JetBlue CEO on pilot’s mid-air meltdown: ‘It started medical, but clearly wasn’t’

[ASADFW7]

Semantics on the word that is used to describe this situation, the news in the actions not the summary. Where I can see the excitement in actually using the word mutiny past growing up as a kid and watching Mutiny on the Bounty, in this case there wasn't a divided power group, or desertion from direct orders. Here is the case of one person being a risk to the flight, and everyone on board reacted to that event, IMHO.

 

[Simon Says]

fom.....

Ours does not. Very Cool.

 

[Smarta$$]

Come on Simon. You are really hung up on the "captain is God" thing. This isn't a nuclear submarine.... He was clearly mentally incapacitated and the FO did the right thing. Period...

You seem to be the only one that doesn't understand that the captain doesn't have the right to bring down the airplane, simply because he is the captian.

With a complex like yours, I am glad I never flew with you. Wouldn't be enough room in the cockpit for both our heads.

 

[skidbuggy]

Not sure if this has been discussed, but will or can the FAA now look at the culture and working conditions at Jetblue given that there have now been two psychological events among crew members in a year and a half period?

 

[Blue Dude]

Not sure if this has been discussed, but will or can the FAA now look at the culture and working conditions at Jetblue given that there have now been two psychological events among crew members in a year and a half period?

1) The Slater incident arguably wasn't a psychological event at all. He was just a short tempered, immature idiot. Maybe hiring practices need a good look.

2) This incident might not be psychological in nature either. There may be something physically wrong to account for his behavior. By all accounts, it wasn't typical.

 

[gringo]

I still think its an appropriate term. I will give you loosely appropriate, but I still think appropriate. And the reason for it was because he locked the Captain out. Mutiny has to do with any "ship" and overthrowing a captain.

But you tell me what word would be more appropriate.

All right, Simon, since you insist on doubling down on stupid, I'll walk down this path with you.

As you pointed out from my previous post, "Mutiny is a conspiracy among members of a group of similarly situated individuals..."

Lets look up the word "conspiracy", shall we?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conspiracy?s=t

Specifically, #2:

"an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot."

So, going with your Harvey Birdman inspired train of thought, here's what must have happened:

The First Officer, prior to the flight, had some bad inkling about the Captain. So he got together with a) all three flight attendants, b) the deadheading Captain in the back and c) 4 or 5 beefy security types who happened to be riding along, and told them (before the flight, mind you) "hey, this Captain is going to get us all killed (or something). I won't let that happen. So here's the plan!

1) At 30,000', I'll give the Captain a reason to leave the cockpit.
2) He'll start acting erratically, where
3) you three Flight Atendants call out to have him "subdued"
4) giving Beefy Security Guys an opportunity to tackle him laving
5) an opening for the deadheading Captain to make his way up front,
6) making us all look like heroes.

What say you??!? Yeah!!!"

Pretty ridiculous, no? But that's exactly what would have had to have happened for this to be a "mutiny".

What the First Officer did is what EVERY first officer is authorized to do- he "relieved the Captain of his command". Period. This isn't India, where you're expected to watch the Captain fly the airplane into the side of a mountain, and we didn't suddenly time warp back to United Airlines circa 1970.

It's called the Chain of Command, and if the Captain becomes incapacitated, the FO is authorized and expected to assume command of the ship. Whether it's listed in your GOM or FOM or not, you as an FO are expected to assume command when necessary. And when the Captain starts acting erratically, that's when it's time to put on your big boy pants and do what you're trained to do.

In conclusion, relieving the Captain of his/her command is certainly a component of a mutiny, but it does not make it in itself, a mutiny.

 

[Mr Hat]

The First Officer should be commended for his actions. He very well may have saved over a hundred peoples lives. Who knows what would have happened if the Captain was allowed to stay at the controls while his breakdown progressed.
The Captain clearly had an emotional breakdown of some kind. I think the charges are a little ********************ty considering that the guy is pretty clearly in need of help, not punishment. I feel bad for him and hope he has a full recovery though his flying days are probably over.

 

[PBRstreetgang]

Simply saying yes doesn't make it so. What reference would you point me to.

Real simple,.....
Flight controls were on the other side of a locked door.
The former PIC was babbling like Jimmy Swaggert at a snake handling fest.
The reference would be, "due to ranting and raving, the PIC of record was medically disqualified and demoted to a passenger"

 

[InTransit]

I would agree.

The question is when and who relieved the Captain from being the Captain. The FO? Can the FO relieve the Captain from being the Captain? Granted the Captain could no longer pilot the aircraft but he is still a crewmember. Then ask yourself this. What if an FO or Captain locks out the other person without a valid cause or with what they think is a valid cause but it doesn't deem locking them away from the controls or their assigned seat. I find this aurgument facinating. This JB FO organized and performed a mutiny against the Captain. Rightfully so, but he still performed a mutiny.

Anyway you slice it I think the Captain is getting a raw deal with any pending criminal charges. I truly feel for the guy and really wish I could help.

If there are any JB guys reading this and know of an assistance fund I would gladly donate. Not only to help the family financially but to show the family that they are supported.

Very well put. I can definitely see the captain being medically unfit in this circumstance and unaware of his condition at the time. To be held with criminal charges is absurd.

 

[PBRstreetgang]

All right, Simon, since you insist on doubling down on stupid, I'll walk down this path with you.

As you pointed out from my previous post, "Mutiny is a conspiracy among members of a group of similarly situated individuals..."

Lets look up the word "conspiracy", shall we?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conspiracy?s=t

Specifically, #2:

"an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot."

So, going with your Harvey Birdman inspired train of thought, here's what must have happened:

The First Officer, prior to the flight, had some bad inkling about the Captain. So he got together with a) all three flight attendants, b) the deadheading Captain in the back and c) 4 or 5 beefy security types who happened to be riding along, and told them (before the flight, mind you) "hey, this Captain is going to get us all killed (or something). I won't let that happen. So here's the plan!

1) At 30,000', I'll give the Captain a reason to leave the cockpit.
2) He'll start acting erratically, where
3) you three Flight Atendants call out to have him "subdued"
4) giving Beefy Security Guys an opportunity to tackle him laving
5) an opening for the deadheading Captain to make his way up front,
6) making us all look like heroes.

What say you??!? Yeah!!!"

Pretty ridiculous, no? But that's exactly what would have had to have happened for this to be a "mutiny".

What the First Officer did is what EVERY first officer is authorized to do- he "relieved the Captain of his command". Period. This isn't India, where you're expected to watch the Captain fly the airplane into the side of a mountain, and we didn't suddenly time warp back to United Airlines circa 1970.

It's called the Chain of Command, and if the Captain becomes incapacitated, the FO is authorized and expected to assume command of the ship. Whether it's listed in your GOM or FOM or not, you as an FO are expected to assume command when necessary. And when the Captain starts acting erratically, that's when it's time to put on your big boy pants and do what you're trained to do.

In conclusion, relieving the Captain of his/her command is certainly a component of a mutiny, but it does not make it in itself, a mutiny.

I think the real question that begs to be asked,


Did the F/O get to log PIC for the time the former Capt. was under a stack of passengers?

Separate logbook column?

Opine?