For this case analysis, I’ve chosen to research the crash of Helios Airways Flight 522, a Boeing 737-300 that occurred on 14 August 2005. Prior to the doomed flight, the ground engineer performed a routine inspection but failed to reset the cabin pressurization system of the aircraft from “Manual” to “Auto”. The flight crew of Helios 522 failed to notice the oversight despite having three opportunities to correct the mistake: the pre-flight check, the after engine start check, and the after takeoff check. During initial climb out, the flight crew was alerted to a malfunction, but mistook several caution alarms for minor takeoff configuration warnings. Before they could determine the cause and correct the issue, the pilot, crew, and passengers …show more content…
These warning lights would indicate problems with take-off configuration or pressurization. (14 CFR Part 39) Another action that improved due to the Helios crash is checklist procedures due to the flight crew’s failure to properly complete the three checklists that would have prevented this accident. My recommendation to prevent this type of accident in the future would be to revise checklist procedures for both ground and flight crews with quality assurance checks to ensure that all proper procedures are followed and the use of specific Crew Resource Management Clusters #3 Workload Management and Situation Awareness, subset a. Preparation/Planning/Vigilance, Behavior factors: (1), (2), (4) & (7) and subset b. Workload Distributed/Distractions Avoided, Behavior factors: (1), (2),(3), (5), (6) & (7). Crew Resource Management training for both the ground and flight crews is essential to flight safety. This accident illustrates what I’ve heard pilots articulate about flight safety. When a maintainer screws up, it’s not his life that’s on the line it’s the pilot and crew but when a pilot screws up it can cost him and his crew their
In all the National Transportation Safety Board concluded there were twenty-three findings that directly contributed to this airplane accident. I will address the ones I feel carried the most impact where if the instance was removed the accident would have be...
On January 31, 2000 Alaska Airlines Flight 261 was in route from Puerto Vallarta, Mexico to Seattle, Washington with a stop planned for San Francisco, California. Things went catastrophically wrong, even with the subtle hints of disaster that could be seen lurking in the shadows from takeoff. All 83 passengers and 5 crewmembers aboard the MD-83 (N963AS) ultimately paid the price for simple oversights. This paper will try to shed light into the underlying circumstances that led up to the uncontrollable crash. This will include the flight crew overlooking obvious signs of trouble from liftoff, to the preventative maintenance that was performed, and finally delve into the heart of the investigational findings of Alaska Airlines Flight 261. Climbing into the afternoon sky above Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, on Jan. 31, 2000, 5 flight crew members and 83 passengers settled in for the nearly four hour flight to San Francisco. As the jet passed 7,500 feet, Capt. Ted Thompson turned on the autopilot as he had done many times before being a seasoned commercial airline pilot with 10,400 hours of flight time under his belt, alongside 1st Officer William Tansky whom was no stranger to aviation himself logging more than 8,047 hours to his credit. After 13 minutes of smooth flying, nearing the cruising altitude of 31,000 feet, the auto-pilot disengaged indicating to the flight crew that the stabilizer trim system was apparently not working properly and the aircraft was going to have to be flown manually (by hand) for the rest of the flight. After interviewing several veteran airline pilots, it was in agreement that the crew probably thought it was nothing serious, and had no reason to alert passengers and cause them needless worry. The stabi...
The next level is Precondition for Unsafe Acts. Precondition begins at level two and it is dividing into environmental factors, condition of operator, and personnel factors. In regards to Flight 3407, the environmental factors would be the weather condition. Icing was a factor when occurred on the wings. Both pilots were experiencing fatigue during their flight. They have pushed their body to limits where as their reaction times were not fully functional. Furthermore, due to fatigues and not adequate situational awareness, the crew did not perform to their best optimal on the job.
Rodney Rocha is a NASA engineer and co-chair of Debris Assessment Team (DTS). When possibility of wing damage appeared he requested an additional imagery to obtain more information in order to evaluate the damage. This demonstrates that he actually tried to resolve the issue. However, due to absence of clear organizational responsibilities in NASA those images were never received. Since foam issue was there for years and risk for the flights was estimated as low management decided not to proceed with this request. After learning of management decision Rocha wrote an e-mail there he stated that foam damage could carry grave hazard and have to be addressed. At the same time this e-mail was not send to the management team. Organizational culture at NASA could be described as highly bureaucratic with operations under standard procedures only. Low-end employees like Rocha are afraid to bring any safety-related issues to the management due to delay of the mission. They can be punished for bringing “bad news”. This type of relationship makes it impossible for two-way communication between engineers and managers, which are crucial for decision-making in complex env...
