Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

USA Today article on Regional Pilots

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
About half way down the article it makes the point that nine of the fatal accidents at the majors involved pilots without multiple checkride failures. With that logic you have a nine-times greater risk of an accident if you have not busted a checkride. There are more factors involved than checkride history.

Sigh... Some of you guys need to take a statistics class.

In that SAME article, the author points that roughly half of all airline flying is performed by regionals, but since 2004 there have been four regional airline accidents resulting in fatalities and just one fatal accident involving a major airline.

Failing multiple checkrides is indicative of a problem. Maybe it's aptitude, poor habits, poor foundation from early flight training, who knows. But seven checkride failures for the Pinnacle capt? Five for the Colgan capt? That is totally unacceptable, and I will not subject myself to the risk that a lowball airline like that has.
 
About half way down the article it makes the point that nine of the fatal accidents at the majors involved pilots without multiple checkride failures. With that logic you have a nine-times greater risk of an accident if you have not busted a checkride. There are more factors involved than checkride history.
Where the hell did you take your statistics class? I think you need to ask for your money back.

It's a comparative sampling, and it's an accurate portrayal of a very real problem. How do I know? I was hired at PCL as a Street Captain back in early 2001 and got to fly there for 5 years with a lot of those low-time new-hires who were mostly just along for the ride their first year on the job. I still have a lot of friends over there and many who are excellent pilots but, as a whole, the experience level of their F/O's still concerns me, and the accident data keeps pointing back to some root problems in the hiring and training departments.

I'm on the right bandwagon; I don't know where you're going. Low-time, low-experience pilots make more mistakes. Period. The end. The hiring of people with wet commercial certificates and throwing them in a jet needs to be prohibited in 121 environments. ATP certificate to be an airline pilot. Been saying it for 10 years, and will continue saying it until I see it change.
 
Where the hell did you take your statistics class? I think you need to ask for your money back.

It's a comparative sampling, and it's an accurate portrayal of a very real problem. How do I know? I was hired at PCL as a Street Captain back in early 2001 and got to fly there for 5 years with a lot of those low-time new-hires who were mostly just along for the ride their first year on the job. I still have a lot of friends over there and many who are excellent pilots but, as a whole, the experience level of their F/O's still concerns me, and the accident data keeps pointing back to some root problems in the hiring and training departments.

I'm on the right bandwagon; I don't know where you're going. Low-time, low-experience pilots make more mistakes. Period. The end. The hiring of people with wet commercial certificates and throwing them in a jet needs to be prohibited in 121 environments. ATP certificate to be an airline pilot. Been saying it for 10 years, and will continue saying it until I see it change.

I agree with you totally. But the article wasn't about those issues, it was exclusively about checkrides which is only one part of the equation.

The experience level of new-hire FOs is too low (fortunately there aren't many of those around now with the lack of hiring), but the competence of captains is at issue also, which really comes out at the end of a long day or in bad wx or other abnormal situations. After a few years the inexperienced FO is no longer inexperienced (not that that should justify hiring them) but the incompetent pilots don't seem to improve no matter how long the company keeps carrying them.

PS, I'll work on my stats proficiency.
 
Sigh... Some of you guys need to take a statistics class.

In that SAME article, the author points that roughly half of all airline flying is performed by regionals, but since 2004 there have been four regional airline accidents resulting in fatalities and just one fatal accident involving a major airline.

Failing multiple checkrides is indicative of a problem. Maybe it's aptitude, poor habits, poor foundation from early flight training, who knows. But seven checkride failures for the Pinnacle capt? Five for the Colgan capt? That is totally unacceptable, and I will not subject myself to the risk that a lowball airline like that has.

Agreed.
 
I agree with you totally. But the article wasn't about those issues, it was exclusively about checkrides which is only one part of the equation.

The experience level of new-hire FOs is too low (fortunately there aren't many of those around now with the lack of hiring), but the competence of captains is at issue also, which really comes out at the end of a long day or in bad wx or other abnormal situations. After a few years the inexperienced FO is no longer inexperienced (not that that should justify hiring them) but the incompetent pilots don't seem to improve no matter how long the company keeps carrying them.
That's true enough...

PS, I'll work on my stats proficiency.
mkay. ;)
 
Just heard from our POI, only 300 commercial licenses issued in 2008. The problem of an abundance of eager new pilots is going away. With the supply of pilots drying up things will eventually go our way.
 
300 where? In the whole US?

FWIW: I spent a lot of time in the sim, and a large number of busts can occur for more procedural goofs that actual deficiency in airmanship.

While a string of busts may tell you something about a pilot, a much better indication will be the pilot's training records and reported deficiencies and difficulties in training. Anyone can get a little nervous on a ride. I watched a really good line pilot turn into a sweaty mess on a regular PC - just a guy who hates being tested.

The place to tighten up the standards is during the hiring process, and the training process. If you really have your skills tight at 700 hours, welcome aboard. I have know a few sub-1000 pilots who were superb. But there is not that many of them. Tougher screening at the interview and a higher washout rate would be better than trying to weed out poor performers at the checkride. The airline has too much money into them by then.
 
Last edited:
Another factor in all of this is the training it self. The training as a whole at todays regional is not at all the same as it is at the major level. We may be tested to the same standards but you have to train to that standard or the stats will be misleading. Two of the captains in guestion came from Gulfstream. If the training there sucks or anywhere then they are set up to fail. You can not train to a high school level and test at PHD level and expect everyone to pass. I have worked at 4 airlines and the training has gone down hill over the last 10 years. Everyone including the majors have tried to save money on training and anywhere else they can. Training is the last place to look for savings. Training is the issue.
 
I have been a regional airline pilot for 10 years now. For the first time in my career, I have had two major airline pilots deadheading aboard my Dash 8 stop up front to "chat" or "see how it is going" in the past week. An FO for a legacy carrier stopped up front to chat because we had taken a maintenance delay and his son was onboard. The real reason for the chats was apparent after only a few words. They were worried. And I don't blame them at all.

The night that 3407 went down, we as a profession obviously did not have our best night. That event reinforced a common stereotype of us regional guys as inexperienced, unprofessional and out of our depth. We (as regional pilots) further perpetuate that image when we conduct ourselves in a manner which lacks the dignified and serious bearing our responsibilities demand. I am by no means suggesting that all, or even a majority, of regional pilots are less than professional. Furthermore I recognize that major airline pilots on occassion will act in a manner which is beneath the profession. My point is this: As regional guys and gals, we are under a microscope. We need to act and fly accordingly for our own good and for the good of those lives we are charged to protect.

I don't blame the pilots who have recently visited my flight deck for the reticence they have shown. Those of you who have concerns should do what they have done... Come on up and say hi. Hopefully the vast majority of us who ARE skilled professionals can allay your concerns and earn your respect as fellow pilots. I personally appreciated their honesty regarding their concerns and it was my pleasure to put them at ease.
 
The media is barking up the wrong tree with this whole checkride issue. There are a lot of factors that figure into busted checkrides. I'm afraid that if we start putting a number on what's acceptable and what's not we're going to open a Pandora's box for future pilots.

In the military, I saw checkrides used as training tools, a way to move a person out of a position, and even just to prove a point. There were some IP courses that would bust guys two to five times before they would pass them. I knew someone that busted a crew commander ride because the aircraft wasn't properly catered.

The same can be said on the civilian side. There are some flight schools that would bust a guy with an in house examiner in order to milk some extra money out of the student. How about some of the university programs that bust students in the name of "maintaining high standards".

The same can be said for the airlines. We've all heard and seen the stories. I could go on all day with this. The point I'm trying to make is that if we pin a number on what's acceptable and what's not the emphasis will be placed on the number and not on experience or background. The initial CFI rating has a very high first time fail rate. Do we want young pilots avoiding the rating in order to avoid a potential bust? Do we want military pilots avoiding advanced training or some units because it could harm a future civilian career? Do we want civilian pilots seeking the easiest flight schools and Santa Claus examiners in order to avoid a pink slip? In order to preserve their careers pilots will seek the path of least resistance as opposed to the best training.

How bout we focus on quality and experience of the individual as opposed to a number!

Rant off

p.s.- No I haven't busted a bunch of rides.
 
Last edited:

Latest resources

Back
Top