Never Give A Kid A Jet!

[FlyChicaga]

Might I suggest Redefining Airmanship, by Tony Kern, USAF. I read it as a fledgling aviator, and it affected my entire career in a positive sense.

Agreed. I second this.

 

[capt. megadeth]

a few days ago I was watching the ABC news and they had a 1 minute blurb on the crash. It started something like "are Regional pilots too inexperienced" I kind of cringed at the potiental public outcry!!!! the media Is having a field day with this!!!!!

The only outcry will be passengers b!tching about flying in a turboprop without a meal even though they only paid $30 for their ticket.

I remember when the 1900 crashed (USAirways commuter) they had a blurb on the news about "regional pilots" and they were talking about how the average salary was $50,000/yr. vs. the major airline pilot $300,000/yr. Ya gotta love the media.

 

[Bandit60]

The only problem with your suggestion (and I don't know if this is a real problem or not) would be how accurate the sim is in these kinds of conditions. If nobody operates these planes at 410, how well can the sim reproduce what actually happens at those altitudes?

It could easily end up being that since the airplane is certified for those altitudes, the sim would fly up there without too many problems, giving the crew a false sense of security.

I understand what you are saying, and dont disagree. But if the sims are not behaving like the actual airplane then the sim should not and wont be certified.

As far as your point about nobody flying at these altitudes how can they reproduce what actually happens. Do you think they stall test the airplane at every atlitude while flight testing? They know what the airplane will do at those altitudes. The airplane knew what it was going to do according to the horns and whistles going off.

If these guys had gone to fl410 in the sim, maybe they would have thought twice into going up there for real.

 

[flyer172r]

I understand what you are saying, and dont disagree. But if the sims are not behaving like the actual airplane then the sim should not and wont be certified.

As far as your point about nobody flying at these altitudes how can they reproduce what actually happens. Do you think they stall test the airplane at every atlitude while flight testing? They know what the airplane will do at those altitudes. The airplane knew what it was going to do according to the horns and whistles going off.

If these guys had gone to fl410 in the sim, maybe they would have thought twice into going up there for real.

I admit I know close to nothing about how comprehensive flight testing programs are. I hope they do know how it performs at any altitude it's certified for, although can they have predicted this "core lock" going on in the engines? Like I said, I hope they do know exactly what the risks are for a given airplane at its max. altitude and that we are all trained accordingly in the future.

 

[Huck]

We spend alot of time practicing all engine inoperative procedures in the sim - but it always is a systems drill on getting the engines relit.

If these guys had been in a single engine TBM or Mirage they would have immediately turned toward a runway and started checking their glide, before any system work.

Look at the Transat guys in the Azores. They (eventually) commited to their glide and pointed the nose at pavement. It's a tough decision to make but it may mean life or death.

 

[Regional4life]

Simulators are nothing more than computer controlled devices. As such, they can be programmed to reproduce whatever flight situation the programmer desires to reproduce. What is needed is some sense of urgency within training departments to actually use the sim for something other than a cockpit procedures and instrument trainer. Every six months, I get stuck in a box for four hours and don't do much more in it than I can do with MSflitesim.

You are extremely mis-informed on simulators. Yes, simulators are computer controlled devices, however, a programmer can't just "reproduce whatever flight situation he desires". A programmer takes flight data information from test flights and programs the simulator based on those numbers. For example, the programmer MUST know how many pounds of force it takes to roll the airplane left at a thirty degree roll rate. If the airplane has never been in that phase of flight, the sim programmers are strictly guessing at how the aircraft will react. Here's a classic example. Remember the American Airlines crash in New York after the wake turbulence encounter. The crew went full deflection on the rudder (which is fine and certified for) and then went full deflection back the other way (which it is not certified for). The problem with this is that this is what they where taught to do in the simulator to recover from roll upset. (Okay, I always realize that's never "officially" came out from the airline, but many American pilots have suggested that's how they trained.) When we start training in the simulator outside of the aircraft's proven and demonstrated flight regime, (for example, taking the airplane inverted during unusual attitude training), it's purely guessing how the aircraft will actually handle and has the danger of leading pilots down the wrong road. Be careful with that suggestion.

