interesting read on alaska flt 261

Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by Philip_G, Feb 4, 2003.

  1. Philip_G

    Philip_G Producer

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2000
    Messages:
    5,030
    Likes Received:
    0
  2. John Miles

    John Miles Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2000
    Messages:
    236
    Likes Received:
    0
    Certainly an interesting read. I'm impressed that they were able to generate an almost 300-page transcript from a single day's meeting!

    Looking at their working transcript, it's rather unfortunate to see the Board spend so much time arguing about recommending further mechanical complexity in the form of fail-safes. It's as if they're acknowledging that grossly-negligent maintenance procedures are just a fact of life in the aviation industry, and expecting the Engineering Department to pull a rabbit out of their hat in the form of a maintenance-free aircraft.
     
  3. Philip_G

    Philip_G Producer

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2000
    Messages:
    5,030
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  4. John Miles

    John Miles Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2000
    Messages:
    236
    Likes Received:
    0
    ... but they're approved by the FAA.

    Not in Alaska's case. When they fished it out of the ocean, it was pretty clear that the jackscrew/nut assembly hadn't seen so much as a squirt of WD-40 since the first Bush administration.

    This accident was caused by one or more negligent/incompetent mechanics at Alaska Airlines... nothing more, nothing less. Yes, there should have been more FAA oversight; no, the maintenance procedures and intervals themselves were not to blame. This wasn't a simple case of accelerated wear due to excessive lubrication intervals.
     
  5. Philip_G

    Philip_G Producer

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2000
    Messages:
    5,030
    Likes Received:
    0
    that may have been the case on this A/C, or it may not. The FAA did approve longer maintenance intervals, as cited in the report here

     

Share This Page