• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should the lost pilots have their licenses revoked?

What should happen to the lost pilots?

  • They are too irresponsible to get nothing less than permanent ban from commercial flying

    Votes: 11 64.7%

  • Since it's a first offense they should only get a suspension

    Votes: 6 35.3%

  • They should get a warning

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Why all the fuss? Everyone has lapses from time to time

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • I'd hire them if I had an airline

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    17
Coon County said:
They only had their flight status yanked, it's up to the airline to fire them....
Justifyable, IMO, derelection of duty.....
They should be flogged......
What happens when you are caught off watch on a naval or commercial vessel?......
They are not telling the truth about what happened....
The carrier gave everyone a $500 dollar refund, that should take care of any claims for any 'lost time', 'pain & suffering', etc. nonsense...;)
Click to expand...

It is against airline policy to be on a laptop for any reason while in the cockpit. For that they should be fired. I am talking about the revoking of their licenses.
 
Something like this is impossible to vote on.
We do not know the complete situation nor the conditions nor the pilots themselves, as men....
We only know what be read...too many sources are biased; others are poorly written...so our opinions are worthless or worse.
 
Blackdog said:
No. I am arguing comparing this to a drunken driver is nothing but a bad fallacy argument.
Click to expand...

Impaired driver impaired pilot,why should it matter?

And because she alerted them this somehow proves they are asleep, how? Keep reaching man.
Click to expand...

They were either asleep or they were doing something that impaired their ability to do their job.
You did not read the whole thing did you?

"Each pilot accessed and used his personal laptop computer while they discussed the airline crew flight scheduling procedure,"

"The first officer, who was more familiar with the procedure, was providing instruction to the captain."Neither pilot said he was aware of where the plane was until a flight attendant called the cockpit about five minutes before the plane was to have landed and asked their estimated time of arrival, the report said.
Click to expand...

"Oh Mom, thank God you’re home. Rallo probably already told you that I was going to the library to get him some new books. But on the way I was mugged by six Al-Qaeda’s. And I said, Oh you don’t Al-Qaeda’s. And I faught ‘em off one by one. I faught off six Al-Qaeda’s!”(May not make any sense if you didn't watch the Cleveland show,basically it is the teenage daughter using a bull **** excuse to her mother for why she wasn't home watching her littler brother)



Nothing about sleeping here either.
Click to expand...

Probably because those pilots think somehow convincing people that they were doing something else that was distracting/imparing their ability to properly do their jobs will some how get them leniancy.

From your own article...

"After landing at Minneapolis-St. Paul, both voluntarily underwent alcohol breath tests, which proved negative, the report said."

No evidence exists that they were impaired in anyway.



Irrelevant???? OK. :roll:



Nothing of the sort has been shown even according to your own article. You are jumping to conclusions based on hyped speculation, period.

So far you have shown nothing to back up your accusations at all.



All that means at this point is they were not paying attention, nothing more.
Click to expand...

I got a bridge to sell you.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
It is better proof than you have. So far you have proof of what? Nothing.

I have the pilots own story's, true or not will remain to be seen.

Until then you again have nothing.
Click to expand...

That's my point: we haven't been given the actual reason. Of course I would therefore "have nothing", they're hiding it.
 
Coon County said:
They only had their flight status yanked, it's up to the airline to fire them....
Justifyable, IMO, derelection of duty.....
They should be flogged......
What happens when you are caught off watch on a naval or commercial vessel?......
They are not telling the truth about what happened....
The carrier gave everyone a $500 dollar refund, that should take care of any claims for any 'lost time', 'pain & suffering', etc. nonsense...;)
Click to expand...

I bet the check stated "by cashing this check I agree not to sue...."
 
Jerry said:
That's my point: we haven't been given the actual reason. Of course I would therefore "have nothing", they're hiding it.
Click to expand...

You are 100% Certain of this? What if they are not lying. What if they (God forbid) actually told the truth.

So we do have their word so far, and in any court that is evidence. Whether you want to accept it or not.
 
Blackdog said:
You are 100% Certain of this? What if they are not lying. What if they (God forbid) actually told the truth.

