The Colgan NPRM is out

[TMetzinger]

I have a suggestion:

Leave the part 61 ATP requirements alone.

Add a separate endorsement for the "Airline Readiness Course". Keep the restrictions on where this course can be completed and the qualiifcations of those who teach it. Require those to take this course to have 50 hours PIC of MEL time. Require it to be flown in actual transport airplanes or simulators at places like flight safety or Simcom, or at Airline training centers. This would let the airlines take prospective candidates through the course as a screening method. If they do it right, it won't raise their costs much, and it won't require the guy who wants an ATP for his part 135 VFR operation using a Baron to go learn how to be an airline pilot.

Modify part 121 (and 91.K and 135 too if need be) to:
Require a FO to have either an:
ATP and the "Airline Readiness Course" Endorsement
Comm/Inst, "Airline Readiness Course" Endorsement, 750 Hours, and the appropriate Aviation Degree from a 4 year institution.

Require all 121/91K/135 pilots to have the appropriate type rating for their aircraft.

Require all 121/91K/135 Captains of multipilot airplanes to have 1000 PIC in the same category/class/propulsion - if you're gonna be a 1900 turboprop captain, you need 1000 PIC in multi-engine turboprops. Don't care if you were a 737 Captain last week, they're different, they fly in different weather, etc.

I don't know if something like that would comply with the law Congress passed, though.

My idea would eliminate the need to "Grandfather in" current ATP-MELs because the certificate meaning wouldn't change. Put the changes where they mean something - into the hiring standards for professional operators.

 

[Art VanDelay]

Have you ever landed a Q-400 in a raging crosswind? That airplane wants to tailstrike if you look at it funny; it is NOT an easy plane to land. Period. Let alone well. Anything beyond on-speed, on-sink, on centerline, and in the touch down zone is pure luck in that plane.



I've been there for several banner pickups. And skydiver drops. Those are fun and all, but require a skill set quite unique (and removed) from that of airline driver. I'm sure you could fly the hell out of a banner tow by the end of that season. I can fly the hell out of a twin turbo-prop. At one time I could fly the hell out of a Cessna single. But I'd wager if you got into a banner tow tomorrow, and I into a Cessna, we'd both be a little rusty. Because while we both fly regularly, it's simply a different skill set than what we use at our day jobs.

If you're having problems landing with a nose-wheel airplane it's a strong indication that perhaps you did not get good FUNDAMENTALS either. I used to fly the DASH-7 into Steamboat Springs Airport (no, not Hayden) back when your idea of a good time was probably a fudgesicle (actually that sounds pretty good about now ) If you think a Q400 is long try a 757-300 sometime. So yes, I stand by my remark - it's way easier than a tailwheel airplane. Do you even have a tailwheel sign-off ? I don't. But that's because when I started flying them you didn't need one. And yes, I do fart dust .

So you think that flying around all day at MCA and 300 AGL without dying or ending up on the beach does absolutely nothing for you down the road in your flying career ? Hmmmmm. You think that being able to accurately FEEL in your butt when the plane is going to quit flying whether your VFR or IFR is just a big ole waist of time ?

Let's see you don't like Ab intio training either but for some reason Lufthansa has done quite well with it for something like fifty years now. Actually it's what our military does too when you think about it. Right now there's F/A -18 Hornet making an approach to carrier being flown by a 300 hr guy - so I gotta think if it's done right Ab Initio could kinda work.....

I do agree with all of you that hours alone are not NECESSARILY an accurate indication of anything but you have to start with the bar somewhere or why have any requirements at all ? I mean why have any Private Pilot hourly requirements then ? As someone before said - Hours of flight time CAN mean one thing - EXPOSURE. Exposure to situations that call for good aeronautical decision making because those experiences are what help to build a sound professional pilot's foundation. Statistically speaking who is more likely to have been exposed to a valuable learning situation/experience a CFI grinding around the pattern texting for 500hrs or one that's done it for 1500 ?

 

[denverpilot]

If you're having problems landing with a nose-wheel airplane it's a strong indication that perhaps you did not get good FUNDAMENTALS either. I used to fly the DASH-7 into Steamboat Springs Airport (no, not Hayden) back when your idea of a good time was probably a fudgesicle (actually that sounds pretty good about now )

I wasn't eating fudgecicles but I was still wet behind the ears when you were doing that.

