Never Give A Kid A Jet!

[DC8 Flyer]

Just a question for the lower time guys out there. this is not flame bait! Do any of you think you might learn anything in the next 10K or so hours during your carreer? The reason I ask such a stupid question is there are many posts on this and other threads where the general response seems to be I went to x school I learned all I need to know. Yes there are very good 1500 hour pilots out there, and there are poor 20,000 hours guys as well. But even that really good 1500 hour pilot will get better as he does the job more and more. The point I am trying to make is just acknowledge that there might be a thing or two to learn after you have been doing this for a few decades. The origonal way this used to work was the new guy flew with the old grizzled guy and learned stuff. This does not happen as much as it used to. The point is that the pinnacle thing probably would have not happened if one of the two was an old grizzled type.

Anyone who answers no to your question should turn their certs back into the FAA. Every flight should be a learning experience (change in behavior through experiences).

Slow down a minute. I think age does indeed have something to do with it - in this case. You point out that you know of no statistical relationship between age and aviation accident rates and I don't mean to suggest that a direct link exists. However, two facts loom large here. First, this is a specific accident and thus, statistical analysis does not apply. Only the specifics of this case are relevant. Second, youth translates directly, in many cases, as basic inexperience at all things in life.

TIS

TIS, you bring up good points but I gotta disagree with you about Little Rock and this being any different. Sure fatigue was a factor in Little Rock, but how is having a lack of recent experience, ie low experience, different from a low time Capt or FO. I dont see any. The simple fact is whenever the big boys screw up its always someone or something elses fault, when the regionals screw up its low time, low experience, PFT, take your pick at the flavor of the week.

The simple fact, and I pick on the Little Rock accident cause it is the one brought up, is that both crews showed blatant disregard for procedure and basic airmanship. Be it not climbing at the proper profile, not doing a proper cockpit briefing, flying too slow too high, or trying to land in the wake of a severe thunderstorm. All bad decisions, all turned out badly and ALL had an error chain that was so easily broken its sad.

I agree youth does in most cases equal inexperienced, but inexperience simply means you havent had a chance yet to use your training, common sense and your wits. It is not always a bad thing, and its not always a good thing, but it is definately not something to hang all accidents by regional airlines on.

Training does have to take some blame in this. Not all airplanes are the same and those subtle differences and small details that can get you killed need to be stressed in training. IE, the DC8 not good to get on the breaks until 100 -90 knots or you might not have any at the end of the roll out, a nice detail to know if you are coming out of something that isnt picky about break usage. But what does common airmanship say, when landing USE THE BREAKS.

These guys screwed up, leave it at that, learn from it and it should never happen again.

 

[FDJ2]

Excellent post TIS.

 

[LJDRVR]

... The rest of us are in a position to gain from their loss. We can either argue over the merits of age or immaturity having had a hand in this or we can quite wasting time with vacuous protestations and get on with learning from the mistakes that these guys (and those around them) made that led them to an accident chain. TIS

Exactly! So, in the interest of meaningful safety discussions, let us dispense with the question of age. We should not be focusing on the age of the mishap crew. We should be zeroing in on what a pathetic display of airmanship took place and much more importantly, what latent organizational pathogens existed that allowed this set of killing conditions to "do in" these two young men.

Like you, I spent a considerable amount of time going over the CVR transcripts. My guess is where you saw young, I saw stupid. The biggest impression that I got was that these gentlemen were lacking in a couple of key areas of airmanship. Their lack of knowledge and flight discipline allowed their judgement and situational awareness to falter to the point where the Captain left a brand new "sparky" in the cockpit at FL410, ISA and a bunch, less than 200KIAS in a swept wing jet. Was he fighting a cabin fire? Nope, getting a soft drink. Then when, as you say, the preverbial flame thrower started burning them, they absolutely did not step up to the plate in terms of any meaningful communication, timely action and plain simple aviating.

I think Pinnacle has a lot to answer for in regards to turning loose two drivers who had no concept of high altitude/low speed issues. You also have to scrutinize a culture where pilots are allowed to think that leaving a junior FO alone on the flight deck is anything but unacceptable and negligent.

We all take the same checkrides. Plus or minus 100', 10 degrees and ten knots. Show up sober, pass the physical, don't bend the airplane. And yet we still continue to kill ourselves and our passengers needlessly. Some of us have taken the extra step. Some of us know what 7110.65 is and have even read it. A few people on the board know what a 40:1 OIS means to us in terms of performance. Yet over 100 years after the first powered flight, there is no published standard for what airmanship entails. Everyone reading this post that hasn't done so has the opportunity to do some careful self-assement of where they stand as an aviator, and start working on their weak areas. The more you work on airmanship, the weaker you realize you are. Unfortunately, few do. Instead they focus on what the mishap crew did. ("Boy, I'll never do that!")

Even worse, whenever there's a loss of life, investigating organizations still focus on the flight crew instead of killing off the organational failures that allow the pilots to make the final error.

"It's beyond belief that a professional air crew would act in that manner," said Thomas Palmer, former manager of Pinnacle's training program for that model of jet.

So Thomas, what's your responsibility here? You can't babysit the crewforce every flight, but are we to believe this was just a rogue crew and that the Pinnacle culture didn't contribute at all?

At any rate TIS, it's nice to see you posting again after so many years. We should get together sometime over dinner and talk TERPS.

 

[Capn Lucky]

Anyone remember the Southwest guy who brought his 737 to the gas station in Burbank? I think he was over 30 as well.

 

[Rook]

Speaking of Littlerock, didn't a senior captain crash his aircraft into there? How old was he? What was his position?

Exactly. Go screw yourself.

Good post jumppilot.

Rook

 

[T-REX]

I can't see how people defend these guys. The Little Rock and Burbank accidents were both due to big egos...this crew never had a freekin clue!!! If they would have made it, they would probably be bragging to their coworkers how they "muscled" it to 410. Jeezus!!! crack a freekin aerodynamics and performance book before you land in my backyard..... Dude, where's my airspeed?


Dude, what's mine say??? It says "Should have stayed in flight school!!!"

 

[328dude]

I can't see how people defend these guys. The Little Rock and Burbank accidents were both due to big egos...this crew never had a freekin clue!!! If they would have made it, they would probably be bragging to their coworkers how they "muscled" it to 410. Jeezus!!! crack a freekin aerodynamics and performance book before you land in my backyard..... Dude, where's my airspeed?


Dude, what's mine say??? It says "Should have stayed in flight school!!!"

Apparently, the AA and SW crew didn't have a clue either or should have known better. Same thing here.

Age dosen't make the diffrence, following your gut does.

 

[T-REX]

Age dosen't make the diffrence, following your gut does.

Yea, I never mentioned age there...but as far as following your guts, seatbelts have the effect.
I'm sure the majoity of Pinnacle pilots are very good pilots, but having 2 pilots slip through without this basic knowledge has got to be alarming. This situation could have just as easily occured with 50 people in back and frankly that scares the heck out of me.

 

[SkyBoy1981]

This situation could have just as easily occured with 50 people in back and frankly that scares the heck out of me.

I'm not so sure about that. If that were the case, they probably would have plowed one into the ground a long time ago. They were goofing off because they had an empty plane, because of their lack of training and ignorance they apparently had no idea how serious their situation really was. I find it highly unlikely that they conducted themselves like this on a normal revenue flight. Their apparent lack of knowledge and poor decision making is whats scary.

 

[DX Rick]

Never Give A Kid A Jet!


Ok, better tell the Navy and U.S. Air Force that one. I believe those are "kids" with only a couple hundred hours jumping in those Jets.

 

[328dude]

Yea, I never mentioned age there...but as far as following your guts, seatbelts have the effect.
I'm sure the majoity of Pinnacle pilots are very good pilots, but having 2 pilots slip through without this basic knowledge has got to be alarming. This situation could have just as easily occured with 50 people in back and frankly that scares the heck out of me.

Based on the investgation and the FDR/CVR, I agree that they acted foolishly, but I highly dought anyone regardless of background would "Have a little fun up here" with revenue onboard.

Although a traggic accident, we will never know if they would agree.

They have payed the ultimate price and educated many people on here. Wonder how many times people refer to them when they are thinking of trying the same thing. In my opinion, they played around and it got the best of them, but they probably saved someone else from trying the same in the future.

R.I.P

 

[Corona]

It is funny some are blaming these two because they were young (relatively). I suppose if they were both female, that would also enter the equation somehow. I don't see, on this thread or the others, that anyone faults them for being testosterone-charged hotshot wannabes.

I've flown with enough "grizzled" old-timers who scared the skin off me with their general incompetence. Grey hair, no thanks. Give me a COMPETENT Captain/Co-pilot any day. I don't give a **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED** how old or young they are.

