Colgan Air Crash Inquiry

[Luv2play]

I don't know if any of you are following the inquiry on the Buffalo air disaster of last February but as a Canadian who has experienced some flights in icy conditions, I take more than a passing interest in such matters. The details that are coming to light in this inquiry are truly appalling. It leaves you wondering how common these practices are in the regional air industry overall.

 

What disturbed me the most was how much these pilots are paid. I heard that the first officer was earning $16,000, a sum about one third what we pay bus drivers in Canada. This for a trained pilot with a commercial license. Is this typical in the US industry? A representative of Colgan Air stated on the stand "we hire professionals". Yes, and pay them below poverty levels. What a joke!

[Guest TNT Ted]

Yes, I read about it shortly before boarding a flight. I white-knuckled the landing, which happened to be in a storm. Since the U.S. air safety record has been relatively good, if makes me wonder if the Buffalo situation was an aberration, or if we’re just operating on borrowed time.

[+ azdr0710]

my father was an airline captain until his retirement in 1986...he worked for a major airline and was paid very well...

 

I do know co-pilots of smaller commuter-type airlines are not paid very well, but I don't know if it's as little as you say, luv2play....you may be right.....

 

it may be a function of supply and demand....lots of former military and others looking for a glamorous job as a commercial pilot.....

 

to be frank, also, the job is not as grueling as you may think....generous benefits, getting paid to sit around, strict rules regarding time in the air (rested), etc....not belittling the job, but it can be cushy.....

 

of course, we all hope these commercial pilots are fully qualified and unimpaired when flying...it's possible the pilots don't mind the low pay in return for just having a job they also love.....

 

lots to the matter

[+ glutes]

 

to be frank, also, the job is not as grueling as you may think....generous benefits, getting paid to sit around, strict rules regarding time in the air (rested), etc....not belittling the job, but it can be cushy.....

 

 

Maybe this crew wasn't so well 'rested'...

 

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/05/14/buffalo.crash/index.html

[KMEM]

There are a lot of issues about this crash. Let me mention just a few. All US airlines pay a reduced salary for a period of time called probation. That can last any where from 6 months to 18 months depending upon which airline. After that the communter airlines will generally be paying in the 35-45,000 USD range for first officers with captains makings 75-95,000. The flag carriers don't pay a lot more for pilots on probation but their first officers and captains generally make more than the amounts quoted above.

 

There will be a lot of finger pointing during the NTSB investigation of this crash. The pilot's union will be pointing fingers at the company. The FAA will be looking into the company's training procedures and records as well as the current and individual records and qualifications of the crew. The NTSB will be trying to find fault with all of the above; the crew, the company and the FAA. If not fault, the reason for the crash. That always involves fault, doesn't it?

 

The NTSB will take a year to come to a conclusion. In the meantime, the impatient media and public will demand to know more and will want to have instantaneous answers and assurances about the future. Unfortunately, that is not possible. The only way to become completely safe from air crashes is to not have aircraft ever fly again. Otherwise, the air transport system is operated by human beings with all our faults and will always have errors. Therefore we will always have crashes. We can always try to improve but in the end we must agree to take some risk for the reward of quick travel.

 

At the moment, the company is saying the crew reacted improperly and contrary to their training in reaction to the impending stall. They also violated the sterile cockpit rule which requires no conversation except that necessary to fly the aircraft below 18,000 or 10,000 feet depending upon the airline's exact rule. However, the FAA says there must be such a rule and leaves it up to the airline to say when it will come into effect. The union will try to deny this or mitigate it in some way. The FAA and NTSB will try to decide who might be right and, most likely, dole out blame for every one.

 

In recent years the FAA (and airline companies) have placed increased emphasis on dealing with ice. Over the years as the airline equipment has gotten bigger, better, faster and more capable there tended to be less emphasis placed on ice but after the Air Florida crash into the Potomac River, most everyone realized airlines that seldom flew into icing conditions needed more training. From the conversation between the crew members of the BUF crash, it is apparent that they had not experienced a lot of icing conditions; the first officer in particular was unfamiliar. It will take a good deal of head scratching to try to decide if the company was remiss or it was mostly coincidence or just what caused this lack of experience. As a simple example of this phenomonem is that west coast pilots in the US are not exposed to the thunderstorms commonly found in the midwest through southeast part of the US until they actually do some flying there which might not happen until very late in their careers.

