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

[does this plane go to paris]

As I read the article I was shocked/amazed that the company would not defend the F/A's but then I realized that this USAirways we're talking about and nothing they do now surprises me. On the other hand, I am curious as to whether Doug used any Company legal advise stemming from his last DUI. He did attend a Company function and he was driving other Comapny officals home. Did LCC cover any of his legal costs?

 

[nycbusdriver]

When I worked the runways snow removal, we knew we would be kept busy when a Continental flight came in. No matter what, there was always a tower call that Continental reported a 'hard brake'(might have been 'brake hard') situation, causing other pilots to refuse to land until the runway is snow-free...which it was, since other jets had landed before them without a tower report.

I think you mean a 'braking nil' report. Some companies caught on to that and allow their captains to use their own judgment if the 'nil' is reported by an aircraft operated by another company. Think what would happen to NWA if, say, a United pilot reported 'nil' to Minneapolis tower and NWA had to hold all their flights due to a competitor's report. It might motivate a NW pilot to go to O'Hare and find 'nil' conditions there.

My own thought is that, if an aircraft reports 'braking nil' and didn't go off the end of the runway or into a ditch, then how did that captain get it stopped and off the runway safely?

Lets not forget that before that jet went down in the Potomac, de-icing wasn't an issue...or so it seems :huh:

It was always an issue, but the procedures and training were sorely lacking until Air Florida sadly lost that airplane leaving DCA.

 

[nic4us]

Not to belabor a point.

If some five year old said there was ice on the wings, then I would check it out, without question, Captain or FO. Show me. It is way too easy to miss things and backup is always appreciated. Any pilot who thinks otherwise is, IMHO, unsafe.

As an issue, likely the FAs saw ice on top of the wings and not the elevator as their normal field of view is rather restricted, they cannot see the top of an elevator (most aircraft).

No this thread is IMHO worth spending time on.

I would venture to guess that at least 15% of the West pilot group is familiar with this incident.

Further, I would say 99-100% of the entire pilot group, East, West, other Airline, whatever, would check out any concerns passengers, F/A's, rampers, fuelers, whoever, voiced about the airworthyness of the airplane they were about to fly.

Does anyone actually think the crew did not inspect the A/C for ice? Does anyone actually think the F/A's had a better vantage point to detect ice than the flightcrew who had all the same advantages and more and then went searching for it? Does anyone think the F/A's have had more training on de-icing procedures, protocols and detection than the Flightcrew? Does anyone believe the FAA would dismiss the violation if they actually had ground to stand on? Does anyone actually believe in the Easter Bunny?(sorry if I ruined it for you)

This story, as it reads in these articles, is little more than a one sided advertisement for the F/A's legal defense fund web site.

 

[UPNAWAY]

There really are only two possible explanations for this weird story.

1) The FO is a crazy loon.
2) This has some real underlining union vs. union procedural infighting (which may explain why the company has stayed out of it).

 

[Dog Wonder]

When the only explanations are crazy people or a union I know we have been diverted to the Sandbox.

 

[sharktooth]

Does anyone actually think the crew did not inspect the A/C for ice? Does anyone actually think the F/A's had a better vantage point to detect ice than the flightcrew who had all the same advantages and more and then went searching for it?

As a crew member, I have to say, I do. Quibbling about whether the part of the plane the cockpit crew inspected did or did not contain ice is not relevant. The cabin crew members can easily view the top of a wing, something not ordinarily viewed by the cockpit crew, unless they consciously make a trip down the cabin aisle(s), inspecting the tops of the wings.

My point is, the cabin crew had to use extraordinary means (white lie) to convince the Captain there was a problem by invoking the specter of "public opinion" before he/she reconsidered. That, and the flight deck crew's bungled participation in the entire episode resulted in this particular incident.

The failure modes invoked by the flight deck crew can easily be overlaid on top of most any other situation. That is what concerns me, the failed policies of the cockpit crew, which seem to have been ignored.

and taking the word of an unknown passenger over that of a cabin crew member about airworthiness? Interesting.

 

[PA18]

There was another famous accident attributed to the lack of de-icing, in 1989, in Dryden, ON.

What strikes me as similar to the incident described in this thread is that in the Dryden accident, a flight attendant, as well as two non-revving pilots, noticed a significant amount of snow on the wings.

However, the f/a decided not to express her concerns to the captain, because of adverse reactions by other company pilots in the past when she had expressed similar concerns. (The crew was also late departing, and had been away from home for six days.)*

The other thing that I noticed is that both the Dryden accident and the subject incident of this thread happened in Canada.

I wonder if, as a result of Dryden, ground staff in Canada have been trained to keep a keener eye peeled for aircraft attempting to depart with potentially contaminated wings, which would have possibly triggered the irregularity report.

Pure speculation on my part, of course.


* (Source: "The Dryden Accident" from "Single Pilot CRM", by Phil Croucher, Lulu.com, 2005)

 

[HP2USFA]

The Captain made no decisions at all during the flight mentioned (the HP flight). He deferred to the FO stating that it was 'his leg'. All interactions between the F/As and the Flight Deck were made through the FO. Who incidentally was scheduled to start his vacation upon returning to PHX.

The Captain has since retired.

And the matter is insane. He wasn't censured, demoted or otherwise reprimanded other than perhaps to take addition CRM training. Any emotional distress is the direct result of his actions or lack there-of. If you don't want your crew to report your actions... don't make stupid decisions that place them in fear of their lives.

Seems pretty simple to me.

 

[flytchick]

Trust me - there is SO much more to this - I could go on for pages - but suffice it to say that the whistleblower protection act does not apply to any of these three individuals. The union, company and FAA are not backing them up. One "white lie" is not at all true. There was more than that. The captain has since retired and therefore is not a party to this lawsuit. What did happen was that the F/O was totally exonerated, NEVER violated or fired and is now seeking restitution and more for what he has gone through. He spent over $21,000 to defend himself. As a flight attendant there are SO many inconsistencies to this story. I am shocked that anyone would "buy" into that blog and donate money. Everyone who has given a dime has been duped. They brought this on themselves by not following the guidelines established by the union, professional standards, flight ops and the company. If they had and had not lied they would have been protected.

 

[flybynite]

As I understand it, AFA has filed a grievance with the company over the legal fees the f/a's have had to shell out.

And you should note that the f/a's were not disciplined in any manner by the company that I'm aware of. If they had failed to do their duties per FAR or policy they would have been.

This sounds more like a personal vendetta on the part of the F/O who got his nose tweaked by the F/a's.

Just my opinion.

 

[sharktooth]

Trust me - there is SO much more to this - I could go on for pages - but suffice it to say that the whistleblower protection act does not apply to any of these three individuals.

Why would it? Perhaps the supervisor who called the FAA, but not the FAs. And hiding behind the, "you are ignorant to information I am privileged to know" should win you no support.

The union, company and FAA are not backing them up.

Why would any of them. Until recently, none of the three suffered "harm". Now, I understand the CWA is taking on their cause.

The captain has since retired and therefore is not a party to this lawsuit.

Retirement shields no one from shirking one's duties.

What did happen was that the F/O was totally exonerated, NEVER violated or fired and is now seeking restitution and more for what he has gone through. He spent over $21,000 to defend himself.

Ahem, it seems there is a difference of opinion as to whether the "gentleman" was violated. Exactly how was the FO "exonerated"? Generally, there is restitution of some kind involved.

They brought this on themselves by not following the guidelines established by the union, professional standards, flight ops and the company.

Exactly, which or what "guidelines", did they not follow?

If they had and had not lied they would have been protected.

It seems that if they had not "lied", they, as well as quite a number of others, might well have died. I suppose that the non-rev crew-member who violated company directives by leaving his seat and, gasp, calling the cockpit on the inter-phone about an incorrect flight control configuration as a 737 took the runway in CLT, is also not entitled to protections because he violated "guidelines"?

 

[Pi brat]

As I understand it, AFA has filed a grievance with the company over the legal fees the f/a's have had to shell out.

And you should note that the f/a's were not disciplined in any manner by the company that I'm aware of. If they had failed to do their duties per FAR or policy they would have been.

This sounds more like a personal vendetta on the part of the F/O who got his nose tweaked by the F/a's.

Just my opinion.

FBN,

What I said before seems to be true, that there was much more to the story. Bottom line to me is did the airplane get deiced or not? If so, is should have never made it to the FAA.

 

[Dorf]

Bottom line to me is did the airplane get deiced or not? If so, is should have never made it to the FAA.

And that is probably why the FAA didn't find them "guilty" of any violation, they finally deiced the aircraft before they departed. No ice, no violation. If they had not de-iced, and there seems to be reports of contamination(F/A's, ground handling personel, etc.) which would have gotten them in trouble with the FAA, or so it seems.

Dorf

 

[flybynite]

FBN,

What I said before seems to be true, that there was much more to the story. Bottom line to me is did the airplane get deiced or not? If so, is should have never made it to the FAA.

Yet they are being sued for "defamation".

I'm by no means a lawyer but I thought you had to prove malice to make a case.

And this guy is trying to hang these f/a's out to dry to the tune of 2 million dollars.

 

[jetjok1]

I was thinking the same thing only Idon't know enough about precedures to make an intelligent comment.

With all of this negative press coming after a huge positive I would think US would get this crew in a room, read them the riot act, make everyone whole financially and have them sign a non disclosure and move on.

Pb,

Makes sense to me but you don't know this management. When they think in terms of common sense or do what is right, give me a call. I work for them and I have seen any of that yet!!