The Bashing Begins

[Whistlin' Dan]

The news channels are starting to bash the captain of the Colgan crash. Apparently he failed 5 checkrides in his life. The implication is that he should have had his lively hood taken away from him. They don't point out that he must have passed the checkride on the next time through.

That makes for good press, but it's not as relevent to the real causes of the crash as the general public might think. We don't know who did the check-rides, or what (if anything) the reasons for the failures were. There really is no "standard of accountability" in most flight standards departments. Standards of performance, yes, but of accountability, NO.

Who checks the "checkers?"

There's not a space shuttle pilot out there whose training history is unblemished - a history of absolute, 100%, first-time demonstration of mastery of the skills and tasks necessary to fly an orbital mission. Yet, when one of those things blows apart, we don't see CNN saying that "Commander Scobee had to re-accomplish this-or-that task when in space shuttle training several years before the doomed mission" Nor do you have to look very far to find CNN's own screw-ups, they're all over YouTube.

Likewise, I'm pretty sure that the WSJ has had to publish more than 5 corrections or retractions in the time that the Colgan pilot had been active in aviation, but you won't see them trumpeted on their front pages.

We don't know who did this guys training, what training was accomplished, or what standards were applied. Let's cut him some slack until all the facts are in. And I doubt all the facts will ever be "in."

 

[Cardinal]

Whistlin' Dan Roman, awesome username. Nobody expects pefection - airline pilots are allowed minor errors, and the system is built so as to allow the recognition and correction of these. Significant, uncorrected errors are what lead to checkride busts (in the mean, and this Capt. has provided us with a large enough sample size of busts to assume that most were fair). Significant uncorrected errors also lead to catastrophic accidents. I see plenty of correlation.

 

[lowlycfi]

I'm just curious what everyone thinks the magic number is as far as failed checkrides? If 5 is too many, than what is an acceptable number? 4? 2? None?

 

[Browntothebone]

I'm just curious what everyone thinks the magic number is as far as failed checkrides? If 5 is too many, than what is an acceptable number? 4? 2? None?

None.

 

[rondo]

....

GA busts are too subjective to be counted on as proper examination of an applicant. Some DE's are in for the busts and the money. Total conflict of interest.

121 rides are way more indicative of a pilot's skill than those GA rides.

Agree with you on that. GA rides should be in a different category then 121. Some guy screws up a hold on an instrument ride. Come on.

However, if you start busting 121 or professional rides that's a different story. Pax are paying for a ticket not a chance.

Did this guy fail 121 rides?

 

[Amish RakeFight]

Agree with you on that. GA rides should be in a different category then 121. Some guy screws up a hold on an instrument ride. Come on.

However, if you start busting 121 or professional rides that's a different story. Pax are paying for a ticket not a chance.

Did this guy fail 121 rides?

2 at Colgan.

 

[Wesb737fo]

The title of this thread is let the bashing begin. I think the bashing should be directed toward airline management.

 

[rondo]

?

2 at Colgan.

Wow, that's pretty bad. What did he bust? Upgrade, recurrent.

2 121 busts and he's a Captain. What's going on in that training department?

 

[GogglesPisano]

I'm just curious what everyone thinks the magic number is as far as failed checkrides? If 5 is too many, than what is an acceptable number? 4? 2? None?

Until checkrides and those who administer them are as objective as a computer, then there is no magic number. There are plenty of guys on FI who are ACA alumni, who went through ACA's "Pink Badge of Courage," program in the CRJ in the 1998-2004 timeframe. A time when 50% of applicants busted at the hands of two miserable subhuman checkairman run amock. Your chance of passing had very little to do with skill and judgement but more to do with luck and the mood of the examiner.

Management finally started looking at training costs when things got tight and the word came down from on high: Fix this problem. Within a year the two subhumans were gone and orals were replaced by electronic validations. Checkrides resembled something fair once again.

Checkrides at World were no picnic, either.

The idea that 121 checkrides are completely fair is nieve. That being said, it's been my experience that the bigger the company, the more fair and objective the training department. At Delta a checkride is almost a non-event, certainly when compared to the "ordeal by fire" at ACA.

Now please feel free to continue ragging on a dead guy.

 

[lowlycfi]

Until checkrides and those who administer them are as objective as a computer, then there is no magic number. There are plenty of guys on FI who are ACA alumni, who went through ACA's "Pink Badge of Courage," program in the CRJ in the 1998-2004 timeframe. A time when 50% of applicants busted at the hands of two miserable subhuman checkairman run amock. Your chance of passing had very little to do with skill and judgement but more to do with luck and the mood of the examiner.

Management finally started looking at training costs when things got tight and the word came down from on high: Fix this problem. Within a year the two subhumans were gone and orals were replaced by electronic validations. Checkrides resembled something fair once again.

Checkrides at World were no picnic, either.

The idea that 121 checkrides are completely fair is nieve. That being said, it's been my experience that the bigger the company, the more fair and objective the training department. At Delta a checkride is almost a non-event, certainly when compared to the "ordeal by fire" at ACA.

Now please feel free to continue ragging on a dead guy.

Good post. I agree that there are many checkrides both in and out of the 121 world that are not very objective.

Please understand that I wasn't ragging on anyone. Just trying to understand where some of these posters on this thread are coming from.

 

[time builder]

The title of this thread is let the bashing begin. I think the bashing should be directed toward airline management.

I think much of it has been, it just depends on how you read it.

Saying that someone who has failed 5 checkrides in as many years (2 of them being 121) and becoming captain of the largest ship in the fleet with just over 3000 hours is wrong is more a reflection of management's inability to attract a more competent applicant than disrespect to the guy who took the opportunity given to him (IMHO).

Bashing a dead man to gratify your own pride is obviously wrong. On the other hand, if folks have an agenda to use this to change the industry for the better, I won't stand in their way.

 

[SpauldingSmails]

In retrospect, I think my first post was little heated. Does anyone know if of these 5 "failures" that they were in fact checkrides/proficiency checks... beside the two that were stated from Colgan? Or where they merely FAR141 stage checks?

I suppose there could be a multitude of answers. If I understand correctly, FAR141 "checkride" failures, aren't an actual pinkslip, just an unsat and a do-over until you've passed the checkride. Which means that information may not have shown up in a PRIA search done by the airline, as it wouldn't go against your FAA record. If they were checkride failures, and he didn't disclose them, the airline may have no way of telling he had previously failed those rides.

I clearly think Colgan is holding the bag on this one anyway you cut it though.

 

[Cardinal]

Good post. I agree that there are many checkrides both in and out of the 121 world that are not very objective.

Please understand that I wasn't ragging on anyone. Just trying to understand where some of these posters on this thread are coming from.

What are the odds that this Capt. wound up with 5 unfair checkrides across both the 91 and 121 environments over such a short span of time? Very slim. Like "God must hate you" unlikely.

5 over an entire career? Ok, stuff happens. 5 over the course of 4 years? There's no way that's not a trend.

 

[Whistlin' Dan]

Whistlin' Dan Roman, awesome username. Nobody expects pefection - airline pilots are allowed minor errors, and the system is built so as to allow the recognition and correction of these. Significant, uncorrected errors are what lead to checkride busts (in the mean, and this Capt. has provided us with a large enough sample size of busts to assume that most were fair). Significant uncorrected errors also lead to catastrophic accidents. I see plenty of correlation.

I'm not defending the Captain's performance in this matter. It sounds like the whole sequence of events started when he got too slow on approach...a mistake he might not have made had he been focused on flying the d#@! airplane and not on idle chit-chat with his young, female F/O. I just don't believe in the infallability of the system enough to permit lifetime "branding" of pilots by flight standards. There are no checks-and-balances within the system. There are few objective standards, and no real accountability when those standards are not applied.

In most cases, there isn't even a physical record of what actually transpired on a check-ride, only what the check airman says happened.

Most check airmen, like most cops, are good people trying to do a good job. The difference is that when a cop says he thinks you're a lawbreaker, he still has to prove his case before a judge or jury of your peers. The "accused" is permitted to challenge both the evidence and the cops objectivity in presenting that evidence, as well as the applicability of the law in court.

A pilot has no such protections. The check-airman becomes judge and jury, his assessment becoming a part of that pilots permanent training record for life. It stays there even if the check airman is subsequently discredited. (Yes, I've seen it happen. More than once)

A pilot has more avenues of recourse available to him after receiving a $20 parking ticket than he does after suffering an improperly adminstered (and career-altering) check-ride. And you want to know what the real kicker is...?

The meter-maid probably went through a more comprehensive background check, general knowledge test and psych eval to get her job than the FAA requires of check airman!

Did this guy screw up? Yea, probably. Were there prior indicators that he might? Yea, but they were probably evidenced more by his lack of experience and training as by his history (2) of "failed" Pt 121 check rides. His F/O wasn't much help, either. (Why wasn't she calling "airspeed!" and when did he call for "flaps up?")