The Dash-7 is still way up there on my list of "coolest airplanes ever built", mostly 'cause of what you guys at Rocky did with them.

Have always wanted to fly one.

How many FAs did you bounce off the ceiling?

Some of the weather you guys had to fly in up there just curls my toes.

Still think your MLS approaches were ungodly cool and butt-puckering at the same time, too.

Did you keep any of the Company approach plates from those?

 

[weilke]

Reading the report and the cockpit transcript from 3407, I'm struck by the notion that both these pilots cleared the qualifications bar by a mile, yet were talking openly in their last minutes about how neither of them had seen much if any experience in icing.

The captain was talking about how he had no experience in icing until he started flying into the great lakes area but that he got the experience over the course of the first two winters.

 

[Everskyward]

it won't require the guy who wants an ATP for his part 135 VFR operation using a Baron to go learn how to be an airline pilot.

You don't need an ATP to fly a Baron in Part 135 unless your employer requires it. It is not an FAA requirement.

§ 135.243 Pilot in command qualifications.

(a) No certificate holder may use a person, nor may any person serve, as pilot in command in passenger-carrying operations—

(1) Of a turbojet airplane, of an airplane having a passenger-seat configuration, excluding each crewmember seat, of 10 seats or more, or of a multiengine airplane in a commuter operation as defined in part 119 of this chapter, unless that person holds an airline transport pilot certificate with appropriate category and class ratings and, if required, an appropriate type rating for that airplane.

 

[maddog52]

......

NO - hours don't by themselves mean much. Yet, it's kind of funny how the more of them you have the more "things" have happened within those hours that force you to think like no classroom or even a simulator ever can. It's funny to me how the people with the least hours are against this, I guess they just don't know yet.

+1000

 

[RotorAndWing]

NO - hours don't by themselves mean much. Yet, it's kind of funny how the more of them you have the more "things" have happened within those hours that force you to think like no classroom or even a simulator ever can. It's funny to me how the people with the least hours are against this, I guess they just don't know yet.

 

[TMetzinger]

You don't need an ATP to fly a Baron in Part 135 unless your employer requires it. It is not an FAA requirement.

If you've got multiple airplanes and pilots and you want to be the chief pilot? Still no ATP?

Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk

 

[RotorAndWing]

If you've got multiple airplanes and pilots and you want to be the chief pilot? Still no ATP?

Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk

14 CFR Part 119.71

(c) To serve as Chief Pilot under §119.69(a) for a certificate holder conducting any operation for which the pilot in command is required to hold an airline transport pilot certificate a person must hold an airline transport pilot certificate with appropriate ratings and be qualified to serve as pilot in command in at least one aircraft used in the certificate holder's operation and:
(1) In the case of a person becoming a Chief Pilot for the first time ever, have at least 3 years experience, within the past 6 years, as pilot in command of an aircraft operated under part 121 or part 135 of this chapter.
(2) In the case of a person with previous experience as a Chief Pilot, have at least 3 years experience as pilot in command of an aircraft operated under part 121 or part 135 of this chapter.
(d) To serve as Chief Pilot under §119.69(a) for a certificate holder that only conducts operations for which the pilot in command is required to hold a commercial pilot certificate, a person must hold at least a commercial pilot certificate. If an instrument rating is required for any pilot in command for that certificate holder, the Chief Pilot must also hold an instrument rating. The Chief Pilot must be qualified to serve as pilot in command in at least one aircraft used in the certificate holder's operation. In addition, the Chief Pilot must:
(1) In the case of a person becoming a Chief Pilot for the first time ever, have at least 3 years experience, within the past 6 years, as pilot in command of an aircraft operated under part 121 or part 135 of this chapter.
(2) In the case of a person with previous experience as a Chief Pilot, have at least 3 years experience as pilot in command of an aircraft operated under part 121 or part 135 of this chapter.

 

[TMetzinger]

Correct.

Thanks! Learned something new.

Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk

 

[Everskyward]

If you've got multiple airplanes and pilots and you want to be the chief pilot? Still no ATP?

Not if you don't have any airplanes which require an ATP.

(d) To serve as Chief Pilot under §119.69(a) for a certificate holder that only conducts operations for which the pilot in command is required to hold a commercial pilot certificate, a person must hold at least a commercial pilot certificate. If an instrument rating is required for any pilot in command for that certificate holder, the Chief Pilot must also hold an instrument rating. The Chief Pilot must be qualified to serve as pilot in command in at least one aircraft used in the certificate holder's operation. In addition, the Chief Pilot must:

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/tex...node=14:3.0.1.1.5&idno=14#14:3.0.1.1.5.3.1.23

Oops R&W beat me to it.

 

[matthammer]

It's funny to me how the people with the least hours are against this, I guess they just don't know yet.

It's funny to me how most of the people who are for it are the same people who got into the industry back when the "experience" requirements were far less stringent. Either that or they seem to be the uneducated (passengers, people who read CNN, people who faint when an airliner lands without a nose gear, etc), or non-career pilots.

I shouldn't generalize, though. I know high time airline captains who are also against stuff contained in new proposed rules. And I'm sure there are guys similar to myself who don't feel quite the same about it, too.

 

[Everskyward]

It's funny to me how most of the people who are for it are the same people who got into the industry back when the "experience" requirements were far less stringent.

The legal experience requirement might have not been that stringent but in practical terms they were, because it seemed like you needed at least 2,000-3,000 hours and maybe 500 multi to be realistically considered for a job. I'm talking about the 80s and 90s here when my peers were going to the regionals, not the 60s when I hear the requirements were less.

I agree with the poster who said the airline safety record really isn't that bad although it could always use improvement. I also agree with the other person who said that higher time pilots are not immune from stupid mistakes or mishandling. I'm not opposed to making SICs have ATPs but I don't think it's really going to fix anything. There's a first time for everything whether it happens at 500 hours or 1,500 hours or 5,000 hours.

 

[Alexb2000]

There is one detail about Colgan that I never figured out how it escaped the crew. They are coming into Buffalo and on frequency you hear a departing 767 calling for a continuous climb due to icing, among other traffic seeing the same. I always listen to ATC carefully, beyond my call sign, to get a sense of whats going on. I don't care if I was in a 747 with Obama certified Air Force One motors, I would be on edge for icing given all the radio talk. I would think a 50 hour pilot with good common sense and the knowledge of icing someone could pickup reading pilot boards for a couple of months would also be cognizant of the danger. It's not like this was something right out of the blue that no one expected.

Bottom line: You just never know how some people are going to react in a life and death situation until they're really in it. No simulator, or flight test, or log book fiction, will ever determine if someone can handle it. I saw that many times in the military despite all of the best training.

 

[Everskyward]

There is one detail about Colgan that I never figured out how it escaped the crew. They are coming into Buffalo and on frequency you hear a departing 767 calling for a continuous climb due to icing, among other traffic seeing the same. I always listen to ATC carefully, beyond my call sign, to get a sense of whats going on. I don't care if I was in a 747 with Obama certified Air Force One motors, I would be on edge for icing given all the radio talk. I would think a 50 hour pilot with good common sense and the knowledge of icing someone could pickup reading pilot boards for a couple of months would also be cognizant of the danger. It's not like this was something right out of the blue that no one expected.

But they didn't crash because of icing.

7. The minimal aircraft performance degradation resulting from ice accumulation did not affect the flight crew’s ability to fly and control the airplane.

http://www.ntsb.gov//doclib/reports/2010/AAR1001.pdf

Under "Conclusions" page 151 in case you are looking for it.

 

[Henning]

It's funny to me how most of the people who are for it are the same people who got into the industry back when the "experience" requirements were far less stringent.

I don't think that's all that true, what are hiring minimums now? They've always been around 1200 unless there was a major push and those usually die quickly with airline or the union Last In First Out policy most of those hires aren't at those jobs.

 

[Henning]

But they didn't crash because of icing.



http://www.ntsb.gov//doclib/reports/2010/AAR1001.pdf

Under "Conclusions" page 151 in case you are looking for it.

Interesting, basically this was the same crash as AF 447.

 

[Alexb2000]

But they didn't crash because of icing.



http://www.ntsb.gov//doclib/reports/2010/AAR1001.pdf

Under "Conclusions" page 151 in case you are looking for it.

Well, I stand corrected. I thought this was brought on by icing affecting the aircraft performance, and an incorrect response to it.

So they just let the airplane stall for no apparent reason and held it there, because they were tired and neither of them knew how to recover it? Really?

Now we have a new experience requirement, how will that help with the fatigue part?

I'm confused.

 

[David7700]

Interesting, basically this was the same crash as AF 447.

Ab initio training.

 

[denverpilot]

There is one detail about Colgan that I never figured out how it escaped the crew. They are coming into Buffalo and on frequency you hear a departing 767 calling for a continuous climb due to icing, among other traffic seeing the same.

Was that from the CVR recording or the ATC tape?

The reason I ask is that I've been surprised by similar things listening to recordings after the accident only to realize later that the recording was the ATC tape which included things that weren't heard (for whatever reason) on the CVR.

 

[Alexb2000]

Was that from the CVR recording or the ATC tape?

The reason I ask is that I've been surprised by similar things listening to recordings after the accident only to realize later that the recording was the ATC tape which included things that weren't heard (for whatever reason) on the CVR.

ATC tapes.

 

[Henning]

Ab initio training.

Before that, selection of personality to receive airline training. The problem wasn't 'didn't know' the problem was 'reacted incorrectly to stress.'

 

[TMetzinger]

Interestingly enough I just received a private email from someone who reads POA but is not a member. In it I was accused of having a chip on my shoulder against airline guys.

I want to apologize if I sound that way. I've got nothing but respect for those who fly for airlines (or charter or pipeline patrol or...).

My issues with this NPRM are not with the general philosophy that airline pilots should have a lot of widely varied experience before they get hired. I don't necessarily have an issue with the amount of experience required, or the formal training in CRM and so on and so forth. I'm not sure that simply requiring more hours will significantly improve the quality of the applicant pool, but I do get the attitude from some that "it's better than nothing"

I just think that all of those requirements should be included in the part 121 crew qualifications, and not in the requirement for the ATP certificate itself.

 

[denverpilot]

ATC tapes.

Yeah, that's what I suspected. I don't know for sure, but I believe that the ATC tapes are recording at the Controller position or "close to it" electrical-engineering-wise...

If the controller is working two frequencies and has them both selected, I believe the tapes come from his audio panel, and are NOT individual recordings of individual transmitter/receiver pairs at the radio.

So... I think you can have a scenario where a controller is working multiple frequencies and both are being recorded, but the pilot (and the CVR) are only "hearing" one frequency.

Whether or not it's a factor in Colgan, only the CVR and/or an expert on what and where each recording is from, could answer. I'm just going off of long experience recording telecom gear from various "tap" points.

Not to be confused with legal or illegal wiretapping... I worked in teleconferencing where customers regularly wanted recordings of the calls. Back when I started, they were done with a 1:1 audio transformer, a hold-up resistor, a couple of RCA jacks, and a tape recorder, on a per-call basis. We quickly switched over to dialing a line into a digital recording system, as the cassette tapes were ultimately unmanageable and customers moved to wanting both CD's of the audio and compressed or uncompressed audio via e-mail or other digital delivery methods. Today, most teleconferencing manufacturers record into a server that can also handle doing near real-time audio and video streams to X number of people, either during the call or anytime thereafter.

It was a fun progression to watch in less than two decades...

How it relates to this is that you learn pretty quick that where you record various sources from in the circuit, can muck around with the end-listener's perception of what was truly heard by the conference participants in the live call... and recording two-way radios adds a couple of additional dimensions to that "problem"/"challenge".

I've always found the FAA recordings to be of very high quality of their two-way radio comm. Far better than most Public Safety dispatch recordings, which are usually highly compressed or worse, some agencies are still utilizing the old slow-moving tape-based systems to cut down on the number of tapes required to be stored for legal purposes.

(The copy of my 911 calls and the dispatch traffic I had to pull for a hit-and-run accident I was involved with around 2005 from the Denver PD was truly awful... and they sent me a cassette... I had to scrounge just to find a way to play it. I was about to convert it to a digital format to e-mail to my insurer when they decided I really was hit and run by the lady... the reason for the tape? DPD was overloaded -- as they always are -- and I was so far down the priority list that the lady's son had time to drive across town, convince his elderly mother that she should just leave the scene of the accident, and leave after yelling at me that I'd "hit his mom" and DPD never showed up. It was at least two hours after the accident that I finally called them and cancelled the request for an officer to write a report. My insurance company wanted the information, right up until the point they realized that they were the insurer of both vehicles and it didn't matter who they faulted, they were paying for both repairs, either way. Haha... took 'em weeks to figure that out.)

