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

Breaking News: FAA to require pilots know how to fly

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
So wait, is the article saying that better training with flight attendants would have improved the outcome of the Buffalo flight that day? Um, what?

Idiotic article illustrating some of the latest "theories" at the top of the FAA...but hey, ALPA says he's cool...
 
How did the Colgan Captain do on his basic piloting tests when the F/O decided to raise the flaps (uncommanded by the pilot flying)? I mean they do test for crewmembers to do just the wrong thing at just the wrong time don't they?
 
The original post is a result of the Colgan crash....2 of the next 3 responses cited rest requirements.
The whole fatigue discussion is legitimate IMO. When an airline creates a culture through low pay, hub selection, and scheduling practices, there are predictable and controllable outcomes to margins of safety. Some of these are just part of their business model, but the affects on safety can be known and mitigated.

One is low pay. They know with certainty that low pay is going to require folks to live a long way from the hub like NYC, or to live nearer in insufficient rest facilities like crash pads with hot bunking and people coming and going at all times of the day and night. They knew this was a problem because they told people they weren't allowed to sleep in the crew room. Proof positive that they were aware of the issue.

Another is fatigue calls. If they are aware of market forces at all, and certainly they are as MBAs, then every airline that has a lose-pay fatigue policy should be held liable for any incidents/accidents resulting from fatigue. A pilot should never fly fatigued, but when they lose pay in a fatigue call the result is entirely predictable. The FAA or Congress should make a rule/law that prohibits loss of pay for a fatigue call.
 
So wait, is the article saying that better training with flight attendants would have improved the outcome of the Buffalo flight that day?

A draft of the sim profile is already floating around the internet. If the FA senses a rapid bumping like boat going across choppy water, they are to immediately contact the flight deck. As soon as the flight deck answers they are to yell, "RECOVER!" The hands on training during ground school is going to be everyone meeting at a nearby lake for speed boat over choppy water familiarization.
 
Last edited:
Joe, the FO commuted in to work via Fedex and slept in a chair in the crew lounge that morning once she arrived in EWR. While she legally did have the rest, hardly seems adequate. However, the responsibility to show up to work rested and prepared will always be up to the pilot. Thousands of professionals are able to do this time and time again without making it to the headlines and (thankfully) no one getting injured or killed.
 
Joe, the FO commuted in to work via Fedex and slept in a chair in the crew lounge that morning once she arrived in EWR. While she legally did have the rest, hardly seems adequate. However, the responsibility to show up to work rested and prepared will always be up to the pilot. Thousands of professionals are able to do this time and time again without making it to the headlines and (thankfully) no one getting injured or killed.
Pilots should not fly if unfit to fly.

But,

When the airline creates a culture in which pilots have to do this to feed themselves--and know very well this is happening (they prohibited sleeping in the crew room)--then the airline bears some responsiblity for this accident.
 
Last edited:
I agree with all the posters that said cumulative and situational fatigue were a factor. If you don't- you're just wrong- Also agree w/ salukiGod of aviation- that I wouldn't make the mistakes that capt made- and I like this step- I still don't think Sims are the problem- we could get rid of a LOt of the undisciplined riff-raff if we got rid of the complete joke of FAA written tests.

Want to raise the bar on the quality of pilots, make the tests more like the Bar. Hell, make it a challenge that a 4th grader couldn't pass in a week at least.
 
What kind of bat guano is this? You can train us to fly the whole simulator profile inverted if you want to, but if you're not going to hold people who fail accountable for those failures it's a pointless exercise. That crash had nothing to do with pilot training, and had everything to do with making sure pilots are well rested and paid enough so they don't have to travel across the country to have a place to live. When a McDonald’s employee can make more than a pilot in a year you would think that we have a problem.


So the contention is, that in the Colgan case, if the pilots had been paid more money they would have made different personal choices with reference to their commute or would have moved to Newark. They would therefore have been better rested and responded properly to what amounts to an unnoticed degradation of airspeed, had that airspeed and configuration oversight still occurred they would have executed properly a basic maneuver taught at the private pilot level....because they were better rested.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top