So we do have their word so far, and in any court that is evidence. Whether you want to accept it or not.
Click to expand...

Uh, no, the only time anyone's word is evidence is when they're a cop or similar where the law expressly gives them that level of trust.

The pilots keep saying they were discussing policy. Not the airline. Not the Fed. Have you noticed that the investigators are usually the ones to deliver the facts, and in this case the investigators are silent?
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
Uh, no, the only time anyone's word is evidence is when they're a cop or similar where the law expressly gives them that level of trust.
Click to expand...

You know this is not true. I being an ex LEO have been in court enough times to say that is absolutely not true. It depends on the credibility and that is for the courts to decide.

So far they have done nothing that would call the story they submitted into question.

Jerry said:
The pilots keep saying they were discussing policy. Not the airline. Not the Fed.
Click to expand...

Please point out where I said this?

They said they were discussing airline policy.

What does the Fed have to do with what I said?

Jerry said:
Have you noticed that the investigators are usually the ones to deliver the facts, and in this case the investigators are silent?
Click to expand...

Could be that they have not found anything that says different yet. Would not be the first time, will not be the last.
 
jamesrage said:
It would be different if they worked at a job that didn't physically involve the lives of others in their hands. Its no different than a soldier who falls asleep on guard duty in a war zone, firefighters who turn their phones and alarms off, a doctor who is call that turns his phone off or goes out drinking or police who sit in their highway patrol car in a parking lot playing video games instead of patrolling the highway looking for speeders and other people who endanger other motorist. Something may not happen the first time or even a dozen times later, but something bad shouldn't have to happen first before something gets done. I am sure that by making an example out of anyone who does this will ensure that no pilot dares to sleep on the job.
Click to expand...

And doctors and nurses who get caught drunk or using narcotics on the job don't normally lose their licenses. Often they don't lose their jobs.
 
Jerry said:
I want to see an investigator enforce a search warrant and check out that laptop's bouser history.
Click to expand...

That might be interesting. :rofl

They were probably on the Penthouse website. :rofl
 
Why are so many wanting to give these pilots a pass when most of the same people would wanna nail others on a cross if they slacked this bad on the job? I do not get it.
 
Kali said:
Why are so many wanting to give these pilots a pass when most of the same people would wanna nail others on a cross if they slacked this bad on the job? I do not get it.
Click to expand...

Please point out anyone who wanted to give them a pass?

This is about the severity of the punishment.
 
liblady said:
who knows? i do find it hard to believe they were engrossed in discussing a new company policy....sounds like a load to me.
Click to expand...

Maybe they were posting on this website... :rofl
 
MyOwnDrum said:
That might be interesting. :rofl

They were probably on the Penthouse website. :rofl
Click to expand...

See I believe they were online....what I don't believe is that they were looking at a company policy.
 
Blackdog said:
Please point out anyone who wanted to give them a pass?

This is about the severity of the punishment.
Click to expand...

Stuff like "how so, they were probably on autopilot cruising at a specific altitude, and a proximity alarm would have sounded if they got 'too close' to another aircraft." in this thread? Sounds like making excuses for them to me.
 
Jerry said:
See I believe they were online....what I don't believe is that they were looking at a company policy.
Click to expand...

I agree. They might have mentioned it, but they merely used that as a way of turning things around on their bosses. The new policy they were referring to is probably an unpopular, cost cutting one.

These guys getting canned is a good way for the airline to get rid of some dead wood. They can hire some younger pilots at a lower salary and also send a message at the same time, both to the public and to their employees.

I don't know about the pilots permanently losing their licenses. I haven't decided. I lean toward suspension, based on their previous good records.
 
Kali said:
Stuff like "how so, they were probably on autopilot cruising at a specific altitude, and a proximity alarm would have sounded if they got 'too close' to another aircraft." in this thread? Sounds like making excuses for them to me.
Click to expand...

That particular comment was about operations, not letting anyone off the hook.

No one has made excuses and you can't point out anyone who has. No one has suggested they get off free and clear. The only difference in opinion is on the severity of the punishment.

