Continental TurboProp crash inbound for Buffalo
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Uncle Jay
ah, the good old days. I got in on the tail end of it...all of our flight attendants were great looking and clever/smart/personable.
But I don't think things would be 10 times as much...I don't know the numbers,but the pilots are not getting ten times the pay!!!
fuel is more expensive than in 1971 or so...alot more. And, for some reason, I've never seen a great looking Southwest FA...maybe, like flying saucers, they might exist...I'm just saying I haven't seen one (or a ssaucer either).
Circling approaches and visual approaches...well...not really the same thing...but let's move on. Now CONTACT approaches...
ah, the good old days. I got in on the tail end of it...all of our flight attendants were great looking and clever/smart/personable.
But I don't think things would be 10 times as much...I don't know the numbers,but the pilots are not getting ten times the pay!!!
fuel is more expensive than in 1971 or so...alot more. And, for some reason, I've never seen a great looking Southwest FA...maybe, like flying saucers, they might exist...I'm just saying I haven't seen one (or a ssaucer either).
Circling approaches and visual approaches...well...not really the same thing...but let's move on. Now CONTACT approaches...
Guest
Posts: n/a
PJ
Yup. We agree on most things, I think.
I'll give an example:
When I started with LC in 1996 it was seen as 'good flying' to go downwind harry flatters (thats 'at cruise speed') at 1000'
and then to turn in, while slowing and configuring, through 180 degrees.
One rolled the wing up, flared and landed in one manoevre.
Nowadays, the FDA would see your ass well and truly kicked.
Progress....?
I don't think so.
We now have pilots who are **** scared to fly.
And then we wonder why they lose control?
I still hand fly a lot.
Sue me!
Yup. We agree on most things, I think.
I'll give an example:
When I started with LC in 1996 it was seen as 'good flying' to go downwind harry flatters (thats 'at cruise speed') at 1000'
and then to turn in, while slowing and configuring, through 180 degrees.
One rolled the wing up, flared and landed in one manoevre.
Nowadays, the FDA would see your ass well and truly kicked.
Progress....?
I don't think so.
We now have pilots who are **** scared to fly.
And then we wonder why they lose control?
I still hand fly a lot.
Sue me!
We now have pilots who are **** scared to fly.
"No thanks" was the response almost 100% of the time from my F/O's. I gave up encouraging and teaching how to disconnect even the autothrust because it wasn't supported by airline policy and no one wanted to do it. To me that was letting down one's professional standards but who could blame them? If an incident occurred when someone was handflying, the rules for disconnecting got tighter and, to me, judgement as to when one could/should disconnect got worse because it was driven by policy and not by ones personal awareness and maintenance of competency. That was purely about money, nothing else; simulator and instructor time costs and usually the script was so full (for a 3:30hr sim session) that no time was spent "just flying". I know a major carrier who would not teach their A320 pilots non-precision managed approaches 'because it was too expensive'.
The stated goal for me in line indoctrination was, if you could get from fully-automatic flight to fully manual and back to fully automatic flight again during any maneuver in any flight phase without anyone in the back noticing, you knew the airplane and the automation.
That's what competency on an Airbus means and should mean on any automated airliner. The master/slave relationship has been twisted by the financial people who think that handflying costs fuel but they never asked the FOQA people if their opinion was true. Anyway, now retired and WTFDIK?
This, just in from The Buffalo News:
Colgan leaving lounge lights on in response to fatigue issue
By Jerry Zremski
NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF
Updated: February 25, 2010, 12:33 pm /
Published: February 25, 2010, 12:33 pm
WASHINGTON — The pilot of the flight that crashed in Clarence a year ago slept in the airline's crew room the night before the flight, but now Colgan Air has come up with a way of making it more difficult for pilots to do that.
It's ordered the lights to be kept on in its crew rooms.
Deborah Hersman, chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, revealed that company practice at a Senate hearing this morning — and indicated she wasn't impressed with Colgan's solution.
"It won't really mitigate the problem," she said.
The problem of pilot fatigue — exacerbated by long-distance pilot commutes and low salaries at regional airlines like Colgan — dominated the Senate Aviation Committee hearing on the crash of Continental Connection Flight 3407, which claimed 50 lives last Feb. 12.
While the safety board's final report earlier this month did not cite pilot fatigue as one of the likely causes of the crash, senators made it clear that they think the pilot and co-pilot were too tired to fly — and that their exhaustion may have contributed to the pilot errors that led to the crash.
And Hersman — noting that neither pilot of Flight 3407 had "recuperative quality sleep" the night before the crash — acknowledged that similar problems occur at other airlines.
"We don't think Colgan is unique," she said. "We know this goes on in the industry."
The pilot of Flight 3407, Marvin Renslow, slept in Colgan crew lounges on two of the three nights before the crash, Hersman said.
And the co-pilot, Rebecca L. Shaw, spent the night before the crash napping on a connecting cross-country flight from Seattle to Newark, N.J., where she boarded Flight 3407 bound for Buffalo.
The chairman of the Senate Aviation Subcommittee, Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., said he feared that other pilots were also flying fatigued after getting inadequate sleep.
He displayed a safety board map of the routes taken by Colgan pilots who live far from their flying base in New Jersey. It resembled a giant red centipede overlaying the U.S. map, with its legs stretched out as far as Texas and California.
"If any of us knew that the pilot on the plane we were about to board hadn't slept in a bed the night before the flight, would we have any second thoughts about that?" Dorgan asked. "You better believe we would."
Nevertheless, Margaret Gilligan, associate administrator for aviation safety at the Federal Aviation Administration, indicated that a long commute does not guarantee that a pilot will be fatigued.
"It sounds like an odd decision to make," she said of pilots deciding to live thousands of miles from their base. "But many pilots commute and do it very responsibly."
Senators indicated, though, that it would be a good idea for federal regulators to learn more about commuting practices. Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., suggested an anonymous survey of pilots to determine how widespread commuting is — and how often pilots make dangerous commuting decisions like those made by the crew of Flight 3407.
"I'd like to find out, industry wide, the degree of the problem," he said.
Gilligan agreed such data would be useful.
"I don't know how far most pilots commute," she said. "Perhaps we should have that data."
The FAA is planning to release by the end of March a new set of proposed rules governing how much pilots can fly and how much they can work.
But those rules will not directly address the issue of pilot commuting. The committee of interested parties that helped set the stage for the proposed rule could not agree on how to address that issue.
Dorgan stressed, though, that pilot commuting could indeed pose safety risks if it means pilots aren't getting adequate rest before a flight.
"Maybe this has become a practice," he said. "If it is, it has to stop."
[email protected]
By Jerry Zremski
NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF
Updated: February 25, 2010, 12:33 pm /
Published: February 25, 2010, 12:33 pm
WASHINGTON — The pilot of the flight that crashed in Clarence a year ago slept in the airline's crew room the night before the flight, but now Colgan Air has come up with a way of making it more difficult for pilots to do that.
It's ordered the lights to be kept on in its crew rooms.
Deborah Hersman, chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, revealed that company practice at a Senate hearing this morning — and indicated she wasn't impressed with Colgan's solution.
"It won't really mitigate the problem," she said.
The problem of pilot fatigue — exacerbated by long-distance pilot commutes and low salaries at regional airlines like Colgan — dominated the Senate Aviation Committee hearing on the crash of Continental Connection Flight 3407, which claimed 50 lives last Feb. 12.
While the safety board's final report earlier this month did not cite pilot fatigue as one of the likely causes of the crash, senators made it clear that they think the pilot and co-pilot were too tired to fly — and that their exhaustion may have contributed to the pilot errors that led to the crash.
And Hersman — noting that neither pilot of Flight 3407 had "recuperative quality sleep" the night before the crash — acknowledged that similar problems occur at other airlines.
"We don't think Colgan is unique," she said. "We know this goes on in the industry."
The pilot of Flight 3407, Marvin Renslow, slept in Colgan crew lounges on two of the three nights before the crash, Hersman said.
And the co-pilot, Rebecca L. Shaw, spent the night before the crash napping on a connecting cross-country flight from Seattle to Newark, N.J., where she boarded Flight 3407 bound for Buffalo.
The chairman of the Senate Aviation Subcommittee, Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., said he feared that other pilots were also flying fatigued after getting inadequate sleep.
He displayed a safety board map of the routes taken by Colgan pilots who live far from their flying base in New Jersey. It resembled a giant red centipede overlaying the U.S. map, with its legs stretched out as far as Texas and California.
"If any of us knew that the pilot on the plane we were about to board hadn't slept in a bed the night before the flight, would we have any second thoughts about that?" Dorgan asked. "You better believe we would."
Nevertheless, Margaret Gilligan, associate administrator for aviation safety at the Federal Aviation Administration, indicated that a long commute does not guarantee that a pilot will be fatigued.
"It sounds like an odd decision to make," she said of pilots deciding to live thousands of miles from their base. "But many pilots commute and do it very responsibly."
Senators indicated, though, that it would be a good idea for federal regulators to learn more about commuting practices. Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., suggested an anonymous survey of pilots to determine how widespread commuting is — and how often pilots make dangerous commuting decisions like those made by the crew of Flight 3407.
"I'd like to find out, industry wide, the degree of the problem," he said.
Gilligan agreed such data would be useful.
"I don't know how far most pilots commute," she said. "Perhaps we should have that data."
The FAA is planning to release by the end of March a new set of proposed rules governing how much pilots can fly and how much they can work.
But those rules will not directly address the issue of pilot commuting. The committee of interested parties that helped set the stage for the proposed rule could not agree on how to address that issue.
Dorgan stressed, though, that pilot commuting could indeed pose safety risks if it means pilots aren't getting adequate rest before a flight.
"Maybe this has become a practice," he said. "If it is, it has to stop."
[email protected]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Spare me.
As a Captain, offering/ prompting your FO a visual is a no profit game.
If he does a nice job?
Hurrah! ZERO points!
If he makes a giant James hunt of it?
Hurrah! Zero points! But stand by for a seeing to from the folks in FDA.
I still bump them into it every chance I get.
I think folks like me are becoming the exception.
As a Captain, offering/ prompting your FO a visual is a no profit game.
If he does a nice job?
Hurrah! ZERO points!
If he makes a giant James hunt of it?
Hurrah! Zero points! But stand by for a seeing to from the folks in FDA.
I still bump them into it every chance I get.
I think folks like me are becoming the exception.
Guest
Posts: n/a
PJ
I agree with you.
No altruist but I know, firm, that good handflying skills keep me alive.
Also, I know that with a little effort, and a teensy risk, I can help others do the same and make them better pilots too.
I just wish that the management would join in too. I really worry about these 'button pusher' pilots.
Feel free to disregard my concern. Apparantly there is no problem.
I agree with you.
No altruist but I know, firm, that good handflying skills keep me alive.
Also, I know that with a little effort, and a teensy risk, I can help others do the same and make them better pilots too.
I just wish that the management would join in too. I really worry about these 'button pusher' pilots.
Feel free to disregard my concern. Apparantly there is no problem.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by PJ2
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.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: GodsWaitingRoom
Age: 84
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SFOJFK on PAA ?
UNCLE JAY ....
Perchance was this a charter ? We didn't have domestic transcon pax rights in the 70's (dunno what happened after we took over "I'm Mary -Fly Me" National). The revenue void between east and west coasts was another reason why the Big Blue Bouncing Meatball went down the tubes, to say nothing of the inconvenience of having to grub around for SUBLO tickets on UA or someone that did!
I agree with you that the good days have passed ....... especially as I get ready to travel next week JAX-EWR-NRT-BKK-PNH-BKK-RGN in the back of the bus !!!
Cheers
Perchance was this a charter ? We didn't have domestic transcon pax rights in the 70's (dunno what happened after we took over "I'm Mary -Fly Me" National). The revenue void between east and west coasts was another reason why the Big Blue Bouncing Meatball went down the tubes, to say nothing of the inconvenience of having to grub around for SUBLO tickets on UA or someone that did!
I agree with you that the good days have passed ....... especially as I get ready to travel next week JAX-EWR-NRT-BKK-PNH-BKK-RGN in the back of the bus !!!
Cheers
Air Rabbit;
The Visual Approach - my thoughts are expressed above in my response to BarbiesBoyfriend. While policy permitted a Contact clearance, to my knowledge we didn't do them. Neither approach was permitted at night in mountainous territory.
The original point is getting lost in the discussion on the Visual approach, a perfectly serviceable maneuver - the point is, there are some airports which are showing up in the data where EGPWS or other FOQA events (low on approach, for example) occur but which the Visual Approach continues to be employed to get in, at night. Given this, I was connecting handflying (and obviously SA), with the execution of visual approaches under challenging conditions.
Is it "visual approach" that your are describing, or is it "contact approach" that is raising your concerns?
The original point is getting lost in the discussion on the Visual approach, a perfectly serviceable maneuver - the point is, there are some airports which are showing up in the data where EGPWS or other FOQA events (low on approach, for example) occur but which the Visual Approach continues to be employed to get in, at night. Given this, I was connecting handflying (and obviously SA), with the execution of visual approaches under challenging conditions.
BB - yes, it's a US/Canadian thing. It is essentially a Visual Approach but with lower vis limits - (1 mile), with terrain and traffic clearance the responsibility of the pilot. It is still an IFR clearance. Air Rabbit is absolutely correct in stating that it is a maneuver which should raise concern in airline ops - it's legal scud-running, as stated.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: US
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Be careful on a contact approach. I did an ILS to 28R at SFO and missed approach at 200 ft still in the clouds. I went VFR seconds later and asked for a contact approach left traffic to 01 which they gave me. All worked out well but after I landed I checked legalities and our airline required circling minimums to do a contact approach. The reported visibility was one mile but circling minimums was 3 miles. We had over 3 miles during the missed approach but not the official report for our approach.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Contact!
our profession is a weird one. our words seem to have run out and we use them for very different things...not always correctly.
traffic 12 o'clock high...CONTACT (I say: traffic in sight)
want to start your sopwith camel or JN4-jenny? Yell CONTACT (after switch off, switch off position prop...switch on...CONTACT and bam off you go...maybe taking someone's arm too)
And yes...the CONTACT approach...virtually abandoned by all major airlines on this side of the pond, but still legal.
Contact flying use to refer to (and still does I suppose) flying by visual reference to the ground. I think the word PILOTAGE can also be used in this sense...but Contact means visual contact with the ground. Often used in the USA prior to and during WW2.
and the CONTACT APPROACH (not confused with contact approach on 119point6, or foreureopeans contact approach control on 119DECIMAL6)
A published instrument approach must exist for the airport in question ( a visual approach can be done at any airport...instrument approach or not), an inflight vis of 1 statute mile and maintain clear of clouds...how you get to the runway is up to you and lots of luck. You can even make a pirep your own self of one mile and its between you and St. Christopher!~
I've done a number of contact approaches...and some where the approach mins were 5 miles, you request a contact approach and you go down to 1 mile.
If you lose it...you execute the published miss (that's why there has to be an instrument approach) or turn away from terrain!!!
The airlines gave up on them...too much potential for a screw up especially at night.
Our friend P51 guy knew KSFO like the back of his hand so it was ok...and KSFO can have fog on the threshold and be clear 300 feet down the runway or on another runway. That is what thinking and knowing is all about (though his airline ops specs were different than the part 91 definition of contact approach)
And then there was the time I landed an MU2 at Truckee, CA, USA with only the first 75' of the runway visible and fog for the whole rollout...but that's for another time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
traffic 12 o'clock high...CONTACT (I say: traffic in sight)
want to start your sopwith camel or JN4-jenny? Yell CONTACT (after switch off, switch off position prop...switch on...CONTACT and bam off you go...maybe taking someone's arm too)
And yes...the CONTACT approach...virtually abandoned by all major airlines on this side of the pond, but still legal.
Contact flying use to refer to (and still does I suppose) flying by visual reference to the ground. I think the word PILOTAGE can also be used in this sense...but Contact means visual contact with the ground. Often used in the USA prior to and during WW2.
and the CONTACT APPROACH (not confused with contact approach on 119point6, or foreureopeans contact approach control on 119DECIMAL6)
A published instrument approach must exist for the airport in question ( a visual approach can be done at any airport...instrument approach or not), an inflight vis of 1 statute mile and maintain clear of clouds...how you get to the runway is up to you and lots of luck. You can even make a pirep your own self of one mile and its between you and St. Christopher!~
I've done a number of contact approaches...and some where the approach mins were 5 miles, you request a contact approach and you go down to 1 mile.
If you lose it...you execute the published miss (that's why there has to be an instrument approach) or turn away from terrain!!!
The airlines gave up on them...too much potential for a screw up especially at night.
Our friend P51 guy knew KSFO like the back of his hand so it was ok...and KSFO can have fog on the threshold and be clear 300 feet down the runway or on another runway. That is what thinking and knowing is all about (though his airline ops specs were different than the part 91 definition of contact approach)
And then there was the time I landed an MU2 at Truckee, CA, USA with only the first 75' of the runway visible and fog for the whole rollout...but that's for another time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: France
Age: 80
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
US domestic rights
BBMB/ PTH
Was working for PAA at LHR those days (1961-1978) and well remember the approaches to the US-CAB for US domestic continuation rights for international pax's being continually rejected. Hence the eagerness for a domestic partner which would have given some revenue benefits.
SFO-JFK-CDG may have been possible but CDG-SFO would have resulted in the pax having to be dropped at JFK to take a domestic carrier JFK-SFO.
That accounted for the top dollar price for a domestic partner being paid for National, just before the 1973 fuel hikes.
This led eventually to selling off the seed corn (IHC-Intercontinental Hotels Corp) which always provided a revenue contribution and no doubt contributed, along with other circumstances, to PAA's demise.
DaveD
Was working for PAA at LHR those days (1961-1978) and well remember the approaches to the US-CAB for US domestic continuation rights for international pax's being continually rejected. Hence the eagerness for a domestic partner which would have given some revenue benefits.
SFO-JFK-CDG may have been possible but CDG-SFO would have resulted in the pax having to be dropped at JFK to take a domestic carrier JFK-SFO.
That accounted for the top dollar price for a domestic partner being paid for National, just before the 1973 fuel hikes.
This led eventually to selling off the seed corn (IHC-Intercontinental Hotels Corp) which always provided a revenue contribution and no doubt contributed, along with other circumstances, to PAA's demise.
DaveD
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: San Diego
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As one who flew sublo on Pan Am very frequently in the 60s/70s (internally, across the pond and elsewhere) I can vouch for the relative emptiness of the cabin on those internal legs of international flights - many of the passengers having disembarked at the first point of landing in the U.S. to be replaced by not a single fare payer.
This was just great for sublo kids like me trying to hitch a ride ...... not so good for the health of the airline, in competition with those not equally bound.
PAA was killed by regulatory/political fiat, nothing less, nothing more.
DaveD: Very nice summary of the long decline and fall - I remember it well myself.
All the best to you.
This was just great for sublo kids like me trying to hitch a ride ...... not so good for the health of the airline, in competition with those not equally bound.
PAA was killed by regulatory/political fiat, nothing less, nothing more.
DaveD: Very nice summary of the long decline and fall - I remember it well myself.
All the best to you.
Last edited by SDFlyer; 27th Feb 2010 at 20:18.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks PJ2 – I get your point, and, of course, you are correct. The issuance of a "visual approach" in most cases today, is almost seen as a relief. Of course, the typical airline "visual approach" that is rather routine is almost a non-event. Usually the visibility is on the order of 10 miles or more and there are the myriad of electronic and visual glide path "clues" available when it's not quite that good. Continually referencing a broadcast electronic glide-slope or continually cross-checking the VASI or PAPI lights also does little for developing one’s skill at flight path judgment. Therefore, flying in accordance with visual flight rules (VFR) is, obviously, an “OK” thing – particularly if you’re bopping along at 65 miles per hour in your Cessna-something airplane. Of course, I completely understand that when you get to the 135 to 150-knot traffic pattern speeds in something with the wings swept a bit, and getting that kind of clearance when flying with 3 miles visibility, it most certainly can get a bit more challenging … and that is particularly true when the terrain (i.e., mountain, trees, whatever) is just beyond the 3-mile visual site picture – and, as everyone knows, 3 miles at night and 3 miles at high noon are not the same thing. Also, there is the bit about having some experience in judging flight path angle on the descent – which is also a bit more complicated without the help of at least some sort of light from that big ball of fire in the sky.
I am surprised that every airline doesn’t specifically indicate what airports are and are not approved for their flight crews to fly “visual approaches.” While it may be a bit time consuming initially, it certainly would pay off down-stream … and the only authorized deviations should be for an emergency – or deviation into an airport that isn’t on the operations specifications – either of which should already have the flightcrew on the edge of their seats.
My comment was generated by the rather stark difference between even the minimal values that have to exist to get the "visual approach" clearance - which, as I've indicated, can get dicey at times ... but it doesn't hold a candle to the "diceyness" of asking for a "contact approach" - which, as many on here have recognized - requires only 1 mile visibility, remaining clear of clouds, and maintaining visual "contact" with the ground. Navigating to the end of the runway with only "visual contact with the ground" and being able to see only a scant mile in front of you (lessened by slant range, of course) is a recipe for problems (in my not-so-humble opinion) ... unless you're exceedingly familiar with the airport AND its surrounding terrain features - all of which becomes more complicated as the approach speed increases, and was the reason for my statement - and even then, it seems to be pressing the "aviation gods" a bit more than is necessary except in the most extreme circumstances.
I am surprised that every airline doesn’t specifically indicate what airports are and are not approved for their flight crews to fly “visual approaches.” While it may be a bit time consuming initially, it certainly would pay off down-stream … and the only authorized deviations should be for an emergency – or deviation into an airport that isn’t on the operations specifications – either of which should already have the flightcrew on the edge of their seats.
My comment was generated by the rather stark difference between even the minimal values that have to exist to get the "visual approach" clearance - which, as I've indicated, can get dicey at times ... but it doesn't hold a candle to the "diceyness" of asking for a "contact approach" - which, as many on here have recognized - requires only 1 mile visibility, remaining clear of clouds, and maintaining visual "contact" with the ground. Navigating to the end of the runway with only "visual contact with the ground" and being able to see only a scant mile in front of you (lessened by slant range, of course) is a recipe for problems (in my not-so-humble opinion) ... unless you're exceedingly familiar with the airport AND its surrounding terrain features - all of which becomes more complicated as the approach speed increases, and was the reason for my statement - and even then, it seems to be pressing the "aviation gods" a bit more than is necessary except in the most extreme circumstances.