Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
AirTran Denied Right To Fly O/w With LifeVests?  
User currently offlineBR715-A1-30 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (10 years 11 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 3001 times:

I heard this from a flight attendant that because of the engine problems, AirTran has been denied by the FAA the right to fly OVERWATER with Lifevests. AirTran even had safety cards printed but then the FAA denied it, so now Safety Cards are just floating around with Life Vests. I didn't realize the BR715s were such pains.

12 replies: All unread, jump to last
User currently offlineFlyer732 From Namibia, joined Nov 1999, 1367 posts, RR: 21
Reply 1, posted (10 years 11 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2949 times:

I'm not sure what engine problems have to do with an aircraft carrying life vests.

User currently offlineElwood64151 From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 2477 posts, RR: 6
Reply 2, posted (10 years 11 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2941 times:

Uh, why couldn't they fly with life vests? I think she probably meant without life vests. AirTran flies to FPT every day from BWI and ATL.

Still, I don't think any airline is allowed to fly over water without some kind of floatation device...

Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it in summer school.
User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 3, posted (10 years 11 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2931 times:

I think they're indicating that they'd need rafts.


User currently offlineFlyer732 From Namibia, joined Nov 1999, 1367 posts, RR: 21
Reply 4, posted (10 years 11 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2930 times:

The seat cushion can be used in the event of a water landing.

We haven't carried life vests thus far because on both ATL-FPO and BWI-FPO the aircraft is at no point more than 30 minutes from land, thus they were not needed.

User currently offlineCO2BGR From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 558 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (10 years 11 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2910 times:

The flights to FPT havent been canceled, so I think it will be ops as usual. Something must have gotten mixed up somewhere as Elwood said.

There are too many self indulgent weiners in this town with too much bloody money" Randal Raines- Gone in 60 Seconds
User currently offlineTravatl From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 2173 posts, RR: 7
Reply 6, posted (10 years 11 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2807 times:

Whoa, whoa, whoa.....

AirTran petitioned to fly FURTHER over water than simply having seat cushions allows (up to 50 miles). I believe with life vests, carriers can fly up to 160 miles off the coast, and still not have rafts.

There are indeed aircraft flying now that have life vests on them (I worked aboard ship 701 yesterday that has them). HOWEVER, I do not believe we have been denied the opportunity to do so. In fact, I'm fairly certain we've already gotten approval. The pilots have been trained, the flight attendants have been trained, and the aircraft are undergoing installation of vests. AirTran wouldn't have gone through the added expense if that were the case. And I hate to say it, but I doubt any of my F/A colleagues know what their talking about. Our captain yesterday was commenting that all they were waiting on was it to be added to their ops specs of their manuals.

As for the engine problems....huh? I think this is either a speculative, disgruntled flight attendant, or more likely a specualtive a.net poster.


User currently offlineJeffrey1970 From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 1336 posts, RR: 12
Reply 7, posted (10 years 11 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2719 times:

So what would happen if a flight crashed to or from the Bahamas (God forbid)? I thought all flights that flew over water at a certain point have to have life vest and rafts.

God bless through Jesus with love,


God bless through Jesus, Jeff
User currently offlineOps48 From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 64 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (10 years 11 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2629 times:

FAR §121.340 Emergency flotation means.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may operate an airplane in any overwater operation unless it is equipped with life preservers in accordance with §121.339(a)(1) or with an approved flotation means for each occupant. This means must be within easy reach of each seated occupant and must be readily removable from the airplane.

(b) Upon application by the air carrier or commercial operator, the Administrator may approve the operation of an airplane over water without the life preservers or flotation means required by paragraph (a) of this section, if the air carrier or commercial operator shows that the water over which the airplane is to be operated is not of such size and depth that life preservers or flotation means would be required for the survival of its occupants in the event the flight terminates in that water.

User currently offlineRumorboy From United States of America, joined Aug 2002, 356 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (10 years 11 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2596 times:

Actually Airtran did get the approval for over water ops. But they want an exemption to it. I don't know what the exemption is but its important enough to where Airtran won't put into the op specs yet. It has nothing to do with the BR715s. Although they were problems when they first came. But when you have 99.5% dispatch reliability for 2 years straight I would hardly call it a problem. I think that F/A had her facts wrong. From what I understand it will cut the block times down to Florida and Bahamas a lot from BWI and PHL once we get into the op specs. Saving a lot of money.

User currently offlineBR715-A1-30 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (10 years 11 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2552 times:

I'm just telling you what I heard. I'm not making any of this up. Hence the QUESTION MARK in the topic.

[Edited 2003-10-07 22:31:47]

User currently offlineGr8slvrflt From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 1604 posts, RR: 10
Reply 11, posted (10 years 11 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2462 times:

This is my understanding:

AirTran petitioned the FAA last year for permission to fly extended overwater (not ETOPS) and prepared to install passenger lifevests in addition to the flotation cushions and crew lifevests already in place. This would allow the 717s to fly a more direct routing from the Northeast to Florida and would reduce time and fuel usage. Apparently there were some concerns about the BR17s reliability because they are a new engine and in service with only a handful of airlines. It is my understanding that unscheduled maintenance has been higher than expected but there has only been one inflight shutdown that I am aware of. The pilots have been keeping additional logs documenting real-time temperatures, oil usage, fuel burn, etc. Apparently everything is fine now because the entire fleet will have the life vests (and new red Safety Cards) installed by the end of this month.

User currently offlineBR715-A1-30 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (10 years 11 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2353 times:

THANK YOU GR8SLVRFLT!!!!!, That is exactly what I was TRYING to say, but I guess my way of speaking got tangled.

However, you are wrong about only ONE Unscheduled Engine Shutdown

Shutdown #1 (Ship 763, N991AT)

Shutdown #2 (Ship 724, N965AT)

Shutdown #3 (Ship 724, N965AT OPPOSITE ENGINE)

Shutdown #4 (Ship 708, N947AT)

Shutdown #5 (Ship 705, N944AT)

Shutdown #6 (Ship 719, N959AT)

Shutdown #7 (Ship 711, N951AT)

Shutdown #8 (Ship 727, N968AT)

Shutdown #9 (Ship 702, N940AT)

Shutdown #10 (Ship 707, N946AT)

Shutdown #11 (Ship 718, N958AT)

As you can see to date AirTran has had 11 unscheduled engine shutdowns with the BR715s. No, this does not deter me from flying them, as I always will, but it does prove that the BR715 has some sort of BUG.

[Edited 2003-10-08 00:04:05]

Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
AirAsia Applies For The Right To Fly To Singapore posted Wed Sep 6 2006 07:27:42 by Zarniwoop
Airline To Fly With Reviled Raccoon posted Tue Aug 1 2006 22:29:18 by Legallykev
Arkia To Fly With B757-300 To Osaka posted Fri Jul 29 2005 13:06:48 by An225
Right To Fly Act Introduced To Congress: posted Thu May 26 2005 18:55:02 by SHUPirate1
PIA Gets Right To Fly CHINA-LAX posted Fri Mar 12 2004 10:53:34 by Behramjee
Most Expensive Airline To Fly With? posted Fri Jan 16 2004 11:08:10 by Tupozure
Are Bmibaby Nicer To Fly With Than Ryanair? posted Sat Jan 3 2004 21:26:37 by Capital146
Is Midwest Airlines A Good One To Fly With? posted Wed Nov 26 2003 20:41:06 by Gener8tion
LAX-LAS: Who To Fly With posted Mon Nov 24 2003 07:43:57 by Qantasclub
Ryanair Pays You To Fly With Them posted Wed Nov 19 2003 17:08:52 by Leviticus