Position: "...that's right, ma'am: not a 'pilot', just a 'co-pilot'..."
Posts: 650
Quote:
Originally Posted by sailingfun
I would have to disagree. They both may have been poor pilots however the mistakes they made were typical of someone who was very fatigued. The failure of either pilot to catch the decrease in airspeed when the power was not advanced is critical and is exactly the type of error you see in pilots fatigued. There have been several other incidents of airspeed falling well below planned and not being caught. All were crews coming off very bad sleep cycles.
They were on their first leg of the trip, the first round-trip having been cancelled, if I understand correctly. I don't think the Captain's commute was discussed.
But this isn't about letting the airplane get slow, which I agree could be cuased by inattention, which in turn could be caused by fatigue.
Pulling as hard as you can in the middle of a stall, and trying to pick up the wing that drops with hard, aggressive, opposite aileron, (and no rudder input) strikes as the mark of very, very poor and deeply engrained bad habits. The guy had a (carefully hidden) history of failing checkrides.
You approach a stall because you're dead tired. You kill everyone because you don't know what to do next. Adrenaline took care of the sleep problem. It's just that the skills weren't there to be awakened.
.......... All were crews coming off very bad sleep cycles.
And herein lies the problem. Those making the rules don't have to live nor abide by them. When was the last time you saw a lawmaker working from 0600 to 1200, then FORCING themselves to sleep during the day so they could pull an all nighter? Then be all fresh for a "normal" day the following day. Our bodies are not made for this type of change, yet the lawmakers think no harm can come from it since we are "super humans". I have ZERO faith in those making the rules. They're the same ones who have the best healthcare in the world, but think we shouldn't be entitled to it because "they" earn and deserve it for doing nothing but screwing with everyones lives. But that's another story..............
I disagree. I've watched the animation on youtbe that shows aircraft controls and a graphic of the aircraft attitude, along with the transcript from the CVR, and this thing doesn't have thing one to do with the F/O's commuting, or the distance of that commute, or even fatigue.
It appears it has to do with general incompetence, horrible flying skills, fraudulent and criminal behavior in disguising the aforementioned skills and incompetence on the part of the captain, and a poor technical job by the F/O, combined with poor judgment in not calling in sick when she wasn't fit for duty.
The crew did absolutely everything imagineable to create the upset, and the captain did everything wrong, to positively lose control of this thing, and undo the good work of generations of engineers, and decades of improvement in aviation safety. The F/O only sealed the deal by bringing the flaps up.
This commuting and fatigue stuff is tangential nonsense. At least that is the picture I get when putting together the few facts in my possession.
BINGO WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!
Why did the press and the FAA jump on the fatigue issue so easily? Because that is a quick, cheap fix. The industry can't afford the let the truth out that some of those RJs are flown by boobs and babies. The mins and standards are low enough to allow bottom of the marketplace barrel workers to qualify so they can pay them bottom of the marketplace barrel wages.
Regional guys, please understand that I am not calling all of you boobs and babies. I would dare say that most of you are highly qualified and professional. You have to admit though that amongst you are some real knuckleheads and some real children that have no business flying paying passengers around. Sure, we have some too, but the requirements for a major job and the competition filters out most of the incompetents (present company excluded :-) ).
Joe and Betty sixpack like their cheap tickets. Would they still like them if they knew who could by driving that plane?
Regardless of what caused the BUF accident, these proposed rule changes are going to screw up a lot of peoples lives that have historically chosen to commute responsibly. All because some snot nosed punk took a job 3000 miles away from home, for 1/10th of the wages required to live anywhere near that job.
This model of CPA and commuter networks prevents responsible senior pilots at majors from intervening and counseling irresponsible younger pilots and now we are going to pay the price for their actions.
I'm here to tell you there that I've flown with major airline pilots who've pulled exactly the same stunt, i.e., showing up late in EWR then sleeping in the crew room to save $75 bucks on a hotel then meet an early show. Poor judgment is not a problem limited to smaller carriers.
I agree with your larger point, however, that it is grossly unfair to punish the 99.9% of pilots (both regional and major) who commute responsibly based on the poor judgment of 2 pilots in EWR.
I would have to disagree. They both may have been poor pilots however the mistakes they made were typical of someone who was very fatigued. The failure of either pilot to catch the decrease in airspeed when the power was not advanced is critical and is exactly the type of error you see in pilots fatigued. There have been several other incidents of airspeed falling well below planned and not being caught. All were crews coming off very bad sleep cycles.
I couldn't agree more. Failure of the FAA to address fatigue after 20+ years of prompting by the NTSB, NASA, and ALPA is borderline criminal negligence. For those who say that this accident, or the numerous other incidents/accidents that were merely a matter of a lack of technical proficiency or "professionalism" by the pilots are simply unaware of what fatigue really is and what it does.
