Recently there was a story that was dominant in the news for days, if not weeks: The crash-landing of US Airways flight 1549 in the Hudson river in New York City. This was indeed a remarkable story and the coverage was certainly relevant. Captain Chesley Sullenberger's control of the aircraft under the circumstances was nothing if not heroic. He, his crew and the passengers deserve special commendation, but mainly he.
While this event was unusual and was/is a rich source of news there is a significant angle that seemed to have been overlooked. I listened to and read quite frequently many of the major "news" suppliers but something was conspicuously absent. We saw the way Captain Sullenberger, the crew and passengers were paraded around in the media. The serious need for investigative journalism was trumped by the sensationalism of the moment coupled with the superficiality of the reporters' interviews. Special praise should be given to Captain Sullenberger for advancing an additional issue that came about: he urged congress to preserve and protect pilots of his caliber. This is a significant derivative and should be further advanced.
This blog in no way intends to minimize the heroics of the circumstances tied to this crash-landing. Kudos to everyone involved. Now here are some questions that should have been considered and that would have made equally interesting news:
1) Why is the very serious and potentially catastrophic occurrence of a flock of birds disabling a jet engine euphemistically called a "bird strike"?
2) How regularly do birds disable both engines and how likely is it that birds would disable both engines simultaneously?
3) The cost to design, build and install jet engines is in the millions. Now, if birds are a potential threat to the aircraft's operation, hence the lives of those on board and quite likely, others on the ground, why are these engines not designed to prevent "bird strikes"?
4) Given the size, power and revolutions of these engines' propellers how do birds, extremely fragile by comparison, disable such a structure?
1) Why is the very serious and potentially catastrophic occurrence of a flock of birds disabling a jet engine euphemistically called a "bird strike"?
2) How regularly do birds disable both engines and how likely is it that birds would disable both engines simultaneously?
3) The cost to design, build and install jet engines is in the millions. Now, if birds are a potential threat to the aircraft's operation, hence the lives of those on board and quite likely, others on the ground, why are these engines not designed to prevent "bird strikes"?
4) Given the size, power and revolutions of these engines' propellers how do birds, extremely fragile by comparison, disable such a structure?
//original//
No comments:
Post a Comment