Airline Blames Crew for Buffalo Crash

[Canus Chinookus]

Until you see a reduction in the glut of pilots ready and willing to do what it takes to get a job, it won't change. Pure and simple. If there is a requirement for proper experience and skill, that just might help too. Until we see some clamp-downs on these pilot 'puppy mills' churning out pilots regardless of demand for pilots, it'll never improve.

[Guest rozar s'macco]

Even though profit-sharing adds a layer to the decision-making process[...]

apple, that quote pretty well sums it up for me. I guess we'll just call it a difference of opinion.

[Specs]

Don

In terms of political goals I probably align my sentiments and goals with you but I terms of what ails the industry we work in I find myself disagreeing or taking exception with almost every single statement in your last post. I started a terribly analytical and eloquent line by line by rebuttal but deleted it all to try a different approach.

I certainly agree that safety is at risk from declining standards but not being the sharpest knife in the drawer didn’t see any suggestion for ways to find a solution short of hinting at re-regulating the industry.

I can certainly understand your perspective but why in these debates is the onus always put on others to step up and fix the problem?

Doctors, Lawyers, Engineers, Nurses, etc are all legally charged with the authourity to establish, maintain and enforce their own professional standards theough professional colleges. I have never seen that type of approach being suggested in any substantially meaningful way by any pilot organization and this seems a situation that screams for such a solution. I don’t like to say this but truth be told, the behaviour of the pilot orgs on this issue has been no different than what I would expect from the bus drivers union and could in fact be considered as much worse because they have failed to take any action in the face of obvious safety concerns for which they are the most qualified to resolve.

The FAA, TC, the legislators, etc are not going to solve the problem. They’ll bluster about it ad nauseum but the reality is that they also have to keep the airlines and the airline investors happy and with no pilot organizations stepping up in any meaningful way, you know what the outcome will be. A band aid or a patch of veneer. No speech from any ALPA rep in some committee mtg rm will change that in any meaningful way.

If Pilots want to be recognized as professionals then step up to the plate. Lobby the govts to establish a professional college with professional and educational/training stds. Governments would buy into it just on the administrative savings alone and the off loaded admin responsibility. With a governing professional body in place no airline would dare operate without accredited crew. Airlines would endorse the college because then they’d be competing on an even footing in terms of salaries and training costs. Pilot wages would be controlled by pilots, as would job security and pensions, and training of new aviators would improve immensely.

And on top of all that, if pilots want to re-regulate the industry then why not be in the position to take a lead role in it?

[Don Hudson]

Specs - I didn't want to leave this as I'm away tomorrow - your disagreement very much appreciated. Will respond over the weekend. Would like to have seen your points as I know they would have been thoughtfully placed - if you wish to dot-point them I'd like to read them - I think there is a lot of value in what you say. Til then. Don

[Specs]

Sorry for the delay Don. I've been without a laptop for the past few days. Between the Windows XP o/s crashing and then having another pax mistake my bag (containing laptop, extra credit cards, passport, house/car keys, planner, unmentionables, etc) for his in the overhead bin and walking away with same, I've been a bit distracted.

In short – Although I disagreed or took exception to many of your points, I did agree with the overall argument in the first part of your post. As I read it, the points made there simply didn’t reflect my own views of the industry and don’t point to a real way forward.

Some of the points (not all) I disagreed with or took exception to:

"....sole goal being the legitimation of the reduction of pilot wages, benefits and retirement arrangements...."

I find it hard to agree that pilots have been specifically targetted. All those still left in this biz took the same ‘legitimized’ hits.

When you consider the number of Maintenance and Engineering jobs that have permanently moved offshore in the last decade and the cummulative dollar amounts lost, that has to outweigh the cummulative hits the pilots have taken.

I will agree that flt crew needs in tems of hiring, training, standards and supervision have certainly taken a hit. My perception of those elements is that they have deterioriated across the board to the point where repeats of the Colgan scenario seem inevitable.

"....aviation will be unable to attract "good" people, intelligent people, to pilot airplanes because the cat is now out of the bag, with regards to the working conditions…....."

"...."get used to the new way of doing business" and stop expecting decent wages and working conditions. Quite frankly, young people have indeed "got used to it" but not by putting up with such entreaties. Instead, they have taken a look at how their parents were treated and are not coming into aviation. " "

I don’t see it. I constantly meet young folks who are looking to pursue, or are actively pursuing flying careers. The incentive and the appeal are still there despite the conditions. Consider companies like WJ or Southwest, Jetblue, etc that are quite profitable with benefits easily comparable or equal to those of the legacy carriers. Those are attractive companies to shoot for and they appeal to many new entrants.

Consider also that in relative terms – the alternatives to a flying career for todays young folk aren’t all that thrilling either. Most skilled, well paying and manufacturing jobs are disappearing fast in North America. Science and accounting? – Outsourced to India and China. etc etc etc. The dot.com boom may be history but the industry is still growing and there are some good jobs there. Unfortunately good jobs in that industry though require constant skills upgrading and training, and like most jobs in the new economy, are short lived or can be easily outsourced. The writing is on the wall for our economy - service industry and McJobs and much lower expectations. Juxtapose working in that that world vs pursuing an airline career. What isn’t appealing about a career for which, once you’re in, you pretty much remain in until you retire? For many out there, a career as a pilot is seen as the equivalent to the life of Riley.

It could be reasonably argued that an airline career will appeal to even more potential candidates in the future.

"....Instead, they have taken a look at how their parents were treated and are not coming into aviation...."

Again, in regards to flt crew I disagree. I frequently meet new hires following in their dad's (usually) footsteps. (I just got off the phone this morning with a pilot’s daughter who is well on her way to doing just that)

It's a much different story in Engineering. We can't even get the Work term /Co-op students to come back and we're offering perks such as work from home, flex time, increased starting salary, etc. Job postings go unfilled for a yr and then they’re withdrawn for lack of suitable applicants. These are the folks that endorse the underlying assumptions of airworthiness for pilots and maintenance that applies to aircraft mods, special designs, STCs, structural repairs, maint programs, powerplant monitoring, WAT performance data, production permits, ferry flights, etc.

When I think of the erosion of that knowledge base and the fact that maint has been gutted, SMS is becoming mainstream and that pilots will be less prepared than than they have been in decades past, the safety trend into the future ilooks worrisome.

"....Sully was right when he said to Congress about a year ago now, that "aviation is not attracting its best and brightest...."

I'm muddled on this one and don't neccessarily agree or disagree. I'm still mulling it over. He was framing that statement in terms of cuts to salaries and benefits and in that context I don't think I agree. The best and brightest he is referring to are that sub group interested in an aviation career and those folks are still there. In relative terms as to what their other options might be, a flying job is still a very attractive and remains one of their best options.

As i said, I'm still mentally debating Sully's statement. I might have agreed more if it was rephrased to mean something along the lines that entry standards and min qualifications have dropped to the point where commercial aviation is now attracting those who can simply afford it but would otherwise not cut it under past standards. That wouldn’t be in the context Sully intended though.

'....., but some (including myself) are asking if at least a few of the six recent fatal accidents in the last two years involving the stalling of airliners are not connected with the forces unleashed in a de-regulated environment...."

They are but I won't lay complete blame at the foot of the regulators or the airlines. My own feeling is that the Pilot associations have ignored the issue as much as the others and should have have moved much earlier to address the issue. Heck, the manufacturer’s should as well now that I think about it.. I didn’t read it but perhaps that recentl announcement by Airbus to the effect that basic flying skills are being eroded by automation recognizes that shortcoming.

Theres more but thats enough for now I think.

We will never be reregulated again nor should we be. If we want a safer industry tomorrow with more secure and good paying careers with a stellar safety record then the people in that industry have to step up and lead the change themselves.

[Don Hudson]

Specs;

Between the Windows XP o/s crashing and then having another pax mistake my bag (containing laptop, extra credit cards, passport, house/car keys, planner, unmentionables, etc) for his in the overhead bin and walking away with same, I've been a bit distracted.

Ouch - sorry to hear it - understand.

Again, thanks - I've also had no laptop (keyboard replacement) and have been trying to comprehend propositional logic, (don't separate those words...it gets worse) and haven't had the focus needed to put together a response.

I'm happily wrong about the "Flying Cheap" program; I thought it was excellent television and a bit of good investigative work as well. I thought it told the story in the best way available for television and will certainly cause people to think. The obvious "villain" in the format was the Pres. of the Regional Airlines Assoc., Robert? Cohen who has no concept of flight safety work and just kept mouthing the words "number one priority". Nor is it "not" a number one priority...rather, there are concurrent, but conflicting goals where profit and staying in business is a good #1 priority. The key is knowledge and experience on how to do that safely and Mr. Cohen, Mr. Colgan and a few other execs knew absolutely nothing about how do do that because for them, their contracts with the majors are "just business". Interestingly, the arrangement was characterized as a "fire wall"...clearly Continental's Director of Flight Safety wasn't even interested in exploring the relationship and responsibility. As evidence of this, a very quick shot of one of the passenger advocates leading the fight was told by Mr. Colgan that "the problem is fixed". Just like that. To me the hole that this man dug for himself and the regional industry is trivially obvious - if it was THAT easy, why wasn't it fixed instead of killing 51 people, but I guess that was a question too sensitive for television...or the lawyers.

Very little was said about deregulation, and I think most (as you say) don't believe we can go back to "the old days", nor should we.

But the business has to be safe and profitable to flourish; clearly the pendulum so to speak, has swung too far one way.

I'll read your response carefully and I hope others will join in, Specs. Thanks.

best,

Don

[GTFA]

I watched the "Flying Cheap" program last night and was also pleasantly impressed with the presentation. Mr. Cohen was given more than enough opportunity to say the right things but, as you implied, just didn't know what or how to say it.

Also, the relationship and responsibility between carriers is glaringly negligent in addressing safety and liability.

One point that I was waiting to hear because of the title of the article was that passengers are going to have to pay more for better service. That service being the highest level of safety with schedule.

I liked what Specs had to say about the piloting profession taking control of their own standards and have always promoted the same.

GTFA

[Kip Powick]

If we want a safer industry tomorrow with more secure and good paying careers with a stellar safety record then the people in that industry have to step up and lead the change themselves.

Interesting statement but it begs the question...............how?? (in the pilots pay case, for example)

The biggest problem for the vast majority of older pilots is the fact that the "paying" field has changed forever. Many feel they have been dragged down to a lower standard...was their previous standard of living too high?..Only they really know.

At the present time we have new hire pilots and junior Captains pilots being paid less than FAs. How do we fix that? Everytime a pilot negotiating team goes forward with a pay fix they are told that an increase in pay for their profession could adversely affect the parent company. (read 'tank')

The thought process then backs up and becomes.."I'd rather work for less than not have a job at all", and thus the gain in pay is almost non existent.

The only way this erosion of pilot pay will cease will be by "downing tools" in the pilot branch. That could lead to government intervention and the "strike" could be anulled. In that case you now have extremely disgruntled employees doing only what is required, nothing more and of course lower and lower morale.

The question is......what does the pilot branch do to ensure fair pay for the job they do, the job that glues the airline together for without the pilots you do not have a viable company. It should be stressed that it is not the intention of the pilots to hold the company hostage in order to ensure that massive and unrealistic financial gains are realized, but rather to ensure that the pilot corp is recognized as an extremely important cog in the wheel of the airline industry and as such should be paid accordingly.

Only a dreamer would think that it is possible to go back to the eras where the pay was, perhaps, a bit high for work done....but ..it is not unreasonable to expect a company to pay those that are responsible for the safe carriage of your and my family a decent wage.

In my opinion it is time for the pilot corp to stand up and tell the company, "We're not going to take it any more!" . Will it happen.?..probably not .........but I like to think it could.

[Don Hudson]

Kip;

The situation won't change on its own, that is certain. How the pressure to change is applied, where, by whom and when are questions which the industry stuidiosly avoids and which pilot associations, despite many efforts "in the trenches", perhaps have been publicly silent upon for too long. The goose has been plucked and contrary to the old negotiating admonition, there is a large amount of hissing which is not being heeded.

Unless things change by informal decree, (meaning swift, radical change by industry agreement, not forced change via legislation), a system which pays poorly (first year teachers, nurses and flight attendants make more than veteran pilots in the right seat), and thereby discourages rather than invites new people to the career, will remain in place. Such a system has placed the industry's excellent safety record at risk, requiring far more decision-making in the cockpit which has traditionally been established airline policies upstream of the cockpit. Because this system is deeply ensconced in both the agreements, procedures and the psyches of all participants but especially executive managements and shareholders, what is going to effect change is more accidents like Colgan's.

That's not doom-saying, that's simply experienced observing of history over a very long period of time. Kicking tin, not data and data's preventive capacities, is what drives the industry. Very few make expensive decisions based upon data alone - it has to hurt, first. In fact, while Colgan is high-profile, there are signs of stress in many other incidents and ongoing actions. Raising the pay of pilots will not make the necessary changes alone - it is too late for those who would have come, to believe that an airline is serious in addressing these issues on their own, even under SMS. For the first time, I feel I don't know where it's going to go but habits, attitudes and a willingness to work together have all vastly changed over the last two decades.

I see Southwest is once again in the news.

[Airband]

.

problem solved

Colgan leaving lounge lights on in response to fatigue issue

February 25, 2010 - The Buffalo News

Jerry Zremski - Washington Bureau Chief

WASHINGTON — The pilot of the flight that crashed in Clarence a year ago slept in the airline's crew room the night before the flight, but now Colgan Air has come up with a way of making it more difficult for pilots to do that.

It's ordered the lights to be kept on in its crew rooms.

Deborah Hersman, chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, revealed that company practice at a Senate hearing this morning — and indicated she wasn't impressed with Colgan's solution.

"It won't really mitigate the problem," she said.

The problem of pilot fatigue — exacerbated by long-distance pilot commutes and low salaries at regional airlines like Colgan — dominated the Senate Aviation Committee hearing on the crash of Continental Connection Flight 3407, which claimed 50 lives last Feb. 12.

While the safety board's final report earlier this month did not cite pilot fatigue as one of the likely causes of the crash, senators made it clear that they think the pilot and co-pilot were too tired to fly — and that their exhaustion may have contributed to the pilot errors that led to the crash.

Dorgan stressed, though, that pilot commuting could indeed pose safety risks if it means pilots aren't getting adequate rest before a flight. "Maybe this has become a practice," he said. "If it is, it has to stop."

.

[conehead]

Unbelievable.

[DEFCON]

rozar

"I think pilot pay at the regionals is the root cause."

But that's not the case at Jazz. I agree with most of your observations, but Jazz should be excluded from the 'blanket' above.

Pay is definitely a safety consideration, but ‘low pay’ it isn't exclusive to the Regionals of the world. The overall airline entry level 'experience' of pilots has been declining over the past two decades and new hires now include the 250-hour air cadet?

From here, I think unchecked expansion in the industry without thought being given to the pilot shortage that would and did develop in parallel with growth may be the single largest factor impacting the safety equation?

It’s much like building a hospital absent a plan to staff with competent professionals.