The Bashing Begins

[time builder]

The title of this thread is let the bashing begin. I think the bashing should be directed toward airline management.

I think much of it has been, it just depends on how you read it.

Saying that someone who has failed 5 checkrides in as many years (2 of them being 121) and becoming captain of the largest ship in the fleet with just over 3000 hours is wrong is more a reflection of management's inability to attract a more competent applicant than disrespect to the guy who took the opportunity given to him (IMHO).

Bashing a dead man to gratify your own pride is obviously wrong. On the other hand, if folks have an agenda to use this to change the industry for the better, I won't stand in their way.

 

[SpauldingSmails]

In retrospect, I think my first post was little heated. Does anyone know if of these 5 "failures" that they were in fact checkrides/proficiency checks... beside the two that were stated from Colgan? Or where they merely FAR141 stage checks?

I suppose there could be a multitude of answers. If I understand correctly, FAR141 "checkride" failures, aren't an actual pinkslip, just an unsat and a do-over until you've passed the checkride. Which means that information may not have shown up in a PRIA search done by the airline, as it wouldn't go against your FAA record. If they were checkride failures, and he didn't disclose them, the airline may have no way of telling he had previously failed those rides.

I clearly think Colgan is holding the bag on this one anyway you cut it though.

 

[Cardinal]

Good post. I agree that there are many checkrides both in and out of the 121 world that are not very objective.

Please understand that I wasn't ragging on anyone. Just trying to understand where some of these posters on this thread are coming from.

What are the odds that this Capt. wound up with 5 unfair checkrides across both the 91 and 121 environments over such a short span of time? Very slim. Like "God must hate you" unlikely.

5 over an entire career? Ok, stuff happens. 5 over the course of 4 years? There's no way that's not a trend.

 

[Whistlin' Dan]

Whistlin' Dan Roman, awesome username. Nobody expects pefection - airline pilots are allowed minor errors, and the system is built so as to allow the recognition and correction of these. Significant, uncorrected errors are what lead to checkride busts (in the mean, and this Capt. has provided us with a large enough sample size of busts to assume that most were fair). Significant uncorrected errors also lead to catastrophic accidents. I see plenty of correlation.

I'm not defending the Captain's performance in this matter. It sounds like the whole sequence of events started when he got too slow on approach...a mistake he might not have made had he been focused on flying the d#@! airplane and not on idle chit-chat with his young, female F/O. I just don't believe in the infallability of the system enough to permit lifetime "branding" of pilots by flight standards. There are no checks-and-balances within the system. There are few objective standards, and no real accountability when those standards are not applied.

In most cases, there isn't even a physical record of what actually transpired on a check-ride, only what the check airman says happened.

Most check airmen, like most cops, are good people trying to do a good job. The difference is that when a cop says he thinks you're a lawbreaker, he still has to prove his case before a judge or jury of your peers. The "accused" is permitted to challenge both the evidence and the cops objectivity in presenting that evidence, as well as the applicability of the law in court.

A pilot has no such protections. The check-airman becomes judge and jury, his assessment becoming a part of that pilots permanent training record for life. It stays there even if the check airman is subsequently discredited. (Yes, I've seen it happen. More than once)

A pilot has more avenues of recourse available to him after receiving a $20 parking ticket than he does after suffering an improperly adminstered (and career-altering) check-ride. And you want to know what the real kicker is...?

The meter-maid probably went through a more comprehensive background check, general knowledge test and psych eval to get her job than the FAA requires of check airman!

Did this guy screw up? Yea, probably. Were there prior indicators that he might? Yea, but they were probably evidenced more by his lack of experience and training as by his history (2) of "failed" Pt 121 check rides. His F/O wasn't much help, either. (Why wasn't she calling "airspeed!" and when did he call for "flaps up?")

Sorry for the thread hijack. Now, back to our regularly-scheduled program

 

[crj567]

HAHAHA! You think that because I am young that I fit into that stereotype young Riddle kid group. I learned how to fly at a local FBO, all part 61, from real instructors, not newly minted, cookie stamped CFI's from some big academy.

I guess that = Riddle in your ignorant mind...

No it is not because you are young-it is because you are an arrogant, inexperienced tool.

-Grandpappy wants his T-6 washed, and he don't like waiting...

 

[Flyer1015]

I agree. The FAA should force all regional pilots to take 709 rides to prove there competency in the RJ and in basic flying skills. If they don't pass, revoke there lisence permanently.

I think UPS should force you to take a GED exam to prove basic grammar usage and spelling.

 

[SpauldingSmails]

Complete NTSB exhibit listing.
http://www.ntsb.gov/Dockets/Aviation/DCA09MA027/

Excerpts...

FAA Temp and Notice of Disapproval.
http://www.ntsb.gov/Dockets/Aviation/DCA09MA027/418133.pdf

CA and FO Training Records.
http://www.ntsb.gov/Dockets/Aviation/DCA09MA027/417478.pdf

Colgan Q400 Approach Profile
http://www.ntsb.gov/Dockets/Aviation/DCA09MA027/417476.pdf

FAA recommendation concerning FAR121 pilots w/multiple failures
http://www.ntsb.gov/Dockets/Aviation/DCA09MA027/417495.pdf

Interview w/crew in a Q400 icing stall recovery
http://www.ntsb.gov/Dockets/Aviation/DCA09MA027/417450.pdf

 

[papanovember]

So the Captain failed recurrent as a Saab FO for general judgement, landing from a circling approach, the oral, and non precision approach. He failed the upgrade for a single engine ILS to landing.

 

[climbhappy]

If I look at this from a manufacturing approach....the flight crew wasn't good quality...there was no quality control going on anywhere in the process..
when you have no QA, you have defects....
there was no QA inspection after the process... the defect was shipped to the customer. the customer received it and used it. the result was fatal.

this can't happen... quality control has to be used and maybe this is where the total overhaul of rules, qualifications begins.... time for a senate hearing...

 

[CEO silly sap]

Just wanted to throw this out for discussion.

This Capt had 5 retest, pvt, instrument, initial and upgrade along with a PC. Granted its a bit high and calls into question the standards of company and pilots.

However, pilots have been guided by the rules and regs of the FAA, of which, their leader failed the private pilots written 3 times and was allowed to lead the ENTIRE FAA.

your thoughts