Northwest Airlines Pilots demise....

CT Arrow

Line Up and Wait
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
785
Display Name

Display name:
Adios!
FAA revokes licenses of wayward pilots

Agency cites failure to heed instructions, operating plane recklessly

As reported by the AP



U.S. government regulators have revoked the licenses of the two airline pilots who flew an Airbus passenger jet past their Minneapolis destination by 150 miles last week.
The Federal Aviation Administration said Tuesday the Northwest Airlines pilots had violated numerous regulations, including failing to comply with air traffic control instructions and clearances and operating carelessly and recklessly.
The pilots — first officer Richard Cole and captain Timothy Cheney — told investigators they lost track of time and place while working on their laptop computers.


The pilots' union had cautioned against a rush to judgment. The pilots, who said they had no previous accidents or safety incidents, have 10 days to appeal the emergency revocation.
The National Transportation Safety Board has not taken or examined the laptops that the pilots were using, spokesman Ted Lopatkiewicz said Tuesday.
"The pilots said they were using them. So I don't know what any examination of them" would do to further the investigation, Lopatkiewicz said.
Suspended from jobs
Delta Air Lines Inc., which acquired Northwest last year, has suspended the two pilots pending an investigation.
Capt. Lee Moak, chairman of Delta's pilots' union, said on Tuesday he's concerned the NTSB's disclosure of the pilot statements will hurt voluntary safety programs meant to allow pilots to come forward with safety concerns.
"We have an ongoing investigation and we shouldn't have a rush to judgment," Moak said.
The NTSB said the pilots denied they had fallen asleep, as aviation experts have suggested. Instead, Cole and Cheney said they both had their laptops out while the first officer, who had more experience with scheduling, instructed the captain on monthly flight crew scheduling.
While Cole and Cheney were able to turn their plane around and land safely, pilots and aviation safety experts said the episode is likely to cause NTSB and the Federal Aviation Administration to take a hard look at the use of laptops and other personal electronic devices in the cockpit.

Click for related content

Distracted flying becomes new concern



No specific ban
There are no federal rules that specifically ban pilots' use of laptops or other personal electronic devices as long as the plane is flying above 10,000 feet, said Diane Spitaliere, an FAA spokeswoman.
Delta said in a statement that using laptops or engaging in activity unrelated to the pilots' command of the aircraft during flight is strictly against the airline's flight deck policies. The airline said violations of that policy will result in termination
 
Not at all surprised. BTW, the FAA statement said only "reckless," not "careless or reckless." Reckless is worse. Careless is like "you should have known better," but reckless is like "you did know better but you did it anyway."
 
Here's a question - do they need to take ALL their checkrides again, or just the ATP, if they had military experience in accordance with 61.153.d.2?
 
Not at all surprised. BTW, the FAA statement said only "reckless," not "careless or reckless." Reckless is worse. Careless is like "you should have known better," but reckless is like "you did know better but you did it anyway."

Seems right to me. These guys are trained professionals, who are there to FLY THE PLANE! Not diddle around with computer software.
 
Here's a question - do they need to take ALL their checkrides again, or just the ATP, if they had military experience in accordance with 61.153.d.2?
On its face, it would appear so, but I'd be interested to see if the FAA would consider these folks to have "been removed from flying status ... because of a disciplinary action involving aircraft operations" and thus not eligible for civilian equivalence issuance under 61.73, and therefore not qualifying under 61.153(d)(2). Note that 61.73(a) doesn't specify whether they were "removed from flying status" by the military or later by the FAA.
 
Yeah... sometimes I wonder if some of the old ceremony of military expulsion (getting stripped of your insignia, having your unit about-face on you and march away, etc) would be applicable to other civilian professions with similar cultures. I think that those rituals have a real value in maintaining the ideals and standards of the organization.

The more I thought about this, the more I came to the conclusion that being incapacitated or asleep was the ONLY excuse that shifted ANY responsibility away from the pilots. At least then they could blame crew scheduling policies, or that they were poisoned, or something. As long as they were there and awake there was a duty to be paying attention to the friggin flight and the airplane.
 
Chances are good they had 20-30 yr each flying without a problem.

What other industry is there that get you thrown out on your first big mistake?

