Points to ponder #1
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was told in court cases I have worked on that such evidence of improvement is not allowed, and if the plaintiff brings it up, it is subject for a mistrial. The court considers the knowledge available when the design was made and qualified, not the wonderful improvements since then. How would a DC-3 ever be allowed to carry pax, otherwise?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Near a mountain and lots of snow
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My but you are sure opiniated
To: Nick Lappos
I’m very surprised to see that you discriminate between graduate engineers and fact gatherers. I believe that if the NTSB were aware of your comments they would take offence. I would also feel that the NTSB would strongly object to your use of the term CYA. I would imagine that most of these fact gatherers are in fact graduates of some engineering program and most have attended the University of Southern California Aviation Safety Program. An analogy to your statement would be that medical examiners are not the same as doctors even though they may have attended the same med schools. The doctors and the medical examiners although having the same training have taken different career paths. The doctors are trained to cure and the medical examiners with the same educational background have opted to determine cause of death (“fact gatherers at the NTSB”).
The fact gatherers must determine the cause of an accident by in fact reverse engineering from what evidence is presented to them. Through this process they will be able within limits determine what caused the accident to include equipment failure, pilot error, or a design flaw. If it is a design flaw the fault will lie within the design organisation and the certification authorities that approved the design. I believe that there a very few design engineers without special training could perform this function and this applies to the “engineers” in the certification authorities.
I would strongly recommend that you sit in front of your TV and watch the CSI programs. What goes on in these fictional programs is what goes on in the NTSB.
It has been my experience that the NTSB sometimes makes those kinds of suggestions, mostly as CYA paperwork, with little understanding of the underlying technical facts. Their investigators are typically not trained engineers; they are fact gatherers, like detectives, with training on how to capture those facts. The FAA has the engineering talent to understand and appraise these facts. (please understand that I use "engineer" to mean someone with formal University training in math and science to understand these things, not a mechanic with excellent maintenance skills, as is the British usage of the word.)
The fact gatherers must determine the cause of an accident by in fact reverse engineering from what evidence is presented to them. Through this process they will be able within limits determine what caused the accident to include equipment failure, pilot error, or a design flaw. If it is a design flaw the fault will lie within the design organisation and the certification authorities that approved the design. I believe that there a very few design engineers without special training could perform this function and this applies to the “engineers” in the certification authorities.
I would strongly recommend that you sit in front of your TV and watch the CSI programs. What goes on in these fictional programs is what goes on in the NTSB.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Linda,
Where is the letter?
Your surprise is no surprise to me. Fact gatherers find out what occurred, scientists and engineers find out why. The distinction is the same as if a police detective studied a homicide, and then told the mayor to ban guns. The NTSB does not reverse engineer, they accident reconstruct, which means they determine the sequence of events, and let the manufacturers and FAA determine the engineering causes. Look at the reports I posted (you have done little here but watch the telly) and see the names of the FAA individuals who were in on the investigations. They, and the manufacturers reps would have the clearest picture of why things occurred.
I am surprised that you think your slurs on the Manufacturer and the FAA (where you accuse them of hiding safety flaws in a certified aircraft) are somehow inoffensive, while you judge my appraisal of the charters and experience of both organizations (borne of a career working with both) meets your disapproval!
The facts are as they are, many times the NTSB makes recommendations, and many times the relevant federal transportation agency (aviation, ships, trains) decides to do something else.
The idea that CSI is somehow true is your biggest error. I suggest that you actually try to know what you discuss! A lousey TV guide article I read about 3 months ago (written by a real CSI investigator) told how very hokey and far-fetched the show was. He scored them a 1 out of 10 for accuracy. Real police investigation does not involve itself with redesigning aircraft, or cars or TV sets, they report what occurred. As one of those engineers who does get involved, at the request of the FAA and NTSB, I believe the case you are trying to make is a very weak one, based on inuendo and little else.
For some FACTS, note the accident report for the 1992 California accident had a running tape recorder that was examined for any tell-tale sounds and none were found. I have personally used this kind of data from CVR's to rebuild accidents. Were there a mysterious unknown and massive rotor instability, it wolld have shown itself on that recorder as the oscillations built, the sounds of rotor speed excursions and drivetrain participation as any flapping instability began would have been unmistakable. None were noted.
Have fun with your witch hunt.
Where is the letter?
