Her (our) passengers and their families can't afford for her (us) to fly while sick.....

 

I bet you are one of those guys that sarcastically comments on global warming when the news says it's "colder than average" in a specific place.

I can't believe such narrow minded people succeed as professionals in the aviation career.

 

I have ATP so I don't care about this ruling, but aviation has existed without this until now. How is it lowering standards by not having it? Aviation is the safest it's ever been without it ever existing. THE PILOT AT THE CONTROLS HAD HIS ATP. It is being used by pilots who think it will help their careers by limiting the options of young people.

I want the rule to pass in its full writing. I also want all the FO's with ATP to be able to log turbine PIC and be competitive applicants for larger carriers.

 

In my opinion, and this is soley my opinion based on many years of observation and a firm believing in experiential learning is that it's not about the ticket or how many hours you have when you are capable of catastrophic damage. It's about the experience you obtained prior to ever being able to become capable of adversely effecting the lives of paying passengers.

In other words, I believe that if this rule had existed many years prior to the Colgan crash, there is a good chance it would not have ended up the way that it did.

Sure they still would have been fatigued, underpaid, and unprofessional. However, following initial warning of an impending stall both pilots would have responded (not reacted) to the condition and reversed it's severity thus resulting in some paperwork, carpet dancing and maybe the loss of their jobs rather than the ultimate in unfavorable results. A smoking hole.

The reason that I feel that this new law could have possibly prevented the seriousness of the events is because the captain that had his ATP would have otherwise never earned his ATP if he wasn't forced to the way he was. The airlines kept ignoring the signs that he hadn't experienced enough nor was he competent enough to serve as a captain.

The mistakes made by the flight crew were very basic and happen often in the world of general aviation and other forgiving forms of flying. Something he was never able to experience. I feel as if he were to experience this same exact scenario in a more forgiving environment, one of two things would have occurred. Either he would learn from his mistake and apply that to his experience when he becomes a captain or he would quit flying all together because he scared the crap out of himself and realized it's just not the thing for him. It doesn't matter what the FO did. She just made the situation worse. But if he had never gotten them into the situation in the first place she could have done what ever she did and everyone would have been fine.

Some people were never meant to become pilots. Under our current culture and set of rules, this will never be caught. Until it's too late.

This guy was never supposed to become a pilot.

 

Very well stated.

The CA and FO both had significant career shortcuts, with the CA having been involved in Gulfstream.

Pinnacle 3701, the Pinnacle MKE accident (no one was hurt, but over a million dollars of damage done to the plane), Comair 5191, and this Colgan accident all involved Gulfstreamers.

 

Yep exactly. Had the Colgan captain (and others mentioned) been required to have an ATP and 1500TT before going to an airline, they never would've made it.

Its tough to get to 1500TT in general aviation. You have to have a lot of skill and you're going to be put in more than a few situations where you have to prove your worth as a pilot both to others and to yourself/the airplane/the situation.

Obtaining that level has a required baseline skill/ability/motivation/talent that is easily filtered and cannot be bought. Is it a very good moron-filter.

 

Exactly! Well put!

 

I think what he's saying is, you could have a pilot that's "low time", yet is rather competent and ACTUALLY knows how to fly a plane, had some exposure to multi engine/turbine equipment, a would have done the right thing.

OR, you could have a "high time" pilot that is substandard, his experience was mostly in a VFR environment, whatever. And would have done as the Colgan CA would.

And YES, I think changing the requirement is one of the best things to happen in our career field. But it's not really a cure all fix. A guy could go out and burn 1500 hours on NOTHING but VFR cross countries using a GPS. Last time he did a stall was on his COMM checkride over 1200 hours ago, etc and be deemed "qualified". Whilst a lower time pilot that has different more/more intensive experience would be deemed "unqualified".

Like I said, I AGREE with the change, but it should go deeper than just a TT requirement. And YES, I KNOW the amount of change and govt red tape/B.S. that would have to be overcome would be insane. I'm juss sayin'.......

Anyway, as mentioned by others, Afterburn nails it with a very direct, straightforward wording at the end of his post.......

True, but remember, people can react to fatigue in various ways. If you read/listen to the CORPEX CVR, they were babbling like crazy.

And as far as the sick thing, I believe it also later released that there was a concern of punitive action by the company over sick calls IIRC, but not for sure. I though it was also a factor in the 170 at CLE. But I'd have to go back an read it all again

Again, agree. But besides not having the proper rest before duty causing fatigue, so does time since awake. Did the first turn cancel before starting, or well before starting their duty period? I don't know. But if it was one those situations where they show up, delayed delayed delayed, THEN finally canceled, that comes into play in the time since awake.

 

XJT, that makes perfect sense...I'm also in agreement with Afterburn, who put it more succinctly than I ever could have! Unfortunately prior experience cannot be dictated, nor would you want it to...but the demand for pilots will undoubtably (and already has to a great extent, as evidenced by Colgan et al) allow those that have the intelligence, but not necessarily the skill or aptitude to be safe and successful, access to an airliner regardless.

 

As afterburn said, very well put.

People not wanting the rule to go through, wanting the exceptions and 'tiers' for an aviation degree, a jet course, whatever are furthering the entitlement is already so prevalent with new pilots. Everyone expects to get their wet commercial and go to an airline, then upgrade as soon as they get 1500TT, get a thousand hours as PIC, then go to SWA and love life. It's disgusting.

Instruct a little bit, get a 135 job, earn some pay for a bit, make some decisions, scare yourself, start thinking that airline passengers (who still think they're on Delta, United, etc) deserve something better from their crews.

Of course, the same people who demand exceptions and butchering of the rule are the ones who want more, bigger RJs...they want to fly the CRJ-900 and ERJ-190 because they're mainline airplanes, OMG! Disgusting.