Lost Northwest Pilots Were Trying Out New Software 518
Hugh Pickens writes "The NY Times reports that two Northwest Airlines pilots who flew about 110 miles past their destination to the skies over Wisconsin as more than a dozen air-traffic controllers in three locations tried to get the plane's attention had taken out their personal laptops in the cockpit, a violation of airline policy, so the first officer could tutor the captain in a new scheduling system put in place by Delta Air Lines, which acquired Northwest last fall. 'Both said they lost track of time,' said an interim report from the National Transportation Safety Board countering theories in aviation circles that the two pilots might have fallen asleep or were arguing in the cockpit. 'Using laptops or engaging in activity unrelated to the pilots' command of the aircraft during flight,' said a statement from Delta Airlines, 'is strictly against the airline's flight deck policies and violations of that policy will result in termination.' Industry executives and analysts said the pilots' behavior was a striking lapse for such veteran airmen who have a total of 31,000 flying hours of experience between them. In the case of Flight 188, 'Neither pilot was aware of the airplane's position until a flight attendant called about five minutes before they were scheduled to land and asked what was their estimated time of arrival,' the interim report said."
Luck not shot down (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Luck not shot down (Score:5, Interesting)
I bet shooting down the plane would be a last resort, if the plane was on a collision course with a "sensitive" target. Likely the fighters would escort the passenger jet for awhile trying to gather as much information as possible.
Re:Luck not shot down (Score:5, Informative)
The stall speed of an F-16 is around 120 knots. This would be a problem when intercepting a Cessna at cruise, because they can cruise comfortably at about 90 knots. But a passenger jet is going to be running at a minimum of 300 knots or so at cruise. Intercept would be absolutely no problem under these circumstances.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Luck not shot down (Score:5, Interesting)
Ahh, "Pop-up TFRs" (TFR = Temporary Flight Restrictions). The bane of every private pilot's existence since 9/11. Terribly inconvenient when they are announced before you take off, and somewhat more inconvenient if they are declared while you're inside one.
Kinda like a thunderstorm, with more ammo and less predictability.
Fortunately, the fine uniformed ladies and gentlemen who fly the intercepts have good judgment and a deep reluctance to shoot down unarmed gnats, so it hasn't been a fatal mistake... yet.
Because, God forbid should a Cessna weighing less than a Pinto and capable of a blistering 125 miles per hour get within 30 nautical miles of the President, Vice President, or any sporting event in progress...
I mean, after all, look at all the deaths caused by terrorist activities based in small aircraft.
What's that you say?
No, I couldn't find them either.
Re:Luck not shot down (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
As jellomizer put it... (Score:4, Interesting)
I am surprised that anyone is able to keep their job. Where an honest mistake where no one was harmed causes someone to loose their career. I would feel more comfortable riding in a plain from a pilot who has a relatively good record and made a mistake and got severely corrected As they know the severity of their mistake, and are extra careful not to make an other one. Vs. a Pilot who has a good records but has gone too comfortable with their job, and will be likely to make their first mistake.
It reminds me when I first started working. I was cleaning out my old backup files. so I meant to do a rm -f *~ but me being green and not so careful I did an rm -f * ~
I Hit Ctrl-C after I realized it was taking way to long. However, I cleared out about 2 weeks of work. Plus my personal documents. Needless to say I learned to backup more freaklently and the value of a good source control system. But If I were to get fired after that mistake and forced to switch careers then I wouldn't be able to apply my new learned methods.
That is why I cringe whenever there is a big mistake and people go well I hope that guy gets fired. Because the guy who did the mistake and especially if he was honest about it, would probably be so much more careful the nest time around. Who I would be more worried about is the guy who fired him. As part of the mistake is on him too. For not making sure they are safe guard in place.
I have had the same kind of experience at work. Except I *WAS* fired for it. Kind of sucks when you are designing a $20000 dollar circuit board in your first month and you put the PGA socket lands in backwards. Needless to say, I didn't make that mistake again. It also made it kinda hard to get a new job...
---
Here [slashdot.org]
Re:As jellomizer put it... (Score:5, Insightful)
>Kind of sucks when you are designing a $20000 dollar circuit board in your first month and you put the
>PGA socket lands in backwards.
Shouldn't they have fired whoever was signing off on your work?
I can't imagine a company letting a newbie design a 200000 USD board and then not having a more experienced engineer sign off on it. For all the things wrong that were wrong at my past job, what you describe sure as hell wasn't one of them.
Re:As jellomizer put it... (Score:4, Insightful)
Shouldn't they have fired whoever was signing off on your work?
Who do you think fired him?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He was modded down because hes exploiting the threading system for Karma whoring. If he was working on a PGA socket and a pair of F-16s flew around him while he was making his mistake, perhaps his reply would make more sense.
Re:Luck not shot down (Score:5, Informative)
No flares, no afterburners. Intercept procedures are well-established and are part of basic pilot training.
The intercepting aircraft will perform a closing pass, starting from one side and overtaking (generally on the left since this is where the senior pilot usually sits). If the intercepting craft cannot slow enough, it will make a crossing overtake pass in front of and below the intercepted aircraft (to avoid inducing turbulence on the intercepted craft), repeating as necessary until radio contact has been made or the intercepted aircraft waggles its wings to acknowledge presence (or eye contact is made between the two pilots if both aircraft can fly at the same speed).
A second intercept aircraft flies behind and above the intercepted craft, watching for wing waggle and/or any other signs the pilot of the intercepted craft may give. If you're going to be shot down, that's his job too. But to my knowledge that's never been done.
