AIRLINE SAFETY ARE ACCIDENTS BECOMING MORE …

FLIGHTINTERNATIONAL

airline safety are accidents becoming more survivable?analysis P26

sParks fly againDreamliner battery woes back for Boeing, but this time the fix may have done its job 9

Printing Parts Technology advances as BAE experiments with 3D components on the Tornado 20

Product strategy

can airbus fill the gaP?Toulouse confronts its 250-seat conundrum

flightglobal.com

I S S N 0 0 1 5 - 3 7 1 0

9 7 7 0 0 1 5 3 7 1 2 6 6

0 4

£3.40

21-27 January 2014

FIN_210114_301.indd 1 2014-01-16 10:06

flightglobal.com

SAFETY

26 | Flight International | 21-27 January 2014

david learmount london

Accident numbers were up in 2013, but fatalities fell to a new low as the improved survivability engineered into modern hull designs brought casualty figures down

Rex

Feat

ures

Last year, the world’s airlines proved that they could not maintain safety at the all-time high level they achieved in 2012. To put that in context, however,

the 2012 figures had broken safety records by such a big margin that Flight International predicted at the time the figures would prob-ably be a one-year spike.

matter of survival

Asiana Airlines Flight 214 was only the second crash of a Boeing 777 since it began commercial operations in 1995, and the first to result in fatalities

Maybe 2012 was a spike, but not a dramatic one given that the results for 2013 are still good when looked at as part of a long-er-term trend (see chart, below right). The global total of airline fatal accidents in 2013 was 26, up by five from the previous year’s record low of 21, but the number of fatalities in those accidents established a new record low at 281 – less than two-thirds of the previ-ous lowest figure of 425.

The figures quoted here include accidents to cargo flights as well as passenger, and all types of genuine airline operation whether scheduled or chartered, including commuter airline commercial operations using aircraft like the single-turboprop Cessna Caravan.

visible risk levelsMeanwhile, among large commercial passenger jets (5.5t and above), there were only four fatal accidents worldwide last year, killing 105 people. Nowadays, the majority of fatal accidents involve smaller commuter aircraft, usually powered by turboprops. However, two more big jets – a Boeing 747-400 and an Airbus A300-600 – suffered fatal accidents last year flying as pure freight-ers (see accident listings).

The extremely low fatal casualty figure in 2013 makes it look as if there were no serious accidents involving high capacity twin-aisles, but this is not true. It could be argued that the impressive survivability engineered into to-day’s hulls distorts visible risk levels when only fatal accident figures are used as a safety indicator. For example, in 2013, a Lion Air

FIN_210114_026-031.indd 26 2014-01-16 11:49

analysis

flightglobal.com

accident rate has been improving for many years. At the start of the 1990s, the rate was about one per 0.6 or 0.7 million flights. There-fore, based on this metric, airline operations are now almost three times safer than they were 20 years ago.”

Ascend’s safety director Paul Hayes points out that an obsessive concentration on the few serious accidents each year can blind the observer to the modern industry’s unprece-dented safety levels. He adds that with so few accidents now in each 12-month period, a year is even less of a reliable indicator of general standards than it used to be. The comparison between the last two years is a good example of the limitations of a one-year assessment: an

exceptional 2012 was followed by an appar-ently much worse 2013, but the latter is actual-ly more representative of the present reality as measured using a five-year rolling average.

In 2013, happily, there was only one exam-ple of the dramatic loss of control in-flight (LOC-I) accidents that have become the single biggest cause of aviation fatalities in recent years: the Tatarstan Air 737-500 which crashed at Kazan, Russia, during a mishan-dled go-around. In fact, it appears to be one of those LOC-I accidents which the Flight Safety Foundation has labelled “lack of control”, on the basis that the aircraft was controllable, but the pilot failed to exercise appropriate control for some reason.

TRAINING SHORTFALLOver the last five years or so, pilot failure to manage go-arounds well – even if they do not end in an accident – has become a serious worry at the airlines and with both the major big-jet manufacturers. In recurrent training, pilots never face an all-engines go-around, they only have to demonstrate competency in an abandoned approach with an engine failure. In the latter, the aircraft’s climb rate and pitch-up tendency are both gentle, where-as if pilots apply take-off/go-around thrust to terminate an approach, the pitch-up tendency is strong and the climb rate dramatic – which they are not accustomed to.

The crash of the National Air Cargo 747-400F at Bagram, Afghanistan, was a real out-of-control accident in the sense that the air-craft was clearly outside its flight envelope well before it hit the ground, and pilot attempts to recover were likely to have been futile. Although no formal information has been

21-27 January 2014 | Flight International | 27

Rex

Feat

ures

❯❯

Over the last five years, pilot failure to manage go-arounds well has become a serious worry at the airlines

Boeing 737-800 and an Asiana 777-200 were involved in the sort of serious accidents calculated to give their passengers nightmares for the rest of their lives, but there were no fatalities in the first and only three in the second.

FATAL AccIdeNT RATeThe Lion Air aircraft, on a non-precision instrument final approach to Denpasar in stormy weather, crashed into the sea short of the runway and broke up, but all 83 people on board survived. The Asiana 777, also on a non-precision final approach but in excellent visibility, hit the sea wall short of San Fran-cisco’s runway, broke up and cartwheeled across the airfield, but only three of the 323 occupants died.

Hull loss – rather than fatal accident – figures would paint a truer total risk picture, but neither is a perfect indicator. To obtain the precise risks from all angles, readers can con-sult the 2013 Safety and loss report from Flightglobal’s consultancy business Ascend.

The Ascend 2013 report is slightly different from this study in terms of which aircraft and operational categories are included, and pre-pares its data to inform the aviation insurance

industry rather than the public. Nevertheless, it comes up with an under-

standably similar verdict on last year’s safety performance: “2013 was another good year for safety with a fatal accident rate of one per 1.9 million flights. This was not as good as the 2012 rate of one per 2.3 million flights, but is still considerably better than all other previous years [see chart, below top]. The rate in 2011 was one per 1.4 million and the average over the last five years is one per 1.6 million flights.”

Providing a longer-term context, the Ascend report explains: “Although some years have been better than others, the fatal

SOURCE: Flightglobal’s Ascend

Flights (millions)

FLIGHTS PER FATAL ACCIDENT (WESTERN-BUILT JETS AND EXCLUDING ACTS OF VIOLENCE)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

20112008200520021999199619931990

Five-year average

Flights per fatal accident

The LAM E-190 crashed in Namibia

Fatalities

Fatal accidentsFatalities

Fatal accidents

WORLD AIRLINE FATAL ACCIDENTS AND FATALITIES 2004-13

20132004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 20120

10

40

30

20

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

SOURCE: Flightglobal

10-year average fatal accidents10-year average fatalities

= 28= 649

28

34

27

25

466

1,050

863

744

34

583

28

749

26

817

32

21

514425

26

281

FIN_210114_026-031.indd 27 2014-01-16 11:49

SAFETY

flightglobal.com28 | Flight International | 21-27 January 2014

made available, the suspicion is that the freight shifted aft during the take-off run or after rotate, because video footage of the early climb clearly shows that pitch-control was lost.

Among the other jet crashes, there have been some more traditional accident scenari-os, particularly the SCAT Bombardier CRJ200 crash in January 2013 on an instrument land-ing system (ILS) approach in fog at Almaty, Kazakhstan. This appears to have been a clas-sic poor visibility accident in which the crew either failed to monitor glidepath and speed or deliberately ignored the glidepath guid-ance in hope of making visual contact with the runway lights.

The same appears to be true of the Lion Air 737-800 approach at Denpasar, except it was on a non-precision approach using VOR/DME guidance. The crew clearly elected to continue the approach through their decision height without having sight of the runway, and eventually paid the price for it with a broken aeroplane. Similarly, the UPS A300F crew at Birmingham, Alabama, was carrying out a non-precision localiser/DME approach at night when the aircraft hit rising ground on short final approach. It did not help that the runway had only edge lighting and no approach lights.

human errorThe Asiana accident – the first-ever fatal accident for a 777 – was in a category that is becoming more common: the pilots’ failure to monitor or control the aircraft’s airspeed and rate of descent on approach. It was disclosed at the routine public hearing on the accident that the National Transportation Safety Board’s interview with the pilots revealed another factor – the pilot’s admitted unhappi-

❯❯

accident reports

Final accident reports published July-december 2013

ness with carrying out an approach with the ILS glideslope inactive, even in daylight and good visibility.

It became clear in the interview that the pilot flying, a new captain under instruction by the examiner in the right-hand seat, did not completely understand the autopilot and autothrottle modes, but was also reluctant to trip them out.

A manual selection of the throttle levers to idle because the aircraft was too high on the early approach did not disconnect the auto-throttle, but put it in “hold” mode, so the engines remained at idle and the aircraft grad-ually dipped below the approach path, simul-taneously slowing the 777 to an airspeed far less than the commanded 136kt (252km/h).

The pilots did not know about the “hold” mode and assumed that the autothrottle would work as normal. This is not the first time the autothrottle mode has confused pilots: it confused EASA test pilots when they were testing the 777 and 787, but they were monitoring the aircraft’s behaviour so no ill came of it. The Asiana pilots failed to recog-nise that the power levers did not move again and did not monitor the aircraft’s speed or descent profile until it was too late.

It has taken around 1,300 deaths from LOC-I accidents in the last 20 years for the

These are summaries of accident reports published since our review of accidents in the first six months of 2013 (Flight International 30 July-5 august)

■ Yemenia: low-approach stallafter a four-year investigation, the Comoros Islands investigation au-thority aNaCM determined that pi-lots of a Yemenia airbus a310-300 stalled the aircraft after getting too low during a night circling approach to Moroni’s coastal runway on 30 June 2009. The aircraft (7O-aDJ) was to carry out an instrument land-ing system approach to runway 02, then break left on short finals and carry out a right hand visual circuit

for a landing on reciprocal runway 20. runway 02 was not available because there were gusting tail-winds of 25kt (46.3km/h) for that approach.

The crew established on the run-way 02 localiser at 3,000ft (914m), but it was during the circling ap-proach that things went wrong. The aircraft hit the sea surface and 152 of the 153 occupants were killed. at a height of 1,390ft, the aircraft – its autopilot engaged – broke away from the localiser to begin the downwind leg of the circuit to 20. The break was late, around 0.86nm beyond the published point. The crew started configuring the aircraft for landing. however, the late break

and strong tailwind took the aircraft further north on the downwind leg, and the inquiry observes: “It is likely that the captain [in the] left seat could no longer see the runway dur-ing this phase of flight.”

The minimum descent altitude for the circuit was listed as 1,230ft, but the aircraft continued to lose height. The inquiry says the crew had a “lack of awareness” of the altitude, while trying to keep sight of the runway lights. It adds that there is evidence that the crew was erro-neously dialling the altitude selector while attempting to select headings.

as the crew informed the control-ler that the flight was established downwind, they received sink-rate

and “pull up” alarms as the aircraft descended through 700ft and reached a radio altimeter height of just 161ft before climbing. The pilots raised the landing-gear and, shortly afterwards, retracted the slats and flaps at an airspeed of just 179kt – around 14kt below the 193kt thresh-old required for a clean configuration. The aircraft’s pitch increased and triggered the angle-of-attack protec-tion, setting the engine thrust to take-off power. Cockpit-voice record-ings captured sounds similar to the onset of buffeting, a sign of an ap-proaching stall.

Over the next 40s, the aircraft reached an altitude of 1,000ft, but rolled right and left to nearly 40°

the asiana accident involvinga 777 is not the first time the autothrottle mode has confused pilots

❯❯

FIN_210114_026-031.indd 28 2014-01-16 11:49

analysis

21-27 January 2014 | Flight International | 29flightglobal.com

bank. ANACM says the aircraft stalled and rapidly lost height. It failed to recover, striking the sea 15s later.

■ Cathay Pacific: engine malfunctionFuel contamination has been confirmed as the cause of a double engine malfunction on a Cathay Pacific Airbus A330-300 (B-HLL) on approach to Hong Kong International Airport (HKIA) on 13 April 2010. Hong Kong’s Civil Aviation Department (CAD) says that 24.4t of contaminated fuel was uplifted at Surabaya’s Juanda International Airport, Indonesia. This caused “stiction” – static fric-tion – in the fuel metering unit of

both engines, leading to the total seizure of these components and the loss of thrust control of the aircraft during approach to HKIA.

It found that the proper grade of fuel was loaded, but it was contami-nated with super absorbent polymer (SAP) spheres. During the flight, some SAP spheres were trapped in the fuel metering unit on both engines, causing the stiction that resulted in engine pressure ratio fluctuations. The CAD found that the hydrant refuelling circuit serving 10 stands at Surabaya airport had undergone extension work as part of an apron extension project. Fuel samples taken after the accident contained salt, and the recommis-

sioning process was not properly co-ordinated, which led to the pre-mature resumption of hydrant refu-elling operations, says the CAD.

The affected aircraft was operat-ing flight CX780 when both its Rolls-Royce Trent 700 engines malfunctioned. The crew issued a mayday call and eventually landed at a high ground speed of 231kt (428km/h), causing the lower cowling of one engine to contact the runway, and surface and brake over-heat that deflated five tyres after the aircraft stopped.

■ Sichuan: decision failuresChinese investigators have criti-cised the crew of a Sichuan Airlines

Airbus A319 (B-6054) for decision failures, which led the aircraft to stall after entering a thunderstorm on approach to runway 03 at Wuxi on 14 September 2010. The Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC) says that the crew persisted with the approach, despite being informed of severe weather condi-tions and describes the crew resource management as “chaos”. Although the crew had been in-formed of thunderstorms and diver-sion decisions by other crews, they continued the approach.

At an altitude of 1,680ft, the aircraft had been flying at 127kt when – over the space of 30s – it encountered a strongly variable

In April a Lion Air 737 crashed into the sea off Denpasar after the

crew attempted to land without visual contact with the runway

Reut

ers

❯❯

FIN_210114_026-031.indd 29 2014-01-16 11:49

SAFETY


continued

Final accident reports published July-december 2013crosswind and tailwind, from

speeds of 25-50kt, as well as a downdraft of 30kt. These rapid vari-ations momentarily exceeded the capabilities of the aircraft’s stall protection system. The autopilot attempted to keep the aircraft on the glideslope by raising the nose.

Airspeed fell away but, instead of adjusting the thrust lever, the crew dialled in a new target speed of 131kt. As the angle-of-attack increased, reaching a peak of 33°, the airspeed continued to fall to 83kt, the autopilot disconnected and the stall-protection system was activated. The aircraft powered up to go-around thrust.

Investigators state that, during

the short upset period, the aircraft rolled 44° right, while its airspeed dropped to a minimum of just 74kt – 5kt below the load-adjusted stalling speed of 79kt. It also experienced a sink-rate of more than 3,900ft/min and descended to a height of 884ft, generating sink-rate, stall, and “pull up” warn-ings. Finally the aircraft recovered, climbing under go-around power and the crew opted to divert to Ningbo. The CAAC’s inquiry found that, as the aircraft stalled, the pi-lots acted out of “instinct” by pull-ing back on their side-sticks instead of applying stall-recovery procedures. Lack of co-ordination during the recovery, it adds, was

also clear from dual side-stick inputs lasting 12s.

■ Sita Air: lost thrustNepalese investigators have been unable to determine why a Sita Air Dornier 228 lost thrust while climbing out of Kathmandu on 28 September 2012, leading the turbo-prop to stall and crash with the loss of all 19 on board. Although the aircraft hit a bird – a black kite weighing around 0.7kg – while at 70kt on its take-off roll on runway 20, there was no evidence of ingestion.

The aircraft lifted off at 86kt and its landing gear was retracted. However, audio analysis of cockpit-

voice recorder signatures indicates that one of its engines ran down to 95% of nominal speed, and then 91% shortly afterwards.

Nepal’s air accident commission says the crew selected a nose-up attitude too high to maintain its 83kt climb-out speed. The aircraft levelled off at a height of 100ft, having decelerated to 77kt, and flew level for 14s. The airspeed contin-ued to bleed away and the aircraft drifted to the left. The stall warning sounded before the turboprop, entering a left turn, pitched down and struck the ground 420m south-east of departure runway’s far end. Investigators pursued several potential leads with the inquiry, but

❯❯

The wreckage of the Associated Aviation Embraer EMB-120 which stalled on take-off from Lagos in October, probably following engine thrust issues

Rex

Feat

ures

FIN_210114_026-031.indd 30 2014-01-16 11:49

analysis


David Learmount offers his views on aviation operational and safety issues via his blog at flightglobal.com/learmount

still emerged with no definite cause for the power reduction.

