NTSB's "TO DO" list and FAA's ignoring it
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: SEA (or better PAE)
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NTSB's "TO DO" list and FAA's ignoring it
Hello all.
Airsafety today has put an article on what is NTSB requesting to be changed (a broad spectrum of things from runway incursions to seat strapping for infants and children).
Not to mention the dreaded SLD problem.
here is the link:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...7/ai_101586988
Of course FAA does, mostly NOTHING.
Same old, same old.
I bet they (FAA) however are all over the place to state their opinions on everything. Pure politics - no actions, words only.
Cheers,
Airsafety today has put an article on what is NTSB requesting to be changed (a broad spectrum of things from runway incursions to seat strapping for infants and children).
Not to mention the dreaded SLD problem.
here is the link:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...7/ai_101586988
Of course FAA does, mostly NOTHING.
Same old, same old.
I bet they (FAA) however are all over the place to state their opinions on everything. Pure politics - no actions, words only.
Cheers,
Last edited by Grunf; 22nd Nov 2005 at 14:47.
Grunf: Did you read somewhere about the FAA's famous policy of supposedly using a cost/benefit analysis to help decide whether NTSB recommendations were worth it for the airlines to spend the required money?
They might have a hidden formula to measure lives saved/money spent.
When some ATR aircraft in Europe suffered from serious control problems with "aileron snatch" during icing conditions, the FAA "allegedly" received reports on it and required no changes, due to out-dated or incomplete de-icing certification testing. They seem to have hidden the reports and (maybe?) hoped that no US-registered aircraft with fare-paying citizens would die (remember, top Dept. of Transportation staff are appointed by the President or his puppets).
Now keep in mind that if a plane which only carries freight crashes, the public might not even read about it and there are never political repurcussions. Read about the Connie Kalitta DC-8 in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. This was the FIRST US airline accident where the NTSB found the courage to point to crew fatigue as the PRIMARY CAUSE, which meant standing up to the FAA
. Anyway, after the Eagle disaster at Roselawn, Indiana, "Our Friends" with the FAA even recruited an Air Force tanker jet (KC-135s) to spray water, as it was followed by an ATR turboprop aircraft, in order to thoroughly evaluate the effects of icing conditions on the area just in front of the ailerons.
Why was this not understood in the 50s or 60s?? Were there not some wings back then with similar aspect ratios? Or was this certification partly rubber-stamped when the aircraft was imported from other countries?
The crash resulted in smashed bodies in Roselawn, Indiana. The First Officer was the son of one of our pilots. The American Eagle ATRs were quickly transferred to routes where aircraft don't experience much, if any, icing (San Juan, Puerto Rico).
In smaller turboprops such as the best-selling Beechcraft King-air, pilots often don't realize that tail icing with landing flaps can create a nightmarish pitchdown requiring up to 100 pounds of yoke back-pressure force to correct it.
They might have a hidden formula to measure lives saved/money spent.
When some ATR aircraft in Europe suffered from serious control problems with "aileron snatch" during icing conditions, the FAA "allegedly" received reports on it and required no changes, due to out-dated or incomplete de-icing certification testing. They seem to have hidden the reports and (maybe?) hoped that no US-registered aircraft with fare-paying citizens would die (remember, top Dept. of Transportation staff are appointed by the President or his puppets).
Now keep in mind that if a plane which only carries freight crashes, the public might not even read about it and there are never political repurcussions. Read about the Connie Kalitta DC-8 in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. This was the FIRST US airline accident where the NTSB found the courage to point to crew fatigue as the PRIMARY CAUSE, which meant standing up to the FAA
. Anyway, after the Eagle disaster at Roselawn, Indiana, "Our Friends" with the FAA even recruited an Air Force tanker jet (KC-135s) to spray water, as it was followed by an ATR turboprop aircraft, in order to thoroughly evaluate the effects of icing conditions on the area just in front of the ailerons. Why was this not understood in the 50s or 60s?? Were there not some wings back then with similar aspect ratios? Or was this certification partly rubber-stamped when the aircraft was imported from other countries?
The crash resulted in smashed bodies in Roselawn, Indiana. The First Officer was the son of one of our pilots. The American Eagle ATRs were quickly transferred to routes where aircraft don't experience much, if any, icing (San Juan, Puerto Rico).
In smaller turboprops such as the best-selling Beechcraft King-air, pilots often don't realize that tail icing with landing flaps can create a nightmarish pitchdown requiring up to 100 pounds of yoke back-pressure force to correct it.
Last edited by Ignition Override; 28th Nov 2005 at 07:54.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Grunf ... as I'm usually interested is seeing what kind of exchanges are "in the wind" between the FAA and NTSB, I usually check out what has been posted on those topics. Unfortunately, unless there is something hidden in the link you posted, all I find from your link is a series of articles that date back a mere 30 months! Is this what you were referencing?
If so, I'd submit that this is not just "old news," by today's standards, it's ancient. For example, one of the articles reached through your link describes "then-NTSB Chair Marion Blakey..."
Ms. Blakey has been the FAA Administrator for sometime now, and, as the former NTSB chair, I would think that if there is or was anything of merit in the Board's myriad of "safety recommendations," Ms. Blakey would not have waited around meaninglessly for all these years doing nothing about it.
So, if I've missed a point, please let us all in on the secret.
_______
AirRabbit
If so, I'd submit that this is not just "old news," by today's standards, it's ancient. For example, one of the articles reached through your link describes "then-NTSB Chair Marion Blakey..."
Ms. Blakey has been the FAA Administrator for sometime now, and, as the former NTSB chair, I would think that if there is or was anything of merit in the Board's myriad of "safety recommendations," Ms. Blakey would not have waited around meaninglessly for all these years doing nothing about it.
So, if I've missed a point, please let us all in on the secret.
_______
AirRabbit
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: SEA (or better PAE)
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AirRabitt:
OK. I've tried to use this link since it was easier for me and some people had a problem reaching the "Airsafety" link.
Here is the NTSB's link to the same thing:
http://www.ntsb.gov/Recs/mostwanted/aviation_issues.htm
Good point and still I do not see it resolved. I like the "semaphore" they use, it looks nice. Sadly still no positive outcome.
It does impact some of things I do and I can see some changes but still it is manufacturer effort and not FAA requirement. As I said I do not see FAA doing something which is frustrating. Too much bureaucracy kills everything, as usual.
OK. I've tried to use this link since it was easier for me and some people had a problem reaching the "Airsafety" link.
Here is the NTSB's link to the same thing:
http://www.ntsb.gov/Recs/mostwanted/aviation_issues.htm
Good point and still I do not see it resolved. I like the "semaphore" they use, it looks nice. Sadly still no positive outcome.
It does impact some of things I do and I can see some changes but still it is manufacturer effort and not FAA requirement. As I said I do not see FAA doing something which is frustrating. Too much bureaucracy kills everything, as usual.
