FAA's Babbitt sees safety slipping...

[FlyChicaga]

FAA's Babbitt sees safety slipping, urges more 'professionalism'

Friday September 11, 2009


Federal Aviation Administrator Randy Babbitt warned yesterday that "the national and international trends for fatal accidents and accidents. . .are no longer pointing downward, in fact they may be up slightly," and said the biggest requirement for all of aviation is the need to "step up the professionalism in the workplace."


In prepared remarks to FAA's International Safety Forum in Washington, Babbitt said, "I'm not seeing consistent professionalism," and he contrasted the CVR tape from US Airways Flight 1549 that successfully ditched in the Hudson River last January with that of the Colgan Air Q400 that crashed outside Buffalo a month later: "One [1549] is textbook greatness, the other a complete inattention to basic details."


Citing "a decided shift in the workforce" toward younger, less-experienced captains, Babbitt, who flew commercially for Eastern Airlines and has 14,000 hr. in his logbook, said, "Experience is a wonderful teacher." He emphasized the importance of mastering fundamentals and not taking shortcuts. "Shortcuts always have a price," and "when you skip the fundamentals, you have the [Comair] accident in Lexington, where the compass, the signage, the NOTAM and a big white X on a runway aren't enough of a deterrent."

 

[Nick]

I'll remember this for when the MPL is being suggested again (hopefully the 1500 hour min for 121 passes and wipes out the chance of it ever happening).

There are going to be pilots in 121 airplanes with 1000-3000 hours total time. They are going to be there whether he'd like them to be or not, and this was going on since he started flying years ago.

The issue is whether or not those pilots will be properly prepared to do their job on a bad day.

 

[wheelsup]

I wonder what their reasoning was when mainline crashed perfectly good planes in the past. How about that Eastern (?) crew who flew a perfectly good airplane into the swamps due to some sort of indication light? I think they ran out of gas?

 

[Nick]

I wonder what their reasoning was when mainline crashed perfectly good planes in the past. How about that Eastern (?) crew who flew a perfectly good airplane into the swamps due to some sort of indication light? I think they ran out of gas?

That is what I was thinking of when I read it.

They didn't even run out of gas. They just crashed the thing into the ground because they didn't realize the autopilot had disconnected when someone bumped the controls during the gear light fiasco. Nobody was flying the airplane. As I understand it, A/P disconnect alerts were required later on as a result of that accident.

Anyway, I'm not sure professionalism is something you can urge upon tens of thousands of people.

 

[surreal1221]

Professionalism, the scapegoat of FAA administrators for decades.

Thanks for Nothin' Babbitt.

 

[Phuz]

Babbitt: Stop talking, start doing.

 

[Trip7]

That is what I was thinking of when I read it.

They didn't even run out of gas. They just crashed the thing into the ground because they didn't realize the autopilot had disconnected when someone bumped the controls during the gear light fiasco. Nobody was flying the airplane. As I understand it, A/P disconnect alerts were required later on as a result of that accident.

Anyway, I'm not sure professionalism is something you can urge upon tens of thousands of people.

Precisely, flew a perfectly good airplane into the ground because the whole crew was staring at a light bulb.

 

[FlyChicaga]

Precisely, flew a perfectly good airplane into the ground because the whole crew was staring at a light bulb.

Actually, the autopilot was never disconnected. It is believed that the Captain "bumped" the yoke forward slightly when he turned around to talk to the Flight Engineer, which put the airplane from ALT HOLD mode to a CWS mode (pitch hold). It started a gradual descent that was undetectable by the crew, because a) there was no noticable change in pitch, since it was so slight, b) they never heard the altitude "C chord" that was at the FE workstation, while the FE was out of the cockpit checking the landing gear sight indicators, and c) they were over dark terrain with no ground lighting to give them any visual cues.

Rather than just saying, "Ah well, the crew screwed the pooch big time," we should learn that we need the same, if not more, vigilance while an autopilot as we would hand-flying.

I don't necessarily agree with the delivery of the message, but I do agree with the overall concept of what he's trying to say. I believe our initial training (not at the airline level, but at the basic flying level) has suffered tremendously. I don't see how we can have so many threads about "these wacky 300-hour wonder pilots," then get upset when the FAA Administrator is beginning to recognize what we've been complaining about for years.

 

[jynxyjoe]

Precisely, flew a perfectly good airplane into the ground because the whole crew was staring at a light bulb.

Actually, the autopilot was never disconnected. It is believed that the Captain "bumped" the yoke forward slightly when he turned around to talk to the Flight Engineer, which put the airplane from ALT HOLD mode to a CWS mode (pitch hold). It started a gradual descent that was undetectable by the crew, because a) there was no noticable change in pitch, since it was so slight, b) they never heard the altitude "C chord" that was at the FE workstation, while the FE was out of the cockpit checking the landing gear sight indicators, and c) they were over dark terrain with no ground lighting to give them any visual cues.

Rather than just saying, "Ah well, the crew screwed the pooch big time," we should learn that we need the same, if not more, vigilance while an autopilot as we would hand-flying.

I don't necessarily agree with the delivery of the message, but I do agree with the overall concept of what he's trying to say. I believe our initial training (not at the airline level, but at the basic flying level) has suffered tremendously. I don't see how we can have so many threads about "these wacky 300-hour wonder pilots," then get upset when the FAA Administrator is beginning to recognize what we've been complaining about for years.

:clap::beer:

Heh. Trip7 certainly has a way with words. Although I suppose it's possible he hasn't actually read the report and someone told him that little aviation cliche and took it for fact.

 

[MikeD]

Actually, the autopilot was never disconnected. It is believed that the Captain "bumped" the yoke forward slightly when he turned around to talk to the Flight Engineer, which put the airplane from ALT HOLD mode to a CWS mode (pitch hold). It started a gradual descent that was undetectable by the crew, because a) there was no noticable change in pitch, since it was so slight, b) they never heard the altitude "C chord" that was at the FE workstation, while the FE was out of the cockpit checking the landing gear sight indicators, and c) they were over dark terrain with no ground lighting to give them any visual cues.

Rather than just saying, "Ah well, the crew screwed the pooch big time," we should learn that we need the same, if not more, vigilance while an autopilot as we would hand-flying.

I don't necessarily agree with the delivery of the message, but I do agree with the overall concept of what he's trying to say. I believe our initial training (not at the airline level, but at the basic flying level) has suffered tremendously. I don't see how we can have so many threads about "these wacky 300-hour wonder pilots," then get upset when the FAA Administrator is beginning to recognize what we've been complaining about for years.

Agree. Have to look at the meat of the message, and see what its saying. Its what people here have been saying, save for those that fit the bill.

 

[E_Dawg]

Citing "a decided shift in the workforce" toward younger, less-experienced captains, Babbitt, who flew commercially for Eastern Airlines and has 14,000 hr. in his logbook, said, "Experience is a wonderful teacher." He emphasized the importance of mastering fundamentals and not taking shortcuts. "Shortcuts always have a price," and "when you skip the fundamentals, you have the [Comair] accident in Lexington, where the compass, the signage, the NOTAM and a big white X on a runway aren't enough of a deterrent."

I know he's trying to get a point across. A point which I personally agree with. But for him to call that crew out like this just comes across as elitist, and it's a piss poor way to rally the troops for support. Anyone who really truly believes these kind of things could never ever happen to them... or that because they paid their dues their experience will guide them... needs a reality check since after all, why should you ever need to double check perfection.

 

[mrivc211]

Actually, the autopilot was never disconnected. It is believed that the Captain "bumped" the yoke forward slightly when he turned around to talk to the Flight Engineer, which put the airplane from ALT HOLD mode to a CWS mode (pitch hold). It started a gradual descent that was undetectable by the crew, because a) there was no noticable change in pitch, since it was so slight, b) they never heard the altitude "C chord" that was at the FE workstation, while the FE was out of the cockpit checking the landing gear sight indicators, and c) they were over dark terrain with no ground lighting to give them any visual cues.

Rather than just saying, "Ah well, the crew screwed the pooch big time," we should learn that we need the same, if not more, vigilance while an autopilot as we would hand-flying.

I don't necessarily agree with the delivery of the message, but I do agree with the overall concept of what he's trying to say. I believe our initial training (not at the airline level, but at the basic flying level) has suffered tremendously. I don't see how we can have so many threads about "these wacky 300-hour wonder pilots," then get upset when the FAA Administrator is beginning to recognize what we've been complaining about for years.

Careful Matt, the 300 hour wonders don't like hearing the truth. But they passed the checkride? Doesn't that mean theyre just as qualified? (sarcasim)

 

[mrivc211]

I know he's trying to get a point across. A point which I personally agree with. But for him to call that crew out like this just comes across as elitist, and it's a piss poor way to rally the troops for support. Anyone who really truly believes these kind of things could never ever happen to them... or that because they paid their dues their experience will guide them... needs a reality check since after all, why should you ever need to double check perfection.

I think you're right. A pilot with 10,000 hours can make a mistake just like a pilot with 1000 hours. However, I beleive the chances are a lot less likely. Through experience and setting up a systematic approach to the job, you can greatly reduce mistakes.

People are still human though, no matter how many hours you have under your belt, it can happen to anyone.

 

[mrivc211]

I know he's trying to get a point across. A point which I personally agree with. But for him to call that crew out like this just comes across as elitist, and it's a piss poor way to rally the troops for support. Anyone who really truly believes these kind of things could never ever happen to them... or that because they paid their dues their experience will guide them... needs a reality check since after all, why should you ever need to double check perfection.

BTW- Why are pilots such bangwagoners? I now know of 7 pilots in our company that have bought those $2000 cameras. All of them want to be freelancers???? what gives? LOL.

 

[FlyChicaga]

Careful Matt, the 300 hour wonders don't like hearing the truth. But they passed the checkride? Doesn't that mean theyre just as qualified? (sarcasim)

Well, I am one of those 300-hour wonder pilots. From my own personal experience, without an open mind trying to learn and improve, I would have never made it. Plus, I feel my training prepared me well for the challenges that lay ahead. I just believe that without that basic foundation, and without the motivation to learn/strong mentoring, I would have been a failed case as well. The question is, how can we control basic flight training, and how can we instill the concept of mentorship to our crews?

Passing the checkride was one thing. Dealing with the challenges of life on the line was something different. I think our training currently only covers the former, and not the latter.

 

[stratoduck]

My father was a 250 hour pilot when he hired on with TWA in 1967. The 707 was the first multi engine he flew. It was the first retractable he ever flew. It was the first airplane he ever flew with more than one radio.

His attitude, and TWAs training is what made him, and hundreds of others just like him. I doubt a 2500 hour first officer that is owed an upgrade, or a 250 hour graduate that has paid his dues would survive either the training, or the 20 year upgrade time.

 

[Trip7]

My father was a 250 hour pilot when he hired on with TWA in 1967. The 707 was the first multi engine he flew. It was the first retractable he ever flew. It was the first airplane he ever flew with more than one radio.

His attitude, and TWAs training is what made him, and hundreds of others just like him. I doubt a 2500 hour first officer that is owed an upgrade, or a 250 hour graduate that has paid his dues would survive either the training, or the 20 year upgrade time.

Thank you sir for bringing reality back to JC.

 

[kellwolf]

Thank you sir for bringing reality back to JC.

Marcus, would you be doing this if there WAS a 20 year upgrade time?

 

[slough]

Thank you sir for bringing reality back to JC.

:yeahthat::yeahthat::yeahthat:
The quality of training seems to be the biggest factor in aviation safety, but human error cannot be eliminated. The best thing to do is learn from the mistakes. Watching pilots circle the wagons so they can fire within is tiring.

 

[400A]

Marcus, would you be doing this if there WAS a 20 year upgrade time?

I would IF the playing field was what it was "back then". At 25 or so years old, starting out on a 707, upgrade at 45, have 15 years at top Captain payscale, not a bad deal. Yes, some people can't see past their own egos and think they are "owed" an upgrade after one year in the right seat, but don't mistake that for the pervailance of thinking.

The problem is, there is no more security (if there ever was) and having to start over at the bottom of a list and of a payscale every 4 years, leads to the "want" to upgrade and build the requisite turbine PIC as quickly as possible in the hopes of finding a job that won't require a restart every half decade (I doubt those exist anymore).

Experience is never a good measure of someone's ability, observation of their ability is required. This is where the check airmen and training departments of, I dare say all, regionals has fallen VERY short, I would even argue most 142 schools have too.