N5139

I agree with you, but don't you think there should be a "statute of limitations" on failures? Why should we punish a "late bloomer" who had a rough time in primary training, but is now a great captain 4,000 hours later? What about 141 self-examining authority? You can get some real Gomers making it through those programs with few "data points." If that's going to continue, entire 141 training folders should be viewable by hiring officials.

I almost think there needs to be a thorough breakdown of one's training, including questions about type of training, duration of training, and a much more comprehensive sim check for those just breaking into the 121 world. Otherwise, you're just hiring guys who:

a) Know how to pass a checkride and execute "recipe flying (nice term)."
b) Failed multiple checkrides at schools like ATP because the training style failed them, not their potential.


What do you think? I appreciate your insight.

dojetdriver

Is that what happened in LIT and Colombia? Did the government/FAA allow someone with poor decision making skills and no SA whatsoever to be a CA?

Again, is that what happened to LIT/Colombia? You think those guys were sold on getting to a major ASAP to fly a shiny airplane? I think I asked you this before, do you think that if both those crews had this all mighty 135 experience you speak of (maybe they did, don't know) that BOTH those accidents would not have happened?

Really? Did the pilots and public accept the low pay at AA, because they were of "low value", and the customers didn't care about who was flying them around?

Said it before, I'll say it again;

A pilot with (insert your favorite type of background here) is JUST AS CAPABLE of killing people as a pilot without (insert your favorite type of back ground here).

It's been proven time and time again.

newarkblows

Colgan and other shady operators have questionable maintenance departments, they hire in-experienced pilots that are otherwise unhireable by many airlines, and they have abusive scheduling and compensation practices that keep a constant "brain drain" on the pilot group...


... you are right that anyone can crash an airplane but when you stack the deck against you. You are opening yourself up to that much more risk and potential to start that chain of events that leads to a smoldering hole. If the FO got a good nights rest would she have acted differently? If the CA was more experienced would he have noticed something wrong? If the crappy company that hired both of them treated them with the tiniest bit of respect as professionals maybe they would have been able to call out fatigued or called in sick without fearing for their jobs.

The simple truth is that Colgan is a disgraceful company that treats their employees with little to no respect. They have been banking on LUCK to keep them from having an accident. They learned the hard way that LUCK doesnt work. Now its time to get with the program and act like an airline with a responsibility to its passengers and employees. It is absolutlely disgraceful that they are laying the blame solely on the pilots while they continue to run their joke of an airline operation.

BoilerUP

Not defending Colgan...BUT:

It doesn't take Chuck Yeager to react properly to an imminent stall, nor does it take Bob Hoover to pay enough effing attention to not get yourself into an imminent stall situation in the first place.

The accident chain is long, with many places it could have been broken...but it always begins and ends with the actions of the folks in the pointy end of the cockpit.

kalyx522

I could be wrong but I don't think the original poster above was referring to who was at fault for the accident (like everyone is arguing about AGAIN in this thread), but who was at fault for the captain being hired when maybe he shouldn't have been.

I would agree with him - the media made a big deal out of him having all these hidden failures and then the colgan said he had lied to them and that they hadn't known about it. how can you even say that with a straight face. "we didn't know about it." they SHOULD have known about it, it is absolutely their responsibility to do a background check. if im a child molester with a record and a preschool hires me without thoroughly checking my background, could the preschool simply say, 'he lied to us, we took his word when he told us his record was clean'?! how ridiculous does that sound, and colgan did the same thing.
and seriously i doubt that it would've made a difference, they probably would have hired him anyway. you know what i think? they probably knew about it, and hired him, and only after the accident they're saying that they didn't know about it, just to relieve themselves of looking bad. the only way i'd believe this company if i saw the actual application where renslow himself stated that he didnt have failures. (because he isnt here to defend himself against allegations that he lied.)
im not saying you shouldnt be less than honest on an application, but the hiring airline has just as much responsibility if not more, to check up on someone they're allowing into their cockpit.

EVpilot

I agree that it is colgans fault to some degree. They could have stopped it but the ultimate responsibility lies at the feet of Captain Renslow. He accepted the fourth bar, he signed the release, and he owed those people a service that, in the end, he failed to provide. I am baffled at the actions of his FO but he was in a recoverable situation and he failed to act as a competent PIC. There is where the blame lies.

SpeedyVagabond

Spot on. There's an awful lot of apologists here. Personally, I'm glad the media hasn't focused on just how appallingly careless those two were that night and how truly unbelievably bad their s.a. and stall recovery techniques were. Sometimes the media's ignorance with respect to aviation can be a good thing.

rickair7777

I am pretty certain that in the near future 141 checkride failures are going to become reportable and recordable just like 61.

Actually a 141 failure can usually be detected by looking at the logbook...there will be training, normally followed by a stage check by a different instructor, and then the checkride. If failed, the checkride is usually documented as a lesson in the logbook but the "instructor" will be different from the previous instructors and will not have given much or any day-to-day instruction.

I think the ATP should be required for airline pilots, and that the ATP should be required to be performed in a level D turbine sim.

But it is hard to objectively evaluate entry-level training, as you said it varies wildly and it would be hard to standardize. The FAA would have to require that all training be done under 141, and all schools use an FAA-provided syllabus and outside examining. The examiners would have to be assigned by the FSDO for each checkride, not hired based on school preference (ie examiner shopping). Probably not going to happen, since GA does not exist solely to provide entry-level airline pilots.

nigelcobalt

Who's at fault? I'll tell you who, passengers.

If pax didn't expect to fly anywhere they want in the US for $59 on a 777 then maybe they would get better results.

captjns

These two were out to lunch. Neither one had their finger on the pulse, nor were they paying attention to the situation at hand. A basic tenet of a captain is to know his/her airplane above and beyond what is learned in training.

The airline did this captain a disservice by giving him his command before he was ready. The F/O was done a disservice too. She was clueless about cold weather operations. The poor girl was still on the ground in EWR while the plane was decent into BUF.

With repetition in training, anybody can pass a check ride as the script is usually the same. Training departments have to submit pass/fail reports to the FAA. Airline training departments don't like reporting failures to the FAA. Oversight and re-evaluation and revision would be required. Well that’s what is needed… Honest training and honest checking, and let the chips fall where they may. If the airman makes the grade, then press on. If not well that’s the way it goes.

With that being said the airline and the training department were at fault for pushing inadequate airmen through the program.

And by the way, this is a problem which is systemic industry wide at every airline. Rather than providing the crewmember adequate training in the simulator, they train them how to pass a check ride. That needs to come to a grinding halt. This ain’t Microsoft simulator… there are lives at stake here and well innocent passengers and flight attendants had to pay the ultimate price for the inadequacy of the crew and the system.