 

[Everskyward]

Ab initio training.

Here are the pilots' flying backgrounds. All of them had certificates and ratings before joining Air France. The captain had all kinds of experience. The pilot in the right seat flew gliders.

http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2009/f-cp090601e3.en/pdf/f-cp090601e3.en.pdf

Flight crew information starts on page 11.

 

[j1b3h0]

I think the new rules are a step in the right direction. Count me as one who believes an ATP should be required of both pilots while operating a 121 air transport aircraft. If you want to cut some slack in the requirements, do it for part 135. Lower the bar for freighter dogs...not airliners.

Having flown with many (relatively) low time First Officers, I can speak to the issue. The workload goes way up in the cockpit when ANYTHING out of the ordinary happens and I'm with a new guy. First time with convective weather, first time with ice, first time with a passenger issue, hell, first time with, you know, clouds! My company did a pretty good job of training new people on the FMS, but the first time they click off the autopilot in a gusty x-wind the entertainment really begins.

The pay has got to go up.

 

[gprellwitz]

I think the new rules are a step in the right direction. Count me as one who believes an ATP should be required of both pilots while operating a 121 air transport aircraft. If you want to cut some slack in the requirements, do it for part 135. Lower the bar for freighter dogs...not airliners.

Having flown with many (relatively) low time First Officers, I can speak to the issue. The workload goes way up in the cockpit when ANYTHING out of the ordinary happens and I'm with a new guy. First time with convective weather, first time with ice, first time with a passenger issue, hell, first time with, you know, clouds! My company did a pretty good job of training new people on the FMS, but the first time they click off the autopilot in a gusty x-wind the entertainment really begins.

The pay has got to go up.

So, can this be summarized as "let them learn in someone else's cockpit?" Because as they progress, they are either going to be low time first officers in a two pilot operation, or low time captains in a single pilot operation, or instructing, right? I guess that's my problem with the whole proposal. It isn't clear to me where they are expected to get the experience to actually learn if not from the people who already have the experience. Or just hope they survive long enough to not get killed and then get hired onto a part 121, where magically they will be seasoned aviators.

 

[Henning]

So, can this be summarized as "let them learn in someone else's cockpit?" Because as they progress, they are either going to be low time first officers in a two pilot operation, or low time captains in a single pilot operation, or instructing, right? I guess that's my problem with the whole proposal. It isn't clear to me where they are expected to get the experience to actually learn if not from the people who already have the experience. Or just hope they survive long enough to not get killed and then get hired onto a part 121, where magically they will be seasoned aviators.

The same way they get the time now, poorly. There are still utility jobs around. I just met a kid mid 20s CFI 750 some hours and is paying $1000 for the training to tow banners. He's freaking on how slow they're flying lol. Yeah, that's the job, high power settings and high AOA. This is a guy who can crash anything well after a season.

Here's the deal, for a long long time our airline pilot crew was military trained if not battle tested for the vast majority. This pretty much proved out that you had command personalities in airline cockpits; not that they don't make their own mistakes for their own reasons, they will not freeze in a crisis. They wil become calm and do exactly what what needs to be done to pull it out of their ass. It isn't trainable and I can't think of how you can really test it without inducing mortal danger. It's a significant portion of the population react this way, many know through other experience, but when you're looking for a high percentage of well trained pilots who have undergone serious scrutiny and undergone testing the civilian sector would not allow for.

That is no longer true, the majority of our cockpit crews have no longer undergone the rigorous scrutiny of personality, so now rather than "Stupid pilot trick" airliner crashes we are seeing "Reacts poorly to stress" airliner crashes.

 

[dmspilot]

I think more rigorous standards for both check rides and the infamously easy knowledge tests would be more effective and without as many side-effects. It's too easy to keep re-testing until you pass; I shall call this the "brute force effect". For the Captain, the warning signs were there.

Research has shown that the statistic that correlates most with pilot error accidents is "time in type". The Captain had just been transferred to the Q400, directly to Captain without any Q400 SIC experience, and had approximately 100 hours in the Q400 at the time of the accident. A more effective and less financially onerous solution would have been to increase time in type dramatically for PIC.

