Accountable but not Paid

Imagine, for a moment that you're at the airport. You were going to be taking a late night flight home to visit your folks. However, tonight, you now find yourself standing next to a podium at a gate. Everyone is looking at you. The gate agent is handing you a pile a papers and opening the door for you to walk down to the aircraft. You have no idea what is going on. As you reach out to take the papers, you notice stripes on your sleeve. You are the pilot. See all those people around the gate? They were your fellow passengers. You are now their Captain. They are now your passengers. You are now in charge of the safe operation of an aircraft transporting all those people to their destination. As you walk the door to the jetway, you catch a glimpse of your reflection in the glass and your heart sinks. "They made me wear the damn hat, too."

You get down to the aircraft early to start the long list of preflight items. Something isn't as it's supposed to be. You now have a maintenance issue. The delay begins. The gate agent is pissed because she wants to board the passengers. Why is she pissed? Because if the flight goes out late, and she can't put down that someone else caused it to be late, she gets chewed out by her boss. So, when maintenance finally calls operations and tells them the fix will take a while and not to board passengers, the gate agent calms down. This is classic. It just shows that they don't actually give a flying crap if the flight actually goes out on time or not. They are ONLY focused on not having any fingers pointed at them for it. Since this is officially a maintenance delay now, they are no longer under threat of discipline from their superiors and they become pleasant again.

Now comes something everyone hates. And aircraft change. Since it will take some time to get your original aircraft fixed and there is another aircraft open, operations has decided you will take that one instead. OK, no problem.

You gather all your things and walk down to the new gate. It all starts over again. All the paperwork you had is now useless. All the preflight checks you did before, are all to be started again on the new aircraft. You step aboard the new aircraft and what do you find? Maintenance is already here! Yes, the plane came in with it's own issues and they are trying to get that plane fixed for you to take. You get the feeling that it's going to be, "one of those days."

Rampies begin to unload the passenger bags from the first aircraft and then reload them on the new aircraft. They hate doing the same work twice. I don't really blame them. It's cold outside and I wouldn't like it either.

Now, while your Flight Attendants are now going through all their preflight checks again, making sure the emergency items are there, and getting the cabin cleaned up and straightened up, your first officer is walking around the outside of the aircraft. Your crew is trying to get the flight going to get the passengers where they are going.

Then, a rampy comes up to the flight deck asking if you have the bag count form from the other aircraft. You explain to them, "No, we are not allowed to keep any of the old paperwork." Why is this? Well, with the delay some people choose not to take the flight or try to get listed on other flights on other carriers. Their bags will be pulled off. Also, since the flight is going out later now, there might be some people that will now making the flight from a late inbound connection. Those bags will be added. Either way, both scenarios are very real and that means the bag count will not necessarily be exactly the same for the new aircraft.

Then, all the passengers start boarding. The gate agent hands you a HUGE pile of papers that you and the first officer are now trying to sort through. The flight plan, weight and balance information, performance data, must all be reentered into the aircraft computers. Then, a different rampy comes up to the flight deck with a question. "Do you guys have the bag count from before?" You have more than a few things to do, and you're annoyed that you are being re-asked the same question from just a few minutes ago. After all, they should KNOW that you can't keep any of the old paperwork. You get the feeling they just didn't do their job and recount the bags. However, you maintain a professional attitude and restate once again that you do not have the bag count from before as you are not allowed to keep anything from the old aircraft.

You continue to work and get everything set for flight. Passengers are all aboard now, you get a new fueling slip, you get additional weather information from the gate agent and you start on the long checklists to verify everything is ready and set up for the flight. This is now when the THIRD rampy comes up to the flight deck and says words you just can't believe. "Do you guys have the bag count from before?" NO, damnit! We don't keep anything! We aren't allowed to keep anything!! Do your god damn job!! In the time you keep talking with each other, and repeatedly asking us if we have the old one, you could have just recounted all the damn bags and been done anyways!

No, I didn't actually say that. But, I can't describe how much I wanted to.

Added: THIS could be what happens if the ground crew and the flight crew don't resolve differences in paperwork concerning bags/cargo.

You take a few deep breaths and continue. The flight attendants inform you that all the galley carts are still on the old plane and have not been transferred to this aircraft. So, you call operations. They inform you that the catering people who had placed all the necessary carts on the first aircraft have now gone home for the night. So, we say, "It's only four gates away. Can't you get a couple of operations folks to wheel them through the terminal and get them on here so we can go?" The answer you are then given is, "Uhhh... yeah... I guess we could do that..." Wow. You're not only the person with the most to do, but you appear to be one of the only people without an Inter-Rectal Cranial condition, or IRCC.

Then, while in the middle of getting all of the paperwork sorted, you catch something. Remember how maintenance was already on board when you got to this new aircraft? Well, they were not able to "fix" the issue, but it wasn't something critical to safety or anything, so the system is just disconnected and then "deferred." This is by no means abnormal, so no big deal. However, this deferral needs to be reflected in the new paperwork. (Depending on the system being deferred, there can be operational and performance considerations that need to be accounted for.) You double check the new paperwork. Nope. It's not there. So, you have to scrap all that new paperwork now and tell the gate agent you need new paperwork. You start to think, "Will this ever end??"

As pilots we are responsible for safe operation of an aircraft. We are responsible for the safe transportation of all the passengers wanting to take this flight. The most annoying part is that we are responsible for everyone else's work as well. It doesn't matter how much of a crap storm is going on with all the other things going on, if other people screw up their job and we don't catch it, it's our fault. When things are running late, everyone is push push push push on the crew, trying to get the flight out. However, it's IMPERATIVE in times like this for the crew to not get rushed, not get emotional and just slow down to make sure they don't miss anything. This is the job I signed up for, so this isn't a revelation.

However, this particular evening, something else dawned on me. During this whole circus, everyone was on the clock, but the flight crew. Hmmmm...... Those who are ultimately responsible for everyone else's job, are the only ones not being paid. The rampies were on the clock, even though they didn't want to redo the bag count. The gate agent trying to push and get us out (which is really at odds with us being able to slow down and catch everyone else's errors) was on the clock as well. The operations people who decided on having us swap aircraft were on the clock. The fuelers were on the clock. Everyone else involved in the whole effort was on the clock. Yet, until the door was closed and the parking brake was released for pushback, the flight crew (including the flight attendants!) were not being paid!!

Doesn't sound quite right, does it?

Good airport resources

Here's a few great resources for you travelers out there.

http://www.airportterminalmaps.com/
I see countless passengers who haven't a clue on how to get around an airport that they are in. Being a pilot, when I ever fly into a new area, I always take the time to learn the airport layout, services and frequencies. Works well to minimize confusion. I highly suggest passengers do the same. This site gives terminal maps for all major air carrier terminals in the US.

http://www.travelpost.com/airport-wireless-internet.aspx
We indeed live in a wireless society anymore. Most airports have wifi internet access. Some want you to pay, while others provide it for free. Can I keep track of what airport has what? Not a chance. Here's an extremely comprehensive list of all domestic airports and their wifi services.

http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/waittime.shtm
Isn't it awesome to show up 3 hours early, only to sit at the gate waiting for about 2.5 hours? I'm always a fan of being early rather than late, but here's a good place to see what TSA wait times are at various airports. Of course, this information is being provided by the TSA, so please accompany usage with a grain of salt. (Note: this page on the TSA site is currently under construction.)

http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/prohibited/permitted-prohibited-items.shtm
Here is the place I direct people to in order to stay up to speed with the latest (and greatest) TSA regulations for what is allowed and not allowed through an airport security checkpoint. This site is from the TSA people themselves, so it's as good as we can hope to get for what they will actually allow or not allow. This site even shows what items are allowed in carry on luggage versus checked bags.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Stool_Scale
Ever wonder what your poo is trying to tell you? Are you constipated? This simple chart will help you categorize just what kinds of poo's your having! An invaluable resource!

Got any other good resources you'd recommend? Send em in!

More TSA issues

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,583739,00.html

I don't even really know where to begin on this one... The one thing I am very happy about is that this douche nozzle was fired from the TSA for his "joke." Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a good joke, but this was completely out of line and unprofessional. Just even more proof that the TSA really needs to elevate their hiring and training standards.

Perspectives

US Airways Express runs off the end of runway in Charlotte, WV.
http://www.wvgazette.com/News/201001190526

Some of you may have seen this in the news, however it didn't get all that much attention. I'm quite shocked by this considering that lately you can't fart on an aircraft without 7 news reporters there to cover the action.

"Roger Fuddlebottom here, at the center of the blast scene! I can't tell if the tandori chicken was to blame or perhaps the beef and cheese enchilada. But, it sure smells like ass! Back to you in the studio!"

"Thank you, Roger, for that epic report. Stay tuned for more details as this flatulation terror story unfolds, here on Browneye Witness News."

So, in case you hadn't heard, there was a regional jet (CRJ200) that aborted a take off down in West Virgina. Based on what was written in the above article, no one was hurt. The article isn't bad, however, it only addressed what the passengers experienced. I suppose, that's what most people are looking for anyways in such stories. If everyone lived and no one was hurt, everything must be OK.

From a pilot's perspective, however, we don't yet know if this crew indeed acted correctly. We can say that they didn't screw the pooch. No passengers were hurt or killed. However, they still may have gotten it wrong.

Allow me to explain...

There are two key questions that come about in this case after, "Is everyone OK?"

1.) At what speed was the abort initiated?

2.) What caused the abort?

The first one might not seem to be very relevant to the average person. However, to a pilot, this is extremely important. Perhaps, even more important than even what caused the abort. Like many times before, it will take some time to get there.

First, there are certain speeds that are calculated for each and every take off in the airline world. These are:

V1: Action speed (recently renamed from "decision speed")
Vr: Rotation speed
and
V2: Take off safety speed

In the interest of full disclosure, these are spoken as, "Vee-won", "Vee-Arr" and "Vee-too." V1 is almost always less than Vr, however V1 and Vr can be equal. V1 can never be greater than Vr. V2 is always greater than both V1 and Vr.

A standard take off goes as follows: Accelerate down the runway, reach V1, then Vr. At Vr, begin to pull back on the yoke and raise the nose off the runway, followed by the main gear and you're on your way. You continue to climb while retracting the gear and flaps, etc. That's the basic idea.

Now, V1 is the key here. If you haven't yet reached this speed and a serious malfunction were to occur, the take off can be safely aborted and the aircraft stopped on the remaining runway. (Note: clearways can legally be used here but that's beyond the scope of this post.) If you have accelerated past V1, the take off roll will be continued and the aircraft will be able to continue accelerating to V2, then rotate and leave the ground with the remaining runway, clearing all obstacles, etc, etc. The big point is that after V1, you might not have enough runway to decelerate the aircraft to a stop should you attempt an abort.

This is why runways seem to be longer than needed. With all engines operating, you will have plenty of runway for take off. BUT, the regulations state that you must have enough runway so that you can still safely take off if you lose an engine after reaching V1. Ever hear of an aircraft being "weight restricted?" This doesn't mean that just the weight of a few more passengers will make the aircraft too heavy to fly. It means that the aircraft, at it's current weight, will not meet the accelerate-stop and accelerate-go distance requirements for the given runway and atmospheric conditions should an engine fail at V1.

Now, as many of you know, the FAA seems to be stuck in the past sometimes. (Don't believe me? Take the ATP written exam and see all the questions that mention the DC-3.) The regulations I'm talking about here are based on the worst case scenario being an engine failure at V1. Back in the days of piston powered airliners, this was something that occurred from time to time. It still does occur today, but with extreme rarity. Under part 121, a departing aircraft must be capable of accelerating to V1, losing an engine, and then safely continue the take off with the remaining runway. This is all calculated based on the specific runway to be used, any upslope or downslope to that runway, runways surface conditions, terrain and obstacles (i.e. trees or cell towers) the current wind, temperature and barometric pressure, as well as the specific weight and balance state of the aircraft. (This is why you are asked to be in your assigned seat for take off and landing.)

All these parameters are calculated via a computer program by an airline dispatcher for each aircraft, every time it goes to take off. Ever wonder why the runways are so damn long in places like Dallas? Hot weather lowers engine performance. How about Denver? Higher altitude, hence lower atmospheric pressure, also lowers engine performance. Longer take off rolls are needed and expected.

The general accepted guidance these days is that if you haven't reached 80 knots yet, an abort will be initiated for pretty much anything. (This is considered a low speed abort.) For speeds above 80 knots but below V1, an abort will be initiated for critical things such as, an engine fire, an engine failure, lost of directional control or serious control malfunction. Once you've accelerated past V1, you will be going flying. If something goes wrong after that, you'll likely be coming right back around for an immediate and emergency landing.

The real bastard is when you're accelerating for take off and you're juuuuust about at V1. Lets say that's when the malfunction occurs. Keep in mind it takes a second or two, to process what the malfunction is and what it means. This brings us to that second question. What caused the abort to be made? If all we had to worry about was an engine failure the stay or go decision would be fairly easy. However, the systems on today's jets are far more complex than the regulations would have you believe. This means more caution and/or warning messages can be thrown in the crews faces.

Nearly all malfunctions, including engine failures, that occur at V1 or after, are best handled by taking the aircraft into the air, and either addressing it in flight (where you won't hit things like trees, buildings and mountains) and/or bringing the aircraft in for an immediate landing. High speed aborts are very dangerous. More people have been hurt/killed during high speed aborts than from crashes that occurred after the plane was airborne.

In fairness, I said "nearly" in the last paragraph because there are some malfunctions that do warrant a high speed abort. The trouble is, this must be a SPLIT SECOND decision made by the crew. The closer you are to V1, the more time critical the crew's reaction. Sound tough? You damn skippy! Some people might say it's better to always abort and stay on the ground. After all, it sounds safer and doesn't conjure up horror movie scenes of airliners falling out of the sky on a dark and stormy night. Let me give you an example of why this, as a general practice, is not a good idea.

We're on the runway and the take off roll is underway. The aircraft accelerates past 80 knots and continues to accelerate, all is normal. Just about at V1, there is a caution or warning indication. Some kind of BEEP or DING is heard and flashing yellow or red lights are seen. Lets say the crew pulls the power back and stamps on the brakes. Doesn't sound too bad, right? Now, let's say that warning was for a brake system malfunction.

To continue the take off would be a complete and total non-event. The aircraft would take off just fine and be fully controllable. Then, the aircraft could be landed back at the departure airport, on the longest runway available, or even landed at another airport with even longer runways. Perhaps after getting into the air and running a checklist or two, the brake system can be brought back on line, at least to some extent, facilitating a normal landing. The point is, there are several options available with this course of action.

Aborting the take off in this case, you are now tasked with trying decelerate an aircraft traveling at 150 MPH or more, on the remaining runway, with a compromised braking system. Since the regulations are really only considering an engine failure, the stopping distance calculations are assuming a fully functioning braking system. In this case, the aircraft will very likely be stopping well beyond that.

To argue both sides of the equation, lets say that after V1, the flight controls freeze. In this case, yes, it is better to abort the take off. You are past V1, however, without directional control of the aircraft, it won't fly very well. You will probably run off the end of the runway trying to get it airborne. But at least you will do it at 40 knots, rather than 140 knots.

I must say, I'm quite pleased that the passengers quoted in the article have an appreciation for the split second decision making that is required by a flight crew in such a scenario. It is true that there were no injuries or deaths. So, it's hard for the media to say this crew was in the wrong. The outcome was a positive one.

However, if the abort was made for something silly, then really, the actions of the crew were incorrect. If the warning was for something non critical, the crew should have continued the take off. By aborting the take off, the aircraft was damaged and the runway was closed until the aircraft could be removed. Worse yet, if during the investigation, the abort was determined to have been initiated
after V1 was reached, it would be very hard for the crew to talk their way out of disciplinary action by the company and the FAA.

So, we don't have enough information yet to tell if this crew really got it right or not. We shall just have to wait and see what other facts emerge. And, just in case you were wondering, I am indeed hoping they got it right.

A pilot's job might seem filled with repetition. However, any one of those 1000s and 1000s of flights could be very different from the others. Flight after flight, month after month, year after year, pilots can't let their guard down. This was brilliantly expressed by Deborah Hersman of the NTSB when she recently said, "You never know on which flight your career will be judged."

TSA continued

Here's a quick news clip that was sent to me in response to my last post about our friends at the TSA. It's a good summary on whats going on and whats going wrong. What a found particularly alarming/entertaining is what is stated at 1:21 in the clip. This is an example that truly sums up how this pilot feels about the TSA.

