SkyWest CRJ off runway at CWA

[SinglePliot135]

I was listening to the tower when they landed (runway 35), winds were 120/7 with a heavy rain shower just south of the field. Pax said the ride was bumpy during the approach. Heres a link I just found.

http://www.wausaudailyherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060530/WDH0101/60530051

 

[1x1]

Bummer man, hope the crew is not to shaken up, and the FAA doesn't swarm too much. Can happen to anyone. Be careful out there!

 

[Detroitpilot22]

just remember, if this was pinnacle, this post would be five pages long ripping on our pilots.

Hopefully the skywest pilots and everyone on board were ok

 

[arthompson]

No truer words have ever been spoken

 

[gkrangers]

just remember, if this was pinnacle, this post would be five pages long ripping on our pilots.

Hopefully the skywest pilots and everyone on board were ok

Speaking of which...I did a checkride with a DE, who is a United 737 pilot, and mentioned something about Pinnacle guys getting canned for landing long....or something like that.

 

[CX880]

I though skywest pilots had a lot of experience.

 

[OPECJet]

Doesn't matter who you work for if you screwed the pooch. The airline also doesn't matter if the airplane wasn't right either. The results are still the same.

Glad everyone is OK.

 

[joe_pilot]

just remember, if this was pinnacle, this post would be five pages long ripping on our pilots.

Hopefully the skywest pilots and everyone on board were ok

You have class Detroit. You're also right, I'm afraid to say. The good news is that the majority of people in this profession have class as well. Too bad there are so many with so little on this board.

Everybody be safe.

-JP

 

[Oneflap]

Good call landing in that thunderstorm...that was worth it.

 

[crashpad]

This is why RJ's and commuter pilots are a bad combination.
The RJ is a high performance, highly sophisticated aircraft. It requires much more experience and skill than most any large airliner. I'm truely surprised these regular occurances aren't more widely reported and brought to the publics attention.

 

[Dave Benjamin]

This is why RJ's and commuter pilots are a bad combination.
The RJ is a high performance, highly sophisticated aircraft. It requires much more experience and skill than most any large airliner. I'm truely surprised these regular occurances aren't more widely reported and brought to the publics attention.

So maybe the "commuter pilots" should be flying the Airbuses and guppies and the guys at the majors should be flying the RJ's? And we know from past history that pilots at the majors have never made a poor decision regarding a landing, right?

Crashpad, normally you don't sound like an idiot but today seems to be an exception.

And just how regular are these occurrences?

 

[Beantown]

This is why RJ's and commuter pilots are a bad combination.
The RJ is a high performance, highly sophisticated aircraft. It requires much more experience and skill than most any large airliner. I'm truely surprised these regular occurances aren't more widely reported and brought to the publics attention.

Must have been an RJ pilot that was flying when Southwest landed with a tailwind in a blizzard on a 6000 foot rwy in MDW and an RJ pilot that crashed an AA MD 80 in a monster T.S in little rock. Those dam RJ pilot suck. -Bean

 

[J32driver]

Crashpad, normally you don't sound like an idiot but today seems to be an exception.

Yeah... and I'm sure Crashpad was spewing the same C R A P when he was driving around in an RJ as a low time regional guy.

 

[Fly-n-hi]

In the 3 years that I was at my former regional airline:

3 landings were made at the wrong airport,

5 crews took planes that didn't match the AC# on the release,

5 crews departed without the logbook onboard or the wrong logbook onboard,

An RJ landed on a taxiway at a major airport in daytime VMC,

A captain was fired for letting a jumpseating intern sit in the FO's chair and fly the plane,

A plane departed with about 45 minutes of fuel on board (two captains were flying it),

At least 2 flights flew into thunderstorms,

and 3 flights performed air turnbacks because the landing gear was still pinned down.

And those are just the ones I heard about...in 3 years! (Actually, it was 2 years and 21 months, to be exact)

Does this sort of thing happen at majors? Of course. But not with this frequency. Does this mean that pilots flying regional aircraft are bad? Of course not. It just means that the experience levels are substantially lower. Heck, my new hire class had ten people in it with 250 hrs total time!!

Some will say that there are guys out there with 10,000 hrs who are horrible and I will agree with that. But I hardly ever fly with a 10,000 hr pilot who is horrible. I have flown with alot of 250 pilots who were barely hanging on to the tail in flight. Again, I'm not saying that they are bad pilots...just inexperienced.

 

[Lebowski]

Good call landing in that thunderstorm...that was worth it.

Bad call bashing another crew on FlightInfo. Why don't you wait until the facts are out before jumping to conclusions?

I've got this idea for a "jump to conclusions" game. You would have a mat, with conclusions on it, that you would jump to.

 

[OPECJet]

If the majors had not decided that RJs were too small for mainline in the begining, we wouldn't be discussing this....

