Ten Plane Crashes That Changed Aviation
Ned
Popular Mechanics | By David Noland | October 13, 2007
Flying in a jetliner is extraordinarily safe: There has been
only one fatal crash in the United States in the past five
years, an astounding record considering that more than
30,000 flights take off every day. How did flying get so
reliable? In part, because of accidents that triggered
crucial safety improvements. Here are eight crashes and two
emergency landings whose influence is felt -- for the good
-- each time you step on a plane.
1956 | GRAND CANYON | TWA FLIGHT 2 & UNITED FLIGHT 718
Upgrade: Improvements of air traffic control system;
creation of FAA
The TWA Super Constellation and the United DC-7 had taken
off from Los Angeles only 3 minutes apart, both headed east.
Ninety minutes later, out of contact with ground controllers
and flying under see-and-avoid visual flight rules, the two
aircraft were apparently maneuvering separately to give
their passengers views of the Grand Canyon when the DC-7's
left wing and propellers ripped into the Connie's tail. Both
aircraft crashed into the canyon, killing all 128 people
aboard both planes. The accident spurred a $250 million
upgrade of the air traffic control (ATC) system -- serious
money in those days. (It worked: There hasn't been a
collision between two airliners in the United States in 47
years.) The crash also triggered the creation in 1958 of the
Federal Aviation Agency (now Administration) to oversee air
safety.
1978 | PORTLAND | UNITED FLIGHT 173
Upgrade: Cockpit teamwork
United Flight 173, a DC-8 approaching Portland, Ore., with
181 passengers, circled near the airport for an hour as the
crew tried in vain to sort out a landing gear problem.
Although gently warned of the rapidly diminishing fuel
supply by the flight engineer on board, the captain -- later
described by one investigator as "an arrogant S.O.B." --
waited too long to begin his final approach. The DC-8 ran
out of fuel and crashed in a suburb, killing 10. In
response, United revamped its cockpit training procedures
around the then-new concept of Cockpit Resource Management
(CRM). Abandoning the traditional "the captain is god"
airline hierarchy, CRM emphasized teamwork and communication
among the crew, and has since become the industry standard.
"It's really paid off," says United captain Al Haynes, who
in 1989 remarkably managed to crash-land a crippled DC-10 at
Sioux City, Iowa, by varying engine thrust. "Without [CRM
training], it's a cinch we wouldn't have made it."
1983 | CINCINNATTI | AIR CANADA FLIGHT 797
Upgrade: Lav smoke sensors
The first signs of trouble on Air Canada 797, a DC-9 flying
at 33,000 ft. en route from Dallas to Toronto, were the
wisps of smoke wafting out of the rear lavatory. Soon, thick
black smoke started to fill the cabin, and the plane began
an emergency descent. Barely able to see the instrument
panel because of the smoke, the pilot landed the plane at
Cincinnati. But shortly after the doors and emergency exits
were opened, the cabin erupted in a flash fire before
everyone could get out. Of the 46 people aboard, 23 died.
The FAA subsequently mandated that aircraft lavatories be
equipped with smoke detectors and automatic fire
extinguishers. Within five years, all jetliners were
retrofitted with fire-blocking layers on seat cushions and
floor lighting to lead passengers to exits in dense smoke.
Planes built after 1988 have more flame-resistant interior
materials.
1985 | DALLAS/FORT WORTH | DELTA FLIGHT 191
Upgrade: Downdraft detection
As Delta Flight 191, a Lockheed L-1011, approached for
landing at Dallas/Fort Worth airport, a thunderstorm lurked
near the runway. Lightning flashed around the plane at 800
ft., and the jetliner encountered a microburst wind shear --
a strong downdraft and abrupt shift in the wind that caused
the plane to lose 54 knots of airspeed in a few seconds.
Sinking rapidly, the L-1011 hit the ground about a mile
short of the runway and bounced across a highway, crushing a
vehicle and killing the driver. The plane then veered left
and crashed into two huge airport water tanks. On board, 134
of 163 people were killed. The crash triggered a seven-year
NASA/FAA research effort, which led directly to the on-board
forward-looking radar wind-shear detectors that became
standard equipment on airliners in the mid-1990s. Only one
wind-shear-related accident has occurred since.
1986 | LOS ANGELES | AEROMEXICO FLIGHT 498
Upgrade: Collision avoidance
Although the post-Grand Canyon ATC system did a good job of
separating airliners, it failed to account for small private
planes like the four-seat Piper Archer that wandered into
the Los Angeles terminal control area on Aug. 31, 1986.
Undetected by ground controllers, the Piper blundered into
the path of an Aeromexico DC-9 approaching to land at LAX,
knocking off the DC-9's left horizontal stabilizer. Both
planes plummeted into a residential neighborhood 20 miles
east of the airport, killing 82 people, including 15 on the
ground.
The FAA subsequently required small aircraft entering
control areas to use transponders --electronic devices that
broadcast position and altitude to controllers.
Additionally, airliners were required to have TCAS II
collision-avoidance systems, which detect potential
collisions with other transponder-equipped aircraft and
advise pilots to climb or dive in response. Since then, no
small plane has collided with an airliner in flight in the
United States.
1988 | MAUI | ALOHA FLIGHT 243
Upgrade: Retiring tin
As Aloha Flight 243, a weary, 19-year-old Boeing 737 on a
short hop from Hilo, Hawaii, to Honolulu, leveled off at
24,000 ft., a large section of its fuselage blew off,
leaving dozens of passengers riding in the open-air breeze.
Miraculously, the rest of the plane held together long
enough for the pilots to land safely. Only one person, a
flight attendant who was swept out of the plane, was killed.
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) blamed a
combination of corrosion and widespread fatigue damage, the
result of repeated pressurization cycles during the plane's
89,000-plus flights. In response, the FAA began the National
Aging Aircraft Research Program in 1991, which tightened
inspection and maintenance requirements for high-use and
high-cycle aircraft. Post-Aloha, there has been only one
American fatigue-related jet accident -- the Sioux City DC-10.
1994 | PITTSBURGH | USAIR FLIGHT 427
Upgrade: Rudder Rx
When USAir Flight 427 began its approach to land at
Pittsburgh, the Boeing 737 suddenly rolled to the left and
plunged 5000 ft. to the ground, killing all 132 on board.
The plane’s black box revealed that the rudder had abruptly
moved to the full-left position, triggering the roll. But
why? USAir blamed the plane. Boeing blamed the crew. It took
nearly five years for the NTSB to conclude that a jammed
valve in the rudder-control system had caused the rudder to
reverse: As the pilots frantically pressed on the right
rudder pedal, the rudder went left. As a result, Boeing
spent $500 million to retrofit all 2800 of the world's most
popular jetliner. And, in response to conflicts between the
airline and the victims' families, Congress passed the
Aviation Disaster Family Assistance Act, which transferred
survivor services to the NTSB.
1996 | MIAMI | VALUJET FLIGHT 592
Upgrade: Fire prevention in the hold
Although the FAA took anti-cabin-fire measures after the
1983 Air Canada accident, it did nothing to protect
passenger jet cargo compartments -- despite NTSB warnings
after a 1988 cargo fire in which the plane managed to land
safely. It took the horrific crash of ValuJet 592 into the
Everglades near Miami to finally spur the agency to action.
The fire in the DC-9 was caused by chemical oxygen
generators that had been illegally packaged by SabreTech,
the airline's maintenance contractor. A bump apparently set
one off, and the resulting heat started a fire, which was
fed by the oxygen being given off. The pilots were unable to
land the burning plane in time, and 110 people died. The FAA
responded by mandating smoke detectors and automatic fire
extinguishers in the cargo holds of all commercial
airliners. It also bolstered rules against carrying
hazardous cargo on aircraft.
1996 | LONG ISLAND | TWA FLIGHT 800
Upgrade: electrical spark elimination
It was everybody's nightmare: a plane that blew up in midair
for no apparent reason. The explosion of TWA Flight 800, a
Boeing 747 that had just taken off from JFK bound for Paris,
killed all 230 people aboard and stirred great controversy.
After painstakingly reassembling the wreckage, the NTSB
dismissed the possibility of a terrorist bomb or missile
attack and concluded that fumes in the plane's nearly empty
center-wing fuel tank had ignited, most likely after a short
circuit in a wire bundle led to a spark in the fuel gauge
sensor. The FAA has since mandated changes to reduce sparks
from faulty wiring and other sources. Boeing, meanwhile, has
developed a fuel-inerting system that injects nitrogen gas
into fuel tanks to reduce the chance of explosions. It will
install the system in all its newly built planes, starting
in 2008. Retrofit kits for in-service Boeings will also be
available.
1998 | NOVA SCOTIA | SWISSAIR FLIGHT 111
Upgrade: Insulation swap-out
About an hour after takeoff, the pilots of Swissair's Flight
111 from New York to Geneva -- a McDonnell Douglas MD-11 --
smelled smoke in the cockpit. Four minutes later, they began
an immediate descent toward Halifax, Nova Scotia, about 65
miles away. But with the fire spreading and cockpit lights
and instruments failing, the plane crashed into the Atlantic
about 5 miles off the Nova Scotia coast. All 229 people
aboard were killed.
Investigators traced the fire to the plane's in-flight
entertainment network, whose installation led to arcing in
vulnerable Kapton wires above the cockpit. The resulting
fire spread rapidly along flammable Mylar fuselage
insulation. The FAA ordered the Mylar insulation replaced
with fire-resistant materials in about 700 McDonnell Douglas
jets.
Kwyjibo
"Ned" <ned...@aioe.org> wrote in message news:fgbma5$o3v$2...@aioe.org...
> Ten Plane Crashes That Changed Aviation
> Popular Mechanics | By David Noland | October 13, 2007
Hmmm. No mention of September 11, 2001.
I would have thought those plane crashes would have made the list, given the
drastic changes that resulted.
--
Kwyj.
Sylvia Else
No, because the changes haven't resulted in any increase in safety.
Sylvia.
Nick O'Tyme
> Popular Mechanics | By David Noland | October 13, 2007
>
> Flying in a jetliner is extraordinarily safe: There has been only one
> fatal crash in the United States in the past five years, an astounding
> record considering that more than 30,000 flights take off every day. How
> did flying get so reliable? In part, because of accidents that triggered
> crucial safety improvements. Here are eight crashes and two emergency
> landings whose influence is felt -- for the good -- each time you step on
> a plane.
>
No mention of the 1950's Comet crashes which resulted in the installation of
the black box and the process of laying out the aircraft in a hangar to
determine why it crashed. Very important methinks.
A Guy Called Tyketto
Hash: SHA1
Nor mention of AAL191, which the engine separated off the DC10,
severing the hydraulic lines that controlled the slats of that wing.
Before 9/11, this was the worst accident in US History.
BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email: tyk...@sbcglobal.net
Unix Systems Administrator, | tyk...@ozemail.com.au
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHKXtzyBkZmuMZ8L8RAofBAKDlFz1d6bctmgGKEG+5I67MYPBEhgCcCuyP
pa/635Z7daR9kb25adX03NY=
=ZLKE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
karen
"A Guy Called Tyketto" <tyk...@sbcglobal.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:WXeWi.3751$Vx3....@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> In rec.aviation.piloting Nick O'Tyme <nospam...@msn.com> wrote:
>>
>> "Ned" <ned...@aioe.org> wrote in message news:fgbma5$o3v$2...@aioe.org...
>>> Ten Plane Crashes That Changed Aviation
>>> Popular Mechanics | By David Noland | October 13, 2007
>>>
>>> Flying in a jetliner is extraordinarily safe: There has been only one
>>> fatal crash in the United States in the past five years, an astounding
>>> record considering that more than 30,000 flights take off every day. How
>>> did flying get so reliable? In part, because of accidents that triggered
>>> crucial safety improvements. Here are eight crashes and two emergency
>>> landings whose influence is felt -- for the good -- each time you step
>>> on
>>> a plane.
>>
>> No mention of the 1950's Comet crashes which resulted in the installation
>> of
>> the black box and the process of laying out the aircraft in a hangar to
>> determine why it crashed. Very important methinks.
>
> Nor mention of AAL191, which the engine separated off the DC10,
> severing the hydraulic lines that controlled the slats of that wing.
> Before 9/11, this was the worst accident in US History.
