Harry Krause wrote:
A seaplane carrying approximately 16 persons, including two crew,
crashed or exploded shortly after takeoff at 2:30 pm today at Government
Cut near south Miami Beach.

The is the Cut the cruise ships use, too.

This sucks.

Oh oh.

Explosion., according to a number of witnesses.

Merry Christmas from Al Qaida? :-(

Security really does suck on a lot of these commuter airlines, at least
compared to the majors. A suicide bomber might be able to get aboard
fairly easily.

We can be sure it's Al Qaida if we lose another plane today. (They
usually do these things in mulitiples to prove they're not just taking
credit for a random accident). Let's hope not.

wrote in message
oups.com...

Harry Krause wrote:
A seaplane carrying approximately 16 persons, including two crew,
crashed or exploded shortly after takeoff at 2:30 pm today at Government
Cut near south Miami Beach.

The is the Cut the cruise ships use, too.

This sucks.

Oh oh.

Explosion., according to a number of witnesses.

Merry Christmas from Al Qaida? :-(

Security really does suck on a lot of these commuter airlines, at least
compared to the majors. A suicide bomber might be able to get aboard
fairly easily.

We can be sure it's Al Qaida if we lose another plane today. (They
usually do these things in mulitiples to prove they're not just taking
credit for a random accident). Let's hope not.


I doubt an 18 passenger 1946 seaplane is an Al Qaida target. Radio
reported a witness said the wing was on fire and then fell off.

On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 00:04:54 GMT, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

I doubt an 18 passenger 1946 seaplane is an Al Qaida target. Radio
reported a witness said the wing was on fire and then fell off.

===================

I agree, probably a blown engine.

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 00:04:54 GMT, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

I doubt an 18 passenger 1946 seaplane is an Al Qaida target. Radio
reported a witness said the wing was on fire and then fell off.

===================

I agree, probably a blown engine.


.....and that's exactly why I rarely set foot in an airplane any more. I know
that the mechanic who works on my truck is obsessive about details. As far
as aircraft, I have to assume that the mechanics have intravenous heroin
drips in their arms. Actually, "assume" is wrong. I was on a USAir commuter
prop plane last year which had bald tires. That's all I need to know.

Doug Kanter wrote:
"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 00:04:54 GMT, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

I doubt an 18 passenger 1946 seaplane is an Al Qaida target. Radio
reported a witness said the wing was on fire and then fell off.

===================

I agree, probably a blown engine.


....and that's exactly why I rarely set foot in an airplane any more. I know
that the mechanic who works on my truck is obsessive about details. As far
as aircraft, I have to assume that the mechanics have intravenous heroin
drips in their arms. Actually, "assume" is wrong. I was on a USAir commuter
prop plane last year which had bald tires. That's all I need to know.

Bald tires are good. More rubber in contact with the runway. The
brake control software and antiskid will make sure hydroplaning doesn't
happen.

Look at the tires on a drag racing car.

wrote in message
oups.com...

Doug Kanter wrote:
"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 00:04:54 GMT, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

I doubt an 18 passenger 1946 seaplane is an Al Qaida target. Radio
reported a witness said the wing was on fire and then fell off.

===================

I agree, probably a blown engine.


....and that's exactly why I rarely set foot in an airplane any more. I
know
that the mechanic who works on my truck is obsessive about details. As
far
as aircraft, I have to assume that the mechanics have intravenous heroin
drips in their arms. Actually, "assume" is wrong. I was on a USAir
commuter
prop plane last year which had bald tires. That's all I need to know.

Bald tires are good. More rubber in contact with the runway. The
brake control software and antiskid will make sure hydroplaning doesn't
happen.

Look at the tires on a drag racing car.


Yeah OK.

Meanwhile, lots of the aircraft are severely old, and the airlines are
bankrupt.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 00:04:54 GMT, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

I doubt an 18 passenger 1946 seaplane is an Al Qaida target. Radio
reported a witness said the wing was on fire and then fell off.
===================

I agree, probably a blown engine.

....and that's exactly why I rarely set foot in an airplane any more. I
know
that the mechanic who works on my truck is obsessive about details. As
far
as aircraft, I have to assume that the mechanics have intravenous
heroin
drips in their arms. Actually, "assume" is wrong. I was on a USAir
commuter
prop plane last year which had bald tires. That's all I need to know.
Bald tires are good. More rubber in contact with the runway. The
brake control software and antiskid will make sure hydroplaning doesn't
happen.

Look at the tires on a drag racing car.


Yeah OK.

Meanwhile, lots of the aircraft are severely old, and the airlines are
bankrupt.

And a number of airlines have contracted out maintenance to third-world
depots.

You saying those 3rd world people are stupid and incompetant?

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Bill McKee wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 00:04:54 GMT, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

I doubt an 18 passenger 1946 seaplane is an Al Qaida target.
Radio
reported a witness said the wing was on fire and then fell off.
===================

I agree, probably a blown engine.

....and that's exactly why I rarely set foot in an airplane any more.
I know
that the mechanic who works on my truck is obsessive about details.
As far
as aircraft, I have to assume that the mechanics have intravenous
heroin
drips in their arms. Actually, "assume" is wrong. I was on a USAir
commuter
prop plane last year which had bald tires. That's all I need to know.
Bald tires are good. More rubber in contact with the runway. The
brake control software and antiskid will make sure hydroplaning
doesn't
happen.

Look at the tires on a drag racing car.

Yeah OK.

Meanwhile, lots of the aircraft are severely old, and the airlines are
bankrupt.
And a number of airlines have contracted out maintenance to third-world
depots.

You saying those 3rd world people are stupid and incompetant?



I would say that third-world airline plane mechanics are more likely to
sign off on maintenance and repair than a US mechanic would, are more
likely to be working for a company whose licensing and record-keeping
requirements are looser than a US company's, are less likely to have the
same level of training and experience as US mechanic, et cetera.
Therefore, they are less competent. No, I don't think they are stupid.

It is the FAA that sets documentation requirements.

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Bill McKee wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 00:04:54 GMT, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

I doubt an 18 passenger 1946 seaplane is an Al Qaida target. Radio
reported a witness said the wing was on fire and then fell off.
===================

I agree, probably a blown engine.

....and that's exactly why I rarely set foot in an airplane any
more. I know
that the mechanic who works on my truck is obsessive about details.
As far
as aircraft, I have to assume that the mechanics have intravenous
heroin
drips in their arms. Actually, "assume" is wrong. I was on a USAir
commuter
prop plane last year which had bald tires. That's all I need to
know.
Bald tires are good. More rubber in contact with the runway. The
brake control software and antiskid will make sure hydroplaning
doesn't
happen.

Look at the tires on a drag racing car.

Yeah OK.

Meanwhile, lots of the aircraft are severely old, and the airlines are
bankrupt.
And a number of airlines have contracted out maintenance to third-world
depots.

You saying those 3rd world people are stupid and incompetant?



I would say that third-world airline plane mechanics are more likely to
sign off on maintenance and repair than a US mechanic would, are more
likely to be working for a company whose licensing and record-keeping
requirements are looser than a US company's, are less likely to have the
same level of training and experience as US mechanic, et cetera.
Therefore, they are less competent. No, I don't think they are stupid.

It is the FAA that sets documentation requirements.


Before something can be documented, someone has to:
1) See it
2) Not see it, but claim he did
3) See it, but not document it
4) Give a damn

There are lots of ways around documentation.

Harry Krause wrote:
Bill McKee wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 00:04:54 GMT, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

I doubt an 18 passenger 1946 seaplane is an Al Qaida target. Radio
reported a witness said the wing was on fire and then fell off.
===================

I agree, probably a blown engine.

....and that's exactly why I rarely set foot in an airplane any more. I
know
that the mechanic who works on my truck is obsessive about details. As
far
as aircraft, I have to assume that the mechanics have intravenous
heroin
drips in their arms. Actually, "assume" is wrong. I was on a USAir
commuter
prop plane last year which had bald tires. That's all I need to know.
Bald tires are good. More rubber in contact with the runway. The
brake control software and antiskid will make sure hydroplaning doesn't
happen.

Look at the tires on a drag racing car.

Yeah OK.

Meanwhile, lots of the aircraft are severely old, and the airlines are
bankrupt.
And a number of airlines have contracted out maintenance to third-world
depots.

You saying those 3rd world people are stupid and incompetant?



I would say that third-world airline plane mechanics are more likely to
sign off on maintenance and repair than a US mechanic would, are more
likely to be working for a company whose licensing and record-keeping
requirements are looser than a US company's, are less likely to have the
same level of training and experience as US mechanic, et cetera.
Therefore, they are less competent. No, I don't think they are stupid.

Those third world depots are owned and operated by US or european
maintenance contractors. Lufthansa Technick usually runs all of the
depots handling airbus planes, and I don't know the name of the
american company that handles boeing planes. In addition,
Pratt&Whitney has third-world maintenance depots to keep their engines
running, as do most of the companies that make the various
subassemblies in an airplane. If any of those planes fly to the US,
the FAA reviews their maintenace record. It is the contractor's best
interest to make sure they are maintaining the hardware to the
standards set forth by the FAA, Airbus and Boeing. If they dont, the
two airframers and/or the airlines will happily contract someone else
to do the work.

Having these depots in the US and/or Europe will mean the labor would
be extremely high (thanks to unions). The labor is cheap in the third
world. Gotta be an idiot not to take advantage of it.