Comair Pilot Error

"Morgans" wrote in message
...
If your family was on that plane, would you be angry? Damn straight, you
would be.

I don't know. Maybe I would, maybe I wouldn't. I've experienced what I
consider to be tragic loss in the past without feeling anger at anyone.

But that's not the question here. Andrew's family wasn't on the plane, and
his anger is misplaced, even if it could be understandable (albeit
irrational) on the part of people who had relationships with the people who
died.

Intentional does not have anything to do whether anger is justified.

If you are talking about anger directed at the pilots, then of course it
does. Anger may be understandable, but justified implies that there is some
rational basis for the anger.

It may turn out that there is indeed some rational basis for the anger, but
for the moment there is absolutely no information that would support that
conclusion.

These
were two professional pilots that made a mistake that is without reason

How do you know that the mistake was made without reason?

, a kind of mistake not in any way permitted for professional pilot.

Are there mistakes that are permitted for professional pilots? What
mistakes would those be?

If they
had survived, I would expect that they would never be allowed to again
hold
an ATP.

Unless there's new news I haven't heard, one did survive. I guess we'll see
if he loses his pilot certificate or not. How that's relevant to the
question of justified anger, I don't know. Maybe you could explain it.

For what ever reason, they did not have the right stuff, that day. The
right stuff is absolutely essential, every time, for an ATP to do his
thing,
and if the mistake were survived this time, you can not know if they would
make a critical mistake in the future. We, the "riding public," have a
right to expect better than that.

I'd agree you have a right to expect to not be killed on an airline flight,
or on any flight for that matter. As a society, we tend to value our
expectation that we won't be killed.

But in what way does that justify anger against at least one person who
suffered the same dire consequences that all the passengers did, and who for
all we know was doing the very best they were capable of in their situation
to perform their duties?

I know...I'm just spitting in the wind here. Perhaps on Usenet more than
anywhere else, but certainly in society as a whole, people LOVE to judge.
They LOVE to make accusations and pretend they know EXACTLY what the score
is, long before they really do. Still, that doesn't make it right, and when
you and others insist on going around doing so, I'm going to speak up if I'm
around to see it.

Pete

I suspect this pilot's professional future, assuming he survives, is
bleak. His resume is going to be compared to others, isn't it? If you
were the decision maker, would you be interested in hiring a man who
will most likely have a serious FAA citation on his record if there are
others with about the same qualifications who do not? That would be the
arm's length decision process based on a factual record, but the hiring
authority has still another consideration -- will the public be
willing to buy tickets on the carrier who hires a pilot involved in
this incident?

Those are the criteria I'd be interested in as a hiring authority. One
might claim in an abstract world it ain't 'fair', but boys and girls
this isn't an abstract world we're living in.

It was very likely an unforced error that led to the accident, but the
key word is 'error'.

It's awful stuff, the whole damned thing.

-- CLEAR!--



Peter Duniho wrote:
"Morgans" wrote in message
...
If your family was on that plane, would you be angry? Damn straight, you
would be.

I don't know. Maybe I would, maybe I wouldn't. I've experienced what I
consider to be tragic loss in the past without feeling anger at anyone.

But that's not the question here. Andrew's family wasn't on the plane, and
his anger is misplaced, even if it could be understandable (albeit
irrational) on the part of people who had relationships with the people who
died.

Intentional does not have anything to do whether anger is justified.

If you are talking about anger directed at the pilots, then of course it
does. Anger may be understandable, but justified implies that there is some
rational basis for the anger.

It may turn out that there is indeed some rational basis for the anger, but
for the moment there is absolutely no information that would support that
conclusion.

These
were two professional pilots that made a mistake that is without reason

How do you know that the mistake was made without reason?

, a kind of mistake not in any way permitted for professional pilot.

Are there mistakes that are permitted for professional pilots? What
mistakes would those be?

If they
had survived, I would expect that they would never be allowed to again
hold
an ATP.

Unless there's new news I haven't heard, one did survive. I guess we'll see
if he loses his pilot certificate or not. How that's relevant to the
question of justified anger, I don't know. Maybe you could explain it.

For what ever reason, they did not have the right stuff, that day. The
right stuff is absolutely essential, every time, for an ATP to do his
thing,
and if the mistake were survived this time, you can not know if they would
make a critical mistake in the future. We, the "riding public," have a
right to expect better than that.

I'd agree you have a right to expect to not be killed on an airline flight,
or on any flight for that matter. As a society, we tend to value our
expectation that we won't be killed.

But in what way does that justify anger against at least one person who
suffered the same dire consequences that all the passengers did, and who for
all we know was doing the very best they were capable of in their situation
to perform their duties?

I know...I'm just spitting in the wind here. Perhaps on Usenet more than
anywhere else, but certainly in society as a whole, people LOVE to judge.
They LOVE to make accusations and pretend they know EXACTLY what the score
is, long before they really do. Still, that doesn't make it right, and when
you and others insist on going around doing so, I'm going to speak up if I'm
around to see it.

Pete

In article .com,
"Tony" wrote:

If you
were the decision maker, would you be interested in hiring a man who
will most likely have a serious FAA citation on his record if there are
others with about the same qualifications who do not?

Only for three years, then it goes away.
This boy is most likely going to have some serious psychological issues
to deal with for at least a year.
This mornings paper reported that they are considering amputating part
of one leg. That will be a permanent reminder.

"Tony" wrote in message

.. -- will the public be
willing to buy tickets on the carrier who hires a pilot involved in
this incident?

The public doesn't know who's flying the plane, and beyond superficial lip
service, the public doesn't care. They make a lot of noise about safety,
but when it comes time to book the trip to Disney, or Aunt Myrtle's 90th
birthday, whoever sells the cheapest seat is the winner.

OK, John, assume for the moment you're the hiring authority, and let's
further assume you don't privately own the carrier, that you have a
boss.

Here's the conversation at your performance review. "Yeah, boss, I know
he was at the controls when that airplane crashed, but I hired him
anyway. I think he's the best choice from the 150 who applied and I
don't care if that that decision becomes publicly known and we lose 10%
market share for a year."

If I was the boss, I'd be thinking you made an avoidable error unless
you could convenience me the universe of qualified ATRs was very
limited. That old rule about the two kinds of mistakes in hiring comes
into play. The first kind of mistake is rejecting a qualified
applicant, the second is hiring an unqualified one. You can make many
mistakes of the first kind to avoid making one of the second kind.

It's an intresting topic and really a diversion from thinking about the
awful circumstances that started the thread.

CLEAR!


ohn Gaquin wrote:
"Tony" wrote in message

.. -- will the public be
willing to buy tickets on the carrier who hires a pilot involved in
this incident?

The public doesn't know who's flying the plane, and beyond superficial lip
service, the public doesn't care. They make a lot of noise about safety,
but when it comes time to book the trip to Disney, or Aunt Myrtle's 90th
birthday, whoever sells the cheapest seat is the winner.

"Tony" wrote in message

....and I
don't care if that that decision becomes publicly known and we lose 10%
market share for a year."

Right there is where your premise falls apart. Not even close to reality.

Peter Duniho wrote:
"Morgans" wrote in message
...
If your family was on that plane, would you be angry? Damn straight, you
would be.

I don't know. Maybe I would, maybe I wouldn't. I've experienced what I
consider to be tragic loss in the past without feeling anger at anyone.

But that's not the question here. Andrew's family wasn't on the plane, and
his anger is misplaced, even if it could be understandable (albeit
irrational) on the part of people who had relationships with the people who
died.

No, my family was not on the airplane. But my wife and baby did fly
Comair CRJ only a few days prior to this accident, departed from CVG
which is not too far from LEX. Who knows, may be the same accident
pilot was at the controls. I don't know. That is perhaps why I feel
closer to this accident than many others. I can feel in a fleeting
moment the pain of the deceased family members. Unfortunately (or
fortunately), the average person does not know enough about aviation to
comprehend the different levels of pilot error and mechanial problems.
For them this is just an unfortunate accident that happens once in a
while. But as pilot we know better. We understand the different
elements in aviation, what's in our control and what's not in our
control. This was completely and 100% within the pilot's control. It
doesn't matter how much coffee he drank, what the ATC controller was
doing, what lights were on and what was off. This is like running a red
light in clear weather, killing a bunch of pedestrians and telling the
neighborhood to take it easy. No, my anger is not misplaced. It may be
unnecessary and useless, but it is not an unsual reaction for this type
of tragedy.

In article . com,
"Andrew Sarangan" wrote:

No, my anger is not misplaced. It may be
unnecessary and useless, but it is not an unsual reaction for this type
of tragedy.

Andrew, if this is your first child, you are about to receive many years
of continuing education in distrations. Let us hope you and yours do not
suffer any harm as a result.