Deal made on hours of training for co-pilots
03-15-2010, 06:41 AM
#51
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2009
Position: Missionary
Posts: 309
Originally Posted by AirWillie
This is good, let's see if it passes. 800 is better than commercial mins. And also let's see if they actually enforce it when they actually need more warm bodies and no one shows up.
The Colgan crash families are operating under the false premise that politicians can fix this. (Whenever I've had a Mx problem, I always ask a gate agent to fix it)
Let's see if I got this right?
Renslow and Shaw both met every single requirement that's been proposed thusfar, (ATP's, 800-1,500 hours, multi-crew training, airline approved training for icing conditions, etc.) Neither one was a zero-to-hero at Colgan.
What would prevent this from happening again? Shut down places like Gulfstream and go up the rectum of Colgan's training department with a microscope, and put shady operators and the RAA on notice.
The families mentioned laud this STUPID proposal, and in turn enable the very pay-to-play places like Gulfstream that produced a pilot like Renslow. I'm I the only one who thinks the ATP and 800hour/icing compromise have nothing to do with this accident? I'm insulted that obviously not a single pilot is being consulted on this p.o.s. legislation?
03-15-2010, 06:53 AM
#52
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: 747 FO
Posts: 937
This was in the comments section of the Buffalo News article. I'm not sure I agree about his lack of "cream of the crop" pilots resulting from a shortage. However, everything else is spot on...IMHO.
There are about 600,000 active pilots in the United States, or something less than 0.2% of the population. Read into that that more than 99.8% of the American population know NOTHING about aviation.
This move to increase the number of hours for an airline co-pilot is a political statement, not a functional idea. Captain Renslow on Colgan 3407 had 3,400 with 261 hours in type and First Officer Shaw had 2,200 hrs with 772 hours in type. Rebecca Shaw was also a Certified Flight Instructor, Marvin Renslow was not. Increasing hours to 800 would have had no impact on Colgan 3407, and nothing shows it will prevent tomorrow's accident.
What the real impact of this will be is a shortage of pilots, and thus less capability to select the cream of the crop. Becoming a Commercial pilot now costs about $40,000. Increasing the requirements by 3 increases that cost to $120,000 for a job that was paying Rebecca Shaw $19/hr. Fewer and fewer people will be investing in that future.
The real shame here is that it is just too easy to blame a dead flight crew, and the FAA and the Airline both have a vested interest in self defense. Colgan Airlines did not adequately teach Captain Renslow the different sensation on imminent stall vs. Tail-plane stall in the Dash-8, leaving him to use his greater experience in the SAAB 340s he had been flying. The simulator used by Colgan did not properly simulate stalls, or demonstrate the Dash-8s stick=shaker and stick-pusher; the two things that made Captain Renslow believe (wrongly) that he had a tail-plane stall. Unfortunately, he did act appropriately to a tail-plane stall. The technology exists for higher fidelity simulators (Ive built them for the military since 1970), but instead, we get fewer pilots with simply more hours
This move to increase the number of hours for an airline co-pilot is a political statement, not a functional idea. Captain Renslow on Colgan 3407 had 3,400 with 261 hours in type and First Officer Shaw had 2,200 hrs with 772 hours in type. Rebecca Shaw was also a Certified Flight Instructor, Marvin Renslow was not. Increasing hours to 800 would have had no impact on Colgan 3407, and nothing shows it will prevent tomorrow's accident.
What the real impact of this will be is a shortage of pilots, and thus less capability to select the cream of the crop. Becoming a Commercial pilot now costs about $40,000. Increasing the requirements by 3 increases that cost to $120,000 for a job that was paying Rebecca Shaw $19/hr. Fewer and fewer people will be investing in that future.
The real shame here is that it is just too easy to blame a dead flight crew, and the FAA and the Airline both have a vested interest in self defense. Colgan Airlines did not adequately teach Captain Renslow the different sensation on imminent stall vs. Tail-plane stall in the Dash-8, leaving him to use his greater experience in the SAAB 340s he had been flying. The simulator used by Colgan did not properly simulate stalls, or demonstrate the Dash-8s stick=shaker and stick-pusher; the two things that made Captain Renslow believe (wrongly) that he had a tail-plane stall. Unfortunately, he did act appropriately to a tail-plane stall. The technology exists for higher fidelity simulators (Ive built them for the military since 1970), but instead, we get fewer pilots with simply more hours
03-15-2010, 07:31 AM
#53
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2007
Position: SAAB
Posts: 300
I don't agree with the Simulator techs comments. This Captain was no Chuck Yeager. He wasn't trying to respond to a tailplane stall, with split second analysis and response. The whole crew was fatigued and messed up.
03-15-2010, 07:37 AM
#54
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: 747 FO
Posts: 937
Originally Posted by xjsaab
I don't agree with the Simulator techs comments. This Captain was no Chuck Yeager. He wasn't trying to respond to a tailplane stall, with split second analysis and response. The whole crew was fatigued and messed up.
03-15-2010, 07:37 AM
#55
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,293
Originally Posted by NoStep
Couldn't disagree more!
