The AirSafe.com News

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Showing posts with label plane. Show all posts
Showing posts with label plane. Show all posts

14 May 2015

Why the Amtrak train crash in Philadelphia is like a plane crash

The crash of Amtrak Northeast Regional Train 188 in Philadelphia, PA on May 12, 2015 involved an Amtrak passenger train, but in many ways this train crash was like a plane crash, specifically in the ways that the major US media outlets responded to the event. It is extremely rare for train crashes to generate intense media interest, but this kind of attention is routine for airline crashes. Upon closer review, the media response to the Amtrak crash is not so surprising.

Although it has only been a couple of days since the crash, the NTSB accident investigation team has revealed key details of the events that led to the crash. In short, it looks like the train was traveling just over 100 mph (161 kph), and derailed after entering a curve that had a 50 mph speed limit.

There were five crew members and about 240 passengers on board. Seven of those passengers were killed, and several dozen passengers and crew members were injured.



NTSB Board Member Robert Sumwalt at crash site

Amtrak accidents are common
While this accident has received the kind of attention usually given a major plane crash (for example, continuous coverage from major news networks that includes having news anchors at the crash site), Amtrak accidents are actually quite common. According to the Federal Railroad Administration, over the last decade, Amtrak has been involved with accidents and incidents that have resulted in over 1,000 deaths.



(Click to enlarge)

In the last three years, Amtrak has been involved in over 50 accidents per year, with 21 in the first two months of 2015.



(Click to enlarge)

Why this crash stands out
The circumstances around the Philadelphia crash that have led to an intense amount of media attention include where it happened, who was on the train, and perhaps more importantly, who is likely to travel by train on that route.

The crash took place on not only the most heavily traveled route in the Amtrak system, with over 12 million riders in 2011, it is also a route that connects New York City with Washington, DC, two metropolitan areas where many members of the US financial, political, and media elite live and work.

Many of the elite members of US society, even if they don't live or work in New York or Washington, have either traveled on that route on many occasions, or know friends, colleagues, or family members who do. A quick review of some of those killed in the crash can give you an insight into the kinds of people who regularly travel on this route. The dead include:

  • A tech company CEO
  • A software architect for a major news media organization
  • A US Naval Academy midshipman
  • A university dean
  • A senior vice president of a Fortune 100 company

Given the ongoing media coverage, it is very likely that the most influential business, political, and media decision makers throughout the US are not only keenly aware of the accident, but can also imagine circumstances where they could have been on that train that night. If it had been a jet airliner traveling between major cities in the northeast US, the airliner's passenger list would have likely reflected the profile of the people on that Amtrak train.

These are the reasons why the traveling public, especially the more influential members of the traveling public, may feel about this train crash the same way they would perceive a plane crash, as something that could happen to them.

Additional resources
Amtrak Northeast Corridor overview 2011

Graphics:
Federal Railroad Administration
National Transportation Safety Board

24 March 2015

Germanwings A320 crashes in France with the loss of all on board

24 March 2015; Germanwings A320-200; D-AIPX; flight 4U9525; near Barcelonnette, France: The aircraft was on a scheduled international flight from Barcelona, Spain to Düsseldorf, Germany. About a half hour after takeoff, while at a cruising altitude of 38,000 feet, the aircraft began losing altitude, and crashed about ten minutes later. All six crew members and 142 passengers were killed.

Germanwings is owned by Lufthansa, and this crash was the fourth Lufthansa or Lufthansa-related crash since 1970

Related information
A320 plane crashes
Flight 4U9525 Wikipedia entry

Below is the flight track of flight 4U9525 showing the flight track ending in southeastern France


Source: FlightAware.com

13 March 2015

Recent interviews about Harrison Ford's plane crash and the MH370 one year anniversary

Recent interviews featuring Todd Curtis of AirSafe.com included:

  • An interview with the BBC about claims that some airlines in the Middle East are receiving unfair subsidies,
  • Several interviews discussing Harrison Ford's latest plane crash,
  • Several discussions about the one year anniversary of Malaysia Airlines flight MH370, and
  • Dissecting the preliminary information from the latest landing incident at La Guarida.

You can find all of these AirSafe.com interviews, and past interviews, at:

Free fear of flying information from AirSafe.com
If you have fear or anxieties around flying, or know someone who does, you may want to check out one of these resources from AirSafe.com:

Have other anxiety issues?
If you have fear or anxieties around flying, or know someone who does, you may want to check out the resources available at Panic Away.

23 February 2015

Recent interviews on drones, drug use at Boeing, and more

Recent interviews featuring Todd Curtis of AirSafe.com included:

  • An interview on the Rudy Maxa show on proposed FAA drone regulations,
  • A CJOB radio interview about last month's fatal crash of a Greek F-16,
  • Several interviews about the crash of a TransAsia ATR-72 in Taiwan, and
  • A KING TV report on Boeing factory workers fired for selling and using drugs on the job.

You can find all of these AirSafe.com interviews, and past interviews, at:

Free fear of flying information from AirSafe.com
If you have fear or anxieties around flying, or know someone who does, you may want to check out one of these resources from AirSafe.com:

04 February 2015

TransAsia Airways has second fatal crash in less than a year

4 February 2015; TransAsia Airways ATR 72-600; B-22816; flight GE232; near Magong, Taiwan: The aircraft was on a scheduled domestic flight between Taipei and Kinmen Island, Taiwan. The airplane crashed into a river shortly after takeoff from Songshan Airport in Taipei. The aircraft hit a bridge, as well as a vehicle on that bridge, before plunging into the Keelung River. Shortly before hitting the bridge, the aircraft rolled sharply to the left.

There were 53 passengers and five crew members on board, and at least 18 occupants were killed. At least five people on the ground were also injured. There was heavy rain in the area at the time of the crash.
Other TransAsia Airways crashes
ATR 72 plane crashes
Flight GE235 Wikipedia entry

Airlines with more than one crash within one year
This TransAsia crash is the second time in less than a year that the airline has had a crash that resulted in passenger deaths. The previous crash was on 24 July 2014 and involved another ATR 72, this time on a domestic flight between Kaohsiung and Magong, Taiwan. All four crew members and 44 of the 54 passengers were killed.

Below is a partial list of airlines since 1970 that have had multiple fatal plane crashes separated by less than one year. Each item represents a sequence of at least two plane crashes or other events that led to the death of one or more passengers. For each sequence, there is a gap of less than one year between events. These sequences, which are listed in reverse chronological order, may include the airline or one of its subsidiaries.

  1. TransAsia Airways 2014-2015
  2. Malaysia Airlines 2014
  3. American Airliners 2001 (3)
  4. United Airliners 2001
  5. Cubana 1999
  6. TAM 1996-1997
  7. ADC (Nigeria 1996-1997
  8. Delta Air Lines 1995-1997 (3)
  9. American Airliners 1994-1995 (4)
  10. USAir 1994
  11. China Eastern 1993
  12. USAir 1991-1992 (3)
  13. Nordeste (Brazil) 1991-1992
  14. Aeroflot 1990-1991 (3)
  15. Avianca 1989-1990
  16. United Airliners 1989
  17. Korean Air Lines 1989
  18. Continental Airlines 1987-1988
  19. Philippine Air Lines 1987
  20. Northwest Airlines 1987
  21. TWA 1985-1986
  22. TAM 1983-1984
  23. CAAC 1982-1983 (3)
  24. Pan Am 1982
  25. VASP 1982
  26. Aeromexico 1981
  27. Saudia 1980
  28. THY 1979-1980
  29. Indian Airlines 1979-1980
  30. Air New Zealand 1979
  31. Air Rhodesia 1978-1979
  32. THY 1974-1975 (3)
  33. Eastern Air Lines 1974-1975
  34. TWA 1974
  35. Pan Am 1973-1974 (3)
  36. Japan Air Lines 1972
  37. Indian Airlines 1971-1973 (3)

The above list may not include every airline with two or more fatal crashes within a year. If you know of any others, please contact AirSafe.com.


