The Short Answer Is....
 

This is an interesting question.

The text below is taken from the new edition of my book (hopefully it will be out some time later this year). In addition there's a separate discussion of RJ pilot training and hiring standards on my website, if you feel like clicking over.



Are RJ's less safe than mainline jets?

The short answer is no. No commercial aircraft is unsafe, or anything remotely close to it. The long answer is more nuanced. Whether or not regional aircraft are, on some level, less safe than mainline jets is open to debate. It's a debate of statistical minutia, and there is no practical reason why anybody should outright avoid smaller planes, but still it's a debate worth having.

Size, strictly speaking, isn't the issue. The metric correlating bigger with safer is a tough one to uproot, and for the most part it's wrong. I can't speak to claustrophobia or absence of legroom, but there is almost nothing about an airplane's size that correlates one way or the other to the likelihood of it crashing. A modern turboprop or regional jet (RJ) can cost tens of millions of dollars, and if you haven't noticed that money isn't going into galleys and sleeper seats; it's going toward the same high-tech avionics and cockpit advancements you'll find in a Boeing or Airbus. These planes might be small, but quaint they are not. And so you know, pilots bristle at the term "puddle-jumper" the way an environmental scientist bristles at "tree-hugger."

Of course, a plane is only as safe as the crew flying it, and there has been a lot of controversy over the training and experience levels of regional pilots. With the entire airline industry in turmoil, and with wages and working conditions at regional carriers notoriously substandard, it has become increasingly difficult for these companies to recruit and retain the best pilots. New-hires have been brought on board with very low flight time totals and thrust into a high-stress, high-workload environment.

Love them or hate them, smaller planes are here to say. The regional airline sector has grown tremendously over the last twenty years, and now accounts for a full 50 percent of all domestic departures. There are literally dozens of different "Express" and "Connection" affiliates hitched up with the majors. For the most part they operate independently from their major airline "parents," sharing little more than a flight number and paintjob. They are subcontractors, with entirely separate management structures, employees, training departments, etc.


Patrick Smith

www.askthepilot.com

I love your columns, Patrick.

The question I'm wondering is: is a minimally-qualified to fly jet engines automatically going to have more time and/or experience than a minimally-qualified crew flying a dual prop plane?

In other words, doing being jet-powered mean that there is no way that a RJ's crew could possibly be as unqualified and incompetent as the crew of Colgan Air Flight 3407?

Of course, but I was pointing out that you don't need an ATP license to actually have a flying job at the regionals. First officers don't need, and are often not hired with, an ATP license.

You do however need a type rating for each jet aircraft you fly, or each aircraft that weighs over 12,500lbs.

Can you elaborate? And (noting your location) are you talking UK rules or US rules?

Just to clarify, a type rating is only required to act as Pilot in Command (PIC) of the airplane, the airlines use the term Captain, but this term is not used by the FAA in any way. An Airline Transport Rating (ATR) is not a type rating, it is a rating required to act as PIC in an airline operation, it is not required in non airline operations like corporate jets.

To fly as Second in Command (SEC), also known as a first officer or co-pilot does not require a type rating or an Airline Transport Rating (ATR).

A type rating is an endorsement on a pilot’s license that allows that person to act as a PIC in a particular model airplane. For instance there are many versions of the Boeing 737, the 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 800, 900, all that is required to fly as PIC in any model B-737 is a B-737 type rating, but to go from an early model like the –100 to a later model like the –700, or visa versa, a pilot must go through differences training between the 2 models, usually a short 1 or 2 day course.

To move over to a different airplane like the MD-80 or an Airbus 320, requires going back to the classroom and starting all over again learning the systems and training in the simulator to get type rated in these airplanes.

Mr. Elliott

the high number of commuters (usually due to high COL in base/low salary) coupled with regional carriers fascinations with highspeeds (or CDO's) will inherently make the regionals "less safe" than the mainline carriers. Alot of the low timers came during the hiring boom in the mid 2000s when there were several pilot mills pumping out pilots with just over Commercial minimums and putting them into the right seat of airliners. That has mostly changed now for the better. I spent 2004-2007 at a larger regional and was hired with 900TT/50ME. Now looking at the minimums most places wont even look at you until you have 1500TT. That being said, Ive flown with brand new captains who still had wet ink on their ATP cert that would blow some 20 year captain with 10,000 hours out of the water, and vice versa.

Maybe if a RJ FO job paid more than $20,000 for the first two years you would get some higher quality people...

At the end, I have no problem flying RJ's in regards to the safety aspect. I just feel terribly sorry for all employees involved.

It really seems like the particular airline has a much greater effect on safety than the airplane itself. Colgan, for example... multiple reports of crew scheduling that really push the limits of physical endurance. That has nothing to do with the Dash 8 those underslept pilots might be flying.

I still wonder how much is anecdote and how much is a legitimate trend but it's enough for me to avoid Colgan right now.

Beyond safety, though, I have definitely noticed much less of a jarring feeling in turbulence on larger planes. For comfort alone I've purposely avoided RJs recently and it's really made me a more pleasant person in the air.

Some regional First Officer’s wish they could start out at $20.000 a year, some regional’s like Air Wisconsin, a regional who flies for USAir start their First Officers out at just above $16.000 a year.

It’s one thing to work for low wages as a first officer for a few years with the prospect of moving up and out to a major airline, but for how long can these first officers work for wages that sometimes qualify them for food stamps, especially if they have families to support.

In the past years the military was the main supplier of pilots to the major airlines, but with all the military cutbacks and incentives to stay on active duty, that source has basically been cut back drastically. So the airlines turned to the regional’s as a source for pilots, but with all the cutbacks and furloughs at the airlines, with the furloughed pilots maintaining recall rights, there has hardly been hiring of pilots from the regional’s to the airlines. This means that most of the regional pilots are stuck in their positions and unless others above them in seniority leave, they are not going anywhere and stuck at really low wages.

The airlines sometimes contract their regional flying out to the lowest bidder, and thus the regional airlines needs to keep their costs down as low as possible to earn a profit.

And you would be surprised as to who are the best paid airline pilots out there, Southwest and FEDEX both pay top wages and are highly sought after jobs, some pilots have even left other major airlines to move over to these 2 airlines.

Mr. Elliott

Only time I start getting spooked on smaller planes in in icy conditions. A big jet is usually a lot less susceptible to mid-air icing then smaller jets and especially small turbo props. I would be very hesitant to fly in a Emb 120 or Beechcraft 1900 in winter weather. Still fairly safe but it just freaks me out. I would never step foot on an ATR 72 in any weather though.

Colgan is a perfect example to cite, the First Officer was with the company for about a year, making just over $16,000 a year. She lived in Seattle and commuted to her base in Newark because she could not afford to share in a rental apartment called a crash pad, so she often slept in the pilots lounge before and between her flights. On the day of the crash, the FO flew in overnight on FEDEX, changing planes in Memphis, so she never had a good nights sleep and also had a head cold and tried to get some sleep in the pilots lounge, which does not have any beds, just recliners before her afternoon flight

The Captain also commuted, but his was a shorter commute, up from Tampa, an easy hop up on Continental, but with a lot of airline flights running full, to avoid not getting to work on time he also took an early flight.

What got to me was the CEO, in a hearing after the accident defending his company’s policy of paying very low wages. Basically some of the regional’s feel they are being used as a training ground to the major airlines, that no one intends to stay at their airlines, so they use it to their advantage in keeping wages low, and they have been very successful at that. They claim that training is very expensive and because many pilots will leave after a few years, they make up their training costs in paying low wages.

There is one regional airline I won’t mention that also runs a flight training academy for pay and as part of the students training they get 250 hours flying as a First Officer, so in effect they are paying the airline for First Officer flying time. I hear that this airline now also deducts $300.00 a month from their First Officers already low wages who they hired not from their flight training academy to pay back the $25,000 it cost the airline to train them and if the pilot stays for 5 years, then they waive the rest after already paying back $18,000

I am not bashing all regional pilots, there are many that are super qualified to fly for the majors and some who have chosen not to move up to the majors because they like the quality of life and seniority they have at their company.

But for me personally I avoid flying on regionals as much as possible, the airplanes are just to small for me and I feel closed in on them.

Mr. Elliott

I read it in a book some time ago, which was published in the UK. I am also aware that the 19-seater Fairchild Swearingen Metroliner planes formerly operated by Manx2 do not have cabin crew, lifejackets, or some other safety features usually found on passenger aircraft operated in the UK.

I am not claiming to be an expert on the matter, which is why I prefixed my statement with "I believe".

The UK rule (which I read up on in the Air Navigation Order today) is that life jackets must be carried on ALL flights that operate over water out of gliding distance from the nearest bit of land.... including private flights in light aircraft. So, definitely no different rules for aircraft with fewer than 19 seats.

Conversely, aircraft NOT operating over water, including passenger aircraft with 19+ seats, do NOT have to carry life jackets... this would appear to be the same rule as in the USA where, as I understand it, life jackets are not usually carried on aircraft that operate only internal flights.

It is correct that aircraft with up to 18 seats do not have to have cabin crew under UK regulations (don't know about US regulations), but there aren't that many aircraft types that fall into this category.

Also, under UK rules piston-engined aircraft with up to 18 seats (such as Trislanders), and turbine-engined aircraft with up to 10 seats, can be flown single-crew as long as the aircraft is equipped with an auto-pilot. It is widely expected that this particular exemption will disappear at some point in the future.

I am not claiming to be an expert on the matter, which is why I prefixed my statement with "I believe".[/QUOTE]

In my experience, life jackets usually ARE carried on domestic US flights. However, quite often, the planes are of the variety that have few or no life rafts.

I'm not clear about some points raised here.

Is the contention that the additional considerable experience of mainline pilots doesn't make them safer, better pilots than the regionals, or that regional pilots have "enough" experience to be good, safe pilots.

If the latter, is it just coincidence that the last two U.S. crashes that resulted in loss of life were both regionals and the NTSC as sited pilot error as the cause?