Where'd the U/A Problem Go?
#21
06-21-2010, 09:42 AM
Re: Where'd the U/A Problem Go?
>>I don't trust the media. <<
At minimum, the media is inconsistent in what interests it. Now were getting plenty of sickening pictures of birds soaked with oil. Every year turbine blades in a wind energy project I follow (Altamont Pass) kill approximately 1600 birds, most of them raptors. The pictures of birds after they've been whacked by a turbine blade are no less sickening, yet none are ever shown on television.
So, one day Toyota, and only Toyota, has a major UA problem, then, puff, it's gone. The fact is that every day weird car crashes occur. Which stories the media chooses to highlight is the mystery.
At minimum, the media is inconsistent in what interests it. Now were getting plenty of sickening pictures of birds soaked with oil. Every year turbine blades in a wind energy project I follow (Altamont Pass) kill approximately 1600 birds, most of them raptors. The pictures of birds after they've been whacked by a turbine blade are no less sickening, yet none are ever shown on television.
So, one day Toyota, and only Toyota, has a major UA problem, then, puff, it's gone. The fact is that every day weird car crashes occur. Which stories the media chooses to highlight is the mystery.
#22
06-21-2010, 12:27 PM
Re: Where'd the U/A Problem Go?
Not to me...
The media ignores stories that make the administration look bad
Has anyone heard this story?
The White House turned down 13 countries offers of assistance in the Gulf (as a nod to his union pals)...including offers of technological equipment that we don't have!
wsj
Why would 60 Minutes, CNN and the rest of the main stream (state controlled) media ignore this story? Of course, if W. did this...imagine the hoopla...I apologize for politicizing this discussion.
The media ignores stories that make the administration look bad
Has anyone heard this story?
The White House turned down 13 countries offers of assistance in the Gulf (as a nod to his union pals)...including offers of technological equipment that we don't have!
The President Does a Jones Act
Why Obama turned down foreign ships to clean up the Gulf.
President Obama has repeatedly said his Administration is doing everything in its power to expedite the oil clean-up and mitigate the damage. But in the two weeks immediately after the spill, 13 foreign governments reached out and offered their assistance. The U.S. response? Thanks, but no thanks.
Or at least that's how Geert Visser, consul general for the Netherlands in Houston, described the U.S. answer. The State Department phrased it slightly differently: "While there is no need right now that the U.S. cannot meet, the U.S. Coast Guard is assessing these offers of assistance to see if there will be something which we will need in the near future." One month later, many of these offers are still outstanding.
The Belgian dredging group DEME says it has offered the U.S. specialized vessels and technology that can help clean up the spill in three to four months compared to the estimated nine months that the U.S. will need. There are only a handful of these vessels in the world, and most of them belong to Dutch and Belgian companies. So why aren't we calling on them?
Blame it on the protectionist Merchant Marine Act of 1920, also called the Jones Act, that requires ships working in U.S. waters to be built, operated and owned by Americans. Building specialized clean-up vessels in the U.S. is too expensive because of high union labor costs, and unions don't want ships built with foreign labor to be used in U.S. waters. To circumvent the Jones Act, clean-up crews have had to outfit American ships with skimming technology airlifted from the Netherlands. This has resulted in serious delays and greater harm to the Gulf.
Presidents can suspend the Jones Act in emergencies, as George W. Bush did after Hurricane Katrina. But the Obama Administration continues to maintain that this isn't necessary and that there are "no pending requests" for waivers. But Florida Republican Senator George LeMieux disagrees and says his constituents want all the foreign help possible.
We sympathize with the President's lament on Monday that "I can't dive down there and plug the hole. I can't suck it up with a straw." But there's no excuse for turning away ships that can clean up the oil merely because that might offend Mr. Obama's union friends.
Why Obama turned down foreign ships to clean up the Gulf.
President Obama has repeatedly said his Administration is doing everything in its power to expedite the oil clean-up and mitigate the damage. But in the two weeks immediately after the spill, 13 foreign governments reached out and offered their assistance. The U.S. response? Thanks, but no thanks.
Or at least that's how Geert Visser, consul general for the Netherlands in Houston, described the U.S. answer. The State Department phrased it slightly differently: "While there is no need right now that the U.S. cannot meet, the U.S. Coast Guard is assessing these offers of assistance to see if there will be something which we will need in the near future." One month later, many of these offers are still outstanding.
