Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Chalks

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
AngelKing said:
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.
 
AngelKing said:
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!
 
aeronautic1 said:
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?
 
Danger*************************

Dangerkitty said:
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
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
Cat Driver said:
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
 
Last edited:
avbug said:
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
 
Last edited:
aeronautic1 said:
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.
 
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



 
Cat Driver said:
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
 
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.
 
avbug said:
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
 
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.
 
avbug said:
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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
avbug said:
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:
 
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.
 
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...
 

Latest resources

Back
Top