For those who work for companies not called "bottom feeders":

If you feel ill, the call goes something like this:

Hello crew scheduling, I am sick.
Okay, we'll call in a reserve.
Thanks, I'll let you know when I am better.

On the other hand, some of us deal with this:
Hello crew scheduling, I am sick.
Oh Yeah? You need to talk to the CP.
(thinking: Oh crap)

While I don't agree that the CVR transcript is the biggest issue here, I do wholeheartedly agree with your point that these CVR utterances should be restricted to the investigation, under confidentiality, and not made public. It serves no purpose, other than to satisfy the morbid fascination of the Jerry Springer-watching element of society.

WHO CARES? The company CAN NOT make you fly if you are sick. If they harrass you or fire you, you have one heck of a lawsuit.

STOP FLYING SICK AND ENDANGERING YOUR LIFE, YOUR CREW's LIVES, AND THE LIVES OF YOUR PASSENGERS.

I can personally attest to this.. this is FACT... however, I blame the pilots who are afraid to lose a job (when they have a strong law suit) over calling in sick, when they are legitimately sick!

The CVRs were not released. It is against the law. The transcripts are released and always have been.

If there isn't anything you don't want your family reading on the news, then don't say it in the cockpit.

With respect to other modes of transportation, all of them have EDRs (event data recorders) which are similar to aviation FDRs. Although CVRs aren't widespread or mandated by the DOT, they are becoming common place. Additionally, many companies are installing video recorders.

Ask yourself would creating more barriers to pilot entry improve safety? Maybe. If you mean raise the standards for pilot qualifications that would only happen if they increase pilot pay. As for the health and age, both Colgan pilots I believe were neither too young or too old and both of them were in good health. Is a 19 year old as safe as a 25 year-old pilot? I don't know, the jury is still out on that one but many regionals have hired pilots who did not even graduate from school and we have guys flying at our airline that are 19 years old.

Your statement about "weeding out weak but technically prificient pilots" makes no sense. If you are weak you cannot be a technically proficient pilot. The CA on this Colgan flight were said to have had problems mastering the Flight Management System, the technical aspect. I don't have all the background facts on this pilot but I did not find any evidence that he had previously failed checkrides twice. Everyone is jumping to conclusions about this crew before the final NTSB judgment is out. We do not have all the facts so we need to wait for the NTSB's final analysis before pointing fingers. Even then we shouldn't be pointing fingers at anyone for none of us are infallible to making errors in judgment.

Only way to improve safety is to provide a solid training without cutting corners and increase pilot pay to attract and retain talented pilots with good disposition. Too many airlines are in a rush to finish pilots and skip vital training such as full stall recovery procedure in order to keep the sim sessions to a bare minimum. Foreign carriers in Asia and Western Europe have in general 20 to 30% more sim sessions during their pilot training to cover all the maneuvers.

I know pilots with great personalities and they also happen to be good sticks who cannot afford to fly for regionals because the pay is too low. They all opted to do something else.

The pilot pay needs to be increased, and crew pairing schedules needs drastic improvement and this encompasses crew duty and rest period definition. The FAA has been in bed with the airline management way too long on this one. There should be no layovers less than 10 hours and the time for rest period should not start until the crew checks in at the hotel. It definitely should not include time spent writing up the airplane for maintenance issues, waiting for that last passenger who seem to take forever to deplane, 45 minutes spent waiting for the hotel shuttle van and sometimes ludicrously long van ride to the hotel because the airline is too cheap to pick hotels that are closer to the airport.

True, but they could have edited out the final few moments out of repect and privacy for the families.

The actual CVR recording can only be released by the company. It is company property and after the investigation it goes back to the company who usually destroys it. Occasionally, some companies like UAL with Al Haynes and UAL 232 release it because it serves a value to the entire aviation community. The CVR transcript is part of the investigation. It gives insight to the attitude, actions, mentality, etc., of the cockpit. It does serve an invaluable role in the investigation. Often times that's how they piece critical data together.

Extraneous conversation, such as two pilots talking about the hottie in back, will not included into the transcript because the hottie wasn't in the cockpit and had no material relevance. Otherwise, what you say is public information should the worst happen. Years ago I worked on a CVR team and it took months afterward before I felt like I could talk normally in the cockpit again because everything I said replayed for myself as if I was being investigated.

Do your best and be professional.

Then my friend, feel free to stand-up, stand out and let fly about how terrible your profession is, and that you fear for your life every second you go up. And that ya'll (ie professional pilots) are a bunch of ill trained zombies and are risking the public's safety on the ground and in the air. Because that is exactly what is going to be published by the news agency's.

Oh and don't forget to blame the evil CEO's who forced you to work for them. You'll be a hero.

I'm not an IFR rated pilot, but maybe he was afraid of dipping too low under the ILS Glide Slope? Aside from the danger of a possible obstruction, would you get in trouble for that if ATC caught it?