I think Renslow's history of repeated checkride failures should have raised flags. But I don't understand how he could be considered qualified to fly the Saab and not the Q. The Q is maybe more "difficult" to fly, but the Saab's systems are arguably more complex. It doesn't make any sense to me how how he could be OK to fly one and not the other. They both need airspeed to fly ... maybe he would have done the same thing if he'd stayed on the Saab?

Also, why all the furor over Renslow's training background? This implies that only pilots with poor training records crash planes. But that isn't true.

Did the pilots responsible for Comair 5191 or Pinnacle 3701 (granted, they only killed themselves) have a string of check ride failures? Did anybody care to ask? What about the Air France 447 guys? Had they ever failed a check ride? Why is this only a factor in the Colgan 3407 crash?

The plane crashed because Renslow and his copilot, who had never failed a check ride, failed to monitor the most basic thing: their airspeed, then freaked out instead of recovering from the stall.

For the record, I was a Saab captain at Colgan at the time of the crash and the guy jump seating on 3407 was a buddy of mine.

Agree with all your points, so I'm not at all disagreeing with what your're saying. Skilled/competent pilots that have NEVER failed a check ride can kill people just as efficiently and quickly as those that shouldn't be in a cockpit. It's been proven on multiple occasions.

I know I could look it up, but IIRC, the CA on 3701 had not so good background. I could be wrong, but I thought it was brought up that he had some history of training issues.

Training issues equals fodder for the lawyers, plus, it is a lot easier for the media to fill the 24 hours of breaking news with a pilot who has had trouble in training.

Is it a lot easier to point the finger at someone with documented problems.

USMCFLYR

3407 ruined the careers and potential careers of a lot of good pilots out there. I'm sorry that the names of those involved keep being brought up.

The words "not qualified" need to quit being abused by the media and the lawyers. Fact is, he was qualified. He had his certs. and had passed the necessary check rides at that time. Was he given multiple opportunities? Yes, that wasn't his issue, it was just the training policy at Colgan and as far as I know most airlines. One failure doesn't=termination. Retest and pass. I believe the policy now is, failed upgrade/transition back to the seat you came from for X amount of time then retrain/retest (up to 2 times), 3rd time=termination.

To say he wasn't qualified is reckless. Clearly there were decencies but truth is even the best pilot has no idea how they would handle that situation in real time until that occurs outside of the sim.

NBC Today Show 10/24 - anyone see it?
 

I only caught snippets of the interview with a pax family member who is bringing a lawsuit "to enhance safety"

Some of her points were: There's no way I would be allowed to drive a car if I failed the test 5 times and how on earth would they let him fly the plane with only 20 hours?

Granted 600 hours ain't that much, but the media/public's spin on this is uninformed.

Other thoughts?

Quoted For The Truth

Show me where your career is ruined.

AE recruiter sorry bud I'm sure you're a great pilot, but your checkride failures keep us from hiring you. And the list goes on with every airline that asks you how many failed rides you have on their applications.

And?

You do know there's other avenues in aviation right?