Chalks

[AngelKing]

Really not trying to start a flame here, just curious.

If you were a Chalks pilot now knowing there were fatigue cracks in the wing of the one that went down. Would you get back into one of those planes? If it was a corrosion problem, that can vary from plane to plane. But since it appears it was fatigue and knowing those planes are all operated in the same environment, same age etc, I don't think I would.


AK

 

[SandyLab]

How old is the plane you rent from the local FBO? How about the ones you/we fly regularly? Military pilots - C141's with known wing issues and fatigue from the years of high ops tempo? There are a lot of airplanes we fly where we assume the risk. Is it in exchange for the passion for aviation, or willfull neglect? Or "out of our control" and take the necessary risk believing in those we must believe in, those that maintain the aircraft?

More food for thought...

 

[Diesel]

Trust me the difference between fatigue cracks from a rental plane is 10 times different than a seaplane. Especially one in salt water.

I used to tell pilots you ever see a cessna wing flex? They'd say no and we'd takeoff in the seaplane. The wing would flex up and down at every wave. The punishment they take is enormous.

Add salt water and multiple cycles. It's just a matter of time.

 

[Stifler's Mom]

I personally wouldn't set foot in one until they were all checked for the same problem.

 

[VampyreGTX]

The NTSB is stating the fatigue crack is not from the age of the aircraft but involved other factors. Be it corrosion, stress of water T/O's and landings or other reasons, now the NTSB will need to focus on figuring that out.

In the meantime, Chalks has grounded their own fleet and has already sent one plane for a complete inspection looking for similar or other cracks.

 

[AngelKing]

How old is the plane you rent from the local FBO? How about the ones you/we fly regularly? Military pilots - C141's with known wing issues and fatigue from the years of high ops tempo? There are a lot of airplanes we fly where we assume the risk. Is it in exchange for the passion for aviation, or willfull neglect? Or "out of our control" and take the necessary risk believing in those we must believe in, those that maintain the aircraft?

More food for thought...

I think what I am asking is totally different than what you answer suggest. I agree any old plane could have the same problem. I fly regulary a transport built in the late 60's. The Chalks planes are all about the same age, operate in the same environment, same maintenance, etc. I think it is reasonable to think the other planes in the same fleet would also have the problems.That is a little bit different than just hoping into any old plane.

AK

 

[AngelKing]

The NTSB is stating the fatigue crack is not from the age of the aircraft but involved other factors. Be it corrosion, stress of water T/O's and landings or other reasons, now the NTSB will need to focus on figuring that out.

In the meantime, Chalks has grounded their own fleet and has already sent one plane for a complete inspection looking for similar or other cracks.

Sorry, I disagree, i.m.o age is definitely relevant. Are you saying a wing operated in that environment for 50+years is as strong as a newly manufactored wing? I doubt it.

AK

 

[FN FAL]

Sorry, I disagree, i.m.o age is definitely relevant. Are you saying a wing operated in that environment for 50+years is as strong as a newly manufactored wing? I doubt it.

AK

To a passenger, the reason for aircraft structural failure is moot, whether it be a tail that comes off of a relatively new Airbus or the wing that comes off a half century old sea plane.

If planes crash because tails fall off, wings fall off or elevators are improperly rigged, people will soon get the idea that airplane travel is unsafe and will take their money else where.

 

[AngelKing]

To a passenger, the reason for aircraft structural failure is moot, whether it be a tail that comes off of a relatively new Airbus or the wing that comes off a half century old sea plane.

If planes crash because tails fall off, wings fall off or elevators are improperly rigged, people will soon get the idea that airplane travel is unsafe and will take their money else where.

Uuhh ok?, But would you get on one of those planes and fly it. I know they are voluntarily grounded, but say the operator didn't ground them and they were flying today..

AK

 

[starchkr]

I'd fly it, and i'd also ride in it for a vacation. I am not going to put my life on hold or the enjoyment i would get from flying one of those for the "thought" that there "may be" another problem with one of the a/c. Like has been said (and god help me for siding with this) a tail fell off an Airbus...do we keep flying them?? Why?? It's what we do, we continue to fly a/c types even after accidents because the chance of it happening again is more remote than it happening the first time(usually). Those a/c (chalks mallards) are going to be gone over with a fine tooth comb in the next month or two, and yes they may find other flaws, but they will be fixed, and they will have more attention paid to them in the future...in my mind i would see this as a positive thing, and feel actually more safe and secure in them than before.