Narrative:

On the morning of feb/mon/94, I attended a 45 min ground training session at the offices of air carrier in indianapolis. The subject was driftdown planning for the ys-11 aircraft on the upcoming route el paso-chihuahua, and was conducted by the manager of flight standards and training, mr. X. He told the class of 4 that he had computed driftdown for the route, compiled a table for the data and that all the crew had to do was check a maximum weight and an equal time point for the critical segment. I became extremely alarmed when I learned that his calculations were based on the use of minimum safe altitude data as depicted on commercial approach plates and not on topographical charts or completely on MEA information from en route charts. The class was then shown a hand drawn chart of data based on a start-of-driftdown from 18000 ft. The ys-11 manuals that the company supplies to the crews only contain tabular information, up to a maximum of 16000 ft, but this whole procedure was based on data that was unavailable to the crew. He told us that we could not keep these tables, and that they must be turned back in at the end of the class. He was questioned on whether these tables were FAA approved, and were told that they would be but were not. (I have subsequently learned that this information never was presented to the poi.) the company recently fired 2 crewmembers for refusing to take a driftdown dependent flight through the rockies. They assert they were not given enough time or information to compute the aircraft performance for the trip, and hence refused it. This is the climate of the place where I work: extreme duress and constant fear of livelihood loss. I then went down to el paso and flew 3 kelp-mcuu-kelp round trips. The flight releases that the company sent were for 15000 ft and 16000 ft, not 18000 ft as per the unapproved procedure I had been taught. I questioned mr. X on this and was told that that's all there would be -- the computer was incapable of generating flight plans above 16000 ft! I then did my own calculations based on temperatures aloft and determined that the aircraft would not be heavier than the weight at which it could maintain altitude on 1 engine, and flew the trips. I do not believe that this data has been even submitted to the FAA, let alone scrutinized by an engineering team. To prevent incidents like this, the FAA should pay far more attention to the small part 121 operators. I know they avoid them because they don't understand them or their equipment, but that doesn't help me as I try to make a living. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter believes that his company has not yet submitted the performance data for his aircraft to the FAA yet. He believes in the obvious, that the data should be submitted to the FAA before it is put into use. The crewmen that were fired for refusing to fly a driftdown dependent trip without proper data and time to compute their own are now suing the company. The reporter is actively interviewing with other acrs. The reporter is not mounting a crusade over this matter, but is watching it very carefully.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN ACR FRTR PLT ABHORS HIS ACR'S PERFORMANCE DATA AND DISPATCH PROCS.

Narrative: ON THE MORNING OF FEB/MON/94, I ATTENDED A 45 MIN GND TRAINING SESSION AT THE OFFICES OF ACR IN INDIANAPOLIS. THE SUBJECT WAS DRIFTDOWN PLANNING FOR THE YS-11 ACFT ON THE UPCOMING RTE EL PASO-CHIHUAHUA, AND WAS CONDUCTED BY THE MGR OF FLT STANDARDS AND TRAINING, MR. X. HE TOLD THE CLASS OF 4 THAT HE HAD COMPUTED DRIFTDOWN FOR THE RTE, COMPILED A TABLE FOR THE DATA AND THAT ALL THE CREW HAD TO DO WAS CHK A MAX WT AND AN EQUAL TIME POINT FOR THE CRITICAL SEGMENT. I BECAME EXTREMELY ALARMED WHEN I LEARNED THAT HIS CALCULATIONS WERE BASED ON THE USE OF MINIMUM SAFE ALT DATA AS DEPICTED ON COMMERCIAL APCH PLATES AND NOT ON TOPOGRAPHICAL CHARTS OR COMPLETELY ON MEA INFO FROM ENRTE CHARTS. THE CLASS WAS THEN SHOWN A HAND DRAWN CHART OF DATA BASED ON A START-OF-DRIFTDOWN FROM 18000 FT. THE YS-11 MANUALS THAT THE COMPANY SUPPLIES TO THE CREWS ONLY CONTAIN TABULAR INFO, UP TO A MAX OF 16000 FT, BUT THIS WHOLE PROC WAS BASED ON DATA THAT WAS UNAVAILABLE TO THE CREW. HE TOLD US THAT WE COULD NOT KEEP THESE TABLES, AND THAT THEY MUST BE TURNED BACK IN AT THE END OF THE CLASS. HE WAS QUESTIONED ON WHETHER THESE TABLES WERE FAA APPROVED, AND WERE TOLD THAT THEY WOULD BE BUT WERE NOT. (I HAVE SUBSEQUENTLY LEARNED THAT THIS INFO NEVER WAS PRESENTED TO THE POI.) THE COMPANY RECENTLY FIRED 2 CREWMEMBERS FOR REFUSING TO TAKE A DRIFTDOWN DEPENDENT FLT THROUGH THE ROCKIES. THEY ASSERT THEY WERE NOT GIVEN ENOUGH TIME OR INFO TO COMPUTE THE ACFT PERFORMANCE FOR THE TRIP, AND HENCE REFUSED IT. THIS IS THE CLIMATE OF THE PLACE WHERE I WORK: EXTREME DURESS AND CONSTANT FEAR OF LIVELIHOOD LOSS. I THEN WENT DOWN TO EL PASO AND FLEW 3 KELP-MCUU-KELP ROUND TRIPS. THE FLT RELEASES THAT THE COMPANY SENT WERE FOR 15000 FT AND 16000 FT, NOT 18000 FT AS PER THE UNAPPROVED PROC I HAD BEEN TAUGHT. I QUESTIONED MR. X ON THIS AND WAS TOLD THAT THAT'S ALL THERE WOULD BE -- THE COMPUTER WAS INCAPABLE OF GENERATING FLT PLANS ABOVE 16000 FT! I THEN DID MY OWN CALCULATIONS BASED ON TEMPS ALOFT AND DETERMINED THAT THE ACFT WOULD NOT BE HEAVIER THAN THE WT AT WHICH IT COULD MAINTAIN ALT ON 1 ENG, AND FLEW THE TRIPS. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THIS DATA HAS BEEN EVEN SUBMITTED TO THE FAA, LET ALONE SCRUTINIZED BY AN ENGINEERING TEAM. TO PREVENT INCIDENTS LIKE THIS, THE FAA SHOULD PAY FAR MORE ATTN TO THE SMALL PART 121 OPERATORS. I KNOW THEY AVOID THEM BECAUSE THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND THEM OR THEIR EQUIP, BUT THAT DOESN'T HELP ME AS I TRY TO MAKE A LIVING. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR BELIEVES THAT HIS COMPANY HAS NOT YET SUBMITTED THE PERFORMANCE DATA FOR HIS ACFT TO THE FAA YET. HE BELIEVES IN THE OBVIOUS, THAT THE DATA SHOULD BE SUBMITTED TO THE FAA BEFORE IT IS PUT INTO USE. THE CREWMEN THAT WERE FIRED FOR REFUSING TO FLY A DRIFTDOWN DEPENDENT TRIP WITHOUT PROPER DATA AND TIME TO COMPUTE THEIR OWN ARE NOW SUING THE COMPANY. THE RPTR IS ACTIVELY INTERVIEWING WITH OTHER ACRS. THE RPTR IS NOT MOUNTING A CRUSADE OVER THIS MATTER, BUT IS WATCHING IT VERY CAREFULLY.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.