Two AA planes just "kissed" at DFW
- Thread starter GON
- Start date
DFW is AA's primary base.
Maybe. If they were negligent. Or under the influence.
Otherwise, we tend to focus on root cause, so that future accidents can be avoided, rather than retribution, which causes people to try and hide the facts.
Safety improvement requires an open and just culture, not a punitive one. Willful negligence is unforgivable, but genuine mistakes are analyzed and process and training adjusted to improve overall safety. No retribution.
Who is at fault depends on who was moving the airplane. Pilot taxiing in? Pilot’s fault. Tug pushing the airplane back? Tug driver’s fault.
I messed this up, mods please remove
in addition the union would launch a grievance procedure. There are legally binding clauses in the contract, causing one of these is very expensive for the company and no plant manager who expect to remain employed would do this more than once. It can not be laughed off.
Rod
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2021
- Messages
- 891
Airbus MEL says plane can be dispatched with LOWER part of “wing fence” missing as long as performance penalties are applied.
Last edited:
You left out that the same guy also would fix leaking pipes with duct tape ...i get a picture of homer Simpson inside the containment room throwing a few wraps on a leaky primary coolant line. ...he has no hair for a reason lol
Sounds like between saving some money, and getting the plane on the ground, someone chose poorly.
The coverup is always worse than the deed.
He was doing carrier qualifications. ATC from both the carrier and civilian were telling him he should land at NAS North Field. His commanders were more concerned with him getting to his home base where they could get him in another plane to continue his training.
A decade later, a San Diego neighborhood is still reeling from a tragic plane crash
The postman had just delivered a Korean-language newspaper to 4416 Cather Ave. when he saw a plane plunging toward him.
www.sandiegouniontribune.com
ATC had nothing to do with the decision. They never do. In an emergency, ATC should offer options. The pilot in command is the final authority. ATC, correctly, pointed out that the nearest field was NAS North Island.He was doing carrier qualifications. ATC from both the carrier and civilian were telling him he should land at NAS North Field. His commanders were more concerned with him getting to his home base where they could get him in another plane to continue his training.
A decade later, a San Diego neighborhood is still reeling from a tragic plane crash
The postman had just delivered a Korean-language newspaper to 4416 Cather Ave. when he saw a plane plunging toward him.
ATC controllers who give direction during an emergency are, and should absolutely be, met with, “unable”. Chicago TRACON once tried to give me a vector “around traffic” when I had emergency. We were heading direct for NAS Glenview, IL. Sure, his airspace was busy. But we were the emergency aircraft. We were going directly to where we needed to go, in my judgement.
We were squawking 7700, and had verbally declared an emergency. There was no ambiguity. My RIO, bless his soul, replied, “is there something about our 7700 squawk you don’t understand?”.
Chicago mumbled something about, “continue on course”...yeah...as if I needed his permission.
The confusion might stem from the use of frequencies, and the inaccuracy of reporting. I’ve yet to see a journalist get close to accurately describing any aviation story. This story, as published, is sort of right. Sort of.
In the Carrier Air Traffic Control Center, CATCC, for night ops, or in the Tower, Pri-fly, during the day, there are senior officers, aviators, from the squadron doing qualifications.
While ATC frequencies are in use, it was those senior officers who directed this F/A-18 to overfly NAS North Island. Likely over squadron radio frequency once he was clear of the carrier.
That was part of the problem: new aviator, junior in rank, being pressured by senior officers to take a course of action. Ultimately, the pilot in command is final authority for the airplane, but this youngster understandably succumbed to the pressure of rank and authority. It’s a grey area when a senior officer on the ground pressures a junior one in the air. The words, “You just bought the airplane” have been used by JO crews being told to do something that they were against. It’s a bit sarcastic, and a reminder that the senior officer just assumed full responsibility.
The dismissal of several senior officers in this incident rests the blame where it properly belonged.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2021
- Messages
- 891
I have never had , or heard on the radio, ATC tell a pilot what to do ( other than with normal ATC separation or trying to radar vector a tight approach ) when they are having a technical or fuel problem with a plane. I also have never had/heard any stories ( except the story in this thread ) of someone on the ground trying to tell a pilot where to land their airplane.
Anyone in civilian flight ops who did that would be charged and face a lawsuit ( fatalities ) and could end up in jail.
Suggestions, advice or recommendations is what you will hear ( ATC, dispatch or maintenance on a radio patch or ACARS ).
The Closest I see ATC trying to tell you what to do is in normal flying ( busy airspace ....airports ). They might try and radar vector you in too tight which could cause an unstable approach that the Captain will have to answer for later ( many airlines monitor how their crews fly their planes ). It’s up to the Captain to refuse and report the incident in a report if ATC persists. A good airline flight ops department will follow up with that ATC unit.
Pilots get paid To say “no” when required.
Anyone in civilian flight ops who did that would be charged and face a lawsuit ( fatalities ) and could end up in jail.
Suggestions, advice or recommendations is what you will hear ( ATC, dispatch or maintenance on a radio patch or ACARS ).
The Closest I see ATC trying to tell you what to do is in normal flying ( busy airspace ....airports ). They might try and radar vector you in too tight which could cause an unstable approach that the Captain will have to answer for later ( many airlines monitor how their crews fly their planes ). It’s up to the Captain to refuse and report the incident in a report if ATC persists. A good airline flight ops department will follow up with that ATC unit.
Pilots get paid To say “no” when required.
I like Juan Brown, he's a local (to me ) guy thats a 777 copilot and covers all manner of aviation and other issues with good and detailed accuracy.
He gets pilots to discuss events like the blade out event and the story really shines a light on whats happening in the cockpit and just how hard things can get.
This is a great and scary story.
He gets pilots to discuss events like the blade out event and the story really shines a light on whats happening in the cockpit and just how hard things can get.
This is a great and scary story.
That was my word choice. Of course it was more a suggestion to land at NAS North Field.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2021
- Messages
- 891
O.K.
Civilian ( where I live ) flight operations manuals make it 100% clear that the captain is the person in charge after take off. That said, they can only deviate from standard operating procedures if they feel ( and have to answer for later possibly ) it was safer to not follow them at that time.
No person in flight ops would ever “order” a captain what to do in the air or they would be in huge trouble.
We are even allowed to disobey a direct “order” from ATC in very rare circumstances ( TCAS RA and ATC instructs us to do something the TCAS says is dangerous ...TCAS RA has prior over any ATC instructions ).
Civilian ( where I live ) flight operations manuals make it 100% clear that the captain is the person in charge after take off. That said, they can only deviate from standard operating procedures if they feel ( and have to answer for later possibly ) it was safer to not follow them at that time.
No person in flight ops would ever “order” a captain what to do in the air or they would be in huge trouble.
We are even allowed to disobey a direct “order” from ATC in very rare circumstances ( TCAS RA and ATC instructs us to do something the TCAS says is dangerous ...TCAS RA has prior over any ATC instructions ).
Last edited:
Thanks. That’s a good graphic.
“LT” in the USMC is a very junior rank. This was a new guy. This is where reporting gets fuzzy. He would be a 1st LT. Like a LTJG. Not just “LT” as the article states.
A youngster like that is in a tough position - more experienced pilots, senior in rank, are directing his decision making.
They reason they were punished, and frankly, deserved to be, was because they directed an airplane with multiple problems, a complex emergency, to overfly the nearest suitable field.
They did it for expediency in recovering the airplane. They put sortie completion, or other operational metrics, above safety. They, not that kid flying, own the consequences of that decision.
“LT” in the USMC is a very junior rank. This was a new guy. This is where reporting gets fuzzy. He would be a 1st LT. Like a LTJG. Not just “LT” as the article states.
A youngster like that is in a tough position - more experienced pilots, senior in rank, are directing his decision making.
They reason they were punished, and frankly, deserved to be, was because they directed an airplane with multiple problems, a complex emergency, to overfly the nearest suitable field.
They did it for expediency in recovering the airplane. They put sortie completion, or other operational metrics, above safety. They, not that kid flying, own the consequences of that decision.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2021
- Messages
- 891
Its the same with “alternate “ airports ( required when destination weather is not good enough ), even though the captain and flight dispatcher mutually agreed on the operational flight plan before the flight departed, the captain has sole discretion on the use of fuel and can unilaterally change that alternate if they feel it’s safer to divert somewhere else even though flight dispatch feels the original one is still o.k.
Found something else claiming that they saw the issue on the Abraham Lincoln and told him not to attempt an emergency landing on the carrier. Are carrier landings where they can order a pilot not to try to get back on the boat if there are other options?
A military witness aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln said he looked overhead and saw the aircraft, radioed the pilot and began directing him to land onboard, JAG documents stated.
Unclassified docs track UC jet crash - Officials recently released more than 550 pages of documents — including results from an FAA accident report witness testimony and a Judge Advocate General’s (JAG) investigation — stemming from the Dec. 8 F/A...
Unclassified docs track UC jet crash - Officials recently released more than 550 pages of documents — including results from an FAA accident report witness testimony and a Judge Advocate General’s (JAG) investigation — stemming from the Dec. 8 F/A...www.sdnews.com
“The [USS Abraham officer] overheard this and immediately told me that he would not take ‘an emergency aircraft’ aboard and told me to divert him,” the witness reported. “I got no further input from the [official] as I got back onto the radio and directed [the pilot] to start a Bingo profile to North Island.”
The Navy’s FRS commanding officer aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, hearing the pilot’s first distress call, said that, as a rule, according to documents, officials “are very reluctant to accept student emergencies for shipboard recovery.”
This was during carrier quals. The pilot was a student; new to the airplane and landing shipboard for the first time.
Challenging, and risky enough with a perfectly working jet.
Terribly risky to bring a student aboard the boat with an engine out. The decision to divert (land ashore) was the best course of action.
The ship’s CO has the ultimate call on whether or not to bring an airplane aboard. I can’t imagine a CO recommending, or approving, that course of action (bring a student aboard with an engine out) in this case.
Similar threads
