From: cid@athena.mit.edu (Derek H Cedillo)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Aplogy to Robert Dorsett & More on El Al Disaster
Date: 10 Oct 92 21:43:34 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

I first would like to apologise to Robert Dorsett. 
After reading my article once it was posted
(and thus reading it more carfully) some things came across wrong.  
In person it wouldn't have sounded so harsh
I didn't mean to sound that way.  I hope you took it ok and
not as a personal attack.


Now back to the discusion:

I said this in a previous (very previous) article:


>>>>>> I think boeing may have made a big boo-boo somewhere.

and thus Werner (werner@cs.utexas.edu)
>	that was "baby-talk", not typically used in a professional discussion
>	forum; at least one does not leave such a "suggestion" standing in the
>	room, without AT THE SAME TIME following it (better would be PRECEDING 
>	it) with a technical justification.
>

I think we will see who is being less professional from your article
BTW, look at my comment's on discussion below.

>>>>To me, 2 aircaft that lose 2 engines on the same wing shortly
>>>>after take-off within 10 months of each other is a boo-boo

Werner Said:
>	it took someone'c omplaint to make you state that justification.

Isn't that what a discussion is about?  I say something, someone replies
if they disagree, I clarify or admit I was wrong.  Spell it--
D-i-s-c-u-s-s-i-o-n.  

>>>>Especially when both ended so fatally.  
>
>	"especially" has no foundation and thus, this does not have technical
>	relevance.

Foundation?  What are you a grammar teacher?  No grammar flames please.

Robert Dorsett (rdd@cactus.org) says:
>>>To me, uninformed conclusions before they even have a death count is a 
>>>"boo-boo."  I call your boo-boo "coincidence," until the forensic evidence
>>>suggests otherwise.  

I say:
>>Does the idea of a service bulletin put out by boeing and the FAA 
>>about engine mount pins failing have any impact?

Werner Says:
>	not without further supporting evidence, no!

What kind of supporting evidence do you need?  A sevice bulletin means that 
something is wrong and needs to be checked out.  If something need's to 
be fixed, you fix it.  You don't wait till it breaks.  Here, it seems to
have possibly broken.  I didnt say this was the cause, but that it
could be.  

>>15 such pins have been found recently to have cracks in them that could
>>lead to thier failure.  

>	Boing (and everyone else, obviously) should definitely "hold
>	t.heir breath" waiting for investigators' reports, digging into
>	that direction; which means "don't form an opinion (and hype a
>	LIKELY boo-boo) until the reports are in!"

Since you wanna flame grammar, its Boeing, not Boing.  Boing is a noise.
But that is beside the point.  
If there are cracks they should be looked at very very closely.
When lives can be at stake, (as well as the ultra-expensive 747's),
someone should not sit back and wait for reports.  You go out,
look at the problem, work on a solution and implement it.  You
don't risk lives for red tape.  Sure, maybe it isn't the problem. 
Maybe you may waste some man-hours.  But maybe, *just* maybe,
you'll save some lives.  

>>>I can think of at least five common-cause-of-failure possibilities...
>
>>Your bird strike has some possiblilites, but still good odds against it.
>
>	it wasn't "his bird strike" - and, man, are you quick at figuring
>	odds.  frightening !

Before you jump to conclusions, you should read on and let me
explain my odds.  Whats worse, figuring odds or jumping to conclusions?

>>Although not any  engines are "bird-Proof" a large amount of them 
>>are made to be. Engines are designed for bird strikes in mind, and
>>a great deal goes into making sure tragic loss of power doesnt arise
>>from a bird strike.  I worked for GE this summer and aided in some
>>testing.  If the engine is struck by a bird, or even multiple ones
>>it would still take a lot to make the engine break apart and fall off
>>the wing and affect the other engine.  
>
>	your inexperience shows:  where there is one bird, there are
>	flocks of them;  birds enough for all engines....  though they
>	tend to be found more on side of the fuselage than on both
>	sides, most likely ...

First of all that logic mean that Dogs have legs, you have legs, 
therefore you are a dog.  Have you never seen a bird fly solo?
But let's say it was a flock.  I assumed a flock, but not a whole
flock in one engine.
your Narrow-Mindedness shows:  Just because birds fly together in a flock,
doesnt mean the whole flock is going to enter an engine.  The vaccum
effect is not that large.  My point was that multiple birds entered 
the engine, not that multiple birds were flying around.  The cross sectional
area of a turbofan such as the CF6-50 (GE's 747-200 powerhouse-BTW
what is the PW engine?  it's an old J line right?)  is quite large,
but also is the total area birds fly accross.  They don't ride piggy back, 
and they are not completely stupid.  Not every bird that comes in the 
vicinity of an aircraft doesn't get out of the way you know.  (although
they do have a knack for that don't they?) It would take a lot more than
one bird in an engine to cause serious problems like an uncontained
failure.

>>As far as sabatoge goes, this is unlikely.  A cargo plane is not
>>the likely target of a terrorist attack.  Who are they going to affect?
>
>	what the hell do you know what the Israelis put into that plane?
>	and, besides, one dead transport, is better than 10 years of
>	failure, no ?!?  (no, I haven't heard anything yet that would
>	have me believe that to be the most likely cause)

And what do you know?  The key word here is "UNLIKELY", not "impossible".
My, you have a lot of hostilities pent up inside don't you? 
Before you explode, read more carefully.  I said unlikely, you said you 
dont believe yet it is "the most likely cause".  Basically you 
just agreed with me, so Relax.

>>Unless they planned on doing this with the precise location of the crash
>>(the apartment complex)...maybe.
>
>	bah!  you got a case of "rambling on"...

"bah"?  Is that supposed to be less of baby-talk then "boo-boo"?

>>Preventative maintanence is a good possibility, especially when 
>>cracks were found in other pins.  If there were some, they should 
>>have been detected.  Good point.
>
>	bah!  the more precise the instruments get, the more minute
>	the cracks they CAN discover, the more cracks WILL BE discovered.
>	Only after persistent catastrophic failures of a component should
>	we "know to suspect"; but not enough parallels have as of yet (that
>	I know) been establish to make this "a rash of TWO"...
>
>	I have "not the foggiest" as to what the incidence rate might be
>	(and severity of the cracks) at which one would/should "get exited";
>	does anyone?

Bah! You piss me off right here!
One incident, one life, one plane, or one anything *IS* something
to get excited about.  Your talking about human lives for one.  Anything
that threatens human life should DEFINATELY be taken seriously.  If you also
look at this as an ethics concern, you have to sit down and say:  " There is 
a problem and we have to fix it."  i don't care if it is the fact that paint 
peels off the wheel housing.  If you are an engineer, and you say a product 
will work and sustain, you do everything in your power to make sure it does.
EEspecially when it involves human life or suffering.  Are you a hard
core business major that is just worried about expenses?  Whatever you study,
try and take an ethics class.  "Only after persistent catastropic failures..."
Boy if I was an owner of any type of firm, I would sure hope you never worked
for me.  You make me sick.

>>Pilot error is a real tough call.  Like I mentioned earlier, 747's are
>>very heavy, especially when filled with cargo.  Without much altitude
>>its hard to recover, actually it is a 1/billion chance.
>>As far as a pilot error causing engines to fail and fall off,
>>this is obviously ludicrous. But I dont think this is what you meant right?
>
>	bah!  more rambling:  "real tough", "747s are very heavy, especially
>	when filled with cargo", "without much altitude, it's hard to recover".
>	"1/billion chance"....

More rambling?  You wanna try it?  Are you calling 747 pilots liars?
This is where my info is from.  What about any of yours?  All your cases
are unsubstantiated.

>	disconnect your keyboard, please!

Is this some of the maturity you were telling me that I lacked?

>
>	[ more of the same deleted; I started a KILL-file for this group; please
>	  add me to yours, as I don't think I will contribute much of "basic value"
>	  to this group; I'm just likely to, on occassion, tell someone to
>	  "stop smoking that stuff" (with apologies to most readers) ]

	Why do you only flame? Nothing substantial to day?  Look who is talking
about taking away keyboards.  Grow up Werner, this is a discussion group
for reasonable people.  Your rediculous flames are for alt.flame.  If 
you have a legitimate gripe about something I said, I'll listen.
But it just better be substantiated somehow.  You talk about babytalk and
inexperience when you cant back up anything you say.  

	I have experience in Aircraft Engine Design, as well as 
engineering ethics. I know what happens in bird strikes, and what 
I don't know I Don't guess at wildly.  I base any assumptions I make
on real data and such.  My 747 data is from UPI reports.  
Generally direct quotes from 747 pilots or Boeing.  If I make a guess, I say 
so, and tell everyone it is a guess or just my opinion, and extend the 
opportunity to correct me.  

	I would apprciate it, and I'm sure most others would too, 
if discussions could be kept to talking about the situation and avoiding flames.
Dont' flame people, discuss the issues. 


Derek H Cedillo
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics