Back to Squawk list
  • 22

NTSB’s approach to SFO near-disasters troubling

Enviado há
 
Well over 1,000 passengers were endangered by two incidents at SFO and, most recently, one in Atlanta. The first SFO incident nearly made the airport the second-worst aviation disaster site in history, behind only the World Trade Center when two hijacked planes plowed into it on Sept. 11, 2001. (www.mercurynews.com) Mais...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


btweston
btweston 15
I don't think this excitable writer knows what the mission of the NTSB is.

The NTSB determines facts. That's it.

It is up to congress and the FAA to require people to do things.
TWA55
TWA55 4
Turning off the flight director, not having a visual Q, "flying the box" unfamiliar w/ the approach whatever the reason, mistakes do happen. CVR tapes should be secured upon landing and turned over to authorities w/out airline intervention after such incidents. If there is something that needs to be fixed, corrected then let the chips fall where they may. Nothing gets corrected by hiding the possible reasons. As for punitive use of CVR's, so be it if the facts show it. Never rely on the written or verbal statements on their own by anyone.
The various parties all have something to protect. In any case, it is the public who places their trust on and in a system they can hardly understand.
KineticRider
Randy Marco 0
Exactly correct TWA... and YOU have restored my faith that there is some hope for humanity.

Thank You!
TWA55
TWA55 3
Thank you, While in the industry I had many various jobs and experienced much and I have seen the very best and the tragic worst when things go wrong.
rgast01
rgast01 3
This is a perfect example of why we shouldn't privatize ATC, because the airlines have no interest in investigating the why or how something that almost killed a thousand people and their influence and power over the FAA to investigate or change things is telling in that nobody there seems to care either.
KineticRider
Randy Marco 0
Exactly!!
abowland
Andy Bowland 7
CVR’s should never be used punitively, and that is exactly what they are trying to do. Interviews with the pilots is more than enough to get a grasp of the situation and make changes to the system to solve the issue.
KineticRider
Randy Marco -7
Oh.... so red light cams shouldn't be used either.

Sorry.... if you can't find the runway your license should be pulled permanently, no excuse is plausible. If you think this IS excusable YOUR license should be pulled including your drivers license.
Lneward
Lance Neward 5
The NTSB determines facts, that's true, and they don't legislate, that's also true, but they do make recommendations, some stronger than others. It's simply a case of separation of powers--we don't want the investigators making regulations, and we don't want regulators doing investigations, simply for the ostensible sake of objectivity on both sides.

There are fair (to pilots) ways to use the CVR in investigations and followups on incidents/accidents; the 30-minute limit on the 'tape' is an anachronism, as is the ability of the pilots to erase the tape.
Aquaboy
Aquaboy 2
I think it's a shame that the most important point was buried (really, ignored) in the article, which is that there are already regulations in place to ensure that the CVR is secured by the aircraft operator in the event of an incident that requires immediate reporting to the NTSB. So the reason why the CVR wasn't secured in the three incidents mentioned in the article is simply because they didn't qualify as incidents that required reporting to the NTSB at the time, and no airline's going to voluntarily remove an aircraft from revenue service if they don't have to. So the only point of contention is whether or not those types of incidents (however one may define them in specific and legally-acceptable language) ought to require immediate notification to the NTSB.

As a refreshing contrast to the; otherwise, sensationalistic and fear-mongering media, I'd like to offer a more positive perspective: "near-disasters" are not disasters. One crucial point that's often overlooked is that accidents were successfully prevented three times precisely because the aviation safety systems in place are sufficiently robust to preclude them.
Aquaboy
Aquaboy 1
In case anyone wants to learn more, I was referring to the Federal Regulations; Title 49 - Subtitle B - Chapter VIII - Part 830, and can be found here:
https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=36418957aeb9385b90ae9a44f4a8d1cd&mc=true&node=pt49.7.830&rgn=div5#se49.7.830_15
KineticRider
Randy Marco -4
Just keep voting for the party of LESS regulation, actually NO regulation if the can get away with it and no culpability will be the result.... this is the very tip of the iceberg in all industries.

Their mantra is regulations kill profits, the plebs be damned ... all while corporations are booking record profits.

That same party made the Citizens United Supreme Ct. ruling happen so now we have unlimited Corporate political donations to fund their agenda... and EXACTLY what this article is about is the result and expect more of it.

The corporate money behind that party is ONLY interested in maximizing profit... safety... well they will throw a few bones when the plebs get upset or killed and its a write-off anyway so no worries the plebs are clueless and it was cost effective... See more proof regulations kill profits and that is absolutely true.

Just look at the tax bill that just passed, in spite of the lies READ IT... Corporate tax cuts are permanent, pleb tax cuts start phasing out after the first year. It adds 1.5 Trillion to deficit which means next year they come back and say we have to cut the Federal government and the Military is never on the table, as that money funds the Corporations that supply the Military Industrial Complex (Eisenhower warned us this would absolutely happen) so that leaves Federal agencies and all those cumbersome regulations.

Wake up before the next election... before it's beyond too late. It takes money... insane amounts to get elected and with unlimited Corporate money funding their candidates... the plebs soon will have no chance.
tbpera
Tom Pera 0
oh hell...here comes Randy... hates everybody
KineticRider
Randy Marco 1
Facts are inconvenient aren't they Tom!
patpylot
patrick baker 0
ntsb is not the vehicle to remedy these troubling occurences- the faa can develop a spine one day and change approach protocals, perhaps with positive control to touchdown at high volume airports, maybe by having all approaches be at least some category of ils activity. even air Canada can fly an instrument approach ending at a runway, and miss the taxiway if an instrument landing is mandated. eh?
KineticRider
Randy Marco 0
So PIC and their flying skills should have no culpability.... someone with ACTUAL skills would never make this mistake period. If you are ever, EVER are unsure as to your proximities do a go around.

Statistics prove the most dangerous pilot is the one with the most hours whom starts taking on a lax and/or cocky attitude in the cockpit. Can we say KLM Chief Flight Instructor and PIC Veldhuyzen van Zanten intimidating the FO into not stopping the deadly takeoff in Tenerife when the FO had serious doubts as to being given TO clearance. Or Scott Crossfield preceding through severe thunderstorms with his Cessna that subsequently broke up in the air.

YOU are SOLEY responsible for YOUR mistakes and taxiway landings are unforgivable errors. This isn't flight training with 5hrs.

If you think otherwise... YOU too are clearly not up to the task, are a danger to others and should be barred from flying PERIOD.
tbpera
Tom Pera -5
wow....something to do with auto-land? and not looking out the window...i.e. flying the airplane?
30west
30west 6
Tom, what does autoland have to do with theses incidents or referenced article?
TorstenHoff
Torsten Hoff 2
Autoland doesn't line up aircraft with taxiways, distracted and fatigued pilots do.
tbpera
Tom Pera -4
oops... just meant that it seems so much is automated now that pilots assume all is well and not monitoring flight...my bad

Entrar

Não tem uma conta? Registre-se agora (gratuito) para funcionalidades personalizáveis, alertas de vôo e mais!
Esse site utiliza cookies. Ao usá-lo e continuar a navegar, você concorda com isso.
Ignorar
Você sabia que o rastreamento de voos da FlightAware é patrocinado por anúncios?
Você pode nos ajudar a manter o FlightAware gratuito, permitindo anúncios de FlightAware.com. Trabalhamos muito para manter nossa publicidade relevante e discreta para criar uma ótima experiência. É rápido e fácil permitir anúncios no FlightAware ou, caso prefira, considere nossas contas premium.
Ignorar