are about to have a requirement that everyone who provides capacity purchase service to them, meaning they are bringing their passengers, they have their logo on the tail of that carrier, they're going to require them to have a focal program. they're going to require them to have an asap program we suggest they go a step further. we suggest that they need their professional, their season safety folks mentor some of these younger pilots. . . in that environment, but i think we have an obligation at the faa and chance protection system to make sure they're getting that professionalism instilled in them. >> mr. rosenker, i & one of the top six recommendation at mtsb is that all turboprop aircraft

the handblown during icy conditions; is that correct? >> it is something we have recommended, yes, sir. >> and mr. babbitt, they have no use of the hand pilot or turbo flying in a i see conditions? >> it may well be but might newness and preparation for the hearing i am not aware of a requirement. >> i >> there was a direct comment by the first officer that, although she has 2,600 hours flying but had never flown in icing conditions. i believe that is correct. >> i believe -- my understanding of reading some of the transcript anyway was that she was describing. she had flown in icing conditions before. she was describing, however, that she did come in fact, have experience. she was describing that earlier.

how is concerned her and she was looking to get more experience. >> my time is running out. when ntsb makes up recommendation, which they have made regarding icing conditions and turboprops, what does faa do? do you have a response procedure that you go through? to you take-it-or-leave-it? >> my in the standing of the process today -- and i will let you know. we certainly evaluate every single one. i don't think that there is an expectation on behalf of the ntsb that we should adopt every single one day make. i have actually had, you know, some discussions with the former chairman to that effect. when i have suggested that i will be going forward. my opinion one of things three things should happen to a ntsb recommendation to the faa.

they have adopted adopted as suggested. modify it. or don't adopted. we have an obligation to explain why we didn't adopt it. what was the rationale. >> i think that is exactly the right answer, and i appreciate your candor. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator isakson, thank you. i just want to make two points relative your question. one, i went back and read to the deicing issues -- the icing issues this morning in the transcript. and the co-pilot, this is a quote from the transcript. "i've never seen icing conditions. i've never deiced. i've never seen any. i've never experienced any of that. i don't want to have to experience that and make those calls. i've read out. i would like to -- i would have seen this much ice and thought, oh, my gosh.

we're going to crash." if you read several paragraphs i think it does imply this person had minimalizing experience. the other point i want to make, when you traveled and commuted and got a full night's rest my guess is that someone making $20,000 traveling all the way across the country is not going to be paying rent on a hotel room or crash pad to find a place to stay because the public can't afford it. so that is of very important issue that senator isakson was raising. i apologize to my colleagues. [inaudible conversations] >> senator? >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i apologize to the panel. i'm going to have to leave after my questions. for me this is an important discussion. my father perished in a plane

crash. i'm very familiar with the issues and the impact it can have on a family. i appreciate you all here today i have -- from last perspective it is, you know, the small plane capital of the world. small planes are like vehicles. that is how we get around. as we think of safety issues we have to keep that in perspective in rural areas and how we deal with that. so i am very aware of what that could be. i want to follow up on a couple questions. and it was intriguing to me as i was listening to the recommendations. we have had some good conversation in regards to faa and your new role. you have come in with a fire hose. but i want to make sure i understood what he said. then i saw your body language. i'm going to try to connect the two. i can't imagine you would make recommendations that are not necessarily recommendations you are looking to have implemented. i want to make sure i heard you right.

that is, if the ntsb is making a recommendation of my assumption is you want to see elements implemented, yes or no? >> that is correct, sir. >> what i heard you say was not all of them are they looking to have implemented. i don't think he meant that. i want to make sure i'm clear because as soon as you said that i saw i don't want to say recoil. i saw movement. can you just clarify that and make sure we're on the same page here? otherwise they shouldn't make the recommendations of the not going to be implemented. >> that is a valid clarification that you seek. i have spent time, as i mentioned, for four months. there is of former chairman of the ntsb there. and in our discussions we talked about this. there are a number of recommendations, and they are excellent. the ntsb does a great job. and it is a great arm to help us

enhance safety. but we heard a statistic that the faa adopts somewhere in the range of 82, 85, some percentage, not all. and that is where the former chairman said, you know, we have an obligation to report everything. >> that's what i've wanted to make sure we were clear. the other 18, 15 percent is the question. >> yes, sir. >> not only for ntsb to know, but for the public to know why you didn't implement those. >> precisely. >> and is it one of the reasons -- where do you go from there. >> and that is the point that i tried to say. perhaps i didn't make it clear. >> i saw a recoil occur. i wanted to make sure we were all clear. i want to make sure that your policy that you are going to implement, not look at, but to implement is that percentage that is not taking into back as

of full recommendation you are going to respond in some way that in tsb can see that and the public can see why. >> yes, sir. >> that will then obviously draw some other potential pathway. maybe or maybe not. depends on what happens. >> yes, sir. >> i want to -- i'm struggling. the chairman just said it began about the salary levels. i struggle with this because i know in our state. i don't want their regional to call me after i make this comment. please don't call me. you know, we had bus drivers. we made a requirement that doesn't pay level, a minimum pay levels in order to ensure we had the quality and that they are not taking second jobs or third jobs. it has had a very positive impact. is that a discussion by anyone

who wants to comment on this? we just assume it's a full year. that is just barely above minimum wage. >> yes, sir. i thinking it was about 23,000, and i recall. >> took >> okay. so $8.10 an hour. >> it might surprise you that there are major carriers that start pilot that the number. >> that does surprise me. all be very frank. >> there are some the start considerably higher than that, sure. there are some major carriers flying large airplanes that start that low. this is an area, i think, captain sullenberger mentioned it in testimony before. it is a concern. i know that the error i was hired in, very badly dating

myself into the '60's. probably half of the people that were hired about not only came out of the military, half of them came out of military academies. so we had a wonderful pool. the service at that time was training. we had 50,000 pilots flying in vietnam. a lot of veterans. a lot of very seasoned people that came disciplined. they were well trained. they were well educated. they had other options. if you wanted a pilot like that yet we're going to pay. they could go be an engineer. >> it was another area of interest. does anyone disagree with that? >> center, i will note that the committee has asked my office to examine pilots pay. it is an important factor and several members of the committee have pointed out. as an influence our on the question of fatigue and also, perhaps, as a proxy for the question of experience and how

that will relates to performance in the cockpit. >> as we continue our investigation of the accident facts will continue to be analyzed. we could end up with some form of recommendation dealing with fatigue that could also have relevance to the pay scales. >> if i may. if you refer back to our statement resubmitted to the record their is a copy copy breh princeton there. a blue-ribbon panel report. this report was stimulated by hearings held by this committee back in 1990. next the report but preemployment requirements for airlines. salary ranges for pilots. what kind of basic training should be provided by the civilian high-school because at that time the primary reason for

the report was the committee's interest in wind there was such a drain on military pilots. so i think if we would look at that report again we will find that the 13 recommendations made by that particular panel speak directly to the issues that we are talking about today. >> very good. >> this was back in 1990. >> thank you, very much. >> my time has expired. i hope this is just a yes or no. for each one of you and i will start, mr. babbit, with you. do you believe you have the necessary resources within the organizations you work in to do the job with regards to safety? >> yes, sir, i do. having said that, we depend heavily on the template from a number of the people here. we certainly respect what the ig has to say. we respect what the ntsb has to say. with those tools together, yes, sir. >> generally i would agree.

the programs that faa has in place properly implemented would allow it to exercise proper safety oversight. it is always a question of execution and implementation verses the plan itself. >> the faa is doing as good a job as it can possibly do. i believe these are well intentioned people. these people care about safety as much as any of us here to. but they have a lot to do. they have the objective and the mission of making sure that our aviation system is as safe as it possibly can be. and with that it will take over sites. it will take new 21st century equipment, and that comes with money. and i'm not here to lobby on behalf of my colleagues. i could use a little money for my organization at the same

time. >> the answer is simply a little bit helps. >> a lot would help these people. >> and last question. >> in spite of what was indicated at the the faa could do much more with a little bit of help. >> i thank you very much. thank you for your testimony. on a personal perspective, thank you for everything you do to ensure our air safety at the highest level possible. there is always room for improvement. that is what we are here to do. >> senator. >> thank you so much, mr. chairman, for this important hearing. thank you all. good luck to you. i have had problems with the faa and 64 so many years i can't even tell you. it has had nothing to do with a republican president or a democratic president. i just felt that the ntsb which is one of my hero agencies and government all my life, one of the agencies that just tells the

truth. and they don't. they just come right out and say it. they have been ignored and ignored and ignored. and it really gets to me. it's upsetting. i hope we'll have a change with this administration. if we don't have a change you'll be hearing from me. i want you to succeed, but i think you need to be honest about what you need. i would ask been, how many years have you been on the ntsb? >> six years. >> you have a good background. there have been dozens and dozens and dozens of recommendations that have been ignored. am i correct? regardless of who was president. >> 450 are outstanding today, many of which are more than 10-15 years old. >> well, it's an outrage. my friend to suffered such a boss and the family, he needs to hear this. 450 recommendations have been

ignored by the faa over the years. that cut to me, is an indictment of the faa. it's not about anybody personally. it is the institution, the way they think. and it is a very disturbing to me. i want to pick up on the very disturbing transcript. and i am going to quote from the buffalo news. i think senator dorgan has intense interest in this. senator snow and i have written a letter to the hon. ray lahood about this buffalo accident. and as we read this it's just got to us. i'm going to share this article. began to the last hour of his life by engaging the autopilots on the continental connection flight 3407. he said, autopilot is engaged.

all right, replied his co-pilot. it is probably a good thing. so those words so both pilots complaining their lack of experience. in addition the transcript shows panic was the play lost control. while engaging in the idle banter in the last minutes of the flight they stop checking the plane's instruments and fail to recognize -- fail to realize that the plane was flying so slowly that it could stall. but flight 3407 apparently had troubles far earlier. might have been joking when he said it's probably a good thing that the plane was on autopilot, but in reality it wasn't a joke. the safety board recommends the pilots turn of the other pilot and flight manually when icing could be an issue.

a minute later he noted he was hired by colden air which operated the flight with just 625 hours of flying experience. that is not much. a moment later he complained of her own inexperience. the crew then lowered the plane's flaps and landing gear. the planes warning device activated at 10:16 p.m. for nearly seven seconds. a horn sounds the signal that autopilot was disconnecting. a quote from mr. rosenberg. acting chairman told reporters that violated regulations banning extraneous conversation. clearly there were violations of

cockpit rules which banned such conversations. critical phases of the flight need clear and direct focus. without that there is a risk of mistake. this is a chilling, chilling to everyone. and if you have had a loved one on the plant it is beyond telling. it is unforgivable, it seems to me. so i want to get to a letter that senator snow and i sent to secretary lahood. we send some tough things, mr. babbit. i want to tell you if you think that we were too tough. i'm serious. we are troubled reports suggesting the faa would talk to carriers about duty time. that is a direct quote. talk to carriers about duty time. this refers to this flight and pilot fatigue. the faa must be of pro-active agency and it merely talking doesn't fill the primary mission to ensure the safety of the flying public. we can no longer afford to act

after the discovery that inspectors are overly friendly with the airlines they oversee. we cannot continue to wait until another a tragedy occurs before we implement training requirements. much less simply enforcing existing regulations. that is a charge. we are suggesting there is too much coziness between the faa and the airlines that they regulate. could you respond to that? >> yes. as i mentioned, i am not sure if you were in here. i was part of the internal review team that will set up by the department of transportation. there was a question in both the american airlines case and the southwest case. their relationship had something to do. recently reported a number of things in that report. as i stated in this hearing we

will follow up on that. >> i'm not asking you specifically about this. it is in the context of the crash, but it's in the institutional relationship tier. it's in the culture. we need to hear that culture must change. so talk to me about how you feel about this. you have been around. my god, you went into these aircraft and have the passenger safety on your back for all those years. if anybody can change the culture over there, it's you. but can you tell me, are you doing anything to change the culture? >> we are certainly trying. i have only been there -- >> i know. >> my tenure on my watch. >> i'm asking for a commitment that you will look into the charge that we made. get back to us on what you are finding. be honest like the ntsb is honest. don't cover up anything. you have too much responsibility on your hands. we want to help you. that is the purpose of this.

this isn't an inquisition. we don't want to be back on another day about of the crash. >> thank you, so much for chairing this. many of our witnesses worked extensively together on that. >> erotically i was working at the beginning of this hearing having to get this be done in honor of honor of paul wellston. he and his wife are getting a big an award from of mental health association. i crossed out the part about the tragic plane accident. not that dissimilar to this. so it hit home to me. my colleagues have done a great

job of masking some good questions and the area of fatigue and icing. i thought i would just follow up with some of these ideas of trying to get at with the clear problem with the issues and training issues and pilots. one of the things i thought about a lot was the regional carriers -- senator dorgan and i are both in states for we have a lot of airlines and fights going. they typically fly short flights airports. this means that regional pilots alike their counterparts are more likely to fly in a short flights. is that right? >> yes, it is. >> so instead of doing one lot like they are doing a bunch of short flights. and i would think that that could mean that they are more prone to fatigue or stress. it's more difficult. >> that's correct. one of the things that we are now looking into, it has been a challenge of mine. i stated in my confirmation hearing. we want to take a look at flight

time and to the time. different types of being on duty 12 for 14 hours. the nonstop flight. there is the 12 stoplight never leaving the state of michigan. and those are dramatically different environments. we have science, knowledge. >> and so you are looking at potentially changing the regulations on rest requirements to reflect these different flying experience is? >> yes. >> is that something you have recommended before? >> we have recommended that. we also want to close the loophole which enables a pilot to continue to fly his eight hours, for example, which is the legal amount during the day and then continue on where there is no passenger on the aircraft and a move it to of magnesite which could be another hour or two or three away. we believe that needs to be changed. >> the second thing i was thinking about from common sense is that the pilots for the regional carriers that fly shorter distances and at lower altitudes.

can that leads to worse weather? at least that is how i feel when i'm in a plane. it seems harder when you're down close. is that right? >> of italy you are exposed to more convected weather. although, i would note that every airplane i ever flew was going to be the one that would clear all the weather. >> putts just you and have an argument that because on these charter flights they might be more -- deal with this worse weather. i'm just thinking it again goes to the training requirement. they might have to deal more often with more difficult situations if they are doing multiple flights that are at lower altitudes. >> that is absolutely true. i think there is another thing we have to take into consideration. this is where science consent. the focus of shooting of very tight estimate approach. you're going to shoot an unprecedented 200-foot minims or something like that there is a lot of focus in the cockpit. and if you're going to do that six or eight times in a duty --

in eight hour flying, that is considerably more fatiguing than just making two or three flights and flying three our legs. we need to address with science what is the right way to do this. it has been an open question in my opinion for way too long. their is a challenge and a commitment. we will follow up. >> okay. the other thing i was reading up on with the second, the co-pilot, which was an issue in the private plane that flew. inexperience of the second pilot. and in this case on this regional airline the first officer told the pilots, i've never seen icing conditions. i've never deiced. i've never experienced any of that. and we have heard that some industry experts say copilots or first officers to basically can be in an apprentice position on a regional flights. the pilots only do these positions as short-term assignments, a stepping stone for a job with a major carrier.

i mean, if this is looked on with regional airlines with that number two position as something of a farm system for them to get to the major leagues, does that present some turning challenges as well? >> well, i think it raises a good question for us to take a look at. that is the difference in turning. qualitative versus quantitative. there have been suggestions that maybe we should require more hours. my suggestion would be we should, perhaps, let's get the quality of the training the people are getting. stat have 1500 hours, again, if that is flying command 20 our legs at a time, that's not a lot of experience with takeoffs and landings. someone else with high-quality training and much less time could, in fact, be a better trained pilots. that is one of the things were going to try and clean from bringing this industry group together. but get training. do we make a distinction? should we make a distinction between the quality of the trading that people are exposed to versus just, you know, an

arbitrary measure. and i think that is of very legitimate question. >> does anyone want to add a think? >> i think the minister babbitt is right on target. it is not always about high numbers of hours. we have investigated, unfortunately, a number of accidents where we have seen 15,000 our pilots big mistakes. the question again is, is it quality? is it a performance standard based? are we getting the best people we possibly can into this to rear so that they can do this safely and efficiently? >> okay. mr. o'brien? >> just want to refer again, the committee, the blue room panel report. the interesting part of that report is it was stimulated by this committee. it does address all of these issues we are talking about. the panel is staffed by experts from the field, training. operating.

so all of these issues have been addressed. >> all right. >> senator, i will note that the committee has asked my office to investigate these offers. >> i really appreciate that. also we have a bill focusing on some of the inspections and the relationship with the faa that we hope to be included in the reauthorization. we can talk about that at another time. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, gentlemen, for appearing before us today. i want to follow up with mr. rosenker. in your testimony regarding the background of the pilots of flight number 3407 you noted that, and