Yes, but what 'upgrade' was introduced as a result of this tragic accident
that changed the aviation industry? I think Nick was right with his comments
about Comet crashes and the subsequent investigation. But, all the industry
learned after AA191 was not to remove engines by using no specialist
equipment like a folk lifts.
Karen
Sylvia Else
> Ned <ned...@aioe.org> wrote in news:fgbmgv$pd1$1...@aioe.org:
>
>> Ten Plane Crashes That Changed Aviation
>
> The list doesn't mention one single crash that happened outside of
> North America. Is that a reflex of the worldview of American media? I
> would have thought that the Tenerife disaster made an impact.
Tenerife was in part a failure to apply CRM - an arrogant captain
overruled the doubts of his first officer about whether the runway was
clear, when the obvious thing would have been to check.
Other than "don't do that," and the utility of ground radar was anything
learned?
Sylvia.
Stephen James
Hi Sylvia,
Prior to Tenerife lip service was only given to CRM. The Tenerife
disaster finally gave some importance to CRM. If only for that the
Tenerife tragedy should have been mentioned.
Regards
Stephen
John Ewing
"Wolfgang Schwanke" <s...@sig.nature> wrote in message
news:mkdcgf...@wschwanke.de...
> Ned <ned...@aioe.org> wrote in news:fgbmgv$pd1$1...@aioe.org:
>
>> Ten Plane Crashes That Changed Aviation
>> Popular Mechanics David Noland October 13, 2007
>
> The list doesn't mention one single crash that happened outside of
> North America. Is that a reflex of the worldview of American media?
Yes - it is a perfect example of US myopia.
> I would have thought that the Tenerife disaster made an impact.
Indeed it did. But most US citizens would not have a clue where Tenerife
is.
John
Arnold Sten
deliberate and pre-meditated acts of suicide and murder. To me, that
would explain why those did not make the list.
Ned
Last I heard Bush was planning to bomb the Canary Islands to
halt the spread of bird flu.
Ned
urgent need to improve communication between aircraft and
Tower. Such communications lagged far behind the fail-safe
principle applied to other aspects of aviation. Radio
communication, as it existed at Los Rodeos Airport on the
day of the accident, was not fail-safe.
Operational measures recommended for immediate adoption as a
short term improvement included:
* The use of concise and unambiguous terminology.
* Avoiding the expression "takeoff' in airways clearances.
* Allowing a distinct time interval between the
transmission of an airways clearance and a takeoff clearance.
These recommendations were referred to the Air Navigation
Commission of the International Civil Aviation Organization
(ICAO) for study."
Air Disaster Vol 1 Mac Job ISBN 1 875671 11 0
Marty
> No mention of the 1950's Comet crashes which resulted in the installation of
> the black box and the process of laying out the aircraft in a hangar to
> determine why it crashed. Very important methinks.
This thread was entitled "Ten Plane Crashes That Changed Aviation", and
NOT "The TOP TEN Plane Crashes That Changed Aviation". If it was - or if
we as a group were to compile the list ourselves - I'm sure the list would
be very different. Perhaps the author omitted the word ‘top’ bit for very
good reason...
--
Posted at www.Usenet.com.au
Morgans
> Yes - it is a perfect example of US myopia.
>
>> I would have thought that the Tenerife disaster made an impact.
>
> Indeed it did. But most US citizens would not have a clue where Tenerife
> is.
You don't need to know where Tenerife is, as long as you know what happened
there, and why it was significant...
I would think you could at least double the list, and still be missing some
very important disasters/near disasters that have had large effect on
aviation.
--
Jim in NC
Hatunen
wrote:
We did at the time. It was in all the papers.
--
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Justin Case
news:4729ce6e$0$22253$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au:
> Indeed it did. But most US citizens would not have a clue where
> Tenerife is.
You're as arrogant as the KLM Captain who caused that mess.
--
Bob Gardner
permission to republish this copyrighted material?
Bob Gardner
"Ned" <ned...@aioe.org> wrote in message news:fgbmgv$pd1$1...@aioe.org...
> Ten Plane Crashes That Changed Aviation
> Popular Mechanics David Noland October 13, 2007
>
> Flying in a jetliner is extraordinarily safe: There has been only one
> fatal crash in the United States in the past five years, an astounding
> record considering that more than 30,000 flights take off every day. How
> did flying get so reliable? In part, because of accidents that triggered
> crucial safety improvements. Here are eight crashes and two emergency
> landings whose influence is felt -- for the good -- each time you step on
> a plane.
>
Jim Stewart
That the tower crew shouldn't be listening
to a soccer playoff while working?
Steven P. McNicoll
"Wolfgang Schwanke" <s...@sig.nature> wrote in message
news:mkdcgf...@wschwanke.de...
>
> North America. Is that a reflex of the worldview of American media? I
> would have thought that the Tenerife disaster made an impact.
>
Tenerife didn't change aviation. It was already known that departing from
an occupied runway at a controlled field without a takeoff clearance was a
bad idea.
JD
> Ned <ned...@aioe.org> wrote in news:fgbmgv$pd1$1...@aioe.org:
>
>> Ten Plane Crashes That Changed Aviation
>> Popular Mechanics David Noland October 13, 2007
>
> The list doesn't mention one single crash that happened outside of
> North America. Is that a reflex of the worldview of American media? I
> would have thought that the Tenerife disaster made an impact.
>
> Regards
>
It also does not mention a single crash before the 1950s. Almost every
standard in civil aviation is the result of an accident investigation - and
the really basic lessons were learned as early as the 20s and 30s. Some
local examples include Southern Cloud (radio communications) and Kyeema
(radio navigation), both in the thirties, and I am sure there are similar
ones in North America even if you restrict your crashes to there. And these
lessons are even more basic than anything post war.
JD
Marty
> Tenerife didn't change aviation. It was already known that departing from
> an occupied runway at a controlled field without a takeoff clearance was a
> bad idea.
Tenerife changed ICAO communication to a massive extent and virtually gave
birth to modern day CRM. It is used in virtually every CRM course I've
completed (and conducted) to introduce a founding and \basic\ principle
-- "what is right rather than who is right".
Are you saying then, Steven, that any accident or incident as a result of
pilot error (such as the recent Indonesian goose that made attempts at
breaking the Indonesian land speed record, or any number of airliner CFIT
prangs) doesn’t give us something as valuable to learn as a prang that is
a result of an engineering defect? 75% of general aviation and 50% of
airline accidents are generally attributed to pilot error in one way or
another so they count for as many lives – if not more – than any
engineering concern.
The is \just\ a list of ten prangs that I don’t think represent anything
except for light reading. I don’t recall a single accident where I didn’t
learn something; and trying to compile a list of 10 that *best* represents
those that had the biggest impact on either aviation or safety is a
nightmare task. If I were personally responsible for building the said
list, I would insist on cataloguing at least 1000.
--
Posted at www.Usenet.com.au
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe
news:mkdcgf...@wschwanke.de...
>
>> Ten Plane Crashes That Changed Aviation
>> Popular Mechanics David Noland October 13, 2007
>
> The list doesn't mention one single crash that happened outside of
> North America. Is that a reflex of the worldview of American media? I
> would have thought that the Tenerife disaster made an impact.
This is from "Popular Mechanics" - the magazine that, every few years,
predicts that Moller's "sky car" is going to revolutionize air travel.
Every couple years they break the news about the new revolutionary
automobile engine that is going to replace the conventional internal
combustion engine.
etc. etc. etc.
What do you expect? This time they would get something right? Eh?
--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.
RST Engineering
Lieutenant would have rated honorable mention at least.
Jim
--
"If you think you can, or think you can't, you're right."
--Henry Ford
Kwyjibo
"Arnold Sten" <as...@nospam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:N7ydnUc22YZ7TbTa...@comcast.com...
Ahh, but the title of the article is "Ten Plane *Crashes* That Changed
Aviation", not "Ten Plane *Accidents* That Changed Aviation".
No reason for them to be excluded, given the massive changes to aviation
that resulted worldwide.
--
Kwyj.
rcoc...@lanset.com
> Kwyjibo wrote:
> >> Ten Plane Crashes That Changed Aviation
> >> Popular Mechanics | By David Noland | October 13, 2007
> > <snip>
>
> > Hmmm. No mention of September 11, 2001.
> > I would have thought those plane crashes would have made the list, given the
> > drastic changes that resulted.
>
> No, because the changes haven't resulted in any increase in safety.
I'd argue that there have been significant increases in safety
since those attacks. I'll go so far as to predict that there will
be no more succesful airliner hijackings in the rest of my lifetime.
But the reason has absolutely nothing to do with the government's
many actions. They could stop screening passengers entirely,
and hijackings still wouldn't be feasible.
The reason has everything to do with the change in public
consciousness. If you did a survey on Sept 10, 2001, asking
people what is the safest course of action if they're a passenger
on an airliner when someone stands up and announces that
the plane is being hijacked, most people would've said to
stay quiet, lay low, cooperate, and don't attract attention.
Up until then, hijacked passengers and flight crew members
could expect to survive the ordeal if they followed those rules.
Since that time, the correct course of action has
changed to, "If you want to live, do whatever it takes
to disable or kill the hijackers, at all costs. Do not
cooperate at all under any circumstances."
THAT is what has put an end to airliner hijacking.
Sylvia Else
Well, yes, that's what I had in mind. The September 11th style
hijackings were already impossible on the 12th. The crashes that changed
aviation article was about changes to practice and construction that
resulted from the investigation, not about changes to passenger behaviour.
It's a shame the Ethopian Airlines hijacking didn't occur after 9/11.
The majority of the passengers died in the ensuing ditching, but the
hijackers didn't really have a bomb.
Sylvia.
Blueskies
"Nick O'Tyme" <nospam...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:4729766d$0$17153$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
> No mention of the 1950's Comet crashes which resulted in the installation of the black box and the process of laying
> out the aircraft in a hangar to determine why it crashed. Very important methinks.
>
>
Yes, and industry learned a bunch about metal fatigue from those also...
Blueskies
"Wolfgang Schwanke" <s...@sig.nature> wrote in message news:mkdcgf...@wschwanke.de...
> Ned <ned...@aioe.org> wrote in news:fgbmgv$pd1$1...@aioe.org:
>
>
> The list doesn't mention one single crash that happened outside of
> North America. Is that a reflex of the worldview of American media? I
> would have thought that the Tenerife disaster made an impact.
>
>
Yes, it should take the place of #2...
Blueskies
"Morgans" <jsmo...@charterJUNK.net> wrote in message news:KxnWi.36$oS4...@newsfe02.lga...
> I would think you could at least double the list, and still be missing some very important disasters/near disasters
> that have had large effect on aviation.
> --
> Jim in NC
>
You do have to consider the source. PM is a fairly good magazine, but it is a little enquirer-like...
Hatunen
Metal fatigue was already well-known. What they learned was how
repeated cabin pressurizations had to be accounted for in the
design to minimize the fatigue.
Nobody
> Those four plane crashes were, in my opinion, not accidents, but
> deliberate and pre-meditated acts of suicide and murder. To me, that
> would explain why those did not make the list.
Perhaps that Cypriot 737 that crashed in Greece should be considered an
important one. Not because of failure of pressurisation system, but
because the politicians, after 9-11, mandated a hurried implementation
of the locked cockpit door system which proved fatal in the Cypriot 737
crash since the remaining conscious crewmember was prevented from
entering the cockpit to save the situation until the door unlocked when
fuel ran out, but by then, it was too late.
There is also the issue of aircraft wiring. It wasn't a single
accident/crash that changed aviation, but rather realisation after a
number of incidents that aircraft wiring was a big problem. And in the
case of the UA 747 near Hawaii, the conclusion was changed years later
from human error to faulty aircraft wiring. TWA800 and SR111 were the
more obvious accidents.
The early A320 problems also showed that FAA and other certification
agencies had antiquated testing procedures that did not ensure the
software on an aircraft was reliable. Most of the A320 problems did not
result in a crash, but still showed that the aircraft was put into
service with less than acceptable software quality which should have
been spotted before the aircraft entered commercial service. Aircraft
certification tests were revised and subsequent aircraft introductions
were far more reliable.
I'd have to say though that Comet was probably the biggest one since it
made engineers realise that pressurisation cycles affect aircraft
structure and that has been a major impact on all subsequent aircarft.
DaveM
>Doesn't anyone believe in copyright protection anymore? Who gave you
>permission to republish this copyrighted material?
<snip complete quotation of the copyrighted article>
Wonderful, truly wonderful.
DaveM
Morgans
"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote
> Well, yes, that's what I had in mind. The September 11th style hijackings
> were already impossible on the 12th. The crashes that changed aviation
> article was about changes to practice and construction that resulted from
> the investigation, not about changes to passenger behaviour.
What difference does it make, how the lack of future hijackings came about?
If it is increased security, stronger cockpit doors, or more vigilant
passengers, the change produces the same result. I think the 9-11 change
should be at the very top of the list. No credit should go to the airlines,
though. All the credit is due the passengers.
--
Jim in NC
Morgans
"Nobody" <nob...@nobody.org> wrote
> I'd have to say though that Comet was probably the biggest one since it
> made engineers realise that pressurisation cycles affect aircraft
> structure and that has been a major impact on all subsequent aircarft.
Hard to argue that, but I think it is important because of the style of
reconstructive investigation that grew from figuring out the crashes. It is
the standard that all modern investigations grew from.
--
Jim in NC
Morgans
"Blueskies" <nospamb...@ameritech.net> wrote
>
> You do have to consider the source. PM is a fairly good magazine, but it
> is a little enquirer-like...
I buy it once in a while, so I can get a good laugh. At it, and there are
no joke pages, unless you consider all of the articles. <g>
--
Jim in NC
Mike Isaksen
"Ned" <ned...@aioe.org> wrote in message ...
> Ten Plane Crashes That Changed Aviation
> Popular Mechanics David Noland October 13, 2007
>
I would include the Avianca (ran out of gas) crash in Long Island, NY in the
list. Seems like there was a major rework to the ARTCC traffic desks, and an
explosion of procedural "gate holds", to prevent extended enroute holds.
That's my walkaway from that event.
Sylvia Else
Mine would be "don't assume that your minimum fuel status is known by
each new controller you talk to."
Sylvia.
Steven P. McNicoll
"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:472aa195$0$26857$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Mine would be "don't miss an approach when you don't have enough fuel to fly
another one."
Dave
> I would have thought those plane crashes would have made the list, given the
> drastic changes that resulted.
No, because those crashes were not unintentional. There was no failure
of technology or pilot error involved.
David Johnson
LeroyJones
The Eastern L-1011 flight that flew into the Everglades
while the crew fiddled with a light bulb back in the 70's
created new alerts on radar software for controllers and new
landing procedures.
MSAW(Minimum Safe Altitude Warnings) were born from that crash
aluckyguess
"Ned" <ned...@aioe.org> wrote in message news:fgbmgv$pd1$1...@aioe.org...
> Ten Plane Crashes That Changed Aviation
> Popular Mechanics David Noland October 13, 2007
>
> fatal crash in the United States in the past five years, an astounding
> record considering that more than 30,000 flights take off every day. How
> did flying get so reliable? In part, because of accidents that triggered
> crucial safety improvements. Here are eight crashes and two emergency
> landings whose influence is felt -- for the good -- each time you step on
> a plane.
up and I read it and now I see it again the same day. Wierd
Kwyjibo
"Craig Welch" <cr...@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message
news:vtdli31odhfj9qk8p...@4ax.com...
> "Morgans" <jsmo...@charterJUNK.net> said:
>
>>> Indeed it did. But most US citizens would not have a clue where
>>> Tenerife
>>> is.
>>
>>You don't need to know where Tenerife is, as long as you know what
>>happened
>>there, and why it was significant...
>
> Huh? I find it hard to understand someone who, when faced with a
> place the location of which was unknown to them, would not look it
> up in an atlas.
>
> Possibly the same kinds of people who don't refer to a dictionary
> when faced with an unknown word.
Huh? What does 'dictionary' mean?
--
Kwyj.
A Guy Called Tyketto
Hash: SHA1
In rec.aviation.piloting Steven P. McNicoll <ronca...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>
> Mine would be "don't miss an approach when you don't have enough fuel to fly
> another one."
This reminds me, and perhaps Newps could pitch in on this as
well, seeing that you've been controlling for the past 15 - 20something
years.
When did the Wake Turbulence advisory become standard in the
.65? From what I've read (I got into aviation in 2000), it happened
shortly after the King Air crash at KSNA that killed the founder of
In-N-Out Burger. It was concluded that the King Air had been caught in
the UAL B757's wake, rolled into a steep descent and crashed.
I don't have any versions of the .65 from back at that time
(according to Wikipedia, it was 1993). Do you have any versions of it
from that time, and did it address the Wake Turbulence advisory?
BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email: tyk...@sbcglobal.net
Unix Systems Administrator, | tyk...@ozemail.com.au
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHKsL8yBkZmuMZ8L8RAvQhAJsHindrDwHTAZXvM0zb3pLhOZbvwACgoX8L
eyVAXmdRQ7qt+oGW145BHX4=
=aifL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
RT
"Hatunen" <hat...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:8o2ki3pnnhdr7ab97...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 1 Nov 2007 23:02:33 +1000, "John Ewing" <none@needed>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Wolfgang Schwanke" <s...@sig.nature> wrote in message
>>news:mkdcgf...@wschwanke.de...
>>> Ned <ned...@aioe.org> wrote in news:fgbmgv$pd1$1...@aioe.org:
>>>
>>>> Popular Mechanics David Noland October 13, 2007
>>>
>>> North America. Is that a reflex of the worldview of American media?
>>
>>
>>> I would have thought that the Tenerife disaster made an impact.
>>
>>is.
>
PM is a US popular mag. Do you think an article *of the same title* in
the Oz Post or similar would have other than Oz crashes?
Don't be so precious.
> --
> ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@cox.net) *************
> * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
> * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
(Stuff the cactii - what about the Barretts and the belt-fed stuff? :-)
James Robinson
> When did the Wake Turbulence advisory become standard in the
> .65? From what I've read (I got into aviation in 2000), it happened
> shortly after the King Air crash at KSNA that killed the founder of
> In-N-Out Burger. It was concluded that the King Air had been caught in
> the UAL B757's wake, rolled into a steep descent and crashed.
I don't know when it started, but might be able to narrow it a bit.
