TEB crash 5/15/17

[PeanuckleCRJ]

Ever seen Blazing Saddles? Somebody didn't harumph.
The FAA didn't care at all. Their arm was twisted by Congress who were pressured by negative publicity and a need to show they were DOING SOMETHING and HARUMPHING!!! The 1500 hr rule as a cure for Colgan was much like pulling back on the stick was a cure for the Air France stall. But, hey, they were DOING SOMETHING!!
Besides, that's not the question at hand. You're giving your opinion as am I, but the FACT remains both pilots had significantly more than 1500hrs. So WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE???
And now we see one of the ways aviation safety gets confused with job security and associated artificial barriers to entry. BTW- I've got no skin in that game.
I don't know any honest, reasonable, experienced pilot who would disagree that standardized experience obtained under the supervision and training of experienced captains is going to make for a much more robust pilot than is experience obtained bumping around solo solidifying fubar behavior and habits.

Sure they had more than 1500 hours when the wreck happened, but that is not the point... perhaps if the CA had spent more time teaching stalls instead of paying his way into an airline gig at Gulfstream with 250 hours he might have performed better.

I flew with Gulfstreamers at pinnacle... you had to watch them like hawks, particularly when they were new, compared to the others. Sure, 1500 hours isn't some magical thing nor is anywhere near black and white, but by in large, it does make a difference.

 

[Inverted]

Who cares when the hours were logged, before or after hire? The point is when the accident occurred both pilots had substantially greater than 1500 hours - many logged in "real" airplanes and "real" operations - and those hours didn't make one iota of difference. A few good hours are worth hundreds of bad ones.
But perhaps you are right. Another 1000+ solo hours bumping around in a 172 getting really good at getting bad might have changed the outcome.

Your point is valid until you look at the impecible safety record part 121 has accrued since 3407 and the 1500 hour rule.

 

[Deleted member 27505]

Sure they had more than 1500 hours when the wreck happened, but that is not the point... perhaps if the CA had spent more time teaching stalls instead of paying his way into an airline gig at Gulfstream with 250 hours he might have performed better.

I flew with Gulfstreamers at pinnacle... you had to watch them like hawks, particularly when they were new, compared to the others. Sure, 1500 hours isn't some magical thing nor is anywhere near black and white, but by in large, it does make a difference.

Ok, so you are saying that pilots should have more stall training and stall experience before coming to the airlines. And you're saying that pilots should have more teaching experience. I could not agree more. On both counts.

But teaching and stall practice are very different things from hours. The new rule says 1500 hours. Those hours are arbitrary and could easily be empty hours - or worse.

Heck, Jerry probably has 1500 hours.

 

[Deleted member 27505]

Your point is valid until you look at the impecible safety record part 121 has accrued since 3407 and the 1500 hour rule.

That logic smacks of Donald Trump saying he was responsible for the safest year in aviation history.

There really hasn't been enough time to validate a statement like that. And we don't know the effect of other, more effective changes that have and might have influenced that outcome. I would suspect it has a lot more to do with training changes, internal standardization and oversight than with hours before hire. The sim requirement for ATP? Maybe that helps.

A coincidence is not always a cause.

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

Ok, so you are saying that pilots should have more stall training and stall experience before coming to the airlines. And you're saying that pilots should have more teaching experience. I could not agree more. On both counts.

But teaching and stall practice are very different things from hours. The new rule says 1500 hours. Those hours are arbitrary and could easily be empty hours - or worse.

Heck, Jerry probably has 1500 hours.

You're missing the point, still. I acknowledged that it's not black and white, but you need to acknowledge that it is an improvement. It would have prevented both accident pilots from being hired by Colgan when they were.

Nothing will be a catch all, but this is another factor hopefully keeping another hole in the Swiss cheese slices from lining up. No one is saying 1500 hours is a catch all, either. Just the fact that it killed the puppy mills is a critical factor in improving safety. Remember, all regional accidents from Pinnacle 3701 (410 it dude) through Colgan 3407 included Gulfstreamers in the cockpit...

 

[Deleted member 27505]

You're missing the point, still. I acknowledged that it's not black and white, but you need to acknowledge that it is an improvement. It would have prevented both accident pilots from being hired by Colgan when they were.

Nothing will be a catch all, but this is another factor hopefully keeping another hole in the Swiss cheese slices from lining up. No one is saying 1500 hours is a catch all, either. Just the fact that it killed the puppy mills is a critical factor in improving safety. Remember, all regional accidents from Pinnacle 3701 (410 it dude) through Colgan 3407 included Gulfstreamers in the cockpit...

Now it's kill the Puppy Mills. I agree with that, too.
We're making progress here!
We've now got three specific, targeted suggestions for improvement. Those are very different from the scattershot, arbitrary requirement of 1500 hours that has no direct effect on anything. 1500 hours is like the TSA. It looks like something...
I'm not missing the point. My point is 1500 hrs, per se, is NO improvement. I don't see it as black and white. But I'm not willing to whitewash either. Particular problems require specific, effective solutions, not pablum and panaceas.

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

Now it's kill the Puppy Mills. I agree with that, too.
We're making progress here!
We've now got three specific, targeted suggestions for improvement. Those are very different from not scattershot, arbitrary requirements that have no direct effect on anything. 1500 hours is like the TSA. It looks like something...
No, I'm not missing the point. While I don't see it as black and white, I'm not willing to whitewash either. There are usually specific, effective solutions to any particular problem.

We agree it does something with some effectiveness. That was the entire idea... never did I whitewash it, either. It's a multi-faceted barrier.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

In my experience very few 135 shops do right seat flying (that is, when the F/O is flying he moves to the left seat). The rationale being, I suppose, that no one is going to be in the right seat for very long.

This is, of course, not always the case...

I'll counter that with if you're not comfortable in both seats in that sort of operation, that is a high threat.

*shrug*. I'm pretty comfortable in both seats, as I sit in the right one say 40% of the time. We just always fly from the left. I think this is partly "because that's how it's always been done" cultural memory issue, partly for the aforementioned "everyone is a Captain in training" reasons, and partly because 135s tend to still fly some airplanes which are old enough that the right seat isn't super-convenient for flying (for example a straight 400 Beechjet, which was intended to be a single pilot airplane...the right side instrumentation is 152-level).

I would be fine with this changing, just a datapoint.

Heh. They're typed, and your opinion has been noted.

I've always wondered in cases like these it seems many corporate guys are wearing 4 stripes in both seats, and PF flies left seat, switching seats for different roles. When crap hits the fan, who's really in charge? Yeah, I get that only one guy signed the release as the PIC so he is officially in charge. But lets face it, most of these operations are two CAs and when a CA is in the left seat as PF, the guy sitting next to him is an equal-type CA as well. That's why I like the airline 121 world. There is one distinct CA and one distinct FO, no one switches any seats, and you fly from your current seat for the leg you're as PF. IMO, that's how it should be.

Our SIC (PIC typed) only fly right seat until they upgrade to captain. They get to fly every other leg but we don’t trade seats.

Good, looks like some corporate gigs do operate like 121 airlines do in this regard.

 

[Deleted member 27505]

We agree it does something with some effectiveness. That was the entire idea... never did I whitewash it, either. It's a multi-faceted barrier.

Didn't mean you were whitewashing it. FAA and Congress did.

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

Didn't mean you were whitewashing it. FAA and Congress did.

Fair enough. either way, I think we're talking past each other... look back on my posts and I never claimed it was the end all.

 

[Boris Badenov]

When crap hits the fan, who's really in charge?

You're not wrong to have this concern. I haven't had the problem with other C/As...they seem to share the concern and do a good job of doing the job they have been given, but I have been told by at least one F/O that it's "my day to be PIC". One must be very clear about who wears the big hat (it's the same guy who wears the brown helmet if anything goes wrong). I don't think it's inherently unsafe to switch seats, but I do think it's an easy way for a too "nice guy" C/A to let it become unclear who is ultimately in charge, and that can obviously be detrimental to safety. I wouldn't mind doing it the airline way at all.

 

[Deleted member 27505]

Fair enough. either way, I think we're talking past each other... look back on my posts and I never claimed it was the end all.

I never claimed you saw it as an "end all". So, lol, yeah; maybe we are talking past each other.

But you did claim -initially - that 1500 hours helped improve things. Later, you backed off that and offered some good specific remedies.

I'm claiming that 1500 hours, per se, doesn't serve to improve anything. In fact, those 1500 hours could make for a worse pilot if the hours are not informed and guided toward a goal of quality - which they are not in any way required to be.

What does improve pilots are activities like the ones you mentioned: stall practice, CFI-ing, and killing diploma mills. That said, those activities have nothing to do with the 1500 hr requirement, per se. If the puppy mills got killed as an unintended consequence of 1.5K, that's a good thing. That said, the 1.5K also hurt many good flight schools.

Plans should be written to avoid unintended consequences to the greatest degree possible. Plans should be focused on the problem at hand. Plans should be designed to include activities focused to create well-defined, desired outcomes as efficiently and effectively as possible. Plans (or Bills) should not include duplicitous provisions to accommodate the self-serving or vested interests of special interest groups who might be involved the planning process; self-serving goals should not be masked in the camouflage of "doing the public good."

At best, the 1500 hr requirement was more or less a hair-on-fire reaction, a lot of sound and fury designed to signify action at pilot improvement; At worst it was a ninth-hole deal designed to signify Trojan Horse-like beneficence.

Some of the Task Force Member Entities who structured the barrier to entry benefited greatly from its structure in ways that had nothing to do with pilot improvement: a small handful of schools at the expense of many other equally good schools; pilots already 121 employed at the expense of those not.

I'm reasonably convinced you and I both want better pilots and better pilot training.

 

[KLB]

I've always wondered in cases like these it seems many corporate guys are wearing 4 stripes in both seats, and PF flies left seat, switching seats for different roles. When crap hits the fan, who's really in charge? Yeah, I get that only one guy signed the release as the PIC so he is officially in charge. But lets face it, most of these operations are two CAs and when a CA is in the left seat as PF, the guy sitting next to him is an equal-type CA as well. That's why I like the airline 121 world. There is one distinct CA and one distinct FO, no one switches any seats, and you fly from your current seat for the leg you're as PF. IMO, that's how it should be.

The person who the trip is assigned PIC on the paperwork is the one in charge. On captain on captain flights (if I'm assigned SIC) I do all duties and responsibilities defined in the GOM for SIC's. It defined pretty clear.

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

I never claimed you saw it as an "end all". So, lol, yeah; maybe we are talking past each other.

But you did claim -initially - that 1500 hours helped improve things. Later, you backed off that and offered some good specific remedies.

I'm claiming that 1500 hours, per se, doesn't serve to improve anything. In fact, those 1500 hours could make for a worse pilot if the hours are not informed and guided toward a goal of quality - which they are not in any way required to be.

What does improve pilots are activities like the ones you mentioned: stall practice, CFI-ing, and killing diploma mills. That said, those activities have nothing to do with the 1500 hr requirement, per se. If the puppy mills got killed as an unintended consequence of 1.5K, that's a good thing. That said, the 1.5K also hurt many good flight schools.

Plans should be written to avoid unintended consequences to the greatest degree possible. Plans should be focused on the problem at hand. Plans should be designed to include activities focused to create well-defined, desired outcomes as efficiently and effectively as possible. Plans (or Bills) should not include duplicitous provisions to accommodate the self-serving or vested interests of special interest groups who might be involved the planning process; self-serving goals should not be masked in the camouflage of "doing the public good."

At best, the 1500 hr requirement was more or less a hair-on-fire reaction, a lot of sound and fury designed to signify action at pilot improvement; At worst it was a ninth-hole deal designed to signify Trojan Horse-like beneficence.

Some of the Task Force Member Entities who structured the barrier to entry benefited greatly from its structure in ways that had nothing to do with pilot improvement: a small handful of schools at the expense of many other equally good schools; pilots already 121 employed at the expense of those not.

I'm reasonably convinced you and I both want better pilots and better pilot training.

I never backed off that it was an improvement. All those reasons cited are improvements over where it was, unintended or not.

The extended envelope training that has come as a result of the post 3407 fallout is particularly excellent.

 

[Deleted member 27505]

I never backed off that it was an improvement. All those reasons cited are improvements over where it was, unintended or not.

The extended envelope training that has come as a result of the post 3407 fallout is particularly excellent.

Seriously? I assume by "All those reasons" you mean stall practice and more time CFI-ing. How many ways can I put this to get it into your noggin?? "All those things" have NOTHING to do with the 1500 hr requirement. 1500 hrs does not cause those things to occur. Got it?

You backed off the concept that the 1500 hrs - and only the 1500 hrs - was an improvement. Now you are doing it again by talking about "extended training envelope", which again blurs the issue I'm talking about. To wit, the 1500 hr limit.

I'm talking about the 1500 hrs. Only the 1500 hrs. I'm not talking about training.

I hope I've clearly pointed out that we seem to agree that better training is a good thing. I've got no problem with training. Clear?

Are you saying the 1500 hours is to be viewed as an "extended training envelope"? Perhaps that's where the confusion is entering.

Let me put it quasi mathematically: 1500 hrs = 1500 hrs, 1500 hrs ≠ Training, 1500 hrs ≠ CFI-ing

 

[Boris Badenov]

Are you saying the 1500 hours is to be viewed as an "extended training envelope"?