Nothing but the best

Taken from www.aero-news.net

Investigators At A Loss To Explain Alarms And Nausea

The TSA shut down Meadows Field airport (BFL) in Bakersfield, CA, on Wednesday after several bottles of honey set off explosive detection monitors. Two TSA agents were also taken to the hospital after smelling the then-unknown substance and feeling nauseated. "The substances in the bottles did turn out to be honey. They tested negative for all explosives and narcotics. It is nothing but honey," FBI spokesman Steve Dupre told Reuters.

Kern County Sheriff Donny Youngblood reported that the bottles initially tested positive for traces of the explosive TNT. Two security screeners were taken to a nearby hospital for nausea after handling the bottles and reporting a strong chemical odor. They were treated and released. Sheriff Youngblood speculated that the TSA agents may have felt nauseous because they were "just nervous."
The owner of the bottles is gardener Francisco Ramirez, 31, who had been visiting family in CA. After spending most of the day being questioned by police, he was allowed to complete his trip home to Milwaukee after having his honey cleared as non-explosive. There is no word on what may have caused the detectors to set off alarms.

Wow... now THAT'S pretty damn funny, and down right embarrassing to a government organization who is tasked with protecting all air travelers.

Yet, that's not all that's in the news with our friends at the TSA.... How about feeling up small children?

Taken from Wired.com

Eight-Year-Old on TSA Terrorist Watchlist Gets Frisked

Mikey Hicks, a Cub Scout in Camden, New Jersey, is a frequent flyer who can’t seem to get a break because he shares a name with another Michael Hicks who has drawn suspicion from the Department of Homeland Security.

This coincidence has resulted in numerous airport delays for his family over the years.

Mikey, who was born less than a month before the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, received his first pat-down by TSA screeners when he was 2 years old — an experience that left him in tears.

He was recently frisked aggressively when his family flew to the Bahamas for vacation on Jan 2, just days after the so-called “underwear bomber” attempted to ignite explosives on a flight from Amsterdam to Michigan.

“Up your arms, down your arms, up your crotch — someone is patting your 8-year-old down like he’s a criminal,” Mikey’s mother told the newspaper. “A terrorist can blow his underwear up and they don’t catch him. But my 8-year-old can’t walk through security without being frisked.”

Mikey’s mother, Najlah Feanny Hicks, is a photojournalist who was cleared by the Secret Service to travel aboard Air Force II with Vice President Al Gore during the Clinton administration.

She said she wanted to take pictures of her son being frisked at the airport but was told it was prohibited. She said that while her son “may have terroristic tendencies at home, he does not have those on a plane.”

Despite the scout’s years-long harassment, his father, also named Michael Hicks, was never stopped by the TSA until this year, during the trip to the Bahamas.

And just think... as flight crew members, these are some the fine people we enjoy working with everyday we come to work.

Let's also consider something else. "Pilot Stig" will likely be placed on a terror watch list for this, but I'm just going to lay out some facts.

Commercial Airline Pilots:
Qualifications: Commercial or ATP pilot license, 4-year college degree usually required as well. To get a commercial pilot license, you must first earn a private license, then an instrument rating. Then, you can get a commercial single-engine rating. Then, you can work on a multi-engine commercial rating. Many airline pilots have been certified flight instructors as well. Many have 3 additional ratings for this, flight instructor, instrument instructor, and multi-engine instructor. Nearly all ratings require written FAA knowledge tests as well as practical exams. This training can run in excess of $80,000. To be eligible for hire, a pilot will typically have to build between 500-1000 hours of flight time on their own. When hired, the pilot will be type-rated in the aircraft they will fly for the airline. This cost depends heavily on the specific aircraft, but for most regional airlines, this is roughly $25,000 worth of training. Additional written and practical tests must be passed to obtain said type rating. Starting salary: $18,000-$25,000

Transportation Security Officer (TSO):
Qualifications: Applicants must be proficient in English (e.g., reading, writing,
speaking, and listening); and have a high school diploma, GED or equivalent; OR have at least one year of full-time work experience in security work, aviation screener work, or X-ray technician work. Starting salary: $29,131.00 (taken from usajobs.gov)

Interesting comparison, when you think about it...

Seat 3B

Recently, I was on a commute flight home. I was lucky enough to get an open seat in first class. However, I was sitting next to someone I didn't much care for. A very tall, large man, who really projected an attitude. One of those people that have a HUGE chip on their shoulder and want everyone to know about it. This guy also couldn't stand to be 5 minutes without his huge headphones on his head.

As we sat there waiting to push off the gate, I could clearly hear this guy's music through his headphones. I must say, for take-off, this gentleman did turn off his iPod and put his headphones around his neck. I expected him to be more resistant about that given his demeanor thus far. Maybe this guy wasn't quite the douche I thought he was.

Once we got up in the air, his headphones never left his head. He was quite minimalist with all his words to any of the flight attendants, almost a "you're not worthy of my attention" kind of attitude. I can't imagine how much fun it must be to try and provide in-flight service to someone that won't even take off his headphones long enough to hear a single sentence from anyone.

Then, it was time for the descent. This gentleman was asked twice to remove his headphones and turn off his iPod. Both times, he replied with, "sure." His headphones didn't leave his head. He even turned up the volume further and then bounced his knee to his music. He seemed to be making a point to everyone that he wasn't going to be told what to do. After all, he was a first class passenger.

My blood pressure was rising, I must admit. I really hate that whole self-absorbed attitude. Someone who really feels that rules don't apply to them like they are some kind of royalty. I almost addressed this individual myself. I was in uniform, but it was obvious this guy didn't give two flying shits about anyone. Not to mention, he'd been putting down the Sky vodkas, so "rational thought" was likely not his strongest suit at this point. He was willfully ignoring the flight attendants and he knew damn well there was a pilot sitting to his left. I could only see that my addressing the situation with him would have escalated. I was pissed with him as it was. I knew that if it did get out of hand, the final ruling at the end of the day, after law enforcement met the plane, would have come against me. Why? I was on a mainline flight, and I'm not a mainline employee. This man as not "security threat" so all a crew member can do is "inform but not enforce."

Minute by minute my severe detest for this individual was reaching epic levels. It was at that moment where I had an epiphany. Why was he asked to take off his headphones? 1.) It's an FAA rule 2.) For his own safety. It was that second reason that really hit me. This assclown was being told to remove his headsets so that in the event of an emergency, he would be able to hear something like evacuation instructions. If he's got his ridiculous and obnoxious headphones blaring away, he wouldn't be able to hear a damn thing. By him being "too entitled to listen to a flight attendant" he was only serving to possibly compromise his own safety. Arrogance and ignorance often co-habitate.

My blood pressure melted away. I was no longer bothered by his self-absorbed and resistive attitude. Just knowing that he wasn't doing a damn thing except compromising his own safety was very satisfying. I actually found myself "hoping" for a blown tire or engine fire on landing. Hell, even a go around would have been good. I'm sure that once that aircraft surged to take-off power and screamed skyward, this idiot would have been yelling "What the hell! What's happening!?" To which I would have simply replied, "Well, if you didn't have your FUCKING HEADPHONES ON, maybe you would have heard the PA announcement, sir."

So, Mr Seat 3B... on behalf of flight crews worldwide, I now pronounce you a Certified Douche Bag. Congratulations, we know you've worked hard. And for the record, you might think you are "all that" walking around with your "The 50th Law" book in your hand, but trust me, you're not even close.

What a pilot fears most

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-01-04/fatal-flying-on-airlines-no-accident-in-pilot-complaints-to-faa.html

Ask people what they fear most about flying and the most common answers are engine failure, the plane snapping in half in midair, extreme turbulence, or midair collisions. Statistically, those are all very rare events. This items do evoke very scary images, however they really aren't worth excessive worry. I think we can thank our pals in Hollywood for this fear more than actual events.

Ask a regional airline pilot what they fear most and you'll get a much different tale from the average person. Linked above was a case where the pilot was being told by his company to fly an aircraft from one place to another with passengers on board. The pilot knew this aircraft was not airworthy. The pilot refuses to fly that aircraft on said flight. The company pushes harder. The pilot still refuses. The pilot is then threatened with his job by the company. He still refuses. The pilot is then terminated.

Why would the pilot refuse such a flight? A pilot lives his/her career walking between a rock and a hard place. The company and the FAA. No other scenario exemplifies this walk better than this one. The pilot knows the aircraft doesn't meet the airworthiness requirements per the FAA. The pilot knows if he/she signs the dispatch release for the aircraft to take the flight, they are legally saying that they see the aircraft is "airworthy" and legal to make the flight.

Important note: Miriam-Webster defines the word "Airworthy" as "fit for operation in the air." The FAA defines it as "meets its type design and is in a condition for safe operation."

Now, the company might also know this, however they might be willing to pressure the pilot into taking the flight anyways. Why would they do such a thing? Two main reasons. 1.) The company doesn't give a crap about the pilots, flight attendants or the passengers. They want the flight to go so that they can generate revenue. 2.) If something was to come of it later, the pilot will be found to be at fault since he/she signed off on the release stating the aircraft was "airworthy." After all, that is part of the responsibility that comes along with the title "Pilot in Command."

So, the pilot can be caught in a scenario where he/she walks the line between being fired by the company and being violated by the FAA. If the company fires the pilot, he/she is out of a job. If the FAA seeks enforcement action, the pilot's certificates may be suspended or revoked. This means no flying, hence, no job. Both options are less than ideal.

The company tends to have the best of both worlds here. They can pressure a pilot to fly an aircraft. They can even say, "If you don't take this plane, you're fired." All the while, if the pilot does take the flight and something gets caught later, the first thing the company will say is "The pilot signed off on the release and accepted the aircraft as airworthy!" The company doesn't have anything to lose!! It's no shocker that this scenario plays out between pilot and airline.

This particular case indeed turned out slightly different. A $1.3 million fine has been imposed upon Gulfstream International by the FAA. Of course, as you would expect, the company is appealing this. Why? Again, they have nothing to lose. If they fight it and lose, they still have to pay just as if they didn't fight it. Might as well give it a shot and have a chance at saving $1.3 million. After all, that amount of money would make a nice CEO bonus!

It's events like this which come to mind when I hear a chief pilot or airline manager quoted as saying they care about safety and the welfare of passengers.

"What you do speaks so loud that I cannot hear what you say."
- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Frequent flyer miles?

Anyone out there feel like they really put on the miles? Check out this little story on just how far the Artic Tern flies. Quite impressive.

More than just a machine

There are times when an object becomes more than just an object; more than just some metal parts and wiring. Sometimes a machine seems to have a "personality" of sorts. Sometimes they work great and other times, they get moody. Computers can even be a good example of this. Because our lives revolve so much around these objects, we tend to form a relationship with them. Serious car fans (aka petrol heads) will know exactly what I'm talking about. You don't even have to have a beard to form an emotional attachment to a car. It's more than just something that is nice looking, comfortable and reliable. A car can transcend the boundary between inanimate and living. Aircraft are no exception to this.

Spend any time around an airport, and watch a pilot perform a pre-flight of his craft. There are some that treat this solely as a necessary task, like proofreading a document. However, you will notice that some approach it on a different level. Perhaps it's something which is bred out of the fact that they're lives will be depending on this machine to work as they expect it to. This is a form of trust. Trust is usually spoken of in terms of a bond between friends, between co-workers, or even between a horse and it's rider. And, it's something built over time. The bond between aircraft and pilot is much the same, perhaps even more so.

This video was created by someone that feels the same as I do about machines. It concerns the rescue efforts of Sully and Jeff's USAir A320 itself. It's worth the 5 minutes it takes to watch.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=37b_1259024146

Things that make you go... "WTF?!"

There I was, just finishing up a long trip fraught with weather delays, mechanical delays, and short overnights. (Par for the course in this business, I know...) I had just boarded my commute flight home and my brain was enjoying that slow progression to "off mode."

Several uniformed military guys were coming down the isle when I heard something from a woman in the row in front of mine. She stopped one of the young guys and asked to take his picture. He said "uh... ok..." I'm guessing he was confused as well, but just tried to be nice about it. The lady then said, "I just love sending my daughter pictures of gorgeous men!"

For the next 15 minutes, "WTF?!" was the only output my brain could manage.

Funny things

Sometimes, you are witness to something that is really damn funny. Let me paint a scene of a recent morning on my last trip. I was up early, down in the breakfast area. Really nice breakfast. One family shows up with two sons, approximately 8 and 14 years of age.

They all head up to the buffet line. The older son comes back to the table with some food on his plate and sits down. The younger one comes back with a MOUNTAIN of food on his plate. Sausage, french toast, eggs, bagel, homefries, bacon, etc.

Carrying this huge plate, he walks behind his older brother and says, "Rookie..."