Iberia IB6166, BOS-MAD, 2nd Dec, Cowboys !!!!

[ISO100]

John Marsh,

As fellow SLF I have would be interested to know why you thought it necessary to make your report given that the incident was witnessed by numerous professionals, both pilots and ATCOs?

Surely if such a report were to be warranted it would have already been made by those who witnessed the event through whatever channels are available?

[John Marsh]

I do not believe I have the authority to demand action from the FAA. The phrase
'Please can you look into this' was intended as a polite request. Please
indicate where I have made a demand.
I think I should report safety-related issues which are at risk of slipping through
the net. LTD has made no announcement of having filed an MOR; later, we
read that 'MOR's only achieve anything if the issue is within the airline
concerned (and then it's not guaranteed).' (Post 383). I therefore did the best I
could think of to try to have the details looked into, by a professional
organisation.
I do not think of myself as on a 'crusade'. I think aviation is a wonderful invention
and I simply want it to be as safe as possible.
Although I am being criticised, I do not believe I have acted illegally. The details
I sent to the FAA are publicly available, as are the means of contacting the FAA.
I have not been criticised by the FAA for my actions.
Post 397 was posted, unaltered, after moderator review.

[Jaxon]

From FAA BOS FSDO

Dear Mr Marsh:

Thank you for your recent report and inquiry.

Our investigation has revealed that the Airbus in question recorded an AOA, IAS, and gross weight consistent with an uncompromised wing for that aircraft type and in each slat/flat configuration throughout its initial climb.

While it is indeed possible that a violation of an SOP occurred, the only actual objective facts we are aware of is that the aircraft was operated safely as born out by the recorded data. This fact serves to further support the crew in question, at least as far as safe operation is concerned. The foreign carrier in question is free to conduct its own investigation as to its own SOPs.

As you may or may not be aware, "legal" and "safe" are two generally overlapping concepts which don't always overlap at there respective "edges". It is possible to be safe yet not legal, and vice versa.

We at the FAA do not usually have a response to third party non-witnesses reporting scuttlebutt read on an anonymous web board but our district office is always keen to log another notch so we thank you for your amazing nerve.

Sincerely,

Dick Tattler

[tablelover]

'I think I should report safety related issues that may slip through the net'

Do you? Really? No one said you acted illegally, just a general belief that to do so was stupid and your crusading belief that those of us in this industry cannot be trusted to report incidents and as a result it is up to you save the travelling public is arrogant and dillusional.

Of course it was a demand for the FAA to look into it, by merely putting it in front of them they are duty bound to investigate or at least look into every crank suggestion they receive, no matter how sugarcoated it was. Can I suggest you stay well away from matters you neither understand or have any knowledge of. Your assistance is neither welcome nor warranted. The industry has countless organisations that monitor safety related incidents put to them by professionals. What pray tell has slipped through the net? The fact a moderator has not altered your post suggests nothing.

Please explain why you think you had to go to the FAA? Do you believe the people in this industry are untrustworthy and ignoring safety issues? Stick to subjects you understand. SLF are more than welcome in my belief in this forum and contribute soundly in a wide range of subjects. You with your ridiculous attitude have done them a great disservice. You know nothing of flying aircraft, of the incident described, or of the industry yet because of rumour and speculation have gone running to the FAA. Idiot

[Ancient Mariner]

Hmm, 404 posts and counting, mostly from professional pilots. I better start studying train and steamer time tables.
Per

[Ashling]

Lay off John Marsh

What do some of expect will happen if you publicise events on a public website that has open access ? Some of you seemed very keen to name and shame on Pprune. Make the skies safer etc. Well then do not be surprised if members of the public take the incidents further.

LTD has made no mention of reporting this event through official mechanisms other than reporting it to ATC verbaly on the day. If you do not report an event officially and then bring it to a website such as this then that is WRONG period just as getting airborne with ice on your wings is idiotic bordering on suicidal. If the professionals have not reported it formaly, and no one has said they have, can we really blame someone else for doing so.

If John Marsh is the chap in the photo then he has a decent career in aviation behind him and will be well aware of how key safety is. In fact you might attach the tag of aviation professional to him.

It is some of you who are offside not him.

[Jaxon]

Lay off? Sure, be proud, he made a third party non-witness accusation based upon anonymous posts he read surfing the internet. Bravo.

[Pelican]

Well I wasn't going to get invloved in this one...

...but the John Marsh showed up.

Mr.Marsh, I fully agree with all points observed by others against your report, but I would like to further add that this is a forum for professional pilots to communicate professional matters with each other. We tolerate SLF, indeed welcome it at times (although, frankly, not too often), but we do not want to start being affraid to discuss certain things for fear of it being reported to some authority by someone who is outside of the industry - someone who had no appreciation of how things are handled or indeed what exactly the technical nature of the problem is. Sorry if I offend you.

Please, please, all you SLF, stop spoiling it for all of us!

[John Marsh]

ISO100:
I hope that report(s) have already been filed. If so, reiterative ones can simply be deleted.

tableover: Is it stupid to try to ensure that a message related to aviation safety reaches those who are qualified to assess it?
On reflection, I am glad that the FAA are duty bound to look into messages they receive. I'm sure genuine 'crank' ones are quickly detected and deleted.
I definitely do not believe 'the people in this industry are untrustworthyand
ignoring safety issues'. I know that they are all human and therefore capable of making mistakes.

Pelican: No offence taken. Perhaps it is time for professional members to ask
the moderators for tougher rules for non-professional access.
Ashling: I'm not the chap in the photo.

[despegue]

John Marsh,

Do you have photographic evidence that proves your claim to the FAA?
Are you a direct witteness of the alleged incident?

If not, you are now open to procecution by Iberia and the crew involved due to you describing your disgusting action on a pubic forum. And I hope you get a phonecall from their legal-team.

This witch-hunting/ inquisition must stop now.

If you are not an ATPL holder, get out!

[rogerg]

It all sounds like some people are protesting to much. If the IB captain did no wrong then all is fine. If the cap fits wear it and as for SLF getting involved, why not, after all, they are the people we may kill.

[lomapaseo]

I don't see anything wrong with anybody filing a report about safety. After all it's the job of professional investigators to assess the actual facts. So if somebody trolls PPrune or any other forum for rumors and files a report questioning safety Amen.

My only personal concern is about public allegations specific to identify and embarass that have yet to be proved.

[tablelover]

'If the Ib captain did no wrong then all is fine' is it? Does the term mud sticks mean anything? However that is all irrelevant it is comprehensively wrong for someone with no knowledge of the industry to cherry pick what they want then embark on a crusade and pass this information onto authorities. Where does it end? What will he read next on here then believe he should forward it to other agencies? This is a forum for discussion not for amateurs who have no experience in the industry to grab bits of information, however accurate or inaccurate, and forward it.

John Marsh what is it you are reiterating? Gossip, rumour, hearsay? Non-professionals are welcome but you have no place here. You ask if your actions were stupid, unquestionably they are. As has repeatedly been said there are methods and procedures in place for reporting experiences one has been in or borne witness to, there is no place for fantasists like yourself to come here and act in the way you have. You didnt answer my earlier question, what are the requirements you have to read something here then report it?

[PJ2]

While having an army of SLF's and otherwise inexperienced intervenors using "1-800-How's My Flying" is an unacceptable set of circumstances and can lead to all manner of untoward outcomes for the innocent, I am not convinced that the question, "where will all this lead?" is answerable in terms of a, "witch-hunt for crews everywhere". As has been observed by other posters, nuisance reports would be winnowed quickly by regulatory authorities and airlines alike. Of course there is the danger that politics and individual agendas can be triggered by non-eye/earwitness accounts but the truth of such reports can then be determined quickly by those within the industry. In all walks of life there are dangers of malfeasance in such reporting of others but in this case I wonder if examination and curiosity is to be preferred over judgement - for the moment at least?

The question to which this thread has generally addressed itself was answered in Canada at least, in the Moshansky Commission's Report on the Air Ontario Dryden accident of 1989.

Although only obliquely related to "John Marsh's" intervention, the Moshansky Commission Report does speak to the present issue. (To be clear, the difference between an SLF eye/earwitness report (esp with photos), an experienced observer's report and an SLF's report gleaned via an internet website where the population is almost exclusively anonymous, is comprehended).

The following Aviation Safety Letter 1/2004, (a regular series produced by Transport Canada) discusses, in part, the notions and issues raised by the thread, thus:

Scrutinizing Aviation Culture: Professional Courtesy, Transport Canada Aviation Safety Newsletter, 1/2004

Moments before takeoff, the F28 was taxiing out for the final takeoff with significant amounts of snow visible on the wings, and while a flight attendant and two airline captains traveling as passengers noticed, this was never communicated to the pilots. The flight attendant, who was the only crew member to survive, testified later that she had concerns over the snow, but because she had been rebuffed by company pilots over a similar situation in the past, it influenced her decision no to go to the cockpit. This cultural barrier between cockpit and cabin crew should never happen today, given how we train and conduct proper Crew Resource Management.

While the silence of the flight attendant was disturbing for the Commission of Inquiry, the Air Disasters synopsis spells out the thoughts on the two airline pilots:

In the case of the two airline captains traveling as passengers, their lack of affirmative action was unfortunate — to say the least. As professional pilots, they had a clear understanding of the danger, and their indication of concern would at least have been considered by the usually meticulous Captain Morwood.

The reason why they did not raise their concerns differ, but there are two points on which they agree — both assumed the crew was aware of the condition of the wings, and both believed the aircraft was going to be de-iced.

While taxiing away from the terminal and backtracking on the runway, the DC-9 captain thought they were proceeding to the more remote de-icing area on the airport. This was a reasonable assumption as Air Canada often de-iced its DC-9 aircraft at locations remote from the gate. There was no doubt in his mind, he recalled, that the aircraft had to be de-iced before takeoff.

The Dash 8 captain knew the de-icing equipment at Dryden was on the apron near the terminal, and expected they were going to return there. If the aircraft was not de-iced, he believed the takeoff would be aborted should the snow not come off the wings during the take-off run [a highly dangerous practice in itself]. He also indicated that “professional courtesy” precluded an off-duty airline pilot from drawing the attention of the flightcrew to a safety concern.

The inference was that “professional courtesy” among pilots was more important than safety, suggesting an unwritten code that militated against such communications, even when a potentially life-threatening concern was involved.

Other factors could influence an off-duty airline pilot not to make known his concerns: faith in the professionalism of the duty crew; fear of offending and possible rebuke for unsolicited advice; fear of embarrassment if the concern proved groundless; and a reluctance to interfere in the busy flight deck workload.

Whatever the reason, the evidence before the Inquiry pointed to a general reluctance on the part of the cabin crew and off-duty pilots to intervene in the operation of an aircraft, even in the face of apprehended danger.

The Commission believed air carriers should counsel their pilots that not only was it acceptable, but indeed expected, that off-duty airline pilots on board should draw any perceived concerns to the attention of the captain. Considering the complexity — and size — of jet aircraft today, a flight crew could only benefit from the eyes and ears of all on board, especially from those possessing pertinent skills. — MacArthur Job, Air Disasters, Vol 3, page 62

I’ll be the first to admit that it takes a lot of nerve for an off-duty pilot to step out of the passenger mentality and speak out in the manner described above. Fortunately, operational mindset changes in today’s aviation industry have, in large part, taken care of this cultural pickle. Crew members now understand such advice as totally acceptable and expected. This is the right way to do business. In fact, those extra eyes and ears in the background have turned “professional courtesy” into a potential lifesaver, as opposed to a missed opportunity to avoid a tragedy.

The above is offered for consideration and is not by way of "defence or prosecution" of the views expressed, some substantially, on the "John Marsh" entry. Suspending judgement in favour of curiosity may yield further information.

PJ2

[L337]

The implications of a non aviation person coming here and then reporting an alleged incident to the FAA has serious implications for any professional posting on PPRuNe.

Preserve your anonymity, and take great care what you write. It just might come back and bite you.

[PJ2]

L337;

Agreed; - such a principle applies to absolutely everything written or recorded. Paper documentation is king in court and hearsay poor for defence. One ought never to be a test case for either of the professions...

[gatbusdriver]

I take a lot of what is written on this forum with a pinch of salt, because it is anonymous.

If what Mr Smith says is true, I agree with him.

If we are willing to drag our fellow professionals through the mud on this forum, then we will reap what we sow. If we put all this information out onto a public forum we have no right to be upset at SLF bringing the problem to any authorities notice.

Safe flying everyone (may your flight number never end up in Rumours and News)

[andrijander]

Yeah, of course....just report nothing will happen to the crew if they were not at fault...except:
a)they may be grounded until the investigation is finished (perhaps even suspended which means no salary)
b)they may have to go through a lengthy court process (and that would DEFINITELY mean no fly and, depending on your company's mood no salary neither)
c)even if they really are not at fault it may mean having to live with the bad reputation (there's plenty of people not getting the full picture and remembering only the gore details and, well, need I say HERE anything about gossiping?)
d)given any of the above it may mean ruining a career or two, and perhaps a life or two (or more) at the same time.
So, please by all means, go stickin' your co*ks in everybody else's plate. Maybe somewhere in the galaxy it actually is good manners.
angry A.

PD: how did it go? switch on the fan and throw a bucket full of sh*...

[Hand Solo]

Being devils advocate here, whats the beef? This isn't the case of a completely uninformed passenger having a pop that the pilots "must be drunk because they flew a go around" (happened in the UK). It's someone reporting concerns that a large number of professional pilots have considered someones operating practice dubious! For all we know someone with more clout may have already reported it to the FAA. The FAA aren't going to suspend Iberias operations to the USA, and they have no power to take action against the individual pilots. I'm sure somewhere earlier in the thread it was posted that Iberia are now investigating the incident, and if it happened as LTD described it (and I have no reason to doubt that it did) I think it's entirely appropriate that they cover their rear by finding out if they have an icing maverick in their midst. For the FAAs part, it can't hurt for them to audit Iberias de-icing policy if the circumstances LTD reports are true.

For what it's worth I doubt the FAA will give much credence to a report based on an internet chat room but if you believe that LTDs initial post is true then where's the problem?

[stickyb]

Really, why all the fuss about John Marsh? I think you guys are missing something big time.

If the FAA has set up a system that receives letters/reports such as the one from John Marsh without the report having to be a) from a professional involved, or b) from an eyewitness, then John Marsh is just making use of the system as the FAA designed it to be used and should bear no criticism. If you don't like that system then you should be expressing your views to the FAA on the setup of the system

If on the other hand, the FAA has certain rules about who it will accept input from, then John Marsh's input should be bounced if it breaks those rules - NFA

Just as LTD was encouraged by some of you to use the correct system in filing a report, so John Marsh should be allowed to use the correct system, if it exists.