AA Crew involved in JFK near miss refuses to talk to NTSB

[rookiepilot]

Stop making stuff up.

Nobody here is saying that event was 'nothing' or that there's 'nothing to see here'.

You started a topic specifically about the crew refusing to talk to the NTSB because they would be recorded.

*that* is not illogical or unexpected.

What was said here after the AC SFO incident? I'm assuming its the same view. And silence...says a lot, too.

I will not defend this crew. I'm sure they feel horrible, but It's too serious for that.

[pelmet]

If the N.T.S.B. is truly interested in treating this incident as a safety matter, then, the N.T.S.B. must give the crew full immunity.

If the N.T.S.B. will not give them full immunity, it must be treated as an investigation that can possibly lead to charges. The crew is to be commended for not saying anything.

Do they have the authority for this....likely not. But I believe there is some sort of an immunity already in legislation that NTSB info cannot be used against them.

And lets face it....if you were confident that you did not screw up, you would want the recordings and transcripts out there to prove any naysayers wrong.

Obstruction of investigation procedure.

[digits_]

If the N.T.S.B. is truly interested in treating this incident as a safety matter, then, the N.T.S.B. must give the crew full immunity.

If the N.T.S.B. will not give them full immunity, it must be treated as an investigation that can possibly lead to charges. The crew is to be commended for not saying anything.

Do they have the authority for this....likely not. But I believe there is some sort of an immunity already in legislation that NTSB info cannot be used against them.

And lets face it....if you were confident that you did not screw up, you would want the recordings and transcripts out there to prove any naysayers wrong.

Obstruction of investigation procedure.

If you get recorded in a high profile case, it's very likely you will at some point be misquoted out of context.

In order to obstruct an investigation, the request from the investigator has to be relevant. I fail to see what the NTSB hopes to accomplish with a recording.

[rookiepilot]

If the N.T.S.B. is truly interested in treating this incident as a safety matter, then, the N.T.S.B. must give the crew full immunity.

If the N.T.S.B. will not give them full immunity, it must be treated as an investigation that can possibly lead to charges. The crew is to be commended for not saying anything.

Do they have the authority for this....likely not. But I believe there is some sort of an immunity already in legislation that NTSB info cannot be used against them.

And lets face it....if you were confident that you did not screw up, you would want the recordings and transcripts out there to prove any naysayers wrong.

Obstruction of investigation procedure.

If you get recorded in a high profile case, it's very likely you will at some point be misquoted out of context.

In order to obstruct an investigation, the request from the investigator has to be relevant. I fail to see what the NTSB hopes to accomplish with a recording.

They have been subpoenaed.

Do you think they should ignore the subpoena, Digits?

[PostmasterGeneral]

Do they have the authority for this....likely not. But I believe there is some sort of an immunity already in legislation that NTSB info cannot be used against them.

And lets face it....if you were confident that you did not screw up, you would want the recordings and transcripts out there to prove any naysayers wrong.

Obstruction of investigation procedure.

If you get recorded in a high profile case, it's very likely you will at some point be misquoted out of context.

In order to obstruct an investigation, the request from the investigator has to be relevant. I fail to see what the NTSB hopes to accomplish with a recording.

They have been subpoenaed.

Do you think they should ignore the subpoena, Digits?

Why do you care so much if the crew says anything? It doesn’t affect you. Let it go, man.

[rigpiggy]

Subpoena...... On advice of council, I will remain silent.

[digits_]

Do they have the authority for this....likely not. But I believe there is some sort of an immunity already in legislation that NTSB info cannot be used against them.

And lets face it....if you were confident that you did not screw up, you would want the recordings and transcripts out there to prove any naysayers wrong.

Obstruction of investigation procedure.

If you get recorded in a high profile case, it's very likely you will at some point be misquoted out of context.

In order to obstruct an investigation, the request from the investigator has to be relevant. I fail to see what the NTSB hopes to accomplish with a recording.

They have been subpoenaed.

Do you think they should ignore the subpoena, Digits?

So it went from a safety investigation into legal proceedings. What kind of useful information do you think the NTSB will get from this?

They shouldn't ignore the subpoena. They'll show up with lawyers paid by their union. No spontaneous conversation. Everything filtered 4 times. With any luck they'll be reading prepared statements. A major victory for safety!

[digits_]

Subpoena...... On advice of council, I will remain silent.

Exactly. And we'll never know what really happened.

[Eric Janson]

Exactly. And we'll never know what really happened.

We know exactly what happened - the facts are clearly stated imho.

The investigation is to find out why it happened.

[pelmet]

If the N.T.S.B. is truly interested in treating this incident as a safety matter, then, the N.T.S.B. must give the crew full immunity.

If the N.T.S.B. will not give them full immunity, it must be treated as an investigation that can possibly lead to charges. The crew is to be commended for not saying anything.

Do they have the authority for this....likely not. But I believe there is some sort of an immunity already in legislation that NTSB info cannot be used against them.

And lets face it....if you were confident that you did not screw up, you would want the recordings and transcripts out there to prove any naysayers wrong.

Obstruction of investigation procedure.

If you get recorded in a high profile case, it's very likely you will at some point be misquoted out of context.

In order to obstruct an investigation, the request from the investigator has to be relevant. I fail to see what the NTSB hopes to accomplish with a recording.

I suspect that when it is recorded, an accurate transcript can be made. That actually prevents misquotes.

[Meatservo]

There is more than sufficient evidence in the form of recorded radio transmissions, clearances that were received and read back, video and ground-radar recordings of the aircraft's route across runways and taxiways, to determine whether a violation occurred and whether or not the commander of the aircraft is responsible. Sensationalizing the crew's placement of conditions on the manner in which their verbal statements are recorded is a red herring.

The authorities already know what happened and who is responsible. You all know what the Americans are like. When this hits the news, some parasite from row 17 in the Delta plane is going to claim he has a whiplash injury from the aborted takeoff, or their emotional-support octopus is suffering from mental anguish due to the delay, and an army of lawyers will be ready to take that to court and make the next ten years a living hell for the AA crew. Their statements will be a matter of public record and will be open to interpretation by laypeople, judges and lawyers with no knowledge of aviation.

I don't blame them one bit for heeding their union's advice to say as little as possible until the integrity and disposal of their recorded interviews can be guaranteed. Everybody already knows what happened. The safety of future arrivals and departures from this airport is as assured now as it will be after these pilots make their statements. The repercussions to their careers, whatever they may be, are already under way. Recorded statements can serve little purpose other than resurfacing in a big dog-and-pony show for some ambulance-chasing lowlives.

This is a tempest in a teapot.

[rookiepilot]

I’m guessing the NTSB has a very, very good reason to take this kind of step.

Unlike many it seems on this thread, the NTSB has a heck of a lot more cred with me than some airline crew that screwed up royally and then covered it up by “accidentally” erasing the CVR. They didn’t forget. You don’t forget to preserve data in that scenario.

More to this story, I’ll bet, that ain’t good. Thinking — who was high, or who was bombed?

Oh Rookie. That has NEVER happened in history.

I’m no airline pilot, but have flown into a number of US class B airports — never crossed a runway without a clearance. I don’t get defending them for one second.

Hang em high.

The bizarre part to me is those pissing on the WJ crew in YLW for handling a difficult emergency safely and well, and defending this AA crew.

[TG]

There is more than sufficient evidence in the form of recorded radio transmissions, clearances that were received and read back, video and ground-radar recordings of the aircraft's route across runways and taxiways, to determine whether a violation occurred and whether or not the commander of the aircraft is responsible. Sensationalizing the crew's placement of conditions on the manner in which their verbal statements are recorded is a red herring.

The authorities already know what happened and who is responsible. You all know what the Americans are like. When this hits the news, some parasite from row 17 in the Delta plane is going to claim he has a whiplash injury from the aborted takeoff, or their emotional-support octopus is suffering from mental anguish due to the delay, and an army of lawyers will be ready to take that to court and make the next ten years a living hell for the AA crew. Their statements will be a matter of public record and will be open to interpretation by laypeople, judges and lawyers with no knowledge of aviation.

I don't blame them one bit for heeding their union's advice to say as little as possible until the integrity and disposal of their recorded interviews can be guaranteed. Everybody already knows what happened. The safety of future arrivals and departures from this airport is as assured now as it will be after these pilots make their statements. The repercussions to their careers, whatever they may be, are already under way. Recorded statements can serve little purpose other than resurfacing in a big dog-and-pony show for some ambulance-chasing lowlives.

This is a tempest in a teapot.

I'm quoting you because that's pretty much sums it up and rookiepilot seems to have "missed it"

[rookiepilot]

There is more than sufficient evidence in the form of recorded radio transmissions, clearances that were received and read back, video and ground-radar recordings of the aircraft's route across runways and taxiways, to determine whether a violation occurred and whether or not the commander of the aircraft is responsible. Sensationalizing the crew's placement of conditions on the manner in which their verbal statements are recorded is a red herring.

The authorities already know what happened and who is responsible. You all know what the Americans are like. When this hits the news, some parasite from row 17 in the Delta plane is going to claim he has a whiplash injury from the aborted takeoff, or their emotional-support octopus is suffering from mental anguish due to the delay, and an army of lawyers will be ready to take that to court and make the next ten years a living hell for the AA crew. Their statements will be a matter of public record and will be open to interpretation by laypeople, judges and lawyers with no knowledge of aviation.

I don't blame them one bit for heeding their union's advice to say as little as possible until the integrity and disposal of their recorded interviews can be guaranteed. Everybody already knows what happened. The safety of future arrivals and departures from this airport is as assured now as it will be after these pilots make their statements. The repercussions to their careers, whatever they may be, are already under way. Recorded statements can serve little purpose other than resurfacing in a big dog-and-pony show for some ambulance-chasing lowlives.

This is a tempest in a teapot.

I'm quoting you because that's pretty much sums it up and rookiepilot seems to have "missed it"

Guilty as charged.

[pelmet]

I’m guessing the NTSB has a very, very good reason to take this kind of step.

Unlike many it seems on this thread, the NTSB has a heck of a lot more cred with me than some airline crew that screwed up royally and then covered it up by “accidentally” erasing the CVR. They didn’t forget. You don’t forget to preserve data in that scenario.

More to this story, I’ll bet, that ain’t good. Thinking — who was high, or who was bombed?

Oh Rookie. That has NEVER happened in history.

I’m no airline pilot, but have flown into a number of US class B airports — never crossed a runway without a clearance. I don’t get defending them for one second.

Hang em high.

The bizarre part to me is those pissing on the WJ crew in YLW for handling a difficult emergency safely and well, and defending this AA crew.

I doubt they erased it. It would record over during their flight.

But I think the manufacturer of the CVR may have techniques to retrieve it.

A TSB guy told me how this was done when a CVR was erased in an incident in Canada quite a few years ago.

[rookiepilot]

I’m guessing the NTSB has a very, very good reason to take this kind of step.

Unlike many it seems on this thread, the NTSB has a heck of a lot more cred with me than some airline crew that screwed up royally and then covered it up by “accidentally” erasing the CVR. They didn’t forget. You don’t forget to preserve data in that scenario.

More to this story, I’ll bet, that ain’t good. Thinking — who was high, or who was bombed?

Oh Rookie. That has NEVER happened in history.

I’m no airline pilot, but have flown into a number of US class B airports — never crossed a runway without a clearance. I don’t get defending them for one second.

Hang em high.

The bizarre part to me is those pissing on the WJ crew in YLW for handling a difficult emergency safely and well, and defending this AA crew.

I doubt they erased it. It would record over during their flight.

But I think the manufacturer of the CVR may have techniques to retrieve it.

A TSB guy told me how this was done when a CVR was erased in an incident in Canada quite a few years ago.

Why did they choose to take off?

[pelmet]

I’m guessing the NTSB has a very, very good reason to take this kind of step.

Unlike many it seems on this thread, the NTSB has a heck of a lot more cred with me than some airline crew that screwed up royally and then covered it up by “accidentally” erasing the CVR. They didn’t forget. You don’t forget to preserve data in that scenario.

More to this story, I’ll bet, that ain’t good. Thinking — who was high, or who was bombed?

Oh Rookie. That has NEVER happened in history.

I’m no airline pilot, but have flown into a number of US class B airports — never crossed a runway without a clearance. I don’t get defending them for one second.

Hang em high.

The bizarre part to me is those pissing on the WJ crew in YLW for handling a difficult emergency safely and well, and defending this AA crew.

I doubt they erased it. It would record over during their flight.

But I think the manufacturer of the CVR may have techniques to retrieve it.

A TSB guy told me how this was done when a CVR was erased in an incident in Canada quite a few years ago.

Why did they choose to take off?

The aircraft was perfectly serviceable. I suppose the crew felt fit to do the flight.

[bcflyer]

I’m guessing the NTSB has a very, very good reason to take this kind of step.

Unlike many it seems on this thread, the NTSB has a heck of a lot more cred with me than some airline crew that screwed up royally and then covered it up by “accidentally” erasing the CVR. They didn’t forget. You don’t forget to preserve data in that scenario.

More to this story, I’ll bet, that ain’t good. Thinking — who was high, or who was bombed?

Oh Rookie. That has NEVER happened in history.

I’m no airline pilot, but have flown into a number of US class B airports — never crossed a runway without a clearance. I don’t get defending them for one second.

Hang em high.

The bizarre part to me is those pissing on the WJ crew in YLW for handling a difficult emergency safely and well, and defending this AA crew.

I doubt they erased it. It would record over during their flight.

But I think the manufacturer of the CVR may have techniques to retrieve it.

A TSB guy told me how this was done when a CVR was erased in an incident in Canada quite a few years ago.

Why did they choose to take off?

What would you have done?

[rookiepilot]

I doubt they erased it. It would record over during their flight.

But I think the manufacturer of the CVR may have techniques to retrieve it.

A TSB guy told me how this was done when a CVR was erased in an incident in Canada quite a few years ago.

Why did they choose to take off?

What would you have done?

I call it as I see it here. Actions have consequences. Mistakes are ok. Not good, but they happen. Attempts to cover up an incident or obstruct an investigation are beneath any pilot.

We saw this with the AC near miss in SFO. My view was the same. Recording over a CVR is obstruction.

I take seriously the responsibility to own it voluntarily when I do something wrong. Not cover it up. This is how I have lived my life. Don’t prostitute my values for a job.

As far as I’m concerned, one doesn’t belong in any cockpit without that same attitude.

Last word on this topic. Its clear to me from this thread, some airline pilots are no better than the rest of this world that refuses to be transparently accountable for their actions.

[digits_]

Why did they choose to take off?

What would you have done?

I call it as I see it here. Actions have consequences. Mistakes are ok. Not good, but they happen. Attempts to cover up an incident or obstruct an investigation are beneath any pilot.

We saw this with the AC near miss in SFO. My view was the same. Recording over a CVR is obstruction.

I take seriously the responsibility to own it voluntarily when I do something wrong. Not cover it up. This is how I have lived my life. Don’t prostitute my values for a job.

As far as I’m concerned, one doesn’t belong in any cockpit without that same attitude.

Last word on this topic. Its clear to me from this thread, some airline pilots are no better than the rest of this world that refuses to be transparently accountable for their actions.

You might be calling it like you see it, but you didn't answer the question.

I am sure that if they were to pull the cvr breaker to preserve the recording that you would claim they were trying to cover up something else.

[Little Star]

The AA crew must comply with the subpoena and testify before NTSB. However, they can remain silent as they are protected against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

[rookiepilot]

The AA crew must comply with the subpoena and testify before NTSB. However, they can remain silent as they are protected against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

That is their right.

As a fellow pilot, an amateur pilot, am I expected to admire, endorse and support this as exemplary conduct of a professional?

[cdnavater]

The AA crew must comply with the subpoena and testify before NTSB. However, they can remain silent as they are protected against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

That is their right.

As a fellow pilot, an amateur pilot, am I expected to admire, endorse and support this as exemplary conduct of a professional?

As a Canadian, if you faced the kind of lawsuits that the US system allows, the kind where if someone burns themself with hot coffee can get millions because they were not warned the coffee is hot, would you give complete testimony, on record?
If you answer yes, you’re a liar, no one in their right mind would do it without some type of guarantee they could not be prosecuted.
In the interest of aviation safety, any and all testimony regarding an incident should be protected and until that happens, people will clam up.
I guarantee if I @#$! up, I will follow the advice of my lawyer because of the firing squad, I’m talking about you rookie!

[Chaxterium]

As a Canadian, if you faced the kind of lawsuits that the US system allows, the kind where if someone burns themself with hot coffee can get millions because they were not warned the coffee is hot,

Yes we all know the US is incredibly litigious but you may not want to use this lawsuit as an example of frivolous lawsuits. This one was legit. The coffee was so hot she needed a skin graft.

The plaintiff, Stella Liebeck (1912–2004),a 79-year-old woman, suffered third-degree burns in her pelvic region when she accidentally spilled coffee in her lap after purchasing it from a McDonald's restaurant. She was hospitalized for eight days while undergoing skin grafting, followed by two years of medical treatment. Liebeck sought to settle with McDonald's for $20,000 to cover her medical expenses. When McDonald's refused, Liebeck's attorney filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, accusing McDonald's of gross negligence.

[digits_]

As a Canadian, if you faced the kind of lawsuits that the US system allows, the kind where if someone burns themself with hot coffee can get millions because they were not warned the coffee is hot,

Yes we all know the US is incredibly litigious but you may not want to use this lawsuit as an example of frivolous lawsuits. This one was legit. The coffee was so hot she needed a skin graft.

The plaintiff, Stella Liebeck (1912–2004),a 79-year-old woman, suffered third-degree burns in her pelvic region when she accidentally spilled coffee in her lap after purchasing it from a McDonald's restaurant. She was hospitalized for eight days while undergoing skin grafting, followed by two years of medical treatment. Liebeck sought to settle with McDonald's for $20,000 to cover her medical expenses. When McDonald's refused, Liebeck's attorney filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, accusing McDonald's of gross negligence.

Yup. And the original amount was actually pretty low in comparison to medical costs in the US. It's when lawyers got involved that the amounts exploded to ridiculous levels.

A lot of the 'crazy ridiculous' lawsuit verdicts you read about become much more reasonable when you get the full story.