FAA throws pilots under the Airbus

Clark wrote:
..
Due process is required in judicial actions, not by private employers. Why
would you confuse one for the other?


Going way off track fast, here. But it is a source of amazement to
foreign nationals that we US citizens explicitly or implicitly sign up
for jobs that are "fire at will."
Expressing one's desire for employment with "termination for cause"
(describing the class of causes) is the remedy here.

Brian W

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Tafuri's license would've been revoked is anyone's guess.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

Ramapriya

Jeffrey Bloss wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:34:08 -0500, Ross wrote:

VOR-DME wrote:
In article ,
says...

Bugger off - it's *bloody serious* - they're idiots!

They displayed a lack of due dilegence to the extreme.

I think their excuse is a one big lie too.

If you don't believe their story, than you have little to go on in judging
the seriousness of their actions.

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.

If they had an unblemished record up until now, then there should be
consequences for their actions, but not revocation of licenses. Look how
many drunk drivers get off after having a deadly accident (the drunk
driver normally does not die) and they are right back at it. There is
more of that than what has been talked about here. And, I am on the
highways more than in the air.

Thanks, Ross, only the completely brain dead would support the
completely brain dead Logajan.

Is that you, bertie?

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
Sold
KSWI

D Ramapriya wrote:
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?)?

Revocation "only" means their pilot certificate is no longer valid. But I
believe the revocation on its own doesn't mean the person can't attempt to
get another pilot certificate ab initio. According to FAR 61.13(d)(2) the
FAA will not issue any certificate to a person whose certificate was
revoked for a period of 12 months after the last revocation.

Assuming another certificate is obtained, having a revocation in ones
piloting history would make employment as a commercial pilot rather
difficult - though technically not impossible.

The only revocation I can find in the U.S. FARs that might be considered
potentially "permanent" is under 61.18 - which deals with so-called
"Security disqualification."

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

On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:00:09 -0400, Mike Ash wrote:

In my mind,

What mind?
--
_?_ Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend.
(@ @) Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.
-oOO-(_)--OOo-------------------------------[ Groucho Marx ]--
grok! Devoted Microsoft User

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.

In article ,
Mike Ash wrote:

In article
,
D Ramapriya wrote:

On 29 Oct, 20:00, Mike Ash wrote:
In article
,
Â*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.

I think the point Mike is trying to make is: imagine if the outcome of
the flight had been different. Suppose the plane had, say, run out of
fuel as a result of the extra time spent in flight, or flown into a
thunderstorm. In that case it is hard to imagine anyone arguing against
emergency revocation. The pilots' actions are still the same; the only
difference would be the circumstances. The decision to revoke or not
should be based on what the pilots *did* (or in this case failed to do),
not on whether they happened to avoid catastrophe through sheer dumb
luck.

rg

On Oct 30, 12:00*am, Mike Ash wrote:
In article
,
*D Ramapriya wrote:

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.

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

These will, as a direct upshot of their adherence, preclude a similar
scenario in future.

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?


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.


Well, you never know. If a similar incident had occurred earlier
without loss of life, there may well have been a crosscheck (from the
other crew member) written into the checklist prior to confirmation.


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.


That would be an example of pilot error in the technical sense, i.e.
having done the technical bits wrongly - selecting the Idle Open
Descent Mode during final approach in an A320, e.g.

What happened in this case was more a case of personal regimentation
(remain focused all the time, follow procedures/checlists, etc.) being
less than desirable - and these are hard to eliminate through
legislation alone - rather than the lack of competence itself. You
could introduce systems to forfend similar occurrences but then when
someone violates them negligently, as it seems to have happened, you
simply have to remove that weed, little else.

Ramapriya

In article
,
a wrote:

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.

"No realistic defense" doesn't really matter. It doesn't matter if what
they did was completely unjustified, they still deserve due process and
punishment in proportion to their infraction. Even confessed murderers
get due process. Pilots who screwed up and caused no harm should
definitely get it.

Suspend their licenses until an investigation is complete, put them
through whatever passes for due process with the FAA, and then at the
end if it all indicates revocation, then do it. I can't see any
justification for an emergency revocation.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon