Airline Safety - carriers with poor record

[RAM]

Puts safety in a new perspective - MH370 for example...

FBI Checked under the seat, looks like may be true, watch TV, listen to music, or play with the engines.

Hacker told F.B.I. he made plane fly sideways after cracking entertainment system | APTN National NewsAPTN National News


Roberts told the F.B.I. that he has discovered vulnerabilities in the inflight entertainment systems of Boeing 737-800, 737-900 and 757-200 aircraft along with Airbus A-320s.
Air Canada flies Airbus A-320 aircraft and WestJet flies Boeing 737-800 aircraft, according to the airlines’ websites.
According to Wired, Roberts has been issuing warnings about vulnerabilities in inflight entertainment systems for years.

The court filing is disturbing!

 

[PaulST]

Beyond that, and at the risk of offending the RdC industry, it was an engine failure in a four engined aircraft. There was never any danger of it crashing.

You're obviously the expert, but it was an uncontained engine failure and I suspect could have brought the plane down if it hit any more vital parts of the wing? I suppose that shrapnel hitting and puncturing the cabin would cause a sudden loss of pressure but shouldn't bring the plane down?

 

[jb747]

You're obviously the expert, but it was an uncontained engine failure and I suspect could have brought the plane down if it hit any more vital parts of the wing? I suppose that shrapnel hitting and puncturing the cabin would cause a sudden loss of pressure but shouldn't bring the plane down?

When you consider that some of the equipment in the aircraft is duplicated because it's in the 'turbine burst area', the idea is something that is considered, and allowed for as much as possible.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

This is the part that most concerns me. What sort of culture does that promote in the company. Its one thing to identify cause, but when it becomes a blame game instead of a "how do we fix this and ensure it doesn't happen again", then the industry as a whole is the loser. All this does is stops the same crew from doing it again, and the only way it stops others doing the same thing is through fear of being found out.

I'm split on this issue.

I can see the reasoning behind the 'let's fix it' approach - and being open and honest is a big part of that.

On the other side, a deterrent could equally work to prevent issues occurring in the first place. Thinking about still trying to take a chance and land on your second or third go-around? Maybe the possibility you might lose your job if you're found to have acted incorrectly will be enough to err on the side of caution and go to your diversion airport.

 

[jb747]

On the other side, a deterrent could equally work to prevent issues occurring in the first place. Thinking about still trying to take a chance and land on your second or third go-around? Maybe the possibility you might lose your job if you're found to have acted incorrectly will be enough to err on the side of caution and go to your diversion airport.

The trouble is that you are penalising people for making mistakes. If you don't want attempted landings after a couple of go arounds, then you simply need to place a limit in the manual. You also need to ensure that you have a fuel policy that makes such a diversion possible. You have to remember that diversion options are often limited, if they exist at all.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

The trouble is that you are penalising people for making mistakes. If you don't want attempted landings after a couple of go arounds, then you simply need to place a limit in the manual. You also need to ensure that you have a fuel policy that makes such a diversion possible. You have to remember that diversion options are often limited, if they exist at all.

Strangely enough, that's what our legal system does.

Of course there should be checks and balances in the process... just like our legal system... but I'm not entirely convinced every mistake, no matter how bad, should be penalty-free simply because it's an airliner and we need to learn from it.

You can't drive a car and handle a mobile phone, should it be treated differently when pilots are on final approach in an airliner?

 

[jb747]

Strangely enough, that's what our legal system does.

Of course there should be checks and balances in the process... just like our legal system... but I'm not entirely convinced every mistake, no matter how bad, should be penalty-free simply because it's an airliner and we need to learn from it.

You can't drive a car and handle a mobile phone, should it be treated differently when pilots are on final approach in an airliner?

Blatant breaches of the rules, be they regulatory or company, are generally dealt with. Demotions and dismissal are common outcomes. But, on the other hand, the events that lead up to an accident are almost always a series of mistakes, with not one breach of the rules included.

Mind you, if you simply place a rule in the manual saying "don't crash", then problem solved and you can get rid of your entire safety department.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Blatant breaches of the rules, be they regulatory or company, are generally dealt with. Demotions and dismissal are common outcomes. But, on the other hand, the events that lead up to an accident are almost always a series of mistakes, with not one breach of the rules included.

That's all good stuff, but as you say, you can be following all the rules but still make an error of judgement. We can learn from those errors, but a deterrent may equally be appropriate in some cases to help someone focus their minds and possibly prevent another incident of the same nature occurring.

 

[jb747]

That's all good stuff, but as you say, you can be following all the rules but still make an error of judgement. We can learn from those errors, but a deterrent may equally be appropriate in some cases to help someone focus their minds and possibly prevent another incident of the same nature occurring.

All your deterrent will do is destroy the reporting culture that exists, and which has taken decades to create.

 

[UP4014]

I'm someone who is happy to pay a premium for safety so continue to do so, having been known to drive rather than fly in certain countries. (I do feel safer driving defensively than getting in a tired plane with 20 something pilots)

As for the QF engine break up, while it is talked down the potential was catastrophic; the debris that punctured the wing going a few feet in another direction for example. Problems in complex machinery happen all the time but everyone one can minimise the risk by choosing an airline wisely.

For vacations I travel less than many here but prefer to save for a better safety record airline.

Matt

 

[logos 01]

All your deterrent will do is destroy the reporting culture that exists, and which has taken decades to create.

There is plenty of academic research in both the Aviation and Medical fields to show that punishment of errors of judgment by professionals, whether imposed by operators or regulators, leads directly to a degradation of overall safety.

Any safety benefit from "deterrence" is likely to be minimal as professionals rarely need further incentive to try to avoid error, whether that's from professional pride, responsibly for people depending on them etc. But even this small safety benefit is completely overshadowed by the safety degradation caused by people trying to hide their mistakes to avoid punishment.

For anyone interested in looking at this issue further, the concept is often referred to as having a "just culture" in an organisation/ industry.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

There is plenty of academic research in both the Aviation and Medical fields to show that punishment of errors of judgment by professionals, whether imposed by operators or regulators, leads directly to a degradation of overall safety.

Any safety benefit from "deterrence" is likely to be minimal as professionals rarely need further incentive to try to avoid error, whether that's from professional pride, responsibly for people depending on them etc. But even this small safety benefit is completely overshadowed by the safety degradation caused by people trying to hide their mistakes to avoid punishment.

For anyone interested in looking at this issue further, the concept is often referred to as having a "just culture" in an organisation/ industry.

In the context of EK407, which sparked the discussion on just culture... I'm not sure the outcome was incorrect.

the ATSB report seems to indicate the pilots didn't complete all the steps in the standard operating procedure as required pre-flight. I guess you could go into the psychology of 'why' they didn't complete all the checks they were supposed to, but where do you draw the line?

 

[JohnK]

Fairly or unfairly Turkish has been on my no fly list for a while. Asiana, Air France, Garuda, Air Asia also scare me and I will try to avoid them.

Malaysia Airlines scare me as well but I am taking 3 flights with them in 2 weeks time a lot sooner than I expected.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Malaysia Airlines scare me as well but I am taking 3 flights with them in 2 weeks time a lot sooner than I expected.

Out of interest, what influenced your decision to fly MH?

 

[PaulST]

Out of interest, what influenced your decision to fly MH?

How cheap were they?

 

[JohnK]

Out of interest, what influenced your decision to fly MH?

The KUL-SIN lounge crawl.

 

[Happy Trails]

Air France has been at it again.

An Air France passenger jet almost crashed into a volcano in a journey across central Africa, it has been revealed.

Disaster was averted when alarms sounded in the coughpit telling pilots to “pull up” as they neared Mount Cameroon on 2 May.
None of the 37 people on board were injured during the incident and the plane landed safely.
Officials from French air authority the BEA have opened an investigation into the incident, which is has been classified as “controlled flight toward terrain”.


Air France flight almost crashed into active volcano in Africa while trying to avoid storms - News & Advice - Travel - The Independent

 

[pauly7]

37 people on a 777... Ouch

 

[QFflyermelbourne]

I knew that any comment from me would stir the pot....

I very much doubt that the crew were casually chatting. I know both of the blokes in the hot seats very well, and casual chat during a climb or descent isn't in character for either. Plus it was a route check, and casual chat, at the wrong time, is grounds for failure.

Beyond that, and at the risk of offending the RdC industry, it was an engine failure in a four engined aircraft. There was never any danger of it crashing.

Interestingly, I would still fly on MH. What I've seen them operationally, makes me think much more highly of them than some alternatives.

Very pleased to read all this JB. To the original poster about QF, it is surely the opposite of your point that rings true, it is precisely that they were QF pilots that the 32 had a good outcome. I remain completely convinced that with the barrage of issues to deal with that day that the crew of a different airline may well have failed in getting a good result.

Also heartening to read MH is still on your list JB as I had come to the same conclusion. Personally, SQ scares the bejesus out of me more each year and I would gladly go MH ahead of them.

Air France as folks have mentioned maintains a high ranking on my list. One thing that doesn't come up much is how the partnership affects KLM, I don't hear of them having anywhere near the same rate of incidences but they also appear far less on Australians radar I guess. Have the two kept very different training and safety cultures or do we just not read about them?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Air France as folks have mentioned maintains a high ranking on my list. One thing that doesn't come up much is how the partnership affects KLM, I don't hear of them having anywhere near the same rate of incidences but they also appear far less on Australians radar I guess. Have the two kept very different training and safety cultures or do we just not read about them?

Appreciate you have these 'feelings' but are they supported by evidence? How much research have you done into the safety culture at Air France?

Doing some research on AF447 turned up an article, which if true, could change safety perception. It appears there may have been a similar incident, involving another Air France jet, in the year before AF447. It is argued that had pilots been briefed on the outcome of that incident over Madagascar, AF447 may have been prevented: Pilot briefing 'could have prevented Air France tragedy' - BelfastTelegraph.co.uk

Regarding MH... what evidence has led you to the conclusion that MH is safer now than it was before? If, for example, a court finds MH was negligent in its choice of flight path, would that change your opinion?