FedEx chief pilot rant

[satpak77]

I don't work at FedEx but I have stayed in a Holiday Inn.

"Pilot Error" is never excusable, however working on the backside of the clock, o-dark 30, with questionable sleep while the maids vacuum all day long at the hotel, and the sun coming thru the curtains, is always going to put strains on your performance. It is not like the "Pilot Error" aspect is the same thing as Pilot Error at some corporate operator that flies once a week to Scottsdale, in Day VFR.

With that said, in the interest of research, I ran "Federal Express" as "Airline" here, and requested ALL events (incidents and accidents), since 1970 till present. I know FedEx did not exist in 1970 but just used it for a starting date.

http://ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp

46 records showed up.

I did the same thing with "UPS" and "United Parcel Service" and a total of 12 records showed up.

FedEx has 4750 Pilots and 326 Airplanes, per

http://airlinepilotcentral.com/airlines/cargo/fedex.html

UPS has 2825 Pilots and 246 airplanes, per

http://airlinepilotcentral.com/airlines/cargo/ups.html

So FedEx's fleet is 32% larger than UPS's with an accident and incident rate that is 283% greater.

Not pointing fingers, not at all. Just running the math.

 

[EAP]

I've said it before, I'll say it again, as long as you treat a companies hiring practices like a frat and a good ol boys club, you won't really get the "best of the best"

It's interesting, one big manjor airline in particular (70's and 80's) had this very scenario occur, wih FAA anger, etc. Only it was a pax airline and otherwise survivable accidents from the crew perspective had some grannys and slow folk killed during evac from smoke, etc. So it was in fact with more dire consequence. But the issue was, in fact, with leadership in the cockpit. I didn't read the CP's report but if he implys that otherwise preventable accidents could be prevented with leadership, he's right IMHO. I certainly cannot coment on Fedex incidents but I can say hang in there guys and check six.

The other interesting scenario is when an airline suffers a few incidents, it is historically more likely to have more or more serious because of everyone's distraction with the occurences. Self fulfilling prophecy I suppose. At some point the weird cycle breaks. Fly safe guys.

 

[RP 04]

There is a solution--stop crashing so much...

 

[satpak77]

I might add that you can make statistics say anything you want them to say.

 

[big_al]

I might add that you can make statistics say anything you want them to say.

only people affraid of the truth say something as ridiculous as that

 

[ptarmigan]

Not that it would make too much difference, but UPS did not even start as an airline until 89 or so...

 

[Aviator7576]

pilot error

Vab...

Of those incidents addressed in the email, which ones weren't pilot error in your opinion?

Curious,

Aviator7576

 

[skiandsurf]

I'm not involved in any of the accidents. I was just addressing your incorrect statement that said "All were pilot error". They weren't. Some certainly were.

Now feel free to continue to your spewing of inaccuracies. Although I'm sure you don't care if they are inaccurate or not.

By the way, how do you know the FAA is "unhappy"?

I reread the letter.

A couple of highlights and quotes:

1. Passports. A few pilots are coming to work without their passports. The company is not a "babysitter" to remind you professionals to have current medicals and passports with you.

2. (in paragraph 5). One pilot was charged with drug use. Another pilot, while commuting in 7 hours early to work, goes to crew room early and is nabbed for a alcohol test......failed. He was drunk in the crew room.
.....also talks about guys commuting in (tired) and then flying a long trip (tired). Plan your life accordingly.

*Here is where I was wrong. I said the FAA was not happy. It is the NTSB. Here is the quote, "The NTSB isn't real impressed with us."

Another quote
* " Every accident listed above was preventable by the captain knowing what was going on and applying TEM (Threat & error management).

 

[satpak77]

I reread the letter.

A couple of highlights and quotes:

1. Passports. A few pilots are coming to work without their passports. The company is not a "babysitter" to remind you professionals to have current medicals and passports with you.

2. (in paragraph 5). One pilot was charged with drug use. Another pilot, while commuting in 7 hours early to work, goes to crew room early and is nabbed for a alcohol test......failed. He was drunk in the crew room.
.....also talks about guys commuting in (tired) and then flying a long trip (tired). Plan your life accordingly.

*Here is where I was wrong. I said the FAA was not happy. It is the NTSB. Here is the quote, "The NTSB isn't real impressed with us."

Another quote
* " Every accident listed above was preventable by the captain knowing what was going on and applying TEM (Threat & error management).

A read of the TLH accident shows maybe a lack of Captain assertiveness to some extent

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2004/AAR0402.pdf

CVR transcript starts on page 86

 

[skiandsurf]

A read of the TLH accident shows maybe a lack of Captain assertiveness to some extent

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2004/AAR0402.pdf

CVR transcript starts on page 86

This thread is about the "Chief Pilots Rant", not about the TLH accident.

I was just sharing to the group what I know about the "rant".

 

[Hagar17]

Guys.....private info on a public forum.

Please do not post private info on a public forum.

Thanks...
LH

OK, like posting the link to the privileged Air Force C-5 accident investigation video on this site?

 

[Oh-ryan]

OK, like posting the link to the privileged Air Force C-5 accident investigation video on this site?

Oh let it go Hagar. That thread was months ago. We all hashed it out there and you were proven wrong and then when you had your tail between your legs you told everyone you were just kidding. Let's reiterate one more time... the guy posted a link to a PUBLIC website. He did not generate said public website (which would be a violation of privilege).

It kinda takes away from the nice post you made at the end of that thread in which you set the record straight and polished up your image. I guess you are back to playing the role of hall monitor.

 

[Hagar17]

Oh let it go Hagar. That thread was month's ago. We all hashed it out there and you were proven wrong and then when you had your tail between your legs you told everyone you were just kidding. Let's reiterate one more time... the guy posted a link to a PUBLIC website. He did not generate said public website (which would be a violation).

It kinda takes away from the nice post you made at the end of that thread in which you set the record straight and polished up your image. I guess you are back to playing the role of hall monitor.

No, not at all. I'm just saying in both instances private (or privileged) information was posted on this site. In one case it's allowed, in another it's removed by a moderator with a stern warning. That's all.

I stand by my previous apology, which was for kidding about calling the Dover Safety office.

BTW, the retired AD Safety Officer is in hot water. The RUMOR was the JAG was going after his retirement. Not sure of the outcome.

Thanks for the spanking, though. Try decaf.

 

[Oh-ryan]

No, not at all. I'm just saying in both instances private (or privileged) information was posted on this site. In one case it's allowed, in another it's removed by a moderator with a stern warning. That's all.

I stand by my previous apology, which was for kidding about calling the Dover Safety office.

BTW, the retired AD Safety Officer is in hot water. The RUMOR was the JAG was going after his retirement. Not sure of the outcome.

Thanks for the spanking, though. Try decaf.

Umm no... privileged info was never posted on this site. A link to a public website was posted. That website may have been shutdown since then, but the guy who posted the link did not do anything wrong. The guy who created the website may have though.

 

[Hagar17]

Umm no... privileged info was never posted on this site. A link to a public website was posted.

OK, you're right, privileged info v.s. a link to a website with privileged info. But I bet if you look at some of the posts (with info that I know had to come from guys that saw the privileged formal safety brief at Dover AFB in June), there is info that shouldn't be on a public website, info that could potentially be much more damaging to an individual's privacy than a letter from a Chief Pilot.

IMO, in neither instance should that info be on flightinfo.com.

Privileged info v.s. a link to a website with privileged info? Weak. Are you a lawyer?

BTW, I don't want to fight about this. Just wondering what's the difference?

Sorry I asked. Back to the hallway.......

 

[Purpledog]

I've said it before, I'll say it again, as long as you treat a companies hiring practices like a frat and a good ol boys club, you won't really get the "best of the best"

Just from reading that NTSB report linked above, it is clear that the crew was pretty diverse in it's background experience. Unless, of course, they have a combat version CL-600 that I didn't know about. Quit whining and start beating the bushes if you want a job, or better yet, don't. Hell, my wife won't even hire a landscaper without multiple recommendations and you expect a Fortune 500 company to hire into positions critical to it's existence without them? Please, I'm so sick of the entitlement attitude so pervasive today.

 

[satpak77]

This thread is about the "Chief Pilots Rant", not about the TLH accident.

I was just sharing to the group what I know about the "rant".

The Chief Pilots Rant was allegedly about Captains not "being Captains", of which the TLH accident CVR displays a bit of.

I am not asking what G-forces the crew suffered when the crash existed, or asking about fire response times, nor anything else "TLH Accident related"

you think this is "your thread" or what? Its not. Welcome to flightinfo, a DISCUSSION forum. By the way, I see you registered as a member here in March 2006. That puts me senior to you. Now gear up, shut up.

 

[Aluminum Weiner]

I don't work at FedEx but I have stayed in a Holiday Inn.

So FedEx's fleet is 32% larger than UPS's with an accident and incident rate that is 283% greater.

Not pointing fingers, not at all. Just running the math.

Funny, the civilian to military pilot ratio is very simular. UPS hires 283% less military vs. civilian pilots??

 

[WorldOnTime]

I don't work at FedEx but I have stayed in a Holiday Inn.

"Pilot Error" is never excusable, however working on the backside of the clock, o-dark 30, with questionable sleep while the maids vacuum all day long at the hotel, and the sun coming thru the curtains, is always going to put strains on your performance. It is not like the "Pilot Error" aspect is the same thing as Pilot Error at some corporate operator that flies once a week to Scottsdale, in Day VFR.

With that said, in the interest of research, I ran "Federal Express" as "Airline" here, and requested ALL events (incidents and accidents), since 1970 till present. I know FedEx did not exist in 1970 but just used it for a starting date.

http://ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp

46 records showed up.

I did the same thing with "UPS" and "United Parcel Service" and a total of 12 records showed up.

FedEx has 4750 Pilots and 326 Airplanes, per

http://airlinepilotcentral.com/airlines/cargo/fedex.html

UPS has 2825 Pilots and 246 airplanes, per

http://airlinepilotcentral.com/airlines/cargo/ups.html

So FedEx's fleet is 32% larger than UPS's with an accident and incident rate that is 283% greater.

Not pointing fingers, not at all. Just running the math.

UPS hasn't been flying airplanes nearly as long either.

 

[sandman2122]

I recall UPS almost (thank God they didn't) lost a B-727 @ 1995-96 in the Chicago area due to a triple engine flame-out. According to a UPS Captain I know, he said the jet was down to 800' before they got an engine relit.....................let's not finger-point accident statistics, it can/may/will happen to any company out there.