Asiana Crash Investigation

[5LY]

Safety Surprises from Asiana Crash Investigation

By Guy Norris
July 15, 2013



Source: Aviation Week & Space Technology



While NTSB investigators look closely into the actions of the flight crew for potential causes behind the July 6 Asiana Airlines Boeing 777-200ER accident, safety experts working on the other side of the cockpit door are already learning valuable new design lessons for crash survivability.
Although all but two of the 307 passengers and crew survived the ordeal, more than 180 were injured, several of them critically. Therefore, while looking into why the crash occurred in the first place, the investigation is focusing just as closely on why these injuries and deaths were sustained, and it has already unearthed troubling concerns about the functionality of the aircraft's main exit escape slides.
Video and eyewitness accounts testify to the violence of the aircraft's brief passage along San Francisco International Airport's Runway 28L before coming to an abrupt halt to the south side of the strip, adjacent to the touchdown zone markers some 1,500 ft. from the threshold. Although the aircraft did not cartwheel in the same devastating way as in the 1989 DC-10 crash in Sioux City, Iowa, it was massively damaged by an initial impact with the seawall and the displaced runway threshold, during which parts of the main landing gear and the entire empennage were ripped away. Traveling at over 100 mph, the aircraft departed the runway at the touchdown markers where it became partially airborne again, pirouetting in a complete 360-deg. circle around its nose section.
During this high-speed ground loop, the aft end of the tailless fuselage momentarily pitched up at around 40 deg., causing passengers and crew in the back section of the cabin to fall vertically as much as 100 ft. when the aircraft came to a rest with its nose pointed back toward the runway. Despite this pummeling, the fuselage structure remained substantially intact with the extensively damaged wings appearing to have borne the brunt of the impact loads. Although the forward two-thirds of the fuselage was gutted by the post-crash fire, the overall structural integrity of the cabin section was not immediately compromised by the impact itself, with significant buckling only evident in two zones: forward of the wing root and aft by Section 47/48 where the empennage was broken off.
The NTSB says the fire was caused by oil leaking from a ruptured tank onto the damaged remains of the No.2 (starboard) Pratt & Whitney PW4090 engine, which was ripped from its wing mountings and lay beside the fuselage. The left engine was detached during the initial ground roll and came to rest on the north side of the runway, just under 2,000 ft. from the threshold. While the fire makes it more difficult for investigators to assess the post-crash condition of the forward and mid-cabin sections, the intact aft cabin is yielding information about the survivability design aspects of seats, interior paneling, overhead bin structures, seat tracks, cabin floors, exits and escape slides.
Images released by the NTSB of the aft cabin, close to the buckled section by Doors L4 and R4, show how the seating, cabin floor and ceiling in some areas, were significantly damaged and dislodged. Already weakened by the initial impact and loss of belly skin and structure below Section 47/48, the bulk of the aft cargo hold and lower lobe structure beneath the floor of the aft cabin appears to have been either ripped away by the slide along the runway or crushed by the vertical impact that ended the ground loop.
Nevertheless, despite massive damage, investigators say the surprisingly small number of fatalities and relatively intact interior present a very survivable picture, with much of the internal trim, ceiling panels and sidewalls still in place. This is partly thought to be due to Boeing's internal design concept, in which the tie rods supporting the arch of the secondary support structure (which holds the interior of the cabin ceiling panels and overhead bins to the fuselage monocoque) transfer loads above 46,000 lb. and withstand loads of up to 9g. Tie rods were built to absorb up and down loads, while truss-type sway bracing structure support the ceiling laterally. The seats are designed to meet the 16g crash load certification standard, while the seat tracks were originally designed to cope with stresses of 9g.
However, San Francisco hospitals that dealt with the injured report an unusually high number of spinal injuries, the worst of which include crushed vertebrae and torn ligaments, testifying to the excessive lateral and vertical loads sustained during the accident. Although safety experts say assuming the crash position would have limited jolting to the spine, passengers appear to have received little or no warning of the impact. According to Randy Scarlett, board director of the California Brain Injury Association, “there were significant spinal cord and traumatic brain injuries with the first wave of patients. More subtle concussions and spinal cord injuries were in the second wave of those patients coming to San Francisco General [Hospital].” Scarlett expects that while 80% will fully recover, “20% will be affected for a significant time in their lives.”



Commenting on the safety implications, former NTSB Chairman Jim Hall questions the adequacy of the current 16g dynamic seat standard. “I believe that it is time to update aviation seat standards to take a stronger G force, especially in light of the many recent spinal and head injuries,” he says. The regulation requiring all newly developed transport aircraft to use 16g-capable seats was issued by the FAA in 1988, superseding rules at the time which mandated a static 9g standard with no occupant injury criteria.
From a systems perspective, investigators are focusing on the performance of the safety systems, door operation and emergency inflatable slide deployment. “We're taking a very close look at survival factor issues, including emergency doors and exits, and to see if there were any malfunctions,” says NTSB Chairman Deborah Hersman. The most serious of these occurred during the evacuation, when two cabin crew were “pinned” against the cabin side by escape slides that inflated inside the aircraft at Doors 1R and 2R. At least one flight attendant had to be rescued by the relief first officer who helped deflate the device. “We need to understand why that happened, and if it happened inadvertently,” says Hersman.

[fotoguzzi]

So, a 16 g seat on a 9 g seat track? Makes sense to me!

[Tarq57]

About ten days ago, when the HQ pictures of the wrecked a/c were posted in the Asiana crash thread, I thought that most of the learning from this accident should (hopefully) result from a study (and hopefully, recommendations) around survival aspects.

It would seem that a lot of the other lessons that might come from the accident have already been noted, then forgotten.

[mickjoebill]

Don't disagree with the report.
Airlines can increase post crash survivability and fast egress tomorrow by widening the aisle at bulkheads and galleys from the legal minimum of 20 inches.

It would seem that a lot of the other lessons that might come from the accident have already been noted, then forgotten.
History repeats...

In late 1980 JAA considered recommendations from UK AAIB into the 1985 Manchester B737 accident about the narrowing aisles caused by bulkheads and galleys, thus restricting egress.
Not to be confused with a similar width down the aisles between seats, where there is plenty of free space between seatbacks.

Following research at Cranfield, in 1996 JAA proposed an amendment to change JAR 25.813, so aircraft with 110 passengers or more the width between rigid structures with side of an aisle should be at least 30 inches.

In 2006, (21 years after the B737 accident) a "Rulemaking Group" was set up to examine width between bulkheads.

The options identified were
1/ Do nothing
2/ Voluntary Implementation
3/ Further research and/Analysis
4/ Rulemaking option

They decided that further research was not necessary and that bulkheads were not a serious issue, that the effect of rule 2 was same as rule 1 so they went with "do nothing" option

So whilst the Cranfield tests indicate a 30 inch width is safer most airlines go with the current legislation FAR 25.815 which is 20 inches.

This report details the above.
http://www.easa.europa.eu/rulemaking/docs/npa/2008/NPA%202008-18.pdf

The video shot in the '80s at Cranfield clearly shows the difference in passenger mobility between varying galley aisle widths, a shame then that what seems like such a common sense change will apparently only be implemented by a more statistically relevant body count.

[Descend to What Height?!?]

There were also numerous recommendations made after comprehensive study into survivability aspects of the British Midland crash at Kegworth. These again came from the medical profession as well as industry professionals, Cranfield, Farnborough etc.

While some were taken up (looking at the brace possition for example,) others were not. While improved brace possitions will help if the crash is expected, as noted here, if the incident is sudden and unexpected, survivability will depend upon the aircraft structure and layout, including cabin and seats.

One of the subjects that came out of Kegworth and was hotly debated was the subject of rear facing pasanger seats. Standard on some purpose built military transport aircraft for many years. (Not on those converted from civil types in recent years.)

In an impact, the entire weight of the body, including head is taken by the seat structure. This reduces whip lash injuries, and the decelleration forces are absorbed by a much larger area. Currently, the entire forward force is absorbed only by a lap strap. In modern cars, that crash at lower speeds, 3 point harnesses are standard, as are airbags. Why in aviation, where although accidents are a lot more rare, are we still using just a single strap? The result is that in many accidents, passengers survive the crash, but pelvic injuries (and lower limb injury caused by legs hitting the seat structure in front,) prevent a successful unaided evacuation of the aircraft.

Time to look at this again?

:confused:

[Fitter2]

Over 50 years ago, the RAF concluded that crash survivability in passenger aircraft was significantly increased by having rear-facing seats.

It is clear from train design that this is not a turn-off for passengers, although this is usually given for adopting it in airliners. Not, of course, that then they could be stronger (and heavier)...

(Descend to what height has pre-empted me while I was writing!)

[ManaAdaSystem]

It is a turn-off for some passengers. My wife refuse to sit rear facing in a train. Not all the seats are rear facing, so you can choose. BTW, there are no, as far as I know, seat belts on trains, and they crash too.
Put idi@ts at the controls of any moving device, and accidents will happen.

[probes]

not just a turn-off - I'm probably not the only one who gets sick then. Dunno why. Cars, trains, buses, whatever.

[Volume]

So, a 16 g seat on a 9 g seat track? Makes sense to me!Well, it sort of does. Seat tracks and parts of the floor structure are prone to corrosion, so they have plenty of margin for blendout. Additionally the fllor structure is designed for the most dense seating arrangement. In perfect condition they stand much more than 9g, which is the limit load criteria. Ultimate load is at 13.5g and above, often even exceeding the 16g. The seats on the other hand are tested for their dynamic behavior at 16g, without margin.
I think the Asiana crash shows more collapsed 16g seats than broken 9g floor structure. But it will be nevertheless interesting to follow the investigations and to learn from it. This crash will make it into text books, for pilots and for engineers, end evertually into the rules as well.

[nicolai]

Bear in mind there is also a flying object hazard in a crash, and the seat backs of forward-facing seats do provide some protection against objects flying forwards and hitting passengers as the cabin decelerates rapidly. Rear facing isn't perfect, and it is important to bear in mind the assumptions on how well-secured loose objects are. Military transport may be able to control their passengers' belongings better than civil transport.

[blind pew]

Fitter - I remember reading that and on the Trident 2 we had a row of rearward facing seats which were popular amongst dead heading crew...except for on take off where you literally hanging on the straps.
After the Airtours Manchester disaster there were trials with a water sprinkler system but again costs came into it.

[FullWings]

I dimly remember reading a paper (might have been about Kegworth but I can't locate it online), where survivability was postulated to decrease above a certain strength of seat. The argument was that having the seat controllably deform under extreme loadings reduced the peak g experienced and took some of the energy out of the equation. If you built a seat that could withstand 50g, the seat would survive but the occupant wouldn't...

[Interested Passenger]

rear facing seats may work on trains, but that is forgetting one important difference between trains and planes.

trains don't take off.

from the back it already feels like we are climbing at 45' or more, being pushed into our seats. Imagine now hanging in your belts, with projectile vomit flying through the cabin.

[Keylime]

OK. So 16G's is not enough. How about 20G's or 30G's. Hell with it, design for 50G's. 20" aisles not wide enough, make them 50" wide. Could it be that the problem is all of the obese people out there? As someone earlier said, put idiots behind the controls and all of this doesn't matter. Want a perfect safety record, park all of the aircraft in the hangar and lock the doors. When this is all said in done the bottom rine(not a typo) is going to be that a perfectly good aircraft was crashed due to incompetence among many other factors that are confined to the cockpit. Trying to take the flies off the bride by moving the emphasis onto ancillary items is typical when political correctness takes over for objectivity. One can only hope that the NTSB maintains its non-political status and does not give in to outside pressure in publishing the real cause(s) of this accident. It is long overdue that the lights were turned on in the kitchen exposing the cockroaches. Rant over.

[Alycidon]

After the Airtours Manchester disaster there were trials with a water sprinkler system but again costs came into it.

The Manchester air disaster was British Airtours not Airtours. Different company, absolutely no connection, British Airtours was owned by BA.

[Allan Lupton]

Quote
While some were taken up (looking at the brace position for example,) others were not. While improved brace positions will help if the crash is expected, as noted here, if the incident is sudden and unexpected, survivability will depend upon the aircraft structure and layout, including cabin and seats.

Yes, having flown a couple of months ago after a decade or so not doing so, I was conscious that the seat pitch and fixed seat back ahead didn't give me, or even my much shorter partner, space for the "brace position" as indicated on the procedures card. As said, aircraft layout is important.
The other cabin safety item is the huge size of many "carry-on" (or rather "wheel-on") bags and the thought that, even if there is a size limit, they have no weight limit and what load are the overhead bins designed round?
I also remember the aft-facing seats of the BEA Tridents and the "hanging from the lap-strap" feel of the take-off which, as said above, was what put people off.

[Yellow & Blue Baron]

It would seem that a lot of the other lessons that might come from the accident have already been noted, then forgotten.

Like having a prescribed minimum height with which to cross the threshold!

[givemewings]

Why in aviation, where although accidents are a lot more rare, are we still using just a single strap?

Are you kidding? It's hard enough to get them to fasten a lap belt, let alone anything else!

While we're at it, why not have them all adopt the brace position for takeoff and landing? Normalise it, and it won't freak people out... however... modern air travel is such that it doesn't (to most people) inherently FEEL dangerous, therefore they are far more lax about their own safety as passengers. For example, parents who wouldn't dream of driving with their baby on their lap in the car feel perfectly fine passing it across the aisle or letting it walk around in turbulence because they can't feel/see the speed, unlike in a train or car.

I agree, cabin luggage needs to be looked at. The amount of unnecessary cr@p that people bring on these days is astounding. Had a woman the other day bring on a hold-sized suitcase and then get tetchy when told it was too big. "But it fits in the overhead" was the response. "Yes but the overhead is limited to 20lbs and you;re not the only person with a bag!" :ugh:

[Ian W]

The fact that the fuselage remained intact after the mistreatment of the crash landing is a testament to how modern aircraft design has advanced. Earlier aircraft designs would have crumpled on that type of impact. So it does seem a little unforgiving to start ratcheting up the requirements. However, it does raise some issues that should be investigated but have not really been raised here.

Rear facing seats/four point seat belts. These are always proposed after a crash. However, had the pax been in rear facing seats or been wearing 4 point seat belts it is probable that there would have been many more spinal crush injuries. The 'ejection seat posture' is one that has to be learned and even correctly in that posture ejectees regularly have spinal injuries even from the more gentle ejection seats which are less than 16g instantaneous load. A bent forward brace position might for a vertical deceleration be a more survivable posture. What is the most common g loading on an occupant of a crashing aircraft?

Seat pitch. This brings us to seat pitch the brace position leaning forward onto your thighs hands over head is a good posture but totally infeasible in most aircraft where the beancounters put seats far too close for a brace position to be feasible - a half brace position may well be the worst of both worlds in a vertical deceleration.

Crumple Zone Seats. As some have pointed out here - a seat that survives while the occupant does not is not really useful. However, it should be possible to design seats that absorb some of the deceleration so that the peak load on the occupant does not exceed a survivable level. So a peak/instantaneous 25G seat with a 10G peak for the occupant perhaps.

Of course as always the choice of internal fit is an airline responsibility usually from choices available from the manufacturer. However, the manufacturer will not develop fits that nobody will buy.

[old,not bold]

Ian W, that's an interesting point about rear-facing seats.
In a past life, encouraged by many trooping flights in an even older life, I did quite a lot of work in the late '70s on the feasibility of converting a fleet of F27-600s to rear-facing seats, of which there was a suitable 9G non-reclining model available.

The operational impact was a loss of 2 seats to restore the APS+passengers+baggage weight to what it was with 44 forward facing seats. The space would have been used for a netted cargo/baggage/mail overflow area, in the front of the cabin. The capital cost spread over the seat life was very, very low in seat/mile terms.

The aircraft were used by oil companies for personnel and cargo around their oilfields. We also used them for some low volume/short scheduled services.

The oil companies' aviation experts simply said that losing the 2 seats (they rarely, if ever, had more than 33/44 passenger load in passenger configuration) would be a deal-breaking breach of contract, and who gives a **** about the safety aspects, and the company's FD said that losing 2 revenue seats would be a disaster. This was only partly true; the aircraft, as well as some thin services, operated a short sector shuttle service at 100% load factors with the highest seat/mile fares in the world; losing 2/44 seats would have reduced the net route contribution from about 400% to maybe 380%.

I do not believe that much has changed; seriously effective (ie expensive) safety measures will usually be kicked into touch by the finance people, and regulators have insufficient balls to change that. So we will go on nibbling ineffectually at the problem. In a related case; are we holding our breath for effective and prompt regulatory action to prevent another fire and/or its outcome like the UPS tragedy at Dubai?

But after all that, it comes as a shock to learn that rear-facing seats are not necessarily such a good thing! Can that be so?

[Eclectic]

Several companies already make crashworthy, energy absorbing, seats. Here are Martin Baker's: Products (http://www.martin-baker.com/products/)

Very popular with the helicopter community, for obvious reasons.

[pattern_is_full]

Crumple Zone Seats. As some have pointed out here - a seat that survives while the occupant does not is not really useful. However, it should be possible to design seats that absorb some of the deceleration so that the peak load on the occupant does not exceed a survivable level. So a peak/instantaneous 25G seat with a 10G peak for the occupant perhaps.

I think this is the key point. (also mentioned by keylime).

While it is obviously good to have seats (and luggage racks and other furniture) that stay in place and don't break loose and fly about the cabin - it doesn't help much to have an undamaged "50g" seat, filled with jelly-that-used-to-be-passenger(-or-crew).

A 100-foot (30-meter) fall is going to cause injuries - unless you have a shock absorber such as the air bags or nets that stunt people use. Or engineered metal shapes that can absorb the force without folding, spindling, and mutilating the occupant (or occupants of nearby seats).

There may or may not be a weight penalty - but that is what engineers are for. To find the optimax for protection vs. weight.

[CelticRambler]

This brings us to seat pitch the brace position leaning forward onto your thighs hands over head is a good posture but totally infeasible in most aircraft where the beancounters put seats far too close for a brace position to be feasible - a half brace position may well be the worst of both worlds in a vertical deceleration.

What if ... how much damage would be done to the day's financials if a passenger tried to assume the brace position during the safety briefing, found he/she couldn't accomplish it due to the seats being too close together and firmly insisted on being allowed off the aircraft on the grounds of being certain of not being able to comply with safety instructions issued by the crew in the event of an accident.
... and if the Daily Mail just happened to find out about it?

Only wondering aloud, of course. :E

[Volume]

The fact that the fuselage remained intact after the mistreatment of the crash landing is a testament to how modern aircraft design has advanced.Modern aircraft design has advanced with respect to weight saving, older aiframes typically have more strength margins than newer ones. Except for those detials where regulations have changed (e.g. seat tracks)
Why in aviation, where although accidents are a lot more rare, are we still using just a single strap? And why to we leave it to the passengers to tightem them (or not, which turns them from hip straps into deadly abdomen straps...)? Why don´t we have spring loaded inertia reel type of straps, which automatically are pulling tight?
But the answer to your question is much more simple: Because except for the window seats, there is no hard point to attach a third (or fourth) strap to!

If it would not be mandatory, a lot of people would probably not even wear their seat belt... Like many do in cruise and find themselves under the ceiling in heavy turbulence.

[clipstone1]

Remembering that BA have quite a lot of rear facing seats on board their longhaul aircraft, don't see many people complaining about sitting in them (especially me, uppder deck window seat is easily the nicest on board a BA 747-400)

[visibility3miles]

givemewings
I agree, cabin luggage needs to be looked at. The amount of unnecessary cr@p that people bring on these days is astounding. Had a woman the other day bring on a hold-sized suitcase and then get tetchy when told it was too big.

Charging extra for checked luggage (as well as hassle from lost or pilfered luggage) begs people to carry-on everything they can.

Not a solution, just reality.

[MPN11]

Personally, we carry loads of [luggage] … and it goes in the hold. Three weeks will not go in a carry-on, never mind the shopping on the way home :cool:

So our carry-ons are minimal, and passports and money-clips/cards are on our person. We will leave the cheap Androids and replaceable iPad and Kindles. My wife and I value each other far more than a bit of electrical stuff. Younger people, or immensely important executives of global companies, or complete idiots, might have a different view.

clipstone1 … my wife sits in the rear-facing 63A, I'm in front-facing 63B. Should I be worrying? :uhoh:

[Ian W]

@Visibility3Miles

Charging extra for checked luggage (as well as hassle from lost or pilfered luggage) begs people to carry-on everything they can.


During the liquid bomb panic when only a ziploc bag of essentials was allowed it was amazing how fast turn arounds were. A 76 loaded from start to finish inside 15 minutes. Now there will always be people that want their carry on with them. But there are also many who (trusting souls) are happy to check all their stuff.

I wonder if any of the beancounters have done a cost benefit analysis against delayed turnarounds with 30-40 minutes to load SLF compared to slick 20 minute turnarounds (and a correct weight and balance). I would not be surprised if the charges for checked bags don't come close to paying for the inefficiency that carry-ons cause. But the cost is in a different budget so the beancounter still gets his bonus.

[DozyWannabe]

Modern aircraft design has advanced with respect to weight saving, older aiframes typically have more strength margins than newer ones.

With all due respect, that's rubbish. Modern airframe designs tend to make greater use of lightweight materials and technology, but with advances in CAD and engineering tools load calculations can be simulated far more accurately than was once the case, meaning that the need for overengineering is reduced. Allowing for the fact that the evidence is anecdotal, you have two B777s (LHR and SFO), an A320 (Hudson River) and an A340 (YYZ) that all retained most or all of their passenger and crew compartment integrity when subjected to loads well outside the norm.

In contrast, overengineering gives a perception of greater structural strength, but it's an inexact science. No-one built airliners tougher on paper than us Brits (probably in response to the Comet 1 fiasco), but nevertheless the forces in a thunderstorm were capable of tearing a BAC 1-11 to pieces. Similarly, the B737 is very hardy in some aspects (I'm thinking Aloha's 737 "convertible"), but if you tap one too hard in the wrong place, the fuselage will fail roughly in the vicinity of the same two frames every time.

[JFZ90]

i've flown rear facing in a vc10 and thought it was a total non-issue. The accelerations are, after all, pretty mild.

Its also very obviously safer for your body, and could plausibly save weight in seat design.

[BOAC]

could plausibly save weight in seat design - unfortunately exactly the opposite.

[flyingchanges]

The most survivable aspect of this accident is the fact they were only going 105KTS.

[broadreach]

One wonders whether, as an increasing percentage of bookings are made on the internet, we're not approaching an age in which passengers are required to inform basic data like height and weight. LoCos might allocate seating on that basis, which might mean I (at 6'4") pay more but get a greater seat pitch than my wife (5'4") who would have to sit in a different "zone".

I do remember sitting facing back on the Vanguard, not on the Trident. During takeoff it helped to have the belt fairly tight but during the flight, no different. Landing, well, if the imagination rambled to a fast decelration scenario, one might want a helmet.

[bubbers44]

Actually an extra 30 knots would have put them on the runway and not in the rocks. Maybe not by them but by any competent cockpit crew. Hopefully they would have finally looked out the window when they tried to go around and had the airspeed to land. As hopeless as they were as pilots maybe nothing would have helped. They had no instrument scan and didn't look out the window so not much chance of a landing for them.

[mickjoebill]

I'll argue that a sub 140 knot, wings level emergency or botched landing should be survivable without significant number of spinal injuries.

In most of these accidents other than cracking in one or two pieces, the fuselage does not deform. Yet there is significant space below the floor, which is full of crushable stuff in the form of bags and bag containers.

The lower half of the fuselage could be designed to deform and the top "semi circle" comprising of passenger floor and ceiling, would form the safety cell.

The bag containers, when loaded could themselves form part of a system of energy absorption.

The design imperative that the tube should be strong enough to withstand pressure differential should not be affected as those pressure forces are exerting force from the inside, whereas crash energy is being exerted from the outside.

[stilton]

You are not considering the VERTICAL speed at impact.

[Mark in CA]

Rear-facing seats are being employed in many of the new business-class seating arrangements as a way to pack more seats into limited space, especially now that flat bed seats are used. The NY Times writes about it in today's paper: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/04/business/the-race-to-build-a-better-business-class.html

[Uplinker]

I remember reading Flight a few years ago, (but cannot remember all the details), but the basic gist was that a car seat manufacturer was considering producing seats for airliners. When he started researching the issue, he was told rather stuffily and patronisingly by an aircraft seat manufacturer that there was a lot more to airliner seats than car seats. For example, the goon said, airline seats have to withstand 16g.

"Really" said the seat maker, "that's very interesting: our car seats have to withstand 35g".


Incidentally; 'The bean counters' are often held to be the villains of cost cutting measures, but actually, it is the passengers - who want ever cheaper flights, and who will chose the ticket that is £5 cheaper - who are the ultimate drivers of things such as reduced seat pitch.

Dozy; the Comet 1 failures were a very unfortunate disaster, but calling it a "fiasco" is too harsh - and you might want to rephrase that. Facts about structural science and design that we now take for granted were simply not known back then.

[EEngr]

Although safety experts say assuming the crash position would have limited jolting to the spine, passengers appear to have received little or no warning of the impact.

No warning might be the case in many more crashes. So perhaps its time to forget about a crash position and equip all seats with shoulder belts.

[Tinribs]

I flew the last five years of my career with Eastern on the J41, a victim of the French not over 60 rule

The front 2 seats of the J41 have airbags built into the lap straps, they never gave any trouble and the pax showed no reluctance to use them

[Ian W]

@EEngr

Quote:
Although safety experts say assuming the crash position would have limited jolting to the spine, passengers appear to have received little or no warning of the impact.
No warning might be the case in many more crashes. So perhaps its time to forget about a crash position and equip all seats with shoulder belts.

and those shoulder belts (which have no anchor points) would need to be equipped with pre-tensioners that pull the pax into the correct position for a vertical impact just having shoulder straps would not do it as many ejectees have found to their cost.

Problems.
--Anchor points for shoulder straps
--Getting pax to put shoulder straps on when they moan at lap belts
--Getting the beancounters to accept the extra weight/cost of shoulder straps and tensioners.
--Issues with escape when pax are secured by lap and shoulder straps.

There are a lot of 'sound bite' good ideas, until you sit down with an engineer who has to make the 'good idea' a 'functional idea'.

[Volume]

With all due respect, that's rubbish. Modern airframe designs tend to make greater use of lightweight materials and technology, but with advances in CAD and engineering tools load calculations can be simulated far more accurately than was once the case, meaning that the need for overengineering is reduced.Calculations and simulations are not done for a variety of crash szenarios. It is the overengineering which produces the margins for unplanned loading of the airframes.
I agree that the 737 is not the best example of a robust airframe... But there have always been crashes where most passengers walked away because the aiframe stood strong. Some Fokker 100 (Austrian, Air France), MD11 (Mandarin), DC-10 (Iberia, Garuda) come to mind.
Nevertheless, the 777 fuselage indeed demonstrated excellent structural crashworthiness behavior. :ok:

[EEngr]

Problems.
--Anchor points for shoulder strapsSolvable with some smart engineering. Particularly with the new seat designs with rigid backs that 'recline' by sliding the seat bottom forward.

--Getting pax to put shoulder straps on when they moan at lap beltsMake the shoulder strap independent from the lap section so it doesn't have to be worn for other then take-offs and landings. That will obviate the need for pre-tensioners. These are used in autos where the lap/shoulder belts are slack (spring-loaded winders in most cases) and need to be pulled into place in the event of an accident. A shoulder belt only needs to be snug for a few minutes so its not too much to expect them to be worn correctly. Passengers don't like it? Take the bus cross country the next trip. No belts required.

--Getting the beancounters to accept the extra weight/cost of shoulder straps and tensioners.Tough. And until they start charging overweight passengers, I think they can live with a few extra pounds per.

--Issues with escape when pax are secured by lap and shoulder straps.Same as for lap only belts. A one handle release should be easy to design.

[ttodd]

It has always seemed obvious to me to place the pillow supplied in front of my face if we ever have to brace.
There must be a good reason why they aren't advised or used apart from their getting in the way on egress?

But they'll be scattered all over the cabin anyway, surely?

[DozyWannabe]

Dozy; the Comet 1 failures were a very unfortunate disaster, but calling it a "fiasco" is too harsh - and you might want to rephrase that. Facts about structural science and design that we now take for granted were simply not known back then.

Regarding use of the term "fiasco" - I wasn't talking about the design of the aircraft itself, as much as the political pressure to keep the aircraft flying when the fact that there was an unknown structural issue became apparent. This led to more accidents, rendered the Comet's reputation unrecoverable and had a severe knock-on effect to confidence within the UK's civil aviation industry.

[MYvol]

It is interesting to note that in the Ford BMax the front seat belts top mountings are on the seats. And car seat belts automatically adjust, unlike aircraft seats. Would a better, more ergonomic belt system be more acceptable to most passengers than the present, frankly cumbersome, aircraft belts.

[Ian W]

@EEngr and MYvol

The seat belts on aircraft are the simplest money can buy that will meet the type certification tests. Car manufacturers would not dream of using such basic restraint systems indeed they would be illegal, yet their collisions are far less severe. It would appear that the specification for aircraft seat belts is more to stop people being thrown out of the seat in turbulence than for safety in a crash.

I would imagine that pretensioned seat belts as found in cars would have pulled the pax into an upright position with heads back against the seats and there may well have been less spinal and facial injuries.

If seat belts were designed for safety they would be inertia reel seat belts with pretensioners and as a minimum lap and diagonal or with a full harness design. However, as I pointed out above, in the beancounters' calculatons the weight penalty and subsequent fuel cost exceed the safety benefit.

Only a change in type approval to mandate better seats and seat restraints will change the current system.

[givemewings]

And again, back to the issue of the pax actually wearing them. As flight crew we are trained in how to wear our seatbelts properly... pax are not. Even when you tell them it must be worn "low and tight" they still don't wear them properly (if at all) I would hazard a guess that at least some of the Asiana injuries would have been from seatbelts worn too loosely.

Then the other problem you have with a harness (even for takeoff and landing) is wearing it properly. It has to sit over your hip bones with the buckle in the correct position or you risk causing more damage than its worth. Given that half the crew I fly with don't even wear it properly (and this has applied at every airline I've worked at) then hoping for pax to do it is probably too much to ask....

Pillows will end up everywhere (you see a few in the photos) personally I have mine on my lap ready when a pax, just in case... not sure it would help much in fact you'd need to be careful that it's not going to change the angle of your neck too much but could be helpful to cushion the back of your head against flying debris...

[lomapaseo]

Only a change in type approval to mandate better seats and seat restraints will change the current system.

You forgot about type approval for the passengers as well.

I use my belt just enough that I won't kill my fellow passenger and think the best when I fly.

You can influence the non-flying public, but you can not influence all passengers to the same extent.

[Ian W]

@omapaseo (http://www.pprune.org/members/48942-lomapaseo)

And of course the marketeers would also say that having more capable seat belts would be seen as an admission that the airline is less safe.

Nevertheless, with inertial reel lap and diagonal seat belts with pretensioners a lot of issues of incorrectly worn belts would be solved.

[mickjoebill]

not sure it would help much in fact you'd need to be careful that it's not going to change the angle of your neck too much but could be helpful to cushion the back of your head against flying debris...

An inflight magazine will do a good job against sharp objects.

The average seat cushion does little to absorb energy in a serious accident.
In fact I'm told by an aviation engineer that a soft cushion isolates the body from the initial deceleration when the aircraft frame distorts at the initial impact. This is a bad idea.

It is only for a fraction of a second but it counts. So instead of the passengers body continues to travel at near the original speed. What happens next is the initial millisecond deceleration is over but the body is travelling faster than the airframe so then hits the seat bottom with greater impact than if there were no cushion.

His rather blunt advice is unless you have a purpose designed "hard", energy absorbing seat it is better to remove the cushion, put it on your head and bolt your spine to the airframe.:eek:

[chrisN]

What Mickjoebill said. This has been known in gliding circles (among others?) for years. From the BGA:

Safety Cushions 11th July 2012
BGA RP38 recommends that all glider cockpits should be equipped with cushions containing energy absorbing materials. These cushions are widely used in club gliders but less so in privately owned ones. The BGA has published a booklet explaining how safety cushions work and how they can reduce injury - not just in a crash but also in heavy landings. You can download the booklet here [ http://www.gliding.co.uk/bgainfo/safety/documents/safetyfoam.pdf ] - if you do not already fly with a safety cushion, we hope that it will encourage you to do so.

The originally recommended safety cushions were rather hard, though there was a “pudgee” version with some compliance in it, but there is now an alternative similar to the “Tempur mattress” deformable material which conforms to one’s shape. All these (at current retail prices) are quite expensive.

[Mac the Knife]

"..contravenes the laws of physics..."

No. Think of an ejection seat.

With no (or a hard) cushion, the initial upwards acceleration of the seat is instantly (or almost instantly) transferred to the ischial tuberosities and thence to the spine and rest of body.

With a soft or air cushion, the seat starts accelerating upwards but the cushion compresses, delaying the transmission of force to the bum.

By the time the cushion is fully compressed and can transmit it's impulse to the bum, the ejection seat has already had time to accelerate quite a bit and when it finally transmits it's impulse to the bum, it is travelling a lot faster.

Much bigger shock load then, as the pioneers of ejection seat technology Like John Paul Stapp) found out to their discomfort.

[SRMman]

Mac the Knife,

I think you're thinking about the old 'bang seats'; today the rocket ejection seats spread the acceleration over a longer period thus reducing the instantaneous acceleration to a much smaller figure.

[windytoo]

Modern rocket seat do not have a cushion. They only have a thin "wipe clean" covering!

[Mac the Knife]

Sorta kinda think that "....longer period..." is a bit relative.

From the available videos and the two people I've met who survived ejections (one with lumbar fractures and the other with a broken arm) it seems to be a pretty violent event :uhoh:

Suspect it beats impacting terra firma with the aircraft though...

:ok:

John Stapp, Jim Hall, Joe Kittinger, Yeager and all the other early guys at Muroc, Holloman and all those friendly desert places are the real heroes. Not forgetting Doddy Hay and the rest of them outside the US either.

See Badass of the Week: John Paul Stapp (http://www.badassoftheweek.com/stapp.html)

[Ian W]

I always remember a report on research into high speed ejection prior to the use of leg-restraints - with the quote: " The pilot experienced leg flailing after ejection" :eek:

Shows the bravery of the next guy to go.

Having ridden in the ejection seat training rigs where a half charge fires you up a retarding slide about 40-50 ft long the ::BANG:: of the ejection seat charges appeared coincident with the click-click-click of the ratchet stopping the seat sliding back. Exciting times :)

[Standard Toaster]

Shoulder straps? Seriously?

How are you going to certify that? How much is it going to cost? Specially retrofitting costs?

What about children? What about babies? What about overweight people? What about obese people? What about very tall people? What about handicapped people? Is it going to be adjustable? Is has to be.... If so, what's the added weight and volume of that solution? What about added maintenance? What's the cost of that added maintenance? What's the time lost with that maintenance? If the pre-tensioners fails, I'm sure it has to be immediately repaired, because regulators would never allow a seat that has a defective seat-belt to be occupied...

After certification, the usage surely would not be mandatory to all passengers because of several reasons (height, weight, special physical conditions and so on). If so, how are airlines going to train their crews so they can "force" the passengers that are eligible to use the shoulder straps to actually use it?... What's the criteria? How much time will it be lost on each flight because of it?


Car manufacturers would not dream of using such basic restraint systems indeed they would be illegal, yet their collisions are far less severe.

They wouldn't dream? Of course they would, because they already did... The only reason they presently don't is because of changed public perception towards safety, partially due to some publications like Unsafe at Any Speed and others, and now safety is a selling point.

And when you state that aviation collisions are far more severe than car collisions, that's simply not true... The survivable aviation crashes are far less severe than your average serious car accident, that calls for the 3-point seat belts, airbags and all those additional safety features. For instance, this Asiana crash everyone is talking about... All passengers survived and were able to walk from the airplane by themselves or with a little help (and this was a serious survivable airplane accident)... In a serious survivable car accident, you wouldn't even be able to move...

And finally, how many accidents have there been that justify the enormous cost? How many passengers would have been saved? How many serious injuries would have been avoided? Would the design, certification, implementation, training, lost revenue due to time lost on forcing the passenger to use it, maintenance and so on justify the investment vs the insurance premium airlines already pay to cover those said costs? I reallyyyyyy don't think so.

Regards.

[ExSp33db1rd]

Following a serious motor accident when seat belts in cars were but a twinkle in Henry Fords' eye, and never provided, I researched and located a car harness from the GQ parachute people, one that was in fact a full harness, i.e. lap and two shoulder type, and was not of the present 'inertia' style, so once adjusted there was no possibility of even reaching the radio - and fitted it to my replacement car.

It was monstrous, and my passengers laughed at me and refused to wear theirs, and eventually I gave it up and bought one of the first lap and diagonal inertia reel models, but I do wonder if I mightn't twist sideways out of it in the event of another head-on, as my accident was ?

In fact a simple lap-strap would have saved my thigh, which was snapped against the base of the steering wheel as I rose vertically in my seat.

[ShotOne]

Why are the majority of these posts so negative? Almost all passengers survived what could easily have been a total calamity despite the massive impact(s) and extensive structural damage.

[FullWings]

Why are the majority of these posts so negative? Almost all passengers survived what could easily have been a total calamity despite the massive impact(s) and extensive structural damage.
Agreed. The Boeing engineers should be praised for designing something that could take so much abuse and still stay in one piece, that also was lighter than previous designs.

A 200-foot wingspan aeroplane doing a complete groundloop and still keeping the wings, fin and fuselage together is amazing. Considering the height the rear of the aircraft came down from during the 360, it's incredible no-one inside was instantly killed. It looks a bit of a mess in the photos but having the floor/seats give way like that probably saved quite a few lives...

[aterpster]

ShotOne:

Why are the majority of these posts so negative? Almost all passengers survived what could easily have been a total calamity despite the massive impact(s) and extensive structural damage.

Because those on the flight deck were passengers rather than pilots. It was pure good luck and Boeing's design that kept it from being a fireball of death.

[ExSp33db1rd]

Just read that Boeing are now being sued for being responsible for making an aeroplane that is selectively safe, i.e. the Business / Premium Class passengers had shoulder harnesses and relatively few injuries, if any, whereas most of the injuries were amongst Economy Class passengers who were only provided with a lap strap.

If you can afford a Business Class seat you are safer, is the claim, and it's all Boeings fault.

Never heard of shoulder harnesses for pax, maybe it was an Asiana requirement, and nothing to do with Boeing, who only provided what they were asked for ?

Any clues ?

[olasek]

Never heard of shoulder harnesses for pax, maybe it was an Asiana requirement,
This is an FAA requirement.
There are multiple reasons for that but apparently combination of some factors like being at the front of aircraft, 'angled' seats (like herringbone arrangement) make you less protected hence requirement for beefier straps to compensate.

[DISCOKID]

One of the main reasons that so many passengers survived this was down to the Asiana cabin crew who deserve much more credit for their response and heroic actions.

From accounts so far they dealt with two slides inflating inside the cabin, initiated the evacuation themselves, cut numerous people free from their seatbelts using knifes thrown up by first responders on the ground, deflated the defective slides using the crash axe, and carried a number of passengers out on their shoulders.

[Methersgate]

#66 -quite right.Outstanding performance by the cabin crew. The need to cut pax free,"... using knives thrown up by the first responders..." is a point that one hopes will not be overlooked.

[peakcrew]

@shot one -

Why are the majority of these posts so negative? Almost all passengers survived what could easily have been a total calamity despite the massive impact(s) and extensive structural damage.

To an extent I agree with you. I'm heavily involved in motorsport, and have to keep explaining to people that yes, the accidents look bad, but the same accidents would have been fatal not so long ago but are now "walk-aways" because of the improvements in safety devices and scrutineering. However, regardless of the relatively low death and injury list in the Asiana crash, there is always something to be learned. There is at least some argument that only having lap-straps is insufficient, and it is good to air opinions on this (even though, as someone will come along and point out, no-one pays any attention to people on here anyway). Even seat design is a valid discussion point - how can you get a reasonable level of comfort for passengers whilst maximising safety? Fixed backs and thin/no cushions *are* safer than seats with moving parts under certain circumstances, though when the fixed seat-back is in front of the bag of fluid in the next row, the argument is far from clear-cut.

It is interesting, mentioning seats, that there may be a legal case starting over differential safety (thanks for that, ExSp33db1rd). I had wondered if that might happen, what with this being the USA. I don't necessarily agree with it, and the case will definitely be worth following (for years, probably, since whatever decision is reached initially will be appealed ad nauseam), but there could be significant repercussions from this crash.

There are some safety that aren't being discussed much here that I will be interested to see when the report comes out, though, such as the inflating slides. Whilst it is possible that deployment was due to deformation of the frame, I'm waiting to see what, if any, recommendations come out.

[ExSp33db1rd]

Never heard of shoulder harnesses for pax, maybe it was an Asiana requirement,

This is an FAA requirement.

Thank you.

[Keylime]

This is an interesting article. They edited a lot out of the interview. The article brings up issues that anyone who has flown over there knows.

Experts Concerned South Korean Pilots Too Reliant on Technology (http://www.voanews.com/media/video/1730738.html)

[justanotherflyer]

This is an interesting article.

Very possibly, but the link leads nowhere.

[Lonewolf_50]

Are only Korean pilots over reliant on technology? It would seem from some other accidents that they are not alone.

[Keylime]

Amazing. The link is already down. Must have politically incorrect.

[Machinbird]

Apparently the article was too controversial.
Before the article was taken down by VOA, it was sent elsewhere.
Here is a link to a Youtube version of the article.
The pace of presentation is slow, but it is all there it seems.

Experts Concerned South Korean Pilots Too Reliant on Technology - YouTube (http://youtu.be/1rBHqu1Mxds)

[Capn Bloggs]

Had a chuckle at the bit about the American controller asking coded questions; surely non-American westerners don't sound that different?

[BOAC]

Ironic, isn't it, that they impose all those restrictions on F/Os handling when the 'F/O' was an experienced Captain?

[gwillie]

Apparently the article was too controversial.
Before the article was taken down by VOA, it was sent elsewhere.
Here is a link to a Youtube version of the article.
The pace of presentation is slow, but it is all there it seems.

Experts Concerned South Korean Pilots Too Reliant on Technology - YouTube

QUICK >>>>>>>> before that disappears: RECORD AND TRANSCRIBE !!!!!!!

Priceless, is truth.....and, probably fleeting in this example.

[lomapaseo]

Thanks for the link

Nothing new

Of course more training helps since it's a useful form of focused experience rather than just more flight hours.

Leaving unanswered Korea's in general training sylabus compared to other countries and comparisons of both accident/incident rates parsed by type.

All stuff that I would expect the NTSB to address in a non-confrontational manner.

I'll await for that finding as well as expectations that both Boeing and Airbus will be way ahead of the NTSB in reviewing the same info and making preemptive recommendations to their customers.

[Keylime]

Links back up now. On VOA. Two articles now. No videos. Legal department is reviewing videos. They may or may not return.

Experts Concerned S. Korean Pilots Too Reliant on Technology (http://www.voanews.com/content/experts-concerned-south-korean-pilots-too-reliant-on-technology/1730727.html)


Aviation Experts Question Whether Culture Had Role in Asiana Crash (http://www.voanews.com/content/aviation-experts-question-whether-culture-had-role-in-asiana-crash/1730757.html)


The comments by Jim Hall ex-chairman of the NTSB are very informative:


“I would be interested in trying to do the historic work if I was in the FAA, which you have already done, to see whether this is an isolated incident or whether there is a pattern here," says Hall. "Why are these steps that had been taken earlier, these automation issues, language issues and cultural issues are reappearing again in a fatal accident at the San Francisco Airport.”


I remember comments by korean pilots a couple of years ago, "We have not had an accident in 10 years, we don't need foreigners here."

[TRF4EVR]

The elephant in the room is that the children of the magenta are also likely never to have flown a visual approach under even the least challenging of conditions in anything larger than a 172. It's ludicrous, and while the Asians are on the "tip of the spear" when it comes to this fundamental failure to teach basic Airmanship, it's coming for the rest of us, too.

I've flown with F/Os who could recite the width of an ILS signal at 8.2 miles from rote (what? I don't know, who cares!), but could barely stay out of their own way with taxi instructions at a relatively uncrowded Class C airport. Call me a Luddite, but I'd rather fly with a guy who's done a few NDB approaches "in anger" flying a 208 than a guy who's Beat The System at Flight Safety on a Jet and has the memory items burned in to his cerebellum, but gets confused when you expect him to use the yoke. Our "training" system has become a self-perpetuating complex which has basically nothing to do with "training" or "safety", and everything to do with making more money.

For what they charge, you could BUY the kid a 172 to go out, make some mistakes, and actually learn something useful.

[FBW390]

I remember comments by korean pilots a couple of years ago, "We have not had an accident in 10 years, we don't need foreigners here."

Oh yes, you do!:ugh:

[Coagie]

TRF4EVR, Your right. The Koreans are the canaries in the mine! It wouldn't cost the airlines, pilot's unions, or FAA/BSA type authorities that much, to implement some continuing education and certification on some Cherokees, 172's, or whatever is cheap and appropriate for developing or keeping up modern pilots manual skills. Maybe Burt Rutan and his brother could come up with something inexpensive and effective? They certainly have the passion for aviation and creativity to either point out something off the shelf, or create an inexpensive bird to keep pilots sharp in manual flying skills, and not just be a warm body in a uniform.

[TRF4EVR]

How expensive could it possibly be? The box on stilts is so expensive that they have to hustle us in and out of it like it's Bergen-Belsen and the Soviets are knocking at the door. Surely a 172 would be cheaper for teaching, you know, "flying an airplane" and "not hitting stuff". FFS, I feel like I'm on Candid Camera even having this discussion. Is Alan Fundt hiding in the bushes?

[barit1]

How expensive could it possibly be? ... Surely a 172 would be cheaper for teaching

Well, a big expense item in a 172 (or any conventional piston a/c) is 100LL, and it ain't gonna get any cheaper. One possibility:

http://www.pprune.org/flying-instructors-examiners/520837-redbird-c-172-rejuvenation.html#post7980315

[Capn Bloggs]

The box on stilts is so expensive that they have to hustle us in and out of it like it's Bergen-Belsen and the Soviets are knocking at the door.
The solution is simple; regulate it as a requirement. Then all carriers will cop the same impost. It's mandatory we do engine failure training; why not add hand flying and brain-power approaches?

[stilton]

You can build a seat to survive 100G but how many g's can a human survive :confused:

[Ace Springbok]

Why are the majority of these posts so negative? Almost all passengers survived what could easily have been a total calamity despite the massive impact(s) and extensive structural damage.


Had UPS Flight 1354 been a pax flight, we would be seeing many many body bags.

Me thinks we must salute our Asian brethren for not going onto the UPS 1354 thread and posting insults and racial innuendoes like some of our nincompoops from the west.

[alvesjorge]

Hi all, crs guy here.
Some friends of mine (crew) told me there was once a medical study...
I do not want to hurt anyone's feelings, much less insult Korean people. I just want to be informed. Even if what I'm about to ask is true, I'm sure there is today training methods to overcome the situation. So, here goes.
Was there in any time a medical study concluding Korean suffer from a genetic loss of depth perception? Not to be confused by momentary loss of it.
Again, the purpose is not to hurt Korean people's feelings, towards whom I have great respect.
Thanks

[lomapaseo]

Hi all, crs guy here.
Some friends of mine (crew) told me there was once a medical study...
I do not want to hurt anyone's feelings, much less insult Korean people. I just want to be informed. Even if what I'm about to ask is true, I'm sure there is today training methods to overcome the situation. So, here goes.
Was there in any time a medical study concluding Korean suffer from a genetic loss of depth perception? Not to be confused by momentary loss of it.
Again, the purpose is not to hurt Korean people's feelings, towards whom I have great respect.
Thanks

I believe that rumour started before WWII with the Japanese depth perception. It was soon forgotten after our ships were sunk by bombs.

[alvesjorge]

Well, were they (Korean) not in time, forced to introduce foreign crews because of it?

[WillowRun 6-3]

So, since the Korean aviators piloted (pun intended, indeed vectored at ya'!) a perfectly good wonderfully designed and constructed Trip'-7 into the ground - many posts on a number of threads have been busy pointing out the need for some increased regulatory approach to Airmanship certification of aircrews particularly foreign, as well as domestic. What organization is going to press ICAO to take it up and actually do something about it? This year's triennial is only about six weeks away. ALPA, you guys want to agitate a bit for some needed change? Whatever the Brit counterpart is called, what's up? I will tell you for certain, if this subject matter were in the hands of my legal eagle brothers in the SJA (USMC), not only would the problem be ATTACHED to the ICAO agenda, but ladies and gentleman, it would be on its way to being fixed, now. What is it with civil aviation?

[A37575]

What is it with civil aviation?
Bi-Lateral Agreements. I'll let your airliners into my airspace as long as you let my airliners into your airspace. It is called pussy-footing and is all about trade and money. Not about flight safety, which costs money...

[framer]

The solution is simple; regulate it as a requirement.
That's it right there folks. Everything else is fluff. The dollar runs the show and until the above happens ....... nothing will happen.
If a hand flown ( preferable raw data, no F/D ) approach was mandated as law the cost would be passed on to passengers at maybe 5cents per ticket.

[220mph]

You can build a seat to survive 100G but how many g's can a human survive

Indycar drivers routinely survive and walk away from 100+g spike load impacts.

Two of the big reasons are nominal cost. About $300 worth of materials in bead foam seats (which cost appx $3000 to $8000 on a one of custom basis), and appx $ 50 worth of materials in the HANS Device (head and neck restraint system) - which sells for less than $1,000.

My point is not necessary to directly correlate Indycar and flight safety improvements, but rather that effective solutions are possible and are not always wildly expensive.

[DWS]

SF Fire Chief Bans Helmet Cams Following Asiana Jet Crash « CBS San Francisco (http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2013/08/18/sf-chief-bans-helmet-cams-following-asiana-jet-crash/)

SAN FRANCISCO (CBS/AP) — San Francisco’s fire chief says helmet-mounted cameras no longer will be allowed after images from July’s airliner crash became public.

Chief Joanne Hayes-White told the San Francisco Chronicle she is concerned about the privacy of victims and firefighters.

The decision comes after images at the scene of the Asiana Airlines crash from Battalion Chief Mark Johnson’s helmet camera were published in the San Francisco Chronicle.

That led to questions about whether the department is liable in the death of a 16-year-old who survived the crash but was run over by a fire truck. She was covered with fire-retardant foam.

Police, the coroner and the National Transportation Safety Board are reviewing the footage.

Hayes-White said her 2009 ban on video cameras in facilities was meant to include fire scenes.

[Agnostique75]

Chief Joanne Hayes-White’s concern about « the privacy of victims and fire fighters » is very touching. In light of the less-than-stellar performance of the SFO’s fire department that she is responsible for, banning helmet-mounted cameras seems indeed a priority.

She also appears to be a savvy communicator: Suggesting, on the grounds of « privacy concerns », to get rid of a tool susceptible to provide NTSB investigators with crucial forensic evidence should be tremendously popular, provided that this wise decision is not misconstrued by ignorant « journos ».

Mrs Hayes-White should probably consider running for Chairman of the FAA, enabling her to get rid of those pesky CVRs and FDRs. And CCTV at or around airports. Oh, yes, and those ELT’s as well, nice suggestion Mr McNerney.

I am looking forward to reading the final NTSB report, which will certainly take a long and hard look at the performance of Mrs Hayes-White’s department. Her professional experience could come in handy during the “feathers and tar” episode.

Sarcasm aside, the fact that the images recorded by the Battalion Chief were made public is a genuine concern. A concern that can be easily addressed by a mix of guidelines and sanctions. Banning such devices, regularly used by law enforcement professionals worldwide, appears to be exactly what it is: a desire to get rid of a modern and useful forensic tool, that can occasionally bring to light shortcomings, all thinly disguised under the veil of respect for privacy. In short, pure hypocrisy.

A.

[sb_sfo]

+1........

[220mph]

SF fire chief bans helmet cameras in wake of crash (http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SF-fire-chief-bans-helmet-cameras-in-wake-of-crash-4741338.php#page-2)

I wrote several detailed reviews (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/518568-asiana-flight-crash-san-francisco-118.html#post7951724) of the actions (and lack thereof) of the fire department in this crash.

In my opinion the evidence shows many issues, some minor, but many significant - and some, like the totally inexcusable death of this young girl, as major as they get ....

In that context, of the apparent serious failures on the part of the fire dept, which culminated in the death of a 16 year old survivor of the plane crash ... this action by the chief is truly unbelievable. The arrogance (and ignorance) of this action is truly breathtaking.

The claims about privacy are simply ridiculous. There are surveillance cameras by the tens of thousands all across this country. And a large share of them are in law enforcement use. Overall, I personally think there are too many.

Many of these cameras have far higher privacy implications than an active emergency scene, and yet the law and common sense have proven their legality, usefulness and value.

Any LEGITIMATE concerns can be addressed by restrictions on the dissemination and use of any such cameras.

This action by the Fire department leadership adds to the damage. It has every appearance of a retaliatory action intended to insure the fire dept is not put in this position - where their actions can be judged because of on-scene evidence - again.

The evidence, in my opinion, clearly shows the fire department knew exactly what happened immediately - they knew a fire truck had run over a survivor.

Yet it took days to hear about the death and a week or more for details to begin to emerge. On its face this is not necessarily incriminating, however taken on the whole - in light of all the circumstances and criticism about their response and actions that day - this most recent action - the banning of video camera's - cannot be taken in much any other way as to be retaliative ... that the decision was not remotely connected to privacy, but rather to insure the performance (or lack thereof) of the fire department response cannot be so documented in the future.

In my opinion, as one who has followed and reviewed this in great detail since the very beginning, this recent action demonstrates a department with serious failures from top to bottom.

From the initial un-coordinated response that sent passengers running in all directions to get out of the way of arriving firetrucks, to the almost complete inability to effectively fight the fire (including the failure to deploy foam booms and the several defective booms, and allowing fire to expand to fully engulf the airframe some 15+ minutes AFTER the crash, and then the inability to knowledgeably attack the blaze, simply emptying several foam tankers shooting foam over the top of the aircraft)), to the 20+ minute delay in emergency response including to the approach end of the runway (w/survivors having to call and plead with 911 for help), to fire crews dumping the body of the young girl (incl making the inaccurate judgement she was deceased) in an unsafe area, to fire crew KNOWING the body was there and not communicating that, to a late arriving fire truck with a SOLO operator and no spotter (and no FLIR) running over the young girl ... to the, in my opinion, apparent attempt to at least temporarily cover up what they had done ... the actions of the fire department throughout this incident deserve highly critical review of the department from top to bottom.

And this latest decision by the Fire chief - whose primary purpose seems transparent, to eliminate the chance the cameras will show future problems with fire responses - jut reinforces the need for a serious top to bottom review.

[220mph]

Sarcasm aside, the fact that the images recorded by the Battalion Chief were made public is a genuine concern. A concern that can be easily addressed by a mix of guidelines and sanctions. Banning such devices, regularly used by law enforcement professionals worldwide, appears to be exactly what it is: a desire to get rid of a modern and useful forensic tool, that can occasionally bring to light shortcomings, all thinly disguised under the veil of respect for privacy. In short, pure hypocrisy.

An excellent response A.

One point ... I do not believe a public employee has (or should have) any reasonable expectation of privacy in the process of performing the work they are employed to do - which eliminates her concern there.

Numerous departments across the country have found that implementing video has significantly reduced exposure overall to claims. Far more often the existence of video disproves claims of damages.

As A. notes privacy concerns can be addressed with simple rules and policy.

The Chief could and should have said the video had been instrumental in identifying serious concerns and that the department was making them mandatory and that their use would be expanded. Which would give the department control over the video as well.

[jack11111]

220mph, well said.

I think you'd find most police departments, on the whole, value their video cameras as it backs them up very much more than it hurts them.

Chief should go.

[HDRW]

220mph, well said.Hear Hear!

I think you'd find most police departments, on the whole, value their video cameras as it backs them up very much more than it hurts them.
Indeed, plus it gets them some revenue from selling the footage to the "Police video" TV companies...

Banning the cameras is an astounding bit of wrong-thinking as a way to solve a possible privacy issue - surely the thing to do is ban anyone from taking the footage away or passing it on? Seeing that they just locked up the WikiLeaks bloke for half a lifetime, I can't see that it can be difficult to ensure this happens.

Keeping it within the control of the FD and any Government Department with a need for it, has to be the right solution, surely?

[StormyKnight]

Everything a video camera records should be seen as a learning tool rather than a litigation tool.

Why don't planes have video black boxes? Too much risk of the video being public? Isn't learning what goes wrong the primary purpose? :confused:

[alvesjorge]

Yes. Let us have cameras filming the work on the cockpit/flight station. Also on the line, checking the engineer's work. And also on the head meetings, checking the tradings.

I don't think we have all the information...

[Capn Bloggs]

Everything a video camera records should be seen as a learning tool rather than a litigation tool.

You're in Dreamland.

[WillowRun 6-3]

Leaving to the side the shock over the fact that an emergency vehicle ran over a person at the accident site.....two points from the legal perspective. One, it is mostly if not completely pointless to swim against the tide of technological change. While the video equipment can be removed, the time when its use will be far more widespread if not universal is not far away in the future. So the removal is, when judged from that perspective, a complete waste of time.

Second, the police in my jurisdiction (meaning, the police on the university campus I serve as its legal counsel - and under State law the police department is in many respects the equivalent of a municipal department even though we are a private institution) have the vid cameras available. State law prevents audio recording but just keying the start switch works wonders when situations arise on campus. I would be very hard pressed to arrive at even a single legal reasoning precept or contention which would support removal of these devices. And I have some difficulty even imagining what legal reasoning was applied to the San Francisco matter.

[jugofpropwash]

So what does the FD do next time when a news crew is on site with their camera? Or just some guy with his cell phone?

If they think that by banning firemen with cameras they're going to eliminate video of their screw ups, they are sadly mistaken.

[Checkerboard 13]

SFFD has now reprimanded the batallion chief who had the helmet cam:

SF firefighter faces discipline for helmet camera - SFGate (http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SF-firefighter-faces-discipline-for-helmet-camera-4784694.php)

[samuelmj1]

The human body can survive up to 100g ... but only for a split second.

[mercurydancer]

I flew business class in a BA 747 and it was rear-facing. Not in any way disorientating. Possibly the Taittinger was a little pleasantly distracting....

[RAT 5]

The human body can survive up to 100g ... but only for a split second.

How long a crash do you want? The less pain the better. (joking)

[Piltdown Man]

Joanne Hayes-White - Shame on the gutless :mad:! Because irrefutable video evidence now shows that a fire truck almost certainly (for complex reasons) was responsible for the death of the one of the passengers, she is going to shoot the messenger. SCUM! She is prepared to forgo information which may help save the lives of others because the same information could be used against her and her department. So tell me if I have this this right - The :mad: in the TSA rob passengers of their rights and freedom as they pass through their checkpoints but should the same people be involved in a prang, their right to privacy overrules everything else? God give me strength!

[220mph]

Indycar has an extensive instrumentation and safety program. The cars themselves are recording and sending thru real time telemetry, a large amount of data at all times. There is also a "black box" program that records crash parameters and forces. Additionally, drivers are fitted with head accelerometers (in their earpieces).

They regularly survive 100+G impacts, often hopping out of the destroyed car and into a backup after a medical; check. That said these are the spike/peak loads, which last for typically just fractions of a second.

[220mph]

In light of the discussion about base skills erosion in a highly automated environment, the following story would seem to be extremely scary.

It talks about efforts at automation in auto's ... I can only image the effect that increasing automation will have on base driving skills ...

Clearing the road for self-driving cars - FT.com (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/f15854b6-195c-11e3-83b9-00144feab7de.html#axzz2eSYV5k8W)

[Sunamer]

I apologize if my post is a bit off topic (initial thread has been closed since then) :uhoh:
There was NTSB video of an incident on August 19, 2004 at KLAX.

It was a GA of Asiana Airlines Flight 204 (B747) due to another aircraft on the runway (Southwest B737)

I found it interesting that 747 while being on final (probably 0.5-0.8nm from threshold) sunk "a bit" more than it should have, then climbed and then started to descend again toward the threshold and finally initiated GA due to 737 on the runway. (I assume that NTSB animation is correct in terms of positions of ACs at each moment in time)


I am not trying to start a discussion or get a response from pro's but rather trying to point out a similarity between this approach and that infamous one in KSFO.
:\

hopefully, I will not get kicked in the face :ouch: for posting this. thanks.

NTSB Animation Asiana Airlines Flight 204 and Southwest Airlines Flight 440 - YouTube

[flynerd]

In News today at abc.net.au/ news

No criminal charges will be filed against a firefighter whose emergency vehicle struck and killed a teenage passenger who had survived the Asiana Airlines crash-landing at San Francisco airport in July.

That sounds fair to me.

[mm43]

Press Release October 22, 2013 (http://www.ntsb.gov/news/2013/131025.html)

[roulishollandais]

Thanks for the information. Could that NTSB study "focusing on pilot awareness in highly automated aircraft, emergency response and cabin safety" be so rich than lighting the excessive action on pedals and rudder during the AA587 investigation.

[AirRabbit]

Sunamer – thanks for the post of the animation (NTSB Animation Asiana Airlines Flight 204 and Southwest Airlines Flight 440). This is the first time I’ve seen this particular animation and I think it speaks VOLUMES … but, it must be viewed WITH the volume turned ON, and the person watching MUST be listening (and listening carefully) to what is said. The TWR controller clears the SW flight onto Runway 24L, “Position and Hold.” After some intra-tower conversation – sounding like a maintenance vehicle requesting clearance to cross RW 24 Right – the controller issues the clearance, “SW 440 Turn Left heading 210, runway 24 Left, cleared for takeoff.” The SW flight acknowledges the clearance. Subsequently, the controller advises ... “United 961, LA tower, caution wake turbulence, B747 on short final, 24R, cleared to land.” Of course we don’t have access to the clearance originally given to Asiana 204, but, according to this clip, it is clear that the controller’s mind-set was the B747 was lined up for, and intended to land on, RW24Right. It was only when the B747 began the go-around, and announced that fact on the radio, that the Controller cancelled the takeoff clearance for SW440 and instructed them to "hold."

While there may (or may not) have been a continuation of the B747's descent ... which may (or may not) indicate some kind of issue with either pilot knowledge or proficiency - but I think the issue of their original clearance looms even a larger concern!

[Sunamer]

I agree, but what I was trying to point out was - according to animation (again, since it is from NTSB I would have hoped it is correct in terms of sync of audio with animation and relative positions of AC with their alts and speeds shown correctly)
had 747 continued that descend (prior to leveling off and climbing), it would end up touching down even before the beginning of RW.

It just looks like it was below GS significantly (regardless of the validity of clearance from ATC - since clearance itself hardly can make AC to go below GS on short final).

[AirRabbit]

Hi Sunamer … Thanks once again. You are quite right! I wasn’t paying very much attention to the B747’s final approach altitude until the B737 had reached a critical point in taxiing onto the takeoff runway. Because of your comments, I’ve again reviewed the clip and this time I focused on the B747 image from the initiation of the clip. You are more than correct! Watching that approach again, focusing on the entire flight path from the initiation of the clip, it appears that the B747 descended to a point well below a desired descent path, and climbed back to the original descending flight path to land. Once again achieving the “proper” descent flight path, it can be seen initiating another decent. Just after re-initiating the descent, it appears to level off ... and then again reinitiate the descent - indicating the likelihood that someone in the cockpit had again realized the flight path was not correct. After a very short time, once again, someone apparently recognized something improper … OR … they noticed the B737 taking the runway … and, for one reason or the other, they decided to execute a go-around. It’s hard to know for sure why the go-around was initiated.

Additionally, when viewing the B747’s flight path during the missed approach, someone could be convinced that the approach path was indeed for Runwy24 Right – strictly because of the apparent position of the airplane during the initial stages of the missed approach that are shown over the airport/runway complex in the clip. However, presuming that the animation was constructed correctly in all aspects (left-right; forward-aft; up-down; including the shadows), as the B737 taxis out, the nose gear position is directly in the middle of the shadow of the fuselage, indicating that the shadow is directly under the airplane. AS the B747 goes around over the boundary, its shadow is aligned with the right edge of Runway24 Left … immediately to the right of the B737, and as it climbs out, it apparently continues to drift over to the right - where it should have been throughout the approach.

So … after a whole series of “screw-ups” by that B747 crew … this certainly could have been another SFO … but was very narrowly averted!