Pinnacle Pilots: "Just wanted to have fun"

[100LL... Again!]

Truly superb pilots need little more than minimal training.

Those who are lazy, or demand spoon-feeding might be more concerned with training issues.

You DID get a manual right? There ARE resources on high-altitude aerodynamics, right? The FAA puts out a fantastic advisory circular on high altitude issues - you did read it, right?

 

[PCL_128]

Truly superb pilots need little more than minimal training.

Those who are lazy, or demand spoon-feeding might be more concerned with training issues.

You DID get a manual right? There ARE resources on high-altitude aerodynamics, right? The FAA puts out a fantastic advisory circular on high altitude issues - you did read it, right?

I agree with you that pilots should take the initiative and read things on their own. That's the only reason I know about the climb capability chart, because I can assure you that it was never even seen in training. However, training departments do have at least some responsibility to make their pilots aware of issues like performance, aerodynamics, emergency procedures, etc... We can't just assume that pilots are educating themselves on these things. Should they? Absolutely. Are they? Well, I think this accident proves that they are not. This crew's lack of knowledge on these things is not unique at Pinnacle. Most of the crews that were interviewed by the NTSB after the accident could not answer basic questions on high altitude aerodynamics and other relevant issues. I doubt you find the same problem at Comair or ASA because their training departments cover these things.

 

[100LL... Again!]

We can't just assume that pilots are educating themselves on these things. Should they? Absolutely. Are they? Well, I think this accident proves that they are not.

True, but for how much the typical pilot likes to spout off about professionalism and "deserving" certain levels of compensation, I think that a little more self-study and proactive behavior might raise the image of pilots as a whole.

This transcript and the articles I am seeing in the paper are going to give the worst possible impression about pilots as a whole. For those who think that educating the general public on how poorly regional pilots are paid - I might wait until this incident is a dim memory.

Perhaps it would do well to look for these types of personality characteristics in pilot candidates, instead of raw hour requirements or time in type. Plenty of accidents from high time-in-type pilots, you know.

Maybe the interview process needs to be a bit more stringent.

Certinly the company bears a lot of responsibility to train pilots, but the longer I am in this business, the more I am beginning to think that there are not very many of these determined self-educating, self-improving individuals.
This is one of the most disappointing things I have found in this business. I really had expected so much more in terms of professionalism.

But as many of us have seen, there are a lot of people who are perfectly happy with 80%.

And when other guys in class start asking about getting the gouge on the oral, I want to scream. I have never asked for a gouge once in my entire career. Those who 'train for the test' have no business in airplanes, in my very un-humble opinion.

Most of the crews that were interviewed by the NTSB after the accident could not answer basic questions on high altitude aerodynamics and other relevant issues.

Surprise, surprise. The company can shoulder some blame here of course, but this is the 21st century. There are boks, advisory circulars, trade magazines, the internet, etc.

How many of the self-described professionals at PCL or anywhere else for that matter are digging into these resources and improving their knowledge?

Not many, I bet. Why are people who are given a multi-million dollar aircraft to fly not appreciative enough to want to become as skilled as they can be?

I doubt you find the same problem at Comair or ASA because their training departments cover these things.

See above.

Look at it this way - ultimately the pilot(s) of an aircraft are responsible.
If dispatch gives you an illegal release, are you off the hook? Nope.

Just because you were not told something does not mean it is not important.
A true professional will continue to seek out as much information as possible to ensure that they are fully competent to do the job.

I do not think that a lot of low-time RJ drivers fit this description.

 

[J32driver]

A true professional will continue to seek out as much information as possible to ensure that they are fully competent to do the job.

I do not think that a lot of low-time RJ drivers fit this description.

I'd be willing to bet you are thinking wrong.

 

[Dodge]

This is all true. Now, the Avro doesn't get up to 410, but we do go into the mid 30's. Mesaba had no high altitude performance in the Avro program. Maybe they do now. What I know, I had to get books and teach it to myself. I'm sure every other regional is about the same.

Remember.... $afety comes first at the regionals!!!

 

[PCL_128]

True, but for how much the typical pilot likes to spout off about professionalism and "deserving" certain levels of compensation, I think that a little more self-study and proactive behavior might raise the image of pilots as a whole.

This transcript and the articles I am seeing in the paper are going to give the worst possible impression about pilots as a whole. For those who think that educating the general public on how poorly regional pilots are paid - I might wait until this incident is a dim memory.

I agree that this doesn't look good for the profession at all, but I also don't think that this is fully representative of the "regional" pilot group as a whole. The general public may perceive that this is how all regional pilots behave, but those of us in the industry shouldn't jump to that conclusion.

Perhaps it would do well to look for these types of personality characteristics in pilot candidates, instead of raw hour requirements or time in type. Plenty of accidents from high time-in-type pilots, you know.

I think both things need to be looked at. I've found that time in type is quite important, especially when green-on-green is a possibility like it is at Pinnacle. We should be looking at all aspects when hiring pilots: total time, time in type, personality type, CRM experience and training, etc...

Maybe the interview process needs to be a bit more stringent.

Agreed.

Certinly the company bears a lot of responsibility to train pilots, but the longer I am in this business, the more I am beginning to think that there are not very many of these determined self-educating, self-improving individuals.
This is one of the most disappointing things I have found in this business. I really had expected so much more in terms of professionalism.

But as many of us have seen, there are a lot of people who are perfectly happy with 80%.

All very true. I think this is possibly an unfortunate side-effect of the seniority system. Pilots feel that their seniority will assure them of upgrade and bigger equipment and don't feel the need to better their knowledge and skills in order to advance. I think the only way to correct this is to drastically increase standards on initial training, PCs, and especially upgrade training. Letting pilots skate by on basic knowledge shouldn't be allowed.

Surprise, surprise. The company can shoulder some blame here of course, but this is the 21st century. There are boks, advisory circulars, trade magazines, the internet, etc.

Again, I agree with you, but the FAA has an oversight responsibility to protect the flying public from idiot pilots. The only way to do that is to ensure that the companies are providing the relevant training. The FAA can't just assume that pilots are studying on their own. They have a responsibility to the public to assure that pilots are minimally competent to handle a jet aircraft.

 

[flap operator]

Dodge - I don't know when you went through training. When I went through the England training about 4.5 years ago we had a whole day devoted to high alt aerodynamics, taught by Dave Bangs. I felt like I was back in my aerodynamics and performance classes in college.

I recently had recurrent and they had a high alt module they went through. They said it was the basis of the high alt training for our CRJ program. It was a little lacking, but a lot of it doesn't aply to the avro as the avro is not as slippery and swept as the CRJ.

Never the less, we have lots of info in the POM regarding high alt ops. The climb profiles, the pleads to level off if we can't climb, don't go below Ver blah blah blah. I do wish we had a climb chart, much like they have on the CRJ.


FO

 

[DoinTime]

It was a little lacking, but a lot of it doesn't aply to the avro as the avro is not as slippery and swept as the CRJ.

Aaaaha....I knew you would someday admit that the avro has a straight wing!

 

[flap operator]

Conche de la vaca!!! I never said it was straight =) You'll never get to me to admit it... but I will concede it's not quite as swept as yours.



FO

 

[Dodge]

Flap Operator,

Yeah, I went through in MSP. Our instructor is mechanic. The POM does say not to climb in VS mode and watch your IAS, but we never talked about high altitude performance. We also have pilots who refuse to fly flaps up below 200kts regardless of weight/Ver. While that is on the safe side, it does show some lack of aerodynamic knowledge about the aircraft.

The short version is that regionals need to do a better job teaching high altitude/high performance aerodynamics if they want low time and prop drivers flying high altitude/high performance machines.