NTSB investigating possible nodding off of Northwest pilots
F/O Kite,
No, I think there is more to it than that. For example, one of the times is listed as:
That doesn't seem approximate to me.
I42
No, I think there is more to it than that. For example, one of the times is listed as:
At approximately 7:24:16 p.m. CDT ...
I42
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Released by the ALPA
Delta Pilots’ Union Issues Statement on Northwest Flight 188 Investigation
DAL 09-03, October 26, 2009
Atlanta—The Delta Master Executive Council, the Delta branch of the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA), the union that represents the over 12,000 pilots of Delta Air Lines, today issued a statement concerning the NTSB investigation into Northwest Flight 188.
“As professional airline pilots, our primary concern is and always will be the safety and well-being of our passengers,” said Captain Lee Moak, Delta MEC Chairman. “In any aircraft incident, there is always more to the story than first appears in the press. We do not condone the abandonment of due process that will result from a rush to judgment; instead we implore all interested parties to move with deliberate and unemotional professionalism as the events surrounding this incident are investigated.”
On Wednesday, October 21, 2009, Air Traffic Control (ATC) lost radio contact with Northwest Flight 188, and Flight 188 subsequently overflew its destination before radio contact was reestablished. The aircraft remained visible to ATC radar at all times. Once radio contact was reestablished, the aircraft returned for a safe landing at its destination. At no time were the passengers, crew or aircraft in danger.
Over the past several years, labor, management, the industry and government agencies have partnered, expending significant amounts of time, money and effort, to develop programs such as Aviation Safety Action Programs (ASAP) and Flight Operational Quality Assurance (FOQA) programs designed to improve the safety of our nation’s aviation system. The core tenet of these programs is the ability of pilots to self disclose without fear of retribution in order to help make the U.S. aviation system the safest in the world.
“To date, all crew statements related to this case have been voluntary. We are disappointed that these voluntary statements are being used without regard for the breach of trust and confidence their use will cause,” Captain Moak remarked. “Programs like ASAP and FOQA could be dealt a debilitating blow as pilots question the integrity of these voluntary programs. A rush to judgment by the NTSB will have a direct impact on the future of voluntary safety programs, which are at the very core of the safety structure of the U.S. aviation industry. The continued viability of these programs themselves will be placed at risk. That will, in turn, cause irreparable harm to the safety of our nation’s aviation system.”
“The NTSB is an independent federal agency charged with determining the probable cause of transportation accidents and promoting transportation safety. They are not charged with prematurely releasing self-disclosed information to be sensationalized in the press,” Captain Moak insisted.
“We will work closely with Delta and federal officials to determine any root causes for last weeks sequence of events,” Captain Moak continued, “but in the meantime I strongly encourage all parties not to reach a hasty conclusion. There is a proper venue for this investigation, but we stand firmly behind the crew’s right to due process.”
Delta Pilots’ Union Issues Statement on Northwest Flight 188 Investigation
DAL 09-03, October 26, 2009
Atlanta—The Delta Master Executive Council, the Delta branch of the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA), the union that represents the over 12,000 pilots of Delta Air Lines, today issued a statement concerning the NTSB investigation into Northwest Flight 188.
“As professional airline pilots, our primary concern is and always will be the safety and well-being of our passengers,” said Captain Lee Moak, Delta MEC Chairman. “In any aircraft incident, there is always more to the story than first appears in the press. We do not condone the abandonment of due process that will result from a rush to judgment; instead we implore all interested parties to move with deliberate and unemotional professionalism as the events surrounding this incident are investigated.”
On Wednesday, October 21, 2009, Air Traffic Control (ATC) lost radio contact with Northwest Flight 188, and Flight 188 subsequently overflew its destination before radio contact was reestablished. The aircraft remained visible to ATC radar at all times. Once radio contact was reestablished, the aircraft returned for a safe landing at its destination. At no time were the passengers, crew or aircraft in danger.
Over the past several years, labor, management, the industry and government agencies have partnered, expending significant amounts of time, money and effort, to develop programs such as Aviation Safety Action Programs (ASAP) and Flight Operational Quality Assurance (FOQA) programs designed to improve the safety of our nation’s aviation system. The core tenet of these programs is the ability of pilots to self disclose without fear of retribution in order to help make the U.S. aviation system the safest in the world.
