Federal Judge Rules Flight 3407 CVR Can Be Used As Evidence

Re: Federal Judge Rules Flight 3407 CVR Can Be Used As Evide

I really hate lawsuits like this. Whatever happened to people's personal responsibility?

You only have one life to lose. When you absolutely must get to your destination in the middle of a thunderstorm, you are not guaranteed safety just because your sitting in a million dollar aircraft with 100 people making the same choice.

I always lecture my non aviation friends and family to research the airline and weather you'll be flying in. Delay your flight if you have to. At the very least, you can save yourself an unconfertable ride.
 
Re: Federal Judge Rules Flight 3407 CVR Can Be Used As Evide

Pilotforhire587 said:
More like money motivates them TOO hire inexperienced guys... They make far more then what they will lose in any lawsuit
Click to expand...

In the late 90s, Boeing published a study that showed that for every fatal accident, an airline would incur more than $1 billion in losses overall (suits, lost revenue, settlements, judgments). While their may be and probably are incentives to cut corners, I doubt that anyone wants to take a $1 billion hit.

Second, in CRM seminars I have done, I have asked crews to define 'sterile cockpit', something one would think everyone in aviation would know by now. Not so. For example, some FAs say to never call the cockpit below 10,000ft unless it is an emergency. That, of course, leaves out events that may not have developed to emergency status but still should be known in the cockpit. One can argue lack of training in those instances but these are people WITHIN the aviation community. And someone outside the community is going to understand 'sterile cockpit'? I'm not betting on it. I would bet that they WOULD go with the explanation the lawyer gave and the way 'sterile cockpit' was painted by that lawyer IF s/he is at least moderately competent.
 
Re: Federal Judge Rules Flight 3407 CVR Can Be Used As Evide

Inverted said:
You cannot possibly be serious...
Click to expand...

Absolutely! The crew was certified and had passed checkrides to deem their ability and suitable for the task. The transcript shows NO checklists were missed, NO radio calls were missed, there was inquiry, question and response.

The accident starts at about 1500ft above the ground. Who yanks the nose up in a staill unless they have been trained to do so? If nothing else, just let go of the yoke and that breaks the stall.

Watch the animation. Explain how someone misses the rapidly rising RED airspeed tape. Distracted? By what and why? An error? Yes.

The F/O raised the flaps. Why? Startle effect and confusing a go-around with stall recovery?

Loss of Control In-flight has passed CFIT as the biggest killer. Why are people losing control in flight? BAD training. In a recent demonstration at a flight group, ***80%*** of the pilots who were put in an upset did not release back pressure and roll upright before trying to recover. They tried to pull through with a SPLIT-S. NOT GOOD.

I am not defending the 3407 crew. They were not the best but they were traiined and certified to company and FAA requirements. Jumping on the crew without going back to the source is worthless in my opinion. BUT, if you wish to argue they were negligent, the floor is your and I await your argument showing this crew was negligent.

Negligence- The failure to use reasonable care. The doing of something which a reasonably prudent person would not do, or the failure to do something which a reasonably prudent person would do under like circumstances.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Federal Judge Rules Flight 3407 CVR Can Be Used As Evide

Question for those who are professional aviators (airline, corporate, fractional).

What is the procedure for stall recovery?

At what altitude is the recovery exercise done?

At what weight (max weight, max landing, light weight)

Conditions (ISA, calm winds, gusty winds, strong crosswinds)

Maximum altitude loss deemed acceptable in recovery?
 
Re: Federal Judge Rules Flight 3407 CVR Can Be Used As Evide

SeanD said:
Management induced negligence perhaps. Remember, aviation disasters are one link in a chain of events. The most destructive link in this chain starts with Colgan management and their training practices.
Click to expand...

Granted. IF I give you the wrong tools for the job, you WILL at some point fail.

Most of the focus has been on this crew. They were low time. They were this. They were that. YET they had met all certification standards by the company, the POI and the FAA.

But the argument, again, is the crew was negligent and I assert that can not be proved. Errors, yes. Bad training, yes. Possible fatigue issues? Probably. But one obvious omission.. this was not their first trip. They had successfully completed hundreds if not thousands of legs without incident. If they were negligent and incompetent, how did they do that? Complete all those legs 'safely'?
 
Re: Federal Judge Rules Flight 3407 CVR Can Be Used As Evide

Orange Anchor said:
Question for those who are professional aviators (airline, corporate, fractional).

What is the procedure for stall recovery?

At what altitude is the recovery exercise done?

At what weight (max weight, max landing, light weight)

Conditions (ISA, calm winds, gusty winds, strong crosswinds)

Maximum altitude loss deemed acceptable in recovery?
Click to expand...

Saw Sean Roberts presentation on Upset Recovery at Bombardier Safety Standdown. Spent the first 10 minutes or so on the idiocy of current stall training standards as dictated by the FAA. Good presentation.
 
Re: Federal Judge Rules Flight 3407 CVR Can Be Used As Evide

Orange Anchor said:
Granted. IF I give you the wrong tools for the job, you WILL at some point fail.

Most of the focus has been on this crew. They were low time. They were this. They were that. YET they had met all certification standards by the company, the POI and the FAA.

But the argument, again, is the crew was negligent and I assert that can not be proved. Errors, yes. Bad training, yes. Possible fatigue issues? Probably. But one obvious omission.. this was not their first trip. They had successfully completed hundreds if not thousands of legs without incident. If they were negligent and incompetent, how did they do that? Complete all those legs 'safely'?
Click to expand...

This is exactly right!

Were mistakes made? Yes, that's indisputable. But the question is: WHY? It wasn't a single event. And it certainly wasn't negligence....rather, the items cited by OA and others as well.

The use of actual CVR recordings used in civil suit sets a very bad precedent, is unnecessary seeing as the transcript is available, and will lead to a reduction in safety in the long run. There is only one reason the attorneys are trying to have the CVR recording introduced into the docket....and that's sensationalism. If they are successful, it will be a very dark day in aviation history.

Our collective managements would love the opportunity to monitor the CVR under the guise of safety. However, the end result would most likely be somewhere along the lines of monitoring for discipline. This certainly doesn't align with a Just Culture or SMS practices. :mad:
 
Re: Federal Judge Rules Flight 3407 CVR Can Be Used As Evide

SteveC said:
Saw Sean Roberts presentation on Upset Recovery at Bombardier Safety Standdown. Spent the first 10 minutes or so on the idiocy of current stall training standards as dictated by the FAA. Good presentation.
Click to expand...

First, as they say down South, "..hate your guts." I wanted to go but did not get the assignment. And yes, Roberts holds nothing back.

We taught the idiotic procedure of holding pitch and going to max N1/Max EPR (normal limits) in 1985 and that recovery procedure demonstrated its lack of reality when Air Florida 90 went into the river. But.. hey... it is only 25 years later and sometimes it takes a while.

In 2008 the FAA published this 400+ page document which no one read.
http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/avia...tors/training/media/AP_UpsetRecovery_Book.pdf

and this SAFO in July which apparently was also NOT read by anyone.
http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/avia...afety/safo/all_safos/media/2010/SAFO10012.pdf

Further, the sim may NOT accurately (100%) reproduce the characteristics of the flight or the event. The data for the sim comes from the OEMs and from their flight test but IF one goes outside that database (aggressive upset recovery), one can run quickly into the law of unintended consequence. With possibly fatal events to follow.

And oh.. did I mention I hate your guts. I spoke to Rowe this week at NBAA and he said the Stand down was a big success. I was very impressed with the SSD last year. Rosekind did a very good presentation on sleep and fatigue. Kern did his usual good job.
 
Re: Federal Judge Rules Flight 3407 CVR Can Be Used As Evide

duty of care, breach of duty, causation, harm and damages? sounds like negligence.

i'll save myself some typing-

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/negligence.html-


  • somebody does not exercise the amount of care that a reasonably careful person would use under the circumstances; or
  • somebody does something that a reasonably careful person would not do under the circumstances."

the cvr is a separate issue. of course the attorneys want the actual recording over the transcript, though the case doesn't seem that hard without the recording.
 
Re: Federal Judge Rules Flight 3407 CVR Can Be Used As Evide

NickH said:
The judges ruling is correct:

"Production of the recording [as evidence] is necessary because the written transcript does not and cannot reflect tone of voice, pitch, volume or inflection, nor does it necessarily accurately reflect ambient and other noises pertinent to the aircraft's operation,"

The phrase 'I've never seen so much ice', for example, could be an expression of terror or a remark of indifference from a professional aviator who is confident in their abilities.
Click to expand...

This is true, and that's why the recording does need to be listened to. But it should be the accident investigators doing that, not the public. Opening it up to a liability trial means that instead of the listeners being people whose job it is to rationally analyze the events and draw conclusions as to how the accident happened and how to prevent it, you have listeners whose job it is to do whatever it takes, including pulling at heartstrings and vilifying a crew that cannot defend themselves, to make a point (the lawyers). Not to mention the media (and we all know how well they handle that sort of thing).
 
Re: Federal Judge Rules Flight 3407 CVR Can Be Used As Evide

gne in prog said:
duty of care, breach of duty, causation, harm and damages? sounds like negligence.

i'll save myself some typing-
somebody does not exercise the amount of care that a reasonably careful person would use under the circumstances; or somebody does something that a reasonably careful person would not do under the circumstances."
Click to expand...
You could have saved some time by reading the post also as I quoted the definition of negligence.

The point is ALL regulations and ALL laws pertaining to training and checking were met. The crew met standard.. company and FAA standards. Now if one wants to change the standard, change the way things are done, change the training, fine.

But are you arguing the crew was careless meaning they were aware of the hazards but ignored them? Or that the company was aware of the hazards and also ignored them. If so, you may have a problem. The data will show that thousands if not tens of thousands of flights are conducted in hazardous conditions and incur NO accident or incident. And airlines and regulatory agencies use that data to decide what level of safety is in place. of course, the process is flawed in that complex systems fail in complex and often unanticipated ways.

Here's one for you. Try this one. A component is AT LIMITS (consider for example an MD-80 jackscrew). Not beyond limits but AT LIMITS or very near limits. There has been no history of problems with jack screws. It is YOUR money.. out of your pocket. Replace it or wait until the next inspection cycle?
 
Re: Federal Judge Rules Flight 3407 CVR Can Be Used As Evide

Orange Anchor said:
First, as they say down South, "..hate your guts." I wanted to go but did not get the assignment. And yes, Roberts holds nothing back.

We taught the idiotic procedure of holding pitch and going to max N1/Max EPR (normal limits) in 1985 and that recovery procedure demonstrated its lack of reality when Air Florida 90 went into the river. But.. hey... it is only 25 years later and sometimes it takes a while.

In 2008 the FAA published this 400+ page document which no one read.
http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/avia...tors/training/media/AP_UpsetRecovery_Book.pdf

and this SAFO in July which apparently was also NOT read by anyone.
http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/avia...afety/safo/all_safos/media/2010/SAFO10012.pdf

Further, the sim may NOT accurately (100%) reproduce the characteristics of the flight or the event. The data for the sim comes from the OEMs and from their flight test but IF one goes outside that database (aggressive upset recovery), one can run quickly into the law of unintended consequence. With possibly fatal events to follow.

And oh.. did I mention I hate your guts. I spoke to Rowe this week at NBAA and he said the Stand down was a big success. I was very impressed with the SSD last year. Rosekind did a very good presentation on sleep and fatigue. Kern did his usual good job.
Click to expand...

[o/t]
Rosekind was good - excellent that he was appointed to the NTSB. Missed Kern - had to do a training program audit at Flight Safety for a new aircraft we're adding. Our Director of Ops had specifically mentioned Kern as one to see.

Highly, highly recommend SSD. This was the first year I've been and will do my best to be at subsequent ones.
 
Re: Federal Judge Rules Flight 3407 CVR Can Be Used As Evide

SteveC said:
Rosekind was good - excellent that he was appointed to the NTSB. Missed Kern - had to do a training program audit at Flight Safety for a new aircraft we're adding. Our Director of Ops had specifically mentioned Kern as one to see.

Highly, highly recommend SSD. This was the first year I've been and will do my best to be at subsequent ones.
Click to expand...
Kern is good. He is knowledgeable and enthusiastic.. almost zealous. And I agree with him that it really is the individual's responsibility to be ready to fly. A lot of emphasis has been placed elsewhere but it boils down to the guy/gal putting his/her butt in the seat.

On another issue, talked with a FSI manager and he said no hiring at his facility until first of next year. Lots of stuff on hold to see what taxes, etc do to customer training needs.
 
Re: Federal Judge Rules Flight 3407 CVR Can Be Used As Evide

Orange Anchor said:
You could have saved some time by reading the post also as I quoted the definition of negligence.

The point is ALL regulations and ALL laws pertaining to training and checking were met. The crew met standard.. company and FAA standards. Now if one wants to change the standard, change the way things are done, change the training, fine.

But are you arguing the crew was careless meaning they were aware of the hazards but ignored them? Or that the company was aware of the hazards and also ignored them. If so, you may have a problem. The data will show that thousands if not tens of thousands of flights are conducted in hazardous conditions and incur NO accident or incident. And airlines and regulatory agencies use that data to decide what level of safety is in place. of course, the process is flawed in that complex systems fail in complex and often unanticipated ways.

Here's one for you. Try this one. A component is AT LIMITS (consider for example an MD-80 jackscrew). Not beyond limits but AT LIMITS or very near limits. There has been no history of problems with jack screws. It is YOUR money.. out of your pocket. Replace it or wait until the next inspection cycle?
Click to expand...

call me a moron, but what does a checkride have to do with their performance on that flight? i'm not saying they weren't qualified. the main element-

somebody does something that a reasonably careful person would not do under the circumstances.

would other reasonably careful pilots pull back and fight a stick shaker/pusher? is that how other reasonable, careful pilots flown a basic stall recovery?

i passed my last recurrent, but if on my next flight i forget the gear, i doubt i can point to my recurrent and say it wasn't my fault.
 
Re: Federal Judge Rules Flight 3407 CVR Can Be Used As Evide

I'll bite:

I think we can all agree that the root of accidents like this lies with the FAA's oversight of training, standards, duty times, etc. and that that flows down to the way certain companies operate (and thus are allowed to operate by the FAA).

It's not secret that in any industry if you pay piss poor wages and treat employees like crap that you get crap employees. The entire business model between mainline partner and regional is flawed in that it ultimately forces corners to be cut to make the regional cost competitive such that they can win contract flying.

Now, in the case of the CVR transcripts, there is a critical difference in meaning between saying "I've never seen so much ice" with a strong, unwavering, commanding tone that evokes emotion of "I can handle this" vs the same sentence, said in a questioning, nervous, inexperienced tone that evokes "I'm nervous and unsure of myself." This cannot be expressed textually, and as such, I have no problem with the CVR used in this purpose.

However, the concerning factor is what comes next if this is allowed to happen. None of us want the CVR to be monitored "for safety" by the company so that we can all get reprimanded for saying that we think we should be better paid, dislike the CP, or whatever.

It's a delicate situation, and one that we all wish we didn't have to deal with, and if the industry had not decayed to the point that it has maybe we wouldn't have to, but this is the reality and it is what it is.
 
Re: Federal Judge Rules Flight 3407 CVR Can Be Used As Evide

Krieger said:
I really hate lawsuits like this. Whatever happened to people's personal responsibility?

You only have one life to lose. When you absolutely must get to your destination in the middle of a thunderstorm, you are not guaranteed safety just because your sitting in a million dollar aircraft with 100 people making the same choice.

I always lecture my non aviation friends and family to research the airline and weather you'll be flying in. Delay your flight if you have to. At the very least, you can save yourself an unconfertable ride.
Click to expand...


WHAT! This post can't be serious. I do agree that no amount of money will make right what happened with 3407. But this post is so draconian. If you want personal responsibility like this, then move to a 3rd world country. We should be able to climb on an airplane and trust that the two people up front are going to do their best to get us to wherever we want to go safely. Man, I wish I didn't have to get ready for work right now. I can't belive someone would post something like this.

Edit to add: While were at it, why don't we rid this country of service like firefighter's, paramedics and police, and take responsibility for fighting forest fires, keeping murderers off the streets and declare Marshal Law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top