NTSB: Seaplane Wing Had Cracks

LUVRSW · Wed Dec 21, 2005 11:44 pm

Still think age isn't a factor??

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2005-12-20-miami-crash_x.htm

litz · Thu Dec 22, 2005 12:06 am

Nah, age shouldn't be a factor ... the better question is -- assuming a fatigue crack caused this -- why wasn't this found during regular inspections ...

In my mind, this is just so eerily similar to the C-130 firebomber crash ...

- litz

LUVRSW · Thu Dec 22, 2005 12:19 am

If that doesn't make you think, will this?

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2005-12-20-aging-planes_x.htm

NIKV69 · Thu Dec 22, 2005 12:19 am

Quoting Litz (Reply 1):
Nah, age shouldn't be a factor

It is a factor.

You guys should know by know that these cracks are not going to be found, do you really think that Chalk Air is going to do the rigorous checks on all their Mallards? If Mary Schiavo taught us anything is that there are issues with aircraft repair and maintenance both with the people performing the work and sometimes the parts. The Major carriers are one thing but smaller airlines can have certain problems. Air Midwest 5481 is an example of how less than perfect maintenance happens and caused a captain to lose control of an overweight aircraft. This is why age plays a part even more in older planes. Lesser airlines are just not going to spend top dollar to inspect their aircraft. It is a fact. If you think you can use an airline like Chalk and climb on a 60 year old aircraft and be totally safe you are mistaken, I am not bashing Chalks or any other small carrier but the truth is that old aircraft run the risk of having these issues, especially with smaller companies. This was proven horribly when this thing went down.

Boeing Nut · Thu Dec 22, 2005 12:34 am

Quoting Litz (Reply 1):
Nah, age shouldn't be a factor ... the better question is -- assuming a fatigue crack caused this -- why wasn't this found during regular inspections ...

Age is not, and will never be a factor. Proper inspections and maintenance is the factor. An aircraft can fly forever if properly maintained.

I hate to say it folks, Chalk's is going to get crucified over this. We may have seen the last of this airline. crying

filejw · Thu Dec 22, 2005 12:41 am

The airlines culture is more a factor than anything.Is there responsibility keep it flying or take a little more time for maintance.Like landing on a short icy runway with a tailwind or divert.

richierich · Thu Dec 22, 2005 12:42 am

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 3):
This is why age plays a part even more in older planes. Lesser airlines are just not going to spend top dollar to inspect their aircraft. It is a fact. If you think you can use an airline like Chalk and climb on a 60 year old aircraft and be totally safe you are mistaken, I am not bashing Chalks or any other small carrier but the truth is that old aircraft run the risk of having these issues, especially with smaller companies. This was proven horribly when this thing went down.

Again you talk like you did in the other post but considering nobody yet knows why the Mallard went down, I aqm not sure why you are jumping to conclusions about it. "AGE" as a reason is not good enough... if there were cracks, then they should have been found and repaired. And remember, age isn't the only factor in crack formation.

NIKV69 · Thu Dec 22, 2005 12:44 am

Quoting Boeing Nut (Reply 4):
I hate to say it folks, Chalk's is going to get crucified over this. We may have seen the last of this airline.

I wouldn't dig Chalk's grave just yet. Let us see if this wing separated due to the cracks.

Where these cracks in a place that could be seen without disassembling the wing?

PositiveClimb · Thu Dec 22, 2005 12:45 am

Quoting LUVRSW (Reply 2):
If that doesn't make you think, will this?

Just a quote from the link you gave:

"But the age of the planes, some of which date back nearly 60 years, shouldn't by itself be a safety hazard, according to accident investigators.

"If the maintenance is robust and properly followed, aircraft have a virtually infinite life," says John Cox, a former airline pilot who now works as an aviation safety consultant."

So basically this person (of whom I know nothing, so won't comment on his qualification) contradicts the point of "older planes are more dangerous".That's the point I was trying to make in the other thread
Small Plane Crash In Water Off Miami (by LUVRSW Dec 19 2005 in Civil Aviation)

as well (I know NIKV69 won't agree, but maybe we can agree to disagree Wink

) : an older plane can be as safe as a new one, if properly maintained (and in such case like an old seaplane dealing with salt water every day proper maintenance means more thoroughly maintenance than for other aircraft).

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 3):

You guys should know by know that these cracks are not going to be found, do you really think that Chalk Air is going to do the rigorous checks on all their Mallards?

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 3):
Lesser airlines are just not going to spend top dollar to inspect their aircraft

For me this is a whole other question. As I stated, these aircraft (old, salt, water etc.) require much more maintenance than newer planes. If an airline is not willing to put the money/effort into these birds, than this is an airline to avoid (Yes, I know it is not easy to be aware of, and no, I'm not implying that Chalk's has neglected the maintenance). But I would feel more comfortable on a well-maintained older aircraft than on a newer with dubious maintenance records.

Best regards,
Fabian/PositiveClimb

MD88Captain · Thu Dec 22, 2005 12:49 am

Of course, age is a factor. And yes, with proper maintenance an aircraft can fly forever. Wind cracks on a 1940's vintage seaplane are not unexpected. I am surprised that Chalks did not find them during scheduled maintenance. With the environment and abuse that aircraft takes, you'd think the would be looking closely every month. The FAA will probably ground every other Mallard for inspection and Chalks is toast.

hiflyer · Thu Dec 22, 2005 12:58 am

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 3):
do you really think that Chalk Air is going to do the rigorous checks on all their Mallards?

Yes.

miamiair · Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:00 am

So long as an airplane is properly maintained, it can fly until it is not feasible. Whether it be a Mallard, a DC-3, Stearman, I wouldn't have any doubts flying it, so long as, it is properly maintained.

There are many ways to detect fatigue cracks, such as eddy current, X-ray, isotope inspections, so this may be an issue. Where there any specific inspection requirements? Where they accomplished? What were the findings?

Until that is known, it is all going to be speculation.

viv · Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:03 am

Age is not a factor. Bad maintenance is.

474218 · Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:04 am

Age doesn't matter. I was at Gamco in 2001 and they were repairing cracks in Gulf A320 wing planks and these aircraft were less than 10 years old.

Chalk has had an excellent safety record, and they operate their aircraft in the most inhospitable conditions you can think of. Flying is inherently dangerous but with proper inspection and repair a airframe can remain safe and should have an unlimited life. Did someone miss something during an inspection, does this area require more frequent inspections, does the area require modification? All these questions will be answered by the investigation. When the investigation is complete the NTSB determine the cause, and place blame, if required and the FAA will recommend any corrective action.

checkraiser · Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:07 am

I think the notion that aircraft can fly forever is absurd. You could argue that a car will last forever too - as long as you keep replacing parts. I'm not commenting on whether these Mallards are too old or not, I would just liike to point out that aircraft aren't invincible.

As for those who think age is everything, please comment on the YX incident last night.

flyorski · Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:08 am

Age is a factor, the older an aircraft is the harder and more expensive it is to maintain. If an aircraft is properly maintained it can fly forever, however it appears like maybe the Chalks aircraft wasn't maintained to the standards it should have been. NTSB will likely recommend that the FAA ground Chalks.

miamiair · Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:21 am

Quoting Flyorski (Reply 15):
however it appears like maybe the Chalks aircraft wasn't maintained to the standards it should have been.

Why not wait until the report is out?

LPLAspotter · Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:39 am

One thing that I think will hurt Chalks is what kind of plane exists if they decide to replace their fleet? Can anybody think of a plane with the performance (seaplane) and size that is manufactured nowdays? I can't.

The only modern replacement I can think of is the Cessna Caravan which is at least half the size or the twin otter (is that even manufactured anymore?). Any thoughts?

LPLAspotter

jetfuel · Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:42 am

It is almost impossible to find many cracks without virtually dismantling the wing, an expensive excercise in itself. An AD for increased inspections is what often makes an older aircraft uneconomic to maintain and operate.

Many people get all emotional about older airctaft. I'd love to see a lot of older planes still in the air. One of the raesons the mallard is still operating is lack of a suitable replacement.

HOWEVER new avionics, new paintjobs, new interiors, re-engineering with Turbo-props is all good and well - BUT its virtually impossible to replace the superstructure. Wings can be rebuilt in a jig but it's a very expensive job.

REALITY is old airplanes used in heavy commercial ops get replaced because they are generally too expensive to maintain once the get past a certain age

litz · Thu Dec 22, 2005 2:03 am

Remember something else ... there are specifications and procedures for maintenance of an airplane (of any model).

The airline is required to adhere to these specifications, and the FAA then overseas (and certifies) the MX work.

Let the investigation work its course. Yes it appears the wing cracked off.

We don't yet know WHY ... and when we find out WHY, then we have to find out HOW ... and if it was a MX procedure (or lack of one) that contributed.

There may very well be an as-yet-unknown failure point on this particular airplane model, that was not in the procedures ...

The fact that it's a 60 year old plane is pretty much irrelevant ... look at the Air Force's B-52s, or the Confederate Air Force's warbirds. Or even NW's DC9s, many of which date to the 1960s ...

Heck, there's DC8s flying freight all over the place that date back as far.

Old planes do NOT equate to unsafe planes ... rather they are simply older machines that require a bit more care to operate safely.

So - as I said above, let the investigation work its course.

There are lots of questions yet to be answered.

- litz

Islandboy · Thu Dec 22, 2005 2:17 am

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 3):
This is why age plays a part even more in older planes. Lesser airlines are just not going to spend top dollar to inspect their aircraft. It is a fact. If you think you can use an airline like Chalk and climb on a 60 year old aircraft and be totally safe you are mistaken, I am not bashing Chalks or any other small carrier but the truth is that old aircraft run the risk of having these issues, especially with smaller companies. This was proven horribly when this thing went down.

No aircraft is totally safe. You can climb into a brand new plane and still crash. It's life. I'd still climb on board any other Chalk's aircraft regardless..as would other people apparently. The first flight out the day after the crash was practically full...but it didn't take off from FLL because the pilots were overcome with emotion.

FLAIRPORT · Thu Dec 22, 2005 8:46 am

Quoting Boeing Nut (Reply 4):
I hate to say it folks, Chalk's is going to get crucified over this. We may have seen the last of this airline.

I hope not. Chalks is a staple of Miami and I have a feeling that their FF base will continue to support them...assuming they come out clean.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 3):
Lesser airlines are just not going to spend top dollar to inspect their aircraft.

If Chalks is one of the above, why didn't this happen sooner? Chalks still has one of the best safety records of any airline and is the OLDEST airline in the US...I think they know what their doing.

Gatorman96 · Thu Dec 22, 2005 9:11 am

Hypothetically, let's say that structural fatigue was the cause of the accident. How likely is it that the other aircraft in Chalk's fleet are suffering from the same type of fatigue?

EMBQA · Thu Dec 22, 2005 9:20 am

Quoting LUVRSW (Thread starter):
Still think age isn't a factor??

No, age is NOT a factor. Proper maintenance and inspection just might be. I've seen brand new, 1 year old aircraft with cracks...!!

StuckInCA · Thu Dec 22, 2005 9:24 am

I reckon it's a matter of semantics, but I don't see how anyone is saying age is not a factor. Age, alone, may not be the only factor, but the same maintenance on a new aircraft and you wouldn't have wings snapping off. Age is one of several factors. Not THE factor, but not a non-factor.

L-188 · Thu Dec 22, 2005 11:53 am

I had to come home and get my hipwaders before entering this thread. there is a lot of BS going around here.

First thing is that planes don't get to be nearly 60 years old if they aren't safe.

Second of all, don't give to much creedence to anything Scay Mary Schiavo, she had a very well publized falling out over her previous DOT job. And has leveraged her anger into a very lucrative side buisness bashing air transportation.

Ditto for Jim Hall who was next to worthless near the end of his time at the NTSB. If there was ever a reason why the NTSB never should be allowed to have regulatory power...it is him. And he pushes that idea in his also very lucrative news commentary profession.

Quoting 474218 (Reply 13):
Chalk has had an excellent safety record, and they operate their aircraft in the most inhospitable conditions you can think of.

Excellent doesn't do them justice. Their safety record is extraordinary.

Quoting Islandboy (Reply 20):
You can climb into a brand new plane and still crash

Pilots say, "Never fly the A model of anything". Fact is this plane has flown successfully for many years prior to this. There was no reason to suspect it wasn't going to do the same. I definately would feel better on a Mallard then on an Airbus if they ever adopted the Windows operating system for the FMS computer.

EMBQA · Thu Dec 22, 2005 12:26 pm

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 24):
but the same maintenance on a new aircraft and you wouldn't have wings snapping off.

Tell that to Canadair when a few years back their 'BRAND NEW' CRJ200's started developing cracks in the wing spar in the center wing box area.

rlwynn · Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:18 pm

You can say all you want how old planes are safe. But I think with this incident and it's publicity that ols plane are done for with the general public. And that is who buys the tickets.

I would think think that only bad news about old planes will come from this crash. And that in the final report age will be a major factor.

MxCtrlr · Thu Dec 22, 2005 2:03 pm

From what I have been able to ascertain so far, there was a "major stress crack" in the R/H wing ROOT area - NOT in a readily visible area.

Chalk's has done the stand-up thing here and VOLUNTARILY grounded their entire fleet to perform seriously deep inspections to ensure that this does not happen again. Chalks is a very old, distinguished, venerable airline and will and should continue to operate. Their market (passengers) demands the kind of service that Chalks provides.

Chalks' maintenance is among the highest in the industry - they basically perform a D-check every 20 months (staged C-checks) as opposed to 5 years on other commercial aircraft. They also tip the aircraft every night, to drain any remaining salt water from the bilges and flush the exterior and interior hull with fresh water.

The GT-70 Mallard has one of the best safety records around - 5, count 'em FIVE fatal crashes in 60 years and Chalks has now had 2, count 'em TWO fatal crashes since their inception in 1919 and only one of those involved passengers.

This is not the end of Chalks and not the end of the GT-70 Mallard, nor should it be! Scary Mary be damned but ANY aircraft can develop cracks in areas that cannot be seen by normal maintnenace - be they 10 or 60 years old. It doesn't mean that maintenance was poor or the aircraft's design is at fault.

MxCtrlr bouncy

Islandboy · Thu Dec 22, 2005 2:09 pm

I couldn't have said it better MxCtrlr.

Chalk's will survive in one form or another. They are a vital part to some of our Islands economy. Bimini has no other daily scheduled service anywhere...let alone to the US.

PID is a high clientele airport..and since the closing of the main airport..Chalk's transport those guests who want to go straight there.

L-188 · Thu Dec 22, 2005 2:12 pm

Quoting MxCtrlr (Reply 28):
The GT-70 Mallard has one of the best safety records around - 5, count 'em FIVE fatal crashes in 60 years and Chalks has now had 2, count 'em TWO fatal crashes since their inception in 1919 and only one of those involved passengers

I also want to add, that the physical structure of any amphibian will be much stronger then a land based aircraft. A flying boat lands and taxis on it's skin every day. Most airplanes don't have to buck swells.

They didn't call it the Grumman Iron Works for nothing.

sidishus · Thu Dec 22, 2005 2:49 pm

Quoting MxCtrlr (Reply 28):
This is not the end of Chalks and not the end of the GT-70 Mallard, nor should it be!

It shouldn't be, but I fear the negative press may have put the commercial viability of the Mallard fleet down the tubes for passenger service.

Quoting Jetfuel (Reply 18):
It is almost impossible to find many cracks without virtually dismantling the wing, an expensive excercise in itself. An AD for increased inspections is what often makes an older aircraft uneconomic to maintain and operate.

And money losing Chalk's isn't going to be able to support the expense of an emergency AD that would be even half as onerous as the one slapped on the T-34A's.
Besides, no matter how fixed, the public probably won't want to get on them again regardless.

Quoting LPLAspotter (Reply 17):
One thing that I think will hurt Chalks is what kind of plane exists if they decide to replace their fleet? Can anybody think of a plane with the performance (seaplane) and size that is manufactured nowdays? I can't.

The Be-200 is too big. A pax version of the CL-415 would be way too expensive. Maybe the Be-103 but doubtful the economics would work given its size.

StuckInCA · Thu Dec 22, 2005 2:56 pm

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 26):
Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 24):
but the same maintenance on a new aircraft and you wouldn't have wings snapping off.

Tell that to Canadair when a few years back their 'BRAND NEW' CRJ200's started developing cracks in the wing spar in the center wing box area.

Ugh. I'm saying a brand new airplane would maybe not have cracks, while an old one might... hence age is A factor (one of, potentially, several). I never said that a new plane could NEVER have problems. Fatigue curve....

If you disagree with that logic than I really would rather not discuss any further with you. I reckon it'd be like trying to explain that the world is not flat.

Slcpilot · Thu Dec 22, 2005 4:50 pm

Replacement aircraft? The only one that could reasonably come close IMHO is a Caravan. It would have to be considered as a 2/1 replacement, as it certainly has nowhere near the load capacity, but could be operated with a single pilot. Cost? I don't know, but my guess would be about $1.7/copy.

How much useful load would remain after the conversion to floats?

SLCPilot

L-188 · Thu Dec 22, 2005 4:56 pm

Quoting SLCPilot (Reply 33):
The only one that could reasonably come close IMHO is a Caravan

Still about 10 seats short.

You can float a trotter, but you wouldn't get the flying boat experience.

Frankly I wouldn't mind having a production Certificate for any of the Grumman flying boats.

NIKV69 · Thu Dec 22, 2005 4:59 pm

Quoting PositiveClimb (Reply 8):
as well (I know NIKV69 won't agree, but maybe we can agree to disagree ) : an older plane can be as safe as a new one, if properly maintained (and in such case like an old seaplane dealing with salt water every day proper maintenance means more thoroughly maintenance than for other aircraft).

You guys are kidding yourselves, I agree an old plane can fly forever if properly maintained but you still run a risk of something going wrong. When you are dealing with commercial service and airline can not possibly inspect every part of the plane, metal fatigue, wiring, etc.

Quoting Flairport (Reply 21):
If Chalks is one of the above, why didn't this happen sooner? Chalks still has one of the best safety records of any airline and is the OLDEST airline in the US...I think they know what their doing.

It's all statistics and media coverage, I would be willing to bet Chalk's has had to fix some of their aircraft after something was discovered that wasn't nearly as major as this. Crashes like this are the only thing that make the news, I bet if we knew everything about Chalk's fleet for the last 20 years you would be surprised.

Quoting Islandboy (Reply 29):
Chalk's will survive in one form or another. They are a vital part to some of our Islands economy. Bimini has no other daily scheduled service anywhere...let alone to the US.

I agree. I am curious to see what failed on this aircraft to have started the fire though.

MD-90 · Thu Dec 22, 2005 5:11 pm

If I ever played and won a BIG lottery, one of the planes that I would buy and restore would be a Grumman Albatross. Lovely, tough aircraft. Here's an awesome pictorial tour:

http://www.eaa1000.av.org/pix/albatross/albatross.htm

I would feel better about flying those Mallards if I knew that they had new wingspars. Mallards assuredly don't have a flight time limit, considering when the design was certified, but aluminum can only flex so many times before it loses strength. However, I would fly Chalk's tomorrow (without any fear) if I could.

There are DC-3s flying where the only original part is the data plate. EVERYTHING else can be replaced. Safe plane, considering the technology.

sevenair · Thu Dec 22, 2005 7:09 pm

I think the caravan would be a good option. Even if you had to operate at a higer freq1uency, the single pilot ops means thats half the staffing bill per flight. Or, perhaps have a pax service, and then operate a cargo only srvice once a day, like in the Scottish Islands.

EMBQA · Thu Dec 22, 2005 8:26 pm

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 32):
I'm saying a brand new airplane would maybe not have cracks, while an old one might

Dude.. That is a Bill Clinton answer..!! I'm an Inspector. I spend every day looking at aircraft of all ages. Some brand spanking new, some 25+ years old. I see the same problems on old aircraft I see on new aircraft. Parts fail.... Shoot, look at last night with the Midwest 717..!! That airplane was 3 weeks old and the main wheel bearing failed. Does that mean we should ground all 717's..? No. But we need to look into 'why' it failed.. Did the installer forget to grease it before they installed it...? Was it manufactured incorrectly...?

What I'm saying is age is not as a big factot as some would like us to beleive as long as the aircraft is properly maintained and the owner follows the inspection guide lines.

TransIsland · Thu Dec 22, 2005 11:07 pm

I'd love to see Chalk's continue operations... why not one of these birds:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

MxCtrlr · Fri Dec 23, 2005 12:07 am

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 36):
If I ever played and won a BIG lottery, one of the planes that I would buy and restore would be a Grumman Albatross.

Personally, I'd rather have a Grumman Goose (with PT6's if possible) or a GT-70 Mallard! Damn nice aircraft, either one. The Albatross is a little too big for my tastes, but that's just personal opinion.

MxCtrlr bouncy

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net