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

[Bobbsy]

As a piece of SLF I realise I'm not overly welcome here, but I'll stick my head above the parapet anyway.

I don't think the nub of the issue is whether John Marsh is SLF or an ATP with 20,000 hours in his logbook. The real issue is ANYBODY making formal accusations on the basis of hearsay evidence. If a report was necessary the ONLY one in a position to have made it with any authority was LTD (or, just possibly, the controller(s) involved if they actually saw the situation for themselves).

Similarly, even if the FAA have a system in place to receive complaints, I would hope they differentiate between "I read on the Internet that somebody saw" and "I saw for myself". As I understand the legal system, hearsay evidence is not admissible in court...and should not be the basis for potentially ruining a professional pilot's career.

This is not to say that it wasn't valid for LTD to post here. Ignoring the argument and recriminations, even I can see that there has been some valuable and thought-provoking discussion on procedures surrounding de-icing. However, assuming the original report was accurate (and I have no reason to doubt it) I would hope that LTD made any official reports he deemed necessary as well as just posting on a "rumour network".

....ducking behind the parapet again.

Bobbsy

[CityofFlight]

Working for a major "cargo carrier"...

I submit...

Considering that over 76,000 people have read this thread and only 420+ have posted, it's quite conceivable that a number of reports have been filed--not just by the ONE man who admitted doing so and has received the backlash over it. There are those who supposedly saw IB's wing surface, including ground personnel and then there's the ATC tapes for themselves. All anyone has to do then is point the agencies in the "non-hearsay" direction and then the facts will speak for themselves. Rumor or not...there's been enough details of where to go for facts here that more than 1 out 76,000 could report this incident. I don't know about you, but I sure know 1 or 2 myself,back stabbing "professional pilots" who would report and never admit publicly they've done so. You may not like John Marsh for doing so, but I give him credit for holding his position--despite the backlash--of which I totally get the view point. But the numbers speak to more than one person who's likely reported this incident. I do hope it was someone closer to the incident.

The DC National Parks copter pilot on the Air Florida accident was a friend of mine. It was very difficult for him to pluck only a few people out of a plane full that day in the icey waters of the Potomac. He'd probably have a thing or two to say here.... And he'd probably cut John Marsh some slack...no rescuer ever wants to experience another repeat of that day. Common sense dictates safety above inconvenience or ego. I'd bet the 1 or 2 crew members who survived that day could care less WHO reports it.

[andrijander]

Just culture

I must definitely be missing something here:

what about the just culture? What about learning from the incident and leaving aside the name (and therefore the blame) for ONLY the autorithies concerned?

As I have said from the begining I will not enter the ice debate as I'll only show I have no saying -which I do not as I'm no expert in the matter-.

Now we get to the scary part of the consequences of openly speaking about certain things and disclosing certain info that, albeit not confidential, should have been treated IMHO with more care. As I have said before even if no one is at fault sh*t sticks and the smell lasts for long. That is why we have anonymous reporting systems, that is why we have autorities which have to check those reports and then share the findings without blaming people -at least not for mistakes, errors or for performances in certain type of situations not covered in the manuals... amongst others-. The aim is to learn from mistakes, not to shoot down the people making them. After all we all make mistakes from time to time. I really think openly giving info on "the who" is wrong; as we may be taking out of the way the possibility for those who may have been at fault of learning and becoming better.

Please note that I still use conditional phrasing as, after mor than 400 posts STILL WE ONLY HAVE HALF THE STORY AND EVEN IF IT LOOKS YELLOW IT MAY NOT BE A BANANA.

And to all the people out there thinking this is alright please think again and put yourselves in the shoes of the crew (I'm not saying the authorities shouldn't know of this but the whole open debate with names on them). Debate is ok, but leave the names out FFS.

A.

[amos2]

Just goes to show, doesn't it?

Why many professional pilots don't post on certain prune threads!!

...and, as for the SLF posters...

until such time that you tell us your profession and websites so that we can eavesdrop, spy and tear you lot to bits...

why don't you just sod off!!

[Pelican]

Well, Amos2, I would have put it slightly nicer, but in essence I have to agree with you...
I do not want to discuss issues here and have to worry about some layman potentially taking things too seriously, the wrong way, out of context, and reporting it.
This goes beyond this specific case of course, I think it is a very worrying development. It does exactly the opposite what the no-blame culture and anonymous reporting in our industry are set up for: this prevents the flow of information about potentially serious issues, in that sense that professional pilots may think twice before posting or discussing these issues.

[Huck]

The DC National Parks copter pilot on the Air Florida accident was a friend of mine.

Your friend's a hero, then. Him and the bystander that jumped in and swam to the victims, when the DC firefighters couldn't get up the nerve. Watching that video will restore your faith in humanity....

[SR71]

The real hero (as admitted by Usher - one of the chopper pilots) was the bank inspector who kept passing the ring to the other pax in the freezing water when he could have saved himself...five times wasn't it?

[forget]

Arland D. Williams Jr.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arland_D._Williams_Jr.

There was a memorable article on Arland entitled 'The Man in the Water'.
Time or Newsweek. I've looked for it in the past - but it's nowhere to be found. Anyone with old magazines in the attic?

[Bobbsy]

For the benefit of amos2....

I visit this forum not to "spy" or "tear you apart" but because I've had a lifelong fascination with the aviation industry. I likely would have at least tried for a career in flying had it not been for the fact that a "lazy" left eye means I fail the eyesight requirements even with glasses.

Ninety percent of my visits to the site I read only and do not post...and when I HAVE posted, I don't believe I've ever said anything to "tear anyone apart". The main thing the strikes me on most visits is the extreme level of professionalism from most crews and I have great respect for you and your job.

Not that it's in any way on topic here, since you ask I am a retired audio engineer who spent his life doing sound for TV and live events. "My" forum (at least the one where I'm a mod), should you wish to visit, is http://www.blue-room.org.uk though I think you'll find it boring. OUR biggest problem is 14 year old students pretending to be industry professionals and giving bad advice and/or asking inappropriate questions.

Bobbsy

[tablelover]

Bobbsy and our biggest problem is now idiots who know nothing of this industry coming in here and taking whole threads of gossip hearsay and rumour to events they were not witness to then sending it to the FAA!! It isnt their place to do so and demonstrates crass stupidity.

We are professionals and know what is right and wrong and will report when necessary. SLF are more than welcome here but to benefit from an open forum they have to behave with a bit more decorum. If you have a lifelong fascination with aviation and want to hear what goes on then be aware actions such as those by John 'aviations saviour' Marsh will make many want to keep you out for fear of potential legal recrimination. The majority of us are very aware how lucky we are to be doing what we do for a living and that others are fascinated by it. Indeed we are more than happy to encourage that interest, but shutters go up when idiots like Mr Marsh come here acting like self-serving crusaders to feed their fantasist side.

[Bobbsy]

Fully understand tablelover. Indeed, one of my rare forays "above the parapet" was to make a post critical of John Marsh's action. Nobody should be making "official" complaints like that based hearsay read in an online forum. However, with feelings running high on this one I rather regret saying anything at all.

Anyhow, I'll go back to reading and learning now!

Bobbsy

[forget]

………………taking whole threads of gossip hearsay and rumour to events they were not witness to then sending it to the FAA!! It isn’t their place to do so and demonstrates crass stupidity.

This is all getting a little overheated and, on a point of order, the people doing the overheating may not be aware of the Legislation in place here. In fact, there’s already a ‘How’s my Flying’ reporting system for John Marsh et al.

The UK CAA, at least, believes it is their place.

Complete Document at http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP382.PDF

A voluntary Mandatory Occurrence Report is that report made by a person or organisation who are not required to report in accordance with the requirements of the ANO. Persons and organisations who are required to report are detailed in paragraphs 5.2 above.

5.3.3 The ANO imposes certain requirements on the CAA in respect of the handling and processing of voluntary MOR reports. Therefore, voluntary reports will be published in a limited format which removes information and data which is likely to identify the reporter.

5.4 Items to be Reported

5.4.1 Any person specified in the legislation should report any reportable occurrence of which he has positive knowledge, even though this may not be first hand, unless he has good reason to believe that appropriate details of the occurrence have already been, or will be, reported by someone else.

5.4.2 In deciding whether or not to report an occurrence it must be decided whether the event meets the definition as specified in the ANO. A reportable occurrence in relation to an aircraft means any incident which endangers or which, if not corrected, would endanger an aircraft, its occupants or any other person. A list of examples of these occurrences appears in Appendix B to this publication. This Appendix provides more detailed guidance on the types of occurrences which are required to be reported. However, Reporters are left to determine whether endangerment is a factor and thus determine whether the incident should be reported.

5.4.3 A report should also be submitted on any occurrence which involves, for example, a defective condition or unsatisfactory behaviour or procedure which did not immediately endanger the aircraft but which, if allowed to continue uncorrected, or if repeated in different, but likely, circumstances, would create a hazard.

[slip and turn]

Originally Posted by tablelover

...our biggest problem is idiots who ...

One of the biggest problems in the aviation industry today often seems to be the lack of appetite for reading (including threads like this on PPRuNe) and sober learning by deduction instead of limited rote.