■ UPS: onboard fireAnalysis of the fatal UPS Boeing 747-400 Freighter fire on 3 September 2010 has been unable to determine whether a diversion to Doha, rather than the longer turn-back to Dubai, would have altered the outcome. United Arab Emirates investigators looking into the on-board fire – caused by the combus-tion of lithium batteries carried as freight – examined the captain’s decision to pursue a return to Dubai, a track of 185nm (340km), after having been informed that Doha was closer at 100nm.

Neither pilot survived the acci-dent. The captain was incapacitated by smoke and fumes and the first officer’s attempt to land the crippled aircraft single-handedly at Dubai was unsuccessful, and it crashed just outside of the city.

At the point of the diversion deci-sion, the aircraft would have needed 20min to reach Doha’s runway 15, says the UAE General Civil Aviation Authority, which might have been up to 7min earlier than the crash at Dubai. The analysis notes that a Doha diversion would not necessar-ily have been successful. It says that the progressive failure of sys-tems on the 747 – including eleva-tor, speed-brake and oxygen supply

problems – would have generated a similar level of control difficulties for the crew.

■ Nusantara: high cloudsA lack of situational awareness by the pilots of an Indonesian Aerospace C212-200 (PK-TLF) oper-ated by Nusantara Buana Air was the main contributor to a fatal con-trolled flight into terrain accident on 29 September 2011. The aircraft was operating a charter flight from Medan to Kutacane in southeast Aceh province, carrying two crew and 16 passengers on board, says the final report from Indonesia’s National Transport Safety Committee (NTSC).

During the 30min flight, which was conducted under visual flight rules, the pilots discussed high clouds sur-rounding the flight path. They report-ed to the Medan controller 21min after take-off that the aircraft had reached 8,000ft and they would con-tact Kutacane. However, the pilots’ three attempts to contact Kutacane received no response. The pilots decided to fly in cloud because a suitable gap could not be found. This was followed by another discussion about whether the aircraft had passed a waypoint. Shortly after that the aircraft impacted a steep ridge. The NTSC believes that the aircraft flew into the terrain without the pilots taking any recovery action. ■

industry to recognise, formally, that high-ly automated cockpits are de-skilling pilots in subtle but dangerous ways, and that they are not taught properly how to make best use of the sophisticated flight management systems. Finally, however, the US Federal Aviation Ad-ministration has published its long-awaited

study by the Commercial Aviation Safety Team (CAST) Flight Deck Automation Working Group (dubbed FltDAWG) entitled The opera-tional use of flight path management systems.

This FAA-led work is a seminal report and it is the first attempt by an aviation authority anywhere in the world to define the problem rather than treat the symptoms.

Yet the FltDAWG has not proposed solu-tions, it has just defined what needs to be solved. The FAA has handed the task of de-ciding what should be done over to the Air Carrier Training Steering Group. When solutions have been agreed, airlines would then be under pressure to adopt the recom-mendations voluntarily. The agency cannot impose regulatory solutions because, with safety in the USA as good as it is, new regula-tion would fail the cost-benefit analysis test even if it would, one day, save lives. ■

The industry finally admits that highly automated cockpits are de-skilling pilots in subtle but dangerous ways

The Tatarstan crash that left no survivors was the only dramatic loss of control accident in 2013

PA

❯❯

FIN_210114_026-031.indd 31 2014-01-16 11:49


SAFETY

AA airfield approach/early descentAAIB UK Air Accidents Investigation BranchAAL above airfield levelADC air-data computerADF automatic direction finderAF air forceAGL above ground levelAMSL above mean sea levelAOA angle of attackASI airspeed indicatorATC air traffic controlC climbC-B circuit breakerCFIT controlled flight into terrainCNK cause not knownCVR cockpit voice recorderDFDR digital flight data recorderDME distance measuring equipmentECAM electronic centralised aircraft monitor

EFIS electronic flight instrument systemEGPWS enhanced ground proximity warning systemEGT exhaust gas temperatureEICAS engine indicating and crew alerting systemER en routeETOPS extended twin-engine operationsFAA US Federal Aviation AdministrationFDR flight data recorderFL flight level = altitude, in hundreds of feet, with international standard pressure-setting (ISA) of 1013.2mb set on altimeter (eg FL100 – altimeter reading of 10,000ft with ISA set)FMS flight management systemG on groundGPU ground power unitGPWS ground proximity warning system

HP high pressureIFR instrument flight rulesIMC instrument meteorological conditionsILS instrument landing system ISA international standard atmosphere – sea level pressure of 1013.2hPa and standard temp erature/pressure lapse rate with altitudeL landingLP low pressureMEL minimum equipment listMTOW maximum take-off weightNDB non-directional beaconNTSB US National Transportation Safety BoardPAPI precision approach path indicatorPAX passengersPF pilot flyingPNF pilot not flying

RA runway/final approachSID standard instrument departureTAWS terrain awareness and warning systemTO take-offTOGA press-button selected take-off/go-around thrustVASI visual approach slope indicatorVFR visual flight rulesVHF very high frequencyVMC visual meteorological conditionsVOR VHF omni-range navigation beaconV1 take-off decision speed

Conversion factors1nm = 1.85km1ft = 0.3m1kt = 1.85km/h

GLOSSARy OF TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ACCIDENTS AND INCIDENTS 2013NOTES ON TABLESAccident data comes from Flight International’s own research in association with Flightglobal Ascend, which compiles the World Aircraft Accident Summary (WAAS) among other safety analysis products. Unlike the Ascend WAAS, the Flight International list does not contain an exhaustive list of non-fatal hull loss events. Flight International lists known significant incidents in the interests of maximising the availability of relevant information, while accepting that the non-fatal listing may be weighted against the airlines of those countries that make safety information more readily available.

Date Carrier Aircraft type/registration Location Fatalities (crew/pax)

Total occupants (crew/pax)

Phase

FATAL ACCIDenTs: sCheDuLeD PAssenger FLIghTs29 January SCAT Bombardier CrJ200er (uP-CJ006) Nr Almaty airport, Kazakhstan 5/16 5/16 RACrashed on final stage of an ILS/DME approach to runway 23R at Almaty, coming down on the extended centreline about 1,400m from the runway threshold. It was daylight but visibility was 100m in freezing fog; runway visual range given as 150m.

6 July Asiana Boeing 777-200 (hL7742) San Francisco int airport, USA -/3 16/306 RA

Inbound from Incheon, Korea, speed was allowed to decay significantly during a localiser/DME approach to runway 28L in good weather, with the autopilot and autothrottle engaged. The aircraft descended below a 3˚ approach path on late final approach. About 7s before impact one of the pilots called for a speed increase, and 4s before impact the stick shaker operated. Some 1.5s before impact a pilot called for go-around, the power levers were advanced and the engines responded. At an IAS of 103kt the tail hit the sea wall 115m short of the threshold and the tail broke off aft of the rear pressure bulkhead. The aircraft spun through 360˚ before coming to rest 500m from impact, and a fire started near the detached right engine. The fire quickly burned out the forward fuselage.

17 november Tatarstan Air Boeing 737 (VQ-BBn) Kazan airport, Russia 6/44 6/44 RA

The crew decided to abandon an unstabilised approach, but they lost control during the go-around. The investigators issued an initial report saying the FDR did not indicate any technical problems, but the aircraft had pitched up 25˚ and reached 700m height, with the speed decaying to 125kt. The controls were then employed to push the nose down, and the aircraft eventually hit the ground in a near-vertical dive.

29 november Linhas Aereas de Mocambique embraer 190 (C9-eMC) Bwabwata National Park, Namibia

6/27 6/27 ER

The aircraft was carrying out a flight from Maputo, Mozambique to Luanda, Angola, when it was seen on radar to enter a high rate of descent (6,000ft/min). There was no report of trouble nor an emergency call.

FATAL ACCIDenTs: non-sCheDuLeD PAssenger FLIghTs13 February South Airlines Antonov An-24 (ur-WrA) Donetsk airport, Ukraine 0/5 8/44 LAircraft crashed on the airfield following a night ILS approach in fog. Witnesses reported a wing drop just before touchdown.

6 March Aero Transporte Beech King Air Nr Matibamba, Peru 2/7 2/7 ERHit high ground.

7 July Rediske Air DhC Turbo otter (n93PC) Soldotna, Alaska 1/9 1/9 TOThe aircraft was destroyed by post-impact fire when it crashed beside the runway during take-off.

3 october Associated Aviation embraer Brasilia (5n-BJY) Lagos Int airport, Nigeria 4/11 4/16 TOInitial information from the Nigerian investigation indicates that there was a take-off configuration warning during the take-off run, but the captain (PF) appears to have chosen to ignore it, possibly having made a decision to take off without flaps set. Despite other aural alerts, including warnings from the co-pilot – who was clearly unhappy with the situation – the captain persisted with getting airborne, but lost control soon after unstick. The aircraft hit the ground with 90˚ bank and the right propeller was found to have been in the feathered position.

FIN_210114_032-035.indd 32 2014-01-16 11:29

flightglobal.com

Date Carrier Aircraft type/registration Location Fatalities (crew/pax)


Phase

FATAL ACCiDenTs: non-sCheDuLeD PAssenger FLighTs25 november Tropicair Cessna Caravan (P2-sAh) Palbuna River, Papua New

Guinea-/3 1/9 ER

Just after reaching its 9,000ft cruising altitude, the aircraft’s engine made a loud “pop” noise and lost power. The aircraft was flying over heavily forested territory, so the pilot headed for a disused aerodrome at Kilbeni, near the Palbuna River, and set up a left hand circuit. The aircraft was too fast on final approach, and as the runway end and trees loomed, the pilot tried to pull over them and go for the river. The aircraft hit the top of a tall palm, but the pilot was able to set it down in the river, which is 60m below the airfield elevation, where it came to rest inverted. The pilot escaped and then attempted to help the passengers, but three of them perished.

FATAL ACCiDenTs: CoMMuTer AnD regionAL FLighTs10 october MASWings DhC Twin otter (9M-MDM) Kudat airport, Malaysia 1/1 2/14 LThe accident occurred at the end of a scheduled flight from Kota Kinabalu during a go-around, after the pilots reportedly decided to abandon their second attempt to land. During the go-around in a gusting crosswind the aircraft veered left and lost height, crashing into a house.

14 october Aereo Servicio Guerrero Cessna Caravan (XA-TXM) Sierra de la Gigantica, Mexico 1/11 1/11 ERThe aircraft crashed in the mountains about 16nm northwest of its departure point at Loreto, headed for Ciudad Constitucion. It was daylight but the weather was poor because of the close proximity of tropical storm Octave.

16 october Lao Airlines ATr 72-600 (rDPL-34233) Mekong River Nr Pakse, Laos 5/44 5/44 RAThe aircraft crashed in daylight and stormy weather while positioning for its second attempted approach to runway 15 at Pakse.

3 november AeroCon Fairchild Metro (CP-2754) Riberalta airport, Bolivia -/8 2/16 RAThe aircraft came down on the night approach some 1,200m before the runway 32 threshold, and about 50m right of the extended centreline.

10 november Bearskin Airlines Fairchild Metro (C-FFZn) Red Lake airport, Ontario, Canada

2/3 2/5 RA

The aircraft struck power lines and crashed amongst trees during a night approach in snow.