Your surprise is no surprise to me. Fact gatherers find out what occurred, scientists and engineers find out why. The distinction is the same as if a police detective studied a homicide, and then told the mayor to ban guns. The NTSB does not reverse engineer, they accident reconstruct, which means they determine the sequence of events, and let the manufacturers and FAA determine the engineering causes. Look at the reports I posted (you have done little here but watch the telly) and see the names of the FAA individuals who were in on the investigations. They, and the manufacturers reps would have the clearest picture of why things occurred.
I am surprised that you think your slurs on the Manufacturer and the FAA (where you accuse them of hiding safety flaws in a certified aircraft) are somehow inoffensive, while you judge my appraisal of the charters and experience of both organizations (borne of a career working with both) meets your disapproval!
The facts are as they are, many times the NTSB makes recommendations, and many times the relevant federal transportation agency (aviation, ships, trains) decides to do something else.
The idea that CSI is somehow true is your biggest error. I suggest that you actually try to know what you discuss! A lousey TV guide article I read about 3 months ago (written by a real CSI investigator) told how very hokey and far-fetched the show was. He scored them a 1 out of 10 for accuracy. Real police investigation does not involve itself with redesigning aircraft, or cars or TV sets, they report what occurred. As one of those engineers who does get involved, at the request of the FAA and NTSB, I believe the case you are trying to make is a very weak one, based on inuendo and little else.
For some FACTS, note the accident report for the 1992 California accident had a running tape recorder that was examined for any tell-tale sounds and none were found. I have personally used this kind of data from CVR's to rebuild accidents. Were there a mysterious unknown and massive rotor instability, it wolld have shown itself on that recorder as the oscillations built, the sounds of rotor speed excursions and drivetrain participation as any flapping instability began would have been unmistakable. None were noted.
Have fun with your witch hunt.
Iconoclast
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The rest of the story.
To: NickLappos
Would it surprise you to know there is a law firm based in Seattle that specializes in teaching aerospace firms how to delete incriminating engineering information, how to obfuscate that same information as to make it misleading and how to outright lie if involved in tort litigation. Also how to relocate individuals that could provide information. The system of tort law is far from perfect and this Seattle based law firm tries to make it a bit one sided in the favor of the manufacturers. This firm is on retainer to just about every aerospace and aircraft manufacturer.
I now provide several facts that go to show how aircraft manufacturers operate to include how certification authorities respond to facts presented to them.
Deleted
And that for the uninitiated is how things are really done. If there are cover ups in the major airframe manufacturers I would suggest that the same might be true for helicopter manufacturers.
Lu
I'm sorry to delete the major part of your post (almost 2000 words of it) but:
(1) It was nothing to do with helicopters - all entirely about an airliner. Try the Engineers & Technicians forum.
(2) It contained allegations against several named companies which were potentially libellous. Try a website or aviation journal which is prepared (and can afford) to take the risk of publishing your claims.
We've been through this many times. Let's not do it again.
Heliport
Let's not forget that, under the American system, if you make major design changes, and thereby tacitly admit that the original design was wrong, you lay yourself wide open to major court action. I can understand why they try to disguise it.
You and I might be smarter than that, Nick, but I doubt the law is, paricularly when a lawyer might argue that "if the helicopter wasn't there, the passenger wouldn't have died", leaving aside the fact that the customer ordered the helicopter in the first place! Watch out for the jury, too - in the States they can overturn the law in many, if not all cases.
I know of one or two cases where improvements and changes have not been made to products precisely because of the possibility of that interpretation. They have to call them enhancements rather than redesigns.
I now provide several facts that go to show how aircraft manufacturers operate to include how certification authorities respond to facts presented to them.
Deleted
And that for the uninitiated is how things are really done. If there are cover ups in the major airframe manufacturers I would suggest that the same might be true for helicopter manufacturers.
Lu
I'm sorry to delete the major part of your post (almost 2000 words of it) but:
(1) It was nothing to do with helicopters - all entirely about an airliner. Try the Engineers & Technicians forum.
(2) It contained allegations against several named companies which were potentially libellous. Try a website or aviation journal which is prepared (and can afford) to take the risk of publishing your claims.
We've been through this many times. Let's not do it again.
Heliport
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paco said; """Let's not forget that, under the American system, if you make major design changes, and thereby tacitly admit that the original design was wrong, you lay yourself wide open to major court action. I can understand why they try to disguise it."""
Nick said; ""The court considers the art as it was when the design was made, not all the stuff since learned.
""
Deep Throat just about choked on that one
, he then said; "There dozens of past and present court cases where the delay between the 'learning of the flaw' and the 'admitting of the flaw' has left the manufacture open to prosecution"
He then went on to talk about 'The Zen of Incestuation', saying "Remember, the work of lawyers is to make work for lawyers.'
Nick said; ""The court considers the art as it was when the design was made, not all the stuff since learned.
""
Deep Throat just about choked on that one
, he then said; "There dozens of past and present court cases where the delay between the 'learning of the flaw' and the 'admitting of the flaw' has left the manufacture open to prosecution"He then went on to talk about 'The Zen of Incestuation', saying "Remember, the work of lawyers is to make work for lawyers.'
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: USA & UK
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The FAA has the engineering talent to understand and appraise these facts. (please understand that I use "engineer" to mean someone with formal University training in math and science to understand these things, not a mechanic with excellent maintenance skills, as is the British usage of the word.)"
As a British Qualified Engineer I find this an interesting and rather misguided comment.
As a British Qualified Engineer I find this an interesting and rather misguided comment.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gotta stand up for lawyers, the last time I posted some poor comments, Flying Lawyer (now a dear friend!) corrected me with a well placed kick in the pants.
No lawyers = no laws = no civilization.
Regarding all those quotes from Lu, I really do take offense, as I have perhaps 50 times previously in this forum. The tires on your car, the hypodermic needle in your child's arm, the pills you swallow and the machines that you fly were all made by people who ernestly try to do the right thing. Those who believe that our systems house people of such low integrity are giving us a peek into their own small, black little minds. "Honi soit qui mal y pense"
R1Tamer, I tossed that in because I understand mechanics in England are called a "engineers" and I got in hot water with some ppruners by indicating that a degree is an important part of being an engineer. Tell me what you think an engineer is, I will toss that into my file labeled "Separated by a common language"!
No lawyers = no laws = no civilization.
Regarding all those quotes from Lu, I really do take offense, as I have perhaps 50 times previously in this forum. The tires on your car, the hypodermic needle in your child's arm, the pills you swallow and the machines that you fly were all made by people who ernestly try to do the right thing. Those who believe that our systems house people of such low integrity are giving us a peek into their own small, black little minds. "Honi soit qui mal y pense"
R1Tamer, I tossed that in because I understand mechanics in England are called a "engineers" and I got in hot water with some ppruners by indicating that a degree is an important part of being an engineer. Tell me what you think an engineer is, I will toss that into my file labeled "Separated by a common language"!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: USA & UK
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick,
In the UK / Britain / England I generally find we call Mechanics, "Mechanics", Maintenance, "Maintenance" and Engineers are "Engineers".
I don't have any great dispute over your definition of an Engineer.
Just felt pricked over the suggestion that in the UK / Britain we used the term Engineer loosely. I stuggled over four years to get through two particular exams using mathematical principles for scientific, mechanical and practical applications and I like to think that these, plus a dozen other exams or so, qualifies me to call myself a Mech. Engineer.
Enjoy your posts greatly.....keep them coming.
The more antagonistic the better!
In the UK / Britain / England I generally find we call Mechanics, "Mechanics", Maintenance, "Maintenance" and Engineers are "Engineers".
I don't have any great dispute over your definition of an Engineer.
Just felt pricked over the suggestion that in the UK / Britain we used the term Engineer loosely. I stuggled over four years to get through two particular exams using mathematical principles for scientific, mechanical and practical applications and I like to think that these, plus a dozen other exams or so, qualifies me to call myself a Mech. Engineer.
Enjoy your posts greatly.....keep them coming.
The more antagonistic the better!
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
R1Tamer
I've always thought an engineer is someone who has a degree in engineering or someone like yourself who's obtained a professional qualification from a professional body such as the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Institution of Electrical Engineers etc (or a military equivalent) after years studying an approved course and passing examinations.
But the term 'engineer' does seem to be used very loosely in the UK.
Can someone with neither an engineering degree nor a qualification from a professional body properly be called an engineer?
I realise the term 'professional body' can be rather dubious these days. There's nothing to stop anyone setting up an association with very simple examinations and meaningless titles granted on payment of a membership fee.
Perhaps it's a symptom of the general devaluing of terms in pursuit of 'status'?
Years ago, my central heating was serviced by a plumber - now it's done by a 'central heating engineer'.
My car used to be serviced by a mechanic; now it's done by a 'technician' - same guy.
'Consultant' is another one - salesmen/women and shop assistants are now 'Sales Consultants'.
The funniest is 'profession'. I suppose anyone can call themselves a 'consultant', but the way 'profession' is frequently (mis)used is laughable - often describing jobs where the training takes only weeks, rather than years of study, training and examinations.
I've always thought an engineer is someone who has a degree in engineering or someone like yourself who's obtained a professional qualification from a professional body such as the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Institution of Electrical Engineers etc (or a military equivalent) after years studying an approved course and passing examinations.
But the term 'engineer' does seem to be used very loosely in the UK.
Can someone with neither an engineering degree nor a qualification from a professional body properly be called an engineer?
I realise the term 'professional body' can be rather dubious these days. There's nothing to stop anyone setting up an association with very simple examinations and meaningless titles granted on payment of a membership fee.
Perhaps it's a symptom of the general devaluing of terms in pursuit of 'status'?
Years ago, my central heating was serviced by a plumber - now it's done by a 'central heating engineer'.
My car used to be serviced by a mechanic; now it's done by a 'technician' - same guy.
'Consultant' is another one - salesmen/women and shop assistants are now 'Sales Consultants'.
The funniest is 'profession'. I suppose anyone can call themselves a 'consultant', but the way 'profession' is frequently (mis)used is laughable - often describing jobs where the training takes only weeks, rather than years of study, training and examinations.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heliport,
I used to have a professional body......
Do you recall the ppruning I got once in these hallowed cyber-walls when I tried to say that mechanics fixed helicopters, and engineers designed them?
I used to have a professional body......
Do you recall the ppruning I got once in these hallowed cyber-walls when I tried to say that mechanics fixed helicopters, and engineers designed them?
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Alderney or Lancashire UK
Posts: 570
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are 2 posts on the previous page. Check out the indents, the underscore, the title, the style,the content. Come on Lu. Tell us if you are wearing womens clothes now.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Back of Beyond
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Guys, just check the dictionary for engineer, [ Collins and Longman]
1.One who designs/builds roads, bridges, machines.
2.Someone who takes care of engines on ships and aircraft.
3 One who looks after engines
Sure a civil or mechanical engineer spends years studying, but a Chief Engineer on a ship or the old Flight Engineers had to do a fair bit as well, plus many years doing the practical stuff.
I think it all depends what goes along with the term, ie: civil engineer, motor engineer, aircraft maintenance engineer.
Cheers for 2005.
TC
1.One who designs/builds roads, bridges, machines.
2.Someone who takes care of engines on ships and aircraft.
3 One who looks after engines
Sure a civil or mechanical engineer spends years studying, but a Chief Engineer on a ship or the old Flight Engineers had to do a fair bit as well, plus many years doing the practical stuff.
I think it all depends what goes along with the term, ie: civil engineer, motor engineer, aircraft maintenance engineer.
Cheers for 2005.
TC
Iconoclast
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What did I say that was offensive?
To: Heliport
The answer to that question is yes. I don't have an engineering degree but I have worked as a RMS engineer since 1968 and before that I was a project engineer, a design engineer and a field service engineer. I was fully qualified to fill those positions because of my capabilities and experience. I have worked for Sikorsky, Bell, Agusta, The European space center, TRW, Douglas Aircraft Boeing, and several other companies and in each case I held the title of engineer. I have never claimed to be an engineer and when asked what I do I specifically tell them that engineer is a title and nothing more.
In the United States in most military programs as well as NASA programs the contractor is paid on the basis of how many PhDs are on the payroll, How many Masters on the payroll and how many engineers are on the payroll and it goes all the way down to the technicians. It is to the companies’ benefit to have as many professional (sounding) people on the payroll as the government pays on the basis of personnel and their supposed qualifications.
In my case there is a professional body called the Society Of Logistic Engineers (SOLE) and SOLE offers professional standing of a Certified Logistic Engineer much like a Professional Engineer. I have never seen fit to take the course for two reasons. One it wouldn't help me in my work and it wouldn't help me to make more money as I was already making $127,000 a year.
I would also like to know why you deleted my post. Granted it did not relate to helicopters but it did respond to Nick's post about how protective the FAA is relative to making flying safer. This same post was made on one of the airline forums relative to the A-300 crash in New York. The material in the post is in the public domain. The FAA, DGCA, LBA, the Canadian MOT, and the UK CAA are well aware of it. The letters I sent to the FAA were even copied and distributed within Boeing.
There were several comments about devious law firms. Or, was I too hard on Nick?
Lu
"I would also like to know why you deleted my post."
I gave the two reasons why I deleted part of your post.
Either comply or don't post - your choice - but please don't make up reasons in order to imply I have ulterior motives.
"What did I say that was offensive?"
If you mean 'offensive' as in breaking the PPRuNe rules, nothing. I didn't suggest you did.
Your suggestions in this post that I have ulterior motives is offensive, but that's a different matter.
"There were several comments about devious law firms."
There was one. It's still there. If you'd named the firm, it would have been deleted.
"Or, was I too hard on Nick?"
There was no mention of Nick in what I deleted. I'm not sure what you mean by too hard. Nick seems to have been more than capable of looking after himself in your skirmishes on various topics over the years.
Thanks for your views on the 'engineer' point. It seems to have different meanings depending on context.
Heliport
Can someone with neither an engineering degree nor a qualification from a professional body properly be called an engineer?
In the United States in most military programs as well as NASA programs the contractor is paid on the basis of how many PhDs are on the payroll, How many Masters on the payroll and how many engineers are on the payroll and it goes all the way down to the technicians. It is to the companies’ benefit to have as many professional (sounding) people on the payroll as the government pays on the basis of personnel and their supposed qualifications.
In my case there is a professional body called the Society Of Logistic Engineers (SOLE) and SOLE offers professional standing of a Certified Logistic Engineer much like a Professional Engineer. I have never seen fit to take the course for two reasons. One it wouldn't help me in my work and it wouldn't help me to make more money as I was already making $127,000 a year.
I would also like to know why you deleted my post. Granted it did not relate to helicopters but it did respond to Nick's post about how protective the FAA is relative to making flying safer. This same post was made on one of the airline forums relative to the A-300 crash in New York. The material in the post is in the public domain. The FAA, DGCA, LBA, the Canadian MOT, and the UK CAA are well aware of it. The letters I sent to the FAA were even copied and distributed within Boeing.
There were several comments about devious law firms. Or, was I too hard on Nick?
Lu
"I would also like to know why you deleted my post."
I gave the two reasons why I deleted part of your post.
Either comply or don't post - your choice - but please don't make up reasons in order to imply I have ulterior motives.
"What did I say that was offensive?"
If you mean 'offensive' as in breaking the PPRuNe rules, nothing. I didn't suggest you did.
Your suggestions in this post that I have ulterior motives is offensive, but that's a different matter.
"There were several comments about devious law firms."
There was one. It's still there. If you'd named the firm, it would have been deleted.
"Or, was I too hard on Nick?"
There was no mention of Nick in what I deleted. I'm not sure what you mean by too hard. Nick seems to have been more than capable of looking after himself in your skirmishes on various topics over the years.
Thanks for your views on the 'engineer' point. It seems to have different meanings depending on context.
Heliport
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who is Linda Lovelace?
Whirly would like to tell you all a story. Are you sitting comfortably? Good, then I'll begin...
Once upon a time there was a bored aviation journalist. He needed something new to write, his editor was crying out for articles, and he had a bad case of writer's block and no good ideas. Naturally, he'd trawled PPRuNe often for ideas, for a couple of years even, but he'd never posted. And he'd never been on Rotorheads.
So one day, he just had a look at what these strange people who fly things with whirly wings got up to. And, just for a laugh - well, he was bored - he registered, picked the name of a porn star, and posted a...ahem...shall we say, provocative, first post. Just for a laugh, you understand. But when he got a load of...could we even call them answers...propositions, maybe, he had a better idea. After all, he needed to pay the bills and appease the editor. What if he wrote an article on one pf the hot topics of rotary aviation? But what were they? He knew bugger all about helicopters. Ah, but a search revealed a rather opinionated engineer with strong views on the R22, and when Lu posted, others answered. So he had an idea...
Linda, at least tell us what publication we can find this in.
Once upon a time there was a bored aviation journalist. He needed something new to write, his editor was crying out for articles, and he had a bad case of writer's block and no good ideas. Naturally, he'd trawled PPRuNe often for ideas, for a couple of years even, but he'd never posted. And he'd never been on Rotorheads.
So one day, he just had a look at what these strange people who fly things with whirly wings got up to. And, just for a laugh - well, he was bored - he registered, picked the name of a porn star, and posted a...ahem...shall we say, provocative, first post. Just for a laugh, you understand. But when he got a load of...could we even call them answers...propositions, maybe, he had a better idea. After all, he needed to pay the bills and appease the editor. What if he wrote an article on one pf the hot topics of rotary aviation? But what were they? He knew bugger all about helicopters. Ah, but a search revealed a rather opinionated engineer with strong views on the R22, and when Lu posted, others answered. So he had an idea...
Linda, at least tell us what publication we can find this in.
