Apology

[PilotOnTheRise]

I want to make a public apology for my post in the Comair Crash thread. I used the wrong word, when I chose to use "negligence". It was inappropriate.

Secondly, I want to say that most of my views in that post were meant from the passengers/publics perspective. They were comments, as a NWA CSA, I've heard passengers making.

It is not in my view that pilots do not deserve raises, but in the publics eye, right now, I was simply saying the argument would probably not stand up. The public is viewing this as the pilot's faults.

I am not an experienced pilot. I don't know what happened in the cockpit of that Comair flight. But I do think we can all agree those pilots did everything they could. It was a mistake waiting to happen at that airport.

Please accept my apology, and my prayers are with Comair, AirTran, the families of those lost, and the surviving FO.

 

[acaTerry]

Whether it stands up or not, the pay is definitely an issue that affects safety. Pilots who have to live on below-poverty level pay, and work till they are zombies will be of deteriorated mental states. Even in ideal circumstances there are things going on in a regional pilots head that are not flight related. Don't pull out the "a professional will block it out" argument. There is simply no excuse that they have to live like they do...all for some tightwads desire to save $3 on a ticket.
The airline passengers haven't the mental ability to grasp all the issues and consequences of a situation like this. And it is a grisly reminder to all you kids out there who brag about how "easy" the job is. Pull your heads out of your rear end and THINK about your job's consequences more seriously.

From the soapbox,

Terry

 

[PilotOnTheRise]

Whether it stands up or not, the pay is definitely an issue that affects safety. Pilots who have to live on below-poverty level pay, and work till they are zombies will be of deteriorated mental states. Even in ideal circumstances there are things going on in a regional pilots head that are not flight related. Don't pull out the "a professional will block it out" argument. There is simply no excuse that they have to live like they do...all for some tightwads desire to save $3 on a ticket.
The airline passengers haven't the mental ability to grasp all the issues and consequences of a situation like this. And it is a grisly reminder to all you kids out there who brag about how "easy" the job is. Pull your heads out of your rear end and THINK about your job's consequences more seriously.

From the soapbox,

Terry

You are right. Stress effects us in ways that may not even be apparent. Top that off with possible lack of sleep, and a bit of a confusing airport, and this mistake was bound to happen one day.

I once heard the idea that (something like this) $1 from the ticket price of each passenger on a flight should be given to the FO, and $2 to the captain (again, something similiar to this). Assuming an average of 40 people per flight on a CRJ, and lets assume a pilot flies 500 flights per year (am I even close), that would be roughly $20,000 per year for the FO, on top of his/her regular pay. Of course, the larger the aircraft you fly, the more money you make from this.

 

[biggerguy]

I love the $1.00 / $2.00 idea, but I just don't think Mesa, Skywest, or even the likes of a Gojetter would like it. I think they would disagree with "more money for more seats"!

 

[tuna pimp]

The public is viewing this as the pilot's faults.

I am not an experienced pilot. I don't know what happened in the cockpit of that Comair flight. But I do think we can all agree those pilots did everything they could. It was a mistake waiting to happen at that airport.

If what is being reported is accurate then this Comair captain for whatever reason taxied out onto an unsuitable, dark and unlit runway for which he was not cleared for departure, pushed the throttle forward and attemped to take off.

How exactly did this flight crew do everything they could to provide fully due care and concern to the aircraft and the souls on board?

If the facts reported so far are correct who's fault should the public be viewing this accident as?

Just curious.

 

[XPOO]

Dude, just face it, no other pilot on this board wants to admit, until the NTSB officially reports it, that this was all pilot error. Plain and simple, was not paying attention. If you'll notice, it has become apparant to the members of this board that we need to give crews more then 28 hours of rest between duty days now and that we need to pay them more so they'll remember to bug their heading, and look for runway lighting in pre-dawn stormy conditions, and read the signage. No need to apologize. An opinion is an opinion.

 

[acaTerry]

Dude, just face it, no other pilot on this board wants to admit, until the NTSB officially reports it, that this was all pilot error. Plain and simple, was not paying attention. If you'll notice, it has become apparant to the members of this board that we need to give crews more then 28 hours of rest between duty days now and that we need to pay them more so they'll remember to bug their heading, and look for runway lighting in pre-dawn stormy conditions, and read the signage. No need to apologize. An opinion is an opinion.

Nobody is arguing the pilot error. What we ARE saying is that there are factors that deteriorate a pilots state of mind to the point that these kind of things are going to happen when a fresh, clear mind would have been able to focus better.
Your accusations and self righteous remarks point out that you are either not a professional pilot with any level of experience, or that despite being a pilot you have SO MUCH more growing up to do. Let's all hope you are not the next one to have an accident and have bigmouths pi$$ing on your grave.

