hols you’re conflating the actions of the union with the views of all pilots.
The union represents the official view of its members. If most pilots wanted 25 hour CVR, the unions' position would be in favour of 25 hour CVR. Trying to claim that no pilot cares about CVR when their unions are adamantly opposed to it is ridiculous, do you really expect anyone to take that seriously?
you have no evidence, none whatsoever that the pilots unions are actively coaching pilots to “accidentally” game the system to erase recordings in the event of an accident.
The unions oppose extending the 2 hour limit, I never said they are actively coaching. It's very obvious to anyone who thinks about it at all that the recordings will be erased if you leave the system running (read that article I linked to, they make it very clear that it's a known feature of the system). Nobody sends out a signed letter saying to erase the recordings. What happens with informal coaching is that the old hands coach the new hands in the tricks and shortcuts of the job. Nothing is written down, there's no record of it, but it happens in every profession and every workplace. When the recordings are erased, there's plausible deniability and absolutely no way to prove any intent.
do you really expect anyone to take that seriously?
exactly who are “we” trying to convince?
It’s very obvious to anyone who thinks about it at all that the recordings will be erased if you leave the system running (read that article I linked to, they make it very clear that it’s a known feature of the system).
I know exactly how the system works, I also KNOW that leaving it running isn’t common, at least on our aircraft. The system records precisely when all aircraft system are shutdown and for certain partners, we have that data.
What is obvious is that to certain people, 2+2 must always make 5 by the time they account for “hidden” factors. I prefer to believe in what I see firsthand and everyone I’ve ever met in aerospace is a conscientious professional. That includes that folks I know from Boeing. Even slippery management types don’t mess with safety and professionalism or they don’t last, it’s that simple. Heck, Airbus and Boeing don’t even enforce patents on anything that can be linked to safety. Safety comes first. Always.
Anyway - I’ll leave you to howl at the moon.
I also KNOW that leaving it running isn’t common, at least on our aircraft.
So being suspicious about the Alaska Airlines plane being left running is pretty reasonable then? There was a serious incident, the CVR was not shut down (which "isn't common" in your words), and the pilots' conversations were erased. Do you really think that every pilot in the world is a selfless paragon of virtue who would never even consider anything like that? Sure, they have plausible deniability, but trying to argue that pilots would never even think of something like that is just ridiculous. Of course they would if they thought their careers were at risk.
What do you think they might have said that would put their careers at risk? "Frank, go give that door plug a kick for shits and giggles"?
What, pointing out that a pilot is wrong about what U.S. pilots’ unions have publicly stated is their policy?
No, saying this...
He’s wrong on the facts...
... in conclusion from an article that says this:
... The pilots decided to continue flying to London, despite being almost certainly shaken by what had (almost) happened... there is speculation that the pilots decided to continue to London so that the recording of what happened would be written over....
I never said they are actively coaching.
you said it repeatedly, you've actually said it in the same paragraph here
Nobody sends out a signed letter saying to erase the recordings. What happens with informal coaching is that the old hands coach the new hands in the tricks and shortcuts of the job.
you have absolutely no evidence that this happens, has happened or was the intent in the Atlantic airlines incident. It's a massive overreach and frankly bizarre. You are ignoring facts and the views of professional pilots
Nothing is written down, there’s no record of it, but it happens in every profession and every workplace. When the recordings are erased, there’s plausible deniability
supposition without facts or evidence. You've have already been told repeatedly what is the most likely explanation in the incident being discussed.
What do you think they might have said that would put their careers at risk? “Frank, go give that door plug a kick for shits and giggles”?
Obvious really. The copilot mentioned to the captain that they had lost a wheel nut from the car. They then told them that the ones in the door plug are the same size and its fine to take one.
you have absolutely no evidence that this happens
It happens in every industry. Mostly it's just experienced people showing new people how to actually get things done in the face of bureaucracy - which paperwork is essential, which can be deferred, which supervisors are best to talk to to actually get stuff done rather than get stonewalled, etc. In other cases it's about how to avoid rules and regulations.
you have absolutely no evidence that this happens, has happened or was the intent in the Atlantic airlines incident.
In the Atlantic Airlines flight, the crew apparently forgot to inform the airline that they'd entered a runway without clearance and nearly caused an accident that probably would have cost hundreds of lives. Being suspicious about that crew's intent is pretty justifiable. Do pilots regularly forget stuff like that.
The point isn't that the Alaska Airlines crew necessarily did anything wrong. The point is that airline pilots' unions deliberately make it as difficult as possible for that data to be retained. Alaska Airlines will be sued over this and it's always better for the pilots and the airline to have less potential evidence than more. It just makes it easier, unions know that, that's why they do not want those conversations recorded. So, as a pilot has said, it's normal practice to shut the aircraft and the VCR down pretty quickly but that didn't happen in this case and the data was lost. Yes, there's plausible deniability, but whenever evidence conveniently disappears like that, it's suspicious. That's why the Atlantic Airlines thing raised suspicions - the crew made a nearly catastrophic mistake, decided not to report it, and then took action which ensured that the cockpit recording was erased.
But no, unlike every other profession, pilots are 100% honest and would never try to cover up mistakes, and how dare someone who isn't a pilot suggest that they might.
It’s also completely irrelevant whatever was said on the flight deck. you've tried to conflate the earlier failure of the primary cabin pressure controller with a door plug falling off the aircraft. Do you second guess lawyers & doctors too?<br /><br />
There’s enough inaccuracy in most of your posts to show you don’t really understand the issues.
I’m not exactly shocked that a union in the most litigious country in the world doesn’t want CVR data widely used outside its intended purpose. <br /><br />
I’m off flying now. Not in a Max-9 thankfully!
That’s why the Atlantic Airlines thing raised suspicions – the crew made a nearly catastrophic mistake, decided not to report it, and then took action which ensured that the cockpit recording was erased.
You think they should have returned to the gate solely to preserve the CVR data?
I definitely think it would look much less suspicious if they had reported to the airline that they nearly killed hundreds of people. I don't know how often planes end up on a runway without clearance, but I would have assumed that you would normally fill out a report after that. Not doing that is bound to raise suspicions that they were trying to cover it up. But I'm not a pilot so what would I know, maybe things like that happen all the time.
I’m not exactly shocked that a union in the most litigious country in the world doesn’t want CVR data widely used outside its intended purpose.
Neither am I. If I was a union rep, I would absolutely argue the same case. I would also make sure that union members understood their legal position, that the union opposes recording but it's a legal requirement and that it would be illegal to attempt to destroy the recordings, that the normal and safe operation of the aircraft takes absolute priority over preserving the recordings, and that they will face no legal repercussions if the recordings were inadvertently lost because the crew prioritized the safety of the passengers and crew.
you’ve tried to conflate the earlier failure of the primary cabin pressure controller with a door plug falling off the aircraft.
No, what I said was that the airline limited the aircraft from flying over water because there was an undiagnosed fault with the cabin pressure warning system. The airline will be sued over this incident and the very first thing that lawyers will point out to a jury is that the airline continued operating an aircraft with a known fault relating to cabin pressurization, then a door plug blew out on a subsequent flight. Juries are composed of ordinary people, not technical specialists. People are easily swayed by emotion so flying an aircraft with an undiagnosed fault looks really bad. That leaves the defense lawyers needing to explain to that jury of non-specialists why the decision was reasonable and why there was no connection between cabin pressure sensors giving faulty reading and a loss of cabin pressure due to a faulty door plug. If you're explaining, you're losing.
The airline's lawyers will go over everything the pilots did to see if they can blame the pilots. If the pilots happened to express any doubts over the existing fault, then they will need to explain why they considered the aircraft safe to fly despite expressing doubts. Even if the pilots did absolutely nothing wrong, life is much easier for them if there is no recording to explain. All they need to do is say that the airline reported the aircraft was safe to fly and everything seemed normal until the door plug blew out.
If you’re explaining, you’re losing.
Ain't that the truth.
thols2Full Member
I definitely think it would look much less suspicious if they had reported to the airline that they nearly killed hundreds of people. I don’t know how often planes end up on a runway without clearance, but I would have assumed that you would normally fill out a report after that.
