Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Fatalities: FAA Regulations And The Safety Of 121  
User currently offlineCoa764 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 328 posts, RR: 3
Posted (9 years 6 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 3414 times:

Could the crash at TEB be yet another reason that all aircraft should be operating under 121 regulations and if not all traffic how about just any flight that is carrying passengers for hire?

Just out of curiosity and without reading all the individual cases I did an NTSB search between 01/JAN/04 and 02/FEB/02, the only filters being US only and Fatalities only:
Part 133 - 03 records with 03 fatalities
Part 135 - 25 records with 66 fatalities
Part 137 - 07 records with 08 fatalities
Part 129 - 01 record with 01 fatality
Part 121 - 02 records with 14 fatalities
Part 91 - 388 records with 888 fatalities

Again without reading all 426 records and the fact that some are just the preliminary reports there is no reasons why here just numbers.

The safety margin of operating under Part 121 regulations is proven not to mention there are some foreign airlines that are adapting he 121 models from US airlines into their operations guidelines because of that safety factor.



Please oh please Mr Moderator Nazi, dont delete my thread.
12 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineLymanm From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 1138 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (9 years 6 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 3367 times:

Impossible. The costs associated with a Part 121 operation would drive most part 135 and 91 carriers/flight departments out of business instantly. Can you imagine a small sightseeing flight C172 operating part 121? As a dispatcher, are your skills really needed for a 15 minute photo flight in a Cub?

There is currently an uproar over an NPRM to designate sightseeing flights, currently part 91, to part 135. This would cause the failure of several hundred business country wide. So imagine imposing even MORE stringent regulations, as what 121 would create.

Your posts implies there is currently a demand to make your proposed changes; where on earth did you hear this? This is pretty far out there. Your proposal would basically kill corporate and general aviation.



buhh bye
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (9 years 6 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 3346 times:

>>>Could the crash at TEB be yet another reason that all aircraft should be operating under 121 regulations and if not all traffic how about just any flight that is carrying passengers for hire?

As far as yesterday's TEB crash specifically being a reason, we'll have to wait to see what the official cause is first. They initiated an abort, but we don't know why, or at what state of the takeoff run (past V1?) they did so.

There is no doubt (in my mind) that Part 121 Domestic/Flag ops are safer, but the efforts should first be concentrated on the Part 121 Supplementals and Part 129 operators, and getting them caught up. As far as corporate for-hire stuff goes, things will stay the same until some notable person(s) perish in an accident that Part 121 ops would have made difficult to occur, and then the regs will be modified.

None of this is to say that 121 ops is the cure to all ills, but there are many components that could/should be adapted to other types of operations.


User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (9 years 6 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 3301 times:

Please do not single out Part 129 carriers. I would argue the safety standards of many 129 carriers are atleast the same if not higher than the US 121 standards.

User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7566 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (9 years 6 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 3265 times:

It might be worth looking at the Part 91 crashes and identifying issues.

Clearly there are going to be differences, but that is one hell of a gap.


User currently offlineKdeg00 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 145 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (9 years 6 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 3245 times:

Would someone be willing to post a link to a site explaining the different categories for us lay folk. I'm curious about the conversation but don't have any background. TIA.

User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (9 years 6 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 3236 times:

>>>Please do not single out Part 129 carriers. I would argue the safety standards of many 129 carriers are atleast the same if not higher than the US 121 standards.

How about singling out the Part 129 carriers aren't in that "many" group? Sound better?


User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (9 years 6 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 3218 times:

OPNLguy,

I guess I would certainly hold BA, QF, VS, SQ, CX, KL, AF, LH, SAS, JAL, EI, ANZ all in a different class (just my opinion sorry if missed any obvious carriers) and the other's. I believe that's what we're talking about???


User currently offlineJtamu97 From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 658 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (9 years 6 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 3177 times:

Kdegg,
Go to http://www.faa.gov then go to FAA Regulations, then current regulations. You can get all your information there.

Later,
J



Propeller, we don't need no stinkin propeller
User currently offlineCoa764 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 328 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (9 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 3132 times:

Can you imagine a small sightseeing flight C172 operating part 121?

If they are carrying passengers for hire why not? Why not impose the same level of safety standards on a sightseeing outfit or Biz jet operator that you do airlines?

As a dispatcher, are your skills really needed for a 15 minute photo flight in a Cub?

Personally a C172 operation couldn't afford me as a dispatcher but why not have one? The pilot has to have certificates as do the mechanic so why not get the guy that takes the reservations a certificate? OK, maybe that is over the top but as far as safety goes is there really an argument against the highest of standards?

Your posts implies there is currently a demand to make your proposed changes; where on earth did you hear this? This is pretty far out there. Your proposal would basically kill corporate and general aviation.

It is just a discussion so don't get all worked up over nothing...

As far as corporate aviation goes 121 operation wouldn't kill anything except maybe their ability to take off without de-icing in winter ops. Yes a low blow but with the amount of money those people pay for flying on a biz jet you would think they would not only want the highest levels of safety but demand it.. Part 91 can have its place too but, my opinion, not if your flying people around for hire.

[Edited 2005-02-04 04:35:13]


Please oh please Mr Moderator Nazi, dont delete my thread.
User currently offlineCoa764 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 328 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3080 times:

Lymamn made the statment "Your proposal would basically kill corporate and general aviation"

Your incorrect, my proposal wouldn't actually kill a living soul and to digress might, maybe and just might keep people alive to fly another day... The only thing a 121 operations proposal would kill is the ability of part 91 operators to do so to their passengers. I ask again of the members here.. Not what is the longest flight you have flown, not why you like Airbus vs Boeing, and not why flight crews may argue and were they have sex on an aircraft

My question is what price do you pay, as a passenger, for safety and just because you might not be flying commercial should your business be any less valued in terms of saftey standards when you fly under part 91... This is a loaded question because the average guy that flies in with his family then books the C172 tour assumes that he is buying the same level of saftey... The big difference between 121 and 91 operations.... 121 is driven by policies and procedures written in blood while 91 ops is driven by the almighty dollar..

So weight in aviation drogues, I would be curious to read some respnses...


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=533&e=5&u=/ap/20050205/ap_on_re_us/michigan_plane_crash
Plane Crashes in Mich., Killing All Aboard
Fri Feb 4,11:29 PM ET U.S. National - AP
BERRIEN TOWNSHIP, Mich. - A small plane carrying four people crashed into a stand of trees in dense fog Friday, killing everyone aboard.
The twin-engine aircraft was on its way from Sheboygan, Wis., to Lebanon, Ohio, when it went down near a cornfield close to the Indiana line, about 15 miles from South Bend, Ind., authorities said. The cause of the crash was under investigation.
Jim True, who runs a nearby boat-rental business, said he gave some firefighters a ride to the crash site just after hearing the plane go down. He said all that was left were small pieces of sheet metal on the ground.
"I didn't see anything that resembled an airplane. There was nothing there," he said.
Officials at Plymouth Foam in Plymouth, Wis., identified the victims as the company co-owners and brothers Scott Roberts and Vance Roberts, its vice president Mike Borzcik and the pilot Paul Riddle.



Please oh please Mr Moderator Nazi, dont delete my thread.
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3048 times:

>>>The big difference between 121 and 91 operations.... 121 is driven by policies and procedures written in blood while 91 ops is driven by the almighty dollar..

No offense, but I think it's a bit disingenuous to infer that Part 121 ops are immune from the pressures of the almighty dollar. They're not, as we both well know, it's just that Part 121 Domestic/Flag operation has a more robust structure in place to minimize their potential adverse effects, while other types of operations don't have this structure to begin with.

Part of the overall problem is that there is a disconnect between the various "standards of care" associated with various types of operations (91, 135, 121, etc.) and the fact to many people, "an airplane is an airplane" and that everything is interchangeable, and have zero awareness of the behind-the-scenes stuff that makes it all happen. The only time folks even remotely think about this kind of thing, however fleetingly, is when when something happens to a flight that would have been far less likely to occur had it been a 121 op.

The basic regs came after Sen. Cutting was killed in a crash in the 1930s. Former Sen. John Tower's death in the 1980s also generated reg changes. As I said before, it'll take another politician (or a movie/rock star) getting toasted in a crash (that even some rudimentary 121 aspects could have prevented) before you'll see some changes. Wish it were not so.

Say hello to Lorraine for me; I was one of her co-authors...  Big grin





[Edited 2005-02-05 16:04:14]

User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3020 times:

This just in... Maybe ADF will be there?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64786-2005Feb4.html


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...
Safety And The Impact Of Technology posted Wed Feb 23 2005 17:07:02 by Timmytour
Regional Airlines RFPs And The Future Of Them posted Wed Nov 15 2006 07:39:34 by Apodino
Delta And The Possibility Of A JFK-ABQ Route posted Fri Oct 6 2006 20:16:39 by 1337Delta764
Microjets And The Likelihood Of Mid-air Collisions posted Mon Oct 2 2006 01:38:18 by Incitatus
Technology And The Safety Record posted Tue Aug 29 2006 13:41:49 by Aerogeek
LAN Argentina And The Future Of AR posted Mon Jun 26 2006 19:12:33 by Zudnic
The Oil Crunch And The Future Of LCCs posted Tue Apr 25 2006 04:52:13 by Gnomon
The End Of NW And The Beginning Of........... posted Thu Mar 2 2006 02:32:04 by Nwafflyer
EI Loads To ORD And The Rest Of The USA posted Fri Jan 6 2006 14:07:51 by BHXDTW
America West, CMH And The 'City Of Columbus' posted Fri Dec 16 2005 21:06:44 by Thomasphoto60