jetBlue captain has inflight meltdown; locked out of flight deck, flight diverted
Mar 27, 2012, 8:49 pm
#46
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,028
That's not really accurate. The Pilot In Command (PIC) is the pilot currently in command of the aircraft. Who is PIC can change during the flight. Certainly, a pilot (captain or FO) cannot be PIC when they're not actually in the cockpit. The FARs have a very complete definition of who can be PIC and what their responsibilities are. It's part of the regulations regarding logging PIC or SIC time.
joe
joe
Mar 27, 2012, 8:50 pm
#47
Suspended
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,797
If there are, then I would hope JetBlue would replace the A320 with longer range aircraft which aren't affected by such. Noone likes a direct flight just to find out you have to stop for refueling.
I presume the A32X Neo's won't require this refueling stop in the future if such does happen now on limited flights and JetBlue should allocate those to the longest routes first.
Also remember: This was a JFK to Las Vegas flight.
I have heard of instances where JFK to FLL for instance got diverted to west palm beach (PBI), but I always thought the reason was due to someone not filling up the fuel fully at JFK.
With the modern jet age, and with ranges and fuel efficiency always improving on new jets, it isn't hard for airlines to appropriately match equipment to routes which won't have headwind issues anymore.
Last edited by adamj023; Mar 27, 2012 at 8:58 pm
Mar 27, 2012, 9:07 pm
#49
Suspended
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,797
JetBlue I assume has orders? Just wonder when they will come in. Should eliminate all headwind issues considering their route size?
I would have to ask a trained pilot on the headwind issue on the A320. I was really unaware of what the limits were if any but if there are any limits on certain routes, A320neo should eliminate those.
Mar 27, 2012, 9:13 pm
#50
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: NYC/HNL
Posts: 459
Does anybody see similarities with the March 9 incident on AA 2332 in which an AA FA flipped out, allegedly began rambling (as the B6 captain is alleged to have done) about terrorism, plane crashes, etc., and had to be restrained? That incident was also called a "medical event."
What if the Real Terrorists are slipping drugs into the flight crew members' orange juice, a la MK-ULTRA?
What if the Real Terrorists are slipping drugs into the flight crew members' orange juice, a la MK-ULTRA?
Mar 27, 2012, 9:22 pm
#51
Suspended
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,797
Who knows what happened. The scary part is the security aspect of this incident.
Certain locations are closely monitored though.
JetBlue incident involved a Captain and the flight was flying through critical areas of the nation. JetBlue is well capitalized and Captains make good salaries working for JetBlue. JetBlue planes are immaculately inspected and maintained and they have not a single hull loss.
The AA incident was a flight attendent and obviously facing stress due to the bankruptcy. AA2232 was an older AA MD80 jet and those are known to have higher failure rates as well. I personally would not fly on an AA MD80, though the new AA 737's coming in are very nice and the stewardess should have asked to be reallocated to the next available one rather than going on a ranting tirade.
After an incident like that with an employer, getting a new stewardess job with an airline is going to be quite tough.
In this instance, for a captain (who is yet named) to have an incident like this is very unusual and there are a lot of unknowns here and critical aspects in the flightpath and military concerns (nuclear, military bases and so on and so forth).
I do believe AA with their MD80s and older fleet should be grounded by the bankruptcy court but they are on strong ordering buys with newer aircraft.
Look its tough to deal with people as a steward/stewardess especially if its a bankrupt carrier and the employer isn't treating you well.
I understand it happening on AA but with JetBlue it just seems highly unusual.
Certain locations are closely monitored though.
JetBlue incident involved a Captain and the flight was flying through critical areas of the nation. JetBlue is well capitalized and Captains make good salaries working for JetBlue. JetBlue planes are immaculately inspected and maintained and they have not a single hull loss.
The AA incident was a flight attendent and obviously facing stress due to the bankruptcy. AA2232 was an older AA MD80 jet and those are known to have higher failure rates as well. I personally would not fly on an AA MD80, though the new AA 737's coming in are very nice and the stewardess should have asked to be reallocated to the next available one rather than going on a ranting tirade.
After an incident like that with an employer, getting a new stewardess job with an airline is going to be quite tough.
In this instance, for a captain (who is yet named) to have an incident like this is very unusual and there are a lot of unknowns here and critical aspects in the flightpath and military concerns (nuclear, military bases and so on and so forth).
I do believe AA with their MD80s and older fleet should be grounded by the bankruptcy court but they are on strong ordering buys with newer aircraft.
Look its tough to deal with people as a steward/stewardess especially if its a bankrupt carrier and the employer isn't treating you well.
I understand it happening on AA but with JetBlue it just seems highly unusual.
Last edited by adamj023; Mar 27, 2012 at 9:37 pm
Mar 27, 2012, 9:29 pm
#52
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: NJ
Programs: Avis Preferred, Hertz #1 Gold, National Exective, United Premier Silver
Posts: 1,363
Actually everyone seems to be siding with the Co-pilot here and I don't know why.
The Pilot as per evidence of the flight data information were operating normally and the Captain appeared to be in full control of the flight till he exited for the bathroom.
One would need to acquire the black box cockpit flight recorder but somehow I bet that was even normal. What is known from all publically available information, is that this was a normal flight and only after the pilot exited did the flight attendents and copilots wind up turning against the Captain of the flight who happened to exit to go to the bathroom. Then as he was kicked out and couldn't get back in did he put up a fuss.
That is all the evidence shows right now.
In EgyptAir 990, the situation was less obvious and more complex.
The plane was making no manuvers outside of normal operating procedures and in no time was any commands issued that could affect safety. So kicking out a pilot who was in full control of the jet till a bathroom break doesn't make sense to me at all.
I am sorry but these posts on here actually saying that the right thing happened by restraining the Captain seemed bizarre.
One wonders if there was a senority dispute going on inside the cockpit or what actually led to these circumstances but as far as I can tell right now based on all the evidence, the Captain should NOT have been kicked out of the cockpit and was in full control.
Someone said allegedly he was partially dressed or something so some confrontation must have happened.
Also I don't mean to go conspiratorial here but this flight according to logs was diverted once to Colorado and this flight wound up getting diverted to Amarillo Texas.
Both these locations are by key facilities and one wonders if there wasn't more going on here considering the military airspace levels of the regions these pilots were flying into on these commercially operated flights.
There is a lot more and I think the media coverage of this story was absolutely ludicrous and the interpretation that people are coming out with on this story also lends itself to issues. Apparently the federal government got involved with this flight according to press releases.
But were any military jets actually scrambled to follow this plane if you had an out of control captain from JFK to Amarillo Texas?
In a post 9/11 world with flight tracking and classified intelligence teams and everything inbetween, something is seriously amiss with this story with critical information being left out.
From end to end, people booked on JBLU 191 did get back safety and the plane is now scheduled again for its JFK Departure.
Only other thing I could think of is perhaps this flight was used as a safety drill and this was planned in advance.
The Pilot as per evidence of the flight data information were operating normally and the Captain appeared to be in full control of the flight till he exited for the bathroom.
One would need to acquire the black box cockpit flight recorder but somehow I bet that was even normal. What is known from all publically available information, is that this was a normal flight and only after the pilot exited did the flight attendents and copilots wind up turning against the Captain of the flight who happened to exit to go to the bathroom. Then as he was kicked out and couldn't get back in did he put up a fuss.
That is all the evidence shows right now.
In EgyptAir 990, the situation was less obvious and more complex.
The plane was making no manuvers outside of normal operating procedures and in no time was any commands issued that could affect safety. So kicking out a pilot who was in full control of the jet till a bathroom break doesn't make sense to me at all.
I am sorry but these posts on here actually saying that the right thing happened by restraining the Captain seemed bizarre.
One wonders if there was a senority dispute going on inside the cockpit or what actually led to these circumstances but as far as I can tell right now based on all the evidence, the Captain should NOT have been kicked out of the cockpit and was in full control.
Someone said allegedly he was partially dressed or something so some confrontation must have happened.
Also I don't mean to go conspiratorial here but this flight according to logs was diverted once to Colorado and this flight wound up getting diverted to Amarillo Texas.
Both these locations are by key facilities and one wonders if there wasn't more going on here considering the military airspace levels of the regions these pilots were flying into on these commercially operated flights.
There is a lot more and I think the media coverage of this story was absolutely ludicrous and the interpretation that people are coming out with on this story also lends itself to issues. Apparently the federal government got involved with this flight according to press releases.
But were any military jets actually scrambled to follow this plane if you had an out of control captain from JFK to Amarillo Texas?
In a post 9/11 world with flight tracking and classified intelligence teams and everything inbetween, something is seriously amiss with this story with critical information being left out.
From end to end, people booked on JBLU 191 did get back safety and the plane is now scheduled again for its JFK Departure.
Only other thing I could think of is perhaps this flight was used as a safety drill and this was planned in advance.
Okay, so I read this post three or four times, and can make neither heads nor tails out of what you were trying to say, or what point you were trying to make.
For the most part, once airborne, a flight is generally on auto pilot, and/or under the control of the First Officer. In addition, I have seen no reports that the pilot plotted to crash the aircraft, the decision to subdue the pilot was made based on his actions after visiting the restroom, based on his mental state at the time, and what he was saying, and his actions.
Okay, the flight was diverted a week or so ago. Big whoop. Dozens of flights are diverted each day, for a myriad of reasons. A discovered mechanical problem, a medical condition on board, requiring urgent medical intervention, weather at the destination airport, weather enroute to the destination airport, a closure of the destination airport, aignificant delays at the destination airport, and yes, even fuel shortages cause flights to be diverted.
There really isnt any need for the conspiracy theory you I think have stated here.
Mar 27, 2012, 10:07 pm
#53
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: NYC/HNL
Posts: 459
That's not really accurate. The Pilot In Command (PIC) is the pilot currently in command of the aircraft. Who is PIC can change during the flight. Certainly, a pilot (captain or FO) cannot be PIC when they're not actually in the cockpit. The FARs have a very complete definition of who can be PIC and what their responsibilities are. It's part of the regulations regarding logging PIC or SIC time.
joe
joe
Under "normal" circumstances, the PIC is always in command regardless of where he is, including the lav.
However if he's incapacitated then the FO assumes command.
Mar 27, 2012, 10:11 pm
#54
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: On the road in North America....
Programs: UA 1MM, *G, Global Entry
Posts: 579
joe
Mar 27, 2012, 10:14 pm
#55
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: DFW
Programs: AA 1M
Posts: 31,474
Glad all pax are safe.
Mar 27, 2012, 10:23 pm
#58
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: NJ
Programs: Avis Preferred, Hertz #1 Gold, National Exective, United Premier Silver
Posts: 1,363
While a commercial site, this site does define PIC quite well.
http://www.paramountbusinessjets.com...in_command.php
Bolding is mine
http://www.paramountbusinessjets.com...in_command.php
Bolding is mine
The pilot in command (PIC) of an aircraft is the person who is in charge of the aircraft and is the final authority over all operations and safety throughout the flight. Usually this is the captain when there is a two or three person crew in an airliner. In general aviation the pilot in command is the person with the highest rating. For instance if there are 2 pilots in an aircraft one with a private pilot rating and one with a commercial rating, the pilot with the commercial rating would be the pilot in command. He is legally responsible for the safety and operation of the aircraft while it is in operation and if any FAR (federal aviation regulation) is broken. However, due to vague regulations the pilot does not always have to me manipulating the controls.
The FARs don’t say specifically what the pilot is commanding. It just says that he is in the command of the aircraft. They do not say whether he must be controlling the aircraft or if he is controlling the people on the aircraft. This has been a subject of controversy ever since the creation of the rules.
Mar 27, 2012, 10:29 pm
#59
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: NYC/HNL
Posts: 459
I know a couple Captains and asked one to clarify this, his answer is what I posted..... In Command is different than Controlling the Aircraft PIC always in command, even when FO is at the controls...
Sorry Joe, get back to those FAR regs and dig a little deeper...
Sorry Joe, get back to those FAR regs and dig a little deeper...
Mar 27, 2012, 10:45 pm
#60
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Programs: AA Gold AAdvantage Elite, Rapids Reward
Posts: 38,311