Lies, cover-ups mask roots of small aircraft carnage
Moderators: lilfssister, North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, I WAS Birddog
Lies, cover-ups mask roots of small aircraft carnage
Interesting article :
Should make us all think a bit :
http://www.usatoday.com/longform/news/n ... /10405323/
Should make us all think a bit :
http://www.usatoday.com/longform/news/n ... /10405323/
Re: Lies, cover-ups mask roots of small aircraft carnage
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.
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.
- Colonel Sanders
- 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
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.
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.
Re: Lies, cover-ups mask roots of small aircraft carnage
Same goes for cops.....and pilotsColonel 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.

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

Re: Lies, cover-ups mask roots of small aircraft carnage
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.
Re: Lies, cover-ups mask roots of small aircraft carnage
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/
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/
- single_swine_herder
- Rank 7
- Posts: 627
- Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 9:35 pm
Re: Lies, cover-ups mask roots of small aircraft carnage
Sounds like the kind of defence a union rep would come up with at a disciplinary meeting.....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.
"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."
Re: Lies, cover-ups mask roots of small aircraft carnage
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....
Go try and get into teachers college today with that kind of mantra....
-
- Rank 11
- Posts: 3239
- Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:58 am
Re: Lies, cover-ups mask roots of small aircraft carnage
Sorry need to take an exception to the McDonalds comment please watch the documentary Hot Coffee and you will understand.HiLo wrote:It isahramin 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.
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.
-
- 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
Really?ahramin wrote: We have to admit that old airplanes are not as safe as new airplanes.
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
Re: Lies, cover-ups mask roots of small aircraft carnage
71 years of decay, wear, and progressive maintenance, combined with higher standards of certification for newly designed aircraft.
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
- Colonel Sanders
- 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
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.
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.
Re: Lies, cover-ups mask roots of small aircraft carnage
Electrical systems, fuel injection, metallurgy, engine monitors, AOA indicators, GPS, TAWS, solid state gyros, 4 and 5 point harnesses, ballistic parachutes ...TeePeeCreeper wrote:Really?ahramin wrote: We have to admit that old airplanes are not as safe as new airplanes.
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
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.
-
- 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
Interesting....photofly wrote:71 years of decay, wear, and progressive maintenance, combined with higher standards of certification for newly designed aircraft.
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
-
- Top Poster
- Posts: 8133
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:25 pm
- Location: Winterfell...
Re: Lies, cover-ups mask roots of small aircraft carnage
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.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?
I believe that the new Twin Otter had this grandfathered in, though.
Geez did I say that....? Or just think it....?
- Colonel Sanders
- 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
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
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
Re: Lies, cover-ups mask roots of small aircraft carnage
Preaching to the converted. I don't think anyone on this board would argue with that.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.
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?
Re: Lies, cover-ups mask roots of small aircraft carnage
Recalls = lost moneyahramin wrote:Preaching to the converted. I don't think anyone on this board would argue with that.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.
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?
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.
Re: Lies, cover-ups mask roots of small aircraft carnage
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.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?
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?
-
- Rank 3
- Posts: 175
- Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 8:43 am
Re: Lies, cover-ups mask roots of small aircraft carnage
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.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 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.
-
- Top Poster
- Posts: 8133
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:25 pm
- Location: Winterfell...
Re: Lies, cover-ups mask roots of small aircraft carnage
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.


Geez did I say that....? Or just think it....?
Re: Lies, cover-ups mask roots of small aircraft carnage
QFT.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
Asiana comes to mind.
-
- Rank 2
- Posts: 53
- Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 8:07 pm
Re: Lies, cover-ups mask roots of small aircraft carnage
Your argument between aircraft and vehicles doesn't apply.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?
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.