The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) does a great job making our skies as safe as possible, by investigating every accident and near accident, so that similar incidents can be avoided in the future. Well, as noted by @RossFeinstein, the American Airlines pilots who recently nearly caused an accident are refusing to cooperate, and the union is defending them.
In this post:
American pilots don’t want recorded interviews
In mid-January, an American Boeing 777 and Delta 737 nearly collided on a runway at JFK. An American 777 was crossing the runway on which a Delta 737 was taking off. Fortunately the air traffic controller realized what was going on, and the Delta pilots responded quickly, so potential disaster was avoided.
The NTSB has been investigating this incident, and has now released its initial report. In addition to receiving written statements from the flight crew, the NTSB asked to conduct recorded interviews with the American pilots who caused this incident. However, the pilots are refusing recorded interviews. Per the report:
In addition to the crew statements, NTSB attempted to interview the American Airlines flight crew three different times. American Airlines cleared the flight crew’s schedule to ensure their availability; however, the flight crew refused to be interviewed on the basis that their statements would be audio recorded for transcription. On behalf of the crew, the APA party representative informed the NTSB that the crew would not consent to participate in audio recorded interviews in any manner. NTSB has determined that this investigation requires that the flight crew interviews be audio recorded and transcribed by a court reporter to ensure the highest degree of accuracy, completeness, and efficiency. As a result of the flight crew’s repeated unwillingness to proceed with a recorded interview, subpoenas for their testimony have been issued.
I mean, I recognize that this incident looks really bad for the American 777 pilots to begin with, and they could be facing some punishment because of this. So I get why they’re not terribly excited about the prospect of a recorded interview. However, they also need to be held accountable and share their version of what happened, in the name of making aviation safer. This is about how to avoid a similar incident in the future.
Is their refusal to be interviewed illegal? No, not as of now. Is it unethical? Absolutely, in my opinion. A few further things to note about this:
- I’m confused as to how American cleared the schedules of these pilots to make time for interviews — you mean these pilots are still flying, and aren’t on (paid) leave for now, until the investigation is concluded?!?
- The reason interviews are so important is because there’s no cockpit voice recorder (CVR) of the incident, as that only records for two hours, and is then overwritten; since the pilots continued flying to London, this critical evidence isn’t available to investigators
- The NTSB has attempted to interview the pilots on January 25 (virtually), February 3 (in person with a court reporter), and February 8 (virtually with a court reporter)
- The NTSB has offered to procure a court reporter to produce a verbatim transcript of the interviews, and has even given pilots the opportunity to review the transcripts for accuracy, but the pilots have consistently refused
- The pilots have now been issued subpoenas for in-person interviews at NTSB headquarters, and they have seven days to respond
How the pilots union is defending this decision
The Allied Pilots Association (APA), which represents pilots at American, has issued a statement regarding the NTSB’s preliminary report. The APA’s defense is essentially that it’s a fairly new practice for the NTSB to request interviews to be recorded, rather than just having investigators take notes.
The APA believes that taking notes has “long been sufficient in producing accurate records.” Here’s the union’s defense:
We join in the goal of creating an accurate record of all interviews conducted in the course of an investigation. However, we firmly believe the introduction of electronic recording devices into witness interviews is more likely to hinder the investigation process than it is to improve it. Not only may the recording of interviews lead to less candid responses from those witnesses who may choose to proceed under such requirements, but the existence and potential availability of interview recordings upon conclusion of an investigation will tend to lead many otherwise willing crew members to elect not to participate in interviews at all. Either outcome would not serve to advance the goal of conducting effective investigations in order to promote aviation safety.
NTSB investigations are intended to be fact-finding proceedings with no adverse parties. We do not believe that this should be an adversarial issue. In fact, the Board’s own published investigation manuals reflect its long-held position that the non-consensual recording of witness interviews is not permitted. Implementing changes to established practices, especially those with a demonstrated history of success, in a way that discourages otherwise cooperative witnesses from participating in the fact-finding process is antithetical to the purpose and goal of the NTSB.
It seems to me like having recorded interviews would be useful in the long run, both if this exact case is being investigated, and if similar cases are being investigated in the future, to be able to establish any trends. It’s odd that the union is okay with a stenographic record being produced, but recorded audio is a big no-no. Is the union just objecting on principle here, or what’s the real difference (honestly, can anyone please answer that)?
The union consistently talks about how safety is paramount, and everything should be done in the name of safety. The head of the APA even recently talked about how the union is “fighting for that margin of safety.” But when it comes to recorded pilot interviews, we’re not going for best practices, but rather for what’s good enough.
I understand that the union is supposed to look out for its members, but the union loses a lot of respect with the public for things like this. The union can’t argue that safety is the most important thing in the world, and then defend pilots when they almost cause a catastrophe, supporting their lack of transparency. Pick a lane!
Bottom line
The NTSB is attempting to investigate a near accident that happened at JFK a few weeks back, as an American 777 accidentally crossed a runway while a Delta 737 was taking off. Based on everything we know so far, the fault for this lies squarely with the American pilots, who taxied onto a runway they weren’t cleared to cross.
Now the pilots are refusing to participate in recorded NTSB interviews, as the NTSB recently started recording these kinds of interviews. The union is defending this decision by claiming that recording interviews is unnecessary. It’s bizarre to me that the union is good with stenographic record, but not with a transcript of what happened.
The pilots will now be subpoenaed to appear in-person in Washington, and will have seven days to respond. I’m curious to see how this plays out.
What do you make of these American pilots refusing to be interviewed?
Would be nice if many who comment understand safety, systems and human performance. What chance have any of us got if we choose criticism over empathy and understanding.
Keep up the blame game, it must be very satisfying.
If you did your research, you would find that the digital recorder last 30 hours on a 777, 50 hours on a 787. So I’m guessing the feds could get the recorder even if it went to london and back twice
Ah yes, unions at their very worst.
Was the incursion intentional? Of course not ! Was willful negligence involved? Probably not. Was complacency a part of it ? Probably at some level. Are all airport taxi markings currently in place at every airport in the US and up to standards? Speaking from the standpoint as a retired B777 Captain involved in worldwide operations. No ! This kind of thing happens very frequently, it just doesn’t make the news.
At what point does the Union stop defending indefensible behavior?
Spoken from someone with no facts on the situation. Thats rich!
What behavior are you referring to? What was indefensible?
I understand that the union is concerned that inflection, tone, hesitation or other things will have the NTSB reading between the lines. Recorded interviews can also be used in civil trials. The NTSB is looking to find the slightest deviation between the written and verbal statements to hang the Pilots on .... but they pretty much hung themselves by their actions and the tower audio recordings are pretty damning. Two AA Pilots didn't do their...
I understand that the union is concerned that inflection, tone, hesitation or other things will have the NTSB reading between the lines. Recorded interviews can also be used in civil trials. The NTSB is looking to find the slightest deviation between the written and verbal statements to hang the Pilots on .... but they pretty much hung themselves by their actions and the tower audio recordings are pretty damning. Two AA Pilots didn't do their jobs and follow the given instructions they acknowledged and read back. The AA crew should have been brought back to the gate for a Fitness for duty inspection and a drug/alcohol test. If this happened at public Bus operation the drivers would have been out of the seat and pissing in a cup, sitting until the results came back and the investigation completed. The AA crew never should have been allowed to depart and if they notified AA's control center of the incident someone at AA needs to be fired for not pulling them off the plane and preserving the CVR data.
Please go easy on the FO here even though it appears she made the error. OTOH, the captain must face the music. Suspension on full pay until investigation is concluded. Most probably he will receive some sanction (incl further CRM training…).
The only reasons for firing the guy would be if the errors were really outlandish or -and here he needs to be very careful- there are doubts about his integrity…
Shit happens....
Please go easy on the FO here even though it appears she made the error. OTOH, the captain must face the music. Suspension on full pay until investigation is concluded. Most probably he will receive some sanction (incl further CRM training…).
The only reasons for firing the guy would be if the errors were really outlandish or -and here he needs to be very careful- there are doubts about his integrity…
Shit happens. If u make honest mistakes, we’ll work together to fix them. But a lack of integrity is incompatible with the cockpit and esp. the LH seat.
Sat on an American 777 at Heathrow waiting for takeoff and reading this. I hope I don’t have one of these clowns flying me today.
I guess you can go up and fly it yourself, oh wait….
Clowns? Oh to be sat in such judgement!
