Tous
← Back to Squawk list
Unfit for flight: Hidden defects linked to small-aircraft crashes over five decades
Nearly 45,000 people have been killed over the past five decades in private planes and helicopters — almost nine times the number that have died in airline crashes — and federal investigators have cited pilots as causing or contributing to 86% of private crashes. But a USA TODAY investigation shows repeated instances in which crashes, deaths and injuries were caused by defective parts and dangerous designs, casting doubt on the government's official rulings and revealing the inner workings… (www.usatoday.com) Plus d'info...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
This is a BULL-SHIT article!!!
USA Today sensationalism is well known, after all how else do they remain alive as a national print media? HOWEVER, aviation safety is not well served by a bloated self serving bureaucracy(FAA), riddled with conflict of interest. Lawyers and insurance companies routinely settle cases on bad information because the cost of a complete and impartial investigation does not add to their likelihood of winning. The bottom line is simply that people die from unintended consequences, while the trade-offs in aviation design and operations are usually resolved in favor of speed or ROI. How much are you willing to pay it improve the chance you survive your next flight by 10%?
Yeah, the old "Cessna Seat Track" story. The issue that keeps on giving (to the trial lawyers). In fact, I'm betting most of this "research" came from the trial lawyers, to "educate the jury pool".
One of the reasons the seat track issue dinged Cessna was because the inspection criteria in the maintenance manuals was "common sense"......."Inspect condition of seat rails".....The problem came because IAs were passing seat rails on annuals, no matter what condition they were in, because they didn't want the owners bitching about the cost of replacing them. So junk rails got the green light, until enough seats slid full aft during a takeoff or climb.
Take a look at anybody's current maintenance manual. The first five paragraphs in any inspection or maintenance procedure are disclaimers, written by the company lawyers. And the inspection criteria has tightened to the "when in doubt at all, R&R" level. No "judgement calls" allowed anymore.
And another thing.......in lawsuits like this, the OEMs always get left holding the S##tbag. Because no one wants to sue friends/relatives for screwing up. And good luck with suing the shop or mechanic.......none of those guys have any money (just ask me). Say there was a $10M judgement, with 50% of the cause being pilot performance, and 5% the OEM. Doesn't matter. since the others can't pay, the OEM gets stuck paying the whole judgement.
So the OEMs have really tightened up on who they sell repair/overhaul manuals to (You can't legally overhaul or repair any components without a "current manual") To the point where the only place you can get most parts is from the OEM, or their authorized vendors. And the fact that being the sole source provider means you can ding your customers for whatever you think you can get away with is just a nice byproduct.
One of the reasons the seat track issue dinged Cessna was because the inspection criteria in the maintenance manuals was "common sense"......."Inspect condition of seat rails".....The problem came because IAs were passing seat rails on annuals, no matter what condition they were in, because they didn't want the owners bitching about the cost of replacing them. So junk rails got the green light, until enough seats slid full aft during a takeoff or climb.
Take a look at anybody's current maintenance manual. The first five paragraphs in any inspection or maintenance procedure are disclaimers, written by the company lawyers. And the inspection criteria has tightened to the "when in doubt at all, R&R" level. No "judgement calls" allowed anymore.
And another thing.......in lawsuits like this, the OEMs always get left holding the S##tbag. Because no one wants to sue friends/relatives for screwing up. And good luck with suing the shop or mechanic.......none of those guys have any money (just ask me). Say there was a $10M judgement, with 50% of the cause being pilot performance, and 5% the OEM. Doesn't matter. since the others can't pay, the OEM gets stuck paying the whole judgement.
So the OEMs have really tightened up on who they sell repair/overhaul manuals to (You can't legally overhaul or repair any components without a "current manual") To the point where the only place you can get most parts is from the OEM, or their authorized vendors. And the fact that being the sole source provider means you can ding your customers for whatever you think you can get away with is just a nice byproduct.
Read Paul Bortorelli's commentary on AvWeb - a good perspective on the topic of GA safety and a reasonable rebuttal to the article.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/101/2838-full.html?ET=avweb:e2838:272586a:&st=email#222192
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/101/2838-full.html?ET=avweb:e2838:272586a:&st=email#222192
I'd like to see this reporter try to run ANY manufacturer in any industry for more than a year and not run it into the ground. Maybe if he had a clue what the competitive marketplace was like and the reality of economics, he'd start to actually understand what the hell he is writing about.
The greatest irony to me is that he seems to heap the greatest blame for the safety record on manufacturers failing to own up to their own responsibilities, and yet, it sure seems to me that he's doing exactly that in his article! How about a little OBJECTIVE journalism, pal.
The greatest irony to me is that he seems to heap the greatest blame for the safety record on manufacturers failing to own up to their own responsibilities, and yet, it sure seems to me that he's doing exactly that in his article! How about a little OBJECTIVE journalism, pal.
Just checked the FAA wed site so far from 29 May to 21 June there have been 106 GA and a couple reported COMAIR related aircraft accident or incidents resulting in 19 deaths. I was actually shocked that there were that many in a 30 day period. Not sure what the annual accident rate is per flight hour across general aviation is, but I'm sure it is a good telling story for GA safety. When I was 6 years old I was told its safer to fly than drive a very true statement 52 years later. Any Aviation related occurrence gets high visibility that normally does not last long and each accident/incident has its own facts that must be figured out. Fact based data is the true story teller for each and every event. KEEP YOU KNOTS UP!!!! AND WASTE NO RUNWAY BEHIND YOU, NOR AHEAD OF YOU....