Aviation Human Factors Related Industry News
2018; Hogrefe Verlag; Volume: 8; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1027/2192-0923/a000136
ISSN2192-0931
Tópico(s)Air Traffic Management and Optimization
ResumoFree AccessAviation Human Factors Related Industry NewsPublished Online:April 24, 2018https://doi.org/10.1027/2192-0923/a000136PDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInReddit SectionsMore2017 Was the Safest Year in Aviation History – Though Caution Urged on Remarkable Figures ContinuingNew figures released in separate reports by the Aviation Safety Network and Dutch aviation consulting firm To70 reported that 2017 saw not a single commercial passenger airplane fatality, making it the safest year for aviation ever. With only two fatal accidents to passenger airliners, both involving small turbo-prop planes, 2017 was much better than could reasonably (and statistically) be expected, and was again better than last year’s remarkable performance. To70’s report puts the fatal accident rate for large commercial passenger flights at 0.06 per million flights, or one fatal accident for every 16 million flights. The Aviation Safety Network (ASN) also reported there were no commercial passenger jet deaths in 2017, but 10 fatal airliner accidents resulting in 44 fatalities on-board and 35 persons on the ground, including cargo planes and commercial passenger turbo prop aircraft.The ASN’s statistics are based on all worldwide fatal commercial aircraft accidents (passenger and cargo flights) involving civil (not military) aircraft of which the basic model has been certified for carrying 14 or more passengers. Consequently, the June 7 accident involving a Myanmar Air Force Y-8F transport plane that killed 122 is not included. Though even when including military transport aircraft as well as non-commercial flights, the total number fatalities would be 230 in 24 fatal accidents. Still the lowest numbers in modern aviation history.The low number of accidents comes as no surprise, according to ASN President Harro Ranter: “Since 1997 the average number of airliner accidents has shown a steady and persistent decline, for a great deal thanks to the continuing safety-driven efforts by international aviation organizations such as ICAO, IATA, Flight Safety Foundation and the aviation industry.”To70 are keen to point out that even with so few fatal accidents to examine, there were several serious non-fatal accidents in 2017, most pressingly a number of engine related accidents occurred, including the spectacular loss of the engine inlet fan and cowling on an Air France A380. In addition to the non-fatal accidents, there are a number of notable events that have been excluded from the statistics. Examples of these accidents include: the fatal injury to a person caused by jet blast when standing close to the airport fence at St Maarten’s airport, and a cargo airplane accident at Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, when the airplane overran the runway and ended up in a village close to the airport, killing 35 on the ground.Expert View From To70 and Other Risks“Not all of the safety risks are related to aviation technology. The increasing use of lithium-ion batteries in electronics creates a fire risk on board airplanes as such batteries are difficult to extinguish if they catch fire. Airlines worldwide are training their crews to fight any fires in the cabin; the challenge is keeping such batteries out of passenger luggage.Despite the good news, a note of caution needs to be sounded. Whilst the safety levels of modern civil passenger airplanes remain high, the extraordinarily low accident rate this year must be seen as a case of good fortune. Statistically speaking, in a dataset that starts with over thirty million flights, there is little difference between two accidents and ten accidents. That this year’s accidents only resulted in 13 fatalities is even greater fortune.There is no room for complacency. Civil aviation, whilst an industry with a very high level of safety, does still carry very large risks.Looking at the programs for the first few safety conferences planned for 2018, we see a number of areas requiring attention. The application of new technologies in design, construction and operations is timely in relation to maintenance issues that have arisen on the engines used on the 787 Dreamliner. Human factors are, understandably, high on the agenda. Mental health issues and fatigue are central to this topic. Another prominent theme amongst safety professionals in the coming year is airline business models and how the industry runs itself.”For more information on this topic, as well as on the to70 service, please view: https://news.aviation-safety.net/2017/12/30/preliminary-asn-data-show-2017-safest-year-aviation-history/ and http://to70.com/to70s-civil-aviation-safety-review-2017/U.S. Maintenance Training Standards Poised for Major OverhaulFrom composites to onboard connectivity, aircraft technology has advanced significantly in the past several decades. The required training standards used to develop mechanics in the U.S., however, have not kept pace.But that is about to change.The FAA is in the late stages of a major revamp of its Part 147 regulations, which set standards for the 170 aviation maintenance technician schools (AMTSs) that supply approximately 60 % of the industry’s certified airframe and powerplant (A&P) mechanics. (The rest are trained by their employers or the military). A parallel effort to develop Airman Certification Standards (ACS) – a detailed list of what an A&P candidate must know and do to earn a license – might end up being integrated with the new rule. The result would be sweeping changes in how new mechanics are developed and tested.The general consensus in the industry is that change is long overdue. The last major revision to Part 147 came in April 1970, the same year that Garrett began testing the TFE731. The changes included increasing curriculum requirements to the current 1,900-hour standard and further defining subjects, placing them in four appendices.Aside from minor revisions in 1992, the appendices, which cover basic curriculum requirements and list the general, airframe, and powerplant subjects that must be covered, have remained unchanged.The FAA proposed major revisions in 1994 and 1998, issuing notices of proposed rulemaking (NPRMs) that included curriculum updates, but strong resistance from industry stalled both efforts.Meanwhile, aircraft and engine technology marched on, with once-futuristic concepts such as all-composite primary structures and Internet-connected aircraft becoming commonplace. The FAA, prompted in part by a 2003 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report that called on the agency to update maintenance training curriculum, established a working group to recommend changes. The working group issued its report in 2008. Seven years later, in October 2015, the FAA released another draft rule, acknowledging its late arrival and incorporating many suggestions from the working group’s report.Reprinted with permission from https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/business-aviation/2017-12-27/us-maintenance-training-standards-poised-major-overhaul. Original published by Sean Broderick, December 27, 2017.The Real Reason to Call Crew if Your Phone Falls Between Plane SeatsFor the most part, it’s a safe assumption most of us have the same train of thought when cabin crew instruct you not to pick up your phone when it slips in between seats on a plane.And it’s in case your arm or hand gets stuck down there, right? Hoo boy, actually – turns out, that’s wrong. You see, a recent article from Pedestrian.TV explored why airlines like Qantas and Virgin Australia have started adding lines like “If your phone drops between seats, don’t try to retrieve it, but call cabin crew immediately”.And turns out, it’s because … wait for it … it might combust or blow up on your pretty little hand.Yikes.According to PTV, this has legit happened on planes, where people have accidentally dropped their phone in between seats, and then just moved their seat around so they can reach down and grab it. Except on some occasions, they’ve wound up mistakenly crushing their phone while adjusting the seat, resulting in the phone “spontaneously combusting”.Basically, the lithium battery in the phone gets crushed, which causes it to become hot – smoldering even – and eventually catches on fire. The pop culture publication spoke to an expert on the topic, Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s Corporate Communications Manager, Peter Gibson, who confirmed that this is the reason for the safety message. He told PTV, “Yep, that’s right. All about stopping phones being crushed accidentally and catching on fire.”Gibson also added, “It’s happened a few times around the world. It’s happened in Australia, and the person who’s done it has immediately called cabin crew.“In one case, they picked up the phone with tongs and dumped it in a sink full of water. In another case, they got out the fire extinguisher and gave it a blast.”And what do you know, even the Australian Government has gotten involved in the serious safety issue, creating this little video to explain it better: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=104&v=8FJ1k6lMx5Y10 Most Common Causes of Fatal Aviation AccidentsThe FAA is continuously trying to improve safety, and as part of that, they’ve released their top 10 causes of fatal GA accidents, with a specific accident for each type.10) Thunderstorms or WindshearWeather is obviously one of the most hazardous parts of flying. For example, a Cessna 210 flew into a level 6 thunderstorm. The pilot at the controls was Scott Crossfield, an accomplished Naval test pilot, and the first pilot to fly twice the speed of sound. Before he departed, he received a weather briefing, however he didn’t get weather updates during his flight. The airplane broke apart in-flight, with wreckage found at three different locations.9) Midair CollisionsMost midairs happen near airports, and in one accident, a Cessna 172 entered the traffic pattern and collided with a helicopter. Unfortunately, the 172 didn’t make radio calls prior to entering the pattern, and the helicopter was unaware of them. The helicopter was able to land safely, but the 172 entered a spin, impacting the ground.8) Systems FailureA Cessna 335’s attitude indicator failed in poor weather. The pilotbecame spatially disoriented and crashed.7) Fuel Exhaustion or ContaminationA Cessna 172 ran out of fuel in flight. The aircraft had just completed an STC (supplemental type certificate) to increase the engine’s horsepower. However, new fuel burn rates weren’t placed in the flight manual, and the pilot didn’t plan for the increased fuel burn rate.6) Flight in IMCA King Air 200 was on a localizer approach, but the pilots were using a GPS to navigate to the IAF. The pilots inadvertently swapped the initial approach fix with the missed approach point on the GPS, using manually entered fixes. With no glideslope, and incorrect DME data, the plane flew approximately 5 miles past the missed approach point at the MDA altitude. As the pilots executed a missed approach, they impacted the top of a mountain.5) Unknown/UndeterminedSometimes the NTSB and FAA don’t have enough information to determine the cause of an accident. In one crash, the NTSB and FAA believe the aircraft flew into a severe downdraft in mountainous terrain, based on radar data.4) Low Altitude OperationsA P-3 air tanker was on a fire bombing run. The flight had an FAA examiner on board performing a checkride. As the P-3 descended over a hill, the left wingtip hit the ground, and the aircraft impacted terrain.3) Powerplant FailureIn a crash, the aircraft had a right engine cylinder failure. The pilot feathered the prop, but didn’t have enough single-engine performance to maintain altitude. The pilot elected to ditch the aircraft in the water. Fortunately the pilot and all the passengers survived.2) Controlled Flight Into TerrainA King Air 200 was on a medivac flight. The pilot was cleared for a visual approach into Bozeman, MT at night. Unfortunately the pilot identified the wrong airport, overflew Bozeman, and impacted terrain.1) Loss of Control in FlightIn an accident, the pilot lost their right engine immediately after takeoff. The pilot lost directional control, rolled inverted, and impacted the runway.For further information, please view http://www.boldmethod.com/blog/lists/2016/08/10-most-common-fatal-ga-accident-types-from-the-faa/Study Suggests Risk Management Approach to Combat EMS FatigueNew guidelines aim to mitigate the effects of fatigue by addressing the impact of shift work and scheduling, reports Medical Xpress.“The problem of fatigued EMS personnel is widespread and not isolated to one type of EMS operation or category of EMS clinician. Administrators of EMS organizations are not sufficiently equipped to address fatigue in the workplace, in part because of the absence of guidelines for fatigue risk management in the EMS setting,” said Daniel Patterson, Ph.D., lead author and assistant professor of emergency medicine at the Pitt School of Medicine.After review and analysis of more than 38,000 journal articles, conference presentations and other publications, Patterson and his colleagues gathered information on fatigue and shift work to develop the evidence-based guidelines for fatigue risk management and test the impact of the findings to create a biomathematical model for use by the EMS community to aid in shift-scheduling decisions.For more information, please visit https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-01-approach-combat-ems-fatigue.htmlEjection Seat Manufacturer Pleads GuiltyRed Arrows pilot Sean Cunningham, 35, died on November 8, 2011, following the ejection from his aircraft, which was on the ground. Martin Baker Aircraft Ltd manufactured the ejection seat. An inquest was held in 2014. HSE investigated and prosecuted the case against the manufacturer.Six years after Sean Cunningham’s death, the Martin-Baker Aircraft Company has pleaded guilty to a charge under Section 3 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work Etc Act 1974, the Health and Safety Executive announced January 22, 2018.No sentencing date has been set, but a hearing has been scheduled for February 12–14, according to the agency. An HSE spokesperson said, “HSE acknowledges the defendant’s guilty plea but will not make a further comment until after sentencing.”The company posted a statement on January 22, saying a maintenance failure was the cause. Its statement says in its entirety:“Firstly and most importantly we express our deepest condolences to the family and friends of Flight Lieutenant Sean Cunningham.Today, Martin-Baker Aircraft Company entered a guilty plea to a single breach of Section 3 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. This plea was entered following detailed and lengthy discussions with the Health and Safety Executive which have considerably narrowed the issues from when its investigation first started. It should be noted that this was an isolated failure relating to the tightening of a nut during maintenance procedures conducted by RAF Aerobatic Team (RAFAT) mechanics.Martin-Baker Aircraft Company has designed and manufactured ejection seats for 73 years and in that time these ejection seats have been flown by 92 air forces, with over 17,000 seats currently in use. Our ejection seats have saved the lives of 1,050 British Royal Air Force and Navy aircrew, with a further 6,509 aircrew lives saved around the world.Martin-Baker’s priority has and will always be the safety of the aircrew who sit on the Company’s seats. We appreciate that the Health and Safety Executive, during this process, has acknowledged this dedication and track record of saving lives.”A further and more detailed press statement will be released soon.For more information, please visit https://www.raf.mod.uk/reds/, http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-25684968, http://martin-baker.com/2018/01/22/press-statement-monday-22nd-january-2018/1Parts of this section are compiled from “Aviation Human Factors Industry News” and reproduced with permission of Roger Hughes.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 8Issue 1March 2018ISSN: 2192-0923eISSN: 2192-0931 InformationAviation Psychology and Applied Human Factors (2018), 8, pp. 70-74 https://doi.org/10.1027/2192-0923/a000136.© 2018Hogrefe PublishingPDF download
Referência(s)