Chalks

[aeronautic1]

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

You can take it to the bank that if Chalks had not voluntarily grounded their 3 or 4 other Mallards, the Feds would have done it, toot-sweet.

Having ridden on Chalks dozens of times, I hope that they can still provide a service that is rich with history. A pretty romantic (a la Fantasy Island) and exciting way to get to Bimini or Paradise Island.

Too sad.

 

[Midnight Flyer]

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

I'm not a mechanic or anywhere close to being one, however, wouldn't it stand to reason that mechanics would be checking for fatigue, cracks, or whatever during the heavy maintenance checks? I don't mean to be a monday morning quarterback or anything, but duh!

 

[Dangerkitty]

You can take it to the bank that if Chalks had not voluntarily grounded their 3 or 4 other Mallards, the Feds would have done it, toot-sweet.

Having ridden on Chalks dozens of times, I hope that they can still provide a service that is rich with history. A pretty romantic (a la Fantasy Island) and exciting way to get to Bimini or Paradise Island.

Too sad.

Anymore of your expert "analysis" on the reason to the Chalks crash? Looks like your PT-6 theory was a bunch of bunk and you refuse to post on that thread where you were shown to be the idiot that you are.

Care to comment on that moron?

 

[aeronautic1]

Danger*************************

Anymore of your expert "analysis" on the reason to the Chalks crash? Looks like your PT-6 theory was a bunch of bunk and you refuse to post on that thread where you were shown to be the idiot that you are.

Care to comment on that moron?

Paraphrase todat's Sun Sentinal news article:

"While the precise cause of Monday's crash has not been determined, the FAA said in the bulletin that the preliminary investigation revealed stress fractures in the 58-year-old Grumman G-73 Turbine Mallard seaplane's right wing support that could have played a key role."

Flame-on MOFO

 

[avbug]

revealed stress fractures in the 58-year-old Grumman G-73 Turbine Mallard seaplane's right wing support that could have played a key role."

Coulda, mighta, may have, possibly did, whatever.

Dangerkitty is right. All the speculation worshippers who were barking at the moon about stress this, engine failure that...and even the most basic facts still coming to light...and the investigation a year from being complete.

You guys need to quit your day jobs and go chair the NTSB. With your mechanical expert prowness in seeing right to the heart of the matter, the fools who believe the investigation will take a year can be put aside and fired...who needs them when we have you?

Do the mechanics look for cracks? Mechanics do look for cracks, but each inspection is scheduled based on a checklist of specific items for which to look, and the methods of inspection to be used to look for those items.

Chalks has a long history of being recognized for their efforts at anticorrosion, and has been used as a case study be various agencies and organizations...they do good work.

If a crack develops in an area that was unanticipated, for which no inspection has been devised by the manufacturer, type certificate holder, it may go unseen. We've seen failures occur recently in modern turbine airline equipment, and repeatedly over the past few decades. Not just cracking failures, but failures of all sorts. Concorde had repeated losses of parts of the rudder and puncture damage due to blown tires...just like what finally destroyed it...and it kept flying.

New aircraft fail just like old aircraft. Truth be told, I'd much rather fly on a tried and proven airframe than something right out the factory door. Having learned to fly on 50 year old aircraft and having flown aircraft that are older, with wooden spars, I feel comfortable with older aircraft. I've had more problems on new aircraft, aircraft that have 50 hours or less since new, than I have had old airplanes...and that in modern designs of recent manufacture.

Age isn't the issue. Known problems and the efforts undertaken to surveil them is. With newer technology that's still coming on scene such as PIPA inspection, previously undetected and untestable crack prone areas can be located at any depth, and cracks can be identified before they form. That technology hasn't been available in the past, and isn't available generally now. We don't know what downed this aircraft. The NTSB seems willing to put in the effort to make a legitimate investigation, using expert industry input and analysis, and will probably release the complete report in a year.

Fortunately we have oodles of experts here who know it all, and can save them the trouble. Lucky us.

 

[Cat Driver]

Well if old airplanes are unsafe then I guess I'm just plain lucky.

I fly old flying boats for a living and have thousands of hours in them, as well I fly a DC3 that is also very old.

So should I quit while I'm ahead Angleking?

Cat Driver

 

[mar]

Model A

Avbug (and others), on the topic of speculation, personally, I don't mind speculation in and of itself. I think a lot of "incidental" learning occurs when people discuss all sorts of possibilities. But the chest thumping is really what drives me nuts.

That said, I'm not crazy about flying brand new airplanes either. Like a friend of mine says, "Never fly the Model A of anything."

Cat Driver! Great to see your posts again! I hope to read some more.

 

[AngelKing]

Well if old airplanes are unsafe then I guess I'm just plain lucky.

I fly old flying boats for a living and have thousands of hours in them, as well I fly a DC3 that is also very old.

So should I quit while I'm ahead Angleking?

Cat Driver

The question I repeat yet again, is not about flying old airplanes. I fly almost every day a 40 year old transport. 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.

If a particulars company's 60 year-old aircraft loses a wing, and that companies other 4 remaining same type aircraft are still flying, in the same conditions, and they have all been exposed to the same conditions for the same amount of time, would you fly the other remaining aircraft the next day if they have not been grounded?

AK

 

[AngelKing]

Concorde had repeated losses of parts of the rudder and puncture damage due to blown tires...just like what finally destroyed it...and it kept flying.

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?

AK

 

[Dangerkitty]

Paraphrase todat's Sun Sentinal news article:

"While the precise cause of Monday's crash has not been determined, the FAA said in the bulletin that the preliminary investigation revealed stress fractures in the 58-year-old Grumman G-73 Turbine Mallard seaplane's right wing support that could have played a key role."

Flame-on MOFO

Thanks for proving my point.