A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

FAA throws pilots under the Airbus



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old October 28th 09, 11:35 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Dudley Henriques[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,546
Default 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  
Old October 28th 09, 11:56 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Peter Dohm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,754
Default 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  
Old October 29th 09, 01:05 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Brian Whatcott
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 915
Default 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  
Old October 29th 09, 03:39 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Jim Logajan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,958
Default 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  
Old October 29th 09, 03:45 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Frank Camper
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15
Default 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
  #26  
Old October 29th 09, 05:30 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Dave Doe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 378
Default FAA throws pilots under the Airbus

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.
  #27  
Old October 29th 09, 10:57 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
D Ramapriya
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 115
Default 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  
Old October 29th 09, 11:13 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
D Ramapriya
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 115
Default 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  
Old October 29th 09, 11:15 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
D Ramapriya
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 115
Default 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  
Old October 29th 09, 05:00 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Mike Ash
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 299
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 11:04 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:58 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.