jetBlue captain has inflight meltdown; locked out of flight deck, flight diverted
Mar 29, 2012, 11:17 am
#166
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Laguna Niguel, CA
Programs: AA PLT, 1.8mm
Posts: 6,988
Mar 29, 2012, 11:34 am
#167
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 465
huh?
what? what do you mean "no evidence"?
"Osbon talked about his church and needed to focus," Whitworth said in the affidavit. "Osbon began talking about religion, but his statements were not coherent."
The copilot grew nervous when Osbon told them that "things just don't matter" and began yelling over the plane's radio system, telling air traffic controllers to "be quiet," according to Whitworth's account in the affidavit. "The First Officer became really worried when Osbon said, ‘We need to take a leap of faith'," Whitworth said in the document. "Osbon started trying to correlate completely unrelated numbers and he talked about the sins in Las Vegas. At one point, Osbon told the (first officer), ‘We're not going to Vegas,' and began giving what was described as a sermon."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...82S0N520120329
"Osbon talked about his church and needed to focus," Whitworth said in the affidavit. "Osbon began talking about religion, but his statements were not coherent."
The copilot grew nervous when Osbon told them that "things just don't matter" and began yelling over the plane's radio system, telling air traffic controllers to "be quiet," according to Whitworth's account in the affidavit. "The First Officer became really worried when Osbon said, ‘We need to take a leap of faith'," Whitworth said in the document. "Osbon started trying to correlate completely unrelated numbers and he talked about the sins in Las Vegas. At one point, Osbon told the (first officer), ‘We're not going to Vegas,' and began giving what was described as a sermon."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...82S0N520120329
Mar 29, 2012, 1:37 pm
#168
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: LAX
Programs: AA Gold (prev. Ex Plat for 10 years); DL Plat; UA Gold; Hilton Diamond
Posts: 2,338
I'm really glad this turned out the way it did and nobody suffered any injuries or harm in the process.
Still, it makes me question this: what if the role had been reversed and the pilot who remained in the cockpit during his/her flying partner's bathroom break were the one who had a breakdown? If the co-pilot was able to lock the captain out of the flight deck then it must be possible to secure it from the inside.
Not sure if JetBlue has this policy, but I've seen on other carriers that pilots are not permitted to be alone on the flight deck; if one of them leaves to use the lav or something, a flight attendant (or relief pilot if there is one on board) goes in for the duration of their absence.
Still, it makes me question this: what if the role had been reversed and the pilot who remained in the cockpit during his/her flying partner's bathroom break were the one who had a breakdown? If the co-pilot was able to lock the captain out of the flight deck then it must be possible to secure it from the inside.
Not sure if JetBlue has this policy, but I've seen on other carriers that pilots are not permitted to be alone on the flight deck; if one of them leaves to use the lav or something, a flight attendant (or relief pilot if there is one on board) goes in for the duration of their absence.
Mar 29, 2012, 1:41 pm
#169
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: AZ, USA
Posts: 287
Without commenting on this situation as such (still many more details needed), I hope it at last puts to rest the totally illogical comments found (a few times) on this thread and ad nauseam on the Security boards: the idea that security measures for pilots are somehow silly because pilots can crash the plane.
I suspect the first officer on the JetBlue flight would clear that one up in a hurry. Imagine if he (and those on the other side of the door) were dealing with an armed pilot who had smuggled a firearm on board due to a lesser security requirement for pilots! Even in a less dramatic case, a pilot can try to drive the aircraft into the ground, but the FO (and others) have a fighting chance to prevent it- not so if the pilot is armed. This seems rather obvious to me, but I see the snarky comments all the time about how silly it is to screen pilots to the same degree as passengers. This does not even address the issue of pilots carrying items unwittingly.
Another idea frequently mentioned on these boards can also be discarded- bragging about having an FBI "background check." Unless such a "check" is a full-field background investigation, it is of limited value as it is simply a record check. If one has not been arrested, placed on a watch list, or otherwise come to the attention in a serious way of law enforcement, a "background check" shows only that one has not been caught or has a profile in some data base. It should be of little comfort to anyone that a person has undergone such a check. If you think about it, the most clever and dangerous folks are those who have NOT been caught or come to someone's attention.