There is a clearly-established set of hand signals AND aircraft signals that may be used to indicate what the interceptor wants the intercepted pilot to do. The VERY first thing is to acknowledge to the interceptor that you see and are aware of them (waggle the wings), then the intercepted pilot gets on the emergency frequency at 121.5 and identifies himself as an intercepted aircraft, if a radio is available and working. From there, the interceptor has a series of very visible signals to indicate that you should follow them, or you are free to go about your business, or you are to land at the airport they are headed toward, or whatever they want you to do.
The AOPA does a big campaign to get these cards in the hands of every pilot several times a year. If you know a pilot and they don't carry one of these, print out one and glue it to their lapboard: http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/intercept.pdf [aopa.org]
Re:Luck not shot down (Score:5, Funny)
What's the signal for "Windows has crashed and I have to wait for it to reboot"?
Re:Luck not shot down (Score:5, Funny)
> What's the signal for "Windows has crashed and I have to wait for it to
> reboot"?
You wave furiously with the blue card at the fighter pilot...
Re:Luck not shot down (Score:5, Funny)
so far no US fighter has shot down a rouge airliner
Chartreuse and teal airliners, yes, but not rouge...
Re: (Score:2)
The TV news said DHS greeted them when they landed.
Re:Luck not shot down (Score:5, Interesting)
No. A shootdown would have been nearly impossible in this situation. This was stupid, and both pilots should and probably will be terminated over it, but the passengers were never in any real danger.
The initial theory at ATC on this was probably that they had a radio failure. Radios fail, so there are procedures to deal with it. 110 mile overshoot at aircraft speeds probably means they were out of radio contact for 15-20 minutes of flight time after passing their destination. ATC was probably still working down through their checklist while dealing with the rest of the radio traffic at the same time. The aircraft has lots of reserve fuel as per FAA regs, and the plane was following its assigned flight path (a little longer than scheduled, but it wasn't going whacko, so the assumption might have been that the crew had a radio or other mechanical issue and were trying to deal with it).
ATC obviously verified that their flight path was clear, which put a tad more load on them, but they were at cruising altitude and there's plenty of room up in Class A airspace. And if they had flown over something sensitive enough to have a restricted zone up at 37,000 feet (which would be exceptionally rare, most MOAs only extend up to class A airspace, not into it), the military would have scrambled a couple of fighters to pay them a visit. If they didn't notice the fighters themselves, I'm sure some passenger would alert a stewardess and the pilots would have jumped on the emergency band in a big fat effing hurry, or if they really had a radio out watched for the wings to waggle and followed them to a runway. It's hard to miss a fighter 20 feet off your nose, and those guys are pretty damned good at getting close enough to be noticed without inducing turbulence.
I imagine a few people at ATC were just starting to get worried, since it could also be crew incapacitation (fun facts to know and tell - if you lock the very reinforced flight door from the crew side and both crewmembers die or become incapacitated, you're pretty much screwed - no Patrick Swayze bad movie moments of private pilots landing the plane at their favorite airstrip causing fun and mayhem but saving lives - just simple fuel starvation and uncontrolled descent into terrain). I'm sure there was the sound of a few strained sphincters unclenching when Dumb and Dumber got on the horn and acknowledged that they were simply distracted.
This was incredibly dumb, and deserves termination or at least a very, VERY strong reprimand, but at no time were the passengers in any danger.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
An early report I saw stated that air traffic guided them through some maneuvers before they landed, to ensure that they still had control of the plane (apparently standard procedure in such a situation).
Re:Luck not shot down (Score:5, Informative)
ATC would have guided them through maneuvers anyway, so I'm sure that's true. They would have had to receive and acknowledge a new course back to the airport control area, and a descent path to pattern.
But, yeah, it wouldn't surprise me if they had the aircraft execute a few turns first to make absolutely sure they had the correct aircraft and that the pilots could comprehend and execute instructions. I've never heard of the procedure, but I'm only a private pilot and the few times I've used flight following I've managed to keep positive radio contact at all times.
And the maneuvers served another purpose. Time building. After all, since this was probably their last flight the pilots might as well make the most of it and log as much PIC time as they can... and, hey, they know how to use the new scheduling system now, so they can clearly see that they don't have any flights coming up in the near future.
I just read a more thorough FAA report on the incident, and it seems they were out of contact for about an hour, and other pilots on other aircraft where assisting trying different frequencies. Pilots do lose contact with ATC from time to time when up in Class A airspace, but this one was probably VERY close to the point where they'd scramble a couple of fast intercept planes to go check things out.
Re:Luck not shot down (Score:5, Informative)
Minnesota Air National Guard here-
(Just for your own information)
We were on alert standby throughout the event; that is to say, we knew about it and kept in contact with norad and the mpls atc, and our pilots were suited up. Had a scramble been declared, we probably would have intercepted the airliner within 20 minutes unless Madison got there first. Wouldn't be the first time this has happened.
-b
Re:Luck not shot down (Score:4, Insightful)
Thanks. Good to hear from someone that might have counted, if it had come to that. Glad to know you folks are on the job.
Equally glad you could stay on the ground for this one, of course. :)
Re:Luck not shot down (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I've been deployed a good part of the year so I don't know about every time this has happened, but I was here for this:
http://www.nationalterroralert.com/updates/2009/04/06/f-16s-scrambled-stolen-canadian-plane-lands-in-missouri/ [nationalterroralert.com]
We also intercepted a russian bomber near alaska last winter. We were tasked with air security over mpls during the last RNC and that resulted in some scrambles.
Most of the alert standbies and practice scrambles go unnoticed around here. The only reason this event made the news was that it involved a commercial airliner, which means that it ranked right up there with runaway brides and missing children as far as the media are concerned.
And while I don't think we've ever intercepted anything near L.A., we've stood alert in iraq, D.C., florida, panama, curacao, hawaii, and alaska (just in recent memory). It's entirely possible that we could get sent to stand in temporarily for another base's alert; it happens pretty often.
-b
(oh and this is all public knowledge; whenever I talk about my job some AC starts in with how the black helicopters are going to come get me...)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Very interesting. And there's a decent chance you've been stationed or flew over somewhere I was in the last year. Hmmm, are you following me? :)
I keep a vigilant lookout for those damned silent black helicopters (they unnamed agency upgraded at a classified point in the conspiracy theorists past). Shhh, if you listen very carefully, you can't hear them. That's how you know that they're there. :) One of my favorite hobbies is to give conspiracy theorists panic attacks.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, I wasn't in the military at that point, so I can't give you a first-hand account. And, frustratingly, a cursory google search yields conspiracy blogs and more conspiracy blogs.
The simple fact of the matter is that things happened too quickly, with too much at stake, and with too little information, for norad to first scramble jets and second shoot down civilian airliners. After the attacks, air traffic was shut down and the only planes in the sky were military. Once they knew kind of what was going on
Re:Luck not shot down (Score:4, Informative)
I was wondering about this given the cost pressures on airlines these days. The FAA website says this:
A. Required Fuel Supplies for Flights with Alternate Airports. When the Regulations require an alternate airport for the destination to be designated on the release, the aircraft must have the following types and increments of fuel on board at takeoff:
So they need enough additional fuel to fly 15% of the time required to reach the furthest alternate airport taking into account traffic delays and other factors that might delay the landing.
I think it's safe to say that they'd have plenty of fuel in this jaunt, where they extended the flight by 300 miles (round trip). Still, if alternate airports were relatively close, and had they not been disturbed by that member of cabin crew, I guess it's possible they could have been landing on a rural strip that doesn't see many A320s?
Any pilots able to tell us just how far they could get if they had been carrying the minimum fuel allowed by law?
Re:Luck not shot down (Score:5, Informative)
I may be misunderstanding your wording, so we may be agreeing vehemently here..
Any alternate airport is not going to be a rural strip, this is a Part 115 flight which means they need a manned tower to legally land unless overriding safety concerns apply. "Alternate airport" does not mean "gotta get on the effing ground now where's a strip of tarmac or a long stretch of highway", it means another airport with sufficient capacity for a routine landing of the aircraft in question, including the ability to handle the passengers and sufficient emergency equipment to handle trouble. So the alternate is probably not terribly close to the main airport (though I don't know what they'd pick as an alternate on that flight), and the landing is going to be pretty routine (if in an inconvenient location for the passengers on board).
I've been diverted due to traffic (En Route Reserve exaustion), and basically it went like this:
1. Thunderstorm over destination airport (CVG), traffic backed up.
2. Entered pattern way the hell up in the air, started working down the stack.
3. Pilot used up "En Route" and "En Route Reserve" and started digging into "Contingency Fuel" due to heavy traffic (stacked pattern). Pilot announced that we needed to divert and started the clock on "Alternate Fuel" to get to the alternate airport. We were 15 minutes or so from getting landing clearance based on where we were in the pattern, BUT we were out of Contingency Fuel and En Route Reserve, and so we had to divert to Alternate because if we had been delayed any longer AND THEN had to go to Alternate we would have been deeply screwed.
4. Flew to Toledo, landed. Note that this was probably the CLOSEST alternate, and I'm sure we had a good chunk of Alternate fuel left. Airport looked different, but it was a normal landing.
5. Refueled. No one allowed off plane because we all wanted to get to CVG soonest and a deplane/replane would have cost time.
6. Waited an hour on the tarmac in Toledo for CVG traffic to normalize again.
7. Flew back to CVG, landed, taxiied to different gate since we were off schedule.
8. Thankfully I had a 2.5 hour layover and made my connector.
En-route Reserve and Contingency fuel are in addition to En Route and Alternate fuel. I don't have that section of the FAR/AIM in front of me at the moment and don't have time to look it up, but I think the International reserve is an international standard, and not just for international flights. However, let's assume it does not apply.
Assuming they picked their most distant alternate 1 hour away, and the flight is 3h 45m long (approximately what the Delta Flight Status page calls for).
En Route: about 4 hours, including a missed approach of 15 minutes.
Alternate: 1 hour. Total 5 hours.
En Route Reserve: 15% of 5 hours, 45 minutes. Since that's less than 90, we use that. Total is now 5:45.
Contingency: For a busy airport, add an hour. Let's assume they added a ridiculously low 15 minutes to save fuel weight. Total is now 6:00
So we have an approximate 6 hours of fuel on board for a less-than-4-hour flight. Maybe 6:30 if #3 applied.
So assuming 15 minutes to discover their mistake and 15 minutes to fly back, Dumb and Dumber used 2/3 of their En Route Reserve, and didn't touch their Alternate or Contingency fuel levels at all. In other words, the flight was made within FAA fuel regs, if not within Delta CRM (Cockpit Resource Management) regs or within the boundaries of common sense.
And yes, they are all in the same fuel tank (grin). But you burn them for the purpose for which they are intended. If you are out of En Route Reserve and Contingency, then you NEED to head straight for your nearest practical (weather, traffic, and other factors considered) Alternate airport right now so you arrive with plenty of fuel to make a safe landing there.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
This was a dumb thing, for sure, but think about it from a pilot's perspective; even a little screwup will land you on the news across the nation.
Kinda reminds me of this quote:
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
There was some crappy TV show on recently that showed how to survive a disaster. What if something happened to the pilots (or if terrorists got into the cockpit). Some crappy scenario where someone in the passenger space needed to get into the pilot space because of an emergency.
They suggested taking the drink cart, and loading it up with absolutely as much stuff as yo
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Strangely enough there was a crappier clone movie of Executive Decision called Strategic Command (Executive Command was the working title).
This is news to me. (Score:5, Funny)
But it is news to me, it can commandeer aircraft radios and navigational aids within vicinity and convert them into a giant Wi-Fi range extenders.
Re: (Score:2)
It was bloody windows 7.
I would hope a Pilot was smarter than that to use Vista Yeesh!
I'm guessing Malware infection from Delta hub slowed the whole thing down.
Yep! (Score:3, Funny)
Yep. Thats my story and I'm sticking to it. I wasn't sleeping. I wasn't browsing the web. I was using the future of cockpit aviation.
Re:Yep! (Score:4, Interesting)
As they say, piloting is "hours of boredom interspersed by moments of sheer terror." :)
It's true though - huge numbers of logged hours just don't seem as impressive when a ton of it was on auto-pilot. Bigger planes are certainly harder to fly, but it seems like the smaller simpler planes require you to ALWAYS be flying it rather than at those interspersed moments.
The first flight lesson I took about 5 years ago was with a WW2 veteran bomber pilot (he's since passed away :(). He still logged every flight but had stopped counting his hours over a decade earlier - having counted more than 20,000 at that time. He had time in some larger aircraft (B-17's and such) but all of it was in prop-driven low-electronics aircraft. He literally drove out to the plane in one of those little mobile scooters for seniors; he couldn't really walk too well anymore at his age, but once he got in that plane and took off you could feel that this guy was a true pilot. Despite this being my first time up in a plane (literally - my first time ever in the air was a lesson) and his obviously frail condition, I had no worries at all.
I wonder (Score:2)
Who would run out of fuel first, the laptop or the plane?
Or the coffee.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A stewardess ran out of patience.
Re:I wonder (Score:4, Funny)
Radio Reception? (Score:4, Interesting)
Shouldn't they have picked up air traffic control yelling at them regardless? I'm guessing they had their headphones off (if such are even used), but I would think that there would be blinking lights at a minimum, and hopefully any voices would come through. If nothing else, they should be tuned into some kind of emergency frequency no matter what.
It seems to me something is either designed wrong, or the pilots were being much more inattentive than one would expect from even someone using a laptop.
Any pilots or other I am a somethings around?
Re:Radio Reception? (Score:4, Informative)
I happened to hear this morning on CNN that the pilots indicated they had removed their headphones, which is a reason not to hear the airport calling for their attention. They also said they did not see any messages from the home office trying to get their attention but did hear general conversations on the radio.
P.S. Your comment is number 3 on Google if you search for 'Northwest pilots headphones'.
Re:Radio Reception? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Radio Reception? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
An honest mistake?! Seriously? Completely disregarding flight procedures (on various levels) for personal "training" is blatant misconduct and at the absolute minimum they should be fired. There's a reason there are two pilots in a cockpit and they violated several standing rules of commercial flight. I'll be surprised if they can ever fly commercial planes again.
So you're OK throwing away 25 years of unblemished flight records for their very first mistake on the job. I hope your boss is a bit less strict given that I'm sure you've not been 100% correct your entire career.
You don't think that a 1-year suspension without pay would be sufficient?!? Or are you just a hard-ass that believes in one strike and you're out?
Re:Radio Reception? (Score:5, Informative)
“Both said they lost track of time,” the report stated. It also said that the pilots had heard voices over their cockpit radios but ignored them.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Nope. Each control zone has a unique frequency.
However since they were on their laptops if someone had sent them an IM, Twitter, or email they would have probably been alright.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So that means the ATC did NOT use all available means to try to contact the pilots. Interesting.
pushed? not a big deal? (Score:4, Insightful)
Shouldn't they have picked up air traffic control yelling at them regardless?
Would have to assume they took off the headphones so they could hear each other as they discussed the computer app. I don't think there's a speaker in the cockpit from the tower.
Two questions come to mind:
1) what sort of urgency was placed on learning this new system? Were they being rushed? Did anyone suggest they hurry up and get each other up to speed on the app ("as soon as possible"/"whenever you get a chance"?) and they simply didn't have any personal time left to do it? (things like this tend to get pushed to be done on personal, rather than paid, time)
2) 110 miles in a jet? really? big detour? How long does it take a jet to travel 110 miles? This extended the flight what, a whole 15 minutes counting backtrack time? For a jet that's like a bus driver missing an exit and having to drive another 4 miles to the next cloverleaf and do a 180. Though it probably had a few more exaggerated side-effects, like passengers missing connecting flights (which happens too much anyway even when planes are on time) plus the cost of a few hundred pounds of fuel. But still, seems like its being overblown.
Re:pushed? not a big deal? (Score:5, Informative)
I am an ex-IT engineer turned airline pilot (currently flying Airbus A320) so will bite and explain some items...
1. there are loudspeakers in the cockpit, usually the volume is at mid-level, but you choose the volume you want
2. it takes about 10m to fly 80 miles, so 110miles of course would mean they were engaged in the discussion for some 25m (10m from Top of Descent plus the 110m after destination)
3. You normally keep an ear out for someone calling you in the radio, but sometimes you just might miss it. I concede that 30m without listening to air traffic control is too much...
4. Their timing was all wrong... Near top of descent turning on their laptops?? Come on...... It's one of the only 2 situations were you really must have full attention, Takeoff until Top of Climb and from Top of Descent to Landing....
5. There is an automatic system called TCAS (Traffic Collision and Avoiding System) that would warn them if there was any chance of colliding with another aircraft. This system is mandatory (at least in Europe) and is why those 2 aircraft over Brazil collided some years ago.
6. In what regards to fuel, you take fuel to fly to destination + fuel to fly from destination to alternate landing + 30m holding at alternate + whatever your airline policy sees fit + whatever captain decision sees fit. They probably landed short on fuel to fly to destination, but there are procedures in place for this.
7. Normally there are allways 2 radion frequencies in use, the area you are in and the emergency frequency. Also, some airplanes have HF frequencies and can be called over HF. This will sound a buzzer in the cockpit and is quite loud.I doubt ATC called them over HF....
8. Autopilot was obviously on, but it doesn't beep when reaching Top of Descent...
9. Firing them is a bit excessive, but some sort of disciplinary action should be taken. Do not forget that training a pilot costs above 100kUSD, so it is not immediate to find a replacement. Also it is easy to just appoint blame, but keep in mind that aviation is not like your regular day job. There is no excuse for what happened here but the mentality of "you erred, you're fired" will cause problems in the future.....
B
Re:pushed? not a big deal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:pushed? not a big deal? (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's see how you see this after 10 Years of commercial flying. My Brother is captain on an A320 for many years now. The problem is boredom. Most of those pilots are over-achiever until they have the job they want. And from then on, they have too much time while doing their jobs. Most of them start doing their office work in the cockpit, play games, watch movies, etc.
I don't want to say that the "computer thing" wasn't a silly excuse for something else, but think about it, most of them are so bored by their job that they start doing stupid things after some years (especially when they also have a lot of routine on the routes they fly every day).
Cheers,
-S
Re:pushed? not a big deal? (Score:5, Funny)
I am an ex-IT engineer turned airline pilot (currently flying Airbus A320)
Dude, did you learn nothing from this story? Don't post to slashdot when you're flying!It'll get you in trouble! ;-)
Re:pushed? not a big deal? (Score:4, Insightful)
That is also true, but let me explain something about aviation,
The system in place today relies on pilots/atc controllers reporting everything that happens that could cause an incident or accident (look up the definitions on google). A lot of the procedures in place today exist because there is the perception that you can report errors/distractions/whatever and that report will be used in order to improve the system so that that particular distraction/error/whatever will not occur again, and not that the report will be used to penalize you.
If you start penalizing and firing people for erring (and believe me, pilots do err, but a most of the times the redundancies of the systems in place prevent that error from becoming an incident/accident, and by redundancies I also mean the other pilot, not just automatic systems) then those reports will not occur and you will loose a very valuable way of knowing what happens in a flight.
These voluntary reports are what make aviation so safe these days...
B
When ATC talks, you listen (Score:5, Informative)
Nearly everything that ATC says is safety related. There is no chit-chat. ATC gives heading and altitude assignments. You need to go where they tell you to go because you are not the only plane in the sky.
Also, ATC will vector you around severe weather. One reason why these pilots were not paying attention is likely because there was no severe weather near their flight path. They would not be expecting any vectors for weather. They would only be expecting vectors for the descent and approach.
It's never a good idea to tune out ATC, either electronically or mentally, a pilot needs to be aware of what's going on in the area. If there is traffic above, below or crossing it's a really good idea to get visual contact.
There are many possible safety consequences of ignoring ATC. When ATC doesn't know what you're doing, they can't ensure separation. They get pretty upset about that since separating traffic is what they do all day. ATC has procedures for getting everyone out of the way of a plane that is not responding. Those procedures are very disruptive to the normal flow of air traffic.
Before 9/11, an equipment failure or a brain fart was more forgivable. Now the response for ignoring ATC is pretty strong. Ignoring ATC, at any time, is a career limiting action.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Mod parent up, please.
this is a great point to drive home: that the pilots had lost SA and positive control of the aircraft. had an emergency situation presented itself they would have been behind the aircraft, and that is not a good place to be. SA (situational awareness) is one of the key factors in aviation that differentiates the "that was a close one" moments and the "NTSB re-assembles my aircraft" moments.....
Re:pushed? not a big deal? (Score:4, Interesting)
I agree with your points about the problems with automation - I avoid driving much with cruise control for the same reason - having to micro-manage my speed helps keep me alert. Sure, I could pay more attention to other things without having to do it, but in reality I'd pay less attention.
I'm not sure that firing pilots who fall asleep is going to help either.
I liked something I saw for airport security screeners - who face similar problems (they screen thousands of packages and 99.99999% of the time there is nothing to see). It was an x-ray machine that would add in images of contraband for the operator to spot - if an operator didn't hit a button when one was spotted then it would alert a supervisor. It gave the operator something to actually do, and thus it kept them alert.
Maybe the plane needs to trigger a random simulated failure (caution light or whatever) that requires a button to be hit to clear the condition (FMS would avoid triggering it at critical moments, and the operator would have plenty of time to deal with other stuff first). Or, maybe the cockpit should have officially-sanctioned ways to do things like check email/etc which will do things like pop up occasional messages to do a visual scan and which will blank the screen the instant an alert of some kind occurs. Or, maybe there is some task the crew could perform that is more mentally stimulating than staring out the window at blue sky.
The human brain is a machine - a complex one, but a machine nonetheless. It has certain limitations. In particular, it gets bored if you don't give it something to do. This is biology, and simply telling pilots not to be bored doesn't fix the problem. Likewise, the human brain requires sleep, and if people are overworked they won't get enough of that.
Re:Radio Reception? (Score:4, Informative)
on most airliners, there is no beeping when you cross a waypoint in the FMS. that would get real annoying when the waypoints are under a minute apart (departures and approaches) and i'm trying to concentrate on hand-flying the plane.
almost all airliners designed in the last 30 years are centered on the "Dark & Quiet" flight deck concept. if everything is normal, and all systems are as they should be, then there will be no lights on over/inside switches & buttons, and there will be no noises. this way, when something does go wrong, we know about it immediately. if we get a caution message, there's a "ding" and the master caution light that's right in front of my face blinks amber at me till i cancel it. then i look to see what the message was, and run the appropriate checklist.
in my airplane, if we pass the last waypoint in the FMS, we will get the "ding" and caution light, as the computer has no where else to go, so drops out of LNAV mode into ROLL mode. all roll mode does is, ironically, keep the wings level and on the selected altitude.
its really easy to see why they went 100 miles past the airport, as they were made away about 5 minutes before passing the field. it'll take about 15 minutes to figure out what the proper frequency is for the altitude and location you're at, then establish communications with the controller, and get re-sequenced back into the arrival streams. and at the standard cruise speed of ~500kts, you cover a mile every 8 seconds or so.
WTF? (Score:5, Funny)
They were raiding in WoW, I would imagine. ;-)
"Tutoring in the new scheduling software", my ass.
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Funny)
I guess neither one of them... (Score:5, Insightful)
will need to know how to use the new scheduling system now!
Re: (Score:2)
I guess one of us...
*puts on sunglasses*
is better than one of them.
Oh, puhlease (Score:5, Funny)
They were SO engrossed they neglected to respond to repeated attempts at contact for OVER AN HOUR? They weren't learning a new scheduling system.
They were on a WoW raid, more like.
Re:Oh, puhlease (Score:5, Interesting)
Each air traffic control region has an alternate frequency. So yah if they didn't bother to change the frequency they were on they wouldn't hear squat.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I am a pilot also. If I don't hear something on frequency after a certain period of time I get worried and check in. I have never gone a whole hour without hearing something.
Once I had a radio failure in Class B over LAX while talking to SoCal on the way north from San Diego. I could hear other pilots in the air but couldn't hear ATC. I was on a vector to avoid traffic heading mostly west out to sea (they had assigned me a temporary heading) instead of heading north to my destination. A couple minutes passe
Not sure how I feel about this (Score:2, Insightful)
Since most planes, to my knowledge, have auto pilot, and I'm assuming it was set, isn't there something with autopilot that would have also alerted the pilots to their location and time. I understand that pilots would have had time to discuss this stuff, but I almost believe that losing track of time is a big offense. What would have happened had they had fuel issues and now they were running out of fuel?
If I was on that flight I would likely be pissed off knowing that these two who hold the responsibilit
Re:Not sure how I feel about this (Score:5, Interesting)
Some fancy auto pilots will alert when the flight vector has been achieved.
However most autopilots in a basic mode will simply just make sure a plane maintains heading and elevation. For I think all of US air space this basic autopilot is all that is needed as the US is basically one big highway in the sky where planes simply plop them selves in a sky lane and follow it. None of this fancy find me the fastest route and make sure I don't hit anything else sorta autopilot.
US air space is basically running as if it was 1960 still. You wouldn't fly if you saw what the majority of airports was using for radar :)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Were they trying to install Windows 7... (Score:2)
or Linux?
We may never know.
It's a tough job (Score:2, Interesting)
Obviously the pilots should have paid more attention, but I suspect the reason they were trying to squeeze in a little extra work is that they weren't going to get paid to learn the scheduling system on their own time.
Pilots go through years of expensive schooling and have to repay their student loans like everyone else. Their salaries start around $20,000 [salon.com] if they can get hired in a very competitive market.
Remember the hero pilot who landed the plane in the Hudson, saving Flight 1549 and 155 people's li [mercurynews.com]
Re:It's a tough job (Score:5, Informative)
I'm sorry but that's just crap. New pilots, sure, they make less, but on *AVERAGE* the pay is around $70k.
http://www.avjobs.com/salaries-wages-pay/pilot-pay.asp
Re:It's a tough job and it pays accordingly (Score:4, Informative)
I'm sorry but that's just crap. New pilots, sure, they make less, but on *AVERAGE* the pay is around $70k. http://www.avjobs.com/salaries-wages-pay/pilot-pay.asp [avjobs.com]
Yeah, GP is full of BS. No stats, just single anecdotal sob stories. From a list of overpaid jobs [marketwatch.com]:
9) Major airline pilots
While American and United pilots recently took pay cuts, senior captains earn as much as $250,000 a year at Delta, and their counterparts at other major airlines still earn about $150,000 to $215,000 - several times pilot pay at regional carriers - for a job that technology has made almost fully automated.
By comparison, senior pilots make up to 40 percent less at low-fare carriers like Jet Blue and Southwest, though some enjoy favorable perks like stock options. That helps explain why their employers are profitable while several of the majors are still teetering on the brink of bankruptcy.
The pilot's unions are the most powerful in the industry. They demand premium pay as if still in the glory days of long-gone Pan Am and TWA, rather than the cutthroat, deregulated market of under-$200 coast-to-coast roundtrips. In what amounts to a per-passenger commission, the larger the plane, the more they earn - even though it takes little more skill to pilot a jumbo jet. It's as much the airplane mechanics who hold our fate in their hands.
The mechanics are the ones that really get the short end of the stick. But they don't have expensive schooling.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:It's a tough job and it pays accordingly (Score:5, Insightful)
HAH! "for a job that technology has made almost fully automated... the larger the plane, the more they earn - even though it takes little more skill to pilot a jumbo jet."
$200K for the decades of training and experience to know what to do when one of the world's more complicated machines breaks, a mile in the air, with 200 souls on board. "Overpaid"? What a jackass.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I see that real estate agents are on the list; I have one in my family, and while it doesn't require a great deal of training, any agent that is making a lot is going to be on call and working literally any time they are awake or can be awakened by the incessant ringing of their cell phone. Rich douchebags may call on a Saturday
Re:It's a tough job and it pays accordingly (Score:4, Informative)
Wot a load of pish. Yeah, it's a job that's fully automated - until the shit goes down and the automation suddenly cannot cope with 'out-of-the-envelope' conditions. You think a machine could have landed Sully's jet safely following a bird strike?
Isn't it truly frightening (Score:5, Insightful)
that on this site we have so many people who believe Michael Moore?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
His latest movie isn't compelling, and his fact-checkers fell down on the job this time around. It's barely even entertaining. I don't recommend it. That doesn't mean what he reports is untrue -- he talked to these guys, he saw a pay stub.
(Previous efforts have been much more enlightening and educational. I do recommend Columbine, Fahrenheit, and especially Sicko.)
Re:It's a tough job (Score:4, Informative)
Re:It's a tough job (Score:4, Insightful)
This all seems to be true, in general, of most industries these days.
Folks are generally expected to work longer than 40 hours, but not actually compensated for it. Your workload will virtually necessitate coming into the office early, or working through lunch, or staying late... They'll roll out new procedures or tools or toys, but there's no time allotted for training - you're expected to learn it before or after actual work hours. And the pay for those 40 hours that you are compensated for, is going down. Maybe not literally... Maybe you didn't actually take a pay cut (though plenty of people are)... But your wages aren't keeping up with bills/inflation/whatever.
This isn't only true in the airline industry. I'm seeing it in my own little corner of the IT world - not just my own job and work hours, but those of my co-workers as well.
Cockpit voice recorder (Score:2)
Re:Cockpit voice recorder (Score:4, Informative)
The CVP on this aircraft only records the last 30 minutes of conversation. So what they have is roughly from just before final approach to parking at the gate.
Re: (Score:2)
Except there was no crash to turn it off, so it will have just kept recording and it is on a 30 minute loop. So chances are it doesn't include any of that time period - and if there was something incriminating on it they would have just made sure to take 30 minutes...
Similar Distraction in 2006 Brazilian Collision (Score:4, Interesting)
There was an incredibly detailed account of the Brazilian midair collision in September 2006 that identified pilots trying to figure out the flight control systems on their new Legacy 600 as one of the distractions that led to the collision. Some of the controls were on a glass panel display, and there was also a laptop that distracted them. Apparently, as they were clicking around on stuff, they shut off their transponder.
http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2009/01/air_crash200901 [vanityfair.com]
Even more concerning, was the author's argument that the accuracy of GPS guided autopilot systems also contributed. Historically, even if two planes ended up at the same flight level, headed towards each other, the inherent sloppiness in the autopilot systems would actually increase the chance of a miss. Now, with autopilots capable of keeping planes within very close tolerances of their ideal flightpath, the same two planes accidentally occupying the same flight level may have a much higher chance of colliding.
Bad. Real Bad. (Score:5, Informative)
As for the scheduling system they were going over - actually, that is probably the 'news for nerds' part. The old airline schedules were built in two units - 'pairings' and 'lines of time'. A pairing is a group of flights, typically from 1 to 6 days long, that begun and ended in a pilot domicile. The word 'pairing' was to indicate that an entire crew was 'paired' together that whole time. A line of time (or simply a line) was a month-long group of those pairings. There is a long list of legal requrements (min rest, max flight time, union contractual obligations, aircraft mx requirements, etc.) that these schedules had to meet.
Ultimately, from the pilot's point of view, these lines were published each month for the next month. Bidding was very straightforward. If you were the number 1 senior pilot in that base (technically, domicile, aircraft and status (capt. or F/O), you picked your line, and that was that. If you were #2, you picked your schedule, and got it.... unless the number 1 guy already got it, in which case you got your second choice. If you were number #300.... well, picking 300 schedules in the order you want them was a time consuming task, but the outcome was perfectly transparent. The line awards were public, so you could verify that the schedules you didn't get really did go to senior people. You can debate whether such a system is 'fair', but at least it is clear how it works, both globally and month to month.
Then, with the advent of more powerful computers, a system called 'PBS' was born - Preferential Bidding System. These systems, instead of having hard, published lines you bid from, instead only published the pairings. You expressed your 'Preferences' through a computer language. A computer program then ran, taking everybodys preferences, seniority, system constraints, etc. into account and generated schedules.
In theory, PBS sounds great. A pilot's preferences generally don't change that much month to month, so you could file your bid away and let it run automatically each month with little or no tweaking.
In practice, it's usually been highly disruptive and caused great angst for a year or two after being implemented, for many reasons:
1) The language used to express your preferences is generally designed for the programmers, not the users.
2) The results can be, to put it mildly, unexpected. When you have pre-published schedules, you have a pretty good idea ahead of time what to expect.
3) There are no month-to-month conflicts that generate additional days off, resulting in more work per pilot, a reason the airlines like them and pilots don't, on average.
4) Non-computer savvy older pilots (Captians) have a harder time getting it than younger pilots (F/O's), on average. It takes a vastly important piece of your life (when are you working? Where are you going? 28 hours in HNL or 32 hours in XNA?), and makes it tied to your comfort with learning, essentially, a primitive computer language.
I cringe when I see this, because I've done this - taught Captians while flying about PBS. So have many other F/O's. You just prioritize it where it belongs - below aviating, navigating and communicating. These guys made everyone else look bad.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Anon has a point. While the OP's problem wasn't so much that they got caught as that they stopped paying attention to their duties to do it (which is, admittedly, what caused them to get caught), the fact remains that *regardless* of how of an aircrew "prioritizes" it, it is strictly against procedures to be doing this, and a termination offense.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, that's not what the OP meant by "prioritize." Quoting the original post:
So the OP admits he's done this himself, but it's okay because he "prioritized" it correctly.
I am surprised (Score:5, Insightful)
I am surprised that anyone is able to keep their job. Where an honest mistake where no one was harmed causes someone to loose their career. I would feel more comfortable riding in a plain from a pilot who has a relatively good record and made a mistake and got severely corrected As they know the severity of their mistake, and are extra careful not to make an other one. Vs. a Pilot who has a good records but has gone too comfortable with their job, and will be likely to make their first mistake.
It reminds me when I first started working. I was cleaning out my old backup files. so I meant to do a rm -f *~ but me being green and not so careful I did an rm -f * ~
I Hit Ctrl-C after I realized it was taking way to long. However, I cleared out about 2 weeks of work. Plus my personal documents. Needless to say I learned to backup more freaklently and the value of a good source control system.
But If I were to get fired after that mistake and forced to switch careers then I wouldn't be able to apply my new learned methods.
That is why I cringe whenever there is a big mistake and people go well I hope that guy gets fired. Because the guy who did the mistake and especially if he was honest about it, would probably be so much more careful the nest time around. Who I would be more worried about is the guy who fired him. As part of the mistake is on him too. For not making sure they are safe guard in place.
Some perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference between that and the mistake of a pilot is a potential several hundred lives.
Re:I am surprised (Score:4, Insightful)
I see what you're saying, however, you deleting your files may hurt your employers bottom line and potentially yours _at worst_, pilots losing awareness can mean hundreds of deaths.
Now I'm not saying they should be fired, but I can easily see why they would be. Airlines and pilots are held to very strict standards by the government.
Could additional "training" and a heavy penalty/fine resolve the issue and create two better pilots? Possibly and potentially even likely. But if the punishment for potentially putting hundreds of lives in risk is a slap on the wrist, do you really think all the thousands of other pilots are really going to take notice? I have a feeling being fired in this case shows all the other pilots to simply only consider being distracted if you want to lose your job. In short, it appears any "big" mistake ends in termination simply to make examples of you.
Re:I am surprised (Score:4, Insightful)
I certainly agree that nobody should be fired for a genuine, simple mistake, and with the idea that people will learn from their mistakes and become better at their jobs as a result.
Nor do I particularly like to see people lose their jobs and therefore a lot of their chances of getting another, leading to what could be a very bad impact on their livelihood (and possibly the family's).
But there's a difference between a genuine mistake and neglect. Hearing things on the radio but ignoring it, falls firmly into the neglect category IMO. And that's where they unfortunately but quite rightly shouldn't be trusted to fly again. Mistakes are a learning experience, but neglect is a personality problem.
Re:I am surprised (Score:5, Funny)
Needless to say I learned to backup more freaklently
The evolution of the English language is a fascinating thing.
Slight misunderstanding by the journalist (Score:4, Funny)
Complete overreaction (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> Do you know what happens to a captain (or any pilot, for that matter) when
> they are terminated? They start at the bottom of any airline that hires
> them.
Perhaps as baggage handlers. I'd be very surprised if any airline would
willingly engage in the potential public relations disaster by hiring a pilot
"who already previously has put several hundred lives at risk".
They were working, after all (Score:5, Insightful)
so the first officer could tutor the captain in a new scheduling system put in place by Delta Air Lines
If this is really the case (which is still to be confirmed), then they were at least working for their company, making the best use of what they (incorrectly) thought was "available" time.
Keep this in mind, all of you reading slashdot at work !
Re:They were working, after all (Score:5, Funny)
Keep this in mind, all of you reading slashdot at work !
Good point. I really should land this plane sometime soon.
"This is Aero"... (Score:4, Funny)
"It'll come up any minute now..."
Cut 'em some slack... (Score:3, Funny)
The first time I encountered that damned ribbon menu it took me a long time to get anything done, too.
Re:This is a non-event. (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean like unknown to the pilot emergencies that might be communicated to him by a traffic controller, such as change your altitude, you are on a collision course with x-other plane?
A pilot ignoring traffic controllers for over an hour is NOT a non-event.
Just say no to poorly judging risk (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny, then, that the method of travel which you insist is the safest actually results in the most deaths per mile traveled... I am not saying anything about you *personally* but this kind of poor risk judgment is what leads to all kinds of bad decisions. From what type of travel to choose, to what kind of medical treatment to choose, we humans are absolutely TERRIBLE at properly weighing risk. Say what you will about the fallibility of statistics, we all stand to gain if people put a little more stock in sound science as opposed to emotion-driven decision making.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Thank you for demonstrating my point. Even though these people (mass transportation operators) have a far greater responsibility placed on them, they still manage to kill fewer people than self-driven motorists. I am not saying we shouldn't be very vigilant about safety in ALL forms of transportation. But, to say that just because you are taking responsibility for yourself (by driving yourself) or just because you are (slightly) more likely to be the only one killed in the event of an accident, is just a
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Let's say you take a 10 mile trip in your car. Just going based on averages, you are actually more likely to die, per mile traveled on that short trip compared to a longer one, but nevertheless your odds of dying on that trip are 1:7,800,000. Compare that to the odds of dying on a given plane trip, 1:3,500,000. That means you have to take no more than two car trips for every plane trip to make your odds of dying in the air greater to the odds of dying on the ground. Do you live more than 10 miles from y
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In my eyes, this is a good time to start discussing taking the human factor out of flying?
Sure, and just have planes crash when the computer can't handle a situation - eg flight 1549.
Fully automated flying is a _BAD IDEA_ for passenger jets. Yes an autopilot helps with the tedium of long distance level flight. However you need the pilots there for the emergency scenario. And AFAIK, pilots still take off and land manually.
The French have tried