Northwest A320 overflies destination by 150 miles . . .

[Flying Nutcracker]

How about this for a theory... just a hypothetical one! One is asleep, the other heavily preoccupied with something and forgot to push a comm button... plausable?

[GilletteNorth]

It should somehow stand as a model of how SMS should work... These guys should receive the modern equivalent to a good keel hauling!

I didn't realize the correct response using the SMS system was to keelhaul people for making mistakes.

YOU are the guys who worry me. Guys who are not willing to take, even the slightest responsibility for their own actions.

I haven't read anywhere in the official reports that the two pilots have not taken responsibility for their actions. I did read that they've been forthcoming in their explanation for their actions and have cooperated. Seems obvious to me that they knew this was not something they would be able to cover up or 'make excuses' for and probably expect to be punished. But does taking away their licences and therefore their livelyhood fit the seriousness of the offense? THAT is what's debateable and I for one think the punishment is too harsh.

[2R]

It should somehow stand as a model of how SMS should work... These guys should receive the modern equivalent to a good keel hauling!

I didn't realize the correct response using the SMS system was to keelhaul people for making mistakes.

YOU are the guys who worry me. Guys who are not willing to take, even the slightest responsibility for their own actions.

I haven't read anywhere in the official reports that the two pilots have not taken responsibility for their actions. I did read that they've been forthcoming in their explanation for their actions and have cooperated. Seems obvious to me that they knew this was not something they would be able to cover up or 'make excuses' for and probably expect to be punished. But does taking away their licences and therefore their livelyhood fit the seriousness of the offense? THAT is what's debateable and I for one think the punishment is too harsh.

+1
Way too harsh, destroying two mens lives over a non fatal incident.Two weeks unpaid leave should have been enough.
What did the administraitor who allowed one airline to fly their airplanes without required repairs get ?Promoted .
What did the administraitor who allowed the export of well paid family supporting jobs to be exported to the third world where no health and safety or enviromental issues got in the way of shuffling paperwork ?What did the administraitor that put more human lives at risk than these two guys ever did get ?Or does the offshore banking system prevent us from finding out the true beneficiaries of these strange offshore maintenance agreements are ?
Anyone who thinks that the Administrators are being fair please slap yourself now.

[Doc]

+1
Way too harsh, destroying two mens lives over a non fatal incident.Two weeks unpaid leave should have been enough.

Are you for real? Two weeks unpaid leave? It was gross negligence. So, in your learned opinion, what would constitute a "firing" offense? I'm afraid this goes way beyond something that can be "swept under the rug" by filling out some paperwork under the guise of "SMS"....
But I guess, you just don't get it....

[mbav8r]

Gillettenorth wrote;
The FAA, by pulling their licences, are just using these guys to play the "we are on the job protecting the public" game.

I posted this in another thread, this is only one example of the FAA being negligent and I wonder if they(the ones involved) still have their careers? They're are simply making an example out of these two giving the appearence of protecting the public and it's disgracfull and will undermine safety in the future with better cover up stories and non reporting of mistakes.
How many times in their careers do you think they possibly averted an accident by being vigilent and professional, but you you F@#K up just once and you're done for.

FAA fines Southwest Airlines over 10 million dollars for flying unsafe planes
by Grant Martin (RSS feed) on Mar 7th 2008 at 7:00AM
In the wake of the recent news that Southwest Airlines (WN) was caught flying planes past their security checks, the FAA just slapped the airline with a ten million dollar fine.

The issue stems with an error in safety checking a section of the aircraft fuselage; several of the redundant checks missed a section of the skin, thus creating the potential for one to miss finding a crack. Mind you, there were no faults in the aircraft skin found and all aircraft are still safe. Don't put your tickets on Ebay yet.

That error in and of itself is a pretty big deal, but its mendable. Where the crap really hits the fan is where we find that several (select) FAA and Southwest officials knew about the oversight and didn't do anything about it. Before it was a mistake -- now its criminal.
Congress, in their overreacting state of things is calling a hearing to get to the bottom of the issue. One Mr. James Oberstar went so far as to call it "one of the worst safety violations" that he has ever seen. I'd personally like to find out what those (select) schemers over at WN and the FAA were up to when they didn't mention the error

[robbreid]

Nov 3/09 (AP) -- On Capitol Hill, lawmakers are moving to prohibit the use of computer laptops in airline cockpits.

The idea is to prevent another incident like the one in which a Northwest Airlines plane overshot Minneapolis by 150 miles.

Sen. Byron Dorgan, the chairman of the aviation subcommittee, says his staff is working on a bill that he expects to introduce in about a week.

Dorgan says the incident proves this sort of thing can happen and there ought to be a more clear understanding by everyone in the cockpit that they need to take it seriously.

Several other senators are expressing their support.

[Liquid Charlie]

So there goes the electronic flight bags -- lol -- politicians -- u got to love them -- make a law to prevent stupidity - wtf can you do on a laptop on a flight deck that makes you oblivious to the whole world -- i'm smelling a rat or is that a mouse --

[Legacy]

And what about the companies that are able to have their COM, etc on their laptop instead of on paper? These guys are morons. I love these reactive solutions. Just to make it look like they are doing something about it. I think my 9 year old could run the show better than these putz

[GilletteNorth]

Doc: It was gross negligence.

Definitely differences in opinion about the severity.

“Mere” negligence involves conduct described as:
The failure to exercise the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would have exercised in a similar situation: Black’s Law Dictionary.
Carelessness amounting to the culpable breach of a duty: failure to do something that a reasonable man (i.e., an average responsible citizen) would do, or doing something that a reasonable man would not do: Oxford Dictionary of Law.

A reasonable person would make the connection that the pilots decided to discuss the scheduling for a few minutes without fear of the plane crashing because the autopilot was flying the plane as per normal, they had clearance along the airway so they weren't going to hit anyone, and the discussion was only going to take a short amount of time.

As one would expect, there is a higher hurdle for a claimant to prove that the negligence is “gross”:
Conduct in which ... there is a very marked departure from the standards by which responsible and competent people habitually govern themselves: Dictionary of Canadian Law.
“A high or serious degree of negligence”. (Holland v. Toronto (City))
A high degree of negligence, manifested in behaviour substantially worse than that of the average reasonable man: Oxford Dictionary of Law. (bold my emphasis)

So was their behaviour substantially worse than anyone elses might have been? Are you saying they told themselves "We are going to discuss the scheduling and do nothing else until we are finished"? I'm pretty sure they expected to hear and attend to any radio calls directed at their aircraft and keep an eye on their progress along the airway. They got distracted. Anyone can get distracted. Pilots get distracted and forget to put down their landing gear and damage the plane. Pilots get distracted and fail to unhook and stow the pogo stick before takeoff. The FAA does not pull the licence of every pilot who gets distracted. A distraction is something that diverts attention. Getting distracted is a NORMAL human behavioral vice.

...what would constitute a "firing" offense?

Well sure, this does, fire them. There's plenty of other pilots out there. Of course Northwest will be throwing out two pilots with 20000 and 10000 hours of experience that previously did not have any blemishes on their record, but I'm sure their replacements will be perfect.

The FAA taking their licence is wrong.

[Lakelad]

So there goes the electronic flight bags --

'Dorgan said his bill will make an exception for "electronic flight bags"

[sky's the limit]

Talk about a complete lack of SA. These tools should never see a cockpit again.

Agreed.

Seems nobody takes responsibility for their actions any more. Short of a fantastic reason for their silence coming out in the report, these guys should be finished.

stl

[Pratt]

Nov 3/09 (AP) -- On Capitol Hill, lawmakers are moving to prohibit the use of computer laptops in airline cockpits.

The idea is to prevent another incident like the one in which a Northwest Airlines plane overshot Minneapolis by 150 miles.

Sen. Byron Dorgan, the chairman of the aviation subcommittee, says his staff is working on a bill that he expects to introduce in about a week.

Dorgan says the incident proves this sort of thing can happen and there ought to be a more clear understanding by everyone in the cockpit that they need to take it seriously.

Several other senators are expressing their support.

I doubt that NWA's policy, if they have one, is any different from anybody elses that allows pilots to have their manuals, COM, AOM etc on a laptop as opposed to carrying a hard copy of it. The use of a laptop on the flight deck at my Company is limited to the use of it to access the manual info contained in digital formats, apart from that it is prohibited.

