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.

 

[cforst513]

so, without looking like a know-it-all or a flaming anyone, it appears that the wing snapped off, right? could normal loads on the wings cause it to finally snap off like that (say, in straight and level flight)? or might it take more loading on the wing to cause it to break off? i know it's a case-by-case thing and no one wants to speculate, but i'm just curious. did the wing finally have too much or might the pilots or turbulent air been to blame? and were they descending or climbing? how close were they to their base?

 

[Spooky 1]

We operate a Twin Otter on floats and at least half of the time it is in salt water. The airplane is very well maintained to the point that the per hour costs for maintenance exceeds the GV, GEX, and B757. Unbelievable what is required to keep the airplane in FAA required, top notch condition. Example: All control cables, which BTW are stainless steel to begin with, need to be changed every year, regardless. I would imagine many of the Mallard issue are the same.

 

[LAZYB]

We operate a Twin Otter on floats and at least half of the time it is in salt water. The airplane is very well maintained to the point that the per hour costs for maintenance exceeds the GV, GEX, and B757. Unbelievable what is required to keep the airplane in FAA required, top notch condition. Example: All control cables, which BTW are stainless steel to begin with, need to be changed every year, regardless. I would imagine many of the Mallard issue are the same.

Say Hi to Mag from his old 757/Queen City Aviation drinking buddy.

 

[Spooky 1]

Say Hi to Mag from his old 757/Queen City Aviation drinking buddy.

A finer man would be hard to find in this business!

 

[VampyreGTX]

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

I was just passing on what the NTSB Chairman was stating. He stated that the specific fractures in the wing were not caused by age, that another factor lead to the fractures.

 

[AIR2MUD]

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

My friend was the copilot on the Chalk's Mallard that crashed Monday. Taking that into consideration, I would say that if they did all the necessary checks and maintenance on whatever the NTSB and FAA find, I would take a Mallard skyward.

It's not just 60 year old aircraft that have accidents. As long as they find the root cause of what happened, ensure that the probability of it happening again is very low by taking the necessary steps to make the airframes safe, I would fly one without reservation.

Look at some of the WWII fighters that have been restored with new wing spars, etc., or Glacier Girl, the P-38 that was buried under the ice in Greenland and really didn't look much like an airplane at all...you can make an old airplane (or any airplane, for that matter) safe and airworthy, but it really becomes a matter of cost.

As far as I'm concerned, you can never discount safety at the behest of money, especially in this business. Ironically, Paul had those very concerns and went to Chalk's because of it. We all know the reality is different, but the outstanding individual I was lucky enough to know who died in that crash was of such moral character that he and I see eye-to-eye on safety. He actually helped the A&Ps work on the Mallards in his downtime just so he could get to know the aircraft better, and believe me, he wouldn't have stepped onboard one if he thought there was any chance of something happening like the tragedy that occured Monday.

I am a better person for having known him, flown with him, and sharing a part of me with him (and he with I). He will be sorely missed by everyone who knew him, the only thing I can take solace in is that he is looking down and watching over all our mutual friends, families, and he now has tailwinds and fair skies forever. I can only hope there are Grumman Mallards in heaven.

God Bless you, Paul, as well as your captain, and all the other souls who were on board with you, as well as their families and friends.

Fly safe everyone, and take some extra time to share with your loved ones what it is you like most about them. When I talked to Paul this past Saturday night, I never thought it would be for the last time.

RIP, PD, and ciao!

 

[agpilot34]

I agree that age has alot to do with incidents like this. The aircraft that Chalk's flies were never designed to have a 60 year lifespan in commercial service. True, this particular incident may be the result of other factors, but the age factor is something that is going to have to be addressed at some point. A friend of mine was killed a couple months back in a T-6 down in Florida. He was a passenger when a wing separated. Once again, structural failure on a 50 or 60 year old aircraft.

 

[Ill Mitch]

I agree that age has alot to do with incidents like this. The aircraft that Chalk's flies were never designed to have a 60 year lifespan in commercial service. True, this particular incident may be the result of other factors, but the age factor is something that is going to have to be addressed at some point. A friend of mine was killed a couple months back in a T-6 down in Florida. He was a passenger when a wing separated. Once again, structural failure on a 50 or 60 year old aircraft.

There was corrision found on the wing attach angle on that particular incident. Their other aircraft came thru the wing dye penetrant test just fine and they are of the same year and roughly the same flight time (two of them 21 serial numbers from the accident airplane). There were other factors involved with that particular airplane other than age. I lost a good friend on that one too, in fact I trained him on the mighty Texan.

To answer the OP's question, yes I would hop into a Chalk's airplane after it has been inspected.

 

[AngelKing]

Maybe I need to restate the question. If Chalks were flying today, and they did not voluntarily ground the fleet, would you fly one?

AK

 

[flx757]

http://www.ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2005/051222a.htm