It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

2014 Gulfstream crash uncovers scary trend

page: 2
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

To be fair, we all did that initially. After some time though, it just grows in you and it becomes an after thought.
You see the problem here is pilots end up doing the same thing with planes, this may be due to the fact that airplane technology has matured to a point where you can maybe get away overlooking a few things here and there.
Old article here, but its to the point where pilots falling asleep is common place.

References:
www.bbc.com...




posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 05:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: F4guy

Of course, you have to actually DO the checklist to get to that step.


I've found enough bad sh*% doing checklists that I'm pretty faithful about it now. Like reversed aeleron control cables on a rebuilt Cessna 210; a closed emergency oxygen valve on a Citation; a blown main buss tie on a 747; and, a disconnected engine cooling iris control rod on a Sukhoi 29.



posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: F4guy

The number of pilots not doing checklists is downright scary. In the accident flight that highlighted this problem, the crew didn't verbalize any of their checklists.



posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 05:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: Zaphod58

Are there FAA regs that requires a preflight check of control surfaces or is it just a common sense and survival procedure.


There is also a before take-off check list or a taxi checklist that has you do a control check. Gust locks left in place and an aircraft that crashes had several other failures before the crash; flying is extremely safe for those who abide by the rules, checklist, and procedures.... but will kill you in a heart beat for those who make up their own rules/procedures.... Kinda like a helicopter pilot who starts the engine with the rotor blade tired down... a sequence of stupid preceded the event.



posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit



So we're guessing that you don't drive with flip-flops?

How about untied shoe laces or barefeet?

I do this because your comments were not relative to flying....



posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 05:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: 727Sky

flying is extremely safe for those who abide by the rules, checklist, and procedures.... but will kill you in a heart beat for those who make up their own rules/procedures....


If only more pilots thought about this everytime they fly.



posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 06:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Natas0114
a reply to: Zaphod58

If you want true terror, head down to a small scale skydiving operation. I was an avid skydiver for years, and saw the absolute worst aircraft with little to no maintenance. Pilots were half-assed at best. I've seen Cessna 182's that were being prop started for weeks at a time, multiple instrument fails, and saw flaps fail once. I quit jumping years ago due to what I saw at many of the drop zones.

A Skydiving plane crashed here a few years ago on takeoff killing 5,caused by seat lock failing and pushing pilot seat back.



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 07:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blackfinger

originally posted by: Natas0114
a reply to: Zaphod58

If you want true terror, head down to a small scale skydiving operation. I was an avid skydiver for years, and saw the absolute worst aircraft with little to no maintenance. Pilots were half-assed at best. I've seen Cessna 182's that were being prop started for weeks at a time, multiple instrument fails, and saw flaps fail once. I quit jumping years ago due to what I saw at many of the drop zones.

A Skydiving plane crashed here a few years ago on takeoff killing 5,caused by seat lock failing and pushing pilot seat back.


That was caused by mechanical failure of the sliding seat rail, not an inproper prelight inspection. The FAA issued a couple of mandatory Airworthiness Directives addressing the issue. And the failure had nothing to do with skydiving.



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 11:48 PM
link   
It was a plane used for skydiving..Im only going by what has been told to me by guys at the airfield.



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 12:04 AM
link   
A pilot skipping a pre-flight check is like a parent that does not strap their infants in the safety seat.
They are irresponsible. If the FAA were to crack down on them like a state trooper does for a kid not buckled up, things would change fast if you got your license pulled for a month...



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 07:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: charlyv
A pilot skipping a pre-flight check is like a parent that does not strap their infants in the safety seat.
They are irresponsible. If the FAA were to crack down on them like a state trooper does for a kid not buckled up, things would change fast if you got your license pulled for a month...


And how do you propose that the FAA police this? There are 591,000 certificated pilots in the US, flying 211,000 registered aircraft. The FAA has about 1200 operations inspectors spread over the world. And there is more than one checklist for every flight. You have a pre-start check, a starting checklist, a pre-taxi check, an 18,000 foot check, going both up and down, a descent check, a pre approach, a before landing, and a shut down (either quick turn or long term) and a whole bunch of emergency checklists. Each aircraft type, as defined in each type certificate data sheet, has a different set of checklists and operators can have different checks if allowed in their approved operations specifications. It's impossible to have real time monitoring of every phase of every flight.



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: F4guy

No, but they could download random CVRs after flights and listen to them. You can't fix the problem in real time, but you can fix the problem long term.



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 08:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

That sounds like it would raise a bill that the FAA wouldn't want to pay. They already have trouble paying for what they badly need to implement, and I don't think they'd be willing to hire more people to review CVRs.

Plus, random review of CVRs seems like a very slippery slope that I can't see most operators wanting to comply with at all if it would somehow be implemented.



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 09:02 PM
link   
a reply to: justwanttofly

The FAA barely wants to do what they're supposed to do now, so getting them to do anything else is going to be like yanking teeth. It's the only way they're going to be able to do something about this, short of putting FAA inspectors in the cockpit with the crew on every flight.



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 09:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: F4guy

originally posted by: charlyv
A pilot skipping a pre-flight check is like a parent that does not strap their infants in the safety seat.
They are irresponsible. If the FAA were to crack down on them like a state trooper does for a kid not buckled up, things would change fast if you got your license pulled for a month...


And how do you propose that the FAA police this? There are 591,000 certificated pilots in the US, flying 211,000 registered aircraft. The FAA has about 1200 operations inspectors spread over the world. And there is more than one checklist for every flight. You have a pre-start check, a starting checklist, a pre-taxi check, an 18,000 foot check, going both up and down, a descent check, a pre approach, a before landing, and a shut down (either quick turn or long term) and a whole bunch of emergency checklists. Each aircraft type, as defined in each type certificate data sheet, has a different set of checklists and operators can have different checks if allowed in their approved operations specifications. It's impossible to have real time monitoring of every phase of every flight.


How do I know?, but it is their job, they should figure it out. Spot checks would be obvious. Please don't tell me about all of the checks.. been there and done that. The military has spot checks all of the time, in the Navy, it is NATOPS, and I used to be an aircrew evaluator. There is absolutely no excuse in not having an active spot check system with accountability at the airline corporate level, to make sure that they are at least trying to keep their pilots in compliance with FAA regulations.
The FAA should mandate it and force the airlines into compliance. Top-Down. Management. Responsibility.

edit on 27-11-2016 by charlyv because: spelling , where caught

edit on 27-11-2016 by charlyv because: spelling , where caught



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 09:31 PM
link   
Pilots already have too much responsibility so why don't they computerise all preflight checks so nothing is left to chance. Checking feedom of control column could be done with actuators that would fail when any unusual resistance is detected. Disabling the aircraft from flight until remedied.



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 09:58 PM
link   
a reply to: glend

Part of the responsibility they have is the preflight checklists.



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 10:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Random line checks, similar to airlines, would be a good idea at first glance. Except when you start to look into it, I'd bet that most corporate flight departments' flight schedules can and do change relentlessly at the drop of a hat. That kind of flexibility is not compatible with the FAA at all, and is part of why the airline line check system is successful. As soon as you get Big Money CEOs complaining that the feds won't let them alter their flight schedules to meet their changing demands, I forsee checks to lobbyists start getting signed and the corporate line check system vamooses.

I doubt the FAA does anything further about this and continues to use the recurrent sim training requirement for most operators as their main cross check that everything is Kosher.



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 10:24 PM
link   
a reply to: justwanttofly

Of course they do, which is why they'd be random. Checks of the aircraft that aren't in immediate use, such as those in maintenance, would still give you a good baseline for all the aircraft that company operates and their crews.



posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 06:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: F4guy

No, but they could download random CVRs after flights and listen to them. You can't fix the problem in real time, but you can fix the problem long term.


Only a very small percentage of aircraft have a CVR. Smaller jets don't have to have them. Most corporate aircraft don't. Basically, only if the aircraft has 4 jet engines, or has 4 piston engines and is pressurized, or is turbine powered and requires 2 pilots, or is a multiengined turbine aircraft seating 10+ passengers. And reviewing the CVR data would show nothing on single pilot jets like the Citation, or on aircraft with a computerized checklist not requiring a command and response.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join