dustoff17
Still trying to reach the Top Shelf
NO KIDDING!!
While flying in Africa, I guess the controller was either busy or annoyed he had to work because I got this reply, "All of your requests are approved."
Comair 5191: Sole Survivor tonight 1/8 on CNN
- Thread starter mikecweb
- Start date
While flying in Africa, I guess the controller was either busy or annoyed he had to work because I got this reply, "All of your requests are approved."
Just his version of a Cruise Clearance.
dustoff17
Still trying to reach the Top Shelf
I think it was his version of "You have "N" registration and I'm finished talking to you".
Last edited:
gne in prog
Well-Known Member
My last time into Accra at about 3am, "cleared to vector yourself to ils, cleared ils, cleared to land."
"Vector myself to ils?"
Clearly annoyed, "Yeeeeeesssss. Cleared to land and cleared to taxi to VIP ramp. Goodnight"
SFLAX
Well-Known Member
In this crash, I agree, pilot error was the fault of the crash. I'm just saying as my career has advanced from 121/135 and now into 91. I was very involved with the creation of and the running of fault mitigation services, as known as ASAP. After years of this and dealing with and working with the FAA and other agencies and other Unions and other ASAP managers, I have learned a lot . And to interrupt 91.3 as you do, which is fine. I will not agree with you.
Pilot Fighter
Well-Known Member
Specifically, what interpretation of mine are you faulting?
Autothrust Blue
Welcome aboard the Washington State Ferries
Sometimes I miss flying to Mexico. "We need twenty left." "Es okay!"
NickH
Uber Driver
Comair 5191 if the controller had cleared them for the wrong runway. Still the pilots fault.
Pilot Fighter
Well-Known Member
Every ATC instruction should be balanced with the information at a pilot's disposal. If I'm cleared to cross an active runway, I still have an obligation to look out the window. When cleared to take off or land, I'm responsible for checking if the runway can accommodate my equipment. Back to your example, vectored into terrain in IMC. In most situations, a pilot would be expected to recognize and avoid such hazards. Every accident report that I've ever seen has initially asked the question whether the crew had the experience, tools, training, information, and skills to avoid the accident. There are situations where ATC has a near monopoly on information and a pilot is limited by his inability to independently evaluate the information provided by ATC. As the information monopoly needle moves towards ATC, responsibility/fault/blame shifts to ATC.
Your lack of knowledge of the limits of controller responsibility in the 5191 accident surprises me. You might not know that policies established after 5191 do not mandate that controllers watch taxi and take-off. The new policy says that controllers should watch taxi and take-off if not engaged in other essential functions. Hardly an absolute.
Me, I assume that everybody is trying to kill me, my crew, and my passengers, as my countrified non-standard radio calls suggest.
"BEECH XYZ READY FOR TAKEOFF, RUNWAY TWO TWO, UNDERSTAND CESSNA HOLDING SHORT AT GOLF"
Occasionally a controller will cop a bit of an attitude but I most are cool with me taking a turn babysitting student pilots.
Last edited:
SmitteyB
Well-Known Member
Are you an airline pilot?
I am and I find your post offensive and ignorant.
To me, recklessness is a conscious effort to disregard safety. Whilst Polehinkle was not doing his job, to judge the man is about as low as those lawyers you speak of. I am sorry you lost friends. We have all lost friends in aviation accidents. It's our business, mistakes happen and we have to learn from them, but to volunteer that Polehinkle should be tried criminally is ignorant.
What a disgusting, sad, unthought-out, unprofessional, hurtful post.
DE727UPS
Well-Known Member
Plus One....
Pilot Fighter
Well-Known Member
Pilot, yes. Airline pilot, no.
You find my post offensive? In what ways? You find my post ignorant. How?
I don't care how you wish to define recklessness, I have provided the only definition that is relevant, the definition recognized by the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
In what fantasy land do you live in where men are not judged? Every human interaction is an act of judgement.
If you think that pilots are incapable of reckless behavior, you are so removed from reality that discourse makes little sense. If you think that pilots should be immune from the law, make your argument.
If you think there is an element of the accident or investigation in which I am grossly uninformed, educate me. Very few fatal accidents involve reckless behavior. I think this one does. As for Polehinke, I think he should have stood trial before a jury of his peers. I think his recklessness contributed to the accident. Guilt and infirmity is not a defense. If a bus driver ignores multiple road signs and kills all of his passengers, he will be prosecuted...even if he is overwhelmed with guilt and sadness and suffers from his self-inflicted injuries.
Mistakes and accidents are part of the game. Recklessness is another matter.
SFLAX
Well-Known Member
Please explain where he was reckless, where he had a conscience decision to not pay attention or disregard information? I am not saying he and the captain did not make a mistake that lead to the death of people, that could have been avoided , but reckless is a long road from there. And I do feel you have a big emotional attachment to this accident, where I do not. But I have had a friend, 2 actually do something reckless in a plane, and killed not only themselves but other innocent people. But not being an airline pilot, and I think you are in the military, does put you in a less objective view on something's , but if you have never sat in that seat I find it hard for a call of reckless charge.
NickH
Uber Driver
The Kentucky legal definition posted earlier: "Recklessly" -- A person acts recklessly with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur or that the circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.
That, to me, reads like the common definition of Negligent, rather than Reckless, but it would certainly apply to this incident.
That, to me, reads like the common definition of Negligent, rather than Reckless, but it would certainly apply to this incident.
PhilosopherPilot
Well-Known Member
The legal definition of recklessness or negligence in Kentucky is irrelevant. We aren't talking about the legal system here. It is a well known fact that the legal system is woefully behind the times in terms of just culture and culpability.
In terms of Safety and the modern way of looking at this sort of event it's pretty much clear that it was an error (series of errors), with some at- risk behavior thrown in (sterile flight deck, etc.)
Errors are not punished in a just culture. At risk behavior is counseled (retrained).
The bar for being reckless is pretty high. To be reckless they have to know that what they are doing is dangerous, and do it anyway. Essentially, for this case to be reckless they would have to say, "I know this is the wrong runway, but Eff it, let's go." By all accounts, they didn't fully realize it was the wrong runway until well into the roll, beyond the point of aborting. How can it be reckless if they weren't aware they were even in the wrong place until it was too late?
I know that you disagree, but I'm not sure how. You just keep saying it's negligent because they should've realized it was the wrong runway when the lights were out. Yes. They should've, but they didn't. They didn't take that mental step in their minds for some reason. But the only way it's reckless is if they make that mental step, and decide to go anyway. Being slow on the uptake isn't reckless, it's human error.
In terms of Safety and the modern way of looking at this sort of event it's pretty much clear that it was an error (series of errors), with some at- risk behavior thrown in (sterile flight deck, etc.)
Errors are not punished in a just culture. At risk behavior is counseled (retrained).
The bar for being reckless is pretty high. To be reckless they have to know that what they are doing is dangerous, and do it anyway. Essentially, for this case to be reckless they would have to say, "I know this is the wrong runway, but Eff it, let's go." By all accounts, they didn't fully realize it was the wrong runway until well into the roll, beyond the point of aborting. How can it be reckless if they weren't aware they were even in the wrong place until it was too late?
I know that you disagree, but I'm not sure how. You just keep saying it's negligent because they should've realized it was the wrong runway when the lights were out. Yes. They should've, but they didn't. They didn't take that mental step in their minds for some reason. But the only way it's reckless is if they make that mental step, and decide to go anyway. Being slow on the uptake isn't reckless, it's human error.
NickH
Uber Driver
I'm not sure Kentucky has a legal definition of negligence. Their legal definition of reckless is the only definition which is relevant to a criminal prosecution for reckless homicide.
Negligence certainly doesn't require intent of any kind, and nor does Kentucky's definition of reckless. They were certainly negligent by any conceivable definition. I'm not sure why you are picking on the runway lights, as there were many other failures in their conduct that caused this accident.
While I've made my reasoning clear on why I don't think he should have been charged, it certainly isn't because his 'Reprehensible conduct' was magically acceptable by your 'Just' Culture.
Negligence certainly doesn't require intent of any kind, and nor does Kentucky's definition of reckless. They were certainly negligent by any conceivable definition. I'm not sure why you are picking on the runway lights, as there were many other failures in their conduct that caused this accident.
While I've made my reasoning clear on why I don't think he should have been charged, it certainly isn't because his 'Reprehensible conduct' was magically acceptable by your 'Just' Culture.
Champcar
Well-Known Member
We are not France. Aviation safety did not improve over the decades by throwing pilots in jail everytime a human error was made, we have and will continue to learn from the mistakes of others to improve safety. Whats the point of jail in this case? What does it help solve?
SmitteyB
Well-Known Member
Okay. I ask because I wanted to see where you were from an experience standpoint.
Before we start a heated argument I wanted to point out, like others have, that you clearly have an emotional connection to this accident. All I can do is offer a professional, experienced opinion. I am looking at this completely objectively...as an airline pilot.
I find your post offensive because you have no experience in a Part 121 airline environment. I'm not trying to discount your experience whatsoever, but let me be very clear it is not easy to operate an airliner within a dynamic environment like the national airspace system.
I find it ignorant for the same reason.
An airline cockpit is unbelievably fluid as you might expect. There are hundreds of variables from pushback to block in. Pressures from maintenance, company, airplane, crew, gate agents, passengers, weather, ATC. There are so many more than simply "hopping in with a student." All of these variables lead to stress, which leads to mistakes. It's probably the single largest risk to air transportation, in my opinion.
So it's hard to "judge" someone when you have no first-hand experience.
The way the State of Kentucky defines recklessness isn't important to me.
I didn't say men shouldn't be judged, sir. I said you shouldn't judge him- that's not your right. It's not mine either.
Since this is a two part question, I will attack these separately.
I absolutely think pilots are capable of reckless behavior. I have had to take an airplane from a First Officer for what I considered reckless behavior. Again, "reckless" (and I find it hard to understand you wouldn't agree) is operating fully knowing what the outcomes could be, and continuing the operation.
Let's take Polehinkle for example. Reckless operations would be that crew identifying they were on the wrong runway "Hey this isn't the right runway, man" .... "It's alright, it's will be okay". That is reckless. Acknowledging the mistake and accepting the consequences. I do believe this crew never acknowledged they were on the wrong runway until just shy of V1? In this case there were many threats that this crew had to deal with. The taxiway confusion, unlit runway, unlit taxiway signs. Numerous threats that this crew failed to identify. Human error or reckless operations?
My vote is human error.
Your bus driver example really doesn't hold water. If the bus driver saw those signs and disregarded then, YES- he should be held legally liable. If the bus driver didn't see those signs because they were covered or blocked by trees should he still be prosecuted? I think you would find that would be very hard to convict. And that is what we have in the case of COM5191, this crew didn't recognize the mistake they made.
That is our fault as an airline industry for not having SOPs for identifying your position prior to takeoff. At my current company we do and that is a result of this accident. We learned something. We now have a barrier to prevent it again. Could it still happen? Yes, it could.
As I said above I think you are seriously emotionally invested in this accident and your opinion is tilted. And that is okay.
You said it.