Three airliner crashes in one week is not that rare

The recent loss of three airliners within a seven day span, starting with Malaysia Airliners flight MH17 on July 17th, has certainly drawn a large amount of attention from the world's media, the traveling public, and even from major aviation safety organizations.

In a 28 July 2014 article published by CNN, a representative of the Flight Safety Foundation, a nonprofit organization that since 1947 has provided safety guidance and resources for the aerospace industry, implied that with the exception of the 9/11 attacks, it was hard to know whether the loss of three airliners in seven days was unprecedented. A review of the AirSafe.com records revealed that this kind of loss has had a number of precedents within the last 20 years.

In a previous AirSafeNews.com article, a review of AirSafe.com records from 1996 to 2014 revealed that there were 25 occasions where there were three or more significant aviation events where the events were separated by 10 days or fewer.

Inspired by the statement from the Flight Safety Foundation, Todd Curtis reviewed AirSafe.com's records again, this time discover how many times the there had been three or more losses of airliners in no more than a seven day period, and where the following criteria were also met:

• At least one passenger was killed in each aircraft,
• The aircraft was either destroyed or seriously damaged and no longer flyable,
• The aircraft had the capacity to carry at least 10 passengers, and
• The airliner event could have been due to any cause, including hijacking, sabotage, or military action.

The review revealed that there were eight occasions during the 19 calendar years that AirSafe.com has been in operation (1996-2014), where three or more airliners have been lost within a seven day period. Below are the years and the dates of occurrence:

1. 1997 - December 13, 15, 17, and 19
2. 2001 - September 11, 12, and 18
3. 2003 - January 8, 9, and 9
4. 2008 - August 20, 24, and 24
5. 2010 - May 12, 15, 17
6. 2010 - August 24, 24, and 25
7. 2011 - July 8, 11, and 13
8. 2014 - July 17, 23, and 24

Noteworthy occurrences include the following:

• In 1997, there were four separate events within seven days, and if an event on December 9th is included, five within 10 days.

• In 2001, there were four airliners lost on 9/11, and one each in the two subsequent events

• In 2010, if a fourth event on May 22 is included, there were four events in 10 days.

Given that the rate at which serious airline events occur has steadily decreased over the years, if this same analysis were done in the period prior to 1996, there would likely be a higher frequency of cases where three or more airliner were lost within a seven day span.

---

Fatal and serious events by year
1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000
2001, 2002,2003, 2004, 2005
2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010
2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

---

Related information
"Do plane crashes happen in threes" AirSafeNews.com article
Todd Curtis discusses his findings on the Rudy Maxa Show (6:44)
Related article from Patrick Smith of AskThePilot.com

---

AirSafe.com Bonuses
All subscribers to the AirSafe.com mailing list at subscribe.airsafe.com will be able to download free copies of all of the recent AirSafe.com books, including the latest, AirSafe.com Family Air Travel Guide.

Also available is the AirSafe.com Fear of Flying Resource Guide, with an overview of the symptoms of fear of flying, as well as recommended resources for managing or eliminating these fears.

What's wrong with the 787? - Hard to say for now

Earlier this week on January 7th, a Japan Airlines 787 at Boston's Logan Airport had a fire in the auxiliary power unit (APU) compartment of the aircraft, causing some damage to the aircraft and an injury to a firefighter. There was only a maintenance and cleaning crew on board, no passengers were injured, and as the NTSB photo below shows, there was relatively little fire damage in the APU compartment.

---

---

While most APU fires which cause minor damage don't usually merit much in the way of attention by either the news media or the NTSB, this event was different. The NTSB launched an investigation that included representatives from Boeing, FAA, Japan Airlines, and the Japan Transport Safety Board. This kind of involvement by multiple agencies usually happens for either accidents or very serious incidents. This was certainly not an accident as defined by the NTSB, but the NTSB's reaction implies that this is being considered to be a serious event, very likely for at least a couple of reasons:

• The 787 had a number of prior incidents since entering passenger service last year, including an electrical problem that led to an emergency landing of a United 787 in New Orleans in December 2012, just a month after United began flying this aircraft model.
• The 787 had a number of development issues that delayed commercial flights for several years.

This fire very likely heightened public attention for the 787 and led to a couple of minor incidents getting a higher than usual amount of national and international media attention. On January 8th, the day after the APU fire at Boston, another Japan Airlines 787, also at Boston, had a minor fuel problem that delayed a flight. About 40 gallons of fuel leaked from the aircraft. This leak was from a vent designed to release fuel rather than from a broken fuel line or some other system malfunction. The plane departed for Japan later that day.

The following day, on Janury 9th, ANA airlines in Japan, which was the first airline to operate the 787, cancelled a flight after the crew received an error message concerning the braking system. These last two events are so minor that the airlines are not required to report them to the FAA, NTSB, or similar civil aviation authorities in other countries.

Why is this happening to the 787?
Boeing's development of the 787 was different in two significant ways from that were a significant departure from previous large passenger jets. The first difference was the extensive use of composite materials for major components of the aircraft structure, and the second was the extensive use of contractors to design and build major aircraft systems, work that previously had been by Boeing.

Neither of these facts explain why these incidents have occurred. While many of the incidents that have occurred have involved the 787 fuel and electrical systems, there is nothing to directly several recent 787 incidents, including the following:

• An electrical problem that forced the December 2012 emergency landing, along with a related electrical problem found later in another United 787.
• A grounding of a Qatar 787, also in December 2012, after finding a similar electrical problem.
• A July 2012 engine failure during a taxi test of newly manufactured 787
• A December FAA Airworthiness Directive (AD 2012-24-07) requiring 787 operators to inspect part of the engine fuel system for possible improper installations.

