I am booking a flight between Houston and Shreveport and I hate the idea of having to fly on a Colgan Air operated plane (a Saab turboprop). It is the only
flight available for my time line. Should I drive the 4.5 hours instead? For anyone who doesn't remember, Colgan Air is the sweatshop responsible for the
Buffalo crash. Thoughts appreciated.
 |
 |
0 Kudos
Colgan Air and Saab 340
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 UndueBurden |
Colgan Air and Saab 340 |
Lead | |
|
Posts: 71 (07/10/09 11:10:02) |
|
||
|
Portastorm |
|||
|
Posts: 82 (07/10/09 12:56:52) |
There were a lot of very disturbing facts that arose about Colgan in light of the Buffalo crash. That would really concern me. At the same time, I have driven
those roads in east Texas many times and I still think you're much safer on a Colgan Saab turboprop!
|
||
|
OneAnt |
|||
|
Posts: 860 (07/10/09 14:55:04) |
It wasn't the Saab that was the problem. It was the incompetent, poorly-trained folks in the drivers seats. That's where the scrutiny is heavily
focused right now when it comes to Colgan air--and ccommuter lines in general--so I think you're in good hands.
You could also go with American, although you'll have to route through DFW. If you're flying IAH, you can get flights with an ERJ and an MD80 (some are MD80 and AT7s--which is a prop job). If you're out of HOU, one's an ERJ and the other is an AT7. With those options, I'd take Colgan. |
||
|
Capt Tom Bunn MSW LCSW |
|||
|
Posts: 2648 (07/10/09 16:19:30) |
Thousands of people, according to research, died when they switched from flying after 9/11 to driving. Switching to avoid Colgan is the same thing.
The SAAB is a great plane with a great safety record. Go for it. |
||
|
Capn Steve |
|||
|
Posts: 603 (07/10/09 17:35:19) |
For the record, the BUF Colgan accident was a DeHavilland of Canada DHC-8-400, not a Saab 340. (I have had a couple of rides in the latter, albeit on Mesaba
Airlines, not Colgan.)
That may not even be relevant. It appears (although the NTSB accident report is probably at least several months from being released) that there were some training deficiencies related to the BUF accident. One theory (highly plausible to me) is that the stick-pusher deployed when a stall occurred, and since the Captain had never seen this, he didn't know how to correctly interpret it, and subsequently mishandled the situation, attempting to pull the nose back up, which in this case would have been exactly the WRONG thing to do. I recently retired from American Airlines, and flew the MD-80 off and on for a number of years. In fact, it was the last airplane I flew there. It has a stick pusher, and that was demonstrated to us during training. When it deploys, the control yoke is literally yanked right out of your hand, and it is difficult, if not impossible, to physically override it. (It can, however, be canceled with the push of a button.) Ultimately, though, the situation should never be allowed to deteriorate to the point where the stick pusher will deploy. Although some have downplayed the fact that the crew was apparently yakking away about non-operational things during the sterile cockpit period (below 10,000 feet), I can't help but think that this may have contributed to their apparently not noticing the fact that the airspeed had decreased to the point of stalling. Which, starting with the first day of ground school in any training program, is emphasized to be a very big no-no. (Similar in seriousness to running out of fuel. You just Don't Do That.) As far as regional lines in general go -- not all are the same. Some of my former F/Os had come to AA from American Eagle, and reported that the training there (Eagle) is very stringent. Some even said it was harder to get through than AA's. There were reports of furloughed AA pilots who were "flowing back" to Eagle (per the 1997 contractual agreement pertaining to regional jet flying) having a difficult time successfully completing training. Having said all this, I'd still concur with others that flying on Colgan is much preferable to driving. Cheers. Steve |
||
|
OneAnt |
|||
|
Posts: 861 (07/10/09 17:45:02) |
"...Although some have downplayed the fact that the crew was apparently yakking away about non-operational things during the sterile cockpit
period (below 10,000 feet), I can't help but think that this may have contributed to their apparently not noticing the fact that the airspeed had decreased
to the point of stalling..."