In addition to problems at Colgan itself, the structure of the airline industry is to blame in at least two ways: one, the seniority system does not recognize skill or performance differentiation; you're either qualified or you are not; and two, airlines have successfully been able to defraud the public with their bait-and-switch scheme, tricking people into believing they are flying on a major airline when they are not.

The new rules address zero of the four problems I just outlined above, and attempt to address a perceived problem which has not been demonstrated to even exist. It is unlikely to make any statistically verifiable impact on the fatality rate.

This rule is to "safety" as the TSA is to "security" -- its primary purpose is to placate the public and the accident victims.

The rule is going to induce some profound unintended consequences:

Regional airlines WILL shrink because of this (they already are due to fuel prices, this will make it worse). Now more people will be driving or taking a bus instead. How does the safety of road travel compare to air travel? Congress might have just decreased safety. Oops!

We've raised the hour-requirement six-fold (how about we raise the minimum age for a commercial pilot to 109?). Wannabe pilots are now given a very strong incentive to falsify their logbooks. Oops!

It's great that all these airline-wannabees will be driving cargo around at a bottom-feeder 135, probably with a safety atmosphere well below even the worst regionals. How many will crash into houses? Oops!

I could go on, but there is no point in itemizing all of unintended consequences I can think of, since I wouldn't be able to think of all of them anyway.

 

[Henning]

It's great that all these airline-wannabees will be driving cargo around at a bottom-feeder 135, probably with a safety atmosphere well below even the worst regionals. How many will crash into houses? Oops!

Well that is actually the point of it that is good. It gives them more exposure alone in the cockpit flying crap equipment into conditions that are conducive to causing failures; this allows for more chance of their personalities to be tested under fire. You should also only be able to count 500hrs "Dual Given" hours towards the ATP.

 

[weilke]

It's great that all these airline-wannabees will be driving cargo around at a bottom-feeder 135, probably with a safety atmosphere well below even the worst regionals. How many will crash into houses? Oops!

Few of them will qualify for part 135 IFR (1200hrs).

They will fly circles in Arizona at a low power settings in blocks of 250 hrs.

 

[Aztec Driver]

I have a suggestion:

Leave the part 61 ATP requirements alone.

Add a separate endorsement for the "Airline Readiness Course". Keep the restrictions on where this course can be completed and the qualiifcations of those who teach it. Require those to take this course to have 50 hours PIC of MEL time. Require it to be flown in actual transport airplanes or simulators at places like flight safety or Simcom, or at Airline training centers. This would let the airlines take prospective candidates through the course as a screening method. If they do it right, it won't raise their costs much, and it won't require the guy who wants an ATP for his part 135 VFR operation using a Baron to go learn how to be an airline pilot.

Modify part 121 (and 91.K and 135 too if need be) to:
Require a FO to have either an:
ATP and the "Airline Readiness Course" Endorsement
Comm/Inst, "Airline Readiness Course" Endorsement, 750 Hours, and the appropriate Aviation Degree from a 4 year institution.

Require all 121/91K/135 pilots to have the appropriate type rating for their aircraft.

Require all 121/91K/135 Captains of multipilot airplanes to have 1000 PIC in the same category/class/propulsion - if you're gonna be a 1900 turboprop captain, you need 1000 PIC in multi-engine turboprops. Don't care if you were a 737 Captain last week, they're different, they fly in different weather, etc.

I don't know if something like that would comply with the law Congress passed, though.

My idea would eliminate the need to "Grandfather in" current ATP-MELs because the certificate meaning wouldn't change. Put the changes where they mean something - into the hiring standards for professional operators.

I agree with this philosophy to an extent.

Aeronautical decision making is something that cannot be learned by some people, however. You can train some to perform all of the maneuvers necessary, but in the heat of an emergency, some just will not react in the proper manner.

Along with your idea of an "Airline Readiness Course," make some of the extra hours required now be in a simulator doing flights that they would be regularly doing in the course of their employment. Every so often, add in an actual emergency scenario based on several of the accident scenarios throughout aviation history. Certainly, the Simulators are now capable of such things. Maybe this can be a part of the ATP certificate requirements. Have some of the flights routine, some of the flights emergencies, some of the flights with routine small problems that can go unnoticed easily, and some flights that have small problems that only occur if the pilot is distracted or performs something incorrectly.

If they are going to require more hours and an ATP, have the extra training in doing what it is they re trying to prevent, and since you can't put actual aircraft in distress that way, have it done in a simulator and mix it in with routine flights so the complacency factor can be demonstrated.

I would assume hours in a simulator would be cheaper than actual flying, but the availability may be somewhat limited. Perhaps allowing a more scaled down simulator in a CFI monitored PC driven "cockpit" room would keep the cost for training facilities from getting too exorbitant.

Do the simulator programs now given by airlines cover this kind of flying currently?

 

[dell30rb]

But they didn't crash because of icing.



http://www.ntsb.gov//doclib/reports/2010/AAR1001.pdf

Under "Conclusions" page 151 in case you are looking for it.

Were they not conversing about icing? Due to their relative inexperience with icing, they probably thought they had more than they did. The books and classrooms tell you that when carrying a bunch of ice, you are highly susceptible to a tail stall. Real world experience might have taught them that was not enough ice to produce a tail stall. When things got weird, the pilot (s) were thinking ICE, thought it was a tail stall, and pulled back.


Ice may have indirectly played a factor...

 

[jesse]

Were they not conversing about icing? Due to their relative inexperience with icing, they probably thought they had more than they did. The books and classrooms tell you that when carrying a bunch of ice, you are highly susceptible to a tail stall. Real world experience might have taught them that was not enough ice to produce a tail stall. When things got weird, the pilot (s) were thinking ICE, thought it was a tail stall, and pulled back.


Ice may have indirectly played a factor...

I seriously doubt they thought they were in a tail stall. I can tail you if I thought I was in one, and was in a multi crew environment, I would be explaining why the hell I was doing something that seemed incredibly stupid.

 

[dell30rb]

I seriously doubt they thought they were in a tail stall. I can tail you if I thought I was in one, and was in a multi crew environment, I would be explaining why the hell I was doing something that seemed incredibly stupid.

I read some speculation somewhere that the pilot pulled when the stick shaker activated because they thought they were in a tail stall.

Edit: apparently the tailplane stall idea was given the thumbs down by the NTSB.

his improper flight control inputs were inconsistent with his training and were instead consistent with startle and confusion. It is unlikely that the captain was deliberately attempting to perform a tailplane stall recovery."

 

[jesse]

I read some speculation somewhere that the pilot pulled when the stick shaker activated because they thought they were in a tail stall.

Doubt it. He would have said something verbally about why he was doing something so unintuitive so that the other pilot wouldn't remove his head. Seems like neither of them had a clue and were way about 15 miles behind the airplane.

 

[dell30rb]

Seems like neither of them had a clue and were way about 15 miles behind the airplane.

That is the NTSB's conclusion as well.

 

[dmspilot]

Few of them will qualify for part 135 IFR (1200hrs).

They will fly circles in Arizona at a low power settings in blocks of 250 hrs.

Touche.

Well that is actually the point of it that is good. It gives them more exposure alone in the cockpit flying crap equipment into conditions that are conducive to causing failures

Uh, hooray for pilot eugenics!

 

[dmspilot]

I read some speculation somewhere that the pilot pulled when the stick shaker activated because they thought they were in a tail stall.

The problem is that a tail stall is indicated by aerodynamic vibration and down elevator force and downward pitching moment (they pitched up), and the recovery calls for up elevator, flaps up, and a power reduction (Captain added power). So the recovery was not correct for any case.

Doubt it. He would have said something verbally about why he was doing something so unintuitive so that the other pilot wouldn't remove his head. Seems like neither of them had a clue and were way about 15 miles behind the airplane.

I've always been awestruck by the dead silence (other than the "I put the flaps back up") from both pilots during the whole ordeal. Not even a "wtf?" Presumably a symptom of being 15 minutes behind as you mentioned. (I also thought it was peculiar to be using the autopilot in those conditions.)

 

[TMetzinger]

I know that for GA airplanes, the advice given is to NOT use the autopilot, particularly in pitch modes, in icing conditions. I thought similar advice was part of airline specs after the Roselawn incident.

The reason given is that you won't have the feel for the airplane and it's changing flying characteristics until the autopilot is disconnected, and at that point, if it's an uncommanded disconnect, it's gonna be an unpleasant surprise.

Can anyone confirm or deny?
Dang - thread drift. Sorry.