| |

Joy Flight Steals Joy

Before the Sukhoi Superjet smashed into a ledge on Wednesday, killing 45 people and raining debris down the slopes of Mount Salak, I had never heard the term “joy flight.”

The “joy flight” is the airline equivalent of you going down to the Ferrari dealership and taking a test drive. Or it would be if you were being driven in the Ferrari for fifty minutes or so, in a party atmosphere courted along with a bunch of other potential buyers.

The “joy flight” is a selling tool for the manufacturer. They host this ride for potential buyers to show off the features and quality/qualities of a new plane they are trying to sell.

Until the black box is recovered (we hope one was on the plane!), we won’t have any idea if the pilots had been asked to “buzz” the mountain, or if their request to fly low was a response to the heavy cloud cover. United Aircraft Corporation which built the Superjet says that pilot Alexander Yablontsev (who had logged 10,000 hours in Sukhoi prototypes) was their best test pilot, and had overseen “everything from the designing of the aircraft to its certification.”

Buzzing mountains renowned as an airline graveyard would not be the smartest thing to do, but everyone does wonder why the pilots requested to lower their altitude right over Mount Salak. Family members are already protesting the hazardous route that had been planned for the demonstration flight.

There were 35 Indonesians, 8 Russian crew members, 1 French and 1 American.

The American, Peter Adler was a consultant for Sriwijaya Air, a domestic Indonesian carrier. Adler had been born in São Paulo, Brazil to Auschwitz survivors, grew up in Los Angeles and leaves behind a wife Randi, and family.

Joy flight is a cruelly ironic term. In catastrophic loss of life cases, loss of joy can be considered part of the damages, as families inevitably remain haunted by the loss of their loved ones.

We offer our condolences, but we know how insufficient that is, as relatives are only beginning the harsh journey of grief that begins with shock and a sense of immeasurable loss.

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

Similar Posts

  • | | |

    Australian Passenger in Labour; Malaysia Airlines Flight Makes Emergency Landing in Bali

    Malaysia AirlinesMalaysia Airlines flight MH135 had to make an emergency landing at Ngurah Rai International Airport in Bali, Indonesia, on October 24.

    Airport spokesperson confirmed that the flight, en-route from Kuala Lumpur to Brisbane, requested a priority landing because an Australian passenger went into labour.

    The plane, carrying 178 passengers, safely landed at 2:10 p.m. The woman, identified as Samual P. Jeyanthi, was shifted to Kasih Ibu Hospital.

    The flight resumed its journey at 4:14 p.m.

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

    The Delaminating 787: Causing Problems and Recalls


    The Boeing 787’s composite skin is under the eye now, with the carbon fiber structure deconstructing after improperly joined structural stiffeners fail. Longerons are installed on a wound carbon fibre barrel, frames and longerons are secured to the skin to strengthen the structure, and reinforced by shims. Without shims making a tight fit, damage incurs to the carbon fiber.

    The problem has been located on an All Nippon Airways (56), and two Qatar Airways airframes (57 and 58), all of which originate in Everett Washington.

    More 787s are expected to turn up with the same problem.

    The structural stiffeners are failing in the location of the Alenia Aeronotica-built horizontal stabiliser.

    Boeing confirms that the problem is a “straightforward repair that should cause no short-term safety concern.”

    Inspections are already underway, and strategic plans for repairs are on the drawing board. A 2010 problem involved the teardown and reinstallation of some Alenia Aeronautica-built horizontal stabilisers which had been assembled without adequate shims.

    In George’s Point of View

    updated


    According to a Reuters article, Boeing is saying publicly that this will not affect production.

    It SHOULD affect production.

    Boeing needs to slow down and get it right. Thousands of souls will fly in these “things.” Boeing’s got to have it right. Instead of ramping up, slow down production. What good is an ambitious target rate if the planes come out needing SAFOs (Safety Alerts for Operators)?

    Too fast reminds me of Airbus.

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

    Aviation Fatigue Regulation should Obey the Law of Common Sense


    In George’s Point of View

    I noticed today that Bloomberg’s Andre Zajac posted an article referencing William Voss, chief executive officer of the Alexandria, Virginia-based Flight Safety Foundation, who said “If anyone wants to advance safety through regulation, it can’t be done without further loss of life.”

    The point he was making is in reference the peculiar mechanism of aviation safety law.

    To go into effect, an aviation safety law must pass a cost-benefit analysis. This analysis is based on how much benefits outweigh cost (i.e. the cost of human lives). Where the problem occurs the recent fatigue rules exempt freight carriers. All-cargo operations are not required to abide by part rule p. 5-6, 15, 259. This is why IPA filed a Petition for Review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in order to challenge FAA?s exclusion of cargo operations from the final flight and duty time rule.

    Although the “FAA generally acknowledges that “factors that lead to fatigue are universal” (Rule p. 259) and that night-time operations (during pilots circadian lows) and operations that cross multiple time zones warrant stricter measures to guard against fatigue” cargo carriers are exempt.”

    Surely the FAA realizes that cargo pilots get just as tired as commercial jet pilots–perhaps more so because so many cargo flights are overnight flights.

    Does it really make sense to exempt all-cargo carrier pilots from fatigue regulations for financial reasons? Shouldn’t a rule governing pilot safety cover all pilots? Is an Airbus, Fokker, Antonov, Boeing 737 or 747 less destructive if it falls from the sky if it only has a payload and crew but no passengers?

    IPA Points.pdf

    Flight Member Duty Requirements.pdf

    FRMP Checklist.pdf

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

    Airbus: Retire Fly By Wire

    George’s Point of View

    While we face a crisis of confidence in the latest evolution of air travel technology, it amazes me how many articles are out there that praise the Airbus. Hull loss statistics and disasters are staring us all in the face. The top criteria of plane design should still be safety.

    All of us–passengers and aviation professionals alike– are still subject to the flaws of performance, design, maintenance and safety standards. It’s hard to know where to start.

    I’m not even going to talk about fly-by-wire philosophy, even though it has contributed to fatal accidents, like the TAM crash where the fly-by-wire system failed to interpret how to cope with an Airbus’s disabled reverser on a slick runway in less than optimal conditions.

    I’m just going to say this because it needs to be said.

    Someone needs to stop defending Airbus, and turn an eye to all those hull losses.

    And all those deaths.

    We have stats that show 5,000+ planes have been manufactured. Thousands of deaths have been attributed to Airbus failure:
    A300 – 1449 deaths
    A310 678 deaths (plus today’s 146=824)
    A320-655 deaths
    A330-236 deaths

    (and this is not a complete list.)

    Just go to go to Aviation Safety Net and examine the hull loss statistics of the Airbus.

    It’s not just ONE problem. There are a lot of problems, especially if you follow some Airbus history.

    The investigation of a 2001 Airbus A300-600 crash led to the discovery that a panel on the tail fin can move beyond its safe limit, which can cause the tail fin to shear off and the plane to crash. Read about Flight 587 and Airbus’s history of non-disclosure of Airbus flaws.

    Historically, alleged problems with construction or computer systems have been instrumental in catastrophic vertical stabilizer or tail fin loss. “One of the 24 automatic messages sent from the plane minutes before it disappeared pointed to a problem in the ‘rudder limiter.”

    The tail fin fiasco has supposedly been improved upon. It’s now better because it’s plastic. ! ? ! In fact, a large percentage of the Airbus is composed of a carbon-fiber composite, which can be a problem, not only because composite parts can bend or twist unpredictably in flight, but also their tensile strength is questionable, AND so is the length of time they can perform before degrading.

    And of course, we’ve all heard about the pitot tubes. While there are other systems out there that seem to be viable, the THALES brand pitot tubes which are known to freeze up, and have not been replaced. Whether flawed readings causes a plane to slow down and fly into a stall or speed up and fly into a dive, either result is catastrophic.

    And then, of course, there’s the computer system which may have just gone haywire. As reported by the Northwest Airlines A330 that experienced problems similar to Flight 447, they ran into turbulence. “Their primary and standby airspeed indicators showed the plane had slowed dramatically. Other systems that automatically maintain speed and altitude also disengaged. The master warning and master caution indications flashed on the instrument panel for three minutes until the captain flew out of the weather.”

    So now we have a less than perfect aircraft, that is 19 years old, and getting decrepit. The public description of this plane makes it sound unbelievable–like the aviation equivalent of the bus to Cartagena in the movie “Romancing the Stone:” Babies on laps, no seatbelts, seats not even fastened down, and some passengers who fly standing up the whole way.

    Is there any surprise when a plane like this (that is banned from French airspace and shunted off to a poor area like Comoros) falls out of the sky and kills all but one passenger? The fact that a plane banned from European airspace is shunted off to serve the inhabitants of an impoverished nation is a failure of the operational practice of the aviation industry. Where are the criteria in place to protect those citizens?

    There ought to be a law.

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

    The NTSB Sends Two Alerts on the 787 Post Flight Fire in Boston

    First, it does appear that there were two different 787 events at Logan. One was a fire that came about due to overheating and explosion of a battery in a lower bay. Both of the reports below refer to the same event, which grounded the plane. The second event was either a fuel leak or overfueling, which only delayed and did not cancel a different flight four hours while the problem was fixed.

    My criticism is that it APPEARS we are moving too quickly because what is surfacing are minor events that could lead to major events. A battery fire could cause a plane crash, especially on a transatlantic flight. I would like to feel confident that Boeing will easily handle any battery or electrical problem as one of those new plane new plane glitches that one might consider teething. And if this problem “dogs” Boeing shares (as one headline indicates), then better that it dog shares than kill 400 people.

    Here are the NTSB press releases regarding the Dreamliner Battery Fire. The first one…

    NTSB INVESTIGATORS LOOKING INTO BOEING 787 SMOKE EVENT IN BOSTON

    Jan. 7, 2013
    WASHINGTON– Investigators with the National Transportation Safety Board are gathering information regarding reports of smoke aboard a Boeing 787 at Boston’s Logan Airport today.

    The Japan Airlines 787 was on the ground and empty of passengers at the time of the incident.

    The NTSB has dispatched an investigator to Boston. Based on a review of the factual information gathered, the NTSB will determine the extent of its investigation.

    and the second one…

    NTSB PROVIDES INVESTIGATIVE UPDATE ON BOEING 787 FIRE INCIDENT IN BOSTON

    Jan. 8, 2013
    WASHINGTON – The National Transportation Safety Board today released an update on its formal investigation of Monday’s fire aboard a Japan Airlines Boeing 787 at Logan International Airport in Boston. There were no passengers or crew on board at the time. One firefighter received minor injuries.

    In addition to an investigator already on scene who visually inspected the airplane last night, the NTSB has sent two additional investigators to Boston and formed investigative groups to look at airworthiness and fire and airport emergency response. Senior Air Safety Investigator David Helson has been designated as the investigator-in-charge.

    Parties to the investigation are the Federal Aviation Administration and The Boeing Company. In addition, the Japan Transport Safety Board has appointed an accredited representative and Japan Airlines will assist the JTSB as technical advisors.

    Initial investigative findings include:

    • The NTSB investigator on scene found that the auxiliary power unit battery had severe fire damage. Thermal damage to the surrounding structure and components is confined to the area immediately near the APU battery rack (within about 20 inches) in the aft electronics bay.

    • Preliminary reports from Japan Airlines representatives indicate that airplane maintenance and cleaning personnel were on the airplane with the APU in operation just prior to the detection of smoke in the cabin and that Boston Logan Airport Rescue and Fire Fighting were contacted.

    • Rescue and fire personnel and equipment responded to the airplane and detected a fire in the electronics and equipment bay near the APU battery box. Initial reports indicate that the fire was extinguished about 40 minutes after arrival of the first rescue and fire personnel. One firefighter received minor injuries.

    Here is the 2nd NTSB Press Release:

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

    TAM 2012

    Let me give you a little history. On July 17 2007, five years ago, a Tam Airbus failed its landing at São Paulo’s Congonhas airport and stole a hundred and ninety-nine lives. There were 199 families crushed by this disaster, families crushed but not broken; who were shattered, but not weakened; who were reduced in number but not heart. They were typical families—just mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, husbands and wives, brothers and sisters. One day they had been just like you and me, going about their daily lives and then on July 17, 2007, their lives were permanently disrupted.  They were ordinary families, and they responded in a way that plane crash victim’s families sometimes do, and that is join a group. Something in the chemistry of the group made them extraordinary.  Where alone, they were shattered, together, they were mended; where they were once weakened, together they were powerful. They bonded with each other. It is not that these bonds in any way replaced those who were lost.  It is simply that their complex shared feelings of loss, grief and anger united them, made them siblings in a kindred battle; recalibrated their lives; recast them in new roles that would allow them to band together to form a fellowship of righteousness. Their kinship was born of innocent blood spilled by carelessness and negligence gave them the right and responsibility and ability to fight carelessness and negligence in aviation. The alliance gave…gives them strength to reform —and keep reforming—aviation in Brazil.

    In 2007, I interviewed the families of Tam Flight 3054, came to know all of them. I did more than hear and document their stories and learn their pain. I came to know and respect them as individuals. Their case in court ultimately triumphed; but they did not rest on their laurels.  My experience with Tam Flight 3054 was how I cam to know the group. ABRAPAVAA has continued to fight for the victims of air accidents. I have never lost contact with them.

    So, although I am currently abroad working on the case of a crash that occurred off the southern coast of Africa, I was not surprised to find an email from the president of ABRAPAVAA. Sandra, President of the Brazilian Association of Relatives and Friends of Victims of Air Accidents herself lost her husband in a 1994 accident that killed 99.


    The Brazilian group continues to be a watchdog over Brazilian aviation.  Sandra wrote me over a matter of concern that Tam is again putting passengers at risk. Tam and Chile’s LAN Airlines merged to form LATAM Airlines Group; TAM Linhas Aéreas completed the merger on June 22. The merger forms the largest airline in Brazil. Though it is under new ownership, it seems to be repeating an old story of poor maintenance. 

    ABRAPAVAA is worried about the lack of maintenance, the risk that passengers are exposed to on every flight (lack of maintenance, ongoing unrepaired vibration problems, casual rather than immediate repairs of bird strike damage) and what makes this worse is that many of these problems are not officially reported but merely passed on word of mouth. When the flight crew just mentions problems to the mechanics, where is the paper trail? Where are the checks? Where are the failsafes? 

    ABRAPAVAA fears that ignoring LATAM problems will lead to more fatal events. They wish to be proactive and find a way to get ANAC (Brazils oversight agency) to be on the alert, and monitor LATAM’s critical maintenance situations, but ANAC seems to be closing their eyes to the whole issue.  

    To take no initiative will result in loss of life. What can be done?  That is a good question.

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