Colgan 3407 Findings

[kmox29]

The FAA skates...

I don't think the FAA "skated":

39. The current Federal Aviation Administration surveillance standards for oversight at air carriers undergoing rapid growth and increased complexity of operations do not guarantee that any challenges encountered by the carriers as a result of these changes will be appropriately mitigated.

41. The viability of flight operational quality assurance programs depends on the confidentiality of the data, which would currently not be guaranteed if operators were required to implement these programs and required to share the data with the Federal Aviation Administration.

Granted, the FAA didn't carry the burden of responsibility in the NTSB's final report (the Captain did), but how much should the FAA bear in this accident?

 

[WayBack]

wayback,

I know you hate ALPA, but the fact is ALPA had been on the property at Colgan less than a month when the accident happened. How could ALPA have kept them out of the flight deck?

I explained it before in another post on this thread, but I'll say it again.
There have ALPA chest thumpers on here, saying that ALPA's sole mission is safety, and that all of the aviation industry (General and Airline Aviation) have benefited from ALPA creating everything that has made the industry safer. No one else had there hand in it, just ALPA. They fixed it all with the wave of a wand.
So if ALPA is about making every thing safer, even for the non-ALPA pilots/carriers, they should have been active in making sure Colgan's pilots are competent safe pilots. I know ALPA doesn't hire, but maybe this is a arena they should take over, since they want safer pilots.
They also failed to inform Colgan's training department, that is was substandard.

 

[ImbracableCrunk]

I explained it before in another post on this thread, but I'll say it again.
There have ALPA chest thumpers on here, saying that ALPA's sole mission is safety, and that all of the aviation industry (General and Airline Aviation) have benefited from ALPA creating everything that has made the industry safer. No one else had there hand in it, just ALPA. They fixed it all with the wave of a wand.

Who said that and where?

So if ALPA is about making every thing safer, even for the non-ALPA pilots/carriers, they should have been active in making sure Colgan's pilots are competent safe pilots. I know ALPA doesn't hire, but maybe this is a arena they should take over, since they want safer pilots.

Under what authority should they do this?

They also failed to inform Colgan's training department, that is was substandard.

How would ALPA have done that? They were voted onto the property in DEC and the accident was in FEB. Did they even have a Safety Committee at that point? A Training Committee?

 

[CopilotDoug]

The same...the size of the paycheck does not affect basic aerodynamics.

Fatigue was determined to be factor. It has a direct bearing on the outcome if they would have had better quality rest.

 

[WayBack]

Who said that and where?

Just search the majority of these threads. I'm not doing the search for you.

Under what authority should they do this?

How would ALPA have done that? They were voted onto the property in DEC and the accident was in FEB. Did they even have a Safety Committee at that point? A Training Committee?

Sorry, It's been a while since I sat in a part 121 crew room. I have forgotten how seriously some pilots take themselves, and how they have no sense of humor, along with no ability to detect sarcasm.
From here on out, I will post nothing but serious, positive threads and do my best to promote the goodness in ALPA.

 

[aewanabe]

Just curious, did any of you actually bother to read any of the NTSB docket other than the CVR recordings?

I fully agree that CA Renslow had a shoddy start to his career with GIA and some training difficulties; to a man, though, his FOs called him a good, conscientious CA who included them in decision making and acknowledged his inexperience in the plane.

FO Shaw was far more experienced than the average Colgan new-hire, and was reported as very sharp by her Captains and check airmen who were in position to evaluate her. She even mentioned not being in a rush to upgrade, as she wanted more experience before making the decisions in the left seat? How many of you are mature enough to make the same self-analysis?

The fact is, they were more qualified and probably more professional than a whole slew of you keyboard commandos, right up until the accident chain reached them and they weren't worthy to the moment. Make no mistake, they f-ed up and paid with their lives, as well as the lives of 48 others. But there were gaps in the system that helped them fail.

Having a bunch of so-called professional aviators dancing on their graves, rather than soberly recognizing that it really COULD happen to you, is pathetic.

 

[WayBack]

I fully agree that CA Renslow had a shoddy start to his career with GIA and some training difficulties; to a man, though, his FOs called him a good, conscientious CA who included them in decision making and acknowledged his inexperience in the plane.

Did you fly with him? I know two former Colgan captains who had Renslow as an FO. One said that he had to take the controls MULTIPLE times because Marvin had a tendency to get very close to stalling the airplane during climb and landing configuration.
Both said that they noticed Renslow has a problem keeping his scan, often not paying attention to airspeed. Even being assigned a speed, he had problems maintaining that speed.

FO Shaw was far more experienced than the average Colgan new-hire, and was reported as very sharp by her Captains and check airmen who were in position to evaluate her. She even mentioned not being in a rush to upgrade, as she wanted more experience before making the decisions in the left seat? How many of you are mature enough to make the same self-analysis?

I'm not saying she wasn't qualified, but how often do you hear others reveal what they really thought of a person who died? People don't say their true feelings about the dead because they think others will frown upon it, and they also think it will cause trouble in their life. Taboo.
Of course instructors and check airman are going to say she was sharp and qualified. You expect a check airman to say "She sucked and was under qualified in the cockpit, but I passed her anyway!".
Also, she said she didn't want to rush to upgrade so she could gain more experience, that is true. But she also said she didn't know anything about icing, and didn't want to be incharge to make those types of decisions. I give her credit for her acknowledging her weaknesses.

Having a bunch of so-called professional aviators dancing on their graves, rather than soberly recognizing that it really COULD happen to you, is pathetic.

This is why people speak highly of the deceased. I know I am going to get attacked for what I said above.
But how is it "dancing on their graves" when someone points out their mistakes, their flaws and even quoting what they said in the cockpit?
It's not, dancing on ones grave would be one who is happy they are dead, and then gloating about about it. I have seen some jackass comments on here about the crew, but never seen anyone dancing on their graves.
People need to quit being so sensitive.

 

[aewanabe]

I have no personal knowledge of CA Renslow or FO Shaw's abilities; I agree some of those deposed might have been ill-disposed to speak poorly of the recently deceased. But if Renslow flew with people who thought he was such a weak stick, did anyone do anything? Talk to Flight Standards, the CP, or Pro Stans? Honestly, I've read the depositions of several other pilot-error crashes (a few of the USAir incidents in the late 80s and early 90s, e.g.); in those cases the tone much more clearly indicated skepticism of the crew's abilities.

I didn't take pointing out the errors as dancing on their graves, but there have been plenty of sardonic comments from folks who seem to believe the mistakes are beneath them. Those guys (and gals?) seem most likely to repeat the same mistakes.

Ultimately, the two of them made a basic mistake, failed to rectify it, and died for it. They were the wrong people in that cockpit at that time. My take on the CVR comments and the comments from their peers indicated more maturity and self-awareness than they've been credited with. In our rush to say "they f-d up" (and make no mistake, they did), we tend to ignore what we can learn about ourselves as aviators. Just my opinion, YMMV.

 

[ImbracableCrunk]

Just search the majority of these threads. I'm not doing the search for you.




Sorry, It's been a while since I sat in a part 121 crew room. I have forgotten how seriously some pilots take themselves, and how they have no sense of humor, along with no ability to detect sarcasm.
From here on out, I will post nothing but serious, positive threads and do my best to promote the goodness in ALPA.

So what you're saying is you have nothing to back up what you're saying, and when called out, you say you were joking.

You don't like ALPA. We get it.

 

[WayBack]

So what you're saying is you have nothing to back up what you're saying, and when called out, you say you were joking.

You don't like ALPA. We get it.

No, what I am saying is mocking those guys I am referring to, and baiting them because they get all huffy-puffy over anyone pointing out ALPA's flaws.
How do you back up something that isn't true. Sorry if you read what myself and others say on FI.com, and believe it all. FYI, most of FI.com all BS stories, just a bunch of bickering between regional guys.
Now I'm sorry if this has burst your bubble, but I'd hate to see you go through life, referring to FI.com for actual, factual and honest information.

You're correct, I don't like ALPA. But do to TOS, you don't get how much I really don't like ALPA.