There were extensive tests done by NASA in the 1950s into the subject, and
various Advisory Circulars were issued warning pilots of the danger. One I
found that dates from early 1965 mentions that controllers might use the
expression "Caution, wake turbulence". It therefore goes back at least
that far.
Steven P. McNicoll
"A Guy Called Tyketto" <tyk...@sbcglobal.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:2qzWi.2456$yV6...@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
>
> This reminds me, and perhaps Newps could pitch in on this as
> well, seeing that you've been controlling for the past 15 - 20something
> years.
>
> When did the Wake Turbulence advisory become standard in the
> .65? From what I've read (I got into aviation in 2000), it happened
> shortly after the King Air crash at KSNA that killed the founder of
> In-N-Out Burger. It was concluded that the King Air had been caught in
> the UAL B757's wake, rolled into a steep descent and crashed.
>
> I don't have any versions of the .65 from back at that time
> (according to Wikipedia, it was 1993). Do you have any versions of it
> from that time, and did it address the Wake Turbulence advisory?
>
I don't know when the language was added to FAAO 7110.65, but I know wake
turbulence advisories were issued long before 1993.
aluckyguess
> "aluckyguess" <n...@me.com> said:
>
>
>>Its is weird yo posted this I was looking for something today and this
>>came
>>up and I read it and now I see it again the same day. Wierd
>
> word-skill can get access to a computer when no-one's looking.
>
Get a life. Looser. Go back to reading youre dictionary. Who really cares.
> --
> Craig http://www.wazu.jp/
> 1,239 Unicode fonts for 82 written language groups:
> Price your own web plan: http://www.wazu.jp/hosting/
Kwyjibo
"aluckyguess" <n...@me.com> wrote in message
news:7YPWi.1076$144....@newsfe02.lga...
>
> "Craig Welch" <cr...@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message
> news:95eli35370pekac7p...@4ax.com...
>> "aluckyguess" <n...@me.com> said:
>>
>>
>>>Its is weird yo posted this I was looking for something today and this
>>>came
>>>up and I read it and now I see it again the same day. Wierd
>>
>> What is really wierd [sic.] is that someone with your lack of
>> word-skill can get access to a computer when no-one's looking.
>>
> Get a life. Looser. Go back to reading youre dictionary. Who really cares.
Hmmmm.
--
Kwyj
Gordon Beaman
<syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
snip
>
>Tenerife was in part a failure to apply CRM - an arrogant captain
>overruled the doubts of his first officer about whether the runway was
>clear, when the obvious thing would have been to check.
>
>Other than "don't do that," and the utility of ground radar was anything
>learned?
>
>Sylvia.
Let's give praise where praise is due...it was the Flight Engineer who
questioned whether the runway was clear, not the FO...
(can you guess what my trade was?)
Gordon Beaman
wrote:
>Just look it up in your atlas ...
...or you could google it...
Gordon Beaman
<ronca...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>"Wolfgang Schwanke" <s...@sig.nature> wrote in message
>news:mkdcgf...@wschwanke.de...
>>
>> The list doesn't mention one single crash that happened outside of
>> North America. Is that a reflex of the worldview of American media? I
>> would have thought that the Tenerife disaster made an impact.
>>
>
>Tenerife didn't change aviation. It was already known that departing from
>an occupied runway at a controlled field without a takeoff clearance was a
>bad idea.
>
Just goes to show one how we perceive priorities doesn't
it?...VanZanten was the KLM training pilot and as such considered
everything except 'airwork' as unimportant fluff, therefore "let's get
this sucker up so we can do the important stuff"...guess this attitude
permeated all his thinking...anyone not familiar with this accident
will be very interested to read Stanley Stewart's "Air Disasters".
I believe it was the world's worst air disaster...585 deaths?...
aluckyguess
> "aluckyguess" <n...@me.com> said:
>
>>
>>"Craig Welch" <cr...@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message
>>news:95eli35370pekac7p...@4ax.com...
>>> "aluckyguess" <n...@me.com> said:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Its is weird yo posted this I was looking for something today and this
>>>>came
>>>>up and I read it and now I see it again the same day. Wierd
>>>
>>> What is really wierd [sic.] is that someone with your lack of
>>> word-skill can get access to a computer when no-one's looking.
>>>
>>Get a life. Looser. Go back to reading youre dictionary. Who really cares.
>
> poster to get a life.
>
> Communication is one of life's most important skills. You're
> deficient. Fix it.
Ok here it goes, you ready. PLONK thats all the communication I need with
you.
Kwyjibo
>
> "Craig Welch" <cr...@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message
> news:3boni3p5up45hr43t...@4ax.com...
>> "aluckyguess" <n...@me.com> said:
>>
>>>
>>>"Craig Welch" <cr...@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message
>>>news:95eli35370pekac7p...@4ax.com...
>>>> "aluckyguess" <n...@me.com> said:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Its is weird yo posted this I was looking for something today and this
>>>>>came
>>>>>up and I read it and now I see it again the same day. Wierd
>>>>
>>>> What is really wierd [sic.] is that someone with your lack of
>>>> word-skill can get access to a computer when no-one's looking.
>>>>
>>>Get a life. Looser. Go back to reading youre dictionary. Who really
>>>cares.
>>
>> Heh. The irony of a newsgroup poster telling another newsgroup
>> poster to get a life.
>>
>> Communication is one of life's most important skills. You're
>> deficient. Fix it.
> Ok here it goes, you ready. PLONK thats all the communication I need with
> you.
Hmmm.
Punctuation's not a strong point either, I see.
--
Kwyj.
Matt Whiting
> "aluckyguess" <n...@me.com> said:
>
>> "Craig Welch" <cr...@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message
>> news:95eli35370pekac7p...@4ax.com...
>>> "aluckyguess" <n...@me.com> said:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Its is weird yo posted this I was looking for something today and this
>>>> came
>>>> up and I read it and now I see it again the same day. Wierd
>>> What is really wierd [sic.] is that someone with your lack of
>>> word-skill can get access to a computer when no-one's looking.
>>>
>> Get a life. Looser. Go back to reading youre dictionary. Who really cares.
>
> poster to get a life.
>
> Communication is one of life's most important skills. You're
> deficient. Fix it.
>
And double the irony when you suggest someone read a dictionary and then
misspell loser. :-)
Matt
Marts
> permeated all his thinking...anyone not familiar with this accident
> will be very interested to read Stanley Stewart's "Air Disasters".
My wife found that book in the "bargain bin" of a local newsagent. Got it for a
dollar, I think it was. It's an excellent read and has a lot of technical info,
jargon and explanatory notes for those who don't understand it all.
And, after reading about the ANZ Antarctic disaster I wouldn't piss on ANZ if it
was on fire.
--
I have enough money to last me the rest of my life, unless
I buy something.
mrtravel
> "John Ewing" <none@needed> wrote in
> news:4729ce6e$0$22253$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au:
>
>
>>Indeed it did. But most US citizens would not have a clue where
>>Tenerife is.
>
>
> You're as arrogant as the KLM Captain who caused that mess.
>
That may be true, but it doesn't change the facts.
I would guess the most Australians couldn't tell you where Tenerife is
either.
mrtravel
How did they get control of the aircraft if the pilots didn't error in
letting them into the cockpit?
John Ewing
"mrtravel" <mrtr...@a.a.a> wrote in message
news:UdKdnRvSEbRw6rDa...@comcast.com...
Simple - there was no requirement to lock the door and the door wasn't
reinforced to prevent intrusion, until after this date.
John
John Ewing
"GB" <gb0...@kickindanuts.threefiddy.com> wrote in message
news:13iqvq3...@corp.supernews.com...
> Marts <mart...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in
> news:4edqi3t2v9il48e9nem1nl6v1cj655mlni@martz_57.com:
>> And, after reading about the ANZ Antarctic disaster I wouldn't piss on
>> ANZ if it was on fire.
>
> bad, you should see the book published by the Commish'! [1]
>
> I'd piss on them if they weren't on fire!
>
>
> GB
Hardly a rational response - I think you will find that, excepting for the
Antarctic crash, Air NZ has a very good safety record. Don't you think
there was a major shake-up in Air NZ procedures after this disaster? I have
no worries flying Air NZ.
If your motto is: "One strike and you're out", then your choice of airlines
is going to be rather limited.
John
Ron Natalie
> Simple - there was no requirement to lock the door and the door wasn't
> reinforced to prevent intrusion, until after this date.
Not true. The doors have been locked since the seventies.
They weren't overly substantial, nor were there any real
strict procedures to cover the opening of the door during
flight.
Jeff
"mrtravel" <mrtr...@a.a.a> wrote in message
Simply put, the U.S. has had a larger number of commercial flights over the
past 100 years, so it has had a larger number of crashes.
You could argue about the ten that changed the world, but I think the
following definitely should be included:
1. The British Comet crashes (particularly "Yoke Peter") out of Rome, and
the next one, also out of Rome - BOAC;
2. The Lockheed L-188 Electra problems in the U.S. on Braniff (Buffalo,
Texas) and Northwest (Tell City, Indiana) (propeller "whirl" issues)
3. Tenerife (because of the shear number of victims and the influence on
Cockpit Resource Management) (KLM and PanAm)
4. Several of the Korean Air and China Air crashes including Guam, Hong
Kong, Taipei (also because of Cockpit Resource Management issues)
5. Aloha Airlines decompression and issue between Hilo and Maui, where the
top sheared off (because of metal fatigue issues - just like the Comets);
6. Pan Am Stratocruiser over the Pacific ocean in 1958 (because they were
able to ditch the airplane in the ocean and all passengers survived).
Marts
> Hardly a rational response - I think you will find that, excepting for the
> Antarctic crash, Air NZ has a very good safety record. Don't you think
> there was a major shake-up in Air NZ procedures after this disaster? I have
> no worries flying Air NZ.
I don't think that this is the issue. No-one is questionaing ANZ's safety
record. What offends me about ANZ was the way that it tried to pin this tragedy
on the aircrew, how records went missing, houses being broken into and burgled,
that sort of thing.
Now, whether ANZ was behind it or not, fact was that it went into CYA mode
almost straight away.
Sylvia Else
> It is a shame, in my view, that it is not legal for small children
> to stand outside the perimeter fence and throw rocks at taxiing
> ANZ aircraft.
That's just a result of modern over-protective child rearing practices.
Aircraft are bigger than they look, and further away. Any child throwing
rocks at an aircraft is likely to get extremely frustrated at their
continuing failure to hit one. Modern thinking says that children must
be protected from such negative experiences. Hence the law as it stands.
Sylvia.
John Ewing
> Marts <mart...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in
> news:71qti3huimpd5act58itiqr8l6d9g1d8uv@martz_57.com:
> you learn that a lot of them are at least in part due to some sort
> of organisational culture or operational deficiency which the
> organisation sets about correcting once the problems are identified.
>
> Air New Zealand's handling of the Erebus crash was /so/ wrong,
> /so/ orchestrated and /so/ abhorrent that they, in my view, ought
> never be allowed to forget it.
>
> The Erebus crash was not really all that different to any number
> of other crashes in that a long chain of minor mishaps contributed
> to what was ultimately a very bad crash. What /is/ different about
> the ANZ/Erebus crash is that ANZ went to quite astonishing lengths
> to divert and subvert the enquiry and to /pervert/ the course of
> justice. It wasn't a case of some random mail boy shredding a
> couple of documents that he thought might get him into hot water,
> those bastards visited the wives of the pilots, collected the
> pilot's personal documents, and binned them to prevent the inquiry
> getting ahold of them. This was /really/ dodgy stuff.
Agreed - there was a cover-up involving a number of senior personnel in Air
NZ who would undoubtedly have been subject to immense political pressure.
No argument with that.
>
>
> Now I've no significant knowledge of how ANZ works at an operational
> level these days ....
Ah - then I suggest you restrain from making wild and unsupported
accusations
. . . but I think that non-religous western crew with a
> culturally short power distance makes for a safe (and unbiased by
> ridiculous things like christianity or an excess of respect for the
> captain) operation.
>
> I think that the Ansett experience shows that ANZ still have a lot
> to learn insofar as business management is concerned. This is an
> organisation that thought, and still thinks, that its interests
> are somehow above the cause of human decency.
Utter crap. Ansett was a dead duck well before Air NZ got involved.
