ltbewr
Topic Author
Posts: 13789
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

10 years ago - Feb. 12, 2009 - Flight CO3407 crash

Tue Feb 12, 2019 11:15 am

Ten years ago, on 2/12/2009 Flight CO 3407, operated by Colgan Air from EWR with a Q400, crashed on approach to BUF airport. 50 people were killed, 49 from the plane and 1 on the ground where it hit a home. Since then there has not been a major loss of life from an airline crash within in the USA. It caused several reforms as to operation of and training as to aircraft in icing conditions, increased minimum pilot hours to operate an aircraft, and reduce possible fatigue of pilots before a flight. Yesterday and today memorial services are being held.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colgan_Air_Flight_3407
 
RogerMurdock
Posts: 129
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 9:01 pm

Re: 10 years ago - Feb. 12, 2009 - Flight CO3407 crash

Tue Feb 12, 2019 11:24 am

Usually anniversaries of this type are not very notable, but it seems like a opportunity to reflect on how incredibly safe United States air transportation has become.

In these past ten years- the number of passenger fatalities among US scheduled major air carriers is- 1. (Southwest 1380 in April 2018)

There's still a long ways to go in making flight even safer, but I think we have done right remembering the fifty people who lost their lives on that day through many advances in safety practices and procedures since then.

https://buffalonews.com/2019/02/10/a-de ... on-safety/
 
deltadart106
Posts: 26
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2010 11:46 pm

Re: 10 years ago - Feb. 12, 2009 - Flight CO3407 crash

Tue Feb 12, 2019 11:27 am

This crash has always infuriated me due to the incompetent actions of the pilots. I don't mean to be harsh, as their loss is a tragedy, but the way they reacted to the situation was absolutely ridiculous. The most basic thing you learn in flying is how to recover from a stall. Nose down and power on. I don't care where you are, what's going on, if you stall you must nose down and power up or you will not recover. But these geniuses decided to override the stick shaker AND pusher, pull up and keep the plane in a stall, causing the deaths of 48 people, all because they somehow forgot one of the first lessons of flying. There is absolutely no excuse for a 47 year old commercial captain (or even the 24 year old FO for that matter) not knowing proper stall recovery technique.
Last edited by deltadart106 on Tue Feb 12, 2019 11:32 am, edited 3 times in total.
 
sonicruiser
Posts: 214
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 4:18 am

Re: 10 years ago - Feb. 12, 2009 - Flight CO3407 crash

Tue Feb 12, 2019 11:29 am

There's a fascinating Frontline investigation detailing the incident, highly recommend everyone watch it.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/flyingcheap/
 
usflyer msp
Posts: 3185
Joined: Tue May 23, 2000 11:50 am

Re: 10 years ago - Feb. 12, 2009 - Flight CO3407 crash

Tue Feb 12, 2019 12:49 pm

I will never forget this one as I knew two people on this flight. RIP Nicole and Allison.
 
747Whale
Posts: 557
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2018 7:41 pm

Re: 10 years ago - Feb. 12, 2009 - Flight CO3407 crash

Tue Feb 12, 2019 1:15 pm

deltadart106 wrote:
The most basic thing you learn in flying is how to recover from a stall. Nose down and power on. I don't care where you are, what's going on, if you stall you must nose down and power up or you will not recover.


Are you a pilot?

Do you fly professionally?

Have you been flying professionally for more than the last 10 years?

Do you understand how stall training has been conducted for decades in turbine aircraft?

You understand that it did not involve a "nose down" and that pilots were penalized or failed for altitude loss? You understand that the training for a stall has since changed (largely due to the Colgan mishap?

How about the Q400? Do you understand the function of the stick shaker, and that on that airplane, the stick shaker is activated at a lower angle (higher speed) when the icing panel REF SPEED switch is activated, and that it had been activated, meaning the stall warning was occurring at a higher speed than actual stall, and lower angle of attack, when not in ice? If your experience is stalls in light airplanes, this is not the same. Stall warning and pusher is a function of the angle of attack indicator, but is modified by numerous other inputs, including power lever angle, mach indication, true airspeed, condition lever position, flap position, etc. The Q400 response to stall sensor data is also different than other comparable regional aircraft.

Pilot reports of moderate icing had been received all day in the Buffalo area.

You're aware that the First Officer was so inexperienced that she'd never flown in the winter or seen an aircraft deiced, and had no ice experience?

You're aware of the differences in a tailplane stall vs. a wing aerodynamic stall, and that the recovery for tailplane icing may be to reduce power and pitch up? Also to return flaps to the previous configuration? Your'e aware that these are particularly applicable in T-tail aircraft and that the Q400 at Buffalo got an ice detection warning 7 seconds before the stick shaker?

How about that the crew were both exhausted?

You know that the captain bought his job at Gulfstream, a place that charged pilots to work for the company, and that the only other airplane larger than a single engine Cessna that the captain had flown was a Beech 1900...which he paid to fly? That he had four prior checkride failures (instrument, commercial, multi-engine, and ATP)? That he'd had three unsatisfactory grades, requiring retraining, in checkrides at Colgan? That he got out of flying for a brief period after quitting Gulfstream, and his first job after coming back to aviation was Colgan?

You know that the First Officer was in her first job outside instructing, low time, only a SIC type rating, and had failed her CFI checkride? You know that she was paid sixteen thousand a year? Yes, it's significant.

Your comments sound as though you're not familiar with the aircraft, the procedure, or the job, but are big on condemnation.

Yes, the mishap should not have occurred. No mishap should occur. What is significant about this event isn't the event itself, though that is also significant to the families of those involved. What is important today is the changes that came as a result of this incident, and the results.

