Air India Express 737-800 Crashes in Mangalore India

22 May 2010; Air India Express; 737-800; flight 812; Mangalore, India: The aircraft (VT-AXV) was on a scheduled international flight from Dubai, UAE, to Mangalore, India, arriving just after 6 a.m. local time. The aircraft landed on Mangalore airport's 2,450m-long runway, reportedly beyond the normal touchdown zone, and was unable to stop on that runway. After the plane departed the runway, it crashed through the airport's boundary wall and slid into a valley. The aircraft caught fire shortly afterwards.

There were six crew members and 160 passengers and on board, including four infants. Early reports indicate that there were eight survivors. Both pilots were killed in the crash. At the time of the crash, visibility was 6km, with calm winds. The instrument landing system on that runway was also operating normally.

Previous 737-800 Crashes
This is the eighth serious crash involving a 737-800. The first was a September 2006 midair collision involving a Gol Linhas Aéreas 737-800 in Brazil that killed all six crew members and 148 passengers, and the most recent was a January 2010 fatal crash of a Ethiopian Airlines jet near Beirut. Four of the previous seven crashes involved passenger fatalities.

1. 25 January 2009; Ethiopian Airlines 737-800 (ET-ANB); Flight 409; near Beirut, LebanonThe aircraft was on a scheduled international flight from Beirut, Lebanon to Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, and crashed into the Mediterranean Sea shortly after takeoff. There were 82 passengers and eight crew members on board, all of whom were killed in the crash.


2. 29 September 2006; Gol Linhas Aéreas 737-800; Flight 1907; near Peixoto de Azevedo, Brazil: The aircraft was on a scheduled domestic flight from Manaus to Brasilia when it had a midair collision in the area of São Félix do Xingu with an Embraer ERJ135 Legacy 600 executive jet operated by ExcelAire. The ExcelAire Legacy 600 jet had been on a flight from São José dos Campos to Manaus. After the collision, which damaged the left wing, left stabilizer, and left elevator of the executive jet, the crew of the damaged ExcelAire aircraft was able to land at a nearby military airfield at Cachimbo, Brazil. The 737 subsequently experienced an inflight breakup and crashed about 30 kilometers (19 miles) north of the Peixoto de Azevedo municipality. The Legacy 600 was on the first leg of a delivery flight to the US The 737 aircraft was also relatively new, having come into service with the airline less than three weeks before the crash. All six crew members and 148 passengers on the 737 were killed. The two crew members and five passengers on the Legacy 600 were not injured.


3. 5 May 2007; Kenya Airways 737-800; Flight 507; near Douala, Cameroon: The aircraft was on a scheduled international flight from Douala, Cameroon to Nairobi, Kenya. The aircraft crashed into a swampy area near the airport less than one minute after takeoff. The aircraft departed just after midnight local time and the aircraft sent at least one communication to the control tower prior to the crash. All nine crew members and 105 passengers were killed.


4. 20 August 2007; China Airlines 737-800; Flight 120; Naha, Japan: Shortly after landing at Naha on the island of Okinawa, the left engine caught fire and the crew initiated an emergency evacuation. Although the aircraft was destroyed by fire, all 157 passengers (including two toddlers) and eight crew members survived.


5. 10 November 2008; Ryanair 737-800; Flight 4102; Rome, Italy: The aircraft, on a scheduled international flight from Frankfurt, Germany to Rome, Italy encountered a flock of birds during approach to Rome, sustaining damage to both engines, the wings, and the nose. The crew was able to land on the runway, but aircraft had a collapsed landing gear and serious damage to the rear of the fuselage. All six crew members, and 166 passengers survived.


6. 25 February 2009; Turkish Airlines 737-800; Flight 1951; Amsterdam, Netherlands: The aircraft, on a scheduled international flight from Istanbul, Turkey, to Amsterdam, Netherlands crashed in a field about a mile (1.6 km) short of the runway. Three crew members, including both pilots, were killed, as were at least six others among the 134 passengers and crew members.


7. 22 December 2009; American Airlines 737-800 (N977AN); Flight 331; Kingston, Jamaica: The aircraft was on a scheduled international flight from Miami, FL to Kingston, Jamaica. The aircraft landed during a rainstorm, and was unable to stop on the runway. After departing the runway, the aircraft went beyond the airport fence, and crossed a road before coming to rest on a beach. The landing gear collapsed, both engines separated from the wings, and there were two major breaks in the fuselage, but all 148 passengers and six crew members survived. The landing was carried out with a slight tail wind.

About Air India Express
Air India Express is a subsidiary of Air India. The airline began operations in 2005, and has about 23 other aircraft in its fleet, all 737-800s. This is the first accident or serious incident involving this subsidiary of Air India, and the fourth fatal plane crash overall for Air India since 1970.

AirSafeNews.com will provide updates on the investigation as information becomes available.

Additional Resources
Wikipedia page about the crash
Air India plane crashes
Fatal 737 plane crashes
Fatal airliner crash rates by model
Do plane crashes happen in threes?

---

Rescue and recovery efforts at crash site

---

Bird's eye view of flight path and accident location

---

Photo Credits: Rick Schlamp, AP, BBC

Two Recent Crashes in Less Popular Travel Areas

While major accidents like the May 12th crash of a large jet airliner in Libya attracts much of the public's attention, crashes involving smaller aircraft get much less attention, but are still catastrophic to those involved.

15 May 2010; Blue Wing Airlines; Antonov An28; eastern Suriname: The aircraft was on a scheduled domestic flight between Godo Holo to Paramaribo, Suriname. The aircraft crashed in a wooded area in eastern Suriname. Both crew members and all six passengers were killed. This is the third time that a Blue Win An28 has been destroyed in a crash. One of the crashes in April 2008 also killed everyone on board.
Wikipedia page on this airline

17 May 2010; Pamir Airways; Antonov An24B; flight 112; near Salang Pass, Afghanistan: The aircraft (YA-PIS) was on a scheduled domestic flight between Kunduz to Kabul, Afghanistan. All contact with the aircraft was lost about 10 minutes after departure, and it is presumed to have crashed in the Salang Pass area, which lies around 100 km (60 miles) north of Kabul and at an altitude of about 13,350 feet. Heavy fog was reported in the area at the the time. All five crew members and 38 passengers are missing and presumed dead. This was the first major crash for this airline.
Wikipedia page on this crash

Other recent crashes

Afriqiyah A330 Crashes in Libya and Has Sole Survivor

12 May 2010; Afriqiyah Airways; A330-200; Flight 771; near Tripoli, Libya: The aircraft (5A-ONG) was on a scheduled international flight from Johannesburg, South Africa (JNB) to Tripoli, Libya (TIP) with 93 passengers and 11 crew on board. Of the 93 passengers, 82 were traveling onwards to destinations in Europe. The aircraft was relatively new, having been delivered only last September. The aircraft has reportedly experienced fewer than 500 flights and 1600 flight hours prior to the crash.

Early reports indicate that the aircraft crashed short of runway 9, and that all 11 crew members and 92 of the 93 passengers were killed. The sole survivor was Ruben van Assouw, a young Dutch boy who is about 10 years old. This would make this event the 16th sole survivor event since 1970.

About sole survivor plane crashes
According to AirSafe.com,in eight of these 16 sole survivor cases, the sole survivor was a child or teenager. A crew member was the sole survivor five times, an adult passenger was the sole survivor in two cases, and there was one other case where the age of the surviving passenger could not be determined.

About Afriqiyah Airways
Afriqiyah Airwayss has been in operation since 2001 and has no previous fatal plane crashes or other serious safety events. The airline currently has about 10 aircraft in its fleet, including two remaining A330-200 aircraft.

With respect to meeting international standards, the two most prominent rating authorities are the FAA in the US and the European Commission. The FAA's International Aviation Safety Assessments (IASA) Program categorizes countries rather than airlines, but in their latest published summary from December 2008 did not rate Libya, where Afriqiyah Airways is based. Libya does not have any direct flights to or from the US. The European Commission restricts individual airlines or even individual aircraft, but their latest "blacklist" of airlines from March 2010 did not include Afriqiyah Airways.

About the A330
The aircraft has been in service since 1994 and has been involved in in two previous fatal plane crashes, one that occurred during a test flight and last June's crash of Air France flight 447 in the Atlantic Ocean near Brazil. The most recent serious event involving an A330 was a Christmas Day 2009 failed bombing attempt on Northwest Airlines flight 253 near Detroit. According to AirFleets.net, about 682 aircraft were produced, and about 660 remain in service.

AirSafe.com will provide updates to this investigation as they become available.

---

Two News reports from AlJazeeraEnglish

---

Additional Resources
Plane crashes with a sole survivor
Where is the safest place to sit on a plane
A330 plane crashes
Wikipedia page on Afriqiyah Airways
Wikipedia page on flight 771

Photos: Globespotter, Libya TV

Individuals on TSA's No-fly List Have Legally Purchased Firearms in the US

Earlier this week, the US General Accountability Office (GAO) released a report on the use of terrorist watch lists to screen firearms purchases with some truly stunning facts about gun purchases by potential terrorists. In short, persons one of the key US government terrorist watch lists can legally buy firearms in the US. Surprisingly, membership in a terrorist organization or in a suspected terrorist organization does not prohibit a person from legally buying or possessing firearms or explosives under current US federal law, and at least a few individuals on the TSA's no-fly list have been allowed to purchase firearms in the US after passing a required FBI background check. To put this surprising reality in a broader context, we'll first provide a very brief overview how firearm purchases are approved in the US.

Who can buy firearms in the US
Laws vary widely across the US, but in general, it is possible for an adult to legally purchase guns either from a dealer who has a federal license to sell firearms, or through a sale between private individuals. Anyone making a transaction through a licensed dealer is subject to an FBI background check.

Background checks and firearms dealers
If someone wants to purchase a firearm from a federally licensed firearms dealer, that person must pass a background check. The database used for this background check is the the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). If the NICS database indicates if a potential buyer is in one or more of the categories that would disqualify that person from purchasing a firearm from a licensed dealer. Those categories include being convicted of a crime or being under indictment for a crime punishable by more than one year in prison, being in the US illegally, or having been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution (see 18 USC §922 for details).

Terrorist databases and the NICS database
The NICS database includes information from the FBI's Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB), which has about 400,000 names, and is the database used to create the TSA's no-fly list. The TSDB includes both US and non-US citizens.

Terrorist watch lists and gun purchases
According to the GAO report (GAO-10-703T), between February 2004 and Februray 2010, there were 1,228 occasions where individuals in the FBI's Terrorist Screening Database were involved in firearms or explosives background checks. Of those attempted purchases, 1,119 (about 91%) were allowed to proceed. These transactions involved about 650 individuals, with about 450 of them involved in multiple transactions, and six involved with 10 or more transactions.

Can terrorists buy guns in the US?
The simple answer is that when it comes to gun purchases through a licensed firearms dealer, merely being a terrorist, or more precisely, being a person who is listed in the FBI's Terrorist Screening Database, does not disqualify a person from purchasing firearms.

Has anyone on the no-fly list purchased a firearm in the US?
Incredibly, the answer is yes. The GAO report stated that several transactions that occurred between March 2010 and February 2009 involved an unspecified number of individuals who were also on the TSA's no-fly list, and in every case the transaction was allowed to proceed. The report did not mention if there were any similar transactions during the rest of the time period covered by the report.

What do you think about firearms purchase restrictions for terrorists
At present, being on a terrorist watch list, or even being on the no-fly list, will not prevent someone from passing required background checks for firearms purchases. Here at AirSafeNews.com, we would like to know what you think about this situation, and also what you think should be done to limit either the purchase or possession of firearms by anyone who is on the TSA's no fly list, the FBI's Terrorist Screening Database, or on any of the other key airline security and terrorist databases. Feel free to leave comments below:

---

Photo credit: TSA

Suspected Bomber on No-fly List But Still Got on a Plane

As many of you know, Faisal Shahzad, a 30-year-old father of two from Connecticut, has been accused of attempting to set off a bomb in the Times Square area of New York City last Saturday. Two days later, he attempted to leave the US by flying out from JFK Airport on Emirates flight 202, bound for Dubai. The door on the aircraft was closed, and the plane was about to begin its pushback from the jetway when the authorities ordered the plane to return to the gate when Shahzad was taken into custody.

After Shahzad was removed from the aircraft, the aircraft resumed its departure, but as a precaution the crew was ordered to return to the gate so the passengers could be screened by security one more time. This exchange between the crew and ATC was made available by LiveATC.net.

The good news was that law enforcement and aviation security personnel were able to work together and detain this suspect. In fact, the the investigation into the attempted bombing had evolved very rapidly, with Shahzad being added to the TSA's no-fly list before he attempted to leave the country.

Lapses in airport security
On the surface, the elements were in place to capture this suspect if he tried to get on an airplane. However, that was clearly not the case. At about 12:30 p.m. Monday, seven hours before his flight, Shahzad's name was added to the no-fly list. Emirates Airlines was also notified about an important addition to the no-fly list. However, the airline was only required to check for updates to the list every 24 hours.

He was able to get past the initial TSA security checkpoint and get on an aircraft in spite of being on the 'no-fly' list. Shahzad was caught only after Customs and Border Protection agents reviewed the final passenger list shortly before takeoff.

Although Shahzad was caught before the plane took off, this represents a failure because the intent was for the no-fly list and the rest of the security system to prevent someone like Shahzad from even boarding an aircraft. Perhaps New York mayor Michael Bloomberg has a perspective that is shared by many who hear this story. According to the New York Times, he said, “Clearly the guy was on the plane and shouldn’t have been. We got lucky.”

Two things that can be said about luck is that it is not predictable and is not a substitute for a systematic security process. The US government maintains a number of databases that are used as part of a systematic security process for airline travel. An AirSafeNews.com article from last November described the four most important airline security databases in the US. The most restrictive is the "no-fly" list. As the name implies, this is a list of people who are not allowed to board an airliner.

The problem
The key problem in this situation is that part of the system worked in that a suspect's name was placed on the no-fly list, and accessible to law enforcement, TSA, and the airline. However, having an updated list is next to useless if the groups that are supposed to use the list are not using the list, especially to find a high interest suspect such as Mr. Shahzad.

How to improve the system
The TSA announced today that airlines will now have to review the no-fly list within two hours rather than within 24 hours. However, that may not be enough. AirSafeNews.com would like to know what you think. Please feel free to respond to the survey below. We'll publish the results, and your comments, in a few days.

New Tarmac Delay Rules Have Large Loopholes

As of today, new Department of Transportation rules require most airlines operating in the US to allow passengers the opportunity to get off an aircraft after three hours of a tarmac delay. Large airlines can be fined up to $27,500 for each violation. While this new rule will literally be a great relief for many delayed passengers, significant loopholes may keep some passengers from being helped by the new rules.

Basics of the new rules
According to the DOT, US airlines operating domestic flights may not permit an aircraft to remain on the tarmac at large and medium hub airports for more than three hours without deplaning passengers, with exceptions allowed only for safety or security reasons or if air traffic control advises the flight crew that returning to the terminal would disrupt airport operations.

US carriers operating international flights departing from or arriving in the United States must specify, in advance, their own time limits for deplaning passengers, with the same exceptions applicable. Non-US carriers operating a code share flight with a US carrier must comply with these rules (though other non-US carriers do not have to comply).

Carriers are required to provide adequate food and potable drinking water for passengers within two hours of the aircraft being delayed on the tarmac and to maintain operable lavatories and, if necessary, provide medical attention.

Loophole for smaller airports
The new rule leaves airlines quite a few opportunities to keep passengers on the tarmac for more than three hours. One of the loopholes is implied by the DOT specifying the the rule applies to "large and medium hub airports." Deep inside a DOT document about these new rules were both the definitions of a large and medium hub airport, and the fact that only 69 airports meet one of these definitions (see below). Given that there are about 450 airports in the US offering airline service, a significant fraction of passengers may be forced to stay on an aircraft well past the three hour mark.

• Large hub airports: ATL, BOS, BWI, CLT, DCA, DEN, DFW, DTW, EWR, FLL, HNL, IAD, IAH, JFK, LAS, LAX, LGA, MCO, MIA, MSP, ORD, PHL, PHX, SAN, SEA, SFO, SLC and TPA
  
  
• Medium hub airports: ABQ, ANC, AUS, BDL, BNA, BUF, BUR, CLE, CMH, CVG, DAL, HOU, IND, JAX, MCI, MDW, MEM, MHT, MKE, MSY, OAK, OGG, OKC, OMA, ONT, ORF, PBI, PDX, PIT, PVD, RDU, RNO, RSW, SAT, SDF, SJC, SJU, SMF, SNA, STL and TUS

The rule would not have helped these passengers
There was a recent extreme tarmac delay event were it appears that the passengers would not have been eligible for the benefits of this new rule. Last month, a Virgin America flight from Los Angeles to New York took about an extra 12 hours to complete, including about four hours waiting on the tarmac at Stewart International airport in Newburgh, NY airport. This airport (SWF) was definitely not in the list of large or medium hub airports.

Two lavatory loopholes
There are two separate loopholes concerning the availability of lavatories. First, the requirement to have access to a lavatory during a tarmac delay does not apply to aircraft that don't have a lavatory. Also, some aircraft with a single lavatory are allowed to fly in some circumstances without an operating lavatory. So long as the airline informs passengers before the flight, the airline would not be in violation of the new rules of that aircraft were involved in a tarmac delay of up to three hours. Review the DOT FAQ document for additional details.

What is adequate food and water?
Within that same DOT document of FAQs about these new rules was a discussion of what qualifies as adequate food and water. While the DOT does not expect airlines to provide full meal service, the document did say that a granola bar or an individual pack of snack food, along with a 12 ounce bottle of water, would be sufficient.

What should you do to prepare for a delay?
It spite of the new rules, it is clear that a passenger may still experience a tarmac delay where there is no access to a lavatory, food, or sufficient water. While a delay may be inconvenient, it does not have to be uncomfortable. Taking the following basic steps on every flight should keep your bad experience from turning into a terrible one:

• Keep all prescription medicine and other essential medical supplies with you in your carry on bag.
  
  
• Bring along a snack or a small meal in your carry on bag.
  
  
• If you have a medical exemption that allows you to bring liquids through security, do so.
  
  
• If you are traveling with an infant or small child, TSA will allow you to carry baby formula, breast milk, juice or water through security.
  
  
• If you don't have a medical exemption, buy a bottle of water or juice after you go through security and before you get on the airplane.
  
  
• Visit tsa.airsafe.org for a list of additional exemptions for liquids.

Additional resources
Airlines with 3+ hour delays 2008-2009
How to complain to your airline

Photo Credit: Matthew and Tracie

Cessna and 737 Nearly Collide at Burbank Airport

The NTSB reports that on Monday April 19th, a Southwest Airlines 737-700 (N473WN) with 124 people on board nearly collided with a Cessna 172 at Burbank Airport in California. At the time of the incident, the aircraft were using intersecting runways at the airport. The 737, with 119 passengers and a crew of five, was landing, while the Cessna was taking off on an intersecting runway. They nearly hit each other at the intersection of the two runways. No one on either aircraft was injured and neither aircraft was damaged.

Overview of the near collision at Bob Hope Airport

At about 10:58 a.m. PDT on April 19, Southwest Airlines flight 649 was inbound from Oakland to the Burbank airport (also known as Bob Hope Airport) and was landing to the east on runway 8 while the Cessna 172 had just taken off to the south from runway 15, passing over the 737 at the intersection of the two runways. The Cessna had been executing a “touch and go” landing on runway 15.

In a touch and go landing, an aircraft lands on a runway and immediately initiates a takeoff without first coming to a complete stop. According to the FAA, the two aircraft came within 200 feet vertically and 10 feet laterally of each other at the runway intersection. The NTSB report doesn't state whether the touch and go landing was a planned maneuver on the part of the Cessna pilot, or if the maneuver was done in order to avoid hitting the 737. At the time of the event, skies were clear with 10 miles of visibility.

The NTSB is currently investigating this event, and AirSafeNews.com will publish the findings of this investigation, including any safety recommendations.

Collisions between airliners and small aircraft
AirSafe.com lists at least 16 fatal midair collision events since 1960 where at least one airline passenger was killed. Of those 16, four involved single engine private aircraft, and two of those four were also in southern California. In September 1978, a Pacific Southwest 727-200 collided with a Cessna 172 over San Diego, killing all 135 on the 727, the two occupants of the Cessna, and seven others on the ground. In August 1986, an Aeromexico DC9 collided with a Piper Archer aircraft over Cerritos, which is just south of Los Angeles. All six crew members and 58 passengers on the jet were killed. The three occupants of the Piper and 15 people on the ground were also killed.

Photo Credits: Google Earth, Airliners.net, Velozia.com