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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
FAA throws pilots under the Airbus
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 |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
FAA throws pilots under the Airbus
"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. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
FAA throws pilots under the Airbus
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 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
FAA throws pilots under the Airbus
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..._199964-1.html |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
FAA throws pilots under the Airbus
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 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
FAA throws pilots under the Airbus
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 |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
FAA throws pilots under the Airbus
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 |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
FAA throws pilots under the Airbus
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 |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
FAA throws pilots under the Airbus
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 |
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 |