Captain 'subdued' aboard JetBlue flight
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Patterson, NY
Age: 66
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SaturnV wrote:
Undergoing psychiatric evaluation in no way rules out underlying neurological or physiological conditions. Neurological issues can only be identified by a qualified professional which, in this case, would be a Neurologist. A psychiatrist cannot diagnose a neurological condition but can refer the patient to a neurologist for further evaluation.
My sister went from a perfectly healthy young woman to someone exhibiting very strange, erratic and bizarre behaviors.
Some not unlike those shown by Captain Osbon.
She was initially referred to the family doctor, then a psychiatrist and then, finally, a neurologist.
Her behavior was attributed to a brain tumor which had been growing in her head. A cancerous one.
She left this physical plane at the age of 29 years.
ST27, Osbon had been undergoing psychiatric evaluation at the Northwest Texas Hospital in Amarillo. It would seem the results of those hospital evaluations were sufficient to now transfer him into a Federal (Bureau of Prisons) medical center for a more extensive psychiatric evaluation. This suggests there was not an underlying neurological or physiological condition that suddenly precipitated his behavior
My sister went from a perfectly healthy young woman to someone exhibiting very strange, erratic and bizarre behaviors.
Some not unlike those shown by Captain Osbon.
She was initially referred to the family doctor, then a psychiatrist and then, finally, a neurologist.
Her behavior was attributed to a brain tumor which had been growing in her head. A cancerous one.
She left this physical plane at the age of 29 years.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Not far from a big Lake
Age: 81
Posts: 1,454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"An incapacitated PIC can no longer act as PIC."
How does he know he should stop trying to act as PIC? It is not obvious that he should have recognized he was incapacitated.
Maybe I am being too simplistic, but violation of law requires intent or neglect, doesn't it? Which would apply?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 76
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You have a conundrum there: How do you explain something to someone who may be unable to understand your explanation? That's like trying to explain to a drunk that he's too drunk to drive, when you get back, 'No, no, I'm fine. Just help me stand up...' All you can do is to take over, take away the keys, or in this case, lock the Captain out of the cockpit.
It's not as if there's some clear line. Let's hope we don't get some situation where the next FO locks out his Captain 'because he looked at me funny.'
You seem to see some ceremony where the Captain has to be read the Riot Act, stripped of his epaulettes and Ray-Bans and then drummed off the flight deck. Events move too fast for that. We train for 'subtle incapacitation,' for instance, when a crew member is fine one minute and out of it the next. For instance, you line up for takeoff, get cleared to depart, everything normal, but then you don't get the call for '80 knots.' The PNF is sat there, eyes open, looking fine, except for not reacting. Or perhaps it's the PF, who never rotates at 'Vr.' That is not the time to have a conversation such as, 'Are you feeling okay over there? Is there something you need to talk about?' You are about to merge with the scenery unless the PNF suddenly transforms himself into the PF, 'with the speed of a thousand startled gazelles.'
As far as I know, nobody trains for the PIC going ga-ga, as here. The FO was faced with a situation that is not in the book, when he seems to have done exactly the right thing. Imagine if he had somehow ended up locked out, with his Captain now alone on the flight deck. 'Open the pod bay doors, HAL.'
Of course there are already questions about why, when the Captain showed up late for the crew briefing, nobody realized that there was something wrong with him. Well, we operate on the basic assumption that people are 'normal,' ignoring slight oddities as just that. We don't think that someone showing up late means that they are going to flip out a few hours later at the controls of an airliner.
I am sure we will be told much more about that as the facts come out. Look forward to a few 'talking heads' telling us that we need a new system to ensure mental health, in the same way that we now test for drugs such as alcohol.
One consequence may be the end of that program where pilots tote guns in the cockpit, for fairly obvious reasons.
It's not as if there's some clear line. Let's hope we don't get some situation where the next FO locks out his Captain 'because he looked at me funny.'
You seem to see some ceremony where the Captain has to be read the Riot Act, stripped of his epaulettes and Ray-Bans and then drummed off the flight deck. Events move too fast for that. We train for 'subtle incapacitation,' for instance, when a crew member is fine one minute and out of it the next. For instance, you line up for takeoff, get cleared to depart, everything normal, but then you don't get the call for '80 knots.' The PNF is sat there, eyes open, looking fine, except for not reacting. Or perhaps it's the PF, who never rotates at 'Vr.' That is not the time to have a conversation such as, 'Are you feeling okay over there? Is there something you need to talk about?' You are about to merge with the scenery unless the PNF suddenly transforms himself into the PF, 'with the speed of a thousand startled gazelles.'
As far as I know, nobody trains for the PIC going ga-ga, as here. The FO was faced with a situation that is not in the book, when he seems to have done exactly the right thing. Imagine if he had somehow ended up locked out, with his Captain now alone on the flight deck. 'Open the pod bay doors, HAL.'
Of course there are already questions about why, when the Captain showed up late for the crew briefing, nobody realized that there was something wrong with him. Well, we operate on the basic assumption that people are 'normal,' ignoring slight oddities as just that. We don't think that someone showing up late means that they are going to flip out a few hours later at the controls of an airliner.
I am sure we will be told much more about that as the facts come out. Look forward to a few 'talking heads' telling us that we need a new system to ensure mental health, in the same way that we now test for drugs such as alcohol.
One consequence may be the end of that program where pilots tote guns in the cockpit, for fairly obvious reasons.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One consequence may be the end of that program where pilots tote guns in the cockpit, for fairly obvious reasons.
Stay tuned.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Up in the air. Sweden sometimes
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I´d love some reactions to this hypothetical but valid question. This is what could have happened if not FO on this flight had succeeded in getting the captain out of the cockpit and locked the door.
What do you do? Door to cabin is closed. Your colleague starts messing with the controls in a dangerous way and is obviously losing it very, very rapidly? Putting plane and passengers at an obvious risc. Flying all over the place. He is "incomunicado"!
Crash axe?
What do you do? Door to cabin is closed. Your colleague starts messing with the controls in a dangerous way and is obviously losing it very, very rapidly? Putting plane and passengers at an obvious risc. Flying all over the place. He is "incomunicado"!
Crash axe?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 76
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is not hypothetical!
It was a while ago, but there was an ATR crash in Morocco when the male Captain did an intentional CFIT with the female FO unable to overpower him. The CVR told the tale.
There was that Egyptair crash out of New York and a crash in the far East also where there was fairly convincing evidence that the PF, alone in the cockpit at first at least, caused the crash.
There was a PSA BAE 146 crash where a cockpit intruder shot the crew and crashed the aircraft, and a FedEx near-crash where an intruder attacked and severely wounded the crew who managed to make a safe landing.
If you add a gun already in the cockpit to the mix it can be seen that you are increasing the level of threat that is already present.
All you have to do is to think about what we already know about the reaction time. You need to perceive the problem, come up with a reaction to the problem, and then react to the problem, when all of this can take five seconds or so, a very long time. If the person at the controls, the PF, were to do something completely unexpected, the PNF might not have enough time to understand the new, completely unforeseen, circumstances and then come up with an appropriate solution.
In this case the Captain went a bit funny in the head at cruise altitude. You don't want to think about what might have happened if he had saved that up for a critical phase of flight, or quietly waited for the FO to step out for a break, or pulled out his TSA-approved pistol and told him that Jesus was now guiding the flight. These are all examples of 'thinking the unthinkable,' by definition. In the same way, up until 9/11 the idea of hijackers who were suicidal was also unthinkable. Now we think about that, and we are going to have to think about this.
We are again moving into the realm of the hypothetical from the realm of the unthinkable. Three Mile Island and Chernobyl were like this; it was unthinkable that a gang of screw-ups could be running a nuclear power plant so that it was not really held to be hypothetical.
There was a movie by Jim Jarmusch titled Down by Law, where one of the characters spoke of his Italian mother killing a rabbit to cook it and eat it, how she would hold the bunny stroking its fur, so nice, and then with one sharp blow she would kill it! The scene worked because of the juxtaposition of the loving mother being nice to the nice furry bunny, all nicey-nicey, but then Whack! Well, 'true to life,' I guess you could call that scene. So now we have the senior Captain, a check airman, flipping out. Two weeks ago it was a sick fantasy, but now it's true to life. We are just waiting to find out 'Why?'
