The "system" is not reacting in a "knee jerk" manner here.
The phrase "knee jerk" was directed at the congress not the aviation industry and the fact that they admitted to a wrong doing that the group consensus feels is bullshit. If in fact this is true -- they are indeed lying to hopefully maintain their jobs with the perception that to admit to sleeping is going to shit can them. Then it's obvious that the whole motivation is to CYA. It's been reduced to the legal games court rooms are full of.
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.
Those are CAR's I'm quoting. I have no idea about the USA although I know there has been an initiative to implement it since the early 90's.
Air Canada has a controlled rest program as well as Air Transat and Westjet. C3000 did as well. In fact I don't know of any that don't have it but I'm sure there are some.
Ever since there have been two pilot airplanes (and sometimes one) crew have been taking a nap in the cockpit when their bodies just couldn't stay awake any longer. Transport Canada's pointless and inane attempt to regulate it through the CAR's ellicited a collective "yeah, whatever" response from us. I have never yet seen anybody comply with the CASS requirements stated above. It is always a "do you mind if I close my eyes for a bit?".
Well I guess we are are ahead of the USA on a couple of things -- lol -- they still have the O2 mask restriction in place - that's been gone for at least 10 years here.
I hear ya -- it's like Vegas -- and it's done all the time here -- I have never received training on how to implement "controlled rest" -- have you ?? -- and how often does it need to be trained -- it's like elementary maintenance -- ahhhhhhhhhhh
Liquid Charlie wrote:Well I guess we are are ahead of the USA on a couple of things -- lol -- they still have the O2 mask restriction in place - that's been gone for at least 10 years here.
Granted, it's written in a more simple manner than the US versions but for pressurized transport category aircraft with more than 30 seats, it looks like the same requirement as their Part 121 (mask must be used above 250 without quick-donning and above 410 with quick-donning). Is there a different restriction you're referring to?
It was my impression the they are still required to don their masks even between 250 and 410 with only one pilot in the flight deck. They are now going after an exemption based on medical reasons such as transmission of h1n1 maintaining that unless you sterilize the whole system it's not safe - this would even affect system checking so it will be interesting to see what comes out of it.
Sorry for hijacking the thread -- we can now return to video games --
Flaperons wrote: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.
No, it is not allowed. Nothing in the former NWA SOPs, current DAL SOPs, or the FARs permits napping in the cockpit. I was referring to the case at hand. I guess Canada is a different matter, at least within Canadian airspace.
---------- ADS -----------
It's better to keep your mouth shut and let everyone think you're a fool, than to open it and prove them right.
Having a standard that pilots lose their licence after making a mistake despite doing no harm to aircraft or passengers means soon you needn't worry about a pilot surplus or pilots offering to fly for free. Where do you get your experience from?
cpl_atc wrote:So what does it do, just shoot you out into nowhere on whatever heading was last being commanded by the FMS?
Close. The FMS would be flying a track to the next (in this case last) waypoint on the route. When it passes the last waypoint the autoflight system will default to the current heading and keep on going until it ran out of gas.
SKETR 3 arrival into MSP. The final track is 071. The AP on the E175 goes into Roll mode when it runs out of track, and keeps on trucking wings level. I assume the 320 would do the same. I'm surprised theirs didn't make the turn to 120, though, since it's the last part of the arrival.
---------- ADS -----------
It's better to keep your mouth shut and let everyone think you're a fool, than to open it and prove them right.
More to to prove the wild theory of napping - I don't have the flight path but I would say the FMS was not programed for the approach or if it was it wasn't linked. They over flew by 150 miles but it appears that their preoccupied minds were engaged long before that -- likely all said before but I can claim a grey moment
Liquid Charlie wrote:More to to prove the wild theory of napping - I don't have the flight path but I would say the FMS was not programed for the approach or if it was it wasn't linked. They over flew by 150 miles but it appears that their preoccupied minds were engaged long before that -- likely all said before but I can claim a grey moment
I think you're the first one to mention it. Nobody here knows what was or wasn't programmed into the FMS, and it really doesn't matter. As you point out the crew checked out long before they got close to destination.
Flaperons wrote:The AP on the E175 goes into Roll mode when it runs out of track, and keeps on trucking wings level. I assume the 320 would do the same.
The Airbus doesn't have a Roll mode like the Embraer. It has HDG or TRK, and since the normal mode for enroute flying is HDG or Managed NAV it would default to HDG running off the end of an active flight plan.
I have just received this email, thought I would pass it along,,,,,,,
This was passed along to me and thought you all might find it very interesting reading considering the press stopped following this story once these guys lost their licenses. I have flown with Tim a number of times and can also say he is a great guy. One of my favourite guys to fly with.
Brad
Now for the rest of the story.....
Hi All,
I had a one hour conversation with Tim Cheney yesterday and would like to shed some light on what happened to cause the over flight of their destination, MSP.
Before I begin with details, I wanted to say right up front that although there are many events that helped to cause this, Tim takes full responsibility and places no blame on anyone but himself. He is very humbled by what has happened and fully understands that as captain, he was responsible for the a/c, crew and passengers. That said, he wanted me to know how it all happened. Secondly, he has the full support of his neighbours in Gig Harbour, WA, as well has his church parishioners. One of his neighbours wrote a letter to the Star & Tribune in Minneapolis saying how great a family the Cheney's were, I agree.
On their flight from San Diego to Minneapolis, after passing Denver, the f/a called the cockpit to let them know Tim's crew meal was ready. Tim was the "Pilot flying" on this leg, so he told his F/O that when the f/a brings the meal up, he will step back to use the restroom. When Tim returned, the F/A left the cockpit and he began to eat his crew meal. When a pilot leaves to use the restroom, it is customary for the other pilot to brief him on his return on "any changes", such as altitude, heading, course changes or atc centre frequency changes, etc. In this instance, nothing was said....even though the f/o had received a frequency change. The problem that occurred was that the f/o never got a response on the new frequency....it was not the correct frequency....it was a Winnipeg Canada Centre Freq.
Now, Denver Centre is trying to get a hold of them because they never checked in, because the f/o had dialled in the wrong freq......that is who called them so many times....but, then there was a shift change at Denver Centre and no one briefed the new controller that there was a NORDO A/C (non communications) in their airspace....so, in actuality, atc basically "lost" this a/c.....see Wall Street Journal article below.
Tim told me he heard atc chatter on the speaker and so never thought they were out of radio range.....but, of course, they were hearing pilots talk on Winnipeg Centre. For non-pilots.....when we don’t hear anything for a long while...we ask atc if they are still there....sometimes they are and sometimes you are out of their area and need to find a new frequency. With this chatter going on, there was no concern that they were not being controlled.
Then Tim told the f/o that the new bidding system was horrible and that his November schedule was not what he hoped for. He mentioned that his son was going into the Army in Dec. and he wanted certain days off so he could see him off.....the f/o said he could help him, he knew more about the new bidding system. Tim got his lap top out and put it on his left leg and showed the f/o how he bid. He told me he had his lap top out for maybe 2 minutes. Then the f/o said that he would show him how to do it on his laptop. He had his laptop out maximum of 5 minutes.
Let's also add the 100 kt tail wind that they had to the discussion, not helping matters.
The f/a's called the cockpit on the interphone(no they did not kick the door, no, no one was sleeping, no, no one was fighting) and asked when they will get there. They looked at their nav screens and were directly over MSP. Because they had their screens set on the max, 320 kt setting, when the f/o called on the frequency, which of course was Winnipeg Center, he saw Eau Claire and Duluth on his screen. They asked where they were and the f/o told them over Eau Claire, which was not even close, but MSP had disappeared from the screen even though they were right over the city.
They were, as you all know, vectored all over the sky to determine if they had control of the a/c and Tim kept telling the f/o to tell them they have control they want to land at MSP, etc. They landed with 11,000 pounds of fuel (no they did not come in on fumes, but had 2 hours in an A320) and not but 15 minutes past schedule, even though they left San Diego 35 minutes late due to an atc flow restriction.
In the jet-way awaiting them were FBI and every other authority you can imagine.
Aftermath and tidbits:
Although these pilots filed an NASAP Report, which was designed to have pilots tell the truth about events, so the FAA could learn from them, they had their licenses revoked by the ATL F.A.A. even before they came out of their meeting with NTSB and NASAP meetings.
ATL FAA is really big on this new regulation which will allow pilots to take a short nap in flight so they will be rested for the approach...they were insistent that they were sleeping.
MSP FAA, Vance (do not know last name) was the person who handed Tim his revocation letter(which was leaked to the entire world by the ATL FAA). Tim said Vance had tears in his eyes and walked away, said nothing. It was later learned that the entire MSP FAA office did not agree at all with revoking their pilot's licenses, but had no jurisdiction over the matter, since ATL FAA had control because of Delta.
The pilots have been to Wash. D.C., ATL and MSP for several meetings. In ATL, they met with the chief pilots and Tim said they could not have been nicer. They are working to resolve this, not to try and fire them. But of course, they will have to get their license back for Delta to consider allowing them to continue flying. The appeal has been files for the FAA to reinstate their licenses or to settle on some form of punishment, etc.
When Tim and his wife were in MSP for a meeting with the NTSB, they happen to be staying at the same hotel as the NTSB was. The next morning in the lobby, the NTSB official came over to Tim and said he did not know why they even called them in for this event. There was no safety issue. Also, MSP Center informed Delta that there never was a problem and no aircraft were near their plane. Even though no radio communications, they had been followed and separated.
Yes, the company tried to contact them on ACARS, but the 320 does not have a chime...it has a 30 second light which then extinguishes.
Tim always has 121.5 tuned, but as we all know as pilots, it can get very noisy at times and we turn it down and sometimes forget to turn it back on. He told me this may have been the case.
So there were so many factors which helped to cause this episode. Anyone would have likely prevented it.....properly checking in on the new frequency would have been the first one.....
A note about laptops.....in NWA's A.O.M. (I think it stands for airman's operation manual), it does not say we can't use a laptop, however in Delta's A.O.M., it does, we are transitioning now and we actually have pages from both airlines. When our union showed this to the attorney's, they could not believe the confusion put on our pilot group. But, D.C. F.A.A. put out a new possible ruling which will disallow all laptops......so stupid, don't they know Jet Blue has laptops on every aircraft and soon all airliners will for the electronic Jepp charts.
These are the facts and again, Tim said he feels very bad for the company and the pilots and is hoping for a positive outcome on their appeal. With 24 years at NWA, 21,000 blemish free hours, it would be a mistake to ruin his career over this in my opinion.
DECEMBER 7, 2009. Errant Pilots at Odds Over Blame
Co-Pilot Faults the Pilot for Overfly Slipup; Both Seek to Get Licenses Restored
By ANDY PASZTOR
The Northwest Airlines captain and co-pilot who prompted a national outcry in October by going radio silent for more than an hour are now at odds with each other over who was primarily responsible for the blunder.
As the veteran aviators wage separate legal battles to regain licenses revoked by the government, the co-pilot is blaming the captain for failing to notice and resolve the communication slipup.
As part of his formal appeal to the Federal Aviation Administration to continue flying, co-pilot Richard I. Cole, 54 years old, argues that he deserves a lesser punishment partly because he "reasonably relied on the performance" of the captain, who was actually flying the plane, "in meeting his required duties and responsibilities."
Capt. Timothy B. Cheney, 53, makes no specific assertions about the co-pilot's responsibility in his appeal.
The filings, submitted to the National Transportation Safety Board last month but not previously reported, make the claim that various "extenuating circumstances" -- from air-traffic controller lapses to the design of aircraft systems to voluntary cooperation with investigators -- warrant more lenient treatment of the pilots by the FAA. Neither filing includes new detail about what transpired in the cockpit.
The filings in the Northwest Flight 188 case are the first public indication of discord among the cockpit crew of the Airbus A320, which cruised at 37,000 feet more than 100 miles past its Minneapolis destination on Oct. 21, despite repeated messages from controllers, nearby planes and company dispatchers. The pilots told investigators that they were distracted and had turned on personal laptops to discuss new company pilot-scheduling procedures.
The plane landed safely, but six days later the FAA issued an emergency revocation of both pilots' licenses. Regulators argued, among other things, that the crew's actions were "extremely reckless," and the failure to properly monitor radio messages demonstrated a "lack of awareness." The FAA said the pilots were "impervious to the serious threat...[to] the safety" of passengers and concluded there was a "total dereliction and disregard for your duties."
In their filings, both pilots assert they "did not intentionally or willfully violate any federal aviation regulations." A Delta spokesman declined to comment.
An agency spokeswoman declined to comment because the issues involve pending litigation. The case could take months to play out before an administrative law judge.
The Northwest Flight 188 crew could face an uphill battle to regain their licenses, particularly because FAA chief Randy Babbitt has highlighted their mistakes as examples of broader issues such as cockpit distraction and the need to enhance pilot "professionalism." Northwest's parent, Delta Air Lines Inc., has suspended the pilots and Delta officials have been critical of the crew's performance.
