Allegiant Air pilots have accused the carrier of using planes that 'barely pass' safety standards

I'm not sure what "mistake" that would be, as ValuJet was not responsible for what happened.

Not according to the NTSB.

The NTSB report placed responsibility for the accident on three parties:

  • SabreTech, for improperly packaging and storing hazardous materials,
  • ValuJet, for not supervising SabreTech, and
  • the FAA, for not mandating smoke detection and fire suppression systems in cargo holds.
 
Which is bogus, and you know it. No airline provides the supervision necessary to stop what happened. Still, to this day. Including yours.

Actually mine doesn't accept any HazMat. I'd have to check but I do believe chemical oxygen generators would fall under a hazardous category.
 
Actually mine doesn't accept any HazMat. I'd have to check but I do believe chemical oxygen generators would fall under a hazardous category.

And how exactly does your airline ensure that HAZMAT isn't incorrectly labeled as not being HAZMAT? They aren't opening up cargo to have a look-see, I can assure you.

Again, airline oversight of this is completely impossible. You are entirely dependent upon people following the rules when they ship, and if they don't, you and the airline are screwed. ValuJet was not the slightest bit responsible for what happened on that flight. And believe me, I'd love to blame someone at ValuJet, seeing as how the Captain was a SCAB. But no blame belongs on any of them.
 
Maybe not that flight specially but there were lots of issues at ValueJet before that crash......



In August 1995, the Department of Defense (DoD) rejected ValuJet's bid to fly military personnel. In a scathing report, the DoD cited serious deficiencies in ValuJet's quality assurance procedures.[5]

The Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Atlanta field office sent a memo on February 14, 1996, to Washington, D.C., stating that "consideration should be given to an immediate FAR-121 re-certification of this airline" - in other words, the FAA wanted ValuJet grounded. ValuJet airplanes made 15 emergency landings in 1994, 57 in 1995, and 57 from January through May 1996. In February the FAA ordered ValuJet to seek approval before adding any new aircraft or cities to their network, something the industry had not seen since deregulation in 1979. This attempt at removing ValuJet's certification was "lost in the maze at FAA" according to NTSB Chairman Jim Hall.[7] By this time, ValuJet's accident rate was not only one of the highest in the low-fare sector, but was more than 14 times that of the legacy airline"
 
I hope the airline sues the IBT. This is such unprofessional BS. Makes the entire organized labor movement look bad.

I disagree... I was on one of those flights were the engine shutdown on flinal approach landing in Mesa-Gateway, from ND.

When it comes to sounding the alarm on saftey with evidence, I call that looking out for public saftey.

Ex: the Air Force pilot who flew the Raptor coming out publicly (with a congressman) together saying the Raptor was unsafe for its pilots, forcing an investigation.
 
I think they're even labeled "Consumer Products" which keeps it off the radar.
 
ScorpionStinger said:
I disagree... I was on one of those flights were the engine shutdown on flinal approach landing in Mesa-Gateway, from ND. When it comes to sounding the alarm on saftey with evidence, I call that looking out for public saftey. Ex: the Air Force pilot who flew the Raptor coming out publicly (with a congressman) together saying the Raptor was unsafe for its pilots, forcing an investigation.

Sounding an alarm is reporting to the FAA. This is a publicity stunt meant to cause problems for management as revenge for labor relations. It's shameful and makes organized labor look bad.
 
-glances at Standard Practice 5205, his DG/HM manual-

Gosh, look at all those personal exemptions!

Oh yeah! All those lovely things you learn about what's in the belly of your jet when you're signing a NOTOC instead of just lazily handing it to the left.
 
Oh yeah! All those lovely things you learn about what's in the belly of your jet when you're signing a NOTOC instead of just lazily handing it to the left.
We took a delay once because they listed 6.5lb of dry ice, not 6.0lb (the maximum) on the CLR. (We don't have to have a NOTOC for dry ice if it's a part of a biologic shipment, you know, because reasons?)

6.5, last I checked, is greater than 6.0.

Ramp was not pleased.
 
Lunchbox said:
I wonder how those ValueJet planes are doing now that they are at Derg's airline? I'm sure the MX is much better....

Our planes were impeccably maintained. You could go a year without seeing a deferral on a 717.
 
Back
Top