Even with the above factors, hypothetically speaking, if nothing ends up being wrong with the airplane; then CFIT it will still be as primary causal factor. The above will be secondary factors.
UPS A300 down at Birmingham AL
- Thread starter ComplexHiAv8r
- Start date
Even with the above factors, hypothetically speaking, if nothing ends up being wrong with the airplane; then CFIT it will still be as primary causal factor. The above will be secondary factors.
Boris Badenov
Fortis Leader
As Peanuckle observes, there's very little question as to what happened in the Asiana case. We know very little about the UPS crash. I'm not ready to "blame the system", and if it turns out that they just screwed up the approach, I'll be first in line to dollop their portion on the blame on the crew (RIP). But the two cases don't, at this time, seem to me to be even remotely analogous. That can, of course, change.
Jafari RastaMan
Well-Known Member
Don, I am hoping this is the case. It just seemed that the two haven't been analyzed through the same objective lens. We all know that UPS is at the top of the food chain for most all members on here.
Well. As stated before there isn't a whole lot we know about this accident yet. Hell there were two pages trying to figure out if this approach could even be flown at night.
Asiana: pretty cut and dry. See the airport 10 miles away, Ho Lee •, land. They couldn't manage that one. Sounds like UPS had 4 seconds.
Cherokee_Cruiser
Bronteroc
She grossed 15,800 her first year at Colgan. She was hired Jan 2008 and the accident happened Feb 2009. She had barely touched 2nd year pay. 15,800 = all you can really afford is to live with family.
Cherokee_Cruiser
Bronteroc
No, they didn't force her. But they paid her a wage in which she only made 15,800 and had to live with her family because she simply couldn't afford anything else.
Cherokee_Cruiser
Bronteroc
They were landing at SFO when their Korean body time was approaching about 4am. Just because it's nice and sunny outside doesn't mean that's what your body is feeling. The Korean pilots were operating into their WOCL - window of circadian low.
Boris Badenov
Fortis Leader
No? You reckon she couldn't possibly have afforded to live with her parents washing dishes, flipping burgers, or taking out trash? You know, like the LIttle People do?
So again, how is that Colgans fault?
SpiceWeasel
Tre Kronor
Directly - wage offered.
Indirectly, harassment of flight crews for sick calls and not wanting to fly broken airplanes.
I'm amazed myself. The Colgan CAs I have flown with have been afraid to write certain things up because the culture was so bad before. We never even had it that bad at Pinnacle. I've had to write things up because these guys are still shell-shocked.
Pilot Fighter
Well-Known Member
I'm not commenting on compensation, but others have discovered crappy apartments and roommates instead of a continental commute.
She accepted the offer, willingly. I've worked for companies that pushed pilots around. You know what I did? I quit. Still not Colgans fault. She allowed herself to be pushed around. Place blame where blame is due. Colgan, as much as I hate to say it, was operating within the rules. I'm not trying to stick up for Colgan, as much as it may sound that way. What I am trying to do is make some realize that there are two kinds of pilots. Those who will put up with it, and those who won't. And know what you are getting.g into before you get into it. There is a reason it took me 5 years to finally decide to fly for a regional. I heard the horror stories, listened to both sides and formed my own opinion. It's not nearly as bad as many make of out to be. But the bottom line still remains. Your employer will get away with exactly what you let them get away with.
deadstick
Well-Known Member
This was posted in the RAH Q400 thread, and I thought it should be added here.
Additionally the NTSB concluded ice, actual ice, was not a factor. I still feel (just my opinion) that it did because the crew's actions were consistent with the pathetically inadequate icing training which was centered on the NASA video. The stall training and the icing training -- with all of the shortcomings -- was Colgan's fault for accepting that standard, the industry's fault for setting the standard, and the FAA's fault for accepting that standard.
As for the pay, that was not Colgan's fault.
