So, it's not just us

Contrary to a lot of opinions out there, it looks like mainline pilots make mistakes, too. Screw ups aren't exclusive to the regionals. First up we have the Northwest Airbus that overflew Minneapolis this month. And, having overheard some of what people are saying in regards to this, I decided it was time for some basic commentary. (On a quick side note, I do find it mildly irritating that it seems like any picture of an aircraft is good enough for the media. It really isn't that hard to google "Northwest Airbus 320 image" and learn that a 757 and an A320 aren't the same.)

First off, in general terms, it's not illegal to fly over the city of Minneapolis. There isn't prohibited airspace around there as is over The Whitehouse in Washington, DC. The issue here is the crew exceeded their "clearance limit." What does that mean? Well, the flight originated in San Diego, CA. Before they took off, they received a "clearance" from Air Traffic Control (ATC). That clearance would have started with "Northwest 188, you are cleared to Minneapolis, blaa blaa blaa." The blaa blaa blaa would have been a departure procedure from KSAN, an initial altitude, a higher altitude to expect later, a radio frequency to talk to SoCal departure, and a transponder squawk code. (None of which are really important to this discussion.) So, by flying past Minneapolis, this crew passed the point they were cleared to by ATC. Hence, they were flying somewhere they didn't have clearance to be. THAT is illegal per the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs).

At first, most news organizations were reporting that the flight crew might have fallen asleep. In all honesty, it wasn't a bad guess considering all the buzz about "fatigue" and whatnot. I even heard that the crew busy being in a "heated" argument, not sleeping. Not that I would want the crew to have been asleep, but I think I would have preferred it. (Hang with me a minute, I'll explain.) It appears now, instead, that the crew was completely engrossed in a discussion that involved both pilots, who had each of their laptops out. It's said now the topic of said discussion was NOT this website. Instead the crew now says, apparently, that they were discussing the new crew scheduling software. Fair enough. Discussion isn't really a bad thing. This one seems to have been a little excessive, though.

Now, keep in mind, this flight was at night. The crew states, apparently, that they had no issue with fatigue. (I keep saying "apparently" because I have not personally heard them say anything. This is just what I hear from the media.) Even if you aren't tired when you begin a flight, flying for hours at a time, sitting in the same chair, in the dark, can start to make you sleepy. This is why it's a good thing that the crew was engaged in a discussion. It does help pass the time, and helps to keep you alert. Otherwise, sometimes it's like asking someone to go sit in a chair, in a small, darkened room, next to someone else, and just sit there for about 4hrs. Flight deck boredom will usually set in after about an hr or so in such a condition.

It does look like this crew was SO into this discussion, they broke one of the cardinal rules of flying. "Never let the aircraft get anywhere your brain wasn't at least 5 minutes ago." Now, it's easy to be an arm chair quarterback and say how the crew should have done this or that and shouldn't have done this, etc, etc. However, I will say that if the crew had simply fallen asleep, no it wouldn't be "all better," but it wouldn't sound negligent. "OK, we were dog ass tired, and we just fell asleep. Sorry!" In that way, it sounds more like something unfortunate that occurred and the crew hadn't knowingly ignored the aircraft. However, by the crew being totally absorbed in a discussion, even though it was about company related business, they BOTH neglected to keep an eye on the aircraft and the radios. Now, sometimes, your mind wanders for a few mins when you're up in cruise. You're not ALWAYS watching every single aspect about the plane like a hawk. If you tried, you'd be pretty fatigued in a short amount of time. That's what automation is for, to help you lower your workload. But, to be oblivious to where the aircraft is and is going for over an hour? Yikes...

Obviously, as a pilot myself, I don't want to see this crew get torn apart. But, based on the limited facts I have of the incident, I am having a hard time justifying their behavior. They weren't really doing anything that others do all the time. But it does look like things went a lot further. I will be honest, I haven't seen many laptops come out in flight. But, whether it's reading a book, or doing some manual revisions and updates, or the perusing the newspaper, or doing the crossword or sudoku, it happens a lot. Especially on the longer legs. Really, I feel it's a safety issue, and not the same way the company feels it is. Think about it! If you follow company policy to a T and do nothing, you'll be bored out of your skull! Actually, some companies say that you can read, but only company related material. Holy crap is that ever a steamer! Ever page through a copy of an airline procedures manual? I tell you, you can be wide awake when you start and be fast asleep in 10 minutes! I'm all for doing things that will help keep you awake and alert. But, it's important to not have both pilots buried in reading at the same time. It's like anything else. Just use common sense. Of course, if a company was to have this be their official policy, they would likely be hung out to dry by the FAA and the media.

Now this airbus has dominated the news lately. Many people haven't even heard about the Delta 767 that landed on a taxiway in Atlanta rather than on a runway. I'm guessing now, but this Delta crew is likely quite happy that the Northwest guys stole the media show away from them. After all, every now and then, some general aviation aircraft lands or takes off from a taxiway somewhere in the country and airline pilots usually rake him/her over the coals about it. After all, taxiways are narrow, have blue lights on the sides, green lights in the center, and a solid yellow line to follow. Runways are quite different.

Now, it can be said this flight was touching down around 6am. Just based on circadian rhythms, I'm sure most crews wouldn't be on their best game at this hour having flown from Rio de Janeiro overnight. I really don't have any other info on the incident as the media has dropped this event in favor of the Northwest Airbus. Why? Not sure. Maybe they feel there is more of a story to uncover. The Delta flight just landed on a taxiway. Case closed as far as they are concerned.

However, we shouldn't turn out heads away from how serious that could have been. Landing any aircraft on what is effectively an "aircraft road" could have had catastrophic results, let alone a wide body airliner. Thankfully no other aircraft were on that taxiway at the time. Then again, we could say that if the taxiway DID have planes on it, maybe the Delta crew would have seen the lights of those aircraft and initiated a go-around. Who knows? It's all speculation. Why wasn't the crew paying attention to the localizer needle which would have alerted them that they were not lined up with the runway. Maybe the LOC was out of service that day? I don't know. Again, this story has been dropped by the media so there isn't much out there besides the pilots have been placed on leave pending investigation. A quick look at the FAA database just now shows that the ILS for runway 9L in ATL is indeed currently out of service. If that is the runway this crew was going for, then they wouldn't have had a LOC frequency to back up the approach, but they still should have had something to back then up, be it a VOR or GPS approach. Also, the runway approach lights, the rabbit, the touchdown zone lights, all of that should have been clearly visible. I don't currently see any NOTAMs showing any runway approach lighting being out of service at ATL.

Again, this is all just poking around trying to come up with any explanation I can. I don't want to see fellow pilots get drilled by the media, get fired or even screw up in the first place. Now, no one doubts the experience levels of these crews. After all, these were mainline pilots with tens of thousands of hours of experience. If nothing else, these two events should serve as a little reminder that we are all susceptible to error. It's not just the regional pilots that make the screw ups. Even with 20,000 hours in the logbook, a pilot is always at risk of making an error. That's just human nature. All of us make errors of all kinds everyday. Even in the flightdeck, errors happen. Most of the errors are small and caught right away. Sometimes though, well... You make the news. Rarely a good thing in this business.