Law to ban laptops in the cockpit

[Richard]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hA0WkLUZXW8iR6FIjNXOF4XHbuLQD9BNUDM00

Utterly predictable. In light that airline policy forbids use of personal electronics and there are existing FAA regs which pertain, what will this law accomplish?

That the NWA pilots knew or should have known company policy yet they apparently ignored that policy, what will prevent pilots from ignoring the law?

Harsher penalties? I think the consequences per company policy pretty much took care of that.

Other than it being a "national standard", what does this law accomplish other than being knee jerk response?

 

[Bob Noel]

This could quickly become SZ material, but...

Of course this law is stupid. Of course it'll accomplish nothing. Another
regulation brought to you by the same geniuses responsible for TSA and DHS.
I say we need more placards and warning labels on laptops. How about a
big placard on all laptops warning the user not to use them in a cockpit?

 

[RJM62]

I expected this incident to spur new bills, as well. The only surprise for me is that Chuck Schumer hasn't drafted one yet.

-Rich

 

[RotorAndWing]

I expected this incident to spur new bills, as well. The only surprise for me is that Chuck Schumer hasn't drafted one yet.

-Rich

Only if he can figure a way to add a tax to it.

 

[gprellwitz]

Is it me, or does this totally miss the point:

He said he was surprised to learn after the Oct. 21 incident that the Federal Aviation Administration doesn't specifically prohibit pilots from using laptops, DVD players, MP3 players and other devices during flight except below 10,000 feet while the plane is taking off or landing.

At least they're talking about making a concession for electronic flight bags, though how they're going to define those, I have no idea. They do seem to be talking about part 121, not part 91.

Still, totally asinine.

 

[poadeleted20]

Personally, I don't think it should take a law or regulation or company rule for a Part 121 air carrier pilot to know that it is unprofessional and compromises safety for them to be using a portable electronic device other than for operational purposes in flight. Unfortunately, the NWA event proves otherwise. If that crew hadn't done that and screwed up and attracted national attention, we wouldn't be seeing this happen.

"We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Walt Kelly, as Pogo
"You did it to yourselves, buddy-boy." -- Newt, Waldo Pepper's old squadron commander, speaking about the creation of the CAA and flying regulations ("The Great Waldo Pepper," Hill and Goldman, 1975)

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Hmmm. Is there something unreasonable about the government passing a statute, as opposed to having an administrative rule or contractual obligation that addresses the issue, that makes an activity that could be detrimental to the health and welfare of people who have no control over the activity in question?

In this case, it would certainly seem that company policy and the FAR's didn't do much to prevent an activity that is potentially dangerous (unless some of you want to argue that "using laptops in the cockpit" causing a 150-mile deviation from course isn't really bad), so Congress has decided to step in and make it into (I assume) a criminal violation.

Such is life. A "privilege" (in this case, the privilege to be free from a supposedly-overbearing gov't in the cockpit) not exercised responsibly is a privilege lost. Kind of like, I don't know, texting while driving - folks not doing it responsibly has led to it being severely curtailed for everyone.

Don't like it? Maybe somebody should have told those guys flying that plane that rocking a laptop in the cockpit in such a fashion as to cause you to lose contact with ATC ain't cool.

Rabble. Rabble rabble.

 

[SkyHog]

What is next? A law that says that Pilots must look at the controls that he grabs before using them?

Seems this should already be common practice, and a law shouldn't be needed. Sigh.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

...

Seems this should already be common practice, and a law shouldn't be needed. Sigh.

Not driving whilst hammered should already be common practice, and a law shouldn't be needed. Sigh.

See what I'm saying? What should be done, and what are done are different things. And, when society has an interest in compelling what should be done to be actually done, in face of demonstrated non-compliance with what should be done a law gets passed.

By the way - the fact that this incident occurred indicates that not using laptops to the point of distraction in the cockpit of a common carrier aircraft carrying passengers indicates that there's a "common practice" issue.

So, I can't say I'm terribly butthurt over this proposed bill. Such is life.

 

[maddog52]

In this case, it would certainly seem that company policy and the FAR's didn't do much to prevent an activity that is potentially dangerous (unless some of you want to argue that "using laptops in the cockpit" causing a 150-mile deviation from course isn't really bad), so Congress has decided to step in and make it into (I assume) a criminal violation.

Laptops have been available for what, 15-20 years. It seems that "company policy and the FAR's" have done a very good job of preventing this potentially dangerous activity. One high profile case during that time can hardly be called a failure of the current rules and be used to justify even more rules.

 

[SCCutler]

It seems to me that this is nothing but grandstanding by members of congress. The authority to take all appropriate action against crewmembers who commit dangerous or negligent acts already exists, and is thoroughly adequate to punish as necessary.

 

[steingar]

The reason I think this is utterly insipid is when I make policies, it is because I see many many people doing the same thing. I don't make policy to react to an instance, I make it to react to a trend. The only trend I see is low-time underpaid pilots crashing aircraft. Pity the FAA doesn't respond to that.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Laptops have been available for what, 15-20 years. It seems that "company policy and the FAR's" have done a very good job of preventing this potentially dangerous activity. One high profile case during that time can hardly be called a failure of the current rules and be used to justify even more rules.

For sure.

Regardless, it's a generally-accepted statistic that, for every 200 times you drive drunk, you'll get caught once (that is, quite seriously, the approximate number, and I think I'm actually rounding it down to 200).

So what does that say?

At any rate, here's the question we really ought to be asking ourselves. What kind of punishment does this type of behavior deserve? Should being so ridiculously careless, while flying a commercial plane loaded with people having no control over their own fates (the whole "common carrier" thing), that you lose contact with ATC and go XXX miles off course through nothing but your own fault be punishable by: 1) a revocation of your ATP; or 2) some kind of criminal penalty?

Seriously. Ask yourselves that.

As for myself, I'm kind of torn. This is an area where we're primarily concerned with deterrance - while deterrance isn't a consideration in crimes where rationality goes out the window (i.e., murder), it is a consideration here. From that perspective, losing your certificate (upon which your potentially high-paying career turns) is a pretty significant deterrent.

At the same time, that kind of behavior is really bleeping bad. There's just no other word for it. I mean, seriously? You're on a laptop, so engrossed in whatever it is you're doing (be it playing the latest verion of Civilization or redoing your resume), that you are, for all intents and purposes, incapacitated from a job requiring a high degree of competency and attention? That is uttlerly reprehensible, and that's just not open for discussion. I'll put it like this - we retain the threat of criminal sanctions for far less.

So, give that some serious consideration. Does something of this nature rise to the level of criminal negligence, if not worse?

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

It seems to me that this is nothing but grandstanding by members of congress. The authority to take all appropriate action against crewmembers who commit dangerous or negligent acts already exists, and is thoroughly adequate to punish as necessary.

Personally speaking, I tend to agree.

Regardless, those of us posting on this forum aren't: 1) of ordinary intellect by any means; and 2) aren't unversed with flying policy. We all know that if you act like this you're going to lose your ticket, and you and I personally know (as attorneys) that there are potential criminal penalties already (reckless endangerment comes to mind - does that exist at the Federal level?).

But, look at it from the general public's point of view. While we can argue 'til we're blue in the faces that the ignorance of the great unwashed masses shouldn't govern policy, the reality is that the general public is just as important, and powerful, as you and I. It's also worth keeping in mind that confidence in the safety of aviation, which I'd say in the public's eye is largely based on the perceived competency of flight crews, is incredibly important. Thus, when I put on my "John Q. Public hat," I can't say that I think a law saying "pilots, if you're flying, hands off the crackberry/ipod/porntube" is unreasonable.

