Aviation Safety - Wikipedia

Aviation safety - Wikipedia 19/01/2020, 4)19 PM
Aviation safety
Aviation safety means the state of an aviation
system or organization in which risks associated
with aviation activities, related to, or in direct
support of the operation of aircraft, are reduced
and controlled to an acceptable level. It
encompasses the theory, practice, investigation,
and categorization of flight failures, and the
prevention of such failures through regulation,
education, and training. It can also be applied in
A crewman performing a pre-flight inspection of an
the context of campaigns that inform the public
Air Malta Airbus A320.
as to the safety of air travel.
Aviation safety should not be confused with airport security which includes all of the measures
taken to combat intentional malicious acts.
Contents
Statistics
Evolution
Typology
Transport comparisons
United States
Security
History
Before WWII
WWII and later
Aviation safety hazards
Foreign object debris
Misleading information and lack of information
Lightning
Ice and snow
Wind shear or microburst
Engine failure
Structural failure of the aircraft
Stalling
Fire
Bird strike
file:///Users/nursyafiqahabdmalek/Desktop/ATC/Aviation%20safety%20-%20Wikipedia.webarchive Page 1 of 25
Human factors
Pilot fatigue
Piloting while intoxicated
Other human factors
Controlled flight into terrain
Electromagnetic interference
Ground damage
Volcanic ash
Runway safety
Terrorism
Deliberate aircrew action
Military action
Accident survivability
Airport design
Emergency airplane evacuations
Aircraft materials and design
Radar and wind shear detection systems
Accidents and incidents
National investigation organizations
Air safety investigators
Safety improvement initiatives
Regulation
See also
Notes
References
External links
Statistics
Evolution
In 1926 and 1927 there were a total of 24 fatal commercial airline crashes, a further 16 in 1928,
and 51 in 1929 (killing 61 people), which remains the worst year on record at an accident rate of
about 1 for every 1,000,000 miles (1,600,000 km) flown. Based on the current numbers flying,
this would equate to 7,000 fatal incidents per year.
For the ten-year period 2002 to 2011, 0.6 fatal accidents happened per one million flights
globally, 0.4 per million hours flown, 22.0 fatalities per one million flights or 12.7 per million
hours flown.[2]
From 310 million passengers in 1970, air transport had

grown to 3,696 million in 2016, led by 823 million in the
United States then 488 million in China.[3] In 2016, there
were 19 fatal accidents of civil airliners of more than 14
passengers, resulting in 325 fatalities : the second safest
year ever after 2015 with 16 accidents and 2013 with 265
fatalities.[4] For planes heavier than 5.7 t, there were 34.9
million departures and 75 accidents worldwide with 7 of
Yearly fatalities[a] since 1942, 5-year
these fatal for 182 fatalities, the lowest since 2013 : 5.21
average in red: fatalities peaked in
fatalities per million departures.[5] 1972.[1]
In 2017 there were 10 fatal airliner accidents, resulting in 44

Fatalities per trillion revenue
occupant fatalities and 35 persons on the ground: the safest
passenger kilometres since 1970
year ever for commercial aviation, both by the number of
(five-year moving average for
fatal accidents as well as in fatalities.[6] By 2019, fatal fatalities)
accidents per million flights decreased 12 fold since 1970,
from 6.35 to 0.51, and fatalities per trillion revenue
passenger kilometre (RPK) decreased 81 fold from 3,218 to 40.[7]
Typology
Runway safety represents 36% of accidents, Ground Safety 18% and Loss of Control in-Flight
16%.[5]
The main cause is Pilot in Command error. Safety has improved from better aircraft design
process, engineering and maintenance, the evolution of navigation aids, and safety protocols
and procedures.
Transport comparisons
There are three main ways in which risk of fatality of a certain mode of travel can be measured:
Deaths per billion typical journeys taken, deaths per billion hours traveled, or deaths per billion
kilometers traveled. The following table displays these statistics for the United Kingdom 1990–
2000. Note that aviation safety does not include the transportation to the airport.[8][9]
Deaths per billion

Type
Journeys Hours km
Bus 4.3 11.1 0.4
Rail 20 30 0.6
Van 20 60 1.2
Car 40 130 3.1
Foot 40 220 54.2
Water 90 50 2.6
Air 117 30.8 0.05
Pedal cycle 170 550 44.6
Paragliding 970[10]
Skydiving 7500[11] 75000[12]

