Go get 'em, Bus!! :D

MEM,

I am not going to be one to become accident investigator, so I won't say I agree or disagree with your post. But, have you see the transcript of the CVR? If you can find 1 free minute of the 58 minute flight where they weren't talking, let me know.

I'm not saying that the continuous conversation/talking/passenger addressing was the cause of the accident. But, for me, conversation like that would wear me out.

The NTSB will list that as a factor, which might or might not be right.

What probably will not be listed as a factor is what I believe could be the real culprit: reliance on automation to fly an aircraft to the point where you think you can ignore it (the aircraft) and the conditions you will be flying it into until you are somewhere near the FAF.

Ok, they might not put it like that, but you get my drift. While we won't hear anyone say, "I am ignoring my aircraft today because the autopilot will handle it," the constant conversation is a indication of that attitude.

New K Now

Correction
 

CE750. For your information the Eastern L1011 that flamed out 3 engines en route to Nassau, happened in the 80's. I was employed by EAL during that incident. The L1011 flame-out was due to maintenance forgetting to install O rings on the engines. I can't attest to whether or not the L1011 had chip dectectors, but I do know that that incident was due to the O rings not installed and the engines flamed out because of that maintenance error.

There used to be a term and it's called Anticipation of Command and I would imagine the Cpt would have called for a go- around if he needed to do so.


Fred

Both. The FDR shows that the flap handle was only moved to the Flaps 10 position; there was a 3 second pause between the captain calling for Flaps 15 and the FO moving the flap handle, during which time she said "uhhh." I personally think she saw the low speed cue coming to get them. When the stick shaker went off she either forgot about putting the flaps to 15 or decided they should stay at 10; six seconds later, she retracted them back to zero.

newKnow,

The chatting itself has nothing to do with the accident. The loss of SA does, and that probably would have happened regardless given the circumstances.

Would they have been more alert and maintained more SA had they not been chatting? No, the talking and the level of attention are not related - plenty of experienced pilots can maintain SA on the position of the aircraft and the airspeed while chatting - I don't recommend it, but it's possible. Likewise, plenty of pilots are probably unable of staying ahead of the airplane in difficult situations even in a sanitized cockpit.

Have you watched the media reports, they all focus on the fact that the Capt was "flirting" with the FO and none of them mention that they simply flew the airplane into a stall. Why, because that is what the company wants the public to know.

This accident has the potential of highlighting all of the problems and deficiencies of the regional airlines, or they can say it was the pilot's fault. Of course, they would rather stop there than pursue if the pilots were prepared to be in those seats.

MEM,

I think we are in a chicken or egg which came first discussion. Chatting, loss of SA, flying the A/C into a stall, flirting, ect. all deal with not paying attention to the aircraft.

If your point is that the crew was not prepared to be in the seats, then you are right, the chatting has very little to do with the accident and that is the bigger problem.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

It was not chatting below 10k, it was chatting below 10k in a specific situation where they should have buttoned it up. Why did they lose SA? Perhaps because they should have been doing less talking and more flying.

Exactly, the company through the media is trying to pin it on the talking specifically.

I posted on their (the company's) reasoning before. Let me see if I can find it....

Yeah, here it is.......

Wait. Thats not it.

I'll just sum it up. The company will try to distance themselves from the crews actions even though they are strictly liable for the accident. But, if they can prove that their behavior was grossly negligent and a causal factor of the crash, they can avoid any further damage claims. What that does open the door to is claims against the estates of the pilots, by the company and the victims families as well. Shameful, but true.

The first officer lived with her parents. My guess is she didn't have much.

Me too.

New