5 ms·

This is crazy. Another post I saw shows FlightRadar24 data with the fedex flight at only 74 feet above the runway when they started to climb. Fedex pilots need

This is crazy. Another post I saw shows FlightRadar24 data with the fedex flight at only 74 feet above the runway when they started to climb. Fedex pilots need a medal and probably a new pair of pants. Can't wait for blancolirio to break this one down, very curious how this happened.

fbdab103 4y ago
If you are the pilot in a situation like this, does the airline say, "Alice, you did good. Take the next month to yourself." Or is it just business as usual, "See you on Monday." kind of deal?
- judge2020 4y ago
  I have to imagine it's mostly paperwork and statements, since everyone is going to try to shift blame wherever they can.
  - AdamJacobMuller 4y ago
    I have to strongly disagree with your comment about shifting blame. Pilots and airlines do not seem to shift fault away from themselves but seem to do a phenomenal job of identifying root causes to avoid future incidents.
    - jrockway 4y ago
      Yup. Sometimes a pilot has to make a decision that there is no training for, decides wrong, people die, but still has a job because the investigation revealed there was no way to know how to make the right decision. Interesting case study: https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/man-vs-runway-the-crash-of-american-airlines-flight-625-888eb64c8644 https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/man-vs-runway-the-crash-...
      - areyousure 4y ago
        Wow, that is a remarkable case study. The Wikipedia info box summary is "Runway overrun caused by pilot error". And indeed, the pilots were going too fast with the flaps set wrong. At some point, they indeed faced a difficult decision, but one that was caused by their own, multiple previous errors. Having made that decision incorrectly, they also failed to stop the aircraft as well as they could. From your link: > In the end, the NTSB identified two separate decisions by the captain which led to the accident: first, his decision not to go around immediately when the plane started to float, which was inconsistent with his training; and second, his decision to finally go around after it was already too late to do so. The float itself was caused by excessive airspeed on touchdown, in combination with an ill-timed gust of wind. In a later revision suggested by the Air Line Pilots Association, the NTSB also added the “non-availability of information about the aircraft’s go-around performance capabilities” as a contributing factor to the captain’s decision. 37 people died and the pilots kept their jobs. Truly amazing job security, much like this other example where the pilots almost killed 1000 people (but didn't in fact kill any): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34395221 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34395221
    - ekianjo 4y ago
      > seem to do a phenomenal job of identifying root causes to avoid future incidents. When you see the regular incidents that do not result in crash, that statement would be obviously regarded as false. Yes, things are mostly reliable because most of the time there are at least several safety features or processes in the way, but most crashes and incidents are still due to human error.
- AdamJacobMuller 4y ago
  My understanding is pilots at the majors (UA/DA/AA) have fairly liberal no-fault call out policies regardless of at-work incidents. Your wife asked you for a divorce last night and you can't focus on work? You can call out without consequences. You just couldn't sleep and don't feel able to fly? Call out. They understand the importance of the human factor here and would much rather have to reschedule a flight than have a potentially impaired person make a mistake. Obviously if you're doing this regularly, you're going to have a conversation with management or the chief pilot or someone (I've no idea what the actual reporting structure is) but if you don't abuse the policy, you can call out without consequence. I don't know specifically about FedEx but I imagine they have something somewhat similar, the FedEx/UPS pilot jobs are also considered top tier (but not nearly as top tier as a major long-haul position) with good benefits. I do imagine, especially considering how much press this is getting, that the pilots in this case are going to spend the next week or two doing paperwork and maybe some press even. How quickly they return to flight will probably be dictated primarily by how they feel. Fact is as dramatic as this seems to us it's possible the pilots are completely unfazed and just want to get back to work. I think if they wanted a week or three off to recoup that FedEx would make accommodations. Pilots seem to be treated reasonably well at major airlines (ignoring regionals and subsidiaries, where they are cattle) and the possible negative value of negative press (FedEx fires pilot who saved plane from near-miss for asking for time off to recover!) this should be a no-brainer for them. Pilots also have a good union behind them.

fbdab103 4y ago

If you are the pilot in a situation like this, does the airline say, "Alice, you did good. Take the next month to yourself." Or is it just business as usual, "See you on Monday." kind of deal?

judge2020 4y ago
I have to imagine it's mostly paperwork and statements, since everyone is going to try to shift blame wherever they can.
- AdamJacobMuller 4y ago
  I have to strongly disagree with your comment about shifting blame. Pilots and airlines do not seem to shift fault away from themselves but seem to do a phenomenal job of identifying root causes to avoid future incidents.
  - jrockway 4y ago
    Yup. Sometimes a pilot has to make a decision that there is no training for, decides wrong, people die, but still has a job because the investigation revealed there was no way to know how to make the right decision. Interesting case study: https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/man-vs-runway-the-crash-of-american-airlines-flight-625-888eb64c8644 https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/man-vs-runway-the-crash-...
    - areyousure 4y ago
      Wow, that is a remarkable case study. The Wikipedia info box summary is "Runway overrun caused by pilot error". And indeed, the pilots were going too fast with the flaps set wrong. At some point, they indeed faced a difficult decision, but one that was caused by their own, multiple previous errors. Having made that decision incorrectly, they also failed to stop the aircraft as well as they could. From your link: > In the end, the NTSB identified two separate decisions by the captain which led to the accident: first, his decision not to go around immediately when the plane started to float, which was inconsistent with his training; and second, his decision to finally go around after it was already too late to do so. The float itself was caused by excessive airspeed on touchdown, in combination with an ill-timed gust of wind. In a later revision suggested by the Air Line Pilots Association, the NTSB also added the “non-availability of information about the aircraft’s go-around performance capabilities” as a contributing factor to the captain’s decision. 37 people died and the pilots kept their jobs. Truly amazing job security, much like this other example where the pilots almost killed 1000 people (but didn't in fact kill any): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34395221 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34395221
  - ekianjo 4y ago
    > seem to do a phenomenal job of identifying root causes to avoid future incidents. When you see the regular incidents that do not result in crash, that statement would be obviously regarded as false. Yes, things are mostly reliable because most of the time there are at least several safety features or processes in the way, but most crashes and incidents are still due to human error.
AdamJacobMuller 4y ago
My understanding is pilots at the majors (UA/DA/AA) have fairly liberal no-fault call out policies regardless of at-work incidents. Your wife asked you for a divorce last night and you can't focus on work? You can call out without consequences. You just couldn't sleep and don't feel able to fly? Call out. They understand the importance of the human factor here and would much rather have to reschedule a flight than have a potentially impaired person make a mistake. Obviously if you're doing this regularly, you're going to have a conversation with management or the chief pilot or someone (I've no idea what the actual reporting structure is) but if you don't abuse the policy, you can call out without consequence. I don't know specifically about FedEx but I imagine they have something somewhat similar, the FedEx/UPS pilot jobs are also considered top tier (but not nearly as top tier as a major long-haul position) with good benefits. I do imagine, especially considering how much press this is getting, that the pilots in this case are going to spend the next week or two doing paperwork and maybe some press even. How quickly they return to flight will probably be dictated primarily by how they feel. Fact is as dramatic as this seems to us it's possible the pilots are completely unfazed and just want to get back to work. I think if they wanted a week or three off to recoup that FedEx would make accommodations. Pilots seem to be treated reasonably well at major airlines (ignoring regionals and subsidiaries, where they are cattle) and the possible negative value of negative press (FedEx fires pilot who saved plane from near-miss for asking for time off to recover!) this should be a no-brainer for them. Pilots also have a good union behind them.