can I find out why a (commercial) flight was cancelled?

Groundpounder said:
Oh I know, its just silly.
Click to expand...
Honesty it’s really not a big issue. It takes like 10 minutes for most crew deferrable MELs. Some people freak out when there’s a discrepancy at an outstation and I call mx. Like dude, we got in 30 minutes early, we have an hour turn time and one of gaspers in seat 2A is broken. I can defer it and still have time to get lunch.
 
kayoh190 said:
That was Skywest flying for Delta. As others have noted, any of the airlines will call it 'weather' if they can't get a plane or crew in place for the flight due to weather somewhere else. The weather doesn't necessarily have to affect the flight directly. Kind of BS I know, but it is what it is.
Click to expand...
I don't consider that BS at all; it's a legitimate point.
 
Groundpounder said:
Yep, wait till you get to the RON to write it up. Hydraulic pump is a safety of flight issue, VNAV is not. But airline pilots have a slightly different mentality when it comes to getting the job done.
Click to expand...
The mentality that we follow the applicable regulations?

You'd rather fly with a crew that makes up their own rules?
 
Kenny Phillips said:
I don't consider that BS at all; it's a legitimate point.
Click to expand...

I could have worded that better. I guess what I’m saying is that it *feels* like BS to anyone that doesn’t understand how an airline’s operation works behind the scenes. Which most don’t, and it’s why we see these kinds of threads.
 
VNAV that important on a visual approach?

This doesn't really refute my argument that the more tech pilots get behind, the less capable of actually flying they become.
 
EdFred said:
VNAV that important on a visual approach?

This doesn't really refute my argument that the more tech pilots get behind, the less capable of actually flying they become.
Click to expand...

We don’t make decisions to write up broken items based on our proficiency.
 
Groundpounder said:
As the airlines get more and more awful, I have more and more job security. My boss isn’t going to be getting on the airlines any time soon.

Oh, and I had an airline flight delayed due to the VNAV having to be deferred. Seriously? The captain looked old enough that he flew before VNAV was even invented.
Click to expand...

I take it you fly Part 91 and don't have an MEL for your aircraft?
 
EdFred said:
But you guys can defer a certain number of items on your MEL.
Click to expand...

Right, but that’s what we’re talking about - placing an item on MEL takes time, and depending on the situation, that time can cause a delay. The delay isn’t because a pilot needs the item to be fixed before they fly. Nobody cares about flying around without VNAV, but we *do* care about getting hassled by the feds. :)
 
kayoh190 said:
Right, but that’s what we’re talking about - placing an item on MEL takes time, and depending on the situation, that time can cause a delay. The delay isn’t because a pilot needs the item to be fixed before they fly. Nobody cares about flying around without VNAV, but we *do* care about getting hassled by the feds. :)
Click to expand...

I think the part 91 guys don't understand the MEL process.

Aircraft has a write up by the PIC, in this instance "VNAV Inop". PIC calls maintenance, who looks at the write up and determines if, a) He can fix the problem immediately, or b) He can defer the item per the MEL and have it repaired later. If it's (b), then the mechanic coordinates through maintenance control, looks at the MEL and in his discrepancy sign off writes "VNAV deferred using MEL Item XXX-XX" and also (depending on carrier) puts the item in the MEL list. Then a sticker is placed on or near the VNAV button to remind the crew it's deferred. The PIC reviews the MEL as well to see if there are any operation restrictions. The aircraft is now back in service.
 
EdFred said:
VNAV that important on a visual approach?

This doesn't really refute my argument that the more tech pilots get behind, the less capable of actually flying they become.
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with capability. Its all about the procedures required by the FAA. If a 121 carrier gets caught by the FAA not following procedures, it can be a major fine and bad PR. Plus it isn't worth it to the pilot to risk his career. Follow the regs, follow the procedures, and carry on.
 
midwestpa24 said:
It has nothing to do with capability. Its all about the procedures required by the FAA. If a 121 carrier gets caught by the FAA not following procedures, it can be a major fine and bad PR. Plus it isn't worth it to the pilot to risk his career. Follow the regs, follow the procedures, and carry on.
Click to expand...

Write it up the MEL and go fly. But, ya can't do that when you gotta have the AP do everything.
 
EdFred said:
Write it up the MEL and go fly. But, ya can't do that when you gotta have the AP do everything.
Click to expand...

Different carriers have different procedures. However, most have it in their procedures if no mechanic is available, and no maintenance procedure is required, the PIC can write up the problem, call MX control, get a control number and defer the item via MEL.

If the mechanic is available, then he takes care of it.

Note: After rereading, I believe you meant “autopilot” by AP and not A&P.

To comment further, if say the VNAV function is deferred, the crew would have a difficult time refusing the aircraft. I’ve flown many trips with a deferred autopilot as well as autopilot components.
 
Last edited:
Groundpounder said:
Yep, wait till you get to the RON to write it up. Hydraulic pump is a safety of flight issue, VNAV is not. But airline pilots have a slightly different mentality when it comes to getting the job done.
Click to expand...
They have a slightly different mentality about keeping their job and not getting violated. It’s not because we don’t give a ****. It’s because we have to. You operate in a 121 environment the same way you do in a 91 gig and you won’t be employed very long.
 
jordane93 said:
What is this VNAV you speak of?
Click to expand...
Lol yeah... I have flown in plenty of GA airplanes that have way more technology in the panel than many airliners.

My first 121 jet gig didn’t have GPS in Most of the fleet . The ones that did it was for reference only and not certified for enroute or terminal nav.

I kinda miss those days. Tune a VOR, set the course, heading bug and altitude alert window then go fly. No computer programming required.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
Lol yeah... I have flown in plenty of GA airplanes that have way more technology in the panel than many airliners.

My first 121 jet gig didn’t have GPS in Most of the fleet . The ones that did it was for reference only and not certified for enroute or terminal nav.

I kinda miss those days. Tune a VOR, set the course, heading bug and altitude alert window then go fly. No computer programming required.
Click to expand...
We had to fly VOR to VOR a few months ago when we had that GPS meltdown. Damn near whipped out my Sportys instrument book to remember how to do it;)
 
jordane93 said:
We had to fly VOR to VOR a few months ago when we had that GPS meltdown. Damn near whipped out my Sportys instrument book to remember how to do it;)
Click to expand...

Why? Your enroute DME/DME/DME RNAV down too?
 
Ravioli said:
No airline wants to cancel or delay a flight for any reason
No Pilot wants to cancel or delay a flight for any reason
No Flight attendant wants to cancel or delay a flight for any reason
No Gate Agent wants to cancel or delay a flight for any reason <- they want it the LEAST because they have to deal with the passengers
No Reservations Agent wants it to happen <- they hear about it from more people than all of the above
Click to expand...
This is provably false. And silly. If an airline will lose money on a flight, it wants to cancel it. If the crew doesn't want to fly for whatever reason, they would like the flight to be canceled. If a union is in a contract dispute, it wants flights canceled.

Germane to the OP's question, I had a flight "canceled" coming out of DCA because it was not going to depart before the curfew. If it had been delayed, AA would have had to put all the passengers up. But miraculously, we were all rebooked on a nonexistent flight early the next morning. The gate agents denied everyone hotel vouchers because it was a weather cancellation. When I called CS, the gal told me the computer showed no reason for the cancellation. Seemed to be the first time she'd seen that. So yeah, the airlines lie. And just because the gate agent says it was weather, doesn't mean that's what's in the system.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
Its so much fun to watch a bunch of GA pilots make crap up about how airlines work, and then proceed to ignore the guys who have 121 experience and know how it works.
Click to expand...
The guys who supposedly have 121 experience often tell us on these threads that the pilots and mechanics don't use pretextual reasons to cancel flights during contact disputes. So either they don't actually know how it works, or they conceal the truth. Either way, it tends to devalue their contributions.
 
Lindberg said:
Either way, it tends to devalue their contributions.
Click to expand...

