NTSB: No reason to ground Airbus A300s

DeltaFlot · 04-12-2002, 06:14 PM

NTSB: No reason to ground Airbus A300s
Blakey says no evidence to take fleet out of service
April 12, 2002 Posted: 9:50 AM EDT (1350 GMT)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- A senior U.S. transportation safety official says that government air crash investigators have seen no reason to ground the Airbus A300-600 series aircraft, despite safety questions raised by several pilots at American Airlines.

National Transportation Safety Board Chairwoman Marion Blakey has told a congressional subcommittee that investigators probing the crash of American Flight 587, an A300-600, last year in New York have found no evidence to take the fleet out of service.

Blakey said the same thing several weeks ago when a large group of American pilots suggested that the government consider grounding those Airbus planes.

Since then, a smaller group of Airbus A300 pilots at American have formally petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration to consider such action until safety questions related to the Flight 587 investigation are answered. (Read a report from CNN's Kathleen Koch on the issue.)

Neither the FAA nor the American pilots union, the Allied Pilots Association, say they believe the A300-600 fleet should be grounded.

American is the only passenger carrier that flies the A300-600. It has 34 of them. Cargo carriers FedEx and UPS also operate them.

Some pilots at American have not been reassured by the progress of crash investigators who are looking at possible structural or mechanical problems with the plane as well as pilot actions.

Investigators are focused on why the plane's tail fin and rudder fell off the aircraft before it crashed shortly after takeoff from New York's John F. Kennedy airport, killing all 260 people aboard and five on the ground.

Another senior safety board official told lawmakers that pilot concerns add urgency to the investigation, which is not expected to be completed until next year at the earliest.

Chansen · 04-12-2002, 06:37 PM

See Airline companies see this and lost money revenue and well bad for other programs!
Mc Donnell Douglas got bad press on the DC-10 and you saw what happened years down the road.

justin · 04-12-2002, 06:41 PM

The DC10 was a different story, that was hit by a lot of bad disasters in a relatively short time, it was the cumulative effect of such a run of disaster that was the killer. The A300-600 has had a tragic disaster, but the evidence is inconclusive to say the least that there is anything fundamentally wrong with the aircraft, and in the long term if there are no more disasters (big IF I accept) then I don't think this will harm Airbus anymore than a crash of any machine damages it's manufacturer.

Justin

Darryl · 04-17-2002, 08:14 PM

Sorry Justin, but the American A300 had a SERIOUS STRUCTUAL FAILURE, not a mere case of an annoying system issue. Regardless of who made it, the manufacturer got off with little more than a slap on the wrist.

All Talking Heads on the subject disagree, but the fin structure NEVER should have delaminated, and to blame it on the pilots is pure rubbish!

justin · 04-20-2002, 01:46 AM

Most of the equipment failures that cause aircraft to crash can be considered serious. A few years ago JAL lost a 747 due to a total structural failure caused by Boeing making a fundamental mistake in a bulkhead repair, does this mean we should ground every aircraft ever to have been repaired by Boeing?? The DC10 cargo door closing latch system would never pass a modern risk assessment, and as such we can say that today if the error occured MD would be in serious trouble for this failure. I,m not denying the possibility of a structural failure on that aircraft, but that does not mean that the design is unsound, the NTSB are one of the most widely respected agencies in the world, famous for it's independence and attitude in accident investigation, unlike the FAA, if one of the worlds most respected bodies with almost unparralleled expertise in risk analysis and accident investigation gives the A300-600 an all clear then I tend to believe them.

04-12-2002, 06:14 PM	#1
DeltaFlot The Patriot Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Laurel, MD Age: 36 Posts: 3,228	NTSB: No reason to ground Airbus A300s NTSB: No reason to ground Airbus A300s Blakey says no evidence to take fleet out of service April 12, 2002 Posted: 9:50 AM EDT (1350 GMT) WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- A senior U.S. transportation safety official says that government air crash investigators have seen no reason to ground the Airbus A300-600 series aircraft, despite safety questions raised by several pilots at American Airlines. National Transportation Safety Board Chairwoman Marion Blakey has told a congressional subcommittee that investigators probing the crash of American Flight 587, an A300-600, last year in New York have found no evidence to take the fleet out of service. Blakey said the same thing several weeks ago when a large group of American pilots suggested that the government consider grounding those Airbus planes. Since then, a smaller group of Airbus A300 pilots at American have formally petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration to consider such action until safety questions related to the Flight 587 investigation are answered. (Read a report from CNN's Kathleen Koch on the issue.) Neither the FAA nor the American pilots union, the Allied Pilots Association, say they believe the A300-600 fleet should be grounded. American is the only passenger carrier that flies the A300-600. It has 34 of them. Cargo carriers FedEx and UPS also operate them. Some pilots at American have not been reassured by the progress of crash investigators who are looking at possible structural or mechanical problems with the plane as well as pilot actions. Investigators are focused on why the plane's tail fin and rudder fell off the aircraft before it crashed shortly after takeoff from New York's John F. Kennedy airport, killing all 260 people aboard and five on the ground. Another senior safety board official told lawmakers that pilot concerns add urgency to the investigation, which is not expected to be completed until next year at the earliest. __________________ Febuary 15, 1898 December 7, 1941 June 8, 1967 September 11, 2001 Never Forget, Never Forgive If you kick the Tiger in the arse, you better be able to deal with the Tiger's teeth.

04-12-2002, 06:37 PM	#2
Chansen Complete Wacko! Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Parker, CO Posts: 3,041	This is bad for Airbus! See Airline companies see this and lost money revenue and well bad for other programs! Mc Donnell Douglas got bad press on the DC-10 and you saw what happened years down the road.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

04-12-2002, 06:41 PM	#3
justin Insane Collector Join Date: Feb 2000 Posts: 2,005	The DC10 was a different story, that was hit by a lot of bad disasters in a relatively short time, it was the cumulative effect of such a run of disaster that was the killer. The A300-600 has had a tragic disaster, but the evidence is inconclusive to say the least that there is anything fundamentally wrong with the aircraft, and in the long term if there are no more disasters (big IF I accept) then I don't think this will harm Airbus anymore than a crash of any machine damages it's manufacturer. Justin

04-17-2002, 08:14 PM	#4
Darryl Senior Collector Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: La La Land Posts: 180	Sorry Justin, but the American A300 had a SERIOUS STRUCTUAL FAILURE, not a mere case of an annoying system issue. Regardless of who made it, the manufacturer got off with little more than a slap on the wrist. All Talking Heads on the subject disagree, but the fin structure NEVER should have delaminated, and to blame it on the pilots is pure rubbish!

04-20-2002, 01:46 AM	#5
justin Insane Collector Join Date: Feb 2000 Posts: 2,005	Most of the equipment failures that cause aircraft to crash can be considered serious. A few years ago JAL lost a 747 due to a total structural failure caused by Boeing making a fundamental mistake in a bulkhead repair, does this mean we should ground every aircraft ever to have been repaired by Boeing?? The DC10 cargo door closing latch system would never pass a modern risk assessment, and as such we can say that today if the error occured MD would be in serious trouble for this failure. I,m not denying the possibility of a structural failure on that aircraft, but that does not mean that the design is unsound, the NTSB are one of the most widely respected agencies in the world, famous for it's independence and attitude in accident investigation, unlike the FAA, if one of the worlds most respected bodies with almost unparralleled expertise in risk analysis and accident investigation gives the A300-600 an all clear then I tend to believe them.