Crash of Flight 111

[WebbPA]

On Nova tonight

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/aircrash/

[Scottler]

Remember it like it was yesterday.

I was in Houston, Texas for six weeks of inflight training.  Ironically, we'd spent that day at the pool learning water survival.  Got back to the hotel to catch this on the news.

It sent a chill up the spine of the entire class.

[Politically Incorrect]

I saw that last night, very interesting.
There was allot of work put into the investigation.
And it sounded to me like the  FAA is more or less saying that it is thier fault becuase of testing standards.
Hasn't any airplane manufacturer ever thought of putting in a "self-extinguisher" (probably not what it is called) something that when it detects extreme heat or smoke that will set it off?
If not they need too look into it, with technology the way it is today I'm sure there is some system that could prevent future "hidden" fires.

[Scottler]

Interesting.  Why would the FAA accept responsibility for the crash of a Swiss-owned aircraft in Canada?

[Jared]

:-( it was very interesting...:-(  

[Politically Incorrect]

Interesting.  Why would the FAA accept responsibility for the crash of a Swiss-owned aircraft in Canada?

I missed a little of the program (bathroom break and PBS doesn't have commercials )
But if I remember correctly it was FAA testing procedures used for the insulation that was used in the plane that was at fault.
I hope WebbPA can clairify this a little more!!

[WebbPA]

I only watched the show - I didn't produce it.

My take was that FAA assisted the Canadians and Swiss in the investigation at their request.

The FAA was "at fault" because its testing procedures and therefore its minimum standards were 30 years out of date.  Since so many airlines go in and out of the US its standards are a de facto world standard.  There would be nothing to prevent a manufacturer or foreign country from imposing stricter standards.

So in essence, Switzerland and Canada said, "If it's good enough for the US it's good enough for us" and Boeing said, "If the government says it's safe it must be safe".

[Politically Incorrect]

That is what I got from it, I just wanted too be sure I wasn't starting to mislead anyone.
Pretty scary that many other countries take what we do as gold Just goes too show what the US Goverment belives is best isn't always so.

[Scottler]

Ahh, that makes sense.  (Didn't see the show!)

Just goes too show what the US Goverment belives is best isn't always so.

No, it shows that the US Government (as all governments) is made up of humans, capable of forming opinions, drawing conclusions and sometimes making mistakes.

[Hagar]

I obviously didn't watch the documentary but I did read the investigation report. As the aircraft involved was of US manufacture the FAA takes responsibility for licencing it. They are also responsible for recommending remedial action based on the investigators' reports following an accident. In too many instances with similar disasters the authorities of all countries seem reluctant to take any action that would affect powerful commercial interests like the big aircraft manufacturers. You can imagine the inconvenience if whole fleets of airliners were grounded all over the world - not to mention the huge costs involved.

This has been going on for years & the investigators recommendations are all too often ignored. The same is true of control problems with some Boeing types when the manufacturer consistently denied anything was wrong until after several serious incidents & fatalities had occurred. It's all too easy to put the blame on a dead pilot. I also recall the fuel pump problem that had been identified before the TWA Boeing 747 crashed off the coast of Long Island on July 17, 1996. If the proper preventative measures had been taken when they should have this would not have happened. http://www.nydailynews.com/front/breaking_news/story/165276p-144744c.html

This is the prime reason as it always has been. Money & profit is far more important than lives & public safety.

In 2001, a government-industry task force concluded it would be too expensive - up to $20 billion - to retrofit airliners with the equipment necessary to pump nonflammable nitrogen into fuel tanks.

[Scorpiоn]

I saw the program, but at at the conclusion I felt that pressure building in your temples...

There's nothing that pisses me off worse than big buisiness disregaurding everything except money.

[Brown]

That makes me sad to hear that  :-[

[Scottler]

There's nothing that pisses me off worse than big buisiness disregaurding everything except money.

Unfortunately, that's what business is about.  They all do it.  McDonald's isn't exactly the healthiest food around, but they put it out there why?  To make a dollar or two.

Tobacco companies know what they're producing can be lethal, but they do it.  Why?  To make a dollar or two.

What about automobile manufacturers?  They make cars which kill thousands every year.  Why do they press on?  To make a dollar or two.

Unfortunately, people are going to die.  People are going to die from using products that are, for the most part, safe.  

Even a hair drier can be fatal, if something goes horribly, horribly wrong.

When a consumer dies as a result of using something, regardless of what it is, it should serve as a reminder that we can not avoid our own mortality.

[Hagar]

[quote]Unfortunately, people are going to die.

[Scorpiоn]

Oh, if they can develop a scheme to lure teens to flock with the cash in their pockets, they could find a way to fix a dang problem.  Nobody says they need to say, "Hey, we're going replace this super flammable insulation with some other stuff we don't know about, just so we can get the old stuff the heck outta there.  Yeah, it's that dangerous." Untested stuff should be better than dangerous stuff. Just lie or something, "Due to the age of the B737-500 fleet, the aluminum of the leading edge of rudder must be replaced to correct minor deficiencies in aerodynamic harmony." Nobody would ask questions then.  Greed is the only thing to explain it.
I once was angry about people's frivolous lawsuits against companies, but the way companies screw the little guys over, nature's taking over.  I've always said the most fundamental thing about nature is it maintains an equilibrium.  Anyone up for a lawsuit against GM or Wal-Mart?

Although seriously, the first president who taxes 20% more off the rich than the poor, he's got one more voter.  I think they can live with only 19 instead of 21 gas guzzling Escalades, Hummers, Limos and antiques.