Sorry for the thread hijack. Now, back to our regularly-scheduled program

 

[crj567]

HAHAHA! You think that because I am young that I fit into that stereotype young Riddle kid group. I learned how to fly at a local FBO, all part 61, from real instructors, not newly minted, cookie stamped CFI's from some big academy.

I guess that = Riddle in your ignorant mind...

No it is not because you are young-it is because you are an arrogant, inexperienced tool.

-Grandpappy wants his T-6 washed, and he don't like waiting...

 

[Flyer1015]

I agree. The FAA should force all regional pilots to take 709 rides to prove there competency in the RJ and in basic flying skills. If they don't pass, revoke there lisence permanently.

I think UPS should force you to take a GED exam to prove basic grammar usage and spelling.

 

[SpauldingSmails]

Complete NTSB exhibit listing.
http://www.ntsb.gov/Dockets/Aviation/DCA09MA027/

Excerpts...

FAA Temp and Notice of Disapproval.
http://www.ntsb.gov/Dockets/Aviation/DCA09MA027/418133.pdf

CA and FO Training Records.
http://www.ntsb.gov/Dockets/Aviation/DCA09MA027/417478.pdf

Colgan Q400 Approach Profile
http://www.ntsb.gov/Dockets/Aviation/DCA09MA027/417476.pdf

FAA recommendation concerning FAR121 pilots w/multiple failures
http://www.ntsb.gov/Dockets/Aviation/DCA09MA027/417495.pdf

Interview w/crew in a Q400 icing stall recovery
http://www.ntsb.gov/Dockets/Aviation/DCA09MA027/417450.pdf

 

[papanovember]

So the Captain failed recurrent as a Saab FO for general judgement, landing from a circling approach, the oral, and non precision approach. He failed the upgrade for a single engine ILS to landing.

 

[climbhappy]

If I look at this from a manufacturing approach....the flight crew wasn't good quality...there was no quality control going on anywhere in the process..
when you have no QA, you have defects....
there was no QA inspection after the process... the defect was shipped to the customer. the customer received it and used it. the result was fatal.

this can't happen... quality control has to be used and maybe this is where the total overhaul of rules, qualifications begins.... time for a senate hearing...

 

[CEO silly sap]

Just wanted to throw this out for discussion.

This Capt had 5 retest, pvt, instrument, initial and upgrade along with a PC. Granted its a bit high and calls into question the standards of company and pilots.

However, pilots have been guided by the rules and regs of the FAA, of which, their leader failed the private pilots written 3 times and was allowed to lead the ENTIRE FAA.

your thoughts

 

[Caveman]

When the FedEx plane crashed in Japan recently, I don't recall anyone bashing those dead guys for poor airmanship. They dicked up a simple crosswind landing. Everybody else seemed to be able to land safely that day. Why couldn't they? Did you watch the video? They were porpoising down the runway like a student in a 172. How could experienced major airline pilots make such a gross mistake? It was CAVU clear and a million for chrissakes! If they had had more experience it never would have happened. That's what you get when you hire pilots with their backgrounds. I'd never make that kind of mistake. Plus, when you only pay peanuts all you get is incompetent idiots. (Sarcasm alert)

Major airline or regional. Military or civilian. Well seasoned or inexperienced. Well paid or on food stamps. Anybody can make a fatal mistake or error in judgement. Sometimes there are external factors like severe icing or severe gusty crosswinds that make your mistake or error unrecoverable and then people die. We've all made them, but most of us got away with it.....that time. What pisses me off are you holier than thou types that think it will never happen to you. Grow the ******************** up or shut up.

RIP to the Colgan crew and the FedEx crew.

 

[enuffalready]

When the FedEx plane crashed in Japan recently, I don't recall anyone bashing those dead guys for poor airmanship. They dicked up a simple crosswind landing. Everybody else seemed to be able to land safely that day. Why couldn't they? Did you watch the video? They were porpoising down the runway like a student in a 172. How could experienced major airline pilots make such a gross mistake? It was CAVU clear and a million for chrissakes! If they had had more experience it never would have happened. That's what you get when you hire pilots with their backgrounds. I'd never make that kind of mistake. Plus, when you only pay peanuts all you get is incompetent idiots. (Sarcasm alert)

Major airline or regional. Military or civilian. Well seasoned or inexperienced. Well paid or on food stamps. Anybody can make a fatal mistake or error in judgement. Sometimes there are external factors like severe icing or severe gusty crosswinds that make your mistake or error unrecoverable and then people die. We've all made them, but most of us got away with it.....that time. What pisses me off are you holier than thou types that think it will never happen to you. Grow the ******************** up or shut up.

RIP to the Colgan crew and the FedEx crew.

This is an excellent post. Any pilot who sits back and says he never made a mistake is more dangerous that the ones who admit it and learn from it. I had an approach to a very familiar airport about 6 years ago, middle of the night, plane full of passengers and i didn't realize until it was pointed out in a very professional manner that i was lining up on the wrong runway. it was a visual and I was doing everything like i had done 1,000 times before. Even though it was totally uneventful and nobody knew any different, I kept thinking over and over what would have happened if I had been single pilot that night. I learned from that, but could have just as easily been another statistic. By the grace of God go I.

 

[goodgig]

Caveman, the info is not out there for the FedEx.
Let's leave that for another day, eh? I would bet the house that the FedEx flight was carried out in a more professional manner though....

 

[climbhappy]

what I get from you, caveman, is that no matter the pilot time, on any given day, any plane aloft can crash..period... sounds like we need to ground all air operations... too unsafe with that kind of threat.... i get your point, though!

i reject the premise. back to QA inspection and QA procedures at the human level.


new rules

maybe more than 2 busts of any kind and you can't be a 121 pilot? call it the 3 strikes rule
too strict?
maybe min time of 1500 and ATP rating to apply

too strict?

maybe min pay for 121 jobs start at 40,000 and goes up based on # of seats.

 

[Caveman]

Caveman, the info is not out there for the FedEx.
Let's leave that for another day, eh? I would bet the house that the FedEx flight was carried out in a more professional manner though....

I used an over the top exaggeration of the FedEx crash to make a point about Monday morning QBing the Colgan crew. Hence, the sarcasm alert. I was not insinuating anything about the FedEx crew at all.

Why would you assume the FedEx flight was carried out in a more professional manner? I don't see where anything in the Colgan CVR was unprofessional. In fact, they were actively discussing the developing situation that was about to kill them. They didn't interpret the info as being as critical as it was, but they can't be faulted for not recognizing something was going on. They are guilty of not understand the severity of the situation, but that's not unprofessional. It's simply a lack of experience. Which, btw, you can't get unless you experience stuff. Unfortunately for them, their first experience was severe enough to kill them. But for the grace of God go I. The rest of the conversation was normal stuff that happens on every leg. How was it unprofessional?

IMO the Colgan crash, the Comair crash and the FedEx crash were all flown by competent, trained crews acting in a professional manner. They all made mistakes and paid the ultimate price for it. Inexperienced doesn't equal unprofessional and professional doesn't automatically equal immunity from making mistakes. As indicated in a previous post, experienced professional crews have made mistakes that resulted in fatal accidents.

 

[Caveman]

what I get from you, caveman, is that no matter the pilot time, on any given day, any plane aloft can crash..period... sounds like we need to ground all air operations... too unsafe with that kind of threat.... i get your point, though!

i reject the premise. back to QA inspection and QA procedures at the human level.


new rules

maybe more than 2 busts of any kind and you can't be a 121 pilot? call it the 3 strikes rule
too strict?
maybe min time of 1500 and ATP rating to apply

too strict?

maybe min pay for 121 jobs start at 40,000 and goes up based on # of seats.

I'm guessing that a quick study of major accidents over the years will reveal that the overwhelming majority of pilots involved will meet the mins you suggested above. So how does your new mins change anything?

 

[Cardinal]

I'm guessing that a quick study of major accidents over the years will reveal that the overwhelming majority of pilots involved will meet the mins you suggested above. So how does your new mins change anything?

The overwhelming majority of accidents in the last 7 years involve lowtime regional pilots with sketchy backgrounds, so it seems like a start.

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

Caveman is correct... the FLG3701 guys each had plenty of time in type, and the comair 191 guys had a very large amount of experience in the crj.

The legacy accidents over the years have been largely resultant of culture problems. The problem now is the regionals are having to relearn how to correct the exact same culture problems through killing people- again.

 

[777forever]

The overwhelming majority of accidents in the last 7 years involve lowtime regional pilots with sketchy backgrounds, so it seems like a start.

Negative ghostrider, pattern is full. Come back with credible sources to back this statement up(you won't) and we can have an educated debate.

 

[realmanofgenius]

i hear in five years there will be an airline pilot shortage from a wave of retirements...maybe then they'll go back to trying to get guys with 300/50 as colgan was at the Air Inc. job fair in DC , Oct/07
in fact , most regionals were around 300 to 500/50 at that point in time.

that's when you do it..during the next uptic.