|
More news bringing the public into awareness
DANGER IN THE COCKPIT: Former Obama pilot reveals that if you knew how inexperienced the person flying your commercial flight is, you might never get on a plane again
BY Andrew Danziger NEW YORK DAILY NEWS Wednesday, April 22, 2015, 10:31 AM http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...icle-1.2194257 |
He flew Obama one time back in 08. He must be smart.
|
and the point of this is what? Don't understand these articles at all.
|
Weeell... I can't really say that he's too far off base.
|
I sure hope Chip Child's sends in a rebutal to this article like he did for the one that ranked SkyWest as one of the worst regionals.
|
what a douche. The pig couldn't be bothered to straighten his tie or clean himself up for his picture.
|
Originally Posted by DENpilot
(Post 1866873)
what a douche. The pig couldn't be bothered to straighten his tie or clean himself up for his picture.
But can we really argue his points??? Seems spot on. |
Truth hurts bruh.
|
Finally we see what FaceBiter looks like
|
Bro. That guy is my grandpappy FaceCrusher. Don't mess with him. He's been ordered to stay 1,000 feet away from all interwebz machines, elementary schools, and ice cream trucks for life. He's too legit to quit.
|
Ever wonder just who’s behind that cockpit door, flying you between New York and Los Angeles or from Washington Dulles to DuBois, Pa.? |
Originally Posted by Flying Ninja
(Post 1866789)
DANGER IN THE COCKPIT: Former Obama pilot reveals that if you knew how inexperienced the person flying your commercial flight is, you might never get on a plane again
BY Andrew Danziger NEW YORK DAILY NEWS Wednesday, April 22, 2015, 10:31 AM http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...icle-1.2194257 |
It says he flew turboprops. He better have been making 6 figures and had thousands of hours of experience when he did that or he was endangering his passengers.
|
While I appreciate what this guy was trying to do, he did it incredibly poorly. Scaring people into action by claiming that their lives are in imminent danger is irresponsible, at best. His writing is full of half truths and poorly drawn conclusions. If I were not in the industry, I would take away the folowing from this article:
1) New First Officers are woefully unprepared to fly because their previous jobs had them flying inferior aircraft. They are dangerous. Look at Colgan. 2) Colgan happened because of a pilot shortage. If there are less pilots, more people will die. 3) "Studies" have shown young pilots are less experienced than older pilots and there are a lot of young pilots around right now making twice as likely that you will crash. So, if young people are flying your airplane, you're going to crash. 4) State-owned foreign carriers' pilots make "astronomically" more than the most experienced pilots in the US and therefore the most senior pilots at even Delta are leaving to go to the Middle East. 5) This is one of the dumbest things I've ever read "The most dangerous time at an airline is when they’re hiring new first officers and upgrading first officers to captains, and some airlines are perpetually locked in this cycle just trying to keep up with attrition." I'm just going to stop. I give this article a D. His writing was full of hyperbole. He rambled and really made no point other than, "public be afraid of flying." Also, there's a sweet link in the article to him saying TWA800 was shot down. Nothing like a little conspiracy to finish out this well thought-out exposé. |
Originally Posted by CBreezy
(Post 1867025)
While I appreciate what this guy was trying to do, he did it incredibly poorly. Scaring people into action by claiming that their lives are in imminent danger is irresponsible, at best. His writing is full of half truths and poorly drawn conclusions. If I were not in the industry, I would take away the folowing from this article:
Actually, this article was far closer to the truth than what you typically read in this tabloid.
Originally Posted by CBreezy
(Post 1867025)
1) New First Officers are woefully unprepared to fly because their previous jobs had them flying inferior aircraft. They are dangerous. Look at Colgan.
