"US Airways flight attendants spoke up - and face trial"

[Sally4th]

Words fail me, but thats probably a good thing with this touchy subject-

US Airways flight attendants spoke up - and face trial
By Simon Hradecky, created Thursday, Jan 29th 2009 18:16Z, last updated Thursday, Jan 29th 2009 18:18Z

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 three flight attendants have set up a website asking for donations to fund their legal defense at: http://www.helpflightattendantcrew.blogspot.com/

Source The Aviation Herald

 

[HPearlyretiree]

The story is also in today's Phoenix New Times http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2009-01-29/...ne-was-at-risk/

Brian Shunick was working a flight I was on last week, he is a good guy and a damned good FA, as are the other two in this suit.

I can't understand why the captain filed a lawsuit, seems cut and dried to me. They reported, it was the Captain's job to listen, and they DID find icing on the wing. The FA's should be lauded, not sued.

 

[UPNAWAY]

The story is missing the most important part. Why/what is he suing for? Is he claimineg they harmed his carrer?
If the incident is what is truley reported this isn't going any where.

 

[N965VJ]

Looks like somebody’s going to be getting his own cokes for the rest of his career, that is if the FAs let him in the galley.

 

[flynomore]

The flight attendants are part of a crew led by the Captain. The old AWA manual system included the standard statements about the Captain's orders are to be obeyed. Then I read this in the article:


[First Officer] Gannon acknowledged that he did, ultimately, observe a "small patch of ice on the right wing." And he did, eventually, decide it was "best to err on the side of caution by having the aircraft de-iced."

He admitted to violation of the clean aircraft concept in company manuals and federal regulations. Bad move for F.O. Gannon. Strange that the Captain is no where to be seen in this article or complaint. Once that admission was in, I am surprised the FAA didn't pounce.

 

[vsi0]

Are west based FAs trained on de-icing procedures? What happens if they don't like the thread on a tire? It's my understanding that a entire east cabin crew was fired for not liking the tire thread.

 

[Crzipilot]

Not knowing this particular situation, I won't comment on it in particular, BUT f/a's may not be officially trained on deice procedures....but when they look out the window, and they see something fishy. I would much rather they call up front and say something. In fact had one do that xmas morning, at a station that was contracted out, got sprayed by two trucks, had comms......trucks said a/c was clear, good to go. F/a calls up....kinda panicky....is deice done?? 'cause there still stuff on the wings. Long story short, we end up back at the gate...and when outside to look....there are multiple places on the wing tail, engines etc...still impacted severly with snow and ice.......pretty crappy.......f/a may have saved many fatalities....including mine.....on Xmas morning....

 

[N965VJ]

<SNIP> What happens if they don't like the thread on a tire? It's my understanding that a entire east cabin crew was fired for not liking the tire thread.

Never heard of that one.

A game of Jet Roulette gone bad perhaps?

 

[flybynite]

Hats off to the f/a's for doing their job. This is what CRM is all about.
One should always err on the side of caution.
Maybe the AFA can help these f/a's.

 

[sharktooth]

Looks like somebody’s going to be getting his own cokes for the rest of his career, that is if the FAs let him in the galley.

You know, if the FAs, as a group, had any integrity, all would refuse to fly with both cockpit personnel until the company resolved the situation.

By taking the stand they did, the company is saying, we do not want you to blow any whistles. If you do, we will not support you, effectively chilling an important role for all crew members.

IMHO, this is a safety of flight violation and the company should make their policy quite clear over this. Telling "white lies" to get someone in authority to respond to a potentially fatal situation is all a part of negotiation. It is too bad some employees are not responsive to fellow employees and need that extra "shove" to render the proper decision, but they exist in any organization.

Heck, if the company did not support any employee who told a "white lie", the executive staff would be gone yesterday.

 

[vsi0]

@'Crzipilot'

Of course we could tell stories until there is a pilot contract at LCC. That does not change the fact that the implications in the original story is "two airline pilots knowingly wanted to fly an airplane that required de/anti icing". The actions as described in the article I find hard to believe.

Of course F/A should report any and all concerns to the front end -- which they don't do often enough in my experience. But once the call is made, then you can accept it or bail on the flight -- no harm no foul.

On a side note, I've never had a tire changed after reporting it to maint. Unlucky I guess.

 

[Zarah]

You should not be sued for speaking out to the FAA.

 

[Pi brat]

You should not be sued for speaking out to the FAA.

I think there must be more to this story. I applaud the F/As for doing the right thing and speaking up, but if the capt. complied, why go to the FAA? After some resistance, CRM worked to produce the right outcome, why run to the FAA. Thats why I wonder about "The rest of the story".

 

[flybynite]

As I understand it, the f/a went to their inflight supervisor to talk about it and they ( the supervisor)made the call to the FAA.

 

[Crzipilot]

I think the article also said tha the rampers/deice crew filed an irregularity report with the airport??? As they saw ice, and the front end said NO we don't need deice. think they were covering their butts as well...