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

Regional airline crashes & failed checkrides

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
Good point.


I've had my share of "single pilot" experiences. Not at my current carrier, but back at ASA. I was even single pilot (in my opinion) when I was an FO once. That guy was the Captain with the Waycross event on the ATR. Thank god he never killed anyone...but, he should've washed out LONG before I flew with him which was before the Waycross thing. He took about 80hrs of IOE and then later 60 IOE for Captain.

I may have had that FO at ASA.. He blew me thru the Loc for the ILS on an early morning arrival into ATL.. thank God I was borderline with it and caught it in time to state "my controls" and turn us in to intercept again..

There was also a gal on the ATR that I flew with while on Reserve that was not much past her teenage years that was consistently lost situationally on in IFR... I had flashbacks of being a CFII flying with her.
 
That article paints regional pilots in a bad light. I think we do an incredible job when you figure in the constant fatigue from terrible work rules, the amount of legs a lot of us do a day, and the terrible airports we fly into that the majors don't.

That's exactly what I thought when I read the article this morning. Regionals have 50% of the flights (20% pax) but what about a specific comparison of time spent in the high risk zone (down low on T/O, APCH, and LNDG) and cycles per duty period.

The other factor not covered is the type of airports that regionals operate to/from. For instance, take landing on 26 at PHL at 140+KTs or 35 at PHL and having to time your appch to land behind a 75 landing on 27R. What about that last minute 'Circle to 33' at DCA? It was fun but come on the risk level increases when we accept that clearance. Maybe I'm honestly missing something. Are majors having to whip stuff out like that? Are they landing on their equivalent of a 5000 feet on the last leg at K-Podunk? Are they flying a jet on their last leg after a full day of snow to a small airport that doesn't have the same runway clearing ability that a Hub has? Again, honest question I had when I read that article: "Are the heavies exposed to the same risks?"

I don't excuse poor airmanship, I just don't trust statisticians.
 
what about a "three stirkes and you're out, as in out of the game for good?"

I'm down for that too.. I mean we've all taken enough checkrides to know that no checkride ever goes perfectly... and that most (if not all) check airman use a more common sense method when evaluating whether a person should pass or fail. Most I've spoken to say something to the effect "I ask myself if I'd put my own family on their airplane at their level of proficiency, and if the answer is no then they fail".. I've seen many a check airman pretend to drop their pencil when a guy temporarily deviated on a ILS or maybe in a steep turn but recovered quickly and safely and had a more or less good ride.. AND, I've seen on a few occasions a check airman give a guy one or two chances to try to recover what should already have been a failed ride, but the guy was a lost cause and would fail.. So in the end, a failed ride is rarely (but I'm sure not always) a case of a one time minor deviation from ATP standards, but usually a sign of a poorly prepared pilot or a poor pilot to begin with.

I myself have failed one check ride in my career.. my Commercial Single Engine, in C-152 "Heavy" during the short field landing.... but since then, thru 5 type ratings (two of them having been done after a 2+ year break from flying and being out of currency), 2 additional checkouts as SIC, and God knows how many PIC and SIC pro-checks.. I've failed 0.. as I'm sure a large number of the pilots on here.. So why should we have to fly with people who've failed 3 or more 121/135 checks?
 
to this I say: what about the accidental deaths in hospitals across the usa? how many doctors have prescribed the wrong meds? cutout the wrong organ? or in the case of Duke Univ Med Ctr, transplanted the wrong type kidney into a young hispanic gorl causing her death? ... what about this? its relevant because I don't see hospitals advertising their low accidental death numbers

I think what you are referring to at Duke was a young illegal immigrant who was put to the top of the transplant list simply because she was here illegally..... No telling how many citizens died because of that one (another issue-but them's the facts.) I think her case was due to someone improperly matching the organs.

Your point about bad doctors is excellent! The problem with the "bad doctor" situation is that you cannot find out a damn thing about a doctor before they have their license suspended/revoked. I remember reading about a Dr. who was found to have screwed up in literally dozens of patients (some who died-others were permanently damaged,) before the medical board finally stripped his license. I am not aware of any way to find out how many people a Dr. has hosed up, either-too many lawyers involved.
 
Last edited:
I think what you are referring to at Duke was a young illegal immigrant who was put to the top of the transplant list simply because she was here illegally..... No telling how many citizens died because of that one (another issue-but them's the facts.) I think her case was due to someone improperly matching the organs.

Your point about bad doctors is excellent! The problem with the "bad doctor" situation is that you cannot find out a damn thing about a doctor before they have their license suspended/revoked. I remember reading about a Dr. who was found to have screwed up in literally dozens of patients (some who dies-others were permanently damaged,) before the medical board finally stripped his license. I am not aware of any way to find out how many people a Dr. has hosed up, either-too many lawyers involved.

there is one major difference between doctors and pilots... there is an over abundance of the later, and a huge shortage (real one) of the former.
 
The other factor not covered is the type of airports that regionals operate to/from. For instance, take landing on 26 at PHL at 140+KTs or 35 at PHL and having to time your appch to land behind a 75 landing on 27R. What about that last minute 'Circle to 33' at DCA? It was fun but come on the risk level increases when we accept that clearance. Maybe I'm honestly missing something. Are majors having to whip stuff out like that?

If the risk is unacceptable, why do you accept the clearance? In those instances that you listed, the buck stops with you.
 
That's exactly what I thought when I read the article this morning. Regionals have 50% of the flights (20% pax) but what about a specific comparison of time spent in the high risk zone (down low on T/O, APCH, and LNDG) and cycles per duty period.

The other factor not covered is the type of airports that regionals operate to/from. For instance, take landing on 26 at PHL at 140+KTs or 35 at PHL and having to time your appch to land behind a 75 landing on 27R. What about that last minute 'Circle to 33' at DCA? It was fun but come on the risk level increases when we accept that clearance. Maybe I'm honestly missing something. Are majors having to whip stuff out like that? Are they landing on their equivalent of a 5000 feet on the last leg at K-Podunk? Are they flying a jet on their last leg after a full day of snow to a small airport that doesn't have the same runway clearing ability that a Hub has? Again, honest question I had when I read that article: "Are the heavies exposed to the same risks?"

I don't excuse poor airmanship, I just don't trust statisticians.


You are suppose to use good judgement or common sense at all times, and believe or not, you can fail a checkride for not using common sense despite how you flew the aircraft on a checkride.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top