 

The US has a tremendous airline system that is very safe. I believe in the system. One should remember we manage to kill 35-45,000 people a year on the US highways. We manage to have 35,000 people die from the complications of "ordinary" flu (vs. swine flu) and we manage to find odd and unusual ways to do ourselves in as well as many other "ordinary" results of disease and accidents. I completely realize the air transport industry must offer a higher standard of potential safety than a friend offering a ride in a car and they do. Most everyone drives and believes they understand the risks involved in taking a ride with a friend and most everyone is not a pilot so there is a certain lack of understanding of the risks involved there. Actually, they are much the same in that both have a very large chance of arriving without incident.

 

Best regards,

KMEM

[+ glutes]

KMEM, thank you for putting some of this into proper perspective.

I have a problem with the crew discussing 'icing' on the transcript released. Heck, they were flying a plane into BUF in FEB!

[+ Lucky]

In our search for the cheapest flight, I doubt that any of us want undertrained or underpaid pilots, not to mention underqualified pilots. I am willing to pay more for a more pleasant journey, and willing to pay more to ensure quality.

[KMEM]

Glutes-

 

Everyone has a problem with them discussing icing for the 2 reasons mentioned or implied, namely, that breaks the sterile cockpit rule and what was their training or lack thereof for icing condition?

 

Lucky-

 

Every sane person would want what you suggest. However, the FAA makes no distinction between a barely qualified pilot and a very experienced one. They are both "qualified". What might be paid for a ticket has little to do with it. The US Air flight that went into the Hudson had various priced tickets for the same people on board. They obviously had a good crew and a lucky crew. No one trains for what happened on that flight to include Captain Sully. He had plenty of experience to help him deal with the problem but he had not ever trained specifically for it and, he will also readily admit, he was lucky, just like all his passengers and other crew members were lucky.

 

If you want to proactively do something to increase your odds of having a safe and successful flight here is what I suggest: Don't ever fly to or from any place that has or might have bad weather during the take-off or landing. Today, that advice will be very hard to follow unless you always pay full fare AND can change your schedule more or less on a whim. As you know, full fare tickets can be exchanged at no fee, an open schedule is self explanatory. Of course, you could buy cheaper advance purchase tickets and pay all the change fees but that also generally requires you to make the change within a limited period of time which can lead to more fees, etc. Full fare covers all those extingencies.

 

The bottom line in my opinion is the US system is the safest in the world and having faith in the system is the best you can + a little common sense which may be uncommon in some cases.

 

Best regards,

KMEM

[KMEM]

Airlines then and now

 

my father was an airline captain until his retirement in 1986...he worked for a major airline and was paid very well...

 

I do know co-pilots of smaller commuter-type airlines are not paid very well, but I don't know if it's as little as you say, luv2play....you may be right.....

 

it may be a function of supply and demand....lots of former military and others looking for a glamorous job as a commercial pilot.....

 

to be frank, also, the job is not as grueling as you may think....generous benefits, getting paid to sit around, strict rules regarding time in the air (rested), etc....not belittling the job, but it can be cushy.....

 

of course, we all hope these commercial pilots are fully qualified and unimpaired when flying...it's possible the pilots don't mind the low pay in return for just having a job they also love.....

 

lots to the matter

 

Your dad retired almost at the height of the last airline boom period. At the time there was retirement funded by the airline, flying space available meant something and the pay was very near the peak. Today the airlines offer 401(K)s just like most companies and the space available travel is almost a joke with the airlines filling every flight with paying passengers. The pilots have also had to give back some of their pay also. ID 75 isn't worth any thing, either. All good for your dad and for your family.

 

Unfortunately, during those days much of aviation turned from a passion for flying and the romance of flying into the bottom line. I have friends who are captains who lament when captains get together they want to talk about the Dow Jones average rather than the adventure they had on their last flight. Many view being a pilot as just a job today. Pity.

 

Commuter pilots are often pushed to the limit of their ability to perform and keep performing because they are scheduled up the max permitted by law and they have lots of take-offs and landings which are generally the most stressful for everyone, crew and passengers. It is a young person's game and you should be happy when you see a fairly young crew flying your commuter. Also, you should be happy they have lots of practice taking-off and landing and are generally very good at those tasks. As an aside, crews that fly long distance routes often have so few take-offs and landings that they are at risk of being not in compliance with Federal Air Regulations without taking measures to "get" a landing. On flights of over 12 hours, there are at least 3 pilots on board and often 4. They all need take-offs and landings to remain legal. If this flight goes to Narita (Tokyo) and back only, there will be 2 take-offs and 2 landings so only 1 or 2 pilots will get them. This can easily go to the point they have to go back to the training center and get some simulated departures and arrivals to regain currency.

 

As you know, airline pilot positions are based upon seniority so a little airplane going to Nowhere, USA might have 1 very junior captain and 1 very junion first officer. In the last several years there have been various attempts to correct this. It is much better to have a senior first officer with a junior captain and vice versa than any other combination other than 2 very senior pilots. The bigger the plane, very likely the more senior the crew. Up to a point. There are other variables but I have to stop somewhere.

 

Best regards,

KMEM

[traveler1954]

Professional fees

 

$16K for a pilot is a joke. My cleaning lady gets $100/day

 

Can you imagine when the government finally controls the fees for doctors, what kind of competency or dedication will you find in an MD getting paid what a bus driver earns.

[Guest zipperzone]

In our search for the cheapest flight, I doubt that any of us want undertrained or underpaid pilots, not to mention underqualified pilots. I am willing to pay more for a more pleasant journey, and willing to pay more to ensure quality.

 

I have always been very leery of airlines that offer what is to my mind, unbelievably low fares. I was talking this a.m. to a friend in Phoenix. She said she had just booked a flight from Phoenix to Calgary and the fare was $39.00. That's probably less that her cab fare to the airport.

 

Wild horses could not get me onto that flight......

[Luv2play]

KMEM,

You stated that the US has the safest airline industry in the world. Is that based on passenger miles flown? Of course, I realize statistics are slippery things, as Mark Twain observed. Still, my impression has always been that the safest airline companies (I know, a different thing than an industry as a whole) included many companies from abroad such as Singapore Airlines, Swissair (until their unfortunate accident off Nova Scotia), Lufthansa (sp?), British Air, Air France and others. I would include Air Canada but I have a long memory and there were some horrible disasters years ago which I will never put out of my mind.

[+ Lucky]

From ezinearticles.com:

 

Many air travelers wonder what exactly are the safest airlines to use when they travel. Here are the winners according to several criteria:

 

Safest Airlines

 

Likely the most important criteria for a safe airline is the amount of fatalities the airline has over a period of recent years. This may be the best way to judge the record of maintenance but also of personnel, including pilots and engineers.

 

Qantas is a name well known to those interested in airline safety. Based out of Sydney, Australia, Qantas safety rating has plummeted as of late, but still ranks fairly high among other airlines of the world in terms of overall safety.

 

Other airlines considered to be most safe in terms of least passenger fatalities include America West, EasyJet, Hawaiian Airlines, JetBlue, North American Airlines, Southwest and Virgin Atlantic. In addition, many smaller, regional carriers are among the safest airlines including Ireland's national carrier, Aer Lingus, Air Europe, Air Jamaica, Austria Airlines, BahamasAir, Canadian North, Corsair, Estonian Air, Eurowings, EVA Air, Finnair, Frontier Airlines, Fujian Airlines, Icelandair, Midway Airlines, National Jet Italia, Novair, Ozark Airlines, Portugalia Airlines, Qatar Airways, Oman Air, Sahara Airlines, Shandong Airlines, Shanghai Airlines, Sichuan Airlines, Spanair, Syrian Air, Sun Country Airlines, TransAsia Airways, Tunisair, Ukraine International, Uzbekistan Airways and WestJet Airlines.

 

It's interesting to note that many smaller carriers may have a safer reputation than larger carriers simply because of the vastly larger amount of flights that larger carriers have each day. Quite simply, the more flights, the more chance that something will go wrong.

 

Most Secure Airline

 

El Al airlines, Israel's national airlines, is considered to be the world's most secure airline company. This is due to their tight security measures and protocols used to prevent terrorism and hijackings on their planes. Founded in 1948, El Al airlines has a fleet of over 30 planes. El Al has prevented and stopped numerous attacks on their airlines from terrorists and has also managed to stop hijackers. El Al scrutinizes and interviews every passenger prior to boarding. Also, plain clothes security officers as well as uniformed officers patrol the areas where passengers gather to board.

 

Worst Airlines

 

In addition to safe airlines, there are also known bad airlines. These include Indonesia Airlines, Ukraine's Volare Air, Phuket Airlines from Thailand and North Korea's Air Kyo. The criteria used for worst airlines is the number of aircraft lost, so it's a good idea to stay away from these airlines.

[Lookin]

http://www.sts-firstaid.co.uk/upimages/Bandaged%20head%20eyes.jpg

 

Phly ✼

Phuket

[KMEM]

Without answering every point I would like to remind you that I said the US has the safest system. The system handles a tremendous volume of traffic consisting of airlines, military, business and smaller general aviation aircraft. Without looking up and quoting exact statistics, the US has about 90+ percent of all aircraft that exist and fly more than 90% of the hours flown and almost that same percentage of miles flown. Other countries severely restrict or prohibit any thing but military and airline aviation. If the US eliminated 75% of the current flights which would be a modified plan of no flying, our "safety" record would no doubt go up along with the loss of our freedoms and way of life. We definitely would kill many fewer people on the highways if we reduced driving by 75%, wouldn't we?

 

There are plenty of fine airlines I would fly on and would ride to most places on this planet. Some places and airlines I would not be so happy to go to or be on. To some extent riding on an airline is like the old joke about if my neighbor is out of work it is a recession, if I am out of work, it is a depression. The point being, what happens to you on a particular flight is much more important than what happened last week or what might happen next week. As is commonly said, results will vary. A little thinking about what you are doing, where and why can go a long way. Aeroflot used to have a terrible reputation (and still does internally) but their international flights, especially to the US, are now regarded as on a par with other foreign carriers. El AL is certainly the most secure airline. Compared to them the TSA is a bitter joke.

 

Going on the bigger established airlines internationally is certainly good advice. Trying to differentiate between airlines that have small differences in their "safety" records is like trying to argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Why?

 

One certainly cannot go far wrong with the major US carriers, the larger European carriers, Singapore, Cathay Pacific, Air New Zealand, Quantas and others I may have left out. They all will have crashes soon or later. Do you worry excessively when driving within 25 miles of home? You should. It is statistically the most dangerous place to drive.

 

Best regards,

KMEM

[Guest zipperzone]

I have a somewhat different way of viewing airline safety records.

 

Assuming that all airlines eventually will have a crash, I can't help thinking that the ones with the best safety records, i.e. not having had a crash for X number of years, are more likely to be "next in line" to have one. Crazy I know, but that's how my mind works.

 

I also feel that if when driving to the airport, I witness a crash of a plane taking off, I would feel extremely safe taking my flight as the possibility of two takeoff crashes at the same airport on the same day is probably zero.

 

I know I'm nuts so don't remind me!

[+ glutes]

Two levels of safety?

 

Airline Safety Gap Cited in Crash Probe

 

By ANDY PASZTOR / Wall St. Journal

 

WASHINGTON -- Testimony during a hearing examining the Feb. 12 crash of Continental Connection Flight 3407 underscored a gap in safety between smaller regional carriers and the nation's larger airlines.

 

"Do we have one level of safety? No we don't," Rory Kay, a senior safety official of the Air Line Pilots Association, testified Thursday before the National Transportation Safety Board. "We're working on it," said Mr. Kay, who is a captain for UAL Corp.'s United Airlines.

 

Flight 3407, which killed 50 people when it crashed short of the runway in Buffalo, N.Y., was operated for Continental Airlines Inc. by Colgan Air Inc., a unit of Memphis-based Pinnacle Airlines Corp.

 

The National Transportation Safety Board released a simulation of the minutes leading up to the February crash of Flight 3407 in Buffalo, New York. Video courtesy NTSB.

 

Many regional airlines are under contract with larger carriers to ferry passengers to their hubs from more remote locations. When passengers fly on commuter airlines, typically they have purchased a ticket from a major carrier that has a code-sharing arrangement with its smaller counterpart.

 

Kitty Higgins, an NTSB board member, ticked off a list of areas, including fatigue-prevention policies and aircraft-upset recovery training, in which testimony indicated Colgan's safety practices were less rigorous than those at major carriers. "This is the central issue in this accident," she said.

 

Colgan has said it complied with or exceeded all federal safety requirements, though since the accident the airline has revamped large parts of its pilot hiring, training and oversight programs.

 

Both small and large carriers operate under the same basic regulations. But in some cases, regional carriers comply with the minimum requirements set by the Federal Aviation Administration, while larger carriers set their own more stringent rules.

 

United, for example, forbids pilots from engaging in extraneous cockpit conversation below 18,000 feet because of the rigors involved in maneuvering a large plane onto the runway, according to Capt. Kay. Federal rules and Colgan's policies require pilots to avoid extraneous conversation below 10,000 feet.

 

The investigation into the accident has also prompted lawmakers to call for increased oversight of regional airlines. Sen. Byron Dorgan, the North Dakota Democrat, announced Thursday that the Senate Commerce subcommittee that oversees the FAA will hold hearings about safety issues surrounding the Buffalo crash. Sen. Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, called on the FAA to re-evaluate its pilot training requirements and oversight of training practices.

 

Echoing concerns expressed by lawmakers and others, Capt. Kay told the hearing, "I should not be worried which airline I just bought a ticket on."

 

Safety experts examining the Feb. 12 crash said Thursday that it appeared the pilots failed to comprehend the life-threatening nature of the predicament they were in during the final seconds before the turboprop's fatal stall.

 

As the aircraft's speed plummeted by about 60 miles per hour in less than half a minute, the crew was distracted by air-traffic-control communications. "I don't see any evidence [the captain] understood the situation he was in," NASA scientist Robert Dismukes said during the third and final day of the NTSB hearing.

 

Marvin Renslow, the captain of the doomed flight, pulled up the nose of the Bombardier Q400 aircraft when he received an initial stall warning while preparing to land, causing the plane to slow further, lose lift and crash. Proper procedure would have been to push the nose down to gain speed.

 

The crew "went from complacency to catastrophe in 30 seconds," board member Deborah Hersman said.

 

One issue investigators have focused on is whether the crew was adequately trained on emergency equipment designed to get a plane out of an impending aerodynamic stall. The crew may have failed to follow proper stall-recovery procedures of pushing the nose of the plane down because "they didn't anticipate the event at all," said Ms. Higgins of the NTSB.

 

Mr. Dismukes, the NASA scientist, also testified that airlines should improve some training procedures. Often they don't allow pilots to experience an actual stall and activation of the so-called stick-pusher in a flight simulator, he said. The stick-pusher device automatically pushes the nose of a plane down to gain speed to get out of a stall.

[KMEM]

The NTSB hearing brings up some complex issues which I am not sure I want to get into that much detail nor am I sure any readers hereon are that interested.

 

There are any number of factors that can influence the relative safety of any particular flight. I have already mentioned what I believe to be the #1 factor and that is the weather at the departure and arrival airports. Modern jet aircraft just don't have that much problem with enroute weather. After that, the habits and practices of the crew are probably next. It might be legal for a pilot to have 8 quick drinks 12 hours before his next flight but eventually his body will rebel. You might not want to be on that flight but there are always two crew members, so hope they didn't party together. It is a rare occurence but pilots are people and it does happen. There is no way to ALWAYS tell if this might have been the case.

 

It is correct that commuters do press their crews to the limit of the rules and also that the take-off and landings are the most dangerous phase of the flight and they make many more of them than the flag carriers. So, statistically, you are more at risk even if somehow you could interchange the crew of a flag carrier onto the commuter aircraft. The major risk is the statistical one, not the size of the aircraft or the relative training of the crew. All airlines have had at one time or another deficiencies in their training syllabus. Whenever an accident happens, all of the alphabet organizations will try to discover A cause if not THE cause. Surely we all agree that today in the US, SOMEONE must be blamed for any and every thing bad that happens.

 

Unfortunately, Captain Kay sounds like an elitist. I have friends who fly for UA but their long time reputation was that the flight engineer only talked to the first officer and the first officer only talked to the captain and the captain only talked to God. Also, unfortunately, UA is not the only airline with a superiority complex. There is definitely some of that going on in the testimony the NTSM is hearing.

 

All airlines need to improve; all will have accidents; all will have their turn before the FAA and NTSB and will try to alibi their way out of liability and promise to change their training procedures, etc. Then things will calm down and we will go along for a period of time without serious accidents. We do have a very good and safe system. But, then, it will happen again. Computers will not overcome these issues. Any one who thinks a computer is fool proof isn't using one and probably has never heard of one. Human beings operate the system and the aircraft and I wouldn't want it any other way. But, there will be errors. Again, safety is an attitude, not a rule or regulation. Leadership is paramount.

 

Best regards,

KMEM

[N.N.]

Passenger video shows plane losing a wheel on landing in Buffalo on May 12:

 

http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2009/05/14/9460296.html

 

Same airline (Colgan), same route (EWR->BUF), same airplane type (Q400).

[KMEM]

What is your point? This was a mechanical failure that will happen on any type of aircraft and on any airline. No one was hurt and no one was in any danger whatsoever. This is simply sensationalism by the media and any others that try to suggest any other alternative theory. No harm, no foul.

 

Best regards,

KMEM

[alanalt]

$16K for a pilot is a joke.

 

Do you know that for a fact is what he makes? Do you know if that's for full-time work? Do you know if he has another source of income (i.e. he could be a retired Air Force pilot with a full pension)?

 

Just wondering...

 

KMEM - thanks for some very clear posts and insights into an industry that I use but know far too little about - by deliberate choice, probably!

 

Alan

[N.N.]

What is your point? This was a mechanical failure that will happen on any type of aircraft and on any airline. No one was hurt and no one was in any danger whatsoever. This is simply sensationalism by the media and any others that try to suggest any other alternative theory. No harm, no foul.

"No one was hurt" is clear enough, but

I don't know what "no one was in any danger whatsoever" means.

I mean, you're always in some danger, and having only one wheel

remaining on that side increases the risk of something nasty happening.

 

But what's my point? One, it's an interesting video to look at,

seeing the wheel and other parts separate. Two, I'm not as

convinced as you are that it doesn't mean much. I'm not an expert

on this stuff; you tell me, how often does a wheel come off?

[KMEM]

Alan-

 

It is certainly possible that a first officer might make 16,000 USD during his probation period. That will end after 12-18 months and he or she will make more then. Probation is something that is somewhat left over because of union rules. Both management and the union agreed that the company could release an unsat employee during the probation period but after that he or she would become a union member and receive more compensation. Pilots are responsible for many lives and a multi-million dollar aircraft. Everyone would like to be sure they are the "right" ones for the job.

 

Thanks for reading my posts and understanding them.

 

Best regards,

KMEM

[KMEM]

NN-

 

I was not trying to make light of a mechanical failure but I was trying to put some perspective on the incident. It was an incident, not an accident. If you have a flat tire on your car, nasty things COULD happen. It would depend upon how fast you were going, what the road surface was like, what the traffic was at the time and how many lanes you might have available to you. So, what is the likely result of a flat tire? You pull over to the side and get out of traffic and remove and replace the tire with your spare or call a service that will do it for you. The aircraft had two tires on that landing gear assembly, not because they thought they might lose one some day but because that was the easiest way to support the load on that part of the aircraft, but an additional benefit is that if one tire went flat or, in this case, one wheel came off, there was one left to carry the load for a limited time. In this case, the time required was the landing roll out and the taxi in to where the gear could be repaired.

 

Again, no one likes to see material fail. Have you ever been behind an 18 wheeler and have a tire blow out and come crashing into your car? I have and it is scary as well as damaging to your car. But what is the risk to any driver or passengers? Not much. The same applies to the aircraft in this case.

 

It should be more exciting than scary, partly because it is a fairly rare happening.

 

Best regards,

KMEM

[N.N.]

Again, no one likes to see material fail. Have you ever been behind an 18 wheeler and have a tire blow out and come crashing into your car? I have and it is scary as well as damaging to your car. But what is the risk to any driver or passengers? Not much. The same applies to the aircraft in this case.

 

It should be more exciting than scary, partly because it is a fairly rare happening.

I agree with you here.

 

Yes, I have seen a truck tire come apart, although I haven't

personally seen a truck lose a whole wheel.

When wheels come off of cars or trucks, it's often because of

bad practice, e.g. lugs having been damaged by overtorquing.