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

[nic4us]

You are correct. I fail to understand your comment.

Ok, so you are not an airline pilot.

But I did sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night!

 

[cactusflyer]

galley princess-
We don't have nearly as much interaction with out pilots as we used to, but for the most part they are a good group of people. There are a few jerks, but they truly are just a few. Compared to the east, we are a small bunch in Phoenix and as such we have all gotten to know each other over the years. Rarely do I fly with a FD that I have never flown with before. There was a time, before they mixed equipment types for FA's that we kept our FD for the whole trip. I always get a briefing because if they don't initiate, I ask, but that is just me. I've never had a FD discount anything I've brought up to them regarding noises, smells or other things that may have been noticed by myself or the other cabin crew.



On another note-
The aforementioned FO has a no-fly list that is a bit lengthy so it seems his CRM issues aren't isolated to just the cabin crew. How he expects his attorney to convince a jury of lay people that what the FA's did was wrong and that they "defamed" him is beyond me. You can bet the defense attorney will be point at the Hudson flight as a prime example as to why a cabin crew can potentially play a large part in ensuring pax safety. If I were those three, I would counter sue him for court costs. To boot, the company has an obligation to pay for the defense of these flight attendants....it was their supervisor that called the FAA. Instead she should have called over to the chief pilots office and let them initiate an internal investigation. But then again, could a, would a, should a....hindsight is always 20/20.

 

[sharktooth]

But I did sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night!

Sigh.

I guess that is the difference between a professional pilot and a wanna be. Had you any experience in modern jets, you would never have made those incorrect comments about "de-ice" fluid.

I guess experience does mean something.

 

[sharktooth]

With three to five legs (different cabin crew on every leg) a day, and factoring in at least one or two bag drags with 50 minute turns, it is not unusual (speaking as a pilot) to arrive at the airplane in the middle of the boarding process.

Not to contradict you or make waves, just curious.

There are several FAA documents that reference the need for a qualified individual (normally taken to be a pilot or mechanic) available (taken to be close proximity, on or about the aircraft footprint) whilst an airframe has an engine (APU) running and passengers are aboard. I wonder if this is addressed in the west operation? (Yes, I know there are a few FAs that know how to operate an APU). I also know this is not a high priority in the east, but, it seems that if this "insufficient" turn time becomes a regular occurrence, then there might exist a regulatory framework that can be used to "pushback" against management.

 

[ableoneable]

Not to contradict you or make waves, just curious.

There are several FAA documents that reference the need for a qualified individual (normally taken to be a pilot or mechanic) available (taken to be close proximity, on or about the aircraft footprint) whilst an airframe has an engine (APU) running and passengers are aboard. I wonder if this is addressed in the west operation? (Yes, I know there are a few FAs that know how to operate an APU). I also know this is not a high priority in the east, but, it seems that if this "insufficient" turn time becomes a regular occurrence, then there might exist a regulatory framework that can be used to "pushback" against management.

This week's procedures call for the APU to be shut-down and the aircraft to draw its power from the gate.

However, even when APUs were generally left on it was permissible (Airbus only) to board/deplane with no APU qualified personnel in the vicinity of the airplane. The airbus APU auto shutdown/auto firefighting feature was approved by the FAA in leu of qualified personnel.

 

[nic4us]

Sigh.

I guess that is the difference between a professional pilot and a wanna be. Had you any experience in modern jets, you would never have made those incorrect comments about "de-ice" fluid.

I guess experience does mean something.

That was a joke, get it?

I am a West airbus captain, have over 20 years in transport aircraft, although I would only consider the last 12 to be in a "modern jet".

Since you seem to know more than me about aircraft performance and de-icing procedures, please feel free to instruct me as to the proper procedures if we ever encounter a situation in which you feel the aircraft may need to be de-iced.

 

[nycbusdriver]

Not to contradict you or make waves, just curious.

There are several FAA documents that reference the need for a qualified individual (normally taken to be a pilot or mechanic) available (taken to be close proximity, on or about the aircraft footprint) whilst an airframe has an engine (APU) running and passengers are aboard. I wonder if this is addressed in the west operation? (Yes, I know there are a few FAs that know how to operate an APU). I also know this is not a high priority in the east, but, it seems that if this "insufficient" turn time becomes a regular occurrence, then there might exist a regulatory framework that can be used to "pushback" against management.

The Boeing fleet is also authorized to have the APUs run unsupervised. The system is self-protective if there is a problem, and that self-protection feature has been certified by the FAA.

I seriously doubt that many, if any at all, F/As "how to operate an APU." (Well, maybe the occasional F/A who is also a licensed pilot or mechanic and has taken an interest in such things.) Even if they knew how to start it, I don't think they know how to establish air conditioning and electrical power from it once it is running. Besides, they are not authorized to operate any cockpit controls to the best of my knowledge.