Many more recent PP's will perhaps argue blue in the face whether (a) (b) (c) or (d) fits the way they've been coached, or the mock answer sheets they've mugged up on, but when marks are in, totally forget the ones they got wrong or weren't entirely sure about. Perhaps it is then all too easy to start assuming they can pretty much leave it there, and instead get on with the more serious business of holding the job down and facing-off all who dare wobble the pedestal ... or that's how it seems sometimes

[CityofFlight]

Don Usher was very humble about his role that day. He faced some very difficult flying with terrain, winds and low visibility and I remember him telling me how they felt when they went back and Arland was gone. I was living outside of DC at the time and watched the afternoon unfold on TV. It's etched in my mind.

I hope if anything comes out of this thread, that anger displayed here makes way for something learned.

[chrisbl]

Its has been interesting watching this thread swing backwards and forwards about what LTD did or did not do and who was right or wrong.

Its not surprising therefore that a passenger decides to follow up and make a report.

At least it had the effect of pulling together what had seemed a bit of a rabble if only to attack a passenger for perhaps doing something a professional ought to have done.

It is no wonder though that passengers dont have too much respect for professional pilots these days. After all referring to the people who ultimately pay the salaries as "self loading freight" does not deserve to command much respect.

All the phoney indignation will not disguise the fact that somewhere along the line in this story, the professionals have let the industry down.

If someone genuinely believed that a serious issue was occurring, then a more formal complaint should have been raised and the appropriate procedure followed.

This thread has only served to damage the image of pilots, through self righteousness, indignation, denial, pomposity and all helped along with a fair degree of illiteracy (non English speakers excepted).

The sometimes ambivilent attitude to safety though is the most worrying.

[gatbusdriver]

dear chrisbull

what a load of cobblers

1. how on earth do you know whether this has been reported or not.

2. ambivelence to safety? que? there may be some uninformed/uneducated posts with regards to icing in this thread, but thats about it (a good chance they are posts from non-flyers).

In my opinion LTD was right to get on the radio and inform the crew of IB of his concerns. It was a shame there was enough info given to identify the specific flight. We have a great mag called CHIRP deivered through our front door. This gives details of many incidents that are reported by uk operators (might be wrong about that). It is written with complete anonimity ' I was flying from AAA to BBB' etc.

As I have said before. Now that we have lynched a crew on this forum, we cannot be surprised at some peoples responses (Mr Marsh).

With regards to respect....I expect as much respect from pax as I give the cleaners....treat others as you wish to be treated.

[Jaxon]

"The sometimes ambivilent attitude to safety though is the most worrying."

chrisbl,

Baloney. I'm not so put out by you pointing your finger at other posters' english while misspelling with it yourself, but debating safety is hardly a sign of a lack of care about it.

I'll try to make the point again, it was not long ago - okay, to me it wasn't long ago and before the introduction of the clean aircraft concept that it was SOP to consider the factors like time and temperature among other things to determine if you were dealing with inconsequential dry snow (non-adhering) or bonafide contamination determimental to safe flight. The introduction of the clean concept has removed the decision process from the SOPs and thereby presumably removed the potential for bad judgement with dangerous consequences, this is a good thing for safety, true.

My point is that while the RUMOR on this board sounds like an SOP may have been compromised, I notice that the reported weather also indicates exactly the kind of situation that was COMPLETELY acceptable in years now past. The fact that the flight operated without incident only supports my point and to my knowledge there is absolutely nothing that has been reported in this rumor mill to dispute that. If some people are all determined to get their panties in a twist they should aim more carefully at a question of SOP and avoid a reckless blanket declaration of "unsafe".

[John Marsh]

despegue: I have made no claim to the FAA. I have requested that they look into an apparent occurrence of unsafe practice. I have given them a URL for the material I based my request on. I am not aware that you have the authority to tell me to 'get out'.

tableover: There are no formal requirements that I 'have to read something here then report it'. I sent the message because I was worried that an apparent occurrence, which I and others here find disturbing, appeared to be receiving no follow-up.

forget: Thank you for the voluntary MOR info.
#
Thank you all for your comments.

[411A]

I sent the message because I was worried that an apparent occurrence, which I and others here find disturbing, appeared to be receiving no follow-up.

I believe the correct term is busybody, John.
Or, perhaps publicity hound.

[tablelover]

Chrisbl, John Marsh labelled himself as SLF in his first post on this subject!

Whay did Mr Marsh not come on here with his first post and suggest that was his intention? See what people in the industry thought of his actions, see if it was actually warranted. i do not believe in the original construction of the basis of filing MOR's it was intended to include
'... having read a litany of rumour and hearsay and with no knowledge of the industry or facts feel free to express your concerns...'

I'll say it again we do not need to be saved by uneducated fantasists who believe we cannot look after ourselves.

'...appeared to be receiving no follow up...' why because its not been printed on a site such as this? If it has been reported the authorities and individuals involved do not have to come on here and say why they did it or where they are with the investigation, in fact it could predjudice the investigation. So why did you tell us what you had done? Looking for acclaim? Feeding the fantasy?