Continental TurboProp crash inbound for Buffalo

[Razoray]

Interesting...so you apparently have no grounding in statistics or psychometrics. I'm guessing you probably cellphone your way to the airport, steering with one hand, tailgating and driving beyond your ability...)

Stepwilk: "Snickered at once again"

and just for the record I take the D.C. Metro to work every day...which according to the NSTB is not the safest form of travel at this time.

But here is the thing about statistics. They are affected by variables. The variables for Colgan flight 3407 that night were icy conditions, possible pilot fatigue, possible poor pilot training, as well as poor flight deck discipline. If all things were equal do you think with these variables that the probability for an incident/accident would increase compared with a normal flight situation?

[stepwilk]

But you would have no way of knowing anything about those variables by checking your fear-of-flying sites.

[Razoray]

True,

that's why I graduated to PPRuNe, so I could learn from all you experts...

Safe flight to your brother.....

[Finn47]

NTSB investigators are now pushing for CVR recordings to be regularly downloaded and monitored in order to make sure that pilots are actually concentrating on their job and not on something else

NTSB asks to monitor pilots' talk in cockpits - USATODAY.com

[Clandestino]

So MGT of a certain oriental airline had it right all the time?

[protectthehornet]

I think the NTSB should monitor the CVR as mentioned above.

BUT , the quid pro quo flo has to be : full restoration of pensions reasonably expected on sept. 10, 2001

and restoration of full pay, with back pay of expected wages as of sept 10, 2001.

In other words, UNSCREW all the pilots screwed over by 911 attacks and you can listen or watch us do everything.

[bearfoil]

Generally, I deplore "Reparations". However..........

I am not going shopping for a Lambo, call me sceptical.

bear, kung PAO

[PJ2]

PTH;

the quid pro quo flo has to be : full restoration of pensions reasonably expected on sept. 10, 2001

and restoration of full pay, with back pay of expected wages as of sept 10, 2001.

In other words, UNSCREW all the pilots screwed over by 911 attacks and you can listen or watch us do everything

I understand very well what you are saying and asking.

What has been done in the name of "profitability" to our profession is shameful and disgusting. Sadly, it is now having material outcomes and, what's more, it is going to take a great deal of money and time to turn around.

I think the call from the NTSB is a reflection of this material change and is disturbing that they should find it necessary.

But in relation to your comment PTH, there is NO quid-pro-quo when it comes to flight safety.

Safety is not a tradable item in industrial negots.

Nor would I ever expect pilots to grant permission [for the NTSB] to "listen or watch us do everything." if they just give us what we want. Though business would welcome this kind of exchange, that is not how flight safety is done nor is that what this should be about.

The safety of our passengers is the responsibility of everyone involved; there are no conditions.

Business, as it has historically demonstrated, would do the bare legal minimum if flight safety were a tradable, negotiable, marketable item.

This isn't amoral calculation, to use Diane Vaughan's terminology from "The Challenger Launch Decision" - business isn't trying to do wrong things. It is focused on making a profit, not making people safe - safety is a necessary though not primary expenditure and budget item. Business is as business does, nothing more, nothing less. We see examples of this kind of character every day in this industry and in the banking industry, though the accident and fatality statistics are different.

Without going into a long and detailed history of why our profession is so heavily discounted, undervalued and disrespected, (Google "neoliberalism", read labour history since the turn of the last century especially in the U.S., for starters), I will offer one thought: Business will take what it can and it does, and it has, over the last thirty years. For our profession, Pilots consistently undersell their skills and themselves. They do so for two reasons which are closely related and from which each other emerge:

1) Love of flying. Few love their work/job/profession/career as pilots do; the job satisfaction is extremely high for most.

2) Under-appreciation, especially by pilots themselves, of the very special skills, personal discipline, the special relationship between cognitive and physical coordination capabilities and historical dedication under continuing difficult circumstances in order to just fly.

Business has desecrated the airline pilot profession because it can and has; -and we let them.

Pilots are told by shareholder advocates and managements alike that, "we get what the market will bear." So our profession has become capitalized and is thus perceived and traded as a liability against profit rather than being seen as a service and a profession which advances the value and viability of business. Business destroys pensions because, in the U.S. anyway, they can. The same destruction is illegal in Canada, not that business has not tried however.

So yes, market forces now determine the value of flight crews and "the market" has spoken loud and clear. The other market principle has however, been conveniently set aside and ignored: "In aviation as no other endeavour, you get what you pay for."

If the airline business wishes to forestall more of the same of what we have been seeing in terms of competency issues, training, accidents caused through failure to appreciate the fundamentals of aviation as Colgan, Comair, and other fatal accidents, then they need but permit to continue, the present degradation of this industry and its most important component in the business, their pilots. Yes, I said that and mean it. You are out of business without pilots and at significant risk if you view pilots as business liabilities which must be beaten down, and if business sees flight deck automation as a viable substitute or even a replacement for "expensive resources", you are in serious trouble.

