FAA throws pilots under the Airbus

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:
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

"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/m...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.

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/m...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/m...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

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

"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 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