[Peetwo]

Breaking News: JAL A350 collision Haneda Airport Tokyo

Via SkyNews UK:

A Japan Airlines aircraft that was carrying passengers caught fire on a runway at Tokyo's Haneda airport after a possible collision with another plane.

All 379 passengers and crew on board were evacuated, according to the Reuters news agency.

Read more: https://news.sky.com/story/plane-in-f...

#japanairlines #tokyo #skynews

MTF...P2 

[P7_TOM]

Whatever happened; and no doubt the Japanese investigators will provide straight answers; there is not enough praise for the crew who did a magnificent job. Evacuation, text book on time and not one life lost.

The aircraft can be replaced; that level of crew coordination and skill and bravery cannot. Bravo and well done; well done indeed and thank you for your diligence in performing a 'duty' no one ever expects (or wants) to do; the last ditch evacuation of a burning aircraft. Well done JAL. Bravo...

[Kharon]

Only an unverified 'snippet' – but its food for thought. There's talk that the JAL 350 was the first in a while, in sequence to land on that runway. The Dash is 'unlikely' to have just ambled onto the runway and lined up without clearance. Of interest will be the 'positioning' of the Dash – if there was no 'area of visual focus' i.e. the 350 looking at the touch zone, the Dash looking ahead – waiting – the 'distance factor' between air frames could explain the lack of 'avoidance'. Don't know – all just idle speculation at the moment.

But well done that crew – great work and nicely done. A credit to JAL.

Toot – toot..

[ventus45]

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vymLLtC...sp=sharing

[ventus45]

&..

Cheers Ventus...

[ventus45]

Visible damage to the lugs indicates plug separated by moving up then out.

The lug cap-screws appear to have sheared.

The aircraft was reported to have suffered pressurization issues on previous flights.

At a guess, I would suggest that the two upper roller track blocking bolts (center) were missing, or the two lower spring restraining bolts (not shown) were missing.
In either case, cyclic pressurization loads flight by flight would only be restrained by the lug cap-screws (top left hand corner of plug - labeled 1 and 2).
Since the door is curved (the fuselage is circular), and extends down to the floor (which is below the cross-sectional 'waist') the resultant net load on the door would be slightly upwards - not horizontal.

This would put cyclic shear loads on the lug cap-screws with every pressurization cycle (flight) which they are clearly not designed to carry.
I suggest that one or more progressively failed, (flight by flight), until eventually, the remaining cap-screws were unable to resist the load, and simultaneously failed catastrophically.

Max Plug Door.jpg Size: 61.68 KB  Downloads: 27

[Kharon]

Tim Tam for Ventus.

Called it early and 'spot on'; nicely done Sir..Bravo...There is a short catch piece up from 'Sky News – HERE – bit more PR than technical examination; but worth the time. The interest being the way the PR neatly deflects. The tragedy is that this one 'lemon' has the ability sully the reputation of the many, many wonderful aircraft 'models' Boeing have produced.

"From the sublime to the ridiculous, said Fontenelle, it is only one step: from raillery to insult there is even less."

Toot – toot..

[Peetwo]

Tim Tam for Ventus.

Called it early and 'spot on'; nicely done Sir..Bravo...There is a short catch piece up from 'Sky News – HERE – bit more PR than technical examination; but worth the time. The interest being the way the PR neatly deflects. The tragedy is that this one 'lemon' has the ability sully the reputation of the many, many wonderful aircraft 'models' Boeing have produced.

"From the sublime to the ridiculous, said Fontenelle, it is only one step: from raillery to insult there is even less."

Toot – toot..

Homendy update:

Plus:

MTF...

[Peetwo]

Blan Coliro Alaska Airlines 737-9 MAX update: 14/01/24

Via YouTube:

LINKS:
Spirit Lawsuit: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pzxFhXI...view?pli=1
FAA: 
https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/...37MAX9.pdf
https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-increas...ufacturing
https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-increas...ufacturing

MTF...P2 

[ventus45]

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/bo...e-blowout/

[Peetwo]

Flight Safety Foundation Annual Report released? -   

Via FSF:

Foundation’s Annual Report Highlights Threat to Aviation Safety from Eroding Safety Culture

Complacency is a stealthy threat that can erode safety and quality unless it is actively countered.

by FSF Communications Staff | March 11, 2024

ALEXANDRIA, Va. — The international commercial airline industry did not suffer any fatal jet airliner accidents in 2023, according to Flight Safety Foundation’s 2023 Safety Report, issued today, but a series of close calls last year and two accidents so far in 2024 are clear signals that the industry must guard against complacency and the potential for an erosion of safety culture to weaken its safety margin.

“Despite last year being among the safest in aviation history in terms of accidents and fatalities, it’s crucial to acknowledge and address the warning signs that were present in events that narrowly avoided disastrous outcomes,” said Foundation President and CEO Dr. Hassan Shahidi. “Complacency is a stealthy threat that can erode safety and quality unless it is actively countered with a robust safety culture. Complacency can lead to shortcuts, degradation of quality, neglect of procedures, poor communication, and a delayed response to escalating risks. Failing to rigorously reinforce a strong safety culture can become the weakest link in the safety chain.”

The Foundation’s 2023 Safety Report, which is based on an analysis of data drawn from the Aviation Safety Network (ASN) database, shows that there were 94 accidents across all types of airliner operations last year and that while there were no jet airliner fatal accidents, there were seven fatal accidents involving turboprop and piston engine–powered airliners. In addition, corporate jets used in a variety of operational roles were involved in 32 accidents last year, seven of which were fatal. The 2023 Safety Report is available on the Foundation Website, or by clicking here.

The release of the 2023 Safety Report is accompanied by the release of an interactive dashboard that features accident data and information from the past six years that is searchable by a range of parameters, such as type of operation, region of the world, phase of flight, and accident type or end state, such as turbulence-related, runway incursion or excursion, and loss of control. The report and the dashboard present information that covers all types of airliners capable of carrying at least 14 passengers and a wide range of corporate jets. The dashboard can be accessed on the Foundation website.

“Complacency is a stealthy threat that can erode safety and quality unless it is actively countered with a robust safety culture. Complacency can lead to shortcuts, degradation of quality, neglect of procedures, poor communication, and a delayed response to escalating risks. Failing to rigorously reinforce a strong safety culture can become the weakest link in the safety chain.” - Stealthy threat? I believe that is a full blown reality, alive and flourishing within the Aviation Safety bureaucracy, residing under the Canberra bubble...  

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

NEAR DISASTER | Takeoff and Taxiing Planes Almost Crash at Washington-Reagan DCA

Via YouTube:

FAA investigating near miss at Reagan National Airport

MTF...P2

[P7_TOM]

Its what you don't know that ..............

Or, who'd a thunk it. The unknown, unexpected or 'different' is that which creates the grey hair. The giddy-up at Washington at prime example; cleared for take off; paying attention to anything but another aircraft pulling out in front: that Tokyo collision - aircraft parked in the touchdown zone for another example. Many tales untold; but it is the ''unexpected; out of hard won habit - which, IMO is the most dangerous. I can put together a litany of 'tales' where that 'unexpected' element caused some serious outrage, not to mention grey hair and a need for Ale. There is however, one which stands out from the dozen or so cases I could elaborate; all completely unexpected and unpreventable; but with thanks to Murphy for not being on board, we live to tell the tale to anyone interested. Or; Click here .

I have, over the decades, had a few 'close encounters' and probably a story for each event, weather, mechanical, combinations of both- but, they were all within 'my' control; the truly scary ones are those over which you have no control - non whatsoever. Indulge me for a paragraph; I shall construe a tale which, even now as I remember it (deeply ingrained) still makes me wonder about how truly (really) safe we all are; at any tick of the clock.

T'was a gin clear day; pleasant flight back over the great waters; aerodrome in sight at 30 - no traffic - gentle breezes, not a bump in sight - routine. Routine all the way to mid final, stable approach, sensible speed, in the groove descent rate; checks complete; nothing to do but paint it onto the runway and head for the coffee pot. A light aircraft (C210) was charging down the parallel taxiway at a fast clip; (assumed) parachute ops (no door). Us, full flap, fully loaded and committed. The 210 literally 'smoked' around the right angle to the holding point and got moving from about 30 knots somewhere near the centre-line. I am at about 200'; full flap, power back and only have my cautionary few knots up my sleeve; 600 fpm ROD reducing. 20 seconds - loads of time; gear up and around we go. It was almost as if this aircraft was attached by magnets to my left engine nacelle; As I climbed he climbed; as I turned, he turned, I headed to the 'off-side' of the circuit (just a bit so I could keep it in sight0 - but bugger me; there he was stuck like a limpet to my left nacelle; FO was nearly going spare trying to call this magnet - strict radio silence. Happily my climb rate far exceeded the 210's - but it was a close run thing for while; the pilot was wearing a blue jumper, green socks and the ashtrays were full. I kid you not; Eventually he achieved his altitude and buggered off - it took us 12 minutes to return to short final on the nominated runway. No one on the ground knew anything.

Back to the point; even in the most routine, benign circumstances; you never, not really know how a flight will end, not until you are in the pub talking about it. Complacency and routine and 'habit' are basic tenets of Murphy's Law; well that and the god's own fools.

[Peetwo]

Singapore Airlines Flight 321: Aviation accident and incident

There are many MSM and social media articles and news segments that have been running on the SQ Flight 321 CAT occurrence but IMO one of the more factual and less dramatised articles, is the following from Reuters:

The mechanics of turbulence
What happened to Singapore Airlines flight SQ321 and why?

By Adolfo Arranz, Vijdan Mohammad Kawoosa, Sudev Kiyada, Han Huang, Mariano Zafra and Simon Scarr
Published May 23, 2024  04:30 AM GMT+10

One passenger died of a suspected heart attack and many others were injured after a Singapore Airlines flight from London to Singapore hit severe turbulence on May 21, forcing the Boeing 777-300ER jet to divert to Bangkok.

The sudden turbulence occurred over the Irrawaddy Basin in Myanmar about 10 hours into the flight, the airline said. The pilot declared a medical emergency and diverted the aircraft to Bangkok, it said.

Aircraft tracking provider FlightRadar 24 said at about 0749 GMT the flight encountered “a rapid change in vertical rate, consistent with a sudden turbulence event”, based on flight tracking data.

“There were thunderstorms, some severe, in the area at the time,” it said.

Rapid movements

Altitude data from FlightRadar24 shows how the aircraft was thrust up and down over the course of a minute, before returning to its original cruising altitude of 37,000 ft.

(refer to article link to view the graphics)

During the event, the plane’s vertical speed, the rate by which the plane ascends or descends, quickly surged to 1,664 feet per minute before plummeting to -1,536 feet per minute in a matter of three seconds.

What is Turbulence?

Turbulence or pockets of disturbed air can have many causes, most obviously the unstable weather patterns that trigger storms, according to an industry briefing by European planemaker Airbus.

The resulting water particles can be detected by weather radar. Crews plan ahead by studying turbulence and other weather forecasts, which have improved over the years, loading extra fuel when needed and monitoring weather radar during flight.

What is Turbulence?

Turbulence or pockets of disturbed air can have many causes, most obviously the unstable weather patterns that trigger storms, according to an industry briefing by European planemaker Airbus.

The resulting water particles can be detected by weather radar. Crews plan ahead by studying turbulence and other weather forecasts, which have improved over the years, loading extra fuel when needed and monitoring weather radar during flight.

Other forms of turbulence can come from airflow disruptions from ground obstacles like buildings and mountains, common during takeoff and landing. On hot, sunny days over land, rising warm air and descending cooler air can also cause turbulence.

Buckling up

When an aircraft encounters turbulence and suddenly moves, anything not secured, such as passengers, can continue moving in the original direction, while the plane moves in another. Injuries from turbulence can occur as passengers are thrust towards the ceiling of the aircraft.

Photographs from the plane’s interior showed large gashes in the overhead cabin panels, gas masks and panels hanging from the ceiling and items of hand luggage strewn around. A passenger said some people’s heads had slammed into the lights above the seats and punctured the panels.




The interior of Singapore Airline flight SQ321 after it made an emergency landing. REUTERS

Unions representing U.S. airline pilots and flight attendants told Reuters the incident highlights the importance of following crew instructions and wearing seatbelt whenever seated.

But they cautioned that leaving the seatbelt sign on all the time could erode its significance, causing passengers to start ignoring it.

Among the most exposed to injury are crew who must tour the cabin to check seatbelts have been fastened when signs go on.

Airlines are required by law to switch on the seatbelt sign during takeoff and landing, but carriers have their own procedures to deal with mid-air turbulence.

Aerospace safety expert Anthony Brickhouse said passengers need to minimise their movement on flights and always stay buckled in, regardless of the seatbelt light.

A seatbelt sign always on

Some pilots and flight attendants say leaving the seatbelt sign on throughout a flight would backfire — as passengers would start to ignore it.

“The seatbelt sign means something, and if you leave it on all the time, it means nothing,” said Dennis Tajer, a spokesperson for the Allied Pilots Association, American Airlines pilot union.

All modern commercial jets are designed and built to cope with forces many times those experienced in-flight, Hayes said.

But according to Swedish turbulence-forecasting website Turbli, the feeling experienced by passengers varies from plane to plane and seat to seat.

Long planes can feel most turbulent at the back and the ideal spot is around the centre of gravity, typically just ahead of the wings.

How common is it?
Turbulence-related incidents are common, according to a 2021 study by the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board.

From 2009 through 2018, it found that turbulence accounted for more than a third of reported events and most resulted in one or more serious injuries, but no aircraft damage.

Yet fatal turbulence in air travel remains extremely rare.

“It is a very unusual and rare event. As far as I can tell it is over 25 years since a passenger was killed by commercial airliner turbulence,” said Paul Hayes, director of safety at UK-based aviation data group Cirium Ascend.

The last fatal turbulence-related accident on Cirium's database involved a United Airlines Boeing 747 in 1997.

Sources

FlightRadar24; National Weather Service; Pilot Institute.

Additional reporting by

Tim Hepher, Joanna Plucinska, Rajesh Kumar Singh, Allison Lampert, Lisa Barrington and Simon Jessop

Edited by

Jon McClure, David Gregorio and Tomasz Janowski

Plus from blancoliro, via YouTube:

Hmm...wonder how long it took for the CAAS SSP to click into gear -    

SINGAPORE STATE SAFETY PROGRAM

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Flight SQ321: Singapore Airlines in damage control - 

Via the Oz:

Singapore Airlines’ five figure offer to passengers injured on flight SQ321

By ROBYN IRONSIDE

Singapore Airlines has offered compensation of more than $15,000 for passengers who suffered minor injuries on flight SQ321, and an initial payment of $37,875 to those were seriously hurt during severe turbulence.

One man died as a result of the incident which saw scores of passengers and crew flung into the roof of the Boeing 777-300ER when it struck turbulence en route from London to Singapore on May 21.

The flight then diverted to Bangkok to seek medical treatment for 79 injured passengers and six injured crew, out of a total of 229 people on board.

They included 56 Australians, 13 of whom were hospitalised.

Three weeks later, 20 people are still in Thai hospitals receiving medical care for broken bones, head and spinal injuries.

In a statement issued on Tuesday, Singapore Airlines said offers of compensation had been sent out to passengers, including a full fare refund for all concerned.



Those assessed as having minor injures were offered $15,150, and those requiring long term medical care were offered an advance payment of $37,875 to cover their immediate needs.

“This will be part of the final compensation these passengers receive,” said the statement.

Singapore Airlines noted that as well as covering the medical expenses of the injured passengers, it had arranged for family members and loved ones to fly to Bangkok where requested.

Although the sums appeared significant, lawyers suggested it would be prudent for passengers to seek legal advice given the Montreal Convention allowed for significantly more compensation.

John Dawson of Vector Legal said the first tier of the convention permitted compensation of up to $257,000 for passengers who were physically injured on airline flights.

The second tier allowed for unlimited damages, providing the carrier could not prove it was not negligent.

Mr Dawson said in the case of SQ321 if the seatbelt sign was up, there may be a defence for Singapore Airlines.

“The damages are meant to be compensatory, that is it’s supposed to reimburse the passengers for injuries and losses they have suffered,” said Mr Dawson.

“There is no compensation for psychological distress or harm.”



Director of Carter Capner Law, Peter Carter, said the payments being offered by Singapore Airlines were from the carrier’s insurer and their objective was to minimise the total compensation bill.

He said the offer of $37,875 for seriously injured passengers to cover interim expenses was a “good move” but he doubted there was anyone on board who did not suffer an injury in one way or another.

“The insurer should clarify if the $15,150 offer covers all passengers including those who endured the terror of the moment but were fortunate to escape physical injury,” said Mr Carter.

“All passengers should seek legal advice before signing anything with the airline. Those with any sort of injury should exercise extreme care and should be evaluated by their own medical specialists to determine how this accident might still affect them.”

He said it was Carter Capner’s “working theory” that the turbulence could have been avoided and “therefore some fault lies with Singapore Airlines”.

“Our team, which includes very experienced airline captains, believes there is evidence to suggest that the aircraft flew through the top of a thunderstorm or in proximity to one as it passed over an area notorious for thunderstorm activity in the Inter Tropical Convergence Zone,” Mr Carter said.

A preliminary report on the incident said the aircraft was “likely flying over an area of developing convective activity” when vibrations were felt.

The report said the pilots called out that the seatbelt sign had been switched on about 8 seconds before a violent upward movement followed by a dramatic drop within 4.6 seconds.

Plus, Nick's back..

Singapore Airlines offer of compensation to passengers 'insulting', former senator says

By Joshua Boscaini and Evelyn Leckie


Former senator and lawyer Nick Xenophon and Singapore Airlines passenger Keith Davis say the Singapore Airlines compensation offer is not enough.(ABC News: James Wakelin)

• In short: Former senator Nick Xenophon says compensation offers recently made to injured Singapore Airlines passengers are "mean" and "miserable."
  
• Injured passenger Keith Davis whose wife suffered a spinal injury said the "insulting" offer has added more distress to his wife.
  
• What's next? An aviation lawyer has warned passengers to seek legal advice before accepting any offers.
  

A former federal South Australian senator representing customers of a Singapore Airlines flight that hit severe turbulence says compensation offers made to passengers on the flight is "mean and miserable".

Flight SQ321 carrying 211 passengers and 18 crew from London to Singapore encountered severe turbulence on May 21 while flying over Myanmar.

The turbulence flung passengers and crew around the cabin and some into the ceiling, causing spinal cord, brain and skull injuries.


The interior of Singapore Airlines flight SG321 after an emergency landing was made in Bangkok.(Reuters)

Singapore Airlines has offered $US10,000 ($15,150) in compensation to passengers who suffered minor injuries during the incident.

It's also invited passengers with serious injuries to discuss a compensation offer with the airline.


"Passengers medically assessed as having sustained serious injuries, requiring long-term medical care, and requesting financial assistance are offered an advance payment of $US25,000 to address their immediate needs," the airline said in a statement.

"This will be part of the final compensation that these passengers will receive."

Offers 'fall short of international law'

Former senator and lawyer Nick Xenophon said the compensation offer from the airline falls short of its obligations under international law.

"The Montreal Convention which governs these incidents in the air – is very clear about what the caps are and what the damages ought to be," Mr Xenophon said.

"It's very clear here that at the very least a seriously injured person should be offered first up – $US175,000 without any questions or liabilities being taken into account."

Adelaide man Keith Davis whose wife Kerry Jordan suffered a spinal injury on the flight when she was thrown into the luggage doors and landed in the aisle said he learnt about the offers through a Facebook statement.

Mr Davis said the offer has added further distress to his wife.

"It is beyond belief — beyond insulting — it is an absolute joke — it’s not even worth discussing," Mr Davis said.


Adelaide man Keith Davis was also injured on the Singapore Airlines flight while his wife Kerry Jordan suffered a spinal injury. (Photo: Yvan Cohen)

"I don’t know what [the offer] would cover – it doesn’t cover anything."

The Adelaide man said his wife has recently been in a stable condition but has suffered a life-changing condition as a result of the incident.

"We are just hopeful for small gains, her mobility is restricted to her arms, neck and shoulders."


Keith Davis says his wife Kerry Jordan has restricted movement to her arms, neck and shoulder.(Supplied)

Aviation lawyer warns passengers against 'signing away their rights'

Aviation lawyer Peter Carter told the ABC passengers who were impacted on the flight should seek expert legal advice before accepting any compensation offers from the airline.

"Be careful what you sign is my advice, get legal advice from someone experienced in this area," Mr Carter said.


Aviation lawyer Peter Carter warned injured passengers to not "sign their rights away".(Supplied: Peter Carter)

"People might think that they'll get over what they've suffered but experience tells me that medical [professionals] need to evaluate these types of injuries so they know what they might face in the future."

The lawyer noted that the $US25,000 offer for serious injuries — was just an advance — but those passengers with minor injuries should remember they'll be signing their rights away if they accept the $US10,000 offer.

"The people who sign up for the $10,000 offer are locked out, that's the intention of it," the lawyer said.

"The insurer wants to get people out of the $200,000 damages column into the $10,000 damages column to minimise their overall payout," Mr Carter said.

MTF...P2