What does this mean for passengers?
Unless the NTSB, FAA, Boeing, or the current 787 operators find something significant that may affect the safety of the 787, the recent events, however dramatic, are not a cause for concern. The 787 is a new aircraft model that currently has fewer than 50 aircraft in service, with over a third of the aircraft being delivered only in the past three months, and with six of the eight operators having fewer than six months experience flying this model. The first commercial flight was in October 2011, and Japan Airlines only began flying the aircraft in April 2012.

The recent NTSB investigation may have been launched in part because it is a new model and because there may be useful insights gained from thoroughly investigating incidents such as the Boston APU fire. As operators around the world gain more operational experience with the 787, there will certainly be more incidents. However, unless several of these incidents have one or more causes that are both related and unexpected, there would be real reason to suspect that the 787 has some sort of issue that is exposing passengers and crews to excessive safety risks.

Is it safe to fly on the 787?
If you define safety as an acceptable risk, then the 787 is safe to fly because there is nothing that currently indicates that the 787 has a much greater likelihood of experiencing safety-related problems compared to other large jet airliners. However, that answer may change as a result of the current NTSB investigation or after the airlines flying the 787 gain greater operational experience.

Cathay Pacific A330 Has Close Call and A300 Cargo Jet Crashes

Yesterday saw both a serious incident and a fatal crash involving two wide-bodied jets. While everyone escaped with their lives in the first event in Hong Kong, all on board plus at least one on the ground lost their lives in Mexico.

Cathay Pacific A330 almost loses both engines
In the first event, Cathay Pacific flight CX780, an A330, was approaching Hong Kong, China after a flight from Surabaya, Indonesia when the crew noted problems with the left engine. After shutting down the left engine, the right engine experienced several uncontrolled increases and decreases in thrust (Correction: FlightGlobal reports that the right engine was at idle thrust throughout the approach, and the left engine was stuck at 70% thrust, leading to a high speed landing at an incorrect flap setting).

The crew declared an emergency and landed about 25 minutes later. All four tires on the left landing gear and two of the four on the right main landing gear deflated after the landing, and the 309 passengers and 14 crew members evacuated. Eight passengers were injured, with one sent to a local hospital for at least an overnight stay. It is unclear if the injuries occurred before, during, or after the evacuation.

Flightglobal.com reports that as a result of this event, Cathay Pacific temporarily suspended refueling at Surabaya.

Typically, US airlines offer little if any compensation to passengers after an incident like this. Unlike most US airlines, Cathay Pacific offered full refunds to all the passengers on this flight.

Recent A330 historyThis is the fourth accident or serious incident involving the A330 in the last two years, including the only fatal A330 crash while in passenger service:

• 7 October 2008; Qantas A330-300; Flight 72; near Learmonth, Australia: The aircraft was in cruise on a scheduled international flight from Singapore to Perth when the aircraft experienced several sudden and unexpected altitude changes. About 36 passengers and crew members were injured, with over a dozen severe injuries.
  
  
• 1 June 2009; Air France A330-200; Flight 447; Atlantic Ocean: The aircraft was on a scheduled international flight from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil to Paris, France when it crashed in the Atlantic Ocean off the northeast coast of Brazil. All 216 passengers and 12 crew members were killed.
  
  
• 25 December 2009; Northwest Airlines A330-300; Flight 253; near Detroit, MI: A passenger on a Northwest Airlines A330-300(N820NW) attempted to detonate an explosive device while the aircraft was approaching Detroit after a flight from Amsterdam. None of the other 277 passengers or 11 crew members were killed.

---

Cargo jet crashes in Mexico and kills at least six

Also on Tuesday, an A300 jet, operated by AeroUnion of Mexico, crashed during its approach to the Monterrey, Mexico airport. The A300 had departed earlier that evening from Mexico City and crashed just outside the airport in an area adjacent to a number of hotels. All five crew members, plus at least one person in a car hit by the aircraft, were killed.

AirSafe.com Listing of Fatal Plane Crash Rates Updated

AirSafe.com has updated its listing of fatal plane crash rates to include flight data through the end of 2008. Among jet aircraft models with a history of at least two million flights, the current generation of the 737* has the lowest fatal lane crash rate, followed by the A320, the previous generation of the 737**, the Canadair CRJ, and the MD80/MD90. Of these models, the MD80/MD90 series has been in service the longest, since 1980. The previous generation of the 737 has the most flights, with just over 62 million.

Airliner models are ranked using a combination of the number of fatal plane crashes, the percentage of passengers killed in that crash, and the total number of flights of that model. Only plane crashes involving at least one passenger death are included. AirSafe.com's method of computing these rates gives more weight to those crashes that kill most or all of the passengers, and less weight to those that kill a small proportion of passengers. The formulas and definitions used are explained in detail at AirSafe.com

The number of flights are current as of 31 December 2008 for the following models: Airbus, Boeing, BAe 146/RJ100, Concorde, Fokker, and Lockheed. Data sources for fatal plane crashes and airline flight data include Flight International magazine, Conde Nast Traveler magazine, the New York Times, ICAO, and the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board.

* 737-600, 737-700, 737-800, and 737-900
** 737-300, 737-400, and 737-500