Additionally the NTSB concluded ice, actual ice, was not a factor. I still feel (just my opinion) that it did because the crew's actions were consistent with the pathetically inadequate icing training which was centered on the NASA video. The stall training and the icing training -- with all of the shortcomings -- was Colgan's fault for accepting that standard, the industry's fault for setting the standard, and the FAA's fault for accepting that standard.
As for the pay, that was not Colgan's fault.
Bumblebee
Commodore
With all the talk about icing on that flight deck, I thought the same thing, but on a jump-seat with an FAA investigator he was adamant that a misdiagnosis of icing and the tailplane icing recovery techniques were not a factor. I found this odd and still question it in its entirety. She did return the aircraft to the previous configuration, but he did not reduce power (remember that he had not added power on the level off) which would have been one of the other steps in the recovery aside from pulling the yoke full aft. Also from what I understand the shaker and pusher won't engage in a tailplane stall unlike a wing stall.
He seemed to be half heartedly recovering from a conventional stall while she was focused on a tailplane stall...that along with the lack of cockpit discipline for the time under 10000...
deadstick
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the insight, Bumblebee.
Two points of discussion: 1) I thought he added power (not full) but then backed it off some. 2) I remember a discussion soon after the accident about the initial Q400 qual training. Was the training program rushed to get pilots online? Was that nuance of the stick shaker/pusher (won't activate for a tailplane stall) covered in training? Is the Q400 susceptible to a tailplane stall at all?
One little factiod or piece of minutia can go missed for years. Somebody can fly without realizing something is missing in the toolbox until it's too late. Back in my CFI days, I was doing a renter checkout with a guy (CPL/IR) from a puppymill. He insisted that his stall recovery training was to use full opposite aileron to pick up the wing. I stopped him twice -- explaining the use of the rudder. After we got another 2000 ft of altitude, we did it again, and I didn't stop him. I would like to think that was the last time he use the ailerons. I have no idea what I don't know, but that is why I follow discussions like this. You never know when you'll learn something.
Two points of discussion: 1) I thought he added power (not full) but then backed it off some. 2) I remember a discussion soon after the accident about the initial Q400 qual training. Was the training program rushed to get pilots online? Was that nuance of the stick shaker/pusher (won't activate for a tailplane stall) covered in training? Is the Q400 susceptible to a tailplane stall at all?
One little factiod or piece of minutia can go missed for years. Somebody can fly without realizing something is missing in the toolbox until it's too late. Back in my CFI days, I was doing a renter checkout with a guy (CPL/IR) from a puppymill. He insisted that his stall recovery training was to use full opposite aileron to pick up the wing. I stopped him twice -- explaining the use of the rudder. After we got another 2000 ft of altitude, we did it again, and I didn't stop him. I would like to think that was the last time he use the ailerons. I have no idea what I don't know, but that is why I follow discussions like this. You never know when you'll learn something.
Cherokee_Cruiser
Bronteroc
Your first year is probation. Speak up in terms of what you are implying, and you will be promptly fired. Watch 'Flying Cheap' to know just exactly how Colgan operated and what it forced its pilots to do. "Operating within the rules" what rules? They've willfully changed flight records to show a crew legal for a day just to get flights done, via showing a later checkin time than what was actual in order to make a full 16 hr legal day. That's also in that documentary. Stop defending Colgan. What airline do you fly for? "Those pilots who put up with it and those who don't." Try working at a non-union Colgan and see how long you last. You sound like you are drinking some KoolAid.
Cherokee_Cruiser
Bronteroc
Even the crappiest of apartments wont be doable with 15800 and most likely will be in a shady area. Besides, she's married with a husband. Not exactly the single pilot who can just up and out with roommates. Some of you have a serious case of Stockholm Syndrome. It's okay, give it time. You'll eventually see.
I had to rub my eyes as I don't think I read the humor in what's got to be meant as a sarcastic/humorous post.
It really sounds like, aww, nevermind.
Let me read that again.
Haha. Pencil whipping to make ones schedule legal. Uh, that is still a daily occurrence here at Pinnacle.