If the main issue here is Airlines mis-handling pilot schedules why should the pilots loose their jobs?

Even if the airlines schedule played a factor it is still both pilots fault solely. Take both possible causes.1.) Fatigue: The PF signed off as being suited and rested enough to fly as did the PNF. Obviously if they were fatigued they should have advocated this position prior to dispatch. ALPA even protects the pilots from termination and since scheduling is based on seniority it is difficult for the airline to harass the pilots. I still have my ALPA Max Duty worksheet from years ago. If you are too tired to fly or fatigued it is your responsibility as crew to alert dispatch. 2.) Argument/Debate: The two airlines I worked for both has a standing SOP that non-flight related conversations are not allowed. Essentially sterile cockpit above 10k. Did we still talk about other things, sure, did we get into heated debates that took our minds off the flight no. If the PF and PNF allowed a conversation to distract them enough to miss all indications that they past their destination and missed a freq change then they should lose their jobs. There is absolutely no excuse for a debate/argument to affect the flight. However in this case based on what has made it into the news it if obvious the pilots missed a freq change since they were raised when company aircraft called on past center freqs. It is plain to see the pilots regardless of fatigue or conversation dropped the ball big time.

I would more so think an investigation is in order in how Airlines are not only handling staff but also equipment.

That has been done after every major screw up. Each time the FAA found the airlines operated within the FAR's. That is why the NTSB has constantly recommended changes that fall on deaf ears due to the Airlines and ALPA's lobbyist in Washington. If the regs say X the airlines/ALPA will find a way to exploit it.

Considering things like 'Passenger Bill of Rights'

The Pax BoR's doesn't exist so you can't consider it.

and the ever present reality of the high hour low pay commuter operations, a new way of doing things in the Airline industry is in order and things like this spotlight it.

Commuter drivers run the same amount of hours normally as their major counter parts. The difference is the cycles. And the consumer is primarily to blame for the low pay high duty time. Regional route have horrendous margins of profit causing the airline to balance flights offered, prices that will be paid by Joe Consumer and what the EAS will assist the airline when the flight is not profitable. You can't always just place blame on the airlines. Unfortunately we as consumers have caused several of the issues with regional carries as did de-regulation and EAS. We want the convenience of going from Denver to Pueblo but only want to pay $99. However, it costs the airlines $200 per seat for the same flight. So the regional carrier is forces to make cuts and attempt to have the EAS pay the difference. Also low commuter pay has exists for generations and most senior management pilots advocate it My first paycheck at Cont Express (now Express Jet) was abysmal. However, I was told I should be happy since I was "paying my dues."If you want those lowly commuter drivers to make more money expect a significant increase in ticket prices or all around reduction in flight options.

Scully who landed his A320 in the Hudson is on record stating the abysmal handling of staff who work for US Airlines. At the time of the incident both men weren't in complete official uniform as a protest of the conditions at US Airways.

Wow, you wouldn't get that from the Sully now. Especially since he is the willing new poster boy and management pilot for US Airways. I would like to read any articles you may have on Sully "protesting" since I am unable to locate any nor

When you consider Delta is now in the lofty standing of 'too big to fail' they need to be held accountable all around as their in a position to basically do whatever they want when they want and charge what they want...

Typical big corporation / airline. It is nothing new or unique to aviation. Just look at Pan Am and TWA.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ! :( :( :(

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ! :( :( :(

You fly for Delta/NWA? B)

I guess their FMC started flying various STARs after they overflew KMSP? Why didn't it enter a missed approach and go to a hold?

Well they all ready do have rest pilots that switch off during the flight.Here is a radar track of the flight

Interesting.......wonder if that stormy weather is what woke them up....I mean interruped their argument :(

I guess their FMC started flying various STARs after they overflew KMSP? Why didn't it enter a missed approach and go to a hold?

If they didn't have an approach in the FMS it wouldn't fly any approach. FMS's won't do what they aren't told to do. It looks from the track the other aircraft raised the crew on an old frequency then center rerouting them back to MSP.

Wow, you wouldn't get that from the Sully now. Especially since he is the willing new poster boy and management pilot for US Airways. I would like to read any articles you may have on Sully "protesting" since I am unable to locate any nor

Read this then:http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/unusual-...ine-manage.htmlAfter you get done reading that go pick up the November issue of Flying Magazine and read the article in the back by Les Abend called, 'US Airways Flight 1549: The Other Guy'. Towards the end of the article Jeff Skiles gets into the state of things at US Airways and describes him and Sully's non verbal protest of the conditions they faced. Apparently you have a more rosy colored experience with the airline you worked for than many others. Not to be facetious but I wonder why your not still working for your airline and if I may ask when and what airline did you work for? We've all talked about airline conditions these days over and over in these forums. Airlines of the past were great to work for and I imagine allot of overseas airlines are great as well. Southwest I hear is not that bad but outside of that things have gotten really horrendous in many areas. The best place a heavy pilot can work these days is cargo like FedEx (if you like flying at night 90% of the time). So while I hear what your saying I trust the many testimonials of people like Les Abend, Eric Ernst, and Jeff Skiles allot more than what I'm hearing from your end... Don't ask me to dig up Eric Ernst's (original 767 Pilot in Command developer) original quotes because it's been awhile since I read or heard from him. Just the same last I heard he was moved off the 757/767 to the MD80 and had some pretty interesting stories that didn't come off favorably towards many of the airlines practices...

