AirTran failed to meet evacuation requirements for 717

[haze]

At the time, AirTran was operating the DC-9 as well as the 717. They indeed had the proper "door" trainers for both models. But they used a single universal "cone" trainer to closely approximate both models. We don't know exactly how minute the details were for it to not match the "specific configuration." But attention was brought to this minor shortcoming and AirTran rectified the situation promptly, as they should have.

At least AirTran had the training, the operational chutes, and the responsiveness to promptly correct any minor shortcomings which is more than can be said for these guys:

Airline Faces FAA Fine For Safety Violations

By Sara Kehaulani Goo
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 8, 2004; Page E02


...The FAA has issued similar fines for other carriers. Yesterday, United Airlines received a civil penalty of up to $1 million for allegedly installing emergency escape slides that were inoperable on a Boeing 777 plane that took 263 flights before the problem was discovered. The carrier allegedly forgot to remove safety pins on the slides so that the slides could work in the event of an evacuation.

Last week, American Airlines agreed to pay $2.5 million for allegedly operating aircraft that had various safety violations...

© 2004 The Washington Post Company

United Airlines, a newer 777, 263 flights with inoperable escape slides. "Before it was discovered"?! Was it discovered during an emergency?! American Airlines, millions in fines, several aircraft with various safety violations. Now there's a few things to be worried about

[dbaker]

That behavior is definitely unacceptable too although a least it was discovered unrelated to an incident where people got hurt.

[haze]

Originally Posted by dbaker

That behavior is definitely unacceptable too although a least it was discovered unrelated to an incident where people got hurt.

All the safety training in the world can't stop the occasional idiot who, despite the best efforts of the crew, wants to jump off the front of the wing. I suppose that's just Darwinism at work

Seems the crew was trained well enough to get the rest of the passengers to follow proper procedures without incident. There's usually one on every flight regardless, I even encountered an idiot climbing over seats during a routine "walk-off" after an aborted takeoff roll at MCI in 1994

[jetmech717]

Haze:

But they used a single universal "cone" trainer to closely approximate both models. We don't know exactly how minute the details were for it to not match the "specific configuration." But attention was brought to this minor shortcoming and AirTran rectified the situation promptly, as they should have.

I'm starting to remember the scuttlebutt on this one...This was a few years ago and the company (or NTSB) noticed that the 717 tail compartment has multiple ways to jettison the tail and blow the slide, were most of the DC-9's only had 1. Thus the "trainer" was in-accurate towards the 717. The flight attendants knew how to jettison the slide but could hesitate on the use of the alterantive.

Baker:

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.

What you dont think ValuJet was held accountable? AirTran does not do business with foreign repair stations....unless you think Rolls-Royce, GE/SMECMA (French) dont do outstanding jobs on the BR-715 and CFM56-7b engines.

Baker:

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.

Well I cant say that I'm extatic, but this is a start. There are a few more details on your page, but I'll give you a break for a few...baby steps. Hell I think before long we may actually get Baker to fly on an AirTran flight. Baker have you ever flow on AirTran? Tried the 717-200 or 737-700's with the big "A" on the tail? You wont get a chicken dinner but you'll get good service.

My overall dream is for you to see that AirTran maintenance is top notch (AirTran...AirTran...AirTran) and for you to see that we are a growing business model of Southwest. I really hope one day that the entire "warning" page is removed and you can come to ITYT to discuss AirTran just like you would come here to discuss Southwest.....talk about their planes, seats, tickets, people. Anything but the dead horse we talk about here. Anything that has to do with AirTran can stay....The rest of the stuff should go and let us grow as a new airline.

[trs717]

[quote="jetmech717"]

I'm starting to remember the scuttlebutt on this one...This was a few years ago and the company (or NTSB) noticed that the 717 tail compartment has multiple ways to jettison the tail and blow the slide, were most of the DC-9's only had 1. Thus the "trainer" was in-accurate towards the 717. The flight attendants knew how to jettison the slide but could hesitate on the use of the alterantive.

quote]

You are correct. I personally spoke with the captain of that flight shortly after the incident and he explained it in detail.

As far as tail-cone: The flight attendant although, relatively new, did absolutely nothing wrong. As aircraft cleared runway 4 in LGA on a high speed taxiway it was pointed on a heading of about 70 degrees. That night the wind in LGA was out of northwest at 30 knots, which turned out to be a direct crosswind.

The reason the 717 tail-cone has that squashed end on it like a tooth-paste tube, is to allow it to roll 90 degrees to the left or right and then remain there allowing safe evacuation via the slide.

The 30 know crosswind which existed that night did not allow the tail-cone to roll away properly and it was stuck directly below the tail. Flight attendant saw that the slide deployment could be hindered by the tail-cone on the ground, and properly evaluated the tail-cone exit as UNSAFE directing passengers forward.

The incident brought FAA attention to tail-cone exit. They found out that while the verbal description in F/A manual was correct, the picture of tail-cone slide was missing a secondary inflation lanyard. Same was on a tail-cone mock-up at F/A training facility. The misprinted pictures were quickly corrected. However, as mention before is not the reason the tail-cone exit was not used.

It never stops to amuse me how dangerous little knowledge can be. dBaker proves that on his site.

BTW, are you related Mr. Sean Baker--an unfortunate victim of VJ592?

Regards...

[dbaker]

Originally Posted by trs717

That night the wind in LGA was out of northwest at 30 knots, which turned out to be a direct crosswind.

. . .

The 30 know crosswind which existed that night did not allow the tail-cone to . . .

According to the NTSB: At 2240:37, the flight was cleared to land by the control tower and told that the winds were from 010 degrees at 13 knots..

It never stops to amuse me how dangerous little knowledge can be. dBaker proves that on his site.

Um, yeah. Anyway, 010 is practically due north (10 degrees in the direction of northeast, not northwest). And 13kts isn't too close to 30kts.

Do you have any understanding about what you're claiming? Had the aircraft been heading 070 with wind 270@30kts (the facts as you claim), it would've been almost a direct tail wind, not a cross wind. So, that's wrong too.

I'm sure a 30kt crosswind exceeds the crosswind limitation of a 717, so it's a ridiculous claim anyway.

Ultimately, your information is factually inaccurate and your explanation shows that you have less than "little knowledge" in the subject of being able to evaluate wind directions.

Might want to check your facts and go talk to the captain again before you try to make me look foolish or you'll end up looking quite a bit worse.

[trs717]

Dude...Read!

I said the wind was form northwest (aka 270 thru 360 degrees)
Now do the math...really slow this time...070 - 90 (aka crosswind) = 340(aka Northwest).

I know what the report says. In the real world tower often issues the wind and it is often different from our indication in the cockpit, which is extremely precise. Contrary to what you believe, the pilot observed weather conditions are in many cases considered to be more precise by the FARs than electronic equipment based on the field. Winds in LGA are often gusting and change rapidly, especially at night (of course you wouldn't know that because Microsoft Flight Simulator keeps them pretty steady for you)

For your information 717's max crosswind is 40 knots.

As far as how little knowledge I have on a subject...Well I guess I just bought my ATP with 717 Type Rating on E-bay. Or yeah and 3000 hours in that airplane where logged watching the Dicovery-Wings channel.

Grow up, man.

P.S. and the most important question that you avoided here was...Are you related to Sean Baker?

[dbaker]

Your account disagrees with both the NTSB and the orientation of taxiway bravo, where the emergency evacuation was conducted.

Your claim: Wind was 340@30
NTSB: Wind was 010@13

That's a serious discrepency. If the wind had been as gusty or variable as you suggest, the crew would have likely called for another windcheck or the tower controller would have issued some based on the changing conditions. Also, interviews with both pilots were conducted and neither are listed in the report as saying that the wind conditions were inconsistent with the the windcheck offered by the tower.

Now, the report says that the crew confirmed exiting runway 4, pulling completely onto taxiway B and holding short of F. Now, according to my jeppesen diagrams, the heading of taxiway B at that point is 040; it's parallel to runway 4/22:

Your claim: Taxiway heading 070
Jeppesen LGA Diagram: Taxiway heading 040

So, are you also asserting that the diagrams are wrong and that based on your second-hand account of the situation, the heading that night of taxiway bravo was 30 degrees off from what it normally is?

As far as the crosswind limitation, I know that the DC-9-82 was 30kts on a dry runway. I don't have a 717 POH so I'll have to take your word on it, which is inherently dubious since all of your other presented facts have disagrees with reputable sources. Since the 717 is based on the DC-9, I'd be surprised to see over a 30% increase in xwind component, especially since 40kts exceeds the crosswind component of every airliner I've heard of.

That said, can you confirm that your argument is that the B717 can land in a crosswind that exceeds the maximum crosswind that you can evacuate via the tail?

Originally Posted by trs717

I said the wind was form northwest (aka 270 thru 360 degrees)
Now do the math...really slow this time...070 - 90 (aka crosswind) = 340(aka Northwest).

What is this supposed to prove? I never doubted that when you're heading 070 and have a 90 degree crosswind, the wind would be coming from 340. Are you trying to demonstrate that you can subtract correctly? In this case, the wind was neither coming from that direction (340), nor was the aircraft heading that direction (070).

And one more thing:

Originally Posted by trs717

Contrary to what you believe, the pilot observed weather conditions are in many cases considered to be more precise by the FARs than electronic equipment based on the field.

I have my FAR/AIM right here and couldn't find that. Could you please point me to it?

I appreciate that you are contributing to this discussion, but I must advise you that all other members of this community use factual information from proven sources. Your second-hand accounts that significantly contradict information from reputable sources won't be taken seriously.

[trs717]

Listen, Baker.
I initially stated that the heading aircraft was evacuated on was about 070.
If I knew you are such a numbers buff I'd give you precise measurements. All my post was suppose to show is that the aircraft was pointed to northeast and there was a significant crosswind that placed the tail-cone in an odd position after deployment, which blocked the exit. What's so hard about that?

I know that you feel like the-ace-of-the-base on this website, but by you referencing to DC9's POH simply shows your inadequacy. POH is a term used in general aviation aircraft. Not in transport category.

And yes 717's max crosswind is 40 knots. And it's not limited by the tail-cone evacuation or by aircraft handling, but rather by engine operation at slow aircraft speeds such as beginning of take-off and the end of landing rollout...

Obviously, I can't change your views on this one or any other subject related to how great of a job AirTran has done in transforming their airline in last few years.

Just please answer one thing, or can anyone else here answer it...Is dBaker related to Sean Baker -- a victim of VJ592 accident?

[dbaker]

Originally Posted by trs717

I initially stated that the heading aircraft was evacuated on was about 070.

If I knew you are such a numbers buff I'd give you precise measurements. All my post was suppose to show is that the aircraft was pointed to northeast and there was a significant crosswind

But you actually attempted to show that with invalid and factually incorrect information.

Do you actually expect me to take your word rather than information from a joint FAA and NTSB investigation? You're revising what you said/meant from one post to another and the rest of what you say is factually incorrect. How do you expect to be taken seriously?

Originally Posted by trs717

Contrary to what you believe, the pilot observed weather conditions are in many cases considered to be more precise by the FARs than electronic equipment based on the field.

Were you unable to find your source on that? Did you make that up, too? Or was that just another non-precise explanation that turns out to be a lie?

Originally Posted by trs717

I know that you feel like the-ace-of-the-base on this website, but by you referencing to DC9's POH simply shows your inadequacy. POH is a term used in general aviation aircraft. Not in transport category.

I wouldn't be surprised if there was a more popular term than POH. That said, I do in fact have a "Boeing 737-100/200 Pilots Operating Handbook (B737-100-200-POH)" on my desk. AirTran was operating the 737-200 as recently as late 2001.

Geez, you just can't say two words without making a fool of yourself, huh? You should take a lesson from jetmech717 and the other airtran guys on this board and stick to the facts so you don't continue to make yourself (and other AirTran pilots) look like a bunch of incompetents liars.