Federal Judge Rules Flight 3407 CVR Can Be Used As Evidence

[Orange Anchor]

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

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.

Not calling anyone a moron but I did ask what the training scenario was for professional pilots. And I did that because there is BAD and INCORRECT training out there on stall recoveries. And I have seen it first hand.

Why does someone yank the nose up? I would think it had to do with an incorrect training emphasis on minimum altitude loss and trying to fly out of a stall with power instead of just dropping the nose. And possibly showing a video on tailplane icing and tailplane stalls to crews flying an airplane that does NOT exhibit those characteristics. Taking data from one vehicle and applying to another.. again, law of unintended consequences.

Again, not saying the crew was the ace of the base but focusing on their performance that day and using it as an anvil to bash the crew... a sideshow for the hicks.

 

[Orange Anchor]

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

It's not secret that in any industry if you pay piss poor wages and treat employees like crap that you get crap employees.

That's a fairly broad paint brush there. So everyone who pays crap has crap employees? And everyone who flies for ___ (fill in airline of your choice) is a crappy pilot?

 

[gne in prog]

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

Not calling anyone a moron but I did ask what the training scenario was for professional pilots. And I did that because there is BAD and INCORRECT training out there on stall recoveries. And I have seen it first hand.

Why does someone yank the nose up? I would think it had to do with an incorrect training emphasis on minimum altitude loss and trying to fly out of a stall with power instead of just dropping the nose. And possibly showing a video on tailplane icing and tailplane stalls to crews flying an airplane that does NOT exhibit those characteristics. Taking data from one vehicle and applying to another.. again, law of unintended consequences.

Again, not saying the crew was the ace of the base but focusing on their performance that day and using it as an anvil to bash the crew... a sideshow for the hicks.

my original response was to the person trying to paint the family members of the victims as the typical sue happy, money hungry americans. the families are angry and i think they have the right to be.

while i agree with you that training can be substandard and poor, i don't think that is going to be a very good defense in a lawsuit.

maybe a better point would be, how does a professional crew not notice that much speed decay? how do you get to the point of needing a stall recovery? i don't know the number, but of the millions of flights that happen in a year, i can't imagine that many stick shakers go off. if they had performed at a minimal acceptable performance level, we would never have heard of that flight.

i treat pilots in accidents like i treat sports teams, i give a lot of benefit of doubt, and rarely point fingers . however, these guys screwed up. i don't like country music, but i live near a lot of cows and horses, so maybe i am a bit hickish.

 

[Orange Anchor]

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

maybe a better point would be, how does a professional crew not notice that much speed decay? how do you get to the point of needing a stall recovery?

The answer is one gets distracted or 'task saturated' to use the jargon. And yes, why did the crew not notice that speed decay. I was astonished when I watched the animation but it happened. The crew was distracted. By what? Don't know. But arguing one is not professional because one gets distracted is arguing against the Human Mark 1.1 model. It makes mistakes. It is flawed and it screws up (again to use the jargon).

As for the stall recovery, I have tried to point out the flawed training as have a few others on the forum. I have apparently failed. But under the mantra of fly like you train and train like you fly, aggressive hold pitch and fly out stall training as used by MANY companies is WRONG WRONG WRONG. And if one gets into a high-drag situation where there is not sufficient or excess thrust you are NOT going to fly out. You are going to have to reduce pitch, something mentioned in the SAFO which you may not have read.
i don't know the number, but of the millions of flights that happen in a year, i can't imagine that many stick shakers go off. if they had performed at a minimal acceptable performance level, we would never have heard of that flight.

i treat pilots in accidents like i treat sports teams, i give a lot of benefit of doubt, and rarely point fingers . however, these guys screwed up. i don't like country music, but i live near a lot of cows and horses, so maybe i am a bit hickish.

Not calling anyone a hick but anyone who knows a lawyer or who is one knows that the courtroom is a theatre. It is a drama played out before a selected audience who is not going to be selected for their intelligence or familiarity with the community. I was in the jury pool last year and when asked if I had ever been qualified to carry, ever been a LEO in any way, I replied I had been an FFDO. I was immediately struck from the pool.

 

[Bandit_Driver]

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

This judge is legislating from the bench which seems to be a frustratingly common thing these days. The CVR serves absolutely no value other than to get a response from the jury that reading a transcript cannot do. However, the jury will not understand a majority of what is being said in the cockpit nor will they know how to interpet the various pops, click, and warnings.

As other have said, if the CVR is allowed to be used against pilots it will only set aviation safety back decades. When flight crews were diciplined at Brand X for ASAP reports the reports just stopped coming in. You may also see a lot of CVR CB's suddenly popping or being erased upon block in.

I bet there won't be one pilot on that jury.

In regards to police dash cams, I am not entirely in favor of those either. They don't tell the full story. You don't see what happened out of frame to far away that may have led up the issue at hand...

 

[moxiepilot]

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

If they allow the recording to be used for this case, "outside of an investigation into the crash," you open the door for companies to try and use the CVR recording to discipline pilots for small errors that didn't result in a crash or harm to anyone, Sterile Cockpit Violations, or even just bad mouthing during the flight. The cockpit presents a safe place to talk about company issues that are on your mind with other pilots where no one will hear what you say... If I have a problem with the company DO and say some bad things about him in the cockpit, you are opening the door on that being grounds to get me fired!

I don't agree with that being allowed!

I;m not saying I disagree, but there are two points I want to make: trash-talk and gossip.

While I understand everyone needs to get things off their chest some times as a way of venting, and I also understand issues need to be discussed.

However, if you are saying "bad things" in the cockpit (which of course could be said on the ground as well), and those "bad things" could get you fired - don't you think it best to, perhaps, keep your mouth shut no matter where the discussion is taking place?

 

[surreal1221]

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

Like many guys...I don't fly to preserve the lives of the people behind me...I fly to preserve my life, just as the guy or gal to my left does. Data shows if WE survive through an accident / incident, so will a majority of the kind folks who trusted us in the back.

None of us are in this profession to die and have our last words played out in a civil court where a judge or jury could take our estate and leave our families broken as they use our life insurance to fund legal fights.

 

[Bumblebee]

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

The response they made was very close to the appropriate response to a tailplane icing induced incident. If you also recall from the CVR that the FO had become completely stressed from the icing she was seeing, and the captain could very well have become myopic about icing as well.

When you include fatigue, and inexperience (for both of them) it exacerbates the situation.

One line of defense...

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.

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

both of the above are correct for tailplane stall recovery...and that video had been making the rounds heavily at that time.

 

[Cruise]

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

The response they made was very close to the appropriate response to a tailplane icing induced incident. If you also recall from the CVR that the FO had become completely stressed from the icing she was seeing, and the captain could very well have become myopic about icing as well.

When you include fatigue, and inexperience (for both of them) it exacerbates the situation.

One line of defense...




both of the above are correct for tailplane stall recovery...and that video had been making the rounds heavily at that time.

While tailplane stall was certainly a consideration at the onset of the investigation, IMO it did not play a role in the recovery actions of the crew. Although, none of us were there so there is always a possibility they thought TP stall. Although, it should also be noted there is zero evidence to support the crew's actual thoughts at the time of the upset...and there never will be either.

 

[Firebird2XC]

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

Personally, I don't think the final actions of the crew with bring about as much damage in the suit as the words they shared while still at the gate.

The CVR has the FO saying she felt unfit for duty, but given extreme financial disincentive to continue, felt her only real choice was go and suck it up and hope for the best.

That's classic 'pilot pushing', and introduces an aspect of culpability to the corporate culture of Colgan Air. I'm no Perry Mason, but the flight would appear to already be compromised right there.

Keep in mind, the crew is dead. Other than dancing on their graves, no lawyer can really do anything else to them. They're going after the company, and the policies in place and the corporate culture will be the fulcrum of their litigation.

