Plane Answers: NTSB glosses over fatigue in the Colgan crash

Click on a label to read posts from that part of the world.

Back to original post

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

2-04-2010 @ 5:09PM

zf said...

Excellent post Kent! I completely agree, the NTSB has really let the traveling public down. I agree with everything you say except for this statement.

"To appease the industry, the FAA may have to agree to a slight increase in flight time limits-the number of hours a pilot is allowed to be in the air in a day-currently 8 hours for a two-pilot crew-to secure improvements to the current 16 hour duty day for pilots".

There should be no "appeasing" the industry, the 8 hour rule is reasonable and should not be "traded" or "negotiated" away to shorten the duty day. Safety for the traveling public is the priority not the Airline industries wishes and desires.

Other than that, I agree with you. Excellent commentary!

ZF

2-04-2010 @ 8:32PM

Kent Wien said...

Thanks ZF,

I'm not saying I completely agree with increasing the 8 hour max flight time in a day, but the FAA is on record saying that they're looking into bumping that number up while lowering the duty day.

And I should mention that as nervous as airlines are about changes to the rules, some pilots are also wary of restrictions on commuting. The FAA is in a tough place on this issue.

2-07-2010 @ 11:49PM

Gene said...

Pilots fly less then 80 hours per month. If you reduce that to 40 hours per month the problem will still remain. They have a duty to get some rest before they come to work. I work 40 hours per week and I am expected to show up for work rested or not show up for work.

2-08-2010 @ 10:21AM

Jim Barker said...

I'm a retired U.A. mechanic and this may be just the tip of the NTSB iceberg.
A lot of us (mechanics) and retired pilots as well, have wondered about the eventual ruling outcome of Sully's Hudson River landing. So far, there has been no media or NTSB mention of possible computer engine shutdown on his plane due to loss of Inlet pressure and inlet temperature, sensors at the instant of the bird strike.
If the computer sees no airflow past the engine inlet sensors isn't it possible the result of such a loss might be for the CDC to automatically cut off fuel supply and ignition as well?
Maybe the original FAA certification of these systems, as designed, needs to be addressed?........JB

Add your comments

Your comments:

Remember me

E-Mail me when someone replies to this comment

Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments.

When you enter your name and email address, you'll be sent a link to confirm your comment, and a password. To leave another comment, just use that password.

To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.