Details about the near-crash in Germany

[Rez O. Lewshun]

I don't expect them to do this....they will probably fail with this issue too....

Interesting.... why is ALPA obligated or responsible for this issue...

This isn't an ALPA issue.. this is a personal issue of yours and others...

Are you referring to the RJDC lawsuit? It has already been settled....Why are you using it as an excuse...Surely you can come up with a better one....

MPL is nothing new... ALPA has been aware of it for years.. but the ALPA lawyers were working your RJDC lawsuit against ALPA instead of the MPL issue...

Yes I can.....Press releases to the media regarding the experience level of new pilots and passing this information along to the major aviation insurance companies along with a sit down with them to address the potential issue it may cause with regards to safety.....In addition, I would recommend a full court press opposing the MPL based on safety issues....

Why would the public care? All they want is a cheap ticket... Many pilots love to declare that thier sloppy uniforms are of no concern to the public.. all they care about is ticket price.... but suddenly they care about MPL?

The insurance companies? I am sure consultants were used before MPL became real... C'mon joe can you do better...

Safety... obvious you know nothing... you just like the MPL issues cause it is another platform to hate ALPA.... as usual.. your hate and bitter is personal, blind and one sided..

Non US carriers have been doing "MPL style" ab initio programs for years... there have been low time pilots in widebodies for years... and flying into the US...

Get a new hobby Joe.... for you are not even good at your hating ALPA hobby...

 

[JoeMerchant]

So it was a safety issue to have a pilot fly the day after his 60th birthday, but it isn't a safety issue to have someone in the cockpit with hardly any experience or flight time? You have a strange view of safety....

Keep up your rhetoric Rez.....You are helping to make ALPA more irrelevant every day......

I don't expect ALPA to do anything about this issue or any other......I expect more excuses and more division within the ranks....Prove me wrong O Great ALPA cheerleader......

 

[Amish RakeFight]

You've obviously never tried to fly a 20-series Lear at 300 hours total time coming straight out of a Duchess and/or 172.

Flying the CRJ is like flying a Baron compared to flying the Lear. The quote from AbleOne is most accurate: "Razor sharp pitch control, split-second decision-making". It's not that it's a hard airplane to fly, it's that it can get away from even a seasoned pilot if your attention is diverted for even 2 seconds.

Speaking of the Lear, I knew a guy with 9K (and over 1K in a Lear, including a type) put one through a few homes in CT one early morning.

The lear is a slippery plane.

 

[Lear70]

Speaking of the Lear, I knew a guy with 9K (and over 1K in a Lear, including a type) put one through a few homes in CT one early morning.

The lear is a slippery plane.

N135PT, Serial Number 505, a Lear 35 with 36 mods including single-point refueling port, EFIS, and FMS, out of FRG.

I have about 135 hours in that aircraft; flew it for Air East as a contract CA for about a year in 2000 and early 2001. Flew with the F/O many times, older guy, nicest guy in the world...

Never met the CA, he was hired after I left. They never did figure out exactly what happened. 2nd go-around, aircraft made the climbing turn, continued rolling, went inverted, clipped an apartment building and went into the water. Pure luck they didn't hit the apartment building dead-on; it was about 6:40 in the morning, full of people.

Very sad.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

So it was a safety issue to have a pilot fly the day after his 60th birthday, but it isn't a safety issue to have someone in the cockpit with hardly any experience or flight time? You have a strange view of safety........

two seperate issues... come back when you are educated

 

[Lear70]

Interesting.... why is ALPA obligated or responsible for this issue...

This isn't an ALPA issue.. this is a personal issue of yours and others...

Why is ALPA obligated?

Surely you jest...

Lower flight time = younger pilots = more readily acceptable of pittance wages and treatment = even FEWER people willing to volunteer and get involved in their careers.

If you want involved people, you need older, more educated, more experienced individuals who will demand better pay and treatment. The two go hand in hand. I can't believe you don't see that.

How many "others" does it have to be before ALPA will consider it an issue? Oh that's right, just the senior guys in control of the individual MEC's...

MPL is nothing new... ALPA has been aware of it for years.. but the ALPA lawyers were working your RJDC lawsuit against ALPA instead of the MPL issue...

Cheap shot, and untrue. ALPA hasn't even explored the possibilities of the damage the MPL will do to the future of entry-level pilots.

The insurance companies? I am sure consultants were used before MPL became real... C'mon joe can you do better...