If they didn't have an approach in the FMS it wouldn't fly any approach. FMS's won't do what they aren't told to do. It looks from the track the other aircraft raised the crew on an old frequency then center rerouting them back to MSP.

They clearly had an approach programmed in somewhere and by the path were flying sketr3 STAR (all the way to the last WP :( ). From reports, upon re-establishing radio contact near Eau Clare, Wisc., MPLS Tracon had them make several heading changes to verify they actually had control of the plane (USAF planes were waiting to scramble). What I don't understand, is that they must not have had VNAV programmed in because they were to be at 11,000 @ the shonn WP west of MSP. Doesn't the Airbus FMS have these capabilities or did the pilots just happen to choose not to use it?

They clearly had an approach programmed in somewhere and by the path were flying sketr3 STAR (all the way to the last WP :( ). From reports, upon re-establishing radio contact near Eau Clare, Wisc., MPLS Tracon had them make several heading changes to verify they actually had control of the plane (USAF planes were waiting to scramble).

An arrival procedure is different then an approach.They had the arrival programed in and the FMS flew that. It looks like after it hit the final fix it went into wing leveler or heading hold and just flew straight. This is what the majority of FMS's do after they continue past the last fix without any further programing of an approach or otherwise.

What I don't understand, is that they must not have had VNAV programmed in because they were to be at 11,000 @ the shonn WP west of MSP. Doesn't the Airbus FMS have these capabilities or did the pilots just happen to choose not to use it?

99% of the time I've flown an arrival they didn't use the altitudes on the chart. I normally get PD descents or vectored off of the arrival.

What I don't understand, is that they must not have had VNAV programmed in because they were to be at 11,000 @ the shonn WP west of MSP. Doesn't the Airbus FMS have these capabilities or did the pilots just happen to choose not to use it?

Neither Boeing nor Airbus will leave (current) assigned altitude no matter if VNAV is programmed or not. It takes pilot's action to dial a different (lower) altitude so in case VNAV is programmed it could commence a descent. Even G1000 based autopilot (with VNV) also require pilot to perform similar action. G1000 is even more strict - it requires you to dial a different altitude within one minute of TOD or re-engage VNV, essentially double checking that you pilot are paying attention. So if pilots are asleep or they don't pay attention - the aircraft will continue at its current altitude. I think it all makes a lot sense - if pilots are not paying attention it is far better that aircraft be rather kept higher than lower.

Mike and Chris, thanks for your explanations. I have only dabbled with a FMS and figured that it likely took some sort of pilot action(s) to commence with decent - speed reduction etc and then initating VNAV.

Maybe airliners need the railroad version of a 'alerter' button. The warning sound goes off in the cab after a period of time if the engineer either doesn't move the controls or he doesn't hit the reset button. Annoying as hell, but maybe a good backup for a two-person crew.I did an overshoot on a long FS flight because I hadn't yet set the arrival parameters in the FMC. The aircraft will continue on along it's last waypoint altitude and heading. That's what happens when you multiplex FS flying and house chores and DON'T pay attention. Fortunately, it wasn't a real flight.I don't buy the "we were discussing airline policy" story. I mean, wouldn't they notice that the track line had disappeared from the ND if they were even remotely periodically looking at their instruments? That opens up a whole new can of worms, why weren't they checking their instruments periodically and keeping situational awareness? Both the 'sleeping' and 'discussion' theories are BAD news for both of these pilots.

It almost sounds like they knew the old black box could only record the last 30 minutes of conversation. That is, re-initiate communciation with ATC after making sure that it would take a minimum 30 minutes to descent and land.

Both the 'sleeping' and 'discussion' theories are BAD news for both of these pilots.

FO apparently denies both - that they were either sleeping or engaged in a discussion.My wife has another theory - they were of different sexual orientation and had a little ....

The thing that worries me the most about this incident, is this plane was over 150 miles off course before communication was reestablished. Why were the fighters still not airborne? Why were they only on standby? Didn't we learn anything from 9/11? At the point the the 9/11 planes went off course, they were about the same distance away from there target.