RAH Q400 in BTV

Cruise said:
Hello pot.....this is kettle.

View attachment 24841


Considering your background, I think I'd be a little less opinionated on these matters. I don't think 9E has the finest track record of hiring/ training standards in the industry, either. ;)
Click to expand...

No, I agree with you. Although 9E was a lot better when I was there as compared to when 9E experienced its explosive growth from 2001-2005. This timeframe was rife with very low experience in both seats, and 3701 in the fall of 2004 was the result. In my time there, I never had a CFIT or stickshaker incident like the ones described. For what it's worth, I know pilots who have stated that they wouldn't put their family on a 9E plane.
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
No, I agree with you. Although 9E was a lot better when I was there as compared to when 9E experienced its explosive growth from 2001-2005. This timeframe was rife with very low experience in both seats, and 3701 in the fall of 2004 was the result. In my time there, I never had a CFIT or stickshaker incident like the ones described. For what it's worth, I know pilots who have stated that they wouldn't put their family on a 9E plane.
Click to expand...

You are very conviently forgetting the TVC Crash in 2007. Pinnacle Management got reamed new ones for that with the NTSB.

One of the reasons the NTSB made such a big deal of the Colgan Crash was they knew Pinnacle owned Colgan and the NTSB was all to familiar with how crummy the culture at Pinnacle was.
 
Seggy said:
You are very conviently forgetting the TVC Crash in 2007. Pinnacle Management got reamed new ones for that with the NTSB.

One of the reasons the NTSB made such a big deal of the Colgan Crash was they knew Pinnacle owned Colgan and the NTSB was all to familiar with how crummy the culture at Pinnacle was.
Click to expand...

True, but the TVC accident was a result of lots of misinformation to the crew and a lack of emphasis on the important things. Bug Vref + factor was the dumbest thing ever, and it went away after this incident. And lets not forget, everyone walked away from it. Colgan was always on their radar, shady maintenance that got 2 pilots killed in a Beech. Colgan's problem was too many airplanes in too little a time, and that explosive growth came at a cost. They'll push anyone through just to check a box and say yeah we have an APD now for the new Q. Or say yeah we have enough Captains now. Just watch "Flying Cheap" for anyone who hasn't worked at Colgan to get an idea of what Colgan was and how it ran.
 
I feel RAH is suffering from the same thing with the additions of the Q400. Too many planes unfamiliar planes, to quickly, with crews with little experience flying that type of plane. Itll get better with time and experience on type, hopefully they can keep everything safe until then.
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
True, but the TVC accident was a result of lots of misinformation to the crew and a lack of emphasis on the important things.
Click to expand...

Riiiiight, like the lack of emphasis on high altitude stall training? After a fatal one needs a complete cleansing, that didn't happen at Pinnacle and that led to the TVC and Colgan Accident.


Bug Vref + factor was the dumbest thing ever, and it went away after this incident.
Click to expand...

As Pinnacle Airlines should have.

And lets not forget, everyone walked away from it.
Click to expand...

Thank goodness.


Colgan was always on their radar, shady maintenance...
Click to expand...

Like our parent company, Pinnacle.

Colgan's problem was too many airplanes in too little a time, and that explosive growth came at a cost.
Click to expand...

Like our parent company, Pinnacle.

Just watch "Flying Cheap" for anyone who hasn't worked at Colgan to get an idea of what Colgan was and how it ran.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I have that show on DVD.
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
1 B1 going down is a different story.



Colgan has a Q400 incident at BTV:

http://dms.ntsb.gov/pubdms/search/document.cfm?docID=312088&docketID=47271&mkey=73351

Colgan crashes Q400 in BUF to due to same reason as the BTV crew, except the BTV crew properly recovered.

Colgan loses all Qs and the Colgan name shuts down. The Qs go to Republic.

Republic has a near CFIT accident at BTV, missing by 17 feet apparently.

So it's a host of factors. Lack of training, lack of good hiring standards, lack of experience, bad decision making just to name a few.
Click to expand...


Good to see you still don't really comprehend what your reading...

The Colgan stuck shaker was due to leaving the ice protection on, when the plane was clean, flying clean speeds. They were not at any risk for stalling the plane. Smart? No. The increased ref switch has bitten more than a few pilots though.


Anyways, BTV has a big hill south east o the airport, roughly 3-500 feet below pattern altitude if you take it out to 5 miles. Heck, Jblue took a visual to 33 from the lake one o the last times I was in their, we took the GPS ( was doing ioe and it was late). The Jblue crew met us out side, CA goes," you must know this place... We thought easy visual, then heard you take the approach and laughed... Then we almost hit that hill"

Anyways, there really aren't lights on it, and it's the reason you can't circle south at night. People have hit that hill before, and they will hit it again...
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
True, but the TVC accident was a result of lots of misinformation to the crew and a lack of emphasis on the important things. Bug Vref + factor was the dumbest thing ever, and it went away after this incident. And lets not forget, everyone walked away from it. Colgan was always on their radar, shady maintenance that got 2 pilots killed in a Beech. Colgan's problem was too many airplanes in too little a time, and that explosive growth came at a cost. They'll push anyone through just to check a box and say yeah we have an APD now for the new Q. Or say yeah we have enough Captains now. Just watch "Flying Cheap" for anyone who hasn't worked at Colgan to get an idea of what Colgan was and how it ran.
Click to expand...