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Acc ... AR1001.pdf

It's important to note that Colgan Air's training program had three stall scenarios: Clean stall, takeoff stall, and landing stall. In each case, the criteria stated as the first line item is "PF maintains altitude and heading." This means that the pilot flying holds heading and altitude. This involved, like nearly all transport aircraft, not lowering the nose. It involved adding power and flying out of the stall, maintaining or even increasing pitch to prevent altitude loss, and it's the way most airlines trained the stall. Colgan limited altitude loss to 100' and any more would be a checkride bust. NOT putting the nose down was a fundamental requirement to avoid busting a checkride under their training program, as was the case for most transport operations.

At the time of stick shaker activation, the Q400 automatically disconnected the autopilot and inhibited the ground prox warnings; the stick pusher did not activate because even with angle of attack increases precipitated by the pilot, AoA did not increase to pusher angles.

Colgan did not train or demonstrate pusher activation, and during the investigation, during a simulated approach to Buffalo, a demonstration pilot in the simulator pulled the nose to 30 degrees and all in the simulator, including the pilot, stated that they were unaware that pusher activation had occurred. Given that Colgan didn't demonstrate the pusher, and that crews hadn't experienced it, and couldn't recognize it, it's shouldn't be too infuriating for you that the captain would have been in the same boat.
 
Armodeen
Posts: 1091
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 10:17 am

Re: 10 years ago - Feb. 12, 2009 - Flight CO3407 crash

Tue Feb 12, 2019 3:37 pm

747Whale wrote:
stuff


Good post. Investigating serious mishaps myself has given my a much greater insight into the complex combination of factors which contribute towards an incident scenario. The field is different but the principle remains the same, it's never as simple as 'he/she is an idiot and fked it up'.
 
113312
Posts: 661
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2005 9:09 am

Re: 10 years ago - Feb. 12, 2009 - Flight CO3407 crash

Tue Feb 12, 2019 3:40 pm

One thing that has always been pushed to the back of this investigation, and discussion, is the role the FAA had in stall training. For many years, FAA inspectors had insisted that simulator training in stalls be conducted with zero loss of altitude. To achieve that mandate, it became standard practice to never relax back pressure on the elevator controls. Following this investigation, FAA finally relented that this emphasis could have fatal results. Now, finally, training emphasizes reducing angle of attack even if a loss of altitude results. Hurray for sanity.
 
stburke
Posts: 138
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 1:11 pm

Re: 10 years ago - Feb. 12, 2009 - Flight CO3407 crash

Tue Feb 12, 2019 3:58 pm

Ah yes. The crash that said pilots needed 1,500 hours for an ATP despite those involved pilots having over 1,500 hours. What transpired over those 10 years would be an artificial constraint on the pilot supply and cried of "iT'S a PaY pRobLeM".
 
COSPN
Posts: 1692
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2001 6:33 am

Re: 10 years ago - Feb. 12, 2009 - Flight CO3407 crash

Tue Feb 12, 2019 4:10 pm

Why did the FO lower the gear uncomanded ? That seems the final nail??
 
747Whale
Posts: 557
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2018 7:41 pm

Re: 10 years ago - Feb. 12, 2009 - Flight CO3407 crash

Tue Feb 12, 2019 4:23 pm

stburke wrote:
Ah yes. The crash that said pilots needed 1,500 hours for an ATP despite those involved pilots having over 1,500 hours. What transpired over those 10 years would be an artificial constraint on the pilot supply and cried of "iT'S a PaY pRobLeM".


What transpired over those ten years was a quantum change in the number of fatalities on US carriers.

COSPN wrote:
Why did the FO lower the gear uncomanded ? That seems the final nail??


What makes you think the First Officer lowered the gear without command?

Why do you suggest the gear caused or was a reason for this mishap?

On the transcript, at 22:16:06.1, the captain called for the landing gear down ("gear down...loc's alive"). The gear was subsequently extended.

Following loss of control, the First Officer asked at 22:16:45.8, "should gear up?" The captain replied "gear up oh #." The First Officer raised the gear.
Last edited by 747Whale on Tue Feb 12, 2019 4:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
FlyHossD
Posts: 1793
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:45 pm

Re: 10 years ago - Feb. 12, 2009 - Flight CO3407 crash

Tue Feb 12, 2019 4:27 pm

COSPN wrote:
Why did the FO lower the gear uncomanded ? That seems the final nail??


Why did the first officer retract the flaps? Was that part of Colgan's training?
My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
 
slider
Posts: 7168
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 11:42 pm

Re: 10 years ago - Feb. 12, 2009 - Flight CO3407 crash

Tue Feb 12, 2019 4:32 pm

747 Whale- good post and there certainly were training shortfalls, total systemic failures in letting a guy like Renslow through the system to begin with, but the original point about airmanship is still a sound one.
 
stburke
Posts: 138
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 1:11 pm

Re: 10 years ago - Feb. 12, 2009 - Flight CO3407 crash

Tue Feb 12, 2019 5:12 pm

747Whale wrote:
stburke wrote:
Ah yes. The crash that said pilots needed 1,500 hours for an ATP despite those involved pilots having over 1,500 hours. What transpired over those 10 years would be an artificial constraint on the pilot supply and cried of "iT'S a PaY pRobLeM".


What transpired over those ten years was a quantum change in the number of fatalities on US carriers.

Observing a "quantum change" as you put it, changes the result by observing it. Safety culture changed and airlines started taking it more serious, which was a great thing. What's happened is a classic correlation vs. causation. Pilot hour requirements went up and fatalities went down =/ causation despite the inept spewing such in the media. The rules changes did not take effect until 2013, so were the other 5 years before the rules a fluke??

We went a longer period before the 1,500 hour rule went into effect without a fatality (5 years) than with it in place (4 years).

Correlating the rule change with the "decrease" in fatalities is a perfect example of spinning the data, and it's a lazy argument.

The hour limits are arbitrary and moronic. Better, more comprehensive training is what was/is needed. There's multiple studies that back that up.
 
