Airline Pilot Forums

Airline Pilot Forums was designed to be a community where working airline pilots can share ideas and information about the aviation field. In the forum you will find information about major and regional airline carriers, career training, interview and job seeker help, finance, and living the airline pilot lifestyle.




lakehouse
04-09-2017, 05:07 AM
https://m.facebook.com/WeAreALPA/photos/a.209689440671.141974.200676905671/10154216176815672/?type=3&source=48&__tn__=E


InvalidDB
04-09-2017, 05:11 AM
https://m.facebook.com/WeAreALPA/photos/a.209689440671.141974.200676905671/10154216176815672/?type=3&source=48&__tn__=E

Has anyone actually investigated whether this is true? Correlation does not necessarily mean causation.

Spurious Correlations (http://bit.ly/2phewV9)

rickair7777
04-09-2017, 05:21 AM
A lot of other things have changed since Colgan, including certain training emphasis.

We are now seeing wholesale upgrades of the "fog-a-mirror" generation of pilots who were hired with essentially zero selectivity by the regionals. So the only backstop at all is the 1500 hours...we'll see how they do over the next few years.

It takes a while to reap what you sow with aviation safety, so you can't jump to early conclusions.

But I will venture that at least from a CA perspective if anybody can sit in the right seat, I'd rather they have 1500 hours than 200 hours. Or 400 hours, or 900 hours. Every little but helps at that level.


WhiskeyKilo
04-09-2017, 05:33 AM
1500 hours of C172 time does not make you a good jet driver.

That is all.

CBreezy
04-09-2017, 05:51 AM
1500 hours of C172 time does not make you a good jet driver.

That is all.

You're saying a C172 is NOT a jet? Give this man a medal! Tooling around as PIC of even a C172 should give you critical airmanship skills that you wouldn't get slinging gear in a jet. You should improve energy management, ADM, and sharpen existing skills like stall recovery through the mistakes you'll undoubtedly make. All time is not created equal but 1000/1500 is a good start.

sailingfun
04-09-2017, 05:52 AM
1500 hours of C172 time does not make you a good jet driver.

That is all.

You might want to read the rule as published. 1500 hours of 172 time will not get you hired. It's certainly better then 200 hours of 172 time however!

Bucknut
04-09-2017, 05:55 AM
I would rather have the 1500 hour pilot at least they may have a chance to scare themselves a little and gain a little humility, It also gives them some IFR experience and at the level is exponential. I used to fly with the Mesa Development 300 hour pilots and for the most part were fairly sharp. It is just is scary when your FO tells you that was the first instrument approach in actual conditions that they have ever flown was with passengers on board. MEI time is actually more worthwhile.

WhiskeyKilo
04-09-2017, 06:19 AM
You might want to read the rule as published. 1500 hours of 172 time will not get you hired. It's certainly better then 200 hours of 172 time however!

Ah yes. How could I forget the all important 25 hours of multi time.

In all seriousness I am for the 1500 hour rule. It has improved the quality of airline applicants but I've just seen way too many young kids come through the school house who just don't have the chops to fly jets. Most guys I know who stepped into the regional world 10 years ago did so on the Saab or Dash. I started my professional career flying turboprops and that provided great lead up experience to flying a jet.

It is not a perfect system but it is working. I wish there was a greater time requirement for multi engine to get your ATP but overall I am happy with what the 1500 hour rule has done to safety.

Slick111
04-09-2017, 06:34 AM
1500 hours of C172 time does not make you a good jet driver.

No, but it makes you a better jet driver than the guy with 250 hours in a C172!

veewan
04-09-2017, 06:34 AM
The other problem with lowering the TT requirement is, if we make it a wet commercial again the old TT for a part 61 issued​ commercial was 250 hours, part 141 was 190 hours and part 142 was 140 hours, where is the incentive to KEEP or increase pilot wages?

Let's say you have a wealthy ambitious person come in and they can get from zero to hero at a place like ATP. They'll have all the funds to go from zero to hero in 3 months and qualify for the regionals​. I mean technically they'll qualify for the legacies etc, (but they'd be competing against guys with jet time, Captain time...) but the reason we have seen wages increase is to attract talent. If there was an abundance of pilots, or a quick path for someone to put down cash now (borrowed or not) then feel that they'll be at a legacy with a wage that can repay it, there would suddenly be a lot more people doing flight training. This isn't to say we should deter people from learning to fly but rather you want people who actually like airplanes ​flying. Everyone likes money but you don't want to attract people who just want money.

The ATP/R-ATP requirement was not a move made purely for safety. Do I think it's better to have a pilot with more valuable flight time of course, but if we drop back to wet commercial, you'll have guys in the right seat of a jet who flew circles in a 172 for 250 hours. You'll have guys that went through a structured​ program for under 200 hours. We'd all prefer the guys with structured​ training.

When I went through my first airline initial training there was a guy who failed out of 121 training claiming he'd never pinked a ride... but got all of his training from ATP, where from what I gather they pay off the DPE to pass everyone even if they haven't learned what is required in the PTS. He didn't know how to track a VOR. And this was in the days where we commercial was able to be hired, but guys in class had ATP mins as the average.

Duesenflieger
04-09-2017, 06:41 AM
I would rather have the 1500 hour pilot at least they may have a chance to scare themselves a little and gain a little humility, It also gives them some IFR experience and at the level is exponential. I used to fly with the Mesa Development 300 hour pilots and for the most part were fairly sharp. It is just is scary when your FO tells you that was the first instrument approach in actual conditions that they have ever flown was with passengers on board. MEI time is actually more worthwhile.

That is actually a pretty good point. Where once most regional new-hires had hundreds of hours of multi-engine experience, it is bare minimum for the vast majority of regional candidates nowadays. Obtaining the full fifty hours of multi-engine experience in the airline's training simulator has become the new norm. No initiative whatsoever to expand learning horizons by acquiring the MEI rating or by flying freight in a Cessna 402, turboprop, etc. Thankfully I was blessed by signing up for part 135 jet charter operator before coming to the regionals and felt more than comfortable.... Most are gaining initial insights into operating multi-engine aircraft these days at the regionals which is not a good thing in my very humble opinion.

WingedCelt
04-09-2017, 06:46 AM
As someone mentioned earlier; it's been spiking wages and effectively raising the minimum floor. Thank God. I hope it continues to drive them up.

Keep the 1500 hour rule but give guys a living wage. You ll attract talent that way. I want to know what the attrition rate is from people who gain their PPL and make it all the way to the ATP.

deltajuliet
04-09-2017, 06:46 AM
1500 hours of C172 time does not make you a good jet driver.

That is all.

Maybe, but we should all support it for economic reasons as has been stated.

No Land 3
04-09-2017, 06:51 AM
The other problem with lowering the TT requirement is, if we make it a wet commercial again the old TT for a part 61 issued​ commercial was 250 hours, part 141 was 190 hours and part 142 was 140 hours, where is the incentive to KEEP or increase pilot wages?

Let's say you have a wealthy ambitious person come in and they can get from zero to hero at a place like ATP. They'll have all the funds to go from zero to hero in 3 months and qualify for the regionals​. I mean technically they'll qualify for the legacies etc, (but they'd be competing against guys with jet time, Captain time...) but the reason we have seen wages increase is to attract talent. If there was an abundance of pilots, or a quick path for someone to put down cash now (borrowed or not) then feel that they'll be at a legacy with a wage that can repay it, there would suddenly be a lot more people doing flight training. This isn't to say we should deter people from learning to fly but rather you want people who actually like airplanes ​flying. Everyone likes money but you don't want to attract people who just want money.

The ATP/R-ATP requirement was not a move made purely for safety. Do I think it's better to have a pilot with more valuable flight time of course, but if we drop back to wet commercial, you'll have guys in the right seat of a jet who flew circles in a 172 for 250 hours. You'll have guys that went through a structured​ program for under 200 hours. We'd all prefer the guys with structured​ training.

When I went through my first airline initial training there was a guy who failed out of 121 training claiming he'd never pinked a ride... but got all of his training from ATP, where from what I gather they pay off the DPE to pass everyone even if they haven't learned what is required in the PTS. He didn't know how to track a VOR. And this was in the days where we commercial was able to be hired, but guys in class had ATP mins as the average.
I disagree, you want the guy that likes money above all else, because they won't be willing to work for free, unlike the poor kid who is barely scratching by, desperate for the experience. Eventually, everyone becomes the guy that likes money and time at home above all else. I admit it, thats what I care about.
Zero to hero in three months? Closer to five months, and only then are they actually able to start to learn anything.
The 1500 hour rule gives them an opportunity to learn from their mistakes in the real world before going to an airline.

CBreezy
04-09-2017, 06:54 AM
Maybe, but we should all support it for economic reasons as has been stated.

I disagree. You should support it or anything that improves safety. The fact that wages have increased is a nice bonus but continuing to lobby a Republican Congress based purely on artificially increasing economic conditions is the fastest way to have those regulations rolled back. It's why Union participation in the last 30 years has plummeted​.

PSA help
04-09-2017, 06:59 AM
I have been told by those in recruiting and HR that less than half of the people that apply to PSA are called for an interview. Of those that interview, about 30% are not offered the job. And then once training starts, we have a low but healthy number of pilots that do not pass training.

There are many airlines that have the same percentages. I would not consider any of these a "fog the mirror" airlines.

The ones that have no real interview, hire anyone that applies, and then has a 95%+ pass rate are the regionals that scare me.

I think that the 1500 hour rule has helped, but the other parts of that plan have helped even more. The better sharing of pria and training records is a huge part of this.

glassnpowder98
04-09-2017, 07:01 AM
When I went through my first airline initial training there was a guy who failed out of 121 training claiming he'd never pinked a ride... but got all of his training from ATP, where from what I gather they pay off the DPE to pass everyone even if they haven't learned what is required in the PTS. He didn't know how to track a VOR. And this was in the days where we commercial was able to be hired, but guys in class had ATP mins as the average.

I know a bunch of guys/gals who have failed a checkride through ATP, including myself. Was there a little bit of training to just pass the checkride? It depends if your instructor was just sitting there to build hours or actually cared about teaching. People do slip through the cracks, but for the most part when they get to the 121 world they are weeded out pretty efficiently. But to say DPE's that work for ATP are paid off from information you "gathered" is a pretty strong statement with not much to back it up with.

Duesenflieger
04-09-2017, 07:03 AM
How pray tell is perpetuating a flawed environment that favors slaving away for $20000 per year conducive to safety? Colgan 3407 happened due to factors which fostered sleep and stress-induced fatigue. The captain and first officer couldn't even afford a $40/night hotel.... If you reduce the hours required to sign up for a regional, you can bet that all the bonuses and improvements in pay will go away again if pilot supply again overruns the number of available positions at the regionals. The increased experience requirement is having the effect that its creators intended: it is causing wages to rise as the available pool of applicants dwindles because of the time and energy needed in reaching it.

TheWeatherman
04-09-2017, 07:09 AM
Reminds me of one of my favorite Simpson's moments (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fm2W0sq9ddU)

SilentLurker
04-09-2017, 08:10 AM
1500 hours of C172 time does not make you a good jet driver.



That is all.



+1... Truth! Preach!

1500 PIC in 172 does not make one a good FO jet driver.... dumb law. Period. 4yr degree 2 yr degree exemptions/RATP (for certain school programs, uselessness, #ProfessionalPilotDegree 🤣), the reduction in time for these programs lobbied by Riddle & UND was also a dumb inclusion into the rule. Period.

But we'll take it. Increases pilot shortage, increases demand, increases PAY.


The Mgmt @ the majors & regionals did this to themselves. They should have seen this coming. They pushed the van / kicked the can down the road.


It's the # 1 strategy in resolving pilot related issues, from Fatigue to contract related improvements demanded by the pilots groups, simple QOL & pay improvements. Kicked down the road.

Stay alert to how they kick things down the road as long as possible. It's strategic and effective to their bottom line (this fiscal yr & forward guidance EPS estimates).

Duesenflieger
04-09-2017, 09:24 AM
It's a good sign that ALPA and the FAA are championing the act, though. It means that there is official resistance against the RAA's lobbyists. The faster the regionals die, the quicker the flying returns to mainline, which is good for us all, and not just for the pilots.

mpet
04-09-2017, 11:57 AM
1500 might not "make you a great jet pilot" (how would it?) but in addition to being a whole lot better than 250 hours, I can absolutely guarantee that it weeds out a lot of people who could slog through to 250 and don't belong in jet cockpits. I can think of 3 or 4 I've personally met. Yes, I know initial at an airline should catch these people too. If you belong and if you're serious about the profession spending a year or two of professional development on yourself should not be the end of the world.

JohnBurke
04-09-2017, 12:07 PM
1500 hours of C172 time does not make you a good jet driver.

That is all.

No requirement exists for 1,500 hours of time in a Cessna 172. The applicant must meet the requirements for an airline tranpsort pilot certificate.

Everyone must start somewhere. As it turns out, currently the starting point is ATP minimums. Go figure...for an airline job.

kevbo
04-09-2017, 06:46 PM
1500 hours of C172 time does not make you a good jet driver.

That is all.

You should spend time in something a little faster and more complex. Even a Barron can crowd a pattern full of jets if you leave the power on.

Sam York
04-10-2017, 06:08 AM
I'm not the most experienced and but am by far the least. My opinion formed after being around aviation my whole life and flying for a living the past 21 years is that there is no rhyme or reason to it.

I've seen great pilots with 250 hours and bad pilots with 250 hours. I've seen great pilots with 20000 hours and bad pilots with 20000 hours. That goes for training background also. Great guys from civ and crappy also. Great guys from mil and crappy too. And every combination of hours and training in between.

It just depends on the person and their attitude.

I site my time a a J4J capt at republic in the 06-08 years. They were hiring plenty of 400 hours guys. Some were great, some average and some I wouldn't let solo a washing machine.

In in the past months I've flown with a new hire (off the street) that has 121 experience but substantially less experience than your typical flow or mil new hire. This person absolutely blew me away with professionalism, flying skills, aircraft knowledge, and decision making. Made my job easy.

Like I said. No rhyme or reason to it.

Slick111
04-10-2017, 06:53 AM
The Mgmt @ the majors & regionals did this to themselves. They should have seen this coming. They pushed the van / kicked the can down the road.

They DID see it coming!!!

Congress intentionally built in a 3 year lag between the date that the law passed and the date that it became effective! The airlines, (both regionals and the majors who depend/benefit from their feed) had 3 years to come up with a plan to deal with the 1500 hour rule yet the chose to do absolutely nothing about it,..... until it was too late. And I, for one, am thrilled about it.

CBreezy
04-10-2017, 07:49 AM
I'm not the most experienced and but am by far the least. My opinion formed after being around aviation my whole life and flying for a living the past 21 years is that there is no rhyme or reason to it.

I've seen great pilots with 250 hours and bad pilots with 250 hours. I've seen great pilots with 20000 hours and bad pilots with 20000 hours. That goes for training background also. Great guys from civ and crappy also. Great guys from mil and crappy too. And every combination of hours and training in between.

It just depends on the person and their attitude.

I site my time a a J4J capt at republic in the 06-08 years. They were hiring plenty of 400 hours guys. Some were great, some average and some I wouldn't let solo a washing machine.

In in the past months I've flown with a new hire (off the street) that has 121 experience but substantially less experience than your typical flow or mil new hire. This person absolutely blew me away with professionalism, flying skills, aircraft knowledge, and decision making. Made my job easy.

Like I said. No rhyme or reason to it.

Yes, there are lots of professional and natural sticks out there. I'm sure there are many people who would be competent as a private pilot after 20 hours. Others, it takes 60. The FAA has determined that, on the average, a pilot needs to meet certain experience requirements to hold certain ratings. That includes the airline transport pilot one. For every all-star guy, there are a dozen folks to average him out. The rules are to protect ourselves from average.

Sam York
04-10-2017, 08:07 AM
Yes, there are lots of professional and natural sticks out there. I'm sure there are many people who would be competent as a private pilot after 20 hours. Others, it takes 60. The FAA has determined that, on the average, a pilot needs to meet certain experience requirements to hold certain ratings. That includes the airline transport pilot one. For every all-star guy, there are a dozen folks to average him out. The rules are to protect ourselves from average.

Yeah I agree with you. I'm all for the 1500 hour rule (didn't mean to imply anything else). Just thought I give my input. Best solution to a tuff problem, I'm not smart enough to come up with something better.

Servian
04-10-2017, 11:54 AM
1500 hours of C172 time does not make you a good jet driver.

That is all.

Couldn't agree more. In other countries there's no 1500 hour rule, it's not necessarily about your total hours but the training you went through and strict SOP's. Coming from Colombia where you can get hired with 200 hours total to fly a jet such as a E190, A320, etc I've been able to see that. Difference here is training is longer, SOP's are more strict (FDM / FDA / FOQA implemented). You could have thousands of hours in a school airplane, but that won't necessarily make you a good pilot when you start flying a jet, it's a complete different world.

Sam York
04-10-2017, 12:05 PM
Couldn't agree more. In other countries there's no 1500 hour rule, it's not necessarily about your total hours but the training you went through and strict SOP's. Coming from Colombia where you can get hired with 200 hours total to fly a jet such as a E190, A320, etc I've been able to see that. Difference here is training is longer, SOP's are more strict (FDM / FDA / FOQA implemented). You could have thousands of hours in a school airplane, but that won't necessarily make you a good pilot when you start flying a jet, it's a complete different world.

But you still have be able to think outside the box to get the job done some days. And by out of the box I mean out of the box but within far/company procedures and policies. And that only comes with flight time in my opinion.

Servian
04-10-2017, 03:09 PM
But you still have be able to think outside the box to get the job done some days. And by out of the box I mean out of the box but within far/company procedures and policies. And that only comes with flight time in my opinion.

Agree as well. However I'd rather be in an airplane with a pilot that went through good training and has a lot of experience in that particular airplane or at least flying that kind of airplanes. Sometimes it shocks me how they talk about the 1500 hour rule like it fixed everything but still allow companies to upgrade first officers within a year of flying a particular airplane (with no jet experience before). I do respect CFI's and their path to the airlines, but I just disagree with how people don't have any airline or jet experience and still are looking for the regional that will give them the fastest upgrade. I think they could put a 5000 hour rule or you name it but if you upgrade a first officer with only a thousand hours of a jet and basically flying for an airline, that's more dangerous than a new first officer flying a jet with only 200 hours... this guy will learn from experienced captains and will take him many years and hours in order to take the left seat. Just my opinion on the 1500 hour rule but whatever works... and like it was said before, it works for us pilots (better benefits, increasing salaries, job opportunities, etc)

lgaflyer
04-10-2017, 08:19 PM
You don't have to build your hours in a 172...seems like lots of 135 ops are hiring FO at 500h or so. That's what most people did "back in the day", either sit side way or tprop for a few years...

I have met people who gain their 1500h through CFI, they don't even know what AC/DC is or what "psi" stood for.....then it doesn't matter if they have 1500h or 15000h, these are ones that should be weed out and only lord knows what they are teaching!

TheWeatherman
04-11-2017, 06:08 AM
People who got to their ATP mins through part 135 operations will tell you their way makes you better 121 pilots then 1500 hour 172 drivers. Those who did the CFI route will tell you their way is better and makes you better aviators than those who just flew freight in straight lines and level altitudes from point A to point B daily.

Not sure which is better, but the part 121 training departments will tell you that on the whole those who come the CFI route, especially CFII, make better trainees and have a lower wash out rate than those who went other routes.

JohnBurke
04-11-2017, 07:39 AM
People who got to their ATP mins through part 135 operations will tell you their way makes you better 121 pilots then 1500 hour 172 drivers. Those who did the CFI route will tell you their way is better and makes you better aviators than those who just flew freight in straight lines and level altitudes from point A to point B daily.

Not sure which is better, but the part 121 training departments will tell you that on the whole those who come the CFI route, especially CFII, make better trainees and have a lower wash out rate than those who went other routes.

On the way to achieving my ATP, I did 135, instructed, towed banners, flew skydivers, did search and rescue, crop dusted, did aerial photography and movie location scouting, game count, gave scenic rides, towed gliders, and a few other things. I hauled gasoline, did freight and cargo and medevac. Somewhere in there I turned wrenches and pumped fuel, taught groundschools, put airplanes in parades and did mall displays.

There's no such thing as "their way." Just jobs and experience. The greater and the broader the experience (education), the better for the individual.

Get all the experience you can. It will help you grasp and understand, expand, adapt, learn, and perform. It may or may not enhance the resume, but an hour of experience and an hour of flight time are NOT the same.

C340
04-11-2017, 02:50 PM
People who got to their ATP mins through part 135 operations will tell you their way makes you better 121 pilots then 1500 hour 172 drivers. Those who did the CFI route will tell you their way is better and makes you better aviators than those who just flew freight in straight lines and level altitudes from point A to point B daily.

Not sure which is better, but the part 121 training departments will tell you that on the whole those who come the CFI route, especially CFII, make better trainees and have a lower wash out rate than those who went other routes.

I'm hoping to get on with a 135 operator in Alaska, caravan/1900 SIC first then 207 PIC. I've heard that Alaska time would be more valuable to an employer than vanilla 135 or dual given any day. Do you think there's truth to that? Thanks!

JohnBurke
04-11-2017, 03:52 PM
I've heard that Alaska time would be more valuable to an employer than vanilla 135 or dual given any day. Do you think there's truth to that? Thanks!

That depends on the employer. To Alaska operators, yes ts valuable. To some other operators, it makes no difference, and to some, it may be a liability.

soakingpilot
04-20-2017, 02:21 AM
I'm hoping to get on with a 135 operator in Alaska, caravan/1900 SIC first then 207 PIC. I've heard that Alaska time would be more valuable to an employer than vanilla 135 or dual given any day. Do you think there's truth to that? Thanks!

I think people give 0 FKS about alaska time other than maybe somewhere down the line when you have turbine PIC time and are applying at a major/corporate whatever it may make a good story too somehow set you apart. These are people btw who are not Alaska or bush based Im just speaking about lower 48 state carriers, outfits etc. my 2 cents.

RottenRay
04-26-2017, 10:28 AM
Not a pilot, don't pretend to know your job, okay?

When I buckle in my window seat behind the wings on the left side, where I normally like to sit, I hope for 2 things:

First, that whoever is in the pointy end enjoys the job and takes it seriously.

Next, that whatever company, whatever logo, respects both the professionals carrying me along, and the professionals tending to me in the cabin.

Experience can be a variable factor. If someone's enthusiastic about their avocation or vocation (the line gets blurry when it comes to pilots), then they learn and improve their skill sets.

If not, then it's just washing yet another f*cking car at the buggy wash.

Kudos to you folks who haven't crashed me. I realize I could get into my car and do that for myself.

But I think the bigger issue is two fold: Quality of training, and quality of experience.

If you come in on the right seat, but never are exposed to takeoff and landing, does that experience count?

If you fly long haul, and most of your experience is at cruise with Otto flying, do those hours really count?

Hours, maybe, but not realistically.

My dream PIC would be someone who has done a hundred landings and takeoffs from some place Toncontin. I'd pick a PM from someone who was right seat on the first 747 flights. Those were a mess.

But as a passenger I realize that that's not possible.

So, here's the thing. Make the best of your experience and training, and develop yourself.

Most of you do, I know. Professional pilots vie in my mind with good surgeons and nurses for "first in saving lives," because all of you deal with things which would send the average man running, screaming into the night.

BizPilot
04-27-2017, 02:16 AM
In Europe, under EASA rules the have 250 hour guys in the RH seat of airliners. Their safety record has been good except for the German airline job. They do have 14 written exams for their ATP and I believe they require about 750 hours of study time and a passing grade is a 75.

C130driver
04-27-2017, 06:22 AM
In Europe, under EASA rules the have 250 hour guys in the RH seat of airliners. Their safety record has been good except for the German airline job. They do have 14 written exams for their ATP and I believe they require about 750 hours of study time and a passing grade is a 75.

Sounds comforting ...

On the other hand, I heard it takes a decade or more to make Captain at Lufthansa, KLM and Air France.

rickair7777
04-27-2017, 08:19 AM
In Europe, under EASA rules the have 250 hour guys in the RH seat of airliners. Their safety record has been good except for the German airline job. They do have 14 written exams for their ATP and I believe they require about 750 hours of study time and a passing grade is a 75.

No, European airlines have a measurably worse safety record than US 121. Still very safe, but not as safe as us. Basic airmanship plays a role in that.

ShyGuy
04-27-2017, 10:04 AM
No, European airlines have a measurably worse safety record than US 121. Still very safe, but not as safe as us. Basic airmanship plays a role in that.

Wait, what? Which European airlines are you talking about? For that matter, how many European airlines have crashed in Europe versus those here for say the past 20 years?

Off the top of my head, Germanwings which was a suicidal FO, the British 777 at Heathrow that was a fuel-filter clog issue (and they did a great job and everyone lived), the SAS MD80 Linate airport disaster, but the MD80 did nothing wrong and hit a business jet that crossed onto their runway (runway incursion) in hard IMC/low vis. There was a Spanair MD80 that took off with no flaps and crashed.
Meanwhile in America, excluding 9/11 there was the rudder smashing out of JFK, several crashes in IMC during approach (Corporate Air, UPS, etc), a stall crash with Colgan, wrong runway Comair. In comparison, almost every crash in America was a pilot-error type so I'm curious to know what airmanship you claim is somehow better here versus in Europe?

JohnBurke
04-27-2017, 04:33 PM
The "rudder smashing," while pilot induced, occurred within an envelope in which most pilots had been led to believe structural damage would not occur with control deflection. It was, however, an european airplane.

742Dash
04-28-2017, 05:29 AM
In Europe, under EASA rules the have 250 hour guys in the RH seat of airliners. Their safety record has been good except for the German airline job. They do have 14 written exams for their ATP and I believe they require about 750 hours of study time and a passing grade is a 75.

The European 250 hour pilots come into a much more structured, mature airline environment. Their training is also much more selective and intense than what results from Daddy writing checks to a pilot puppy mill.

You can not begin to compare something like Lufthansa's system to the pre-2013 United States practice of throwing fresh commercial tickets from a puppy mill into the right seat of what were too often poorly run, sloppy regional airlines.

Adlerdriver
04-28-2017, 04:12 PM
In comparison, almost every crash in America was a pilot-error type so I'm curious to know what airmanship you claim is somehow better here versus in Europe?
You left off the most telling of the major European accidents in the last decade, AF 447. It takes a special kind of "child of magenta" and automation cripple to spend their last minutes on the planet with a full aft stick input somehow hoping things are going to improve.

That said, I'm not on board with the assertion that airmanship is somehow superior on our side of that Atlantic. But your conclusion that the seemingly higher number of accidents here indicates the 20 year safety record in Europe is superior to the US is flawed.

If you're going to attempt a comparison between US and European airlines safety records, you really need to account for the scale of the operations. Compare apples to apples accounting for daily numbers of flights and I don't think the picture is quite the same as you think.

British Airways, Lufthansa and Air France combined don't operate the same number of aircraft as either Delta or American. Combine the fleets of AA, Delta and United (almost 2600 aircraft) and you have about 3.5 times the number of aircraft (770) operated by those three Euro airlines.

Factor in other smaller Euro airlines like Iberia, Alitalia, Swissair, KLM, etc and they're still eclipsed by the additional 1200+ aircraft operated by SWA, JB, Spirit and Alaska and the 600+ combined aircraft at Fedex and UPS. Compare the operations of US regional carriers with similar operations in Europe and the disparity continues.

Considering the number of daily flight evolutions, it stands to reason that US airline's exposure to potential accidents will be higher just based on pure volume. So, it's hardly a valid comparison to simply list off a lesser number of major accidents involving European airlines during a given period in comparison with the US.

galaxy flyer
04-28-2017, 04:44 PM
Air France alone has had three hull losses since 2000. Investigate AF Concorde history, every incident (only one was a hull loss) was in AF service.

GF

Adlerdriver
04-28-2017, 05:00 PM
The European 250 hour pilots come into a much more structured, mature airline environment. Their training is also much more selective and intense than what results from Daddy writing checks to a pilot puppy mill.

You can not begin to compare something like Lufthansa's system to the pre-2013 United States practice of throwing fresh commercial tickets from a puppy mill into the right seat of what were too often poorly run, sloppy regional airlines.
Structure, selectivity, 14 ATP tests and 750 hours of study all sound great. Better yet is the training stop that results when someone proves they don't belong in a cockpit and can't keep paying to re-train until they pass.

However, there's never going to be a valid substitute for experience. Stick and rudder, hand flying, working the scan over and over, hour after hour building foundational skill sets that stay with you for life. That doesn't happen in 250 hours. I don't care how many tests the guy had to take or how structured the programs was.

The reality of modern airline flying is that it doesn't build those skills. You have to have them before you get there. Once a pilot enters an airline cockpit, he's done laying the skill foundation. He'll learn and continue to develop in related areas like CRM, leadership, company specific operations, international ops, etc. But, he's done becoming any better as a hands on pilot.

Pointing to the safety record of airline X as a supporting statistic for them putting 250 hour ab initios into the right seat of their airliners isn't a testament to that training program. It's more likely a testament to the effectiveness and reliability of the automation in modern airliners. The statistics allow a minimally trained pilot to attain a basic level of competence. He can be further trained in CRM, aircraft systems and maximum use of automation. Chances are that he will rarely, if ever, encounter a situation requiring skills beyond those he has developed. When that does happen, we have a scenario like AF447. But, since such events are so rare, it's easy to claim success (and supposed safety) with low time first officers (and some day Captains) who are little more than well trained autopilot operators.

They stay inside the lines and all is well - that's what these training programs bank on. However, we all know there will always be events that require the knowledge, experience and most importantly the skill to operate outside those lines.

TheWeatherman
04-28-2017, 05:10 PM
You left off the most telling of the major European accidents in the last decade, AF 447. It takes a special kind of "child of magenta" and automation cripple to spend their last minutes on the planet with a full aft stick input somehow hoping things are going to improve.

That said, I'm not on board with the assertion that airmanship is somehow superior on our side of that Atlantic. But your conclusion that the seemingly higher number of accidents here indicates the 20 year safety record in Europe is superior to the US is flawed.

If you're going to attempt a comparison between US and European airlines safety records, you really need to account for the scale of the operations. Compare apples to apples accounting for daily numbers of flights and I don't think the picture is quite the same as you think.

British Airways, Lufthansa and Air France combined don't operate the same number of aircraft as either Delta or American. Combine the fleets of AA, Delta and United (almost 2600 aircraft) and you have about 3.5 times the number of aircraft (770) operated by those three Euro airlines.

Factor in other smaller Euro airlines like Iberia, Alitalia, Swissair, KLM, etc and they're still eclipsed by the additional 1200+ aircraft operated by SWA, JB, Spirit and Alaska and the 600+ combined aircraft at Fedex and UPS. Compare the operations of US regional carriers with similar operations in Europe and the disparity continues.

Considering the number of daily flight evolutions, it stands to reason that US airline's exposure to potential accidents will be higher just based on pure volume. So, it's hardly a valid comparison to simply list off a lesser number of major accidents involving European airlines during a given period in comparison with the US.
BOOM! Mic drop

Adlerdriver
04-28-2017, 05:16 PM
If you come in on the right seat, but never are exposed to takeoff and landing, does that experience count?

My dream PIC would be someone who has done a hundred landings and takeoffs from some place Toncontin. I'd pick a PM from someone who was right seat on the first 747 flights. Those were a mess.
Ray, just FYI - at most airlines, it's common to alternate flying and PM duties, usually every other flight. So, first officers are usually "exposed" to takeoff and landing pretty regularly.

Denti
04-29-2017, 02:15 AM
It takes a special kind of "child of magenta" and automation cripple to spend their last minutes on the planet with a full aft stick input somehow hoping things are going to improve. You mean like Colgan Air? Of course sped down the drain by the helpful first officer raising the flaps...

TheWeatherman
04-29-2017, 04:43 AM
You mean like Colgan Air? Of course sped down the drain by the helpful first officer raising the flaps...

You are proving his point. Both of those pilots didn't take the time to develop stick and rudder skills before they became megenta line followers, and only that for a few seconds for take off and a few seconds for landing.

aeroengineer
04-29-2017, 05:19 AM
Originally Posted by Denti View Post
You mean like Colgan Air? Of course sped down the drain by the helpful first officer raising the flaps...

You are proving his point. Both of those pilots didn't take the time to develop stick and rudder skills before they became megenta line followers, and only that for a few seconds for take off and a few seconds for landing.


Having spent a fair amount of time in the military operating with a sleep deprived brain. At least some of the actions of the crew sound like the actions of a very sleep deprived crew.

Adlerdriver
04-29-2017, 05:36 AM
You mean like Colgan Air? Of course sped down the drain by the helpful first officer raising the flaps... Not quite the same, as my point was more directed at the reliance on automation from the moment a 250 hour ab initio gets into the right seat of a highly automated airliner. Colgan was more about consistently demonstrated lack of ability that was ignored, missed via poor training record review and lied about by the captain. I doubt that captain would have been successful in completion of a Euro style training course. There were so many warning signs throughout his training. Still, it shows the danger inherent in quickly obtaining certificates with minimal experience and jumping into 121 flying. And yes, his control inputs defy logic and clearly show his natural flying instincts, muscle memory and general flying skills weren't well developed.

ShyGuy
04-29-2017, 09:00 AM
The "rudder smashing," while pilot induced, occurred within an envelope in which most pilots had been led to believe structural damage would not occur with control deflection. It was, however, an european airplane.

As an aerospace engineer with a structural background, no test I recall supports that idea. Control deflection testing for maneuvering speed involved deflection in one direction and keeping that. As best as I can recall, there was no structural integrity test in which complete and opposite sustained control inputs by a pilot were conducted. It borders lunacy and defies logic for a passenger transport aircraft. Smashing any control surface in opposite directions accomplishes nothing when you look at transport aircraft mass and inertia.

Reminds me of the CRJ days below 50 landing and guys would literally in rapid succession pull full back and then full forward, back and forth, trying to find some sweet spot for landing. Completely unnecessary and accomplished nothing trying to manhandle it down.

ShyGuy
04-29-2017, 09:11 AM
You left off the most telling of the major European accidents in the last decade, AF 447. It takes a special kind of "child of magenta" and automation cripple to spend their last minutes on the planet with a full aft stick input somehow hoping things are going to improve.

That said, I'm not on board with the assertion that airmanship is somehow superior on our side of that Atlantic. But your conclusion that the seemingly higher number of accidents here indicates the 20 year safety record in Europe is superior to the US is flawed.

If you're going to attempt a comparison between US and European airlines safety records, you really need to account for the scale of the operations. Compare apples to apples accounting for daily numbers of flights and I don't think the picture is quite the same as you think.

British Airways, Lufthansa and Air France combined don't operate the same number of aircraft as either Delta or American. Combine the fleets of AA, Delta and United (almost 2600 aircraft) and you have about 3.5 times the number of aircraft (770) operated by those three Euro airlines.

Factor in other smaller Euro airlines like Iberia, Alitalia, Swissair, KLM, etc and they're still eclipsed by the additional 1200+ aircraft operated by SWA, JB, Spirit and Alaska and the 600+ combined aircraft at Fedex and UPS. Compare the operations of US regional carriers with similar operations in Europe and the disparity continues.

Considering the number of daily flight evolutions, it stands to reason that US airline's exposure to potential accidents will be higher just based on pure volume. So, it's hardly a valid comparison to simply list off a lesser number of major accidents involving European airlines during a given period in comparison with the US.

I made a specific point of crashes within Europe, which is why AF447 wasn't listed. But anyway, I agree on the argument of more planes, more flights, but my point was trying to refute the guy above me who wrote that european airlines were somehow less safe than what we have in the States.

