Originally Posted by SolidState

I'm not a reporter just a concerned citizen! I'm trying to help you guys by commenting that the schedule both FOs had was totally out to lunch! We have laws I believe up here that govern the hours a semi truck driver can operate. What about the aviation industry? Is there not criteria regarding time between flight schedules to provide enough sleep for FOs?

Also I'd like to ask if hours such as these are systemic in the industry?

Solid-State

Originally Posted by CE750

A) I hardly EVER breach sterile cockpit, but ESPECIALLY when I'm in bad ice, at night and about to begin approach; all in a type that I have 25 hours in, and certainly when I was a 1500 hour green FO at ASA, I never opened my mouth unless I had something to say to contribute to the safety of flight below 10,000.

B) This accident shows in many ways the brokenness of the "regional" airline business model... it's all cost based and as long as we're not willing to pay more for it, we'll continue to get marginal pilots flying us around..

The pay sucks, the training sucks, and the workrules and schedules suck.. who else would take a job like that in this day and age unless they too maybe also suck? I took crap wage jobs 15 years ago because then (unlike now) there were jobs to be had at the mainline, and there was a sort of light at the end of the tunnel (ASA to new hire American in 4 yrs).. back then The mainline was 25X the size of the "regional"... but due to weakening scope and lobbing by the ATA, the mainline is now about the same size as the regionals... which is to say, the days of using it as a stepping stone are long gone... so why are people still sinking $50K into training to then take $19K/yr jobs??? Why?

but when you hire people who listen to: Life in the skies- How to become a pilot and get a job flying.

what do you expect?

Originally Posted by seven6

And I am glad he discussed this issue. Now the only question I have is how would the NTSB go about making a suggestion to the FAA to increase pay/retirement benefits for airline pilots? The FAA would laugh at those suggestions. Creating a more strict syllabus at these 'training academies' would be the only way I can think of to limit the output of pilots therefore increasing demand. Any other ideas?

These hearings may be beneficial to future contract negotiations.

Originally Posted by flycrj200

I do not fly a Q400, but on CRJ, a landing configuration stall recovery procedure, calls for the pilot to advance thrust and pitch to the attitude that the first indication of stall occurred. You do not touch the flaps or the gear till you get a positive rate of climb and you are out of the stall. Does the stall recovery procedure on the Q400 calls for an immediate retraction of the flaps?

Originally Posted by CE750

My experience in Jets vs Turbo Prop.. (CRJ, Citation X, Citation V, MD11 and A320) vs (E120 and ATR) is that in a Jet you "power" out of a stall by "Riding" the stick shaker .. in a turbo prop (if a normal stall).. you reduce pitch, add power and then recover pitch... (if a tail stall), you push the nose over and reduce flaps after your speed picks up...

But from what I understand, they never (I can't imagine a type rating without this) get to stick shaker in their Q400 training at Colgan??


The real questions is, why were they in such bad ice to begin with in a turbo prop? That's what we should be asking... where is the Situational Awareness .. if the airframe cant shed the ice, it's probably time to go elsewhere.. (Or that's why I've always done).

Originally Posted by texaspilot76

I will refrain from stating my opinion on this matter, but if all of what the media is saying is true, how do these people slip through the cracks?

Originally Posted by BoredwLife

Did I miss something? I understood that they were only in light to moderate icing. I have been through all types of icing in the 400 and I mean ALL. It sheds moderate like its candy, not even an issue. Now severe is a different story. But moderate is a non-event in the 400, IMHO.

Originally Posted by CE750

Moderate as called by a DAL MD80 or Cactus Airbus is not the same as Moderate as reported by a booted King Air.. or Q400... I would think (their CVR shows this to be the case), that they were carrying a lot more ice than is normal for this type.