Newsday reports today that the Federal Aviation Administration couldn't require commercial airliners to carry a system to prevent explosions like the one that doomed TWA Flight 800 until the technology became light enough, small enough and cheap enough. This happened after two "eureka" moments for researchers in 2002. Then came years of wrangling with the airline industry.
Fortunately all was settled in the nick of time, as the 12th anniversary of the TWA crash was about to roll around.
The acting FAA administrator, Robert Sturgell, greeted the new regulation on the day before the anniversary as "another step forward on what has been a long journey of investigation, discovery, innovation and cooperation."
His boss, Transportation Secretary Mary Peters, welcomed the FAA's achievement with a crash victim's brother at her side, as "a memorial to the victims and a tribute to dedicated public servants who have spent their lives making flying safer."
You can't complain about the outcome, but you might wonder about the timing and these folks' dedication to our safety.
Since the research was ready six years ago (perhaps on the anniversary of no significant event) and the parties had years to work out a deal, might the regulation have been ready to go, say, three days before the anniversary? Two months before? Seventeen months before?
Wouldn't federal and industry officials committed to the safest possible skies want to rush such a regulation into effect as soon as it was available? Why risk even one more midair explosion?
We've become so accustomed to the news being packaged for consumption and timed for maximum impact and availability of related video that nobody is even asking these questions.