GE90-115B Gas Turbine Jet Engine Testing & Evaluation

1291918: I really don't normally think the point of a crash investigation is to conduct a witchhunt to find someone to punish. The main point is to find the cause, so that potential problems can be hopefully be avoided. To me the idea of financially punishing a company is usually not necessary in the aviation industry, most companies are eager to find problems to prevent mishaps and save lives and keep reputation from being tarnished.

1291918: Quite often it is the governments and manufactures that are conducting or assisting with the investigation; so if they are thinking of current liability it could be a distraction and bias the investigation, however if they think of potential future liability it can be a great motivator. They should be focusing on how to find the problem to prevent more liability. Instead of worrying about the liability from this mishap.

1291918: So in case this is a problem that affects many aircraft that the problems can be fixed. The priority should be to try prevent any more mishaps. In the investigation stages, not much thought should be given to liability as it would serve as a distraction and bias.

1291918: At this stage in the game I wouldn't think so much about liability is a little late from one perspective and it's a little early from another perspective. Right now the priority should be to do a quick but extremely good investigation and analysis and find out the cause.

Interesting, i was always under the impression that two engine long range aircraft have independant systems. Especially in the case of a 777. A failure of this magnitude is amazing!!! tragic as well. I wonder if the computers use windows operating system. I'm sure the pilots would have seen a message like this "you have performed an illegal operation, Both engines will be shut down now" LOL Crazy world we live in huh?

The entire system is just wrong, as you said "will probably be muddied up by the lawyers" That statement is so true. When someone dies on an aircraft, who is to blame? Airlines have powerful lawyers, even though the loss of life may be signifcant 200-300 people, they can still basically just get away without any huge penalties.

1291918: What matters is the evidence. In order to determine liability first you have to find what failed and why. Then you have to determine who was responsible for what failed and why. It's not as simple as you might think. It might require some analysis of procedures,policies and of contracts. And of course things will probably be muddied up by the lawyers.

There is a fine line between, engineering malpractice and manufacturer defect. Who is to blame when an aircraft crashes? The pilots, engineers, or manufacturer? Maybe all? How can we tell for sure. If the manufacturer does not address weaknesses in there aircraft, that are prone to failure they are in fact contributing towards critical failure in flight.

It is interesting to hear the latest development on the 777 Heathrow accident. They are now saying there may have been an error in fuel management, which led to the starvation of both engines on short final. This scenario, or the malfunction of an electrical system sounds plausible to me.

This conversation is getting very interesting, i'm a bit busy at the moment, I have so many different possibilites to discuss, I will respond to you tomorrow, I'm Glad i found an intellingent person on youtube (for a change) :)

1291918 "Should we chastise the makers of the aircraft or the operators or both?"

It depends on the situation what parts possibly failed and why and who was responsible? It would obviously be a wrong hold Boeing liable if it was a manufacturing defect of Rolls-Royce, or if it was from poor maintenance from airline (British Airways) cost-cutting measures.

1291918: It's possible that the findings will show it was unforeseeable, then there will be no or little blame. However if it was foreseeable there will likely be some blame and if it was from severe neglect, incompetence, fraud or terrorism the responsibility should be more severe to whomever is found responsible.

1291918: If it was poor maintenance because of cost cutting measures to farm out the work, then I think the responsibility should be shared depending on the circumstances. I think if a parent company (British Airways) decides to save money by farming out work to shady contractors that they both should share part of the blame.

Again i agree with you, third world nations, operating high maintenance aircraft, IS a recipe for disaster or for the very least some sort of mishap will occure during the aircraft's operation. This now brings us to a new argument. Should we chastise the makers of the aircraft or the operators or both?

1291918: To put it into perspective there are over a million fatalities a year in automotive accidents. I would consider commercial airlines relatively safe to automotive and foot traffic. Not all of aviation is as safe; private aviation has a tendency to be more dangerous, especially ultralights and hang gliders. I would consider flying an ultralight or hang glider more dangerous than driving or walking.