Revisiting the Aviation Safety vs. Networking discussion

Robert Boyle robert at tellurian.com
Sun Dec 27 00:24:02 UTC 2009


At 02:08 AM 12/25/2009, Scott Howard wrote:
>On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 6:27 PM, George Bonser <gbonser at seven.com> wrote:
>
> > So you can put a lot of process around changes in advance but there
> > isn't quite as much to manage incidents that strike out of the clear
> > blue.  Too much process at that point could impede progress in clearing
> > the issue.  Capt. Sullenberger did not need to fill out an incident
> > report, bring up a conference bridge, and give a detailed description of
> > what was happening with his plane, the status of all subsystems, and his
> > proposed plan of action (subject to consensus of those on the conference
> > bridge) and get approval for deviation from his initial flight plan
> > before he took the required actions to land the plane as best as he
> > could under the circumstances.
>
>"*mayday mayday mayday. **Cactus fifteen thirty nine hit birds, we've lost
>thrust (in/on) both engines we're turning back towards LaGuardia*" - Capt.
>Sullenberger
>
>Not exactly "detailed", but he definitely initiated an "incident report"
>(the mayday), gave a "description of what was happening with his plane", the
>"status of [the relevant] subsystems", and his proposed plan of action -
>even in the order you've asked for!
>
>His actions were then "subject to the consensus of those on the conference
>bridge" (ie, ATC) who could have denied his actions if they believed they
>would have made the situation worse (ie, if what they were proposing would
>have had them on a collision course with another plane). In this case, the
>conference bridge gave approval for his course of action ("*ok uh, you need
>to return to LaGuardia? turn left heading of uh two two zero.*" - ATC)

Once he declared an emergency, he had the right of way over all other 
traffic. ATC would move anyone in his way out of the way.
Under <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki//wiki/U.S.>U.S. 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki//wiki/FAA>FAA FAR 91.3, "Responsibility 
and authority of the pilot in command", the FAA declares:[2]
    * (a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible 
for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.
    * (b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the 
pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent 
required to meet that emergency.
    * (c) Each pilot in command who deviates from a rule under 
paragraph (b) of this section shall, upon the request of the 
Administrator, send a written report of that deviation to the Administrator.
Just because we have checklists doesn't mean we can't think on our 
feet and handle situations not contemplated in checklists, but 
checklists and procedures exist to ensure we don't forget something 
we need to remember. They aren't a substitute for creativity and 
logical thought. They are an aid to it to ensure a minimum of 
creative thinking is needed to solve problems which shouldn't exist 
in the first place.

-Robert
SEL&MEL+I



"Well done is better than well said." - Benjamin Franklin





More information about the NANOG mailing list