My guess is they fell asleep & thought the laptop thing would be a good excuss.

No matter what happened, they should not have their whole lives runied.
 
Chances are good they had 20-30 yr each flying without a problem.

What other industry is there that get you thrown out on your first big mistake?

My guess is they fell asleep & thought the laptop thing would be a good excuss.

No matter what happened, they should not have their whole lives runied.

In what other 'industry' do those in command of a process, event or action hold responsibility for the lives of over a hundred souls at any given instant.
As a pilot, (I am assuming you are a pilot) would you not hold yourself to the same standard even if the life you hold responsibility for is just your own, and by extension the lives and property of those who might be impacted by your actions? You must be kidding!
 
Chances are good they had 20-30 yr each flying without a problem.

What other industry is there that get you thrown out on your first big mistake?

My guess is they fell asleep & thought the laptop thing would be a good excuss.

No matter what happened, they should not have their whole lives runied.

Mistakes of this magnitude would get you fired in lots of industries. That is if you consider deliberately not doing your job a "mistake". Oh, and unless the Administrator says no, they can reapply for all their certificates and try to go back to work.

As I said, if they were actually asleep I'd cut them some slack - there's some room to shift responsibility then.
 
As I said, if they were actually asleep I'd cut them some slack - there's some room to shift responsibility then.

Agreed. I thought falling asleep would be a reasonable excuse. Heck, then you can blame crew scheduling and unreasonable company demands.

Just ignoring things because they were working on the laptop? Inexcusable. A complete lapse of judgement that, IMHO, warrants throwing them out on the street.
 
Agreed. I thought falling asleep would be a reasonable excuse. Heck, then you can blame crew scheduling and unreasonable company demands.

Just ignoring things because they were working on the laptop? Inexcusable. A complete lapse of judgement that, IMHO, warrants throwing them out on the street.
I received a forwarded email purportedly from a friend of one of the pilots. I can't judge the contents, as I've never flown for the airlines and don't even have an instrument ticket.

Reading it, I think there was a key error made that I haven't seen mentioned elsewhere: While one of the pilots was in the restroom, the pilot at the controls received instructions to change frequencies. He did so, but didn't mention it to the other pilot when he came back.

If he had, the other guy might have cross-checked...because the frequency was wrong. They had switched to Winnepeg Center. So their headsets gave them the usual ATC chatter, but no one ever called their call sign. So they weren't distracted to the point where they couldn't hear Center call them; they were just not on the frequency that Center was calling.

(I presume the pilot at the controls would have checked in with Center after the frequency change...don't know if he did, or if he'd called them "Denver Center," or if all they did was acknowledge his call.)

In the meantime, there'd been a shift change at Denver Center and the oncoming controller wasn't briefed that there was a NORDO airplane.

The company tried to contact them on ACARS, but there is no audible indicator when a call comes in. A light comes on, then goes out 30 seconds later. They had one radio on guard, but the volume may have been inadvertently turned down.

The flight had a 100 knot tailwind, so they covered the flight path quicker than they expected. According to the email, the laptops were out for just five minutes.

When the flight attendant called them on the intercom to ask when they were arriving, they looked at their nav screens and realized they were right over Minneapolis. They called Center (they were still on the frequency for Winnepeg Center) and Center asked where they were. Their navigation screens were set to the maximum range, and with Minneapolis now slightly behind them, the screen no longer showed the city. The only cities on the display were Eau Claire and Duluth, so they told Winnipeg Center they were over Eau Claire even though they weren't even close.

After that, they were vectored all over the sky to verify that they were in normal control of the aircraft. They landed 15 minutes late...and they had left San Diego 35 minutes late, so they'd actually made up 20 minutes despite the overflight. The airplane had 11,000 pounds of fuel onboard, which the author of the email claims is two hours of fuel.

Ron Wanttaja
 
I received a forwarded email purportedly from a friend of one of the pilots. I can't judge the contents, as I've never flown for the airlines and don't even have an instrument ticket.

Reading it, I think there was a key error made that I haven't seen mentioned elsewhere: While one of the pilots was in the restroom, the pilot at the controls received instructions to change frequencies. He did so, but didn't mention it to the other pilot when he came back.

