Archive for the 'Aviation' Category

Safety of Medical Helicopters; NYT coverage

Published
by
Jon
on July 5, 2008
in Aviation and Uncategorized
. 0 Comments

Barry Meier wrote this excellent overview of the medical helicopter industry, which followed two excellent pieces by John Dougherty. From Meier’s piece:

The fatal collision Sunday between two medical helicopters in Arizona was the sixth crash involving the emergency helicopters since May, making the last two months one of the deadliest periods in the history of the fast-growing industry.Sixteen people have died this year in seven crashes, which involved eight helicopters, according to federal data. Thirteen of the deaths have come since May.

About 750 medical helicopters are operating in this country, about twice the number flying a decade ago. Medical helicopters were once operated mostly by hospitals, but in recent years private companies, including some that are publicly traded, have come to dominate the industry.

The chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, Mark Rosenker, said the agency was greatly concerned about the spate of crashes. The board began to investigate the industry after a rash of accidents in 2004 and 2005.

In a report in 2006, it found that operators had failed to develop comprehensive flight risk programs, and that pilots often did not have adequate information about bad weather they might have encountered or equipment to alert them to dangerous terrain.

The board called for stricter flight rules and improved accident-avoidance equipment, among other recommendations.

The Federal Aviation Administration accepted all of the board’s recommendations, Mr. Rosenker said, but has put only some of them into effect.

“The latest spate of accidents has given the board concern that the F.A.A. may not be moving as quickly as necessary,” Mr. Rosenker said in a telephone interview on Monday evening.

Medical Helicopter Crashes Stir Concern

And links to Mr. Dougherty’s pieces:Crashes of Medical Aircraft Examined , and 6 Killed and 3 Are Injured as Copters Collide. The Times doesn’t hyperlink Mr. Dougherty’s byline; perhaps this is the equivalent of being a “made man” in certain organizations with which we’re familiar.

Southwest Airlines & The Federal Aviation Administration

Published
by
Larry
on April 3, 2008
in Aviation
. 1 Comment

From the Houston Chronicle, Inspector blasts FAA for Southwest relationship “Southwest Airlines exerted undue influence within the Federal Aviation Administration, creating an atmosphere that let the carrier fly aircraft after cracks had been discovered in a jet’s fuselage, inspectors told a House panel.”

And from the Washington Post, FAA Derailed Safety Alarms, “They also said the FAA had gone from aggressively regulating airlines to treating them like customers or clients. Lawmakers and outside safety experts have expressed similar worries about regulators’ coziness with the carriers.”

I won’t fly if in order to get on a plane and be confident that it will take off, fly, and land, I’ll have to go to the airport and inspect the plane. Forget the fact that I’m not qualified; it’s inefficient for every passenger, or even one out of 10,000, to go to the airport, review the maintenance records, and study the planes. But isn’t that’s why we have an FAA? Isn’t that why we have a government?

Isn’t it the role of government to provide police and defensive forces to protect law abiding citizens from thieves, scoundrels and external threats; from invaders and from thugs who would point a gun at me and say ‘your money or your life’? That doesn’t mean I don’t have the right to self-defense; it means that I have the right to expect that the police and the courts will protect my rights, including my right to self-defense.

Take that one step further. If I can count on the government to protect me against a thug who will steal my money at gunpoint, then I should be able to count on the government to protect me from someone who, in Woody Guthrie’s words, will ‘rob me with a fountain pen’ by pouring toxic wastes into the air we breathe and rivers we drink from and swim in, or perhaps by ignoring airplane maintenance regulations.

This doesn’t make me a liberal or a conservative, but it sure doesn’t make me a Bush Cheney McCain Republican. It might make me a John Warner Republican, but they pushed him out of the Party. I guess it makes me a liberal because it leads me to believe that the government has the obligation to inspect and regulate airplanes, taxis, roads, cars, and to make sure that we have clean air, clean water, and healthy food, and to educate our children and to do the kinds of things that Edwards was talking about on the stump.

When you believe, as Reagan put it, that “the scariest sentence is ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help’” you’re saying we don’t want foxes guarding the henhouse, we don’t want anyone guarding the henhouse, in fact we’re going to sell the wood, the chickens will stay put.

DARPA attempts to synthesize canine nose

Published
by
Jon
on December 3, 2007
in Aviation, Dogs and Explosive Ordinance and Disposal
. 0 Comments
courtesy-wired-danger-room-dognose.jpg

Sharon Weinberger reports at Danger Room that DARPA is attempting to synthesize or simulate the canine nose. We understand that it certain circumstances call for miniaturization - concealment, portability and risk limitation all make dog-and-handler teams, plus their needed transportation and support, relatively unwieldy. We’re reminded of General Patton’s admonition that “A good solution applied with vigor now is better than a perfect solution applied ten minutes later.” We can have new human/canine teams ready to go in a matter of months, depending on the particular specialty (debris search, explosives search, general guard work). In addition to time spent raising and selecting canine candidates.

In the long run - a successful simulation of canine olfactory capability - would do very well at airports, and other security bottlenecks. But let’s not plan around having this capability any time soon. Let’s plan around technologies in hand. As someone who has to cop to liking Star Trek quite a lot, I still had problems every time the Enterprise (or Voyager, etc.) crew made a big scientific or engineering breakthrough on the fly - in hours or minutes, without experimentation, getting it right the first time. Technology takes false turns, rethinking, and redesign.

Link to the excellent Sharon Weinberger’s piece on DARPA and dog noses at Danger Room. (and thanks to Sharon for giving us an excuse to post the cute dog photo).

Aren’t “secret” and “blimp” contradictory concepts?

Published
by
Jon
on November 23, 2007
in Aviation
. 0 Comments

Airship World - recently added to our link list - appears to have video of a new classified airship under development at Lockheed Martin’s Skunkworks.
Link to the post at Airship World.

The Popular Logistics Aviation  Research Team, world-reknowned for its fear of heights, knows little about this - but suspects that for energy-efficiency and other reasons - this technology deserves a renaissance.

Published
by
Jon
on September 8, 2007
in Aviation, Making Things Worse, Transportation and risk assessment
. 1 Comment

Airline agent (male) put this woman off the plane because her attire was “offensive.” One suspects that he found her attractive and was resentful.

 southwest-wontfly.jpg

There’s no question that this is unfair to this woman; it’s likely unlawful sex discrimination. But when airline personnel put people off the plane for wearing “offensive” clothing - they’re diverting resources from security. And they are, presumably, in the business of  providing safe air carriage.

Perhaps there’s a niche market for an airline on which passengers’ modest dress as a condition of passage.

From  Xeni Jardin piece Boing Boing - and a derivative tip of the hat to the ever-vigilant Bruce Schneier.

San Diego Union Tribune piece.

FireStats icon Powered by FireStats