2) Colgan happened because of a pilot shortage. If there are less pilots, more people will die. 3) "Studies" have shown young pilots are less experienced than older pilots and there are a lot of young pilots around right now making twice as likely that you will crash. So, if young people are flying your airplane, you're going to crash. 4) State-owned foreign carriers' pilots make "astronomically" more than the most experienced pilots in the US and therefore the most senior pilots at even Delta are leaving to go to the Middle East. 5) This is one of the dumbest things I've ever read "The most dangerous time at an airline is when they’re hiring new first officers and upgrading first officers to captains, and some airlines are perpetually locked in this cycle just trying to keep up with attrition." I'm just going to stop. I give this article a D. His writing was full of hyperbole. He rambled and really made no point other than, "public be afraid of flying." Also, there's a sweet link in the article to him saying TWA800 was shot down. Nothing like a little conspiracy to finish out this well thought-out exposé. For the most part the facts are pretty accurate in this case, it's just the way the story is presented that makes it dramatic. I'm guessing Bedford forgot to pay his monthly "pilot shortage" Press Release payment to the NYPost and this is their response. Keep in mind, however, sometimes you need a little sensationalism when going up against the massive PR campaigns by guys who literally claim that increasing the minimum flight time requirements for airlines reduces safety because pilots spend too much time flying airplanes and forgetting what they learned in college before going to an airline...yes....this was said out loud by a regional airline CEO. And in fact the crew of that Colgan Air flight was not highly experienced even though they had over 1500 hours each. The fact remains they crashed a perfectly good airplane on a routine flight due to a severe brain fart....a typical low time private pilot type of mistake. |
I firmly believe to if it weren't for technology, we'd have a significantly higher number of accidents today. Most regional airline pilots are good and take their job seriously, and do the work necessary to become proficient. There are a minority, albeit a growing minority, of people who I think are fair weather seat fillers. This is due to some airlines lowering their hiring standards to find people that will do the job for 21K the first year. I've heard stories of Captains flying with FO's that don't know speeds or limitations, and demonstrate a serious lack of systems knowledge. The danger is we are re-entering a period where it's possible for you to have a week 100hr Captain that upgraded in just over a year, with a week newly hired FO.
Yes everyone takes the checkride, but I know of one guy at my last airline that took the checkride, and a month later was yanked off the trip during a line check for the captain. |
Originally Posted by NineGturn
(Post 1867183)
CBREEZY, you are forgetting the context of the article. It was published in the NY Post, a rag whose mission is to scare people with irresponsible half truths....very much like your job in these forums. :D
Actually, this article was far closer to the truth than what you typically read in this tabloid. Again, the context of the rag it was published in...besides, I'm sure he didn't write it and was probably severely misquoted by those who did. For the most part the facts are pretty accurate in this case, it's just the way the story is presented that makes it dramatic. I'm guessing Bedford forgot to pay his monthly "pilot shortage" Press Release payment to the NYPost and this is their response. Keep in mind, however, sometimes you need a little sensationalism when going up against the massive PR campaigns by guys who literally claim that increasing the minimum flight time requirements for airlines reduces safety because pilots spend too much time flying airplanes and forgetting what they learned in college before going to an airline...yes....this was said out loud by a regional airline CEO. And in fact the crew of that Colgan Air flight was not highly experienced even though they had over 1500 hours each. The fact remains they crashed a perfectly good airplane on a routine flight due to a severe brain fart....a typical low time private pilot type of mistake. The Colgan crash was tragic and has lead to leaps and bounds in regulation in favor of pilots. To say, however, that this is a regional airline problem is ignorant. What do you say about the Southwest flight that collapsed the nose gear when the Captain tried to force a landing? That's a private pilot mistake. What about the UPS airplane that flew a visual into a mountain? Or perhaps the Southwest flight that landed at the wrong airport? They were lucky that the runway wasn't shorter. Did the Colgan crew act poorly under the circumstances? Absolutely. Are there major airline crews that have made similar "rookie" mistakes and got lucky it didn't end in a fireball? Absolutely. I know what Bedford said. I watched his testimony. How many people were incensed by what he said because it was ludacris? So, your reaction is, "well, we should say all of America's lives are in danger because we have inexperienced idiots flying their airplanes?" The only real problem brought up in the article that also was accompanied with a solution was pilot pay. So, flying a regional airline is still dangerous but if you pay themmore you should feel better about it and MAYBE that'll recruit better pilots? That's equally as ridiculous as "getting more experience makes you a worse pilot." |
Ah, yes... the New York Daily News. A fine, reputable publication! :D
|
I really don't understand why so many of you are getting in a twist about this.
All of us slugging it out in the regionals know that the average experience level is much higher than being reported by some of these media outlets. Hell, when the Asiana SFO crash happened, the captain that I was working with and I had nearly twice the combined experience of the THREE pilots on that triple. The political reality is that the RAA is lobbying hard for a repeal of the 1500 hour rule and a new quick path to the right seat; two things that will quickly stop the current push to increase pay and work rules. If articles like this help to eliminate the political will to reduce training and aeronautical experience requirements and, by extension, making current 121 pilots more valuable, what do we care? |
Originally Posted by Flubber
(Post 1867284)
Ah, yes... the New York Daily News. A fine, reputable publication! :D
|
Originally Posted by sqwkvfr
(Post 1867331)
I really don't understand why so many of you are getting in a twist about this.
