Originally Posted by Onfinal

I'm a bit taken aback by this statement! Wasn't the start of the whole slippery slope in this industry, when the AA pilots agreed to provide the new hire FOs at a small fraction of the pay of the senior guys. A scale vs. B scale circa 1984? That was the pandora's box from my recollection. Not trying to start a tizzy fit, but low and disparate pay came long before the regionals were even a factor. Perhaps everyone has a little to share in the current situation, and everyone has to put some effort into fixing it.

Onfinal

Originally Posted by CE750

where it started is completely irrelevant .. time to end it. Grab your balls and tell your employer enough is enough.

Originally Posted by CE750

Yeah, the best part is that came from Cohen, the Regional Airline Association President... talk about the fox guarding the henhouse.

Originally Posted by SmoothOnTop

Some of the blame for 3407 captain's panic reaction to the stall was his initial private pilot instruction.

Somewhere back then, he never overcame his fear of the stall and stall recovery.

The biggest confidence builder for me and aircraft was the stall/spin where my primary instructor said to me don't do anything...the aircraft recovered by itself.

3407:

Pusher does its thing.

Pilot adds max. power and makes none or the most careful corrections to the roll.

Everyone lives.

Don't do something, just stand there!!!

Originally Posted by III Corps

Not at all. Your input was correct. But there is a lot of stuff being tossed up as factors that were not contributing, IMO. (no one here is that humble so I left the H out). (no studies offered to support my position but merely from lots of reading)

Originally Posted by PIPErdrvr

Or it could have been that he didn't realize he was losing airspeed, and in the heat of the moment diagnosed a tail stall. (Which as we all know, usually occurs at higher speeds and requires the opposite reaction than a wing stall.)
Either way, he made a mistake, whether for the wrong reaction to the stall or by not paying attention to the ASI.

Originally Posted by 250 or point 65

I really don't buy this explanation. Someone said ice, linked it to the possibility that a tail stall occurred, and then everyone latched onto that as the cause. Now the NTSB says that ice was probably not a factor, everyone is still on this tail stall thing.

Now, this is why I don't buy it. Have ANY of us every practiced a tail stall? Have any of us been involved in a situation that caused a tail stall and then it's recovery? Maybe a fraction of a percent of the pilot population? So, if it is that vague and happens that infrequently, why would a tail stall be the first thing the captain thinks when the shaker goes off?

Also, the shaker is based on the AOA of the wing, not the tail. You say that tail stalls happen at higher airspeeds. Higher airspeeds are usually associated with lower AOA's...

Originally Posted by CE750

bottom line ... Stick shaker = no tail stall.

Originally Posted by RichieAshburn

To quote from "Redefining Airmanship" on a Navy study "Flight experience and the likelihood of US Navy aircraft mishaps (1992)" on proficiency:

"Flying an airplane is not like riding a bike. If you haven't done it recently, you might not remember how. It is probably more like juggling bowling pins; if you are not proficient, you are likely to end up hurting yourself."...
..."In the previously cited Navy study on experience and mishaps, it was found that poor proficiency was as high a risk factor as low experience."

You may be the exception to the rule, but it has been proven many times that experience as well as recent experience are critical to decision making skills, judgement and overall airmanship skills.

Oh, and BTW, the pilots who had the most training issues at NWA...1) DC-9 new hires with mostly glass experience and very little "steam gauge" experience AND 2) SO's moving to the right seat after a few years on the panel.

Originally Posted by CE750

Here is your response.

Nobody in a sane mind would tell you that ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, recency isn't important. Nor did I say that you take a non-current pilot and drop them into a PIC position without bringing them back up to speed... BUT..

All things aren't ever equal... and if YOU had a choice of flying with either of these two:

-A current Captain who's failed 5 check rides in 3700hours

-A freshly upgraded captain who took a year or two off due to any of the above listed reasons, but has since been flying right seat for 6 months to a year getting back up to speed, has prior experience as a captain and who's never failed a checkride or made a major mistake in 6000+ hours.

Who would you prefer to put your wife and kids on?

If you had to choose one?