13 ms·

Wow, 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 Tran

by cs702 4y ago

Wow, 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 ago
The 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 ago
  They’re not trying to avoid giving written testimony. They’ve already done that. They’re trying to avoid giving verbal testimony.
SoftTalker 4y ago
You 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 ago
  The article says they have been subpoenaed.
  - dylan604 4y ago
    If 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 ago
      You 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 ago
        I 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 ago
  Unless it's a criminal case, no. nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself
  - dixie_land 4y ago
    You can plead 5th even in a civil case since what you say might lead to future prosecution.
  - ncallaway 4y ago
    That’s not really accurate relative to the jurisprudence of the fifth amendment. Generally, it’s held that you cannot be compelled to testify if there’s a reasonable likelihood that the response may tend to implicate someone. So you often can invoke 5A in civil contexts (which is why you’ll see people invoke it before Congress, or in civil trials). One main difference is that in a criminal context we typically can’t draw an adverse inference against someone for invoking their fifth amendment rights. Whereas in a civil context we can. That doesn’t help us here much, though, because to my knowledge the NTSB is mostly interested in getting to the truth of the matter and not assigning liability or penalties. One option to pierce 5A is to grant immunity for all testimony covered. So if the NTSB was pretty sure that the pilots aren’t going to be criminally charged for the incident (which they likely wouldn’t be), they could work with the DOJ to immunize the pilots for their testimony. That eliminates the risk of criminal prosecution for their responses, and nullifies the fifth amendment.
nohankyou 4y ago
That sounds like the protection the police get! Look out for your own, screw everyone else.
- devman0 4y ago
  The 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 ago
  Sure, 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 ago
I 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 ago
Should 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 ago
  Is it obvious that refusing to participate in a safety investigation is good for the members as a body?
- earthbee 4y ago
  Unions should be interested in the reputation of their members. By supporting bad pilots they're making them all look bad.
  - brookst 4y ago
    By assuming these are “bad pilots” before the investigation completes, you are demonstrating why all pilots benefit from the union defending them.
    - powera 4y ago
      They 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 ago
        Who, 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 ago
Not 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 ago
  Why exactly is having an exact record of what you said more of a problem than notes?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - Spooky23 4y ago
    The 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 ago
    Because 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 ago
      Interesting. 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 ago
This is the type of stuff nobody wants to bring up when IT unions are mentioned
qwertox 4y ago
Mentour 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.

by cs702 4y ago

ajross 4y ago

The 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 ago
They’re not trying to avoid giving written testimony. They’ve already done that. They’re trying to avoid giving verbal testimony.

SoftTalker 4y ago

You 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 ago
The article says they have been subpoenaed.
- dylan604 4y ago
  If 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 ago
    You 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 ago
      I 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 ago
Unless it's a criminal case, no. nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself
- dixie_land 4y ago
  You can plead 5th even in a civil case since what you say might lead to future prosecution.
- ncallaway 4y ago
  That’s not really accurate relative to the jurisprudence of the fifth amendment. Generally, it’s held that you cannot be compelled to testify if there’s a reasonable likelihood that the response may tend to implicate someone. So you often can invoke 5A in civil contexts (which is why you’ll see people invoke it before Congress, or in civil trials). One main difference is that in a criminal context we typically can’t draw an adverse inference against someone for invoking their fifth amendment rights. Whereas in a civil context we can. That doesn’t help us here much, though, because to my knowledge the NTSB is mostly interested in getting to the truth of the matter and not assigning liability or penalties. One option to pierce 5A is to grant immunity for all testimony covered. So if the NTSB was pretty sure that the pilots aren’t going to be criminally charged for the incident (which they likely wouldn’t be), they could work with the DOJ to immunize the pilots for their testimony. That eliminates the risk of criminal prosecution for their responses, and nullifies the fifth amendment.

nohankyou 4y ago

That sounds like the protection the police get! Look out for your own, screw everyone else.

devman0 4y ago
The 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 ago
Sure, 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 ago

I 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 ago

Should 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 ago
Is it obvious that refusing to participate in a safety investigation is good for the members as a body?
earthbee 4y ago
Unions should be interested in the reputation of their members. By supporting bad pilots they're making them all look bad.
- brookst 4y ago
  By assuming these are “bad pilots” before the investigation completes, you are demonstrating why all pilots benefit from the union defending them.
  - powera 4y ago
    They 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 ago
      Who, 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 ago

Not 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 ago
Why exactly is having an exact record of what you said more of a problem than notes?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- Spooky23 4y ago
  The 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 ago
  Because 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 ago
    Interesting. 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 ago

This is the type of stuff nobody wants to bring up when IT unions are mentioned

qwertox 4y ago

Mentour 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.