SirDeath From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 88 posts, RR: 0 Posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 3060 times:
Seeing as how the ValuJet 597 fire was a direct result of shoddy mx practices by THY, did THY ever overhaul the way they do their heavy mx? That is to say, was there a big shake-up and real changes made or was just a "patch" put in place so this specific problem wouldn't happen again. Did they follow the same mx procedures for planes sent to them by other carriers (in the early 90's) or did they use one in-house to save money and a higher level of service for contract mx?
SCXmechanic From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 534 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 2990 times:
I knew/worked with the guy who was sent to Turkey to borescope those engines for ValuJet before they agreed to buy those DC-9's... I don't think he is in aviation anymore... And thats all I got to say about that...
Quickmover From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 2528 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 2900 times:
Quoting RW170 (Reply 4): That was the crash of ValuJet flight 592. ValuJet 597 was a DC-9 that had an aborted take-off from ATL after an engine failure. Shrapnel broke through the fuselage and caused a fire.
Sorry for the mix up. Didn't that same type of accident happen with a Delta md80 a few years back?
RW170 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 430 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 2889 times:
Yes, Delta had an uncontained engine failure during take-off from PNS in 1996. I'm no expert so I'm not so sure that the incidents were exactly the same, but both were engine failures on take-off. In Delta's case, a few passengers died. The passengers on ValuJet 597 made it out.
SirDeath From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 88 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2810 times:
Quoting Laxintl (Reply 8): While THY might have not caught the damage, ValuJet had opportunities
While this may be true, the official NTSB finding implicates THY mx and mx procedures as the proximate cause (quote from NTSB report is as follows):
The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of this
accident was the failure of Turk Hava Yollari maintenance and inspection personnel to perform a
proper inspection of a 7th stage high compressor disk, thus allowing the detectable crack to grow
to a length at which the disk ruptured, under normal operating conditions, propelling engine
fragments into the fuselage; the fragments severed the right engine main fuel line, which resulted
in a fire that rapidly engulfed the cabin area. The lack of an adequate recordkeeping system and
the failure to use "process sheets" to document the step-by-step overhaul/inspection procedures
contributed to the failure to detect the crack and, thus, to the accident.
LAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 28998 posts, RR: 50
Reply 11, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2780 times:
Yes an its also highlights the failure of Valujet and its vendors.
As with most accidents several layers of safety all failed with this incident. TK with propable overhaul inspection failure, Valujet thru is agents in pre-delivery inspections (including boroscope) followed by ValuJets US overhaul vendors inspections which also lead to some questionable tagging and certification documentation.
Its also important to note, TK was never involved in any litigation nor had to pay any settlement as a result of this incident, while ValuJet was party to several lawsuits.
So at the end of the day, I dont see why you are solely questioning maintenance abilities of a overseas carrier when a US airline and its vendors also failed to catch the compressor disk weakness in follow up inspections.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
Bahadir From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 1971 posts, RR: 10
Reply 12, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 2671 times:
To the OP,
THY is a FAA and JAA part 145 mx facilty. At the time of the accident the country was placed in a Cat II level where due to mx malpractices. This didn't allow any airlines from the country to add additional flights to US but allowed them to keep the existing ones. Later in 90s this ban was lifted.
THY separated its mx division from the airline last year and signed a major MRO agreements with Boeing, P&W and if i am not mistaken with GE as well. I am sure these major players wouldn't sign an agreement with THY mx if they didn't trust their work..
Quoting Bahadir (Reply 12): major MRO agreements with Boeing, P&W and if i am not mistaken with GE as well
I had figured that the THY mx operation had gotten its act together but was not sure. THY as a carrier has a stellar reputation in my wife's industry (oil) for being excellent with respect to service and reliability and being one of the most preferred carriers (with respect to destinations and quality to those destinations). Having flown on THY a few times with her I must agree! I was wondering if their mx caught up to their carrier service. I thought it had... now I have verification... thanks Bahadir!
Besides only on THY can you have (well most likely to have) a real-life situation that sounds like the beginning of a bad joke:
"A Coptic a Muslim and a Jew are sitting next to each other on an airplane..."