American Airlines Flight 191

647 Words2 Pages

Chesley Sullenberger once said, “My message going forward is that I want to remind everyone in the aviation industry, especially those who manage aviation companies and those who regulate aviation, that we owe it to out passengers to keep learning how to do it better.” I, personally, couldn’t agree more. There’s always room for improvement, and there’s always things regulatory agencies could do to better promote safety.
American Airlines Flight 191 is a perfect example of how regulatory agencies react to accidents to be more proactive in their duty to promote safety. On takeoff of American Airlines Flight 191, the left engine and pylon separated causing uncommanded retraction of the left wing slats. This resulted in an unidentifiable, asymmetrical stall and ultimately led to crash. The NTSB concluded that the separation of the left engine and pylon was caused by unapproved and incomplete maintenance procedures. In order to prevent a similar occurrence in the future, the FAA increased their observations of maintenance procedures and mandated that stall warning stick-shakers to be installed on both …show more content…

For example, Part 117 Flight-Time Limitations and Rest Requirements (Part 117) is an amendment by the FAA to existing flight duty and rest requirements. The amendment works by recognizing the risks associated with fatigue on the safety of airline travel. It mitigates these risks by restricting the number of hours flown and the amount of hours an airline pilot is on duty. It, also, increases the amount of hours a pilot must be on rest in between duty periods. Unfortunately, the FAA only recognizes the importance of fatigue on passenger pilots and neglects to be concerned with cargo operations. Being that I’m a captain at a cargo airline, I find this lack of concern unacceptable and a giant risk to

More about American Airlines Flight 191

Open Document