"Remember 3407" Airline Labor Reform Act

I agree with your ideas for the regs RTF, but in all honesty, would it have changed the result of 3407? I don't think it would have. It seems to me that 3407 is being used as a platform to lobby for some changes that may not have actually altered the outcome of this flight. In no way am I against that and I think its a great opportunity to bring to light some serious issues in the industry.

I too have experienced the reduced rest overnights and so forth. It was dealt with better at Republic then it was at Colgan, but none the less, reduced rest overnights suck. BUT, I can not recall more then an instance or two, where I was actually fatigued from company scheduled rest. I had nights here and there with 6 hours of sleep. But they were never back to back (at Republic) and I always had an opportunity to "catch up" on rest during the pairing. I do think the rest requirements should be changed as you suggested but along with that I think something needs to be done about IDLE sit time in airports. I have been more fatigued from 4hr sits with no crew room than a reduced rest overnight. I also think what is much more important than changing the rest requirements, is to change duty time requirements. 16 hour duty day? Insane. 14hrs? Still too much. A 16hr duty day, means you are idle in airports, uncomfortable in a uniform and unable to "relax" for at least 6-8hrs. More fatigue comes from duty days in my opinion. Just because we aren't flying for 16hrs, doesn't mean we should be in uniform and on the job for 16. I think that is the most ridiculous crap about this job. We should work normal hours like normal people. 8-10 hour days max. I know very few people working normal jobs where they are "at work" for 16 hours. Thats absurd.

Despite all of these issues, I still don't believe 3407 would have been prevented with those changes alone. As mentioned before, common sense can not be governed.

Younger pilots need to have responsibility. Plain and simple. You can not expect to pull off a cross country commute, sleep in a crew room for a few hours and then have the nerve and audacity to take lives into your hands. No no no no!!! When you are scheduled to fly, you should not be sending text messages when you should be sleeping! "But its the companies fault because I have to commute!". No, its your fault for not exercising your own good judgement. If you can not do that commute and work well rested the next day, than you need to do something. Commute earlier or find another job.

I would rather work at home depot, than do a commute that is going to jeopardize my performance behind the controls of an aircraft. Why? I would rather not kill myself or someone else. This is why pilots need better pay. How can you expect to live/work/commute on $16k a year? You couldn't even move to your base on that salary. This forces people to do these commutes. Sooner or later, you're going to be flying fatigued and you're affraid to call off. Thats just the first link the accident chain.

When I commuted at Colgan, it was a 3-3 1/2 hour drive. I certainly could have drove in the same morning of a trip for a 7-8-9 o'clock show, but I always drove in the night before so that I could get the proper rest. Yet, I know plenty of pilots who get up at 3am, drive 3-4 hours and report for a 14hr day. I flew with a Captain who did just that and was half falling asleep until we had a 4 hour sit and slept in a crew room. That is just ridiculous. He did it to save money. I flew in the night before and had 14 hours until show time in a hotel.

The solution goes both ways. Companies need to take better care of their pilots and pilots need to exercise better judgement.

I will not comment on the stall accident and whether or not it was rest related. But this was a pilot error incident and I'm sure the chain of events is long. But something needs to be changed to prevent these accidents.
 
dear Ready,


Dude, I agree with every word you posted and Im am intimately aware of the 121 duty time rules.
I flew at MESA for 8 long years. Trust me..I know how they interpret the
reduced rest rule..for one. I was on the ALPA scheduling committee for a year and quit because it was just a lost cause. The UNION didnt even fight it that hard. All I got was, "We have to pick and choose our battles Ken, and we have bigger fish to fry."
Mesa set the standard for SCHEDULING reduced rest. Everyone, including the FAA knows that that was NOT the intent of that particular Reg. But they're doing it and being allowed to do it.
Having said all that, until an accident can be DIRECTLY attributed to a crew being on "Reduced Rest.", IT WILL NOT CHANGE.

The facts are this: This pilot got his aircraft into a stall, and then couldnt figure out how to recover. Its an ugly truth..but thats what it is...
Look at the NTSB animation..he didnt even add FULL power when the stick shaker activated..Come on.
I, you, and many, many other pilots are out there flying tired and have never put ourselves even close to the position this guy put himself into that night.

Bottom line: I agree that the Regional airlines, starting with Mesa, need to shape up with the way they schedule their pilots. But I just dont think this accident will be the impetus for that change. Scheduling was not a factor in this accident.
 
The facts are this: This pilot got his aircraft into a stall,

that's a given, but why?
and then couldnt figure out how to recover. Its an ugly truth..but thats what it is...
why? what was he thinking . . . what was prominent on his mind at the time?
Look at the NTSB animation..he didnt even add FULL power when the stick shaker activated..Come on.
there are similar symptoms where you may not want to add power, right?
I, you, and many, many other pilots are out there flying tired and have never put ourselves even close to the position this guy put himself into that night.

Have you ever been descending with the a/p and then the plane leveled at the selected altitude and you lost a/s before you realized, DOH!!! I better put power back in?
From the data we can see it doesn't show where the G/S is. I would be very interested to see that. If he was intercepting the G/S he may not have added power thinking that he was properly cofigured to descend on speed.

See, we don't know everthing!

(This next part is not for azfsi60 but addressed to the people who want to judge these people before we know what really happened)

That is my point WE DON"T KNOW EVERYTHING SO HOW CAN WE JUDGE THEM!?!?!?

I'm not trying to fight with you, and I believe that this was a pilot error accident. If you review my posts you will find that I have never debated that issue. I have only asked that we not be the judges. We can analyze, and we can use the opportunity to fix some issues that have been overlooked for far too long, but anyone who believes that they are beyond ever making mistakes of this nature is closer to that fate than those who believe that it could happen.

I don't believe it will, but only that is is possible, and that is one facet of what helps keep us safe.
 
I agree with your ideas for the regs RTF, but in all honesty, would it have changed the result of 3407? I don't think it would have. It seems to me that 3407 is being used as a platform to lobby for some changes that may not have actually altered the outcome of this flight. In no way am I against that and I think its a great opportunity to bring to light some serious issues in the industry.
Airdale, thank you for your comments and valuable insight!! That's the kind of information we could use when/if we get our day in front of the powers that be.

I completely understand, and I agree with you, in part, that the changes we will pursue wouldn't have changed the outcome of 3407, and also agree that 3407 is being used as a platform to lobby for changes. However, like you said, it's a great opportunity to bring light to serious issues that have gone on far too long.

Another poster said in this thread (or one of the copious other threads regarding 3407) that "Pilots have flown tired for years....."

Does that make it okay? No. And this is something we'll seek to remedy.
 
dear Ready,


Dude, I agree with every word you posted and Im am intimately aware of the 121 duty time rules.

I flew at MESA for 8 long years. Trust me..I know how they interpret the
reduced rest rule..for one. I was on the ALPA scheduling committee for a year and quit because it was just a lost cause. The UNION didnt even fight it that hard. All I got was, "We have to pick and choose our battles Ken, and we have bigger fish to fry."
Thank you and EXCELLENT! Your past experience is something we could definitely draw off of in the future as this moves forward.

If you have it in you to give it another shot, we could use a person with your experience.

Up to you.

Mesa set the standard for SCHEDULING reduced rest. Everyone, including the FAA knows that that was NOT the intent of that particular Reg. But they're doing it and being allowed to do it.
Having said all that, until an accident can be DIRECTLY attributed to a crew being on "Reduced Rest.", IT WILL NOT CHANGE.
If we all had that same sentiment, nothing would get done.... and you know this. You've been there.

As for Mesa setting that bar low. If you say it to be so, then it's so, but it's time to raise that bar, no?

You on board? Again - we could use your experience.

Bottom line: I agree that the Regional airlines, starting with Mesa, need to shape up with the way they schedule their pilots. But I just dont think this accident will be the impetus for that change. Scheduling was not a factor in this accident.
No, it wasn't and we're not asserting that. As Airdale mentioned, it's a springboard to make changes that are sorely over due.

As this moves forward, we'll make perfectly clear that our intentions are to remedy problems that have been ongoing, and, while not a direct factor in the crash of 3407, we do so in their memory.
 
that's a given, but why?why? what was he thinking . . . what was prominent on his mind at the time?there are similar symptoms where you may not want to add power, right?

Have you ever been descending with the a/p and then the plane leveled at the selected altitude and you lost a/s before you realized, DOH!!! I better put power back in?
From the data we can see it doesn't show where the G/S is. I would be very interested to see that. If he was intercepting the G/S he may not have added power thinking that he was properly cofigured to descend on speed.

See, we don't know everthing!

(This next part is not for azfsi60 but addressed to the people who want to judge these people before we know what really happened.


We are starting to get into an area where we are going to leave the scope of this person's thread. But to answer your question...

yes I have leveled off and lost airspeed ..BUT NOT over 50 knots worth.
and then I added the power and corrected the situation. He didnt.

What "similiar symptoms" are you referring to?
When the stick shaker activates, you select MAX thrust..period.
What was on his mind at the time???? How the hell should I know..but what I do know is that whatever it was....was wrong.

As to your reference to "where was the glide slope". He was below it.
All other aircraft were getting vectored to cross KLUMP at 2300'.
Which is where he was.
At that point, you intercept the G/S from below.
He had approach mode "armed" and was waiting for the autopilot to intercept the glideslope. This hadnt happened yet as the autopilot was holding 2300 feet when all hell brooke loose.
Even if the autopilot was on the glideslope and the airplane was descending, Im pretty sure it takes more than IDLE power to hold airspeed with the gear down and the flaps extended.
he had the Power levers at IDLE until the stick shaker activated and the autopilot kicked off. THEN he got the stick PUSHER and still didnt even add full power.

READY2FLY, Sorry to Hijack your thread... I will PM you and can try to help if you would like.
None of my opinion changes the fact that I agree with you on your scheduling issues.
 
I think I sent Firebird a PM but I have a slicehost I'm not using. Store up to 20GB and bandwidth of up to 2000GB/mo. I'll gladly donate it to the cause. Can not only have a website then, but also email/etc.
 
Thanks RTF and azfsi60 for the discussion.

I can share a lot of input as to what was experienced between two different Regional carriers and certainly note the differences.

One thing that really jumps out at me a lot, that in my opinion, has the greatest effect on the saftey of the flight - is commuting. I've commuted to both airlines and even had the privelage of being based where I live for a short while. My performance, which includes attitude, rest, health etc. was extremely higher when I could wake up and drive to work in 30 minutes. I felt, that my performance for that entire trip was top notch. I ran relatively mistake free and was prepared for any delays.

The bottom line, is that we have to commute at some point during this job. Its a must. With bases opening, closing and moving to a new company, commuting is part of the job. I really believe the problem lies with the scheduling. For example, I recall one month where I had to commute to CMH from PHL. My schedule was 6 on 2 off 3/4 of the month. Commuting was extremely difficult because of start and end times. I spent an entire 2 weeks away from home, traveling from one hotel to the next. When I finally did get home for one day, I was exhausted. But I was up the next day, readying the rollerboard for another crazy 6 days. Just the story of a junior reserve or line pilot.

During the time I was commuting with ridiculous schedules, my performance was much lower. I was more tired, more exhausted, more fatigued. I wasn't eating healthy meals, wasn't eating 3 meals a day. My rest schedules were completely off. There are many jobs where this type of schedule is o.k. The worst that can happen is, you just drag your feet. When you are going through this type of commuting and schedules in this career, the consequences could be serious.

Charlie, how do you think you would have managed commuting from Houston to Albany while you were at Colgan? With Colgan's scheduling? You never would have made it very long. Your performance would have reached a level that seriously jeopardized safety. And that is the point. The sad thing, and what needs to be changed in my opinion, is the airlines need to do a better job of helping their pilots get to work. There is no way in hell, and I even argued this with Colgan's former chief pilot, that I could even afford to pack up from where I lived and move to my base. Their measely salary, wasn't even enough to afford an apartment. That forced me to commute. A lot of people get forced to commute. Rebecca was forced to commute. How could her and her husband afford to leave their home and making a living in NEW JERSEY (one of the most expensive places to live) ON 16,000 A YEAR!!!. It is impossible. Poor decision on her part to choose Colgan, but sometimes limited choices in this field force us to make poor decisions.

While I won't speculate that fatigued was the telling factor in 3407, I can tell you that from the reports on their rest and commutes, I would say they were operating on marginal performance levels. I have experienced fatigue in the cockpit. Luckily it was a simulator at 3am. Sloppy, unpredicatable and unsafe. Nothing scares me more about this job then getting into the cockpit TIRED and FATIGUED. Because I know (military experience and all), that I am not operating to my normal level.

Thanks to modern aircraft and equipment, 99% of the time we can get away with flying fatigued. Technology saves us. Altitude alerters, GPWS, Auto-pilot/auto-throttle. I watched guys literally drift off to sleep while all the bells and whistles flew the airplane (of course I never let anyone sleep in the cockpit). Heck, program the box properly on some new aircraft and it will even land itself. But it all it takes is that 1% to have things fall in place for a disaster.

I figure it this way -

Flying tired or fatigued (whatever the reason) + a weather event (ice? low visibility?) + a navigation issue (faulty glideslope? False indications?) + ATC problem (lots of inbound traffic? Holds? tight spacing?) + unnecessary cockpit discussion (dinner? last night? weekend plans?) + relatively unfamiliar aircraft (less than 1000hrs in type? first time in command of an autopilot/fms system?) + loss of situational awareness (distraction? fixation on something? < could be related to fatigue) + an uncommanded or unwanted aircraft deviation (caught by surprise. Slow airspeed? High pitch attitude?) = Disaster waiting to happen

How to prevent this? You need to start by eliminating the things that we can. Many of the things above can not be eliminated. Traffic, weather, navigation issues (they DO happen, nature of the science) etc.

Let me break that equation down to prove a point -

A weather event (ice? low visibility?) + a navigation issue (faulty glideslope? False indications?) + ATC problem (lots of inbound traffic? Holds? tight spacing?) + relatively unfamiliar aircraft (less than 1000hrs in type? first time in command of an autopilot/fms system?) = Just another day in the office!

