Commercial pilots: Is there a protocol for this?

The BBQ Pit
21

The old “the law doesn’t say I have to” argument is really weak - if that is the best you can come up with, please say you don’t fly passengers.

(echos of grade school - “I don’t have to, and you can’t make me!”)

As to competence - if the co-pilot had been competent to land that plane at that airport at that time, there would have been no go-around. By definition, a competent pilot can land a plane on first try.

And, as the pilot is responsible for the ship, yes, it is on his/her head that the passengers were:

a) terrorized
b) ignored

And no, I don’t have any particular axe to grind with airlines (I don’t use them, and feel sorry for those who do). My bitch is with idiots who think they can inflict suffering and not even have to say “sorry”.

The flight crew was irresponsible - and their employer should be held accountable for their actions.

And why do you say it was a crosswind problem? I was unable to find anything on either the NTSB or the Sacto Bee.

And, had the gear been damaged, I really hope that it wouldn’t have been diverted to SFO or LAX - wouldn’t you divert a damaged plane to a less-used airport? Like the DC-10 (L1011?) which was directed to Souix City (IIRC) when it lost hydraulics? I really don’t think you’d want a plane cartwheeling down a runway at a busy airport. (IIRC, Hayward is the reliever for the bay area)

22

We seem to have an indexing problem. A better man than I would simply wait for the software to catch up with the posts.

I, however, chose to <bump>

23

Well, That is not what happened in Souix City.

Pilot 141 and Johny LA done told you how it is.

36 millon + seconds taught me different.

24

I have been reading this trying to work out what the pilot could possably have said that would satisfactorily have allayed the fears of those on board.

No one would have felt particularly comfortable if
a) they had been told that they had just experienced a botched practice landing
b) equipment had failed (eg tyre blowout)
c) equipment had not failed (what caused it then???)
d) weather or runway conditions caused the aborted landing – how are they going to change significantly before the next landing?

In any case, I don’t see it as the pilots’ responsibility to comment too much. I think the failure was on the part of the cabin crew – to put the heaviness of the landing into some kind of perspective, to assure passengers that procedures were being followed to maintain their safety, and perhaps to conjecturea possible cause of the incident. It would not matter if the conjecture was completely wrong – no one expects the cabin crew to have all of the information. But someone official from the airline saying something in a calm voice would have done wonders to the atmosphere inside the plane. Isn’t that their job? Or do they just get paid to pass out peanuts?

25

OK - airlines have an absolute right to terrorize their passengers, and the passengers have no right to seek redress, right?

“If it ain’t in the FAR’s, I don’t have to do it” - gottit.

Luckily, there is such a thing as judicial review. I recommend using it.

Now, where did the DC-10/L1011 with no hydraulics cartwheel down the runway?

Note:

the miracle was not that 100+ people died in that accident - the miracle was that the pilot was able to get the ship (no control surfaces, no gear, - not even a trim tab) anywhere near landing configuration and 100+ people survived what, by all rights, should have been a ball of fire somewhere.

26

A simple “sorry folks - we’re going to have to try that again - nothing’s broken, we just didn’t catch the runway quite as nice as we’d like to”

(an honest assessment of the situation)

OR

the old “dog on the runway” bit. (a comforting lie)

27

Everytime something scary happens, but nobody is actually hurt, you want to sue somebody? Really?

BOO!

Please don’t sue me. :rolleyes:

28

In any event, it is the pilot who is responsible for the operation of the aircraft - including the cabin crew.

29

Go back and read the part about the issue being not what did happen, but what didn’t happen - the negligence of the crew to allay passenger fears - they had people friggin’ crying in fear, and did nothing - if that ain’t actionable, the legal profession has some work to do.

30

Extraneous, it was not directed there as you implied. They had for all practical purpposes no control. It was incrediable that the crew did as good as they did. If they had their druthers, I think going to a better, bigger, better equiped airfield would have been the choice.

You seem to be forgetting that the pilots are always the first ones to the accident site.

