Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Alaska Airlines Must Be Guilty Of Manslaughter  
User currently offlineEugdog From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2001, 518 posts, RR: 0
Posted (10 years 7 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 5593 times:

I was watching a program on the crash of an Alaskan Airline MD80 in 1999 on National Geographic Channel. The cause of the crash was a failure of the screwjack which serves to both restrain and control the tailplane assembly. 88 people were killed

But the real cause of the crash was Alaskan Airline policy of increasing time between safety checks from the manufacturers recommended 600 hours to 2400 hours! Had the checks been made every 600 hours the fault would have been found and the relevant parts replaced. Incredibly the screwjack was so worn that all the thread had been worn smooth!

Mcdonnell Douglas (now Boeing) did NOT have a fail safe device to protect the tail plane assembly should the screwjack fail. They were wholly reliant on the 600 hour checks to ensure safety. So they are partly to blame for not making it absolutely mandatory to have 600 hour checks and to warn airlines of the consequences if the do not do the 600 checks

But the real blame must go to Alaskan for their outrageous decision to increase time between inspection . What make it a criminal offence is the shocking 400% increase in time between inspection. That is so great an increase as to surely warrant manslaughter convictions.

I do not know of any case of more gross negligence then Alaskan Airlines with the exception of the Aeroflot Crash in the early 90s when a child was put at the controls!

35 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineJmc1975 From Israel, joined Sep 2000, 3296 posts, RR: 15
Reply 1, posted (10 years 7 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 5526 times:

This must be a made-up fantasy. First of all, there is no airline called Alaskan. Secondly, there was no fatal accident in 1999 involving an MD-80.



.......
User currently offlineTrident2e From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (10 years 7 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 5510 times:

Jmc1975 - are you being fesciscious by any chance?

User currently offlineCOAB767 From Guam, joined Nov 2003, 1377 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (10 years 7 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 5496 times:

It might have been a typo and error. The crash he is refering to is that of Alaska Airlines flight 261 of the coast of California on January 31st 2000 killing 83 passengers and 5 crew.


Continental Micronesia: "Fly With The Warmth Of Paradise"
User currently offlineFX1816 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 1400 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (10 years 7 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 5476 times:

The crash was Alaska Airlines 261 which crashed on Jan 31, 2000. It is old news but I did get reminded of it today as I worked on an Alaska MD-80 for the first time N975AS out at ONT. The ill-fated MD-80 was N963AS.

User currently offlineEugdog From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2001, 518 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (10 years 7 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 5472 times:

Apologies - the accident happend in Jan 2000 and the aircraft was a Alaska Airlines MD83. I am just recalling what I saw on the program and small errors will creep in.

But the appalling circumstances are true!

[Edited 2004-03-26 22:33:42]

User currently offlineS12PPL From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (10 years 7 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 5313 times:

Alaska Airlines is not guilty of "manslaughter"....There was all ready court proceedings about the crash. They're over. People are moving on now. No one denies that Alaska was at fault at least partially. But they have turned things around since the accident occured. It was a horribly tragic event. I had the opertunity of speaking with two employees who went to the scene to be with family members. They said it was an experience they wouldn't have traded in for anything, even though it was tragic.

User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4838 posts, RR: 26
Reply 7, posted (10 years 7 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 5126 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

"It is old news but I did get reminded of it today"

Weird...I was reminded of the same accident today when booking my flight to Seattle coming up in June. I'm flying from SJC to SEA and both legs are scheduled to use MD-80s. This is my first time flying with Alaska and while I am not afraid to fly with them, the reminder of the crash of Alaska 261 was definitely in the back of my mind as I booked it.



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29805 posts, RR: 58
Reply 8, posted (10 years 7 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 5077 times:

The airplane crashed because the last link in the accident chain, the PIC made the mistake of changing the configuration of the aircraft. If you have an aircraft with control issues, but is stable, you don't do that.

Not saying that the outcome would have changed, but the minute he decided to jack around with the flap handle the trim changed and the plane went in.





OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineEugdog From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2001, 518 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (10 years 7 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4955 times:

The TV program did point out that the tail plane was at first jammed and they tried to move it by operating both the main and back up motors simultaenously. Obviously it was a mistake but it would appear that pilots make impromptu repairs - they were also in contact with their maintenance base and the pilots had enormous amount of experience and had probably dealt with similar problems before. The error was minor and forgiveable - the consequences were disastrous.

The NTSB report do say the primary cause of the accident was inadequate maintenance.

What I am say is that if an airline intentionally disregards the manufacturers recommendations by such a large extent as what Alaska Airlines did, and a plane crashes causing death due to then that surely there is is a case of manslaughter.

Example - in the UK if you install a gas boiler in a home without using a registered boiler installer and as a result some one dies due to gas poisoning then you will face a manslaugher charge. There many cases in the UK of prosecutions for this evey year.

Of course there is blame to go around - if Boeing were informed about the increase in time between inspections and approved it then the blame is shifted to them

[Edited 2004-03-27 09:59:50]

User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29805 posts, RR: 58
Reply 10, posted (10 years 7 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4936 times:

Frankly I think that AS's mantaince guys got hosed on the investigation.


OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 11, posted (10 years 7 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4919 times:

First of all...there is NO airline called Alaskan Airlines. Get rid of that 'N' at the end of Alaska for gawds sake.

I was watching a program on the crash of an Alaskan Airline MD80 in 1999 on National Geographic Channel.

There was no crash in 1999, this happened on Jan 31, 2000 at about 4:34pm PST.

But the real cause of the crash was Alaskan Airline policy of increasing time between safety checks from the manufacturers recommended 600 hours to 2400 hours! Had the checks been made every 600 hours the fault would have been found and the relevant parts replaced. Incredibly the screwjack was so worn that all the thread had been worn smooth!

Part of this statement is true, some of it is misleading. What REALLY happened was the lead in OAK wanted to do a jackscrew replacement on a/c 963. The supervisor of that lead wanted to see how the jackscrew performed in different tests and in all 4-5 different test modes, the jackscrew itself was found to be WITHIN tolerance and the jackscrew replacement paperwork was thrown out by the supervisor. After that, the lead protested the supervisor's decision to not replace the jackscrew although the lead wanted the job to be done anyway. AS maintenance manual states that jackscrews are to be replaced after certain amount of flight hours regardless if the jackscrew is within tolerance or not even if the jackscrew itself doesnt look worn down. When the tail was pulled out of the water, the jackscrew was, indeed, found without lubrication and there was shavings in the threads and safety wire around the threads as well. This was interesting to see how saftey wire got onto and wrapped around the jackscrew itself.

Some of the information on that National Geographic special on AS has some inaccurate information.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineEugdog From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2001, 518 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (10 years 7 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4910 times:

The actual mechanics are not to blame - it is the person who decided to increase time between inspections from 600 hrs to 2400 hrs and the senior board of management who pressured maintenance to cut corners.

Even if a mechanic inspected the tail plane and missed it is not criminally liable - that would be negligence but not criminal except in extreme cases. Mistakes are not criminal but knowingly flout safety rules and cause death from it is criminal!


User currently offlineT prop From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 1029 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (10 years 7 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4871 times:

Wasn't the extension of the lubrication interval approved by the FAA?

T prop.


User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 14, posted (10 years 7 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4873 times:

The actual mechanics are not to blame - it is the person who decided to increase time between inspections from 600 hrs to 2400 hrs and the senior board of management who pressured maintenance to cut corners.

Let me say this again clearly.....TIME HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING. An aircraft will still get a check no matter what per F.A.R. and the airline's maintenance manuals. Sometimes aircraft arrive for checks late and sometimes aircraft go back to service late after a check.

Even if a mechanic inspected the tail plane and missed it is not criminally liable - that would be negligence but not criminal except in extreme cases. Mistakes are not criminal but knowingly flout safety rules and cause death from it is criminal!

Just like pilots, A&P mechanics also have major responsibilities too, you CAN lose your A&P license by the F.A.A. if your screw ups cause injury or death because this is a safety issue. The OAK MX supervisor at AS lost his A&P license after the investigation and was fired by AS for his stupidity and screw up. Not only he was fired for that, he was let go because he lost his license so he couldnt be an MX supervisor anymore.




A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineAmWest25 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (10 years 7 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4838 times:

"The actual mechanics are not to blame - it is the person who decided to increase time between inspections from 600 hrs to 2400 hrs and the senior board of management who pressured maintenance to cut corners."

I am not a MX person but airlines MX procedures and manuals are approved by the FAA correct? And if AS MX procedures state inspections at 2400 hours instead of the recommended inspection of 600 hours by the manufactuer wouldn't the FAA also have to approve that? So if the procedures were indeed approved by the FAA then nobody at AS is at fault for increasing the inspection time from 600 hours to 2400 hours. The only way I can see AS being at fault for increasing the inspection time is if they did it without regard and was not approved by the FAA.


User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 16, posted (10 years 7 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 4630 times:

AmWest25....it depends on the type of check needed to be done and the type of aircraft, these are the factors that come into play so it really depends. Since I worked on B737 checks in SEA, every C-check gets done once every 14 months and a D-check gets done once every 5 years for a B737. I dont know about the M80 MX program in OAK and how they had their checks set up. Im not sure, but good question though. Im not sure of an airlines MX program has to be approved by the F.A.A. but I imagine so.


A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 17, posted (10 years 7 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 4488 times:

First off, if all you know about a plane crash is what you saw on television you know less than nothing about it.

I say less than because watching a program like that gives you the illusion that you are gaining information when in fact the details are dumbed down in the script to the point where reality is lost, meanings are blurred.

When a plane crash pops up on CNN, I know less about it than all my neighbors. They all become instant experts while I wait until I get actual hard data before I form any opinions about it. This is almost surreal because I know more about the design, construction and operation of airliners than all the "experts" at all the television networks combined. Or at least I think I do based on the moronic statements they make (or at least that the video editors make it appear that they have made)

Case in point: "Experts" say that the 6 ro 7 sm visibility JFK Jr. had over the sound was adequate for visual flight. Truth: What good is seven miles visibility at night when the nearest "lighted object" is more than twelve miles away. He was in a virtual black hole.

Case in point: Mary Schiavo says of the MD-80 after the crash of AS261 that they should put "two jackscrews" on them. That and your suggestion that they put a "failsafe device" both display a non-comprehension of what are called the "simple machines" that most of us learned in about the 7th grade.

You can't drive a jackscrew any way but by rotating it. Can you grab the head of a bolt and pull on it hard enough to make the nut spin off? Of course not! The jackscrew IS the safety device. The dynamic airloads ("Q") on the horizontal stabilizer of a plane like an MD-80 are absolutely staggering. Any means used to change the angle of that plane to the relative wind must be strong enough to hold them firmly against "feathering" forces. If they did not use a jackscrew they would have had to use some other very simple device that was JUST AS IMMOVABLE when locked.

No one with any comprehension of the engineering problems would suggest such a "solution" as that.

Next: Time between overhaul, inspection, or replacement.

Virtually every time- or cycle limited piece of virtually every airliner at virtually every airline in virtually every country is flown beyond the original manufacturer's suggested life limit. Engines with a TBO of, say 1200 hours are being flown out to six or eight thousand "ON CONDITION"

There are several reasons for this. First, under US Federal Aviation Regulations you can get an exemption to almost any rule if you can demonstrate an "equivalent level of safety." This recognizes reality. The true experts are not the FAA but the people IN the industry. They are the regulators, we are the do-ers. They regulate to make sure that the profit motive does not lead operators to make unrealistic judgements regarding safety issues.

Second, manufacturer's have a big legal department whose job it is to limit their liability exposure. They hold more influence in the boardroom with each large court settlement. An engineer at McDonnell Douglas once told me that the legal department at McDoug was opposed to the development of the DC-9 dash 20, 30, 40, 50 and 80 because each successive model could be construed as an admission that there was something "wrong with" the dash ten. And so manufacturers set their overhaul limits low.

We monitor metals in the oil. We monitor N1, N2, EGT, Fuel Flow, EPR along with TAS, Mach number, altitude, and temperature when the readings were taken. (done automatically now) We borescope engines at intervals. There are probably other checks that are done that I am not even aware of. We find that the engines (for one example) last longer than the builder says they do. We can keep them on the wing (or tail pylon) longer as long as their condition permits. As long as they are developing full power and don't have certain metals showing up in the oil.

Most of us experienced pilots would rather have an engine out there with some time on it than have a brand-new one right off the factory floor.

There are similar truths about the MD-80 jackscrew. I'll leave that to someone better informed. I do know that AS had procedures in place that seemed reasonable, responsible and appropriate. The problem may have begun with the mixing of two different lubricants, (with no warning labels) as I recall.

I'll also leave two questions to those on the forum with a better legal education than mine.

There are certain criteria to justify bringing manslaughter charges. The accidental causing of deaths alone does not necessarily warrant this. Lawyers care to comment?

There is also a set of criteria to determine whether a person such as Eugdog might be guilty of libel against Alaska Airlines and the pilots of Flight 261.

* * *


L188 is it your suggestion that the pilots should have flown the plane onto a runway at the existing speed, with the gear and flaps up?

Of course they changed the configuration. I have experienced a couple of really scary (is there any other kind?) flight control malfunctions. With a problem like that I want to configure a long way out, and with enough sky below me to recover if the plane departs stable flight when I change something. Sadly, the plane could not be recovered. I doubt that anyone could have regained control after that next-to-last departure.

You have had the luxury of forming your opinion after reading all the post-crash data. They did not. They were making decisions without knowing that the jackscrew was damaged. I am surpised that a professional, as you seem to be would make such a statement.

If a plane is having control problems there are just a few possibilities:

One: The problem only exists in the present configuration or speed or:
Two: It is not going away but if I slow down and configure for landing:
A. It is going to get better or
B. It is going to get worse.


But they did not know any of these things. They did know that they could not fly the plane onto the ground at 440 knots with gear and flaps up.

* * *


All other readers of a thread like this, consider the actual qualifications of the person making the reply. The technical issues are rarely black and white. They are NEVER as simple as a pseudo-techie TV program makes them appear.

Sorry about the long rant.
My apologies to those on whose toes I have trod. It is not individuals I wanted to shred, but ideas that I deem ill-considered.




Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29805 posts, RR: 58
Reply 18, posted (10 years 7 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4435 times:

Yes,

Actually what I am suggesting is that they should have kept the configuration, and flown the glideslope into the nearest airport.

Basicly what Al Haynes did at Souix City.

Yes it would have been hot, Yes success was not probably, Yes people probably will still have died, and maybe the whoe airplane.

But guess what, they had a better shot.

Especially when you consider that AS 262 still had working controls, something that Mr. Haynes did not.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineEugdog From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2001, 518 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (10 years 7 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4355 times:

The primary source of my info was an hour long National Geographic Program about that particulary incident.

From what I had garnered a mechanic (and then whistle blower) recommended changing the jack screw on the particular aircraft at it most recent inspection. It was over ruled by the follow up team working on the aircraft. That is a judgement call which may be a negligant one but it is certainly not a criminal one.

But my understanding is that had the plane been inspected every 600 hours the jack screw would have had to been replaced because the damage would have become noticeably worse. But the increase from 600-2400 hours allowed the Jack Screw to worsen to breaking point without any one noticing it.

So I think it is safe to claim that the increase in inspection hours was the primary reason for the accident.

It is my contention that the increase in inspection hours is where there is case for criminal negligence. They decided not to follow a recommendation on a vital non fail safe part by a very large margin AND death resulted from that decision.

I never said that the pilots or mechanics might be guilty of manslaugher but the peope who decided to increase the safety inspection time - please read my statement again Slamclick!

I am sure that many airlines exceed the manufacturers recommendation - but do they do this by 400%!!! Moreover if it is on a device with no fail safe back up and therefore wholly reliant of satisfactory inspections then surely it requires much more rigid checking procedure.

Slam Click I would reluctantly accept the contention that parts can be used far beyond their recommended life without an overhaul PROVIDING there is adequate inspection! All you examples are about overhauls not inspections.

IN the case of Alaskan airline there was inadequate inspection so leaving a part in the aircraft beyond its recommended life becomes far more dangerous

Someone on the site pointed out at the FAA were fully aware of the increase in inspections and approved them. IF that is true then there is no case for manslaugher but for negligence (ie not criminal)

I do believe that airlines need to balance safety with cost and I am not as critical of the airlines as others when accidents occur. I do not believe in the concept that all accidents should be avoided. We must accept some accident in order to prevent prohibitively expensive air fares. But I just think that Alaska went far over what is reasonable risk

[Edited 2004-03-28 18:53:10]

User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 20, posted (10 years 7 months 2 days ago) and read 4308 times:

L-188 sorry but Al Haynes did not fly the plane onto the ground at cruise speed and configuration. He configured to make the approach as normal as he could.

Also, he knew more about what had happened to his plane than the pilots of AS 261 (not 262) Captain Haynes also had a deadheading check airman captain and a flight engineer to assist, a luxury the AS crew did not have.

Hypothetical: Let's say the crew of AS261 gets the thing flying under some semblance of control at high speed, clean. So they cruise on over to Muroc Dry Lake at Edwards AFB to land it wheels up and at very high speed. It would have been ugly but with the good crash crew there more wreckage would have been recovered than from the ocean.

Now, hypothetical, phase two. The problem turns out to be something other than a jammed jackscrew. They have just crashed an airplane that could have been landed normally.

Question: What happens next to this crew?

Flight crews must make decisions before the post-crash analysis. Again, you had the luxury of that analysis before you made your evaluation. It does not acknowledge the reality of the moment in which they made theirs.

Perhaps your definition of "working controls" is different from mine. So I ask you; can two pilots of normal human strength hold the elevator forces that result from having the horzontal stab jammed in the position it was jammed in on AS261 while flying an approach to a wheels-up, no-flap landing? Sorry, but my DC-9 training and type rating and six years of flying the line in that type does not answer that question for me.

Please enlighten me.





Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 21, posted (10 years 7 months 2 days ago) and read 4243 times:

From what I had garnered a mechanic (and then whistle blower) recommended changing the jack screw on the particular aircraft at it most recent inspection. It was over ruled by the follow up team working on the aircraft. That is a judgement call which may be a negligant one but it is certainly not a criminal one.

It was not overruled by the follow up team working on the aircraft. The decision rested on the lead's supervisor AND the check manager and those two people decided to not replace the jackscrew when it was supposed to be replaced.

IN the case of Alaskan airline there was inadequate inspection so leaving a part in the aircraft beyond its recommended life becomes far more dangerous.

Again with the 'Alaskan', theres no Alaskan Airlines...its ALASKA. Theres no letter N at the end of the name Alaska.

You can't drive a jackscrew any way but by rotating it. Can you grab the head of a bolt and pull on it hard enough to make the nut spin off? Of course not! The jackscrew IS the safety device.

Actually the gimball nut is the safety device that prevents the jackscrew from riding out of their threads inside the gimball nut with two jackscrew stoppers on the top and the bottom.

To make the story clear about AS261 and the jackscrew problem, the situation was mostly about faulty decisions on the OAK base check manager entirely. He and the supervisor was fired because of this as well as the lead was terminated for blowing the whistle against AS and AS didnt like that.








A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 22, posted (10 years 7 months 2 days ago) and read 4209 times:

AirframeAS what I was getting at with the "safety device" argument is that, without some control, if an all-moving horizontal stab (also called a "flying tail") were allowed to, it would flutter to the point of destruction or it would fly to the full up or full down position and tear off the airplane. It needs something very stout to steady it in the selected position.

Hydraulic actuators would do this so long as pressure can be maintained. Boeing and Douglas both elected to use jackscrews for this purpose. Other possibilities might be a gear and pawl arrangement or something like that.

Now picture a stabilizer with two parallel jackscrews installed. If one failed to rotate on command, the other could not budge it. (Hence the nut-and-bolt analogy) Instead of increasing safety it would make the installation less safe by half. Two jackscrews, both required = twice the opportunity for failure with no increase in safety through redundancy.

Slam



Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 23, posted (10 years 7 months 2 days ago) and read 4188 times:

SlamClick, I know.... I was working for AS in the SEA MX department on the B737 Check crew at the time AS261 happened. But I like your ideas though  Big thumbs up


A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4838 posts, RR: 26
Reply 24, posted (10 years 7 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3989 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Have any of you heard the tape of AS 261 making their calls to LA Center as the disaster was unfolding? It's rather spooky and a yes, somewhat disturbing, but I also found it to be very interesting. I think it has a bit to offer in regards to the pilots making the moves they made when they made them.

[Edited 2004-03-29 05:07:50]


ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
25 BR715-A1-30 : 2000? I seem to remember being in 7th grade in 1999, and picking up the newspaper and reading about it. Maybe my memory is fuzzy.
26 SlamClick : Well if you started the 7th grade in September 1999 maybe you were still in the 7th grade in January 2000? By the way, kudos for reading newspapers in
27 Airdude66 : You know this is ridiculous. The bottom line is mechanical things fail - at home, at work, in the car AND in the air. How many people actually perform
28 Lunchbox : As far as this discussion is concerned, everyone should listen to Slamclick. Touche. You took the words out of my mouth with your first post. These da
29 AFROTC : First off, if all you know about a plane crash is what you saw on television you know less than nothing about it. kudos to SlamClick, for I must agree
30 Sccutler : No mention here as of yet, but I seem to recall something about a Shell lubricant, allegedly inadequate to the use... ...mentioned because an adequate
31 Eugdog : I am greatly alarmed to hear that the FAA approved the extended period. That would take a significant amount of the blame away from Alaska (but they w
32 AirframeAS : We used Mobil lubricant for the B737s at AS. After 261, we stopped using the Mobil brand and went to the Shell type.
33 AgnusBymaster : Two points: -The 2400 hour interval WAS approved by the FAA -Several other airlines used longer intervals
34 MaverickM11 : We should probably sue the State of Washington for allowing giving fiscal support to Boeing. Chances are Halliburton and Israel had something to do wi
35 Andz : It is on TV here right now, no matter how may errors are in the program it must have been the most terrifying experience for everyone.
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...
This Must Be Beginning Of The End For Airline In U posted Fri May 28 2004 20:49:51 by Chiawei
Ansett NZ Crash Pilot Not Guilty Of Manslaughter! posted Fri Jun 1 2001 15:24:46 by TG992
Future Of Alaska Airlines posted Fri Feb 24 2006 22:45:31 by Airlinelover
Please Find The Register Of Alaska Airlines A/c? posted Mon Feb 4 2002 03:04:21 by FlyboyOz
JMC Airlines A330s - To Be Disposed Of/cancelled posted Sat Dec 15 2001 00:56:32 by Crosswind
More Parts Of US Must Be Sold posted Fri Feb 2 2001 12:22:16 by Ishky15
Alaska Airlines Flight 261 Live Webcast Of Hearing posted Wed Dec 13 2000 15:32:13 by Starship
Alaska Airlines Ground 2 Of Its MD-80's... posted Fri Feb 11 2000 00:05:01 by Alaska 737-900
Alaska Airlines Merger posted Wed Nov 22 2006 16:57:33 by Paaclipper707
Be Careful Of What You Wish For: Consolidation posted Fri Nov 17 2006 04:22:55 by Matt D