How stressed is regional-flying? (CRJ-crash related)

[Baradium]

In this case I'm guessing that their familiarity with the airport was a detriment.  If it'd been their first time there they'd probably have double checked which runway was which.  I know I've caught myself heading for my usual runway at FAI, and had to ask the ground to repeat which one I was suppose to be using once of twice.  Especially since FAI has so many parallel runays.  19L, 19R, Ski 19, 19 float...(one day the tower keep clearing me to land on 19 Float.  Had to tell them 3 times I was on wheels.  Must have been a float plane with similar call sign in the area). 

I've also gotten in the habit of not only reading back my clearances, but asking them to confirm if it's out of the ordinary, like "Enter right downwind for 19 left, cleared to land"  Which puts me over 19R and the international terminal on downwind.

Phil

I agree with you as far as the familiarity.  That's where a two pilot crew usually takes care of it.  If one pilot doesn't notice, the other does.

If I'm looking at the diagram right, when they closed the one taxiway for whatever they are doing, it changed the angles as well.  They had to turn as they were crossing the first runway, talk about messing up your sight picture. 

Atlanta is fun too, 5 parallel runways.  But yeah,  Fairbanks has an interesting combination.  I'd never seen a gravel runway before coming to Alaska. 

As far as wheels and floats, I've always felt that amphibs must be tough.  Having to remember when to put the gear down and when to leave it up!   I remember reading an accident report where an amphib beaver pilot put his gear down coming in on a lake.  Two of his passengers drowned, that'd be tough to live with.

[Baradium]

You guys notice that they mentioned in some of the news reports that there is at least one law firm taking out public ads trying to get family members of comair crash victims to sue?  Other lawyers are apparently seeking them out as well.

I really think that is dispicable, and a big part of what is wrong with our society today.   People feel entitled to free money and the fact that there are others who make a living of deceiving juries into giving money regardless of whether they deserve it or not.  I'm starting to think that maybe lawyers should be held criminally responsible for deliberately misleading jurors...

/rant

EDIT:  One of the families took the bait and filed a lawsuit.


-Ryan

[fireflyr]

You guys notice that they mentioned in some of the news reports that there is at least one law firm taking out public ads trying to get family members of comair crash victims to sue?  Other lawyers are apparently seeking them out as well.

I really think that is despicable, and a big part of what is wrong with our society today.   People feel entitled to free money and the fact that there are others who make a living of deceiving juries into giving money regardless of whether they deserve it or not.  I'm starting to think that maybe lawyers should be held criminally responsible for deliberately misleading jurors...

/rant

EDIT:  One of the families took the bait and filed a lawsuit.

Lawyers and anal apertures have a lot in common---ya hate the smelly sumbitches til ya really need one then nothing else will do    You are right on with the remark about people feeling entitled to "free money" Look at the hurricane Katrina fiasco, those folks want to sue the government for not protecting them when in fact they (the folks in New Orleans) chose to live in a place that was flood prone!   Litigious morons figure everyone paying taxes should fund their irresponsible lifestyle    

-Ryan

[Baradium]

Hey, I didn't say that! 

[happylanding]

HEHE! Fireflyr, you sometimes makes a mess with quotes! 

I read somewhere but do not remember where, that in the US once passengers of a flight that entered into turbolence (without any physical harm) sued the company, because of the anxiety and stress they went into. and they won. they were rewarded an amount of money multiplied by the seconds the turbolence endured.

[fireflyr]

HEHE! Fireflyr, you sometimes makes a mess with quotes! 

I read somewhere but do not remember where, that in the US once passengers of a flight that entered into turbolence (without any physical harm) sued the company, because of the anxiety and stress they went into. and they won. they were rewarded an amount of money multiplied by the seconds the turbolence endured.

HAAAA, yes I do Happy, BUT I'm having fun anyway

Bet there are folks out there who'd sue God for incliment weather if they could figure a way to get money out of Him

[Mike]

back to the topic:

Here is a mail I received from one of our marketing guys at the FBO. Pretty scary, especially the end where he writes about the pilots experience....



This writing below written by a Retired Captain is excellent.
 
 
Aviation Disaster   -  A Pilot's View

I lived in Lexington and have thirty years of airline experience flying in and out of LEX. I was also the station liaison for Lexington for ten years.


Here is what I think happened:

The two runways in question share the same common run-up area. The extended taxiway to the correct runway, runway 28 was closed due to construction. It has always been difficult to tell between the two runways when you are taxiing out. The natural thing to do is to take the wrong one. It is just there and you are always tempted to take it.

When I flew out of LEX we always checked each other at least three times to make sure we were taking the correct runway. We checked the chart, we checked to make sure the correct runway number was at the end and we always double-checked the FMS generated moving map.

Most FMS systems will have a warning called "runway dissimilarity" pop up in magenta when your position at takeoff doesn't match the runway you programmed into the computer. This would not happen at LEX since you are virtually in the same spot when you take either runway.

It was also raining at the time of takeoff and dark. The control tower opens at 6am (because we are, after all, all about saving money) and only has one controller on duty at that time. He or she has to: run ground control, clearance delivery, approach control and departure control. The one controller also has to program the ATIS and make the coffee. He or she probably cleared Comair to take off and then put their head back down to do a chore or work another airplane.

Taking the runway, the Comair guy would put the power up and wouldn't realize they were on the wrong runway until they were about 70% down the pike. Too late to safely abort so he probably decided to try and continue the takeoff.

This is when the eyewitnesses heard a series of explosions and thought the plane blew up in the air. Didn't happen -- what they heard and saw were compressor stalls of probably both engines. The pilot no doubt pushed the throttles all the way up and that demand to the engines combined with the steep pitch attitude cut off enough air to the intakes to cause the compressor stalls -- which, by the way, made them even more doomed. Less power.

They stalled or simply hit one of the large hills to the west of the airport and came to a stop. Everybody on board was probably injured but alive. Then, a second or two later the post-crash fire began. With the darkness and the fact that most of them had broken legs, pelvises and backs they literally burned alive. Not smoke inhalation. They really actually burned to death.

In my role as station liaison I wrote most of the post crash safety procedure for Delta at that field. Too bad there weren't enough survivors to use them.
 
BTW, Comair and the press will tell you what a great plane the RJ is. This is a total lie. The Canadair RJ was designed to be an executive barge, not an airliner. They were designed to fly about ten times a month, not ten times a day. They have a long history of mechanical design shortfalls. I've flown on it and have piloted it. It is a steaming, underpowered piece of shit. It never had enough power to get out of its own way and this situation is exactly what everybody who flies it was afraid of.

The senior member of the crew had about five and a half years of total jet experience. The copilot less. They had minimum training (to save money -- enjoy that discount ticket!) and were flying a minimally equipped pos on very short rest. The layover gets in about 10pm the night before. They report for pick-up at 4:30am.

I'm sorry if I sound bitter but this is exactly the direction the entire airline industry is going. Expect to see bigger more colorful crashes in the future.

I have 20,000 of heavy jet flying time and am type rated in the 727, 757, 767, 777, DC-8, DC-9 and L-1011.


Rick Darwicki -= N6PE

 

 

[Baradium]

I got the same e-mail, but didn't comment directly to the person who sent this to me.  I would like to note that sections of mine are different (mine isn't attributed to anyone and doesn't have any listing of type ratings OR experience).  Anyway, here we go....

Comair isn't owned by Delta anymore, I'll bet they have their own procedures.

Modern turbine engines have devices that are *supposed* to prevent compressor stalls from happening even when you firewall the power.  It's not so much like the old days where you had to be very slow on power movements or you'd flame out the engine.  I would have expected a CRJ to have the same devices on them that we have in the 1900s to do that.

The F/O wasn't coherent when they pulled him out, he did move slightly (which is the only reason they pulled him out because they realized he was alive).  It's very likely that the passengers were unconcious.  Otherwise usually when there's a fire they die from the smoke inhalation, so they don't feel the burning.  The FO was so badly injured he's still in a coma with many broken bones.

Another inconsistancy  is the reason they are 100% positve the plane went off the wrong runway.  The nosewheel was still on the ground when they went off the runway.  The reason they went airborne is they actually bounced off the berm!

Someone wrote this too soon after it happened or didn't look into what they know now. 

5 years experience could mean 5,000 hours or more.  At the company I'm at now we have captains getting 1400 hours a year, although standard 121 is 1200 hour a year max.

I'm a bit put off by offended by the idea that "5 years" of full time jet experience is too little here.  The guy probobly had another 6 grand or more of turbo prop time and another few grand of piston multi-engine.  So you're talking about someone with over 10,000 hours, maybe 15,000.  At that point you're getting pretty darn close to the guy with 20,000 hours.  And the guy didn't have enough experience?  Give me a break!

This does sound like someone with some aviation experience wrote the letter, but I initially suspected that whoever wrote it either wasn't thinking about what he was saying, doesn't really have that much experience and thus isn't fully aware of what this means, or has been out of the game a bit too long and isn't thinking it through.

I begin to suspect that portions of it are real and others added in.  Such as the experience and the part about the jet.  I don't hear many pilots say "I've flown, and piloted a XXX."   In aviation speak you tend to assume that if you've "flown" an aircraft that you were at the controls...

In fact, I'm changing my feelings on whoever wrote it.  I think the writer found an opinion from someone who knew aviation and modified it to make it sound worse.  It just doesn't follow to me how someone with TriStar (L-1011), 727 and the other types would end up flying an RJ.   He'd have had to be furloughed from another company, but anyone who is typed in a 777 was senior and I'm not aware of any 777 flying airlines that went under completely (don't believe TWA had any).

It sounds to me like someone was trying to figure out what to list that'd sound most impressive.  I can't say for certain, but it sure seems suspicious to me... everyone else can form their own opiinions.

I have over 500 hours of fixed wing time and I'm type rated in... nothing.   

[Frank N. O.]

Not to stir up something and I haven't got the energy at the moment to check the source more, but I searched the name on google, and found this right away, the nickname also fits. Nothing mentioned about piloting here.

http://www.qsl.net/n6pe/

Frank

[Mike]

Well, actually, the guy who sent this to me is one of the guys who always claim their are "aviators" but everytime you ask them directly if they have a pilots license they dodge the question...
That's why I found your reaction interesting, Baradium.

A couple of good points in there...
But it's all monday morning quarterbacking anyways.

I always find it interesting how young pilots (I was there myself and still consider myself a young pilot even after over 14 years ov aviation) think 5 years is a lot of experience and all the old experienced guys consider it littel or not enough. I have been in countless discussions on both ends in the past years....

But let me tell you something. You have 500 hours now. When I went past 5000 I still thought I don't know enough yet and that there is a lot to learn.....

I do believe that with the low salaries they have in the fixed wing lately, the numbers of experienced pilots will drop and it will have an effect on aviation safety in the long run. Now combine that with the cut-backs the FAA is making in the controllers corner and even among the POI's.....
...still think it's scary 

[Baradium]

Well, actually, the guy who sent this to me is one of the guys who always claim their are "aviators" but everytime you ask them directly if they have a pilots license they dodge the question...
That's why I found your reaction interesting, Baradium.

A couple of good points in there...
But it's all monday morning quarterbacking anyways.

I always find it interesting how young pilots (I was there myself and still consider myself a young pilot even after over 14 years ov aviation) think 5 years is a lot of experience and all the old experienced guys consider it littel or not enough. I have been in countless discussions on both ends in the past years....

My point was that it's not quite so simple.  Another aspect is that if the guy has 20 years of experience he had less than 5 years, on average, in each type he flew...

But let me tell you something. You have 500 hours now. When I went past 5000 I still thought I don't know enough yet and that there is a lot to learn.....

That was a tongue in cheek mokery of the statement of 20,000 hours.  Since he'd have to really freak out about an F/O with little experience in an aircraft, but everyone has to *start* somewhere. 

I feel I have far from a lot of experience,  although I still think these guys with 6000 plus hours just in the 1900s in Alaska that I'm flying with aren't exactly green...    but yeah, for the guys I'm flying with I'm a brand new pilot...    Sorry the joke apparently didn't come through very well...

I do believe that with the low salaries they have in the fixed wing lately, the numbers of experienced pilots will drop and it will have an effect on aviation safety in the long run. Now combine that with the cut-backs the FAA is making in the controllers corner and even among the POI's.....
...still think it's scary 

That remains a question... I don't see pilots flocking to retirement because of pay cuts.  A large number will be retiring in the next few years, but I don't think it has anything to do with salary, it's all age related...

[Mike]

That remains a question... I don't see pilots flocking to retirement because of pay cuts.  A large number will be retiring in the next few years, but I don't think it has anything to do with salary, it's all age related...

But could that be because now they really can't retire at the moment becuase they can't afford it?
I heard their pensions got cut as well . . .

I am more worried about the new guys moving through the ranks.

BTW: When you say "the guys in the 1900's"....you're talking about an airplane, right?!?
(I still don't know all my stuck wing crafts, sorry...) 

[Baradium]

But could that be because now they really can't retire at the moment becuase they can't afford it?
I heard their pensions got cut as well . . .

Don't worry, the little guys never did have a pension anyway.     

Delta just got approval to axe their's actually is what I heard last...

I am more worried about the new guys moving through the ranks.

What worries you?   You know what worries me?  That these guys who spend 99% of their time with an autopilot don't remember what it's like to actually fly the aircraft.  They get so used to pushing buttons that they don't gain as much flying experience as "watching guages" experience.  I guess that's an advantage to us only having a single 1900 (and yes it's an aircraft type) that has an autopilot.  All the navajos do, but that's becuase they are single pilot.

BTW: When you say "the guys in the 1900's"....you're talking about an airplane, right?!?
(I still don't know all my stuck wing crafts, sorry...) 

The Beech 1900 is the plane I'm on (and the one in the picture).

Some more thoughts.... your initial time actually makes a larger difference than time after.  In the majors, the pilots might fly 10 hours in a week, and they don't work every week.  20 hours is really high for a week.  We might fly 40 sometimes.  Not only that but we do shorter hops with more cycles and some of them are at much much lower altitudes...

What kind of experience is better?  10 hours watching an autopilot that lands the airplane for you, or 10 hours actually flying the thing?  I've flown with a captain on a non autopilot aircraft who is used to the autopilot and visa versa and I can tell you my opinion...

Anyway, the main point is that in 20 years of experience, most of the actual experience is in the first 5 or 10 anyway.  After you get to a major your flight time rate decreases back down and it becomes a seniority number.   Not only that, but I remember reading that after that initial point your probability of having an accident levels off and stops decreasing.  I don't remember the number, but it wasn't all that high (relatively speaking).  The problem is that the guys with 20 years of experience tend to get complacent.  How many accidents happen with experienced flight crews with many years of experience?

I've taken a lot of CRM courses and most of the major accidents seem to happen with highly experienced crews.  Just look at the American flight that crashed in queens in teh Airbus.  They claim it was the f/o (who wasn't exactly inexperienced by any measure) using too much rudder (although I have my own qualms with the accident findings).  Or the DC-10 or 707 that ran out of fuel?  How about the Alaska Airlines DC-9 (that you guys probobly didn't hear about) that dragged a wing for 1000' down the runway in fairbanks?  (Btw, dragging a wing is getting extremely scary close to cartwheeling an airplane).  Experience doesn't hurt, but after a certain point it stops having such a drastic effect in the fixed wing birds, mainly the big ones with all the fancy computers that you'll get complacent with.

Just look at this comair crash.  They were complacent.  It wasn't lack of experience, it was complacency.  That's the *disadvantage* of a lot of experience.  If you stop thinking that you have anything that can happen you aren't expecting, something will come and get you.  Due to the type of flying we do, we have a number of captains who've been flying in Alaska for 20 years or more.  These guys know their stuff, but they can make mistakes.  Thats a big reason we're two pilot crew, so two pilots are watching stuff.  Unfortunately sometimes both pilots can miss stuff, but that's rare.... but *those* instances happen just as often to experienced crews as inexperienced ones, even looking at it on a proportional basis.

20,000 hours doesn't make you any more immune to a crash than 5,000 does.  And if you spent the last 15,000 hours of your 20,000 hours watching an autopilot, I'd argue that the 5,000 hour guy will be more on top of his hand flying than you are.

You get to a point of diminishing returns.  The point doesn't come at 500 hours and it might not be at 5,000 hours... but it's there.  I think the point is when you stop thinking you have anything to learn.  I know I have plenty to learn, and no matter how good I think a flight went or how nice *I* thought the landing was, I ask the Captain what I could do better.  Because there is *always* room for improvement.  Because no one is perfect, and everyone is subject to mistakes and no matter how often you might bend the rules there are two laws you can't break.  Gravity and momentum.

[Mike]

You, again, have some good points there Baradium. You seem to be very passionate about this subject. I must confess, I see it a little different sometimes because I live in the helicopter world. We don't get autopilots so I never really thought about that aspect much.
The month of July I did 278 landings, und August, because it was slower and we had less Jumper retreavals, I *only* did 129 landings. Do you think I am current by now?   
All of my 6000+ hrs are hand flown. So there is a slight difference between the two worlds I realize...

In our world (the firefighting/mountain-flying world) it makes quite a difference if a guy has 500hrs or 5,000hrs. Well, and you also have to consider, that the government won't let you fly for them unless you have a minimum of 1,500hrs. Flying in the mountains is not for everybody and we had new pilots fail our tests and training.
I do agree about the IFR environment however. I am a CFII but haven't flown a single approach in maybe 6 years. I'd probably be more dangerous than a private pilot who just passed his IFR checkride. And I even used to teach this stuff!!!
In my company, we don't hire guys with too much flight time. It's not really because of the complacency issue but rather that old pilots are very verrrry set in their ways and seem to have a harder time fitting in. We mostly look for attitude and how he/she flies in the mountains. Then it doesn't matter if he/she has 2,000 or 10,000 hours. (btw: we don't hire anybody under 2,000 hours but because we think they can't do it but because our insurance won't let us....which sucks!)
You can tell pretty quick if a helo pilot can fly in the mountains and is safe regardless of what it says on his resume. So here we agree again on the issue. The initial training is very important. A guy who learned how to fly in Florida, then became an instructor there, and then at some point came over to the Westcoast, will have a much harder time flying here (some of them are actually scared) then a guy who learned how to fly in CA or NV or ID.....

I read that the highest accident rate is with pilots who have around 500hrs because they think they know everything already. Then it goes down and they said (I think it was an FAA study) that the safest pilots are around 2,000 and 5,000hrs. They have scared themselves enough to know better. And then at 10,000hrs+ the accident rate actually goes up again because of complacency.
And statistics say that on average a pilot would have an accident every 15 years of flying. (well, you might know what I think about statistics already....)
I broke a helicopter 4 years ago so I should be good to go for the next 11 years...

[Baradium]

You, again, have some good points there Baradium. You seem to be very passionate about this subject. I must confess, I see it a little different sometimes because I live in the helicopter world. We don't get autopilots so I never really thought about that aspect much.
The month of July I did 278 landings, und August, because it was slower and we had less Jumper retreavals, I *only* did 129 landings. Do you think I am current by now?   
All of my 6000+ hrs are hand flown. So there is a slight difference between the two worlds I realize...

I only have 40 landings in the last month.  :p      That means about 80 landings I've been in since we alternate who actually does the landing.   Still a fair amount less than 130. 

In our world (the firefighting/mountain-flying world) it makes quite a difference if a guy has 500hrs or 5,000hrs. Well, and you also have to consider, that the government won't let you fly for them unless you have a minimum of 1,500hrs. Flying in the mountains is not for everybody and we had new pilots fail our tests and training.
I do agree about the IFR environment however. I am a CFII but haven't flown a single approach in maybe 6 years. I'd probably be more dangerous than a private pilot who just passed his IFR checkride. And I even used to teach this stuff!!!
In my company, we don't hire guys with too much flight time. It's not really because of the complacency issue but rather that old pilots are very verrrry set in their ways and seem to have a harder time fitting in. We mostly look for attitude and how he/she flies in the mountains. Then it doesn't matter if he/she has 2,000 or 10,000 hours. (btw: we don't hire anybody under 2,000 hours but because we think they can't do it but because our insurance won't let us....which sucks!)
You can tell pretty quick if a helo pilot can fly in the mountains and is safe regardless of what it says on his resume. So here we agree again on the issue. The initial training is very important. A guy who learned how to fly in Florida, then became an instructor there, and then at some point came over to the Westcoast, will have a much harder time flying here (some of them are actually scared) then a guy who learned how to fly in CA or NV or ID.....

We do stuff up here with a 1900 legally that I wouldn't have really thought about in a cessna 172.  Adds a new perspective to things.

I read that the highest accident rate is with pilots who have around 500hrs because they think they know everything already. Then it goes down and they said (I think it was an FAA study) that the safest pilots are around 2,000 and 5,000hrs. They have scared themselves enough to know better. And then at 10,000hrs+ the accident rate actually goes up again because of complacency.
And statistics say that on average a pilot would have an accident every 15 years of flying. (well, you might know what I think about statistics already....)
I broke a helicopter 4 years ago so I should be good to go for the next 11 years...

Hahaha!   11 years, eh?   

I fly with a lot of mid (relatively speaking) to high time guys day to day.  It's really hard for me to think I know everything.   Too many guys around who from my perspective seem to. 
We also do things here that weren't in the southeast (like your mountain flying for florida pilots example).  I think it's good that I'm not used to the ideas and some of the types of flying we do.  It really helps take care of the "I know everything" thing when you see new stuff on a regular basis.    Although I'm past the 500 hour threshold at least... 


As far as being passionate about this subject.... it does happen to be one that affects me. 


This may not apply to helicopters as much, but I think number of cycles (takeoffs and landings) makes a difference as well.


I'm also curious how people who talk about pilots who "only have x experience in x aircraft" expect the pilots to get experience.  It's not like we get our ratings and the FAA gives us a voucher redeemable for 10,000 hours in our logbook.