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

 

[Spooky 1]

Oh, you could have let it go, brightspark,

Blah blah blahuke:

As you can see, other people are tired of your mind-numbing, insult hurtling, rants as I am. It is amazing we have all lived as long as we have without your guidance and instruction. You are a legend....in your own mind.

AK

I actually enjoy AvBugs posts but the guy seems angry and talks down to many of his peers. Don't want him to go away, just ease off a little. I suspect that AvBug is a SLC local or at least a west of the Rockies guys and cannot help to think that with his web site persona he would be easy to recognize from 100 yards if you were in his presence.

 

[AngelKing]

Oh, you could have let it go, brightspark,

I actually enjoy AvBugs posts but the guy seems angry and talks down to many of his peers. Don't want him to go away, just ease off a little. I suspect that AvBug is a SLC local or at least a west of the Rockies guys and cannot help to think that with his we site persona he would be easy to recognize from 100 yards if you were in his presence.

One of his many problems is, in his mind, he has no "peers". In his little fantasy world, he is the end-all, be-all, the sheriff, judge, juror and sentencer.

 

[Flightjock30]

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.

airplanes are like fine wines, they get better with age! Exact quote from an NTSB investigator on the AA 179 Crash investigation documentary the other night on TV. Its true...once a problem like that presents itself you better believe they will be very very careful observing and correcting problems with the same type of a/c (fuel tanks of 747s, Rudders on 737s, etc etc).

 

[avbug]

One of his many problems is, in his mind, he has no "peers". In his little fantasy world, he is the end-all, be-all, the sheriff, judge, juror and sentencer.

Oh, I have peers, mate. You're not among them, however. For some self-serving reason, that really burns you.

This could have died quietly and you could have left Christmas alone, but you just couldn't.

As for judgemental, it was I that called for all to refrain from judgement and speculation, and in no wise have I suggested execution. I was in the employ of a Sheriff's Office in a former lifetime, if that helps any.

I suppose I don't understand your logic. You wanted to know if respondants would fly on Chalks again, knowing what has occured. A number of us responded. You didn't like the response, and then challenged the qualifications to make the responses. Upon being given certain of the qualifications, you then responded not with intelligent conversation, but threats and multiple insults.

Now, having been censured in your efforts to threaten, you're resorting to a barrage of character assasination and more insults. Why on earth would you ask the question if you don't like the answer? More to the point, you challenged my qualifications to respond, to provide my opinion, and then became enraged upon learning that whadda ya know, I might just be qualified to respond. As are a number of others who have posted in this thread. Interesting, in a benign sort of way.

I don't live in SLC, and spend most of my time moving around where needed.

I've asserted on many occasions, for those who aren't so new posting here that they haven't followed along for the last eight or ten years or so, that aerial firefighting isn't dangerous, though statistics are what they are. It's a job, and the fact is that one does experience things there that one doesn't necessarily experience elsewhere, owing both to the environment and the equipment.

That's nothing to apologize for, nor for others to flip out over...it's just a fact of life. I am amused at the unwarranted replies and reactions that pop up here from time to time regarding fire suppression, emergencies, aging aircraft, and the issues related to each. Much like all the speculation that runs rampant by all the keyboard experts out there (engines exploding, etc)...it's utterly ridiculous and occasionally worthy of a mild smirk.

As for done it better than, faster than, longer than, more than...those are concepts of your own invention, not mine. I made no such assertions. On the one topic I did assert, that most likely few if any here can lay claim to having experienced personal losses due to inflight breakups (and with that personal experience, I'd still be willing to fly that fleet), I haven't heard any replies suggesting otherwise. Clearly you can't reply to that, because you only become angrier and make more threats and insults. Clearly intelligent conversation is not in your design, else you'd have given it a shot, already. I can certainly play this game all day if you like, if for no other reason than to listen to your blood pressure rise in the distance.

Try not to have a stroke. (not that we'd ever be able to tell, of course...)

 

[EMB170Pilot]

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

The reason for the Chalk's crash is simple folks

Structural failure caused by carrying Bahamians back and forth through the years. It wasn't the salt water! That's it :laugh:

 

[AngelKing]

My eyes have finally been opened. Why have I not seen this before? It was right in front of me the whole time. The world that is...avbug. His teachings finally make sense, I can't believe it has taken so long. I am going to spend the rest of my life studying the teachings, the stylings if you will, of what is known as....avbug. I have a new being in my life to worship, it has finally all come together. I am tossing the bible, I am resigning from Masonry. I will spend my life remaining on earth persuing the teachings of....avbug. It has finally dawned on me what he has been trying to tell us all along. His word is final, the end of all discussions, the only viewpoint there should ever be. It is like I am "reborn". Please...avbug, I beg of you, when you make a new post, please send it to me first so I don't have to read anyone elses dribble. You are our light, our beacon, our savior. Whenver a situation, a question, a difficulty, arises in my life, my first thought will be, what would avbug say? what would avbug do? how would my new beacon handle this? I am bowing to your wisdom, to the halo above your head. I have found my new path to follow. The first testament of...avbug. I am just glad my eyes were opened before it was to late in my life to change. Thank you....avbug, my light, my saviour, my guide.
Hopefully the others on this board and in all walks of life will open their eyes to what I have discovered...the world of avbug

Let us pray


AK


Sorry avbug...I strayed from your path once again. I will work harder to remain on the straight and narrow.

AK

 

[FN FAL]

The reason for the Chalk's crash is simple folks

Structural failure caused by carrying Bahamians back and forth through the years. It wasn't the salt water! That's it :laugh:

It's Bush's fault!

 

[Spooky 1]

Avbug............I'm not angry at you or anyone else here. In your case at least, I'm just amused. Good day mate!

 

[Spooky 1]

Oh, I have peers, mate. You're not among them, however. For some self-serving reason, that really burns you.

This could have died quietly and you could have left Christmas alone, but you just couldn't.

As for judgemental, it was I that called for all to refrain from judgement and speculation, and in no wise have I suggested execution. I was in the employ of a Sheriff's Office in a former lifetime, if that helps any.

I suppose I don't understand your logic. You wanted to know if respondants would fly on Chalks again, knowing what has occured. A number of us responded. You didn't like the response, and then challenged the qualifications to make the responses. Upon being given certain of the qualifications, you then responded not with intelligent conversation, but threats and multiple insults.

Now, having been censured in your efforts to threaten, you're resorting to a barrage of character assasination and more insults. Why on earth would you ask the question if you don't like the answer? More to the point, you challenged my qualifications to respond, to provide my opinion, and then became enraged upon learning that whadda ya know, I might just be qualified to respond. As are a number of others who have posted in this thread. Interesting, in a benign sort of way.

I don't live in SLC, and spend most of my time moving around where needed.

I've asserted on many occasions, for those who aren't so new posting here that they haven't followed along for the last eight or ten years or so, that aerial firefighting isn't dangerous, though statistics are what they are. It's a job, and the fact is that one does experience things there that one doesn't necessarily experience elsewhere, owing both to the environment and the equipment.

That's nothing to apologize for, nor for others to flip out over...it's just a fact of life. I am amused at the unwarranted replies and reactions that pop up here from time to time regarding fire suppression, emergencies, aging aircraft, and the issues related to each. Much like all the speculation that runs rampant by all the keyboard experts out there (engines exploding, etc)...it's utterly ridiculous and occasionally worthy of a mild smirk.

As for done it better than, faster than, longer than, more than...those are concepts of your own invention, not mine. I made no such assertions. On the one topic I did assert, that most likely few if any here can lay claim to having experienced personal losses due to inflight breakups (and with that personal experience, I'd still be willing to fly that fleet), I haven't heard any replies suggesting otherwise. Clearly you can't reply to that, because you only become angrier and make more threats and insults. Clearly intelligent conversation is not in your design, else you'd have given it a shot, already. I can certainly play this game all day if you like, if for no other reason than to listen to your blood pressure rise in the distance.

Try not to have a stroke. (not that we'd ever be able to tell, of course...)

I have a little time in the DH106 Comet. Does that count for inflight breakups?

 

[avbug]

Yes, I'd say it probably does...but it also makes for some bragging rights. And it dates you.