I don't know if anyone has seen today's New York Post, but the lead story is on the Continental Connection crash outside Buffalo that killed fifty people this winter, and specifically, the transcript from the flight recorder from inside the cockpit.

As it turns out, both pilots were in no shape to fly; the 47 year old pilot was incompetent, having failed multiple qualifying exams, having only a few hundred hours flying in the Northeast, and having no training in how to deal with the situation he was presented with (what to do when the safety equipment auto-puts you into a dive when the plane starts to stall so that you will pick up speed), the co-pilot also inexperienced, untrained in icing situations and too fatigued to be in the cockpit, having just flown a red-eye and fighting illness.

In addition, there's evidence from the transcript that the pilot in particular was distracted by his co-pilot (who was a 24 year old female) and was chatting and joking incessantly about various people he'd encountered in the industry even as the plane started going down.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/05132009/news/nationalnews/blabbing_their_way_to_icy_doom_168996.htm

What seems a bit unusual, at least to me, is that the Post published the transcript from the flight, released by the NTSB yesterday:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/05122009/news/nationalnews/transcript_from_transcript_of_buffalo_pl_168880.ht m

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not sure that I recall this type of thing
being published in the major media before - while I don't have an intrinsic objection to this sort of the thing (freedom of the press and all), I have to imagine that this is going to stoke the hurt and outrage already felt by the families of the victims, not to mention result in (additional) litigation - obviously there are multiple parties at fault here, including Colgan Air for putting two inadequately trained pilots in the cockpit independent of any additional inappropriate behavior or incompetence they displayed during the course of the flight.

Granted, it could have been worse - they could have released the tapes - but can anyone recall this type of thing having been done before, at least post 9/11? And should some 'sensitivity' have been displayed here, given that this is probably going to stoke the pitchfork and torch mob? I'm kind of a mixed mind on it, feeling strongly that such things shouldn't be hidden (to do so would possibly aid in the ability of parties at fault to cover up or shift blame for incidents), but at the same time, this makes me feel... queasy...

Regards,
Nydia

Also, apparently contributing to the co-pilot's fatigue was the fact that she was being paid so little that she was having to live with her parents and commute across country to work:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/05132009/news/nationalnews/co_pilot_was_paid_paltry_16g_salary_169065.htm


The *cleaning people* at my college make more than 16,254.00 per year (although not by much), and it's unimaginable that they would pay someone so little for that sensitive of a job (so little that the co-pilot had a second job as a barista when she was first hired). The airline admitted that the majority of their pilots commute by air to work (largely because they can't afford to live in the New York metro area) and that they allow them to take 'naps' in their breakroom...

We've descended a long way from the days when most pilots were former military and were paid handsome salaries. When your pilot could do better working at a Mc Donalds (which is not uncommon for starting pilots on the commuter airlines) and has to travel punishing distances just to get there, you get what you pay for...

Regards,
Nydia

One has to wonder if the transcript release wasn't pushed by the airline to try and escape culpability. Normally the NTSB does release the strictly crash relevant portions of recordings, from my understanding at least the entire transcript is public record once the NTSB gets a hold of it.

I was thinking the same - given how close they were to the ground when the stick shaker kicked in his response (flaps/gear/override) might not have been totally inappropriate had he known how to execute it, but that type of analysis, I'm sure, has been or will be performed by NTSB...

One has to wonder if the transcript release wasn't pushed by the airline to try and escape culpability.

I cnat see that. everything points towards thier culpability in the hiring of these inexperianced and not very well trained pilots. 5 disquals on the dash 8 should have thrown up some red flags and kept that man out of the left hand seat. Colgan shoulders full blame for allowing MS. Shaw to fly without appropriate rest.

He did everything wrong in that situation!

Granted, it could have been worse - they could have released the tapes - but can anyone recall this type of thing having been done before, at least post 9/11? And should some 'sensitivity' have been displayed here, given that this is probably going to stoke the pitchfork and torch mob? I'm kind of a mixed mind on it, feeling strongly that such things shouldn't be hidden (to do so would possibly aid in the ability of parties at fault to cover up or shift blame for incidents), but at the same time, this makes me feel... queasy...

Regards,
Nydia


Sums up my reaction pretty well.

Also, apparently contributing to the co-pilot's fatigue was the fact that she was being paid so little that she was having to live with her parents and commute across country to work:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/05132009/news/nationalnews/co_pilot_was_paid_paltry_16g_salary_169065.htm


The *cleaning people* at my college make more than 16,254.00 per year (although not by much), and it's unimaginable that they would pay someone so little for that sensitive of a job (so little that the co-pilot had a second job as a barista when she was first hired). The airline admitted that the majority of their pilots commute by air to work (largely because they can't afford to live in the New York metro area) and that they allow them to take 'naps' in their breakroom...

We've descended a long way from the days when most pilots were former military and were paid handsome salaries. When your pilot could do better working at a Mc Donalds (which is not uncommon for starting pilots on the commuter airlines) and has to travel punishing distances just to get there, you get what you pay for...

Regards,
Nydia

Good point all around (my comment is directed to the bold)

In the neighborhood I grew up in there were five pilots, four of them were WWII vets and one was a Korean War Vet. They flew for United(3) American (1) and Seaboard (1) These guys made really good money back then, probably about 45 or 50k a year (it was the late '60s early '70s). These guys were all very good at their jobs, one was my uncle who regularly flew cargo flights, Seaboard World Airlines, to Tan Son Nhut and Danang in Vietnam.

From what I remember they were very strict about time in between flights.

In an inflationary economy, when prices don't go up ...

The guy who writes the "Ask the Pilot (http://dir.salon.com/topics/ask_the_pilot/)" column at Salon.com has frequently mentioned that pilots of regional airlines make well under $20k/year, such as this one (http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2006/03/24/askthepilot179/index.html)

There are two ways to get into the cockpit of an airliner and score that 100k + salary.

The preferred is to be trained by the military, flying either fighters or logistics aircraft. After a 20 or so year career as a Navy or Air Force jock, you can still enjoy another 20-25 years flying Boeings and Airbuses making good money. You should already have logged thousands of thousands of hours of multi-engine turbine by then. These guys are also in their late 30s or early 40s. They are mature adults. Still, a fair amount of military aviators stop flying completely after they retire or view commercial airline jobs as a step down so there is a demand for pilots that outstrips what the military can furnish. Plus, some airlines do not want the fighter ace who might scare the shit out of passengers thinking their Top Gun. They want the "garbage truck" pilots who flew the "C" series aircraft which also creates even more demand for pilots trained outside of the military.

The other is to go to a commercial flight school and work your way to a commercial multi-engine turbine rating. Embery-Riddle is a good place if you have a 20-60k till to blow. For most who don't have that kind of money, its starting in Cessna 172s and working your way up. You are taking the dirty jobs of aviation to log hours for next to no pay since the major carriers require thousands on thousands of hours of commercial multi-engine turbine just to hire you. Typically that means flying turbo-prop airliners or jump planes at skydiving outfits. Sometimes before that you are stuck pulling sky-banners around at the beach and county fair! All to log hours. If you are REALLY lucky you score a corporate aircraft gig flying bigwigs around which promises MUCH better pay but you are stuck with the no-life of always being on call. For most its the regional puddle jumpers flying out of tiny airports to the large hubs with the turboprop being the bottom of the barrel and the regional jets being a little better. The regionals know that they are being used as an hours factory so that pilots can move up to the "Big Leagues" so they are paid a pittance and are milked for all the time they can squeeze out of them. They make a lot of stops too. Flying is best described as pure boredom sandwiched between pure terror. Take offs and landings are a lot of work, especially at big airports with crowded approaches and a lot of larger aircraft. There are two pilots for a reason. One to actually handle the controls and the other to mind the radios, navigation, instruments, mind a timer, run the thrust levers/pitch control, lower the gear, flaps, read check lists, look at approach plates, look out for other aircraft, etc etc etc. Add bad weather and congestion and it snowballs. So you end up with these guys really being just glorified bus drivers but bus drivers probably get paid more and do much less work. Once they get enough hours, they tend to jump ship so regionals hope to have not much invested in a pilot when they do leave, such as training . Next is the smaller jets such as 737s or the A321. You can earn a decent middle class living by then and the aircraft makers assure that pilots know what they are doing. Pilots of the "Heavies", the largest wide bodies on the moat lucrative international routes such as the 747-400, trip 7, A340-360 and the A380 make almost 200k a year. They get plenty of rest and stay at fine hotels. There is usually even time for sight seeing!

This was a career path that I actually wanted to pursue and would not mind actually doing as a retirement gig, as long as my eyesight holds up. Granted I would probably rather be a bush pilot than work for the airlines. I figure by the time I am a bit older the money and time for commercial flight will be there so I won't have to starve while getting hours. Ultimately, pilots love to fly or there is NO reason to do it and many would do it for free. Well, the public doesn't view that sentiment, and perhaps that is why these transcripts get released. Hopefully it might mean some changes. Either more pay or less grueling hours and maybe more training provided by aircraft manufacturers. Lord knows the airlines can't afford to train but I would think that makers would have a vested interest in making sure pilots know how to operate their equipment safely.

There was a morning radio program that I listen to, eluding that the older pilot was trying to impress the younger co-pilot with his experience and knowledge, and that's what led to the accident, not fatigue.

I have to say, with only the written words, it's hard to get a feel as to why they were chattering at under 800 ft in icy weather. Voice inflection would help.

Oh but its what the market will bear! /gag

The preferred is to be trained by the military, flying either fighters or logistics aircraft. Airlines learned a long time ago to avoid ex-fighter pilots as they have bad "cockpit management" skills. Namely, that they're so used to doing everything themselves that they don't work well with others.

And since pilots all work, and get paid, on a seniority system, anyone who has worked for 10 years at AirlineX will get paid far more than anyone who has worked for 1 year at AirlineX no matter what the previous experience is. And because of the strict seniority system in place at every airline, no matter how good you are, the pilots with the least seat polishing time at that airline get furloughed/laid off when times get rough.

There are far more people who want to fly a plane than there are positions for them. So the folks who want to start in the industry get shafted. I look at it as something like getting a phd in English: you pay a lot, live on ramen for years in the remote chance of securing a tenured job.

When I spent far too long being laid off as a software developer in 2001, I looked into this as there were a lot of pilot training programs in South Florida. I balked at the expected costs of a commercial multi-engine rating (an airline pilot needs and ATP rating which requires 1500 hours of flight time) as all of them ran much closer to $120k once you added in the flying and simulator time to the base educational costs.