AA777 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 2556 posts, RR: 27
Reply 1, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1799 times:
sounds like a bunch of crap if you ask me. It doesnt say how the person who brought the suit "knows" that it was indeed a fuel leak, how they got hold of records indicating that it took 53 flights with a fuel leak before it was repaired or whatever.... I find that highly unlikely. Besides, the person who filed suit probably wont win since nothing bad happened to him, not even an "incident", as a result of this alleged fuel leak.... if you ask me, its just another money-hungry individual looking for a way to make a million dollars.
AAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3518 posts, RR: 45
Reply 2, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1640 times:
Quote: The complaint alleges that on Nov. 17, 2003, a Federal Aviation Administration inspector was a passenger on an American flight from Orlando, Fla., to New York's La Guardia Airport when he saw fuel leaking from a wing of the McDonnell Douglas MD-82.
If this supposed "fuel leak" was so dangerous, it begs the questions:
1. Why did this FAA "inspector" permit the flight to depart, continue or whatever?
2. Why did this FAA "inspector" not ground the plane upon arrival?
3. If there was a "fuel leak", why did/has FAA do/done nothing?
*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
Qqflyboy From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 2306 posts, RR: 13
Reply 3, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1579 times:
The whole situation is questionable. My first question is this: Why is the Department of Justice in New York filing a civil suit? These are matters to be handled by the FAA, not the DOJ. Besides, when airlines do commit violations, they are fined, not sued in civil court. The fact that the FAA took no action is a whole other question which makes this situation seem out of context.
As I wrote in the other thread, which appears to have been deleted, obviously there was not a problem. Whatever the "inspector" thought he saw was either minor enough to defer, or not a problem at all. The FAA must be satisfied or we would have heard from them before now... it's been nearly two years since the alleged incident.
(BTW... I thought duplicate threads weren't deleted if they generated significant interest... more interest in the orginal thread.)
The views expressed are mine alone and do not necessarily reflect my employer’s views.