Air tran Speaks Out!
Nov 7, 2002 | 3:01 pm
#61
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: IAH
Programs: UA 1K/*G
Posts: 2,397
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by lowfareair:
Still waiting for my reply...</font>
Still waiting for my reply...</font>
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
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.</font>
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.</font>
According to CNN:
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
The Atlanta-based airline suspended operations at midnight after a federal inspection found deficiencies in the carrier's operations. The airline has said it hopes to resume service within 30 days.
The Federal Aviation Administration investigation came after a ValuJet DC-9 crashed May 11 in the Florida Everglades, killing all 110 people on board.
</font>
The Atlanta-based airline suspended operations at midnight after a federal inspection found deficiencies in the carrier's operations. The airline has said it hopes to resume service within 30 days.
The Federal Aviation Administration investigation came after a ValuJet DC-9 crashed May 11 in the Florida Everglades, killing all 110 people on board.
</font>
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Federal Aviation Administration administrator David Hinson announced Monday that ValuJet had agreed to a temporary halt in operations until "serious deficiencies" in the low-fare carrier's operations were corrected.
</font>
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Federal Aviation Administration administrator David Hinson announced Monday that ValuJet had agreed to a temporary halt in operations until "serious deficiencies" in the low-fare carrier's operations were corrected.
</font>
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
"The agency's 30-day intensive inspection found several serious deficiencies in ValuJet's operation," Hinson said.
Those deficiencies included a failure to establish the air- worthiness of some of ValuJet's airliners, deficiencies in the carrier's maintenance program, shortcomings in quality assurance of ValuJet's maintenance contractors, and a strong weakness in engineering capability in the carrier's maintenance support organization.
</font>
"The agency's 30-day intensive inspection found several serious deficiencies in ValuJet's operation," Hinson said.
Those deficiencies included a failure to establish the air- worthiness of some of ValuJet's airliners, deficiencies in the carrier's maintenance program, shortcomings in quality assurance of ValuJet's maintenance contractors, and a strong weakness in engineering capability in the carrier's maintenance support organization.
</font>
Nov 7, 2002 | 3:20 pm
#62
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: IAH
Programs: UA 1K/*G
Posts: 2,397
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by lowfareair:
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.
</font>
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.
</font>
And what about the second one where there was a total electrical failure and the pilots had to land without electronics?
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
4) I already said that VJet was much different in terms of safety compared to AirTran is nowadays.
</font>
4) I already said that VJet was much different in terms of safety compared to AirTran is nowadays.
</font>
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
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.
</font>
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.
</font>
Had the fire been worse, the aircraft would have crashed just like 592. It's an extremely similar circumstance. Cargo fire, DC-9, etc. It's ridiculous that you try to justify it as reasonable.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
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.
</font>
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.
</font>
Plus the fact that most people don't realize AirTran == ValuJet.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
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.</font>
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.</font>
Nov 7, 2002 | 4:12 pm
#64
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: IAH
Programs: UA 1K/*G
Posts: 2,397
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by LemonThrower:
Isn't that what happened to TWA 800?</font>
Isn't that what happened to TWA 800?</font>
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
Isn't that what happened to the plane that crashed in NYC (Brooklyn or Queens I think) shortly after 9/11?</font>
Isn't that what happened to the plane that crashed in NYC (Brooklyn or Queens I think) shortly after 9/11?</font>
Nov 7, 2002 | 9:24 pm
#65
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 2,943
1) Missed the employee question. I am not an employee of FL, nor do I personally know any employees of FL.
2) It WAS a little wisp of smoke, as it was one switch that shorted out. For a similar effect, find a cigarette lighter, leave it lit for 5 seconds, turn it off and look at the smoke that comes from it. That was just about the extent of what happened.
3) 956 was NOT FL's fault. I'm not saying it is okay for it to happen, but AirTran didn't cause it, it was a darn CURLING IRON. It could have happened on any airline, as most of them didn't have the fire suppression systems on 100% of their fleet at that point.
4) I have said that VJet WAS unsafe. AirTran is safe now. End of story discussing VJet as we agree on that point, if you want to debate more on post-merger AirTran I'd be happy to.
>>I'm not doubting that they're safer today. A newer fleet, even with incompetent maintenance, will always be safer than an older fleet with the same maintenance. It's ridiculous to think that AirTran is as safe as other major airlines or to try to compare countless AirTran incidents with a major airline incident. AirTran has more fire crashes and emergency landings than airlines with 10x the number of planes. <<
Your last statement is bogus. DL and its wholly owned subsidiaries had about 50 emergency landings in 2000 alone.
And so far you never replied to my argument that there haven't been any fires or emergency landings on FL aircraft(Not including weather diversions or 9/11 diversions, of course) in almost two years(2001 and 2002 have been perfect). After they went through all the DC9 wiring and replaced anything that was wrong, there haven't been any more emergency landings.
I think that you are the blind one. Stuck in the past, not thinking about the future. Watching too much american news, need to watch/read more international news media for a full view.
2) It WAS a little wisp of smoke, as it was one switch that shorted out. For a similar effect, find a cigarette lighter, leave it lit for 5 seconds, turn it off and look at the smoke that comes from it. That was just about the extent of what happened.
3) 956 was NOT FL's fault. I'm not saying it is okay for it to happen, but AirTran didn't cause it, it was a darn CURLING IRON. It could have happened on any airline, as most of them didn't have the fire suppression systems on 100% of their fleet at that point.
4) I have said that VJet WAS unsafe. AirTran is safe now. End of story discussing VJet as we agree on that point, if you want to debate more on post-merger AirTran I'd be happy to.
>>I'm not doubting that they're safer today. A newer fleet, even with incompetent maintenance, will always be safer than an older fleet with the same maintenance. It's ridiculous to think that AirTran is as safe as other major airlines or to try to compare countless AirTran incidents with a major airline incident. AirTran has more fire crashes and emergency landings than airlines with 10x the number of planes. <<
Your last statement is bogus. DL and its wholly owned subsidiaries had about 50 emergency landings in 2000 alone.
And so far you never replied to my argument that there haven't been any fires or emergency landings on FL aircraft(Not including weather diversions or 9/11 diversions, of course) in almost two years(2001 and 2002 have been perfect). After they went through all the DC9 wiring and replaced anything that was wrong, there haven't been any more emergency landings.
I think that you are the blind one. Stuck in the past, not thinking about the future. Watching too much american news, need to watch/read more international news media for a full view.
Nov 7, 2002 | 10:27 pm
#66
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: IAH
Programs: UA 1K/*G
Posts: 2,397
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by lowfareair:
there haven't been any fires or emergency landings on FL aircraft(Not including weather diversions or 9/11 diversions, of course) in almost two years(2001 and 2002 have been perfect)</font>
there haven't been any fires or emergency landings on FL aircraft(Not including weather diversions or 9/11 diversions, of course) in almost two years(2001 and 2002 have been perfect)</font>
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
20-MAR-02
AIRTRAN AIRWAYS INC
AFTER TAKEOFF AND CLIMB, THE AIRCRAFT EXPERIENCED A PRESSURIZATION "BUMP" AND ONE OF THE CABIN ATTENDANTS INFORMED THE CREW OF A SOUND COMING FROM THE EMPENNAGE AREA. THE CREW DECLARED AN EMERGENCY AND RETURNED TO BMI WHERE AN UNEVENTFUL LANDING WAS MADE. ATL MAINTENANCE WAS DISPATCHED TO BMI WHERE THEY FOUND A SEAL BLOWN OUT ON THE DISTRIBUTION DUCT FOR THE RIGHT PACK AND A HOSE THAT HAD BECOME DISCONNECTED FROM A DUCT ON THE LEFT PACK. MAINTENANCE RESECURED THE HOSE ON THE LEFT PACK DUCT AND PLACE THE RIGHT PACK ON MEL. THE AIRCRAFT WAS LATER DISPATCHED ON A REPOSITION FLIGHT TO ATL WHERE REPAIRS WERE MADE TO THE RIGHT PACK. THIS INCIDENT IS CLOSED WITH THIS REPORT.
</font>
20-MAR-02
AIRTRAN AIRWAYS INC
AFTER TAKEOFF AND CLIMB, THE AIRCRAFT EXPERIENCED A PRESSURIZATION "BUMP" AND ONE OF THE CABIN ATTENDANTS INFORMED THE CREW OF A SOUND COMING FROM THE EMPENNAGE AREA. THE CREW DECLARED AN EMERGENCY AND RETURNED TO BMI WHERE AN UNEVENTFUL LANDING WAS MADE. ATL MAINTENANCE WAS DISPATCHED TO BMI WHERE THEY FOUND A SEAL BLOWN OUT ON THE DISTRIBUTION DUCT FOR THE RIGHT PACK AND A HOSE THAT HAD BECOME DISCONNECTED FROM A DUCT ON THE LEFT PACK. MAINTENANCE RESECURED THE HOSE ON THE LEFT PACK DUCT AND PLACE THE RIGHT PACK ON MEL. THE AIRCRAFT WAS LATER DISPATCHED ON A REPOSITION FLIGHT TO ATL WHERE REPAIRS WERE MADE TO THE RIGHT PACK. THIS INCIDENT IS CLOSED WITH THIS REPORT.
</font>
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
24-FEB-01
AIRTRAN AIRWAYS INC
RETURNED TO LAND AFTER TAKEOFF, SMOKE SMELL IN REAR CABIN. LOG PAGE #F210671, DISC. #18: "ACRID SMOKE SMELL IN AFT CABIN. NO SMOKE VISIBLE." CORRECTIVE ACTION: "INSPECTED AFT CABIN AREA FOR EVIDENCE OF SMOKE OR BURNING MATERIAL-NONE FOUND. POWERED UP AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS, INCLUDING THE LEFT AND RIGHT PACKS AND AFT COFFEE MAKER. VISUALLY INSPECTED ALL AFT AREA FOR EVIDENCE OF SMOKE OR ELECTRICAL SPARKING, NONE FOUND. ALL SYSTEMS CHECK "OK". SAME PAGE, DISC. #19: "LANDING 101,000 #S, MINIMUM RATE OF DESCENT." CORRECTIVE ACTION: "PERFORMED VISUAL INSPECTION OF FUSELAGE, MAIN AND NOSE LANDING GEAR, TO INCLUDE TIRE RIMS AND BRAKE ASSYS, WING AND PYLON AREAS FOR EVIDENCE OF BUCKLING, WRINKLES AND DISTORTION-NONE FOUND. CHECK TIRE PRESSURES, AND STRUTS FOR LEAKS-NONE FOUND. PERFORMED INSPECTION IAW DC-9 MM 5-51-0." AIRCRAFT RETURNED TO SERVICE AND REPOSITIONED TO ATL THE FOLLOWING MORNING. CONTRACT MECHANIC RAN ALL SYSTEMS (AIR CONDITIONING/HEATING, ELECTRICAL, GALLEY, LIGHTS) AND ENGINES FOR A COMBINED TOTAL OF 3 HOURS, AND WAS UNABLE TO DUPLICATE THE SMELL. HE THOROUGHLY INSPECTED THE LAVATORY TRASH CONTAINERS-NO BURNT MATERIALS WERE FOUND. SUSPECTED BURNT SPILLED COFFEE, BUT WAS UNABLE TO CONFIRM.
</font>
24-FEB-01
AIRTRAN AIRWAYS INC
RETURNED TO LAND AFTER TAKEOFF, SMOKE SMELL IN REAR CABIN. LOG PAGE #F210671, DISC. #18: "ACRID SMOKE SMELL IN AFT CABIN. NO SMOKE VISIBLE." CORRECTIVE ACTION: "INSPECTED AFT CABIN AREA FOR EVIDENCE OF SMOKE OR BURNING MATERIAL-NONE FOUND. POWERED UP AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS, INCLUDING THE LEFT AND RIGHT PACKS AND AFT COFFEE MAKER. VISUALLY INSPECTED ALL AFT AREA FOR EVIDENCE OF SMOKE OR ELECTRICAL SPARKING, NONE FOUND. ALL SYSTEMS CHECK "OK". SAME PAGE, DISC. #19: "LANDING 101,000 #S, MINIMUM RATE OF DESCENT." CORRECTIVE ACTION: "PERFORMED VISUAL INSPECTION OF FUSELAGE, MAIN AND NOSE LANDING GEAR, TO INCLUDE TIRE RIMS AND BRAKE ASSYS, WING AND PYLON AREAS FOR EVIDENCE OF BUCKLING, WRINKLES AND DISTORTION-NONE FOUND. CHECK TIRE PRESSURES, AND STRUTS FOR LEAKS-NONE FOUND. PERFORMED INSPECTION IAW DC-9 MM 5-51-0." AIRCRAFT RETURNED TO SERVICE AND REPOSITIONED TO ATL THE FOLLOWING MORNING. CONTRACT MECHANIC RAN ALL SYSTEMS (AIR CONDITIONING/HEATING, ELECTRICAL, GALLEY, LIGHTS) AND ENGINES FOR A COMBINED TOTAL OF 3 HOURS, AND WAS UNABLE TO DUPLICATE THE SMELL. HE THOROUGHLY INSPECTED THE LAVATORY TRASH CONTAINERS-NO BURNT MATERIALS WERE FOUND. SUSPECTED BURNT SPILLED COFFEE, BUT WAS UNABLE TO CONFIRM.
</font>
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
27-JUN-01
AIRTRAN AIRWAYS INC
INCIDENT - AIR CARRIER
NO NARRATIVE
</font>
27-JUN-01
AIRTRAN AIRWAYS INC
INCIDENT - AIR CARRIER
NO NARRATIVE
</font>
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
16-JUL-01
AIRTRAN AIRWAYS INC
DURING DESCENT INTO MLI THE AIRCRAFT EXPERIENCED A FORWARD CARGO FIRE DETECTION. CREW INITIATED EMERGENCY PROCEDURES AND DISCHARGED #1 FIRE BOTTLE. CREW EXECUTED NORMAL LANDING, STOP ON THE RUNWAY, MADE AN EMERGENCY EVACUATION VIA L1 AND AFT TAIL CONE EMERGENCY EXIT. NO INJURIES OR DAMAGE REPORTED.
</font>
16-JUL-01
AIRTRAN AIRWAYS INC
DURING DESCENT INTO MLI THE AIRCRAFT EXPERIENCED A FORWARD CARGO FIRE DETECTION. CREW INITIATED EMERGENCY PROCEDURES AND DISCHARGED #1 FIRE BOTTLE. CREW EXECUTED NORMAL LANDING, STOP ON THE RUNWAY, MADE AN EMERGENCY EVACUATION VIA L1 AND AFT TAIL CONE EMERGENCY EXIT. NO INJURIES OR DAMAGE REPORTED.
</font>
Nov 8, 2002 | 5:00 am
#67
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 2,943
Then I'm sorry. Usually I hear about everything that FL does on network news but I didn't know about those. I have followed the problem but I obviously don't research it as in-depth as you have, as I don't have an obsession with it. I still consider them to be safe. If you can't come to that, thinking that times can't change, I respect that.
Nov 8, 2002 | 9:57 am
#68
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Auburn, AL
Programs: HH Diamond
Posts: 445
dbaker, where are you getting the reports you posted?
I looked at the ntsb searchable database and at the monthly lists of accidents and found reference to only one of the incidents you talked about in your last post - smoke in the cockpit on 6/27/01. The only onter Air Tan incident there for '01 and '02 is a collision with a tug during pushback on an icy ramp. Nothing there about other fires or emergency landings.
I looked at the ntsb searchable database and at the monthly lists of accidents and found reference to only one of the incidents you talked about in your last post - smoke in the cockpit on 6/27/01. The only onter Air Tan incident there for '01 and '02 is a collision with a tug during pushback on an icy ramp. Nothing there about other fires or emergency landings.
Nov 8, 2002 | 5:17 pm
#70
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Auburn, AL
Programs: HH Diamond
Posts: 445
Thanks, dbaker.
Interesting stuff. I see that Airtran had 4 DC-9 incidents in '01 and '02 listed on that database and NW had 15. From the sheer number of planes in the fleet, NW would seem to have a much lower incident rate in the past two years.
Interesting stuff. I see that Airtran had 4 DC-9 incidents in '01 and '02 listed on that database and NW had 15. From the sheer number of planes in the fleet, NW would seem to have a much lower incident rate in the past two years.