Don't ya think that is being a little harsh???

 

That's a lot of failed checks...

 

Yeah everyone can say what that want about it. But the truth is none of us will ever know what was going on at the time of the crash except for what comes from the FDR. He made a big mistake and payed for it. Im sure he didn't want to crash the plane. And as for failing the checks or whatever, he was in the saab and the beech and for some people its a very intense training, systems mostly, its nowhere as easy as jet training. So he struggled! I dont know I just feel bad that all this happened and I hope rules are changed, rest, schedules, pay, something.

 

So this guy failed 5 checkrides? There should be a 121 limit on the amount you can have.

 

No. It's not harsh. There are two people in the cockpit for a reason. Where were her "eyeballs" while the airspeed was decaying to the point of a stall pusher?

 

Or at the least an insurance requirement.

 

We have already experienced a significant rise in Fed observations of recurrent sims, and higher failure rates. Coincidence? I think not...

 

Yup. I fully expect a fed for my next PC (same company as you). I also think that there will be a lot of external [media] pressure on commuters in the next couple of months...I don't know what can be done regulation-wise, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a lot of talking heads on cable news ranting about commuting.

 

Not that it matters, but an unsatisfactory attempt at a 141 stage check is considered an additional lesson and is recorded as such, or at least it should be, in both the training records and the student's logbook. Technically, failure is not a concept under 141, only complete or incomplete.

That being said, an applicant to a part 121 op is in no way obligated to report multiple attempts at a 141 final check as checkride failures. If he/she is asked in an interview whether multiple attempts were made at the final check, than that information should be offered by the applicant in the interest of integrity.

I highly doubt that this question was asked in the interview. But for the sake of argument, lets say it was. If the applicant lied, there would be no way for the company to know, unless they had access to his training records (which I'm not sure they would have the legal right to access) or as you suggested, they looked for the extra time in the logbook.

Are knowledge of these "failures" at the 141 level (if he did indeed attend a 141 school with self examining authority) is probably only because of the tragic events in Buffalo and henceforth the investigation into his primary and advanced training. The WSJ implies that this knowledge was either withheld by the Captain, or ingnored by the airline. The truth is most likely neither. In the WSJ's defense, they do not have a complete understanding of how this works, and are therefore reporting what they have been told. It's unfortunate, but understandable. Sadly, people will read this and assume negligence. I see lawyers making alot of money with this one.

 

I wasn't suggesting that. What I have been told is that the first indication of a tail stall is buffeting of the stick which some guys I talked to theorized that he may have thought he was experiencing rather than the stick shaker.