Chalks

[Cat Driver]

Angelking:

This comment from you...

"To people like yourself and avbug, who obviously can't read and answer a question, without spewing his holier than everyone crap, I will put it into even more simple terms."

I read your first question and my answer is "yes" I would fly the airplane unless I had compelling evidence that there was reasonable evidence to show that another airplane would be at risk of a failure of the same nature as the accident airplane.

In the case of the Chalks aircraft there is no proof of exactly why the wing failed. However in that the Chalks fleet has been grounded for inspection the question in this case is moot.

Now a question for you, what gives you the liberty to label me as hoplier than everyone?

Cat

 

[AngelKing]

Angelking:

This comment from you...

"To people like yourself and avbug, who obviously can't read and answer a question, without spewing his holier than everyone crap, I will put it into even more simple terms."

I read your first question and my answer is "yes" I would fly the airplane unless I had compelling evidence that there was reasonable evidence to show that another airplane would be at risk of a failure of the same nature as the accident airplane.

In the case of the Chalks aircraft there is no proof of exactly why the wing failed. However in that the Chalks fleet has been grounded for inspection the question in this case is moot.

Now a question for you, what gives you the liberty to label me as hoplier than everyone?

Cat

I didn't word that very well, that part was for avbug. Sorry

But let me ask you this, since that entire fleet consist of the same type a/c, same age, same rugged conditions etc, I don't think it would be much of a stretch to think the other a/c would have the same problem don't you think?

AK

 

[avbug]

Did you actually read this before you posted it? So keep flying it, no matter what proven problems it has, until it has a major accident and kills everyone aboard, from the very same problems it had throughout its life span?

Not only did I read it, I wrote it, you ding bat.

I may be one of the few, if not the only one, who has had aircraft he's been flying come apart in flight. Three years ago, two types that I had flown, in fleets of similiar aircraft I'd flown, broke up in flight, killing all aboard. In the one case, we were operating two more identical aircraft, and in the latter case, four more. Additionally, others of the former type were in use by two other companies in this country, doing the same function.

Would I fly on those aircraft again? Without question, yes. If I had the money presently, I'd buy one of the latter types. I don't fear it, the maintenance it received, or flying it. Is that enough of a direct answer from one of us "holier than though types?"

How much experience do you have in this area, before you spout off any more?

"To people like yourself and avbug, who obviously can't read and answer a question, without spewing his holier than everyone crap, I will put it into even more simple terms."

I did answer your question. Again and again. You're too dense, apparently, and too arguementative, to comprehend that, or read the replies. Too busy speculating?

So keep flying it, no matter what proven problems it has, until it has a major accident and kills everyone aboard, from the very same problems it had throughout its life span?

No, deeply dense one. The question regards w(h)eather one should (would) continue flying an aircraft after other aircraft have had failures or malfunctions, in the fleet. Today, we've seen failures in the B737, Airbus, Concorde, B747, DC8, and a number of other fleets, and the aircraft still fly. In the case of the B737, despite two incidents of rudder hardover that have never been explained, and multiple fixes that offer potential soloutions but no explainations for the problem...the fleet still flies. And nobody thinks twice. This, despite fatalities.

So yes, the statement does have direct application, here. Are we seeing reoccurences of the rudder hardover problem? No. But we didn't see them before the first loss, either. Does this mean the problem has been "fixed?" No. Several soloutions have been offered, but never with an explaination of the problems...in other words, we're thrown ideas at it without ever truly knowing the problem. As we can't duplicate it again, the fleet flies on...but the problem has never been solved.

Never the less, you, and every other soul on this board is likely quite comfortable jumping on a B737 to go anywhere, any time. No worries. Perhaps it's just the recency of the accident that makes it a worry, right? After all, you won't get on another Chalks airplane right now because the loss just occured. It's been years since the 737 had any major issues...like the top blowing off over the pacific. Probably perfectly safe, unlike the dreaded Grumman that's had the one incident.

Unlike others here, I've had the experience of losing aircraft in my own fleet to inflight breakups, several times now with various aircraft types, and unlike others, I can say from personal experience that I would get back on the horse and fly others in the fleet then, and today. It happens in new aircraft and old, it happens in the best maintained aircraft, and yes, it could happen to you.

 

[AngelKing]

Not only did I read it, I wrote it, you ding bat.

I may be one of the few, if not the only one, who has had aircraft he's been flying come apart in flight. Three years ago, two types that I had flown, in fleets of similiar aircraft I'd flown, broke up in flight, killing all aboard. In the one case, we were operating two more identical aircraft, and in the latter case, four more. Additionally, others of the former type were in use by two other companies in this country, doing the same function.

Would I fly on those aircraft again? Without question, yes. If I had the money presently, I'd buy one of the latter types. I don't fear it, the maintenance it received, or flying it. Is that enough of a direct answer from one of us "holier than though types?"

How much experience do you have in this area, before you spout off any more?

"To people like yourself and avbug, who obviously can't read and answer a question, without spewing his holier than everyone crap, I will put it into even more simple terms."

I did answer your question. Again and again. You're too dense, apparently, and too arguementative, to comprehend that, or read the replies. Too busy speculating?



No, deeply dense one. The question regards w(h)eather one should (would) continue flying an aircraft after other aircraft have had failures or malfunctions, in the fleet. Today, we've seen failures in the B737, Airbus, Concorde, B747, DC8, and a number of other fleets, and the aircraft still fly. In the case of the B737, despite two incidents of rudder hardover that have never been explained, and multiple fixes that offer potential soloutions but no explainations for the problem...the fleet still flies. And nobody thinks twice. This, despite fatalities.

So yes, the statement does have direct application, here. Are we seeing reoccurences of the rudder hardover problem? No. But we didn't see them before the first loss, either. Does this mean the problem has been "fixed?" No. Several soloutions have been offered, but never with an explaination of the problems...in other words, we're thrown ideas at it without ever truly knowing the problem. As we can't duplicate it again, the fleet flies on...but the problem has never been solved.

Never the less, you, and every other soul on this board is likely quite comfortable jumping on a B737 to go anywhere, any time. No worries. Perhaps it's just the recency of the accident that makes it a worry, right? After all, you won't get on another Chalks airplane right now because the loss just occured. It's been years since the 737 had any major issues...like the top blowing off over the pacific. Probably perfectly safe, unlike the dreaded Grumman that's had the one incident.

Unlike others here, I've had the experience of losing aircraft in my own fleet to inflight breakups, several times now with various aircraft types, and unlike others, I can say from personal experience that I would get back on the horse and fly others in the fleet then, and today. It happens in new aircraft and old, it happens in the best maintained aircraft, and yes, it could happen to you.

You sure talk tough sitting behind that computer screen. Like so many other internet tough guys.

AK

 

[avbug]

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

Not arguementative, are we?

Tough? What has "tough" got to do with anything. You asked a question, and it was answered. By people flying old airplanes, by people with maintenance backgrounds, by people who have been closely involved with this particular crash, by people who have had other losses in their fleets and kept flying them...and you don't like the answer? Now you're degenerating entirely off your own topic...you introduced it, you address it. Very simple. Can you not do that?

Yes, I'm speaking from experience on this. For your own sake, hopefully more experience than you'll ever have on the topic. All the same, I do have that experience. Now, you did ask about flying on Chalks after this last event. Would I do it? Yes, I would, adding that it's only prudent that the fleet be grounded pending a determination of the cause and inspection. Upon completion of that inspection, I have no problems riding on the airplane, or flying should that opportunity arise.

If it makes you feel any better, I talk pretty tough in person, too.

 

[AngelKing]

you ding bat. You're too dense, deeply dense one.

As I have already stated twice, the question was, would you fly on the plane the next day, before an inspection has taken place, obviously. If you don't like the question, or feel it is beneath you, or that it is irrelevant, then don't participate.


AK

 

[avbug]

You introduced the topic, which has been answered every which way from sunday...can't you stay on topic without degenerating to threats?

Interesting loss of any semblence of professionalism that you might have fooled people into believing was a part of your character. Seems it takes some characters less time to unravel than others...you sure didn't take very long.

 

[AngelKing]

Oooh, scaaaary. Tough guy, huh? Okay, tough guy.

So now it's threats, too? You introduced the topic, which has been answered every which way from sunday...can't you stay on topic without degenerating to threats?

Interesting loss of any semblence of professionalism that you might have fooled people into believing was a part of your character. Seems it takes some characters less time to unravel than others...you sure didn't take very long.

Not that it matters, but I gaurantee my "mommy" is a whole lot tougher than you, too.

My mom can beat up your mom. She can beat up you, too.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

[Rerouted]

I have a bit of time in a Turbo Mallard and let me tell you this, it's not likely anyone would fly this plane model , or any other plane with a wing spar that they know to be compromised. Whether or not any one of us would hop on a Chalks Mallard if they didn't ground the fleet is a moot point...they are grounded and we're not getting on them. Is the Mallard a hunk of crap because it's old? No, it's a wonderful aircraft to fly with very docile flight characteristics. I always thought it was overbuilt, especially compared to todays aircraft...maybe that explains why they still find themselves in commercial service 50+ years later. I would get right back into one myself, AFTER it is determined exactly why the Chalks aircraft failed and the integrity of the rest of the fleet has been insured. I'll tell you myself, those wings take one heck of a beating because of the wing tip sponsons impacting the water on takeoff and landing. I can certainly see where that stress combined with a salt water environment and many cycles could damage the spar. It's hard to comment on whether maintenance should have picked up this flaw because I really don't know what the spar inspection interval is, nor do any of us know exactly what failed or how. I'm even guessing at the spar myself. At this point, rather than fighting, how about we all remember those brothers of ours who undoubtable spent the last seconds of their lives fighting for control of an uncontrollable aircraft. How about when you sit down with your families this holiday season, you just know how fortunate you are, and keep in mind how much the people at Chalks must be hurting. God Bless them all.

 

[FlyingSkip]

Man, that was well said and I tip my hat to you! We're doing what we love, we have our families and friends around us during this holiday season, and we're all blessed by the great things in our lives---there but for the grace of God go any of us. Something to think about during a quiet moment, rather than picking fights with guys you'd probably buy a beer if you saw them out on the road...

Along that road---has anyone seen a list of the people involved, especially the pilots involved? I met several of those guys and toured the aircraft when they evacuated to Myrtle Beach during a hurricane last year---dug around and found biz cards and a couple pics we took and just wondered in anyone I knew, however briefly, were the guys involved. A Google search hasn't shown me anything, but was just wondering if anyone knew anything...