Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
New Colgan Air Crash Article  
User currently offlineHikesWithEyes From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 816 posts, RR: 7
Posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 10966 times:

From the Seattle P-I:

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/6420ap_us_plane_into_home.html


First, benzene in my Perrier, and now this!
84 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineJoseKMLB From United States of America, joined May 2008, 493 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 10946 times:

On Tuesday, Rep. Jerry Costello, D-Ill., chairman of the aviation subcommittee, is expected to offer a proposal to address some of the fatigue, pay, and other issues that pilots complain are undermining safety.

I thought that was in issue for awhile now. You see it on TV about the regional carriers alot of the times.


User currently offlineJeffry747 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 963 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 10726 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/27/ny.crash.probe/index.html

Another recent article on the Colgan Air crash.
My question is this: Says in the article towards the end that the Captain took a nap in the EWR crew lounge shortly before the flight, which is against Colgan regulations. Why is this against regulations? Isn't a crew lounge specifically for hanging around for a while, resting up, watching tv, and taking naps? Why would anyone care if he rests as long as he is up and ready to roll by flight time?

BTW I think if someone is sick (as was the case with the female pilot) they should not come to work if they are going to be in an enclosed space such as an aircraft or even a car where they can get others sick. That was a bad call.



C'mon Big B, FLY!
User currently offlineFlyinryan99 From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 2004 posts, RR: 13
Reply 3, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 10531 times:



Quoting JoseKMLB (Reply 1):
On Tuesday, Rep. Jerry Costello, D-Ill., chairman of the aviation subcommittee, is expected to offer a proposal to address some of the fatigue, pay, and other issues that pilots complain are undermining safety.

How can they address pay? I don't get it. This is what the market is willing to accept as pay to fly at the regional level. If they don't like the pay, get out. Most customers don't care about the pay especially when it increases the ticket price.


User currently offline777STL From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3647 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 10493 times:



Quoting Flyinryan99 (Reply 3):
How can they address pay? I don't get it. This is what the market is willing to accept as pay to fly at the regional level. If they don't like the pay, get out. Most customers don't care about the pay especially when it increases the ticket price.

Perhaps mandate salaries that are above the poverty line? If you're responsible for 50 lives on a regular basis, you shouldn't have to suffer the indignity of qualifying for welfare. The majority of young, regional F/Os I personally know can only make it work via a collective living situation, i.e. five people in one crashpad, or they live with their parents as the FO in the Colgan accident did. Pretty sad.



PHX based
User currently offlineJettaKnight From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 195 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 10345 times:

Quoting Jeffry747 (Reply 2):
Says in the article towards the end that the Captain took a nap in the EWR crew lounge shortly before the flight, which is against Colgan regulations. Why is this against regulations?

I read the article to say that they may have spent the night in the crew lounge instead of paying for a hotel, a much different scenario than simply 'taking a nap'. I can fully understand why this would not be allowed.

Quoting 777STL (Reply 4):
If you're responsible for 50 lives on a regular basis, you shouldn't have to suffer the indignity of qualifying for welfare.

While I have sympathy for this argument, if what the article suggests is correct, both the Pilot and FO violated regulations by having her fly while sick. I realize that there is a sentiment that the FO was 'forced' to make this decision based upon the economics of being a low paid regional crew member, but for this, I have no sympathy.

If the conditions of the job are so poor, why do so many people make this career choice? My uneducated assumption is that it is the hope of one day being in a Senior position, and earning the comfortable salary that comes with it that motivates them. If we are going to artificially raise the pay of the entry level jobs above what the free market will bear, do we also artifically lower the pay at the high end to balance things out?

Besides, higher pay isn't going to eliminate commuting crew members from making cost saving choices. From an article quoted in this thread:

Quote:
Staff Living In LAX Car Park/Runway

a pilot whose salary was reduced from ~$150K to ~120K is living in the parking lot at LAX.

[Edited 2009-07-28 08:04:42]

[Edited 2009-07-28 08:05:51]

User currently offlineJettaKnight From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 195 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 10258 times:

Quoting JettaKnight (Reply 5):

Sorry - continuation of above the above response due to my poor editing skills.

I realize that the pilot at LAX and the Colgan FO is an apples to oranges comparison, but I believe that human nature ensures that choices such as the one she made are not going to be eliminated by simply raising pay.

I make a decent living at my Sales job. However, hypothetically, I could find myself sick while out on the road and be forced to pay out-of-pocket if I choose to spend the night in a hotel. Could I afford the expense? Sure, but most likely I'm loading up the front seat with aspirin and fluids and making the drive home. Besides, what's the worst that could happen...

[Edited 2009-07-28 08:16:11]

[Edited 2009-07-28 08:16:59]

User currently offlineRjnut From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 1222 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 10168 times:

None of the pay/rest issues brought up here have convinced me that this accident would not have happened anyway. They were both spooked by the flying conditions they found themselves in and perhaps training issues are more the cause..

User currently offlineToltommy From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 3292 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 10065 times:



Quoting 777STL (Reply 4):

Perhaps mandate salaries that are above the poverty line?

And how do you propose to pay for the mandate? Raise fares? Great, but now the planes are empty because people won't pay the higher fare. Ask for a subsidy from the federal government? You might be able to get that these days, but isn't it just another form of welfare?

Quoting JettaKnight (Reply 5):
a pilot whose salary was reduced from ~$150K to ~120K is living in the parking lot at LAX.

Even in Los Angeles, $120k a year could pay for a decent apartment. Sounds to me like there were other bad choices that were made which eats up the $120k/year.....


User currently offlineExaauadl From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 10059 times:



Quoting 777STL (Reply 4):
Perhaps mandate salaries that are above the poverty line?

Will they mandate fares above what customers want to pay?


User currently offlineExaauadl From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 10050 times:

Was fatigue declared a contributing factor in the crash?

User currently offlineORDflyerAnna From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 5 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 10025 times:

The article says "The captain is responsible for overseeing their crew." Does this mean that it would have been the captain's responsibility to tell her she was unfit to fly? And if so does that happen often? I'd think it could/would cause a lot of conflict between crew.

User currently offlineContrails From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 1833 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 9981 times:



Quoting Exaauadl (Reply 9):
Will they mandate fares above what customers want to pay?

This is the problem with Congress doing something. They think they'll make things better, when it reality they'll just cause more problems.

We've gotten ourselves into a "coffin corner", imo. Keep things the way they are and risk more lives, or intervene and put the industry into a tailspin.

Sort of re-regulating the industry, or federalizing it (I'm not going down that road!), I don't see much changing, other than possibly a few time-off requirements. Even that could cost the airlines money, which would get the tailspin started.

What we need, imo, is for Congress to carefully craft regulations that take all the various factors into consideration. They should deliberate carefully and thoughtfully.

Of course we all know Congress isn't capable of doing that. Fortunately the August recess is almost at hand, and the end of the session is within sight. Maybe they can use the winter to think about this and do something intelligent next session. I hope.



Flying Colors Forever!
User currently offlineSkyGirl From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 451 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 9926 times:



Quoting ORDflyerAnna (Reply 11):
The article says "The captain is responsible for overseeing their crew." Does this mean that it would have been the captain's responsibility to tell her she was unfit to fly? And if so does that happen often? I'd think it could/would cause a lot of conflict between crew.

Really, it should have been the F/O's responsibility to say no I can't fly when I'm this sick, but I can't say much because I know that I've come in to work when I shouldn't have. You get in trouble if you call in sick too much, not to mention when this F/O may not have had sick time built up.

I have flown with only one captain who told his F/O that he was unfit to fly. The guy was fatigued, and according to the captain he was starting to get a little punchy. They couldn't find a replacement for this guy at the time, so the flight cancelled.

Hope that kind of helps...



...Now they face an even greater danger...Tyrannousaurs in F-14's!!
User currently offlineCPHGuard From Denmark, joined Jun 2006, 278 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 9852 times:

Quoting Flyinryan99 (Reply 3):
Most customers don't care about the pay especially when it increases the ticket price.

If low pay and poor working environment shows to have had an influence on the outcome of Colgan 3407, I think the passengers onboard would strongly disagree with you, if they we're able to talk....

[Edited 2009-07-28 10:43:43]

User currently offlineAvConsultant From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1360 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 9800 times:



Quoting JettaKnight (Reply 5):
I realize that there is a sentiment that the FO was 'forced' to make this decision based upon the economics of being a low paid regional crew member, but for this, I have no sympathy.

We are all responsible for our own actions. I more than understand addressing these issues had someone had a gun to their heads forcing them to fly, but that was not the case. The fact is Colgan and the FAA has rules set in place. Yes the captain had some previous issues and Colgan did not train him on certain items. No matter how you slice it, their actions or lack there of ended up killing everyone including themselves.

