NTSB investigating possible nodding off of Northwest pilots
Moderator
I want pilots to be super...just great all the time. but if you want that, what is YOUR side of the equation? what do YOU owe in order to get a super pilot? I'll tell you right now, you and the traveling public aren't keeping their side up...and sadly, pilots are just human enough to suddenly realize that and falter on their side too.
Within the various amounts I pay, I know that I am paying for well equipped aircraft to make the pilot's job as predictable and consistant as possible, within the expected operating environment. This very certainly includes communication radios, which, by design, will cut off the transmission after 30 consecutive seconds (not an hour and a half), in case there is a stuck mic. Are there any jet aircraft still flying in North America without this function? My 34 year old Cessna with it's 22 year old comm has it! I'm also paying for auto pilot, so they don't have to hand fly all the time, and TCAS, so they don't have to look out the window all the time, among many other expensive systems.
I trust that I am paying for a well maintained aircraft, so pilots can feel secure that the aircraft will reliably support their well demnstrated flying skills and judgement. I'm paying for good ground support so the pilot does not feel alone with a problem.
In my taxes I pay for a government regulator, who will assure uniform and appropriate application of standards and regulations, and act quickly to investigate occurances, and propose resolution to prevent them in the future. The dissemination of this information must be very helpful and reassuring to pilots.
Finally, I know that I am paying the airline to compensate their staff members in accordance with the prevailing agreements. Is the airline doing that? I have no way of policing that, and it is not my role to do so.
So in my capacity as a citizen, I feel I'm doing my part.
In my professional capacity, I spend a lot of time considering those aspects of the operation of an aircraft which could create a safety issue, or a problem for the pilot, and help to design them out. I test aircraft to assure that they meet the design requirements, and issue design approval when they do. Thus the pilots, and passengers on board can feel confident that they are flying aboard an aircraft which has no hidden or uninvestigated design flaws. I have never been asked to approve, nor would ever have thought to, a system to simply assure that the pilot is paying attention at some reasonable interval - particularly when there are two of them up front!
Would the pilots feel I am doing more for them if I approve a system which requires the pilot push a button every minute to confirm they are still aware of their duties?
So, am I keeping my side up, both as a citizen, and further as a representative of the regulator? Or should I be doing more to assure avaiation safety, and happy pilots?
Pilot DAR
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: MI
Posts: 570
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately, you [Pilot DAR and others who have voiced the same or similar opinions] , along with the pilots, ARE responsible for a Government that allows a company to file for bankruptcy and throw out a 'promise to pay' contract simply by doing so and yet remain in business and expect their employees to carry on as if nothing happened. We ALL have allowed this to happen by our actions at the ballot box.
Does this excuse the pilots in this case? No, but like all other accidents and incidents, there are "contributing factors" to consider.
Does this excuse the pilots in this case? No, but like all other accidents and incidents, there are "contributing factors" to consider.
Guest
Posts: n/a
There are separate 'curves' and timetables for human endeavour. The Airline industry is no exception. Safety tends to be an immediate response to events; government, regulation and even morality are less sensitive to events. Very seldom are the curves overlapping, IMO.
Without any proof, and absent any conclusive data, pitot tubes get r&r'ed on a fleet, immediately. On the other side of the scale, when pensions disappear, (as did ours), the 'status quo' rules. I'm not moralizing, but an understanding of how things work is instructive. I'm done flying, and I think like DC-ATE. The important people in our industry are the newbies and the thirty or forty-somethings who got shafted by 'B' scale, and Boards who floundered, ignoring aviation in favor of 'other' pursuits.
The place to start is in Integrity, and Honesty. Where's my fly rod..........
bearair
Without any proof, and absent any conclusive data, pitot tubes get r&r'ed on a fleet, immediately. On the other side of the scale, when pensions disappear, (as did ours), the 'status quo' rules. I'm not moralizing, but an understanding of how things work is instructive. I'm done flying, and I think like DC-ATE. The important people in our industry are the newbies and the thirty or forty-somethings who got shafted by 'B' scale, and Boards who floundered, ignoring aviation in favor of 'other' pursuits.
The place to start is in Integrity, and Honesty. Where's my fly rod..........
bearair
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Kent
Age: 65
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is at least the third high-profile aviation event in the last year where the problem was caused by the pilots' failure to mind the shop.
1. Turkish at Amsterdam. Pilots failed to monitor speed until it was too late to recover.
2. Colgan at Buffalo. Pilots failed to monitor speed until stall-warning, and then responded poorly.
3. Northwest at Minneapolis. Pilots failed to monitor plane's position or flight-plan and overflew destination.
I seem to remember 'pilots' here on Pprune piling in with criticism for the Turkish crew. Failure to be aware of the plane's speed was seen by most as a serious dereliction of duty.
The Colgan pilots were treated little better. There was some sympathy for the poor working environment the pilots were stuck with, but generally there seemed to be an opinion that they should have been aware of their plane's speed and better able to deal with the consequences.
When it comes to Northwest, on the other hand, the same condemnation seems not to apply. In fact, there's a significant level of sympathy for the pilots' failure to monitor the plane's position, although this failure seems just as sloppy as the two failures to monitor speed.
Why the disparity?
1. Turkish at Amsterdam. Pilots failed to monitor speed until it was too late to recover.
2. Colgan at Buffalo. Pilots failed to monitor speed until stall-warning, and then responded poorly.
3. Northwest at Minneapolis. Pilots failed to monitor plane's position or flight-plan and overflew destination.
I seem to remember 'pilots' here on Pprune piling in with criticism for the Turkish crew. Failure to be aware of the plane's speed was seen by most as a serious dereliction of duty.
The Colgan pilots were treated little better. There was some sympathy for the poor working environment the pilots were stuck with, but generally there seemed to be an opinion that they should have been aware of their plane's speed and better able to deal with the consequences.
When it comes to Northwest, on the other hand, the same condemnation seems not to apply. In fact, there's a significant level of sympathy for the pilots' failure to monitor the plane's position, although this failure seems just as sloppy as the two failures to monitor speed.
Why the disparity?
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: some hotel
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
commercial break
I think the media frenzy was to sell papers (=adverts), get eyeballs on TVs (=adverts) and ears to radios (=adverts). A journalists prime directive is, now, to sell the medium and get people watching to drive up the numbers. Any other achievement (like accuracy) is secondary.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Castlegar
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unforced Err differs from fault-induced forced err
From a few slots above, Overthewing mentions cases:
Perhaps this distinction should be recognized, also, as a TRAINING issue, and the "Housekeeping" taboo as a “Professional Standards” reportable offense. Housekeeping taboos are mostly not discussed anymore -- giving pilots room to innovate their own habits, & thus be more "productive" (eg, two pilots reading about the new MERGER details at the same time).
"... This is at least the third high-profile aviation event in the last year where the problem was caused by the pilots' failure to mind the shop...?"
The specific human failure [failure to HEAR the new frequency (hand-off)] is a subtle, "unforced" human err. These errs differ from forced-err (eg, SAS DC8 into into the sea just west of LAX, and EAL's L10 into the swamp due to distracting LG-indicator lamp inop').Perhaps this distinction should be recognized, also, as a TRAINING issue, and the "Housekeeping" taboo as a “Professional Standards” reportable offense. Housekeeping taboos are mostly not discussed anymore -- giving pilots room to innovate their own habits, & thus be more "productive" (eg, two pilots reading about the new MERGER details at the same time).
Moderator
Overthewing makes an observation with which I agree, though there is an aspect I would like to add: In the first two of the three examples, the failure to "mind the shop" was over a matter of seconds, perhaps extending to a minute or so, but certainly not 90 minutes of degraded attention.
What can be said of two pilots who appear to have failed to mind the shop for such a an extended consecutive period, in the context of two other crews who had a comparitively brief excursion from reality, though with dramatically worse outcomes in both cases.
I am also reminded of the Air Transat Airbus which glided into the Azores after total fuel exhaustion enroute. The pilots were immediatly creditied as heros, though after some deeper investigation it appeared that pilot inattention or ineffectivness played a role in the initial problem, then the "hero" lable faded rather quickly into corporate quietness...
What can be said of two pilots who appear to have failed to mind the shop for such a an extended consecutive period, in the context of two other crews who had a comparitively brief excursion from reality, though with dramatically worse outcomes in both cases.
I am also reminded of the Air Transat Airbus which glided into the Azores after total fuel exhaustion enroute. The pilots were immediatly creditied as heros, though after some deeper investigation it appeared that pilot inattention or ineffectivness played a role in the initial problem, then the "hero" lable faded rather quickly into corporate quietness...
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DC ATE...you have a clue...PILOT DAR...you don't.
did these guys aviate? yes...no stall (unlike colgan)
did they navigate...yes..they didn't hit a mountain...but did lose situational awareness...they did land at their original destination and didn't get their feet wet.
did the communicate...yes, but not perfectly
oh well...would I rather have been on sully's hudson landing flight? no. would you?
did these guys aviate? yes...no stall (unlike colgan)
did they navigate...yes..they didn't hit a mountain...but did lose situational awareness...they did land at their original destination and didn't get their feet wet.
did the communicate...yes, but not perfectly
oh well...would I rather have been on sully's hudson landing flight? no. would you?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Navigate?
ProtectTH,
Did they Navigate? No they did not. Navigating means knowing where you are. When you pass a waypoint, you check it and also check the track and distance to next waypoint. If it does not compute, start looking for the error!
Clearly they did none of this. Just because they did not hit a mountain, does not mean they were navigating.
(Yes they did navigate after the fact to get back to intended destination)
Did they Navigate? No they did not. Navigating means knowing where you are. When you pass a waypoint, you check it and also check the track and distance to next waypoint. If it does not compute, start looking for the error!
Clearly they did none of this. Just because they did not hit a mountain, does not mean they were navigating.
(Yes they did navigate after the fact to get back to intended destination)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Kent
Age: 65
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
did these guys aviate? yes...no stall (unlike colgan)
did they navigate...yes..they didn't hit a mountain...but did lose situational awareness...they did land at their original destination and didn't get their feet wet.
did they navigate...yes..they didn't hit a mountain...but did lose situational awareness...they did land at their original destination and didn't get their feet wet.
The Turkish / Colgan crashes occurred at a phase of flight when automation and human control are both required. The Northwest incident happened in a phase of flight when the automation can usually manage by itself. These unfortunate differences aside, it seems to me the lack of attention to what the plane was doing is the same in all three situations.
At least both the Turkish and Colgan flight crews remembered that they were supposed to land the plane at its destination.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In a far better place
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aviate, navigate, communicate? Not a prayer!
The got the jet off as cleared by ATC and on the ground.... after they were queried by the cabin crew as to when the heck were they going to land.
Navigate? Come on... get real. George did all the aviating for Cole and Cheney... and would have continued to do so until the jet ran out of gas?
Communicate... with each other during their heated discussion, perhaps, if you wish to call that communicating.
Were Cole and Cheney so arrogance, or just incompetent??? or perhaps somewhere between the two? Looks like the cabin crew may have saved the day here, but some may disagree.
The got the jet off as cleared by ATC and on the ground.... after they were queried by the cabin crew as to when the heck were they going to land.
Navigate? Come on... get real. George did all the aviating for Cole and Cheney... and would have continued to do so until the jet ran out of gas?
Communicate... with each other during their heated discussion, perhaps, if you wish to call that communicating.
Were Cole and Cheney so arrogance, or just incompetent??? or perhaps somewhere between the two? Looks like the cabin crew may have saved the day here, but some may disagree.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Greece
Age: 84
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have never been asked to approve, nor would ever have thought to, a system to simply assure that the pilot is paying attention at some reasonable interval - particularly when there are two of them up front!
Would the pilots feel I am doing more for them if I approve a system which requires the pilot push a button every minute to confirm they are still aware of their duties?
So, am I keeping my side up, both as a citizen, and further as a representative of the regulator? Or should I be doing more to assure avaiation safety, and happy pilots?
Would the pilots feel I am doing more for them if I approve a system which requires the pilot push a button every minute to confirm they are still aware of their duties?
So, am I keeping my side up, both as a citizen, and further as a representative of the regulator? Or should I be doing more to assure avaiation safety, and happy pilots?
It is clear that with "automated everything" we remove one problem and plant the seeds of another, gradual erosion of flying skills, and, in this case, rapid breakdown in awareness.
Remember: there was a bathroom break by captain during which FA was there chatting with (and distract) FO, and change over frequency not done. From that point no more will be heard from ATC as he is now behind and others are on different frequency. The decision to begin a school room in the cockpit which demand concentration, one to teach, the other to learn.. is the damming thing, but the plane fly itself so who need pilot?
They do one bad move which lay the path for all the other bad things that happen. Would an active control system that demands pilot attention periodically be a good thing? I would say yes. No one want to be told we have a babysitter in their cockpit - how embarrassing! But these two men would I am sure be prefer a babysitter and careers right now!
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Washago
Age: 59
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"did these guys aviate? yes...no stall (unlike colgan)
did they navigate...yes..they didn't hit a mountain...but did lose situational awareness...they did land at their original destination and didn't get their feet wet.
did the communicate...yes, but not perfectly"
Did they aviate NO , that is why the A/P took them beyond destination , did they navigate NO , that is why they went beyond destination , did they communicate NO, that is why atc couldnt contact them ! Its that simple !
did they navigate...yes..they didn't hit a mountain...but did lose situational awareness...they did land at their original destination and didn't get their feet wet.
did the communicate...yes, but not perfectly"
Did they aviate NO , that is why the A/P took them beyond destination , did they navigate NO , that is why they went beyond destination , did they communicate NO, that is why atc couldnt contact them ! Its that simple !
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Greece
Age: 84
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well, thats what they did in this case, since they are now 'dead to flying' for the short term, maybe long term and forever term too..
without changing the underlying pathways that got them (and by extension, us) to that point, then all we have done is sated our thirst for blood and are just waiting for the next incident.
The human brain is too dynamic and inquisitive to take kindly to sitting idly for hours while the auto-pilot hums. They will fill this space with something. Since no more laptops allowed, look forward to the Abacus being the next maligned instrument in the cockpit
without changing the underlying pathways that got them (and by extension, us) to that point, then all we have done is sated our thirst for blood and are just waiting for the next incident.
The human brain is too dynamic and inquisitive to take kindly to sitting idly for hours while the auto-pilot hums. They will fill this space with something. Since no more laptops allowed, look forward to the Abacus being the next maligned instrument in the cockpit
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Christchurch
Age: 58
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did they aviate NO , that is why the A/P took them beyond destination , did they navigate NO , that is why they went beyond destination , did they communicate NO, that is why atc couldnt contact them ! Its that simple ! Today 07:28
What you said, was absolutely spot on. Took too many postings to finally sum it all up. All pilots, right from a Cessna 152 to A380 PIC should ALWAYS bear this 3 simple golden rules in mind, PERIOD.
As for the truth, the real truth.. Unfortunately, only THE CREW themselves will know, and NO ONE ELSE would. So let's just go along and not REACT too much to what's coming along next.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by overthewing
When it comes to Northwest, on the other hand, the same condemnation seems not to apply. In fact, there's a significant level of sympathy for the pilots' failure to monitor the plane's position, although this failure seems just as sloppy as the two failures to monitor speed.
Why the disparity?
Why the disparity?
did they navigate...yes..they didn't hit a mountain...but did lose situational awareness...they did land at their original destination and didn't get their feet wet.
They didn't get their feet wet in Minnesota as winter approaches? Good job!
Methinks you doth protest too much.
Your arguments border on the ridiculous.
Give it a rest.
It shouldn't have happened and what's important to anyone in an aluminum can several miles up in the air is how to prevent problems rather than pretend nothing went wrong.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In a far better place
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
- I think the simple answer is that in the mind of some misguided pilots, because (luckily) no-one was killed or injured by this event, somehow the crew were 'semi-heroes' for actually landing the pax at destination and worthy of 'defence'. Interesting psychology, I fear, and I wonder how widespread?
Some opinions justifying Cheney's and Cole's performance is tantamount to, let's say... "the teacher asks for Johnny's homework"... Johnny's reply is... "Er the dog ate my homework."
It amazes me how many disillusioned people there are adicted to the kool-aide.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vis3miles
Yes, these pilots screwed up and are a disgrace to the profession.
They should be punished in some manner or another.
But you seem to be missing my point. I always try to think the best of those reading the posts here...that they are smart and understand flying.
The bit about not hitting a mountain...Knowing that Mt. Whitney(about 15,000 feet) is the highest terrain in the 48 contiguous states and that the plane was at 37,000feet means that the navigation part of the flight was really taken care of with the flight planning and not thought about in the sky.
That is part of the problem. What is the pilot doing if everything is already taken care of before takeoff? His mind wanders, just like the very bright kid in a very dumb class.
This example is to try to make YOU and the others think about how we pilot planes today. And it is not the right way of doing things.
In the good old days...when engines used more fuel and we had to use VOR's...and at our speeds change those VOR's every 20 minutes or so, you had a better clue about where you were and how close you were to landing.
Perhaps the super duper modern gizmos that lead you around the sky today should be changed to make pilots DO SOMETHING to keep themselves alert.
Press a button now and find the nearest airport. In the good old days you had to think, use your chart, or even look out the window.
How many of you guys out there are looking for emergency, off airport, landing sites? (I'm talking about 2 engine or more jet airliners)
Back in the old days...and not just with ATC....we had a company requirement to send a position report every hour or at least one time during a flight shorter than an hour.
Maybe we should do that again.
I guess I will have to assume that the IQ , flying wise, is a little lower than I thought at this site.
This incident is a symptom of problems deep within the SYSTEM of flying today. I am asking that we , as a pilot group, use these two errant pilots to help us diagnose and treat the problem.
Not just shoot them, throw them on the street and lose the chance to learn and improve.
dah yup!!!!
PS...vis3....the bit about feet wet was a question. Really, would you, as a passenger , rather be on sully's flight and get your feet wet, with a heroic pair of pilots, or would you rather have a couple of pilots who made a mistake, but managed to land at the destination airport.
and there are a lot of lakes in Minn. to get your feet wet, but that was not the point.
They should be punished in some manner or another.
But you seem to be missing my point. I always try to think the best of those reading the posts here...that they are smart and understand flying.
The bit about not hitting a mountain...Knowing that Mt. Whitney(about 15,000 feet) is the highest terrain in the 48 contiguous states and that the plane was at 37,000feet means that the navigation part of the flight was really taken care of with the flight planning and not thought about in the sky.
That is part of the problem. What is the pilot doing if everything is already taken care of before takeoff? His mind wanders, just like the very bright kid in a very dumb class.
This example is to try to make YOU and the others think about how we pilot planes today. And it is not the right way of doing things.
In the good old days...when engines used more fuel and we had to use VOR's...and at our speeds change those VOR's every 20 minutes or so, you had a better clue about where you were and how close you were to landing.
Perhaps the super duper modern gizmos that lead you around the sky today should be changed to make pilots DO SOMETHING to keep themselves alert.
Press a button now and find the nearest airport. In the good old days you had to think, use your chart, or even look out the window.
How many of you guys out there are looking for emergency, off airport, landing sites? (I'm talking about 2 engine or more jet airliners)
Back in the old days...and not just with ATC....we had a company requirement to send a position report every hour or at least one time during a flight shorter than an hour.
Maybe we should do that again.
I guess I will have to assume that the IQ , flying wise, is a little lower than I thought at this site.
This incident is a symptom of problems deep within the SYSTEM of flying today. I am asking that we , as a pilot group, use these two errant pilots to help us diagnose and treat the problem.
Not just shoot them, throw them on the street and lose the chance to learn and improve.
dah yup!!!!
PS...vis3....the bit about feet wet was a question. Really, would you, as a passenger , rather be on sully's flight and get your feet wet, with a heroic pair of pilots, or would you rather have a couple of pilots who made a mistake, but managed to land at the destination airport.
and there are a lot of lakes in Minn. to get your feet wet, but that was not the point.