SA 777 Stall on Departure?
11-23-2020, 03:25 PM
#51
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,349
Originally Posted by rickair7777
Slight caution on that... I worked at an airline which had a few low-speed events, and after the memos didn't make it stop the FAA got torqued and decided to exclude some such events from ASAP and start making examples. It turned into you were pretty much getting fired the first time if it was something which monitoring *should* have caught. Exceptions for dynamic events (wave, sudden turbulence, etc). But mismanagement or not paying attention would probably get you fired... on the first offense.
11-23-2020, 03:27 PM
#52
In a land of unicorns
Joined APC: Apr 2014
Position: Whale FO
Posts: 6,469
Originally Posted by Elevation
I missed this. Is there more to the story about SMS administration here?
11-23-2020, 03:58 PM
#53
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2017
Posts: 2,099
Originally Posted by dera
This is what happens when one member of the ERC is not a union member, but a paid company associate.
Being “represented” by an entity that is funded by management is a conflict of interest. So it doesn’t surprise me that this happened to them. Sad really.
11-23-2020, 05:01 PM
#54
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,622
Originally Posted by navigatro
I would not give too much credit to Flightaware climb rates. It seems that 3500+ FPM climb rate is a bit high for a heavy 777 at 240 knots or so.
Originally Posted by sailingfun
Not a chance a heavily loaded 777 was doing anything close to 3500 FPM during the flap retraction sequence. 1000 FPM maybe, not much more, probably less.
Originally Posted by Diesel8
There is more to this story than anyone knows. You would have to be a fly on the wall to really know what happened.
There was minimal loss of altitude, and no unusual attitudes. This was just an "oops" moment that can happen to anyone. Live and learn.
There was minimal loss of altitude, and no unusual attitudes. This was just an "oops" moment that can happen to anyone. Live and learn.
According to ADS-B data they lost 950 feet. At 4000ft above the ground, losing roughly 1000ft is significant.
11-23-2020, 06:38 PM
#55
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,091
Originally Posted by FXLAX
Also keep in mind, that only non-sole source ASAP reports could have potential enforcement action. The whole point of ASAP is to capture the sole source information that would otherwise go unreported for fear of certificate or disciplinary action.
11-23-2020, 07:35 PM
#56
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Posts: 160
Originally Posted by Ave8tor218
Yes, in the CLB page will read something like 267/10000
SPD | LNAV (or HDG SEL) | VNAV ALT
With 267 (or whatever) as the bugged speed.
Even if the PF was disregarding the FD and continuing to Pitch for a climb the AT would have attempted to hold 267 (in this example).
Am I missing something?
11-23-2020, 08:54 PM
#57
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: Volleyball Player
Posts: 3,982
Originally Posted by FXLAX
In the past, when one party to the ASAP MOU was using it for other than it was meant to, ALPA has rescinded its participation and called attention to the offending party to put pressure on them. Sometimes it takes a while but eventually it is worked out between the party’s and the MOU reissued. This is probably part of the reason why ALPA advocated for congress to pass legislation that made all reports be automatically accepted and the burden put on the ERC as to later reject for one of the half dozen or so reasons spelled out in the MOU. ALPA was successful and now it’s federal law. So I don’t see how it can happen anymore. But anytime a party to a safety program is playing politics with it, it needs to be called out forcefully.
As for FAA enforcement action, you can always use the NSRS program. Although that doesn’t help you in retaliatory action from your employer. Also keep in mind, that only non-sole source ASAP reports could have potential enforcement action. The whole point of ASAP is to capture the sole source information that would otherwise go unreported for fear of certificate or disciplinary action.
As for FAA enforcement action, you can always use the NSRS program. Although that doesn’t help you in retaliatory action from your employer. Also keep in mind, that only non-sole source ASAP reports could have potential enforcement action. The whole point of ASAP is to capture the sole source information that would otherwise go unreported for fear of certificate or disciplinary action.
Repeated non-compliance (the same issue coming up over and over again and the certificate holder (airline) failing to take effective action to address the problem) is a valid reason to exclude a report. From AC 120-68:
16.3 Reports Excluded for Reasons Other Than the Big Five. If the ERC excludes a report for reasons other than those related to the Big Five (e.g., reckless or intentional violation conduct not involving the Big Five, violations outside the scope of employment, repeated noncompliance), the FAA ERC representative communicates his or her knowledge of the event to the appropriate FAA office for possible investigation. The FAA may use its knowledge of the event referred by the FAA ERC member to prompt an independent investigation of the apparent violation(s) and to initiate an FAA action against the employee. The “knowledge of the event” under this paragraph includes the date, time, location, flight number, aircraft tail number, and related information, as well as the apparent noncompliance disclosed in the ASAP report. (Refer to Order 8900.1, Volume 14, Chapter 3, Section 12, Events Excluded from an Aviation Safety Action Program.) An “independent investigation” as referenced in this paragraph is one in which the FAA uses the knowledge of the event to conduct the investigation, but does not obtain other information concerning the apparent violation(s) from the ERC or from the ASAP report (except that the FAA may obtain information regarding corrective action on a non-sole-source report). The FAA determines the appropriate action by following the Compliance Action Decision Process (CADP). (Refer to Order 8900.1, Volume 14, Chapter 1, Section 2, Flight Standards Service Compliance Action Decision Procedure.)
18.6 Repeated Noncompliance. The ERC may determine through consensus to exclude a report that reflects an instance of a repeated act of the same or similar noncompliance by the same individual due to a common root cause that the ERC previously accepted and addressed with corrective action under the ASAP.
14.1.2 Consensus Cannot Be Achieved. The FAA retains all its legal authority and responsibilities contained in Title 49 of the United States Code (49 U.S.C.) and referenced in the current edition of FAA Order 2150.3, FAA Compliance and Enforcement Program. In the event there is not a consensus of the ERC on decisions concerning a report involving an apparent violation(s), or a medical certification or qualification issue, the FAA ERC representative decides whether to accept or reject the report.
18.6 Repeated Noncompliance. The ERC may determine through consensus to exclude a report that reflects an instance of a repeated act of the same or similar noncompliance by the same individual due to a common root cause that the ERC previously accepted and addressed with corrective action under the ASAP.
14.1.2 Consensus Cannot Be Achieved. The FAA retains all its legal authority and responsibilities contained in Title 49 of the United States Code (49 U.S.C.) and referenced in the current edition of FAA Order 2150.3, FAA Compliance and Enforcement Program. In the event there is not a consensus of the ERC on decisions concerning a report involving an apparent violation(s), or a medical certification or qualification issue, the FAA ERC representative decides whether to accept or reject the report.
Second, there's some talk of sole-source and non-sole-source. In general, this is not a significant criteria in terms of accepting a report, the program office is very clear that they want to accept every report that they can (which meets program criteria). Sole-source is automatically excepted, but it has to be some pretty extenuating circumstances for a non-sole-source to not be accepted.
Last, NASA ASRS only waives an enforcement (if something ever gets to that level, very rare these days due to Compliance Program) penalty. That's very important to understand. It means an enforcement still goes on your record, that you violated such and such CFR, only that the punishment gets waived, so you don't actually get suspended or whatever. These days enforcement cases only tend to be written up for fairly egregious events when the individual does not want to cooperate to try and fix the underlying issue. But realize those ASRS reports do not waive the decision or what goes on your record, only the penalty.
11-24-2020, 06:24 AM
#58
VHR-very happily retired
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Position: Retired
Posts: 1,409
Originally Posted by hubbs
Thank you. So, assuming VNAV was active, if the 5000 level off had been captured the FMA would have read:
SPD | LNAV (or HDG SEL) | VNAV ALT
With 267 (or whatever) as the bugged speed.
Even if the PF was disregarding the FD and continuing to Pitch for a climb the AT would have attempted to hold 267 (in this example).
Am I missing something?
SPD | LNAV (or HDG SEL) | VNAV ALT
With 267 (or whatever) as the bugged speed.
Even if the PF was disregarding the FD and continuing to Pitch for a climb the AT would have attempted to hold 267 (in this example).
Am I missing something?
11-24-2020, 09:46 AM
#59
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2017
Posts: 2,099
SA 777 Stall on Departure?
Originally Posted by threeighteen
FOQA would have been the source that made it non-sole source which would have invalidated the ASAP. Backing out of the MOU would have been pointless since FOQA would have ratted them out anyway.
FOQA data is also protected safety data. It cannot be used for disciplinary reasons. FOQA cannot be used as source data for enforcement action either. FOQA data is de-identified by the gatekeeper who is also a “union” pilot. There is a whole other MOU for FOQA that spells these things out.
11-24-2020, 09:57 AM
#60
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2017
Posts: 2,099
SA 777 Stall on Departure?
Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes
Some points:
Repeated non-compliance (the same issue coming up over and over again and the certificate holder (airline) failing to take effective action to address the problem) is a valid reason to exclude a report. From AC 120-68:
And the FAA representative always has the option to override the ERC. Again, rare, but repeated high altitude stall events and failure to correct may be a reason for this.
Second, there's some talk of sole-source and non-sole-source. In general, this is not a significant criteria in terms of accepting a report, the program office is very clear that they want to accept every report that they can (which meets program criteria). Sole-source is automatically excepted, but it has to be some pretty extenuating circumstances for a non-sole-source to not be accepted.
Last, NASA ASRS only waives an enforcement (if something ever gets to that level, very rare these days due to Compliance Program) penalty. That's very important to understand. It means an enforcement still goes on your record, that you violated such and such CFR, only that the punishment gets waived, so you don't actually get suspended or whatever. These days enforcement cases only tend to be written up for fairly egregious events when the individual does not want to cooperate to try and fix the underlying issue. But realize those ASRS reports do not waive the decision or what goes on your record, only the penalty.
Repeated non-compliance (the same issue coming up over and over again and the certificate holder (airline) failing to take effective action to address the problem) is a valid reason to exclude a report. From AC 120-68:
And the FAA representative always has the option to override the ERC. Again, rare, but repeated high altitude stall events and failure to correct may be a reason for this.
Second, there's some talk of sole-source and non-sole-source. In general, this is not a significant criteria in terms of accepting a report, the program office is very clear that they want to accept every report that they can (which meets program criteria). Sole-source is automatically excepted, but it has to be some pretty extenuating circumstances for a non-sole-source to not be accepted.
Last, NASA ASRS only waives an enforcement (if something ever gets to that level, very rare these days due to Compliance Program) penalty. That's very important to understand. It means an enforcement still goes on your record, that you violated such and such CFR, only that the punishment gets waived, so you don't actually get suspended or whatever. These days enforcement cases only tend to be written up for fairly egregious events when the individual does not want to cooperate to try and fix the underlying issue. But realize those ASRS reports do not waive the decision or what goes on your record, only the penalty.
Good point on the NSRS. Also, if you do use it to avoid enforcement, you have to wait 5 years before being able to use that again.
As for repeated non-compliance, I see you referenced an AC. But I believe the controlling document is the MOU, which is a legal document signed by all three parties. Maybe it’s different with a non-union work group? But regardless, the point of one party leaving the ASAP MOU, is that it puts pressure on the FAA, or maybe in this case, the company, to make things right before re-entering the MOU and start capturing this time sensitive safety data. After all, the whole point of the FAA is to maintain the highest standards of safety. And if they take such drastic measures that it causes a party to leave the MOU, maybe it will cause pause for them to take such actions. That was my point, it puts pressure on actually fixing the issue rather than letting them just be punitive. It also goes against the FAA’s Just Culture. There’s probably a whole other AC, FAA Order, FAA Memorandum, etc on the subject of Just Culture. They shouldn’t have just rolled over on this and put the pilots in a place where they operate in the NAS with fear for their livelihood as a motivating factor in their decision making.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
