dingo222

I'm not going to re-open the can of worms, but I do believe that this career is not for some people. Not talking about this crew in particular, but I have met people that have no business being airplane captains. As an NCO in the Army, I had to get rid of soldiers for not meeting standards a lot. If you can't run, shoot etc, then you cannot be a soldier. You might be a great guy, but you need to find a new line of work. In general, I think more of that needs to be done in aviation.

Blkflyer

Dude I hope for your sake you NEVER Fail a Checkride, BTW noticed the WSJ never said what event was failed, you and I know that in some instances that check rides can be subjective but then again you still come across like an Arrogance person. despite what is said in the WSJ the investigation is still ongoing let it run its course

skull

Very well said Blkflyer.

poor pilot

This report points to the real problem. The best part is the interview is MR. Roger Cohen president of RAA. The sad part is not enough people died the plane was not big enough for guys like this to stop pulling the wool over the flying public eyes. When is enough enough? Notice he had no response to the 20grand a year pay.

The dude

If you re-read the article it says he failed 3 checkrides prior to Colgan, then his initial Beech 1900 SIC checkride then later his upgrade checkride.

......"Before joining Colgan, he failed three proficiency checks on general aviation aircraft administered by the FAA, according to investigators and the airline. Colgan's spokesman said the company now believes Capt. Renslow failed to fully disclose that poor performance when applying for a job. Once at Colgan, he failed in his initial attempt to qualify as a co-pilot on the Beech 1900 aircraft, and also had to redo his check ride to upgrade to captain on the Saab 340 turboprop, according to investigators. Repeated check-ride failures raise red flags, and large carriers rarely keep pilots who require such extensive remedial training, according to numerous industry officials."

And if by "event" you mean which part of his checkride was unsatisfactory, I don't see any relevance.

I think you might not take such a light stance on this stuff if you had lost a loved one or close friend as a passenger in this accident.

If my belief in having proficient, professional, well-trained pilots flying me or my loved ones around makes me arrogant, so be it. Sorry if it chaps your a**.

BZNpilot248

I agree here - sure there are people that aren't cut out for this business but then again people don't always get the big picture. I don't know about the crews career progression and I deffinitly wouldn't comment on their ability whatever it may have been. But is it fair to dredge up or even care about someone failing a commercial checkride or even 121 recurrent event several years ago? In theory those deficiencies should have been corrected, learned from, and life goes on. (or they leave the career at that point) There should be some sort of limit on how far back they can go in researching ones background, so what if they had a bad day on a checkride 10 years ago? I understand this captain had two failures while at his current company - so sure that should be looked into but nobody should be so quick to judge until they know the particulars. It sounds a lot worse to say 5 failures than a private and commercial failure 10 years ago, CFI oral failure, and some minor deficiencies that were CORRECTED at his current company. Trends should be monitored but I don't think our careers need to be under the microscope from day one. Maybe a 5 year lookback on performance? That would be at least TEN evaluations for captains and five for FO's which would be more than fair. Any lingering issues should present themselves in that timefram with any adequate training environment. Otherwise the lawyers will only smell blood if something goes wrong and it could set a bad precendence for everyone else in this career. NOBODY is perfect. Period. I know plenty of people that can do excellent on a checkride and have the right attitude, persona, skills, etc - but once they get on the line and nobody is watching they are setting themselves up for a careless or reckless catastrophe. The gatekeepers (checkairmen) need to do their job and everyone else should have the big picture and be careful to judge. I know I"m not perfect but I'm still learning and improving EVERY DAY. I"m not the same pilot I was 1 year ago let alone 5 years ago. (when I started flying proffessionally)

fboehm

The NTSB hearing can be found on CNN live online. It is in real time.

JungleBus

Here's a link to the public docket. Some interesting reading in there...

http://www.ntsb.gov/Dockets/Aviation...27/default.htm

stoki

is this being televised live on any TV stations?

iPilot

CNN just did a short recap with a reporter that sat in on the hearing. No new info but it does sound like attention is being drawn to pilot pay and recruitment.