[3825]

> Yes, assuming that the previous crew left you a 'perfect and ready to fly plane' is one hell of an assumption to make. With tiny little pieces to collect if it ends up being wrong.

This is very bizarre. I once had a morning flight out of Denver (not too long ago, August 2008?) and talking to people there apparently the plane had an electronics malfunction of some sort. They said they would fly us out as soon as the plane was ready but about ten hours later, they gave up and flew us out on a plane with a different airline (which I assume was not free for them, I doubt American Airlines would fly a plane for free for United). Point is the initial problem, at least what they told us, was some lights failed to turn on but they refused to fly. I thought flight crew were very risk averse but clearly not everyone.

[jacquesm]

That's proper procedure. When in doubt: fail safe.

These guys even flew the plane back instead of being replaced by another crew, and that's with a plane that has just been used way in excess of its design parameters on more than one measure.

[Zak]

I've heard pilots put this as "it's better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air than to be in the air wishing you were on the ground".

[GekkePrutser]

Or "take-off is optional but landing is mandatory" :)