OPINION in Sacramento.bizjournals.com

OUR POSITION: If Mather's going to be a cargo hub, FAA oversight must be tougher

A jet comes screaming from the sky, unleashing an inferno of burning fuel and killing all aboard. It sounds like a matter of homeland security, the big growth area in federal spending along with defense.

But there's been no big talk of "bringing those responsible to justice" in the case of Emery Worldwide Flight 17, which plunged into an auto auction yard near Mather Field in February 2000, spreading flames in a swath more than a quarter-mile long where hundreds of people had stood just a couple of hours before.

Instead, the National Transportation Safety Board last week put the blame squarely on a maintenance error of unknown origin -- a loose bolt that eventually slipped out. The missing part caused a malfunction of the DC-8's elevator that pushed the plane's nose up, making it impossible for the pilot, first officer and second officer to control.

Investigators couldn't determine whether Emery or its maintenance contractor failed to properly attach the bolt or detect the problem in the three months before the crash, but the board made a series of recommendations for maintenance and training changes.

In other words, "Oops; let's try to keep that from happening again, huh?"

The finding also didn't address one of the most troubling aspects of the crash -- whether the Federal Aviation Administration oversight system failed. Oversight of Ohio-based Emery was handled from California until just weeks before the crash, even as pilots for Emery complained to the FAA that maintenance problems were going to lead to deaths. An FAA inspector later told crash investigators that the workload was "horrendous" and that Emery's repair manuals were so vague that it was nearly impossible to tell if repair workers were properly following procedures, according to published reports.

If that's the best we can do, it may be time to rethink the future of Mather.

As local planners see it, Mather's future is in cargo. While the traffic volume has fluctuated, they've stayed with the notion that the former military base can become an economic development engine even as the land around the airport grows thicker with housing.

But while a growing chorus from residents seeks ways to cut jet noise, the safety and oversight for a cargo hub may be bigger in the long run. Studies have found that cargo flights in the United States are four or five times more prone to catastrophe than passenger jets and turboprops. For instance, there were roughly the same number of passenger and cargo plane crashes from 1995 through 1997, but there were 4.4 times as many passenger planes in service. The difference is greater outside the United States.

Why? Theories differ. Some claim to see a culture among management of cargo firms that puts profit above safety, noting that passenger crashes often have higher death tolls, which focuses regulatory scrutiny and raises the stakes. Others note that cargo carriers tend to have younger pilots, older equipment and more night flights, all of which could boost risk even at a safety-minded carrier.

The fact is that FAA inspectors have said for years that their staff levels are too low to keep up with their work. Their thin ranks are being stretched further as air carriers, struggling to cut costs, shift from centralized maintenance operations to outsourced repair shops in scattered sites.

The Sept. 11 terror attacks made the destructive power of burning jet fuel all too clear. Homeland security is threatened not only by malice, but by greed and negligence. The federal government should increase the ranks of inspectors, and ensure that existing safety rules are followed and regulators have enough data to detect patterns of problems and intervene before catastrophe strikes.

Otherwise, as the area around Mather fills with homes and schools, the next "maintenance error of unknown origin" might hit something other than a lot filled with cars.

© 2003 American City Business Journals Inc.