MedVac Flight down

[DirtRoads]

They never did the inspections before, or they’re doing a more detailed inspection. If they’d been doing this all along they might have grounded TWO planes and 5 people would be alive. It’s more reactive than proactive.

So what I’m getting at is that the Feds are going to require the entire 135 to stop operating until all aircraft records are verified etc. That doesn’t mean that any inspections were overflown on the one that. Crashed , it’s just what they do in this situation

And…they do inspections all the fucking time. The odds that anything critical were overflown long enough to matter are insanely low. They aren’t inspecting more than normal because the aircraft that are there aren’t the ones that crashed. They will review any open maintenance concerns found by operators that have been reported to the manufacturer, but that’s about it. Every manufacturer I have worked with had a system for reporting potential failures and, as with everything in aviation, are very conservative with their limits

Keep in mind that the maintenance in the US and any EASA country is going to be the best on the planet, along with the standards to which flight crews are held for training g and operation. This is one of the few circumstances where you can pretty much thank the federal government.

FAA found something they were unhappy with and shut the operation down? It wouldn't even necessarily have to be aircraft/maintenance related. It could be down to lack of staffing, poor processes, procedures not being followed, a ton of stuff really.

They don’t even have to find anything. They can stop operations until they are satisfied with whatever level of review they see fit.

 

[WaterH]

In other news another medevac helicopter crashed today in North Carolina. No one was killed thank goodness. EC135 it looks like.

I got 5000 hours in them. Had all kinds of failures and never was forced down. There is so much redundancy, hard to imagine going down due to an aircraft problem. Probably pilot error.

FAA found something they were unhappy with and shut the operation down? It wouldn't even necessarily have to be aircraft/maintenance related. It could be down to lack of staffing, poor processes, procedures not being followed, a ton of stuff really.

There are so many rules, they can always find something to shut you down. My guess is it was just for “optics”.

 

[arse_sidewards]

What would they have grounded the planes for? By all appearances this was pilot error.

.gov shows up in the event of an accident and "does something".

 

[Bacho]

.gov shows up in the event of an accident and "does something".

The poster I quoted has referred to this accident as a maintenance issue several times in this thread. The poster gave me the impression the feds should have found something wrong with the airplane.

 

[RunningProblem]

So what I’m getting at is that the Feds are going to require the entire 135 to stop operating until all aircraft records are verified etc. That doesn’t mean that any inspections were overflown on the one that. Crashed , it’s just what they do in this situation

And…they do inspections all the fucking time. The odds that anything critical were overflown long enough to matter are insanely low. They aren’t inspecting more than normal because the aircraft that are there aren’t the ones that crashed. They will review any open maintenance concerns found by operators that have been reported to the manufacturer, but that’s about it. Every manufacturer I have worked with had a system for reporting potential failures and, as with everything in aviation, are very conservative with their limits

Keep in mind that the maintenance in the US and any EASA country is going to be the best on the planet, along with the standards to which flight crews are held for training g and operation. This is one of the few circumstances where you can pretty much thank the federal government.

It's comparable to the FAA telling Boeing "you could have prevented the plane crash if this additional feature the company declined was included with purchase." Inspect all you want. I'd guess things on a plane aren't considered "critical" until they're a problem which is MAYBE too late to try and solve them.

Boeing now includes the "optional" feature...warning lights. Thankfully it was a software glitch.

Investigators 'believe Ethiopian 737 Max's anti-stall system activated'

Reports of high-level briefing with US regulators come as lawsuit is filed against Boeing

www.theguardian.com

Cockpit alerts to warn of potentially incorrect data from sensors will also be fitted as standard. While investigators found sensors had given wrong information about the angle of the plane before the Lion Air crash, neither the Indonesian nor Ethiopian planes displayed warnings, a safety feature sold as an optional extra.

 

[Weasel]

It's comparable to the FAA telling Boeing "you could have prevented the plane crash if this additional feature the company declined was included with purchase." Inspect all you want. I'd guess things on a plane aren't considered "critical" until they're a problem which is MAYBE too late to try and solve them.

Boeing now includes the "optional" feature...warning lights. Thankfully it was a software glitch.

Investigators 'believe Ethiopian 737 Max's anti-stall system activated'

Reports of high-level briefing with US regulators come as lawsuit is filed against Boeing

www.theguardian.com

The consensus with US pilots seems to be that if your pilots are not idiots they don't need those "warning lights".

 

[Bacho]

The consensus with US pilots seems to be that if your pilots are not idiots they don't need those "warning lights".

Follow the checklist for a run-away stab… It should not have resulted in a hole in the ground mcas lights or not.

 

[RunningProblem]

The consensus with US pilots seems to be that if your pilots are not idiots they don't need those "warning lights".

Except when you crash a plane because the company making the plane didn’t include an optional fewture the plane owner didn’t pay for.