Wait are you telling mark to watch flying cheap? Lol... If you knew the people in the show/ connections to seggy, you'd understand why I'm laughing at you. Anyways, continue telling us how much you know about Colgan.. I'm getting a good laugh reading what you think you know about it!

Honestly though, It is an easy mistake to make, the area around BTV at night looks completely unthreatening... Somewhat like Lebanon nh. At least at KRUT you know going in that its a suck hole looking for a victim.

Most pilots are pretty bad at putting terrain on a chart into their SA picture... Beyond that, they probably didn't even have a chart out ( don't think there is an ils to 33) and the universal FMS only loads the Rnav Z and the offset loc. RAH can't fly the rnav Z and doesn't have plates for it, and the offset loc wouldn't have been any use coming from the south on a visual.
 
TUCKnTRUCK said:
Wait are you telling mark to watch flying cheap? Lol... If you knew the people in the show/ connections to seggy, you'd understand why I'm laughing at you. Anyways, continue telling us how much you know about Colgan.. I'm getting a good laugh reading what you think you know about it!
Click to expand...
I don't know enough about the people there, except that Corey guy seemed reasonable as did the Chris W guy. The only problem I had was that rat FO who sold out his CA over a jumpseat issue and wrote him up to the FAA. What connection to Seggy? I do not recall Seggy in that video.


Honestly though, It is an easy mistake to make, the area around BTV at night looks completely unthreatening... Somewhat like Lebanon nh. At least at KRUT you know going in that its a suck hole looking for a victim.

Most pilots are pretty bad at putting terrain on a chart into their SA picture... Beyond that, they probably didn't even have a chart out ( don't think there is an ils to 33) and the universal FMS only loads the Rnav Z and the offset loc. RAH can't fly the rnav Z and doesn't have plates for it, and the offset loc wouldn't have been any use coming from the south on a visual.
Click to expand...
It's still isn't an excuse. And how you are describing it sounds scary. A chart should be out for any runway you're approaching. Even if it's a visual, you should find a plate that applies for that runway and have it up for reference. There are many advantages, including the published MSAs within 25 miles! I'd be scared to see a crew go into a hilly airport at night without any approach plate out even if clear VFR.
 
TUCKnTRUCK said:
Good to see you still don't really comprehend what your reading...

The Colgan stuck shaker was due to leaving the ice protection on, when the plane was clean, flying clean speeds. They were not at any risk for stalling the plane. Smart? No. The increased ref switch has bitten more than a few pilots though.


Anyways, BTV has a big hill south east o the airport, roughly 3-500 feet below pattern altitude if you take it out to 5 miles. Heck, Jblue took a visual to 33 from the lake one o the last times I was in their, we took the GPS ( was doing ioe and it was late). The Jblue crew met us out side, CA goes," you must know this place... We thought easy visual, then heard you take the approach and laughed... Then we almost hit that hill"

Anyways, there really aren't lights on it, and it's the reason you can't circle south at night. People have hit that hill before, and they will hit it again...
Click to expand...
Lack of training. No explanation (apparently) to alert crews that it could happen. IIRC, Colgan 3407 had the ref incr switch on and the stick shaker came on at that respective higher speed. Regardless, the recovery method is the reason for the different outcome of BTV vs BUF. I have flown into BTV numerous times at the last carrier, and quite a few times on the highspeed/CDO. That late at night, I took vectors for an approach. I'm not paid enough to be a hero late at night to go visual around mountains that as you mentioned are black without lights and hard to see. Everyone has different techniques, but one would think the guard should go extra higher at night in a hilly airport area. Now fatigue could be a factor, so it can't be ruled out. But IMO, and as Kingairer already pointed out, a lot of it has to do with a new type of plane to a company that hasn't operated it before. Newer pilots to that plane, and lower time in type and the experience on it has gained. It used to be all Colgan flying out of EWR on the Q and now it's all Republic.
 
Seggy said:
Riiiiight, like the lack of emphasis on high altitude stall training? After a fatal one needs a complete cleansing, that didn't happen at Pinnacle and that led to the TVC and Colgan Accident.




As Pinnacle Airlines should have.



Thank goodness.




Like our parent company, Pinnacle.



Like our parent company, Pinnacle.



Yeah, I have that show on DVD.
Click to expand...


Stop blaming Pinnalce. You know very well Colgan was an entirely different animal and up until 1st quarter 2007, Colgan was standalone. The 3407 Capt had already been hired. After the purchase, Colgan was still doing its own operation and running things their own way, which was always cheap and cut corners. The Pinnacle purchase wasn't that nail in the coffin, Colgan was already operating the way they always had. When you're paid based on completion factor, the pressure is on the pilots to get the flight out and attempt an approach. There just weren't any standards for hiring pilots. You are correct about Pinnacle hiring low time pilots in 2007 and 2008, but the difference is at 9E by then most CAs had lots of time on the plane already. Colgan continued to upgrade very low time Captains and had lower time overall in the seats compared to a similar Pinnacle flight in 2008.
 
Welp here we go again, Shyguy showing why he's one of the most liked pilots in America.

You worked at Pinnacle, not much more to say about that...
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
I don't know enough about the people there, except that Corey guy seemed reasonable as did the Chris W guy. The only problem I had was that rat FO who sold out his CA over a jumpseat issue and wrote him up to the FAA. What connection to Seggy? I do not recall Seggy in that video.



It's still isn't an excuse. And how you are describing it sounds scary. A chart should be out for any runway you're approaching. Even if it's a visual, you should find a plate that applies for that runway and have it up for reference. There are many advantages, including the published MSAs within 25 miles! I'd be scared to see a crew go into a hilly airport at night without any approach plate out even if clear VFR.
Click to expand...

How bright are your chart lights at night turning base to final in a black hole?

Having a chart out is great, but even with a Collins ifis 5000, I have no issues putting people into cfit escapes near airport boundaries.

Honestly, look at kleb

http://flightaware.com/resources/airport/KLEB/IAP/ILS+OR+LOC+RWY+18

BTV can have the same effect. Kleb looks benign. I loved brining in TDY guys at night. They were gung ho for the visual ( and who wouldn't be) The next morning they would look out and utter one oh crap and never ask for the night visual again.

The hill on btv isn't really charted. The brown lines start at 1,000, and the hill is just under that, so it's not depicted. Most people start their turn @3 miles out to stay inside the mountain, which, on Slope puts you at 1700-1800... Pointed at a 1200 ft tower. Turn inside that, and you need to be @1200 to be on path, but your coming over a 1000 ft hill. Outside of that, you run into the green mountains, camels hump etc.

There isn't much there that the chart helps with. Relying on the chart for an offset GPS ( offset due to said hill) then it would likely put you in a worse place than keeping your eyes outside.
 
Last edited:
I am as confused as the rest of you about this incident, but I am not really as familiar with RAH procedures as I was a few months back. However, I think that having the Terrain map up on the PM side at least would be a good idea. I know at some airports, such as ROA ASA mandated NO visual approaches could be accepted until they were established on the LOC. My opinion doesn't mean much, but I believe this incident could have been avoided with a proper brief. I am going to go out on a limb and say that the Captain didn't ensure that both pilots had good SA on where the terrain was and when it was safe to initiate the descent.
This isn't the first nor the last time a near-CFIT is going to occur under night VMC conditions. Many years ago when I was stationed in San Diego a Learjet took-off on a clear, and I mean SEVERE clear winter night from San Diego's Brown Field and struck Otay mountain...Best advice, BRIEF and USE the ODP for ALL airports at night that have these procedures. We can't predict when it might happen, but if you loose an engine at night at least if you are on the ODP you might have a better chance of not running into terrain.
Accidents, are merely the tip of the iceberg as we used to say in CRM/TEM training...What is going under the surface at your airline? Are you following SOPs? Are your briefings adequate? Do you know and understand what the Special Airport sheets are telling you about the airspace, terrain and obstacles? Fortunately, these pilots will do what pilots have done since the Wright Brothers...learn from a mistake that could have been fatal. We ALL make mistakes, it is human nature to be flawed, however, knowing this fact and understanding that mistakes happen on EVERY flight will help us become better by developing strategies to mitigate risks and establish barriers to trap errors.
Playing this "throw the other airline's pilots under the bus" is juvenile and doesn't solve our MUTUAL problem...Fly safe out there, and if I am flying...issue NOTAMS:-)
 
The notorious KLEB VOR approach was a GPWS pain in the butt...local knowledge required descent AFTER .1 on the DME lest you get the GPWS going off...Winter 2006/07 BLF ILS was down for THREE months...VOR-DME approaches with that VOR was "interesting" even our Director of Standards flew as FO on a flight to see WTF all these irregularity reports were all about...result...unless it was basic VFR 1000/3...NO BLF! We all got VERY good at flying into BLF or you never got into that place!
 
BE19Pilot said:
The notorious KLEB VOR approach was a GPWS pain in the butt...local knowledge required descent AFTER .1 on the DME lest you get the GPWS going off...Winter 2006/07 BLF ILS was down for THREE months...VOR-DME approaches with that VOR was "interesting" even our Director of Standards flew as FO on a flight to see WTF all these irregularity reports were all about...result...unless it was basic VFR 1000/3...NO BLF! We all got VERY good at flying into BLF or you never got into that place!
Click to expand...
Man, I hated that stupid full procedure ils at kleb. Ha to do it all the time... I do want a burger now though...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top