Ansett staff quite rightly felt aggrieved when they were all without a job,
but they should look no further than the company's board and management for
answers. Easier to blame an outsider. Think back - how many people,
companies, Governments tried to ressurect Ansett. It was futile. That's
where Virgin prospered - new people with a completely new mindset. Tough
for the Ansett employees, but like every corporate crash - look within the
organisation and ask what all the fat cats at the top were doing to justify
their huge salaries and directors fees.
> It is a shame, in my view, that it is not legal for small children
> to stand outside the perimeter fence and throw rocks at taxiing
> ANZ aircraft.
Great - for a fleeting moment I thought we were having a mature discussion..
My mistake.
John
>
> GB
> --
> "Most police misconduct occurs when citizens challenge an individual
> officer's authority" (Reiss, 1971 c.in Jermier & Berkes 1979)
Graeme Hogan
"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:472972aa$0$32420$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> Kwyjibo wrote:
>> "Ned" <ned...@aioe.org> wrote in message news:fgbma5$o3v$2...@aioe.org...
>>> Ten Plane Crashes That Changed Aviation
>>> Popular Mechanics | By David Noland | October 13, 2007
>> <snip>
>>
>> Hmmm. No mention of September 11, 2001.
>> I would have thought those plane crashes would have made the list, given
>> the drastic changes that resulted.
>>
>
>
What about Tennerife
John Ewing
"Ron Natalie" <r...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:472dca90$0$17013$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
Beg to differ, Ron.
Doors were not routinely locked.
Most could be locked, but certainly there was no mandatory requirement for
them to be locked in flight.
I think my statement is correct.
John
Sylvia Else
Did it happen on September 11, 2001?
Sylvia.
mrtravel
When did the topic become "Septemeber 11, 2001"?
John Godwin
news:47301d60$0$6484$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au:
> What about Tennerife
A greater emphasis on CRM.
--
Sylvia Else
When I replied to a posting that commented about September 11.
Sylvia.
mrtravel
No, you replied to someone's comment about Tenerife.
DIdn't you see it? It says "What about Tennerife", and you quoted it.
Sylvia Else
Go back further. The sequence of events should be clear enough.
Sylvia.
wb
"Graeme Hogan" <ghog...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:47301d60$0$6484$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
What was the significant inventions made to aviation to prevent this
happening again?
F. Baum
> > Hmmm. No mention of September 11, 2001.
> > I would have thought those plane crashes would have made the list, given the
> > drastic changes that resulted.
>
> No, because the changes haven't resulted in any increase in safety.
>
This is completely not true ! The industry has completely changed the
way they handle security, hijackers, disturbances, etc.. The loopholes
that were explioted that day no longer exist. You have FAMs, FIFDOs,
secure cockpits, pasengers willing to stand up and fight, and a whole
host of security mesures the traveling public knows little or nothing
about.
I think this article is silly and very incomplete.
Sylvia Else
You correctly identify a change in passenger attitudes. I didn't regard
that as relevant, because it was not a change introduced by the industry
or regulators, but simply a changed perception on the part of passengers
seeking to look after their own interests.
The remaining changes, such as preventing people from taking knitting
needles on board, are a stable-door closing reaction that has not done
anything to improve safety, exactly because of the change in passenger
behaviour.
What the rules have done is to ensure that passengers are completely
disarmed so as to have nothing to use against the next terrorist who
dreams up a novel approach to air piracy.
Sylvia.
JB
wb
"JB" <nos...@usenet.fake> wrote in message news:fgrj1e$bkl$1...@aioe.org...
Interesting all the incidents in the Top 10 occurred in North America.
mrtravel
Yes, but you responded and quoted the question about Tenerife and asked
if it happened on Sept 11. Why would you think it happened on 9/11?
mrtravel
>
> The remaining changes, such as preventing people from taking knitting
> needles on board, are a stable-door closing reaction that has not done
> anything to improve safety, exactly because of the change in passenger
> behaviour.
>
Knitting needles are permitted.
http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/prohibited/permitted-prohibited-items.shtm
The list is still stupid.
You can bring a walking cane, but not a hockey stick or pool cue.
Sylvia Else
Kniting needles are banned in Australia.
But the amount of inflammable material you can take on board (2kg of
matches, for example) is unbelievable. You can also take 2 litres of
lighter fuel, though nowadays you'd have to buy it in the secure area
because of the general (and totally stupid) limit on liquids.
Sylvia.
Sylvia Else
The "What about Tennerife" question was a non sequitur in the context in
which it appeared. My comment was a reasonable response to that.
If you don't get it, don't worry about it.
'nuf said on this.
Sylvia.
DC
> The remaining changes, such as preventing people from taking knitting
> needles on board, are a stable-door closing reaction that has not done
> anything to improve safety, exactly because of the change in passenger
> behaviour.
I think the term is security theatre
F. Baum
> "Graeme Hogan" <ghoga...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>
> > What about Tennerife
>
> What was the significant inventions made to aviation to prevent this
>
If you are talking about Tenerife and other accidents like it, there
have been substantial changes to SMGS airport markings and lighting.
Also, substantial changes to low vis operations, ground radar, etc. At
some airports there are higher RVR requirments to taxi than to take
off. Take a look at the 10-9 page for KBOS.
AES
safety we enjoy in our civil aviation system has evolved primarily
through the learning experiences of a long series of crashes and
accidents.
These accidents were individually tragic -- but also individually small
in some reasonable sense of that term, and thus acceptable.
It also seems to me they were in most cases largely unanticipated and
perhaps largely "unanticipatable" -- we had to have them, in order to
evolve to the level of safety we have today.
It's these aspects of aviation safety that bother me about the analogous
case of nuclear safety (in the sense of both nuclear power, and nuclear
weapons risks). We've had a few nuclear accidents, and undoubtedly
learned from them.
But we've not had the sustained chain of nuclear accidents to teach us
the risks and the necessary safeguards of nuclear technology -- and we
may never have them until it's way, way too late.
A worst case aviation accident (a fully fueled 380 falling out of the
sky onto a fully filled football stadium) might kill a few tens of
thousands. A worst case nuclear accident might kill or poison many
hundreds of thousands and upwards, and render a major metropolitan area
or half a state uninhabitable for decades to centuries.
And, as my wife keeps saying, "fail safe systems by definition fail by
failing to fail safe".