DeltaWest - Flt 188

There were ASAP reports filed on this incident. The ASAP MOUs are clear that all information in ASAP is to be kept confidential unless the ERC denies the ASAP submission. That's not what's happened here. This whole thing has been a complete bastardization of the ASAP process, which is supposed to be sacred.

Then one can conclude that it was not allowed into the ASAP, thus no 'bastardization of the ASAP process'. As reported to date, it seems they willfully neglected flying the airplane (chose to become engrossed in a computer program without looking at the airplane for an extended period of time). There may (must) be more to the story but that is the picture painted thus far.
 
Then one can conclude that it was not allowed into the ASAP, thus no 'bastardization of the ASAP process'. As reported to date, it seems they willfully neglected flying the airplane (chose to become engrossed in a computer program without looking at the airplane for an extended period of time). There may (must) be more to the story but that is the picture painted thus far.
Another important part of the ASAP program is that is is a "sole source" report; i.e. the incident has not been otherwise reported to the FAA. In this case, there were many sources that reported this incident, so it should not have even been a candidate for the ASAP program.
 
You can have multiple sources for the ASAP Program.


If it is sole source ie...you have an altitude deviation and ATC does NOT report it you can't self incriminate. If it is from multiple sources the most you will receive is a letter of correction unless malicious.
 
So the NTSB gave the all clear to release the ATC tapes of Sully landing in the drink? I certainly remember hearing those before the NTSB even started their investigation.

Pilots should be given equal protection under the law, not equal protection under their feelings. I don't really see a problem with this at all. It's not as if any shocking revelations are popping up thanks to the release of the tapes. All I've heard is some poor saps making a mistake and trying their best to cope with it and keep their arse out of the sling.

Our society has side effects, the good comes with some bad, sorry. This was a public broadcast over a publicly owned frequency, no sort of privilege exists here. Saying this will damage the investigation is a flight of fantasy.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of the FAA either but we're pilots, not heads of state. We're pretty much the only ones who think we're Sierra Hotel.
 
You can have multiple sources for the ASAP Program.


If it is sole source ie...you have an altitude deviation and ATC does NOT report it you can't self incriminate. If it is from multiple sources the most you will receive is a letter of correction unless malicious.
thanks for the correction. I did mean to say that your remarks cannot be used against you in the case of a sole source, or even multiple sources as long as the case meets the profile. thanks Seggy.
 
Its not like the ATC recordings are proprietary info anyways with sites like liveatc et al. We all remember how there were links to the ATC archives within minutes of the Colgan crash. Ditto with the Hudson ditching. I'm sure there were some ATC nuts that had the 188 recordings stashed on some HD somewhere, so having the recordings/ transcripts come from the FAA and not "Joe's basement HD storage" might actually be a good thing.
 
Then one can conclude that it was not allowed into the ASAP, thus no 'bastardization of the ASAP process'.


Your conclusions is incorrect. Information was released, and the pilots' certificates revoked, prior to the ERC even getting to consider the case.

Another important part of the ASAP program is that is is a "sole source" report; i.e. the incident has not been otherwise reported to the FAA. In this case, there were many sources that reported this incident, so it should not have even been a candidate for the ASAP program.

You must have an old ASAP MOU (we do too). The newer MOUs include multi-source protection also.
 
There were ASAP reports filed on this incident. The ASAP MOUs are clear that all information in ASAP is to be kept confidential unless the ERC denies the ASAP submission. That's not what's happened here. This whole thing has been a complete bastardization of the ASAP process, which is supposed to be sacred.

Didn't one of or more of the majors just get their ASAP program back up and running after a significant time without it? I had heard it was shut down due to information in the reports being used against pilots.

IMO the FAA dropped the ball on 188 too and is going to try and railroad the pilots so no one sees their screwup and the part they played in the flight. The flight crew isn't without blame here either but I believe the ATL FSDO pulled their tickets without due process. Correct me if I am wrong here, but weren't both airman pretty seasoned with clean records? Let the airline impose their punishment and wait for the investigation to complete before going further.

This seemed to be a kneejerk reaction by the FAA.
 
Didn't one of or more of the majors just get their ASAP program back up and running after a significant time without it?

<-------- :hiya: :hiya: :hiya:

And now the NTSB and FAA, with it's bloodlust for public praise, has jeopardized the program.
 
Yup.

In the future, a potential problem reported with TERPS at an airport, file a NASA ASRS report and on the drive home:

"Tonight, on News at Nine... Pilots swerve perilously close to an obstruction at Jacksonville International, what this means about the safety of your children during holiday travel, after the mindlessly vapid sport report..."

Just like Ren says... EEEeeeeeeeeeeeeediots.
 
S

Also, the ASAP report WAS leaked to the press by the FAA.

I've heard that from quite a few different sources now and I agree that would be a biiiiiig mistake for the integrity of the programs.

Is there any way to corroborate that ASAP integrity has been breached? What is the source for that information.
 
Yup.

Why even file an ASRS or ASAP anymore?

I wouldn't. Your "NASA Form" is essentially useless, and if you file one that the Feds will think is contrary to the facts (i.e. "eyewitness testimony), then you're "lying" to them, whether or not you actually are lying to them.
 
There were ASAP reports filed on this incident. The ASAP MOUs are clear that all information in ASAP is to be kept confidential unless the ERC denies the ASAP submission. That's not what's happened here. This whole thing has been a complete bastardization of the ASAP process, which is supposed to be sacred.

Steve,

Yes, the ASAP/FOQA agreements are seperate from the NTSB processes. However, in order for them to properly work the information CAN NOT be leaked to the press. Pilots will not trust and follow these programs when the information from them is plastered over page one of The Wall Street Journal.

Also, the ASAP report WAS leaked to the press by the FAA.

The information was leaked prior to the ERC even having a meeting to consider the filing.

I'm not familiar with the process (not being an airline type and all), so pardon the questions. Looking for a little clarification on a couple of things. Maybe you guys could walk me through the process as it is supposed to be implemented, then I can follow how and when the integrity of the system was breached.

Who does the original ASAP report go to for evaluation? Is that an internal airline panel (pilots or mangement or both?) or does it go to the FAA for review? Is that what the "ERC" is? How do they decide if the report is accepted into the program (what criteria)?

Thanks!
 
Pulled this from another. Thought some ppl might be interested.

This was posted on our union discussion forum. I don't know the
> validity of the information.
>
> __________________________________________
>
>
> Hi All,
>
> I had a one hour conversation with Tim Cheney yesterday and would like
> to shed some light on what happened to cause the over flight of their
> destination, MSP.
>
> Before I begin with details, I wanted to say right up front that
> although there are many events that helped to cause this, Tim takes
> full responsibility and places no blame on anyone but himself. He is
> very humbled by what has happened and fully understands that as
> captain, he was responsible for the a/c, crew and passengers. That
> said, he wanted me to know how it all happened. Secondly, he has the
> full support of his neighbors in Gig Harbor , WA , as well has his
> church parishioners. One of his neighbors wrote a letter to the Star &
> Tribune in Minneapolis saying how great a family the Cheney's were, I
> agree.
>
> On their flight from San Diego to Minneapolis , after passing Denver ,
> the f/a called the cockpit to let them know Tim's crew meal was ready.
> Tim was the "flying pilot" on this leg, so he told his F/O that when
> the f/a brings the meal up, he will step back to use the restroom.
> When Tim returned, the F/A left the cockpit and he began to eat his
> crew meal. When a pilot leaves to use the restroom, it is customary
> for the other pilot to brief him on his return on "any changes", such
> as altitude, heading, course changes or atc center frequency changes,
> etc. In this instance, nothing was said....even though the f/o had
> received a frequency change. The problem that occurred was that the f/
> o never got a response on the new frequency....it was not the correct
> frequency....it was a Winnipeg Canada Center Freq.
>
> Now, Denver Center is trying to get a hold of them because they never
> checked in, because the f/o had dialed in the wrong freq......that is
> who called them so many times....but, then there was a shift change at
> Denver Center and no one briefed the new controller that there was a
> NORDO A/C (non communications) in their airspace....so, in actuality,
> atc basically "lost" this a/c.....see Wall Street Journal article below.
>
> Tim told me he heard atc chatter on the speaker and so never thought
> they were out of radio range.....but, of course, they were hearing
> pilots talk on Winnipeg Center . For non-pilots.....when we don’t hear
> anything for a long while...we ask atc if they are still
> there....sometimes they are and sometimes you are out of their area
> and need to find a new frequency. With this chatter going on, there
> was no concern that they were not being controlled.
>
> Then Tim told the f/o that the new bidding system was horrible and
> that his November schedule was not what he hoped for. He mentioned
> that his son was going into the Army in Dec. and he wanted certain
> days off so he could see him off.....the f/o said he could help him,
> he knew more about the new bidding system. Tim got his lap top out and
> put it on his left leg and showed the f/o how he bid. He told me he
> had his lap top out for maybe 2 minutes. Then the f/o said that he
> would show him how to do it on his laptop. He had his laptop out
> maximum of 5 minutes.
>
> Let's also add the 100 kt tail wind that they had to the discussion,
> not helping matters.
>
> The f/a's called the cockpit on the interphone(no they did not kick
> the door, no, no one was sleeping, no, no one was fighting) and asked
> when they will get there. They looked at their nav screens and were
> directly over MSP. Because they had their screens set on the max, 320
> kt setting, when the f/o called on the frequency, which of course was
> Winnipeg Center , he saw Eau Claire and Duluth on his screen. They
> asked where they were and the f/o told them over Eau Claire , which
> was not even close, but MSP had disappeared from the screen even
> though they were right over the city.
>
> They were, as you all know, vectored all over the sky to determine if
> they had control of the a/c and Tim kept telling the f/o to tell them
> they have control they want to land at MSP, etc. They landed with
> 11,000 pounds of fuel (no they did not come in on fumes, but had 2
> hours in an A320) and not but 15 minutes past schedule, even though
> they left San Diego 35 minutes late due to an atc flow restriction.
>
> In the jet-way awaiting them were FBI and every other authority you
> can imagine.
>
> Aftermath and tidbits:
>
> Although these pilots filed an NASAP Report, which was designed to
> have pilots tell the truth about events, so the FAA could learn from
> them, they had their licenses revoked by the ATL F.A.A. even before
> they came out of their meeting with NTSB and NASAP meetings.
>
> ATL FAA is really big on this new regulation which will allow pilots
> to take a short nap in flight so they will be rested for the
> approach...they were insistent that they were sleeping.
>
> MSP FAA, Vance (do not know last name) was the person who handed Tim
> his revocation letter(which was leaked to the entire world by the ATL
> FAA). Tim said Vance had tears in his eyes and walked away, said
> nothing. It was later learned that the entire MSP FAA office did not
> agree at all with revoking their pilot's licenses, but had no
> jurisdiction over the matter, since ATL FAA had control because of
> Delta.
>
> The pilots have been to Wash. D.C., ATL and MSP for several meetings.
> In ATL, they met with the chief pilots and Tim said they could not
> have been nicer. They are working to resolve this, not to try and fire
> them. But of course, they will have to get their license back for
> Delta to consider allowing them to continue flying. The appeal has
> been files for the FAA to reinstate their licenses or to settle on
> some form of punishment, etc.
>
> When Tim and his wife were in MSP for a meeting with the NTSB, they
> happen to be staying at the same hotel as the NTSB was. The next
> morning in the lobby, the NTSB official came over to Tim and said he
> did not know why they even called them in for this event. There was no
> safety issue. Also, MSP Center informed Delta that there never was a
> problem and no aircraft were near their plane. Even though no radio
> communications, they had been followed and separated.
>
> Yes, the company tried to contact them on ACARS, but the 320 does not
> have a chime...it has a 30 second light which then extinguishes.
> Tim always has 121.5 tuned, but as we all know as pilots, it can get
> very noisy at times and we turn it down and sometimes forget to turn
> it back on. He told me this may have been the case.
>
> So there were so many factors which helped to cause this episode.
> Anyone would have likely prevented it.....properly checking in on the
> new frequency would have been the first one.....
>
> A note about laptops.....in NWA's A.O.M (I think it stands for
> airman's operation manual), it does not say we can't use a laptop,
> however in Delta's A.O.M., it does, we are transitioning now and we
> actually have pages from both airlines. When our union showed this to
> the attorney's, they could not believe the confusion put on our pilot
> group. But, D.C. F.A.A. put out a new possible ruling which will
> disallow all laptops......so stupid, don't they know Jet Blue has
> laptops on every aircraft and soon all airliners will for the
> electronic Jepp charts.
>
> These are the facts and again, Tim said he feels very bad for the
> company and the pilots and is hoping for a positive outcome on their
> appeal. With 24 years at NWA, 21,000 blemish free hours, it would be a
> mistake to ruin his career over this in my opinion.
>
> Thank you,
>
>
> Mike
> F.A.A. Fails to brief new controller on duty (WSJ Article)
<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->
 
I'm not familiar with the process (not being an airline type and all), so pardon the questions. Looking for a little clarification on a couple of things. Maybe you guys could walk me through the process as it is supposed to be implemented, then I can follow how and when the integrity of the system was breached.

Who does the original ASAP report go to for evaluation? Is that an internal airline panel (pilots or mangement or both?) or does it go to the FAA for review? Is that what the "ERC" is? How do they decide if the report is accepted into the program (what criteria)?

Thanks!

When a pilot has some sort of safety issue (altitude bust, runway incursion, airspace violation, etc.), he can file an ASAP report. ASAP programs are implemented by MOUs that are signed by three parties: the company, the Association, and the FAA. Each party has designated people that are allowed access to the ASAP reports. These people serve on the Event Review Committee (ERC). The ERC meets on a regular schedule (usually once or twice a month) to review all ASAP reports that have been submitted. There are only very limited circumstances in which an ASAP report can be refused access, such as committing a crime, use of drugs/alcohol, intentional violation of regs, etc. Otherwise, the ASAP is supposed to be accepted into the program. When an ASAP report has been accepted, both the company and the FAA have agreed not to take any action against the pilot beyond that which is recommended by the ERC. The ERC is a consensus body, so everyone has to agree before any action can be taken. Typical actions by the ERC would be a Letter of No Action (basically just a thank you for submitting letter), a Letter of Correction, remedial training, etc. No letters or other actions as a result of ASAP are allowed to be included in the airline's records or the FAA's.

As you can see, the program provides a lot of protection for pilots, but it also serves to encourage a lot of participation. Roughly 98% of ASAP reports are "sole source," meaning the company and the FAA never would have known about them had the pilot not filled out an ASAP. That's a hell of a lot of information gathering that would be lost if these programs were to fall apart due to pilots not trusting them.
 
Your conclusions is incorrect. Information was released, and the pilots' certificates revoked, prior to the ERC even getting to consider the case.

Any of the three parties can elect to not have the event in the ASAP. Yes, it appears the FAA jumped the gun but had the ERC met, it is evident the FAA intended to revoke the licenses based on their interpretation of the pilots willfully neglecting to monitor the airplane.

FROM REPORTS THUS FAR, the crew seems to have embarrassed themselves, their company but worse the FAA and just after the new FAA big dog went on a tear about professionalism. And we know that in a bureaucracy, for every action there is an unequal and opposite over-reaction.
 
(ATN) Thanks for the description. Very helpful indeed!

As a follow-up question, what is the mechanism by which a report is accepted or rejected? Does it require a unanimous decision (or a simple majority) by the committee to reject, since you say that it requires specific circumstances to keep a report out of the program? Or does the EFC have to approve acceptance into the program?

edit to add: looks like OA answered while I was composing...I'll let the question stand for others input anyway...
 
Back
Top