 

[enigma]

You are extremely mis-informed on simulators. Yes, simulators are computer controlled devices, however, a programmer can't just "reproduce whatever flight situation he desires".

yes he can, and you're about to prove it.

A programmer takes flight data information from test flights and programs the simulator based on those numbers. For example, the programmer MUST know how many pounds of force it takes to roll the airplane left at a thirty degree roll rate. If the airplane has never been in that phase of flight, the sim programmers are strictly guessing at how the aircraft will react. Here's a classic example. Remember the American Airlines crash in New York after the wake turbulence encounter. The crew went full deflection on the rudder (which is fine and certified for) and then went full deflection back the other way (which it is not certified for). The problem with this is that this is what they where taught to do in the simulator to recover from roll upset. (Okay, I always realize that's never "officially" came out from the airline, but many American pilots have suggested that's how they trained.) When we start training in the simulator outside of the aircraft's proven and demonstrated flight regime, (for example, taking the airplane inverted during unusual attitude training), it's purely guessing how the aircraft will actually handle and has the danger of leading pilots down the wrong road. Be careful with that suggestion.

You apparently focused on the wrong part of my post and missed the point. The point was that airline training departments should use sims for more than just instrument procedures trainers. As for your point about making a sim go outside of an aircrafts proven and demonstrated flight regime, I'll agree. But that isn't what I was advocating.

This part of the string got started when Bandit60 mentioned that we don't use sims to their full capability. Then, flyer172 added that since no one flew CRJs at FL410, the sims might not properly simulate the max altitude flight characteristics and that using a sim to go to max altitude might lead to a false sense of security. I posted to say that sims can be programmed to duplicate any characteristic that the programmers want to duplicate. I just didn't expand my point enough. I'll guarantee you that the engineers can accurately predict the effect of attempting to maintain FL410 at only 180KIAS. They may not be able to duplicate the stall after it occurs, but it would be no problem to duplicate the fact that a stall will occur. If the engineers don't have the data about CRJ high altitude stalls before, they do now.

enigma

 

[Bandit60]

Well put Enigna.

 

[Axel]

There was a DC-8 crashed in Narrows, VA some years back, killing all aboard. It was on a test flight after heavy maintenance at GSO. On the test card was the stall warning system. They stalled the airplane, but did not get a shaker prior to the buffet. The aircraft went fully stalled and as they tried to recover ended up in an accelerated stall until impact.

According to the NTSB report, the "lack of fidelity" with regard to the simulator's reproduction of the stall characteristics of the airplane, due to either inadequate or improper programming of the simulator, was a contributing factor to the accident.

The simulator can and does effectively reproduce the flight (or stall) characteristics of any airplane, but it needs to be programmed properly in order to do so.

http://ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001208X07150&key=1

 

[Regional4life]

yes he can, and you're about to prove it.





I just didn't expand my point enough. I'll guarantee you that the engineers can accurately predict the effect of attempting to maintain FL410 at only 180KIAS. They may not be able to duplicate the stall after it occurs, but it would be no problem to duplicate the fact that a stall will occur. If the engineers don't have the data about CRJ high altitude stalls before, they do now.

enigma

I don't think I proved anything. And basically, I think we are saying the same thing from two different view points. My point was, once you take a simulator out of a known flight regime, you can't accurately predict what it is going to do. You just said it yourself "They may not be able to duplicate the stall after it occurs, but it would be no problem to duplicate the fact that a stall will occur." I agree that they can duplicate it up to the point of the stall, possibly into the stall. But again, if it goes outside of a known or tested flight regime, it's purely guessing.

My only concern is a training department utilitizing a simulator for maneuvers that it is not certified to do nor provides accurate pilot training. I know of airlines that do unusual attitude recoveries on PC's by taking the aircraft inverted. That's unrealistic for a simulator to duplicate and thus, could lead a pilot down the wrong path, ie. American Airlines.

We are saying the same thing but trying to emphasize two different points from the post.

 

[acaTerry]

The gov trust's 25yr olds with the worlds fastest and most expensive a/c everyday and nobody knocks them when they crash or drop bombs on the wrong buildings. I

What you fail to understand is the selection criteria between airlines and the military:
Military: College degree, severe academic aptitude testing, personality testing, very rigid physical exams, pshycological profile testing and boot camp/OCS as well as 1.5 to 2 year FLIGHT SCHOOL with DEEP subject matter and testing.
Airline: 1000 hrs (often less), pulse, fill out an application (often with the grammar and spelling of a 7th grader), and memorize the gouge from the internet.
See the idea?

