Mechanical Problems

As an Alaska Airlines MD-80 captain, I take strong exception to your Feb. 11 editorial pertaining to the crash of Flight 261. I knew Capt. Ted Thompson and First Officer Bill Tansky very well. No one could have been more “freely focused on safety” than they; and any assertion to the contrary is a baseless lie.

Your characterization that they “struggled” with the problem for two hours seems a highly charged choice of words. You weren’t there. Flying the airplane without the autopilot has never been considered a reason for an emergency diversion, absent other extraordinary factors. Bear in mind, there has never been an accident like this in the history of the MD-80 fleet, worldwide.

Your gratuitous statement that “it’s highly premature to suggest that the pilots erred,” seems designed to do just that. I have never felt pressured to “remain on schedule” at the expense of safety--ever; and no pilot I know would ever compromise the safety of his or her passengers or crew.

The Times asserts that “aircraft captains are not mechanics.” Indeed! But not every problem pilots encounter is covered in a checklist. Trouble-shooting problems is what we are trained (highly trained, I might add) to do.

NICK DAFFERN

Bellevue, Wash.

*

Re “Number of Jets With Mechanism Problem Rises to 19,” Feb. 13: The inspections ordered by the FAA of MD-80 series aircraft turning up an unusually high number of planes with the same problem forces us to a single conclusion. Periodic detail maintenance inspections are either inadequate, not often enough or both.

How many other sleeping problems are there, waiting for another Flight 261? Airliners are supposed to be inspected part by part, bolt by bolt on a periodic basis, in addition to routine maintenance. How this problem slipped through the inspection process should also be investigated.

ROBERT BRONSTEIN

La Crescenta