5 ms·

The captain flew the next day without seeking medical treatment after being incapacitated midflight? That's outrageous if I'm reading this right.

londons_explore 9y ago
The captain flew the same plane, without any kind of repair the next day.
thinkcontext 9y ago
And the FAA has no report.
ruddct 9y ago
And the captain "did not recall how they managed to land or taxi the aircraft" after being incapacitated.
- SteveNuts 9y ago
  That's absolutely terrifying. Seems to me like a systemic problem if the pilots didn't felt like they couldn't report their symptoms/or felt forced to work even though such a serious event happened the previous day.
  - lazerpants 9y ago
    I'm wondering if this is specific to Spirit Airlines, or if it is an industry wide problem.
    - chaostheory 9y ago
      It's a very low margin industry. I would guess that it's industry wide when you read stories like this: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/11/airplane-maintenance-disturbing-truth https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/11/airplane-maintenance...
      - sokoloff 9y ago
        IMO, there's nothing wrong with doing heavy maintenance checks in low-labor-cost countries, provided they are done to FAA standards (which I have no reason to believe they aren't). People want their $189 round trip tickets. To give it to them, there is little room for operational fat. That said, there's a difference in airlines in regards to how they handle maintenance and irregular operations. A major legacy airline will have more flexibility, more spare aircraft, than a budget operator like Spirit. If a Spirit airplane unexpectedly comes off the line, Spirit operations are substantially disrupted. If a Delta jet comes off the line, Delta can reposition a replacement aircraft far more easily to resume (or not even interrupt) operations. This is likely to have an effect on the openness the airline operations groups have to maintenance squawk reports by pilots.
        chaostheory 9y ago
        > there's nothing wrong with doing heavy maintenance checks in low-labor-cost countries, provided they are done to FAA standards (which I have no reason to believe they aren't). Including the article that was in my previous comment, there's good to reason to believe that it isn't done to FAA standards. Of course I could be wrong and things may change in the foreseeable future. https://psmag.com/economics/are-some-airlines-just-too-dangerous-to-fly-3460 https://psmag.com/economics/are-some-airlines-just-too-dange... https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100901132235.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100901132235.h...
        sokoloff 9y ago
        The Vanity Fair article made the case it wasn’t being done by FAA licensed mechanics; it didn’t make the case that it wasn’t done to FAA standards. It just gave a lot of innuendo to that effect. One doesn’t need to read or speak English to take out or put in 39 rows of seats that are all the same... I don’t believe that maintenance signed off on a US N-registration aircraft by an FAA-licensed mechanic outside the US is any more likely to be substandard than that done inside the US. There’s just too much at stake for the company and inspector and the safety record of N-reg airliners is outstanding. There is a LOT to worry about Central and South American and African/Asian airlines. The second two articles focus there, and there is genuine, statistically significant reduction in safety there. The Vanity Fair article made a big deal about FAA licensed vs not, but I don’t see that as nearly as big a deal. I (no FAA mechanic credentials) can do any amount of work on an N-reg airplane provided I’m under the effective supervision of an FAA licensed mechanic. I see no reason to think that isn’t safe for me and no reason to think it isn’t safe for the teams taking out and reinstalling interiors on heavies.
    - kalleboo 9y ago
      I'm certain it's industry-wide. Maybe not on a problem on the mainlines themselves with their strong unions, but all their regional connections are on smaller, confusingly-branded partners ("United Express", "Delta Connection", "American Eagle") and these run on razor thin margins and are where pilots get underpaid and overworked.
cmurf 9y ago
This is a blatant violation of 49 CFR 830.5(a)(2). It's an explicitly listed incident that requires immediate reporting by the pilot. I can't find a definition for immediate, but as a pilot I consider it to mean today, not tomorrow. If it were a clearance, immediate means right now, not even one minute from now and if I can't do it right now, I would right now reply "unable: reason(s)" And a big part of why I expect this is because ATC collects a shittonne (an SI unit) of data per day, and I don't expect they have a very long retention for that data. The accident and incident reporting requirements are meant to make sure that data is preserved. I have zero expectation of data retention for flight plans, audio tapes, radar tape, beyond 30 days. I would not be suprised if it were 7 days. Neither pilot reported this incident? And the surviving pilot admits he did not file a required incident report but he's done a recorded public presentation on an incident that has a mandatory incident reporting requirement? And his excuse is intimidation by his employer, which is probably a crime? What? I don't have time to dig through all of this, so maybe I've missed something, but something does not pass the smell test.
- oh_sigh 9y ago
  Perhaps the problem is self reporting? If the captain is still mentally affected, he might not remember to follow through with that? Or he might not have understood that he was even incapacitated at that point.

londons_explore 9y ago

The captain flew the same plane, without any kind of repair the next day.

thinkcontext 9y ago

And the FAA has no report.

ruddct 9y ago

And the captain "did not recall how they managed to land or taxi the aircraft" after being incapacitated.

SteveNuts 9y ago
That's absolutely terrifying. Seems to me like a systemic problem if the pilots didn't felt like they couldn't report their symptoms/or felt forced to work even though such a serious event happened the previous day.
- lazerpants 9y ago
  I'm wondering if this is specific to Spirit Airlines, or if it is an industry wide problem.
  - chaostheory 9y ago
    It's a very low margin industry. I would guess that it's industry wide when you read stories like this: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/11/airplane-maintenance-disturbing-truth https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/11/airplane-maintenance...
    - sokoloff 9y ago
      IMO, there's nothing wrong with doing heavy maintenance checks in low-labor-cost countries, provided they are done to FAA standards (which I have no reason to believe they aren't). People want their $189 round trip tickets. To give it to them, there is little room for operational fat. That said, there's a difference in airlines in regards to how they handle maintenance and irregular operations. A major legacy airline will have more flexibility, more spare aircraft, than a budget operator like Spirit. If a Spirit airplane unexpectedly comes off the line, Spirit operations are substantially disrupted. If a Delta jet comes off the line, Delta can reposition a replacement aircraft far more easily to resume (or not even interrupt) operations. This is likely to have an effect on the openness the airline operations groups have to maintenance squawk reports by pilots.
      - chaostheory 9y ago
        > there's nothing wrong with doing heavy maintenance checks in low-labor-cost countries, provided they are done to FAA standards (which I have no reason to believe they aren't). Including the article that was in my previous comment, there's good to reason to believe that it isn't done to FAA standards. Of course I could be wrong and things may change in the foreseeable future. https://psmag.com/economics/are-some-airlines-just-too-dangerous-to-fly-3460 https://psmag.com/economics/are-some-airlines-just-too-dange... https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100901132235.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100901132235.h...
        sokoloff 9y ago
        The Vanity Fair article made the case it wasn’t being done by FAA licensed mechanics; it didn’t make the case that it wasn’t done to FAA standards. It just gave a lot of innuendo to that effect. One doesn’t need to read or speak English to take out or put in 39 rows of seats that are all the same... I don’t believe that maintenance signed off on a US N-registration aircraft by an FAA-licensed mechanic outside the US is any more likely to be substandard than that done inside the US. There’s just too much at stake for the company and inspector and the safety record of N-reg airliners is outstanding. There is a LOT to worry about Central and South American and African/Asian airlines. The second two articles focus there, and there is genuine, statistically significant reduction in safety there. The Vanity Fair article made a big deal about FAA licensed vs not, but I don’t see that as nearly as big a deal. I (no FAA mechanic credentials) can do any amount of work on an N-reg airplane provided I’m under the effective supervision of an FAA licensed mechanic. I see no reason to think that isn’t safe for me and no reason to think it isn’t safe for the teams taking out and reinstalling interiors on heavies.
  - kalleboo 9y ago
    I'm certain it's industry-wide. Maybe not on a problem on the mainlines themselves with their strong unions, but all their regional connections are on smaller, confusingly-branded partners ("United Express", "Delta Connection", "American Eagle") and these run on razor thin margins and are where pilots get underpaid and overworked.

cmurf 9y ago

This is a blatant violation of 49 CFR 830.5(a)(2). It's an explicitly listed incident that requires immediate reporting by the pilot. I can't find a definition for immediate, but as a pilot I consider it to mean today, not tomorrow. If it were a clearance, immediate means right now, not even one minute from now and if I can't do it right now, I would right now reply "unable: reason(s)" And a big part of why I expect this is because ATC collects a shittonne (an SI unit) of data per day, and I don't expect they have a very long retention for that data. The accident and incident reporting requirements are meant to make sure that data is preserved. I have zero expectation of data retention for flight plans, audio tapes, radar tape, beyond 30 days. I would not be suprised if it were 7 days. Neither pilot reported this incident? And the surviving pilot admits he did not file a required incident report but he's done a recorded public presentation on an incident that has a mandatory incident reporting requirement? And his excuse is intimidation by his employer, which is probably a crime? What? I don't have time to dig through all of this, so maybe I've missed something, but something does not pass the smell test.

oh_sigh 9y ago
Perhaps the problem is self reporting? If the captain is still mentally affected, he might not remember to follow through with that? Or he might not have understood that he was even incapacitated at that point.