Remember 3407 Project Strikes a Chord

TUCKnTRUCK said:
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.
Click to expand...
What's the rational for hiring people with internal recommendations? I disagree with that practice too it seems almost like nepotism.

You can teach students the proper way to do things and what the FARs are and try to convince them that they should be followed but you don't really have any control over your students when you're not there. I certainly wouldn't send them to a checkride until they can do a short field as per the airplane flying handbook.
 
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...
If I was going to do interviews I would take the time to come up with a plan and some specific questions but I don't have that handy at the moment.

What I've seen is almost everyone who comes back from a colgan or other regional airline interview tells me it was easy as pie I even went and saw it first hand. And since then we've had a couple fatal crashes because of pilot error so I wonder if there might be a connection; that's all.

From what you guys are saying there might be more to these interviews than one might think after going to one. Don't know if I completely believe that or not.
 
tonyw said:
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.
Click to expand...
When you actually come up with a counterpoint to something I've said I will put more than 3 seconds of thought into my reply.
 
Killtron just stop. 99 out of 100 times the more experienced pilot is going to be a better candidate. Granted there may be times when this isn't the case but the percentages Im sure are overwhelmingly in favor of experience.

What the crew of 3407 did wasn't caused by being "bad" pilots. In my opinion you should stop pointing your finger solely at the CA and start to research the lack of training standards, lack of any functioning CRM, possibly a lack of experience (being so amazed by the ice), and fatigue. This, in my opinion, is where the answer lies in the Colgan 3407 accident.

I for one think that a low time CFI blasting a dead airline Captain is in poor taste. Also realize that when mourning families google "Remember 3407" they will now have the honor of coming here and reading about how you think the airlines should hire people and how the CA was a "BAD" pilot.

This thread is way off topic and most of it should be cut and pasted in another new thread with a different title. IMHO of course :rolleyes:
 
It's ok... he is going to come up with as many possible scenarios as he can.

look, you can sit here and try to bend it as much as possible to prove that it is possible for the low time guy to be the better candidate, and that is fine. at 700, 1000 hours, we all believe that we are pretty darn good. We would all sit and say, well gee... If I had been there, that never would have happened.

I've reached the point in my flying career, as have many here, that have lost enough friends to know that the thought process that leads to "I wouldn't have done that" gets people killed. Sure you can blame it on the pilots, but as I said before, you will not learn a single thing from the accident.

If you think that the only thing you have to look out for is airspeed after this accident, then you really haven't gotten down into the details. Wait untill you are on your 15th hour of duty, and 7th hour of flying. It's late, your tired. I hope you don't sit there and say,"3407 watch my airspeed" because you will probably miss something else.

There is a LOT that can, and will be learned from this accident when the NTSB findings come out. Untill then, we can all try to figure out what happened, and hopefully look at the way we operate on a daily basis. Maybe we can pick out little things we do, find the little changes we can make... to make us all safer pilots.

If you feel that you can not foster a positive, safe environment for your students, and expose them to flying in such a way that they will encourage safe practices throughout all of their flying... then I hope you never have kids either.
 
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...

TUCKnTRUCK said:
4 miles isn't it? 3000 to 17999 ft. I have no idea... Doesn't really get used much in 121 stuff.
Click to expand...


Actually, I think it's 8 miles. 4 on either side of the centerline. :dunno: But I barely remember some of that stuff as well. I would need a serious refresher if I was to return to GA instructing.
 
Cruise said:
Actually, I think it's 8 miles. 4 on either side of the centerline. :dunno: But I barely remember some of that stuff as well. I would need a serious refresher if I was to return to GA instructing.
Click to expand...

But... But... But... I'll just use my G1000 and my two handheld GPS's.
 
Cruise said:
Actually, I think it's 8 miles. 4 on either side of the centerline. :dunno: But I barely remember some of that stuff as well. I would need a serious refresher if I was to return to GA instructing.
Click to expand...

