Top Letters And Comments, August 22, 2019

My day job is jet engine certification, and we also operate under ODA. The manual of instructions to write your company’s ODA manual (which itself must be approved by the FAA) is 350 pages long. Getting set up under ODA is onerous, to say the least. The FAA is undermanned; having every little step in a certification overlooked by the FAA would literally cost hundreds of millions of dollars, and delay things by years, not months.

ODA has been in effect for years, and has been largely successful.

The situation questioning ODA came about when Boeing introduced a system with a potential single point of failure, without alerting the troops that such as system was now on their plane. Their system also wasn’t smart enough to ignore that single point of failure, and, indeed, controlled the airplane based on faulty information. Yes, the pilots coulda/shoulda saved the day, but they didn’t, and, at this point, I cannot fault them.

In our company, there is no way you could introduce a feature (usually via FADEC software) without noting it in the operations manual, and calling for extra training if needed. At Boeing, it’s apparent that that could happen, because it did happen.

Boeing’s ODA setup certainly may need to be tweaked, but giving full authority back to the FAA is a bad move; they simply cannot handle it. The people most qualified to do the work are already at Boeing, Pratt&Whitney, Cessna, GE, etc.

Richard P.

Had a Lear 35 client tell me that he was loading pax in a slight rain. They were crowding the entry when one guy hung his garment bag on the left AOA vane. He said “I grabbed it and threw it on the ground”. He then said that he cancelled the flight to have the vane inspected and recalibrated. People can be really stupid.

Michael A. C.

On short runways I used to select a taxiway that intersects the runway and brief my copilot that if I’m not on the runway by taxiway “?” then just say go around. Of course, the plane should be on glide path and at the correct speed at 500 ft., 100 ft. and crossing the threshold. On a runway like St. Barts, 75% of my thinking would be plan on a go around and only land if everything goes as planned. Last chance is passing the predetermined taxiway. And then I retired.

William B.

St. Barts, my hobby horse since I used to fly in there during a previous life. Whoever says to “just keep proper speed and glidepath” will surely be going around using this method. There are so many variables when landing on runway 10. Turbulence and gusty winds will totally destroy the confidence of a first-timer going in here. BTW Paul, the sign you refer to means “roundabout ahead, you do not have the right of way”. By itself a valid sign but there is, however, another sign on that road warning of low flying aircraft.

An issue almost NEVER mentioned here is the 2% downslope of this runway. If you’ve never experienced this kind of slope then you’re in for a scare. Threshold is at 49 ft, the end at 7 ft. Even in a a calm no-wind situation you’d be hard pressed to make the touchdown zone and this is the MAIN reason airplanes have a problem landing there. Such as myself in a heavily loaded Aztec on my first attempt into St. Barts. I had to go around, I wasn’t even close. The second time was better and I touched down late in the zone however the downslope was something I was not prepared for. The airplane kept going and the brakes were fading fast. I barely got it stopped before the beach. It’s not only the runway length, it’s the downslope that will get you.

Joe J.

Unless he finds something with a serial number that can be traced to the plane or something that can be traced directly to Noonan or her no one will believe it conclusively and maybe not even then. Someone will always say the item was put there later by someone else. After reading their book, it is entirely plausible they could have attempted a landing there while running out of gas.

Anonymous

Will be another lead to another search.

Anonymous

No. FDR buried any possibility of discovery. She was his spy for the Japanese buildup in the Pacific.

Anonymous

Who knows? It is all about results.

Anonymous

Time will tell…

Anonymous

No. She landed somewhere near Howland and rests at the bottom of the Pacific.

Anonymous

This is a very difficult task and I wish good luck to Robert Ballard. Unless you try, you will never know.

Anonymous

That dot is Electra gear??

Anonymous

No, people have known the answer for decades and don't want it made public, so there will never be resolution, until possibly after 2040 if the last of the files are not classified again.

Anonymous

Possible, but it’s a needle in the proverbial haystack. Titanic was a much larger target.

Anonymous

No, because I don't believe the Nikumaroro theory.

Anonymous

Maybe but not holding my breath.

Anonymous

It's possible, he's not exactly just someone off the street. However, the reality show aspect of it is more important to some than actually finding anything. They'll report it incorrectly anyway.

Anonymous

If the theory of where she went down is correct.

Anonymous

I think your other answer choices were ridiculous and showed your disdain for discovery and exploration. I happen to enjoy Avweb’s work but this poll took the whole team down a notch or two. To answer the question, though, I’m happy he’s working on it and think that he may have a shot.

Anonymous

If it's possible to solve the mystery, he's got the experience, equipment and money.

Anonymous

He's looking in the wrong place.

Anonymous

Even if he does not, he may find some other wrecks to make it worthwhile.

Anonymous

At this point, even if he finds the plane it still does not reveal what happened to Earhart and Noonan.

Anonymous

All he has to do is find a serialized part.

Anonymous

1 in a 100.

Anonymous