Flg 3701 Audio Tape

[Mel Sharples]

Obviously the media tries to sensationalize a story. That is how they get ratings. If not, they would have a computer-synthesized voice read text to us with pictures and that would be the news. They have to "sell" the story if they want ratings.

If you think this is bad, tune in for sweeps week. "Do you know what is in your child's lunchbox??? He or she could DIE! Tonight, only Action 9 News can tell you how your child could DIE from a school lunch. If you love your children, you better watch Action 9 News tonight!"

With that said, I think the "having a little fun" comment is bad no matter how you look at it. Have we all ever done something in a plane because it is "fun"? Of course we have. We got into flying because it is fun (at least I hope so).

The problem is that the public sees FAR 121 flying (read: airlines) as being a highly professional service that puts safety first. They don't see it as a place for "fun". They would never want you (us) to do something purely for fun. It is all about legal and safe.

Did those guys screw up? I don't know. I really hope not, and I hope that the NTSB can figure it out. I do know that we can all learn from this, as with any accident. And I also know that the intended meaning of "having a little fun" doesn't matter, when the public hears it from the late pilot's own mouth. Right or wrong, we are all going to hear about this for a long time. It's no different when pilots fly drunk, or when Payne Stewart's pilots had the oxygen issue. The public sees their safety threatened (again, for right or wrong) and it all rolls down hill.


Godspeed, FLG 3701... Rest in peace.


.

 

[jarhead]

With that said, I think the "having a little fun" comment is bad no matter how you look at it.

Do you think that part of the tape should have been "bleeped out"? The pilots did say it, and we all heard it. The news people did not invent it. Would a sanitized and censored version have been better? And if so, better for who?

Just asking

 

[atrdriver]

To me, the purest form of reporting, is simply broadcasting “facts”, without any explanation or spin from an expert. In the case of the audio tapes of the final minutes of flight 3701, they are the exact words of ATC and the pilots.

There is one major problem with that statement. Aviation uses language in a way that many people that are not involved in it do not understand. Remember how many students you have seen who had a lot of trouble learning how to talk on the radio? If you were to put out a 10 minute piece of ATC tape for the average person to hear they would probably not be able to understand more than 20 or 30% of it. That's why a knowledgable person should be consulted before a news organization runs with a story just to get the story out first.

 

[Mel Sharples]

Do you think that part of the tape should have been "bleeped out"? The pilots did say it, and we all heard it. The news people did not invent it. Would a sanitized and censored version have been better? And if so, better for who?

Just asking

No, I don't. I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I agree with you that the media should report what they find. What they said was fact and it should have been reported.

What I am saying is then when they said those words, there is no positive spin you can ever put on it. The public starts thinking, "Hmmm... Are all airline pilots cowboys? Are they trying to keep me safe or have fun? Are these guys bored flying straight and level all the time?" But then again, maybe we shouldn't even try to put on a positive spin. I don't know.

I'm not saying for a second that should have been covered up. It is just going to make it hard for Pinnacle to make this thing be anything but pilot error. (NOTE: I AM NOT PASSING JUDGEMENT. Only saying what I think the public will think.)

Just goes to show how a small off-handed comment can come back to bite you in the ass even after you are gone.

*sigh*

 

[Flechas]

I have to say that both jarhead and Mel Sharples are right, it's just sad that our profession get degraded that way by the media, just to get ratings, and it's even worse that that is what the public craves.
Anyway, hope we all learn from what happened and may their souls rest in peace.

Fly safe.

Flechas

 

[jarhead]

No, I don't. I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I agree with you that the media should report what they find. What they said was fact and it should have been reported.

What I am saying is then when they said those words, there is no positive spin you can ever put on it. The public starts thinking, "Hmmm... Are all airline pilots cowboys? Are they trying to keep me safe or have fun? Are these guys bored flying straight and level all the time?" But then again, maybe we shouldn't even try to put on a positive spin. I don't know.

I'm not saying for a second that should have been covered up. It is just going to make it hard for Pinnacle to make this thing be anything but pilot error. (NOTE: I AM NOT PASSING JUDGEMENT. Only saying what I think the public will think.)

Just goes to show how a small off-handed comment can come back to bite you in the ass even after you are gone.

*sigh*

I can't disagree with what you say here, or with atrdriver. Maybe becuase I understand it I assume all will know "the lingo"

 

[DiverDriver]

I have to say that both jarhead and Mel Sharples are right, it's just sad that our profession get degraded that way by the media, just to get ratings, and it's even worse that that is what the public craves.
Anyway, hope we all learn from what happened and may their souls rest in peace.

Fly safe.

Flechas

Dude, I don't know how many times I've seen in print or on the air "parachute failed to open" when I know darn well the jumper had a good canopy and flew it into the ground at a high rate of speed. The press will never get it right when it comes to aviation. You have to accept this and right things when you get the chance. The public will take interest in this for about 5 minutes and then move on. There are other things that have their interest right now. Sad to say it but we people in the industry have a greater interest in seeing how it is reported than most the public. At least, that's how I take things now.

I try not to let it eat at me. And you shouldn't either. It's just how things are. The final report will come out and it will all be settled and it won't even get reported when it does. Well, maybe it'll be reported locally in Jeff City and Memphis.

 

[DirkkDiggler]

I have to say that both jarhead and Mel Sharples are right, it's just sad that our profession get degraded that way by the media, just to get ratings, and it's even worse that that is what the public craves.
Anyway, hope we all learn from what happened and may their souls rest in peace.

Fly safe.

Flechas

As unfair as it may seem to some of us, we have chosen to participate in a career that is under close public scrutiny because the general public is, on the whole, afraid of flying. It is largely because of this scrutiny that we have so many regulations and our safety record is as impresive as it is. Sometimes it takes a lot of noise to make small changes and that is what the media's role is in a lot of these situations. They make a bigger stink about it than you or I would, but it takes an exaggerated response to make a small difference. I don't think anyone who flies CRJ's can debate that the media's response to this has affected how their flight department has scrutinized the way they fly their aircraft. I know my company has placed a restriction on the max altitude we can fly. I think it's a good process and we are lucky to live in a country where the media is allowed to criticize. It's what makes America a free country.

 

[405]

For what it's worth

FLG3701 was a reposition flight from Little Rock to MSP. Not from Memphis as the dumb a** KSTP reporters said. Reporters and aviation obviously don't go together.

 

[jarhead]

FLG3701 was a reposition flight from Little Rock to MSP. Not from Memphis as the dumb a** KSTP reporters said. Reporters and aviation obviously don't go together.

How is that germane to the accident or audio recordings in any way whatsoever?

 

[FL000]

How is that germane to the accident or audio recordings in any way whatsoever?

Probably because of what I posted above. And that information (LIT), which I didn't know or had forgotten, made my assessment moot and worthless. My apologies.

 

[172driver]

Your assessment of distance to climb may be worthless but we already have seen more telling data anyway. FLG 3701 departed at 9:21 pm and checked in level FL410 at 9:52 pm. Just about 30 minutes to climb to 410.

None of us knows what kind of profile they used but I can guarantee you they were pretty slow when they got up there. I've never seen the CRJ hold much more than 500fpm above FL300, even empty. That gives you 22 min. from 300 to 410 alone. You can work the numbers however you like, but any way I look at it, they were up there very quickly.

Of course our company has a limitation of 250/.70M in the climb so my perception may be skewed. I know the airplane won't get to 410 in 31 minutes under that limitation.

 

[RJFlyer]

I've been to FL410 in the CRJ twice - once when we had NO business being there (I was very new and the CA was a hotshot who always has to go as high as possible). The other time we (different CA) were light, maybe 4 pax, and it was about ISA or below. We were filed to FL370, and were climbing 800fpm at .75 mach when we were approaching FL370. We consulted the climb capability charts and determined we should easily make FL410. We got there at .75 mach/800 fpm. Accelerated to .77 mach when we got there.

Point is, if you're light and it's cold enough, the airplane can do it.

 

[Mel Sharples]

I've been to FL410 in the CRJ twice - once when we had NO business being there (I was very new and the CA was a hotshot who always has to go as high as possible). The other time we (different CA) were light, maybe 4 pax, and it was about ISA or below. We were filed to FL370, and were climbing 800fpm at .75 mach when we were approaching FL370. We consulted the climb capability charts and determined we should easily make FL410. We got there at .75 mach/800 fpm. Accelerated to .77 mach when we got there.

Point is, if you're light and it's cold enough, the airplane can do it.

It CAN do it, but why? I can stick a needle in my eye, but why would I want to do that?

I'm certainly not pointing the finger at you, or anyone else in particular. God knows I've done my share of dumb stuff.

My point is that just because the plane CAN do it, it is not a defense if they shouldn't have been there. Doing something to have fun is different from doing it for fuel, safety, etc.

Keep in mind I'm not judging this crew. I just know that the NTSB and the public are going to be harsh on this one.

 

[Ty Webb]

It CAN do it, but why? I can stick a needle in my eye, but why would I want to do that?

.

Boy, you ladies sound stupider than those FlightSim2000 weenies over on airliners.net talking about this.

"Having some fun" doesn't mean anything more than "good afternoon" or "beautiful night" unless you are looking for something sensational to report. If the high-altitude cruise chart data showed they could expect to cruise at FL410 and maintain a 1.3 or 1.4G margin at the prevailing temperature, then there was no reason not to go up there, and you clowns that are Monday-morning quarterbacking them are a sorry bunch of idiots.

Those of us who have had the benefit of hand-flying older, under-powered junk in the upper corners of the cruise charts may have recognized the situation they got into, but that is the benefit of having had that experience, and to use the innocent remark of "having fun" against that crew, while understandable from the news media, is unforgiveable from pilots who should know better, and if that shoe stinks, it's probably yours.

Over and out.

 

[Dodge]

As Mel said, we all prolly got into this racket because it is actually fun. However, airline (all commercial for that matter) pilots are viewed in the eyes of the public as a very professional group. The shock on everyone's face after I tell them I make what their high school daughter makes at Sonic is proof of it. Having some fun is not what pax want to hear.

To use the afore mentioned doctor scenario, just imagine a surgeon doing a bypass on your father saying to the rest of the staff, "this isn't something I normally do, but let's have some fun today."

All these posts have been excellent food for thought, or should be, for all our future flights.

 

[shamrock]

I've been to FL410 in the CRJ twice - once when we had NO business being there (I was very new and the CA was a hotshot who always has to go as high as possible).

Boy does that scenario sound familiar! I had the same experience a few years ago, but we only made it to 370. We were "hanging on the prop" so to speak and the Captain didn't want to hear anything about what the book said.

Thinking about how stupid it was still scares me.

 

[flyhard]

I really hate to agree with Ty but he is right (this time). The fact remains that these guys died doing what they loved. "Having fun" enjoying their job. Not doing anything dangerous. The media spins things to what sells. Period. The same guy that writes that is the one with the scanner on the other side of the fence wishing.

 

[capt. megadeth]

This got me thinking...I've said some stuff that could be taken waaaay out of context if someone was listening to the CVR.
Here's one that I'm sure more than a few of us have said, "What's it doing now?!" The headlines would read, "Pilots don't know how to fly their plane."

.

That is the honest to God truth, ain't it?

This article pretty much made me sick to my stomach.

 

[capt. megadeth]

To use the afore mentioned doctor scenario, just imagine a surgeon doing a bypass on your father saying to the rest of the staff, "this isn't something I normally do, but let's have some fun today."

.

Would it bother you if the surgeon was listening to Megadeth during the surgery?