Page:Aerospace Safety (1960-12 - Vol 16 No 12).pdf/8

 

"TOGETHERNESS"

Thomas H.R. [sic] Pynchon, Bomarc Aero-Space Dept., Boeing Airplane Co., Seattle



irlifting the IM-99A missile, like marriage, demands a certain amount of "togetherness" between Air Force and contractor. Two birds per airlift are onloaded by Boeing people and offloaded by Air Force people; in between is an airborne MATS C-124. One loading operation is a mirror-image of the other, and similar accidents can happen at both places. Let's look at a few of the safety hazards that have to be taken into account when Bomarcs are shipped. . ..

In the July 1960 issue of Aerospace Safety, mention was made of the second Air Force-Industry conference on missile safety; and of plans to create Air Force-Industry Accident Review Boards. If future emphasis is to be placed on such joint action, much can be gained from a positive, realistic—above all, cooperative—approach to safety problems.

Cooperation is even more important where the problem area is double-ended: where both contractor and military personnel perform the same job and are subject to the same safety hazards. Therefore, in the following discussion of one such area—that of Bomarc transportation—any references to slip-ups on the military end of the airlift are meant to be strictly non-partisan and objective. As long as there have been near accidents, it's better to use them as a guide for future safety than to pretend they never happened.

As this article goes to press, the safety record of Bomarc airlifts can be summed up in four words: so far, so good. You may recall, however, the optimist who jumped off the top of a New York office building. He was heard to yell the same thing as he passed the 20th floor: so far, so good.

This is not to imply—necessarily—that IM-99A on and offloading crews have been living on borrowed AEROSPACE SAFETY