Jun 27 1980
From The Space Library
A panel of the NRC said that the FAA had lost the engineering expertise to say whether airplanes were safe and waited until accidents occurred before seeking regulations that might have prevented them.
Both the Washington Post and the Washington Star reported a briefing by panel chairman George M. Low, president of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and former deputy administrator of NASA. "The FAA engineering staff today is considerably less competent than the engineering they regulate," Low told the press. The latest of a series of studies of the crash of an American Airlines DC-10 in Chicago May 25, 1979, that killed 273 people, the panel study was sought by Transportation Secretary Neil Goldschmidt, who said he had ordered an immediate analysis of the panel's findings "with the intent of putting into effect promptly any recommendations that will improve our procedures." The Chicago accident was blamed on improper maintenance procedures by American Airlines, but a contributing cause was found to be the plane's design. The panel said that the FAA relied too much on manufacturers and was performing "only a cursory review" of industry tests; FAA officials charged with supervising manufacturers and airlines had "gotten too close to their industry counterparts, weakening their independence and objectivity." The panel recommended reassignment of officials on a periodic basis to work with different manufacturers and airlines. It also recommended new licensing and training certification rules for airline and airplane mechanics "more like those for aircraft flight crews: FAA should require aircraft to be designed to continue flying after any structural failure unless the failure would prevent flight, such as loss of a wing. In the Chicago crash, an engine mount had ripped from the plane, destroying vital controls in the cockpit; the mount, certified as safe, would not have failed except for maintenance-induced damage. Asked if the DC-10 would have survived if the proposed rule had been in effect, Low replied "Yes." (W Post, June 27/80, IA; W Star, June 26/80, A-1)
JSC reported that its engineers were working on automated ways to fabricate in space the beams and trusses needed in space construction projects of the future. Recently arrived on center was a truss such as a "beam builder" in space would form, the product of three years of analysis, design, and testing at General Dynamics-Convair Division. JSC engineers would begin evaluating it in July using a hydraulic cylinder to apply various loads to measure stiffness and strength of the truss. (JSC Release 80-040)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
