Send Flowers to Russia, Ukraine and Worldwide with Cyber-Florist.com Fiance.com: Beautiful Russian brides
Home  |  About  |  Forum  |  User Blogs  |  Login  |  Register

	Create New Topic   My Posts   My forum buddies   Invite friends   Private messages Russian brides > Main Forum > Airliner Safety Update Author Post durak Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 7/6/2013 8:20:18 PM   Some of you may have read about the grave 777 crash today in San Francisco. The ship, registration number HL7742, was operating as Asiana Airlines flight 214 from South Korea. As of this writing, the news reports say that of more than 300 on board, 2 are dead, and 61 injured. Looking at the photos of the broken hull, it seems to me very fortunate that there are not more dead. [Note: I am now reading an ominous report that as many as 60 are not accounted for.] This is certainly far off-topic for this forum, but those who are serious about creating an international family are likely to do a lot of flying, and I know that some who read this forum have a special interest in aviation safety. I made two intercontinental flights on 777s in recent weeks: it is a mighty jet, with an outstanding safety record. So, maybe some of you will find this topic of interest. Today's crash was the third incident in which a Boeing 777 was destroyed, and the first in which occupants of the plane lost their lives (a few years ago, a ground crew member died when a 777 experienced a fire while empty of passengers). It was only the 7th fatal accident in the USA for scheduled airlines during the past 10 years. If you take a moment to think about it, this is a staggering achievement. According to figures from the US Bureau of Transportation Statistics, scheduled airlines made about 100,000,000 departures during the past 10 years. That means an average of 14 million departures per fatal accident. In total, those seven accidents have killed 136 (counting the 2 confirmed from today's crash), including persons on the ground who were hit by crashing aircraft. Note: at this rate, if you REALLY WANTED to experience a fatal accident, you would need to fly continuously -- getting on another flight the minute your plane landed -- for about two thousand years, before you would have even odds of being on a plane when it had a fatal accident. And even then, you would as likely survive, as become one of the fatalities. I haven't found numbers for the 777 specifically, but I guess that the fleet has made at least 3 million departures by now (possibly a lot more, I don't know what flight schedules look like for these long-haul planes). Of course, it takes time to properly analyze an airline accident, and the published information so far is very small. Witness accounts I read in the news could (in my completely amateur opinion) be consistent with excessive sink rate (downward vertical speed) in the last seconds before landing. Reported weather conditions were favorable at SFO, with light winds and good visibility. There appears to have been substantial fire after the crash. I hope that the large number of people unaccounted for may be due to the chaos of many ambulances dispatched to various hospitals in the region -- but looking at the photo, I fear that more may have died. On the bright side, there's a tweet from just after the time of the crash, saying "I just crash landed at SFO. Tail ripped off. Most everyone seems fine. I'm ok." As dramatic as such accidents are -- and as vividly as we might be able to imagine what could go wrong, when we're strapped into our seats like sardines -- remember that flying on scheduled jet airlines (excluding third-world countries) is incomparably safer than any method of transport in human history. If you hop in your car to go the corner store for a six-pack of your favorite beverage, you are far more likely to die on that short drive than on an international flight; and the stuff you bring home from the shop is much more dangerous to you than the trip itself. So, fly with confidence in your safety. If you MUST worry, the statistics for your baggage getting to your destination are not so good. Happy landings! durak Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 7/6/2013 10:00:41 PM   More information from San Francisco: The number of missing (not accounted for) now stands at one. Confirmed fatalities remain at two. About 35 of the survivors are in critical condition. durak Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 7/7/2013 12:00:16 PM   Asiana's CEO has announced that the crash was not due to mechanical faults with the aircraft or engines ... this would seem to be an oblique way of suggesting that it was pilot error. The flight crew were attempting to land on runway 28 Left. A radio landing aid for this runway (the Glide Slope component of the runway's Instrument Landing System) was inoperative at the time of the crash -- in fact, it is out for most of summer. From the airport's NOTAMs (NOtices To AirMen): SFO 06/005 SFO NAVIGATION INSTRUMENT LANDING SYSTEM RUNWAY 28L GLIDE PATH OUT OF SERVICE WITH EFFECT FROM OR EFFECTIVE FROM 1306011400-1308222359 When the Glide Slope is functioning, the plane's cockpit displays would use the radio signal to show deviations from the ideal vertical profile when approaching the runway -- and would have starkly indicated to the the pilots that the plane was far too low in the last seconds of flight. However, runway 28L also has a visual slope indicator, a set of lights beside the runway that make a visual display similar to the Glide Slope indication. It's not unusual for jets to land without the Instrument Landing System, and crews are trained and equipped to do so with very high margins of safety. Hand flying a jet landing is the most exacting maneuver most air carrier pilots do on a recurring basis. While it is simple in concept, an approach over water can confuse judgment of height and distance by eye (with Glide Slope inoperative, the pilots would be steering mainly by looking out through he windscreen). If indeed the crash should prove to have resulted from a fault in the pilots' elementary control of the plane's path, this would add to the sadness of the situation for those of us interested in the aviation safety system. So many measures and safeguards are in place (primarily, crew training, and especially coordination between the two pilots) to prevent such mishaps. The flight across the world's largest ocean is a long one, and certainly the accident investigators will look carefully at crew rest and fatigue. durak Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 7/10/2013 2:42:25 PM   From recent news reporst, it appears that the flight crew were relying on the authothrottle (a little like "cruise control" on a car, but much smarter) as they made their approach. The actual power setting on the engines was too low, and the plane's speed gradually decreased far below what it needed to be. By the time the pilots recognized that this had happened and move the throttles forward, it was too late to salvage the approach. Reportedly, using autothrottle on the approach to landing is standard for the 777. A veteran pilot says that his airline does not permit landing without autothrottle, because Boeing does not recommend making approaches with autothrottle disconnected. Why the engine power fell too low remains to be disclosed. Of course, it's possible that the autothrottle simply malfunctioned. More likely, the automatic flight systems were "misprogrammed" by the pilots, or one of the pilots was holding the throttle levers firmly enough to prevent the autothrottle from adjusting power. Pilots are accustomed (on these modern airliners) to the autothrottle applying extra power before the speed can drop too low, but the 777 has a known quirk where in a certain autopilot mode, the autothrottle will not "kick in" when the plane slows down -- this behavior is designed in for good reasons having to with that mode, but it can take pilots by surprise who are used to the autothrottle always protecting them from underspeed. durak Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 7/10/2013 2:53:17 PM   One of the most important lessons from this dreadful mishap, is how well the aircraft protected its occupants from the extremely violent impact. Two are dead, and two (or perhaps one) are paralyzed. Apparently, about 10 or so of the survivors have other terrible injuries, including brain trauma and spinal fractures. From currently available information, 40% of the passengers walked away unhurt. About 5% were killed or had life-changing injuries, leaving about 55% with minor to severe (but hopefully recoverable) injuries. Looking at photos of the crash scene, it is impressive how many survived, and how many of the survivors were not injured at all. lonelyranger1701 Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 7/10/2013 3:36:46 PM   Durak,,,, I heard on the news that one of the two deaths “may” have been caused by a rescue vehicle, running over a victim that had been thrown from the plane. Did you hear anything about that?? I haven’t been in the house for the national news for several days now,,, so I don’t know if this has been confirmed or denied? How unlucky could someone be,,, to survive a plane crash,,,, and then be killed by a rescue vehicle? Perhaps this person was returning home from a foreign dating trip. durak Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 7/10/2013 4:48:35 PM   lonely, The report that one of the dead was hit by an emergency vehicle is under investigation by multiple authorities. As yet, it has not been verified. If she was run over, it will require a full forensic medical examination to determine whether the cause of death was the air crash or the ground vehicle impact, if the question can ever be answered. As you say, "how unlucky could someone be?" Both of the dead were children -- teenagers from China. lonelyranger1701 Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 7/12/2013 3:00:16 PM   Durak,, it's been confirmed by google news, that one of the dead teens were in fact, ran over by a fire truck! Harry P Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 7/13/2013 10:44:00 AM   And the B787 is back in trouble, an Ethiopian one caught fire on the ground in London yesterday and may well be the first hull loss of a recently launched aircraft whilst another B787 turned back to Manchester (UK) one quarter the way in to it's journey to Orlando, reasons as yet to be determined. Whilst the Asiana San Fransisco crash was clearly the error of the U/T pilot whilst his instructor Captain didn't call for a "go around" until some 1.5 seconds before ground impact, from such a call it can take up to 10 seconds for the engines to react to throttle input. The offence for causing an aircraft to crash under Korean law is anything from 5 years imprisonment to the death penalty. durak Member send PM   block PM add to buddies Send: 7/13/2013 11:58:57 AM   A week has passed, and I don't expect to add any more to this thread. The death toll now stands at 3 (all children), and about 3 more are critically injured. The good news (if you're not an optimist, then what the hell are you doing looking for love in the FSU?): 1. More than 95% of those on board were either uninjured, or are likely to make good recovery from their injuries. 2. Evacuation was rapid and efficient. 3. Though luck made a big helping hand, the amazing strength of the 777 fuselage, and the safety design of the interior and seats did a sterling job of protecting those on board. 4. There were few (or perhaps no!) injuries from the post-crash fire; apparently the strength of the plane prevented any voluminous fuel leak. 5. I estimated the number of 777 departures at 3 million plus; Boeing's number is 5 million. Imagine that -- 5 million departures before the first passenger lost, and then 99% surviving the crash. 6. As far as can be told in such early days, the flight crew had a window of 20+ seconds to see that their approach to landing was cocked up, and to rescue the situation completely. Unfortunately, Korean aviation has a bad history when it comes to cockpit safety practices, and perhaps they still have some distance to go. If we take 1 in 5 million as a "rate" for the 777 (statistically, this isn't valid -- but the real probability is likely even better than that), and use the world average of about 50% survival of airliner crashes, then one can expect about a one in ten million chance of dying from a crash when boarding a 777 flight. By comparison, the average American my age (55) has a 12.5 per million chance of dying in any given day -- in other words, just "being alive" for a day is 125 times more dangerous than taking a ride on that jumbo jet. So if you're like me, worry about your slovenly health habits, but don't worry about that flight. Again, happy landings! Your Reply: Your name:   New Registration Password:   Forgot password?   refresh Code:   Russian brides > Main Forum > Airliner Safety Update
	Pages: 1