Complacency in the cockpit

[Flying Nutcracker]

What constitutes trashing??? Calling someone a "flirter"? I think jumping to conclusions about a dead peer's actions before knowing all the facts (read as pilot error) also constitutes trashing.

I f****d up 3 times the last month, but I am around to acknowledge the fact that I did. The only defense for people not with us anymore is within a few black boxes and the NTSB. Let them do their job.

At least that is my opinion and I stand by it!

[pelmet]

[quote="YHZChick"]Please point me in the direction of where flirting has been identified as a contributing factor in an aviation accident.[/quote]
I believe American Eagle Flt 4184 back in 1994 would be one example.[/quote]

Wrong.

[BTD]

Please point me in the direction of where flirting has been identified as a contributing factor in an aviation accident.

I believe American Eagle Flt 4184 back in 1994 would be one example.

http://www.airdisaster.com/reports/ntsb/AAR96-01.pdf

3.2 Probable Cause
The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the
probable causes of this accident were the loss of control, attributed to a sudden
and unexpected aileron hinge moment reversal that occurred after a ridge of ice
accreted beyond the deice boots because: 1) ATR failed to completely disclose to
operators, and incorporate in the ATR 72 airplane flight manual, flightcrew
operating manual and flightcrew training programs, adequate information
concerning previously known effects of freezing precipitation on the stability and
control characteristics, autopilot and related operational procedures when the ATR
72 was operated in such conditions; 2) the French Directorate General for Civil
Aviation’s (DGAC’s) inadequate oversight of the ATR 42 and 72, and its failure
to take the necessary corrective action to ensure continued airworthiness in icing
conditions; and 3) the DGAC’s failure to provide the FAA with timely
airworthiness information developed from previous ATR incidents and accidents
in icing conditions, as specified under the Bilateral Airworthiness Agreement and
Annex 8 of the International Civil Aviation Organization.

Contributing to the accident were: 1) the Federal Aviation
Administration’s (FAA’s) failure to ensure that aircraft icing certification
requirements, operational requirements for flight into icing conditions, and FAA
published aircraft icing information adequately accounted for the hazards that can
result from flight in freezing rain and other icing conditions not specified in 14
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 25, Appendix C; and 2) the FAA’s
inadequate oversight of the ATR 42 and 72 to ensure continued airworthiness in
icing conditions.

Part of the Analysis:

39. The captain's departure from the cockpit to use the rest room while the
airplane was in the holding pattern was neither prohibited by Federal
regulations nor inconsistent with Simmons Airlines/AMR Eagle
policies and procedures and did not contribute to the accident.

BTD

[Rockie]

Widow

I have great respect for what you have accomplished in educating yourself on aviation safety issues and for being a terrific advocate for same, but you need to rethink this flirting issue. There is zero...repeat zero evidence of anything but normal human interaction between two professional (albiet inexperienced) aircrew on that CVR. The dialogue that took place that night in the cockpit is no different than any of us have had 1000 times with our male colleagues while flying. The "sterile" cockpit theory is a dead end too because the level of conversation below 10,000 feet and the subject matter was also not unusual and in my opinion could not have contributed to this crash. Read the transcript, spend some time in an actual flightdeck and you will no doubt agree with me.

On a broader scale, I like to know what kind of person I'm flying with and will often discuss a wide variety of subjects with them. This gives me insight into their character, professionalism and state of mind as the flight progresses which are all important from a flight safety standpoint in a crew concept airplane. How is that any different than flirting as far as diverting my attention away from flying? We are not machines. We have to interact with each other as a crew and the better we are at doing that the safer a flight will be.

I am not so vocal against this flirting suggestion because it is not "PC", I am against it because there is not a shred of evidence of it on the entire CVR tape which recorded every single thing they said. As I said earlier, that makes any suggestion that they were flirting salacious bullshit which is not only hurtful to a dead man's family, but diverts attention away from the real cause of the crash.