If he had, the other guy might have cross-checked...because the frequency was wrong. They had switched to Winnepeg Center. So their headsets gave them the usual ATC chatter, but no one ever called their call sign. So they weren't distracted to the point where they couldn't hear Center call them; they were just not on the frequency that Center was calling.

(I presume the pilot at the controls would have checked in with Center after the frequency change...don't know if he did, or if he'd called them "Denver Center," or if all they did was acknowledge his call.)

Winnipeg Center didn't acknowledge his call because they didn't hear it. They were out of range of the Winnipeg Center transceivers. They heard normal transmissions on the Winnipeg Center frequency but only the aircraft side of the chatter.
 
Winnipeg Center didn't acknowledge his call because they didn't hear it. They were out of range of the Winnipeg Center transceivers. They heard normal transmissions on the Winnipeg Center frequency but only the aircraft side of the chatter.

Exactly. I have read the letter that Ron referred to, and at least that part of it rings as fabrication to me. Sitting in the cockpit, whether just droning along or actively engaged in conversation, it becomes readily apparent if you're only hearing the aircraft side of a communication. That is a huge, automatic red flag that you have left the appropriate airspace for your frequency. Any experienced pilot would then quickly attempt to re-establish contact, and wouldn't let his guard down until successful. I have no idea what actually happened in that cockpit, but I'm pretty sure we have not yet been told the whole truth.
 
Exactly. I have read the letter that Ron referred to, and at least that part of it rings as fabrication to me. Sitting in the cockpit, whether just droning along or actively engaged in conversation, it becomes readily apparent if you're only hearing the aircraft side of a communication. That is a huge, automatic red flag that you have left the appropriate airspace for your frequency. Any experienced pilot would then quickly attempt to re-establish contact, and wouldn't let his guard down until successful. I have no idea what actually happened in that cockpit, but I'm pretty sure we have not yet been told the whole truth.

Even prior to that red flag, the lack of acknowledgment from ATC should have caused the pilot to restate the transmission until it was acknowledged. No response? Go back to the previous frequency.

In addition, the airplanes they were hearing would have been addressing ATC as Winnipeg Center, not Denver or Minneapolis.
 
Exactly. I have read the letter that Ron referred to, and at least that part of it rings as fabrication to me. Sitting in the cockpit, whether just droning along or actively engaged in conversation, it becomes readily apparent if you're only hearing the aircraft side of a communication. That is a huge, automatic red flag that you have left the appropriate airspace for your frequency. Any experienced pilot would then quickly attempt to re-establish contact, and wouldn't let his guard down until successful. I have no idea what actually happened in that cockpit, but I'm pretty sure we have not yet been told the whole truth.

I've also read the letter and find it very plausible. After hours of listening to calls, filtering out conversations that don't begin with your callsign is a way to keep your sanity. Hearing only half of an exchange is pretty common when controllers are simulcasting on multiple VHF and UHF frequencies.
The email states they got distracted during the lav break and forgot to try to check in. They wouldn't have even realized they were on the wrong freq. And the difference between "Winnipeg" and "Minni" center on a garbled cockpit speaker might not be the easiest thing to differentiate. (assuming the other aircraft are actually using the names and not just "Center")

I'm not giving these guys a pass on their actions, but just like any accident, there appears to be a long chain of minor mistakes that combined to make one big, high profile incident. I think we've actually heard the true story.
 
I don't buy the letter. Nice try on the cover up, whoever put it out there, but I don't buy it. If that's what happened, then WHY ISN'T THAT the story they told??????? Laptops? No, uh, we, uh, switched freqs, accidentally, then pulled out the laptops.

Question. If he did switch to Winnipeg Center, what did Center say to him when he called up. "Center, Northwest 123, checking in at 27" I imagine the first thing Winnipeg Center would have said was, "Why are you calling me??"
 
I don't buy the letter. Nice try on the cover up, whoever put it out there, but I don't buy it. If that's what happened, then WHY ISN'T THAT the story they told??????? Laptops? No, uh, we, uh, switched freqs, accidentally, then pulled out the laptops.

Question. If he did switch to Winnipeg Center, what did Center say to him when he called up. "Center, Northwest 123, checking in at 27" I imagine the first thing Winnipeg Center would have said was, "Why are you calling me??"