747Whale
Posts: 557
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2018 7:41 pm

Re: 10 years ago - Feb. 12, 2009 - Flight CO3407 crash

Tue Feb 12, 2019 5:19 pm

stburke wrote:
Observing a "quantum change" as you put it, changes the result by observing it. Safety culture changed and airlines started taking it more serious, which was a great thing. What's happened is a classic correlation vs. causation. Pilot hour requirements went up and fatalities went down =/ causation despite the inept spewing such in the media. The rules changes did not take effect until 2013, so were the other 5 years before the rules a fluke??

We went a longer period before the 1,500 hour rule went into effect without a fatality (5 years) than with it in place (4 years).

The hour limits are arbitrary and moronic. Better, more comprehensive training is what was/is needed.


The "hour limits" for the Airline Transport Pilot certificate have been what they are for decades. This is not new.

Requiring applicants for a job flying an airliner to meet the bare minimum requirements for an ATP certificate isn't really earth shattering or that difficult a concept to understand.

Requiring ATP qualifications for applicants for airline cockpit jobs was the result largely of families of the deceased lobbying for change, and is a good thing. It's not the only change that came about as the result of the Colgan mishap.

The changes that have come about since the Colgan mishap do indeed have a bearing on safety as it stands today, and have impacted hiring, training, checking and qualification standards across the board. Other changes have come into play during that time, such as improved flight and duty limitations, and rest regulation (for some).

No one has suggested that requiring applicants to meet ATP minimums is the sole factor in the current safety trend, so why you're whining about that is a mystery. The fact is that the fatality trend for the past decade is entirely unprecedented in the industry, and represents a a tangible, statistical improvement in safety by orders of magnitude.

You don't need to like it, but it's the truth.
 
stburke
Posts: 138
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 1:11 pm

Re: 10 years ago - Feb. 12, 2009 - Flight CO3407 crash

Tue Feb 12, 2019 6:17 pm

747Whale wrote:
stburke wrote:
Observing a "quantum change" as you put it, changes the result by observing it. Safety culture changed and airlines started taking it more serious, which was a great thing. What's happened is a classic correlation vs. causation. Pilot hour requirements went up and fatalities went down =/ causation despite the inept spewing such in the media. The rules changes did not take effect until 2013, so were the other 5 years before the rules a fluke??

We went a longer period before the 1,500 hour rule went into effect without a fatality (5 years) than with it in place (4 years).

The hour limits are arbitrary and moronic. Better, more comprehensive training is what was/is needed.


The "hour limits" for the Airline Transport Pilot certificate have been what they are for decades. This is not new.

Requiring applicants for a job flying an airliner to meet the bare minimum requirements for an ATP certificate isn't really earth shattering or that difficult a concept to understand.

Requiring ATP qualifications for applicants for airline cockpit jobs was the result largely of families of the deceased lobbying for change, and is a good thing. It's not the only change that came about as the result of the Colgan mishap.

The changes that have come about since the Colgan mishap do indeed have a bearing on safety as it stands today, and have impacted hiring, training, checking and qualification standards across the board. Other changes have come into play during that time, such as improved flight and duty limitations, and rest regulation (for some).

No one has suggested that requiring applicants to meet ATP minimums is the sole factor in the current safety trend, so why you're whining about that is a mystery. The fact is that the fatality trend for the past decade is entirely unprecedented in the industry, and represents a a tangible, statistical improvement in safety by orders of magnitude.

You don't need to like it, but it's the truth.


Hour limits have been in place but effectively sextupled to be eligible for the ATP, whether an airline had higher hour limits or not was up to them. I'm glad that there's an improvement in the safety practices you listed as a result of this tragedy. Frankly, it was long overdue. My issue was the equivocation of federal rule changes with the perceived improvement in air safety, especially since the mandated rules didn't go into place for multiple years. Airline safety was and is improving but it was no place for lobbying and airline unions and interest groups used the tragedy as a stage for their agenda under the guise of safety. The biggest and most tangible impact to the industry in the last 5 years has been the federal rule changes. That's why I'm "whining" about them. Yes, the fatality trend has been improving but it's also been improving since the 1980's. My point remains the mandated rule changes that stemmed from this accident are baseless and equivocating them to improvements in safety are baseless.
 
747Whale
Posts: 557
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2018 7:41 pm

Re: 10 years ago - Feb. 12, 2009 - Flight CO3407 crash

Tue Feb 12, 2019 6:39 pm

stburke wrote:
Hour limits have been in place but effectively sextupled to be eligible for the ATP, whether an airline had higher hour limits or not was up to them. I'm glad that there's an improvement in the safety practices you listed as a result of this tragedy. Frankly, it was long overdue. My issue was the equivocation of federal rule changes with the perceived improvement in air safety, especially since the mandated rules didn't go into place for multiple years. Airline safety was and is improving but it was no place for lobbying and airline unions and interest groups used the tragedy as a stage for their agenda under the guise of safety. The biggest and most tangible impact to the industry in the last 5 years has been the federal rule changes. That's why I'm "whining" about them. Yes, the fatality trend has been improving but it's also been improving since the 1980's. My point remains the mandated rule changes that stemmed from this accident are baseless and equivocating them to improvements in safety are baseless.


The ATP has required 1,500 hours for many years, and long, long before this legislation. The only change in the minimum requirements for airline pilot applicants was that they meet the ATP standards. Nothing more.

There's never been a ten year block without fatalities in US airline history; don't try to suggest that this has been developing since the 1980s. I was flying then, too. How about you?

This is unprecedented. It's never been this way. Don't try to suggest otherwise.

Increasing minimum pilot qualifications to the ATP standard is one of a number of safety improvements and a contributing factor to safety; the statistics as they stand don't exist in a vacuum.

The requirement to meet ATP requirements is hardly baseless.

