Pilot Fatigue Increases Flight Risk

Similar Posts

  • | |

    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 patch

    But 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?


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

    CVR FDR NOT a Flight of Imagination

    Read in Portuguese
    In the continuing pursuit of the unvarnished reality behind Air France Flight 447, it does not matter why “Le Figaro” posted rumors and factoids in lieu of truth after the BEA reported that the complete data (flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder) was successfully recovered in Paris.

    It does not matter if “Le Figaro” is more concerned with stimulating traffic than it is about veracity, legitimacy and validity in reporting truth.

    Perhaps someone at “Le Figaro” is heavily invested in Airbus, and hopes to falsely boost the airline’s reputation. We have no idea of what their motives might be.

    What matters are the facts.

    What matters is that on recovery of the data from the data containers, the information appears to have been intact (according to the BEA).

    What matters is that the data recovery teams were able to open, extract, clean and dry the memory cards, and retrieve the actual data.

    There is no reason the data would not support exactly what the ACARS data already indicates, which is that the pitot tubes failed, and started a catastrophic landslide of mechanical events that led inevitably toward systems failure.

    We believe the aircraft stalled all the way from 35000 feet to the ocean. If the BEA had considered this, they would have found the plane in weeks.

    The plane sent out automated messages from which the sequence of failure has been inferred.

    It is an acknowledged FACT that the mechanical systems on board Air France Flight 447 were standard Airbus A330 systems, a “fly by wire” technology which is known to remove responsibility and action from the pilots when in certain situations. A fly-by-wire system modifies manual inputs of the pilot in accordance with control parameters.

    The pilots on this type of fly-by-wire system are unable to manually override if faulty data come streaming in from the frozen pitot tubes. The current thinking is that in the Air France Flight 447, the faulty Thales tubes streamed in faulty data to the on board systems. Disaster was all but inevitable.

    (In Sept 2009, the FAA sent out a directive indicating that “use of the Thales model has resulted in reports of airspeed indication discrepancies while flying at high altitudes in inclement weather conditions …(that) …could result in reduced control of the airplane.” )

    Prior to receiving the content of the black boxes, the collected data pointed to the following series of events:

    The Thales pitot tubes are small devices affixed to the plane exterior which measure air speed, but which have a proven tendency to freeze over, which obfuscates the data. Simply put, the Airbus system requires correct data input for the plane to fly correctly. When the frozen-over tubes began sending corrupted data, the system could no longer manage flight. On the 330, there is no way for pilots to manually override the failing systems.

    No one expects the black boxes to indicate anything else. What is expected, perhaps is a clarification of data, and a way to study the events in order to prevent a repetition of the same.

    The BEA strongly objected to media speculation. In fact, it sent out a press release specifically naming “Le Figaro” as the sensationalist publisher of invalid information. Here is what the BEA said:

    According to an article that appeared in « Le Figaro » on the evening of Monday 16 May 2011, the « first elements extracted from the black boxes» would exonerate Airbus in the accident to the A330, flight AF 447, which killed 216 passengers and 12 crew members on 1st June 2009.

    Sensationalist publication of non-validated information, whilst the analysis of the data from the flight recorders has only just started, is a violation of the respect due to the passengers and the crew members that died and disturbs the families of the victims, who have already suffered as a result of many hyped-up stories.

    The BEA repeats that, in the framework of its mission as a safety investigation authority, it alone has the right to communicate on the progress of the investigation. Consequently, any information on the investigation that comes from another source is null and void if it has not been validated by the BEA.

    Collection of all of the information from the audio recordings and from the flight parameters now gives us a high degree of certainty that everything will be brought to light concerning this accident. The BEA safety investigators will now have to analyse and validate a large quantity of complex data. This is long and detailed work, and the BEA has already announced that it will not publish an interim report before the summer.

    At this stage of the investigation, no conclusions can be drawn.

    So while we do respect our own experts who believe what they already believe (based on what was then available about the pitot tubes and fly-by-wire), we trust the BEA analysis will provide a solid analysis of the data and are aware that they have not released any new conclusions.

    We reiterate their emphasis, rejecting non-validated information, and agree no one should be jumping on any band-wagon of opinion, at least not until the authorities apply their proficiencies and start analyzing the data that no one was expecting would surface.

    While we are ruling nothing out and closing no doors, we are impervious to the contingent of nay-sayers who—regardless of the drastically different facts of every given situation—chant the same chorus in every aviation event, blaming the dead pilots because they are easy targets and can not defend themselves. Also, let us not ignore that liabilities due to pilot error are capped by International Convention. So no matter what the actual error, Airlines prefer “pilot error” because it means less coming out of their pockets.

    The Montreal Convention imposes two tiers of liability on airlines:
    -the first tier provides automatic compensation, deals with claims up to 100,000 Special Drawing Rights ($155,000 US). The airline has no defense against claims up to this amount.
    -the second tier deals with the portion of a claim exceeding the $155,000 limit. An airline can avoid liability of this portion only by proving it was not negligent or otherwise at fault. To avoid the liability the airline must prove a negative. There are, in fact, infinite ways an airline’s negligence can be involved, all of which the airline must disprove-a burden which is next to impossible to meet.

