Colgan 3407 crash...Chief Pilot Emails
 

Good thing there's a pilot shortage.

Otherwise airlines would start being picky about who they let upgrade.

Why did they decide to upgrade him if they didn't think he was ready? Did they just need pilots, any pilots to captain their planes?

You mean union would be picky about who they let upgrade.

its colgan, have you met chuck? No surprise at all.

Do you or have you ever worked for a regional? Here is the logic: If you are willing to work under the crappy rules and insulting pay, we will make sure that you stay employed as a pilot in what ever position your desire so long as your seniority can hold it. Even if you show every sign that you are clearly not pilot material and that you will probably kill people one day. We have insurance for that.

What regionals are afraid of is the artificial pilot shortage. There are less people willing to work for a regional than there are qualified pilots. There will always be people to fly jets. However people are starting to realize that regional airlines are a horrible stepping stone.

Well its a good thing Chuck is gone :D

So, he's not good enough to fly a Q400, but he is good enough to fly a Saab.......

Makes zero sense.

I believe the article stated the Q400 holds "about 50 people." I don't think any of the article makes sense. The whole idea of "letting him upgrade" is ridiculous. If he passes upgrade, he passes. If he fails he fails. This was just a case of someone slipping through the cracks. He got a lot of failures but not enough in a row to wash out. Unfortunately, there's pilots like these at every carrier.

It's just typical reporting, not really any clue what they're talking about. Facts and terminology are all wrong. He shouldn't have even been at the company by the time this happened, but he did pass the transition training, so he was "qualified". Not qualified, would mean that they just let a Saab captain walk up to the Q and start flying that instead.

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?

Why do you think I fly the King Air when I can....

So your saying you're a great pilot!! Jk. Right or wrong, but if eagle can hire pilots with no failures why shouldn't they. Then once those are gone move to multiple failure pilots. Seems eagle can still be choosey, so why not be. I hope you get hired somewhere but I always am dumbfounded when people get mad at eagle for being choosey. Just keep applying and you'll get hired somewhere.

Not to be mean, but I believe you mentioned before that you have 4 checkride failures. I would be willing to think you would have found some serious obstacles getting hired with those 4 failures, regardless of 3407.

Correct, but it was less of an issue before than it is now. It's sad though when a recruiter says bud I feel your pain because if you just wouldn't have gone for your CFI's you wouldn't be in this situation. He went on to say that there is a possibility that in the future Eagle may not count CFI busts because they are not in a sense an evaluation of your preceived flying ability. ETC. ETC.

It's not that I'm mad, but more so upset at how things have turned out.

Because you work for a great company yet for some reason you're insane enough to waste time and money trying to live the same life I live.

I thought I taught you better than that bro.

I keep telling you to stay put, network, and find a NICE corporate gig where you can work where you're working now AND fly a nice airplane without all the BS.

Your fiancé will appreciate it as well.

Also this.

If you're still dumb enough to follow me down this god-forsaken rat-hole of a career here's some words of advice....Never Give Up. :shudder:

You'll eventually get a class date to SOME airline....and if you still want to come partake in this terrible career you're more than welcome to waste your time.

Bottom line is this....you've got a PERFECT networking opportunity right now to get into thew corporate world....USE IT!

Touche my African American brother!

Moral of the story:
Don't write anything on your company or union email account that you wouldn't want some idiot lawyer to take out of context and make public.

After all, I'd love to know if any of these lawyers ever failed the bar exam. Wonder if we get to count that against them like they do a checkride failure against us?

Didn't even think that heck if it took someone 3 times to pass the bar maybe they shouldn't be qualified to practice lol. Maybe just paralegal work?

That 'idiot' lawyer is doing exactly what he is PAID to do by the people who are bringing the law suit. I'm no fan of lawyers in general (except for the popular case where you need one yourself), but hate the system right along with the players. :cool:

USMCFLYR

True. Along the lines of when a cop is involved in a beating or shooting and it comes out later that they have a history of complaints and/or documented reports from superiors of using excessive force or other possible disciplinary/following procedure type issues.

It njt only helps to point the finger, but sensationalize th story as well.

Somebody who has passed 20 checkrides and busted one along the way probably had a bad day.


Somebody who takes multiple attempts to pass one checkride probably just got lucky the day he passed.

1-2 checkride busts can happen to almost anyone...but at some point more failures than that really starts to become difficult to rationalize. Maybe the person has aptitude and just took a while to dial in his attitude...but most folks get their attitude fixed after the first failure.

Eventually you start to suspect a lack of aptitude, which cannot be fixed or a more serious attitude problem.

Is eagle too picky? Probably so, although I heard they loosened up a little recently.

But should Renslow have been a 121 CA? I don't think so. You have to draw the line somewhere...repetitive checkrides until you get lucky makes no sense.

Why do you say that? What happened to them in the wake of 3407?

In my case I had a good friend take the same check ride with the same examiner only to also be failed twice. AFAIK he hasn't passed anybody on their CFI rides with him. so that's two checkrides a person for the last few years. At some point who's fault is it?

I blame society.

The "You only need to know 70% to pass" and "What's the gouge" attitude has led to this.

The artistry of being a pilot is sadly a dying thing.

Master your craft, don't just wear the uniform for the fat chicks.

+1, Agreed. Everyone wants to do well, but unfortunately it's human nature to try and find the easy way. I can recall someone in training just raised their hand and said..."yea, that's great but what's actually going to be on test?" This is when it really becomes sad; when people that consider aviation to be their passion, start to fall into this mindset. You really can't know too much or be too proficient.

Speaking of CFI, I believe we call the above post "rationalization"

The last thing I would want to hear from a pilot interviewing for a regional job is that it is the "examiners fault."

I don't know - but are the DPE's stats available for review?

USMCFLYR

Was waiting for somebody to say that. I'm not saying it's all his fault etc. etc. but.... it's ok though I cant cry to much I'm in a great place in life right now.