Search Salon

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Recently in Salon News

Confessions of a former self-hating white person
It took a broken heart to teach me that guilty white liberals aren't the solution to America's racial strife, but part of the problem.
By Joan Walsh
[02/18/00]

More Columbine carnage
Drugs are suspected in the latest round of killings in Littleton -- this time at a sandwich shop.
By Dave Cullen
[02/15/00]

Do the multiracial count?
This year the Census Bureau will finally let mixed-race Americans tell the truth about their backgrounds. So why are civil rights groups upset?
By Gregory Rodriguez
[02/15/00]

Why the Columbine report is delayed
Still fielding attacks over leaked video footage and grim timing, the sheriff's department is waiting for the right moment to release the full details of the high school massacre.
By Dave Cullen
[02/14/00]

Opportunity clicks
Why President Clinton's plan to wire the poor is a good start.
By Daryl Lindsey
[02/11/00]

Complete archives for News

- - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - -

On that hot day, the plane wallowed in the sky, slow to climb and loath to turn. I had to pitch the nose up high to keep the plane level. The airspeed dropped drastically. I quickly sized up the level of my emergency -- the engine was running fine, I could easily turn and make it to the airport. What was making my sleek plane fly like a truck? I tuned out my chatty passengers and started assessing my problem.

On a much larger scale, that’s pretty much what the two Alaska Air pilots did before crashing into the Pacific Ocean on Jan. 31. But a $75,000 lawsuit filed Monday on behalf of one passenger’s widow claims that the troubleshooting was "improper." Rather, the suit claims, the pilots should have "immediately … land(ed) the aircraft upon first notice of difficulty in operation."

The pilots' failure to land at airports in Los Angeles and San Diego has been questioned by others. But the second-guessing, and the widow's lawsuit, are wrong. The pilots did what they were supposed to: Analyze the situation, take corrective action, land as soon as practicable. Hurtling through the skies in a pressurized metal tube has its risks. Slapping the airline with a lawsuit won’t make those risks magically disappear.

Dunning the pilots is simply a legal move. To dig into the deep pockets of Boeing and Alaska Airlines, the courts must first establish that the pilots didn’t do everything possible to prevent a crash. It’s a ridiculous idea -- who could imagine that both experienced pilots (over 18,000 flight hours between them) didn’t want desperately to save their own lives? They spent the end of the flight doing what any pilot would do: troubleshooting.

I think about them, remembering my flight over Cape Cod that summer afternoon. I flew along the shoreline, my passengers watching the sea and sailboats while I gingerly wiggled the controls and adjusted the throttle. Then, something caught my eye -- the landing-gear circuit breaker had popped. Even though the panel lights indicated "up," the gear was probably still down. I turned back to Hyannis and made a low pass at the tower, the controllers visually confirming that the wheels were out.

If I had mindlessly bolted for the runway without first troubleshooting, I could have compounded a simple error with panic, piling up hurried mistakes in my rush to land. Or, my gear could have been only partially extended, waiting treacherously to collapse as I blithely -- safe at last! -- touched down on the asphalt.

Pilots are trained to spend a little time in the safe cushion of air, hovering over the hard dirt, learning how to handle the damaged machine before taking it down. Otherwise, who knows what rebellious trick the plane might try down there within inches of the runway? Armed with specific knowledge -- that the plane loses power only at a certain throttle setting, for example -- a pilot can avoid that setting when close to the ground.

My gear problem wasn’t an emergency. Neither is a jammed elevator -- the problem that faced the Alaska pilots. The term "emergency" is reserved for problems that have no solution except to land immediately. Catastrophic problems such as losing a chunk of the cabin, a midair collision, engine failure or hijacking. A jammed elevator isn’t an uncommon problem. Sometimes a circuit breaker needs to be pulled, or the controls need to be slammed around to break small bits of ice loose, then the flight continues normally.

Troubleshooting procedures are listed in fat "flight ops" books stored in the airplanes. Pilots facing trouble are supposed to open the book, flip to the pertinent section and run through the suggested solutions (pulling circuit breakers, switching to backup systems, turning switches off, then on again). If those don’t fix it, then it’s time to consider declaring an emergency. Admittedly, pilots don’t like to declare emergencies. There’s all that annoying airline and FAA paperwork, the hassle of an investigation. Also the whiff of weakness, of faltering machismo. "What’s the matter, a little engine cough scare you?" Your buddies will joke on the ground, scaring away their own fears by jabbing at yours, "My captain landed us covered in ice last winter, you guys were afraid of a little wind shear?"

That attitude is fading, not slowly enough, as pilots toss out expressions like "A good landing is any one you walk away from," or "There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots." The message is supposed to be: Better safe than sorry. Be careful up there.

Next page | Were the pilots too cautious?