John Carr
04-29-2017, 11:11 AM
You mean like Colgan Air? Of course sped down the drain by the helpful first officer raising the flaps...

You are proving his point. Both of those pilots didn't take the time to develop stick and rudder skills before they became megenta line followers, and only that for a few seconds for take off and a few seconds for landing.

Good point.

But the ONLY difference between Colgan and say the UAL 744 in SFO years was pure luck.

One was a crew of oh so high and mighty superior trained legacy pilots. The other was a regional crew.

They experienced a complete lack of airmanship as well.

Nothing but luck prevented them from smearing a fully loaded 744 across a mountain.

aeroengineer
04-29-2017, 01:07 PM
Not quite the same, as my point was more directed at the reliance on automation from the moment a 250 hour ab initio gets into the right seat of a highly automated airliner. Colgan was more about consistently demonstrated lack of ability that was ignored, missed via poor training record review and lied about by the captain. I doubt that captain would have been successful in completion of a Euro style training course. There were so many warning signs throughout his training. Still, it shows the danger inherent in quickly obtaining certificates with minimal experience and jumping into 121 flying. And yes, his control inputs defy logic and clearly show his natural flying instincts, muscle memory and general flying skills weren't well developed.

Of course on the flip side he may been properly trained had his training course been Euro style or otherwise done a better job. I so wish the instructors out there today were on average more experienced and seasoned. IMHO a properly trained pilot shouldn't have problems with checkrides to the extent he did. (Yes everyone can have an off day I understand that) Training should reinforce and focus on the checkride standards and no one should be signed off until they have it down pat. Many instructors today are barely beyond students themselves.

Adlerdriver
04-29-2017, 01:57 PM
Good point.

But the ONLY difference between Colgan and say the UAL 744 in SFO years was pure luck.

One was a crew of oh so high and mighty superior trained legacy pilots. The other was a regional crew.

They experienced a complete lack of airmanship as well.

Nothing but luck prevented them from smearing a fully loaded 744 across a mountain. I'm not sure I agree with the "absoluteness" of your statement. I agree UAL was extremely lucky in SFO and there was a pretty big fail all around with that crew. I doubt anyone felt "high" or "mighty" after that event - and they sure didn't get a pass. You sound like you have a bit of an axe to grind.

However, back to your "ONLY" statement. There were plenty of differences between the two situations. Probably the biggest is the UAL crew actually had a problem with the aircraft whereas the Colgan crew stalled a perfectly good aircraft and packed it in. Putting the engine issue aside, the UAL event was primarily caused by a lack of recency/proficiency. Colgan was caused by a proven, consistent skill deficiency and I'm pretty sure fatigue was a factor as well.

The UAL FO was a "professional RFO" who rarely flew and ham-fisted the engine-out profile and EO SID. No one on that crew had multiple check ride busts throughout their career nor had they lied about such things to get their job as in the Colgan crash. There's a big difference between losing proficiency and never having it in the first place (though there's obviously no excuse for not being professional enough to do what is required to stay proficient). They also didn't start flying 121 with around 600 hours. Half of his time had been logged at Gulfstream over a 7 month period just 5 months before he got hired at Colgan.

IMO, I see quite a few differences between the two events.

John Carr
04-29-2017, 02:07 PM
I'm not sure I agree with the "absoluteness" of your statement. I agree UAL was extremely lucky in SFO and there was a pretty big fail all around with that crew. I doubt anyone felt "high" or "mighty" after that event - and they sure didn't get a pass. You sound like you have a bit of an axe to grind.

However, back to your "ONLY" statement. There were plenty of differences between the two situations. The UAL event was primarily caused by a lack of recency/proficiency. Colgan was caused by a proven, consistent skill deficiency and I'm pretty sure fatigue was a factor as well.

The UAL FO was a "professional RFO" who rarely flew and ham-fisted the engine-out profile and EO SID. No one on that crew had multiple check ride busts throughout their career nor had they lied about such things to get their job as in the Colgan crash. There's a big difference between losing proficiency and never having it in the first place (though there's obviously no excuse for not being professional enough to do what is required to stay proficient). They also didn't start flying 121 with around 600 hours. Half of his time had been logged at Gulfstream over a 7 month period just 5 months before he got hired at Colgan.

IMO, I see quite a few differences between the two events.


You read a little more into than I implied.

And although the PF/FO was a career "bunkie", why the CA didn't take over remained a mystery. Sure, it could be argued there's always the potential that taking the plane could worsen a situation but not here. IIRC, multiple voices on the CVR telling the PF what to do and he's not doing it. It was basic multi engine pilot 101. Wouldn't matter if it was a 744 or an underpowered 2 engine bug smasher.

The point I was getting at was, even pilots with a a lot of skill/experience/training can STILL suffer from not exercising airmanship. So when I say the only difference was luck, well. It sure as hell wasnt the 744 crews skill experience training and lack poor checkride history that saved them.

Which begs a slightly rhetorical/philosophical question.

Colgan an obvious A+B=C. As in, substandard pilots crash a plane.

Whereas the UAL (and many others) had very experienced/highly trained crews do the same thing, yet shouldn't have.

So when I said the only difference was luck, that's what I meant.

And NO, I DONT have an "axe to grind". Not sure where you're getting that from.

It was sarcasm. Because here on the internets when an accident/incident gets dissected there's a schism. At a legacy airline, the mantra is "well, no one was hurt/killed so it's OK". The DAL taxiway landing discussion years back was a prime example. Anyone other than a legacy and it's "those regional/ACMI/LCC pilots are terrible and this is what happens!!!"

See what I'm saying?

JohnBurke
04-29-2017, 02:15 PM
As an aerospace engineer with a structural background, no test I recall supports that idea.

What idea?

Students are taught from their earliest primary training that maneuvering speed represents a value at which the aircraft or flight surface or control will stall prior to imposing a critical load.

It's oversimplified, but this is what the vast majority of pilots have been taught. Details regarding the rate of deflection, gust factor, and numerous other associated elements including limiting deflection to one rather than reversals, are not part of the definition, nor were they a part of the curriculum for most ground school courses at the elementary level or advanced. Accordingly, the pilot who made rudder inputs to counter a wake turbulence encounter did not expect to break the airplane.

As with most things in aviation, advances in regulation, training, and design are usually written in blood, bathed in that which came before. Additional training to correct training deficiencies in stall recovery, control usage, and numerous other elements of flying, has been instituted as a result of mishaps and fatalities. This is no exception.

It remains, however, that it was an european aircraft, for those who wish to get too snooty over european aviation.

Adlerdriver
04-29-2017, 02:19 PM
Of course on the flip side he may been properly trained had his training course been Euro style or otherwise done a better job. I so wish the instructors out there today were on average more experienced and seasoned. IMHO a properly trained pilot shouldn't have problems with checkrides to the extent he did. (Yes everyone can have an off day I understand that) Training should reinforce and focus on the checkride standards and no one should be signed off until they have it down pat. Many instructors today are barely beyond students themselves. Instructors can only do so much. I agree that many are still pretty green when they start, but we have to hope that standards are being upheld by those signing them off. Just as you hope those same standards are applied when they sign off their students. I agree with all that.
However, there's just as much responsibility on the student to prepare, study, chairfly and make sure repeat mistakes are minimal. It's up to the student to work his ass off and not show up expecting to be spoon fed. The other part of this equation is the simple fact that some folks just aren't cut out to fly. Some have natural ability and it comes easy - others have to work to gain every rating but they progress. Others simply shouldn't be allowed behind the yoke. It's not a given that with "proper training" everyone is going to succeed. To put it bluntly, this guy consistently sucked. When you bust that many check rides and struggle frequently over the course of 15+ years with different instructors, different training environments and equipment, my guess is that the deficiency wasn't in the instruction.

Adlerdriver
04-29-2017, 02:29 PM
It was sarcasm. Because here on the internets when an accident/incident gets dissected there's a schism. At a legacy airline, the mantra is "well, no one was hurt/killed so it's OK". The DAL taxiway landing discussion years back was a prime example. Anyone other than a legacy and it's "those regional/ACMI/LCC pilots are terrible and this is what happens!!!"

See what I'm saying? I understand the "gist" of your comment which is why I mentioned the axe. Personally, I don't share that "mantra" and scoff pretty heavily at the Delta fail (and any other similar fails) equally, regardless of the company, size of the a/c or flavor of pilot. Maybe I'm naive, but I don't think quite as many of us on the "internets" are inclined to give legacy guys a pass on these things as you may think.

But, maybe that's just me. I spent some time at an ACMI with some outstanding pilots and jumpseat off line in highly professional RJ cockpits all the time which may keep me away from those narrow minded attitudes you mention.

John Carr
04-29-2017, 03:18 PM
I understand the "gist" of your comment which is why I mentioned the axe. Personally, I don't share that "mantra" and scoff pretty heavily at the Delta fail (and any other similar fails) equally, regardless of the company, size of the a/c or flavor of pilot. Maybe I'm naive, but I don't think quite as many of us on the "internets" are inclined to give legacy guys a pass on these things as you may think.

But, maybe that's just me. I spent some time at an ACMI with some outstanding pilots and jumpseat off line in highly professional RJ cockpits all the time which may keep me away from those narrow minded attitudes you mention.

Which was basically all I was saying.

And I NEVER said you had that mantra/mentality.

aeroengineer
04-30-2017, 10:20 AM
A little over a year ago I was speaking to an FAA employee (FAA inspector as I recall and he had flown 121 in the past before his FAA gig) and we were discussing the Colgan crash. My take was without talking to the captain is we'll never know what the captain thought he was dealing with. Icing or more specifically tail-plane icing which would have required a completely different response or some other issue entirely. Just no way to know for sure. My .02. (I can't say if he was "established" at this point in the ILS approach maybe someone else can chime in) The FAA inspector's take was that the captain was trying to recover AND not bust his altitude (putting his job at risk) as stall recovery has been about preventing altitude loss and recovering from the stall. In hindsight he and his passengers lost a lot more but he wouldn't be the first in any industry to do something unsafe to try and safeguard employment. Turns out I guessed right when I noticed the change in the PTS standards for stall recovery (amount of allowable altitude loss during recovery) could be traced to this accident. I do know one thing I personally have the lessons learned from this tragedy burned in my mind and I will utilize altitude available to may sure the plane is flying again.

John Carr
04-30-2017, 03:12 PM
The FAA inspector's take was that the captain was trying to recover AND not bust his altitude (putting his job at risk) as stall recovery has been about preventing altitude loss and recovering from the stall. In hindsight he and his passengers lost a lot more but he wouldn't be the first in any industry to do something unsafe to try and safeguard employment. Turns out I guessed right when I noticed the change in the PTS standards for stall recovery (amount of allowable altitude loss during recovery) could be traced to this accident. I do know one thing I personally have the lessons learned from this tragedy burned in my mind and I will utilize altitude available to may sure the plane is flying again.

We'll never know what Renslow was thinking. Not the FO woth the flap retraction. And I don't have the benefit of hearing the FAA guy's thoughts and the context.

But even for a pilot like Renslow, I doubt it was his job he may have been worried about. ALL of us have made a boo boo.

Yes, I know he worked for a crappy employer, but I don't buy the employment idea.

And the PTS was changed because the FAA FINALLY realized how completely stupid and usless it was to have the old PTS standards.

Especially in larger transport category aircraft.

On a PC, a passable stall maneuver wasn't so much about the recovery as it was getting set up for the maneuver itself.

Afterwards, stall training became way more real world and practicle.

aeroengineer
05-01-2017, 06:56 PM
FAA FINALLY realized how completely stupid and usless it was to have the old PTS standards.

Especially in larger transport category aircraft.

Afterwards, stall training became way more real world and practical.
Yes sir on this we wholeheartedly agree.

I also noticed in the 2014 time frame (at least in my little corner of the world) that there were still some instructors hadn't gotten the memo sts and seemed to try and teach the old standards. Of course the old standards are what THEY learned originally.

trip
05-01-2017, 07:33 PM
And the PTS was changed because the FAA FINALLY realized how completely stupid and usless it was to have the old PTS standards.


Agree here, I've done many checkrides/SIMS in T-prop and jet where if you lost +100' in a recovery it was a fail/re-do. So the the procedure became at first indication of stall, max thrust and haul back on the yoke, NO KIDDING!

The rules were re-written in blood and training has become real world.

John Carr
05-01-2017, 11:15 PM
Agree here, I've done many checkrides/SIMS in T-prop and jet where if you lost +100' in a recovery it was a fail/re-do. So the the procedure became at first indication of stall, max thrust and haul back on the yoke, NO KIDDING!

The rules were re-written in blood and training has become real world.

It also became more about how you set up for the maneuver from the get go and not the ACTUAL RECOVERY ITSELF.

FlyJSH
05-03-2017, 07:06 PM
It was my opinion and still is what we trained for at Colgan was recovery from slow flight rather than a recovery from a stall. We slowed, got behind the power curve, and powered out of it with some reduction in AOA. It certainly wasn't what I as a CFI taught a student flying a 152 or a King Air to do when faced with an actual stall.

There were a number of dominoes that fell that night. His actions were the last.

Marvin was one of the nicest guys you could hope to meet.

I am not defending or judging. I just miss my friend.

John Carr
05-06-2017, 09:47 AM
It was my opinion and still is what we trained for at Colgan was recovery from slow flight rather than a recovery from a stall. We slowed, got behind the power curve, and powered out of it with some reduction in AOA. It certainly wasn't what I as a CFI taught a student flying a 152 or a King Air to do when faced with an actual stall.

The other airlines I worked at at that time were the same

An exercise in slow flight and then powering/accelerating out of it. The landing configuration being the worst.

PurpleToolBox
05-07-2017, 08:08 PM
Agree here, I've done many checkrides/SIMS in T-prop and jet where if you lost +100' in a recovery it was a fail/re-do. So the the procedure became at first indication of stall, max thrust and haul back on the yoke, NO KIDDING!

The rules were re-written in blood and training has become real world.

I'm sorry I disagree with you. Perhaps you were taught that way but if you were you were taught wrong. You never yanked back on the yoke because doing so only worsened your situation. It was more of a "hold" the yoke keeping the nose up maintaining level flight while the power increase allowed for you to accelerate out or away from the stall.

The old standard wasn't unsafe, it didn't teach pilots that all they have to do is release back pressure, accelerate and you'll live another day. Had either procedure been performed that night, they would be alive. Yanking back on the yoke wasn't taught or shouldn't have been and pulling back during the stall is precisely what killed them. Raising the flaps only doomed any chance or a recovery.

rickair7777
05-10-2017, 06:50 AM
It was my opinion and still is what we trained for at Colgan was recovery from slow flight rather than a recovery from a stall. We slowed, got behind the power curve, and powered out of it with some reduction in AOA. It certainly wasn't what I as a CFI taught a student flying a 152 or a King Air to do when faced with an actual stall.

There were a number of dominoes that fell that night. His actions were the last.

Marvin was one of the nicest guys you could hope to meet.

I am not defending or judging. I just miss my friend.

Yes, that's the way we were trained in 121 back then. Not to recover from a stall, but to power out of a low-speed event before the stall occurred.

ShyGuy
05-10-2017, 09:59 AM
I'm sorry I disagree with you. Perhaps you were taught that way but if you were you were taught wrong. You never yanked back on the yoke because doing so only worsened your situation. It was more of a "hold" the yoke keeping the nose up maintaining level flight while the power increase allowed for you to accelerate out or away from the stall.

The old standard wasn't unsafe, it didn't teach pilots that all they have to do is release back pressure, accelerate and you'll live another day. Had either procedure been performed that night, they would be alive. Yanking back on the yoke wasn't taught or shouldn't have been and pulling back during the stall is precisely what killed them. Raising the flaps only doomed any chance or a recovery.

He was kinda right. We weren't taught to yank back, but it was max thrust and definitely a "hold some pressure, maybe even slight back pressure." The point back then was to minimize altitude loss and basically power yourself out of the approach-to-stall condition. The old standard sucked. It taught the wrong 'initial action' on the yoke which is what really counted in the heat of the moment. And it completely disregarded the relationship between wing chord line and relative wind.

It doesn't matter if you're 2,300 ft outside Buffalo or above FL350 over the Atlantic. Once the airplane approaches stall or is stalled, there is really only one viable option left. Personally I wish in many instances, instead of "fly the plane" it should be taught as "fly the wing." There are too many instances of pilots pulling back and increasing their AOA when it wasn't the appropriate - or even necessary - response to what was happening.

ShyGuy
05-10-2017, 10:15 AM
Students are taught from their earliest primary training that maneuvering speed represents a value at which the aircraft or flight surface or control will stall prior to imposing a critical load.

Yes, but I'm not I'd feel comfortable making that statement for full-reversal-continuous inputs (eg, full left, full right, full left, full right). And yes the control surface should stall, but would you not agree that mostly implies to airfoils directly facing the relative wind almost directly head on? Eg, ailerons, flaps, elevator, horizontal stabilizer. The rudder is deflected into the wind but hard to imagine a scenario in which the rudder itself would stall below 250 knots. As long as the chord line of the rudder and relative wind reach a certain angle, it should stall, but again I don't see how that applies for the rudder. The rudder induces a large side load - severe in the case of AA 587 with full left/right/left/right inputs. Even if the control surface stalls, how are you preventing the large side loads?

Accordingly, the pilot who made rudder inputs to counter a wake turbulence encounter did not expect to break the airplane.

Who knows what he expected. American's AAMP did not teach rudder usage in this scenario, especially climbing away from the airport. Using full rudder to correct for wake turbulence is bad juju. All it's really going to accomplish is subject the aircraft to large side loading. From the NTSB report, prior pilots were interviewed who also made comments on how quick he was on the rudders when it came to wake turbulence, and in one case it was bad enough of a sideways movement that the 727 CA thought they may have lost an engine.

PurpleToolBox
05-11-2017, 01:14 AM
Yes, but I'm not I'd feel comfortable making that statement for full-reversal-continuous inputs (eg, full left, full right, full left, full right). And yes the control surface should stall, but would you not agree that mostly implies to airfoils directly facing the relative wind almost directly head on? Eg, ailerons, flaps, elevator, horizontal stabilizer. The rudder is deflected into the wind but hard to imagine a scenario in which the rudder itself would stall below 250 knots. As long as the chord line of the rudder and relative wind reach a certain angle, it should stall, but again I don't see how that applies for the rudder. The rudder induces a large side load - severe in the case of AA 587 with full left/right/left/right inputs. Even if the control surface stalls, how are you preventing the large side loads?

Who knows what he expected. American's AAMP did not teach rudder usage in this scenario, especially climbing away from the airport. Using full rudder to correct for wake turbulence is bad juju. All it's really going to accomplish is subject the aircraft to large side loading. From the NTSB report, prior pilots were interviewed who also made comments on how quick he was on the rudders when it came to wake turbulence, and in one case it was bad enough of a sideways movement that the 727 CA thought they may have lost an engine.

You should feel uncomfortable because it would be an unwise thing to say. Making one full control input at or below maneuvering speed is quite different than making full reversal inputs. The acceleration or loading created by reversing inputs is more than the ultimate load as designed. Transport aircraft were never certified to withstand more than one full deflection.

You're not preventing the side loads. The side loading or the relative wind smashing into the deflected tail along with the new rudder position creating a load in the same direction is what causes failure.

Using rudder during wake turbulence is not "bad juju." It is about HOW you use the rudder. I don't believe Boeing or Airbus ever said not to use the rudder during a wake turbulence encounter in their notices to operators following AA587. I believe they said not to use alternating inputs.

Duesenflieger
06-30-2017, 12:28 AM
https://www.alpa.org/news-and-events/news-room/2017-06-29-alpa-blasts-senate-action

aeroengineer
06-30-2017, 03:30 PM
To me the scariest part of this thread is the apparent inconsistency on stall recovery/training/opinions from several posters of whom many are very high time and experienced pilots. I really hope all can find a way to get on the same page.

rickair7777
07-01-2017, 07:46 AM
Y
Using rudder during wake turbulence is not "bad juju." It is about HOW you use the rudder. I don't believe Boeing or Airbus ever said not to use the rudder during a wake turbulence encounter in their notices to operators following AA587. I believe they said not to use alternating inputs.

Correct. The issue was alternating sequential full inputs.

The certification criteria required that you could apply and hold full rudder deflection (rudder limiters are often needed at higher IAS). It did not require that you could bounce back and forth between the stops with the tail swinging opposite your inputs. Airbus apparently designed to the certification criteria.

Subieguy14
07-01-2017, 04:50 PM
hopefully putting around in my super cub will train me for these shiny jets in 1220 hours :p

Hacker15e
07-02-2017, 09:37 AM
To me the scariest part of this thread is the apparent inconsistency on stall recovery/training/opinions from several posters of whom many are very high time and experienced pilots. I really hope all can find a way to get on the same page.

1. All aircraft are not the same in terms of performance near/at/beyond stall AOA. Thus, there can be many different answers that are all correct.

2. There are many techniques that may all achieve the central objective; one being correct does not require all of the other techniques to be incorrect.

3. Tacos.

JamesNoBrakes
07-02-2017, 11:37 AM
hopefully putting around in my super cub will train me for these shiny jets in 1220 hours :p

Pretty much any aircraft that has "Super" in the name. Super-80, Super-Hornet, PA-12, F-100, etc.

aeroengineer
07-08-2017, 01:09 PM
1. All aircraft are not the same in terms of performance near/at/beyond stall AOA. Thus, there can be many different answers that are all correct.

2. There are many techniques that may all achieve the central objective; one being correct does not require all of the other techniques to be incorrect.

3. Tacos.

Got the first 2.....not the 3rd reference..LOL .I'm assuming you are or were an instructor and I admit I like the way you think. I've had more than one instructor with the my way or the highway mentality on stalls and it can be frustrating trying to keep them happy.

JohnBurke
09-16-2017, 03:56 PM
Colgan 3407 happened due to factors which fostered sleep and stress-induced fatigue. The captain and first officer couldn't even afford a $40/night hotel....

Colgan happened due to a crew that was distracted with external conversation, that didn't respond as a crew, that made the opposite corrections necessary, that began 22 knots above stall (giving ample time to act and prevent), that involved a first officer acting on her own to raise flaps uncommanded, and a captain that kept pitching up in response to a stall, two crew which made no reference to or verbalization of airspeed, and particularly a pilot with a long history of checkride and training failures.

Crew rest...the captain had been in base for 3 days, and the FO had arrived more than 12 hours prior, contrary to popular myth.

Fatigued? No. **** poor piloting? Very much so. The lessons learned, which needed to be applied, were ones that should have been firmly cemented in the formative period early in their careers. The divide between a wet commercial and an ATP isn't great, but it covers a period when many fledgling aviators are at their riskiest, and when a great deal of the learning which forms the judgement base for future years is had. It's not merely a matter of a few hours of 172 time, and it's a ridiculous assumption that all pilots arrive for their ATP with only 172 time.

It's far too easy to say that the captain who got three days rest prior to the trip, and who failed multiple certification rides and proficiency checks, and bought his job in a pay to play program where money overrode skill and demonstrated ability, was fatigued. Fatigue was not the overriding factor. It was deficient piloting skills. It was a crew that acted independently, and both contrary to that necessary to do the most basic thing a pilot must do: fly the airplane.

Raising the entry level requirement to ATP minimums is hardly a bad move. Requiring an airline applicant to at least be qualified for an airline transport pilot certificate ought not be a surprise. Or anything that should be railed against. There are numerous factors that have resulted in the lowest mishap rate since jet aircraft entered service, but it would be incongruous to suggest that increasing the base experience level is not one of those factors. Changes to training, improved safety programs and oversight, and numerous other aspects play a part, but so does an increased focus on pilot experience and qualification which is far more than a few extra hours in a 172.

SonicFlyer
09-17-2017, 07:29 PM
It's far too easy to say that the captain who got three days rest prior to the trip, and who failed multiple certification rides and proficiency checks, and bought his job in a pay to play program where money overrode skill and demonstrated ability, was fatigued. Fatigue was not the overriding factor. It was deficient piloting skills. It was a crew that acted independently, and both contrary to that necessary to do the most basic thing a pilot must do: fly the airplane.That's a problem with training, not experience.

tomgoodman
09-17-2017, 08:01 PM
That's a problem with training, not experience.

Experience is a form of training which schools cannot provide, but some pilots don't realize that until they have a great deal of it. ;)

Rama
09-17-2017, 09:48 PM
One thing experience provides is non-normal situations, equipment failures, severe weather and a multitude of other events that happen on line.
Experience exposes pilots to abnormal events in which they need to react to by training, common sense, and maybe thinking outside of the box and other factors to bring about a positive outcome.
Sully is a prime example of this.

JohnBurke
09-18-2017, 12:02 AM
Experience is a form of training which schools cannot provide, but some pilots don't realize that until they have a great deal of it. ;)

Quite so.

Training is one thing. Judgement is another.

Flyhayes
09-18-2017, 10:47 AM
In addition, raising the requirements to 1500 hours gives the industry more time in which a pilot with poor skills/judgement/personality can get weeded out prior to flying the great unwashed masses around.
Imagine if the German Wings guy had more hoops to jump through before....

rickair7777
09-19-2017, 06:20 AM
In addition, raising the requirements to 1500 hours gives the industry more time in which a pilot with poor skills/judgement/personality can get weeded out prior to flying the great unwashed masses around.
Imagine if the German Wings guy had more hoops to jump through before....


Yes, the real world can screen for issues which are hard to test for.

100LL
09-19-2017, 12:14 PM
You know what could improve safety even more than an hour requirement and some training? Previous flying experience other than tooling around in a 172 for 1500 hrs or instructing. I'm talking about part 135 flight time especially single pilot turbine. Part 135 pilots who have done their job for a minimum of at least a year bring invaluable experience that can't be gained by instructing, or going to ERAU. We are talking hard IFR flying, night experience, icing and thunderstorms just to name a few all while acting as PIC alone. Introduce incentives for the regional airlines to hire pilots with prior 135 time. its my opinion they should be allowed to start higher up in the pay scale since they come with valuable experience unlike a 172 CFI doing steep turns day after day. Not asking for a bonus...they are as useless as per diem.

TheWeatherman
09-19-2017, 12:20 PM
You know what could improve safety even more than an hour requirement and some training? Previous flying experience other than tooling around in a 172 for 1500 hrs or instructing. I'm talking about part 135 flight time especially single pilot turbine. Part 135 pilots who have done their job for a minimum of at least a year bring invaluable experience that can't be gained by instructing, or going to ERAU. We are talking hard IFR flying, night experience, icing and thunderstorms just to name a few all while acting as PIC alone. Introduce incentives for the regional airlines to hire pilots with prior 135 time. its my opinion they should be allowed to start higher up in the pay scale since they come with valuable experience unlike a 172 CFI doing steep turns day after day. Not asking for a bonus...they are as useless as per diem.
And you also bring along all the bad habits you picked up part 135 flying. Start out at more pay??? For what? Get over yourself. Lol, has to be one of the most ridiculous posts in this thread.

Yoda2
09-19-2017, 04:22 PM
You know what could improve safety even more than an hour requirement and some training? Previous flying experience other than tooling around in a 172 for 1500 hrs or instructing. I'm talking about part 135 flight time especially single pilot turbine. Part 135 pilots who have done their job for a minimum of at least a year bring invaluable experience that can't be gained by instructing, or going to ERAU. We are talking hard IFR flying, night experience, icing and thunderstorms just to name a few all while acting as PIC alone. Introduce incentives for the regional airlines to hire pilots with prior 135 time. its my opinion they should be allowed to start higher up in the pay scale since they come with valuable experience unlike a 172 CFI doing steep turns day after day. Not asking for a bonus...they are as useless as per diem.

Dear 100LL, I have years of flying, thousands of hours, and in more aircraft than I can recall off the top of my head. I have flown single pilot IFR in all the conditions you mention, and in many more conditions and circumstances that I'm sure you have yet to encounter. In addition to studying my butt off, the primary reason I am still alive today is due to some excellent and dedicated flight instructors that I tooled around with in Cessna's...

JamesNoBrakes
09-19-2017, 09:46 PM
You know what could improve safety even more than an hour requirement and some training? Previous flying experience other than tooling around in a 172 for 1500 hrs or instructing. I'm talking about part 135 flight time especially single pilot turbine. Part 135 pilots who have done their job for a minimum of at least a year bring invaluable experience that can't be gained by instructing, or going to ERAU. We are talking hard IFR flying, night experience, icing and thunderstorms just to name a few all while acting as PIC alone. Introduce incentives for the regional airlines to hire pilots with prior 135 time. its my opinion they should be allowed to start higher up in the pay scale since they come with valuable experience unlike a 172 CFI doing steep turns day after day. Not asking for a bonus...they are as useless as per diem.

Sounds nice on paper, but I've seen just as many pilots jaded by this 135 experience, to the point of being un-hire-able by 121s. In the real world, things aren't as cut and dry as you make them out to be. Most 121 pilots are very conservative, the airlines want them to be, they want safe smart pilots. Lots of the things that people experience in 135 are the exact opposite of how they want you to behave under 121. I knew many instructors that only flew at night and only taught IFR. As far as IFR, they were sharper than many/most airline pilots, staying current on basic techniques and topics.

CrimsonEclipse
09-23-2017, 09:26 PM
Lots of the things that people experience in 135 are the exact opposite of how they want you to behave under 121.

For instance...... :confused:

flyboy8524
09-24-2017, 08:14 AM
Sounds nice on paper, but I've seen just as many pilots jaded by this 135 experience, to the point of being un-hire-able by 121s. In the real world, things aren't as cut and dry as you make them out to be. Most 121 pilots are very conservative, the airlines want them to be, they want safe smart pilots. Lots of the things that people experience in 135 are the exact opposite of how they want you to behave under 121. I knew many instructors that only flew at night and only taught IFR. As far as IFR, they were sharper than many/most airline pilots, staying current on basic techniques and topics.



Out of curiosity have you flown both? It's a very accusatory statement. "Lots of things" is an uneducated statement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

JohnBurke
09-24-2017, 09:25 AM
For instance...... :confused:

On call 24/7, for one. Not legal, but common. There's a great deal that goes on in 135 operations that's not kosher. A lot that would never fly, and would never be allowed in most 121 operations.

Out of curiosity have you flown both? It's a very accusatory statement. "Lots of things" is an uneducated statement.


I don't know JNB and can't speak for him, but I've flown both. Extensively.

He's correct.

Dear 100LL, I have years of flying, thousands of hours, and in more aircraft than I can recall off the top of my head. I have flown single pilot IFR in all the conditions you mention, and in many more conditions and circumstances that I'm sure you have yet to encounter. In addition to studying my butt off, the primary reason I am still alive today is due to some excellent and dedicated flight instructors that I tooled around with in Cessna's...

Same here. And I'll go so far as to say I've been there, in that moment of rock-and-a-hard-place truth when decisions are critical, time is short, and options are few, and I've actually heard the instructor's voice echoing in the hollowness of my head...lessons from long ago, not forgotten, suddenly applicable, and it saved my life.

CrimsonEclipse
09-24-2017, 09:41 AM
On call 24/7, for one. Not legal, but common. There's a great deal that goes on in 135 operations that's not kosher. A lot that would never fly, and would never be allowed in most 121 operations.



24/7 on call is what 135 has and 121 doesn't.

That's the big difference?

I've flown both extensively and I don't see the big deal or the big difference.

rickair7777
09-24-2017, 10:15 AM
Out of curiosity have you flown both? It's a very accusatory statement. "Lots of things" is an uneducated statement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

JNB knows of which he speaks.

rickair7777
09-24-2017, 10:16 AM
24/7 on call is what 135 has and 121 doesn't.

That's the big difference?

I've flown both extensively and I don't see the big deal or the big difference.

All depends on who you work for.

CrimsonEclipse
09-24-2017, 10:47 AM
All depends on who you work for.

So there's good and bad operations in 121 AND 135?

Weird

JohnBurke
09-24-2017, 10:48 AM
I've flown both extensively and I don't see the big deal or the big difference.

You may be the only one.

CrimsonEclipse
09-24-2017, 10:57 AM
You may be the only one.

probably not.

TheWeatherman
09-24-2017, 11:39 AM
So there's good and bad operations in 121 AND 135?

Weird
Which 121 operations are bad in the U.S.?

JetBlueNewb
01-01-2018, 07:30 AM
Honestly, I wouldn't feel comfortable accepting the responsibility of transporting a large number of passengers with less than 1,500 of relevant training/experience. As a newer guy into the industry, I take my role very seriously in trying to do everything I can to learn everything I can to be a safe and competent as possible and I plan to I never allow myself to become complacent. The day I stop learning is the day I retire.

To me, 1,500 is where the competency level (and commitment to actually work to get there) is the BASE starting point for being responsible the lives of the paying travelers behind me. I am glad that the 1,500 is there and I hope it sticks around. Shortcuts aren't the way to go for a job where a simple mistake can cost a great number of lives and cost hundreds of millions of dollars in damages (insurance, medical costs, and litigation that follows).

dera
01-01-2018, 10:38 AM
Honestly, I wouldn't feel comfortable accepting the responsibility of transporting a large number of passengers with less than 1,500 of relevant training/experience. As a newer guy into the industry, I take my role very seriously in trying to do everything I can to learn everything I can to be a safe and competent as possible and I plan to I never allow myself to become complacent. The day I stop learning is the day I retire.

To me, 1,500 is where the competency level (and commitment to actually work to get there) is the BASE starting point for being responsible the lives of the paying travelers behind me. I am glad that the 1,500 is there and I hope it sticks around. Shortcuts aren't the way to go for a job where a simple mistake can cost a great number of lives and cost hundreds of millions of dollars in damages (insurance, medical costs, and litigation that follows).

There are people who build 1500 hours of experience, and then there are people who build the same hour 1500 times. Putzing around the pattern in a 172 for 1500 doesn't do much for your abilities to be in control of a transport category jet.

Much better way to lower the 1500 hour requirements would be to allow restricted ATP to people with 135 experience. For example, 1000 hours, with 500 hours of 135 operation, or some other number like that. The lowered hours for 141 school grads makes no sense at all - it's obviously lobbied by the Riddle people.

JetBlueNewb
01-01-2018, 10:56 AM
Much better way to lower the 1500 hour requirements would be to allow restricted ATP to people with 135 experience. For example, 1000 hours, with 500 hours of 135 operation, or some other number like that. The lowered hours for 141 school grads makes no sense at all - it's obviously lobbied by the Riddle people.

I agree that there is definitely a difference in the way you build hours. And hour flying X isn't necessarily equal to an hour flying Y. I think that discussion I saw posted on here by ER concluded that pilots that just drill holes in the sky to build hours tend to underperform to pilots that attend regimented training programs or instruct as an example. This makes sense to me. I could tear it up in a cheap 150, but if I'm alone and flying just for the sake of flying, my skills will probably not improve as well as if I was teaching updated standards to a new student. Yadda, yadda, yadda.

SonicFlyer
01-01-2018, 01:21 PM
Honestly, I wouldn't feel comfortable accepting the responsibility of transporting a large number of passengers with less than 1,500 of relevant training/experience. Well no one has that responsibility at 1500 hours, the PIC is the one with the responsibility.

SonicFlyer
01-01-2018, 01:23 PM
There are people who build 1500 hours of experience, and then there are people who build the same hour 1500 times. Putzing around the pattern in a 172 for 1500 doesn't do much for your abilities to be in control of a transport category jet.

Exactly, the 1500 hour rule wasn't about safety, it was about politics. And one could even make the argument that it makes us less safe since some things mentally atrophy when one is doing diver driving, photography, or patternwork. How many survey pilots use their IFR skills on a regular basis for example?

JetBlueNewb
01-02-2018, 10:03 AM
Well no one has that responsibility at 1500 hours, the PIC is the one with the responsibility.

Yes, you're correct technically... the ultimate responsibility.