DFW/CLT off road adventure
- Thread starter LD3
- Start date
Wall Street Journal has picked up the story. Looks like some pilots may get some retraining:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1260849596...mp;mod=yahoo_hs
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1260849596...mp;mod=yahoo_hs
Before pilot retraining, there may need to be some retraining in the "incident reporting" group. Per WSJ, the Feds want to know why it took the company 14 hours to report the incident. Even though there were no injuries, the Feds are treating it as an accident.
Its pretty simple read 49 CFR Part 830.The incident was reported to have substantial damage filed by someone probably management. The legal department should have filed the report or been consulted prior to filing.
eolesen
Veteran
- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,988
- 9,428
From what a pilot told me, SOC is supposed to contact NTSB. Since there were no injuries, fourteen hours might be a reasonable timeframe for the pilots to get union representation in a place like CLT before doing a debrief with SOC.
Just think how much less of a fuss the NW overfly would have been if the pilots had waited for an ALPA rep to counsel them before speaking to the FAA and media....
Just think how much less of a fuss the NW overfly would have been if the pilots had waited for an ALPA rep to counsel them before speaking to the FAA and media....
According to the story cited above, it was four, 4, (not fourteen, 14) hours between the time of the accident and a report from AA to the FAA.
And, just for the record: I have worked incidents that involved both the NTSB, FAA and APA; during none of these events have AA Pilots, represented by the APA, been anything less than completely factual and forthcoming.
And, just for the record: I have worked incidents that involved both the NTSB, FAA and APA; during none of these events have AA Pilots, represented by the APA, been anything less than completely factual and forthcoming.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #7
If there was a deviation off the runway, and there was in fact one, should a report even a verbal one to the tower be filed right after it happens? There was a runway sitting there contaminated with mud and glass that was'nt found until ops did their runway inspection. Thankfully that flight I think was the last to land 18C due to a notam that was set to to enforced for runway construction. That notam was xld due to wx and the runway remained open but unused....
I sit here and read this and yet no one has read part 830.NTSB is to be notified imeadiately of an accident/incident in which passengers are on board. The airplane is stuposed to but parked guared and nothing removed including cargo until the NTSB releases the aircraft.The ntsb will then notify the FAA of the incident.This is common practice come on people read the manual!
Depends on whether anyone realized at the time that the airplane had suffered "substantial damage" which is:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-...1.2&idno=49
Damage to landing gear and components like wheels and tires is not "substantial damage." Neither is damage to wingtips. Perhaps the crew concluded that the aircraft was not "substantially damaged." As such, it may not have met the definition of "aircraft accident" under part 830 in the crew's or maintenance employees' opinion.
Immediate notification would be required under § 830.5 if it qualified as an "aircraft accident" (and it might not rise to the level of "aircraft accident") or if any of the listed incidents had occurred, but none of them appear applicable:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-...1.1&idno=49
I don't think part 830's applicability is as cut and dried as you suggest. Nevertheless, the starboard wing may be damaged sufficiently to qualify it as an "aircraft accident."
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-...1.2&idno=49
Damage to landing gear and components like wheels and tires is not "substantial damage." Neither is damage to wingtips. Perhaps the crew concluded that the aircraft was not "substantially damaged." As such, it may not have met the definition of "aircraft accident" under part 830 in the crew's or maintenance employees' opinion.
Immediate notification would be required under § 830.5 if it qualified as an "aircraft accident" (and it might not rise to the level of "aircraft accident") or if any of the listed incidents had occurred, but none of them appear applicable:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-...1.1&idno=49
I don't think part 830's applicability is as cut and dried as you suggest. Nevertheless, the starboard wing may be damaged sufficiently to qualify it as an "aircraft accident."
My point was to get the message read the requirements!!! The report was filed as sub damage,four hours is not immediate.I also found some intresting other items focus on the pilots requirements,after such incidents.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
Ya gotta love armchair quarterbacks...
Who determined that it was substantial damage - AA has no mechanics at CLT. The pilots? Since when are they trained or qualified to make that determination? Contract maintenance? If so, how long did it take for them to show up at the aircraft, inspect it, make the determination that it was substantial damage and notify AA?
I guess the pilots are supposed to pick up the phone (everyone knows that cockpits have a hotline direct to the NTSB, right?) and notify the NTSB as they're taxiing to the terminal - or would that be too much of a delay. Maybe they should have called the NTSB while they were slowing down to exit the runway? That would be more immediate. Or maybe during the runway excursion - "You take control and get it back on the runway, I've got to call the NTSB" - can't get much more immediate than that?
Here's what happens in the real world, as opposed to the fantasy land of sterile rules and literal interpretations, is this. Since the plane was able to move under it's own power, they parked at the gate, got the passengers off, shut the plane down for the overnight if the plane was overnighting. Then one/both pilots would have done a walk-around to see what if anything appeared damaged. Now it's at least 20 after parking at the gate. They would call their dispatcher and give a verbal report of what happened. The dispatcher would relay the needed info to the maintenance representative for that type plane, also in SCC. The maintenance guy/gal would contact whoever provides contract maintenance at CLT - here's where the alternatives start
If it's US Airways (they have a hub in CLT) their maintenance people in US' OCC (same as AA's SCC) would be contacted. US' OCC maintenance rep would contact the maintenance supervisor in CLT. We're now probably somewhere between 40 minutes and an hour after gate arrival. The US maintenance supervisor in CLT would look at the US workload and decide who would check the AA plane and when - someone could be sent right away or it could be an hour or longer before a mechanic actually showed up at AA's ops.
If contract maintenance was provided by an FBO, the FBO would be contacted. Since it was after hours for FBO maintenance, the FBO would have to get hold of one of their mechanics, have them come back to the FBO (gotta get their toolbox), and then go to AA's CLT ops. In this case it could be anywhere from 30 minutes to a couple of hours before a mechanic showed up at the plane.
If contract maintenance was provided by an independent contractor (mechanic), AA's SCC people would call him/her. They could be having dinner out with their family, at the movie, doing Christmas shopping, whatever. The mechanic would have to go home if not already there, change clothes, and drive to the airport. Again, it could take up to 2 hours or more for the mechanic to show up at the airport.
Whichever, the first thing the mechanic would do is check in with AA's ops people in CLT, go to the plane, check the logbook, and call AA's SCC maintenance people. Then he/her would inspect the plane and again call AA's folks to tell them what he observed. At this point, it could be that substantial damage was known or AA's SCC folks might ask for closer inspection of items (wing tip, gear, etc). At any rate, it could be several hours before the determination that substantial damage had been done was made and that a report to the NTSB was necessary.
So the question arises - does "immediately" refer to the time the mishap happened or to the time that the amount of damage was determined? Is it even possible to report an accident before it's been determined that there's been an accident as defined by the regulations - I can envision that conversation. "NTSB, this is Joe Blow at AA's SCC. We've had an airplane accident." "Joe, was anyone hurt?" "Well, I don't think so." "How badly was the airplane damaged?" "I don't know - it ran off the side of the runway, but returned to the runway and taxiied to the gate." "So you don't know how bad the damage was?" "No, our contract maintence hasn't showed up yet - I was going to call them after talking to you." "Tell you what, Joe - give me a call when you know how bad the damage was."
Jim
Who determined that it was substantial damage - AA has no mechanics at CLT. The pilots? Since when are they trained or qualified to make that determination? Contract maintenance? If so, how long did it take for them to show up at the aircraft, inspect it, make the determination that it was substantial damage and notify AA?
I guess the pilots are supposed to pick up the phone (everyone knows that cockpits have a hotline direct to the NTSB, right?) and notify the NTSB as they're taxiing to the terminal - or would that be too much of a delay. Maybe they should have called the NTSB while they were slowing down to exit the runway? That would be more immediate. Or maybe during the runway excursion - "You take control and get it back on the runway, I've got to call the NTSB" - can't get much more immediate than that?
Here's what happens in the real world, as opposed to the fantasy land of sterile rules and literal interpretations, is this. Since the plane was able to move under it's own power, they parked at the gate, got the passengers off, shut the plane down for the overnight if the plane was overnighting. Then one/both pilots would have done a walk-around to see what if anything appeared damaged. Now it's at least 20 after parking at the gate. They would call their dispatcher and give a verbal report of what happened. The dispatcher would relay the needed info to the maintenance representative for that type plane, also in SCC. The maintenance guy/gal would contact whoever provides contract maintenance at CLT - here's where the alternatives start
If it's US Airways (they have a hub in CLT) their maintenance people in US' OCC (same as AA's SCC) would be contacted. US' OCC maintenance rep would contact the maintenance supervisor in CLT. We're now probably somewhere between 40 minutes and an hour after gate arrival. The US maintenance supervisor in CLT would look at the US workload and decide who would check the AA plane and when - someone could be sent right away or it could be an hour or longer before a mechanic actually showed up at AA's ops.
If contract maintenance was provided by an FBO, the FBO would be contacted. Since it was after hours for FBO maintenance, the FBO would have to get hold of one of their mechanics, have them come back to the FBO (gotta get their toolbox), and then go to AA's CLT ops. In this case it could be anywhere from 30 minutes to a couple of hours before a mechanic showed up at the plane.
If contract maintenance was provided by an independent contractor (mechanic), AA's SCC people would call him/her. They could be having dinner out with their family, at the movie, doing Christmas shopping, whatever. The mechanic would have to go home if not already there, change clothes, and drive to the airport. Again, it could take up to 2 hours or more for the mechanic to show up at the airport.
Whichever, the first thing the mechanic would do is check in with AA's ops people in CLT, go to the plane, check the logbook, and call AA's SCC maintenance people. Then he/her would inspect the plane and again call AA's folks to tell them what he observed. At this point, it could be that substantial damage was known or AA's SCC folks might ask for closer inspection of items (wing tip, gear, etc). At any rate, it could be several hours before the determination that substantial damage had been done was made and that a report to the NTSB was necessary.
So the question arises - does "immediately" refer to the time the mishap happened or to the time that the amount of damage was determined? Is it even possible to report an accident before it's been determined that there's been an accident as defined by the regulations - I can envision that conversation. "NTSB, this is Joe Blow at AA's SCC. We've had an airplane accident." "Joe, was anyone hurt?" "Well, I don't think so." "How badly was the airplane damaged?" "I don't know - it ran off the side of the runway, but returned to the runway and taxiied to the gate." "So you don't know how bad the damage was?" "No, our contract maintence hasn't showed up yet - I was going to call them after talking to you." "Tell you what, Joe - give me a call when you know how bad the damage was."
Jim
I agree with you Jim, But the aircraft repairs were started before the NTSB was even
notified.Thats where the problem started! If they had time to get a field trip there,surely they could have made the call.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
Is it possible that the mechanics discovered the severity of the damage as they were doing the repair?
If indeed it was a crew of AA mechanics making a field trip, it would likely have been a few hours before they showed up at CLT. Even coming from RDU, the closest airport that I can think of that might have AA maintenance, it's a 2 hour drive once they had their tools & parts gathered up and loaded.
In short, 4 hours just doesn't seem excessively long in a case like this. If the plane had been a smoking ruin off the side of the runway, 4 hours is way too long. But this appears to be at worst a border-line case, with the full extent of the damage not known until mechanics had a chance to at least inspect it.
What you seem to be suggesting is that the NTSB be called any time there a scrape or scratch on an airplane. I doubt any airline does that and I'd be surprised if the NTSB would want that.
Jim
If indeed it was a crew of AA mechanics making a field trip, it would likely have been a few hours before they showed up at CLT. Even coming from RDU, the closest airport that I can think of that might have AA maintenance, it's a 2 hour drive once they had their tools & parts gathered up and loaded.
In short, 4 hours just doesn't seem excessively long in a case like this. If the plane had been a smoking ruin off the side of the runway, 4 hours is way too long. But this appears to be at worst a border-line case, with the full extent of the damage not known until mechanics had a chance to at least inspect it.
What you seem to be suggesting is that the NTSB be called any time there a scrape or scratch on an airplane. I doubt any airline does that and I'd be surprised if the NTSB would want that.
Jim