“To date, all crew statements related to this case have been voluntary. We are disappointed that these voluntary statements are being used without regard for the breach of trust and confidence their use will cause,” Captain Moak remarked. “Programs like ASAP and FOQA could be dealt a debilitating blow as pilots question the integrity of these voluntary programs. A rush to judgment by the NTSB will have a direct impact on the future of voluntary safety programs, which are at the very core of the safety structure of the U.S. aviation industry. The continued viability of these programs themselves will be placed at risk. That will, in turn, cause irreparable harm to the safety of our nation’s aviation system.”
“The NTSB is an independent federal agency charged with determining the probable cause of transportation accidents and promoting transportation safety. They are not charged with prematurely releasing self-disclosed information to be sensationalized in the press,” Captain Moak insisted.
“We will work closely with Delta and federal officials to determine any root causes for last weeks sequence of events,” Captain Moak continued, “but in the meantime I strongly encourage all parties not to reach a hasty conclusion. There is a proper venue for this investigation, but we stand firmly behind the crew’s right to due process.”
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: us
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pre 9/11, it took about 80 minutes for ATC to vector fighters to intercept an aircraft that was not communicating.
DCA00MA005: Aberdeen, South Dakota, October 25, 1999
Note, there is a change in time zones.
At 0927:10 EDT, N47BA called the Jacksonville ARTCC controller and stated that the flight was climbing through an altitude of FL 230. At 0927:13 EDT, the controller instructed N47BA to climb and maintain FL 390. At 0927:18 EDT, N47BA acknowledged the clearance by stating, "three nine zero bravo alpha." This was the last known radio transmission from the airplane.4 The sound of the cabin altitude aural warning5 was not heard on the ATC recording of this transmission.6
At 0933:38 EDT (6 minutes and 20 seconds after N47BA acknowledged the previous clearance), the controller instructed N47BA to change radio frequencies and contact another Jacksonville ARTCC controller. The controller received no response from N47BA. The controller called the flight five more times over the next 4 1/2 minutes but received no response.
About 0952 CDT,7 a USAF F-16 test pilot from the 40th Flight Test Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base (AFB), Florida, was vectored to within 8 nm of N47BA.8 About 0954 CDT, at a range of 2,000 feet from the accident airplane and an altitude of about 46,400 feet,9 the test pilot made two radio calls to N47BA but did not receive a response. About 1000 CDT, the test pilot began a visual inspection of N47BA. There was no visible damage to the airplane, and he did not see ice accumulation on the exterior of the airplane. Both engines were running, and the rotating beacon was on.
At 0933:38 EDT (6 minutes and 20 seconds after N47BA acknowledged the previous clearance), the controller instructed N47BA to change radio frequencies and contact another Jacksonville ARTCC controller. The controller received no response from N47BA. The controller called the flight five more times over the next 4 1/2 minutes but received no response.
About 0952 CDT,7 a USAF F-16 test pilot from the 40th Flight Test Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base (AFB), Florida, was vectored to within 8 nm of N47BA.8 About 0954 CDT, at a range of 2,000 feet from the accident airplane and an altitude of about 46,400 feet,9 the test pilot made two radio calls to N47BA but did not receive a response. About 1000 CDT, the test pilot began a visual inspection of N47BA. There was no visible damage to the airplane, and he did not see ice accumulation on the exterior of the airplane. Both engines were running, and the rotating beacon was on.
Note, there is a change in time zones.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: KHPN
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
India 42,
I think the word "approximately" was used by the FAA attorney in an "abundance of caution" (as we lawyers like to say) to avoid being locked in to the exact times stated. It seems to me that if the chronology set out was reasonably accurate, the use of the word wasn't necessary and the lawyer was simply being overly cautious.
By the way, I think people are making too much of "a frolic of one's own." As enoon alluded to in post 355, under US law the FAA's use of that phrase wouldn't absolve NW or anyone else of liability had the flight come to an unfortunate end. My sense in reading the revocation letters is that the FAA attorney didn't intend to use the phrase as a legal term of art, but simply to convey in vivid language that the pilots were off doing something that they shouldn't have been doing, regardless of whether it related to airline business or not.
I think the word "approximately" was used by the FAA attorney in an "abundance of caution" (as we lawyers like to say) to avoid being locked in to the exact times stated. It seems to me that if the chronology set out was reasonably accurate, the use of the word wasn't necessary and the lawyer was simply being overly cautious.
By the way, I think people are making too much of "a frolic of one's own." As enoon alluded to in post 355, under US law the FAA's use of that phrase wouldn't absolve NW or anyone else of liability had the flight come to an unfortunate end. My sense in reading the revocation letters is that the FAA attorney didn't intend to use the phrase as a legal term of art, but simply to convey in vivid language that the pilots were off doing something that they shouldn't have been doing, regardless of whether it related to airline business or not.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: 39.5N105W
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
50 vs 90 minutes explained?
Eboy cites the WSJ report of the FAA possibly having a little 40+ minute problem of their own.
SpyPilot, among others, wonders why the revocation letters leave 40 minutes unaccounted for when they assert 90 minutes of NORDO but list only the missed handoff by Denver Center 50 minutes prior to hearing from these guys again.
These two posts are in sequence.
When one is throwing rocks, it is always best to avoid drawing attention to your own position in a glass house.
SpyPilot, among others, wonders why the revocation letters leave 40 minutes unaccounted for when they assert 90 minutes of NORDO but list only the missed handoff by Denver Center 50 minutes prior to hearing from these guys again.
These two posts are in sequence.
When one is throwing rocks, it is always best to avoid drawing attention to your own position in a glass house.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe, but it seems strange that the lawyer was word perfect in respect of this comparitively rare legal term of art - when he could have used colloquial language.
If it is never quoted again, then no doubt you are right. If not then this quotation may suggest other intent.
Anticipating a public backlash, I think the FAA and the airline have got their heads together with the intention of stating their position very clearly from the start.
KR
FOK
If it is never quoted again, then no doubt you are right. If not then this quotation may suggest other intent.
Anticipating a public backlash, I think the FAA and the airline have got their heads together with the intention of stating their position very clearly from the start.
KR
FOK
Last edited by FlyingOfficerKite; 29th Oct 2009 at 19:07.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few days after the widely publicized train crash that involved an engineer who was using a cell phone in violation of the rules at the time ocurred, I took a train ride from NYC to Westchester. During the entire 30 minute ride that involved multiple station stops, the engineer had his door open and was openly chatting with his very attractive girl friend.
All I kept thinking is, now I know how train accidents happen.
I assume the swift action against the crew is intended to be a wake-up call but it is now backfiring as some are deeming it a "rush-to-judgment" move.
Didn't Johnnie Cochron invent that term during the OJ Simpson trial? Anyway, the term is now a true American classic!
All I kept thinking is, now I know how train accidents happen.
I assume the swift action against the crew is intended to be a wake-up call but it is now backfiring as some are deeming it a "rush-to-judgment" move.
Didn't Johnnie Cochron invent that term during the OJ Simpson trial? Anyway, the term is now a true American classic!
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another issue, for any commercial flight, would be the question of fuel reserves.
If the flight was indeed approximately 90 minutes longer than planned, what was the fuel situation if they had had to divert at destination?
Whilst most companies allow some discretion regarding the uptake of fuel, it would be hard to justify an entry in the PLOG for 'additional fuel 3000kg in case of frolic'!
FOK
If the flight was indeed approximately 90 minutes longer than planned, what was the fuel situation if they had had to divert at destination?
Whilst most companies allow some discretion regarding the uptake of fuel, it would be hard to justify an entry in the PLOG for 'additional fuel 3000kg in case of frolic'!
FOK
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Europe
Age: 54
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Twisted judgement
"At no time were the passengers, crew or aircraft in danger." (from Delta MEC's statement).
Really? Should I believe that the pilots "distracted" to the extent of not being able to see/hear TENS of warnings, carefully monitored the fuel gauges?!
What if - by chance, not duty call - that F/A (a real hero!) doesn't checked in for explanations? They were already 150 nm out of target in straight&level flight, technically speaking ON RESERVES. A few more minutes of "distraction" and all the reserves would vanished.
Can we believe that the "bingo fuel" warning would have been able to wake'em up from the "distraction" if other chimes, clicks and calls failed? Hm... let's see...
Even if so, flying at FL370... wouldn't been too late?
Men from the unions: everybody (the poor "SLF" - sound like cattle - as well) appreciate the efforts in improving the safety, but do I sense a bit of blackmail?
And YES IMHO they do seriously endangered the lives of those onboard, their own lives and potentially some souls on the ground.
Respect!
Really? Should I believe that the pilots "distracted" to the extent of not being able to see/hear TENS of warnings, carefully monitored the fuel gauges?!
What if - by chance, not duty call - that F/A (a real hero!) doesn't checked in for explanations? They were already 150 nm out of target in straight&level flight, technically speaking ON RESERVES. A few more minutes of "distraction" and all the reserves would vanished.
Can we believe that the "bingo fuel" warning would have been able to wake'em up from the "distraction" if other chimes, clicks and calls failed? Hm... let's see...
Even if so, flying at FL370... wouldn't been too late?Men from the unions: everybody (the poor "SLF" - sound like cattle - as well) appreciate the efforts in improving the safety, but do I sense a bit of blackmail?
And YES IMHO they do seriously endangered the lives of those onboard, their own lives and potentially some souls on the ground.
Respect!
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: England
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could one of the lawyers following this thread explain the reason why the FAA lawyer carefully inserted "approximately" in front of all the times quoted in the revocation letter?
If you ask me to draft a document which is to be used in litigation (or might be), then you will probably also be supplying me with a set of facts which I will need to mention in that document. Facts worry me - people get them wrong all the time - not just ordinary folks but certified experts too. When the error shows up I will be the one on my hind legs in front of a Judge trying to explain it away, and getting bounced off four walls by him/her for my trouble. Even if the accuracy of the fact is not such a big deal, I will be the one looking sheepish when the opposition come along and demonstrate, just to undermine my overall credibility and aplomb, that my information is not as accurate as that self-confident document asserts it to be.
For this reason, the first question I ask myself about a fact is, "How accurate do I have to be about this to win my case?" That is my judgment call made in light of whatever the law on that topic is, and no matter how confident you, dear client, may be about the accuracy of your information, I will not be any more precise in expressing it than is absolutely necessary. I really don't care if 3 atomic clocks, a committee of clairvoyants and Bishop Usher agree the timing of some event right down to the nanosecond ..... I am still going to say "approximately" or "on or about", or "in the vicinity of", if I can get away with it.
It is also just possible that I will get lucky with a sucker punch if I say "approximately", - when the smartass Defendant corrects me by giving an absolute time ...... and thereby admits knowledge of the event. "Thank-you very much sir".
Last edited by enoon; 29th Oct 2009 at 22:16.
.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Denmark
Age: 79
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
xcris,
You wrote in post #396:
"No one can believe that two highly experienced and routined airmen were "distracted" for more than one hour from their regular duties......"
I really do not think that you are right!
When looking back on my 42 years of flying (military and commercial - longhaul/shorthaul), I recall many accidents and incidents, which were commented in a similar fashion: "No one can believe that 2 highly experienced pilots could act this way". But they did nevertheless!
I could mention many examples.
So, I believe that the 2 pilots involved are telling the true story behind the events, although it is (more than) difficult to understand why the events developed in this unacceptable way as they did - at least with the information available at this point.
Regarding fuel reserves: We don't know at this point what the amount of fuel upon landing was, so suggesting that passengers were in danger due to low fuel state is premature.
"No one can believe that two highly experienced and routined airmen were "distracted" for more than one hour from their regular duties......"
I really do not think that you are right!
When looking back on my 42 years of flying (military and commercial - longhaul/shorthaul), I recall many accidents and incidents, which were commented in a similar fashion: "No one can believe that 2 highly experienced pilots could act this way". But they did nevertheless!
I could mention many examples.
So, I believe that the 2 pilots involved are telling the true story behind the events, although it is (more than) difficult to understand why the events developed in this unacceptable way as they did - at least with the information available at this point.
Regarding fuel reserves: We don't know at this point what the amount of fuel upon landing was, so suggesting that passengers were in danger due to low fuel state is premature.
Last edited by grebllaw123d; 29th Oct 2009 at 20:46.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Georgia
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"At no time were the passengers, crew or aircraft in danger." (from Delta MEC's statement).
Typical pravda propaganda.
Typical pravda propaganda.
"In danger" and "at risk" are two entirely different things, the only similarities between them is that they are not binary states (either on or off, true or not true) but analogue. (many variations withing the range)
However, on the sliding scale of risk, which starts sliding to the more dangerous end on push back, I believe we can reasonably say that they were not 'in 'danger' (where the risk of disaster, death or injury is certain unless corrective action is taken) For instance, there is no entry into the record of another aircraft on the same level heading on a collision course and having to be vectored away, unlike KAL 007, they did not (i think) overflow hostile Soviet territory. I also do not believe they flew over a live missile firing range.
Splitting hairs? perhaps, by while I still have a few on this thinning pate I'll do with them what I must!
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We don't know at this point what the fuel state was upon landing, so suggesting that passengers were in danger is premature.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Europe
Age: 54
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
clarification
"We don't know at this point what the fuel state was upon landing, so suggesting that passengers were in danger is premature" (grebllaw123d)
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: The World
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An air interceptor sitting off your wing has a very attention getting powerful light among other things. In short no one was going to let the aircraft run out of fuel..
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The bottom line
Wait for the facts??? The facts are, they were out of radio contact for XX minutes (depending on who you talk to), and overflew their destination by 150 NM!!! Those are the only facts that matter!!!
I don't care if they were arguing, working on a laptop, banging the FA, or taking a nap...they still f*&%d up, and they don't deserve to continue flying as professional pilots.
JMHO
I don't care if they were arguing, working on a laptop, banging the FA, or taking a nap...they still f*&%d up, and they don't deserve to continue flying as professional pilots.
JMHO
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: KHPN
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Grebllaw123d said:
"When looking back on my 42 years of flying (military and commercial - longhaul/shorthaul), I recall many accidents and incidents, which were commented in a similar fashion: "No one can believe that 2 highly experienced pilots could act this way". But they did nevertheless!"
This gets to the heart of something I've been wondering - would the pilots have been so inattentive if the F/O was a 25 year old kid with 1500 hours rather than a seasoned 53 year old with 11,000 hours?
"When looking back on my 42 years of flying (military and commercial - longhaul/shorthaul), I recall many accidents and incidents, which were commented in a similar fashion: "No one can believe that 2 highly experienced pilots could act this way". But they did nevertheless!"
This gets to the heart of something I've been wondering - would the pilots have been so inattentive if the F/O was a 25 year old kid with 1500 hours rather than a seasoned 53 year old with 11,000 hours?
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The situation
Come on boys and girls. IF the weather had been bad, bumped around by turbulence...the pilots would have put down their laptops and watched the instruments.
It was the very perfection of the evening which minimized the risk and allowed the pilots to watch the laptop instead of the instruments.
It is when things are too easy that distraction comes into play.
I used to fly out of DCA. I don't think anyone ever crashed on landing to the south...you are too busy to be distracted by little things.
And the bit about fuel reserves. Let me tell you...IF I had fuel for destination plus 45 minutes ONLY...I would be checking the fuel every 10 minutes or so. I have a feeling they were pretty fat on fuel.
IF a fire bell had rung, if turbulence had hit, if the lights flickered...the crew would have wondered what was going on and looked around. Things were too easy that night.
(don't get me wrong...if I were the BOSS of any major airline, I would fire those who didn't know how to monitor things when things were easy)
It was the very perfection of the evening which minimized the risk and allowed the pilots to watch the laptop instead of the instruments.
It is when things are too easy that distraction comes into play.
I used to fly out of DCA. I don't think anyone ever crashed on landing to the south...you are too busy to be distracted by little things.
And the bit about fuel reserves. Let me tell you...IF I had fuel for destination plus 45 minutes ONLY...I would be checking the fuel every 10 minutes or so. I have a feeling they were pretty fat on fuel.
IF a fire bell had rung, if turbulence had hit, if the lights flickered...the crew would have wondered what was going on and looked around. Things were too easy that night.
(don't get me wrong...if I were the BOSS of any major airline, I would fire those who didn't know how to monitor things when things were easy)