Air Midwest Beech 1900 crashes into hangar at Charlotte-Douglas
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Chicago, IL, USA
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Run that by Al Haynes {ex UAL }"
A310Driver (again): I very much doubt Mr. Haynes would agree with your implication of a similarity in this situation. For one he had altitude, time, and luck on his side and the apparent problem of this 1900D is dramatically different (uncontrolled movement of the elevator in the 1900D as opposed to an essentially stuck neutral position as in Mr. Hayne's case). Also again are we professional aviators going to immediately within HOURS of any accident going to actually waste breath on the slightest implication that the accident might have been different if the crew had more hours? My god it is bad enough to see the talking heads on CNN and NBC filling the mind with bogus and inflammatory comments but it is even worse to see someone in our own industry doing the same.
A310Driver (again): I very much doubt Mr. Haynes would agree with your implication of a similarity in this situation. For one he had altitude, time, and luck on his side and the apparent problem of this 1900D is dramatically different (uncontrolled movement of the elevator in the 1900D as opposed to an essentially stuck neutral position as in Mr. Hayne's case). Also again are we professional aviators going to immediately within HOURS of any accident going to actually waste breath on the slightest implication that the accident might have been different if the crew had more hours? My god it is bad enough to see the talking heads on CNN and NBC filling the mind with bogus and inflammatory comments but it is even worse to see someone in our own industry doing the same.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Notre Dame IN USA
Age: 82
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excerpted from cnn.com
He disputed reports that a worker who loaded Air Midwest Flight 5481, operating under the US Airways Express banner, thought it was too heavy -- but was overruled by a supervisor who cleared it for flight.
Goglia said the plane was under its maximum weight and the discrepancy had to do with the number of bags listed on documents. Ramp handlers interviewed separately said the pilot made the final decision.
However, he said pilots with a view of the plane told investigators it looked heavy while taxiing. Goglia said all baggage that survived the crash will be weighed. And he said distribution of weight on the aircraft will also be studied closely because it could affect the plane's center of gravity.
Goglia said the plane was under its maximum weight and the discrepancy had to do with the number of bags listed on documents. Ramp handlers interviewed separately said the pilot made the final decision.
However, he said pilots with a view of the plane told investigators it looked heavy while taxiing. Goglia said all baggage that survived the crash will be weighed. And he said distribution of weight on the aircraft will also be studied closely because it could affect the plane's center of gravity.
Swounger
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York, NY USA
Posts: 422
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can I just ask--what good is weighing "all baggage that survived the crash." going to do? I mean it seems like water, fire, and other damage would have changed the weight of the baggage so much it would not be possible to determine the weight of the baggage as loaded, along with the fact that much of it is destroyed.
Last edited by Bubbette; 10th Jan 2003 at 13:40.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 38N
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A310driver - yo! Not.
Theory is that the graduation process makes them safe on day 1. A couple thousand hours helps that, for sure. A couple tens of thousands adds more flavor, but on older meat. It is, at best, a tradeoff.
What is harder to measure is the a$$h$le factor. It it a constant, or does it increase or decrease with burn time? Que sa?
Personally, I think it is best for the uninformed among us to just be somewhat kind in circumstances such as these.
Theory is that the graduation process makes them safe on day 1. A couple thousand hours helps that, for sure. A couple tens of thousands adds more flavor, but on older meat. It is, at best, a tradeoff.
What is harder to measure is the a$$h$le factor. It it a constant, or does it increase or decrease with burn time? Que sa?
Personally, I think it is best for the uninformed among us to just be somewhat kind in circumstances such as these.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: us
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However, he said pilots with a view of the plane told investigators it looked heavy while taxiing
Everything is under control.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, D.C.
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From The Washington Post . . .
"The plane, a Beechcraft 1900D, had logged eight flights since the maintenance Monday night at an Air Midwest facility in Huntington, W.Va. No pilots complained of any irregularities. However, when investigators looked at the flight data recorder, they saw that during those flights the plane's elevators appeared to be in a position that would have made it impossible to take off -- a sign that either a sensor gave a false reading to the data recorder or that the elevators had not been properly rigged, according to a source close to the investigation."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Jan9.html
Can a flight data recorder record anomalies a pilot might not detect? If so, perhaps future recorders could perform an analysis function, detecting and reporting anomalies to the pilot.
"The plane, a Beechcraft 1900D, had logged eight flights since the maintenance Monday night at an Air Midwest facility in Huntington, W.Va. No pilots complained of any irregularities. However, when investigators looked at the flight data recorder, they saw that during those flights the plane's elevators appeared to be in a position that would have made it impossible to take off -- a sign that either a sensor gave a false reading to the data recorder or that the elevators had not been properly rigged, according to a source close to the investigation."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Jan9.html
Can a flight data recorder record anomalies a pilot might not detect? If so, perhaps future recorders could perform an analysis function, detecting and reporting anomalies to the pilot.
B 1900 crash
With regard to the comments with regard to the experience levels of the crew on this unfortunate accident .
I work for a "Low Cost Carrier", who crew their 737/800s with 3000 hour newly promoted captains who have no prvious experience on the 800,having just had a couple of years on the 200 and within 5 weeks of promotion they fly with 200 hour new entry co-pilots, imagine that accident report!!
I work for a "Low Cost Carrier", who crew their 737/800s with 3000 hour newly promoted captains who have no prvious experience on the 800,having just had a couple of years on the 200 and within 5 weeks of promotion they fly with 200 hour new entry co-pilots, imagine that accident report!!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 509
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SaturnV,
I have several thousand hours in a 1900D, the "appeared heavy" remark is unfounded, however, it was quite routine with a full load on the aircraft for the nose strut to be fully extended because of the aft CG. It was pronounced enough that you had a noticeably different picture from the cockpit while taxiing. According to all FAA approved numbers, it was always legal, and with the amount of power that aircraft possesses, and all the crazy aerodynamic appendages to help out the CG no one ever thought twice about it.
Sounds like the tail MX is going to become the issue here anyway.
And for the experience naysayers from a major airline pilot:
Another thing to consider is that all of Captain Leslie's 1800 hours in type were HAND FLOWN as Air Midwest does not have autopilots. I would take her experience in type over same experience in type by a Captain of a heavy flying the autopilot any day.
I have several thousand hours in a 1900D, the "appeared heavy" remark is unfounded, however, it was quite routine with a full load on the aircraft for the nose strut to be fully extended because of the aft CG. It was pronounced enough that you had a noticeably different picture from the cockpit while taxiing. According to all FAA approved numbers, it was always legal, and with the amount of power that aircraft possesses, and all the crazy aerodynamic appendages to help out the CG no one ever thought twice about it.
Sounds like the tail MX is going to become the issue here anyway.
And for the experience naysayers from a major airline pilot:
Another thing to consider is that all of Captain Leslie's 1800 hours in type were HAND FLOWN as Air Midwest does not have autopilots. I would take her experience in type over same experience in type by a Captain of a heavy flying the autopilot any day.
jetsy
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: US for now
Posts: 524
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crew Was Young, but Not Unusually So
before anyone questions experience of the pilots, read:
(AP)While the youthfulness of the pilots on the plane that crashed in Charlotte, N.C., this week may have surprised some people, industry officials said the flight crew's age and combined experience was fairly typical for a commuter airline.
Captain Katie Leslie was 25 and had three years of experience. Co-pilot Jonathan Gibbs was 26, with two years in commercial aircraft.
"It doesn't strike me as being unusual," said Bill Schumann, a spokesman for the Federal Aviation Administration in Washington.
Dave Esser, a professor at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Daytona Beach, Fla., said neither their age nor their experience was out of the ordinary for commercial pilots early in their careers.
"Certainly with seniority comes judgment, coolness and calmness in an emergency situation," Esser said. On the other hand, a younger pilot could have "better reflexes, better physical condition, youthful eyes and reaction time," he said.
What is most important for a pilot, experts said, is the amount of time spent in the air and in what type of aircraft.
The plane that crashed just after takeoff Wednesday was a Beech 1900 twin-engine turboprop owned and operated by Mesa Air of Phoenix, Ariz., flying as US Airways Express flight 5481. Both pilots and all 19 passengers were killed.
Federal investigators are looking at the flight's weight, estimated to be about 100 pounds below its maximum, and at recent work on its tail assembly, National Transportation Safety Board member John Goglia said Thursday.
Goglia said there was confusion among workers loading the plane over whether too many bags had been put in the luggage compartment near the tail of the plane. After consulting with the captain, however, they agreed the plane could handle the load.
Leslie had 2,700 hours of total flight time and 1,800 hours of experience flying the Beech 1900, according to the National Transportation Safety Board.
Gibbs had 700 hours of experience flying the Beech 1900, the NTSB said.
"They have typical experience for pilots flying this plane at this point in their lives," said Kit Darby, president of Aviation Information Resources Inc., an Atlanta-based provider of career services.
Noting the speculation on the accident's cause, Darby added, "In this case, it looks like we had an airplane that wasn't flyable and it wouldn't have mattered who was at the controls."
Civilian pilots hired by airlines similar in size to Mesa between July 2001 and June 2002 had an average total flight time of 3,319 hours, according to AIR. Their average age was 34.6, with 75 percent younger than 40.
The Air Transport Pilot license that Leslie held requires a minimum age of 23 and minimum total flying time of 1,500 hours.
ATP licenses are held by captains at regional airlines and all pilots at major airlines. The average age of the nation's 144,700 ATP license holders is 46, according to the FAA. Fewer than 5,100 ATP license holders are younger than 30.
The industry does not maintain statistics on the average age of its pilots, but several airline officials agreed that Mesa and other regional airlines, which operate roughly one-third of the U.S. commercial airline fleet, are by and large staffed with younger flight crews than major airlines.
A typical career trajectory for a civilian pilot graduating flight school has been to join a commuter airline as a co-pilot, get promoted to captain, join a major airline as a co-pilot and, finally, get promoted to captain once again.
It can take as little as 10 years and as long as 20 years for a pilot out of flight school to become a captain at a major airline. Retirement is mandatory for pilots at 60.
In recent years, experienced pilots have shown a greater willingness to remain at regional carriers rather than moving on to major airlines as more and more propeller planes replace jet planes, said Scott Foose, vice president of the Regional Airline Association. A pilot's pay is directly tied to the speed of the aircraft and the number of passengers it can carry.
Industry officials said the average age of pilots likely went up in the past year as a result of furloughs and layoffs related to the economic downturn and the decline in travel after Sept. 11, 2001. Furloughs are generally based on seniority.
David Stempler, president of the Air Travelers Association, said passengers pay attention to the type of aircraft they're boarding but are unaware of the age of flight crews.
"They're more overwhelmed by the propellers," said Stempler. "You get to a certain point in life where every person is younger than you."
(AP)While the youthfulness of the pilots on the plane that crashed in Charlotte, N.C., this week may have surprised some people, industry officials said the flight crew's age and combined experience was fairly typical for a commuter airline.
Captain Katie Leslie was 25 and had three years of experience. Co-pilot Jonathan Gibbs was 26, with two years in commercial aircraft.
"It doesn't strike me as being unusual," said Bill Schumann, a spokesman for the Federal Aviation Administration in Washington.
Dave Esser, a professor at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Daytona Beach, Fla., said neither their age nor their experience was out of the ordinary for commercial pilots early in their careers.
"Certainly with seniority comes judgment, coolness and calmness in an emergency situation," Esser said. On the other hand, a younger pilot could have "better reflexes, better physical condition, youthful eyes and reaction time," he said.
What is most important for a pilot, experts said, is the amount of time spent in the air and in what type of aircraft.
The plane that crashed just after takeoff Wednesday was a Beech 1900 twin-engine turboprop owned and operated by Mesa Air of Phoenix, Ariz., flying as US Airways Express flight 5481. Both pilots and all 19 passengers were killed.
Federal investigators are looking at the flight's weight, estimated to be about 100 pounds below its maximum, and at recent work on its tail assembly, National Transportation Safety Board member John Goglia said Thursday.
Goglia said there was confusion among workers loading the plane over whether too many bags had been put in the luggage compartment near the tail of the plane. After consulting with the captain, however, they agreed the plane could handle the load.
Leslie had 2,700 hours of total flight time and 1,800 hours of experience flying the Beech 1900, according to the National Transportation Safety Board.
Gibbs had 700 hours of experience flying the Beech 1900, the NTSB said.
"They have typical experience for pilots flying this plane at this point in their lives," said Kit Darby, president of Aviation Information Resources Inc., an Atlanta-based provider of career services.
Noting the speculation on the accident's cause, Darby added, "In this case, it looks like we had an airplane that wasn't flyable and it wouldn't have mattered who was at the controls."
Civilian pilots hired by airlines similar in size to Mesa between July 2001 and June 2002 had an average total flight time of 3,319 hours, according to AIR. Their average age was 34.6, with 75 percent younger than 40.
The Air Transport Pilot license that Leslie held requires a minimum age of 23 and minimum total flying time of 1,500 hours.
ATP licenses are held by captains at regional airlines and all pilots at major airlines. The average age of the nation's 144,700 ATP license holders is 46, according to the FAA. Fewer than 5,100 ATP license holders are younger than 30.
The industry does not maintain statistics on the average age of its pilots, but several airline officials agreed that Mesa and other regional airlines, which operate roughly one-third of the U.S. commercial airline fleet, are by and large staffed with younger flight crews than major airlines.
A typical career trajectory for a civilian pilot graduating flight school has been to join a commuter airline as a co-pilot, get promoted to captain, join a major airline as a co-pilot and, finally, get promoted to captain once again.
It can take as little as 10 years and as long as 20 years for a pilot out of flight school to become a captain at a major airline. Retirement is mandatory for pilots at 60.
In recent years, experienced pilots have shown a greater willingness to remain at regional carriers rather than moving on to major airlines as more and more propeller planes replace jet planes, said Scott Foose, vice president of the Regional Airline Association. A pilot's pay is directly tied to the speed of the aircraft and the number of passengers it can carry.
Industry officials said the average age of pilots likely went up in the past year as a result of furloughs and layoffs related to the economic downturn and the decline in travel after Sept. 11, 2001. Furloughs are generally based on seniority.
David Stempler, president of the Air Travelers Association, said passengers pay attention to the type of aircraft they're boarding but are unaware of the age of flight crews.
"They're more overwhelmed by the propellers," said Stempler. "You get to a certain point in life where every person is younger than you."
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: 'An Airfield Somewhere in England'
Posts: 1,094
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A terrible tragedy for all involved. I think that A310 may have been somewhat misrepresented here. He has also been humble enough to rephrase his comments and that should be seen as the gracious act it is.
The experience issue in turboprops is always a problem. Because of the emotive issue involved it is hard to have a rational discussion on it, and I ask all involved to hear what is being said before jumping to conclusions.
I should declare my own hand. I am a British airline pilot flying A320/1s as an FO, but was previously a turboprop training captain. I got my command at 1800 hours total time (about 1080 hours multi) and felt up to the job (although pretty nervous on my first few trips!). I was massively helped by the use of top class simulators which allowed engine failure training in the most difficult conditions (high weight, low viz, big winds). This was in stark contrast to my first job where as a turboprop FO the training was on the job and the engine failures were all done at low weights and good weather. The bottom line is that in the sim you can risk any conditions but for real even the most experienced trainer will be wary with new trainees. At the very least he will intervene long before things get too difficult to recover. Therefore the first issue is one of the quality of training. There can be very few passenger jets that do not have simulators but there are many turboprops where the real aircraft is used. There is constant pressure on time because of the high operating costs and you just do not get as many circuits/engine fails etc because it takes so long to set up. There are clearly legal minimums but there is no doubt that the sim-based trainee gets a far more thorough deal.
Another problem that regional operators in general face is that in pilot terms turboprops are seen as 'starter jobs' whereas Airbuses and Boeings are seen as 'proper jobs'! Inevitably there is a continual migration of experience from turboprops to jets (money, cudos etc) and turboprops inevitably have lower experience levels (and in some cases poorer training as I have said earlier). Offsetting this, turboprop pilots often fly without autopilots or flight directors and fly many more sectors than their jet colleagues. Their raw handling skills, in my experience, are significantly better than many jet pilots. In an Airbus (320 or higher), you have to make a significant effort not to lose the handling skills because of the highly automated nature of the job. That is not to take anything away from these pilots (I am one!), as there is a real skill in using the automatics well. Nonetheless, many years in one of these advanced aircraft can leave a pilot poorly placed to deal with a situation requiring raw handling skills (of which, frankly, there are very few). Most emergencies are all about judgement as opposed to handling but judgement comes with experience. As we all know, once you have seen a problem previously, it is usually pretty straightforward. Again experience, in terms of straight hours flown, brings exposure to problems and difficulties which in turns increases the likeliehood of a successful outcome. Handling wise, turboprops are also much more difficult overall. I can certainly say that a turboprop engine failure (I have them seen both for real and in the sim), is infinitely more difficult than in an Airbus. This is particularly true if the engine fails to feather. It requires great skill to be able to regularly rescue such situation in the simulator without ever crashing. The Airbus in contrast is extremely easy to handle with an engine failure.
It is also worth noting that although civilian turboprop command experience levels at initial appointment are genereally low relative to jet ones (1800 hrs min approx but 3000 hrs or more for a jet), this is still very experienced compared to military captains. In the RAF, it is possible to be a captain on a Hercules or VC10 with not much over 1000 hours total time which would simply never be considered in the civilian world (min of 1500hrs legally anyhow). There is however a 'category' system by which more experienced pilots fly more demanding flights, and there are also very experienced flight engineers and navigators to even things up a little. Nonetheless these are extremely low experience levels for such responsible jobs. There are KC135, C141, C130 and other captains in the USAF with about 1200 hours, and they seem to do just fine. Even more intersting is the fact that these guys/gals will actually have flown many fewer flights than their civilian turboprop counterparts because many of these aircraft have long-range roles. Surprisingly few ever come a cropper because of inexperience.
My argument may seem not to point to one particular conclusion, and that is deliberately so. It is such a complex issue, and I have tried to show that there are many contradictory facets to the discussion. There are clearly many features of a pilot that make him/her suitable/unsuitable for command other than experience. Nevertheless, any sensible aviator will recognise that there is a certain threshold of experience below which it would be imprudent to employ someone as an aircraft commander. In theory, having reached that level of experience, the company can then review its supply of candidates to ensure that they meet all the other selection criteria prior to appointment. The problem is that in turboprop companies, it is generally true to say that the historic pilot turnover rates are so high that management simply does not have the luxury of waiting until a pilot has a certain experience level of say 4000 hours. Their hand is forced into appointing good, but relatively inexperienced, pilots before they might have ordinarily wished to. As I said earlier, I myself was a beneficiary of such a situation. The trick for management is to ensure that despite the pressures they face they do not act irresponsibly and appoint someone who is manifestly unsuitable for a command role on grounds of experience (or indeed any other reason). By and large, it would be fair to say that most companies get that fine judgement right.
As a final thought, there were 19 year-old Lancaster bomber pilots in World War II flying single pilot operations without autopilots, at night, in terrible weather, under attack from night fighters and anti-aircraft fire, flying all the way to Berlin and back, and their total experience was around 300 hours! Sadly they had a terrible attrition rate, which must to some extent have been related to their experience. It nevertheless gives a sense of perspective to any discussion on experience levels today!
The experience issue in turboprops is always a problem. Because of the emotive issue involved it is hard to have a rational discussion on it, and I ask all involved to hear what is being said before jumping to conclusions.
I should declare my own hand. I am a British airline pilot flying A320/1s as an FO, but was previously a turboprop training captain. I got my command at 1800 hours total time (about 1080 hours multi) and felt up to the job (although pretty nervous on my first few trips!). I was massively helped by the use of top class simulators which allowed engine failure training in the most difficult conditions (high weight, low viz, big winds). This was in stark contrast to my first job where as a turboprop FO the training was on the job and the engine failures were all done at low weights and good weather. The bottom line is that in the sim you can risk any conditions but for real even the most experienced trainer will be wary with new trainees. At the very least he will intervene long before things get too difficult to recover. Therefore the first issue is one of the quality of training. There can be very few passenger jets that do not have simulators but there are many turboprops where the real aircraft is used. There is constant pressure on time because of the high operating costs and you just do not get as many circuits/engine fails etc because it takes so long to set up. There are clearly legal minimums but there is no doubt that the sim-based trainee gets a far more thorough deal.
Another problem that regional operators in general face is that in pilot terms turboprops are seen as 'starter jobs' whereas Airbuses and Boeings are seen as 'proper jobs'! Inevitably there is a continual migration of experience from turboprops to jets (money, cudos etc) and turboprops inevitably have lower experience levels (and in some cases poorer training as I have said earlier). Offsetting this, turboprop pilots often fly without autopilots or flight directors and fly many more sectors than their jet colleagues. Their raw handling skills, in my experience, are significantly better than many jet pilots. In an Airbus (320 or higher), you have to make a significant effort not to lose the handling skills because of the highly automated nature of the job. That is not to take anything away from these pilots (I am one!), as there is a real skill in using the automatics well. Nonetheless, many years in one of these advanced aircraft can leave a pilot poorly placed to deal with a situation requiring raw handling skills (of which, frankly, there are very few). Most emergencies are all about judgement as opposed to handling but judgement comes with experience. As we all know, once you have seen a problem previously, it is usually pretty straightforward. Again experience, in terms of straight hours flown, brings exposure to problems and difficulties which in turns increases the likeliehood of a successful outcome. Handling wise, turboprops are also much more difficult overall. I can certainly say that a turboprop engine failure (I have them seen both for real and in the sim), is infinitely more difficult than in an Airbus. This is particularly true if the engine fails to feather. It requires great skill to be able to regularly rescue such situation in the simulator without ever crashing. The Airbus in contrast is extremely easy to handle with an engine failure.
It is also worth noting that although civilian turboprop command experience levels at initial appointment are genereally low relative to jet ones (1800 hrs min approx but 3000 hrs or more for a jet), this is still very experienced compared to military captains. In the RAF, it is possible to be a captain on a Hercules or VC10 with not much over 1000 hours total time which would simply never be considered in the civilian world (min of 1500hrs legally anyhow). There is however a 'category' system by which more experienced pilots fly more demanding flights, and there are also very experienced flight engineers and navigators to even things up a little. Nonetheless these are extremely low experience levels for such responsible jobs. There are KC135, C141, C130 and other captains in the USAF with about 1200 hours, and they seem to do just fine. Even more intersting is the fact that these guys/gals will actually have flown many fewer flights than their civilian turboprop counterparts because many of these aircraft have long-range roles. Surprisingly few ever come a cropper because of inexperience.
My argument may seem not to point to one particular conclusion, and that is deliberately so. It is such a complex issue, and I have tried to show that there are many contradictory facets to the discussion. There are clearly many features of a pilot that make him/her suitable/unsuitable for command other than experience. Nevertheless, any sensible aviator will recognise that there is a certain threshold of experience below which it would be imprudent to employ someone as an aircraft commander. In theory, having reached that level of experience, the company can then review its supply of candidates to ensure that they meet all the other selection criteria prior to appointment. The problem is that in turboprop companies, it is generally true to say that the historic pilot turnover rates are so high that management simply does not have the luxury of waiting until a pilot has a certain experience level of say 4000 hours. Their hand is forced into appointing good, but relatively inexperienced, pilots before they might have ordinarily wished to. As I said earlier, I myself was a beneficiary of such a situation. The trick for management is to ensure that despite the pressures they face they do not act irresponsibly and appoint someone who is manifestly unsuitable for a command role on grounds of experience (or indeed any other reason). By and large, it would be fair to say that most companies get that fine judgement right.
As a final thought, there were 19 year-old Lancaster bomber pilots in World War II flying single pilot operations without autopilots, at night, in terrible weather, under attack from night fighters and anti-aircraft fire, flying all the way to Berlin and back, and their total experience was around 300 hours! Sadly they had a terrible attrition rate, which must to some extent have been related to their experience. It nevertheless gives a sense of perspective to any discussion on experience levels today!
Last edited by Norman Stanley Fletcher; 11th Jan 2003 at 19:39.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Timbuktu
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with NSF, I think A310drivers comments have been slightly misread.
Certainly to comment on low experience of the crew on a thread about their fatal accident might seem harsh, but that isn't the intent in my reading of it.
I remember when I had 1500 hours on my first commercial type, and the main recollection I have is that the more hours I accumulated after the first 500 (when I just started feeling comfortable operating the beast) the more I realised that I still had a lot to learn!
I would not have felt comfortable or ready to take command at that level of experience. When I look back on it now I realise that was a realistic acceptance of the fact that...I wasn't ready. I consider myself of average ability.
NSF points out that some LCOs are promoting pilots at the 3000 hours mark onto medium jets. Personally I don't think its safe. Certainly they aren't falling out of the sky every day...but perhaps that has to do with the generally benign environment we operate in. Generally maintenance is good, airports are generally well equipped, ATC is generally very good, and better training + SOPs have improved safety a great deal these last ten years.
But honestly, at 3000TT the learning curve is still kinda steep.
I realise this might offend some people who have been promoted in this way and do a good job. I'm not criticising their abilities. But I think they too will look back in later years and understand the experience gap better.
In the end of the day this is an issue that boils down to money, and cost cutting.
NSF, the boys who flew Lancs during WW2 had a massive attrition rate. I remember reading a statistic that something like 90% of Halifax pilots never completed a tour of duty. Maybe less because of ability than circumstances, but the situations are too different to compare. The attrition rate needs to be as near zero as we can get it today.
Certainly to comment on low experience of the crew on a thread about their fatal accident might seem harsh, but that isn't the intent in my reading of it.
I remember when I had 1500 hours on my first commercial type, and the main recollection I have is that the more hours I accumulated after the first 500 (when I just started feeling comfortable operating the beast) the more I realised that I still had a lot to learn!
I would not have felt comfortable or ready to take command at that level of experience. When I look back on it now I realise that was a realistic acceptance of the fact that...I wasn't ready. I consider myself of average ability.
NSF points out that some LCOs are promoting pilots at the 3000 hours mark onto medium jets. Personally I don't think its safe. Certainly they aren't falling out of the sky every day...but perhaps that has to do with the generally benign environment we operate in. Generally maintenance is good, airports are generally well equipped, ATC is generally very good, and better training + SOPs have improved safety a great deal these last ten years.
But honestly, at 3000TT the learning curve is still kinda steep.
I realise this might offend some people who have been promoted in this way and do a good job. I'm not criticising their abilities. But I think they too will look back in later years and understand the experience gap better.
In the end of the day this is an issue that boils down to money, and cost cutting.
NSF, the boys who flew Lancs during WW2 had a massive attrition rate. I remember reading a statistic that something like 90% of Halifax pilots never completed a tour of duty. Maybe less because of ability than circumstances, but the situations are too different to compare. The attrition rate needs to be as near zero as we can get it today.
Last edited by maxalt; 10th Jan 2003 at 23:56.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Be1900 Accident
If memory serves, that aircraft can be touchy in the C of G department. From preliminary media reports, it smells like a pitch-up excursion. We'll hear more soon from the NTSB, I hope.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Chicago, IL, USA
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Look folks the offense was because the whole subject was broached because A310Driver when he was bothered by the fact, in fact laughed like it was yet another misrepresentation by the media/tv/faa, when the NTSB investigator said the pilots were "experienced." While we can discuss readiness at various levels of total time all day long how can a public figure in the aviation industry (airline employee, FAA, NTSB, ATC, etc.) ever go on tv and characterize 2 dead pilots (the day of an accident no less) as anything less than qualified and experienced (with 1800 hours in type.) Had the NTSB the day of the crash come out and said that the crew was inexperienced and they were looking into that angle I imagine the outrage in the public (against those dangerous airlines that dare allow 2700 hour CA's to fly a 19 seat plane) would be huge and in the aviation community even larger (when they knowingly realize there are excellent 2700 hour Captains).
How are we any better than the lousy media and arm chair quarterbacks when we as professional pilots who should know better broach this subject the day of a crash? LEAVE THE DISCUSSION OF PILOT ERROR OR INEXPERIENCE leading to a fatal accident out of ANY DISCUSSION surrounding that accident until at least a TINY shred of evidence points to that as the cause. A310Driver ridiculed a RESPONSIBLE NTSB reporter and IMPLIED a potential pilot error when none was even remotely established and that is where the problem stems.
That said I accept his new post where he states he unintentionally came across wrong but then again I humbly disagree with his latest opinion that Capt. Al Haynes would agree with his views of why higher time pilots are so much superior than a 1500 hour pilot and would not have come up with same result he had in the Sioux City crash (I would advocate based on seeing Capt. Haynes speak that he feels young pilots are so much better trained in the concepts of CRM and so much more open to implementing them that it puts them on an early even footing with the advantages that come with great experience.)
How are we any better than the lousy media and arm chair quarterbacks when we as professional pilots who should know better broach this subject the day of a crash? LEAVE THE DISCUSSION OF PILOT ERROR OR INEXPERIENCE leading to a fatal accident out of ANY DISCUSSION surrounding that accident until at least a TINY shred of evidence points to that as the cause. A310Driver ridiculed a RESPONSIBLE NTSB reporter and IMPLIED a potential pilot error when none was even remotely established and that is where the problem stems.
That said I accept his new post where he states he unintentionally came across wrong but then again I humbly disagree with his latest opinion that Capt. Al Haynes would agree with his views of why higher time pilots are so much superior than a 1500 hour pilot and would not have come up with same result he had in the Sioux City crash (I would advocate based on seeing Capt. Haynes speak that he feels young pilots are so much better trained in the concepts of CRM and so much more open to implementing them that it puts them on an early even footing with the advantages that come with great experience.)
Last edited by Saab340Pilot; 11th Jan 2003 at 14:26.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 509
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Saab340,
Well said. I think the subject escalated purely in defense of the crew. The audacity and righteousness necessary to make any assumption because of gender or experience so soon after the event is egomaniacal. The number of comments overheard in my own crew lounge was dismaying. I think as pilots, there is some innate instinct to justify things in our own minds - to somehow seperate ourselves and step back and say "that wouldn't happen to me because...", otherwise it would be hard to get back in the seat everytime an accident occured. But at some point, that tendency is detrimental to our own judgement.
Well said. I think the subject escalated purely in defense of the crew. The audacity and righteousness necessary to make any assumption because of gender or experience so soon after the event is egomaniacal. The number of comments overheard in my own crew lounge was dismaying. I think as pilots, there is some innate instinct to justify things in our own minds - to somehow seperate ourselves and step back and say "that wouldn't happen to me because...", otherwise it would be hard to get back in the seat everytime an accident occured. But at some point, that tendency is detrimental to our own judgement.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: 40N, 80W
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread so far as it relates to the safety associated with high-time flyers reminds me of getting the flu.
I’m told that colds and flu is not one but several hundred very similar virus infections. A cold consists of catching and recovering from one of these bug variants, after which you are forever immune to that particular variety of cold/flu virus.
Consequently, children get many colds (maybe a dozen a year), while old codgers hardly get any (though the ones they do get are more likely to kill them).
The arguments about the benefits of flight experience seem to me to be analogous.
There are a hundred ways of having something go wrong in flying. Each time there is a “close encounter” you become immunized and don’t make that mistake again. So safety accrues with time, or rather with the number of “close encounters”, which in turn is likely to be closely related to sorties.
There are two totally different kinds of learning, facts you are told about and facts you learn by personal experience. While lots of experience is passed on in training, is it not the personal “close encounters” which really count?
Cheers,
I’m told that colds and flu is not one but several hundred very similar virus infections. A cold consists of catching and recovering from one of these bug variants, after which you are forever immune to that particular variety of cold/flu virus.
Consequently, children get many colds (maybe a dozen a year), while old codgers hardly get any (though the ones they do get are more likely to kill them).
The arguments about the benefits of flight experience seem to me to be analogous.
There are a hundred ways of having something go wrong in flying. Each time there is a “close encounter” you become immunized and don’t make that mistake again. So safety accrues with time, or rather with the number of “close encounters”, which in turn is likely to be closely related to sorties.
There are two totally different kinds of learning, facts you are told about and facts you learn by personal experience. While lots of experience is passed on in training, is it not the personal “close encounters” which really count?
Cheers,
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Timbuktu
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe the point is too subtle to come over properly on a BB.
Nobody suggested the accident referred to in this thread was caused by inexperience. It probably had absolutely nothing whatever to do with the crews experience.
It simply seems odd that crews are being put in charge these days with such low hours. I didn't realise just how early you can get a command in the US.
If you think 1500TT is sufficient experience for command...then why not 1000TT? Or 900? Or 750?
If it's simply a matter of 'suitable training' and ability to pass a check ride then why not 350TT?
Thats what I started flying jets with (as an F/O) and I've never failed a checkride, so why not? Wheres the magic number below which you become unfit for command? Has the lower limit only ever been a fiction dictated by nothing more than the lengthy seniority ladders of the past?
I hope not.
Nobody suggested the accident referred to in this thread was caused by inexperience. It probably had absolutely nothing whatever to do with the crews experience.
It simply seems odd that crews are being put in charge these days with such low hours. I didn't realise just how early you can get a command in the US.
If you think 1500TT is sufficient experience for command...then why not 1000TT? Or 900? Or 750?
If it's simply a matter of 'suitable training' and ability to pass a check ride then why not 350TT?
Thats what I started flying jets with (as an F/O) and I've never failed a checkride, so why not? Wheres the magic number below which you become unfit for command? Has the lower limit only ever been a fiction dictated by nothing more than the lengthy seniority ladders of the past?
I hope not.
foxtrot xray
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Midwest USA
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am reminded of the guy who starts a fight in a bar/pub and then goes off and sits in the corner sipping his brew and watching the action.
I find myself agreeing with many of the comments since my "insensitive" post on experience; even if I do not fully agreewith some, I understand that they are thoughtfully presented and heartfelt.
This, my last post on the subject, will summarize my point assisted by the paraphrased comments of others.
A fare paying traveler on an air carrier aircraft has the right to expect that the persons operating that aircraft will have a high level of experience; in this context, I define experience as including a fine-tuned level of technical competence and long term exposure to a wide range of normal and abnormal operational scenarios [weather, mechanical failure, system/ATC anomalies, etc]. I submit for your consideration that it is well known that you can train young pilots with low or no time [ ab initio ] to a very high level of competence in sims or [to a lesser degree] in the real thing and that the younger folks probably will learn faster and reach this proficiency level in less time than the gray beards; however, the second component can not be learned/acquired in a compressed time frame......this is the seasoning that a command pilot must/should have. I submit that a 25 year-old captain can not normally possess this...not because of personal shortcomings/deficiencies but for the obvious lack of long term exposure. This is further compounded when a f/o is assigned who....judging from many of the first hand comments on this thread.... may be little more than an observer on many carriers.
Perhaps the economics of this segment of the industry do not permit the asssignment of a seasoned left-seater to a 1900 but this clearly is not an appropriate excuse or explanation that the travelling public is likely to find comfort in.
I do not believe I can add anything more of a constructive nature to this discussion and to those that I may have offended..albeit unintentional.. I again apologize.
I find myself agreeing with many of the comments since my "insensitive" post on experience; even if I do not fully agreewith some, I understand that they are thoughtfully presented and heartfelt.
This, my last post on the subject, will summarize my point assisted by the paraphrased comments of others.
A fare paying traveler on an air carrier aircraft has the right to expect that the persons operating that aircraft will have a high level of experience; in this context, I define experience as including a fine-tuned level of technical competence and long term exposure to a wide range of normal and abnormal operational scenarios [weather, mechanical failure, system/ATC anomalies, etc]. I submit for your consideration that it is well known that you can train young pilots with low or no time [ ab initio ] to a very high level of competence in sims or [to a lesser degree] in the real thing and that the younger folks probably will learn faster and reach this proficiency level in less time than the gray beards; however, the second component can not be learned/acquired in a compressed time frame......this is the seasoning that a command pilot must/should have. I submit that a 25 year-old captain can not normally possess this...not because of personal shortcomings/deficiencies but for the obvious lack of long term exposure. This is further compounded when a f/o is assigned who....judging from many of the first hand comments on this thread.... may be little more than an observer on many carriers.
Perhaps the economics of this segment of the industry do not permit the asssignment of a seasoned left-seater to a 1900 but this clearly is not an appropriate excuse or explanation that the travelling public is likely to find comfort in.
I do not believe I can add anything more of a constructive nature to this discussion and to those that I may have offended..albeit unintentional.. I again apologize.
Iconoclast
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Color me Grey.
Whenever I get on a commercial aircraft I look into the flight deck to check for Grey hair. To me, Grey hair =experience.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For a given pilot... more hours = more experience = maybe better off depending on the circs.
HOWEVER, I have flown with many grey haired 10,000+ hour Captains who have only a marginal grasp of the job. I have also flown with sub-30 Capts who started in the RHS of Jets with 200 hours, probably now have 3500hrs, and are excellent.
When all else is equal, more hours might be desirable, but in general the training and personal skills mean all else is not equal...
HOWEVER, I have flown with many grey haired 10,000+ hour Captains who have only a marginal grasp of the job. I have also flown with sub-30 Capts who started in the RHS of Jets with 200 hours, probably now have 3500hrs, and are excellent.
When all else is equal, more hours might be desirable, but in general the training and personal skills mean all else is not equal...