Update on 3407

Status
Not open for further replies.
Seggy said:
It has been told to me that in the certification of the 727, they had to super stall the thing. In order to get out of it, they put a parachute on the tail to actually stop the stall, then detached it, and then flew out of it.
Click to expand...



There was an article in FedEx's safety magazine about how an FAA pilot put the 727 into a deep stall, and luckily the sharp-skilled Boeing test pilot was able to recover. Very interesting read.
 
C150J said:
I find this point interesting. How do we, as an industry, combat against this?
Click to expand...

We spent a great deal of time trying to come up with a solution at CAST. In the end, (and this is several years ago), FAA and ATA felt it was not one that they could do much about, and formally requested the participating unions (ALPA, APA, SWAPA, IPA, FPA) to take it as an action item. I think that's where the TRB concept came from, but I am not sure that we have done all that much about it as an industry.
 
The WSJ article looks like a classic character assassination attempt by releasing leaked information prior to the actual hearing. My best educated guess this information was leaked by an "un-named" source. We've all failed checkrides, be it with the FAA or within a 141 program. The public will only see that Capt. Renslow "failed" 5 previous checkrides. I was just watching FOX news and the lead in to the story was such. They WILL blame the pilots, not the airline, nor the manufacturer or the FAA. Who has the deepest pockets? Certainly not the pilots, thus this will be a scramble by all interested parties to assign blame to those who can't defend themselves. Will anything change as a result of the hearings? Pilot fatigue will be a contributing factor, but ultimately pilot error will be the final cause. Doubtful any changes will be made to pilot work schedules, and work rules.
 
C150J said:
DrunkenBeagle - I took seven part 61 checkrides prior to the 121 world, and have been lucky. There are those that have and those that will fail rides. If only the public were to see how many high-profile attorneys and politicians failed their bar exam the first time.
Click to expand...

Agreed, doesn't mean much out of context. But then again, flipping through my own logbook I count 20+ endorsements from different CFIs/DPEs (BFRs/IPCs/etc), and count zero instances of not being signed off for anything. If a quarter of those were not satisfactory, I would have to take a pretty hard look at why that was the case.

Personally, I've been lucky to have good CFIs that made sure I knew my stuff before signing me off for anything (my opinion).
 
Well, if it's true that he failed 5 rides it's not character assassination. It's the truth. However, we all know that busting a CSEL add-on checkride because he came up 5 feet short on a power off 180 (or whatever it was that happened) does not have any real bearing on this accident. That news is sensational to those who don't know the industry, therefore the media is going after this angle. Hopefully the accident investigation will move past whatever pilot error was made into the why...inadequate training, inadequate rest, etc.
 
wwuaviator said:
The WSJ article looks like a classic character assassination attempt by releasing leaked information prior to the actual hearing.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't expect anyone to go on the record. "people familiar with the matter" generally means either an outside lawyer or an outside PR firm, or possibly several "deep background" sources (those that will confirm facts, but not on the record.) The same article also mentions the FO having a "clean" record and ~800 hours in type.

Everyone involved always wants pilot error to be ruled the cause, nothing new there. In this case, I think training will be the bigger issue though.
 
Character assassination might not have been the best choice of words, as I personally believe the crew allowed the airplane to slow to a dangerously slow airspeed in icing conditions. Speed is life we are always taught. As a CFI i've always taught my students to never allow the airplane to get in a position to stall in the first place. Were they distracted because of the un-sterile cockpit banter while flying the approach? Did the airplane, because of the ice build up, slow to the stall speed when gear and flaps were lowered, thus inducing the stall? More is at play here than just three GA failed checks, and two at Colgan. I'm annoyed the drive by media is playing it as such. :banghead:
 
tonyw said:
Sounds like a good book. I'll have to check it out. I won't ever need it, but it sounds fascinating.
Click to expand...

Too bad you won't read it. If the AA 587 crew had read it they might not have believed you can't break a vertical stab below Va.

It should be required reading, it's about the best book out there for those that fly large swept wing transports.
 
drunkenbeagle said:
Personally, I've been lucky to have good CFIs that made sure I knew my stuff before signing me off for anything (my opinion).
Click to expand...

Hmmm..... shouldn't you personally know that you "know your stuff" before telling the CFI you're ready, rather than relying solely on his or her judgement for a signoff?
 
Heard this on the news this morning, and I was in my "give me a break" mode when it came to the sensationaized journalism. IMO, the big boys over at corporate know they're about to get ROASTED for duty/rest issues and training holes. Hey, wouldn't be the first time for the Pinnacle boys. Gaps in training were found after 3701 and the TVC overrun. As a result, they leak some info to crucify the pilots in the court of public opinion. Now, you've got every Joe Average saying "Well, hell. He dun flunked all do's tests. Why wuz he up der in the first place?"

Well, if you went for your CFI-A, I think a lot of us on here will agree that was a TOUGH checkride. If you went for your CFI-A with the Ft Worth FSDO with a certain inspector, you were gonna bust....twice. The pass rate at the regional training level actual has as much to do with the instructors and the training program as it does with the pilots. Garbage in, garbage out. We've had people comment on here saying "Why did the CFI sign him off if he wasn't ready?" Well, why was he allowed to continue with his FO and CA checkrides for the same reason? My upgrade class? At least 3 guys flunked their first time....including my sim partner. I'd have no problems putting my wife and kid on a plane with any of those guys, though.

There's simply not enough info on the "whys" of the busts to crucify anyone. At least, that's the case if you're in the know.....
 
Man, almost like they tailor made their comments for the press. Or maybe they were tailored after the fact...

Honestly, in seven minutes all they did was talk about how they have relatively low experience and are scared to death of ice and then crash? SRSLY?

In the immortal words of Gen. Buck Turgidson, "I smell a big fat commie rat".
 
having trouble accessing anything on the NTSB website right now...
 
Roger said:
having trouble accessing anything on the NTSB website right now...
Click to expand...

Just refresh if the page won't load. I had to do that several times, but got it to work. Something tells me there are a lot of people interested in the hearing.
 
I just read it too. I didn't realize FA announcements and communications with the flightdeck would be on it. Very sad and eerie, indeed. :(
 
Qgar said:
I just read it too. I didn't realize FA announcements and communications with the flightdeck would be on it. Very sad and eerie, indeed. :(
Click to expand...

Yeah it records all that.

I remember reading the transcript from 4184.... it hits me like a brick every time because having spent so much time on that [type of] plane I can see in my mind everything going on as the conversations progress.
 
ctab5060X said:
Just refresh if the page won't load. I had to do that several times, but got it to work. Something tells me there are a lot of people interested in the hearing.
Click to expand...
I keep trying. Evidently my internets at work are teh suxorz.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top