| | | |

March 2007: Yogyakarta Crash Landing

Similar Posts

  • |

    New Years Eve Air Rage Shakes Up Thomson Airways Flight

    What: Thomson Airways TOM133 out of Manchester en route to Punta Cana in the Dominican Republic
    Where: Diverted to Bermuda
    When: New Years Eve
    Who: Three men engaged in an “air rage” incident
    Why: On board the plane, the three men fought over alleged homophobic public order offences, affray and smoking.

    A 35-year-old was arrested at Gatwick airport. The two other men are still in custody in Bermuda.

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

    Condor Plane makes Emergency Landing in Germany after Flaps Problem

    condor airlinesCondor Flugdienst flight DE-1479 made a safe emergency landing at Frankfurt Airport, Germany, on May 13th.

    The Boeing 757-300, flying from Tenerife South, Spain, was about to reach its destination when the crew noticed problem with its flaps.

    The plane landed safely.

    No one was injured.

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

    Peruvian Airlines Flight Rejects Takeoff From Cuzco, Peru

    Peruvian Airlines flight P9-213 had to reject takeoff from Cuzco, Peru, on June 4th.

    The Boeing 737-500 plane was accelerating to takeoff for Lima, Peru, when the crew rejected takeoff due to a configuration warning.

    The plane safely returned to the apron. Everyone aboard remained unharmed.

    According to Peru’s Ministry of Transport, the crew rejected takeoff due to a maintenance indication.

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

    Aer Lingus Flight Diverts to Boston due to Engine Issue

    Aer LingusAer Lingus flight EI-110 had to divert and make an emergency landing in Boston, Massachusetts, on October 2nd.

    The Boeing 757-200 plane was flying from John F. Kennedy International Airport, New York, to Shannon Airport, Ireland, when the crew reported a fault in the left hand engine and decided to divert.

    The plane landed uneventfully. There were 115 people aboard at the time; all of them remained safe.

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

    Air blue Crash Heirs Case Hits Immobile Object

    If you’re wondering about the Airblue 202 case, it has run into the politics of Pakistan. The situation has been piled high with difficulty. Even though I am an optimist and see opportunity in every difficulty, even though I have a great team of attorneys in Pakistan, and a great team here in the states coordinating on this case, there comes a time when we must realize where we stand. Despite our efforts, with the present laws and political situation, helping the families is like patching shattered glass with paste. It has been a very difficult to make things stick. Or to change metaphors, it has been an uphill climb.

    The Flight: 28 July 2010, Airbus A321, Air Blue Fight 202, en route from Karachi to Islamabad

    146 passengers and 6 crew members flew into a mountain near the airport. Witnesses wondered why it seemed as if “the plane had lost balance, and then we saw it going down.”

    Why it was flying so low? Why did it strike the mountain? Audio and a report were released that seemed to answer those question—lack of coordination in the flight crew.

    Our study of the audio indicates the pilots are served tea early on, then…

    • Confusion ensues in the cockpit, caused by some unknown reason.
    • Wrong settings introduced into the settings that were already abnormal.
    • A tower operator who had gone for coffee was complacent.
    • Aircraft flew lower than normal.
    • Abnormal personality traits/interaction reflecting mistakes in the cockpit.
    • Weather and apprehension and strange out of norm complacency by the FO when he realizes they are going to die

    When the audio was released and studied, it became clear there was no teamwork between the pilot Perve Iqbal Chaudhary and the first officer Muntajib Ahmed.

    The pilot had 35 years and more than 25,000 hours of flying experience but made inexplicable mistakes and demeaned the co-pilot. The first officer was aware of the danger and tried to amend the situation but he had been so disheartened beforehand by sharp questions putting the first officer “in his place.”

    He was unaccountably meek for a former F-16 Pakistan Air Force fighter pilot. The pilot did not properly respond to Air Traffic Control directives and automated cabin warning systems and flew the plane into a mountain. Air Traffic Control responses were less than professional. The first officer appeared helpless and ineffective.

    On January 17,2013, two and a half years after the accident, the Peshawar High Court closed proceedings for the Airblue compensation case.

    Counsel was directed to withdraw the client’s petition from the Islamabad High Court or the the Peshawar High Court. The client refused to do so on the basis that the cases were different. The court closed the case because the heirs of the victims had had filed an independent lawsuit at Islamabad High Court.

    We believed the Airblue compensation case had merit. The pilot committed the error. The first officer was ineffective. They were Airblue employees.

    Yes, there was pilot error, but the airline is doubly responsible, because the flight crew did not have adequate CRM training. (COCKPIT Resource Management/Crew Resource Management) Absolutely what happened in the case was the result of the airline failing to establish a working protocol.

    It’s like children at school practicing a fire drill so they know what to do when a crisis occurs. Fire drills save lives. They prevent missteps in the face of danger. They give the people in trouble a set of directions to follow that will get them out of the jam they are in. A drill answers questions ahead of time, so precious time is not wasted figuring out what to do. Without the drill, what happens when disaster strikes? Chaos. Loss of life.

    I feel bad for the people. First they lose their families. Then they don’t get all the compensation available to them.

    Take a look at the safety recommendations from the report (pasted below).

    See how 3.1-3.5 and 3.7 all duplicate the same working environment issue? Investigators recognize the troubled working environment. Today’s flight crews are taught CRM which means they have safe practices in place in case the captain is incapacitated and starts to fly into mountains like the captain of Air Blue 202.

    But realistically, will recommendations change AirBlue? Will Air Blue be able to implement non-traditional interpersonal relations on the job? And if they can not, how will they ever fly safely with a first officer culturally unable to do his job?

    The first officer was ineffective in securing the plane; and sadly, the court appears to be equally as ineffective in getting justice for some of the heirs of the victims.

    Re: Investigation Report -AB-202 CHAPTER – 13 :

    SAFETY RECOMMENDATIONS

    13.1 All aircrew be re-briefed on CFIT avoidance and Circling Approach procedures
    and a strict implementation of this procedure be ensured through an intensive
    monitoring system.

    13.2 Aircrew scheduling and pairing being a critical subject be preferably handled /
    supervised by Flight Operations.

    13.3 The implementation of an effective CRM program be ensured and the syllabus of
    CRM training be reviewed in line with international standards.

    13.4 Existing aircrew training methodology be catered for standardization and
    harmonization of procedures.

    13.5 Human factor / personality profiling program for aircrew be introduced to predict
    their behaviour under crises.

    13.6 Instrument landing procedure for RWY-12 be established, if possible.

    13.7 Safety Management System be implemented in ATS as per the spirit of the ICAO
    document (doc. 4444).

    13.8 New Islamabad International Airport (NIIA) be completed and made functional on
    priority

    13.9 Visual augment system (Approach Radar Scope) be installed in control tower to
    monitor the positions and progress of aircraft flying in the circuit.

    13.10 Review of the existing Regulations for the compensation and their expeditious
    award to the legal heirs of the victims be ensured.

    13.11 Adequacy of SIB resources comprising qualified human resource and equipment
    be reviewed.

    13.12 Information to public on the progress of the investigation process through the
    media by trained / qualified investigators of SIB be ensured on regular intervals.

    13.13 NDMA be tasked to acquire in-country airlift capability for removal of wreckage
    from difficult terrain like Margalla etc. As an interim arrangement, some foreign
    sources be earmarked for making such an arrangements on as and when
    required basis.

    13.14 Civil Police Department be tasked to work out and ensure effective cordoning and
    onsite security arrangements of crashed aircraft wreckage at all the places
    specially remote / difficult hilly locations.

    13.15 Environment Control Department be directed to recover the ill effects of
    deterioration / damages caused to Marghalla hill due to the crash.

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

    Alternative to Disaster
    Short runways are an unavoidable problem when there is a shortage of land and it is not possible to have the standard 1,000 feet overrun. Judging by the Tam air disaster, not all country’s airports have the technology to prevent major aircraft mishaps, technology such as EMAS. EMAS–Engineered Material Arresting Systems–was developed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and ESCO (Engineered Arresting Systems Corporation). EMAS acts as a buffer to slow down aircraft that overrun the length of the runway. All it takes is a bed of crushable concrete–cellular cement material that crushes under the weight of an aircraft, resulting in guaranteed deceleration of the aircraft.
    Features of Engineered Material Arresting Systems
    FAA-approved
    Permits reduction of standard RSA
    Shortens standard RSA to 600 feet
    Meets FAA AC 150/5220-22
    Features material customized to each runway’s aircraft fleet
    After arrestment, ARFF vehicles can easily maneuver on even damaged EMAS surface

    EMAS Fact Sheet

    For Immediate Release

    June 15, 2007
    Contact: Marcia Adams

    Phone: (202) 267-3488

    Engineered Material Arresting System (EMAS)

    Background

    The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires that commercial airports, regulated under Part 139 safety rules, have a standard Runway Safety Area (RSA) where possible. At most commercial airports the RSA is 500 feet wide and extends 1000 feet beyond each end of the runway. The FAA has this requirement in the event that an aircraft overruns, undershoots, or veers off the side of the runway. The most dangerous of these incidents are overruns, but since many airports were built before the 1000-foot RSA length was adopted some 20 years ago, the area beyond the end of the runway is where many airports cannot achieve the full standard RSA. This is due to obstacles such as bodies of water, highways, railroads, and populated areas or severe drop-off of terrain.