Nobody I have seen said 28 hrs of rest...(FROM ANOTHER POST:They weren't necessarily flying a trip from the bid packet. The CA was on reserve. The FO and FA were displaced lineholders, translation: reserves, on a totally different trip than the original.)...but 8 hours from gate to gate?! Come on, you can't believe that is reasonable. The average US citizen has 15 hours from punch in to punch out AND has a scheduled 1 hour lunch. Most regional pilots only dream of 15 hours, much less a mandatory luch break. Running to McDonalds on a 20 minute turn is NOT a lunch break.

I will repeat myself, nobody denies the bottom line of pilot error. But what kind of an ignorant fool are you to say that the FAA and NTSB are justified in the current rest rules? And as for the travelling public, if they want such high safety, they need to pay for it.

 

[scangadah]

Dude, just face it, no other pilot on this board wants to admit, until the NTSB officially reports it, that this was all pilot error. Plain and simple, was not paying attention. If you'll notice, it has become apparant to the members of this board that we need to give crews more then 28 hours of rest between duty days now and that we need to pay them more so they'll remember to bug their heading, and look for runway lighting in pre-dawn stormy conditions, and read the signage. No need to apologize. An opinion is an opinion.

Hey XOPOO, when did you last "fly the line"?

 

[acaTerry]

Hey XOPOO, when did you last "fly the line"?

I bet he hasn't. Maybe he's in the traing dept of his "737" job.

 

[atlcrashpad]

XPOO,

Just made my ignore list. Flame starter.

 

[EdAtTheAirport]

For someone who describes themselves as a "Reagan Conservative," you sure got the Karl Marx going on pretty well. A Reagan Conservative would realize that there are NO pilots in this country who have to live on below-poverty level pay, but rather many who choose to.

As a Conservative, I am somewhat put off by you referring to our customers as "tightwads." They, not you, are who make the airplanes fly. (No bucks no Buck Rogers.) Would you rather that they not have a choice about how much they are willing to pay for our services, Mr. Reagan Guy???

Lastly, you say that the passengers "haven't the mental ability to grasp... a situation like this." That is as arrogant as anything I've heard from any left wing suede-patch-on-the-elbow college professor. <b>This is a service industry!</b> You are in the wrong line of work if you have that much condescension for your customers.

Some of you need to get over yourselves. (I'm not referring just to this thread.) We're not entertainers; we're pilots. We don't have an audience who pays to watch our brilliant performance. They're back there because they need to get to Omaha, forgoodnesssakes. We earn what they're willing to pay. Take it or leave it, or find a better job. In fact, why don't YOU start a company paying pilots the high wages that you seem to demand, then give us all a job? Go ahead and pay $150K for 20 hrs/month in the right seat of a 787. You guys get it going. I'll be first on line and I'll do a great job for you.

You need to reconsider your position. You might be God-fearing, hetero, pro-life, and all that, but you are NOT a Conservative.

 

[av8er2]

Pay is an issue. When an FO or Captain can't pay the bills or have to work a second job that creates stress.

There is a big difference in flying 70 hours a month and having to fly 95 to pay the bills.

 

[acaTerry]

For someone who describes themselves as a "Reagan Conservative," you sure got the Karl Marx going on pretty well. A Reagan Conservative would realize that there are NO pilots in this country who have to live on below-poverty level pay, but rather many who choose to.

As a Conservative, I am somewhat put off by you referring to our customers as "tightwads." They, not you, are who make the airplanes fly. (No bucks no Buck Rogers.) Would you rather that they not have a choice about how much they are willing to pay for our services, Mr. Reagan Guy???

Lastly, you say that the passengers "haven't the mental ability to grasp... a situation like this." That is as arrogant as anything I've heard from any left wing suede-patch-on-the-elbow college professor. <b>This is a service industry!</b> You are in the wrong line of work if you have that much condescension for your customers.

Some of you need to get over yourselves. (I'm not referring just to this thread.) We're not entertainers; we're pilots. We don't have an audience who pays to watch our brilliant performance. They're back there because they need to get to Omaha, forgoodnesssakes. We earn what they're willing to pay. Take it or leave it, or find a better job. In fact, why don't YOU start a company paying pilots the high wages that you seem to demand, then give us all a job? Go ahead and pay $150K for 20 hrs/month in the right seat of a 787. You guys get it going. I'll be first on line and I'll do a great job for you.

You need to reconsider your position. You might be God-fearing, hetero, pro-life, and all that, but you are NOT a Conservative.

No, you are not a conservative...you are an elitist. And after 21 years in aviation (my profile details are not current), my observations of aviation, its members, and yes, customers are well founded.
By the way, I DID leave the airlines...went to a frac. But I still appreciate the hardships of regional pilots (and major airline pilots too these days). Perhaps, Mr. Golden Spoon, one day you will suffer and work hard enough to appreciate their situation.

