight will put on less fuel because of something he wasn't aware of.