All of us slugging it out in the regionals know that the average experience level is much higher than being reported by some of these media outlets. Hell, when the Asiana SFO crash happened, the captain that I was working with and I had nearly twice the combined experience of the THREE pilots on that triple. The political reality is that the RAA is lobbying hard for a repeal of the 1500 hour rule and a new quick path to the right seat; two things that will quickly stop the current push to increase pay and work rules. If articles like this help to eliminate the political will to reduce training and aeronautical experience requirements and, by extension, making current 121 pilots more valuable, what do we care? |
Originally Posted by ArcherDvr
(Post 1867212)
I firmly believe to if it weren't for technology, we'd have a significantly higher number of accidents today.
Originally Posted by CBreezy
(Post 1867254)
The article was written by him. It says so in 3 different places.
Originally Posted by CBreezy
(Post 1867254)
To say, however, that this is a regional airline problem is ignorant.
Originally Posted by CBreezy
(Post 1867254)
What do you say about the Southwest flight that collapsed the nose gear when the Captain tried to force a landing? That's a private pilot mistake. What about the UPS airplane that flew a visual into a mountain? Or perhaps the Southwest flight that landed at the wrong airport? They were lucky that the runway wasn't shorter. Did the Colgan crew act poorly under the circumstances? Absolutely. Are there major airline crews that have made similar "rookie" mistakes and got lucky it didn't end in a fireball? Absolutely.
There are a great many very weak pilots out there flying around in all airlines with nothing but a seniority number and a charming personality to get them through check rides.
Originally Posted by CBreezy
(Post 1867254)
I know what Bedford said. I watched his testimony.
Originally Posted by CBreezy
(Post 1867254)
So, your reaction is, "well, we should say all of America's lives are in danger because we have inexperienced idiots flying their airplanes?" The only real problem brought up in the article that also was accompanied with a solution was pilot pay. So, flying a regional airline is still dangerous but if you pay themmore you should feel better about it and MAYBE that'll recruit better pilots? That's equally as ridiculous as "getting more experience makes you a worse pilot."
Second...why is it ridiculous to say that if you pay more you'll get more experienced and better pilots? Of course you will! Sometimes I wonder if you are the one who writes Bedford's speeches. |
Originally Posted by sqwkvfr
(Post 1867331)
I really don't understand why so many of you are getting in a twist about this......The political reality is that the RAA is lobbying hard for a repeal of the 1500 hour rule and a new quick path to the right seat; two things that will quickly stop the current push to increase pay and work rules.
If articles like this help to eliminate the political will to reduce training and aeronautical experience requirements and, by extension, making current 121 pilots more valuable, what do we care?
Originally Posted by CBreezy
(Post 1867359)
Because airline pilots are still one of the most truisted professions in the US. When you have one using hyperbole and half truths to try and scare the public into giving us more money, we all come across as money hungry unions and not professionals deserving better wages for the responsibilty. If anything, telling people that even with the 1500 hour rule, there is enough inexperience in the cockpit that it could kill you will result in higher entrance barriers than already exist.
|
Originally Posted by CBreezy
(Post 1867359)
Because airline pilots are still one of the most truisted professions in the US. When you have one using hyperbole and half truths to try and scare the public into giving us more money, we all come across as money hungry unions and not professionals deserving better wages for the responsibilty. If anything, telling people that even with the 1500 hour rule, there is enough inexperience in the cockpit that it could kill you will result in higher entrance barriers than already exist.
1500 hours is a drop in the bucket of experience especially considering the airplanes most of us fly. A 1500 hour pilot in a Kingair is marginal enough, but when you start putting the 1500 hour pilot in a jet, especially a pilot who was flying a C172 last month, it's ludicrous and yes there is a severe safety concern. Fortunately, the majority of regional captains currently operating CRJs / ERJs have several thousand hours and can absorb some of the new FO's inexperience (I'm a new FO by the way). I think one of the most dangerous types of pilots is the one who does not recognize his limitations. More importantly doesn't vocalize those limitations to the guy / gal sitting next to him. For example, "Hey, Im new. Watch me and make sure I don't f@ck this up". I have generally found the guys I fly with to be receptive to that methodology and it doesn't hurt my pride one bit to admit it. Just my perspective. |
Originally Posted by CBreezy
(Post 1867359)
Because airline pilots are still one of the most truisted professions in the US. When you have one using hyperbole and half truths to try and scare the public into giving us more money, we all come across as money hungry unions and not professionals deserving better wages for the responsibilty. If anything, telling people that even with the 1500 hour rule, there is enough inexperience in the cockpit that it could kill you will result in higher entrance barriers than already exist.
I'm not money hungry....a livable and reasonable salary commensurate with my level of responsibility that provides a reasonable return on investment for the great sacrifices that I've made and the hardships that I've endured to get to my position is all I'm after. If failing to protect and defend measures that help me achieve that somehow makes the public perceive my "profession" in a more favorable light, then I'm not on board. Public perception does not translate into proper salary or work rules. If it did, we'd have both right now. A former boss used to tell me "if you need the public to love you, go work for the fire department." I'm not sure what course of action you champion, but considering that regional, and, by extension, all professional pilots are finally on the cusp of meaningful change, I'd suggest that this article, no matter how distasteful we may find it, is actually helping our drive for better wages, working conditions, and, if you like, a better path to the airline pilot career. |
Originally Posted by NineGturn
(Post 1867377)
Exactly!! Except that CBREEZY cares because his job appears to be to push this PR campaign for the RAA in these forums and convince us all of the opposite. (Of course he denies it).
You say weak pilots are flying at majors and they come from the regionals. That's an outlandish statement. There are bad pilots EVERYWHERE. In fact, some of the dumbest and least competent USAF officers I know finished pilot training. So your solution can only be solved by paying more? I would argue that there should be far more training done in the sim over the course of a career. I'm not on the side of the companies I just am not gullible to believe that people would be safer if I were paid more. People would be safer if their pilots were better trained by the companies. So people get afraid that their airplane is in imminent danger because of this moron's article. The first thing Congress would do would be increase training requirements to get hired. That cost is going to roll down hill. I already paid $80k for my training without a government guaranteed loan |
Originally Posted by sqwkvfr
(Post 1867400)
The top of the pay scale at my regional pays less (almost $5K less) than a starting police officer at a 21,000 person city in South Dakota; a state that has one of the lowest costs of living in the nation.
I'm not money hungry....a livable and reasonable salary commensurate with my level of responsibility that provides a reasonable return on investment for the great sacrifices that I've made and the hardships that I've endured to get to my position is all I'm after. If failing to protect and defend measures that help me achieve that somehow makes the public perceive my "profession" in a more favorable light, then I'm not on board. I'm not sure what course of action you champion, but considering that regional, and, by extension, all professional pilots are finally on the cusp of meaningful change, I'd suggest that this article, no matter how distasteful we may find it, is actually helping our drive for better wages, working conditions, and, if you like, a better path to the airline pilot career. |
Originally Posted by CBreezy
(Post 1867406)
I'm not saying we shouldn't be paid more. I never said that. I'm saying this looks like union propaganda during a time with incredible downward pressure on unions. Have you ever read news about Norwegian or the ME3? If ALPA releases statements, they are trying to prevent non-unionized labor and hampering competition. Unionized labor in this country has gone from a majority to less than 17% and trending downward. To publish an article on a major publication that regionals are unsafe and only provide ONE solution, pay, then you come across as typical unionized labor. I want to make meaningful change. I don't want to be like those guys on the road with "shame on you" signs trying to pretend like the 83% of the country that isn't in a union gives a poop about them. The best way to win this battle is with facts, not scare tactics.
I think the number one concern in our occupation is safety. Any factors that erode the margins of safety should be addressed however unsavory they may be. This has been a long time coming. I understand your irritation with the article, but I doubt it will have any impact on the public majority. If the article only serves to make the public aware that safety margins may be compromised in exchange for cost, then isn't that a win either way? |
BREAKING NEWS.... humans accrue experience with age. I would have thought that someone who flew Obama around would have a little more insight than that.
#thanksobama |
IN OTHER BREAKING NEWS.... Brand new Dr performs surgery under supervision of older more experienced Dr. Don't go to the doctor.
|
Originally Posted by CBreezy
(Post 1867402)
If don't sit here and spout doom and gloom I'm automatically on the side of the RAA? You're an idiot.
I don't accuse you of siding with the RAA, I accused you of working for them. You spend a massive amount of time pushing their agenda in these and other forums using this and probably other screen names. You actively discourage pilots from seeking higher wages and you attack any point of view that is contrary to the agenda of BB and his RAA cohorts. Then you have the audacity to try to dance your way out of it and misquote me and everybody else.
Originally Posted by CBreezy
(Post 1867402)
So your solution can only be solved by paying more? I would argue that there should be far more training done in the sim over the course of a career.
I also don't specifically have a problem with new first officers who have low time...everyone must start somewhere. I have a problem with policies that restrict all hiring to entry level positions only and rock bottom pay causing a severely low level of company wide experience during periods of rapid hiring and/or expansion such as now. Higher wages would attract higher experienced pilots...this is a proven fact and not something you can just pretend isn't true. A balanced hiring system at these airlines that attracts seasoned and high time pilots as well as low time pilots with pay being commensurate with experience would be a far better solution for safety.
Originally Posted by CBreezy
(Post 1867402)
I just am not gullible to believe that people would be safer if I were paid more.
Originally Posted by CBreezy
(Post 1867402)
People would be safer if their pilots were better trained by the companies. So people get afraid that their airplane is in imminent danger because of this moron's article. The first thing Congress would do would be increase training requirements to get hired. That cost is going to roll down hill.
Originally Posted by CBreezy
(Post 1867402)
I already paid $80k for my training without a government guaranteed loan
|
Originally Posted by NineGturn
(Post 1867491)
I'm not going to bother reporting you to a mod....it's a waste of my time. Please stop with the childish insults.
I don't accuse you of siding with the RAA, I accused you of working for them. You spend a massive amount of time pushing their agenda in these and other forums using this and probably other screen names. You actively discourage pilots from seeking higher wages and you attack any point of view that is contrary to the agenda of BB and his RAA cohorts. Then you have the audacity to try to dance your way out of it and misquote me and everybody else. I have made my points clear in the past on training. Airlines spend too much time on transition and upgrade training which causes the very domino effect described in the article. I also don't specifically have a problem with new first officers who have low time...everyone must start somewhere. I have a problem with policies that restrict all hiring to entry level positions only and rock bottom pay causing a severely low level of company wide experience during periods of rapid hiring and/or expansion such as now. Higher wages would attract higher experienced pilots...this is a proven fact and not something you can just pretend isn't true. A balanced hiring system at these airlines that attracts seasoned and high time pilots as well as low time pilots with pay being commensurate with experience would be a far better solution for safety. There! That is the exact nonsensical statements that tell me you're not likely a real pilot....unless of course you aren't a real pilot...then it's a true statement because it's very likely paying a RAA public relations worker more money would have no effect on aviation safety. Regional airline training is actually quite good from what I've seen lately. It's come a long way from the old days when I flew 19 seaters. I doubt Congress is interested in changing that and making pilots pay for it...besides, it's not possible to pay regional pilots any less at this point. Ha! I didn't know PR and lobbying firms required you to pay for your own training. Also, only an ignorant fool would fall for "safety issues are fixed if you pay employees more." If the shoe fits... If there is a critical safety issue then we should fix it immediately. Right now. What is your recommendation? I'm not going to sit idly by while you try to devalue my hard work by calling me dangerous and risk to public safety...especially when there is a very good chance I'm a better stick than you anyway. The only way this pay problem gets fixed is if mainline pilots take scope back. |
Originally Posted by CBreezy
(Post 1867495)
The only way this pay problem gets fixed is if mainline pilots take scope back.
Just an FYI...no real pilot would ever presume to brag about being "a better stick." But...if you'd like to meet me at the merge... |
Originally Posted by CBreezy
(Post 1867495)
The only way this pay problem gets fixed is if mainline pilots take scope back.
|
Originally Posted by tom11011
(Post 1867569)
They don't take scope back, they have to buy it back. They sold scope for $$$. We know airline pilots are not about to give up money, so where does that leave us? It means the airlines themselves have to be willing to fly near 100 seat aircraft on their certificate. It's no longer up to pilots.
|
Wow. No one is saying that a pilot making 20K a year can't be as safe as one making 200K. The problem is offering that by paying these lower wages, you are opening the door to less competent pilots as well. This is because a number ofpeople that might otherwise be more competent won't pursue the career field for that much. It also increases turnover, there by taking some of that valuable experience out of the industry, making it less safe.
So while Cbreezy may very well be Maverick of the regional airlines, I guarantee there are a number of people, albeit a relative minority, that are airline pilots only because more competent peoe opted not to work for such measly pay and work rules. |
Originally Posted by JathinB
(Post 1867460)
IN OTHER BREAKING NEWS.... Brand new Dr performs surgery under supervision of older more experienced Dr. Don't go to the doctor.
I'm guessing that Doctor was NOT a lead sandwich artist at subway 18 months ago. |
Originally Posted by CBreezy
(Post 1867406)
The best way to win this battle is with facts, not scare tactics.
|
Originally Posted by sqwkvfr
(Post 1867585)
Again, you are worried about public perception, a notion that has absolutely zero influence on our pay or quality of life.
We should all be concerned with public perception. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:59 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands