The NW overflight, what REALLY happened
pepp...@att.net
Date: November 24, 2009 4:46:07 PM CST
Subject: Info on NW Flt 188
This was passed along to me and thought you all might find it very
interesting reading considering the press stopped following this story
once these guys lost their licenses. I have flown with Tim a number of
time and can also say he is a great guy. One of my favorite guys to
fly with.
Now for the rest of the story.....
Hi All,
I had a one hour conversation with Tim Cheney yesterday and would like
to shed some light on what happened to cause the over flight of their
destination, MSP.
Before I begin with details, I wanted to say right up front that
although there are many events that helped to cause this, Tim takes
full responsibility and places no blame on anyone but himself. He is
very humbled by what has happened and fully understands that as
captain, he was responsible for the a/c, crew and passengers. That
said, he wanted me to know how it all happened.
Secondly, he has the full support of his neighbors in Gig Harbor, WA,
as well has his church parishioners. One of his neighbors wrote a
letter to the Star & Tribune in Minneapolis saying how great a family
the Cheney's were, I agree.
On their flight from San Diego to Minneapolis, after passing Denver,
the f/a called the cockpit to let them know Tim's crew meal was ready.
Tim was the "flying pilot" on this leg, so he told his F/O that when
the f/a brings the meal up, he will step back to use the restroom.
When Tim returned, the F/A left the cockpit and he began to eat his
crew meal.
When a pilot leaves to use the restroom, it is customary for the other
pilot to brief him on his return on "any changes", such as altitude,
heading, course changes or atc center frequency changes, etc. In this
instance, nothing was said....even though the f/o had received a
frequency change. The problem that occurred was that the f/o never got
a response on the new frequency....it was not the correct
frequency....it was a Winnipeg Canada Center Freq.
Now, Denver Center is trying to get ahold of them because they never
checked in, because the f/o had dialed in the wrong freq......that is
who called them so many times....but, then there was a shift change at
Denver Center and no one briefed the new controller that there was a
NORDO A/C (non communications) in their airspace....so, in actuality,
atc basically "lost" this a/c.....see Wall Street Journal article
below.
Tim told me he heard atc chatter on the speaker and so never thought
they were out of radio range.....but, of course, they were hearing
pilots talk on Winnipeg Center. For non-pilots.....when we don’t hear
anything for a long while...we ask atc if they are still
there....sometimes they are and sometimes you are out of their area
and need to find a new frequency. With this chatter going on, there
was no concern that they were not being controlled.
Then Tim told the f/o that the new bidding system was horrible and
that his November schedule was not what he hoped for. He mentioned
that his son was going into the Army in Dec. and he wanted certain
days off so he could see him off.....the f/o said he could help him,
he knew more about the new bidding system. Tim got his lap top out and
put it on his left leg and showed the f/o how he bid.. He told me he
had his lap top out for maybe 2 minutes. Then the f/o said that he
would show him how to do it on his laptop. He had his laptop out
maximum of 5 minutes.
Let's also add the 100 kt tail wind that they had to the discussion,
not helping matters.
The f/a's called the cockpit on the interphone (no they did not kick
the door, no, no one was sleeping, no, no one was fighting) and asked
when they will get there. They looked at their nav screens and were
directly over MSP. Because they had their screens set on the max, 320
kt setting, when the f/o called on the frequency, which of course was
Winnipeg Center, he saw Eau Claire and Duluth on his screen. They
asked where they were and the f/o told them over Eau Claire, which was
not even close, but MSP had disappeared from the screen even though
they were right over the city.
They were, as you all know, vectored all over the sky to determine if
they had control of the a/c and Tim kept telling the f/o to tell them
they have control they want to land at MSP, etc. They landed with
11,000 pounds of fuel (no they did not come in on fumes, but had 2
hours in an A320) and not but 15 minutes past schedule, even though
they left San Diego 35 minutes late due to an atc flow restriction.
In the jet-way awaiting them were FBI and every other authority you
can imagine.
Aftermath and tidbits:
Although these pilots filed an NASAP Report, which was designed to
have pilots tell the truth about events, so the FAA could learn from
them, they had their licenses revoked by the ATL F.A.A. even before
they came out of their meeting with NTSB and NASAP meetings.
ATL FAA is really big on this new regulation which will allow pilots
to take a short nap in flight so they will be rested for the
approach...they were insistent that they were sleeping.
MSP FAA, Vance (do not know last name) was the person who handed Tim
his revocation letter(which was leaked to the entire world by the ATL
FAA). Tim said Vance had tears in his eyes and walked away, said
nothing. It was later learned that the entire MSP FAA office did not
agree at all with revoking their pilot's licenses, but had no
jurisdiction over the matter, since ATL FAA had control because of
Delta.
The pilots have been to Wash. D.C., ATL and MSP for several meetings.
In ATL, they met with the chief pilots and Tim said they could not
have been nicer. They are working to resolve this, not to try and fire
them. But of course, they will have to get their license back for
Delta to consider allowing them to continue flying. The appeal has
been files for the FAA to reinstate their licenses or to settle on
some form of punishment, etc.
When Tim and his wife were in MSP for a meeting with the NTSB, they
happen to be staying at the same hotel as the NTSB was. The next
morning in the lobby, the NTSB official came over to Tim and said he
did not know why they even called them in for this event. There was no
safety issue. Also, MSP Center informed Delta that there never was a
problem and no aircraft were near their plane. Even though no radio
communications, they had been followed and separated.
Yes, the company tried to contact them on ACARS, but the 320 does not
have a chime...it has a 30 second light which then extinguishes.
Tim always has 121.5 tuned, but as we all know as pilots, it can get
very noisy at times and we turn it down and sometimes forget to turn
it back on. He told me this may have been the case..
So there were so many factors which helped to cause this episode.
Anyone would have likely prevented it.....properly checking in on the
new frequency would have been the first one.....
A note about laptops.....in NWA's A.O.M (I think it stands for
airman's operation manual), it does not say we can't use a laptop,
however in Delta's A.O.M., it does, we are transitioning now and we
actually have pages from both airlines. When our union showed this to
the attorney's, they could not believe the confusion put on our pilot
group. But, D.C. F.A.A. put out a new possible ruling which will
disallow all laptops......so stupid, don't they know Jet Blue has
laptops on every aircraft and soon all airliners will for the
electronic Jepp charts.
These are the facts and again, Tim said he feels very bad for the
company and the pilots and is hoping for a positive outcome on their
appeal. With 24 years at NWA, 21,000 blemish free hours, it would be a
mistake to ruin his career over this in my opinion.
Thank you,
F.A.A. Fails to brief new controller on duty (WSJ Article)
FlyingStarts
on this case. Not for brags but context, I'm an 8KHr CFIIMEIG and
like most of us I'm embarrassed to miss a call or flub a handoff/
checking in. Like many aviators I've also had an adversarial
encounter with FAA inspectors intent on collecting scalps for
transgressors, and like many Americans I am dismayed at the fascistic-
esque/politicization (on the part of regulators throughout government)
and apathy (on the part of "terrorized" citizenry) in our nation.
Regardless, I did not buy the stories reported in the media, and had
leapt to the same conclusion as some in high FAA/political places may
have- that the Cpt and FO had both fallen asleep.
Now, I think that legal counsel has done these pilots a disservice.
When a case (or an entire transportation sector) becomes this
politically-charged, there is a political job to do in addition to
legal protection for the clients. We are an increasingly judgmental
and impressionable society, and our regulatory and judicial systems
are at the mercy of strong collective emotions, often hasty and
irrational. I'm not immune to these failings myself, although I try
to be.
Thank you very much for opening my eyes to the aspects of this sad
episode that I had not sufficiently considered. I had come to assume
(without reliable evidence) that people are lying in order to bury
controversy/panic over flight crew fatigue regulation. You have
caused be to consider that we are instead experiencing deep societal
ignorance and rashness, akin to book-burnings and inquisitions of sick
societies past: We are (as a society) becoming over-sensitized to
collectively-perceived and media-enhanced risks such as terrorism,
liability, personal accountability, and the role of government. They
don't call it the Holy Spanish Inquisition (just career-wrecking in
the "interest" of "public safety") we're not burning books (just
becoming hopelessly confused about portable devices, EFBs, etc.) and
our government isn't openly messing up citizens' lives in order to
intimidate us all (right?).
Unless I pay careful attention, and stand up with and for my fellow
Americans under the onslaught of authoritarianism, I'm a part of the
problem, and not it's solution.
Thanks for a very eye-opening post. I have some retractions to make
now, for casual, cynical remarks I've made to various people, about
hasty assumptions. I'm now ashamed to have doubted these fellow
aviators. But I do wish that their lawyers had been more sensitive to
the importance of communicating to the public in a credible way at the
outset of another high-profile national witch-hunt. You've provided
me much food for thought, Peppo.
And my compliments on this Group in general (first post here) Blue
skies, and not so much tailwind, should you ever (who me?) get behind
the airplane again.
-Rob
Private
"FlyingStarts" <flying...@stny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:28e327bb-4855-4f82...@o19g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...
Excellent response, and for a welcome change, perceptive and well spoken.
Nicely done.
Welcome to a much reduced group of long time regulars who are now mostly
lurkers. I can only offer you a small warning to use caution and 'don't
feed the trolls'.
Happy landings,
Mxsmanic
one of a great many possible factors had been different, those pilots and
everyone on board their aircraft would be dead. Sorry, but they don't deserve
any slack at all. It's time for a change of career--something in which
flipping to the wrong frequency or chatting over laptops for an hour won't put
lives at risk.
Jeffrey Bloss
If only I could work out what you're saying.
--
_?_ Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend.
(@ @) Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.
-oOO-(_)--OOo-------------------------------[ Groucho Marx ]--
grok! Devoted Microsoft User
Mxsmanic
> If only I could work out what you're saying.
I'm saying they got what they deserved, and are in no position to complain.
I'm just wondering if those pilots who landed on a taxiway had their licenses
revoked, too, since they also deserved to be grounded.
Mike Ash
Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
Please elaborate. Offhand, I can't think of any change which would have
killed people here. Resulted in an emergency landing somewhere other
than their intended destination, perhaps, but no deaths. According to
this story, the pilots were awake and aware, and would have eventually
started wondering where they were and why ATC hadn't talked to them yet.
They would have been able to quickly figure out their actual location,
and start talking to the appropriate people once they did. They would
have then been directed to an airport in that area that could handle
their plane. A worse outcome, certainly, but I don't see any risk to
life here.
--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon
Jeffrey Bloss
> Jeffrey Bloss writes:
>
>> If only I could work out what you're saying.
>
> I'm saying they got what they deserved, and are in no position to
> complain.
That's a cheap conclusion if you don't provide supporting evidence.
Tsu Dho Nym
> Mike, you're responding to the Mx-Bloss troll,
> it makes you look like an ass. Stop.
Nice try, forger.
Trying to get Mark into a spin?
Fuck off.
Mxsmanic
> That's a cheap conclusion if you don't provide supporting evidence.
The FAA provides a wealth of evidence in the letters that revoke their
licenses.
Mxsmanic
> Please elaborate. Offhand, I can't think of any change which would have
> killed people here.
Fuel exhaustion, weather, system failures (pressurization, engines, you name
it), and so on.
If you want to fly on airplanes with pilots who are asleep at the switch,
that's your choice, but I don't.
> According to this story, the pilots were awake and aware, and would
> have eventually started wondering where they were and why ATC hadn't
> talked to them yet.
When is "eventually"? They were awake, but completely unaware. Had the FA
not asked them when they would be landing, how much longer would it have taken
them to figure out that there was a problem? They spent more than an hour
goofing off without noticing anything.
> They would have been able to quickly figure out their actual location,
> and start talking to the appropriate people once they did. They would
> have then been directed to an airport in that area that could handle
> their plane. A worse outcome, certainly, but I don't see any risk to
> life here.
Well, in a couple of years, they can get their PPLs again, and then you can
fly with them. They don't belong in an airline cockpit.
Bug Dout
around it.
If events occured as described here, why then did they not state the
facts immediately and lie that they had slept? And then later change
their story about being completely engrossed in their laptops.
I simply don't believe that "the NTSB official came over to Tim and said he
did not know why they even called them in for this event. There was no
safety issue." Oh, please. Sure as hell there was a safety issue, when
an airliner overflies its destination and is out of communication for
that long.
The Captain and F.O. were careless and sloppy. Period. They got a good
deal by merely having their licenses revoked. I don't think they should
be banned for life, but having to re-do all the training again from
ab-initio is perfectly fair for what they did to their passengers,
flight attendants, their fellow professional pilots, and the national
air control system.
--
Turn over the pages of history and read the damning record of the
church's opposition to every advance in every field of science.
~ Upton Sinclair
Mike Ash
Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mike Ash writes:
>
> > Please elaborate. Offhand, I can't think of any change which would have
> > killed people here.
>
> Fuel exhaustion, weather, system failures (pressurization, engines, you name
> it), and so on.
>
> If you want to fly on airplanes with pilots who are asleep at the switch,
> that's your choice, but I don't.
Should have known better than to talk to you. Did I ever say I wanted to
fly on airplanes with pilots who are asleep at the switch? No, I did not.
Do not put words in my mouth.
If you feel like addressing what I actually say rather than making shit
up, let me know.
Mxsmanic
> Should have known better than to talk to you. Did I ever say I wanted to
> fly on airplanes with pilots who are asleep at the switch? No, I did not.
You imply that there actions put no one in any real danger, therefore there is
no reason why you wouldn't want them as your pilots, since there's nothing
that they've done that would put you in any real danger if they did it again.
Either you have a problem with the way they conducted themselves, or you
don't. If you do, then logically you wouldn't want to fly with them. If you
don't, then logically you wouldn't mind flying with them.
I have a problem with their conduct, and so I would not want to have them
piloting any aircraft on which I might be a passenger.
Mxsmanic
> The Captain and F.O. were careless and sloppy. Period. They got a good
> deal by merely having their licenses revoked. I don't think they should
> be banned for life, but having to re-do all the training again from
> ab-initio is perfectly fair for what they did to their passengers,
> flight attendants, their fellow professional pilots, and the national
> air control system.
Agreed.
Morgans
part of the problem.
--
Jim in NC
Tim Blite
> In article <8g83j5ttur22qqjbc...@4ax.com>,
> Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Mike Ash writes:
>>
>>> Please elaborate. Offhand, I can't think of any change which would have
>>> killed people here.
>>
>> Fuel exhaustion, weather, system failures (pressurization, engines, you name
>> it), and so on.
>>
>> If you want to fly on airplanes with pilots who are asleep at the switch,
>> that's your choice, but I don't.
>
> Should have known better than to talk to you.
So much for having brains, GliderBoi.
--
http://www.tronguy.net (Yeppers, that's me!!)
http://current.com/items/88931310_tron_guy
Gezellig
> Subject: NWA overflight
<snipped complete set of Bullshit>
Of course I snip your nonsense. Just because you've wandered into a
quagmire of inanities, irrelevances, and stupidities doesn't mean I have
to follow you in.
Jim Logajan
> If events occured as described here, why then did they not state the
> facts immediately and lie that they had slept?
What report said they claimed they had slept? All the news reports I saw
claimed the pilots said they weren't asleep at any time during the flight.
So the above appears to be at complete variance with the reports I've seen
- perhaps you have a different incident in mind?
> And then later change
> their story about being completely engrossed in their laptops.
>
> I simply don't believe that "the NTSB official came over to Tim and
> said he did not know why they even called them in for this event.
> There was no safety issue." Oh, please. Sure as hell there was a
> safety issue, when an airliner overflies its destination and is out of
> communication for that long.
Actually the posting explicitly claims they didn't actually overfly their
destination - they at first thought they had. Radar records would indicate
whether this was true.
They may have flown past the fix they were last cleared to, but news
reports claimed they flew past their final destination.
> The Captain and F.O. were careless and sloppy. Period. They got a
> good deal by merely having their licenses revoked. I don't think they
> should be banned for life, but having to re-do all the training again
> from ab-initio is perfectly fair for what they did to their
> passengers, flight attendants, their fellow professional pilots, and
> the national air control system.
And Ming the Merciless would simply execute their trainers:
Jim Logajan
> When a pilot leaves to use the restroom, it is customary for the other
> pilot to brief him on his return on "any changes", such as altitude,
> heading, course changes or atc center frequency changes, etc. In this
> instance, nothing was said....even though the f/o had received a
> frequency change. The problem that occurred was that the f/o never got
> a response on the new frequency....it was not the correct
> frequency....it was a Winnipeg Canada Center Freq.
It really sounds like the F/O screwed up at this point, for reasons that
aren't given. If I understand the regs correctly, he was technically PIC
when this pivotal error in procedure happened.
> Then Tim told the f/o that the new bidding system was horrible and
> that his November schedule was not what he hoped for. He mentioned
> that his son was going into the Army in Dec. and he wanted certain
> days off so he could see him off.....the f/o said he could help him,
> he knew more about the new bidding system. Tim got his lap top out and
> put it on his left leg and showed the f/o how he bid.. He told me he
> had his lap top out for maybe 2 minutes. Then the f/o said that he
> would show him how to do it on his laptop. He had his laptop out
> maximum of 5 minutes.
>
> Let's also add the 100 kt tail wind that they had to the discussion,
> not helping matters.
It really sounds like the captain screwed up at this point, for reasons
that are given. Sounds like a classic case of loss of situational
awareness. I don't see how tail wind should matter if navigation is being
attended to periodically.
> The f/a's called the cockpit on the interphone (no they did not kick
> the door, no, no one was sleeping, no, no one was fighting) and asked
> when they will get there. They looked at their nav screens and were
> directly over MSP. Because they had their screens set on the max, 320
> kt setting, when the f/o called on the frequency, which of course was
> Winnipeg Center, he saw Eau Claire and Duluth on his screen. They
> asked where they were and the f/o told them over Eau Claire, which was
> not even close, but MSP had disappeared from the screen even though
> they were right over the city.
So they didn't fly past their destination (much?) - but did they fly past
their clearance limit? I presume they should have alert and prepared for
the expected handoff from center to approach well before arriving over
MSP in any case.
> ATL FAA is really big on this new regulation which will allow pilots
> to take a short nap in flight so they will be rested for the
> approach...they were insistent that they were sleeping.
Not sure I follow - ATL FAA was insistent they were sleeping?
> When Tim and his wife were in MSP for a meeting with the NTSB, they
> happen to be staying at the same hotel as the NTSB was. The next
> morning in the lobby, the NTSB official came over to Tim and said he
> did not know why they even called them in for this event. There was no
> safety issue. Also, MSP Center informed Delta that there never was a
> problem and no aircraft were near their plane. Even though no radio
> communications, they had been followed and separated.
Put bluntly, if comm failure to _one_ aircraft were considered an
immediate safety issue to any other aircraft, then the whole point of ATC
would seem to be a big joke.
Mxsmanic
> Actually the posting explicitly claims they didn't actually overfly their
> destination - they at first thought they had. Radar records would indicate
> whether this was true.
Here you go:
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/NWA188/history/20091021/2135Z/KSAN/KMSP
Samuel Luter
> Nothing here for me either.
> Further posts bearing my name are Jeffrey Bloss forgeries.
> He's also Gieselle.
> And a loser for life.
> ==
> Mark
>
He is a lost loser. Neat and tidy
Josh
wrote:
Which makes the whole posting suspect; while a nice tale that attempts
to minimize the pilot's errors, I suspect it's just some creative
fiction; I doubt it was actually by someone "in the know"
Josh
benf...@aol.com
Morgans
<benf...@aol.com> wrote
Hey Jim..... Merry Christmas sir......
And to you, Ben.
It so happens that this Christmas I get to spend most of my time in bed.
Seems as though I decided to get a case of Pneumonia, a couple days ago. I
get out of breath, just standing up long enough to take a shower to blow the
stink off. That's tough for me to get used to, but I'll adapt until I get
better, I guess.
You do what you can to get some air time for me, and keep that pretty blue
and orange bird in the sky, OK?
So until we meet again, Merry Christmas from North Carolina!
--
Jim in NC
Jim Logajan
Thanks. According to the detailed tracklog,
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/NWA188/history/20091021/2135Z/KSAN/KMSP/tracklog
they were almost directly overhead MSP at 9:04 PM traveling ~604 MPH. The
tracklog shows a turnaround begin at 9:14 PM. If they did start checking their
location at around 9:04 to 9:06, then it seems likely they would have spent a
couple minutes first verifying their wayward location and then a few more
realizing and then correcting the frequency setting problem. Though
8 to 10 minutes to resolve those problem seems a tad on the long side,
though not improbable. So the e-mail's claim about when they became aware of
their lax navigation could indeed be true, just not verifiable or exculpatory
even if true.
Looks like the FAA has placed time-stamped transcripts and audio files here
that indicate they made contact with Minneapolis center at about 9:14:
http://www.faa.gov/data_research/accident_incident/2009-10-23/
Gene Seibel
> Subject: NWA overflight
>
> So there were so many factors which helped to cause this episode.
> Anyone would have likely prevented it.....properly checking in on the
> new frequency would have been the first one.....
>
Missing radio calls or even multiple radio calls is one thing. Missing
Minneapolis is another. Pilots MUST remain aware of where they are.
--
Gene Seibel
Tales of flight - http://pad39a.com/gene/tales.html
Because we fly, we envy no one.
Ron Garret
<a4c65129-cab9-4a57...@27g2000yqr.googlegroups.com>,
Gene Seibel <ge...@pad39a.com> wrote:
> On Dec 20, 5:07 pm, peppo...@att.net wrote:
> > Subject: NWA overflight
> >
> > So there were so many factors which helped to cause this episode.
> > Anyone would have likely prevented it.....properly checking in on the
> > new frequency would have been the first one.....
> >
>
> Missing radio calls or even multiple radio calls is one thing. Missing
> Minneapolis is another. Pilots MUST remain aware of where they are.
Yes, that is the only thing that matters here. They lost situational
awareness under completely benign conditions. That this did not result
in a catastrophe was pure luck. That other people screwed up as well is
irrelevant -- they were the pilots. If a pilot can't keep track of
where his plane is he has no business flying, let alone carrying
passengers for hire.
rg
Jeffrey Bloss
Which of those letters support your contention?
Jeffrey Bloss
> Mike Ash writes:
>
>> Should have known better than to talk to you. Did I ever say I
>> wanted to fly on airplanes with pilots who are asleep at the
>> switch? No, I did not.
>
> You imply that there actions put no one in any real danger,
Those 12 words are correct.
> therefore there is no reason why you wouldn't want them as your
> pilots,
Your logic just broke down. You put words into Mike's mouth.
> since there's nothing that they've done that would put you
> in any real danger if they did it again.
You're using mistaken logic and saying it's what Mike thinks.
> Either you have a problem with the way they conducted themselves,
> or you don't.
You're asking Mike to take one of two extreme positions. They are
oversimplistic.
> If you do, then logically you wouldn't want to fly
> with them. If you don't, then logically you wouldn't mind flying
> with them.
>
> I have a problem with their conduct, and so I would not want to
> have them piloting any aircraft on which I might be a passenger.
Another correct statement. Unrelated to Mike.
Bug Dout
> I'm just wondering if those pilots who landed on a taxiway had their licenses
> revoked, too, since they also deserved to be grounded.
Not sure that merely landing on a taxiway is cause for license
revocation. That would be a single momentary mistake; the NW pilots made
a series of careless mistakes over an hour or more.
BTW, what about landing at the wrong airport? Some airliner did that
many years ago, confusing then-Moffet Naval Airstation in the south Bay
Area for the intended San Jose Municipal (back then it was Muni, not
Intl.) Don't know what happened to them.
I saw a bizjet land at the wrong airport a few years ago. A 3-engined
FalconJet landed at my home airport (KEDU) by mistake instead of its
intended KDWA (No. Calif). Runways: KEDU 3176 x 50 ft; KDWA 6000 x 100
ft. This was mid-morning, full sunshine. It was kinda funny for us on
the ground, we all heard the roar of the approaching jet, couldn't
believe it was going to land, and as soon as the mains touched the PIC
kicked in reverse thrust, full power. Somehow he made the turn onto the
end taxiway and parked, found out he was at the wrong place. Even
stranger to watch him take off, we don't get many jets here :). We joked
he wasn't going to log that airport.
Mxsmanic
> Not sure that merely landing on a taxiway is cause for license
> revocation.
It was an active taxiway. Had there been an aircraft on that taxiway, it would
have been Tenerife all over again, with hundreds dead. That's excellent cause
for revocation of a license.
> BTW, what about landing at the wrong airport? Some airliner did that
> many years ago, confusing then-Moffet Naval Airstation in the south Bay
> Area for the intended San Jose Municipal (back then it was Muni, not
> Intl.) Don't know what happened to them.
I haven't heard of that case, but in a case where Northwest landed in the
wrong country (as I recall), the navigator was fired, and I'm not sure about
the others or about their licenses. Landing at the wrong airport isn't as
dangerous as missing the airport by 150 nm or landing on a taxiway, though.
Still, it's a serious mistake for an airline pilot and could easily justify
certificate action.
> I saw a bizjet land at the wrong airport a few years ago. A 3-engined
> FalconJet landed at my home airport (KEDU) by mistake instead of its
> intended KDWA (No. Calif). Runways: KEDU 3176 x 50 ft; KDWA 6000 x 100
> ft. This was mid-morning, full sunshine. It was kinda funny for us on
> the ground, we all heard the roar of the approaching jet, couldn't
> believe it was going to land, and as soon as the mains touched the PIC
> kicked in reverse thrust, full power. Somehow he made the turn onto the
> end taxiway and parked, found out he was at the wrong place. Even
> stranger to watch him take off, we don't get many jets here :). We joked
> he wasn't going to log that airport.
Was he IFR or VFR?
Tiger Would
> Bug Dout writes:
>
>> Not sure that merely landing on a taxiway is cause for license
>> revocation.
>
> It was an active taxiway. Had there been an aircraft on that taxiway, it would
> have been Tenerife all over again, with hundreds dead. That's excellent cause
> for revocation of a license.
STFU
--
tiger
D Ramapriya
> Mxsmanic <mxsma...@gmail.com> writes:
> > I'm just wondering if those pilots who landed on a taxiway had their licenses
> > revoked, too, since they also deserved to be grounded.
>
> Not sure that merely landing on a taxiway is cause for license revocation.
Eh? You could easily miss a helpless aircraft and/or other vehicles,
aside of the likelihood of the taxiway not being long enough to
prevent an overrun.
If that ain't cause for license revocation, an arrest is the least
severe censure.
> That would be a single momentary mistake; the NW pilots made
> a series of careless mistakes over an hour or more.
Having missed the scheduled TOD by as much as half an hour and then
too realizing that something might be amiss only by accident seems way
odd for two aviators with that much flying experience between them.
The other oddity is the meal comment. A meal at 5.30 pm?? And I'm sure
pilots would need to be not eating pre-TOD because the PF needs to
conduct an approach briefing, among other things.
> I saw a bizjet land at the wrong airport a few years ago.
Although this isn't uncommon, in this day and age, landing at the
wrong airport is utterly unpardonable. I recall that 5 years ago an
Airbus A319 landed thus near Rapid City. Unless they'd keyed in the
wrong airport data into the FMC and/or violated the SOP by hand-flying
during phases when they shouldn't have been, it beggars belief that an
FBW a/c could've managed that!
Ramapriya
Richard
> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 15:07:43 -0800 (PST), peppo...@att.net wrote:
> > Subject: NWA overflight
>
> <snipped complete set of Bullshit>
>
> Of course I snip your nonsense. Just because you've wandered into a
> quagmire of inanities, irrelevances, and stupidities doesn't mean I have
> to follow you in.
That would make a great sig! THANK YOU!
Gezellig
bow
-b-
rNOS...@flownet.com says...
>Yes, that is the only thing that matters here. They lost situational
>awareness under completely benign conditions. That this did not result
>in a catastrophe was pure luck. That other people screwed up as well is
>irrelevant -- they were the pilots. If a pilot can't keep track of
>where his plane is he has no business flying, let alone carrying
>passengers for hire.
>
>rg
To me, that rhetoric falls flat. I am an instrument rated PPL (like many
here, yet unlike some of the most vociferous) and from what we know of the
event I believe it is hyperbole at best to state "That this did not result
in a catastrophe was pure luck." I believe we are very far from a
catastrophic scenario, and that lives were never in danger here. (Yes, I
would fly with them). I find it perfectly appropriate that they should be
terminated by the airline, because they denigrated the image of the
company and affected some peoples' confidence in them, but certificate
action beyond a short suspension seems harsh to me.
Isn't there a "Fear of Flying" newsgroup? Some contributers here might
feel more at home over there...
Mark
> To me, that rhetoric falls flat. I am an instrument rated PPL (like many
> here, yet unlike some of the most vociferous)
You talking to me, boyo? If so, you need to know that a
good meal for me is grilled rattler with beans, and a
big cold glass of cougar milk. Cactus thorn for a
tooth pick. Get it?
--
Mark inventor/artist/pilot/guitarist/scientist/philosopher/
scratch golfer/cat wrangler and observer of the mundane.
And much much more including wealthy beyond anything you can imagine.
My website http://www.hosanna1.com/
-b-
responding to someone else, your own existance having escaped my scrutiny
heretofore. This misgiving corrected through your efforts, I must confess it
changes little in the analysis, but I would hasten to add that help IS
available. With therapy you can overcome your fear and fly again, like other
people.
In article <4b4b9710$1...@news.x-privat.org>, blueri...@yahoo.com says...
Mark
> Well, I'm truly sorry to deflate your prentention, but in fact I was
> responding to someone else, your own existance having escaped my scrutiny
> heretofore. This misgiving corrected through your efforts, I must confess it
> changes little in the analysis, but I would hasten to add that help IS
> available. With therapy you can overcome your fear and fly again, like other
> people.
Now as I bid you ado for the day, my advice is to
live in the moment, and find yourself. You might
even want to go look for America.