ITYT Travel Forums  

Go Back   ITYT Travel Forums > Travel Companies & Programs > Airlines & Frequent Flier Programs > AirTran Airways (FL)
Click Here to Login

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-06-2004, 04:20 PM   #1
Senior Member
ITYT Captain
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: IAH/HOU
Posts: 2,354
AirTran failed to meet evacuation requirements for 717

According to this NTSB document regarding a 717 evacuation after an emergency landing:

Quote:
The Safety Board, Survival Factors Group Chairman reported that AirTran had two tail cone door trainers. One was configured for the Douglas DC-9, and the other was configured for the Boeing 717. However, although the door trainers were representative of the airplanes used, there was only one tail cone trainer, and it did not match the specific configuration of either airplane. Following is a list of discrepancies found with the tail cone trainer:

[list of 4 discrepancies removed]

After it was found that the existing tailcone trainer used by AirTran did not accurately reflect either the DC-9, or Boeing 717 airplanes, AirTran set up an interim training program for their flight attendants, until a new door trainer could be obtained. This program was approved by the FAA Principal Operations Inspector (POI), and did not include hands on training for the flight attendants. Additionally, the pilots were not included in the training program.

The Vice President of Flight Operations at AirTran, and the FAA POI, both reported that the training was within FAA guidelines, and did not require hands on training, or need to include the pilots.

The Safety Board Survival Factors Group Chairman then requested a "legal" interpretation of 14 CFR 121.417. The FAA reply stated in part:

"...Each crewmember (flight attendant and pilot) must operate each type of emergency equipment in the normal and emergency modes including the actions and forces necessary in the deployment of the evacuation slides. Hands-on training of the B-717 tailcone door and emergency evacuation slides for all crewmembers must be conducted during the recurrent training cycle...."
This refers to the emergency landing where 22 people were minorly injured and 1 seriously injured in the poorly executed evacuation. Before the landing, this took place in the cockpit:

Quote:
At 2241:10, the captain stated, "you smell something burning? I think we have a fire." The co-pilot replied, "I smell something weird...no way to tell if landing gear down. A few seconds later the co-pilot stated, "we lost everything, that's for sure. Your speed's pretty damn high.", to which the captain replied, "that's all right...."

At 2241:34, the captain stated, "tell him we're declaring an emergency. We have an electrical problem." The co-pilot told the control tower that they had an electrical emergency. The captain further stated, "tell him to send the equipment", and the co-pilot transmitted to the control tower,"...we might have a possible fire...we're landing on runway four."
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?
__________________

dbaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2004, 06:49 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Atlanta Hartsfield Int. Airport
Posts: 170
Hey Baker nice to see your still here It was only a matter of time before you chimed in again. I cant seem to get that ntsb document to come up. I would like to see the dates on that. I recall a problem with the "tailcone trainer" at one time but it was when we first got the 717's. only because there are multiple ways to jettison the tail and deploy the tail slide. This was an issue because of the new plane and not knowing the exact specs at the time. The Airline worked out the differences w/ the FAA and took care of it. So I need to know if this is an old document that your bringing up about the "tailcone trainer" which by the way has nothing to do with the emergency landing in LGA last year. The serious injury was when a lady ran off the front of the wing instead of the back. The emergency was not required but the crew was being saftey oriented as they are trained here at AirTran Airways. Thank you as always
*You like to try to take things out of context so that people who dont know the system will believe you....not this time sir
__________________

jetmech717 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2004, 11:57 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: ATL
Posts: 267
BINGO!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by jetmech717
I recall a problem with the "tailcone trainer" at one
time but it was when we first got the 717's...The Airline worked out the
differences w/ the FAA and took care of it. So I need to know if this is an
old document that your bringing up about the "tailcone trainer" which by
the way has nothing to do with the emergency landing in LGA last year...*You
like to try to take things out of context so that people who dont know the
system will believe you....not this time sir
Eggzackly, jetmech 717. I also noticed that dbaker deliberately failed to
mention the dates. Naturally that's due to the fact that he wants readers to
believe that AirTran has a problem with their evacuation procedures, which
they do not, and that they just had an emergency landing, which they did
not.

We have to remember that this is all coming from a guy who lists on his
AirTran warning page several different photos of the same VALUJET (not
AirTran) incident implying that they are seperate incidents. Calls a VALUJET
(not AirTran) fanblade seperation on the runway a "crash." The very dbaker
who on that same warning page says AirTran's fleet is made up of old Turkish
DC-9s when in fact AirTran has the youngest 717/737 fleet on Earth, without
a single DC-9. Why would anyone believe this propagandist since he's already
demonstrated he has ZERO credibility? They wouldn't
haze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2004, 01:04 PM   #4
Senior Member
ITYT Captain
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: IAH/HOU
Posts: 2,354
Quote:
Originally Posted by haze
Eggzackly, jetmech 717. I also noticed that dbaker deliberately failed to mention the dates
I linked to the NTSB document in my first post which contains the dates: http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?...03FA067&akey=1. Since you guys don't seem comfortable with hyperlinks, I'll confirm that the incident took place on March 26, 2003 at 22:39 EST and the aircraft in question was N957AT.

Quote:
Originally Posted by haze
The very dbaker who on that same warning page says AirTran's fleet is made up of old Turkish DC-9s when in fact AirTran has the youngest 717/737 fleet on Earth, without a single DC-9. Why would anyone believe this propagandist since he's already demonstrated he has ZERO credibility
Want to talk about ZERO credibility? The ITYT AirTran page does not make this claim. It's not a recent change, either, which can be proved with google's cache.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jetmech717
So I need to know if this is an old document that your bringing up about the "tailcone trainer" which by the way has nothing to do with the emergency landing in LGA last year.
ZERO credibility in this claim since it's factually incorrect. The truth:
Quote:
Originally Posted by NTSB
On March 26, 2003, about 2239 eastern standard time, a Boeing 717-200, N957AT, operated by AirTran Airways as flight 356, received minor damage when the left side power control distribution power unit (PCDU) failed while on approach to land at LaGuardia Airport (LGA), Flushing, New York.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetmech717
The serious injury was when a lady ran off the front of the wing instead of the back.
Wow, sounds dangerous! Maybe the FAA should make some rules that airlines have to train their flight attendants and pilots about evacuations so that nobody gets hurt?

Oh, wait, nevermind, they already do; AirTran just doesn't comply.

And now that lady is seriously injured. Got it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jetmech717
The emergency was not required but the crew was being saftey oriented as they are trained here at AirTran Airways.
Is that some kind of mean joke about AirTran? I'll let the readers decide if they think this was an emergency that required an evacuation:

Quote:
Originally Posted by NTSB
At 2242:50, the captain stated, "tell him we need the fire trucks out here. I think we may have a fi, some kind of fire." At 2242:52, the co-pilot transmitted to the control tower, "...tower, Citrus three fifty six, uh, please run the fire trucks out here. We are smelling electrical smoke." The local controller asked the pilots to pull all the way onto taxiway BRAVO, and acknowledged their request for fire trucks.

At 2243:04, the captain stated, "get, get the door, get the door unlocked." The local controller asked the pilots to hold short of taxiway FOXTROT, and this was acknowledged. The local controller then instructed the pilot to contact ground control, and the co-pilot replied, "sir, I can't..." The captain then transmitted, "We, we don't have time for that sir. I may have to evacuate. You're gonna have to just get some people out here. The local controller replied, "Okay, you can stop right there if you need to and do what you have to do."

At 2243:37, the captain stated, "we got some kind of fire guys. Get ready to get out of here. A flight attendant stated, "we have no lights", and the captain said, "just, just um all right just hold still, all right, just hold still, hold still."

At 2243:43, an announcement was made on the public address system which stated, "Ladies and gentlemen, we need everybody in their seats please...."

At 2243:44, the captain asked, "do you have any emergency lights?", and the co-pilot replied, "nothing." At 2243:47, the captain stated, "alright, evacuate the airplane. Tell 'em we've gotta evacuate the airplane." At 2243:48, the CAM reported a flight attendant stating, "evacuate, evacuate."
dbaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2004, 02:20 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Atlanta Hartsfield Int. Airport
Posts: 170
Baker:
Quote:
I linked to the NTSB document in my first post which contains the dates:
First of all for the second thread now your links dont work!

Second of all we all know about the emergency landing in LGA with AirTran, REMEMBER we discussed it for months here!!!!! Tell me about the training issue not the evacuation!!!!!!
jetmech717 wrote:

Quote:
The emergency was not required but the crew was being safety oriented as they are trained here at AirTran Airways.
Baker:
Quote:
Is that some kind of mean joke about AirTran? I'll let the readers decide if they think this was an emergency that required an evacuation:
As I said before you can clearly see that the pilot waited till the last possible second to diclare the evacuation....He was still trying to see if there was accually a fire!! (which we know there was not, and that it was just a PCDU internally malfunctioning). Just because the plane loses lights does not mean that you have to evacuate Baker.

Baker:
Quote:
Wow, sounds dangerous! Maybe the FAA should make some rules that airlines have to train their flight attendants and pilots about evacuations so that nobody gets hurt?
Regaurdless of what you think, our crews are well trained. The reason the lady got hurt was in the confusion of the evacuation....she got hurt during the evacuation you retard Baker. This is why Captains have to make the deccision, because people get scared and someone always twist an ankle or gets scratched up.

Has it been so long that you forgot about your own topics Baker. Now if you have an update than I would be glad to here it but you are acting all suprised here. You have told us nothing that we didnt already know or discuss already....NOTHING!!!!!!
You also are bringing up old problems with training with the FAA that have already been taken care of I'm trying to remember... maybe 2 or 3 years ago with the tail slide issue.
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"
jetmech717 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2004, 02:53 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: PUW - Pullman, Washington
Posts: 124
Send a message via MSN to RyJones
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetmech717
Baker:
Quote:
I linked to the NTSB document in my first post which contains the dates:
First of all for the second thread now your links dont work!
they work here at work and on my home computer. Perhaps airtran's web proxy blocks you from reading ntsb reports? It would be easy enough to do.
RyJones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2004, 06:37 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: ATL
Posts: 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by dbaker
Want to talk about ZERO credibility? The ITYT AirTran page does not make this claim
Yes, I'd love to talk about how you have ZERO credibility dbaker. This from your link to that page:
Quote:
AirTran is a low-cost, no-frills airline that has a corporate culture of being unsafe due to careless maintenance and an ancient fleet.
Good to see that you finally removed that Turkish nonsense after many of us here demanded it for so long. I hadn't even noticed yet since I don't make it a habit to read complete rubbish and blatant propaganda more than once or twice

Nice try though, removing the Turkish hand-me-downs reference while leaving in the "ancient fleet" lies even though you're fully aware that they have one of the youngest fleets on Earth. That's about par for your course though, just the way we've already figured out you operate, and a gleaming example of why you still, dbaker, have absolutely ZERO credibility
haze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2004, 06:47 PM   #8
Senior Member
ITYT Captain
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: IAH/HOU
Posts: 2,354
Quote:
Originally Posted by haze
Nice try though, removing the Turkish hand-me-downs reference while leaving in the "ancient fleet" lies even though you're fully aware that they have one of the youngest fleets on Earth. That's about par for your course though, just the way we've already figured out you operate, and a gleaming example of why you still, dbaker, have absolutely ZERO credibility
When Airtran upgraded their fleet, the explanation of the DC-9 fleet with parts from Turkish Airlines was removed to keep the site accurate and up to date. The "ancient fleet" description was an oversight and has since been removed based on your feedback. 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.

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.
dbaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2004, 07:11 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: PUW - Pullman, Washington
Posts: 124
Send a message via MSN to RyJones
Quote:
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.
Even NPA-ATL.org has it wrong:
Quote:
AirTran Airways currently operates a fleet, which includes DC-9-32s, B-737-200s, and the newest aircraft serving the aircraft industry, the DC-9-717!
RyJones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2004, 07:27 PM   #10
Senior Member
ITYT Captain
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: IAH/HOU
Posts: 2,354
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetmech717
Regaurdless of what you think, our crews are well trained.
It doesn't really matter what I think, the NTSB sure disagrees with you:

Quote:
Originally Posted by NTSB
. . . did not include hands on training for the flight attendants . . . the pilots were not included in the training program. . .
Accordingly, I don't think it really matters what you think, either.
dbaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2004, 07:35 PM   #11
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: OAK/SFO/SJC
Posts: 24
Send a message via MSN to ithisk
Quote:
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:

Quote:
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.
ithisk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2004, 01:19 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Atlanta Hartsfield Int. Airport
Posts: 170
Dbaker:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
to keep the site accurate and up to date.
I'm not sure I can even respond to that one.

Baker:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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
_________________
jetmech717 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2004, 02:09 PM   #13
Senior Member
ITYT Captain
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: IAH/HOU
Posts: 2,354
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:

Quote:
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:

Quote:
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:

Quote:
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.
dbaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2004, 08:08 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: ATL
Posts: 267
Huh?

Quote:
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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2004, 08:32 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: ATL
Posts: 267
Not So Fast

Quote:
Originally Posted by RyJones
Even NPA-ATL.org has it wrong:
Quote:
AirTran Airways currently operates a fleet, which includes DC-9-32s, B-737-200s, and the newest aircraft serving the aircraft industry, the DC-9-717!
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
haze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2004, 09:26 PM   #16
Senior Member
ITYT Captain
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: IAH/HOU
Posts: 2,354
Re: Huh?

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
dbaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2004, 09:30 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: ATL
Posts: 267
Re: AirTran failed to meet evacuation requirements for 717

Quote:
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
haze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2004, 09:35 PM   #18
Senior Member
ITYT Captain
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: IAH/HOU
Posts: 2,354
Re: AirTran failed to meet evacuation requirements for 717

Quote:
Originally Posted by haze
Quote:
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
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.
dbaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2004, 09:59 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: ATL
Posts: 267
Re: Huh?

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
haze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2004, 10:06 PM   #20
Senior Member
ITYT Captain
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: IAH/HOU
Posts: 2,354
That's not actually a legal definition but the point is moot since your assumptions were incorrect
__________________

dbaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:40 PM.



Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0