As I recall the email stated the pilot received no response when checking in with Winnipeg Center. Normally a pilot would then repeat the transmission a few times and return to the previous frequency if there was no response.
 
I've also read the letter and find it very plausible. After hours of listening to calls, filtering out conversations that don't begin with your callsign is a way to keep your sanity. Hearing only half of an exchange is pretty common when controllers are simulcasting on multiple VHF and UHF frequencies.
The email states they got distracted during the lav break and forgot to try to check in. They wouldn't have even realized they were on the wrong freq. And the difference between "Winnipeg" and "Minni" center on a garbled cockpit speaker might not be the easiest thing to differentiate. (assuming the other aircraft are actually using the names and not just "Center")

I'm not giving these guys a pass on their actions, but just like any accident, there appears to be a long chain of minor mistakes that combined to make one big, high profile incident. I think we've actually heard the true story.
I agree although I've always been taught than when you are involved in some investigation you shouldn't be trying to defend yourself in public by sending e-mails or making statements to anyone other than the people who need to know.

True, but the half you hear in that case is always ATC, not the airplanes.
That wouldn't be the case if they were over Colorado. They would only be able to hear the airplanes because they would be too far away from the Winnipeg ground stations.

I don't buy the letter. Nice try on the cover up, whoever put it out there, but I don't buy it. If that's what happened, then WHY ISN'T THAT the story they told??????? Laptops? No, uh, we, uh, switched freqs, accidentally, then pulled out the laptops.
I don't think they are saying they switched frequencies accidentally. I think they are saying that the FO switched to a wrong frequency, didn't get a reply but during the distraction of the captain coming back from the lav he forgot that they didn't get a reply.

Question. If he did switch to Winnipeg Center, what did Center say to him when he called up. "Center, Northwest 123, checking in at 27" I imagine the first thing Winnipeg Center would have said was, "Why are you calling me??"
Again, I think it's because Winnipeg Center never heard them.
 
That wouldn't be the case if they were over Colorado. They would only be able to hear the airplanes because they would be too far away from the Winnipeg ground stations.

Exactly. Point being, that if they were only hearing half of the conversation, that they were hearing the WRONG half of the conversation. Hearing only ATC = normal. Hearing only airplanes = something's wrong.
 
Exactly. Point being, that if they were only hearing half of the conversation, that they were hearing the WRONG half of the conversation. Hearing only ATC = normal. Hearing only airplanes = something's wrong.

If they were distracted enough not to confirm the check in, do you think they were paying close enough attention to all the other conversations to realize that they were hearing only one side?
 
Hearing only ATC = normal. Hearing only airplanes = something's wrong.
Not necessarily. Sometimes center controllers work a number of sectors and transmitters so you only hear the airplane side of the conversation. However, somewhere along the way you would think some of those airplanes would have initiated a call with, "Winnipeg Center" which should have been a clue but I guess it wasn't.
 
Not necessarily. Sometimes center controllers work a number of sectors and transmitters so you only hear the airplane side of the conversation. However, somewhere along the way you would think some of those airplanes would have initiated a call with, "Winnipeg Center" which should have been a clue but I guess it wasn't.

Really? I've never heard a controller be selective with their transmitters, they tend to broadcast in all the sectors they're working - Helps keep them from getting bugged by us pesky pilots when they're busy. ;)
 
Not necessarily. Sometimes center controllers work a number of sectors and transmitters so you only hear the airplane side of the conversation.

You want to explain how a controller could do what you suggest and still control the other aircraft?
 
Not necessarily. Sometimes center controllers work a number of sectors and transmitters so you only hear the airplane side of the conversation. /snip/

Sorry, that's just not true. If you only hear the aircraft side of the center communication, then you are on the wrong frequency, or out of range, period.
 
Never heard "Come up my frequency xxxxx?" They do that lot down here, particularly when there's little traffic, little enough for one controller to cover several transmitter sites (sectors, if you will). I've heard pilots talking on my assigned frequency and ARTCC is using a remote site, far enough away that I barely hear them, and then switch transmitters (on the same frequency) and be loud and clear when they talk to me. Maybe I'm just an outlier in the experience.

Really? I've never heard a controller be selective with their transmitters, they tend to broadcast in all the sectors they're working - Helps keep them from getting bugged by us pesky pilots when they're busy. ;)
 
Never heard "Come up my frequency xxxxx?" They do that lot down here, particularly when there's little traffic, little enough for one controller to cover several transmitter sites (sectors, if you will). I've heard pilots talking on my assigned frequency and ARTCC is using a remote site, far enough away that I barely hear them, and then switch transmitters (on the same frequency) and be loud and clear when they talk to me. Maybe I'm just an outlier in the experience.

Oh, I've gotten "Switch to my frequency 1xx.xx" plenty of times as I transition sectors. I do a lot of night flying, and that's when they get combined the most... But I've never heard an airplane on the frequency and not been able to hear Center. Ever. :dunno: I do, however, hear Center having one-sided conversations all the time, as they seem to generally leave *all* their transmitters operating when working combined sectors.

Calling ApacheBob... How does this stuff work?
 
Sorry guys, but their letter is just a bunch of diddley poop...
ATC does not fly the airplane...
Me (the pilot) is responsible to know where my airplane is in relation to where I need it to be...
A big tailwind will be immediately noticeable in ground speed and in how fast the first nav point comes up - and especially on a route that is flown day after day after day...
A change in frequency is ALWAYS confirmed by checking in with the new controller AND being acknowledged...
The passengers on that airplane were paying these two to competently fly the plane...
They didn't!

They screwed the pooch and they need to pay the price...

denny-o
 
What other industry is there that get you thrown out on your first big mistake?

Nuclear weapons? OTOH, they could have been doctors...
Finance. Normally, where I worked, Technical guys like me could expect a pass on a $20M mistake. Beyond that, you are out the door. Traders had the same limit.
 
Last edited:
Personally, I still suspect that they fell asleep and tried to cover it up with a contrived story.
 
Personally, I still suspect that they fell asleep and tried to cover it up with a contrived story.

If true and that's the best story those pilots can come up with, then they
are dumber than dirt.
 
Sorry, that's just not true. If you only hear the aircraft side of the center communication, then you are on the wrong frequency, or out of range, period.
You might be out of range of the transmitter the controller is using to control the other aircraft but not out of range of the controller. I have frequently heard the aircraft clearly while ATC is garbled. However when they they are talking to us the transmission is clear because they are using a transmitter located closer to us. Some people worry about ATC getting garbled because they think they are flying out of range but when they query ATC, ATC tells them they were using another transmitter site.
 
Never heard "Come up my frequency xxxxx?" They do that lot down here, particularly when there's little traffic, little enough for one controller to cover several transmitter sites (sectors, if you will). I've heard pilots talking on my assigned frequency and ARTCC is using a remote site, far enough away that I barely hear them, and then switch transmitters (on the same frequency) and be loud and clear when they talk to me. Maybe I'm just an outlier in the experience.
Nope, I'm there with you. :)

This probably happens more often in areas with less airplane traffic and it also happens in high altitude sectors.
 
You want to explain how a controller could do what you suggest and still control the other aircraft?
The transmitters are located in different places but transmit on the same frequency and the controller is able to switch between them.
 
Finance. Normally, where I worked, Technical guys like me could expect a pass on a $20M mistake. Beyond that, you are out the door. Traders had the same limit.

Were they merely fired from their current employer or did they lose their license and were banned from working in that industry for the rest of their lives?

Even doctors that have killed people through negligence won't necessarily lose their license to practice medicine.

I'm not excusing what these pilots did, but their punishment seems to have been driven more by hype than by the actual outcome of the events.
 
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/12/07/wayward.pilots/

In separate responses to the administrative law judge handling their case, Capt. Timothy B. Cheney, 53, of Gig Harbor, Washington, and First Officer Richard I. Cole, 54, say air traffic control rules weren't followed, which contributed to the incident.
"The air traffic controller(s) did not comply with the requirements of the air traffic control manual and other relevant orders, rules, procedures, policies and practices with respect to Northwest Flight 188, nor coordinate effectively with Northwest dispatch, and such failure was a causal or contributing factor in the incident," they said. The responses were filed November 24, but made public Monday.
 
Back
Top