 

[C425Driver]

I'm still waiting for the moron who started this thread to come on here to answer to all of the responses that he got. But, he's probably a typical chickensh!t who just dumps flamebait and runs to the hills because he couldn't form an intelligent response.

C425Driver

 

[capt. megadeth]

What you fail to understand is the selection criteria between airlines and the military:
Military: College degree, severe academic aptitude testing, personality testing, very rigid physical exams, pshycological profile testing and boot camp/OCS as well as 1.5 to 2 year FLIGHT SCHOOL with DEEP subject matter and testing.
Airline: 1000 hrs (often less), pulse, fill out an application (often with the grammar and spelling of a 7th grader), and memorize the gouge from the internet.
See the idea?

That is pretty funny and true sometimes but you do need to get off your high horse.

I flew with a military "highly tested and educated pilot" who admitted to me that he did a before takeoff checklist slow "on purpose" because he was "pissed at me". By the way, we were cleared for an immediate takeoff due to landing traffic on a crossing runway.......real fukin safe there. I guess he memorized the gouge on the psychological test for the military.

 

[jimcav]

Not all but a majority of responders to this post who were offended were low timers. I imagine most 20 or 30 something. Ironically at 35 and not much older than this capt. I was not the least bit offended by these remarks. Hell, this could apply to me as I once was a 20 something freight and commuter capt and was only 32 when I checked out in the 717.However it is not really the chronological age in question but the maturity level as evidenced by the tapes.If Im not mistaken this capt had 200 hrs in type before they gave him the keys. Totally insufficient background to be in command of that s$$t hot jet, regardless of tt in props. Many of those posting replies are in the 1000-2500 hr range and If you think your REALLY ready to be capt in that shiny jet when your SENIORITY NUMBER dictates ,your wrong. I know the few airlines who upgrade these people with no experience and there is no way my family is flyin on them. A 2500 hour pilot who went from a 1000 hr cfi to rj fo to 2500 hr capt is not ideal, neither is a 5000 hr tprop guy with 200 hrs of jet time. No offense to the youngsters ( hell I'm one myself ) but a majority of responders really fit a certain profile, or else you wouldn't be so offended by these remarks. Also, enough already about how you saved the day and the world in general when flying with the old incompetent capt. There is a reason why there is more than 1 of us up there. By the way congrats on the valiant effort. Make sure you tell the story at your retirement party.

 

[DC8 Flyer]

Not all but a majority of responders to this post who were offended were low timers. I imagine most 20 or 30 something. Ironically at 35 and not much older than this capt. I was not the least bit offended by these remarks. Hell, this could apply to me as I once was a 20 something freight and commuter capt and was only 32 when I checked out in the 717.However it is not really the chronological age in question but the maturity level as evidenced by the tapes.If Im not mistaken this capt had 200 hrs in type before they gave him the keys. Totally insufficient background to be in command of that s$$t hot jet, regardless of tt in props. Many of those posting replies are in the 1000-2500 hr range and If you think your REALLY ready to be capt in that shiny jet when your SENIORITY NUMBER dictates ,your wrong. I know the few airlines who upgrade these people with no experience and there is no way my family is flyin on them. A 2500 hour pilot who went from a 1000 hr cfi to rj fo to 2500 hr capt is not ideal, neither is a 5000 hr tprop guy with 200 hrs of jet time. No offense to the youngsters ( hell I'm one myself ) but a majority of responders really fit a certain profile, or else you wouldn't be so offended by these remarks. Also, enough already about how you saved the day and the world in general when flying with the old incompetent capt. There is a reason why there is more than 1 of us up there. By the way congrats on the valiant effort. Make sure you tell the story at your retirement party.

Jim,
I think you may have missed what a lot of us "low timers" are trying to say. People aka "high timers" are placing the sole cause of this accident and any accident in regionnal flying on age and total time. While the cause of any accident in the big leagues is either fatigue, lack of recency of experience, weather, or any other factor OTHER than the pilots themselves.