 

[ableoneable]

The Boeing fleet is also authorized to have the APUs run unsupervised. The system is self-protective if there is a problem, and that self-protection feature has been certified by the FAA.

I seriously doubt that many, if any at all, F/As "how to operate an APU." (Well, maybe the occasional F/A who is also a licensed pilot or mechanic and has taken an interest in such things.) Even if they knew how to start it, I don't think they know how to establish air conditioning and electrical power from it once it is running. Besides, they are not authorized to operate any cockpit controls to the best of my knowledge.

We were and are not authorized to do this in the 737 because, though it will auto shutdown if there is a fire, it will not auto extinguish.

 

[sharktooth]

The Boeing fleet is also authorized to have the APUs run unsupervised. The system is self-protective if there is a problem, and that self-protection feature has been certified by the FAA.

I seriously doubt that many, if any at all, F/As "how to operate an APU." (Well, maybe the occasional F/A who is also a licensed pilot or mechanic and has taken an interest in such things.) Even if they knew how to start it, I don't think they know how to establish air conditioning and electrical power from it once it is running. Besides, they are not authorized to operate any cockpit controls to the best of my knowledge.

Actually, I only implied a few FAs know how to shutdown and fight a fire and not start and provide services. If you trust the Boeing system then go ahead and run for your commute. Personally, I will stay and make certain every one of our charges are safe, first.

 

[sharktooth]

The Boeing fleet is also authorized to have the APUs run unsupervised. The system is self-protective if there is a problem, and that self-protection feature has been certified by the FAA.

I seriously doubt that many, if any at all, F/As "how to operate an APU." (Well, maybe the occasional F/A who is also a licensed pilot or mechanic and has taken an interest in such things.) Even if they knew how to start it, I don't think they know how to establish air conditioning and electrical power from it once it is running. Besides, they are not authorized to operate any cockpit controls to the best of my knowledge.

Yeah, the Titanic was certified as unsinkable.

 

[flytchick]

My reference to "respect" was in direct reply to Flybynight's acusation that the "pilots at America West do not RESPECT their F/As".

I agree one should only have to respect the job and not necessarily the individual. But it helps to consider the individual.

Something that may not be understood is that applying de-ice fluid to an airplane actually deteriorates its preformance. This is of course prefered to the diminished preformance of having ice adhering to the airplane, but measureabley less favorable than flying a clean aircraft.

So what I am speculating is that the pilots almost did not de-ice because the airplane did not require it. The pilots changed their mind and de-iced, not because they believed there was a physical presence of ice on the airplane, but that de-icing was the most expeditious way of placating a cabin crew, who may or may not have been acting professionally. That after such a large issue had been made as to wether or not there was ice on the airplane, that the best course of action was to have the airplane de-iced.

Further, I am speculating that F/As, especially those who have worked in F/A training, who feel that they know more about cold weather operations than the combined knowledge of two pilots, might just get their feelings hurt when they are told otherwise. If this hypothetical F/A then sought retribution by seeking the discipline of those pilots, well that would amount to harm and defamation.

This whole incident could have simply ended at the application of de-ice fluid but was pushed by which involved party?

The only reason that this flight went back and de-iced was because the flight attendant's lied to the pilots and told them that passengers were complaining about ice on the wings. In depositions it was proven that the crew was not negligent and that the plane DID NOT NEED to be de-iced. The FAA exonerated them, the company did not even have them go back for additional training, and the f/o spent over $21,000 of his money defending himself. The flight attendants, instead of letting it go following the de-icing, immediately went to the FAA.

Also in the New Times article Paula Walker is quoted as saying she was a trainer. Well she was and it was for ------ CRM! Seems she would have had some other techniques besides LYING that she could have used to convery her concern of her PERCEPTION of a contaminated wing.

 

[N965VJ]

<SNIP> the f/o spent over $21,000 of his money defending himself.

Of that $21,000, how much was he reimbursed by ALPA?

The flight attendants, instead of letting it go following the de-icing, immediately went to the FAA.

So the media is wrong in stating that it was a FA Supervisor that took the matter to the FAA?

 

[flytchick]

Of that $21,000, how much was he reimbursed by ALPA?

Not sure about that.


So the media is wrong in stating that it was a FA Supervisor that took the matter to the FAA?

YES - someone I am flying with this month knows her and that is what she told them when this all happened - it has only recently been "modified" for whatever reasons..... but you can probably guess.

 

[sharktooth]

YES - someone I am flying with this month knows her and that is what she told them when this all happened - it has only recently been "modified" for whatever reasons..... but you can probably guess.

Rather than, he said, she said, perhaps you should ask her to ask her who the supervisor's name was that blew the whistle.

I would suggest that any gossip, and that is certainly what it is, should be ignored. The article was quite explicit. Perhaps you should ask for a retraction/correction?

 

[flybynite]

It wouldn't surprise me if the supervisor in question no longer works for US. Or maybe, I should say HP because this happened prior to the merger.