The Belgian dredging group DEME says it has offered the U.S. specialized vessels and technology that can help clean up the spill in three to four months compared to the estimated nine months that the U.S. will need. There are only a handful of these vessels in the world, and most of them belong to Dutch and Belgian companies. So why aren't we calling on them?
Blame it on the protectionist Merchant Marine Act of 1920, also called the Jones Act, that requires ships working in U.S. waters to be built, operated and owned by Americans. Building specialized clean-up vessels in the U.S. is too expensive because of high union labor costs, and unions don't want ships built with foreign labor to be used in U.S. waters. To circumvent the Jones Act, clean-up crews have had to outfit American ships with skimming technology airlifted from the Netherlands. This has resulted in serious delays and greater harm to the Gulf.
Presidents can suspend the Jones Act in emergencies, as George W. Bush did after Hurricane Katrina. But the Obama Administration continues to maintain that this isn't necessary and that there are "no pending requests" for waivers. But Florida Republican Senator George LeMieux disagrees and says his constituents want all the foreign help possible.
We sympathize with the President's lament on Monday that "I can't dive down there and plug the hole. I can't suck it up with a straw." But there's no excuse for turning away ships that can clean up the oil merely because that might offend Mr. Obama's union friends.
Why would 60 Minutes, CNN and the rest of the main stream (state controlled) media ignore this story? Of course, if W. did this...imagine the hoopla...I apologize for politicizing this discussion.
Last edited by haroldo; 06-21-2010 at 12:32 PM.
#23
06-22-2010, 12:18 PM
Re: Where'd the U/A Problem Go?
Rather than apologize, get the WHOLE story straight:
Here is an excerp from a christian science monitor article I found on yahoo:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20100619/ts_csm/309392
"Only a day after Fox News quoted Adm. Allen saying, "To date, nobody has come for a Jones Act waiver," Coast Guard Captain Roger Laferriere, the second-in-command, told ABC World News that both Allen and President Obama had, in fact, worked to waive the Jones Act to allow more foreign vessels to attack the spill."
The real reason you don't hear much more on the U/A issue is because it's NOT sensational enough. The media is only about juicy sound bites there is no real news or coverage of the whole story. It has become one big tabloid...
Both Fox and WSJ ought to read the following:
http://www.offshore-mag.com/index/ar...horizon16.html
Deepwater Horizon: Admiral Allen provides Jones Act waiver guidance
Published: Jun 15, 2010
Offshore staff
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- National Incident Commander Admiral Thad Allen instructed the Coast Guard federal on-scene coordinator, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and the U.S. Maritime Administration to ensure any Jones Act waiver requests regarding the BP oil spill response receive accelerated processing.
The admiral’s guidance would route waivers through the on-scene coordinator and the national incident commander for expedited clearance.
No Jones Act waivers have been required for the 15 foreign-flagged vessels currently in operation in the Gulf of Mexico. A foreign flag vessel can conduct certain operations as part of the flotilla if it is an oil spill response vessel and meets the requirements of 46 USC § 55113.
Federal law prohibits a foreign-flagged vessel from transporting merchandise between points in the United States encompassed by the Coastwise laws. The CBP determines the application of the Jones Act.
06/15/2010
Here is an excerp from a christian science monitor article I found on yahoo:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20100619/ts_csm/309392
"Only a day after Fox News quoted Adm. Allen saying, "To date, nobody has come for a Jones Act waiver," Coast Guard Captain Roger Laferriere, the second-in-command, told ABC World News that both Allen and President Obama had, in fact, worked to waive the Jones Act to allow more foreign vessels to attack the spill."
The real reason you don't hear much more on the U/A issue is because it's NOT sensational enough. The media is only about juicy sound bites there is no real news or coverage of the whole story. It has become one big tabloid...
Both Fox and WSJ ought to read the following:
http://www.offshore-mag.com/index/ar...horizon16.html
Deepwater Horizon: Admiral Allen provides Jones Act waiver guidance
Published: Jun 15, 2010
Offshore staff
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- National Incident Commander Admiral Thad Allen instructed the Coast Guard federal on-scene coordinator, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and the U.S. Maritime Administration to ensure any Jones Act waiver requests regarding the BP oil spill response receive accelerated processing.
The admiral’s guidance would route waivers through the on-scene coordinator and the national incident commander for expedited clearance.
No Jones Act waivers have been required for the 15 foreign-flagged vessels currently in operation in the Gulf of Mexico. A foreign flag vessel can conduct certain operations as part of the flotilla if it is an oil spill response vessel and meets the requirements of 46 USC § 55113.
Federal law prohibits a foreign-flagged vessel from transporting merchandise between points in the United States encompassed by the Coastwise laws. The CBP determines the application of the Jones Act.
06/15/2010
#24
06-23-2010, 10:41 AM
Re: Where'd the U/A Problem Go?
Rather than apologize, get the WHOLE story straight:
Here is an excerp from a christian science monitor article I found on yahoo:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20100619/ts_csm/309392
"Only a day after Fox News quoted Adm. Allen saying, "To date, nobody has come for a Jones Act waiver,"...
Here is an excerp from a christian science monitor article I found on yahoo:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20100619/ts_csm/309392
"Only a day after Fox News quoted Adm. Allen saying, "To date, nobody has come for a Jones Act waiver,"...
If the Dutch say "here, take the skimmers" and we say "thanks, but no thanks", no waiver was sought, but clearly, the fact remains that deference to the union rules was most likely a major (the only?) factor in the rejection.
Why else would they reject the (thirteen separate) offers?
Last edited by haroldo; 06-23-2010 at 12:14 PM.
#25
06-23-2010, 02:23 PM
Re: Where'd the U/A Problem Go?
While I was not in the White House when these decisions were made, it appears that the disconnect here is one of semantics. Sure, Adm. Allen hasn't seen any waivers, yet...but that's because the offers were rejected by the administration before the waiver process would have been considered.
If the Dutch say "here, take the skimmers" and we say "thanks, but no thanks", no waiver was sought, but clearly, the fact remains that deference to the union rules was most likely a major (the only?) factor in the rejection.
Why else would they reject the (thirteen separate) offers?
If the Dutch say "here, take the skimmers" and we say "thanks, but no thanks", no waiver was sought, but clearly, the fact remains that deference to the union rules was most likely a major (the only?) factor in the rejection.
Why else would they reject the (thirteen separate) offers?
I suggest you keep your conspiracy theories to yourself as you're starting to look very foolish.
Let's keep the discussion to TCH's.
#26
06-24-2010, 11:53 AM
Re: Where'd the U/A Problem Go?
Getting back to the original question................
I think that the measures taken have proven sufficient to eliminate the problems, at least any equipment-related actual and demonstrated problems.
More narrowly, in the specific case of the TCH, the only documented and proven problems for this car in specifically were those associated with the floor mats.
That problem was quite real and it pointed out that whatever degree of brake throttle override exists in the TCH was incapable of preventing the UA in the specific situation of the mat both interfering with the brake and transferring the brake pedal pressure to the acceleratior pedal.
This problem was apparently effectively resolved by the floor mat related recall measures.
And since there were no actual documented problems for the TCH other than this: PROBLEM SOLVED !
Readers here will know that:
1. I personally twice encountered the overlay floor mat-induced UA problem in my TCH.
2. The overlay mats in question were genuine Toyota products designed specifically fot the TCH; they were sold by my dealer AFTER the first round of floor mat problems and they were installed and secured properly.
3. After my incidents, I solved my own problem by bolting the mats to the floor.
4. Later, I removed the mats and had the recall doen to lower the carpet and shorten the accelerator pedal.
What i never previously reported is that after the recall measures, I reinstalled the mats without the bolts, just to see for myself hoe effective the measures had been.
Recently, the mat slipped froward at least as much as it had in the previous incident. It slid under the pedals without any problem and without any apparent danger of creating a problem.
In my book:
1. the recall measures for the TCH were exactly the correct response to the problem, and
2. the UA problem, at least for the TCH has been solved.
My only disappointment with Toyota over the incident is that they could have and should have done the recall measures a couple of years earlier.
By ignoring the problem rather than solving it in the first place, they unnecessarily put lives at risk.
I think that the measures taken have proven sufficient to eliminate the problems, at least any equipment-related actual and demonstrated problems.
More narrowly, in the specific case of the TCH, the only documented and proven problems for this car in specifically were those associated with the floor mats.
That problem was quite real and it pointed out that whatever degree of brake throttle override exists in the TCH was incapable of preventing the UA in the specific situation of the mat both interfering with the brake and transferring the brake pedal pressure to the acceleratior pedal.
This problem was apparently effectively resolved by the floor mat related recall measures.
And since there were no actual documented problems for the TCH other than this: PROBLEM SOLVED !
Readers here will know that:
1. I personally twice encountered the overlay floor mat-induced UA problem in my TCH.
2. The overlay mats in question were genuine Toyota products designed specifically fot the TCH; they were sold by my dealer AFTER the first round of floor mat problems and they were installed and secured properly.
3. After my incidents, I solved my own problem by bolting the mats to the floor.
4. Later, I removed the mats and had the recall doen to lower the carpet and shorten the accelerator pedal.
What i never previously reported is that after the recall measures, I reinstalled the mats without the bolts, just to see for myself hoe effective the measures had been.
Recently, the mat slipped froward at least as much as it had in the previous incident. It slid under the pedals without any problem and without any apparent danger of creating a problem.
In my book:
1. the recall measures for the TCH were exactly the correct response to the problem, and
2. the UA problem, at least for the TCH has been solved.
My only disappointment with Toyota over the incident is that they could have and should have done the recall measures a couple of years earlier.
By ignoring the problem rather than solving it in the first place, they unnecessarily put lives at risk.
#27
06-24-2010, 12:47 PM
Re: Where'd the U/A Problem Go?
Nice summary. Thanks.
Toyota did take one additional measure that probably helped. The software rewrite to default to the brakes when the system detects a conflict between acceleration and brake signals.
Toyota did take one additional measure that probably helped. The software rewrite to default to the brakes when the system detects a conflict between acceleration and brake signals.
#28
06-24-2010, 03:10 PM
Re: Where'd the U/A Problem Go?
Several of us posted here that we went in for the recall work expecting this to be included but were disappointed to be told in the end that they would not do it because the hybrid systems were different, that this rewrite could not be done on hybrids and that it was unnecessary in any event because a brake throttle override function already existed in the hybrid system.
I initially expected it ot be done, and the initial description of the recall work stated that it would, and both my service manager and the service rep who took the car in told me specifically that it would be done. But when I picked up the car there was no mention of this on the ticket. And when I asked why not, it was only then that they explained to me that it would not and could not be done on the TCH.
I never cease to be amazed at how uninformed and misinformed the dealer service staff can be - particularly in the case of the TCH !!
#29
06-24-2010, 03:46 PM
Re: Where'd the U/A Problem Go?
Actually this part of the recall was not performed on Camry Hybrids (or any hybrids).
Several of us posted here that we went in for the recall work expecting this to be included but were disappointed to be told in the end that they would not do it because the hybrid systems were different, that this rewrite could not be done on hybrids and that it was unnecessary in any event because a brake throttle override function already existed in the hybrid system.
Several of us posted here that we went in for the recall work expecting this to be included but were disappointed to be told in the end that they would not do it because the hybrid systems were different, that this rewrite could not be done on hybrids and that it was unnecessary in any event because a brake throttle override function already existed in the hybrid system.
So that just confirms what you have said in the above.
#30
06-24-2010, 04:22 PM
Ridiculously Active Enthusiast
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Beautiful Pacific NW
Posts: 1,678
Re: Where'd the U/A Problem Go?
Getting back to the original question................
I think that the measures taken have proven sufficient to eliminate the problems, at least any equipment-related actual and demonstrated problems.
More narrowly, in the specific case of the TCH, the only documented and proven problems for this car in specifically were those associated with the floor mats.
Many years ago there was a B737 crash in CO for which no explanation could be found, wind shear was the "final" guess. In ~1994 a second B737 went down in PA much the same manner.
For many years, especially for the first incident, there was no documented and proven problems with the B737.
So by your standards the SUA problem, other than the floor mat issue isn't "real"...
The B737 was eventually found to have a design flaw in the rudder's hydraulic servo valve.
That problem was quite real and it pointed out that whatever degree of brake throttle override exists in the TCH was incapable of preventing the UA in the specific situation of the mat both interfering with the brake and transferring the brake pedal pressure to the acceleratior pedal.
This problem was apparently effectively resolved by the floor mat related recall measures.
And since there were no actual documented problems for the TCH other than this: PROBLEM SOLVED !
AMAZING, simply amazing...!!
Clever, I'll have to keep that in mind for future reference/use.
"..If it isn't documented then it isn't REAL...!"
Readers here will know that:
1. I personally twice encountered the overlay floor mat-induced UA problem in my TCH.
2. The overlay mats in question were genuine Toyota products designed specifically fot the TCH; they were sold by my dealer AFTER the first round of floor mat problems and they were installed and secured properly.
3. After my incidents, I solved my own problem by bolting the mats to the floor.
4. Later, I removed the mats and had the recall doen to lower the carpet and shorten the accelerator pedal.
What i never previously reported is that after the recall measures, I reinstalled the mats without the bolts, just to see for myself hoe effective the measures had been.
Recently, the mat slipped froward at least as much as it had in the previous incident. It slid under the pedals without any problem and without any apparent danger of creating a problem.
In my book:
1. the recall measures for the TCH were exactly the correct response to the problem, and
2. the UA problem, at least for the TCH has been solved.
My only disappointment with Toyota over the incident is that they could have and should have done the recall measures a couple of years earlier.
By ignoring the problem rather than solving it in the first place, they unnecessarily put lives at risk.
I think that the measures taken have proven sufficient to eliminate the problems, at least any equipment-related actual and demonstrated problems.
More narrowly, in the specific case of the TCH, the only documented and proven problems for this car in specifically were those associated with the floor mats.
Many years ago there was a B737 crash in CO for which no explanation could be found, wind shear was the "final" guess. In ~1994 a second B737 went down in PA much the same manner.
For many years, especially for the first incident, there was no documented and proven problems with the B737.
So by your standards the SUA problem, other than the floor mat issue isn't "real"...
The B737 was eventually found to have a design flaw in the rudder's hydraulic servo valve.
That problem was quite real and it pointed out that whatever degree of brake throttle override exists in the TCH was incapable of preventing the UA in the specific situation of the mat both interfering with the brake and transferring the brake pedal pressure to the acceleratior pedal.
This problem was apparently effectively resolved by the floor mat related recall measures.
And since there were no actual documented problems for the TCH other than this: PROBLEM SOLVED !
AMAZING, simply amazing...!!
Clever, I'll have to keep that in mind for future reference/use.
"..If it isn't documented then it isn't REAL...!"
Readers here will know that:
1. I personally twice encountered the overlay floor mat-induced UA problem in my TCH.
2. The overlay mats in question were genuine Toyota products designed specifically fot the TCH; they were sold by my dealer AFTER the first round of floor mat problems and they were installed and secured properly.
3. After my incidents, I solved my own problem by bolting the mats to the floor.
4. Later, I removed the mats and had the recall doen to lower the carpet and shorten the accelerator pedal.
What i never previously reported is that after the recall measures, I reinstalled the mats without the bolts, just to see for myself hoe effective the measures had been.
Recently, the mat slipped froward at least as much as it had in the previous incident. It slid under the pedals without any problem and without any apparent danger of creating a problem.
In my book:
1. the recall measures for the TCH were exactly the correct response to the problem, and
2. the UA problem, at least for the TCH has been solved.
My only disappointment with Toyota over the incident is that they could have and should have done the recall measures a couple of years earlier.
By ignoring the problem rather than solving it in the first place, they unnecessarily put lives at risk.
There are actually two circumstances wherein a loose floor mat cab case an SUA. The first is the case that apparently both you and I have encountered, the floor mat sliding forward and getting caught behind the brake pedal but DRAPED OVER the gas pedal.
That type of SUA was not the cause of the Toyota recall. The problem that Toyota was addressing was due to an AWFM, All-Weather Floor Mat, a RIBBED AWFM. In that case the bottom of the gas pedal would catch on one of the ribs and bind in the WOT position.
Last edited by wwest; 06-24-2010 at 04:30 PM.