The explosion aboard the Service Module caused many vital systems to fail and required a quick and decisive response by the crew. Any mistake could have potentially been fatal. All personnel involved were able to handle the situation quickly and effectively in order to ensure what was deemed by Lovell a“successful failure”. (Lovell,1969, para. 3) The flight crew had run hundreds of simulations to prepare for problematic situations and system failures, but they had never run a simulation like what had happened aboard Odyssey.
This report is on the Crossair flight 3597 crash which happens at Zurich airport on 24th November 2001. Analysis of Crossair flight 3597 will be covered, which includes details such as facts of Crossair flight 3597 crash, and the three contributing factors involved in the air accident. The three contributing factors are mainly Crossair, pilot error and communications with air traffic controllers.
A.P. HERSMAN, CHRISTOPHER A. HART, and ROBERT L. SUMWALT. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), 6 May 2010. Web. 19 July 2010. .
On February 24, 1989, United Airlines flight 811 was en route to Sydney, Australia from Honolulu, Hawaii. They later experienced decompression due to the cargo door failure in front aft during flight. Flight 811 made successful emergency landing at Honolulu with nine passengers missing out of 337 passenger aboard. The cargo door that was ejected on Flight 811 damaged engines 3 and 4, which led to crew to turn back to Honolulu.
Safety in the ethics and industry of aerospace technology is of prime importance for preventing tragic malfunctions and crashes. Opposed to automobiles for example, if an airplane breaks down while in mid-flight, it has nowhere to go but down. And sadly it will often go down “hard” and with a high probability of killing people. The Engineering Code of Ethics states first and foremost that, “Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public.” In the aerospace industry, this as well holds very true, both in manufacturing and in air safety itself. Airline safety has recently become a much-debated topic, although arguments over air safety and travel have been going ...
On the 25th of September 1999, Big Island Air Flight 58 Piper Chieftain, crashed on a slope of the Mauna Loa Volcano in Hawaii at approximately 5:30pm. All nine of the passengers on board and the pilot were killed in the crash. The impact sustained by the airplane and the fire that followed the impact completely destroyed the airplane. Big Island Air Flight 58 was operating under CFR Part 135 air taxi operations providing sight seeing tours to tourists and locals. The Piper Chieftain had departed from Keahole – Kona International Airport, Kona Hawaii (KOA) at around 4:22pm. The airport reported that there were visual meteorological conditions that existed prior to the planes departure. The pilot had filed a proper visual flight rules (VFR) flight plane prior to his departure. The investigation that followed performed by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) had determined that instrument conditions existed in the area of the crash site.
On November 28, 2004 at about 10:00 a.m. mountain standard time, a Canadair (now Bombardier) CL-600-2A12 (Challenger 600), tail number N873G, crashed into the ground during takeoff at Montrose Regional Airport (MJT), Montrose, Colorado. The aircraft was registered to Hop-a-Jet, Inc., and operated by Air Castle Corporation doing business as Global Aviation. (Insert Here)The flight was operating under Part 135 Code of Federal Regulations. The captain filed the flight under an IFR Flight plan. Of the six passengers on board, three died from fatal injuries and the other three sustained major injuries. The aircraft was totaled due to the impact with the ground and a post-crash fire.
Flight 93, the flight that crashed near some fields in the outskirts of Pennsylvania. But what was it doing there? What caused the plane to miss its target and crash? These answers may soon be revealed when detectives can finally examine the planes black box, found just recently. Many answers however can be found through other pieces of info that have come up along the way during the investigations.
An Eastern Air Lines Lockheed L-1011 crashed at 2342 eastern standard time, December 29, 1972, 18.7 miles west-northwest of Miami International Airport, Miami, Florida. The aircraft was destroyed. Of the 163 passengers and 13 crewmembers aboard, 94 passengers and 5 crewmembers received fatal injuries. Two survivors died later as a result of their injuries.
The primary cause is of airplane accidents does at some stage contain an element of a person being unable to discharge his duties correctly and in an accurate manner. More than 53% accidents are the result of ignorance or faults by the pilot during flight. Other staff is responsible for about 8% accidents. The most obvious errors by pilot are made during the take off or landing on the runway. Additionally errors can occur during the maintenance of the airplane outside the plane, whereby a lack of thorough inspection and oversight can lead to complication during mid-flight. Fueling and loading of the plane also sometimes create problems (Shapiro, 2001).
This term paper reviews the three most common catagories of aviation accident causes and factors. The causes and factors that will be discussed are human performance, environmental, and the aircraft itself. Although flying is one of the safest means of transportation, accidents do happen. It is the investigators job to determine why the accident happened, and who or what was at fault. In the event of an accident, either one or all of these factors will be determined as the cause of the accident. Also discussed will be one of the most tradgic plane crashes in aviation history and the human factors involved.