Air Crash Investigation
Discussion
Especially when it's shown to be a training manual error coupled to a mechanical that caused the accident. Although it might have been a seconds from disaster programme, there was the DC-10 in the US that crashed just after take off into a caravan park (it's always DC-10s). It lost an engine on take off due to poor servicing methods involving a forklift, a shift change and a wally. It should have flown on but the manual & training said if an engine fails you reduce power to V2 the take off safety speed, the speed at which the aircraft may safely become airborne with one engine inoperative. Unfortunately in this instance the missing engine also powered the leading edge slats which retracted unbeknown to the crew and the warning system that would have told them didn't. Plus the stall warning "shaker" on the pilots stick wasn't operational, the aircraft stalled and it crashed.
And what if they handled all road accidents in the same manner, what would happen?
More intensive driving instructions?
Better self maintenance of cars?
Better road awareness and control?
Removal of speed cameras because they wouldn't be needed any more?
And what if they handled all road accidents in the same manner, what would happen?
More intensive driving instructions?
Better self maintenance of cars?
Better road awareness and control?
Removal of speed cameras because they wouldn't be needed any more?
st_files said:
Its amazing how it never seems to be one major thing that causes these accidents - its always a succession of minor errors and mistakes that end up with disaster...
Commonly known as the 'Swiss Cheese' model, when the 'holes' in each 'slice' align allowing the chain of events to become an accident. 'Human Factors for Aircrew' is the staple introductory text for MoD bods, and covers this plus a lot of how other factors (fatigue, nutrition, circadian rhythm, etc.) affect aircrew performance. Amazon has second hand copies for 1p + postage if you're interested in reading a bit more into it.Edited by Taffer on Tuesday 16th March 03:09
Must admit I do watch these programs. I always feel better for the pilots when it is found not to be their error. I saw one a few weeks ago where the pilots had made several errors that definitely contributed to the disaster.
I prefer the ones where the pilots against all odds save the day due to their skills. Last few I have seen most have resulted in major death!
I prefer the ones where the pilots against all odds save the day due to their skills. Last few I have seen most have resulted in major death!
FourWheelDrift said:
Especially when it's shown to be a training manual error coupled to a mechanical that caused the accident. Although it might have been a seconds from disaster programme, there was the DC-10 in the US that crashed just after take off into a caravan park (it's always DC-10s). It lost an engine on take off due to poor servicing methods involving a forklift, a shift change and a wally. It should have flown on but the manual & training said if an engine fails you reduce power to V2 the take off safety speed, the speed at which the aircraft may safely become airborne with one engine inoperative. Unfortunately in this instance the missing engine also powered the leading edge slats which retracted unbeknown to the crew and the warning system that would have told them didn't. Plus the stall warning "shaker" on the pilots stick wasn't operational, the aircraft stalled and it crashed.
And what if they handled all road accidents in the same manner, what would happen?
More intensive driving instructions?
Better self maintenance of cars?
Better road awareness and control?
Removal of speed cameras because they wouldn't be needed any more?
I saw that one, pilots didn't stand a chance.And what if they handled all road accidents in the same manner, what would happen?
More intensive driving instructions?
Better self maintenance of cars?
Better road awareness and control?
Removal of speed cameras because they wouldn't be needed any more?
The md8 one on hd last night was interesting, pilot pulled the circuit breaker which controlled a "no flap on take off warning buzzer" as it got annoying when taxiing on high power.
Plane takes off, no flaps selected (no warning of such either), plane stalls, starboard wing clips light pole and tears off 50% of wing plus catches fire, plane cartwheels into highway bridge hitting car in the process- one suvivor (a child)- nasty and very avoidable.
Then a couple of years later it happens - again!!
Plane takes off, no flaps selected (no warning of such either), plane stalls, starboard wing clips light pole and tears off 50% of wing plus catches fire, plane cartwheels into highway bridge hitting car in the process- one suvivor (a child)- nasty and very avoidable.
Then a couple of years later it happens - again!!
I also tend to watch this when it's on and I'm in front of the TV - again, in a non-macabre way, I find it genuinely interesting to find out what actually went wrong, as you rarely see full end-to-end coverage of such disasters in the news.
There's been some quite recent stuff on there too (seconds from disaster IIRC), such as the "ghost plane" from a few years back that crashed just outside Athens - as has been mentioned, it was a sequence of events which caused this, and has since resulted in changes to training, procedures, and maintenance.
I would guess that scrutinising such accidents is only possible in the aviation industry due to the number of people such events tend to affect. Is there a similar process in the rail industry?
There's been some quite recent stuff on there too (seconds from disaster IIRC), such as the "ghost plane" from a few years back that crashed just outside Athens - as has been mentioned, it was a sequence of events which caused this, and has since resulted in changes to training, procedures, and maintenance.
I would guess that scrutinising such accidents is only possible in the aviation industry due to the number of people such events tend to affect. Is there a similar process in the rail industry?
Lots more interesting stuff here: http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/marc...
Fortunately without the television reality-show emotes.
Fortunately without the television reality-show emotes.
Zad said:
Lots more interesting stuff here: http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/marc...
Fortunately without the television reality-show emotes.
Wow...some fascinating stuff - bet that Spitfire pilot shat his pants when the engine & landing gear failed on its maiden flight after a 2 year rebuild!Fortunately without the television reality-show emotes.
Edited by st_files on Tuesday 16th March 16:17
Another fan here of Air Crash Investigation and similar programs
Like others, I find it interesting how typically a series of mistakes/problems combine to cause the accidents, and equally, how they manage to piece together after the event exactly what happened and what caused the crash, when most people wouldn't know where to begin when faced with the twisted shattered remains of a crashed airliner.
Like others, I find it interesting how typically a series of mistakes/problems combine to cause the accidents, and equally, how they manage to piece together after the event exactly what happened and what caused the crash, when most people wouldn't know where to begin when faced with the twisted shattered remains of a crashed airliner.
I like it too - but I've been reading books on air crash investigations since I was a kid in the 1960s.
It would be good if they covered some "classic" investigations from the 1950s and 1960s - some of which gave rise to the techniques that are used today.
The only older accidents I've seen them do are the Comet crashes of 1954.
It would be good if they covered some "classic" investigations from the 1950s and 1960s - some of which gave rise to the techniques that are used today.
The only older accidents I've seen them do are the Comet crashes of 1954.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff