Continental TurboProp crash inbound for Buffalo
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aviation safety starts with the pilot...and his commitment to being well above average...this must be combined with the commitment of his airline to provide training that is well above average.
Don’t shoot the messenger, but “average” is not necessarily a bad thing – and that’s because whatever range you’re considering determines “the average.” If the bottom end of any scale is “error free” and “professional,” encountering an “average” wouldn’t be bad at all … in fact, it would have to be quite good, presuming that the top end of that same scale was proportionally better.
A pilot never stops learning. A good one anyway.
I had someone tell me once that the only time a pilot learned anything from flying was when he or she did something wrong – and was corrected … or recognized the error and corrected it on their own. I tend to agree with that … but that is completely dependent on a robust training program that is conducted prior to getting out on the line. The problems that very often creep into line flying comes from those times where line flying takes liberties with what was learned in “the school house.” In other words, there are problems that come from a pilot not flying the way he/she was trained. Of course, there is the distinct problem of incorrect, or more likely, incomplete, training … but if anyone is watching to any degree, that isn’t as likely as the failure to take everything from the school house and apply it on the line … all the time … every time. And, I hope it goes without saying, that blindly doing anything doesn’t get one very far. An unthinking pilot who is only reacting, is a lot more likely to get into trouble than a pilot who recognizes what is going on and makes decisions accordingly … good ole situational awareness.
And, the colgan crash had two below average pilots and a below average training program.
This may be an accurate statement – I just don’t know. All we have to gauge the ability of the pilots is their training records and their performance on this flight. I would presume that the training program could likely have benefited from some critical review, but any pilot training program is likely to benefit, at least to some degree, from such a review. Unfortunately, many training programs only teach what is going to be “on the test,” and if the pilot passes the test, the conclusion is that the training program is adequate. My personal opinion is that the way a specific piloting task has been defined has a lot (quite a lot, actually) to do with what is actually taught and actually learned. For example – how is the “landing task” described in the training syllabus? Does that task describe “maintain a constant airspeed?” Does it say “make a smooth transition to touchdown?” Does it describe anything else? Should it say anything else? What does it say about what that airspeed should be on final? When and how should airspeed adjustments be made? What altitude should you cross the runway threshold? How does the pilot know where the airplane is actually headed? Where is the “aim point?” How do you adjust that aiming point? When does the pilot initiate the flare? What does that mean? What is the attitude he/she should be seeking? Where should the airplane be at the end of the flare … altitude and distance down the runway? How does the pilot correct for a drift during the flare? What happens to the throttles during the flare? What might be indications that the landing should be abandoned? …and I’m sure many here could add a whole lot more to this list of questions. My point is that the more thought that is put into the structure of the training program – beyond what will be on the test – the greater the probability that the pilot will be better trained. Now … how do we ensure that what was learned is translated to line operations – each time – every time???
Pull up the flaps? Pull up on the stick? Something ain't right somewhere.
On this, I agree completely. Where did the idea of retracting the flaps come from? Certainly, not the training program … right? Or was it? And, as far as continuing to “pull” with the controls in your hands … that tells me this pilot was never taught about reducing “g-forces,” or he was used to short-cutting what was learned in training when on the line.
Money would have made these pilots better...more training, better training, better evaluation. AND if the airline had started with better candidates even the above would have been enhanced.
With a grain or two of salt, I tend to agree with the latter portion of your first statement – but only because more training is usually better training – however, that, too, makes some assumptions that may be premature. Unfortunately, I’ve seen way too much training done the wrong way or training where the wrong thing was emphasized, or was simply flat wrong. Therefore … my comment regarding the grain or two of salt. Certainly no one would argue with “better training” being desirable. And, while there is certainly a component involved, it isn’t always indisputable that throwing money at a problem will cure it. As far as the ability or the quality of the candidates is concerned … while a bit more argumentative, this is, I’m afraid, something that is not completely known – at least not known beyond the facts we have at hand, which may be limited.
