You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Of course, it is the way of the world. Those who proclaim ‘I was right’ so confidently are laughable, the reality is they took information from others who are suitably qualified and experienced from around the internet and arrogantly talked with authority as though they had relevant subject matter knowledge and insight, and that they had drawn these conclusions from their deep well of first hand exposure. Even in the face of being told contrary by those who would be considered SME.
On the one hand we've had two plane crashes and the side just blew out of an aircraft. On the other we have pilots telling us there is nothing to worry about.
Anyone who has been involved with jobs with a high degree of risk will have a good understanding of the various risk assessments that go into any operation and the number of individual things that have to go wrong for there to be a major accident.
Anyone who has worked in an industry that is try to cut costs will have seen how these risk assessments can be manipulated to ensure the operation can go ahead. There is seldom a smoking gun, it's just a bunch of small seemingly insignificant decisions that eventually lead to a disaster.
And we've also seen the people within our industry trying to protect their jobs by toeing the management line and supporting the message they are trying to get the public to buy.
So no, I'm in no way an expert in aviation. I am, however, an expert in seeing how safety measures are constantly weakened and eroded in a cost cutting environment until something goes disastrously wrong and everyone acts like it came out of nowhere and there was no warning.
You have relevant experience of safety systems and processes in a high-risk industry and have consistently been clear that is the basis of your knowledge and are asking perfectly legitimate questions and challenging some of the responses.
So, how did you figure that post was referring to you?
So, how did you figure that post was referring to you?
It can be difficult to tell on a forum. That's why I try to avoid sweeping general statements like, 'So many people on here think...'
If someone is going to make a negative statement referring to certain people I reckon it's better to tag them or quote them. Otherwise those of us who are prone to paranoia might get the wrong idea 🙂
They clearly knew there was some kind of problem with the plane, but rather than grounding it & fixing the issue they attempted to “mitigate” the potential consequences of the problem (not the actual problem itself!) How can you possibly argue that passenger safety is primary consideration here?
Balancing act, innit? If you wanted completely risk-free aviation you’d never fly.
Going with faults is fairly normal, whether it’s something like a glovebox light that you can ignore for months, or bigger things where you’ve got to get it fixed within a day or two. Generally it represents nothing more than a loss of redundancy.
Right. That is the mental gymnastics I’m finding it difficult to follow. They clearly knew there was some kind of problem with the plane, but rather than grounding it & fixing the issue they attempted to “mitigate” the potential consequences of the problem (not the actual problem itself!) How can you possibly argue that passenger safety is primary consideration here?
Have a watch of the latest NTSB press conference. Seems like the NTSB are working on the premise that the cabin pressure controller and the "loss of cabin pressure" are unrelated except that they both contain the words cabin pressure.
ETOPS (IANAAircraftEngineer) is a reference to the days when you couldn't fly long distances on twin engines due to reliability concerns. It's not saying you can't fly over water, it's saying you can't fly >3hours from the nearest airport, which obviously rules out a lot of transatlantic and transpacific flying. It doesn't mean the plane is unsafe, just that the reliability isn't quite sufficient. Like saying something is a 1 in a million chance of failure is a fairly safe system, but if you want to repeat the experiment a million times you probably want something better, like 4 engines so if one fails you can balance the thrust and fly relatively normally. Or in this case having 3x systems to control cabin pressure. One will get you home safely, 2 gets you there reliably if one fails, 3 means you're happy to fly >3 hours from the nearest airport with the risk that all 3 fail being so small.
I could hypothesise that a cabin pressure controller would throw up a fault if there was a leak (flow measured into the cabin > flow out, or flow > normal range), but I don't know that, presumably the NTSB does/will do. But it seems less likely as if it was the case then the spare system would show the same (assuming the computers operate in parallel just with only one controlling the outputs).
Anyone who has been involved with jobs with a high degree of risk will have a good understanding of the various risk assessments that go into any operation and the number of individual things that have to go wrong for there to be a major accident.
Exactly, which is why I can't figure out why you're taking your argument down the road you are.
We have at least 2 incidents of fuselage loss from 737s with the sole fatality being a cabin crew member who was up and about at the time. In both cases though, those planes made it to a safe landing with no further incident. Good but agreeably not good enough.
After any incident lessons are learned and defences put in place to prevent it happening again. Where those defences aren't applied you have a clear path for blame. What's not helpful is speculating before the facts are even known and chasing shadows that have nothing to do with the actual incident. We know What happened, the investigators will now be focusing on the How and Why, until they publish their findings everything else is just uninformed noise.
It doesn’t mean the plane is unsafe, just that the reliability isn’t quite sufficient. Like saying something is a 1 in a million chance of failure is a fairly safe system, but if you want to repeat the experiment a million times you probably want something better.
Exactly, it's like in my industry, we could have something that's suddenly become 10 times less safe which sounds horrific until you factor in the diverse and redundant backups and the fact that it's gone from a 1 in 10^7 chance of failure to 1 in 10^6.
Did a bit of googling and came across this:
I haven't flown with any low-cost airlines for about 20 years and I feel this justifies my choice. Not just from a safety perspective but just from a 'not giving ****s money' perspective.
Saying that, I'd be surprised if the major airlines' crews weren't subject to some of the same pressures, just not to the same extent.
Exactly, which is why I can’t figure out why you’re taking your argument down the road you are.
What road am I on?
I haven't speculated too much about this specific incident. My point has been that there seems to be a significant cost cutting drive going on in air travel and when that happens safety tends to suffer, regardless of the industry. It is generally not a single thing but a multitude of small seemingly insignificant decisions that lead to big accidents.
I also think saying, 'No one got hurt' is helpful. Generally you find yourself having numerous incidents where no one got hurt before you start having major incidents where lots of people get hurt.
Culpability IMO therefore lies with the manufacturer as the operator couldn’t have diagnosed the latent faults, but the manufacturer should have had systems in place to make sure the aircraft was built to whatever specifications / procedures / instructions.
Haven't Boeing already fessed up?
Thought i saw something on the news yesterday?
Well, we both spoke our own words 🤷🏻
I trust the cabin crew, first officer, engineer, tug driver, ATC, dispatcher, loader, security agent etc, etc, Doesn’t mean I will always agree with them on my course of action. Ultimately I am responsible and make the final call on everything.
Edit: that may sound a bit arrogant, and I’m not one for throwing my weight around to get my way. Ultimately though, if I’m not satisfied with someone else’s part in the jigsaw, it will get resolved to my satisfaction before we go flying.
the reality is they took information from others who are suitably qualified and experienced from around the internet and arrogantly talked with authority as though they had relevant subject matter knowledge and insight,
As far as the door blowing out is concerned, it was very easy to look at the technical documents posted online and see how the door plug was supposed to fit into the aperture, then see how it must have failed. You don't need to be an aerospace engineer to understand how a simple structure like that is held together, anyone with any background in structural engineering could figure out something that simple.
But that is only a very small part of the puzzle.
But that is only a very small part of the puzzle.
Yes, it was basically just a component that wasn't fitted correctly. The big question is how Boeing got so slack that they couldn't bolt something as simple as that together without screwing it up. Somebody who knows how to change a wheel on a car should be able to fit one of those. Making a mistake like that once is understandable, doing it repeatedly indicates a systemic problem.
Edit: that may sound a bit arrogant, and I’m not one for throwing my weight around to get my way. Ultimately though, if I’m not satisfied with someone else’s part in the jigsaw, it will get resolved to my satisfaction before we go flying
Fair enough.
However, leaving aside the things you can't know or have any control over (outsourcing of maintenance or new aircraft not being put together correctly, for example) what you are saying sounds very different to what many low cost airline pilots were saying in the article/video I posted above.
It seems crews with low cost carriers who don't have permanent contracts are very much influenced by management's wishes which is understandable from their point of view, I guess.
That may well be the case - thankfully I’m not in that sector. Not allLCC are equal either.
If passengers keep just choosing the cheapest, that has a consequence, a bit like just buying the cheapest MTB tyres and expecting great grip in all conditions.
If passengers keep just choosing the cheapest, that has a consequence, a bit like just buying the cheapest MTB tyres and expecting great grip in all conditions.
Yeah, what I'm more worried about is the knock on effect throughout the industry. I guess the major airlines (and therefore all the suppliers and service providers throughout the chain) have been cutting costs because the LCCs have brought the costs down.
I can't think of any industry where aggressive cost cutting has led to it becoming safer.
In addition it seems like the FAA and the EASA are no longer able to monitor the industry as closely as they used to be.
Like I said, I haven't flown a LCC for 20 years (one trip with Ryanair was more than enough) but this year I'm aiming to avoid air travel altogether. Partly because of environmental concerns, partly because the new focus on major airlines cutting costs has made flying less pleasant, and partly because if I can see the effects of cost cutting as a passenger then what are the effects of cost cutting I can't see?
I wouldn’t normally rake up an old part of a discussion but in this case there’s perhaps an angle to the CVR recording that hasn’t been mentioned, what happens to that information in the event of an investigation?
FWIW I think the pilots or engineering team simply failed to pull the breaker and prevent the overwriting of the data. No intent to hide anything.
As I understand it when the NTSB/AAIB etc. investigate an incident, they collect loads of evidence from multiple sources, and they write a report. The report is publicly released, blame free and intended to improve safety. Typically, the CVR will be transcribed and only the relevant parts of that transcript will be included in the report. The remainder of the transcript and the actual recording will never be disclosed. In fact, anything other than the public content of the report is effectively classified and covered by some pretty strong NDAs. There are international agreements to this effect.
I’ve been involved in a small capacity in marine investigations (MAIB operates under the same rules) and I’ve witnessed court discussion regarding what can and can’t be disclosed and what level of intervention would be required to force disclosure of information not in the report.
I guess what I’m saying in a roundabout way is that whatever is on the tape the only thing the NTSB will ever disclose is what’s relevant to the incident and that can’t, in itself, be used as evidence against the pilots so there’s little reason for them to deliberately overwrite the data.
I wouldn’t normally rake up an old part of a discussion but in this case there’s perhaps an angle to the CVR recording that hasn’t been mentioned, what happens to that information in the event of an investigation?
FWIW I think the pilots or engineering team simply failed to pull the breaker and prevent the overwriting of the data. No intent to hide anything.
U.S. pilots' unions' policy is that cockpit conversations should not be recorded at all. The reason for that is that they do not want them available for use in court. The U.S. CVRs have a 2 hour limit, after that they get recorded over. In Europe, it's a 25 hour limit. The NTSA in the U.S. wants to use a 25 hour system like Europe but pilots' unions refuse to agree to that because they want the recordings deleted as standard practice. All that pilots need to do to ensure the recordings are deleted is to leave the aircraft systems turned on for 2 hours. It's not inadvertent, the intention is to systematically delete the data.
I can’t think of any industry where aggressive cost cutting has led to it becoming safer
[Pedant]
SpaceX
[/Pedant]
(Although their cost cutting has lead to vastly more flights which has in turn made space flight more reliable/safer)
SpaceX didn’t cut costs. They used a ton of government money to develop a product which was delivered very late and were sponsored by individuals, not shareholders.
Even to this day, SpaceX charges the government 3x the going launch rate for payloads and uses that to reduce/sponsor the costs of other commercial payloads
Whilst they have the cost for launches, they never cut costs in engineering.
Tesla have arguably cut costs without compromising safety, but have dramatically increased repair complexity. There’s always a price. For SpaceX, that’s borne by the investor and the government, for Tesla, that’s borne by the customer and to a lesser extent, the insurers.
It’s not inadvertent, the intention is to systematically delete the data.
Honestly, no one who’s flying the things cares about the CVR. At all. I think you’re on the verge of conspiracy theory here.
In this case both pilots are alive and able to be interviewed, so the CVR doesn’t bring anything new or interesting to the table. If they weren’t then two hours is more than sufficient, but it could be 10 hours or a week for all I care.
Is he still banging that drum? Sheesh
Honestly, no one who’s flying the things cares about the CVR. At all. I think you’re on the verge of conspiracy theory here.
It's the U.S. pilots' unions policy that they do not want that data available for use in court and oppose the introduction of a 25 hour recording limit for that reason. They've publicly stated that. So yes, there is a conspiracy to erase the data, it's just that it's a publicly stated and perfectly legal conspiracy, not a secret one.
I have avoided this thread for two days as it was clear that it was being derailed by...drivel.
Have just looked in and...yep, it's still continuing.
Michael Gove may have said '...we've had enough of experts'.
He was wrong then and his comment definitely does not apply here.
Experts, on this thread, are...pilots, aviation engineers, air accident investigators - you know, people who really know what they're talking about.
If you're not one of them, your view has the same relevance as that of the drunk on the 49 bus.
And with that, Ahm oot.
Watch out for...chemtrails, lizard overlords, bill gates...
Experts, on this thread, are…pilots, aviation engineers, air accident investigators – you know, people who really know what they’re talking about.
Flaperon
Full Member
Honestly, no one who’s flying the things cares about the CVR.
Teamsters' Union (who represent airline pilots)
The International Brotherhood of Teamsters, representing Atlas Air pilots, makes clear why they’re objecting to 25 hour cockpit voice recordings.
They claim that pilots have an expectation of privacy in the cockpit.
They believe that pilots ‘wouldn’t have agreed’ to any recording in the first place (as though it was their decision right) had they known these recordings would ever be made public.
Pilots might break airline rules, and voice recording would help prove their guilt
In a criminal matter, the FBI isn’t restricted in how it can use recording (umm… good?)
Flaperon may be a pilot but he's flat out wrong about the CVR thing. U.S. pilots do not want those recordings made in the first place and they want to prevent them being available for use in court. From the article linked to above:
Last January an American Airlines crew headed to London taxied on the wrong runway as a Delta 737 began its take off roll. This was nearly a disaster of epic proportions, as the American jet crossed right in front of Delta, and the Delta plane hit the brakes.
The Delta flight stopped less than 1000 feet from where it would have intersected with American’s plane. The transatlantic 777 didn’t follow air traffic control instructions.
The incident wasn’t immediately reported to the airline. The pilots decided to continue flying to London, despite being almost certainly shaken by what had (almost) happened. And we’ll never really know what was going on in the cockpit, because the pilots continued flying and the voice recording was written over. In fact there is speculation that the pilots decided to continue to London so that the recording of what happened would be written over.
In other words, pilots know how to destroy evidence with plausible deniability. FFS, the pilots' unions have said exactly why they don't want 25 hour recordings, Flaperon's insistence that they didn't say that is just bizarre. He's wrong on the facts and being a pilot makes no difference to that.
This is… Well, a little unhinged.
What, pointing out that a pilot is wrong about what U.S. pilots' unions have publicly stated is their policy?
In this case, the unions' position is in conflict with public safety concerns. The unions are doing this to protect pilots from disciplinary action or facing court cases. Now we have pilots denying that what is on the public record actually happened. What's unhinged is flaperon insisting that the U.S. pilots' unions didn't say what they said on the public record. American airline pilots do care about the CVRs, they care so much that they have absolutely refused to allow 25 hour recording.
hols you’re conflating the actions of the union with the views of all pilots. The unions justify their very existence by being the people that fight for the little guy. And in a legal system like the US has, they’re trying to make sure pilots don’t incriminate themselves, but 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.
You’re also assuming that pilots actually want this 2.5h thing. I joined my union for pay representation and rights. Legal wrangling weren’t and aren’t a big factor in my decision to join and continued membership.
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.
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:
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.
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.
I was on a plane this morning (first time in 7 years) and I was looking out the window and spotted a couple of other planes going in the opposite direction at incredibly high speed.
I was just wondering, do they pilots wave or nod at eachother the way bus drivers do?
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.
They are both symptoms of problems in making public policy and regulation. Boeing is a disgrace, I've said that again and again if you bother to actually read what I've said. Allowing companies like Boeing to self-regulate is terrible policy.
I think unions are very important, but their job is to advance the interests of their members. They aren't public safety advocates, that's not their role. Giving them a veto over public safety is terrible policy.
Pilots who say that their motives are pure and unimpeachable are just as delusional as anyone who believes that CEOs are pure and unimpeachable. Saying that non-pilots have no right to question pilots is like saying that non-CEOs have no right to question CEOs.
I was just wondering, do they pilots wave or nod at eachother the way bus drivers do?
Pilots will never admit this to non-pilots, but the real reason you have to circle the airport for so long is so that they can do this out the window to each other.
mostly dedicated to attacking pilots and unions.
I've never attacked pilots and unions. I think unions are very important and I would take the same line if I was a union rep. But, they aren't public safety official and should not be given a veto over public safety.
Can you actually point out where I've attacked pilots and unions?
What kicked this off was a pilot saying that pilots don’t care about CVRs.
As far as I can see, the first mention of CVR is this:
The cockpit voice recorder got erased because they get overwritten every two hours and the pilots seem to have “forgotten” to turn it off when they landed.