Air India Express 738 crash at Mangalore

[Peter Kesternich]

Everybody, could you PLEASE stop quoting Aircrash Investigations TV and similar sources on television as if the guys producing the show were a) experts, b) interested in air safety, or c) knew what they were talking about. The only authority here should be official accident reports and literature based on these documents. That would greatly improve the level of discussion and knowledge on this forum. So - please: STOP WATCHING AND START READING.

[Jingogunner]

Hack Humbug

Everybody, could you PLEASE stop quoting Aircrash Investigations TV and similar sources on television as if the guys producing the show were a) experts, b) interested in air safety, or c) knew what they were talking about. The only authority here should be official accident reports and literature based on these documents. That would greatly improve the level of discussion and knowledge on this forum. So - please: STOP WATCHING AND START READING.

Thank you for your desperate and polite request, Mr Kesternich, I have taken it to heart. I am a professional in a very different field and I acknowledge your irritation as valid. Incidentally, was the ACI TV I quoted correct, or just more hack humbug?

I will try to resist watching the TV about the Express 738 crash whenever it appears, I will read the crash investigators' report.

[guamainiac]

Just a ?

Does it sound like we will be seeing a retrofit of MD's and 737's with a third seat for a ... computer geek disguised as a flight engineer.



All of the "doings" that resulted in making an engineer obsolete in the fleet may be .. ??

This is only half in jest.

[EconomyClass]

Reading some comments on the Mangalore accident at ATWOnline. Here's a comment with which I agree:

The pilots had flown not just the Dubai-Mangalore sector but both sectors, including the previous leg into Dubai, leaving the previous evening. This is very common.

It's easy to to talk about self discipline. "Self discipline" will dictate that you go to bed at 9 AM and sleep for 8 hours because your all-night duty starts at 7 PM. A moment's thought will tell you that you may go through the motions, but will not get the benefit of actual sleep. Self-discipline has nothing to do with it.

Although it would be more costly to have a layover crew in Dubai take the flight back to avoid the two-sector all-night duty cycle, operations during times of circadian low are so sensitive that all possible measures should be taken to mitigate the risks. This more than justifies a change of crews for the second sector.

I can vouch for what this guy is saying. Studies have shown that people who work at night are much more accident-prone. Not to say we (and I am one of them) have lots of accidents. But data measuring overall accidents for people who sleep at night and people who sleep during the day pretty conclusively show that night sleep is just more restful.

Now I know pilots probably NEVER get stuck with day sleep as a fixed pattern. But switching around the clock to get your sleep is no solution at all. I don't know if its worse than day-only or night-only. Haven't seen that data. But these regulatory agencies have to be more realistic, more scientific in how they treat rest period for cockpit crews. The circadian clock is risky to play with. With nothing else adverse to deal with, a pilot probably can game his circadian clock. But let the pilot come face to face with a worst-case-scenario in flying, and poor sleeping patterns could be the tiny factor that tips the scale and crashes the plane. I would assume the Human Factors research at some point addressed this.

[MCM]

There have been a number of Human Factors studies into fatigue, and the majority of them have been dismissed by companies and regulators. Why? Because they will cost the industry millions.

ICAO have said they are working on a fatigue management system, however it has been a long time coming, and is bound to be weak as they won't want to cripple the industry.

Airlines drive to make profits, and schedule accordingly. Some pilot unions are strong enough to resist, some are not.

There is always a way for the beancounters to justify their actions as being safe, whereas we all know they are not.

A fair problem arises that people respond to lack of sleep differently, and some people cope far better with certain rest patterns than others. It is very hard to have a "one size fits all" system. SOme of the computer systems to predict fatigue that have been released so far have been fatally flawed, and "common sense" doesn't seem to be allowed to appear.

[EconomyClass]

Well, maybe the passengers need to bring some pressure to bear. Seems like the resistant airlines are saying "worth losing a few of you to save us millions".

[Gabriel]

Or maybe the passengers are saying "worth losing some of us to save us millions in tickets"

[EconomyClass]

Or maybe the passengers are saying "worth losing some of us to save us millions in tickets"

Not a betting man, but I'm betting not ONE passenger is saying that.