Reading that report there's no indication whatsoever that the pilots didn't file on themselves. It just said they flew to London. Even if they didn't in any case it would be impossible to keep this secret. ATC will definitely file a report. The other a/c will file. Lot's of other people will know what has happened including other a/c on frequency, Ops vehicles etc. Even plane spotters with their handheld radios would have a good idea. The suggestion that you would return to gate because of a runway incursion is way off the mark. If the pilots were genuinely so shaken up that they decide they couldn't continue then maybe, but that would be their call.
Even if they didn’t in any case it would be impossible to keep this secret
I was wondering how thols2 would reconcile that the pilots had covered this up but they knew about it.
As a rule if people are talking about it on a random forum then its a pretty poor coverup.
Reading that report there’s no indication whatsoever that the pilots didn’t file on themselves.
The incident wasn’t immediately reported to the airline.
The incident wasn’t immediately reported to the airline
Perhaps it was reported after they landed in London, or when they got back to the US. If you think the pilots are going to phone up base ops and say " Bloody hell! We've just been involved in an incident 5 minutes ago", then it shows that you don't really understand the subject.
@boardmanfs18
If all you have to contribute is personal abuse, best to not say anything.
Perhaps it was reported after they landed in London, or when they got back to the US. If you think the pilots are going to phone up base ops and say ” Bloody hell! We’ve just been involved in an incident 5 minutes ago”, then it shows that you don’t really understand the subject.
You should probably take that up with the journalist who wrote the article about it.
https://viewfromthewing.com/author/viewfromthewing/
That's his bio from his own website, right?
That’s his bio from his own website, right?
If you read it, you'll get your answer.
So you read it, but you didn't understand it? It's not that hard, surely? Which words did you find difficult?
If you’re explaining, you’re losing.<br /><br />
wooooosh…
So you read it, but you didn’t understand it? It’s not that hard, surely? Which words did you find difficult?
If all you have to contribute is personal abuse, best to not say anything.
I'm guessing this was the article that was supposed to be linked above instead of Gary Leff's bio:
I think one thing we can conclude is that Gary Leff does not like Pilot's unions.
We can also conclude that being a pilot is not his area of expertise. Being a passenger is:
https://viewfromthewing.com/about/
Lmao, so your appeal to authority is a man that is neither involved in the aviation industry nor a journalist as you claim. He's a financial officer that flies a lot and likes airmiles.
You crack me up, good trolling.
What we can conclude is that safety regulators in the U.S. disagree with pilots' unions over CVRs. Unions do not want cockpit conversations recorded at all, their concerns are entirely based on limiting the legal liability of their members, not on improving air safety. I'm in favour of unions, they have an important role, but giving them a veto over safety issues is a terrible way to make policy. Same with police and teachers unions, those professions need union representation but unions should not have veto power over policing policy or educational policy.
This is similar to industries arguing for self-regulation based on the theory that it's in their self-interest to have effective regulation and that outsiders don't have the technical knowledge to understand how to effectively regulate. The Boeing debacle is a prime example of how badly that theory has failed.
So, when pilots object to any outsider questioning their behaviour, it comes across the same as police officers saying that non-police should not be allowed to question their behaviour. When pilots' unions refuse to allow useful CVRs and then recordings get erased following incidents, it's as suspicious as hell, just like when police body cam footage gets accidentally deleted. Trying to argue that pilots are above reproach is as laughable as laughable as trying to argue that cops are above reproach, the reason there are disciplinary hearing for pilots is because pilots are human and screw up. Just endlessly repeating, "but you're not a pilot" is not the killer comeback that pilots think it is.
What we can conclude
No, that's YOUR conclusion.
Blimey I came back here after a few days off to see what was new, and this shit is still rolling?
Honestly thols2, this is not healthy. Leave it alone, go ride your bike.
Aircraft investigation
Geopolitics
Defence
Peer conflict
Is there anything this man isn't an expert on?
Wow, 8 pages... Sorry, I checked out for a bit - does the voice recorder thing have anything to do with the door plug discussion?
does the voice recorder thing have anything to do with the door plug discussion?
There are systemic problems with regulation. Boeing was allowed to self-regulate, they screwed up. Many other companies in other industries made the same arguments. The big crash 15 years or so back was the outcome of allowing financial institutions to write their own regulations. Powerful unions have veto over changes to their industries. That's not in the public interest, it's in the interests of their members. Pilots, or cops, or teachers, or tech moguls, etc. who think that they should be exempt from public oversight are corrosive, regardless of how well intentioned they might be.
does the voice recorder thing have anything to do with the door plug discussion?
Inconclusive but tending towards no.
25 hours of CVR may or may not improve safety.
25 hours of CVR may or may not open pilots to liability/being hung out to dry by airlines.
All in all it's a fairly minor issue that is being used to paint pilot's unions and their members as greedy cowboys. In terms of this discussion, until the accident investigation is concluded, all we can say it's unlikely to be relevant.
Vibrational loosening of incorrectly specified threaded fasteners. Who'd have thought it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_5390 relates
Of course we don't yet know the precise nature of the mis-specification, whether it's a design problem or an installation error.
25 hours of CVR may or may not improve safety.
Regulators say it will. Even if it doesn't, it costs almost nothing and won't hurt safety.
25 hours of CVR may or may not open pilots to liability/being hung out to dry by airlines.
Unions say it will increase the risk. They are protecting their members interests, that's their job. I support unions, they have an important role, but I don't think they should have a veto over public safety issues. Same as I don't think powerful corporations should have veto over regulatory policy.
I suggest you start another thread if you really want to discuss this. It's an important issue that touches on a lot of areas.
At this moment though, it looks unlikely it has anything to do with this particular issue.
Also, stop reading that Gary Leff guy's blog for information about aircraft safety. He's obviously got an axe to grind with the Teamsters so not only is this not his area of expertise but he is going to be very biased.
No, but we think that experienced pilots are subject matter experts and worth listening to rather than random biased armchair bloggers and forumites. so you grow up, smellypants 😉
I suggest you start another thread if you really want to discuss this. It’s an important issue that touches on a lot of areas.
At this moment though, it looks unlikely it has anything to do with this particular issue.
The cause of this specific issue is systemic. Some technician(s) at Boeing didn't fit a component correctly, but that was the end of a long chain of decisions that probably goes back decades. Regulators were sidelined and a company that was once the flagship for American manufacturing now looks like a joke. This isn't a one-off thing, it's a systemic problem in how public policy and regulation is made. The CVR issue wasn't a cause of the issue, but it's a symptom of the same corrosive culture. One of the outcomes of issues like this is that they often expose multiple failures that are not directly linked but arose through the same cultural problems. Pilots dismissing lost CVR recordings as nothing to worry about is a symptom of a terrible culture, saying that non-pilots should just trust pilots to always be honest is just like corporations saying that anyone who isn't a CEO should just trust CEOs to do the right thing.
I get that, but an alternative viewpoint outside the industry can still be feasible, poo breath 😉
Very interesting thread, don’t know why people are having a go at thols2, does everyone really think that profit making companies are completely transparent, honest and trustworthy? Grow up.
They're pilots. They don't believe that non-pilots should be allowed to question pilots. Same as how non-cops should be allowed to question cops, or non-teachers should be allowed to question teachers. Of course no pilot would ever erase incriminating evidence, just like no cop would ever erase incriminating evidence. If you're not a cop or pilot, you aren't allowed to question their motives. Just trust them, they are the professionals.
Japan Airlines tightens alcohol rules for pilots
Sure, there's a big picture to look at.
But we've been stuck talking about the same tiny part of that picture for at least 4 pages and it's not even directly relevant to these issues with Boeing.
Sure, there’s a big picture to look at.
But we’ve been stuck talking about the same tiny part of that picture for at least 4 pages and it’s not even directly relevant to these issues with Boeing.
What kicked this off was a pilot saying that pilots don't care about CVRs. The U.S. pilots unions are adamantly opposed to CVRs, that's a fact, pilots in the U.S. do care about them. Unfortunately, I criticized a pilot. Despite the facts being on my side, I'm not a pilot and have no right to suggest that maybe pilots aren't perfect.
I'm not a cop either. Am I allowed to suggest that a cop choking a guy for 10 minutes is probably not good procedure?
does everyone really think that profit making companies are completely transparent, honest and trustworthy? Grow up.
The slight flaw here is thols2 has been diverting the attention away from the profit making companies to ranting about pilots and the teamsters for some bizarre reason.
It does make me wonder why he is so anxious to try and focus on the pilots vs the fact Boeings build quality seems rather poor in recent years.
