Yes, but on a plane, the interests of the members exactly and always coincide with public safety.
Not if the pilot is potentially facing a disciplinary hearing. A union's job is to protect their members, even when they are at fault. That makes it more difficult to sack pilots with drug or alcohol problems, for example. Some of the time, the union's job will align with public safety. Other times they are diametrically opposed. A union is not a public safety commission, not their job.
How many people here would accept every word they said during every day at work recorded by bugs inserted in their office by their employer, which are then published for the world to hear?
The CVR is a tool to aid accident investigators discover what happened in a crash, normally because the people speaking are no longer there to testify. It is most definitely in the interests of the flying public, that pilots feel able to have difficult safety discussions on the flight deck in an hopes and honest fashion, without fear of those conversations being taken out of context and viewed with 20/20 hindsight.
The AAIB and pilots have a very good trusting relationship, which allows investigators far reaching intrusive powers, in the knowledge they are using that information properly, rather than giving access to management/media/politicians. Our “Just Safety Culture” requires buy-in, faith and trust on all sides. I don’t know of any of my uk colleagues who worry about what is recorded on the CVR, so I reckon it works well.
What do you imagine the pilots deleted the CVR for in this case that they feared discipline about?
It's basically the first rule of being involved in a ****up. Try to eliminate any evidence that you were there. They don't have to have done anything wrong, it's just much easier if they don't have to explain their conversations. That's why it's union policy to oppose any CVRs. It's just automatic, don't be stupid enough to record yourself being involved in a problem.
How many people here would accept every word they said during every day at work recorded by bugs inserted in their office by their employer, which are then published for the world to hear?
For many virtual workers the answer is a lot of our words are recorded and would be made available to the world under certain circumstances although these are rare. We have some control over verbal meetings but a lot are recorded and all online chats/emails are held.
If being a pilot is anything like any other safety critical operation, you have a check list you have to sign off and document before you do anything.
FWIW, I don't believe there was any intentional cover up for this specific incident. However, the two hours thing suggests to me it's a general policy to avoid the conversations that go into checking off these requirements being made public.
If you, as the responsible person such as pilot, know there is an issue then the discussion centres around how you can downgrade the severity of the issue so that the operation can continue. The pressure to do this is generally not put in writing but it is there.
The proper solution would be to give the pilots the authority to make decisions without any impact on their careers. I don't see that being an option in America.
Therefore the union does what it can to protect its members from the results of the pressure put on them by management.
But yeah, I don't think anyone intentionally wiped anything here. Just that no one involved wants any of these discussions to be made public.
How many people here would accept every word they said during every day at work recorded by bugs inserted in their office by their employer, which are then published for the world to hear?
If I was in a safety-critical job such as surgery or flying a commercial aircraft, I would accept being recorded during the safety-critical parts of the job. That's not a "bug inserted in their office", it's a known recording done for public safety reasons. Pilots know the CVR is running, they aren't being bugged, they don't want to risk being prosecuted when they screw up.
I also assume at work that anything I say could become part of an official record. I try very hard not to say things that could get me fired or land me in court. What is it that you say at work that you really don't want anyone to know about?
It’s basically the first rule of being involved in a ****up. Try to eliminate any evidence that you were there.
If you think that the first reaction of a pilot who was involved in an incident that could have easily killed them & for which they are highly unlikely to be responsible is to try and deny all knowledge of being there, then I really wonder what you have been taking today.
And by the way, thanks for telling me what a Union's responsibilities are. In the 10 years I spent on the Branch Executive of an aviation union I may have missed it. In case you are wondering, there is no way we would ever.... ever prioritise a members interest over the safety of the public. Sorry.
The AAIB and pilots have a very good trusting relationship, which allows investigators far reaching intrusive powers, in the knowledge they are using that information properly, rather than giving access to management/media/politicians. Our “Just Safety Culture” requires buy-in, faith and trust on all sides. I don’t know of any of my uk colleagues who worry about what is recorded on the CVR, so I reckon it works well.
Do you work in the U.S. or the U.K.? In the U.S., pilot unions are adamantly opposed to CVRs. As in, they don't want any recording at all.
In the 10 years I spent on the Branch Executive of an aviation union I may have missed it. In case you are wondering, there is no way we would ever…. ever prioritise a members interest over the safety of the public.
Then you aren't representing the interests of your members. Pick a side. If you don't like that side, work for the other side. You can't be on both sides.
As Dan has said, the ‘Just Safety Culture’ requires buy in from all sides. We already use flight data to monitor every flight - anything that is unusual can be investigated and additional training/change in procedures can be arranged as required. There is trust between management and crew. The aim is to learn from incidents and reduce the chance of them recurring. But it’s not universal and shouldn’t be taken for granted.
I have friends who work for airlines who most definitely have a ‘blame culture’. I wouldn’t touch those airlines with a barge pole. There’s little attempt to learn from incidents, just an opportunity to sack the crew, problem solved?
If you lose the trust of the crew, you’ll find far more things are hidden, pushed aside and not learned from.
@thols2 what I find staggering is you speak with such an authority, a manner not even matched by the qualified and certified aviators in this forum.
You are exactly the sort of person who derails and compromises safety investigations alongside those who are arse covering.
It’s basically the first rule of being involved in a ****up. Try to eliminate any evidence that you were there.
If you think that the first reaction of a pilot who was involved in an incident
Read what I said, "first rule", not "first reaction". Don't make stuff up. Your first reaction is about immediate survival. After the incident, the first rule of saving your career is to try to minimize your responsibility. Eliminating evidence that you were involved is the first thing that experience (and lawyers and union reps) teaches you.
Eliminating evidence that you were involved is the first thing that experience (and lawyers and union reps) teaches you.
Really? My first thing after landing a plane missing something important would be a shower and changing my underwear.
Any good lawyer or union rep also wouldnt recommend that since, to take this case, making a mistake about a pressurisation warning is one thing but being caught trying to cover it up would be something else instead.
You have already decided this was a f&&k up. I’d say that’s far from certain.
Stuff breaks all the time. My job is to stop an incident turning into an accident. I’d say the crew here (pilots and cabin crew) succeeded in that aim, similarly to the JAL fireball last week.
@thols2 please just put down the spade and walk away from the hole.
There is a fascinating discussion being had about this incident, but “do pilots avoid their voices being recorded” is not it.
what I find staggering is you speak with such an authority,
I was right about how the door failed. Go back and watch the NTSB video. Note the part how they state that the bolts haven't been located and comment that they may not have been fitted.
I was told on this forum by a commercial pilot that CVRs turn off when the engines are shut down. They don't. Go talk to him about that. If they did, someone would have had to turn them back on to erase them. Unlikely to happen by accident. Turns out that the data erasure is because the pilots' unions want it erased. It's systemic, not a one-off.
The American pilots' unions opposition to CVRs is a matter of public record. It's nothing to do with public safety, it's to protect their members from legal issues.
Any good lawyer or union rep also wouldnt recommend that since, to take this case, making a mistake about a pressurisation warning is one thing but being caught trying to cover it up would be something else instead.
Never get caught trying to cover stuff up, always have plausible deniability.
If you are ever involved in a serious incident, never make a statement without your lawyer or union representative present. Their job is to determine what happened and what legal liability you might have. They will look at what evidence the other side has and try to discredit it. Whatever you do, do not provide evidence that can be used against you by opening your mouth, unlocking your phone, etc.
U.S. pilot unions oppose any use of CVRs because they can be used as evidence against pilots. The unions are doing their job, protecting their members. The system they have automatically destroys the evidence before it can be collected unless the flight crew or ground staff turn off the aircraft systems. That's a perfect case of plausible deniability, the evidence was destroyed but nobody could be expected to remember to save it given the circumstances. This didn't come about by chance, it's because pilot's unions want to prevent CVRs being used as legal evidence. It's not illegal but it's deliberate destruction of evidence. They deserve a bow for that, brilliant work on their part.
Then you aren’t representing the interests of your members. Pick a side. If you don’t like that side, work for the other side. You can’t be on both sides.
No. It doesn't work like that. The Union's responsibility is to protect their members in as much as they are acting in a reasonable & professional manner. The aim is to make sure that they are treated fairly. Aviation professionals spend their entire lives working to protect public safety, why should we then defend an individual who, by their behaviour, is working against that? As a Union, and as a Union rep, if there was a conflict between the performance of an individual & the safe provision of an air traffic service, there would not be a moment's hesitation about which side you'd be supporting. By all means try and get the best deal possible for the member (retraining or moving to a non-operational role or whatever), but the safety of the service is paramount. Do you really think it would work any other way? Oops! I forgot this is the internet.
"It’s basically the first rule of being involved in a ****up. "
They don't need to check the CVR to know who was driving the plane.
A question to the real, proper, qualified pilots – is it correct that, under European air regulations, CVRs are required to have a 25 hour ‘recording window’ and, if that’s the case, why is it only 2 hours under US regs?
The honest answer is I have no idea (or interest) in how the CVR recording happens. I can’t touch it, and it plays no part in any decision making process I carry out. There’s enough stuff to confuse myself with that IS relevant.
It’s basically the first rule of being involved in a ****up. Try to eliminate any evidence that you were there.
I'm glad I don't work with you.
…..or in USA generally!
The Union’s resposibility is to protect their members in as much as they are acting in a reasonable & professional manner.
The onus is on the employer to prove guilt. The union's job is to demand that evidence. Even if your member is as guilty as hell, your job is to protect their interests and insist on evidence of guilt. You're not a public safety commission, you're a representative for your members interests. Sometimes those will be in conflict and a union's responsibility is to its members.
I was right about how the door failed.
But wrong about...
Pilot’s unions oppose using cockpit flight recording data in prosecutions because it encourages pilots to turn them off. My guess is that pilots are unofficially coached in how to ensure that evidence is accidently lost after incidents.
1 out of 2's not bad.
I’m glad I don’t work with you.
Damn right. I have a perfect record. Some of my colleagues however...
Damn right. I have a perfect record.
Yeah thats not overly convincing bearing in mind you have announced the first thing you do is destroy any evidence incriminating you.
But wrong about…
Pilot’s unions oppose using cockpit flight recording data in prosecutions because it encourages pilots to turn them off. My guess is that pilots are unofficially coached in how to ensure that evidence is accidently lost after incidents.
1 out of 2’s not bad.
No, the coaching isn't informal. It's the public policy of the pilots' unions to make sure evidence can't be collected. The pilots are formally coached in how to avoid legal issues, nothing informal about it. Gotta hand it to those union guys, they just put it right out there in public.
Yeah thats not overly convincing bearing in mind you have announced the first thing you do is destroy any evidence incriminating you.
I've never had to destroy evidence. I've never done anything wrong and there never was any evidence linking me to any failures. Prove me wrong.
The onus is on the employer to prove guilt. The union’s job is to demand that evidence. Even if your member is as guilty as hell, your job is to protect their interests and insist on evidence of guilt. You’re not a public safety commission, you’re a representative for your members interests. Sometimes those will be in conflict and a union’s responsibility is to its members.
Hmmm. Are you seriously telling someone with over 30 years experience in aviation, and a 10 year stint on a Union's executive body, how the organisation should operate? Remind me what your qualifications are? I'm telling you. That isn't how it works. Nobody wants an incompetent air traffic controller sitting on a radar screen where hundreds of people's lives are at stake. Nobody wants a pilot flying a plane who is a danger to everyone on the aircraft. No matter how much they pay each month in subs.
there never was any evidence linking me to any failures
Your colleagues destroyed the evidence by mistake? And I quote...
Some of my colleagues however…
No, the coaching isn’t informal. It’s the public policy of the pilots’ unions to make sure evidence can’t be collected. The pilots are formally coached in how to avoid legal issues, nothing informal about it. Gotta hand it to those union guys, they just put it right out there in public.
Your guess was that pilots are coached in how to turn the CVR off.
Hmmm. Are you seriously telling someone with over 30 years experience in aviation, and a 10 year stint on a Union’s executive body, how the organisation should operate?
The problem with using this sort of boring experience is:
a)they have decided you tell the pilots to lie and cover up.
b)this is clearly a bad thing and so therefore you are also going to lie and cover up that you do a.
Therefore they are still right and anything you say will just prove them more right.
If you are ever involved in a serious incident, never make a statement without your lawyer or union representative present. Their job is to determine what happened and what legal liability you might have. They will look at what evidence the other side has and try to discredit it. Whatever you do, do not provide evidence that can be used against you by opening your mouth, unlocking your phone, etc.
That's certainly a common attitude in some industries. But aviation has a culture where finding out what went wrong and why is actually quite normal rather than arse covering. Other industries try to learn from that and encourage the same level of openness and candour. I'm a big advocate of the right to silence - but if its the immediate response following an incident that could put many more lives at risk if it happens again it doesn't send a good message.
U.S. pilot unions oppose any use of CVRs because they can be used as evidence against pilots.
Well they say 'privacy' which is not quite the same thing. Why do European pilots not object to it - even when flying to the US? Could it be that they have sufficient safeguards in place that the data will not be misused by management or others on matters totally unconnected with safety?
Do you work for Boeing? it would explain your determination to make this about pilots, and your attitude to making sure you are not personally seen to be at fault.
It’s basically the first rule of being involved in a ****up. Try to eliminate any evidence that you were there.
Prove that's what you do, otherwise it's just posturing from behind a keyboard.
Can we park the Thols2 argument please? There's a risk that the thread will just descend into squabbling then get closed and we'll miss all the good stuff from the really informed.
If you don't agree with Thols2, just ignore him as you're clearly not going to change his mind.
your view on the aviation industry does not coincide with my particular experience.
Likewise with mine in an adjacent space. In fact the manner in which he is insistent on apportioning blame and to use an American term; malfeasance, with such a high degree of arrogance & certainty is something I find genuinely astounding. That attitude was one of the very reasons Haddon-Cave had a field day within defence aviation.
Something I'm sure Dan is also well versed and experienced in as a former member of the RAF.
But the attitude on display serves as a great insight into how people create either healthy or unhealthy safety culture within their area of work.
Surely no-one finds themselves as a pilot on a commercial aircraft without being aware that there are CVRs and FDRs? It is a known and accepted part of the job.
There must be 1000s of hours of self incrinination on UK dashcams...
Of course we know they are there. I have no input to them, don’t touch them, have no interest in finding ways of fiddling them, and in all honesty, I’m more bothered about how the kettle in the galley works, as that actually affects how my day goes.
If the airbus comes up with a little message telling me it’s broken, I’ll look it up in the book of 10,000+ similar messages to see if Mr Airbus will let me fly without it working. If they will, I will carry on drinking my tea. If not, I’ll call an engineer to fix it.
Airbus, CAA, my employer their lawyers and me are content with this arrangement.
So back to the Alaskan 737, it is perfectly feasible that aircraft has had issues with that door/plug in recent weeks, that had been checked by maintenance in accordance with manufacturer procedures, and cleared for flight. These jets are big flying computers and networks. Sensors fail, get bent/wet/corroded/ stop communicating all the time. There will be backup systems and manual checks.
Every now and then a novel failure will appear, either due to flawed design, manufacturing flaws, poor maintenance procedures, or just a straight human error.
A good safety culture embraces that and learns, without looking for blame. If we penalise anyone making genuine errors, people will try to cover it up.
A good safety culture embraces that and learns, without looking for blame. If we penalise anyone making genuine errors, people will try to cover it up
and this is exactly why flying is by far the safest form of transport and has led the way for other industries in reduction of errors and improvements in quality and safety.
Boeing have definitely lost their way. It’ll take 10 years to rectify that. You can lay the blame squarely at the merger with McDunderheads. Shame as they both made beautiful aircraft that were a pleasure to fly in as pax. Interesting item on PM tonight going into the ramifications and parallels with other businesses that switched technical excellence for shareholder value and all either failed as businesses (ICI) or sunk their share value (Boeing, GE).
Yes it would be nice to have a thread about the recent 737 incident, given the number of people on this forum who have experience in the industry.
Shame this thread isn't on a CVR. All the crap would be overwritten a few hours later.
