You hit the nail on the head my friend. The problem is with the regionals as a whole. They should ALL go away, not just Colgan.

More from that slime ball Roger Cohen. Pay, Rest, Stand up overnights,







The regulations and shared responsibility that have been built over decades and decades [are] giving American travelers the safest system of transportation the world has ever known. ...

Help me understand how these business arrangements work. They call it code shares, but what it is is contracting out flying. What's the relationship like?

I have never seen one of these contracts.

You've never seen one, really?

I honest to God [have] never seen one. ...

But you must understand the basic framework of the business.

... It can vary carrier to carrier, year to year.

But is it really one level of safety?

All right. But crew rest, that's an issue that's been discussed for years and years and years. What is changing now? Why are you looking at that at this moment?

We have been great participants in the study of the federally convened review of this whole issue of what is the appropriate amount of flying rest, because conditions have changed in the industry since the rules were set in place. As you know, sometimes rules in aviation do get a little bit dusty.

For the longest time it was considered that age 60 was some magic number there; that the day you were 60 -- if you were 59 and 364 days you were safe to fly, and the day you turned 60 you weren't any longer. It took a long time for everyone to recognize that needed to get changed. We're moving this issue right now in terms of the writing of the rules for crew flight and duty time and rest. This is moving at the fastest that any rulemaking has ever been moved in certainly my experience, and I think everybody at the FAA would say so, too. ...

The crews, as it stands now, with the work rules and the way the rest periods are built, are being pushed, aren't they?

Every crew at any airline is operating not only within this broad parameter of what the federal rules require, but in an envelope much, much smaller than that. ... The schedules are created to try and eliminate fatigue, try to avoid it, to try to make the schedules as safe as can possibly be.

But the schedules as they are, per the rules, are not good, are they?

The rules right now needed to be reviewed. They are being done so. We are at the forefront of reviewing and revising those rules. ...

I've heard them called standups or camping trips. These are the guys that go out late at night, fly a flight. They've got four hours of downtime at an airport, and they have to fly back in the morning. Classic recipe for fatigue. That's not a good way to make for a well-rested flight crew, right?

... It's important to kind of explain how the trips are established. Trips are set up there that allow for each pilot to bid on trips, and some of the trips that may seem the most difficult may be the most popular trips because those trips may allow that pilot the most time off. And so it's each pilot's choice. But no matter if it's choosing A, B, C or D or E schedule, every schedule that's out there right now is being done safely, is within the rules and is being done to try and accommodate the needs of the traveling public.

But if you've got a guy who's there for four hours on an overnight, they don't give him a hotel -- we hear these stories time and again -- they are literally unrolling a sleeping bag and sleeping at the airport, does that make any sense?

Again, the schedules that are out there are safe. ...

So why do you want to fix them?

Because they need to be made safer and based more on what we are learning and science and everything. Again, everything in aviation safety is to reduce and reduce down to the most narrow element any of the risks, and so if there are some things we can learn and we can do to both mitigate fatigue, create schedules that do better fit into all of that, we're going to do it.

Let's talk about a related issue, and that's pilot pay. And this comes up quite a bit. First officers at a typical regional airline [are] making on the order of $18,000 and $20,000 when they start out. That's a pretty low wage, but I don't know that people are aware that the pay scales are so low. Is that an adequate salary for what that job entails?

Let's get the facts out on the table on this, Miles. The average salary for a regional airline captain is $73,000. The average salary for a first officer at a regional airline is about $32,000, $33,000.

Average is kind of a hard thing to get your hands on, because, especially with the economy slowing down, you've got a lot of more senior first officers, and so the pay scale may have crept up a little bit, but even at $30,000 a year, if you're based in New York City, you're not living large, are you?

We have 60,000 regional airline employees around the country. There are roughly about 400,000 airline employees nationwide living in 600 communities, many of whom earn less than that, and they find it very affordable to live in those communities. So it's absolutely doable.

So the pay scales are adequate.

The pay is fair. It's very comparable. ... Compensation in the airline industry, ... it's built on a number of foundations. Number one, seniority. Number two -- and I think this is really important to know -- the wage scales are collectively bargained. They are done by the unions, and the gap there between that, if there is a gap between what the first officer makes and what that captain makes, that's because the pie is being split that way; that everybody else said: "Well, I had to do my time in the barrel going back years and years. You do, too." So that pie is split up basically because of the collective bargaining.

