Instructor: CMR 5191 Pilots Violated Rules

[capt. megadeth]

He was in court answering direct questions, what would you have said? Yea it was alright to be talking during the taxi we do it all the time.

So, in other words, he lied on the stand?

 

[capt. megadeth]

As usual, the pilots will get screwed, and the lawyers will line up their own pockets. Don't even think for a second the lawyers give a two-bit-rats-a** about the flight 5191 victims. They are in it simply for the money, and will pretend to give a crap about the victims.

Probably the truest statement ever written on Flightinfo.

 

[capt. megadeth]

The biggest thing I can say in DAL's favor is that I can't recall ever seeing a newspaper or magazine on the flight deck.

Whoa! That would make for some looooonnnnng flights. I think I would shoot myself in the head.

 

[Turtlesfly]

Wait a minute, briefing while taxiing is a violation of sterile? Not that I recommend it . . . but if something comes up in your mind while you're going out -- like maybe something additional related to an MEL . . . and you say "oh by the way I'm going to leave this in the (whatever) for takeoff" that's a violation of sterile? Please. That's related to the safety of flight.

 

[wmuflyguy]

If that's what was meant then I see what you're saying, but I don't think that's what was meant. Of course if he knew they were about to take off from the wrong runway, he would have spoken up and not let them take off. I mean, duh.

I think the question that was asked and the answer he provided expressly implied that he would have busted them for sterile cockpit violations and tagged them as improperly trained. IOW he wouldn't have allowed them to takeoff because of their failure to obey safety regulations because of a few extraneous words after push back.

This is an article in a newspaper that selectively picked statements from the depositions the instructors gave.

There is no way to tell what the instructors actually said(or meant), unless we read the whole deposition.

For all we know the statements in the article taken from the deposition have nothing to do with each other. The statements may have been taken from two entirely different parts of the deposition and put in the article by the author to elicit outrage.

On the other hand, the statements may have everything to do with each other, the article doesn't say and you shouldn't trust the media to be objective.

This article still strikes me as just picking the most inflammatory statements to make the flight crew and pilots in general look bad.

 

[captainv]

This article still strikes me as just picking the most inflammatory statements to make the flight crew and pilots in general look bad.

well, of course they did, that's their job. The story isn't what they did right, it's what they did wrong. (FYI, I'm a current CMR FO and a former newspaper editor.)

The reporter, like most readers, doesn't really have a firm grip on what sterile cockpit is, but here's an expert saying they didn't follow the rules. Journalists aren't pilots, so you'll often find errors in news stories that stem from a lack of context on their part. (They make lots of other stupid errors, too.)

Want an example? Call your mom and talk for 10 minutes about something like sterile cockpit, or what flaps do, or even better, CANPA. Then have her write an email to her friends explaining it. That's pretty much what a reporter has to work with. Something gets lost in translation.

At the end of the day, it just doesn't matter. The newspapers often will never get it right, to our satisfaction, anyway. The readers, if they even bother to read the article, will still buy a ticket on the cheapest seat that pops up on Orbitz. And they'll still have no idea they're buying a seat on CMR or the 18 other DCI carriers because they think every flight is on Delta...

 

[zonker]

If the sterile cockpit is a joke, then there are going to be a lot more of these kinds of accidents. It is up to every CA and F/O to stop this chatter in the cockpit during critical flight phases. If you do not step up and call "Sterile Cockpit" you are part of the problem. Pilots who violate sterile cockpit are not professionals.

You're just an idiot. End of story.

 

[zonker]

Of course he had a choice. He could have told the TRUTH. But instead he chose to LIE to cover his own LCA letter. Is it your contention that of all the hundreds or thousands of line checks this guy has done, that if EVER even one time someone utters "nice sunset" or "dumb paint job" then BAM!!! line check failed, return to the gate, get a new crew?

What he should have said was "No, I would not have failed the crew for the extremely small ammount of post-pushback conversation that were uttered. I would have maybe held up a finger and softly said "sterile cockpit" but it would not have resulted in an on the sopt "failure" as you are trying to lead me into saying. Overall the rule is obeyed by flight crews and enforced by the FAA and their LCA represenatives, but as an experienced professional I can assure you that out of the thousands and thousands of commercial flights every day in our country, it is not normal, realistic or even psycholoically possible to even think for one moment that not one single extraneous word is uttered in any of them."

Instead he took the path that was easiest for HIM. Like I said, every pilot he flies with should promptly stop the aircraft, declare an emergency and refuse to fly with him until he gets retrained the moment he utters even a single "extra" word. I bet he would beg for mercy like a little coward "Why are you doing this? Please don't do this to me!"

I've seen LCA and Feds briefly say something below 10 many, many times, and most of you in the 121 world have too. This is not about safety or professionalisim. This is about liability. 99.99% of all part 121 flights have sterile cockpit "violations" by its strictest definition on their CVR's, and that includes when Feds and LCA's are in the J/S.

As far as safety and professionalisim, its a matter of degree and we all know it. Jamming on your iPod while the other pilot is chatting it up on their cell phone while recieving a hold short clearance? Unsafe and unprofessional. Two pilots heads up and paying attention, but one quickly utters "nice sunset"...perfectly safe, professional and normal.

I'm sure like many rules we have this one as someone said "because of the blood of others" but that is not what this discussion is about. This is about falesly pinning causes and liability on pilots, period. Since almost every flight's CVR will have at least some small ammount of sterile cockpit "violations" in it, anything whatsoever that happens can at least be partially "blamed" on the flight crew.

That's what this whole thing is about. Nothing more, nothing less. That "instructor" had an opportunity to set the record straight and he chose to make himself look good instead, while stepping over the graves of the fallen in the process.

Good post for the most part. Although I agree with other posts as well, that during a deposition they would have had no room to explain.

 

[pilotyip]

Zonker thanks, it always adds to the learning curve.

 

[JediNein]

Most likely the instructors and check airmen are not professional expert witnesses. They don’t have years of experience giving depositions. They’re used to being the ones asking the questions.

Depositions are not places for wiggling, especially with every word one utters open to public scrutiny, including by one’s current employer and all future employers. Further, after the depositions usually comes testifying in court and cross examination. While real life courtrooms don’t tend to have the drama of TV, it is a colossal time commitment with usually no pay. Plus, answer a question incorrectly, and as the FAA has proven to the detriment of aviation safety, the FAA can consider the testimony as a 709 ride and yank the witness’ certificates. See what happened to the ValuJet/SabreTech mechanics during the investigation if you need an example.

Every beforehand thought and bravado, any desire one might have to show the interviewer what an idiot they are, gone. One just hopes to answer the questions truthfully and make it through the deposition alive. Now that's if the lawyers doing the questioning are amateurs. Be thrown to the pros and one is lucky to come out chopped liver.

May you never have to experience a deposition about one of your own.

 

[doh]

Most likely the instructors and check airmen are not professional expert witnesses. They don’t have years of experience giving depositions. They’re used to being the ones asking the questions.

Depositions are not places for wiggling, especially with every word one utters open to public scrutiny, including by one’s current employer and all future employers. Further, after the depositions usually comes testifying in court and cross examination. While real life courtrooms don’t tend to have the drama of TV, it is a colossal time commitment with usually no pay. Plus, answer a question incorrectly, and as the FAA has proven to the detriment of aviation safety, the FAA can consider the testimony as a 709 ride and yank the witness’ certificates. See what happened to the ValuJet/SabreTech mechanics during the investigation if you need an example.

Every beforehand thought and bravado, any desire one might have to show the interviewer what an idiot they are, gone. One just hopes to answer the questions truthfully and make it through the deposition alive. Now that's if the lawyers doing the questioning are amateurs. Be thrown to the pros and one is lucky to come out chopped liver.

May you never have to experience a deposition about one of your own.

Thank you! I know both these guys and I just can't believe that they are out to get the dead!

 

[agonyairfo]

I agree with the logical responses on here. He was in court. Nothing personal.

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

FYI:

The departure briefing at Delta is accomplished in detail before the beginning of the Before Start checklist (the initial checklist... i.e. Preflight or Flight Deck Inspection at other carriers).


The takeoff briefing before hitting the runway is simply a reiteration of Heading/LNAV assigned or expected, alititude assigned, any airspeed restrictions, and the greatest threat plus mitigation. (HAA + threat being the acronym) It is meant to be a quick reminder and to keep the focus on the task at hand. Alot of things can happen between the departure briefing and all the subsequent checklists and taxiing. It's good to reiterate the plan before for taking the aircraft into the air.

 

[blott]

Here is how I answer most questions in a deposition... "I can neither confirm or deny that." Then sit there with a blank stare, and repeat.

(might help you out someday)

B

 

[igneousy2]

How about

"Say again...sorry I was on the land line"

 

[AVI8V1]

lawyer: Again, a simple yes or no. Had you been in the cockpit, giving this crew a line check, and heard those extraneous conversations, would they have failed the line check?

You: Yes.

I would not fail anyone for that on a line check. It is more of a "total picture" mentality. The real world of aviation is not black and white. That is not the CFRs or the FOM, its simple reality.

 

[JediNein]

"Again, a simple yes or no."

Answer "no" goes against the FOM, FAA regulations, and so on. It can cause you to lose your job and your certificates. It can cause the company to lose the case.

Answer "yes" and you are in compliance with all company issued materials, FAA regulations, and so on. You will not lose your certificates or your job. You will not be the one that loses the case for the company.

Notice the "a simple" requirement from the lawyer. The lawyer is asking for a black or white answer, and is not allowing any explanations. The lawyer is asking the question this way because he already knows how it works in the real world, but doesn’t want to give the potential jury the full answer.

In a full trial, the defense lawyer can ask the witness if he's ever failed anyone for that violation. He can also ask the witness WHY whatever technical violation is not a safety issue.

 

[Amish RakeFight]

Thanks for the Perry Mason version.

Answer "no" goes against the FOM, FAA regulations, and so on. It can cause you to lose your job and your certificates. It can cause the company to lose the case.

Answer "yes" and you are in compliance with all company issued materials, FAA regulations, and so on. You will not lose your certificates or your job. You will not be the one that loses the case for the company.

Notice the "a simple" requirement from the lawyer. The lawyer is asking for a black or white answer, and is not allowing any explanations. The lawyer is asking the question this way because he already knows how it works in the real world, but doesn’t want to give the potential jury the full answer.

In a full trial, the defense lawyer can ask the witness if he's ever failed anyone for that violation. He can also ask the witness WHY whatever technical violation is not a safety issue.

 

[DrewBlows]

Answer "no" goes against the FOM, FAA regulations, and so on. It can cause you to lose your job and your certificates. It can cause the company to lose the case.

Answer "yes" and you are in compliance with all company issued materials, FAA regulations, and so on. You will not lose your certificates or your job. You will not be the one that loses the case for the company.

Notice the "a simple" requirement from the lawyer. The lawyer is asking for a black or white answer, and is not allowing any explanations. The lawyer is asking the question this way because he already knows how it works in the real world, but doesn’t want to give the potential jury the full answer.

In a full trial, the defense lawyer can ask the witness if he's ever failed anyone for that violation. He can also ask the witness WHY whatever technical violation is not a safety issue.

In this case it's not a "simple yes or no" question. The lawyer might have well asked "How many home runs did Kirby Puckett hit in 1988? It's a simple yes or no question." If you cannot answer the question with "yes or no" you need to say so. If the lawyer can't accept it, he can ask a different question.

 

[zonker]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/07/22/national/a141936D15.DTL&tsp=1

The four updates — called Notices to Airmen — were missing from the flight dispatch paperwork the pilots received from Comair.