 

[Dave Benjamin]

In the 3 years that I was at my former regional airline:

3 landings were made at the wrong airport,

5 crews took planes that didn't match the AC# on the release,

5 crews departed without the logbook onboard or the wrong logbook onboard,

An RJ landed on a taxiway at a major airport in daytime VMC,

A captain was fired for letting a jumpseating intern sit in the FO's chair and fly the plane,

A plane departed with about 45 minutes of fuel on board (two captains were flying it),

At least 2 flights flew into thunderstorms,

and 3 flights performed air turnbacks because the landing gear was still pinned down.

And those are just the ones I heard about...in 3 years! (Actually, it was 2 years and 21 months, to be exact)

Does this sort of thing happen at majors? Of course. But not with this frequency.

I know of a few landings at Ellsworth AFB that were intended for RAP.
Major airline - not a regional

One day I had a Fed in my jumpseat. After double checking my release against the aircraft tail # I made a comment to the Fed about how managment has taken some steps to make sure we don't screw up this seemingly simple aspect of the job. The Fed's response was a laugh and the comment that pilots at a major airline she kept tabs on seemed to take the wrong aircraft quite often.

At SEA there have been several landings on the westernmost taxiway. All by major airlines to my knowledge. Now there's a warning on the ATIS.

If you don't think captains at major airlines have been disciplined for unauthorized jumpseaters you obviously haven't been employed by a major.

Many instances of flying to close to thunderstorms or penetrating t-storms by pilots at majors. And regionals, and corporate, and fractional, as well as GA. Oh and don't leave the military out. They've had a few aircraft damaged or destroyed by thunderstorms.

So what's my point???
Here's what I'll usually tell a new and inexperienced FO. I may have a lot more time in this aircraft and a lot more experience than you do but experience does not prevent errors. If you see something that you don't think is right or if you think that I'm doing something outside of the FAR's or FOM I expect you to speak up.

Bottom line is everyone in this profession is susceptible to errors.

 

[Ganja60Heavy]

Must have been an RJ pilot that was flying when Southwest landed with a tailwind in a blizzard on a 6000 foot rwy in MDW and an RJ pilot that crashed an AA MD 80 in a monster T.S in little rock. Those dam RJ pilot suck. -Bean

...or an RJ pilot (all 3 of them) that retracted the flaps on the DL 727 at 20' to simulate a military takeoff.

...or an RJ pilot that pushed the US DC-9 yoke 10 degrees NOSE DOWN in a windshear escape maneuver.

...or an RJ pilot that ran the UA DC-8 out of gas while checking to see the gear was down.

...or an RJ pilot that landed the CO MD-80 gear-up.

...or an RJ pilot that landed the BA 747-400 at the "nearest suitable airport" 6,000 NMi away after an engine failure.

Stupid RJ pilots!

 

[Morning Wood]

Good call landing in that thunderstorm...that was worth it.

Were you there? Were you flying the airplane? Planes land in
this kind of weather everyday and don't go off in the weeds.
You might want to wait until the verdict is in before you
make statements like that.

 

[Morning Wood]

This is why RJ's and commuter pilots are a bad combination.
The RJ is a high performance, highly sophisticated aircraft. It requires much more experience and skill than most any large airliner. I'm truely surprised these regular occurances aren't more widely reported and brought to the publics attention.

Then how was it possible that non-commuter pilots at Air Canada
crashed an RJ in New Brunswick?

 

[propjockey]

Disclaimer: This is my opinion based on my observations. It is NOT intended as a commentary on this specific incident, but is a subject that has troubled me for a long time before this ever happened. This incident merely brought it to my mind.

1. In the name of "safety," approach speeds in the CRJ-200 are too fast in general (all that extra padding thanks to the FAA?).

2. Many pilots seem to think it is necessary to maintain that same high approach speed all the way until they bring the thrust to idle just before touchdown.

3. Related to that, many pilots seem to think that they are never allowed to descend below the visual or electronic glideslope until the wheels touch the pavement, wasting at least 1000' of runway every time.

4. Ground effect is a real problem in this airplane. The 200 wing is very close to the ground, so even a few knots of excess speed means a long float time. As a result, in day-to-day operations CRJ 200 touchdowns almost always seem to occur in about the last 500 feet of the touchdown zone. Add less-than-ideal runway conditions and who knows what can happen.

 

[601Pilot]

In the 3 years that I was at my former regional airline:

3 landings were made at the wrong airport,

5 crews took planes that didn't match the AC# on the release,

5 crews departed without the logbook onboard or the wrong logbook onboard,

An RJ landed on a taxiway at a major airport in daytime VMC,

A captain was fired for letting a jumpseating intern sit in the FO's chair and fly the plane,

A plane departed with about 45 minutes of fuel on board (two captains were flying it),

At least 2 flights flew into thunderstorms,

and 3 flights performed air turnbacks because the landing gear was still pinned down.

And those are just the ones I heard about...in 3 years! (Actually, it was 2 years and 21 months, to be exact)

Does this sort of thing happen at majors? Of course. But not with this frequency. Does this mean that pilots flying regional aircraft are bad? Of course not. It just means that the experience levels are substantially lower. Heck, my new hire class had ten people in it with 250 hrs total time!!

Some will say that there are guys out there with 10,000 hrs who are horrible and I will agree with that. But I hardly ever fly with a 10,000 hr pilot who is horrible. I have flown with alot of 250 pilots who were barely hanging on to the tail in flight. Again, I'm not saying that they are bad pilots...just inexperienced.

And the answer is..............ASA! I know you guys were wondering!

 

[727gm]

pilot that landed the BA 747-400 at the "nearest suitable airport" 6,000 NMi away after an engine failure.

This one probably doesn't belong on your list, as it was not an accident. And being shocked by it comes from having a twin-engined-aircraft outlook. I suspect the BA crews feel more surprised that folks who launch over polar/oceanic regions with only TWO engines to start with would have anything to say about it.

 

[Oneflap]

Were you there? Were you flying the airplane? Planes land in
this kind of weather everyday and don't go off in the weeds.
You might want to wait until the verdict is in before you
make statements like that.

Thats BS**T , I am tired all these gung ho pilots that think they can fly in any type of weather because nothing can happen to them. I know this because I fly with them all the time. You know damn well what happend and the same happend when that Airbus 340 went off the runway in Canada. Oh,..thats right they dont go off in the weeds. Stupid sh*t like that happens all the time and CRASHPAD has it right. I think it is the lack of experience coming to an airline and then getting the quick upgrade. Im tired of these dum asses taking my family and putting them in harms way. Im sure the crash was the weathers fault...but who's fault was it that made the decision to land in that weather.....must have been the weathers fault because it couldnt posibly be one of these highly trained pilots

 

[Rogue5]

Oneflap,

You have no idea (nor do we) about:

1) the crew, their relative experience, training, or skill level.
2) the weather
3) the immediate or circumstantial causes of this incident
4) the decisions that were made leading up this event that may or may not have contributed
5) the particular environmental or physical factors pertaining to this approach and landing

So, tell us more about all you think you DO know...

 

[Oneflap]

and to ad from my last post...there are alot of good pilots that work for the regionals and the majors. But pilots that take chances like this need to be punished to the full extent of the law and maybe that would get more people to think like a safe pilots. Lucky no one got killed.

 

[Morning Wood]

and to ad from my last post...there are alot of good pilots that work for the regionals and the majors. But pilots that take chances like this need to be punished to the full extent of the law and maybe that would get more people to think like a safe pilots. Lucky no one got killed.

Took chances? Again, I ask you were you there or were you flying
that airplane? Do you know what the wind and everything else
was at the time this happened? You see "Thunderstorm" and
assume it was gusting to 60 knots and raining sideways and
the crew elected to land anyway.

 

[Whistlin' Dan]

...pilots that take chances like this need to be punished to the full extent of the law and maybe that would get more people to think like a safe pilots.

You can't look at the pilot without looking at the corporate culture that hired, trained, and supervised him. There are "clean" outfits, and there are some that are "not so clean." An otherwise good pilot, hired by one of the latter outfits, has only 2 choices;

1) Become as dirty as the outfit he flys for, or;

2) Quit.

A pilot with a mortgage and 4 mouths to feed may not feel he has the latter option.

I've been pretty fortunate to spend most of my carreer at an operation that has a reputation for being one of the "cleaner" ones. A few years ago, we hired a manager from the outside, who was eventually promoted to Chief Pilot. Almost immediately, he began a campaign of pilot-pushing, and retribution against any Captain who raised legitimate concerns about safety and/or legality. Fortunately, he was removed from his position before any lasting damage could occur, but that was because the pilot group already had a long history of professional operation, and because the old managers were still around to oversee his ineptitude at handling our day-to-day ops.

At some companies he would have been promoted, and given an even-larger whip.

As for this RJ, I don't know what led to it being in a place it wasn't supposed to be, but let's all remember one thing, guys...

Jobs are temporary. Crashes are FOREVER.

 

[Fly-n-hi]

Dave Benjamin and Ganja60Heavy,

For the sake of your arguments we could go back 50 years and find all sorts of examples of bad judgement and stupid decisions. I gave you 21 examples in less than 3 years at one airline and those were only the ones that I heard about! So far you're not really disproving my point.

In your replies niether of you denied my point or defended low time pilots. You just attacked the major pilots. It's almost like your saying, "Yeah, we suck but there are some major pilots who suck, too".

No need to get defensive. No one is saying that regional guys are bad pilots. But there is no way you can sit there and tell me that the lack of experience was not a factor in most of those 21 examples at that regional.

Interesting how you get so defensive so easily. Were you low time guys when you were hired? Do you feel like my comments are directed at you personally?

 

[Caveman]

Assuming said anonymous regional airline flies 500 departures a day X 3 years that equals over 500K opportunities to screw up. 21/500000 = .000042%. In other words, they get it done correctly 99.999958% of the time.

None of the examples you cited resulted in a hull loss or a fatality. In fact, it doesn't appear there were any damages or injuries. That sounds like a 100% safety record to me.

What was your point again?