Northwest Flight 188: A Heated Discussion or Pilot Fatigue?

Jerry H. Trachtman
Attorney
(866) 735-1102 Ext 405
Posted by Jerry H. TrachtmanOctober 26, 2009 1:49 PM

Everyone has heard about the Northwest Airlines flight that departed San Diego bound for Minneapolis-St. Paul (MSP), and flew 150 miles past its destination before turning back and landing. According to the NTSB, after landing the pilots told the FBI and airport police that they had been in a heated discussion over airline policy and lost situational awareness. The FAA tracking data on the flight shows that the aircraft began its decent for landing more than 48 minutes before it eventually touched down at MSP. The cockpit voice recorder (CVR) is being analyzed by the NTSB, but it will only reveal the last 30 minutes of cockpit conversation before the aircraft was powered down at the arrival gate. So unless the pilots actually discussed what had happened during the last 30 minutes of the flight, it is unlikely the CVR will provide any clues. The flight data recorder (FDR), which records aircraft systems data and pilot flight control inputs, is also being analyzed by the NTSB. Pursuant to normal operating procedure, the autopilot would have been flying the aircraft while the pilots monitored the aircraft systems and communicated with air traffic controllers (ATC). Since the autopilot flies the aircraft with precision, and since the systems on an A320 are highly automated, as long as all the aircraft systems are operating normally there is nothing for the pilots to do in cruise flight. It is therefore unlikely the FDR will provide any clues as to what may have happened.

The flight departed San Diego at 3:00 PM PDT, and the NTSB says that ATC "lost radio communications" with the flight at 5:56 PM MDT. What the NTSB means by "lost radio communications" is not clear. Does the NTSB mean that the last ATC communication with the flight took place at 5:56 PM MDT, 1 hour and 56 minutes into the flight, or does the NTSB mean that at 5:56 PM MDT ATC unsuccessfully tried to communicate with the flight? FAA flight tracking data shows that at 5:17 PM MDT the flight began a climb from its initial cruise altitude of 35,000 feet to its final cruise altitude of 37,000 feet. If the last successful ATC communication with the flight was the instruction to climb to 37,000 feet, and 39 minutes later at 5:56 PM MDT ATC unsuccessfully tried to reach the flight, is it possible that a heated discussion about airline policy would prevent both the Captain and First Officer from responding to ATC radio calls? According to the NTSB, controllers "reestablished communications" at 8:14 PM CDT. This means that, according to the Captain, he and the First Officer were in a heated discussion for something between 1 hour 18 minutes and 1 hour 57 minutes, and it was so heated that they lost track of where they were. FAA flight tracking data shows a groundspeed of about 600 knots when MSP was overflown, and according to the NTSB the flight went another 150 miles, which would have taken about 15 minutes. This means the discussion was so heated that neither pilot realized they had arrived at their destination until about 15 minutes after they passed it, and and it was so heated they could not hear the frantic ATC calls that most certainly occurred. Or is it more likely that with nothing to do but monitor systems, and with no ATC communication for 39 minutes, the pilots were fatigued and fell asleep? Without knowing details of their working hours, it is impossible to say at this time whether fatigue played a roll. But pilot fatigue has resulted in known past incidents where crews fell asleep, and crew fatigue should not be ruled out here.

8 Comments

Have an opinion about this post? Please consider leaving a comment or subscribing to the feed to have future articles delivered to your feed reader.

Jtiniacos
Posted by Jtiniacos
October 26, 2009 3:08 PM

I can't understand why the media is eating this story alive saying "150 miles past the destination" A 337's crusing speed is 457 miles an hour.. 150 miles is just a few minutes!!

Why not say they few past the airport for 13 minutes.

Vic
Posted by Vic
October 26, 2009 6:30 PM

The pilots should have been expecting a crossing restriction or freq change for that routing. Also one pilot should have been monitioring all status for flight if the other was otherwise involved. To miss your normal communication for over half the flight is unacceptable. Sorry but the rest of us do take our job serious. Yes we all clown around some and most have things we do enroute that doesn't include flying. However, missing calls and operations messages is inherently dangerous. What if one call had been a traffic conflict and required immediate action or a early descent for traffic, once again sorry bad idea.

Jerry H. TrachtmanInjuryBoard Attorney Member
Posted by Jerry H. Trachtman
October 27, 2009 9:24 AM

You are absolutely correct, Vic. It is incomprehensible to me that this could happen if both pilots were awake. Both of them miss calls from ATC and the company for so long, and not know where they were? I don't buy it, unless they were dozing.

R. Buck
Posted by R. Buck
October 28, 2009 3:04 PM

One of those calls from ATC could have been trafic, 12 O'Clock altitude inknown.
Bad move guy's

Maynard Brandt
Posted by Maynard Brandt
October 29, 2009 8:37 AM

This is probably an outdated question, but shouldn't the autopilot have turned the plane around after flying past the destination, alerting the pilots to the situation in the process?

My car's GPS system tells me almost immediately when I'm not following its directions to a destination, not 13 minutes later.

Steve LombardiInjuryBoard Attorney Member
Posted by Steve Lombardi
November 01, 2009 8:57 PM

It's all complete BS, why would anyone believe the explanation by the pilots, the union, the airlines or the FAA? Especially not our government; they are as bad as Fox “News”. Like the SEC, those in the FAA are idiots who are in charge of running this country’s infrastructure and regulating its services. These pilots are as dangerous as was Maddoff. The SEC never asked to see trading slips and the FAA accepts blank tapes, a delayed explanation and no plausible reason for why the crew was distracted. Shameful and that is what is missing; shame. Why don't we just hand out participation trophies to the pilots? Hey thanks for showing up, too bad you killed everyone on board, but here's your trophy just for showing up. Will you be at the banquet? Nice uniforms! Oh my, has the Revolution started without us?

Patrick MicklerInjuryBoard Staff
Posted by Patrick Mickler
November 02, 2009 4:46 PM

Thanks for the info, Jerry. I actually never knew that the CVR only recorded the last 30 minutes of a flight. Interesting.

Jerry H. TrachtmanInjuryBoard Attorney Member
Posted by Jerry H. Trachtman
November 03, 2009 1:54 PM

Maynard, you are correct and that's why it's hard for me to believe the crew was distracted by laptops and not sleeping. I suspect, but really do not know for sure, that the A320 autopilot was in "NAV" mode (navigation mode, probably using GPS guidance), tracking to the destination, and when MSP was passed, the autopilot reverted to "HDG" mode (heading mode)and maintained the heading it was flying. Without pilot input, the autopilot would not turn the aircraft around, although the GPS would continue to provide guidance to MPS

Leave a comment

Have an opinion? There are 3 ways to leave a public comment (or click here to email the author privately).

For information on acceptable commenting practices, please visit Lifehacker's guide to weblog comments. Comments containing spam or profanity will be filtered or deleted.

Method 1: Guests

Provide the information below. Your email address will not be published or sold.

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Method 2: Facebook Users

Connect using your facebook account.

Method 3: InjuryBoard Members and Contributors

Please sign in

Comments:

5000 characters remaining.




Subscribe to InjuryBoard Melbourne

InjuryBoard Melbourne RSS Feeds

Keep up with the latest updates using your favorite RSS reader

Injury Board Melbourne is brought to you by Law Offices of Jerry H. Trachtman, P.A.

Legal Assistance Center

More Info
Law Offices of Jerry H. Trachtman, P.A. (866) 735-1102 Ext 405 www.trachtman-law.com
google
Personal Injury Lawyers Serving: Melbourne, Cape Canaveral, Cocoa, Cocoa Beach, Satellite Beach, Indian Harbor Beach, Indialantic, Melbourne Beach, Palm Shores, Grant, Valkaria, Sebastian, Indian River County, Merritt Island, New Smyrna Beach, Osceola County, Palm Bay, Rockledge, Titusville, Vero Beach, Brevard County, Sanford, Kissimmee, Ft. Pierce
1735 West Hibiscus BoulevardSuite 300, Melbourne, Florida 32901 [ Show Map ]
Better Business Bureau Accredited Business Confidential

Your question will be referred to an attorney near you. If your question is of a legal nature, then by submitting this form you agree you are not forming a formal attorney / client relationship. Read our full privacy policy.

Looking for an InjuryBoard attorney closer to home? Click here.

Subscribe to Blog Updates

Enter your email address if you would like to receive email notifications when comments are made on this post.

Email address