Various videos and photos of the TransAsia Airways crash


Source: YouTube MrOutofcontrolvideos


Source: YouTube FSXninja


Source: LiveLeak

Final Moments of flight (Photo: APA):
Final Moments of flight (Photo: APA)

The wreckage almost submerged in the Keelung River:
The wreckage almost submerged in the Keelung River

Overview of wreckage in Keelung River (Photo: APA):
Overview of wreckage in Keelung River (Photo: APA)

Detail Map (Graphics: AVH/Google Earth):
Detail Map (Graphics: AVH/Google Earth)

Map (Graphics: AVH/Google Earth):
Map (Graphics: AVH/Google Earth)

Speed and altitudes (FlightRadar24):
Speed and altitudes (FlightRadar24)

01 January 2015

2014 airline safety review

This is the 19th annual review since AirSafe.com was launched in 1996. From 1996 to 2013, the number of fatal events in a year have ranged from a low of five in 2013 to a high of 19 in 1997

This review includes all plane crashes that resulted in a fatal event, specifically events involving passenger fatalities in aircraft which have the capacity to seat at least 10 passengers where those models are used in regular airline service in North America, western Europe, Australia, or Japan. Also included are plane crashes and other significant events that did not qualify as a fatal event, but that either had high media interest or that had noteworthy aviation safety or security implications.

Only the numbered plane crashes listed below qualified as a fatal event. Details on how events are categorized are available at the AirSafe.com definitions page.

Quick summary of 2014
While this past year saw massive amounts of media attention for the two events involving Malaysia Airlines, and the crash of an AirAsia A320 in the last week of December, 2014 saw seven numbered fatal events on AirSafe.com, which is on the low end for the number of annual fatal events. Six of those events involved Asian airlines, and the seventh involved an airline in Africa. Of the four significant events, only one involved an airliner.

  1. 16 February 2014; Nepal Airlines DHC-6 Twin Otter 300; 9N-ABB; flight 183; en route between Pokhara and Jumla, Nepal: The aircraft was on a scheduled domestic flight from Pokhara to Jumla, Nepal. Radio contact was lost about 30 minutes after takeoff. The crashed aircraft was found the next day, and all three crew members and 15 passengers had been killed.
    Flight 183 Wikipedia entry

  2. 8 March 2014; Malaysia Airlines 777-200; 9M-MRO; flight MH370; unknown location: The aircraft was on a scheduled international flight between Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia and Beijing, China and went missing while en route. The current status and location of the aircraft, along with that of the 227 passengers and 12 crew members on board, is currently unknown. While it is believed that one or more military radar systems in Malaysia detected the aircraft heading back in the direction of Malaysia, there was no corroborating information such as communications from the pilot or information from the aircraft's transponder associated with that radar data.

    Visit the Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 page for additional information, including links to articles and interviews of Dr. Todd Curtis of AirSafe.com

  3. 24 June 2014; Pakistan International Airlines (PIA); A310-300; AP-BGN; flight PK756; Peshawar, Pakistan The aircraft was on a scheduled international flight from Riyadh, Saudi Arabia to Peshawar, Pakistan, when it was struck by several bullets shortly before landing. Two cabin crew members and one passenger were hit, and the passenger died of her injuries. There were no other injuries among the 10 other crew members or 177 other passengers.
    Fatal PIA Events

  4. 17 July 2014; Malaysia Airlines 777-200ER; 9M-MRD; flight MH17; near Grabovo, Ukraine: The aircraft was on a scheduled international flight between Amsterdam, the Netherlands and Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The aircraft in cruise at about 33,000 feet when it experienced a catastrophic in flight breakup. All 283 passengers and 15 crew members were killed.

    Visit the Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 page for additional information, including links to articles and interviews of Dr. Todd Curtis of AirSafe.com

  5. 23 July 2014; TransAsia Airways ATR 72-500; B-22810; flight GE222; near Magong, Taiwan: The aircraft was on a scheduled domestic flight between Kaohsiung and Magong, Taiwan. The airplane crashed into a residential area near the airport during a go around following an attempted landing at Magong, Taiwan, which is on Penghu island. Of the four crew members and 54 passengers, at least 48 occupants were killed. At least five people on the ground were also injured. There was heavy rain in the area at the time of the crash.
    ATR 72 plane crashes
    Flight GE222 Wikipedia entry

  6. 24 July 2014; Air Algerie MD83; EC-LTV; flight AH5017; near Gossi, Mali: The aircraft was on a scheduled international flight from Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso and Algiers, Algeria. The airplane contacted air traffic control about 50 minutes after takeoff, requesting a course change due to weather conditions. The aircraft crashed in the area of Gossi, Mali. All six crew members and 110 passengers were killed.
    MD80 series plane crashes
    Flight AH5017 Wikipedia entry

    10 August 2014; Sepahan Airlines HESA IrAn 140; EP-GPA; flight 217; near Nardaran, Azerbaijan: The aircraft was on a scheduled domestic flight from Tehran to Tabas, Iran. The aircraft crashed shortly after takeoff, resulting in 39 fatalities among the eight crew members and 40 passengers. All five crew members and18 passengers were killed.
    This is a not a numbered event as defined by AirSafe.com because of the aircraft type used.
    Flight 217 Wikipedia entry

    13 August 2014; AF Andrade Empreendimentos e Participações Cessna 560XLS+ Citation Excel; PR-AFA; Guarujá, Brazil: The aircraft was approaching Guarujá Airport after a charter flight from Santos Dumont Airport in Rio de Janeiro, and crashed into a residential area about 4.3 km fro the runway. Both pilot and all five passengers were killed. Among the passengers were a candidate for president of Brazil, Eduardo Campos, his wife, and one of their five children. This event also raises policy issues for democracies.


    7 October 2014; California Dept of Forestry and Fire Protection; Marsh S-2F3AT Turbo Tracker; N449DF; near Foresta, CA: The fire-fighting aircraft, which was based at Hollister Air Attack Base, CA impacted a forested hillside during a fire suppression operation near the Yosemite National Forest, California. The pilot, and sole crew member, was killed.


    31 October 2014; Scaled Composites; Model 339 (SpaceShipTwo); N339SS; near Cantil, CA: The vehicle, which is designed to fly into the lower reaches of space (above 100 km above Earth) was on its first powered test flight with a new engine fuel and oxidizer combination (nylon and nitrous oxide). SpaceShipTwo was dropped from its carrier vehicle at about 45,000 feet, and ignited its engine.

    Roughly two minutes after release, the vehicle experienced an inflight breakup. One of the two crew members was killed, and the other was able to bail out of the vehicle and was injured.

    Prior to the accident flight, there had been the 54 test flights of SpaceShipTwo, of which 34 involved a release from the carrier aircraft, including three powered flights.

    Scaled Composites, which conducted the flight test, is a partner of Virgin Galactic, which had planned on using SpaceShipTwo to take passengers on suborbital trips into space in the near future.
    Review of NTSB accident investigation findings
    Space flight related deaths
    Fatal events involving NASA astronauts



  7. 28 December 2014; AirAsia A320-216; PK-AXC; flight QZ8501; Java Sea: The aircraft was on a scheduled international flight between Surabaya, Indonesia and Singapore, and contact was lost while the airliner was en route. Shortly before contact was lost, the crew requested an altitude change and a deviation from their planned route in order to avoid weather. There were no survivors from among the 155 passengers and seven crew members.
    Other A320 crashes
    AirAsia crashes

29 July 2014

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.