I in no way condone what these guys did, we all can learn from it but it does irk me when some high time gee whiz (couldn't cut it when he/she had 1500 hours) pilot starts spouting off about how all "kids" are unsafe to be flying these airplanes. He!! I'm a low timer with a type in a DC8 but there is no way on this green mud ball that I would want or am even close to being ready to being a captain in it. I recognize my limitations and most others out there do too.

It is a maturity thing, it is immature to make blanket statements about a group with no supporting evidence, ie the OP of this topic, it is natural to want to defend your self when you get accused of being unsafe and unprofessional because of the actions of a small few. I agree the save the day stories are corny but they prove a point, EVERYONE MAKES MISTAKES, these guys made a big one. Captains have saved my bacon, I've saved a few Captains bacon, like you said there are 2 sometimes 3 of us up front for a reason. The difference is, when most FOs make a save its filed away as a learning experience just like when a Captain saves us, but some Captains, when having to save an FO, file it away as dirt to badmouth that FO with later on or to have a good laugh with his/her infallible Captain bretheren (see post on What makes a good FO).

I know I have learned a lot from this accident, just like most accidents. I hope you have too.

 

[michael707767]

Simple explanation. Lack of maturity, experience and brains. When your young you'll never die. Only maturity give you the experience to make proper decision in aviation. Been there done that and survived! Just glad I was not a captain of a jet at 31 with 3000 of flight time.

Lack of maturity? Sure, sounds like there was a problem there. But it has nothing to do with age. In the Air Force, I was an aircraft commander of an E-3 (707) flying around the world when I was 28 (with less than 3000 hours). Age was not an issue. Trust me, an immature idiot at 31 will be the same immature idiot at 41 and 51. Maturity is more than your age.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Many pilots have the same qualifications as the mishap capt. In many accidents such as AA LIT or SWA Burbank choices were made to deviate from profile or policy.

I good way to stop an accident is to stick to the book. This is, of course, a black and white statement, but it holds plenty of merit.

Perhaps the mishap capt should've been weeded out. Sitting in new hire class for GL while running reserve for TSA is a behavioral and attitude indication deep seated....

 

[jimcav]

DC8 Flyer you make a good point and in my rant I may not have articulated my feelings correctly. (wife and kids in bed and I was half in the bag) I am not one to say I would have done this and not that after an accident because I know better. My rant was not intended for you because most young low timers are parasites for the old timers knowledge. I for one love listening to the old guys talking and still ask a lot of questions. All of us should see this career as a big learning curve until we set the parking brake for the last time. I have learned through the years from the misfortune of others including AA LIT, but theres something about this one that I can't relate to. I've done my share of dumb things and lived to tell about them but nothing compared to this blatant lack of regard for procedures(seat swapping with a 500 hr fo) and more importantly the laws of physics. That being said I'm sure these guys were the salt of the earth and are missed by many. I have lost a few friends in accidents over the years and I don't wish it on anybody. God rest them.

 

[TIS]

Jim,
I think you may have missed what a lot of us "low timers" are trying to say. People aka "high timers" are placing the sole cause of this accident and any accident in regionnal flying on age and total time. While the cause of any accident in the big leagues is either fatigue, lack of recency of experience, weather, or any other factor OTHER than the pilots themselves.

I have several thoughts. I'll begin with this one. Speaking only for myself I can say that you’re just plain wrong about my comments. Perhaps I didn’t articulate clearly enough what I’ve been trying to say but here’s the essence of it: Believe it or not, age IS a factor in assessing the probable maturity level of any particular individual.

As for supporting evidence here are a few things you seem to have missed in your argument.

To whit:
1. You have to be 16 (in most states, if not all) to get a driver’s license.
2. You have to be 14 to solo in a glider.
3. You have to be 16 to solo in a powered aircraft.
4. You have to be 17 to get your private license.
5. You have to be 18 to get a commercial certificate.
6. You have to be 23 to get an ATP.
7. You have to be 25 to rent a car.
8. You have to start paying higher premiums for auto insurance when your kids reach 12 or 13.

Are you suggesting that these things occur in a vacuum? Every one of these things exists because something about a persons age can be directly correlated to an individual’s maturity level and experience – at least in part. It is silly to suggest that age has nothing to do with a person’s maturity level when there are so many clearly demonstrable instances in which it DOES.

Now, does this mean that the younger guys don’t have advantages? Absolutely not! Their unencumbered lives (no wife/kids) mean that their dedication to the job at hand is greater – or at least it has the potential to be. Their clarity of thought is what mine used to be – but now I’ve got a wife, kids, a mortgage, and I’ve got ”a crabgrass problem” (just a little Tim Allen “Men are Pigs” line – for the older guys out there). They can remember things like nobody’s business - just like I once could! personally I subscribe to the "useless BB" theory on this - too many things stuffed in = things coming out the other side.

But they, in general, have very little experience. Now, this is not to say that they don’t have a lot of flight time – they might well have. But I DO insist that flight time only gets you so far. Longevity is an important part of the equation – important enough that under the right combination of circumstances I might consider the number of years someone has been flying a particular aircraft type to carry more weight than their total time in it. Those years represent time to reflect and consider. They indicate the number of times a person has thought through entering winter or the thunderstorm season. They represent living one’s life as a pilot and remaining alive. It just takes time in the seat to pay the necessary dues. You said so in the very post I’m responding to. That doesn’t happen as you get younger. It happens as you get older.

So when I say that age has something to do with maturity, this is what I’m talking about. I don’t expect too many of the younger folks who’ve argued most fervently against this point to understand – they haven’t unplugged from the Matrix, so to speak – but I think nit’s important to understand that age DOES play a role in maturity level whether one likes it or not. Maturity, like most things in life operates on a continuum, which makes it difficult to assess in particular individuals based on key indicators. Age is however, IS a key indicator that is, more often than not, a pretty good litmus test. That’s why so many things in our society and in our profession have age related restrictions.

Now, before I move on I'd like to take exception to this part of you post because I think it's just inaccurate:

While the cause of any accident in the big leagues is either fatigue, lack of recency of experience, weather, or any other factor OTHER than the pilots themselves.

What about UAL 173 - the DC-8 in Portland that resulted from the attitude of the captain and fathered CRM training as a mandate?

What about DAL 191 - where the pilots were faulted for continuing their approach to DFW with an active cell on the final approach?

I could go on and on but rather than do so how about we just say that pilot error is a factor in considerably MORE than the majority of aircraft accidents, and that this is so stated in the NTSBs findings as published, and leave it at that.

…but it does irk me when some high time gee whiz (couldn't cut it when he/she had 1500 hours) pilot starts spouting off about how all "kids" are unsafe to be flying these airplanes.

By “gee whiz” I HOPE you’re not referring to a Gulfstream pilot per se (that’s usually what people mean when they say “gee whiz,” you know). And what does 1500 hours have to do with it, anyway?

He!! I'm a low timer with a type in a DC8 but there is no way on this green mud ball that I would want or am even close to being ready to being a captain in it. I recognize my limitations and most others out there do too.

There you go! You’ve hit the nail on the head here. I would just say that if you’re longevity in the business is high, you’ll be ready to be the CA In that thing sooner than a guy with twice your time in it and a lucky connection that got him the job at age 25. You’ve just thought the business of being off the ground over more times, more completely, and more effectively than he has.

TIS

 

[say again]

Age does not equal experience (in real life yes, not aviation life, per say). You can have 50 year old person, who just started flying, with 2000 hrs working for a regional. You can also have a 20 year old with 2000 hrs. Are we saying that the 50 year old is a wiser, more competent pilot based on his age alone? He may be more mature, but not necessarily more experienced.

Experience is based on situations that occur during ones life, and how you dealt with them. The experience you gain in aviation is relative to the amount of time one has been doing it, and how consistently. In my opinion age alone has no bearing to ones aviation experience. It's when you started in aviation, how long you have been doing it, situation encountered and dealing with them, what you learned, and combining it all together. At 20 or 50, both could have the same aviation experience, and be competent to fly jets.

As for the PCL crash, age was not directly a factor. Immaturity, lack of knowledge, poor decision-making, and a pure lack of common sense were contributting factors. I've flown with captains and fo's, both old and young, and thought they were equally competent, knowledgable, and experienced.