Unions should be interested in the reputation of their members. By supporting bad pilots they're making them all look bad.

The membership may not see them as bad pilots. They may feel that these pilots are being railroaded, or that the incident wasn't as rare/dangerous as is being portrayed.

If that were the case, wouldn’t they be interested in the truth being public record?

Have you really never seen the public misinterpret something they aren't all specialists in? Maybe they very much are interested in the truth being public record, and the truth has not yet been determined. No particular bit of evidense, including an audio recording or some interview testimony is 'the truth'.

By assuming these are “bad pilots” before the investigation completes, you are demonstrating why all pilots benefit from the union defending them.

Edit: I changed my mind, I agree with the union.

How would anyone know that you are not a child molester if you’re not willing to let me search your home and check for evidence?

If you’re not a child molester, why would you have any problem with me searching your home?

If you feel the need to protect your home from search, then child molesters are most likely a significant constituency within your home.

It’s really unfortunate that such a significant proportion of people in legutierr’s home are child molestors.

That is nasty and crosses into personal attack, which is not cool. Please don't post like this again. You can make your substantive points without getting aggressive; please do that instead.

We've had to ask you not to break the site guidelines before. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

Ok, sorry about that.

Because a good union sides with it's members. That's how they get members in the future otherwise why would anyone sign up?

> why would the union have any problem with the NTSB interviewing them?

They don't. You sometimes have to read more than just the HN headline to understand what the issues are.

This is not logical.

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.

It may not be entirely logical, but that's kind of the point I'm making. A professional reputation is not built on certainty but on confidence and a perception of risk.

These logical leaps are inappropriate in the case of a prosecution or legal proceeding. Airline pilots are, however, in a position of public trust. They hold thousands of lives in their hands.

One of the reasons that the public trusts air travel is that the NTSB systematically deconstruct every airplane accident that happens, to the point that all aspects of what could go wrong are thoroughly understood and mitigated in the future. This whole process depends on full transparency by all involved. Airplane accidents are rare today because of it.

If the union is perceived as standing in the way of that process—if it is seen to be standing in the way of safety—then the public can no longer rely on the process or the institutions involved, and will have to draw its own conclusions about the people involved.

Do defense attorneys “stand in the way” of justice?

NTSB investigations are not criminal proceedings.

Yes. If justice means a criminal going to jail, defense attorneys do stand up and fight tooth and claw to prevent that happening. That is thier job. It is the job of the prosecution, the government, to overcome and enforce justice.

I don’t think that’s what justice means. Justice means that only people who a jury believes are guilty of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt go to jail. Defense attorneys serve that definition of justice. One could argue that prosecutors stand in the way of justice because their job is to put someone in jail regardless of whether they are truly guilty. In reality, the adversarial system is justice.

Yes, well done. That's reason at its best.

They nearly had a crash, and they are trying to cover up what happened. I think it is reasonable to assume they are "bad pilots" in this situation until there is more information.

Who, exactly, is this "they"?

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?

"They" refers to the pilots.

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.

It could be they had been given bad informations. Unless suicidal I doubt anyone would just cross a lane knowing another plane is taking ofand risk hiting them at full speed.

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.

> By supporting bad pilots they're making them all look bad.

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.

Please never read about the MLB player's union. I don't think you'll like watching professional sports after.

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.

But at this stage of the game, the only way to avoid supporting "bad pilots" is for the union to unilaterally decide whether or not the pilots in question are bad and withdraw support if they decide against them. No investigation has been completed , and while the publicly available evidence certainly makes it appear as if the pilots were at fault, I wouldn't feel comfortable concluding that if my decision had any real-life impact, nor am I comfortable with the idea of a union doing the same thing.

This. It’s like saying a defense attorney has a duty to argue for the prosecution.

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.

As a dirty commie myself, I would love to agree with you but unions have shot themselves in the foot too many times this way. Unions themselves must take responsibility for their public reputation or they stand to disappear. Attorneys don't have that problem.

Who would join a union that won’t support its members? So you and up with a union that’s great for everyone who doesn’t need it?

>> Who would join a union that won’t support its members?

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.

Just how many crises akin to these pilots near-miss did you experience?

It's a contradiction. Thinking about it involves holding two conflicting thoughts in your mind at the same time. I can't change that. I'm just saying it's never been as simple as some like to pretend it is.

A defense attorney does in fact have duties that aren't in the client's best interest.

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.

* * *

This doesn't alter anything. They probably also want any investigation to proceed soberly not sensationally, and they probably also want the union to do their job, knowing that some other day they will need them to do it for them.

Is it obvious that refusing to participate in a safety investigation is good for the members as a body?

The pilot’s union should be allowed to mediate interactions between the pilots and their employer (the airline). If the pilots are found at fault, it should be able to negotiate fair treatment for them. But it should absolutely not be allowed to stonewall government safety investigations. Holy shit, why would you even think that?

If representing the the interests of their members involves picking a fight with the government, the union should do that. If they don’t lose a fight with the NTSB pretty quickly in a case like this, they’ve helpfully exposed a glaring problem with the regulatory framework.

Well, I guess we will find out the outcome pretty quick as they have now been subpoenaed and will probably be found in contempt of court if they don’t do it now.

> Should we expect a union to support the views of anyone other than its members?

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.

It's in the public interest for the job of advocate to exist and be manned and be performed with as much energy as any other job. There are already far more people whos job is to try to attack them than to defend them. Some day it will be you and I guess everyone should just assume they know you're guilty too. As long as it kinda looks that way to all us who weren't there, good enough!

individual people can hire lawyer advocates as is done across society. It doesn't have to be in a union's purview to turn every individual's screwup into a cause celebre entailing the full collective weight of the organization.

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.

Maybe you believe the unions should be some policing authority for their respective domains? Well, they're not, and it's not their fault for being different than what you imagined. Their stated goal is to protect their members, which is exactly what they do. There are other authorities mandated to regulate and check and we see them at work right now. So the whole system is working just as designed, nothing to see, let's move on.

"individual people can hire lawyer"

Individual people can also form unions.

Safety regs are for everyone onboard, including pilots.

This should be a licensing requirement. Lie or withholding evidence to a safety regulatory board should lose you your license there and then.

> Should we expect a union to support the views of anyone other than its members?

Seems most people lose their minds when corporations only consider the wealth maximization of their shareholders. So what’s the difference here?