FAA doesn't bother with suspension - goes straight for the revocation:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/us/28plane.html

Pretty harsh for pilots who don't appear to have had any other blemish on
their lengthy records.

Revocation would seem to be appropriate for actions that are deliberately
reckless or are likely to be repeated. This wasn't deliberate and would
certainly not be repeated by these pilots. So why why not suspend their
certificates for a year or so? My guess is that wasn't done because the
mistake was too high profile, publicity-wise.

In article >,
says...
> FAA doesn't bother with suspension - goes straight for the revocation:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/us/28plane.html
>
> Pretty harsh for pilots who don't appear to have had any other blemish on
> their lengthy records.
>
> Revocation would seem to be appropriate for actions that are deliberately
> reckless or are likely to be repeated. This wasn't deliberate and would
> certainly not be repeated by these pilots. So why why not suspend their
> certificates for a year or so? My guess is that wasn't done because the
> mistake was too high profile, publicity-wise.

Bugger off - it's *bloody serious* - they're idiots!

They displayed a lack of due dilegence to the extreme.

I think their excuse is a one big lie too.

--
Duncan.

Dave Doe > wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>> FAA doesn't bother with suspension - goes straight for the
>> revocation:
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/us/28plane.html
>>
>> Pretty harsh for pilots who don't appear to have had any other
>> blemish on their lengthy records.
>>
>> Revocation would seem to be appropriate for actions that are
>> deliberately reckless or are likely to be repeated. This wasn't
>> deliberate and would certainly not be repeated by these pilots. So
>> why why not suspend their certificates for a year or so? My guess is
>> that wasn't done because the mistake was too high profile,
>> publicity-wise.
>
> Bugger off - it's *bloody serious*

Explain what makes it "bloody serious."

> - they're idiots!

These alleged "idiots" have allegedly been flying for decades without
incident. If they _were_ "idiots" (rather than otherwise competent pilots
who made a bad mistake) wouldn't some responsibility fall on the FAA, or
the airlines that employed them? After all, those pilots have to get
periodic reviews of their piloting abilities. If the FAA and airlines
can't spot idiot pilots, they are the fools.

Do you think the FAA examiners who missed recognizing these "idiots"
should also face punitive action due to this incident?

> They displayed a lack of due dilegence to the extreme.

Again - if they were fundamentally unable to fly due to being "idiots" -
whose fault is it that they managed to fly for so many years without
incident?

What makes you think an _emergency_ revocation of their certificates is
warranted? Why does it seem likely to you (or the FAA!) that they would
repeat this mistake rather than return to the allegedly incident-free
piloting of their previous decades of piloting?

> I think their excuse is a one big lie too.

Speculation is free - so feel free to explain what you think happened.

Jim Logajan wrote:
> FAA doesn't bother with suspension - goes straight for the revocation:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/us/28plane.html
>
> Pretty harsh for pilots who don't appear to have had any other blemish on
> their lengthy records.
>
> Revocation would seem to be appropriate for actions that are deliberately
> reckless or are likely to be repeated. This wasn't deliberate and would
> certainly not be repeated by these pilots. So why why not suspend their
> certificates for a year or so? My guess is that wasn't done because the
> mistake was too high profile, publicity-wise.


I find the action appropriate. I don't hold my breathe for the
medical interns to get a similar prescription when their actions after
working a 22 hour shift kill a patient. They are not deliberately
careless, and their actions ARE likely to be repeated.
There is no Federal institution which can work this remedy
unfortunately, and after all, they are on their way to a $400K p.a. meal
ticket.

Brian W

brian whatcott > wrote:
> Jim Logajan wrote:
>> FAA doesn't bother with suspension - goes straight for the
>> revocation:
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/us/28plane.html
>>
>> Pretty harsh for pilots who don't appear to have had any other
>> blemish on their lengthy records.
>>
>> Revocation would seem to be appropriate for actions that are
>> deliberately reckless or are likely to be repeated. This wasn't
>> deliberate and would certainly not be repeated by these pilots. So
>> why why not suspend their certificates for a year or so? My guess is
>> that wasn't done because the mistake was too high profile,
>> publicity-wise.
>
>
> I find the action appropriate. I don't hold my breathe for the
> medical interns to get a similar prescription when their actions after
> working a 22 hour shift kill a patient. They are not deliberately
> careless, and their actions ARE likely to be repeated.

Your analogy doesn't apply because:

1) In this case, no one died or was even injured.

2) The pilots aren't analogous to interns - they'd more likely be analogous
to doctors. And their actions would probably be more analogous to an
experienced surgeon leaving instruments in a body after sewing a patient
up.

Why anyone would think a singular screwup like this - after decades of
piloting - indicates a high probability of being repeated seems is
something I see as more emotional based than based on sound rationale of
human psychology.

Lastly, at the risk of repeating myself, I only differ from the FAA in the
nature of the corrective action. Not that no corrective action should
eventually be taken.

On Oct 27, 8:58*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> brian whatcott > wrote:
> > Jim Logajan wrote:
> >> FAA doesn't bother with suspension - goes straight for the
> >> revocation:
>
> >>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/us/28plane.html
>
> >> Pretty harsh for pilots who don't appear to have had any other
> >> blemish on their lengthy records.
>
> >> Revocation would seem to be appropriate for actions that are
> >> deliberately reckless or are likely to be repeated. This wasn't
> >> deliberate and would certainly not be repeated by these pilots. So
> >> why why not suspend their certificates for a year or so? My guess is
> >> that wasn't done because the mistake was too high profile,
> >> publicity-wise.
>
> > I find the action appropriate. * *I don't hold my breathe for the
> > medical interns to get a similar prescription when their actions after
> > working a 22 hour shift kill a patient. They are not deliberately
> > careless, and their actions ARE likely to be repeated.
>
> Your analogy doesn't apply because:
>
> 1) In this case, no one died or was even injured.
>
> 2) The pilots aren't analogous to interns - they'd more likely be analogous
> to doctors. And their actions would probably be more analogous to an
> experienced surgeon leaving instruments in a body after sewing a patient
> up.
>
> Why anyone would think a singular screwup like this - after decades of
> piloting - indicates a high probability of being repeated seems is
> something I see as more emotional based than based on sound rationale of
> human psychology.
>
> Lastly, at the risk of repeating myself, I only differ from the FAA in the
> nature of the corrective action. Not that no corrective action should
> eventually be taken.

Jim, being out of touch with ATC for 91 minutes because of a laptop
distraction is a big deal even if it did not result in an accident.
Definitive action on the part of the FAA will not only prevent these
two from doing it again, but also will make it pretty clear to other
pilots that paying attention to the job at hand is rule 1. Pilots
who have been safe pilots are of their lives -- or seemingly safe, not
having been caught -- still get to do controlled flight into a
mountain or worse. These two missed a hand-off/change of frequency
and didn't notice no one had been talking to them for over an hour. I
have no piloting experience in these kinds of airplanes, but I can't
remember when on an IRF XC in my Mooney center didn't do handoffs
every 20 minutes or so and that's at a cruise of 160, not 350, kts!

