United adds another layer to cockpit security

[ QUOTE ]
I think El Al has like 60 flights a day. It's a hell of a lot easier to secure that airline and to implement their security screening program with that kind of schedule. To put it in perspective, I'll bet that Delta operates more flights out of ATL in one hour than El Al operates all day! And American and United each do the same in ORD! Southwest probably does that as well at BWI!

Those who say, do it like El Al do not realize that their model is simply not scalable to the US. You've got a much bigger country, with a lot more people, and a lot more flights operating.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a good point and one that many have made and that I agree with. On the other hand when an airline like this has successfully stood off terrorism for decades, they may have a few tips to offer us.

I've never thought profiling was "the" answer in the US. But I sure think it is part of it. And all official comments aside I'll bet we are doing it. Again I'll bet you a doughnut that it was no accident the FAMs were on the NWA flight with the Syrians.
 
Of course we're going to pay more attention to people who come from suspect countries who have strange itineraries. That's to be expected.

But profiling is the easiest form of prevention to defeat. It even bit the Israelis in the butt. To prevent suicide bombers from getting through, they were looking for Palestinian men. So the terrorists started using women and the first few slipped through.

Look at the tape of the hijackers taken at IAD. They looked just like any other guy on his way for a business trip. That's what the terrorists will do next time -- it won't be a guy with a beard and turban, it will be a guy who looks like he's on his way to a trade show or business meeting.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Look at the tape of the hijackers taken at IAD. They looked just like any other guy on his way for a business trip. That's what the terrorists will do next time -- it won't be a guy with a beard and turban, it will be a guy who looks like he's on his way to a trade show or business meeting.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm confused. The 9/11 hijackers looked like "any other guy on his way for a business trip" so next time instead of wearing a turban and having a beard, they're going to look like " he's on his way to a trade show or business meeting"?

Come on, I kid.

On a related note there's a new book coming out called "Flying Blind" by Michael Smerconish about the whole profiling issue. Supposedly takes in the 9/11 commission findings and talks to a lot of airline people.
 
[ QUOTE ]
it will be a guy who looks like he's on his way to a trade show or business meeting.

[/ QUOTE ]

You just can't trust those damn guys!!

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
I'm confused. The 9/11 hijackers looked like "any other guy on his way for a business trip" so next time instead of wearing a turban and having a beard, they're going to look like " he's on his way to a trade show or business meeting"?

[/ QUOTE ]

You got it.

They won't send 14 Syrians. Why? It stands out too much and invites attention.

Nope, it will be boring, average, every day people.

If they even try the hijack model again.
 
I'm thinking celebrity impersonators!

"Hey! That's TV's Jerry Mathers! He's just banging on the cockpit door to say hi to the pilots! Come on, Beav! Let 'em alone!"
 
And if they get the right celebrity impersonators......say, like, oh, I dunna, the latest big name adult movie star.....
 
[ QUOTE ]

They were "approved" procedures and were being used by at least three DC-10 operators.

[/ QUOTE ]

American used an unapproved procedure, and as such, bore the full responsibility for anything that went wrong with that procedure. Had American not been using their own procedure of removing/installing the engine and pylon assembly as one unit, there wouldn't have been the opportunity for the maintenance error to happen. When you venture out on your own with your own procedures, all bets are off, you assume the full brunt of responsibility and liability.
Excerpt from NTSB AAR 79-17:

American Airlines personnel contacted McDonnell Douglas personnel about this procedure. According to the American Airlines' manager of production for the Boeing 747 and DC-10 in Tulsa, Oklahoma, who participated in the development of the maintenance procedures, a McDonnell-Douglas field service representative stated that McDonnell-Douglas did not know of any carrier that was removing the engine and pylon as single unit. He said that the field service representative conveyed concern "in reference to clearances to me." However, he
assumed that these clearances involved those between the clevis and the fore and aft faces of the aft pylon bulkhead's spherical bearing.

The McDonnell-Douglas field service representative who was contacted by Amencan's personnel stated that he conveyed American's intentions to his superiors. According to him, "Douglas would not encourage this procedure due to the element of risk irvolved in the remating of the combined engine and pylon assembly to the wing attach points" and that American Airlines' personnel were so advised.

[ QUOTE ]

The airline always buys it. It's the nature of the business. The lawyers make sure of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm no fan of lawyers, but American bears the burden of responsibility in this case, plain and simple. As I stated before, had the maintenance error would very likely not occurred had the non-standard practice not been being used. One act led to the other. United was using a crane to remove the engine/pylon asssemblies from their DC-10s, but lucky for them, American "bought the bullet" from having an accident happen to them before it had the chance to happen to United. United changed their engine change practice to the McDonnell-Douglas recommended practice shortly after AA 191s loss.

[ QUOTE ]

The airlines take and have taken "this stuff" very seriously. They have engineering departments that rival the manufactureres. They spend a fortune on preventative maintenance and the final proof is that their safety record in this area has been undeniably stellar.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're kidding, right? You really believe airlines spend a fortune on safety? They don't care any more about you than they do me or anyone else. $$$ are the bottom line, and if it'll save more money in the long run to install a safety device or measure than they'll implement it, if not, then they don't care. As Bill Waldock put it, "if it's cheaper to save you, they'll save you; if it's cheaper to kill you, they'll kill you."

[ QUOTE ]

But there is no perfection anywhere when it comes to men and machinery. And when "journalists" try to sensationalize and make something sound criminally negligent and try to imply that the industry is full of evil people who will put customer's lives at risk for a dime, well I hope that on a forum like this we can put it in perspective. The airlines have to take these airplanes and operate them safely and at a profit, or there is no industry. The manufacturers have no such responsibility and have recognized for a long time that this is an area that the airlines excell at, not they. The safety record speaks for itself and as horrific as the 191 was, if that airplane had been designed properly those people would be alive today. And even that design flaw was a mistake, not a murderous plot to save a few bucks. The hysterical finger pointing is for journalists and especially lawyers. They painted this "criminal" picture and the History Channel ran with it. We're industry professionals or hopefuls. We should know better.
.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't like lawyers and press any more than you do. At the same time, airlines have to take responsibility for their actions when appropriate. You already mentioned you're biased towards airlines and engineers, I'm biased towards the truth. Media BS and sensationalism aside, American screwed the pooch on this one, plain and simple. There were tertiary factors such as hydraulics design on the DC-10 and AAs engine-out operating procedures. But in the end, AAs desire to save 200 maintenance man hours, ie- cut a corner in terms of time and ultimately money using a non-approved maintenance procedure, cost 271 lives.
 
[ QUOTE ]

The airlines take and have taken "this stuff" very seriously. They have engineering departments that rival the manufactureres. They spend a fortune on preventative maintenance and the final proof is that their safety record in this area has been undeniably stellar.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
You're kidding, right? You really believe airlines spend a fortune on safety? They don't care any more about you than they do me or anyone else. $$$ are the bottom line, and if it'll save more money in the long run to install a safety device or measure than they'll implement it, if not, then they don't care. As Bill Waldock put it, "if it's cheaper to save you, they'll save you; if it's cheaper to kill you, they'll kill you."

[/ QUOTE ]

No I'm not kidding at all. My experience in the industry has strongly reinforced the fact that it is full of good people with a common bond, to deliver safe air transportation. I've seen none of what you are talking about here. I've known many in highly responsible positions and don't know one that has the capacity to think in those terms. And frankly, if it were the case the industry could not possibly have established the safety record it has.

But with that viewpoint I do understand how we see this incident so differently. Where I'm more likely to see honest mistakes, you will be more likely to see criminal negligence or SOP for the industry. It's probably a difference we can't resolve. But I respect your point of view while finding it completely foreign to my experience.

And I definitely respect the job you are now doing. I'm in awe of it.

Dave
 
I think that even the bean counters would say, hmmm.....save a few hundred thousand or risk losing a $40 million plane and face huge lawsuits. And then they'd opt for the extra $100K or so.

But maybe I don't think like the bean counters. Lord knows I don't think like them at my current company.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top