Originally Posted by
airsafety
Here's the WSJ's latest report. I'm generally pretty skeptical of media reports, but Andy Pasztor is generally one of the better reporters. This scenario is certainly more consistent with the aircraft models' history, but doesn't give a clue why they slowed to such a speed. Perhaps they punched off the autopilot (or it disconnected when they dumped flaps and gear at the marker) and the aircraft was way out of trim.
My initial hunch was that pilot error was either the whole cause, or a major cause, of this accident. That belief was based on the preliminary information: airplanes don't just fall out of the sky, the weather conditions weren't THAT unusual, and the pilots were relatively inexperienced, particularly with this aircraft.
One car insurance company currently has an ad running showing that teen drivers are 10x more likely to crash their cars in their first year of driving than the general population. Is aviation THAT different? Statistically, I'm sure these guys were qualified to fly this aircraft, but were they the BEST qualified? Would any of us prefer to fly with Colgan pilots over Continental pilots? Even though the risks are very, very low, you are definitely safer flying on mainline aircraft than commuter aircraft -- largely due to pilot qualifications and experience.