George’s Point of View
A disaster not in California…
From June 12 to June 15, the Sarychev Peak on the Russian Kuril Islands erupted, causing air traffic disruptions between Northern American and Japan. The ash clouds are reaching “estimated heights of 45,000 feet.” (Danger zone for aviation from from E152 to W155 over a distance of 2000nm and N40 to N48).
The dust clouds are drifting east and dispersing.
Similar Posts
What is the Value of a Human Life?

In case you forgot, Dana Air Flight 992 is the McDonnell Douglas MD-83 aircraft en route from Abuja to Lagos, Nigeria which crashed on June 3rd 2012, in the Iju-Ishaga neighbourhood of Lagos, demolishing a furniture works and printing press building.
The accident, a combination of engine failure and subsequent forced landing, killed 163 people, ten of them on the ground. Eleven miles from the airport, the MD-83 crashed on its tail. It and the neighborhood went up in flames.
Why do I bring this up now, a little over a year later?
Because 11 families have received $100,000 each–
Because sixty-five families whose compensation payments have not been made, due largely to documentation issues and they are suing Dana Air —
Dana Air claims “95 of 125 families have received interim compensation of $30,000.”
I have been reading rhetoric lauding Dana Air for making what someone calls “unprecedented progress” in paying compensation.
Putting the value of a human life at $100,000 is lowballing the value of life. I am surprised that anyone would be commending such devaluation.
Is the operator looking for a gold medal for forking over a mere $100,000 for a loss of life?
Is this all a life is worth in that part of the world or is this something Dana insurer is declaring a fair compensation?
Cost of Aviation
If you want to see the most current mappings of the ash, here’s the British meteorological service site.
As I sit here in a foreign country separated from my home by an ocean and a sky full of volcanic ash they are saying may disrupt trans-atlantic aviation for the next six months, and wondering when I will get home, I read the chilling words of a American scrivener remembering the recent flight that wiped out the Polish “politocracy.”
Michael White: “An airplane is a hollow bullet filled with humans lives, shot from a gun we call an airport. Should it impact with the ground other than according to the dictates of precise technology, its content perishes.”
Those of us who fly so often take for granted that flight is a right, but every so often, Nature reminds us we are not birds, we are Icarus, daring to fly too close to the sun. We are creatures of the earth. We have no wings beyond those our imagination have wrought.
Who among us can say it is worth the cost, especially those people I work with every day who have lost their nearest and dearest.
And yet, how we have flown.
Regarding Boeings New Generation Take on Old (Persistent?) Problems. Maybe. Maybe not.
George’s Point of View
The 787: Dreamliner test flight suffered from extensive smoke, fire and structural damage originating in the P100′ electrical panel, a key component that distributes power from the left generator to power vital systems
The 777: United electrical panel set the nearby insulation blankets on fire. This was initially reported as smoke. Thus no reason for the FAA to go there. And the full narrative said only “electrical fire” but did not elucidate beyond “electrical fire” to explain the electrical panel set the nearby insulation blankets on fire.
The AAIB conclusions 4,5, and 6, were:
- “The RGCB and Right Bus Tie Breaker (RBTB) suffered from severe internal arcing and short circuits which generated temperatures in excess of 1,000°C, and resulted in uncontained failures. The RGCB was probably the first to fail.”
- “ Molten copper and silver droplets from the failed contactors dropped down through the open base of the P200 panel and ignited the insulation blankets below.”
- “The insulation blanket fire spread underneath a floor panel to the opposite P205 power panel, causing heat and fire damage to structure, cooling ducts and wiring.”
The three requirements for a fire: oxygen, ignition source and fuel.
From 2000 to 2008, over 22 ADs are directed at insulation blankets that burn. Before that, from 1988 to 2010, 8 FAA Tech Center reports and 2 FAA Safety Conference Papers are directed at electrical induced fires or the insulation blankets that give fuel to the fire.
When was the latest AD ?
2008-23-09. REMOVE PET (AN-26). Boeing Model 727-200s, 737-200s, 737-300s, and 737-400, 747s, 757s, 767s Series Airplanes.from the fuselage. Such insulation blankets could ignite and propagate a fire that is the result of electrical arcing or sparking.
DATES; Issued Oct 24, 2008 -effective Dec 15, 2008 – Comply by 2014. If you read the AD, you can note that the compliance date is actually set beyond the affected planes anticipated passenger service-life. Compliance is put off until the planes will likely be converted from passenger to cargo.2002 FAA ASTRAC Conference Conclusions
- In-flight Fires In Hidden Areas are a risk to aviation safety.
- Most hidden fires are caused by electrical problems.
- Non-compliance with Safety Regulations have been uncovered.
- Fire Safety Problems and Improvements are in various stages of correction and study.
- It is impossible to predict the relative risk of serious fires occurring in Hidden Areas or Locations.
Without being too critical or belaboring the obvious, I do have to say that the 2002 conclusions are overly obvious and simplistic. These same points will probably be as true in 2002 and 2011 as in 3011. Point by point? Consider this:
- In-flight fires are a risk to safety, whether they’re hidden or not. Certainly if one doesn’t know where they are, they have more time to be destructive before they are found. And as for being predictable-there probably is a random statistical probability that can come pretty close; but translating theory back to real life situations perfectly only happens on tv.
- Electrical problems are certainly a broad umbrella-one might even say the current problems with rogue batteries to be a form of electrical problem.
- Non compliance regarding safety is hardly an issue when a plane is in the testing phase; in fact, that is when the manufacturer is are troubleshooting to get rid of potential safety issues. The 777 electrical panel issue may or may not have a common cause; and if it does have a common cause, then, isn’t that splendid for Boeing? The detective job (i.e. finding the cause) is half of the problem already solved. What luck! But in real life, are the causes that easy to find? And in practice, how many times are non-compliance with Safety Regulations due to poor operator maintenance versus to unsafe parts?
- Fire Safety Improvements are an ongoing process. It’s the nature of the beast.
So here is the problem as it should possibly be stated:
-We need compliance now because people are on these planes now, not at some random future date. Pushing back solutions puts more people are at risk. We need feasible compliance that doesn’t put good companies out of business but still maintains the highest possible safety standards NOT the lowest possible cost. Putting off compliance over a combustible insulation blanket until 2014? Really? How is this safe?
-The lowest common denominator should not be lowest possible cost-to-the- industry. It should be the highest possible safety for the passenger. These things are not always mutually exclusive.
-If the root problem is less than ideal materials used across many manufacturer and model applications, then quit pussyfooting around.
If the boy is going to cry wolf, let it be for a real wolf. If the wolf is real, then act. If inadequate materials, composites, etc are the problem, then don’t point the finger and do nothing. Questionable materials have no place in an industry that lives under guidelines advocating and promoting safety over all.Like Yoda said, “Do or do not. There is no try.”
Raise the standards.
- Air Safety | Editorial | Video
Blown Lap Joints and Other Points of Fatigue
The older 737’s which ruptured their five-foot tops (at the lap joints) are just a drop in the proverbial bucket. Or, if you will, the canary in the cave. Because they are a sign of what is to come, if Boeing, and in fact ALL plane makers, don’t step up the inspection guidelines for metal fatigue in 15 year old planes. The FAA is mandating initial and repetitive electromagnetic inspections “to detect cracking in a specific part of the aircraft that cannot be spotted with visual inspection.” The FAA Emergency Airworthiness Directive pdf can be found here.