Motorcycle 1640 4840 108.9
Space Shuttle[13] 17000000 70000 6.6
The first two statistics are computed for typical travels for respective forms of transport, so they
cannot be used directly to compare risks related to different forms of transport in a particular
travel "from A to B". For example: according to statistics, a typical flight from Los Angeles to
New York will carry a larger risk factor than a typical car travel from home to office. But a car
travel from Los Angeles to New York would not be typical. It would be as large as several dozens
of typical car travels, and associated risk will be larger as well. Because the journey would take a
much longer time, the overall risk associated by making this journey by car will be higher than
making the same journey by air, even if each individual hour of car travel can be less risky than
an hour of flight.
It is therefore important to use each statistic in a proper context. When it comes to a question
about risks associated with a particular long-range travel from one city to another, the most
suitable statistic is the third one, thus giving a reason to name air travel as the safest form of
long-range transportation. However, if the availability of an air option makes an otherwise
inconvenient journey possible, then this argument loses some of its force.
Aviation industry insurers base their calculations on the deaths per journey statistic while the
aviation industry itself generally uses the deaths per kilometre statistic in press releases.[14]
Since 1997 the number of fatal air accidents has been no more than 1 for every 2,000,000,000
person-miles flown (e.g., 100 people flying a plane for 1,000 miles (1,600 km) counts as
100,000 person-miles, making it comparable with methods of transportation with different
numbers of passengers, such as one person driving an automobile for 100,000 miles
(160,000 km), which is also 100,000 person-miles), and thus one of the safest modes of
transportation when measured by distance traveled.
The death per billion hours when skydiving assume a 6 minutes skydive (not accounting for the
plane ascent). The death per billion journey when paragliding assume an average flight of 15
minutes, so 4 flights per hour.[15]
United States
Between 1990 and 2015, there were 1874 commuter and air taxi accidents in the U.S. of which
454 (24%) were fatal, resulting in 1296 deaths, including 674 accidents (36%) and 279 fatalities
(22%) in Alaska alone.[16]
The number of deaths per passenger-mile on commercial airlines in the United States between
2000 and 2010 was about 0.2 deaths per 10 billion passenger-miles.[17][18] For driving, the rate
was 150 per 10 billion vehicle-miles for 2000 : 750 times higher per mile than for flying in a
commercial airplane.
There were no fatalities on large scheduled commercial airlines in the United States for over
nine years, between the Colgan Air Flight 3407 crash in February 2009, and a catastrophic
engine failure on Southwest Airlines Flight 1380 in April 2018.[19]
Security
Another aspect of safety is protection from intentional harm or property damage, also known as
security.
The terrorist attacks of 2001 are not counted as accidents. However, even if they were counted
as accidents they would have added about 2 deaths per 2,000,000,000 person-miles. Two
months later, American Airlines Flight 587 crashed in New York City, killing 256 people
including 5 on the ground, causing 2001 to show a very high fatality rate. Even so, the rate that
year including the attacks (estimated here to be about 4 deaths per 1,000,000,000 person-
miles), is safe compared to some other forms of transport when measured by distance traveled.
History
Before WWII
The first aircraft electrical or electronic device avionics system was Lawrence Sperry’s autopilot,
demonstrated in June 1914.[20]
The Transcontinental Airway System chain of beacons was built by the Commerce Department
in 1923 to guide airmail flights.[20]
Gyrocopters were developed by Juan de la Cierva to avoid stall and spin accidents, and for that
invented cyclic and collective controls used by helicopters.[20] The first flight of a gyrocopter
was on 17 January 1923.
During the 1920s, the first laws were passed in the USA to regulate civil aviation, notably the Air
Commerce Act of 1926 which required pilots and aircraft to be examined and licensed, for
accidents to be properly investigated, and for the establishment of safety rules and navigation
aids, under the Aeronautics Branch of the United States Department of Commerce.
A network of aerial lighthouses was established in the United Kingdom and Europe during the
1920s and 1930s.[21] Use of the lighthouses has declined with the advent of radio navigation
aids such as NDB (Non-directional beacon) , VOR (VHF omnidirectional ranging) and DME
(distance measuring equipment). The last operational aerial lighthouse in the United Kingdom
is on top of the cupola over the RAF College main hall at RAF Cranwell.
One of the first aids for air navigation to be introduced in the USA in the late 1920s was airfield
lighting to assist pilots to make landings in poor weather or after dark. The Precision Approach
Path Indicator was developed from this in the 1930s, indicating to the pilot the angle of descent
to the airfield. This later became adopted internationally through the standards of the
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).
Jimmy Doolittle developed Instrument rating and made his first “blind” flight in September
1929. The March 1931 wooden wing failure of a Transcontinental & Western Air Fokker F-10
carrying Knute Rockne, coach of the University of Notre Dame’s football team, reinforced all-
metal airframes and led to a more formal accident investigation system. On Sept. 4, 1933, a
Douglas DC-1 test flight was conducted with one of the two engines shut down during the
takeoff run, climbed to 8,000 feet (2,400 m), and completed its flight, proving twin aircraft
engine safety. With greater range than lights and weather immunity, radio navigation aids were
first used in the 1930s, like the Australian Aeradio stations guiding transport flights, with a light
beacon and a modified Lorenz beam transmitter (the German blind-landing equipment
preceding the modern instrument landing system - ILS).[20] ILS was first used by a scheduled
flight to make a landing in a snowstorm at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in 1938, and a form of ILS
was adopted by the ICAO for international use in 1949.
WWII and later
Hard runways were built worldwide for World War II to avoid waves and floating hazards
plaguing seaplanes.[20]
Developed by the U.S. and introduced during World War II, LORAN replaced the sailors' less
reliable compass and celestial navigation over water and survived until it was replaced by the
Global Positioning System.[20]
Following the development of Radar in World War II, it was

deployed as a landing aid for civil aviation in the form of
ground-controlled approach (GCA) systems then as the
airport surveillance radar as an aid to air traffic control in
the 1950s.
A number of ground-based Weather radar systems can

detect areas of severe turbulence.
A modern Honeywell Intuvue weather system visualizes An airborne pulse-Doppler radar

weather patterns up to 300 miles (480 km) away. antenna. Some airborne radars can
be used as meteorological radars.
Distance measuring equipment (DME) in 1948 and VHF
omnidirectional range (VOR) stations became the main
route navigation means during the 1960s, superseding the low frequency radio ranges and the
non-directional beacon (NDB): the ground-based VOR stations were often co-located with DME
transmitters and the pilots could establish their bearing and distance to the station.
With the arrival of Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS), satellite navigation has become
accurate enough for altitude as well as positioning use, and is being used increasingly for
instrument approaches as well as en-route navigation. However, because the GPS constellation
is a single point of failure, on-board Inertial Navigation System (INS) or ground-based
navigation aids are still required for backup.
In 2017, Rockwell Collins reported it had become more costly to certify than to develop a
system, from 75% engineering and 25% certification in past years.[22] It calls for a global
harmonization between certifying authorities to avoid redundant engineering and certification
tests rather than recognizing the others approval and validation.[23]
Groundings of entire classes of aircraft out of equipment safety concerns is unusual, but this has
occurred to the de Havilland Comet in 1954 after multiple crashes due to metal fatigue and hull
failure, the McDonnell Douglas DC-10 in 1979 after the crash of American Airlines Flight 191
due to engine loss, the Boeing 787 Dreamliner in 2013 after its battery problems, and the Boeing
737 MAX in 2019 after two crashes preliminarily tied to a flight control system.
Aviation safety hazards
Foreign object debris

Foreign object debris (FOD) includes items left in the aircraft structure during
manufacture/repairs, debris on the runway and solids encountered in flight (e.g. hail and dust).
Such items can damage engines and other parts of the aircraft. Air France Flight 4590 crashed
after hitting a part that had fallen from another aircraft.
Misleading information and lack of information

A pilot misinformed by a printed document (manual, map, etc.), reacting to a faulty instrument
or indicator (in the cockpit or on the ground),[24][25] or following inaccurate instructions or
information from flight or ground control can lose spatial orientation, or make another mistake,
and consequently lead to accidents or near misses.[26][27][28][29]. Misleading information and
lack of information is a major contributor to accidents and incidents.
Lightning
Boeing studies showed that airliners are struck by lightning twice per year on average; aircraft
withstand typical lightning strikes without damage.
The dangers of more powerful positive lightning were not understood until the destruction of a
glider in 1999.[30] It has since been suggested that positive lightning might have caused the
crash of Pan Am Flight 214 in 1963. At that time, aircraft were not designed to withstand such
strikes because their existence was unknown. The 1985 standard in force in the US at the time of
the glider crash, Advisory Circular AC 20-53A,[30] was replaced by Advisory Circular AC 20-53B
in 2006.[31] However, it is unclear whether adequate protection against positive lightning was
incorporated.[32][33]
The effects of typical lightning on traditional metal-covered aircraft are well understood and
serious damage from a lightning strike on an airplane is rare. The Boeing 787 Dreamliner of
which the exterior is carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer received no damage from a lightning
strike during testing.[34]
Ice and snow

Ice and snow can be major factors in airline accidents. In 2005, Southwest Airlines Flight 1248
slid off the end of a runway after landing in heavy snow conditions, killing one child on the
ground.
Even a small amount of icing or coarse frost can greatly impair the ability of a wing to develop
adequate lift, which is why regulations prohibit ice, snow or even frost on the wings or tail, prior
to takeoff.[35] Air Florida Flight 90 crashed on takeoff in 1982, as a result of ice/snow on its
wings.
An accumulation of ice during flight can be catastrophic, as

evidenced by the loss of control and subsequent crashes of
American Eagle Flight 4184 in 1994, and Comair Flight
3272 in 1997. Both aircraft were turboprop airliners, with
straight wings, which tend to be more susceptible to inflight
ice accumulation, than are swept-wing jet airliners.[36]
Airlines and airports ensure that aircraft are properly de-

iced before takeoff whenever the weather involves icing
Snow building on the intake to a
conditions. Modern airliners are designed to prevent ice
Rolls-Royce RB211 engine of a
buildup on wings, engines, and tails (empennage) by either
Boeing 747-400. Snow and ice
routing heated air from jet engines through the leading present unique threats, and aircraft
edges of the wing, and inlets, or on slower aircraft, by use of operating in these weather conditions
inflatable rubber "boots" that expand to break off any often require de-icing equipment.
accumulated ice.
Airline flight plans require airline dispatch offices to monitor the progress of weather along the
routes of their flights, helping the pilots to avoid the worst of inflight icing conditions. Aircraft
can also be equipped with an ice detector in order to warn pilots to leave unexpected ice
accumulation areas, before the situation becomes critical. Pitot tubes in modern airplanes and
helicopters have been provided with the function of "Pitot Heating" to prevent accidents like Air
France Flight 447 caused by the pitot tube freezing and giving false readings.
Wind shear or microburst

A wind shear is a change in wind speed and/or direction over a
relatively short distance in the atmosphere. A microburst is a
localized column of sinking air that drops down in a
thunderstorm. Both of these are potential weather threats that
may cause an aviation accident.[37]
Strong outflow from

thunderstorms causes Effect of wind shear on aircraft
trajectory. Note how merely
rapid changes in the three-
correcting for the initial gust front
dimensional wind velocity can have dire consequences.
just above ground level.
Initially, this outflow
causes a headwind that increases airspeed, which normally
Wreckage of Delta Air Lines Flight
causes a pilot to reduce engine power if they are unaware of
191 tail section after a microburst the wind shear. As the aircraft passes into the region of the
slammed the aircraft into the ground. downdraft, the localized headwind diminishes, reducing the
aircraft's airspeed and increasing its sink rate. Then, when
the aircraft passes through the other side of the downdraft,
the headwind becomes a tailwind, reducing lift generated by the wings, and leaving the aircraft
in a low-power, low-speed descent. This can lead to an accident if the aircraft is too low to effect
a recovery before ground contact. Between 1964 and 1985, wind shear directly caused or
contributed to 26 major civil transport aircraft accidents in the U.S. that led to 620 deaths and
200 injuries.[38]
Engine failure
An engine may fail to function because of fuel starvation (e.g. British Airways Flight 38), fuel
exhaustion (e.g. Air Canada Flight 143), foreign object damage (e.g. US Airways Flight 1549),
mechanical failure due to metal fatigue (e.g. Kegworth air disaster, El Al Flight 1862, China
Airlines Flight 358), mechanical failure due to improper maintenance (e.g. American Airlines
Flight 191), mechanical failure caused by an original manufacturing defect in the engine (e.g.
Qantas Flight 32, United Airlines Flight 232, Delta Air Lines Flight 1288), and pilot error (e.g.
Pinnacle Airlines Flight 3701).
In a multi-engine aircraft, failure of a single engine usually results in a precautionary landing

being performed, for example landing at a diversion airport instead of continuing to the
intended destination. Failure of a second engine (e.g. US Airways Flight 1549) or damage to
other aircraft systems caused by an uncontained engine failure (e.g. United Airlines Flight 232)
may, if an emergency landing is not possible, result in the aircraft crashing.
Structural failure of the aircraft

Examples of failure of aircraft structures caused by metal fatigue include the de Havilland
Comet accidents (1950s) and Aloha Airlines Flight 243 (1988). Improper repair procedures can
also cause structural failures include Japan Airlines Flight 123 (1985) and China Airlines Flight
611 (2002). Now that the subject is better understood, rigorous inspection and nondestructive
testing procedures are in place.
Composite materials consist of layers of fibers embedded in a resin matrix. In some cases,
especially when subjected to cyclic stress, the layers of the material separate from each other
(delaminate) and lose strength. As the failure develops inside the material, nothing is shown on
the surface; instrument methods (often ultrasound-based) have to be used to detect such a
material failure. In the 1940s several Yakovlev Yak-9s experienced delamination of plywood in
their construction.
Stalling
Stalling an aircraft (increasing the angle of attack to a point at which the wings fail to produce
enough lift) is dangerous and can result in a crash if the pilot fails to make a timely correction.
Devices to warn the pilot when the aircraft's speed is decreasing close to the stall speed include
stall warning horns (now standard on virtually all powered aircraft), stick shakers, and voice
warnings. Most stalls are a result of the pilot allowing the airspeed to be too slow for the
particular weight and configuration at the time. Stall speed is higher when ice or frost has
attached to the wings and/or tail stabilizer. The more severe the icing, the higher the stall speed,
not only because smooth airflow over the wings becomes increasingly more difficult, but also
because of the added weight of the accumulated ice.
Crashes caused by a full stall of the airfoils include:
British European Airways Flight 548 (1972)

United Airlines Flight 553 (1972)
Aeroflot Flight 7425 (1985)
Arrow Air Flight 1285 (1985)
Northwest Airlines Flight 255 (1987)
The Paul Wellstone crash (2002)
Colgan Air Flight 3407 (2009)
Turkish Airlines Flight 1951 crash (2009)
Air France Flight 447 (2009)
Fire
Safety regulations control aircraft materials and the
requirements for automated fire safety systems. Usually
these requirements take the form of required tests. The
tests measure flammability of materials and toxicity of
smoke. When the tests fail, it is on a prototype in an
engineering laboratory rather than in an aircraft.
Fire and its toxic smoke have been the cause of accidents.
An electrical fire on Air Canada Flight 797 in 1983 caused
the deaths of 23 of the 46 passengers, resulting in the NASA air safety experiment (CID
introduction of floor level lighting to assist people to project)
evacuate a smoke-filled aircraft. In 1985, a fire on the
runway caused the loss of 55 lives, 48 from the effects of
incapacitating and subsequently lethal toxic gas and smoke in the British Airtours Flight 28M
accident which raised serious concerns relating to survivability – something that had not been
studied in such detail. The swift incursion of the fire into the fuselage and the layout of the
aircraft impaired passengers' ability to evacuate, with areas such as the forward galley area
becoming a bottle-neck for escaping passengers, with some dying very close to the exits. Much
research into evacuation and cabin and seating layouts was carried out at Cranfield Institute to
try to measure what makes a good evacuation route, which led to the seat layout by Overwing
exits being changed by mandate and the examination of evacuation requirements relating to the
design of galley areas. The use of smoke hoods or misting systems were also examined although
both were rejected.
South African Airways Flight 295 was lost in the Indian Ocean in 1987 after an in-flight fire in
the cargo hold could not be suppressed by the crew. The cargo holds of most airliners are now
equipped with automated halon fire extinguishing systems to combat a fire that might occur in
the baggage holds. In May 1996, ValuJet Flight 592 crashed into the Florida Everglades a few
minutes after takeoff because of a fire in the forward cargo hold. All 110 people on board were
killed.
At one time, fire fighting foam paths were laid down before an emergency landing, but the
practice was considered only marginally effective, and concerns about the depletion of fire
fighting capability due to pre-foaming led the United States FAA to withdraw its
recommendation in 1987.
One possible cause of fires in airplanes is wiring problems that involve intermittent faults, such
as wires with breached insulation touching each other, having water dripping on them, or short
circuits. Notable was Swissair Flight 111 in 1998 due to an arc in the wiring of IFE which ignite
flammable MPET insulation. These are difficult to detect once the aircraft is on the ground.
However, there are methods, such as spread-spectrum time-domain reflectometry, that can
feasibly test live wires on aircraft during flight.[39]
Bird strike
Bird strike is an aviation term for a collision between a bird and an aircraft. Fatal accidents have
been caused by both engine failure following bird ingestion and bird strikes breaking cockpit
windshields.
Jet engines have to be designed to withstand the ingestion of birds of a specified weight and
number and to not lose more than a specified amount of thrust. The weight and numbers of
birds that can be ingested without hazarding the safe flight of the aircraft are related to the
engine intake area.[40] The hazards of ingesting birds beyond the "designed-for" limit were
shown on US Airways Flight 1549 when the aircraft struck Canada geese.
The outcome of an ingestion event and whether it causes an accident, be it on a small fast plane,
such as military jet fighters, or a large transport, depends on the number and weight of birds
and where they strike the fan blade span or the nose cone. Core damage usually results with
impacts near the blade root or on the nose cone.
The highest risk of a bird strike occurs during takeoff and landing in the vicinity of airports, and
during low-level flying, for example by military aircraft, crop dusters and helicopters. Some
airports use active countermeasures, including a person with a shotgun, playing recorded
sounds of predators through loudspeakers, or employing falconers. Poisonous grass can be
planted that is not palatable to birds, nor to insects that attract insectivorous birds. Passive
countermeasures involve sensible land-use management, avoiding conditions attracting flocks
of birds to the area (e.g. landfills). Another tactic found effective is to let the grass at the airfield
grow taller (to approximately 12 inches or 30 centimetres) as some species of birds won't land if
they cannot see one another.
Human factors
Human factors, including pilot error, are another potential
set of factors, and currently the factor most commonly
found in aviation accidents. Much progress in applying
human factors analysis to improving aviation safety was
made around the time of World War II by such pioneers as
Paul Fitts and Alphonse Chapanis. However, there has been
progress in safety throughout the history of aviation, such
as the development of the pilot's checklist in 1937.[41] CRM,
or Crew Resource Management, is a technique that makes
NASA air safety experiment (CID
use of the experience and knowledge of the complete flight
project). The airplane is a Boeing
crew to avoid dependence on just one crew member. 720 testing a form of jet fuel, known
as "antimisting kerosene", which
Pilot error and improper communication are often factors formed a difficult-to-ignite gel when
in the collision of aircraft. This can take place in the air agitated violently, as in a crash.
(1978 Pacific Southwest Airlines Flight 182) (TCAS) or on
the ground (1977 Tenerife disaster) (RAAS). The barriers to
effective communication have internal and external factors.[42] The ability of the flight crew to
maintain situation awareness is a critical human factor in air safety. Human factors training is
available to general aviation pilots and called single pilot resource management training.
Failure of the pilots to properly monitor the flight instruments caused the crash of Eastern Air
Lines Flight 401 in 1972. Controlled flight into terrain (CFIT), and error during take-off and
landing can have catastrophic consequences, for example causing the crash of Prinair Flight 191
on landing, also in 1972.
Pilot fatigue
The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) defines fatigue as "A physiological state of
reduced mental or physical performance capability resulting from sleep loss or extended
wakefulness, circadian phase, or workload."[43] The phenomenon places great risk on the crew
and passengers of an airplane because it significantly increases the chance of pilot error.[44]
Fatigue is particularly prevalent among pilots because of "unpredictable work hours, long duty
periods, circadian disruption, and insufficient sleep".[45] These factors can occur together to
produce a combination of sleep deprivation, circadian rhythm effects, and 'time-on task'
fatigue.[45] Regulators attempt to mitigate fatigue by limiting the number of hours pilots are
allowed to fly over varying periods of time. Experts in aviation fatigue often find that these
methods fall short of their goals.
Piloting while intoxicated

Rarely, flight crew members are arrested or subject to disciplinary action for being intoxicated
on the job. In 1990, three Northwest Airlines crew members were sentenced to jail for flying
while drunk. In 2001, Northwest fired a pilot who failed a breathalyzer test after a flight. In July
2002, both pilots of America West Airlines Flight 556 were arrested just before they were
scheduled to fly because they had been drinking alcohol. The pilots were fired and the FAA
revoked their pilot licenses.[46] At least one fatal airliner accident involving drunk pilots
occurred when Aero Flight 311 crashed at Koivulahti, Finland, killing all 25 on board in 1961,
which underscores the role that poor human choices can play in air accidents.
Other human factors

Human factors incidents are not limited to errors by pilots. Failure to close a cargo door
properly on Turkish Airlines Flight 981 in 1974 caused the loss of the aircraft – however, design
of the cargo door latch was also a major factor in the accident. In the case of Japan Airlines
Flight 123 in 1985, improper repair of previous damage led to explosive decompression of the
cabin, which in turn destroyed the vertical stabilizer and damaged all four hydraulic systems
which powered all the flight controls.
Controlled flight into terrain

Controlled flight into terrain (CFIT) is a class of accidents in which an aircraft is flown under
control into terrain or man-made structures. CFIT accidents typically result from pilot error or
of navigational system error. Failure to protect ILS critical areas can also cause CFIT accidents.
In December 1995, American Airlines Flight 965 tracked off course while approaching Cali,
Colombia and hit a mountainside despite a terrain awareness and warning system (TAWS)
terrain warning in the cockpit and desperate pilot attempt to gain altitude after the warning.
Crew position awareness and monitoring of navigational systems are essential to the prevention
of CFIT accidents. As of February 2008, over 40,000 aircraft had enhanced TAWS installed,
and they had flown over 800 million hours without a CFIT accident.[47]
Another anti-CFIT tool is the Minimum Safe Altitude Warning (MSAW) system which monitors
the altitudes transmitted by aircraft transponders and compares that with the system's defined
minimum safe altitudes for a given area. When the system determines the aircraft is lower, or
might soon be lower, than the minimum safe altitude, the air traffic controller receives an
acoustic and visual warning and then alerts the pilot that the aircraft is too low.[48]
Electromagnetic interference
The use of certain electronic equipment is partially or entirely prohibited as it might interfere
with aircraft operation,[49] such as causing compass deviations. Use of some types of personal
electronic devices is prohibited when an aircraft is below 10,000 feet (3,000 m), taking off, or
landing. Use of a mobile phone is prohibited on most flights because in-flight usage creates
problems with ground-based cells.[49][50]
Ground damage
Various ground support equipment operate in close
proximity to the fuselage and wings to service the aircraft
and occasionally cause accidental damage in the form of
scratches in the paint or small dents in the skin. However,
because aircraft structures (including the outer skin) play
such a critical role in the safe operation of a flight, all
damage is inspected, measured, and possibly tested to
ensure that any damage is within safe tolerances.
An example problem was the depressurization incident on

Alaska Airlines Flight 536 in 2005. During ground services
a baggage handler hit the side of the aircraft with a tug Ground damage to an aircraft.
towing a train of baggage carts. This damaged the metal Several stringers were cut and the
skin of the aircraft. This damage was not reported and the aircraft was grounded
plane departed. Climbing through 26,000 feet (7,900 m)
the damaged section of the skin gave way under the
difference in pressure between the inside of the aircraft and the outside air. The cabin
depressurized explosively necessitating a rapid descent to denser (breathable) air and an
emergency landing. Post-landing examination of the fuselage revealed a 12-inch (30 cm) hole on
the right side of the airplane.[51]
Volcanic ash
Plumes of volcanic ash near active volcanoes can damage propellers, engines and cockpit
windows.[52] [53] In 1982, British Airways Flight 9 flew through an ash cloud and temporarily
lost power from all four engines. The plane was badly damaged, with all the leading edges being
scratched. The front windscreens had been so badly "sand" blasted by the ash that they could
not be used to land the aircraft.[54]
Prior to 2010 the general approach taken by airspace regulators was that if the ash
concentration rose above zero, then the airspace was considered unsafe and was consequently
closed.[55] Volcanic Ash Advisory Centers enable liaison between meteorologists, volcanologists,
and the aviation industry.[56]
Runway safety
Types of runway safety incidents include:
Runway excursion – an incident involving only a single aircraft making an inappropriate exit
from the runway.
Runway overrun – a specific type of excursion where the aircraft does not stop before the
end of the runway (e.g., Air France Flight 358).
Runway incursion – incorrect presence of a vehicle, person, or another aircraft on the
runway (e.g., Tenerife airport disaster).

