That's the one that "missed" Minneapolis, overshot by 150 miles or so, then did a U-turn over Wisconsin before returning for a safe landing. Afterwards the two pilots said they had been "distracted" by a discussion about new scheduling software on their computers and therefore just didn't notice that they were out of touch with air traffic controllers for 90 minutes. The FAA, in no-nonsense fashion, soon revoked the pilot certificates for both men.

The always-informative AVweb has an update on several developments.  A PDF of the original emergency-revocation letter from the FAA is here; a PDF of the pilots' legal appeal is here. Selections from the recordings of Air Traffic Control attempts to reach the plane are here.

I am not a lawyer or an airline pilot, but it seems to me that the heart of the two sides' cases are the contentions below. First, from the FAA letter explaining the emergency revocation. Click for a larger view, plus a chance to see the surprisingly colorful language government officials chose to use ("while you were on a frolic of your own" etc).


Now, one of a long series of defenses offered by the pilots' attorney -- in this case, that controllers (in some unspecified way) didn't do their duty and therefore added to the problem.

As always, judge for yourself. I will be interested to hear the full arguments about dereliction of duty on all sides.

UPDATE: Well, I said I wasn't a lawyer! Apparently the "colorful" language I noted, "on a frolic of your own," is a known term of art in the law world, sort of like "high crimes and misdemeanors" or "Oyez! Oyez!" (It involves whether an employer is vicariously liable for the deeds or misdeeds of an employee.) Now I know! Thanks to legally-educated readers for the info.