Quoting JettaKnight (Reply 5):
Besides, higher pay isn't going to eliminate commuting crew members from making cost saving choices. From an article quoted in this thread:

Crew members commute for lifestyle reasons. The government cannot tell people where to live for a job. This is political, a politician feels it needs to be addressed and they're addressing it.


User currently offlineJettaKnight From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 195 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 9783 times:

Quoting AvConsultant (Reply 15):
Quoting JettaKnight (Reply 5):
I realize that there is a sentiment that the FO was 'forced' to make this decision based upon the economics of being a low paid regional crew member, but for this, I have no sympathy.

We are all responsible for our own actions. I more than understand addressing these issues had someone had a gun to their heads forcing them to fly, but that was not the case. The fact is Colgan and the FAA has rules set in place. Yes the captain had some previous issues and Colgan did not train him on certain items. No matter how you slice it, their actions or lack there of ended up killing everyone including themselves

I am not dismissing the possibility that there could have been a culture in place that made it difficult for the crew to make the decision that the regulations require, and if that's the case, something needs to be fixed at Colgan. However, in the end, your first sentence says it all.

(Going for the new a.net record of most edits/post!)

[Edited 2009-07-28 11:09:41]

[Edited 2009-07-28 11:10:26]

User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5582 posts, RR: 28
Reply 17, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 9725 times:



Quoting 777STL (Reply 4):
Perhaps mandate salaries that are above the poverty line? If you're responsible for 50 lives on a regular basis, you shouldn't have to suffer the indignity of qualifying for welfare. The majority of young, regional F/Os I personally know can only make it work via a collective living situation, i.e. five people in one crashpad, or they live with their parents as the FO in the Colgan accident did. Pretty sad.

Ever heard of E.Coli and Jack In The Box? Plenty of people can die at the hands of minimum wage employees, and it doesn't require flying an airplane. Getting into public service-type positions can often also start with low pay and poor work hours. Not saying I'd like it, or even do it, but it nonetheless is not unheard of.

Quoting Rjnut (Reply 7):
None of the pay/rest issues brought up here have convinced me that this accident would not have happened anyway. They were both spooked by the flying conditions they found themselves in and perhaps training issues are more the cause..

I tend to agree.

Quoting CPHGuard (Reply 14):
Most customers don't care about the pay especially when it increases the ticket price.

If low pay and poor working environment shows to have had an influence on the outcome of Colgan 3407, I think the passengers onboard would strongly disagree with you, if they we're able to talk....

If I was told when boarding a plane that it would crash - or even might crash - unless I forked over an extra $20 bucks, I might be inclined to agree. But just as we here on a.net know that the odds are astronomical that you will arrive safely, folks on the street know that their chances are quite good as well. Without an actual implication at the time of purchase, I doubt you'll see too much consternation on folks' part.

I'm really not clear on why the co-pilot seems to be getting so much attention, unless it's because it's a Seattle paper and she was a Seattle (area) resident. I thought it was the Captain who incorrectly responded to the problem, creating a stall.

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlineKaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12476 posts, RR: 37
Reply 18, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 9706 times:



Quoting AvConsultant (Reply 15):
I realize that there is a sentiment that the FO was 'forced' to make this decision based upon the economics of being a low paid regional crew member, but for this, I have no sympathy.

With the greatest respect, it is highly relevant, because if the circumstances of a pilot's employment are such that if he/she takes a decision which is in the interests of flight safety (i.e., the decision not to fly) and that decision costs her money, then that becomes a safety issue for the carrier.

If you are familiar with the "Swiss cheese" model of organisational failure*, this is one of the holes (in the cheese) that lined up - along with her illness, the fact that she was fatigued (after having flown with Fed Ex as a jumpseater from Washington State) and various other errors - to create the accident.

As has been mentioned already, changing the whole industry won't happen, because of the various forces of economics and interests at work, BUT changing smaller elements and causal factors like this IS possible. In this particular case, it can be argued that a $50 hotel room might have persuaded FO Shaw not to fly; is this beyond the means of an airline?

There may be other factors like this - unseen "(dis) incentives" which persaude pilots to take decisions, even unconsciously, to take certain decisions which are in an airline's interests. For example (and I'm not saying this is the case here), what if - on making a diversion, crews were to find that they were responsible for their own accommodation at a diversion airport.

This is why it's important to be aware of all the factors which influence a crew's decision. At the end of the day, while the flight crew is obviously responsible for the safety of a flight, it would be wrong to say that the airline has no responsibility; a part of that responsibility should be to ensure that it tackles latent factors which influence the operation of a flight.

It can't be unaware, particularly as a commuter airline, that it pays its crews quite badly and that, in the current economy, people are very price sensitive (and when you're living on $1,500 a month, you have to be). It cannot be allowed to say that "oh, our pilot took an irresponsible decision, which cost lives" when a reasonable, and not overly onerous (financially speaking) solution can be found.

*See link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Cheese_model


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21637 posts, RR: 55
Reply 19, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 9682 times:



Quoting SkyGirl (Reply 13):
Really, it should have been the F/O's responsibility to say no I can't fly when I'm this sick, but I can't say much because I know that I've come in to work when I shouldn't have. You get in trouble if you call in sick too much, not to mention when this F/O may not have had sick time built up.

 checkmark  Airlines don't like it when pilots or FAs call in sick, especially cheap ones like Colgan. There may be rules out there that say otherwise, but there's plenty of disincentive for pilots to ground themselves when they're not well.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5582 posts, RR: 28
Reply 20, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 9664 times:

I do tend to agree with this:

Quoting Kaitak (Reply 18):
For example (and I'm not saying this is the case here), what if - on making a diversion, crews were to find that they were responsible for their own accommodation at a diversion airport.

...and this...

Quoting Kaitak (Reply 18):
It cannot be allowed to say that "oh, our pilot took an irresponsible decision, which cost lives" when a reasonable, and not overly onerous (financially speaking) solution can be found.

However, to say the following:

Quoting Kaitak (Reply 18):
As has been mentioned already, changing the whole industry won't happen, because of the various forces of economics and interests at work, BUT changing smaller elements and causal factors like this IS possible. In this particular case, it can be argued that a $50 hotel room might have persuaded FO Shaw not to fly; is this beyond the means of an airline?

...is going open up the whole can of worms, and I think when the dust settles we are going to be looking at a very different industry than we have now.

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6193 posts, RR: 34
Reply 21, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 9631 times:



Quoting Kaitak (Reply 18):
As has been mentioned already, changing the whole industry won't happen, because of the various forces of economics and interests at work, BUT changing smaller elements and causal factors like this IS possible. In this particular case, it can be argued that a $50 hotel room might have persuaded FO Shaw not to fly; is this beyond the means of an airline?

Yes, changing the whole industry won't happen... but it should - starting with hiring requirements that should be set at a higher level by the FAA.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineKaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12476 posts, RR: 37
Reply 22, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 9597 times:



Quoting Planemaker (Reply 21):
starting with hiring requirements that should be set at a higher level by the FAA.

With respect, is this at issue here? Is there anything to suggest that FO Shaw was a substandard pilot? OK, forgive me that I haven't read the report, but to my mind, the issue here is not whether or not FO Shaw was substandard (or not), but that the conditions under which she was working - fatigue and illness - undermined her flying skills. Put ANY pilot in that position and it is inevitable that they will lose their edge and become more prone to make mistakes. THAT is what needs to be tackled - again, I say, the LATENT defects which undermine safety.

For example, would it be too much for the FAA to mandate an area, either within the airport or a motel/house/etc - which could be used by a particular airline (or airlines, working together) for its crews as a rest area? Maybe airports and airlines could split the cost?


User currently offlineORDflyerAnna From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 5 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 9516 times:



Quoting SkyGirl (Reply 13):


Hope that kind of helps...

Yes it does, thanks!


User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6193 posts, RR: 34
Reply 24, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 9488 times:



Quoting Kaitak (Reply 22):
With respect, is this at issue here?

I truly believe it is an underlying issue but not from the narrow view of this particular incident.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
25 AvConsultant : Why does FO Shaw need to be financially subsidized to make a safe decision? Colgan is pay what the market demands and what is agreed upon by their un
26 CV880 : Like long distance commuting to work with no rest? In defense of the Airline, why should the employer have to pay the hotel bills of one who chooses
27 Planemaker : It really boils down to that.
28 KSANcoFlyer : I agree, no offense to any fully grown people out there that live with their parents, but, in my opinion, someone who is out there making a name for
29 FutureUALpilot : Because her employer sets the pay that she must live by, with no adjustment for cost of living expenses. Heaven forbid a company take care of its emp
30 Planemaker : The answer is that she should not have worked for Colgan in the first place. And if there are 100 up-and-comers willing to take that seat... as I sai
31 Kaiarahi : At the very least, according to the CVR data released by NTSB, she (and the captain) were irresponsible in continuing non flight related gossip way b
32 FutureUALpilot : Should, would, could. They don't. Period. Even if they want to implement them, it will take years. What is your point? What makes you so sure the FAA
33 777STL : Considering the qualifications and skill set involved for each position, I think it would be generous to call that an apples to oranges comparison. Y
34 TWAL1011727 : Like maybe an ex, one or more children, parents in nursing homes...etc.. KD
35 Planemaker : A) It doesn't take years, and B) for the sake of increased safety it should be implemented... even if it took a few years. Pretty obvious... weed out
36 FutureUALpilot : Or perhaps being furloughed and having to start over at the bottom, perhaps their airline shut down ala ATA or Aloha. When was the last time the FAA d
37 Planemaker : Please, we are talking about a simple change in "language"... not some mulit-billion dollar project! The FAA can act fairly fast when it wants to (an
38 FutureUALpilot : I'll believe that when I see it. Increasing the minimum hiring standards might help, but it won't stop accidents from happening. Unfortunately, even
39 CV880 : There are plenty of places on the East Coast/South that are less costly. How do You think a ground employee, working at EWR, LGA, JFK, PHL...etc, mak
40 Planemaker : Please do not put words into my mouth. I did not say higher standards will magically erase aviation accidents! Nor did I say that higer standards wil
41 FutureUALpilot : So she should have uprooted and moved somewhere else to try and afford it? She would still have had to commute. The ground crews can get second jobs,
42 FutureUALpilot : I'm not saying it isn't and I apologize for sounding like I put words in your mouth. The tone I gathered was that higher minimums will all but elimin
43 Lrdc9 : There is no really good mechanism by which to reduce the pool. To arbitrarily raise minimum standards will simply keep so many up and comers under th
44 NIKV69 : How would they know? Fact remains they weren't at their sharpest and let their guard down for just long enough to not grasp the icing condition like
45 Apodino : I gotta raise the BS flag here. ALPA and Colgan air agreed on nothing here, as the wages were in place before ALPA was ever brought onto the property
46 MCOatc : This is food for thought but I interpret it the opposite that you do. It tells me that in an enviroment where even seasoned aviators can make mistake
47 Planemaker : Thank you for your post! You know, there was even a time that if you didn't have a science degree you wouldn't even bother applying to some airlines.
48 FutureUALpilot : To what extent though? How stringent are we talking? What would good hiring minimums be? The FAA setting an arbitrary number won't guarantee anything
49 Mir : Agreed. But as long as the airlines keep paying crap wages, it's going to happen. Hell, I'm planning on doing it for a couple of years if I get an NY
50 Lrdc9 : Than you for suggesting a new way to deal with these problems that REASONABLY increases minimum P121 pilot hiring requirements. The problem comes whe
51 Chrisjw : So where should she have worked? We all know that regionals are scarcely hiring these days. She graduated from CWU, so shes sitting in tuition + flig
52 Geotrash : Great debate and discussion all around. I suspect this accident investigation will reveal a lot about human factors and we'll learn a little more abou
53 CV880 : You are defending what some crewmembers feel is a "right" to be able to cross country commute when no other working stiff in this country has the lux
54 FutureUALpilot : DId I ever say it was a "right" for a crewmember to commute? No. I understand it is a luxury to do so. Nowhere did I say Colgan, nor any airline shou
55 WNCrew : I find it interesting that nobody has answered this question / spoke to this point. When FA's deliver bad service (which can, in some ways, be equate
56 MCOatc : By no means am I disagreeing with you and that's my point - the pay structure of the entire industry is out of whack. I guess what I was attempting t
57 FutureUALpilot : I agree, I'm grateful that I was given a chance to get my foot in the door in that regard, and I understand that patience is a necessity while times
58 MilesDependent : [Thought for the day] Spending loads more on training and pilot salaries: Safety standards goes up, airfares go up, less passengers travel by air, mor
59 Spacecadet : We're Americans! We're used to mediocrity. We celebrate it! Ok, not all of us do, but there seriously is a large group of people - probably still a m
60 CV880 : And in time, with the aid of better economic times, hopefully the airlines will again prosper, and You will achieve Your goals. You certainly have th
61 Moek2000 : I agree...Sad indeed. I see your point, but the fact is that regional pilots earn a lot less than mainline pilots... I read somewhere in the article
62 MCOatc : Agreed. Numbers/hours only tell part of the story. There are certainly more issues involved in both this incident and fixing the industry as a whole.
63 727forever : You make a decent living at your sales job and can afford the room, she did not and could not afford the room. A room in EWR typically runs for $150-
64 Chrisjw : For a lot of people, like myself, its a dream. Marvin Renslow, the captain of Colgan 1307, ran a small business until he decided he wanted to be a pi
65 AvConsultant : ALPA & airlines together have fought every attempt for a pilot minimum wage. A minimum wage sets the pricing floor. In 1994, I worked on behalf of ai
66 727forever : I am well aware that FDR created the NMB, however each President appoints members and has ultimate control. GW was not good to labor. I have to run t
67 Legacy135 : I think most of us, working as flight crew members, did already go on work not feeling 100%. We all know, we should be "fit to fly" but as you feel lo
68 PlanesNTrains : I agree. However, I was merely addressing the "responsibility" factor relative to wage. All I'm saying is that there are plenty of people out there t
69 JettaKnight : You are missing my point entirely. Making $100K/year wouldn't convince every sick crew member to sleep it off in a $300/night hotel (or even a $75 on
70 TXJim : Would the consequence of this be that military pilots are more in demand? Not saying that's a bad thing, just don't know how one can afford to reach
71 Prebennorholm : Quote from Seattlepi.com: ...if I call in sick now, I've got to put myself in a hotel room until I feel better," said Shaw... I can't believe this. Is
72 StasisLAX : Perhaps these crew members should all have bought campers and lived out of a remote airport parking lot filled with crack-head hookers, like the one
73 WNCrew : ..and yet there's PLENTY of people applying for the job knowing full-well what it pays. It's strange.
74 Post contains links AvConsultant : You are demanding legislative action on the first incident in 18 months in the safest skies in the world. She did not take the job having the low pay
75 Planemaker : Yup... and as you can see on this thread, lots of wanna be pilots that are gung ho to follow in her footsteps. Until people come to their senses and
76 Contrails : The House Transportation Committee passed a bill today to increase the minimum flight hours needed for a commercial pilot’s license from 250 to 1,50
77 Kaiarahi : Duhhh. The captain had 3379 hours and the FO had 2244 hours. Didn't stop them from violating sterile cockpit requirements. As I said in an earlier po
78 AvConsultant : Exactly, the logic in this is incomprehensible.
79 Mir : It's a issue of company culture. I can guarantee you that this isn't the only Colgan crew that was violating sterile cockpit that day. Someone gettin
80 Moek2000 : I feel ya, same here...I'm pretty sure I'll be flying someday, just not anytime soon or even this decade...
81 FlyASAGuy2005 : It will not only affect regionals. There are PLENTY of jobs out there that requires a commercial...
82 PWMRamper : 250 to 1,500 is just a ridiculous jump. What is the reasoning behind that? As others have said, it wasn't the lack of flying experience, it was lack o
83 HikesWithEyes : I would bet good money that this rule gets violated by pilots at much higher paying carriers on daily basis.
84 Mir : AFAIK, this is a little misleading. The proposed requirement is that anyone occupying a pilot seat in an airliner needs to have an ATP (the minimum f
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...
Brand New Series Of Air Crash Investigation posted Sun Feb 4 2007 18:10:03 by 9V
Mid Air Crash In New Zealand Around Palmerston Nth posted Wed Feb 8 2006 22:55:27 by 777ER
Air Crash Investigation: New Series Tonight! posted Mon Feb 6 2006 18:35:22 by 9VSPO
24 Years Ago Today - Air New Zealand TE901 Crash posted Fri Nov 28 2003 00:29:22 by VirginFlyer
WSJ Expose On Colgan Air/CO 3407 posted Sun May 10 2009 20:39:30 by 28thguy
Porter Unveils Plans For New Island Air Terminal posted Tue Apr 28 2009 14:33:06 by KarlB737
Colgan Dash 8 Crash In Buffalo, NY - Part 4 posted Mon Feb 16 2009 13:59:37 by PanAm_DC10
Colgan Dash 8 Crash In Buffalo, NY - Part 2 posted Thu Feb 12 2009 23:29:06 by HB-IWC
Colgan Dash 8 Crash In Buffalo, NY posted Thu Feb 12 2009 19:41:58 by Cbphoto
Air Crash Documentary Aired On PTVs (video) posted Wed Jan 14 2009 11:56:56 by CURLYHEADBOY