Passengers Aboard Flight Delayed 18 Hours

On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 17:29:14 GMT, Adam Weiss
wrote:

[ Snip ]

A big part of the delay was due to NWA policy that sets limits to how
long a flight crew can work. (Is this due to US or international law;
does anyone know?)

Doesn't matter what international law says, the FARs govern NWA.

That's a policy (or law) that should change

Not only "no", but "hell, no"!

- it
should make exceptions for diverted or delayed flights, whether the
reason is technical, weather related, or security.

Are you insane?

Consider: you have a crew that's already worked as long as permitted.
They are stressed because they have a plane full of unhappy people.
They want to get home themselves.

Do you think their judgement may be a little faulty?

And you want to allow them to fly hundreds of tons of metal and
hundreds of people into (probably) difficult conditions...

If a crew winds up
with a longer shift than usual due to fog in Sea-Tac, it's alot better
than the alternatives of either not screening passengers as they enter
US soil or leaving passengers to sit for 18 hours in a plane with no
food and broken toilets.

Your definition of "better" needs work.

A sensible alternative would be to service the toilets (they weren't
broken, just full) and cater the aircraft.

Malc.

On Sat, 1 Jan 2005 15:53:23 -0000, "JohnT"
wrote:

[ Snip ]

I hadn't realise that such a massive level of paranoia exists in the USA.

It's the norm in every country, not just the USA.

And in the case you postulate, someone is deemed to be guilty before
being charged with any offence?

Not at all. Just as arresting someone on the street does not deem
them to be guilty.

Detention != Conviction.

JohnT

Malc.

On Sat, 1 Jan 2005 15:53:23 -0000, "JohnT"
wrote:

[ Snip ]

I hadn't realise that such a massive level of paranoia exists in the USA.

It's the norm in every country, not just the USA.

And in the case you postulate, someone is deemed to be guilty before
being charged with any offence?

Not at all. Just as arresting someone on the street does not deem
them to be guilty.

Detention != Conviction.

JohnT

Malc.

On Sat, 1 Jan 2005 16:12:42 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 15:53:23 on Sat, 1 Jan
2005, JohnT remarked:
immigration agent would get a big red message on his screen "this is a
wanted
terrorist, capture and send to jail immediatly".

A cursory look at a passport from some small town policeman wouldn't be
sufficient.

I hadn't realise that such a massive level of paranoia exists in the USA.

Look around you.

And in the case you postulate, someone is deemed to be guilty before
being charged with any offence?

Apparently:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3678694.stm

No-one deemed Cat Stevens guilty of anything. They just denied him
entry. Ridiculously dramatically, I agree, but nations (not just the
USA) can, and do, deny entry for all sorts of reasons.

Malc.

On Sat, 1 Jan 2005 16:12:42 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 15:53:23 on Sat, 1 Jan
2005, JohnT remarked:
immigration agent would get a big red message on his screen "this is a
wanted
terrorist, capture and send to jail immediatly".

A cursory look at a passport from some small town policeman wouldn't be
sufficient.

I hadn't realise that such a massive level of paranoia exists in the USA.

Look around you.

And in the case you postulate, someone is deemed to be guilty before
being charged with any offence?

Apparently:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3678694.stm

No-one deemed Cat Stevens guilty of anything. They just denied him
entry. Ridiculously dramatically, I agree, but nations (not just the
USA) can, and do, deny entry for all sorts of reasons.

Malc.

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 11:22:00 +0100, AJC wrote:

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 20:25:38 -0800, Malcolm Weir
wrote:

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 10:38:36 -0500, nobody wrote:



Northwest seems to consistently make such large and stupid mistakes, so I find
it amazing that they are relatively well off compared to Untied and US Air.

It's remarkable, isn't it? I think a lot of the answer goes to the
KL/NW connection, which they implemented well (and now it's
KL/AF/NW/DL/CO, which is remarkable), plus the (probably) strongest
overseas hub of any US airline (in Japan), and strong fortress hubs in
Detroit and Minneapolis.

Are you defining the stength of a hub purely in terms of the number of
movements with an airline's own metal? Using a more liberal definition
would (probably) place the strongest overseas hub of any US airline in
the Netherlands.

True, and since the airline is the same in both cases (and I
explicitly mention the KL connection, above), I think it simply
confirms the point I was making.

--==++AJC++==--

Malc.

On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 07:28:21 GMT, Adam Weiss
wrote:

Malcolm Weir wrote:
On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 00:50:55 -0500, nobody wrote:


Adam Weiss wrote:

I'm making this suggestion as a measure of last resort, meant to prevent
excessive waits for passengers.

If an accident were to happen on the Moses Lake to Seattle leg, and pilots
were on some "exception" with exceeded work hours, the **** would hit the fan.

Now, for an Amsterdam to Seattle flight, if the flight is longer than 8 hours,
wouldn't there be two crew of pilots anyways ?


There would have been three pilots.

But only a complete moron would suggest that pilots work longer than
permitted in order to avoid mildly inconveniencing some passengers...

Passengers who were stuck in an airplane for 18 hours, an airplane in
which the toilets were out of order for a time, were "mildly
inconvenienced"?

Yup. Compared to, say, being flown into a hill.

However, try to follow the thread: the ludicrous suggestion was that
crew be permitted to exceed their hours in order to prevent "excessive
waits".

Define, now, "excessive".

Malc.

On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 08:14:40 GMT, Adam Weiss
wrote:


The limits set by the FAA to flight crew hours were a result of crashes
caused by pilot fatigue and the public outcry over those crashes.
http://www.angelfire.com/tn/iasa/notpleasant.html

Yup.

I would hope that the airlines and the FAA react to passengers being
stuck on the tarmac for 18 hours with some system to prevent it from
happening again. A workable system that does not compromise safety and
does not present a prohibitive expense to the airlines.

Just a matter of fact, but the delay was 18 hours, not the stuck on
the tarmac. Of the 28 hours since departure from AMS, 12 or so were
spent before it landed at Moses Lake, and then roughly another hour at
the end.

We can't let people into the country without passing through customs.
Terrorists might get the wrong idea.

We can't force pilots to land at airports if the weather makes it unsafe
to do so.

What CAN we do?

We *could* mandate policies for any airport that could accept
international flights to have some kind of provision to handle 400
passengers in a secure area within X hours of notification of need.

It would be bloody expensive, and usually hugely unnecessary, but we
could do it.

Or we could just recognize that being stuck on an airplane for 28
hours is not the end of the friggin' world and deal with it.

Malc.

On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 08:14:40 GMT, Adam Weiss
wrote:


The limits set by the FAA to flight crew hours were a result of crashes
caused by pilot fatigue and the public outcry over those crashes.
http://www.angelfire.com/tn/iasa/notpleasant.html

Yup.

I would hope that the airlines and the FAA react to passengers being
stuck on the tarmac for 18 hours with some system to prevent it from
happening again. A workable system that does not compromise safety and
does not present a prohibitive expense to the airlines.

Just a matter of fact, but the delay was 18 hours, not the stuck on
the tarmac. Of the 28 hours since departure from AMS, 12 or so were
spent before it landed at Moses Lake, and then roughly another hour at
the end.

We can't let people into the country without passing through customs.
Terrorists might get the wrong idea.

We can't force pilots to land at airports if the weather makes it unsafe
to do so.

What CAN we do?

We *could* mandate policies for any airport that could accept
international flights to have some kind of provision to handle 400
passengers in a secure area within X hours of notification of need.

It would be bloody expensive, and usually hugely unnecessary, but we
could do it.

Or we could just recognize that being stuck on an airplane for 28
hours is not the end of the friggin' world and deal with it.

Malc.

On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 11:54:35 -0800, AES/newspost
wrote:

In article ,
Malcolm Weir wrote:


There would have been three pilots.

But only a complete moron would suggest that pilots work longer than
permitted in order to avoid mildly inconveniencing some passengers...


Do the military services or police or public safety services (helicopter
life flight pilots and the like) have comparable (or any) regulations on
duty time and rest time for their pilots? -- including those working in
training or logistical transport operations as well as combat operations?

(I have no idea if they do, but I suspect they may well have such.)

Yes, they do.

If so, would it be moronic to suggest that those regulations be bent, or
even abandoned, in an emergency situation? -- badly needed supplies for
a combat operation, a civil disaster, a humanitarian situation?

The regulations include procedures under which the hours can be
extended.

However, likening combat and disaster relief to being stuck on a plane
overnight is ridiculous. And likening the fitness and training of
military and paramilitary pilots to that of commercial pilots is
equally ridiculous.

Think about it: the commercial pressure on pilots to make schedule is
already significant. The last thing any sane individual would want is
to create a situation whereby a commercial pilot was coerced into
flying against his better judgement simply because it would be cheaper
than putting the passengers up in a hotel...

Malc.