 

[acaTerry]

Pay is an issue. When an FO or Captain can't pay the bills or have to work a second job that creates stress.

There is a big difference in flying 70 hours a month and having to fly 95 to pay the bills.

...and still not having enough $$$ to do so....

 

[XPOO]

It has been proven that the CA had 28 in LEX before his flight out that morning. It has also been stated by his widow that she last talked to him before she went to bed at 10pm. Now, if the CA choose to be up until 10pm for a 6am dept then that was his decision. His widow also stated that he had flown out of that airport numerous times in his career with Comair. As for the FO, no real confirmation on how much rest the FO got the night before. The FO may have been the one at the helm, but shouldn't the CA have realized he was on the wrong runway? Did he not taxi the aircraft out there? When they realized their runway had no lighting but the one they crossed over did, shouldn't a bulb have went off inside someone's head? As more details come out, it sure hasn't made the crew look any rosier. But it's my opinion, and I'm not bashing yours. If you feel you are unfit to fly, don't fly.

 

[acaTerry]

Now, if the CA choose to be up until 10pm for a 6am dept then that was his decision.

Oh, you forgot the 0140 arrival beforehand...circadian rythmm had nothing to do with adjusting over one day of rest...

But it's my opinion, and I'm not bashing yours. If you feel you are unfit to fly, don't fly.

See how long you keep your job at a regional if you call in sick / fatigued too much...but look at how often they screw with your body clock.

Red ink for clarity of my replies...not for anger

 

[PCL_128]

It has been proven that the CA had 28 in LEX before his flight out that morning. It has also been stated by his widow that she last talked to him before she went to bed at 10pm. Now, if the CA choose to be up until 10pm for a 6am dept then that was his decision. His widow also stated that he had flown out of that airport numerous times in his career with Comair. As for the FO, no real confirmation on how much rest the FO got the night before. The FO may have been the one at the helm, but shouldn't the CA have realized he was on the wrong runway? Did he not taxi the aircraft out there? When they realized their runway had no lighting but the one they crossed over did, shouldn't a bulb have went off inside someone's head? As more details come out, it sure hasn't made the crew look any rosier. But it's my opinion, and I'm not bashing yours. If you feel you are unfit to fly, don't fly.

1. The crew did not taxi over a lit runway to get to an unlit runway as you suggest. Apparently your vast dispatch experience and skills haven't taught you how to read a simple taxi diagram. Runway 26 (the accident runway) is the first runway you come to on the taxi out. To make matters worse, the usual taxi route to runway 22 was blocked and rerouted, possibly causing further confusion.

2. You obviously have no understanding of circadian rhythm research. It doesn't matter if a crew had 28 hours of off-duty time. What matters is what their entire schedule looks like. If your first day includes a late evening arrival, followed by a late start the next day with only one leg to a long overnight, followed by a 4am wake up call on the 3rd day, then your entire system is a mess. The human body is not designed to deal with such randomness and chaos. A consistent schedule is necessary to provide adequate rest and performance. Do a little research.

3. You're a %#$%ing d0uche-bag.

 

[EdAtTheAirport]

No, you are not a conservative...you are an elitist. And after 21 years in aviation (my profile details are not current), my observations of aviation, its members, and yes, customers are well founded.

29 years for me, and neither are mine.

It is YOU who condescends the customers, even to the point of saying it's "well founded"; that makes YOU the elitist.

 

[rausda27]

1st flight of the day checks with a very short taxi, it is easy to see how they may of become distracted.

 

[climbhappy]

ACATerry :
could you clarify the poit that said,
"As for the traveling public, if they want such high safety, then they need to pay for it."

Terry,

this struck a cord with me. Forget what happened and who did it and how. Little cindy lou gets on board with her 12 month old. she knows nothing about airplanes and was on her way to see grandma. Or substitute anyone who has no clue about airline pilot pay. they buy a ticket and somehow they shouldn't expect to live throught the flight and arrive safely? what high level of safety are talking about? The safety that comes from being able to taxi a "fricckin airplane to the correct runway . the one with the lights on. A captain that passed a stressful type ride and has done this thousands of times. Is that a high level of safety?
There was fifty /fifty chance he was going to screw it up if you look at the odds. There were two runways right? And what about being a good FO. Looking at the airport diagram?

Somehow using safety and adding to it different levels or degrees when living is the only level you can ascribe and I'll bet you'll want to rethink that comment. That comment was as disrespectful to those 49 souls and my bantering about who and what the poor chap did in the left seat and allowed to take place on his watch. what about calling in sick?

I say this only to debate the merits of your point about customers paying more iin order to live or be allowed to live for paying more. "Sir , I want to live through this , so I'll take the premium quality ticket. "