Inconsistent responses across governments to the Dreamliner beacon fire

An article in the New York Times (July 20, 2013) describes inconsistencies between the British aerospace authority’s proposal to request that beacon batteries be disabled vs the US FAA’s plan to inspect these batteries vs the Japanese authorities plans to waive (temporarily) the requirement for airplanes to have beacon transmitters. All this is in response to the fire on an Ethiopian Airlines 787 Dreamliner caused, apparently, by a beacon transmitter’s battery. Given these different directives, how should airplanes that fly international routes operate their equipment to comply ? What is the jurisdiction of these different authorities when airplanes takeoff from one authority’s country and land in another ? Should the IATA demand that the different aerospace authorities coordinate their decisions to provide consistent proposals or should that be the role of the airplane manufacturer to enable such coordination ?

About aviyer2010

Professor
This entry was posted in Global Contexts, Operations Management, Supply Chain Issues and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s