GogglesPisano

You realize we're talking about Reader's Digest? Was it the large-font version and was it sitting on a table at Perkins at 5pm next to a Sanka and a hanky?

NeverHome

Though the FARs are same for the airlines, what is different is the amount of $$$. Lets face it safety costs money. Want a safer airline? Put cash into it. Regionals really dont put alot of money into safety sometimes. Since they make money by flying, if something isnt correct with the airplane for instance, there is a certain level of pressure to fly anyway. If a captain refuses, no big deal, just find a recent upgrade and he will do it. Ive seen this myself.

JetDoc

Really?

These guys landed in a thunderstorm...

Sounds pretty lame to me....

Come on down off your high horse there cowboy....

FlyJSH

Not naming names out of courtousy, but there was an event in Cali, Columbia in the mid '90s whose last link in the chain was not retracting speedbrakes while responding to a GPWS warning.



In its report, the Aeronáutica Civil determined the following probable causes of the accident:
1.The flightcrew's failure to adequately plan and execute the approach to runway 19 at SKCL and their inadequate use of automation.
2.Failure of the flightcrew to discontinue the approach into Cali, despite numerous cues alerting them of the inadvisability of continuing the approach.
3.The lack of situational awareness of the flightcrew regarding vertical navigation, proximity to terrain, and the relative location of critical radio aids.
4.Failure of the flightcrew to revert to basic radio navigation at the time when the FMS-assisted navigation became confusing and demanded an excessive workload in a critical phase of the flight.

In addition, the Aeronáutica Civil determined that there were the following contributing factors to the accident:
1.The flightcrew's ongoing efforts to expedite their approach and landing in order to avoid potential delays.
2.The flightcrew's execution of the GPWS escape maneuver while the speedbrakes remained deployed.
3.FMS logic that dropped all intermediate fixes from the display(s) in the event of execution of a direct routing.
4.FMS-generated navigational information that used a different naming convention from that published in navigational charts.

ShyGuy

My comparison was from 2000-Present. If the two posters above are going to bring up major airline crashes from the 90s, then present the regional ones as well over that same timeframe.

mooney

that's probably why they quoted bedrock and not you…. Looks like you lost a little SA as a non regional pilot

On a side note, MEMbrain and Toomanyrj's must be busy playing solitaire….can't believe they don't have 87 posts of flame on this one yet.

ShyGuy

No, I saw that. I still don't see how FLG3701 comes even close to comparison for AA at LIT or in Cali. Both AA cases had professional pilots who ended up in a bad situation. The industry changed rules on operating with TS near/overhead an airport. Cali was unfortunate as well, but they had every intention of landing safely at Cali. 3701 were a bunch of cowboys who decided to have fun because there were no pax onboard. From the get go, they pitched up numerous times to the shaker and continued the most unprofessional kind of flying the NTSB has witnessed in a 121 environment.

mooney

well, it shouldn't take "industry changing rules" to know not to land in the crap AA landed in. The shaker isn't busting a limitation

the ground doesn't care if it's get home itis, complete loss of SA and bad judgement, or cowboys. Outcome is the same.


and I'm not defending them, but you can't really compare 2 cowboys out on a ferry flight to a revenue flight. God only knows what happens on many ferry flights, mainline included. I almost punched a CA in the throat right after liftoff for some stunt he pulled that almost got me killed on a ferry.

block30

Best post of the thread. Oughtta close 'er down with that one!

pete2800

I'll be the regional pilot who says that regional airlines are not as safe. We fly more legs on less rest than our counterparts. It's impossible for that to not impact safety.


Furthermore.... This ties in with compensation. Management will go to their grave claiming that there's "one level of safety," and that they'd never compromise on safety in order to save money. Oh, really? So either I'm just as safe and qualified as a mainline pilot and should therefore be compensated as such, or I'm less safe and less qualified which is why I get paid less. You can't have it both ways. As regional pilots, we should be beating the safety drum non-stop for eternity. Stop being offended for a minute, and think. What would happen if we could convince the general public that contracted carriers had significantly lower safety margins than mainline carriers?