I suspect the first officer on the JetBlue flight would clear that one up in a hurry. Imagine if he (and those on the other side of the door) were dealing with an armed pilot who had smuggled a firearm on board due to a lesser security requirement for pilots! Even in a less dramatic case, a pilot can try to drive the aircraft into the ground, but the FO (and others) have a fighting chance to prevent it- not so if the pilot is armed. This seems rather obvious to me, but I see the snarky comments all the time about how silly it is to screen pilots to the same degree as passengers. This does not even address the issue of pilots carrying items unwittingly.
Another idea frequently mentioned on these boards can also be discarded- bragging about having an FBI "background check." Unless such a "check" is a full-field background investigation, it is of limited value as it is simply a record check. If one has not been arrested, placed on a watch list, or otherwise come to the attention in a serious way of law enforcement, a "background check" shows only that one has not been caught or has a profile in some data base. It should be of little comfort to anyone that a person has undergone such a check. If you think about it, the most clever and dangerous folks are those who have NOT been caught or come to someone's attention.
Mar 29, 2012, 2:35 pm
#170
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 465
I believe this is the case for pretty much everyone, but it has been mentioned that the Captain exited the c/p to the surprise of the cabin crew.
Not sure if JetBlue has this policy, but I've seen on other carriers that pilots are not permitted to be alone on the flight deck; if one of them leaves to use the lav or something, a flight attendant (or relief pilot if there is one on board) goes in for the duration of their absence.
Not sure if JetBlue has this policy, but I've seen on other carriers that pilots are not permitted to be alone on the flight deck; if one of them leaves to use the lav or something, a flight attendant (or relief pilot if there is one on board) goes in for the duration of their absence.
Mar 29, 2012, 2:38 pm
#171
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 465
So, what is your theory regarding EgyptAir 990?
All it takes is one pilot to exit the flight deck.
Also, what are your feelings regarding ground crew bypassing security, unlike all flight crew (non ffdo)?
All it takes is one pilot to exit the flight deck.
Also, what are your feelings regarding ground crew bypassing security, unlike all flight crew (non ffdo)?
Without commenting on this situation as such (still many more details needed), I hope it at last puts to rest the totally illogical comments found (a few times) on this thread and ad nauseam on the Security boards: the idea that security measures for pilots are somehow silly because pilots can crash the plane.
I suspect the first officer on the JetBlue flight would clear that one up in a hurry. Imagine if he (and those on the other side of the door) were dealing with an armed pilot who had smuggled a firearm on board due to a lesser security requirement for pilots! Even in a less dramatic case, a pilot can try to drive the aircraft into the ground, but the FO (and others) have a fighting chance to prevent it- not so if the pilot is armed. This seems rather obvious to me, but I see the snarky comments all the time about how silly it is to screen pilots to the same degree as passengers. This does not even address the issue of pilots carrying items unwittingly.
Another idea frequently mentioned on these boards can also be discarded- bragging about having an FBI "background check." Unless such a "check" is a full-field background investigation, it is of limited value as it is simply a record check. If one has not been arrested, placed on a watch list, or otherwise come to the attention in a serious way of law enforcement, a "background check" shows only that one has not been caught or has a profile in some data base. It should be of little comfort to anyone that a person has undergone such a check. If you think about it, the most clever and dangerous folks are those who have NOT been caught or come to someone's attention.
I suspect the first officer on the JetBlue flight would clear that one up in a hurry. Imagine if he (and those on the other side of the door) were dealing with an armed pilot who had smuggled a firearm on board due to a lesser security requirement for pilots! Even in a less dramatic case, a pilot can try to drive the aircraft into the ground, but the FO (and others) have a fighting chance to prevent it- not so if the pilot is armed. This seems rather obvious to me, but I see the snarky comments all the time about how silly it is to screen pilots to the same degree as passengers. This does not even address the issue of pilots carrying items unwittingly.
Another idea frequently mentioned on these boards can also be discarded- bragging about having an FBI "background check." Unless such a "check" is a full-field background investigation, it is of limited value as it is simply a record check. If one has not been arrested, placed on a watch list, or otherwise come to the attention in a serious way of law enforcement, a "background check" shows only that one has not been caught or has a profile in some data base. It should be of little comfort to anyone that a person has undergone such a check. If you think about it, the most clever and dangerous folks are those who have NOT been caught or come to someone's attention.
Mar 29, 2012, 4:31 pm
#172
Join Date: May 2003
Location: GEG
Programs: Motel 6 Club Avoir Le Cafard
Posts: 5,027
I agree that "background checks" based on reviews of records alone produce numerous false positives as well as false negatives; IMO they are based on junk science. What scares me, and everyone else, is that Mr. Osbon likely would have passed even the most granular and intensive of personnel investigations.
Mar 29, 2012, 5:29 pm
#173
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: AZ, USA
Posts: 287
No one should bypass security and that includes 90 year old grandmothers in wheelchairs. What constitutes "security" can (and should) vary based on threat assessment, but the problem of unwitting carriers of destructive devices is a real one.
BTW, I think firearms in cockpit should be secured and remained there with access granted to qualified pilots rather than have pilots carrying the weapons to and from their assigned flights. This would be very easy to do.
Mar 29, 2012, 5:38 pm
#174
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: CLE
Programs: UA,WN,AA,DL, B6
Posts: 4,168
He could have in capacitated the co-pilot and crashed the plane. They think that happened with a Silk Air 737 some years back. There were lots of plane crashes in the 1960's, do you think any other crash was a deliberate suicide act by a pilot Planes have crahsed into mountains, could have happened that way.
Mar 29, 2012, 5:43 pm
#175
Suspended
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,797
Let me repeat:
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/J.../KAMA/tracklog
The tracking information of the plane and its whereabouts all thru the process.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-fly_zone
Pantex nuclear facility is in Amarillo Texas and is a NO FLY ZONE.
The media story and the story people are making it to appear is a totally different picture than the plane on an operational basis perspective where information is tracked. Even the FBI tale of the story leaves out very important information and there are loads of unverifiable parts.
http://sua.faa.gov/sua/siteFrame.app
Pilots of course have information available to them on these sites. Here is the information as available from the FAA's own website.
Remember Pantex is one of the few prohibited no fly zones in the USA and also an International Security conference was ongoing at this time.
Had this been a true rogue pilot, the outcome and the results inside the cockpit as tracked would have been different. Again I repeat if this was a true rogue pilot, you would have seen military jets issued before the plane got to Amarillo Texas which is a NO FLY ZONE and it would be subject to shoot down provisions which are very serious and it would have been a national security matter which would go up to the highest levels of government.
Remember 9/11 was just crashing planes into buildings. This plane was by a nuclear facility and the damage would have been catastrophic.
If you go to the video tape where he was talking about Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan and told the pilot to rev it after getting locked out of the cockpit this was around the time the plane would have been approaching OR close to Amarillo, Texas. However there appears to be no intent whatsoever crossing the line into making it seem like this pilot was about to plot to crash the plane into a nuclear facility.
I suspect we will learn more about this case AFTER a trial is conducted or charges are dropped, and hopefully the government and the airline won't be surpressing information regarding this case. But with Pantex involved and the Amarillo Texas location AND with the Media showing a chopper by the landing site, it is unclear the total picture as of now.
This was no ordinary flight like the flight attendent nonsense that happened on AA. In fact the flight was with a captain perfectly flying fine and with all trackable data all fine which actually winds up landing specifically in the region of a nuclear facility in Texas with full will at the direction of both the captain and first officer since both had controls at the time.
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/J.../KAMA/tracklog
The tracking information of the plane and its whereabouts all thru the process.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-fly_zone
Pantex nuclear facility is in Amarillo Texas and is a NO FLY ZONE.
The media story and the story people are making it to appear is a totally different picture than the plane on an operational basis perspective where information is tracked. Even the FBI tale of the story leaves out very important information and there are loads of unverifiable parts.
http://sua.faa.gov/sua/siteFrame.app
Pilots of course have information available to them on these sites. Here is the information as available from the FAA's own website.
Remember Pantex is one of the few prohibited no fly zones in the USA and also an International Security conference was ongoing at this time.
Had this been a true rogue pilot, the outcome and the results inside the cockpit as tracked would have been different. Again I repeat if this was a true rogue pilot, you would have seen military jets issued before the plane got to Amarillo Texas which is a NO FLY ZONE and it would be subject to shoot down provisions which are very serious and it would have been a national security matter which would go up to the highest levels of government.
Remember 9/11 was just crashing planes into buildings. This plane was by a nuclear facility and the damage would have been catastrophic.
If you go to the video tape where he was talking about Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan and told the pilot to rev it after getting locked out of the cockpit this was around the time the plane would have been approaching OR close to Amarillo, Texas. However there appears to be no intent whatsoever crossing the line into making it seem like this pilot was about to plot to crash the plane into a nuclear facility.
I suspect we will learn more about this case AFTER a trial is conducted or charges are dropped, and hopefully the government and the airline won't be surpressing information regarding this case. But with Pantex involved and the Amarillo Texas location AND with the Media showing a chopper by the landing site, it is unclear the total picture as of now.
This was no ordinary flight like the flight attendent nonsense that happened on AA. In fact the flight was with a captain perfectly flying fine and with all trackable data all fine which actually winds up landing specifically in the region of a nuclear facility in Texas with full will at the direction of both the captain and first officer since both had controls at the time.
Last edited by adamj023; Mar 29, 2012 at 6:05 pm
Mar 29, 2012, 6:08 pm
#176
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: PIT
Programs: OZ Diamond, UA Gold
Posts: 9,922
AMA itself is not a no fly zone, even if Pantex is.
Mar 29, 2012, 6:15 pm
#177
Suspended
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,797
Couple of corrections: Meant to say the Pilot was locked out with the Sealed cockpit doors AFTER he was talking about full throttle. He knew he wasn't able to get inside and just saying that after you are locked out isn't proof or intent to do anything extraneous with the airplane itself.
There is a no fly zone around AMA airport but the airport itself is NOT a no fly zone. That is correct. I never meant to insist there was. But if you have a rogue pilot in the process and are headed towards a nuclear site, things would be different.
Mr. Barger knew this pilot personally according to him and he was there for 12 years, so he would be an excellent judge of character for the pilot. Not one person or witness thereof has come out to say anything negative about this Captain who had a lot of flying time and was well liked over at JetBlue.
There is a no fly zone around AMA airport but the airport itself is NOT a no fly zone. That is correct. I never meant to insist there was. But if you have a rogue pilot in the process and are headed towards a nuclear site, things would be different.
Mr. Barger knew this pilot personally according to him and he was there for 12 years, so he would be an excellent judge of character for the pilot. Not one person or witness thereof has come out to say anything negative about this Captain who had a lot of flying time and was well liked over at JetBlue.
Mar 29, 2012, 7:17 pm
#178
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Orange County, CA, USA
Programs: AA (Life Plat), Marriott (Life Titanium) and every other US program
Posts: 6,411
This thread clearly demonstrates that mental illness exists even among otherwise intelligent people.
Mar 29, 2012, 7:18 pm
#179
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,735
Mr. Barger knew this pilot personally according to him and he was there for 12 years, so he would be an excellent judge of character for the pilot. Not one person or witness thereof has come out to say anything negative about this Captain who had a lot of flying time and was well liked over at JetBlue.
Not one of the things you claim would prevent a man from becoming irrational due to either physical or mental illness. Maybe last week the pilot was 100% fine, but something, either physical or mental, caused a sudden change in his thought process, rendering him incapable of making appropriate choices while in charge of an airplane. Doesn't mean that for 12 years he wasn't wonderful, but on the day that counted, the day he snapped, there was something seriously wrong in his head, and it wasn't a political conspiracy.
Last edited by CDTraveler; Mar 29, 2012 at 7:19 pm Reason: typo
Mar 29, 2012, 7:20 pm
#180
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,028
Please, let's not, and say we did..
You've already posed your theories, crackpot as they are, over multiple pages of this thread, and I think folks have little doubt as to what you believe. Many disagree with you and have (myself included) pointed out various realities which you seem to continue to dismiss.
Accordingly, I'd submit that rather than start another repetitive cycle of your conspiracy theories and the disagreements of others (and MODs, please take note here) I'd suggest this thread be locked. The jetBlue 191 event happened, it was dealt with at the time with the flight and its occupants landing safely, and now with the filing of charges things will now move their way through the legal system.
You've already posed your theories, crackpot as they are, over multiple pages of this thread, and I think folks have little doubt as to what you believe. Many disagree with you and have (myself included) pointed out various realities which you seem to continue to dismiss.
Accordingly, I'd submit that rather than start another repetitive cycle of your conspiracy theories and the disagreements of others (and MODs, please take note here) I'd suggest this thread be locked. The jetBlue 191 event happened, it was dealt with at the time with the flight and its occupants landing safely, and now with the filing of charges things will now move their way through the legal system.