24 July 2014

Do plane crashes happen in threes? - yes, and sometimes in fours and fives

Note:This an updated version of an article first published in February 2009

Since AirSafe.com was launched in 1996, the site has tracked fatal events and other significant events involving airline passengers. When these events occur, especially if two occur a just a few days apart, I sometimes get the "Do bad things like plane crashes always happen in threes?" question asked by visitors to the site, by members of the media, and by others.

I used to just dismiss the question out of hand because events like plane crashes, especially those involving passenger airliners, are very rare, and the circumstances are usually very different for each crash, often involving different airlines, different aircraft types, and even different countries.

Although it's easy to reject the original question, it is quite legitimate to ask a related question about how frequently groups of rare events occur over a relatively short period of time.

One day, just for fun, I turned the "things happening in threes" question into something that could be analyzed systematically using the information within AirSafe.com. I changed the general question into the following specific question: "How frequent are sequences of three or more fatal or significant aviation safety and security events where the time between events is ten days or less?"

For example, a sequence of three events could happen on the same day, or it could be over a period as long as 20 days, with a 10-day gap between the first and second event, and another 10-day gap between the second and third event.

The most recent sequence of three events took place over the course of seven days beginning with the crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 on July 17th, followed by the crash of an TransAsia ATR airliner in Taiwan on July 23th, and ending with the crash of an Air Algerie MD83 in Mali on July 24th.

For the purposes of answering this question, I limited the data to those events that are regularly tracked by AirSafe.com. These would be plane crashes or other airline events that kill at least one passenger, or other events that AirSafe.com considers to be significant with respect to aviation safety or aviation security.

Multiple events due to the same cause (for example, the four crashes associated with 9/11) were treated as one event. Significant events that don't kill anyone sometimes attract more media attention than the average plane crash. The January 2008 ditching of a US Airways A320 in the Hudson River in New York was one example. It was very dramatic, it got a huge amount of media exposure, and no one was killed.

A review of the AirSafe.com records from 1996, the year AirSafe.com was launched, to July 2014 revealed some interesting facts:

  • With the exception of 2007, 2009, and 2013, every year since 1996 included at least one sequence of three fatal or significant events that were separated by no more than ten days. There was a sequence of five significant, but nonfatal, events in January 2008 (one of which involved Senator Barack Obama), and a sequence of eight events in 2010, seven of which involved fatalities.

  • There were 25 sequences of three or more events that were separated no more than ten days. One was a sequence of eight events, three were sequences of five events, five sequences had four events, and the other sixteen consisted of three events each.

  • Most of the fatal and significant events tracked from 1996 to the present were not part of any sequence of three or more events.

  • Well known fatal events that were a part of one of these sequences include the Swissair MD-11 crash in 1998, the Concorde crash in 2000, the August 2006 crash of a Comair jet, in Lexington, KY, the August 2008 crash of a Spanair MD83 in Madrid, and the July 2014 crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17.

  • Well known events that were not a part of one of these sequences include the ValuJet and TWA Flight 800 crashes in 1996, the Alaska Airlines crash in 2000, the four crashes associated with 9/11, and the March 2014 loss of Malaysia Airlines flight MH370.

  • For 16 of the past 19 calendar years (1996 to 2014), there has been at least one grouping of three or more fatal or significant events that occurred over a relatively short period.

  • No information has come about in the investigations of any of those events that indicates that there was any sort of connection among the crashes that were part of a sequence of three or more events, or that suggested that earlier events in a sequence made a later event more likely.

After reviewing the facts, I no longer say that plane crashes don't happen in threes. Since 1996, they have happened in sequences of three, four, five, and eight.

- Todd Curtis


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
26 July 2014 - Todd Curtis discusses his findings on the Rudy Maxa Show (6:44)
Related article from Patrick Smith of AskThePilot.com
Losing three airliners in one week is not that rare


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.

29 June 2014

Six month safety review for 2014

This review of plane crashes and other significant events from the first six months of 2014 discusses three airline events, two of which involved at least one confirmed passengers fatality, and the third, which involved suspected passenger fatalities on Malaysia Airlines flight MH370.

Since AirSafe.com began tracking such events in 1996, there have been three or fewer fatal events in the first six months of a calendar year on five other occasions. There were also three fatal events in the first six months of 2001, 2005, and 2010. There was a single fatal event in the first six months of 2006 and 2013.

This review includes all fatal events, specifically events involving passenger fatalities in aircraft which have the capacity to seat at least 10 passengers where those models are used in regular airline service in North America, western Europe, Australia, or Japan. Also included are plane crashes and other significant events that did not qualify as a fatal event, but that either had high media interest or that had noteworthy aviation safety or security implications.

All of the events in the first half of 2014 were fatal events, and there were no significant events. From 1996 to 2014, there have been a total of 81 fatal events and 35 significant events in the first half of the year, for an average of 4.26 fatal events and 1.94 significant events each year.

The AirSafe.com definitions page has additional details on how an event is assigned to a category. The Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 event led to a change in the definitions, expanding the fatal event category to include situations where an airliner has been missing for at least 30 days, and where there is also substantial indirect evidence that one or more passengers were killed.


Events Killing Airline Passengers

  1. 16 February 2014; Nepal Airlines DHC-6 Twin Otter 300; 9N-ABB; flight 183; en route between Pokhara and Jumla, Nepal: The aircraft was on a scheduled domestic flight from Pokhara to Jumla, Nepal. Radio contact was lost about 30 minutes after takeoff. The crashed aircraft was found the next day, and all three crew members and 15 passengers had been killed.

  2. 8 March 2014; Malaysia Airlines 777-200; 9M-MRO; flight MH370; unknown location: The aircraft was on a scheduled international flight between Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia and Beijing, China and went missing while en route. The current location and status of the aircraft, along with that of the 227 passengers and 12 crew members who were on board, is unknown.

    This is a numbered event as defined by AirSafe.com because there is substantial indirect evidence that one or more passengers were killed.

    Visit the Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 page for additional information, including links to articles and interviews of Dr. Todd Curtis of AirSafe.com

  3. 24 June 2014; Pakistan International Airlines (PIA); A310-300; AP-BGN; flight PK756; Peshawar, Pakistan The aircraft was on a scheduled international flight from Riyadh, Saudi Arabia to Peshawar, Pakistan, when it was struck by several bullets shortly before landing. Two cabin crew members and one passenger were hit, and the passenger died of her injuries. There were no other injuries among the 10 other crew members or 177 other passengers.
    Fatal PIA Events


Other Significant Events

None


Other Years
1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000,
2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005
2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010
2011, 2012, 2013


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 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.

01 January 2014

AirSafe.com Airline Safety Review for 2013

This 18th annual review discusses five fatal airline crashes and two other significant events from 2013. The five fatal airline crashes from 2013 represents the fewest fatal passenger events since AirSafe.com was launched in 1996. The two significant events both involved cargo jet crashes that killed all of the crew members. This past year was also unusual in that the majority of these events either occurred in the US or involved a US airline.


Crashes Killing Airline Passengers

  1. 29 January 2013; SCAT Airlines Canadair CRJ-200ER; UP-CJ006; flight 760; Almaty, Kazakhstan: The aircraft was on a domestic scheduled flight from Kokshetau to Almaty, Kazakhstan, crashed during approach about five kilometers (3.1 mi) from the destination airport, near the village of Kyzyltu. All five crew members and 16 passengers were killed.
    Wikipedia entry for this crash.

  2. 6 July 2013; Asiana Airlines; 777-200ER; HL7742; flight 214; San Francisco, CA: The aircraft was on a scheduled international flight from Seoul, South Korea to San Francisco, and the rear of the aircraft struck a seawall just short of the runway while landing. The tail section broke apart, and both horizontal stabilizers and the vertical fin separated from the aircraft. Both engines and the main landing gear also separated from the aircraft. The aircraft caught fire after it came to rest, but not before all of the crew and most of the passengers were able to escape. All 16 crew members survived, but thee of the 291 passengers, all teenage girls from China, were killed.
    - AirSafeNews.com article from 13 July 2013
    - AirSafeNews.com article from 10 July 2013 on the role of the autothrottle
    - AirSafeNews.com on early findings of the crash investigation
    - Dr. Todd Curtis and former airline pilot Capt. Tom Bunn on the role of the media
    - Other 777 plane crashes
    - Wikipedia page on this accident
    - Other Asiana plane crashes

  3. 7 July 2013; Rediske Air DHC-3 Otter; N93PC; Soldotna, AK: The aircraft was on a nonscheduled domestic flight from Soldotna, Alaska to Bear Mountain Lodge, alsoo in Alaska. The aircraft crashed during takeoff, killing the pilot and all nine passengers.

  4. 16 October 2013; Lao Airlines ATR 72-600; RDPL-34233; flight QV301; near Pakxe, Laos: The aircraft was on a scheduled domestic flight from Vientiane, the capitol of Laos, to Pakxe in southern part of the country. It crashed into the Mekong river during its approach and sank. The crash occurred about eight kilometers (five miles) from the airport. All five crew members and 44 passengers were killed.
    Fatal ATR 72 crashes

  5. 17 November 2013; Tartarstan Aircompany 737-500; VQ-BBN; flight 383; Kazan, Russia: The aircraft was on a scheduled domestic flight from Moscow to Kazan, Russia, and crashed during a landing attempt. Early reports indicated that it was at least the second landing attempt. All 44 passengers and six crew members were killed in the crash and subsequent fire.
    Fatal events involving airlines of the former Soviet Union


Other Significant Events
  1. 29 April 2013; National Airlines 747-400; N949CA; Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan: The aircraft had just departed on a cargo flight to Dubai, UAE when the aircraft entered a stall and crashed near the end of the runway. At one point, the aircraft had rolled to the right in excess of 45 degrees. Although the crew was able to put the wings more or less level, the aircraft impacted the ground at a high vertical speed, causing an explosion and fire. All seven crew members were killed.
    Fatal 747 crashes

  2. 14 August 2013; UPS A300F4-622R; N155UP; flight 1354; Birmingham, AL: The aircraft was on a domestic cargo flight from Louisville, KY (SDF) to Birmingham, AL (BHM), crashed and burned during a landing attempt. The aircraft was destroyed in the crash and subsequent fire, and both pilots were killed. There were no other occupants, and no one was killed or injured on the ground.
    Additional details on the crash
    Other A300 plane crashes


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


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.

17 November 2013

No survivors from 737-500 crash in Russia

17 November 2013; Tartarstan Aircompany 737-500; VQ-BBN; flight 383; Kazan, Russia: The aircraft was on a scheduled domestic flight from Moscow to Kazan, Russia, and crashed during a landing attempt shortly after 7 pm local time. Early reports indicated that it was at least the second landing attempt. All 44 passengers and six crew members were killed in the crash and subsequent fire. RT News has provided a profile of several young parents who were among the crash victims.

Below is a security camera video that shows the aircraft in a high-angle dive shortly before impact:


About the 737
This was the 73rd fatal event involving the 737, and the fourth involving the 737-500 series. The first 737 aircraft began commercial operations in 1968, and the first of the 737-500 series began service in 1990.

The first fatal event for the 737 was in 1972, and the previous fatal crash was in April 2012. There have been four prior 737-500 crashes that resulted in serious or fatal passenger injuries:

  1. 26 July 1993; Asiana Airlines 737-500; near Mokpo, Korea: The aircraft struck high ground in poor weather about 4 km from the runway while it was making its third attempt at a landing. Four of the six crew members and 64 of the 104 passengers were killed.

  2. 7 May 2002; EgyptAir 737-500; near Tunis, Tunisia: The aircraft crashed about 6 km (3.8 mi) from the airport after a flight from Cairo. The aircraft was reportedly making a second approach for landing when it crashed into high ground during a period of reduced visibility due to fog and sandstorms. Three of the six crew members and 11 of the 56 passengers were killed.

  3. 14 September 2008; Aeroflot-Nord 737-500; Flight 821; near Perm, Russia: The aircraft was on a scheduled domestic flight from Moscow to Perm, Russia. Contact with the aircraft was lost shortly before landing when the aircraft was about 3,600 feet, or about 1100 meters, above the ground. The aircraft was completely destroyed in the crash, coming down outside of the city of Perm and near the tracks of the Trans-Siberian Railway. All 82 passengers and six crew members were killed in the crash. There were seven children, including one infant, among the passengers.

  4. 20 December 2008; Continental Airlines 737-500; Flight 1404; Denver, CO: The aircraft, which was on a scheduled domestic flight from Denver, CO to Intercontinental Airport in Houston, TX, departed the runway during takeoff and skidded across a taxiway and a service road before coming to rest in a ravine several hundred yards from the runway. The aircraft sustained significant damage, including a post crash fire, separation of one engine and separated and collapsed landing gear. There were about 38 injuries among the 110 passengers and five crew members, including two passengers who were seriously injured.

Additional resources
737 crashes
Crashes in the former Soviet Union

17 October 2013

Lao Airlines ATR 72 crash kills all 49 on board

16 October 2013; Lao Airlines ATR 72-600; RDPL-34233; flight QV301; near Pakxe, Laos: The aircraft was on a scheduled domestic flight from Vientiane, the capitol of Laos, to Pakxe in the southern part of the country. It crashed into the Mekong river during its approach and sank. The crash occurred about eight kilometers (five miles) from the airport. All five crew members and 44 passengers were killed.

About this aircraft
According to Airfleets.net, this ATR 72 was the newest aircraft in the Lao Airlines fleet, having been delivered to the airline fewer than seven months ago.

About the ATR 72
This is the sixth crash of an ATR 72 passenger flight involving at least one fatality. The previous events were:

  1. 31 October 1994; American Eagle (Simmons Airlines) ATR 72-200; N401AM; flight 4184; near Roselawn, IN: This was a scheduled domestic flight from Indianapolis, IN and Chicago, IL. During descent, the crew activated the airframe deicing system. The crew was in a holding pattern at about 10,000 feet (3050 m) and while the aircraft was descending to 8,000 feet, the aircraft went out of control due to the effects of icing and crashed. The four crew members and 64 passengers were all killed. The icing occurred in areas of the wings that were beyond the area protected by the deicing system.
    Fatal American Airlines Events
    Wikipedia Entry for this Accident
    NTSB Accident Report Volume I  (Summary)
    NTSB Accident Report Volume II  (Summary)

  2. 6 August 2005; Tuninter ATR 72-200; near Palermo, Italy: The aircraft was on an unscheduled international flight from Bari, Italy to Djerba, Tunisia when the aircraft reportedly developed engine trouble. The crew ditched the aircraft off the coast of Palermo. The aircraft had been on a scheduled domestic flight from Kish Island in the Persian Gulf. Two of the four crew members and 14 of the 35 passengers were killed.
    Fatal Events for Airlines of the Middle East and Africa

  3. 4 August 2009; Bangkok Airways ATR 72-200; HS-PGL; flight 266, Koh Samui, Thailand: The aircraft was a scheduled domestic flight from Krabi to Koh Samui, Thailand, and skidded off the runway during the landing, hitting the control tower building. One of the four crew members was killed, but all 68 passengers survived.

  4. 4 November 2010; AeroCaribbean; CU-T1549; ATR 72-212; Flight 883; near Guasimal, Sancti Spiritus Province, Cuba: The aircraft was on a domestic flight from Santiago to Havana, Cuba. The crew reported an emergency situation shortly before the aircraft crashed in mountainous terrain. All seven crew members and 61 passengers were killed.
  5. 2 April 2012; UTair ATR 72-200; VP-BYZ;flight 120; Tyumen, Russia: The aircraft was on scheduled domestic flight from Tyumen to Surgut, Russia. The airplane crashed broke up, and caught fire in a field about 1.5 miles (2.5 km) from the end of the departure runway. All four crew members and 27 of the 39 passengers were killed. This was the second fatal passenger jet crash involving this airline. The first was a 17 March 2007 crash of a UTair Tupolev Tu134A in Samara, Russia that killed six passengers.
    Fatal crashes of airlines of Russia and the former Soviet Union
    Additional information about this crash

Graphic: Central Intelligence Agency

27 September 2013

United Airlines captain dies after suffering heart attack during flight

26 September 2013, United Airlines; 737-900; flight 1603; near Boise, ID: A United Airlines captain suffered a heart attack while en route on a scheduled flight from Houston, TX to Seattle, WA. Although the captain received prompt treatment while in flight and after the aircraft made an unscheduled landing in Boise, ID, he was pronounced dead after arriving at a local hospital. The flight later continued onward to Seattle with a replacement pilot.

According to several media reports, after the 63-year-old pilot was stricken, two passengers, both military physicians stationed in Washington State, attended to the pilot, and the remaining pilot, as well as an off-duty United pilot who was also on board, made an emergency landing in Boise, ID. An autopsy performed the following day confirmed that the pilot had died of a heart attack.

Selected previous events
This was not the first time that an airline pilot was incapacitated during a flight. The following are just some of the more recent events:

  • 20 January 2012 - A 44-year-old reserve first officer of a UTair 757 suffered a heart attack while en route from Chengdu, China to Novosibirsk, Russia. Although the pilot received prompt medical attention, including help from a passenger who was a cardiologist, the pilot died before the crew could make an emergency landing. The pilot was in the cockpit, but not at the controls, when he suffered a heart attack. In April of that same year, a UTair ATR72 crashed in Russia, killing dozens of passengers.

  • 14 October 2010 - The 43-year-old captain of a Qatar Airways A330-300 suffered a massive heart attack roughly an hour after takeoff during a flight from Manila to Doha, Qatar. The first officer diverted the aircraft to Kuala Lumpur, where the pilot was pronounced dead after the plane arrived.

  • 14 June 2010 - About an hour into a flight from San Francisco to Chicago, the first officer of an American Airlines 767 felt ill and was unable to continue with his flying duties. There were no off-duty pilots on board, and the captain chose to have a flight attendant with several hundred hours of flight experience provide assistance for the remainder of the flight.

  • 18 June 2009 - The captain of a Continental Airlines 777-200 died while en route from Brussels, Belgium to Newark, NJ. The 60-year-old captain was replaced by a reserve first officer and the crew declared an emergency. The aircraft landed without further incident.

  • 28 January 2008 - The first officer of an Air Canada 767 on a scheduled flight from Toronto to London became mentally incapacitated and the captain needed he help of several flight attendants to physically remove the first officer from the cockpit. The captain, along with the help of a flight attendant who held a commercial multiengine license, diverted the aircraft to Shannon, Ireland.

How frequent are these events?Y
While accidents involving serious injury or death to pilots or crew are routinely reported to civil aviation authorities around the world, deaths, injuries, or incapacitations due to natural causes are not. While there are many media reports of such incidents, especially in recent years with the increased use of social media, there are few formal studies of incidents of pilot incapacitations. One of them is a 2004 study from the FAA's Civil Aerospace Medical Institue, which found that in the six-year period from 1993 and 1998 there were 39 cases where a U.S. airline flight crew member was unable to perform any flight duties and 11 cases where the flight crew member was impaired and could only perform limited flight duties.

These 50 cases occurred on 47 different flights (two crew members were affected on three of the 47 flight). Four of these events involved a crew member death, all due to cardiac arrest. According to the FAA, in seven of these events the safety of the flight was seriously affected:

  1. A 737 first officer experienced an alcohol-withdrawal seizure, applied full right rudder, and slumped over the control wheel, causing a loss of altitude until flight attendants could pull the first officer off the controls.

  2. The foot of a DC9 first officer became lodged against a rudder pedal after his leg stiffened during a heart attack. The captain applied opposite rudder until the first officer's foot could be dislodged.

  3. The flight engineer and the captain of a 727 lost consciousness after the flight engineer accidentally depressurized the aircraft. The first officer donned an oxygen mask and made an emergency descent.

  4. A captain suffered an epileptic seizure while the aircraft was taxiing and applied enough force to the rudder to cause the aircraft to turn sharply and stop. The first officer removed the captain from the controls and taxied back to the gate.

  5. An A300 captain suffered a cerebral infarction during approach, and neglected to lower the landing gear. After landing, the captain applied reverse thrust longer than necessary, and attempted to apply takeoff thrust on the taxiway.

  6. An MD88 Delta Airlines captain, who was using unapproved contact lenses, misjudged his approach a LaGuardia Airport on 19 October 1996 during conditions of reduced visibility and struck approach lights near the end of the runway. The aircraft was substantially damaged, and three passengers received minor injuries during the evacuation.

  7. The captain and first officer of a DC8 cargo flight both had their judgement affected due to fatigue, and they allowed the aircraft to enter an unrecoverable approach stall while on a approach to the airbase at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. The captain, first officer, and flight engineer were all seriously injured in the 18 August 1993 crash.

Graphic: FlightAware.com

14 August 2013

UPS A300 crash in Alabama kills both pilots

14 August 2013; UPS A300F4-622R; N155UP; flight 1354; Birmingham, AL: The aircraft was on a domestic cargo flight from Louisville, KY (SDF) to Birmingham, AL (BHM), crashed and burned during a landing attempt. The aircraft was destroyed in the crash and subsequent fire, and both pilots were killed. There were no other occupants, and no one was killed or injured on the ground.


Video from the crash site

NTSB photos from the crash site

Speed and altitude profile from FlightAware.com

Note: Time in the graph is EDT, Birmingham, Al is in CDT

About the A300-600
This is the fourth fatal plane crashes involving the A300-600. The previous events were:

  • 26 April 1994; China Airlines A300-600; Nagoya, Japan: All 15 crew and 249 of the 264 passengers were killed.
  • 16 February 1998; China Airlines A300-600; near Taipei, Taiwan: All 15 crew and 182 passengers were killed, as were seven people on the ground.
  • 12 November 2001; American Airlines A300-600; Queens, New York: All nine crew members and 251 passengers on the aircraft were killed, as were seven people on the ground.

UPS accident history
This is the second fatal crash involving a UPS aircraft. On 3 September 2010, a UPS 747-400 aircraft crashed in Dubai, UAE, killing both pilots. UPS had two other accidents that destroyed aircraft, but did not kill any crew members. The first was a 1985 crash of a Swearingen SA227 at London, KY on 31 January 1985, and the second was due to a fire that started shortly before the aircraft landed in Philadelphia, PA on 8 February 2006.

25 July 2013

Key safety and technology trends affecting airline passengers

The last few weeks has seen the world media pay a tremendous amount of attention airline safety issues, especially in the wake of the fatal crash landing of Asiana flight 214 in San Francisco on 6 July 2013 and the landing incident on 22 July 2013 involving a Southwest Airlines 737 in New York. These two events have actually highlighted several of the key safety trends in aviation that will likely affect passengers not only in the US, but around the world.

How the crash of an Asiana 777 demonstrated improvements in aircraft
This accident represented not only the first fatal accident involving the 777, but the first fatal accident involving a large jet airliner in the US in almost 12 years. Perhaps more significant was that an accident that resulted in significant damage to the aircraft and a post-crash fire resulted in only three fatalities.


777 accident in San Francisco

While luck plays a part in any fatal accident with survivors, perhaps a more significant role was played by improvements in aircraft design and crew procedures that have occurred over the last few decades, including the following:

  • Aircraft designs that minimize the risk of rupturing fuel tanks when landing gear are sheared away,
  • Cabin materials that are designed to be both more fire resistant and less prone to give off dangerous fumes if they do catch fire,
  • Passenger seats that are designed to withstand greater crash forces,
  • Crew training that emphasizes coordination of cabin crew and flight crew actions during emergencies, and
  • Stricter requirements for passenger evacuation to allow the evacuation of a full aircraft in 90 seconds or less, even if half of the exits are not useable.

How safe is flying?
Since the beginning of large scale airline operations, and especially in the last 30 years, the risks of flying, specifically the risk of a fatal event that kills passengers, has steadily decreased, and the likelihood of survival increasing, in part through innovations in technology and procedures. These improvements are happening because of deliberate efforts by the aviation community and the governments that regulate aviation to identify risks and find ways to eliminate them, make them less likely to occur, or lessen the effects of unwanted outcomes like plane crashes.

Working on the important risks
Aircraft manufacturers, international aviation organizations, and government regulators regularly share information on where the major problems are and what steps have to be taken to address them. The two recent accidents in the US, both of which are being investigated by the NTSB, will be part of this sharing process. They were both landing related accidents, which happens to be a area of high interest among airline manufacturers, airlines, and regulatory authorities.

The findings of the investigation, as well as any recommended changes to technology or procedures, will be provided not only to the organizations involved in the accidents, but to the general public, and will likely contribute to future changes to airline industry, changes that will make these kinds of accidents less likely.

How technology puts power in the hands of the people
The recent accidents in San Francisco and New York were also examples of how technology in the hands of passengers and the public has radically changed the relationship the public has with the airlines. In both cases, news of the accidents, including photos and videos, went out not only through traditional news media, but also through Twitter, YouTube, Vine, and other social media applications. In the case of the crash in San Francisco, the NTSB used Twitter and YouTube to put photos, press conferences, and other information from the investigation online, allowing any interested person to get the information direct from the source, without waiting for traditional media to filter the content.


737 landing accident at LaGuardia

Other key technology trends
The growth in the availability of affordable and portable online access continues to be a reality in virtually all areas of the globe. While it is impossible to say where that technology is going, it is clear that there are several areas where this technology has made a huge difference to airline passengers compared to ten or even five years ago:

  • Allow for easy ticket price comparisons and ticket purchases online,
  • Provide personalized in-flight entertainment,
  • Provide passengers with the means to document accidents, incidents, and poor airline customer service, and to share it with the world, and
  • Allow passengers to access a full range of information about an airline 24 hours a day.

Perhaps the greatest change for passengers is that the existence of the Internet makes the entire aviation system much more transparent to everyone. When accidents occur, the news flashes around the world in seconds. It has become very difficult for an airline, aircraft manufacturer, or government agency to hide the truth about their activities from the public, either because someone publishes a photo or other information that reveals the truth, or because information such as accident and incident data that used to be very difficult for the public to find is now much easier to find.

This last point may not be important to airline passengers who live in countries with a free and open press where critical reporting on the activities of governments and corporations in the norm. In many parts of the world, especially countries where there has been a rapid increase in the standard of living and much greater access to air travel services, having the ability to find information from sources that are not controlled by their government, especially information about airlines that are often partly or completely controlled by their government, would be next to impossible without access to the Internet.

15 July 2013

Questions about the crash of Asiana flight 214

Over the past week, numerous questions and comments about the Asiana plane crash have been sent to Dr. Todd Curtis at AirSafe.com. Below are answers to some of the more popular questions posed by the public and the news media.

According to international protocol, who will be in charge of the investigation?

According to section five of Annex 13 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, the state of occurrence of the accident (in this case, the United States) is required to begin an investigation, and has the option of delegating the investigation to another state or to a regional organization. Typically in the US, the NTSB leads airline accident investigations, unless it is determined to be caused by a criminal act. If that is the case, the FBI takes the lead in the investigation. So far, there is no indication that there was a criminal act, so the NTSB will likely lead and complete the investigation.

How long until this investigation is completed?

Typically, an NTSB investigation takes over a year to complete. The NTSB has published 13 reports on aircraft accidents that have occurred since the beginning of 2009. The shortest time until completion was just over nine months, and the longest was just under 27 months.

The information presented so far by the NTSB seems to point to either a case of pilot error or mechanical failure. From what you have seen, is there any way that you can say which one is more probable?

It is too early to focus on any one possible cause since the NTSB is still in the early part of the investigation, and has only processed and released some of the factual data from the investigation. It is also possible that the probable cause (or probable causes) may include something besides pilot error or mechanical failure. As the investigation continues, the NTSB will know more about the causes of the accident.

While Asiana Airlines stated that the pilot who was in control during the landing was an experienced airline pilot, his limited experience with the 777 seems to lend weight to the pilot error argument. What is the appropriate length of time for a pilot to be trained?

That question is beyond my expertise, but I will say that standards for airline pilots are extremely high around the world, and part of that high standard includes extensive training when airline pilots transition to new aircraft. That training includes ground school to familiarize pilots with systems and procedures, as well as training in high-fidelity aircraft simulators, including full motion simulators, that simulate the sights, sounds, and sensations pilots would experience in an actual aircraft. These training programs have often been developed in concert with the manufacturer to ensure that the training reflects the behavior of the aircraft.

The South Korean government as well as the world's largest organization of airline pilots, the nternational Federation of Air Line Pilot's Association, criticized the NTSB for revealing too much from the Asiana flight 214 investigation. What do you think about the press conferences held by the NTSB since the accident?

The press conferences have been an excellent source of information about the investigation. In my opinion, the kind of information the NTSB has provided is similar to what has been provided from past accidents. The biggest differences between this investigation and prior major investigations have been the access provided to the public and the NTSB's use of social media to inform the public of the availability of recorded press conferences, photographs, and other information from the investigation. In short, the NTSB is providing information much more quickly, and in a more accessible manner than before, but the kind of information being released is consistent with what has been released in the past.

The 777 is reportedly one of Boeing's flagship products and has a strong safety record. Why do you think this is the case?

There are many reasons for this record, and one of them are the high certification requirements of the FAA. At the time of its development, the 777 incorporated regulatory requirements of the FAA, and of the equivalent organizations in Europe and elsewhere. One of those requirements was the inclusion of 16G passenger seats.

A 16G seat is one that is tested in ways that simulate the loads that could be expected in a survivable accident. These seats must withstand two different accident scenarios, one in which the forces are mostly in the vertical or downward direction, and one in which the forces are predominantly in the forward or longitudinal direction. The highest load factor these seats must withstand is in the forward direction at 16Gs (16 times the force of gravity). It is unclear what kinds of forces were experienced by the seats on flight 214, but the NTSB will determine that as part of the investigation.

All aircraft certified by the FAA after 1988 had to have these seats, and since the 777 was certified after 1988, every 777 was delivered with these kinds of seats. The previous FAA standard for commercial airliners was 9G seats.

There are several other regulatory requirements and industry innovations that were incorporated into the 777, and I will mention just a few:

  • Cabin materials that are more fire resistant and less likely to produce dangerous fumes when burned,
  • Evacuation requirements that include emergency lighting on or near the cabin floor so that they can be more easily seen in a smoke-filled cabin.
  • Ground proximity warning systems to help warn pilots when they are flying too low or flying in an area of rising terrain,
  • Collision avoidance systems that warn pilots when other airliners are on a collision course or about to pass at an unsafe distance,
  • Emergency exit systems that allow a 777 with a full load of passengers to evacuate all passengers in 90 seconds or less while using only half of the eight available exits,
  • Multiply redundant aircraft systems, including a flight control system that will allow differential engine thrust to be used if flight control surfaces are not working,
  • Main landing gear that are designed to break off in a hard or crash landing in such a way that the wing fuel tanks are not punctured, and
  • Communications systems, including radios to communicate with airport personnel and cabin public address systems, that will continue to operate after a crash even if electrical power is no longer available from the engines or auxiliary power unit.

As an aviation safety expert, what do you think made this crash so survivable?

Very likely several of the items mentioned in the previous answer helped to keep the number of fatalities low, particularly the use of fire resistant cabin materials, the design of the emergency evacuation systems, the design of the main landing gear, the availability of aircraft communications systems, and the presence of the emergency exit lighting on or near the floor. Another factor was the prompt response from emergency and medical personnel who were at and near the airport.

According to the NTSB, the pilots ordered the passengers to remain seated for 90 seconds after the plane came to a halt, until the cabin crew noticed a fire when the evacuation was initiated. Were 90 seconds too long?

The decision to evacuate an aircraft after a crash is made by the crew based on the conditions inside and outside the aircraft. According to the NTSB, the crew made the decision to evacuate when fire was seen outside the cabin. The NTSB will review the accident to determine if there were any problems or errors in the timing of the evacuation decision or the execution of the evacuation.

According to international protocol, how are accident victims usually compensated?

Compensation for events involving international flights is covered by the Montreal Convention, and damage sustained by a passenger or a passenger's baggage in the event of an accident is not subject to any financial limit. How the compensation happens can be complex, especially since the accident took place in the United States. Because of the location of the accident, there may be a variety of international, federal, and state of California laws that may be relevant. Typically, the parties involved agree to a settlement without having a trial, and the terms of the settlement are not shared with the public.

Who is responsible for paying for the claims of victims?

Usually, any private company, government organization, or private individual that has some or all of the legal responsibility for the accident may have to pay victim claims. While many different entities may be legally responsible, in the US, typically only private companies end up paying compensation to victims or their families.

Does the NTSB determine who is legally responsible for paying for the claims of victims?

The NTSB investigation is separate from the process for determining legal liability. While the NTSB investigation is typically completed in about a year, legal proceedings involving victim compensation may take much, much longer to complete.

There remains substantial data from Boeing and the airline that must be reviewed. What do you think is the focal point of this ongoing investigation?

I currently don't have an opinion about what the focus will be because the investigation is still in the early stages. The focus of the NTSB investigation is to determine the probable cause or probable causes that led directly to the accident, as well as to identify those contributing causes that indirectly led to the accident. As the NTSB stated in several of their briefings last week, there is still a substantial amount of information that has to be gathered and analyzed before they will be able narrow the focus of the investigation.

As far as safety is concerned, what long-lasting influence will this accident have in the aviation field?

The long term effects will largely be determined by the recommendations that come out of the NTSB investigation, and any additional insights that the industry may gain from this accident. Until the investigation is complete, it is very difficult to predict the long-term influences of this accident.

Additional information
AirSafeNews.com 13 July 2013 summarizing the two prior NTSB press conferences
AirSafeNews.com 10 July 2013 article on the role of the autothrottle
AirSafeNews.com 8 July 2013 article on early findings of the crash investigation
Other Asiana plane crashes
Other 777 plane crashes
Accident details from Aviation Safety Network
Wikipedia page on this accident

The day after the crash, Dr. Curtis of AirSafe.com and Capt. Tom Bunn of the SOAR fear of flying program, who both spent several hours on the day of the crash on cable news programs providing expert commentary, discussed the media's response to the accident and shared their thoughts on the early reports of the crash.

13 July 2013

Summary of final two NTSB briefings on Asiana 777 plane crash in San Francisco

On Wednesday, 10 July 2013 and Thursday, 11 July 2013, NTSB conducted their final two press conferences in San Francisco, and covered a variety of issues around the accident, including the operation of the autopilot and autothrottle, damage to the airplane, injuries to the flight attendants, the evacuation of the aircraft, and other initial factual findings from the investigation.

The NTSB emphasized in both of these press conferences that the information was factual in nature, and in many cases had not yet been confirmed or corroborated. For example, statements received from the flight crew still have to be matched up with information from sources such as the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) and the flight data recorder (FDR).

Cockpit automation and its role in the crash
As mentioned in a previous AirSafeNews.com article, use of the autothrottle by the crew to maintain speed was an issue because although the crew was heard on the CVR stating that the target speed was 137 knots, the aircraft was significantly slower than that speed before the crash. In Wednesday's press conference, the NTSB stated that there were five distinct autothrottle modes used in flight, and in the last 2.5 minutes of flight, there were several autothrottle and autopilot modes used.

As explained by the NTSB, the autopilot helps pilots manage pitch, roll, attitude, and heading; while the autothrottle helps to control speed or thrust. The two systems can work together, and the NTSB has to determine, with the help of Boeing, the following:

  • Whether autopilot and autothrottle modes were commanded by the pilots or activated inadvertently,
  • How the various autopilot and autothrottle modes are designed to work, and
  • What are the ways the systems are expected to respond in the various modes.

Comparison to automobile cruise control
NTSB chair Deborah Hersman used an analogy to a much simpler automated system to illustrate the role that an autothrottle plays. Like in an airliner, a car's cruise control can be set to a specific speed, but it is up to the driver to monitor the speed. Also, cruise control may not engage if the car is in a particular mode, for example below a certain speed. While in cruise control, the driver may be allowed to increase or decrease speed within certain limits. Disengaging cruise control can be done by disarming the system or by hitting the car's brake.

Status of the pilots on flight 214
There were a total of four pilots on board, and they consisted of two crews. The first crew consisted of a training captain going through his initial operating experience (IOE) on the 777 and an instructor pilot (IP) who was a training captain. The relief crew consisted of a captain and a first officer (FO) This first crew performed the takeoff from Seoul and flew for several hours before the relief crew took over, and then the first crew flew approximately the last 1.5 hours of the flight.

Shortly before landing, when the aircraft was at around 10,000 feet, the relief FO entered the cockpit and was in the jumpseat for the rest of the flight. The NTSB provided details on the experience of the three pilots in the cockpit:

  • The training captain was in the left seat at was the pilot flying (PF),
  • The training captain had about 9,700 total hours, including about 5,000 as pilot in command (PIC),
  • The PF was hired by Asiana in 1994, and trained in Florida,
  • The PF was rated to fly the 737, A320, 747, and 777, and from 2005-2013 flew the A320, serving as an A320 captain before moving to the 777,
  • The PF was also a ground school and simulator instructor for the A320 and A321
  • The IP was also a 777 captain who served in the South Korean air force for about 10 years before joining Asiana,
  • The PF's IOE was to consist of 60 flight hours and 20 flight legs, and had gone through 10 flight legs and about 35 flight hours at the time of the crash,
  • The IP had about 13,000 flight hours, including about 3,000 in the 777, and 10,000 as a PIC,
  • The IP served as the PIC on flight 214, and was sitting in the right seat,
  • This flight was the first time that the PF and the PIC had flown together, and it was the PIC's first trip as an instructor pilot
  • The relief FO was a former F-5 and F-16 pilot in the South Korean air force, and had about 4,600 total hours, including 900-1,000 hours in the 777,
  • The relief FO had flown to San Francisco five or six times as an observer.