You did not have anyone on the flight, correct? Your sweeping generalizations and lack of knowledge about flying and your ambulance chasing attitude shows how little you know.

Yes, they should have said something at some tiome to help with PR. You want heads, $$$$ and appoligies… And you don’t know what really went on.

You don’t like to fly you said and don’t do it unless you have to.

:::: shrug ::: Whatever…

31

I am going by the situation described in the OP - co-pilot attempts to land, the plane fishtails, pilot takes command, does the pattern twice, and lands. Meanwhile, passengers are crying, in fear for their lives, and neither the flight crew nor the cabin crew do anything to comfort them.

Is that about it?

As to the workload in the plane (I don’t know type/model) - I have no idea, but am will to accept the assertions of the pilots here who tell me it is signifigant - but enven they allow that there was probably enough time to make a PA during the go-around.

AND - there was sure as hell enough time to say something once at the gate.

and Gus - read a little more carefully, 'K - I said I don’t use the airlines. Notice the lack of conditional phrases on that statement.

32

Extraneous

The old “the law doesn’t say I have to” argument is really weak - if that is the best you can come up with, please say you don’t fly passengers.

No one said that that is why there wasn’t any communication. No one even implied that if they aren’t required to then they won’t. I read them to say they would if they could.

As to competence - if the co-pilot had been competent to land that plane at that airport at that time, there would have been no go-around. By definition, a competent pilot can land a plane on first try.

If you had registered on this board a full year before you did I would still have more hours as a pilot then you would have as a member of this board. I have passed over 100 flight checks/tests without a single failure. I have been a pilot examiner. I have been a company check pilot. I am by any standard a competent pilot and I have gone around many, many, many times in my 24 years of flying. It is a practised and required manuver for flight checks. Every single approach is a preparation for a go-around, not a landing. You are never commited to a landing except in an emergency then not always. A go-around happens.

“Pilot will demonstrate the ability and good judgment to initiate a balked landing (go around) when situations and conditions are not optimum (my underlining) for continuing the landing sequence. Typical situations may include improper aircraft altitude, speed or positioning (e.g. not centered on runway), hazards on the runway (people, aircraft, animals), or temporary weather conditions (gusts or dust devils that exceed the capability of the aircraft or pilot).” from here http://www.tcrcm.org/flight_standards.htm

“And why do you say it was a crosswind problem? I was unable to find anything on either the NTSB or the Sacto Bee.”

Out of sincere curiosity just what were you expecting to find? A report that an aircraft had gone around due to wind conditions? Unless the go-around resulted in an accident or injury I would sincerely doubt that a go-around would make the news…or the NTSB.

*"And, as the pilot is responsible for the ship, yes, it is on his/her head that the passengers were:

a) terrorized
b) ignored"*

This seems to be the point.

I was not there and neither were you. I cannot say that that was the case and neither can you. The OP was not there either. Do not forget that at best we have third hand information. It appears that at least one person was extremely upset. I do not know that person and that being the case I have no idea what it takes to upset said individual. I have piloted perfectly uneventful flights during which the cabin crew still had to reassure the odd passenger. As a Captain it would never cross my mind to come over the cabin intercom and say “We are now lowering the first fifteen degrees of flap”. then moments later “We are now lowering the landing gear” and moments later “We are now lowering flaps to final approach setting.” But I know for a fact that the noise of the flaps and gear are disconcerting to the uninitiated traveler. But to me it’s a “non-event” as it should be, otherwise we would need a third flight deck crewmember just to maintain a running commentary explaining noises, attitudes, thrust changes, etc. If I was a regular air traveller that would piss me off…I just want to sleep or read my book or whatever.

I am left wondering what anyone thinks the crew had to gain by not saying something. I can only conclude that it was either a “non-event” in their eyes (and apparently all of the cabin crew too…either that or an instantaneous conspiracy of silence), or they did not have the time to safely make an announcement, or they were callous and disregarding of the passengers feelings. Why is the last option any more likely than either of the first two? In my experience the last option is the least likely. I flew a lot deadheading from base to home and back again and I cannot recall ever feeling “left out” by the flight deck crew. But then again I pretty much knew what was happening all the time so my comfort level was pretty high.

“And, had the gear been damaged, I really hope that it wouldn’t have been diverted to SFO or LAX - wouldn’t you divert a damaged plane to a less-used airport? Like the DC-10 (L1011?) which was directed to Souix City (IIRC) when it lost hydraulics? I really don’t think you’d want a plane cartwheeling down a runway at a busy airport. (IIRC, Hayward is the reliever for the bay area)”

So you suggest a “small, out of the way airport”? I respectfully suggest that as Pilot in Command I would demand that I be vectored to the airport that has the most emergency gear, foam capabilities and emergency medical facilities. Generally that is a big, busy airport or a military field.

And as far as the Souix City crash that was a “no choice”. Read up on the accident and you will find that they had only asymetric thrust for steering. They didn’t “choose” Souix City over all other choices. They little or no choice in that incident.

What I see here is a third hand report of an incident that has been attributed with no substantiation to the Co-Pilot practising. Co-Pilots don’t “practise” with passengers on board any more than Captains “practise”.

You may or may not be interested to know that flight deck positions are a matter of seniority, not experience. On many occasions I had more experience than the Captain but he had been with the company longer. That’s how it is.

Respectfully, you are not well informed on this particular subject.

33

I just want to say that my son flies a lot and he is the kind of person who isn’t bothered by much. He’s a nurse/paramedic and of course has dealt with many terrible things and I’ve never seen him get overwrought. His girlfriend was screaming after the plane slammed onto the runway and was sliding back and forth; after they took off again he reasoned that if there was going to be an emergency landing the captain or steward would have told them to put their heads down and at least warned them. But, on the other hand, since the captain hadn’t said anything he didn’t know what was going on and was imagining the worst, that they had an emergency that required all their attention. It looks like this might be more commonplace than I realized, but for most people it might happen once in a lifetime. My oldest son was involved in an emergency landing several years ago and they were assembled after the fact and everything was explained. So that’s why this son assumed that they would be told everything once they were off the plane. I think pilots forget how aware most passengers are that they are literally putting their lives in his/her hands and how much they trust that if anything goes wrong they will do their utmost to if not reassure them at least explain. Apparently not. My oldest son has not been on a plane since the incident he was involved in; he traveled three days to come see me this summer on the train. I am not too comfortable with flying to begin with, but I just do it for obvious reasons. I used to feel that pilots wore the mantle of their responsiblity with sincere concern for those who have entrusted their well-being to him/her; now doubts have arisen and even though I still feel the pilot will probably do everything possible to land the plane safely, I think that if that were to happen to me, my fears, unfounded or not, would just be considered an unwanted burden; like I’m some kind of dumb, overly emotional passenger who is more of a pain in the neck than anything. Well, I guess we’ll never know precisely what happened and Hawaiian airlines doesn’t care to tell us.

34

From Extraneous:

That is exactly what the law says, and where every pilot’s priority should be is flying the aircraft first. If they don’t have time for a PA, then they don’t do it. And yes I do fly passengers;in fact I’m leaving on a three-day trip today. Wanna come along?

On second thought:

Maybe you shouldn’t. More people get killed by pilot’s NOT going around when they should have than by actually going around. Pilots trying to push the limits of landing to avoid a go-around have killed people in Little Rock AR, Tegucigalpa, Honduras and many other places. In those cases a go-around would have saved lives.

Fly safe!

35

Once again, there is general agreement that something should have been said after the safe landing, however:

This absolutely, completely and utterly WRONG. Even as a mere private pilot it has been drilled in that if something isn’t perfect, go around. Go arounds are practiced 10 feet from landing, just before landing, just after landing, etc. I imagine this continues for an ATP (Airline Transport Pilot).

Brian

-Brian

36

I was once on a flight that aborted its landing twice. After the first, a flight attendant said that the captain would explain what happened later. Then we aborted again and made a smooth landing the third time. We never got an announcement as to what happened. I found this disconcerting and think that an explanation should have been offered.

But I forgot the bit where because something happened that I didn’t like, I deserve to get rich at someone else’s expense. How long is the statute of limitations on frivolous lawsuits?

37

As others have said, the pilots may have seen it as a non-event. If it was a non-event, then there is no reason to comment on it. And I’ll say again that in a busy pattern, there is often no time to make an announcement.

There was a T-storm over New Orleans the first time I went there. Lightning all around the aircraft, and the aircraft was bouncing up and down in some pretty good turbulence. These things I knew: The aircraft is capable of withstanding more abuse than the passengers can; the cockpit crew have a helluva lot more hours than I do, and they go through a lot more recurrent training than I do as a private pilot; we were extremely unlikely to fly into a situation that was beyond the capabilities of the pilots or the aircraft. So I sat back and enjoyed the ride. After four hours of utterly smooth air, I was glad to have a roller coaster ride. We diverted to Baton Rouge when the core of the storm within whose edges we were flying settled over MSY. The only bad part of the trip was that we had to sit on the ground in a hot, stuffy airplane for two hours while we waited for the storm to move away. During that time I found out that many of the passengers had freaked out, and that the airplane had run out of airsickness bags. Since the airline did not have “permission” to “operate” out of Baton Rouge, the only way people were allowed off of the aircraft was if they had a “medical condition” and were released to the police and paramedice. A few people were so distraught they took that option. As I recall, the pilots did not make any announcements to calm the passengers. They did say that we were to remain in our seats and cinch up the lap belts, and they did tell us that we were diverting to Baton Rouge. But they didn’t take the time to give a dissertation on air masses, aircraft construction, and certification testing. And that was fine by me. I’d rather have the aircrew fly the aircraft than talk.

A competent pilot knows when to abort a landing.

But the issue as I see it is not that the pilot or copilot or both were incompetent. The issue as I see it is whether they should have said something to the passengers. As I and others have said, it would have been nice if they had; but it’s quite possible that they didn’t have the time or opportunity. Even if they did circle twice, there is a lot going on in the “front office”.

Hysteria breeds hysteria. While your son is a nurse/paramedic, most people are not exposed to “emergency” situations. If one passenger cried out, “Oh, my god! We’re all going to die!” that would have a negative effect on others. Maybe if he were flying alone, he would have shrugged it off. But when his girlfriend is screaming – this person he has feelings for – then he might have simply been caught up in the moment. I don’t know; I wasn’t there. And I hope you don’t see this as an attack on your son. I don’t know him, and I can’t say “Oh, he was feeling this or that.” I’m just offering a different posibility as to why people were so upset about something others might have seen as a non-event (like my flight to New Orleans).

My take on this is that if the pilot didn’t make an announcement, then there was probably no emergency. I’d be more worried if the pilot had gotten on the PA and said, “Assume crash positions!”

So the landing attempt was a little squirrely. To the flight crew, it may have been a non-event requiring no announcement. Or they were too busy talking to the tower for their second attempt to explain something so minor as a go-around. Or maybe they circled twice to have some other eyes check their landing gear and they were preoccupied with flying the aircraft to talk.

But couldn’t they have said something as they were taxiing in? Sure. But if they perceived it as a non-event and the aircraft and passengers were never in any danger, then it might not have occurred to them. If that’s the case, it’s a far cry from clamming up.

38

While that may be understandable, I have generally found that flight crews understand that (some) passengers get nervous and passengers do not understand what is routine and what aircraft tolerances are. Because of that, the crew is usually very good at explaining things. To an extent, that makes it even more odd when they don’t.

39

So would you rather have had him get on the intercom and say “hey there, my co-pilot just screwed up the landing, and I’m just taking over the controls now…crash”? The pilot has far more important duties than keeping the customers informed – namely keeping them alive.

:rolleyes:

Gotta hand it to dickheads like you who keep the justice system filled with frivilous lawsuits, trying to make an easy buck.

40

Who let this creep in?