PlasticPilot.net

Three days after the in-flight depressurization of a Qantas Boeing 747, it was the turn of a Qantas 737 bound to Melbourne that had to return to Adelaide, after a door opened in flight. Flight QF692 landed safely, no one got hurt. The news was released by the AFP, and is relayed by skynews only by the time I’m writing this post.

I’m quite sure that most general audience media will jump on that occasion to make good results, particularly during a time of year which is not full of other news. An airline having two incidents within three days is the holy Grail of media, just like landing in London City is mine.

Is there a link between the two incidents ? It’s way too early to say anything. The investigations are just starting, and despite various rumors, no official, reliable information is available. The two aircraft were not of the same type (Boeing 737 vs. Boeing 747), and were not operating the same kind of flight (Domestic vs. Intercontinental).

Had the first incident not occured, would anyone mention the second one ? I don’t know how many planes come back to land daily, but given the total number of flights, there are probably a few dozen of them. So please, don’t take part in the propagation of silly rumors.

I feel like I’m constantly repeating myself here, but the only responsible attitude is to wait for the official reports. Because of the media pressure, and because commenting and making hypothesis is in human nature, it’s not easy to refrain. As a blogger, I could get much more visitors by claiming I know the truth about accidents, but that would be wrong, and morally arguable.

Be sure that I’ll wait for the reports, and comment them when they’ll be issued. Until that, 7600, if you see what I mean …

UPDATE: Click here to read the BBC coverage… not surprisingly, most of their online article refers to the first of the two incidents…

If you enjoyed this post, don't keep it secret !

Category: Air Accidents
Tags: Adelaide Boeing 737 comments emergency landing investigation media Melbourne Qantas QF692

When flight BA038 from Beijing to London crash-landed about 300 meters from runway in Heathrow, I immediately posted about it for three reasons:

1. Provide readers with information from various sources
2. Relay the number of the information line to any concerned person
3. Inform passengers about traffic in Heathrow

Since then, the buzz grew up, and as always in such cases a lot of self-appointed experts started to give their opinions. Some are even able to give conclusions on the sole basis of a picture ! No need to say what is the quality of such judgement.

What is even worse is the reaction of mainstream media ! Not only did they report the opinion of “unnammed airport workers”, and many other low quality sources. Moreover, some journalists registered on pilot forums and openly asked for the names of the crew members ! Sometimes I wonder if they realize the consequences their acts can have on other people’s lifes ! Do you remember Ueberlingen ?

Two airplanes collided over Lake Constance area, at the Swiss - German boundary, killing more than 71 persons including many chrildren. Some local media published the identity of the air traffic controller who was on duty at this moment.

Few weeks later, the controller got killed by the father of a victim. I don’t want to argue here about the factors, causes and responsibilities, nor about the murder and subsequent sentence. My point is that if the newspapers had not published the identity of the controller, he would probably still be alive.

The editor would certainly say that they did not published the full name. This is correct. They only published its surname, the first letter of his familly name, and the small town where he lived… And all of this for what ? More sales. The official reports are based on pilots reports, but they never include names for ovious reasons.

After such tragedies, one has to remain silent. It is the only acceptable attitude. Establishing the facts is a complex and long task, and this is why reports take years to get published. And once again, the sole purpose of investigation is to find out the causes and factors that lead to the accident. Not to define responsibilities. This is the task of justice, and certainly not of media.

For these reasons, you won’t find any additional information or rumors about the crash landing of the Boeing 777 of British Airways on this blog until the report will be published. Dot.

If you enjoyed this post, don't keep it secret !

Category: Air Accidents, Speaker's Corner
Tags: Boeing 777 crash-landing Heatrhow investigation media report

The report about the AirFrance Airbus 340 that crashed in Toronto on 2nd of August 2005 has been publised by the Transportation Safety Board of Canada. To make a long story short, let’s say the weather was bad with thunderstorms around the airport, the crew landed long, the aircraft overran the runway and caught fire.

The report is 152 pages long, and adresses many topics, including crew resources management, decision making, procedures, evacuation, and is very instructive, so let me forumlate few personal comments.

It is NOT a miracle !
309 persons were on board, only 12 were injured, no one got killed. As I already explained in a post about a Boeing 737 under fire in Osaka, this is not the result of luck or a miracle, but of certification standards ! The report shows that the evacuation was not done in a 100% standard way, but nevertheless all occupants were out of the aircraft rapidly enough.

Complex and dynamic
Thunderstorms are by nature very dynamic and evolve within minutes, making decisions even harder to take. They even induce the need to constantly re-evaluate the situation, while still performing all crew duty. In this particular case, there was not only one but many thunderstorms located in airport’s vicinity.

No extracts here
As all accidents, the factors leading to this one are multiple and complex. This is also why investigation did last for more than two years !

I won’t publish any extract, not even of conlusions or recommentations, because outside of their context they could become misleading. Mainstream media and many internet forums already gave their own readings of the report, and each is biased by author’s opinion… just as the part of this post about evacuation is biased by my own opinion.

The best is to base your opinion and judgement on the report itself. Read it, and if you have any question, feel free to ask me.

Link to the report from the Transportation Safety Board of Canada.

If you enjoyed this post, don't keep it secret !

Category: Air Accidents
Tags: Air France Airbus 340 crash investigation report Toronto