Making invalid assumptions based on erroneous info is not good.
 
MyOwnDrum said:
What about these goofing off, distracted pilots? Should they have their licenses revoked?

BBC NEWS | Americas | Lost US pilots' licences revoked
Click to expand...

I guess it depends on your experience and confidence in believing the trumped up story of the pilots.

What most likely occurred is that they fell asleep at the "wheel" and endangered their lives and the lives of their passengers. The notion that they were distracted from their jobs playing on their laptops is beyond incredible.

When flying under IFR with air traffic control, pilots are in constant contact with ground traffic controllers and are required to respond when being handed off; these two morons didn't respond for over an hour. They were apparently SLEEPING and thus endangering the lives of their passengers and others who are flying the same airspace and thus rightly should lose the privilege of being an airline pilot.

I do not think they should lose their privilege of being private pilots however; just don't let these idiots fly passengers the rest of their lives.
 
Blackdog said:
That particular comment was about operations, not letting anyone off the hook.

No one has made excuses and you can't point out anyone who has. No one has suggested they get off free and clear. The only difference in opinion is on the severity of the punishment.

Making invalid assumptions based on erroneous info is not good.
Click to expand...

I call em as I see em and yep.. You asked for an example? I gave you one. Refrain from trying to be bossy boots and telling me what someone did or did not say! Invalid? How dare you! I went on what someone said! Please refrain from telling me about making invalid assumptions considering that my reply was in direct reply to other replies in this thread.

You know what is not good? Some frigging idiot trying to tell me I am making invalid assumptions when I am not. Since you are tossing out advice? I suggest that you do not try to order me around and discredit my post simply because you did not like the example that you asked me to provide.
 
Kali said:
I call em as I see em and yep.. You asked for an example? I gave you one. Refrain from trying to be bossy boots and telling me what someone did or did not say! Invalid? How dare you! I went on what someone said! Please refrain from telling me about making invalid assumptions considering that my reply was in direct reply to other replies in this thread.
Click to expand...

Your replies made no sense and still don't. No one has said anything even close to what you suggested and you cannot post anything even close.

So this means either you did not understand what you read, or something worse.

And yes your comments are not only invalid but do not really pertain to anything said.

Kali said:
You know what is not good? Some frigging idiot trying to tell me I am making invalid assumptions when I am not. Since you are tossing out advice? I suggest that you do not try to order me around and discredit my post simply because you did not like the example that you asked me to provide.
Click to expand...

#1 Your comment was not true, and applied to no one in this thread at all.
#2 You didn't provide anything that was even close to what you claimed.
#3 I did not try and tell you to do anything. I made a suggestion so you would not make yourself look any more ridicule's.
#4 If fallacy arguments and indignant ad-hom's are all you have, we are done here.
 
Kali said:
I call em as I see em and yep.. You asked for an example? I gave you one. Refrain from trying to be bossy boots and telling me what someone did or did not say! Invalid? How dare you! I went on what someone said! Please refrain from telling me about making invalid assumptions considering that my reply was in direct reply to other replies in this thread.

You know what is not good? Some frigging idiot trying to tell me I am making invalid assumptions when I am not. Since you are tossing out advice? I suggest that you do not try to order me around and discredit my post simply because you did not like the example that you asked me to provide.
Click to expand...

OMG, that is cute; "bossy boots " :rofl
 
Jerry said:
...and sued by the passengers.
Click to expand...

I agree that the pilots are DUMB and DUMBER candidates but what would be the basis of the law suit ? There was no loss of life thank God. There were no injuries, thank luck. The only possible action that I can think of is if a passenger was late for something that caused that passenger to suffer a financial loss.

Therefore I do not see a tort action here but there may be wiggle room for a breach of contract. I am not cetrtain but there could be an implied contract between the airlines and the passengers to deliver the passengers to their destination within a reasonable span of time. If there is an implied contract there the airlines will not be able to claim that it was the pilot's fault alone since the pilots work for the airline and are by function agents of the airlines.

Yet who knows maybe there was some sort of tort reform that I missed and the passengers are blocked from frivolous lawsuits ...LOL
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom