Inappropriate comments about RJ crash?

[AirBill]

Like I said, I don't disagree with that at all. I'm not blaming hypoxia for the seat-switching, wild maneuvers and all that stuff. That's just plain stupid. And I'm not trying to sugar-coat it at all. These two guys will have 100 percent of the blame heaped on them by the final report, and in my opinion they deserve it.

Still, their reactions when it all was about to fall apart are just so bizarre. Who laughs out loud when their airplane is extremely uncoordinated and nose-up, and they're about to stall in a swept-wing airplane at 410?

Of course, the answer could be just a couple of guys who had no business being where they were and doing what they were doing.

 

[TIS]

Every now and then I fly with a dud that has the personality of a brick....they never hear me say much of anything really, let alone "dude". These types are usually so full of themselves that they really have no life or personality outside of the "Captain" figure that they try to be when they are in the cockpit. Carrying on any type of conversation with these people outside of flying airplanes is next to impossible. It seems to me that you could be one of these people. Loosen up "dude".

SkyBoy, I think your comments are WAY out of line! This isn’t about who’s a dud and who isn’t, and it’s not about “loosening up” either. Tony’s right about the attitude. I’ve been talking about this sort of thing for YEARS and I’m often roundly criticized for it but this accident proves my point in spades. The bottom line is that how you conduct yourself matters, especially when the chips are down. This flight wasn’t conducted well AT ALL!

Have you taken a look at the pilot histories in the NTSBs findings? Have you taken a look at the CVR transcript? Before you chastise anyone for “being a dud” again make sure you do so. They are very revealing indeed.

By my count Captain Rhodes had to have taken at least thirteen checkrides in his life. He failed SIX of them. How’s that for attitude. He failed them for a variety of reasons, but fail them he did. The evidence suggests that on more than one occasion these failures were due to a lack of preparation. I’d say attitude plays a role there.

One of his upgrade instructors in the CRJ had concerns about the way he ran his cockpit – concerns that were borne out in this accident. He misidentified checklists repeatedly during this instructor’s time with him and he repeatedly called for the wrong checklists.

I suppose you could say about all this that he just didn’t perform well in stressful situations. Maybe someone should have insisted on improvement in that area. He might be alive today if they had.

Think about this for a minute: Rhodes, the PILOT IN COMMAND, got up out of his seat and went to get drinks in an airplane that was behind the power curve and slipping further into the rut they were in as they spoke. He left a pilot with 761 hours TOTAL TIME alone in the cockpit watching a critical situation he’d never seen before continue to deteriorate. To have done this, he either didn’t care what was happening to his airplane or he didn’t recognize what was going on. Which do you think is more likely?

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again now – going to FL410 was an experiment for these guys. The CVR proves it – they could hardly believe their eyes from the time they got there to the time they crashed. They couldn’t have known what awaited them there. That makes it an experiment.

Once they had their problem going it took a minute and seventeen seconds from the time the cabin pressure warning went off to the time that someone said something about putting on a mask. That someone was NOT Captain Rhodes. But HE should have been the first one to understand the importance of doing so. Anyone whose thought through a double flameout knows it’s one of the first things you need to do if you don’t get an immediate relight.

Five minutes and forty-five seconds after the first mention of oxygen masks there seems to be evidence that the first officer still hadn’t put on oxygen. From that point until removal of the masks, the FO is out of the picture – all of the pilot speech comes from INT-1 – Captain Rhodes’ interphone. Also during that time he works the problem by himself as he tries to figure out why his FO isn’t responding to him.

They came down trying to get things going again and Captain Rhodes did EXACTLY the wrong thing – he slowed down despite having been told that he needed 300 knots or greater a to achieve an airstart and that significant altitude loss could be expected. He repeats the slow airspeed mantra right down to 13,000’.

Someone wasn’t paying attention in class. Or maybe he just wasn’t familiar with publications related to flight in the CL-65. He busted a checkride for a similar lack of familiarity with applicable publications before on his CFII ride.

If that’s not indicative of a lack of a serious attitude I don’t know what is. And you know what? Folks that can think of nothing better to say than, “Dude …, “ as they begin every sentence are the people about whose attitude I worry the most. “Dude,” just tells me something that has to be PROVEN wrong when I hear it in a professional setting.

So like it or don’t. Criticize me or don’t but I’ve known I had this one spot on since the first reports started to trickle in from the NTSB.

Attitude is everything.

TIS

 

[BE99chick]

TIS...put a sock in it.

 

[TIS]

You can compare the FDR data with the timeline of events and get a shred of information about cabin altitude. Passenger Oxygen Caution came on about 7 minutes after the downhill ride began, ...

Just out of curiosity, how do you figure that? The CVR is continuous with no interruptions and the timeline is smooth. At 2154:57 the first "Engine Oil" aural warning is heard. At 2157:04 the first "Cabin Altitude" aural warning is heard. That's two minutes and seven seconds.

I'd bet they had the cabin somewhere around 8000' when it all started and I'd bet the warning does off somewhere around 12,500'. I think the cabin was climbing about 2000'/min or better.

But, maybe I've got this all wrong. It's late you know.

TIS

 

[TIS]

TIS...put a sock in it.

Why? Have I said anything wrong? Or maybe I wasn't sensitive enough for you?

 

[TonyC]

TIS...put a sock in it.

You have a better explanation, sis?








.

 

[Mesabi Miner]

Dude.. whatever...major...loser!

Dude,

You guys are taking the "dude" thing way too far. I say "dude" alot and consider myself a pretty mature guy and a decent pilot. This guys' catch-word happened to be "dude." It could just have easily have been "what the F-," "oh man" or "Sh1T," ... whatever. Was this guy a questionable PIC taking dumb4ss risks? Yup. But I doubt his choice of a habitual word such as "dude" has anything of significance to do with that.

Dude, I say we all put down the USA-Today's, the porn, and the copies of Golf Digest and start going over our POM's. After all, our FOM's only allow company-approved material up front, right? And in addition, maybe we should all ask ourselves what we're gonna do and where we're gonna go when we bag both of 'em. The immature culture has got to go. Will "dude" go along with it? Maybe.

MM

 

[PCL_128]

I'd bet they had the cabin somewhere around 8000' when it all started and I'd bet the warning does off somewhere around 12,500'. I think the cabin was climbing about 2000'/min or better.

8000 should be about right for the cabin alt at FL410. The master caution goes off at 8500 and the master warning goes off at 10000. The Bombardier tech said that the plane was actually pretty tight. I think he mentioned a cabin climb rate of only 800 fpm. His testimony was given this afternoon.

 

[TonyC]

Just out of curiosity, how do you figure that? The CVR is continuous with no interruptions and the timeline is smooth. At 2154:57 the first "Engine Oil" aural warning is heard. At 2157:04 the first "Cabin Altitude" aural warning is heard. That's two minutes and seven seconds.

I'd bet they had the cabin somewhere around 8000' when it all started and I'd bet the warning does off somewhere around 12,500'. I think the cabin was climbing about 2000'/min or better.

But, maybe I've got this all wrong. It's late you know.

TIS

You know, I didn't even think to look for that in the CVR. I happened to be studying the FDR charts at the time, and that's what I keyed on. There was a gap in the FDR, and the "Passenger Oxygen Caution" was one of the data items recorded. That's different from the "Cabin Altitude" aural warning.

The point of the investigation, and I believe we agree on this, is that the lack of judgment displayed in the climb to FL410 up to the point where the engines failed was not affected appreciable by cabin altitude.




.

 

[100LL... Again!]

But I seem to remember something about nighttime being one of those factors that aggravates hypoxia. I also know these guys were sitting hot reserve all day.

The only physiological factor that links night and hypoxia is vision.

Try this experiment:
Climb to FL180 unpressurized.
Feel the onset of hypoxia?
Crawl under a blanket, wher it is dark.
Does it get worse?


Hypoxia is a factor more at night only because the cones in your eyes require much more O2 than the rods. The other physiological effects of hypoxia are identical for day and night, unless you are considering that hypoxia mixed with fatigue would have potential to be bad.

Hot reserve is very tiring, based on the few times I did it. All that sitting around.

 

[SkyBoy1981]

TIS, nice long rant you made there....but most of it is hardly relevant to what I said at all. My point was very simple, I think ALL of us would sound pretty silly on a CVR at times...especially when flying with a friend or someone we know well. "Dude" is a word used by us members of the younger generation (and older at times) on a pretty frequent basis when conversing with those whom we know well and feel comfortable around. THAT alone does not make someone unprofessional or immature. Their vocabulary has nothing to do with this crash, and poking fun of those guys for it as Tony was doing is arrogant and pointless. Like I said in my first post (which you obviously didn't read), these guys did some REALLY stupid things that night..I'm not denying that nor am I trying to defend their actions....but stereotyping someone for saying "dude" a lot is a bit ridiculous. If folks are going to criticize them, then find a more constructive way to do it. That was my point in a nutshell.

 

[EatSleepFly]

The only physiological factor that links night and hypoxia is vision.

Thank you. As I was reading this, I was wondering when (hoping) someone was finally going to point that out.

 

[TIS]

TIS, nice long rant you made there....but most of it is hardly relevant to what I said at all. My point was very simple, I think ALL of us would sound pretty silly on a CVR at times...especially when flying with a friend or someone we know well.

Ayuh, I saw where you wrote that but that certainly wasn't the point of the post I quoted.

"Dude" is a word used by us members of the younger generation (and older at times) on a pretty frequent basis when conversing with those whom we know well and feel comfortable around.

Not in the planes I fly it isn't. It's not like I'm putting a fire hose to it or anything it's just that we don't sound like a bunch of teenagers experimenting with our first joint during normal operations, let alone during an emergncy.

THAT alone does not make someone unprofessional or immature.

Agreed - and I alluded to that but in doing so I said that a chord is struck when I hear that coming from anyone who gets near my airplane. The have to prove to me that they're paying the kind of attention they ought to be after I hear THAT word every other word. I've had them try to drive off with the grounding lead for the fuel truck still attached. I've had them leave my nosewheel steering disconnected. I've had them try to turn me the wrong way out of parking. After a while you just get to know what to expect. If they prove me wrong so much the better!

Their vocabulary has nothing to do with this crash, and poking fun of those guys for it as Tony was doing is arrogant and pointless.

Vocabulary? No. You're correct. Attitude? Yes, attitude absolutely had everything to do with this crash. It's not an attitude that started when the first start valve opened on that flight. It started many years before - 1991 I believe. When that captain got up out of his seat, even as his airplane struggled and wallowed pitifullly, to get a soda, "dude" showed what those four stripes were there for alright.

And Tony wasn't poking fun. Tony was expressing frustration and now, so am I. Now, Tony may well be arrogant but calling him that in this case for saying what he said, which is dead on by the way, is just plain ignorant.

Like I said in my first post (which you obviously didn't read), these guys did some REALLY stupid things that night..I'm not denying that nor am I trying to defend their actions....but stereotyping someone for saying "dude" a lot is a bit ridiculous. If folks are going to criticize them, then find a more constructive way to do it. That was my point in a nutshell.

And MY point, in a nutshell, is if you want to be a professional pilot one of the rules is that you don't cut a CVR that has you sounding like Spicoli - it's NOT professional behavior. If you want to be a professional pilot, learn to talk like one. If you want to be a captain on a passenger jet, learn to ACT like one.

TIS

 

[Lear70]

TIS, it's just a younger generation.

I can comfortably say that looking at your flight experience and ratings, knowing that 11k with several different HS and Gulfstream ratings took you probably the better part of 20 years AFTER you first got into a jet, making you somewhere north of 40.

Both of these guys were Florida boys, knew each other for several years prior to the event, and obviously were more comfortable with each other than has been made evident. The culture here at Pinnacle, ESPECIALLY in the DTW pilots, is one of camraderie and enjoyment of work, more so in ops and alone in the cockpit than in front of passengers.

Do I believe the crew conducted themselves properly? Of course not. Do I believe the repeated use of the word "dude" AUTOMATICALLY equates to an attitude that contributes to a lack of safety? Absolutely NOT. In your area of aviation, that speech pattern is automatically dispariaged and viewed as some sign of immaturity (as evidenced in your post where someone using that word "must prove" themselves somehow); in others, it's seen as nothing more than a "cultural or generational difference".

Some of our best up-and-coming First Officers use that term quite a bit with their friends and buddies here at work; instead of judging them on that, I wait to see their performance when they're actually conducting their flight duties before I make any "judgments".

 

[TIS]

I can comfortably say that looking at your flight experience and ratings, knowing that 11k with several different HS and Gulfstream ratings took you probably the better part of 20 years AFTER you first got into a jet, making you somewhere north of 40.

41

Both of these guys were Florida boys, knew each other for several years prior to the event, and obviously were more comfortable with each other than has been made evident. The culture here at Pinnacle, ESPECIALLY in the DTW pilots, is one of camraderie and enjoyment of work, more so in ops and alone in the cockpit than in front of passengers.

Sorry, but I'm not buyin' this AT ALL! When I was hired at my first commuter part of the reason was that I has listed over 35 people at the company that I knew on the app - most of them really good friends of mine.

The first line trip I flew was with a guy that, on one fine spring day, I went to the local glider field and began taking flying lessons with. We figured that we had enough lawns to mow to sponsor the habit. We were fourteen at the time and had known each other since were were eight. Never once did I hear the word dude, or "mega" or "rad' or any other youthfully colloquial yet meaningless term.

In actuality the opposite was true. He sat me down and told me that because we knew each other we had to be doubly careful not to fall into the trap of being too familiar. He told me that we had a job that required our best attention and that our familiarity with each other would help with knowing what was probably coming next but that we still had to work as a crew doing things the way the company wanted them done.

We were both 25 then.

Yeah, it's a different generation alright. And it' a different attitude. Everyone's always in a hurry. It's a different attitude and there's more form than substance enough of the time to be concerned. You can see some of it in the Captain's history.

Do I believe the repeated use of the word "dude" AUTOMATICALLY equates to an attitude that contributes to a lack of safety? Absolutely NOT.

But in this case my prejudice would have been correct, right? Their use of the term is interlaced throughout the entirety of the CVR transcript right up to the crash. "aw #. we're gonna hit houses dude." That was the last human voice heard on the CVR.

So it's a speech pattern. Fine. FIX IT!

In your area of aviation, that speech pattern is automatically dispariaged and viewed as some sign of immaturity (as evidenced in your post where someone using that word "must prove" themselves somehow); in others, it's seen as nothing more than a "cultural or generational difference".

This isn't a diversity training career. This is professional aviation. If you can't sound any more mature than a 17 year old on excessive hormones you shouldn't be in the cockpit of an airliner. I'll bet you that "dude' is not considered standard intra-cockpit terminology at any airline. That makes it non-essential banter and subject to ban under sterile cockpit rules. We'll see if they make any reference to it in the final report. I'll bet you it's there.

Some of our best up-and-coming First Officers use that term quite a bit with their friends and buddies here at work; instead of judging them on that, I wait to see their performance when they're actually conducting their flight duties before I make any "judgments".

Do you let them bring it into the cockpit? I thought not.

TIS

 

[BE99chick]

You have a better explanation, sis?



No, bro, I don't.

I'm just reminded of the phrase "There but for the grace of God go I".

I guess I won't ever call anybody "dude" again...the speech police might fine me.

 

[TIS]

I'm just reminded of the phrase "There but for the grace of God go I".

Now ya see, this is the wrong idea altogether - not that you care what I think. This accident didn't happen because a control was misrigged, or because of some other freak thing specific to this flight occurred. It happened because the crew didn't pay enough attention to what they were doing and because they lacked the background to be alarmed at what they did manage to catch along the way.

That phrase you quoted is for those who throw their hands up in resignation, firm in their belief that some things are beyond their control. Learning about high altitude aeordynamics was WELL within THEIR control and they didn't do it. Worse, no one helped them with it as a matter of course either.

I guess I won't ever call anybody "dude" again...the speech police might fine me.

You missed the point entirely.

Shutting up.

TIS

 

[TonyC]

You have a better explanation, sis?

No, bro, I don't.

I'm just reminded of the phrase "There but for the grace of God go I".

I guess I won't ever call anybody "dude" again...the speech police might fine me.

We all make mistakes, and we could all end up flying our last leg tomorrow. I acknowledge that.

Feel free to use any words you desire. But you really should pause to consider how it effects others' perception of you. Do you want to be seen as a professional, or as some cheesy goofball?

If you use that level of vocabulary around me, you're only going to erode the confidence that I might have in you as a professional and as an asset to the crew. I'm going to perceive you as extra weight instead of as a contributing crewmember. Your actions, in either case, may alter the initial perception. However, why would you want to start out in the hole, so to speak, leaving yourself an uphill climb to earn respect?

How many times did you use the word "dude" during your interview?










.

 

[BE99chick]

How many times did I say "dude" in my interview? Oh, I don't remember, it was a long time ago...probably a dozen or more times.


And TIS, you are anything but "Succinct". Wait a minute...I guess I missed the point about that too.

Later, dudes....

 

[TonyC]

Later, dudes....

Later, sis!


By the way, I liked your previous Avatar better. (the drawing)











.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

I am in the TIS and Tony C camp.

There is a time to be laid back and there is a time to be professional. When we come to work we dump the radical sunglasses, Jagermeister ID lanyards and pop culture slang.

Don't think how you, a fellow pilot percieves the excessive dudes in the CVR transcript, rather think about how the public will. The ones you want to trust you with thier well being on your jet.

Image and behavior are our professional indicators to the public. Normally they don't get to see how we act and behave behind the cockpit door. Now they do.

It is rogue behavior and it is effecting all of us.

(Darker Shades of Blue; The Rogue Pilot, by Tony Kern)

 

[TIS]

And TIS, you are anything but "Succinct". Wait a minute...I guess I missed the point about that too.

I think you should change your signature to read, "I AM a cartoon."

Grow up!

 

[FL000]

Why? Have I said anything wrong? Or maybe I wasn't sensitive enough for you?

TIS...that comment came from someone who has an Anarchy symbol as her avatar. A real tough girl...a rebel. Of course she's going to run to the defense of someone who ignores warning signs.

 

[Yank McCobb]

Going back a couple of pages to one of TIS's posts where he refers to Captain Rhodes past performances as it related to attitude, etc...and how it translates to this accident. He refers to the CVR transcript and "INT-1" as "Captain Rhodes' interphone". But were not the pilots in opposite seats throughout most of the event=? It was not until very late that they switched back.

While there has been much mention of the seat-swapping, and in the text of the factual that contains the CVR transcript, the group mentions the fact of the voices from RDO and INT 1-2 changing...the posts here (and in other threads) seem to just follow the convention that anything on the transcript from "1" is Rhodes and anything from "2" is Cesarz when for most of the event, it is just the opposite.

 

[Wasted]

Going back a couple of pages to one of TIS's posts where he refers to Captain Rhodes past performances as it related to attitude, etc...and how it translates to this accident. He refers to the CVR transcript and "INT-1" as "Captain Rhodes' interphone". But were not the pilots in opposite seats throughout most of the event=? It was not until very late that they switched back.

While there has been much mention of the seat-swapping, and in the text of the factual that contains the CVR transcript, the group mentions the fact of the voices from RDO and INT 1-2 changing...the posts here (and in other threads) seem to just follow the convention that anything on the transcript from "1" is Rhodes and anything from "2" is Cesarz when for most of the event, it is just the opposite.

The legend of the CVR transcript indicates "-1" as "voice identified as the Captain" and "-2" as "voice identified as the First Officer"

 

[Yank McCobb]

Thanks. I read the part about the voices at the positions changing, but just assumed (bad idea always) that the -1 and -2 convention was like it usually is...related to a particular mic and not the voice associated with it.

 

[PBRstreetgang]

How many times did I say "dude" in my interview? Oh, I don't remember, it was a long time ago...probably a dozen or more times.


And TIS, you are anything but "Succinct". Wait a minute...I guess I missed the point about that too.

Later, dudes....

You are the cartoon!
PBR

 

[TonyC]

While there has been much mention of the seat-swapping, and in the text of the factual that contains the CVR transcript, the group mentions the fact of the voices from RDO and INT 1-2 changing...the posts here (and in other threads) seem to just follow the convention that anything on the transcript from "1" is Rhodes and anything from "2" is Cesarz when for most of the event, it is just the opposite.

Well, the answer lies in the legend of the transcript itself.

[font=Arial,Bold]

CAM [/font]Cockpit area microphone voice or sound source

​

​

[font=Arial,Bold]INT [/font]Flight crew audio panel intercom voice or sound source

[font=Arial,Bold]CAS [/font]Aircraft.s crew alert system mechanical voice sound source
​

[font=Arial,Bold]RDO [/font]Radio transmissions from N8396A

[font=Arial,Bold]CTR-A [/font]Radio transmission from first Kansas City center controller (R29 position)§

[font=Arial,Bold]CTR-B [/font]Radio transmission from second Kansas City center controller (R30 position)

[font=Arial,Bold]CTR-C [/font]Radio transmission from third Kansas City center controller (R53 position)

[font=Arial,Bold]-1 [/font]Voice identified as the Captain

[font=Arial,Bold]-2 [/font]Voice identified as the First Officer

[font=Arial,Bold]-? [/font]Voice unidentified

[font=Arial,Bold]* [/font]Unintelligible word

[font=Arial,Bold]# [/font]Expletive

[font=Arial,Bold]. [/font]Pause or interruption

[font=Arial,Bold]( ) [/font]Questionable insertion

[font=Arial,Bold][ ] [/font]Editorial insertion

"INT" means "Flight crew audio panel intercom voice or sound source" and "-1" means "Voice identified as the Captain". The numbers have nothing to do with which interphone panel was used.


Correlation of the FDR, which records which microphone is keyed, with the CVR and ATC tapes confirms that for the portion of the flight between about 25,000 feet on the way up and about 11,000 feet on the way down, when the left microphone was keyed, the FO was talking, and when the right microphone was keyed, the Captain's voice was heard.


But for the CVR transcript, -1 always refers to the Captain, and -2 to the FO.






EDIT - - Guess I shoulda scrolled down a coupla posts before I answered, huh? My bad.






.

 

[SkyBoy1981]

Sorry, but I'm not buyin' this AT ALL! When I was hired at my first commuter part of the reason was that I has listed over 35 people at the company that I knew on the app - most of them really good friends of mine.

The first line trip I flew was with a guy that, on one fine spring day, I went to the local glider field and began taking flying lessons with. We figured that we had enough lawns to mow to sponsor the habit. We were fourteen at the time and had known each other since were were eight. Never once did I hear the word dude, or "mega" or "rad' or any other youthfully colloquial yet meaningless term.

In actuality the opposite was true. He sat me down and told me that because we knew each other we had to be doubly careful not to fall into the trap of being too familiar. He told me that we had a job that required our best attention and that our familiarity with each other would help with knowing what was probably coming next but that we still had to work as a crew doing things the way the company wanted them done.

We were both 25 then.

Yeah, it's a different generation alright. And it' a different attitude. Everyone's always in a hurry. It's a different attitude and there's more form than substance enough of the time to be concerned. You can see some of it in the Captain's history.


But in this case my prejudice would have been correct, right? Their use of the term is interlaced throughout the entirety of the CVR transcript right up to the crash. "aw #. we're gonna hit houses dude." That was the last human voice heard on the CVR.

So it's a speech pattern. Fine. FIX IT!


This isn't a diversity training career. This is professional aviation. If you can't sound any more mature than a 17 year old on excessive hormones you shouldn't be in the cockpit of an airliner. I'll bet you that "dude' is not considered standard intra-cockpit terminology at any airline. That makes it non-essential banter and subject to ban under sterile cockpit rules. We'll see if they make any reference to it in the final report. I'll bet you it's there.


Do you let them bring it into the cockpit? I thought not.

TIS

So, from what I gather from everything you just wrote here, particularly what I put in bold print, the real problem behind this accident is the younger generation and what you think is a careless and immature attitude about flying airplanes because they say the word "dude" in the cockpit.

Okay....so tell me, TIS, what are your thoughts behind the crash of Delta 1141 at DFW airport back in August of 1988 that killed 12? It was a revenue flight...and those pilots were both quite seasoned (PIC was 48 with several thousand more hours than you have). If I recall they were discussing the dating habits of flight attendants as they were taxiing out? Even went as far as to discuss how bad it would be if they were to crash and their CVR made public? In the midst of it all they forgot to extend the slats and, as we all could guess, a 727 isn't going to get off the ground without them.

I'll agree with certain things you've said here, as you seem very knowledgable on the subject. Blaming it on the "attitudes" of the younger generation though just doesn't hold up historically.

 

[Ultra Grump]

I'll probably catch hell for saying it, but while reading the transcript, all I could think was "they're either drunk or high." Who else would be laughing so much when in so much obvious trouble?