Originally Posted by
ShyGuy
What a useless bill to fix the aftermath of Flight 3407. One pilot already had the ATP and the other was a pretty decently experienced CFI. I highly doubt that pilots having an ATP beforehand would have prevented the crash. These pilots were tired/fatigued, but from the looks of it, it was due to commuting, commuting through the night, and resting in a crewroom.
Originally Posted by
ExperimentalAB
Really? Fighting a stick-pusher is due to fatigue? Hardly...not that this bill will change anything, anyway.
I think what he's saying is, you could have a pilot that's "low time", yet is rather competent and ACTUALLY knows how to fly a plane, had some exposure to multi engine/turbine equipment, a would have done the right thing.
OR, you could have a "high time" pilot that is substandard, his experience was mostly in a VFR environment, whatever. And would have done as the Colgan CA would.
And YES, I think changing the requirement is one of the best things to happen in our career field. But it's not really a cure all fix. A guy could go out and burn 1500 hours on NOTHING but VFR cross countries using a GPS. Last time he did a stall was on his COMM checkride over 1200 hours ago, etc and be deemed "qualified". Whilst a lower time pilot that has different more/more intensive experience would be deemed "unqualified".
Like I said, I AGREE with the change, but it should go deeper than just a TT requirement. And YES, I KNOW the amount of change and govt red tape/B.S. that would have to be overcome would be insane. I'm juss sayin'.......
Anyway, as mentioned by others, Afterburn nails it with a very direct, straightforward wording at the end of his post.......
Originally Posted by
afterburn81
Some people were never meant to become pilots. Under our current culture and set of rules, this will never be caught. Until it's too late.
This guy was never supposed to become a pilot.
Originally Posted by
ShyGuy
They were alert enough to be talking pretty much nonstop, even below 10k. This accident was somewhat related to fatigue, but not based on their schedule. Both were tired from their commutes and their sleep in the crew room, with the FO flying while clearly sick. Not that I blame her, she financially couldn't afford to call in sick.
True, but remember, people can react to fatigue in various ways. If you read/listen to the CORPEX CVR, they were babbling like crazy.
And as far as the sick thing, I believe it also later released that there was a concern of punitive action by the company over sick calls IIRC, but not for sure. I though it was also a factor in the 170 at CLE. But I'd have to go back an read it all again
Originally Posted by
ShyGuy
Their original schedule that day had a EWR-ALB turn and the accident flight to BUF for the overnight. The ALB turn cancelled. The accident happened on their first actual leg, with duty time being very low. It would have been an entirely different story if this accident was leg #7 on a 13:45 hr duty day. Then the industry would have screamed schedule fatigue. But as it happened, the commute+sleep issues was more so the problem.
Again, agree. But besides not having the proper rest before duty causing fatigue, so does time since awake. Did the first turn cancel before starting, or well before starting their duty period? I don't know. But if it was one those situations where they show up, delayed delayed delayed, THEN finally canceled, that comes into play in the time since awake.