Response to USAPA ad in USA Today

[nic4us]

Correct me if I'm wrong pilots ... but didn't Sully rely on a restarted APU for vital control as he performed his power off landing?

It seems to me that the APU would defiantly be a nice option when the chips are down!

Oh man,,,,, oh man,,,,,, oh man oh man.

Okay West posters, please lay off this one!!

No good can come from the response I think some of you are likely to give, and I would like this thread to stay open long enough to find out which usapa com guy gets the axe (Ray or Theur) I am hoping for Theur.

Also, we have yet to see all the evidence that is coming in over whether or not captain Wells knows how the batteries and the hot battery bus are related to the APU and APU starting. The letter Hogg wrote seems to imply somebody really screwed the pooch, and may have thrown a temper tantrum over faulty equiptment, not realizing the faulty equiptment was sitting in the left seat.

 

[necigrad]

ROA, the APU, while a turbine engine, does not provide any thrust. It provides some electricity and I THINK hydraulics, as well as run the AC packs. I believe Sullys intent on starting the APU (and I am GUESSING) is that it's best to have whatever power you can get in an emergency. I think (not even 50% on this one) that it's also part of the engine out checklist. The RAT (Ram Air Turbine) that 700 mentioned is a small foldup propeller designed to provide some hydraulic power to operate the flight controls in the event of an emergency. It's located on the bottom of the fuselage. On the A320 series you'll find it near the left main gear, I believe slightly aft.

Relying on the information that is made public is relying on two biased partial stories. I'm pretty sure that one story is close to 100% correct, and while I have an opinion I'm not positive which side it is. That's why I post my list of questions, trying to understand the facts.

 

[crazystnic]

Correct me if I'm wrong pilots ... but didn't Sully rely on a restarted APU for vital control as he performed his power off landing?

I dont' think Sully got the APU running..

 

[luvthe9]

Rumor has it, that the Captain was removed from premises, not for her refusal to fly the jet, but for her over the top rants on the A/C PA, followed by her similarly manic display on the gate PA once inside the terminal. That is why it seems odd.

usapa is only telling a very small portion of the story, and they are only telling the part that fits into legitimizing their illegal job action.

Your rumor. Nice try. She acted completely professionally when pressured by the airline to take the jet. Obviously she made the correct decision seeing the battery was tanked, and there was no APU.

 

[luvthe9]

Let me see if I'm extrapolating the FACTS about this incident correctly:

• The APU would not start
• The Hot Battery Bus was dead
• Said battery was drained by repeated APU start attempts
• The MEL list permits ETOPS operations with an INOP APU
• The MEL list permits ETOPS operations with an INOP Hot Battery Bus
• The MEL list permits ETOPS operations with both the APU and Hot Battery Bus INOP

Is this summary correct? Which are wrong if not? I'm trying not to prejudge, but make an honest assessment of the facts, without USAPA or US Airways misrepresentations.

And the west idiots and USA 320 boil this down to a rant from the captain. She did exactly the correct action. The APU was enough to start the line of questions. The hot battery bus issue sealed the deal. The aircraft was in question immediately with these two issues.

 

[luvthe9]

Gee, I didn't know that the APU provided thrust to the aircraft in the event of an engine failure.
(Although Boeing did consider a proposal for the B777 whereby the APU would be a smaller third engine to provide additional thrust.)

So Reminds Jester.

P.S. What's that annoying insect buzzing sound after your post?

The issue was never thrust. It was all about having available electrical power.

 

[Art at ISP]

In a day and age when the answer to most controversies is "plausible deniability", I smell something funny here.

First of all, is there is any shred of truth to the story as represented by USAPA, then heads should roll in Tempe.....and believe me people will find out--somehow.
Also, knowing Tempe's track record for truth and honesty, their rebuttal is a little too strong to be 100% believable. Couple this with Doug's rah rah article on safety in this month's magazine (which is VERY out of place for a CEO article), it just APPEARS that where there is smoke there is fire.

Now with all that said, I have serious concerns about USAPA turning this fiasco into a labor/management issue in a ploy to get contract negotiations going again. On this issue, regardless of the veracity of the story itself that is just plain wrong. It almost seems like USAPA is TRYING to force US Airways out of existence....which benefits NO ONE.

At the end of the day, I believe this will sort itself out, but there is wrongdoing on BOTH sides of this incident/issue as I see it... One needs to remember that to most people, Perception is Reality.....and the perception here is NOT too good....

 

[SparrowHawk]

So what are we drinking this afternoon?

Sadly Nothing!

As Art said, there is an awful lot of smoke being generated from Lack of Credibility Land, aka 1111 Rio Salada Drive, Tempe, AZ.

Just like in the movie I mentioned regarding contaminated water. If the power company knew the water was safe their legal team would have drank it down. They didn't.

So why not apply the same standard and see what happens? Next time a similar or exact version of the event. Why no hold the flight and the Pilot in Command says "I'll fly it, just as soon as either DP, SK or RI ride with me" If the execs decline, than the PIC does likewise. Sauce for the goose and all of that.

 

[N924PS]

That and the Ram Air Turbine.

Because Sully started the APU and the possibility there was enough engine rotation to power the accessories (Both engine IDG's)
ensuring all electrical buses remain powered, the RAT never deployed.

FYI-

http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2010/AAR1003.pdf

 

[roabilly]

Because Sully started the APU and the possibility there was enough engine rotation to power the accessories (Both engine IDG's)
ensuring all electrical buses remain powered, the RAT never deployed.

FYI-

http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2010/AAR1003.pdf

That was my understanding as well... the RAT never deployed. Even it had, was there enough airspeed and time for it to make a difference?

That brings me to this question... if the APU on 1549 had been MEL'd would the results have been the same?

 

[nic4us]

Your rumor. Nice try. She acted completely professionally when pressured by the airline to take the jet. Obviously she made the correct decision seeing the battery was tanked, and there was no APU.

Did you read Hogg's letter regarding this incident? The airplane returned to service after having the batteries replaced. Further, the batteries were tested, found to have no faults and returned to service. Airbus was consulted and confirmed that the airplane was functioning as designed. So, in essence, no maintainence was required to fix the jet, because it was not broken.

Now I don't know about the 330, but assume it is similar to the 320 that I do know a good deal about. What
I would ask would be, did the batteries have the required min voltage to begin with, and was any attempt made at charging the batteries with ground power prior to attempting to start the APU as procedurally called for?

Regardless, as I have said numerous times, I still support Wells in her decision not to go flying. If things were not working to her satifaction, irrespective of the cause, the safest decision is to not go flying until all issues are resolved. So, yes she made the correct professional decision. However, the rumor of her behavior is pretty strong. I have never heard of a pilot being forceably removed for a command decision, but have seen numerous occasions where inappropriate behavior called for the drastic measure that was used in this instance.

Also, my biggest heartburn over the entire deal is not Wells' role, but usapa's. Airing this in the public forum of the full page ad is about the stupidest thing they could have possibly done. Especially if it turns out Wells did not know how to operate her jet.

So, if it turns out usapa backed the wrong horse, how do they retract their malicious ad, that has already done irreparable harm? How does the company protect itself from a run amok idiotic association that has now twice used this tactic?

Firing Ray or Theur isn't enough. The company really needs to petition the NMB, and see if there is something they can do regarding having usapa either lose its representational status, or placed into some kind of trusteeship.

 

[nic4us]

And the west idiots and USA 320 boil this down to a rant from the captain. She did exactly the correct action. The APU was enough to start the line of questions. The hot battery bus issue sealed the deal. The aircraft was in question immediately with these two issues.

Being one of the "west idiots", I would like to ask, how many such incidents have happened on the West in the past 6 years?

The other thing Hogg's letter said, is that we are all going to get to do distance learning over this incident so that the east can learn how to operate their jets correctly.

 

[Phoenix]

...

Regardless, as I have said numerous times, I still support Wells in her decision not to go flying. If things were not working to her satifaction, irrespective of the cause, the safest decision is to not go flying until all issues are resolved. So, yes she made the correct professional decision. However, the rumor of her behavior is pretty strong. ...

Yeah real strong. The only thing stronger than the rumor is the predisposition and desire on the part of some to start them, propagate them, or believe them. But what again does it have to do with the professional decision she (and a crew after her) made, as you have acknowledged?

...
The company really needs to petition the NMB, and see if there is something they can do regarding having usapa either lose its representational status, or placed into some kind of trusteeship.

Are you willing to serve as the trustee? Or do you have to decide what kind of trusteeship is necessary first? Please get back to us soonest.

 

[700UW]

They also replaced a control board on the APU, it wasnt just a battery change.

It doesnt take seven hours to change two A/C batteries.

 

[nic4us]

Yeah real strong. The only thing stronger than the rumor is the predisposition and desire on the part of some to start them, propagate them, or believe them. But what again does it have to do with the professional decision she (and a crew after her) made, as you have acknowledged?




Are you willing to serve as the trustee? Or do you have to decide what kind of trusteeship is necessary first? Please get back to us soonest.

So tell me Phoenix, why do you think Wells was removed from premises? Because she refused to fly? Have you ever heard of that happening before?

Was the crew after her removed from premises? Why not? What did the second crew do to get the issue resolved rather than themselves booted out the door? I suppose I should have said, what did the second crew NOT do?

My intent of brining up the rumored behavior (which all the circumstantial evidence seems to support) was to show just how idiotic the reneging malcontents running usapa are for placing the ad.

Like I said, my beef is not with Wells refusing the jet, or even any breakdown behavior. My beef is with the idiots at usapa constantly promoting a completely false platform that leads to people like Wells thinking the company is out to get them because the union isn't allowed to scab its own costituents jobs. Get it yet? You are not getting DOH, usapa is operating in an illegal fashion, and nobody is willing to help them except the union busting little lawyer who has gotten rich over your emotional reaction to our predicament.



I can't be the trustee. I have a conflict of interest. I want the scumbag union gone!!