After last week’s incident in which a Northwest Airlines flight from San Diego to Minneapolis flew 150 miles past its destination before turning around and coming back to land, there have been more questions than answers. The pilots claimed to have been embroiled in a heated discussion. They deny reports that they were napping, and they had no alcohol in their systems. It’s unclear how long it will take before we really know what happened, and why these pilots were out of touch with air traffic control for so long.
I offer no answers here, either, but another question: Would this have happened if passengers were able to hear the cockpit conversations?
I don’t fly United Airlines much anymore (and it seems I’m on United Express when I do), but the thing which made United unique (and to me, pleasant) was Channel 9. Audio channel 9 on the inflight entertainment system can, at the captain’s discretion, be set to the radio frequency which the pilots are using to communicate with the FAA center, airport approach, or tower handling that flight’s movements. I’m a nerd, I realize, but I’ve always found that audio interesting: You can hear the frustrations of pilots and controllers at busy airports like O’Hare. You can hear what the ride is going to be like minutes before you hit a patch of bumpy air. You can hear your pilots getting cranky when they’re delayed for takeoff, or guided to descend into severe wake turbulence (which I experienced once.)
But if I were a passenger on a Channel 9 enabled flight that was scheduled to arrive at 8, and it was 8:15 and we weren’t descending, with pilots silent on Channel 9, I would suspect something was up. I might ask the flight attendants questions. And maybe, just maybe, the incident in question might have played out differently.
Now, someone might argue that this degree of passenger empowerment leads to nuisance questions from travelers who don’t understand the technical lingo of aviation and who misinterpret the meaning things your pilots might say. (“Fuel emergency” on approach would scare the pants off of many people, I’m sure.) That’s part of the reason Channel 9 has been increasingly turned off on United flights in recent years.
But I am left thinking that Channel 9 would have been a healthy check on this wayward flight. Passengers could have raised the alarm, and a huge imbroglio could have been avoided — not to mention missed connections at MSP.
So what do you think? Should passengers be allowed to hear the pilots’ conversations with air traffic control? And what would you have done if you had been listening on a flight like NW 188 and heard nothing but dead air?
—
Image: Northwest 188′s flight path, courtesy of FlightAware. When the pilots didn’t respond to air traffic control, many suspected the possibility of a hijacking. Some of the twisting-back-and-forth maneuvers were apparently required by air traffic control to test whether the pilots were actually in command of their aircraft.
RSS (FeedBurner)
Read with Amazon Kindle
Subscribe by E-mail
Follow on Twitter
October 26th, 2009 at 11:27 am
If you heard nothing but dead air, wouldn’t you just assume Channel 9 had been turned off for some reason (maybe even accidentally)? Having the flight progress TV monitor might be more telling. Even the flight attendant would have probably asked questions when it was obvious that Minneapolis had been overshot.
October 26th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Well, what’s the problem that we’re trying to solve? If passenger situational awareness is important (useful vs casually curious) then Ch9 would help. However, would a passenger recognize the difference between dead air and a channel that’s been turned off or malfunctioning?
In a post last week (here?) someone said that the attendants were likely aware that descent was long past due. Can they not reach the flight deck via intercom? If they can, then why didn’t they? If they can’t, then what’s the reward vs the risk for a planeload of passengers suddenly aware that the flight is going on without pilot intervention? (Panic would be my guess).
What I’m asking here is what good could have come from the passengers knowing that the pilots were not paying attention? Conversely, what harm could have come from them acting out? What if they started pounding on the cockpit door? Might one of those groggy pilots have come out with an ax [or handgun]? Might passengers have physical problems (heart attack, even) due to false fright after assuming hijacking? Might some passenger have used an airphone to call a news station?
I can think of lots of things that would have made the event far worse. Unless someone can point out something that would have made it better, I’d just as soon see ch9 off the air.
On a related topic, how much extra flying time (fuel) would that plane be carrying? Would a longer nap have been a tragic problem?
October 26th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
I love Channel 9. My favorites are the ground control, who sometimes get quite testy with planes that won’t get out of the way. Funny!
Sometimes Channel 9 is silent. When this happens, I do NOT assume that there’s something is disastrously wrong. So far my assumptions have been 100 percent correct.
But in this case, would it have been dead silence? Weren’t lots of people trying to contact this flight over a significant period of time, using the last known frequency to which their radio had been tuned?
In that case, we Channel 9 listeners would have heard the increasingly-disturbed controllers calling our flight, with no reply.
THAT would have been disturbing.
And you bet your ass I’d have used the Airphone to call a news station. But what would I have said to the flight attendant? “Yes, ma’am, I rang the call button. Here, take a listen… It appears that we’re toast. Could you maybe ask the crew on the flight deck if they’re dead, or something?”
I believe that Mr. Kalman has an excellent point. I don’t know how much good this would have done.
October 26th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
I wonder… especially if the flight attendants suspected nothing… whether they would question the pilots, based on a passenger’s comment. Is there not some stigma? Are there any ways for control to contact the plane, outside the cockpit?
October 26th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
I love listing to ATC. Whenever I can I listen in, & even have the ATC app for my iTouch, so I can listen to multiple different locations. I guess it’s left over from listening into CB & police scanners of years ago. Among other things, you’re no longer purely a passenger in a flying bus, but at least an informed passenger.
October 26th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
I can’t believe that no one on that plane was not concerned that they were not landing. If I knew what time I was supposed to land and the plane was not descending, I think I would have asked some questions. Surely the flight attendants have some form of communications with the pilots. Why was no one doing anything? This is a no-brainer circumstance for a passenger to ask a question, whether channel 9 was available or not.
October 27th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
No, the answer is not “have the passengers monitor the pilots”. The answer is to find out exactly why this happened (which of the many layers of safety failed) and find out what can be done to fix those up. It’s still unclear if the radios were on the right channel or how exactly they missed the calls. Maybe the answer is something as simple as just putting an alarm clock in the cockpit, set to ring about 40 minutes before estimated time on ground? But, of course, that doesn’t fix the problem of them getting distracted 35 minutes out. The proper answer is to find out why the procedures weren’t followed.
October 27th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
I’m not sure channel 9 would have helped although I do wish it would make a return. I wonder what the final story will be when all is said and done in this case those, certainly has me curious.
October 28th, 2009 at 7:05 am
This whole incident is incredibly fishy.
Surely the cabin crew or some of the pax should have realised earlier that the aircraft was way overdue to land?
It’s a weird situation.
I loved listening to Channel 9. My best memory is when once flying out of Chicago O’Hare in blizzard conditions – ontime and incredibly surprised that we were flying at all.
The taxiway markers were barely visible, and everything was white – I don’t know how the pilots could tell where they were meant to be.
As we lined up for the runway, the pilots asked control if all was clear for them to go. Control came back and said, “Yes, all looks good, except for a blip halfway down the runway which we think is a luggage cart, but you should be off the ground by then”, followed by a little snigger. The flight crew responded with, “well, we’ll try not to take it with us as we don’t want to be charged for it.” And then we were rolling, with all pax listening to Channel 9 holding our breaths and waiting for the impact thump! We lived.
October 28th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
I believe Channel 9 could have ended this situation somewhere over Nebraska or Colorado.
Once the pilots failed to respond to the hand-off from ATC, ATC likely asked NW 188 to reconfirm. Not having a response, they’d ask another NW plane nearby to contact via company channels, etc.
After 5-10 minutes of hearing my flight number being searched for, I would probably go find the purser, calmly explain, and suggest she try contacting the cockpit.
November 4th, 2009 at 2:39 am
i like channel9 and i firmly believe that it would have handled the situation.