Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Inappropriate comments about RJ crash?

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
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)
 
BE99chick said:
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!
 
TIS said:
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.
 
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.
 
Yank McCobb said:
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"
 
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.
 
BE99chick said:
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
 
Yank McCobb said:
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.


:)



.
 
Last edited:
TIS said:
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.
 
Last edited:
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?
 
To Tony C...unfortunately I lost that avatar somewhere. I had a bunch of similar drawings, but deleted them I guess. I need to find a new one.

And about the "cartoon" statement...that's a line from the movie "Aspen Extreme". I ski a lot.
 
...FJ guys aren't the only ones who have found the "coffin corner" a few times. F15s have been flamed out at high altitude by guys buffooning the high altitude (above FL 400) considerations. We don't spend much time in the "bozosphere" in the FTU, and sometimes a guy's first experience up there is when he is climbing above weather to get home from training airspace is or is on a cross country or deployment somewhere in his first operational squadron.

If you are in AB, the first time one of the burners cuts back (it does this automatically in the 30s to low 40s) a stage it will scare the heck out of you. Once you catch your breath and realize what happened you are fine, but your first instinct is sometimes "....ohmygoshjustlostangengineandI'mveryveryveryhighrightnow..."

Another more serious variation (never happened to ME, but it might have happened to my less experienced evil twin many years ago) that sometimes occurs is a guy gets slightly slow while flying up high, perhaps after pulling his power back to stay in the traveling formation. If he hasn't already lit his burners at a higher airspeed or lower altitude, he may not be able to get them to light. Over controlling the motors might lead to a stall or stagnation of the airflow into the engine, so if you havent' already got them lit it can be VERY uncomfortable trying it at too low of an airspeed. So...you are stuck in mil power (probably felt like that CRJ), your airspeed is decaying, and you need more thrust. What do you do? About the only thing to do is dump the nose, trade some altitude for airspeed, and get those ABs kicked in (obviously NA in an RJ). If you pooch it and have a stall/stag/flameout, it is amazing how nose low you have to be to keep airspeed up to restart parameters. Try that in your jet sim next time you go in....it will water your eyes. It is hard to dump the nose (especially into weather like a T-storm you are trying to fly over) when you lose thrust at high altitude...instinctively you want to drift down slllllloooooowly and save your altitude. An FCF pilot in my AK squadron had to dump the nose into the weather for a dual engine restart after both flamed out above the clouds, but he was well trained and pulled it off without a hitch. However, EVERY time he went into the sim for training he got to practice a very similar maneuver. With a loss of thrust, especially at altitude, you have to get those fans turning, and keep them cool.

Its worth taking a lot at in the sim next time you go...
 
Last edited:
BE99chick said:
To Tony C...unfortunately I lost that avatar somewhere. I had a bunch of similar drawings, but deleted them I guess. I need to find a new one.
I've got a copy of it.











.
 
PFT flame bait

Re-post from a discussion on this crash over on jetcareers.com:


Food for thought
new.gif
[Re: BrettInLJ]
#297600 - Wed Jun 15 2005 01:17 PM
edit.gif
Edit
reply.gif
Reply
quote.gif
Quote
The Capt had 6900 hours total time, 150 hours as pilot in command CRJ. The F/O had 761 hours total time with 222 as SIC in the CRJ. Both were low time in their respective seats. Then, add to that....

The Capt had been a street Capt at Gulfstream while the F/O did the PFT program at Gulfstream and got hired at Pinnacle at a little over 500 hours.

I can only say I was appalled at the lack of personal discipline and professionalism shown by this crew after reading the CVR transcript. You gotta read it for yourself. Then you see they both were at....Gulfstream? Draw your own conclusions about the professionalism of someone who would PFJ or work for a PFJ airline?



Discuss.
 
One guy even said "dude" right before he died. Never, EVER, say 'dude' It is one of the only things I won't allow my kids to say. It instantly and irrevocably marks you as an idiot.
 
chas1000 said:
Re-post from a discussion on this crash over on jetcareers.com:


Food for thought http://jetcareers.com/forums/images/new.gif [Re: BrettInLJ]
#297600 - Wed Jun 15 2005 01:17 PM http://jetcareers.com/forums/images/edit.gif Edit http://jetcareers.com/forums/images/reply.gif Reply http://jetcareers.com/forums/images/quote.gif Quote
The Capt had 6900 hours total time, 150 hours as pilot in command CRJ. The F/O had 761 hours total time with 222 as SIC in the CRJ. Both were low time in their respective seats. Then, add to that....

The Capt had been a street Capt at Gulfstream while the F/O did the PFT program at Gulfstream and got hired at Pinnacle at a little over 500 hours.

I can only say I was appalled at the lack of personal discipline and professionalism shown by this crew after reading the CVR transcript. You gotta read it for yourself. Then you see they both were at....Gulfstream? Draw your own conclusions about the professionalism of someone who would PFJ or work for a PFJ airline?

Discuss.

I agree with this completely. Here, take a look at this video clip:
http://www.big-boys.com/articles/theairforcefun.html

Now, tell me that you don't see a bunch of "dudes" in that video. So....is that to say that these guys are immature and incompetent? Absolutely not. As a matter of fact, the pressure that these guys are under everyday and the skills required of them doesn't even remotely compare to that of our jobs flying around "fat dumb and happy" in our regional jets, Gulfstreams, or MD11's. These guys are young, and I'm sure quite a few of them are "dudes", but they are extremely good at what they do.

So, whats the difference? Simple..the guys in the above video clip were trained by the United States Military. They were tought the book Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators inside and out, backwards and forwards. They KNOW their stuff. In the contrary, the training history of the crew of Flagship 3701 wasn't even close in comparison. I agree with what ALPA said in their statements regarding this crash. Regional airlines need to work on their training programs...more emphasis needs to be put on high altitude and high speed aerodynamics. I will be the first to admit that I could use more training on it myself.

So, lets not start stereotyping someone because of their age and vocabulary and instead lets think about how training programs can be improved to make sure things like this don't happen again.
 
SkyBoy1981 said:
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.
Without getting too detailed I think they violated the sterile cockpit rule and proved that it might actually be a good idea to adhere to it.

SkyBoy1981 said:
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.
We're not talking about historically here. We're talking about PCL-3701. They brought the wrong supplies to the party and they paid the ultimate price for it. We know they did this because we have a thirty minute recording of it.

There are obviously a good many EXCELLENT pilots coming up through the ranks right now. My comments are not pointed at them. However, there are also a good many out there who are in too much of a hurry to get someplace they don't understand the seriousness of.

We live in a society that shifts the burden of blame everywhere but where it belongs - on those who do the dumb things that cause problems. With this comes an attitude in some that nothing's really that big a deal. This is the atmosphere in which those who will inherit this industry from people like myself have been brought up and it's rubbed off on more than a few of them. Not all of them, mind you, but more than a few.

In aviation everything you do as the operator of an aircraft is a big deal. There are very few other professions where the simple act of doing your job means that people's lives are in your hands. Every decision you make can have a poor outcome that will not just affect you but also quite a few other people. That's serious and so it's worth doing well. To do it well you have to learn it well.

There are too many folks out there who think that minimum time to the big glass room at the front of an airliner is what the whole program is all about. If that's a criticism of a younger generation then so be it but it's a recipe for admitting bad decision making, either out of ignorance or stupidity, into places and circumstances where neither has a place.

It's manifested in airman records that show people getting their MEI as a starter instructor rating with 25 or 30 hours total multi time, when multi-engine training is not a beginner instructor activity. This is usually followed up by getting the other two CFI endorsements within a week or two. Do they all go out and start teaching in everything under the sun? No, most don’t, but there is always a small number who THINK that they CAN, even if they’re not, and they’re the problem children.

It’s manifested in airman records that show pilots failing half of their checkrides on the way up the ladder and STILL winding up in command of airliners despite the concerns of their training instructors. It's manifested in airline training records that show FOs with less than 1000 TT sitting in the right seat of a jet going seven to eight times faster than they've ever gone in a plane they were flying before.

Being put into advanced situations before you’re ready for them in the business world means, at worst, that you might end up looking like a fool. The same cannot be said for aviation. People can end up dead because you ended up looking like a fool.

TIS
 
Last edited:
TIS, I have no argument with anything in your above post. My disagreement was simply with a stereotype that was being created by TonyC that I did not agree with. Being a small blond haired guy that looks to be about 16 years old (but I'm 24), I have grown to hate stereotypes. I get asked a minimum of 5 times a day if I'm old enough to drive a car, let alone fly a commercial airliner. I started very young and worked very hard to get where I am, and I feel that I am just as qualified as anyone else.

So, if you're going to criticize someone (God knows there is plenty to criticize this crew for), then stick with the facts and lets not make stereotypes because of their vocabulary.
 
Last edited:
SkyBoy1981 said:
TIS, I have no argument with anything in your above post. My disagreement was simply with a stereotype that was being created by TonyC that I did not agree with. Being a small blond haired guy that looks to be about 16 years old (but I'm 24), I have grown to hate stereotypes. I get asked a minimum of 5 times a day if I'm old enough to drive a car, let alone fly a commercial airliner. I started very young and worked very hard to get where I am, and I feel that I am just as qualified as anyone else.

So, if you're going to criticize someone (God knows there is plenty to criticize this crew for), then stick with the facts and lets not make stereotypes because of their vocabulary.

You cannot choose for the most part your young looks, blond hair and small size. You shouldn't have to change the color of your hair, which is part of your identity.

However, you can choose how you act, dress, behave and communicate.

You can choose not to say cool words of the pop culture elite when functioning in the professional world. Words like...

Like.
Whatever.
Totally.
Awesome.
Dude.
My bad. (heard by an AA pilot today in STL) :o
Yo.
Yo Yo.
Yo Yo Yo
Peace Out.
Check it.
'Sup



I'm sure I'm missing alot and way behind the times as I no longer watch MTV.
 
Last edited:
Rez O. Lewshun said:
You can choose not to say cool words of the pop culture elite when functioning in the professional world. Words like...

Like.
Whatever.
Totally.
Awesome.
Dude.
My bad.
Yo.
Yo Yo.
Yo Yo Yo
Peace Out.
Check it.
'Sup
.

But like, dude they go with my backpack.

Signed,
Scooter Trash.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top