Comments on: Not exactly the intended destination

By: David Jack Kenny

David Jack Kenny — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 18:11:16 +0000

Charles –

If you read the NTSB report (http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2010/AAR1001.pdf), the CVR transcript makes it clear that it was the CAPTAIN, NOT the FO, who was flying the airplane and made the “inappropriate response to the activation of the stick shaker.”

See in particular pages 18-19 of the full report.

– DJK

By: Charles

Charles — Mon, 19 Nov 2012 18:46:19 +0000

Bruce,

You make the following statements:

“Nowhere in any of this are the first officer’s flight-hour qualifications mentioned as a cause or a factor, yet a law has passed addressing a non-issue.”

“…outrage of the families who lost loved ones on the flight. They somehow were led to believe that the FO was under-qualified”

Would the FO’s action of “inappropriate response to the activation of the stick shaker, which led to an aerodynamic stall from which the airplane did not recover.” be enough for you to question the pilots’ training/qualifications/hours? And wouldn’t that be enough to outrage any family, when a pilot either through inexperience or improper training kills a plane load of paying passengers?

“Most airline pilots get their start in general aviation”

So if you’ve made it through you GA pilot training and have gotten to a Regional Airline, don’t you think it reasonable to expect your pilot wouldn’t hold the stick in their lap, fighting the stick shaker, and kill everybody? Whatever happened to pushing the stick forward to break a stall? Whether or not the plane could be saved is not the point, the point is that the pilot for whatever reason did the wrong things. And if your airline pilots are going to come from the GA then that means you have to train them better. It’s too late after someone has their PPL to say OK now we’ll teach you how to really fly.

Is the arbitrary 1500 hrs the answer maybe not? I know plenty of people with 3000 hrs that I wouldn’t let be PIC of a local flight much less in the airlines. But I’m sure the hope is that with this number of hours required you will catch the pilot with the, “weak training record, both before and after he came to the airline”, before they have a chance to take a bunch of people with them. Yes we should all know by now that having a bunch of hours does not mean a pilot is capable/good/safe but, untill such time as it becomes the norm to get those pilots out of the cockpit, rather than give them an even bigger aircraft, bad things will continue to happen.

Hope this helps.

By: Bob

Bob — Mon, 19 Nov 2012 18:20:54 +0000

There won’t be any pilot shortage. The airlines will just get a waiver to for regionals to fly pilotless aircraft. This will be sold as the safest alternative to no service at all and will also be the proviing ground and stepping stone to advancing to pilotless aircraft on larger aircraft.

You don’t think this is possible. Right – the same arguments were made when flight engineers were removed from the cockpit. PIlotless aircraft are a fact (not a fantasy) of the future. The oligopoly of air carriers left can ram through any change they want. And they want maximum profit. GA is competition to air carrier service that is why the FAA has been killing it off since the day the FAA began to operate. Sadly most of us still live in the romantic pre-1960′s era of aviation and don’t realize that it is about corporations controlling the skies with the government acting as their (free) enforcement division.

By: Los

Los — Mon, 19 Nov 2012 16:36:15 +0000

Thank god someone is smart enough to realize the stupidity of this law, the punishment of young pilots trying to make it in a challanging and expensive field is competely not the issue at hand.. as evident by the arguement you have made here. The only reason this law has made it this far is that is it voted on by non-pilots and people who have no idea about how the aviation field works, the only thing these congress men and women are seeing is the caption of the bill that states “this will make air travel safer” which neglects the possible concequences on such a bill.
Sorry for the miss spelt words but the thought is what counts

By: Mike Goldberg

Mike Goldberg — Mon, 19 Nov 2012 16:19:20 +0000

Problem is pilots. They are such a passionate bunch (about flying) that they will take a low paying job any day. Does this happen in IT? Law? Engineering? Just look around you. New pilots should not be discouraged but make this a rational choice and major in a different subject to hold a job till they have enough hours and a better paying job to transition into this career. For those who have been around and dont have a 2nd job option, there may not be an option but to continue to get rapped by the system. However, IMHO, the next GEN on pilots, irrespective of their hours, should work on building time but at the same time have a second option that pays the bills, allows them to build savings, add hours, and wait for the airline industry to start acting in a more dignified manner towards the pilots.
Question is, do you have what it takes to be this disciplined?

By: Abigail Thomas

Abigail Thomas — Mon, 19 Nov 2012 15:39:46 +0000

I’m in exactly the same situation as Jami. For me, this makes me wonder if I’ll ever be able to pay for the training and hours that is now required for me to even be able to get a job. Guess I’ll be a CFI for a long time.

By: Jami Higdon

Jami Higdon — Mon, 19 Nov 2012 00:35:56 +0000

As a college student studying professional flight, right now is an extremely scary and hopeful time. We keep hearing about a pilot shortage (when majors start retiring their older pilots) and that creates a hope that we will actually have a job in the next few years. Then hearing about the ATP rules scares us because we don’t know if we are actually going to be able to get the experience it takes to get the open jobs. Right now the industry is in a hurry up and wait to see what the government is actually going to do with the ATP rule and possible pilot shortages.

By: John

John — Sat, 17 Nov 2012 22:45:59 +0000

Don Kelly’s points are on target. Just like the NTSB’s new focus on GA safety and the FAA’s effort to steadily trend toward zero accidents, there is a systemic failure to recognize that (a) “GA” involves a lot of people making very personal choices, usually with a thin to non-existant support network [aka "airline dispatch, recurrent training, equipment, and extraordinarily well maintained facilities"]; (b) the flight environment of most of the GA aircraft involved in accidents is in the soup or at least close to the ground as opposed to airlines that fly well above the clouds; (c) the lack of financial resources among many pilots who fly in the highest risk arena [personal pleasure and personal transportion flights] to maintain their equipment with all of the latest gadgets and upgrades; and (d) the generally much lower experience and quals of the majority of GA pilots. The recent study by the FAA that analyzed GA (non Part 121 or 135) accidents between 1983 and 2011 was very interesting. After a relatively rapid increase in numbers with peaks near 150 Total Flight Hours (TFH) for VFR only and 450 TFH for IFR rated pilots, the decline in accidents by TFH is not impressive. In fact, the study discusses counfounding factors that might actually indicate the decline is over stated. Factors included the slow rate that non-professional pilots accrue hours [and presumeably experience], the likely departure from flying by pilots at unknown rates following initial issuance of their certificates, and so forth. Frankly, I find the discussion by the FAA, SAFE, NAFI, and other alphabet groups that on one hand says the “GA accident rate is too high” and on the other “the number of pilots is declining” to be ludicrous. Of course the pilot population is in decline. It’s expensive, incredibly regulated, and requires invasive disclosure of highly personal information on the medical just to play. It isn’t the cost of gas that’s squeezing GA, its the regulatory cost of unrealistic expectations of a perfectly “safe” flight environment. I suggest we rethink our message. Rather than preach “safety”, less start a really meaningful discussion of “risk”. What is an “acceptable risk”, and what is an “unacceptable risk”? More importantly, who gets to make that determination? The Pilot/participant in GA, the FAA, Congress, or someone else?

By: Don Kelly

Don Kelly — Sat, 17 Nov 2012 17:35:11 +0000

Describing Congress’s fix to problems identified in the Colgan Air crash as using a bludgeon instead of a scapel is being far to generous to the enacted solution. The fix doesn’t actually do anything to fix the problems, it makes them worse. There’s also more than a little bit of irony in one writer who suggests that more regulation will somehow result in better free market results in the regional carriers. Regional carriers are not a substitute for charter flights, but hurting one segment of the industry is not good in the long term for everyone else.

I am not a deregulation fan, however the FAA has a death grip around the neck of GA, and the results are obvious. Fewer students entering the pipeline, fewer pilots being licensed, and fewer pilots advancing their ratings. In the name of safety we have nonsensical regulation on both pilots and aircraft. At the end of the day safety IS improved, because fewer planes in the air means fewer potential crashes. It’s like a doctor telling you, “the good news is your dead relative will never get sick again.”

By: Bruce Landsberg

Bruce Landsberg — Sat, 17 Nov 2012 15:46:32 +0000

Matt…

The reason for weighing in is that GA is the training ground for the airlines these days. This law has a significant distorting effect that creates lots of instability – bad both for flight schools, universities and career aspirants.

Without getting into a political discussion, this law is not letting the market control the situation. Arbitrary regulation in the name of safety creates significant expense and complexity without addressing the real safety issues. I’m afraid that has what has happened here.

I believe that some regional airlines are not treating their people fairly and that’s a discussion where AOPA does not have skin in the game.

Your comments are appreciated!