C

 

[Yank McCobb]

This guy throws out some flame, hits a nerve with all the young guys, who then feel the need to stand up and defend their "honor" and recount all those times they saved the day when some "grey hair" farked it up.

Classic.

Insecurity and youth. They go hand in hand. But don't worry. You'll grow out of it. I promise.

 

[TIS]

TIS, you bring up good points but I gotta disagree with you about Little Rock and this being any different. Sure fatigue was a factor in Little Rock, but how is having a lack of recent experience, ie low experience, different from a low time Capt or FO. I dont see any.

Well, okay, maybe that's a valid point. I suppose one could argue that since an accident aircraft is an accident aircraft it doesn't really matter whether the crew was inexperienced or not recently experienced. But there is a dynamic involved in every accident that does matter and it is directly linked to overall experience which does not wane with time.

Here are the causes of the Little Rock accident as quoted from the NTSB report:

The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable causes of this accident were the flight crew’s failure to discontinue the approach when severe thunderstorms and their associated hazards to flight operations had moved into the airport area and the crew’s failure to ensure that the spoilers had extended after touchdown. Contributing to the accident were the flight crew’s (1) impaired performance resulting from fatigue and the situational stress associated with the intent to land under the circumstances, (2) continuation of the approach to a landing when the company’s maximum crosswind component was exceeded, and (3) use of reverse thrust greater than 1.3 engine pressure ratio after landing.

In this case the FO placed his confidence in an experienced pilot - someone who had been there and done that. As we know, that confidence was misplaced.

In the case of 3701 the FO's confidence was misplaced but for a different reason - the PIC's assumed experience was never there to begin with and there wasn't enough experience in the SIC seat to grasp that fact.

I think that both of these things are essential lessons to take from this accident. It's important for inexperienced pilots to understand that they might not have the experience necessary to accurately assess some situations and the decisions that arise from dealing with them.

I agree youth does in most cases equal inexperienced, but inexperience simply means you havent had a chance yet to use your training, common sense and your wits.

Not if you haven't had the trianing in the first place. Relying on your "common sense and your wits" without training is flying by the seat of your pants and that's exactly what the crew of 3701 was doing. That's not what was going on with AA 1420.

(Inexperience) is not always a bad thing, and its not always a good thing, but it is definately not something to hang all accidents by regional airlines on.

Agreed - to a point. If that were universally true we wouldn't need hiring minimums at any airline.

Training does have to take some blame in this. Not all airplanes are the same and those subtle differences and small details that can get you killed need to be stressed in training. IE, the DC8 not good to get on the breaks until 100 -90 knots or you might not have any at the end of the roll out, a nice detail to know if you are coming out of something that isnt picky about break usage. But what does common airmanship say, when landing USE THE BREAKS.

Again, agreed - to a point. That's what type ratings are all about - working out the differences between common airmanship and what works best on a specific aircraft type. But this is where an essential piece of the puzzle is often missing. There are a lot of guys with many thousands of hours in turboprops at commuter airlines who transition into the left seat of a jet and have no real business doing so. The reason? They lack awareness of some of the elemental yet critical differences between what they know how to do and what they are about to do. Swept wing jet aircraft are VERY different from turboprops and it isn't all about speed.

Perhaps this is the most important lesson of 3701 - that despite weeks of hard work and dedication, you may be no better prepared to deal with what comes next in a jet after you upgrade than before. Unless you supplement your knowledge this might indeed be a very stark reality.

These guys screwed up, leave it at that, learn from it and it should ever happen again.

Amen.

TIS

 

[FN FAL]

We give multi-million dollar aircraft to 23- year olds all the time, and load them up with bombs, too, and send them overseas. Oh yeah, the US military.

Uhhhhh...we don't GIVE young military pilots anything, they earned it. Their parents might have given them lots...but that's quite another story.

Also, comparing military pilots to "civilian only" regional pilots is kind of a funny comparison...young people perceive they are invincible and that they will never die. So who else would you put in a jet fighter or on the ground in a combat role? Not a newby 50 year-old! I'm not saying there isn't long time military pilots or soldiers who were in the game since their 20's and are now in their 50's and still kicking butt in a war fighting career field, but you don't start out as a newby 50 year-old in the war fighting game.

A fifty-year old could move into the airline flying game, if it was the right person...and we see it happen once in a while.

Comparing fighter pilots and regional pilots is bad analogy and to me seems to be a leftover from the old days when you had to be an ex-military pilot in order to majically hold up those airliners from the forces of evil.

 

[T-REX]

Based on the investgation and the FDR/CVR, I agree that they acted foolishly, but I highly dought anyone regardless of background would "Have a little fun up here" with revenue onboard.

Although a traggic accident, we will never know if they would agree.

They have payed the ultimate price and educated many people on here. Wonder how many times people refer to them when they are thinking of trying the same thing. In my opinion, they played around and it got the best of them, but they probably saved someone else from trying the same in the future.

R.I.P

Regardless of situation...those boys never had a clue of what they f'd up. If a sitation occurred where both engines flamed out, I think we'd still be talking about the same smoking crater.

 

[BUPilot]

.....

 

[Bandit60]

I am going to through something else to think about.

In training, it seems that the purpose is to make sure all the check marks are checked. It seems to be the same thing each time you go back to training.

I summit that maybe, (in the sim) this is the place to mess around. I have many times finished my training by so called checking all the boxes, and then was given the chance to do things with the airplane that I would not normally do in the real world. It is amazing the things I have learned about the airplane from doing this, especially things that I should never do in the airplane for real.

Grant it, I am flying 91 corporate, so I have less boxes to check, but maybe that is a good thing because I seem to learn something new each time I go back to trainning. I am able to expand on my learning by finishing the required training and them moving on to doing more advance things with the airplane.

 

[blzr]

So are you saying that 25 year old pilots with 500 hours have no business landing a jet on an aircraft carrier? Based on your logic, they would be way too immature and inexperienced for such a task.

That is a great point. There are plenty of 2000-2500 hr MIL pilots getting on with SWA, Fed-X UPS, etc. THe fact that they may be over 30 has no bearing on whether they are good pilots or not.

 

[TonyC]

Exactly! So, in the interest of meaningful safety discussions, let us dispense with the question of age. We should not be focusing on the age of the mishap crew. We should be zeroing in on what a pathetic display of airmanship took place and much more importantly, what latent organizational pathogens existed that allowed this set of killing conditions to "do in" these two young men.

Like you, I spent a considerable amount of time going over the CVR transcripts. My guess is where you saw young, I saw stupid. The biggest impression that I got was that these gentlemen were lacking in a couple of key areas of airmanship. Their lack of knowledge and flight discipline allowed their judgement and situational awareness to falter to the point where the Captain left a brand new "sparky" in the cockpit at FL410, ISA and a bunch, less than 200KIAS in a swept wing jet. Was he fighting a cabin fire? Nope, getting a soft drink. Then when, as you say, the preverbial flame thrower started burning them, they absolutely did not step up to the plate in terms of any meaningful communication, timely action and plain simple aviating.

I think Pinnacle has a lot to answer for in regards to turning loose two drivers who had no concept of high altitude/low speed issues. You also have to scrutinize a culture where pilots are allowed to think that leaving a junior FO alone on the flight deck is anything but unacceptable and negligent.

We all take the same checkrides. Plus or minus 100', 10 degrees and ten knots. Show up sober, pass the physical, don't bend the airplane. And yet we still continue to kill ourselves and our passengers needlessly. Some of us have taken the extra step. Some of us know what 7110.65 is and have even read it. A few people on the board know what a 40:1 OIS means to us in terms of performance. Yet over 100 years after the first powered flight, there is no published standard for what airmanship entails. Everyone reading this post that hasn't done so has the opportunity to do some careful self-assement of where they stand as an aviator, and start working on their weak areas. The more you work on airmanship, the weaker you realize you are. Unfortunately, few do. Instead they focus on what the mishap crew did. ("Boy, I'll never do that!")

Even worse, whenever there's a loss of life, investigating organizations still focus on the flight crew instead of killing off the organational failures that allow the pilots to make the final error.

"It's beyond belief that a professional air crew would act in that manner," said Thomas Palmer, former manager of Pinnacle's training program for that model of jet.

So Thomas, what's your responsibility here? You can't babysit the crewforce every flight, but are we to believe this was just a rogue crew and that the Pinnacle culture didn't contribute at all?

At any rate TIS, it's nice to see you posting again after so many years. We should get together sometime over dinner and talk TERPS.

I hate quoting large posts, but I couldn't figure which parts I could trim and do it justice. So, I didn't trim a thing. All I can add is a hearty,

AMEN!








.