What's the point of this thread? I thought the real reasons minimums were so low a couple years ago are well known by everyone? Obviously not though!

Exactly and the 100 in type is an airline training problem, not a pilot problem. Both of them admit to having very little experience in icing doesn't really matter anyways since this was not an ice issue. Most of the time you start seeing real ice when you start flying advanced planes, not as a VFR CFI. And there are thousands of cases where pilots are forced to fly in unsafe situations. It's nothing new.

Low experience does not mean low time. Poor training? YES As did the AA pilots that went into the mountain in South America. Again, you haven't shown an accident that was caused by 200 wonders.

I did too but not one person has mentioned it yet.

Management doesn't have personal legal ramifications for their practices and insurance companies somehow seem to think that a 300 hr. pilot is acceptable with 80 passengers but a 1200 hr. pilot can't get a job flying a Falcon......hmmmm, I wonder who pays more on insurance premiums.

Training is another reason I'm antsy about riding on regionals. The training departments do basically enough to cover within the shadow of the law. This is especially true at the "lower end" regionals.

The majors have made many mistakes over the years which have resulted in fatalities but many improvements to training and equipment. However it looks like the regionals are trying to redo them and learn the same lessons over again. Never compromise savings, right?

the AA pilots that went in simply line selected the wrong NDB lat/long... for some reason the FMC prompted a far away ndb of the same name as L1.

Combine that with high workload/task saturation, an unfamiliar area, and very high hills...

Combined with poor SA, failure to crosscheck, poor execution of SOP's, not knowing the state/configuration of their aircraft, etc.

Said it before, say it again. A highly experienced/compensated crew is just as capable of bending metal/killing people as one that is not. It's proven time and time again.

Procedures have been put in place to mitigate that situation since then- in fact your FMS confirm/execute procedure as well as GPWS escape procedure on the CRJ is a direct result of what was developed after the Cali accident.

The regional and other low end company training departments are pushing the limit on the low end constantly just to maintain the illusion of following the regs.

Unfortunately, there will be plenty more accidents like colgan to come. The culture has not changed.

Are you sure airlines didn't already have this, but in the case of AA it was nonexistent? When you say "your procedure on the CRJ", I've never flown it. But yes, I know what you're referring to.

Depends on who you're talking about. Both "regionals" I've worked for had good training. My last one had AQP, combined with a lot other things not required thrown in, and that was in 2000 when I got hired. The props had it before that. But lumping all regionals into one category is pretty shortsighted.

Once, when I was jumpseating on a mainline carrier, the Captain (30 years with company) made a snide comment about the lack of experienced pilots being hired from my company by his airline. (Apparently, 7,000 hours was not enough experience.) As we approached 500 feet on landing, the FO put his hand on the spoiler lever, calmly looked at this Captain, and asked "Sir, would you like me to put these in?" Apparently experience doesn't cover all sins.:eek: