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

Boeing releases annual airline safety summary

The main goal of AirSafe.com is to provide the public with useful and reliable information about airline safety and security. One of the best sources for information about accident rates for specific airline models is Boeing's Statistical Summary of Commercial Airplane Accidents. The newest edition, covering the period from 1959 to 2012, was released in August 2013, and includes a variety of resources, including a summary of selected airliner crashes from 2012, as well as comparative data on the accident rates of various aircraft models.

This publication is very useful in part because it provides a snapshot of accident trends for different aircraft models and for different areas of the world. It is also useful for the AirSafe.com audience because it provides a different point of view. These differences are most noticeable if you compare AirSafe.com's safety review for 2012 with the list in the Boeing publication.

While there is some overlap between the two annual lists, particularly the crashes that resulted in passenger deaths, there are some key differences. Boeing, like much of the airline industry, has a focus on events that cause significant and unrepairable damage to aircraft, and their accident statistics reflect that focus. While AirSafe.com does make note of a number of nonfatal events, only those events that result in passenger deaths are used in any statistical comparisons on the site. Also, Boeing does not list events, even ones involving passenger fatalities, if it involved aircraft designed in the former Soviet Union, or events involving turboprop driven airliners.

In spite of those differences, Boeing's Statistical Summary is one of the industry publications that has very high quality data, and should be consulted by anyone who has an interest in airline safety, especially to answer specific questions about airliner accident rates and how they have changed over the last several decades.

Related resources
2012 Boeing Statistical Summary
2011 Boeing Statistical Summary
2010 Boeing Statistical Summary
2009 Boeing Statistical Summary
2008 Boeing Statistical Summary
2007 Boeing Statistical Summary
AirSafe.com's fatal events by aircraft model

The role of unidentified aerial phenomena in airline safety

Ongoing technological advances and other developments in the airline industry continue to lead to a greater understanding of the causes of accidents and incidents, one area that has not received much attention is unidentified aerial phenomena, also known as UAP. These are visual phenomena that occur in the sky that don't have a logical or rational explanation, even after a close review of the evidence by relevant experts.

Why UAP events are a safety issue
Unexplained aerial phenomena are important to aviation safety because some of these events are associated with effects to an aircraft's navigational or flight control systems, and also because sightings may cause flight crews to take abrupt, unplanned, and potentially hazardous maneuvers because the UAP is perceived as a threat to the aircraft.

NARCAP dedicated to studying UAP

NARCAP, the National Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena, is a private, non-profit organization dedicated to studying unexplained aerial phenomena (UAP) and their role in aviation safety. They regularly accept confidential submissions from pilots, air traffic controllers, and other aviation professionals who have witnessed UAP events, and have published a number of studies about UAP. You can find out more about NARCAP at uap.airsafe.com.

Interview with Dr. Richard Haines of NARCAP
Last month, Dr. Todd Curtis interviewed Dr. Richard Haines, the chief scientist of NARCAP, where they discussed his organization's efforts to reduce threats to aviation caused by unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP).

Dr. Haines, who founded the organization in 1999, provided several examples of why unidentified aerial events may have put aircraft and their occupants at risk in the past, and also explained that such events happen to a significant fraction of active airline pilots. Dr. Haines also encouraged crew members who have observed such events to contact his organization at narcap.org and file a report on any past sightings.
Listen to the interview (1:01:28)

NARCAP resources and research studies
NARCAP advice to pilots
Report unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP)
NARCAP technical reports

Social media leads to friction between airlines NTSB and FAA

A Wall Street journal article from 26 August 2013 highlighted the increasingly role social media tools like Twitter are playing in recent airline accidents in the US, leading to some friction between airline officials, the NTSB, and the FAA. In the article, Tim Logan, the senior risk management official at Southwest Airlines, expressed frustrations that speed at which information is released after an accident has led to problems like a lack of coordination between the FAA and the NTSB during an accident investigation, specifically the 22 July 2013 Southwest landing accident in New York.

Logan is not the only airline industry voice with concerns about the speed of information flows to the public. On 8 July 2013, just two days after the of an Asiana 777 in San Francisco, the Airline Pilots Association (ALPA) sent out a press release stating that the organization was "stunned by the amount of detailed operational data from on-board recorders released by the National Transportation Safety Board," saying also that the amount of information released during the field portion of the investigation was unprecedented.

NTSB post accident policies on information
The speed at which NTSB releases information is part of their normal policy. On its web site, the NTSB states that after an accident, it strives to conduct two press conferences a day when on scene, where Board's spokespersons discuss factual, documented information about the accident. The NTSB may remain on site for up to a week, and they may also have several public affairs specialist to handle media requests.

Media involvement past and present
While the NTSB's policies with respect to being transparent and providing factual information to the public in the early stages of an investigation has not changed over the last few decades, the media realities are far different from the past. A little as a generation ago, only the largest media organizations had the resources needed to send video to viewers around the world, and most people had to wait until the following day's newspapers to get photos and interviews from those involved in the accident. Because of these kind of limitations, it could take days or weeks before minute details of an accident would be available to the public.

Compare the past with the present, where it takes little more than a YouTube or Twitter account (both available for free) for any individual or group to communicate with the entire world within seconds. Anyone interested in an accident can choose from a wide range of resources for information, and can get plenty of information directly from the investigating authorities unfiltered and without delay.

NTSB and social media
A 23 July 2013 article published by Twitter quoted an NTSB official stated that sending out tweets after an accident is standard NTSB policy because it helps to keep both the media and the public stay informed during an accident investigation.

The Wall Street Journal article discussed how the NTSB's use of Twitter to communicate with the media and the public after an accident has forced other parties involved in investigations, particularly airlines and the FAA, to speed up their responses both the the investigating authorities and to the public. The following chart was taken fro the article, and shows that NTSB sent out 86 tweets in the days after the 6 July 2013 crash of an Asiana 777 (flight 214) in San Francisco, with the largest number (30) sent the day after the crash.

---

---

A search for tweets sent by NTSB (@NTSB) about the crash reveals that many of the tweets contained links to a wealth of information, including photos from the crash site, videos of press conferences, and the number of times the original tweet was retweeted:
Tweets from NTSB containing the word 'Asiana'
Tweets from NTSB containing hashtag #Asiana214
Tweets from NTSB containing the number '214'

Note that the search was conducted on the Twitter search site at search.twitter.com, and as is the case with most search engines, different search terms give different results, so it helps to use various search terms associated with an event.

NTSB uses a variety of social media tools to provide information to the public. In addition to Twitter, NTSB uses Flickr to post high resolution photos from accidents, and also has a YouTube channel where past press conferences can be reviewed at any time. Because all of their published information is in the public domain, anyone can use these photos and interviews without cost, and without first asking permission.

The future has more and not less social media
In spite of the protests about the speed at which the NTSB releases information, it is very likely that the future will see a greater role for social media in accident investigations. In the recent Southwest and Asiana crashes, photos and videos taken by some of the passengers involved in the accidents are being used by the NTSB to help further the investigations.

Perhaps the best description of what the future holds is from a headline from this recent headline from an article from the Airline Passenger Experience Association, "Social media becomes important tool in accident probes whether safety professionals like it or not." The article is about the August 2013 meeting if the International Association of Air Safety Investigators (ISASI), where among other things, an informal poll of the roughly 300 air safety specialists in attendance showed that almost all of them used Twitter. Representatives from the Canadian and German aviation accident investigation agencies, as well as a representative from Southwest Airlines, agreed that information supplied by passengers and other witnesses, and shared online, have helped investigators.

Fire danger from Honeywell ELTs may exist on aircraft beyond the 787

After last month's fire involving the emergency locator transmitter (ELT) on a Ethiopian 787 in London, the FAA and other regulatory agencies around the world have ordered that these ELTs be deactivated, inspected, or removed. The ELT on that aircraft was manufactured by Honeywell, which has produced about 6,000 ELTs for use in aircraft around the world.

A recent airworthiness directive from Transport Canada airworthiness directive (AD), which takes effect on 26 August 2013, has gone a step further, requiring that Honeywell ELTs on a variety of aircraft be inspected by the end of 2013. Transport Canada stated that the AD was issued as a precautionary measure to address the possibility of a fire due to wiring installation discrepancies of the ELT system. Depending on the outcome of the AAIB investigation, Transport Canada may revise the AD or mandate additional corrective actions.

---

(click here for full AD)

---

Affected aircraft
Previous directives from the UK and US authorities were limited to the 787. This latest Canadian AD covers a much wider range of aircraft, including the Boeing models 717, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777, 787, MD11, MD80 and MD90; and the Airbus models A300, A310, A320, A321, A330, A340 and A380.

Other countries following Canada's lead
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) has also adopted the Canadian AD. According to various media reports, the FAA also plans to issue a similar AD for US-registered aircraft.

Why ELT fires are potentially catastrophic
As was described in some detail in an earlier AirSafeNews.com article on the Ethiopian 787 event, fire caused by an ELT would be particularly worrisome because these devices, unlike other systems such as engines and auxiliary power units, do not come equipped with fire suppression systems, and they are typically located in parts of the aircraft that are inaccessible from the cabin. In the event of an in flight fire, it may not be possible to put out the fire, and it may spread to other parts of the aircraft.

In the event of an onboard fire, typical emergency procedures include landing at the closest suitable airport, but if the fire occurred if the aircraft were far from a a suitable airport, which would be the case for many transatlantic or transpacific flights, passengers and crew could be exposed to large amounts of smoke and fumes for a significant amount of time.

In such a situation, emergency oxygen systems may not have been useful for passengers since these systems are typically designed to supply passenger with a combination of oxygen from the emergency oxygen system and ambient air from the cabin, including any smoke or fumes that are present in the cabin.

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.

Why TSA may be searching you well outside of airports

A New York Times story on 5 August 2013 described an ongoing program that has allowed the TSA to expand their activities well beyond airports, to places like sporting events, music festivals, rodeos, highways, and train terminals. The story pointed out how some groups hold that what the TSA is doing in this program is well beyond their original mandate and that their behavior may violate the constitutional rights of people in the US.

The TSA currently has a legal right to act outside of airports, even though many in the US don't like what they are doing. To understand why this situation exists, it is important to understand a several key realities about the TSA

• TSA is not a law enforcement organization.
• Law enforcement organizations have significant limits when it comes to conducting a search.
• TSA has an exemption from these limits when it comes to searches at an airport.
• There is an ongoing program that allows the TSA to operate outside of airports under law enforcement supervision.

TSA is not a law enforcement organization
The TSA employees that you see at airport screening locations typically wear the uniform that you see in the photo below. While TSA employees wear an outfit that looks like a police uniform, have badges that looks like the type used by police officers, and sometimes have titles like Transportation Security Officer, TSA is not a law enforcement agency and its employees do not have typical police powers.

Typical law enforcement officers include the power to arrest someone, and the power to use force in order to execute their duties.

One similarity between police officers and TSA personnel is their ability to legally search individuals or their property. However, police officers in the US have significant limitations of when such searches can be conducted, and TSA, at least at an airport, do not have these limitations.

Typical law enforcement limitations on searches
In general, law enforcement officials in the US can search an individual or that individual's property without a warrant only if that law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that someone has committed a crime, or has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed a crime.

Why TSA can operate outside of common law enforcement limitations
The TSA's ability to search passengers and their belongings at airports is based in part on a US federal court decision from 1973 which ruled that airport screenings are considered to be administrative searches because they are conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme that had the purpose of preventing the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft.

The TSA outside of the airport
The TSA VIPR (http://www.tsa.gov/about-tsa/visible-intermodal-prevention-and-response-vipr) program uses TSA assets and personnel to augment law enforcemement (including Federal Air Marshals) resources to ensure security in all modes of transportation, as well as at special high profile events. The program, which began in 2005, allows TSA to extend its ability to conduct searches beyond the airport.

Past misconduct and legal limits on searches
The New York Times article pointed out that there had been some cases in the past where the VIPR teams have conducted searches that were ineffective, for example searching passengers after they had left a train, and the Inspector General's office of the Department of Homeland Security issued a report in August 2012 that discussed numerous concerns about how these teams stay within their legal limits when it comes to searches outside of the airport.

General public concerns
One of the fundamental concerns expressed both by the New York Times article and by some in the AirSafe.com community is that the TSA should not have the same kind of wide-ranging ability to search individuals and their belongings outside of the airport environment. This extension of TSA's authority outside of the airport parallels the New York City's "stop and frisk" program where police officers were allowed to stop, question, and search individuals without having the meet the basis law enforcement standards of reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

The program, which has been in place for about a decade, has often led to arrests and confiscation of illegal weapons. However, on 12 August 2013, a US federal judge ruled that the New York City policy was unconstitutional and must be changed to adhere to constitutional limits.

It is too early to tell if this decision will outlaw similar practices across the US, of it will have any effect on the TSA's VIPR program. No doubt, many who oppose the VIPR program will welcome this latest decision and will hope that it will lead to changes in how the TSA operates outside of the airport.