AirTran safety

[dbaker]

Originally Posted by NWgoldelite

right, but then asked for the closest airport avaliable, which the controller did not hear.

I don't know where you're coming up with this information. The request to return to Miami was made about 6 minutes into flight and the controller responded three seconds later with a heading for Miami approach:

14:10:32 RDO-2 Uh, five-ninety-two needs immediate return to Miami.

14:10:35 Tower Critter five-ninety-two, uh, roger, turn left heading two-seven-zero. Descend and maintain seven-thousand.

The heading was confirmed by the 592 crew four seconds later:

14:10:39 RDO-2 Two-seven-zero, seven-thousand, five-ninety-two.

A minute later, when 592 radioed a request for the closest airport available, the tower responded four seconds later with MIA runway information:

14:11:42 Tower Critter five-ninety-two, they're going to be standing by for you. You can plan runway one two to dolpin now.

Are you just speculating that the controller didn't hear? I can't imagine that at an altitude of 7,000 and under 10 minutes into flight with a heading for Miami approach that there would be a better response to that question than to continue to give MIA information.

[NWgoldelite]

dbaker-I"m getting this information from a link that you had on the "safety warning of ValuJet". The link was Atlantic Online:Lessons of ValuJet 592. http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/98mar/valujet1.htm

dbaker wrote:

A minute later, when 592 radioed a request for the closest airport available, the tower responded four seconds later with MIA runway information:

The reason he responded with information to Miami was because he did not hear the request for the closest airport. He was giving information for the request he had heared originally which was for Miami. Read below.


"

Hazen said, "Critter five-ninety-two, we need the, ah, closest airport available."

The transmission was garbled or blocked, or Fisher was distracted by competing voices within the radar room. For whatever reason, he did not hear Hazen's request. When investigators later asked him if in retrospect he would have done anything differently, he admitted that he kept asking himself the same question. Even without hearing Hazen's request he might have suggested some slightly closer airport. But given that the flight's position was only twenty-five miles to the northwest, Miami still seemed like the best choice, because of the emergency equipment there. In any case "Miami" was the request he had heard, and he intended to deliver it.

To Hazen he said, "Critter five-ninety-two, they're gonna be standing, standing by for you." He meant the crash crews at Miami. "You can plan Runway One-two. When able, direct to Dolphin now."

Hazen said, "... need radar vectors." His transmission was garbled by loud background noises. Fisher thought he sounded "shaky."

Fisher answered, "Critter five-ninety-two, turn left heading one-four-zero."

[/b]

[Air_Sea_Road]

I'm still wondering why a request was made for just MIA. The plane could have easily landed at Opa-Locka airport in northern Dade County or Perry Airport in south Broward county. They would have been much closer than FLL.

[NWgoldelite]

I guess the controller felt that MIA had the best emergency equipment. In the ATC tape the controller does say that "Opa Locke airport's at 12 o'clock 15 miles" but by that time it was to late.

[USAtrvl]

I would like to join the discussion of airtran airways if it is still ongoing. I have traveled on many different airlines and I will be traveling airtran for the first time tomorrow. My opinion on them is, they are a new and growing airline and so far, they have had no fatalities. Since the name airtran took over completely, I would only hope that they have corrected the problems that valuejet had. I hope that I am right.

I would also like to make a comment about dsab, (captain for airtran)

As we have a choice... who to fly on to get somewhere.....he has a choice who to work for. If I was a pilot, I would have to feel really confident with the airline that I work for and dsab's confidence was enough to make me feel safe with flying airtran tomorrow. I will definetly post my thoughts about my flight experience with them upon my return next week.
Thanks

[NWgoldelite]

You should write a trip report on your travels. I'm interested to hear what kinds of services AirTran offers onboard.

[andrewonline]

NWgoldelite,

It really doesn't matter if the planes are new or old. Matienece is what is important. If AirTran doesn't (I am not saying if they do or not) take proper care of their fleet, then they are not as safe. US Airways has a slightly older fleet, but you don't see those airplanes igniting all the time.

P.S. If you want to read about AirTran service click onto:
http://www.epinions.com/trvl-Airline...anada-Air_Tran

Their are 150 reviews currently.

[NWgoldelite]

Thanks for the link Andrew. I agree with your statement, but my point is that there have been no deaths since the name change, therefore I think (for the most part) they do maintain the fleet.

[andrewonline]

NWGoldlite,
Are you saying that beacuse thier haven't been any deaths that makes them safe? I think they are flying on a miracle. If smoke started coming in to my airplane, I'd be darned scared. Don't you think so to?

[jetmech717]

Originally Posted by NWgoldelite

I agree with your statement, but my point is that there have been no deaths since the name change, therefore I think (for the most part) they do maintain the fleet.

NWgoldelite I've been reading the discussions that went on a few months ago and I appreciate your open mind in these matters. Just to let everyone know... AirTran is not the same as ValuJet was. It is a totally new Airline with new management, new ideas and new people, yes there are still some who worked during the ValuJet times and let me tell you it was tuff all around. Not only did those families lose loved ones but (and I can speak for the mechanics who are still here because weve talked about it) they lost close friends, and for awhile there didnt know if they would be able to support their own families or even have a career anymore. You see we all become pretty close at AirTran (and I suspect any Airline is the same way) with our pilots and Flight attendents, because you see them everyday and they trust you to keep their jobs safe, and for anyone to say that we dont care about the safety of our airplanes is an outrage. My family and myself fly on these same airplanes all the time and I can tell you that every mechanic that works at AirTran treats every plane like they are about to fly on it. If something is unsafe IT DOESNT FLY point blank. We have a very high standard here at AirTran and We plan to keep it that way. As for the # of planes everyone keeps guessing at we now have 62 717's and 8 dc-9's and should have 70 by year end and the dc-9's will be gone. I myself have been a mechanic at AirTran for over 3 years, worked at an overhaul facility for 2, and worked on F/A-18's in the Navy for 4 years, and I have to say I am pround of the machanics I work with at AirTan and to watch us overcome and grow through all the negative press and skeptics is exciting to be a part of. Thanks again for your support and dont believe everything that people say who are on the outside looking in.

[FLAir]

DBaker wrote :

Additionally, they've crashed and destroyed so many DC-9s over the past 5 years that it's throwing off the figures since the DC-9 isn't manufactured anymore, so they have to replace destroyed aircraft with new ones.

This is absolutly untrue. How many DC9's have we crashed - 1, how many have been destroyed - 3. So that's a total of 4 DC9's, but yet we have ordered 110 new aircraft. I think you need to recheck your facts before stating that we have had to purchase new aircraft becase of crashing or destroying so many.

By the way. I postd this elsewhere, but I will post it here, I want to be sure you will read this. On the "Warning page" you show the same incident aircraft 4 times (three at the top to the page, then once in the hanger) but you try to make out like they are four different ones. I chalange you to show me the proof (NTSB report, web link to NTSB report, or any other factual proof) that those were different incidents. You won't be able to, becasue they are all one and the same.

[FLAir]

I'm sorry, i was off on the order for 110 new aircraft, I was counting the 717's. I forgot to add the 100 new 737's that were ordered.

[B717mech]

As you can see FLair dbaker won't comment on the warning page. We have challenged him several times with no response. I have aready brought this up on a seperate post topic. We thank you for your support.