If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
[Answering two posting in one]
On 28 Nov 2003 14:08:35 GMT, Mike Spera wrote: ]"the main fault ]being assigned to the pilot when the accident was precipitated by a ]mechanical fault". Guess why? Because if it is not the pilot's fault, ]then it must be the FAA's fault. They set up the processes and ]procedures by which airplanes and their components are tested, approved, ]distributed, tracked, and reinspected. If something goes wrong, either ]this system is not perfect, or it is someone else's fault. Guess which ]option the FAA chooses...? Well...keep in mind that the FAA does not perform the formal accident investigation. They do the initial fact-finding, and all the analysis and determination is performed by the NTSB. While they are both government agencies, they are quite separate. You'll often find the NTSB reports at odds with current FAA regulations/policy (almost always towards trying to make them MORE restrictive, but, hey....) Oddly enough, the NTSB does have *some* regulatory basis for ruling that pilot error was the primary cause in some engine-failure accidents. 14 CFR 91.119, "Minimum Altitudes," says that "...no person may operate below...an altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, a emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface." If the field you pick has a fence in it and you end up crashing through it, then you obviously weren't flying at a high enough altitude to select a field where you could land without causing property damage... 1/2 :-) On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 16:37:37 -0000, Dylan Smith wrote: In article , Ron Wanttaja wrote: There was no water separation in the fuel when I checked the sumps. There were tiny bubbles in the sample, but they looked like air. They did not I remember readin this in the book, "I Learned about Flying From That". The great phrase was, "Looks like champagne", to which the answer was "It costs like champagne" :-) Yup...it was published in the third edition of ILAFFT articles. I really *don't* kick about that engine failure. That FLYING article that resulted was the very first writing I got paid for. And the FBO gave me a free fill-up on my next visit. :-) Ron "Brought a microscope that time" Wanttaja |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Well...keep in mind that the FAA does not perform the formal accident investigation. They do the initial fact-finding, and all the analysis and determination is performed by the NTSB. While they are both government agencies, they are quite separate. You'll often find the NTSB reports at odds with current FAA regulations/policy (almost always towards trying to make them MORE restrictive, but, hey....) I know of one case where the FSDO investigated, turned the facts over to the NTSB, and the NTSB conclusion changed the facts to support their conclusion. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
American nazi pond scum, version two | bushite kills bushite | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 21st 04 10:46 PM |
Hey! What fun!! Let's let them kill ourselves!!! | [email protected] | Naval Aviation | 2 | December 17th 04 09:45 PM |
Airliner Seats ... | smjmitchell | General Aviation | 6 | September 26th 04 10:00 PM |
Seat repairs | mikem | Owning | 2 | October 10th 03 09:25 PM |
FS: Sheepskin covers for Cherokee front seats | Jay Honeck | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | September 4th 03 03:38 AM |