Ground 'em all????
02-18-2009, 08:18 AM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Position: none ya...
Posts: 1,154
Originally Posted by ilbartlett
The fact is that if all turboprops were grounded, the red tape would keep them grounded for longer than planned...which in this current time of challenging economics would cause many operators to go under.
I can land on 4500 feet, can you?
02-18-2009, 08:30 AM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: CA
Posts: 397
I can only imagine what the guys that are flying these airplanes now are dealing with, all the stupid passengers comments about the airplane and now this to add to it. This guys just made your working enviornment more stressfull. Hang in there guys!
02-18-2009, 09:36 AM
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Position: none ya...
Posts: 1,154
Originally Posted by flynwmn
If we ground all the turbo props then we need to ground all the turbo fans until an adquate solution is found for bird strikes.
02-18-2009, 10:11 AM
#20
On Reserve
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Position: Dash-8 Q400 FO
Posts: 24
What an A*hole.
I've seen recently a guy saying on CNN that the deicing systems on turbo dated form the 50's and was unsafe. What about the propeller? 19th century (even before on boats). Should we fly props?????????????
What about wheels? Romans had wheels already, is it safe?
What really upsets me is that in Europe we still suffer on the Q from the SAS incidents. Sure BBD came with an uptaded maintenance schedule for the gear due to faster than planned corrosion but after the last gear failure on a SAS Q (made the prime time news with full video of the landing) did anybody mention after the inquiry that the gear was safe and it was a maintenance screw-up ???
And SAS grounded its Qs citing "lack of confidence" from customers, passed its fleet to a subsidiary...and later bought new Qs (at a very good price supposely). Did that make the "general large spectrum" news? No. Did the managers whom were claiming in the press their lack of confidence in the Q came out later saying "and by the way we bough some more"? So we're still having, 1.5 years after the issues passengers worried and commenting about the problems SAS had...
So I can't imagine what the Colgan incident might induce.
By the way, when I hear so much crap in the news (I can figure that when I know the topic like flying), how much undetectable crap are we fed in other areas we know little ?
Yeah, it scares me.
For those who have to look in the dictionnary the meaning of "ethics", I do not salute you.
I've seen recently a guy saying on CNN that the deicing systems on turbo dated form the 50's and was unsafe. What about the propeller? 19th century (even before on boats). Should we fly props?????????????
What about wheels? Romans had wheels already, is it safe?
What really upsets me is that in Europe we still suffer on the Q from the SAS incidents. Sure BBD came with an uptaded maintenance schedule for the gear due to faster than planned corrosion but after the last gear failure on a SAS Q (made the prime time news with full video of the landing) did anybody mention after the inquiry that the gear was safe and it was a maintenance screw-up ???
And SAS grounded its Qs citing "lack of confidence" from customers, passed its fleet to a subsidiary...and later bought new Qs (at a very good price supposely). Did that make the "general large spectrum" news? No. Did the managers whom were claiming in the press their lack of confidence in the Q came out later saying "and by the way we bough some more"? So we're still having, 1.5 years after the issues passengers worried and commenting about the problems SAS had...
So I can't imagine what the Colgan incident might induce.
By the way, when I hear so much crap in the news (I can figure that when I know the topic like flying), how much undetectable crap are we fed in other areas we know little ?
Yeah, it scares me.For those who have to look in the dictionnary the meaning of "ethics", I do not salute you.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
