This podcast about the fear of flying and how people are affected by this type of anxiety was first published on 23 May 2008. The transcript of the podcast, as well as a link to the MP3 audio file for the podcast, is available at http://www.airsafe.com/podcasts/show49.htm.
Fear of flying is a complex psychological issue, one that has been made more complex by the security concerns of the last few years. There are many books, videos, and other resources that deal with the fear of flying, so deciding what may work for you may be a difficult process.
The podcast provides a basic definition of what fear of flying is, and points out that a fear of flying may be caused by a number of factors that have no direct connection with an aircraft flight.
The podcast also provides list of symptoms or behaviors that may indicate if a person may be affected by a fear of flying.
If you would like more details about this podcast and about the fear of flying, please use the links below:
Podcast Audio (MP3)
http://www.airsafe.com/podcasts/show49_fear.mp3
Podcast Transcript
http://www.airsafe.com/podcasts/show49.htm
Fear of Flying Overview
http://fear.airsafe.org
Signs that You May Have Fear of Flying
http://www.airsafe.com/issues/fear/signs.htm
Selected Fear of Flying Resources
http://www.airsafe.com/issues/fear/soar.htm
23 May 2008
21 May 2008
Investigation Update #4 for the British Airways 777 Crash of 17 January 2008
This is the fourth update from AirSafe.com on the ongoing investigation into the accident at London's Heathrow Airport involving a British Airways 777. This update is based on information released by the AAIB the week of 11 May 2008.
This article is based on the AirSafe.com podcast published on 20 May 2008. The podcast, available at http:/podcast.airsafe.org, presents the highlights of the most recent update from the Air Accidents Investigation Branch concerning the status of the investigation. There is a brief review of the details of the accident, followed by a discussion of the new information provided by the AAIB report, and an analysis of the progress of the investigation.
The accident aircraft was a scheduled international flight from Beijing, China to London, England, and the flight was routine until about two miles from touchdown. The engines would not respond to commands to increase thrust, and as a result the aircraft touched down about 1000 feet short of the runway. There was a significant fuel leak, but no post-crash fire. All 136 passengers and 16 crew members were able to successfully evacuate the aircraft, and the most serious injury was a broken leg suffered by one passenger.
The three previous AAIB updates in January and February 2008 provided detailed information about the flight, including the state of the fuel and fuel systems, and the condition of the engines and their associated control systems. You'll find details about the previous updates, as well as links to previous podcasts describing the accident sequence, at http://777.airsafe.org.
For the last several months, the AAIB has focused on the fuel and fuel systems of the aircraft. Extensive examination of the aircraft and detailed analysis of information from the flight data recorder and other onboard recording systems have revealed no evidence of an aircraft or engine control system malfunction.
The fuel was extensively tested, and showed no evidence of contamination or excessive water content. Although the aircraft had experienced very cold temperatures, the fuel temperature remained well above freezing. Detailed examination of the fuel system revealed a loose connection in one of the fuel lines as well as the presence of small pieces of debris, but these conditions led to no unusual deterioration or physical blockages.
The ongoing investigation has also found no evidence that a wake vortex encounter, bird strike, engine icing, or electromagnetic interference played a role in the accident. The focus of the investigation continues to be the fuel system and the engines, with the goal of understanding why neither engine responded to demands for increased power even though all of the engine control functions operated normally.
Under the direction of the AAIB, the engine manufacturer Rolls-Royce and the aircraft manufacturer Boeing are conducting further tests on the engines and fuel system with the goal of replicating the fuel system performance seen in the accident flight. Additional work is being conducted to gain a more complete understanding of the dynamics of the fuel as it flows from the tank to the engine.
No individual parameter associated with the accident flight was outside of previous operating experience. However, the AAIB is using a data analysis team to review data from a large sample of flights on similar aircraft to see if there was a combination of parameters that was outside of previous experience.
Unlike the last AAIB interim report issued in February 2008, this report did not contain any recommended operational changes for the 777.
I'd like to take a moment to share my opinion about the progress of this investigation. This crash investigation has not yet come up with an explanation for what happened. This is in spite of having a largely intact aircraft, a large volume of data from the accident aircraft and comparison data from similar flights, and the combined resources the engine manufacturer, the aircraft manufacturer, and the British government. This probably means that if the AAIB does come up with an explanation for why the accident happened, the explanation will include a combination of circumstances that had not been previously anticipated by aircraft designers or aircraft operators.
The suggestions made in previous AirSafe.com podcasts about how to evaluate what's being published about this investigation are still valid .
If you're interested in following the investigation online or in the news media, keep in mind that prior to the completion of the investigation by the AAIB, anyone outside of the investigation, including aviation safety experts and the largest news media organizations, will have access only to a fraction of the relevant information.
The AAIB will likely provide several more updates prior to publishing a final report, and these updates represent the most authoritative sources of information about the ongoing investigation.
Podcast Audio and Video
Audio: MP3 | Video: iPod/MP4 | WMV | Google Video | YouTube
Podcast Transcript
http://www.airsafe.com/podcasts/show48.htm
Additional Accident Details and Related Podcasts
http://777.airsafe.org
This article is based on the AirSafe.com podcast published on 20 May 2008. The podcast, available at http:/podcast.airsafe.org, presents the highlights of the most recent update from the Air Accidents Investigation Branch concerning the status of the investigation. There is a brief review of the details of the accident, followed by a discussion of the new information provided by the AAIB report, and an analysis of the progress of the investigation.
The accident aircraft was a scheduled international flight from Beijing, China to London, England, and the flight was routine until about two miles from touchdown. The engines would not respond to commands to increase thrust, and as a result the aircraft touched down about 1000 feet short of the runway. There was a significant fuel leak, but no post-crash fire. All 136 passengers and 16 crew members were able to successfully evacuate the aircraft, and the most serious injury was a broken leg suffered by one passenger.
The three previous AAIB updates in January and February 2008 provided detailed information about the flight, including the state of the fuel and fuel systems, and the condition of the engines and their associated control systems. You'll find details about the previous updates, as well as links to previous podcasts describing the accident sequence, at http://777.airsafe.org.
For the last several months, the AAIB has focused on the fuel and fuel systems of the aircraft. Extensive examination of the aircraft and detailed analysis of information from the flight data recorder and other onboard recording systems have revealed no evidence of an aircraft or engine control system malfunction.
The fuel was extensively tested, and showed no evidence of contamination or excessive water content. Although the aircraft had experienced very cold temperatures, the fuel temperature remained well above freezing. Detailed examination of the fuel system revealed a loose connection in one of the fuel lines as well as the presence of small pieces of debris, but these conditions led to no unusual deterioration or physical blockages.
The ongoing investigation has also found no evidence that a wake vortex encounter, bird strike, engine icing, or electromagnetic interference played a role in the accident. The focus of the investigation continues to be the fuel system and the engines, with the goal of understanding why neither engine responded to demands for increased power even though all of the engine control functions operated normally.
Under the direction of the AAIB, the engine manufacturer Rolls-Royce and the aircraft manufacturer Boeing are conducting further tests on the engines and fuel system with the goal of replicating the fuel system performance seen in the accident flight. Additional work is being conducted to gain a more complete understanding of the dynamics of the fuel as it flows from the tank to the engine.
No individual parameter associated with the accident flight was outside of previous operating experience. However, the AAIB is using a data analysis team to review data from a large sample of flights on similar aircraft to see if there was a combination of parameters that was outside of previous experience.
Unlike the last AAIB interim report issued in February 2008, this report did not contain any recommended operational changes for the 777.
I'd like to take a moment to share my opinion about the progress of this investigation. This crash investigation has not yet come up with an explanation for what happened. This is in spite of having a largely intact aircraft, a large volume of data from the accident aircraft and comparison data from similar flights, and the combined resources the engine manufacturer, the aircraft manufacturer, and the British government. This probably means that if the AAIB does come up with an explanation for why the accident happened, the explanation will include a combination of circumstances that had not been previously anticipated by aircraft designers or aircraft operators.
The suggestions made in previous AirSafe.com podcasts about how to evaluate what's being published about this investigation are still valid .
If you're interested in following the investigation online or in the news media, keep in mind that prior to the completion of the investigation by the AAIB, anyone outside of the investigation, including aviation safety experts and the largest news media organizations, will have access only to a fraction of the relevant information.
The AAIB will likely provide several more updates prior to publishing a final report, and these updates represent the most authoritative sources of information about the ongoing investigation.
Podcast Audio and Video
Audio: MP3 | Video: iPod/MP4 | WMV | Google Video | YouTube
Podcast Transcript
http://www.airsafe.com/podcasts/show48.htm
Additional Accident Details and Related Podcasts
http://777.airsafe.org
12 May 2008
Revised Bumping Compensation Shortchanges Passengers
by Dr. Todd Curtis
As of May 19, 2008, passengers will get additional protection from the Department of Transportation in the form of an increase in the maximum allowable compensation for passengers who are delayed due to being bumped, or involuntarily removed from a flight due to overbooking. This is the first increase in the maximum compensation in 30 years. Unfortunately for passengers, this increase in benefits does not keep up with inflation. What may upset passengers even more is that the DOT was well aware of what it would have taken to keep up with inflation, but chose not to do so.
Currently in the U.S., most passengers who are involuntarily bumped are eligible for denied boarding compensation. If the airline can arrange alternate transportation that is scheduled to arrive at the passenger’s destination within one hour of the original planned arrival time of the overbooked flight, no compensation is required. If the airline can’t do that, there are specific kinds of compensation that airlines are required to provide to passengers, including cash compensation.
If the alternate transportation is scheduled to arrive between one and two hours after the original planned arrival (between one and four hours on international flights), the compensation equals 100% of the passenger’s one way fare to his or her next stopover or final destination, with a $200 maximum additional cash compensation . If the airline cannot get a passenger to the destination airport within two hours (four hours on international flights), the compensation rate doubles to 200% of the passenger’s one-way fare, with a $400 maximum additional cash benefit. This compensation is in addition to the value of the passenger’s ticket, which he or she can use for alternate transportation or have refunded if not used.
The last time the rule was substantially changed was in 1982, and the last time the maximum additional cash benefit was raised was in 1978. For 2008, the DOT made several changes, the most important was a doubling of the maximum cash compensation to $400 for domestic flights and $800 for international flights. While at first this appears to be a win for consumers, in economic terms it is in fact a step backwards from when the compensation was last changed in 1978. In addition, the policymakers who approved the change were well aware that a doubling of the compensation would not have kept up with inflation.
When the DOT proposed these rule changes in 2007, it applied the government’s consumer price index (CPI) data to the 1978 compensation and concluded that to keep up with inflation, the dollar amount would have to go from $400 to $1,248 for the maximum benefit. That value has increased since 2007. According to the Department of Labor online inflation calculator, on May 12, 2008 it showed that $200 in 1978 had the same buying power as $654.99 in 2008, and $400 had $1,309.99 of buying power. The bottom line is that when the new compensation limits take effect, they would have to be about 60% higher to have actually kept up with inflation.
Air travelers, especially those who may get bumped in the near future, should keep in mind that the airlines did not directly decide on the new maximum compensation limits (though the Air Transport Association, an association of the larger U.S. airlines, did not object to the larger compensation limits). The DOT issued this rule change to double the compensation, even after reviewing options that included one that would have allowed the compensation to keep pace with inflation, and another option that would have done away with a maximum limit altogether.
In the end, the DOT approved a change in maximum compensation for bumped passengers that increases passenger compensation but does not keep up with inflation. In comments posted by the DOT on April 16, 2008, DOT Secretary Mary Peters stated that the rule will ensure flyers are more fairly reimbursed for their inconvenience. The airline industry apparently found this result to be fair as well, even though the rule change leaves a bumped airline passenger holding the (somewhat smaller) bag.
AirSafe.com welcomes your feedback on this article. Please feel free to send your comments to http://feedback.airsafe.org.
Resources
Rights of Passengers on Overbooked Flights
http://www.airsafe.com/complain/bumping.htm
April 16, 2008 DOT Announcement of New Bumping Rule
http://www.dot.gov/affairs/dot5308.htm
July 9, 2007 DOT Proposal for Compensation
http://www.dot.gov/affairs/dot6707.htm
Historical Consumer Price Index Values
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt
Department of Labor Online Inflation Calculator
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl
DOT Regulation 14 CFR 250 on Oversales (Bumping)
http://airconsumer.ost.dot.gov/rules/part%20250.pdf
Federal Register from April 18, 2008 Announcing Rule Changes
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/08-1145.pdf
Subscribe to the AirSafe.com Mailing List
http://subscribe.airsafe.org
As of May 19, 2008, passengers will get additional protection from the Department of Transportation in the form of an increase in the maximum allowable compensation for passengers who are delayed due to being bumped, or involuntarily removed from a flight due to overbooking. This is the first increase in the maximum compensation in 30 years. Unfortunately for passengers, this increase in benefits does not keep up with inflation. What may upset passengers even more is that the DOT was well aware of what it would have taken to keep up with inflation, but chose not to do so.
Currently in the U.S., most passengers who are involuntarily bumped are eligible for denied boarding compensation. If the airline can arrange alternate transportation that is scheduled to arrive at the passenger’s destination within one hour of the original planned arrival time of the overbooked flight, no compensation is required. If the airline can’t do that, there are specific kinds of compensation that airlines are required to provide to passengers, including cash compensation.
If the alternate transportation is scheduled to arrive between one and two hours after the original planned arrival (between one and four hours on international flights), the compensation equals 100% of the passenger’s one way fare to his or her next stopover or final destination, with a $200 maximum additional cash compensation . If the airline cannot get a passenger to the destination airport within two hours (four hours on international flights), the compensation rate doubles to 200% of the passenger’s one-way fare, with a $400 maximum additional cash benefit. This compensation is in addition to the value of the passenger’s ticket, which he or she can use for alternate transportation or have refunded if not used.
The last time the rule was substantially changed was in 1982, and the last time the maximum additional cash benefit was raised was in 1978. For 2008, the DOT made several changes, the most important was a doubling of the maximum cash compensation to $400 for domestic flights and $800 for international flights. While at first this appears to be a win for consumers, in economic terms it is in fact a step backwards from when the compensation was last changed in 1978. In addition, the policymakers who approved the change were well aware that a doubling of the compensation would not have kept up with inflation.
When the DOT proposed these rule changes in 2007, it applied the government’s consumer price index (CPI) data to the 1978 compensation and concluded that to keep up with inflation, the dollar amount would have to go from $400 to $1,248 for the maximum benefit. That value has increased since 2007. According to the Department of Labor online inflation calculator, on May 12, 2008 it showed that $200 in 1978 had the same buying power as $654.99 in 2008, and $400 had $1,309.99 of buying power. The bottom line is that when the new compensation limits take effect, they would have to be about 60% higher to have actually kept up with inflation.
Air travelers, especially those who may get bumped in the near future, should keep in mind that the airlines did not directly decide on the new maximum compensation limits (though the Air Transport Association, an association of the larger U.S. airlines, did not object to the larger compensation limits). The DOT issued this rule change to double the compensation, even after reviewing options that included one that would have allowed the compensation to keep pace with inflation, and another option that would have done away with a maximum limit altogether.
In the end, the DOT approved a change in maximum compensation for bumped passengers that increases passenger compensation but does not keep up with inflation. In comments posted by the DOT on April 16, 2008, DOT Secretary Mary Peters stated that the rule will ensure flyers are more fairly reimbursed for their inconvenience. The airline industry apparently found this result to be fair as well, even though the rule change leaves a bumped airline passenger holding the (somewhat smaller) bag.
AirSafe.com welcomes your feedback on this article. Please feel free to send your comments to http://feedback.airsafe.org.
Resources
Rights of Passengers on Overbooked Flights
http://www.airsafe.com/complain/bumping.htm
April 16, 2008 DOT Announcement of New Bumping Rule
http://www.dot.gov/affairs/dot5308.htm
July 9, 2007 DOT Proposal for Compensation
http://www.dot.gov/affairs/dot6707.htm
Historical Consumer Price Index Values
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt
Department of Labor Online Inflation Calculator
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl
DOT Regulation 14 CFR 250 on Oversales (Bumping)
http://airconsumer.ost.dot.gov/rules/part%20250.pdf
Federal Register from April 18, 2008 Announcing Rule Changes
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/08-1145.pdf
Subscribe to the AirSafe.com Mailing List
http://subscribe.airsafe.org
26 April 2008
Join the New and Improved AirSafe.com Mailing List
Periodically, the email newsletter version of the AirSafe.com News updates the focus of mailing list to enhance the level of information and service. The new and improved mailing list will feature more more frequent deliveries of articles and other resources from throughout the site. The new version of the list has been active only for a few days, so even if you have already signed up in the past, do so again today if you want the enhanced version of the service.
With a new subscription, you will receive a number of reports that you can reprint for free in your newsletter, blog, or other publication.
To subscribe to the enhanced and expanded AirSafe.com mailing list, please
visit http://subscribe.airsafe.org
If that link does not work, you can also visit
http://www.airsafe.com/services/subscribe.htm
With a new subscription, you will receive a number of reports that you can reprint for free in your newsletter, blog, or other publication.
To subscribe to the enhanced and expanded AirSafe.com mailing list, please
visit http://subscribe.airsafe.org
If that link does not work, you can also visit
http://www.airsafe.com/services/subscribe.htm
AirSafe.com Offers Free Online Class
Answering questions about aviation risk and aviation safety can be
difficult, especially if you lack time, resources, and organizational
support. The biggest problem is usually a lack of a clear
understanding of the question or the issue that you are trying to
address.
The course "How to Ask an Aviation Safety Question" from
Dr. Todd Curtis of AirSafe.com can take most of the mystery out of the
process of transforming a risk or safety issue that isn't clearly defined
into one that makes sense to you. Based on his years of experience
analyzing aviation safety data at Boeing and MIT, this is the same
process he used to develop much of the content in the award winning
web site AirSafe.com.
Anyone who asks or analyzes questions about risk, safety, reliability,
or policy will probably find this online course both useful and
informative. By the end of this course, you will have in your hands a
tested and systematic process that you can apply to many of the common
safety and risk issues that come your way.
While the online version of this course is normally offered for over
$300, AirSafe.com is offering this course for free for a limited time
to the subscribers on the Flight Safety Information newsletter.
Register today at http://classes.airsafe.org.
If that link does not work, you can also visit http://www.airsafe.com/classes/question.htm.
difficult, especially if you lack time, resources, and organizational
support. The biggest problem is usually a lack of a clear
understanding of the question or the issue that you are trying to
address.
The course "How to Ask an Aviation Safety Question" from
Dr. Todd Curtis of AirSafe.com can take most of the mystery out of the
process of transforming a risk or safety issue that isn't clearly defined
into one that makes sense to you. Based on his years of experience
analyzing aviation safety data at Boeing and MIT, this is the same
process he used to develop much of the content in the award winning
web site AirSafe.com.
Anyone who asks or analyzes questions about risk, safety, reliability,
or policy will probably find this online course both useful and
informative. By the end of this course, you will have in your hands a
tested and systematic process that you can apply to many of the common
safety and risk issues that come your way.
While the online version of this course is normally offered for over
$300, AirSafe.com is offering this course for free for a limited time
to the subscribers on the Flight Safety Information newsletter.
Register today at http://classes.airsafe.org.
If that link does not work, you can also visit http://www.airsafe.com/classes/question.htm.
17 April 2008
Changes in Compensation for Involuntarily Bumped Passengers
As of May 2008, there will be major changes in compensation for passengers who are involuntarily bumped from an overbooked U.S. flight and who unable to reach their destination from one to two hours of the originally scheduled arrival time for domestic flights (or from one to four hours for international flights) will have maximum compensation increase from $200 to $400, and maximum compensation for delays of more than two hours (or more than for hours for an international flight) will go from $400 to $800. Also, bumping compensation will apply to flights on aircraft with 30 or more seats rather than the current restriction to aircraft with 60 or more seats.
In the U.S., the only passengers who must be compensated for flight delays are those who are delayed due to being involuntarily bumped. This is quite different from the European Community where passengers are also legally guaranteed compensation for many categories of delayed or cancelled flights. Passengers on EC flights are also compensated if they are downgraded in service to a lower flight class than that for which the ticked was purchased.
For details about the upcoming changes and about the differences in compensation in the U.S. and the European Community, visit AirSafe.com at http://www.airsafe.com/complain/bumping.htm.
In the U.S., the only passengers who must be compensated for flight delays are those who are delayed due to being involuntarily bumped. This is quite different from the European Community where passengers are also legally guaranteed compensation for many categories of delayed or cancelled flights. Passengers on EC flights are also compensated if they are downgraded in service to a lower flight class than that for which the ticked was purchased.
For details about the upcoming changes and about the differences in compensation in the U.S. and the European Community, visit AirSafe.com at http://www.airsafe.com/complain/bumping.htm.
16 April 2008
Crash of a DC9 in Africa on 15 April 2008
15 April 2008; Hewa Bora Airways DC9-51; Goma, Democratic Republic of the Congo
The aircraft was on a scheduled domestic flight from Goma to Kisangani. The aircraft developed a problem during takeoff, and reportedly departed the runway and collided with several buildings in a nearby neighborhood. There were at least 21 fatalities, but it is unclear if any of the fatalities were from the aircraft. There were seven crew members and 79 passengers aboard the aircraft.
Because there are no reported fatalities among the passengers, it is not counted as a fatal event as defined by AirSafe.com. However, this may change if new information arises.
The most recent fatal event involving a DC9 was a crash on 10 December 2005 at Port Harcourt, Nigeria involving a Sosoliso Airlines DC9-32.
Fatal Event Definition
http://www.airsafe.com/events/method.htm
Fatal DC9 Events
http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/dc9.htm
November 2007 AirSafe.com Podcast on African Air Safety
http://www.airsafe.com/podcasts/show23.mp3
The aircraft was on a scheduled domestic flight from Goma to Kisangani. The aircraft developed a problem during takeoff, and reportedly departed the runway and collided with several buildings in a nearby neighborhood. There were at least 21 fatalities, but it is unclear if any of the fatalities were from the aircraft. There were seven crew members and 79 passengers aboard the aircraft.
Because there are no reported fatalities among the passengers, it is not counted as a fatal event as defined by AirSafe.com. However, this may change if new information arises.
The most recent fatal event involving a DC9 was a crash on 10 December 2005 at Port Harcourt, Nigeria involving a Sosoliso Airlines DC9-32.
Fatal Event Definition
http://www.airsafe.com/events/method.htm
Fatal DC9 Events
http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/dc9.htm
November 2007 AirSafe.com Podcast on African Air Safety
http://www.airsafe.com/podcasts/show23.mp3
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