Are you one that felt he was put out by having to meet the ATP minimums? Is this a case of sour grapes?
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 10875
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: 10 years ago - Feb. 12, 2009 - Flight CO3407 crash

Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:34 pm

Looking at the video of the flight reconstructed from data on the wiki article about the crash, it seems after the initial reaction to the stall warning, it was over, the plane lost a lot more speed and dipped a wing and that wasn't recoverable at such an altitude, so basically one fatal mistake for a couple seconds decided the fate of that flight.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... p.vp9.webm
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
747Whale
Posts: 557
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2018 7:41 pm

Re: 10 years ago - Feb. 12, 2009 - Flight CO3407 crash

Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:37 pm

Aesma wrote:
Looking at the video of the flight reconstructed from data on the wiki article about the crash, it seems after the initial reaction to the stall warning, it was over, the plane lost a lot more speed and dipped a wing and that wasn't recoverable at such an altitude, so basically one fatal mistake for a couple seconds decided the fate of that flight.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... p.vp9.webm


Actually, that's not the case. If you'll read the actual accident report from the NTSB, which I previously liked, you'll learn why.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 2256
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: 10 years ago - Feb. 12, 2009 - Flight CO3407 crash

Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:37 pm

Hour limits have been in place but effectively sextupled to be eligible for the ATP, whether an airline had higher hour limits or not was up to them.


FALSE, that was never true, either. The Commercial required 250 hours and sometimes less. Military flight school provides about that much flight time, but piles on simulator time, much greater ground instruction and doesn’t suffer incompetence gladly. I’ve seen guys doing fine on Monday, on the way home a week later.


GF
 
User avatar
United787
Posts: 2744
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 12:20 pm

Re: 10 years ago - Feb. 12, 2009 - Flight CO3407 crash

Tue Feb 12, 2019 8:11 pm

747Whale wrote:
There's never been a ten year block without fatalities in US airline history; don't try to suggest that this has been developing since the 1980s. I was flying then, too. How about you?

This is unprecedented. It's never been this way. Don't try to suggest otherwise.


Thank you for all of your valuable insight. It is extremely interesting to learn the details about what caused this tragedy and the subsequent changes that came out of it.

Disclaimer: I am not a pilot and I don't work anywhere near the aviation industry.

I don't mean to undermine the positive affect to airline safety in the US as a result of the changes from this tragedy. But airline safety has been improving significantly over the past 30ish years. From what I understand, it is a combination of numerous factors from every facet of the aviation industry: aircraft design to maintenance to CRM to ATC technologies etc. Many of these improvements were born out of other tragedies and the industry learns and improves with every passing year. Certainly the changes that resulted from the Colgan crash had a major impact and I am not in a position to say how much but you can't discount decades of improvements made before then.

https://aviation-safety.net/graphics/in ... 6-2017.jpg
https://aviation-safety.net/graphics/in ... 7-2017.jpg
 
User avatar
bluestreak
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 8:17 am

Re: 10 years ago - Feb. 12, 2009 - Flight CO3407 crash

Tue Feb 12, 2019 8:48 pm

I flew on N200WQ in November 2008, EWR-BWI. I asked the flight attendant for a safety card, since that was my first (and only) Q400 flight. I still have the safety card from this plane, and occasionally when I am going through them, I see this one and it gives me chills to think about what happened.
"Well, we barely made the airport, for the last plane out, as we taxied down the runway, I could hear the people shout"
 
N649DL
Posts: 289
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: 10 years ago - Feb. 12, 2009 - Flight CO3407 crash

Tue Feb 12, 2019 8:49 pm

deltadart106 wrote:
This crash has always infuriated me due to the incompetent actions of the pilots. I don't mean to be harsh, as their loss is a tragedy, but the way they reacted to the situation was absolutely ridiculous. The most basic thing you learn in flying is how to recover from a stall. Nose down and power on. I don't care where you are, what's going on, if you stall you must nose down and power up or you will not recover. But these geniuses decided to override the stick shaker AND pusher, pull up and keep the plane in a stall, causing the deaths of 48 people, all because they somehow forgot one of the first lessons of flying. There is absolutely no excuse for a 47 year old commercial captain (or even the 24 year old FO for that matter) not knowing proper stall recovery technique.


The FO was commuting from SEA I think and was totally exhausted. No excuse obviously, but this crash changed the industry and how mainline carriers deal with outsourcing to regional carriers. Colgan was obviously to blame but I remember CO distanced themselves from the crash as well. Bad tastes either way as it killed everyone on board.
 
747Whale
Posts: 557
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2018 7:41 pm

Re: 10 years ago - Feb. 12, 2009 - Flight CO3407 crash

Tue Feb 12, 2019 9:00 pm

United787 wrote:
I don't mean to undermine the positive affect to airline safety in the US as a result of the changes from this tragedy. But airline safety has been improving significantly over the past 30ish years. From what I understand, it is a combination of numerous factors from every facet of the aviation industry: aircraft design to maintenance to CRM to ATC technologies etc. Many of these improvements were born out of other tragedies and the industry learns and improves with every passing year. Certainly the changes that resulted from the Colgan crash had a major impact and I am not in a position to say how much but you can't discount decades of improvements made before then.


Aviation has been steadily improving in all aspects since the days of the Wright Brothers. None the less, there has never been a 10 year period sans fatalities in US aviation history, except for the last ten; the Colgan crash marked the last fatal crash.
 
deltadart106
Posts: 26
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2010 11:46 pm

Re: 10 years ago - Feb. 12, 2009 - Flight CO3407 crash

Tue Feb 12, 2019 11:03 pm

747Whale wrote:
...

.


You're completely right, I was ignorant to many of these factors and probably should not have spoken so harshly of the pilots. It sounds like the blame is entirely on Colgan for not having adequate training and for poor personnel selection. It sounds like the FO, from your description, had no business being in the right hand seat of a pax flight. She clearly needed far more training than she received and it's really a shame that they entrusted someone who lacked essential skills in such an important job.

Your post has not lowered my anger about this accident, but it has shifted where my anger lies. The pilots' incompetent actions were the result of negligent training by Colgan, and I now see that they, as a company, are truly the incompetent ones.

At the end of the day though, I am still kind of surprised they did not try a traditional stall recovery once things started to go pear-shaped, although I suppose it happened so quickly there wasn't much time to react, and any number of the things you listed were likely running through the pilots' heads at the time.
 
deltadart106
Posts: 26
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2010 11:46 pm

Re: 10 years ago - Feb. 12, 2009 - Flight CO3407 crash

Tue Feb 12, 2019 11:07 pm

delete
 
rgreenftm
Posts: 151
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 12:15 am

Re: 10 years ago - Feb. 12, 2009 - Flight CO3407 crash

Tue Feb 12, 2019 11:39 pm

RogerMurdock wrote:
Usually anniversaries of this type are not very notable, but it seems like a opportunity to reflect on how incredibly safe United States air transportation has become.

In these past ten years- the number of passenger fatalities among US scheduled major air carriers is- 1. (Southwest 1380 in April 2018)

There's still a long ways to go in making flight even safer, but I think we have done right remembering the fifty people who lost their lives on that day through many advances in safety practices and procedures since then.

https://buffalonews.com/2019/02/10/a-de ... on-safety/


While it may be the last major accident among US scheduled major air carriers, lets not forget about OZ214 into SFO with three casualties. It seems more appropriate would be to look at accidents on US soil rather than just accidents among US carriers.
 
N353SK
Posts: 1006
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 5:08 am

Re: 10 years ago - Feb. 12, 2009 - Flight CO3407 crash

Wed Feb 13, 2019 12:06 am

deltadart106 wrote:
At the end of the day though, I am still kind of surprised they did not try a traditional stall recovery once things started to go pear-shaped, although I suppose it happened so quickly there wasn't much time to react, and any number of the things you listed were likely running through the pilots' heads at the time.


Under duress the law of primacy will always take hold and one will perform exactly how they were trained. These pilots were trained to not release backpressure if the stick shaker activated.
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 500
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: 10 years ago - Feb. 12, 2009 - Flight CO3407 crash

Wed Feb 13, 2019 12:38 am

rgreenftm wrote:
While it may be the last major accident among US scheduled major air carriers, lets not forget about OZ214 into SFO with three casualties. It seems more appropriate would be to look at accidents on US soil rather than just accidents among US carriers.

Not really.

In the case of OZ214, the US airlines, training and ATC were in no way at fault; it was, as with CO3407, the training and the actions of the crew that caused the crash.
 
F27500
Posts: 628
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:52 am

Re: 10 years ago - Feb. 12, 2009 - Flight CO3407 crash

Wed Feb 13, 2019 1:07 am

I didn't like how so many were blaming the airline for fatigue and the fact that these "poor pilots" were so tired .. because they lived elsewhere (I think SEA in the case of the FO) and elected to commute in and crash in the crew room until their duty time.

Were they tired and un-sharp? Of course. But THEY chose to do it this way. To live across country and commute in to work your trips. Not real smart. The aieline was not at fault here in any way .. the crew was .. pretty much across the board .. from their own lack of sharpness to what they did wrong on the flight deck that night (based on the findings).

And a plane load of innocent passengers and people on the ground lost their lives because of it.

Pilot error -- 100%.
 
747Whale
Posts: 557
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2018 7:41 pm

Re: 10 years ago - Feb. 12, 2009 - Flight CO3407 crash

Wed Feb 13, 2019 1:28 am

F27500 wrote:

Pilot error -- 100%.


Thanks, Captain obvious. You're aware that about 95% of the airline pilots out there commute, right?

When you're making Sixteen grand a year, you don't move to the east coast and buy a house.
 
Ziyulu
Posts: 386
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2016 10:35 am

Re: 10 years ago - Feb. 12, 2009 - Flight CO3407 crash

Wed Feb 13, 2019 1:58 am

Did this crash affect the merger between CO and UA?
 
User avatar
northstardc4m
Posts: 3092
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2000 11:23 am

Re: 10 years ago - Feb. 12, 2009 - Flight CO3407 crash

Wed Feb 13, 2019 2:39 am

Ziyulu wrote:
Did this crash affect the merger between CO and UA?


In a word, no
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
 
n7371f
Posts: 1450
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: 10 years ago - Feb. 12, 2009 - Flight CO3407 crash

Wed Feb 13, 2019 3:03 am

White noise. Renslow was incompetent.

747Whale wrote:
F27500 wrote:

Pilot error -- 100%.


Thanks, Captain obvious. You're aware that about 95% of the airline pilots out there commute, right?

When you're making Sixteen grand a year, you don't move to the east coast and buy a house.
 
F9Animal
Posts: 4113
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 7:13 am

Re: 10 years ago - Feb. 12, 2009 - Flight CO3407 crash

Wed Feb 13, 2019 3:23 am

F27500 wrote:
I didn't like how so many were blaming the airline for fatigue and the fact that these "poor pilots" were so tired .. because they lived elsewhere (I think SEA in the case of the FO) and elected to commute in and crash in the crew room until their duty time.

Were they tired and un-sharp? Of course. But THEY chose to do it this way. To live across country and commute in to work your trips. Not real smart. The aieline was not at fault here in any way .. the crew was .. pretty much across the board .. from their own lack of sharpness to what they did wrong on the flight deck that night (based on the findings).

And a plane load of innocent passengers and people on the ground lost their lives because of it.

Pilot error -- 100%.


Sticking the finger in the wound? They chose to do it the way they did as far as commuting, because there is no way anyone could afford to live anywhere near their base for the wages they were paid. The same rings true to this very day, as thousands of pilots and flight attendants commute to their jobs daily.

How can a person with $5 afford something that costs $20? That crew sacrificed alot to get where they were, and had ambitions to make more money one day. A thing alot of these young crews out there do every single day. Many of them dont have the luxury of being able to rent an apartment from where they are assigned, because they dont make enough to afford the rents.

According to the accident report, fatigue was NOT the primary factor here. Insufficient training, weather, and fatigue all combined to make the horrible outcome.
I Am A Different Animal!!
 
DarthLobster
Posts: 261
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2016 3:40 am

Re: 10 years ago - Feb. 12, 2009 - Flight CO3407 crash

Wed Feb 13, 2019 3:42 am

Ziyulu wrote:
Did this crash affect the merger between CO and UA?


Why would it? The merger wouldn't be announced for more than a year, and the accident wasn't even on CO metal.
 
User avatar
OneSexyL1011
Posts: 193
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:10 pm

Re: 10 years ago - Feb. 12, 2009 - Flight CO3407 crash

Wed Feb 13, 2019 3:43 am

stburke wrote:
Ah yes. The crash that said pilots needed 1,500 hours for an ATP despite those involved pilots having over 1,500 hours. What transpired over those 10 years would be an artificial constraint on the pilot supply and cried of "iT'S a PaY pRobLeM".


FAR 117 as well, which wasn't even the root cause of the problem.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 2256
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: 10 years ago - Feb. 12, 2009 - Flight CO3407 crash

Wed Feb 13, 2019 4:07 am

F9Animal wrote:
F27500 wrote:
I didn't like how so many were blaming the airline for fatigue and the fact that these "poor pilots" were so tired .. because they lived elsewhere (I think SEA in the case of the FO) and elected to commute in and crash in the crew room until their duty time.

Were they tired and un-sharp? Of course. But THEY chose to do it this way. To live across country and commute in to work your trips. Not real smart. The aieline was not at fault here in any way .. the crew was .. pretty much across the board .. from their own lack of sharpness to what they did wrong on the flight deck that night (based on the findings).

And a plane load of innocent passengers and people on the ground lost their lives because of it.

Pilot error -- 100%.


Sticking the finger in the wound? They chose to do it the way they did as far as commuting, because there is no way anyone could afford to live anywhere near their base for the wages they were paid. The same rings true to this very day, as thousands of pilots and flight attendants commute to their jobs daily.

How can a person with $5 afford something that costs $20? That crew sacrificed alot to get where they were, and had ambitions to make more money one day. A thing alot of these young crews out there do every single day. Many of them dont have the luxury of being able to rent an apartment from where they are assigned, because they dont make enough to afford the rents.

According to the accident report, fatigue was NOT the primary factor here. Insufficient training, weather, and fatigue all combined to make the horrible outcome.


She lived in Seattle, it’s cheaper in Jersey!

GF
 
UA444
Posts: 2735
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 7:03 am

Re: 10 years ago - Feb. 12, 2009 - Flight CO3407 crash

Wed Feb 13, 2019 4:58 am

Ziyulu wrote:
Did this crash affect the merger between CO and UA?

When the merger was announced and Tilton and Smisek had to go in front of congress, Smisek was grilled heavily about it and weaseled out of it and got blasted for saying they had zero to do with it, even though it was their flight number and their regional partner and a plane painted in their livery.

http://www.3407memorial.com/index.php/p ... g-momentum
 
User avatar
United787
Posts: 2744
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 12:20 pm

Re: 10 years ago - Feb. 12, 2009 - Flight CO3407 crash

Wed Feb 13, 2019 3:40 pm

747Whale wrote:
Thanks, Captain obvious. You're aware that about 95% of the airline pilots out there commute, right?

When you're making Sixteen grand a year, you don't move to the east coast and buy a house.


I am not assigning blame to the pilots but I call BS on this one. I understand that regional pilots were (and still are IMHO) grossly underpaid and that they need to live in affordable areas.

But the FO lived on the outskirts of the Seattle metro area which ranks as one of the top 20 most expensive areas to live in. Granted she lived in a more affordable area, the median household income of her town is $67k, not the cheapest either.

The Captain lived on the outskirts of Tampa in a town with a median household income of $68k, again not the cheapest town to live in.

Do you really think that either of these pilots couldn't find an affordable place to live closer to their company's hubs at IAD and EWR? There are plenty of affordable places to live with an hour's commute of both airports. No, not on the Upper East Side or in Georgetown but on the outskirts of most major cities.

IMHO, pilots and flight attendants commute as much as they do because they can, period. They work an industry that essentially allows them to commute by plane for free. Although I bet many of them are in denial of the real costs. If they didn't have the opportunity to commute for free, they would be moving to the city where they are based. People seeking jobs in most other industries locate where there job is unless you are in a specific job that allows you the flexibility of where you live: a high level executive; consultant; regional sales; work from home... I know that I will get flamed by all of the pilots and FAs on this website but I think it asinine that airlines allow this. If you don't think that commuting by airplane to a job that involves working on an airplane adds a significant amount of exhaustion and stress to your job, then I would be shocked. Travelling by airplane alone is exhausting (time zone change, air quality etc.) and stressful (delays, cancellations, connections, cramped seats, etc) just as a passenger. This has to affect performance on the job, it can't not. We all see it, when someone gets to work after a bad commute (traffic/weather), they are unfocused, grumpy, tired. The Captain had a 2-3 hour flight and the FO had a 5-6 hour flight to their bases, not including driving time and airport time. That is insane.
 
747Whale
Posts: 557
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2018 7:41 pm

Re: 10 years ago - Feb. 12, 2009 - Flight CO3407 crash

Wed Feb 13, 2019 3:48 pm

Whether the pilots could find cheaper housing is irrelevant as I'm neither privy to their personal lives nor bank accounts. Both were married, which complicates moving, with the F/O's husband being the primary breadwinner in the home. Moving may not have been a possibility, and maintaining a second residence not possible, either (the NTSB report, if you'll read it addresses this, as well as the concerns of a female seeking a crashpad in a male-dominated profession).

The bottom line is that this isn't new or isolated, and fatigue has LONG been a major issue in the industry. Again, roughly 95% of the industry commutes. That is to say, nearly all of it.

Your commentary does not sound like one experienced in living the life of an airline pilot.
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 500
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: 10 years ago - Feb. 12, 2009 - Flight CO3407 crash

Wed Feb 13, 2019 3:51 pm

United787 wrote:
747Whale wrote:
Thanks, Captain obvious. You're aware that about 95% of the airline pilots out there commute, right?

When you're making Sixteen grand a year, you don't move to the east coast and buy a house.


I am not assigning blame to the pilots but I call BS on this one. I understand that regional pilots were (and still are IMHO) grossly underpaid and that they need to live in affordable areas.

But the FO lived on the outskirts of the Seattle metro area which ranks as one of the top 20 most expensive areas to live in. Granted she lived in a more affordable area, the median household income of her town is $67k, not the cheapest either.

The Captain lived on the outskirts of Tampa in a town with a median household income of $68k, again not the cheapest town to live in.

Do you really think that either of these pilots couldn't find an affordable place to live closer to their company's hubs at IAD and EWR? There are plenty of affordable places to live with an hour's commute of both airports. No, not on the Upper East Side or in Georgetown but on the outskirts of most major cities.

IMHO, pilots and flight attendants commute as much as they do because they can, period. They work an industry that essentially allows them to commute by plane for free. Although I bet many of them are in denial of the real costs. If they didn't have the opportunity to commute for free, they would be moving to the city where they are based. People seeking jobs in most other industries locate where there job is unless you are in a specific job that allows you the flexibility of where you live: a high level executive; consultant; regional sales; work from home... I know that I will get flamed by all of the pilots and FAs on this website but I think it asinine that airlines allow this. If you don't think that commuting by airplane to a job that involves working on an airplane adds a significant amount of exhaustion and stress to your job, then I would be shocked. Travelling by airplane alone is exhausting (time zone change, air quality etc.) and stressful (delays, cancellations, connections, cramped seats, etc) just as a passenger. This has to affect performance on the job, it can't not. We all see it, when someone gets to work after a bad commute (traffic/weather), they are unfocused, grumpy, tired. The Captain had a 2-3 hour flight and the FO had a 5-6 hour flight to their bases, not including driving time and airport time. That is insane.

Remember the First Officer was 24; chances are quite high that she was living at home with her parents (which is much cheaper than living alone, and maybe even free).
The Captain was 47; similarly, his living arrangement might have been advantageous for him.

Where you live does not necessarily correlates to your earnings; again, especially after the 2008 crisis (or even slightly before), plenty of families have regrouped following foreclosure and the sort.
 
n6238p
Posts: 403
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 5:35 am

Re: 10 years ago - Feb. 12, 2009 - Flight CO3407 crash

Wed Feb 13, 2019 3:59 pm

United787 wrote:

IMHO, pilots and flight attendants commute as much as they do because they can, period. They work an industry that essentially allows them to commute by plane for free. Although I bet many of them are in denial of the real costs. If they didn't have the opportunity to commute for free, they would be moving to the city where they are based. People seeking jobs in most other industries locate where there job is unless you are in a specific job that allows you the flexibility of where you live: a high level executive; consultant; regional sales; work from home... I know that I will get flamed by all of the pilots and FAs on this website but I think it asinine that airlines allow this. If you don't think that commuting by airplane to a job that involves working on an airplane adds a significant amount of exhaustion and stress to your job, then I would be shocked. Travelling by airplane alone is exhausting (time zone change, air quality etc.) and stressful (delays, cancellations, connections, cramped seats, etc) just as a passenger. This has to affect performance on the job, it can't not. We all see it, when someone gets to work after a bad commute (traffic/weather), they are unfocused, grumpy, tired. The Captain had a 2-3 hour flight and the FO had a 5-6 hour flight to their bases, not including driving time and airport time. That is insane.


Are you suggesting every time a pilot or FA gets assigned a new base they should have to move permanently to that location? In my first six months with my current airline I was based in 4 different states. When I upgrade, I'll probably have to switch bases again temporarily. It's quite evident you don't really understand the in's and out's of what airlines can do with crew members nor do you have a grasp on the capabilities of how crew members can comfortably commute and live. Base closures, reductions, displacements are common place at every airline. Every pilot and FA with experience these things in their career. Forcing a move to every base base is the only thing here that's insane.
To actively root against anybody is just low, and I hope karma comes back at you with a vengeance
 
747Whale
Posts: 557
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2018 7:41 pm

Re: 10 years ago - Feb. 12, 2009 - Flight CO3407 crash

Wed Feb 13, 2019 4:14 pm

The First Officer was married, living with her husband. It's in the report.

The captain was married. Living with his wife. Also in the report.

Commuting incurs additional expenses, including eating out much of the time; a meager income can quickly degrade to very little. For some operations, like Atlas Air, travel, hotels, etc, are "imputed income" for which the pilots are made to pay tax; I've known pilots there whose income was negative at the end of the month, as a result of the expenses of being on the road.

Add in time zone differences, travel time and circadian rhythm, and fatigue is a very real factor.

The Colgan mishap was an impetus for the 14 CFR 117 changes to flight, duty, and rest regulations which specifically recognize circadian rhythm as a critical contributing factor to crew fatigue.

https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?S ... ain_02.tpl

You can also view a statistical summary of airline mishaps through that period, including a breakdown of type and phase of flight. Not surprisingly, the Colgan mishap fit the majority.

https://www.regulations.gov/contentStre ... ntType=pdf
 
FlyHossD
Posts: 1793
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:45 pm

Re: 10 years ago - Feb. 12, 2009 - Flight CO3407 crash

Wed Feb 13, 2019 4:19 pm

747Whale wrote:
F27500 wrote:

Pilot error -- 100%.


Thanks, Captain obvious. You're aware that about 95% of the airline pilots out there commute, right?

When you're making Sixteen grand a year, you don't move to the east coast and buy a house.


What's your source for the "95% of the airline pilots out there commute..." comment?

At my last base (before I retired); the commuting percentage for my aircraft was 41%, if I recall the company and union stats correctly. Other bases, seats and aircraft were higher.
My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
 
User avatar
compensateme
Posts: 2906
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:17 am

Re: 10 years ago - Feb. 12, 2009 - Flight CO3407 crash

Wed Feb 13, 2019 4:29 pm

747Whale wrote:
The First Officer was married, living with her husband. It's in the report.

The captain was married. Living with his wife. Also in the report.

Commuting incurs additional expenses, including eating out much of the time; a meager income can quickly degrade to very little. For some operations, like Atlas Air, travel, hotels, etc, are "imputed income" for which the pilots are made to pay tax; I've known pilots there whose income was negative at the end of the month, as a result of the expenses of being on the road.

Add in time zone differences, travel time and circadian rhythm, and fatigue is a very real factor.

The Colgan mishap was an impetus for the 14 CFR 117 changes to flight, duty, and rest regulations which specifically recognize circadian rhythm as a critical contributing factor to crew fatigue.

https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?S ... ain_02.tpl

You can also view a statistical summary of airline mishaps through that period, including a breakdown of type and phase of flight. Not surprisingly, the Colgan mishap fit the majority.

https://www.regulations.gov/contentStre ... ntType=pdf


Media reports indicated that she and her husband had moved in with her parents so that they could save up money.

She had flown SEA-MEM-EWR on FedEx and slept on the couch in the crew room, appearently something she did regularly.
Nobody cares what your next flight is...
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 500
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: 10 years ago - Feb. 12, 2009 - Flight CO3407 crash

Wed Feb 13, 2019 4:36 pm

FlyHossD wrote:
What's your source for the "95% of the airline pilots out there commute..." comment?

At my last base (before I retired); the commuting percentage for my aircraft was 41%, if I recall the company and union stats correctly. Other bases, seats and aircraft were higher.

Do not, under any circumstances, question 747Whale: he knows what he knows, what no one else knows, and most likely what he doesn't know... :lol:
 
User avatar
compensateme
Posts: 2906
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:17 am

Re: 10 years ago - Feb. 12, 2009 - Flight CO3407 crash

Wed Feb 13, 2019 4:38 pm

n6238p wrote:
United787 wrote:

IMHO, pilots and flight attendants commute as much as they do because they can, period. They work an industry that essentially allows them to commute by plane for free. Although I bet many of them are in denial of the real costs. If they didn't have the opportunity to commute for free, they would be moving to the city where they are based. People seeking jobs in most other industries locate where there job is unless you are in a specific job that allows you the flexibility of where you live: a high level executive; consultant; regional sales; work from home... I know that I will get flamed by all of the pilots and FAs on this website but I think it asinine that airlines allow this. If you don't think that commuting by airplane to a job that involves working on an airplane adds a significant amount of exhaustion and stress to your job, then I would be shocked. Travelling by airplane alone is exhausting (time zone change, air quality etc.) and stressful (delays, cancellations, connections, cramped seats, etc) just as a passenger. This has to affect performance on the job, it can't not. We all see it, when someone gets to work after a bad commute (traffic/weather), they are unfocused, grumpy, tired. The Captain had a 2-3 hour flight and the FO had a 5-6 hour flight to their bases, not including driving time and airport time. That is insane.


Are you suggesting every time a pilot or FA gets assigned a new base they should have to move permanently to that location? In my first six months with my current airline I was based in 4 different states. When I upgrade, I'll probably have to switch bases again temporarily. It's quite evident you don't really understand the in's and out's of what airlines can do with crew members nor do you have a grasp on the capabilities of how crew members can comfortably commute and live. Base closures, reductions, displacements are common place at every airline. Every pilot and FA with experience these things in their career. Forcing a move to every base base is the only thing here that's insane.


He’s right — flight crew commute because they can, one only needs to read APC to confirm this. Flight crew change bases because, we’ll, they can. If a typcial skilled worker wants a better career opportunity, it often entails moving. If a flight crew wants a better career opportunity... well, they just bid another base. Like you said — you’ll have to change bases when you “upgrade.” This is completely voluntary. If you worked a professional job in Orlando and wanted to “upgrade,” (since wages in Central Florida tend to be subpar)... you’d have to move. IDK you’re disagreeing with his argument... you’re clearly demonstrating he’s right.

As for companies closing bases and forcing employees to move... same thing applies to professional jobs. What happens if my office in Orlando closes, and I’m offered opportunities in Cleveland or San Francisco? Happens all the time.

Flight crew commute solely because they can.
Nobody cares what your next flight is...
 
n6238p
Posts: 403
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 5:35 am

Re: 10 years ago - Feb. 12, 2009 - Flight CO3407 crash

Wed Feb 13, 2019 4:51 pm

At my last airline I faced two involuntary displacements in a year. That’s not a choice. At my currently airline I got hired at, I got hired there because they have a base in my home town. Out of new hire I got sent to the other side of the country and had a two leg commute. That wasn’t my choice. To help get closer to home I was a able to bid into a base that was a one leg commute. Two month later I was finally able to hold my home base. Should I have packed up all my stuff and move 1000 miles for three months and then move back???
To actively root against anybody is just low, and I hope karma comes back at you with a vengeance
 
User avatar
United787
Posts: 2744
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 12:20 pm

Re: 10 years ago - Feb. 12, 2009 - Flight CO3407 crash

Wed Feb 13, 2019 4:57 pm

747Whale wrote:
Your commentary does not sound like one experienced in living the life of an airline pilot.


As stated earlier, I am not a pilot. But, I am human and pilots are human and so therefore I have a pretty good understanding of how the human body works, through experience. I know how exhausting airplane travel can be as a passenger even on a single leg journey. I have traveled to five continents. My wife travels regularly and I see how tired she is from a simple day trip (or two days) to NYC or Texas (from Chicago), and she isn't flying the plane. I am 46 years old and fairly fit and have two kids. I know how being woken up in the middle of the night can really screw up your sleep, even if you get 8 hours. I understand all of that and can imagine and respect that pilots and F/As experience far worse conditions. Why so many would choose to commute by air on top of the conditions experienced by their job is beyond me.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos