"How many people will be killed before the Brazilian government stops the [air force's] live experiments on the travelling public's safety?" said Marc Baumgartner, the president of the International Federation of Air Traffic Controllers.
Brazil is rethinking its flight patterns
Across the country, frustrated passengers whose flights have been delayed or cancelled are rioting due to the long lines in Brazil's airports. Underpaid and understaffed air traffic controllers are at the hub of a logistical nightmare. More than 10 government agencies oversee aviation.
Baumgartner accused the Brazilian government of "chasing scapegoats" among the Brazilian air traffic controllers instead of "re-engineering the necessary safety oversight and risk assessment to prevent Brazilian civil aviation from falling into deeper chaos."
President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva promised to get tough on safety and build a new airport in São Paulo to ease congestion. "Our aviation system, in spite of the investments we have made in the expansion and modernization of almost all Brazilian airports, is passing through difficulties." To ease the pressure, several measures are planned like bans on charter, cargo and executive flights to Congonhas. The question is what pressure will such changes actually ease: the stressed airport system, or the government taking the heat for the stressed airport system?
Aviation experts say that the Airbus 320 that crashed at Congonhas was too large for the airport's short runways, that the runway was not textured properly and part of the plane's supplementary braking system was not working. Last February, a federal judge prohibited the landing large types of aircraft at the airport, including Fokker 100, Boeing 737-800 and Boeing 737-700.
Carlos Gilberto Salvador Camacho, director of flight security for the National Union of Pilots, tokd a São Paulo newspaper last week. "There is subliminal pressure from the commercial airlines that if you don't land there you are somehow hurting the companies that rely on their revenues from the passengers."
"What exploded at Congonhas was not just the TAM jet and its almost 200 victims, but the credibility of the Brazilian system of civil aviation. Ten months ago, the country felt the impact of the worst disaster in its history of civil aviation, an incident which lifted the veil off the chaos in the industry, and we completely ignored it." wrote Cezar Britto, the national president of the Order of Brazilian Lawyers after the Congonhas crash.
About Me
A Note about Tam
TAM is a huge airline with all the resources necessary to have assigned human beings to notify families of their dead.
Such a notification would be painful, indeed, more than words can describe.
But even worse, imagine going on the internet, reviewing the manifest that was made available to the public within hours and finding your mom’s name or your mom and dad’s name or your wife, or your husband.
Imagine that for a moment.
Imagine that days go by and no one from TAM makes any personal notifications to families. No one calls, no one connects on a one on one basis.
What were they thinking when they released the manifest to the public prior to any attempt of locating the next of kin?
TAM, fire the person or persons who made the decision to release the manifest.
Get your act together.
Have a plan in place.
Have people who can be on call immediately to handle these matters.
No matter what you end up paying the family for their losses, they will never forget how they learned about the death of their loved ones.
Shame on you, TAM
----------------------
How about giving a choice to a passenger about boarding a plane that has 1/3 of its braking system disabled.
In the Tam crash of July 2007, all parties agree that the right thrust reverser was disabled. They defend that position by stating that the documentation for an Airbus A320 allows the plane to fly for up to 10 days with a disabled thruster(s).
So let's say that Tam had let everyone that was boarding that plane know about the thrust reverser. Let's say they had even played down the importance of having it operational. Had the passengers known about the disabled thruster, and had they known that it compliments the braking system, what would they have done?
It is possible that not all the passengers would have boarded. Some probably would have transferred to another flight, or would have gone home and waited for another day. But no one was given that notice.
Think about it: the wheel brakes, the wing flaps and the thrust reverser are the breaking system for an airbus a320. I'm not certain that even a seasoned flyer as I am that I would have gone on board knowing that part of the breaking system was not functional.
Mandatory warnings should be required when a plane with broken, flawed, or partially disabled systems is used as if functioning at 100%. Speaking personally on my own behalf, I believe this warning issue–or failure to warn issue–should be legally addressed.
If only one person had not boarded that plane, that would have been one less fatality.
For More of George Hatcher, visit the following links:
Such a notification would be painful, indeed, more than words can describe.
But even worse, imagine going on the internet, reviewing the manifest that was made available to the public within hours and finding your mom’s name or your mom and dad’s name or your wife, or your husband.
Imagine that for a moment.
Imagine that days go by and no one from TAM makes any personal notifications to families. No one calls, no one connects on a one on one basis.
What were they thinking when they released the manifest to the public prior to any attempt of locating the next of kin?
TAM, fire the person or persons who made the decision to release the manifest.
Get your act together.
Have a plan in place.
Have people who can be on call immediately to handle these matters.
No matter what you end up paying the family for their losses, they will never forget how they learned about the death of their loved ones.
Shame on you, TAM
----------------------
How about giving a choice to a passenger about boarding a plane that has 1/3 of its braking system disabled.
In the Tam crash of July 2007, all parties agree that the right thrust reverser was disabled. They defend that position by stating that the documentation for an Airbus A320 allows the plane to fly for up to 10 days with a disabled thruster(s).
So let's say that Tam had let everyone that was boarding that plane know about the thrust reverser. Let's say they had even played down the importance of having it operational. Had the passengers known about the disabled thruster, and had they known that it compliments the braking system, what would they have done?
It is possible that not all the passengers would have boarded. Some probably would have transferred to another flight, or would have gone home and waited for another day. But no one was given that notice.
Think about it: the wheel brakes, the wing flaps and the thrust reverser are the breaking system for an airbus a320. I'm not certain that even a seasoned flyer as I am that I would have gone on board knowing that part of the breaking system was not functional.
Mandatory warnings should be required when a plane with broken, flawed, or partially disabled systems is used as if functioning at 100%. Speaking personally on my own behalf, I believe this warning issue–or failure to warn issue–should be legally addressed.
If only one person had not boarded that plane, that would have been one less fatality.
For More of George Hatcher, visit the following links:
Subscriptions
Posts
Comments
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
Air Crash Map
Airbus 320 Crash Mapping (partial)
No comments:
Post a Comment