Warbird Information Exchange

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this site are the responsibility of the poster and do not reflect the views of the management.
It is currently Fri Jun 20, 2025 11:31 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Classic Wings Magazine WWII Naval Aviation Research Pacific Luftwaffe Resource Center
When Hollywood Ruled The Skies - Volumes 1 through 4 by Bruce Oriss


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2007 4:47 pm 
Offline
Senior Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2006 12:22 am
Posts: 3875
Location: DFW Texas
http://www.aero-news.net/news/commair.cfm?ContentBlockID=5f9bae6f-0943-4b69-b136-79ef2b01c9f9&Dynamic=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2007/aar-07.htm

The NTSB wants more special oversight on older airplanes....

FYI

_________________
Zane Adams
There I was at 20,000 ft, upside down and out of ammunition.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Join us for the Texas Warbird Report on WarbirdRadio.com!
Image http://www.facebook.com/WarbirdRadio
Listen at http://www.warbirdradio.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2007 5:40 pm 
Offline
3000+ Post Club
3000+ Post Club
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:52 pm
Posts: 3413
Location: Wichita Falls, Texas, USA
The NTSB wants more oversight of "aging aircraft" that are flown by companies operating under Part 121, 129, or 135. There is nothing in there about Part 91 operations. This would have zero impact on warbird operations or inspections, no matter how they are certified.

BTW - most of the "aging aircraft" operators already have aging aircraft inspections and other more stringent maintenance, so I'm not quite sure what the NTSB is in such an uproar over. Flying Boats Inc failed to do proper maintenance, pure and simple, why must the NTSB find additional fault and demand maintenance be done that is already supposed to be done as part of the heavy maintenance checks?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2007 8:25 pm 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2004 4:43 pm
Posts: 7501
Location: northern ohio
the age of the findings is what bothers me!!!! near 2 years to come to a conclusion??? :bs: our tax dollars are at work :roll:

_________________
tom d. friedman - hey!!! those fokkers were messerschmitts!! * without ammunition, the usaf would be just another flying club!!! * better to have piece of mind than piece of tail!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2007 8:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 5:13 pm
Posts: 320
Location: South Texas
tom d. friedman wrote:
the age of the findings is what bothers me!!!! near 2 years to come to a conclusion??? :bs: our tax dollars are at work :roll:


It is typically 12 to 16 months for a fatal accident report to go to "Probable Cause". A high profile case gets more scrutiny and can go 16 to 24 months.

So far there are 47 NTSB assigned accidents this month alone. Yesterday alone there were about 11 accidents/incidents and some will go to NTSB. This last long weekend there were 35 accident/incidents with 6 being fatal. NTSB specialist do not only work fatal accidents.

So as you can see, the NTSB specialist have many, many other accidents on thier desk that they are in charge of and it takes time to get all of the facts together for each one. If they had 1 investigator for each accident and that was the only accident he/she worked, he/she could probably get it from "Preliminary" to "Probable Cause" in about 4 to 6 months.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2007 9:03 pm 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 11, 2004 5:42 pm
Posts: 6884
Location: The Goldfields, Victoria, Australia
Similar elapsed times seem to be the norm in the UK, and Australia. (Non federal democracy, federal democracy.) I'm not aware of any country that has an aviation accident investigation service that achieves a meaningful conclusion in less time* - of course there is an alternative - no proper investigation, or a 'blame the pilot' approach as undertaken in some, often third-world countries.

*Data welcome.

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2007 12:13 am 
Offline
Senior Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2006 12:22 am
Posts: 3875
Location: DFW Texas
Quote:
There is nothing in there about Part 91 operations


I understand the advisory to be for "commercial" operators...but I am always leary of government "trickle down"

Just thought it would be of interest to this community.

Z

_________________
Zane Adams
There I was at 20,000 ft, upside down and out of ammunition.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Join us for the Texas Warbird Report on WarbirdRadio.com!
Image http://www.facebook.com/WarbirdRadio
Listen at http://www.warbirdradio.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2007 12:40 am 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 11, 2004 5:42 pm
Posts: 6884
Location: The Goldfields, Victoria, Australia
Ztex wrote:
Just thought it would be of interest to this community.

It is, and appreciated.

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2007 2:09 am 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!

Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 3:07 am
Posts: 1048
Location: Whittier CA USA, 25 miles east of Los Angeles
Thanks Ztex, very interesting, I don't get on the NTSB like I used to or even ANN. But I'm here several times a day.

John


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2007 5:00 am 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2004 4:43 pm
Posts: 7501
Location: northern ohio
james, very valid point as to the time factor & a solid investigation.

_________________
tom d. friedman - hey!!! those fokkers were messerschmitts!! * without ammunition, the usaf would be just another flying club!!! * better to have piece of mind than piece of tail!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2007 6:29 am 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 1:49 am
Posts: 1521
Location: Zurich & Zug / Switzerland
same time-frame here in Switzerland.....

for interested parties - link to the Swiss agency...

http://www.bfu.admin.ch/en/html/portrait.html

Martin

_________________
Flying is easy: just learn how to throw yourself at the ground and miss


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2007 9:54 am 
Offline
Pvt. Joker
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2005 12:22 pm
Posts: 1012
Location: Location: Location!
Here’s the problem; people like Mary Schiavo come out and say things like this to the news media

Quote:
"Mallards are museum pieces," Schiavo said. "There are planes in museums younger than these."

"The rule of thumb is that aircraft are built for a 20-year economic life," Schiavo said. "That doesn't mean they fall out of the sky after 20 years. But it does mean they need tender loving care."

_________________
Image
Commemorative Air Force
Experimental Aircraft Association
Warbirds of America

What are you waiting for? Join us!

Best way to contact me- email my last name @gmail.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2007 9:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 5:13 pm
Posts: 320
Location: South Texas
Scary Mary at work! :(


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 302 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group