The only thing you've said tonight that I agree with. The airlines wouldn't make a move without clearing it with their insurance companies. It's all about risk management, and with airline safety doing nothing but trending upwards as technology makes things *nearly* idiot-proof (barring obscenely bad judgment), they don't see the problem and, likely, won't see it until there's a major accident that sites the low-experience of the flight crew as a major contributing factor.

Safety... obvious you know nothing... you just like the MPL issues cause it is another platform to hate ALPA.... as usual.. your hate and bitter is personal, blind and one sided..

So you're saying that a 250-hour pilot with an MPL is perfectly safe doing this 60-kt gusty crosswind landing?

Ohhh, why didn't you say so in the first place?

 

[JoeMerchant]

two seperate issues... come back when you are educated

I am far more educated on the age 60 issue than most and now the full history going back to American and how initially it was management that wanted it and ALPA that opposed it.....How ALPA reversed this position when the A plans came about and how ALPA reversed it's reversal after the A plans dissapeared....

ALPA's argument for keeping age 60 was that it was dangerous....Do you not agree? Why are they "separate" issues? Are you implying that ALPA was only using safety as an excuse to continue supporting age 60? Was it a safety issue or not?

If your going to backpeddle....your going to have to do better than this.....

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Why is ALPA obligated?

Surely you jest...

Lower flight time = younger pilots = more readily acceptable of pittance wages and treatment = even FEWER people willing to volunteer and get involved in their careers.

If you want involved people, you need older, more educated, more experienced individuals who will demand better pay and treatment. The two go hand in hand. I can't believe you don't see that.

How many "others" does it have to be before ALPA will consider it an issue? Oh that's right, just the senior guys in control of the individual MEC's...

you got it.... now...realistically.... what can ALPA do about it... when it is coming down internationally....??? Also, keep in mind, that you'd rather have the NPA than ALPA... so I'll ask another question... what can the NPA do about it?

Cheap shot, and untrue. ALPA hasn't even explored the possibilities of the damage the MPL will do to the future of entry-level pilots.

It hasn't? How do you know?

The only thing you've said tonight that I agree with. The airlines wouldn't make a move without clearing it with their insurance companies. It's all about risk management, and with airline safety doing nothing but trending upwards as technology makes things *nearly* idiot-proof (barring obscenely bad judgment), they don't see the problem and, likely, won't see it until there's a major accident that sites the low-experience of the flight crew as a major contributing factor.


So you're saying that a 250-hour pilot with an MPL is perfectly safe doing this 60-kt gusty crosswind landing?

Safe by whos standards? That is like asking the company manpower manager and a pilot what adequate staffing is....

A 250 hour MPL pilot is safe and legal... signed off by ICAO, the FAA, JAA etc....

So what's is your problem? IOW, your problem with MPL and ICAO/FAA/JAA are two different concepts.. just like staffing....


You want ALPA to fix the MPL cause it will drive down wages... well that is exactly what US management wants. Guess who has all the money and power... labor or Corp America... guess who is going to get what they want...

The question isn't.... if cabatoge is coming... it will be here... labor cannot stop market forces... but influence is something else....

Too many guys like Joe Merchant, want ALPA to be something it is not.. (even though they are free market captialist, they want ALPA to be socialist and install artifical market buffers...)

 

[Lear70]

Those are cohesive and valid arguments.

What *CAN* ALPA do about it. First, I'll take a cheap shot:

1. Quit using the money your members are sending your for ALPA-PAC lobbying for something that the majority of them have voted AGAINST (age 65) and put it to use lobbying against something that they DO want (restrictions on cabotage). (Remember, I supported age 65 because it was arbitrary and unfair, but I don't agree with ALPA using ALPA-PAC funds to go against the majority of the membership - that's unethical in my eyes).

2. As I said earlier, set National Minimums on all contracts moving forward. You talk about "artificial market buffers" as if it's something ALPA doesn't do, but it DOES... it specifically mandates with each carrier, through individual contracts, how much they must pay for pilots, even when the market fluctuates and they could likely hire pilots much cheaper. That's not market capitalism, that's an artificial buffer.

Lastly, company HR officials and pilots could likely agree that a company is adequately staffed when there are enough pilots to cover all trips given the established schedule and a certain number of days off, vacations, sick calls, etc; no more, no less. What will vary is what that number of acceptable days off is, whether it's due to illness, how many days off are acceptable, etc.

Similarly, I believe most educated people would agree that they would not want a freshly-signed-off MPL pilot at the controls if the CA were to have a coronary descending to land into a field in Germany where the winds were gusting to 60 kts, especially after watching that video. What will vary is how much experience a person thinks is "adequate"... 1,000 hours? 1,500 hours (ATP Mins)? 250 hours ain't it... 500 likely isn't either, your mileage may vary.

It's not two separate concepts; whether it's right to have an MPL or whether the FAA is right to allow them to fly here. We all understand as aviation professionals that the safety is "questionable", so why are we standing around discussing it?

I don't understand what you're actually debating this point about... do you actually agree that the MPL and the pilots who are flying on them here is a GOOD thing?

 

[jonjuan]

Poor airmanship-unbelievable!!!

N135PT, Serial Number 505, a Lear 35 with 36 mods including single-point refueling port, EFIS, and FMS, out of FRG.

I have about 135 hours in that aircraft; flew it for Air East as a contract CA for about a year in 2000 and early 2001. Flew with the F/O many times, older guy, nicest guy in the world...

Never met the CA, he was hired after I left. They never did figure out exactly what happened. 2nd go-around, aircraft made the climbing turn, continued rolling, went inverted, clipped an apartment building and went into the water. Pure luck they didn't hit the apartment building dead-on; it was about 6:40 in the morning, full of people.

Very sad.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20030814X01339&key=1

2 pax on board...
About 5 miles west of the airport, the flightcrew advised the approach controller that they had visual contact with the airport, canceled their IFR clearance, and proceeded under visual flight rules. A witness heard the airplane approach from the east, and observed the airplane at a height consistent with the approach minimums for the VOR approach. The airplane continued over the runway, and entered a "tight" downwind. The witness lost visual contact with the airplane due to it "skimming" into or behind clouds. The airplane reappeared from the clouds at an altitude of about 200 feet above the ground on a base leg. As it overshot the extended centerline for the runway, the bank angle increased to about 90-degrees. The airplane then descended out of view. The witness described the weather to the north and northeast of the airport, as poor visibility with "scuddy" clouds. According to CVR and FDR data, about 1.5 miles from the runway with the first officer at the controls, and south of the extended runway centerline, the airplane turned left, and then back toward the right. During that portion of the flight, the first officer stated, "what happens if we break out, pray tell." The captain replied, "uh, I don't see it on the left side it's gonna be a problem." When the airplane was about 1/8-mile south of the runway threshold, the first officer relinquished the controls to the captain. The captain then made an approximate 60-degree heading change to the right back toward the runway. The airplane crossed over the runway at an altitude of 200 feet, and began a left turn towards the center of the airport. During the turn, the first officer set the flaps to 20 degrees. The airplane reentered a left downwind, about 1,100 feet south of the runway, at an altitude of 400 feet. As the airplane turned onto the base leg, the captain called for "flaps twenty," and the first officer replied, "flaps twenty coming in." The CVR recorded the sound of a click, followed by the sound of a trim-in-motion clicker. The trim-in-motion audio clicker system would not sound if the flaps were positioned beyond 3 degrees. About 31 seconds later, the CVR recorded a sound similar to a stick pusher stall warning tone. The airplane impacted a rooftop of a residential home about 1/4-mile northeast of the approach end of the runway, struck trees, a second residential home, a second line of trees, a third residential home, and came to rest in a river. Examination of the wreckage revealed the captain's airspeed indicator reference bug was set to 144 knots, and the first officer's was set to 124 knots. The flap selector switch was observed in the "UP" position. A review of the Airplane Flight Manual revealed the stall speeds for flap positions of 0 and 8 degrees, and a bank angle of 60 degrees, were 164 and 148 knots respectfully. There were no charts available to calculate stall speeds for level coordinated turns in excess of 60 degrees. The flightcrew was trained to apply procedures set forth by the airplane's Technical Manual, which stated, "…The PF (Pilot Flying) will call for flap and gear extension and retraction. The PNF (Pilot not flying) will normally actuate the landing gear. The PNF will respond by checking appropriate airspeed, repeating the flap or gear setting called for, and placing the lever in the requested position... The PNF should always verify that the requested setting is reasonable and appropriate for the phase of flighty and speed/weight combination."
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
The first officer's inadvertent retraction of the flaps during the low altitude maneuvering, which resulted in the inadvertent stall and subsequent in-flight collision with a residential home. Factors in the accident were the captain's decision to perform a low altitude maneuver using excessive bank angle, the flight crews inadequate coordination, and low clouds surrounding the airport.

"Speaking of the Lear, I knew a guy with 9K (and over 1K in a Lear, including a type) put one through a few homes in CT one early morning.

The lear is a slippery plane."

Nope-sounds like the PIC was slippery.

 

[JoeMerchant]

A 250 hour MPL pilot is safe and legal... signed off by ICAO, the FAA, JAA etc....

Your kidding right?

Too many guys like Joe Merchant, want ALPA to be something it is not.. (even though they are free market captialist, they want ALPA to be socialist and install artifical market buffers...)

Either install them so we don't have to compete with each other, or get out of my way and allow me to compete with you for your job.....Either way, but make up your mind....

Don't tell me I can't compete for your job while you tell me we are in this together and we need to pull on the same end of the rope all the while you or one of my fellow "brothers" tries to undercut me or take my job....That dog won't hunt....

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Those are cohesive and valid arguments.

What *CAN* ALPA do about it. First, I'll take a cheap shot:

1. Quit using the money your members are sending your for ALPA-PAC lobbying for something that the majority of them have voted AGAINST (age 65) and put it to use lobbying against something that they DO want (restrictions on cabotage). (Remember, I supported age 65 because it was arbitrary and unfair, but I don't agree with ALPA using ALPA-PAC funds to go against the majority of the membership - that's unethical in my eyes).

only 15% of ALPA members give to the PAC... nothing majority about it...

2. As I said earlier, set National Minimums on all contracts moving forward. You talk about "artificial market buffers" as if it's something ALPA doesn't do, but it DOES... it specifically mandates with each carrier, through individual contracts, how much they must pay for pilots, even when the market fluctuates and they could likely hire pilots much cheaper. That's not market capitalism, that's an artificial buffer.

I don't agree...but HOW do you set National Minimums... and what are you willing to give up to get them? National Maximums? So the Senior guys take a hit so the junior guys can have a minimum?

Lastly, company HR officials and pilots could likely agree that a company is adequately staffed when there are enough pilots to cover all trips given the established schedule and a certain number of days off, vacations, sick calls, etc; no more, no less. What will vary is what that number of acceptable days off is, whether it's due to illness, how many days off are acceptable, etc.

ughhhh ok.. but I doubt it... and what forces the company to comply? The Bush Admin?

Similarly, I believe most educated people would agree that they would not want a freshly-signed-off MPL pilot at the controls if the CA were to have a coronary descending to land into a field in Germany where the winds were gusting to 60 kts, especially after watching that video. What will vary is how much experience a person thinks is "adequate"... 1,000 hours? 1,500 hours (ATP Mins)? 250 hours ain't it... 500 likely isn't either, your mileage may vary.

It's not two separate concepts; whether it's right to have an MPL or whether the FAA is right to allow them to fly here. We all understand as aviation professionals that the safety is "questionable", so why are we standing around discussing it?

All that matters is how much money CorpAmerica can save until an unacceptable number of hull losses occur....

I don't understand what you're actually debating this point about... do you actually agree that the MPL and the pilots who are flying on them here is a GOOD thing?

What I think is irrelevent... what matters is what can be done... and HOW we can do it... that is it....

you may hate MPL... I hate MPL... but no one cares what we think... all that matters what we as a collective group can do....

 

[waveflyer]

Absolutely take from the senior and give to the junior- That's only short term- they'll get theirs when the leverage of sticking up for the junior kicks in. (ie: we're all a lot more willing to take a stand if we know that IF we do start over- we'll do it at a livable wage.)

 

[JoeMerchant]

What I think is irrelevent... what matters is what can be done... and HOW we can do it... that is it....

you may hate MPL... I hate MPL... but no one cares what we think... all that matters what we as a collective group can do....

Actually what you think, what I think, and what every member thinks is relevent....If forms our beliefs and thus drives us in one direction or the other...

What can we as a collective group do if we have different goals and concerns and are competing with each other?

 

[JoeMerchant]

Absolutely take from the senior and give to the junior- That's only short term- they'll get theirs when the leverage of sticking up for the junior kicks in. (ie: we're all a lot more willing to take a stand if we know that IF we do start over- we'll do it at a livable wage.)

Your living in a dream world....what are you willing to give up for me.....You won't get anywhere without the senior folks....and likewise the senior folks won't get anywhere without the junior folks.....

 

[PCL_128]

Your living in a dream world....what are you willing to give up for me.....You won't get anywhere without the senior folks....and likewise the senior folks won't get anywhere without the junior folks.....

Holy crap, I agree with Joe about a union issue! Amazing.

 

[Lear70]

only 15% of ALPA members give to the PAC... nothing majority about it...

And what was the percentage in the straw poll for support of age 65? What was the percentage vote of the 15% who contribute (or was that even broken out separately)?

That's an evasive answer you just gave, and most pilots don't like that... it erodes trust, which erodes confidence, which kills participation. Leadership 101.

I don't agree...but HOW do you set National Minimums... and what are you willing to give up to get them? National Maximums? So the Senior guys take a hit so the junior guys can have a minimum?

Waveflyer has it right:

The Senior guys, instead of pushing to regain 50% raises, agree to COLA the first round while the major push to restrict Scope, bring up the regional pilots onto mainline seniority lists, and set minimum hiring standards for regionals, as well as minimum wage levels for regionals and majors is conducted.

Next round, wage and pension increases on an advanced scale to return wages to some semblance of pre-9/11 levels, adjusted for inflation.

Instead of a "you'll get yours when you're senior" approach, ALPA switches to a "bottom-up" approach where no one suffers quality of life for the furtherance of another.

Yes, the senior will oppose this. It then falls to ALPA National to do the right thing or suffer the further splintering of groups as contracts erode further and further. The RJDC and USAPA are just symptoms of a deeper-routed problem INSIDE ALPA. Fix the disesase, not the symptoms.

ughhhh ok.. but I doubt it... and what forces the company to comply? The Bush Admin?

Where the hell did the Bush admin come into this? He's gone in 9 months anyway.

That theory doesn't come from me on staffing, that comes from the airline's HR department at 2 different airlines now. The only thing they can never agree with the union on is how many sick calls, days off, etc are needed, and constantly work towards that perfectly-balanced staffing mix of reserves for minimum days off, then are angry when they have to cover with extensions, junior assignments, downline drafts, or outright cancellations because they understaffed.

All that matters is how much money CorpAmerica can save until an unacceptable number of hull losses occur....

To Corporate America and the General Public? Agreed.

To you and me as Professionals? Absolutely not. I believe it's our obligation to do our best to stop the problem before it kills anyone. In a Leadership position in ALPA, that should be your priority... that's what Leadership is: taking the initiative to do the right thing for your pilots, your profession, and the flying public.

What I think is irrelevent... what matters is what can be done... and HOW we can do it... that is it....

I beg to differ. What YOU think shapes your actions and whether or not you choose to fight for something. If you believe it's a lost cause, you won't fight for it. If you believe it's worth fighting, you will. Basic human nature.

This is why it's of the UTMOST IMPORTANCE to elect union officials who are motivated, goal-oriented, and self-starters.

you may hate MPL... I hate MPL... but no one cares what we think... all that matters what we as a collective group can do....

True. So what are you going to do in your elected Leadership role? I know fighting for daily enforcement of your contract and working on negotiations that never seem to end is important, but someone has to pay attention to the "bigger picture".

No one at National seems up to the task.

 

[JoeMerchant]

Holy crap, I agree with Joe about a union issue! Amazing.

.....actually we would agree on more than you think....The way ALPA is structured now, everything becomes a senior/junior or mainline/regional tug of war.....That won't work....and isn't working....

 

[JoeMerchant]

Lear is dead on....

Straw poll folks.... Who would you rather have in a position of leadership in ALPA...

Rez or Lear?

 

[Lear70]

Actually, Joe, the results might surprise you. Rez is a safer bet, because he's not advocating drastic change and the unknown.

Pilots don't like not knowing what will happen next; it scares the crap out of them. A complete restructuring is what is needed, but that's why I say I don't think it will happen: the senior guys will hate it because they won't recapture their lost wages (or as much as they can get) right before retirement and just enough mid- and junior- level guys would be scared of what it would bring next and, similar to Rez, might completely doubt its efficacy.

I'm an idealist, always have been. Gets me singled out sometimes (as we obviously have seen at AAI), and sounds good, but getting the membership on board with that drastic of a change at 7 different major airlines would be a feat.

Thanks for the vote of confidence, though. :beer: