SkyWest CRJ off runway at CWA

[Dumb Pilot]

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.

You cannot eliminate the human error factor out off the combination of man and machine. This career has a very heavy handed way of making you humble. Hope you never find out first hand
Having said that, I don't think that a 1000 hour pilot belongs at any airline (regional or major) Flight instructing is a more likely place for the "inexperienced" but they are hiring 250 hour pilots and upgrading 1500 hour pilots regularly while their are furloughed pilots with thousands of hours out there working for Home Depot while the senior pilots keep negotiating more and more flying away to be performed by the "Inexperienced"

 

[Dave Benjamin]

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?

Read the frigging post again. At the bottom is a conclusion. Read it. Now do you understand? I'll restate it in case you're suffering with ADD and can't make it through the post again.

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

This is a general comment and does not apply to the recent incident that got this thread started. I'll remind you there is not one iota of available information about the incident in question. None of the particulars have been released. There are far too many variables to even speculate on causal factors.

So let's discuss your unsubstantiated claim that lack of experience causes pilots to:

Make clerical/administrative errors which comprise approx 2/3 of your examples

Underestimate/misjudge wx

Fail to use navigational backup to identify runway

Fail to conduct a proper preflight

I contend that these 4 areas that pretty much cover all of your examples are issues at any airline anywhere. Although I'm the last guy to condone hiring a 500 or 700 hour pilot I can't draw a meaningful correlation between the experience level and safety statistics especially when examined on a per flight basis rather than plotting it against the number of pax carried.


Go take some college courses in statistical analysis and some in safety/human factors. You've got no idea how meaningless your ancedotal evidence is.

Recommended reading for you:

All of these books are by Tony Kern. If you need an ISBN number let me know. They are in my personal collection so I can get you any info you need.

Redefining Airmanship
Flight Discipline
Culture, Environment, and CRM
Darker Shades of Blue - The Rogue Pilot

 

[Fly-n-hi]

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?

I'm sorry. Did I offend your regional expertise?

What's your point? Your saying "It's ok to be a screw up as long as you don't break the airplane or kill anyone"?

 

[Fly-n-hi]

Read the frigging post again. At the bottom is a conclusion. Read it. Now do you understand? I'll restate it in case you're suffering with ADD and can't make it through the post again.

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

Yes, we know that Genius. Thank you for enlightening us. Maybe you should re-read my reply.

This is a general comment and does not apply to the recent incident that got this thread started. I'll remind you there is not one iota of available information about the incident in question. None of the particulars have been released. There are far too many variables to even speculate on causal factors.

My reply was a general reply about experience levels, not this SkyWest incident specifically. Maybe you should go to college and take some critical reading courses.

So let's discuss your unsubstantiated claim that lack of experience causes pilots to:

Make clerical/administrative errors which comprise approx 2/3 of your examples

Underestimate/misjudge wx

Fail to use navigational backup to identify runway

Fail to conduct a proper preflight

I contend that these 4 areas that pretty much cover all of your examples are issues at any airline anywhere. Although I'm the last guy to condone hiring a 500 or 700 hour pilot I can't draw a meaningful correlation between the experience level and safety statistics especially when examined on a per flight basis rather than plotting it against the number of pax carried.

Are you retarted? There is no correlation between increased incidents or accidents and very low time pilots? Who do you think your kidding? Nobody cares if you can't draw a meaningful correlation. I'm sooooo sure you've studied and researched this topic.

Besides, I never said that a lack of experience was the sole cause. But no one can argue the fact that low time pilots are more likely to make mistakes.

I realize that when you left 'Riddle with 250 hrs they told you that you were God's gift to flying but I'm going to let you in on a little secret: You're not.

Go take some college courses in statistical analysis and some in safety/human factors. You've got no idea how meaningless your ancedotal evidence is.

Recommended reading for you:

All of these books are by Tony Kern. If you need an ISBN number let me know. They are in my personal collection so I can get you any info you need.

Redefining Airmanship
Flight Discipline
Culture, Environment, and CRM
Darker Shades of Blue - The Rogue Pilot

I don't need any info from you. BTW, were all so impressed that you read some books. I already have a degree in Communication. And I can tell by the way that you communicate you're a total tool.

I like your briefing to FO's: "I have alot more time in the plane than you...blah...blah...blah...". Most of your FO's probably think your a complete dumbass.

Suffering from ADD? Nope. Suffering from a desire to punch you in the mouth? Yes.



Wait a second....

I think I understand why you are getting your panties in a wad. You were one of the retards that I used as an example. Did you land at the wrong airport on the way to GTR or did you take the wrong plane? Don't tell me you're the idiot who let the intern fly?

Or maybe you are having your period right now? Go get some Midol or something.

 

[Amish RakeFight]

You cannot eliminate the human error factor out off the combination of man and machine. This career has a very heavy handed way of making you humble. Hope you never find out first hand
Having said that, I don't think that a 1000 hour pilot belongs at any airline (regional or major) Flight instructing is a more likely place for the "inexperienced" but they are hiring 250 hour pilots and upgrading 1500 hour pilots regularly while their are furloughed pilots with thousands of hours out there working for Home Depot while the senior pilots keep negotiating more and more flying away to be performed by the "Inexperienced"

Well said.





.

 

[capt. megadeth]

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.

WTFO????? Maybe all the pax should get a million dollars for their "trauma" of just being on the airplane too.

 

[Caveman]

I'm sorry. Did I offend your regional expertise?

What's your point? Your saying "It's ok to be a screw up as long as you don't break the airplane or kill anyone"?

You suggested, inferred, implied and otherwise made the claim that because you could point to a couple dozen mistakes made at one airline over the course of 3 years that somehow the regional airline industry was unsafe. My point is that your 21 anecdotal incidents amount to nada, zip, nothing in the big scheme of things and to try and draw any bigger meaning from that small of a statistical sampling is unscientific at best and in your case asinine. Particularly when you still haven't shown there was any damage, injury or loss resulting from your examples. They were mistakes, that's it. No harm, no foul and hopefully learning has occurred for the parties involved.

 

[Dodge]

You reap what you sew.

This is what you get when you hire pilots willing to do 70 work at 50 wages.
​

 

[myrows]

It's not that hard to figure out who it was flying that airplane(if you work for SkyWest). He's been at the company longer than I have and transitioned to the jet before I did. I have over 5000 hours total and 3000 hours in the plane. I'd bet he's got more. Not a superjunior low time guy and certainly no dummy or even a cowboy. Everybody makes mistakes. I'm gonna reserve judgement until I know a little more.

 

[pookie]

There is a reason why this industry is so screwed up because of the stupid people who pass judgement without knowing any facts. This might be a surprise but to attack a fellow aviator or company after an incident is not only unprofessional, but childish as well.

 

[Soverytired]

I though skywest pilots had a lot of experience.

Relax. It was probably a Mesa fo who left after a year to work for Skywest.

Isn't Mesa just Skywest's CRJ training program nowadays?

 

[Soverytired]

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.

Hmm, I seem to recall an AirFrance A340 pulling this maneuver (landing in a TS) in Canada a few months back . . . with disastrous results. I'm pretty sure they weren't exactly newbies.

Dumb mistakes happen to everyone. Thank god most of us get away with it with no harm done.

 

[Maiko]

If anyone wants pic's of it, send me pm and I will forward them to you.
It went approx 150 over the end of the runway.

 

[list2002]

RE: fly-n-hieeegh
How does someone get to fly a 737 with 5300+ hours?
Disaster wating to happen?
Anyone?!?!?
Imagine what hours he was flying at said "regional," then upgraded, then got hired into a 737? ... What, didn't upgrade??? ...
Speculating is fun.

 

[Fly-n-hi]

RE: fly-n-hieeegh
How does someone get to fly a 737 with 5300+ hours?

I guess since you haven't been hired at a major and you're not flying 737's you wouldn't know. I'd be glad to explain it to you but I figure you wouldn't understand.

Disaster wating to happen?
Anyone?!?!?

Yeah. Got alot of replies with that one.

Imagine what hours he was flying at said "regional," then upgraded, then got hired into a 737? ... What, didn't upgrade??? ...

Oooh, you got me there.

I think we flew together. I remember taking the controls from you. Then you started crying and asked me not to tell.....ooooops.....sorry.

Speculating is fun.

Ooooo Kaaaaaay.

PM me your resume and cover letter. I'll be sure to let the hiring guys know about you.




Next!

 

[Top Gum]

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.

I tend to agree with you but A lot of pilots are trained not to go below the glideslope.

Here is a letter of interpretation on descending below the slope???


Dear Mr. Spencer:

This is in reply to your letter requesting an interpretation of FAR Section 91.87(d)(3). We regret the delay in responding to your inquiry. You state that an aircraft in which you have a partnership interest was struck by a golf ball when 100 feet AGL and 700 feet from the threshold of runway 1L on making an approach to Buchanan Field, Concord, California. This runway is equipped with VASI lights. On page 1 of exhibit 3 of your letter, it is stated that the VASI glide slope is 140 feet AGL at the point of impact.
You ask specifically: (1) whether the lower altitude reference in Section 91.87(d)(3) is a matter of pilot discretionary judgment, provided no known person or property is endangered; (2) for an explanation of the pilots discretionary values with regard to "normal bracketing"; and (3) the intent of Section 91.87(d)(3) and the identity of the NPRM on which it is based.
Referring to your first question, the pilot does not have discretion to go below the glide slope, regardless of what may or may not be endangered by such lower flight path, until it is necessary to do so to make a safe landing. Section 60.18(b)(6)(ii) of the Civil Air Regulations from which Section 91.87(d)(3) was recodified in 19163, with no substantive change intended, was more explicit in locating the point where the pilot, at his discretion, may go below the glide slope. That regulation provided that fixed wing aircraft when approaching to land on a runway served by visual glide slope devices shall be flown so as to remain at or above the glide slope until arrival at the runway threshold. This change of wording appearing in Section 91.87(d)(3) was not intended to alter substantially that location.
Referring to the second question, "normal bracketing maneuvers" means maneuvers which remain within the limits of the higher and lower glide slope signals; and the pilot who remains within the envelope formed by the higher and lower signals, which constitute the glide slope, will not be in violation of Section 91.87(d)(3).

{p76}

As previously stated, Section 91.87(d)(3) was recodified from Section 60.18(b)(6)(ii) of the Civil Air Regulations. That section was based on an NPRM published in Draft Release 60-17, appearing in the FEDERAL REGISTER on October 14, 1960 (25 FR 9868). As stated in both the notice and the final rule, the purpose of that regulatory action was to enhance both the safety of airport flight operations and the abatement of the airport noise problem as it affected adjacent communities.
Since you consider the 1L approach to Buchanan Field to be a hazardous condition, we are advising Flight Standards Service of this incident for their review.
If we can be of any further service to you, do not hesitate to call on us.

Sincerely,
J.P. ZIMMERMAN
for RICHARD W. DANFORTH
Chief, Airspace, Air Traffic &
Environmental Quality Branch
Office of the Chief Counsel

 

[Dave Benjamin]

Yes, we know that Genius. Thank you for enlightening us. Maybe you should re-read my reply.



My reply was a general reply about experience levels, not this SkyWest incident specifically. Maybe you should go to college and take some critical reading courses.



Are you retarted? There is no correlation between increased incidents or accidents and very low time pilots? Who do you think your kidding? Nobody cares if you can't draw a meaningful correlation. I'm sooooo sure you've studied and researched this topic.

Besides, I never said that a lack of experience was the sole cause. But no one can argue the fact that low time pilots are more likely to make mistakes.

I realize that when you left 'Riddle with 250 hrs they told you that you were God's gift to flying but I'm going to let you in on a little secret: You're not.



Suffering from ADD? Nope. Suffering from a desire to punch you in the mouth? Yes.



Wait a second....

I think I understand why you are getting your panties in a wad. You were one of the retards that I used as an example. Did you land at the wrong airport on the way to GTR or did you take the wrong plane? Don't tell me you're the idiot who let the intern fly?

Read what you wrote. You're trying to connect errors with lack of experience. That's a tough argument to make, especially when statistics prove you wrong. You could however argue that judgement improves with experience, a point on which I'd agree. On the flip side errors due to complacency can increase with experience so it's always something.

If the correlation you claim exists between low time pilots and accidents then where's the proof? In 2003 the regional airlines operated an estimated 6.6 million block hours. I don't have the numbers handy for the last 3 years but we all know they are way up from 2003, probably closer to 10 million block hours for 2005. SkyWest, ASA, and Comair operate over 3000 flights per day or over 1.1 million annually.

This statement puzzles me - "Nobody cares if you can't draw a meaningful correlation. I'm sooooo sure you've studied and researched this topic."

You admit you can't draw a meaningful correlation yet you expect us to believe your unsubstantiated remarks? Unlike you I have actually studied and researched the topic a bit. Although I'd like to see more experienced new hires in the industry I won't try to support my arguments with baseless information.

Speaking of unsubstantiated remarks your comment about me leaving Riddle with 250 hours takes the cake. I instructed and had 2 Pt 135 jobs before getting a job at a regional. I have a degree from a public college. I've been taking some of the Riddle courses over the internet though.

Your desire to punch me in the mouth is quite entertaining. You don't even have the courage to sign your name to a forum post. You're pathetic. Keep posting on this thread if you want. I'm sure some enjoy your display of ingorance. But I'm relegating you to the ignore list so D'Angelo has some company. I'll be looking forward to meeting you sometime and see if you really have the guts to throw that punch. One of the NCO's I served with in an artillery unit had a saying I remember well. - "You'd rather jack off a wild cat in a telephone booth with a handful of razor blades than mess with me." If it was me I'd be real careful who I made a threat to on here. Could be a 5'6" weakling or a 6+ footer with some martial arts background.

No it wasn't me that showed up in any of your anecdotal examples of regional pilots making mistakes. I'm actually very thankful that I've never made one of those mistakes. I try hard not to. I've been fortunate so far and have an unblemished record. There's a saying that comes to mind though when I think about mistakes made by other pilots. There but for the grace of god go I.

Sorry you don't think my FO's like my briefing. Maybe it is corny. But I want the guy in the right seat to feel like he's part of a error prevention and detection team. There have been a number of accidents that could have been prevented by a more assertive FO. The Florida Airlines tragedy in NY comes to mind. Maybe the Flying Tigers crash in KUL could have been prevented by a more assertive FO or FE as well. It's fairly well documented that a large disparity in experience within a crew can cause some of these issues to surface.

Anyone of us can make a mistake regardless of experience. If you think otherwise I hope you're flying freight. I'd hate to see you take a bunch of people with you. One of the most dangerous pilots is the one that doesn't acknowledge risk.

Enjoy flying right seat in that 737. For the sake of your company and coworkers I hope you spend enough time in that seat to learn a bit more than you know now.

 

[Dave Benjamin]

RE: fly-n-hieeegh
How does someone get to fly a 737 with 5300+ hours?
Disaster wating to happen?
Anyone?!?!?
Imagine what hours he was flying at said "regional," then upgraded, then got hired into a 737? ... What, didn't upgrade??? ...
Speculating is fun.

His profile says 737-200/300. Do you know of any majors that only have 200's and 300s? Obviously none of the legacy carriers. Definitely not Alaska or SWA. F9 retired all of their 737's. Wherever he works it's not a major airline. In fact I can't think of anyone who operates just 200/300's.

Like you said speculating is fun. Maybe he's someone who failed out of training at a regional and just trolls the board.

I guess since you haven't been hired at a major and you're not flying 737's you wouldn't know. I'd be glad to explain it to you but I figure you wouldn't understand.

Be sure and tell us which majors only operate 200/300's. Something tells me we won't be hearing from this guy for a while. Either that or he thinks Kitty Hawk is a major.

 

[Crossky]

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.

Respectfully, I'll respond to your points.

1. The CRJ100-200 series doesn't have slats, the approach speed are fast because of that. To my knowledge the FAA hasn't mandated approach speeds faster than Vso1.33 for the CRJ. Do you know something I don't? Yes we can eat up a 737 on final if we have a FNG controller, ATC had us GA in IMC at Denver one fine day.
2. Air Wis and I assume all regionals flying the CRJ have a prescribed landing procedure: Ours is: start reducing thrust at the 100' call to normally be flight idle at 50'. At Air Wis this is generally followed by everyone. The speed bleeds off and stick shaker or high sink rate rarely occurs if both pilots are paying attention.
3. It's a pain in the ass to tolerate the GPWS "glideslope' aural warning because you're a little low to give yourself more room on the runway or make a taxiway turnoff you want. However, on the line it's SOP to go below and to brief it. Think of 5000' RWY26 KPHL. The GS cancel switch is within easy reach.
4. You shouldn't speak for everyone in this regard. Touching down in the last 500' at my airline is out of the ordinary, I see landings consistently occuring 0-1000' past the 1000' markers (500' - 1,500' min before you say it almost always happens). Who do you fly CRJ's for?

 

[Crossky]

http://www.airnav.com/airport/KCWA

This is a link to an AirNav info page with airport diagram and such. It's unfortunate that this happened, I'm glad no one was hurt or worse. My short opinion and then the facts: AirWis used to be regualrs in CWA, the station is still AirWis. The terminal is at the N end of the airport. If you land RWY35 it's a short taxi and you have to go slow to meet the two minute cool down before shutdown limitation of the GE CF34-3B1 engines, especially if you've used full reverse.

RWY35 is 7,645' long. The winds were 120 at 7 kts?

 

[Crossky]

Oops, RWY35/17 is 6,500' long, NOT 7,645' (RWY8/26). sorry.

 

[Fly-n-hi]

His profile says 737-200/300. Do you know of any majors that only have 200's and 300s? Obviously none of the legacy carriers. Definitely not Alaska or SWA. F9 retired all of their 737's. Wherever he works it's not a major airline. In fact I can't think of anyone who operates just 200/300's.

Like you said speculating is fun. Maybe he's someone who failed out of training at a regional and just trolls the board.



Be sure and tell us which majors only operate 200/300's. Something tells me we won't be hearing from this guy for a while. Either that or he thinks Kitty Hawk is a major.

This is the weakest platform for an argument I have ever seen. I guess this is your attempt at trying to be funny? Is this supposed to be a comeback or something? I noticed some of the older guys have 727's and 707's on their profiles. The must by lying, right? I mean what major airline still flies 727's and 707's?

The major airline I fly at retired our 737-200's back in January of '04.

What kind of 737's does your airline fly? 300's? 700's?

Funny that you mentioned your artillery unit. Honestly, a friend of the family just recently joined the army and was placed in an artillery unit. In boot camp they showed him some basic DT. Now he thinks he can fight anybody. We've all taken martial arts at some point. Nobody's impressed.

I never said that I was going to punch you in the mouth. I just said I was suffering from a desire to. Heck, I have a desire to punch Hillary Clinton in the mouth but that doesn't mean I would.

I noticed you didn't post your real name either yet I'm the coward? In fact, I don't see any posters putting their real names on here. I guess they are all cowards? Better be careful who you call a coward because there are some army nurses in here who said that "you'd rather jack-off a wild cat with a handful of razor blades in a phone booth than mess with me". After all, they wouldn't say that if it wasn't true, right?

You obviously didn't put alot of thought into your replies, did you? Let me guess...you were so pissed that you just typed the first thing that came to mind?

I never said your FO breifing was cheesy. I said that your FO's probably think you're a dumbass to which I noticed you didn't really didn't put up an argument.

You still never told us which airport you landed at.

 

[PSPFAWILL]

Are you retarted? retard

 

[ArcticFlier]

I noticed you didn't post your real name either yet I'm the coward? In fact, I don't see any posters putting their real names on here.

Uh huh........................tool.


AF

 

[Dave Benjamin]

This is the weakest platform for an argument I have ever seen. I guess this is your attempt at trying to be funny? Is this supposed to be a comeback or something? I noticed some of the older guys have 727's and 707's on their profiles. The must by lying, right? I mean what major airline still flies 727's and 707's?

The major airline I fly at retired our 737-200's back in January of '04.

What kind of 737's does your airline fly? 300's? 700's?

I noticed you didn't post your real name either yet I'm the coward? In fact, I don't see any posters putting their real names on here.
You still never told us which airport you landed at.

Actually it's a strong platform. No US major airline that I know of operates only 737-300's. Thus you don't work for a major airline. That much we now know. So you're a poser. While it's true that many of FI posters have older equipment in their profile they usually indicate what equipment they CURRENTLY fly. You claim to work for a major airline yet no major airline in this country limits itself to 737-300's. Are you so cowardly that you won't reveal what airline you work for. If you want drop me a PM with your airline and once I verify the equipment I'll publicly retract my statement that you don't work for a major. I think you're lying.

You probably work for Kitty Hawk which is a far cry from being a major airline. I did some checking and it's true they now only have 737-300's. Did you really give up left seat at a regional airline to take a pay cut flying night freight? Presumably you worked for ASA judging by the combo of E-120 and ATR's. You would make less money at Kitty Hawk than you would at ASA if you had stayed. So tell us the truth. Did you get asked to leave your captain job at a regional? Maybe you were one of those examples you brought up?

If you don't think I'm using my real name I think we can figure out who the real retard is.

Your reading comprehension is worse than I suspected. Did you not understand what I wrote? I have not landed at the wrong airport, on the wrong runway, or on a taxiway. I've even managed to avoid departing with the wrong MX log or one that's missing. I've even managed to take the correct airplane up to this point. That's not to say I couldn't screw it up in the future. Like I said, I'm pretty thankful I've been able to avoid those mistakes.

And once again please inform us which major US airline operates 737-300's and no other model of 737. And how did you get fired from your regional job. Not too many guys give up left seat at a regional for right seat night freight unless their ego is just crying out for them to be able to say "I fly a jet."

 

[PSPFAWILL]

Go Dave!!!!!!!!!

 

[ArcticFlier]

~grabs a beer...............the popcorn, and sits back to enjoy this~


AF

 

[beefcake33]

yeee-haaa

I had to get a user name and post my first post here for this one.

I wish I could have a beer, but alas reserve til 4pm, can you guys wait til then to start again.

SCORE: dave 15, other guy 0

 

[propsarebest]

Dave,

Can I have your baby?

 

[Ultra Grump]

Not too many guys give up left seat at a regional for right seat night freight unless their ego is just crying out for them to be able to say "I fly a jet."

He couldn't have gotten to the left seat in 3 years at ASA.