Remember 3407 Project Strikes a Chord

Killtron2000 said:
If you ask an ATP to fly a heading and do a hold entry or some other basic things that they usually have people do and then answer some simple questions about basic instrument flying what have you tested? Nothing really if you were to hire that person it's not because they are a good pilot it's just because they have been in the industry for awhile. Do you really beleive that experience always translates into learning with everybody?
Click to expand...

I'm guessing you have never been a check airman or sim evaluator. Normally I know how the sim ride will go LONG before they do their first manuver. The stuff we are looking for does not change from one plane to another. Short version,
crm
sa
procedures
ability.


It does not matter if you have, or have not flown a 1900 before. If you have a sound foundation of core crew and flying skills, you will do well... Even if you have a rough time keeping it +\- 50 ft. Just because you nail an ils and hold +\- 0 feet in a steep turn does not mean you will pass. You can find our sim profile online, study it, and practice it in flight sim untill your heart is content. The graded report gives 1/5 of the total available points to pts standards. Crm gives another 20%, situational awarness,procedures,safety each get the same amount.

All things equal, it is not common for a low time pilot to do as well because they often loose points for crm, safety and procedures... Even though they fly the profile well. You have to be iffy to really mess it up( the profile) it's not a supprise and it's not hard.
 
TUCKnTRUCK said:
Are you really sure there would have been a different outcome? I am about 99% percent sure that if I gave you an 8 lesson transition and then 100 hours of normal "line" flying that I could get you to ball it up in the sim very very quickly. Does that mean you should not be given a job?

Marvin completed 99.968% of his flights( assuming one hour block which is about the average at colgan) without fail. I fail to see why you think he is such a bad pilot. He was given bad training, a crappy schedule, and an FO who pulled the flaps to 0 mid stall recovery. I would lay a 20 on the same outcome if it was you, me, or most anybody else here that got into that position.

I know your going to bring up scan and energy managment, but you have not flown a q, you do not know the profiles or tendancies of the aircraft, so your arguments will hold little weight. Not that they are not valid points, just the whole walk a mile in his shoes thing.

The colgan manual has special speed provisions for new guys because speed managment in this plane is not easy, nor even close to similar to our other airframes. Many, many times when we configure it is at flight idle, and often we make no power changes with configuration.

Look at it like this: at some point in your career you will make a mistake, you will have an incident, and you will have to talk to the FAA. When you do, think of every other pilot who has not done what you just did. Does that make them better pilots because they have not made that same error? Or you any lessor of a pilot? Think long and hard about that, and then pray that your mistake doesn't kill anybody, because it will happen.
Click to expand...
Renslow is one of 3 captains to crash a Q400 that I could find in my research. Not counting the landing gear problems. Considering this plane has been in service for 26 years it doesn't seem like a death trap.

You're kind of making it out to be like every pilot is just as good as every other pilot and that's really not what I've seen as a flight instructor. Given how unforgiving flying can be I'm really surprised at how rare accidents are. I've had some students that come to me to finish a PPL or sometimes do a commercial and I fly with them and I'm absolutely amazed that they survived their solo flights. I've seen some really abysmal flying but only 2 real accidents where I knew the pilots and both those pilots were complete idiots like to the point where I wondered how they can even have respiratory functions.

This is just my experience maybe it was out of Renslows control and it was just his time. I have trouble believing that though.
 
TUCKnTRUCK said:
I'm guessing you have never been a check airman or sim evaluator. Normally I know how the sim ride will go LONG before they do their first manuver. The stuff we are looking for does not change from one plane to another. Short version,
crm
sa
procedures
ability.


It does not matter if you have, or have not flown a 1900 before. If you have a sound foundation of core crew and flying skills, you will do well... Even if you have a rough time keeping it +\- 50 ft. Just because you nail an ils and hold +\- 0 feet in a steep turn does not mean you will pass. You can find our sim profile online, study it, and practice it in flight sim untill your heart is content. The graded report gives 1/5 of the total available points to pts standards. Crm gives another 20%, situational awarness,procedures,safety each get the same amount.

All things equal, it is not common for a low time pilot to do as well because they often loose points for crm, safety and procedures... Even though they fly the profile well. You have to be iffy to really mess it up( the profile) it's not a supprise and it's not hard.
Click to expand...
If you were to see a guy with a ton of hours and crew experience not do well with any of those things wouldn't you wonder why even after all that time at (insert name) airlines he still isn't any good at this?
 
Killtron2000 said:
Renslow is one of 3 captains to crash a Q400 that I could find in my research. Not counting the landing gear problems. Considering this plane has been in service for 26 years it doesn't seem like a death trap.

You're kind of making it out to be like every pilot is just as good as every other pilot and that's really not what I've seen as a flight instructor. Given how unforgiving flying can be I'm really surprised at how rare accidents are. I've had some students that come to me to finish a PPL or sometimes do a commercial and I fly with them and I'm absolutely amazed that they survived their solo flights. I've seen some really abysmal flying but only 2 real accidents where I knew the pilots and both those pilots were complete idiots like to the point where I wondered how they can even have respiratory functions.

This is just my experience maybe it was out of Renslows control and it was just his time. I have trouble believing that though.
Click to expand...


The q400 entered service in 2000. I'm not sure about the math, but that makes it less than 9 years old. The only thing it has in common with the others is the high wing, and the name. It would be a great mistake to compare operational technique from another dash to the q400.

You seem bent on blaming the catiain. It was a CREW. They both took action in the stall. I don't belive the fo failed any rides... But she still did not act accordingly.

Long and short, the sim ride works, because we can evaluate a lot... Very quickly( not just a profile).

Training is essential. It is the best way to wipe out pilot error accidents. Since we know that they did not want to crash, we must infer that the training program failed to prepare them, or failed to wash them out.

The training program given for the Q does nothing to remove any different technique. Infact it was done by a third party, who had almost no idea what so ever, the operating technique used by colgan. Negative learning must be expected, accounted for, and trained out in training. Not worked out on the line.

All pilots are not the same, but they all have to be trained to 1 level of safety.
 
Killtron2000 said:
If you were to see a guy with a ton of hours and crew experience not do well with any of those things wouldn't you wonder why even after all that time at (insert name) airlines he still isn't any good at this?
Click to expand...

Yes I would, but it is very, very rare to find.

There are major airlines that don't do a sim ride at all, and have excellent safety records.... They also don't invite guys who don't have 1000's of hours in a crew enviroment.
 
TUCKnTRUCK said:
Yes I would, but it is very, very rare to find.

There are major airlines that don't do a sim ride at all, and have excellent safety records.... They also don't invite guys who don't have 1000's of hours in a crew enviroment.
Click to expand...

Silly jetBlue and SWA. How do they know people can actually fly if they don't do sim rides? That's just crazy. Pretty sure Delta doesn't do a sim ride either.
 
No sim ride at Southernjets.

It was explained to me like this. If you take a highly experienced military pilot who has undergone countless evaluations or a highly experienced pilot from another airline that's survived unscathed thru CQ evaluations and type rides, they can most likely fly an airplane so you're looking at personality.

Chuck Yeager can probably fly the hell out of an airplane and a simulator, but anyone that would hire him in a crew environment might need his head checked.
 
Killtron2000 said:
If you ask an ATP to fly a heading and do a hold entry or some other basic things that they usually have people do and then answer some simple questions about basic instrument flying what have you tested? Nothing really if you were to hire that person it's not because they are a good pilot it's just because they have been in the industry for awhile. Do you really beleive that experience always translates into learning with everybody?
Click to expand...

Sure am glad my interviews only had basic flying things and basic questions... might not have been hired for any flying job if they had harder questions. (Do I need a sarcasm tag here?)

Seriously... every interview I have been a part of has gone well past the "basic things" and "questions about basic instrument flying" that you seem to think are the only things that make up an interview.

Every interview I have had included a face to face (or phone) conversation where about 90% of all the questions asked were experience related questions. In fact, you might not even think some of the questions are really even evaluation questions, but they are. Sure, the basics will do on most days and in most learning areas, but experience is knowledge well above and beyond the basics. Think of it this way... everything we do in aviation (from the FARs to starting time over the FAF, etc.) is because of some type of experience, not "basic things". Experience is golden in air transport operations.
 
TUCKnTRUCK said:
The q400 entered service in 2000. I'm not sure about the math, but that makes it less than 9 years old. The only thing it has in common with the others is the high wing, and the name. It would be a great mistake to compare operational technique from another dash to the q400.

You seem bent on blaming the catiain. It was a CREW. They both took action in the stall. I don't belive the fo failed any rides... But she still did not act accordingly.

Long and short, the sim ride works, because we can evaluate a lot... Very quickly( not just a profile).

Training is essential. It is the best way to wipe out pilot error accidents. Since we know that they did not want to crash, we must infer that the training program failed to prepare them, or failed to wash them out.

The training program given for the Q does nothing to remove any different technique. Infact it was done by a third party, who had almost no idea what so ever, the operating technique used by colgan. Negative learning must be expected, accounted for, and trained out in training. Not worked out on the line.

All pilots are not the same, but they all have to be trained to 1 level of safety.
Click to expand...
That makes them the first crew to crash a Q400 not counting landing gear collapses.

I don't think you can train them not to be careless.
 
kellwolf said:
Silly jetBlue and SWA. How do they know people can actually fly if they don't do sim rides? That's just crazy. Pretty sure Delta doesn't do a sim ride either.
Click to expand...
If all they can do is have them fly a hold or do normal instrument flying it wouldn't be testing anything anyways.
 
ctab5060X said:
Sure am glad my interviews only had basic flying things and basic questions... might not have been hired for any flying job if they had harder questions. (Do I need a sarcasm tag here?)

Seriously... every interview I have been a part of has gone well past the "basic things" and "questions about basic instrument flying" that you seem to think are the only things that make up an interview.

Every interview I have had included a face to face (or phone) conversation where about 90% of all the questions asked were experience related questions. In fact, you might not even think some of the questions are really even evaluation questions, but they are. Sure, the basics will do on most days and in most learning areas, but experience is knowledge well above and beyond the basics. Think of it this way... everything we do in aviation (from the FARs to starting time over the FAF, etc.) is because of some type of experience, not "basic things". Experience is golden in air transport operations.
Click to expand...
Of course you learn through experience but I've seen pilots with thousands of hours who I wouldn't sign off for a private pilot checkride. It isn't about the total number of hours it's what you've learned from it that matters.
 
TUCKnTRUCK said:
Yes I would, but it is very, very rare to find.

There are major airlines that don't do a sim ride at all, and have excellent safety records.... They also don't invite guys who don't have 1000's of hours in a crew enviroment.
Click to expand...
What if they have a good reference from a current line pilot? How much does that factor into the decision?
 
Killtron2000 said:
What if they have a good reference from a current line pilot? How much does that factor into the decision?
Click to expand...

You normally need at least 2-3 internal rec's, with those 1000's of hours. Having a good one makes you like the other 50 applicants... minus the experience, flight time, and 121 training history. Next spring we are going to hire 180+ pilots... Unless there is a drastic change in the industry in the next year, I have a feeling that it's going to be pretty competitive. Despite who or where it is... I'd assume that most people brought in will have at least an internal rec, + 121/cargo experience.

You most certainly train attitude, decorum and standardization. To think that adherence to SOPS, FAR's doesn't come from good, quality training is foolish. Do you not teach these aspects to your students, or just expect them to make good decisions? Lets say you have a student who discovers that if he flies below the glide path on approach, he is more likely to hit his landing spot, than if he maintains a popper glide path. In his level of experience, he has just learned a trick to make his short field landings easier... but he prob. doesn't realize what dangers he is now exposing himself to. Thats where you step in and correct the behavior. Sure it's some what of an apples to oranges comparison... but it holds true. You can train out bad behavior, and to an easier extent, teach good behavior.

How many mainline training programs feature lessons on cockpit decorum, sterile cockpit, and appropriate behavior? I'd heft a heavy bet on ALL of them.

Ours consisted of a short description of the ECAPS section of our FOP.

Honestly, I wouldn't pass my PPL in a 172 right now. I haven't touched one in 4+ years. Does that make me a bad pilot? I bet that table swings both ways. I doubt you could pass a Q400 type ride right now. I bet I would scare the crap out of you in a 172.. but that is to be expected. i am used to landing ref speeds higher than a 172 cruises. Heck, on the runway i'm not gonna think about flying until l after the 80kt call... 55kts is way too slow for me.
 
Okay, Killtron. You're the interviewer, and you've got a 1500 hour guy in front of you. He's flight instructed, flown jumpers and done some 135 freight operations. Go. What would you do in the interview? What questions would you ask? Now, ask those same questions of a 300 hour guy that's rented an airplane and flown short cross countries the whole time.

How many interviews have you had? I know you've mentioned Colgan, but how many OTHER than that? You seem to be basing an awful lot on one interview, at least that's how it seems to me. You're also all over the map talking about guys with experience missing "easy" question. Well, what questions are easy? Like Doug said, he doesn't remember the dimensions of a victor airway. Honestly, I'd have to look it up myself. Does that mean I'm not fit to be CA on a transport aircraft b/c I'd miss an "easy" question on a test?
 
kellwolf said:
Okay, Killtron. You're the interviewer, and you've got a 1500 hour guy in front of you. He's flight instructed, flown jumpers and done some 135 freight operations. Go. What would you do in the interview? What questions would you ask? Now, ask those same questions of a 300 hour guy that's rented an airplane and flown short cross countries the whole time.

How many interviews have you had? I know you've mentioned Colgan, but how many OTHER than that? You seem to be basing an awful lot on one interview, at least that's how it seems to me. You're also all over the map talking about guys with experience missing "easy" question. Well, what questions are easy? Like Doug said, he doesn't remember the dimensions of a victor airway. Honestly, I'd have to look it up myself. Does that mean I'm not fit to be CA on a transport aircraft b/c I'd miss an "easy" question on a test?
Click to expand...

4 miles isn't it? 3000 to 17999 ft. I have no idea... Doesn't really get used much in 121 stuff.
 
kellwolf said:
Okay, Killtron. You're the interviewer, and you've got a 1500 hour guy in front of you. He's flight instructed, flown jumpers and done some 135 freight operations. Go. What would you do in the interview? What questions would you ask? Now, ask those same questions of a 300 hour guy that's rented an airplane and flown short cross countries the whole time.

How many interviews have you had? I know you've mentioned Colgan, but how many OTHER than that? You seem to be basing an awful lot on one interview, at least that's how it seems to me. You're also all over the map talking about guys with experience missing "easy" question. Well, what questions are easy? Like Doug said, he doesn't remember the dimensions of a victor airway. Honestly, I'd have to look it up myself. Does that mean I'm not fit to be CA on a transport aircraft b/c I'd miss an "easy" question on a test?
Click to expand...

I think you are taking Killtron's "experience" way too seriously.
 
Killtron2000 said:
I don't know what a doctor needs to know. Your question is irrelevant it's like asking how much does a ditch digger need to know about digging ditches to do his job well probably everything because there is hardly anything to know about it. If you have some other kind of point to make just make it.
Click to expand...

In other words, you have no clue and you ain't got that balls to man up and admit it.

Post after post shows you really don't know what the hell you're talking about and yet you continue to insist you know better than people who have been there, done that, and have not just the t-shirt but the battle scars.

Thanks for playing, you lose.

The point, for the obtuse and ignorant, was that just like a doctor, a pilot doesn't need to know a lot of the minutiae that you seem to think is so important. If he can fly a VOR airway, that's what counts. If he can fly a hold, who cares if he knows why the FAA decided to have us fly holds on the right in most cases?

Just like the doctor who uses Diprivan doesn't need to know HOW it works. All he needs to know is WHEN to use it and WHY to use it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top