consequences

[supsup]

It seems like weekly you hear of incidents or fender benders at the airlines. I was just curious what happens to the crew of these aircraft? How do the companies and unions handle these situations. Here is an example.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20040121X00083&key=1

Scheduled 14 CFR Part 121: Air Carrier operation of SKYWEST AIRLINES INC (D.B.A. Skywest Airlines)
Incident occurred Sunday, January 18, 2004 in Rapid City, SD
Aircraft: Bombardier CL-600-2B19, registration: N595SW
Injuries: 35 Uninjured.

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.

On January 17, 2004, at about 2209 mountain standard time, a Bombardier CL-600-2B19, operated by Skywest Airlines, as flight 3855, contacted the runway with the left wing tip, while landing on runway 32 (8,701 feet by 150 feet, dry concrete) at the Rapid City Regional Airport (RAP), Rapid City, South Dakota. The airplane received minor damage to the wing tip. The captain, copilot, flight attendant, and 32 passengers were not injured. The 14 CFR Part 121 scheduled passenger flight was operating in instrument meteorological conditions on an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan. The flight originated from Salt Lake City, Utah, at 2035.

The crew had flown the ILS runway 32 approach into RAP just prior to the incident. The air traffic control tower at RAP was closed a the time of landing. Flight 3855 was in contact with Ellsworth Air Force Base approach control.

A special flight permit which was completed after the incident states, "Crew said when they landed they were heavy with ice, and got no flare on landing. Landed pretty hard capt said and had contact on runway with lt wing tip."

Inspection of the airplane on the following afternoon, revealed 1/2 inch to 3/4 inch of rime ice was visible on the tail, windshield wipers, and unprotected areas of the airframe.

The RAP weather observation were recorded as:

Observation Time: 2211 mst
Wind: 070 degrees at 6 knots
Visibility: 1/4 statute miles with freezing fog
Sky Condition: Indefinate 100 feet
Temperature: -2 degrees Celsius
Dew Point: -2 degrees Celsius
Pressure: 30.13 inches of mercury

What will likely happen to this crew? Any thoughts?

supsup

 

[efiscompmon]

Don't know what will happen--but....

....scraping the tip on a wing that has a 4' ground clearance with 69' of span when your tail is coated with ice (which the cannucks claim requires no protection ?!?) and hurting no one seems forgiveable. I would have shot the approach if I were already iced--it's not like there are alot of alternates near RAP--and tailplane icing is not something to trifle with. It would help if they had something on tape (the CVR, ATC) stating their concerns for safety and controlability.

In 18 months of line-flying the CRJ I had three occasions where I gave an "oh sh!t" on the post-flight at the amount of ice on the tail. No heat, no boots, no juice--and no warning until it's too late.

That said, it is a pilot-rich market and they will probably be screwed if mgmt decides it suits their purpose. No union there, so company politics and personal reputations will probably decide the outcome (sadly).

 

[English]

That said, it is a pilot-rich market and they will probably be screwed if mgmt decides it suits their purpose. No union there, so company politics and personal reputations will probably decide the outcome (sadly).

I disagree. A good friend of mine was involved in a gear-up incident at SkyWest. He was treated very fairly by management in the aftermath. There was no immediate assumption that he had screwed up. Alot of effort went into determining the real cause of the accident.

I think you can accurately make that statement about a non-union airline like Colgan. But, just because SkyWest is non-union doesn't mean the company is not run by professionals.

But, what do I know, I am just a pilot....

 

[efiscompmon]

yu are right--I should add that I have no insight into SkyWest's way of doing things--I hear they often tend to be somewhat (gasp!) enlightened!

 

[Dave Benjamin]

That said, it is a pilot-rich market and they will probably be screwed if mgmt decides it suits their purpose. No union there, so company politics and personal reputations will probably decide the outcome (sadly).

Since you don't work for SkyWest you're really going out on a limb with that comment. Do you always speculate publicly on the inner workings of airlines you don't know much about?

 

[wmudriver]

union helped SWA pilots

I could be wrong but didn't the SWA crew that ended up parking a 737 in a gas station in California end up back on line? I thought i recall reading somewhere that the union helped them out. But what do i know...my brain is still swimming in a beer induced fog.

 

[efiscompmon]

Easy, Dave. If you read the first post you'll see that the question was "companies"--and I clarified above that I wasn't speaking about Skywest, but "companies" in general. Don't be so sensitive. No one is picking on you or your airline.

The point was, given the observed WX and a/c damage, alot of OTHER companies would say "bent plane, below mins--you're fired" regardless of the other circumstances which may or may not be in the NTSB report. It was a generic question using a specific example with alot of (important) information omitted.

I am sorry that so many other people are raging against Skywest (and Mesa et al) and that you are so quick to take exception to perceived slights. I think you misinterpreted my post.

 

[SkyWestCRJPilot]

I don't know the specifics of what happened to this crew but I do know of various other incidents that have occurred. The crews have been protected from certificate action by the FAA by the company retraining the crewmembers in the simulator, giving extra IOE, repeated line checks, and possible time off. Most of the time that's it if the action wasn't intentional or wasn't grossly negligent, rather an honest mistake.

 

[supsup]

Thanks

Thanks for responding folks. I wasn't trying to single out any specific operator. It would make sense for airlines to give crews a second chance depending on the circumstance. They have invested time and money in the individual pilot. When the FAA does get involved, how much pull does the company have while trying to defend itself and employees from a violation. Let's make a deal, like skywestcrjpilot said: crews have been protected from certificate action by the FAA by the company retraining the crewmembers in the simulator, giving extra IOE, repeated line checks, and possible time off. Does this happen often?

supsup

 

[Dave Benjamin]

Easy, Dave. If you read the first post you'll see that the question was "companies"--and I clarified above that I wasn't speaking about Skywest, but "companies" in general. Don't be so sensitive. No one is picking on you or your airline.

The point was, given the observed WX and a/c damage, alot of OTHER companies would say "bent plane, below mins--you're fired" regardless of the other circumstances which may or may not be in the NTSB report. It was a generic question using a specific example with alot of (important) information omitted.

Your post seemed to specifically target SkyWest when you stated "no union there blah blah blah"
What evidence is there that they were below minimums inside the FAF? Guys like you that draw conclusions about an incident that they really know little or nothing about piss me off. All we know right now is the basic info from the NTSB report. When there is a final NTSB report with conclusions then we'll have a better idea.

 

[skywav8r]

"The point was, given the observed WX and a/c damage, alot of OTHER companies would say "bent plane, below mins--you're fired" "

Observation Time: 2211 mst
Visibility: 1/4 statute miles with freezing fog
Sky Condition: Indefinate 100 feet

Incident occurred at about 2209 mountain standard time

Required RVR for this approach is 2400. Any working pilot knows how much the RVR can fluctuate any given minute. This observation was taken AFTER the incident. How many times have you heard the visibility at a particular airport is 1/4 mile but the RVR for a particular runway is good enough for the approach. Let's see, last week in SLC the west runway was 600,800,1000 and the east (center) runway was VFR, while the airport was calling the visibility 1/2 mile. This incident also happened at night which makes it real easy to see the approach lights and legally continue your descent. My guess is the professional crew legally shot the approach so the comment about busting minimums is false. But what's an internet message board without some flamebait...boring.

 

[prpjt]

"bent plane, below mins--you're fired"

I believe efiscompmon was alluding to the weather 2 minutes after the incident/accident.

Visibility: 1/4 statute miles with freezing fog

Sky Condition: Indefinate 100 feet

Now this is the actual observation 2 minutes after the fact. There is no telling what the WX was being reported as.

.......looks like skywav8r beat me to it

 

[AAsRedHeadedbro]

Dave Benjamin, you need to relax a bit. In this string at least, you come off as being hyper sensitive to perceived slights of your company and fellow pilots. The way I'm reading this thread, Efiscompmon hasn't flamed anyone. He has simply stated a personal opinion of what possibly may happen. His first post went out of its way to defend the pilots involved and then stated that the company quite possibly could lay the blame at their doorstep.

However, in his second post he responded to ENGLISH's post by saying "yu are right--I should add that I have no insight into SkyWest's way of doing things--I hear they often tend to be somewhat (gasp!) enlightened!"

It sounds to me like he admitted that Skywest management has a reputation for uncommon fairness in that post.

Dave, he even came back and restated that he did not mean to "slight" your company or its pilots but you just continued to lay into him with your next post. You state that it pisses you off when someone draws conclusions about something they know little about. Are you telling us that YOU have never drawn a conclusion about an airline incident or participated in any informal crew room discussions about any airline incident or accident BEFORE the official NTSB report came out? I bet you never said one word about the SWA 737 accident in BUR a few years back because you didn't want to be one of those guys that spouts off about something they know little or nothing about, right?

You come off in this string as being hyper sensitive about SKW and its pilots. Re-read the entire string and it may make become more evident to you.

Anyway, have a great day and keep the oily side down.

Cheers!

 

[Dave Benjamin]

Are you telling us that YOU have never drawn a conclusion about an airline incident or participated in any informal crew room discussions about any airline incident or accident BEFORE the official NTSB report came out? I bet you never said one word about the SWA 737 accident in BUR a few years back because you didn't want to be one of those guys that spouts off about something they know little or nothing about, right?

Of course I've participated in my share of crew lounge discussions and engaged in speculation and WAG's.

I don't post those thoughts on a public internet site. You never know who reads these boards. I also would not want to offend the crews involved, coworkers, friends, and family. I've been fortunate in my career and have never damaged an aircraft. I can't imagine how I'd feel if I were involved in an incident or accident regardless of whether or not I caused it. I don't think I'd appreciate someone who with no first-hand knowledge criticizing me on the internet. I try to follow the golden rule, something to the efffect of "do unto others....."

I don't think I overreacted to EFISCOMPMON. In his initial post he pretty much said that since SKYW is non-union the pilots could be screwed. He also stated that the crew violated the FAR's by attempting a landing below minimums. I admit he did some significant backpedalling after that.

 

[supsup]

ok, one more

Ok, one more time kids. Back to my 2nd question.

When the FAA does get involved, how much pull does the company have while trying to defend itself and employees from a violation. Let's make a deal, like skywestcrjpilot said: crews have been protected from certificate action by the FAA by the company retraining the crewmembers in the simulator, giving extra IOE, repeated line checks, and possible time off. Does this happen often?

Lets redirect all of this b!tchin to a PFT thread.

supsup