Any of the above events can be challenging to any pilot. But how can you accept and defeat those challenges above, when you factor in fatigue, distractions and etc. How many times have you overflown a fix? Missed a radio call? Mistuned a frequency? All because you were a bit tired or distracted?

Its great to want change in our industry, but that change has to be for one reason - SAFETY.
 
The solution is for all mainline carriers to recapture scope, put all the regionals out of business. I'd give my left nut to be on the DL seniority list, even if I was flying a 19hondo. (Although according to Moak replacement jets are great!)

It's the culture of outsourcing that is our enemy.

Even if I lost my job right now, I'd give almost anything to see every regional go out of business. Because when I did get another job, it would be a job worth having -- even if it was one or two years down the line.
 
yes I have leveled off and lost airspeed ..BUT NOT over 50 knots worth.
and then I added the power and corrected the situation. He didnt.
which is why we both are still here
What "similiar symptoms" are you referring to?
When the stick shaker activates, you select MAX thrust..period.
What was on his mind at the time???? How the hell should I know..but what I do know is that whatever it was....was wrong.
Right before a tail stall the yoke buffets, now I don't know how similar that would be to a stick shaker, cause I've never had a stick shaker in flight, or a buffet. Then when the pusher goes that could have mirrored the tail stall occuring, right? SO (after he lost SA which was bad, and the cause of the whole thing) while he and the FO were talking alot about icing he MAY have thought he was experiencing a tail stall ... the point is we don't know.
As to your reference to "where was the glide slope". He was below it.
All other aircraft were getting vectored to cross KLUMP at 2300'.
Which is where he was.
At that point, you intercept the G/S from below.
He had approach mode "armed" and was waiting for the autopilot to intercept the glideslope. This hadnt happened yet as the autopilot was holding 2300 feet when all hell brooke loose.
OK you knew that and I didn't because I am not familiar with that area
Even if the autopilot was on the glideslope and the airplane was descending, Im pretty sure it takes more than IDLE power to hold airspeed with the gear down and the flaps extended.
Look again it is not at idle, it looks to be at a value of maybe 20% to me. If I'm wrong please correct me.
he had the Power levers at IDLE until the stick shaker activated and the autopilot kicked off. THEN he got the stick PUSHER and still didnt even add full power.
If in fact he was thinking tail stall then the moves do make sense. They absolutely do not make sense for a stall on that we all agree.

The part I don't get is the anger and absolutes being bantered about around here. One guy called the captain a tool!
 
I know I'm coming in pretty late but I love this thread. If there is anything I can do to help I will try my best. I'm only 18 years old but a private pilot and about to graduate, so, if you need me I'm here. :)

Also found this "pilot pay concerns" video on CNN.com

You'll have to search for it from this link.
http://www.cnn.com/video/

Edit: heres the link to the specific video...
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/be...hillips.what.pilots.earn.cnn?iref=videosearch

In this sort of thing, better late than never.

Thank you for your contribution.
 
I know I'm coming in pretty late but I love this thread. If there is anything I can do to help I will try my best. I'm only 18 years old but a private pilot and about to graduate, so, if you need me I'm here. :)

Also found this "pilot pay concerns" video on CNN.com

You'll have to search for it from this link.
http://www.cnn.com/video/

Edit: heres the link to the specific video...
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/be...hillips.what.pilots.earn.cnn?iref=videosearch


Ummm, I watched the 2nd link and I couldn't believe it. Kyre Phillips (sp?) clicked on both Colgan and Delta on the APC payscale page and guess what she reported? 1st year Colgan Air FO's make $21,000 and 1st year Delta DC-9 FOs make $53,000. NEVER MIND THAT THE PAGE LISTS THE HOURLY SALARY NOT THE ANNUAL ONE...

Honestly, sometimes I don't know if I want to laugh or cry at the ineptitude of the media. :rolleyes: :panic:
 
Ummm, I watched the 2nd link and I couldn't believe it. Kyre Phillips (sp?) clicked on both Colgan and Delta on the APC payscale page and guess what she reported? 1st year Colgan Air FO's make $21,000 and 1st year Delta DC-9 FOs make $53,000. NEVER MIND THAT THE PAGE LISTS THE HOURLY SALARY NOT THE ANNUAL ONE...

Honestly, sometimes I don't know if I want to laugh or cry at the ineptitude of the media. :rolleyes: :panic:

I usually laugh. The only thing you can trust is that the media is not trustworthy.
 
I bet every little scumbag air line executive is getting their panties in a bundle over this backlash. You can't screw someone else and not expect them to screw with you back.

That guy who said pilots would slack off with their job because of low pay cannot see the reality of what pay below 50k/year can do to a pilot. Its not that pilots will be slackers; the fact is that these life stresses will dampen their mental and physical stamina.
 
Back
Top