CAL/UAL Facebook page
08-20-2014 | 01:57 PM
#31
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2014
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Yes, the inspection process - from Wikipedia :
The investigation, while praising the actions of the flight crew for saving lives, would later identify the cause of the accident as a failure by United Airlines maintenance processes and personnel to detect an existing fatigue crack.[1] Post-crash analysis of the crack surfaces showed the presence of a penetrating fluorescent dye used to detect cracks during maintenance. The presence of the dye indicated that the crack was present and should have been detected at a prior inspection. The detection failure arose from poor attention to human factors in United Airlines' specification of maintenance processes.[1]
08-20-2014 | 01:59 PM
#32
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2014
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Hypothetically, you land at the wrong airport. Do you blame the F/A's?
I don't think so - you blame the CAPT and F/O. All the other stuff is BS. They were in-charge of the flight and the rest were along for the ride.
Jeff has surrendered himself with lower level ex-CAL management for protection. He is directly responsible for all facets of the airline whether he directly makes the decision or not. The rest of us are along for the ride.
I don't think so - you blame the CAPT and F/O. All the other stuff is BS. They were in-charge of the flight and the rest were along for the ride.
Jeff has surrendered himself with lower level ex-CAL management for protection. He is directly responsible for all facets of the airline whether he directly makes the decision or not. The rest of us are along for the ride.
08-20-2014 | 02:31 PM
#33
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,253
Likes: 0
08-20-2014 | 10:12 PM
#34
Banned
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,282
Likes: 0
From: A320 Cap
Honestly I couldn't care less. The merger was in 2010. It's time to get over it. I expect this kind of "discussion" from some other employee groups. Hell I STILL hear from gate agents about the summer of 2000.... but we should be able to see the forest from the trees here and just move along
08-21-2014 | 12:08 AM
#35
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 2,209
Likes: 6
From: 777
First, please read the NTSB report about UAL 232. https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/...y/AAR9006.html
My dad did the crash investigation out in the corn fields amongst body parts, so this simplistic inappropriate comment has no place in a conversation about a Facebook page that wasn't in existence when this happened.
Second, blamed on maintenance? Uhh...kind of. GE made 2 different fan discs with that SN. One had a hard alpha inclusion in the titanium, manufacturing defect to the uninitiated. It was widely believed that GE destroyed the wrong disc and that the flawed one was put into service. However, there was no proof so the theory never made it into the NTSB final report.
UAL had just started a MX inspection program that would have revealed the flaw, but that particular engine had not had a chance to go through overhaul since the new procedure. The irony is that this new inspection device did not exist at the time the disc was made and would have unequivocally spotted the defect.
Now, here's the sticky part, since UAL had this X-ray machine, and approved for inspection, the NTSB put the blame on UAL for not having inspected the incident engine, even though it was not required to do so until the next major overhaul.
You want more details that never made it to the report, PM me, but don't spout half truths about either airline when people died, very uncool.
08-21-2014 | 12:15 AM
#36
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 2,209
Likes: 6
From: 777
Yes, the inspection process - from Wikipedia :
The investigation, while praising the actions of the flight crew for saving lives, would later identify the cause of the accident as a failure by United Airlines maintenance processes and personnel to detect an existing fatigue crack.[1] Post-crash analysis of the crack surfaces showed the presence of a penetrating fluorescent dye used to detect cracks during maintenance. The presence of the dye indicated that the crack was present and should have been detected at a prior inspection. The detection failure arose from poor attention to human factors in United Airlines' specification of maintenance processes.[1]
The investigation, while praising the actions of the flight crew for saving lives, would later identify the cause of the accident as a failure by United Airlines maintenance processes and personnel to detect an existing fatigue crack.[1] Post-crash analysis of the crack surfaces showed the presence of a penetrating fluorescent dye used to detect cracks during maintenance. The presence of the dye indicated that the crack was present and should have been detected at a prior inspection. The detection failure arose from poor attention to human factors in United Airlines' specification of maintenance processes.[1]
Again, stuff that never made it into the report. Yes the crack was detected by dye penetrant at GE upon initial manufacturer. The finish machining process called for shot peening of the surface, basically blasted by small BB's to compress the surface of the finished part. This would have covered over the cracked surface now rendering the imperfection invisible until the X-ray technology was implemented several years later.
So, impossible to prove, not possible to detect by the then current technology, but blamed by the NTSB.
08-21-2014 | 05:10 AM
#37
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 908
Likes: 0
From: 737 fo
Sorry for the thread drift, but I must comment on this out of place misinformation.
First, please read the NTSB report about UAL 232. https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/...y/AAR9006.html
My dad did the crash investigation out in the corn fields amongst body parts, so this simplistic inappropriate comment has no place in a conversation about a Facebook page that wasn't in existence when this happened.
Second, blamed on maintenance? Uhh...kind of. GE made 2 different fan discs with that SN. One had a hard alpha inclusion in the titanium, manufacturing defect to the uninitiated. It was widely believed that GE destroyed the wrong disc and that the flawed one was put into service. However, there was no proof so the theory never made it into the NTSB final report.
UAL had just started a MX inspection program that would have revealed the flaw, but that particular engine had not had a chance to go through overhaul since the new procedure. The irony is that this new inspection device did not exist at the time the disc was made and would have unequivocally spotted the defect.
Now, here's the sticky part, since UAL had this X-ray machine, and approved for inspection, the NTSB put the blame on UAL for not having inspected the incident engine, even though it was not required to do so until the next major overhaul.
You want more details that never made it to the report, PM me, but don't spout half truths about either airline when people died, very uncool.
First, please read the NTSB report about UAL 232. https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/...y/AAR9006.html
My dad did the crash investigation out in the corn fields amongst body parts, so this simplistic inappropriate comment has no place in a conversation about a Facebook page that wasn't in existence when this happened.
Second, blamed on maintenance? Uhh...kind of. GE made 2 different fan discs with that SN. One had a hard alpha inclusion in the titanium, manufacturing defect to the uninitiated. It was widely believed that GE destroyed the wrong disc and that the flawed one was put into service. However, there was no proof so the theory never made it into the NTSB final report.
UAL had just started a MX inspection program that would have revealed the flaw, but that particular engine had not had a chance to go through overhaul since the new procedure. The irony is that this new inspection device did not exist at the time the disc was made and would have unequivocally spotted the defect.
Now, here's the sticky part, since UAL had this X-ray machine, and approved for inspection, the NTSB put the blame on UAL for not having inspected the incident engine, even though it was not required to do so until the next major overhaul.
You want more details that never made it to the report, PM me, but don't spout half truths about either airline when people died, very uncool.
08-21-2014 | 05:23 AM
#38
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 908
Likes: 0
From: 737 fo
Honestly I couldn't care less. The merger was in 2010. It's time to get over it. I expect this kind of "discussion" from some other employee groups. Hell I STILL hear from gate agents about the summer of 2000.... but we should be able to see the forest from the trees here and just move along
08-21-2014 | 05:26 AM
#39
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 908
Likes: 0
From: 737 fo
Yes, the inspection process - from Wikipedia :
The investigation, while praising the actions of the flight crew for saving lives, would later identify the cause of the accident as a failure by United Airlines maintenance processes and personnel to detect an existing fatigue crack.[1] Post-crash analysis of the crack surfaces showed the presence of a penetrating fluorescent dye used to detect cracks during maintenance. The presence of the dye indicated that the crack was present and should have been detected at a prior inspection. The detection failure arose from poor attention to human factors in United Airlines' specification of maintenance processes.[1]
The investigation, while praising the actions of the flight crew for saving lives, would later identify the cause of the accident as a failure by United Airlines maintenance processes and personnel to detect an existing fatigue crack.[1] Post-crash analysis of the crack surfaces showed the presence of a penetrating fluorescent dye used to detect cracks during maintenance. The presence of the dye indicated that the crack was present and should have been detected at a prior inspection. The detection failure arose from poor attention to human factors in United Airlines' specification of maintenance processes.[1]
08-21-2014 | 07:40 AM
#40
Banned
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,282
Likes: 0
From: A320 Cap
I have in the past and will again in the future. But if you go back you will see A) this dumb thread was started by a LCAL pilot who was upset about something on Facebook. I'm not even on Facebook so I wouldn't have known or cared about it if it hadn't been posted. B) In my opinion, posts prior to yours were rather mild and more focused on the fact that it was most likely non-pilots who were involved in the Facebook "incident". To me, your first post was the one that made this thread head south. Just my opinion. If it had been a LUAL pilot who had said those things, I would have been just as annoyed.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
