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Tafuri's license would've been revoked is anyone's guess.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.