Could Valujet happen here?

[Pax-man]

Hi all,

I'm a regular passenger on both charter and "low-cost" airlines. Whist I don't get particularly nervous, I couldn't help but notice that I've flown some real buckets lately. With the high-density, fast turn-around use of aircraft, just how safe are we up there? Is the maintainance, particularly on the budget airlines, what it should be?

[PaulDeGearup]

I shouldn't worry too much about the low fare carriers; examine their histories of safety. You can do a search on any of the internet engines for airline safety and check who has had accidents where and when. Also the UK AAIB is online with deatils of all incdents and accidents.

[Desk Driver]

A wise of aviator said to me once

"If I don't think it's safe to fly It don't fly!"

Even allowing for commercial pressures today. The pilot's life is up their too, I don't think any pilot or airline even would risk lives.

------------------
-------------------------
You fly em we'll fill em!

[This message has been edited by Desk Driver (edited 30 April 2001).]

[Unwell_Raptor]

I suppose that there is no chance that there is a journalistic motive for the question?

[Pax-man]

I can assure you there's no journalistic motive involved! Just curious to ask the people who know seeing as I take to the sky a lot. I guess I just wonder how far things can be stretched before the bubble bursts.

[Devils Advocate]

Perhaps it's not so much the maintenance of the a/c - which, by the way, is generally first-rate... also to be read as Q). Just what pilot is going to blast off with a 'dodgy' aircraft strapped to his/her backside ? A). Not many (and certainly not me) !

Nope, imho, perhaps the question you should be asking is 'how tired / fatigued are the crew of the aircraft ?'

I.e. how hard are the companies driving their crews ? Right now there appears to be an acute shortage of both flight & cabin crews - with ALL companies seemingly asking (requiring) crew to fly to the limit allowed by the law / CAA.

Here's an example..... Airline pilots in the UK can do a maximum of 900 flight hours per year, be they 'long-haul', 'short-haul', 'charter', 'night-freight', or 'low-cost'.

So contrast then just how a 'low-cost' pilot is likely to be feeling after (or during) the attainment of these 900 short-haul hours consisting of about 550 sectors, coupled with mostly 25 minute turnarounds..... as opposed to the pilot who does the same number of annualised flying hours, but with only 250 sectors and with one hour turn-arounds in between ?!

[Pax-man]

Do you know - I'd not even considered the role of human fatigue as opposed to mechanical. Nor the strain of flying short-haul on a crew. I've read through a few other postings throughout this site, and it's apparent there's a lot of pressure on the pilots and cabin staff. An understatement perhaps??

[This message has been edited by Pax-man (edited 01 May 2001).]

[HugMonster]

Put simply, ValuJet's problem was not that they were a low-cost carrier, and the accident that killed the airline was not their fault, as I understand it, but that charged oxygen generators were, unknown to the airline, illegally boarded as freight, and stowed next to spare tyres.

The fault lay with the freight consignor who failed to describe the freight correctly and therefore had a dangerous goods consignment treated inappropriately.

Without wishing to be alarmist, in my opinion, yes, this COULD happen here. It is less likely to do so, however.

[Flap 5]

They and other airlines in the states were also found to have poor maintenance practises. I seem to remember a method of lifting engines on to their pylons using a forklift truck being a case in point.

Maintenance in the UK is generally very good. The problem arises when a tired flight crew and too many 'acceptable deferred defects' come together.