Sign in to follow this  
piggysanTH

QZ 8510 has lost contact at 07:24 hrs

Recommended Posts

At this point, it's a matter of finding a bunch of debris floating in a huge body of water. Mostly passenger possesions, seat cushions, maybe a life jacket or two :( Sea probably is still churning, and remains might be scattered wide by wind, waves and currents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I assume the focus on accidents rather than the deaths those accidents cause is because each incident is a separate fatal breach of safety, while deaths are

totally dependent on how many souls happen to be on board.

Accidents vary in severity. Counting accident like accident seems absurd to me. I don't think that 'accidents' of four small business jets, like bumping into the terminal at say 1 mph, emergency landing because of drunk passenger brawl or such can be lumped together as '4' accidents, and meaningfully compared to '3' accidents involving obliterated airplanes and three digit body counts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hell, the Malaysian airlines are basically........dead, probably not many people would not want to fly on them again...(no offence)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hell, the Malaysian airlines are basically........dead, probably not many people would not want to fly on them again...(no offence)

except this was not a malaysian airlines plane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Accidents vary in severity. Counting accident like accident seems absurd to me. I don't think that 'accidents' of four small business jets, like bumping into the terminal at say 1 mph, emergency landing because of drunk passenger brawl or such can be lumped together as '4' accidents, and meaningfully compared to '3' accidents involving obliterated airplanes and three digit body counts.

Aviation accident investigation delves into what caused the accident, why the accident occured, are there any underlying design or operational flaws, and how we can prevent further accidents. The ultimate goal is to save lives, but the number of people dead in any given accident does not by itself govern its severity. Investigations need to performed objectively and scientifically, otherwise there's no point.

My condolences go out to the victims of this accident and their families and friends, Malaysia has had a particularly sad and terrible year in aviation. :\

except this was not a malaysian airlines plane.

As I understand it was an Indonesian branch of the Malaysian LCC AirAsia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also my condolences go out to the victims of this accident and their families and friends but why is this thread in the science labs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aviation accident investigation delves into what caused the accident, why the accident occured, are there any underlying design or operational flaws, and how we can prevent further accidents. The ultimate goal is to save lives, but the number of people dead in any given accident does not by itself govern its severity. Investigations need to performed objectively and scientifically, otherwise there's no point.

Are you implying I that said they should be not ? Surely, when investigating causes of an accident, the number of people killed is not relevant. However, when evaluating the overall safety of that given means of transportation, the number of people who got killed using it is the most important number.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. One system with 15 incidents and zero fatalities is less safe than a system with 1 incident and 15 fatalities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The potential of the issue to cause fatalities also is a big deal even if the issue hasn't caused fatalities yet. Take the DC-10.

Soon after its debut, a cargo door ripped off of American Airlines Flight 96 soon after takeoff from Detroit, causing decompression and partial collapse of the floor into the cargo hold. The hydraulics were not damaged, but the control cables to some of the control surfaces were, and the control cable for the #2 engine had been destroyed, causing the engine to become unusable. The rudder moved to its furthest right position, so the crew had to fight that. The flight was able to get back to the airport with no fatalities. The crew dealt with an engine shutdown, augmented the damaged controls with use of the throttle, and landed the plane with minor injuries despite partially running off of the runway.

The cargo doors on the DC-10 open outwards, and thus need failsafe latches to keep them closed against pressure. As far as I understand, the flaw was that the door could be forced shut without properly engaging the locks.

Despite upgrades after this, the accident happened again with tragic consequences. Two years later, a old DC-10 beloning to Turkish Airlines had not received some of the upgrades despite "manufacturing logs" stating that they had (either an error or deliberate fraud.) The baggage handler, who was fluent in 3 languages, could not read English nor Turkish and was unable to read instructions printed on the plane. He had not been trained to check the door using the modifications that the plane did have. Finally, the plane had an improper adjustment that allowed the door to improperly lock without applying excessive force. This combined to produce a tragedy.

Turkish Airlines Flight 981 took off from Paris Orly airport carrying 346 people. The rear cargo door failed. The floor collapsed, this time sucking 6 passengers out. The damage was more severe than the American Airlines incident, damaging the tail engine controls and right wing engine controls and rendering the rudder and elevators uncontrollable. The plane went into a dive. By the time the pilots were able to arrest the dive, it was unfortunately too late, and the plane crashed at high speed, killing all aboard.

After Flight 981, the latch system was redesigned. I do not believe any DC-10 has suffered a cargo door failure since (a 747 did in 1989 due to a combination of electrical failure and bad latch design, but that's another incident.)

The point I'm making is that a severe failure that does not result in death is still a severe failure, and should be treated as a fatal flaw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No. One system with 15 incidents and zero fatalities is less safe than a system with 1 incident and 15 fatalities. [citation needed]

You can choose to interpret the statistics however you like but you're going to need to reference an ICAO or a regulatory body's definition of "safety" if you're going to be so emphatic.

Also, by definition, if an aviation occurrence involves fatalities, it is an accident not an incident. The term "Accident" and "Incident" have very specific meanings in aviation. Ref: ICAO Convention on International Civil Aviation Annex 13, Chapter 1 - Definitions (page 10 of the .pdf document).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Despite upgrades after this, the accident happened again with tragic consequences. Two years later, a old DC-10 beloning to Turkish Airlines had not received some of the upgrades despite "manufacturing logs" stating that they had (either an error or deliberate fraud.) The baggage handler, who was fluent in 3 languages, could not read English nor Turkish and was unable to read instructions printed on the plane. He had not been trained to check the door using the modifications that the plane did have. Finally, the plane had an improper adjustment that allowed the door to improperly lock without applying excessive force. This combined to produce a tragedy.

The Turkish Airlines tragedy is a lesson in human factors more than a damnation of the aviation safety regulatory process. The cargo door latch mechanism on the DC-10 uses an over centre cam to hold the latch closed. As an added level of redundancy, there is a pin that inserts into the latch assembly after the latch cam is rotated over centre. If the pin isn't aligned with the hole in the latch (i.e. when the latch isn't over centre), then you're not supposed to be able to fully stow the latch lever, which should indicate to the door operator that something isn't right. After the Detroit accident, the FAA issued airworthiness directive 74-08-04 to mandate inspections and accomplishment of McDonnell-Douglas Service Bulletin 52-27. Transport category aircraft are so complex that airworthiness directives are issued against all aircraft types several times a year. This AD was unusual, however, in that it had to be accomplished prior to further flight.

ADs issued by the regulatory authority of the country of manufacture of an aeronautical product are mandatory for every operator, so Turkish Airlines was also required to comply with AD 74-08-04. The tragedy is that, while they did comply, they made a maintenance error in the accomplishment. The service bulletin adds an inspection window to the cargo door so that operators can see that the pin is engaged and replaces the original pin with a longer pin to make it harder to force the door latch closed if the pin isn't engaged. Somehow Turkish Airlines' mechanics misunderstood the instructions and shortened the pin rather than installed a longer one. This made it possible for the door latch lever to be closed without any unusual amount of force being applied, even though the latch cams weren't over centre. Again, the secondary latch pin only engages in the hole when the latch cam is over centre. The longer pin installed per the service bulletin should buckle if the operator forces the latch closed, which would be visible in the inspection window, but a shorter pin wouldn't buckle or require an unusual amount of force to be applied to stow the door latch lever.

The point I'm making is that a severe failure that does not result in death is still a severe failure, and should be treated as a fatal flaw.

And it was treated seriously in the example you gave, as I pointed out above. Indeed, there were several more ADs that were issued as a result of the Turkish Airlines accident. At least one of them (AD 75-15-05) affected all widebody aircraft, including Boeing, Airbus, Lockheed and Douglas aircraft. It was determined that all widebody aircraft did not have sufficient blowout panels between the passenger cabin and cargo holds to prevent the pressure differential from causing the cabin floor to collapse in the event of a pressure differential across it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^I saw that. The Wikipedia article said that the DC-10 had them, but not for the rear part of the cargo bay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Accidents vary in severity. Counting accident like accident seems absurd to me. I don't think that 'accidents' of four small business jets, like bumping into the terminal at say 1 mph, emergency landing because of drunk passenger brawl or such can be lumped together as '4' accidents, and meaningfully compared to '3' accidents involving obliterated airplanes and three digit body counts.

Please educate yourself a bit on what is counted in the statistics and what is not, because you are obviously making the wrong assumptions, leading you to conclusions that are far from the truth. Small business jets bumping into terminals are not part of these statistics. Again, what is counted and what is not is subject to research and statistics, not just some randomly picked value. These people are experts for a reason and, forgive my rudeness, you are quite obviously not.

As I understand it was an Indonesian branch of the Malaysian LCC AirAsia.

Indeed, so there is little Malaysian about it. The company is Primarily Indonesian owned and almost entirely Indonesian operated. Malaysia has very little to do with this aircraft or (likely) crash.

Please, let us get the facts straight and keep them that way. All this misinformation makes bad things even worse, if that is even possible.

Edited by Camacha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ADs issued by the regulatory authority of the country of manufacture of an aeronautical product are mandatory for every operator, so Turkish Airlines was also required to comply with AD 74-08-04.

How is that required/enforced across multiple countries?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How is that required/enforced across multiple countries?

The requirement to comply with ADs issued by the country of manufacture of an aeronautical product is usually written into the local country's airworthiness regulations in accordance with multilateral agreements between participating nations. Some countries will also issue their own ADs mandating accomplishment of another country's ADs. Still other countries (typically developing nations) will require their operators to follow the rules of a country with a more developed regulatory framework.

In extreme cases where the home nation just doesn't give a hoot, there's always the option of preventing an aircraft from using the airspace outside of its home territory. IIRC, there was a case recently where a middle eastern carrier was either banned or threatened with being banned from UK airspace because its pilots didn't speak the international language of aviation - English - well enough and they were dangerously misunderstanding ATC instructions.

Edited by PakledHostage
Fixed a spelling mistake and clarified one sentence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Looks like they might have found this one.

Looks like they found bodies and debris. It seems unlikely bodies would originate from a second unknown event, but I guess we will have to wait for confirmation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How is that required/enforced across multiple countries?

International regulations. Companies that don't comply with mandatory guidelines get blacklisted. The EU publishes a list of airlines that are banned from operating in the EU:

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/air/safety/air-ban/index_en.htm

Also, when you purchase an airliner, you get a certain level of support from the manufacturer. It's hard to keep airworthiness without that support. If you don't follow the maintenance guidelines or the safety bulletins, you lose airworthiness and of course, insurance coverage. Without all the paperwork, you don't get all the administrative support that you need to fly a plane (atc, ground support, catering, airport access, flight plan filing, etc...).

Edited by Nibb31

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Looks like they found bodies and debris. It seems unlikely bodies would originate from a second unknown event, but I guess we will have to wait for confirmation.

Local TV news station KompasTV announced that they have found one of the emergency doors. Said announcement are being broadcast as I write.

Edited by shynung

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

News sites report 40 bodies recovered, worse for wear but intact and without life vests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
News sites report 40 bodies recovered, worse for wear but intact and without life vests.

The number of 40 bodies seems to have been a miscommunication, according to the latest reports three have been found.

Edited by Specialist290
Nothing to see here...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a science issue, so moved to Space Lounge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this