NTSB live webcast of 3407 sunshine hearing

[suupah]

Tuesday, February 2, 2010, at 9:30 a.m.

http://www.ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2010/100129.html

 

[ultrarunner]

Findings will be no surprise, probable cause will be no surprise and safety recommendations will be no surprise.....

And the FAA monkeys will still be the FAA monkeys....

Nothing to see here....

Move along....

 

[suupah]

bump.

 

[Nevets]

Findings will be no surprise, probable cause will be no surprise and safety recommendations will be no surprise.....

And the FAA monkeys will still be the FAA monkeys....

Nothing to see here....

Move along....

I'm interested more in the contributing factors.

 

[ultrarunner]

I'm interested more in the contributing factors.

oh, the incompetence on the part of the flight crew?

Yes, I agree, I'll be interested in the NTSB's take on that.....

"....contributing to the cause the captains utter lack of competence and the company's decision to keep him employed...."

 

[Nevets]

oh, the incompetence on the part of the flight crew?

Yes, I agree, I'll be interested in the NTSB's take on that.....

"....contributing to the cause the captains utter lack of competence and the company's decision to keep him employed...."

What I mean is that we all know the probable cause, loss of control. What the NTSB says what contributed to it is more interesting to me and more important as well. Things like fatigue, training, etc.

 

[ultrarunner]

I find it VERY interesting that a switch, directly related to the adjustment of a Vref speed, is only addressed once, and in the after-start checks???

Is there a specific reason it's not on the in-range, checks, or on a checklist where the 'bugs' are being set for landing?

Is this consistent with BAS?

Any other Q400 operators on here that can discuss that?

 

[suupah]

I find it VERY interesting that a switch, directly related to the adjustment of a Vref speed, is only addressed once, and in the after-start checks???

Is there a specific reason it's not on the in-range, checks, or on a checklist where the 'bugs' are being set for landing?

Is this consistent with BAS?

Any other Q400 operators on here that can discuss that?

it is now included in the approach checklist. the approach checklist is performed after runway and approach assignment as well as after input of approach speeds.

prior to the accident is is a little unclear and not present on any checklist what procedure to use in regards to the position of this switch.

most of the discussion on this hearing is referring to prior to the accident.

 

[ultrarunner]

it is now included in the approach checklist. the approach checklist is performed after runway and approach assignment as well as after input of approach speeds.

prior to the accident is is a little unclear and not present on any checklist what procedure to use in regards to the position of this switch.

most of the discussion on this hearing is referring to prior to the accident.

Yeah, I know it's changed now...but BEFORE, I'm wondering if Colgan's procedure was the same as other Q400 operators, and what the BAS procedure is/was.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Wow...this hearing sure paints Colgan training in a pretty bad light. Rightly so it would seem.

Unfathomable that the training would not include training on the use of the ref speed switch and relationship to bugged approach speeds.

It certainly begs the question of where was the FAA oversight of such a questionable training program.

 

[suupah]

deleted

 

[ultrarunner]

It certainly begs the question of where was the FAA oversight of such a questionable training program.

The FAA is more concerned about generating paperwork, and that you fill it out they way they want, than they are about enhancing safety.

The NTSB and their investigators have got their $hittt together. The FAA? They are idiots, and anyone who thinks the FAA is there to enhance safety is an idiot!

'Nuff said.

 

[suupah]

it starts

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/02/02/continental.crash.inquiry/index.html?hpt=T2

 

[Thurman Merman]

Yeah, I know it's changed now...but BEFORE, I'm wondering if Colgan's procedure was the same as other Q400 operators, and what the BAS procedure is/was.

I worked at Colgan, I was in the initial group that got trained by FLIGHT SAFETY and it was barely addressed. I now fly Q400's for ANA in Japan and there was little attention given to the REF switch here as well. The most emphasis at ANA we received was on a V1 cut, because we can not take off with it on we have to achieve Vclimb before engaging it.

 

[WayBack]

"....contributing to the cause the captains utter lack of competence and the company's decision to keep him employed...."

It's these same type of people that ALPA fights to keep employed as well.
There is a time that the company and union have to recognize the problem and do away with it. But ALPA is up the creek without a paddle, needing all the dues they can get. Even if that pilot is a threat to the public.

What I mean is that we all know the probable cause, loss of control. What the NTSB says what contributed to it is more interesting to me and more important as well. Things like fatigue, training, etc.

I'm sure ALPA is right on all these issues and making them safer....But it won't get completed for another 40yrs.

 

[jonjuan]

So, as colgan is growing and hiring, what's the upgrade timeline for new hires look like?

 

[WayBack]

So, as colgan is growing and hiring, what's the upgrade timeline for new hires look like?

I'd hold off. Seeing they just voted ALPA on the property, I give it less than a year before they start to furlough and take paycuts...like ever other ALPA carrier.

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

It's these same type of people that ALPA fights to keep employed as well.
There is a time that the company and union have to recognize the problem and do away with it. But ALPA is up the creek without a paddle, needing all the dues they can get. Even if that pilot is a threat to the public.

You would have a point if ALPA were on property while this guy busted ride after ride.

They had just been voted in when the accident happened. I know you hate ALPA, but care to try again?

 

[DrunkIrishman]

oh, the incompetence on the part of the flight crew?

Yes, I agree, I'll be interested in the NTSB's take on that.....

"....contributing to the cause the captains utter lack of competence and the company's decision to keep him employed...."

My Grandfather always taught me never to speak ill of the dead.

 

[Nevets]

It's these same type of people that ALPA fights to keep employed as well.
There is a time that the company and union have to recognize the problem and do away with it. But ALPA is up the creek without a paddle, needing all the dues they can get. Even if that pilot is a threat to the public.

It probably depends more on what airline you are talking about rather than if it was ALPA, IBT, or any other union. I know that at XJT our contract requires there to be a training review board to look at all the circumstance. Things that the FAA was asking airlines to do. Everyone is afforded due process because of the contract and that is it.

I'm sure ALPA is right on all these issues and making them safer....But it won't get completed for another 40yrs.

I don't know. I know that ALPA will push to make them happen though. So maybe with ALPA's push it will get done in 39 years rather than 49.

I'd hold off. Seeing they just voted ALPA on the property, I give it less than a year before they start to furlough and take paycuts...like ever other ALPA carrier.

Not that it matters but just curious, can you cite a reference to this? There have been scores of ALPA pilot groups throughout the last 70+ years so I'm kind of skeptical.