There was that Egyptair crash out of New York and a crash in the far East also where there was fairly convincing evidence that the PF, alone in the cockpit at first at least, caused the crash.
There was a PSA BAE 146 crash where a cockpit intruder shot the crew and crashed the aircraft, and a FedEx near-crash where an intruder attacked and severely wounded the crew who managed to make a safe landing.
If you add a gun already in the cockpit to the mix it can be seen that you are increasing the level of threat that is already present.
All you have to do is to think about what we already know about the reaction time. You need to perceive the problem, come up with a reaction to the problem, and then react to the problem, when all of this can take five seconds or so, a very long time. If the person at the controls, the PF, were to do something completely unexpected, the PNF might not have enough time to understand the new, completely unforeseen, circumstances and then come up with an appropriate solution.
In this case the Captain went a bit funny in the head at cruise altitude. You don't want to think about what might have happened if he had saved that up for a critical phase of flight, or quietly waited for the FO to step out for a break, or pulled out his TSA-approved pistol and told him that Jesus was now guiding the flight. These are all examples of 'thinking the unthinkable,' by definition. In the same way, up until 9/11 the idea of hijackers who were suicidal was also unthinkable. Now we think about that, and we are going to have to think about this.
We are again moving into the realm of the hypothetical from the realm of the unthinkable. Three Mile Island and Chernobyl were like this; it was unthinkable that a gang of screw-ups could be running a nuclear power plant so that it was not really held to be hypothetical.
There was a movie by Jim Jarmusch titled Down by Law, where one of the characters spoke of his Italian mother killing a rabbit to cook it and eat it, how she would hold the bunny stroking its fur, so nice, and then with one sharp blow she would kill it! The scene worked because of the juxtaposition of the loving mother being nice to the nice furry bunny, all nicey-nicey, but then Whack! Well, 'true to life,' I guess you could call that scene. So now we have the senior Captain, a check airman, flipping out. Two weeks ago it was a sick fantasy, but now it's true to life. We are just waiting to find out 'Why?'
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
About 40 years ago I took a biker type up in a cessna 150 for a scenic flight over the mountains and he went nuts grabbing the controls and screaming in a rage. He was too big to overpower so had to calm him down so he would let me land the airplane. I was looking for a crash axe that day but had nothing to fight him with.
My only chance was a slim one of rolling inverted, undoing his seat belt and try to kick him out of the plane. Thank God I finally calmed him down so he didn't grab the controls again as he did on my first attempt to land.
My only chance was a slim one of rolling inverted, undoing his seat belt and try to kick him out of the plane. Thank God I finally calmed him down so he didn't grab the controls again as he did on my first attempt to land.
Machinbird
Yes, of course, but was it communicated to the original PIC that he was
incapacitated? How does he know he should stop trying to act as PIC? It is
not obvious that he should have recognized he was incapacitated.
Maybe I am being too simplistic, but violation of law requires intent or neglect, doesn't it? Which would apply?
Yes, of course, but was it communicated to the original PIC that he was
incapacitated? How does he know he should stop trying to act as PIC? It is
not obvious that he should have recognized he was incapacitated.
Maybe I am being too simplistic, but violation of law requires intent or neglect, doesn't it? Which would apply?
As someone has mentioned, it can't be ruled out that the Captain knew he had a disqualifying medical or psychological condition and didn't disclose it as he must during his twice-yearly FAA medicals, or was self-medicating with something not approved. This in itself would constitute a violation of Federal Law and charges would most likely be added to the existing ones if found to be the case. In that situation (where his onboard meltdown was the manifestation of non-diclosure/self-medicating) then you could indeed have scenario where the Captain had a medical issue, didn't know at the time (onboard) what he was doing was wrong, and yet would still be responsible.
In fact, if the investigation shows he was hiding a problem that caused this incident, you can probably expect he will be prosecuted to the fullest extent as an example since much of the medical certification is based on self-disclosure and trust, and being an ATP engaged in common carriage, would most likely be held to the highest standard. You just can't have your airline pilots flying paying pax around out there while hiding disqualifying psychological and/or medical problems.
Those saying "He was obviously sick and out of sorts. This is a medical issue. I can't believe they would charge him, what a lousy system. Shackles? On a pilot? Horrible!" are really just looking for something to be indignant about and focusing on the fact he's a pilot, believing that is grounds enough to set aside process or ignore SOP that goes along with it. I'd suggest taking a breath and let the process take its course.
Last edited by PukinDog; 6th Apr 2012 at 16:28.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nutty times
some may recall a united 737 captain many years ago, so long ago they had a second officer on the 737(no lie). anyway, he was making sixty degree banks and other odd things.
the other two pilots got everything down in one piece and it turned out the guy had a brain tumor...and it was subtle incapacitation.
this of course was less subtle.
going back to plato's republic, a chair is anot a chair if you can't sit in it...an ear tht does not hear is not an ear, and a captain who doesn't take care of everyone else ship included is not a captain.
some may recall a united 737 captain many years ago, so long ago they had a second officer on the 737(no lie). anyway, he was making sixty degree banks and other odd things.
the other two pilots got everything down in one piece and it turned out the guy had a brain tumor...and it was subtle incapacitation.
this of course was less subtle.
going back to plato's republic, a chair is anot a chair if you can't sit in it...an ear tht does not hear is not an ear, and a captain who doesn't take care of everyone else ship included is not a captain.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 76
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I used to fly to Bimini, the Bahamas fairly often. One morning, instead of the usual abandoned dope-runner aircraft, there was a shiny-new Piper Tomahawk sat just off the runway in the vines off to the right there. It looked just fine except for being sagged down on the right wing.
It seems that a German tourist pilot from Florida had sweet-talked a young, female CFI into a hop over to Bimini, even though that was not on the operator's insurance. He was PF and on short finals he got it badly wrong but would not let the CFI take control, so that they ended up tearing off the right-hand main gear leg on touchdown, when the machine ended up out there in the weeds.
Next, another doper aircraft landed, a few nights later, and blew the Tomahawk over on its back with its propwash.
That one was mostly a sad joke, but airline flying is serious stuff. I am sure we will all be watching to see what the reports say about why this happened.
It seems that a German tourist pilot from Florida had sweet-talked a young, female CFI into a hop over to Bimini, even though that was not on the operator's insurance. He was PF and on short finals he got it badly wrong but would not let the CFI take control, so that they ended up tearing off the right-hand main gear leg on touchdown, when the machine ended up out there in the weeds.
Next, another doper aircraft landed, a few nights later, and blew the Tomahawk over on its back with its propwash.
That one was mostly a sad joke, but airline flying is serious stuff. I am sure we will all be watching to see what the reports say about why this happened.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Pacific
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets see the logic in this: 7 out of 10 weapons get past TSA screening (from their own testing. Who knows how many other weapons get through?). In the US, it is entirely possible that those weapons include guns.
So your answer is to remove the guns from the pilots.
There is a term for this irrational fear of inanimate objects. Maybe people who have dangerous phobias should be removed from responsible positions on airplanes?
Hoplophobia (from the Greek ὅπλον - hoplon, meaning amongst others "arms" and φόβος - phobos, "fear" is defined as the "fear of weapons" and as the "fear of armed citizens"
Firearms authority and writer Colonel Jeff Cooper coined the word in 1962 to describe a "mental disturbance characterized by irrational aversion to weapons." Although not a mental health professional, Cooper employed the term as an alternative to slang terms, stating: "We read of 'gun grabbers' and 'anti-gun nuts' but these slang terms do not [explain this behavior]." Cooper attributed this behavior to an irrational fear of firearms and other forms of weaponry. He stated that "the most common manifestation of hoplophobia is the idea that instruments possess a will of their own, apart from that of their user." Writing in an opinion piece, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review columnist Dimitri Vassilaros asserted that the term was intended by Cooper as tongue-in-cheek to mock those who think guns have free will.[
The meaning and usage ascribed by Cooper falls outside of the medical definitions of true specific phobias. For example, specific phobias require that the person be aware and acknowledge that their fear is irrational, and usually causes some kind of functional impairment. True medical phobias of firearms and other weapons can exist, but are unusual.
I don't know about the "unusual" characterization; there seem to plenty of otherwise intelligent people posting here who are so afflicted. I guess it is necessary for them to acknowledge that their belief in the ability of guns to act without human intervention before it can be classified as a true phobia, but believing that guns corrode a person's ability to think rationally is close to the same thing.
