Regional Airlines aren't as safe
 

According to this "article". Read #2. I ran across this and thought it would be interesting until I read,

"You may go to an airline website and buy a ticket, pull up to its desk at the curb, and get onto an airplane that has a similar name painted on it, but half the time, you’re really on a regional airline. The regionals aren’t held to the same safety standards as the majors: Their pilots aren’t required to have as much training and experience, and the public doesn’t know that." -Captain at a major airline

Where do people get this crap, especially a captain at a major airline, if that really came from a captain at a major?

Read more: 13+ Things Your Pilot Won't Tell You | Reader's Digest

It's kinda true, especially with the low hiring standards at a select few carriers as of late. It would be a ratings buster 20/20 episode.

"Dialing for airline pilots, a look into the bottom of the regional airline barrel"

I can't make an honest assessment as I've never worked for one of those. The two that I've been at, Comair being one and now SkyWest aren't anything like that. I'd dare say that isn't the norm though, I mean, not being as safe. I know the one you're talking about and that is the exception, possibly. Then there's the FAA. When did they start letting one airline have it easier than another as far as training and safety? They don't.

In one respect, true regional flying IS more dangerous. Since accidents are far more likely during take off and landing than in cruise, and since old school regional pilots often fly 8 legs a day, a regional pilot has a much greater chance of having an accident than a 777 guy who flies 8 legs per month.

Also, while all airlines have at least a few not-so-stellar pilots, a company that has 100 resumes for each opening can be much more choosy than a company that can't even get enough applicants to fill a class.

Who flys 8 legs a day?

I get that and it's understandable but that isn't what this "captain" was referring to and/or why.

I agree the FAA rides are fairly standard, I also think we can all agree that the sterile training environment is not where you prove your worth. Anyone can smile through 6 weeks of training. Ok, well, almost anyone.

Hiring guys with a long documented history of problems with following rules, or choking under pressure then putting them in the left seat 1,000 hours later with another marginal NEWB as his FO. Whoo boy.

I personally know of many people hired recently that make Captain Renslow look like a boy scout. God forbid if something happens to an airplane they're flying it would turn the regional game upside down 10x faster than the Colgan tragedy. The 1500 hour rule is great, but if airlines continue to disregard what is actually in these background checks what difference does it make?

Ever heard of Pinnacle 3701 crash? Ever heard of any major US airline crew pulling such a lame azzz stunt?

Bringo....

Uh oh...you just opened the door to people listing every bone headed thing a major a pilot has done....heeeere we go. :eek:

Do you think that the major airlines sub-contract out their flying to the regionals because the regional folks are simply nice people? Follow the money (or lack of it)!

You mean like landing a 767 on a taxiway?

you probably should read the CVR of 3701 before trying to make that comparison...

I was about to say. I guarantee you for every regional incident you can recall, we can do the same with the majors, if not twice as much. It isn't a competition and this thread wasn't meant for it to be.

Never flown 8 but 7 leg days were not uncommon at chq pre 117.

That's a good point but to play devils advocate, there was a pretty idiotic happening with SWA at LaGuardia not long ago and it's pretty tough to compare that CVR with any other because..... no one is allowed to see it.

Screw ups happen everywhere - even unimaginably crazy ones.

Yeah, you're not going to talk about how great your replacement workers are.

That said, stupid happens at every airline. At NWA we had a crew disciplined for flying over lake Michigan at less than 100 feet, at 300 kts+ on a repo flight once.

Depends. I doubt they were calling each other "dudes" on the CVR.


Is the NTSB not going to release a transcript of the CVR of SWA at LGA? I thought they were required to. Does it fall under FOIA?

I think it is a fair and accurate statement to say regional airlines aren't as safe. It doesn't mean they are UNsafe, it just means it just isn't as safe as the legacy/majors. A huge part of the reason already mentioned is the far greater number of cycles regional pilots go through each day. 4-6 legs per day is common whereas the mainline counterpart may only do 1-3. The likeliness of an accident goes for the higher frequency of takeoff/landings and that is found moreso in the regionals. And of course the accident stats speak for themselves for at least this century. Since 2000, the major pax carriers had one AS MD80 go down, (excluding 9/11 due to terrorist - on purpose), and the AA A300. That's over 14 years so far. The regional comparison on the other hand includes nearly three times as many fatal crashes over the same period. Air Midwest at CLT, Corporate Air at Kirksville, Ocean Chalk near FLL, Comair at LEX, Colgan at BUF. Those are off the top of my head, I may have missed some.

The thing about the FOIA...someone has to ask for it.

Pinnacle was a repo flight. Every airline does dumb stuff and Pinnacle's incident was self-correcting.

The article mentioned was mainly breathless pearl-clutching by an idiot with some really dumb opinions. Last I checked there is not a separate FAR just for regionals. I would almost say however, because of Colgan, that the regional world is under more FAA scrutiny.

You realize we're talking about Reader's Digest? Was it the large-font version and was it sitting on a table at Perkins at 5pm next to a Sanka and a hanky?

Though the FARs are same for the airlines, what is different is the amount of $$$. Lets face it safety costs money. Want a safer airline? Put cash into it. Regionals really dont put alot of money into safety sometimes. Since they make money by flying, if something isnt correct with the airplane for instance, there is a certain level of pressure to fly anyway. If a captain refuses, no big deal, just find a recent upgrade and he will do it. Ive seen this myself.

Really?

These guys landed in a thunderstorm...

Sounds pretty lame to me....

Come on down off your high horse there cowboy....

Not naming names out of courtousy, but there was an event in Cali, Columbia in the mid '90s whose last link in the chain was not retracting speedbrakes while responding to a GPWS warning.



In its report, the Aeronáutica Civil determined the following probable causes of the accident:
1.The flightcrew's failure to adequately plan and execute the approach to runway 19 at SKCL and their inadequate use of automation.
2.Failure of the flightcrew to discontinue the approach into Cali, despite numerous cues alerting them of the inadvisability of continuing the approach.
3.The lack of situational awareness of the flightcrew regarding vertical navigation, proximity to terrain, and the relative location of critical radio aids.
4.Failure of the flightcrew to revert to basic radio navigation at the time when the FMS-assisted navigation became confusing and demanded an excessive workload in a critical phase of the flight.

In addition, the Aeronáutica Civil determined that there were the following contributing factors to the accident:
1.The flightcrew's ongoing efforts to expedite their approach and landing in order to avoid potential delays.
2.The flightcrew's execution of the GPWS escape maneuver while the speedbrakes remained deployed.
3.FMS logic that dropped all intermediate fixes from the display(s) in the event of execution of a direct routing.
4.FMS-generated navigational information that used a different naming convention from that published in navigational charts.

My comparison was from 2000-Present. If the two posters above are going to bring up major airline crashes from the 90s, then present the regional ones as well over that same timeframe.

that's probably why they quoted bedrock and not you…. ;) Looks like you lost a little SA as a non regional pilot ;)

On a side note, MEMbrain and Toomanyrj's must be busy playing solitaire….can't believe they don't have 87 posts of flame on this one yet.

No, I saw that. I still don't see how FLG3701 comes even close to comparison for AA at LIT or in Cali. Both AA cases had professional pilots who ended up in a bad situation. The industry changed rules on operating with TS near/overhead an airport. Cali was unfortunate as well, but they had every intention of landing safely at Cali. 3701 were a bunch of cowboys who decided to have fun because there were no pax onboard. From the get go, they pitched up numerous times to the shaker and continued the most unprofessional kind of flying the NTSB has witnessed in a 121 environment.

well, it shouldn't take "industry changing rules" to know not to land in the crap AA landed in. The shaker isn't busting a limitation :)

the ground doesn't care if it's get home itis, complete loss of SA and bad judgement, or cowboys. Outcome is the same.


and I'm not defending them, but you can't really compare 2 cowboys out on a ferry flight to a revenue flight. God only knows what happens on many ferry flights, mainline included. I almost punched a CA in the throat right after liftoff for some stunt he pulled that almost got me killed on a ferry.

Best post of the thread. Oughtta close 'er down with that one! :)

I'll be the regional pilot who says that regional airlines are not as safe. We fly more legs on less rest than our counterparts. It's impossible for that to not impact safety.


Furthermore.... This ties in with compensation. Management will go to their grave claiming that there's "one level of safety," and that they'd never compromise on safety in order to save money. Oh, really? So either I'm just as safe and qualified as a mainline pilot and should therefore be compensated as such, or I'm less safe and less qualified which is why I get paid less. You can't have it both ways. As regional pilots, we should be beating the safety drum non-stop for eternity. Stop being offended for a minute, and think. What would happen if we could convince the general public that contracted carriers had significantly lower safety margins than mainline carriers?

DING! DING! DING!

ALPA should have blasted the public with the idea that regional pilots are not as experienced and are flown exhausted. But they didn't. I used to wonder why, but then the answer has become crustal clear--they have been selling us out.

The regionals were operated under part 135 then. In fact, the RDU crash in 94 (IIRC) was the final straw that prompted PRIA.

I remember when regional airlines changed from 135 to 121 in order to bring all the airlines under one standard of safety. Imagine my surprise when I learned that after the Colgan crash, something needed to be done to bring all the airlines under one stadard of safety.

Well played...