Sounds like they purposefully continued to London so they could lose the recording! Mistakes happen, we know that, but they are active hindering this investigation and to me, that is even worse, than just accept they F'd up and take their punishment and move on. They probably shouldn't be fired for their F up, maybe a good supension, but hindering this investigation ADIOS. go flip burgers
Why should these pilots lose their jobs? Mistakes happen. That is just human. What is more important is that all involved, pilots, ATC etc. learn from this to prevent this happening again. Blaim and punishment culture is something that is done in countries like China and is not how these things should be dealt with in west.
Not cooperating with NTSB I don’t quite understand. I guess they have areason for not wanting audio recording.
Thats the issue Pete.....blame is not something others do, its alive and kicking in Western societies. Look at the language in the article; Absurd, reckless, fault, courts, subpeona, accountability.
What's the message you see - its hardly one shouting empathy and understanding. Thats likely why they are not cooperating and who can blame them.
Plus look at some of the comments - blame! We pay a big price in safety for expecting perfection.
Does this impact their flight status?
I am finding this very interesting. In healthcare we look at aviation for safety. I am in 2 minds about the recordings. Why do you need a recording when you can take notes?
Psychological safety is very important if you want people to speak up.
"NTSB has determined that this investigation requires that the flight crew interviews be audio recorded and transcribed by a court reporter to ensure the highest degree of accuracy, completeness, and efficiency.'
Shouldn't this be the desired result of all NTSB investigations, and if so, why aren't all interviews recorded?
Hate for them to fall asleep and miss something. I personally dont think it is necessary..
My thoughts are that the pilots don’t want “borderline” technology, namely voice stress analysis, applied to their testimonies. I wouldn’t want that either.
I think the union answered all of your questions. Recording the interview does almost nothing to help the process and it very likely will cause problems for the pilots
When you're in a role that makes decisions that have immediate impact on the safety and, frankly, life of 50 to ~800 people at a time (multiple times a day), you should expect quite a bit of scrutiny for near misses that put those lives in peril. Why would we want anything different? Crossing the t's and dotting the i's should be DESIRED.
I can't think of another role where someone has that many...
When you're in a role that makes decisions that have immediate impact on the safety and, frankly, life of 50 to ~800 people at a time (multiple times a day), you should expect quite a bit of scrutiny for near misses that put those lives in peril. Why would we want anything different? Crossing the t's and dotting the i's should be DESIRED.
I can't think of another role where someone has that many lives in the palm of their hand in a single instance; where their decision to fly safely, kill everyone on board, act irresponsibly, or just make a mistake has such immediate consequences. Perhaps they aren't fit for duty, perhaps they are. Refusing an interview certainly doesn't paint a great picture of them already.
These American Airline pilots are not acting professional at all. Accountability is critical and they're not taking any of it. They continued flying, making sure the voice recorder wouldn't show what they were doing. So what are they hiding?
The one thing we do in aviation is take responsibility for the mistakes that we make. They almost caused multiple fatalities and now they want to avoid consequences. They're making themselves look a lot more guilty...
These American Airline pilots are not acting professional at all. Accountability is critical and they're not taking any of it. They continued flying, making sure the voice recorder wouldn't show what they were doing. So what are they hiding?
The one thing we do in aviation is take responsibility for the mistakes that we make. They almost caused multiple fatalities and now they want to avoid consequences. They're making themselves look a lot more guilty than if they would just comply. They're going to be subpoenaed. They're going to have to talk anyway. And I guarantee the NTSB is not going to go easier on them because of the games they are playing.
They are making all of us professional airline pilots look bad. I ask again, what are they hiding? At a bare minimum they were probably ignoring sterile cockpit. But maybe something even worse. That's exactly how the NTSB will be viewing this.
Wow, all of these comments, IMHO, just reinforce why the pilots and the APA is correct here. So many people calling for the pilots' heads (even Lucky says he expects these pilots will lose their jobs), it's no wonder they're worried about what happens to their audio recordings.
Creating a culture of safety is in many ways counterintuitive and diametrically opposed to a courtroom. It's counterintuitive because it entails creating a safe, comfortable environment for...
Wow, all of these comments, IMHO, just reinforce why the pilots and the APA is correct here. So many people calling for the pilots' heads (even Lucky says he expects these pilots will lose their jobs), it's no wonder they're worried about what happens to their audio recordings.
Creating a culture of safety is in many ways counterintuitive and diametrically opposed to a courtroom. It's counterintuitive because it entails creating a safe, comfortable environment for someone who might have made a mistake, or be incompetent, or even who might have caused hundreds of people to die. If a pilot makes a mistake leading to a crash which kills your loved ones, it's understandable that the first thing you want is the pilot's head on a platter, and the last thing you want is to make him feel safe and comfortable. But that's precisely what's needed to establish a culture of safety. Without that, the person who possibly made a mistake will not have an incentive to reveal the mistake, or talk candidly about why the mistake happened.
In this case, it appears that the NTSB is changing a longstanding practice: instead of investigators taking notes from a conversation, they now want to audiotape and transcribe the meeting. I don't know when this change took place, and I don't know what NTSB's reasons for doing it are (Lucky mentions one possible reason being that the original blackbox recording likely isn't available). But none of that matters. What matters is that the *pilots* don't feel comfortable with the procedure, and that means the NTSB will not get the frank discussion it needs.
What the NTSB needs to do here is find out how to reassure the pilots and address their concerns. Perhaps reinforce that the audio recordings are not discoverable in a legal proceeding, will not be available to their managers at AA, and will be destroyed when the investigation is over, etc. Or perhaps modify the procedure to address what the pilots are worried about. I know it sounds counterintuitive to bend over for people who in any other field would be immediately punished for what they did (assuming they're found at fault), but that's what you need to do to overcome their natural inclination to clam up and protect themselves.
Instead, what the NTSB is doing is escalating the situation by issuing a subpoena to force their cooperation. How much you wanna bet that whatever they get from a forced deposition from an uncooperative witness will in any way be useful to figuring out what actually went wrong?
What the NTSB is asking for here is a deposition. Depositions work fine in a courtroom because a court has no interest in figuring out the root cause for a crime. Once they figure out who's immediately responsible, they apportion blame and move on. They don't care why a killer fired the gun, only that he's the one that did it, and that that bullet indeed killed the victim. Having an uncooperative defendant is not a big deal (indeed, most of the times the defendant doesn't even testify in his own case, because no one cares about his side of the story or the reasons why he did it; only in proving that he's indeed responsible).
At the end of the day, if what pilots learn from this situation is that if they don't agree to an investigation that makes them uncomfortable, they will simply be forced into an even more uncomfortable type of investigation (legal subpoena and deposition), then what they will actually do is start hiding these incidents so as to avoid these investigations. This is the time-honored lesson of building a culture of safety. One that I'm very surprised the NTSB has apparently forgotten.
Lot's of word, lot's of concern about finding the root cause.
Painting NTSB and rest of us for hunting a witch.
You are not thinking that accountability helps improve safety, but the opposite.
Rather than don't DUI because you can go to jail, get your license suspended.
You're drunk, crashed your car, and get away because you explained why you drink too much.
Next day, you're texting and crash your car again,...
Lot's of word, lot's of concern about finding the root cause.
Painting NTSB and rest of us for hunting a witch.
You are not thinking that accountability helps improve safety, but the opposite.
Rather than don't DUI because you can go to jail, get your license suspended.
You're drunk, crashed your car, and get away because you explained why you drink too much.
Next day, you're texting and crash your car again, and you get away because explained why you texted.
Your friend is concerned about your dangerous driving, so you shot him in the head, and you get away because you explained that his brain makes you uncomfortable.
Brilliant!!!!!!
Trade accountability for maybe maybe not more safety because it's already obvious.
You would make a great Unionosaurus who likes to bully.
Excellent point you make here. The mere fact that you accept your wrong doing and saying “ I learned from it, now let’s move on…” doesn’t really address the problem. There has to be consequences to these individuals actions or else it’s just meaningless talk talk talk. Hell, even when two vehicles collide you’re supposed to take a written down statement, be interviewed by law enforcement and maybe, even maybe, take a DUI test on...
Excellent point you make here. The mere fact that you accept your wrong doing and saying “ I learned from it, now let’s move on…” doesn’t really address the problem. There has to be consequences to these individuals actions or else it’s just meaningless talk talk talk. Hell, even when two vehicles collide you’re supposed to take a written down statement, be interviewed by law enforcement and maybe, even maybe, take a DUI test on the spot. You don’t get to choose and say, hold on here, let me go ahead and talk to my union first! Whatever happened to accountability? Yeah, i know the answer, but still, cmon you guys!!
@Gravelly-
'The mere fact that you accept your wrong doing and saying “ I learned from it, now let’s move on…” doesn’t really address the problem.'
That's not what happens. There's no moving on with a simple statement. They will analyze the problem for the root cause, and probably a combination of the NTSB, the JFK ATC, and AA's staff will come up with changes e.g. changing the procedure, the protocol for communication, maybe...
@Gravelly-
'The mere fact that you accept your wrong doing and saying “ I learned from it, now let’s move on…” doesn’t really address the problem.'
That's not what happens. There's no moving on with a simple statement. They will analyze the problem for the root cause, and probably a combination of the NTSB, the JFK ATC, and AA's staff will come up with changes e.g. changing the procedure, the protocol for communication, maybe the markings on the runway, whatever. These specific pilots, and probably all other pilots who go through JFK will undergo training and a discussion of the what happened here so that everyone can learn from the experience.
Your assumption that somehow if there isn't any punishment, no one will care is false. They (including the pilots, I'm sure), care deeply in making sure this doesn't happen again. Ironically, if you make punishment the main goal, then the main goal of everyone involved will be avoidance of that punishment, rather than prevention of future incidents. You can say that's unethical, and I'll say, talk to me when you're facing jailtime -- even for something you're guilty of -- and let's see if you willingly confess to everything, or whether you hire the best damn lawyer you can afford to get you out.
"when two vehicles collide you’re supposed to take a written down statement, be interviewed by law enforcement and maybe, even maybe, take a DUI test on the spot."
That happens here too. Perhaps in this specific incident it didn't because they didn't realize they did something wrong and they flew on to London. Even that lapse will be analyzed. But yes, when something happens, they report the incident, and depending on what it was, blood samples will be drawn, they'll be taken for further questioning, etc. And FWIW, these pilots haven't objected to any of that, because that's all well known procedure, with long histories, that everyone is comfortable with.
What they're specifically objecting to here is audio recording and transcribing their interviews, something that is apparently not established procedure, is something new, and with which they have concerns. As easy as it might be for the NTSB to say "F*ck your concerns, I'm going to subpoena you and force you to talk" (which is what they did), that's counterproductive because human nature is what it is, and they will clam up. What's more, other pilots will watch what the NTSB is doing when pilots raise their concerns, and will resolve to not ever report anything to the NTSB lest they get dragged into a courtroom because the NTSB decides they want to swing their dick around and show who's boss.
"There has to be consequences to these individuals actions"
What do you propose those consequences should be? And what exact actions are you talking about? Keep in mind, they're not asking to not have accountability. The investigation is not yet complete, so no one yet knows the full picture. They're not even refusing to have an open, candid, honest discussion about what happened and why. They're asking for it not to be audio taped and transcribed. That's the only action they've taken so far in contradiction to NTSB's requests. Do you want to punish them for that? By issuing a subpoena and making it a formal deposition? No one ever said "you know, the way to really get to the bottom of this is for everyone to lawyer up". Yet that's precisely what's going to happen here (if you're issued a subpoena, the first thing you need to do is get an attorney to deal with it. It's no longer a simple discussion. It's enter the legal realm.)
I don't know why people don't think this is a big deal. Imagine if at your workplace, when you were hired, HR briefed you about their process for dealing with complaints, and you decided that's fine. And then, a complaint is filed against you and after the fact, your company decided to spontaneously change their process. "Yeah, I know our policy said we'd resolve it internally with no record on your file, but we've decided for this one we're going to subpoena you and do a formal deposition with a court reporter. What? You think that's unfair?! You must be guilty! You must be trying to evade punishment! You're fired just for even thinking about self-preservation rather than the good of the company!"
@Lune- I can see you’re very passionate about the issue, and that’s good. Just take the following info into account , the passengers aboard the AA flight state during an interview how they felt the throttles being shoved to the firewall as they were crossing the runway and saw the Delta’s landing lights. They felt the jolt so strongly they thought they were actually taking off!!! This would completely prove false the hypothesis about the...
@Lune- I can see you’re very passionate about the issue, and that’s good. Just take the following info into account , the passengers aboard the AA flight state during an interview how they felt the throttles being shoved to the firewall as they were crossing the runway and saw the Delta’s landing lights. They felt the jolt so strongly they thought they were actually taking off!!! This would completely prove false the hypothesis about the pilots not knowing or not being aware of what was about to happen. Thus, yes, they tried to cover their asses but they failed. Consequently, your arguments and structure automatically collapse starting at your second paragraph. Don’t take my word for it, read the Twitter thread by aviation watchdog JonNYC, there’s just no arguing over that.
How many people die in drunk driving accidents? Now how many people die in aircraft fatalities? Seems like a great argument for adopting drunk driving-style punishments!
Accountability is different from punishment. Accountability is disclosing everything needed, accepting that your actions led (either in whole, or in part) to the bad outcome, and resolving to improve, via training, helping to improve systems that are within your control to improve, and other measures so that what happened...
How many people die in drunk driving accidents? Now how many people die in aircraft fatalities? Seems like a great argument for adopting drunk driving-style punishments!
Accountability is different from punishment. Accountability is disclosing everything needed, accepting that your actions led (either in whole, or in part) to the bad outcome, and resolving to improve, via training, helping to improve systems that are within your control to improve, and other measures so that what happened will never happen again. Nowhere in that entire system does punishment come in.
No pilot "gets away" when they have a bad outcome. Your very assumption that people are looking to "get away" with murder paints pilots as psychopaths. No pilot wants to crash their plane. These pilots didn't want to cross an active runway. One of the bedrock principles of a culture of safety is the baseline assumption that the people *want* to do the right thing, and something prevented them from doing it. Sometimes that's their own incapacity (like showing up drunk). Sometimes it's other parts of the system that prevented them from doing their job. But even a drunk pilot doesn't *want* to kill his passengers and crash his flight. He thinks the alcohol won't affect him. That he can still do his job safely. And that's the problem.
But sure, let's throw everyone in jail to satisfy the bloodlust of random blog readers who don't understand how difficult it is to construct a culture that balances the need to hold people accountable for their actions while also incentivizing them to come forward and candidly discuss potentially life-and-death mistakes. Because it's working so well in reducing drunk driving accidents, right?
PS. In drunk driving incidents, some of the biggest movements have been: 1. The designated driver movement; this recognizes that inevitably, people will want to have fun and get drunk, and they need a ride home. But encouraging one person to be the DD, and not making that be a pariah status (many bars will give you free non-alcoholic drinks if you tell them you're the DD that night), means that the everyone else who's drunk will get home safely. 2. Holding bars responsible to cut people off, acknowledges that as people get drunk, their ability to monitor their intake is inhibited and therefore the bartender should be responsible for doing so.
Notably, neither of these involve punishing the drunk person himself. And yet they do far more to prevent drunk driving incidents than raising penalties on drunk driving after the fact.
@Lune is either ChatGPT by an 8th grader, or really naive.
But one thing is you're really full of it.
And these are your words.
"Perhaps reinforce that the audio recordings are not discoverable in a legal proceeding, will not be available to their managers at AA, and will be destroyed when the investigation is over, etc."
vs
"That's not what happens. There's no moving on with a simple statement."
"they're...
@Lune is either ChatGPT by an 8th grader, or really naive.
But one thing is you're really full of it.
And these are your words.
"Perhaps reinforce that the audio recordings are not discoverable in a legal proceeding, will not be available to their managers at AA, and will be destroyed when the investigation is over, etc."
vs
"That's not what happens. There's no moving on with a simple statement."
"they're not asking to not have accountability."
"Accountability is disclosing everything needed,.......... Nowhere in that entire system does punishment come in."
vs
No pilot "gets away" when they have a bad outcome.
"they'll be taken for further questioning, etc. And FWIW, these pilots haven't objected to any of that,"
vs
"They're refusing an interview that will be audio recorded and transcribed."
Can't make up your mind? But will spin every statement to make NTSB evil.
Let me point out how naive you are.
"Accountability is different from punishment."
Five-O : Sir have you been drinking.
Lune's world driver : Yes officer my BAC is 10x the legal limit. (disclosing everything needed)
Five-O : Did you know you ran over someone?
Lune's world driver : Yes officer I felt some bump (accepting that your actions led bad outcome)
Lune's world driver : I promise to do training and go to AA meetings (and resolving to improve)
Lune's world driver : I will not DUI again after I complete my 10 step program (what happened will never happen again.)
Five-O : Sir, looks like you learned your lesson. You are free to go (Nowhere in that entire system does punishment come in.)
-What an absurd interaction if you put your "safety culture" into real world do you agree?
"But even a drunk pilot doesn't *want* to kill his passengers and crash his flight"
-I'm sure no drunk driver wants to crash either.
" incentivizing them to come forward and candidly discuss potentially life-and-death mistakes. "
-So AA meetings are examples of safety culture? LOL LOL LOL
"The designated driver movement;"
-So when it's my turn to get drunk, I'm not going to 'jail'.
"Holding bars responsible to cut people off"
-So the bartender doesn't go to 'jail'
"Notably, neither of these involve punishing the drunk person himself."
-Cause someone else is going to 'jail' on your behalf.
"they do far more to prevent drunk driving incidents than raising penalties on drunk driving after the fact."
-They prevent because it gives you an option to drink and not go to jail. Do you think DUI driver cares if they are going to jail 5 years or 50 years? It's not about raising the penalty.
So you're an innocent 8th grader who believes in paradise and everybody is good?
At least you make @DCS look like a rational loyalty member.
The pilots were neither drunk nor did they kill anyone. Your comparisons are absurd. The example you sight is a willful violation vs a unintentional mistake.
The pilots are essentially taking the fifth, because they fear people like you.
None of us, including professional airline pilots like myself, would have wanted their heads if they would have acted exactly like we are expected to. As professional pilots we take accountability, take responsibility, we help with the investigation to ensure it doesn't happen to anyone else.
They are doing none of the above. Instead, they are wasting everybody's time by refusing to do something they're going to have to do anyway. Instead, they are...
None of us, including professional airline pilots like myself, would have wanted their heads if they would have acted exactly like we are expected to. As professional pilots we take accountability, take responsibility, we help with the investigation to ensure it doesn't happen to anyone else.
They are doing none of the above. Instead, they are wasting everybody's time by refusing to do something they're going to have to do anyway. Instead, they are acting as if they weren't nearly responsible for apotentially catastrophic mass fatality incident We don't need that in this industry. We don't need them in our industry.
You sure you’re a professional pilot? These pilots are being directed by their APA lawyers. Would you go against the advice of your lawyer?
The CVR is good for 24 hours of flight time. It’s contents could have been easily downloaded in London by AA maintenance if they desired ( may have been ). Now, if they erased the recorder upon parking the aircraft then we have more of a scenario that you describe. That isn’t known at this time.
Let’s go back to June 2015 at MDW airport. SWA3828 was cleared to takeoff on runway 31C while Delta 1328 was told to line up and wait on runway 04R. Well guess what happened? Delta started to takeoff too! Both crew were warned by ground that there were similar calls signs on the frequency and both crews acknowledged the message. For those of you who did not take trigonometry runways 31C and 04R cross each...
Let’s go back to June 2015 at MDW airport. SWA3828 was cleared to takeoff on runway 31C while Delta 1328 was told to line up and wait on runway 04R. Well guess what happened? Delta started to takeoff too! Both crew were warned by ground that there were similar calls signs on the frequency and both crews acknowledged the message. For those of you who did not take trigonometry runways 31C and 04R cross each other and there was a strong likelihood they would have collided if not for the quick action of the Midway tower controller. Interestingly the Southwest pilot, who was in the right, went back to the gate to get his brakes checked while the Delta crew, who had not be given takeoff clearance and caused the incident, called the tower and then departed for ATL! My point is not to criticize the Delta crew, it’s to point out that these things do happen, a lot more than some of you realize. It’s the reason programs like AA’s ASAP and NASA’s ASRS exist. One of the strongest parts of these systems is that reports remain anonymous or are de-identified prior to being published. Pilots, Controllers, Dispatchers, Mechanics and everyone else that use this system will stop reporting incidents if they think they are going to get a public flogging when they make a mistake. Self-righteous indignation is not going to make aviation safer.
now tell us what the NTSB or FAA asked of the DL pilots and what did or did not happen from those requests and then the relevance of that event will intersect with what is being discussed here.
Well Tim, I can tell you what they didn’t do, they didn’t record their conversations. So is this runway incursion not relevant to you because it involved Delta? Perhaps you could share with us what happened to the two Delta pilots that caused a runway incursion that nearly resulted in a collision and then took off for ATL eliminating any chance for the NTSB to review the cockpit voice recorder. It seems pretty relevant to me.
I have no idea what happened in that case and I am not dismissing it
You brought it up apparently as if you would like it to be some sort of template for how this case is handled.
The issues here is that AA's pilots refused to talk to the NTSB voluntarily under a setting that requires a recorded interview not whether there was a similar mistake before.
When you can find a...
I have no idea what happened in that case and I am not dismissing it
You brought it up apparently as if you would like it to be some sort of template for how this case is handled.
The issues here is that AA's pilots refused to talk to the NTSB voluntarily under a setting that requires a recorded interview not whether there was a similar mistake before.
When you can find a case which parallels what is going on here regarding the pilots' cooperation with the NTSB or lack thereof, let us know. THAT is what is relevant.
Wait so the NTSB has a policy to not record because the NTSB thinks that it gets more candid interviews. They are the experts and the author of this article slams the Union for having the same opinion! So the experts and the professionals both have the opinion that not recording is better. BUT the author a writer not an aviation interview expert can put a headline up there like that ? Seems like a very irresponsible opinion by the non expert author!
It's called a blog not an academic journal.
They’re likely not agreeing to this on advice from APA council. This industry is already transparent and the radio transcripts, ASAP reports and whatever else they have should be sufficient to paint the picture. NTSB should know that changing their own protocols for interviewing pilots would be rightly met with skepticism. There’s a reason CVR data is protected the way it is. If pilots are being monitored in the cockpit there’s a high likelihood they’ll...
They’re likely not agreeing to this on advice from APA council. This industry is already transparent and the radio transcripts, ASAP reports and whatever else they have should be sufficient to paint the picture. NTSB should know that changing their own protocols for interviewing pilots would be rightly met with skepticism. There’s a reason CVR data is protected the way it is. If pilots are being monitored in the cockpit there’s a high likelihood they’ll make decisions for the camera instead of strictly for the safety of the flight. Ie, what would this look like in court as opposed to what increases our chances for survival. A hundred years of data backs up this theory. This authors idea of transparency doesn’t take into account outcomes from future incidents.
You stated in the post that they had complied with NTSB and provided a written testimony of the events. Why would a recorded interview be required? If you’ve ever said something that didn’t quite reflect what you meant (and can now have that used against you in court) then you would know the importance of this. This is not standard for the NTSB, and any lawyer would recommend the same course of action (as actual...
You stated in the post that they had complied with NTSB and provided a written testimony of the events. Why would a recorded interview be required? If you’ve ever said something that didn’t quite reflect what you meant (and can now have that used against you in court) then you would know the importance of this. This is not standard for the NTSB, and any lawyer would recommend the same course of action (as actual lawyers even in the comments have).
Between the written statements, ATC, ASAP, FDR, and CERS reports, along with Deltas reports, there are far enough data to understand what happened.
And for those throwing stones, I’m sure you’ve never made a mistake at work or while driving a vehicle before, and if you have that level of perfection maybe you should become a pilot?
I typically enjoy post from this site but this is far out of its wheelhouse and wading into issues that are very complex, though they may seem simple at face value.
@ Will -- We know what happened, which is that an American 777 captain taxied onto an active runway without permission. What we don't know is why this happened, and that's why testimony is important. A written statement may establish the facts, while an interview could establish the circumstances.
With your "everyone makes mistakes" justification, I'm curious what you think should happen? Should the entire crew just go back to flying without any repercussions, as...
@ Will -- We know what happened, which is that an American 777 captain taxied onto an active runway without permission. What we don't know is why this happened, and that's why testimony is important. A written statement may establish the facts, while an interview could establish the circumstances.
With your "everyone makes mistakes" justification, I'm curious what you think should happen? Should the entire crew just go back to flying without any repercussions, as if nothing happened, or what's your thought on that?
But they do know what happened. That’s the point of the investigation and the reports- to find out what happened. Having a recorded interview won’t change those facts is the point they’re trying to make.
To the 2nd point, they are still qualified and current on the aircraft and therefore are still legally able to operate it. It’s not like a police shooting where they are removed from work. Remember nobody was injured or...
But they do know what happened. That’s the point of the investigation and the reports- to find out what happened. Having a recorded interview won’t change those facts is the point they’re trying to make.
To the 2nd point, they are still qualified and current on the aircraft and therefore are still legally able to operate it. It’s not like a police shooting where they are removed from work. Remember nobody was injured or killed from this (thankfully). If so that would be a different case. They will receive remedial training (if they haven’t already) and be send back out to operate like every other crew that makes a mistake. Sometimes that’s done through counseling, distance learning, or even simulator instruction.
Rest assured there are tons of things in place for events like this and they are taking on a case by case basis from some very intelligent people, at the company and the union.
well said.
A written statement allows the pilots to choose the facts THEY wish to provide while a recorded interview allows the government to determine ALL that happened whether the pilots want to address those points or not.
Again, the ATC controllers and Delta pilots managed to do what the government asked them to do.
Why should the AA pilots be exempt from a process for an event that they triggered?
So you’re saying ATC and Delta pilots had in person, recorded interviews also? How do you know that?
Why can they not interview in person without recorded to obtain the same information? That’s really the big issue here is the recording. I truly don’t see how the recording makes the difference.
Plus I’m able to recount more facts when I’m sitting down, thinking through it then on the spot at an interview with pressure on.
because the NTSB is not getting into a "he said, she said" discussion about what happened or to allow the AA pilots to determine what is discussed.
An investigation is based on parties outside of what happened to investigate.
and yes the DL pilots and ATC controllers involved both submitted to the NTSB's investigation on the NTSB's terms.
I think the advantage of an interview is the possibility of asking questions and getting clarification
They will get “retrained” and carry on as usual. Every pilot knows not to cross an active runway without clearance, so what is the point? Both pilots have operated thousands of hours, safely. Outside factors, such as changes in procedures by aa management, contributed to the incident. Mistakes do happen and always will. Streamlining s.o.p and not continually making changes in the “standard” would obviously help. Hanging the pilots out to dry certainly will not.
As far as the CVR is concerned, I would look into that a little more. CVR’s, from what I understand, are only to be used for accident investigation. This was not an a accident, it was an incident.
Pull the offending crew from flight status determine the cause terminate or retrain and return to 6-month probationary flight status too many lives at stake with aviation to risk leaving less than top performers flying - no room for errors here.
The pilots aren't refusing an interview. They're refusing an interview that will be audio recorded and transcribed. That's a big difference.
@Tim, just curious, did the request to the ATC and Delta also include recorded and transcribed interviews? You say they complied with all NTSB requests, but I'm curious if the requests were the same, given that they're probably focusing much more on AA's actions than the other players.
Delta and the controller complied with what what was asked. It is not known what the asked and it does not have to be the same thing.
The complete hypocrisy in all of this is that airline unions so often want to argue that they are there to improve safety - and yet they are doing everything possible to prevent uncovering what actually took place.
For those that argue about due process, there is absolutely nothing that these pilots were asked to do that someone that testifies or is investigated regarding a crime, even if they are not the one that...
The complete hypocrisy in all of this is that airline unions so often want to argue that they are there to improve safety - and yet they are doing everything possible to prevent uncovering what actually took place.
For those that argue about due process, there is absolutely nothing that these pilots were asked to do that someone that testifies or is investigated regarding a crime, even if they are not the one that might have committed the crime.
When you are give testimony, your testimony will be electronically recorded and transcribed - which is exactly what they don't want to do. The only reason someone would object to being recorded is so they can argue that they didn't say something which everyone else knows they did.
The pilots have been subpoenaed. They were asked NICELY to participate but the government didn't and shouldn't walk away.
the chances are very high that these pilots' licenses are on the line.
Let the government do what it needs to do and the outcome of these pilots be very clearly and publicly known.
And the Delta pilots DID cooperate as the government wished.
And they did not operate the flight that night so their cockpit voice recorders undoubtedly were fully analyzed.
Have you ever given testimony? A deposition? You obviously haven't, because, no testimony is not electronically recorded. It is transcribed.
A *video deposition*, or *video testimony* is a very different thing, and must specifically be requested and agreed to by both parties. There are, in fact, federal and state statutes that govern the exact rights of both the parties in terms of rights to electronically record testimony. Heck, the reason there are court sketch artists...
Have you ever given testimony? A deposition? You obviously haven't, because, no testimony is not electronically recorded. It is transcribed.
A *video deposition*, or *video testimony* is a very different thing, and must specifically be requested and agreed to by both parties. There are, in fact, federal and state statutes that govern the exact rights of both the parties in terms of rights to electronically record testimony. Heck, the reason there are court sketch artists is because most courts don't allow videotaping within a courtroom, even for cases that are ostensibly open to the public.
The standard, present for probably 99% of testimony in a court of law still remains a court-approved stenographer creating a written transcript of the deposition or testimony. No electronic recording is done.
So in that sense, what these pilots are being asked to do is actually beyond what most witnesses in an actual legal proceeding are required to do.
All of this is to point out that you have no idea what due process actually entails. But you also forget the huge concern that due process in a court of law has a very different purpose than an NTSB investigation. The very purpose of a court trial is to apportion blame. That's literally it's sole purpose. In a murder trial, the fact that somebody died isn't in doubt. The body is there. The point of the trial is to decide who is responsible for that. Whether the trial serves to reduce murders in the future is beyond the point and indeed is never even considered as part of the trial proceedings.
NTSB investigations are the exact opposite: they're supposed to be about not laying blame, but figuring out what can be changed / improved to prevent such errors in the future.
Anyone who has been in a deposition knows that the nature of the conversation changes drastically when a court reporter is recording your every word. You become extremely deliberate and careful in picking your words, and human nature dictates that you choose those words to minimize your own responsibility in the matter. The only way to fight that human nature is either through anonymous reporting, or by not recording the exact words, but taking notes on the "spirit" of what was said instead.
If the NTSB is subpoenaing these pilots, they have already failed: they will now get a legal testimony from these pilots which is 180deg opposite in aims and goals to what they should be getting, which is a frank discussion about what happened and why it happened.
I'm not a pilot (or a lawyer, although I've given depositions), so I have no skin in this game except as a passenger who wants to make sure his flights don't crash :-) And in this case, I support the pilots and their union. If this is truly a new procedure, then it's incumbent on the NTSB to make the pilots feel safe and comfortable enough with it that they open up about what happened. Subpoenaing them and dragging them to court is the exact opposite of what they should be doing.
Sorry, forgot a key comma "because, no, testimony is not electronically recorded". At least I didn't eat shoots and leaves though :-)
Every first year attorney would tell them to NOT talk to investigators. There is no 'upside'.
This is not a criminal investigation. You simply don't understand how av safety works.
Sidebar: thats why first year law students don't do criminal defense IRL. It is indeed sometimes beneficial to talk to investigators - even before being charged.
"This is not a criminal investigation"
And yet the NTSB is using the tools of a criminal investigation, namely depositions with court transcriptions, and subpoenas, to do their work. See how that might be a problem?
As a pilot, I can tell you 100% YOU do how this works. OP is right. There is ZERO benefit to these pilots to cooperate. If it is only for safety, give them immunity. Because if they talk and it is determined they did something wrong, their licenses CAN be suspended or the airline could fire them. Once again, nothing good can come to the pilots from talking to investigators. Net net: You have no...
As a pilot, I can tell you 100% YOU do how this works. OP is right. There is ZERO benefit to these pilots to cooperate. If it is only for safety, give them immunity. Because if they talk and it is determined they did something wrong, their licenses CAN be suspended or the airline could fire them. Once again, nothing good can come to the pilots from talking to investigators. Net net: You have no idea what you are talking about.
Sidebar: First year attorneys are not students. They are lawyers.
@Miami305
You can't just go around and give these naive comments the "If it is only for safety, give them immunity." They would take it the wrong way. Just look how absurd @Lune responded to DUI examples.
Of course @Lune will think this is not a criminal investigation. Otherwise the pilots would have be advised to plead the 5th already.
Seems all these naive people will 'incarcerate' themselves to the good cop.
Sidebar: Good...
@Miami305
You can't just go around and give these naive comments the "If it is only for safety, give them immunity." They would take it the wrong way. Just look how absurd @Lune responded to DUI examples.
Of course @Lune will think this is not a criminal investigation. Otherwise the pilots would have be advised to plead the 5th already.
Seems all these naive people will 'incarcerate' themselves to the good cop.
Sidebar: Good cop, Bad cop are both cops looking for your confession.
If there are recordings then they will eventually be made public. This simple but powerful (possible) outcome is reason enough not to do it. There is only one party, the union, looking after its members. They are 100% correct in doing so. Articles, like this, validate that this is a prosecution and not a fact finding “safety” response.
Ben, I really wish you and other bloggers would stick to things you might actually know something about instead of sticking your noses into Pilot/ ATC issues. Ultimately APA has an obligation to defend the pilots it represents.
@ Dave -- Would you like to provide some insight as to what we're getting wrong? Sometimes public pressure is needed, and if it doesn't come from bloggers and other outlets, where would you like it to come from? Unless the goal is no accountability, I welcome your other suggestions.
One doesn't have to know anything about the technical methods of accounting allocations, to be able to sensibly weigh in against proposals to weaken defences against auditors not having a conflict of interest, E.g. owning shares in the company they are auditing.
It is indeed a mark of a civilised society that even child-murderers have a right to legal representation.
But the union is not a defence lawyer - it has a public service...
One doesn't have to know anything about the technical methods of accounting allocations, to be able to sensibly weigh in against proposals to weaken defences against auditors not having a conflict of interest, E.g. owning shares in the company they are auditing.
It is indeed a mark of a civilised society that even child-murderers have a right to legal representation.
But the union is not a defence lawyer - it has a public service obligation, including, from its website:
"Promote and support regulatory policies that enhance aviation safety and security."
Okay, ATC here, so I'll go right ahead and stick my nose into it since apparently I'm allowed. This crew 100% effed up, and they have an *obligation* to participate in the NTSB investigation as aviation professionals. They looked bad before, and now they're looking worse. It isn't like there's much the union can do for them anyway, so that's pretty moot. I'm not sure where you think Ben got something wrong here, but you're...
Okay, ATC here, so I'll go right ahead and stick my nose into it since apparently I'm allowed. This crew 100% effed up, and they have an *obligation* to participate in the NTSB investigation as aviation professionals. They looked bad before, and now they're looking worse. It isn't like there's much the union can do for them anyway, so that's pretty moot. I'm not sure where you think Ben got something wrong here, but you're more than welcome to come on down from that high horse any time.
They already have testimony. It is called an ASAP report mr atc
"Ultimately APA has an obligation to defend the pilots it represents."
Which pilots? AA or Delta?
They already gave testimony. It is called an ASAP report. Please know what you are talking about before you open your mouth
Lucky, I guess you don't believe in due process rights for people in the USA. If NSTB wants recorded interviews, they should use court subpoenas to compel for depositions. If they don't have that power, they should seek it from congress.
Yes, it looks bad not giving recorded statements, but if the only recourse is some miles and points blogger writes about and some politician screams about, then I can't blame them for exercising their...
Lucky, I guess you don't believe in due process rights for people in the USA. If NSTB wants recorded interviews, they should use court subpoenas to compel for depositions. If they don't have that power, they should seek it from congress.
Yes, it looks bad not giving recorded statements, but if the only recourse is some miles and points blogger writes about and some politician screams about, then I can't blame them for exercising their legal rights.
There is a difference between the law and ethics.
@ Joseph Story -- Well you're right in the sense that they're not acting illegally, they're just acting unethically. The way I see it, this shouldn't be about due process, but rather this should be about improving safety. The pilots (presumably) aren't looking at criminal charges here, but they may very well be looking at losing their jobs.
I'd compare this to a murder investigation where a person close to you was killed. Do you...
@ Joseph Story -- Well you're right in the sense that they're not acting illegally, they're just acting unethically. The way I see it, this shouldn't be about due process, but rather this should be about improving safety. The pilots (presumably) aren't looking at criminal charges here, but they may very well be looking at losing their jobs.
I'd compare this to a murder investigation where a person close to you was killed. Do you have to speak to authorities to help them with their investigation? No, probably not. Should you, assuming you have information and want the case to be solved? Yes, probably.
You can also convey all of the information you know without being recorded, which inherently makes people nervous and created a power dynamic. The pilots even offered to be interviewed. Ethically you may have a point, but to call this “absurd” is quite the stretch.
The taxiing wrongly was a mistake - I don't see anyone suggesting that was deliberate.
The not agreeing to interview, and the suggested deliberately causing the CVR to be over-written, are deliberate choices.
It's not just that the cover-up crime is what gets someone, rather than the original crime.
It can also be that the cover-up crime is what gets someone, even when the original incident was a mistake rather than a crime.
You keep saying they are going to lose their jobs. You are wrong yet again. They will have to do some extra simulator training and that is it
And there’s the problem… you would compare this to a murder investigation.
It’s not a criminal investigation, the sole purpose is to find out what happened and then make recommendations based on those findings that will improve safety and hopefully prevent the same sort of incident in the future. Absolute candor is required here. Comparing it to and, treating it like a criminal investigation creates defendants in the process where defendants should not exist yet....
And there’s the problem… you would compare this to a murder investigation.
It’s not a criminal investigation, the sole purpose is to find out what happened and then make recommendations based on those findings that will improve safety and hopefully prevent the same sort of incident in the future. Absolute candor is required here. Comparing it to and, treating it like a criminal investigation creates defendants in the process where defendants should not exist yet. Defendants gonna defend.
If criminal activity is found, then criminal prosecution will and should occur.
"I'd compare this to a murder investigation where a person close to you was killed. Do you have to speak to authorities to help them with their investigation? No, probably not. Should you, assuming you have information and want the case to be solved? Yes, probably."
You are absolutely right. HOWEVER, you absolutely should NOT talk to the investigators *while being recorded.* Why? Because it is incredibly easy to say something you didn't quite mean,...
"I'd compare this to a murder investigation where a person close to you was killed. Do you have to speak to authorities to help them with their investigation? No, probably not. Should you, assuming you have information and want the case to be solved? Yes, probably."
You are absolutely right. HOWEVER, you absolutely should NOT talk to the investigators *while being recorded.* Why? Because it is incredibly easy to say something you didn't quite mean, or for your words to be misinterpreted, or taken out of context when repeated by someone else. The issue with the pilots is not whether they should talk to the investigators, it is whether they should be compelled to do so while being recorded. As far as I can tell, the NTSB hasn't explained why a recording is necessary, they just insist that it is. Well, I don't think that's enough and I think the union's lawyers are pretty confident that a court will agree.
Here's what I find most frustrating from this: this is the type of investigation that's needed. The point isn't to find fault or assign blame, it's find breakdowns in the system to correct them. Lighted stop bars versus a reliance on wig wags at runway crossings is an obvious recommendation in my mind, but looking into the human factors that caused this is really important. Their failure to cooperate doesn't surprise me given the BS...
Here's what I find most frustrating from this: this is the type of investigation that's needed. The point isn't to find fault or assign blame, it's find breakdowns in the system to correct them. Lighted stop bars versus a reliance on wig wags at runway crossings is an obvious recommendation in my mind, but looking into the human factors that caused this is really important. Their failure to cooperate doesn't surprise me given the BS attitude from their conversation with ATC after the incident occurred. They got Brashered and were waiting for the phone number, and gave a ton of attitude to the controllers about having to wait. Looks like they haven't dropped the attitude, which is pretty bold since they are so clearly in the wrong here. Given what I've seen, they don't deserve to be in a cockpit, their refusal to participate may make that come true. Fine by me.
I continue to see people claiming that the pilots flew to London to wipe the CVR. Although this can’t be disproven, it is highly, highly unlikely. After an incident such as this the pilots would likely be required to consult a pilot supervisor (who is an experienced Captain and union member) to determine if the flight should be continued. The supervisor would go through a human factors checklist to determine if the pilots were safe...
I continue to see people claiming that the pilots flew to London to wipe the CVR. Although this can’t be disproven, it is highly, highly unlikely. After an incident such as this the pilots would likely be required to consult a pilot supervisor (who is an experienced Captain and union member) to determine if the flight should be continued. The supervisor would go through a human factors checklist to determine if the pilots were safe to fly. Additionally, there are other recording devices other than the CVR that are used on the airplane. These have much longer memories and cannot be overwritten as easily.
Secondly, it is also unlikely that these pilots will lose their certificates as a result of this incident. Unless extraordinary negligence is found (which the NTSB wouldn’t find, because their mandate is not to determine guilt), the pilots will continue to hold their certificates. The FAA has moved to a non-punitive system where honest mistakes (even when deadly or dangerous) are not punished. However, additional training may be required.
Thirdly, the pilots are still flying at American presumably because they followed the rules. All airlines are required to have a robust Safety Management System (SMS) where, withholding extreme negligence, all actions are non-punitive. Assuming the pilots made all the correct reports, disclosures, and de-briefs with a pilot supervisor, their jobs are almost certainly safe. You may not like it, but it protects good people from being fired due to an honest mistake, no matter how deadly or dangerous.
For background, I am a Commercial Pilot who has worked with pilot management at a large U.S. airline.
Actually, American's operation center (IOC) in Fort Worth was unaware of the incursion. American Airlines management only found out the next morning when JonNYC and others began tweeting about the incident. So yes, they should have followed checklists with the duty pilot and AA's operation center. But they didn't do that. I am confident that AA management wouldn't have allowed them to depart knowing the seriousness of the incursion.
Yes, AA has an SMS (Safety Management System), but I believe you’re confusing SMS with their ASAP (Aviation Safety Action Program), where pilots submit a report concerning the event without repercussion (unless actions are determined to be intentional).
At least they're not pleading the fifth.
I have some compassion fo the pilots and respect for their counsel. NTSB always conducted these investigations without recording devices in the past and thanks to expert investigations aviation is very safe. These pilots are probably terrified. The NTSB process is only effective because it makes participants comfortable and non-adversarial. The NTSB should have known that springing recording devices on them would be provocative. They should have got buy-in from the unions over time, rather...
I have some compassion fo the pilots and respect for their counsel. NTSB always conducted these investigations without recording devices in the past and thanks to expert investigations aviation is very safe. These pilots are probably terrified. The NTSB process is only effective because it makes participants comfortable and non-adversarial. The NTSB should have known that springing recording devices on them would be provocative. They should have got buy-in from the unions over time, rather than suddenly pointing microphones at two pilots in the middle of an investigation.
First the interview is recorded. Then some random blogger gets the audio with a FOIA request and uses it as clickbait. Then 30 people comment on whether the voices prove they're lying.
Shame on the union and the pilots. Aviation is only as safe as it is because of the NTSB and safe disclosures.
Closing ranks to protect the dangerous, lazy few will result with blood on the union leaders’ hands.
Frankly, this should be a wake up call to the powers that be to pull a ‘Reagan’ with the union…. but this time for a truly good reason -to save LIVES.
The American people should demand it.
And all this time, the NTSB managed to get to our current level of safety and safety disclosures without requiring audio recordings and transcripts. So why the change now? What safety goal is served by this new procedure? Maybe they have a goal, but do you know what it is?
So uh... Had anyone told them about the CVR?
So uh... Had anyone told you how CVR works?
If you did nothing wrong, followed all existing best practices then why would you not want your words accurately recorded? Bad optics, questions raised and the flying public is not well served.
Because people misspeak, or speak in ways that others misinterpret, *all the time*. If it's recorded, what you said can come back to bite you and it's next to impossible to make a credible case that you misspoke. If it's not recorded, but someone is taking notes, you can much more credibly make the argument that the note-taker misunderstood you.
The simple fact is that AA is supporting its pilots reckless conduct by refusing to require them to cooperate with federal authorities at the risk of keeping their jobs.
If an employer cannot require its employees to cooperate with authorities, they have no more operational control than Southwest did during its Christmas meltdown.
Not American Airlines (management). It is the APA (the union) which is the issue here. Think you need to separate the two, since American Airlines is cooperating with the NTSB and expected the pilots to cooperate too.
I get it.
If AA expects its employees to cooperate with federal investigations, it needs to tie pay and job security to it.
The union doesn't get to supersede that role.
In a perfect world, yes. But also need to remember that 85% of AA is unionized.
What incident ? The American pilots didn’t do anything wrong. But 3,000 ft boo hoo hoo. It never happened.
Is there a way to find out which flights they are piloting (so I can avoid them)?
Have their names been published?
I’m sure you’ve never messed on one day at your job?
Why are you so desperate to play the what about game? Everybody screws up so no accountability is needed for anyone? No fact finding needed?
At most people’s jobs 600 lives are not a risk because they “messed on one day”… luckily.
Why are they not fired???
The question is this - did the tower clear them to cross the active runway or not? Were the taxi instructions correct? Were they misinterpreted, and if so, why? Obviously there was some confusion here because no pilot in their right mind would cross an active runway without clearance from ground control.
Making this an adversary procedure will result in everyone clamming up so if there was a procedural error (ground control, pilot error), nobody...
The question is this - did the tower clear them to cross the active runway or not? Were the taxi instructions correct? Were they misinterpreted, and if so, why? Obviously there was some confusion here because no pilot in their right mind would cross an active runway without clearance from ground control.
Making this an adversary procedure will result in everyone clamming up so if there was a procedural error (ground control, pilot error), nobody will say anything, it will never be fixed, and it will happen again. I find it difficult to believe that two ATP rated pilots blithely proceeded to taxi across an active runway without one of them saying "stop NOW!!!" unless they thought they had been cleared to do so by ground control.
This is why airlines have used CRM (Cockpit Resource Management techniques) for YEARS so that everyone can be on the same page. CRM works very well, we may be looking in the wrong direction on this, the crew may not be to blame, it may not have been their error.
Suspend their certificates.
I am a lawyer and would basically NEVER advise a client to do this in a government regulatory investigation. It will obviously just come across as uncooperative and obstructionist and make the government regulators mad — and you don’t gain anything because they can just get a subpoena very easily. Just stupid strategically even for the pilots’ narrow self interest. The one thing they can do in this scenario is tell their side of the...
I am a lawyer and would basically NEVER advise a client to do this in a government regulatory investigation. It will obviously just come across as uncooperative and obstructionist and make the government regulators mad — and you don’t gain anything because they can just get a subpoena very easily. Just stupid strategically even for the pilots’ narrow self interest. The one thing they can do in this scenario is tell their side of the story and cooperate with the investigation to show that they acted in good faith.
Oof. Alec Baldwin employed your strategy.
That’s a silly remark. Of course the strategy is different if you’re facing CRIMINAL liability. This is merely a civil matter. You don’t have a Fifth Amendment right to remain silent in civil matters; your testimony can be compelled unless you’re facing criminal exposure (which these pilots aren’t).
Also the pilots aren’t even claiming they want to remain silent. They just don’t want the interview recorded. Honestly even in a criminal case, if you’re going...
That’s a silly remark. Of course the strategy is different if you’re facing CRIMINAL liability. This is merely a civil matter. You don’t have a Fifth Amendment right to remain silent in civil matters; your testimony can be compelled unless you’re facing criminal exposure (which these pilots aren’t).
Also the pilots aren’t even claiming they want to remain silent. They just don’t want the interview recorded. Honestly even in a criminal case, if you’re going to give an interview, it’s better that it be recorded so the government investigators can’t later misrepresent what you said. I’ve seen it many times where FBI agents will basically distort what someone said on the stand to make it much more damaging than their actual remarks; they can’t do that if there’s a recording.
Refusing to do this, especially when a subpoena will get the recording anyway, just makes this look like guilt. Or they don't want to be caught with changing stories. Either way they don't want this incident recorded rather than speaking up and being honest about it.
Regulators, Unions, Lawyers, Beancounters.... Wonderful combination.
It is impossible to get consistent improvement and corrective actions if harsh punishment is the end result.
That kind of stuff builds the CYA culture.
@docntx… really? Lives are at stake in this type of situation.
Thank you for the reply.
Then, just fire them on the spot. No reason for them to explain what happened. We have already arrived at the conclusion they are guilty of negligence. Nothing to learn from this. Obtain a self incriminating confession. Get rid of negligent people and this will never happen again. No way there is anything in the system that might have contributed to this very dangerous event. My point is that...
Thank you for the reply.
Then, just fire them on the spot. No reason for them to explain what happened. We have already arrived at the conclusion they are guilty of negligence. Nothing to learn from this. Obtain a self incriminating confession. Get rid of negligent people and this will never happen again. No way there is anything in the system that might have contributed to this very dangerous event. My point is that the system has to encourage a careful analysis to see what flaw in the system could possibly allow this to happen
Is there nothing to learn from mistakes?
I agree, I'm shocked at American for allowing them to continue to fly
Why are you posting a 737 cockpit? Don't be like the other media outlets who post a 757 and say it's a 340
You won't post this as you didn't post the other - these 'pilots' are diversity hires, selected for reasons other than excellence and shouldn't be let near complex heavy machinery
@ Greebling -- Can you not just make stuff up, please? So the very senior captain who taxied the plane onto a runway was a diversity hire? C'mon, your fake story doesn't even make sense.
As a female pilot for AA, whose background and experience you know nothing about, was I a “diversity hire” too? Do tell me.
What’s the point? They know what happened. The crew made a wrong turn and crossed the runway. Do you people need to hear them say it? They have cvr and atc audio. That should be sufficient.
@ Greg White -- They don't have CVR, as that was overwritten as the plane continued to London (and it overwrites itself). What needs to be figured out is why this happened, so that it doesn't happen again.
I'm a retired airline pilot and I fully support the AA pilot's reluctance to have a recorded interview. You never know where the recordings are going to end up. The NTSB is a very good independent Federal Agency while the Department of Justice is not.
I also don't follow the pilots' logic; did they think they'd be scot-free if they refused? Of course a subpoena would follow! The NTSB won't back down, nor should it. It is one of the best-run government institutions in the USA, which is one of the biggest reasons flying is as safe as it is.
No investigation determinations or report issued, but the headline here reads that they were “reckless”. This proves we don’t even need the NTSB. We can just let OMAAT give us all the final verdict.
Perhaps the reality/bewilderment of this crew is even worse than the optics. And that would have to be truly awful. If they had any plausible defense attorneys, unions should be using it.
I could see a situation where a person would not cooperate if it is being recorded. You can't force them. You can enhance safety without recording, as its important to get all the facts out and not a shortened recorded event. AND how is this public knowledge. Trial by MEDIA is THE problems.
Trial by media is a trial by jury, just everyone can be a juror.
Or you are suggesting there is a problem with the Constitution?
Honest question for people who comment like this: why do you capitalize random words? Like, are you thinking that people will be more on your side if you put words in capital letters?
You don't really understand how these set in place procedures work do you. You're just crying oh these poor innocent pilots are being hunted by the media. If you choose this profession these are the rules you have already agreed to comply with early on. You don't get to change the rules once said rules don't fit your narrative.
Clearly, these pilots are behaving this way because appearing before the NTSB to record statements is not mandatory. The laws and regulations therefore need to be modified to ensure recorded statements are mandatory and that there will be consequences for failure to appear. This is also a defiance of AA management that cleared their schedules. So, the question is what will AA do or are they afraid of the union.
Unionosaurus enjoy chewing on Regulatorsaurus and investors.
It's not about facts, truth or safety. It's about protecting their status quo on top of the food chain.
If anything, the recordings should protect them when compared to the previous policy
Unless the stenographers were on the union payroll to mistype information in defense of pilots, I don’t see how this is a negative. If anything, it gives the pilot’s an out based on their spoken word vs that written via third party
Compliance with subpoenas for testimony is, however, mandatory, and NTSB can have that recorded.
Well for starters their voices have already been recorded thankfully othwerwise it would have been case of “Chinese whispers” - this is ridiculous and I hope sensibility prevails and the Union changes it’s recommendations
They also flew on to London so the cvr would be recorded over.
You’re clueless. That’s not exactly how the CVR works. For example, the Delta Crew returned to the gate. That aircraft was then used for something else. By the time an investigation began, both CVRs would be recorded over… regardless of them going to LHR or returning to the gate.
If you are right, this is the most valuable comment.
Like many people, I have assumed that if an incident such as this happens, SOP is for the 'planes to be taken out of service until the data from the CVR and FDR is recovered.
I have no idea how long it takes to recover if there has been no damage - it could be only a few minutes?
If that's not...
If you are right, this is the most valuable comment.
Like many people, I have assumed that if an incident such as this happens, SOP is for the 'planes to be taken out of service until the data from the CVR and FDR is recovered.
I have no idea how long it takes to recover if there has been no damage - it could be only a few minutes?
If that's not the case, then I suggest that the SOP needs to be changed, globally.
Given that the recorders are now solid state, and memory has got a whole lot cheaper over the last thirty years, it would also seem sensible to increase the recording time to 24 hours (that would have been useful for Egyptair 804)
To union objections that that means any inappropriate comment made in the cockpit is more likely to be picked up and cause problems, I have no sympathy - it's a high-percentage-safety job which comes with some limitations on privacy, and anybody who works in an office or shop, or uses a telephone, should also stick to appropriate comments when working.
Another human error in the equation. Human failed to collect data. Human refuse to provide data.
Do I need to remind you with automation, the computer CANNOT REFUSE to provide information. The recorded data is recorded real time. Unless, of course, "humans" delete those logs.
I don't know how many more incidents or loss of lives need to happen before we stop this. I have to keep saying this.
Isn't it about time we...
Another human error in the equation. Human failed to collect data. Human refuse to provide data.
Do I need to remind you with automation, the computer CANNOT REFUSE to provide information. The recorded data is recorded real time. Unless, of course, "humans" delete those logs.
I don't know how many more incidents or loss of lives need to happen before we stop this. I have to keep saying this.
Isn't it about time we automate all these things and leave human error out of the equation.
We have all the technologies available over the counter, but a bunch of Regulatorsaurus who are buddies with Unionosaurus aren't extinct yet.
If a $300 game console can calculate and a $50k Tesla can self navigate, when will you apply it to a hundred million dollar flying tube.
This is the most ignorant comment I have ever read on an aviation post. Congratulations. If you think that we are anywhere remotely close to an automated airplane carrying passengers then you have no idea how any of this works.
And some human won’t disrupt those automated computer systems to ignore certain mishaps and misreport others? It still all circles back to humans and profit
@PHLPhlyer
If a $300 game console can calculate and a $50k Tesla can self navigate.
Technology is already there.
But just to give you the idea how any of this works.
We are not even remotely close because the cost of implementation would be in the billions if not trillions.
The industry would rather let @PHLPhlyer crash and burn because it's cheaper to pay your family than prevent future accidents.
@305
You...
@PHLPhlyer
If a $300 game console can calculate and a $50k Tesla can self navigate.
Technology is already there.
But just to give you the idea how any of this works.
We are not even remotely close because the cost of implementation would be in the billions if not trillions.
The industry would rather let @PHLPhlyer crash and burn because it's cheaper to pay your family than prevent future accidents.
@305
You build transparency into the design. If everyone sees it, you can't corrupt it. Exactly like how we're hearing what went on that night from YouTube (VASAviation) or Twitter.
Human and greed will always be there, this circles back to accountability.
AA was clearing their schedule for the interviews? You mean these two clowns are actually still flying planes right now? Given the obvious of what transpired here you would think they would temporarily ground them until the investigation is complete.
American and United are both and embarassment for various reasons. For htis occurrence in particular, the pilots who refuse appear to have a republican attitude.
So good of you to condemn all Republicans this way
American should require them to comply with the NTSB. What kind of madness is this.
With a sterile cockpit I really wonder how this could have happened !
They should be grateful to the guy in the tower and the Delta guys for immediate action for avoiding another Tenerife ! And yet not only they’ve kept their jobs but refuse cooperation !
Just a couple of clowns in the AA circus !
Should have taken licensees cancelled and be fired on the spot !
All in the name of safety is an FAA and NTSB gaslight. It's all about safety until lobbyist money goes against that mantra.
Do you have a source with data for this comment? If not, GTFO with comments like this.
I'd assume Chris is referring to Boeing and the 737's MCAS fiasco.
They are government agencies which by definition means they are corrupted. They operate through coercion and not consent. In addition to that they are a bureaucracy with all that it entails. They are susceptible to lobbying and use their power to benefit who they want and hinder who they want. They nitpick over things that are non issues and they ignore legitimate concerns based on external pressure. Don’t trust the government.
Asked for data, you respond with sweeping claims without any evidence. Now that I've called you out on this, I can only expect the next response will be something along the lines of calling me a sheep. Because this rabbit hole of anti-governmental conspiratorial nonsense goes nowhere.
Representative Santos has loads of information from back when he was a director at the NTSB