[TTJJ]

I am really disappointed at the direction of this thread. For two big reasons,
1 the Captain Martin Renslow is dead people as is the First Officer Rebecca Shaw. As professionals do you have no respect.
2 Have any of you people actually flown in an airliner cockpit with a member of the opposite sex. I have flown with several very attractive females, both Captains and F/O's. For sh+ts sake when your on the job your on the job. I am especially disappointed at the attitude of a moderator who to my knowledge does not Captain an airliner but was until now I thought a very serious advocate for safety. The attitude of trashing DEAD colleagues is I had hoped below the level we would stoop too on this forum.

Widow
...There is zero...repeat zero evidence of anything but normal human interaction between two professional (albiet inexperienced) aircrew on that CVR. The dialogue that took place that night in the cockpit is no different than any of us have had 1000 times with our male colleagues while flying. The "sterile" cockpit theory is a dead end too because the level of conversation below 10,000 feet and the subject matter was also not unusual and in my opinion could not have contributed to this crash. Read the transcript, spend some time in an actual flightdeck and you will no doubt agree with me.

I am not so vocal against this flirting suggestion because it is not "PC", I am against it because there is not a shred of evidence of it on the entire CVR tape which recorded every single thing they said. As I said earlier, that makes any suggestion that they were flirting salacious bullshit which is not only hurtful to a dead man's family, but diverts attention away from the real cause of the crash.

Hear, hear!

The crude innuendo of improper behavior by the Captain towards his female F/O, as proffered by said Moderator, is quite unbecoming. It is unsubstantiated by anything in the official transcripts of the investigation.

[armchair]

.

[Widow]

You guys really need to learn to read. I originally chimed in because there was a call for a mod to delete posts or split the thread and followed up because there was an assumption that I was supporting the "accusation". I said:

I meant no disrespect to any of the crew members, nor was I supporting the accusation. I have not heard the recording. I was merely making the point that the discussion was relevant to the topic, and therefore fair game.

and explained why I thought "flirting" was germane to complacency and a sterile cockpit.

Please show me where I suggested that it was, in fact, the case in this "latest"' accident.

As for FLT 4184, would you really expect it to be noted in the official report? The CVR tapes that came out at trial would indicate flirting took precedence over flying.

. The 29-year-old pilot was out of the cockpit on a five-minute bathroom break, socializing with the flight attendants while the 30-year-old co-pilot tried to warn him about the ice build-up, they would argue.

"Gettin' busy with the ladies back here . . . so if I don't make it up there within the next, say, 15-20 minutes, you know why," the recorder captured the pilot telling the co-pilot over the intercom.

http://www.cliffordlaw.com/news/attorne ... lement-fly

[BTD]

The CVR tapes that came out at trial would indicate flirting took precedence over flying.

Quote:
. The 29-year-old pilot was out of the cockpit on a five-minute bathroom break, socializing with the flight attendants while the 30-year-old co-pilot tried to warn him about the ice build-up, they would argue.

"Gettin' busy with the ladies back here . . . so if I don't make it up there within the next, say, 15-20 minutes, you know why," the recorder captured the pilot telling the co-pilot over the intercom.

My comments below only relate to American Eagle, not Colgan.

The above comments are listed in the CVR transcript that is part of the appendix to the official report.

As for FLT 4184, would you really expect it to be noted in the official report?

36. Neither the flight attendant's presence in the cockpit nor the
flightcrew's conversations with her contributed to the accident.
However, a sterile cockpit environment would probably have reduced
flightcrew distractions and could have promoted an appropriate level of
flightcrew awareness for the conditions in which the airplane was
being operated.

Yes, I would expect the official report to add in any contributing factors such as flirting if they were relevant.

The captain had been back in the flight deck for about 4 min prior to the onset of the event and about 5 min prior to the accident. The Captain did not contravene any rules or regulations by leaving the flight deck when he did, and the F/O was more than capable of handling the aircraft. I don't deny that it sounds like the captain was flirting, just that in this case it had nothing to do with the accident as stated by the official report.

As per the report it was a poor decision to hold in icing conditions. They did not initially use the full amount of icing protection they had available, although they did eventually get it all going.

The aircraft crashed due to a design deficiency in the icing system on the ATR. A lot of what we now know about SLDs and roll upset is a direct result of this accident. Info this crew obviously couldn't have had knowledge about.

Anyways, back to Colgan.

BTD

[Dagwood]

I went back and read the entire transcript. It is true that there is no direct or implied improprieties between the Capt and the FO. However, and that's a big however, there is a lot of excessive and irrelevant ramblings directed from HOT-1 to HOT-2 (Capt to FO), with one word responses from HOT-2 and the occasional laughter (giggle?). The whole upgrade discussion goes on and on, and many other irrelevant stories from Capt to FO. So take it for what it is, the Captain was probably not "flirting" with the crude intentions discussed earlier, but he was certainly paying a heck of a lot more attention to his co-pilot than to the progress of the flight.

Just to put numbers to this statement. (from the CVR transcript)
- Number of times the Captain and First Officer spoke within the flight deck: 216
- Number of words the Captain spoke within the flight deck: 3864
- Number of words the First Officer spoke within the flight deck: 1865

Take it for what it's worth, but the Captain was talking more than twice as much as his First Officer.

I don't deny that it sounds like the captain was flirting, just that in this case it had nothing to do with the accident as stated by the official report.

Maybe not, but no guy would deny that a pretty first officer may be a distraction to flying.

The Captains of both these instances were obviously not thinking about flying first.

[YHZChick]

I went back and read the entire transcript. It is true that there is no direct or implied improprieties between the Capt and the FO. However, and that's a big however, there is a lot of excessive and irrelevant ramblings directed from HOT-1 to HOT-2 (Capt to FO), with one word responses from HOT-2 and the occasional laughter (giggle?). The whole upgrade discussion goes on and on, and many other irrelevant stories from Capt to FO. So take it for what it is, the Captain was probably not "flirting" with the crude intentions discussed earlier, but he was certainly paying a heck of a lot more attention to his co-pilot than to the progress of the flight.

Just to put numbers to this statement. (from the CVR transcript)
- Number of times the Captain and First Officer spoke within the flight deck: 216
- Number of words the Captain spoke within the flight deck: 3864
- Number of words the First Officer spoke within the flight deck: 1865

Take it for what it's worth, but the Captain was talking more than twice as much as his First Officer.

I don't deny that it sounds like the captain was flirting, just that in this case it had nothing to do with the accident as stated by the official report.

Maybe not, but no guy would deny that a pretty first officer may be a distraction to flying.

The Captains of both these instances were obviously not thinking about flying first.

When things started to sideways, how much chit chat was going on then??? Do you see anything in the CVR that indicates that either pilot was not focused on trying to fly that bird?

I find it rather interesting that you are all jumping up and down about sterile cockpit rules with Colgan, yet none of you are talking about TK 1951, where you cannot argue that the lack of focus on flying the bird, and the Captain and F/O's delayed reaction to warnings, was a major contributing factor. But of course, none of the pilots on that flight deck were female, therefore you can't blame flirting and sex appeal on that one, so, as Lisa Raitt would say, it's not nearly as "sexy", despite the fact almost twice as many lives were lost.

I've yet to speak to a commercial pilot who didn't find a jumpseater more distracting than a female.

[loopa]

Interesting how this topic went from no participants to having 33 replies.

Are we pilot's really that sensitive about female co workers

[BTD]

I don't deny that it sounds like the captain was flirting, just that in this case it had nothing to do with the accident as stated by the official report.

Maybe not, but no guy would deny that a pretty first officer may be a distraction to flying.

The Captains of both these instances were obviously not thinking about flying first.

Again my comments relate to the American Eagle accident.

I won't keep quoting the accident report, but aside from an initial comment by the captain while taking his seat, the entire cockpit conversation from the time he took his seat until the end of the recording relate to the flight/operational concerns.

[petpad]

I think we are starting to narrow this down quite well. Distraction. Indeed YHZChick, there are certainly other instances of distractions involving all male or all female crews. This does not take away that Capt Renslow was most likely - and evidenced by his never-ending chatter - distracted by FO Shaw; but you have a valid point, only this occurrence is more public, more visible, so not much we can do about that. On the transcript, Dagwood and Armchair are quite correct that the discussion seems one-sided, and widow is also correct that overall it must be looked into. So I would cut some slack on widow folks, she too has a point.

Rockie you are taking this a bit personnally but I must argue against your protest that this is nonsense bullshit. I agree that they should focus to find the real cause of this acident, but distraction seems to be a real strong contributing factor in the reaction to the emergency. I believe by the time the emergency was in progress, that the Captain was in total utter shock because his mind was completely elsewhere. He was so far behind the aircraft that he probably couldn't catch the proverbial tail pipe with a 20 foot pole.

The real culprit in all of this is the operator, and ultimately, the FAA. From a SMS perspective, this accident will live on forever in SOPs and cockpit procedures.

[Rockie]

Given that flirting was not an issue with this accident it's hard to believe we're still talking about it. However in the interest of preventing sexual attraction from ever being a distraction I propose the following:

1. Straight male captains can only fly with other straight male FO's or gay female FO's.
2. Straight male FO's may only fly with straight male Captains or gay female Captains.
3. Gay male Captains may only fly with gay or straight female FO's.
4. Gay male FO's may only fly with straight or gay female Captains.
5. Gay female Captains may only fly with straight or gay male FO's.
6. Gay female FO's may only fly with straight or gay male Captains.
7. Straight female Captains may only fly with straight female or gay male FO's
8. Straight female FO's may only fly with straight female or gay male Captains.
9. Bisexual male or female Captains or FO's may not fly with anybody.

There...that should fix it.

[Widow]

Isn't the point that any kind of distraction can make it difficult to refocus attention when things get critical? Isn't that why "sterile cockpit" rules came about to begin with?

Perhaps this is salient:

Former United Airlines pilot Frederick Dubinksy, who lives in Hunting Valley, said the focus on why Renslow didn't follow stall procedure, and whether the crew violated a "sterile cockpit" rule requiring only essential talk below 10,000 feet, misses a bigger issue: why the crew didn't notice the air speed was slipping dangerously low in the first place.

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index ... escri.html

[TTJJ]

This is a very unusual response from me, but it is either write this or have a stroke:

You guys really need to learn to read.

I assure you Madam that I am fully able to read, as are my esteemed colleagues on this site. We are also able to draw conclusions and emit considered opinions based on our professional experience in Aviation.

I personally am quite conversant in most aspects of Aviation except floats and Northern flying, having chosen this as a career some 30 years ago. I suspect that these same colleagues are able to read and are considered somewhat experts in their fields as well. What exactly is your area of expertise?

There are a great many of us, Moderators included, who are trying to pass along some of that experience to the newbies on this site in a positive manner.We do not hide nor deny the bad parts of our industry, but we also do not trash our industry, its People and Systems at every possible opportunity. I cannot say the same about you.

What started as a welcome effort at improving safety on your part has degraded into one big negative: The pilots were wrong in these two accidents, SAR efforts in the Air France accident were wrong, TC is always wrong, ELTs are wrong as is, not acting on ACARS is wrong… everything is wrong. We are all wrong. How is that?

A Moderator on the PREMIER Aviation Site in Canada? Madam, your posts drip ignorance of our Industry. I submit that you know so little about Aviation that you are incapable of understanding just how little you know.

Implying and then defending the idea of impropriety in these cockpits was the last straw.

No matter what you may have done before Madam, lately you have shown yourself on this site as being no friend of Aviation and I shall consider you as such.

Therefore Madam Moderator, in the interests of the newbies or worse “outsiders” who may take the word of a Moderator at more than just its face value, and until I am convinced of your credentials and positive interest in Aviation, I am unable to give credence to, and I will continue to consider as pure unadulterated drivel, anything you post.

[YHZChick]

I think we are starting to narrow this down quite well. Distraction. Indeed YHZChick, there are certainly other instances of distractions involving all male or all female crews. This does not take away that Capt Renslow was most likely - and evidenced by his never-ending chatter - distracted by FO Shaw; but you have a valid point, only this occurrence is more public, more visible, so not much we can do about that. On the transcript, Dagwood and Armchair are quite correct that the discussion seems one-sided, and widow is also correct that overall it must be looked into. So I would cut some slack on widow folks, she too has a point.

Rockie you are taking this a bit personnally but I must argue against your protest that this is nonsense bullshit. I agree that they should focus to find the real cause of this acident, but distraction seems to be a real strong contributing factor in the reaction to the emergency. I believe by the time the emergency was in progress, that the Captain was in total utter shock because his mind was completely elsewhere. He was so far behind the aircraft that he probably couldn't catch the proverbial tail pipe with a 20 foot pole. Meanwhile FO Shaw was just talking about hoo haa how she would freak and crash would she have to deal with all that ice.. hoo haa.. That was FO "What's a chip light" Shaw, I have contacts with Alaska.

The real culprit in all of this is the operator, and ultimately, the FAA. From a SMS perspective, this accident will live on forever in SOPs and cockpit procedures.

There is no evidence whatsoever that Capt Renslow was distracted by F/O Shaw. None at all.

Again, I ask you to go through the CVR, and show me where, when things started to go sideways, that either of them were discussing anything other than the task at hand.

Anyone who's been on the flight deck of a commercial aircraft will tell you that it is perfectly common and normal to engage in chit chat with your co-pilot, or to find one of them doing the crossword, sudoku, or even having a nap. That doesn't make it unsafe.

I'm rather disgusted by the suggestion by so called "professional" pilots that their colleague was more focused on his F/O than his professional obligations when there is ZERO evidence to support that assertion. (I might understand such drivel coming from those here who have never been near a flight deck, though even in that case, I'm inclined to think they should keep their comments to those things which they are familiar with).

[Sidebar]

Free speech, gotta love it! Anyone can spout off almost anything they feel like saying, and the rest of us are free to ignore it.

[Widow]

Holy crap TTJJ, take a chill pill. Some folks attacked me for claiming that “flirting” was a contributing cause in the Colgan crash, when I never said any such thing – hence the “learn to read” statement. I did say the discussion was relevant, and it appears that some here, who I know have relevant experience, agree with me.

Rather than slamming me, why not explain why distraction in the cockpit is not relevant?

I make every effort not to claim things are “wrong”, but rather attempt to point out that perhaps things can be learned from. I ask questions, in an effort to gain understanding. You, and some others, have read things into my posts which simply are not there.

As I said in the AF 447 thread, if you have a problem with me, please feel free to start a new thread or take it up with admin.

[Dagwood]

Again, I ask you to go through the CVR, and show me where, when things started to go sideways, that either of them were discussing anything other than the task at hand.

From initial stick shaker to end of recording is a mere 26.7 seconds. Obviously no time for chit-chat there.

If they were alert, you would hear on the CVR "Check Speed" or "Oops, looks like I need to speed up" or something.
Instead you hear the Captain replying "Rock and Roll" and "alright let's see if I can get this seat...siteated...that's alright there. still trying to find that sweet spot I guess there" only 2.5 mins before impact.

No one flying the plane.

[YHZChick]

Holy crap TTJJ, take a chill pill. Some folks attacked me for claiming that “flirting” was a contributing cause in the Colgan crash, when I never said any such thing – hence the “learn to read” statement. I did say the discussion was relevant, and it appears that some here, who I know have relevant experience, agree with me.

Rather than slamming me, why not explain why distraction in the cockpit is not relevant?

I make every effort not to claim things are “wrong”, but rather attempt to point out that perhaps things can be learned from. I ask questions, in an effort to gain understanding. You, and some others, have read things into my posts which simply are not there.

As I said in the AF 447 thread, if you have a problem with me, please feel free to start a new thread or take it up with admin.

How is the discussion of "flirting" in the cockpit relavant, when there was no flirting in the cockpit?

If one wants to make it a discussion about sterile cockpits, fair enough--they should start with TK 1951 and have a good look at how 3 very experienced pilots could ignore warning signals and let that plane crash. Some of us object to the suggestion that there was flirting going on, and that that flirting created a cockpit environment which conrtibuted to this accident. The implication than becomes "if the F/O was male" or "If the Captain wasn't htinking with his little head or ego" this wouldn't have happened. Neither is even remotely supported by the CVR, and neither is fair to 2 DEAD pilots.

Any of us even remotely familiar with commercial cockpits knows that this sort of idle chit chat happens in hundreds of cockpits, nay thousands, across the world every single day. There is NOTHING unique about the discussion between Capt Renslow and F/O Shaw.

[YHZChick]

Again, I ask you to go through the CVR, and show me where, when things started to go sideways, that either of them were discussing anything other than the task at hand.

From initial stick shaker to end of recording is a mere 26.7 seconds. Obviously no time for chit-chat there.

If they were alert, you would hear on the CVR "Check Speed" or "Oops, looks like I need to speed up" or something.
Instead you hear the Captain replying "Rock and Roll" and "alright let's see if I can get this seat...siteated...that's alright there. still trying to find that sweet spot I guess there" only 2.5 mins before impact.

No one flying the plane.

I've never once denied that serious mistakes were made. Not once. I've been following this accident and investigation since the day it happened. I am saying that when the pilots became AWARE of a problem (stick shaker), they were focused on it, rather than each other, and they responded incorrectly. Had they reacted differently to stick shaker, we probably wouldn't be privy to their conversation right now, because everyone would have been alive. I also questioned whether Capt Renslow should have been a Captain in the first place.

[Dagwood]

It may be worthy to note that an aviation accident is never the result of a single event.

Take Eastern Air Lines Flight 401 for example. Links in the chain that lead to the accident include:
Lack of CRM
Night
Autopilot disconnects without warning
Poor decision making (crew could have manually extended gear)
Finally, the burned out light bulb that caused it all.

The light bulb caused the crew to be distracted and they failed to fly the aircraft.

Distractions come in a wide variety:
Light bulb
Weather
Instrument malfunctions
What you had (or are going to have) for dinner
Problems at home
Sick pax
Schedule
Finally, the other sex

To say the Colgan Air crash was caused totally by the Captain's interest in the First Officer is ludicrous. However, it may be one link in the chain that contributed to the accident; the others being weather, low time on type, fatigue ect.

[Rockie]

Pilot distraction? Maybe.
Inexperience? Most probably
Insufficient knowledge? Again, probably
Flirting? Not according to the CVR.

What I find disturbing is that a couple of magazine articles raised the sordid possibility that just because there happened to be a pretty female in the flightdeck that the neanderthal man sitting beside her coulda, maybe, mighta been flirting thus causing the accident. What's more disturbing is that in the face of clear, unambiguous evidence refuting that theory there isn't a sound denouncement of the giant load of crap that it is by the aviation professionals on this site. Instead the accusation by implication is being kept alive by this dead man's peers. What is the matter with you people?

This isn't a worthwhile discussion about distraction or complacency. It's tabloid worthy gossiping. I hope I never have the misfortune of crashing beside a female FO, or worse, a gay male FO. You guys will shred me alive.

[YHZChick]

Pilot distraction? Maybe.
Inexperience? Most probably
Insufficient knowledge? Again, probably
Flirting? Not according to the CVR.

What I find disturbing is that a couple of magazine articles raised the sordid possibility that just because there happened to be a pretty female in the flightdeck that the neanderthal man sitting beside her coulda, maybe, mighta been flirting thus causing the accident. What's more disturbing is that in the face of clear, unambiguous evidence refuting that theory there isn't a sound denouncement of the giant load of crap that it is by the aviation professionals on this site. Instead the accusation by implication is being kept alive by this dead man's peers. What is the matter with you people?

This isn't a worthwhile discussion about distraction or complacency. It's tabloid worthy gossiping. I hope I never have the misfortune of crashing beside a female FO, or worse, a gay male FO. You guys will shred me alive.

If no one knew the gender of F/O Shaw, the word flirting would have never been raised.