Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Inexperience In The Cockpit-media Does It Again  
User currently offlineLobster From Germany, joined Oct 2008, 49 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 8 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 9273 times:

5 EYEWITNESS NEWS exposes what some call inexperience in the cockpit—pilots hired with a fraction of the flying hours once required by regional airlines.

Some aviators said they believe that is compromising safety and those regional airlines, now operate one out of every two flights.

There have been five fatal airline crashes in the U.S. since 2003. Each involves regional airlines, three of the five involved pilot error.

Lexington, Kentucky 2006: 49 people died when two Comair pilots take off on the wrong runway.

Kirksville, Missouri 2004: 13 people are killed when an American Connection plane crashed on approach. Investigators blame poor pilot judgment.

Jefferson City, Missouri 2004: A crash many in the industry called ‘foolhardy.’

Two Northwest Airline pilots brining a plane into the Twin Cities were fooling around at an unusually high altitude.

Both pilots died. One had just 222 hours of jet flying experience and had worked for Pinnacle for less than six months. The other had been fired from another regional carried for violating company policies.

5 EYEWITNESS NEWS found at least one airline, Trans States, willing to hire pilots with as little as 250 total flying hours. The FAA’s minimum historically is for a pilot to have 2,000 to 2,500 hours in order to apply for a job flying for a carrier.


http://kstp.com/article/stories/S331920.shtml?cat=1


This is also the same "news" station that initially reported that pilot at MSP who was arrested was drunk.
Drunk Pilot Arrested At MSP (by Lobster Nov 19 2007 in Civil Aviation)

Then later changed their article online.

I guess this shouldn't surprise anyone. But it's still pretty pathetic. I guess the "fact checker " position was eliminated long ago.

 sarcastic   sarcastic 

51 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinePhxplanes From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 436 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (6 years 8 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 9266 times:

I guess it doesn't matter that thousands of people are killed every year in car accidents and that 16 year olds with hardly any experience are driving many of those cars. I know they are not carrying 50 people in the back but I hate how the media makes aviation seem so dangerous. All those pilots would not be allowed to fly if they did not know what they were doing.

User currently offlineBreaker1011 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 938 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (6 years 8 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 9224 times:



Quoting Lobster (Thread starter):
Two Northwest Airline pilots brining a plane into the Twin Cities were fooling around at an unusually high altitude.

Both pilots died. One had just 222 hours of jet flying experience and had worked for Pinnacle for less than six months. The other had been fired from another regional carried for violating company policies.

Did the media really use the words "fooling around" - what the heck does that mean? Doing loop-de-loops in a Saab?



Life's tough. It's even tougher if you're stupid. J. Wayne
User currently offlineZkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4836 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (6 years 8 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 9210 times:

And I guess they overlook about how else pilots are supposed to get hours especially when the industry has a shortage of pilots at the moment... Airfares would go up significantly if airlines weren't permitted to hire pilots with under 1000 hours TT a)because they would have to spend a lot of money getting pilots up to those hours (something that they should probably help with yes), and b) because they would not be able to operate a lot of the flights they currently do due to the shortage of pilots.

What definantly does need to happen however is for there to always be an experienced pilot in the left seat (ie at least 2-3000 hours with ).



56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
User currently offlineCaptOveur From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (6 years 8 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 9191 times:



Quoting Breaker1011 (Reply 2):
Did the media really use the words "fooling around" - what the heck does that mean? Doing loop-de-loops in a Saab?

I think that was the CRJ that went to 42,000ft.. for a minute


User currently offlineFlyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (6 years 8 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 9077 times:

Before everyone rips this media outlet a new one..... although they are using general public terms and might not know aviation well, their point is valid. Very valid.

There is a serious lack of experience in regional airline cockpits these days. You should NEVER have your first experience doing basic airmanship activities in a 50 seat jet. Yet, we have FOs at my airline who do their VERY FIRST ILS IN ACTUAL INSTRUMENT CONDITIONS at the controls of a CRJ. Their very first time flying in the vicinity of thunderstorms is with granny going to visit the grandkids in the back of the plane. Their very first time time flying into a Class B airport is in a jet doing it at 250kts. Their very first time doing successive long range IFR flights, including fuel planning, situational awareness, diversions, etc, is in a part 121 airliner. And, they're all doing this with captains that upgraded with minimum legal required hours sitting next to them.

