There are cases where aviation products have not been improved, because the "improvement" might be used as evidence that the earlier edition was "defective."

I'd like to see an example of this with some proof. I don't doubt that it occurred, but, generally an improvement to a product does not imply that the earlier version was defective. Of course, if it truly was defective, the failure rate would demand the improvement immediately.

CBA isn't the only decision criteria. What about when it's right thing to do?

Tell me how to define that phrase and I'll probably agree with you.

They said the same things about brakes on cars.

And seat belts.

Wut?

I'm not disagreeing with you. Al I'm saying is that I prefer some rational basis for adding to the cost of a product. Got a good argument favoring a goose blaster? Let's see it.

B

As of late Sunday night...
 

It looks like US Air is taking the high road on this incident and letting the pilot have an interview on the Today show on Monday.

I have NEVER heard of an operator being allowed to speak to the press, so US Air must be prepared to stand behind their crew. Normally, for legal reasons, the involved operator is not allowed to make ANY public statement since every word they say will likely be looked by lawyers for anyone wanting to sue. Some reporter wanted to ask the pilot a question yesterday as he went from one place to another and one of his handlers shouted out, "No chance!" From what I have seen this is the normal response to any request, now or in the future. It looks like this time they were just too busy to stop.

I know several people who have been involved in transportation incidents, and they will all tell you that you have about three seconds to make a decision and then act on it. This incident could have gone wrong in a lot of ways, but the entire crew found a way to make it go right; a vary rare feat. But I bet all of the crew are still asking themselves, "Is there something I could have done better?"

I'm sorry if a lot of my comments have sounded rather caustic, but I guess I have seen too many times when money became the overall reason that actions were taken. But then, when you are talking about amounts that can top $200,000,000, there are some people that think doing the right thing for people is unimportant, or that doing the right thing is related to the bottom line. Hopefully other transportation companies will see how US Air is responding to this incident and learn something from them about taking care of your employees and the public.

Oh, yeah, someone asked me to identify "them" . I was refering to business people and lawyers that put money above reducing the suffering of the affected after an incendent. If you don't know anyone like this I could introduce you to a few, but I won't.

Pooka

Not a definition but...
The right thing here would be to learn from what happened and try to replicate it in other life-threatening situations. The wrong thing would be to find fault with the airline-pilot-airplane-you-name-it and go after them for a monetary settlement.

Highly subjective, this is.

No No No. You can't do that.
 

Retrofitting any turbofan engine inlet as to screen out the possibility of bird ingestion is about as silly as retrofitting all automobiles with quick deploying flotation bags based on the fact that sometimes people drive off into the water and drowned in their cars. :rolleyes:

Now that that fact is stated, here’s another: It’s not about the probabilities of ingestion. It’s not about costs to retrofit engines. It's not about a little performance loss. Nor how big a bird the engine can handle. It’s about… It wont work.

I would have thought BC would have mentioned this fact:
You simply can not put any type of screen in front of a moving engine inlet. You can on the ground. But not if it’s moving through the air.

Remember back in elementary school science class, when the teacher put a steel screen over a burning candle and the flame wouldn't pass through it? That’s the same issue you have here. At high speed, with a screen or grid in front of an engine inlet, you would develop a boundary layer of air ahead of that screen that would totally block the needed air going into that engine. :eek: Oops...Not good. :D

And even if it could be done. Something else not mentioned here is the need to counter icing issues. But then, that’s actually irrelevant now isn't it?

The closest thing I’ve seen so far as equipment designed to prevent engine intake air form FOD issues was from Boeing on a fleet of 737-200s that we delivered for use on gravel runways and tarmacs in Alaska. Boeing installed both a gravel deflector (what we called a “ski”) on the nose wheel to prevent it from throwing up gravel (Water. Mud. Muck. Slush. You name it.). And what was called a “vortex dissipater” tube that blew bleed air out in front of the engine intake. It was a pipe that stuck out about three feet from the bottom of the lower inlet cowl and blew air down and aft. It was designed to prevent the engine from sucking up gravel. These mods were all about ground issues. Not birds on takeoff. Also. Keep in mind that whenever you use any bleed air on takeoff or climb there is a serious performance penalty to be paid.

I hate to poop on the inlet screen party here. But - Sorry.
If it could be done. It would have been done long ago.

R. Leo:

I agree with you 100%.

Sadly, about the only time I have seen the improvements implimented is when the DOT or FAA threatens to shut you down if you don't.

It has been awhile since I have been involved in DOT audits (where they come in and look at your record keeping and methods of operation) but they usually find a few problems and write you up for them. This is sort of like a Health Department inspection of a cafe, and most of the problems found are very minor. Their report calls them 'suggestions' and they are nromally for things that you might never think of unless someone pointed them out to you.

But it does not matter if they call them suggestions; they are mandatory changes you must make if you wish to stay in operation.

I was once with a very major oil company that studied any of these audits that were made public and then studied their own operation to see if they could improve it based on what was found at other companies. This cost a lot, but our audit results were usually only one line that read, "We find no fault in your operations."

It is always cheaper to spend the money up front and prevent an incident than to deal with one after the fact. As one of our lawyers once told me, "It is not hard for a plantaiff's lawyer to find twelve people that don't like oil companies."

Pooka

I KNEW it! I agree with you.

OK, I got the stuff right here: put on a guard, and retrofit each plane with tanks and delivery system for liquid oxygen so as to have sufficient oxygen on takeoff. Wouldn't cost too much, would it? :wacko:

The skill and quick action of the pilot and crew are/were exemplary. Taking nothing away from them, the dark side of this story is that the very real potential exists for fuel laden jet liners to go plowing into city buildings because of random and virtually unavoidable encounters with geese.

More of my ax-grinding but I wonder at the complexity that we've convinced ourselves that we just cannot do without. It becomes more and more an expected part of life, one that we take for granted.

So here we are, flying coast to coast for often flimsy reasons, *****ing about the in-flight food and the 15 minute wait to get luggage upon disembarking. And a horrible de-facto lottery going on full time, one in which the unlucky have their house turned into a raging inferno w/o warning.

I love your last line!

First, I am not suggesting a retrofit. That seems impossible to pull off.

Designing an engine with some type of screening or deflection device is simply a matter of making it a part of the performance requirements.

Surely if we can put men on the moon we can prevent geese from bringing down airliners filled with human beings.

Saying its impossible is easy...and no effort will be made as long as people say that.