TEB crash 5/15/17

Investigation interviews shed some light on the operation. Looks like the crew dynamics was a disaster. At the same time the FO struggled with the most basic stuff like talking on the radios. He was hired as a SIC-0 which means "No touching the controls!" So he ended up logging 100 hours in the Lear but had no idea how to start the engines and almost failed recurrent. Is stuff like this typical in 135 world?

Full text here:
https://dms.ntsb.gov/public/60000-60499/60373/611461.pdf
 
hammerhat said:
Investigation interviews shed some light on the operation. Looks like the crew dynamics was a disaster. At the same time the FO struggled with the most basic stuff like talking on the radios. He was hired as a SIC-0 which means "No touching the controls!" So he ended up logging 100 hours in the Lear but had no idea how to start the engines and almost failed recurrent. Is stuff like this typical in 135 world?

Full text here:
https://dms.ntsb.gov/public/60000-60499/60373/611461.pdf
Click to expand...

Unfortunately it’s more common than many care to admit.
 
Murdoughnut said:
Did you learn something from it? Can't offend the dead.
Click to expand...

Personally, had I read it, I wouldn't learn anything that I couldn't learn from reading the final report from the NTSB, which I am sure will include a synopsis.

I'm sure the pilots had relatives. All it does is to drag a crew's final words through the mud to satisfy the morbid curiosity of the buzzards in the peanut gallery.

Don't get me wrong...I think highly of the NTSB, but I've been through AI school...the way the Canadian's handle this issue is MUCH better with a far better sensibility.
 
hammerhat said:
Investigation interviews shed some light on the operation. Looks like the crew dynamics was a disaster. At the same time the FO struggled with the most basic stuff like talking on the radios. He was hired as a SIC-0 which means "No touching the controls!" So he ended up logging 100 hours in the Lear but had no idea how to start the engines and almost failed recurrent. Is stuff like this typical in 135 world?

Full text here:
https://dms.ntsb.gov/public/60000-60499/60373/611461.pdf
Click to expand...

The low tier and low paying operators are a real problem. They skirt the rules and hire warm bodies instead of qualified and competent individuals.
 
Richman said:
Personally, had I read it, I wouldn't learn anything that I couldn't learn from reading the final report from the NTSB, which I am sure will include a synopsis.

I'm sure the pilots had relatives. All it does is to drag a crew's final words through the mud to satisfy the morbid curiosity of the buzzards in the peanut gallery.

Don't get me wrong...I think highly of the NTSB, but I've been through AI school...the way the Canadian's handle this issue is MUCH better with a far better sensibility.
Click to expand...

Idk, I think this illustrates an example of being behind the airplane (and everything else) almost from the very beginning in a much better way than just a blurb saying "crew was behind the plane" etc.
 
Reads like an instructor and a student pilot, littered with expletives (all the # symbols). Like the accident at Akron Fulton, this one reads yet again of a shady operator hiring questionable people with CRM dynamics that simply don't work. The go around should have happened much sooner. When the CA kept on counseling the FO, at some point you gotta just call quits. In the major airline world, we're lucky we don't need to coach someone like that. If it's getting that bad, the best answer is usually go around and try again. The absolute latest point for a go around should have been when the FO basically lost it and handed the control to the CA. The CA becomes PF in a time/situation where it is definitely not optimal. CA seems to have gotten into tunnel vision, the FO clearly called out airspeed numerous times and the stall, but did nothing - he had already relinquished control and was along for the ride.

I don't think some CAs get that when you coach/counsel someone that much, your CRM dynamic is going to change to the point the FO just assumes you are right, and you know what you are doing, so when things go wrong, the best response you're going to get is just some verbal callouts from the FO. He'll sit back and be along for the ride as you (the CA) lose control or situation awareness and end up crashing.
 
I agree with @Richman

While the CVR transcripts are somewhat interesting from a bit of a macabre standpoint, they don't reveal anything that can't be explained through a detailed narrative, and instead paint the pilots in a very singular light that doesn't encompass anything outside of that specific event.

This is the TSB report from a friends accident a couple years ago for anybody that hasn't see a Canadian report before. I think it does a fine job of painting an accurate picture without revealing the word for word dialogue of the event. I feel like it's a more respectful representation of the pilots as individuals anyway.

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/2016/a16a0032/a16a0032.asp
 
hammerhat said:
Investigation interviews shed some light on the operation. Looks like the crew dynamics was a disaster. At the same time the FO struggled with the most basic stuff like talking on the radios. He was hired as a SIC-0 which means "No touching the controls!" So he ended up logging 100 hours in the Lear but had no idea how to start the engines and almost failed recurrent. Is stuff like this typical in 135 world?

Full text here:
https://dms.ntsb.gov/public/60000-60499/60373/611461.pdf
Click to expand...

Not really typical, but common.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top