Plane crashes- regional carriers

[Anonymous]

What's the concern? That regional carriers use smaller planes? Or that they pay lower salaries to crew? Or...?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it's not a Cessna, I think it's ok. The regional carrier accident at DCA was not related to the fact that the plane was a regional carrier as far as I can tell.

Airplane and helicopter paths are in close proximity only on the runway 33 approach, and that runway isn't used for larger jets. So the accident wouldn't have happened to a non-regional flight.

Yes but that doesn’t mean regional is less safe which is the whole point of this thread. That runway could have just as easily been used for larger jets in another circumstance.

[Anonymous]

At this point any types of flights are unsafe. You'll be rolling the dice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Flying is an inherently dangerous activity that has been made safe by careful regulation. In places like Nigeria it has remained dangerous. It may be in the process of becoming more dangerous here, but it is too early to be sure.

All the airline personnel who work for the federal government, such as safety inspectors, are pre-occupied with losing their jobs with this sword of damacles over their necks in perpetuity. Any probational roles have been eliminated, which means there is more work and less personnel.

The ATC were all fired under reagan, so its not impossible to imagine they especially feel vulnerable and that could have contributed to the DCA crash by creating a heightened stress and more fatigue for all ATC personnel involved.

Driving is also dangerous, but I am curious how to assess how the risk of flying is evolving.

I think an issue is the FAA shut down the standard college to controller pipeline a little more than a decade ago.

Back when I went to college (graduated 2002), there was an establish CTI program that was basically college to the FAA.

I don’t blame DEI like Trump did, but a staffing shortage was created due to social tinkering. College was deemed exclusionary and we are dealing with the staffing consequences today.

https://www.tracingwoodgrains.com/p/the-faas-hiring-scandal-a-quick-overview

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What's the concern? That regional carriers use smaller planes? Or that they pay lower salaries to crew? Or...?

The pilots are generally younger (really young sometimes). I have no problem flying them and would tomorrow if I had to but their crew is generally starting out and working their way up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it's not a Cessna, I think it's ok. The regional carrier accident at DCA was not related to the fact that the plane was a regional carrier as far as I can tell.

Airplane and helicopter paths are in close proximity only on the runway 33 approach, and that runway isn't used for larger jets. So the accident wouldn't have happened to a non-regional flight.

Yes but that doesn’t mean regional is less safe which is the whole point of this thread. That runway could have just as easily been used for larger jets in another circumstance.

+1

[Anonymous]

I’m a flight attendant who formerly worked for EDV. It’s hilarious how you don’t understand that one day, the same pilot who is flying you on a Delta plane, flew commercially for EDV just one flight before.

I never once felt unsafe on any of the thousands of EDV flights I worked.

[Anonymous]

The Toronto regional carrier flight attendants did a super job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At this point any types of flights are unsafe. You'll be rolling the dice.

So you're saying that 1 out of 36 flights will crash?