So until they say that laptops have to be left with the F/A's in the back when you go upfront, the kneejerk reaction of Dorgan will do nothing to prevent a pilot from pulling the laptop out to look at pictures etc. while behind the locked flight deck door.


IMO

[GilletteNorth]

All of these AOR’s happened within the past week (all identifiers and callsigns have been stripped from the reports):

Aircraft was observed on short final with gear retracted. Aircraft was told to put gear down which caused him to initially abort his landing until gear was extended. Aircraft then landed safely farther down the runway. (If tower hadn’t called the pilot’s attention to the fact the gear wasn’t down… seems much like how the Northwest flight attendant's call got the two pilots back in the game…).
Aircraft1 was taxied to position on runway AA but took-off without a clearance. Impact: Aircraft2 initially cleared for a touch & go runway BB was instructed to turn left heading 040, when the controller observed aircraft1 taking-off. When pilot did not respond, aircraft2 was instructed to land on runway BB and hold short runway AA. (Pilot of aircraft1 lost his situational awareness, didn’t have a clearance, it took ATC control to maintain separation).
Aircraft deviated from the missed approach clearance Rwy XX prior to receiving ATC authorization. (Deviated, the same as not having a clearance or going beyond your clearance limit).
Aircraft entered zone without authorization. (NO authorization, like, not being authorized at all, like going beyond a clearance limit in an A320).
Aircraft departed (airport) and was cleared to climb to 7,000 feet, pilot read back 7,000 feet. Observed on radar climbing through 7,500 feet. Pilot realized error and descended. (Holy crap, he went above his cleared altitude, he could have hit someone).
Aircraft taxied onto runway XX without authorization. (Without a clearance).
Helicopter reported airborne off the ship at 1709z within the (airport) control zone . FSS advised helicopter unable SVFR due to a departing IFR aircraft. Helicopter advised proceeding back to the ship to await SVFR authorization. (So the helicopter became airborne and through providence and luck wasn’t in the way of a departing IFR aircraft. Again no authorization).
The aircraft departed runway XX and was given a restriction to climb not above 2000 feet. The aircraft climbed without authorization to 2500 feet. (This is getting repetitive. Danger Will Robinson, Danger!)
At 2120z aircraft1 was observed entering RWY XX without authorization. Aircraft2 on final at the time was pulled up. (See above).
Aircraft turned left off the SID RWYXX without clearance. (Yada yada yada).

I guess all these tools should never see a cockpit again.

To be fair to the pilots, the following incidents involved ATC and FSS respectively:

At 2200 UTC the active runway was changed to Rwy AA from Rwy BB. Aircraft was cleared for a touch and go Rwy BB while helicopter was still on the runway. Pilot of aircraft initiated a missed approach then landed safely after the overshoot.

Aircraft1 was conducting an IFR approach to RWY XX at (airport). Aircraft2 was departing RWY XX on a VFR flight westbound. Traffic was passed to the inbound aircraft on the vehicle frequency and consequently not heard or acknowledged by the inbound aircraft. The pilot of aircraft1 later called the station to enquire about the close proximity of aircraft2 while conducting their approach.

It looks like every incident involves some sort of distraction/forgetfulness/a complete lack of SA. Luckily in most of the incidents the report ended with the statement: No other aircraft in the vicinity. No impact on operations.

I am not trying to start a flame war but how many passes do controllers get when they @#$! up? When FSS screw up they are pulled operationally and do retraining. How many pilots out there have fucked up and yet they've been able to say "ok, that was close, learned something there, never again"? This is the first time these guys fucked up, no one was hurt, it WAS a non-event. Shouldn’t they get a pass?

cpl_atc, they had clearance along the airway up to the point they went past Minneapolis. I am quite aware that when they went past the clearance limit they no longer had an ATC clearance

[Flaperons]

Well sure, this does, fire them. There's plenty of other pilots out there. Of course Northwest will be throwing out two pilots with 20000 and 10000 hours of experience that previously did not have any blemishes on their record, but I'm sure their replacements will be perfect.

The FAA taking their licence is wrong.

Delta has over 12,000 pilots. I'm sure they'll be able to fill the holes adequately; especially since they're 1,400 pilots fat for the winter.

These guys were idiots. I don't care how far you overflew your dest. If you go 1:18 without a COM check, you deserve to be fired. They should've just gone with the "we fell asleep" story, and they would've gotten slaps on the wrists -- especially in this climate. Instead, now I may have to stop listening to tunes in cruise. Fucking asshats!!!

[Legacy]

What boggles my mind is some of you STILL believe their story is true. Come on now.

[Doc]

What boggles my mind is some of you STILL believe their story is true. Come on now.

I didn't believe it from the start. My money is on sleeping pilots. ZZZZZZzzzzzZZZZZzzz! The computer story is their "cover up". Didn't want to admit to being asleep....and it came back to bite them on the ass. I think they'd have gotten away with sleeping......pilot fatigue being such a hot issue.

[2R]

Maybe they where roasting a pig.A good "pig roast" story would make them heroes.
If you have to ask what a pig roast is ,you must have went to a quiet college

[Legacy]

Exactly Doc. Now we will have all this stupid rules about electronics on the flight deck. As long as one person is manning the aircraft at all times who gives a turd what the other is doing. There is no difference between a pilot saying "mind if you take control and I take a break and read my ebook on my tablet" or "mind if you take control and I have a nap". The second one is allowed while the initial one might be "illegal". But in the end no difference between the two.

[canwhitewolf]

If these guys were using latops as they say and its proven,

ill eat your E6b with a nice chianti

[Flaperons]

If these guys were using latops as they say and its proven,

ill eat your E6b with a nice chianti

It won't ever be proven because the 320 CVR only records 30 minutes.

Exactly Doc. Now we will have all this stupid rules about electronics on the flight deck. As long as one person is manning the aircraft at all times who gives a turd what the other is doing. There is no difference between a pilot saying "mind if you take control and I take a break and read my ebook on my tablet" or "mind if you take control and I have a nap". The second one is allowed while the initial one might be "illegal". But in the end no difference between the two.

The second one is not allowed. What is allowed is if you say "Mind if you take control while I study the overhead panel for a while?"

[Rockie]

The second one is not allowed. What is allowed is if you say "Mind if you take control while I study the overhead panel for a while?"

No, it's allowed.

Controlled Rest on the Flight Deck

700.23 An air operator may institute a program of controlled rest on the flight deck if

(a) The program is authorized in its air operator certificate; and

(b) The air operator and the flight crew members comply with the Commercial Air Service Standards.


But as with anything else the government has to take a simple thing like a tactical nap and turn it into a major military campaign requiring everything short of a pre-briefing to a parliamentary committee for each occurrance. How can the regulator justify doing nothing about impossibly archaic F&DT regulations, and then turn around and make a simple nap unworkable through inane requirements? It boggles the mind.




720.23 Controlled Rest on the Flight Deck

The standards for compliance with this section require that the air operator's program is outlined in the company operations manual and contains the following elements:

(1) Training

Every flight crew member who participates in the controlled rest on the flight deck program shall have received training in the program as well as training in the general principles of fatigue and fatigue countermeasures.

(2) Pre-flight Activities

(a) The pilot-in-command shall determine if operational considerations allow or preclude the use of controlled rest on the flight deck based on guidelines developed by the air operator;

(b) the flight crew members' rest periods will be planned at a pre-flight briefing to enable them to anticipate and maximize the sleep opportunity and to manage their alertness. If required, this briefing can occur in flight; and

(c) the briefing shall include:

(i) the choice of rest sequence;

(ii) planned and unplanned wake-up criteria;

(iii) transfer of control procedures; and

(iv) co-ordination with the flight attendants.

(3) Pre-rest Period

Pre-rest period activities should take approximately 5 minutes and shall include:

(a) the transfer of duties;

(b) an operational briefing;

(c) completion of physiological needs;

(d) co-ordination with the flight attendants; and

(e) time for the flight crew member preparing to rest to become comfortable in the flight deck seat.
(amended 1998/03/23; previous version)

(4) Rest Period

(a) Only one flight crew member at a time shall rest and the other flight crew member(s) shall remain alert. An alertness monitor may be considered as a back-up system;
(amended 1998/03/23; previous version)

(b) The resting flight crew member's duties shall be completed by the non-resting flight crew member(s);
(amended 1998/03/23; previous version)

(c) All flight crew members shall remain on the flight deck throughout the rest period;

(d) Each rest period shall be limited to a maximum of 45 minutes to avoid sleep inertia when the flight crew member is awakened;

(e) Rest periods shall occur only during the cruise phase of the flight and shall be completed at least 30 minutes before planned top of descent, workload permitting; and

(f) If required, more than one sleep opportunity may be taken by the flight crew members.

(5) Post-rest Period

(a) Unless required due to an abnormal or emergency situation, at least 15 minutes without any flight duties should be provided to the awakened flight crew member to allow sufficient time to become fully awake before resuming normal duties; and

(b) an operational briefing shall be given to the awakened flight crew member.

[Liquid Charlie]

I don't believe controlled rest is allowed with a 2 crew airplane. That's the problem. The science supports it but law makers are reluctant to embrace it. I suspect because of the image issues.

The other interesting thing is that the Americans are proposing a 13 hour duty day - wonder what the reaction to that up here is going to be - the salary threat already appeared -- think of an owner's reaction --

We can see how stupid this issue is -- Here is a crew that will admit to being total idiots before they will admit they fell asleep --

I can only assume they will be at least fined for busting clearance limits and air space.

This is where it all breaks down. The knee jerk reaction is to fry theirs asses. That does not solve the problem. The solution is clouded by the smoke and mirrors - this will generate bull shit legislation that isn't even related to what "really" happened - I doubt if these guys were dead beats - they likely regard themselves as professionals - we all like to think that way - they have obviously passed rides and training so why do the majority what to draw and quarter them. Sure they fucked up -- but the system is also failing them because it doesn't allow them to be honest. It only gives them the option to try and cover their asses -- how do we solve safety issues when crews are forced to lie to save their jobs -- we see it everyday -- how sad is that.

[Rockie]

I don't believe controlled rest is allowed with a 2 crew airplane. That's the problem. The science supports it but law makers are reluctant to embrace it. I suspect because of the image issues.

Yes it is. In fact it is specifically applicable to 2 crew airplanes to permit napping while sitting behind the controls.

[IFRATC]

Negligence that violates law is punitive. No one is jumping the gun here. They admitted they were NEGLIGENT with regards to the performance of their duty. Had they not admitted this initially the incident would be investigated without perjudice. BUT they admitted negligence and subsequently punitive action was taken. The "system" is not reacting in a "knee jerk" manner here. It was mentioned a few posts ago that pilots are "forced to lie" because of the inherent errors in the reporting system. Really??? Who is forcing them to lie?? If your actions are known to be negligent the ONLY one lying is yourself. NO company would "force" you to lie or legally defend you as an employee if your actions were negligent.
My other concern is the fact that many have basically said "no harm no foul" with respect to this incident. You know what? I would almost agree to some extent had the crew realized the error of their actions and corrected this. THIS WAS NOT THE CASE. Every possible avenue was pursued to contact this crew. 78 minutes later something worked. How far would this flight have gone had NOBODY got a hold of the crew??? They had not heard any attempts to establish contact. Would they have heard a TCAS warning?? Maybe the flight would have continued to the point that it would have become critical?!? The fact that the flight landed without further incident does not absolve the crew of negligence. In fact, the crew really had NO involvement in initially rectifying the incident.


IFRATC

[Liquid Charlie]

Yes it is. In fact it is specifically applicable to 2 crew airplanes to permit napping while sitting behind the controls.

Are we talking about the US of A because I was advised by American crews they were not allowed -- and reading the order you published I don't believe there are too many airlines in Canada that are compliant either since they don't have it in their training or in the appropriate company manuals.

I suspect most airlines don't feel the necessity to enter this program for domestic flights, especially for scheduled service since the duty days are not excessively long, the flight deck is busy and rest falls within the normal parameters. Maybe it would be worth it for the freight dogs but legs are not much longer than 2 hours for the most part there.

If these guys did in fact fall asleep there has to be an "off duty" reason - same party - commuting etc.

It all comes down to the bottom line -- to develop training and update manuals plus the added time to train crews I can't see any airline adopting this for domestic flights. It's always about the money --