Well, 5 years ago we didn't have this problem. We didn't have SmartCI. We didn't have a bunch of clowns down in SGU that never or can't fly telling us how to fly the plane. We didn't have an oversight system where you have to tell your chief pilot why you're early.

Now that things have been "fixed", we have problems. Now that things are "fixed" we have published stupid slow allowable airspeeds that have been proven are safe(not)! Now that things are "fixed" we are told by SCI to fly M.64 at FL 390.

The FAA did what SkyWest management could not.

I really don't blame them!

Te FAA is monitoring regardless. Under these circumstances the company needs to monitor as well.

Umm the FAA is on the ASAP committee and they get a vote? They get to see what people submit as asap reports and have gotten to point where they are no longer willing to grant blanket immunity.

Hypothetical example:

1) Honest mistake: Got distracted (possibly for understandable reasons) and got too slow to power out of it.

2) Cover up: Didn't request lower, milked it down a few hundred feet (in RVSM) trying to power out eventually got shaker maybe pusher

Can't say as I blame the FAA for having lost all tolerance for 2).

Look, telling pilots on a letter they will be strictly monitored by occ is not the way to instill a just culture. Like I said, I wasn't talking about the FAA in that regard.

As for the ASAP, I understand the FAA is on the ERC. But if someone stalls and then recovers, I don't see how they can deny entry into the program. If all these incidents are as you described on your example, then that's different.

Again, I'm talking about a culture that goes back to before all these safety programs such as ASAP. One in which pilots just stayed silent for fear of repercussions. When management tells pilots they will be strictly monitored for these new policies, it degrades overall safety. Do they tell pilots they will strictly monitor all the other policy changes? If not, then it's a shift in safety culture. And it's not good. It's insidious and very hard to overcome.

CRJs were not designed to be operated so close to the edge so regularly, but they are because of CI.

http://icas.org/ICAS_ARCHIVE/ICAS2002/PAPERS/3101.PDF

http://www.imamod.ru/~serge/arc/conf...gs/pdf/774.pdf

The monitoring was going to happen period, no choice there. I think this was less threat and more statement of the facts. I for one would prefer the heads up rather than fumbling along oblivious.

As of right now stall/slow speed followed by proper recover technique is still covered. Rumor is that FAA is rumbling about removing asap protection for all such events...ultimately it's their ball, they can take it and go home. ASAP is a privilege, not an unalienable right.

I get that, but in this particular case stuff is happening and the pilots need to know...better the hard truth than the company is blowing sunshine up our butts. It's a crappy situation all around...no way to keep it all rainbows and unicorns.

I don't think you understand what I'm saying or the ramifications. This is not the way for the company to make things safer. It's going to have the opposite effect. It's very chilling to tell pilots that they are going to be strictly monitored, despite whatever actually happens. You don't make things safer with threats. A down to earth, facts only, no bs, serious, professional letter would've been better. But they decided to get the hammer out instead. Bad bad culture being instilled. Who knows, maybe it's always been that way. I'm still blown away about there actually being a list of the offenders. Serious punitive culture with that. Please correct me, and the original poster, if that's not true. But so far, even though I've mentioned it multiple times, no one has refuted it.

Newsflash girls, SGU has had the ability to monitor a whole bunch of A/C parameters for a long time. The only reason that most stupid stuff gets missed is because its the the data is swimming in a sea of information. Had a CP tell me over coffee, that they always monitored some of the "problem children", like the guy who was clocked with a wheel speed of 60KTS, while between the "B" and "C" terminals. You think that the CVR is sacred think again, it won't be used for FAA enforcement purposes, think about employment purposes......those planes are multi-million dollar assets, not to mention the liability of the lives in the back, yeah, they are very interested in what goes on in the front.

Where would we be without CA Obvious? It's so cute thinking of a lifer having "coffee" with a CP! 'Splains a lot!

Of corse you are missing the point. The point is that we know pilots are monitored. Some people check in on a computer. Your logging into company website is recorded. Your conversations with crew scheduling, dispatch, maintenance control, Cheif pilots office are all recorded. Your conversation in the flight deck is recorded. Your conversation with controllers are recorded. Your aircraft configuration is recorded. Your radar track is recorded. We are recorded when we do walk arounds on the ramp. And Skywest pilots are now strictly monitored by occ. The point is that we all know that we are monitored. But when the company puts out a letter that has subtle threats, it creates a chilling effect on their safety culture.

Like I said, these things are insidious. That's the whole reason why the industry has turned into a big CRM fest. It's more about psychology now than anything else. These are veiled threats whether you are conscious of it or not. Everyone makes mistakes (TEM), so treating this particular issue the way management has is ridiculous. And their actual fix only deals with the symptom!