Sure, some of these pilots are good pilots, but there is no substitute for experience. Our captains aren't just captains, they're flight instructors. This isn't just one or two FOs, it is a large majority of the ones coming onto the line. So much so that the FAA just DOUBLED the number of hours required to fly with a checkairman for a new FO before they can be paired with a line captain. Thats for every single pilot hired. You're required 1200TT to fly a Cessna 182 carrying canceled checks, but only 190TT to be a regional jet FO.

Pilots are being taught how to fly... basic airmanship... with you sitting in seat 9C.

I personally feel that ATP flight time requirements (ie: 1500TT with a substantial amount of night, instrument, cross country, etc) should be required for ALL Part 121 crewmembers. Additionally, there should be minimum crew requirements. ie: a crew must have a combined total of at least 1000 hours in their seat in the airplane. No more brand new captains with brand new FOs (which happens all the time as they're both on reserve).

I'm a regional airline pilot.... I get nervous flying on regional airliners. You probably should too.

Quoting Breaker1011 (Reply 2):
Quoting Lobster (Thread starter):
Two Northwest Airline pilots brining a plane into the Twin Cities were fooling around at an unusually high altitude.

Both pilots died. One had just 222 hours of jet flying experience and had worked for Pinnacle for less than six months. The other had been fired from another regional carried for violating company policies.

Did the media really use the words "fooling around" - what the heck does that mean? Doing loop-de-loops in a Saab?

Thats pretty much what was happening. That and a lot of other completely idiotic and unprofessional stuff. Luckily they didn't kill anyone else but themselves.


User currently offlinePeterPuck From Canada, joined Jun 2004, 323 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (6 years 8 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 9024 times:



Quoting Lobster (Thread starter):
The FAA’s minimum historically is for a pilot to have 2,000 to 2,500 hours in order to apply for a job flying for a carrier.

When did the FAA ever have anything to do with a carriers minimums. All they care is that you have a CPL .


User currently offlineFXRA From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 707 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (6 years 8 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 8990 times:



Quoting Flyf15 (Reply 5):
Their very first time doing successive long range IFR flights, including fuel planning, situational awareness, diversions, etc, is in a part 121 airliner.

To be fair, I know a few older "experienced" captains that haven't done so well at the above listed criteria.

While I agree the mins are probably inching too low, the level of true airmanship has been decreasing over decades. Pilots don't aviate much anymore, they turn the autopilot on, and it flies the plane, the pilots watch the screens to make sure that Otto keeps it pointed the right direction. Navigation has been reduced to following the pip on the glass screen. Whens the last time a 121 carrier flew cross country with manually tuning in VOR's as they went?

To an extent we've replaced human knowledge with modern electronics. And luckily we've done it well. I have yet to fly on a plane with anyone that made me uncomfortable (I avoid those pilots at the airlines I worked for, and they weren;t necessarily the new guys). And i fly pretty regularly on RJs.

The part about this story that really aggravates me is there is no support given for the theory. How much time/experiene did the LEX crew have? Why was the pinnacle captain fired from a previous job.. what policies did he break? How much time the the FO have in turboprops? How about lets check statistics for "experienced" pilot errors?

And if we raise the limits, what level will be enough? If I have to have 1500 hours before I can land a crappy paying job for a regional why should I do it? Has there been one crash attributed to lack of experience?

Its not a perfect system, but just wait until we replace pilots with computers... thats when I stop flying.



Visualize Whirled Peas
User currently offlineWjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5194 posts, RR: 22
Reply 8, posted (6 years 8 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 8969 times:

Quoting Breaker1011 (Reply 2):
Did the media really use the words "fooling around" - what the heck does that mean?

"Fooling around" is a really, really polite description of what happened. It was such a completely, outrageously over-the-top and ultimately deadly combination of immaturity, poor airmanship, poor judgment, lack of familiarity with the systems and procedures necessary to climb to the altitude that they did, failure to properly intepret what the aircraft was telling them by what it was doing, lack of familiarity and ability to execute properly the engine relight procedures, and on and on, in my opinion. And then, even after arriving at altitude behind the power curve, switching seats, staying at the altitude despite the symptoms exhibited by the aircraft until they got a freakin' stick PUSHER, blowing into a Dutch Roll, and failing to relight an engine that probably should have relit had they properly executed the relight procedures (which they didn't do) (the other was fried following the high-altitude stall at basically full power), they still would likely have lived, in my view, if they had not then exhibited behavior that can be interpreted as attempts at ass-covering: they did not promptly inform ATC that they had a dual engine failure and they didn't immediately start picking a landing spot for if they couldn't get the engines relit. Had they done so, they had plenty of glide distance for a dead stick landing; not so after they finally decided that they weren't going to get either engine relit.

That said, there were, in my view, contributing documentation deficiencies that could well have been confusing to them in an emergency (and the QRH and other checklists were rewritten as a result of the accident) and there were probably aircraft characteristics and a phenomenon known as "core-lock" in the CRJ engines with which they probably weren't familiar and may have impacted their ability to relight the other engine in any event. The potential existence of these issues with any aircraft or system, however, serve, in my view, as a sufficient reason by themselves for people not to screw around with equipment that can and will bite them.

This was, in my view, a cluster of amazing proportions that proves, if anything else, the inherent safety of the existing systems: in most cases, you have to really, really screw up to plant an otherwise-well-functioning CRJ.

Oh, yeah. And while they didn't do loop-d-loops in that CRJ, they apparently DID do a number of high-g maneuvers that were well outside of what their airline would have been happy to know that they were doing.

As to the other issue, a source who I trust would wholeheartedly agree with the characterization of the total time issues described above; he told me that he left the left seat of his regional to take a right-seat job elsewhere because he believes that it is only a matter of time until something really bad happens as a result of a lack of experience in the right seat. The implication was that he wasn't confident that it wouldn't happen one day when he was in the left seat. That spoke volumes to me.

Let me also add to what FXRA said above: I agree with much of what he says, the central point of which, if I understand is: experience isn't a be-all-and-end-all. This is completely and totally true. Indeed, there's a point in the learning curve where complacency and overconfidence is a problem. And there are experienced pilots all over the world who exhibit poor judgment on a regular basis and make other crewmembers nervous: something that CRM was supposed to correct but probably only helps with to a varying degree. And there are relatively-inexperienced pilots who are destined for greatness and have "the whole package" very early in their careers. However, looking at the forest rather than the trees, I think it's fair to say that it should be a concern that there are *so many* non-ATP pilots flying the right seat at the regionals these days. I also agree that the cited incidents don't likely have too much to do with "inexperience" per se. A more common characteristic would be, for lack of a better way of explaining it, an insufficient response to circumstances that should have caused them to question their situation.

[Edited 2008-01-31 23:59:43]

User currently offlineFlyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (6 years 8 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 8911 times:



Quoting FXRA (Reply 7):
To be fair, I know a few older "experienced" captains that haven't done so well at the above listed criteria.

Half of all people are below average. Well, below the median if you want to be technical.

Quoting FXRA (Reply 7):
While I agree the mins are probably inching too low, the level of true airmanship has been decreasing over decades. Pilots don't aviate much anymore, they turn the autopilot on, and it flies the plane, the pilots watch the screens to make sure that Otto keeps it pointed the right direction. Navigation has been reduced to following the pip on the glass screen. Whens the last time a 121 carrier flew cross country with manually tuning in VOR's as they went?

True airmanship is something some pilots still have. Northwest DC-9 pilots are true airmen. Every few months or so I have to navigate across the country with nothing but tuning VORs, due to deferred FMS. It happens, and people need to have those skills.

In the sim, I routinely do NDB approaches hand flown with no automation, no moving map... nothing more than the yoke and an RMI. Of course, I would never do this in real life. Not because of inability, but purely because it is obviously not the safest and most accepted option and it would be a once in a lifetime event in a CRJ where you actually were left with that as your only option.

There are three sets of people when it comes to true airmanship.... those who without a doubt have it, those who had it at one point but due to whatever reason, no longer do (most likely, the lack of needing it), and those who never had it in the first place. That last group is the problem... those are the brand new FOs, and to a lesser extent, brand new CAs in regional airline cockpits. Its one thing to have something and no longer use the parts you don't need. Its another to be completely ignorant on the subject and not even know what you don't know.

