Remember 3407 Project Strikes a Chord

Killtron2000 said:
I've just been using Colgan as an example because they seem particularly bad for example when I talked to Chuck Colgan there he was drunk.
Click to expand...

In addition to... there was a lot going on right then, and you caught everybody in a bad time. That really wasn't the norm.
 
Killtron2000 said:
Cop-out. What are you going to do when it does come out and it was pilot error?
Click to expand...


No it is not a cop-out.

It is what it is.

However, there is never one issue that results in an accident. How in the world do you know how the NTSB investigation will turn out? This accident has broken 'the norm' MANY times so far.
 
Killtron2000 said:
I would expect the more experience applicant to be the better applicant 9 out of 10 times. Would you agree that an experienced applicant who doesn't do well in the sim or with technical questions is probably a worse choice than an inexperienced pilot who does well with those things?
Click to expand...


No, I wouldn't. You're not giving enough information. Was it just a bad sim? I know I've had some off days, and you'd be lying if you said you never have. What kinds of technical questions? For a while, Pinnacle was asking guys that had never seen a CRJ how many TRUs were on-board. How are you gonna know how many are on board if you don't even know what a TRU is? It's a poor question for someone that's never flown an airplane of that caliber. Straight up knowledge of systems doesn't necessarily make a good pilot. I flew with an FO that could rattle off systems knowledge, but he was 1000 ft high on an approach, fast and he had about 800 ft left to get it within stabilized criteria or we were going around. Went into Ft Smith yesterday, and I was thanking my lucky stars I had an experienced FO that could follow my thought process as I was deviating around about 5 thunderstorm cells. A guy that had never been in that situation would have been waiting for me to tell him what to tell ATC every time. This guy was on the ball and was reading my mind. Made my job of actually flying the airplane a lot easier. With a less experienced guy, I would have been flying the airplane, operating the radar and likely making the radio calls to ATC. Essentially, he woulda been doing checklists and passenger PAs and nothing else b/c he hadn't been there before.

Being able to fly an approach in a Frasca and ace a written test aren't the things that should land you a job. Situational "what if" scenarios should be a big part of an interview.
 
Seggy said:
No it is not a cop-out.

It is what it is.

However, there is never one issue that results in an accident. How in the world do you know how the NTSB investigation will turn out? This accident has broken 'the norm' MANY times so far.
Click to expand...
Sure it is, this happens anytime someone says something that they can only be 98% sure of. It's the same argument people who disagree with evolution use.
 
Pilot error is a blanket verdict. Simply summing it up to that does not expose the underlying issues.

We all know that mistakes were made. Pilot error is easy to lay blame on.. but will not help advance safety. Getting to the underlying issues is the only way that we can really learn from what happened, and make changes to prevent it from happening again.

This is why the NTSB findings will take a long time. Sure you will be able to come on here and boast about being right because one of the listed factors is "pilot" error. Which is fine. you will learn from this accident that making mistakes is bad. Hopefully those who don't chalk it up to pilot error, and read/study the results will learn about how dangerous negative transfer of learning, complacency, rest, fatigue etc can really jeopardize flight safety.

Yes, the crew failed to protect the aircraft... thats not in question. The question is why?
 
kellwolf said:
No, I wouldn't. You're not giving enough information. Was it just a bad sim? I know I've had some off days, and you'd be lying if you said you never have. What kinds of technical questions? For a while, Pinnacle was asking guys that had never seen a CRJ how many TRUs were on-board. How are you gonna know how many are on board if you don't even know what a TRU is? It's a poor question for someone that's never flown an airplane of that caliber. Straight up knowledge of systems doesn't necessarily make a good pilot. I flew with an FO that could rattle off systems knowledge, but he was 1000 ft high on an approach, fast and he had about 800 ft left to get it within stabilized criteria or we were going around. Went into Ft Smith yesterday, and I was thanking my lucky stars I had an experienced FO that could follow my thought process as I was deviating around about 5 thunderstorm cells. A guy that had never been in that situation would have been waiting for me to tell him what to tell ATC every time. This guy was on the ball and was reading my mind. Made my job of actually flying the airplane a lot easier. With a less experienced guy, I would have been flying the airplane, operating the radar and likely making the radio calls to ATC. Essentially, he woulda been doing checklists and passenger PAs and nothing else b/c he hadn't been there before.

Being able to fly an approach in a Frasca and ace a written test aren't the things that should land you a job. Situational "what if" scenarios should be a big part of an interview.
Click to expand...
You need my definition of a bad sim ride? It's not like I've put together a three ring binder of questions, simulator tasks and evaluation criteria.

I never said they should ask questions about planes you've never flown in fact I think I said they should evaluate you on a plane you are familiar with. Because if you do well on something you are familiar with it's probably because you're a good pilot whereas if it something totally alien to you than luck is going to be bigger factor instead of judgment or skill.

Basing everything on number of hours logged and seniority guarantees nothing but mediocrity. I brought up the example of that 2500 hour ATP because he is an exceptionally bad pilot with a somewhat impressive job title. Under the system we have now he will have no trouble getting a job because he has a tremendous personality, thousands of hours of experience and can probably do alright on a basic sim ride since he has 3 type ratings (which he bought). You're saying you would hire him over someone more proficient but less experienced.

There are all these threads here about how pilots should make as much as doctors and than you tell me it's unfair to expect them to have a lot of technical knowledge about their aircraft or be evaluated on performance and not experience.
 
TUCKnTRUCK said:
Pilot error is a blanket verdict. Simply summing it up to that does not expose the underlying issues.

We all know that mistakes were made. Pilot error is easy to lay blame on.. but will not help advance safety. Getting to the underlying issues is the only way that we can really learn from what happened, and make changes to prevent it from happening again.

This is why the NTSB findings will take a long time. Sure you will be able to come on here and boast about being right because one of the listed factors is "pilot" error. Which is fine. you will learn from this accident that making mistakes is bad. Hopefully those who don't chalk it up to pilot error, and read/study the results will learn about how dangerous negative transfer of learning, complacency, rest, fatigue etc can really jeopardize flight safety.

Yes, the crew failed to protect the aircraft... thats not in question. The question is why?
Click to expand...
Why it happened and how can we prevent it from happening again. The NTSB report is going to come out and say something like "Captain Resnlow should have zigged here but instead he zagged which resulted in the crash."

This is one of those crashes where another pilot given the same situation under the same conditions could have saved it. I don't think it's unreasonable to propose a way we might be able to prevent pilots like Resnlow from getting a job in the first place.
 
Killtron2000 said:
Basing everything on number of hours logged and seniority guarantees nothing but mediocrity. I brought up the example of that 2500 hour ATP because he is an exceptionally bad pilot with a somewhat impressive job title. Under the system we have now he will have no trouble getting a job because he has a tremendous personality, thousands of hours of experience and can probably do alright on a basic sim ride since he has 3 type ratings (which he bought). You're saying you would hire him over someone more proficient but less experienced.
Click to expand...

Depends, once again, not enough info. Under the system we have now, the 300 hour guy that "bought" his way into an interview that has little no experience operating an aircraft has just as much of a chance getting hired as the guy you're describing above. Define "proficient." Just b/c you can land a 172 or a Seminole on the touchdown markers and rattle off v-speeds doesn't mean you can cut the mustard when it comes down to flying in and around t-storms, icing or inflight emergencies. You're WAAAAYYY oversimplifying this.

There are all these threads here about how pilots should make as much as doctors and than you tell me it's unfair to expect them to have a lot of technical knowledge about their aircraft or be evaluated on performance and not experience.
Click to expand...

Show me where I said that. I said they were asking questions about an airplane the applicant had never flown. THAT'S not a fair measure of a pilot. What it DOES do is skew the test towards the guys that paid for the specialized training a la a bridge program or JetU. I said situational "what if" questions should be the determining factor, actually. I never even mentioned. Fact is, the fewer hours an applicant has, the less likely it is they've got the experience necessary to be at this level. I can teach pretty much anyone to pass a checkride or fly a sim profile. That'll get you through training, but that's about it. The training at the airlines NEEDS to be re-vamped. 3 years ago, during ground school for my first jet and my first airline, I was told countless times "You'll learn it on the line. We don't have time to go over it in class." That's not the right thing to be teaching students that have just come from a Seminole or some other piston aircraft that have little to no experience. But it's what's happening b/c regionals need bodies with warm pulses to fill seats when their attrition is through the roof.
 
kellwolf said:
Depends, once again, not enough info. Under the system we have now, the 300 hour guy that "bought" his way into an interview that has little no experience operating an aircraft has just as much of a chance getting hired as the guy you're describing above. Define "proficient." Just b/c you can land a 172 or a Seminole on the touchdown markers and rattle off v-speeds doesn't mean you can cut the mustard when it comes down to flying in and around t-storms, icing or inflight emergencies. You're WAAAAYYY oversimplifying this.
Click to expand...
No way a 300 hour pilot has the same chance of getting hired as the 2500 hour pilot even if the 300 hour guy does better on the sim or with technical questions. I'm saying you should hire the 2500 hour pilot if his skill and knowledge is commesurate with his experience but right now we don't even check that since the sim ride only covers the basics.


kellwolf said:
Show me where I said that. I said they were asking questions about an airplane the applicant had never flown. THAT'S not a fair measure of a pilot. What it DOES do is skew the test towards the guys that paid for the specialized training a la a bridge program or JetU. I said situational "what if" questions should be the determining factor, actually. I never even mentioned. Fact is, the fewer hours an applicant has, the less likely it is they've got the experience necessary to be at this level. I can teach pretty much anyone to pass a checkride or fly a sim profile. That'll get you through training, but that's about it. The training at the airlines NEEDS to be re-vamped. 3 years ago, during ground school for my first jet and my first airline, I was told countless times "You'll learn it on the line. We don't have time to go over it in class." That's not the right thing to be teaching students that have just come from a Seminole or some other piston aircraft that have little to no experience. But it's what's happening b/c regionals need bodies with warm pulses to fill seats when their attrition is through the roof.
Click to expand...
Again I said they SHOULD ONLY ask questions about planes you have flown.

Right now the system is totally skewed toward applicants who bought time in a jet simulator. That's the system I'm argueing against. What I'm saying is put everyone in something they know so that the advantage doesn't go to the people who can pay more for Jet-u or gulf stream.

There were other discussion regarding fatigue and training related to 3407 which were probably factors but this one seemed to focus on hiring practices.
 
Killtron2000 said:
There are all these threads here about how pilots should make as much as doctors and than you tell me it's unfair to expect them to have a lot of technical knowledge about their aircraft or be evaluated on performance and not experience.
Click to expand...

So, you would say that if a doctor didn't know exactly what HOW a drug worked but knew WHAT it did he wouldn't be doing his job?

Does an anesthesiologist really need to know HOW Diprivan works or is it enough for him to know WHAT it does and WHEN it should be used?

Think carefully before you answer that question.
 
tonyw said:
So, you would say that if a doctor didn't know exactly what HOW a drug worked but knew WHAT it did he wouldn't be doing his job?

Does an anesthesiologist really need to know HOW Diprivan works or is it enough for him to know WHAT it does and WHEN it should be used?

Think carefully before you answer that question.
Click to expand...
I think you're talking about how much a professional knows relative to what there is to know in their respective fields I was talking in absolute terms.
 
Killtron2000 said:
No way a 300 hour pilot has the same chance of getting hired as the 2500 hour pilot even if the 300 hour guy does better on the sim or with technical questions. I'm saying you should hire the 2500 hour pilot if his skill and knowledge is commesurate with his experience but right now we don't even check that since the sim ride only covers the basics.
Click to expand...


Well, you obviously don't work in HR at Pinnacle. I know which ones I've flown with more.
 
Killtron2000 said:
I'm saying you should hire the 2500 hour pilot if his skill and knowledge is commesurate with his experience but right now we don't even check that since the sim ride only covers the basics.
Click to expand...

Really, you sure about that??

So, from your statement, we only interview based on a sim ride?

Wow... news to me. I guess the whole face to face "tell me about a time" and asking a pilot about their previous flying jobs (if any) doesn't have any impact on the decision to hire someone, huh? What about the face to face evaluation of character, personality, and confidence along with the knowledge and experience evaluation.

What about an airline that doesn't give a sim ride? Ever thought about that possibility?
 
Killtron2000 said:
Why it happened and how can we prevent it from happening again. The NTSB report is going to come out and say something like "Captain Resnlow should have zigged here but instead he zagged which resulted in the crash."

This is one of those crashes where another pilot given the same situation under the same conditions could have saved it. I don't think it's unreasonable to propose a way we might be able to prevent pilots like Resnlow from getting a job in the first place.
Click to expand...

Are you really sure there would have been a different outcome? I am about 99% percent sure that if I gave you an 8 lesson transition and then 100 hours of normal "line" flying that I could get you to ball it up in the sim very very quickly. Does that mean you should not be given a job?

Marvin completed 99.968% of his flights( assuming one hour block which is about the average at colgan) without fail. I fail to see why you think he is such a bad pilot. He was given bad training, a crappy schedule, and an FO who pulled the flaps to 0 mid stall recovery. I would lay a 20 on the same outcome if it was you, me, or most anybody else here that got into that position.

I know your going to bring up scan and energy managment, but you have not flown a q, you do not know the profiles or tendancies of the aircraft, so your arguments will hold little weight. Not that they are not valid points, just the whole walk a mile in his shoes thing.

The colgan manual has special speed provisions for new guys because speed managment in this plane is not easy, nor even close to similar to our other airframes. Many, many times when we configure it is at flight idle, and often we make no power changes with configuration.

Look at it like this: at some point in your career you will make a mistake, you will have an incident, and you will have to talk to the FAA. When you do, think of every other pilot who has not done what you just did. Does that make them better pilots because they have not made that same error? Or you any lessor of a pilot? Think long and hard about that, and then pray that your mistake doesn't kill anybody, because it will happen.
 
tonyw said:
Wrong.

I just want an answer to the question.

Answer it, please.
Click to expand...
I don't know what a doctor needs to know. Your question is irrelevant it's like asking how much does a ditch digger need to know about digging ditches to do his job well probably everything because there is hardly anything to know about it. If you have some other kind of point to make just make it.
 
ctab5060X said:
Really, you sure about that??

So, from your statement, we only interview based on a sim ride?

Wow... news to me. I guess the whole face to face "tell me about a time" and asking a pilot about their previous flying jobs (if any) doesn't have any impact on the decision to hire someone, huh? What about the face to face evaluation of character, personality, and confidence along with the knowledge and experience evaluation.

What about an airline that doesn't give a sim ride? Ever thought about that possibility?
Click to expand...
If you ask an ATP to fly a heading and do a hold entry or some other basic things that they usually have people do and then answer some simple questions about basic instrument flying what have you tested? Nothing really if you were to hire that person it's not because they are a good pilot it's just because they have been in the industry for awhile. Do you really beleive that experience always translates into learning with everybody?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top