Starcheck Message Board

[mattp]

I believe that you are talking to a Colgan pilot, I don't recognize the name but that doesn't mean a thing, I haven't been there for two years. I am sure he has been there for longer but I didn't know every check instructor.

As to what Colgan will do versus what we will do is totally different. We have two different expectations. We are expected to go no matter what unless it is going to damage the plane or kill us. Airlines aren't. They are looking out for all the lives behind them and the ride that they expect to get. They do not pay a ton of money to be thrown around the cabin like rag dolls for an hour. Our boxes do pay a lot of money to get to the destination on time. So for Colgan to not be training for flight in level 4 and 5 thunderstorms, they are not going to be flying into that. You can call them pussies or whatever you want, but they are not going to fly into forecast severe thunderstorms. The expectations are different. This does not mean that their training is any less thorough than ours, just a little different.

I do apoligize for saying there is no FAA instead of NTSB final determination. You are correct.

As to your news article, are you kidding me? There was a guy on the news talking about carb ice. The news really isn't that reliable of a source for aviation, we all know that.

In 6 months you can fell free to call. I hope that they will find a final determination so there can be closure for the story and all the families.

[shenanigans]

Fight Nice... and no I am not implying for u to do the following either

[URL=http://imageshack.us]

[CapnVonBaron]

*drool*

Hrm, what!? Was someone just talking about airplanes?

[guillotine007]

if you are going to put up a photo from the Girls Next Door...it has to feature the youngest of the 3, Kimber...preferably doing something sporting, specifically a sport that i like.

of course she is playing a Winn grip...but I'll let it slide this time.

[skybum1979]

[guillotine007]

i saw that, but like CNN and that communist rag the NYT, I only report things that adhere with my theories.

[mattp]

007 you win the argument with that picture

[rubicon789]

[rubicon789]

More interesting news...

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/19/buffalo.crash.ils/index.html

This one is going to be interesting.

[Okrapilot]

Wow...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123492905826906821.html?mod=djemalertNEWS

[CapnVonBaron]

ha. Maybe the captain thought the stick-pusher was a tail stall and reacted by yanking back on the stick....

Jeez. Just one of those hellish situations...

[guillotine007]

i don't believe there would be any stick shaker activation in the event of a tail stall. there are no AoA, or airflow separation deterction devices back there.

[gobills03]

There is a lot of talk about that GS being very unreliable. A coupled autopilot could lead to an unusual attitude if it got hold of the GS during one of its frenetic lurches.

[guillotine007]

hypothetically if the AP did capture a faulty GS signal, it wouldn't result in a 30+ degree nose down attitude. To get there, you are going to have to disengage the AP and the problem to escalate.

[Stiggy]

Just curious how many people here have flown a Q?

[theamazingrando]

I flew your mom last night.

Cmon stiggy, you know the answer to that.

[CapnVonBaron]

[slikshot]

Reviving a thread a year later!

(From AOPA:)

The fatal crash of Colgan Air Flight 3407 last February outside Buffalo, N.Y., sent shock waves through the airline industry and beyond: The government’s response to issues brought to light by the crash could change the way general aviation pilots train.

The crash has prompted inquiries into what could have caused the captain to pull aft on the stick shaker instead of pushing forward when it warned of an impending stall, and the FAA has zeroed in on what could be contributing factors in its call-to-action report: fatigue, professionalism, mentoring, and training. To address the latter, the FAA is requesting recommendations to improve pilot qualification and training requirements.

The agency is publishing an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)—a posting that asks for comments but does not yet propose a regulatory solution—requesting public comment on possible changes to regulations related to commercial pilot certification.

“Even an issue with the airlines can have far-reaching implications for general aviation pilots and flight schools,” said AOPA Vice President of Regulatory Affairs Rob Hackman. “The Colgan Air crash has led to proposals for changing pilot training, and the FAA is asking for input.”

The accident focused attention on whether a commercially-rated copilot in Part 121 operations receives adequate training, the advanced NPRM states. The FAA is looking for public comment on four basic topics.

•Should all pilots who transport passengers be required to hold an air transport pilot (ATP) certificate with the appropriate aircraft category, class, and type ratings? This would increase the required flight hours for these pilots to 1,500 hours.

•Should the FAA permit academic credit in lieu of required flight hours or experience?

•Should the FAA establish a new commercial pilot certificate endorsement that would address concerns about the operational experience of newly hired commercial pilots, require additional flight hours, and possibly credit academic training?

•Would an air-carrier-specific authorization on an existing pilot certificate improve safety?

Pilots can submit comments online (www.regulations.gov); by mail at Docket Operations, M-30, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; by fax at 202/493-2251; or by hand-delivery. Comments should be identified by Docket Number FAA-2010-0100. The comment period is open for 60 days.

[hotprop]

Although this crash has brought about some major issues and possibly sweeping changes to the industry in regards to training, I feel this case is nothing more than an large blip on an otherwise extremely safe industry. No matter how much training or extra certificates a pilot receives there will always be A. the crappy pilot who makes it to the field B. The situation in which two mediocre pilots end up in a plane together and mess something up or C. Even great pilots have a day where the cards just dont fall into their favor. I mean everybody has a day when they look back and say "wow...that was a poor decision and I am glad to have learned from that" .Or everybody has a day where sometimes that person behind you at a stop light just didnt stop. There was nothing you could have done about it but insurance will penalize you anyway....or something along those lines.

I am not defending the pilots because the evidence is overwhelming that they screwed up and unfortunately 51 people died as a result. But dont change an industry with such a great safety record because of the poor choices of a few individuals. The training I went through did a great job of finding the poor pilot and weeding them out of a program or making them better. I am sure most if not all of us can say the same.

My point is I find it a little to quick to point fingers and downright shameful that congress, with little to no knowledge of the money and skill it takes to fly, is requiring such sweeping changes. Especially the 1500 hour rule that has been proposed. Why dont they use their time to put better rules in place in order to remove all the bad drivers from the road. Over the past decade, give or take 40,000 people a year died in auto related accidents in USA. Sorry to say but that is a bit more than the average 1000 deaths per year related to aviation.

Feel free to disagree....

[CapnVonBaron]

I propose a great expansion of our current system of elevators. Elevators are the world's safest form of transportation, logging millions of hours per year with almost no fatalities. Therefor, if we all ride on elevators everywhere we go, we are 99.99999999% assured of reaching our destination alive and happy.