# Buffalo Air Crash Inquiry



## WhoozOn1st

Crash inquiry turns to skills, pay of pilots

"A federal investigation into the deadly crash of a Colgan Air twin-engine turboprop near Buffalo, N.Y., this year is raising broad questions about the flight training and working conditions for pilots at regional airlines across the country."

The article paints a pretty bleak picture of what it's like to fly for a regional carrier, and not just the one involved here.


----------



## PetalumaLoco

WhoozOn1st said:


> Crash inquiry turns to skills, pay of pilots
> "A federal investigation into the deadly crash of a Colgan Air twin-engine turboprop near Buffalo, N.Y., this year is raising broad questions about the flight training and working conditions for pilots at regional airlines across the country."
> 
> The article paints a pretty bleak picture of what it's like to fly for a regional carrier, and not just the one involved here.


I'm flying in a regional Q400 in a couple of months. Not sure if I'm looking forward to it, but time constraints dictate that we fly and not drive or train. :unsure:


----------



## WhoozOn1st

Better speed warning system urged for aircraft

"An alarm that would warn pilots earlier of dangerously slow aircraft speed could have helped prevent a plane crash that killed 50 people in February, safety officials told an investigative panel Thursday."

Touching again on the issue of crew fatigue that is believed to be a contributing factor in the February crash that killed all 49 people on the plane and one on the ground, a saftey expert from the Air Line Pilots Association said pilots were treated "like migrant workers, moving around and changing bases."


----------



## PetalumaLoco

I read a commercial pilot's blog Flight Level 390. His last post was about "everyone is an expert on aviation matters nowadays".

Take that one for what it's worth. I tend to agree with him.

If you want some good reading and are even remotely interested in what it's like to be an airline pilot, read this man's blog. He writes very well, and doesn't leave the layman behind.

Tosses in some interesting photos from the cockpit occasionally too.

Good stuff, IMHO.


----------



## saxman

PetalumaLoco said:


> I read a commercial pilot's blog Flight Level 390. His last post was about "everyone is an expert on aviation matters nowadays".
> Take that one for what it's worth. I tend to agree with him.
> 
> If you want some good reading and are even remotely interested in what it's like to be an airline pilot, read this man's blog. He writes very well, and doesn't leave the layman behind.
> 
> Tosses in some interesting photos from the cockpit occasionally too.
> 
> Good stuff, IMHO.


You can also ask your's truly.


----------



## birdy

Its a tragedy and a disgrace. Its also further evidence of the overall deterioration of our transportation infrastructure. A pilot can flunk his check rides and still fly a commercial aircraft? A person charged with the lives of dozens of people can be paid $16K per year?


----------



## PetalumaLoco

saxman66 said:


> PetalumaLoco said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read a commercial pilot's blog Flight Level 390. His last post was about "everyone is an expert on aviation matters nowadays".
> Take that one for what it's worth. I tend to agree with him.
> 
> If you want some good reading and are even remotely interested in what it's like to be an airline pilot, read this man's blog. He writes very well, and doesn't leave the layman behind.
> 
> Tosses in some interesting photos from the cockpit occasionally too.
> 
> Good stuff, IMHO.
> 
> 
> 
> You can also ask your's truly.
Click to expand...

Saxman, you're a commercial pilot I gather. What do you fly?


----------



## saxman

birdy said:


> Its a tragedy and a disgrace. Its also further evidence of the overall deterioration of our transportation infrastructure. A pilot can flunk his check rides and still fly a commercial aircraft? A person charged with the lives of dozens of people can be paid $16K per year?


Just because a pilot fails a couple checkrides does not make him unsafe. There are many fine pilots out there that have made a mistake. No one is perfect. Plus when you make that mistake, you just review it and do it again, and learn from it. I've failed a checkride or two. Mostly because I got nervous. Hopefully I won't scare you, but I learned from it and nailed it the second time around.

About the pay, that is something we've been trying to get into the public for years. Most everyone thinks every pilot makes 100K or 200K per year, which is simply not true. I flew a regional jet, and my pay was no where near that. Amtrak conductors start out way above many of our captains even. Only the top pilots that have been at their current major airline for at least 15 or 20 years will be breaking 100K. If you want to know what I made, I'll tell you. Not sure if its appropriate to say on here or not.



> Saxman, you're a commercial pilot I gather. What do you fly?


I use to fly CRJ's or Canadair Regional Jets, 50 seaters. I was furloughed in January so now I'm being a bum.


----------



## George Harris

The major problem here, as in many other things is that people fail to grasp;

*>>>>> There is no free lunch <<<<< *

* *

*People want cheap flights, but that can not happen without cutting way back on costs. People need to look back in history and see why transportation fares were regulated in the first place. We may not need to go all the way there again, but the current situation is simply unsustainable. And it is downright silly. You can find prices between two point varying all the way from say $290 up to $1400, and have no idea of what the real break even fare would be for the carrier.*


----------



## PetalumaLoco

saxman66 said:


> Saxman, you're a commercial pilot I gather. What do you fly?
> 
> 
> 
> I use to fly CRJ's or Canadair Regional Jets, 50 seaters. I was furloughed in January so now I'm being a bum.
Click to expand...

Interesting. We've booked a flight on United Express/Skywest on a Canadair CRJ (not sure which model) from SFO to GEG (Spokane) . Interesting plane, never been on one before. We were going to take a Dash-8 Q400 from a nearer regional airport, but the Skywest flight will be direct instead of a plane change in Seattle.


----------



## MrFSS

PetalumaLoco said:


> saxman66 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saxman, you're a commercial pilot I gather. What do you fly?
> 
> 
> 
> I use to fly CRJ's or Canadair Regional Jets, 50 seaters. I was furloughed in January so now I'm being a bum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting. We've booked a flight on United Express/Skywest on a Canadair CRJ (not sure which model) from SFO to GEG (Spokane) . Interesting plane, never been on one before. We were going to take a Dash-8 Q400 from a nearer regional airport, but the Skywest flight will be direct instead of a plane change in Seattle.
Click to expand...

CRJ's are nice little planes. As comfortable as it can be for the size. And, I know Saxman personally, he is a very good pilot!


----------



## PetalumaLoco

MrFSS said:


> PetalumaLoco said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saxman66 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saxman, you're a commercial pilot I gather. What do you fly?
> 
> 
> 
> I use to fly CRJ's or Canadair Regional Jets, 50 seaters. I was furloughed in January so now I'm being a bum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting. We've booked a flight on United Express/Skywest on a Canadair CRJ (not sure which model) from SFO to GEG (Spokane) . Interesting plane, never been on one before. We were going to take a Dash-8 Q400 from a nearer regional airport, but the Skywest flight will be direct instead of a plane change in Seattle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> CRJ's are nice little planes. As comfortable as it can be for the size. And, I know Saxman personally, he is a very good pilot!
Click to expand...

Thanks, I've always been a bit spooked flying. You're remarks are reassuring.


----------



## Heading North

PetalumaLoco said:


> MrFSS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PetalumaLoco said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saxman66 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saxman, you're a commercial pilot I gather. What do you fly?
> 
> 
> 
> I use to fly CRJ's or Canadair Regional Jets, 50 seaters. I was furloughed in January so now I'm being a bum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting. We've booked a flight on United Express/Skywest on a Canadair CRJ (not sure which model) from SFO to GEG (Spokane) . Interesting plane, never been on one before. We were going to take a Dash-8 Q400 from a nearer regional airport, but the Skywest flight will be direct instead of a plane change in Seattle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> CRJ's are nice little planes. As comfortable as it can be for the size. And, I know Saxman personally, he is a very good pilot!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks, I've always been a bit spooked flying. You're remarks are reassuring.
Click to expand...

I was scared to fly for a long time, and gradually as my life and employment dictated, I did it more often... it's helpful to remember that CRJs are just a commercial version of a private business jet. It took a couple trips to get used to them after much larger planes, but I'd take a CRJ over a Q400 any day. The Q400 makes me stare at my watch for even a 20-minute flight. Only tip: keep an eye on how much luggage you carry on, because there's not much room overhead and it may end up checked at the gate, or you might end up like me with a giant backpack at your feet.


