Allegiant 60 Minutes Investigation

milleR

Well-Known Member
#83
Lemme see if I can dumb it down for you, then maybe you can understand:

No one is saying that Alliegant is the only airline that has incidents and mishaps. BUT, no one has as many incidents and mishaps, so close together as Alliegant. There is a reason for that.
I wasn’t talking about you but I appreciate the presumptuous condescension
 

Inverted

Resignation in lieu of champ
#84
If the measure of safety is merely whether people have died or not, Allegiant is on the top 5 list of safest airlines.

I think the reason they haven’t killed anyone is because of quality crews, they have literally stopped the shady MX culture from succeeding in a major accident. For anyone to allude that Delta or any other major airline for that matter, is less safe than Allegiant, is literally insane.
 

MikeD

Administrator
Staff member
#92
My airline had it's "Summer of '91" where we were about to get shut down because of a flood of incidents and accidents, but there were a lot of changes after that.
Your airline had the full-on FAA review of training and standardization in 1987/88 after a number of highly publicized incidents/accidents in a couple year timespan, and they are better for it, becoming the good operation they are today and have been. Allegiant is at that same point where a reset of sorts, is needed. At least before a fatal one does come.
 
Last edited:

MikeD

Administrator
Staff member
#93
For those in the dark, heres what I posted before about it...

Delta Air Lines got their ops audited by an FAA Special Inspection in the late 1980s (1987), with numerous accidents and incidents occurring in a short timeframe...within about 3 years.

Delta was re-inspected in 1988, and had instituted major changes in the below noted deficiencies by 1989.

- The Delta L-1011 that got about 60 miles off course on the North Atlantic Track, passing just underneath a CAL 747.
- Delta 767 departing LAX where Capt shuts down both engines, luckily restarting them prior to ditching into the Pacific. And then......continuing the flight to CVG.
- Delta jet wrong-airport landing, like has happened to other airlines, mistaking Frankfort Ky for Lexington.
- Delta jet landing on wrong parallel at CVG.
- Delta 191 landing accident DFW
- Delta 1141 takeoff accident DFW (post audit)


In part, the FAA's 1987 special inspection of Delta, which came about due to these incidents occurring in such a short timeframe, found items (at the time) such as "observed instances of a breakdown of communications, a lack of crew coordination, and lapses of discipline in Delta's cockpits." as well as a "...lack of organization, coordination, standardization and discipline in the cockpit that can be attributed to minimal guidance in the flight manuals and a lack of direction from those who develop, supervise and manage flight training and standardization programs"

Also noted by the inspection team were inadequate manuals and procedures, with a recommendation made that "Delta Air Lines study, develop, and publish specific crew duties for each crewmember. These functions should be placed in applicable manuals, and checking phases."

With regards to training, checking and standardization, it was observed that "on numerous occasions on which check airman conducted excessive training during check rides...." and that "Additionally, the 1987 special inspection team report noted that Delta's check airmen were not upholding a high level of standards on proficiency checks," and that "the team observed that orals are in general very brief, questions shallow, and the standard of knowledge low." The FAA Inspection team found documented cases of check airman failing to record unsatisfactory performances by Delta pilots. To the FAA, this constituted a violation of 14 CFR 121.401(c).

It was recommended that better documentation of unsatisfactory performance be maintained, and that "Delta's management needs to give serious consideration to the implications of tolerating minimum standards in training and on proficiency checks."

So basically, no one airline or operation is immune to problems or rough patches in their time. The best airline today, could've had a very rocky time before, and vice versa. Sometimes, the gyros need to be recaged at an organization.
 

MikeD

Administrator
Staff member
#95
Delta was basically instructed by the FAA to crap-can all their standardization and training, and essentially replace their program with that from Western Airlines.
 

Itchy

Well-Known Member
#96
For those in the dark, heres what I posted before about it...

Delta Air Lines got their ops audited by an FAA Special Inspection in the late 1980s (1987), with numerous accidents and incidents occurring in a short timeframe...within about 3 years.

Delta was re-inspected in 1988, and had instituted major changes in the below noted deficiencies by 1989.

- The Delta L-1011 that got about 60 miles off course on the North Atlantic Track, passing just underneath a CAL 747.
- Delta 767 departing LAX where Capt shuts down both engines, luckily restarting them prior to ditching into the Pacific. And then......continuing the flight to CVG.
- Delta jet wrong-airport landing, like has happened to other airlines, mistaking Frankfort Ky for Lexington.
- Delta jet landing on wrong parallel at CVG.
- Delta 191 landing accident DFW
- Delta 1141 takeoff accident DFW (post audit)


In part, the FAA's 1987 special inspection of Delta, which came about due to these incidents occurring in such a short timeframe, found items (at the time) such as "observed instances of a breakdown of communications, a lack of crew coordination, and lapses of discipline in Delta's cockpits." as well as a "...lack of organization, coordination, standardization and discipline in the cockpit that can be attributed to minimal guidance in the flight manuals and a lack of direction from those who develop, supervise and manage flight training and standardization programs"

Also noted by the inspection team were inadequate manuals and procedures, with a recommendation made that "Delta Air Lines study, develop, and publish specific crew duties for each crewmember. These functions should be placed in applicable manuals, and checking phases."

With regards to training, checking and standardization, it was observed that "on numerous occasions on which check airman conducted excessive training during check rides...." and that "Additionally, the 1987 special inspection team report noted that Delta's check airmen were not upholding a high level of standards on proficiency checks," and that "the team observed that orals are in general very brief, questions shallow, and the standard of knowledge low." The FAA Inspection team found documented cases of check airman failing to record unsatisfactory performances by Delta pilots. To the FAA, this constituted a violation of 14 CFR 121.401(c).

It was recommended that better documentation of unsatisfactory performance be maintained, and that "Delta's management needs to give serious consideration to the implications of tolerating minimum standards in training and on proficiency checks."

So basically, no one airline or operation is immune to problems or rough patches in their time. The best airline today, could've had a very rocky time before, and vice versa. Sometimes, the gyros need to be recaged at an organization.
I still remember David Letterman saying the flight engineers job was to “operate the blender”.
 

tcco94

Professional GTA V Pilot
#97
If the FAA gave a crap about safety, a lot of places would not be allowed to operate.
What do you mean by that? My experience flying in the 121 world and understanding just a little about maintenance procedures, it seems like they're pretty strict on 121 carriers. I'm still pretty new though, so I haven't dealt with the FAA to the same capacity as a lot here. I guess you could be saying what @Autothrust Blue said, they are just regulating you do the bare bones minimum. I'm not sure how colossally different maintenance procedures are at a legacy carrier to a place like Allegiant. My original comment was getting involved in this discussion was more that Allegiant seems to have improved from the doom and gloom going on around the 2015 time frame. It looks like from the FAA response the statistics show that's true.

I definitely don't think the FAA is some amazing governing group for safety. The whole situation with firing the pilot for the evac definitely raised some questions in my mind with management. I have wondered how AA and DL can operate older Maddogs that have less issues than Allegiant. No doubt makes me wonder a few things, but I'm just a little confused with how they're maintaining the airplane to a lesser value than another carrier that's not within regulations?

I still back my original comment that lately, it seems like they've begun to turn things around. Maybe not in the management house, but I see a lot less articles about Allegiant and failures other than something typical for an air carrier. The comment you quoted was more that I'm willing to have an open mind to be proven wrong that they are not improving safety and maintenance. Not that I was careless to things going on wrong around there. It came off in that tone, I think. Anyways, who knows maybe I'm wrong? I didn't mean to come off soft skinned to everyone.
 

SeanD

Well-Known Member
#99
What do you mean by that? My experience flying in the 121 world and understanding just a little about maintenance procedures, it seems like they're pretty strict on 121 carriers. I'm still pretty new though, so I haven't dealt with the FAA to the same capacity as a lot here. I guess you could be saying what @Autothrust Blue said, they are just regulating you do the bare bones minimum. I'm not sure how colossally different maintenance procedures are at a legacy carrier to a place like Allegiant. My original comment was getting involved in this discussion was more that Allegiant seems to have improved from the doom and gloom going on around the 2015 time frame. It looks like from the FAA response the statistics show that's true.

I definitely don't think the FAA is some amazing governing group for safety. The whole situation with firing the pilot for the evac definitely raised some questions in my mind with management. I have wondered how AA and DL can operate older Maddogs that have less issues than Allegiant. No doubt makes me wonder a few things, but I'm just a little confused with how they're maintaining the airplane to a lesser value than another carrier that's not within regulations?

I still back my original comment that lately, it seems like they've begun to turn things around. Maybe not in the management house, but I see a lot less articles about Allegiant and failures other than something typical for an air carrier. The comment you quoted was more that I'm willing to have an open mind to be proven wrong that they are not improving safety and maintenance. Not that I was careless to things going on wrong around there. It came off in that tone, I think. Anyways, who knows maybe I'm wrong? I didn't mean to come off soft skinned to everyone.

Judging by the link Skaning posted a page back, it doesn't appear they have done anything different. I just think the media has been too preoccupied with other news. Spend some time reading these. You may not have that same opinion after. It actually looks like it has gotten worse.

http://avherald.com/h?search_term=allegiant&opt=0&dosearch=1&search.x=0&search.y=0
 
Top