GLOBAL ACCIDENT RATE REACHES NEW LOW IN 2011 says IATA

Montreal - The International Air Transport Association (IATA) announced that the 2011 accident rate for Western-built jets was the lowest in aviation history, surpassing the previous mark set in 2010.

The 2011 global accident rate (measured in hull losses per million flights of Western-built jets) was 0.37, the equivalent of one accident every 2.7 million flights. This represented a 39% improvement compared to 2010, when the accident rate was 0.61, or one accident for every 1.6 million flights. A hull loss is an accident in which the aircraft is destroyed or substantially damaged and not subsequently repaired for whatever reason including a financial decision by the owner. 


 "Safety is the air transport industry’s number one priority. It is also a team effort. The entire stakeholder community—airlines, airports, air navigation service providers and safety regulators--works together every day to make the skies safer based on global standards. As a result, flying is one of the safest things that a person could do. But, every accident is one too many, and each fatality is a human tragedy. The ultimate goal of zero accidents keeps everyone involved in aviation focused on building an ever safer industry,” said Tony Tyler, IATA’s Director General and CEO. 


Safety by the numbers:

·     2.8 billion people flew safely on 38 million flights (30 million by jet, 8 million by turboprop)

·     11 hull loss accidents involving Western-built jets compared to 17 in 2010

·     92 total accidents (all aircraft types, Eastern and Western built) down from 94 in 2010

·     5 fatal hull loss accidents involving Western-built jets down from 8 in 2010

·     22 fatal accidents (all aircraft types) versus 23 in 2010

·     486 fatalities compared to 786 in 2010

·     Fatality rate dropped to 0.07 per million passengers from 0.21 in 2010 based on Western-built jet operations

Runway Excursions

Runway excursions, in which an aircraft departs a runway during a landing or takeoff, were the most common type of accident in 2011 (18% of total accidents). This is slightly reduced from 2010 when runway excursions accounted for 21% of total accidents reflecting industry efforts to reduce their frequency. Despite industry growth, the absolute number of runway excursions decreased from 23 in 2009 to 20 in 2010 and 17 in 2011. Eighty eight percent of runway excursions occurred during landing. Unstable approaches--situations where the aircraft is too fast, above the glide slope, or touches down beyond the desired touchdown point--and contaminated runways are among the most common contributing factors to runway excursions on landing.

More from IATA at :

http://www.iata.org/pressroom/pr/Pages/2012-03-06-01.aspx

AIR FRANCE 447 CRASH

Air France 447 crash is turning out to be more of a man vs machine and the perils of too much of automation. Crew skills in airline cockpit are on bane and with crews being exposed to situations never encountered before, the recovery from a situation tends to get more difficult.


Stall series practice every 6 months during recurrent has been order of the day in India when rest of the training systems round the world debated on the benefits of this when the airplane could never be stalled. Now, the order of the day is stall practice with emphasis on high altitude recovery.
Redundancy in automation and recovery by crew and the performance of crew when startled, are bound to affect the recovery and have a direct bearing on whether the aircraft could be saved from a a situation or not.
As STALL has assumed new dimensions in light of AF447 crash,introspection by the training fraternity on other latent safety concerns borne out of automation  could well help save potential untoward accidents from taking place.

AUTOMATION -- Automation in the Cockpit

Is Automation in cockpit a boon or bane???

Increased automation in cockpits has changed radically how our cockpits look and work is carried on.

Either the automation is either too complex for human operators to comprehend, or is the information in the manuals inadequate, or is it the automation integration that seems to be the problem, or is it the lack of enough emphasis on the use of automation in the training curriculum the problem, or is it the complacency that sets in with overuse of automation and skills degeneration with overuse of automation the problem, or is the problem with operating procedures not adequately  addressing the use of automation in cockpits???

Send in your views