Since the incident, investigators have discovered that a stiff tailwind contributed to the pilots' confusion, because the plane reached its destination faster than anticipated. Denver-area controllers, who were changing shifts at the time, effectively lost track of the plane's status for roughly the first 20 or so minutes of its radio silence.
The Air Line Pilots Association is pushing to overturn the license revocations. The union is arguing that the punishment for the Northwest 188 cockpit crew is too harsh for pilots with previously spotless records, and that it violates the FAA's own legal precedents. A spokeswoman and an attorney for the union declined to comment. An FAA spokeswoman said the agency isn't negotiating with the union.
Some previous legal cases indicate that pilots who made more serious flying errors -- even some resulting in fatal accidents -- have eventually returned to flying duties.
The co-pilot of a Southwest Airlines jet that in 2000 ran off the end of the runway in Burbank, Calif., and came to rest in the middle of a busy city street lost his job after the crash. But he filed a grievance, was retrained by the carrier and ultimately returned to flying status, according to the airline. The captain resigned, Southwest said.
The same thing happened to the co-pilot of a US Airways flight that had an aborted takeoff on a wet runway at New York's LaGuardia Airport in 1989, according to pilots and industry officials.
The jet ran off the end of the strip, broke into three sections and ended up partly submerged in water, killing two passengers and injuring 15 others. The FAA suspended the licenses of both the captain and co-pilot after their failure to promptly report for drug and alcohol tests, according to pilots familiar with the accident. The inexperienced co-pilot, who was blamed by investigators for failing to properly set the throttles, regained his job and license. A US Airways spokesman couldn't immediately confirm the details.
Were there weather problems dictating major fuel uplift for a distant alternate? This kind of smells to me. No airline dispatcher these days would be just throwing on 2 hours of additional fuel for no reason, unless this number is BS.
No airline dispatcher these days would be just throwing on 2 hours of additional fuel for no reason, unless this number is BS.
I can think of several reasons why they would have 11,000 lbs on board after landing (not only due to the 100kt tailwind) but because you can't figure it out it's suspicious?
As more details come out it seems there's nothing so henious in the crews actions to merit their licences being revoked. This is especially true when you consider the fact that previous accidents which have involved death and destruction have not resulted in those involved losing THEIR licences. This is becoming more and more a case of the FAA having an axe to grind and using this crew as the whetting stone on which to do so.
---------- ADS -----------
Having a standard that pilots lose their licence after making a mistake despite doing no harm to aircraft or passengers means soon you needn't worry about a pilot surplus or pilots offering to fly for free. Where do you get your experience from?
No airline dispatcher these days would be just throwing on 2 hours of additional fuel for no reason, unless this number is BS.
I can think of several reasons why they would have 11,000 lbs on board after landing (not only due to the 100kt tailwind) but because you can't figure it out it's suspicious?
As more details come out it seems there's nothing so henious in the crews actions to merit their licences being revoked. This is especially true when you consider the fact that previous accidents which have involved death and destruction have not resulted in those involved losing THEIR licences. This is becoming more and more a case of the FAA having an axe to grind and using this crew as the whetting stone on which to do so.
Enlighten us then, what reasons other than crappy weather or planned delays into MSP would they have for having 2+ hours of extra fuel uploaded? I've been in the 705 arena now for over 11 years, and not once have I ever landed with more than a 20 minute difference in the tanks vs the flight plan. I'm all ears.
Beyond the obvious that they would have to have onboard the required extra fuel for possible diversion AND the stated tailwind was higher than expected, the flight might have fuel arrangements to take on a larger load at previous airports from preferred distributors, lower fuel cost at previous airport refuelers, lower than expected final aircraft weight reducing overall fuel burn during the flight, a desire to reduce refuelling time along the way by taking a larger load at a previous stop. There are many reasons why the fuel load might be a bit high by your estimate but that doesn't imply there was anything wrong with the stated balance. Are you running their dispatch? As a pilot, how many A320 flights have you flown? Just because you state you've never flown with more than 20 minutes difference between flight planned and actual onboard fuel doesn't mean everyone does it that way. I have a few stories of pilots landing way past their planned enroute time and it's a good thing they overdid it with regards to their onboard fuel load.
---------- ADS -----------
Having a standard that pilots lose their licence after making a mistake despite doing no harm to aircraft or passengers means soon you needn't worry about a pilot surplus or pilots offering to fly for free. Where do you get your experience from?