Sure, since the fuselage crack on the Southwest 737 on April 1, older model 737’s have demonstrated a propensity toward metal fatigue. On that particular plane, in March, eight instances were found of cracking in the frame and six cracked stringer clips which hold the skin. To be sure, Southwest did the right thing by grounding its 80 737s and checking them all because it turned out that five of those inspected had cracks in the same location. Those 18-inch roof sections are being repaired according to the recommendations of Boeing and the NTSB with a large aluminum patchBut what about 15 year old 757s? They should put all the older planes of comparable cycles—let’s not limit this to Boeing!— What about 15 year old Airbuses? —under scrutiny for metal fatigue. Are they not just as likely to blow as a 737?
Tam, a Letter of Remembrance

Dear Tam Families,
On this day, 7/17/17, I just reread the transcript of TAM flight JJ-3054. I never knew those people aboard that plane, but I knew their families. I remember the families of these lost passengers. I remember your heartbreak and your loss. Ten years have passed. I hope you have had ten years of healing.On this day, 7/17/2007, TAM flight JJ-3054 flew into history, taking with it all 187 passengers and crew, and twelve people on the ground. Tonight, I wanted to be that good friend who remembers the date, but not the pain. I was there with you, and I remember you were towers of strength, getting through the hardest time of all. What I hope is that time has healed your wounds, and that you can remember the music and joy that filled your loved ones lives. Remember the good things. The love. The laughter. The connection. May you continue to carry with you all the good memories. I share my heartfelt condolences to all the families. I was there with you, then. I am with you now in spirit. I will never forget.
Pilot Fatigue
Pilot Fatigue:
George’s Point of View
We passengers have a problem. We don’t want our pilots falling asleep on the job. Behind that locked cockpit door, there’s a real danger that our pilots might well be dozing off. Like Howard Beale, in the movie NETWORK, we’ve gotta say, “I’m a human being, goddammit! My life has value! … I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore!!”Apparently aviation authorities are taking notice of the sleepy pilot phenomenon.
In a September 2009 speech, the Secretary General of the International Civil Aviation Organization, Raymond Benjamin raised the critical issue of pilot fatigue. The ICAO is coming out with new provisions governing flight times, duty times and rest periods for pilots which are applicable now, in November 2009. Fatigue risk management systems to augment new fatigue provisions are in development. I wonder if this includes things like alarms going off at random times during a flight, random check-ins or shrill-voiced stewards armed with tasers knocking on the cockpit door every fifteen minutes asking “Are you guys still awake?”
Ever since the Colgan Air crash near Buffalo that killed all 50 people onboard, the United States had been developing more stringent standards; and this has been stepped up even more since the recent occurrence of pilots who overshot their destination by 150 miles–although both pilots in this incident claimed to be distracted and not asleep. American regulations currently allow a maximum of 16 hours on duty–but that figure is currently being reassessed by the FAA.
Canadian pilots are looking toward the Canadian Transportation Safety Board to also up their standards, which they have not yet done, even though the Canadian Transportation Safety Board recently reported about a pilot: “Fatigue likely resulted in a degradation of his concentration” in reference to a 2005 incident where a pilot nodded off and allowed the plane to slow nearly to a stall. Although a dozen Canadian fatigue incidents have been connected to 23 deaths, the Canadian Transportation Safety Board claims that their current regulations are “adequate.” The European Union allows a maximum of 13 hours. Canadian regulations allow a crew to be on duty for 14 hours in 24), night work, irregular start times, routes that cross several time zones and multiple takeoffs and landings.
Some of the hardest work to deal with is called continuous or stand-up duty, which is when pilots handle a late evening flight, stay overnight and fly the turnaround leg–or the timing of this type of flight which forces irregular daylight hours to be the only time a pilot can sleep. Turnaround times don’t exactly respect human biorhythms.
Pilots might be dropping off to sleep while they’re flying, but the rest of us look at the statistics and fly white-knuckled with our hearts in our throats. With worries about everything from plane maintenance, to lax air traffic control, from crowded flight corridors to random part failure, the least we passengers can do is bring alarm clocks, our souped-up air horns, and plenty of high-test Starbucks emergency caffeine to keep our pilots awake, alert and on the mark.

>