 

[Everskyward]

The reason I think this is utterly insipid is when I make policies, it is because I see many many people doing the same thing. I don't make policy to react to an instance, I make it to react to a trend.

Unfortunately you are are rarity among policymakers in both government and private enterprise, at least from what I have seen.

 

[poadeleted20]

Thus, when I put on my "John Q. Public hat," I can't say that I think a law saying "pilots, if you're flying, hands off the crackberry/ipod/porntube" is unreasonable.

Even with my Ace Pilot hat on, I can't say it bothers me if Congress wants to spend its time making a law against something no airline pilot with an ounce of professionalism is going to do anyway. Better'n spending their time on a bill to create/increase FAA fees for processing paperwork FAA-required paperwork.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Dorgan said his bill will make an exception for "electronic flight bags" — laptops containing navigational tools issued to pilots by some airlines."

What about PDA's that are used as glide / navigation computers? Or does this only apply to "airlines"

 

[thepetrostate]

Even with my Ace Pilot hat on, I can't say it bothers me if Congress wants to spend its time making a law against something no airline pilot with an ounce of professionalism is going to do anyway. Better'n spending their time on a bill to create/increase FAA fees for processing paperwork FAA-required paperwork.

God knows that is correct, anything to keep them busy with BS is fine by me.

 

[gprellwitz]

"Dorgan said his bill will make an exception for "electronic flight bags" — laptops containing navigational tools issued to pilots by some airlines."

What about PDA's that are used as glide / navigation computers? Or does this only apply to "airlines"

Well, they did specify "airlines" in the article, which is why I said that this only applies to part 121 ops. OTOH, we all know just how accurate the media can be in their reporting, so who knows.

 

[Bob Noel]

Even with my Ace Pilot hat on, I can't say it bothers me if Congress wants to spend its time making a law against something no airline pilot with an ounce of professionalism is going to do anyway. Better'n spending their time on a bill to create/increase FAA fees for processing paperwork FAA-required paperwork.

Do you really think the geniuses in DC won't have put in some undesiriable
unintended side effect in their zeal to Do Something?

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Do you really think the geniuses in DC won't have put in some undesiriable
unintended side effect in their zeal to Do Something?

It might help to have read the bill (as yet unintroduced) before jumping to conclusions.

 

[jlwilson]

I think we should ban them here too

 

[wabower]

Talking with a SWA pilot today (while watching them try to get a J-3 mag timing problem resolved) who said that NWA's policy does not specifically preclude laptops in the cockpit. Delta's policy does, but even though some parts of the merger are completed, the integration of the pilots is not, and the old NWA guys are still operating under their old rules. He said the laptop story is just a cover, they were snoozin. And that company selcal isn't a bong, just a light.

FWIW.

ichard;512084]http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hA0WkLUZXW8iR6FIjNXOF4XHbuLQD9BNUDM00

Utterly predictable. In light that airline policy forbids use of personal electronics and there are existing FAA regs which pertain, what will this law accomplish?

That the NWA pilots knew or should have known company policy yet they apparently ignored that policy, what will prevent pilots from ignoring the law?

Harsher penalties? I think the consequences per company policy pretty much took care of that.

Other than it being a "national standard", what does this law accomplish other than being knee jerk response?[/quote]

 

[Bob Noel]

It might help to have read the bill (as yet unintroduced) before jumping to conclusions.

It's not that I enjoy being a cynic, it's just so greatly improves
my ability to predict the future.

 

[poadeleted20]

He said the laptop story is just a cover, they were snoozin.

Rumor and hearsay, not worth repeating without evidence.

 

[wabower]

How many hard facts have been reported here so far?

Rumor and hearsay, not worth repeating without evidence.

 

[Richard]

Hmmm. Is there something unreasonable about the government passing a statute, as opposed to having an administrative rule or contractual obligation that addresses the issue, that makes an activity that could be detrimental to the health and welfare of people who have no control over the activity in question?

In this case, it would certainly seem that company policy and the FAR's didn't do much to prevent an activity that is potentially dangerous (unless some of you want to argue that "using laptops in the cockpit" causing a 150-mile deviation from course isn't really bad), so Congress has decided to step in and make it into (I assume) a criminal violation.

Such is life. A "privilege" (in this case, the privilege to be free from a supposedly-overbearing gov't in the cockpit) not exercised responsibly is a privilege lost. Kind of like, I don't know, texting while driving - folks not doing it responsibly has led to it being severely curtailed for everyone.

Don't like it? Maybe somebody should have told those guys flying that plane that rocking a laptop in the cockpit in such a fashion as to cause you to lose contact with ATC ain't cool.

Rabble. Rabble rabble.

Well, yeah. How resonable is it to draft a new law which specifically forbids that which is already forbidden?

Okay, so the current regs don't specifically mention laptops used in the cockpit, but that didn't stop those same existing regs being used to substantiate enforcement action against those pilots. Does everything need to be spelled out so finely?

Imagine a law: "No required flight crew shall brush his or her teeth on the 2nd Tuesday of each month unless--..." Asinine, yes. But how does this differ from what is proposed?

And if one should floss or perhaps swish, does that constitute a willful end run around the law? The point is, the more finely pointed the law, the more loopholes appear. Humans being human....

 

[poadeleted20]

Well, yeah. How resonable is it to draft a new law which specifically forbids that which is already forbidden?

Okay, so the current regs don't specifically mention laptops used in the cockpit, but that didn't stop those same existing regs being used to substantiate enforcement action against those pilots.

If you read the FAA's letter to these pilots, you'll see that the laptops weren't mentioned. They were violated only for their failures to maintain 2-way comm with ATC, follow ATC instructions, and adhere to their ATC clearance. Had they not done those things, the FAA would not have become involved despite their having been using those laptops.

That said, as a result of this event, the question arising is ... Does everything need to be spelled out so finely?

Valid question. As I said before, it's a shame that there are airline pilots who need to be told that diverting your attention from your flight duties to using a personal electronic device for non-operational purposes is not appropriate in the flight deck of a Part 121 air carrier. However, since these two pilots have shown that there are such pilots out there, and that such use can lead to a serious safety breach, I can see where it might be considered necessary to have such a rule in order to prevent a recurrence of this event and ensure that airline passengers receive "the greatest degree of human care and foresight possible."

 

[RotorAndWing]

If you read the FAA's letter to these pilots, you'll see that the laptops weren't mentioned. They were violated only for their failures to maintain 2-way comm with ATC, follow ATC instructions, and adhere to their ATC clearance. Had they not done those things, the FAA would not have become involved despite their having been using those laptops.
Valid question. As I said before, it's a shame that there are airline pilots who need to be told that diverting your attention from your flight duties to using a personal electronic device for non-operational purposes is not appropriate in the flight deck of a Part 121 air carrier. However, since these two pilots have shown that there are such pilots out there, and that such use can lead to a serious safety breach, I can see where it might be considered necessary to have such a rule in order to prevent a recurrence of this event and ensure that airline passengers receive "the greatest degree of human care and foresight possible."

Unfortunately because of all the hype with this incident the programs such as ASAP that have been put in place by the FAA and Airlines has now been compromised and will help contribute to a lesser degree of safety.

Valid question. As I said before, it's a shame that there are airline pilots who need to be told that diverting your attention from your flight duties to using a personal electronic device for non-operational purposes is not appropriate in the flight deck of a Part 121 air carrier. However, since these two pilots have shown that there are such pilots out there, and that such use can lead to a serious safety breach, I can see where it might be considered necessary to have such a rule in order to prevent a recurrence of this event and ensure that airline passengers receive "the greatest degree of human care and foresight possible."

Sorry, this is no different than GA pilots who bring along handheld GPS's and PDA's and Laptops hooked up to GPS and weather services and proceed to fly with their heads buried in the cockpit. And these GA pilots share the same airspace with the airlines. Shouldn't they also share into "the greatest degree of human care and foresight possible."?

 

[thepetrostate]

Talking with a SWA pilot today ... He said the laptop story is just a cover, they were snoozin. And that company selcal isn't a bong, just a light.

So they fell asleep after their hootch pipe went out?



Now that explains everything.

 

[thepetrostate]

How many hard facts have been reported here so far?

Less than four hours or we would be seeking medical help.

 

[poadeleted20]

Unfortunately because of all the hype with this incident the programs such as ASAP that have been put in place by the FAA and Airlines has now been compromised and will help contribute to a lesser degree of safety.

Programs like ASAP have not been compromised by this event. These two pilots compromised themselves by making statements outside the protected channels. If anyone is to blame, it's those two, not the media or anyone else. If they'd just done what their little ALPA cards said, the FAA and NWA could not have used anything they said against them and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Sorry, this is no different than GA pilots who bring along handheld GPS's and PDA's and Laptops hooked up to GPS and weather services and proceed to fly with their heads buried in the cockpit.

That position ignores the fact that what those two were doing had nothing to do with the safe operation of the flight.

And these GA pilots share the same airspace with the airlines. Shouldn't they also share into "the greatest degree of human care and foresight possible."?

The law says not. We don't impose the same "common carrier" standards on GA pilots as on airline pilots any more than we do on private motorists compared to Greyhound bus drivers with whom they're sharing the road.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Programs like ASAP have not been compromised by this event.

Sorry, you're wrong on this. Most airline pilots will think twice now before self disclosing on a safety issue.

The law says not. We don't impose the same "common carrier" standards on GA pilots as on airline pilots any more than we do on private motorists compared to Greyhound bus drivers with whom they're sharing the road.

A GA pilot cruising through congested airspace with his head buried in the cockpit playing with all his "neat" gadgets can do just as much damage as an airline pilot playing on his laptop.

 

[poadeleted20]

Sorry, you're wrong on this. Most airline pilots will think twice now before self disclosing on a safety issue.

And you polled how many airline pilots to determine this?

In any event, if you mean thinking twice before self-disclosing outside protected channels, I don't see how that's changed. They'd have to be idiots to do this, since there's never been any protection for what you report directly to the NTSB, FBI, or FAA. OTOH, if you think this has somehow broken the confessional seal on ASAP, I don't see how that follows, since they voluntarily reported this to the FBI in an interview, not to their company via ASAP.

A GA pilot cruising through congested airspace with his head buried in the cockpit playing with all his "neat" gadgets can do just as much damage as an airline pilot playing on his laptop.

Whether that's true or not, the law doesn't see it that way, or else nobody would be allowed to drive on the same highway as a Greyhound bus without meeting the same requirements as bus drivers like rest times, duty logs, medical exams, tougher DL testing, etc. Or do you suggest nobody be allowed in same airspace as airliners without an ATP?

 

[RotorAndWing]

And you polled how many airline pilots to determine this?

Being an ALPA member as well as an airline pilot I have many co-workers and also lots of friends flying for other carriers. And yes we discuss these kind of things. Since you're not in the industry your post are mere speculation.

Whether that's true or not, the law doesn't see it that way

I see once again you're trying to play lawyer (which law school did you attend?)

or else nobody would be allowed to drive on the same highway as a Greyhound bus without meeting the same requirements as bus drivers like rest times, duty logs, medical exams, tougher DL testing, etc.

So you're advocating it's perfectly OK for a pilot to fly around with a laptop open in the seat next to him while trying to use a hand held PDA and a handheld GPS while his head is buried in the cockpit?

Or do you suggest nobody be allowed in same airspace as airliners without an ATP?

Nice twist. Your argument is inane when you start injecting comments like this to the discussion.

 

[poadeleted20]

Being an ALPA member as well as an airline pilot I have many co-workers and also lots of friends flying for other carriers. And yes we discuss these kind of things. Since you're not in the industry your post are mere speculation.

Since ASAP wasn't involved in this case, and you have no statistics to support your contention, so is yours.

I see once again you're trying to play lawyer (which law school did you attend?)

One need not be a law school graduate to know the law.

So you're advocating it's perfectly OK for a pilot to fly around with a laptop open in the seat next to him while trying to use a hand held PDA and a handheld GPS while his head is buried in the cockpit?

Nope. Just saying that the law says that light GA pilots are not held to the same standards as Part 121 pilots. And there's plenty in the FAR's and case law to support that, beginning with the difference between the ordinary care standard applied to Part 91 light GA and the standards for common carriers.

Nice twist. Your argument is inane when you start injecting comments like this to the discussion.

No more inane than suggesting that the use of statements given voluntarily to the FBI somehow compromises the ASAP program when nothing used against those pilots came from that program.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

...


I see once again you're trying to play lawyer (which law school did you attend?)



....

Regardless, he's right. The comparison of a private pilot to a normal driver, and commercial pilots and, say, Greyhound drivers was pretty apt.

In the eyes of the law, you're simply held to a higher standard if your participating in a "common carrier" system. Is that right? It's not for me to say - personally, I would hope that we would all hold ourselves to the highest standards no matter what the law said - but it is how the law is structured.

 

[poadeleted20]

Regardless, he's right.

Thanks -- I was relying Hamilton's and Gesell's books, but it's nice to hear it confirmed by a real law school grad.

personally, I would hope that we would all hold ourselves to the highest standards no matter what the law said

BTW, I think it important to remember that if those two [insert perjorative plural noun] hadn't gone zipping off into the night sky past their destination because they had their heads in their laptops (or something like that), we wouldn't even be having this discussion. But when you screw up in a large public fashion like that, there will be consequences. Jessica Dubroff's instructor (whose name nobody remembers without having to look it up) got us a truly pointless law. An airline crew running over a Cherokee from behind got us TCA's (now B-space). A couple of airliners sightseeing over the Grand Canyon got us the FAA. As long as we don't screw up, things are cool. When we do screw up and something bad happens as a result, somebody's going to make a rule saying not to do again whatever it was we did to cause the bad event. That's life in the 21st century.

So when you're out flying your airplane (be it a 7AC or a 767), just think about what you're doing in the context of what could go wrong while you're doing it. If you think that would look bad in the press, just don't do it unless you take appropriate precautions (like an alarm clock set for 30 minutes out?) to see that the bad thing doesn't happen while you're doing what you're doing so there's nothing for the media to cover or Congress to investigate and "fix."

 

[RotorAndWing]

Regardless, he's right. The comparison of a private pilot to a normal driver, and commercial pilots and, say, Greyhound drivers was pretty apt.

In the eyes of the law, you're simply held to a higher standard if your participating in a "common carrier" system. Is that right? It's not for me to say - personally, I would hope that we would all hold ourselves to the highest standards no matter what the law said - but it is how the law is structured.

We were discussing safety in the cockpit irregardless of what you fly.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Since ASAP wasn't involved in this case, and you have no statistics to support your contention, so is yours.
One need not be a law school graduate to know the law.
Nope. Just saying that the law says that light GA pilots are not held to the same standards as Part 121 pilots. And there's plenty in the FAR's and case law to support that, beginning with the difference between the ordinary care standard applied to Part 91 light GA and the standards for common carriers.
No more inane than suggesting that the use of statements given voluntarily to the FBI somehow compromises the ASAP program when nothing used against those pilots came from that program.

Your obtuse view of the NWA situation prevents you from having the acuity to understand I was pointing out the safety aspect of what happened in the NWA cockpit is on the same level of what can happen in a GA cockpit.

Your inane diatribes while attempting to play lawyer are tiresome, so I won't bother to reply anymore to your "contentions".