Flight 60 vs. Flight 188 — The Art of Failure

AVWEB INSIDER

Post comments | View comments by other members (26)

November 1, 2009

Email this blog |

Print this blog

By Glenn Pew

Well, those poor sods over at Delta who landed their B767 (with 193 aboard) on (active) taxiway M at ATL after being cleared to land on runway 27R in the pre-dawn of October 19 sure had one thing going for them -- what the pilots at Northwest were about to do on October 21 to trump them. But did they?

I know which event the major news outlets found more egregious, but for my dollar I'll take landing between the blue lights before oversleeping ... or being placed in a sleep-like state by your laptop (whatever). And, frankly, I'm not entirely clear on how the pilots at Northwest managed to so decisively steal Delta's thunder. Is going NORDO at 37,000 feet and flying 144 passengers 150 miles past MSP in an A320 really a bigger deal than planting a 767 on an active taxiway in the dark at the busiest (albeit, sometimes the second busiest) airport in the country? Since when did doing something dangerous fall below being irresponsible? Eh, what do I know... .

I know this much. It sure shut up those pilots at Northwest who were yacking in cyberspace about how you'd never see one of their own make the kind of mistakes the Delta pilots (Delta absorbed Northwest about a year ago) made at ATL. Gotta give it to them. They were right.

Kudos to all. When the spotlight's on -- with Washington focussed on crew rest and training -- the gents at the majors really know how to make the most of it.

There but for The Grace... .

Comments

The most shocking aspect of both of these incidents is the revelation of how many people in aviation in the last two weeks have compared the two and said something like this: "Since when did doing something dangerous fall below being irresponsible?"

How does one spend a career in aviation and still think that being irresponsible isn't being dangerous?

posted by Bob Collins on November 1, 2009 (report abuse)

Bob: I think Paul's point is that there are very different levels of "dangerous". "Merely irresponsible" is one of the lower ones; landing on a taxiway is (potentially) a lot worse than going NORDO at FL370. I think he's absolutely right on that point.

That said, I think both of these incidents are inexcusable, and I do find it rather curious that the media hasn't made a bigger deal of the taxiway landing.

cl

posted by Chris Lawson on November 1, 2009 (report abuse)

Jeez, I never made a mistake in all my years of flying military or general aviation. Well, um, er ah... Never mind.

posted by John Willingham on November 2, 2009 (report abuse)

the media -- and I'm one -- didn't make a BIGGER deal because it happened before Northwest did. In fact, on the Monday after the Atlanta incident -- I htink you'll find -- it led most newscasts. But then Northwest happened. If it had been reversed, the attention would've been reversed as well.

And, in fact, a lot of the coverage combined the two in its rush to the substantially premature conclusion that work rules and crew fatigue were behind both.

I'm just glad the NWA plane had plenty of fuel.

Of course, I'm still not buying the conclusion that they were playing on their laptops.

posted by Bob Collins on November 2, 2009 (report abuse)

Lets not forget the specter of 9/11. An airborne airliner full of people and out of contact...F-16's waiting to go. All of it evokes a visceral response which is more newsworthy. Of course being the attention of the media doesn't mean its a more critical incident.

posted by Cameron Fraser on November 2, 2009 (report abuse)

I guess the media hasn't learned how to multi-task yet!

posted by Randall Lee on November 2, 2009 (report abuse)

No big surprise. The media will focus on the latest, greatest story that they can hype into public attention. They are dependent on ratings, after all. Conclusion - if you're going to do something stupid, try to time it so that another, equally stupid event happens soon after.

posted by Travis Marlatte on November 2, 2009 (report abuse)

Also, I'm thinking that the NORDO aircraft has a much more sensational quality to it than an aircraft landing on a taxi way as far as the uneducated public is concerned. The media seems to always seize the story that can most easily play on the emotions and fears of its audience. It's called "ratings." Also, I must admit I'm still questioning why an F16 wasn't sent up not to shoot but simply to look. Seems prudent to me.

posted by Jud Phillips on November 2, 2009 (report abuse)

I don't think the pilots in either case were being irresponsible. Just look around you when you drive a car. Distraction is not irresponsibility. I hate driving in cities because so many are drinking coffee, eating chatting on a cell phone, not signaling intentions or otherwise just wandering around while the tires are attached to the road with a very limited space and many close by objects ready to create havoc.

posted by John Willingham on November 2, 2009 (report abuse)

Just to clarify. The F-16 were not "all ready to go" in Minneapolis. Just as with 9/11, there was a lack of coordination between the FAA and air defense command. That was all supposed to have changed after 9/11 and the creation of all the news alphabet departments, And we found out that things really haven't changed. That's the actual story out of the NWA incident.

I get the visceral anti-media thing and I hear it often; usually from those ignorant of the fact that pilots also work in the media. Personally I wouldn't apologize for any of *my* coverage and I also know that none of you have probably read it. Oh, I also did a story on the Atlanta crash.

I was talking to an Oshkosh friend of mine -- he's a Delta pilot and probably the most professional pilot I know -- about this. "We settle those questions before we even think about taking off," he told me.

When it comes to role models, I'll take him anyday.

posted by Bob Collins on November 2, 2009 (report abuse)

They were about as irresponsible as a surgeon performing the wrong surgery on the wrong person. These pilots are ATP pros and not paid to make stupid mistakes like landing on a taxiway with blue lights vs white (what if another aircraft had been on the taxiway going to the active or terminal?) or flying 75 minutes without communication with anyone! These pilots are long past reading 'flying 101'.

posted by Randall Lee on November 2, 2009 (report abuse)

Just to clarify, when I said visceral, it wasn't anti-media. There are all kinds of studies about risk perception on the part of the public and amongst the key factors that cause the public to identify something as being high risk is the ease with which similar incidents are recalled. The inability to contact the airliner, the report of air defence readiness (whether it was or not) will all ring visceral bells with the general public and generate more interest in that story rather than one that is unusual and unfamiliar.

And I know a few pilots in the media and thank goodness they (and you) are there...I hate to think what the reporting might be like with out them.

posted by Cameron Fraser on November 2, 2009 (report abuse)

One has to feel sorry for both crews involved,yes mistakes were made. Airlines make great press, but the people on our highways killing people everyday because of mistakes made rarely make news headlines. Would standup overnights have anything to do with these events???

posted by Randall Comber on November 2, 2009 (report abuse)

Comparisons with the highways is pathetic. The issue is the potential for disaster. Both incidents put the passengers lives at risk. We are dealing with professional pilots here and would reasonably expect them to perform at the most basic level. Sure the press hype things but that does not negate the seriousness of both incidents or their right raise the issues.

posted by C Blythe on November 2, 2009 (report abuse)

The taxiway landing danger is overdone- it was VMC, had taxiing aircraft been present, the crew would have likely noticed their mistake.

The NWA crew engaged in deliberate behavior, the taxiway landing was inadvertant. That explains the difference in attention.

posted by Harry Alger on November 2, 2009 (report abuse)

If a highly trained pilot can't tell the difference between a taxiway and a runway, how can one expect the general media to tell the difference? Much less realize why it's such a big deal.

Falling asleep at the wheel and missing your exit? Everybody can relate to.

posted by Bill Hebert on November 2, 2009 (report abuse)

As pilots and professionals, we should all be striving to learn from the mistakes of others. In both of these cases, the result is a sypmtom of other root causes, such as a lack of discipline, poor crew coordination, lack of situational awareness, etc. We can all be subject to these types of errors if we let our professionalism lapse and let our flying become routine.

posted by Bob Lee on November 3, 2009 (report abuse)

regarding Bill Herbert's comment. Switch from helicopter (Land on the parallel taxiway runway 36) to fixed wing the next night (land runway 36). I finally realized that the lights called by ATC were not my guiding lights. Looking at the plate on my kneeboard and getting a "picture" of the airport layout has save me many embarassing moments. Wait 'til ATC turns up the lights on the wrong runway.

Doc

posted by John Willingham on November 3, 2009 (report abuse)

The sad reality of each of the aftermath of the aforementioned incidents is that our classically uninformed members of Congress are embarking on another crusade to legislate safety in the skies. Those in power will now specifically prohibit the various electronic devices many of us use in everyday life. Is anyone willing to bet that when they craft their prohibitive legislation they forget to consider such essential electronic devices as an Electronic Flight Bag (EFB) or other benign convenience devices (electric shaver, digital wristwatch, etc). Don't we already have regulatoru guidance that requires pilots to "pay attention to what you are doing and manage the flight properly"? Seems to me there is a regulation (14 CFR Part 91.13a) which covers it: "No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another." How much education do we need here to determine whether something is careless or reckless?? Common sense??

It's like distracted driving. If what you are doing distracts you from the task at hand so much so that you have an incident or accident, then logically the distracted operation rule applies!

Congress has nothing better to do than to create meaningless legislation. You cannot legislate safety !!! Safety is a direct function of EDUCATION and EXPERIENCE!! Common sense also plays a significant role.

C'mon, people!! PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE DOING !!

posted by Gary Readio on November 4, 2009 (report abuse)

We need a goverment takeover of the airlines. That is the only way all mistakes, carelessness and greed can be removed. Pilot ZAR. There should be a politican or at the very least a first year political science student watching over all these crews who work for the private sector.

Think this is nuts....? Just wait....

posted by Sam Blue on November 4, 2009 (report abuse)

I am with you Paul on which error was worse, I would rather be landing (actively flying)on the wrong surface than be totally out of the loop. I thought that there was an light issue on the runway that may have contributed to the error. As for Sam's comment on the Flight Czar, congress is already making new rules for the cockpit and spanking the class from the Bozo stunt of two...ZZZZZZ

posted by Chuck West on November 4, 2009 (report abuse)

Paul.. As former Pres Reagon has stated " Here we go again " mouth open before brain engaged....What is really scary is that it makes a person wonder what other " decisions " are being made by reacting before thinking..Doesn't give you a whole lot of confidence does it ?

posted by clair M dunlap on November 4, 2009 (report abuse)

With respect and a humorous nod to ourselves, at least 3 of we posters are unintentionally proving the point of being easily distracted - Glenn wrote the blog, not Paul.

posted by Dave Miller on November 4, 2009 (report abuse)

Ah damn, I was on my Palm Pilot twittering, yeah that is the ticket. Thought the style was different, see my Rep or Attorney, can't even hide the evidence...glad I was Solo.

posted by Chuck West on November 4, 2009 (report abuse)

Paul....In my message above I forgot to add the important words " members of Congress " Sorry

posted by clair M dunlap on November 5, 2009 (report abuse)

A very good point made by Paul.

It's difficult to say which mistake was more serious, but in each case the end result was no harm to anybody. That is, the danger was potential and not realized.

Certainly both crews should be somehow penalized for their errors, but I hope nobody is suggesting sending them to Gitmo?

posted by Richard Sinnott on November 7, 2009 (report abuse)