Air Safety - have we become too blasé about it?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Dave2002
    Full Member
    • Dec 2010
    • 18025

    Air Safety - have we become too blasé about it?

    The recent crash in San Francisco has reminded us of the conventional view that the most dangerous parts of a flight are the take-off and the landing. In the space of just a few seconds the arriving 777 was thrown around - I believe it went up in the air slightly, turned around 360 degrees, and came to rest off the runway, and in the same time a substantial number of passengers experienced significant injuries, many of them back injuries. Two passengers were killed when the rear of the aircraft came off, though one may have been killed by a vehicle on the ground later. The plane also caught fire as it came to rest, and the passengers had to do a rapid evacuation. It is amazing that most of them were able to get out of the plane.

    It seems likely that human error by those flying the plane was at least partly responsible, though there are still other questions which can be asked.
    Does San Francisco airport have automatic landing equipment? If it does, why was it not being deployed. In Europe many landings are in fact done by the automatic equipment, not by a human pilot. It is, of course, possible that automatic landing equipment was being used on the plane, but malfunctioned, and the crew did not notice in time to override it effectively. Why did the air traffic controllers at SFO not warn the pilots of any possible problems? Perhaps they didn't think there was a problem. Also, it seems that an attempt was made to increase the air speed of the aircraft, but it did not respond.

    San Francisco is a very busy airport. Long haul planes take off and land on two parallel runways. Incoming planes frequently come in to the long runways with an over water approach over San Francisco Bay. Other smaller aircraft take off on shorter runways which run across the two long runways, and the timing of take-offs and landings has to be very carefully coordinated. Possibly the complications of managing a large number of complex operations led to a lack of attention to the incoming flight. Airports in the USA quite often use complex take-off and landing patterns, with incoming aircraft flying over outgoing ones, and landing in front of planes waiting to take-off. Sometimes there has to be a rapid movement of a plane on the ground in order to move it out of the way of an incoming flight, though this would not have been an issue in the SFO incident.

    This latest event should remind us that although flying is statistically safe, things can still go very badly wrong in just a few seconds.
  • Pabmusic
    Full Member
    • May 2011
    • 5537

    #2
    Originally posted by Dave2002 View Post
    ...This latest event should remind us that although flying is statistically safe, things can still go very badly wrong in just a few seconds.
    Quite. Not many people understand statistics though. It might be that planes are less likely to crash than - say - cars (well, it is so - and by a very long way indeed) but if a plane crashes, the chances of anyone on board surviving are negligible. In the San Francisco crash, most people survived - very unusual. The probability that that flight would crash was 1, because we see it in hindsight. It is no comfort to the grieving family of a dead passenger to point out that, compared with road travel, air travel is reasonably safe.

    And it seems that trains are not so safe, either.

    Comment

    • Sydney Grew
      Banned
      • Mar 2007
      • 754

      #3
      At the Pilot's forum, which I have followed for years, a recurring theme is that younger pilots are no longer prop-erly trained to fly their aero-planes manually, due to the "bean-counters." They (the younger pilots) rely too much on automation, it is said, and when something goes wrong with said automation they are simply at a loss as to what to do. There is a very long thread about this accident here, with thousands of replies:

      Rumours & News - Asiana flight crash at San Francisco - Apparently a 777 belonging to Asiana arriving at SFO crashed HL7742 , a 777-200ER


      Incidentally years ago I was in a BAC 1-11 one of whose engines failed just as it was taking off from Brussels. There was a great bang, it swerved, slowed down, then just made it into the air. It did a lot of swerving during the landing as well. Passengers were told it was a "bird strike" (at 9pm?), but I suspect that was not true since right from the point where he turned onto the run-way the pilot had seemed to be in a very unusual hurry. Not nice; it is an experience that remains with one. So one simply has to "sit back, relax," and think of the statistics.

      Comment

      • Dave2002
        Full Member
        • Dec 2010
        • 18025

        #4
        I was once on a BAC 1-11 which "hurtled" along the runway then failed to take off. The pilot decided there was insufficient power to get it off the ground - but it was quite a shock hearing the engines go full on into reverse thrust to slow the thing down. After that we waited a while to see what would happen, and they put us onto another BAC 1-11. This time the pilot must have just "put his foot down" as it took off in an incredibly short time - perhaps 10 seconds. I don't think noise abatement was operating in those years, so the plane just went up at a steep angle.

        Comment

        Working...
        X