FAA throws pilots under the Airbus

Jim Logajan wrote:
FAA doesn't bother with suspension - goes straight for the revocation:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/us/28plane.html

Pretty harsh for pilots who don't appear to have had any other blemish on
their lengthy records.

Revocation would seem to be appropriate for actions that are deliberately
reckless or are likely to be repeated. This wasn't deliberate and would
certainly not be repeated by these pilots. So why why not suspend their
certificates for a year or so? My guess is that wasn't done because the
mistake was too high profile, publicity-wise.


I find the action appropriate. I don't hold my breathe for the
medical interns to get a similar prescription when their actions after
working a 22 hour shift kill a patient. They are not deliberately
careless, and their actions ARE likely to be repeated.
There is no Federal institution which can work this remedy
unfortunately, and after all, they are on their way to a $400K p.a. meal
ticket.

Brian W

brian whatcott wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote:
FAA doesn't bother with suspension - goes straight for the
revocation:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/us/28plane.html

Pretty harsh for pilots who don't appear to have had any other
blemish on their lengthy records.

Revocation would seem to be appropriate for actions that are
deliberately reckless or are likely to be repeated. This wasn't
deliberate and would certainly not be repeated by these pilots. So
why why not suspend their certificates for a year or so? My guess is
that wasn't done because the mistake was too high profile,
publicity-wise.


I find the action appropriate. I don't hold my breathe for the
medical interns to get a similar prescription when their actions after
working a 22 hour shift kill a patient. They are not deliberately
careless, and their actions ARE likely to be repeated.

Your analogy doesn't apply because:

1) In this case, no one died or was even injured.

2) The pilots aren't analogous to interns - they'd more likely be analogous
to doctors. And their actions would probably be more analogous to an
experienced surgeon leaving instruments in a body after sewing a patient
up.

Why anyone would think a singular screwup like this - after decades of
piloting - indicates a high probability of being repeated seems is
something I see as more emotional based than based on sound rationale of
human psychology.

Lastly, at the risk of repeating myself, I only differ from the FAA in the
nature of the corrective action. Not that no corrective action should
eventually be taken.

On Oct 27, 8:58*pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
brian whatcott wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote:
FAA doesn't bother with suspension - goes straight for the
revocation:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/us/28plane.html

Pretty harsh for pilots who don't appear to have had any other
blemish on their lengthy records.

Revocation would seem to be appropriate for actions that are
deliberately reckless or are likely to be repeated. This wasn't
deliberate and would certainly not be repeated by these pilots. So
why why not suspend their certificates for a year or so? My guess is
that wasn't done because the mistake was too high profile,
publicity-wise.

I find the action appropriate. * *I don't hold my breathe for the
medical interns to get a similar prescription when their actions after
working a 22 hour shift kill a patient. They are not deliberately
careless, and their actions ARE likely to be repeated.

Your analogy doesn't apply because:

1) In this case, no one died or was even injured.

2) The pilots aren't analogous to interns - they'd more likely be analogous
to doctors. And their actions would probably be more analogous to an
experienced surgeon leaving instruments in a body after sewing a patient
up.

Why anyone would think a singular screwup like this - after decades of
piloting - indicates a high probability of being repeated seems is
something I see as more emotional based than based on sound rationale of
human psychology.

Lastly, at the risk of repeating myself, I only differ from the FAA in the
nature of the corrective action. Not that no corrective action should
eventually be taken.

Jim, being out of touch with ATC for 91 minutes because of a laptop
distraction is a big deal even if it did not result in an accident.
Definitive action on the part of the FAA will not only prevent these
two from doing it again, but also will make it pretty clear to other
pilots that paying attention to the job at hand is rule 1. Pilots
who have been safe pilots are of their lives -- or seemingly safe, not
having been caught -- still get to do controlled flight into a
mountain or worse. These two missed a hand-off/change of frequency
and didn't notice no one had been talking to them for over an hour. I
have no piloting experience in these kinds of airplanes, but I can't
remember when on an IRF XC in my Mooney center didn't do handoffs
every 20 minutes or so and that's at a cruise of 160, not 350, kts!

Those who fly commercial will, I think, be marginally safer now.