Did you actually read the site?
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
In the flight preceding 592, the aircraft's cabin announcement system was not working properly and flight attendants used a handheld loudspeaker to make announcements to passengers. On 592, the flight attendents had no communication with the flight deck (cockpit) other than knocking or shouting through the cockpit door. The NTSB says that this is acceptable as long as the cabin crew and pilots have an agreed system of communication as an alternative to using the intercom. The extent of the information that the flight crew had was hearing "fire, fire, fire," being shouted from the cabin.
Although ValuJet caused many factors in the crash and the final straw was unrelated to the mechanical operations of the aircraft, ValuJet was negligent in allowing that aircraft to fly. Additionally, the ValuJet manuals do not have the Douglas DC-9 Flightcrew emergency procedure for removing smoke from the cabin during flight. Northwest Airlines, US Airways, and Midwest Express Airlines DC-9 pilot's handbook include this procedure
</font>
The aircraft was not airworthy. It's no doubt that ST incorrectly marked the canisters as empty. However, ValuJet was incapable of handling the cargo, incapable of responding to the fire, and in especially poor shape given the condition of the aircraft.<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
In the flight preceding 592, the aircraft's cabin announcement system was not working properly and flight attendants used a handheld loudspeaker to make announcements to passengers. On 592, the flight attendents had no communication with the flight deck (cockpit) other than knocking or shouting through the cockpit door. The NTSB says that this is acceptable as long as the cabin crew and pilots have an agreed system of communication as an alternative to using the intercom. The extent of the information that the flight crew had was hearing "fire, fire, fire," being shouted from the cabin.
Although ValuJet caused many factors in the crash and the final straw was unrelated to the mechanical operations of the aircraft, ValuJet was negligent in allowing that aircraft to fly. Additionally, the ValuJet manuals do not have the Douglas DC-9 Flightcrew emergency procedure for removing smoke from the cabin during flight. Northwest Airlines, US Airways, and Midwest Express Airlines DC-9 pilot's handbook include this procedure
</font>
The aircraft was airworthy, it is allowed by the NTSB according to your site. The airplane would have survived had the canister not been loaded. And I did admit that J7 wasn't very safe, but that your arguments that FL isn't either is pure BS. Please counter some of my FL arguments.
How do you know that the aircraft "would have survived" had there been no canister to start the fire? This is an aircraft with eight aborted takeoffs/emergency landings in the two years prior to the fatal flight -- two of which were on the same day! It had multiple maintenance issues and operational problems the day of the crash.
You act like the fire on flight 956 was no big deal:
I think it's really interesting that you use Midwest Express as an example of a safe airline. They have a DC-9 heavy fleet, just like ValuJet/AirTran, yet have had only one wiring incident in their 15 years of history. How many, exactly, has AirTran had in their few years?
Regarding the airdisaster.com statistic that you reference, it clearly says:
You act like the fire on flight 956 was no big deal:
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
Thick, black smoke began to fill the cabin as the 31 year old DC-9 touched down on the runway six minutes after taking off at 3:45 p.m. on November 29, 2000. Smoke was choking me, said passenger Karon Goepel, it was kind of like taking your breath away.
</font>
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
Thick, black smoke began to fill the cabin as the 31 year old DC-9 touched down on the runway six minutes after taking off at 3:45 p.m. on November 29, 2000. Smoke was choking me, said passenger Karon Goepel, it was kind of like taking your breath away.
</font>
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
More frightening than the Flight 956 incident itself may be the alleged actions of the airline afterward. Jim Hall, acting chairman of the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board, characterized the incident as an intense cargo fire, then criticized AirTran and the Atlanta Hartsfield Airport for hampering the NTSBs investigation.
Hall said the NTSBs preliminary investigation of the fire that chased 92 passengers and five crew from the plane showed that the aircraft had been wiped clean of smoke traces critical to the investigation. He also indicated that airline and airport officials may have done it deliberately.
Removing such evidence would be a violation of FAA regulations, Hall said. It (the plane) was moved to a hangar and cleaned by the owner of the aircraft (AirTran) with the knowledge of the operators of this airport, he said in an Atlanta news conference. And both this airline and this airport should know better than to tamper with evidence of a federal investigation of an incident.
The fire aboard Flight 956 was so intense that, according to NTSB spokesman Keith Halloway, it burned through the floor of the first class cabin and through the planes aluminum fuselage. Investigators dont know if the fire had reached that level of intensity when passengers were still aboard, Halloway noted.
Some passengers were upset when told that AirTran officials had been less than forthright about how serious the situation really was. I cant believe they are trying to cover it up. Its terrible, said passenger Karon Goepel. Thats wrong. It needs to be investigated.
</font>
The pilot of another one of the DC9 incidents sure makes it sound a lot more serious than you:<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
More frightening than the Flight 956 incident itself may be the alleged actions of the airline afterward. Jim Hall, acting chairman of the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board, characterized the incident as an intense cargo fire, then criticized AirTran and the Atlanta Hartsfield Airport for hampering the NTSBs investigation.
Hall said the NTSBs preliminary investigation of the fire that chased 92 passengers and five crew from the plane showed that the aircraft had been wiped clean of smoke traces critical to the investigation. He also indicated that airline and airport officials may have done it deliberately.
Removing such evidence would be a violation of FAA regulations, Hall said. It (the plane) was moved to a hangar and cleaned by the owner of the aircraft (AirTran) with the knowledge of the operators of this airport, he said in an Atlanta news conference. And both this airline and this airport should know better than to tamper with evidence of a federal investigation of an incident.
The fire aboard Flight 956 was so intense that, according to NTSB spokesman Keith Halloway, it burned through the floor of the first class cabin and through the planes aluminum fuselage. Investigators dont know if the fire had reached that level of intensity when passengers were still aboard, Halloway noted.
Some passengers were upset when told that AirTran officials had been less than forthright about how serious the situation really was. I cant believe they are trying to cover it up. Its terrible, said passenger Karon Goepel. Thats wrong. It needs to be investigated.
</font>
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
One of these incidents involved an AirTran DC-9 which made an emergency landing shortly after takeoff from Greensboro, North Carolina on August 8, 2000. In this incident, smoke filled the cabin and cockpit so quickly that, worried about not being able to make it to the nearest airport, the pilots contemplated landing the plane on a highway.
</font>
And of course, in true AirTran style:<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
One of these incidents involved an AirTran DC-9 which made an emergency landing shortly after takeoff from Greensboro, North Carolina on August 8, 2000. In this incident, smoke filled the cabin and cockpit so quickly that, worried about not being able to make it to the nearest airport, the pilots contemplated landing the plane on a highway.
</font>
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
Feith confirmed that the aircraft involved had experienced electrical problems before, including the in-flight loss of electrical power several times, which led to another emergency landing in Atlanta.
</font>
Regardless of the cause of one of the 717 incidents, it is true that it had a total electrical power loss and had to make an emergency landing.<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
Feith confirmed that the aircraft involved had experienced electrical problems before, including the in-flight loss of electrical power several times, which led to another emergency landing in Atlanta.
</font>
I think it's really interesting that you use Midwest Express as an example of a safe airline. They have a DC-9 heavy fleet, just like ValuJet/AirTran, yet have had only one wiring incident in their 15 years of history. How many, exactly, has AirTran had in their few years?
Regarding the airdisaster.com statistic that you reference, it clearly says:
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
Statistics valid through December 31, 2001
</font>
Air Safety Online sums it all up quite well:<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
Statistics valid through December 31, 2001
</font>
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
AirTran is still ValuJet and the only difference is that their in-flight fires were not fatal in the last couple of years, Dunham told Air Safety Online. If people knew about the condition of AirTran planes they would realize that cheap is not always safe, and the possible price of life is too big a price to pay.
</font>
Do you work for AirTran?<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
AirTran is still ValuJet and the only difference is that their in-flight fires were not fatal in the last couple of years, Dunham told Air Safety Online. If people knew about the condition of AirTran planes they would realize that cheap is not always safe, and the possible price of life is too big a price to pay.
</font>
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by lowfareair:
The 5.88 statistic is also misleading.</font>
Although I haven't checked, the 5.88 figure sounds like the accident rate for the airline when it was doing business as valujet. I don't think that includes the time since it has been doing buisness as AirTran. The problem with a combined AirTran/valujet figure is if it should include the pre-merger AirTran with the pre-merger valujet.<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by lowfareair:
The 5.88 statistic is also misleading.</font>
The airline known as valujet had an accident rate, and an incident rate, far in excess to what the rest of the industry was recording. At one point in the late 1990s, valujet had an accident rate such that if American Airlines matched that rate they would have been having a reportable accident every two to three days.
Many people beleive that valujet had only one accident, the crash into the everglades. valujet had quite a number of accidents, the everglades crash being the only fatal accident. In addition to the high accident rate, valujet had a very high rate of reportable incidents. The difference between an accident and an incident is the amount of damage done and incidents are always non-fatal.
As to the cause of the vj592 crash, valujet actions were listed as one of the three causal factors by the NTSB. Additionally, valujet actions were mentioned again as contributing factors.
Here is the complete NTSB statement of probably cause from vj592:
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable causes of the accident, resulting in a fire in the Class D cargo compartment from the actuation of one or more oxygen generators improperly carried as cargo, were: (1) the failure of SabreTech to properly prepare, package, identify, and track unexpended chemical oxygen generators before presenting them to ValuJet for carriage; (2) the failure of ValuJet to properly oversee its contract maintenance program to ensure compliance with maintenance, maintenance training, and hazardous materials requirements and practices; and (3) the failure of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to require smoke detection and fire suppression systems in Class D cargo compartments. Contributing to the accident was the failure of the FAA to adequately monitor ValuJet's heavy maintenance program and responsibilities, including ValuJet's oversight of its contractors, and SabreTech's repair station certificate; the failure of the FAA to adequately respond to prior chemical oxygen generator fires with programs to address the potential hazards; and the failure of ValuJet to ensure that both ValuJet and contract maintenance employees were aware of the carrier's no-carry hazardous materials policy and had received appropriate hazardous materials training. (NTSB/AAR-97/06)</font>
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable causes of the accident, resulting in a fire in the Class D cargo compartment from the actuation of one or more oxygen generators improperly carried as cargo, were: (1) the failure of SabreTech to properly prepare, package, identify, and track unexpended chemical oxygen generators before presenting them to ValuJet for carriage; (2) the failure of ValuJet to properly oversee its contract maintenance program to ensure compliance with maintenance, maintenance training, and hazardous materials requirements and practices; and (3) the failure of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to require smoke detection and fire suppression systems in Class D cargo compartments. Contributing to the accident was the failure of the FAA to adequately monitor ValuJet's heavy maintenance program and responsibilities, including ValuJet's oversight of its contractors, and SabreTech's repair station certificate; the failure of the FAA to adequately respond to prior chemical oxygen generator fires with programs to address the potential hazards; and the failure of ValuJet to ensure that both ValuJet and contract maintenance employees were aware of the carrier's no-carry hazardous materials policy and had received appropriate hazardous materials training. (NTSB/AAR-97/06)</font>
As for the liability issue, I think the finding was that ST caused the crash, but ValueJet had a non-delegable duty to maintaine their airplanes so they were (also) liable civilly. But I think all the cases settled out of court anyway. Also, the reason why they were liable is not respondeat superior, which means you are liable for the acts of your "servants", but rather that they had a non-delegable duty.
FL is a very different airline today. Different planes, different people in charge, different mechanics, etc. The planes are much newer. Most of the negative comments about them are not valid, because they related to planes or a company that does not exist anymore. They are as legitimate as critizing DL for a 35-year old plane that DL owns that is sitting in the desert because its 35-yrs old. What does it matter if their accident rate was 5.88 six years ago?
FL is a very different airline today. Different planes, different people in charge, different mechanics, etc. The planes are much newer. Most of the negative comments about them are not valid, because they related to planes or a company that does not exist anymore. They are as legitimate as critizing DL for a 35-year old plane that DL owns that is sitting in the desert because its 35-yrs old. What does it matter if their accident rate was 5.88 six years ago?
Sounds like a lawyer talking.... I have absolutely no problem with lawyers flying ValueJet.
The 717 is actually an MD-80. It was named such because Boeing wanted all their aircraft to have the same numbering system. Also, it was a phycological way of putting McDonnell Douglas in their place. WHile the media said it was a merger, it was actually a take-over, and Boeing treated MD like a ******* step child.
The 717 is actually an MD-80. It was named such because Boeing wanted all their aircraft to have the same numbering system. Also, it was a phycological way of putting McDonnell Douglas in their place. WHile the media said it was a merger, it was actually a take-over, and Boeing treated MD like a ******* step child.
where is moderator 1 or moderator 2 when you need them?
DBaker:
1) Do you not realize that there were only two fires on FL in 2000? One was due to a PASSENGERS curling iron in the cargo hold(956), and the other was due to wiring. The wiring incident prompted FL execs to have all the DC9 wiring looked at, and there haven't been any fires for at least 18 months.
2) The two 717s: One had a switch short out, causing a little thing of smoke to appear in the cockpit. The pilots decided to perform an emergency landing.
3) That statistic can't be valid through 12/31/01. Why? They had that exact same statistic since before 9/11, and well before FL956 happened. Considering that FL had well over 170000 flights in 2000 and 2001 alone, I go with LarryJs point of view that they are from just Valujet.
4) I already said that VJet was much different in terms of safety compared to AirTran is nowadays.
5) I don't consider 956 to be a big deal in giving FL blame. Yes it was bad, but as said above a passenger's curling iron set off the flames. The fire suppression system was going to be installed two weeks before the incident happened, and suppression systems were on most FL DC9s already. I consider this situation to be like 9/11 in how it is "bad". Yes, it was a terrible thing to happen, but it isn't the airline's fault.
6) My example with MidEx was that while you and I both agree that they are a safe airline, according to the airdisaster.com statistic, they are right behind VJet with 3.85 fatal accidents per 1 million flights. Lies, **** lies and statistics.
7) All airlines have an isolated incident such as the GSO flight. Remember the Delta MD11 in CLT back in April? It only took EIGHT minutes to evacuate with all the doors working when it should take just 90 seconds. 3 people broke bones, and 6 more were injured. All airlines have incidents every now and then.
Face it: AirTran is much safer today than it was 6 years ago. It is as safe as any other airline.
1) Do you not realize that there were only two fires on FL in 2000? One was due to a PASSENGERS curling iron in the cargo hold(956), and the other was due to wiring. The wiring incident prompted FL execs to have all the DC9 wiring looked at, and there haven't been any fires for at least 18 months.
2) The two 717s: One had a switch short out, causing a little thing of smoke to appear in the cockpit. The pilots decided to perform an emergency landing.
3) That statistic can't be valid through 12/31/01. Why? They had that exact same statistic since before 9/11, and well before FL956 happened. Considering that FL had well over 170000 flights in 2000 and 2001 alone, I go with LarryJs point of view that they are from just Valujet.
4) I already said that VJet was much different in terms of safety compared to AirTran is nowadays.
5) I don't consider 956 to be a big deal in giving FL blame. Yes it was bad, but as said above a passenger's curling iron set off the flames. The fire suppression system was going to be installed two weeks before the incident happened, and suppression systems were on most FL DC9s already. I consider this situation to be like 9/11 in how it is "bad". Yes, it was a terrible thing to happen, but it isn't the airline's fault.
6) My example with MidEx was that while you and I both agree that they are a safe airline, according to the airdisaster.com statistic, they are right behind VJet with 3.85 fatal accidents per 1 million flights. Lies, **** lies and statistics.
7) All airlines have an isolated incident such as the GSO flight. Remember the Delta MD11 in CLT back in April? It only took EIGHT minutes to evacuate with all the doors working when it should take just 90 seconds. 3 people broke bones, and 6 more were injured. All airlines have incidents every now and then.
Face it: AirTran is much safer today than it was 6 years ago. It is as safe as any other airline.
Guys, I have not doubt that non-English speaking ground crew caused that crash, but it is so politically incorrect to say so that no one has addressed that issue. I never fly into MIA because it is worse than a third world country. AA boarded me onto a puddle jumper when I told them I had not even obtained my boarding pass due to a delayed inbound flight. You AirTran detractors need to update your news files, articles from 1996 don't provide much relevant justification not to fly AirTran. How many crashes with total loss have the majors had?
Blaming AirTran for the Everglades crash is like blaming UA and AA for a couple of NY skyscrapers collapsing.
It was a third party that was responsible for the tragedies, so get over it.
It was a third party that was responsible for the tragedies, so get over it.
Having flown Airtan in some of my IAD-ATL travels, they seem as safe to me as anybody else, and with they're FF program, the 717 (nice little plane), if I lived in ATL I'd definitely be flying them over DL
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Its still Valujet to me
I don't see anyone else changing there name just so that they won't be associated with their own carelessness
I'll pass on ValueJet
I don't see anyone else changing there name just so that they won't be associated with their own carelessness
I'll pass on ValueJet
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Tino:
Blaming AirTran for the Everglades crash is like blaming UA and AA for a couple of NY skyscrapers collapsing.
It was a third party that was responsible for the tragedies, so get over it.</font>
Third party, huh. Do you remember how long the FAA prohibited UA and AA from operating aircraft after 9/11?<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Tino:
Blaming AirTran for the Everglades crash is like blaming UA and AA for a couple of NY skyscrapers collapsing.
It was a third party that was responsible for the tragedies, so get over it.</font>
It was over three months for ValuJet.
Please read the NTSB reports before you make any more uninformed statements that seem rather foolish and naive.
Still waiting for my reply...
dbaker: the aircraft in 9/11 weren't grounded b/c officials knew that AA and UA weren't the reason it happened rather easily. When an airplane crashes w/o a solid reason, then officials had to spend more time finding out. BTW: VJet did a voluntary shutdown.
dbaker: the aircraft in 9/11 weren't grounded b/c officials knew that AA and UA weren't the reason it happened rather easily. When an airplane crashes w/o a solid reason, then officials had to spend more time finding out. BTW: VJet did a voluntary shutdown.
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
I got over it easy; I just NEVER fly AirTran better known as Valujet
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Tino:
Blaming AirTran for the Everglades crash is like blaming UA and AA for a couple of NY skyscrapers collapsing.
It was a third party that was responsible for the tragedies, so get over it.</font>
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Tino:
Blaming AirTran for the Everglades crash is like blaming UA and AA for a couple of NY skyscrapers collapsing.
It was a third party that was responsible for the tragedies, so get over it.</font>