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

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

"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.

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

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

In article ,
says...


It's called due process. Maybe you've heard of it?



That’s correct.
It’s considered an inviolable, constitutional right in common law. Should we
be forced to accept a more arbitrary standard just because this concerns
aviation?
Don’t forget, an effort to understand the events is not only in the interest
of the "defendants" but the plaintiffs as well. It could be that a decent
investigation would lead to criminal charges in addition to suspensions and
revocations if the facts are serious enough.
Everyone benefits from due process, as opposed to knee-jerk, arbitrary
edicts.

Originally Posted by Jim Logajan

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 think any professional who has been doing his job flawlessly for 25 years who makes a mistake that results in no injuries to any persons, no damage to any equipment, and causes 144 people to be 40 minutes late deserves to have his/her livelyhood taken away for the rest of his/her life!

Originally Posted by Ross

VOR-DME wrote:
In article ,
says...

Bugger off - it's *bloody serious* - they're idiots!

They displayed a lack of due dilegence to the extreme.

I think their excuse is a one big lie too.



If you don't believe their story, than you have little to go on in judging
the seriousness of their actions.


I share the belief that the FAA action was hasty. I am not suggesting
leniency, but a suspension for the time it takes to complete an
investigation, then certificate action based on and proportional to the
results of that investigation would be a much more suitable position for the
regulatory authority.


If they had an unblemished record up until now, then there should be
consequences for their actions, but not revocation of licenses. Look how
many drunk drivers get off after having a deadly accident (the drunk
driver normally does not die) and they are right back at it. There is
more of that than what has been talked about here. And, I am on the
highways more than in the air.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
Sold
KSWI

I think any professional who has been doing his/her job flawlessly for 25 years who makes a mistake that results in no injuries to any persons, no damage to any equipment, and causes 144 people to be 40 minutes late deserves to have his/her livelyhood taken away for the rest of his/her life!

Clark wrote:
"Neil Gould" wrote in news:hc9iq2$5a5$1
@adenine.netfront.net:

VOR-DME wrote:
In article ,
says...


Bugger off - it's *bloody serious* - they're idiots!

They displayed a lack of due dilegence to the extreme.

I think their excuse is a one big lie too.



If you don't believe their story, than you have little to go on in
judging the seriousness of their actions.

I share the belief that the FAA action was hasty. I am not
suggesting leniency, but a suspension for the time it takes to
complete an investigation, then certificate action based on and
proportional to the results of that investigation would be a much
more suitable position for the regulatory authority.

Can you come up with a mitigating circumstance for the loss of
control and responsibility on the pilots' part that would justify
any lesser remedial action? If the outcome is inevitable, why should
the FAA wait to act?


It's called due process. Maybe you've heard of it?

Not in relation to actions by the FAA. ;-)

--
Neil

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