5 ms·

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?
    - powera 4y ago
      "They" refers to the pilots. And, while a complicated technical problem is likely to not be the pilot's fault, after a certain degree of refusing to cooperate with the investigation, it becomes their fault. Also, onemileatatime is a long-standing news website that reports on the aviation industry; the NTSB "released their side of the story" in press releases.
  - prmoustache 4y ago
    It could be they had been given bad informations. Unless suicidal I doubt anyone would just cross a lane knowing another plane is taking ofand risk hiting them at full speed. Also we have no idea from the article if they crossed said lane by being around the safety margins usually set or if it was a close call. I guess there is a lot of safety margin taken in aero between saying "sure you can cross that lane nobody is about to take off" and "a jet is already bombing at full speed on that lane, don't cross!!" The point of an investigation is to investigate. Not punish someone you are already sure it is the culprit.
- legutierr 4y ago
  Edit: I’ve changed my mind, I agree with the union.
  - ramphastidae 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - dang 4y ago
      That is nasty and crosses into personal attack, which is not cool. Please don't post like this again. You can make your substantive points without getting aggressive; please do that instead. We've had to ask you not to break the site guidelines before. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
      - ramphastidae 4y ago
        Ok, sorry about that.
  - upsidesinclude 4y ago
    This is not logical. Interesting to see how the escalation works in someones thought process, but these are not valid arguements. "If you have nothing to hide, you dont need privacy" Perhaps there are antiquated rules and possibly dangerous flight systems approved by the FAA. Maybe these pilots need to be protected from being publicly persecuted in the interest of corporate profit and confidence in the government.
    - legutierr 4y ago
      You’re right, I’ve changed my mind.
      - brookst 4y ago
        Do defense attorneys “stand in the way” of justice?
sandworm101 4y ago
The membership may not see them as bad pilots. They may feel that these pilots are being railroaded, or that the incident wasn't as rare/dangerous as is being portrayed.
- SOLAR_FIELDS 4y ago
  If that were the case, wouldn’t they be interested in the truth being public record?
  - Brian_K_White 4y ago
    Have you really never seen the public misinterpret something they aren't all specialists in? Maybe they very much are interested in the truth being public record, and the truth has not yet been determined. No particular bit of evidense, including an audio recording or some interview testimony is 'the truth'.
axiolite 4y ago
> By supporting bad pilots they're making them all look bad. Airlines in particular have a long and pervasive history of blaming "pilot error" for any and all safety issues. Until and unless it is conclusively proven that some maintenance, instructions, or mechanical system was faulty, pilots are in the cross-hairs. Remember the first 737MAX crash? It is only natural for pilots to be concerned about being scapegoats, or that their on-the-record remarks implicating their airline could end their careers.
dbg31415 4y ago
Please never read about the MLB player's union. I don't think you'll like watching professional sports after. Unions are there to protect their members. End of story. If there is no rule mandating it, I don't get why people are upset at the pilots for not cooperating with an investigation that could be career ending. This article focuses on the pilots, but the outrage should be focused at the people who made the rules the pilots follow.
rainsford 4y ago
But at this stage of the game, the only way to avoid supporting "bad pilots" is for the union to unilaterally decide whether or not the pilots in question are bad and withdraw support if they decide against them. No investigation has been completed , and while the publicly available evidence certainly makes it appear as if the pilots were at fault, I wouldn't feel comfortable concluding that if my decision had any real-life impact, nor am I comfortable with the idea of a union doing the same thing.

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?
  - powera 4y ago
    "They" refers to the pilots. And, while a complicated technical problem is likely to not be the pilot's fault, after a certain degree of refusing to cooperate with the investigation, it becomes their fault. Also, onemileatatime is a long-standing news website that reports on the aviation industry; the NTSB "released their side of the story" in press releases.
- prmoustache 4y ago
  It could be they had been given bad informations. Unless suicidal I doubt anyone would just cross a lane knowing another plane is taking ofand risk hiting them at full speed. Also we have no idea from the article if they crossed said lane by being around the safety margins usually set or if it was a close call. I guess there is a lot of safety margin taken in aero between saying "sure you can cross that lane nobody is about to take off" and "a jet is already bombing at full speed on that lane, don't cross!!" The point of an investigation is to investigate. Not punish someone you are already sure it is the culprit.
legutierr 4y ago
Edit: I’ve changed my mind, I agree with the union.
- ramphastidae 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - dang 4y ago
    That is nasty and crosses into personal attack, which is not cool. Please don't post like this again. You can make your substantive points without getting aggressive; please do that instead. We've had to ask you not to break the site guidelines before. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
    - ramphastidae 4y ago
      Ok, sorry about that.
- upsidesinclude 4y ago
  This is not logical. Interesting to see how the escalation works in someones thought process, but these are not valid arguements. "If you have nothing to hide, you dont need privacy" Perhaps there are antiquated rules and possibly dangerous flight systems approved by the FAA. Maybe these pilots need to be protected from being publicly persecuted in the interest of corporate profit and confidence in the government.
  - legutierr 4y ago
    You’re right, I’ve changed my mind.
    - brookst 4y ago
      Do defense attorneys “stand in the way” of justice?

sandworm101 4y ago

The membership may not see them as bad pilots. They may feel that these pilots are being railroaded, or that the incident wasn't as rare/dangerous as is being portrayed.

SOLAR_FIELDS 4y ago
If that were the case, wouldn’t they be interested in the truth being public record?
- Brian_K_White 4y ago
  Have you really never seen the public misinterpret something they aren't all specialists in? Maybe they very much are interested in the truth being public record, and the truth has not yet been determined. No particular bit of evidense, including an audio recording or some interview testimony is 'the truth'.

axiolite 4y ago

> By supporting bad pilots they're making them all look bad. Airlines in particular have a long and pervasive history of blaming "pilot error" for any and all safety issues. Until and unless it is conclusively proven that some maintenance, instructions, or mechanical system was faulty, pilots are in the cross-hairs. Remember the first 737MAX crash? It is only natural for pilots to be concerned about being scapegoats, or that their on-the-record remarks implicating their airline could end their careers.

dbg31415 4y ago

Please never read about the MLB player's union. I don't think you'll like watching professional sports after. Unions are there to protect their members. End of story. If there is no rule mandating it, I don't get why people are upset at the pilots for not cooperating with an investigation that could be career ending. This article focuses on the pilots, but the outrage should be focused at the people who made the rules the pilots follow.

rainsford 4y ago

But at this stage of the game, the only way to avoid supporting "bad pilots" is for the union to unilaterally decide whether or not the pilots in question are bad and withdraw support if they decide against them. No investigation has been completed , and while the publicly available evidence certainly makes it appear as if the pilots were at fault, I wouldn't feel comfortable concluding that if my decision had any real-life impact, nor am I comfortable with the idea of a union doing the same thing.