Chalks

[AngelKing]

serentity now, serentity now.

 

[That Guy]

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.

Actually, it was one sister, and a brother.

God bless them all.

 

[inline]

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.


Of course you've have it happen to you!

 

[AngelKing]

you ding bat, You're too dense, depy dense one

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.

Can you make a point without throwing insults?

Do you honestly think you can hurl insults at someone and not expect them to say something about it?

I may be one of the few, if not the only one, who has had aircraft he's been flying come apart in flight.

Yes we know, you have done it farther, faster, longer, higher, deeper than anyone else in the history of aviation..blah blah blah blah...


AK

 

[avbug]

Oh, you could have let it go, brightspark, but you didn't.

I work in a business that's seen as high as a 10% fatality rate...that's a one in ten chance of your desk or cockpit exploding, for the mentally gripless.

Three years ago Tanker 130 shed a wing and exploded in flight in Walker, California. I did my flight engineer turbopropeller checkride in that same airplane, and flew it on going fires from mexico to montana, florida to california. I flew it with the crewmembers that were killed, trained with each of them. I had worked on that aircraft extensively, including replacing both wings five years previously. A C-130 A model, the aircraft was a DoD aircraft when we flew it, later transferred to the USFS. I flew that airplane in conditions that you couldn't possibly imagine. After it's loss, I would have flown a C-130 for one of the contractors, had the request come in. However, the type was retired from fire service, and nobody flew them here again. They continued to fly elsewhere.

Three weeks later, Tanker 123, in which I took my PB4Y-2 (CVP4Y) type checkride, shed a wing and exploded in Estes Park, Colorado. In total between the two losses, five crewmembers were killed, each of whom I flew with and knew personally.

I would fly a 4Y today in a heartbeat, without any hesitation.

When I was first hired at that firm, my initial assignment was to attend one of several C-119's that were assigned to head south. The USFS was no longer contracting them, as a number of inflight wing failures had occured. Not because of design deficiencies, but because of crews that flew the airplane too aggressively in places where the aircraft was already exposed to extreme turbulence and stress. In the end, we didn't send the Boxcars down to Argentina (and other locations) for that purpose, but I had no hesitation, and there was no shortage of individuals willing, to fly the C-119 on active missions.

I was in Monterey, Mexico, in 1987 or 88, when both wings cracked completely on T-130, the C-130A mentioned above. Through a Lockheed DER, we obtained a ferry permit and returned the aircraft to Greybull, WY, for repairs. At the time, we were aware of two small cracks on the same wing station, from which a very small (minute) seepage of fuel occured. In flight, I went aft and saw a thick white plume of fuel streaming from the wing. As the wing got lighter and flexed, the cracks opened up more, and fuel began to leave the wing at a pronounced rate. In GEY, I was part of a team that went into the wings to do NDT ultrasonic testing, and we learned that the cracks, though not visible and testable via dye penetrant (our discovery method at the outset), extended the full circumference of both wings.

We immediately grounded our fleet, advised the USFS, advised the other operators, and replaced both wings using tested and inspected wings from another C-130 we had on property.

Over the years I've had engine mounts crack and break, canopies come loose, explosions, fires, decompressions, leaks, runaway props, engine rollbacks, gear failures, hydraulic losses and failures, electrical failures, induction ice, cylinder separations, compressor stalls, and a few other things occur...not in the simulator, though certainly there too...but in real time, real life, plain as day (and sometimes at night). Even a passenger in the right seat who had a heart attack on night in a fairly remote area.

So no, I never said anything about doing it longer, faster, farther, or any other comparitive effort...but I most certainly have been there and done that, and can without question speak from experience on the subject.

These events aren't isolated misfortunes or unusual circumstances; it's part of the daily job. You train for these events in the chance they might someday happen to you; I experience them regularly as part of the work environment. To you, apparently these are unfathomable...to me, it's business as usual. You needn't apologise, nor need you act so mindboggled.

When you're done flapping your gums, and now that a number of qualified people have answered your question, and now that hopefuly you're done with your childish threats, insults, and rants, you might either shut up and learn something, or merely shut up. You're starting to sound foolish.

 

[Spooky 1]

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.

Geeze AvBug............lighten up a little bit. Pilots have speculated since Orville and Wilbur the cause of accidents. Sure there are some stupid posts regarding various aircraft accidents, including this one. Haven't heard anyone suggest that we close the books and tell the NTSB to go home, at least not yet. Human nature and the pilots own desire to categorize these accidents is a hard overcome. The fact that you have flown a couple of model aircraft that have broken up in flight in recent times does not make you the absoloute authority on this subject. I also have flown some old bone yard aircraft and I sure would not poster my self as anyone you would look to for answers regarding this type of accident. The answers will come in due time and then we will all know. Until then speculation is all we have and while it is not perfect, it gives the average pilot some degree of comfort knowing what might of happened. This accident is not rocket science. Not another TWA 800 or a USAir 737 accident. Those were difficult and the real truth may never be known. The cause of this one will be pretty simple in comparison, believe me.
BTW, were you the school yard bully when you were just a kid? Sorta sounds like it at times.

 

[flx757]

No. He's just one of the know-it-all, been-there-done-that-and-did-it-better-than-anyone-else-could-even-imagine, and-no-one-else-could-possibly-be-right-if-their-"opinions"-differ-from-my-"facts", type.

Oh...and he also has to have the last word, just to prove it all.

And finally, he doesn't require any "facts" to make him the absolute authority on ANY subject. He is...simply because he says so.

 

[AngelKing]

Oh, you could have let it go, brightspark,

Blah blah blahuke:

Why should I let it go, because you said so? As you can see, other people are as tired of your mind-numbing, insult hurtling, rants as I am. It is amazing we have all lived as long as have flying our planes without your guidance and instruction. You are a legend....in your own mind.

AK

 

[AngelKing]

No. He's just one of the know-it-all, been-there-done-that-and-did-it-better-than-anyone-else-could-even-imagine, and-no-one-else-could-possibly-be-right-if-their-"opinions"-differ-from-my-"facts", type.

Oh...and he also has to have the last word, just to prove it all.

And finally, he doesn't require any "facts" to make him the absolute authority on ANY subject. He is...simply because he says so.

:beer:

AK

 

[Cat Driver]

I read a lot of this stuff without commenting about it, however I would like to make an observation regarding aerial fire suppression.

When it comes to stresses on aircraft I would suggest that the water scoopers would be subject to far more than ground based air tankers due to the fact that they make many more cycles ( as in take offs and landings per hour logged ) than land based tankers and are subject to some rather hard pounding during the water scooping portion of the flight as well as the turbulence near fires.

I flew fifteen years as captain on PBY's both in N. and S. America and as far as dangerous or exciting flying goes I did not find it to be much different from any other kind of flying as each has its own areas where you can do yourself in if you are not using common sense.

I find it boring reading about how dangerous aerial fire suppression flying is, I look at it another way, if I have a problem in a air tanker I can push a button and presto I'm flying an empty airplane. You can't do that in an airliner or a freighter.

Cat