Quoting FXRA (Reply 7):
The part about this story that really aggravates me is there is no support given for the theory. How much time/experiene did the LEX crew have? Why was the pinnacle captain fired from a previous job.. what policies did he break? How much time the the FO have in turboprops? How about lets check statistics for "experienced" pilot errors?

Although I don't have any stats on the flight time of pilots in various listed crashes, one thing I do know for sure is that a common thread in most (if not all) of these is an extreme lack of professionalism and experience. They were too unexperienced to realize that they were in the process of killing themselves and their passengers. Scaring yourself a few times in a Cessna 172 or Piper Navajo can do a lot to change your outlook on how important it is to know your limits, know you need to be a professional if you want to survive, and know whats safe and what isn't. You don't gain this experience by doing nothing but flights with an instructor on a syllabus and then going to a regional airline.

Quoting FXRA (Reply 7):
And if we raise the limits, what level will be enough? If I have to have 1500 hours before I can land a crappy paying job for a regional why should I do it?

Regionals have had a dwindling supply of pilots and increased demand. There are two ways to correct a supply/demand disparity. One is to increase the demand people have for your position (by increasing pay), the other is to increase the supply of people who qualify for your position (by decreasing requirements). Regionals have chose to decrease requirements. In this time of high demand for regional pilots, but low pay, you can't expect to get much in terms of quality.

This is by no means a discussion on pay, that is a whole different subject for a different day. A regional airline pilot should be an experienced professional no matter what they are paid. But, since you mentioned it, I'll reply. The fact still stands, if you pay better, you will be able to ask for more. If Regional Airline XYZ paid their FOs $50k/yr, they would be able to attract the best of the best and then be very selective of who they hire. No doubt they would be able to have average new hires with thousands of hours and most likely prior airline experience.

Quoting FXRA (Reply 7):
Has there been one crash attributed to lack of experience?

The Pinnacle crash is one of the more recent and better examples. If I remember right, the FO had something on the order of 600 hours total time. When they entered a pilot induced deep stall at FL410, he was the only pilot in the flight deck (the captain was drinking drinks back in the cabin). The captain, though experienced, had been fired from multiple other airlines and had failed multiple training events. He was an idiot who was an accident waiting to happen. When you eventually pair these two pilots together and put them in a situation (ferry flight) where they have free reign of an aircraft... they had that accident.

If either, even just one, of those two pilots, had the experience and professionalism to realize the situation they were getting themselves into, they'd both still be alive today. Instead, neither of them did. Neither had that little voice of experience in the back of their minds telling them "hey, this isn't such a good idea".


User currently offlineBahadir From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 1794 posts, RR: 10
Reply 10, posted (6 years 8 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 8743 times:

Very good points about the status of pilot experience in the regional airlines these days. I am tired of seeing ATP Inc. grand with poor airmanship skills not being able to shoot an ILS or people who have 1 hr of actual instrument time when they go to fly regional jets.


Earthbound misfit I
User currently offlineGoAllegheny From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 340 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (6 years 8 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 8695 times:

I don't get the OP's objection. Putting aside a couple of apparent factual errors (FAA apparently doesn't require minimums), the story seems spot on, and the 250 hours is consistent with what I believe is the minimum flight time for at least one regional carrier. OP: What's your objection to the story?

User currently offlineATCT From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 2298 posts, RR: 38
Reply 12, posted (6 years 8 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 8529 times:

I actually agree with the media on this one.

Read the current issue of Professional Pilot, the current vice chairman of the NTSB has a good article about this kinda stuff.

ATCT



"The way to get started is to quit talking and begin doing." - Walt Disney
User currently offlineLobster From Germany, joined Oct 2008, 49 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (6 years 8 months 3 days ago) and read 8420 times:



Quoting GoAllegheny (Reply 11):
Putting aside a couple of apparent factual errors (

Thats the point. There is no responsibility in the media anymore to report ACCURATE information. All this "news" piece did was draw up some more negativity for the airlines because they are an easy target simply because Joe Shmoe simply goes "wow, OK" because he doesn't no better.