The Colgan crash families are operating under the false premise that politicians can fix this. (Whenever I've had a Mx problem, I always ask a gate agent to fix it)
Let's see if I got this right?
Renslow and Shaw both met every single requirement that's been proposed thusfar, (ATP's, 800-1,500 hours, multi-crew training, airline approved training for icing conditions, etc.) Neither one was a zero-to-hero at Colgan.
The Colgan crash families are operating under the false premise that politicians can fix this. (Whenever I've had a Mx problem, I always ask a gate agent to fix it)
Let's see if I got this right?
Renslow and Shaw both met every single requirement that's been proposed thusfar, (ATP's, 800-1,500 hours, multi-crew training, airline approved training for icing conditions, etc.) Neither one was a zero-to-hero at Colgan.
Originally Posted by NoStep
What would prevent this from happening again? Shut down places like Gulfstream and go up the rectum of Colgan's training department with a microscope, and put shady operators and the RAA on notice.
Originally Posted by NoStep
The families mentioned laud this STUPID proposal, and in turn enable the very pay-to-play places like Gulfstream that produced a pilot like Renslow. I'm I the only one who thinks the ATP and 800hour/icing compromise have nothing to do with this accident?
I agree that this might be a boon for places like GIA, but the reality today is fewer students and even fewer lending institutions see the logic in investing $100k+ to get a $20K job. There will always be a few trust-fund babies out there, nothing we can do about that, and they are not all bad pilots.
But most applicants will not be able to afford to buy time in FIKI airplanes. They will need to get a 135/corporate job for that...which means in turn they will need to CFI to 1200+ hours first anyway. This might not turn out so bad after all.
This will definitely reduce pilot supply, but by how much is the question. It's possible that it will be significant to the point where regionals demand "no poaching" agreements from their major partners (yes this has happened before). In that case you would simply have to apply to majors who don't have contracts with your regional.
Worst case, the pilot supply drop will causing airlines to increase entry-level pay to incentivize new applicants. Unless it gets so bad that airlines have to significantly reduce schedules due to long-term lack of manpower, this will be a net positive for pilots and the public. If the very bottom end of the pax market gets priced out of flying...oh well, safe reliable transport is not free.
Originally Posted by NoStep
I'm insulted that obviously not a single pilot is being consulted on this p.o.s. legislation?
03-15-2010, 07:44 AM
#56
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: seated beer curl
Posts: 406
Originally Posted by xjsaab
I don't agree with the Simulator techs comments. This Captain was no Chuck Yeager. He wasn't trying to respond to a tailplane stall, with split second analysis and response. The whole crew was fatigued and messed up.
or otherwise."split second analysis and response"? You're manufacturing a straw-man argument. Nobody said that.
You don't know what was going through his mind enough to know that he wasn't responding to a tail stall.
03-15-2010, 07:49 AM
#57
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,293
Originally Posted by xjsaab
I don't agree with the Simulator techs comments. This Captain was no Chuck Yeager. He wasn't trying to respond to a tailplane stall, with split second analysis and response. The whole crew was fatigued and messed up.
Anybody who was smart enough to do all that would also have been smart enough to...
- Check airspeed
- Realize that the other pilot would not automatically reach the tailplane stall conclusion.
- Inform the other pilot what they were thinking and doing.
Ultimately we will never know, but the odds are pretty low based on circfumstantial evidence.
I suspect that...
Renslow fell back on his sim training initially (hold altitude) and then panicked and froze when he lost attitude control.
Shaw reacted without thinking. Something bad happened when she lowered the flaps, so she quickly raised them...a reactive and subconscious effort to undo whatever she had done.
In a crew environment, anyone who is savvy enough to think things through and reach conclusions would communicate with the other pilot. I have a very wide range of operational experience in aviation and other high-risk endeavors, and professional operators in a team environment always communicate. Even if they have to react instantaneously, they always let you know what they did. That's the surest sign on a non-hacker at the entry level...somebody who freezes and stops communicating.
03-15-2010, 08:28 AM
#58
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2009
Position: Missionary
Posts: 309
Originally Posted by rickair7777
If memory serves me here, neither met the proposed standards when they were hired. Shaw stated that she had never been in icing on the CVR, so she did not meet the standards at the time of the crash.
Would be nice but political realities mean this isn't likely to happen. I am actually OK with new requirements...I think we we are lucky to get as much we did...thanks colgan families. I think I almost prefer 800 with some icing and larger twin time than 1500 VMC in a 172.
I tend to disagree. The idea is for pilots to experience certain conditions before they ever get near an airliner. Shaw did something totally unexpected and totally inconsistent with her training. Might that have been due to the fact that she was in icing for the first time and uncertain what to expect? Who knows...
I agree that this might be a boon for places like GIA, but the reality today is fewer students and even fewer lending institutions see the logic in investing $100k+ to get a $20K job. There will always be a few trust-fund babies out there, nothing we can do about that, and they are not all bad pilots.
But most applicants will not be able to afford to buy time in FIKI airplanes. They will need to get a 135/corporate job for that...which means in turn they will need to CFI to 1200+ hours first anyway. This might not turn out so bad after all.
This will definitely reduce pilot supply, but by how much is the question. It's possible that it will be significant to the point where regionals demand "no poaching" agreements from their major partners (yes this has happened before). In that case you would simply have to apply to majors who don't have contracts with your regional.
Worst case, the pilot supply drop will causing airlines to increase entry-level pay to incentivize new applicants. Unless it gets so bad that airlines have to significantly reduce schedules due to long-term lack of manpower, this will be a net positive for pilots and the public. If the very bottom end of the pax market gets priced out of flying...oh well, safe reliable transport is not free.
I'm sure pilots have been involved, but not any 121 line pilots...the folks providing input are all alpa leaders, FAA, 121 management, or flight school professors. If you want anyone to listen to your line perspective, you will probably have to get into some other role, like alpa safety/accident rep, etc.
Would be nice but political realities mean this isn't likely to happen. I am actually OK with new requirements...I think we we are lucky to get as much we did...thanks colgan families. I think I almost prefer 800 with some icing and larger twin time than 1500 VMC in a 172.
I tend to disagree. The idea is for pilots to experience certain conditions before they ever get near an airliner. Shaw did something totally unexpected and totally inconsistent with her training. Might that have been due to the fact that she was in icing for the first time and uncertain what to expect? Who knows...
I agree that this might be a boon for places like GIA, but the reality today is fewer students and even fewer lending institutions see the logic in investing $100k+ to get a $20K job. There will always be a few trust-fund babies out there, nothing we can do about that, and they are not all bad pilots.
But most applicants will not be able to afford to buy time in FIKI airplanes. They will need to get a 135/corporate job for that...which means in turn they will need to CFI to 1200+ hours first anyway. This might not turn out so bad after all.
This will definitely reduce pilot supply, but by how much is the question. It's possible that it will be significant to the point where regionals demand "no poaching" agreements from their major partners (yes this has happened before). In that case you would simply have to apply to majors who don't have contracts with your regional.
Worst case, the pilot supply drop will causing airlines to increase entry-level pay to incentivize new applicants. Unless it gets so bad that airlines have to significantly reduce schedules due to long-term lack of manpower, this will be a net positive for pilots and the public. If the very bottom end of the pax market gets priced out of flying...oh well, safe reliable transport is not free.
I'm sure pilots have been involved, but not any 121 line pilots...the folks providing input are all alpa leaders, FAA, 121 management, or flight school professors. If you want anyone to listen to your line perspective, you will probably have to get into some other role, like alpa safety/accident rep, etc.
The point was, this crew met all requirements at the time of the crash! Nothing proposed yet would have stopped Renslow and Shaw from flying pax. save the yet to be determined "icing" experience that the NTSB reported was not even a factor in this crash.
Yes, this will reduce pilot supply, but there are approx. 9,000+ guys like me sitting furloughed. Anyone who thinks this will drive up wages is fooling himself.
So you think it's a good idea for a newer pilot to slog around in icing conditions? Didn't the FAA change the wording in FAR's to make it easier to violate a pilot for causing any air traffic problems for FIKI?
GIA produced a weak pilot, yet they may benefit from this law. Madness!
And since you brought up the FDR, take a look again at this animation. It makes me want to puke!
NTSB - Buffalo, NY
)6 seconds from stall warning to full power-cross controlled and fighting the pusher-Shaw's changing config-etc...
This is a TRAINING QUALITY accident, nothing more!!!
Sorry for the rant, but it just reminds me of government stupidity every time I take off my shoes @ security when the TSA should be profiling young, radical muslims to prevent another 9/11. Same thing here...won't prevent another 3407.
03-15-2010, 09:04 AM
#59
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,293
Originally Posted by NoStep
So you think it's a good idea for a newer pilot to slog around in icing conditions? Didn't the FAA change the wording in FAR's to make it easier to violate a pilot for causing any air traffic problems for FIKI?
The reality is that people will need to get their ice time while employed by someone operating a certified airplane. Few people will be able to afford to just buy such time...and few FIKI airplanes are even available to rent.
That where I see the unintended benefit of this...it will force many folks to CFI to get a 135 job to build experience for the airlines.
Originally Posted by NoStep
GIA produced a weak pilot, yet they may benefit from this law. Madness!
Sorry for the rant, but it just reminds me of government stupidity every time I take off my shoes @ security when the TSA should be profiling young, radical muslims to prevent another 9/11. Same thing here...won't prevent another 3407.
Sorry for the rant, but it just reminds me of government stupidity every time I take off my shoes @ security when the TSA should be profiling young, radical muslims to prevent another 9/11. Same thing here...won't prevent another 3407.
I'm no fan of GIA, but most people can't afford it anyway...especially since the lenders have run away.
03-15-2010, 09:13 AM
#60
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Posts: 443
Originally Posted by rickair7777
If memory serves me here, neither met the proposed standards when they were hired. Shaw stated that she had never been in icing on the CVR, so she did not meet the standards at the time of the crash.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
B727DRVR
Cargo
14
08-22-2008 02:23 PM