Its hard to be a copilot in the non flying pilot role...you must be ahead of everything, and be tactful enough to be able to help the captain/PF out of trouble before he gets into it.
Again, if you’ll allow me the luxury of “bending” your statement just a bit … “It’s hard to be a pilot in the non-flying role … you must be ahead of everything and be aware, knowledgeable, and tactful enough to help the other pilot out of trouble before he gets into it.”
Don’t shoot the messenger, but “average” is not necessarily a bad thing – and that’s because whatever range you’re considering determines “the average.” If the bottom end of any scale is “error free” and “professional,” encountering an “average” wouldn’t be bad at all … in fact, it would have to be quite good, presuming that the top end of that same scale was proportionally better.
A pilot never stops learning. A good one anyway.
I had someone tell me once that the only time a pilot learned anything from flying was when he or she did something wrong – and was corrected … or recognized the error and corrected it on their own. I tend to agree with that … but that is completely dependent on a robust training program that is conducted prior to getting out on the line. The problems that very often creep into line flying comes from those times where line flying takes liberties with what was learned in “the school house.” In other words, there are problems that come from a pilot not flying the way he/she was trained. Of course, there is the distinct problem of incorrect, or more likely, incomplete, training … but if anyone is watching to any degree, that isn’t as likely as the failure to take everything from the school house and apply it on the line … all the time … every time. And, I hope it goes without saying, that blindly doing anything doesn’t get one very far. An unthinking pilot who is only reacting, is a lot more likely to get into trouble than a pilot who recognizes what is going on and makes decisions accordingly … good ole situational awareness.
And, the colgan crash had two below average pilots and a below average training program.
This may be an accurate statement – I just don’t know. All we have to gauge the ability of the pilots is their training records and their performance on this flight. I would presume that the training program could likely have benefited from some critical review, but any pilot training program is likely to benefit, at least to some degree, from such a review. Unfortunately, many training programs only teach what is going to be “on the test,” and if the pilot passes the test, the conclusion is that the training program is adequate. My personal opinion is that the way a specific piloting task has been defined has a lot (quite a lot, actually) to do with what is actually taught and actually learned. For example – how is the “landing task” described in the training syllabus? Does that task describe “maintain a constant airspeed?” Does it say “make a smooth transition to touchdown?” Does it describe anything else? Should it say anything else? What does it say about what that airspeed should be on final? When and how should airspeed adjustments be made? What altitude should you cross the runway threshold? How does the pilot know where the airplane is actually headed? Where is the “aim point?” How do you adjust that aiming point? When does the pilot initiate the flare? What does that mean? What is the attitude he/she should be seeking? Where should the airplane be at the end of the flare … altitude and distance down the runway? How does the pilot correct for a drift during the flare? What happens to the throttles during the flare? What might be indications that the landing should be abandoned? …and I’m sure many here could add a whole lot more to this list of questions. My point is that the more thought that is put into the structure of the training program – beyond what will be on the test – the greater the probability that the pilot will be better trained. Now … how do we ensure that what was learned is translated to line operations – each time – every time???
Pull up the flaps? Pull up on the stick? Something ain't right somewhere.
On this, I agree completely. Where did the idea of retracting the flaps come from? Certainly, not the training program … right? Or was it? And, as far as continuing to “pull” with the controls in your hands … that tells me this pilot was never taught about reducing “g-forces,” or he was used to short-cutting what was learned in training when on the line.
Money would have made these pilots better...more training, better training, better evaluation. AND if the airline had started with better candidates even the above would have been enhanced.
With a grain or two of salt, I tend to agree with the latter portion of your first statement – but only because more training is usually better training – however, that, too, makes some assumptions that may be premature. Unfortunately, I’ve seen way too much training done the wrong way or training where the wrong thing was emphasized, or was simply flat wrong. Therefore … my comment regarding the grain or two of salt. Certainly no one would argue with “better training” being desirable. And, while there is certainly a component involved, it isn’t always indisputable that throwing money at a problem will cure it. As far as the ability or the quality of the candidates is concerned … while a bit more argumentative, this is, I’m afraid, something that is not completely known – at least not known beyond the facts we have at hand, which may be limited.
Its hard to be a copilot in the non flying pilot role...you must be ahead of everything, and be tactful enough to be able to help the captain/PF out of trouble before he gets into it.
Again, if you’ll allow me the luxury of “bending” your statement just a bit … “It’s hard to be a pilot in the non-flying role … you must be ahead of everything and be aware, knowledgeable, and tactful enough to help the other pilot out of trouble before he gets into it.”
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
air rabbit
average pilots don't have much left over for an emergency. if you have more than enough ''oomph''' when you need extra...you have it...if you have enough ''oomph'' you don't have anything left over.
pilot vs. copilot...a captain is always responsible for what the copilot does...a smart copilot will have all the answers the captain asks before he asks them...a captain can kill you if you are the copilot and unaware.
pilots can learn from many things...but they have to be willing to learn...learning from mistakes is like inventing the electric light bulb each time you want light...instead of just switching on the power and paying your bills.
I hoep you learn many things but not by the concept of making a mistake...try ttry try reading a book about flying you never read before...you might learn something there for example
or when sitting around the ready room...ask all the pilots what they have learned this year...and maybe you might hear something worthwhile.
as for aim point, threshold crossing height...etc. at one regional airline I flew for about 22 years ago, a genius tried for a spot landing...right on the numbers...and he did it with the nosewheel...but the mains fell short of the runway and were creamed off by the runway lip.
So, I came up with a course of CRM/and good piloting habits. After one session it was cancelled due to a lack of money. The first question I asked was: mark on this picture of a runway, 1000' from the threshold as you land.
75% of the class couldn't circle the nice little white fixed distance markers.
So I went through everything...threshold crossing height...aim point/touchdown point...etc.
You can teach stuff, or even learn from books if you and your airline don't have the oomph to teach it.
But you have to want to learn. I had one guy who was more interested in the pilot lifestyle than being a pilot.
...
and think about it...Fedex and UPS pilots are paid more to fly boxes than major airline pilots are to fly people.
average pilots don't have much left over for an emergency. if you have more than enough ''oomph''' when you need extra...you have it...if you have enough ''oomph'' you don't have anything left over.
pilot vs. copilot...a captain is always responsible for what the copilot does...a smart copilot will have all the answers the captain asks before he asks them...a captain can kill you if you are the copilot and unaware.
pilots can learn from many things...but they have to be willing to learn...learning from mistakes is like inventing the electric light bulb each time you want light...instead of just switching on the power and paying your bills.
I hoep you learn many things but not by the concept of making a mistake...try ttry try reading a book about flying you never read before...you might learn something there for example
or when sitting around the ready room...ask all the pilots what they have learned this year...and maybe you might hear something worthwhile.
as for aim point, threshold crossing height...etc. at one regional airline I flew for about 22 years ago, a genius tried for a spot landing...right on the numbers...and he did it with the nosewheel...but the mains fell short of the runway and were creamed off by the runway lip.
So, I came up with a course of CRM/and good piloting habits. After one session it was cancelled due to a lack of money. The first question I asked was: mark on this picture of a runway, 1000' from the threshold as you land.
75% of the class couldn't circle the nice little white fixed distance markers.
So I went through everything...threshold crossing height...aim point/touchdown point...etc.
You can teach stuff, or even learn from books if you and your airline don't have the oomph to teach it.
But you have to want to learn. I had one guy who was more interested in the pilot lifestyle than being a pilot.
...
and think about it...Fedex and UPS pilots are paid more to fly boxes than major airline pilots are to fly people.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Antigua, W.I.
