10 ms·
Reckless American 777 Pilots Refuse NTSB Interviews
- quattrofan 4y ago[dead]
- cs702 4y agoWow, by all accounts, it seems the union wants to protect the pilots from the consequences of their actions, even if doing so means preventing the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) from documenting the causes of the near-accident on JFK's runways to reduce the risk of similar events in the future. In other words, the union seems to be looking out for its members at the expense of everyone's safety.
- ajross 4y agoThe NTSB doesn't do "consequences", FWIW. But I don't see the big deal here. This appears to be a situation where we have a clearly at fault party, the NTSB isn't going to provide any big insight. The pilots are trying to avoid civil liability (and maybe criminal, and maybe keep their jobs, though it seems very likely they'll be fired), for some clear reasons. They aren't keeping secrets, they're just trying to avoid giving written testimony on something they'd want to take the fifth on later. To wit: this is just "don't talk to the cops". Your insurance company will give you the same advice. No, it's not the best way to help an accident investigator, but it might save you some money.
- sokoloff 4y agoThey’re not trying to avoid giving written testimony. They’ve already done that. They’re trying to avoid giving verbal testimony.
- SoftTalker 4y agoYou and I are represented by the NTSB in this process. The pilots unions represents the pilots. If the pilots won’t talk, they may be subpoenaed. Not sure if that means the 5th Amendment would apply.
- ceejayoz 4y agoThe article says they have been subpoenaed.
- dylan604 4y agoIf you have to be subpoenaed, then you should also have to be license suspended until testimony provided. I'm all for having some sort of representation for the interview, but to refuse to cooperate unless legally forced to is beyond unfathomable.
- prmoustache 4y agoYou could argue they are not refusing to cooperate. They may not bewilling to cooperate under new terms (recording instead of live note taking).
- dylan604 4y agoI don't really give a damn about what they want. They are licensed pilots. Part of the requirements of being licensed means when accidents happen, you talk to people. If that talk is recorded, so be it. The recording works both ways. If the interviewer is being a dick and refusing to listen, then the recording will show that. If you're being combative and refusing to cooperate, then it will show that too. This argument falls flat with me regarding police body cams. Hoping a note taker misses some salient detail in your favor is just trying to game the situation when you probably feel you're at fault. This isn't someone that committed a crime and is facing a judge/jury with possibility of going to jail. This is a licensed employee responsible for the safety of a not small number of other human beings. Some things stand to higher accountability
- CalChris 4y agoUnless it's a criminal case, no. nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself
- 4y ago
- nohankyou 4y agoThat sounds like the protection the police get! Look out for your own, screw everyone else.
- devman0 4y agoThe fact that police unions, or teachers unions, or pilots unions advocate for and defend their members shouldn't be a surprise. Everyone should be entitled to vigorous advocacy. The problem lies with who is vigorously advocating for the public and should they have better tools to do so. This is ultimately either an agency rule making issue, or legislative one.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y agoSure, everyone says "has to be this way" when the corpos do it, but if a Union does it it is suddenly evil instead of prudent.
- onepointsixC 4y agoI don't know how that is a surprise. That's what unions have almost always done. Especially if someone had seniority. Public Unions are even more egregious in this regards, just look at Police Unions.
- sandworm101 4y agoShould we expect a union to support the views of anyone other than its members? The needs of the public are well-represented by the NTSB and any other involved government agencies. This is also part of a decade-spanning issue re audio recordings. Pilots have long fought to keep recorders out of cockpits. This is an extension of that fight. (Black boxes are different. They are only used in event of a crash and are generally not released publicly unless people are dead.)
- maxerickson 4y agoIs it obvious that refusing to participate in a safety investigation is good for the members as a body?
- earthbee 4y agoUnions should be interested in the reputation of their members. By supporting bad pilots they're making them all look bad.
- brookst 4y agoBy assuming these are “bad pilots” before the investigation completes, you are demonstrating why all pilots benefit from the union defending them.
- powera 4y agoThey nearly had a crash, and they are trying to cover up what happened. I think it is reasonable to assume they are "bad pilots" in this situation until there is more information.
- VLM 4y agoWho, exactly, is this "they"? On HN of all places we should realize complicated technical systems result in complicated technical problems and the easiest, lowest status, people to blame are usually not the cause of all problems in a system. It seems highly likely there could be a problem with ATC giving a misleading or inconsistent clearance, or radio coverage being faulty or inadequate (I said "stop and hold at ground point One Alpha, not stop and hold at ground point One shhhhh"), or signage being inadequate, or the architecture of the airport being inherently faulty by design. No amount of knee jerk punishing the pilots automatically without impartial investigation will fix any of those safety concerns and as such that does not increase the safety of flight. Seems rather odd the NTSB is strongly opposed to a detailed impartial judicial review of their process? If I had nothing to cover up, and someone asked for a different recording service to be used "no skin off my back" because I have nothing to cover up. Seems like the NTSB is trying to cover something up. I wonder why they would use a non-technical travel blogger to release their side of the story instead of numerous ATC organizations and unions or pilots orgs etc. What a fascinating source for the story?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- Spooky23 4y agoNot necessarily. The novel factor is the recording. NTSBs insistence on having it is a real risk to the pilots as opposed to the past practice (written notes). No rational actor would agree to a recorded interview with Federal officials in an investigative capacity without immunity.
- wbl 4y agoWhy exactly is having an exact record of what you said more of a problem than notes?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- Spooky23 4y agoThe point of an NTSB inquiry is full disclosure. It’s hard to do that on record with a Fed because some zealous prosecutor can twist statements into some sort of felony.
- kmeisthax 4y agoBecause exact recordings are better than human memory. The pilot will be subconsciously changing their own memories slightly to fit a better narrative. This is just what human memory does and you can't turn it off. These changes aren't particularly egregious unless you are consciously lying, but the legal definition of perjury does not care. With written notes, those are going to be summarized in a way that adds doubt to any small discrepancies that might result from a pilot misremembering things. An exact recording makes it 100% clear that the pilot is doing that, which could be turned into a legal argument against them.
- capitainenemo 4y agoInteresting. I've read the exact opposite for FBI notes-only. That the FBI can more easily selectively edit than an exact recording.
- wbl 4y ago
- bluedino 4y agoThis is the type of stuff nobody wants to bring up when IT unions are mentioned
- qwertox 4y agoMentour Pilot and 74 Gear have shown me how impressively respectful the aviation industry is in regards to dealing with errors, and this union is doing exactly the opposite of it, trying to erode that trust.
- ceejayoz 4y ago> As a result of the flight crew’s repeated unwillingness to proceed with a recorded interview, subpoenas for their testimony have been issued. They’ll get their interviews.
- lambdasquirrel 4y agoSometimes the cover-up is worse than the crime.
- VLM 4y agoIt seems a bit much to assume the union believed that saying "no thanks" meant the NTSB would run away with their tail between their legs after a serious incident. The outcome of this legal wrangling will be an impartial judicial system recording will be made instead of the pilots being recorded by a hostile party. I'm really not seeing a problem with dispensing justice based on impartiality, or with justice being "blind".
- ceejayoz 4y agoExercising the right not to talk to government agents isn’t inherently a cover-up. We already know from the ATC recordings who’s likely to be at fault. They haven’t much to gain by participating voluntarily.
- diebeforei485 4y agoRidiculous. The NTSB should push for cockpit voice recorders to last longer than the current 2 hours. We have 19-hour flights now. Voice recorders should last 24 hours at least.
- Night_Thastus 4y agoAfter seeing some of the work the NTSB has done over the years, I've grown to respect them. Their job has collectively saved a huge number of lives. Flying is measurably safer because of them, not just in the US but world-wide. We know so much more about flight and flight safety because of it. Refusing to be interviewed with them, and their union interfering feels very slimy. Pilots are responsible for all the lives on board, and they need to be held accountable when they make a mistake - even if it doesn't end in a loss of life.
- fallingknife 4y ago> The reason interviews are so important is because there’s no cockpit voice recorder (CVR) of the incident, as that only records for two hours, and is then overwritten; since the pilots continued flying to London, this critical evidence isn’t available to investigators JFC. How are they allowed to have such useless technology for something so important?
- Bluecobra 4y agoMy guess is that these rules are so old that it would have been a technological burden to keep longer recordings at the time. I wouldn’t be surprised if they are using a tape recorder on a loop.
- Mesopropithecus 4y agoTechnology is one thing. I'm wondering why the crew weren't required to hand in the CVR right after the incident.
- HL33tibCe7 4y agoThe fact that the cockpit voice recorder only stores 2 hours of data is crazy to me. Having long recordings is most important in cases where the plane doesn’t crash - if it crashes, the CVR will stop recording anyway. So perhaps airlines should introduce a secondary CVR, that records for much longer, but isn’t as resilient? There’s plenty of cheap, consumer-grade equipment that would do the job fine.
