NWA 188 - Sleep or Laptops?

J

J777Fly

Well-Known Member
Word has it, that the pilots of NWA Flt 188 will loose their license. And rightfully so I think.

But the reason they gave for becoming distracted doesn't 100% sit well with me.

I am no commercial airline pilot flying jets. I know the A320 has ample space to open up a laptop in front of you due to the use of side stick controls as oppose to a control column. But how can experienced pilots, become so engrossed about a flight scheduling system, knowing that their destination was edging closer.

Surely you must be aware that MSP was approaching based on flight time elasped, instruments, audible alerts from ATC...

Hmmm, I think sleep is more likely the cause. I just cant see how two very experienced pilots, can open their laptops together, and become that engrossed they "forgot to land"
 
"Hey Butthead, this sucks, change it!" "No way Beavis, I wanna know!" "Blblblblbahahahahaa .... I AM THE GREAT CORNHOLIO!!!"
 
I think it's natural to get a bit defensive when the original post is judgemental without having all the details.
 
There is no way they had "laptop" issues for 2-300 miles and past MSP. If that was the case, I would fire myself for the stupidity. If they had said they slept, maybe they wouldn't have their licenses taken away.
 
Truthfully, I don't know that we'll really ever know the full story of what went on up there.

I have a very hard time believing that it was as "simple" as being distracted by a laptop, but I wasn't there, so I really can't say.
 
SteveC said:
[ general thread comment to follow ]

Why all the negative vibes? If someone without airline experience asks a question, why not take the time to educate instead of getting snide? Let's pay it forward.

http://www.z4-forum.com/forum/images/smilies/oldman.gif
Click to expand...

Seriously - This site is getting ridiculous.

And equally as absurd, why are folks around here defending blatantly idiotic and unsafe actions by pilots?!!! "Let's wait to see what the report says." These bozos were either 1) asleep, or 2) mentally not with it at all (drugs? too old? who knows) and their negligence could have caused a disaster.

What was it like two weeks ago there was a video of some tool sheds in a bonanza hit the side of a mountain and miraculously made it home? There's no black and white there my friends - Those guys messed up big and were lucky to walk away. Yet there were people posting lame excuses?!!! "Maybe they were class G and not doing anything wrong?"

Really guys...when you start defending the biggest losers on the planet, you eventually turn into this guy:

[YT]kHmvkRoEowc&feature=fvw[/YT]
 
Anyone else notice on here, and other forums that the majority of the people who are saying "and rightfully so, burn them at the stake", are still in training, or extremely low time?

Just an observation...
 
MikeOH58 said:
Anyone else notice on here, and other forums that the majority of the people who are saying "and rightfully so, burn them at the stake", are still in training, or extremely low time?

Just an observation...
Click to expand...

Or maybe some of just think that removing yourself from the responsibility of your job requires punishment and/or termination. If a doctor in the middle of a surgery decided to answer his cell phone and shoot the breeze for 75 minutes, I'd wager to think he would lose his license, even if the patient was still alive. Just saying. I am all for protecting our fellow aviators from the iron fist of the FAA, but something tells me the outcome of this "scenario" is justified and necessary.
 
mhcasey said:
Seriously - This site is getting ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Says who?

If you go to Subway and order jalapenos on your six inch sub, you can't necessarily complain about your sandwich being hot.

It is what you guys make it to be.
 
Socal321 said:
There is no way they had "laptop" issues for 2-300 miles and past MSP. If that was the case, I would fire myself for the stupidity. If they had said they slept, maybe they wouldn't have their licenses taken away.
Click to expand...


Funny 2 days ago in the paper it was 150 miles, today its 2-300 miles.
Someone said that they looked it up on a chart and it was 73NM. So
73NM Real, 150 NM Media, 300Nm on JC, hmmmm mabye next month it will be they overshot by 1000 miles:insane:
 
SteveC said:
[ general thread comment to follow ]

Why all the negative vibes? If someone without airline experience asks a question, why not take the time to educate instead of getting snide? Let's pay it forward.
Click to expand...

Bah! Nice and pleasant may not be my default, but you're right. :)

The idea of the poll rankled me because it is outright speculation about the cause of a specific incident that is being actively investigated.

For example, during the week after that BA38 777 plopped onto LHR, it would be akin to me asking an objective question like, "Do you think the crew either ran out of fuel, or did BA maintenance wreck some engines?"

Neither answer is correct or very pleasant and, more importantly, any responses would be based on incomplete information (or, at least, less information than is available to the folks tasked with drawing an official conclusion). This has a secondary detriment of generating a "general consensus in the aviation community" ... that is based on relatively uninformed speculation.

That's not to say it would also be inappropriate to survey us with questions like, "How many of you's guys have heard of a friend who nodded off while flying?" and comparing that with the response rate of "How many of you's guys have heard of a friend who found themselves significantly distracted by activity not related to operating an aircraft." ... information tangentially related to the topic, which cannot be attributed to a specific ocurrence.
 
They'll have ventured into the North Atlantic Track System and bounced into geosynchronous orbit around Planet Vulcan before it's before it's over.
 
Story Time:

Many moons ago I used to be a grievance rep for the AFA. One day a F/A came to me sobbing in the crew lounge, "Oh, I have to talk to you right away, I need help!!". "Okay", I said, and she told me her story.

First, a bit of background information. It used to be, at Eagle, that it was strictly, and I mean STRICTLY forbidden for an Eagle F/A to ride the F/A jumpseat in an AA airplane. This is not the case anymore, the policy has since changed, but, at the time, Eagle F/As were not allowed to ride in the F/A jumpseats of AA aircraft. This policy was very clearly spelled out to Eagle F/A newhires in training. So clearly spelled out, in fact, that we had to sign a paper saying we were aware of said policy and that we understood if we violated this policy we would be fired.

So, this gal proceeds to tell me about her commute in from XYZ city that morning. Her commuter flight was full, and she wasn't going to make it on the flight. The agent told her to take the F/A jumpseat. She told the agent she was Eagle and couldn't do that. The agent told her it was okay, and the AA CA told her it was okay. So she did it. She took the AA F/A jumpseat to work. Now, if it had ended there, she probably would have gotten away with it and no one would have noticed, but when she got to her base city, she went in to the inflight office and was chatting with her supervisor about her commute and she told her manager she took the jumpseat.

I know this manager well. She is/was a damn fine manager. She's fair, kind, and is NOT "out to get" anyone. But, this put her in an awful position. She had no choice but to fire this gal. She admitted in the inflight office that she violated a policy that she had a signed document in her personnel file that she KNEW if she violated the policy she'd get fired.

There was nothing I could do for her. I sat in on the disciplinary hearing, but there was no room for leniency or interpretation. Her actions were in clear violation, and the punishment for violation was clearly spelled out. Was it too harsh a punishment? Personally, I think so, I don't think it should have ever been a terminable offense to ride a AA F/A jumpseat. Bottom line, though, it WAS a terminable offense. Why was it such a big deal that an Eagle F/A not ride a AA F/A jumpseat? I don't know, and the policy has now changed. But that doesn't change the fact that she knew what she was doing, and she knew the consequences.

It's not that I wanted her fired! Of course not, but she did a stupid thing, and had to deal with the consequences of what she'd done.


What does that have to do with the subject of this thread? Just trying to cite an example of having been in the position as a union rep to represent someone who's done something that got them fired. It's not that I want to "burn anyone at the stake", or anything. I'm usually the first to jump to a crew member's defense, but sometimes people do stuff that warrants disciplinary action...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top