PSA CRJ 200 in CRW
02-10-2010, 07:00 AM
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: CRJ
Posts: 2,356
PSA CRJ 200 in CRW
No wonder the media is all over us.
US Airways Incident Raises Pilot-Focus Issues - WSJ.com
A fundamental breakdown of pilot discipline, including personal conversation in the cockpit, apparently was the major reason a US Airways commuter plane ran off the end of a West Virginia runway last month, according to industry officials.
Now, three weeks after the nonfatal incident, the circumstances are prompting extensive discussion and concern among pilots and safety experts, who consider it the latest example of cockpit distraction and erosion of pilot discipline.
The Jan. 19 event involved a twin-engine Bombardier jet that ran off the runway at Yeager Airport in Charleston, W. Va., after pilots abandoned takeoff. Operated by PSA Airlines Inc., a unit of US Airways Group Inc., the plane was damaged when it smashed into a crushable concrete safety zone at the end of the strip. None of the 34 people aboard was hurt, and the incident has generated relatively little media attention.
But among many safety experts, it is viewed as the latest example of a loss of pilot focus, and a symbol of what some regulators believe is a broader problem of lack of pilot professionalism.
A US Airways spokesman said the airline is cooperating fully with the National Transportation Safety Board's investigation and has launched its own probe. But he declined to comment about specifics. The spokesman also said the two pilots, whose names haven't been released, were placed on administrative leave and taken off flying duties, as is normal after such an event.
PSA Airlines hasn't had a fatal accident or incident since it became part of US Airways, or what was then called USAir, in 1995.
Preliminary data collected from the cockpit voice recorder indicates that prior to the botched takeoff, the two pilots of US Airways Express Flight 2495 engaged in stretches of nonpertinent chatter that didn't deal with flight preparations, checklists or pilot tasks, according to industry officials familiar with the details.
Pilots are strictly prohibited from engaging in such private, extraneous conversations during critical phases of flight, particularly takeoff, descent and landing.
A spokesman for the safety board declined to comment on the investigation.
The board's probe comes at a time when Randy Babbitt, the head of Federal Aviation Administration, is stressing the importance of maintaining pilot professionalism and avoiding distractions behind the controls. Mr. Babbbitt, for example, told a House aviation subcommittee last week that the FAA is looking for methods to transfer the experience of veteran aviators to younger commuter pilots. He said such programs are an "important way to raise professional standards and improve cockpit discipline."
Industry officials describe the following sequence of events on Flight 2495. Before starting the takeoff roll, the crew is believed to have incorrectly set the flaps -- movable panels at the rear of the wings that provide essential lift. As the jet accelerated down the runway, reached almost 100 miles per hour and its front landing gear was lifting off the ground, the crew realized the mistake, according to these officials. The pilots quickly readjusted the flaps, prompting an automated cockpit warning to abandon takeoff. The crew then tried but failed to stop the jet before it rolled into the safety area.
Pilots said it is generally considered unsafe and quite unusual to adjust flap settings during takeoff. Airlines typically train crews to work together to handle so-called rejected takeoffs, including practicing decisions about what speeds and runway conditions make it safer to continue climbing instead of slowing down and attempting to stop.
US Airways Incident Raises Pilot-Focus Issues - WSJ.com
A fundamental breakdown of pilot discipline, including personal conversation in the cockpit, apparently was the major reason a US Airways commuter plane ran off the end of a West Virginia runway last month, according to industry officials.
Now, three weeks after the nonfatal incident, the circumstances are prompting extensive discussion and concern among pilots and safety experts, who consider it the latest example of cockpit distraction and erosion of pilot discipline.
The Jan. 19 event involved a twin-engine Bombardier jet that ran off the runway at Yeager Airport in Charleston, W. Va., after pilots abandoned takeoff. Operated by PSA Airlines Inc., a unit of US Airways Group Inc., the plane was damaged when it smashed into a crushable concrete safety zone at the end of the strip. None of the 34 people aboard was hurt, and the incident has generated relatively little media attention.
But among many safety experts, it is viewed as the latest example of a loss of pilot focus, and a symbol of what some regulators believe is a broader problem of lack of pilot professionalism.
A US Airways spokesman said the airline is cooperating fully with the National Transportation Safety Board's investigation and has launched its own probe. But he declined to comment about specifics. The spokesman also said the two pilots, whose names haven't been released, were placed on administrative leave and taken off flying duties, as is normal after such an event.
PSA Airlines hasn't had a fatal accident or incident since it became part of US Airways, or what was then called USAir, in 1995.
Preliminary data collected from the cockpit voice recorder indicates that prior to the botched takeoff, the two pilots of US Airways Express Flight 2495 engaged in stretches of nonpertinent chatter that didn't deal with flight preparations, checklists or pilot tasks, according to industry officials familiar with the details.
Pilots are strictly prohibited from engaging in such private, extraneous conversations during critical phases of flight, particularly takeoff, descent and landing.
A spokesman for the safety board declined to comment on the investigation.
The board's probe comes at a time when Randy Babbitt, the head of Federal Aviation Administration, is stressing the importance of maintaining pilot professionalism and avoiding distractions behind the controls. Mr. Babbbitt, for example, told a House aviation subcommittee last week that the FAA is looking for methods to transfer the experience of veteran aviators to younger commuter pilots. He said such programs are an "important way to raise professional standards and improve cockpit discipline."
Industry officials describe the following sequence of events on Flight 2495. Before starting the takeoff roll, the crew is believed to have incorrectly set the flaps -- movable panels at the rear of the wings that provide essential lift. As the jet accelerated down the runway, reached almost 100 miles per hour and its front landing gear was lifting off the ground, the crew realized the mistake, according to these officials. The pilots quickly readjusted the flaps, prompting an automated cockpit warning to abandon takeoff. The crew then tried but failed to stop the jet before it rolled into the safety area.
Pilots said it is generally considered unsafe and quite unusual to adjust flap settings during takeoff. Airlines typically train crews to work together to handle so-called rejected takeoffs, including practicing decisions about what speeds and runway conditions make it safer to continue climbing instead of slowing down and attempting to stop.
02-10-2010, 07:53 AM
#2
Line Holder
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Posts: 51
Originally Posted by Airsupport
PSA Airlines hasn't had a fatal accident or incident since it became part of US Airways, or what was then called USAir, in 1995.
02-10-2010, 08:51 AM
#4
*********
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,068
Why not abort (when improper flaps are realized), reset the flaps properly, obey the brake cooling restrictions and try it again? Write an irregularity report after you get to CLT (or whatever the destination is).
Yeah, you'll probably talk to the chief pilot, but you won't lose your job.
Nah, I'll just reset the flaps at 100kts., then abort because of a caution, running off the end and nearly killing everyone on-board.
Really? I guess people just panic, and these ideas sound good.
Good luck fellas, but I think your both screwed.
Yeah, you'll probably talk to the chief pilot, but you won't lose your job.
Nah, I'll just reset the flaps at 100kts., then abort because of a caution, running off the end and nearly killing everyone on-board.
Really? I guess people just panic, and these ideas sound good.
Good luck fellas, but I think your both screwed.
02-10-2010, 08:58 AM
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2009
Posts: 298
I can't think of how this could have happened. I would have imagined in CRW it would have been a flaps 20 takeoff. If the flaps were at 0, 30, or 45 as soon as the thrust was pushed up they would have gotten a T/O config warning. The airplane only allows takeoff from 8 or 20. If the flaps were at 8, why would the nose be coming off the ground at 100kts?
I'm lost.
I'm lost.
02-10-2010, 09:09 AM
#6
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: CL-65 captain
Posts: 2,244
Originally Posted by paxhauler85
Why not abort (when improper flaps are realized), reset the flaps properly, obey the brake cooling restrictions and try it again? Write an irregularity report after you get to CLT (or whatever the destination is).
Yeah, you'll probably talk to the chief pilot, but you won't lose your job.
Nah, I'll just reset the flaps at 100kts., then abort because of a caution, running off the end and nearly killing everyone on-board.
Really? I guess people just panic, and these ideas sound good.
Good luck fellas, but I think your both screwed.
Yeah, you'll probably talk to the chief pilot, but you won't lose your job.
Nah, I'll just reset the flaps at 100kts., then abort because of a caution, running off the end and nearly killing everyone on-board.
Really? I guess people just panic, and these ideas sound good.
Good luck fellas, but I think your both screwed.
"If we get a config warning we will correct it on the roll. Aborts are too much paperwork and meetings."
02-10-2010, 09:26 AM
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Posts: 888
Originally Posted by mooney
Funny thing is I had a captain brief that one time. In summary, he was more scared of a chief pilot meeting for an abort due to a neglected checklist item, than a meeting with the NTSB after killing 50 peeps.
"If we get a config warning we will correct it on the roll. Aborts are too much paperwork and meetings."
"If we get a config warning we will correct it on the roll. Aborts are too much paperwork and meetings."
02-10-2010, 10:47 AM
#9
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Stagnant..
Posts: 438
Originally Posted by IrishTiger
I can't think of how this could have happened. I would have imagined in CRW it would have been a flaps 20 takeoff. If the flaps were at 0, 30, or 45 as soon as the thrust was pushed up they would have gotten a T/O config warning. The airplane only allows takeoff from 8 or 20. If the flaps were at 8, why would the nose be coming off the ground at 100kts?
I'm lost.
I'm lost.
02-10-2010, 10:59 AM
#10
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: CL-65 captain
Posts: 2,244
Originally Posted by IrishTiger
I can't think of how this could have happened. I would have imagined in CRW it would have been a flaps 20 takeoff. If the flaps were at 0, 30, or 45 as soon as the thrust was pushed up they would have gotten a T/O config warning. The airplane only allows takeoff from 8 or 20. If the flaps were at 8, why would the nose be coming off the ground at 100kts?
I'm lost.
I'm lost.
bad trim setting? if you miss the flaps, if that was the case, probably a good chance you might miss the trim setting too.
or the media got it wrong and it was a trim problem not a flap problem
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
