Guitar Guy
Charvel - San Dimas
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Posts
- 1,770
FN FAL said:"How could anybody justify putting that two-story steel structure in a place where an airplane is supposed to be safe?" attorney Arthur Wolk asked.
I was on one of the NTSB accident investigation teams for that accident. It was interesting to note how the approach light support system was changed. When we did the on-site work immediately after the accident, I was able to see the support pylons up close. They were fairly large-diameter steel posts, hollow on the inside with fairly heavy gauge steel. I heard at that time that the reason for those formidable posts was that with the lights being in a flood plain for the Arkansas River, it was difficult to come up with a design that was both frangible and yet could resist floodwaters. The FAA apparently had required frangibility but issued a waiver owing to the proximity of the river.
Fast-forward just a few months to when we were back up in LIT making some runway measurements. I got to see the replacement supports and they were very different - a pair of smaller posts configured in a V-shape instead of the earlier, larger posts. Apparently the new design was more frangible and acceptable to the feds.
When I first heard that Susan Buschmann was suing, I wondered if the design of the original support posts would be an issue. They sure did a number on that plane, essentially breaking the fuselage into 3 pieces. I'd be interested to hear the legal arguments about the original supports, especially if the FAA signed off on them in the first place.