Air Midwest Beech 1900 crashes into hangar at Charlotte-Douglas

[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]

Possible Elevator failure..

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,

This report 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?

[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]

Jammed DC8 elevator

This 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.