NTSB Factual - Quest Diagnostics crash at KTEB

The corporate culture section was pretty sickening to read, but it didn't have much to do with this accident, unless I'm missing something? Why would the engines quit when the FO reduced the power to idle?
 
The props were found in the feathered position but the FO stated he never feathered them. Is it possible that he pulled the Prop control instead of the throttle on his decent and accidently feathered the props?
 
Quite possible that he pulled the props when he thought he was pulling the throttles - the report doesn't say how many of the fleet are pre '84 Barons; these would have the military/Beech 18 style throttle quadrants where the throttle levers are in the middle. I trained on a TravelAir which had the same layout and then moved to a Seneca - I had to really watch myself for the first few hours in the Seneca.
Our Baron was a 98 and would have been very similar to the accident airplane which was serial number TH-1905, ours was TH-1842. Post '84 they redesigned the panel to resemble that of a King Air with the throttle quadrant in the "normal" layout.
He may have had experience on the older Barons. It seems he got rushed at the final pahse of the approach - he was obviously going way too fast and although not impossible its hard to get a Baron to slow and go down at the same time. I guess the final report will tell us what the NTSB thinks happened.

I had thought about throwing a resume into these guys, but after reading the rest of the report, I'm not so keen.

Bp244
 
Yikamamie. It'd be interesting to hear what any current/former Labquest pilots have to say on this, though I'd imagine they're keeping a low profile right about now if the FAA is all up in their business.
 
So I was reading this ........ and I realized it is a Baron? The biggest question is why the heck is there a 2 pilot flight crew on a Baron?
 
WalterSobchak said:
So I was reading this ........ and I realized it is a Baron? The biggest question is why the heck is there a 2 pilot flight crew on a Baron?
Click to expand...

That's in the report. The copilot was supposed to fly a different flight but had mechanical troubles, so he rode this flight to get experience on a different route.
 
WalterSobchak said:
So I was reading this ........ and I realized it is a Baron? The biggest question is why the heck is there a 2 pilot flight crew on a Baron?
Click to expand...

The report addresses that issue directly and clearly.

Sad to hear of such a negative environment, let it be a reminder to everybody to avoid operators/employers who behave like this. Paying the bills isn't worth much if your dead.
 
WalterSobchak said:
So I was reading this ........ and I realized it is a Baron? The biggest question is why the heck is there a 2 pilot flight crew on a Baron?
Click to expand...

From what I'm told, that's standard for them. Actually, here ya go:

NTSB Report said:
The Beech 58 was deployed as a single-pilot airplane, except as outlined in the Quest Diagnostics
Flight Operations Manual (FOM), which mandated dual-pilot operations based on length of duty day,
number of flight hours or when directed by management.
Click to expand...
 
WalterSobchak said:
So I was reading this ........ and I realized it is a Baron? The biggest question is why the heck is there a 2 pilot flight crew on a Baron?
Click to expand...

According to the report the co-pilot joined the Captain to get experience on this route when his flight was cancelled. In any case I used to frequently take a co-pilot on long days, especially if the weather was crummy - might only be a Baron but its still enough airplane to kill you.
 
I've heard both good and bad about Quest. Most of the things in that report are typical of 135 freight operators pushing pilots. It's our job to push back when dispatch tells us to do something stupid or unsafe.
 
Bernoulli Fan said:
The corporate culture section was pretty sickening to read, but it didn't have much to do with this accident, unless I'm missing something?
Click to expand...
My guess-reading between the lines-is that the Federales wanted to go after Quest for a while (probably because they'd Heard Things, as Feds are wont to do) and this accident gave them an excuse to run a full-on investigation into Quest's operations. Regardless, since Quest operates under 91 very few of the things in that report were letter-of-the-law illegal. Scumbaggy? Yes. Illegal? Not so much. In fact the only truly illegal thing that I recall reading in there was pilots busting minima, and let's face it, when you're the only one out there in the cockpit it's all on YOU to not sneak a couple/50 feet below minima to get in. Not at all saying it's OK that the company allegedly pressured them to do it.
 
Think Roger pretty much hit it. I would be pretty surprised if you hear from any Quest pilots, but I know "a guy" who used to fly contract for them. The Co2 stories, at least, he confirms. The rest...well, common sense goes a long way.
 
Sad. The corporate culture thing though is critical. Once you are at a place for a while, the culture is a part of you, and the decision making tree is skewed to that particular culture. 'We did it this way for years, go take a look' is a BAD way of doing business. Sounds like a bunch of cowboys - at least at the top.
 
Itchy said:
Sad. The corporate culture thing though is critical. Once you are at a place for a while, the culture is a part of you, and the decision making tree is skewed to that particular culture. 'We did it this way for years, go take a look' is a BAD way of doing business. Sounds like a bunch of cowboys - at least at the top.
Click to expand...

While I agree in spirit, I don't see the problem with "going to take a look", provided that you're under 91 and the "culture" is such that it doesn't secretly mean "bust minimums". This is not "cowboy" or "superpilot" stuff. Any professional, instrument-rated pilot should be able to shoot an approach to minimums and execute the published missed without balling it up. Now, whether this was "all" that was expected at the company in question is an exercise for the reader.
 
Well, the statement alluding to "impossible to miss - has a cat II lighting system" (or words to that effect) let me read between the lines. Seems pretty obvious what their M.O. is.
 
Realistically, under part-91, what can they do to Quest? I am not saying it's a good thing, but if you are 91 you can "take a look" - as others have said. Even the fact that these pilots believed they had to bust minimums is not a crime necessarily - because how can you prove a feeling? If there was punitive action - pilots fired etc, then I could see it - but would have expected to see wrongfull termination suits. So, not agreeing with Quest at all - they sound sucky - but what can the FAA actually do to these people - it isn't like there's a 135 ticket they can revoke.

Edit: Also, what will CO2 do to you in the cockpit? What symptoms occur and what is the correction for it?
 
WacoFan said:
Edit: Also, what will CO2 do to you in the cockpit? What symptoms occur and what is the correction for it?
Click to expand...
I had an experience with this. I thought I was having a heart attack. Dizzy, cant breath, chest pounding. Open a door, and it instantly got better. Scary stuff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top