Re: NY TIMES: The Humble Valujet No More



James Robinson wrote:

beavis <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


James Robinson <wascana@xxxxxxx> wrote:


... they were the first airline to extensively contract out
maintenance. Something done in many other industries, I might add. There was an accident, which arguably wasn't the fault of the airline
management, and were then considered as "unsafe".

Please. They contracted things out to SabreTech because they were
CHEAPER, simple as that. Their subcontractor cut corners, and 110
people died as a result. ValuJet wasn't DIRECTLY responsible, no, but
they were most certainly at fault for using a shady contractor.


Are you implying that dealing with the lowest bidder is somehow wrong? It is the way business is done. Everything from computer programming to moon landers is awarded to the lowest qualified bidder as a normal contracting process. SabreTech was a licenced aircraft maintenance supplier.

As far as SabreTech being "shady", they were properly licensed by the FAA to perform aircraft maintenance. It's not as though they were some back lot garage that repairs cars using stolen parts.

Also, please describe how the accident was as a result of Sabretech "cutting corners". The airline prohibited the shipment of hazardous material, and weren't aware that the oxygen generators were aboard. The maintenance contractor made a mistake in not discharging the generators or applying safety caps. It was more a mistake than a deliberate act to save money.

Blaming the airline, even partially, is like blaming Ford Explorer drivers for Firestone tire failures: They shouldn't have bought them, therefore they are at fault.


If Ford sold Firestone tires as original equipment then they are responsible for the performance of the tires. If the tires were subsequently purchased then they are not.


Further, the cabin-to-cockpit interphone had been deferred, meaning
the cabin crew had no way to communicate the fire to the flight crew
other than yelling through the cockpit door.

So yes, Valujet shared a great deal of responsibility for the crash.


The lack of interphone communication was not cited in the NTSB report as either a cause of the accident or even aggravating the conditions. It was a side issue, and ValuJet was perfectly legal in flying the aircraft without the interphone according to the FAA-approved Minimum Equipment Lists.
.

Loading