Silver Airways Saab Lands At Wrong Airport

What do you guys think is fair disciplinary action? From the company and from the FAA? Would anything be different if they did go off the end of the runway, but without any injuries?

I'm not sure that any disciplinary action is necessary. What is so difficult to understand about collecting all of the facts before making determinations?
 
My earlier question sort of got lost in the shuffle, so I'll restate it: What would be accomplished by firing the crew?

Obviously they would need to be replaced. How can one be sure the crew who replaces them would be any better and not make a mistake of the same magnitude in the future?

If they're fired in order to send a signal to the pilot group to "sit up and fly right," would it actually improve safety? Or just encourage pilots to sweep mistakes under the rug, for fear of getting fired?

I can sort of understand the liability issue, if the crew has another problem in the future, with media/victims asking, "Why were they allowed a second chance?" Still, from a practical, financial standpoint, I wonder how this liability compares to the cost of training two new hires (to replace the crew you just fired, in theory).

I guess I'm just failing to see how firing the crew would help the situation at all. If a company is going to fire somebody, they ought to make sure it will actually improve the company, rather than trade one problem for another.
 
I'm not sure that any disciplinary action is necessary. What is so difficult to understand about collecting all of the facts before making determinations?

I don't know. I'm hung up on the one fact we do know; that is that the airplane actually touched pavement where it wasn't supposed to. I just don't care about the "whys" behind their mistake. The most basic requirement for the flight is to go from A to B. They went to C this time because of at least one reason, they goofed. I just don't care about the "whys" behind their mistake I guess.

Us "evil 135 guys" came into this thread pretty politely. Some more politely than others. ;) It was jrh on page one and BobDDuck on page two that made the first comments about some of the things you and Seggy are freaking out about.
 
My earlier question sort of got lost in the shuffle, so I'll restate it: What would be accomplished by firing the crew?

Obviously they would need to be replaced. How can one be sure the crew who replaces them would be any better and not make a mistake of the same magnitude in the future?

If they're fired in order to send a signal to the pilot group to "sit up and fly right," would it actually improve safety? Or just encourage pilots to sweep mistakes under the rug, for fear of getting fired?

I can sort of understand the liability issue, if the crew has another problem in the future, with media/victims asking, "Why were they allowed a second chance?" Still, from a practical, financial standpoint, I wonder how this liability compares to the cost of training two new hires (to replace the crew you just fired, in theory).

I guess I'm just failing to see how firing the crew would help the situation at all. If a company is going to fire somebody, they ought to make sure it will actually improve the company, rather than trade one problem for another.

Good point. I know a guy who had gear issue, but did not catch it until the tower told him. For fear out of the possibility that he might one day actually gear up one of their planes, they let him go. In doing that, they put forth the money to TDY someone to his base while they trained a new pilot. This was for a chieftain mind you. I guess in this case they weighed in the possibility of a gear up landing and the costs associated with that above the training expenses for a new pilot.
 
Good point. I know a guy who had gear issue, but did not catch it until the tower told him. For fear out of the possibility that he might one day actually gear up one of their planes, they let him go. In doing that, they put forth the money to TDY someone to his base while they trained a new pilot. This was for a chieftain mind you. I guess in this case they weighed in the possibility of a gear up landing and the costs associated with that above the training expenses for a new pilot.

For those of you out there wondering why airline pilots need unions, this crazy story is the perfect example.
 
And that's the problem.

Let me rephrase. The steps in identifying the correct airport are pretty basic and are taught almost immediately. That's why I don't care about the "whys" of this particular incident. The day I land at the wrong airport, is the day I let something I was taught and practiced leave my mind. It's a battle, and being human, a battle that hopefully won't be lost.
 
Its not macho, if I land at the wrong airport, I deserved to be fired. I didn't follow SOPs, lost all of my SA, failed to work as crew, and made a mistake so serious that it could have easily ended in total airframe loss, and loss of lives. I'm really failing to comprehend the issue with firing someone that did all of the above.

Let me ask you this, what's an offense that you'd consider fire-able in terms of actual aviation. (non-drug related personal stuff)

Curious, you'd be willing to be fired, but would you then apply for another flying job?
Would you hang up flying?

I don't care one way or the other, but it is an interesting idea, that one would be willing to hang up flying willingly.
 
So because a few of us are coming at this with a different mindset, and we're not 121 sky gods, we're not entitled to any kind of opinion? Mind you, I'm not in the "CRUCIFY THEM!" group, but simple mistake or not, there should be consequences. We'll have to just agree to disagree I guess.
 
Curious, you'd be willing to be fired, but would you then apply for another flying job?
Would you hang up flying?

I don't care one way or the other, but it is an interesting idea, that one would be willing to hang up flying willingly.

No, I woud try to get something else, but that black mark will be on my record, rightfully so.
 
So because a few of us are coming at this with a different mindset, and we're not 121 sky gods, we're not entitled to any kind of opinion? Mind you, I'm not in the "CRUCIFY THEM!" group, but simple mistake or not, there should be consequences. We'll have to just agree to disagree I guess.

I very much want to respond to this, but I'm convinced that there's no discussion happening in this thread now, and anything I say would be tossed to the wind.

So I'll just reiterate from what I said in another thread; I hate the internet.
 
Man. Really. Before I rant I'll preface it by saying I am not defending the crews actions nor do I know the facts. But I'll make some assumptions based on my experience as a "121 sky god."

This was probably the crews first time flying into this area, being Silver just started flying out of Dulles a few weeks ago. And being the time of the day this flight was operating, I'm willing to bet this was probably the last leg of a duty day in excess of 12 hours. Again, just an assumption and my experience being a sky god. Plus the fact Silver was operating out of the dump that is Air Wis ground handling in Dulles, this crew was probably dealing with gate issues, slow boarding, no air being hooked up to the saabs, oh and with Colgan maintence being the crap that it is, FAA inspectors walking around the ramp all day, especially last Tuesday. That's another story in itself.

It's not just as simple as oh, this crew didn't check the maps, or backed up their visual approaches. Ever hear about the Delta 767 that landed on a taxiway in Atlanta a few years ago? You think that incident was just them being careless and forgetting how to properly land on a runway like they were taught in basic private pilot class? It happens to the best of them. Im willing to bet those Delta guys are still employed because it was many factors that led them to do what they did. Just like this Silver crew. It ain't always black and white. But what do I know, I'm a sky god.
 
"121 skygods."

"I don't care about the whys."

This isn't conversation, this is people "being wrong on the internet."

You can single me out if you wish, but it wasn't me or any of us "macho" freight guys that first posted anything antagonizing. The only thing that's been posted in this thread is opinions based on that person's current working environment. Only two people in this thread are trying to portray this opinion as the final say, and I'm not one of them.
 
Back
Top