UPS / IPA booted off NTSB investigation of UPS 1354

[MikeD]

UPS and the IPA lose their "participating party" status to the accident investigation of their own aircraft. Fairly unprecedented move.

The National Transportation Safety Board on Monday kicked United Parcel Service and its pilots union out of the investigation into the deadly crash of one of the delivery service’s cargo planes last summer.

The NTSB, in a sharp rebuke to the package delivery service, threw UPS and the Independent Pilots Association out of its ongoing probe for making public statements about the cause of the accident before the investigation was complete. Two pilots were killed in the Aug. 14, 2013, crash in Birmingham, Ala. No one else was aboard the plane.

“Statements in the UPS online comments impermissibly prejudge the results of the NTSB’s continuing investigation of the accident and its forthcoming findings and probable cause statement regarding the accident,” NTSB General Counsel David K. Tochen wrote to Mark McCloud, acting president of UPS’s airlines division. “The NTSB is hereby removing UPS’s party status in this investigation.”

Based on preliminary evidence from the crash, it is safe to assume that one aspect of the NTSB investigation focuses on whether the two pilots were too tired to be flying. When the pilots union raised the issue on the Air Cargo World blog earlier this month, a UPS public relations manager responded the next day.

“We have spent the past year working with the NTSB to determine what caused the accident and how to avoid such an accident in the future,” wrote Mike Mangeot, a spokesman for UPS Air Group in Louisville. “NTSB factual reports showed that the pilots’ schedules, as flown, would have complied with new FAA crew rest regulations for passenger carriers, even if they had been in effect and applicable.”

Mangeot responded Monday to his company’s ouster from the investigation, saying UPS had complied with the rules and wanted the NTSB to reconsider.

“We maintain that our actions have been in line with NTSB rules for communicating during an accident investigation,” Mangeot said in a statement. “We believe we have been unfairly reprimanded for attempting to set the facts straight and defending our brand.”

Understanding the gravity of the contretemps requires a glimpse into the fastidious fashion in which the NTSB does its job. In the case of an airplane crash, the NTSB calls in all the “parties” to the incident. For example, that might include the airline, the company that built the plane, the company that made the plane’s engines, various unions and any manufacturer who made a relevant system aboard the plane.

All take a vow of silence until the NTSB delivers its final report on the accident. So secret is the process that for some portions of the inquest the partners gather in a secure section of the NTSB building that is equipped with a unique computer system that allows no communication outside the room. Partners at those sessions take notes on color-coded paper that is collected before they leave the room.

In the August 2013 crash, Flight 1354 had departed from Louisville for the short flight to Birmingham-Shuttlesworth International Airport.

Just short of the Birmingham runway, the plane clipped some trees and struck the ground three times before a final crash at 4:47 a.m. and burst into flames.

Story here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...5caefa-2c71-11e4-9b98-848790384093_story.html

 

[ChasenSFO]

Very interesting...the same NTSB that was so quick to tweet every detail in the first days of the Asiana crash, right?

 

[MikeD]

Very interesting...the same NTSB that was so quick to tweet every detail in the first days of the Asiana crash, right?

Yeah, that was a big mistake they made there. In that case it was trying to use social media for real-time updates, versus stating causal findings it seemed. However to me, either thing is a bad idea. It serves no useful purpose and can go bad quick. At best, you break even. Normally, you lose. So there's nothing to gain from a public information perspective by doing that kind of stuff.

 

[BobDDuck]

I'm not seeing where the IPA got booted as well.

 

[MikeD]

I'm not seeing where the IPA got booted as well.

"The NTSB, in a sharp rebuke to the package delivery service, threw UPS and the Independent Pilots Association out of its ongoing probe for making public statements about the cause of the accident before the investigation was complete"

 

[A Life Aloft]

"NTSB investigations depend heavily upon technical input from the accident parties," acting NTSB Chair Christopher A. Hart said in a statement. "If one party disseminates information about the accident, it may reflect that party's bias. This puts other parties at a disadvantage and makes them less willing to engage in the process, which can undercut the entire investigation".

I don't recall when something like this last occurred. Yikes. Certainly not the best benefit to either party, and while one can certainly see the NTSB's point, the press conferences/releases/photos right after the Asiana crash makes this decision seem to a bit hypocritical in comparison. They are however, the final authority. Also, I have not seen/read what the NTSB is referencing either. Does anyone have a link for this?

Edit....

In doing a quick search, I did find this, perhaps this is the issue and I have no idea if some of comments have been removed either.

http://www.aircargoworld.com/Air-Ca...ll-end-exemption-fatigue-prevention-rule/6702

 

[PhilosopherPilot]

American got kicked off an investigation a while back for downloading the FDR prior to sending it to the NTSB. It happens.

 

[BobDDuck]

"The NTSB, in a sharp rebuke to the package delivery service, threw UPS and the Independent Pilots Association out of its ongoing probe for making public statements about the cause of the accident before the investigation was complete"

I saw that but the only quote I could find from Tochen was that they were removing UPS's party status. It would be interesting if they booted both due to comments that one group made. That's kind of like kicking out Boeing because of something GE said.

 

[MikeD]

I saw that but the only quote I could find from Tochen was that they were removing UPS's party status. It would be interesting if they booted both due to comments that one group made. That's kind of like kicking out Boeing because of something GE said.

Agreed, if that were the case. Punishing one for the actions of another isn't right at all.

 

[DE727UPS]

NTSB action against the IPA was due to this:

http://www.ipapilot.org/press.asp?id=2418

LOUISVILLE, KY, August 13 – On the eve of the first anniversary of the fatal crash of United Parcel Service Flight 1354, UPS pilots are calling for an end to the carve-out of all-cargo airline operators from FAR Part 117, the new pilot rest and operating rules enacted by Congress. On August 14th, 2013, at 4:47 AM CDT, UPS Flight 1354 crashed on approach to Birmingham-Shuttlesworth International Airport, killing Captain Cerea Beal, Jr. and First Officer Shanda Fanning.

"What we didn't know then, but suspected, was the role fatigue played in this accident," said Captain Robert Travis, President of the Independent Pilots Association. "Once the Cockpit Voice Recorder transcripts were released there was no doubt. Cerea and Shanda told us on the CVR* that they were fatigued and wanted one level of safety in commercial aviation."

Part 117, which became effective for passenger carriers on January 4, is the first major revision of pilot flight and duty limits and rest requirements in 60 years. This new rule is science-based and designed to mitigate fatigue among commercial pilots. Disturbingly, all-cargo airlines are carved out of Part 117 for "political" reasons, as noted last week by the FAA's Federal Air Surgeon, Dr. James Fraser.

"This carve-out puts our nation’s entire aviation system at risk," said Jim Hall, former Chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board. "A tired pilot is a tired pilot, regardless of the plane he or she may be flying. By excluding cargo pilots from Part 117, the FAA is failing to adhere to its mission of making safety the first priority in aviation. If the FAA believes even one life lost in an accident is too many, the principle should also apply to cargo pilots."

From the moment the FAA announced the cargo carve-out, the IPA has fought to reverse it. This includes suing the FAA.

"We had no choice but to lead this fight", said Travis. "The crash of UPS Flight 1354 has intensified our efforts. Tragically, Capt. Beal said to our Scheduling Committee Chairman just before the fatal flight, 'these schedules over the past several years are killing me.' We owe it to Cerea and Shanda, their families and every pilot, whether flying passengers or packages, to end this dangerous exclusion. As we mark this difficult anniversary, I call on the FAA to end the cargo carve-out and apply one level of safety to all commercial aviation."

I guess you can't say that....

 

[SeanD]

Why is our government so effin sketchy? They must think anyone outside of their bubble of reality are complete idiots. So, should I assume the FAA told the NTSB to get them out of the investigation so they don't have to reevaluate the rest rules again therefore losing another customer?

 

[derg]

Everyone scrambles to keep the blood off their hands.

 

[ChasenSFO]

That got UPS and IPA kicked off the investigation? I find that a little shocking, honestly.

 

[A Life Aloft]

NTSB action against the IPA was due to this:

http://www.ipapilot.org/press.asp?id=2418

LOUISVILLE, KY, August 13 – On the eve of the first anniversary of the fatal crash of United Parcel Service Flight 1354, UPS pilots are calling for an end to the carve-out of all-cargo airline operators from FAR Part 117, the new pilot rest and operating rules enacted by Congress. On August 14th, 2013, at 4:47 AM CDT, UPS Flight 1354 crashed on approach to Birmingham-Shuttlesworth International Airport, killing Captain Cerea Beal, Jr. and First Officer Shanda Fanning.

"What we didn't know then, but suspected, was the role fatigue played in this accident," said Captain Robert Travis, President of the Independent Pilots Association. "Once the Cockpit Voice Recorder transcripts were released there was no doubt. Cerea and Shanda told us on the CVR* that they were fatigued and wanted one level of safety in commercial aviation."

Part 117, which became effective for passenger carriers on January 4, is the first major revision of pilot flight and duty limits and rest requirements in 60 years. This new rule is science-based and designed to mitigate fatigue among commercial pilots. Disturbingly, all-cargo airlines are carved out of Part 117 for "political" reasons, as noted last week by the FAA's Federal Air Surgeon, Dr. James Fraser.

"This carve-out puts our nation’s entire aviation system at risk," said Jim Hall, former Chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board. "A tired pilot is a tired pilot, regardless of the plane he or she may be flying. By excluding cargo pilots from Part 117, the FAA is failing to adhere to its mission of making safety the first priority in aviation. If the FAA believes even one life lost in an accident is too many, the principle should also apply to cargo pilots."

From the moment the FAA announced the cargo carve-out, the IPA has fought to reverse it. This includes suing the FAA.

"We had no choice but to lead this fight", said Travis. "The crash of UPS Flight 1354 has intensified our efforts. Tragically, Capt. Beal said to our Scheduling Committee Chairman just before the fatal flight, 'these schedules over the past several years are killing me.' We owe it to Cerea and Shanda, their families and every pilot, whether flying passengers or packages, to end this dangerous exclusion. As we mark this difficult anniversary, I call on the FAA to end the cargo carve-out and apply one level of safety to all commercial aviation."

I guess you can't say that....

Thanks for posting that. Shame really. This is the issue too with all factions rightly or not in some cases, wanting to all stave off responsibility and deflect litigation. Fatigue issues in cargo flying however, are a very serious problem and it's shameful that cargo was exempted from these rules to begin with. Pretty damn frustrating for the pilots and their families.

It would be wonderful though if in the end, some serious change could come about from this sad tragedy. At the very least, the FAA needs to seriously revisit this subject sooner rather than later. One Sky for real folks.

 

[SeanD]

That got UPS and IPA kicked off the investigation? I find that a little shocking, honestly.

I find it highly suspicious and cowardly.

 

[PhilosopherPilot]

Why is our government so effin sketchy? They must think anyone outside of their bubble of reality are complete idiots. So, should I assume the FAA told the NTSB to get them out of the investigation so they don't have to reevaluate the rest rules again therefore losing another customer?

You play by the NTSBs rules if you want to be a party to the investigation. No conspiracy here. If you open your mouth publicly, the NTSB really has no other recourse but to remove you.

 

[DE727UPS]

I find it highly suspicious and cowardly.

I'm not sure I should post the entire thing but here is an excerpt from the letter to the IPA:

"The NTSB is greatly concerned with the Independent Pilots Association's (IPA) failure
to consult with us prior to its release on August 13, 2014, of a press statement entitled "UPS
Pilots Call for End ofPart 117 Carve-out on Anniversary ofFatigue Crash." The press release's
statements concerning the UPS 1354 flight crew's fatigue impermissibly prejudges the results of
the NTSB' s continuing investigation of the accident and its forthcoming findings and probable
cause statement regarding the accident."

 

[A Life Aloft]

What I don't get, is that IPA has been saying the same thing since the proposal came out, and again several times since it was enacted. Here is one example from 2011: http://www.workforce.com/articles/ups-pilots-union-says-faa-fatigue-rule-threatens-public-safety

Here they are again in 2012: http://www.capapilots.org/call-it-the-freight-debate-cargo-pilots-raise-flap-over-rest-rules

It's not like they haven't been very public about this issue for years now. Finally when a terrible incident occurs they are supposed to be suddenly mum.

 

[MikeD]

To me, it depends how their comments were couched.

Was it a "this (fatigue) was a direct causal factor of this accident"; or was it more of a "we have deep concerns that fatigue issues and the relation to the new rules, may have had a degree of causation in this accident."

 

[DE727UPS]

This is what got UPS booted:

http://www.aircargoworld.com/Air-Ca...ll-end-exemption-fatigue-prevention-rule/6702

Submitted by Mike Mangeot, U... on Thu, 08/14/2014 - 18:29 Flight 1354 was a tragedy, and UPS continues to mourn the loss of our crewmembers, Capt. Cerea Beal and First Officer Shanda Fanning. We believe the anniversary is a time for reflection about the accident and the lives of our crewmembers. UPS places the highest emphasis on safety. We have spent the past year working with the NTSB to determine what caused the accident and how to avoid such an accident in the future. It is unfortunate that the leadership of our pilots’ union has chosen to play politics with the memory of our co-workers. Doubly unfortunate is that IPA leadership is distorting the facts of the accident investigation to advance its agenda on crew scheduling. The facts of the situation are clear: • NTSB factual reports showed that the pilots’ schedules, as flown, would have complied with new FAA crew rest regulations for passenger carriers, even if they had been in effect and applicable. • As noted by the NTSB, both crewmembers were coming off extended rest periods. The captain had been off for 10 days. And the first officer had only flown two of the previous 10 days. Despite union rhetoric, the facts of Flight 1354 do not support changing rest rules for cargo crewmembers. A cargo pilot is not a passenger pilot. Just because all pilots sit in cockpits does not mean they experience the same conditions. The highest level of safety is best achieved by the rules that are in place today, because cargo carriers and passenger carriers operate vastly different networks. Cargo pilots fly far fewer hours, about half, of what passenger pilots fly; they operate far fewer takeoffs and landings; and their schedules allow for more rest. The FAA has recognized the differences between cargo flying and passenger flying in having unique sets of regulations for each type of carrier. The memory of our pilots is best served by sticking to the facts and using those facts to advance aviation safety for the entire industry. - See more at: http://www.aircargoworld.com/Air-Ca...gue-prevention-rule/6702#sthash.WZ6sKZKu.dpuf