Quote:

---

Grounded: Air travelers wonder what's amiss
Ilana DeBare, Chronicle Staff Writer
Friday, April 11, 2008

For hundreds of thousands of American Airlines passengers left in the lurch by canceled flights this week, the transportation chaos might seem like an arbitrary act of the air travel gods.
But American Airlines' decision to cancel more than 3,000 flights this week is part of a larger political drama playing out over airline safety and regulation.
Congress has been putting pressure on the Federal Aviation Administration to tighten its safety procedures after several FAA employees testified recently that Southwest Airlines had been allowed to keep 47 planes in the air despite missing inspection deadlines.
In response, the FAA began a new round of airline inspections - which ultimately led to American grounding the planes this week.
The FAA has become "very careful about ensuring absolute compliance," said John Cox, aviation consultant with Safety Operating Systems in Washington, D.C.

What was behind this week's cancellations? What do they mean for travelers and airlines in the future?
Why did this wiring issue come up now?

Last month, several FAA inspectors went public with charges that the agency was looking the other way on possible safety problems at Southwest.
Among other things, the FAA allowed 47 Southwest planes to continue flying even though the airline had missed deadlines to inspect them for possible cracks in their skins.
Congressional Democrats blasted the FAA for developing too cozy a relationship with the airlines. The FAA responded by levying a $10.2 million fine on Southwest and starting an audit of how all airlines were complying with several safety regulations, including some wiring rules that airlines were supposed to meet in 2006.
American canceled more than 400 flights last month to check and fix its wiring. But this week, FAA inspectors discovered that 15 out of 19 American jets they examined were out of compliance with the wiring specifications.
A year ago, American might have been able to persuade the FAA to allow a slight deviation, but not in the wake of the Southwest scandal and congressional scrutiny.
"Nothing in the rules has changed," said Cox. "But the manner in which the rules can be complied with is up for interpretation. And the interpretations have tightened up."


Has the FAA been too lenient toward the airlines in recent years?

That's the allegation made by congressional Democrats. They particularly criticize a policy put in place by the Bush administration under which the airlines don't have to pay a fine if they voluntarily disclose and correct a safety violation.
"I fear that complacency may have set in at the highest levels of FAA management, reflecting a pendulum swing away from vigorous enforcement of compliance, toward a carrier-favorable, cozy relationship," transportation committee chairman Rep. James Oberstar, D-Minn., said last week.
The FAA and airlines deny that regulators have been unduly lax.
"The self-disclosure program allows a spirit of cooperation that has contributed to the fact we now have the safest aviation system in the world," said David Castelveter, spokesman for the Air Transport Association, an airline trade group.
But some outside observers say that the industry's strong safety record has made it easy for regulators to let minor airline violations slide.
"At first I thought the FAA overreacted," said William Waldock, a professor of safety science at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Arizona. "But in hindsight, I think they got complacent and let their guard down. So maybe people don't do things to the letter of the law, which can open the door to (safety) getting worse."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by deadlockvictim:
stupid democrats... yeah, they probably should have just shut the f**k up - maybe you could have crashed fairly close to your destination....

edit: BTW i have driven from Atlanta to Dallas in a day - so call a cab for crying out loud

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Funny Rap,

You have pretty consistently stood up for the rights of your government to take whatever measures it likes for the sake of " security ", but now you are critical when they inconvenience you for the sake of public safety ?




The Alliance said they were gonna waltz through Serenity Valley. And we choked 'em with those words. We've done the impossible, and that makes us mighty.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Funny Rap,

You have pretty consistently stood up for the rights of your government to take whatever measures it likes for the sake of " security ", but now you are critical when they inconvenience you for the sake of public safety ?




The Alliance said they were gonna waltz through Serenity Valley. And we choked 'em with those words. We've done the impossible, and that makes us mighty.

---

This had nothing to do w/ 'security' or even public safety, as aviation experts will tell you. I had more to do w/ politics, and the money hungry Dems all bent out of shape that the Bush administration hasn't been sticking it to the airlines via fines for every petty little rule and regulation.

For you idiots who think I should " get a cab?? " Get bent ! Dallas wasn't my final destination, it was Wichita Falls, TX. I've been working 10-12 hr days Wed and Thur to free up my schedule just to leave on 8am Fri morning. While still working at 5:30pm ( when I found my flight was cancelled ) , and w/ a couple of hrs left to go, I would still have to come home, shower, change clothes, pack, etc... and then , on the fly, figure out my driving route to N. Texas. Of course I'm doing all this after a full day's work, and if all went well, best I'd be able to do is leave by 10pm ? So, w/ no sleep after a full day's work, I'm suppose to hop in my truck and drive 931 miles ? That's 14+ hrs, as Google sees it. Lets see.... if everything works well, I arrive in WF at around 2pm, w/ out any sleep. As there are events going on all day, I'd have to miss those, grab a couple of hrs sleep, then get showered and in a suit by 5pm , ready to go. Technically doable, yes, but I'm not of college age anymore. Sorry folks, in the real world, that's simply not happening.

You pin heads simply want to play the role of contrarian, mainly because of my political views. You'll say any ridiculous thing to take the opposite position of what ever I say, simply because it's me saying it. Instead of making this personal, just deal w/ the facts and accept that it's the Dems who screwed over a million travelers, and I happened to be one of them.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Thanks to the pin head Democrats in Congress, I won't get to see my nephew graduate from his USAF flight training school.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by oldenglanddry:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Thanks to the pin head Democrats in Congress, I won't get to see my nephew graduate from his USAF flight training school.

---

Never mind, I'm sure you'l see him on the news when he blows away some innocent civies in Iraq / Afghanistan or Frags some allied service personel in a Blue-on-Blue "Accident".

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
But some outside observers say that the industry's strong safety record has made it easy for regulators to let minor airline violations slide.
"At first I thought the FAA overreacted," said William Waldock, a professor of safety science at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Arizona. "But in hindsight, I think they got complacent and let their guard down. So maybe people don't do things to the letter of the law, which can open the door to (safety) getting worse."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Sorry Gino, but you're showing your ass again, these ARE petty little rules.

---

Quote:

---

It's widely recognized by those who know wtf they're talking about that these are more about compliance issues than safety issues.

---

Quote:

---

It's already been stated that had the S.W. incident not occurred, there'd be no immediate rush to ground every damn plain for such a minor issue.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:
Damn them! DAAAAAAAAMN THEM for putting safety above Rappy's travel plans.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by daveshayne:
Yes and to be clear I do think it sucks that the Au-man wasn't able to make his trip. I just think he's blaming the wrong people for the problem.

David

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:
Damn them! DAAAAAAAAMN THEM for putting safety above Rappy's travel plans.

The bastards.

Yet if Republicans has ordered this, he'd be bitching that the evil Democratic congress had been letting safety slide for too long, endangering the lives of Americans.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Not MY travel plans...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Not MY travel plans...

---

Then why'd you title the thread that way....?

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fletch2:
The most truthful header would be "American Airlines made me miss my nephew's graduation!'

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SimonWho:
This thread is funny on so many levels, I can't even count them all.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
"It's already been stated that had the S.W. incident not occurred, there'd be no immediate rush to ground every damn plain for such a minor issue."

Oh, you mean the stupid minor issue of not being able to retract the nose landing gear due to faulty wiring ? Oh, THAT stupid minor issue !

Rap, you are such a stupid ass.

---

Quote:

---

The lacing cord must be installed exactly according to the FAA's 2006 AD, airline and federal officials say

---

Quote:

---

Pilots say the Fort Worth-based airline and the Federal Aviation Administration are not doing enough to find a solution.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Why the hell is the MD-80 aka DC-9, which they renamed to MD-80 with a few cosmetic changes since public perception of the DC-9 being completely unsafe due to many incidents that no one wanted to fly on one... still in the air anyway ?

THAT aircraft has about the most piss poor safety record of any commercial aircraft ever used in the commercial carrier industry, while the Boeing 737 has the best, imop.

Back before I quit flying due to not liking TSA shakedowns and hassle, the 737 was the only plane I would get on, and by preference, flown by Southwest Airlines - say what you will about this incident, they've NEVER killed a passenger, and no other airline I am aware of can say that.

-F

---

Quote:

---

The DC-9 had the nickname " The Death Screamer " while the larger DC-10 was known as " The Death Cruiser " Just what you like to hear from the maintenance department.

---

Quote:

---

So, let's see if I got this straight, Rap. You trust the makers of the engines (who are in the business to make money) to flag significant issues, and the airlines (who are in the business to make money) to fully inspect their planes, correct problems expeditiously, and use full-spec parts. Hmmm.

---

Quote:

---

If it's not Boeing, I'm not going !

---

Quote:

---

The fact that they would normally put such inspections off and allow the airline to do it on their own time tells me that it wasn't a high priority issue.

---

Quote:

---

Yeah, because those businesses find it harder to make money when their planes fall out of the sky, ya know.

---

Quote:

---

The whistleblowers who exposed maintenance and inspection problems at Southwest Airlines told Congress their jobs were threatened and their reports of noncompliance were ignored for years by their superiors. FAA inspector Douglas Peters choked up Thursday at the hearing and needed a few sips of water to tell lawmakers about how a former manager came into his office, commented on pictures of Peters' family being most important, and then said his job could be jeopardized by his actions.

------------------------
The FAA last month took the rare step of ordering the audit of maintenance records at all domestic carriers following reports of missed safety inspections at Dallas-based Southwest. The airline was hit with a record $10.2 million fine for continuing to fly dozens of Boeing 737s that hadn't been inspected for cracks in their fuselages.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Rap, it's pretty hard to keep news of planes falling out of the sky from the papers, but do you have any idea how HARD it is to get safety records of non-catastrophic failures? The FAA keeps those records held very, very tightly, even tho they're SUPPOSED to release them.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
but do you have any idea how HARD it is to get safety records of non-catastrophic failures?

---

Quote:

---

NTSB Identification: NYC08CA119
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Sunday, March 02, 2008 in S.Charleston, WV
Aircraft: Cessna 182Q, registration: N97514
Injuries: 2 Uninjured.
After completing a short cross-country flight, the pilot returned to the private airport where he based his Cessna 182Q. The airport was surrounded by terrain obstructions, and as a consequence, an operational restriction existed which requiring him to land to the north. After joining the traffic pattern to land in the required direction, he flew the downwind leg to the 2,000-foot long runway and "checked the windsock." He then turned on the base leg of the traffic pattern, approximately 1.5 miles from the runway threshold. The wing flaps were selected to the 20-degree position, and he turned on to the final leg. Approximately .8 mile from touchdown, the airplane encountered windshear and lost about 17 knots of indicated airspeed. The pilot applied "full power" and was able to re-stabilize the approach. The pilot reduced engine power once again and the "wind sheared to the tail" of the airplane just prior to touchdown, and the indicated airspeed increased approximately 15 knots. The airplane touched down "approximately 600 feet from the runway end," overran the runway, and the nose wheel dug into the "mud." The pilot then released the backpressure on the control wheel, and the air

---

Quote:

---

It WOULD help if you would AT LEAST do just a LITTLE research into the facts instead of blowing go-se across several threads.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Just cause it's semi-relevant to the topic, I've done said my piece on the planes, but yanno, commercial airline pilots are, as a general rule, some of the most heroic SOBs there ever were.

Just listen to any CVR tape, even the really awful ones, they go on right to the end of the tape, and never ever quit trying, in fact most full write off CVR tapes end "not working, try this, ok, try that, maybe we can... oh shit. (static)"

But one for the record books, and some right interesting reading, is...

The Tale of the Gimli Glider.
http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=744#more-744

Yes, Virginia, you CAN Forward-Angle-Slip a deadsticked 767...

Seriously, the whole story is fodder for a Depends commercial - but it does have a happy ending.


I may not respect a lotta things, but anyone wearing the wings of a commercial airline pilot rates an automatic "sir" from me, period.

-Frem

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Um.. Rap ?

Not that it will amount to anything, but Ms. Peters (transportation sec) is officially demanding an explaination in detail over that whole mess, and if you're still a bit annoyed you could possibly parlay that into getting some conciliatory gesture from American Airlines to make up for the screwup.

Just a thought, is all.

-F

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
but do you have any idea how HARD it is to get safety records of non-catastrophic failures?

---

Really hard. First I had to go to Yahoo!, then I had to type NTSB, then I had to pick the second link...NTSB/Aviation. Then I had to click the top link 'Accident Databases and Synopses'. Then I clicked on 'Monthly Lists'. Then I picked a Month (March, 2008) from a list that included twelve months for every year AND years going back to 1962. Finally I picked a day (March 2) and an incident 'S.Charleston, WV Cessna 182Q N97514 Nonfatal'.

Then all I got was:

Quote:

---

NTSB Identification: NYC08CA119
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Sunday, March 02, 2008 in S.Charleston, WV
Aircraft: Cessna 182Q, registration: N97514
Injuries: 2 Uninjured.
After completing a short cross-country flight, the pilot returned to the private airport where he based his Cessna 182Q. The airport was surrounded by terrain obstructions, and as a consequence, an operational restriction existed which requiring him to land to the north. After joining the traffic pattern to land in the required direction, he flew the downwind leg to the 2,000-foot long runway and "checked the windsock." He then turned on the base leg of the traffic pattern, approximately 1.5 miles from the runway threshold. The wing flaps were selected to the 20-degree position, and he turned on to the final leg. Approximately .8 mile from touchdown, the airplane encountered windshear and lost about 17 knots of indicated airspeed. The pilot applied "full power" and was able to re-stabilize the approach. The pilot reduced engine power once again and the "wind sheared to the tail" of the airplane just prior to touchdown, and the indicated airspeed increased approximately 15 knots. The airplane touched down "approximately 600 feet from the runway end," overran the runway, and the nose wheel dug into the "mud." The pilot then released the backpressure on the control wheel, and the air

---

And a link to the full report.

Took me 30 seconds. Damn govt coverups...

Quote:

---

It WOULD help if you would AT LEAST do just a LITTLE research into the facts instead of blowing go-se across several threads.

---

Wow...that kettle sure is black.

H

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by deadlockvictim:
stupid democrats... yeah, they probably should have just shut the f**k up - maybe you could have crashed fairly close to your destination....

---

LOL if only we didn't have to listen to Auraptor's rants anymore

IN FACT - there are NO statistics, by carrier, of non-fatal accidents. Oddly enough, JUST AS SIGNYM SAID. And which you purposefully misrepresented. But that's your specialty.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
but do you have any idea how HARD it is to get safety records of non-catastrophic failures?

---

Really hard. First I had to go to Yahoo!, then I had to type NTSB, then I had to pick the second link...NTSB/Aviation. Then I had to click the top link 'Accident Databases and Synopses'. Then I clicked on 'Monthly Lists'. Then I picked a Month (March, 2008) from a list that included twelve months for every year AND years going back to 1962. Finally I picked a day (March 2) and an incident 'S.Charleston, WV Cessna 182Q N97514 Nonfatal'.

Then all I got was:

Quote:

---

NTSB Identification: NYC08CA119
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Sunday, March 02, 2008 in S.Charleston, WV
Aircraft: Cessna 182Q, registration: N97514
Injuries: 2 Uninjured.
After completing a short cross-country flight, the pilot returned to the private airport where he based his Cessna 182Q. The airport was surrounded by terrain obstructions, and as a consequence, an operational restriction existed which requiring him to land to the north. After joining the traffic pattern to land in the required direction, he flew the downwind leg to the 2,000-foot long runway and "checked the windsock." He then turned on the base leg of the traffic pattern, approximately 1.5 miles from the runway threshold. The wing flaps were selected to the 20-degree position, and he turned on to the final leg. Approximately .8 mile from touchdown, the airplane encountered windshear and lost about 17 knots of indicated airspeed. The pilot applied "full power" and was able to re-stabilize the approach. The pilot reduced engine power once again and the "wind sheared to the tail" of the airplane just prior to touchdown, and the indicated airspeed increased approximately 15 knots. The airplane touched down "approximately 600 feet from the runway end," overran the runway, and the nose wheel dug into the "mud." The pilot then released the backpressure on the control wheel, and the air

---

And a link to the full report.

Took me 30 seconds. Damn govt coverups...

Quote:

---

It WOULD help if you would AT LEAST do just a LITTLE research into the facts instead of blowing go-se across several threads.

---

Wow...that kettle sure is black.

H

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JaynezTown:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by deadlockvictim:
stupid democrats... yeah, they probably should have just shut the f**k up - maybe you could have crashed fairly close to your destination....

---

LOL if only we didn't have to listen to Auraptor's rants anymore

---