I mentioned this on FlyerTalk after the accident, and the resident pilots basically told me I was an idiot because everyone does it. IMO, if it wasn't potentially an issue, the rule wouldn't exist. Maybe it's one of those rules--like personal web browsing at some companies--that they only really enforce when it's an egregious violation. I have no idea. |
||
|
Capt Tom Bunn MSW LCSW |
Mind-boggling | ||
|
Posts: 2652 (07/11/09 02:32:41) |
Cap'n Steve and I have discussed this. I've also talked about it with other pilots. It is mind-boggling to even imagine a pilot flying slow enough to
get the stall warning, the warning that goes off a few knows above stall speed. Starting there - which is already pretty far beyond belief - how does one then
imagine a pilot who does not respond to the stall warning by pushing up the power?
Assuming a pilot is so outside the realm of imagination that he would not respond by pushing up the power, then I figure we are dealing with a character about which anything could be imagined. So who knows what he would do? Perhaps when the stick shaker goes off he would respond by picking his nose or poking a pencil in his eye. See, what I'm saying is, when you have a person who is so out of it that he flies too slow and doesn't respond to the stall warning, all bets are off. We have to figure he wasn't the brightest; his previous job was stock clerk for Publix supermarket. Sullenberger's was flying fighters in the Navy. That has to tell you something. Next, he had been on the plane five five weeks. Next, he was subject to ruinous duty days, and research shows that a person constantly awake for sixteen hours is impaired mentally equal to the impairment of the blood-alcohol level at which one is legally not allowed to drive. Yet, being up for sixteen hours at a regional airline is when you still have hours to go. That, too, could explain some of this unexplainable stuff. But when you have not had actual hand-on training where you did the response to the stick-pusher, you really don't know what the pilot is going to do in real life when he runs into it with only a classroom briefing. Put it all together and you explain the crash, yet still find it mind-boggling. Then, about the cockpit conversation. It DID play a factor here. You might recall one of Malcolm Gladwell's books about how the mind is "primed". The captain responded to the stick pusher by thinking it was tail icing. He and the copilot were talking about how icing frightened them. That "primed" him to respond inappropriately. That is one reason for no idle talk. The other reason is it keep a person from paying attention to what needs to be paid attention to. Remember the driving accidents when someone is on a cellphone? Same thing. The pilots who, on these forums, say it is no big deal and everyone does it belong at Publix, not in the cockpit. And that is a problem. With the current crop of pilots going into the airline business, some don't have the talent or the discipline of those who went through military training and flew fighters. In far too many cases you have the talent and discipline of a stock clerk - not as the exception - but as the standard. And those are the guys who comfort themselves, if not pride themselves, about their lack of professional standards by saying everyone does it.
Last Edited By: Capt Tom Bunn MSW LCSW
07/11/09 02:41:09.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
|
Note from Capt. Tom I know everyone worries about weather, but pilots really do not worry about it. We simply - instead of worrying about it - completely prepare for it. Before going to the plane, we review the weather at the destination. If it is not 100% sure to be within legal limits when we arrive at the destination, we must specify an alternate airport in our planning documents, and load on plenty of fuel for going to the destination airport, and then if need be, diverting to the alternate airport. The legal limits are conservative. Even when weather is slightly outside the legal limits, any airline pilot could still land safely. You can rely on the captain never to land when the weather is not legal, and legality limits are reached prior to safety limits. If you are still anxious, call me and we can talk it over. I'm at 877 332-7359 from 10 AM until 7 PM Eastern time. For effective help, even if you are flying in a day or two, sign up now at www.fearofflying.com/fasttrack and call me when you finish Clip 9 so I can make sure you are all set. |
|
Using Weather Information If you enter your ZIP Code or City at the top of the weather presentation, it will give you weather for your area. Or, you can enter your destination ZIP Code or City.
Click on the "LOCAL RADAR" button to see whether or not there are thunder- Turbulence, though it may cause anxiety, does not mean anything is wrong. Turbulence does not mean danger. The plane can handle far more turbulence than Mother Nature can dish out. Though flying in turbulence is safe, it doesn't feel safe. And here is where the SOAR programs come in. We can help you feel as safe when you fly as you actually are. You can see these programs at www.fearofflying.com/store. |
