|
Airlines To Routinely Monitor Cockpit Voice Recordings?
Buffalo Crash Sparks Debate Over Use of Cockpit Recordings By ANDY PASZTOR The Feb. 12 fatal crash of Continental Connection Flight 3407 has sparked a novel labor-management dispute over appropriate uses of an essential safety tool: cockpit voice recordings. Colgan Air Inc., which operated the flight, is proposing to download and analyze random cockpit recordings in the future as a means of enhancing safety and enforcing cockpit discipline. The union representing Colgan's roughly 480 pilots is dead set against it. Federal investigators Tuesday are slated to release transcripts of the cockpit conversations that took place in the minutes before the twin-engine Bombardier Q400 plane stalled at below 3,000 feet, rolled violently and plummeted to the ground, killing 50 people. According to people who have reviewed the transcripts, the crew engaged in a prolonged chit-chat as the plane descended from cruise altitude and then prepared to land. That violates basic aviation rules, which prohibit discussions of non-flying matters during certain phases of flight. Commercial pilots are prohibited by something called the "sterile cockpit rule" from engaging in extraneous conversations, particularly when maneuvering below 10,000 feet. Firefighters surround the wreckage of Continental Connection Flight 3407 in February. Colgan's management has approached local leaders of the Air Line Pilots Association, the largest U.S. pilot union, with the proposition that such spot checks of cockpit behavior would help supplement and improve existing safety initiatives. ALPA's leadership has responded with a resounding "no." Not a single U.S. airline is believed to sample cockpit recordings in this fashion, and even general discussion of such a step is considered anathema by the pilot union. Pilots contend it would violate their privacy and demonstrate management's lack of trust in their professionalism. Individual pilots at Colgan and other carriers have criticized the airline's proposal, but so far ALPA leaders haven't made a public stink. An ALPA spokeswoman in Washington, D.C., decline to comment. The National Transportation Safety Board hasn't been formally asked by either side to weigh in, but board members, staffers and outside air-safety advocates are likely to oppose the idea on the grounds that it could chill voluntary disclosures of safety lapses or mistakes. Some safety experts fear the initiative could even backfire, encouraging certain pilots to try to deflect blame by possibly erasing cockpit conversations captured on the devices. Currently, such data is used exclusively in accident probes or as part of joint airline-union programs to investigate the causes of various types of close calls or dangerous incidents -- in the air as well as on the ground. Captain's Training Faulted In Air Crash That Killed 50On Sunday, Colgan spokesman Joe Williams confirmed in an email that the carrier has proposed that recordings "be monitored for safety purposes by selected union and company pilots." He said the company believes such a step is the most effective way to obtain "an accurate view of pilot performance." Colgan believes the cockpit recordings "could become great accident prevention tools," he said Roger Cohen, president of the Regional Airline Association, said Colgan's concept is the natural evolution of current safety practices. "If we are identifying cockpit discipline" as an important safety factor and "there is a random, non-punitive way" to sample data, according to Mr. Cohen, "why wouldn't we at least begin talking" about broader uses of cockpit recorders? Pilot union officials are especially sensitive about the topic because they already face calls by the NTSB to install video-recording systems in many cockpits. Overseas, cockpit voice recordings have become embroiled in criminal proceedings after some high-profile crashes. And pilot representatives increasingly are wary of any proposals to further strip recorded conversations of confidentiality. Buffalo Crash Sparks Debate Over Use of Cockpit Recordings - WSJ.com Either way, it may follow that Airlines' execs' meetings should also be recorded and made available to their company's aircrew, just in case there are any safety implications? Any further knowledge of this move out there in the ether? |
Don't see how it could do much good. People would just shut up and use sign language. The problem with this kind of initiative is that it has the opposite effect of the one desired. Being aware that every word they say is being monitored might mean that everyone just says less, creating even more dangerous situations.
|
By comparison: MBTA Boston (Green Line)
...Yesterday, local and federal officials continued to investigate Friday's crash and to evaluate possible criminal charges against ..., the operator who authorities said told them he was text messaging ... The crash near Government Center Station sent nearly 50 people to the hospital with noncritical injuries and totaled three trolley cars. |
By comparison: MBTA Boston (Green Line) ...Yesterday, local and federal officials continued to investigate Friday's crash and to evaluate possible criminal charges against ..., the operator who authorities said told them he was text messaging ... The crash near Government Center Station sent nearly 50 people to the hospital with noncritical injuries and totaled three trolley cars. Today 13:37 |
Don't see a problem with it myself... If you can't resist indulging in extraneous conversation during an approach (which I don't recommend) then just be sure not to have an accident... If you can't be sure of not having an accident then why indulge in extraneous conversation... it's time to get focused.
On the other hand I would love to hear transcripts of meetings involving management decisions relating to T's and C's of regional flight crews and their response to comments implying that the miserable terms offered are going to scare away all but the most desperate and least experienced applicants. |
This is so symbolic of what's wrong in America today.
We can't seem to maintain professionalism, basic flying skills, situational awareness, and just plain old mental agility in our cockpits. So we'll enforce sterile cockpit. I flew commuter turboprops, and saw natural-born pilots who MASTERED their aircraft, who could make it walk and talk, who knew their airspeed, attitude and configuration with their eyes closed - and could tell you their latest joke or deer-hunting story while they were doing it. But that's technique, not procedure. Hard to teach/evaluate one, but not the other. Much like our financial industry, our education system, our government - we cannot hire bright, qualified, morally sound people in enough quantities - so we'll just put some more rules down on paper.... |
Sorry but dont see how this compares. If you are driving a train and you have your head down writing messages this is very different from saying some non work related comment during the descent. One point at PPR is there is always discourse when discussing how the "new pilot" wouldn't know a steam pressure gauge if it was handed to them. I expect some comments if this thread strays enough would lead the same to argue that “they” now want the steering wheel. I've flown Colgan, I've observed the cockpit (B1900) and they are on it. I've flown the SAAB and the pilots thoroughly enjoy flying those planes. So, I'm not in complete agreement about any such comment regarding training, or that things are not as they should be at Colgan. Often enough the FAA will ride third seat...(?) Things are changing and the DASH 8, with its avionics (potential) offers a newer and brighter aviation future when fully deployed. Yet, in order to create the change at hand. The system must first become virtual in the air and within the scope of ground control based technology. That’s how I read the failure and the breakdown of communication links that brought this plane down. |
I can't help being reminded of the stereotypical Hollywood operating room scene, where rock music is blaring in the background while there is considerable chatter among the surgeons as they're performing open heart surgery on some poor schmuck. Some people seem able to perform in this kind of environment, others not. I guess the real issue is being able to know which you are.
|
It ain't gonna happen.
I've hear lots of non pertinent on CVRs and rarely is it a problem. I certainly would not trust a non-safety professional to decide which while protecting privacy. The way to get at this a problem is the public release of non-pertinent conversation that does interfere with a flight. After the fact yes, but it still has the desired effect on other pilots who want to clean up their act. I dare say that they are lots of pilots out there who have made an occasional transgression of no consequence, but who will now tend to cut their chatter short in critical times just to avoid an embarassment in the future (there but for the grace of God go I) |
Originally Posted by flipster
(Post 4921858)
Is this a good idea and should it be welcomed as an advance in safety standards, or should pilots and their unions fight it all the way as an invasion of privacy? Discuss.
It's the same logic that encourages companies to monitor, for example, email/internet use at work - if you use the company IT equipment to, say, disseminate pornography, or hate literature, or whatever, the headlines won't be "Joe Schmuck caught ..." - it'll be "Megacorp employee Joe Schmuck caught ...". I have a degree of scepticism as to the degree to which an absolutely sterile cockpit is actually causal in a number of the accidents in which it's become an issue, though. And there's obvious opportunity for abuse of such monitoring, too. Either way, it may follow that Airlines' execs' meetings should also be recorded and made available to their company's aircrew, just in case there are any safety implications? |
Not "routinely" monitor exactly???
May be pernickety, but I think the Colgan proposal is to delve into the CVR data as and when they believe it is merited under the FOQA rules of engagement. Still a lot of questions to be asked of course, but the description of it as routine monitoring is perhaps misleading???
The actual text is here. |
The solution is quite simple: the Union agrees to the company's proposal on the basis that all discussions / conversations in every company office are recorded 24/7 and the pilot's have the right to listen to and review ( and then act if necessary) on the content of the tapes.
|
The Sterile Cockpit Rule is nothing new in the U.S., it was imposed in 1981, I guess it takes a while to get the word out. The rule grew largely out of an NTSB recommendation after Eastern 212 crashed at Charlotte in 1974. The pilots were shuckin' and jivin' all the way down the VOR approach. Famously, they were talking about things like politics, used cars and women.
Where I work, we're pretty good about avoiding chitchat during critical phases of flight. I'll occasionally find myself blurting out a nonpertinent observation but I really do try to stick to shop talk when the situation dictates. Still, it seems some crews nearly ignore the rule. In the 2006 Comair 191 crash at LEX the pilots had a running conversation about a lot of stuff including future employment while they were taxiing to the wrong runway. The NTSB concluded: "...Contributing to the accident were the flight crew’s nonpertinent conversations during taxi, which resulted in a loss of positional awareness..." It has long been suspected that some companies have harvested CVR data during times of labor unrest to glean tactical information. And, years ago, after Delta 1141 crashed in Dallas on a flaps up takeoff, I heard rumors of the crew talking about flight attendants and Jesse Jackson's presidential bid. This was long before the accident report came out and confirmed the conversations. It seems that the mechanics somehow pirated a tape of the CVR and were circulating it. These days, the feds say they will pull the tape if they have reason to think that you have made an unstable approach to a landing. Some aircraft even send a text to headquarters if certain approach and landing parameters are exceeded. There is legal protection for privacy of the CVR but also a lot of legal excuses to listen to it sometimes. I'm a lot more careful than I used to be in 'the good old days'. |
Could it be that those here who object to a sterile cockpit make up a large proportion of the crews that have to be called 3 times by approach and/or regularly respond with "Say Again"... :hmm:
|
Classic media management?
A plausible, if cynical, explanation of the Colgan press release regarding sampling of CVR tapes, coming out on the day of seemingly damning NTSB information from the Buffalo crash?
A simple tactic to diffuse coverage away from the details of 3407. Colgan headlines a safety-themed story, and implicitly lumps responsibility squarely away from oversight and training and onto the dead crew. They get to appear on regular media reports as a safety-oriented organization, trying to do their best, and in discussions amongst professionals they generate a new talking point to at least dilute coverage of events at Buffalo. |
All just another good reason to press the erase button after brakes on.:p
After all, thats what the button is there for.... OR if this was enacted there will be a lot of mysteriously 'popped' CB's. Flight safety will be the casualty. |
....recordings "be monitored for safety purposes by selected union and company pilots." Who determines whether they are even competent to judge, from listening to a sound track that even after a crash is often extremely difficult to transcribe properly? Would we now have "selected union and company pilots" being paid to spend hundreds of hours to listen to cockpit sounds, trying to pick out the occasional drivel being talked? "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" Who monitors those "monitors"? As mentioned, if this imbecilic idea takes root, there'll be an awful lot of 'erase' buttons pressed, and an awful lot of CBs pulled.... CJ |
Not being a professional pilot but speaking as someone who has seen companies spend vast amounts trying to pass the blame elsewhere, could this be Colgan and their Insurance company coming to an agreement to keep premiums down?
If CVR recordings are available for the company and Colgan act on any so called 'transgression' then they are in the clear insurance wise should any mishap happen after. Or am I cynical? |
On the positive side of things, companies won't have to waste money on 'staff engagement' surveys.:E
|
Airlines To Routinely Monitor Cockpit Voice Recordings? I attended a cocktail party years ago at the behest of the new DirFltOps of an asian airline, and CVR recordings were being reviewed...all night long. Nothing new.:} |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 14:38. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.