Those who fly commercial will, I think, be marginally safer now.

Jim Logajan wrote:
> Dave Doe > wrote:
>> In article >,
>> says...
>>> FAA doesn't bother with suspension - goes straight for the
>>> revocation:
>>>
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/us/28plane.html
>>>
>>> Pretty harsh for pilots who don't appear to have had any other
>>> blemish on their lengthy records.
>>>
>>> Revocation would seem to be appropriate for actions that are
>>> deliberately reckless or are likely to be repeated. This wasn't
>>> deliberate and would certainly not be repeated by these pilots. So
>>> why why not suspend their certificates for a year or so? My guess is
>>> that wasn't done because the mistake was too high profile,
>>> publicity-wise.
>>
>> Bugger off - it's *bloody serious*
>
> Explain what makes it "bloody serious."
>
How about unauthorized wallowing around in controlled airspace beyond their
route with 100+ passengers?

--
Neil

In article >,
says...

>
>Bugger off - it's *bloody serious* - they're idiots!
>
>They displayed a lack of due dilegence to the extreme.
>
>I think their excuse is a one big lie too.
>


If you don't believe their story, than you have little to go on in judging
the seriousness of their actions.

I share the belief that the FAA action was hasty. I am not suggesting
leniency, but a suspension for the time it takes to complete an
investigation, then certificate action based on and proportional to the
results of that investigation would be a much more suitable position for the
regulatory authority.

VOR-DME wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>
>>
>> Bugger off - it's *bloody serious* - they're idiots!
>>
>> They displayed a lack of due dilegence to the extreme.
>>
>> I think their excuse is a one big lie too.
>>
>
>
> If you don't believe their story, than you have little to go on in
> judging the seriousness of their actions.
>
> I share the belief that the FAA action was hasty. I am not suggesting
> leniency, but a suspension for the time it takes to complete an
> investigation, then certificate action based on and proportional to
> the results of that investigation would be a much more suitable
> position for the regulatory authority.
>
Can you come up with a mitigating circumstance for the loss of control and
responsibility on the pilots' part that would justify any lesser remedial
action? If the outcome is inevitable, why should the FAA wait to act?

--
Neil

VOR-DME wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>
>> Bugger off - it's *bloody serious* - they're idiots!
>>
>> They displayed a lack of due dilegence to the extreme.
>>
>> I think their excuse is a one big lie too.
>>
>
>
> If you don't believe their story, than you have little to go on in judging
> the seriousness of their actions.
>
> I share the belief that the FAA action was hasty. I am not suggesting
> leniency, but a suspension for the time it takes to complete an
> investigation, then certificate action based on and proportional to the
> results of that investigation would be a much more suitable position for the
> regulatory authority.
>

If they had an unblemished record up until now, then there should be
consequences for their actions, but not revocation of licenses. Look how
many drunk drivers get off after having a deadly accident (the drunk
driver normally does not die) and they are right back at it. There is
more of that than what has been talked about here. And, I am on the
highways more than in the air.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
Sold :(
KSWI

"Jim Logajan" wrote:
in message .. .

> FAA doesn't bother with suspension - goes straight for the revocation:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/us/28plane.html
>
> Pretty harsh for pilots who don't appear to have had any other blemish on
> their lengthy records.
>
> Revocation would seem to be appropriate for actions that are deliberately
> reckless or are likely to be repeated. This wasn't deliberate and would
> certainly not be repeated by these pilots. So why why not suspend their
> certificates for a year or so? My guess is that wasn't done because the
> mistake was too high profile, publicity-wise.

Seems hasty, at least.

Is there such a thing as an emergency suspension vs. revocation?

--
Dan

T182T at 4R4

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:56:28 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote:

>> - they're idiots!
>
> These alleged "idiots" have allegedly been flying for decades without
> incident.

Cosmic rays, alien ship, or some quantum singularity separated them from
the normal timeline. Which is why they went over 75 minutes with no
commo.
--
Live To Spend It

"Dan Luke" > wrote:
> Is there such a thing as an emergency suspension vs. revocation?

According to this FAA order document, yes on both counts:

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/ND/2150.3B.pdf

It's a long document, so the following is probably incomplete, but it
appears that "emergency revocation" is considered appropriate when:

(1) During criminal investigations when the underlying conduct evidences
a lack of qualification by a certificate holder.

(2) Operation of a common carrier while under the influence of alcohol or
drugs.

(3) When the FAA believes the certificate holder lacks the qualifications
to hold the certificate and the certificate holder is capable of
exercising the privileges of the certificate.

(4) When the FAA finds that an emergency exists and safety in air
commerce or air transportation require the order to be effective
immediately.

(5) Because of an airman's refusal to submit to a reexamination following
an accident or incident that calls into question his or her qualification
to hold the certificate.

(6) Based on the airman's having committed several regulatory violations
during the course of the accident or incident.

But then the document states this:

"d. Criteria for Emergency Action.
(1) Emergency action is taken only:
* When the certificate holder lacks qualification, or there is a
reasonable basis to question whether the holder is qualified to
hold the certificate; and
* When the certificate holder is reasonably able as a practical
matter to exercise the privileges of the certificate."

The information provided by the FAA is scant, but based only on what I've
seen alleged, the only reason that seems to apply is (6). And in this
case there was no accident - only an incident (per the definition in FAR
830.2)

I believe the "emergency revocation" is due to public posturing by the
agency rather than a legitimate safety measure.

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:24:25 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote:

> FAA doesn't bother with suspension - goes straight for the revocation:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/us/28plane.html
>
> Pretty harsh for pilots who don't appear to have had any other blemish on
> their lengthy records.
>
> Revocation would seem to be appropriate for actions that are deliberately
> reckless or are likely to be repeated. This wasn't deliberate and would
> certainly not be repeated by these pilots.

They discussed illegal/questionable activities and realized the cockpit
is miked. Spent the remainder of time looking for the erase button then
remembering the 30 minute loop. This is fact.
--
Live To Spend It

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:56:28 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote:

> Dave Doe > wrote:
>> In article >,
>> says...
>>> FAA doesn't bother with suspension - goes straight for the
>>> revocation:
>>>
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/us/28plane.html
>>>
>>> Pretty harsh for pilots who don't appear to have had any other
>>> blemish on their lengthy records.
>>>
>>> Revocation would seem to be appropriate for actions that are
>>> deliberately reckless or are likely to be repeated. This wasn't
>>> deliberate and would certainly not be repeated by these pilots. So
>>> why why not suspend their certificates for a year or so? My guess is
>>> that wasn't done because the mistake was too high profile,
>>> publicity-wise.
>>
>> Bugger off - it's *bloody serious*
>
> Explain what makes it "bloody serious."
>
>> - they're idiots!
>
> These alleged "idiots" have allegedly been flying for decades without
> incident. If they _were_ "idiots" (rather than otherwise competent pilots
> who made a bad mistake) wouldn't some responsibility fall on the FAA, or
> the airlines that employed them? After all, those pilots have to get
> periodic reviews of their piloting abilities. If the FAA and airlines
> can't spot idiot pilots, they are the fools.
>
> Do you think the FAA examiners who missed recognizing these "idiots"
> should also face punitive action due to this incident?
>
>> They displayed a lack of due dilegence to the extreme.
>
> Again - if they were fundamentally unable to fly due to being "idiots" -
> whose fault is it that they managed to fly for so many years without
> incident?
>
> What makes you think an _emergency_ revocation of their certificates is
> warranted? Why does it seem likely to you (or the FAA!) that they would
> repeat this mistake rather than return to the allegedly incident-free
> piloting of their previous decades of piloting?
>
>> I think their excuse is a one big lie too.
>
> Speculation is free - so feel free to explain what you think happened.

Some flavor of conspiracy involving the covert air dropping of personnel
east of MSP.

Fact.
--
Live To Spend It

In article >,
says...

>
>It's called due process. Maybe you've heard of it?
>


That’s correct.
It’s considered an inviolable, constitutional right in common law. Should we
be forced to accept a more arbitrary standard just because this concerns
aviation?
Don’t forget, an effort to understand the events is not only in the interest
of the "defendants" but the plaintiffs as well. It could be that a decent
investigation would lead to criminal charges in addition to suspensions and
revocations if the facts are serious enough.
Everyone benefits from due process, as opposed to knee-jerk, arbitrary
edicts.

FAA doesn't bother with suspension - goes straight for the revocation:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/us/28plane.html

Pretty harsh for pilots who don't appear to have had any other blemish on
their lengthy records.

Revocation would seem to be appropriate for actions that are deliberately
reckless or are likely to be repeated. This wasn't deliberate and would
certainly not be repeated by these pilots. So why why not suspend their
certificates for a year or so? My guess is that wasn't done because the
mistake was too high profile, publicity-wise.

I think any professional who has been doing his job flawlessly for 25 years who makes a mistake that results in no injuries to any persons, no damage to any equipment, and causes 144 people to be 40 minutes late deserves to have his/her livelyhood taken away for the rest of his/her life!

VOR-DME wrote:
In article ,
says...

Bugger off - it's *bloody serious* - they're idiots!

They displayed a lack of due dilegence to the extreme.

I think their excuse is a one big lie too.



If you don't believe their story, than you have little to go on in judging
the seriousness of their actions.


I share the belief that the FAA action was hasty. I am not suggesting
leniency, but a suspension for the time it takes to complete an
investigation, then certificate action based on and proportional to the
results of that investigation would be a much more suitable position for the
regulatory authority.


If they had an unblemished record up until now, then there should be
consequences for their actions, but not revocation of licenses. Look how
many drunk drivers get off after having a deadly accident (the drunk
driver normally does not die) and they are right back at it. There is
more of that than what has been talked about here. And, I am on the
highways more than in the air.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
Sold :(
KSWI

I think any professional who has been doing his/her job flawlessly for 25 years who makes a mistake that results in no injuries to any persons, no damage to any equipment, and causes 144 people to be 40 minutes late deserves to have his/her livelyhood taken away for the rest of his/her life!

Clark wrote:
> "Neil Gould" > wrote in news:hc9iq2$5a5$1
> @adenine.netfront.net:
>
>> VOR-DME wrote:
>>> In article >,
>>> says...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bugger off - it's *bloody serious* - they're idiots!
>>>>
>>>> They displayed a lack of due dilegence to the extreme.
>>>>
>>>> I think their excuse is a one big lie too.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If you don't believe their story, than you have little to go on in
>>> judging the seriousness of their actions.
>>>
>>> I share the belief that the FAA action was hasty. I am not
>>> suggesting leniency, but a suspension for the time it takes to
>>> complete an investigation, then certificate action based on and
>>> proportional to the results of that investigation would be a much
>>> more suitable position for the regulatory authority.
>>>
>> Can you come up with a mitigating circumstance for the loss of
>> control and responsibility on the pilots' part that would justify
>> any lesser remedial action? If the outcome is inevitable, why should
>> the FAA wait to act?
>>
>
> It's called due process. Maybe you've heard of it?
>
Not in relation to actions by the FAA. ;-)

--
Neil

Jim Logajan wrote:
> "Dan Luke" > wrote:
>> Is there such a thing as an emergency suspension vs. revocation?
>
> According to this FAA order document, yes on both counts:
>
> http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/ND/2150.3B.pdf
>
> It's a long document, so the following is probably incomplete, but it
> appears that "emergency revocation" is considered appropriate when:
>
[...]
>
> (6) Based on the airman's having committed several regulatory
> violations during the course of the accident or incident.
>
[...]
>
> The information provided by the FAA is scant, but based only on what
> I've seen alleged, the only reason that seems to apply is (6). And in
> this case there was no accident - only an incident (per the
> definition in FAR 830.2)
>
I think you've selected the right clause, and these airmen undeniably
"...committed several regulatory violations during the course of the
accident or incident."

I feel for these guys, but their lack of judgement in this incident is
inexcusable, and apparently the FAA came to the same conclusion.

--
Neil

On Oct 28, 5:49*pm, "Neil Gould" > wrote:
> Jim Logajan wrote:
> > "Dan Luke" > wrote:
> >> Is there such a thing as an emergency suspension vs. revocation?
>
> > According to this FAA order document, yes on both counts:
>
> >http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/ND/2150.3B.pdf
>
> > It's a long document, so the following is probably incomplete, but it
> > appears that "emergency revocation" is considered appropriate when:
>
> [...]
>
> > (6) Based on the airman's having committed several regulatory
> > violations during the course of the accident or incident.
>
> [...]
>
> > The information provided by the FAA is scant, but based only on what
> > I've seen alleged, the only reason that seems to apply is (6). And in
> > this case there was no accident - only an incident (per the
> > definition in FAR 830.2)
>
> I think you've selected the right clause, and these airmen undeniably
> "...committed several regulatory violations during the course of the
> accident or incident."
>
> I feel for these guys, but their lack of judgement in this incident is
> inexcusable, and apparently the FAA came to the same conclusion.
>
> --
> Neil

I agree. This incident included several career ending actions even
before you get into WHAT they were doing to cause the actions in
question and the FAA was perfectly justified in lifting the two
certificates. In this business there exists an environment concerning
safety that allows no "first time offenses" in the area these two
pilots were operating. You commit offenses in the category involved
here and you are justifiably history.
Dudley Henriques

"Frank Camper" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:24:25 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote:
>
>> FAA doesn't bother with suspension - goes straight for the revocation:
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/us/28plane.html
>>
>> Pretty harsh for pilots who don't appear to have had any other blemish on
>> their lengthy records.
>>
>> Revocation would seem to be appropriate for actions that are deliberately
>> reckless or are likely to be repeated. This wasn't deliberate and would
>> certainly not be repeated by these pilots.
>
> They discussed illegal/questionable activities and realized the cockpit
> is miked. Spent the remainder of time looking for the erase button then
> remembering the 30 minute loop. This is fact.
> --
> Live To Spend It

I am just as curious, intellectually, about the true facts of this case is
the next otherwise dissinterested party and have jumped to more than enough
conclusions in the past to leave me more than willing to sit this one out;
but I can assure you that those two ATP rated pilots did not fly around
looking for an "erase" button. The actual control that accomplishes the
result has been the same for many years; so please be so kind as to supply
the few curious souls amoung us with a more usefull fact.

Thanks in advance.

Clark wrote:
>> If the outcome is inevitable, why should the FAA wait to act?
>>
>
> It's called due process. Maybe you've heard of it?
>

Gotta remember that one. When the boss says "You're fired!"
I need to say, "Hey, it's called Due Process".

Will that one work, do you think?

Brian W

Danny Flyboy > wrote:
> I think any professional who has been doing his job flawlessly for 25
> years who makes a mistake that results in no injuries to any persons,
> no damage to any equipment, and causes 144 people to be 40 minutes late
> deserves to have his/her livelyhood taken away for the rest of his/her
> life!

Revocation doesn't mean a pilot can't get another certificate after a year
passes - cause one fellow has managed to have his suspended or revoked some
five times:

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/certificate_revoked_pilot_sex_video_199964-1.html

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:56:49 -0400, Peter Dohm wrote:

> "Frank Camper" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:24:25 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote:
>>
>>> FAA doesn't bother with suspension - goes straight for the revocation:
>>>
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/us/28plane.html
>>>
>>> Pretty harsh for pilots who don't appear to have had any other blemish on
>>> their lengthy records.
>>>
>>> Revocation would seem to be appropriate for actions that are deliberately
>>> reckless or are likely to be repeated. This wasn't deliberate and would
>>> certainly not be repeated by these pilots.
>>
>> They discussed illegal/questionable activities and realized the cockpit
>> is miked. Spent the remainder of time looking for the erase button then
>> remembering the 30 minute loop. This is fact.
>> --
>> Live To Spend It
>
> I am just as curious, intellectually, about the true facts of this case is
> the next otherwise dissinterested party and have jumped to more than enough
> conclusions in the past to leave me more than willing to sit this one out;
> but I can assure you that those two ATP rated pilots did not fly around
> looking for an "erase" button. The actual control that accomplishes the
> result has been the same for many years; so please be so kind as to supply
> the few curious souls amoung us with a more usefull fact.
>
> Thanks in advance.

I have intell beyond the normal individual. Intell commo has been my
life.

Fact.
--
Live To Spend It

In article >,
says...
>
> Jim Logajan;710236 Wrote:
> > FAA doesn't bother with suspension - goes straight for the revocation:
> >
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/us/28plane.html
> >
> > Pretty harsh for pilots who don't appear to have had any other blemish
> > on
> > their lengthy records.
> >
> > Revocation would seem to be appropriate for actions that are
> > deliberately
> > reckless or are likely to be repeated. This wasn't deliberate and would
> >
> > certainly not be repeated by these pilots. So why why not suspend their
> >
> > certificates for a year or so? My guess is that wasn't done because the
> >
> > mistake was too high profile, publicity-wise.
>
> I think any professional who has been doing his job flawlessly for 25
> years who makes a mistake that results in no injuries to any persons,
> no damage to any equipment, and causes 144 people to be 40 minutes late
> deserves to have his/her livelyhood taken away for the rest of his/her
> life!

Yeah - let all the attempted murderers who had good jobs and caused no
injury out of jail now!

--
Duncan.

On 28 Oct, 15:55, VOR-DME > wrote:
>
> I share the belief that the FAA action was hasty. I am not suggesting
> leniency, but a suspension for the time it takes to complete an
> investigation, then certificate action based on and proportional to the
> results of that investigation would be a much more suitable position for the
> regulatory authority.


Good post. That said, I don't believe that FAA would've taken the
action that they have without conducting an investigation. In the
instant case, to establish prima facie culpability wouldn't have taken
too long, given that the aircraft and pilots were found intact.

Ramapriya

On 29 Oct, 02:35, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> On Oct 28, 5:49*pm, "Neil Gould" > wrote:
>
> > I feel for these guys, but their lack of judgement in this incident is
> > inexcusable, and apparently the FAA came to the same conclusion.
>
> > --
> > Neil
>
> I agree. This incident included several career ending actions even
> before you get into WHAT they were doing to cause the actions in
> question and the FAA was perfectly justified in lifting the two
> certificates. In this business there exists an environment concerning
> safety that allows no "first time offenses" in the area these two
> pilots were operating. You commit *offenses in the category involved
> here and you are justifiably history.
> Dudley Henriques


Quite. Skeptics need only remind themselves of the name of Nick
Tafuri, a cove with 13k+ flying hours who committed a somewhat
elementary error and didn't live long enough (nor did 160 others) for
the FAA to revoke or take any other action on his license.

The DGCA in India has a rule of requiring every pilot to get himself
re-certified on the sim each year. When I first heard about it, I
thought it utterly loopy since it applied to even those pilots who
were flying daily and those that had 10k flying hours... I'm not as
sure now!

Ramapriya

On 29 Oct, 00:34, Danny Flyboy <Danny.Flyboy.
> wrote:
>
> I think any professional who has been doing his job flawlessly for 25
> years who makes a mistake that results in no injuries to any persons,
> no damage to any equipment, and causes 144 people to be 40 minutes late
> deserves to have his/her livelyhood taken away for the rest of his/her life!

Does the FAA revocation mean what you write or is it that these blokes
have to get themselves re-licensed (correct term?)?

Ramapriya

In article
>,
D Ramapriya > wrote:

> On 29 Oct, 02:35, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> > On Oct 28, 5:49*pm, "Neil Gould" > wrote:
> >
> > > I feel for these guys, but their lack of judgement in this incident is
> > > inexcusable, and apparently the FAA came to the same conclusion.
> >
> > > --
> > > Neil
> >
> > I agree. This incident included several career ending actions even
> > before you get into WHAT they were doing to cause the actions in
> > question and the FAA was perfectly justified in lifting the two
> > certificates. In this business there exists an environment concerning
> > safety that allows no "first time offenses" in the area these two
> > pilots were operating. You commit *offenses in the category involved
> > here and you are justifiably history.
> > Dudley Henriques
>
>
> Quite. Skeptics need only remind themselves of the name of Nick
> Tafuri, a cove with 13k+ flying hours who committed a somewhat
> elementary error and didn't live long enough (nor did 160 others) for
> the FAA to revoke or take any other action on his license.

So, wait, did Tafuri make a prior screwup that should have resulted in
revocation of his license, but didn't, and thus allowed him to continue
flying and get his passengers killed? Because I'm looking at the
Wikipedia article on him and don't see any indication of any problems in
his flying record before the fatal flight. If there were no prior
infractions then this paragraph is a complete non sequitur.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

Clark wrote:
>..
> Due process is required in judicial actions, not by private employers. Why
> would you confuse one for the other?
>

Going way off track fast, here. But it is a source of amazement to
foreign nationals that we US citizens explicitly or implicitly sign up
for jobs that are "fire at will."
Expressing one's desire for employment with "termination for cause"
(describing the class of causes) is the remedy here.

Brian W

On 29 Oct, 20:00, Mike Ash > wrote:
> In article
> >,
> *D Ramapriya > wrote:
>
> > Quite. Skeptics need only remind themselves of the name of Nick
> > Tafuri, a cove with 13k+ flying hours who committed a somewhat
> > elementary error and didn't live long enough (nor did 160 others) for
> > the FAA to revoke or take any other action on his license.
>
> So, wait, did Tafuri make a prior screwup that should have resulted in
> revocation of his license, but didn't, and thus allowed him to continue
> flying and get his passengers killed?


No, I probably mis-conveyed. Tafuri botched it and the upshot was a
very avoidable CFIT. Tafuri was apparently was one of AA's "star"
pilots (not entirely clear what maketh a star pilot). During an
approach to Cali, he had to key in the Rozo NDB on the FMC. He picked
the first name that came up on screen upon keying in "R" since the 757
FMC throws up the nearest waypoint first, without checking whether it
was indeed Rozo. On that night it wasn't, and he entered the
coordinates for an NDB called Romeo, causing the aircraft to make an 8
o'clock turn and on a course with a 10k ft mountain which they
impacted thereafter.

If after that error they'd somehow gotten off unscathed, whether
Tafuri's license would've been revoked is anyone's guess.

> If there were no prior infractions then this
> paragraph is a complete non sequitur.

Eh? The exact opposite, as I read it! It was *because* there were no
prior infractions that the "first error after yonks of safe flight,
ergo should be let off with a rap on the knuckles" line looks hard to
logically defend.

Ramapriya

Jeffrey Bloss wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:34:08 -0500, Ross wrote:
>
>> VOR-DME wrote:
>>> In article >,
>>> says...
>>>
>>>> Bugger off - it's *bloody serious* - they're idiots!
>>>>
>>>> They displayed a lack of due dilegence to the extreme.
>>>>
>>>> I think their excuse is a one big lie too.
>>>>
>>> If you don't believe their story, than you have little to go on in judging
>>> the seriousness of their actions.
>>>
>>> I share the belief that the FAA action was hasty. I am not suggesting
>>> leniency, but a suspension for the time it takes to complete an
>>> investigation, then certificate action based on and proportional to the
>>> results of that investigation would be a much more suitable position for the
>>> regulatory authority.
>>>
>> If they had an unblemished record up until now, then there should be
>> consequences for their actions, but not revocation of licenses. Look how
>> many drunk drivers get off after having a deadly accident (the drunk
>> driver normally does not die) and they are right back at it. There is
>> more of that than what has been talked about here. And, I am on the
>> highways more than in the air.
>
> Thanks, Ross, only the completely brain dead would support the
> completely brain dead Logajan.

Is that you, bertie?

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
Sold :(
KSWI

D Ramapriya > wrote:
> On 29 Oct, 00:34, Danny Flyboy <Danny.Flyboy.
> > wrote:
>>
>> I think any professional who has been doing his job flawlessly for 25
>> years who makes a mistake that results in no injuries to any persons,
>> no damage to any equipment, and causes 144 people to be 40 minutes
>> late deserves to have his/her livelyhood taken away for the rest of
>> his/her life!
>
> Does the FAA revocation mean what you write or is it that these blokes
> have to get themselves re-licensed (correct term?)?

Revocation "only" means their pilot certificate is no longer valid. But I
believe the revocation on its own doesn't mean the person can't attempt to
get another pilot certificate ab initio. According to FAR 61.13(d)(2) the
FAA will not issue any certificate to a person whose certificate was
revoked for a period of 12 months after the last revocation.

Assuming another certificate is obtained, having a revocation in ones
piloting history would make employment as a commercial pilot rather
difficult - though technically not impossible.

The only revocation I can find in the U.S. FARs that might be considered
potentially "permanent" is under 61.18 - which deals with so-called
"Security disqualification."

In article
>,
D Ramapriya > wrote:

> On 29 Oct, 20:00, Mike Ash > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> > *D Ramapriya > wrote:
> >
> > > Quite. Skeptics need only remind themselves of the name of Nick
> > > Tafuri, a cove with 13k+ flying hours who committed a somewhat
> > > elementary error and didn't live long enough (nor did 160 others) for
> > > the FAA to revoke or take any other action on his license.
> >
> > So, wait, did Tafuri make a prior screwup that should have resulted in
> > revocation of his license, but didn't, and thus allowed him to continue
> > flying and get his passengers killed?
>
> No, I probably mis-conveyed. Tafuri botched it and the upshot was a
> very avoidable CFIT. Tafuri was apparently was one of AA's "star"
> pilots (not entirely clear what maketh a star pilot). During an
> approach to Cali, he had to key in the Rozo NDB on the FMC. He picked
> the first name that came up on screen upon keying in "R" since the 757
> FMC throws up the nearest waypoint first, without checking whether it
> was indeed Rozo. On that night it wasn't, and he entered the
> coordinates for an NDB called Romeo, causing the aircraft to make an 8
> o'clock turn and on a course with a 10k ft mountain which they
> impacted thereafter.
>
> If after that error they'd somehow gotten off unscathed, whether
> Tafuri's license would've been revoked is anyone's guess.
>
> > If there were no prior infractions then this
> > paragraph is a complete non sequitur.
>
> Eh? The exact opposite, as I read it! It was *because* there were no
> prior infractions that the "first error after yonks of safe flight,
> ergo should be let off with a rap on the knuckles" line looks hard to
> logically defend.

In my mind, if you're advocating some action, and you bring up an
example to support it, that example had better have an improved outcome
as a result of your proposed action.

You're advocating for more immediate, stronger enforcement. This would
not have changed the outcome of Tafuri's ill-fated flight in any way. As
such, I don't see it as being a supporting example at all. He screwed up
and killed 160 people. If he had been flying in a regime of stronger
enforcement, he still would have screwed up and killed 160 people.

A good example here would be someone who screwed up badly, got a slap on
the wrist, and THEN went on to kill a couple of hundred people. I can't
think of any such off hand, but I'm sure someone else will pipe up with
one.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:00:09 -0400, Mike Ash wrote:

> In my mind,

What mind?
--
_?_ Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend.
(@ @) Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.
-oOO-(_)--OOo-------------------------------[ Groucho Marx ]--
grok! Devoted Microsoft User

On Oct 29, 4:00*pm, Mike Ash > wrote:
> In article
> >,
> *D Ramapriya > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 29 Oct, 20:00, Mike Ash > wrote:
> > > In article
> > > >,
> > > *D Ramapriya > wrote:
>
> > > > Quite. Skeptics need only remind themselves of the name of Nick
> > > > Tafuri, a cove with 13k+ flying hours who committed a somewhat
> > > > elementary error and didn't live long enough (nor did 160 others) for
> > > > the FAA to revoke or take any other action on his license.
>
> > > So, wait, did Tafuri make a prior screwup that should have resulted in
> > > revocation of his license, but didn't, and thus allowed him to continue
> > > flying and get his passengers killed?
>
> > No, I probably mis-conveyed. Tafuri botched it and the upshot was a
> > very avoidable CFIT. Tafuri was apparently was one of AA's "star"
> > pilots (not entirely clear what maketh a star pilot). During an
> > approach to Cali, he had to key in the Rozo NDB on the FMC. He picked
> > the first name that came up on screen upon keying in "R" since the 757
> > FMC throws up the nearest waypoint first, without checking whether it
> > was indeed Rozo. On that night it wasn't, and he entered the
> > coordinates for an NDB called Romeo, causing the aircraft to make an 8
> > o'clock turn and on a course with a 10k ft mountain which they
> > impacted thereafter.
>
> > If after that error they'd somehow gotten off unscathed, whether
> > Tafuri's license would've been revoked is anyone's guess.
>
> > > If there were no prior infractions then this
> > > paragraph is a complete non sequitur.
>
> > Eh? The exact opposite, as I read it! It was *because* there were no
> > prior infractions that the "first error after yonks of safe flight,
> > ergo should be let off with a rap on the knuckles" line looks hard to
> > logically defend.
>
> In my mind, if you're advocating some action, and you bring up an
> example to support it, that example had better have an improved outcome
> as a result of your proposed action.
>
> You're advocating for more immediate, stronger enforcement. This would
> not have changed the outcome of Tafuri's ill-fated flight in any way. As
> such, I don't see it as being a supporting example at all. He screwed up
> and killed 160 people. If he had been flying in a regime of stronger
> enforcement, he still would have screwed up and killed 160 people.
>
> A good example here would be someone who screwed up badly, got a slap on
> the wrist, and THEN went on to kill a couple of hundred people. I can't
> think of any such off hand, but I'm sure someone else will pipe up with
> one.
>
> --
> Mike Ash
> Radio Free Earth
> Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

An even better approach might be what the FAA is doing in this case.
If pilots do something overtly stupid, making an example of them will
likely make other pilots less likely to do the same thing. There may
very well be demands for due process, it will be interesting to see if
the pilots union support its members, or recognize the larger issue.
The action that spawned this thread has no realistic defense, does it?
The first rule I learned is, first control the airplane. They didn't,
and had no over riding circumstance that would justify the lack of
attention.

This is the FAA's version of the first rule of entrepreneurship --
Ready, Fire, Aim. In my view the FAA is right.

In article >,
Mike Ash > wrote:

> In article
> >,
> D Ramapriya > wrote:
>
> > On 29 Oct, 20:00, Mike Ash > wrote:
> > > In article
> > > >,
> > > Â*D Ramapriya > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Quite. Skeptics need only remind themselves of the name of Nick
> > > > Tafuri, a cove with 13k+ flying hours who committed a somewhat
> > > > elementary error and didn't live long enough (nor did 160 others) for
> > > > the FAA to revoke or take any other action on his license.
> > >
> > > So, wait, did Tafuri make a prior screwup that should have resulted in
> > > revocation of his license, but didn't, and thus allowed him to continue
> > > flying and get his passengers killed?
> >
> > No, I probably mis-conveyed. Tafuri botched it and the upshot was a
> > very avoidable CFIT. Tafuri was apparently was one of AA's "star"
> > pilots (not entirely clear what maketh a star pilot). During an
> > approach to Cali, he had to key in the Rozo NDB on the FMC. He picked
> > the first name that came up on screen upon keying in "R" since the 757
> > FMC throws up the nearest waypoint first, without checking whether it
> > was indeed Rozo. On that night it wasn't, and he entered the
> > coordinates for an NDB called Romeo, causing the aircraft to make an 8
> > o'clock turn and on a course with a 10k ft mountain which they
> > impacted thereafter.
> >
> > If after that error they'd somehow gotten off unscathed, whether
> > Tafuri's license would've been revoked is anyone's guess.
> >
> > > If there were no prior infractions then this
> > > paragraph is a complete non sequitur.
> >
> > Eh? The exact opposite, as I read it! It was *because* there were no
> > prior infractions that the "first error after yonks of safe flight,
> > ergo should be let off with a rap on the knuckles" line looks hard to
> > logically defend.
>
> In my mind, if you're advocating some action, and you bring up an
> example to support it, that example had better have an improved outcome
> as a result of your proposed action.
>
> You're advocating for more immediate, stronger enforcement. This would
> not have changed the outcome of Tafuri's ill-fated flight in any way. As
> such, I don't see it as being a supporting example at all. He screwed up
> and killed 160 people. If he had been flying in a regime of stronger
> enforcement, he still would have screwed up and killed 160 people.
>
> A good example here would be someone who screwed up badly, got a slap on
> the wrist, and THEN went on to kill a couple of hundred people. I can't
> think of any such off hand, but I'm sure someone else will pipe up with
> one.

I think the point Mike is trying to make is: imagine if the outcome of
the flight had been different. Suppose the plane had, say, run out of
fuel as a result of the extra time spent in flight, or flown into a
thunderstorm. In that case it is hard to imagine anyone arguing against
emergency revocation. The pilots' actions are still the same; the only
difference would be the circumstances. The decision to revoke or not
should be based on what the pilots *did* (or in this case failed to do),
not on whether they happened to avoid catastrophe through sheer dumb
luck.

rg

On Oct 30, 12:00*am, Mike Ash > wrote:
> In article
> >,
> *D Ramapriya > wrote:
>
> In my mind, if you're advocating some action, and you bring up an
> example to support it, that example had better have an improved outcome
> as a result of your proposed action.

And that's what most SOPs hereafter will I'm sure incorporate...
something along the lines of "shut down all laptops" after the
"Approach Briefing" item on the checklist. Or even a "Check flight
deck alertness" directive to the Chief Cabin Attendant ere TOD :)

These will, as a direct upshot of their adherence, preclude a similar
scenario in future.

But the point about LNAV (PROFILE in Airbuses) remains - why had the
A320's FMC not commenced descent from TOD unless these coves had left
open the option of manual initiation?


> You're advocating for more immediate, stronger enforcement. This would
> not have changed the outcome of Tafuri's ill-fated flight in any way. As
> such, I don't see it as being a supporting example at all. He screwed up
> and killed 160 people. If he had been flying in a regime of stronger
> enforcement, he still would have screwed up and killed 160 people.


Well, you never know. If a similar incident had occurred earlier
without loss of life, there may well have been a crosscheck (from the
other crew member) written into the checklist prior to confirmation.


> A good example here would be someone who screwed up badly, got a slap on
> the wrist, and THEN went on to kill a couple of hundred people.


That would be an example of pilot error in the technical sense, i.e.
having done the technical bits wrongly - selecting the Idle Open
Descent Mode during final approach in an A320, e.g.

What happened in this case was more a case of personal regimentation
(remain focused all the time, follow procedures/checlists, etc.) being
less than desirable - and these are hard to eliminate through
legislation alone - rather than the lack of competence itself. You
could introduce systems to forfend similar occurrences but then when
someone violates them negligently, as it seems to have happened, you
simply have to remove that weed, little else.

Ramapriya

In article
>,
a > wrote:

> An even better approach might be what the FAA is doing in this case.
> If pilots do something overtly stupid, making an example of them will
> likely make other pilots less likely to do the same thing. There may
> very well be demands for due process, it will be interesting to see if
> the pilots union support its members, or recognize the larger issue.
> The action that spawned this thread has no realistic defense, does it?
> The first rule I learned is, first control the airplane. They didn't,
> and had no over riding circumstance that would justify the lack of
> attention.

"No realistic defense" doesn't really matter. It doesn't matter if what
they did was completely unjustified, they still deserve due process and
punishment in proportion to their infraction. Even confessed murderers
get due process. Pilots who screwed up and caused no harm should
definitely get it.

Suspend their licenses until an investigation is complete, put them
through whatever passes for due process with the FAA, and then at the
end if it all indicates revocation, then do it. I can't see any
justification for an emergency revocation.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

D Ramapriya > wrote
>
> But the point about LNAV (PROFILE in Airbuses) remains - why had the
> A320's FMC not commenced descent from TOD unless these coves had left
> open the option of manual initiation?

Ramapriya,...you have no concept of the airway congestion that we have
here in the USofA compared to the Middle East. I don't think that ATC
would even consider having all of those airliners autonomously starting
descent.

BTW, what is a "cove"? :) My "Webster's" doesn't seem to know either.

Bob Moore

D Ramapriya >

> And that's what most SOPs hereafter will I'm sure incorporate...
> something along the lines of "shut down all laptops" after the
> "Approach Briefing" item on the checklist. Or even a "Check flight
> deck alertness" directive to the Chief Cabin Attendant ere TOD :)

At PanAm, the Flight Attendants were required to check the cockpit
every 10-15 minutes. Of course, this was before the 9-11 armoured
cockpit door.

Bob Moore
Remembering the "good ole" days of airline flying

On Oct 30, 4:43*pm, Robert Moore > wrote:
> D Ramapriya > wrote
>
>
>
> > But the point about LNAV (PROFILE in Airbuses) remains - why had the
> > A320's FMC not commenced descent from TOD unless these coves had left
> > open the option of manual initiation?
>
> Ramapriya,...you have no concept of the airway congestion that we have
> here in the USofA compared to the Middle East. I don't think that ATC
> would even consider having all of those airliners autonomously starting
> descent.
>
> BTW, what is a "cove"? :) My "Webster's" doesn't seem to know either.
>
> Bob Moore


"guy", "bloke", "person", "cove", "sod", "chap", even "cobber"... all
the same :)

And thanks for the info on autonomous descents; didn't know that that
worry ATC :)

Ramapriya

On Oct 30, 4:43*pm, Clark > wrote:
> D Ramapriya > wrote in news:0e1dac61-33d6-489b-a9c0-
> :
>
>
>
> > On Oct 30, 12:00*am, Mike Ash > wrote:
> >> In article
> >> >,
> >> *D Ramapriya > wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > But the point about LNAV (PROFILE in Airbuses) remains - why had the
> > A320's FMC not commenced descent from TOD unless these coves had left
> > open the option of manual initiation?
>
> There is no point here. The aircraft cannot descend until instructed to or
> approved by ATC. Setting the FMC to automatically descend would be contrary
> to normal operations in the ATC system.


Yep, Bob's post said so. I wonder if ATCs around the world work
differently because on the one occasion I've been in the flight deck,
the letdown commenced automatically. I remember it well because I was
so awed.


> Gotta love these "analyses" by folks with superficial knowledge. Maybe they
> take their lead from newspaper and television reporters...
> (that was an impolite way to say that speculation is pointless since the
> foundation knowledge is lacking)


Point taken mate, however I've never claimed to have even superficial
knowledge, so pretence and/or dishonesty you can't accuse me of :)

Ramapriya

Robert Moore wrote:
> D Ramapriya > wrote
>> But the point about LNAV (PROFILE in Airbuses) remains - why had the
>> A320's FMC not commenced descent from TOD unless these coves had left
>> open the option of manual initiation?
>
> Ramapriya,...you have no concept of the airway congestion that we have
> here in the USofA compared to the Middle East. I don't think that ATC
> would even consider having all of those airliners autonomously starting
> descent.
>
> BTW, what is a "cove"? :) My "Webster's" doesn't seem to know either.
>
> Bob Moore


Cove: Old term in the English vernacular standing for 'fellow'
Refer to Wodehouse.

Brian W

brian whatcott wrote
> Robert Moore wrote:
>> BTW, what is a "cove"? :) My "Webster's" doesn't seem to know either.
>
> Cove: Old term in the English vernacular standing for 'fellow'
> Refer to Wodehouse.

Yes Brian, I did already know due to my worldwide travels with PanAm,
and my British next door neighbors.
I was just yanking the chain of my very good personal friend, Ramapriya,
who does tend to us a lot of English words/phrases with which the
average American would be unfamiliar.

Bob Moore

On Oct 31, 7:10*am, Robert Moore > wrote:
> brian whatcott *wrote
>
> > Robert Moore wrote:
> >> BTW, what is a "cove"? :) My "Webster's" doesn't seem to know either.
>
> > Cove: Old term in the English vernacular standing for 'fellow'
> > Refer to Wodehouse.
>
> Yes Brian, I did already know due to my worldwide travels with PanAm,
> and my British next door neighbors.
> I was just yanking the chain of my very good personal friend, Ramapriya,
> who does tend to us a lot of English words/phrases with which the
> average American would be unfamiliar.

It's so nice to see English as it is spoken

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
>
> I agree. This incident included several career ending actions even
> before you get into WHAT they were doing to cause the actions in
> question and the FAA was perfectly justified in lifting the two
> certificates. In this business there exists an environment concerning
> safety that allows no "first time offenses" in the area these two
> pilots were operating. You commit offenses in the category involved
> here and you are justifiably history.
> Dudley Henriques
>
OK, I must admit that I must have missed something critical here .

I can personally think of a couple of really obvious possibilities, but I
don't recall any usefull discussion of those possibilities in the media or
(surprise) here on this NG. So, which career ending actions (or inactions)
particularly caught your attention.

The reason that I find the question necessary is that I used to work in
radio and television broadcasting, and transmitter operating logs are
required for all transmitters of significant power output. Log entries were
required, by the FCC, every 30 minutes in the old days; then every hour for
the next several years; and finally, by about 30 years ago, every 3 hours.
In the old days, it was very unusual for anyone to miss a log entry by more
than a couple of minutes; but, after the change to 3 hour intervals, it was
not uncommon to find someone trying to catch up his entries at the end of a
shift.

So, until I have heard or seen a presuasive argument for some other cause, I
am inclined to believe that the transition to closed cockpit doors a couple
of decades ago and then to further isolation of the flight crews since 2001
has led to a progressively less business-like working environment for the
pilots.

IMHO, it seems possible that we may just be substituting one set of problems
for another--that may be a little less potentially damaging or possibly a
little more...

Or as a former coworked likes to say it: "Every time we push it in
someplace, it pops out someplace else!"

Anyway, Dudley, which actions or inactions caught your eye?

Peter

On Oct 30, 6:01*pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > I agree. This incident included several career ending actions even
> > before you get into WHAT they were doing to cause the actions in
> > question and the FAA was perfectly justified in lifting the two
> > certificates. In this business there exists an environment concerning
> > safety that allows no "first time offenses" in the area these two
> > pilots were operating. You commit *offenses in the category involved
> > here and you are justifiably history.
> > Dudley Henriques
>
> OK, I must admit that I must have missed something critical here .
>
> I can personally think of a couple of really obvious possibilities, but I
> don't recall any usefull discussion of those possibilities in the media or
> (surprise) here on this NG. *So, which career ending actions (or inactions)
> particularly caught your attention.
>
> The reason that I find the question necessary is that I used to work in
> radio and television broadcasting, and transmitter operating logs are
> required for all transmitters of significant power output. *Log entries were
> required, by the FCC, every 30 minutes in the old days; then every hour for
> the next several years; and finally, by about 30 years ago, every 3 hours..
> In the old days, it was very unusual for anyone to miss a log entry by more
> than a couple of minutes; but, after the change to 3 hour intervals, it was
> not uncommon to find someone trying to catch up his entries at the end of a
> shift.
>
> So, until I have heard or seen a presuasive argument for some other cause, I
> am inclined to believe that the transition to closed cockpit doors a couple
> of decades ago and then to further isolation of the flight crews since 2001
> has led to a progressively less business-like working environment for the
> pilots.
>
> IMHO, it seems possible that we may just be substituting one set of problems
> for another--that may be a little less potentially damaging or possibly a
> little more...
>
> Or as a former coworked likes to say it: *"Every time we push it in
> someplace, it pops out someplace else!"
>
> Anyway, Dudley, which actions or inactions caught your eye?
>
> Peter

I'm in the flight safety business. My opinion on this matter reflects
ONLY that aspect of the incident and is not intended to reflect the
legal end of the equation.
For me, the answer is obvious. Had I been asked for input on what
transpired that input would directly address the fact that by
definition, this aircraft while in operation requires a pilot in
command at all times. In the flight safety context, this equates to no
action taking place concerning the operation of the aircraft that is
accomplished without the complete knowledge and consent of that pilot
in command. In other words, this aircraft was, at various times during
the progress of it's flight, NOT in control of the required decision
making process of BOTH the pilots in question AND the ATC on the
ground responsible for traffic separation.
As it happens, several actions occurred during the flight that
resulted in this aircraft proceeding outside the direct control of ATC
due to action by the aircraft without input of a pilot in command.
This alone in my opinion is a career ending action. Were these pilots
in my employ I would have terminated them immediately based on the
above observation alone.
In the flight safety business, what a pilot did prior to an incident
involving this kind of negligence is of absolutely no consequence
whatsoever. Were this the case, first time pilot error and negligence
would be non-existent as a possible cause. The fact that no accident
took place during this incident is fortunate but one has to consider
that ANY avoidance action resulting in no accident having taken place
has to be attributed to sources outside the aircraft. ATC, due to lack
of requested response had no choice but to take action designed to
insure the security and safety of this aircraft. Such action had to be
taken without the involvement of any pilot in command inside the
aircraft.
For me, as a safety adviser, there is absolutely no argument with the
FAA action based on the safety issue. As I said, the legal issues are
another matter yet to be decided.
Dudley Henriques

On Oct 28, 5:35*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>This incident included several career ending actions even
> before you get into WHAT they were doing to cause the actions in
> question and the FAA was perfectly justified in lifting the two
> certificates.

And anything they might have been doing other than attending to their
duties is entirely irrelevant.

The evidence seems to consist mostly of the account/s of the crew
which amount to confessions of multiple counts of gross and willful
dereliction of duty, with little to contradict them.

"We suspect you did not respond to ATC because you failed to switch
frequencies and/or were asleep."

"Pfft. Are you ****tin' me? We heard 'em, we just ignored 'em."

That might be why a lengthy investigation was not considered necessary
and immediate revocation appropriate.

I can imagine the conversations with attorneys: Get an agent and write
a book: here's a name. You might check to see if you can get one of
those handicapped parking things for mental disabilities. Sign here.
Initial here. No, I don't need your cell number.
-----

- gpsman

Robert Moore wrote:
> brian whatcott wrote
>> Robert Moore wrote:
>>> BTW, what is a "cove"? :) My "Webster's" doesn't seem to know either.
>> Cove: Old term in the English vernacular standing for 'fellow'
>> Refer to Wodehouse.
>
> Yes Brian, I did already know due to my worldwide travels with PanAm,
> and my British next door neighbors.
> I was just yanking the chain of my very good personal friend, Ramapriya,
> who does tend to us a lot of English words/phrases with which the
> average American would be unfamiliar.
>
> Bob Moore

Try this. http://www.hps.com/~tpg/ukdict/

Although Cove is not there. I used to travel to the UK often.


--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
Sold :(
KSWI

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> Dave Doe > wrote:
>> In article >,
>> says...
>>> FAA doesn't bother with suspension - goes straight for the
>>> revocation:
>>>
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/us/28plane.html
>>>
>>> Pretty harsh for pilots who don't appear to have had any other
>>> blemish on their lengthy records.
>>>
>>> Revocation would seem to be appropriate for actions that are
>>> deliberately reckless or are likely to be repeated. This wasn't
>>> deliberate and would certainly not be repeated by these pilots. So
>>> why why not suspend their certificates for a year or so? My guess is
>>> that wasn't done because the mistake was too high profile,
>>> publicity-wise.
>>
>> Bugger off - it's *bloody serious*
>
> Explain what makes it "bloody serious."
>
>> - they're idiots!
>
> These alleged "idiots" have allegedly been flying for decades without
> incident. If they _were_ "idiots" (rather than otherwise competent pilots
> who made a bad mistake) wouldn't some responsibility fall on the FAA, or
> the airlines that employed them? After all, those pilots have to get
> periodic reviews of their piloting abilities. If the FAA and airlines
> can't spot idiot pilots, they are the fools.
>
> Do you think the FAA examiners who missed recognizing these "idiots"
> should also face punitive action due to this incident?
>
>> They displayed a lack of due dilegence to the extreme.
>
> Again - if they were fundamentally unable to fly due to being "idiots" -
> whose fault is it that they managed to fly for so many years without
> incident?
>
> What makes you think an _emergency_ revocation of their certificates is
> warranted? Why does it seem likely to you (or the FAA!) that they would
> repeat this mistake rather than return to the allegedly incident-free
> piloting of their previous decades of piloting?
>
>> I think their excuse is a one big lie too.
>
> Speculation is free - so feel free to explain what you think happened.

They risked the lives of over 200 people. This isn't a couple guys in a
Cherokee missing their airport. This was serious stuff.

Can you come up with a mitigating circumstance for the loss of control and
responsibility on the pilots' part that would justify any lesser remedial
action? If the outcome is inevitable, why should the FAA wait to act?

Why can't the cops take the bad guy directly to the electric chair and skip all that pesky courtroom stuff? That's the same question. Maybe there are mitigating circumstances, maybe not, but a suspension gets the pilots out of the sky immediately, so public safety is "protected", while allowing the system to function properly.

When you are charged by the FAA, you'll be really glad there is some forum to defend yourself.