DLfan

And their decisions are generally not made in a vacuum. There are seasoned physicians hovering around and ready to grab the stick if the patient starts to crash.

Evan!

Although posted on UTube in 2006, I think this video titled So You Want to be a Regional Pilot is still relevant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RayMaswju1A

I find the following snippet from this news item to be a typical trait of corporate America.

StayingHomeIsBetter

Call it a bias if you wish, but I prefer to have my flight piloted by someone who is at least as old as my youngest child. I get no basis for confidence with the Barbie and Ken contingent that I increasingly see in the cockpit of a RJ.

The airlines (including DL) appear to be set on increasing their use of connection carriers, to the point of often replacing a single mainline flight with multiple crop duster flights. This trend will only increase the demand for less experienced flight crews.

The Colgan incident served to reinforce my policy of avoiding RJs whenever possible... which has been a boon to WN, since I often elect to fly a real WN jet in lieu of a NW/DL RJ.

(Rhetorical question) How long do you suppose it will be before the majors start issuing self-serving press releases emphasizing their focus on safety and their confidence in the standards enforced by their regional carriers?

SchmutzigMSP

Neither are command-decisions in an aircraft. The pilots have their computers telling them what to do, of course their co-pilots, air traffic controllers, and their dispatch/company line that they can ring up in a moment's notice. Just because you may be 30,000 feet above the ground doesn't mean decisions are made in a vacuum.

Pilots are generally younger on RJs because those positions offer less pay and a lower quality of life. Most pilots would likely opt for the larger mainline flying if they could, but they don't have the seniority to be competitive with other pilots during the hiring process. So, they continue to fly at the regionals to build up hours and experience until they can be competitive. It's not that they're inexperienced pilots, it's just that the competition at the majors is so tough, they have to "pay their dues" in the regionals until their number is called.

These regional carriers often fly tighter schedules than the mainlines and are most affected by wx delays since they're easier to "push around". It's neither good nor bad, it's just the way it is.

But to not fly an RJ because it looks like its being flown by "a couple of kids" is a little narrow-minded. They are all trained professionals fully capable of flying those aircraft and being responsible for those passengers.

StayingHomeIsBetter

[added emphasis]

Tell that to the families of the passengers on CO 3407.

Tell that to the families of the passengers on DL 5191.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8041213.stm

motytrah

The CO forum has the best thread on the topic. Some of the professionals that have chimed in have noted that without context the check ride failures may not really have been an issue or even a factor. What likely is the issue is most of the training was on the Saab where what he was doing may have been correct.

SchmutzigMSP

Accidents happen to anyone. Those pilots were fully qualified. I stand by that and won't debate their qualifications with you.

If you don't want to fly an RJ, that's your personal choice an opinion. But there are many other contributing factors to the RJ crash, significantly those relating to work rules and scheduling which I alluded to earlier. Part of the blame, if there must be blame issued, has to lie with the companies operating policies.

Beckles

You of course realize that you're much more likely to get killed in a car accident during that hour drive than die on the regional aircraft you would have otherwise been flying on?

I am shocked that it is somehow news that regional aircraft pilots are the less experienced than mainline pilots. It's not feasible for all airlines to only hire pilots with thousands of hours of multi-engine experience, there just aren't that many pilots out there with that type of experience. Airline pilots have to start somewhere, and I believe it makes sense to start them out at the regional carriers. The other option would be for all carriers to go with mixed crews (i.e., experienced captains teamed with much less experienced FO), but that is not feasible within the framework of legacy carrier pilot contracts.

MikeMpls

One of the qualifications for most professional jobs these days is the submission of a non-fraudulent employment application. The captain was de facto unqualified.

StayingHomeIsBetter

1) It should not be surprising, but it is news.

2) Yes, pilots have to gain experience somewhere.

3) "The other option would be for all carriers to go with mixed crews (i.e., experienced captains teamed with much less experienced FO), but that is not feasible within the framework of legacy carrier pilot contracts." ... maybe it should be. You can't become a plumber without working in an apprenticeship program, side by side with a more experienced associate. If there are protocols for preventing two under-experienced people from working together under my sink, why should there not be protocols to prevent two under-experienced people from working together in the cockpit.

[And the irony is that the two two under-experienced people working together under my sink might be making more than the two under-experienced people working together in the cockpit.]

StayingHomeIsBetter

You don't have to... the facts speak for themselves.

azj

I would caution you all to generalize the entire regional industry based on this accident, the way the pilots look and the poor reporting by the media of the industry in general.

There isn't enough time, space or energy to begin to explain the complexities of becoming a pilot, being a pilot and the industry from our point of view. Every airline is different in culture, hiring standards, training practices and daily operation standards. However, each airline no matter what planes they fly are still bound to the FAA oversight and regulation.

There seems to be this misconception that ALL regional pilots are inexperienced and too young for the job. Again, each airline is different, but there are people at virtually every regional airline that have more seniority than their counterparts at a major airline. How is 25 years at Mesaba/Comair/Pinnacle or whoever any less experience than 25 years at Delta or NWA? It's not. Experience is not based on a/c size. In this case... size does NOT matter. For pay it does, but perceived experience it does not.

I'm actually rather offended by this thread, all the outrageous ignorant comments by so called experts that the media promote and the blanket generalizations made against all pilots in general.

I'm not defending anyones actions or inactions here. I just think it's foolish to make generalizations based on sensationalized news reports and out of context one sided NTSB hearings, especially without any idea of what it's like from the inside.

I realize you're all concerned about your safety. Any responsible person should be. I just think this bit about boycotting ALL regionals because of small planes, misguided perceptions and this accident is crazy. Did you ever stop to think that the all mighty mainline pilot is prone to making mistakes? Oh, the calamity and deflation of their egos.

A few things I'd like to refute -

1 - Our computers do NOT make decisions for us. They help reduce workload so that WE can make the best decisions possible. They also compartmentalize information we need and present them in such a way for us to choose the best course of action. Who do think set up the computers? Who do you think tells the computers what we want to get out of it? Ever heard of "garbage in, garbage out?"

2 - Picking Shuttle America as a safe bet because they have good onboard service? OMG. Seriously? Service does not equal safety.

3 - YES, we very much make our split second decisions in a vacuum. Don't you think Sully and his FO were a little pressed for time in making the decisions they did?

4 - As for the training failures and alleged falsification of the CAs application. Every pilot will have/has had a checkride issue. We're bound to have them. Checkrides, linechecks and the rest of the competency monitoring systems in place are repeated annually or biannually, depending on your seat. One bad day, having a headache, not getting enough sleep or whatever might be going on in your life will affect your personality that day. The examiners at some companies are also out for blood and have something to prove. Without ANY knowledge or context of anyones checkride but your own, NOBODY has any right to judge any pilot on their failures. It's simply way more complicated that "oooh, 5 failures, he must really suck." Do you realize how many checkrides in a career one has? MANY! The odds are that you'll ding at least a few. Nobody seems to realize that after such failure, retraining and then re-checking occurs.

And for the application... we have no idea how the questions on the application are worded. The FAA in its infinite wisdom creates lots of grey areas in the world of "was it an unsat or not?" If he falsified the information, shame on him. But shame on Colgan for not doing a more thorough background investigation on the applicant at the time. If it were my company, he would have been terminated immediately for not being 100% forthcoming in the application and interview process. See... every airline is different.

SchmutzigMSP

Lying on a job application doesn't make you unqualified to perform a task. It may make you an unethical employee or remove you from consideration, but it doesn't negate your qualification levels.

The pilots passed enough of the internal training tests at Colgan to be qualified to fly in the eyes of Colgan. If you take issue with the fact that one could fail ANY test and still be qualified to fly, take it up with Colgan or each individual carrier who sets their own rules.

And regardless of what test(s) they may have failed prior to working at Colgan, they passed enough while at Colgan to be considered qualified to fly. Again, if you still have complaints, it's the Colgan training/qualification statutes that you should take issue with. An airline will ground a pilot if they feel they're unqualified.

I feel this may be directed at me. I didn't mean to imply that the computers make decisions for you, but I did say that they "tell you what to do". And this is correct. Your on-board computers analyze the environmental conditions and tell you what you need to do, but of course you are not obligated to follow them, nor do you consult them without taking into account any other information. They're a tool designed to give you information and advice. Take TCAS for example. It tells you to climb or to nose down. You don't have to, but chances are the computer is right, and came to the conclusion faster than you could have. That's why they're there.

My point was to refute the idea that pilots are up there making decisions on their own with no help or support from other sources. That's not true. Ultimately yes, the final decision does come down to the pilot in command. But it's not fair to say that there is a "vacuum" of information or data in the cockpit and everything is left up to the pilot(s).

azj

Schmutzig - I see your point, but I still think you and the flying public feel that we're just there occupying space. Good assessment on TCAS, but you know? TCAS, GPWS/WSHR are the only computers that really TELL us that to do. Everything else is presented to us in the form of a message. It is then up to us to consult the manuals to proceed with the best course of action. BTW, this is just the airplane I fly I'm talking about here. The folks on the DC9 and Saab have FAR less technology to help them out while dealing with problems.

MikeMpls

A Colgan VP has already indicated the captain would have been fired (which I equate to a super-grounding) if what they now know had come out while he was still alive. He did not properly meet all the qualifications to be in that cockpit.