WSJ articles says that NTSB will fault pilot in Buffalo crash
May 10, 2009, 9:07 pm
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: New York NY
Programs: UA Gold, CO Plat, CO Million Miler
Posts: 2,617
WSJ articles says that NTSB will fault pilot in Buffalo crash
The WSJ article is pretty devastating regarding how the pilot involved had flunked numerous previous qualification tests for various aircraft.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124200193256505099.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124200193256505099.html
May 10, 2009, 9:19 pm
#2
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Cheapest place to find a MR around D.C. metro.
Programs: AA Plat.
Posts: 125
The WSJ article is pretty devastating regarding how the pilot involved had flunked numerous previous qualification tests for various aircraft.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124200193256505099.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124200193256505099.html
Capt. Marvin Renslow had never been properly trained by the company to respond to a warning system designed to prevent the plane from going into a stall, according to people familiar with the investigation. As the speed slowed to a dangerous level, setting off the stall-prevention system, he did the opposite of the proper procedure, which led to the crash, these people said.
Additionally, his 24-year-old co-pilot, Rebecca Shaw, had complained before takeoff about being congested and said she probably should have called in sick, according to people who have listened to the cockpit voice recording.
Additionally, his 24-year-old co-pilot, Rebecca Shaw, had complained before takeoff about being congested and said she probably should have called in sick, according to people who have listened to the cockpit voice recording.
Wow. This is not looking good for CO, Colgan, or Pinnacle.
I give this thread a few days before it's off to OMNI.
May 10, 2009, 9:24 pm
#3
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: MFE / SAT
Programs: UA Premier Silver, Hyatt Platinum, Marriott Silver
Posts: 3,681
How sad. The lawsuits are going to start pouring in.
May 10, 2009, 9:47 pm
#4
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 17,421
The outcome isn't surprising: this one looked like "pilot error" from day one.
From a frequent flyer's perspective, what's a bit disheartening about this report is that it confirms a long-held suspicion: that you're probably a little less safe flying a commuter "partner" than a mainline aircraft. It's hard to imagine these pilot/training errors occuring at CO. That said, experienced mainline pilots do -- on rare occasion -- make some very dumb mistakes. Like I recall some AA pilots taking an aircraft into a mountain side in Columbia a decade or so ago.
And, statistically, it's probably irrational to avoid commuter flights. If you're 99.99998% safe, do you need to be 99.99999 safe?
From a frequent flyer's perspective, what's a bit disheartening about this report is that it confirms a long-held suspicion: that you're probably a little less safe flying a commuter "partner" than a mainline aircraft. It's hard to imagine these pilot/training errors occuring at CO. That said, experienced mainline pilots do -- on rare occasion -- make some very dumb mistakes. Like I recall some AA pilots taking an aircraft into a mountain side in Columbia a decade or so ago.
And, statistically, it's probably irrational to avoid commuter flights. If you're 99.99998% safe, do you need to be 99.99999 safe?
May 10, 2009, 10:40 pm
#5
Suspended
Join Date: Jun 2005
Programs: Continental Gold Elite, United Premier Executive
Posts: 6,766
Be assured that a consequence of the decade long economic upheaval in commercial aviation will be an increase in accidents, one causor being pilots (particularly with regional airlines) who frankly have no business being in the cockpit of a commercial aircraft. I know quite a few aviation lawyers (who mostly represent airlines and insurers), and they are very much expecting a boom in business over the next decade.
May 10, 2009, 11:02 pm
#6
Join Date: May 2005
Programs: AA EXP, DL Plat, US Chairman, SPG Plat, Hilton Diamond, Marriott Gold, IC RA
Posts: 1,436
http://www.businessinsurance.com/cgi...02-13&id=15410
May 11, 2009, 5:54 am
#7
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: BOS
Posts: 3,534
I've been mulling that very point over for a while now. The first EWR-BOS flight per day now appears to be flown on a CO Connection Dash8 instead of a 737 which makes me wonder whether I should ask CO to change my connection to a later departure after getting off the overnight flight.
May 11, 2009, 6:50 am
#8
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 17,421
Be assured that a consequence of the decade long economic upheaval in commercial aviation will be an increase in accidents, one causor being pilots (particularly with regional airlines) who frankly have no business being in the cockpit of a commercial aircraft. I know quite a few aviation lawyers (who mostly represent airlines and insurers), and they are very much expecting a boom in business over the next decade.
May 11, 2009, 8:46 pm
#9
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: San Diego, CA
Programs: AA ex-EXP, 2MM (ex DL, ex TWA)
Posts: 1,427
If you consider that many frequent flyers will end up flying a million or more miles during their lifetimes, then the chances of having an accident are not vanishing. Small, yes, but not vanishing.
May 11, 2009, 9:01 pm
#10
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: PSM
Posts: 69,232
I guess it depends on where you draw the line between small and vanishing. When the average stage length is around 1,000 miles and the chance of an incident is incredibly tiny the fact that you flew a million miles means you had 1,000 chances for something to happen, not a million. So the odds are still VERY heavily in your favor.
May 11, 2009, 9:16 pm
#11
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: DEN
Programs: UA MM Plat; AA MM Gold; HHonors Diamond
Posts: 15,866
I think that the critical factor is the total number of takeoffs and landings, not flight miles.
I think that landings are especially dangerous relative to the rest of a flight.
I think that landings are especially dangerous relative to the rest of a flight.
May 11, 2009, 9:30 pm
#12
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: DFW
Programs: UA Pleb, HH Gold, PWP General Secretary
Posts: 23,199
The mainline union will have a field day with this. I can see the rhetoric now. CO's General liability carrier will cover the lawsuit expenses, and will seek to be indemnified under Colgan's policy. 1.75 billion/49 people = 35.7 million per-person. I don't see this suit exceeding policy limits, and hitting CO's liability carrier.
May 12, 2009, 6:47 am
#13
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: DEN
Programs: UA MM Plat; AA MM Gold; HHonors Diamond
Posts: 15,866
This bothers me...how common are such schedules, I wonder.
...Both pilots were returning to work after a day off. Capt. Renslow was coming off weeks of late-evening and early-morning flying schedules, often sandwiched around only a few hours of rest. Ms. Shaw [the copilot] had spent the day before the accident skiing. She then took a red-eye flight from Seattle to report for work in Newark....
May 12, 2009, 7:04 am
#14
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: New York NY
Programs: UA Gold, CO Plat, CO Million Miler
Posts: 2,617
there's something also a little odd about this situation and that is the pilot was in his mid forties and this was his first (if I'm not mistaken) job in commercial aviation. I have absolutely no problem with mainline pilots in their 50s or 60s, but here's a guy who obviously has kicked around the bottom rungs of general aviation with a rather undistinguished career. In this day and age, my understanding is that it is pretty tough to be hired as a pilot even at the slave wages paid by express type airlines like Colgan. Why are they not hiring the best and the brightest they can find?
May 12, 2009, 7:09 am
#15
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: DFW
Programs: UA Pleb, HH Gold, PWP General Secretary
Posts: 23,199
there's something also a little odd about this situation and that is the pilot was in his mid forties and this was his first (if I'm not mistaken) job in commercial aviation. I have absolutely no problem with mainline pilots in their 50s or 60s, but here's a guy who obviously has kicked around the bottom rungs of general aviation with a rather undistinguished career. In this day and age, my understanding is that it is pretty tough to be hired as a pilot even at the slave wages paid by express type airlines like Colgan. Why are they not hiring the best and the brightest they can find?