If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
FAA throws pilots under the Airbus
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 |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
FAA throws pilots under the Airbus
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 |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
FAA throws pilots under the Airbus
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 |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
FAA throws pilots under the Airbus
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 |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
FAA throws pilots under the Airbus
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 |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
FAA throws pilots under the Airbus
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 |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
FAA throws pilots under the Airbus
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 |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
FAA throws pilots under the Airbus
"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 |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
FAA throws pilots under the Airbus
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 |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
FAA throws pilots under the Airbus
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Airbus 380 and White Knight 2 at Oshkosh - July 31 2009 01 Airbus 380 Lifting off Runway 36.JPG (0/1) | Just Plane Noise[_2_] | Aviation Photos | 2 | August 2nd 09 02:36 AM |
Airbus 380 and White Knight 2 at Oshkosh - July 31 2009 11 Airbus 380 demo.JPG (1/1) | Just Plane Noise[_2_] | Aviation Photos | 0 | August 1st 09 01:42 AM |
Airbus 380 and White Knight 2 at Oshkosh - July 31 2009 10 Airbus 380 demo.JPG (1/1) | Just Plane Noise[_2_] | Aviation Photos | 0 | August 1st 09 01:42 AM |
Airbus 380 and White Knight 2 at Oshkosh - July 31 2009 01 Airbus 380 Lifting off Runway 36.JPG (1/1) | Just Plane Noise[_2_] | Aviation Photos | 0 | August 1st 09 01:42 AM |
Paraglider spiral dive, throws chute and ends up in the trees | Stewart Kissel | Soaring | 8 | March 1st 05 10:04 PM |