AA Crew involved in JFK near miss refuses to talk to NTSB

[rookiepilot]

I’m guessing the NTSB has a very, very good reason to take this kind of step.

Unlike many it seems on this thread, the NTSB has a heck of a lot more cred with me than some airline crew that screwed up royally and then covered it up by “accidentally” erasing the CVR. They didn’t forget. You don’t forget to preserve data in that scenario.

More to this story, I’ll bet, that ain’t good. Thinking — who was high, or who was bombed?

Oh Rookie. That has NEVER happened in history.

I’m no airline pilot, but have flown into a number of US class B airports — never crossed a runway without a clearance. I don’t get defending them for one second.

Hang em high.

The bizarre part to me is those pissing on the WJ crew in YLW for handling a difficult emergency safely and well, and defending this AA crew.

I doubt they erased it. It would record over during their flight.

But I think the manufacturer of the CVR may have techniques to retrieve it.

A TSB guy told me how this was done when a CVR was erased in an incident in Canada quite a few years ago.

Why did they choose to take off?

[pelmet]

I’m guessing the NTSB has a very, very good reason to take this kind of step.

Unlike many it seems on this thread, the NTSB has a heck of a lot more cred with me than some airline crew that screwed up royally and then covered it up by “accidentally” erasing the CVR. They didn’t forget. You don’t forget to preserve data in that scenario.

More to this story, I’ll bet, that ain’t good. Thinking — who was high, or who was bombed?

Oh Rookie. That has NEVER happened in history.

I’m no airline pilot, but have flown into a number of US class B airports — never crossed a runway without a clearance. I don’t get defending them for one second.

Hang em high.

The bizarre part to me is those pissing on the WJ crew in YLW for handling a difficult emergency safely and well, and defending this AA crew.

I doubt they erased it. It would record over during their flight.

But I think the manufacturer of the CVR may have techniques to retrieve it.

A TSB guy told me how this was done when a CVR was erased in an incident in Canada quite a few years ago.

Why did they choose to take off?

The aircraft was perfectly serviceable. I suppose the crew felt fit to do the flight.

[bcflyer]

I’m guessing the NTSB has a very, very good reason to take this kind of step.

Unlike many it seems on this thread, the NTSB has a heck of a lot more cred with me than some airline crew that screwed up royally and then covered it up by “accidentally” erasing the CVR. They didn’t forget. You don’t forget to preserve data in that scenario.

More to this story, I’ll bet, that ain’t good. Thinking — who was high, or who was bombed?

Oh Rookie. That has NEVER happened in history.

I’m no airline pilot, but have flown into a number of US class B airports — never crossed a runway without a clearance. I don’t get defending them for one second.

Hang em high.

The bizarre part to me is those pissing on the WJ crew in YLW for handling a difficult emergency safely and well, and defending this AA crew.

I doubt they erased it. It would record over during their flight.

But I think the manufacturer of the CVR may have techniques to retrieve it.

A TSB guy told me how this was done when a CVR was erased in an incident in Canada quite a few years ago.

Why did they choose to take off?

What would you have done?

[rookiepilot]

I doubt they erased it. It would record over during their flight.

But I think the manufacturer of the CVR may have techniques to retrieve it.

A TSB guy told me how this was done when a CVR was erased in an incident in Canada quite a few years ago.

Why did they choose to take off?

What would you have done?

I call it as I see it here. Actions have consequences. Mistakes are ok. Not good, but they happen. Attempts to cover up an incident or obstruct an investigation are beneath any pilot.

We saw this with the AC near miss in SFO. My view was the same. Recording over a CVR is obstruction.

I take seriously the responsibility to own it voluntarily when I do something wrong. Not cover it up. This is how I have lived my life. Don’t prostitute my values for a job.

As far as I’m concerned, one doesn’t belong in any cockpit without that same attitude.

Last word on this topic. Its clear to me from this thread, some airline pilots are no better than the rest of this world that refuses to be transparently accountable for their actions.

[digits_]

Why did they choose to take off?

What would you have done?

I call it as I see it here. Actions have consequences. Mistakes are ok. Not good, but they happen. Attempts to cover up an incident or obstruct an investigation are beneath any pilot.

We saw this with the AC near miss in SFO. My view was the same. Recording over a CVR is obstruction.

I take seriously the responsibility to own it voluntarily when I do something wrong. Not cover it up. This is how I have lived my life. Don’t prostitute my values for a job.

As far as I’m concerned, one doesn’t belong in any cockpit without that same attitude.

Last word on this topic. Its clear to me from this thread, some airline pilots are no better than the rest of this world that refuses to be transparently accountable for their actions.

You might be calling it like you see it, but you didn't answer the question.

I am sure that if they were to pull the cvr breaker to preserve the recording that you would claim they were trying to cover up something else.

[Little Star]

The AA crew must comply with the subpoena and testify before NTSB. However, they can remain silent as they are protected against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

[rookiepilot]

The AA crew must comply with the subpoena and testify before NTSB. However, they can remain silent as they are protected against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

That is their right.

As a fellow pilot, an amateur pilot, am I expected to admire, endorse and support this as exemplary conduct of a professional?

[cdnavater]

The AA crew must comply with the subpoena and testify before NTSB. However, they can remain silent as they are protected against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

That is their right.

As a fellow pilot, an amateur pilot, am I expected to admire, endorse and support this as exemplary conduct of a professional?

As a Canadian, if you faced the kind of lawsuits that the US system allows, the kind where if someone burns themself with hot coffee can get millions because they were not warned the coffee is hot, would you give complete testimony, on record?
If you answer yes, you’re a liar, no one in their right mind would do it without some type of guarantee they could not be prosecuted.
In the interest of aviation safety, any and all testimony regarding an incident should be protected and until that happens, people will clam up.
I guarantee if I @#$! up, I will follow the advice of my lawyer because of the firing squad, I’m talking about you rookie!

[Chaxterium]

As a Canadian, if you faced the kind of lawsuits that the US system allows, the kind where if someone burns themself with hot coffee can get millions because they were not warned the coffee is hot,

Yes we all know the US is incredibly litigious but you may not want to use this lawsuit as an example of frivolous lawsuits. This one was legit. The coffee was so hot she needed a skin graft.

The plaintiff, Stella Liebeck (1912–2004),a 79-year-old woman, suffered third-degree burns in her pelvic region when she accidentally spilled coffee in her lap after purchasing it from a McDonald's restaurant. She was hospitalized for eight days while undergoing skin grafting, followed by two years of medical treatment. Liebeck sought to settle with McDonald's for $20,000 to cover her medical expenses. When McDonald's refused, Liebeck's attorney filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, accusing McDonald's of gross negligence.

[digits_]

As a Canadian, if you faced the kind of lawsuits that the US system allows, the kind where if someone burns themself with hot coffee can get millions because they were not warned the coffee is hot,

Yes we all know the US is incredibly litigious but you may not want to use this lawsuit as an example of frivolous lawsuits. This one was legit. The coffee was so hot she needed a skin graft.

The plaintiff, Stella Liebeck (1912–2004),a 79-year-old woman, suffered third-degree burns in her pelvic region when she accidentally spilled coffee in her lap after purchasing it from a McDonald's restaurant. She was hospitalized for eight days while undergoing skin grafting, followed by two years of medical treatment. Liebeck sought to settle with McDonald's for $20,000 to cover her medical expenses. When McDonald's refused, Liebeck's attorney filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, accusing McDonald's of gross negligence.

Yup. And the original amount was actually pretty low in comparison to medical costs in the US. It's when lawyers got involved that the amounts exploded to ridiculous levels.

A lot of the 'crazy ridiculous' lawsuit verdicts you read about become much more reasonable when you get the full story.

[PostmasterGeneral]

The AA crew must comply with the subpoena and testify before NTSB. However, they can remain silent as they are protected against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

That is their right.

As a fellow pilot, an amateur pilot, am I expected to admire, endorse and support this as exemplary conduct of a professional?

I already asked you this, but you didn’t respond. Why do you care so much about whether or not these guys talk? Let it go, there are much more important things in life to be concerned with.

[bcflyer]

I’m guessing the NTSB has a very, very good reason to take this kind of step.

Unlike many it seems on this thread, the NTSB has a heck of a lot more cred with me than some airline crew that screwed up royally and then covered it up by “accidentally” erasing the CVR. They didn’t forget. You don’t forget to preserve data in that scenario.

More to this story, I’ll bet, that ain’t good. Thinking — who was high, or who was bombed?

Oh Rookie. That has NEVER happened in history.

I’m no airline pilot, but have flown into a number of US class B airports — never crossed a runway without a clearance. I don’t get defending them for one second.

Hang em high.

The bizarre part to me is those pissing on the WJ crew in YLW for handling a difficult emergency safely and well, and defending this AA crew.

I doubt they erased it. It would record over during their flight.

But I think the manufacturer of the CVR may have techniques to retrieve it.

A TSB guy told me how this was done when a CVR was erased in an incident in Canada quite a few years ago.

Why did they choose to take off?

Still haven’t answered my question. What would you have done?

[rookiepilot]

I doubt they erased it. It would record over during their flight.

But I think the manufacturer of the CVR may have techniques to retrieve it.

A TSB guy told me how this was done when a CVR was erased in an incident in Canada quite a few years ago.

Why did they choose to take off?

Still haven’t answered my question. What would you have done?

You first.

[cdnavater]

As a Canadian, if you faced the kind of lawsuits that the US system allows, the kind where if someone burns themself with hot coffee can get millions because they were not warned the coffee is hot,

Yes we all know the US is incredibly litigious but you may not want to use this lawsuit as an example of frivolous lawsuits. This one was legit. The coffee was so hot she needed a skin graft.

The plaintiff, Stella Liebeck (1912–2004),a 79-year-old woman, suffered third-degree burns in her pelvic region when she accidentally spilled coffee in her lap after purchasing it from a McDonald's restaurant. She was hospitalized for eight days while undergoing skin grafting, followed by two years of medical treatment. Liebeck sought to settle with McDonald's for $20,000 to cover her medical expenses. When McDonald's refused, Liebeck's attorney filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, accusing McDonald's of gross negligence.

I know full well coffee can put you in the hospital, I spent a little over two months when I was a toddler in an icu with third degree burns over 40% of my body. Nobody was sued because we are in Canada, probably a different outcome south of the border.
Coffee is hot and if you’re 79 years old, you should know this. If she made her own coffee at home and sat down in her recliner, spilled her coffee the end result would be the same. McDonald’s coffee is no hotter than anyone else’s, take responsibility for your own clumsiness.
This shouldn’t have been a lawsuit in the first place nor should the restaurant be responsible for an idiot who spilled their coffee.
Now, I haven’t read the details, did the drive through employee dump it in her lap, that could change my view on it but that would be about it.
Point was, the US sues for everything and hope it sticks, I’ve read some ridiculous verdicts and awards. Some jackass in row 12 will say he has ptsd and can never fly again and would be awarded 300 million dollars.

[digits_]

McDonald’s coffee is no hotter than anyone else’s

Actually, it was. That was one of the main points of the lawsuit

During the case, Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchisees to hold coffee at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C). Liebeck's attorneys argued that coffee should never be served hotter than 140 °F (60 °C), and that a number of other establishments served coffee at a substantially lower temperature than McDonald's. The attorneys presented evidence that coffee they had tested all over the city was served at a temperature at least 20 °F (11 °C) lower than McDonald's coffee.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v ... estaurants

Now, I haven’t read the details

That's obvious.

[Chaxterium]

Now, I haven’t read the details

Clearly.

I have read the details. Which is precisely why I said that this is not an example of a frivolous lawsuit. I used to think the same as you.....

...until I read the details.

[rookiepilot]

Some jackass in row 12 will say he has ptsd and can never fly again and would be awarded 300 million dollars.

This is an example of the idiocy of this site.

2 professional pilots: (what happened? Drunk, high or both— I take bets on everything. This is a close race)

Suddenly they aren’t the jackass’s. Its the poor sap in row 12 who’s to blame, the customer who is totally unaware his pilot is trying to kill them.

Yup. Blame the customer! It’s his fault for booking his fare at too low a price!

[Aviatard]

Now, I haven’t read the details,

Then now would be a good time to:
1. Stop having opinions on this and
2. Telling other people about your opinions

[cdnavater]

Now, I haven’t read the details,

Then now would be a good time to:
1. Stop having opinions on this and
2. Telling other people about your opinions

Or, you could keep your opinion to yourself

[cdnavater]

McDonald’s coffee is no hotter than anyone else’s

Actually, it was. That was one of the main points of the lawsuit

During the case, Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchisees to hold coffee at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C). Liebeck's attorneys argued that coffee should never be served hotter than 140 °F (60 °C), and that a number of other establishments served coffee at a substantially lower temperature than McDonald's. The attorneys presented evidence that coffee they had tested all over the city was served at a temperature at least 20 °F (11 °C) lower than McDonald's coffee.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v ... estaurants

Now, I haven’t read the details

That's obvious.

Nope, I’m not seeing what you’re seeing, coffee is hot, period. A jury decided that McDonald’s was at fault because the label describing it as hot was too small, holy @#$!.
Other coffee around the city was 20 degrees lower but still at the threshold that will cause third degree burns, Starbucks serves theirs at 175-185, it’s still ridiculous, she chose to put a cup of hot coffee between her lap and spilled it, I don’t understand why anyone supports this shit.

[cdnavater]

McDonald’s coffee is no hotter than anyone else’s

Actually, it was. That was one of the main points of the lawsuit

During the case, Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchisees to hold coffee at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C). Liebeck's attorneys argued that coffee should never be served hotter than 140 °F (60 °C), and that a number of other establishments served coffee at a substantially lower temperature than McDonald's. The attorneys presented evidence that coffee they had tested all over the city was served at a temperature at least 20 °F (11 °C) lower than McDonald's coffee.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v ... estaurants

Now, I haven’t read the details

That's obvious.

Nope, I’m not seeing what you’re seeing, coffee is hot, period. A jury decided that McDonald’s was at fault because the label describing it as hot was too small, holy @#$!.
Other coffee around the city was 20 degrees lower but still at the threshold that will cause third degree burns, Starbucks serves theirs at 175-185, it’s still ridiculous, she chose to put a cup of hot coffee between her lap and spilled it, I don’t understand why anyone supports this shit.

https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/5098-T ... Scalds.pdf

Most adults will suffer third-degree burns if exposed to 150 degree water for two seconds.

[digits_]

McDonald’s coffee is no hotter than anyone else’s

Actually, it was. That was one of the main points of the lawsuit

During the case, Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchisees to hold coffee at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C). Liebeck's attorneys argued that coffee should never be served hotter than 140 °F (60 °C), and that a number of other establishments served coffee at a substantially lower temperature than McDonald's. The attorneys presented evidence that coffee they had tested all over the city was served at a temperature at least 20 °F (11 °C) lower than McDonald's coffee.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v ... estaurants

Now, I haven’t read the details

That's obvious.

Nope, I’m not seeing what you’re seeing, coffee is hot, period. A jury decided that McDonald’s was at fault because the label describing it as hot was too small, holy @#$!.
Other coffee around the city was 20 degrees lower but still at the threshold that will cause third degree burns, Starbucks serves theirs at 175-185, it’s still ridiculous, she chose to put a cup of hot coffee between her lap and spilled it, I don’t understand why anyone supports this shit.

So you're using the argument that mc Donald's coffee is as hot as anyone elses yourself, until proven wrong and then it doesn't matter anymore?

Wikipedia gives a good summary as to what factors were at play. It's not just 'here ya go, 3 million because you dropped your coffee '. There is more to it.

[cdnavater]

Actually, it was. That was one of the main points of the lawsuit



Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v ... estaurants



That's obvious.

Nope, I’m not seeing what you’re seeing, coffee is hot, period. A jury decided that McDonald’s was at fault because the label describing it as hot was too small, holy @#$!.
Other coffee around the city was 20 degrees lower but still at the threshold that will cause third degree burns, Starbucks serves theirs at 175-185, it’s still ridiculous, she chose to put a cup of hot coffee between her lap and spilled it, I don’t understand why anyone supports this shit.

So you're using the argument that mc Donald's coffee is as hot as anyone elses yourself, until proven wrong and then it doesn't matter anymore?

Wikipedia gives a good summary as to what factors were at play. It's not just 'here ya go, 3 million because you dropped your coffee '. There is more to it.

Nope, I’m using the argument, don’t be a fucken idiot and put hot coffee between your legs in case you spill it, coffee is hot.
Even if the McDonald’s coffee was 40 degrees less than their average, 150 still gives third degree burns in 2 seconds, so unless she could whip off her sweats in less than two seconds the end result is the same, maybe to a slightly lesser degree.
Should every idiot who doesn’t realize coffee is really hot and burns themselves be entitled to compensation?
What temperature do you want your coffee to be served at, a nice lukewarm so nobody ever gets hurt again.
I get why McDonald’s stood their ground. If they didn’t draw the line, I’d say maybe they stop serving coffee or serve it with a liability waiver, you want this coffee sign here.

[photofly]

As a Canadian, if you faced the kind of lawsuits that the US system allows, the kind where if someone burns themself with hot coffee can get millions...

The judgement was for $640k; both sides appealed and the final settlement was not disclosed. Nobody got millions.

[albertdesalvo]

Nobody got millions.

How do you know that, if the settlement was not disclosed? This thread has definitely jumped the shark.