Jump Seating United Pilot Causes Drama at Southwest(onemileatatime.com)
onemileatatime.com
Jump Seating United Pilot Causes Drama at Southwest
https://onemileatatime.com/news/jump-seating-united-pilot-drama-southwest/
16 comments
Digression:
Incidents like this are why I know aliens aren't in Area 51, and generally believe that the government isn't withholding some huge bombshell secrets from us. Not because they don't want to, but because they can't.
In the event of any kind of info leak, discretion is thrown to the wind and FOMO sets in. The urge to "correct the record" becomes overwhelming. Information becomes a currency to spend. Only the best 3 letter agencies in the world can resist, and even they are only as strong as the weakest-willed.
Time + workforce churn = inevitable leaks for just about everything. You might be able to buy yourself a year or two with loyal employees and strict secrecy policies. But retaining a HUGE secret for 10+ years? Not compatible with society imo.
Incidents like this are why I know aliens aren't in Area 51, and generally believe that the government isn't withholding some huge bombshell secrets from us. Not because they don't want to, but because they can't.
In the event of any kind of info leak, discretion is thrown to the wind and FOMO sets in. The urge to "correct the record" becomes overwhelming. Information becomes a currency to spend. Only the best 3 letter agencies in the world can resist, and even they are only as strong as the weakest-willed.
Time + workforce churn = inevitable leaks for just about everything. You might be able to buy yourself a year or two with loyal employees and strict secrecy policies. But retaining a HUGE secret for 10+ years? Not compatible with society imo.
Look into Bletchley park & the cracking of Enigma...
From Wikipedia:
> Nevertheless, there were security leaks. Jock Colville, the Assistant Private Secretary to Winston Churchill, recorded in his diary on 31 July 1941, that the newspaper proprietor Lord Camrose had discovered Ultra and that security leaks "increase in number and seriousness".[59] Without doubt, the most serious of these was that Bletchley Park had been infiltrated by John Cairncross, the notorious Soviet mole and member of the Cambridge Spy Ring, who leaked Ultra material to Moscow.[60]
> Nevertheless, there were security leaks. Jock Colville, the Assistant Private Secretary to Winston Churchill, recorded in his diary on 31 July 1941, that the newspaper proprietor Lord Camrose had discovered Ultra and that security leaks "increase in number and seriousness".[59] Without doubt, the most serious of these was that Bletchley Park had been infiltrated by John Cairncross, the notorious Soviet mole and member of the Cambridge Spy Ring, who leaked Ultra material to Moscow.[60]
[deleted]
I work for an FDA regulated company and I presume the handling of complaints is handled similarly. Cases like this fall into a weird regulatory case. If a problem is identified by someone internal before it rises to a certain level of risk, it's treated as "no harm no foul". But if the same thing is reported from someone external, it triggers a mandatory investigation, audit, and possibly recall.
I think the idea is that if it's not a significant enough risky event, and the only person to ever even identify it as a risk has detailed internal knowledge, it's not as big a potential hazard and possibly much worse potential consequences were addressed before they became a problem. But if someone not privy to the same level of internal knowledge notices it, it's maybe not still so insignificant that it was headed off without serious consequence.
It would make sense in this case that the jump seat pilot mentioned it, and it was corrected early. Possibly if it hadn't been corrected that early, it could have still been caught and corrected differently. But instead, the FAA got a report from a third party, which normally suggests it was significant enough that an unrelated layman could notice and probably wasn't so insignificant.
I think the idea is that if it's not a significant enough risky event, and the only person to ever even identify it as a risk has detailed internal knowledge, it's not as big a potential hazard and possibly much worse potential consequences were addressed before they became a problem. But if someone not privy to the same level of internal knowledge notices it, it's maybe not still so insignificant that it was headed off without serious consequence.
It would make sense in this case that the jump seat pilot mentioned it, and it was corrected early. Possibly if it hadn't been corrected that early, it could have still been caught and corrected differently. But instead, the FAA got a report from a third party, which normally suggests it was significant enough that an unrelated layman could notice and probably wasn't so insignificant.
The "trusted friend" is certainly not to be trusted. At a minimum that person was not in a position to report anything to the FAA because any information would have been hear-say. The FAA should have declined the information as being from a third party who wasn't directly involved and thus isn't in the position to report comprehensively.
Is this something that should be reported to the FAA? Yes or no?
What do unions have to do with this?
If it wasn't a safety issue that needed correcting why does it matter that it was or who reported it to the FAA?
If it wasn't a safety issue that needed correcting why does it matter that it was or who reported it to the FAA?
When everyone assumed it was the jump seat pilot that made the report to the FAA, of course the union would step in - at that point, the appearance is that one pilot outside of their (SWAPA) union is causing problems and taking things too far.
This is not something that even the jumpseat pilot bothered to report to the FAA, and is akin to somebody calling your CEO because you were late back from lunch to your desk job - the only way this outside party would know is if it impacted the company (or airline) very negatively. But when it's such a small thing, calling the FAA (or CEO) is using c4 to kill a mosquito: completely overkill.
If that happened to me, I would assume my (non-aviation) union would stick up for me as well
This is not something that even the jumpseat pilot bothered to report to the FAA, and is akin to somebody calling your CEO because you were late back from lunch to your desk job - the only way this outside party would know is if it impacted the company (or airline) very negatively. But when it's such a small thing, calling the FAA (or CEO) is using c4 to kill a mosquito: completely overkill.
If that happened to me, I would assume my (non-aviation) union would stick up for me as well
It sounds like the pilots and hence the unions have an intent to hide things from the FAA. What's the significance of this report existing and why do they openly promote this "etiquette"?
Maybe the FAA should actually encourage neutral third-parties to observe pilots.
Maybe the FAA should actually encourage neutral third-parties to observe pilots.
So, was it a Boeing?
In this scenario the “trusted friend” is the hero of the story as he is the one who initiated a course of action that may have prevented a much more dire outcome in the future by insuring that the pilot in command will receive remedial training on proper cockpit management and the junior pilot will benefit by remedial training. Pilot error is a non starter and in many cases the ultimate game ender.
[deleted]
This is a bizarre conclusion, because it's not like she shared some confidential or sensitive information. It's just a story about a minor error.
I have no idea if this is an incident that should have been reported. If so, that's a compounding error. If not, who cares? Good safety culture welcomes scrutiny, surely.