NTSB Factual - Quest Diagnostics crash at KTEB

I haven't had an experience such as Itchy's, but according to "that guy" I know, it was very much as Itchy describes. Not at all pleasant, but easily solved by popping the cargo hatch. Which sounds like Not A Huge Deal until you realize that he was flying a pressurized airplane in which the only way to "pop the hatch" when actually flying is to frantically twirl the "oh poop" pressurization needle and hope the twenty year old rubber mask is going to deliver that oxygen which was last serviced last decade. Luckily, he was on the ground.

Itchy: I think we basically agree. I was just reacting to the specific sentence in which it sounded like you might be suggesting that "going to take a look" and not busting minimums under 91 was "cowboy". Don't think it's worth hashing out any further. Cheers.
 
When the assistant chief pilot was again asked to rationalize assuming such a risk, he replied, "We said,
'This is [expletive]…Why would I do that? I have a mortgage payment, I have a job, and if I don't
do this, I don't have a job anymore."
Click to expand...

This is the most important part of this entire factual. You wanna know why pilots assume unnecessary risks? This is it.

Its too often that the FAA goes after the pilots when a sticky situation occurs. The reality is that many guys don't really have a choice. Are you gonna put your family on the street, or lose your house because you decline an extra couple of hours on a trip? Most guys will rationalize it as, "ehh, I've flown tired before, I can probably do it one more time," or "ehh, what's another 50'." Companies put serious pressure on their pilots. A company can have you so tightly by the balls that you've got no real choice but to be a "company man." Even when your gut tells you otherwise. If I were in charge of all that was fair, when stuff like this goes down, more than just the people at the bottom would get a pee-pee slapping.
 
I am curious to know if the management has changed since this came out?
I know if I owned that operation, and this is "news" to me, (impossible maybe, but weirder things have happened) some heads would roll.
 
Maybe Quest is self insured, but if not, I bet the insurance company is going to find this to be very interesting reading. So will the lawyers for the two pilots involved in the accident.
 
USMCmech said:
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.
Click to expand...

I've never been pushed here. That said, it usually takes a lot for me not to go.
 
I know several people that fly for Quest and have never heard about any of this happening. I am not saying that it didn't, but I have never heard of it. I know they do say it is ok to “go down and take a look.” There is nothing unsafe about this as long as mins are not busted. They are not restricted to ½ mile or 1800rvr or whatever your company’s opp specs say.

I've noticed a lot of comments on here about freight companies pushing their pilots to do things that they are not comfortable doing. Many of these comments seem to be from first time part 135 freight pilots who haven’t learned the difference between being unsafe and uncomfortable. A lot of time shooting an approach to mins may seem very uncomfortable to new pilots but it is not unsafe. At this point you are a professional pilot and are expected to fly like one. Like it was said by others, if a company is pushing then it’s our job as professional pilots to push back.

I wouldn’t doubt it if Quest was self insured as they are a huge company with of 65,000 employees.

In this case it sounds like it was completely the pilots fault. There was a huge chain of events that lead to this crash. Starting with the new route, flying and approach which was way too fast for his abilities or comfort level, which lead to the wrong levers being pulled back, end of story. It didn’t sound like any pushing. It does sound like their transition training could use a little work.

I flying for one of the companys that Quest charters runs to and can tell you the dry ice thing can be a huge problem.

The Quest pilots are paid and treated very well for what they do and if one lets himself get pushed into doing something there is no one to blame but himself for not pushing back.
 
mogley68 said:
...
The Quest pilots are paid and treated very well for what they do and if one lets himself get pushed into doing something there is no one to blame but himself for not pushing back.
Click to expand...

I disagree with this strongly. Yes a pilot should sack up and do the right thing. That said for some guys (ie, those with wives, families, mortgages, etc.) that pressure has more of an edge to it. Jobs are hard to come by right now, when the economy was good, you could just tell your employer to "piss off," if they wanted you to do something overtly dangerous our illegal and there wasn't much they could do about it because even if they fired you, you could rebound pretty quick if you had any time at all. These days, however, stick to your guns and stand by your principles and you could be on the street looking for a job for months, and for some people that's not a reality that they can afford. I personally work for a company that doesn't ask me to do anything outside the box, the maintenance is good, and nobody questions my decisions. A lot of places, including places I've worked for before, are not like this, and at these places, if you're not a "team player," your days of being gainfully employed could be numbered. Don't think that companies won't cut a corner here and there to make a buck. Don't think they won't try to get pilots to do things that are wrong.

