When pilots make less than truck drivers...

[cameraman]

So, let's see what the score is. Deregulate the airlines. Disaster. Deregulate the banks. Disaster.

Note to self: remember to keep reminding anyone who will listen that the "free enterprise as a religion" crowd exists to enable crooks to game the system. :shakehead

You are advocating government regulation:eek::eek::eek:

[trish]

This account certainly has the ring of truth to it. Punching in the wrong NAV or COM frequency is one of the top incident causes. For the F/O not to report the change of frequency to the pilot upon his return was a pretty big omission. Sounds like they will eventually get it sorted out. Didn't help that NWA has a history of bad actors.

oc

Here's (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091216/ap_on_bi_ge/us_northwest_flight_overflown) another account.

[Sean Malone]

Why shouldn't truck drivers make more money than pilots? I'd choose flying a jumbo on an 8 hour route any day rather than drive a tractor trailer through Washington DC rush hour. *ducks*

heck, I'll set autopilot once in the air in my flight sim and leave the computer just to come back in time to land it. :)

[SteveH]

chicagotribune.com
Are pilots flying beyond their limits?
Long shifts and multiple flights can take their toll, a pilot for a regional airline says. In recent years, fatigue has been cited as a likely factor in four crashes.
By Dan Weikel

January 17, 2010

Halfway through his 13-hour shift, the Pinnacle Airlines pilot was already tired. After landing in Indianapolis, he headed to the terminal to catch a quick nap during a three-hour layover.

Once there, he discovered that the waiting areas were jammed with passengers and there was no lounge for airline crews. So the pilot found a remote corner of the building and curled up on the floor, using his black uniform jacket as a pillow.




More here (http://www.chicagotribune.com/travel/la-fi-cover17-2010jan17,0,4570068.story)

[oddlycalm]

More here (http://www.chicagotribune.com/travel/la-fi-cover17-2010jan17,0,4570068.story)


But sleep experts say that the federal limits fail to take into account the effects of flight delays, jet lag, increased workload, night flights and multiple flights during a shift. Pilots also work irregular hours -- sometimes starting in the middle of the night -- which can disrupt the body's natural sleep cycle.

We know a lot more about sleep and it's effects than we did even a decade ago, yet the industry is still operating under rest rules have not changed since the 1940s. That was back when smoking cigarettes was considered healthy and there were no laws about open containers while driving. :gomer:

Another thing we know in 2010 is that landing cycles are what determine the age of an airframe and the fatigue level of a pilot, yet aircraft maintenance is still mandated by hours of or service and pilot hours are the same for those on a long haul international route as those short hopping regionally. Duh...:shakehead

[SteveH]

This might be interesting

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/flyingcheap/

Flying Cheap: On air and online February 9, 2010 at 9:00pm


Program Description
One year after the deadly airline crash of Continental 3407 in Buffalo, NY, FRONTLINE investigates the accident and discovers a dramatically changed airline industry, where regional carriers now account for half of the nation's daily departures. The rise of the regionals and arrival of low-cost carriers have been a huge boon to consumers, and the industry insists that the skies remain safe. But many insiders are worried that now, 30 years after airline deregulation, the aviation system is being stretched beyond its capacity to deliver service that is both cheap and safe.

[oddlycalm]

This might be interesting

Flying Cheap: On air and online February 9, 2010 at 9:00pm

Thanks for posting this Steve. Frontline is always excellent in a way only non-commercial media can be. They have been out front, often by years, on everything from the threat of Al Qaeda to the Wall Street meltdown. It's a shame more people don't watch it. No sensationalism, sleazy "gotcha" ambushes or faked re-enactments, only serious well researched information. :thumbup:

oc

[Napoleon]

I'll second that Frontline does an excellent job on it's stories. If for no other reason not having to take up nearly 1/3 or your time with commercials means you can address the subject more in depth.

[Indy]

Ain't them frontline shows on that commie PBR station?!?! :gomer::gomer::gomer:

[oddlycalm]

Ain't them frontline shows on that commie PBR station?!?! :gomer::gomer::gomer:
Damn skippy, nothing like a nice cold PBR served in a tin bucket full of ice...:gomer:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_QbuHm4ZaZkQ/StvKKx-6WBI/AAAAAAAAQeg/1R0dIdOCmfg/s400/Lyd_WGC_101709web_216.jpg

[Ankf00]

Another thing we know in 2010 is that landing cycles are what determine the age of an airframe and the fatigue level of a pilot, yet aircraft maintenance is still mandated by hours of or service

wut?! :eek:

[Napoleon]

This might be interesting

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/flyingcheap/

Flying Cheap: On air and online February 9, 2010 at 9:00pm

Just a reminder.

[TKGAngel]

More info from the Buffalo News on the Frontline presentation (kinda spoilery)

http://www.buffalonews.com/cityregion/story/950147.html

[oddlycalm]

Good presentation of the facts by someone qualified to understand them. :thumbup:

The crux of the Colgan issue is that as they grew they became subject to the more stringent Part 141 rules regarding flight training and check rides. They never lived up to the tighter rules and essentially continued to operate as they did under Part 61. The FAA didn't enforce their own rules. The regional FAA administrator had a friendly relationship with Colgan management and he backed his investigators off in a blunt manner. Nothing has changed in the past after accidents and there is no reason to think this time will be different.

The broader issue is the fact that we now have a two tier industry where the majors have shifted their less profitable routes to contractors with incentives that only encourage on-time performance rather than safety. Higher risk to fly on regionals, etc. No surprises there.

Most of these same issues were raised after the Comair Flight 3272 crash in 1997 and not a thing has changed. The FAA is still not doing sufficient enforcement and the commuters are still flying into known icing conditions in equipment that isn't fully capable of doing so, though this time the stall was 100% recoverable. For that matter any rookie pilot should always go stick forward in a stall. :shakehead The fact they didn't says it all.

oc

[SteveH]

Got it on the DVR but haven't watched it yet. My son said it was very good. He's a captain on a regional.

[BZSetshot]

Did this come from the Frontline program?

SPIN METER: Regional air safety gains questioned (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100211/ap_on_bi_ge/us_faa_airline_safety)


Colgan, for example, had a safety program on paper before the accident, but hadn't implemented it, investigators said. After the accident, the airline promised to put a program in place by July. A year later, Colgan has made substantial progress but is still not at the point where it is collecting data, they said.

"What about all of the other the regional carriers? Do we have to wait for them to have an accident and to appear here to get them to have a (data-gathering) program?" NTSB Chairman Deborah Hersman asked.

"It does seem to be a motivator," replied Cox.

:eek: :shakehead

[oddlycalm]

Did this come from the Frontline program?
Not directly, but it's a target rich environment. All the talk about new regulation and safety data logging is a smoke screen for the benefit of the media. The FAA has more than sufficient regulatory authority to ground bad operators, just not the permission to do it from the politicians.

The Frontline story dealt with everything from the specifics of the Colgan incident to the broader industry issues and trends.
Flying Cheap (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/flyingcheap/view/?utm_campaign=viewpage&utm_medium=grid&utm_source=grid)

oc

[oddlycalm]

On a related topic (and to avoid starting a new thread), while processing a bunch of paperwork to keep my 90yr old father's benefits flowing I came across his separation notice which led to some interesting (to me at least) information regarding pilot training during the WWII era.

Even with the urgency of war in two theaters in 1942 his training lasted 90 weeks total. It was mid-1944 before he deployed to a bombing squadron VB-102 in the Pacific.

11 weeks Iowa City - pre-flight
19 weeks NAS Hollywood, FL - basic flight
26 weeks NAS Banana River, FL - complex single & multi-engine (Twin Beech)
14 weeks NAS Dallas, TX (Hensley Field) PV1 Ventura
20 weeks NAS Pensacola, FL - PB4Y-2 & sea plane

Even if they only did one hop a day they logged quite a few hours in 79 weeks of actual flying. There was more training when they actually deployed.

This is why the ex-military pilots at the major airlines are as good as they are. The idiots and wimps were washed out long before they made it through training and those that made the cut could be counted on the do the job. Even though surviving the Dilbert Dunker might not seem like it would have much relationship to flying a plane full of passengers it weeds out those that will panic, get vertigo or wet themselves in a disorienting situation.

oc

[SteveH]

that's very cool :thumbup:

I assume he flew commercial following the service, which one?

[oddlycalm]

that's very cool :thumbup:

I assume he flew commercial following the service, which one?
Nope, the airlines were small back then and there were literally tens of thousands of pilots with nothing to do looking for a job. His active duty ended in late 1946 and he went back to engineering.

He took a discharge from the reserves in 1959 because they wanted him to transfer into flying boats. The flying boats were stone slow, handled like trucks and had a negative single engine climb rate so he bailed.

During his deployment he flew the PB4Y-2 Privateer, the Navy version of B24 Liberator with VB-102 bomber group. After the war was over he'd been flying the PV2 Harpoon patrol bomber with VB-128 patrol bomber group on anti-submarine duty out of Okinawa then later stateside with the reserves. It was a nice handling smaller twin with 4000hp. Here's one at Oshkosh with the bay doors open.

http://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/AirShows/Oshkosh2002/Samplers/Ww2/Pv2BombBaysOpen.jpg

[SteveH]

nice looking plane

[emjaya]

On a related topic (and to avoid starting a new thread), while processing a bunch of paperwork to keep my 90yr old father's benefits flowing I came across his separation notice which led to some interesting (to me at least) information regarding pilot training during the WWII era.

Even with the urgency of war in two theaters in 1942 his training lasted 90 weeks total. It was mid-1944 before he deployed to a bombing squadron VB-102 in the Pacific.

11 weeks Iowa City - pre-flight
19 weeks NAS Hollywood, FL - basic flight
26 weeks NAS Banana River, FL - complex single & multi-engine (Twin Beech)
14 weeks NAS Dallas, TX (Hensley Field) PV1 Ventura
20 weeks NAS Pensacola, FL - PB4Y-2 & sea plane

Even if they only did one hop a day they logged quite a few hours in 79 weeks of actual flying. There was more training when they actually deployed.

This is why the ex-military pilots at the major airlines are as good as they are. The idiots and wimps were washed out long before they made it through training and those that made the cut could be counted on the do the job. Even though surviving the Dilbert Dunker might not seem like it would have much relationship to flying a plane full of passengers it weeds out those that will panic, get vertigo or wet themselves in a disorienting situation.

oc

The British Commonwealth Air Training Plan training took about six months, I believe.

[Elmo T]

and had a negative single engine climb rate so he bailed.



Obviously a naval aviator - the Navy always prefers two good engines. ;)

:thumbup::thumbup: for his service to our country.

[G.]

Even with the urgency of war in two theaters in 1942 his training lasted 90 weeks total.


That was back when the first few months of training consisted of trying to convince the recruits that aeroplanes aren't made of witchcraft. :p

TMIMITW has an interesting father. Who knew?

cool stuff. :thumbup:

[oddlycalm]

The British Commonwealth Air Training Plan training took about six months, I believe.
Something along the lines of ~6 months wouldn't have surprised me in wartime, which is why 90 weeks really grabbed my attention. The process during WWII is very similar to the process today.

Since my dad had never spoken about any of this, and all I had was his separation notice to work with, I found some stories posted online from guys that had been through these same training stops and was able to confirm the time spent showing on his separation notice were consistent with their experiences. He was more interested in talking about flying and after that the aircraft. From the experiences I found online the training process wasn't the stuff of fond memories. Tent camps, tight rations and instructors that weren't much more experienced than the trainees isn't close to hand to hand combat but it's not the stuff of fond memories either.

oc

[oddlycalm]

That was back when the first few months of training consisted of trying to convince the recruits that aeroplanes aren't made of witchcraft. :p Good catch G., that explains why the Navy took over several universities to conduct large scale deprogramming. :)

I was amused to discover that the Iowa Pre-Flight Seahawks (WTF?) had decent success in 1942-1944 playing the usual Big 10 schedule. They lost to Ohio State in 1942 but beat them in 1943 only losing one game to Notre Dame. In 1944 they beat all but Michigan. Must have seemed :gomer:
Iowa Pre-Flight Seahawk football (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_Pre-Flight_Seahawks_football)

oc

[oddlycalm]

nice looking plane
Yeah, kinda like a Twin Beech on steroids with 4000hp, machine guns and the ever popular bombs/torpedo option. It replaced the Lockheed PV1 Ventura (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Ventura) right at the end of the war so only 470 were produced of which 43 are said to survive. My dad can't remember what he had for breakfast these days, but he can remember details about his military service and it seems to make him happy to discuss it while he still can. He really liked the PV2.

Probably the airframe's bigger fame was as one of the first executive aircraft. Dee Howard in San Antonio bought the tooling and jigs from Lockheed and made the Howard 350 executive plane and the pressurized Howard 500 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_500). Since Lockheed designed the airframe to be pressurized from the start it wasn't a big challenge for Howard to produce them that way. The bomb/torpedo bay became a baggage hold and the 500 could carry 19 passengers 2600mi at a cruise speed of 350mph and up above the weather at 30,000ft.

I know realize (decades later) that many of the planes I thought of as a "Twin Beech" were actually Twin Lockheeds produced by Howard. :gomer: :o

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/m.zoeller/DFFLTS/N500HP%20in%20flight.jpg

[cameraman]

They only made 17 Howard 500s and only one is still flying.

The other survivors look like this one:

http://www.airport-data.com/images/aircraft/small/042/042624.jpg

It is one of my favorite planes.

[oddlycalm]

They only made 17 Howard 500s and only one is still flying.

It is one of my favorite planes.
Yep, only one left flying but it's a real jewel.
Howard 500 - Phillippi Equipment (http://howard500.com/)


Here's a link to a page with pics of some Howard 500's, 350's and tri-gear 250's as well as other misc. Lockheed twins (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/m.zoeller/HowardPix.htm)

Here's a link to a rather somber pic of a Lodestar digging in a wing tip in the instant before a wreck.
This is gonna hurt (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/m.zoeller/DFFLTS/Loadstar%20Crashes.jpg)

oc