The report isn't out yet. No fatalities. The dogs survived. The only reason I know is I live nearby, so people ask about this as I'm out eating fish-fry with my family. I'd say "I don't know.". Then people would move on to some other pilot they know until eventually they find somebody with a pilot's license who likes attention. (Sort like all of us on this forum, right?)

This takes me back to when I was flying cancelled checks and later UPS-feeder freight in my twenties. There'd be an incident. Sometimes with the loss of a friend. Then I'd be drinking coffee at an FBO waiting for my freight, and I'd listen to someone over-simplify an event. If you're silent, it sucks. If you tell someone to be quiet, you come off as a nut and they find the next person who'll opine. If you start saying "Yes, but it's more complicated than that when you consider...", you wind up in a spot with everyone digging their heels into their preconceived notions of what occurred (This also happens on the boards themselves. They're composed of human beings with human faults and biases.). So there's no good option here. I'd just say consider the people involved, the pilots, the families, etc. and choose what flavor of bad you want to deal with.

I'd also say there's an ecosystem of people who capitalize on airplane crashes. There are the insurance companies, salvagers, lawyers, etc. There are also the people who use airplane crashes to gain local and internet fame and fortune. To do this they offer comments before the facts are out in an effort to get views and likes before interest in a mishap fades. Look at their initial commentary (if they left it up) around that MD-87 event in Houston last October. Worse these guys will frequently mention their qualifications as they do this. These people are nozzles. I am too. I just spray at these guys rather than mishap crewmembers and families.

There are some really good efforts out there to look at. Mentour Pilot looks at reports after the facts are out. He'll go into explanations around the systems, and make obscure reporting accessible to laypeople. I have to say that I really like some of the analysis offered by Paul Bertorelli too. Both of these people dig into facts which is less flashy and takes more work, then they make it accessible. So before we try to get incomplete and inaccurate lessons from recent events, why not get real information and useful lessons from better sources?

Also let's not be a jerks some crew who are dealing with a mountain of mud right now.

(Note to mods: I'm not sure if I can say "I like these folks" on APC. If you have to take this post down, I get it.)

👏 👏 👏

Solid post, Elevation! Well put. These “crash ghouls” need to put themselves in the place of the people affected by an incident before they get on their keyboard. Sadly empathy seems in short supply with some people.

So what's the story? What caused the crash? Why did the Metro end up in the dirt?

The NTSB hasn't even begun their investigation. Let's wait on that, shall we?

Since everyone is alive, thankfully, it shouldn't be too hard to determine.

Metro FO
 

Good afternoon everyone. So I have been in talks about a Metro FO position. Can anyone shed any light on how this works? How am I able to credit my hours towards a BE99 position when I’m not able to log the total time at all? Is there a PDP? How do the regs work with this. Something doesn’t feel like it’s adding up.

If offered a particular base, how certain is it that you will be awarded that at the end of training?

Since a slot is ONLY opened up to a new hire AFTER it's been left open and unclaimed in a company wide bid, pretty safe to say it's yours unless something unexpected happens, like a change in customer requirements at that base.
Sure an official answer will pop up, but an offer letter with position offered is pretty darn firm since they understand that people either already live there or might be moving for the position.

and, it’s 135 cargo….. probably takes about 6mo to be 50% seniority