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lots of talk about the stick pusher surprising the crew. On the 100/300 Series the stick shaker goes off first, then the pusher operates at about 6 knots below shaker speed.
Is this the same on the 400 Series? I thought it was.
Is this the same on the 400 Series? I thought it was.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: US
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hope I don't get to ride in the back of an airliner with an average pilot. I am sure it will happen some day but an average pilot landing in the Hudson would have been another story. He was above average. Automation could not have helped him much that day no matter what the Airbus fans say. His judgement and skill got them down alive.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Following this debate I am getting the impression that rather than two below average pilots here, they were two pilots whose training on the aircraft was well below average and subsequently their operation was of a similar standard. 
Why do we read these threads? Well I don't know about you but one of my adages in flying is: Learn from the mistakes of others because you won't live long enough to make them all yourself.
Why do we read these threads? Well I don't know about you but one of my adages in flying is: Learn from the mistakes of others because you won't live long enough to make them all yourself.
Originally Posted by p51guy
I hope I don't get to ride in the back of an airliner with an average pilot. I am sure it will happen some day but an average pilot landing in the Hudson would have been another story. He was above average. Automation could not have helped him much that day no matter what the Airbus fans say. His judgement and skill got them down alive.
Guest
Posts: n/a
"Following this debate I am getting the impression that rather than two below average pilots here, they were two pilots whose training on the aircraft was well below average and subsequently their operation was of a similar standard"
Is that statement for real???
I would say following this debate those two should have been weeded out long before they got near the controls of an RPT aircraft. Where in any training does it state that to get out of a low speed stall situation you pull the stick back??? where is anyone ever taught to get out of a low speed stall situation you lift the flaps??? where does it say the crew act as independent control operators, I mean who in their right mind would lift flaps in this situation without first confirming that the Captain was aware of what you intended to do?? and, the first officers job is to do what is requested by the Captain surely?? especially if the Capt is the Pilot Flying. I would think my language would be very specific if the flaps were raised without an order, or in these days a request, being made.
Is that statement for real???
I would say following this debate those two should have been weeded out long before they got near the controls of an RPT aircraft. Where in any training does it state that to get out of a low speed stall situation you pull the stick back??? where is anyone ever taught to get out of a low speed stall situation you lift the flaps??? where does it say the crew act as independent control operators, I mean who in their right mind would lift flaps in this situation without first confirming that the Captain was aware of what you intended to do?? and, the first officers job is to do what is requested by the Captain surely?? especially if the Capt is the Pilot Flying. I would think my language would be very specific if the flaps were raised without an order, or in these days a request, being made.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: West London
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pugilistic, in a case like this we are all left thinking why did they do what they did, and the reality is that we will never know. Like you I dont think we can judge them. I feel sorry for the families of the Captain and the copilot who will be wanting to think the best of their loved ones who they have lost in such sad circumstances. Sadly the accident reports do not bring any comfort to them.
Originally Posted by TheShadow
The stick-pusher is meant to encourage and stimulate a response in the correct direction (i.e. the pilot is supposedly stimulated to lower the nose and reduce the angle-of-attack whilst selecting max power)
Stick-pusher is not a warning device! It is autonomous stall-preventing device and is required to be fitted to any transport aeroplane not possessing good natural stall characteristics.
Yes, there are some aeroplanes out there, carrying thousands of passengers every day, that just can't be allowed to get into fully blown stall. So they have stick-pushers installed. I've got 3000 hrs in some of them, still counting and far from considering pusher "psychologically unacceptable", I'm rather glad to have it onboard.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By definition the majority of the pilots you fly with will be average or close to it.
Provided the average skill level maintained by airline pilots is well above the minimum required skill level, all should be ok.
Mate, you got it so terribly, terribly wrong!
Stick-pusher is not a warning device! It is autonomous stall-preventing device and is required to be fitted to any transport aeroplane not possessing good natural stall characteristics.
Yes, there are some aeroplanes out there, carrying thousands of passengers every day, that just can't be allowed to get into fully blown stall. So they have stick-pushers installed. I've got 3000 hrs in some of them, still counting and far from considering
Stick-pusher is not a warning device! It is autonomous stall-preventing device and is required to be fitted to any transport aeroplane not possessing good natural stall characteristics.
Yes, there are some aeroplanes out there, carrying thousands of passengers every day, that just can't be allowed to get into fully blown stall. So they have stick-pushers installed. I've got 3000 hrs in some of them, still counting and far from considering
Why we Come Here for real.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so much confusion in the cockpit...why did the copilot say: go around???? and then retract the flaps.
maybe STALL should have been in huge lights in front of the pilots face along with the shaker...and the shaker at least seconds ahead of the pusher.
My favorite jet has a huge sign that lights up and says: STALL and it doesn't even have a pusher.
the mindset shift from stall recovery to go around must have confused someone in the cockpit......mind you after recovery from the stall I might have gone around just to get my sense back...but that pusher should never have come on...the pilots should have recognized a stall way prior to the pusher.
maybe STALL should have been in huge lights in front of the pilots face along with the shaker...and the shaker at least seconds ahead of the pusher.
My favorite jet has a huge sign that lights up and says: STALL and it doesn't even have a pusher.
the mindset shift from stall recovery to go around must have confused someone in the cockpit......mind you after recovery from the stall I might have gone around just to get my sense back...but that pusher should never have come on...the pilots should have recognized a stall way prior to the pusher.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: US
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PTH, I think we will both agree that a stall warning should not be required if you are taking care of things. For people that let automation take them into low speed emergencies I don't know what to say. A stall warning is important if someone is not taking care of the store and letting things go. In 23,000 hrs I have never needed it. It is required however if you are out to lunch.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: US
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well the Shuttle launch is my biggest concern for the AM after the Super Bowl. Kind of early to get up. 4:15 AM ish. We can see it from the Keys. Last night shuttle launch. Only 4 more after that.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
protectthehornet
average pilots don't have much left over for an emergency. if you have more than enough ''oomph''' when you need extra...you have it...if you have enough ''oomph'' you don't have anything left over.
Well, because “average” is a term that means essentially “the middle,” I’d hate to think that the average pilot can’t handle an emergency – as that would mean fully half of the pilots out there are dangerous if anything beyond what is expected actually happens.
pilot vs. copilot...a captain is always responsible for what the copilot does...a smart copilot will have all the answers the captain asks before he asks them...a captain can kill you if you are the copilot and unaware.
No argument – but again, you can substitute “co-pilot” where ever you wrote “captain” and substitute “captain” where ever you wrote “co-pilot,” and the statement is still true – well, except for the responsibility part from a “legal” perspective.
pilots can learn from many things...but they have to be willing to learn...learning from mistakes is like inventing the electric light bulb each time you want light...instead of just switching on the power and paying your bills.
Not only can pilots learn from many things – they learn things all the time. The question becomes … do we want all of what they learn to be applied during line operations? My point was that we (the aviation industry – and by sequence, each airline) need to determine how we want the airplane flown – and then train the crewmembers to fly the airplane THAT way. IF a crew member then wants to “short cut” something because they think it saves fuel or time or something else, encourage him/her to make the suggestion before putting the suggestion into practice. IF a crew member insists on operating differently than the way he/she was trained, my suggestion is to help them find another airline who wants to fly the airplane that way.
I hope you learn many things but not by the concept of making a mistake...try try try reading a book about flying you never read before...you might learn something there for example
Not a bad suggestion at all … particularly if after reading something, an inquisitive reader then asks for some additional information – either for confirmation or clarification – before implementing something they thought they understood from a book that may or may not provide valid information.
or when sitting around the ready room...ask all the pilots what they have learned this year...and maybe you might hear something worthwhile.
I particularly like this suggestion … but I’d take it a bit further and have that inquisitive pilot ask some questions about things he/she isn’t sure of to gain others’ impressions, suggestions, and ideas … all the while, everyone ensuring that what is discussed is what is taught in the airline training programs.
as for aim point, threshold crossing height...etc. at one regional airline I flew for about 22 years ago, a genius tried for a spot landing...right on the numbers...and he did it with the nosewheel...but the mains fell short of the runway and were creamed off by the runway lip.
Ouch! Obviously an example of someone not knowing what is meant by “landing the airplane.”
So, I came up with a course of CRM/and good piloting habits. After one session it was cancelled due to a lack of money. The first question I asked was: mark on this picture of a runway, 1000' from the threshold as you land.
GOOD on ya!
75% of the class couldn't circle the nice little white fixed distance markers.
Unfortunately, there are many airlines who would have similar stories … and varying numbers of their flight staff who might have the same difficulty. Says a lot about what we teach and what may be important.
So I went through everything...threshold crossing height...aim point/touchdown point...etc.
GOOD on ya! Again! That day you may well have saved someone’s life – and more than likely have contributed to the absence of landing incidents more than you may ever recognize – no kidding … anyone who listened and heeded your descriptions is likely a better pilot for your efforts.
You can teach stuff, or even learn from books if you and your airline don't have the oomph to teach it.
Again, I agree completely. The problem is that folks like you and I need to make it known that what is taught is not simply taught to get through the tests and checks, to get out of the training environment, and get onto the line. What is taught is taught because it is the safest and most economical way to operate the airplane – and when “safe” and “economical” become at odds with one another – there should never be a doubt about which one wins.
But you have to want to learn. I had one guy who was more interested in the pilot lifestyle than being a pilot.
Ouch, again. But, if we aren’t careful, there are likely to be more of the same slip through the cracks in the system. Airplanes and airplane systems are getting better and better … and, in my opinion, this allows those with lesser skills and lesser abilities to “squeek” through the program. And as long as we teach the test and only the test and then administer the test exactly the way it was taught, we really aren’t doing the students an awful lot of good in preparing them for what they may encounter in everyday flying.
and think about it...Fedex and UPS pilots are paid more to fly boxes than major airline pilots are to fly people.
Actually, I think their salary structures have more to do with flying virtually ALL of their flights on the back side of the clock, than it has to do with the make-up of the “cargo.” But the premise remains the same … or at least it should be the same … Train the way the crews are to fly … and then expect the crews to fly the way they are trained. And encourage questions and suggestions ALL the time – there are a lot of very bright lads and lasses sitting in the world’s flight decks – what could it hurt to encourage them to ask questions and offer opinions … but the cavalier pilot who believes he has a “better way,” should be looking for another job.
average pilots don't have much left over for an emergency. if you have more than enough ''oomph''' when you need extra...you have it...if you have enough ''oomph'' you don't have anything left over.
Well, because “average” is a term that means essentially “the middle,” I’d hate to think that the average pilot can’t handle an emergency – as that would mean fully half of the pilots out there are dangerous if anything beyond what is expected actually happens.
pilot vs. copilot...a captain is always responsible for what the copilot does...a smart copilot will have all the answers the captain asks before he asks them...a captain can kill you if you are the copilot and unaware.
No argument – but again, you can substitute “co-pilot” where ever you wrote “captain” and substitute “captain” where ever you wrote “co-pilot,” and the statement is still true – well, except for the responsibility part from a “legal” perspective.
pilots can learn from many things...but they have to be willing to learn...learning from mistakes is like inventing the electric light bulb each time you want light...instead of just switching on the power and paying your bills.
Not only can pilots learn from many things – they learn things all the time. The question becomes … do we want all of what they learn to be applied during line operations? My point was that we (the aviation industry – and by sequence, each airline) need to determine how we want the airplane flown – and then train the crewmembers to fly the airplane THAT way. IF a crew member then wants to “short cut” something because they think it saves fuel or time or something else, encourage him/her to make the suggestion before putting the suggestion into practice. IF a crew member insists on operating differently than the way he/she was trained, my suggestion is to help them find another airline who wants to fly the airplane that way.
I hope you learn many things but not by the concept of making a mistake...try try try reading a book about flying you never read before...you might learn something there for example
Not a bad suggestion at all … particularly if after reading something, an inquisitive reader then asks for some additional information – either for confirmation or clarification – before implementing something they thought they understood from a book that may or may not provide valid information.
or when sitting around the ready room...ask all the pilots what they have learned this year...and maybe you might hear something worthwhile.
I particularly like this suggestion … but I’d take it a bit further and have that inquisitive pilot ask some questions about things he/she isn’t sure of to gain others’ impressions, suggestions, and ideas … all the while, everyone ensuring that what is discussed is what is taught in the airline training programs.
as for aim point, threshold crossing height...etc. at one regional airline I flew for about 22 years ago, a genius tried for a spot landing...right on the numbers...and he did it with the nosewheel...but the mains fell short of the runway and were creamed off by the runway lip.
Ouch! Obviously an example of someone not knowing what is meant by “landing the airplane.”
So, I came up with a course of CRM/and good piloting habits. After one session it was cancelled due to a lack of money. The first question I asked was: mark on this picture of a runway, 1000' from the threshold as you land.
GOOD on ya!
75% of the class couldn't circle the nice little white fixed distance markers.
Unfortunately, there are many airlines who would have similar stories … and varying numbers of their flight staff who might have the same difficulty. Says a lot about what we teach and what may be important.
So I went through everything...threshold crossing height...aim point/touchdown point...etc.
GOOD on ya! Again! That day you may well have saved someone’s life – and more than likely have contributed to the absence of landing incidents more than you may ever recognize – no kidding … anyone who listened and heeded your descriptions is likely a better pilot for your efforts.
You can teach stuff, or even learn from books if you and your airline don't have the oomph to teach it.
Again, I agree completely. The problem is that folks like you and I need to make it known that what is taught is not simply taught to get through the tests and checks, to get out of the training environment, and get onto the line. What is taught is taught because it is the safest and most economical way to operate the airplane – and when “safe” and “economical” become at odds with one another – there should never be a doubt about which one wins.
But you have to want to learn. I had one guy who was more interested in the pilot lifestyle than being a pilot.
Ouch, again. But, if we aren’t careful, there are likely to be more of the same slip through the cracks in the system. Airplanes and airplane systems are getting better and better … and, in my opinion, this allows those with lesser skills and lesser abilities to “squeek” through the program. And as long as we teach the test and only the test and then administer the test exactly the way it was taught, we really aren’t doing the students an awful lot of good in preparing them for what they may encounter in everyday flying.
and think about it...Fedex and UPS pilots are paid more to fly boxes than major airline pilots are to fly people.
Actually, I think their salary structures have more to do with flying virtually ALL of their flights on the back side of the clock, than it has to do with the make-up of the “cargo.” But the premise remains the same … or at least it should be the same … Train the way the crews are to fly … and then expect the crews to fly the way they are trained. And encourage questions and suggestions ALL the time – there are a lot of very bright lads and lasses sitting in the world’s flight decks – what could it hurt to encourage them to ask questions and offer opinions … but the cavalier pilot who believes he has a “better way,” should be looking for another job.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it boils down to this:
either there was a competent crew at the helm and they were misled by something strange
or
there were two less than competent pilots and they screwed up really badly.
either way, a cockpit videocam/recorder showing the instruments as the pilots saw them along with other pertinent cockpit views would settle things in my mind.
either there was a competent crew at the helm and they were misled by something strange
or
there were two less than competent pilots and they screwed up really badly.
either way, a cockpit videocam/recorder showing the instruments as the pilots saw them along with other pertinent cockpit views would settle things in my mind.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 76
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Something interesting to me is that people have looked into all the corners about this Colgan crash without anyone mentioning the last Colgan crash.
In that one a Beech 1900 had its elevator trim mis-rigged so that "nose up" in the cockpit was "nose down" at the elevators. The engineers missed this and so did the flight crew.
When the crew departed on an empty positioning flight the PF kept trimming "nose up" until the aircraft went in, trimmed so heavily nose down that he couldn't hold it any longer.
You could see that "accident chain" at work in that one, with the last, fatal link being the PF not being sharp enough to think, "Maybe I better stop trimming before this thing gets away from me or even think to check what going the 'wrong' way does," or perhaps the PNF not noticing what was going on. As it was, they went in right after take-off with no height or time to sort the problem out but with an empty aircraft this one didn't make the headlines.
Colgan is typical of these "bottom feeder" operations, offering the sort of job you just hope to survive with until you can find a decent one. Crew forced to sleep in the Crew Room, unable to afford a motel room? Ah, just ban them from doing that! This is the sort of man-management we used to joke about with, "All leaves are cancelled until morale improves!"
It probably isn't that Chuck Colgan wants to be Simon Legree, just that the sort of contracts he goes after must have really thin profit margins. There's just not enough in the pot for an extra portion of gruel and if you don't like that, there is a stack of CVs "this high," low-time guys ready and eager to take your place!
You can see a vast, shaky edifice built up here, the Colgans and the Gulfstreams and what-not all enticed to play "airline," allowed to paint airline livery such as Delta, American and United on their little regional "airliners," their low-experience, low-skill, low-pay crews all dressed up nice in uniforms some of them have to pay for partly out of their own wages... could you call this "bait and switch"? Pay good money for a mainline ticket but find yourself on a Q400 flown by such a pair as this crash crew: that is what I mean.
So far the FAA seems to be okay with this as long as the correct boxes are being ticked on the training forms and never mind the reality of the product.
In that one a Beech 1900 had its elevator trim mis-rigged so that "nose up" in the cockpit was "nose down" at the elevators. The engineers missed this and so did the flight crew.
When the crew departed on an empty positioning flight the PF kept trimming "nose up" until the aircraft went in, trimmed so heavily nose down that he couldn't hold it any longer.
You could see that "accident chain" at work in that one, with the last, fatal link being the PF not being sharp enough to think, "Maybe I better stop trimming before this thing gets away from me or even think to check what going the 'wrong' way does," or perhaps the PNF not noticing what was going on. As it was, they went in right after take-off with no height or time to sort the problem out but with an empty aircraft this one didn't make the headlines.
Colgan is typical of these "bottom feeder" operations, offering the sort of job you just hope to survive with until you can find a decent one. Crew forced to sleep in the Crew Room, unable to afford a motel room? Ah, just ban them from doing that! This is the sort of man-management we used to joke about with, "All leaves are cancelled until morale improves!"
It probably isn't that Chuck Colgan wants to be Simon Legree, just that the sort of contracts he goes after must have really thin profit margins. There's just not enough in the pot for an extra portion of gruel and if you don't like that, there is a stack of CVs "this high," low-time guys ready and eager to take your place!
You can see a vast, shaky edifice built up here, the Colgans and the Gulfstreams and what-not all enticed to play "airline," allowed to paint airline livery such as Delta, American and United on their little regional "airliners," their low-experience, low-skill, low-pay crews all dressed up nice in uniforms some of them have to pay for partly out of their own wages... could you call this "bait and switch"? Pay good money for a mainline ticket but find yourself on a Q400 flown by such a pair as this crash crew: that is what I mean.
So far the FAA seems to be okay with this as long as the correct boxes are being ticked on the training forms and never mind the reality of the product.
Maybe it´s also worth mentioning that one outfit, Gulfstream International (the airline) either trained or previously employed the Colgan captain, and the Comair copilot, and at least one or both the Pinnacle Airlines crash pilots. Coincidence?