Another knee jerk reaction to the Colgan crash

Well as for failures and big issues I agree. But what about a case like mine where I had an airspace violation where the airspace changed from cold to hot inflight? So now for the rest of my career I have to explain what happened when it has already haunted me enough. I had to sit in with the FAA and the agreed upon penalty was that it would be removed in 5 years. It's not right that they can change the terms of my agreement after the fact. If I would have known that it would have never been erased I would have fought it and spent more money on challenging the verdict. I just let it go and stopped fighting because I knew it would be gone in 5 years and plus I didn't want to spend anymore money on fighting it.

Also what about the charter operators that are ARG/US and Wyvern rated? I wasn't allowed to fly ARG/US trips because of that violation. So now people who have a small error on their record they can never pass an ARG/US check? This really is stupid.
 
Well as for failures and big issues I agree. But what about a case like mine where I had an airspace violation where the airspace changed from cold to hot inflight? So now for the rest of my career I have to explain what happened when it has already haunted me enough. I had to sit in with the FAA and the agreed upon penalty was that it would be removed in 5 years. It's not right that they can change the terms of my agreement after the fact. If I would have known that it would have never been erased I would have fought it and spent more money on challenging the verdict. I just let it go and stopped fighting because I knew it would be gone in 5 years and plus I didn't want to spend anymore money on fighting it.

Also what about the charter operators that are ARG/US and Wyvern rated? I wasn't allowed to fly ARG/US trips because of that violation. So now people who have a small error on their record they can never pass an ARG/US check? This really is stupid.
 
TBH, If you have a good explanation for a violation it shouldn't be a deal breaker in an interview... But on the other side, from an airlines perspective, If it was because you didn't get your notams etc, then they could assume that there may be similar issues on the line. The problem being, what you get away with a slap on the wrist for, may cost the airline lots of money.

The applications ask have your EVER, not are there any failures,violations,LOI's currently on your record. Answering No to a "have you ever" question just because it's not on your record is pretty much exactly what MR did. Now you will just have to be honest and fess up. Colgan has had lots of pilots wash out of initial because they failed to disclose a failure they thought was off their licence.

It sucks, but it's not a career ending issue.
 
TUCKnTRUCK said:
TBH, If you have a good explanation for a violation it shouldn't be a deal breaker in an interview... But on the other side, from an airlines perspective, If it was because you didn't get your notams etc, then they could assume that there may be similar issues on the line. The problem being, what you get away with a slap on the wrist for, may cost the airline lots of money.

The applications ask have your EVER, not are there any failures,violations,LOI's currently on your record. Answering No to a "have you ever" question just because it's not on your record is pretty much exactly what MR did. Now you will just have to be honest and fess up. Colgan has had lots of pilots wash out of initial because they failed to disclose a failure they thought was off their licence.

It sucks, but it's not a career ending issue.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The way most applications are worded, you'd be lying if you didn't disclose the violation regardless of the contents of your record 5 years later. Disclose, take ownership, and explain how you learned from the experience and it won't be an issue.
 
Orange Anchor said:
Marvin was not the problem. Marvin met standard as evidenced by him being sent back to the line after checks. The problem was the tng dept and those (company, tng dept and POI) who signed Marvin off as *proficient* and *competent*.
Click to expand...

I concur....

The training department should have heads rolling(even though they will no longer exist after May 8th). It is up to the training department to have the curriculum and staff to let let those people through. Marvin ins't soley responsible for that crash because that was a 2 pilot airplane with 0 competent pilots upfront. And maybe it comes full circle to the FAA and the POI for signing off the certificate with that type of training approved?
 
WalterSobchak said:
I concur....

The training department should have heads rolling(even though they will no longer exist after May 8th). It is up to the training department to have the curriculum and staff to let let those people through. Marvin ins't soley responsible for that crash because that was a 2 pilot airplane with 0 competent pilots upfront. And maybe it comes full circle to the FAA and the POI for signing off the certificate with that type of training approved?
Click to expand...
I ran across a situation recently where the FO was obviously not qualified. Upon some questioning I found the FO had practically NO time and the revenue flt was being used as a tng flt. The first focus fell on the FO but I argued the FO was doing what he was told.. and that was to go fly the trip. He was chasing his dream and to expect him to refuse the assignment was unrealistic. The focus needed to be on the tng dept and the parties who decided to implement this practice. It came to an immediate halt.
 
Hacker15e said:
I'm failing to see why this is a bad thing.
Click to expand...

It is and it isn't. A well-established pattern of failures is certainly something a prospective employer should see (they always have, but this makes it easier). However, there are more than a handful of incredibly inconsistent examiners that have questionable pass/fail rates (mostly in the general aviation realm). If every applicant truly went through the same syllabus and checking events, I would have a lot less heartburn over this. The way it stands now, you can:

- Be a low-performing pilot and attend a school with non-reportable self-examining authority.
- Be a strong part 61 candidate who's examiner thought failing him/her was "character-building (I've heard it)."
- Be a weak part 61 candidate who has had the same buddy-buddy DE through his/her entire training.

Also, knowing the airlines, they'll probably take this to the extreme (no failed rides, despite how many accident-free hours you've flown). As you can see from the above, someone with a "clean" record isn't necessarily the strongest candidate. I would argue that the content validity and integrity of our primary training and testing system is borderline invalid.
 
Cav said:
Well atleast you'll be able to refocus a small percentage of your efforts towards the cat fights after the Jepp revisions are nixed ;)

...or in the case of the 7ER a LARGE % of your efforts!!
Click to expand...

Ugh! Don't even get me started. Again, a story told best over a frosty beer.
 
WalterSobchak said:
I concur....

The training department should have heads rolling(even though they will no longer exist after May 8th). It is up to the training department to have the curriculum and staff to let let those people through. Marvin ins't soley responsible for that crash because that was a 2 pilot airplane with 0 competent pilots upfront. And maybe it comes full circle to the FAA and the POI for signing off the certificate with that type of training approved?
Click to expand...

And the FO was not competent how?
 
"Captain! Captain! My controls! Max power! Props forward!"?

You bet your sweet patootie I'm not going to let someone wreck a stall recovery and kill me.
 
Doug Taylor said:
"Captain! Captain! My controls! Max power! Props forward!"?

You bet your sweet patootie I'm not going to let someone wreck a stall recovery and kill me.
Click to expand...

I agree. So, even if she had done everything else correctly, her not taking over and allowing him to mess this up is her great failing and thereby confirms Walter's comment about both not being competent? To my view that makes sense - and your comments confirm what I've been wondering.
 
Personally, I'd rather be put on the rotten FO list, subsequently fired for insubordination and my career brought to a swift end than let the captain botch a stall recovery.

Many years ago I was checking out on the MD-88/90 and I had a first time upgrade captain in the simulator. It was probably our second simulator session.

It was my leg, I set the power, said "your throttles" and we accelerated towards V1. ***Booodooddodldleleleooooo OOF CLACK!*** engine failure sound in the mad dog sim with the request power transfer. I look down, we are about 15 knots prior to V1. Captain's hands still on the throttle, unretarted.

Me: ????? He's not aborting...

Me: "Engine failure, abort!"

Captain calls "V1"

...running out of runway...

Sim instructor says "You're flyin! I'm not resetting!"

Crap!

Grass approaching... Early rotation, minimal climb in ground effect.

"Hup.. Hup... Come on baby... Ugh! Fly you (expletive)"

****!!!!POP!!!!****

RSOD: Red Screen O' Death.

I was flabbergasted because clearly the captain didn't abort when he should have aborted and I was expected to fly a plane in an un-flyable situation?

"You bet your ass, son. What would you do in the real airplane. Let him kill ya? If he hasn't taken appropriate action YOU take action. He failed, you failed your duties, you're both dead. That's right, you're dead, I ought to send you back to the hotel."

The resulting lecture was that yeah, the captain's new but on what planet are you going to lose an engine that far below V1 and expect any other result than a flaming catastrophe after continuing takeoff? And what went through my mind when at (whatever) 15:30:15 when the engine failed and 15:30:25 as the end of the runway was creeping up.

That stuck with me.

Is the FO solely there to grab the gear or was the role in that situation to recognize something isn't going right and to unilaterally, in that situation, save the aircraft, passengers and crew?

Yeah, you better be right, but if it's one of those "Oh 'S'" moments when you honestly think you're about to buy the farm, do what you have to do to survive. I don't have any problem with throwing my wings across the chief pilot's desk and cheesing out some line about "losing the edge" but I got a big problem with meeting my maker a day too soon.
 
Louie1975 said:
And the FO was not competent how?
Click to expand...
She put the flaps up in a low speed situation without the command. I don't think that helped. In fact it might have sealed their doom. She didn't make any call outs for airspeed deviations, or crazy pitch deviations. Also, the power levers never got advanced much to speak of, and should have been firewalled. At the least she could have pushed them up as he was horsing the yoke back fighting the pusher. Even without getting into a fight for the controls that is one act of commission and several acts of omission where she didn't do very well.

Now, I believe that they were both tired, and if they were rested the accident chain might not have happened. opinion only
 
C150J said:
Also, knowing the airlines, they'll probably take this to the extreme (no failed rides, despite how many accident-free hours you've flown). As you can see from the above, someone with a "clean" record isn't necessarily the strongest candidate. I would argue that the content validity and integrity of our primary training and testing system is borderline invalid.
Click to expand...

Three points:

1. It is surprising to know that data used to be flushed from a pilot's record after a period of time. In the military, everything I've done from Day 1 is in my records, and available for review by anyone. From an outsider's point of view, the potential problems with flushing the records after a certain amount of time means that there's no ability to see a track record in a pilot's history. If we're willing to go market ourselves on hours in our logbook that go back to the beginning, then there's no reason that the "bad marks" shouldn't also go back that far.

2. Airlines might use the knowledge of this record to decide whom they hire, but they haven't yet. Ya know what? OF COURSE THEY SHOULD let that information impact who they hire. Again, it's all part of the pilot's history and experience. Might they have a kneejerk reaction and let failures from long in the past affect their decisions? Yep. Would that be unfair? Yep. Would that suck? Yep. Which leads me to....

3. Life isn't fair.
 
Another reason to not be a "company man" and fly with something not entirely kosher. By the way, how does this qualify as knee jerk? It has been years, and neither Marvin or Rebecca had violations as far as I know.
 
Doug Taylor said:
That stuck with me.
Click to expand...

As much as having a bad sim session sucks, it's the bad ones that sometimes leave the biggest impressions. I had a bad loft once back in the day and of all the sim sessions I've ever had it was far and away the best learning experience I've ever had in a airplane.
 
granlistillo said:
She put the flaps up in a low speed situation without the command. I don't think that helped. In fact it might have sealed their doom. She didn't make any call outs for airspeed deviations, or crazy pitch deviations. Also, the power levers never got advanced much to speak of, and should have been firewalled. At the least she could have pushed them up as he was horsing the yoke back fighting the pusher. Even without getting into a fight for the controls that is one act of commission and several acts of omission where she didn't do very well.

Now, I believe that they were both tired, and if they were rested the accident chain might not have happened. opinion only
Click to expand...

I think having the elevator pulled back to the stops probably sealed their doom. On our aircraft, you put flaps up during the stall recovery and it won't seal anything except for a positive rate of climb.

Also, the power levers were firewalled.

[yt]lxywEE1kK6I[/yt]

We've all got opinions on this one, but let's get the facts straight. Nobody is going to power their way out of a stall with the elevator at the back stop and full power unless you're in an F-15, and if you're tired enough, you might not think about shoving the yoke forward on the skipper.

Should she of? Yes, but let's not split hairs, the captain was the one flying the aircraft, the captain was the one that didn't bring the power up, and the captain was the one that didn't get the stall recovery yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top