FAA throws pilots under the Airbus

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.

In article ,
says...
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.

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.

--
Duncan.

Dave Doe wrote:
In article ,
says...
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.

Bugger off - it's *bloody serious*

Explain what makes it "bloody serious."

- they're idiots!

These alleged "idiots" have allegedly been flying for decades without
incident. If they _were_ "idiots" (rather than otherwise competent pilots
who made a bad mistake) wouldn't some responsibility fall on the FAA, or
the airlines that employed them? After all, those pilots have to get
periodic reviews of their piloting abilities. If the FAA and airlines
can't spot idiot pilots, they are the fools.

Do you think the FAA examiners who missed recognizing these "idiots"
should also face punitive action due to this incident?

They displayed a lack of due dilegence to the extreme.

Again - if they were fundamentally unable to fly due to being "idiots" -
whose fault is it that they managed to fly for so many years without
incident?

What makes you think an _emergency_ revocation of their certificates is
warranted? Why does it seem likely to you (or the FAA!) that they would
repeat this mistake rather than return to the allegedly incident-free
piloting of their previous decades of piloting?

I think their excuse is a one big lie too.

Speculation is free - so feel free to explain what you think happened.

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:
Dave Doe wrote:
In article ,
says...
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.

Bugger off - it's *bloody serious*

Explain what makes it "bloody serious."

How about unauthorized wallowing around in controlled airspace beyond their
route with 100+ passengers?

--
Neil

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.

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.

Can you come up with a mitigating circumstance for the loss of control and
responsibility on the pilots' part that would justify any lesser remedial
action? If the outcome is inevitable, why should the FAA wait to act?

--
Neil

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.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
Sold
KSWI