Sign in to follow this  
Guest beana51

A Skeptic Under Pressure

Recommended Posts

Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Donny AKA ShalomarFly 2 ROCKS!!!Fired for revealing proprietary data, but we'll forgive, forget and give severance money if you STFU... says a lot.It was a Dutch engineer responsible for aproval who had concerns about the amount of venting on the DC-10, but it had already been aproved for flight by the U.S. and he was reluctant to make an issue of it.Hope history doesn't repeat itself... Doesn't seem like this guy is gaining much of anything.Best Regards, Donny:-wave

Share this post


Link to post

Wow, that is one shocking revelation. Why would he risk losing everything over this unless he truly believed that this chip had a serious design flaw ? What is he getting for his stubborn determination, other than the slim possibility that he will be shown to be correct, and thereby potentially save the lives of hundreds of people ?To be honest, it reminds me of the problem with those solid rocket boosters that power the Space Shuttle. I seem to remember that someone warned NASA that those O-rings could fail if subjected to freezing cold conditions.....and we all know what happened when THAT piece of advice was ignored.Chris Low.

Share this post


Link to post

Donny AKA ShalomarFly 2 ROCKS!!!Not just one individual, the problem with cold weather and the boosters was clearly mentioned in a Discovery Magazine article called "Space Shuttle- Triumph or Turkey?". Just a few lines out of many pages, but it was there. It printed well before the Challenger's last launch, I used it as one of my references for an oral presentation on the shuttle two weeks before.Best Regards, Donny:-wave

Share this post


Link to post

Firing people for revealing proprietary data is perfectly OK, it's standard practice in any company.Sueing people for it afterwards is also standard practice, as is arresting people who flee the country to avoid the courts.We have only one side of the story here. Did he try to resolve the issues internally?How reliable is his assessment of the situation?etc. etc.For now all we have is a story of a disgruntled ex-employee... Could it be true? Certainly. But there's no independent verification at this point.P.S. my opinions about the company and its products are well known here.I don't like them, so I'm not defending them out of blind admiration :)

Share this post


Link to post

A whistle blower friend who was a UAL mechanic has had his career in aviation ruined. All he wanted was to get the truth out to an ignorant public. He knew about this "shoot the messenger" head's in the sand mentality the public has,but he had the courage to go ahead and do the right thing, A true hero in my book. If what this guy say's is true, I fear he will still be labeled the bad guy. A telling point on our money over human lives world.

Share this post


Link to post

Donny AKA ShalomarFly 2 ROCKS!!!This guy could make his current, severe problems go away very quickly, why is he refusing? If he is such a bad person, why such a generous offer to keep him quiet? An offer confirmed by court documents. Sorry, the "disgruntled employee" scenario doesn't quite cut it. Next he'll just be in it for the eventual book deal, that might be a more plausible scenario; but still relatively unlikely for what he's given up.Best Regards, Donny:-wave

Share this post


Link to post

No, simply an indication that people don't like traitors even if they're traitors who further the interests of those same people.The traitor does something good for you now, but you can never trust a traitor to not turn around and harm you the next time.In ancient times traitors were generally executed by their benefactors for that very reason, they're inherently untrustworthy.

Share this post


Link to post

I we need a better news reporter, becasue as described it doesn't make much sense to me. I assume the reporting is bad rather than the guy is a looney #### bent on his own financial destruction.

Share this post


Link to post

There's a difference between a "traitor" and someone who's pointing out a legitimate safety issue with a product. A traitor does something out of malice, intending to cause harm. Show me where it says people must be blind followers of their "benefactors" even if it means people could potentially be killed... The guy was their chief engineer - it makes absolutely no sense for him to suddenly ruin his and his family's lives if there was no actual reason for him to do it.

Share this post


Link to post

One person's whistleblower is another person's traitor...Rudolf Hess flew to England in the beginning of WW2 in an attempt to end the madness before it began.He was considered a traitor in Germany for decades after, never mind that his idea wouldn't likely have worked anyway.The people trying to blow up a really bad dude in '44 were executed as traitors yet had they succeeded they'd have been hailed as heroes.

Share this post


Link to post

Let us hope that he's mistaken, because as it seems to be all the time, the companies won't do crap until one crashes. Doesn't this remind anyone of the Titanic?Daniel P.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/747400.jpgMember of SJU Photography. [A HREF=http://www.jetphotos.net/showphotos.php?userid=9004]Click Here[/A] to view my aircraft photos at JetPhotos.Net!The official psychotic AA painter. :)

Share this post


Link to post

Titanic was designed to the best safety standards they could at the time.Accidents happen, in fact accidents seem to drive innovation.Watertight compartments were invented as a result of ships sinking... Before the first ship sank I doubt anyone even thought about the possibility :)

Share this post


Link to post

Assuming his side is true - a man tosses it all away for the noblest of causes and all people can see is a traitor, inherently untrustworthy?A man who has nightmares of 550+ souls going down and is motivated to prevent it at any cost can betray me any day. regards,Markhttp://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a319/markrey/lds1.jpgXPHomeSP2/FS9.1/3.2HT/1GIG/X700pro256

Share this post


Link to post

Sure, but in this case a potential accident can be prevented by making sure things are done right. It surely isn't viable to say "Aw, let it go into service, when one crashes (and hundreds die as a result) we'll look into it". I mean, we'd be talking gross negligence if one of these crashes because they decided to use sketchy pressurization valves to save some money and make it lighter.And as far as I know, the Titanic had a severe lack of lifeboats to evacuate the people in the event of a disaster, that's how I've heard it at least, do correct me if I'm wrong. If that's the case, they were evidently running under the assumption that a disaster would NOT happen and this flaw wouldn't be exposed. We saw how that went. All I'm saying is that if this guy's claim has any weight (which it appears to have, the company's reaction shows it), it should be investigated.Daniel P.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/747400.jpgMember of SJU Photography. [A HREF=http://www.jetphotos.net/showphotos.php?userid=9004]Click Here[/A] to view my aircraft photos at JetPhotos.Net!The official psychotic AA painter. :)

Share this post


Link to post

I like that title,"A Skeptic Under Pressure" Its deer season home. A buck I know has practiced that for five years now.Thats old for a buck to survive the intense hunting seasons. That buck,my buddy buck,has eluded me many times.He survives because he reads all the danger signs,and acts accordingly.Survival,trust your senses,listen to the sounds,test the air.When in doubt,bug out. There are apparently danger signs here.Yes the arguments on both sides sound logical.Everyone is so convinced of their point of view Like that "Buddy buck" I would not linger on the fine print or lawyers arguments.I would get away quick.I personally would not want to be in the position of being herded as a "TEST PASSENGER"on that beautiful plane. Were a hand delivered ticket giving me for its maiden flight,,I would politely refuse it.I don't know about the ill fated Titanic. It seems they were all reassuring themselves ,the public,and the world , that the ship was unsinkable.Don't need all those life boats,we do have watertight compartments,Its impossible.to sink .It was the latest of shipbuilding art.The boat designer was on that ship.Problem may have been in the casting of the iron plates which formed the hull.The pig iron used was inferior,contaminated.Not unlike a fan blade in a Jet engine which failed and caused a disaster some time ago.That knife like iceberg slit that ship ,like one would fillet a fish.The gash compromised most of the water tight compartments.Were the plates not fragle,and sound, the ship would have went on its way,music playing,champagne flowing,jewels on display,in that beautiful ballroom.Now we may have a hint,a rumor,a feeling,a sixth sense in the guts, uneasiness, that something is not right.Thats a Lotta people to gamble with.Me? I would not get on that plane.Maby some 12 to 15 flights latter,but not now.That Ole Buddy buck taught me much. Theres a time to fight,and a time to flee. Sorry for the BL AA BL AA! CHEERS :-beerchug PS: HINDENBERG ANYONE? Meet you in the smokeing section,NOT!

Share this post


Link to post

I he's right, a goast A380 flying over the atlantic, suddenly ran out of fuel and crash. I guess they shoudn't fire him. ;) Airbus should have check the pressurise motors before delevering them to the customers

Share this post


Link to post

Donny AKA ShalomarFly 2 ROCKS!!!Vin, 12-15 flights in service isn't any indication that no serious safety issues exist.Concorde flew for years with fuel and hydraulic lines subject to damage from a blown tire.On takeoff from Washington, one lost its water diverter, the tire puncturing the wing and releasing a plume of fuel that, that time, did not ignite.The crew would have continued, and all would most likely have died in supersonic transition due to altered aerodynamics and further damage to the wing, had a passenger not threatened to bash the cockpit door down when a stew failed to take him seriously.The Copilot scrunched down to an angle the pax was looking and said "Diet Mon." The second he got back to the cockpit the throttles were reduced and they returned to Dulles.The water diverter was redesigned so if it happened again the tire would not be punctured.Of course, tires can be blown by objects not necessarily installed on that particular aircraft, and at Concordes's takeoff speed you don't necessarily need debris for a possible blowout.We all found that out, and the pax weren't so lucky about two years later.Best Regards, Donny:-wave

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Donny,Your always so logical,I tend to be visceral.However your correct. Ya Never Know? If that Ole "Irish" maxim is true,"Murphy's Law" always applies. When I fly,and sadly not as much as I want to,when the gear left the ground,at that instance ,I;m looking for a place to put it down.When en route,or just tooling around,I'm looking for a place to put it down.On trips ,the alternate airfields are prominently marked on my chart with all necessary info. I know you have read this, " Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous.But to an even greater degree than the sea,it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity, or neglect." It has helped me a few times in the air. Al tho,driving in here Fla. non of the above apply,its just FATE,on the road. Driving here "IS" inherently dangerous,and Hurricanes,your destiny Always nice Chatting with you. ....VIN;-)

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this