On the other hand, the determination of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) to have success in making Sully look bad, contributed to the stress that Sully already had. Proving Sully guilty would save the NTSB insurance company money that would have to have paid otherwise. During the first NTSB investigation, they inform Sully and Jeff that the human performance investigation was to begin. They questioned him on why he didn’t fly back to LaGuardia, and Sully responds that there was not enough altitude and that the Hudson was the only place smooth enough and wide enough to land a commercial plane safely. Soon after, they told Sully that aviation engineers calculated that Sully had enough energy to make it back to the airport runway …show more content…
The parameters include the altitude that the plane was at, the dual engine loss and everything that Sully faced. The goal of the simulations is to see if it is possible to make a return trip to either airport, LaGuardia or Teterboro. The investigators start to question if Sully was under any influence of having troubles at home. On the cab drive back to the hotel, Jeff says “… Why are they looking for what we did wrong when it all turned out right”. A man, who is unnamed and assumed to be a member of Sully’s union, informs Jeff that “It did not turn out alright for the airlines and their insurance companies. We should expect some call back”. Confused Jeff responds by saying “What are they going to say, maybe you should not have saved everybody?” Here it is made clear that the motive of the NTSB is to save money that would otherwise have to be paid out. Sully has some doubts in his mind about the decision that he had made, because of the questioning he had received at the NTSB investigation. As seen in the film, one scene had Sully imagining a news report where the reporter says “Why Captain Sullenberger made that fateful decision to turn the Hudson into a runway, well only he can answer, but we now know it was the wrong
Deere & Company (Deere) has been experiencing a decrease in its profit margins for one of its aftermarket resale products, specifically the gatherer chain, over the past couple of years. Currently, the cost-price ratio is at 80% compared to last year’s 50%. The purchase cost for the gatherer chain has been steadily increasing, while the aftermarket price has been decreasing. Deere has been budgeting its price to match that of a major competitor, which has been causing the decrease. The company’s main supplier of its gatherer chain is Saunders Manufacturing, with which Deere has established a long term relationship. The owner of Saunders has a reputation of being a tough negotiator, and is someone who is known for not willing to share financial information about the company. However, the U.S. Department of Commerce has provided financial estimates in Saunders’ industry as follows: material spend, 42%; direct labor, 16%; indirect labor, 6%; Overhead, 20%. These percentages are helpful to Deere because they can be used in the negotiation process with Sanders. Since Sanders will not share any specific cost information, Deere is able to use these estimates as a way to justify Sanders reducing its prices. Using these estimates during the negotiations might also incentivize Sanders to provide accurate numbers for its specific manufacturing costs.
The novel Theodore Boone: Kid Lawyer has a very in-depth conflict that is showcased all throughout the novel. In Theo's community, there is a high-profile murder trial about to begin. Mr. Pete Duffy, a wealthy business man, is accused of murdering his wife Myra Duffy. The prosecutors have the idea that Mr. Duffy did it for the one million dollar insurance policy he took out on his wife earlier, however they have no proof to support this accusation (Grisham 53). The defendants do however have the proof that no one saw the murder, for all everyone knew, Mr. Duffy was playing his daily round of golf at the golf course right by his house. As the trial moved on, the jury was starting to lean towards letting Mr. Duffy walk a free man. To this point, there has been no proof to support the prosecutors statements that Mr. Duffy killed h...
... not adequately trained on the operation of the system. CDR Carlson should have informed CAPT Rogers that were serious concerns on the USS Sides that the plane was in fact a civilian airliner, instead of silently musing and holding on to that information himself. This breakdown in communication, the crew's inability to operate the system, and the combat tension that the crew was already maintaining, spelled doom for the Iranian Airbus.
On the second day of March in the year 1955, a young, black girl named Claudette Colvin waited for the bus. She was 15 years old and lived in Montgomery. Colvin had just finished school for the day and was heading home. The city bus came, and she sat down in the area reserved for “black” passengers. As the bus filled up, left standing was a young, white woman. The seats in the white area were full, but there was an available seat in the opposite row of Colvin. Because of Jim Crows law- a law that said that a white person could not sit opposite of a colored person, the white woman refused to sit there. The bus driver ordered Colvin to move to the back of the bus so that the white female could sit down. Colvin refused to move.
It appears a money loosing route was reinstated as a quid pro quo action. David Samson, then the chairman of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, requested the route be reinstated so he would have easy access to his second home. United was then allowed to build a hanger in New Jersey. This action resulted in several million dollars in fines (Morgenson, 2017). The action by the United Airlines employee is in direct violation of the current version of the code of conduct. On page 14 the code says in part “... You may not give special consideration to government officials based on their political status” ("Code of ethics and business conduct," 2016, p. 14). Not all applications of the code are negative
“For too long, aboriginal peoples’ voices have been missing in our urban mosaic. Now is the time for all Canadians to fulfill our responsibility to listen.” (Smith, 2014) A key concern the Canadian government needs to be attentive to are the unsolved cases on the Highways of Tears. The Highway of Tears incidents are series of unsolved cases involving murders and missing women along the highways in British Columbia between 1969 until 2011. The mentioned highway includes Highway 16 between Prince Rupert and Prince George, British Columbia measuring a distance of 750 kilometers. (Meissner, 2015) In particular, the governmental response to incidents on Highway 16 have been framed differently by Aboriginal communities versus the government in media.
Charles Hughes, president and CEO of Land Rover North America (LRNA), and his executive committee want to expand LRNA’s reach within North America. Based on the growing strength of the U.S. SUV market, research which suggests consumers are seeking vehicles that can help them have “experiences” while being practical, safe, reliable and luxurious, the success of the Discovery in the U.K. and near doubling of the Land Rover brand worldwide, LNRA is seeking to become the “world’s premier 4x4 specialty company” through effective brand, product and retail strategies. LNRA’s success hinges on making the correct positioning, marketing mix and retailing decisions.
CarMax faces challenges from several fronts that could threaten to disrupt their growth plans and their position as a disruptor in the used car market. The biggest challenge they face is being able to continuously secure a study supply of high quality used cars, due to the extremely competitive nature of the used car market. CarMax offers cutting edge technology to help the company identify buying trends, pricing trends, and consumer preferences down to the zip code that gave them a large competitive advantage, as “data mining” has matured and competitors have developed their own software tools, eroding the competitive advantage to CarMax.
In the world today, there are many people who make bad decisions. For example, talking to a friend when the teacher is teaching, drinking soda before playing a instrument, or even forgetting to eat breakfast. One must understand that for every action there are consequences, some worse than others. In the book ‘Monster’ Steve Harmon was indeed the lookout for the robbery, but was not responsible for the murder of Mr. Nisbet (the store owner). How is this so apparent? While reading the book there are several clues as to why Steve was the lookout but not the murderer. For example there’s a scene where Steve is talking to James King about being the lookout, a scene where he lies under oath, and he was at the scene of the crime just before it went
Two tragic incidents, the Challenger Space Shuttle crash of 1986, and the Three Mile Island near meltdown of 1979, have greatly devastated our nation. Both these disasters involved failures of communication among ordinary professional people, working in largely bureaucratic companies. Two memos called the “Smoking Gun Memos,” authored by R. M. Boisjoly, of Morton Thiokol, and D. F. Hallman, of Babcook and Wilcox, will always be associated these two incidents. Unfortunately, neither of these memos were successful in preventing the accidents of the Challenger and the Three Mile Island near meltdown.
The Transportation Security Administration was formed as part of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act after the attacks of 9/11. It was created to oversee security for highways, railroads, buses, mass transit systems, airports, and water ports. The majority of the TSA efforts, however, are airport security. This organization is responsible for screening passengers and baggage prior to being loaded onto commercial planes. Since its inception, there have been many issues in regards to the TSA and its inspectors. The following are items of airport security controversies within TSA. These controversies involve police organizational issues and administrative challenges for criminal justice administrators. This paper will discuss how a potential
When looking at that, there are some questions to be asked, did Roger Boisjoly act ethically as a whistle-blower? Was Boisjoly treated fairly by Morton Thiokol? Could the managers of Morton Thiokol have done anything differently? To start, did Boisjoly act ethically? In my opinion, Boisjoly did all that he could to prevent the launch of the Challenger. He informed his managers of the defect and the probability of an explosion. He consulted all internal channels and had evidence. Sadly, his managers ultimately ignored him and went ahead with the launch. As we know, that resulted in an explosion as predicted. When outside sources questioned Boisjoly about the incident, he was truthful and told them all of his predictions and gave evidence. Next, was Boisjoly treated fairly by Morton Thiokol? To me, Boisjoly's employers did not give him the respect he deserved. He found a problem and informed them of it. The managers of Thiokol did not listen and it resulted in a loss. Later, after Boisjoly blew the whistle, his work environment changed and he was treated differently. Lastly, could the managers of Thiokol have made different decisions? Yes, the Morton Thiokol managers should have researched the problem and found an answer before going ahead with the launch. The had been informed that there was a malfunction and if NASA decided to go ahead with the launch it could potentially
Another theory is that the pilot, Jason Dahl might have purposefully crashed the plane to prevent the hijackers from taking it over. Or perhaps that Dahl had cut off the planes fuel with out the hijackers being aware. It was said that the plane looked like it went straight down; and that the plane had almost completely disintegrated on impact leaving a hole several feet deep.
This tragic accident was preventable by not only the flight crew, but maintenance and air traffic control personnel as well. On December 29, 1972, ninety-nine of the one hundred and seventy-six people onboard lost their lives needlessly. As is the case with most accidents, this one was certainly preventable. This accident is unique because of the different people that could have prevented it from happening. The NTSB determined that “the probable cause of this accident was the failure of the flightcrew.” This is true; the flight crew did fail, however, others share the responsibility for this accident. Equally responsible where maintenance personnel, an Air Traffic Controllers, the system, and a twenty cent light bulb. What continues is a discussion on, what happened, why it happened, what to do about it and what was done about it.
...fault with NASA’s top-down design and testing methods, “was designed and put together all at once with relatively little detailed preliminary study of the material and components. Then when troubles are found…, it is more expensive and difficult to discover the causes and make changes.…[A] simple fix…may be impossible to implement without a redesign of the entire engine.” The outcome of this simple issue as we all are aware could have saved billions on the project if time for safety was taken. Instead of the top down approach wouldn’t the outcome been a significantly less expense if we used a bottom-up approach. When we think of safety is there a reason to worry about price with the thoughts of the Challenger incident in mind. Safety has always been a part of the working community not only in aviation but throughout all industry. Aviation being the background of