NTSB Final Report on Corporate Airlines 5966

[airlinepilot]

Fasten your seat belt Corpex

The lawyers will have a field day with this one......Corpex better have lots of insurance, money or both. I don't buy the comment that because a turbo prop crew might stay below 10,000' feet that there is likely to be more conversation. While that might be true for cruise........I don't know any crews that don't "tighten-up" when weather is marginal and they have to do a real instrument approach!! Especially when flying at night, in weather on a non-precision approach. THe Capt on this crew failed for several reasons, first the weather (and don't tell me the Capt doesn't set the tone).....second, the type of approach and finally a new FO........as I understand it this was the FO's first trip after IOE.....
I would love to hear the approach briefing that was given!!!!
I am sure they were both great people....but there is many lessons here.....

 

[Lequip]

It sucks but this was pilot error all the way. Who were the pilots and what was their experience?

edited for sexist remarks...Lequip, you're hereby warned to stop that kind of junk.

 

[joe_pilot]

...deleted

 

[joe_pilot]

Dude, do you have a copy of the transcript? Thanks in advance dude.

Fellow pilots died. PAX died. Learn from it, but don't joke about it.

Not cool.

-JP

 

[CA1900]

It sucks but this was pilot error all the way.

That's a narrow view.

This is a fatigue issue all the way. The pilot error would not have occurred were it not for the FAA's arcane rest rules, and the ridiculous "exemption" for aircraft with 30 seats or fewer than let them use Part 135 duty and rest rules. I see that didn't make it into the report either. *sigh*

 

[jetpig32]

On the issue, I remember having very few times on a 4 day trip at corpex where I felt well rested. It was a brutal schedule.

The transcripts were in the crew room in STL. I can say one thing. After reading those CVR transcripts, I am now very cautious about my behavior and demeanor in the cockpit. God forbid something ever happen to me, I would never want my family members to read something like that. Just something to think about.

 

[jetpig32]

That's a narrow view.

This is a fatigue issue all the way. The pilot error would not have occurred were it not for the FAA's arcane rest rules, and the ridiculous "exemption" for aircraft with 30 seats or less than let them use Part 135 duty and rest rules. I see that didn't make it into the report either. *sigh*

FYI, Regions air/Corpex ops specs are set up for 121 ops, as well as the duty limits. But they stretch it to the furthest possible limit.

 

[CA1900]

That's good to know, jetpig. CommutAir is 121 in every way except the duty and rest time requirements -- they take advantage of the FAR language that gives a carrier the option of using 135 times in smaller airliners. On a positive note, we don't have the brutal schedules you guys do, at least not anymore. I'd like to see both rules changed to prevent yet another of these fatigue-related (and thus totally preventable) accidents from ever happening again.

 

[pilotyip]

There are a lot of lessons to be learned here.

 

[urflyingme?!]

Just curious for the 121 guys.(no dissin other guys, just for the scenario)

How many times have you called in fatigue mid trip? By mid trip I mean MID trip, as in between two legs. With a 16 hour duty day and the ability to start legal and finish legal I'd imagine some insane days. What were the consequences of this?

 

[banned username 1]

Brother.....

It sucks but this was pilot error all the way. Who were the pilots and what was their experience?

I suppose everything could be pilot error. The pilots got up and went to work today, big mistake.

As far as the women question, I don't know if there were any in there or not. Why, are you missing some????

Sheesh!

 

[Captain X]

That's a narrow view.

This is a fatigue issue all the way. The pilot error would not have occurred were it not for the FAA's arcane rest rules, and the ridiculous "exemption" for aircraft with 30 seats or fewer than let them use Part 135 duty and rest rules. I see that didn't make it into the report either. *sigh*

One could argue that the pilots' "error" was not having the judgment to avoid pressure/threats from their managment and call in fatigued if the long day was indeed affecting them...which I'm sure it was. And from what I've been told about CorpEx managment, they can be pretty draconian.

This may sound dumb, but does anyone remember the IMSAFE acronym?

I have called in fatigued more than once (leg 7 of 9 once, and most recently leg 1 out of an overnight to an area with convective activity) and have had one FO pull him self off a trip (1st leg mind you) b/c as he walked out the door to work his old lady said she and the kid would not be there when he returned (stress/emotion). Of course I know several people who have called in when they are physically ill.

I don't know the guys flying the flight of discussion and I'm sure they were just like anyone of us...but one thing that we can learn is that NONE of us are immune from this crap and being a professional will allow us to recognize our limits and stop ourselves short of them in order to break the accident chain.

The regulations and work rules are unlikely to change in the near future -- so it must be our mentality that changes. Yes, we have a job to move an aircraft and its payload from point to point but SAFETY is the #1 priority ALWAYS...and if we can't accomplish our mission SAFELY we shouldn't be there in the first place and have failed in our professionalism if we allow ourselves to.

 

[CA1900]

One could argue that the pilots' "error" was not having the judgment to avoid pressure/threats from their managment and call in fatigued if the long day was indeed affecting them...which I'm sure it was.

I see where you're coming from, and to an extent, I agree. But, much like being drunk, the fatigued person is usually the one least able to evaluate just how fatigued he really is. If anything comes from this crash, I hope it'll be for the rest of us to err on the side of caution when we think we might be too fatigued to be safe, instead of listening to scheduling when they say, "But you're still legal," and thinking yeah, they're right, it's only one more leg.

In any case, I think the FARs should go further to protect flight crews from unreasonable schedules, since some companies are unwilling.

 

[DX Rick]

FYI, Regions air/Corpex ops specs are set up for 121 ops, as well as the duty limits. But they stretch it to the furthest possible limit.

Alot of regionals do, and they always have. If you're that fatigued, call in sick. You do it enough, along with others....they might begin to build shorter duty days.
If the FAA isn't willing to do it, then the pilot group needs to stand up in some way or form.

 

[regionaltard]

Fatigue has been on the NTSB's "Most Wanted" list for years. Nothing ever gets done about it. They have recommended and recommended changes time and time again. I think your disgust with non-action on this issue is vastly misplaced. It should begin and end with the FAA and the ATA.

Agreed, but until they come up with a way to detect fatigue in a dead pilot's bloodstream our industry's dirty little secret will remain just that.......