- BonoboIO 4y agoIt is not the equipment. The pilots lobbied because of privacy that this should be limited to a short amount. Insane but that’s how it is.
- Invictus0 4y agoMore info: https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/27636/why-are-cockpit-voice-recorders-limited-to-2-hours-recording https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/27636/why-are-c... https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/ASR1804.pdf https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/...
- HL33tibCe7 4y agoI’m glad the NTSB are showing some interest at least. It’s a problem that I’ve seen come up time again and again when looking into non-hull-loss incidents.
- powera 4y agoThis is the type of BS that leads people to hate unions. In a very narrow sense, it is good strategy to object to anything that isn't included in the current negotiated contract, and to demand "concessions" for adding things. But when that stretches to "airplane pilots union actively hinders investigation into near-crash", the public shouldn't support the union.
- devman0 4y agoThis mindset is just good conditioning by anti-union elements. The pilots union advocates for the pilots, that's not a surprise, everyone should be entitled to good advocacy and process done by the book. The public's interests will (or should be[1]) well represented by the NTSB, that is how these processes work, the pilots union does not need to do NTSBs work for them. Accountability should absolutely be a thing, but it should not be ad hoc subject to the whims of public opinion, it should follow process. This is not an opinion on the merits of what the pilots did or did not do, that will ultimately be determined by the investigation. [1]: If the public's interests are not vigorously, well represented by the NTSB that is either an agency rule making issue or a legislative one, however in this case the NTSB has subpoena power so they have the tools they need to move this along as they should.
- CodeWriter23 4y agoCourt Reporters do not need an audio recording to produce an accurate transcript. Their certification requires them to be able to track 4 voices simultaneously at a certain word per minute rate into their Stenograph. I do not find the pilot’s request unreasonable and the NTSB can have the interview if they drop their unnecessary requirement.
- frereubu 4y agoIf there was a risk of bias in some form of recording I could understand it, but the whole point of the audio recording is accuracy. What's confusing is the grounds for refusing - "they haven't done it before" seems a pretty weak basis. The only thing I could think of was that they're worried about the audio leaking, but then why not say that?
- CodeWriter23 4y agoThe linked opinion is an opinion piece, one person’s analysis, which does not even reprint the Pilot’s Union Statement. This article does reprint it. You might want to skim to that statement to both hear the other side and also to answer your question. https://liveandletsfly.com/american-airlines-pilots-recorded-interview/ https://liveandletsfly.com/american-airlines-pilots-recorded... But bottom line, the pilots are holding all the cards because there is no legal basis to require a recording. If the NTSB wants an interview, their only choice is to ditch the recordings. One can draw their own conclusions about why the NTSB is choosing not to interview instead.
- VLM 4y ago"Based on everything we know so far, the fault for this lies squarely with the American pilots" Do we? The discussion has VERY carefully avoided any discussion of what happened. Pinning the blame entirely on the pilots is what I'd do if I wanted to avoid pinning the blame on the controllers, or just wanted to write an anti-union screed. I clicked on "about" and the author has absolutely no professional skills or qualifications related to the airline industry in any form at all, but his mind is certainly made up already about a "deep in the weeds" technical issue. I would rather hear the authors strongly held beliefs about K8S cluster design or ELK stack dashboards; its not like he's any less trained or qualified to hold those opinions.
- Analemma_ 4y agoThe problem with this theory is that just a couple weeks later there was another near-miss incident (the one in Austin with the landing FedEx), where this time it was pretty clear that the controller was at fault. The most parsimonious explanation is that people are in fact pretty good at assigning blame and anti-union sentiment has nothing to do with it.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- ChrisPebble 4y agoThe submission title is misleading; I'm not sure why the word "recorded" was dropped. The pilots have already been interviewed by the NTSB. The NTSB then asked for recorded interviews which, according to the pilot's association, has not been the standard. I think this is a more nuanced position than most of the comments led me to believe. The pilot's association believes that "recording of interviews lead to less candid responses from those witnesses," which I think is a legitimate concern. If the goal is safety, then the pilots need to feel comfortable being candid. If they feel that any wrong phrasing/word could be a legal liability they will behave accordingly.
- mmaunder 4y agoSeems like the points guy has it figured out.
- jspaw 4y agoIt’s news article titles like “Reckless American 777 Pilots Refuse Recorded NTSB Interviews” that fuel this sort of pushback that the pilots are giving about interviews. NTSB investigative materials are not ‘privileged’ in the same way accident investigations in the US DOD are (https://medium.com/code-for-america/john-allspaw-getting-the-messy-details-is-critical-59e641aa0a77 https://medium.com/code-for-america/john-allspaw-getting-the...) but perhaps they ought to be.
- twawaaay 4y agoI would probably do the same and if I was a lawyer I would probably advise it too. They have already ended their careers, there is nothing to be gained for them from being questioned. And the less videos the better for whatever they will be trying to do in their future careers. Let the justice run its course. > Is their refusal to be interviewed illegal? No, not as of now. Is it unethical? Absolutely, in my opinion. Except nobody who means anything in this case cares about your opinion. Neither the pilots nor the judge who will take the case. Ethical or unethical in your opinion, any person in so much trouble has right to make decisions to defend themselves. If you believe in Constitution you have to believe in peoples' right to not incriminate themselves and you have to believe it is not unethical to use what Constitution affords to everybody.
- jwie 4y agoThere’s a simple reason for them not interviewing. No upside for the pilots, and the information could be used against them. I find myself agreeing with the union’s reasoning. There’s no justification for recorded audio. Stenographers are fine for all legal applications of authoritative transcripts. If the air traffic controllers still had a real union they’d be doing the same thing.
- neilv 4y agoThis article is prejudging the incident, and then criticizes the pilots over objecting to a detail that plausibly would be fuel for a prejudging Internet mob like this article is demonstrating. I don't know whether audio recording is appropriate, but this article and some of the Internet pitchforks it's already prompting have shifted my initial kneejerk reaction to the headline... reminding me not to prejudge, nor to be so susceptible to Internet manipulation. FWIW, aviation safety is party built upon encouraging a culture of professionalism, and sometimes involves confidentiality and protecting people who speak up about problems. For example, FAA/NASA ASRS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_Safety_Reporting_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_Safety_Reporting_Syst... (Disclosure: I've done software work for aviation safety programs.)
- hirako2000 4y agoAm I the only one to note that recorded interviews are a new procedure, cited in the article? I don't know how pilot investigations are conducted, but in less critical fields a simple investigation with a bias against particular parties can quickly turn into "here is some recorded evidence that.. " then the court can charge someone which tends to appease the desire to dig further. Not saying that's what is going on i have no clue, but let's consider those pilots are doing something perfectly legal and the fact it is legal is a stronger judgment basis than some article making it sound like public safety is being neglected by rogue pilots.
- adolph 4y agoMy knee-jerk reaction is "they should be recorded" so I write this to attempt to steel-man the alternative. A core concept of safety is arriving at a root cause in an effort to continuously improve. This won't happen in an adversarial fact finding as the interests of the participants diverge instead of converge. Two key concepts here are Psychological Safety and Just Culture. What could be adversarial about just recording the interview? While NTSB's argument for recording interviews is facially sound, it represents a change from previous practice. Further, it represents opening a collaborative and open fact-finding conversation to third parties who have adversarial interests. Key concepts here are "Don't talk to cops" [2] and Nothing to Hide [3] It is ironic that the NTSB's interest in recording is in part driven by a lack of data caused by no-one at the airport pulling the Andon cord [4] at the time of the near miss. The cockpit voice recorders only record two hours. Since the flight continued to take off and flew for more than 2 hours, the voice data was lost. The NTSB seeks to record for "highest degree of accuracy, completeness, and efficiency" the pilots many days after the event based on their memory as a witness of themselves [4]. 0. https://www.ccl.org/articles/leading-effectively-articles/what-is-psychological-safety-at-work/ https://www.ccl.org/articles/leading-effectively-articles/wh... 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_culture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_culture 2. https://www.learnliberty.org/blog/advice-from-cops-dont-talk-to-cops/ https://www.learnliberty.org/blog/advice-from-cops-dont-talk... 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument 4. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4183265/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4183265/
- xnx 4y agoPSA: Don't talk to the police: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
- tomohawk 4y agoThe investigation can be about finding the truth or about finding justice - not both. The past success in improving air transport is based on proceedings where getting to the truth of the matter is the highest value.
- sys_64738 4y agoThe NTSB is a government agency representing the government. You should never talk to these agencies unless forced to. There is zero upside for you and lots of downside.