Jump to content

Pilot Faces Jail


gbigs

Recommended Posts

I don't think you even read the article. There was another licensed and active pilot on board, and controls were turned over to the suspended pilot when that active pilot couldn't pull it off the tricky maneuver. This was a life and death situation, and it wasn't like the suspended pilot stole the aircraft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you read the link to the original NZ article? The pilot without the medical is the supervisor of the more junior pilot.  He has considerably more experience and perhaps felt he could provide the appropriate supervision to the PIC to save a person's life.  When the more junior pilot was unable to perform the rescue, the supervisor decided that a person's life was worth the risk of busting a reg.  Also, the issue of whether he had a valid medical was unclear as he was appealing and/or seeking clarification.

 

Assuming NZ regs are similar to the US, he could certainly be in an aircraft (as it was probably his job) and operate the controls but could not act as PIC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saves a life, loses his license. I would hope any of us would be willing to do the same. For whatever reason we may find ourselves there.

I suspect the Aussie government may be more lenient than the FAA.

 

New Zealand not Australia.  His medical was already expired so he had no license to fly the aircraft.  The FAA would likely not tolerate what the guy did either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point is clear.  If your medical is suspended, you should not be in that situation.  Only legally licensed and current pilots should be on duty and sitting in the pilot's seats.  Do you think Delta Airlines would allow a pilot without a current medical in the left or right seat of a commercial jet?

 

False equivalence.

 

And this line of thinking is retarded. Life and death trumps rules (within reason... rushing to a hospital to save your son by taking a shortcut through an elementary school playground at recess would be unforgivable).

 

Rules should be used to guide. Instead, people use them without any real basis in fact except to thump the regs book and toss around a superiority complex with no regards to the context or life emergency.

 

"[...] But the first attempt was unsuccessful and low fuel forced the first helicopter back to base. Armstrong agreed to try and had another pilot with him but took the controls when the other pilot was unable to maneuver the R-44 into position to drop rescue personnel and a doctor."

 

It's not like his medical was revoked for some incapacitating condition that would make this any more dangerous than it already is. Being the more capable pilot, he belonged on that flight because the previous airlift attempt failed, and it turned out the PIC couldn't do it either. It's not like he just jumped in for no good reason, he had the experience to save a life where previous attempts failed. REGS BE DAMNED.

 

Pardon my language everyone, but this kind of "blind enforcement" illustrates so much that is wrong with regulation without context and the people who support it. I get passionate sometimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Notice we have had two medically involved incidence in commercial aircraft just in the last two days.  One pilot died enroute, the other passed out and the flight had to be diverted.  The medical regs are intended to eliminate or reduce this kind of thing.

 

It is perfect hindsight to say the helo incident went well so the guy should get a pass. 

 

Had the rescue gone wrong no one would be trying to defend the guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That depends on what the cause would be. The subject is medicals and flight fitness. If a medical condition caused him to crash, that would be reason to crucify and thump the medical regs book. If it went badly because a gust of wind pushed them into a mountainside, would a medical have saved them?

 

I certainly don't care for jumping on someone based on false causes or other fallacies!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Corey.  There is a reason that declaring an emergency allows you to violate any regulation as necessary to meet the demands of the emergency.  In my book, this situation qualifies as an emergency, whether declared or not.  Life was at stake, and the crew did what was necessary to give the best chances of a good outcome.  Even had it not worked out well, I'd applaud their willingness to do what they thought was required.

 

The regulations in general exist for our safety.  But a slavish devotion to "following the rules" needs to be tempered with common sense or the goal of enhanced safety is not being served.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've given you the courtesy of changing the one part of my sentence to an indefinite article. However, I will not retract my statement.

 

I don't think you are going to get it. You're absolutely rooted in the idea that legality, which is nothing but words on paper written by a bunch of suits at a round table, should mean everything despite the context. How do we know if there was any other pilot? What if the illegal pilot was the most experienced person BY FAR on the entire team?

 

They had a PIC on board who was in command of the flight, and it's not like he was handing it over to a novice. Here in the United States, anyone can crew any aircraft as long as the required PIC/SIC positions are filled. Many years ago, it wasn't unheard of to have an airline captain's son or daughter sit right seat for a bit once the flight was underway, with the first officer nearby. Once the critical phases of flight are over, on long flights, it's even allowed for the captain or the first officer to leave his station and use the crew bunk!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I applaud the pilot for doing what was necessary to save a life without bending metal when the PIC couldn't pull it off.  He should receive praise and gratitude not prosecution.

 

I keep hearing 'If two fully legal pilots had been on-board ...'  but apparently there were not 'legal' pilots on board with sufficient skills to accomplish the rescue.  

 

If I couldn't get my CT on the ground, a somewhat common scenario in the Eastern Sierra, while the guy in the right seat could I would be extremely grateful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if the other pilot was ill? Or, what if the other pilot quit? The logic about having more than one pilot is sound, but it's not fullproof. Even still, if this guy was vastly more skilled than any of the pilots he had, then he should still have gone on the flight since the other rescue attempt failed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I run new flyers. I know how busines works. You can plan for every contingency, but no matter what, you're going to have to compromise at one point or another. If you don't, your competitors, who do know when and how to compromise, will run you out of business. I'm not advocating doing anything dangerous, but I fail to see how what this guy did in this situation threatened anyone.

And you're right, I don't think anyone else is really going to understand. Laws and regulations should never trump life, reasonably speaking. I failed to see at all how having a medical in limbo makes this anymore dangerous. It's not like it was revoked. Finally, there was a fully qualified pilot on board. He himself is also very qualified and experienced. This whole thing reeks of poorly thought out bureaucracy, and I hope the judge sees reason and throws this case out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe you have never run a business.  You plan for those situations.  If you were sick, would you have one of the line boys do an annual and sign it off?  Nobody said the pilot should not have done what he did.  My problem with it is the fact he was in one of the pilot seats.  Obviously, some here can't see that, so let's move on.

 

So if you go for a ride with a friend in a Mooney and you don't have a medical, would you jump in the back seat instead of the front?

If you were riding in the front and he could not complete a task that you could would you do it if it would save a life.

 

The aircraft they were flying did not require a crew of 2 for flight, but I would imagine that having an experienced observer on board would have been a plus for that flight. Who better to have along as an observer than a experienced pilot medical or not. It would be different if the aircraft required a crew of 2, and they took off knowing one of the crew was not fit to fly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Sullenberger had a medical issue that grounded him, even temporarily, he wouldn't have been on the 'Miracle on the Hudson' flight. His airline wouldn't have removed him flight status. Another captain would have been aboard with possibly a different outcome.

 

As it was, as PIC, he acted as Captain and made the best decision he could in order to save as many lives as he could. Ditching in the Hudson, as a last resort, after a catastrophic failure is the type of scenario sometimes practiced in the simulator, but as an exercise, not as a recommended procedure. He did what it took to attempt to solve the problem.

 

In this case, it seems the grounded NZ pilot knew he was grounded but broke the rules in order to effect the mission. Likely he knew he would be in big trouble on his return. He was with another pilot, but we don't know what his medical issue was, it could be anything from seizures to cardiac arrest to stroke. So it's possible that his grounding medical issue could have made the situation worse.

Presumably, if he'd asked to go he'd have been denied, so we presume he went on his own volition.

 

As it is we know the outcome was successful, and that he heroically saved a life. The NZ authorities have a dilemma. Punish the guy on the one hand for breaking the rules. Congratulate him on the other, for saving a life 'because' he broke the rules! My guess is they'll commend him for his actions and also penalize him for breaking the law.

 

Its one thing to say you'd do anything you could to each a safe outcome, and another to place yourself in jeopardy by flying a plane knowing that you're grounded and illegal. If it had all gone terribly wrong he'd now be vilified for making the situation worse. It doesn't take long to go from chump to hero.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Sullenberger had a medical issue that grounded him, even temporarily, he wouldn't have been on the 'Miracle on the Hudson' flight. His airline wouldn't have removed him flight status. Another captain would have been aboard with possibly a different outcome.

 

As it was, as PIC, he acted as Captain and made the best decision he could in order to save as many lives as he could. Ditching in the Hudson, as a last resort, after a catastrophic failure is the type of scenario sometimes practiced in the simulator, but as an exercise, not as a recommended procedure. He did what it took to attempt to solve the problem.

 

The big difference here is that the NZ pilot in question was not a required crew member. The pilot who could not complete the mission was the PIC and only required crew member for the flight.

 

I am with Andy in that they should have kept their mouths shut, and then we wouldn't be talking about this now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The article says 'he agreed to go' which assumes that he was asked and he agreed. The person asking may not have known about his medical/license situation but the pilot in question did.

 

I would bet money that only approved and qualified pilots are allowed in these helicopters, it's not like they're flying sightseeing trips.

 

The article says that the incident was April 2014 and the police seized his logbooks. So perhaps the guy did keep his mouth shut and the connection of him flying with a suspended license was made coincidentally. If he logged the flight then it wasn't a smart move. If he didn't then he omitted it and 'covered it up'. No win.

 

Saving a life is never a bad thing but he surely knew IF they found out then there would be consequences. They did and there are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree with Top Cat in that the guy knew he was not qualified to pilot the aircraft (that means legally licensed with current medical).  It may not constitute a crime, but it is a breach of the rules.

 

The rules are not made to irritate people.  They are there to increase safety.  If this guy can break them with impunity anyone can break them and that will result in chaos and worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...