USAF Officer Takes FO's Place During Medical Emergency

[avbug]

As I previously mentioned....if you can say with a straight face to a judge that you did the right thing then you DID THE RIGHT THING! What was the warning light? Maybe it WAS justified to land on a busy street. Stupid pilots make stupid decisions and they deserve to be reprimanded for it......but most stupid pilots will admit they screwed up when the time comes.

You're better off quitting while you're ahead. You've no clue.

When dealing with the FAA, you're guilty until proven innocent. You are condemned with enforcement action, and then you can appeal...but only after you've already received the penalty. Surely you know this?

If you can say with a straight face to a "judge" that you did the right thing, then...it means nothing. You don't issue yourself a violation, you don't take enforcement action against yourself. What you have to say on the matter means precious little. Surely you know this, too? No? Surely, then, you know enough to keep your mouth shut and call an attorney before you do get yourself in trouble. Weather you feel warm and fuzzy about what you did means eactly jack squat.

Stupid pilots that admit their screw up, especially to the FAA, are begging for enforcement action, and have clearly established their stupidity. Very often, the FAA has no case, except what the stupid pilot makes for the FAA. A letter of investigation is sent to the pilot, telling the pilot he has ten days to respond. The pilot, thinking anything he says will make a hill of beans difference, is stupid enough to respond. The FAA isn't interested in the pilot's explaination. The FAA isn't interersted in the pilot explaining himself so that he can get off. The FAA will use anything you say against you. There is no miranda, and no need of miranda; you're dealing with administrative law. This is regulation, coming from the Code of Federal Regulation; it is regulation and now "law."

You don't have the rights you might think you have, nor do you need to be apprised of them.

A pilot does WHAT'S NECESSARY and everybody survives but he gets a 30 day blip on his radar from the NTSB....we'll never know if the "book" way would have had the same outcome but at least everyone is around to thank the guy/gal up front afterwards!

You may be familiar with the common advice that it's better to keep your mouth shut and appear a fool, than open it, and remove all doubt. Judging from your reply, I'd say not. But let's address your concerns anyway.

But first, just what on earth is a 30 day blip on radar?

Does the NTSB violate pilots? Does the NTSB have the regulatory authority to do so? Where does the violation come from, and who takes enforcement action? You need to answer this question before you make any more replies; educate yourself a little bit, because it may save your career one day.

Several years ago an instance occured in which a first officer made an error, which the captain then handled as an emergency. The captain handled the evoloution properly. The first officer had his certificates revoked for being the one who caused the emergency, whereas nothing happened to the captain, administratively. Pilots who cause, or respond to a situation inappropriately, even when they feel they're doing the right thing, are routinely violated. You do NOT have carte blance authority to deal with a situation in any way you see fit; only to deal with it appropriately to the extent necessary to handle the situation, and then no more.

If you caused the situation, heaven help you.

You apparently feel that the "thanks" of those on the ground will make up for a ruined career. But at least you get a thank you. What a stupid notion.

Plan in advance. Know your rights, know what is not your right, and for petes sake, know when to shut up. The FAA successfully violates more pilots based on their own testimony than any other source. Think about that. The pilot who admits on the radio to being off-altitude, the pilot who admits he was in an airplane at a certain time when a violation should have occured, the pilot who puts "altitude violation" in the subject header line at the top of his ASRS report, making it useable against him in enforcement action.

You do NOT know what you're talking about. Your advice may be damaging to others. Take the time to get to know this topic before you spout off.

So much to post, and too little space to post it. Continued in the next post...

 

[avbug]

Last time I checked the FAR's were law.....

How long has it been since you checked? 14 CFR, or Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, is not "law," it's regulation. Federal laws are found in the USC, or United States Code, and are passed by congress (or state laws, which are passed in state legislature). Try again.

last time I checked, there were FAR's regarding operating an aircraft in a reckless and dangerous manner as well as operating the aircraft while under the influence of alcohol.

FAR is officially the title of the Federal Acquisition Regulation, but that's a different story for a different time.

You are correct; 91.13 applies specifically to careless and reckless behavior, and if you'll read my post again, you'll note that I already addressed it. But let's visit it again. Operation of an aircraft on the ground or in flight in a careless or reckless manner is a catch-all that's applied to most enforcement proceedings. Not all, but a great many. If you can't be had under other regulation, 91.13 can be used to hang you. Don't have a current chart on board? 91.13 could be used. Didn't call for a breifing before you left? You're required to...among other regulations, 91.13. Took an aspirin this morning? You guessed it...91.13 can and has been used. A very versatile regulation for pinning your butt to the carpet, regulatorily.

Operating under either or these (edit--operating an aircraft in a reckless and dangerous manner as well as operating the aircraft while under the influence of alcohol) cannot be excused by the ASRS program as they are done with criminal intent! You don't accidentally fly under the influence!

The ASRS program is about safety, and reporting safety related items for the benifit of others. You may be very surprised to find that indeed a number of alcohol related topics appear in the ASRS database. For example, a first officer notes that upon boarding, he was given a small candy by the flight attendant, which he ate. He subsequently learned that the candy contained some alcohol. The flight returned to the gate and a new crewmember was called. You'll find many such cases, showing prudent thought, rational action, and these are very appropriate in the data base. A pilot who discovers that his crewmate is impaired, during the course of the flight, submits a report. An appropriate useage, especially if later the FAA comes calling and attempts to include the sober pilot by suggesting that he allowed his crewmate to fly impaired. You'll find many alcohol related entries in the ASRS database. Try reading it some time.

As for "accidentally flying under the influence," think again. Pilots have been poisoned, overcome by carbon monoxide, experience hypoxia, and a host of other conditions that have done exactly the same thing to their ability and performance as several good stiff drinks. Piltos ahve inadvertantly consumed alcohol...possibly impaired, possibly not...but certainly possible to get busted on a spot inspection. You'll find many, many reports of untintentional impairment or operation under the influence of a number of impairing agents in the database. Again, try reading it some time.

You don't accidentally operate dangerously!

Wrong. Many pilots who are violated haven't gone out to do so intentionally. Their actions may later be deemed inappropriate. They may have made an error or mistake. But many violations are certainly not deliberate...people make dangerous acts often times without intending to do so. You submit that people do not do this, than any dangerous or unsafe act must be intentional. Such arrogant thinking is dead wrong. It's also not consistent with common enforcement action against pilots involved in such actions.

The ASRS's program is designed for ACCIDENTAL mistakes like altitude deviations and landing on the wrong runway!

Very, very wrong. Again. (Keep it up, you're getting good at it...or quit while you're ahead. that would really be best for you).

The ASRS is designed to record and collect reports that can contribute to safety. It was never intended to be a legal nirvana. Ideally, the ASRS will record every safety related event that occurs; all of them. Those establishing the ASRS quickly realized, however, that pilots and others would be very reluctant to provide any information which might incriminate them or make them liable. The provision was then established that the ASRS reports would be kept anonymous, so long as they didn't describe criminal acts or intentional violations, and that these anonymous reports would not be permitted to be used against the pilot. That is, the report alone, if a covered report, couldn't be the first source of discovery for the FAA.

This is an important point to understand. The FAA can still use the report, or parts of it, against you. The FAA cannot learn of a covered incident in a report, and then pursue the actions on the merit of that one discovery. This is why I indicated previously that you should not disclose the fact that you have filed your ASRS report until necessary. It won't do you any good until appealing enforcement action anyway, and your assertion that you've filed the report is not protected in the same way the report itself is; if the FAA learns anything from your assertion, or the title of the report itself (on the strip that's returned to you), it may be, and almost certainly will be used against you.

Remember, you don't have any right to remain silent, nor to an attorney, nor any of the other "miranda" rights. You're already guilty; don't give the FAA anything to use against you. You may be invited for an informal conference. Just chit-chat, you think. Your purpose there is to testify against yourself, and that's how it's going to be used. Anything you do or say is the same way. Keep your mouth closed outside your attorney's office, and don't believe any of your own hot air about feeling good, doing the right thing, or public thanks.

The ASRS program was never designed for your protection. It was designed as a gathering program for safety related information. The FAA has graciously agreed that while it will proceed with enforcement action against you, you won't serve the penalty if the report was filed in a timely manner and is a covered report.

In all the years of the program, there has never been a breach of confidentiality, and that's important to the integrity of the program. But there have been a lot of pilots violated who were foolish enought make admissions where they shouldn't, or who submitted reports that they thought would cover them, and didn't. Further, while the report itself can't be used as the evidence against you if it's a covered report, it can certainly alert the FAA as to where to start looking. If you file the report, keep your mouth shut and your pen lid on...and don't reveal it until discussing appeals to enforcement action.

As for spouting off bad advice.....if I had a nickel for every piece of incorrect nonsense you've said on here I could change my last name to Gates and have people call me Bill.

Awright, Bill. Pick your gauntlet. List the incorrect nonsense, if you will. I've got all day.

 

[Styles]

I read an article not too long ago about the actual likelihood of your average private pilot successfully landing an airliner and walking away from it is actually pretty slim.

But really... what a story to tell at the O'Club..

Maybe not a private pilot but I'll put my money on this guy (Matt Ford) who is not even a pilot but dose lighting design for TV.

 

[Dr Pokenhiemer]

Sounds to me like a lot of non-military people are afraid to make command decisions because of what disciplinary measures may be taken against them. Those of us who were in the military should know how to make a decision and take responsibility for that decision. That's what this Captain did, and we shouldn't beat the horse to death about who could, or should, do what to him. Face it, aren't we all just chomping at the bit to get the chance to replace an FO in a situation like this? Would would say no if they were asked to help out? Would you be thinking of filling out NASA forms, etc.? No--step up to the plate and do what you need to do. Same goes for the Captain--step up and make it happen, then come here and see how many people criticize your decision because it's probably the only place where it will show up!

 

[Les Paul]

Puh-leaze. You have a lot of friggin' crust second-guessing the actions of this Captain, especially with the vast amount of experience you indicate in your profile.

As a former EMT and current 737 pilot, I have no problem whatsoever with the way that this Captain decided to handle this extremely challenging situation. You have no idea what transpired in that cockpit, what the conditions were, yet here you sit in your chair, loudly expressing how wrong he was and how right you are. Give me a break .

Single-pilot operation is possible, but was not necessary. This Captain made a command decision, and the outcome was the best that anyone could hope for- safe landing, medical assistance rendered promptly, etc.

So... they "have alot of nerve second guessing the Captain", but you are going to pontificate that you "have no problem whatsoever with the way this captain decided to handle this".

Isn't hypocritical self righteousness just grand.

Les Paul

 

[JAFI]

The question “Is the CFR’s a law?” may be a matter of semantics. Perhaps better left to a room full of lawyers or a discussion in a Law Review publication. Some info and links are below.



As to any enforcement action for the captain who lands his aircraft after the first officer becomes incapacitated, if this is a scholarly discussion – have fun, if you are talking real world – some of you are just too paranoid, IMHO no violation occurred nor would there be any action except for an award for doing a good job. The captain accessed the situation, obtained assistance, followed correct procedure, therefore end of any possible enforcement “story”. The captain did what he (or she) was supposed to do – conduct a safe flight and meet any emergency condition that arises.



As to the FAA wining all its cases, Maybe an independent report would be of interest:



http://www.avweb.com/news/avlaw/185371-1.html



For enforcement action, I’m not putting on any rose colored glasses and saying the world is a wonderful place, but if you want to tell scary stories i'll say “but Wally, your scaring the kids”…. If that’s what keeps you warm at night – continue…



JAFI



-----------------------



U.S. Code can be found under:



http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/



(to include): Title 49 Transportation



http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode49/usc_sup_01_49_10_VII_20_A.html



(Where you will find) : 44701 General Requirements



http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode49/usc_sec_49_00044701----000-.html



(more specifically):



(a) Promoting Safety.— The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall promote safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing—

(1) minimum standards required in the interest of safety for appliances and for the design, material, construction, quality of work, and performance of aircraft, aircraft engines, and propellers;

(2) regulations and minimum standards in the interest of safety for—

(A) inspecting, servicing, and overhauling aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, and appliances;

(B) equipment and facilities for, and the timing and manner of, the inspecting, servicing, and overhauling; and

(C) a qualified private person, instead of an officer or employee of the Administration, to examine and report on the inspecting, servicing, and overhauling;

(3) regulations required in the interest of safety for the reserve supply of aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, appliances, and aircraft fuel and oil, including the reserve supply of fuel and oil carried in flight;

(4) regulations in the interest of safety for the maximum hours or periods of service of airmen and other employees of air carriers; and

(5) regulations and minimum standards for other practices, methods, and procedure the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce and national security.





For more info:



http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr/index.html



Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (e-CFR)



Title 1: General Provisions
PART 2—GENERAL INFORMATION

Browse Next

§ 2.1 Scope and purpose.

(a) This chapter sets forth the policies, procedures, and delegations under which the Administrative Committee of the Federal Register carries out its general responsibilities under chapter 15 of title 44, United States Code.





In the Code of Federal Regulations: Title 14 Aeronautics and space



http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title14/14tab_02.tpl

 

[sf3boy]

Ty,
I admit to being very inexperienced in aviation/airlines. I have only been in the airlines for over 5 years and have 5000+ hours. Your profile states your are just as inexperienced as I. As far as security clearances and that who gives a s*#t? We have all passed the necessary FBI checks and what not. My only point is that if this would have happened at Mesaba Airlines in a little BAE-146, Mesaba would have called TSA themselves to have that captain put out. And bottom line, a captain should be able to land a plane by himself.

 

[IFlyGC]

bug,

I'm quite disappointed at how you decide you partially quote phrases in order to make the context suitable to your argument which is completely irrelavant to the initial intent of this post. Let me use smaller words to make it very clear for you.

1) Fly the plane in the manner in which you were trained but NEVER be afraid to go outside of the box if it will save lives.

2) Get the plane on the ground and worry about the paperwork later.

3) Use common sense. The chances of you getting a violation are in all reality quite small. Fill out the appropriate form to cover your backside just in case.

The difference between you and I 'bug is that I am referring SPECIFICALLY to the emergency which WAS the context of this thread prior to your twisting.

Quite frankly, I'm pleased I don't have the pleasure of flying with you because you seem way too concerned about the "big bad FAA" and about how they'll do all sorts of nasty things to you. Having had the pleasure of working with them over the years I can testify first hand they're not the license ripping a-holes you make them out to be! They make good drinking buddies too.

The intent of the NASA form has nothing to do with getting you out of trouble...it's NOT a get out of jail free card. The INTENT of the form is to help solve reoccouring problems in the aviation community. It just has a nice side effect that if the FAA does decide to violate you, you can show that you promptly filed a report and, as I stated above, if it's not criminal or intentional then they will not enforce any certificate action against you.

As for listing your other inaccuracies, while you may have all day I have better things to do but, you can start by replying to people using their quotes in context as opposed to how they suit you.

As for "accidentally flying under the influence," think again. Pilots have been poisoned, overcome by carbon monoxide, experience hypoxia, and a host of other conditions that have done exactly the same thing to their ability and performance as several good stiff drinks.

...where as I specifically stated under the influence of ALCOHOL.

Well, I've put my favourite Chubby Checker album on the radio.....twist away......

 

[avbug]

Yes, I can see how quoting you directly might be misleading, and then addressing each point of your commentary in turn might truly be twisted and devastating. If you don't want to be quoted, then shut up. Learn whence you speak first, then post. See how easy that is?

I have to agree. I'm grateful I'm not saddled with flying with you, either.

 

[Ty Webb]

So... they "have alot of nerve second guessing the Captain", but you are going to pontificate that you "have no problem whatsoever with the way this captain decided to handle this".

Isn't hypocritical self righteousness just grand.

Les Paul

Actually, Paul, what is really grand is your protracted absences from this board. What is really not grand is the fact that you are back again.

In all of your posts, I have yet to see one where you actually had something positive to say. It's pretty clear that you are just a very unhappy little man with a tiny crank, whose wife has left him, and doesn't even have a dog to kick.

Log off, grow up and get over it, you pathetic little pile of puke.