Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett)
Subject: They don't do this in Mother Russia, that's for sure.
Date: 17 Jun 94 23:59:09

From the May 1994 _Air Line Pilot_, p. 7:


    NTSB Order EA-3616/3673

    A widebody captain's certificate was revoked because he left the flight
    deck enroute for a period of approximately 30 seconds without ensuring
    that a qualified pilot was at a pilot duty station.  At the time, the
    first officer was on a relief period, and the relief first officer (RFO)
    was standing just outside the cockpit door.  The captain did not
    specifically order the RFO to take a pilot seat.

    NTSB upheld the revocation.

    The Board noted that the RFO "appears to have succeeded, by deliberately
    refraining from entering the cockpit after the [captain] left, in having
    the [captain] fired...  after a 25-year violation-free career."

    FAA appealed the NTSB decision on the grounds that the observation
    concerning the RFO was inappropriate and should be expunged.  NTSB
    stated that its comment was supported by the evidence and was relevant
    to understanding the incident and would remain.  The captain's
    certificate was nonetheless revoked.

YIKES!


--
Robert Dorsett
rdd@netcom.com

Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett)
Subject: Re: ATR Revocation
Date: 06 Jul 94 00:52:20

In article <airliners.1994.1407@ohare.Chicago.COM> W. T. McCandless
<wayne@heman.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:

>Wait a minute.  So what are you saying, that it's acceptable for the
>captain to leave the aircraft with no one at the controls for even the
>short interval that it would take for the RFO to take the controls?

Well, yes, actually, I think that departing the airplane would be a very bad
thing, even if a temporary absence.  But in this case, it would appear he only
stepped outside the cockpit for a minute. :-)

But wait a minute.  So what are you saying, that it's acceptable to destroy a
pilot's career for a single indiscretion which did *not*, in fact, pose a
threat to safety?

To ignore the circumstances, and instead make the pilot an "example" so no
others will follow?

Suspension, yes, fines, yes, revocation, no.  Extreme and uncalled for.  It's
an "enforcer" mindset.





--
Robert Dorsett
rdd@netcom.com

Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett)
Subject: Re: ATR Revocation
Date: 07 Jul 94 00:13:06

In article <airliners.1994.1421@ohare.Chicago.COM> nduehr@netcom.com
(Nathan N. Duehr) writes:

>: pilot's career for a single indiscretion which did *not*, in fact, pose a
>: threat to safety?
>
>This may seem extreme to you, but the passengers in the back have *paid
>for* a flight crew that is doing the job 100% of the time.  Yes,
>overwater flights must be booring, but in reality there had better always
>be something to do in a cockpit.  Hell, if you're bored, turn off the
>autopilot and find out how rusty you are at hand-flying the tub.

If you knew anything about airliner operations, you would realize how extreme
this (and the Russian) incidents were.  The regulations (FAR 121.333) require
that whenever a pilot is absent from his station, the remaining pilot must
be at his, AND on oxygen.  In this case, we have a pilot who is both absent,
and a crew who isn't there.

Now, the ramifications of your ah, "management philosophy" aside,
there are two things which strike me:

1.  That it happened.  This suggests a problem at the airline/training level,
and, likely, a widespread and cavalier attitude towards the rule.  This shit
happens.  Just look at the appalling transcripts of the Delta 727 crash at
Dallas a few years ago.

2.  The NTSB comments about the provocative behavior of the first officer.
Which leads to the suggestion that it may have been a set-up.

Nothing about this case mandates revocation, IMHO.  Like I said, suspension
and rehabilitation are more appropriate, especially since the captain's
career was spotless.  So, in effect, the individual's actions are being judged
as irrelevant, and the captain is being made an *example*, and, essentially,
it's an enforcement and a warning to all other pilots.

I find this approach reprehensible.  We're talking about professionals, and
there are proven, better techniques to approach such problems--education
and training being paramount.

When one throws in the questionable behavior of the first officer, the
decision is, simply incomprehensible.


>The recent stories of the Airbus crash in Russia where the young boy may
>have been at the controls instead of a qualified pilot should be enough
>to refute your claims that pilot's leaving their seats without someone
>else who is qualified at the controls is not a safety problem.

No, actually it doesn't come close to refuting my argument, particularly
inasmuch as I'm not defending the pilots--only their right to a just
disciplinary action.

I do stand aghast, however, at the cavalier attitude by which others can
trivially dismiss the life experiences of people they don't even know.
This guy was probably a representative of a problem.  There's no reason to
suggest he couldn't have been rehabilitated, and no reason to suggest
that he couldn't have gone on to complete a successful career.




Regards,


--
Robert Dorsett
rdd@netcom.com