AirTran failed to meet evacuation requirements for 717

[ithisk]

Originally Posted by jetmech717

Oh wait I know what your doing.......(Baker thoughts)"Hmmmm the web site is getting pretty slow around here and I've got to look good when the numbers come in about travel sites...Let me go stir up old faithful over at the AirTran page. They always slam the door on me when I make stuff up but they'll talk for days about it....Man I'm glad those guys signed up, they really saved this place"

Although I think it's clear that you don't understand this concept, I'd like to quote a post a few months ago that responded to similar comments:

Originally Posted by karl

ad hominem attacks and appeals to authority are fallacies of argument. That is to say that neither your personal attacks on Baker, what you do for a living, nor your assertions about why he writes what he writes, provide any degree of support to reach your conclusion, which appears to have something to do with Airtran being a safe, or at least ordinarily safe, airline. While your writing may amuse, it does not inform.

[jetmech717]

Dbaker:

It doesn't really matter what I think

Man Baker I thought we would never get to you, but I see your coming around.


Ithisk:

Although I think it's clear that you don't understand this concept, I'd like to quote a post a few months ago that responded to similar comments:

Hey Ithisk, how about the 2 times that you actually come to the AirTran forum, you bring some facts instead of pasting someone elses stuff that has nothing to do with the DISCUSSION

Baker:

to keep the site accurate and up to date.

I'm not sure I can even respond to that one.

Baker:

I'd be happy to correct any other factual errors that you can point out and can prove with a valid source. In the past, when I've offered this, I've been met with emotionally-charged opinion with no factual backing.

Are you freaking kidding me????????????????what is this?

B717mech:

Here are the problems:
dbaker footnote to the first picture.
Quote:
ValuJet DC-9-32, tail number N908VJ, on fire, with evacuation slides deployed sitting on ATL runway 27R
This footnote is correct.

dbaker footnote to the 2nd picture:
Quote:
ValuJet DC-9-32, tail number N904VJ, after insufficient maintenance led to an engine explosion and cabin fire during takeoff
This is incorrect. This is a picture of the same plane from another angle after the fire was put out. The problem with the engine was from a Turkish overhaul center. They missed the corrosion on the compressor disk. So not us or the FAA knew about this. After the investigation found out what had caused the engine failure the FAA revoked the FAA repairstaion certificate from Turkish Airways and they are no longer allowed to work on any american carriers aircraft. This engine was overhauled before we even bought the aircraft form turkish airways. That engine had serveral hundred hours on it before we bought it. You say insufficient maintenance, well after all this came to light, We (ValuJet) removed all engines that were overhauled in turkey immediately and replaced them with engines over hauled from AeroThust in MIA. Now that is the facts and the truth. One more thing. This is not able to be dectected by borescope either, because 7th stage is one of the stages that can't be looked at through a borescope. It is the First stage of the high pressure compressor (N2) on the JT8D-9A.

dbakers fottnote to the 3rd picture:
Quote:
ValuJet DC-9, burning out of control on an Atlanta runway.

This is correct only to one extent, It is burning out of control, but it is still the same aircraft as in picture 1 and 2. baker is making this seem like these 3 pictures are 3 different airplanes.


dbakers footnote to picture #5
Quote:
ValuJet/AirTran DC-9 after an uncontained engine failure


Once again this is the same airplane 908VJ this picture was taken in the hangar after the plane was moved. This picture shows where the 7th stage compressor disk came out of the engine and cowling. This happened in June of 95. Two years before the AirTran merger. So the ValuJet/AirTran DC-9 part of the caption is completly misleading and an outright lie.

So mr. baker and nugget, these are the outright lies and misleading information that we speak of. Now please tell me you do not understand our problems with this. Now after the facts are in front of you if you do in fact run a repituble web site , then I am sure you will make the changes imediately.

Now when you straighten all that out you will have a little more respect of your Inaccurate travel site. At least get the facts correct Baker
_________________

[dbaker]

OK, got it:

• Looks like the label of N904VJ was a mistake, I've changed it to N908VJ
  
• I've added tail numbers to the other incidents of the same burning aircraft to make it clear it's the same aircraft/incident that was destroyed (so no longer in service for other incidents).
  
• I've removed the "AirTran/ValuJet" from the N908VJ aircraft that was never associated with the AirTran name.

I agree with your assessment about why the engine failed on VJ597. However, you must keep in mind that accountability is due for purchasing such an old aircraft from a foreign carrier. Foreign repair stations are not required to complete the same levels of documentation as domestic ones and this is a known risk, especially when purchasing such old aircraft, engines, and parts.

The NTSB report finds:

Originally Posted by NTSB

Based on an analysis of fatigue striation measurements, a detectable crack existed in SR hole “1” in the 7 th stage high compressor disk of engine SN 666966 when the disk was overhauled by the THY repair station in 1991.

Had the THY repair station accomplished a proper inspection of the 7 th stage high compressor disk of engine SN 666966, the crack would probably have been detected, the part rejected, and consequently, the accident might have been avoided.

This is JUST LIKE VJ592 where you go with the lowest bidder for service, contracting, purchasing equipment -- whatever -- and then blame THEM when things break. It's like if you're doing some construction project on your house and you pick the bidder that is 50% less than the rest and then act surprised when it falls apart or is unsafe. It is your fault.

I don't know if you've ever flown Turkish Airlines. My most recent flight with them was in late 2003 and I can assure you that it doesn't take an A&P or ATP to recognize that it might not be the safest equipment in tip-top shape.

This is why it's cheaper to buy from overseas:

Originally Posted by NTSB

Foreign repair stations are not, but should be, subject to the same FAA recordkeeping requirements as domestic repair stations.

Additionally, the emergency brought up some other problems:

Originally Posted by NTSB

• The fourth item on the evacuation checklist was not completed by the flightcrew because of smoke accumulation in the cockpit; as a result, emergency lights were not available during a portion of the evacuation.
• Although deficiencies in ValuJet’s flight attendant training program, including emergency drills training, and the FAA’s inadequate oversight of this program did not affect occupant survivability in this accident, they could have.
• ValuJet procedures in effect at the time did not provide for prompt flight attendant access to the cockpit.
• The aircraft involved in this accident did not meet current regulatory requirements regarding flammability standards for materials used in the interiors of transport-category airplane cabins nor was it required to do so.

[haze]

Originally Posted by dbaker

Keep in mind that AirTran's own web site has yet to fully remove references to the DC-9 in their fleet, so it's hard to expect a non-official web site to be more up to date than the company's official one that they maintain.

Nowhere on AirTran's website are there references to DC-9s "in their fleet." You'll only read of DC-9s in comparison to their current fleet of 717s.

One thing I find particularly odd, however, is that if you navigate to AirTran's website directly instead of using your link listed above, you will not find that photo of the DC-9 on the Flight Info/Aircraft page. It only lists the 717, the 737, the A320, and CRJ which are the only aircraft currently in service with AirTran. Navigating on AirTran's REAL Aircraft Page, you cannot "click" your way to any DC-9 photos.

Now please tell me that you didn't just manually type "dc9" into the appropriate space in the HTTP just to see if an old arhived photo would pop up, then when it did you posted that link here as if to pass it off as the real deal

The deliberate and calculated manipulation, distortion, and out of context use of information for purposes of propaganda against a company is libel, my friends. I challenge all of you to visit AirTran.com, then click on the "Flight Information" tab on the left side of the screen, then click on the "Aircraft" tab at the top of the page, then "click" your way to a DC-9 photo without typing "dc9" into the HTTP. It can't be done, and if it can then I'll gladly choke on crow. But if dbaker has done what I think he's done, it essentially amounts to fraud

[haze]

Originally Posted by RyJones

Even NPA-ATL.org has it wrong:

They don't actually have it wrong, it was correct at the time of publication. With a little additional follow through, you would've noticed that that webpage has a copyright of 1999. Not 1999-2004. So the page itself is five years out of date. AirTran probably didn't even have a dozen 717s at that point, they currently have over 70

[dbaker]

Originally Posted by haze

(long explanation removed)

Now please tell me that you didn't just manually type "dc9" into the appropriate space in the HTTP just to see if an old arhived photo would pop up, then when it did you posted that link here as if to pass it off as the real deal

I haven't seen so much crazy speculation in a long time. Anyway, the reality is that I just asked Google. I guess you're going to have to take your witch hunt in their direction now.

Originally Posted by haze

The deliberate and calculated manipulation, distortion, and out of context use of information for purposes of propaganda against a company is libel, my friends. ( . . . ) But if dbaker has done what I think he's done, it essentially amounts to fraud

I have legitimate reason to suspect that despite your explanations and legal definitions, you're not an attorney since your entire argument is based on ultimately inaccurate speculative guessing and your definition of both fraud AND libel are factually incorrect and don't apply to this situation, even if your guesses had been correct.

[haze]

Originally Posted by dbaker

So, at the airline that claims that safety is the first priority, they're cutting corners and don't actually have complete safety training. I guess the planes are just so safe that they don't have to worry about that?

And I guess the FAA just recognizes AirTran with all those coveted official "Diamond Awards" for safety training and maintenance, on a regular basis, because of all that corner cutting and incomplete safety training

[dbaker]

Originally Posted by haze

And I guess the FAA just recognizes AirTran with all those coveted official "Diamond Awards" for safety training and maintenance, on a regular basis, because of all that corner cutting and incomplete safety training

I'm not sure that I understand your point, maybe you can clarify.

Is your point that you disagree with the NTSB's findings that both AirTran training and FAA oversight was lacking?

It seems illogical to read an NTSB report citing lack of FAA oversight and counter that by saying that the FAA gave AirTran an award.

[haze]

Originally Posted by dbaker

I haven't seen so much crazy speculation in a long time. Anyway, the reality is that I just asked Google. I guess you're going to have to take your witch hunt in their direction now.

And by just asking Google, you obtained an image that you can not reach from the CURRENT version of the AirTran website. The only way I could access it was through your link or manually typing in "dc9" in the HTTP. Thus my accusation. Since you were using that link as evidence that AirTran had not yet updated the DC-9 information on their site, I had to dispel your erroneous information.

Originally Posted by dbaker

I have legitimate reason to suspect that despite your explanations and legal definitions, you're not an attorney since your entire argument is based on ultimately inaccurate speculative guessing and your definition of both fraud AND libel are factually incorrect and don't apply to this situation, even if your guesses had been correct.

Definately not an attorney. And you're exactly right, you haven't committed fraud. I should've said that you "are a fraud", but I generally try to refrain from that sort of personal attack. At least with language that strong. But I have been known to call you a propagandist, manipulator, and distortionist, although I'm still comfortable with those labels

li·bel n.

a) A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a reputation.
b) The act of presenting such material to the public.

[dbaker]

That's not actually a legal definition but the point is moot since your assumptions were incorrect