Pages: 1 2

 

2007-07-18 16:08:52
EVieira
Member
+105|6920|Lutenblaag, Molvania

usmarine2005 wrote:

EVieira wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:


Billions?  We have ten dollar tickets at my airline.  Bet that is cheaper than most tickets in South America or Africa.
I'm not talking about the airlines, they have plenty. I'm talking about governments/regulation agencies.

Besides, this crash had nothing to do with aircraft maintenance. The plane skidded on the runway and the pilot tried to abort the landing. The runway was very wet, it had rained very heavily the entire day.
I know that.  Maybe something failed or the pilot came in too hot.  My point was not the accident, but that jump started my thread.

Airlines have to pay for safety modifications, not the government.
The government enforces alot of safety regulations and procedures, and all that has a big cost. Not to mention the FAA. How safe would your airtravel be if the FAA was short of employees? Airlines know that its cheaper to have good maintenance rather then loos planes (to to mention lawsuits).

PS.: Recent news on the crash says the skid marks on the runway shows the pilot didn't try to abort, rather he was unable to stop. Hardware failure is still a possility, but at the momnt they are investigation the conditions of the runway and its drainage system.
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered;  the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei  (1564-1642)
2007-07-18 16:19:39
golgoj4
Member
+51|7216|North Hollywood

usmarine2005 wrote:

EVieira wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:


Billions?  We have ten dollar tickets at my airline.  Bet that is cheaper than most tickets in South America or Africa.
I'm not talking about the airlines, they have plenty. I'm talking about governments/regulation agencies.

Besides, this crash had nothing to do with aircraft maintenance. The plane skidded on the runway and the pilot tried to abort the landing. The runway was very wet, it had rained very heavily the entire day.
I know that.  Maybe something failed or the pilot came in too hot.  My point was not the accident, but that jump started my thread.

Airlines have to pay for safety modifications, not the government.
Uh...they said that he botched the landing. The runway is about 6,000 ft. Which i guess is pretty damned small. The airport is known for its short runways and there was a court order against larger planes landing there (which was overturned. The model of plane that crashed, wasnt on the banned list however)

Some of what i've gleaned:

*Short runway, like i said. It apparently understood that its like a carrier landing in that if you botch, take off and go around

*Apparently this pilot tried to take off too late into the landing. The plane was said to transit a specific area in about 3 seconds, where as normally that stretch would take 11 seconds.

*Runway was still awaiting further work to increase drainage.

*2 planes apparently skidded off the runway the day before, with one almost going into traffic.

In a side note, who the hell puts a gas station @ the end of the runway. Given its not right in FRONT of the runway, but it obviously wasn't very far downrange from the runway.

I feel for the people who lost someone in the accident. Maybe Brazil will get its collective shit together on this issue. I was reading about the accident about 10 months ago...apparently air traffic control put 2 planes on a collision course and never checked. Thats paraphrasing, but google it yourself.
2007-07-18 16:20:30
RECONDO67
Member
+60|7078|miami FL
they don't have the FAA on their necks like we do in America I went to school for aviation maintenance and everyone fears the FAA because they can cost you your living and your freedom by making you accountable for your mistakes
2007-07-18 16:33:52
howler_27
Member
+90|7129
My brother lives very close to Sao Paulo.   He emailed me and mentioned that it is in fact a very scary place to fly into, and figured that the runway & lack of grooving had a major part in what happened.  Apparently, they re-surfaced it and didn't groove it in order to try and catch up with back logged flights.  He had also mentioned that another plane skidded off of the runway no more than two days prior.  And he want's me to fly down there and visit? LMAO. 

I'm guessing that the whole lack of safety and following US standards is a possible reaction to NOT wanting to be dictated to, or proven that the US ways are the way to go.  Hell, I'll accept some flight delays for some peace of mind knowing that a problem has been caught and attended to.  These are very complicated systems, and if a problem comes up, I'd rather deal with it at 0Alt instead of 40,000ft, doing 550mph.

Aircraft maintenance has got to be one of the most thankless jobs out there.  When you think of how many people fly, and the lack of major airline incidents over the last decade, in the US, you really need to hand it to the techs.
2007-07-18 16:35:05
Ryan
Member
+1,230|7285|Alberta, Canada

Cowami should read this thread.
2007-07-18 16:46:51
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7204

Ryan wrote:

Cowami should read this thread.
Why is that?
2007-07-18 17:00:44
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7204

golgoj4 wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

EVieira wrote:


I'm not talking about the airlines, they have plenty. I'm talking about governments/regulation agencies.

Besides, this crash had nothing to do with aircraft maintenance. The plane skidded on the runway and the pilot tried to abort the landing. The runway was very wet, it had rained very heavily the entire day.
I know that.  Maybe something failed or the pilot came in too hot.  My point was not the accident, but that jump started my thread.

Airlines have to pay for safety modifications, not the government.
Uh...they said that he botched the landing. The runway is about 6,000 ft. Which i guess is pretty damned small. The airport is known for its short runways and there was a court order against larger planes landing there (which was overturned. The model of plane that crashed, wasnt on the banned list however)
Whatever the reason it is still an accident.  Near hits (misses)(<------ never understood the term "near-miss" if they didn't hit each other) happen once and a while in the US, but the fact they do not crash into each other means backup safety functions work.

As for the runway distance, I think that is sort of blown out of proportion.  Midway airport in Chicago scares the shit out of me in bad weather.  As long as everything is working, 6000ft is a decent distance.  However, maybe they didn't check the "wet" landing numbers, maybe they are not required to.  6000ft dry no problem, 6000 wet or icy not good.  If the runway had standing water, which is a big hit on landing distance, the airport should have reported it.

Not sure if this stuff happened or not, just some guesses.  My point is, these countries make up a small fraction of commercial flying, yet have the most accidents.
2007-07-18 17:22:03
EVieira
Member
+105|6920|Lutenblaag, Molvania
Footage just released of the airports cameras show the plane that crashed and the on just before it. The one before it takes 11 seconds to run a part of the runway, the one that crashed takes 3 seconds. It seems he was way too fast. But still too early to know exactly what caused him to land too fast, if it was simply a pilots error or not. He apparently also did not miss the 1000 feet landing mark.
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered;  the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei  (1564-1642)
2007-07-18 17:28:29
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7204

EVieira wrote:

He apparently also did not miss the 1000 feet landing mark.
Wow....then it is hard to be too fast if you hit the 1000ft mark.....unless you do a "carrier" landing.
2007-07-18 17:41:01
EVieira
Member
+105|6920|Lutenblaag, Molvania

usmarine2005 wrote:

EVieira wrote:

He apparently also did not miss the 1000 feet landing mark.
Wow....then it is hard to be too fast if you hit the 1000ft mark.....unless you do a "carrier" landing.
Well thats still to be prooven, it could be just the airline trying to say it wasn't the pilot's fault. The video though is pretty impressive, the second plane goes by MUCH faster.

BTW is it the 1000ft mark or is it the 1000m mark?
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered;  the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei  (1564-1642)
2007-07-18 17:51:47
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7204

EVieira wrote:

BTW is it the 1000ft mark or is it the 1000m mark?
"Runway Aiming Point Marking. The aiming point marking serves as a visual aiming point for a landing aircraft. These two rectangular markings consist of a broad white stripe located on each side of the runway centerline and approximately 1,000 feet from the landing threshold,"

http://www.pilotfriend.com/aero%20infor … HTING3.htm
2007-07-18 19:55:37
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6847|North Carolina

usmarine2005 wrote:

EVieira wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

My question is, why don't other countries take it as serious?  They fly the same planes we do for the same reasons.  Why don't they do something about it?
Without the billions you have, you can't expect the same level of security and safety. Still, air travel is by far the safest way to go.
Billions?  We have ten dollar tickets at my airline.  Bet that is cheaper than most tickets in South America or Africa.
Hey, if you do service from Greensboro, NC, let me know.  lol...  That's a shitload cheaper than what we pay here.
2007-07-18 19:57:15
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|7086
Im heading to Fort bragg next month, on the governments dime.
2007-07-18 20:03:54
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7204

Turquoise wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

EVieira wrote:


Without the billions you have, you can't expect the same level of security and safety. Still, air travel is by far the safest way to go.
Billions?  We have ten dollar tickets at my airline.  Bet that is cheaper than most tickets in South America or Africa.
Hey, if you do service from Greensboro, NC, let me know.  lol...  That's a shitload cheaper than what we pay here.
We do.
2007-07-18 20:13:02
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6847|North Carolina

usmarine2005 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:


Billions?  We have ten dollar tickets at my airline.  Bet that is cheaper than most tickets in South America or Africa.
Hey, if you do service from Greensboro, NC, let me know.  lol...  That's a shitload cheaper than what we pay here.
We do.
...and your airline is?...
2007-07-18 20:20:00
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7204

Turquoise wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


Hey, if you do service from Greensboro, NC, let me know.  lol...  That's a shitload cheaper than what we pay here.
We do.
...and your airline is?...
http://www.skybus.com/

Although you won't see $10 fares on the calenders unless you pick early next year I would imagine.  At least ten seats are guaranteed $10.  Then when those fill up, it goes to 20, 40, 60, etc as the plane fills.  Also, unless you plan to connect thru Columbus or do not plan on coming to Columbus, it will not do you much good.  Since Airbus can only build planes so fast, we will only receive one every month.  Rest assured we will be expanding, and the rumors are GSO will become a "focus city" in the near future, which means you will see direct flights out of GSO without having to stop thru Columbus.

Newest one in Hamburg...

https://img520.imageshack.us/img520/154/img0001et4.jpg
2007-07-18 20:24:54
{DGC}{jr.}Blitzkrieg
Member
+10|7278|Arizona

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

m3thod wrote:

They more concerned with the moolah rolling in than the precious cargo on board i guess.

When i was learning how to drive a bus that was ingrained into me.

And yes i have professional bus driving license and have driven big red double deckers around central London and had the wits scared out of me.
Muslim driving mass transport in an international hub? *FEAR
Gotta deal with it.....flew through heathrow to go to Austria last spring, bunch of them everywhere. I just assumed, for the benfit of the doubt, that Heathrow Airport did backround checks and everything on them before hiring them.
2007-07-18 20:27:13
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6847|North Carolina

usmarine2005 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:


We do.
...and your airline is?...
http://www.skybus.com/

Although you won't see $10 fares on the calenders unless you pick early next year I would imagine.  At least ten seats are guaranteed $10.  Then when those fill up, it goes to 20, 40, 60, etc as the plane fills.  Also, unless you plan to connect thru Columbus or do not plan on coming to Columbus, it will not do you much good.  Since Airbus can only build planes so fast, we will only receive one every month.  Rest assured we will be expanding, and the rumors are GSO will become a "focus city" in the near future, which means you will see direct flights out of GSO without having to stop thru Columbus.

Newest one in Hamburg...

http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/154/img0001et4.jpg
Nice...  I'll see what I can find.  I've been using American Airlines for my business trips to Dallas, but we might be able to switch airlines.  I wonder if they do direct flights to Dallas from Greensboro.  I'm pretty sure USAir doesn't.
2007-07-18 20:28:18
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7204

Turquoise wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


...and your airline is?...
http://www.skybus.com/

Although you won't see $10 fares on the calenders unless you pick early next year I would imagine.  At least ten seats are guaranteed $10.  Then when those fill up, it goes to 20, 40, 60, etc as the plane fills.  Also, unless you plan to connect thru Columbus or do not plan on coming to Columbus, it will not do you much good.  Since Airbus can only build planes so fast, we will only receive one every month.  Rest assured we will be expanding, and the rumors are GSO will become a "focus city" in the near future, which means you will see direct flights out of GSO without having to stop thru Columbus.

Newest one in Hamburg...

http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/154/img0001et4.jpg
Nice...  I'll see what I can find.  I've been using American Airlines for my business trips to Dallas, but we might be able to switch airlines.  I wonder if they do direct flights to Dallas from Greensboro.  I'm pretty sure USAir doesn't.
Nothing in Texas yet, although San Ant could be on the horizon.
2007-07-18 20:30:18
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6847|North Carolina

usmarine2005 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:


http://www.skybus.com/

Although you won't see $10 fares on the calenders unless you pick early next year I would imagine.  At least ten seats are guaranteed $10.  Then when those fill up, it goes to 20, 40, 60, etc as the plane fills.  Also, unless you plan to connect thru Columbus or do not plan on coming to Columbus, it will not do you much good.  Since Airbus can only build planes so fast, we will only receive one every month.  Rest assured we will be expanding, and the rumors are GSO will become a "focus city" in the near future, which means you will see direct flights out of GSO without having to stop thru Columbus.

Newest one in Hamburg...

http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/154/img0001et4.jpg
Nice...  I'll see what I can find.  I've been using American Airlines for my business trips to Dallas, but we might be able to switch airlines.  I wonder if they do direct flights to Dallas from Greensboro.  I'm pretty sure USAir doesn't.
Nothing in Texas yet, although San Ant could be on the horizon.
*nods*  Well, if you've got service for Dulles International and O'Hare, I might be using Skybus in the future as well.  My company has plants in both the D.C. and Chicago areas.
2007-07-18 21:23:51
golgoj4
Member
+51|7216|North Hollywood

usmarine2005 wrote:

golgoj4 wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:


I know that.  Maybe something failed or the pilot came in too hot.  My point was not the accident, but that jump started my thread.

Airlines have to pay for safety modifications, not the government.
Uh...they said that he botched the landing. The runway is about 6,000 ft. Which i guess is pretty damned small. The airport is known for its short runways and there was a court order against larger planes landing there (which was overturned. The model of plane that crashed, wasnt on the banned list however)
Whatever the reason it is still an accident.  Near hits (misses)(<------ never understood the term "near-miss" if they didn't hit each other) happen once and a while in the US, but the fact they do not crash into each other means backup safety functions work.

As for the runway distance, I think that is sort of blown out of proportion.  Midway airport in Chicago scares the shit out of me in bad weather.  As long as everything is working, 6000ft is a decent distance.  However, maybe they didn't check the "wet" landing numbers, maybe they are not required to.  6000ft dry no problem, 6000 wet or icy not good.  If the runway had standing water, which is a big hit on landing distance, the airport should have reported it.

Not sure if this stuff happened or not, just some guesses.  My point is, these countries make up a small fraction of commercial flying, yet have the most accidents.
I think all those factors you just named make sense. I flew out of o hare during a storm once...damn near kissed my ass goodbye.

But it seems they just lack professionalism in general...i dunno if its corruption or what.
2007-07-18 21:26:45
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7204

golgoj4 wrote:

But it seems they just lack professionalism in general...i dunno if its corruption or what.
The US is heading in that direction it seems...

"Southwest is cutting costs. This week it delayed delivery of some jets from the Boeing Co. and offered buyouts to 8,700 workers -- one-fourth of its employees. Kelly said Southwest plans to replace veteran workers who leave with less expensive, entry-level employees."

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070718/earns_airlines.html?.v=5

A good idea to the bean counters yes, but not for the people who fly on them.
2007-07-19 04:49:07
EVieira
Member
+105|6920|Lutenblaag, Molvania
Here are the videos of the airport cameras. In the first one you can see how fast he was going, comparing to another landing of the same type of aircraft. On the second one you can see him going off the runway and the flash of the explosion.

TAM Airlines Crash

It seems that he really did hit the 1000ft mark, so I guess something must have failed. Brakes, air brakes, engine reverse (is that what its called in english?)... I'm getting scared of flying in this country...

Last edited by EVieira (2007-07-19 04:50:01)

"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered;  the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei  (1564-1642)
2007-07-19 09:16:54
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7204

EVieira wrote:

Here are the videos of the airport cameras. In the first one you can see how fast he was going, comparing to another landing of the same type of aircraft. On the second one you can see him going off the runway and the flash of the explosion.

TAM Airlines Crash

It seems that he really did hit the 1000ft mark, so I guess something must have failed. Brakes, air brakes, engine reverse (is that what its called in english?)... I'm getting scared of flying in this country...
Seemed to me like he was going pretty damn fast.  He also had little "flare" which suggests a hot "carrier" landing.
2007-07-25 12:52:57
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7204

Ok, I just saw a Telex from Airbus, which was faxed to us about this accident.

The Number 2 engine thrust reverser was inop yet it was dispatched to a wet runway which was not very long to begin with.  Bad call...very bad call by TAM.

Last edited by usmarine2005 (2007-07-25 12:53:09)

 

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard