Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Major
Senate panel votes to weaken Flight 3407 safe >

Senate panel votes to weaken Flight 3407 safe

Notices
Major Legacy, National, and LCC

Senate panel votes to weaken Flight 3407 safe

Old 07-02-2017, 06:25 PM
  #21  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: A-320
Posts: 1,122
Default

They are trying to place blame on fatigue, low pilot hours, breaking sterile flight deck, FO inexperience....basically everything except the fact that the captain had a history of unsatisfactory performance and had no business being in command.
viper548 is offline  
Old 07-02-2017, 08:30 PM
  #22  
Gets Weekends Off
 
SonicFlyer's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2017
Posts: 3,574
Default

Originally Posted by Std Deviation View Post
We're cycling from red eyes to day trips in the same four day sequence. Flying from JFK to Vegas at 6am eastern, then 11 hours later flying back to JFK. How do you manage sleep on that one?
You don't bid those trips. Or as previously mentioned, you call in fatigued whenever you are truly fatigued.

And this is where the unions really shine and do good work.... on matters of safety. If the company is trying to get you to do something unsafe, don't, and tell them to talk to your rep.
SonicFlyer is offline  
Old 07-03-2017, 03:58 AM
  #23  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Groundpointfife's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2017
Position: On guard
Posts: 154
Default

Originally Posted by at6d View Post
The Colgan accident was poor airmanship and was ridiculously preventable. Watch the NTSB animation.

The answer is that the captain failed pretty much every checkride he ever had. Why doesn't anybody focus on that part?
While I'm sure everyone can agree that the Colgan accident was poor airmanship, both the captain and first officer were responsible. The first officer should have spoken up, or even taken the controls from the captain. Unfortunately the FO was inexperienced and also poorly educated on tailplane icing. She brought the flaps up which made the situation worse.

As to why the focus has possibly shifted away from the guy's failed checkrides, what about all the accidents where a person has zero busts? I'm not suggesting that a pilot should be going to EVERY ride then failing is ok, but what's more important is their actions on the day of the accident. The Colgan accident was very preventable.

I've heard stories from people taking their private pilot checkride with a DPE, who flew from their local airport to some place with a restaurant for lunch then flying back. No oral, no maneuvers per the PTS at the time (now ACS). Given that bit of information you have to consider where the training was conducted to determine if the checks are actually being done to the correct standards.

I also remember one person in my first 121 gig boasting about never having pinked in his training at ATP, yet he couldn't track a VOR...so he got sent home.

Long story short, the quality of the training (checking) matters as do the activities in the time a pilot takes to qualify for an airline. I think 1500 hours or ATP qualifications gives the pilot time to build ADM. Hopefully it's not wasted by flying in circles.
Groundpointfife is offline  
Old 07-03-2017, 07:59 AM
  #24  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,539
Default

Under the proposed change, experience at unaccredited flight schools, or training programs offered by the airlines, would for the first time be able to count toward the 1,500 hours requirement.
I'm confused. What are they proposing to change? Right now you need 1500 hours if you don't go to an accredited aviation school. What are they proposing to lower it to?
iahflyr is offline  
Old 07-03-2017, 10:24 AM
  #25  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2013
Position: Port Bus
Posts: 725
Default

Originally Posted by Groundpointfife View Post
While I'm sure everyone can agree that the Colgan accident was poor airmanship, both the captain and first officer were responsible. The first officer should have spoken up, or even taken the controls from the captain. Unfortunately the FO was inexperienced and also poorly educated on tailplane icing. She brought the flaps up which made the situation worse.

As to why the focus has possibly shifted away from the guy's failed checkrides, what about all the accidents where a person has zero busts? I'm not suggesting that a pilot should be going to EVERY ride then failing is ok, but what's more important is their actions on the day of the accident. The Colgan accident was very preventable.

I've heard stories from people taking their private pilot checkride with a DPE, who flew from their local airport to some place with a restaurant for lunch then flying back. No oral, no maneuvers per the PTS at the time (now ACS). Given that bit of information you have to consider where the training was conducted to determine if the checks are actually being done to the correct standards.

I also remember one person in my first 121 gig boasting about never having pinked in his training at ATP, yet he couldn't track a VOR...so he got sent home.

Long story short, the quality of the training (checking) matters as do the activities in the time a pilot takes to qualify for an airline. I think 1500 hours or ATP qualifications gives the pilot time to build ADM. Hopefully it's not wasted by flying in circles.

The Colgan crash had absolutely nothing to do with icing of any sort. The Captain stalled the plane and the FO further F'd things up by screwing with the flaps.
Pogey Bait is offline  
Old 07-03-2017, 10:28 AM
  #26  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Position: 7th green
Posts: 4,378
Default

Originally Posted by Pogey Bait View Post
The Colgan crash had absolutely nothing to do with icing of any sort. The Captain stalled the plane and the FO further F'd things up by screwing with the flaps.
What you all seem to be forgetting is the High Priority training issue that cycle was tailplane icing. Take a look at the NASA video on YouTube about tailplane icing and see what the recovery is.

I've had it in a CV-580. If the two Colgan pilots misidentified the stall as tailplane icing then they applied the wrong corrective actions. Since they're both dead, there's no way to know what they were thinking, but in tailplane icing the first action is to bring the flaps up.
Packrat is offline  
Old 07-03-2017, 12:13 PM
  #27  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Oct 2016
Posts: 846
Default

Originally Posted by Positiveg View Post
We should get rid of any current regional pilots that were hired with less than 1500 hrs prior to the new ATP rule then. That's a major safety concern.

If hours don't matter, then why have ANY hours requirements for any pilot certificate?
Nevjets is offline  
Old 07-03-2017, 06:57 PM
  #28  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Ed Force One's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2016
Position: A320 CA
Posts: 702
Default

Originally Posted by at6d View Post

The answer is that the captain failed pretty much every checkride he ever had. Why doesn't anybody focus on that part?
It's been focused on plenty. His name was dragged through plenty of mud. Chances are you remember this CA's name, and if you do, then it was "focused on." Good Ole Boy Captain Fantastic Sully was on TV leading the charge against low time regional pilots, somehow believing that he himself was born with 10,000 hours.

Flying from JFK to Vegas at 6am eastern, then 11 hours later flying back to JFK. How do you manage sleep on that one?


You don't bid those trips. Or as previously mentioned, you call in fatigued whenever you are truly fatigued.
Easy for someone senior to say. That doesn't remove the trip however, just pushes it to someone junior. Some people like red-eyes, some don't, but I don't know how anyone can function on this kind of trip. But obviously it's getting done if B6 is still scheduling them.

We don't have these at NK, at least not in my base. We do have something similar though, where we fly a redeye one night, followed by a 6AM departure the next day. Absolutely brutal. I too believe in "When it causes a fatigue problem, only then will it get fixed." Unfortunately for the cause, I simply use my seniority to bid around them. It's up to others to call in fatigued. (At least until I upgrade. Then I'll probably get loads of them.)
Ed Force One is offline  
Old 07-03-2017, 07:40 PM
  #29  
Gets Weekends Off
 
JamesNoBrakes's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: Volleyball Player
Posts: 3,977
Default

There is something even better right around the corner than weakening the 1500 rule to boost pilot recruitment and make them see past the incredible sacrifices of the lifestyle:

https://www.yahoo.com/tv/top-gun-seq...051847297.html

An entire new generation of pilots will go nuts and in debt to be part of the lifestyle!
JamesNoBrakes is offline  
Old 07-03-2017, 08:28 PM
  #30  
Gets Weekends Off
 
MasterOfPuppets's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Position: 787
Posts: 3,079
Default

Originally Posted by Packrat View Post
What you all seem to be forgetting is the High Priority training issue that cycle was tailplane icing. Take a look at the NASA video on YouTube about tailplane icing and see what the recovery is.

I've had it in a CV-580. If the two Colgan pilots misidentified the stall as tailplane icing then they applied the wrong corrective actions. Since they're both dead, there's no way to know what they were thinking, but in tailplane icing the first action is to bring the flaps up.
The CA put the power at idol and didn't touch it until the stall. The ice probably didn't help but it certainly wasn't the cause.
MasterOfPuppets is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
KennyG1700
Flight Schools and Training
40
08-01-2019 12:53 AM
Days Off
FedEx
56
10-19-2015 08:06 AM
Cubdriver
Hiring News
0
05-23-2012 07:37 AM
Boogie Nights
Major
23
05-15-2012 05:55 AM
757Driver
Major
26
08-09-2011 05:50 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices