I have seen a couple of those Air Disaster films and it got me thinking. In the event of an airplane accident and assuming the pilots survive, what becomes of the pilots careers. I would assume damage but no injuries or fatalities would be better for their ultimate outcome. If a pilot was responsible for fatalities or injuries would they still be able to fly, if not would it depend on the degree of their negligence.
Question for Commercial pilots
- Thread starter raaizin
- Start date
Really depends on the cause. If the pilot was found to be drinking before the flight, his career is over. If it's a mechanical fault with the plane, he is a hero.
Here is a recent situation where there was a fatality onboard. I have not followed it closely, but the individual who died is unlikely to have been wearing a seatbelt. The crew initially fired up the plane with (what seems to be) pitot covers on. I suspect they did not properly preflight. Then they had multiple CAS messages (crew alerting system) due to their negligence. Subsequently, the crew had trouble dealing with a malfunctioning airplane.
I was on a JetBlue flight where the captain suspended cabin service and announced turbulence reported ahead. 5 or 6 strong requests for everyone to belt up. Yet one lady went flying and broke her arm. A handful of others came up out of their seats. I don't care one bit about the lady who broke her arm, that was her fault. I was annoyed that EMS took 2-3 hours to remove her and others from the plane.
www.cnn.com
I was on a JetBlue flight where the captain suspended cabin service and announced turbulence reported ahead. 5 or 6 strong requests for everyone to belt up. Yet one lady went flying and broke her arm. A handful of others came up out of their seats. I don't care one bit about the lady who broke her arm, that was her fault. I was annoyed that EMS took 2-3 hours to remove her and others from the plane.
Passenger's death on private jet was not caused by turbulence from weather, NTSB says | CNN
Investigators say the violent movements that killed a woman aboard a private jet this month were multiple times the pull of gravity and were not caused by the weather.
www.cnn.com
Last edited:
Confucius say, there are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots.
It depends on the circumstances of the “accident”.
There are several involved parties. The NTSB determines the “cause”. The FAA can suspend a license. The company by which the pilot is employed will choose whether or not the pilot continues that employment. If the pilot belongs to a union at that company, the union will defend the pilot in many cases, should the company seek termination.
All of those parties have a role in the outcomes.
Just remember, the NTSB “proved” that Sully was a failure, and exercised poor judgment, using their simulator.
Sully’s union and company pushed back against that determination.
There are policies and procedures, in every big company for how incidents and accidents are investigated and how pilots are terminated, retrained, or exonerated.
Outside of the US, pilots are often presumed guilty and incarcerated pending official investigation.
There are several involved parties. The NTSB determines the “cause”. The FAA can suspend a license. The company by which the pilot is employed will choose whether or not the pilot continues that employment. If the pilot belongs to a union at that company, the union will defend the pilot in many cases, should the company seek termination.
All of those parties have a role in the outcomes.
Just remember, the NTSB “proved” that Sully was a failure, and exercised poor judgment, using their simulator.
Sully’s union and company pushed back against that determination.
There are policies and procedures, in every big company for how incidents and accidents are investigated and how pilots are terminated, retrained, or exonerated.
Outside of the US, pilots are often presumed guilty and incarcerated pending official investigation.
I did not know this, what are the details?
It’s in his book. They “proved” that he could’ve glided back to La Guardia.
But their test crew knew the event was coming, and turned back to LGA without hesitation, the second the geese took out both motors. It was a preplanned maneuver that they knew was coming. They evaluated options in advance of the event.
Sully argued, correctly, that he didn’t know the event coming, so, it took him a few seconds in real time to evaluate options, by which time, La Guardia was no longer in gliding range.
It wasn’t fair to compare the actions of a crew that had advance warning with a crew that did not.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2021
- Messages
- 900
I did not read his book but I fly the same aircraft and have taken off that same runway many times.
He did the right thing ditching and IMHO, it takes incredible judgment/decisiveness to rule out other tempting options offered and stick with one plan - ditch in the Hudson.
There is no way I would try and come back to La Guardia ( or risk stretching the glide over buildings to Teterboro ) in that exact situation given how short the runways are ( not long enough to risk being high or low ) and the risk of going off the end ( with the landing gear down....not great for landing on water ) OR crashing short into the retaining wall trying to stretch the glide versus a controlled water landing. No way.
Anyone else who thinks he should have tried coming back doesn't have enough real-world flying experience to criticize what he did.
Air Transat was able to glide to a runway BUT it was much longer, and no large buildings were on final.
See how well a Pakistani Airbus did trying to make it back to the airport in 2020 - they died.
Crash: PIA A320 at Karachi on May 22nd 2020, impacted residential area during final approach, both engines failed as result of a gear up touchdown
He did the right thing ditching and IMHO, it takes incredible judgment/decisiveness to rule out other tempting options offered and stick with one plan - ditch in the Hudson.
There is no way I would try and come back to La Guardia ( or risk stretching the glide over buildings to Teterboro ) in that exact situation given how short the runways are ( not long enough to risk being high or low ) and the risk of going off the end ( with the landing gear down....not great for landing on water ) OR crashing short into the retaining wall trying to stretch the glide versus a controlled water landing. No way.
Anyone else who thinks he should have tried coming back doesn't have enough real-world flying experience to criticize what he did.
Air Transat was able to glide to a runway BUT it was much longer, and no large buildings were on final.
See how well a Pakistani Airbus did trying to make it back to the airport in 2020 - they died.
Crash: PIA A320 at Karachi on May 22nd 2020, impacted residential area during final approach, both engines failed as result of a gear up touchdown
Last edited:
JHZR2
Staff member
Sounds like the test crew wasn’t objective, or operating the simulation in the appropriate way. Aren’t these simulation runs validated and accredited to ensure they were done correctly? Doesn’t sound like it if they could foreshadow a random event…
Total armchair commentator question - isn’t there sop in NYC and DC (at minimum) to ditch into the river given local density?
I firmly believe any other course of action would've led to loss of life and many injuries. NTSB is always after a pound of flesh, regardless of the preposterous results of their simulations. He did the best thing, out of the few options he had.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2021
- Messages
- 900
You Sir are 100% correct.
It's hard to wrap your head around just losing trust in two engines and during good weather, daylight with two airports close by but realizing the best option is to ditch.
Amazing what that crew did decision-making-wise.
Calm, decisive, great CRM.
Great leadership and flying.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2021
- Messages
- 900
This one? Or is it another one?
China Airlines Cargo Boeing 747-400F crashes into baggage carts during taxi at Chicago O’Hare Airport
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2021
- Messages
- 900
"evaluating"...he may have thought he wouldn't have enough runway to stop even if he made it back to LGA.
Despite him knowing ( starting the APU, landing with only flap 2 ) the Airbus very well, in the heat of battle, he may have felt he wouldn't have anti-skid available ( increases landing distance significantly and its already short runway, plus no reverse ).
Once you start the APU , and turn on the yellow backup hyd pump, the anti-skid is regained but I only know that from studying his incident.
Airbus today has adopted a few things he did and it's part of our procedures.
Despite him knowing ( starting the APU, landing with only flap 2 ) the Airbus very well, in the heat of battle, he may have felt he wouldn't have anti-skid available ( increases landing distance significantly and its already short runway, plus no reverse ).
Once you start the APU , and turn on the yellow backup hyd pump, the anti-skid is regained but I only know that from studying his incident.
Airbus today has adopted a few things he did and it's part of our procedures.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2021
- Messages
- 900
No information or guidance about that kind of stuff.
JHZR2
Staff member
Which, VV&A of models and simulations (which is a thig), or ditching in the river?
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2021
- Messages
- 900
Ditching.
The only guidance is what Sully did.
Would most airline pilots make the same decision he made back then?
I would hope so because a brief evaluation would rule out doing anything else, safely, in the exact same situation ( Day, good weather, altitude ).
That said, very few would have thought about starting the APU and choosing to land with flap 2 ( we never land with flap 2 …..it’s always 3 or full ).
Higher pitch with less flap and less drag.
JHZR2
Staff member
I’m not qualified to say what most pilots would do. I just thought that I had heard that, maybe after 9/11(?) that there was some sop. I am qualified to request objective evidence on different technical matters that can affect life and death. That’s what I was interested in - the process. If the “test pilots” knew the script and anticipated the action, then it’s not really objective, and I couldn’t accept it for being a realistic evaluation of a technical outcome, when anticipatory, predicative behaviors were exhibited.
But I don’t know the level of rigor that they use (is it the FAA flight center in Atlantic City that does this?) to validate that the scenarios simulated, including the inputs and outcomes were not “biased”.
Not arguing, super interested in how they do it.
