Air Midwest Beech 1900 crashes into hangar at Charlotte-Douglas

[DamienB]

From CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/South/01/08/plane.crash/index.html

CHARLOTTE, North Carolina (CNN) -- An Air Midwest commuter plane with 19 people on board crashed on takeoff into a hangar Wednesday at the Charlotte-Douglas International Airport in North Carolina.

Plumes of gray smoke could be seen rising from a hangar.

The Federal Aviation Administration said the plane was Air Midwest Flight 5481 and was on its way to the Greenville-Spartanburg Jetport in South Carolina.

There was no immediate word on injuries or deaths.

The plane struck the side of the hangar.

A wall of the hangar was covered with black smoke.

The FAA said the aircraft is a Beech 1900, a turboprop aircraft. The airlines' Web site says it operates as US Airways Express.

[nojacketsrequired]

Sky News just reporting a Commuter aircraft crashed on take off from Charlotte Douglas Airport en route to Greensville has crashed into a hanger at the airport.

T.V. journos in full speculation mode!!.

No news on casualties.Fingers crossed but the crash site looks a mess.

NJR.

[lunkenheimer]

The Charlotte Observer reports
"Charlotte-Douglas officials are planning to conduct a news conference at 10 a.m. The runway where the accident happened is shut down but the airport is not closed at this time. "

Condolences and prayers to those aboard and their friends and family.

[Konkordski]

Kinda puts the FAA crowing about 2002's safety record into sharp perspective.

[Danny]

Fox News reporting live have just stated that all 19 passengers and 2 flight crew have not survived the crash. Eye witnesses are reporting that the a/c appeared to attain a very high nose up attitude just after take off and then rolled ont its back before crashing into a hangar at the airport.

[newswatcher]

USA Today(14:41GMT) are reporting flight en route to Lynchburg, VA. Regretably, reports no survivors.

NBC(15:00GMT) live telecast reporting single runway operation only.

[jet_noseover]

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/4900214.htm

[Ranger One]

KCLT 081351Z 23007KT 10SM SCT140 BKN250 04/M06 A2976 RMK AO2 SLP079 T00391061

Police report no survivors. Eyewitnesses (usual caveats) report acft 'went up like the space shuttle' on TO, 'rolled on it's back and crashed'.

Sympathies to all.

R 1

[nojacketsrequired]

Just confirmed,sadly all 21 persons on board plus two workers on the ground have been killed.

NJR.

[CiPher]

Sky news just reported that 21 people have perished in the incident, including two on the ground.


My thoughts go out to the familes of all of those involved.

[I. M. Esperto]

TV news calls it MESA Airlines out of PHX.

Reg. #233YV

[aidanf]

While my deepest sympathies go out to all those touched by this incident - isn't it getting just a little annoying that the swarming media cry 'terrorism' every time one of these tragedies occur. Don't know yet whether it was or not, but surely the lives lost are more important, at this and at all stages, than the reason it occured. Three people died close to me last weekend in a car crash - all over the media, but with genuine concern for the victims. If it had happened in a light a/c I'm pretty sure the headlines would have had a slightly different tone.
Sorry...rant over.

[411A]

Konkordski,

Do you intend to mean that...serves the FAA right that 2002 was free of fatalities?:( :eek:

[xaf2fe]

BBC World is reporting it as a US Airways Commutter jet, but once in the report refered to the plane as a turboprop.

The Washington reporter, Ms Katty Kay, said twice in one report that "there is a history of problems with these small commuter planes," and when asked by the anchor if the commutter fleet will be grounded she replied that the US is just too big and people need these planes to "get to work."

Ms Kay, I for one would like to know just what is the history of problems with the commuter airline fleet that you refer. I'm sure you have some actual facts to back up your report and you are not just making this up. Yeah right.

[West Coast]

That reporter was talking to keep her face on the camers. The Beech 1900 is a good aircraft.

[GustyOrange]

From the WSJ:

CHARLOTTE, N.C. -- All 21 people aboard a commuter airplane were killed Wednesday when it crashed into a hangar and caught fire at Charlotte/Douglas International Airport.

"There were no survivors," said airport director Jerry Orr. He said the plane had 19 passengers and two crew members.

"The plane is so destroyed there's not much to see," said police spokesman Keith Bridges. "The debris is in such bad shape."

A spokesman for the Federal Bureau of Investigation said there were no preliminary indications of terrorism in the crash.

Christopher White of the Federal Aviation Administration said the plane was flight 5481 of Air Midwest, operating for US Airways Express. It crashed in windy weather as it took off bound for the Greenville-Spartanburg airport in Greer, S.C., an FAA spokeswoman said.

The plane was a twin-engine Beech 1900 turboprop, US Airways said.

The eight-year-old plane was one of about 50 operated by Mesa Air Lines, parent of Air Midwest, said US Airways Group. The plane had been flown 15,000 hours and performed 21,000 takeoffs and landings. Mesa is a unit of Mesa Air Group Inc.

The plane veered into a hangar, and witnesses told WCNC-TV it came down on its back. Video from the scene after the crash showed smoldering wreckage and a charred side of the hangar.

Mr. Orr, the airport director, said other people feared missing on the ground had been found alive and uninjured. No one inside the hangar, which was a US Air maintenance facility, was injured, he said.

"The airplane just barely hit one corner of the hangar," Mr. Orr said. "We don't know what happened other than it was unable to maintain altitude."

The airport was shut down temporarily after crash about 8:45 a.m., but operations were resuming by 10:30 a.m.

"We clearly are deeply concerned about this event, about our crews and our passengers," Jonathan Ornstein, a Mesa spokesman said from the company's headquarters in Phoenix. "I can only express our greatest sympathy, my personal sympathy, to all those involved."

Last year, no one died aboard a passenger or cargo airliner in the U.S., the third time in a decade that a year went by without a fatality on a commercial plane, according to the FAA.

[JJflyer]

Both Companies belong to the same PHOENIX Mesa Air Group, Inc but fly under their own identities.


"Incident Involving US Airways Express Flight 5481 Operated by Air Midwest, Inc.

PHOENIX Mesa Air Group, Inc. confirms that US Airways Express flight 5481, operated by Air Midwest, Inc., which is a wholly own subsidiary of Mesa Air Group, has been involved in an accident at Charlotte, NC. The aircraft was a 19 passenger Raytheon 1900D enroute from Charlotte to Greenville/Spartanburg, SC. There were 19 passengers and a crew of 2 on board. Authorities advise us at this time, they believe there are no survivors.

“We are deeply saddened by today’s event. Our thoughts and prayers are with the families and crew of flight 5481. We are working with the NTSB and other agencies in the investigation of this accident,” said Jonathan Ornstein Chairman & CEO of Mesa Air Group.

US Airways has established a special toll-free telephone number to call for information about those on board Flight 5481. The number is 1-800-679-8215. "


My condolances to all of the family and friends of the victims of flight 5481.

[RiverCity]

isn't it getting just a little annoying that the swarming media cry 'terrorism' every time one of these tragedies occur.
The media was quoting the FBI. Also, our good friends the Feds let us know that there is a continuing danger from small planes being used in terrorist attacks. Because of even that vague warning, I'd ask the question, if I were covering the story.

[SOPS]

:confused: I saw the same BBC World report. The "reporter?" talked about "small aircraft" "known problems with small aircraft" "no it would be too hard to ground the fleet as people here dont use busses to go to work, they need aircraft" and the classic "Aircraft in the USA are maintained to a required standard" (So am I to assume that in the rest of the Western World they are not?)

As I have said before on this forum, IF THIS IS THE STANDARD OF REPORTING, WHEN WE KNOW SOME FACTS ABOUT THE SUBJECT, GOD HELP US WHEN IT COMES TO THE REST OF THE "NEWS"

My thoughts are with all the families and staff of the airline. May you all have strength, and may your God, who ever you concieve him to be, be with you.

Regards SOPS

[ORAC]

Crew named as pilot Katie Leslie and first officer Jonathan Gibbs, both based in Charlotte.

[Konkordski]

411A:

No, silly, of course I don't mean that it serves the FAA right.


But today's tragedy shows up the puffery of the recent "fatality free 2002" announcement quite spectacularly. Accidents aren't seasonal, so talking about getting through a year without fatalities is nonsense.

This is about air safety. It's a continuous process. We don't clean the slate at Jan 1, and we don't ship off the old year like it's a batch of newly-produced flawless goods.

A run of 365 days without killing someone seems, at least to me, to look a little artificial when 21 die on day 373.

[Sheep Guts]

The quality of reporting on this accident, as well as other aviation accidents, is as usual very poor.

It makes me wonder what they teach budding journalists at University these days. They obviously weight alot of the syllabus on Sensationalism, Speculationism, and bending the facts, rather than good research , which I might add is definitetly lacking.

Please stop all the speculative reports, until we have hard facts.

My Condolences to the Families involved.

[View From The Ground]

Condolences to all

Unfortunately reporting in all areas is now and has been subject for some time to sensationalism. I guess that most of us want 24 hour news available however this increased sensationalism and hype is the result, they have to fill the time somehow!
Everything is hyped now from aircraft accidents to terrorism via crime and sex scandal!
I fear this situation is here to stay

[A310driver]

John Goglia of NTSB just on tube saying that the a/c was being flown by an experienced crew....the Captain had 1800 hrs and the F/O 700..."been around for quite a while".

Sounds highly experienced to me.

What say ye? How about ......."gimme a break!"

[Saab340Pilot]

A310Driver I just don't understand your comments. First off the CA had 1800 IN TYPE, 2400+ total. The FO had 700 IN TYPE, unknown total time. While perhaps those aren't the total time hours of an "A310Driver" what would you have had, the media reporting that yet another inexperienced and dangerous commuter pilot just crashed? How about some respect for the dead and a big "but for the grace of God go I" before you spout off and call a recently deceased crew inexperienced implying who knows what.

My deepest sympathy to the crew and passengers who died today. :(

[Ignition Override]

The ignorant flying public and media are fortunate that thousands of professional pilots often are willing (although forced by the civilian and ex-military helo career ladders) to often work for two or more years at minimum wage (a professional wage?) as First Officers while waiting for the seniority to upgrade to Captain, flying Beechcraft, Saabs, DeHavilland, Dornier, Shorts propjets, not to mention the Canadian, German, Brazilian and British etc regional jets. This happens in order to transport people to and from so many small and large airports, working 13-hour shifts, or more, without rest or a meal break: and this refers to the very common US aviation landscape, not including situations in other countries.

Remember the Don Henley song, "Dirty Laundry"? 'See the bubble-headed bleachblond, comes on at five, she can tell you 'bout a plane crash, with a gleam in her eye...[I could have made it as an actress, but I wound up here]...get the widow on the set... we want dirty laundry'. Check Henley's song "In the Garden of Allah": interesting comments, and it sounds like the voice of O.J Simpson.

The media uses any bit of implied hysteria, terrorism, industry-wide quality control issues, and has been known to tilt a camera at an angle, in order to photograph aircraft in what appear to be a steep dive...just to keep your focus on their channel (WCCO etc), in its eternal quest for higher placement, during the 'rating$ sweeps', which help determine advertising revenue contract$.

[ShenziRubani]

My deepest sympathy to the crew and passengers who died today.

Very saddened by the comments from Kokordski and A310Driver. Although on different matters.

Konkordski, I find your comments very sad. Whether people want to mark that year as a year of success in aviation safety, whether a year is 365 or 400 or else n° of days, so what?! why are you bothered? At the end of the day, it was a year, from Jan 1st to Dec 31st 2002, without fatal commercial accident. End of the story. There's too much of a note of satisfaction/sinism in your words. A bit off line I think. But, at the end of the day, everyone is free to think whatever he feels like, isn't it.

A310Driver, thanks a lot for your comments. I hope you remember that you were once a "inexperienced" 2400 hrs pilot. did you got your first job carrying passengers at 15000 hrs? I enjoyed your words of sympathy and respect for fellow pilots and for those who lost there lives today.

Hope you guys have a nice day

[Unwell_Raptor]

The commuter workload is shown up by the fact that the a/c had 15000 hours but had done 21000 takeoffs and landings.

[newswatcher]

Sorry if I digress from the subject, but in keeping with some of the postings, "Fatality free 2002" - what exactly does this mean?

The NTSB database has 397 incidents with at least one fatality during 2002, most of them GA. These include Beech King Air 100, Evelth, MN on October 25th, with 8 fatalities. This is listed as a "charter flight". Why isn't this considered as "commercial" aviation?

:confused: :confused:

[Iron City]

The King Air 100 that went in killing Senator Wellstone and company was a charter commercial operation under Part 91 of the FAR. The accident free year was on certificated air carriers operating under Part 121, i.e. airlines carrying passengers.

Sympathies for the families of all today, this week....North Carolina, Turkey, where else?

Let's let the investigators do their jobs, ignore most of the general purpose press reports because they do not know what they are talking about and keep on going, hopefully a little safer and with our priorities a little straighter.

[JudyTTexas]

My Condolences to all... sad day indeed. :(

Pilot of plane in NC crash originally from Arlington
01/09/2003

By YOLANDA WALKER / WFAA-TV

Katie Leslie, 25, grew up in Arlington, Texas, the middle child of five.

Friends said she knew from an early age what she wanted to do in life.

"At 14, I believe, she told her teacher she wanted to become a pilot," longtime neighbor and friend Ron Smith said. "I was fortunate to take her flying on one of her first trips at 16."

Leslie died Wednesday morning in the crash of Air Midwest Flight 5481, which crashed shortly after takeoff in Charlotte, N.C. Smith is speaking for Leslie's family, who are all too distraught to talk about the tragedy.
"They're very close," he said. "They've pretty much hulled themselves away from the rest of the world to get through this grief."

The flight was leaving Charlotte-Douglas International Airport, bound for South Carolina. Though the weather was clear, witnesses said the plane went straight upward after takeoff.

"It looked like the propeller on the right side stopped, and it rolled ... and it came straight down, nose first," witness Tracy Right said. "Instant fireball."

Officials said once airborne, the Beech 1900 twin-engine turboprop flipped upside down and at full throttle, clipping the edge of a hangar. All 19 passengers and two crew members died instantly.

Said aviation consultant John Nance, "some of the initial things you look at - was there an engine failure that could cause a loss of directional control? Was there some sort of flight control problem in the elevator? Or was the airplane not loaded properly, and the pilots couldn't control it because of weight?"

Officials said Leslie did radio for help before the crash.

"The pilot declared an emergency before the accident," said NTSB board member John Goglia. "So, it's not clear what that means yet, but at least we know there was some sort of catastrophic event that led her to declare an emergency."

Meanwhile, friends in Arlington recall memories of how Katie touched their lives.

"She was a really neat kid," Smith said. "(She) comes from a very strong, strong family - good faith."

[Eddington the Rodger]

This tragic accident sounds like a load shift.
Any comments from 1900 drivers.

[jet_noseover]

(AP) A key piece of guidance equipment in the tail of a commuter plane was moving erratically before the plane crashed here this week, killing all 21 people aboard, a federal investigator said Thursday.

National Transportation Safety Board member John Goglia said information from the flight data recorder has led investigators to take a close look at the airplane's elevator. The equipment determines whether the plane goes up or down and how steeply.

The data recorder shows the plane took off with its nose up 7 degrees, which is normal takeoff pitch. The pitch was 52 degrees by the time the plane reached 1,200 feet.

''Something occurred to drive that pitch angle to 52 degrees,'' Goglia said. ''That is abnormal.''

The Beech 1900 had an elevator tab replaced at an Air Midwest facility in Huntington, W.Va., on Monday. The data recorder shows the elevator had moved erratically since then.

''We need to know which procedures were followed at the maintenance facility,'' Goglia said.

Any erratic motion may not have influenced seven other flights between the maintenance and the doomed takeoff. But the plane was near weight capacity Wednesday, which may have been a factor in the crash.

The plane, carrying 19 passengers and two crew members, took off to the south, then banked toward the airport and fell, witnesses said.

The cause of the crash the first fatal U.S. air accident in nearly 14 months was not clear and investigators said they were ruling nothing out. The plane was a twin-engine turboprop Beech 1900D, a workhorse of the commuter airline industry.

The pilot, identified by US Airways Express as Katie Leslie of Charlotte, contacted the tower at takeoff to report an emergency, said Greg Martin, a spokesman for the Federal Aviation Administration. But the transmission was cut short and the emergency was not identified.

Investigators recovered the flight data recorder and the cockpit voice recorder late Wednesday and sent them to Washington, D.C., for analysis, Goglia said.

''Both were burned, but it does appear they were in decent shape,'' he said. The voice recorder contained 34 minutes of tape.

Goglia said the Beech 1900 has been in use since the 1960s as a commuter aircraft, ''so we're going to have mishaps.''

''But recently, in the last seven or eight years, it has proven to be a very reliable airplane,'' he said. ''So we can't immediately jump to the assumption that there's an airplane problem.''

The NTSB brought 26 agents to help investigate. They walked the runway Wednesday and found some bolts and small pieces of debris, but had not determined whether they belonged to the plane, Goglia said.

Sgt. David Marshall of the North Carolina Air National Guard was arriving for work at the guard's headquarters at Charlotte/Douglas International Airport when he saw the plane about 1,000 feet in the air, its nose nearly perpendicular to the ground.

Marshall, who holds a private pilot's license, watched in horror as the plane stalled.

''The nose came down and it began to level off and it went into a second stall,'' he said Thursday as he arrived at the airport to offer his account to investigators. Flight 5481 rolled to its right and dropped rapidly, clipping a corner of a hangar before it hit the ground and burst into flames.

Dee Addison heard the impact from her airport business about 500 yards away. She ran outside to see panicked people running from a maintenance hangar as smoke billowed just outside.

''It was like a frenzy,'' she said. ''At the time we didn't know a plane had actually crashed. It didn't even look like a plane. It was totally demolished.''

No one on the ground was injured, though a portion of the hangar a maintenance facility for US Airways Express was scorched and battered. Layers of smoke poured from the wreckage, so thick ''you could taste it in your mouth,'' Addison said.

The flight originated in Lynchburg, Va., and was bound for the Greenville-Spartanburg airport in Greer, S.C., 80 miles away Officials said none of the passengers started their trip in Charlotte, though some had connected there from other flights.

A maintenance alert for the same type of plane was issued in August saying that attachment bolts for the vertical stabilizer were found lose on one plane during a scheduled inspection. And an FAA directive issued in November for the 1900D aircraft warned that screws in the elevator balance weight attachment could come lose and interfere with the horizontal stabilizer.

The plane, built in 1996, had been flown 15,000 hours and performed 21,000 takeoffs and landings. It was operated by Mesa Air Lines under the US Airways Express name.

The crash was the first involving fatalities aboard a U.S. commuter plane since that of American Airlines Flight 587 in New York on Nov. 12, 2001, in which 265 people died.

[A310driver]

SAAB 340,SHENZ, LR DRIVER;


Regarding my earlier post about the experience level of the crew.

My apologies for what you have interpreted as ...at best...insensitive. In retrospect, I agree it looks like that. But what I said is what I heard/saw John Loglia say on the tube minutes before and I so noted that. There is nothing personal here and I certainly mourn the loss of the crew and pax alike. As one of you said, .....there but for the grace of God go I. I was not attempting to imply blame/cause and it may very well evolve that the crew was blameless and I personally hope that this is the case.

My point was that the clear implication of Loglia's comments was that this was a highly experienced airline crew; two 25/26 year olds with 1800 hrs (as Loglia said or 2500 TT as is now being reported) and 700 hrs does not qualify for that distinction. Some more zeroes and gray hair would.

The question that may need to be asked is what the fare paying public is entitled to expect when boarding any aircraft in scheduled airline service. Should there be a difference in basic aircraft safety level and , yes , crew experience when boarding a B744 or a 1900 at adjacent gates which are painted identically and bear the same airline logo?

Should there be a cigarette package-like warning on the pax-entry door of every "commuter" a/c that states the fact that
lower standards may apply?

Again, my apologies for an unintentionally insensitive remark.

[RatherBeFlying]

If it turns out to be a major elevator control problem, whether you have 2500 TT or 25000 wouldn't count for much.

[A310driver]

Run that by Al Haynes {ex UAL }

[pigboat]

Here's a link to the article on CNN. Seems like pretty accurate reporting to me.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/South/01/09/plane.crash/index.html

[PaperTiger]

Possibly relevant Be1900D ADs (http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAD.nsf/07577b0b9213888985256930005117ca?OpenView):

AD 2002-23-11

The actions specified by this AD are intended to prevent the balance weight attachment screws from becoming loose. Loose screws could come into contact and interfere with the horizontal stabilizer. This interference could restrict elevator movement and result in loss of elevator pitch control.

AD 99-16-12

To prevent failure of the electric elevator trim and difficulty operating the manual elevator trim caused by moisture freezing on parts of the electric actuator installation, which would result in the pilot having to apply constant pressure to the control wheel during flight

AD 99-09-15

To prevent any components or wiring from interfering with the flight control mechanism caused by inadequate clearance, which could result in reduced or loss of aileron and/or elevator control

AD 95-02-17 (does not apply after serial UE-131)

To prevent in-flight separation of the elevator trim tab control cable, which could lead to loss of control of the airplane,

[Saab340Pilot]

A310Driver: I certainly agree that many commuter pilots, myself included (3500 hours and counting, 2700 of it turbine, 2000 turbine PIC) have low hour totals compared to 15,000+ hour pilots found at many major airlines. Perhaps that accounts for your "experience" comment as you said. The question in my mind is what should be "experienced" in the public's mind outside of our professional world and discussion? At what point do you consider a pilot experienced and if that pilot has less hours are they therefore dangerous? Would the general public have understood if somehow the fed characterized the crew as "very qualified but inexperienced?" They would have felt that low time pilots = danger and frankly that just isn't true. Those two crewmembers were trained in the same fashion as all Part 121 pilots and met the standards. From all evidence they weren't "just off IOE" either with the FO and CA having a reasonable base of flying in the 1900D.

IMHO the one thing the fed did right is not prey upon an early idea that perhaps commuter crews with low time = the cause of the accident. To say the crew was inexperienced as pilots would be tantamount to saying "unsafe" when in my opinion my fellow pilots, and myself for that matter are very, very safe. I put my family on my aircraft and that of my "inexperienced (cough, cough)" peers often and I know that each is ready and prepared as a 121 pilot should be for the difficulties that might lie ahead. When I had an engine failure this summer fully loaded at 34C (jumpseater too) at 80 feet AGL 1-2 seconds after breaking ground somehow I made it through and you know what... I think I would have the day I passed training years ago because if I didn't or my company didn't think so, or the feds didn't think so, or the public didn't think so should I have ever been put on the line?

From all evidence so far I very much doubt this crew will suffer blame for the accident nor do I believe that any amount of hours under the belt may have saved them. I for one am glad that an employee of my government didn't get on TV and even imply that they were anything but qualified and competent before obtaining the facts.

I can understand that many times what we say gets misconstrued and I am sure you didn't mean to come across as insensitive to the issue. I still humbly suggest that you review your idea of it being laughable to have an agent of the federal government call that crew anything BUT experienced AND AS QUALIFIED AS ANY AIRLINE PILOT considering its the truth and who his audience was... the uninformed public.

[Bubbette]

They just announced on the local news here, in NY, that the plane was loaded so heavily that a ramp worker refused to sign off on it.

[Saab340Pilot]

"Run that by Al Haynes {ex UAL }"

A310Driver (again): I very much doubt Mr. Haynes would agree with your implication of a similarity in this situation. For one he had altitude, time, and luck on his side and the apparent problem of this 1900D is dramatically different (uncontrolled movement of the elevator in the 1900D as opposed to an essentially stuck neutral position as in Mr. Hayne's case). Also again are we professional aviators going to immediately within HOURS of any accident going to actually waste breath on the slightest implication that the accident might have been different if the crew had more hours? My god it is bad enough to see the talking heads on CNN and NBC filling the mind with bogus and inflammatory comments but it is even worse to see someone in our own industry doing the same. :(

[RiverCity]

Excerpted from cnn.com

He disputed reports that a worker who loaded Air Midwest Flight 5481, operating under the US Airways Express banner, thought it was too heavy -- but was overruled by a supervisor who cleared it for flight.

Goglia said the plane was under its maximum weight and the discrepancy had to do with the number of bags listed on documents. Ramp handlers interviewed separately said the pilot made the final decision.

However, he said pilots with a view of the plane told investigators it looked heavy while taxiing. Goglia said all baggage that survived the crash will be weighed. And he said distribution of weight on the aircraft will also be studied closely because it could affect the plane's center of gravity.

[Bubbette]

Can I just ask--what good is weighing "all baggage that survived the crash." going to do? I mean it seems like water, fire, and other damage would have changed the weight of the baggage so much it would not be possible to determine the weight of the baggage as loaded, along with the fact that much of it is destroyed.

[arcniz]

A310driver - yo! Not.

Theory is that the graduation process makes them safe on day 1. A couple thousand hours helps that, for sure. A couple tens of thousands adds more flavor, but on older meat. It is, at best, a tradeoff.

What is harder to measure is the a$$h$le factor. It it a constant, or does it increase or decrease with burn time? Que sa?

Personally, I think it is best for the uninformed among us to just be somewhat kind in circumstances such as these.

[SaturnV]

However, he said pilots with a view of the plane told investigators it looked heavy while taxiing

What clues does one look for in a plane this size that makes it appear "heavy" on a taxiway?

[Eboy]

From The Washington Post . . .

"The plane, a Beechcraft 1900D, had logged eight flights since the maintenance Monday night at an Air Midwest facility in Huntington, W.Va. No pilots complained of any irregularities. However, when investigators looked at the flight data recorder, they saw that during those flights the plane's elevators appeared to be in a position that would have made it impossible to take off -- a sign that either a sensor gave a false reading to the data recorder or that the elevators had not been properly rigged, according to a source close to the investigation."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35457-2003Jan9.html


Can a flight data recorder record anomalies a pilot might not detect? If so, perhaps future recorders could perform an analysis function, detecting and reporting anomalies to the pilot.

[Brookmans Park]

With regard to the comments with regard to the experience levels of the crew on this unfortunate accident .

I work for a "Low Cost Carrier", who crew their 737/800s with 3000 hour newly promoted captains who have no prvious experience on the 800,having just had a couple of years on the 200 and within 5 weeks of promotion they fly with 200 hour new entry co-pilots, imagine that accident report!!

[Av8rMarc]

SaturnV,

I have several thousand hours in a 1900D, the "appeared heavy" remark is unfounded, however, it was quite routine with a full load on the aircraft for the nose strut to be fully extended because of the aft CG. It was pronounced enough that you had a noticeably different picture from the cockpit while taxiing. According to all FAA approved numbers, it was always legal, and with the amount of power that aircraft possesses, and all the crazy aerodynamic appendages to help out the CG no one ever thought twice about it.
Sounds like the tail MX is going to become the issue here anyway.



And for the experience naysayers from a major airline pilot:

Another thing to consider is that all of Captain Leslie's 1800 hours in type were HAND FLOWN as Air Midwest does not have autopilots. I would take her experience in type over same experience in type by a Captain of a heavy flying the autopilot any day.

[jet_noseover]

before anyone questions experience of the pilots, read:

(AP)While the youthfulness of the pilots on the plane that crashed in Charlotte, N.C., this week may have surprised some people, industry officials said the flight crew's age and combined experience was fairly typical for a commuter airline.

Captain Katie Leslie was 25 and had three years of experience. Co-pilot Jonathan Gibbs was 26, with two years in commercial aircraft.

"It doesn't strike me as being unusual," said Bill Schumann, a spokesman for the Federal Aviation Administration in Washington.

Dave Esser, a professor at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Daytona Beach, Fla., said neither their age nor their experience was out of the ordinary for commercial pilots early in their careers.

"Certainly with seniority comes judgment, coolness and calmness in an emergency situation," Esser said. On the other hand, a younger pilot could have "better reflexes, better physical condition, youthful eyes and reaction time," he said.

What is most important for a pilot, experts said, is the amount of time spent in the air and in what type of aircraft.

The plane that crashed just after takeoff Wednesday was a Beech 1900 twin-engine turboprop owned and operated by Mesa Air of Phoenix, Ariz., flying as US Airways Express flight 5481. Both pilots and all 19 passengers were killed.

Federal investigators are looking at the flight's weight, estimated to be about 100 pounds below its maximum, and at recent work on its tail assembly, National Transportation Safety Board member John Goglia said Thursday.

Goglia said there was confusion among workers loading the plane over whether too many bags had been put in the luggage compartment near the tail of the plane. After consulting with the captain, however, they agreed the plane could handle the load.

Leslie had 2,700 hours of total flight time and 1,800 hours of experience flying the Beech 1900, according to the National Transportation Safety Board.

Gibbs had 700 hours of experience flying the Beech 1900, the NTSB said.

"They have typical experience for pilots flying this plane at this point in their lives," said Kit Darby, president of Aviation Information Resources Inc., an Atlanta-based provider of career services.

Noting the speculation on the accident's cause, Darby added, "In this case, it looks like we had an airplane that wasn't flyable and it wouldn't have mattered who was at the controls."

Civilian pilots hired by airlines similar in size to Mesa between July 2001 and June 2002 had an average total flight time of 3,319 hours, according to AIR. Their average age was 34.6, with 75 percent younger than 40.

The Air Transport Pilot license that Leslie held requires a minimum age of 23 and minimum total flying time of 1,500 hours.

ATP licenses are held by captains at regional airlines and all pilots at major airlines. The average age of the nation's 144,700 ATP license holders is 46, according to the FAA. Fewer than 5,100 ATP license holders are younger than 30.

The industry does not maintain statistics on the average age of its pilots, but several airline officials agreed that Mesa and other regional airlines, which operate roughly one-third of the U.S. commercial airline fleet, are by and large staffed with younger flight crews than major airlines.

A typical career trajectory for a civilian pilot graduating flight school has been to join a commuter airline as a co-pilot, get promoted to captain, join a major airline as a co-pilot and, finally, get promoted to captain once again.

It can take as little as 10 years and as long as 20 years for a pilot out of flight school to become a captain at a major airline. Retirement is mandatory for pilots at 60.

In recent years, experienced pilots have shown a greater willingness to remain at regional carriers rather than moving on to major airlines as more and more propeller planes replace jet planes, said Scott Foose, vice president of the Regional Airline Association. A pilot's pay is directly tied to the speed of the aircraft and the number of passengers it can carry.

Industry officials said the average age of pilots likely went up in the past year as a result of furloughs and layoffs related to the economic downturn and the decline in travel after Sept. 11, 2001. Furloughs are generally based on seniority.

David Stempler, president of the Air Travelers Association, said passengers pay attention to the type of aircraft they're boarding but are unaware of the age of flight crews.

"They're more overwhelmed by the propellers," said Stempler. "You get to a certain point in life where every person is younger than you."

[Norman Stanley Fletcher]

A terrible tragedy for all involved. I think that A310 may have been somewhat misrepresented here. He has also been humble enough to rephrase his comments and that should be seen as the gracious act it is.

The experience issue in turboprops is always a problem. Because of the emotive issue involved it is hard to have a rational discussion on it, and I ask all involved to hear what is being said before jumping to conclusions.

I should declare my own hand. I am a British airline pilot flying A320/1s as an FO, but was previously a turboprop training captain. I got my command at 1800 hours total time (about 1080 hours multi) and felt up to the job (although pretty nervous on my first few trips!). I was massively helped by the use of top class simulators which allowed engine failure training in the most difficult conditions (high weight, low viz, big winds). This was in stark contrast to my first job where as a turboprop FO the training was on the job and the engine failures were all done at low weights and good weather. The bottom line is that in the sim you can risk any conditions but for real even the most experienced trainer will be wary with new trainees. At the very least he will intervene long before things get too difficult to recover. Therefore the first issue is one of the quality of training. There can be very few passenger jets that do not have simulators but there are many turboprops where the real aircraft is used. There is constant pressure on time because of the high operating costs and you just do not get as many circuits/engine fails etc because it takes so long to set up. There are clearly legal minimums but there is no doubt that the sim-based trainee gets a far more thorough deal.

Another problem that regional operators in general face is that in pilot terms turboprops are seen as 'starter jobs' whereas Airbuses and Boeings are seen as 'proper jobs'! Inevitably there is a continual migration of experience from turboprops to jets (money, cudos etc) and turboprops inevitably have lower experience levels (and in some cases poorer training as I have said earlier). Offsetting this, turboprop pilots often fly without autopilots or flight directors and fly many more sectors than their jet colleagues. Their raw handling skills, in my experience, are significantly better than many jet pilots. In an Airbus (320 or higher), you have to make a significant effort not to lose the handling skills because of the highly automated nature of the job. That is not to take anything away from these pilots (I am one!), as there is a real skill in using the automatics well. Nonetheless, many years in one of these advanced aircraft can leave a pilot poorly placed to deal with a situation requiring raw handling skills (of which, frankly, there are very few). Most emergencies are all about judgement as opposed to handling but judgement comes with experience. As we all know, once you have seen a problem previously, it is usually pretty straightforward. Again experience, in terms of straight hours flown, brings exposure to problems and difficulties which in turns increases the likeliehood of a successful outcome. Handling wise, turboprops are also much more difficult overall. I can certainly say that a turboprop engine failure (I have them seen both for real and in the sim), is infinitely more difficult than in an Airbus. This is particularly true if the engine fails to feather. It requires great skill to be able to regularly rescue such situation in the simulator without ever crashing. The Airbus in contrast is extremely easy to handle with an engine failure.

It is also worth noting that although civilian turboprop command experience levels at initial appointment are genereally low relative to jet ones (1800 hrs min approx but 3000 hrs or more for a jet), this is still very experienced compared to military captains. In the RAF, it is possible to be a captain on a Hercules or VC10 with not much over 1000 hours total time which would simply never be considered in the civilian world (min of 1500hrs legally anyhow). There is however a 'category' system by which more experienced pilots fly more demanding flights, and there are also very experienced flight engineers and navigators to even things up a little. Nonetheless these are extremely low experience levels for such responsible jobs. There are KC135, C141, C130 and other captains in the USAF with about 1200 hours, and they seem to do just fine. Even more intersting is the fact that these guys/gals will actually have flown many fewer flights than their civilian turboprop counterparts because many of these aircraft have long-range roles. Surprisingly few ever come a cropper because of inexperience.

My argument may seem not to point to one particular conclusion, and that is deliberately so. It is such a complex issue, and I have tried to show that there are many contradictory facets to the discussion. There are clearly many features of a pilot that make him/her suitable/unsuitable for command other than experience. Nevertheless, any sensible aviator will recognise that there is a certain threshold of experience below which it would be imprudent to employ someone as an aircraft commander. In theory, having reached that level of experience, the company can then review its supply of candidates to ensure that they meet all the other selection criteria prior to appointment. The problem is that in turboprop companies, it is generally true to say that the historic pilot turnover rates are so high that management simply does not have the luxury of waiting until a pilot has a certain experience level of say 4000 hours. Their hand is forced into appointing good, but relatively inexperienced, pilots before they might have ordinarily wished to. As I said earlier, I myself was a beneficiary of such a situation. The trick for management is to ensure that despite the pressures they face they do not act irresponsibly and appoint someone who is manifestly unsuitable for a command role on grounds of experience (or indeed any other reason). By and large, it would be fair to say that most companies get that fine judgement right.

As a final thought, there were 19 year-old Lancaster bomber pilots in World War II flying single pilot operations without autopilots, at night, in terrible weather, under attack from night fighters and anti-aircraft fire, flying all the way to Berlin and back, and their total experience was around 300 hours! Sadly they had a terrible attrition rate, which must to some extent have been related to their experience. It nevertheless gives a sense of perspective to any discussion on experience levels today!

[maxalt]

I agree with NSF, I think A310drivers comments have been slightly misread.
Certainly to comment on low experience of the crew on a thread about their fatal accident might seem harsh, but that isn't the intent in my reading of it.

I remember when I had 1500 hours on my first commercial type, and the main recollection I have is that the more hours I accumulated after the first 500 (when I just started feeling comfortable operating the beast) the more I realised that I still had a lot to learn!
I would not have felt comfortable or ready to take command at that level of experience. When I look back on it now I realise that was a realistic acceptance of the fact that...I wasn't ready. I consider myself of average ability.

NSF points out that some LCOs are promoting pilots at the 3000 hours mark onto medium jets. Personally I don't think its safe. Certainly they aren't falling out of the sky every day...but perhaps that has to do with the generally benign environment we operate in. Generally maintenance is good, airports are generally well equipped, ATC is generally very good, and better training + SOPs have improved safety a great deal these last ten years.

But honestly, at 3000TT the learning curve is still kinda steep.

I realise this might offend some people who have been promoted in this way and do a good job. I'm not criticising their abilities. But I think they too will look back in later years and understand the experience gap better.

In the end of the day this is an issue that boils down to money, and cost cutting.

NSF, the boys who flew Lancs during WW2 had a massive attrition rate. I remember reading a statistic that something like 90% of Halifax pilots never completed a tour of duty. Maybe less because of ability than circumstances, but the situations are too different to compare. The attrition rate needs to be as near zero as we can get it today.

[LNAV-VNAV]

If memory serves, that aircraft can be touchy in the C of G department. From preliminary media reports, it smells like a pitch-up excursion. We'll hear more soon from the NTSB, I hope.

[Saab340Pilot]

Look folks the offense was because the whole subject was broached because A310Driver when he was bothered by the fact, in fact laughed like it was yet another misrepresentation by the media/tv/faa, when the NTSB investigator said the pilots were "experienced." While we can discuss readiness at various levels of total time all day long how can a public figure in the aviation industry (airline employee, FAA, NTSB, ATC, etc.) ever go on tv and characterize 2 dead pilots (the day of an accident no less) as anything less than qualified and experienced (with 1800 hours in type.) Had the NTSB the day of the crash come out and said that the crew was inexperienced and they were looking into that angle I imagine the outrage in the public (against those dangerous airlines that dare allow 2700 hour CA's to fly a 19 seat plane) would be huge and in the aviation community even larger (when they knowingly realize there are excellent 2700 hour Captains).

How are we any better than the lousy media and arm chair quarterbacks when we as professional pilots who should know better broach this subject the day of a crash? LEAVE THE DISCUSSION OF PILOT ERROR OR INEXPERIENCE leading to a fatal accident out of ANY DISCUSSION surrounding that accident until at least a TINY shred of evidence points to that as the cause. A310Driver ridiculed a RESPONSIBLE NTSB reporter and IMPLIED a potential pilot error when none was even remotely established and that is where the problem stems.

That said I accept his new post where he states he unintentionally came across wrong but then again I humbly disagree with his latest opinion that Capt. Al Haynes would agree with his views of why higher time pilots are so much superior than a 1500 hour pilot and would not have come up with same result he had in the Sioux City crash (I would advocate based on seeing Capt. Haynes speak that he feels young pilots are so much better trained in the concepts of CRM and so much more open to implementing them that it puts them on an early even footing with the advantages that come with great experience.)

[John Farley]

Experience is about sorties. Not hours.

[Av8rMarc]

Saab340,

Well said. I think the subject escalated purely in defense of the crew. The audacity and righteousness necessary to make any assumption because of gender or experience so soon after the event is egomaniacal. The number of comments overheard in my own crew lounge was dismaying. I think as pilots, there is some innate instinct to justify things in our own minds - to somehow seperate ourselves and step back and say "that wouldn't happen to me because...", otherwise it would be hard to get back in the seat everytime an accident occured. But at some point, that tendency is detrimental to our own judgement.

[PickyPerkins]

This thread so far as it relates to the safety associated with high-time flyers reminds me of getting the flu.

I’m told that colds and flu is not one but several hundred very similar virus infections. A cold consists of catching and recovering from one of these bug variants, after which you are forever immune to that particular variety of cold/flu virus.

Consequently, children get many colds (maybe a dozen a year), while old codgers hardly get any (though the ones they do get are more likely to kill them).

The arguments about the benefits of flight experience seem to me to be analogous.

There are a hundred ways of having something go wrong in flying. Each time there is a “close encounter” you become immunized and don’t make that mistake again. So safety accrues with time, or rather with the number of “close encounters”, which in turn is likely to be closely related to sorties.

There are two totally different kinds of learning, facts you are told about and facts you learn by personal experience. While lots of experience is passed on in training, is it not the personal “close encounters” which really count?

Cheers, http://home.infi.net/~blueblue/_uimages/pi.gif

[maxalt]

Maybe the point is too subtle to come over properly on a BB.

Nobody suggested the accident referred to in this thread was caused by inexperience. It probably had absolutely nothing whatever to do with the crews experience.

It simply seems odd that crews are being put in charge these days with such low hours. I didn't realise just how early you can get a command in the US.

If you think 1500TT is sufficient experience for command...then why not 1000TT? Or 900? Or 750?

If it's simply a matter of 'suitable training' and ability to pass a check ride then why not 350TT?
Thats what I started flying jets with (as an F/O) and I've never failed a checkride, so why not? Wheres the magic number below which you become unfit for command? Has the lower limit only ever been a fiction dictated by nothing more than the lengthy seniority ladders of the past?

I hope not.

[A310driver]

I am reminded of the guy who starts a fight in a bar/pub and then goes off and sits in the corner sipping his brew and watching the action.

I find myself agreeing with many of the comments since my "insensitive" post on experience; even if I do not fully agreewith some, I understand that they are thoughtfully presented and heartfelt.

This, my last post on the subject, will summarize my point assisted by the paraphrased comments of others.

A fare paying traveler on an air carrier aircraft has the right to expect that the persons operating that aircraft will have a high level of experience; in this context, I define experience as including a fine-tuned level of technical competence and long term exposure to a wide range of normal and abnormal operational scenarios [weather, mechanical failure, system/ATC anomalies, etc]. I submit for your consideration that it is well known that you can train young pilots with low or no time [ ab initio ] to a very high level of competence in sims or [to a lesser degree] in the real thing and that the younger folks probably will learn faster and reach this proficiency level in less time than the gray beards; however, the second component can not be learned/acquired in a compressed time frame......this is the seasoning that a command pilot must/should have. I submit that a 25 year-old captain can not normally possess this...not because of personal shortcomings/deficiencies but for the obvious lack of long term exposure. This is further compounded when a f/o is assigned who....judging from many of the first hand comments on this thread.... may be little more than an observer on many carriers.

Perhaps the economics of this segment of the industry do not permit the asssignment of a seasoned left-seater to a 1900 but this clearly is not an appropriate excuse or explanation that the travelling public is likely to find comfort in.

I do not believe I can add anything more of a constructive nature to this discussion and to those that I may have offended..albeit unintentional.. I again apologize.

[Lu Zuckerman]

Whenever I get on a commercial aircraft I look into the flight deck to check for Grey hair. To me, Grey hair =experience.

:D

[NigelOnDraft]

For a given pilot... more hours = more experience = maybe better off depending on the circs.

HOWEVER, I have flown with many grey haired 10,000+ hour Captains who have only a marginal grasp of the job. I have also flown with sub-30 Capts who started in the RHS of Jets with 200 hours, probably now have 3500hrs, and are excellent.

When all else is equal, more hours might be desirable, but in general the training and personal skills mean all else is not equal...

[Pilot Pete]

A310Driver

A fare paying traveler on an air carrier aircraft has the right to expect that the persons operating that aircraft will have a high level of experience;

That would be nice, and I don't disagree, is ideal. But, "right to expect? "

Surely not? All they can have the right to expect is that the crew meet or exceed the minimum requirements laid down by the governing authority and the carriers insurers? I would guess that had been met in this case.

Just the same as when I get on a bus or train I can only expect the driver to have met the minimum standards as laid down in law. End of story.

I do agree there is a misconception amongst the flying public that every pilot has vast experience. Maybe the true problem lies in lack of informed judgement. If a passenger sees a young pilot up front they can be assured that that pilot has reached the minimum standard. If the minimum standard is in your opinion too low, then that is a completely separate argument.

PP

[Saab340Pilot]

A310Driver thanks for your comments on the subject, and I do understand you weren't trying to offend anyone. Like you, this will be my last post on the subject. In response to your comments let me just say the following:

1. The flying public has the right to expect fully qualified pilots who have met the standards the governing agency of the applicable country put forth not grey beards.

2. Your comments while well thought out have no place in a thread about an accident that occurred days and in your first post's case hours before. With no evidence experience played any role you inserted the concept that perhaps the Captain and First Officer were not experienced enough, that perhaps the flying public should expect better, and finally that perhaps all of the above may have something to do with the accident. The friends and family of these people do read these boards and I can only imagine how hurtful these comments could be. Further many nervous flyers, media, and others who are not so informed as you and I also might read this forum and develop ideas about qualifications that aren't true and patently unfair. I suggest in the future if you want to raise a debate about low time pilots please start a new and independent thread from that about a recent crash with no specific cause defined yet.

3. I am a 3500 hour CA with 2700 turbine and 2000 PIC. I have never failed a checkride, I have been challenged with significant emergencies and have found may way through. I am also new enough I know I have to be extra vigilant, go slow, and admit when I don't know the answer or feel uncomfortable with the situation. I have flown with inadequate pilots who were hired at very low time and surprisingly to me I have flown with inadequate pilots who were hired at total times 2 to 3 times the amount I have. Take that as you will.

4. My very last comment will simply be this. I have in this industry met an unbelievable amount of pilots who were hired at very low total time and upgraded with very low total time who when they became "seasoned" look back and say "I can't believe how many pilots are hired so low time and upgraded so early! It's crazy!" I pose to you that this attitude comes not from a sudden realization that they too had upgraded too early years before and were unsafe but rather an elitist tendency many in our career have that also leads to the current RJ vs. turboprop attitudes, and Boeings vs. RJ attitudes we love to fight about so much.

Forums are a place to put thoughts and ideas. I welcome your A310Driver, just in the future put them in their appropriate place outside the world of speculation of a tragedy.

Thanks.

[ATPMBA]

In the U.S., any holder of an ATP with an appropriate type rating, current first class medical and 1500 hours TT can fly as captain in scheduled service. Those qualifications meet all legal requirements.

Several years ago in the U.S., when the economy was better I had read somewhere that commuter airlines were upgrading co-pilots to captains once they got 1500 hours and passed their ATP flight test. I have a really problem with that, remembering back when I hit the 1000 and 1500 hour mark I was still learning. Some of these crews shoot 8 ILS to minimums a day with heavily loaded aircraft. I would not care to put my family or myself on such a flight.

All of these hours and ages are determined by supply and demand. Back in the late 1970’s I went to work for an air taxi firm as a co-pilot. They required co-pilots to have an ATP and 1500 hours. To be a captain on a Beech Baron 58 you needed an ATP and 3000 hours, on a Lear Jet 23/24/25 it was 5000 hours and minimum age 30. As the economy got better and the surplus of pilots lessened these requirements were rolled back somewhat. At my time of hire, age 23, the director or operations told me the age 30 rule was non-negotiable, however, it go rolled back to age 25.

At the air taxi firm many of the captains were seasoned veterans, I got to fly with people that had heavy jet experience and had 15000-20000 hours of experience. I believe I picked up many good habits and techniques.

[Taildragger]

Well, what started off as a report first of all on the accident itself, and then the usual ill informed reporting, seems to now have centred on the age and what some posters percieve as the (relative) inexperience of the crew. Now, we all know that this crew were fully qualified by the FAA and their employers, to take their places in the cockpit, but what really concerns me is that we also know that PPRuNe is highly regarded by the media, and is monitored closely as a source of imformation and comment.
All I see here is fodder for the Banner headlines stating that "Pilots believe crew of crashed aircraft were inexperienced" or somesuch, quoting PPRuNe as a source, whether that is true or not. I think that a more appropriate focus would be on the probable cause, and the tragedy that has befallen two professional flight crew, and their loved ones.

[411A]

Absolutely nothing wrong with the experience level of the crew members concerned, the Captain especially had PLENTY of experience in commuter operations, at times a very demanding job...lots of approaches/landings in all kinds of weather.

A mechanical airframe problem (as reported, preliminary) would have been BAD for any pilot, irespective of flight hours

The FAA in the recent past has audited EVERY commuter to be SURE that they all comply with the necessary training requirements. To suggest that the crew members concerned were of "low experience" is nonsense....period.

[Jetmonkey]

Ok guys, let's put experience into perspective:

A few years ago, I was flying for a parachute operation in the states. I am going to leave some details vague to protect the innocent.

We had a "just retired" major airline, L-1011 captain, training with us to start flying a King Air. According to the guy instructing him (first hand info), he had a little problem with flaring high. Eventually he was signed off. On his first flight without the instructor, he took off for a run to 14,000 feet to drop 10-13 jumpers, early in the morning. Fortunately, he took a low-time (sub 1000 hour) pilot with him that had collected some time in the operation in the right seat. We will call this guy Fred. Fred couldn't fly the airplane because of insurance limitations.

Somewhere around 12,000 feet, one of the engines flames out. The retired airline guy doesn't even make the motions to start feathering the engine. Fred takes the initiative, begins the feather and tells everyone in the back to get out now!
Moments later, the second engine flames out. Fortunately, the airplane was five miles from the approach end of the home field and a little high. A dead stick landing was made with no further dramas, except that the airline pilot had just seen his first and last flight for the operation.

It was determined that he thought somebody else was responsible for putting fuel into the airplane and he took off with about 15 minutes worth. There was no disagreement that Fred, the low-time guy, had saved the day.

Now that I'm flying jets for the airlines and haven't touched a light airplane in 4 years. I'm not afraid to admit that the 500 hour CFI, giving me a refresher in a light twin, better watch me like a hawk when I come to his field. You want to really watch me panic, MEL my FMS.

But when I finished my stint flying the Be-1900, I would put myself up against anybody in a sim with analog gauges and no autopilot.

Regards - Jetmonkey

[DownIn3Green]

100% spot on, Jet Monkey!!!

[Vsf]

411A:

Sensibly put. As usual, I agree.

Furthermore, there are pilots with 400 hours TT flying F-14's onto aircraft carriers, so, obviously, quality counts as much--or more--than mere quantity. Lotsa guys don't like hearing that though....I wonder why? :)

[Burger Thing]

An aircraft went up like a space shuttle and rolled on its back. The elevator were found (according to the FDR) in a 52 degree pitch up position. Pilots declared emergency.

But let's disuss the experience level of the crew. Especially by people of the other side of the pond who have no grasp about Flight Operations in the US.

pprune at its best

[LastCall]

NigelOnDraft

quote:

"However,I have flown with many grey-haired 10,000 + hour captains who have only a marginal grasp of the job."

unquote.

Seems very odd. At my airline, I spent a total of 16 years in both the aft, then right seat doing both long and shorthaul before it was my turn for promotion. During that time I, too, flew with many grey-haired 10,000 hour + captains.

I can't think of one who didn't have anything less than a full and total grasp of the job. Might have been a handful I'd preferred not to have flown with because of personality or whatever, but all were fully competent and capable.

[LRdriver]

OK.. lets face the fact that not all pilots are chuck yeagers. With todays mechanical reliability etc, many of these will bumble along during their career and not experience any sort of failure/malfunction that hasn't been covered in training. I too have flown with captains who have legally been qualified as per FAA/JAA/etc. but some of these guys I wouldn't want to be in an emergency with.

Being a European, I think I am OK to comment about the irony of the comments about lowtime pilots by some of my fellow euros. Considering that we, quite happily, have been doing AB-initio training, sticking a 250hr pilot/boy wonder into the RH seat of an airliner, effectivly turning it into single pilot ops..(obviously not the truth but just using the same arguments..).. so the words "pot/kettle/black" come to mind.

Codolences to all involved

[whatshouldiuse]

caused the plane to come down according to the NTSB on cnn.com. What I find more amazing, and I'm sorry crew experience doesn't come into this, but the level of compatency at the the NTSB most certainly does as can be seen from the following 2 coments:

"Investigators said the flight data recorder showed the elevator was moving unusually while the plane lifted off from the runway, as it had on all eight previous flights since routine maintenance was performed".

But Goglia said that reading may have been false and investigators have modified their initial interpretations of the data".

Well let me tell you, anybody can make the figures look like they're supposed, just ask an auditor.

BUT, according to the NTSB they might be wrong all previous 8 times ???? PLEASE. Of course on the 9th try, they're right~~ What's missing here please?

Any input would be greatly appreciated.

Andy

[PickyPerkins]

A question from the ignorant about the Beech 1900 D elevator system:

I understand that elevators can be of one of two systems:

In one the pilot's controls move the elevator by a direct connection. The pilot pulls the yoke and a direct cable connection pulls the elevator up. The plane then responds by pitching up.

In the other, the pilot moves the elevator tab only, and the tab then moves the elevator. The pilot pulls the yoke and a direct cable connection pulls the tab down. This pushes the elevator up. The plane then responds by pitching up.
Which system does the Beech 1900 D use?

If the latter, does the FDR record the positions of the
elevator tab
elevator, and the
yoke, as well as the
pitch attitude
of the a/c?

Thanks, http://home.infi.net/~blueblue/_uimages/pi.gif

This report (http://www.news-record.com/news/now/maincrash09.htm) is written as though the tab drives a free-flying elevator on the Beech 1900 D:
---- Start quote --
..... that a tab that controls movement of the elevator ...........
---- End quote ----

So could there have been a "sticky" free flying elevator ...... ?

---- Start quote --
The data recorder also shows the elevator control on the tail of the Beech 1900 "moving up and down a lot" on all flights it took following the maintenance work, Goglia said.
---- End quote ---

So in the case of a "sticky elevator", might not the controls (yoke and tab) feel normal and free on the ground, and indeed behave as designed in the air, with only the "sticky" free-flying elevator misbehaving in the air?

Can someone who knows comment? http://home.infi.net/~blueblue/_uimages/pi.gif

[Jetmonkey]

PickyPerkins,

Dang I hate when people do this to me. I searched through two manuals on the 1900 on how control surfaces were connected. BTW, there is nothing good to be said about manuals from that era.

Here is the only real blurb on Control Surfaces:

Ailerons, rudder, and elevators are cable-operated by conventional dual control wheels. The T-tail horizontal stab and elevator are mounted at the extreme top of the vertical stabilizer. Control surfaces are cable-operated by conventional dual controls in the flight deck. Control locks should be installed to prevent potential wind damage to controls or control surfaces whenever the airplane is parked.

That's it...pitiful huh?

I want to say that the trim wheel controlled the two elevator trim tabs and the yoke worked cables directly tied to the elevator. However, I am not sure about this. Sorry....I tried.

Jetmonkey

[Bob Brown]

ATPMBA

Some of these crews shoot 8 ILS to minimums a day with heavily loaded aircraft. I would not care to put my family or myself on such a flight.

Surely you should look at it the other way. They have up to 8 times the experience of landing in poor conditions than someone that flys long haul with the same hours, or to put it another way, they have as much experience with poor condition landings than a long hauller with 8 times the hours.

Now who do you want up the front?

[Shore Guy]

Seem to remember many years ago a similar accident scenario on a DC-8....and the reason for the now mandated "elevator check" on the takeoff roll (DC-8). As I recall, a piece of hardware (fod) lodged between the stab and elevator during rotation, causing the (manual/cable) system to jam with the elevator commanding nose up. I'll see if I can find it and post it.

[PaperTiger]

This (http://aviation-safety.net/database/1970/700908-1.htm) the one ?

[Rananim]

I think some have taken exception to A310's comments out of a desire to show support and sympathy to the brave crew of this accident.And that is understandable.
However,his assertions are mostly correct.Cognizance is directly proportional to experience.The more experience you get,the more cognizant you become.Or so one would hope....
Todays pilot might face one airborne crisis in his/her whole career.If he or she is lucky,that crisis can be overcome by employing corrective motor skills and rote memory.Remaining calm and collected whilst doing this makes you a proficient pilot.
An engine failure is a good example.The average inexperienced pilot will perform just as well as the average experienced pilot in such a scenario.
But combatting a situation that is more complex and contains variables that arent covered by a checklist is something else.If you dont have anything stored in the long-term memory bank,you run into trouble quick and panic might follow.Instinct is innate in all of us and can come to our aid but it is a poor substitute for a heightened perception gained from years of experience.
Somebody even mentioned something that might be appropiate here.The nose-wheel oleo extension that might have given an unusual eye angle during taxi-out.It might have triggered something in a more experienced pilot.Something isnt right here.We dont know this to be the case,and I certainly cast no aspersions on this brave crew,but as an example it makes the point.
Somebody once told me that flying is 10% stick and rudder and 90% perception.I dont know how true that is.Maybe the jury is still out.But I dont think its way off the mark.

[av8boy]

I thought it interesting that the ASN page linked above for the DC-8 accident indicates that the probable cause was

PROBABLE CAUSE: Loss of pitch control caused by the entrapment of a pointed, asphalt-covered object between the leading edge of the right elevator and the right horizontal spar web access door in the aft part of the stabilizer.

However, the NTSB report goes further:

PROBABLE CAUSE(S) PILOT IN COMMAND - FAILED TO ABORT TAKEOFF AIRFRAME - FLIGHT CONTROL SURFACES: ELEVATOR ASSEMBLY,ATTACHMENTS MISCELLANEOUS ACTS,CONDITIONS - JAMMED MISCELLANEOUS ACTS,CONDITIONS - INTERFERENCE WITH FLIGHT CONTROLS MISCELLANEOUS - FOREIGN MATERIAL AFFECTING NORMAL OPERATIONS FACTOR(S) PILOT IN COMMAND - INADEQUATE SUPERVISION OF FLIGHT MISCELLANEOUS ACTS,CONDITIONS - CHECKLIST-FAILED TO USE FIRE AFTER IMPACT REMARKS- LOSS OF PITCH CTL BY ENTRAPMENT OF POINTED ASPHALT COVERED OBJECT BETW R ELEV AND R HORIZ STAB.

Given the conversation here thus far, I also found it interesting that the captain in this DC-8 accident was 49 years of age, had 22300 hours total and 7100 in type. I believe that we could agree that this aviator was "experienced." Yet, the NTSB report says he made some bad decisions.

I only mention this to further mitigate against the tendency to draw broad conclusions about the potential cause of a particular accident, based only upon the perceived "experience" of the flight crew. I mean, is a 49 year old captain with 22300 hours methodical or slow? Is he/she confident or complacent? I, being in that age bracket, would prefer to think of myself as the former, but a Beech 1900 pilot half my age might beg to differ.

There is a time and a place for this "aircrew experience" argument, and usually, that place serves beer. I do not, however, see the value in pushing this issue in this particular thread. It really irks me to see folks besmirched when they've not yet earned it.


Dave

[broadreach]

Entirely with you on this AV8boy, and with several other posters whose uneasiness over mixing the experience issue in with the so far available facts of the accident is apparent in this thread.

"Experience vs reaction time (and all the other attributes of youth)" is a fascinating subject in itself, certainly more interesting than politics or religion and even less likely to be the subject of consensus on this forum.

But bringing experience into this thread, at this stage, just doesn't seem right. Wouldn't it be better to keep to the facts and the technical speculation and, if needs be, open another thread on the value (or not) of experience? Sorry, bad taste in my mouth altogether.

[Shore Guy]

Yes, Paper Tiger, that was the one....

And the latest.....

Crash of U.S. Air Flight May Be Linked to Section of Tail
Friday January 17, 1:29 am ET


SAN FRANCISCO -- Investigators looking into last week's crash of a U.S. Airways commuter flight in Charlotte, N.C., suspect a tail part that may have been improperly installed years before helped jam the plane's flight controls, government and industry officials told Friday's Wall Street Journal.

The National Transportation Safety Board is trying to determine whether a sensor designed to record movements in the turboprop aircraft's tail was misaligned when it was installed on the plane as a retrofit item years earlier, these officials said. Investigators also suspect that routine maintenance work performed days before the crash to adjust the tension of a control cable played a role in the crash that killed all 21 people aboard.

While it is likely to be months before the safety board formally identifies the probable cause of the accident, the early findings suggest that there wasn't a systemic design problem with the Raytheon Co. twin-engine Beech 1900D model, or with the maintenance operations of Air Midwest, which was operating the flight for U.S. Airways . Air Midwest is a unit of Mesa Air Group Inc., based in Phoenix.

Preliminary data gathered by investigators point to some type of malfunction in the plane's elevator, the part of the tail that helps the plane climb and descend. Officials familiar with the probe said both of the aircraft's engines appeared to be operating normally, the takeoff roll was routine, and the nose of the plane lifted off without incident. But within a few seconds, the nose tipped up sharply, putting the plane into a fatal stall.

[Bubbette]

I hope you have written to the BBC to express your concern at their inaccuracies.

[OFBSLF]

The FAA just released an emergency AD for the Beech 1900 concerning rigging of the elevators:

http://www.aero-news.net/news/commercial.cfm?ContentBlockID=7610
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgad.nsf/WebNewEmergencyAD/0A986036339DB5BD86256CBB006ADBD6?OpenDocument

[PickyPerkins]

Here is is an article (http://www.msnbc.com/local/wtae/A1499942.asp?0na=x225B5M3-) quoting FAA statistics of accidents vs. age of the pilot.

----- Start quote --------
..... a Federal Aviation Administration study obtained by Team 4 shows that pilots in their 20s have, by far, the highest accident rate:

89 percent higher than pilots in their 30s

59 percent greater than pilots in their 40s

62 percent higher than pilots in their 50s
----- End quote --------

I am not clear whether they are talking about pilots or commercial pilots. http://home.infi.net/~blueblue/_uimages/pi.gif

[jumpseater]

I have come into this one late, as I understand it OBSLF has hit the nail directly on the head, and I believe that checks are to be made on the fleet, I also understand that there are queries regarding the correct jigging on the elevators after maintenance on more than one operator, in particular the methodology used to assess the correct settings. My source indicates that FOD or other external influences at the time of the accident are unlikely to be the main cause.

It will be interesting to see where this ball ends up, with Raytheon/Beech for allegedly designing a system that can be set up incorrectly, or for the operators who allegedly may have done so. I am also led to believe that the crew are unlikely to be at fault for this accident. RIP all those involved.

[Bubbette]

The Public hearing has been scheduled for May 20.

"The National Transportation Safety Board will conduct a 2-
day en banc public hearing as part of its ongoing
investigation into the fatal crash of Air Midwest flight
5481 at Charlotte-Douglas International Airport, Charlotte,
North Carolina. The hearing will convene at 9:00 a.m. on
May 20th at the NTSB's Board Room and Conference Center at
429 L'Enfant Plaza, S.W., D.C. The hearing may continue
into a third day.. . . . .
A witness list will be released on the first day of
the hearing. Also on the first day, the Safety Board will
open its public docket on the investigation, which will
include hundreds of pages of factual reports and supporting
documentation. Factual reports from the docket will be
available on the Board's website, www.ntsb.gov. The entire
docket on CD ROM may be ordered from the Board's Public
Inquiries Office at (202) 314-6551."

[Bubbette]

Doh: http://www.ntsb.gov/events/boardmeeting.htm#previous

Washington, DC - The National Transportation Safety Board determined today that the probable cause of an airliner crash in Charlotte, North Carolina, last year was the airplane's loss of pitch control during takeoff. The loss of pitch control was the result of incorrect rigging of the elevator control system compounded by the airplane's center of gravity, which was substantially aft of the certified aft limit.

[Dream Land]

Center of gravity and overweight pax, what a load of crap, this had nothing to do with this accident.

D L:yuk:

[mini]

Dreamland,

Agree wholeheartedly, 19 pax is a full load, no probs with CoG there, the only issue left is baggage overload.

Maybe they were carrying bullion?

Really does sound like an elevator problem

[Rosbif]

Ive got about 1500 hrs in this machine, and I can tell you that it's very easy to load with the cg out the back door. Some Carriers use a pogo stick at the back. If you can't get it out when you've finished loading, it usually means someone's telling porkies on the weight and balance. As someone else said, the excessive nose oleo extension can give you a clue, the bigger step up into the plane, and the fact that it's like taxiing a taildragger all tell you something.
All of this can only make a bad situation worse. I don't think any plane that could be taxied could be completely uncontrollable on rotation with a functioning elevator -- as long as you are sitting close enough to the controls.
So , IMHO CG made it worse, but could not have been the cause.
Wrong place at wrong time, I guess.
A control check should be made in every plane before every takeoff. I only started to do it EVERY time when I started flying jets. Until then, it was always a first flight of the day thing.
It's a shame that an accident has to happen before we take notice of these small but sometimes very important things.

[Rand$]

Our SOP's call for a full control check as well as an electric elevator trim check before every take off.
also now all 3 trims manually to full delection and back to zero on the morning preflight.

as far as the AD that was issued from Raytheon about the elvator stop bolts after this accident:
I have heard rumors that numerous aircarft were found to be out of limits. does anyone else know?

and cents.:hmm: