when technology fails - amsterdam plan crash

12
El Al Boeing 747-200 Amsterdam Crash By: Rachel Gamblin Tiffany Vo

Upload: rachel-gamblin

Post on 19-Jun-2015

134 views

Category:

Education


2 download

DESCRIPTION

Exploring what happens "When Technology Fails," we examine the consequences and causes of the El Al Boeing Amsterdam plane crash, as well as the ethical implications.

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: When Technology Fails - Amsterdam plan crash

El Al Boeing 747-200 Amsterdam Crash

By: Rachel Gamblin Tiffany Vo

Page 2: When Technology Fails - Amsterdam plan crash

Table of Contents

Summary

Ethical Problem

Design Problem

Solution

Video & Question

Page 3: When Technology Fails - Amsterdam plan crash

Crash Summary

6:22 p.m. 6:25 6:26 6:28 6:34 6:35 6:35:53

Took off from Amsterdam Reached 4000 ft Warning light for No. 3 engine had came on No. 4 engine was out Captain reported a control problem Captain radioed: “going down, 8162 going down.” Crashed into apartment building

October 4, 1992, Boeing 747-200F operated by El Al Israel Airlines

Page 4: When Technology Fails - Amsterdam plan crash

Apartment Complex

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Al_Flight_1862

Page 5: When Technology Fails - Amsterdam plan crash

747 Wreckage Piece

Source: When Technology Fails by Neil Schlager, pg. 106

Page 6: When Technology Fails - Amsterdam plan crash

Ethical Problem

Too little: FAA issued insufficient inspection protocol

Too late: FAA & Boeing responded to problem too slowly

Page 7: When Technology Fails - Amsterdam plan crash

Inspection

Plane had been inspected as per regulation

Crash occurred roughly four months after its last inspection

Crash occurred less than a year after China Airlines crash

Inspections were clearly not sufficient to prevent loss of property and life

Page 8: When Technology Fails - Amsterdam plan crash

Untimely Response

Fuse pin corrosion/fatigue issues were a known problem

FAA did not step in to re-write inspections after China Airlines crash

Boeing & FAA did not act until disastrous media attention was gained from the tragedy

Page 9: When Technology Fails - Amsterdam plan crash

Fuse Pin

Hollow cylinder shape

Cadmium-plated steel,

5.5” long & 2.25” diameter

Sturdy but fragile enough to break

Develop corrosions and cracks

Page 10: When Technology Fails - Amsterdam plan crash

Boeing 747 Model

Source : http://www.aviationexplorer.com/747_facts.htm

Engine No. 3

Engine No. 4

Page 11: When Technology Fails - Amsterdam plan crash

Design Problem

Fuse pins failed on right inboard (No. 3 engine)

Right outboard (No. 4 engine) was knocked out

Encountered problems with flaps

Lost control and slammed into ten-story apartment complex

Page 12: When Technology Fails - Amsterdam plan crash

Solution

FAA & Boeing called for re-inspection of over 900 jets

FAA required more frequent inspection of “old-style” pins

In the first three hundred planes, found 499 corroded pins and 14 cracked pins (giving a defect rate of one out of five)

Boeing continued attempts to design a corrosion-proof fuse pin

Increase in design tendencies away from fuse pin attachment