Click on a label to read posts from that part of the world.
Pilots forced to talk about work in the cockpit
Big Brother may not be watching, but he'll be listening. A new recommendation by the National Transportation Safety Board would involve the use of "black box" recordings to monitor the conversations that occur among pilots in the cockpit. This comes on the heels of several high-profile incidents in which pilots were distracted. According to a report by USA Today, this would be the first time that workplace monitoring would penetrate the cockpit. Of course, pilots' unions oppose the measure, calling it intrusive (isn't that the point?). Until now, the black boxes have only been used after accidents. This new step, if executed properly, could make the recordings useful in preventing them – well, that's the plan, at least.
Needless to say, the timing couldn't be better for the NTSB, given the Northwest Airlines flight that overshot its destination by a hundred miles and the Colgan crash near Buffalo last year. In both case, pilot conversations were cited as among the reasons for the problems that occurred.
So far, this is only a recommendation from the NTSB to the FAA (the former has no regulatory authority). The NTSB's Robert Sumwalt claims, "This is not a case of Big Brother spying on pilots." Well, it really does seem like one, but it isn't a hard measure to defend in this climate. It might be easier to see the pilots' point of view if their objections weren't centered on pilot privacy. Workplace privacy is a thing of the past for everyone.
Mike Michaelis, chairman of safety at the Aillied Pilots Assocation, the union over at American Airlines, told USA Today, "It's the wrong way to go safety-wise." What I don't understand is how that can be true.
Gallery: Ten pilots you don't want in your cockpit
Filed under: North America, United States, Airlines
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
Nick Feb 25th 2010 12:22PM
Such a measure certainly does seem like an intrusion and pointless.
Would love to read Kent Wien's opinion on this one.
poot Feb 27th 2010 10:04AM
uhhh... define "pointless." Let's see, sleeping pilots overshooting airports, arguing pilots missing where they're going, showing up drunker than living hell to fly 500 people across the ocean... they've done it to themselves by their own behavior. Monitoring these clowns is something that's long overdue. How many times do you think a pilot has managed to actually get on a plane, stinking drunk, and fly it? I would guess that number would probably be around 100 times the number of pilots they've caught trying to do it, if not higher. Yes... indeed... we would want to be INTRUSIVE would we? I mean, it's only the lives of 500 people...
sc Feb 27th 2010 10:32AM
If it's your life it may be pointless, but if it's mine or people I care about it's anything but pointless.
emily29388 Feb 27th 2010 12:02PM
Dear Poot. You are so full of hot air.
Kent Wien Mar 5th 2010 11:24AM
Hi Nick,
I've never been convinced that the minor sterile cockpit violations caused the Colgan accident. They were silent for the two minutes before the deceleration, as I discussed here:
http://www.gadling.com/2009/05/25/plane-answers-chit-chat-did-not-doom-colgan-flight-3407/
As for the NTSB's recommendation that the FAA monitor our conversations, I'd really hate to have to be the person going through those tapes.
We operate under a "Flight Operations Quality Assurance" or FOQA at our airline. This program records all the parameters of the flight and if any limitations are exceeded or the approach isn't stabilized during the last 1,000 feet, we get a call from a 'gatekeeper' who is the only one that knows our identity. He records the circumstances on the flight and passes it along to someone who tracks the trends at the airline.
There would have to be some rock solid assurances that the voice data wouldn't be released and anonymity could be maintained. Even so, there would still be pilots vehemently opposed to the plan.
brance Feb 27th 2010 6:30AM
I would be willing to do this, just as soon as we get recording of congressmen in their meetings with the lobbyists behind closed doors. Especially the drug store cowboys,and the arms manufacturers.
Macc Feb 27th 2010 8:05AM
Well said Brance! I bet we wouldn't even have to pay anyone to do it. Probably have more than enough volunteers.
poot Feb 27th 2010 10:06AM
...and as soon as Congress starts flying planes and being immediately responsible for the safety of hundreds of people, I'll agree with you. Until then, monitor the pilots.
Parad E. Makewater Mar 1st 2010 6:34AM
You left out unions, ACORN, CAIR, MoveOn.org., etc
Tom Feb 27th 2010 1:18PM
Brance, great idea, but I doubt it would ever get thru the congress unless we make it a constitutional amendment.
Bob Feb 27th 2010 3:12PM
You hit the subject right on the head, and I second the motion.
J Beals Feb 27th 2010 6:43AM
I does seem that to monitor the pilots' every blessed word woud be unneccessarily intrusive and stressful for them. The key to keeping terrororists out of the cockpit would be screening them out before they get there.wouldnt it? Perhaps the recording could be programmed to be audilble within a certain time/distance of the destination point when the pilots should be focused anyway. I am sure there is plenty of time when the plane is just cruising and the conversation is relaxed, but the key time would be at the end of the trip.wouldnt it?
poot Feb 27th 2010 10:07AM
Yes, we wouldn't want them to stress out because they can't take a nap or play grab ass with a stewardess now, would we?
Michael Feb 27th 2010 11:58AM
The issue, in this instance, is not to thwart terrorism. The issue is the increase of pilot error in the airline industry and what things can be done to change that. We all have managers and oversight at work, so why should pilots who make $60K+/year?? And if it is so stressful to watch what you say for a few hours of work, than I don't understand how you have ever had a job. Even when I worked at cr*ppy hourly jobs in customer service, I always had to watch what I say all day long (and it was a pretty unconscious thought). Work isn't a place for your free time and fun, it's a place for you to a do a specific job which you are being paid for. Also, if a pilot isn't able to focus for a few hours on a flight because they aren't spending most of their time talking about their fantasy football league or the hot new flight attendant, then I think THAT'S the problem. This is a completely valid idea and I really hope the NTSB and FAA implement this.
Stephen Feb 27th 2010 6:55AM
The reason the author of this article does not understand why invasion of privacy on any level is a problem is because he's an idiot. Just report the news, fool. Don't attempt to comment on it.
poot Feb 27th 2010 10:11AM
I'm not sure the author is the idiot here... first off, this isn't "invasion of privacy" by any stretch of the imagination. These guys are on the clock with lives at stake. You know that your boss can read email or texts that you send as long as you're on the clock or using a company issued computer or telephone? Do you know why? BECAUSE THEY'RE PAYING FOR IT. Can you take a nap at work and feel assured your boss won't bother you because he may be "invading your privacy?" Your comment is both arrogant and ignorant at the same time. Frankly, it scares the living shyt out of me that my life is in the hands of one person, whom I do not know, that really doesn't give enough of a damn about his job to do it properly. Would you like a proctologist to perform your brain surgery?
sc Feb 27th 2010 10:32AM
Privacy only extends until what you are doing affects rights of others. In this instance the right to arrive at their destination alive, not in pieces.
Michael Feb 27th 2010 11:57AM
There is no such thing as an invasion of privacy by your employer, WHILE YOU ARE WORKING!!! What do the pilots own the planes?? No they don't, they are getting paid to fly hundreds of people, possibly thousands of miles by a company who is ultimately responsible for every mistake the pilot makes. We all have oversight at work, and most of us have A LOT more oversight than just having out conversations listened to. With all of the mistakes being made in the airline industry lately, especially the highly publicized mistakes this move is totally justified. It is only fair for an employer to know what is going on, while they are paying you to do what you do. I agree with the other commenter, it is an extremely arrogant thought to believe that pilots are somehow exempt from oversight or to consider this an invasion of privacy. This sounds like a great idea, and while it may not stop all mistakes it will at least keep some pilots more alert/aware of what they are doing... which is the point!!!
sjoyce Feb 28th 2010 6:08AM
What about vidieo.No sound except in the case of emergency.The pilot could hit a switch or it would come on in case of danger,fire,engine failure,icing,stewardes alert...ect. At least no sleeping,laptop,cellphone conversation..ect.
TOM Feb 27th 2010 7:02AM
I agree that, if this system is used, the recordings should be kept anonomous.
Pilots spend a lot of time together and probably have much "dead time", especially on long flights.
When the plane is on "auto pilot", I assume the conversations turn to discussions of co-workers, bosses, "hot stews", company policies, etc.
Those are conversations that the airlines not need to know about.
If safety is the primary concern, why not install pro-active systems that speak to the pilots to keep them awake and give the pilots notices and warnings about location, altitude, distance, destination, plane and weather condidtions, etc.?
It appears to me that such a system would do more good for safety than eavesdropping on the pilots'conversations.