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

densoo

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 2, 2004
Posts
2,054
FAA proposes to strengthen airline pilot training after pilot error caused air crash

By Associated Press, Updated: Wednesday, May 11, 1:58 PM

WASHINGTON — Federal aviation officials proposed the most wide-ranging overhaul of air crew training in decades Thursday, more than two years after a crash in western New York that was attributed to pilot error.

The Federal Aviation Administration proposal would require airlines to train pilots, flight attendants and flight dispatchers together in real life scenarios in more advanced flight simulators. That includes simulator training for pilots on how to recover from full stall in flight.

The proposal also would require remedial training for pilots with performance deficiencies such as failing a proficiency test or check, or unsatisfactory performance during flight training or a simulator course.

“The difference is that rather than just have a pilot execute a ... skill in isolation, the new training will require a more realistic and coordinated effort by the crew as if they were on a real flight,” FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt told reporters. “It will be a lot more lifelike.”

Continental Connection Flight 3407 crashed after experiencing an aerodynamic stall — a loss of lift brought on by too little speed — during a landing approach to Buffalo Niagara International Airport in February 2009. The stall caused the plane to plummet to the ground, killing all 49 people aboard and a man in a house below.

The National Transportation Safety Board later determined the flight’s pilots failed to monitor the plane’s airspeed and thus were surprised when a safety system known as a “stick shaker” activated, alerting them to the impending stall. The captain responded by pulling back on the plane’s steering mechanism when the correct action that pilots are trained to take is to push forward to pick up speed.

The plane immediately went into a full stall, triggering the activation of another safety system known as a “stick pusher” because it points a plane’s nose downward to pick up speed. The captain again pulled back hard when the proper response would have been to push forward.

Safety investigators estimated that even after the stick pusher had activated, the captain still had seconds to save the flight if he had taken the correct action.

The accident is considered especially noteworthy by aviation experts because of the wide array of systemic safety concerns revealed during the crash investigation, including several involving pilot training. For example, the stick pusher had been described to the captain in classroom training, but it wasn’t included in simulator training. The final seconds before the crash may have been that the first time he’d experienced its activation.

The captain had failed at least five key tests of piloting skills during his career, but was allowed to retake each test. Despite his record, the captain wasn’t singled out for any remedial or special training by Colgan Air, the regional carrier that operated the flight for Continental Airlines. Colgan said it was unaware of two of the test failures, which occurred prior to the captain’s hiring.

FAA proposed updating pilot training requirements a month before the accident. Officials have spent the last two years reshaping the previous plan to reflect issues raised in the Flight 3407 investigation and to meet the requirements of a law passed by Congress in response to the accident.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...used-air-crash/2011/05/11/AF1FpiqG_story.html
 
Last edited:
For those of us that have made it to the airlines prior to learning to fly will we get grandfathered in?

Or will we be just force to fly in India instead?
 
full stall in a swept wing airplane, isn't that test pilot stuff? can most sims out there even simulate this correctly?
 
But to have rest rules that make sense?

Not so much.

Both Colgan pilots had far in excess of required rest...How would rest rules have changed the outcome of the Colgan crash?
 
Rarely does a government agency (FAA, SEC, USDA) side with the rights of the people over the rights of a corporation. People are just too easily tricked, and the "revolving door" of a lucrative job in the private sector is too alluring.
 
Oh wow they exceeded the FAA's HIGH STANDARDS of rest!

Well the captain had over 21 hours of rest prior to duty in, and the FO was off the day before and it was a 1330 report...Now I ask again, what changes in the rest rules would have changed this? Any fatigue was self induced...Should we restrict commuting?

Facts please...not emotional rhetoric...
 
The normal FO salary of around $20k per year will affect the health and rest of many. To top that off after "paying dues" as a $20k FO, a pilot then becomes an underpaid Captain. Increased FAA minimum experience and strict rest rules seem reasonable to protect the public a little more. Unfortunately for us, corporations rely on the fact that individuals will rarely band together to protect their own interests. If we pulled off a nationwide sickout cabotage would eventually follow. Pilots should make a collective stand anyway imho.
 
Well the captain had over 21 hours of rest prior to duty in, and the FO was off the day before and it was a 1330 report...Now I ask again, what changes in the rest rules would have changed this? Any fatigue was self induced...Should we restrict commuting?

Facts please...not emotional rhetoric...

That was a fact. Citing that they had more than the "required" rest to prove they were rested is ridiculous.

I agree they had ample time to rest, but I'm not citing the FAA requirements as proof that they were rested.
 
That was a fact. Citing that they had more than the "required" rest to prove they were rested is ridiculous.

I agree they had ample time to rest, but I'm not citing the FAA requirements as proof that they were rested.

The argument being made is that rest requirements were a factor in this accident...They were not. Being rested and rest requirements are two very different points.
 
The argument being made is that rest requirements were a factor in this accident...They were not. Being rested and rest requirements are two very different points.

I dont see where anybody made that argument in this thread. I know that people HAVE made that argument, but I don't see it here...yet.
 
I dont see where anybody made that argument in this thread. I know that people HAVE made that argument, but I don't see it here...yet.

The original post is a result of the Colgan crash....2 of the next 3 responses cited rest requirements.
 
Well the captain had over 21 hours of rest prior to duty in, and the FO was off the day before and it was a 1330 report...Now I ask again, what changes in the rest rules would have changed this? Any fatigue was self induced...Should we restrict commuting?

Facts please...not emotional rhetoric...


Joe I think the point is that while they were fatigued *despite* having 20+ hours of "rest", the current rules create situations where fatigue is *unavoidable*, so you can get the same exact result. Fatigue is fatigue. But I have flown several times with probably less actual rest/sleep than the Colgan crew because of reduced rest during periods of odd shifting schedules. Government sanctioned fatigue is outdated and uncivilized. I can wake up and work on an 8 hour layover, but after a couple hours, I'm about as alert and functioning as well as I am after like 4 beers.

It's reality. The tough-guy macho bull**** attitude about rest and sleep is impressive and all, but not realistic OR safe.

Would you really want to be riding with your family on the back of an RJ with a crew on day 4 after an 8 hour layover on their 9th hour of duty/4th leg, shooting the VOR into Asheville?

I don't.
 
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.
 
The original post is a result of the Colgan crash....2 of the next 3 responses cited rest requirements.

They were mocking the FAA's ineptitude in responding to REAL safety concerns, not just in reference to the Colgan crash. At least that's how I interpreted it.

We can let them decide if I was right.
 
Joe I think the point is that while they were fatigued *despite* having 20+ hours of "rest", the current rules create situations where fatigue is *unavoidable*, so you can get the same exact result. Fatigue is fatigue. But I have flown several times with probably less actual rest/sleep than the Colgan crew because of reduced rest during periods of odd shifting schedules. Government sanctioned fatigue is outdated and uncivilized. I can wake up and work on an 8 hour layover, but after a couple hours, I'm about as alert and functioning as well as I am after like 4 beers.

It's reality. The tough-guy macho bull**** attitude about rest and sleep is impressive and all, but not realistic OR safe.

Would you really want to be riding with your family on the back of an RJ with a crew on day 4 after an 8 hour layover on their 9th hour of duty/4th leg, shooting the VOR into Asheville?

I don't.


So true.

Here is a situation I encountered.

I was on reserve and assigned a High Seed, Continuous Duty, standup, etc...whatever you want to call it.

9pm report and 9am release...7 hours on the ground in between flights...so I got 5 hours of sleep.

After returning to base, I was released for the rest of the day, and told I was assigned airport reserve starting at 6am the following morning.

Of course by the time I got home at 10:30am following the CD, I was dead tired and needed sleep. I laid down to take a nap and woke up 3 hours later. Finally I felt rested.

Unfortunately, when I then tried to go to bed at 9pm in order to get up at 445am to get to the airport for my 6am start to my duty day, I couldn't sleep. Wake up the following morning on 5 hours of sleep...head to the airport and hope I don't get called out before I can get a nap in the crew room. Luckily for me, I didn't get paged out...I would have had no choice but to call fatigued.

I went from working the night shift to the morning shift in under 24 hours.

Completely unacceptable but perfectly legal. Hell, I had 18 hours of time between duty periods/"rest".

Even if you are a line holder, you could have a schedule with a High speed and less than 24 hours after release you are back for an early report. No way you can turn your body around that quickly.
 
I'm sorry, I don't care how tired I am. I pledge to all of you that I will never pull into the stick shaker during a stall recovery or override the pusher either. Now do I think this crew was possibly fatigued? Absolutely. Do I think that even if the Capt. had proper rest that he wouldn't have panicked and reacted in the very same manner? Absolutely not! IMHO, fatigue was only a symptom of a much larger issue which was poor airmanship and decision making on the part of the crew. Now with all that said, there but by the grace of God go I.
 
Breaking News: FAA to require airlines to properly train pilots

That's the other side of this crash. Part of the savings the airlines, large and small, is to cut training to the bare minimum, that minimum being only what is required by the FAA and nothing more. That way the lawyers can tell the CEO to say after the crash, "we did everything the FAA required." What isn't said is "....and absolutely nothing more."

Implied in all this is the airlines have no safety program other than the bare minimum standards set by the FAA. Beyond that is a waste of money. Unless you consider the lawsuits by the families after an accident to be a cost. Nah. Insurance company pays them.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top