United adds another layer to cockpit security

[flyover]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the only mention of saving money in the context of airline maintenance was made in this post: American Airlines Flight 191 and I think MikeD did a really good job of explaining the surrounding context. I certainly wouldn't call that thread a melee.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's exactly the one I was talking about. There was a lot of angst over the fact that American (and most DC-10 operators) used a procedure "not approved" by Douglas. Some called it criminal.

I just spent about an hour talking to the guy who ran D's engine shop for decades. He was telling me all the ways they found to extend engine life and reduce fuel burn, all "not approved" by P&W, Rolls Royce or GE. Of course they, in most cases, more than doubled the engine lives over what the manufactureres methods were. Sometimes they would take a coating or material that Rolls Royce used, as an example, and start using it in the P&Ws. The FAA would tell them to run it in the stand for awhile and if it checked out, do it.

[Doug Taylor]

I think the point that MikeD was getting across that AA's non-approved method of remounting the engines, which was shown to be a causal factor of the engine mount failing, killed a couple hundred people.

It's kind of hard to read, but the NTSB report says it right here.

[flyover]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the point that MikeD was getting across that AA's non-approved method of remounting the engines, which was shown to be a causal factor of the engine mount failing, killed a couple hundred people.

It's kind of hard to read, but the NTSB report says it right here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. The point I was trying to make was that "not approved by the manufacturer" was a sensational headline for the media and fodder for the lawyers, but absolutely meaningless in the world of commercial aviation. Day in and day out, the airlines tend to do it better and cheaper than the manufacturer methodology.

[Doug Taylor]

But amazingly meaningful to about 271 people that afternoon! [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[flyover]

[ QUOTE ]
But amazingly meaningful to about 271 people that afternoon! [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I still contend that it took the original hydraulic/flight control design flaw plus the maintenance error to cause this crash. Remove the maintenace error and THAT crash doesn't happen, but with the design flaw eventually one of these airplanes was coming down. So I'd put more weight on that.

But the way the history channel made it sound, using maintenance procedures "not approved" by the manufacturer was in itself negligent, when in fact it is an industry standard.

[danielsexton]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess if the point is that UAL should put this money to "saving jobs" then I have to ask, is it OK if they cut corners in other safety areas? After all there are many areas of safety where there is probably enough redundancy to cut back.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm, when I included the sentence "not a emergency or mandated repair" I was referring to maintenance. Guess I should have made that a little more clear, sorry.

[ QUOTE ]
And, by the way, Islamic fundamentalists in Russia just simultaneously took two airliners down in a coordinated attack. Seems like aviation is still in their playbook.

[/ QUOTE ]

Riiight, and which news agency has reported that there was a cockpit intrusion that resulted in these planes being flown into buildings. Or how that an explosion set off by a suicide bomber could have been prevented by a wire fence next to the cockpit door. Terrorists have traditionally used airliners as place to carry out there acts because you have such a large “captive audience” and I am sure they will in the future, but shoe bombs and suicide belts can’t be prevented with cockpit fences. The terrorists are creative in thinking stuff up and so must we be in prevention.

[ QUOTE ]
Well it if is "well and good" then taking the final, logical step to secure the cockpit shouldn't be a controversial issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

It’s a great idea, but it’s an extra option, I am sure there a billions of other extra features that could increase safety. As Doug said there are already measures in place for leaving the cockpit. The doors are already secured. People will fight back this time. The plane will be shot down before reaching a target. TSA already takes your finger nail clippers.

After all if United doesn't get out of the red soon most of these planes with there fancy cockpit fence will be in the desert. I say wait until you return to profitability and have some extra money to install this option. UAL has to realize there not the US Government, they can't continue to spend more than they make forever.


[ QUOTE ]
gov't and industry seem to be putting way too much emphasis on preventing another 9/11 (and giving the people a false sense of security) and too little emphasis on stopping whatever the terrorists are going to do next.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly Right. The reason why they caught us so off guard with 9/11, no one had ever fathomed it. We were still looking for old fashioned car bombs, while they turned an airliner into a guided missile. If we don't stop with the window dressing, we'll be looking for old fashioned airliners used as guided missiles while they ____________________________.

[Doug Taylor]

I said we had security measures employed, but I didn't specifically state that I thought they were sufficient! [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] "Good", yes, but "sufficient", I'm not too sure.

Here are some of my suggestions:

(a) More FAM's.

(b) Make it easier for pilots to join the FFDO program

(c) Better screening of passengers (biometrics are good, but terroristic tendencies aren't a genetic trait)

(d) A paradigm shift in attitudes.
* If there is another attempt to comandeer control of an aircraft, it isn't going t be a dark skinned middle eastern-looking person, it's going to potentially be someone you've never suspect in a million years -- ask the Russians about that one.

* More information. Let the general public know that no elected official is going to keep them safe -- security is a job for US ALL and isn't a political issue (don't get me started).

* Terrorism isn't going away. Israel has been fighting it tooth and nail since 1949 and 55 years later it's not a whole lot different.

(e) Creation of a non-partisan, 'action group' of sorts working with the FBI, CIA, NSA that only focuses on threats to air/land/sea transportation. Non-partisan meaning that it gets appointed with a new political croanie every change of president.

[FlyingFish]

[ QUOTE ]
Make it easier for pilots to join the FFDO program


[/ QUOTE ]

Is the process hard? I don't know a whole lot about it...

[Joe]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems like this will allow the pilots to actually get up and take a crap without worrying about starting a big stink.

[/ QUOTE ]
Pun intended? [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Bog]

I'm waiting to see if the A380 and 7E7 will have flight decks which are well secured.

[flyover]

[ QUOTE ]
it's going to potentially be someone you've never suspect in a million years -- ask the Russians about that one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except that the women that attacked their planes were such a well known and common profile they had a moniker "Black Widows".

[ QUOTE ]
Terrorism isn't going away. Israel has been fighting it tooth and nail since 1949 and 55 years later it's not a whole lot different.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually terrorism has seen a significant decline in Isreal. And their airline has operated free of terror. Their number one weapon being intelligent profiling. But agree it's for the long haul.

Your other points are right on. I might de-emphasize FAMs in favor of lots and lots of FFDO.s. Much more cost-effective.

[kellwolf]

[ QUOTE ]
And their airline has operated free of terror.

[/ QUOTE ]

I heard a rumour once that El Al pretty much had no schedule. You just showed up, and at some point they said "Let's go." Kinda hard to hit that plane from a terrorist point of view, but it also really sucks from the passenger side. I guess it's that whole security/rights thing.

[tonyw]

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.

[MikeD]

[ QUOTE ]


Yeah, I still contend that it took the original hydraulic/flight control design flaw plus the maintenance error to cause this crash. Remove the maintenace error and THAT crash doesn't happen, but with the design flaw eventually one of these airplanes was coming down. So I'd put more weight on that.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'll give the maintenance error, but the leading edge slats were torn away because the engine departed the aircraft in a way it wasn't designed to do. It departed in that way because of the type of damage sustained during installation that wouldn't have happened had the engine/pylon not been installed in a one-piece manner with a forklift. Any way you want to look at it, the corner-cutting maintenance practice created an unforeseen damage possibility that very likely wouldn't have existed had the established procedures been used.

[ QUOTE ]

But the way the history channel made it sound, using maintenance procedures "not approved" by the manufacturer was in itself negligent, when in fact it is an industry standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure they sensationalized it a bit, but when the "non-approved" maintenace practices work, no one notices. The minute it goes wrong (as in 191s case), then the airline buys it. Roll the dice to save time/money and you can win, but when you hit the snake eyes, you buy the fault. American's maintenance practice was perfectly legal, it was just a risky endeavor with some unforeseen consequences. They took the risk, 271 people paid for it. IMO, this stuff just needs to be taken more seriously by the airlines. It's not like cutting corners at Lou Grubb Ford's maintenance department when installing alternators on a 2002 Ford Crown Vic. Cutting corners in airline/aviation maintenance needs to have the possibilities researched far more in-depth before implementation.

[flyover]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll give the maintenance error, but the leading edge slats were torn away because the engine departed the aircraft in a way it wasn't designed to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

The leading edge slats were not torn away. In fact they retracted normally on their tracks. The design flaw was not having a lockout that prevented such an asymetrical retraction. Something that is now considered a standard, and which most airplanes had even then. The Douglas designers thought their triple hydraulic system was so redundant that no such protection was needed. When the slats retracted the left wing stalled and the airplane rolled inverted. Take that away and that airplane climbs out and makes a safe return.

[ QUOTE ]
Sure they sensationalized it a bit, but when the "non-approved" maintenace practices work, no one notices.

[/ QUOTE ]

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

[ QUOTE ]
The minute it goes wrong (as in 191s case), then the airline buys it. Roll the dice to save time/money and you can win, but when you hit the snake eyes, you buy the fault.

[/ QUOTE ]

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

[ QUOTE ]
IMO, this stuff just needs to be taken more seriously by the airlines.

[/ 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.

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.

The bottom line for me is, I've gotten to fly a lot of fantastic airplanes over the years, including some of the original commercial jets. They were so well designed and so well maintained by the unsung heroes, the mechanics and engineers, that I bristle when they get trashed by lawyers and "journalists" who don't know what they are talking about. So I'm going to be on the mechanic's and engineer's side. It's my bias.

[flyover]

[ 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.

[tonyw]

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.

[flyover]

[ 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.

[Minnesota_Flyer]

[ 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!!

[img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[tonyw]

[ 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.

[Doug Taylor]

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!"

[tonyw]

And if they get the right celebrity impersonators......say, like, oh, I dunna, the latest big name adult movie star.....

[MikeD]

[ 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.

[flyover]

[ 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

[tonyw]

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.