Only to someone that clearly has a chip on his shoulder. You like to make it sound like these issues are rampant, and they simply are not. Call me a liar all you want - I really don't care.
 
kayoh190 said:
Only to someone that clearly has a chip on his shoulder. You like to make it sound like these issues are rampant, and they simply are not. Call me a liar all you want - I really don't care.
Click to expand...
I didn't say it's rampant. In fact I said it happens during contract disputes. It's not all members either. But it happens, and some deny that it ever does.
 
Lindberg said:
I didn't say it's rampant. In fact I said it happens during contract disputes. It's not all members either. But it happens, and some deny that it ever does.
Click to expand...

Working to the contract isn't illegal. Its funny how the company wants to hold labor's feet to the fire when it comes to following the contract, but they don't give 2 cents about following it on their end.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
Why? Your enroute DME/DME/DME RNAV down too?
Click to expand...
The CRJ's FMS had a software issue earlier this summer that extended far further than you would expect. Read the details a couple of months ago but don't remember them well enough to relate.

Lindberg said:
Germane to the OP's question, I had a flight "canceled" coming out of DCA because it was not going to depart before the curfew. If it had been delayed, AA would have had to put all the passengers up. But miraculously, we were all rebooked on a nonexistent flight early the next morning. The gate agents denied everyone hotel vouchers because it was a weather cancellation.
Click to expand...
If I understand correctly, the flight was unable to depart before curfew due to weather-related delays. Is that correct?

If so, it's weather. Doesn't matter if it become a long delay or a cancel and new flight number the next day. The change in flight number doesn't affect compensation requirements. Having a new flight number on the new day just works better in the computer systems as you don't have two flight Xs on the same date with the same departure city. (The CRS systems use the combination of flight number, departure data, and departure city as the unique identification for the flight) It can work with two but it can cause confusion when the wrong flight is selected.
 
Larry in TN said:
The CRJ's FMS had a software issue earlier this summer that extended far further than you would expect. Read the details a couple of months ago but don't remember them well enough to relate.
Click to expand...

I'm aware, I fly a CRJ. It had nothing to do with the FMS software. It was an issue with a specific P/N GPS receiver being affected by a Collins update that screwed the pooch on a a leap second and how it interacted with the USAF controlled almanac.

But please, do go on...
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
I'm aware, I fly a CRJ. It had nothing to do with the FMS software. It was an issue with a specific P/N GPS receiver being affected by a Collins update that screwed the pooch on a a leap second and how it interacted with the USAF controlled almanac.

But please, do go on...
Click to expand...
Larry is also a 121 guy. No need to get snappy at him.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
I'm aware, I fly a CRJ. It had nothing to do with the FMS software. It was an issue with a specific P/N GPS receiver being affected by a Collins update that screwed the pooch on a a leap second and how it interacted with the USAF controlled almanac.
Click to expand...
I flew CRJs for only seven months, well before this issue occurred, so don't remember the details. How did the GPS problem affect the FMC DME/DME updating? My understanding is that the affected airplanes lost all RNAV capability, not just GPS updating.

BTW, the GPS updating is part of the FMS. The FMS includes the FMC and all of its related systems.
 
Larry in TN said:
I flew CRJs for only seven months, well before this issue occurred, so don't remember the details. How did the GPS problem affect the FMC DME/DME updating? My understanding is that the affected airplanes lost all RNAV capability, not just GPS updating.

BTW, the GPS updating is part of the FMS. The FMS includes the FMC and all of its related systems.
Click to expand...
It was mostly a non issue. When the outage first hit, mx had to defer the GPS, ADSB, and one other thing that I can’t remember (maybe RVSM capability?). This also happened late at night apparently and there was basically one AMT doing 3 or 4 deferrals per plane by himself so we ended up canceling a bunch of flights. The reason I say it was a mostly non issue is because as long as the FMS wasn’t deferred you could still do point to point navigation just not RNAV routes like Q and T airways and no RNAV SIDs or STARs. I was the unlucky one one flight as our only FMS was deferred and had to go VOR to VOR.
 
Larry in TN said:
If I understand correctly, the flight was unable to depart before curfew due to weather-related delays. Is that correct?
Click to expand...
No, there was no weather, at least not in any geographic or temporal proximity to our flight. The aircraft was sitting at our gate for hours as we recieved multiple delays. Then they had to replace the crew and we were told the plane would definitely depart at 9:50. As I said, CS confirmed it was not a weather delay. Regardless, flights can depart DCA after curfew, it was a choice by AA not to because it would have cost money.
 
jordane93 said:
The reason I say it was a mostly non issue is because as long as the FMS wasn’t deferred you could still do point to point navigation just not RNAV routes
Click to expand...
Okay, that's what I would expect with the loss of the GPS updating. Good for terminal and enroute RNAV but not RNAV routes or procedures. From reading the information at the time, it sure sounded like they were losing all RNAV capability.

When I briefly flew the CRJ in 2014, had a -700 (single GPS) with a deferred GPS. Captain thought we'd need to go green-needles (/A). We didn't, of course. Just no RNAV routes or procedures. Just prior to the CRJ I had been furloughed from a job flying older 767 which had no GPS. We'd cross oceans on RNAV using nothing but DME/DME updating (when available) and IRS dead-reckoning. It would do DME/DME/IRU-0.30 procedures (the old 767s are why you see those notes on a lot of RNAV procedures).

Another time I ferried a -200 with no FMS at all. Neither the Captain nor dispatcher could figure out how to file a /A routing. (Well, I'm sure they could have but it would have taken them a while)

Both of those Captains were young and were raised on GPS. When I was a young pilot, A/N ranges would probably have confused me, too. I'm sure they could run circles around with on Garmin G1000/430/530 airplanes.
 
A lot of the older Airbus A320/330/340 has only IRS/VOR/DME backed FMS. Later GPS became an option, and IIRC it’s still an option (although it’s more commonplace now).

My flying (jet) goes back to having 2 VOR’s and 2 DME’s (no GS readout) and 2 ADF’s. We later graduated to INS and Omega.
 
Larry in TN said:
I flew CRJs for only seven months, well before this issue occurred, so don't remember the details. How did the GPS problem affect the FMC DME/DME updating? My understanding is that the affected airplanes lost all RNAV capability, not just GPS updating.

BTW, the GPS updating is part of the FMS. The FMS includes the FMC and all of its related systems.
Click to expand...

It didn't. I asked why they had to go VOR-VOR, and it was because on top of the GPS being deferred, they had the FMS deferred, which is common on the 700's at the carrier Jordane93 and myself work at.

The GPS issue itself didn't cause us to lose RNAV capability, but we couldn't do RNAV arrivals/departuers/approaches because of the equipment required for them. They either require GPS or DME/DME/IRU, which a CRJ doesn't have. We could still go direct to a fix enroute, but the company was very late in explaining it to the pilot group, and the systems knowledge at the carrier is very weak, IMO.

The biggest issue was, since every crew was asking to do it slightly different with ATC, ATC was super confused as to what we could/couldn't do.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
The biggest issue was, since every crew was asking to do it slightly different with ATC, ATC was super confused as to what we could/couldn't do.
Click to expand...
That makes sense.

Since the inclusion of GPS-updating there hasn't been much of a need to have a deep understanding of the FMS' capabilities using less accurate updating sources.
 
Larry in TN said:
That makes sense.

Since the inclusion of GPS-updating there hasn't been much of a need to have a deep understanding of the FMS' capabilities using less accurate updating sources.
Click to expand...

100% agree. I had the fortune of flying airplanes burning Jet-A that didn't have GPS. While I haven't done VOR to VOR in a bit, it's something I've at least done. Hell, half of these FO's I fly with these days haven't the foggiest idea what an NBD even is. They barely understand what a VOR is for that matter.
 
Lindberg said:
it was a choice by AA not to because it would have cost money.
Click to expand...

If your theory is that the airlines evaluate the load on each flight and then decide whether or not to operate it, you are mistaken. They do evaluate routes, but those decisions are not made on the spur of the moment, and route changes would cause the flight to be unavailable for sale. No one would show up at the airport and hear bogus cancellation stories when a poor performing route is ended.

Also, they are carrying freight. Some estimates say 10-25% of the revenue is from freight. Even a light load (passenger-wise) can cover its operating cost and not disrupt schedules. Disrupting schedules adds more cost than operating the flight at zero or negative profit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top