    The FAA has a high-priority program to enhance safety by upgrading the RSAs at commercial airports and provide federal funding to support those upgrades. However, it still may not be practical for some airports to achieve the standard RSA. The FAA, knowing that it would be difficult to achieve a standard RSA at every airport, began conducting research in the 1990s to determine how to ensure maximum safety at airports where the full RSA cannot be obtained. Working in concert with the University of Dayton, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, and the Engineered Arresting Systems Corporation (ESCO) of Logan Township, NJ, a new technology emerged to provide an added measure of safety. An Engineered Materials Arresting System (EMAS) uses materials of closely controlled strength and density placed at the end of a runway to stop or greatly slow an aircraft that overruns the runway. The best material found to date is a lightweight, crushable concrete. When an aircraft rolls into an EMAS arrestor bed, the tires of the aircraft sink into the lightweight concrete and the aircraft is decelerated by having to roll through the material.

    Benefits of the EMAS Technology

    The EMAS technology provides safety benefits in cases where land is not available, where it would be very expensive for the airport sponsor to buy the land off the end of the runway, or where it is otherwise not possible to have the standard 1,000-foot overrun. This technology is now in place at 18 airports with installation under contract at six additional airports. A standard EMAS installation extends 600 feet from the end of the runway. An EMAS arrestor bed can still be installed to help slow or stop an aircraft that overruns the runway, even if less than 600 feet of land is available.

    Current FAA Initiatives

    The Office of Airports prepared an RSA improvement plan for the runways at approximately 575 commercial airports in 2005. This plan allows the agency to track the progress and to direct federal funds for making all practicable improvements, including the use of EMAS technology.

    Presently, the EMAS system developed by ESCO using crushable concrete is the only system that meets the FAA standard. However, FAA is conducting research through the Airport Cooperative Research Program (project number 07-03) that will examine alternatives to the existing approved system. The results of this effort are expected in 2009. More information on the project can be found at the Transportation Research Board website at http://www.trb.org/CRP/ACRP/ACRP.asp.

    EMAS Arrestments

    To date, there have been four incidents where the technology has worked successfully to keep aircraft from overrunning the runway and in several cases has prevented injury to passengers and damage to the aircraft.

    • May 1999: A Saab 340 commuter aircraft overran the runway at JFK
    • May 2003: Gemini Cargo MD-11 was safely decelerated at JFK
    • January 2005: A Boeing 747 overran the runway at JFK
    • July 2006: Mystere Falcon 900 airplane ran off the runway at the Greenville Downtown Airport in South Carolina

    EMAS Installations

    Currently, EMAS is installed at 24 runway ends at 19 airports in the United States. With plans to install 12 additional EMAS systems at seven more U.S. airports.

    Airport Location # of Systems Installation Date
    JFK International Jamaica, NY 1 1996
    Minneapolis St. Paul Minneapolis, MN 1 1999
    Little Rock Little Rock, AR 2 2000/2003
    Rochester International Rochester, NY 1 2001
    Burbank Burbank, CA 1 2002
    Baton Rouge Metropolitan Baton Rouge, LA 1 2002
    Greater Binghamton Binghamton, NY 2 2002
    Greenville Downtown Greensville, SC 1 2003
    Barnstable Municipal Hyannis, MA 1 2003
    Roanoke Regional Roanoke, VA 1 2004
    Fort Lauderdale International Fort Lauderdale, FL 2 2004
    Dutchess County Poughkeepsie, NY 1 2004
    LaGuardia Flushing, NY 2 2005
    Boston Logan Boston, MA 2 2005/2006
    Laredo International Laredo, TX 1 2006
    San Diego International San Diego, CA 1 2006
    Teterboro Teterboro , NJ 1 2006
    Chicago Midway Chicago, IL 1 2006
    Merle K (Mudhole) Smith Cordova, AK 1 2007

    Additional Projects Currently Under Contract

    Location # of Systems Expected Installation Date
    Charleston, WV 1 June 2007
    Chicago Midway 3 Spring/Summer 2007
    Wilkes-Barre Scranton, PA 1 Fall 2007
    JFK International 1 Fall 2007
    Chicago O’Hare 2 Spring 2008
    Telluride, CO 2 TBD
    Manchester, NH 1 Spring 2008
    Newark Liberty, NJ 1 Spring 2008
    To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.