ORIGINAL: Hossfly
ORIGINAL: Thomas B
ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot
The FAA is probably thethird most beuracratic (IRS and the military are the worst) and probably the second largest money waster (the military being the worst). They and the NTSB don't even get many of the crash's right!
SP, while you have been making some good posts lately, you are off the deep end with that later statement. The NTSB does a pretty darn good job of investigating and documenting the vast majority of all air crashes. I know they did a thorough job on the crash I had in 1978.....
Read the book about the crash of USAir flight 427 in Pa to get an idea of how hard and long they work to get the correct answers.
Show me three cases where they got it wrong, with documentation, to back up that silly statement of yours....
Mr. Thomas B, I am not going back in memory or searching dates, etc. but I will state 3 problems that I remember.
1. The United 737 in Colorado Springs which had all kinds of FAA/NTSB reports with all kinds of "Maybes" except the correct one. Most of us that had flown the 737 knew there was a problem. Had the FAA/NTSB properly evaluated all the reports of problems filed by the pilots, then the following US Air 737 in Pittsburgh may well never have happened.
2. In 1979, when the UAL mechanics were on strike I took an American flight along with the late John Grigg, then AMA Pres. to a EC meeting in LA.
One week later, that very flight number, a DC-10, lost an engine (it fell off) on Takeoff and the plane crashed killing a bunch. 3 years later I went through DC-10 school and it was extremely apparent why the machine crashed. IMO and almost everyone else's the DC-10 had a criminal hydraulic system. The Feds never did anything about that until United lost the one over Iowa. They could not conceal the gross stupidity of a system that lost all hyd. power when there was one hyd. leak.
Heck in the Boeing 737 and 727 and the Douglas DC-8, loss of one system was only a slight inconvenience. Had a number of them in all 3 of those machines but it was never a problem other than maybe missing one last cup of coffee!
Point is two airplanes had serious problems and the FUZZ never corrected anything until forced into it. Are they being forced into bugging toy model airplanes? I think not, but then the aeromodeler doesn't have the voting power that big aero-industry can buy.
3. Are you aware that the stretched DC-9, I forget the real number (Always called it a long DC-9 - that poed the American Pilots big time
) never really passed the hard-landing tests prior to being certified? Where was the FAA then? [sm=confused.gif]
NOPE - NO DOCUMENTS - JUST AN OLD AVIATOR'S FADING MEMORY, BUT IT'S MY STORY AND I'M STICKING TO IT.
Hoss,
Top Gun memory not needed, but ...
1. the 737 actuator problem was not readily identified since it was not a frequent occurrence nor did it occurr under identical circumstances, but.... NTSB's D. Criderargued that "rudder reversal" was a match for the events described, Boeing "hotly" contested that, and FAA argued that no one would ever "know with certainty" (maybe that's why they focused on efforts at making it safer).
2. Flight 191 engine seperation was traced back to AA engine removal and re-install procedures, AA did not follow Douglass' recommended procedure (NTSB probable cause "improper maintenance"), hhmmm, seems like "one thing leads to another" thingy... and the deadliest US air crash
3. The stretched 9, or MD-80, was being flown according to Douglass' flight test card,the left seater (PIC) was a "MD engineering test pilot", not a FAA test pilot; however, the right seater was a FAA flight test engineer (who likely had/has little to do with regulatory going ons.) The flight test card called for power off at 50' agl, now if you've flown the 80, and I have, power off at 50' can get your juices flowing.... but hey, this was a "flight test", not a revenue flight. Probable cause? It's in the NTSB final, but no mention of FAA fault.
4. Now, the Alaska MD-80 in January 2000 might be one. Yep, FAA did approve increased maintenance interval for elevator jack screw after the PMI faced increasing pressure from the operator... etc, but hey, it was Alaska that was looking to shave costs and the damn FAA was costing em money. Sounds like a damned if you do / damned if you don't scenario, but the only damned thing aboutis the 88 that died.
Not knocking you Hoss, you know I respect you, but just relating a few facts available with a bit of research.
Oh, and KidE, it's 254 lbs for a "powered" ultralight (empty), not 230 lbs,and fuel capacity not exceeding 5 gallons. And it was their own organizations that pushed for the Sport Pilot rule and to get rid of the "fat ultra-light" exemption; mostly because many didn't bother with getting the exemption which likely irritated theose orgs. Facts are facts, speculation and rumor is just that. Not siding with anyone, except maybe Silent8 (post 56 in particular) and a few others.
And, whether under ARC Section 2 or 3, exempt ultimately means exempt.... so....
hook