AL E NEWMAN

Are you implying that in this case the person in question may be in jeopardy by the Feds? On another note, what is Albie gonna do to this guy, beat him up? I say let it go.

Sideshow Bob

Maybe under the new regime's view of PC , but no. What I'm talking about is the whole sterile cockpit concept. If that FDX aircraft was involved in an incursion or collision, or pretty much anything within two hours (the new CVR time frame) the fed would use it against the crew.

bluejuice

For crying out loud, it was one comment while the mic was keyed to ATC. Had absolutely nothing to do with sterile cockpit, incursions, collisions or whatever else you want to throw in there. One comment, get over it.

Sideshow Bob

Underestimate the vindictiveness/pettiness of the FAA at your own peril. Have you ever been party to FAA/NTSB hearings? I have and it's a wake up call. Get over that...or not.

bluejuice

What are you talking about? It was a question, whether valid or not, and there is absolutely nothing illegal about it.

Sideshow Bob

I said IF there would have been an incursion/collision they would pull the ATC tapes and the CVR. There's a very high probability that there was ensuing conversation in the cockpit regarding the remark; ie: CPT: "dude...that's harsh" F/O: "what...I'm just asking" CPT: "they're losing their jobs numb nuts". In the ensuing investigation the lack of sterile cockpit would have been cited as a contributing factor. If an airplane was scratched or there was a loss of separation they might also do the full on blood screening that sees EVERYTHING in the blood stream. Let's say one of them took an Ambien to insure sleep on the reduced rest overnight, and it was detectable (the half-life of Ambien CR is roughly 6 hours-detectable to 12). That would be cited as a contributing factor. The main elements of the incident are evaluated along with the contributing factors culminating in an often very subjective ruling/finding by the sitting judge, which has a big impact on things like suspensions of certificates. Think the FAA/NTSB aren't arbitrary and capricious? Think again.

LivingInMEM

I didn't present it as evidence for court - but as a FedEx pilot I was not going to post the link. However, I did check VIPS and listen to the tape before I made that comment because I had verified it.

LivingInMEM

While I do not believe that the FAA would be concerned with this call on its own, I am of the same mindset as Sideshow that you can not predict what the FAA will use in its enforcement. Read a few of those articles written by the attorney in the AOPA magazine, the FAA has made some very reaching arguments in the past in ticket enforcement actions. Ask the recent crew that had to go through a FAA eval whether we have much protection from the NASA report, or our union. Before you scoff what they may cite, you need to review some of the examples.

As far as anyone else getting involved, it would not be that far off for a peer-peer call. After all, when we make these calls, we are using someone else's callsign (our employers) and we are representing more than ourselves (our crew, our pilot force, airline pilots in general, etc) - I have no problem with us as a group enforcing a certain standard when it comes to external communications.

290kts

Looked the guy up in VIPS - not suprised - the interview process didn't work on this guy. I listened to the tape and I'm not buying the "he didn't mean anything by it" line.

Apologies to any and all that are affected by this economic crisis. 99.9% of FDX folks are top shelf - there are boneheads in every group.

de727ups

Mod hat off:

"Looked the guy up in VIPS - not suprised - the interview process didn't work on this guy. I listened to the tape and I'm not buying the "he didn't mean anything by it" line."

Are you saying, based on your personal knowledge of the individual, that the comment was a dig or a bash? I DON'T believe, based on personal experience, that keying the mike and making any sort of unprofessional comment, could be somehow unintentional or accidental.

I have no problem with those in the know, saying and commenting that the individual would not do it again and seeks repentance. That's great. But we are calling a spade a spade, here. I think it's important that this sort of behaviour not be condoned or blown off.