In other words, the union seems to be looking out for its members at the expense of everyone's safety.
This is also part of a decade-spanning issue re audio recordings. Pilots have long fought to keep recorders out of cockpits. This is an extension of that fight. (Black boxes are different. They are only used in event of a crash and are generally not released publicly unless people are dead.)
On HN of all places we should realize complicated technical systems result in complicated technical problems and the easiest, lowest status, people to blame are usually not the cause of all problems in a system.
It seems highly likely there could be a problem with ATC giving a misleading or inconsistent clearance, or radio coverage being faulty or inadequate (I said "stop and hold at ground point One Alpha, not stop and hold at ground point One shhhhh"), or signage being inadequate, or the architecture of the airport being inherently faulty by design. No amount of knee jerk punishing the pilots automatically without impartial investigation will fix any of those safety concerns and as such that does not increase the safety of flight. Seems rather odd the NTSB is strongly opposed to a detailed impartial judicial review of their process?
If I had nothing to cover up, and someone asked for a different recording service to be used "no skin off my back" because I have nothing to cover up. Seems like the NTSB is trying to cover something up. I wonder why they would use a non-technical travel blogger to release their side of the story instead of numerous ATC organizations and unions or pilots orgs etc. What a fascinating source for the story?
And, while a complicated technical problem is likely to not be the pilot's fault, after a certain degree of refusing to cooperate with the investigation, it becomes their fault.
Also, onemileatatime is a long-standing news website that reports on the aviation industry; the NTSB "released their side of the story" in press releases.
Also we have no idea from the article if they crossed said lane by being around the safety margins usually set or if it was a close call. I guess there is a lot of safety margin taken in aero between saying "sure you can cross that lane nobody is about to take off" and "a jet is already bombing at full speed on that lane, don't cross!!"
The point of an investigation is to investigate. Not punish someone you are already sure it is the culprit.
Interesting to see how the escalation works in someones thought process, but these are not valid arguements.
"If you have nothing to hide, you dont need privacy"
Perhaps there are antiquated rules and possibly dangerous flight systems approved by the FAA. Maybe these pilots need to be protected from being publicly persecuted in the interest of corporate profit and confidence in the government.
They don't. You sometimes have to read more than just the HN headline to understand what the issues are.
Airlines in particular have a long and pervasive history of blaming "pilot error" for any and all safety issues. Until and unless it is conclusively proven that some maintenance, instructions, or mechanical system was faulty, pilots are in the cross-hairs. Remember the first 737MAX crash?
It is only natural for pilots to be concerned about being scapegoats, or that their on-the-record remarks implicating their airline could end their careers.
Unions are there to protect their members. End of story.
If there is no rule mandating it, I don't get why people are upset at the pilots for not cooperating with an investigation that could be career ending.
This article focuses on the pilots, but the outrage should be focused at the people who made the rules the pilots follow.
It’s important that everyone have representation to advocate on their behalf, even in non-judicial settings. Let the union do their job, let the NTSB do theirs, and I hope the pilots are compelled to testify.
Me. I had many jobs where joining the union was "manditory". Whether it was the union at the universities where i studied or taught, or the union that runs the film industry in which i worked as a kid, there was no practical alternative. None of the unions of which I was forced to be a member ever represented my best interests.
The court has rules. Each attorney's first duty is to uphold those rules, and the second duty is to argue for the client to the extent and in the manner those rules allow.
This seems quite similar to the process and rules that govern air traffic safety and its incremental improvement over the decades.
just also note that unions across the board from electricians and plumbers to healthcare workers frequently make the PR claim that their members are higher quality professionals than lower payscale non-union workers, and that they provide higher quality work which is safer for the public.
in this case they are directly subverting the safety standards of their industry in favor of narrow personal interest.
so yes, you're right, it's a choice, it can be done this way, but I'm right to draw conclusions from that as to what role unions play in their struggle vs the public interest.
Individual people can also form unions.
This should be a licensing requirement. Lie or withholding evidence to a safety regulatory board should lose you your license there and then.
Seems most people lose their minds when corporations only consider the wealth maximization of their shareholders. So what’s the difference here?
No rational actor would agree to a recorded interview with Federal officials in an investigative capacity without immunity.
The pilot will be subconsciously changing their own memories slightly to fit a better narrative. This is just what human memory does and you can't turn it off. These changes aren't particularly egregious unless you are consciously lying, but the legal definition of perjury does not care.
With written notes, those are going to be summarized in a way that adds doubt to any small discrepancies that might result from a pilot misremembering things. An exact recording makes it 100% clear that the pilot is doing that, which could be turned into a legal argument against them.
If the pilots won’t talk, they may be subpoenaed. Not sure if that means the 5th Amendment would apply.
Hoping a note taker misses some salient detail in your favor is just trying to game the situation when you probably feel you're at fault. This isn't someone that committed a crime and is facing a judge/jury with possibility of going to jail. This is a licensed employee responsible for the safety of a not small number of other human beings. Some things stand to higher accountability
nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself
Generally, it’s held that you cannot be compelled to testify if there’s a reasonable likelihood that the response may tend to implicate someone. So you often can invoke 5A in civil contexts (which is why you’ll see people invoke it before Congress, or in civil trials).
One main difference is that in a criminal context we typically can’t draw an adverse inference against someone for invoking their fifth amendment rights. Whereas in a civil context we can. That doesn’t help us here much, though, because to my knowledge the NTSB is mostly interested in getting to the truth of the matter and not assigning liability or penalties.
One option to pierce 5A is to grant immunity for all testimony covered. So if the NTSB was pretty sure that the pilots aren’t going to be criminally charged for the incident (which they likely wouldn’t be), they could work with the DOJ to immunize the pilots for their testimony. That eliminates the risk of criminal prosecution for their responses, and nullifies the fifth amendment.
But I don't see the big deal here. This appears to be a situation where we have a clearly at fault party, the NTSB isn't going to provide any big insight.
The pilots are trying to avoid civil liability (and maybe criminal, and maybe keep their jobs, though it seems very likely they'll be fired), for some clear reasons. They aren't keeping secrets, they're just trying to avoid giving written testimony on something they'd want to take the fifth on later.
To wit: this is just "don't talk to the cops". Your insurance company will give you the same advice. No, it's not the best way to help an accident investigator, but it might save you some money.