WSJ slams Colgan (5/11)

[Fubijaakr]

I think the most damning part of the story is they don't train a response to a stick pusher in the sim. Face it, a low time in model Captain, in icing conditions, at low altitude has the nose of the airplane push over. How do you think he is going to react, especially if he hasn't been trained?

Sure he had some training problems. However, its beginning to look more like a Training Department problem.

 

[norskman2]

Buy or sell your statement? I'm not buying...your comment suggest that a majority fail their type ride..simply not true...

I don't think he was suggesting that a MAJORITY fail their type rides -- just that a lot of pilots have a bust or two on their records by the time they make Captain.

That said, FIVE busts (3 pre-121, 2 during 121) seems to be lot for anybody.

 

[Jar Jar]

Sure he had some training problems. However, its beginning to look more like a Training Department problem.

Colgan's canned response is "we meet or exceed all federal training requirements."

And that is true.

So, is the problem with Colgan, or the Feds? I would argue the underlying problem is the standards set forth by the FAA.

 

[Fubijaakr]

That would be the old "if the minumum wasn't good enough, it wouldn't be the minimum" argument. True. However, you can bump standards up to the point where NO ONE can pass.

And then there's the law of supply and demand. We're talking the regionals here. Just last spring, they were hiring 500/50. You can't give those guys a NASA checkride. When there's lots of job candidates you can be stricter.

The telling point is that Colgan has "fired" Check Airmen and had a couple big Kahunas in the Training Department "resign". You don't think there was a little FAA pressure to make that happen? Slack standards have come home to roost, apparently.

 

[Amish RakeFight]

Capt. Renslow, 47, joined Colgan in September 2005 after graduating from a pilot-training academy, employment records show. He had a history of flunking check rides -- periodic tests of competency that are also required anytime a pilot begins flying a new type of aircraft. Before joining Colgan, he failed three proficiency checks on general aviation aircraft administered by the FAA, according to investigators and the airline.

Did this guy first start flying in his early 40's at some sort of ALLATPs bridge program for Colgan?

I hate to be a wet blanket, but what is your opinion on guys who begin flight training (with the goal to become a professional pilot) at such a late age. The mind does not absorb information or training like it does as a teen/ early 20's student. Your attitudes and perceptions are much different between those two ages.

 

[jimcav]

Did this guy first start flying in his early 40's at some sort of ALLATPs bridge program for Colgan?

I hate to be a wet blanket, but what is your opinion on guys who begin flight training (with the goal to become a professional pilot) at such a late age. The mind does not absorb information or training like it does as a teen/ early 20's student. Your attitudes and perceptions are much different between those two ages.

That is a good point. However I used to fly with a guy that started at 45. He is extremely sharp. I think he may be the exception and not the norm.

 

[imacdog]

Maybe this will raise awareness in our favor regarding pilot pay and a shortage of QUALIFIED pilots. Bottom feeder airlines can sometimes only hire those pilots who are lacking in skills and are willing to accept lower pay and substandard work rules to get themselves into the seat of an airliner.

We know that the most competitive jobs are those with high paying position such as most majors (SWA, DAL, FedEx, UPS come to mind.) Their screening practices make it almost impossible for someone with such a terrible pass/fail record to ever get hired. Yet bottom-feeders such as Pinnacle, Colgan, Gulfstream, etc will look the other way and hire these pilots and also pay them rock bottom wages.

If the general flying public knew of these practices, they would almost be affraid of flying on a network carrier's regional partner who starts their pilots pay at 19K for the first year. The only people willing to take that abuse are the 250 hr wonders and the pilots with a shaky flying background.

I see you have CL-65 and B-1900 time. Does that mean you fall into the "shaky background" category?

 

[CX880]

Maybe this will raise awareness in our favor regarding pilot pay and a shortage of QUALIFIED pilots. Bottom feeder airlines can sometimes only hire those pilots who are lacking in skills and are willing to accept lower pay and substandard work rules to get themselves into the seat of an airliner.

We know that the most competitive jobs are those with high paying position such as most majors (SWA, DAL, FedEx, UPS come to mind.) Their screening practices make it almost impossible for someone with such a terrible pass/fail record to ever get hired. Yet bottom-feeders such as Pinnacle, Colgan, Gulfstream, etc will look the other way and hire these pilots and also pay them rock bottom wages.

If the general flying public knew of these practices, they would almost be affraid of flying on a network carrier's regional partner who starts their pilots pay at 19K for the first year. The only people willing to take that abuse are the 250 hr wonders and the pilots with a shaky flying background.

That is completely wrong. There are thousands of us who were low timers. Yes it's unfortunate that we will never know the joy of flying 1 hour around the airport pattern 1000 times on a 172s right seat but we all can sure as hell fly an airliner well.

This guy had a bunch of failures in his flight training we don't know what the terms were or if indeed Colgan would or could have known as there are loop holes to that. Internal fail rates do not matter to the company as long as the person ends up passing. I don't know maybe he should have went to a nice RJ airline where on the check irde the jet flys itself instead of going to a place like colgan if he knew that he wasn't a very good pilot. Who knows. But please don't generalize the rest of us.

By the way there is no such thing as low tiimers anyways. The last low timer was hired early 08 it's now almost mid 09.

 

[regionaltard]

...and not a word about a system that turns this kind of flying into nothing more than a commodity produced and sold by the low bidder. An accident like this was inevitable.

 

[30West]

Maybe this will raise awareness in our favor regarding pilot pay and a shortage of QUALIFIED pilots. .

Way to generalize while at the same time contributing absolutely nothing.

 

[CA1900]

Way to generalize while at the same time contributing absolutely nothing.

Welcome to FlightInfo. :laugh:

 

[J.Otto]

What kind of times did the ski bunny (FO) have?

 

[Minimaniac]

In general, I feel that a low time FO is not a safety hazard alone, but when combined with an inexperienced captain, it is a recipe for disaster. The problem lies with the rapid upgrade times. A 1000hr FO knows enough to watch and learn for a few years. However, he will not learn enough in two years to then be ready to captain the ship with another 1000hr FO.

I think you find a safer approach to flying at places like Eagle and ComAir (despite the Lexington accident) because you don't have low time upgrades. Same applies with the major airlines. You are going to see places like RAH and Skywest develop a safer approach to flying as the sit in the right seat grows from 2 years to 5.

As for 250 and 500 hour FOs, well that is just stupid. I have seen those guys fly the heck out of the sim, but they just haven't seen enough to develop proper reactions to sudden events, or thorough thought processes for handling complex weather or rerouting situations.

I think that part 135 PIC minimums ought to apply to part 121 FO's as well. If you aren't ready to handle a cherokee with checks, you aren't ready to wrestle a Dash 8 or a CRJ full of people. Also, if everyone had to acquire 1200 hours to make it, the herd waiting outside the gate would be a lot thinner.

 

[Cardinal]

In general, I feel that a low time FO is not a safety hazard alone, but when combined with an inexperienced captain, it is a recipe for disaster. The problem lies with the rapid upgrade times. A 1000hr FO knows enough to watch and learn for a few years. However, he will not learn enough in two years to then be ready to captain the ship with another 1000hr FO.

I think you find a safer approach to flying at places like Eagle and ComAir (despite the Lexington accident) because you don't have low time upgrades. Same applies with the major airlines. You are going to see places like RAH and Skywest develop a safer approach to flying as the sit in the right seat grows from 2 years to 5.

As for 250 and 500 hour FOs, well that is just stupid. I have seen those guys fly the heck out of the sim, but they just haven't seen enough to develop proper reactions to sudden events, or thorough thought processes for handling complex weather or rerouting situations.

I think that part 135 PIC minimums ought to apply to part 121 FO's as well. If you aren't ready to handle a cherokee with checks, you aren't ready to wrestle a Dash 8 or a CRJ full of people. Also, if everyone had to acquire 1200 hours to make it, the herd waiting outside the gate would be a lot thinner.

I had alot to say, then I read your post. I concur. A little stagnation can do wonders for wisdom.

 

[aewanabe]

Did this guy first start flying in his early 40's at some sort of ALLATPs bridge program for Colgan?

I hate to be a wet blanket, but what is your opinion on guys who begin flight training (with the goal to become a professional pilot) at such a late age. The mind does not absorb information or training like it does as a teen/ early 20's student. Your attitudes and perceptions are much different between those two ages.

In a nutshell I'd tend to think those guys are more mature and have better judgement than the 20-year-olds. See, you can argue it either way

Seriously J. Otto, ski bunny? This is looking bad for the crew, and I know it's Flightinfo and all, but c'mon. She was a young wife and daughter and several families are going through hell that you and I probably can't imagine. Just a smidgen of respect, there but for the grace of God go we? Anything?

 

[dondk]

In general, I feel that a low time FO is not a safety hazard alone, but when combined with an inexperienced captain, it is a recipe for disaster. The problem lies with the rapid upgrade times. A 1000hr FO knows enough to watch and learn for a few years. However, he will not learn enough in two years to then be ready to captain the ship with another 1000hr FO.

I think you find a safer approach to flying at places like Eagle and ComAir (despite the Lexington accident) because you don't have low time upgrades. Same applies with the major airlines. You are going to see places like RAH and Skywest develop a safer approach to flying as the sit in the right seat grows from 2 years to 5.

As for 250 and 500 hour FOs, well that is just stupid. I have seen those guys fly the heck out of the sim, but they just haven't seen enough to develop proper reactions to sudden events, or thorough thought processes for handling complex weather or rerouting situations.

I think that part 135 PIC minimums ought to apply to part 121 FO's as well. If you aren't ready to handle a cherokee with checks, you aren't ready to wrestle a Dash 8 or a CRJ full of people. Also, if everyone had to acquire 1200 hours to make it, the herd waiting outside the gate would be a lot thinner.

I agree to a point, probably most if not all of us have flown with low timers in 121 op's. You can't classify all low timers as "not experienced" enough. You really need to weigh the person and not the group. I have flown with some 500 wonders that were on their A game, I have flown with some 3500 wonders I truly wonder why they were still employed!

It boils down to the training and checking. FAA standards are one thing, line standards is something else, and what you need to know in the environment you will be operating in should be the standard. At 9E for years all we did was MEM based sim training, did nothing for the guys up north but it met the FAA standards. The clean out of the Colgan training department sounds very similar to the clean out of the 9E training department after 3701.

Unfortunately at most lower end regionals, the only way to attract qualified applicants is with lower upgrade times. We can only blame ourselves to be honest, we are our own worst enemy when it comes to our chosen profession.

 

[Browntothebone]

That would be the old "if the minumum wasn't good enough, it wouldn't be the minimum" argument. True. However, you can bump standards up to the point where NO ONE can pass.

And then there's the law of supply and demand. We're talking the regionals here. Just last spring, they were hiring 500/50. You can't give those guys a NASA checkride. When there's lots of job candidates you can be stricter.

The telling point is that Colgan has "fired" Check Airmen and had a couple big Kahunas in the Training Department "resign". You don't think there was a little FAA pressure to make that happen? Slack standards have come home to roost, apparently.

Should this raise questions as to the qualifications and competence of all colgan pilots?

 

[TNPILOT]

Should this raise questions as to the qualifications and competence of all colgan pilots?

No. I'd think the Colgan pilots are probably under plenty of FAA and company scrutiny after this accident. What it should do is force the FAA to implement a minimum standard for 121 FO applicants. It certainly won't fix everything however the minimum standard should be higher than the minimum hours required to take a commercial multiengine checkride. You can't blame the pilots for taking the jobs but you can blame the FAA and the companies for enabling them to.

Watching Colgan shed all the blame of this accident and hang it on the flight crew is disgusting. Sure they made some deadly mistakes which they should be held accountable for, but this accident started a long time ago.

 

[dondk]

Watching Colgan shed all the blame of this accident and hang it on the flight crew is disgusting. Sure they made some deadly mistakes which they should be held accountable for, but this accident started a long time ago.

C'mon now.. the lawyers are doing this or directing this.. with the litigation of 50 something cases you can see the driving force. It is either admit fault and head down bankruptcy row or pass the buck and save the collective backsides of the management.

 

[papanovember]

What kind of times did the ski bunny (FO) have?

According to the CVR she had 1600 when she was hired.