|

Taban Air Emergency Landing

Similar Posts

  • | |

    Release: Pilots: How to Handle Abnormal Situations

    http://www.faa.gov/news/safety_briefing/
    Now available online, the November/December 2010 issue of FAA Safety Briefing focuses on a subject fundamental to pilot safety: how to handle abnormal and emergency situations. The issue stresses the delicate art of planning for the unplanned and outlines several tools and resources pilots can draw upon to handle emergencies.
    Articles provide tips on unusual attitude recovery, partial-power takeoffs, and knowing what to do when your aircraft’s electrical system fails. Also, this issue’s Hot Spots article highlights the work FAA has been doing to identify the leading causes of GA fatal accidents and lists the top 10 causes. The Vertically Speaking column lists the top 10 causes of helicopter accidents and highlights the regional safety seminars the FAA Safety Team is conducting with Helicopter Association International.

    For Aviation Maintenance Technicians, the Nuts, Bolts, and Electrons article explains the Service Difficulty Reporting System and encourages AMTs to use it.

    To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.
  • |

    Is Oxygen Hose Length an Issue?

    We talked about the May 16 cockpit fire on a United Boeing 757 (New York to Los Angeles) that made an emergency diversion to Dulles. That event involved an airborne cockpit fire so extreme that the pilot reached for the fire extinguishers to put out flames coming from his windshield—but he was brought up short by the length of the oxygen hose. In the smokey situation, it must have been a special concern to have the oxygen mask rip away from the pilot’s face. I can only assume there is other essential gear stored and unreachable due to the length of the hose, because I haven’t seen anyone talk about solving the hose length issue by moving the extinguishers closer.

    In fact, on some Boeing 757 and 767s the length of the hose attached to the pilot’s oxygen mask and smoke goggles is under scrutiny now by the FAA for being too short to reach the fire extinguishers. Apparently Boeing has resisted lengthening the hose because of the danger of the pilot getting tangled in the hose.

    Since the FAA is looking into the issue of the possibility of the hoses being too short, one can not help but wonder if this problem were a factor in the May 22 – Air India Express Flight 812 Boeing 737-800 crash at Mangalore International Airport, or the Jan 25 Ethiopian Airlines Flight 409 Boeing 737-800 that crashed into the Mediterranean Sea shortly after take-off from Beirut. How do we know that too-short hoses did not contribute to those tragic events?

    Conversely, if the 737 hose length is not too short and allows the pilot to reach where it essential for the pilot to reach, and there is no hose problem on the 737, then why has Boeing not corrected this problem on 757s and 767s?

    To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.
  • In Jamaica, Half a Runway is Better Than None, Mon…

    One thing I feel is that someone out there in aviation (and I don’t know who it is)-the pilot in general, ATC, or the airline-does not respect Mother Nature. Weather happens. Sometimes very BIG weather happens. And people will just not be dissuaded by a little common sense. No matter what, if we want to go, we’re going to jump on our magical Boeing-Airbus-Embraer-McDonnell Douglas Sleigh like Santa Clause, the Postal Service or Fed Ex, and we will go. People want it, so the airlines are going to provide it, like the inscription on the James Farley post office in New York “Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds.” Or to more-or-less paraphrase David Farragut, “Damn the lightning, full speed ahead!”

    So my first point is that we should respect nature a little more. Sometimes discretion is the better part of valor.

    We commonly make assumptions here in all of our posts, because we’re using a who/what/where/when format. The “What” usually ends up as a synopsis of events, with just a little bit of why thrown in. But “why” is not a question we can take lightly. “Why” an incident happens is just too big for us to cover, especially since we try to get our posts up within hours of the event. Between you and me, if it takes a year for the whole NTSB research team made up of a federal building full of highly educated and experienced experts, thousands of pages of recorded documentation, video and concrete evidence, and the nation’s keenest analytical minds juggling all the permutations to figure out “why” a crash happened, then we don’t really think we can come up with the perfect “why” off the top of our heads fifteen minutes after the crash.

    That said, there’s an expert in Jamaica–Lt. Col. Oscar Derby, director general of the Jamaica Civil Aviation — who says that the aircraft touched down at 4,100 feet (assuming this is fact, since one can assume the director general of Jamaican aviation has access to all the facts) and that number isn’t referring to altitude, it’s referring to the plane’s wheels contacting mother tarmac halfway down the runway. I’m not going to talk about his decisions, or his inquiry because it is simply too soon.

    But if the plane landed halfway down the runway (if it is not internet gossip, but a fact that the plane did land halfway down the runway)…that is significant. It probably wouldn’t matter if the plane hadn’t bounced. Or if it hadn’t been raining. Or if the plane hadn’t hydroplaned. But ALL of those things happened too.

    I don’t know why the pilot landed halfway down the runway; but I do know there is always some point of no return where the pilot must commit to either fly by or land. I don’t know the factors that came into play with this pilot, on this day, on this runway, during this storm that affected the decision. Experts will be spending years looking at this pilot’s split second decision.

    The fact remains that in a harrowing rainstorm, after a turbulent flight, a bounce on landing, and hydroplaning, the American AIrlines crew still managed to come out of it with everyone aboard alive, and that is a job well done.

    To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.
  • | | | | | | |

    Technical Difficulty: Specific Answers imprisoned in “the vague”


    Click to view full size photo at Airliners.net
    Contact photographer

    What: Cityjet Avro RJ-85/Air France en route from Edinburgh to Paris
    Where: Birmingham UK
    When: Jul 8th 2010
    Why: While en route, the Air France flight developed “technical problems” and diverted to Birmingham where it made a safe landing. Passengers were provided alternative flights.

    Avro (1963) was taken over by Hawker Siddely, and later merged with British Aircraft Corp and Scottish Aviation (1977) , which was succeeded by British Aerospace( 1999) , and then succeeded by BAE Systems.

    George’s Point of View

    Technical issues? In this day and time, it seems to me that “technical issues” is an inadequate description of a problem. These have all been lumped at one time under “technical issues”:

    • Polish air force Tupolev 154 that crashed during an attempted landing in Smolensk, Russia, on April 10, 2010. 96 killed
    • Ethiopian Airlines Boeing 737 that took off in Beirut, caught fire and crashed into the Mediterranean on Jan. 25, 2010. 90 killed
    • Yemenia Airways Airbus A310 that crashed into the Indian Ocean on approach to Moroni, on June 30, 2009. 152 killed
    • Air France Airbus A330 en route from Rio de Janeiro to Paris that crashed into the Atlantic Ocean on June 1, 2009. 228 killed
    • Turkish Airlines Boeing 737 that crashed shy of Amsterdam’s Schiphol Airport runway on Feb. 25, 2009 9 killed (135 aboard)

    A cursory announcement of a problem should be specific.

    Was it a problem with an indicator? an alarm system? a physical problem? a communication problem? loss of control? overheating? leaks? maintenance?

    The only way design issues can be caught ahead of the disaster is if full disclosure of the exact problem is noted publicly, and cross-checked with all other incidents and problem reports. If Air France or Cityjet Avro wants to present details, I would be delighted to present them in this forum here.

    Air France—like all carriers—needs to practice full disclosure. If the cause is unknown, then it is multiplicatively more important to disclose the exact issue so that the problem can recorded, cross checked, and be tracked down. Maybe if there were less secrecy and more open communication in the field of aviation safety, the 575 lost in recent crashes would still be here.

    To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.
  • | |

    Part Two of the Gol Sentences, in which ATC is Accountable

    We recently mentioned when the pilots of the two US pilots were sentenced to US community service for the 2006 Midair collision between a GOL Boeing and a business jet.

    In addition to the pilots, the Air Traffic Controller Lucivando de Alencar was sentenced. Judge Murilo Mendes revoked Alencar’s license, and sentenced him to three years of community service.

    Flight 1907, en route from Manaus to Rio, disappeared from radar over Mato Grosso when it collided in mid-air with an Embraer Legacy 600 business jet piloted by the two pilots who were sentenced earlier this week. The Legacy jet landed safely at Cachimbo Airport but 148 passengers and 6 crew members died in the Boeing that crashed into the Amazon.

    To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.
  • | |

    Special flight safety checks are being carried out at New South Wales and Victorian aerodromes this week.

    NSW and Victorian aerodrome flight safety checks

    Special flight safety checks are being carried out at a range of New South Wales and Victorian aerodromes this week.

    There will be a series of low-level flights to make sure flight paths at the aerodrome continue to operate safely.

    A twin-engine Cessna Conquest aircraft will be used to conduct the safety checks within an area up to 35 kilometres from the local aerodrome.

    The two pilots flying the aircraft will ensure navigation aids are operational and not suffering interference, as well as looking for any new obstacles that could be a danger to aviation safety.

    The Civil Aviation Safety Authority requires these checks to be carried out every three years to maintain a high level of air safety at all aerodromes.

    Low-level flying is an essential part of the safety exercise, with aircraft down as low as several hundred feet at times.

    Local residents may notice an uncommon flying pattern, but this is to make sure obstacles are accurately marked on charts and no new obstacles exist. Obstacles can be towers, trees, masts or buildings that can be a danger to aircraft.

    The checks are scheduled to be carried out between 7 and 14 February 2011.

    Aerodromes undergoing flight safety checks this week include Moruya, Cooma, Corryong, Wangaratta, Warracknabeal, Swan Hill, Shepparton, Tocumwal, Tumut, Polo Flat, Albury, Corowa, Yarrawonga, Nhill, Deniliquin, Echuca, and Wagga Wagga.

    If poor weather or other factors do not allow the safety checks to go ahead on the planned days they will be carried out as soon as possible.

    CASA has contracted the operation of the special check flights out to Radiola Aerospace Pty Ltd – a company with wide international expertise in these specialist operations.

    To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.