If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
FAA throws pilots under the Airbus
"Jim Logajan" wrote: in message .. . 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. Seems hasty, at least. Is there such a thing as an emergency suspension vs. revocation? -- Dan T182T at 4R4 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
FAA throws pilots under the Airbus
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:56:28 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote:
- they're idiots! These alleged "idiots" have allegedly been flying for decades without incident. Cosmic rays, alien ship, or some quantum singularity separated them from the normal timeline. Which is why they went over 75 minutes with no commo. -- Live To Spend It |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
FAA throws pilots under the Airbus
"Dan Luke" wrote:
Is there such a thing as an emergency suspension vs. revocation? According to this FAA order document, yes on both counts: http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m...ND/2150.3B.pdf It's a long document, so the following is probably incomplete, but it appears that "emergency revocation" is considered appropriate when: (1) During criminal investigations when the underlying conduct evidences a lack of qualification by a certificate holder. (2) Operation of a common carrier while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. (3) When the FAA believes the certificate holder lacks the qualifications to hold the certificate and the certificate holder is capable of exercising the privileges of the certificate. (4) When the FAA finds that an emergency exists and safety in air commerce or air transportation require the order to be effective immediately. (5) Because of an airman's refusal to submit to a reexamination following an accident or incident that calls into question his or her qualification to hold the certificate. (6) Based on the airman's having committed several regulatory violations during the course of the accident or incident. But then the document states this: "d. Criteria for Emergency Action. (1) Emergency action is taken only: * When the certificate holder lacks qualification, or there is a reasonable basis to question whether the holder is qualified to hold the certificate; and * When the certificate holder is reasonably able as a practical matter to exercise the privileges of the certificate." The information provided by the FAA is scant, but based only on what I've seen alleged, the only reason that seems to apply is (6). And in this case there was no accident - only an incident (per the definition in FAR 830.2) I believe the "emergency revocation" is due to public posturing by the agency rather than a legitimate safety measure. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
FAA throws pilots under the Airbus
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:24:25 -0500, 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. They discussed illegal/questionable activities and realized the cockpit is miked. Spent the remainder of time looking for the erase button then remembering the 30 minute loop. This is fact. -- Live To Spend It |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
FAA throws pilots under the Airbus
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:56:28 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote:
Dave Doe wrote: In article , says... 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. Bugger off - it's *bloody serious* Explain what makes it "bloody serious." - they're idiots! These alleged "idiots" have allegedly been flying for decades without incident. If they _were_ "idiots" (rather than otherwise competent pilots who made a bad mistake) wouldn't some responsibility fall on the FAA, or the airlines that employed them? After all, those pilots have to get periodic reviews of their piloting abilities. If the FAA and airlines can't spot idiot pilots, they are the fools. Do you think the FAA examiners who missed recognizing these "idiots" should also face punitive action due to this incident? They displayed a lack of due dilegence to the extreme. Again - if they were fundamentally unable to fly due to being "idiots" - whose fault is it that they managed to fly for so many years without incident? What makes you think an _emergency_ revocation of their certificates is warranted? Why does it seem likely to you (or the FAA!) that they would repeat this mistake rather than return to the allegedly incident-free piloting of their previous decades of piloting? I think their excuse is a one big lie too. Speculation is free - so feel free to explain what you think happened. Some flavor of conspiracy involving the covert air dropping of personnel east of MSP. Fact. -- Live To Spend It |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
FAA throws pilots under the Airbus
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
FAA throws pilots under the Airbus
Jim Logajan wrote:
"Dan Luke" wrote: Is there such a thing as an emergency suspension vs. revocation? According to this FAA order document, yes on both counts: http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m...ND/2150.3B.pdf It's a long document, so the following is probably incomplete, but it appears that "emergency revocation" is considered appropriate when: [...] (6) Based on the airman's having committed several regulatory violations during the course of the accident or incident. [...] The information provided by the FAA is scant, but based only on what I've seen alleged, the only reason that seems to apply is (6). And in this case there was no accident - only an incident (per the definition in FAR 830.2) I think you've selected the right clause, and these airmen undeniably "...committed several regulatory violations during the course of the accident or incident." I feel for these guys, but their lack of judgement in this incident is inexcusable, and apparently the FAA came to the same conclusion. -- Neil |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Airbus 380 and White Knight 2 at Oshkosh - July 31 2009 01 Airbus 380 Lifting off Runway 36.JPG (0/1) | Just Plane Noise[_2_] | Aviation Photos | 2 | August 2nd 09 02:36 AM |
Airbus 380 and White Knight 2 at Oshkosh - July 31 2009 11 Airbus 380 demo.JPG (1/1) | Just Plane Noise[_2_] | Aviation Photos | 0 | August 1st 09 01:42 AM |
Airbus 380 and White Knight 2 at Oshkosh - July 31 2009 10 Airbus 380 demo.JPG (1/1) | Just Plane Noise[_2_] | Aviation Photos | 0 | August 1st 09 01:42 AM |
Airbus 380 and White Knight 2 at Oshkosh - July 31 2009 01 Airbus 380 Lifting off Runway 36.JPG (1/1) | Just Plane Noise[_2_] | Aviation Photos | 0 | August 1st 09 01:42 AM |
Paraglider spiral dive, throws chute and ends up in the trees | Stewart Kissel | Soaring | 8 | March 1st 05 10:04 PM |