Why Haven't Airbus A-320s Been Grounded?

But that still doesn't answer the question. If this known nose gear
malfunction was happening on, say, Beech Bonanzas, the whole fleet
would be
grounded in a heartbeat. Yet it's happening to a commonly used
airliner,
and nothing much seems to be happening.

The FAA didn't put an AD on the Bonanza tail until 350 (and decades)
of them disintegrated in flight. Then it was only because the president
of the Bonanza society, a big Beech defender, was killed that Beech got
off their butt and fixed the tail.

At the same time, King Air wings were falling off at an alarming rate
and Beech and the FAA did virtually NOTHING to solve that as well. It
took a private company to produce a wing strap for the KA to finally
embarrass Beech into fixing the King Air.

The new King Air wing is held on by bolts in shear. The old (pre about
1984)by bolts in tension. FAA did NOTHING!

The FAA is not necessarily going to do anything to promote safety in
aviation. They never have. It's ALWAYS private enterprise that fixes
the real problems!

Jay Honeck wrote:

Is there some over-riding political reason the FAA doesn't want to offend
the Europeans right now?

The current US government is doing everything they can to offend the
Europeans right now, so this can't be the reason. I suspect the reason
is that, despite all the television hype, there has never actually been
any real danger for the passengers.

Stefan

In article .com,
says...


At the same time, King Air wings were falling off at an alarming rate
and Beech and the FAA did virtually NOTHING to solve that as well. It
took a private company to produce a wing strap for the KA to finally
embarrass Beech into fixing the King Air.


KingAir wings falling off - at an "alarming rate"?
Why am I skeptical about this? Could it be because a database search of
the NTSB from 1962 to present, using several different keyword
combinations produced 0 records of such incidents? Or the Google search,
showing C-130's wings falling off, but not KingAirs?

Can you point us to evidence sufficient to warrant the insinuation that
grounding the entire fleet of KingAirs would have been an appropriate
move?

G Faris

In article , says...


Jay Honeck wrote:

Is there some over-riding political reason the FAA doesn't want to offend
the Europeans right now?

The current US government is doing everything they can to offend the
Europeans right now, so this can't be the reason. I suspect the reason
is that, despite all the television hype, there has never actually been
any real danger for the passengers.


Both of thes assertions are flawed. The current trade dispute between Boeing
and Airbus could just as well be viewed as the Europeans offending the
Americans. Boeing's arguments are certainly clearer in the debate (which is
not to say they are indisputably correct). As for danger to passengers - the
Jet Blue landing at LAX was highly irregular, to say the least. We can be
relieved that it came off well, but to assert from this that there was never
any danger is a huge leap of faith.

I cannot pretend to know how the regulatory authorities, American and
European are handling the matter, but you can be sure they are not ignoring
it. If they are convinced the manufacturer is ready to publish a remedy, then
perhaps an emergency AD would not be the most expeditious approach. You can
find many examples on both sides - where they did/did not/should have etc -
this should not be taken to criticize them for making a good call every now
and then.

G Faris

Is there some over-riding political reason the FAA doesn't want to offend
the Europeans right now?

The current US government is doing everything they can to offend the
Europeans right now, so this can't be the reason. I suspect the reason is
that, despite all the television hype, there has never actually been any
real danger for the passengers.

Landing an airliner with the nose gear 90 degrees misaligned poses no danger
to passengers?

That's a stunning statement, coming from a presumed pilot.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:

That's a stunning statement, coming from a presumed pilot.

Flying *is* a stunning thing.

Stefan

Greg Farris wrote:

In article .com,
says...

At the same time, King Air wings were falling off at an alarming rate
and Beech and the FAA did virtually NOTHING to solve that as well. It
took a private company to produce a wing strap for the KA to finally
embarrass Beech into fixing the King Air.

KingAir wings falling off - at an "alarming rate"?

I think that 1 would be an alarming rate if I happened to be flying it
at the time.

(-:


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame
## VP, Product Development
## MFM Software, Inc. (http://www.mfm.com/)
"The way to make a small fortune in the commodities market is to
start with a large fortune."
-- Unknown

In article , says...



KingAir wings falling off - at an "alarming rate"?

I think that 1 would be an alarming rate if I happened to be flying it
at the time.

(-:


LOL - My thoughts exactly!
Just one is pretty alarming if it involves you directly!

GF

If it was your mother-in-law's plane, no big deal at all.

"Mark T. Dame" wrote in message
...

I think that 1 would be an alarming rate if I happened to be flying it
at the time.

In article Kov1f.10$Tn5.3@trnddc08, says...


If it was your mother-in-law's plane, no big deal at all.


You know her then?!!