 

[MikeD]

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

The CVR has the FO saying she felt unfit for duty, but given extreme financial disincentive to continue, felt her only real choice was go and suck it up and hope for the best.

That's classic 'pilot pushing', and introduces an aspect of culpability to the corporate culture of Colgan Air. I'm no Perry Mason, but the flight would appear to already be compromised right there.

While you and I know and understand that. Unfortunately, it's going to be difficult to make that direct link in a court of law. Like the saying in Training Day goes, "its not what you know, its what you can prove." The company's "out" is they'll say "she could've called in sick, if feeling unfit for duty. And she didn't." And they'd be right, regardless of the financial reality of it or not. It sucks, but its a sad reality how the onus goes back to the individual pilot here.

It's the same reason that management influences, culture etc, are always....at best...tertiary factors in any aircraft accident. Those factors don't directly cause the aircraft accident; their influence to that accident is always further back or down the list in the factors to the accident.

 

[gne in prog]

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

The answer is one gets distracted or 'task saturated' to use the jargon. And yes, why did the crew not notice that speed decay. I was astonished when I watched the animation but it happened. The crew was distracted. By what? Don't know. But arguing one is not professional because one gets distracted is arguing against the Human Mark 1.1 model. It makes mistakes. It is flawed and it screws up (again to use the jargon).

As for the stall recovery, I have tried to point out the flawed training as have a few others on the forum. I have apparently failed. But under the mantra of fly like you train and train like you fly, aggressive hold pitch and fly out stall training as used by MANY companies is WRONG WRONG WRONG. And if one gets into a high-drag situation where there is not sufficient or excess thrust you are NOT going to fly out. You are going to have to reduce pitch, something mentioned in the SAFO which you may not have read.
i don't know the number, but of the millions of flights that happen in a year, i can't imagine that many stick shakers go off. if they had performed at a minimal acceptable performance level, we would never have heard of that flight.



Not calling anyone a hick but anyone who knows a lawyer or who is one knows that the courtroom is a theatre. It is a drama played out before a selected audience who is not going to be selected for their intelligence or familiarity with the community. I was in the jury pool last year and when asked if I had ever been qualified to carry, ever been a LEO in any way, I replied I had been an FFDO. I was immediately struck from the pool.

we're arguing basically the same thing, with a different conclusion.

i understand that mistakes happen all the time, by everyone. however, most crews avoid the big mistakes, and don't let little mistakes pile upon one another until a catastrophic outcome results.

if this crew was task saturated, it was by mindless banter. there were no emergencies, there were no abnormalities. this should have been a routine flight. what reads in the transcript is not a crew getting distracted, it's a crew that's barely paying attention.

i'm not disagreeing that training needs to be improved. there are however, thousands of pilots flying around with the same training that never have had a problem. while you seem to be arguing along the lines of "this happened and the training is to blame", i'm saying that "this happened, and while training was sub-standard, regardless of training they should have never been in such a situation. they let the speed decay, they let the plane stall, and then they botched the stall recovery."

i'm not saying anything personal about the pilots, not saying they were bad people or anything similar to that, but they screwed up, and they screwed up bad. i can only hope i never screw up in such a manner, and do all i can to make sure i don't.

i think a tail coming off of a plane as a result of pilot inputs during a wake turbulence upset is a far better example of a training failing a crew then 3407.

re: moron/hick. i wasn't taking offense, merely trying to bring a bit of levity to a sad discussion by poking a little fun at myself.

 

[Bandit_Driver]

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

Keep in mind, the crew is dead. Other than dancing on their graves, no lawyer can really do anything else to them. They're going after the company, and the policies in place and the corporate culture will be the fulcrum of their litigation.

The crew is dead but it wouldn't suprise me if the crew's estates are sued.

 

[gne in prog]

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

The crew is dead but it wouldn't suprise me if the crew's estates are sued.

i'd bet the company and the estates are defendants.

 

[Firebird2XC]

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

While you and I know and understand that. Unfortunately, it's going to be difficult to make that direct link in a court of law. Like the saying in Training Day goes, "its not what you know, its what you can prove." The company's "out" is they'll say "she could've called in sick, if feeling unfit for duty. And she didn't." And they'd be right, regardless of the financial reality of it or not. It sucks, but its a sad reality how the onus goes back to the individual pilot here.

It's the same reason that management influences, culture etc, are always....at best...tertiary factors in any aircraft accident. Those factors don't directly cause the aircraft accident; their influence to that accident is always further back or down the list in the factors to the accident.

Sad but true. I don't think the company's alibi is quite as air-tight as you might think though. When you look at other policies and corporate culture, it influences things. I see this is as legal leverage.

The crew is dead but it wouldn't surprise me if the crew's estates are sued.

Me neither, sadly.

 

[MikeD]

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

Sad but true. I don't think the company's alibi is quite as air-tight as you might think though. When you look at other policies and corporate culture, it influences things. I see this is as legal leverage.
.

Hopefully so, believe me. I just think that they'll be able to put it back to "we have procedures in place for calling off if unfit for duty. It's the individual pilot's responsibility to utilize them, or not;" and hide behind the legalese, whether right or not. Pilots are adults and professionals, and should know their own limitations, they'll claim. "They're hired to exercise good judgement in all aspects of their employment."

 

[Bandit_Driver]

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

Sad but true. I don't think the company's alibi is quite as air-tight as you might think though. When you look at other policies and corporate culture, it influences things. I see this is as legal leverage.

Me neither, sadly.

This may be all mgmt BS but I was told at brand X that if something were to happen we cannot be sued as pilots and that if we were the company lawyers just submit a writ of some of sort and get our names removed and the the company becomes the defendant.

Can anyone comment on that from a legal stand point?

Hopefully so, believe me. I just think that they'll be able to put it back to "we have procedures in place for calling off if unfit for duty. It's the individual pilot's responsibility to utilize them, or not;" and hide behind the legalese, whether right or not. Pilots are adults and professionals, and should know their own limitations, they'll claim. "They're hired to exercise good judgement in all aspects of their employment."

And unfortunately no one on the jury have a 121 background and understand the unwritten reprocussions of calling in fatigued in the regional world. E.g well just dock your pay or you can get on the next flight and speak with the chief pilot.

 

[MikeD]

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

And unfortunately no one on the jury have a 121 background and understand the unwritten reprocussions of calling in fatigued in the regional world. E.g well just dock your pay or you can get on the next flight and speak with the chief pilot.

Sadly true. So much for a "jury of their peers".

 

[Firebird2XC]

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

Hopefully so, believe me. I just think that they'll be able to put it back to "we have procedures in place for calling off if unfit for duty. It's the individual pilot's responsibility to utilize them, or not;" and hide behind the legalese, whether right or not. Pilots are adults and professionals, and should know their own limitations, they'll claim. "They're hired to exercise good judgement in all aspects of their employment."

Perhaps.. but there's been a great deal of conjecture about the level of influence exerted on pilots, to specifically include Colgan pilots. The PBS Frontline special is a prime example. I'm not sure what legal precedent would be, but I think it'll come up, and the company's defense won't be so simple.

Sadly true. So much for a "jury of their peers".

Were we so fortunate.

This may be all mgmt BS but I was told at brand X that if something were to happen we cannot be sued as pilots and that if we were the company lawyers just submit a writ of some of sort and get our names removed and the the company becomes the defendant.

Can anyone comment on that from a legal stand point?

I can't... but that's a damned interesting question.

 

[Bandit_Driver]

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

Sadly true. So much for a "jury of their peers".

yup... and I bet if a pilot just happend to get on it by the luck of the draw I am sure the Plantiff's attorney would just boot them off during Voir Dire.