Trans States MX
#32
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
You clearly haven't been in the industry long enough to understand just how unwaveringly reliable the rumors you hear from mechanics are. You obviously don't know specifics, but that's OK because mx guys are always 100% truthful and never exaggerate or spread untrue crap.
Eagle's maintenance is not the best in the industry, btw.
Eagle's maintenance is not the best in the industry, btw.
#33
eaglefly,
Could you please explain to us the would-be fatal errors that our MX made on the Eagle planes? This is very important because if they made them on those, they are still making the same mistakes on the 145's we still have.
So once again: What specifically did our MX do/not do that put our lives in danger?
Could you please explain to us the would-be fatal errors that our MX made on the Eagle planes? This is very important because if they made them on those, they are still making the same mistakes on the 145's we still have.
So once again: What specifically did our MX do/not do that put our lives in danger?
#34
#35
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
I'm not going to claim any specifics for several reasons (attack that at your option, I'm O.K. with that). My point was that I (me) and my loved ones will not fly on those carriers for reasons stated above. We all have choices and that is mine. Some pilots may not choose to fly Mesa for other reasons, etc. and that is their right. Perhaps Eagle and TSA have different ideas of "airworthy" ?
I'm surprised anyone wants to know specifics as I have already been disregarded as a "troll". So again, what's the point as my comments are not to be taken as fact, only opinion.
Relax and fly on with confidence. After all, if there are REALLY any problems with your aircraft that would jeopardize your safety, the FAA will be there to put a stop to it. Since they haven't, you're good to go and why get worked up over an erronously opinionated troll ?
I'm surprised anyone wants to know specifics as I have already been disregarded as a "troll". So again, what's the point as my comments are not to be taken as fact, only opinion.
Relax and fly on with confidence. After all, if there are REALLY any problems with your aircraft that would jeopardize your safety, the FAA will be there to put a stop to it. Since they haven't, you're good to go and why get worked up over an erronously opinionated troll ?
Last edited by eaglefly; 05-31-2009 at 06:54 PM.
#36
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Posts: 224
eaglefly,
Could you please explain to us the would-be fatal errors that our MX made on the Eagle planes? This is very important because if they made them on those, they are still making the same mistakes on the 145's we still have.
So once again: What specifically did our MX do/not do that put our lives in danger?
Could you please explain to us the would-be fatal errors that our MX made on the Eagle planes? This is very important because if they made them on those, they are still making the same mistakes on the 145's we still have.
So once again: What specifically did our MX do/not do that put our lives in danger?
#37
Also, eaglefly, I never called you a troll, someone else did. However, it's rather unethical to tell a pilot group that they are flying ticking timebombs and not tell us what is specifically wrong. Furthermore, it's pretty unethical to supposedly have information that would cause such a strong opinion and not go to the FAA about it.
#38
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Posts: 224
Imminent death NO, but I do think they could be a link in a accident chain.
I wasn't there but the MX guys said the FAA was there for all the work done on 601 and 602.
I wasn't there but the MX guys said the FAA was there for all the work done on 601 and 602.
#39
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: A320 gear monkey
Posts: 127
#40
I'm not to claim any specifics for several reasons (attack that at your option, I'm O.K. with that). My point was that I (me) and my loved ones will not fly on those carriers for reasons stated above. We all have choices and that is mine. Some pilots may not choose to fly Mesa for other reasons, etc. and that is their right. Perhaps Eagle and TSA have different ideas of "airworthy" ?
I'm surprised anyone wants to know specifics as I have already been disregarded as a "troll". So again, what's the point as my comments are not to be taken as fact, only opinion.
Relax and fly on with confidence. After all, if there are REALLY any problems with your aircraft that would jeopardize your safety, the FAA will be there to put a stop to it. Since they haven't, you're good to go and why get worked up over an erronously opinionated troll ?
I'm surprised anyone wants to know specifics as I have already been disregarded as a "troll". So again, what's the point as my comments are not to be taken as fact, only opinion.
Relax and fly on with confidence. After all, if there are REALLY any problems with your aircraft that would jeopardize your safety, the FAA will be there to put a stop to it. Since they haven't, you're good to go and why get worked up over an erronously opinionated troll ?
"I don't actually know of anything just feel that TSA is below me and my regional and will throw this statement out there with NO substantial information to support it just to perpetuate conflict"
Reality: If you actually knew of something that was seriously wrong mechanically with those airplanes, you as a professional would report it to the FAA, anonymously if needed. I don't know you, but as a fellow professional, I am going to make that assumption of you.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post