Landing aids in use at the airport
Air traffic control was allowing pilots to operate under visual flight rules (VFR) when flight 214 was approaching the San Francisco airport (SFO), which means that pilots were not required to use the instrument landing systems at the landing runway (28L) or any automated systems on their aircraft. One of the electronic aids that provide aircraft guidance on their glide slope was inoperable, but this had been published for some time and all flight crews using the airport should have been able to see this information. The NTSB has not stated if this crew were aware of this.

A glide slope aid that was in operation at runway 28L were the precision approach path indicator (PAPI) lights, a set of four lights arranged in a horizontal line that provide pilots with a visual indicator of whether the aircraft on the glide slope, above the glide slope, or below the glide slope.

A pilot who is on the glide slope would see two sets of red lights on the left and two sets of white lights on the right. In the example shown here (not from SFO), the three left indicators are red and the right one is white, indicating that the aircraft is slightly below the glide slope. Four red lights would indicate that the aircraft is well beloe the glides slope, and four white lights is an indicator of being well above the glide slope.

Final approach sequence
Over the last two press conferences, the NTSB discussed the following key parts of the final approach:

  • The approach path took the aircraft directly over SFO, followed by a wide teardrop left turn to line up with the runway (see below),

    (click to enlarge)
  • Air traffic control (ATC) called for a maximum airspeed of 180 knots until the aircraft was five miles out,
  • The IP recalled that the aircraft was above the intended glide path at 4,000 feet, and that vertical speed mode was set at 1,500 feet per minute,
  • ATC gave a landing clearance about 1.5 miles from the runway, about 90 seconds prior to the crash,
  • There was a sink rate callout prior to the aircraft reaching 500 feet,
  • At about 500 feet, the FP noted a blinding flash of light directly in front of the aircraft but not on the runway,
  • The FP stated that he looked away into the cockpit, and was able see the cockpit instruments, including the speed tape,
  • There was no mention of the light on the CVR,
  • The FP believes it may have been a sun reflection, and the NTSB is determining if this could have been the case,
  • There was an automated 500 foot callout about 35 seconds before the crash,
  • Shortly after this callout, the landing checklist was completed,
  • At about 34 seconds prior to impact, the IP noted that the aircraft was below the glide path at 500 feet, and speed was at about 134 knots, with three red PAPI lights showing, and told the PF to pull back
  • Autothrottle was armed and set at 137 knots
  • between 500-200 feet, the IP noted that there was a lateral deviation and that the aircraft was low,
  • At 200 feet, the IP noted four red PAPI lights, that the speed tape was hatched (a visual indicator of an impending stall), and that the autothrottle had not maintained speed,
  • There was an automated 200 foot callout 18 seconds before impact,
  • There was an automated 100 foot callout nine seconds before impact,
  • Almost immediately after this 100 foot callout, a crew member mentioned airspeed (the NTSB noted that there were no mentions of speed heard on the CVR between 500-100 feet),
  • About three seconds before impact, there was a call for a go around,
  • The IP established a go around attitude, and went to push the throttles forward manually, but saw that the FP had already done so,
  • A second call made for a go around was made by a different crew member about 1.5 seconds before impact.

Crash sequence

  • The main landing gear hit the sea wall first, followed by the tail section,
  • The main landing gear sheared away from the aircraft as designed, and the wing fuel tanks were not punctured by the gear separation or during the the rest of the crash sequence,
  • Cabin flooring and galley components were found on the chevrons in the runway overrun area between the sea wall and the runway threshold,
  • The initial impact displaced rocks from the sea wall and some of them were distributed several hundred feet along the debris trail (see photo below),

    (click to enlarge)
  • All passenger seats stayed inside the cabin, but three flight attendant seats were ejected onto the runway,
  • Door 4L detached from the aircraft at some point in the crash sequence
  • Six of the 12 flight attendants were interviewed, and they stated that two of the eight escape slides inflated inside the cabin after a secondary impact (from a witness video, it appears that the aircraft rotated almost 360 degrees counter clockwise, with the rear of the cabin rising up at an angle before hitting the ground at the end of the crash sequence),
  • The right engine had detached from the wing, had rotated about 90 degrees counter clockwise, and was laying alongside the fuselage (see photo below).

(click to enlarge)

Post-crash actions and fire

  • After the aircraft came to a stop, the lead flight attendant (who was near door 1L) went to the cockpit for advice, and was advised not to initiate evacuation (see door layout in photo below),

    (click to enlarge)
  • Fire extinguisher switches were pulled for both engines and the auxiliary power unit,
  • The flight crew was able to communicate with the control tower, and the cabin crew was able to use the public address system to communicate to passengers,
  • A flight attendant who was trained as a lead flight attendant was at door 2L, saw fire outside door 2R near row 10 of the aircraft, and sent the other flight attendant at door 2L to the front of the cabin to inform the rest of the crew about the fire and the need to evacuate (in earlier briefings, the NTSB stated that the source of the fire was a ruptured oil tank that leaked fuel onto hot engine parts from the right engine),
  • Passenger evacuation began about 90 seconds after the aircraft came to a stop, escape slides were first deployed from door 2L and then from door 1L, and passengers also escaped from door 3R,
  • The control tower called for emergency vehicles after the aircraft hit the runway, the first vehicle arrived about two minutes after the crash, and extinguishing agent was first applied about three minutes after the crash,
  • Cabin emergency exit lighting came on during the evacuation,
  • There were six flight attendants who were injured and hospitalized: three seated in the rear of the plane who were ejected out onto the runway, another flight attendant in the rear who was injured, and two who were injured by the slides that deployed inside the cabin including one at door 1R and a second at door 2R,
  • The remaining six flight attendants had evacuated most of the passengers by the time the fire had spread to the cabin,
  • Aiport fire crews entered the cabin with a fire hose to help fight the fire,
  • Flight attendants helped to fight the fire with fire extinguishers, and also used the extinguishers to help extract the two flight attendants who were trapped by the two escape slides that deployed inside the cabin.

Cabin damage
Prior to the cabin fire, a firefighter entered door 2L and turned right to walk toward the rear of the cabin, and along the way observed that seats in that section were almost pristine, with minimal damage detectable, and that one could just fluff the pillows to get that section ready for the next flight. As he walked toward the rear, he observed more cabin damage, with a sharp contrast between the front and back of the passenger cabin. The photo below shows the pristine area of the cabin that was later damaged by fire.


(click to enlarge)

The NTSB structures team noted that from the cockpit to rear spar of the center wing box, the cabin floor was structurally sound. Aft from the rear spar to doors 3R and 3L, in the passenger seating compartment, support structure were compromised on the right side (flayed out from the aircraft), but still sound on the left side. Between doors 3 and 4, the floor was canted down at an angle, with damage progressively worse towards the back, and there was no cabin floor behind door 4.

Dr. Curtis and Capt. Tom Bunn discuss the crash
The day after the crash, Dr. Curtis of AirSafe.com and Capt. Tom Bunn of the SOAR fear of flying program, who both spent several hours on the day of the crash on cable news programs providing expert commentary, discussed the media's response to the accident and shared their thoughts on the early reports of the crash.

Additional information
AirSafeNews.com 10 July 2013 article on the role of the autothrottle
AirSafeNews.com 8 July 2013 article on early findings of the crash investigation
Other Asiana plane crashes
Other 777 plane crashes
Accident details from Aviation Safety Network
Wikipedia page on this accident

Photos: Wikipedia, NTSB