Sounds familiar. I can't fathom how unprofessional I am for not knowing this! :)
 
A Victor airway is 4 nm either side of centerline from the base of controlled airspace (class e) to 17,999. The highest of the base of the class E airspace can be is 14,500, but that is found out west.
 
SoCalAprch said:
Killtron just stop. 99 out of 100 times the more experienced pilot is going to be a better candidate. Granted there may be times when this isn't the case but the percentages Im sure are overwhelmingly in favor of experience.

What the crew of 3407 did wasn't caused by being "bad" pilots. In my opinion you should stop pointing your finger solely at the CA and start to research the lack of training standards, lack of any functioning CRM, possibly a lack of experience (being so amazed by the ice), and fatigue. This, in my opinion, is where the answer lies in the Colgan 3407 accident.

I for one think that a low time CFI blasting a dead airline Captain is in poor taste. Also realize that when mourning families google "Remember 3407" they will now have the honor of coming here and reading about how you think the airlines should hire people and how the CA was a "BAD" pilot.

This thread is way off topic and most of it should be cut and pasted in another new thread with a different title. IMHO of course :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I get that you want to put the blame entirely on management.
 
Killtron2000 said:
I get that you want to put the blame entirely on management.
Click to expand...

It is "management's" responsibility to provide a training program that exceeds the FARs. It is very disappointing to hear again and again in the NTSB hearing the excuse of "it met the minimums" or "everyone else did it that way". There is no outside agency to hold the airlines' feet to the fire unlike charter operations. If they had those sorts of requirements, there would be a lot better potential for experienced pilots without violations.

Some PIC/SIC requirements said:
PIC Turbojet/Turboprop
Airman Certificate: FAA ATP
Type Rating: Appropriate type rating
Medical Certificate: FAA 1st Class
Total Time in All Aircraft: 4,000 hrs 3,000 hrs as PIC
Total Time in Category: 4,000 hrs 3,000 hrs as PIC
Total Multi-engine Time: 3,000 hrs 2,000 hrs as PIC
Time in Type: 200 hrs with 100 hrs as PIC
Actual Instrument Time: 250 hrs as PIC
Category and Class last 365 days: 300 hrs
Category and Class last 90 days: 75 hrs
FAA Sanctions last 5 years: None
Accidents/Incidents last 5 years: None

SIC Turbojet/Turboprop
Airman Certificate: FAA Commercial Instrument
Type Rating: Appropriate type rating (if
flying international)
Medical Certificate: FAA 1st Class
Total Time in All Aircraft: 2,000 hrs/1,500 hrs
Total Time in Category: 1,500 hrs/1,000 hrs
Total Multi-engine Time: 1,500 hrs/1,000 hrs
Time in Type: 50 hrs
Actual Instrument Time: 75 hrs
Category and Class last 365 days: 200 hrs
Category and Class last 90 days: 50 hrs
FAA Sanctions last 5 years: None
Accidents/Incidents last 5 years: None
Click to expand...

It is management's responsibility to hire people with the appropriate experience levels. Anyone of any experience level can apply for a job, but they must make the determination. If the pay rate and work rules are not on par for an experienced crew, then they must hire lower time folks... but they need to answer for why they feel that paying only enough to hire a guy with a wet commercial and an ambition to live off of Ramen noodles is in the best interest of their clientele.
 
Killtron2000 said:
I get that you want to put the blame entirely on management.
Click to expand...

Im not placing the blame on management but I believe that with better management practices/regulations this accident could have been prevented. Thats like you going into your fllight school and having an engine failure and balling it up and killing yourself and me coming on here blasting how you screwed up your procedures when you would have never been in that position if it weren't for the shoddy maintenace that your flight school approved and paid for. Sure there were mistakes made but the root of the problem is much deeper than a sub par crew or the hiring practices of the airlines.


Also with your experience, or lack thereof, you are way out of your element,its like a private pilot telling you how they could do better or how you should be doing things. Once you get to the 121 world you will realize how quick your whole outlook changes. I was right there with you before I got into it. Also remember that as a flight instructor if the wind is blowing too hard or it isn't clear and a million you can just call off and stay home and drink beers. We can't do that, we are pushed to no end about on time and completion factor in some of the crappiest weather mother nature can throw at us. Without proper FAA regulations and solid training programs that weed out/brings up to speed underperforming pilots these will continue to happen. If management keeps having the attitude of reaching the bare minimums things won't get better. Don't disrespect a dead flight crew when you have no idea what they were going through. :cool:
 
SoCalAprch said:
Im not placing the blame on management but I believe that with better management practices/regulations this accident could have been prevented. Thats like you going into your fllight school and having an engine failure and balling it up and killing yourself and me coming on here blasting how you screwed up your procedures when you would have never been in that position if it weren't for the shoddy maintenace that your flight school approved and paid for. Sure there were mistakes made but the root of the problem is much deeper than a sub par crew or the hiring practices of the airlines.


Also with your experience, or lack thereof, you are way out of your element,its like a private pilot telling you how they could do better or how you should be doing things. Once you get to the 121 world you will realize how quick your whole outlook changes. I was right there with you before I got into it. Also remember that as a flight instructor if the wind is blowing too hard or it isn't clear and a million you can just call off and stay home and drink beers. We can't do that, we are pushed to no end about on time and completion factor in some of the crappiest weather mother nature can throw at us. Without proper FAA regulations and solid training programs that weed out/brings up to speed underperforming pilots these will continue to happen. If management keeps having the attitude of reaching the bare minimums things won't get better. Don't disrespect a dead flight crew when you have no idea what they were going through. :cool:
Click to expand...

So far there is no reason to think this was caused by maintenance. No one has given a convincing argument for sub par training either other than just stating they think it was poor and it wasn't done in-house. I think it's also quite a stretch from there to say management caused this accident.

I have been a commercial pilot too maybe not in any 121 turbine equipment but 120 knots can kill you just as well as .8 mach. I know there is pressure to go regardless of the weather or the airplanes condition but do really think in this situation the captain wasn't comfortable with making this flight?
 
Well, if you're doing .80 5 miles out from the marker, you'd better be planning on turning on the smoke and doing an unrestricted climb in front of spectators, or planning on going around!
 
cencal83406 said:
It is "management's" responsibility to provide a training program that exceeds the FARs. It is very disappointing to hear again and again in the NTSB hearing the excuse of "it met the minimums" or "everyone else did it that way". There is no outside agency to hold the airlines' feet to the fire unlike charter operations. If they had those sorts of requirements, there would be a lot better potential for experienced pilots without violations.



It is management's responsibility to hire people with the appropriate experience levels. Anyone of any experience level can apply for a job, but they must make the determination. If the pay rate and work rules are not on par for an experienced crew, then they must hire lower time folks... but they need to answer for why they feel that paying only enough to hire a guy with a wet commercial and an ambition to live off of Ramen noodles is in the best interest of their clientele.
Click to expand...

This wasn't a "wet commercial" crew in this case. Going off of hours logged and seniority only guarantees the system is un-biased and there is a lot to be said for that but to think there aren't FO's who would be better to upgrade than the guys who just happened to be senior enough is preposterous.
 
Doug Taylor said:
Well, if you're doing .80 5 miles out from the marker, you'd better be planning on turning on the smoke and doing an unrestricted climb in front of spectators, or planning on going around!
Click to expand...
Point was you can still die from mistakes made flying a small airplane.
 
When are we going to stop arguing these petty, insignificant technicalities and start spreading around the word for R3407? So the majority of things i've seen in this thread is arguing and nowhere near enough posts saying "Gee Fire, I will send this website to all my pilot friends so they can sign the guestbook to show some support!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top