Wreckless Or Right??

[XLR99]

People who are at the top of the list for a transplant will still get one the next time organs become available. Rarely is anyone so critical that they will die within 2 days if they don't get the organs. If a person is that unstable, chances are they wouldn't be doing the surgery anyway.

I don't know if you guys recall the survival flight that crashed a few years ago going out of Milwaukee to Ann Arbor - it was carrying a pair of lungs on board for a patient. All 6 people on the plane were killed, and the patient got a different set of lungs a day or two later. Not saying that those pilots were in the same situation (that was a runaway trim issue) but that organ flight is not an immediate life or death issue.

Beyond that, they could have gotten a helicopter to fly them if it was that desperate.

Minor thread creep, but the patient in your example was DAMN lucky that another donor came up so quickly. Lots of things need to fall into place to get a good match, and lungs are the hardest organs to place. With extremely rare exceptions (read virtually never), most flyouts for heart and lungs are going to involve picking up a transplant team, flying to where the donor is, then flying home; thoracic surgeons need to be able to look for themselves and do their own recovery. For liver/pancreas, 'most' of the time, a local transplant team will do the recovery, package and send the organ by itself.
@ GUNIT - for accuracy's sake - no transplant centers on either Nantucket or Bermuda, usually big tertiary care hospitals ie Brigham, etc have the resources needed.

With the runway issue, I'm betting there's alot we don't know, not to mention the political grandstanding. If they went out and visually verified conditions, drove the runway first, etc, that's much different than the portrayal of kicking the tires, lighting the fires, and risking raining flaming death upon the neighborhoods like the airport admin is telling the press.

 

[I_Money]

Minor thread creep, but the patient in your example was DAMN lucky that another donor came up so quickly. Lots of things need to fall into place to get a good match, and lungs are the hardest organs to place. With extremely rare exceptions (read virtually never), most flyouts for heart and lungs are going to involve picking up a transplant team, flying to where the donor is, then flying home; thoracic surgeons need to be able to look for themselves and do their own recovery. For liver/pancreas, 'most' of the time, a local transplant team will do the recovery, package and send the organ by itself.
@ GUNIT - for accuracy's sake - no transplant centers on either Nantucket or Bermuda, usually big tertiary care hospitals ie Brigham, etc have the resources needed.

But the fact is there are many corporate jets the team could have traveled in - more than likely they were flying to bring organs back considering the medical mecca of Boston.

 

[drunkenbeagle]

I call question to those calling this 'reckless, careless, and stupid'.

While arguably illegal, without the actual runway data and actual level contamination being known.

One thing to remember - with small, municipal airports, the airport manager is sometimes a political thing, not necessarily someone that knows anything about aviation. (I've known some airport managers. Helping the Mayor's re-election campaign was how they got the job). I've had the police meet me at fields in Mass from complaints about noise. Well, the field was open...

Operating on a closed surface does not violate any regs that I know of. I've done it twice in the last month. (Controllers were fine - "Okay, thanks, proceed at your own risk")

I haven't heard anything to say what happened was unsafe. Therefore, I wouldn't call it reckless either.

 

[Mark815]

... so if the airport authority closed the runway because there was a big puddle in the last third of the runway or something.. how do we know that the airplane in question isn't already gear up and climbing by that point?

What if the jet had to abort takeoff and ended up in the 'big puddle' at the end of the runway, doing damage to the aircraft, and possible injury to the pilots? Everything about our training is based on 'what if's', and preparing for failure at any moment, yet in the past 2 pages it seems like this jet was invincible. If the notam was '3000ft available, last 1000ft closed' than we KNOW that the open portion of the runway should be FOD\vehicle\people free, but with a closed runway, anything could happen.

 

[USMCmech]

. If the notam was '3000ft available, last 1000ft closed' than we KNOW that the open portion of the runway should be FOD\vehicle\people free,

"What if" this crew personally did check those things?


I'm assuming that they did when I say that this take off was not dangerous.

 

[drunkenbeagle]

If the notam was '3000ft available, last 1000ft closed' than we KNOW that the open portion of the runway should be FOD\vehicle\people free, but with a closed runway, anything could happen.

By that logic, should we allow any operations at untowered/unattended fields?

 

[USMCmech]

By that logic, should we allow any operations at untowered/unattended fields?

You mean land on a runway without a FAA approved babysitter?!!

That's just crazy talk.

 

[RRPower]

I think this is nothing more than a power trip pissing match. The airport manager is pissed because someone said FU to his stupid precautionary closing. We are not talking about them doing runway repair and there being tons of equipment sitting around on the runway, we are talking about water. If the pilots determined it was safe and within their aircraft limitations then I say have at it. If they are breaking FAR's and aircraft limitations then that is another story.

On another note, I do agree with the fact that maybe the person could have waited another day or so...but the organs can't. I am not about to have a family told that their son/daughter/wife/husband/mother/father can't get their organ because of politics. I am pretty if you ask the people that got those organs and their familiys, they are very greatful for what those pilots did. I think it would make the FAA and the airport authority look bad for going after a couple of pilots for trying to save lives because of a stupid patch of water.

 

[granlistillo]

Airport officials were also worried about birds getting caught in plane engines, which could cause them to fail.

“Birds are pretty common,” Lyons said. “We deal with bird concentration all the time.”

Something smells fishy here, so I won't bite and venture too much of an opinion on a poorly written piece that seems to be playing to passion and not reason. A lot of stuff in the press is pure hogwash. There seems to be some bad blood between the operator and the airport manager. The "refused to obey" statement and this nonsense about birds sounds like a bit of Chicken Sierra "gotcha" by someone who is using the FAA as a means to settle a personal score. Then it might not be that, but it sure reads that way.

 

[I_Money]

On another note, I do agree with the fact that maybe the person could have waited another day or so...but the organs can't. I am not about to have a family told that their son/daughter/wife/husband/mother/father can't get their organ because of politics. I am pretty if you ask the people that got those organs and their familiys, they are very greatful for what those pilots did. I think it would make the FAA and the airport authority look bad for going after a couple of pilots for trying to save lives because of a stupid patch of water.

If you are circling the bowl that much you are unlikely to receive the organs anyway - contrary to popular belief the organs usually stay in the brain dead donor for a couple days as it is - 1 more day to arrange this would not have altered much.

 

[Firebird2XC]

One thing to remember - with small, municipal airports, the airport manager is sometimes a political thing, not necessarily someone that knows anything about aviation. (I've known some airport managers. Helping the Mayor's re-election campaign was how they got the job). I've had the police meet me at fields in Mass from complaints about noise. Well, the field was open...

Operating on a closed surface does not violate any regs that I know of. I've done it twice in the last month. (Controllers were fine - "Okay, thanks, proceed at your own risk")

I haven't heard anything to say what happened was unsafe. Therefore, I wouldn't call it reckless either.

Interesting point.

Gotta love politics. Wonder how much that and the local NIMBY reaction weighed in on the airport manager's actions.

 

[Firebird2XC]

Question: The regs are there for a reason, therefore, no matter what the situation, if you violate them, are you 'unsafe'?

Throwing the 'safety' catch-all is a common gambit with pilots. We've all done it at some point. But using the regs as a catch-all. There's a surprising number of things that are legal that are of questionable safety, and vice-versa.

There are ALPA stickers going around right now that say "Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's safe."

The Regs say that if I move and don't update my address with the FAA within 30 days I'm not to utilize my certs. If I do, sure, I'm illegal- but was that unsafe?


Let's separate 'safe' from 'legal'. What's really reckless and/or unsafe, and what's just a matter of legal or political stuff?

How would you divide the two?

 

[CoffeeIcePapers]

The difference is that there is regulation requiring you to abide by approach mins and 100hr inspection requirements.

However taking of from a closed runway (drag strip, county road, cow pasture, or anywhere else) is not in violation of any of the FARs, except possibly pt 91.13. Which is a subjective opinion of whichever FSDO inspector is examining the incident in question

I haven't read any 135 Op Specs or SOPs, but isn't there some language about what runways are acceptable?

 

[XLR99]

If you are circling the bowl that much you are unlikely to receive the organs anyway - contrary to popular belief the organs usually stay in the brain dead donor for a couple days as it is - 1 more day to arrange this would not have altered much.

Again, depends. Sometimes the donor is stable, sometimes not. The longer the donor sits there, the more chance of them becoming unstable. Like weather, it's a complicated case-by-case thing.
On several occasions I had to move on to the next recipient for transportation/timing issues like this because you can't risk losing everything while waiting for a team to get there. There were a few times we had to crash the donor into the OR quickly while another team was in the air.

 

[minitour]

Question: The regs are there for a reason, therefore, no matter what the situation, if you violate them, are you 'unsafe'?

No. That's why I didn't use the "s" word. It's careless. It's reckless. It isn't necessarily unsafe. It's still illegal. You still shouldn't be in command of anything flying if you think it's okay to do.

I haven't read any 135 Op Specs or SOPs, but isn't there some language about what runways are acceptable?

Just the regs regarding landing distance requirements, AFAIK. Under EOD, the op spec, you get to go down to 80% instead of 60%. Woot!

-mini

 

[deadstick]

This is a blurb from a 2005 LOI. It's on a different subject, but might fit the situation.

[FONT=&quot]As such, the reported weather upon arrival but before commencing the approach would need to be at least 2,000 feet above the airport elevation and visibility of at least 3 statute miles, and no other factors, such as runway closures, interfere with a safe landing. [/FONT]

I am inferring two points:
1) Runway closures, or planning to/using closed runways, interferes with a safe landing.
2) If the closed runway interferes with a safe landing, then it also interferes with a safe takeoff.

 

[drunkenbeagle]

I am inferring two points:
1) Runway closures, or planning to/using closed runways, interferes with a safe landing.
2) If the closed runway interferes with a safe landing, then it also interferes with a safe takeoff.

The context here matters, that is referring to whether or not it would be prudent to continue an approach with less than IFR minimum fuel. I would take the "runway closure" to mean something like the situation at KJFK right now - with the closed runway, it would be preferable to divert with an urgent fuel situation IMC.

 

[minitour]

I would take the "runway closure" to mean something like the situation at KJFK right now - with the closed runway, it would be preferable to divert with an urgent fuel situation IMC.

vs landing on one of the other 3 pieces of pavement?

Or hell, why not a taxiway? If a closed runway can be landedededed on, why not a taxiway?

-mini

 

[SpiraMirabilis]

If you are circling the bowl that much you are unlikely to receive the organs anyway - contrary to popular belief the organs usually stay in the brain dead donor for a couple days as it is - 1 more day to arrange this would not have altered much.

He wasn't talking about the patient. The organs themselves have a expiration date. True, that the person on the top of the transplant list very well may get another transplant but the loss of the organs WILL mean that someone dies, who otherwise might have lived because the person next on the list wouldn't get the organs and so on and so forth.


This isn't even taking into consideration factors such as what if the organs were a special match? One that doesn't come around too often? That happens too, you know.

 

[jtrain609]

He wasn't talking about the patient. The organs themselves have a expiration date. True, that the person on the top of the transplant list very well may get another transplant but the loss of the organs WILL mean that someone dies, who otherwise might have lived because the person next on the list wouldn't get the organs and so on and so forth.


This isn't even taking into consideration factors such as what if the organs were a special match? One that doesn't come around too often? That happens too, you know.

Then the hospital should have found another way to get the organs there.

We're not talking about flying people out of a combat zone, we're talking about a civilian operation that, while being high priority, does not imply by any means necessary.

The fact that people are saying it's a-ok to takeoff on a closed runway blows my mind. With that, I think this thread shows that we're too willing to defend the stupid actions of other pilots.