When I Was Young

Image via Wikipedia

June 30, 2009 -- Updated 2134 GMT (0534 HKT)

By Jim Kavanagh

CNN

Story Highlights

• Child reportedly survives crash of airliner in Indian Ocean
  
• Aviation experts say survival depends on type of impact, "luck of the draw"
  
• Statistical analysis shows rear of the plane is safer, writer says
  

Part of a United Airlines DC-10 lies next to the runway in Sioux City, Iowa, after the plane crashed in July 1989.

(CNN) -- Reports of a lone child having survived Tuesday's crash of a Yemenia Airways flight in the Indian Ocean have people wondering: How does anyone survive a plane crash?

"I just don't think there's any pattern to survivability. It's just luck of the draw and depends on how the plane goes in," said aviation expert John Eakin, head of Air Data Research in Helotes, Texas.

Not counting Tuesday's disaster, there have been 12 airliner crashes since 1970 that yielded a sole survivor, according to data compiled by Dr. Todd Curtis, director of the Airsafe.com Foundation. Five of those survivors were minors and four were crew members, accounting for 75 percent of the total.

"I can't figure out for the life of me why crew members and children tend to be disproportionate in these sole-survivor events," Curtis said.

One factor favoring flight crew members is their location in the sturdy cockpit and proximity to windows, he said. Flight attendants often use shoulder harnesses when they are seated, aviation writer David Noland added.

Where one is seated is a factor only in that it helps to be far from the point of impact, Eakin said.

"I don't think there's any particular type of aircraft or position in an aircraft which is more survivable, because it pretty much depends on what type of accident -- it depends on how the aircraft impacts," Eakin said. "Sometimes, the survivors are all located in the tail, sometimes in the forward fuselage. I don't think there's any rhyme or reason to it."

A 2007 Popular Mechanics magazine article, researched and written by Noland, presented a different view.

Noland analyzed 20 U.S. airline crashes in which at least one person lived and one person died. The statistics indicate that seats farther back in a plane are safer in crashes, the article said.

"Passengers near the tail of a plane are about 40 percent more likely to survive a crash than those in the first few rows up front," Noland wrote.

Passengers in seats behind the wings had a 69 percent survival rate in crashes that included at least one fatality, Noland wrote. Those with seats in coach areas over and forward of the wings survived 56 percent of the time, and passengers in first class and business class had a 49 percent survival rate, he found.

"To me, it's fairly obvious: You hit something going fast and obviously, the front is going to get crunched more than the back," Noland told CNN. "To quote one [National Transportation Safety Board] guy, 'Planes don't back into mountains.'"

Even in other types of crashes -- runway overruns, forced landings, etc. -- the plane is always going forward, so the front takes the impact, Noland said.

"That's why they put the crash recorders in the tail," he said.

Wide-bodied aircraft -- such as the Boeing 747 and 777 and the Airbus A310 and A330 -- tend to yield more survivors than smaller ones, Curtis said. He chalked up that trend to what he called the SUV theory: Larger crush zones provide more and larger areas of survivability.

Both Curtis and Eakin pointed to the July 1989 crash of United Airlines Flight 232 in Sioux City, Iowa. Spectacular video footage showed the McDonnell-Douglas DC-10 cartwheeling down an airport runway as pilot Al Haynes and first officer William Records tried to land the airliner without hydraulic controls. Of the 296 people aboard the plane, 111 were killed but 185 survived.

"Anyone looking at that crash at first, the video, would say, 'Well gee, how could anybody survive this?'" Curtis said.

"That was kind of a classic. A bunch of people survived that," Eakin said. "It looked terrible, and still so many people walked away from that. And there was no real pattern to where the survivors were located."

Availability of an escape route may be the biggest determining factor, Eakin said.

"If the impact is survivable, that's the next challenge: getting the heck out of the thing," he said. "I think in Sioux City, a lot of the survivors exited through cracks in the fuselage. That's kind of the ultimate escape route, but you gotta do whatever you gotta do to get out."

He noted the January 15 ditching of a US Airways Airbus A320 in New York's Hudson River, in which no one was killed and injuries were minimal, although the craft quickly filled with cold water.

"That really demonstrated how important it is to get out quickly," Eakin said.

Proximity of rescue equipment and personnel is key to survival too, Curtis said. If fires can be extinguished and survivors taken to hospitals quickly, victims have a better chance of surviving, he said.

advertisement

Despite his statistical evidence that the rear of the plane is safer, writer Noland doesn't seek out a back seat when he flies.

"I try to get a window seat," he said. "Planes are so safe, it's unbelievable how safe they are. The odds of a crash are so minuscule that I don't even worry about it."

From CNN.com; see the source article here.

Creeps and jeeps at high…

----------

Posted: 22 June 2009 0918 hrs

Qantas plane

SYDNEY: Seven people were hurt when a Qantas Airbus A330 hit severe turbulence flying from Hong Kong to Perth Monday, the company said, rejecting any links to other incidents involving the same type of plane.

Six passengers and one crew member were treated on board after the mishap, which happened about four hours after take-off. The plane, with 206 passengers and 13 crew, landed safely in Perth.

One passenger described hearing a loud bang before a sudden drop in altitude sent people flying. Two overhead panels were slightly damaged and two oxygen masks were dislodged.

"As the plane was flying we got the normal turbulence but what happened this time was a sudden drop in altitude," the passenger, named John, told Fairfax Radio.

"I was sitting at the exit door and I had this lady, (who) was waiting at the restroom and she flew up and hit the ceiling and came crashing down to the floor," he said.

"It was just a matter of a few seconds but it was really sudden and things went flying."

The incident comes just 11 days after a cockpit blaze forced a Jetstar A330 to make an emergency landing, and follows the June 1 Air France disaster when 228 died in a mysterious accident involving the same model of plane.

Last October, a Qantas A330 went into two steep dives over Western Australia, causing several serious injuries and forcing an emergency landing.

Australian flag-carrier Qantas, which also operates budget airline Jetstar, dismissed any links between Monday's incident and previous ones.

"There is no reason to link the incident to other recent in-flight incidents involving A330 aircraft," Qantas said in a statement.

It said an investigation had been launched.

- AFP/yb

From ChannelNewsAsia.com; see the source article here

A new plane to catch…

----------

Posted: 22 June 2009 0645 hrs

The Boeing 787 Dreamliner.

WASHINGTON: US aerospace giant Boeing is readying its 787 Dreamliner for first test flight in the coming days, banking on the new fuel-efficient plane to sail above stiff market headwinds.

Boeing expects the much-delayed Dreamliner to have its maiden flight by June 30 on a schedule that puts delivery of the plane to first customer, All Nippon Airways (ANA), in the first quarter of 2010.

"We're very much looking forward to seeing our airplane take to the skies," Marc Birtel, a Boeing spokesman, said in a phone interview with AFP Friday.

No specific date has been announced for the flight.

Nearly two years behind the initial schedule, the company has delayed the Dreamliner's first flight four times since launching the program in 2004 because of production problems.

The Chicago-based company announced Wednesday final assembly had begun on the first aircraft destined for ANA, which has ordered 50 Dreamliners.

"This is a great day for the 787 team," Scott Fancher, vice president and general manager of the Dreamliner program, said in a statement.

"In 2004, ANA demonstrated great faith in Boeing and the 787 by placing the largest launch order for any new airplane in Boeing history."

Boeing has built six Dreamliners that will be used in the flight-test program to assure the plane's safety for the company and for regulators, including the Federal Aviation Administration and foreign authorities, Birtel said.

"The main mantra is safety," he said.

Boeing says it has 865 orders from 56 airlines for the cutting-edge plane, claiming it is the "fastest-selling all-new jetliner in aviation history."

The 787 Dreamliner is the company's first new model in more than a decade and features 50 percent plastic composites, compared with 12 percent on its 777s, helping lower fuel consumption.

According to Boeing, the 787 will use 20 percent less fuel than similarly sized airplanes, reducing emissions by a similar amount.

Plagued by problems from a complex international production system and a two-month machinists strike last year, the Dreamliner's delays have irked customers and resulted in order cancellations.

The latest delay, announced last December, postponed first flight into the second quarter of 2009, from the fourth quarter of 2008. Launch customer ANA complained about the new delay for first delivery of the plane which initially was set for the third quarter of 2009.

In January, Russian carrier S7 Airlines announced the cancellation of an order for 15 Dreamliners. The next month Boeing said that Dubai-based aircraft leasing company LCAL had cancelled 16 of the 21 planes ordered.

The launch of the new plane comes amid turbulence in the aviation industry as the global economy slumps in the worst economic crisis in decades.

A plunge in passenger air travel has led to massive cancellations and deferrals of aircraft orders.

The International Air Transport Association projects that passenger traffic will fall eight percent this year and airlines could lose nine billion dollars, almost double the estimate three months ago.

That would be on top of 10.4 billion dollars lost in 2008, according to IATA.

Boeing earlier this month lowered its outlook for the world commercial airplane market over the next two decades because of the global economic downturn, slumping air traffic and volatile fuel prices.

But it forecast the growing Asia Pacific region will lead the commercial airplane market in both units and value.

Japanese carriers buy almost exclusively from the US aerospace giant, which is keeping a close eye on arch rival Airbus.

The France-based manufacturer, a unit of the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company, has begun working on a new long-range A350 plane aimed at competing with the Dreamliner, expected to fly in mid-2013.

Boeing's financial losses have shaken investor confidence and the company has announced 10,000 job cuts for 2009, including 4,500 in the commercial aircraft division. - AFP/de

From ChannelNewsAsia.com; see the source article here.

updated 3 hours, 57 minutes ago

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• NEW: Family identifies pilot as Craig Lenell
  
• Passenger says he responded to request for doctor, pronounced pilot dead
  
• Flight 61 landed at 11:49 a.m. ET; jet was carrying 247 passengers, airline says
  
• Flight was headed from Brussels, Belgium, to Newark, New Jersey
  

Pilot Craig Lenell is shown with daughter Jennifer Lenell-Small, a former Continental employee.

(CNN) -- The pilot of Continental Flight 61 died Thursday as the plane flew from Brussels, Belgium, to Newark, New Jersey, the Federal Aviation Administration and Continental Airlines said.

The 60-year-old Newark-based pilot died of "apparently of natural causes" about halfway through the flight, the airline said. He had 32 years of service with Continental, it said.

The pilot's family identified him to CNN as Craig Lenell.

The airline said the crew on the flight included an additional relief pilot who took the place of the deceased man, and "the flight continued safely with two pilots at the controls." The Boeing 777 landed safely at Newark International Airport at 11:49 a.m. ET Thursday, the airline said.

No further details were given. Continental did not release the pilot's name.

Asked whether the plane's 247 passengers had been told of the situation, a Continental spokesman said only that the plane had arrived safely.

Passengers told CNN that they were not informed, and that the only indication of a problem was that an announcement for a doctor was made during the flight.

"I haven't heard anything," passenger Chris Balchuas, from Houston, Texas, told reporters after the flight. "They just said there was a medical emergency and were there any doctors aboard."

Another passenger, Dr. Julien Struyzen, said he responded to the request for a doctor and pronounced the pilot dead.

"He was clinically dead when I came in," Struyzen said. Flight personnel asked him if anything was possible, and he said "it was not."

He did not give additional details.

Struyzen said all flight personnel were "very professional."

Balchuas, after being told what had happened, said, "Oh, that's scary. I didn't know anything about that."

He said nothing was unusual about the flight, just that about "four or five fire trucks and a whole bunch of medical emergency teams" met the plane when it landed.

Steve Coleman, a spokesman for the New York and New Jersey Port Authority, said the FAA told Newark airport officials to have emergency crews standing by for the landing.

The plane landed without any problem, he said, and a medical examiner met the plane to help handle the situation.

From CNN.com; see the source article here.

Posted: 11 June 2009 0836 hrs

An Airbus A330-200 jetliner

PARIS - Airbus on Thursday denied a press report that it was considering grounding all long-haul A330 and A340 jets to change airspeed sensors after an Air France plane crashed into the Atlantic.

The French newspaper Le Figaro said in its Thursday edition that the aircraft manufacturer "does not rule out grounding its fleet of 1,000 A330s and A340s to change the (speed) sensors."

An Airbus spokesman denied the report, telling AFP "This is wrong."

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) "has issued a press release that all A330s and other aircraft are safe to operate," he said, adding: "We will take legal action against such irresponsible reporting."

Airbus has written to clients to assure them its A330 planes were safe, including those with older speed sensors seen as a possible cause for last week's Air France crash, a spokeswoman said Wednesday.

Air France flight 447 from Rio to Paris plunged into the Atlantic on June 1 with the loss of all 228 people on board.

Officials have not identified the cause of the crash, but so far the investigation appears to have focused on the stormy weather and a possible problem with the Airbus A330's airspeed monitors, known as "pitot probes."

An Airbus spokeswoman said earlier a joint memo with the French transport ministry bureau in charge of the investigation into the crash was sent Monday to its clients.

"The note says that at the current stage of the inquiry, we confirm that the fleet equipped with various pitot probes can be used in its current condition," she said.

Airbus and Air France say older pitot probes have been problematic on other Airbus A330s and A340s, and the airline has stepped up a programme to install a newer type after pilots' unions threatened to refuse to fly.

The European air safety agency said Tuesday that Airbus models were "safe to operate," but added that a bulletin had gone out to remind airlines of what to do "in the event of loss of, or unreliable, speed indication."

There has been speculation that the A330's speed probes could have iced up during a storm at high altitude and supplied false airspeed data to the cockpit.

This, in turn, could have caused the pilots to fly too slow and stall, or too fast and rip the airframe apart, aviation experts say.

The crash is the worst aviation accident since 2001, and unprecedented in Air France's 75-year history.

- AFP/ir

From ChannelNewsAsia.com; see the source article here.

Image via Wikipedia

06/05/2009 | 10:02 AM

RIO DE JANEIRO – Investigators trying to determine why Air France Flight 447 broke apart in a violent storm over the Atlantic are looking at the possibility that speed sensors — or an external instrument key to collecting speed data — failed in unusual weather, two aviation industry officials said Thursday.

Brazil's Navy and Air Force, meanwhile, issued statements saying that despite earlier reports by the military, no wreckage had been recovered from the Airbus A330, which went down off the country's northeastern coast, killing all 228 people aboard. It is the world's worst aviation disaster since 2001.

Officials with knowledge of the investigation and independent analysts all stressed they don't know why a plane that seemed to be flying normally crashed just minutes after the pilot messaged that he was entering an area of extremely dangerous storms.

They will have little to go on until they recover the plane's "black box" flight data and voice recorders, now likely on the ocean floor miles (kilometers) beneath the surface.

Other hypotheses — even terrorism — haven't been ruled out, though there are no signs of a bomb. Officials have said a jet fuel slick on the ocean's surface suggests there was no explosion.

Two officials told The Associated Press that investigators are looking at the possibility an external probe that measures air pressure may have iced over. The probe feeds data used to calculate air speed and altitude to onboard computers. Another possibility is that sensors inside the aircraft reading the data malfunctioned.

If the instruments were not reporting accurate information, the jet could have been traveling too fast or too slow as it entered turbulence from towering bands of thunderstorms, according to the officials.

"There is increasing attention being paid to the external probes and the possibility they iced over in the unusual atmospheric conditions experienced by the Air France flight," one of the industry officials explained to the AP, speaking on condition of anonymity because he isn't authorized to discuss the investigation publicly.

Meteorologists said the Air France jet entered an unusual storm with 100 mph updrafts that acted as a vacuum, sucking water up from the ocean. The incredibly moist air rushed up to the plane's high altitude, where it quickly froze in minus-40 degree temperatures. The updrafts also would have created dangerous turbulence.

The jetliner's computer systems ultimately failed, and the plane broke apart likely in midair as it crashed into the Atlantic on a flight from Rio de Janeiro to Paris Sunday night.

Independent aviation experts said it is plausible that a problem with the external probe — called a "pitot tube" — or sensors that analyze data collected by the tube could have contributed to the disaster.

The tubes have heating systems to prevent icing. But if those systems somehow malfunctioned, the tubes could quickly freeze at high altitude in storm conditions, said the other industry official, who also was not authorized to discuss the investigation.

Other experts outside the investigation said it is more likely that the sensors reading information from the tubes failed.

"When you have multiple system failures, sensors are one of the first things you want to look at," said John Cox, a Washington-based aviation safety consultant and former crash investigator for the Air Line Pilots Association.

Jetliners need to be flying at just the right speed when encountering violent weather, experts say — too fast and they run the risk of breaking apart. Too slow, and they could lose control.

"It's critical when dealing with these conditions of turbulence to maintain an appropriate speed to maintain control of the aircraft, while at the same time not over-stressing the aircraft," said Bill Voss, president and CEO of the Flight Safety Foundation in Alexandria, Va.

France's accident investigation agency has established that the series of automatic messages gave conflicting signals about the plane's speed, and that the flight path went through dangerously stormy weather. The agency warned against any "hasty interpretation or speculation" after the French newspaper Le Monde reported, without naming sources, that the Air France plane was flying at the wrong speed.

Two buoys — standard emergency equipment on planes — were spotted Thursday in the Atlantic Ocean about 340 miles (550 kilometers) northeast of Brazil's northern Fernando de Noronha islands by a helicopter crew, which was working off a Brazilian navy ship.
Among other debris spotted Wednesday and Thursday were a 23-foot (seven-meter) chunk of plane, an airline seat and several large brown and yellow pieces that probably came from inside the plane, military officials said.

Confusion broke out after the Air Force announced Thursday afternoon that a helicopter plucked an airplane cargo pallet from the sea that came from the Air France flight, but then said six hours later that it was not from the Airbus.

The pallet was made of wood, and the plane was not carrying wooden pallets, Brazilian Air Force Gen. Ramon Cardoso told reporters. He did not say where the pallet might have come from.

"So far, nothing from the plane has been recovered," Cardoso said.

Air France's CEO Pierre-Henri Gourgeon told family members at a private meeting that the plane disintegrated, either in the air or when it slammed into the ocean, and there were no survivors, according to Guillaume Denoix de Saint-Marc, a grief counselor who was asked by Paris prosecutors to help counsel relatives.

More than 500 people packed the historic Candelaria church in the center of Rio de Janeiro Thursday for a Mass for the victims.

With the crucial flight recorders still missing, investigators were relying heavily on the plane's automated messages to help reconstruct what happened as the jet flew through thunderstorms.

The last message from the pilot was a manual signal at 11 p.m. local time Sunday saying he was flying through an area of black, electrically charged cumulonimbus clouds that come with violent winds and lightning.

At 11:10 p.m., a cascade of problems began: the autopilot had disengaged, a key computer system switched to alternative power, and controls needed to keep the plane stable had been damaged. An alarm sounded indicating the deterioration of flight systems. Then, systems for monitoring air speed, altitude and direction failed. Controls over the main flight computer and wing spoilers failed as well. At 11:14 p.m., a final automatic message signaled loss of cabin pressure and complete electrical failure as the plane was breaking apart.

The pilot of a Spanish airliner flying nearby at the time reported seeing a bright flash of white light plunging to the ocean, said Angel del Rio, spokesman for the Spanish airline Air Comet.

The pilot of the Spanish plane, en route from Lima, Peru to Madrid, said he heard no emergency calls.

France's defense minister and the Pentagon have said there were no signs that terrorism was involved.

"We have no evidence, we have no proof, we don't know," French Foreign Minister Bernard Kochner said after he was asked about the possibility of a bomb. "Is it possible? I mean to look at an explosion? Yes it is. It is one of the hypotheses." - AP

From GMANews.tv; see the source article here.