Originally Posted by
underfire
Again, FMS Bridge Visual is flown every few minutes into SFO on a daily basis.
One operator decides to land on the taxiway.
Lesson to be learned or punative action?
Should the restrictive (punative) action be against all operators? If you were United, would you want to be restricted due to Air Canada?
I think everyone can see from the FAA SAFO terpster provided, where this is going.
Almost every accident and incident that occurs was done flying a procedure that everyone does every day. And every time a change in SOP or regulation comes out in response to an incident, it is a case of a restriction being applied to the majority in response to a mistake by one person. This is nothing new.
Sometimes this approach is justified. When someone makes a mistake and it is subsequently identified that lots of other people almost make the same mistake but catch it in time, then a change in procedure is justified in my opinion. On the other hand if a mistake was made due to crew incompetence then I don't think procedures should change, instead the crew needs to be retrained or, in the most severe cases, removed from the industry.
The Colgan Capt should have been either dismissed or made a career FO a long time before their accident. A history of marginal performances is not a good sign.
I don't have a problem with
considering punitive action against the Air Canada crew. My problem is that you are basing your "prosecution" on a very brief NTSB preliminary report that doesn't say what you think it says.