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

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

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?! :ugh:
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!

Sorry to begin with a classic lawyer getout, but in reading what I am about to write, please bear in mind that : (a) I am an English lawyer with no knowledge of the relevant US law and practice, and (b) that I am speaking generally, not about this particular case.

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".

"At no time were the passengers, crew or aircraft in danger." (from Delta MEC's statement).

Typical pravda propaganda:E.

Have I missed something here? I was under the impression the aircraft landed safely at its intended destination.

Give it a rest until the investigation is complete..

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.

Not quite.
"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! :)

It's more then fuel. When the airmen lost situational awareness then lives were at risk.

clarification
 

You are right! But my point was different: fuel not being infinite, if the F/A doesn't disturbed (:P) them, how long would they flown (?) the aircraft without paying attention to it? Long enough to burn the whole fuel?

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..

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

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?

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)

protectthehornet-
Ahh.....memories. ADF off of Georgetown to RWY 15 was always interesting. Landing on 18 was fun!! Imposible to fall asleep coming in there no matter how far away you came from.

Yes, but we all know that it's usually a series of otherwise benign events that create aviation disasters. Pilots mesmerized over their laptops was the first event. If another event had occurred at around the same time it could have been a disaster.

I like the swiss cheese analogy. There can be a lot of holes but they usually aren't lined up. When all the holes line up together is when disaster can strike.

The passenger's lives weren't in imminent danger but a huge safety net was no longer in place with two totally distracted pilots.

Our entire air transport system is based on safety redundancy. There needs to be zero tolerance to the blatant disregard for airline saftey.

I'm not so sure DL should send Cheney and Cole to the soup line. I'd clip their wings and have them put on some safety workshops on situational awareness. Two careers go "poof". What better examples to teach from.

I wasn't saying that. They must have been 'fat' on fuel thank goodness.

At least 90 mins plus 45 mins equals 135 mins (we hope, unless another issue arises).

How much 'fat' do you carry?

They weren't watching the gauges anyway - so who cares. They landed safely after all as someone else noted earlier.


Just give them a pat on the shoulder and tell them not to use their laptops in future - oh and spare a minute to monitor the instruments - there's good chaps.

Gordon Bennett!!!

FOK

wow. so easy to say, isnt it? "Off with his head!" Spoken like one who cant say "There for the grace of God, go I"

Do you think they PLANNED to overshoot by 150 miles?

Cant you see that we are looking at an issue that is BIGGER than two wayward pilots? This is a SYSTEM failure even more than a personal one.

The basic "system" is, two pilots, one backs up and monitors the other... REDUNDANCY.

Here we have the primary and secondary system failing. What does that tell us? What adjustments do we have to make to CRM right now? In my mind, the pilots are irrelevant.

We use this two man model all over the place. Security guards, Doctors, Policemen. And we've seen this kind of 'deviation' before.
Two policemen encounter a suspect, one deviates into an excessive force situation..and the other backs him up. The protections to prevent 'the lone wolf acting alone' scenario fail. Why?

You either choose a system that is reactive or one that is pre-active. If the system is pre-active then you can't after the fact plead for a reactive system.

i.e.
We will penalise pilots if their actions could cause an accident - pre-active.
We will penalise pilots if their actions cause an accident - reactive.

A presentation of any kind on a notebook is designed to hold your attention, both pilots took a gamble that whatever they were viewing would not steal their attention away from flying the aircraft, and they lost.

They broke the Dirty Harry rule, "A man has to know his limitations".

It wasn't like the notebook fell open in front of them and they made a bad choice. They both introduced a risk to the flight that was not already present. They then gambled that an attention seeking device would not keep their attention away from flying the aircraft. If they had known their limitations they would still have their licences. If they had known their limitations then they could have achieved what they were trying to do without putting the flight in danger.

I've got three computers in front of me: Two desktops and a laptop on a side table. Usually, the laptop is off, but the two desktops are on while I'm at my desk. No matter what I'm involved in on either of these computers, I dare say no more than ten minutes EVER goes by that I don't look away from them. I submit it is impossible, especially in a moving conveyance, to be so engrossed in anything for over an hour. Sorry, but I just don't buy the computer story. Too bad these two screwed up what was left of their careers.

channelized attention
 

channelized attention vs "attention management" (as Tony Kern discusses in his "Flight Discipline"). The Human Factors are interesting: a pilot must be capable of Channelized Attention during turbulence, precipitation-static on the radios, &ct. But, that same ability later gets him "distracted" during CRZ on a nice day.

Note to the NO LAPTOPs chanters: Pilots often have abandon the 50-Lbs of paper manuals. Instead many pilots now carry the the big manuals as a pdf-file on a laptop. So, at many companies, one pilot has to be free to access the laptop to check details in the manuals.

Regarding Pilot Ethics, Professional Standards, and Cockpit Housekeeping taboos -- I'm adding the Laptop (more than one) to my list of Housekeeping taboos. FAA & airlines need to define some guidelines for any airline's "Pilot Flying". [I always chuckled when the FO-PF asked me if I'ld mind if he read the newspaper -- a question that always led me to wonder about that guys' background on historic inflight upsets.]

Anyone given any thought that by both having their laptops out, given the position of their inflight tables, that they would have been covering the EHSI and EADI, also what about the top of descent chime? Airbus from my understanding will automaticly calculate a descent point given relevant data input with an audio chime as a reminder. And what about the cabin crew? Officially in my company they must check on the flight deck every fifteen minutes, I must admit this is not strictly observed, but given that the aircraft overflew the destination by atleast 20 minutes the cabin crew should have realised or been in the cockpit to check long before the moment they said they entered. Unless there is a different way of doing things in north america.

Rush to Judgement
 

The first I saw the term "Rush to Judgement," it was the title of a 1960s book by New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison on the President Kennedy Assassination investigation. He was later discredited, maybe by the folks he blamed.

Enough trivia: back to the lynching.

GB

To all the Dudley-Do-Rights and “I’m appalled” pilots and wanna-bees posting on this thread: You make me sick! You remind me long ago of a handful of pilots in my squadron who would tell their wives how all the other pilots were screwing around. Just not them. I’m retired now. Next time when I enjoy my airline pass privileges, I hope none of you pubic-hair combing pilots is up front.

BTW, where was all the indignant talk when earlier this year, Korean Air did virtually the same thing, flying nordo for over an hour through several different European FIRs? Even the extremely punitive KAL/CASA system didn’t yank their tickets. Re-training, re-checks and increased SUSI checks for all. The point was made.

PQ

I have little respect for guys that screw around when married, even less for those that can't do so without needing others to lie or cover for them.

Nobody grassed on the pilots, they broke the rules and the FBI came out to the aircraft for :mad: sake. Other pilots or the press didn't phone the FBI.

These pilots messed it up for all the pilots who can safely use a notebook when flying

I just don't get it. Why are there so many posters on PPrune and Airlinepilotcentral.com trying to justify these two gentlemen irresponsible behaviour, violation of FARs, boarder line... no... actual reckless and endangerment.

What would their opinions be if these to flew 30 minutes out over the Atlantic Ocean with a 100 knot tail wind and then queried each other... where the :mad: are we? And realized they needed 45 minutes to get back with only 40 minutes of fuel onboard til tanks dry? What would their opinion be then? Great water landing and nobody drowned?

Perhaps the FAA will reduce the certificate revocation to a suspension of flying privileges.


But you what? There are a lot of guys on the street with equal if not better qualifications that would give their... well use your imaginations, to be employed.

"I just don't get it. Why are there so many posters on PPrune and Airlinepilotcentral.com trying to justify these two gentlemen irresponsible behaviour, violation of FARs, boarder line... no... actual reckless and endangerment. "

Because WE do not have ALL the facts. When the report comes out with ALL the facts then I will judge these two men.

And for the record, I consider it irresponsible behavior to hang them WITHOUT all the facts. It is obvious you feel it is perfectly fine to lynch them without knowing the truth.

as posted by sikpilot Where have you been for the past week? They admitted to using their laptops... They admitted to the distraction? Tell me... what do you think is a reasonable excuse to be out of radio contact for more than an hour? What would you think a reasonable excuse would be to overfly the intended destination by 150 miles. Tell me... what would you deem to be a reasonable excuse for the cabin crew bringing to to their attention... hey when are we landing?

If by some miracle of the sky gods, and that's a really big IF, Delta Airlines reinstates them, provided the FAA downgrades the revocation to a suspension, do you think Cheney and Cole will ever lose their situational awareness? I'll bet they'll be very proactive in following company SOPs thereinafter.... what do you think?

Tell you what... bring two furloughed NWA guys back on the property and furlough these two... not fire them... but furlough them. When their recall comes up... give them their shot.

Afterall you remember the outrage of the massive bonuses paid to the executives of AIG? Why reward someone for failure?

I go along with recalling two on furlough, but no retaining these two airman. Fire them - flying schedule carriers in the USA is over.

Give some thought that if something bad had happen, the airplane lost, and a bunch of people killed, I suggest that Air Bus would have a very difficult time keeping the A320 in the air. It would be grounded. I doubt crew laptop computers would ever see the light of day as a probable cause. Yeah, a call to judgement would go out, and in a big rush.

No way any justification what so ever can excuse away their conduct. Sad.

As posted by wes_wall Forgive me:{:{:{... I'm on my sundeck with a martini, shaken not stirred, and... well... I guess I was feeling a bit magnanimous:E.

One problem with that solution is that there are no Northwest or Delta pilots on furlough.

Northwest Flight Probe Expands to Look at Controllers
 

Hey that works for me... Next time I overfly my destination, I'll blame the dog.

Yes, they forgot to fly the plane with 150 lives on board. But they're good old chaps. Let's pat them on the back and tell them the public is being overly sensitive.

It's a slap in the face to all the pilots that remain professional and focused on safety!!