Bombardier 400

Status
Not open for further replies.
I've been on the jumpseat in RJs and seen the fatigue from multiple stand up overnights, and poor sleep patterns that result. I've seen the cockpit, and what it lacks...I KNOW that you're treated poorly, trained on a shoe string and worked hard. I contend that those things along make regionals less safe.

I cited the inexperience and fatigue as causal in the Colgan crash.

And your last post just supported everything I am saying about fatigue and equipment. Inexperience? Statistically true, despite the F-16 (Guard baby) pilot example you cite....

I didn't question your manhood or professionalism...but clearly I got under your skin and for that I apologize, it wasn't my intent...I have flown over 800,000 miles as a paying passenger (in addition to being a pilot) and most of that has been on commuter planes. I am grateful for the job those guys do, and for the jumpseat, to get me where I need to go. As I said above, I am still better off flying than driving myself...
 
Originally Posted By: Astro14
I've been on the jumpseat in RJs and seen the fatigue from multiple stand up overnights, and poor sleep patterns that result. I've seen the cockpit, and what it lacks...I KNOW that you're treated poorly, trained on a shoe string and worked hard. I contend that those things along make regionals less safe.

I cited the inexperience and fatigue as causal in the Colgan crash.

And your last post just supported everything I am saying about fatigue and equipment. Inexperience? Statistically true, despite the F-16 (Guard baby) pilot example you cite....

I didn't question your manhood or professionalism...but clearly I got under your skin and for that I apologize, it wasn't my intent...I have flown over 800,000 miles as a paying passenger (in addition to being a pilot) and most of that has been on commuter planes. I am grateful for the job those guys do, and for the jumpseat, to get me where I need to go. As I said above, I am still better off flying than driving myself...


No need for an apology. Until Mainline takes back scope and bigger RJ's don't end up at regionals, nothing will change. Delta, United, (insert name) will just keep moving airplanes from one regional, to another until they get the cost they want. I truly don't believe this new ATP rule will change much. Management will cry to congress about how they don't have the pilots, rules will get bend so they can find someone to fill in the seat. Mainline will not have a problem staffing, however regionals will have to merge to survive. Things will be much easier if mainline will just staple all the regionals to their list. It will will solve all kinds of problem, but that's wishful thinking. I wish it was like the old days when 737's are flying on a 30 minutes flight, not a E-170 which is a mainline airplanes doing these runs for 1/2 the pay.
 
Originally Posted By: Silver02ex
Originally Posted By: Astro14
And it was an Air Florida DC-9, winter of 1982...


I was talking about flight 90, A 737

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Florida_Flight_90


Originally Posted By: Silver02ex
Originally Posted By: Astro14
And it was an Air Florida DC-9, winter of 1982...


I was talking about flight 90, A 737

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Florida_Flight_90


You're right...was rowing by that spot a few months later while in college...so, I remember the date/event quite well...but I didn't remember the airframe...it was an iced EPR probe and insufficient thrust that caused the problem...

There is hope. Delta's contract includes better scope, and the purchase of the Air Tran 717s from SWA will create hiring there. UAL new TA includes considerable scope, and will require hiring, and the TA includes pay scale for 90 - 110 seat jets under the mainline...
 
This is a question for all 3 professional pilots on this thread...

When you are flying jump seat do you ever observe the pilots flying the aircraft make a critical error, poor judgment or failure to follow protocol / procedure and "politely offer your bit of advice / or make a suggestions" without trying to be a back-seat driver and offend the guys up front ???

What did you see ?

Off Topic: I would love to a commercial pilot.
 
Originally Posted By: LT4 Vette
This is a question for all 3 professional pilots on this thread...

When you are flying jump seat do you ever observe the pilots flying the aircraft make a critical error, poor judgment or failure to follow protocol / procedure and "politely offer your bit of advice / or make a suggestions" without trying to be a back-seat driver and offend the guys up front ???

What did you see ?

Off Topic: I would love to a commercial pilot.




In 6 years I only said something once. It was on a Southwest flight. They were cleared to 36,000 however they dialed in 36,200 on the altitude preselect. I waited about a minute before I said something. I've never seen any crew do anything unsafe that would make me worried. Most crew will remind me that since I'm a additional crew member, I should speak up if I see an issue, I would expect the same in return I they were riding with us.
 
For many markets, it's RJs or nothing.
Unless we fly Airtran, almost every flight we take from DAY begins with an RJ leg to a hub.
Whether you get the Canadian version or the South American one will depend upon which carrier you fly with.
Delta does have some mainline to ATL, but some RJ flights as well.
This is mostly true for CVG now too.
I think we are discussing relative accident rates.
In relative terms, RJ flying today is safer than mainline flying was forty years ago.
Sure, the equipment is better, but so are the training and the procedures.
How much of today's oustanding safety performance by scheduled U.S. carriers, including regionals, is built upon the lessons of the accidents of the past?
Just as an example, you can bet that no crew will ever again hold an A330 in a stall while the aircraft does its best impression of a rock.
 
I don't ride the jumpseat that often as I live in the same base I fly out of. That said, I have not seen any major errors or problems on the flight deck. Every pilot I have worked with or watched flying his aircraft has been very professional and safe.

Fatique is the greatest threat to any passenger operation whether it be trains, ships, planes, or busses. Airlines often schedule trips that might start out late on day one, followed by an early morning start on the East Coast on day 2, fly to the west coast to overnight, followed by a Red-eye home on day 3. Yes, you get 3 days of flying in, but little "adequate" rest.

By the FAA regulations, we are always afforded "legal rest", but most pilots will tell you it's difficult to sleep well in a hotel that has people coming and going, doors slamming, and alarms going off at all hours of the day. I don't get a great nights sleep until I am home for a second night. It's the nature of the beast...often I will wake up in the middle of the night and not remember where I am.

A trip to Paris might mean leaving at 3 pm on Monday, fly through the night (9 hrs.) landing in Paris at 6 am (their time), go to the hotel, get 2 hours of sleep (if you sleep longer than that, you will never sleep properly before the flight home) - get up and walk around the city like a zombie until 6 or 7 pm, eat, and go to bed. Wake up at 7 am (1 am Minneapolis time) to get showered, dressed, check-out, ride to the airport, go through security, go to flight operations to review trip planning, go to airplane, and fly 9+ hours home to MSP, landing at about 1 pm (7 pm Paris time), drive home without falling asleep. (That trip "pays" about 17 hrs. of flight time - we usually average 80+ hours per month, so I would need to fly that trip 5 times to get my monthly hours completed.)

In that 3 days of flying, I might get 7 hours of "good sleep". Many times you go to bed in Paris at 8 pm (their time) only to wake up a few hours later, ready to go (not so fast- flight doesn't leave for another 12 hours). Once you do get back home, you have to rest well because you have do it all over again the next day - whew! I'm tired just thinking about it!

Hope that information helps...
 
Last edited:
We don't deal with time zone change like 757guy but, What we get is this:

Day 1 (6 am start)... 5-6 flights

reduce rest of 8 hrs (which turns to 5 hrs of sleep)

Day 2 (6 am start)... 5-6 flights

17 hrs layover

Day 3.... Start late on the 3 day... So we end up sleeping in this day and start work late, which is the opposite of the first 2day. We do 2 flight this day, so we get done late. Sounds like a real easy day right? Reduce rest of 8-9 hrs. (about 5 hrs of sleep)

Day 4..... ( early start 6AM) follow by 5-6 flights... Toss a commute home and you're body and mind is so messed up.

Total of 25-30 hrs of flying with about 20 flights in 4 days. The FAA don't see this as a problem because they see the 17 hrs of layover and say "well, you had plenty of rest." There's other consideration too like delay, de-ice, broken planes, plane swaps, long break between flight (this makes me even more tired). ATC delays, runway issues. The list goes on and on.

The real junior guys will get this kind of schedule, and get about 2-3 days off between trips.

We have to get "comp rest" which is rest (about 10-12 hrs) makes up for the lack of rest the night before (It has to start within 24 hrs of when we start the "reduce rest"). The example I put up, the comp rest is on the 17 hrs layover and the night the trip ends. The problem is even when we don't cross the time zone the FAA and company thinks we can turn on a off the time we go to sleep and it only takes less than a day to adjust for it.

What we also get is "Continuous Duty Overnight" Think of it as flying the last flight into a small town and the first flight out. We start our trip at 9-10 PM and go to the hotel for about 3-4 hrs and wake up at 4-5AM and fly back to base. We get our rest from about 6 am to about 9pm. We'll do about 3-4 of these in a row a week. Usually only the regional guys will see these. Some pilots like them because they get to be home all day during the day or do other stuff. Some flight attendant likes them because they hav a day job (I don't know how they do it).

If you ever fly out of a small town with RJ's and the morning flight is canceled because the crew "timed out" you might be thinking. How can they "Time out" and have to go back to the hotel to get rest, when the day just started. It's because just because they were at the hotel and got some rest in, it's still not enough between each duty period.
 
Last edited:
32.gif
we flew from Sydney to LA (and Sf to Sydney).

16 hours was not much fun as a passenger, but it left me wondering what's the schedule of those flying it.

We certainly didn't pick up any relief crew mid Pacific.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
32.gif
we flew from Sydney to LA (and Sf to Sydney).

16 hours was not much fun as a passenger, but it left me wondering what's the schedule of those flying it.

We certainly didn't pick up any relief crew mid Pacific.


Your Flight Crew and the Relief Crew was on board with you.

A 16 hour flight would require 2 full crews which swapped out mid-way across the Pacific. Maximum flight time for any pilot is 8 hours, per 24 hour time period.

Across the Atlantic we have one extra Pilot and we rotate through over the 9 hour flight, keeping everyone under 8 hours.

Hope that helps...
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Blaze
I was curoius if anyone here thought this was normal??... flew on one last Sunday from Spokane to Portland. Sat next to the right wing (window seat). Upon start up and for the first few minutes the floorboards had a vibration to the point the bottoms on my feet went numb. The vibration seemed to be in the entire area next to the wing. The vibration soon dissappeared when he taxied for the runway. I fly maybe once every five yrs so I wouldnt have a clue what is normal. Thoughts?


I flew this airplane for nearly 5 years. The anti noise vibration system (ANVS) uses the same technology from submarines to make it quieter inside. There is a sophisticated computer system, microphones, and speakers that put out sound that is exactly opposite of the propeller noise. Same concept as noise cancelling headsets.

While the props are feathered (rotating slowly, before they are brought up to speed) the ANVS is not active, and only becomes active when the props speed up to operating speed. Usually on takeoff the ANVS is inoperative, then when the pilots change from takeoff prop speed to climb or cruise, the ANVS cuts on.

Works very well, and is most noticeable near the props. The quietest ride can be had in the rear of the aircraft, with or without the ANVS.
 
Last edited:
Astro, check your information:

Originally Posted By: Astro14
The flying public demanded cheaper, so, as you say, the RJs, and turbo props, are the cheaper, outsourced substitution.


Regional airlines ARE operated less expensively. While I agree with your position here, in part, it makes no sense to use a 747 to fly 150 miles with 22 passengers. FYI, the Q400 burns less than 2/3 of the fuel that a 50 seat RJ does, and carries 1.5x as many passengers.

Originally Posted By: Astro14

They don't have the EGPWS (enhanced ground proximity warning system), the PWS (predictive windshear radar, the Honeywell -4B), dual FMCs (in many cases), low visibility capability, including autoland, deicing on leading edges of the wing...


Q400 EGPWS: Yes. FMC? How about Dual FMS? Check. Low vis capability? Some do, some don't. The Q400s used by Horizon have the HUD system. Until 3407 occurred, we were going to get them also.

FYI all air carriers are required to have deicing on the airframe, and the Q400 does, in fact have it.

Autoland is overrated IMO but our Qs did not have it, nor did we have wind shear radar. We did have a wind direction indicator and there are other indicators to look for without using a black box to tell you that the wind was shifting.


Originally Posted By: Astro14

And the most important piece of safety equipment, the highly trained and experienced pilot. You want Sully? You want a former Navy fighter pilot with 30 years of flying, 10,000+ hours, combat experience and a degree in astrophysics? You'll find him at United, or Delta, or American.


Not all airline pilots come from the military. Just where do you think all the rest of those really experienced guys got their experience? Gee, regional airlines. You have to start somewhere, and the FAA's standards for regional pilots is the same as for pilots at major airlines.


Originally Posted By: Astro14

On the RJs, you're often getting a kid who lives with their mom, has a few hundred hours of experience, and works a second job at Starbucks to make ends meet...

Don't believe me? Read up on the crash of Continental 3407 in Buffalo...a Q400 that was flown into icing in error (it's not certified for icing)

You are wrong. The Q400 is certified for flight in icing conditions.

Originally Posted By: Astro14
by an inexperienced and fatigued crew, that reacted the wrong way to the conditions and responded incorrectly to warnings, causing the crash...safer than our highways? Sure, but safe as the majors? Not even close....


Pure numbers show that flying on a US air carrier is safer than driving on the roads in the US. In this case, statistics don't lie.

Fatigue was the cause of this accident. I spoke to the entire flight crew that day. I flew to Buffalo on the same route, through icing conditions, a couple hours before they did. You can PM me if you need more details, but most of your posts are way off.
 
Pardon me....some of your posts are way off. I've now read the rest of the thread and edit time has expired.
 
Originally Posted By: Kuato
Pardon me....some of your posts are way off. I've now read the rest of the thread and edit time has expired.


The captain of 3407 elected to fly in icing. When the airplane stalled, he, as pilot flying, pulled BACK on the yoke and did not increase power....he lost control and everyone on his ariplane died as a result.

Pilot error: judgement, stayed in icing instead of changing altitudes. Pilot error: incorrect application of controls.

The accident report that I read (aviation week) called the Q400 icing certification into question....did the Q pass certification? I guess that it did, but it sure wasn't clean...tailplane stall being one issue...

The rest of my posts that you claim are in error? Just relating what I've seen on the jumpseat of RJs.

It's first hand information.

After the retraction above, I have to ask: do you always respond by telling people that they're completely wrong before reading their entire set of posts?
 
Last edited:
I have to say that although you claim to have ridden in the jumpseat, you still have some learning to do when it comes to airline operations, one example being your continued belaboring of the Captain's decision to fly in icing. "Where the ice is" is NOT something that's possible to know with certainty. "Where the ice might be" is. There are measures taken when encountering icing.

If you had read the NTSB report you would have known that the aircraft was on the approach to Buffalo. You are correct that changing altitudes is a correct way to avoid icing situations; however when you are less than 3 minutes from touchdown that is not a valid option.

In my almost 5 years flying the Q in the northeastern US, not once did I doubt the ability or efficacy of the deicing or anti-icing systems. Some journalist can call the certification into question as much as they'd like, that doesn't make it invalid. I am wondering why you continue to call this a problem when you have someone who commanded the aircraft giving you first hand information.

Rather than escalate this any further, I'll apologize that the edit time was not sufficient for me to make the 'retraction' without having to make another post, and that I did not read your posts in their entirety prior to posting. But there were just too many things that were incorrect in your earliest posts that demanded discussion.

In the future, would you prefer I didn't offer that sort of frank apology, or just stick with a wholesale criticism of everything said? Because those were my choices.
 
Last edited:
Folks - I hope you don't mind if Kuato and I take this conversation forward via PM. He's an aviation professional, as I am, and we clearly have a couple of issues to discuss, but the point is this: we're down into the technical details that are really lost on the general public and might give a false impression.

I fly on RJs (and the Q-400) all the time. I have over 800,000 miles on airlines as a passenger. I am far, far safer doing that than driving and I appreciate the professionalism and hard work of those flying me where I need to go.
 
Originally Posted By: Astro14


The captain of 3407 elected to fly in icing. When the airplane stalled, he, as pilot flying, pulled BACK on the yoke and did not increase power....he lost control and


Flying in icing that day doesn't concern me. It's what the CA and FO did that makes me worried. We all know both crew were tired (there's no argument there). Pinnacle Airlines is the parent of Colgan airlines. If the way stall recovery is anything like the way Pinnacle was teaching it (at the time) it was a huge mistake. The CA probably did what he was taught. In our stall recovery (based on our old profiles) it calls for minimal loss of altitude. Once we got the shaker, we would hold the pitch attitude and ride the shaker until the engine spool up and fly out of it, which is the complete opposite of what we were taught as a student pilot. About 6 months after the accident, Pinnacle changed their profiles on stall profiles.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top