[Gabriel]

Welcome aboard.
For your safety, the seats in our planes are facing rearwards. In this way you can survive up to 40 Gs crashes. Of course the seats themselves and the floor had to be reinforced to support the same crash loads as you. This increased the airplane empy weight but don't worry, we are selling less seats to compensate that increased empty weight with less payload so the total weight is not exceeded.
Not only that, but we also take twice the required reserves of fuel, as an additional safety margin. Fewer passengers are admited, to compensate for the extra fuel weight.
Finally, we've decided to have a company max take-off weight which is 20% below the manufacturers one. Again this weight saving can only come from less passengers being taken.
That is why you see that two thirds of our seats are empty.
We are also pleased to inform you that our pilots have half the duty time than the competition's, making ours much more rested and much less prone to fatigue.
And from that reduced duty time, half of that is spent in training.
These are the reasons why we have four time the staff than other airlines with similar fleets.
We also don't fly at night, since more accidents happen at night than at day. And we don't fly in instrument meteorlogical conditions or with rain for the same reason. That's why we have more cancellations than our competition, but don't worry, we pay of all costs induced to you regarding transportation and hotels.
As you see, safety is our number one priority.
And we thank you for supporting us by paying fares that are 20 times those of our competition.

NOT!

[SYDCBRWOD]

Not a betting man, but I'm betting not ONE passenger is saying that.

You just lost that bet. I'm happy paying the fares that I do offered by mainline carriers (I don't fly bottom of the pile). Qantas has not lost a single passenger since they began jet operations 50 years ago. Do you have any idea how many million flight hours and cycles that is? Sure there many have been some luck involved, but there is an awfully large degree of quality equipment, good procedures, ensuring training and currency is right up to date etc. The systems and procedures aren't perfect, nothing is. I'm not prepared to pay the massive additional costs that Gabriel's half comical proposal suggests. But I would also avoid flying Air coconut if I could avoid it too. I'm guessing here but that level of safety achieved by Qantas over the past 51 years would be a roughly similar achievement to a zero death toll on California's roads in an entire year. And yet that isn't good enough for you?

You seriously live in fairyland.

[EconomyClass]

Kind of an exaggeration of what would be needed. In fact, if they say "it would cost millions", I don't think I would be so credulous as if BP told me safe drilling would cost millions. These guys don't even know when they are lying and when not.

[Peter Kesternich]

Hmmmmmm, EC, you need to remember that it is YOUR choice to fly. If you don't like the chances that the aviation community offers you, then why do you want to fly at all? Nobody is forcing you on a plane

(I hope you all bear with me that I just quoted myself from a different thread but with EC it all boils down to the same argument.)

[Gabriel]

Kind of an exaggeration of what would be needed. In fact, if they say "it would cost millions", I don't think I would be so credulous as if BP told me safe drilling would cost millions. These guys don't even know when they are lying and when not.

Yes, I've exaggerated.

The bottom line is that things can always be made safer at the expense of cost and price. And no matter how much safety margins you build, some cases will go past that cushions and crash. And again no matter how thick is that cushion, you can always make it thicker.

So a limit has to be put somewhere. And the limit will be arbitrary wherever you put it.

I seriusly think that the safety demostrated by today commercial avaition supports the possition that the cushoin is very good today, and I'm willint to accept that more things can be done to make it safer (which is I accept that I culd die in a plane crash because of the lack of that extra thing) and still be williing to fly.

And I comment the aviation industry for continously trying to improve the safety regardless of how high level they achieved.

[EconomyClass]

I'd guess that's why government has to set the limit. Frankly, putting that task in the hands of people answerable for the company's bottom line is asking for excess deaths.

[guamainiac]

Peter, you know I had at one point chosen to do just that. With Continental Express no less. Had a son away at school and opted to drive him up to the north of New England. I took a look at the equipment and decision making and the excuses for ...

500 up and 500 back and if anything, I felt better for it.

Had to appear in a trial and did the same thing. Took a look at what they were flying and opted to drive.

I actually used to enjoy driving. Much less so now due to physical limitations and such, but I loved it.