I used to think the same way as you. I've learned that not everyone can just up and move though when an ethical dilemma presents itself. Those poor guys get stuck having to make the choice between the lesser of two evils.
 
ppragman said:
I disagree with this strongly. Yes a pilot should sack up and do the right thing. That said for some guys (ie, those with wives, families, mortgages, etc.) that pressure has more of an edge to it. Jobs are hard to come by right now, when the economy was good, you could just tell your employer to "piss off," if they wanted you to do something overtly dangerous our illegal and there wasn't much they could do about it because even if they fired you, you could rebound pretty quick if you had any time at all. These days, however, stick to your guns and stand by your principles and you could be on the street looking for a job for months, and for some people that's not a reality that they can afford. I personally work for a company that doesn't ask me to do anything outside the box, the maintenance is good, and nobody questions my decisions. A lot of places, including places I've worked for before, are not like this, and at these places, if you're not a "team player," your days of being gainfully employed could be numbered. Don't think that companies won't cut a corner here and there to make a buck. Don't think they won't try to get pilots to do things that are wrong.

I used to think the same way as you. I've learned that not everyone can just up and move though when an ethical dilemma presents itself. Those poor guys get stuck having to make the choice between the lesser of two evils.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree with you more. I have spoken with a couple of quest pilots about this and they say its no where near as bad as the report makes it sound. Times are tough and you can't just say f off but sometimes that is better than what could happen if you don't. I've worked for the kind of company you talked about and it sucks.
 
"I told one guy who was already on the ground that he was done, and I diverted the other guy to
Lawrenceville. It was an extra two hours to Lawrenceville, but I thought it was an acceptable risk.
I thought worst case the affected engine blows up, and he can make it on the good engine."
Click to expand...
Yeah....I'll never work there.
 
Codyjp said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah I'm sure the report does address it. I stopped reading the report when I realized it was a Baron.
 
like others have said, if the FAA dug hard enough they could find these types of problems at any 135 operator. If you look at the one accident in question, they just plain screwed up. Sounds like the FAA had a hard on for quest for a while, and this was kind of the nail in the coffin. I'm no expert, but sounds like he brought it back to feather, and they tried to dive for the field. He admitted to it before the lawyer got involved. But then again, dead men tell no tales, so whos going to argue with him?
 
IF all of this is true, which is very much an open question, I've never worked for a 135 where ALL of this stuff would be true. Can't talk out of school, but I've heard some stuff (like fourth hand) about when they were leasing some MU-2s with their pilots flying em which was, uh, "surprising"? There's a difference between operating by the regs and expecting the job to get done and, on the other hand, true "cowboy culture" with the Sword of Damocles hanging over your head if you aren't willing to "play ball". Not saying which it is in this case...in fact I very much hope it turns out to be overblown because they do pay very well for the equipment. Wait and see.
 
Well, i think when it comes right down to it, you could find a single example of different "pushes" that happen to different people. Pilot A might get pushed to fly tired, while pilot B might get pushed to fly a plane with a write-up. I dont know of any place thats gonna throw a POS plane on a fatigued pilot on a new route in poor conditions. Things just snowball too quickly.

I doubt Quest really has a cowboy culture, most places that do dont last too long. Like i said, i think the FAA was hunting for something, and painted a very poor picture. The only favorable part of the report reflected on MX.

Having said that, i know quest flies quiet a few different planes, and under the wrong conditions, it can be pretty difficult to remember where all the knobs are at. I've fallen victim to it. You start out the day in a stiff leg 206, fly a 185 amphib, then finish the day in old style throttle quadrant baron. It takes a fair amount of focus, and im not sure if i could pull it off at 0300.

The CA had over 15k hours, so he obviously knew what he was doing, and was very senior at quest. I'm not trying to cast stones, but there was nothing wrong with the plane, the wx was good, so who was actually manipulating the controls? (rhetorical.) The co-pilot lawyering up and recanting his statement says a lot. Me thinks some baby sitting was going on.
 
cmill said:
The CA had over 15k hours, so he obviously knew what he was doing, and was very senior at quest. I'm not trying to cast stones, but there was nothing wrong with the plane, the wx was good, so who was actually manipulating the controls? (rhetorical.) The co-pilot lawyering up and recanting his statement says a lot. Me thinks some baby sitting was going on.
Click to expand...
Or possibly some gear up, good night. In any case, there but for the grace of God... Working overnights last summer in the shop I know I had a few pretty good 0300 scares.
 
cmill said:
The CA had over 15k hours, so he obviously knew what he was doing, and was very senior at quest. I'm not trying to cast stones, but there was nothing wrong with the plane, the wx was good, so who was actually manipulating the controls? (rhetorical.) The co-pilot lawyering up and recanting his statement says a lot. Me thinks some baby sitting was going on.
Click to expand...

Again, this is all theoretical at this point, but. IF there was no oversight or guidance to how they dealt with SICs, that's a problem. How do you know who should be flying a leg? What if "they" (meaning whatever company I'm working for, not Quest, about whom I personally, firsthand, know less than nothing) give me a guy who doesn't know his ass from his elbow and tell me I'm supposed to "evaluate" him? How? Like see how longingly he looks at my seat? "Well, I guess he's ambitious". Flying little airplanes in the middle of the night is hard enough by yourself. Let's say, theoretically (which may, truly and legitimately, not be the truth in this theoretical case I'm talking about and NOT the Quest crash) that the SIC in the left seat reached up and feathered the props. What would YOU do? What would anybody do? Try to unfeather them both and go around? Try to unfeather one and go around? Try and get it on the ground? All of them could kill you. IMHO, it's just not a position that anyone should be put in. Color me jaded, but when the dude changes his story upon consultation with an attorney, it smells like BS.
 
Boris Badenov said:
Again, this is all theoretical at this point, but. IF there was no oversight or guidance to how they dealt with SICs, that's a problem. How do you know who should be flying a leg? What if "they" (meaning whatever company I'm working for, not Quest, about whom I personally, firsthand, know less than nothing) give me a guy who doesn't know his ass from his elbow and tell me I'm supposed to "evaluate" him? How? Like see how longingly he looks at my seat? "Well, I guess he's ambitious". Flying little airplanes in the middle of the night is hard enough by yourself. Let's say, theoretically (which may, truly and legitimately, not be the truth in this theoretical case I'm talking about and NOT the Quest crash) that the SIC in the left seat reached up and feathered the props. What would YOU do? What would anybody do? Try to unfeather them both and go around? Try to unfeather one and go around? Try and get it on the ground? All of them could kill you. IMHO, it's just not a position that anyone should be put in. Color me jaded, but when the dude changes his story upon consultation with an attorney, it smells like BS.
Click to expand...

I'm sure a lot of editting happened bedside after the initial report and interview with the NTSB. What I was interested in was that they never stated whether the guys that were doing the "Auditions/Interviews" had an instructing background or what exactly qualified them evaluate the performances of someone else. Is it just my bias as a unintentional career flight instructor or should there be some sort of experience in regard to instruction or evaluation in order to act in that position? Regarding the total failure in both engines on short final, it does not bode well for anyone involved. We have FTDs at work set up exactly like BE58 models and we have simulated the situation (mostly based on fuel starvation or mech. failure on short final) and there is no possible way to recover fully configured to a manageable glide speed (Vg for the BE58 with no engines = 115 KIAS clean/Approx. 105 KIAS Gear Down, F15) without a significant amount of altitude. Even the unfeathering accumulators take some time to push the props out of feather and the longest we had it in the air after both of the powerplants shut down at 500' AGL was about 15-20 seconds. If my numbers are off, I apologize. It's been probably close to year since we've done it.
 
How many crashes did the FAA mention in the report? I believe it was 5. 5 crashes in 10 year is a lot. I don't know what the problem is at this company as I've never worked there, nor flown 135 for that matter. But I've seen company culture problems firsthand. Colgan was a great example. I'd tell my dad (30 year SWA pilot) about things that I would experience and his eyes would just about bulge out of his head. And he worked at an airline that had it's share of company culture issues. To me the situations seemed bad, but I figured everyone had to deal with them. That's how it goes with company culture issues, once you've been in a place for awhile really bad things seem normal.
 
As many of us have said in the past... Aviation has a way of weeding out those that shouldn't be flying... Its just unfortunate when it happens like this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top