Ethiopian Airlines: Victims’ Families Endure

Similar Posts

  • | |

    Fly Keystone Cops, no, I mean Fly India

    George’s Point of View

    Once upon a time, there were two runways: Runway 27 and Runway 14. They crossed each other. It didn’t matter that they crossed each other because the KING of the runway (Air Traffic Control) never allowed planes in a collision course. In Air Traffic Control school, they teach that a collision course would be a very bad thing.

    So one day, an Air India A310 was on Runway 27, and waiting for input from Air Traffic Control. And, simultaneously, a Jet Airways Boeing 737-800, flight was waiting on Runway 14.

    Somehow, both planes started to take-off.

    Air Traffic control recognized that the very bad thing was about to happen, and cancelled one of the take-offs.

    Fortunately both pilots were awake, saw the what was happening and both pilots rejected takeoff.

    (Fortunately, they teach that a collision course is a bad thing in Pilot school too. Nice juxtaposition, that.)

    It’s a good day when no one dies from the accident that could have happened.

    It’s not a happy ending yet, because it won’t be over until the investigation is over. No one died…but it remains to be seen if heads may still roll.

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

    Qantas A380 Engine Disintegration Far More Serious

    Rolls said in a statement that the failure was confined to a specific component in the turbine area of the engine. This caused an oil fire. The British company added that it would replace the faulty part. Safety continues to be Rolls-Royce’s highest priority. See their statement

    Qantas is grounding its Airbus A380 superjumbos until further notice, and Singapore Airlines is grounding 3 of its A380s. EASA is calling for inspections. See the directive.

    What Happened
    The cause of the Rolls Royce engine failure has been pinned down to a faulty bearing box, the underlying cause of the oil leak. The bearings allow the drive shaft to move. The leaking bearing box dripped oil into the QANTAS A380 whose engine exploded (uncontained) into the wing, and dropping its turbine onto a house in Batam. The wing damage included electrical cables and hydraulic lines inside the wing, so that pilots were dealing with hydraulic damage (inability to close the landing gear doors), and electrical damage (trouble shutting down the engine beside the damaged one.)

    The Qantas meltdown is one of at least five documented A380 engine malfunctions.

    • Qantas A388 near Singapore on Nov 4th 2010
    • Lufthansa A388 near Frankfurt on Aug 6th 2010, engine shut down in flight
    • Emirates A388 near Zurich on Jul 13th 2010, engine shut down in flight
    • Singapore A388 near Krakow on Sep 27th 2009, engine shut down in flight
    • Singapore A388 near London on May 25th 2009, engine failure

    Newer Trent 900 engines have a different bearing box. Although the new box promises to eliminate the problem, newer models also have system software to shut down the engine before the leak causes a meltdown similar to the QANTAS A380 event over Singapore.

    George’s Point of View

    Although one might say that regulators did not adequately check the engine before approving it for commercial use, I think of Boeing’s response to its recent 787 test flight, and I point out that no one made Boeing step back and pull the 787 back on to the drawing board for more tests and adjustments. Boeing did that, because such remediation is what testing is all about. It is part and parcel of the paradigm of safety in design. It is up to each manufacturer that every item off of their assembly lines be as well designed and as safe as humanly possible. This includes fixing design flaws as soon as they are known. So I wonder, if newer Trent 900 engines have an improved bearing box, this of course begs the question why the older ones were not replaced.

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

    AirBlue in Defiance of Court

    Although the court has ordered compensation, a spokesman of victims told the Peshawar High Court that “AirBlue has communicated to petitioners that compensation will be given to them once they step down and cases are withdrawn from court.” AirBlue also asked for a “universal relief agreement” release form for the 152 companies potentially responsible banning victims from suing.

    The chief justice advised the victims rep to file an application of contempt of court, and promised to continue the case until every heir is compensated.

    In George’s Point of View


    AirBlue should be taking the high road on this, and stop dragging their feet. The tragedy brought to a halt the lives of too many, robbed families of their futures. How can any of these families affected ever have any peace? Why—after already causing the ultimate harm to the victims, and the families of victims—must the airline do everything in their power to make the situation even worse?

    From the moment we are infants who learn to trust our feet to carry us, standing at the sides of our cribs, toddling across our parent’s floors into schools, and adulthood and life beyond, we are only able to stand on our own feet, to walk on our own feet, to negotiate the ground beneath us because we learn a sense of control. We know where the ground is, which way is up. We learn where we can place our feet just so, how to move, to balance, and how to negotiate the rules and laws and physics of the real world so that we can take the next step in our lives, and the next, and the next. All of this occurs because we learn to trust our environment, to trust ourselves in it.

    A tragic event like a plane crash turns our perceptions, our world, our lives inside out. It turns the ground to the ceiling. Our perception of reality is instantly distorted, turning peace and family into an ongoing horror. How can we take the next step when the ground beneath us has been stolen away?

    A tragedy like this shocks everyone–not just the families, but everyone who learns of the event–we are all left with the sense of being a boat unmoored, with the knowledge of a loss of control of the setting and circumstance of our lives. Everyone who learns of a crash like that of Air Blue faces a realization of the frailty of life. The word “shock” is appropriate, for the sensation is not unlike a zap of electricity that sizzles our nerve endings. For those of us who did not lose anyone, we may have an instant jolt, an instant awareness an instant empathy of the depth of grief, horror, pain suffered by survivors; but for survivors that jolt is no instant. It stretches on indefinitely into a future rendered bleak and dead.

    Healing may come; a sense of life may return, or even a sense of carpe diem. But even with healing, there is a loss of innocence, a loss of trust in life, in belief of “the future” because, after all, how grim the future is without our loved ones in it.

    For the families, reparation can never be made. How can they truly be “repaired” if the loved ones they lost can never be returned? The sense of the wholeness of their lives is forever a shattered glass. It is the responsibility for Jet Blue (and even for any of the 152 companies who are indeed partially responsible) to deliver promise instead of excuse, blessing instead of denial, empowerment instead of refusal, expedition instead of delay.

    There is a lot of guilt and responsibility sitting squarely in the lap of Air Blue.

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

    Flying in the face of Fate

    George’s Point of View

    Sometimes heroes do things that are counter-intuitive.
    Police break up riots.
    Soldiers enter battle.
    Firemen run into fires.

    Our natures are designed to have the urge to run away from harm. It only makes sense.

    There are thrill seekers who defy that urge:
    race car drivers
    parachutists
    The Evel Knievils of the world.

    Pilots are trained to do whatever is necessary to avoid thunderstorms. Serious storms are taken seriously–especially if routed through the “inter-tropical convergence zone.”

    It is counter-intuitive to fly into a storm.

    Maybe the storm crept up out of nowhere. Engineers can claim new planes are safely flown into storms but some things that are counter-intuitive are that way for a reason.

    We humans are solvers by nature. We like to see what the problem is, analyze it, and fix it. But what we find, while doing our fixing, is that there’s never just one thing wrong.

    This is true for any airline event. When is it ever just one thing? It’s not just the rain; the runway is too short. And part of the brakes are down. It’s not just that the pilot is landing on the wrong runway–the runway isn’t long enough, and it’s on a collision course. Plus when there are maintenance issues, they snowball. Maintenance crews get fluids on the engine that burn and send fumes in the cockpit, which causes the crew to have an emergency landing with a fuel-filled plane that stresses the landing gear and explodes the tire, and damages the nose wheel…

    It’s never one thing.

    So this time, it looks like it’s turbulence, hail, lightning strike, rapid decompression, storms, and electrical failure in the desolate oragious Atlantic. The controversy will keep going for a long time.

    What we decide is futile. Ultimately the only thing you can call a tragedy is a tragedy. This is a tragedy.

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

    Thoughts about the Boeing Battery

    It’s no surprise that the FAA has no crystal ball and can’t tell us when the 787 is flying again.

    Is Boeing going to switch out Battery systems? Are they wasting time trying to qualify the problematic lithium-ion system they have when they could switch to a different technology? Is it cost prohibitive to switch systems temporarily while Boeing works the kinks out of a system they seem to want to keep?

    Cessna confirms that it intends to requalify lithium-ion batteries. It means that they are going to keep using them–but we do agree with their determination to REQUALIFY them. Let us not forget that Cessna issued an emergency recall of the CJ4+ Citation Jet lithium-ion batteries when they suffered a fire in late 2011. Their airworthiness directive required CJ4+ operators to replace the lithium-ion batteries within 10 flight hours. The company that produced the Cessna batteries, A123 Systems, went out of business. Maybe Cessna should go talk to Boeing about their findings.

    The investigation of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner battery that caught fire in Boston is that two things have been found:

    thermal runaway (a cycle where temperature goes up causing it to go up more) If the electrolyte catches on fire it can self-sustain.

    short-circuit (unintended contact of components and consequent accidental diversion of the current)

    The Boston event battery suffered both.

    Now the question is which one is the chicken, and which one is the egg. Which came first? And they still haven’t figured out why. And did both failed batteries come from the same batch of batteries?

    The lithium cobalt oxide battery chemistry Boeing uses is considered less safe than lithium manganese oxide and lithium iron phosphate chemistry.

    Was the whole battery system a mistake? It was, according to whistleblower Michael Leon who we mentioned in Battery Buzz wrote a report (2006) saying that the battery technology was risky and that substitute battery technology should be used on the 787.

    Now the NTSB is going to point fingers at the FAA for certifying what may be a problem.

    Video

    And video from the whistleblower:

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

    Airbus Wingtip Grazes Congo Building


    Click to view full size photo at Airliners.net
    Contact Photographers Daniel & Robert Fall

    What: Air France Airbus A330-200 en route from from Paris to Brazzaville Congo
    Where: Maya-Maya airport on the tarmac
    When:
    Who: Several dozen people were on board the plane,
    Why: While taxiing into a parking position, the right winglet (a small vertical section at the tip of the wing) brushed a building just after landing. Although maintenance moved fast to say the plane was fine, the plane will be flown back to France but is banned from taking off with any passengers.

    George’s Point of View

    I’m not picking on Airbus. Just to prove it, I am going to admit that in this case, the lousy taxi job is probably not due to an innate Airbus flaw (unless massive vehicle size can be construed as a design flaw directly related to the relative ease of negotiating turns on a runway. Maybe the pilot or ground crew was just a ham-handed driver. Come to think of it, parking the 1975 Cadillac Fleetwood was no piece of cake either. )

    No, I’m not picking on Airbus. With over 2,500 Airbus A320s flying around, (and who knows how many other Airbus models are still in service) incidents will happen.

    But.. look at these statistics:
    Airbus A300 – 17 crashes with a total of 1126 fatalities
    Airbus A310 – 9 crashes with a total of 825 fatalities
    Airbus A319/20/21 – 16 crashes with a total of 637 fatalities
    Airbus A330 – 3 with a total of 235 fatalities

    ——-*——-

    That’s a lot of fatalities. The number of deaths–almost 400 in June alone–this works out to a lot of misery spread around to a lot of families.

    I’m not picking on Air France, either. Air France isn’t responsible for the Yemenia Flight 626 that crashed June 30th 2009 with 152 fatalities and one miracle survivor.

    But even if I am not picking on Airbus, someone with lots of muscle (like all the citizens of France) should be doing just that.

    Enough deaths. It is past time to fix the problem.

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