These
RUMOURS AND NEWS was posted in The Boston Globe. Instead of me copy-pasting the article follow this link for the full article:
New flight plan Airline pilots have a take-charge attitude about defending planes
The link was originally posted by SaturnV but I would like to put it in another light, hence the new topic.
Some quotes:
From pilots:
"What I can do is stick the guy on the ceiling, and then drop him on the floor," declared Captain Steve Pierce, 48, a pilot for Southwest Airlines for 18 years and a former Navy fighter pilot.
"I will flip the plane over, turn it upside down," explained Captain Jim Lortscher, a Shuttle America pilot who was with the Navy for 16 years.
"Pilots have more and more been relegated to a stance of, you drive the plane, and we'll take care of everything else," said Emens, who lives in Annapolis, Md. "I think now there is more of a realization that pilots have to be more in the loop. Basically, we are demanding an increased role. If I am going to be up there, I want to know everything."
Procedures?:
Trained and retrained in the commercial sphere, they are machine operators for whom procedure is a mantra, and routine a watchword. But they are also men - and all but 3 percent are men - instilled with a powerful sense of self, a warrior's confidence in their own abilities. It is a trait that has come into dramatic focus in the aftermath of Sept. 11, as the nation's pilots seek to reassert control of their aircraft, to wrest them back from beneath the shroud of the terrorists' attacks.
I think that procedures are good in normal operation to ensure consistently safe operation. However, there have been some examples in the recent years where following predetermined procedures have proven not to be the best solution (i.e Swissair 111). The procedures concerning hijackings have been widely know as the crew assuming a passive role and complying with the hijackers demands. Looking in the mirror it may not have been the most wise choice to let the public and potential hijacker know how airlines deals with such situations.
A few more quotes:
From the FAA:
Jim Peters, a spokesman for the Federal Aviation Administration's regional office, refused to comment on specific plans of action, such as pulling G's, or refusing to come out of the cockpit. But when pilots are in the air, he said, they are the ones in charge.
"The pilot is given great discretion in how he operates his aircraft," said Peters. "There are rules that govern how they are to fly the aircraft, but there are situations where they may elect to take actions that are not in the book. That is their call."
"The management":
Southwest, like other airlines, has implemented some new procedures in response to the events of Sept. 11, although it is still working on a long-term policy. Spokeswoman Kristin Nelson declined to comment on some of the specific maneuvers pilots say they have in mind, but she said that, "in an emergency situation we are going to be relying on our pilots' best judgments. We certainly will have policies and procedures in place for them as guidelines. But when push comes to shove, it's ultimately their decision."
Have airlines pilots become monkeys? That blindly follow procedures, despite that they may not be the best solution?
Should procedures be downplayed and leave more decisions be at the pilots discresion and best judgement?
Personally I think that no airline should make any information public regarding how they would deal with hijackers. If different airlines have different procedures, that would be best too. No hijacker should have the advantage in knowing how the crew might act.
Regarding procedures in general I think that leaving more to a highly trained flightcrew may save lives when an highly abnormal situation arises. Some call it superprocedures. I guess that is just a term of "no procedures" as well.