So your answer is to remove the guns from the pilots.
There is a term for this irrational fear of inanimate objects. Maybe people who have dangerous phobias should be removed from responsible positions on airplanes?
Hoplophobia (from the Greek ὅπλον - hoplon, meaning amongst others "arms" and φόβος - phobos, "fear" is defined as the "fear of weapons" and as the "fear of armed citizens"
Firearms authority and writer Colonel Jeff Cooper coined the word in 1962 to describe a "mental disturbance characterized by irrational aversion to weapons." Although not a mental health professional, Cooper employed the term as an alternative to slang terms, stating: "We read of 'gun grabbers' and 'anti-gun nuts' but these slang terms do not [explain this behavior]." Cooper attributed this behavior to an irrational fear of firearms and other forms of weaponry. He stated that "the most common manifestation of hoplophobia is the idea that instruments possess a will of their own, apart from that of their user." Writing in an opinion piece, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review columnist Dimitri Vassilaros asserted that the term was intended by Cooper as tongue-in-cheek to mock those who think guns have free will.[
The meaning and usage ascribed by Cooper falls outside of the medical definitions of true specific phobias. For example, specific phobias require that the person be aware and acknowledge that their fear is irrational, and usually causes some kind of functional impairment. True medical phobias of firearms and other weapons can exist, but are unusual.
I don't know about the "unusual" characterization; there seem to plenty of otherwise intelligent people posting here who are so afflicted. I guess it is necessary for them to acknowledge that their belief in the ability of guns to act without human intervention before it can be classified as a true phobia, but believing that guns corrode a person's ability to think rationally is close to the same thing.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
once upon a time
well boys and girls....did you know that at one time all airline pilots in the USA carried a gun, rod, heater, revolver, horse pistol? Yup...because they were sworn to defend the US Mail, which the airliners carried.
Now, this was quite awhile ago...maybe as late as the DC3 and DC4 heyday.
You can even see it mentioned by E.K. Gann in "Fate is the Hunter".
Look, we had a guy go nuts...medical? nutritional supplement? but it worked out
Some comments seem less than realistic...the only SURE way to prevent this from happening again is to ground all planes.
Let's let things run their course....
I would love to know the procedures for reporting a less than optimal pilot at
JETBLUE. Can you select pilots to NOT fly with? (as a copilot)
hmmmmm
Now, this was quite awhile ago...maybe as late as the DC3 and DC4 heyday.
You can even see it mentioned by E.K. Gann in "Fate is the Hunter".
Look, we had a guy go nuts...medical? nutritional supplement? but it worked out
Some comments seem less than realistic...the only SURE way to prevent this from happening again is to ground all planes.
Let's let things run their course....
I would love to know the procedures for reporting a less than optimal pilot at
JETBLUE. Can you select pilots to NOT fly with? (as a copilot)
hmmmmm
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having guns in the cockpit is good. Most pilots know how to handle guns. It is the last defense and should stay as it is. One pilot should not destroy this way of protecting passengers. He didn't have one and has nothing to do with pilots defending their cockpit. I never carried a gun because I didn't want to but I think not letting the bad guys know what pilots are armed and which aren't is good. Let them get a piece of lead in their chest. Who cares?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ahhhh A "well regulated militia" in the plane eh?
I suppose if I'm a passenger I should therefore be able to bring along an AK-47 just in case other passengers or the crew go crazy?
I suppose if I'm a passenger I should therefore be able to bring along an AK-47 just in case other passengers or the crew go crazy?
The latest news on this incident:
Unruly JetBlue pilot charged with interference with flight - Yahoo! News
SAN ANTONIO (Reuters) - A grand jury indicted a JetBlue pilot and charged him with interference with a flight crew following a mid-air meltdown that included screaming and pounding on the cockpit door, forcing a transcontinental flight to make an emergency landing in Texas last month, court documents show.
I don't know about the "unusual" characterization; there seem to plenty of otherwise intelligent people posting here who are so afflicted. I guess it is necessary for them to acknowledge that their belief in the ability of guns to act without human intervention before it can be classified as a true phobia, but believing that guns corrode a person's ability to think rationally is close to the same thing.
That's why, to us, it walks like a phobia and talks like a phobia.