That doesn't seem like such an outrageous claim to me. My intuition is that, all other things being equal, a pilot with 1500 hours of flight experience is going to be a little bit better than a pilot with 1400 hours of flight experience. That's with all other things being equal (type of training, type of flying, fitness, hand-eye coordination, etc etc etc). But that seems to be the only claim that Peanuckle is making, AFAICT. I might agree with you that it's not the most efficient or well-targeted way to improve the skill level of cockpit crew, but that is a separate conversation.

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

You backed off the concept that the 1500 hrs - and only the 1500 hrs - was an improvement. Now you are doing it again by talking about "extended training envelope", which again blurs the issue I'm talking about. To wit, the 1500 hr limit.

I'm talking about the 1500 hrs. Only the 1500 hrs. I'm not talking about training.

I hope I've clearly pointed out that we seem to agree that better training is a good thing. I've got no problem with training. Clear?

Are you saying the 1500 hours is to be viewed as an "extended training envelope"? Perhaps that's where the confusion is entering.

Let me put it quasi mathematically: 1500 hrs = 1500 hrs, 1500 hrs ≠ Training.

Nah, I was speaking of the EET separately. (Do you understand what EET is?)

1500 hours required is absolutely an improvement for the various reasons cited.

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

That doesn't seem like such an outrageous claim to me. My intuition is that, all other things being equal, a pilot with 1500 hours of flight experience is going to be a little bit better than a pilot with 1400 hours of flight experience. That's with all other things being equal (type of training, type of flying, fitness, hand-eye coordination, etc etc etc). But that seems to be the only claim that Peanuckle is making, AFAICT. I might agree with you that it's not the most efficient or well-targeted way to improve the skill level of cockpit crew, but that is a separate conversation.

Nailed it! Except that Extended Envelope Training which also came from the same fallout that brought us the 1500 hour rule is the requirement for simulators to be able to reproduce full stalls so we can realistically (sans all the Gs pulled) do extreme upsets. Previously, sims didn't have the data set beyond approaching the stall.

 

[dustoff17]

I've always wondered in cases like these it seems many corporate guys are wearing 4 stripes in both seats, and PF flies left seat, switching seats for different roles. When crap hits the fan, who's really in charge? Yeah, I get that only one guy signed the release as the PIC so he is officially in charge. But lets face it, most of these operations are two CAs and when a CA is in the left seat as PF, the guy sitting next to him is an equal-type CA as well. That's why I like the airline 121 world. There is one distinct CA and one distinct FO, no one switches any seats, and you fly from your current seat for the leg you're as PF. IMO, that's how it should be.......

That's how it is (at least in EVERY Part 91 and 135 operation I've been invlolved with). If both are CA qualified, the designated PIC IS the PIC regardless of who sits in which seat. That person is fully responsible for the aircraft and gets the blame for the outcome.

This is not unlike a 121 operation wherein the "FO" might have 20 years of experience in the airplane sitting next to the newest CA in the airline industry. Who is REALLY in charge of the plane vs. who will really be blamed?

This surface battle between 121, 135, and 91 operations cracks me up..........

 

[Deleted member 27505]

That doesn't seem like such an outrageous claim to me. My intuition is that, all other things being equal, a pilot with 1500 hours of flight experience is going to be a little bit better than a pilot with 1400 hours of flight experience. That's with all other things being equal (type of training, type of flying, fitness, hand-eye coordination, etc etc etc). But that seems to be the only claim that Peanuckle is making, AFAICT. I might agree with you that it's not the most efficient or well-targeted way to improve the skill level of cockpit crew, but that is a separate conversation.

I agree that it MIGHT be the case. But there is no requirement that it be so. That's all I'm saying.

Someone who used that time diligently and well to gain lots of training and quality flight hours is precisely the type of person who probably didn't need that time in the first place.

If it goes the other way and you get a person who does no training or teaching, you've got a very high chance of getting someone who has 1500 hrs practicing how to fly badly.

By most accounts, the Captain at Buffalo, was a lousy pilot. I don't think 10000 more hours would have fixed that.

And speaking of intuition, mine says the same - all other things being equal. But they never are equal, and we usually don't even know what those other things are.

Further speaking of intuition, I think the intuition of experienced Captains is one of the most accurate assessment tools in judging the quality of pilots. It's probably also the single most important factor in creating quality pilots. So, imo, it would be highly beneficial to get more newbies sitting next to more 'ol hands as early as possible.

I'm going to stop now... I hope.