Ptech

It looks like the government is at it again. Yesterday's FAA order to airlines, held up to be driven by safety concerns, is really just a political move to shore up the official version of things.

If safety were the primary concern, why did it take so long for the feds to "protect the flying public?"

This action is not about safety, it is meant to stifle any public perception that the official story is suspect. It is meant to nullify the efforts of many to have the truth known--that about 100 people saw what appeared to be a missles ascending that night.

Titanium Cat

LOL, taking 12 years to implement safety features is what governments do, it's nothing unusual. Cripes it took decades to get even the simplest of safety features mandated on automobiles despite the rates of injury and death in accidents.

As to stifling any public perception that the official story is suspect, that's a joke. The TWA crash is hardly on the radar screen for the vast majority of the public, it's only a small handful of conspiracy theorists and activists that show any concern and it's not like the new regulations are going to nullify anything in those regards.

What's next, NASA putting out new evidence for the moon landing to squash the public perception that it was faked?

anhailla

I am not even sure what Ptech is talking about (meaning I don't understand how he is trying to spin this)...but I do know when pilots are saying they are forced to take off with less fuel and the PILOTS are concerned about that...then I get nervous

what happens if you get stuck in a holding pattern or bad weather?
yikes

__________________
...either I go, or that wallpaper does.

Oscar Wilde

Titanium Cat

The FAA just released a new regulation for planes with center wing fuel tanks like the 747. From what I can understand they will require a device that replaces the fuel in the tanks with pure nitrogen instead of air preventing any possible self ignition. New planes will have a 2 year period for compliance and existing planes will have a 9 year period which will allow the device to be installed within scheduled maintanence intervals reducing the cost. As I said before, this is rather typical of many government safety regulations.

That sounds pretty scary too. One can always debate how much extra fuel planes should carry as a safety margin but you had better be pretty sure when you start trimming it down that you aren't opening the door to possible disaster. Safety even at a substantial price is a cost that should not be compromised. If the extra fuel was justified before how is it not justified now because of the increase in price? Are we to believe that airlines which have been struggling for years now were unnecessarily wasting all that fuel when oil was $70, $80, $90 dollars a barrel (or even cheaper)?

I'd like to know when they started to reduce the reserve amounts.

Ptech

TC

If you really had a solid knowledge of the aviation business, you would know that the FAA will ground airplanes if there is a real safety issue.

TBM 850, all of them, are grounded last week because a defect was discovered. Such groundings are not every day events, but they are common--the list is long.

Therefore, to claim that this fuel tank issue has compelling safety considerations is pretty much a line of bullshit. If it was, why has it taken so damn long?

The answer is clear that it IS NOT a safety issue, but some sort of political maneuvering.

I just thought I would give the thread a bump.

anhailla

Thanks for the info.

In your opinion, is that a new regulation that came out of the investigation of the TWA crash?... because then I would understand why a CT'er is trying to spin it.


Well, I think the pilots are arguing against that practice (I am not sure if it has been implemented)...I just caught a snippet of a interview with a commercial pilot today.

__________________
...either I go, or that wallpaper does.

Oscar Wilde

Ptech

Yes Sunshine, the recent FAA order is a result of the TWA800 thingy, 12 years ago. I know, dot connecting is not a strong suit.

Titanium Cat

Got a link to the story? The TBM 850 is a small plane, yes no?

They are hardly making it into a compelling safety issue, this is several years in the making. All safety issues are not equal and the cost of implementing new regulations is always relevant when the issue is not one of immediate concern. Considering the number of planes operating with center wing fuel tanks and the number of decades they have been in operation for it is hard to make the case that it is a compelling safety issue that requires an immediate fix.

Only a conspiracy theorist would think so because nobody else gives a fuck. Once again the TWA incident isn't even on most people's radar at this point and they probably haven't even heard of this regulation or passed it by with little notice. If the FAA was looking for political manuevering they would have done it shortly after the crash when the incident was still in the spotlight.

anhailla

oh please...

__________________
...either I go, or that wallpaper does.

Oscar Wilde

Titanium Cat

Yes it would seem that is certainly the case. But once again, there is no point in political posturing when nobody is actually looking at you.

Yes and although it sounds like the correct position there are details I'd like to know such as when and how much they stated to reduce the reserve fuel level.