Colgan 3407 NTSB Hearings
#21
I think when it comes to training that it CAN be the issue and quite possibly the difference between a successful and unsuccessful outcome. Eagle will eventually transition to AQP so more realistic scenarios are encountered in the sim. Why go fart around doing maneuvers that aren't being applied to a line flying type situation. This is also the theory behind the FITS program that you are seeing TAA manufacturers switch to.
#22
While I agree we, as professional aviators, should never allow an aircraft to reach the pusher. The fact of the matter is it has happened, and will continue to do so. Accidents happen/ mistakes are made regularly....it's our job to attempt to mitigate them through education and practice.
However, I contest training to a pusher will serve little usefulness at 1500 AGL. There is a discussion about this very subject taking place on another popular aviation board. Should an aircraft enter into a fully developed stall while on an approach, it would be very useful to have training that forces a pilot to accept the pusher driving the nose towards an already very near tera-firma. Human nature would resist driving an aircraft's nose toward the ground when you're already at a very low AGL..... So you see, by reacting to human nature, a pilot in this situation could deepen a stall to the point where recovery would be impossible, or nearly so. Add to that, night IMC where there are few visual cues to assist in recovery, coupled with a variety of somatogravic illusions as you increase thrust/ torque.....you could wind up in a very, very troubling attitude. As such, I would say training to a pusher event at low altitudes (such as approach configuration stalls) would serve a very useful purpose.
FYI, I'm not trying to be confrontational here......just throwing out some food-for-thought.
However, I contest training to a pusher will serve little usefulness at 1500 AGL. There is a discussion about this very subject taking place on another popular aviation board. Should an aircraft enter into a fully developed stall while on an approach, it would be very useful to have training that forces a pilot to accept the pusher driving the nose towards an already very near tera-firma. Human nature would resist driving an aircraft's nose toward the ground when you're already at a very low AGL..... So you see, by reacting to human nature, a pilot in this situation could deepen a stall to the point where recovery would be impossible, or nearly so. Add to that, night IMC where there are few visual cues to assist in recovery, coupled with a variety of somatogravic illusions as you increase thrust/ torque.....you could wind up in a very, very troubling attitude. As such, I would say training to a pusher event at low altitudes (such as approach configuration stalls) would serve a very useful purpose.
FYI, I'm not trying to be confrontational here......just throwing out some food-for-thought.
#23
I don't think stalling a part 121 passenger carrying turbo prop is a "mistake". A mistake is dialing a wrong frequency, a wrong inbound course, a missed fix in a flight plan etc...
I think the issue is the airlines' (especially the regionals) tendency to push people through training who don't have the necessary stick and rudder and/or judgment skills to safely operate a complex aircraft. I've seen it with my own eyes numerous times as a former regional guy.
I'm not necessarily saying this particular crew was skill-deficient, but the scenario does point that direction.
I think the issue is the airlines' (especially the regionals) tendency to push people through training who don't have the necessary stick and rudder and/or judgment skills to safely operate a complex aircraft. I've seen it with my own eyes numerous times as a former regional guy.
I'm not necessarily saying this particular crew was skill-deficient, but the scenario does point that direction.
#24
I don't think stalling a part 121 passenger carrying turbo prop is a "mistake". A mistake is dialing a wrong frequency, a wrong inbound course, a missed fix in a flight plan etc...
I think the issue is the airlines' (especially the regionals) tendency to push people through training who don't have the necessary stick and rudder and/or judgment skills to safely operate a complex aircraft. I've seen it with my own eyes numerous times as a former regional guy.
I think the issue is the airlines' (especially the regionals) tendency to push people through training who don't have the necessary stick and rudder and/or judgment skills to safely operate a complex aircraft. I've seen it with my own eyes numerous times as a former regional guy.
Also, being arrogant about the skills you possess is a surefire way of doing something stupid and winding up dead. Keep in mind, it doesn't matter if you're a 777 pilot, 152 pilot or anything in between.......you're not impervious to serious mistakes.
Obviously, many factors go into mitigating the possibility of something serious happening, but the fact remains the same....we're all human....and on occasion, humans do dumb things!Fly safely out there, folks!
#25
Wrong! Very few 121 operators train pilots in 'stick pusher' events. Most, if not all, stall recovery training syllabi teach pilots to recover at 'first indication of stall,' which means at the shaker. As you're probably aware, the shaker only means you're 'approaching' a stalled condition.....but the wings are still flying at that point. I'd imagine many 121 training programs will be changed to include some form of stick pusher recoveries in the future.
I believe most any pilot with adequate awareness of altitude would have pushed the button at a stick pusher to override the system. The problem was likely lack of time to figure out the situation.
#26
I don't think stalling a part 121 passenger carrying turbo prop is a "mistake". A mistake is dialing a wrong frequency, a wrong inbound course, a missed fix in a flight plan etc...
I think the issue is the airlines' (especially the regionals) tendency to push people through training who don't have the necessary stick and rudder and/or judgment skills to safely operate a complex aircraft. I've seen it with my own eyes numerous times as a former regional guy.
I'm not necessarily saying this particular crew was skill-deficient, but the scenario does point that direction.
I think the issue is the airlines' (especially the regionals) tendency to push people through training who don't have the necessary stick and rudder and/or judgment skills to safely operate a complex aircraft. I've seen it with my own eyes numerous times as a former regional guy.
I'm not necessarily saying this particular crew was skill-deficient, but the scenario does point that direction.
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,530
Likes: 0
I don't think stalling a part 121 passenger carrying turbo prop is a "mistake". A mistake is dialing a wrong frequency, a wrong inbound course, a missed fix in a flight plan etc...
I think the issue is the airlines' (especially the regionals) tendency to push people through training who don't have the necessary stick and rudder and/or judgment skills to safely operate a complex aircraft. I've seen it with my own eyes numerous times as a former regional guy.
I'm not necessarily saying this particular crew was skill-deficient, but the scenario does point that direction.
I think the issue is the airlines' (especially the regionals) tendency to push people through training who don't have the necessary stick and rudder and/or judgment skills to safely operate a complex aircraft. I've seen it with my own eyes numerous times as a former regional guy.
I'm not necessarily saying this particular crew was skill-deficient, but the scenario does point that direction.
I agree. When I came off of regional airline training I didn't really know how to keep the airplane from stalling at the FAF approach speed... The crew was skilled enough. The CA came from the saab and was just out of 400 training. The FO supposedly had prior Dash8 experince before colgan. Let's wait before blaming us lowly regional pilots.
#29
I don't think stalling a part 121 passenger carrying turbo prop is a "mistake". A mistake is dialing a wrong frequency, a wrong inbound course, a missed fix in a flight plan etc...
I think the issue is the airlines' (especially the regionals) tendency to push people through training who don't have the necessary stick and rudder and/or judgment skills to safely operate a complex aircraft. I've seen it with my own eyes numerous times as a former regional guy.
I'm not necessarily saying this particular crew was skill-deficient, but the scenario does point that direction.
I think the issue is the airlines' (especially the regionals) tendency to push people through training who don't have the necessary stick and rudder and/or judgment skills to safely operate a complex aircraft. I've seen it with my own eyes numerous times as a former regional guy.
I'm not necessarily saying this particular crew was skill-deficient, but the scenario does point that direction.
Remember Tenerife : Capt Jacob Veldhuyzen van Zanten I am sure was an experience pilot but the fact is his actions cost hundreds of people their lives, some said earlier that pilots make mistakes and no matter how you slice it we are all exposed to tons of threats by the very nature of our work singling out a certain segment of our profession and then making comments like you did dont help. as long as there is Liveware in the cockpit mistakes will be made.
Mistakes you listed can have devastating results just like a navigation error which caused KAL 007 to be shot down or AA 965 to end up in CFIT in cali. Its easy to sit and talk about folks when they are not around and cannot defend themself but be mindful that you dont take the attitude that it can never happen to me cause I am super pilot ultra experience
RIP Marvin and Rebecca
#30
Not to get in to who's wrong or right but there are numerous "accidents" which you can make this comment about, including 135, and part 91. Over the years we've seen gulfstreams crash on approach into aspen and lear jets hit hills in greenland, and Challengers run off icy runways on take off. To have the attitude that mistakes don't happen or that a mistake can only be a wrong frequency is pretty harsh. Just dialing in the wrong NDB freq and thinking that it is the right one can be the very key in the chain of events that lead to a crash. I have to side with Cruise on this one that we as professional aviators don't train for real world scenerios most of the time in the sim and this needs to change. Had you been in the same situation can you really say that you would have done anything different who knows? I'm not saying that we should turn our heads and act as if this didn't happen but don't bash the crew as if they weren't trained to the same standard you or I were.
I'm not saying I would have or would not have done anything here. I'm simply offering my opinion. You guys are all entitled to yours as well.
Fly safe.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post