    If we as armchair analysts must err, let us err believing until proven otherwise, that the pilots were dependable, reputable, and rock-solid; let us remember that they too were passengers aboard the flight, human beings who fought as best they could, against whatever forces or failures brought them down. We believe pilots are valiant men who know the weight of their office, who know they are responsible for the lives they carry, and when they do their human best to survive, even in face of overwhelming physics, nature, weather, or mechanical failure, it is rash and unworthy of us to blame them precipitously. Sure, pilots can err, but let us not tar them with that brush without the facts.

    But for a single action, delayed reflex or overwhelming odds, those dead pilots who are so often blamed because they are defenseless targets, are themselves dead heroes.

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

    Compensation after Fifteen Years

    I know I’ve said before how cases take a long time. Sometimes they drag on in unexpected ways. Take for example the LAPA case. On August 31 1999 Líneas Aéreas Privadas Argentinas scheduled Flight 3142 (LV-WRZ) to fly Buenos Aires–Córdoba with a hundred and one persons aboard. The twenty-nine year old Boeing 737-204C failed to get in the air because the flight crew forgot to put the flaps in the appropriate position for flight. Instead of shooting into the air, the plane sped through the perimeter fence, across a street, struck a car and collided with a median and machinery on the road.

    The accident took sixty-five lives, two of them not even on the plane. Forty aboard were injured, seventeen of them seriously. NTSB records say there were 80 fatalities and 21 minor injuries.

    That’s what is widely known. What many do not know is that after the accident, nine families were given the wrong bodies. Those bodies were exhumed, checked, delivered to the correct families, and reburied at the cost of Argentina’s First Chamber of the House. The financial cost associated with all of this was covered. Not the emotional cost.

    Three of those families affected will be compensated 100 thousand dollars plus interest.

    In my heart of hearts, I do believe no amount of money can ever compensate for the wear and tear on the families due to the mix-up, even if at the time, the hasty mistake was well-meaning (or expedited due to politics.) Can you imagine what the families went through, seeing the resting places disturbed, then having to endure new funerals? It must have been like losing them more than once—refreshing the whole misery of loss a multiple of times. I cannot help but wonder about the families who were not compensated. I wonder if it has been so long that there is no one left to pay.

    This can be of no assurance to the families of Malaysia Airlines flight 370. It is further proof that aviation crash cases do take a long time. Tragedy is tragedy. There is no best case scenario in a tragedy.

    To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.
  • The Headlines Say Sullenburger is Returning to the Cockpit.

    George’s Point of View

    It’s published so it must be true. Capt. Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger–hero of the Jan. 15 Airbus A320 miracle landing on the Hudson–is going to be part of US Airways Flight operations safety management team. This means he’ll be handling regular flights and also they’re giving him a suit and making him management. (Or would that be the uniform with the really shiny epaulettes?)

    Never has anyone deserved recognition more.

    Do you hear us Sully? We’re still applauding.

    To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.
  • A Whole New Meaning to Gold-Finger

    In the old days—the really old days— the castle was surrounded by a moat; and that moat was full of nasty noxious stuff that no one wanted to get on their skin. As a deterrent. Emptying into the moat was the contents of the garderobe. That is, the castle toilet. Yes, it too emptied into the moat, most of the time. Though usually with some kind of sewage system linking to it. A most unpleasant way to enter the castle.

    This was the first thing I thought of when I heard todays news of the Air Antilles theft. If you haven’t heard this story yet, well, it’s a doozy. Male passenger on the Air Antilles Avion de Transport Regional ATR 42 500 flight 3S-3672 is sick to his stomach, spends most of the trip in the bathroom. Comes out when they arrive, walks through the door, and out of the airport, free as a bird. Come to find out, he tunneled through the bathroom to get some cash out of the hold.

    Of course, if one actually tunneled out of a plane’s bathroom, they’d be heading earthbound really fast. He didn’t really tunnel (though tunneling into the sewage system is what I pictured when I read about this story.} He just dismantled his way to a storage area and pillaged 172000 Euros. And walked out with it.

    So all we have left are the questions: How did he get past customs? How did he get past the bathroom? How did he know about the money? Where did he disappear to?

    To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.
  • The Businessman’s Real Question behind Smaller Planes…

    George’s Point of View

    If you’re a frequent flying businessman, there’s a good chance you’ve noticed the decline of the number of people flying, and the resulting greater availability of smaller jets, and smaller regional aircraft.

    The Regional Airline Association provides Regional Aircraft Statistics if you’re interested in that kind of thing.

    There are trade-offs. Except for safety statistics, for frequent flyers statistics don’t matter as much as tangible factors like leg room, airport accessibility, lack of baggage space, availability of non-stop flights, etc… It’s really a matter of practical concern and personal choice. You’re not really packed like sardines in smaller planes, it just seems that way. And non-stop flights are probably worth it.

    As long as your smaller plane has two engines (in case one quits), doesn’t ingest birds (because how many pilots are Chesley B. Sullenburger III?), and you’re not claustrophobic (and the guy sitting elbow to elbow with you didn’t forget to use his deodorant.)

    One wonders if the trend toward smaller planes is going evolve smaller businessmen.

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