The best analogy for the creeping effects of fatigue would be to liken them to hypoxia or hypothermia. You don't realize you're experiencing them, your performance and judgment rapidly degrade without your knowledge, and the effects can be deadly if you're in a challenging environment. The only real solution is also very simple . . . avoid conditions that are conducive to fatigue.
The fact that there are STILL pilots who don't get it is proof enough that the FAA needs some very hard and fast rules that address how the human body deals with disturbed sleep cycles and lack of adequate rest. The rest of the Western world has figured this out; the fact that the US can't get it's "stuff" together is a national embarrassment.
What concerns me is that you can do 7+ legs with a show time of 0001 and a FDP of 9 hours. Screw the 9 hours ... 7+legs?
Ok, I'm going to regret asking this question. Is there anyone out there doing 7+ legs in any FDP? How about a scheduled 6?
In my old job at a regional, 7 was the norm. We could be scheduled up to 9 (yes nine) legs, but it was hard to do unless you were going DTW-TOL all day.
Personally I wouldn't mind being able to do a DTW-LAX turn, if it was during the day and I could be home every nite. It would increase days off, 9 hour flight means 3 work days a week. Assume a 12 hour duty day and you would get 12 hours of "rest". It would not reduce crews either, because in this example, take 6 turns to LAX. Now we have two FO's alternating overnights, but the new way, the first guy would do the first 3 days, and the second guy would do the next 3.
Now, at nite, if they limited the duty day, you would have to limit the flying to shorter legs which is good because fighting your body clock will catch up to you soon enough. The key is to be more productive when you can and less when you can't.
I will wait to pass judgement until I see the final rule.
I will wait to pass judgement until I see the final rule.
That fact that they are meddling at the legislative level is reason enough to get stirred up on the topic. First it may change long standing norms and second most airlines will sluff the costs of any changes onto the pilots. If you think for a second that there will be an initiative to protect pilots pay and QOL (especially commuters) at the expense of the airline because of some rule change, I'd like to show you some real-estate in Florida.
Position: "...that's right, ma'am: not a 'pilot', just a 'co-pilot'..."
Posts: 650
11 Hours Might Work...
11 hours in "exchange" for being "allowed" to nap? Maybe we shouldn't be too quick judge. There might be ways to craft appropriate language for 11-hours max flight time:
"...3) Except as amended in sections 3, A-J, airmen shall be scheduled to fly up to 11 hours per duty period. This maximum time will be cumulatively reduced, up to, but not to exceed, 11 hours by:
A) 1 hour, if less than 10,000' ceiling and 30 miles visibility exists at either the departure or arrival airport, from one day before scheduled departure time, until 1 hour after scheduled block-in time.
B) 1 hour per flight segment, if the number of flight segments is greater than one.
C) 1 hour per aircraft swap (2 hours per swap in Atlanta).
D) 1 hour each for the time the crew observes the sun rising or setting, or 3 hours if the crew fails to sight the sun, whichever is greater.
E) 1 hour for the number of times the controller speaks a foreign language (for example KEWR).
F) 1 hour per hour of administrative functions performed prior to flight, i.e. filing Jepps.
G) 1 hour each per take-off or landing at a congested airport. For the purpose of this section, "congested" shall be defined as any airport to which more than 40% of arrivals and departures formerly flown by major airlines are now performed by RJ's.
H) Other Crewmembers:
i) 1 hour if the Captain is known to be a douche bag Captain (DBC), or if more than 25% of the flight can be logged as "Dual Received".
ii) 1 hour if the First Officer is a Right-Seat Captain (RSC), or is found occupying the left seat immediately following a lavatory break.
iii) In the event the DBC and RSC are not clearly identified on the other pilots' rotation, the flight may be continued until such time as the other pilot has incurred twenty occurrences of sigh-roll-eyes-look-out-the-window-sigh-again, at which point the flight may continue to the nearest suitable airport, as identified by the douche bag, or the RSC. Rock-paper-scissor-you're-both-fired-when-youland-you-douches will be used to solve any confusion between the two Captains.
I) Intentionally blank
J) Unintentionally blank
4) No company shall be required to reduce flight time more than 11 hours per day. In the event total reductions equal 11 hours, companies may, at their discretion, require pilots to perform pattern work, not to exceed 1 occurrence, and not to exceed ¼ sm from any airport property, or ½ sm horizontal from any taxiway or runway, and 1,500' AGL or 2,00' MSL whichever is less restrictive..."
Last edited by Sink r8 : 09-24-2009 at 10:07 AM.
Reason: Format
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
