Newsgroups: sci.military.naval,talk.politics.misc,alt.society.liberalism,
	alt.society.conservatism
From: baldwin@netcom.com (J.D. Baldwin)
Subject: Re: Marine corps aircraft kills skiers in Italy
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 20:11:12 GMT

In article <34F0383A.7987@umail.umd.edu>, Prof. Vincent Brannigan
<vb15@umail.umd.edu> wrote:
> > Hate to break the news, but there was only one pilot on that
> > aircraft.
>
> Also airlines do not rush out to hire pilots with a record of hitting
> ground based obstructions.

Case #1:  Class "A" mishap resulting from two pilots in front seats of
S-3A Viking deciding it's "uncool" to take an arrested landing when
the runway is covered with standing water.  Aircraft pays for
aforementioned ego trip with its structural integrity when S-3A
slides out of control and impacts arresting gear motor.  No injuries.

Pilot hired by [major carrier].  Co-pilot is pilot in Case #2, below.

Case #2:  Pilot flying in [major city] TCA decides to give pilots
of nearby (just called as traffic by ATC) heavy passenger plane
a little thrill by performing an aileron roll for their amusement.
Yes, in the TCA.  Yes, while under positive ATC control, IFR (but
VMC).

Pilot is reported and squadron holds FNAEB.  Pilot loses NA
wings, action upheld by COMNAVAIR[coast] on appeal.

Pilot hired by [major carrier].

Sleep well.
--
 From the catapult of J.D. Baldwin  |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
   _,_    Finger baldwin@netcom.com |+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
 _|70|___:::)=}-  for PGP public    |+| retract it, but also to deny under
 \      /         key information.  |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.military.naval,talk.politics.misc,alt.society.liberalism,
	alt.society.conservatism,alt.disasters.aviation,rec.aviation.misc
From: baldwin@netcom.com (J.D. Baldwin)
Subject: Re: Marine corps aircraft kills skiers in Italy
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 20:51:27 GMT

In article <baldwinEoyAqo.5pr@netcom.com>, I wrote:
> > Also airlines do not rush out to hire pilots with a record of
> > hitting ground based obstructions.
>
> Case #1:  [...]

I should have mentioned one more, even though it's not a "ground
based obstruction" and doesn't involve a new hire.

Case #3:  Captain of heavy passenger plane for [major carrier] is
caught drinking in airport bar right before scheduled to fly a
planeload of > 100 passengers from [small city] to [medium-sized hub
city].  He is arrested and pleads guilty and serves a relatively short
prison term for this infraction of flight regulations.

THAT PILOT IS NOW A 747 CAPTAIN FOR THE SAME CARRIER.
--
 From the catapult of J.D. Baldwin  |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
   _,_    Finger baldwin@netcom.com |+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
 _|70|___:::)=}-  for PGP public    |+| retract it, but also to deny under
 \      /         key information.  |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.military.naval,talk.politics.misc,alt.society.liberalism,
	alt.society.conservatism,alt.disasters.aviation,rec.aviation.misc
From: baldwin@netcom.com (J.D. Baldwin)
Subject: Re: Marine corps aircraft kills skiers in Italy
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 14:33:59 GMT

In article <34F4B5F9.252C@umail.umd.edu>, Prof. Vincent Brannigan
<vb15@umail.umd.edu> wrote:
> > > > Also airlines do not rush out to hire pilots with a record of
> > > > hitting ground based obstructions.
> > >
> > > Case #1:  [...]
> >
> > I should have mentioned one more, even though it's not a "ground
> > based obstruction" and doesn't involve a new hire.
> >
> > Case #3:  Captain of heavy passenger plane for [major carrier] is
> > caught drinking in airport bar right before scheduled to fly a
> > planeload of > 100 passengers from [small city] to [medium-sized hub
> > city].  He is arrested and pleads guilty and serves a relatively short
> > prison term for this infraction of flight regulations.
> >
> > THAT PILOT IS NOW A 747 CAPTAIN FOR THE SAME CARRIER.
>
> names, dates places?  how long was the interval between prison and later
> flights etc.

I know this guy's name because this case is known to me personally via
mutual acquaintances I have with the pilot in question.  I will not
mention the name directly, but I will describe the incident in more
detail.  Three Northwest Airlines pilots were arrested and convicted
for flying while intoxicated in 1990 when they *all* had drinks at the
airport bar in Fargo-Moorhead (ND/MN) Int'l Airport, then flew a
planeload of passengers to Minneaplis-St. Paul Int'l Airport.  The
incident was very well publicized (I recall a couple of David
Letterman "Top Ten" lists on the subject) and the captain's name did
make it into the press.  It shouldn't be hard to find, if you care all
that much.

The captain did indeed serve time in Stillwater (MN) State Penitentiary
for this charge.  When he got out, he got his old job back and is now
flying as a 747 captain.  I have no idea where the other two pilots
are nowadays, though it wouldn't surprise me if they're flying, too.
After all, they have a "disability" (problem drinking), you know.

> I agree that some employers are very slow, howver even at EXXON they now
> move much faster on this issue.

I'm not sure what the speed of the employer has to do with it.  NWA
doesn't particularly mind that they are employing a 747 captain who
has demonstrated AT LEAST once (the one time he got caught) that he
has more interest in satisfying his personal appetites than in his
responsibility for the safety and lives of hundreds of passengers who
trust him.
--
 From the catapult of J.D. Baldwin  |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
   _,_    Finger baldwin@netcom.com |+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
 _|70|___:::)=}-  for PGP public    |+| retract it, but also to deny under
 \      /         key information.  |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.military.naval,talk.politics.misc,alt.society.liberalism,
	alt.society.conservatism,alt.disasters.aviation,rec.aviation.misc
From: baldwin@netcom.com (J.D. Baldwin)
Subject: Re: Marine corps aircraft kills skiers in Italy
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 21:55:56 GMT

In article <6d48fb$h5c@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>, vic
<gridiron@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> I do not think NWA had much of a choice so how do you know that "NWA
> doesn't particularly mind" that they had to take him back?  Didn't a
> court action or the union get him his old job back after his jail time
> (over NWA's objections), for the reason you earlier stated, something
> about his "drinking disability" or "drinking sickness"?  I doubt that
> NWA would have wanted the responsibility nor the negative publicity over
> taking him back unless they were forced to do so?

NWA did not resist the pressure to rehire the pilot in question beyond
an initial "No."  The union raised it as an issue, and NWA decided
that appeasing the union mattered more than passenger safety.
--
 From the catapult of J.D. Baldwin  |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
   _,_    Finger baldwin@netcom.com |+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
 _|70|___:::)=}-  for PGP public    |+| retract it, but also to deny under
 \      /         key information.  |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.military.naval,talk.politics.misc,alt.society.liberalism,
	alt.society.conservatism,alt.disasters.aviation,rec.aviation.misc
From: baldwin@netcom.com (J.D. Baldwin)
Subject: Re: Marine corps aircraft kills skiers in Italy
Supersedes: <baldwinEpA4Jw.Mvr@netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 05:42:21 GMT

In article <34fcc427.76356570@news.snowcrest.net>, Zepp Weasel
<zeppholdthespam@snowcrest.net> wrote:
> >Having researched the Prouse case, I have to fully agree with Mr.
> >Baldwin that it shows a disgraceful contempt for passenger safety on the
> >part of NWA. The interesting undercurrent in the published reports is a
> >sort of "tailhook-like" tolerance for the pilot by other pilots.  His
> >rehire was fully suported by the pilot's union.  The claim is that as a
> >reformed drinker he is not a risk to passengers. I am all for accepting
> >reformed alchoholics in the workplace, but pilots are held to a much
> >higher standard. Commerical pilots have so many lives entrusted to them
> >that they should be above suspicion, not just reproach.
> >
> >Shame on Northwest
>
> You're apalled.  Fine, that's nice.  We already figured that out.  But
> the question was: Well, it's been about six years since the rehire.
> Any problems?

No.  Valuejet flew for years with "no problems" too.  A grossly unsafe
practice doesn't have to be 100% fatal on every flight to be "grossly
unsafe."  Nor does it have to be 100% fatal in a year.  It might be
that this pilot gets through the rest of his career without killing
anyone -- in fact, it's probably more likely than not.  But that's not
near good enough when hundreds of lives are at stake.

The physical skills of flying are easy to master.  If you can drive,
you can learn to fly an airplane.  A monkey could practically do it.
Hell, machines have been doing it since before I was born.

It comes down to character issues that distinguish the guy you want to
hire as a commercial pilot from the guy you don't want anywhere near
the controls of a passenger jet.  Strict adherence to basic safety
rules, even at the expense of satisfying one's momentary appetites,
falls into that category.

Sorry, I know how painful the mention of "character issues" must be to
someone of your political persuasion just now, but that's really the
way it is.

I don't think it's controversial to say that someone who disregarded
the rules so blatantly has demonstrated a character flaw that probably
won't be repaired by a short prison term, an apology and a little
witch-doc^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H therapy should *not* be flying heavy
passenger jets.  Ever.  Forgive him in the Christian sense, if you
like, but he should be barred for life from that particular
profession.

Do you think Capt. Hazelwood ought to be piloting oil-laden
supertankers?

It's not as if people with this particular career skill are scarce,
in fact they're a dime a dozen.  So, why on earth would you hire a
drunk as a pilot if you didn't have to?
--
 From the catapult of J.D. Baldwin  |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
   _,_    Finger baldwin@netcom.com |+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
 _|70|___:::)=}-  for PGP public    |+| retract it, but also to deny under
 \      /         key information.  |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.military.naval,talk.politics.misc,alt.society.liberalism,
	alt.society.conservatism,alt.disasters.aviation,rec.aviation.misc
From: baldwin@netcom.com (J.D. Baldwin)
Subject: Re: Marine corps aircraft kills skiers in Italy
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 18:20:12 GMT

In article <34FD939C.11F8@umail.umd.edu>, Prof. Vincent Brannigan
<vb15@umail.umd.edu> wrote:
> I agree entirely with the sentiment, But I do resist labelling such a
> behavior as a "character flaw".  I simply don't think it adds anything
> to the analysis, when what you mean is undesireable or unacceptable
> behavior.  Behavi0or is the key thing and it is not the same as
> character. The behavior we want in a marine gunnery sargent may be
> very different from what we want in an ambassador, or a pilot.  "rule
> following" is a behavior.

Fine, point taken.  But the alternative seems to be the redefinition
of drunkenness (alcoholism) as a "disease," with the resulting
impression that it's "no one's fault," and that it's wrong to hold the
"victim" of the "disease" accountable by taking unpleasant measures
like termination from a position of awesome responsibility.

Even if this view of the etiology of the behavior of flying while
intoxicated as "disease"-like were correct (it isn't), that wouldn't
follow.  We don't allow epileptics or narcoleptics, for example, to
fly airplanes.  The main issue should be the probability of recurrence
of the behavior, and judging from the statistics the picture is
extremely grim.
--
 From the catapult of J.D. Baldwin  |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
   _,_    Finger baldwin@netcom.com |+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
 _|70|___:::)=}-  for PGP public    |+| retract it, but also to deny under
 \      /         key information.  |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------