Revisiting the Aviation Safety vs. Networking discussion

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Mon Dec 28 20:24:35 UTC 2009


On Dec 24, 2009, at 11:08 PM, 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!
> 
Exactly.

> 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)
> 
Not exactly.  If the others on the bridge don't consent, FAR 91.3 gives him
full and absolute authority to tell them to screw themselves and do what he
feels is best.

FAR 91.3 reads:

	Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.

	(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.

As near as I can tell, that regulation was last modified in 1963.

> 5 seconds before they made the above call they were reaching for the QRH
> (Quick Reference Handbook), which contains checklists of the steps to take
> in such a situation - including what to do in the event of loss of both
> engines due to multiple birdstrikes.  They had no need to confer with others
> as to what actions to take to try and recover from the problem, or what
> order to take them in, because that pre-work had already been carried out
> when the check-lists were written.
> 
Yep.

> Of course, at the end of the day, training, skill and experience played a
> very large part in what transpired - but so did the actions of the people on
> the "conference bridge" (You can't get much more of a "conference bridge"
> than open radio frequencies), and the checklists they have for almost every
> conceivable situation.
> 

And in case there are any misconceptions here on the list, I know that in the
public eye, there is often a lot of distrust and/or perceived animosity between
controllers and pilots.  Frankly, this is a misconception for the most part.  Sure,
there are incidents where pilots and controllers don't get along, each blaming
the other.  However, by and large, both groups are consummate professionals
doing their best to make sure flights end well.  In my years as a pilot, I have
had more than one occasion to be very thankful for ATC and the services they
provide. Generally, they are a very helpful and hardworking group.  I respect
them greatly and appreciate the tough job they do.

Owen
(Commercial Pilot, ASEL, Instrument Airplane)
 



More information about the NANOG mailing list