Can’t accuse FAA of being premature in this case? :-o)
Any news on inspection of the engines?
(Though both quitting near same time could be a systems problem.)
Shame to lose a 737-200C, that one did very good work in the Arctic of Canada.
Others in Alaska, and undoubtedly around the world.
A few were still flying in the Arctic last I heard, limited options for replacement as large cargo door needed.
One lost by incompetent Captain at Resolute Bay several years ago.
You wanted https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/family-finds-plane-wreck-searchers-missed/?unapproved=30067&moderation-hash=ffbfe8da345427db801ab6c807f799d1#comment-30067 thread.
The 737C in HI was underwater, but a big white object, I don’t recall how deep.
We have different definitions of hero.
Years ago when I worked in Hawaii I was on Maui headed to a sugarcane plantation and came across a Douglas C 54 that had bellied into a young cane field about a mile short of Kahalui A/P. You could tell from the bent props that three were windmilling and one making power when it hit the ground. There were trucks there calmly unloading the cargo of everything from bedding plants to canned goods. No one was hurt, but according the locals the inter-island cargo ops all operated on a shoestring, and this one had simply run out of fuel just short of the destination. Apparently some things haven’t changed over there.
Hang on. More info needed here. The company was under investigation many times prior to the ditching. How are the pilots not negligent here? Did they knowingly take off with an un-airworthy aircraft? Was ithus aircraft flown in an un-airworthy condition?
They did. Coast guard was on it
Not sure who came up with the headline. Obviously, someone is trying to capitalize on “737” because of previous issues. However, this FAA issue has nothing to do with the 737. It is about the revocation of Transair carrier certificate. It should read: “FAA Proposes Pulling '‘CARRIERS’ Certificate After 737 Ditching”. Ten months later, and the FAA is still “proposing”.
Is the increased fatality rate simply a result of an increased number of experimentals being flown?
I’m wondering if there is any data indicating any trends related to age of the pilots involved? Age seems to be the going excuse by the insurance companies these days for declining any coverage.
Accident statistics are driven by a lot of things. With the tailing-off of the pandemic, many local aviation events are re-starting, and accidents will be associated with pilots trying to participate. Weather will also be a driver. For instance, here in western Washington, we had almost no rain from June through the end of October. Unusual, and it probably led to increased flying and thus increased accidents.
As the article says, the report cover more than just homebuilts (Experimental Amateur-Built aircraft). It includes Experimental Light Sport, Experimental Exhibition, Experimental Racing, Experimental R&D, etc. This will include most airshow accidents and manufacturer flight test accidents. Thus, next year’s report will include the recent P-63 midair and the Raisbeck Cessna Caravan inflight failure. It’s not just homebuilts.
Statistics like these vary year-to-year, sometimes drastically. In the last 20 years, fatal EAB accidents in a given year ranged from 30 to 72. Let’s see how it pans out over the next couple of years.