29 november Hageland Aviation Cessna Caravan (n12373) St Mary’s airport, Alaska 1/3 1/9 RAThe aircraft, inbound to St Mary’s from Bethel, crashed just over 4nm east of the airport. It was dark, with fog and freezing rain and a 300ft cloudbase.

11 December Makani Kai Cessna Caravan (n687MA) Sea Nr Kalaupapa, Hawaii -/1 1/8 CThe aircraft lost power shortly after take-off for a flight to Honolulu, and came down in the sea about 0.5nm from the coast.

Date Carrier Aircraft type/registration Location Fatalities Total occupants Phase

FATAL ACCiDenTs: non-PAssenger FLighTs15 January Martinaire Aviation Cessna 208B (n1120n) Pellston, Michigan, USA 1 1 CCrashed in woods shortly after take-off in darkness at 19:45 local time.

23 January Kenn Borek Air DhC Twin otter 300 (C-gKBC) Queen Alexandra Mts, Antarctica 3 3 EROn a positioning flight from the Amundsen/Scott Station to the Zucchelli Station in Terra Nova Bay, the aircraft crashed into a mountainside at the 3,900m level.

4 March Compagnie Africaine d’Aviation Fokker 50 (9Q-CBD) Goma airport, DR Congo 6 10 AAThe aircraft hit buildings as visibility was reduced by heavy rain during an NDB approach to the airport. It was expecting to land on runway 36.

8 March Ace Air Cargo Beech 1900C (n116AX) Nr Dillingham, Alaska 2 2 AAHit high ground in Muklung Hills while positioning for a GPS approach to runway 19 at Dillingham.

29 April National Air Cargo Boeing 747-400F (n949CA) Bagram air base, Afghanistan 7 7 TO/CVery soon after take-off the aircraft adopted an extremely steep nose-up attitude, which must have affected the airspeed. Soon the left wing dropped, recovered, then the other dropped and the aircraft yawed dramatically right. Control was lost and it crashed.

21-27 January 2014 | Flight international | 33

ACCIDENTS AND INCIDENTS

Asiana Airlines Flight 214 from incheon, south Korea crashed on final approach to san Francisco in July with the loss of three lives

Rex

Feat

ures

FIN_210114_032-035.indd 33 2014-01-16 11:30

flightglobal.com

Date Carrier Aircraft type/registration Location Fatalities Total occupants Phase

FATAL ACCiDenTs: non-PAssenger FLighTs29 June Batair Cargo embraer Bandeirante (Zs-nVB) Nr Francistown airport, Botswana 2 2 RAThe aircraft came down in scrub nearly 3nm short of the end of runway 11. Reports suggest visibility was affected by early morning mist, and that a previous attempt to land on the reciprocal runway 29 had been abandoned. The aircraft was landing at Francistown to refuel during a positioning flight from Lanseria in South Africa to Lubumbashi in DR Congo.

14 August UPS Airbus A300-600 (n155UP) Shuttlesworth airport, Birmingham, USA

2 2 RA

On a localiser/DME approach inbound from Louisville, Kentucky at 04:47 local time, the aircraft hit rising ground about 0.5nm short of the runway threshold. It was night-time but the weather was good and visibility at 10nm.

25 september Morningstar Air Express Cessna Caravan (C-FeXB) Hudson Bay, Canada 1 1 ERThe aircraft took off from Sault Ste Marie at 12:15 local time for a 30min flight, but failed to return. The aircraft’s emergency locator transmitter operated first at about 14:00, and it continued tracking northward until 17:00, when the Cessna was over Hudson Bay, but there was no communication from the pilot. Wreckage was found in the vicinity of the last ELT signal. It seems probable that the aircraft ran out of fuel.

2 December IBC Airways Fairchild Metro (n831BC) Nr Arecibo, Puerto Rico 2 2 AAThe aircraft, carrying out a cargo flight from Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, to Arecibo crashed at night but in good weather about 40nm short of its destination. The circumstances are unknown so far.

26 December Irkutsk Aviation Plant Antonov An-12 (rA12162) Nr Irkutsk 2 airport, Russia 9 9 RAThe aircraft came down on final approach for Irkutsk 2 airport and crashed into buildings.

Date Carrier Aircraft type/registration Location injuries (crew/pax)


Phase

signiFiCAnT non-FATAL ACCiDenTs (ALL oPerATionAL CATegories)2 January Sol Líneas Aéreas saab 340 (LV-BMD) Mendoza airport, Argentina -/- 3/28 GNose undercarriage leg “fractured” while taxiing for take-off from runway 18. Directional control was lost and the aircraft ran off the taxiway on to soft ground, where the left propeller hit a post.

2 February Alitalia ATr 72-200 (Yr-ATs) Rome Fiumicino airport, Italy 1/1 4/46 LLanded on runway 16L at night with a strong, gusting crosswind from the right (250˚/28kt gusting 41kt). Following a nosewheel touchdown the aircraft bounced three times before veering off the right-hand side of the runway, where it came to rest. The nose gear collapsed about 50m clear of the runway, around 1,800m beyond the threshold. Runway 25 was unavailable because of work in progress.

6 February Tunisair Airbus A320 (Ts-iMB) Carthage International airport, Tunis

-/- 8/75 L

After landing on runway 19 in a strong crosswind from the right, the aircraft veered off the right hand side of the runway and eventually came to a halt with its nose gear collapsed.

9 February Pacific Coastal Airlines Beech 1900C (C-FPCo) Blue River airport, British Columbia, Canada

-/- N/A L

The crew lost directional control after touchdown and the aircraft veered off the runway and hit a snow berm. The nose gear collapsed and both propellers were damaged.

