JetBlue captain subdued after pounding on cockpit

MQAAord said:
I like that, a LOT!

Trusting your pilots to make decisions based on logic, what's happening at the moment and trusting in their training & experience. Wow.
Click to expand...

My Grandpa ran the Training Center in the early 60's at TWA. Hired huge numbers of pilots, developed the training for the DC-9 (and did all the demo flights prior to purchase, the acceptance flights after purchase, etc). He commented that TWA had the best training and it was centered around the pilot first and that TWA was "the pilots airline".
 
The 60's were really the Golden Age of all air travel. There were no competing prices to speak of so the airlines all competed in frills and air travel was also out of reach for the general public. It was luxury travel in every sense. TWA was raking it in. They owned hotels and restaurants. They flew both Pacific and Atlantic Routes.

You had the best of the best from TWA Pan Am to Eastern to United, American and Continental (who were considered the big six), and afar, BOAC to Luthansa to AF and more. All of them innovators in their own right.

You have to look at the leadership also and some companies were formed and headed up by actual pilots, had pilots in management, etc. Pilots like Richenbacker (who retired from Eastern in 64) who set up Eastern's Silver Fleet and Lindbergh with TWA - the Lindbergh Line and he was also employed with TWA as an advisor, you had Juan Trippe at Pan Am, you had Bob Prescott with Flying Tigers Cargo, etc.

Many of the pilots came from the military at all the lines or had flown cargo under government contracts during the war. They were older. They were respected. Captain's authority meant something. Flying was serious business and something to be respected. The airlines were flush with money and they spent it on the planes and crews and training and new equipment and upgrades. I have said it before and will say it again, Eastern and Pan AM had some of the finest aviators on the planet at the time and Pan Am set so many numerous records. The term Sky God came about to describe their Captains. Back then, it was not the demeaning joke tossed about as it is today. In the 20's when the government began to regulate not only the design and function standards of planes, the best and easiest way to also conform with government airline training standards was to use former military pilots. They had training experience, hand skills, experience in every kind of wx, knew and understood the mechanics of planes and more. It was still the era of firsts and fastest and exploration and discovery. Being a pilot in the 60's was a much sought after profession and pilots were valued. The pay was also phenomenal.

And while some very low time pilots were hired in the sixties, they worked the panel (FE) for years before moving up to an F/O position. There were no puppy mills.
 
A Life Aloft said:
You have to look at the leadership also and some companies were formed and headed up by actual pilots, had pilots in management, etc. Pilots like Richenbacker (who retired from Eastern in 64) who set up Eastern's Silver Fleet and Lindbergh with TWA - the Lindbergh Line and he was also employed with TWA as an advisor, you had Juan Trippe at Pan Am, you had Bob Prescott with Flying Tigers Cargo, etc.
Click to expand...

Don't forget Jack Frye at TWA...oh, and Howard Hughes. TWA was superior. They had the best pilots, best training, best looking Stewardesses, best of everything. All the others sucked in comparison. I'm biased though.




And while some very low time pilots were hired in the sixties, they worked the panel (FE) for years before moving up to an F/O position. There were no puppy mills.
Click to expand...

My Grandpa never worked the panel. His first job at TWA was flying the engine carrier. This was crappier than reserve. They'd fly a DC-3 freighter all over the TWA system with spare 1820's, 3350's and 2800's in the back to wherever there was a plane that blew a motor - so they were flying a lot every single night. That was what was the lowest thing on the bid sheet in 1953. After the engine carrier, he went to Martin 202's and 404's, then Connie's (Captain ride 1959), 707/720's, DC-9's, 727's, with some different stuff thrown into the mix.
 
Autothrust Blue said:
In an old company flight manual for the Martin 404, by TWA, each page has at the bottom "Nothing in this manual replaces the use of good judgment on the firing line." Best. Disclaimer. Ever.
Click to expand...

MQAAord said:
I like that, a LOT!

Trusting your pilots to make decisions based on logic, what's happening at the moment and trusting in their training & experience. Wow.
Click to expand...

You guys have never seen that before? Or is it not used now? That same disclaimer is in the front of all military aircraft flight manuals, with variations.

"Instructions in this manual are for crew inexperienced in the operation of this aircraft. This manual provides the best possible operating instructions under most circumstances, but it is a poor substitute for sound judgement. Multiple emergencies, adverse weather, terrain, etc, may require modification of these procedures."

It's why I harp on guys who are so solidly about following the checklist to a T, with zero deviation for ANY reason ever, that they still need to apply sound judgement in some situations that may not be covered by the checklist, or with compounding emergencies (whether occurring, or ones that could be created by the checklist), or with emergencies that aren't listed as critical but may be critical in some situations.
 
Captain's wife thanks crew, passengers. I hope the true reason this occurred is discovered, as by all accounts, this was completely out of any remote character for Captain Osborn. A sad situation indeed.

(NewsCore) - The wife of JetBlue pilot Clayton Osbon released a statement Sunday, thanking the crew and passengers aboard Flight 191 for their handling of her husband's mid-air meltdown and saying his family believes he did not mean to hurt anyone.

Osbon's outburst aboard the New York-to-Las Vegas flight last week prompted his co-pilot to lock him out of the cockpit and make an emergency landing in Amarillo, Texas, as several passengers restrained the erratic captain.

"We would like to recognize the Crew and passengers of Flight 191 for their effective yet compassionate handling of the situation," Connye Osbon said in a statement on behalf of the pilot's family.

"It is our belief, as Clayton's family, that while he was clearly distressed, he was not intentionally violent toward anyone. We know you were placed in an awful situation and we appreciate your ability to respond professionally."

Clayton Osbon, 49, is being evaluated at the Northwest Texas Healthcare System and could face up to 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine for interfering with the flight crew.
His wife thanked "those who have expressed concern and kind thoughts during this difficult time," but also asked for privacy.

"We hope you can empathize and understand that our focus completely surrounds Clayton's recovery and the path that lies immediately ahead," she added in the statement released by JetBlue. (continued)
Click to expand...

Story here:

http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpps/ne...s-crew-passengers-dpgonc-km-20120401_18968440
 
MikeD said:
You guys have never seen that before? Or is it not used now? That same disclaimer is in the front of all military aircraft flight manuals, with variations.

"Instructions in this manual are for crew inexperienced in the operation of this aircraft. This manual provides the best possible operating instructions under most circumstances, but it is a poor substitute for sound judgement. Multiple emergencies, adverse weather, terrain, etc, may require modification of these procedures."

It's why I harp on guys who are so solidly about following the checklist to a T, with zero deviation for ANY reason ever, that they still need to apply sound judgement in some situations that may not be covered by the checklist, or with compounding emergencies (whether occurring, or ones that could be created by the checklist), or with emergencies that aren't listed as critical but may be critical in some situations.
Click to expand...
To be fair, the same advice is present in the preface of my AFM where I work, along with "correct the obvious" - another thing that gets missed. "Hey, it says windshield overheat. Probably oughtta turn off the windshield heater, THEN get the checklist."
 
Autothrust Blue said:
To be fair, the same advice is present in the preface of my AFM where I work, along with "correct the obvious" - another thing that gets missed. "Hey, it says windshield overheat. Probably oughtta turn off the windshield heater, THEN get the checklist."
Click to expand...

Good deal. So its still present. Good, sound advice it is.
 
I'm glad he's in the care of medical professionals who can hopefully get to the bottom of what happened.

It's just an awful situation all around :(
 
WacoFan said:
You know what would be interesting in this thread, and perhaps even useful? If we could get the good doctor out of the aeromedical forum to briefly list some possible physiological things that could have led to a breakdown like this. Not that we would be speculating that this DID happen or not, just a heads up for some of the things that can happen at altitude and perhaps some warning signs.
Click to expand...


In case the doc doesn't want to go there, here is what I've found from research. To be clear, this information is completely independent of the recent situation and may or may not be applicable. Physiologically, there are many things that can lead to symptoms related to psychosis when in reality, the person has nothing wrong mentally. Our bodies are finely tuned and it doesn't take much to alter its stable balance. Just like a plane or a car, if one part of the body isn't working right, it can cause other things to go wrong or cause the display of seemingly unrelated symptoms. Here are just a list of a few issues that come to mind:

Ultimately, I'd say it doesn't really matter what the nature of the specific issue is. You aren't going to diagnose it in the air though it may be useful to differentiate whether it's an issue with one person or whether this could just be the first person to show issues like the poor canary in the coal mine.
 
"Disruptive Airline Pilot Plans to Use the Insanity Defense

A JetBlue captain accused of disrupting a flight when he left the cockpit screaming about religion and terrorists plans to use an insanity defense at trial. A lawyer for the captain, Clayton F. Osbon, filed a motion on Wednesday outlining plans to argue he was insane on the March 27 flight to Las Vegas from New York. Mr. Osbon remains jailed in Texas awaiting a court-ordered psychiatric exam to determine his competency for trial and whether he was legally sane at the time of the incident."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/19/u...t-plans-to-use-the-insanity-defense.html?_r=1
 
Is anybody here a little upset, confused or at least finding the application of criminal charges out of line? I mean, if a surgeon has a similar "episode" while performing his duties and no one is worse for the wear, he gets restrained/removed from the O.R. by coworkers and is given treatment with compassion. I am confident an attorney having an issue in the courtroom as a result of illness would not be held in contempt, nor an engineer on the job site arrested for a similar outburst. Had it been any other profession, the headline if any would simply be "Local (insert professional title) has unforeseen mental issue during performance of their duties and is currently being evaluated."

Seems the only reason he is facing federal charges along with potential illness and subsequent uncertain future is he is a pilot, and therefore works on airplanes. Unfortunately for him this happened at work, and as a natural consequence, it interfered with a flight crew. For that reason only, he is facing criminal charges. Maybe I am wrong here but it seems out of line.
 
I'm getting the impression that they're just going through the motions. If a medical evaluation shows that it was a stroke or some other condition, then charges would be dismissed.

That's just pure speculation though.
 
I am also confused at why the FBI, Federal Prosecutor charged him so quickly, what was the conversation? "Hey, we had better get an agent down to Amarillo, an airline crew was forced to restrain its Captain during what was ostensibly a mental/physical health issue, we had better get out in front of this new and impending crime wave and make an example!"
 
Salkadi said:
I'm getting the impression that they're just going through the motions. If a medical evaluation shows that it was a stroke or some other condition, then charges would be dismissed.

That's just pure speculation though.
Click to expand...


I thought about that, charges were filed very quickly, really before anyone knew what happened at all, anyway, just seems wrong to me, that's all, compounding an already very sad situation. You really don't have to file charges right away, if at all, it wasn't like he was a flight risk.....
 
Cazadores said:
Is anybody here a little upset, confused or at least finding the application of criminal charges out of line? I mean, if a surgeon has a similar "episode" while performing his duties and no one is worse for the wear, he gets restrained/removed from the O.R. by coworkers and is given treatment with compassion. I am confident an attorney having an issue in the courtroom as a result of illness would not be held in contempt, nor an engineer on the job site arrested for a similar outburst. Had it been any other profession, the headline if any would simply be "Local (insert professional title) has unforeseen mental issue during performance of their duties and is currently being evaluated."

Seems the only reason he is facing federal charges along with potential illness and subsequent uncertain future is he is a pilot, and therefore works on airplanes. Unfortunately for him this happened at work, and as a natural consequence, it interfered with a flight crew. For that reason only, he is facing criminal charges. Maybe I am wrong here but it seems out of line.
Click to expand...

I actually think the federal government is doing the proper thing here. It's job is to protect the flying public not pass judgment on what may or may not have happened. We can play internet psychiatrist all we want but in this case the Captain absolutely did interfere with the flight. The cause of that action is up to the doctors, the FAA, and the court to determine. There's absolutely no way the federal government could do anything but prosecute. They will hopefully fail but the process needs to play out.

As for your surgeon example, I think you are wrong. My father had a colleague who had a health episode (not mental) that resulted in his incapacitation. The patient ended up being fine but the physician in question lost his license, never practiced again, and lost in civil court. Not saying this case was right or wrong but when you have a job that caries significant responsibility, liability is a foregone conclusion and must be accepted.
 
Cav said:
I actually think the federal government is doing the proper thing here. It's job is to protect the flying public not pass judgment on what may or may not have happened. We can play internet psychiatrist all we want but in this case the Captain absolutely did interfere with the flight. The cause of that action is up to the doctors, the FAA, and the court to determine. There's absolutely no way the federal government could do anything but prosecute. They will hopefully fail but the process needs to play out.

As for your surgeon example, I think you are wrong. My father had a colleague who had a health episode (not mental) that resulted in his incapacitation. The patient ended up being fine but the physician in question lost his license, never practiced again, and lost in civil court. When you have a job that caries significant responsibility, liability is a foregone conclusion and must be accepted.
Click to expand...


OK, fair enough, however your Dad's colleague did not face federal charges, civil courts are very different. I do get what your are saying, perhaps the courts in this case are the only way to determine malice, I just feel like it was at the minimum hasty.

To the point of the comparison with the surgeon, the feds have the apparatus in place to revoke his medical for emergency safety reasons immediately, which sufficiently protects the public and ruins his career. I suppose the passengers may have cause for claim in civil court, I am not a lawyer sooo....the key difference here is the surgeon never spent time behind bars.....
 
Cazadores said:
OK, fair enough, however your Dad's colleague did not face federal charges, civil courts are very different. I do get what your are saying, perhaps the courts in this case are the only way to determine malice, I just feel like it was at the minimum hasty.
Click to expand...

Federal no but it's certainly not outside the realm of possibilities and plenty of doctors have gone to prison for negligence. In all honesty, the federal government probably did us a favor by acting quickly. Perhaps if they had not the story would be why hasn't the government done anything. Front page news sure doesn't help us in this case and the public screaming for action and regulation doesn't either. In this case it seems they acted quickly and basically handed it over to the very people who should be dealing with the incident...pretty much everyone but the press. Sure it's news but it's not NEWS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top