Lies, cover-ups mask roots of small aircraft carnage

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

Moderators: lilfssister, North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, I WAS Birddog

2R
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4328
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 2:25 pm
Location: left coast

Lies, cover-ups mask roots of small aircraft carnage

Post by 2R »

Interesting article :
Should make us all think a bit :

http://www.usatoday.com/longform/news/n ... /10405323/
---------- ADS -----------
 
CpnCrunch
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4158
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:38 am

Re: Lies, cover-ups mask roots of small aircraft carnage

Post by CpnCrunch »

What a bunch of BS. I read the analysis of the first accident, but haven't gone any further, as I assume the rest of the article is just as much BS.

The pilot tried to lift off after 1200ft, and stalled and crashed. Even if the carb was faulty, it wouldn't matter - the accident was caused by the pilot trying to lift off before the plane had enough airspeed. He had a 4000ft runway for crying out loud! The problem was that he was a new PPL and I guess the cherokee 235 was just a bit much. Perhaps he didn't have much experience in it.

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief ... 080&akey=1

The reality is that most accidents are caused by pilot error, and it would be better to face that reality rather than burying your head in the sand.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Colonel Sanders
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7512
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:17 pm
Location: Over Macho Grande

Re: Lies, cover-ups mask roots of small aircraft carnage

Post by Colonel Sanders »

Reporters are almost always idiots. They
know nothing about what they write. Their
objective is to sell sensation, not transmit
information.

Never, ever talk to a reporter unless you
are trained to do so.
---------- ADS -----------
 
HiLo
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 246
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 12:58 pm

Re: Lies, cover-ups mask roots of small aircraft carnage

Post by HiLo »

Colonel Sanders wrote:Reporters are almost always idiots. They
know nothing about what they write. Their
objective is to sell sensation, not transmit
information.

Never, ever talk to a reporter unless you
are trained to do so
.
Same goes for cops.....and pilots :wink:
---------- ADS -----------
 
ahramin
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
Posts: 6317
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:21 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: Lies, cover-ups mask roots of small aircraft carnage

Post by ahramin »

There are a couple of interesting points (if true) about manufacturers hiding info from the FAA. The general lack of credibility of the article has me sceptical of that being true though.

I think the big fault in the article is the premise that manufacturers settling or being successfully sued in the kangaroo US legal system is proof that the lawsuits have credibility and that the aircraft are unsafe. By the same logic McDonalds coffee is dangerous and should be illegal.

We have to admit that old airplanes are not as safe as new airplanes. If that's really an unacceptable situation then they should probably pass a law making 100 000+ aircraft illegal to operate in order to prevent at most a few hundred deaths a year.
---------- ADS -----------
 
HiLo
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 246
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 12:58 pm

Re: Lies, cover-ups mask roots of small aircraft carnage

Post by HiLo »

ahramin wrote:There are a couple of interesting points (if true) about manufacturers hiding info from the FAA. The general lack of credibility of the article has me sceptical of that being true though.

I think the big fault in the article is the premise that manufacturers settling or being successfully sued in the kangaroo US legal system is proof that the lawsuits have credibility and that the aircraft are unsafe. By the same logic McDonalds coffee is dangerous and should be illegal.

We have to admit that old airplanes are not as safe as new airplanes. If that's really an unacceptable situation then they should probably pass a law making 100 000+ aircraft illegal to operate in order to prevent at most a few hundred deaths a year.
It is :lol:
---------- ADS -----------
 
snowbear
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 67
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 9:53 am
Location: North of West Dakota

Re: Lies, cover-ups mask roots of small aircraft carnage

Post by snowbear »

Beech was once successfully sued when one of their airplanes tried to take off with only a couple of gallons of fuel in the tanks. Obviously the flight ended at the end of the runway but the courts ruled Beechcraft was at fault for for not telling the pilot he needed fuel to fly. FAA made them put a warning in the POH stating you needed fuel to go flying:). Ya just gotta love our system.
---------- ADS -----------
 
HiLo
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 246
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 12:58 pm

Re: Lies, cover-ups mask roots of small aircraft carnage

Post by HiLo »

http://video.pbs.org/video/1750473040/

Now let's talk about cutting corners. Great documentary. Even better is this one, although for anyone in the industry, it's common knowledge:

http://video.pbs.org/video/1412744270/
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
single_swine_herder
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 627
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 9:35 pm

Re: Lies, cover-ups mask roots of small aircraft carnage

Post by single_swine_herder »

snowbear wrote:Beech was once successfully sued when one of their airplanes tried to take off with only a couple of gallons of fuel in the tanks. Obviously the flight ended at the end of the runway but the courts ruled Beechcraft was at fault for for not telling the pilot he needed fuel to fly. FAA made them put a warning in the POH stating you needed fuel to go flying:). Ya just gotta love our system.
Sounds like the kind of defence a union rep would come up with at a disciplinary meeting.....

"Oh, there's no need to fire him for something as small as that.

If you'd just took him aside after he climbed out of the wreckage and calmly told him he needed gas to fly that Beech, it wouldn't have happened in the first place, and is unlikely to happen again.

If it does, well a letter on his file will to reeducate him would be appropriate .... but fire the guy over one measly crash due to no gas? Now that's being overly punitive."
---------- ADS -----------
 
HiLo
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 246
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 12:58 pm

Re: Lies, cover-ups mask roots of small aircraft carnage

Post by HiLo »

Are people really just this stupid? Sure makes me feel old when I remember the days of "there aren't any stupid questions. Just stupid people asking them."

Go try and get into teachers college today with that kind of mantra....
---------- ADS -----------
 
ScudRunner
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3239
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:58 am

Re: Lies, cover-ups mask roots of small aircraft carnage

Post by ScudRunner »

HiLo wrote:
ahramin wrote:There are a couple of interesting points (if true) about manufacturers hiding info from the FAA. The general lack of credibility of the article has me sceptical of that being true though.

I think the big fault in the article is the premise that manufacturers settling or being successfully sued in the kangaroo US legal system is proof that the lawsuits have credibility and that the aircraft are unsafe. By the same logic McDonalds coffee is dangerous and should be illegal.

We have to admit that old airplanes are not as safe as new airplanes. If that's really an unacceptable situation then they should probably pass a law making 100 000+ aircraft illegal to operate in order to prevent at most a few hundred deaths a year.
It is :lol:
Sorry need to take an exception to the McDonalds comment please watch the documentary Hot Coffee and you will understand.

Here is a link to the trailer http://www.hotcoffeethemovie.com/Default.asp
and here is a link to an article including a picture of the burns she suffered (warning graphic) http://www.vanosteen.com/news/coffee-spill.asp

Also is a great film to watch about just how messed up the US justice system is.

Anyway back to the original topic of discussion.
---------- ADS -----------
 
TeePeeCreeper
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1162
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 12:25 pm
Location: in the bush

Re: Lies, cover-ups mask roots of small aircraft carnage

Post by TeePeeCreeper »

ahramin wrote: We have to admit that old airplanes are not as safe as new airplanes.
Really?
I'm curious having just finished my day flying a 71 year old aircraft... What makes her less safe today than 71 years ago when she rolled off the assembly line?

All the best,
TPC
---------- ADS -----------
 
photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 11306
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Hangry and crankypated

Re: Lies, cover-ups mask roots of small aircraft carnage

Post by photofly »

71 years of decay, wear, and progressive maintenance, combined with higher standards of certification for newly designed aircraft.
---------- ADS -----------
 
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
User avatar
Colonel Sanders
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7512
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:17 pm
Location: Over Macho Grande

Re: Lies, cover-ups mask roots of small aircraft carnage

Post by Colonel Sanders »

It has been my anecdotal experience, over
the decades that only around 10% of accidents
can be attributed to unavoidable mechanical
problems. More like 5% (or less).

The other 90+% of the time, the pilot made a
mistake.

According to the wisdom here, new aircraft
should be safer than old aircraft, because that
10% is eliminated.

How funny. A new airplane is the most dangerous
thing in the sky. Heard about the problems
Bombardier is having with it's P&W engines?
Or the 787 with it's batteries? I guess no one
here heard about that.

According to the wisdom here, homebuilders
ought to be the safest guys in the sky, during
their first flights of their low-time aircraft.

According to the wisdom here, those homebuilt
aircraft ought to be safest when they are new
and have the lowest time - the first flight.

Wrong again. Homebuilders making their first
flights on brand new aircraft are extremely dangerous.

Lots of wisdom in this thread, to learn from.
---------- ADS -----------
 
ahramin
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
Posts: 6317
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:21 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: Lies, cover-ups mask roots of small aircraft carnage

Post by ahramin »

TeePeeCreeper wrote:
ahramin wrote: We have to admit that old airplanes are not as safe as new airplanes.
Really?
I'm curious having just finished my day flying a 71 year old aircraft... What makes her less safe today than 71 years ago when she rolled off the assembly line?

All the best,
TPC
Electrical systems, fuel injection, metallurgy, engine monitors, AOA indicators, GPS, TAWS, solid state gyros, 4 and 5 point harnesses, ballistic parachutes ...

Sorry, I just reread your post and see we are talking about different things. Properly maintained your plane is almost certainly safer today than it was 71 years ago. The point I was trying to make is that planes are safer now than they were 70 years ago. Your 71 year old airplane is not as safe as a new airplane.
---------- ADS -----------
 
TeePeeCreeper
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1162
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 12:25 pm
Location: in the bush

Re: Lies, cover-ups mask roots of small aircraft carnage

Post by TeePeeCreeper »

photofly wrote:71 years of decay, wear, and progressive maintenance, combined with higher standards of certification for newly designed aircraft.
Interesting....
This old gal I was referring to is very well maintained, shows hardly any wear (after all she's gone though several complete re-builds) and funny you should mention certification standards.... No airplane has ever been designed or built that can match this type by a long shot...
I'll let the cat out of the bag.... Do tell... what "heighten standards" a new DHC-2 if one rolled off the line today would it have versus it's older counterpart? (Let's leave the whole glass cockpit out of the debate as it's strictly a VFR machine and properly (dare I add safely) flown as such.

It's not the airplane fault in most accidents folks, it's that tiny little thing between your ears that failed to register/say WTF am I doing? that causes most accidents.

Much like an Internet forum... The human being is the weakest link... To fault an aircraft regardless of age is akin to sticking one's head in the sand IMHO.

Regards,
TPC
---------- ADS -----------
 
iflyforpie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8133
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:25 pm
Location: Winterfell...

Re: Lies, cover-ups mask roots of small aircraft carnage

Post by iflyforpie »

TeePeeCreeper wrote:Do tell... what "heighten standards" a new DHC-2 if one rolled off the line today would it have versus it's older counterpart?
Well.... for starters one big one is it wouldn't likely have fuel tanks in the fuselage, since the newer standards for installing them require complete isolation from the passengers.

I believe that the new Twin Otter had this grandfathered in, though.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Geez did I say that....? Or just think it....?
User avatar
Colonel Sanders
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7512
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:17 pm
Location: Over Macho Grande

Re: Lies, cover-ups mask roots of small aircraft carnage

Post by Colonel Sanders »

It doesn't matter how much high tech
junk engineers stuff into airplanes, pilots
still figure out a way to crash them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France ... nal_report
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiana_Air ... _214#Crash
---------- ADS -----------
 
ahramin
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
Posts: 6317
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:21 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: Lies, cover-ups mask roots of small aircraft carnage

Post by ahramin »

TeePeeCreeper wrote:It's not the airplane fault in most accidents folks, it's that tiny little thing between your ears that failed to register/say WTF am I doing? that causes most accidents.
Preaching to the converted. I don't think anyone on this board would argue with that.

What is interesting though is the claim that manufacturers were hiding known defects. Anyone familiar with the carb float issue care to comment? Or the Cessna seat rail issue? The article claims Cessna didn't want to publicize the seat rail issue because they wouldn't be able to produce them. Doesn't make sense to me as they would make money on every seat rail replaced no?
---------- ADS -----------
 
HiLo
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 246
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 12:58 pm

Re: Lies, cover-ups mask roots of small aircraft carnage

Post by HiLo »

ahramin wrote:
TeePeeCreeper wrote:It's not the airplane fault in most accidents folks, it's that tiny little thing between your ears that failed to register/say WTF am I doing? that causes most accidents.
Preaching to the converted. I don't think anyone on this board would argue with that.

What is interesting though is the claim that manufacturers were hiding known defects. Anyone familiar with the carb float issue care to comment? Or the Cessna seat rail issue? The article claims Cessna didn't want to publicize the seat rail issue because they wouldn't be able to produce them. Doesn't make sense to me as they would make money on every seat rail replaced no?
Recalls = lost money
The manufacturer has to pay for the costs of the recall, and that can go into the billions. That's why GM didn't want to recall those faulty ignitions and ended up killing three dozen people.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Chris M
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 8:41 am
Location: Toronto

Re: Lies, cover-ups mask roots of small aircraft carnage

Post by Chris M »

ahramin wrote:What is interesting though is the claim that manufacturers were hiding known defects. Anyone familiar with the carb float issue care to comment? Or the Cessna seat rail issue? The article claims Cessna didn't want to publicize the seat rail issue because they wouldn't be able to produce them. Doesn't make sense to me as they would make money on every seat rail replaced no?
Isn't Cessna paying to install secondary seat stops on their entire single engine fleet right now? We just put on in the club 172 and got a check from Cessna for the cost. Seat tracks are going to wear, just the nature of parts that are subjected to use every time you get in and out of the plane.

The fact that Cessna will pay for a repair/mod to a 40 year old airplane says a lot to counter that article. When is the last time GM/Ford/Chrysler issued a recall for a 40 year old car?
---------- ADS -----------
 
white_knuckle_flyer
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 175
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 8:43 am

Re: Lies, cover-ups mask roots of small aircraft carnage

Post by white_knuckle_flyer »

Colonel Sanders wrote:According to the wisdom here, new aircraft
should be safer than old aircraft, because that
10% is eliminated.

How funny. A new airplane is the most dangerous
thing in the sky. Heard about the problems
Bombardier is having with it's P&W engines?
Or the 787 with it's batteries? I guess no one
here heard about that.

According to the wisdom here, homebuilders
ought to be the safest guys in the sky, during
their first flights of their low-time aircraft.

Wrong again. Homebuilders making their first
flights on brand new aircraft are extremely dangerous.

Lots of wisdom in this thread, to learn from.
I think you are intentionally ignoring your engineering background since it serves your argument better. The correlation between "age" and "reliability" need not be linear but is very likely non-linear, with new aircraft proving more reliable than old aircraft once they reach a certain number of hours.

I plan on driving several thousand miles across the U.S. this summer and will be doing it in a van that is 6 years old. Do I consider it more reliable than a van that is fresh from the factory floor ? Perhaps. But would i trade it for a model that is only 5 years old ? Sure would.
---------- ADS -----------
 
iflyforpie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8133
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:25 pm
Location: Winterfell...

Re: Lies, cover-ups mask roots of small aircraft carnage

Post by iflyforpie »

It's a bell-curve... with 'infant mortality' at the low end of the time axis and 'death by natural causes' at the high end.

Image
---------- ADS -----------
 
Geez did I say that....? Or just think it....?
Koalemos
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 12:22 pm

Re: Lies, cover-ups mask roots of small aircraft carnage

Post by Koalemos »

Colonel Sanders wrote:It doesn't matter how much high tech
junk engineers stuff into airplanes, pilots
still figure out a way to crash them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France ... nal_report
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiana_Air ... _214#Crash
QFT.

Asiana comes to mind.
---------- ADS -----------
 
airspeed250
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 53
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 8:07 pm

Re: Lies, cover-ups mask roots of small aircraft carnage

Post by airspeed250 »

Chris M wrote: The fact that Cessna will pay for a repair/mod to a 40 year old airplane says a lot to counter that article. When is the last time GM/Ford/Chrysler issued a recall for a 40 year old car?
Your argument between aircraft and vehicles doesn't apply.

Cessna knew about the problem for a very long time before deciding to do something about it. Only reason they have to act is because there are so many old Cessna light aircraft still being used with crappy seat rails. GM is lucky in this sense. GM doesn't recall 40 year old cars because there probably are not too many of them still on the road - where documented accidents are occurring today in a high enough number that investigators can point a finger and say there is a major problem here. Back in 2003, when I started my flight training, I was made aware of the Cessna seat problem by my instructor and was told (when flying the pre 1997 models) to always double check and make sure the seat is locked in place (not that it seems to matter if you read about seats sliding back). Cessna knew about the problem and dragged their feet for many years. If the old seat rails are of no concern, why start replacing them now, and why did make them significantly beefier in their 1997+ aircraft? This little problem didn't just occur recently so you shouldn't have any respect for Cessna finally coming up with a solution. Did you read the article where Cessna basically put off a fix because they simply wouldn't be able to make enough?

I think many are missing the point of this article. Sure pilots make mistakes and blame the aircraft, but when suspect parts are pointed out by the NTSB for years, companies won't turn over documents showing they know a problem exists, then delay fixing the issue, it is a little worrisome. Please don't think that just because it rolls off the assembly line no corners were cut.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”