Comair 5191: Sole Survivor tonight 1/8 on CNN

jgheggie said:
On a side note...does anyone know if this accident is on "air crash investigation"? This CNN show is slow and painful. No disrespect to the survivors, but I would like to see something focused more on the accident and investigation.
Click to expand...

No, its not on any of the ACI seasons but I believe they are working on a new season now so perhaps it will be an episode. Id also like to see something that focuses more on the investigation. The way they described it on the CNN show was that it was an accident waiting to happen. Im definitely not among the "burn him, hes reckless" crowd. I think its a lot more complex than that. It almost seemed that the FAA threw them under the bus when they should have had equal blame.
 
PhilosopherPilot said:
We established months ago that Pilot Fighter doesn't understand Just Culture and culpability.

Do us all a favor. Read "Whack a Mole" and get back to us.
Click to expand...

We also established that words have meaning. The Comair FO was negligent. He was partly culpable for the accident. All the Just Culture and rabid human factors don't change that.
 
DE727UPS said:
I was PF on a night visual into RFD years ago and lined up on 7 while intending for 1. Saw a runway and went for it and became too busy trying to get down to the wrong runway that we missed obvious clues inside the cockpit. All three pilots in the 727 screwed it up (FE was probably asleep...hehe). ATC got a save cause they were paying attention. Maybe we would have caught it, too, as we got lower. Ever since then I shake my head at dumb pilot tricks but I understand how they can happen and have a "by the grace of God go I" attitude towards those who make similar mistakes.

Those Asiana guys excepted. That was just unbelievable.
Click to expand...

I did a sweet visual approach to Griffis AFB once.
 
Rocketman99 said:
I always have to laugh when folks mention "breaking sterile cockpit" and want to hang people for it. 99.99999% of the time it has absolutely nothing to do with anything else. Unless the chatter was going on WHILE they were supposed to be actively doing something critical (setting flaps, running an abnormal/emergency checklist, etc) it is irrelevant. It was irrelevant in this case. It was irrelevant in the Colgan crash. I will further hold that if you're not able to taxi or fly a plane while making a comment or answering a question then you should never be anywhere in the vicinity of the controls of an airplane. Sterile cockpit came about because there are some folks who don't understand when they need to shut the hell up. Those people and times are few and far between.
Click to expand...

Quoted because I believe it needed to be said again!
 
What year are you? Where are you going to school? Are you flying at an air carrier also? If so, my condolences, it's a hard life trying to do it all. Also, I'm not trying to interrogate you, I'm honestly curious if anybody else has had to do the same crap that I just went through (go to law school and fly at an airline at the same time).

Flymia said:
In my (almost) lawyer opinion the FO of Comair should have been charged with a crime. Involuntary Manslaugter comes to mind.

The thing is most airliner accidents, such as this, is that few, if any come out alive. At the same time, off the top of my head, I can't think of nor remember any airline accidents which the pilots were prosecuted. I think 5191 is a pretty good example of where one could have been charged, and when just looking at the law should have been. Assuming Kentucky law is similar to the laws I have studied.

Take this case for example: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/11/29/3786929/bus-driver-in-fatal-miami-international.html

A tour bus driver got lost, he was traveling through MIA and went under an overpass which the bus did not have clearance to pass under. The over pass is marked by several large warning signs along with signs showing buses where to go. He missed these signs and hit it right there which ended up killing some passengers. He did not intend to do anything, but he was certainly at fault for those deaths. There was nothing wrong with the airplane, the pilots in the Comair crash were 100% solely responsible for the deaths of all on board. If this happened on the road there is no question the driver would be charged. Why not in an airplane? Maybe it is a bad idea for safety culture. But I can't think of any legal arguments which should protect pilots in these types of cases.
Click to expand...

Ok.

Negligently causing the death of another person.

Was there negligence? I don't know, let's use the traditional elements to determine that:

Duty, breach, causation and harm.

Is there a duty to the passengers? Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. Isn't the duty to adhere to the rules and regulations that your company provides for you? Our duty certainly isn't to keep ALL passenger safe ALL THE TIME because that's an impossible standard. What if you are in a position where you've lost all your engines and you need to ditch the aircraft; you know doing so will result in the death of SOME passengers, but it is the outcome that will save THE MOST lives (Kant as applied to tort, if you will). If the duty is to the absolute safety of ALL your passengers at all times, then even if you're a hero and only one person dies, then what you're saying is that you should still be prosecuted for manslaughter. As a prosecutor, it might make sense, but does it make sense as a pilot?

So how we frame our duty is probably what matters here. If the duty is to the absolute safety of the passengers, then yes, I'd agree with you.

