B-737 Cargo Plane down in Hawaii
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: LHR
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We see so many accidents that happen in places like Indonesia where the primary causal factor is an almost complete lack of regulatory oversight.
How it is that a US airline operating under FAA oversight can get to the point where they have their AOC pulled for poor engineering and maintenance practices when they had no previous interventions?
What are the FAA Flt Ops / Engineering Inspectors doing FFS?
How it is that a US airline operating under FAA oversight can get to the point where they have their AOC pulled for poor engineering and maintenance practices when they had no previous interventions?
What are the FAA Flt Ops / Engineering Inspectors doing FFS?
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Maryland USA
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is a good question. One part of the answer is freight never gets the attention people do. Since forever "freight dogs" have been a low priority for the FAA. This operation DID get busted, but just in very slow motion. It reminds me of the time back in the day when freight operators bought up cheap old Lears and basically did nothing to maintain them and eventually the FAA grounded the lot of them and they were so far gone maintenance-wise I believe many were scrapped.
Join Date: Jul 2021
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you read the public comments that were posted by UPS regarding their objection to the implementation of FAR part 117 (rest rules) for cargo operators you will see in plain written English that they want the public to accept a higher level of risk in cargo operations because the 117 rest rules would be expensive, and a crash involving a cargo aircraft is unlikely to involve many fatalities. I guess the general public never reads the fine print, but it is interesting to see their justification written so bluntly.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Been around the block
Posts: 629
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Magplug
the FAA is like most US gubment entities. It’s not proactive, it’s petty, combative, recalcitrant, run by risk averse bureaurocrats and probably corrupt or at least prone to side with manufacturers to “self test” band aid fixes, while not doing a very good job of administering much.
the FAA is like most US gubment entities. It’s not proactive, it’s petty, combative, recalcitrant, run by risk averse bureaurocrats and probably corrupt or at least prone to side with manufacturers to “self test” band aid fixes, while not doing a very good job of administering much.
PigBoat87
If you take a look at the Extended Range operations rules (aka ETOPS) for 3 and 4 engine aircraft, you would have seen that years ago. In short, freight operators are basically exempt from the 3/4 engine Extended Range operations rules that passenger aircraft are subjected to.
That was codified over 10 years ago. Freighters are expendable.
If you take a look at the Extended Range operations rules (aka ETOPS) for 3 and 4 engine aircraft, you would have seen that years ago. In short, freight operators are basically exempt from the 3/4 engine Extended Range operations rules that passenger aircraft are subjected to.
That was codified over 10 years ago. Freighters are expendable.
If you are only killing pilots the regulators don’t care. This is not a US issue, it is a worldwide reality
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Maryland USA
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
deltahotel
It has been like that for 100 years more or less. I flew night freight in hard IFR over nasty terrain and water in piston singles and 208s. At the time NO WAY could you carry paying passengers in those conditions in a SEL. Lately I think a few SELs can do it, a C-208 is probably as safe as an old Aztec.
The idea is the knowledgeable pilot can understand the risks and choose to take the flight or not, the general public has no idea what is safe and what isn't, so they need to be protected from themselves. Also freight-dogging is the traditional way to build hours, so your pool of pilots is a lot of people desperate for ANY job that gets them hours even if it involves flying over volcanoes in a Jenny
It has been like that for 100 years more or less. I flew night freight in hard IFR over nasty terrain and water in piston singles and 208s. At the time NO WAY could you carry paying passengers in those conditions in a SEL. Lately I think a few SELs can do it, a C-208 is probably as safe as an old Aztec.
The idea is the knowledgeable pilot can understand the risks and choose to take the flight or not, the general public has no idea what is safe and what isn't, so they need to be protected from themselves. Also freight-dogging is the traditional way to build hours, so your pool of pilots is a lot of people desperate for ANY job that gets them hours even if it involves flying over volcanoes in a Jenny
deltahotel
Either set of US rules are stronger than European rules. The difference came about in the US when the new 117 rule was proposed and cargo operations were able to buy enough political capital to get a carve out exempting themselves from the new rule.
Either set of US rules are stronger than European rules. The difference came about in the US when the new 117 rule was proposed and cargo operations were able to buy enough political capital to get a carve out exempting themselves from the new rule.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: LHR
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fully accept that FTL rules are generally different (both sides of the Atlantic) as freighter ops and passenger ops are different. Fatigue however is not a stand-out cause of accidents so you can't blame lax rules for freight ops mishaps. Engineering and operations standards for a 737 outfit are the same whatever type of operation you run.
We have driven far too far down this road of allowing operators to be their own safety investigators and their own regulators. There is constant pressure in any administration for public costs to be reduced to make tax dollars go further..... Here we see the result of that. These guys were lucky to execute a successful ditching. Had they been departing LAX to the east at night they would have gone downtown with hideous numbers of casualties.
Allowing airlines to self-regulate is a one-way road to big trouble.
We have driven far too far down this road of allowing operators to be their own safety investigators and their own regulators. There is constant pressure in any administration for public costs to be reduced to make tax dollars go further..... Here we see the result of that. These guys were lucky to execute a successful ditching. Had they been departing LAX to the east at night they would have gone downtown with hideous numbers of casualties.
Allowing airlines to self-regulate is a one-way road to big trouble.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 73
Posts: 3,668
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cargo accidents consequences are always treated differently than Pax ones., also in Europe. Someone mentioned El Al Amsterdam as an exception .yes partially because it officially killed 40 people on the ground ( but most probably over a 100 since it hit an building full of illegal immigrants ) and it made the world news. However the poor state of the aircraft ( the descriptions of the multiple failures during the inbound JKF SPL fight is impressive,) and the engine fuse pin failure issue leading to a Boeing SD, did not.. Media focused instead on the cargo transported ( the famous "perfume" for those here old enough to remember) but cannot remember seeing much mention on the very poor state of aircraft used for cargo ops.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Ankh Morpork, DW
Posts: 652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Putting the "rumor" back in PPRUNE:
I asked an HNL-based mechanic if he'd heard anything new about this accident. He told me an acquaintance at Transair told him that the plane in question needed 8-9 quarts of oil every service. I've never flown, let alone wrenched on JT-8Ds, but that sounds like a lot.
I asked an HNL-based mechanic if he'd heard anything new about this accident. He told me an acquaintance at Transair told him that the plane in question needed 8-9 quarts of oil every service. I've never flown, let alone wrenched on JT-8Ds, but that sounds like a lot.