User currently offlineSpacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3629 posts, RR: 12
Reply 14, posted (6 years 8 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 8352 times:



Quoting Lobster (Thread starter):
Two Northwest Airline pilots brining a plane into the Twin Cities were fooling around at an unusually high altitude.

Why highlight this? This is the part of the article you have a problem with?

It's probably the most accurate part of the whole thing.



I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13120 posts, RR: 12
Reply 15, posted (6 years 8 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 8308 times:

The crash on take off at Lexington, KY was in part due to confusion of the passageway to the runway due to construction and other changes on the ground, a lack of good ground traffic control and a lack of staff in the airport's tower.
The Pinnacle crash was about some horrible decisions made - they blew through the rules they were taught about aircraft management. Even if a 'ferry' flight without pax, you don't push any a/c like it was a F-16. While they were the only one's killed, what if their a/c crashed into a movie theater, a supermarket, a hotel, an apartment building or a chemical plant? Then many, many more could have been killed.
Still the 4 crashes of regional airline revenue flights in the USA in that time is still a lot lower statistics odds than even 10 years ago, and lower still even 30-40 years ago.
Let us not forget that it is approaching TV 'sweeps month' for viewing stats used by advertisers to consider who to place ads with. That means more sensational 'news' stories on air flights, crime risks, and the like to get the eyeballs aimed to their station and their news.


User currently offlineLobster From Germany, joined Oct 2008, 49 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (6 years 8 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 8250 times:



Quoting Spacecadet (Reply 14):
It's probably the most accurate part of the whole thing.

Except they didn't work for Northwest.


User currently offlineFlyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (6 years 8 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 8200 times:



Quoting Lobster (Reply 16):
Quoting Spacecadet (Reply 14):
It's probably the most accurate part of the whole thing.

Except they didn't work for Northwest.

Actually, I think it should be the other way around. Northwest should be held accountable and they should get the blame in the media. When you buy a ticket, you buy a ticket on Northwest, not a ticket on Pinnacle. Northwest bears the responsibility for its regional carriers.... it chooses who to contract with and has a great deal of control over its regional carriers. In the eyes of the general public, flying on Pinnacle is flying on Northwest. Its the Northwest product.

If Northwest chooses, on the basis of cost, to contract with bottom of the barrel carriers who have inexperienced and unprofessional pilots, then that is their decision. The must be ready to accept both the positives and negatives of the arrangement. If their regional carrier, who has a long history of well documented problems with pilot retention/training/hiring/experience/professionalism, has a crash, Northwest should definitely be held responsible.


User currently offlineNorthwestair From Poland, joined Jul 2001, 648 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (6 years 8 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 8149 times:



Quoting Lobster (Thread starter):
Jefferson City, Missouri 2004: A crash many in the industry called ‘foolhardy.’

Two Northwest Airline pilots brining a plane into the Twin Cities were fooling around at an unusually high altitude.



Quoting Flyf15 (Reply 17):
Actually, I think it should be the other way around. Northwest should be held accountable and they should get the blame in the media. When you buy a ticket, you buy a ticket on Northwest, not a ticket on Pinnacle. Northwest bears the responsibility for its regional carriers.... it chooses who to contract with and has a great deal of control over its regional carriers. In the eyes of the general public, flying on Pinnacle is flying on Northwest. Its the Northwest product.

If Northwest chooses, on the basis of cost, to contract with bottom of the barrel carriers who have inexperienced and unprofessional pilots, then that is their decision. The must be ready to accept both the positives and negatives of the arrangement. If their regional carrier, who has a long history of well documented problems with pilot retention/training/hiring/experience/professionalism, has a crash, Northwest should definitely be held responsible.

You might want to take a look into this one, cause that particular crash wasa ferry flight from LIT-MSP. The only 2 souls on board were the Captain and the F/O. Also I believe they were cleared to for 42000 and they were in limits of the CRJ. Yes Max limits but within the limits. I think you can still read the NTSB report, which is interesting.



I don't care who you fly just as long as you fly
User currently offlineFlyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (6 years 8 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 8124 times:



Quoting Northwestair (Reply 18):
You might want to take a look into this one, cause that particular crash wasa ferry flight from LIT-MSP. The only 2 souls on board were the Captain and the F/O. Also I believe they were cleared to for 42000 and they were in limits of the CRJ. Yes Max limits but within the limits. I think you can still read the NTSB report, which is interesting.

I wasn't referring to the 3701 crash when I was discussing Northwest facing responsibility. I was talking about hypothetical future crashes and the general attitude that regional airlines should fall under the blanket of their mainline carrier in the media and public's eye.

As far as the crash goes, the CRJ is certified to FL410, which is the altitude they were cleared to. But, unlike simple general aviation aircraft, airliners can't just go up to their max certified altitude any day any time. It is only under certain weights / temperatures that they can. Its not really a "you can make it to FL410", it is more of a "you may be able to make it to FL410, but you're never allowed above it". If I remember correctly from the analysis (I've learned a lot about this crash as it is very pertinent for all CRJ pilots to learn from), their buffet margin protection only allowed them to get up to something like FL360. They were light, but it was also very warm outside.

They then ignored multiple signs that the aircraft was really telling them it didn't want to be there. Starting with them continually loosing airspeed even after level-off, then stall protection system activation which they overrode in order to maintain altitude. It is flat out amazing how many stupid things these pilots did on the course of this flight. They started it off with holding the plane over the runway and then doing a 3 G pullup at the end. They did multiple rolls. They stalled the aircraft 3-4 other times at lower altitudes prior to the stall that ended up killing them. They switched seats. They lied to ATC about the problem they were in. They totally botched the engine relight. They failed to recognize the severity of their problem and didn't start heading towards a landing site until it was too late.... I remember reading they had something like 8 different adequate airports within gliding range when they lost their engines. These guys were idiots and they killed themselves. Its as simple as that.

These are the pilots that are in the cockpit of the airplanes that are flying you, your family, me, my family, and the rest of the general public around.


User currently offlineSpacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3629 posts, RR: 12
Reply 20, posted (6 years 8 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 8098 times:



Quoting Lobster (Reply 16):
Except they didn't work for Northwest.

Who they "work for" is immaterial. They were flying a plane with an NWA logo on it in NWA livery, under contract. Doesn't seem unreasonable to call them Northwest pilots.

If you're going to scream about media inaccuracy, I would hope it would be over issues larger than hair-splitting about who actually signs a pilot's paycheck. Next you'll say the article's inaccurate because the plane was actually under lease; "it wasn't even a Northwest plane!"

At my company, within my department alone, our paychecks can have any one of three separate company names on them. But none of us are going to pitch a fit if somebody says any of us are part of any of those three organizations.



I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
User currently offlineNorthwestair From Poland, joined Jul 2001, 648 posts, RR: 5
Reply 21, posted (6 years 8 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 8064 times:

If you're going to scream about media inaccuracy, I would hope it would be over issues larger than hair-splitting about who actually signs a pilot's paycheck. Next you'll say the article's inaccurate because the plane was actually under lease; "it wasn't even a Northwest plane!"

At my company, within my department alone, our paychecks can have any one of three separate company names on them. But none of us are going to pitch a fit if somebody says any of us are part of any of those three organizations.[/quote]

If you work for 9E then you work for 9E. You work fo the company that write your paycheck. A 9E pilot will never say he or she works for NW and I think that a NW pilot would never say they work for 9E. So yes I think the media got this one wrong.

Quoting Spacecadet (Reply 20):
Who they "work for" is immaterial. They were flying a plane with an NWA logo on it in NWA livery, under contract. Doesn't seem unreasonable to call them Northwest pilots.


[quote=Flyf15,reply=19]I wasn't referring to the 3701 crash when I was discussing Northwest facing responsibility. I was talking about hypothetical future crashes and the general attitude that regional airlines should fall under the blanket of their mainline carrier in the media and public's eye.

As far as the crash goes, the CRJ is certified to FL410, which is the altitude they were cleared to. But, unlike simple general aviation aircraft, airliners can't just go up to their max certified altitude any day any time. It is only under certain weights / temperatures that they can. Its not really a "you can make it to FL410", it is more of a "you may be able to make it to FL410, but you're never allowed above it". If I remember correctly from the analysis (I've learned a lot about this crash as it is very pertinent for all CRJ pilots to learn from), their buffet margin protection only allowed them to get up to something like FL360. They were light, but it was also very warm outside.

They then ignored multiple signs that the aircraft was really telling them it didn't want to be there. Starting with them continually loosing airspeed even after level-off, then stall protection system activation which they overrode in order to maintain altitude. It is flat out amazing how many stupid things these pilots did on the course of this flight. They started it off with holding the plane over the runway and then doing a 3 G pullup at the end. They did multiple rolls. They stalled the aircraft 3-4 other times at lower altitudes prior to the stall that ended up killing them. They switched seats. They lied to ATC about the problem they were in. They totally botched the engine relight. They failed to recognize the severity of their problem and didn't start heading towards a landing site until it was too late.... I remember reading they had something like 8 different adequate airports within gliding range when they lost their engines. These guys were idiots and they killed themselves. Its as simple as that.

These are the pilots that are in the cockpit of the airplanes that are flying you, your family, me, my family, and the rest of the general public around.

I thought you were referring to that particular crash. I will agree with you on that they did a lot of things that were stupid and they inturn paid the price. If I recall I think the 2 pilots sounded like to College guys at a party. That accident was a while back and you didn't see to much coverage about it.

[Edited 2008-02-01 13:30:57]


I don't care who you fly just as long as you fly
User currently offlineBoeingPride800 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 430 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (6 years 8 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 7821 times:

Don't worry, I think the low minimum flying hours will go back up once the needed pilot positions are filled.

User currently offlineFalcon flyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 1327 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (6 years 8 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 7030 times:



Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 15):
The crash on take off at Lexington, KY was in part due to confusion of the passageway to the runway due to construction and other changes on the ground, a lack of good ground traffic control and a lack of staff in the airport's tower.

True, as contributing factors. While I tend to avoid unfair judgement since I was not in the cockpit, a few facts are undisputed, such as the runway alignment was never verified prior to the takeoff roll, a basic SOP in most cockpits. Also, the takeoff was continued despite the departure runway being unlit. I am guilty of making mistakes, but as my experience has evolved, I have become more comfortable dealing with unusual circumstances. On the business aviation side of things, regarding experience, there's a good reason why insurance requirements dictate that both pilots on our company aircraft be type rated with a minimum of 3000 hours of flight time. They want the CEO and management to be on an aircraft with highly qualified crew members and the experience to match. The corporate and charter sides of the industry are abiding by that through IS-BAO, Wyvern and ARG/US audits.
As far as arguing how a low-time pilot is supposed to accumulate hours, there are plenty of solutions. Flight instruction is one way of solidifying skills and knowledge, only nobody wants to go through this unpopular option and everyone is waiting for the 250 hour right seat citation or regional job. Single-pilot freight, aircraft ferrying, banner towing, VFR tours, the options are there, they're just not sexy and usually don't involve shiny jets and uniforms. I'll take a flight instructor or someone with hands-on, single-pilot IFR freight experience any day over a pilot whose first words in an interview involve his 10 hours in a level-D sim, with little flight time to back it up.



My definition of cool ? Not trying so hard to be cool.
User currently offlineKAUSpilot From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 1959 posts, RR: 33
Reply 24, posted (6 years 8 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 6765 times:

According to most posters on this forum, flying an airliner is so easy a monkey could do it, so who cares.

25 Flyf15 : While their employer is Pinnacle, if I were to work for them, I would probably refer to myself as a "Northwest" pilot to the general public. Flying N
26 EMBQA : I was asked by a Captain today how to turn the cabin lights off...!!
27 TinPusher007 : While I follow your train of thought, you would be wrong to refer to yourself as an NWA pilot. A NWA AirLINK pilot perhaps, which is how I usually id
28 Falcon flyer : I do believe that, and while it may seem contradictory from my previous post, total flight time strictly on its own merit is often not an adequate ba
29 Juventus : same here, my friend is an IOE captain at Express Jet. He says is "hazard pay" when he refers to the extra bucks he makes as an IOE captain. I feel s
30 Post contains links Aviateur : I did a full article on hiring minimums and the so-called "pilot shortage" a month or so ago. I also did a handful of radio interviews on the same top
31 Post contains images Warszawa : I'm very surprised at how many people in this thread mention "If only people knew who was up front, those kids" - For god sakes, they're FULLY Licens
32 Calpilot17 : I like the flyf15 guy probably a CFI hired by gojets with about 1400hrs and 101multi after he decided he hate his crappy desk job and wanted to be a "
33 Flyf15 : Well, you did get the CFI part right. But.. the rest... couple years of instructing, IFR cross country twin engine stuff, ferry work, turbine flying,
34 Wjcandee : And *half the width* of the main runway and differently-painted.
35 Juventus : I got a couple of friends at the regionals (captains). One of them has taken the controls away from the F/Os on two separate occasions lately. My oth
36 CptSpeaking : I was FULLY licensed and FULLY certified to fly a 172 when I got my Private license too...but I didn't completely understand how it worked or fly it
37 Continental : They do bring up a pretty good point. Whenever I'm flying I'll go for mainline anytime not only because I dislike cramming into those terribly small a
38 MD11Engineer : Not possible with our airline (B737NG). If the FMS is inop, it is a no go acc. to MEL. Had an A300-600 crew ask me how to dim the instrument and indi
39 Cubsrule : Let's look at some numbers... F/O 6564 hours total time 3564 hours in type Captain 4710 hours total time 3082 in type (1567 as PIC) I don't think you
40 2H4 : One can be "fully licensed" and "fully certified"....and at the same time, be woefully inexperienced. Sometimes to the point of regularly placing the
41 UN_B732 : The Comair LEX crash has nothing to do with inexperience. Captain Clay had 4,700 total time / 3,000 hours in the CRJ. First Officer Polehinke had 5,42
42 Virgin747LGW : were the pilots a 16 year old boy and girl or something?
43 KochamLOT : Does anyone think a report like this will force regionals to up their minimums? I hope not. How ARE pilots to get their airline careers off the ground
44 Post contains images 2H4 : ....By getting any one of the many non-airline flying jobs out there. Instructing, charter, corporate, skydiving, glider-towing, pipeline inspection,
45 Flyf15 : Not in a 50 seat jet with paying passengers in the back. The CRJ/ERJ/etc are not beginning airplanes for beginning pilots to learn and gain experienc
46 ShyFlyer : With the exception of corporate, charter, and maybe ferry, very few of those options offer multi time and corporate can be difficult to break into.
47 Post contains images 2H4 : Instructing does. You need instructors to train multiengine students. It's not uncommon to find Twin Otters and Beech 18s flying skydivers. Many aeri
48 ZBBYLW : This is how alot of people do it in Canada. Start off instructing, earn 500-1000 hrs or so, then move onto the multi instructing and IFR instructing.
49 KochamLOT : [quote=2H4,reply=44]....By getting any one of the many non-airline flying jobs out there. Instructing, charter, corporate, skydiving, glider-towing, p
50 Post contains images ShyFlyer : Well, of course. But all the instructors I've met, flown with, etc have lamented about their lack of multi time.
51 Flighty : RJ pilots may be kids, but kids are good at a lot of things. Maybe they are good at flying. All depends on the ability of the individual and the quali
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Smoking In The Cockpit (Video) posted Sun Dec 9 2007 12:54:26 by Cakentennis
Ryanair Does It Again posted Mon Oct 15 2007 20:13:44 by Bullpitt
Fluffy Dice In The Cockpit! posted Tue Jul 17 2007 11:49:57 by Readytotaxi
Aviation Partners Inc Does It Again! posted Thu May 24 2007 08:04:03 by SkyexRamper
AA Does It Again! posted Sun May 13 2007 04:49:28 by FXramper
How Many Airliners With Three In The Cockpit? posted Tue Feb 27 2007 15:03:37 by A380900
Smartwings (QS) Does It Again! posted Tue Aug 1 2006 12:18:52 by EHHO
Possible To Ride In The Cockpit? posted Tue Jul 11 2006 23:45:26 by BowflexBrennan
Seat Belts In The Cockpit? posted Mon Jun 12 2006 15:54:31 by Bobprobert95
Sneezing In The Cockpit posted Thu Jun 1 2006 02:52:41 by RichM