But if our duty is conscientious adherence to our regulations, then we've got more questions that have to get answered.

Prior to this accident, at least on our checklists, we didn't verify the runway. We generally set the heading bug to the runway that we were going to take off on, but what if you don't know what it's going to be? I know that can sound crazy if you're not used to operating in places like Chicago or Atlanta, but it happens all the time. Chicago will be departing 22L, 32L at T10, 28R at EE and maybe something else, and you have NO IDEA which runway you're going to depart off of until you actually talk with ground, which will occur after your brief, and after you push back. So what do you do in a non-standard situation when the checklists don't line up with the operations on the ground?

And in fact, let's stay in Chicago. Let's say you're given a taxi clearance, and you're unable to read it back because the controllers never un-key the mic on the ground frequency, and you're never able to read back instructions. Lets say you then have a runway incursion and end up being the next Tenerife. Did you breach your duty to adhering to the regulations in a ground operations situation that is non-standard? I mean you could always set your brake and stop moving, but it's a really great way to get chewed out by the controllers in Chicago, so nobody does.

If everybody in the operation is doing the same thing, and you get burned doing that same thing, are you really violating your duty to follow the regulations as well as you possibly can? Or is this a strict liability standard? IF you are EVER involved in a situation that results in the death of a passenger, you're guilty of manslaughter? As in, you were the pilot, people died and res ipsa we're going to put you in jail?

That seems a little absurd to me.

So I'm not trying to make a legal argument with this. Instead I'm trying to say, and I know you'll hate hearing this, but "it depends."

So to me, the question comes down to how we define duty.

Now did the guy in Lexington say on the CVR, "Screw the checklists, and don't set the heading bug, I don't need it, let's just go to whatever runway we find first and get the hell out of here?" I don't think so. Frankly, I think they did the best they could and got burned.

Anyway, academic thoughts.
 
Last edited:
Flymia said:
In my (almost) lawyer opinion the FO of Comair should have been charged with a crime. Involuntary Manslaugter comes to mind. The thing is most airliner accidents, such as this, is that few, if any come out alive. At the same time, off the top of my head, I can't think of nor remember any airline accidents which the pilots were prosecuted. I think 5191 is a pretty good example of where one could have been charged, and when just looking at the law should have been. Assuming Kentucky law is similar to the laws I have studied.

Take this case for example: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/11/29/3786929/bus-driver-in-fatal-miami-international.html

A tour bus driver got lost, he was traveling through MIA and went under an overpass which the bus did not have clearance to pass under. The over pass is marked by several large warning signs along with signs showing buses where to go. He missed these signs and hit it right there which ended up killing some passengers. He did not intend to do anything, but he was certainly at fault for those deaths. There was nothing wrong with the airplane, the pilots in the Comair crash were 100% solely responsible for the deaths of all on board. If this happened on the road there is no question the driver would be charged. Why not in an airplane? Maybe it is a bad idea for safety culture. But I can't think of any legal arguments which should protect pilots in these types of cases.
Click to expand...
Reckless Homicide in Kentucky reads like involuntary manslaughter in other states due to its broad definition of reckless, which reads more like a due care standard. Despite its ominous tone, it is a only a Class D felony.

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/Statutes/chapter.aspx?id=39372
 
PhilosopherPilot said:
Read a few books, then get back to us.
Click to expand...
So, it's your contention that those that don't agree with you are uneducated or poorly read? I accept the basic tenets of Just Culture and recognize the positive role they have played in improving aviation safety and the attitudes toward it. It is not a rejection of these values to believe that certain behavior is reckless and laws that address some reckless behaviors are just.

In the case of Asiana and just about every fatal accident resulting from pilot error, I don't see recklessness. In the Comair case, I do.
 
Last edited:
MikeD said:
Stopping in to visit Mike Lewis?
Click to expand...

Nah, just flying from MCI to OMA and got a little 'over-driven' to call the airport in sight so we'd beat Air Midwest in.

"SkywayEx 123, do you have Eppley in sight?"

"Yup!"

"Cleared visual"

(pause)

"Umm, cleared visual EPPLEY 33L, not Offitt"

(pause)

*MMMMMVVVVVVVRAAAWRRRRRRRRRRR*
 
Hopeful Pilot said:
I think I could land a 777 better than those asiana guys with my 0 flight hours and 10 hours of x plane 9 for iPad.

Sarcasm kinda
Click to expand...
I encourage you to look closer at the Asiana crash and think about what circumstances allowed a cockpit full of experienced pilots to muff it.
 
Pilot Fighter said:
So, it's your contention that those that don't agree with you are uneducated or poorly read? I accept the basic tenets of Just Culture and recognize the positive role they have played in improving aviation safety and the attitudes toward it. It is not a rejection of these values to believe that certain behavior is reckless and laws that address some reckless behaviors are just.

In the case of Asiana and just about every fatal accident resulting from pilot error, I don't see recklessness. In the Comair case, I do.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. It just seems like a lot of people on here are stuck on "blame" which is admittedly a huge part of our culture as a whole (outside aviation).

We just work really hard in safety departments to dispel that blame attitude, to increase participation in ASAP programs, etc., and it is frustrating to see pilots who are stuck in 1960. I understand CEOs and VPs of flight ops that are stuck wanting to hammer people. They are enough of a challenge.
 
jtrain609 said:
What year are you? Where are you going to school? Are you flying at an air carrier also? If so, my condolences, it's a hard life trying to do it all. Also, I'm not trying to interrogate you, I'm honestly curious if anybody else has had to do the same crap that I just went through (go to law school and fly at an airline at the same time).



Ok.

Negligently causing the death of another person.

Was there negligence? I don't know, let's use the traditional elements to determine that:

Duty, breach, causation and harm.

Is there a duty to the passengers? Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. Isn't the duty to adhere to the rules and regulations that your company provides for you? Our duty certainly isn't to keep ALL passenger safe ALL THE TIME because that's an impossible standard. What if you are in a position where you've lost all your engines and you need to ditch the aircraft; you know doing so will result in the death of SOME passengers, but it is the outcome that will save THE MOST lives (Kant as applied to tort, if you will). If the duty is to the absolute safety of ALL your passengers at all times, then even if you're a hero and only one person dies, then what you're saying is that you should still be prosecuted for manslaughter. As a prosecutor, it might make sense, but does it make sense as a pilot?

So how we frame our duty is probably what matters here. If the duty is to the absolute safety of the passengers, then yes, I'd agree with you.

But if our duty is conscientious adherence to our regulations, then we've got more questions that have to get answered.

Prior to this accident, at least on our checklists, we didn't verify the runway. We generally set the heading bug to the runway that we were going to take off on, but what if you don't know what it's going to be? I know that can sound crazy if you're not used to operating in places like Chicago or Atlanta, but it happens all the time. Chicago will be departing 22L, 32L at T10, 28R at EE and maybe something else, and you have NO IDEA which runway you're going to depart off of until you actually talk with ground, which will occur after your brief, and after you push back. So what do you do in a non-standard situation when the checklists don't line up with the operations on the ground?

And in fact, let's stay in Chicago. Let's say you're given a taxi clearance, and you're unable to read it back because the controllers never un-key the mic on the ground frequency, and you're never able to read back instructions. Lets say you then have a runway incursion and end up being the next Tenerife. Did you breach your duty to adhering to the regulations in a ground operations situation that is non-standard? I mean you could always set your brake and stop moving, but it's a really great way to get chewed out by the controllers in Chicago, so nobody does.

If everybody in the operation is doing the same thing, and you get burned doing that same thing, are you really violating your duty to follow the regulations as well as you possibly can? Or is this a strict liability standard? IF you are EVER involved in a situation that results in the death of a passenger, you're guilty of manslaughter? As in, you were the pilot, people died and res ipsa we're going to put you in jail?

That seems a little absurd to me.

So I'm not trying to make a legal argument with this. Instead I'm trying to say, and I know you'll hate hearing this, but "it depends."

So to me, the question comes down to how we define duty.

Now did the guy in Lexington say on the CVR, "Screw the checklists, and don't set the heading bug, I don't need it, let's just go to whatever runway we find first and get the hell out of here?" I don't think so. Frankly, I think they did the best they could and got burned.

Anyway, academic thoughts.
Click to expand...
tumblr_m7siitGQKo1qew7tgo1_500.jpg
 
PhilosopherPilot said:
Not necessarily. It just seems like a lot of people on here are stuck on "blame" which is admittedly a huge part of our culture as a whole (outside aviation).

We just work really hard in safety departments to dispel that blame attitude, to increase participation in ASAP programs, etc., and it is frustrating to see pilots who are stuck in 1960. I understand CEOs and VPs of flight ops that are stuck wanting to hammer people. They are enough of a challenge.
Click to expand...
I appreciate this post. In presenting my opinions about the Comair crash, I failed to provide any evidence that I might have progressive views towards aviation safety.
 
Pilot Fighter said:
I encourage you to look closer at the Asiana crash and think about what circumstances allowed a cockpit full of experienced pilots to muff it.
Click to expand...
I went through the whole thing what I was trying to say came out wrong, I was trying to say that they had numerous warning signs bad supervision of their height and speed and they should have saw the warning signs and avoided them
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top