To broach the topic with just one sentence to keep it short, de-regulation has not been a complete failure, but it has driven the best aspects of the aviation business downward in a spiral race to the bottom, initially all in the name of pure profitability, but today solely for survival, so seriously underfunded in terms of what the airlines can and must charge for their services, has this industry become.

So, yes, hand back the pensions and provide wages that one can raise a family on. Again, I understand what you're saying and am well aquainted with the need to simply "get practical" sometimes, and know that at times the only way to "get some more safety" is to "give more at the table". It happens all the time - BTDT. But I would never offer the trade because the foundation such work is based upon is sand.

Flight safety is not a tradable market commodity. We are finding out what happens when it is seen as such.

[protectthehornet]

pj2

safety is becoming a tradeable commodity...look at the toyota thing...I wouldn't buy a toyota now.

so...when more and more crashes happen ...crashes that could be prevented by a few more buckaroos...then people will pay for safety.

[PLovett]

pth,

so...when more and more crashes happen ...crashes that could be prevented by a few more buckaroos...then people will pay for safety.

Regrettably, no. people cannot understand that cheap prices mean something somewhere else has to be cut.

I think the answer is far more difficult and PJ2 has alluded to it in that excellent post. The structure of capitalism and its legislative framework is shareholder centric and if a CEO is not mindful of that then there will be problems. That has to be changed.

I don't think some airline executives truly understand the cost implications of poor safety; it is lower down the food-chain but hasn't reached the rarified levels of senior management yet. That lesson is only driven home after death on industrial levels has occurred. That needs to change and not just lip service; the motherhood statements about 'safety being our number 1 priority' are mostly tripe.

QANTAS, to name an example, was extremely lucky. Its management wake up call came with QF1 at Bangkok. The company had tried to re-write its sops' to save money and found them wanting. To their credit they took the lesson on board. However, a later CEO was trending back to the dark days by cutting out the internal safety magazine, however, he has now gone and according to a senior captain I spoke with recently, things are improving.

Capitalism, it has made the western world, and now the eastern world is rapidly following, what it is but it is not without faults and it is those faults, especially in the aviation world, that can have dangerous repercussions.

[protectthehornet]

ah

but the public will learn about $afety...sadly the hard way.

[stepwilk]

To continue your automotive analogy--I write about cars as well as aviation, so I find it hard to resist--there are myriad things that could be done to greatly improve highway safety and decrease crash deaths, such as the imposition of far more demanding driver qualification standards rather than the typical fog-a-mirror-and-parallel-park criterion that is currently used in the U. S. Absolutely strict, no-excuses enforcement of cellphone, texting and seatbelt laws. Finland-type drunk-driver laws and penalties. Once-a-year vision, comprehension and skill testing of all drivers over 70. The list goes on and on.

None of it will ever happen, though, because there are too many special interests involved (including a very powerful lobby called AARP for legally blind 80-year-old drivers...) as well as a populace that has learned that a driver's license is a necessity, not a privilege. Any politician who tried to change that would instantly commit political suicide.

It's much the same in aviation: a populace that has learned that $199 fares are a right, and special-interest groups subverting potential safety advances.

[sb_sfo]

pth

They may learn, but they won't remember more than a couple weeks, if that long. And the next time they can save $50 on a trip to see Grandma, they will.

[infrequentflyer789]

Originally Posted by protectthehornet

pj2
so...when more and more crashes happen ...crashes that could be prevented by a few more buckaroos...then people will pay for safety.

Maybe. If it's the low cost airlines killing people.

Unfortunately for that argument, some of them seem to have an excellent safety record over a large number of flights. I can't see how anyone could justify paying more to avoid, for instance, Ryanair or Easyjet, on safety record. I'm also fairly sure that MOL didn't get that safety record by handsomely rewarding his pilots (not meaning any offence to the guy, but I'm sure he screws every last penny out of everyone, staff or customer).

[Plectron]

People seem to have short memories about who is safe and how to define safety in the first place. Numbers of passengers killed? Accidents per mile travelled? Accidents per segment? Or, accidents that happen to airlines we don't happen to like for some reason?

Pan Am used to call it self "The World's Most Experienced Airline". They had quite a few experiences from 1966 to 1977. Take a look at Pan Am's horrendous safety record for this period:

Flight 708 Berlin, Germany November 15, 1966 Boeing 727-200 Undetermined
Flight 281 New York November 24, 1968 ??? Hijacking
Flight 93 Egypt September 6, 1970 Boeing 747-121 Hijacking
Flight 845 San Francisco, California July 30, 1971 Boeing 747-121 Crew error, ground collision
Flight 816 Tahiti, French Polynesia July 13, 1973 Boeing 707 Throttle Failure, Sea Crash
Flight 110 Italy December 17, 1973 Boeing 707-321C Terrorism, bombing
Flight 806 American Samoa January 30, 1974 Boeing 707-321B CFIT
Flight 812 Bali, Indonesia April 22, 1974 Boeing 707-321B Instrument failure, pilot error
Flight 1736 Canary Islands March 27, 1977 Boeing 747-121 Ground collision

Can you imagine the outrage that would exist today if Colgan had as many accidents per departure?

AA had 1 accident, that wasn't fatal, from 2002 to the present. Check the incredibly nasty comments towards AA in the postings reference the Jamaica accident from some folks who didn't get hired by AA back in the 1980s. Didn't get hired...why?

The point is - you can't say props are to be avoided or don't fly on commuters. I would sure as heck rather fly a circle to land with an engine out in bad weather with someone who has had some recent experience actually flying than with some pontificating blowhard who last hand flew an airplane 10 years ago.

And, be careful about "safety" advice from people who have an axe to grind.

[protectthehornet]

very sad plectron about pan am

but, those accidents were awhile ago. there have been improvements in safety during that time.

its just that management has taken the improvements in safety and used them to drop costs INSTEAD OF IMPROVING SAFETY.

And circling approaches (below vfr mins) have long been banished in the USA

[Uncle_Jay]

Let Us Not Forget

The helicopter that fell off the Pan Am building in New York !!!

I remember being on a Pan Am 747 with maybe 40 passengers aboard SFO-JFK in the 70's, an hour-long chat with a beautiful and smart flight attendant, great food, a lounge, and the flight was on time. I remember thinking, all is right with the world.

Contrast with todays' situation, packed knee to chin with Michael Moore next to you PHX to BWI with 6 peanuts. All is not right with the world.

Of course the Pan Am flight was $ 275 one way.... about $ 2750 in today's dollars maybe.

[PJ2]

Originally Posted by PTH

And circling approaches (below vfr mins) have long been banished in the USA

Yes, we stopped them about thirty years ago. I remember timed turns and much lower limits but it was a holdover from slower, piston days and the procedure was terminated with the 1000-3 requirement.

For discussion, though:

However, airlines have created a work-around called a "Visual Approach".... Some carriers even permit Visual Approaches in designated mountainous territory and some even permit Visual Approaches at night.

For other readers, while the Visual Approach clearance is an IFR clearance and a maneuver under IFR rules, terrain and traffic clearance is the pilot's responsibility, not ATC's.

As per lengthy discusssions on the matter on PPRuNe, with the trend towards reduced hand-flying capabilities combined with the fact that most airlines do not encourage hand-flying except in the most benign of environments nor do they provide training/sim time for hand-flying, the legal freedom to execute a Visual is essentially a circling approach with the same attendant risks especially if permitted at night and/or in mountainous territory. The approach from the west and "circling" (on the Visual) to land towards the west at Zihuataneo is a prime example where the ground slopes down from the mountains further east of the airport.

[BarbiesBoyfriend]

PJ!

What's wrong with a visual?

You can't have it both ways old fruit.

Either pilots CAN fly....In which case let them get on with it.

Or they CAN'T fly, in which case I understand your concern.

Why not train them TO fly? Then a visual would be natural to them.

Also maybe we'd see fewer 'loss of control' accidents like Colgan, THY etc.

I think when you get the A/P to do stuff because basically you can't, then you're in trouble.

Instead of 'dumbing down', lets 'train up!'

[PJ2]

BB;

We're on the same page; let pilots be pilots and get on with it indeed. The best days (on the A320) were when we could do a visual turning in a mile outside the marker while dirtying up and bring the power up to be stable by the 500ft floor, all without anyone in the back wondering. I know that can't be done in large busy terminals but today it isn't the traffic or the cockpit workload stopping hand-flying in terminals which are amenable to such work, it is the mentality and the increasing fear by many who are afraid to disconnect the autothrust and, increasingly, the autopilot.

Train and permit/encourage pilots to fly their airplane instead of making it against SOPs to disconnect everything. It is because of current trends that I make the observation, not because I think that is the way to go. Frankly I think that the safest pilot and the one that can save the most fuel is one that knows his/her airplane inside out and routinely hand-flies and otherwise plays the airplane like a concert grand. Such competency is not encouraged formally or even informally today.

My example however, though perhaps not well chosen, is meant to highlight the kind of operation which is in my view, skirting the original reasons we got rid of circling approaches decades ago. The visual isn't a risky maneouvre if one can watch outside while happily tweaking the thrust levers and watching the guages. But dispatching to a field relying upon the visual as the only approach and that is was both at night and in mountainous territory is in my view not managing the risk. That's my primary point.

There was a time when to express such concerns (about being able to fly an airplane) would have brought a round of derisive comments about professionalism and "knowing one's work". No longer. The Turkish B737 thread speaks volumes on this very matter.

"Old fruit". Love it.

PJ2