Having seen both the FAA and the news media rip air traffic controllers apart for apparent lapses in attention to duty; their handling of the NWA incident doesn’t surprise me at all. A rush to judgment provides both the “action” some onlookers and overseers require and it sells newspapers.

I’ll just say those two fellows were fortunate in that their little misadventure took place when and where it did. Had it been a bit later in the flight and had they been heading for a coastal destination; their inattention could have been tragic.

It brings to mind an incident I learned of several decades ago as a young controller. Late one mid-shift, the pilot of a small twin fell asleep at the controls and flew off the coast…way off the coast. Controllers working the guy tried desperately to raise him but to no avail. When the pilot finally woke up he was too far out to sea with too little fuel remaining to return.

What happened with the NWA flight was not good but it was far from a worst case scenario. Those pilots and their passengers were lucky and I’m sure they know it.

Stay tuned.

I think the US carriers are well aware of SESMA; the insurance system in the US really liked it. One major challenge to wider uptake is that it relies on a ‘large slice of faith and guaranteed pilot anonymity’ to be accepted by pilots.
The system will not spill the identity of those who fall foul of what is essentially a ‘saintly whistle-blower’ on our shoulders.

The US courts may be the stumbling block as they may be obliged to demand ALL available information from the aircraft should an accident occur and there be demands made for claims against individual pilots. Not my area.

It really is quite a complex compromise of rights and responsibilities that has been struck for the creation of a system that allows progressive work to benefit flight safety.

Does anyone else use it in the US – no sure but I can find out.

What a great story on Special Event Search and Master Analysis (SESMA). I’ve never heard of this before.

Anyone know whether we Americans are using such a system?

On this NWA incident though, I notice there has been no more press about it, which I’m sure the folks at Delta are really happy about. As Norman points out here though, what has anyone learned from this entire incident, other than that two guys did something really goofy?

Not much it seems?

But I have also had discussions with Air Traffic Controllers in Europe about how they handle incidents such as altitude busts.

Just as the system Norman mentioned here for the airlines, the British controllers look at mistakes much more from a “What did we learn and how do we prevent this from happening again,” perspective than we ever will here in the states.

Carbon trading excepted of course, this ins yet another example of Europe pointing out the correct direction to our industry.

It didn’t reproduce between the symbols.

It is rare that we find someone who has such a fine and subtle mix of journalist, teacher, academic and pilot who manages to remain what we all would recognise as an aviator.
Your response to this incident has done nothing to dent the high opinion I have of you since we laughed over our eggs and coffee a while ago. Quite the opposite in fact.

Could I offer another perspective on post incident reporting and handling?

<>

We have a system installed in all our aircraft that monitors a quadrillion flight and instrument parameters and records them to disk. After landing they are downloaded and auto-analysed to find deviations from our standard operating procedures. Where this happens a spike is produced which pops up in front of what we call our SESMA Manager.
If this ‘spike’ warrants it he may talk to our union SESMA Rep and share all the available information with him (these are carefully negotiated protocols and rigidly adhered to).
The facts are jointly analysed; later, if appropriate the crew are contacted and either explain the unique circumstances forcing the deviation from our defined safe operational parameters, or they discover through PC simulation of the flight where they might have done things differently. Lessons are extracted and if required, procedures adjusted.

This all happens with ZERO JEOPARDY to the crew concerned.
If training is required it is provided. If we fly either through or very close to a SESMA parameter often the first act on return to base is to contact either the SESMA Manager or the union SESMA Rep to discuss it to give them a heads-up. This provides timely information that may be useful before the next aircraft rotates through a station.

In this way we get to see across the worldwide network where recurrent problems lie and promulgate briefings to crews through normal channels. This makes for a safer environment where trouble is anticipated and avoided rather than discovered and mitigated.

SESMA trends are plotted across fleets and destinations, everything from rushed approaches through deep landings are pushed out to the company pilot community and further into the system where it might help.

SESMA does a lot more that I can’t illuminate in a post comment.

The CAA love it.
The AIRLINE loves it.
The CREWS trust it.
The UNION trusts it.
The INSURERS love it.
The PRESS never sees it – it is an analysis tool.

The only people that sometimes don’t like SESMA are controllers who try to rush an approach or offer us situations that expedite traffic but produce pressure laden circumstances that can contribute to an incident or worse. When they get the briefing from the SESMA Managers being the professionals they are they ‘get it’and often want to know more.

What matters is that every lesson possible is learned from an incident. Anything that gets in the way of that might cost someone their life further down the road.

We are certainly not perfect and still have close calls from time to time. The difference is that we see them and act to stop ones like it next time.

Sorry to run on, I hope this doesn’t sound like a didactic lecture (8-) and thanks for your patience.

The facts are clear that these guys weren’t paying attention. No one disputes that.

But other than soothing an already frightened public, the notice of Emergency Revocation solved what exactly? Simply suspending them would have had the same result.

And this FAA wants fast action more than any other? I’m not sure if you’re saying that’s good or bad. After nearly a decade with Marion and Bobby in charge, this one action on Randy Babbitt’s part doesn’t seem that hostile to me. Silly perhaps, but not necessarily hostile.

As for what training curriculum serves the stakeholders, I’d say the one the FAA and ALPA negotiated 15 years ago – one level of safety – would do just fine.

Even the dummies at United would never let a pilot out into the world who had never even observed the stall of a large airplane in the simulator as the Colgan people did flying for Continental.

I don’t know that we need a new pilot training curriculm. What we need are airline managers who will actually follow the guidelines already in place.

My wife is an attorney, and she’s taught me that there are ALWAYS at least two sides to a story. What still bothers me is that we haven’t heard them all yet. I’ll reserve judgment until then.

I would also note that recent headline-worthy air carrier mishaps have greatly raised the public’s awareness and attention to all things related to airline safety. The Air France and Colgan accidents–especially the latter for the U.S.–are cases in point. This contributed to FAA’s quick-to-judge reaction for it has been clear for a long time that the agency has become more politically-driven than is good for the FAA, the nation and all things aviation. That’s just the way it is and there is mounting evidence that this Administration wanrs it that way, probably more than any before.

All this puts a heightened premium, especially on the airlines and those that train pilots,to stress safety perhaps more than has sometimes been the case recently. In fact, Rob, I suggest your publication take a position in the van of progress by beginning to define anew what pilot training curriculum best serves the interest of general aviation, the airlines, the regulators and, perhaps, even the military.

Don’t beat up on yourself … pilots are human, not super human either, some shouldn’t be in the cockpit period … as you probably know as an instructor, it takes good common sense (80%)and some knowledge on how to fly (20%) to get an airplane into the air and back on the ground safely.

That said, those two pilots fell asleep period, which has happened before and didn’t admit to same.. which would have saved us all a lot of time, energy and money.

They lied and mutually came up with a BS story, jeopardized lives of passengers both in their aircraft, and others plus any unlucky person on the ground once they ran out of fuel.

Losing their licenses, should be just the start, criminal negligence should be next.Thank someone, that we have passengers and controllers who pay attention.

Maybe we ought to thank a Flight Attendant, the one that went into the cockpit and woke them up(Opinion).

Bottom Line, we all make mistakes, fess up… pay the penalty and move on.

Don’t know if this makes you feel better, but it did me.

Regards,
Mike Irwin

I’m a commercial pilot (not for a living) and I can, in small part, understand how hard it was to obtain those credentials. However, we don’t need to give the American public any more reasons to fear flying. The profession doesn’t need an image of pilots asleep at the switch and anything less than professional. I think the revocation was appropriate.

A lot of good folks were caught up in the media circus where we were told to think that the two pilots should be thrown away for actions that certainly didn’t look good.

My observation is that the media lately is now in “directed outrage” mode. Where the public is told (hounded, actually) to be outraged at whatever; whether it’s school children singing praises of Obama or pilots zooming past their destination. I seriously wonder if the public has lost the ability to think critically given the facts at hand, to reach their own conclusions any more.

As for NWA 188:
Was anyone killed? no
Was anyone hurt? no
Was anyone drunk? no
Was anything damaged? no
Was safety really ever in jeopardy? [I say] no.
Did it look bad? yes – Is that really a crime worth two careers?

The irony is that for the first four offenses listed, pilots often seem to get their jobs and certificates back. yet, the least offensive item gets the big penalty (with the exception of the ‘ultimate’ penalty paid for when things really go bad)

Their offense was subtle. They hardly realized they were doing it themselves. It’s not like they buzzed the tower in a fit of insanity.

Thanks for your new statement.

Bill

The FAA didn’t do their job correctly. They didn’t follow their own policies, and they pulled the pilots’ tickets before even determining the facts.

The media didn’t do their job correctly. They didn’t report the facts, they reported conclusions in a sensationalized manner.