So basically you are saying it's the unions that have sort of forsaken their more junior members.

I don't want to cast aspersions. Again, these are collectively bargained. ...

What the unions will say is, first of all, many of these contract carriers are not [part of] a union, and in many cases the flying contracts get moved around so much, and these contract carriers have been serving various masters, and sometimes it gets mixed around, and the deals get to be cut, that it's difficult for the unions to keep up with all of this. ... The bottom line is one of the key advantages from the legacy carriers' perspective is that the labor costs, because they can separate it out from the collective bargaining agreements that they have with their pilots, are much cheaper, aren't they?

... Let's talk about compensation, and in addition to the compensation, ... crew members get a generous per diem while they are on a trip, all ... their expenses while they are traveling on company business.

Per diems are just expenses, though. You can't count them as income. By the way, is that included in that $30,000 average?

No, that is not. ... But then again, this is a job that most pilots are working 70, 75, 80 hours per month as opposed to a 40-hour work weeks that most Americans do.

Right. But you know as well as I do that's the time when the engine is running that we are talking about. There's a lot more time involved in that job which is not included in that.

But again, most contracts provide that most crew members have 12, 13, 14 days off a month. ...

I'm still trying to drive out why their pay is so little. Why? They are not paid a lot of money. I don't get it. It seems like, on that dark and stormy night, I want somebody up there driving who is well rested and well paid. Is that too much to ask?

... What every traveler wants is a person up there flying them who is professional, who is highly trained and is capable and skilled at flying, which every one of our crew members is.

So the amount -- you don't think that whether it's $16,000 or even $30,000, whatever that amount is, union would say: "Hey, let's start them at $50,000 or $60,000. We're going to get more experienced people; we're going to get a better-quality, a more professional flight crew"?

We believe strongly in the professionalism of everybody who is flying for us. And as you know, people enter into aviation really because, number one, it's a passion, and this is something that people voluntarily do. They don't get drafted into doing this. They gain tremendous skills that they can use and move around later on in their life.

The most important thing is it doesn't matter what anybody is making. And the NTSB, through all of its investigations, has never found compensation to be a contributing factor to any fatal accident, so I think the key point here is that everybody who is flying, it's important that they are fit and that they are sufficiently trained and capable of doing it, which they are.

You are right. They haven't listed compensation as a contributing cause, but many times they list fatigue. And I would say those two issues go hand in hand, because what you are talking about here, when you are paying that person $18,000, $20,000 or even $30,000, to tell them they are based in New York City, you are telling them they have to live somewhere else, and that means they have to commute, and that means there is a fatigue issue.

They're commuting. Let's take these issues one by one, and get on the table, number one, is that compensation does not equate to safety -- no linkage, none whatsoever. Never has been, never will be. Number two, commuting. ...

If you happen to be stuck in a high-dollar city with this low wage, you don't have much of a choice in the matter. And yes, commuting has always been a part of aviation, but if you are a Sully [Capt. Chesley Sullenberger] and you are commuting, you can afford a hotel. If you are making $16,000 or $18,000 a year and commuting, you are sleeping on the Barcalounger in the pilots' lounge. And that's not good, is it?

Again, let's get the real numbers out there. Average pay for the first officer: $32,000.

I'm not talking about average. There are some people, as you well know, who make $18,000 to $20,000 a year. That's 21 bucks an hour; they are getting capped out at $1,000. I mean, you know there are people at that scale who have to live this life. We're not talking about average. We are talking about human beings who are flying my grandmother to Buffalo. So there are people there living this life, and it seems as if they are in an untenable position economically.

Absolutely not, because there are many other people who earn less money than that and work more days in these communities that can afford it and do it and do it responsibly. I just checked the Web this morning. You can get a hotel room at the Newark airport for $50 a night.

I bet $50 a night might be something to think about at that salary.

... Airline employees, non-airline employees, commuting is a choice. It is not forced by the economics.

This is not a salary that matches the location of some of these bases, and there is no compensation for that fact. These airlines don't factor in that.

But every single pilot -- before they can apply for the job -- every flight attendant knows where bases are, where they could be stationed, where they could be moved. This is all part of the collective bargaining agreement. When bases do change, crews get changed around for whatever reason, all of that is covered by the contracts, the expenses of moving them. ...

I want to address the schedules. ... Commuting is part of that, isn't it?

Yes, and it's one of the reasons why we called for a very serious study and why House bill 3371 has [as] one of its key provisions to call for a study of commuting and to see what kind of impact it does have on fatigue. We strongly support that study. We want to participate in that study.

What if they say it's bad and the commuting has got to stop? How are they going to hire pilots to live in New York? You might have to pay them some more money.

Whatever that study shows, whatever that congressional study shows, that will give us a road map for the proper answer to this question. That's probably the big issue, why we have this now. There has never been a study about it. ...

... Does your organization take a stand on how much the mainline carriers, the legacy carriers, the people whose paint job is on the airline, how much they should get involved in how the airline does its business?

No, we do not. No association gets into the business [of] the economics of -- we're not allowed to.

Is it your understanding that your members, generally speaking, get a lot of guidance from their larger people who are giving them these contracts? Are they getting a lot of guidance on how to run the airlines, or is it simply up to them to meet FAA standards?

The guidance is nonstop. And the collaboration and coordination within an airline, among airlines, with the regulators, with their employees goes on 24/7, 365 days a year. ...

It's hard flying being a regional pilot, ... with all the number of flights, the shorter runs, the congested air space, the weather constraints. It's some of the hardest flying there is, isn't it?

There's all types of regional flying. We've got regional flying between medium-size communities out West that differ from flying in the Southeast, that differs in flying in the Northeast. ...

But you could make a case that some of the most challenging flying out there is done by the least experienced crews.

... All flying is done safely. Everybody is capable of doing it. You get experience by actually doing it, and the quality of training that all airline crews get is outstanding. It is a very challenging job and a challenging industry. ... The track record is that our airlines and our crew members have done it safely for decades and decades, and they are just focused on keeping it that way.

But at the regional level you've got pilots with less experience. ... We're talking about people getting started in the business, right?

I just looked at the numbers actually today. The average captain in the regional industry has 8,500 hours. The average first officer is well over 3,000 hours. By just by the sheer measurement of number of hours, that is a pretty significant amount of hours, so less experience does not mean inexperienced.

... Is it appropriate for people to be building time [at regional airlines], learning from the school of hard knocks with paying passengers behind them?

... Let's not look at the number of hours here. Let's look at the quality of training and that every crew member flying at a scheduled airliner today, regardless of the size of the aircraft -- ...

But there is no substitute for the experience, is there?

Experience comes in a variety of ways. It comes in training; it comes in flying. One could argue ... that somebody gaining hours just flying around above a cornfield someplace can be building hours and hours and hours and hours. By some measurement that would be experience. But is that person then able to then go in and start flying passengers in scheduled service? And the answer is, before they can go into scheduled service, they have to get trained to be a real commercial airline pilot. ...

But you hear about these people [who], in less than a year's time, become captains of these airplanes. It used to be that pilots waited 10 years before they ever got into that captain's seat. Everything is compressed because of the nature of the way the business has churned. ... I've talked to some people who were there [in that position].

The point is that the person who does do that is fully capable, fully qualified, fully trained and safe and fit to fly.

But if you have somebody who is kind of a low-time captain with a low-time first officer, is that a good recipe?

The rules and the practices of the carriers prevent that from happening so that every schedule is put together with the notion that you don't put some of your junior people with other junior people, and that's why the schedules are so sophisticated. That's why you pay attention to that. That's why every airline out there is practicing those kind of good scheduling practices to make sure. ...

But if the airline is going to lose money and doesn't move that plane from point A to point B in the prescribed time, there is a lot of pressure to cut corners, isn't there?

There is never [that pressure]. I'm glad you asked this question, because in the wake of the Buffalo accident, we had a board meeting, and at our board meeting we spent literally about 10 or 12 hours -- [the] longest board meeting in RAA history -- talking about all of the action we needed to take as an industry to make sure we were [safe], and not one time not once was the word "cost" ever mentioned in that entire meeting. Not one time, because, again, safety is number one. It's the only priority for this industry. And I think what we're seeing now is why it is in good safety practices and makes the most sense for all the right reasons.

... But the pilots themselves get paid to turn on the engines and move that airplane. They don't get paid as much, or sometimes don't get paid at all, if they say there's a problem with de-icing in the left engine; this plane isn't safe to fly; we're not going until the mechanics check it out. And so there is an incentive for them to push safety, isn't there?

Absolutely not. No pilot out there would ever do that. And every airline out there has nonpunitive policies that you do not fly if that aircraft or the pilot is not safe to fly. ...

But you don't see why there might be safety and the bottom line here are at odds?

Good safety is best for the bottom line. ...

But if a pilot is in a situation where he is literally out of pocket by writing up a maintenance squawk on an airplane, that's not a good setup, is it?

It should not happen and to my knowledge does not happen. If a pilot sees something wrong with an aircraft, it is his or her responsibility to make sure that problem gets fixed before that airplane ever leaves the gate.

It's also his responsibility to pay his mortgage, whatever the case may be, and there's a lot of pressure there.

I don't know any [pilots] that would risk the lives of their passengers, of their crew members, in order to do that, so I dispute that totally.

So if I were to tell you we've heard repeated stories from pilots saying just that, what would you say?

I would say that those pilots should never fly an aircraft that they don't believe [it] is fit to fly. ...

Is the FAA doing its job?

The FAA does a terrific job in a very challenging environment, the men and women who work there, and this is going back administrations. The current people, [Administrator] Randy Babbitt and the people that are there now, do a terrific job, and their focus is exclusively on making sure that this system remains as safe as it is today.

When you say "tough environment," you are talking about the economy, obviously. How is business for your members?

Very busy. Been in the airline business for over 35 years, and it has always been very challenging, very competitive. Americans enjoy tremendous service and incredibly low fares, and as anybody who has ever watched or observed or been in the airline business, this is not a place to earn a fortune. ...

I've seen some numbers which seem to indicate [regionals] are doing better than the parent companies, if you would call them parents.

Some yes, some no.

How do you explain the ones that are doing better? What are they doing differently?

It is a competitive business, and much of it can be the result of great management, great practices, great aircraft. Maybe you got a better deal on when they purchased aircraft. That has a lot to do with it -- type of aircraft, when they bought it, type of financial arrangements. Could be anything. Again, this is a deregulated environment.

Let's talk a little bit about [Continental] Flight 3407 to the extent you can. The crew of Flight 3407, that crew flying under the Continental paint job, would those crew members have been flying for the mainline carrier, Continental?

I can't speak to an accident that is still under investigation.

All right. But in general, people with that level of experience could not be hired by Continental, right?

I cannot speak for Continental Airlines. I just can't answer that question. I just don't know.

Let me just maybe ask it this way. ... Seventy percent of the 600 cities that get air service get it from regional carriers.

Exclusively.

Exclusively. So can you tell me that the people in those cities who only have access to regional carriers are getting the same quality of service and the same safety levels that people in a big city get?

It's hard to say what makes an issue/incident get to the point that someone in the media takes notice(in this case, Frontline).
While the program focused on Colgan and one particular accident, I think most observers saw the broad brush it was painted with.
For what its worth, there was an almost identical accident with an ACA jetstream 41 going into Cmh...about 10 years ago if memory serves. It hardly made a ripple in the news. (late night/early AM arrival...level off on the localizer after a descent..autopilot on ....throttles never advanced...resultant stall).
For some reason this accident has aroused more interest. It perhaps says much more about "us" than it does the media in general. Frontline, being PBS, doesn't have to dance to its Corporate owners and is more likely to have serious and reflective thinking programming. Any other network would be far more interested in the ratings it would generate than in a sense of public service or public good.( I would think)

Adding a name, or 50 names, to a failure of the system gives the report more credibility. Changes need to be made (the NTSB has been after a fatigue for close to 20 years). Eventually, one bad act becomes a call to action.

To varying degrees, every bad act described in the report goes on at many airlines. Just because company Z only does one or two of those things, does not make Z right: less bad perhaps, but not right.

Each of us, at every airline, must push for higher standards so eventually the worst "bottom feeder" is safer than today's industry leader.

For someone so "OCD" about grammar, your sentence structure in the next post is pretty poor.

This is the fault of the MAJOR airlines. Listen up before you get all upset. We all know the reason the plane crashed was because the captain was not very skilled. You can talk about the FO all day long, but the Captain is the FINAL AUTHORITY over that aircraft.

The captain had no significant 135 or CFI experience. He bought his first job on a B1900. Then he went straight to Colgan. He was used to baby sitting an auto pilot, not having a student trying to kill him, not having flown hard IFR with out a GPS, or making decisions by himself in small piston plane that can barely handle ice or out run thunderstorms, and having an FO that was probably close to being his equal when it came to PIC ability.

The MAJOR airlines should start requiring 1,000 hours of CFI time or single pilot 135 experience if the applicant is not a prior military pilot. The FAA also needs to require 1000 hours of PIC in airplanes to get an ATP, NO SUBSTITUTES! Plain and simple. Instead it's all "plane" and complicated.


I think Colgan has garbage pay and work rules, but the incentive to save the industry should be from the top, not the bottom. The majors only need to require 1,000 hours of CFI or 135 Single Pilot to help ensure better quality and pay. While the FAA should require 1,000 hours PIC in airplanes to get an ATP, NO SUBSTITUTES. People will make sure they get those before they go to a regional.

Ideally we would love to glue the general public to the seat and and have someone with very deep pockets fund the show but realistically that wasn't the case. The show was only and hour. No commercials means that someone had to fund the show. And do you think the general public would sit there any longer and possibly fight through their ADD to only come to the conclusion that they have to pay more if they want to fly safe. Not only that but this show was aired at the same time as "Lost". Little bit of competition there.

They knew they had an hour and they squeezed as much into it as they could. Kudos to those guys for getting the word out.

(In response to link that was removed in which a crew scheduler was giving her opinion on training.)

I can not believe this crap. Gina, the ex-crew scheduler is now an expert in 121 training?

"The Q was hard to fly because it has a lot more button and lights," WOW!! Thanks for the insight. Tell me Gina, since you are a student pilot, how do you feel about the stall training at Colgan "Marvin was doing what he was trained to do, he was recovering from a tail stall."



This is the biggest joke I have ever heard, I do not know if I am raging or just delirious with the fact they are talking to her. How about we talk to the guy who sweeps the floors at night what they feel about derived minimums.

that recording is so painful to listen to...I can't believe this!

so she was so "upset" about her friends that were lost in Clarence, NY that she quit her job in Virgina and moved to Clarence, NY....what?

She has been working on that private training for 5 years, she liked it to try and hook up with pilots, oh the stories I have heard.

I could not help but send a nice long email to the reporter and the programing director about their training "expert," and gave examples on how Gina has tried to push me to fly. This recording was journalism at its worse.

can anyone send me the link to that recording?

I'm glad you did write them...they need to know how WRONG they were to use her as a credible source of pilot training at a 121 operator.

the audio portion is on the top of the link on the news site that Juice put in his post.

WBFO: Colgan Air employee says pilot training was "very lax" (2010-02-10)

Should have known I'd get whacked for that post, my bad. Here's the original link...

wow.................thats just pathetic, I remember her voice, First Officer Joe, your schedule has been changed.............

lotta buttons.................. ***? This has to be the most irresponsible form or journalism...............unreal

I wish we had Tim Hortons in Jersey

Worst interview ever. I do believe I've lost some IQ by listening to this.

She moved to BUF because her boyfriend is a Colgan FO up there. She wasn't grief stricken because of the accident. If you were, why quit 5 months post-accident? She was in love and didn't want to move to MEM.

She's a complete idiot. And who meets for an interview in a Tim Hortons?!? Classy NPR.

I sent a long email to the reporter about the embarrassment of that story for their radio station. She responded back asking if I would like to be interviewed. I told her "no" and that they should remove that ridiculous interview.

For those of us that knew Gina it makes this thing even more pathetic. Even Joe remembers her and he has been gone for a while.

And I do miss Tim Hortons as well from time in New York.

Good man. I'm writing an email to the station also.

Wow, don't know this lady, but could only get through 2 minutes, lotsa buttons and lights, huh? Painful.

[Re: WBFO interviews Gina Ryder]

That interview blows my feeble mind.

'...taught to fly straight and level...and when the nose drops you need to bring it up...and that's what it was. He just reacted how he was trained'.

Awful Awful Awful

I can't believe I'm saying this but I expected more from an NPR affiliate.

I'm writing an e-mail also.

Absolutely disgusting interview! Awful is an understatement. Which is worse, listening to that tanned sleeze Cohen on PBS or the former crew scheduler and now "aviation expert" on NPR? This particular example is the problem with the media today. Explain to me how a high school diploma and a solo endorsement makes you an aviation expert on the subject of 121 pilot hiring, training, safety, pay, work rules and all the "lights and buttons in the cockpit!" Irresponsible at best! Do I see a "Journalist of the Year" award in her future?

NPR's next interview, "Medical Expert": a night janitor at a hospital discussing the techniques of brain and heart surgery. No offense to any janitor, I would much rather have that job than that of a crew scheduler or sketch reporter ;)

I wouldn't be surprised if Gina was completely drunk during this interview; sure sounds like it. Probably needed the Tim Horton's to help her sober up.

That was a pathetic interview.

I sent the editor an email stating how ridiculous that interview was........here was his response

Joe,



Obviously, someone is orchestrating an email campaign to get Colgan personnel to hear and then respond to our story. Maybe I’m wrong, but I doubt you were a regular reader of wbfo.org before this story aired.

Please know we respect your right to voice your opinions. But I also know you have your own agenda, just as Gina had hers. The difference here is that Gina was willing to come forward for a recorded interview, allowing us to use her name. I admire her for that. My colleague has reached out to a couple of other email correspondents requesting an on-the-record taped interview to present the side of the story you feel we missed in our interview with Gina. They’ve all declined. I’ll make the same offer to you. Full name, position with Colgan and a recorded interview! We’d be more than happy to put you on our air.
You can assail our journalistic integrity. But I will say that what I heard Gina say was corroborated by what I viewed on Frontline the other night. Plus, we have heard from family members of Flight 3407 victims who praised us for our interview. So, I’ll conclude here by stating the support of the family members will allow me to sleep quite well tonight.


anybody want to take him up on the offer? I told him I no longer worked there (but it was not pleasant when I did) and the real issue is with the Major airlines whipsawing regional airlines, and that's what the real story should be................

Gina was the crew scheduler who loved extending crews after a long day of flying. Nobody I can recall ever had a positive thing to say about her...nobody. I'm assuming she is upset because PCL moved scheduling to Memphis, and she is out of a job. Someone should warn that fire department she is trying to volunteer for.

Shouldn't it be quite obvious to that reporter why everyone is declining an interview with name and everything? It's not because they don't want to set the record straight, it's because they would get fired immediately from Colgan! Those 3 pilots from Frontline and Gina were all able to do what they did because they had already quit or gotten fired (in the FO's case.)

Not true... I've heard positive things from several guys. The same guys that had been allegedly involved or on a flirty basis with her so she would give them preferential treatment :rolleyes:

I once had the chief pilot BH accuse me of being unprofessional to her (she had told on me to him). I couldnt help but think isn't that like a conflict of interest considering their history????? It was as if he weren't my chief pilot, but the chief scheduler.

anyway, I'm glad Gina is long gone. I dreaded that she might pick up every time I had to call Scheduling and her voice still gives me the creeps.

Make sure you let the reporter know our First Amendment rights have been revoked by our company policy manuals. We'd all be more than happy to expose the industry if it didn't cost us our livelihood.

I sent off another email after Joe posted his response. I love how they think that this is a Colgan plot to get their pilot to write letters to the station. I explained that it is a bunch of airline pilots who can not believe the moronic crap that is coming from this lady's mouth.

What a disservice this is to the families of 3407, to put a liar and someone who knows nothing about aviation on the radio. Just because someone "has relations" with a pilot does not make them an expert on aviation.

I tried to get "Gina's" interview but couldn't find it. Anyone help?

colgan cash pads

http://z.about.com/d/africanhistory/...hipBrookes.jpg


Just don't expect your $250 deposit back!!!

Hahaha that's so wrong. I love it. :D

Dude that is so rude......

(for the Africans, Imean)

The link is on the previous page

Thanks I just listened to it. I want the last 11 min of my life back. However brings me back to Tim Hortons. We don't have those in the south. Where else can you get chili with a donut in a combo? Gina is beyond idiot.

Wow. That was like listening to a 12 year old get interviewed. She didn't really answer most of the questions. She just kept puking out all sorts of stuff that didn't really do anything to answer the questions that were asked of her. What that reporter needs is an articulate, intelligent, high level ex-employee that can answer those questions with useful information.

"when the nose drops you need to bring it up"

Uhh... yeah. Ignore the airspeed and all the other stuff. What a dum-bass! ...so let me get this straight. A dispatcher, who is a student pilot was interview by NPR?

whatever...

obviously, not the only way to contact her!

You also need a real reporter, between the both of them they don't have the sense God gave an earthworm. :eek:

That is correct.