NTSB investigating possible nodding off of Northwest pilots
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nothing should change in routine, safety-related procedures. They need to be the same every time, so that pilots can carry them out automatically and smoothly from memory. Mixing things up guarantees that very bad things will happen. Before anyone gives me the usual speech about how flying is different, no, it's not different from operating other vehicles and machines in this respect. There's no point in training to do something if the actual way of doing it will change each time it's done … that's just an invitation to disaster.
However, I've been thinking that one partial solution for sleeping in the cockpit could be video games, integrated directly into aircraft systems. You could offer pilots a choice of simple games. The common traits to all the games would be that they require a reasonable intellectual effort and high level of alertness, they would be easily interruptible, they wouldn't be so complex that they would entice a pilot into diverting his attention from other matters, and perhaps they would exercise the same skills that a pilot needs for flying.
One example of this is Tetris. If you've played this, you know how addictive it is. It's a simple game that's easy to interrupt, but it still requires clear thinking, fast reaction, and intellectual effort. It's easy to play Tetris for long periods, but it's also easy to stop if something else comes up. It is too fast to bore you to sleep, but it's easy enough to play that you don't have to concentrate exclusively on the game (you can even talk to people while you play).
When there's nothing to do in the cockpit during a long cruise, the pilot can enable the games, and play a selection of games to give himself something to do so that he doesn't nod off from boredom. No game can prevent a person from sleeping if he is well and truly fatigued, but if it's just very light fatigue, or simple boredom, a few games could help.
Since the games would be integrated into the aircraft systems, any anomaly would stop the game and alert the pilot. The games could be designed so that only one pilot can play at a time. You could even design "games" that require the pilot to do his job to play the game—for example, a game could periodically ask the pilot to enter the current altitude shown on his altimeter, just to force him to do an instrument scan.
There are many possibilities. I suspect there is a general taboo about "playing games" on the flight deck, but playing a game doesn't mean that someone isn't serious about working. It could just be a way to maintain vigilance on long trips. I think it would be better than reading a magazine, which is more passive and isn't integrated in a way that would guarantee that the pilot would become aware of any unusual situations.
I can also imagine these being integrated into an electronic flight book that a pilot could bring with him. If boredom threatens to put him to sleep, he pulls out this gadget and selects from a long list of games specially designed to keep him alert.
However, I've been thinking that one partial solution for sleeping in the cockpit could be video games, integrated directly into aircraft systems. You could offer pilots a choice of simple games. The common traits to all the games would be that they require a reasonable intellectual effort and high level of alertness, they would be easily interruptible, they wouldn't be so complex that they would entice a pilot into diverting his attention from other matters, and perhaps they would exercise the same skills that a pilot needs for flying.
One example of this is Tetris. If you've played this, you know how addictive it is. It's a simple game that's easy to interrupt, but it still requires clear thinking, fast reaction, and intellectual effort. It's easy to play Tetris for long periods, but it's also easy to stop if something else comes up. It is too fast to bore you to sleep, but it's easy enough to play that you don't have to concentrate exclusively on the game (you can even talk to people while you play).
When there's nothing to do in the cockpit during a long cruise, the pilot can enable the games, and play a selection of games to give himself something to do so that he doesn't nod off from boredom. No game can prevent a person from sleeping if he is well and truly fatigued, but if it's just very light fatigue, or simple boredom, a few games could help.
Since the games would be integrated into the aircraft systems, any anomaly would stop the game and alert the pilot. The games could be designed so that only one pilot can play at a time. You could even design "games" that require the pilot to do his job to play the game—for example, a game could periodically ask the pilot to enter the current altitude shown on his altimeter, just to force him to do an instrument scan.
There are many possibilities. I suspect there is a general taboo about "playing games" on the flight deck, but playing a game doesn't mean that someone isn't serious about working. It could just be a way to maintain vigilance on long trips. I think it would be better than reading a magazine, which is more passive and isn't integrated in a way that would guarantee that the pilot would become aware of any unusual situations.
I can also imagine these being integrated into an electronic flight book that a pilot could bring with him. If boredom threatens to put him to sleep, he pulls out this gadget and selects from a long list of games specially designed to keep him alert.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: North Hampshire.
Age: 50
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah. Or they could take a laptop and play flightsim and practice approaches into KMSP.
It may just be me but I'm looking forward to the reactions to the above post.
It may just be me but I'm looking forward to the reactions to the above post.
Guest
Posts: n/a
@AnthonyGA
Perhaps all cockpits could be fitted with links to PPRuNe with a special filter to pick up your posts. The ensuing laughter will certainly serve to keep crews from falling asleep at least.
To quote a certain old American tennis player, "you cannot be serious".
Although I appreciate that you are making a serious point about mental stimulation and levels of alertness.
Perhaps all cockpits could be fitted with links to PPRuNe with a special filter to pick up your posts. The ensuing laughter will certainly serve to keep crews from falling asleep at least.
To quote a certain old American tennis player, "you cannot be serious".
Although I appreciate that you are making a serious point about mental stimulation and levels of alertness.
Last edited by Michael Birbeck; 26th Oct 2009 at 18:38. Reason: Alertness
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Without wanting to sound overly blunt, I sincerely hope you're joking - mistaken FMS entries have caused far too many hull losses and near-misses over the years - the Cali 757, and the Indian and Air Inter A320s just for starters!
Still, the format of modern FMS entries is archaic and purely textual, definitely DOS or early IBM style. You get a crossing restriction of FL90 in Europe, is it FL90, FL090, 9000, 90, /090 etc.?
We Americans couldn't correctly call out flight levels below 180 even if our lives depended on it (and maybe they do). We burn hours of sim time doing wacky 'route mods' to try to figure out how to get the FMS to do what we want. A more modern user interface like that found on some corporate aircraft would save lives and cut training costs.
However, I don't think poor FMS programming can explain more than an hour of lost comm over the Lower 48.
Maybe they really just 'lost track of the time' and forgot to descend but that explaination sure does sound fishy.
You can B.S. the fans, but you can't B.S. the players...
Join Date: May 2006
Location: London
Age: 69
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe every flight should have the pilots' children on board so they can keep saying "are we there yet ?"
Seriously, were the flight attendants also "asleep" such that they didn't realise that the flight hadn't landed on time ?
.
Seriously, were the flight attendants also "asleep" such that they didn't realise that the flight hadn't landed on time ?
.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In a far better place
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe every flight should have the pilots' children on board so they can keep saying "are we there yet ?"
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Routine is a killer, it only allows you to do your safety with the least amount of hassle and the shortest time. You mistake the speed in which you carried out the task as an indication of proficiency.
If you know a system is mixed up, you take care, you double check, you never assume. All AC computers should obey one simple law, sequence of data can never be assumed, and we will all be a lot safer.
Games you say ? Well if you want to land AC without even knowing you did so, then way to go, but otherwise forget it.
If you know a system is mixed up, you take care, you double check, you never assume. All AC computers should obey one simple law, sequence of data can never be assumed, and we will all be a lot safer.
Games you say ? Well if you want to land AC without even knowing you did so, then way to go, but otherwise forget it.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: us
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Being reported now that the pilots told investigators they were working on their laptops, and the FO was instructing the Captain on how to do crew scheduling. The NTSB has supposedly said use of laptops in the cockpit is prohibited.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This just released from the NTSB - no comment.
In its continuing investigation of an Airbus A320 that
overflew the Minneapolis-St Paul International/Wold-
Chamberlain Airport (MSP), the National Transportation
Safety Board has developed the following factual
information: On Wednesday, October 21, 2009, at 5:56 pm
mountain daylight time, an Airbus A320, operating as
Northwest Airlines (NWA) flight 188, became a NORDO (no
radio communications) flight at 37,000 feet. The flight was
operating as a Part 121 flight from San Diego International
Airport, San Diego, California (SAN) to MSP with 144
passengers, 2 pilots and 3 flight attendants.
Both pilots were interviewed separately by NTSB
investigators yesterday in Minnesota. The following is an
overview of the interviews:
* The first officer and the captain were interviewed for
over 5 hours combined.
* The Captain, 53 years old, was hired in 1985. His
total flight time is about 20,000 hours, about 10,000
hours of A-320 time of which about 7,000 was as pilot
in command.
* The First Officer, 54 years old, was hired in 1997.
His total flight time is about 11,000 hours, and has
about 5,000 hours on the A-320.
* Both pilots said they had never had an accident,
incident or violation.
* Neither pilot reported any ongoing medical conditions.
* Both pilots stated that they were not fatigued. They
were both commuters, but they had a 19-hour layover in
San Diego just prior to the incident flight. Both said
they did not fall asleep or doze during the flight.
* Both said there was no heated argument.
* Both stated there was a distraction in the cockpit.
The pilots said there was a concentrated period of
discussion where they did not monitor the airplane or
calls from ATC even though both stated they heard
conversation on the radio. Also, neither pilot noticed
messages that were sent by company dispatchers. They
were discussing the new monthly crew flight scheduling
system that was now in place as a result of the
merger. The discussion began at cruise altitude.
* Both said they lost track of time.
* Each pilot accessed and used his personal laptop
computer while they discussed the airline crew flight
scheduling procedure. The first officer, who was more
familiar with the procedure was providing instruction
to the captain. The use of personal computers on the
flight deck is prohibited by company policy.
* Neither pilot was aware of the airplane's position
until a flight attendant called about 5 minutes before
they were scheduled to land and asked what was their
estimated time of arrival (ETA). The captain said, at
that point, he looked at his primary flight display
for an ETA and realized that they had passed MSP. They
made contact with ATC and were given vectors back to
MSP.
* At cruise altitude - the pilots stated they were using
cockpit speakers to listen to radio communications,
not their headsets.
* When asked by ATC what the problem was, they replied
"just cockpit distraction" and "dealing with company
issues".
* Both pilots said there are no procedures for the
flight attendants to check on the pilots during
flight.
The Safety Board is interviewing the flight attendants and
other company personnel today. Air traffic control
communications have been obtained and are being analyzed.
Preliminary data from the cockpit voice recorder (CVR)
revealed the following:
* The CVR recording was 1/2 hour in length.
* The cockpit area microphone channel was not working
during this recording. However, the crew's headset
microphones recorded their conversations.
* The CVR recording began during final approach, and
continued while the aircraft was at the gate.
* During the hours immediately following the incident
flight, routine aircraft maintenance provided power to
the CVR for a few minutes on several occasions, likely
recording over several minutes of the flight.
The FDR captured the entire flight which contained several
hundred aircraft parameters including the portion of flight
where there was no radio communication from the flight
crew. Investigators are examining the recorded parameters
to see if any information regarding crew activity during the
portion of flight where radio contact was lost can be
obtained.
The Safety Board's investigation continues.
overflew the Minneapolis-St Paul International/Wold-
Chamberlain Airport (MSP), the National Transportation
Safety Board has developed the following factual
information: On Wednesday, October 21, 2009, at 5:56 pm
mountain daylight time, an Airbus A320, operating as
Northwest Airlines (NWA) flight 188, became a NORDO (no
radio communications) flight at 37,000 feet. The flight was
operating as a Part 121 flight from San Diego International
Airport, San Diego, California (SAN) to MSP with 144
passengers, 2 pilots and 3 flight attendants.
Both pilots were interviewed separately by NTSB
investigators yesterday in Minnesota. The following is an
overview of the interviews:
* The first officer and the captain were interviewed for
over 5 hours combined.
* The Captain, 53 years old, was hired in 1985. His
total flight time is about 20,000 hours, about 10,000
hours of A-320 time of which about 7,000 was as pilot
in command.
* The First Officer, 54 years old, was hired in 1997.
His total flight time is about 11,000 hours, and has
about 5,000 hours on the A-320.
* Both pilots said they had never had an accident,
incident or violation.
* Neither pilot reported any ongoing medical conditions.
* Both pilots stated that they were not fatigued. They
were both commuters, but they had a 19-hour layover in
San Diego just prior to the incident flight. Both said
they did not fall asleep or doze during the flight.
* Both said there was no heated argument.
* Both stated there was a distraction in the cockpit.
The pilots said there was a concentrated period of
discussion where they did not monitor the airplane or
calls from ATC even though both stated they heard
conversation on the radio. Also, neither pilot noticed
messages that were sent by company dispatchers. They
were discussing the new monthly crew flight scheduling
system that was now in place as a result of the
merger. The discussion began at cruise altitude.
* Both said they lost track of time.
* Each pilot accessed and used his personal laptop
computer while they discussed the airline crew flight
scheduling procedure. The first officer, who was more
familiar with the procedure was providing instruction
to the captain. The use of personal computers on the
flight deck is prohibited by company policy.
* Neither pilot was aware of the airplane's position
until a flight attendant called about 5 minutes before
they were scheduled to land and asked what was their
estimated time of arrival (ETA). The captain said, at
that point, he looked at his primary flight display
for an ETA and realized that they had passed MSP. They
made contact with ATC and were given vectors back to
MSP.
* At cruise altitude - the pilots stated they were using
cockpit speakers to listen to radio communications,
not their headsets.
* When asked by ATC what the problem was, they replied
"just cockpit distraction" and "dealing with company
issues".
* Both pilots said there are no procedures for the
flight attendants to check on the pilots during
flight.
The Safety Board is interviewing the flight attendants and
other company personnel today. Air traffic control
communications have been obtained and are being analyzed.
Preliminary data from the cockpit voice recorder (CVR)
revealed the following:
* The CVR recording was 1/2 hour in length.
* The cockpit area microphone channel was not working
during this recording. However, the crew's headset
microphones recorded their conversations.
* The CVR recording began during final approach, and
continued while the aircraft was at the gate.
* During the hours immediately following the incident
flight, routine aircraft maintenance provided power to
the CVR for a few minutes on several occasions, likely
recording over several minutes of the flight.
The FDR captured the entire flight which contained several
hundred aircraft parameters including the portion of flight
where there was no radio communication from the flight
crew. Investigators are examining the recorded parameters
to see if any information regarding crew activity during the
portion of flight where radio contact was lost can be
obtained.
The Safety Board's investigation continues.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
From a Wall Street Journal analysis of the above NTSB release:
Pilots Say Laptops Contributed to Distraction - WSJ.com
As I mentioned pages earlier, I've seen crews watch DVD's on their laptop and plug some hotwired headset plug gizmo into the the interphone so they can listen to the movie over their headsets. The laptop computer was set so that it covered most of the center panel aircraft screens. I think you had to select interphone on the mic row for the side you plugged the movie into, this may have inadvertently deselected ATC on one side at least.
Look for an explicit FAA ban on non-pertinent use of laptops in the cockpit.
As long as we can still listen to our iPods...
Though pilots say it happens relatively infrequently, cockpit crews sometimes do open up personal laptops while cruising in good weather during quiet periods when automated flight-management systems are fully engaged. According to some pilots, members of some crews have even been known to play DVDs on laptops in the cockpit to pass away the time on particularly long overwater and international flights.
Federal safety rules don't prohibit laptops in cockpits. But the rules call for crews to always remain attentive, monitor cockpit displays and listen for transmissions from ground-based controllers.
Indeed, a number of big airlines, including JetBlue Airways Corp. have pilots using onboard laptops for routine flight calculations and duties.
But according to some pilots, the Northwest incident raises questions about whether laptop screens can block or hide some cockpit-instrument displays in the Airbus A320 and perhaps other jetliner models.
Federal safety rules don't prohibit laptops in cockpits. But the rules call for crews to always remain attentive, monitor cockpit displays and listen for transmissions from ground-based controllers.
Indeed, a number of big airlines, including JetBlue Airways Corp. have pilots using onboard laptops for routine flight calculations and duties.
But according to some pilots, the Northwest incident raises questions about whether laptop screens can block or hide some cockpit-instrument displays in the Airbus A320 and perhaps other jetliner models.
As I mentioned pages earlier, I've seen crews watch DVD's on their laptop and plug some hotwired headset plug gizmo into the the interphone so they can listen to the movie over their headsets. The laptop computer was set so that it covered most of the center panel aircraft screens. I think you had to select interphone on the mic row for the side you plugged the movie into, this may have inadvertently deselected ATC on one side at least.
Look for an explicit FAA ban on non-pertinent use of laptops in the cockpit.
As long as we can still listen to our iPods...
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Bear Island
Posts: 598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
how did they do this ? :-)
A few years ago when doing the 320 TR, I had the FMGS sim on my laptop .. basically to prepare for the next sim session, my place of study was where I had done all my prep since the first ones in 1987 .. my quiet table in a corner of a local restaurant.
I had done the set up and the thing was flying a route from EGXX to EGXX
(with constraints).
Someone recognises me sat in the corner and comes over to say hello.
We amble off for a glass and a chat.
Arriving back at the laptop there is the Airbus parked obediently in the XXXXX hold awaiting further.
Reconfigure for a landing, press approach, and return to the conversation.
As this was free informal study I didn't rush back.. for all I cared the laptop could have shut down, but when I came back to pack it away, there it was sat on the centreline of RW XXL at EGXX waiting for someone to taxi it to the stand.
As somebody said during my first typerating .. " Look this isn't difficult .. they are designed for Americans to fly" !!
I trust the irony is taken in the right quarters.
TR
I had done the set up and the thing was flying a route from EGXX to EGXX
(with constraints).
Someone recognises me sat in the corner and comes over to say hello.
We amble off for a glass and a chat.
Arriving back at the laptop there is the Airbus parked obediently in the XXXXX hold awaiting further.
Reconfigure for a landing, press approach, and return to the conversation.
As this was free informal study I didn't rush back.. for all I cared the laptop could have shut down, but when I came back to pack it away, there it was sat on the centreline of RW XXL at EGXX waiting for someone to taxi it to the stand.
As somebody said during my first typerating .. " Look this isn't difficult .. they are designed for Americans to fly" !!
I trust the irony is taken in the right quarters.
TR
My read of the initial factual release is that the pilots were distracted over a long period of time.
Banning the reason for the distraction does nothing to prevent the next occurence with another crew anymore than pulling the certificate of these pilots.
Banning the reason for the distraction does nothing to prevent the next occurence with another crew anymore than pulling the certificate of these pilots.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Bear Island
Posts: 598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Laptops ...
mobile phones, lettters, emails etc. are personal property.
Presumably now this has already escalated to a criminal investigation
Have you lost post "911" all personal rights /personal property to the state ?
That is a sincere question.
TR
Presumably now this has already escalated to a criminal investigation
Have you lost post "911" all personal rights /personal property to the state ?
That is a sincere question.
TR
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Being reported now that the pilots told investigators they were working on their laptops, and the FO was instructing the Captain on how to do crew scheduling. The NTSB has supposedly said use of laptops in the cockpit is prohibited.
Whether it's a "laptop", or a blackberry, a mobile phone, an iPod ... whatever "mobile digital electronic device", it doesn't matter. Nor does it matter if it's "prohibited". Most major cities have complete bans on talking on cellphones and texting while driving, and those laws are not enforced, as *everyone* is yapping and texting away while they're driving nowadays.
Now apparently, this has spread to flightdecks. The expression "hang up and DRIVE!" needs to now be modified to "HANG UP (or, in this case, log-off) AND FLY!!"
I don't care how "boring" or "routine" it is. A zero-tolerance policy needs to be crafted around all these devices that are just making us dumber as a society, and LESS SAFE as pedestrians, drivers, and passengers.
FOCUS on the task at hand. And if you cannot, either get help, or get into a different line of work.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Georgia
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
this is not even a laptop issue.
Why would BOTH of them be actively working on something that is NOT FLYING THE AIRCRAFT?
Missing a check point is one thing, missing a silently flashing error light is quite another.
Even if they didnt have a laptop in the cockpit doing this ****, they could have been as easily distracted with a clipboard and slide rule.
The only mitigating factor I see here is if Delta expects them to do all this rostering **** but doesn't provide a logical timeframe for them to do it (i.e. it's all due at the end of a flight but there isnt a logical break for you to do it in -other than your bathroom break) then it can be inferred that it MUST inevitably be done in the cockpit somehow
Why would BOTH of them be actively working on something that is NOT FLYING THE AIRCRAFT?
Missing a check point is one thing, missing a silently flashing error light is quite another.
Even if they didnt have a laptop in the cockpit doing this ****, they could have been as easily distracted with a clipboard and slide rule.
The only mitigating factor I see here is if Delta expects them to do all this rostering **** but doesn't provide a logical timeframe for them to do it (i.e. it's all due at the end of a flight but there isnt a logical break for you to do it in -other than your bathroom break) then it can be inferred that it MUST inevitably be done in the cockpit somehow