----------



## PetalumaLoco

Heading North said:


> PetalumaLoco said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrFSS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PetalumaLoco said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saxman66 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saxman, you're a commercial pilot I gather. What do you fly?
> 
> 
> 
> I use to fly CRJ's or Canadair Regional Jets, 50 seaters. I was furloughed in January so now I'm being a bum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting. We've booked a flight on United Express/Skywest on a Canadair CRJ (not sure which model) from SFO to GEG (Spokane) . Interesting plane, never been on one before. We were going to take a Dash-8 Q400 from a nearer regional airport, but the Skywest flight will be direct instead of a plane change in Seattle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> CRJ's are nice little planes. As comfortable as it can be for the size. And, I know Saxman personally, he is a very good pilot!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks, I've always been a bit spooked flying. You're remarks are reassuring.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was scared to fly for a long time, and gradually as my life and employment dictated, I did it more often... it's helpful to remember that CRJs are just a commercial version of a private business jet. It took a couple trips to get used to them after much larger planes, but I'd take a CRJ over a Q400 any day. The Q400 makes me stare at my watch for even a 20-minute flight. Only tip: keep an eye on how much luggage you carry on, because there's not much room overhead and it may end up checked at the gate, or you might end up like me with a giant backpack at your feet.
Click to expand...

I got over the scared part, but never over the uncomfortable with flying part. The best thing I got going mentally is that the pilots want to live as much as I do. I hope. :unsure:

Thanks for the tips on flying the CRJ, we're just taking a small bag each. A friend flies Q400's a lot and says bring ear plugs. I'd like to try one sometime.


----------



## PRR 60

Heading North said:


> ...Only tip: keep an eye on how much luggage you carry on, because there's not much room overhead and it may end up checked at the gate, or you might end up like me with a giant backpack at your feet.


When flying a RJ, you can usually tag and drop your larger carry-on bag plane-side or on the jetway and then it's returned either plane-side or on the jetway at the other end. That leaves the overhead for smaller items. I find that very convenient: much more so than checking the bag.


----------



## PetalumaLoco

PRR 60 said:


> Heading North said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Only tip: keep an eye on how much luggage you carry on, because there's not much room overhead and it may end up checked at the gate, or you might end up like me with a giant backpack at your feet.
> 
> 
> 
> When flying a RJ, you can usually tag and drop your larger carry-on bag plane-side or on the jetway and then it's returned either plane-side or on the jetway at the other end. That leaves the overhead for smaller items. I find that very convenient: much more so than checking the bag.
Click to expand...

Not sure SFO would even let me past the ticket/checkin counter with a bag too big for carry on.


----------



## PRR 60

PetalumaLoco said:


> PRR 60 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heading North said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Only tip: keep an eye on how much luggage you carry on, because there's not much room overhead and it may end up checked at the gate, or you might end up like me with a giant backpack at your feet.
> 
> 
> 
> When flying a RJ, you can usually tag and drop your larger carry-on bag plane-side or on the jetway and then it's returned either plane-side or on the jetway at the other end. That leaves the overhead for smaller items. I find that very convenient: much more so than checking the bag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure SFO would even let me past the ticket/checkin counter with a bag too big for carry on.
Click to expand...

No. This has nothing to do with baggage that does not meet carry-on size limits. Those bags must be checked. This involves bags that meet airline carry-on size requirements, but are too large for the small overhead storage bins on regional jets.

Regional jets such as the CRJ have very small overheads. Regular carry-on bags that fit fine in a 737 overhead will not fit in the bins of an RJ. The airlines recognize this and provide an alternative. If you have a larger carry-on bag, you pick-up a tag at the gate podium and place it on your bag. Then, as you board the aircraft, you drop the bag at the designated location - either on the jetway on on a cart near the plane door. Your bag is placed in the aircraft cargo hold by a ramp person. Then at the other end, it is unloaded while you wait plane-side or on the jetway. You grab it when it appears, and off you go. This is not checked baggage. It is a way to accommodate carry-on bags that are fine for mainline aircraft but too large for RJ's.


----------



## PetalumaLoco

PRR 60 said:


> PetalumaLoco said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PRR 60 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heading North said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Only tip: keep an eye on how much luggage you carry on, because there's not much room overhead and it may end up checked at the gate, or you might end up like me with a giant backpack at your feet.
> 
> 
> 
> When flying a RJ, you can usually tag and drop your larger carry-on bag plane-side or on the jetway and then it's returned either plane-side or on the jetway at the other end. That leaves the overhead for smaller items. I find that very convenient: much more so than checking the bag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure SFO would even let me past the ticket/checkin counter with a bag too big for carry on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. This has nothing to do with baggage that does not meet carry-on size limits. Those bags must be checked. This involves bags that meet airline carry-on size requirements, but are too large for the small overhead storage bins on regional jets.
> 
> Regional jets such as the CRJ have very small overheads. Regular carry-on bags that fit fine in a 737 overhead will not fit in the bins of an RJ. The airlines recognize this and provide an alternative. If you have a larger carry-on bag, you pick-up a tag at the gate podium and place it on your bag. Then, as you board the aircraft, you drop the bag at the designated location - either on the jetway on on a cart near the plane door. Your bag is placed in the aircraft cargo hold by a ramp person. Then at the other end, it is unloaded while you wait plane-side or on the jetway. You grab it when it appears, and off you go. This is not checked baggage. It is a way to accommodate carry-on bags that are fine for mainline aircraft but too large for RJ's.
Click to expand...

OK, thanks for clearing that up.


----------



## GoldenSpike

PetalumaLoco said:


> I read a commercial pilot's blog Flight Level 390. His last post was about "everyone is an expert on aviation matters nowadays".
> Take that one for what it's worth. I tend to agree with him.
> 
> If you want some good reading and are even remotely interested in what it's like to be an airline pilot, read this man's blog. He writes very well, and doesn't leave the layman behind.
> 
> Tosses in some interesting photos from the cockpit occasionally too.
> 
> Good stuff, IMHO.


Thanks for the link. I ended up starting from square one in his archive and reading forward.


----------



## WhoozOn1st

According to this article from Aviation Week, the heat is being turned up on regional carriers in the wake of the NTSB hearing on the Colgan Air crash at Buffalo:

Calls For Regional Safety Improvements Up

"In [NTSB hearing] testimony, a general portrait of regionals emerged: A world in which low-time, low-paid, inadequately trained, fatigued pilots are flying several legs per duty day, which can last up to 16 hours, several days a week."

A couple interesting comments accompany the story, and don't overlook the link with the second one, which takes you to a more detailed look at airline labor issues in forums.jetcareers by the Aviation Week comment poster.


----------



## saxman

WhoozOn1st said:


> According to this article from Aviation Week, the heat is being turned up on regional carriers in the wake of the NTSB hearing on the Colgan Air crash at Buffalo:
> Calls For Regional Safety Improvements Up
> 
> "In [NTSB hearing] testimony, a general portrait of regionals emerged: A world in which low-time, low-paid, inadequately trained, fatigued pilots are flying several legs per duty day, which can last up to 16 hours, several days a week."
> 
> A couple interesting comments accompany the story, and don't overlook the link with the second one, which takes you to a more detailed look at airline labor issues in forums.jetcareers by the Aviation Week comment poster.


Thanks for the links. I'm a member of the Jetcareers forum, and I visit it regularly. The NTSB has been recommending for years that the FAA address the pilot fatigue issue, but the FAA has been for too long in bed with the airlines and have done nothing about it. 16 hours is way too long to be on duty. Luckily my airline had a limit of 14.5 hours with our contract, but we were often asked if we wanted to extend that. I always said no.

And there is also something wrong when railroad duty days are set at 12 hours while airlines are set at 16 hours. And its not that 12 or 14 hour days are that difficult all the time. Many times schedules were built with a long day the first day, then a short day the next. It's when you put those all in a row, when things start to suck. Just in my little less then 2 year tenure at my airline, the schedules got worse and worse. And I'd say 3 to 4 leg days were about average for me. 5 was almost too much for me. Now 3 or 4 legs was pretty easy as long as they were all at once, with maybe a meal break in between. Its when the airline started to schedule 4 or 5 hours breaks where we had to sit at an airport doing nothing is what makes you tired. That happened more and more it seemed as our parent company kept changing our schedules as to make it impossible for our planners to build decent trips. And remember that pilots are only paid from when the door closes to when it opens. So those hours of sitting are unpaid.

I'm not trying to moan and groan here. I still loved to fly. And I miss it. But as always, there were those days that I wanted to just take a nap. Trust me though, if I were truly fatigued, I would have not been flying.


----------



## George Harris

The pilot day is 16 hours? This is insane!


----------



## saxman

George Harris said:


> The pilot day is 16 hours? This is insane!


Yup!


----------



## jackal

saxman66 said:


> And remember that pilots are only paid from when the door closes to when it opens. So those hours of sitting are unpaid.


Wow. I knew it was door-close-to-door-open, but I assumed it was door-close-on-first-flight to door-open-on-last-flight.

So you're saying that if they schedule you for five one-hour flights spread over 16 hours, you are paid for five hours? That's inhumane and should be against labor laws!

On the railroad, I was paid from the time I was scheduled to report for duty (even if the train I was scheduled on didn't depart for another half hour past that) all the way until final tie-up, even if we sat and did nothing in between trains or yard jobs. If the railroad wanted to stop paying us, they had to let us go home for the minimum required rest of 8 hours. If they wanted to recall us within 8 hours, they put us on "release" and stuck us in a hotel room for the time (minimum of four hours), during which time we were paid straight time (didn't count for overtime purposes, but I wasn't complaining about being paid to nap!).

And there was none of this having to show up and getting briefed off the clock before the timeclock started. Forcing you to do weather briefings, reviewing flight planning, and doing other work in effect off the clock and forcing you to stay awake and at the terminal and ready to go seems like it shouldn't be legal!


----------



## PRR 60

jackal said:


> saxman66 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And remember that pilots are only paid from when the door closes to when it opens. So those hours of sitting are unpaid.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. I knew it was door-close-to-door-open, but I assumed it was door-close-on-first-flight to door-open-on-last-flight.
> 
> So you're saying that if they schedule you for five one-hour flights spread over 16 hours, you are paid for five hours? That's inhumane and should be against labor laws!
Click to expand...

It is not how the pay is calculated, but how much is being paid. If I am paid for just one hour a week, but get paid $1000 an hour, then I don't really care that I am only paid for only one hour.

In the case of the Colgan 3407 crew, the first officer was being paid about $24,000 a year (the $16,000 figure was wrong). That is not much as flight crews go, but maybe not that bad for a young kid right out of flight school. It is comparable to what a doctor gets paid for interning right out of medical school. The captain was being paid about $70,000 a year. Regardless of how the hours are calculated, $70,000 a year for a young pilot is not that bad. No, it is not British Airways 777 pay, but it is a decent living.

All of this has to be considered in the context of what really mattered: training and fatigue. Those are the real issues coming out of the COA 3407 tragedy, not pay.


----------



## saxman

jackal said:


> saxman66 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And remember that pilots are only paid from when the door closes to when it opens. So those hours of sitting are unpaid.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. I knew it was door-close-to-door-open, but I assumed it was door-close-on-first-flight to door-open-on-last-flight.
> 
> So you're saying that if they schedule you for five one-hour flights spread over 16 hours, you are paid for five hours? That's inhumane and should be against labor laws!
Click to expand...

Yes, I would only be paid 5 hours for that day. Many airline have their individual contracts to prevent something to be that extreme but it still is bad and have sat many scheduled 4 to 5 hour "productivity" breaks. Those breaks were what made me tired and fatigued.



PRR60 said:


> In the case of the Colgan 3407 crew, the first officer was being paid about $24,000 a year (the $16,000 figure was wrong). That is not much as flight crews go, but maybe not that bad for a young kid right out of flight school. It is comparable to what a doctor gets paid for interning right out of medical school. The captain was being paid about $70,000 a year. Regardless of how the hours are calculated, $70,000 a year for a young pilot is not that bad. No, it is not British Airways 777 pay, but it is a decent living.


You're about that. The main problem is with that the regionals are getting bigger while the mainline carriers are shrinking. Regionals use to be stepping stones for pilots to get to a major airline, so starting at 20K was alright because it wouldn't take too long to make it to a mainline carrier. Over the past 10 or 15 years however, as regional jets have come on to property, airlines realized that these jets can go nearly as far as mainline jets for way less pay. So now regional jobs have been starting to fly routes that the major airlines use to fly. Pilots can no longer jump to a major because there are no jobs anymore, and many have just made the regional airline their career. If you're a First Officer, you're stuck making around 30 to 40K for years and years. Captains might make 60 to 70K but thats it. They're stuck. So what we're frustrated is that regional pilots are now expected to fly mainline routes, yet they are still being treated like 2nd class employees.

Here's an example and go no further than looking at Cincinnati. It use to be dominated by Delta flights going to all the places. Comair flew the small planes to just places like Lexington, Dayton, Toledo, Lansing, South Bend, etc. Then came the very first Canadair Regional Jet, CRJ-100 from Bombardier. (which I have flown a few times in fact!) Today CVG is nothing but RJ's. The only Delta mainline flights are a few to the West Coast, Florida, and Atlanta. With a few more spread in to like New York and such.

It's nothing but RJ's flying all the routes now.

In a 50 seater, I've flown JFK to Chicago O-hare numerous times. ATL-JFK a couple times too even. Boston to Jacksonville too, a nearly 3 hour flight.


----------

