Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The golden rule for aircraft problems:Eastern Air Lines Flight 401 was a Lockheed L-1011-1 Tristar jet that crashed into the Florida Everglades at 11:42 pm December 29, 1972, causing 101 fatalities. The pilots and the flight engineer, two of 10 flight attendants, and 96 of 163 passengers died, while 75 passengers and crew survived. The crash occurred while the entire flight crew was preoccupied with a burnt-out landing gear indicator light. They failed to notice that the autopilot had inadvertently been disconnected and, as a result, the aircraft gradually lost altitude and crashed. It was the first crash of a widebody aircraft and at the time, the second-deadliest single-aircraft disaster in the United States.
I mean if this was a combat mission, and was not a drill...What do you mean "for real"??
Why is the USAF that way, and the US Navy and USMC not that way?I've never been in the USAF, but I've lived and worked with them, worked and flown with current and former AF/AFRES/ANG pilots, aircrew, and enlisted guys. They seem to be operating in a tightly regulated world where there's a regulation, a procedure, and an interpretation for every conceivable situation or decision. It seems there is nothing left to local initiative or "man on the scene" autonomy.
Of course, they're often dead, the airline that operates the plane, and the corporations and sub-contractors that built the aircraft can all profit by tossing the pilot under the bus to save their asses from possible litigation.The aircrew usually have the least powerful advocates in the postcrash pissing contest
Makes sense.To the contrary, it has seemed to me in the USAF aircraft mishaps I have worked on, the Mishap Board is run by pilots and their first priority often seems to be to try to exonerate the aircrew.
Is that like a fuel dump system?I recall an F-105 mishap that involved a fatality in which the pilot was asked all kinds of questions about what he ate and how he felt that day but they did not ask him about what tank he had selected and if the saber drain overflow light was on.
And fuel sprays everywhere?We concluded that there was nothing the pilot did or could have done. Ultimately the fault was that a couple of civilians at OC-ALC had decided that it was too much trouble to change out the auxilliary tank pressure regulator on a time compliance basis and just wait until it failed. After all, it had a backup, but guess what - if you blow air through a close tolerance spool valve for years and then suddenly it has to work, it won't.
That'll make your heart skip a beat!I read where a P-51 pilot flying out of Italy over Yugoslavia was on his first mission with three old hands. They were using their drop tanks, and in order to keep AAA from drawing a bead on them they would make an abrupt turn every 3 to 5 min or so. Finally it got to the point that when they would make a turn his drop tanks would unport and the engine would quit momentarily and then restart.
Uh oh...One issue we had since we flew world wide routes were air traffic control communications which were barely in English and, while I found air traffic controllers generally very capable, communications were often difficult and there were some quality issues. Once, over a foreign country I deliberately read back an incorrect routing, the controller responded "Roger, MAC".
Sadly, more true than anybody'd like to admit!One should fly like one should ride a motorcycle and that is to think that everybody out there are trying to kill you and its your job to not let them do it.
Those pilots encountered a situation that neither their training nor experience had prepared them for, so in a sense they were ambushed by circumstances. So if they had responded in a correct and professional manner, they could not be faulted even if they failed to prevent the crash. This they did not do. They did not follow the checklist procedure for determining failed engine exactly. They interrupted checklists to talk with ATC, leaving some items undone. They did not understand completely the systems details of their aircraft and drew erroneous conclusions as a result. This was exacerbated by the fact they were switching back and forth regularly between two similar versions of 737 with significant systems differences under the skin.Question is are the pilots to blame for Kegworth? Yea or nay?
Another issue is the crew had 737 time but in older 737 and the model of 737 they flew didn't have a simulator in the UK.
The leadership of NTSB and many other investigative bodies around the world are political appointees with usually no hands-on experience with aviation, railroads, shipping, or trucking. They depend on their highly experienced technical staff to dig out the data, but draw the final conclusions themselves. It sometimes happens that they override the recommendations of staff when they are idealogically unpalatable. Notably they have been sometimes reluctant in the past to acknowledge management actions or human physiology or psychology as contributing factors in accident scenarios, preferring to hold operating crew members to superhuman levels of perfection, regardless of circumstances. It's easier and less professionally risky to blame the individual rather than the system. The company, the unions, the various government agencies, the equipment manufacturers, and in many cases the victims, all have their representitives on hand to "aid" in the investigation and "provide expertise", but really to defend their organization's interests and shift the blame on someone else.
Doesn't it just warm the cockles of your heart?
Cheers,
Wes
My mother was offered thalidomide, being a simple person she refused it on the unscientific almost grounds that "there must be a reason for morning sickness, taking drugs to stop it must be wrong". That was in 1959, there was already massive evidence especially from Germany (as the drug contogan) of the effects of thalidomide on unborn children and they kept on using it. As big as the thalidomide scandal was it should have been even bigger. I knew four children born with its effects in my town, I could very easily have been one of them. There were approximately 2000 born with birth defects in UK with 466 surviving to 2010.This can easily get very deeply into politics, but one can certainly argue that politically-motivated enforcement, investigation, and emergency response has resulted in significant injury to many people. Examples old enough to see that may be Mississippi Flood of 1927, where people were deliberately ignored, or the thalidomide disaster.
My mother was offered thalidomide, being a simple person she refused it on the unscientific almost grounds that "there must be a reason for morning sickness, taking drugs to stop it must be wrong". That was in 1959, there was already massive evidence especially from Germany (as the drug contogan) of the effects of thalidomide on unborn children and they kept on using it. As big as the thalidomide scandal was it should have been even bigger. I knew four children born with its effects in my town, I could very easily have been one of them. There were approximately 2000 born with birth defects in UK with 466 surviving to 2010.
Criminalizing air safety failures only makes the problem worse. It discourages communication of observed or experienced weaknesses in the system. If people fear being penalized, either for their own involvement or fear of whistleblower retaliation, deficiciencies in the system remain hidden. The crew in this case lost their licenses and were grounded for life. I think that's penalty enough, considering their was no nefarious intent involved. This was negligent evil, not wilfull evil.If the Kegworth pilots were at fault,
Should they have answered to criminal investigation? People died and if it's clear cut the pilots were at fault then certainly an investigation although maybe not a conviction.
Historically, English and American law have considered negligent homocide not to be a criminal matter.If the Kegworth pilots were at fault,
Should they have answered to criminal investigation? People died and if it's clear cut the pilots were at fault then certainly an investigation although maybe not a conviction.
If the Kegworth pilots were at fault,
Should they have answered to criminal investigation? People died and if it's clear cut the pilots were at fault then certainly an investigation although maybe not a conviction.
Criminalizing air safety failures only makes the problem worse. It discourages communication of observed or experienced weaknesses in the system. If people fear being penalized, either for their own involvement or fear of whistleblower retaliation, deficiciencies in the system remain hidden. The crew in this case lost their licenses and were grounded for life. I think that's penalty enough, considering their was no nefarious intent involved. This was negligent evil, not wilfull evil.
There was an investigation, a very thorough investigation by a technologically capable and disinterested government agency. Do you think that prosecution by a judicial body with a win/loss record to uphold would add anything useful to the process? Is "justice for the victims" served by further punishing two men who made honest mistakes in dealing with a confusing situation they were not trained to handle? What do you think?
Part of the reason the "third world" has a poor air safety record is due to the criminally punitive approach to the treatment of accident aircrews, and often the way criminalization is used corruptly to silence whistleblowers.
Cheers,
Wes
Making a mistake is not a criminal offence, the pilot who flew into the Alps is an obvious and different extreme, the pilot and co pilot in the Kegworth crash were obviously trying their best to land the plane but didn't make the best choices.Gross negligence is a criminal matter. I don't know USA law but certainly in England. Of course all about examples and definition.
Of course a pilot should be held legally accountable for his actions. Damn right he should. The German pilot who did the suicide dive in the Alps is an extreme example but there we go.
If I drive recklessly and kill someone then yes I have broken the law. If a pilot flies recklessly and kills someone then what's the difference?
I am not blaming the Kegworth pilots and feel they got stuck in a moment and got beat by it.
But quite obviously the pilot and crew were trying to save their own lives as well as the rest of the crew and passengers.47 people died. Some mistake.
I am not saying Kegworth was a criminal act but it would be up to the courts to decide. And in some extreme cases western courts have convicted pilots for manslaughter or negligence.
No, its not up to the courts to decide. Courts only decide guilty or not, not whether the act was criminal or not, which is a much more subtle question.47 people died. Some mistake.
I am not saying Kegworth was a criminal act but it would be up to the courts to decide. And in some extreme cases western courts have convicted pilots for manslaughter or negligence.
I read the 33 quotes- Andrew Dice Clay on his best day ever couldn't have been more vulgar.It seems Michael O'Leary is the perfect generic CEO for an airline, you got him to a "T".
Michael O'Leary's 33 daftest quotes
He is one air crash away from bankruptcy. The business model that relies on people always going for the cheap option has a down side.I read the 33 quotes- Andrew Dice Clay on his best day ever couldn't have been more vulgar.