11 February Pakistan International Airlines Boeing 737-300 (AP-Beh) Seeb airport, Muscat, Oman -/- 7/107 LThe left main gear failed on landing.

13 April Lion Air Boeing 737-800 (PK-LKs) Ngurah Rai airport, Denpasar, Indonesia

-/4 7/101 RA

On a VOR/DME approach to runway 09, the aircraft appears to have continued through the minimum descent height even though the pilots could not see the runway. The EGPWS called “minimum” when descending through 550ft, but the crew continued the descent. It hit the sea just short of the runway threshold and came to rest in shallow water, with the hull fractured but largely intact. Soon after descending through 500ft, the aircraft was reported to have entered very heavy rain, possibly a downburst, and if the crew had had sight of the runway, they had lost it again. The aircraft’s rate of descent increased, and at 150ft AGL the captain took control from the co-pilot, who had been PF, and began a go-around. The EGPWS called “20” (20ft height) as the go-around attempt began, but the aircraft hit the sea.

16 April Aeromexico Boeing 767-200er (XA-ToJ) Madrid Barajas, Spain -/- 9/154 TOA severe tail strike on take-off from runway 36L prevented the aircraft pressurising. This left debris on the runway that was not noticed for some time, and caused a nosewheel tyre failure subsequently after take-off. The 767 returned to land on runway 18R.

17 April Lao Air DhC Twin otter 300 (rDPL-34180) Sam Neua airport, Laos -/- 2/16 TOThe aircraft hit trees at the edge of the airfield and came down 200m from the runway end.

16 May Nepal Airlines DhC Twin otter (9n-ABo) Jomsom airport, Nepal 3/4 3/19 LThe aircraft landed with a tailwind, overran the end of runway 06 and fell down a steep embankment.

16 May Myanma Airways AViC Xian MA60 (XY-AiQ) Mong Hsat airport, Myanmar -/2 4/51 LThe aircraft overran the end of runway 30 and the left main gear collapsed.

24 May British Airways Airbus A319 (g-eUoe) Nr London Heathrow, UK -/- 5/75 CThe aircraft took off from runway 27L bound for Oslo, but the fan cowls on both engines broke away almost immediately, puncturing a fuel feed line on the right engine. The yellow hydraulic system also depressurised. The crew made a Pan call stating the intention to return, and upgraded it to a Mayday when they got a fire warning on the right engine. The fire was reduced by the fire drill, but could not be extinguished completely. The crew landed the aircraft safely using left engine power. Initial investigations indicate that the cowl fastenings were not operated correctly following routine line maintenance.

1 June Sita Air Dornier 228-200 (9n-AhB) Simikot airport, Nepal -/- 2/5 LThe aircraft landed just short of the runway and sheared off the nose and left main gear, coming to rest beside the touchdown zone.

2 June Cebu Pacific Airbus A320 (rP-C3266) Davao airport, the Philippines -/- 6/159 LThe aircraft veered off the runway to the side and its nose gear collapsed.

10 June Merpati Nusantara Airlines AViC Xian MA60 (PK-MZo) El Tari airport, Kupang, Indonesia -/- 4/46 LTouched down just short of runway 07 threshold. The nose gear collapsed and a wing failed.

10 June Myanma Airways AViC Xian MA60 (XY-AiP) Kawthaung airport, Myanmar -/- 4/60 LRan off the runway during landing.

13 June Sky Bahamas saab 340 (C6-sBJ) Marsh Harbour, Bahamas -/- 3/18 LThe aircraft developed a high rate of descent on short final approach in daylight, touched down hard, bounced, then ran off the left side of the runway. It came to a halt with the right wing separated at the root.

34 | Flight international | 21-27 January 2014

safety

FIN_210114_032-035.indd 34 2014-01-16 11:30


Date Carrier Aircraft type/registration Location Injuries (crew/pax)


Phase

SIgnIFICAnT non-FATAL ACCIDenTS (ALL oPerATIonAL CATegorIeS)12 July Ethiopian Airlines Boeing 787-8 (eT-AoP) London Heathrow airport, UK -/- -/- GThe aircraft was parked and unattended. ATC staff in the tower noticed smoke coming from the aircraft and activated the alarm. Fire crews extinguished the fire, which damaged the upper aft fuselage in the vicinity of the emergency locator transmitter, which is powered by a lithium-ion battery. The cause of the fire has not yet been established.

15 July Air Services Cessna Caravan (8r-AMS) Nr Matthews Ridge, Guyana 1/8 1/11 LStruck trees on approach and came down 2nm from the runway.

29 July Air Urga Saab 340 (Ur-Aro) Lubumbashi int airport, DR Congo

-/- 4/18 TO

During the take-off run a vibration developed and the aircraft began to pull to the right. Directional control was lost, the aircraft left the runway and ran across drainage ditches, destroying the undercarriage. The aircraft was written off.

12 August EasyJet Airbus A320 (g-eZTC) Milan Malpensa airport, Italy -/- 6/174 CThe port engine cowling panels opened and detached just after take-off and hit the left side of the fuselage and leading edge of the fin. The crew levelled the aircraft at 3,500ft and then returned to Malpensa.

16 August Antrak Air ATr ATr72 (eC-KUL) Nr Tamale, Ghana -/- 4/69 CFire broke out in the port engine during the climb on a flight to Accra. The crew levelled the aircraft at 9,000ft, shut down the engine, discharged both fire extinguisher bottles and returned safely to Tamale.

20 August AeroCon Fairchild Metro (CP-2655) Sucre airport, Bolivia -/- 2/8 LFollowing an apparently normal approach in daylight VMC, the aircraft veered to the left shortly after touchdown on runway 05, ran off the runway and down a slope before stopping with its nose-gear collapsed.

25 August Transom Airways Antonov An-26 (eK26818) Guriceel airstrip, Somalia -/- 5/45 LThe aircraft landed long, overran the landing strip and the nose gear hit a rock and collapsed.

8 September Thai Airways International Airbus A330 (HS-TeF) Bangkok Int airport -/- 14/287 LThe right main undercarriage bogey beam broke during the landing roll on runway 19L. The gear leg dug into the surface, the right engine contacted the runway and directional control was lost. The aircraft swung off the runway to the right. The 18-year-old aircraft was operating a flight from Guangzhou, China, and the landing took place at night but the weather was clear.

19 october Skyjet Airlines BAe Systems HS748 (rP-C5525) Polillo airport, the Philippines -/- 7/68 LThe aircraft reportedly landed about halfway along the runway and overran the end, causing undercarriage damage.

19 october Air Niugini ATr 42-300 (P2-PXY) Madang airport, Papua New Guinea

- 3 TO

The nosewheel would not lift off the ground when the captain tried to rotate. It was later discovered that the cargo, which had been loaded according to an assumed unit weight rather than actually weighed, was well over the maximum allowable payload.

21 october Mokulele Airlines Cessna Caravan (n861MA) Nr Kahului, Hawaii -/- 1/8 CThe aircraft was climbing through 8,500ft when there was a loud bang and the engine lost power. The pilot turned back toward the island of Maui, and elected to land on the Pilani Highway (Route 31). The aircraft landed safely but hit road signs causing damage.

25 october Miniliner Fokker F27 (I-MLVT) Nr Charles de Gaulle airport, Paris

2 - C

Climbing through about 1,000ft after take-off the left propeller shed a blade, which passed through the fuselage and out the other side. The propeller and engine then detached. The crew maintained control and returned for a safe landing.

1 november Air Inuit DHC Twin otter (C-gMDC) Sanikiluaq airport, Nunavut, Canada

- 2 L

Ran off the runway after being hit by a gust of wind.

9 november Spirit Airlines Airbus A319 (n504nK) O’Hare airport, Chicago, USA -/- 6/0 TOStarboard engine fan cowl doors opened and separated. The aircraft returned to O’Hare and landed safely.

4 December Saudia Boeing 747-400F (eK-74798) Abuja Int airport, Nigeria - 6 LThe aircraft ran off runway 04 and hit heavy construction equipment. The No 2 engine caught fire. A reduction in the landing distance available had been published because of work in progress.

accidents and incidents

Rex

Feat

ures

none of the nine on board survived the crash in Irkutsk An ATr-72 crashed into the Mekong river in Laos in october

FIN_210114_032-035.indd 35 2014-01-16 11:30

Global Aviation TakesCentre Stage in SingaporeCome next February, Singapore Air-show will once again be the conver-gent point for significant players across the global aviation spectrum to do business and forge partnerships, as the show unveils its fourth edition.

According to the Airbus Global Market Forecast 2013, global avi-ation will be fly-ing off to a good start as the de-mand for air traf-fic is expected to grow at 4.7% an-nually over the

next two decades. The Asia Pacific re-gion is projected to take the lead in this growth, surpassing Europe and North America.

According to the forecast, the growth in air traffic will also call for 29,200

new passenger and freight aircraft orders valued at nearly US$4.4TN.

With Singapore strategically locat-ed in the heart of the Asia Pacific re-gion and optimism high up in the air, the show organis-

ers are expecting huge business deals to be sealed at the 2014 event. To date, already 99% of the exhibition space has been booked with 21 coun-try pavilions lined up.

Echoing the positive outlook for the Asia Pacific markets, the Singapore Airshow will also return at the 2014 show with its popular Business Forums to provide strategic business insights into the aerospace and defence growth markets. Presented by key aerospace buyers, government

agencies and industry leaders, the upcoming show will be featuring three business forums namely;

the China Business Forum, U.S. Business Forum and Asia Business Forum.

Ticket price is S$50 per person per forum.

Register for the Business Forums at www.singaporeairshow.com/registration or scan this code:

For more information on the event, visit www.singaporeairshow.com or scan here:

Flightglobal is proud to support Singapore Airshow 2014. Find us at stand no. P103

SPONSORED UPDATE

Get insights on the Market Opportunities via the Business Forums

ASIA PACIFIC LEAD IN WORLD TRAFFIC TILL 2032ASIA PACIFIC LEAD IN WORLD TRAFFIC TILL 2032ASIA PACIFIC LEAD IN WORLD TRAFFIC TILL 2032

RPK traffic by airline domicile (BN)

% of 2012 world RPK

29%

26%

25%

8%

5%

4%

3%

20–year growth

5.5%

3.8%

3.0%

7.1%

6.0%

5.8%

5.1%

% of 2032 world RPK

34%

22%

18%

12%

7%

4%

3%

2012 traffic

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000

2012 – 2032 traffic

SOURCE: Airbus Global Market Forecast 2013

World annual traf�c growth

in next 20 years

4.7%Africa

CIS

Latin America

Middle East

North America

Europe

Asia Pacific

BUSINESS FORUMS Date Time

China Business Forum 12 Feb 2014 (Wed) 10:30am - 12:30pm

U.S. Business Forum 12 Feb 2014 (Wed) 2:00pm - 4:00pm

Asia Business Forum 13 Feb 2014 (Thu) 10:30am - 12:30pm

SingaporeAirshowAD4v3.indd 6 06/01/2014 14:51FIN_210114_304.indd 304 16/01/2014 09:51

AIRLINE SAFETY ARE ACCIDENTS BECOMING MORE …

Documents

Transcript of AIRLINE SAFETY ARE ACCIDENTS BECOMING MORE …