The Free Group Phone Counseling Session




Free group phone counseling with Capt Tom is from 10 PM - 11 PM Eastern time Wednesday nights.

• dial 641-527-4209


• when asked, enter 6337571#
  
  

You may then get a message
that the sponsor has not yet arrived. Don't hang up. Just
wait and the system will connect you to the chat within about
fifteen seconds.

Some using Voice Over IP phones and cell phones have had trouble getting in. Keep trying, or use a different phone.



==========

==========

The SOAR Library -- Now Open -- And Free



Articles for you on aviation and flight anxiety at www.fearofflying.com/wordpress/

==========

More On How The FAA "Works"



See full article by Terry Maxon at this link.



Regarding the MD-80 wiring harnesses, between 2005 and 2006, in response to a service bulletin American Airlines covered the bundle in a sheathing, and then tied the bundle and clamped it to the aircraft.



All the work was done - not only on time - but ahead of time. Very recently the FAA - which generally only looks at records - actually looked at some airplanes.



The  service bulletin called for a sheath to be tied onto the wire bundle, with ties no more than one inch apart. The licensed aircraft mechanics - who know what they are doing (unlike the FAA inspectors who are essentially accountants and know little or nothing about working on a plane) took certain latitudes as to where they tied that cord off.



There was nothing wrong with the way the mechanics did it, but the FAA inspectors termed it a

discrepancy. Here is a photo of the so-called problem.








Before Congress put heat on the FAA, this would not have been considered a discrepancy. In fact, the FAA inspectors would not have even looked at the actual work, but only looked at the record-keeping. 



But now, the FAA is trying to grandstand to the public that they are protecting the public even though what they are citing as discrepancies are not unsafe. This has nothing to do with safety. The FAA is deflecting the heat from Congress toward the airlines.



The following is taken from an interview with Dan Garton, American Airlines' executive vice president of marketing. As you will see, he is very circumspect to not say what is obvious.



So, first read what he says, and then I will translate it in less tactful English.



    Q. Did your mechanics not understand it or did they ignore it?

    A. It's a relatively significant engineering change order. It's about 30 pages. The mechanics understood it. When they accomplished it, they took what I would call certain latitudes in accomplishing it. My example would be where they tied those cords.



    I think what they didn't understand that there is a sort of greater focus on strict enforcement or strict compliance with the rules of the AD (Airworthiness Directive). The rules have gone to a very strict level of enforcement, and we will meet that and get the planes back in the air.



My comments: there was nothing wrong with the way the mechanics did the work. Any reasonable expert would recognize that, but the FAA is currently neither reasonable nor expert.



    Q. Is this a safety of flight issue?

    A. No, it is not because we have completed the AD. It's not a question of whether we completed it. It's more a focus on how we have completed it. We have worked very hard to make sure we've met the letter of the AD.



My comments: the work was fine before. It is fine now. The only change, thanks to the FAA, is that work now has to be accomplished so that no person - no matter how unreasonable - can find fault with it.



    Q. That's a contradiction. The AD requires these specific actions or there is a danger of sparking and fire.

    A. it is my understanding that provided the bundle is secure, you will not have that. But you are not in compliance with the airworthiness directive until you accomplish the letter of the law, and that's what we are now accomplishing.



My comments: any reasonable inspector would have recognized the way the mechanics did it originally was fine.



    Q. Any pilot will tell you an airworthiness directive is a matter of safety. Any mechanic will tell you. And yet American Airlines maintains this is a technical compliance issue.

    A. Meeting the requirements of the AD is a job we have to do, so we take responsibility to do that. It is my understanding that this is a question of how we did it, not whether we did it.



My comments: there is a difference between "technical" and "technicality". Technically the planes were fine, but in order to shift heat to the airlines, "technicalities" had to be found by the inspectors to make the public believe the FAA is protecting the air traveler.



    Q. If this is not a safety issue, why ground these airplanes immediately?

    A. That's a good question. It is a requirement to comply with airworthiness directives. If you're not in compliance, you must ground the aircraft. When the FAA concluded that we were not in compliance and this is what we had to do, we did it voluntarily because it is a requirement of the law that we do that if we are not in compliance.



My comments: the airline was already in compliance according to any reasonable and expert judgment. Reasonable no longer matters once the FAA goes into "Scapegoat Mode". Unreasonable inspections do not - in any way - enhance safety! In fact, as you will see, this undermines safety.



    Q. Were the guidelines clear?

    A. The directive is about 30 pages and it's very specific. If you could go through and understood how it pertained to the many different MD-80s that we have, you would be able to determine what was required.



In the past they have had certain latitudes to adjust to the realities of an airplane and to do the job they felt was required to make the aircraft safe.



We felt, our mechanics felt that they had greater latitude. They did not, and that was our mistake.



My comments: in other words, reasonable latitude no longer exists.



    Q. Are you saying there is a change in level of enforcement and inspection from FAA that there wasn't previously, that they're being tougher?

    A. I don't know if 'tougher' is the right language, but it appears there is a focus on extraordinarily strict adherence to specifics.



My comments: you want to know what the right language is? It would be language you would not use in polite company.



    Q. Is this a power play between the FAA and the airlines?

    A. I really can't comment on the FAA's position on Capitol Hill.



My comments: of course it is; what could be more obvious?



    Q. Will mechanics be disciplined for not doing it right?

    A. The mechanics understood what the objective of the airworthiness directive was. What they failed to recognize is that the specific details of how it had to be accomplished were going to be as strictly enforced as they now are. Now, we obviously understand, and that is the work that is going on right now.



    Q. Is the FAA nitpicking?

    A. I don't know what's going on at the FAA.



My comment: really? Everyone else does?



    Q. Are you saying in effect that what used to be good enough for the FAA isn't good enough?

    A. All I know is that from what I understand from talking to the maintenance people here, this is a new level of scrutiny as to exactly how you did it - where did you tie the cords?



My comments: paradoxically, all this attention is being given by the FAA to inspections in the U.S., and no attention is being given to work done outside the U.S. So, if you were an airline exec, what would you do? You would move ALL your maintenance outside U.S. where it can be done without any scrutiny by the FAA.



==========



Malfeasance Bordering On Corruption?



Committee Chair Rep. James Oberstar, D-Minn., said FAA managers displayed "malfeasance bordering on corruption," adding that if presented to a grand jury, the evidence would result in an indictment.



Full article at this link.



==========



But Wait! Patrick Says Everything Is Fine



Patrick emailed me that an op-ed piece he had written would be in the Sunday edition of the New York Times. I was eager to read it. Now, I am sorely disappointed both for what was said, and what cries out to be said that wasn't.



What was said: "The Federal Aviation Administration has worked with airlines and pilot unions very well over the years, studying problems and developing new technologies and protocols. The cargo-fire suppression systems developed after the ValuJet crash in the Everglades in 1996 and the Traffic Collision and Avoidance Systems hardware that monitors airspace to avoid mid-air collisions are two good examples in which carriers, pilots and Washington worked together to improve safety."



First, cargo-fires suppression systems were developed - not after the ValuJet crash by at least as far back as the 747. Patrick didn't fly the 747, so he may not have known, but it had a highly sophisticated cargo-fire detection and suppression system from the beginning.



You may possibly recall an article I wrote some time ago that the 747 cargo fire detection, though sophisticated, does have an occasional false alarm. British Airways took off from London with several prize pigs in the cargo compartment. As the story was told to me, the flight was headed for South Africa. Since there was no in-flight meal for the pigs - at least not the ones in the cargo compartment - they were fed just before they were boarded. After reaching cruise altitude, the cargo compartment fire alarm went off. The crew followed the checklist and discharged CO2 into the compartment and returned to London for landing. When they opened the cargo compartment, expecting to find some evidence of fire, they found only dead pigs. Apparently,following their big meal, the pigs passed gas which was mistaken by the cargo-fire detection system as smoke. So, without a doubt, the 747 had a cargo-fire suppression system decades before the ValuJet crash.



The Traffic Collision Avoidance System was required by law on all U.S. airliners by December of 1991, more than ten years before the FAA instituted its congenial approach.



Patrick says, "None of the grounded aircraft, it seems, was in a dangerous condition, and it's extremely unlikely that lives were ever put at risk." That I agree with, but when he says, "The planes were taken from service as a preventive measure . . . ." I disagree. The planes did not need to be taken out of service; the problem at American Airlines was nothing more than cords wrapped around wire bundles at one-and-a-quarter inch (in some cases) instead of one inch. Since this spacing had no impact on safety whatsoever, the only reason for grounding the planes was political - to make the public think that the FAA is doing its job when it isn't.



And this is where I have a major disagreement with Patrick. To read his op-ed, it sounds like we just need to let the FAA and the airline execs get together now and then to sing "Cum-by-yah" and safety will continue as it has in the past six years since no major airline has crashed.



Well, how major is major? A full-fleged jet airliner crashed at Lexington, Kentucky in August of 2006. Somehow the idea that it was a "major" airliner doesn't strike me as reason to ignore it, particularly since pilot fatigue has been implicated, something the FAA has done nothing about, and says is not their problem.



When, in addition to the Lexington fatigue issue, we have two incidents in which pilots fell asleep and flew past their destination, doesn't it seem worthy of mention that significant serious problems remain?



And might one or two words be said about runway incursions? Though we have not had an accident with a "big" airliner, it was only sheer luck that prevented an Airborne Express DC-8 cargo plane from ramming into a 767 that wandered onto a runway at JFK in 2005. It was also sheer luck that prevented similar incursions causing crashes at Los Angeles and Boston.



The FAA has, for years, said reducing runway incursions is their number one priority. Then, since nothing has been done, let's not ask about their second and third priority. But the fact is, the FAA's number one priority is politics. Its job is to make the public believe the safety job is getting done. It isn't getting done, at least, not by the FAA, and since Patrick knows that, I am sorely disappointed he did not use his turn on the soapbox for something useful.



Oh, yes. And since the FAA is being extreme in its scapegoating - as someone on the message board said, "I hate it when the umpire moves the 'strike zone' during the game", what is any smart airline CEO going to do to deal with the FAA? Simply move ALL maintenance overseas. Why? Because though the FAA is absurdly strict - for the past month or so - with airline maintenance in the U.S., it doesn't bother to look at maintenance done outside the country at all.



But if I am wrong, and none of these things need action by the FAA, join Patrick in a chorus of "Cum-by-yah" and that will help everything feel just fine.



You can read the full op-ed piece at this link.



==========



If You Read This Newsletter Primarily For Reassurance



Fear of flying programs which are run by pilots who know little about psychology are based on the idea that if people know how safe airline flying is, they will have no problem. They base that on their own psychology which may, however, be decidedly different than the psychology of non-pilots.



Pilots find it easy to face the fact that there is one crash in five-million flights. Such a rare event hardly registers in the mind of a pilot. But for an anxious passenger, that one crash (in five-million) is ALL that registers in the mind.



That is what SOAR deals with. How do we, even though we know flying is not absolutely safe, deal with that slight - but real - uncertainty? We know how to make that small uncertainty something you CAN deal with emotionally.



We don't reassure based on illusion, such as "nothing can happen to you", or "flying is absolutely safe". We deal with the real issues. Flying, like everything else, is not 100% safe.



This program is for people who want to know the facts of life, and even if the facts are not completely reassuring, how to deal with the facts.



==========



$1200 Virtual Reality Therapy Doesn't Work



Hello Captain Tom,



I just have to write and say thank you again for helping me to enjoy flying.  It's been two years since I took your course and I haven't stopped flying.  Just returned from a cross county flight from ATL to San Fran.  I now can say I do enjoy it!  I've even had some people say that I must have not really had a fear.  HA!  I had gone 25 years without flying. Really became fearful when I was in college.  It grew progressively worse and I just stopped.  Before SOAR, I went thru Virtual Reality counseling thru Emory University/Georgia Tech.  Very expensive and did nothing for my fear.  I then decided that I was going to do SOAR and just try it.  I have to say I didn't think it would work.  How could something that didn't cost alot, not face to face with someone work.  But it did.  I now look at flying as me time.  It's a time when I can't get a phone call or do anything else.  I've enjoyed using this time to catch up on my reading and to get excited about the places I am going!



Again, thank you so much for providing help for fearful flyers!!!

==========

You, Too, Can Fix The Flying Problem -- Maybe Even The Roller Coaster Problem -- Now

Get started with the program that works. SOAR
was established in 1982 because no programs existed which could help
people with moderate to severe difficulties. Even today, no other
program offers help that is effective except for mild difficulties. No
matter how difficult flying is for you, we can help.



Full Length Course



We have the full length SOAR Video Course on 11 DVDs and we have the accelerated FastTrack course. The full length course provides the maximum help possible. More info.

FastTrack



FastTrack is for you if you have a flight coming up soon, even tomorrow! It includes three hours of the most important video clips from the full length course. More FastTrack info.

Get started now. The SOAR FastTrack program can be on your computer's screen in two minutes.

• Fast Track is inexpensive.
  


• Fast Track gives you the most help possible in the shortest time.
  


• A twenty-minute private session and unlimited group counseling sessions are included.
  
  


• What you pay for Fast Track is 100% transferable to the complete SOAR Course DVD or CD.

iPod Or Other Media Players

Complete a compact (about five hours) version of the SOAR Course on the go. Download it to your computer. Play it on
your computer, iPod or other media player. More info.

Which To Choose

If you are unsure which is best for you, please call me at 877 332-7359 so we can talk it over. You will feel better as soon as you decide to act.

We
are always here to help. As you go through the program, call or email whenever you
have a question or a concern.

==========

Mystic Connectcut SOARFest

Join Lisa for a New England get together in Mystic, Connecticut, on
Saturday, May 10.  Reservations have been made for the SOARFest at the
Daniel Packer Inn in downtown Mystic.  It is located on the Mystic
River within walking distance of historic Mystic's quaint shops and
areas of nautical interest, including Mystic Seaport Museum.



The meeting begins in the Captain's Room at 5:30 p.m. for cocktails, and the
dinner will be served at 7:00 p.m.  A cheese and fruit
selection is provided during cocktails, but all drinks before the dinner are cash
bar only.



The price for the dinner, which will include red and white wine, is
$75.00 per person.  Space is limited, so reserve as soon as possible.  Click here to reserve. For more info email lisa@fearofflying.com

 

==========