Yuku free message boards

Hi, Gina,

You're touching upon several issues here.

First, Alaska Air. Yes, AS got some very bad publicity about their Flt 261 accident in early 2000. The MD-80 stabilizer "problem" was quickly investigated -- and corrected -- by all MD-80 operators. As it turns out, the AS accident was entirely preventable. If the Flt 261 crew had just landed and not tried to "troubleshoot" the problem (I think they must have thought they were doing the Maintenance people a big favor), everything would have been fine.

Which leads into the comparison between "regional" airlines and "mainline" carriers. Actually, as far as I know, there is no official distinction anymore.

(Years ago, there were "first-level," second-level,": and "commuter" airlines. But the distinctions blurred -- or even disappeared -- a long time ago. And the fact is -- now, ALL airlines are required to operate under the same standards, which hasn't always been the case.)

Media Sensationalism about "regional" carriers. Yes, it's exactly that -- Sensationalism. Now people are all aghast at the idea of riding one of those -- ostensibly unsafe -- regionals, due to the recent BUF accident.

But the fact is -- regional airline pilots -- as a whole -- are very sharp, skilled, pilots. They have to be, to operate in the extremely demanding environment that they do. They get their "trial by fire" very early in the game, and those who don't cut it are quickly eliminated.

(How do I know? Because, 35 years ago, I WAS a regional pilot, flying 15-passenger Beech 99s, mixing it up with the Big Boys at O'Hare and Detroit Metro, in all manner of traffic congestion and terrible weather. No autopilot, no flight director. I had only recently acquired my instrument flying skills, and believe me, they were quickly enhanced even more.)

Now -- regional airplanes are far more sophisticated than they were when I flew them. Autopilots, flight directors, cabin pressurization, even a potty for the passengers. (We did not have those!!) But it is still a very demanding type of flying.

While I was a Captain at American Airlines (I am now retired), as a group, my favorite First Officers (Co-pilots) were those who had come from regional airlines. Mostly from American Eagle, but some from others, too. They knew how to fly -- very well -- and how to operate in demanding conditions. Traffic, weather, the whole works.

So -- what about Colgan at BUF? Well, most of us pilots are -- frankly -- at a loss to explain that. It appears to have been a foolish and ill-considered attempt by the Captain to override the stick pusher, after the airplane had stalled. (Please bear in mind that the official NTSB Accident Report has not yet been issued.)

There was some publicity given to the alleged failure of the airline to give any stick pusher training to the Captain. I can't really comment on that, given that I don't know all the facts here.

When I was flying for American Airlines, I did get a stick pusher demonstration during my MD-80 training. I don't know anything about the (Colgan) Dash 8 Q400 stick pusher, but I can tell you that the MD-80 pusher literally yanks the control yoke right out of your hands, and it is difficult to overcome.

And -- in the case of the MD-80 at least -- the stick pusher should not ever even deploy. Unless the crew is totally asleep -- or inattentive -- the conditions leading to a stall should have been recognized -- and corrected -- long before that.

What some commentators have discounted -- but what I think is significant -- is that the Colgan crew at BUF was yakking away about irrelevant matters during the "sterile" period. That is, the period when the airplane is below 10,000 feet, and cockpit conversation is prohibited other than that pertaining to the operation of the airplane. (Checklists, comments as to the operation of the flight, and the like.) This is what may well have caused the crew to miss the fact that the airspeed was getting slower and slower, which finally led to the stall. (Just my own hypothesis here -- nothing official.)

So -- are regional airline pilots more prone than others to foolish actions that lead to accidents? Well, I don't think so, necessarily. See the AS 261 comments that I made earlier.

And -- the reason that the "sterile cockpit" rule (no extraneous conversation below 10,000 feet) was initiated, back in the 1970s, was due to findings from the investigation of an Eastern Airlines accident at Charlotte, NC, in which it was discovered that the cockpit crew was blabbing away, at low altitude, about topics totally unrelated to the operation of the airplane, and not paying attention to the tasks at hand. At the time, Eastern Airlines was the fourth-largest US airline. Hardly a small "regional."

Hope this all helps.

Cheers.

Steve