Runway confusion – crew misidentification the runway for landing or take-off (e.g., Comair
Flight 191, Singapore Airlines Flight 6).
Terrorism
Aircrew are normally trained to handle hijack situations. Since the September 11, 2001 attacks,
stricter airport and airline security measures are in place to prevent terrorism, such as security
checkpoints and locking the cockpit doors during flight.
In the United States, the Federal Flight Deck Officer program is run by the Federal Air Marshal
Service, with the aim of training active and licensed airline pilots to carry weapons and defend
their aircraft against criminal activity and terrorism. Upon completion of government training,
selected pilots enter a covert law enforcement and counter-terrorism service. Their jurisdiction
is normally limited to a flight deck or a cabin of a commercial airliner or a cargo aircraft they
operate while on duty.
Deliberate aircrew action

Although most air crews are screened for psychological fitness, some have taken suicidal
actions. In the case of EgyptAir Flight 990, it appears that the first officer deliberately crashed
into the Atlantic Ocean while the captain was away from his station in 1999 off Nantucket,
Massachusetts.
In 1982, Japan Airlines Flight 350 crashed while on approach to the Tokyo Haneda Airport,
killing 24 of the 174 on board. The official investigation found the mentally ill captain had
attempted suicide by placing the inboard engines into reverse thrust, while the aircraft was close
to the runway. The first officer did not have enough time to countermand before the aircraft
stalled and crashed.
In 1997, SilkAir Flight 185 suddenly went into a high dive from its cruising altitude. The speed of
the dive was so high that the aircraft began to break apart before it finally crashed near
Palembang, Sumatra. After three years of investigation, the Indonesian authorities declared that
the cause of the accident could not be determined. However, the US NTSB concluded that
deliberate suicide by the captain was the only reasonable explanation.
In 2015, on March 24, Germanwings Flight 9525 (an Airbus A320-200) crashed 100 kilometres
(62 mi) northwest of Nice, in the French Alps, after a constant descent that began one minute
after the last routine contact with air traffic control and shortly after the aircraft had reached its
assigned cruise altitude. All 144 passengers and six crew members were killed. The crash was
intentionally caused by the co-pilot, Andreas Lubitz. Having been declared "unfit to work"
without telling his employer, Lubitz reported for duty, and during the flight locked the Captain
out of the flightdeck. In response to the incident and the circumstances of Lubitz's involvement,
aviation authorities in Canada, New Zealand, Germany and Australia implemented new
regulations that require two authorized personnel to be present in the cockpit at all times. Three
days after the incident the European Aviation Safety Agency issued a temporary
recommendation for airlines to ensure that at least two crew members, including at least one
pilot, are in the cockpit at all times of the flight. Several airlines announced they had already
adopted similar policies voluntarily.
Military action
Passenger planes have rarely been attacked in both peacetime and war. Examples:
In 1955, Bulgaria shot down El Al Flight 402.

In 1973, Israel shot down Libyan Arab Airlines Flight 114.
In 1983, the Soviet Union shot down Korean Air Lines Flight 007.
In 1988, the United States shot down Iran Air Flight 655.
In 2001, the Ukrainian Air Force accidentally shot down Siberia Airlines Flight 1812 during
an exercise.
In 2014, a rebel from Ukraine- armed with the Russian Aerospace Defense Forces Buk
missile system - shot down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 [57].
Accident survivability
Earlier tragedies investigations and improved engineering has allowed many safety
improvements that have allowed an increasing safer aviation.[37]
Airport design
Airport design and location can have a large impact on
aviation safety, especially since some airports such as Chicago
Midway International Airport were originally built for
propeller planes and many airports are in congested areas
where it is difficult to meet newer safety standards. For
instance, the FAA issued rules in 1999 calling for a runway
safety area, usually extending 500 feet (150 m) to each side
and 1,000 feet (300 m) beyond the end of a runway. This is
intended to cover ninety percent of the cases of an aircraft EMAS bed after being run over by
landing gear
leaving the runway by providing a buffer space free of
obstacles.[58] Many older airports do not meet this standard.
One method of substituting for the 1,000 feet (300 m) at the end of a runway for airports in
congested areas is to install an engineered materials arrestor system (EMAS). These systems are
usually made of a lightweight, crushable concrete that absorbs the energy of the aircraft to bring
it to a rapid stop. As of 2008, they have stopped three aircraft at JFK Airport.
Emergency airplane evacuations
According to a 2000 report by the National Transportation Safety Board, emergency aircraft
evacuations happen about once every 11 days in the U.S. While some situations are extremely
dire, such as when the plane is on fire, in many cases the greatest challenge for passengers can
be the use of the evacuation slide. In a Time article on the subject, Amanda Ripley reported that
when a new supersized Airbus A380 underwent mandatory evacuation tests in 2006, thirty-
three of the 873 evacuating volunteers got hurt. While the evacuation was considered a success,
one volunteer suffered a broken leg, while the remaining 32 received slide burns. Such accidents
are common. In her article, Ripley provided tips on how to make it down the airplane slide
without injury.[59] Another improvement to airplane evacuations is the requirement by the
Federal Aviation Administration for planes to demonstrate an evacuation time of 90 seconds
with half the emergency exits blocked for each type of airplane in their fleet. According to
studies, 90 seconds is the time needed to evacuate before the plane starts burning, before there
can be a very large fire or explosions, or before fumes fill the cabin.[37][58]
Aircraft materials and design

Changes such as using new materials for seat fabric and insulation has given between 40 and 60
additional seconds to people on board to evacuate before the cabin gets filled with fire and
potential deadly fumes.[37] Other improvements through the years include the use of properly
rated seatbelts, impact resistant seat frames, and airplane wings and engines designed to shear
off to absorb impact forces.[58]
Radar and wind shear detection systems

As the result of the accidents due to wind shear and other weather disturbances, most notably
the 1985 crash of Delta Air Lines Flight 191, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration mandated
that all commercial aircraft have on-board wind shear detection systems by 1993.[38] Since
1995, the number of major civil aircraft accidents caused by wind shear has dropped to
approximately one every ten years, due to the mandated on-board detection as well as the
addition of Doppler weather radar units on the ground (NEXRAD). The installation of high-
resolution Terminal Doppler Weather Radar stations at many U.S. airports that are commonly
affected by wind shear has further aided the ability of pilots and ground controllers to avoid
wind shear conditions.[60]
Accidents and incidents

List of airship accidents
Lists of aviation accidents and incidents
Aviation accidents and incidents
List of airliner shootdown incidents
Flight recorder, includes flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder
National investigation organizations

Australian Transport Safety Bureau
Flugunfalluntersuchungsstelle im BMVIT (http://www.bmvit.gv.at/verkehr/luftfahrt/behoerden/
fusbmvit.html) (Austria)
Centro de Investigação e Prevenção de Acidentes Aeronáuticos (http://www2.fab.mil.br/ceni
pa/) (Brazil)
Transportation Safety Board of Canada
Air Accidents Investigation Institute (Czech Republic)
Danish Aircraft Accident Investigation Board (http://www.hcl.dk/)
Bureau d'Enquêtes et d'Analyses pour la sécurité de l'Aviation Civile (France)
Bundesstelle für Flugunfalluntersuchung (Germany)
Air Accident Investigation Unit (Ireland)
Aircraft and Railway Accidents Investigation Commission (Japan)
Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand
Transport Accident Investigation Commission (New Zealand)
Onderzoeksraad voor Veiligheid (The Netherlands)
Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines
Comisión de Investigación de Accidentes e Incidentes de Aviación Civil (Spain)
Swedish Accident Investigation Board
Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (Switzerland)
Air Accidents Investigation Branch (UK)
National Transportation Safety Board (USA)
European Co-ordination Center for Aircraft Incident Reporting Systems (https://archive.is/20
010303200204/http://eccairs-www.jrc.it/) (ECCAIRS)
International Civil Aviation Organization
South African Civil Aviation Authority (South Africa)
Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (http://www.civilaviation.gov.in/en/aaib) (India)
Air safety investigators

Air safety investigators are trained and authorized to investigate aviation accidents and
incidents: to research, analyse, and report their conclusions. They may be specialized in aircraft
structures, air traffic control, flight recorders or human factors. They can be employed by
government organizations responsible for aviation safety, manufacturers or unions.
Safety improvement initiatives

The safety improvement initiatives are aviation safety partnerships between regulators,
manufacturers, operators, professional unions, research organisations, and international
aviation organisations to further enhance safety.[61] Some major safety initiatives worldwide
are:
Commercial Aviation Safety Team (CAST) (http://www.cast-safety.org/) in the US. The

Commercial Aviation Safety Team (CAST) was founded in 1998 with a goal to reduce the
commercial aviation fatality rate in the United States by 80 percent by 2007.
European Strategic Safety Initiative (ESSI) (http://easa.europa.eu/essi/webapp/essi/www/
index.php). The European Strategic Safety Initiative (ESSI) is an aviation safety partnership
between EASA, other regulators and the industry. The initiative objective is to further
enhance safety for citizens in Europe and worldwide through safety analysis,
implementation of cost effective action plans, and coordination with other safety initiatives
worldwide.
After the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, in June 2014, the International Air
Transport Association said it was working on implementing new measures to track aircraft in
flight in real time. A special panel was considering a range of options including the production
of equipment especially designed to ensure real-time tracking.[62]
Since pilot error accounts for between one-third and 60% of aviation accidents, advances in
automation and technology could replace some or all of the duties of the aircraft pilots.
Automation since the 1980s has already eliminated the need for flight engineers. In complex
situations with severely degraded systems, the problem-solving and judgement capability of
humans is challenging to achieve with automated systems, for example the catastrophic engine
failures experienced by United Airlines Flight 232 and Qantas Flight 32.[63] However, with more
accurate software modeling of aeronautic factors, test planes have been successfully flown in
these conditions.[64]
While the accident rate is very low, to ensure they do not rise with the air transport growth,
experts recommend creating a robust culture of collecting information from employees without
blame.[65]
Regulation
Directorate- General of Civil Aviation, India.
Civil Aviation Authority (United Kingdom)

Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government
(Australia)
European Aviation Safety Agency
Federal Aviation Administration (United States)
Federal Aviation Regulations
Irish Aviation Authority
Transport Canada
See also
Aircraft fire trainer
Aircraft hijacking
Airport security
Airport security
Aviation Safety Network
Aviation Safety Reporting System
Ballistic parachute
Crashworthiness
Global War on Error
Hazard analysis
Health hazards of air travel
IATA Operational Safety Audit
Jet Airliner Crash Data Evaluation Centre
Lasers and aviation safety
Mid-air collision
Pilot error
Safety of emergency medical services flights
Sensory illusions in aviation
Sixty second review, a technique used by flight attendants to focus and prepare for a
sudden emergency
SKYbrary
Swiss cheese model
System accident
Tombstone mentality
Travel § Safety
Uncontrolled decompression
Wind shear
Zonal safety analysis
Notes
a. from 14+ passengers airliners hull losses
References
1. "fatal airliner (14+ passengers) hull-loss accidents" (http://aviation-safety.net/statistics/period
/stats.php?cat=A1), Aviation Safety Network, Flight Safety Foundation
2. "7.10", Global Fatal Accident Review 2002 to 2011 (http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CA
P%201036%20Global%20Fatal%20Accident%20Review%202002%20to%202011.pdf)
(PDF), UK Civil Aviation Authority, June 2013
3. International Civil Aviation Organization, "Air transport, passengers carried" (http://data.worl
dbank.org/indicator/IS.AIR.PSGR?year_high_desc=true), Civil Aviation Statistics of the
World, World Bank
4. "Preliminary ASN data show 2016 to be one of the safest years in aviation history" (https://n
ews.aviation-safety.net/2016/12/29/preliminary-asn-data-show-2016-to-be-one-of-the-safest-
years-in-aviation-history/). Aviation Safety Network. Flight Safety Foundation. 29 December
2016.
5. Safety Report (https://www.icao.int/safety/Documents/ICAO_SR_2017_18072017.pdf)
5. Safety Report (https://www.icao.int/safety/Documents/ICAO_SR_2017_18072017.pdf)

(PDF), ICAO, 2017
6. "ASN data show 2017 was safest year in aviation history" (https://news.aviation-safety.net/2
017/12/30/preliminary-asn-data-show-2017-safest-year-aviation-history/). Aviation Safety
Network. Flight Safety Foundation. 30 December 2017.
7. Javier Irastorza Mediavilla (Jan 2, 2020). "Aviation safety evolution (2019 update)" (https://th
eblogbyjavier.com/2020/01/02/aviation-safety-evolution-2019-update/).
8. The risks of travel (http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/risks_of_travel.htm) Archived (https://web
.archive.org/web/20010907173322/http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/risks_of_travel.htm)
September 7, 2001, at the Wayback Machine. The site cites the source as an October 2000
article by Roger Ford in the magazine Modern Railways and based on a DETR survey.
9. Beck, L. F.; Dellinger, A. M.; O'neil, M. E. (2007). "Motor vehicle crash injury rates by mode
of travel, United States: using exposure-based methods to quantify differences" (http://aje.ox
fordjournals.org/content/166/2/212.short). American Journal of Epidemiology. 166 (2): 212–
218. doi:10.1093/aje/kwm064 (https://doi.org/10.1093%2Faje%2Fkwm064).
10. "Rapport 2012 sur les chiffres de l'accidentologie du parapente" (https://federation.ffvl.fr/site
s/ffvl.fr/files/accidentologie%202012%20parapente.pdf) (PDF) (in French). FFVL. 15 Nov
2012.
11. "Incidents And Accidents" (https://uspa.org/Find/FAQs/Demographics). USPA. 11 Oct 2008.
12. "How long does a skydive last" (http://www.chattanoogaskydivingcompany.com/dropzone/sk
ydiving-articles/how-long-does-a-skydive-last/). 19 Apr 2017.
13. "Space Shuttle Era Facts" (https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/566250main_2011.07.05%20SHUTTL
E%20ERA%20FACTS.pdf) (PDF). NASA. 2011.
14. "Flight into danger – 07 August 1999 – New Scientist Space" (https://www.newscientist.com/
article/mg16321985.200-flight-into-danger.html). Retrieved 21 March 2018.
15. "How long is your average flight?" (http://www.paraglidingforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=6409).
2006.
16. "Aviation Safety Research Program" (https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/aviation/). United
States National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. October 22, 2018.
17. "Fatalities" (https://www.bts.gov/archive/publications/transportation_statistics_annual_report/
2015/tables/ch6/table6_1). Bureau of Transportation Statistics.
18. "U.S. Passenger miles" (https://www.bts.gov/content/us-passenger-miles). Bureau of
Transportation Statistics.
19. Southwest Jet Engine Blows Out in Flight, Killing Passenger (https://www.bloomberg.com/n
ews/articles/2018-04-17/nyc-to-dallas-southwest-jet-is-forced-to-land-with-engine-damage)
20. "A Short History Of Making Flying Safer" (http://aviationweek.com/AirSafetyInnovations).
Aviation Week & Space Technology. Aug 1, 2017.
21. "The Aerial Lighthouse" (http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1921/1921%20-%2002
80.html). Flight. Retrieved 2011-11-29.
22. John Croft (Apr 7, 2017). "What Is The Certification Tipping Point?" (http://aviationweek.com
/commercial-aviation/what-certification-tipping-point). Aviation Week & Space Technology.
23. Kent Statler, Rockwell Collins (Nov 1, 2017). "Opinion: World Needs Seamless Aviation
Certification Standards" (http://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/opinion-world-needs-s
eamless-aviation-certification-standards#comment-937861). Aviation Week & Space
Technology.
24. Blumenkrantz, Zohar (June 15, 2009). "Two planes nearly crash at Ben Gurion Airport due
to glitch" (http://www.haaretz.com/news/two-planes-nearly-crash-at-ben-gurion-airport-due-t
to glitch" (http://www.haaretz.com/news/two-planes-nearly-crash-at-ben-gurion-airport-due-t
o-glitch-1.278096). Haaretz.
25. Jerusalem Post (http://new.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=160314) Archived (https://web.a
rchive.org/web/20110713122517/http://new.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=160314) 2011-
07-13 at the Wayback Machine: Weeds blamed for spate of near-misses at Ben-Gurion
Airport
26. "Momento24.com" (http://momento24.com/en/2010/01/21/ezeiza-an-error-in-the-control-tow
er-almost-caused-two-planes-to-collide/). momento24.com. Retrieved 21 March 2018.
27. Gulezian, Lisa Amin. "NTSB, FAA investigate near-miss mid-air collision at San Francisco
International Airport" (http://abc7news.com/archive/7359230/). ABC7 San Francisco.
Retrieved 21 March 2018.
28. Wald, Matthew L. (20 July 2007). "La Guardia Near-Crash Is One of a Rising Number" (https
://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/20/nyregion/20laguardia.html). Retrieved 21 March 2018 – via
NYTimes.com.
29. Bundesstelle für Flugunfalluntersuchung Investigation Report on crash near Ueberlingen (htt
p://www.bfu-web.de/cln_016/nn_226462/EN/Publications/Investigation_20Report/2002/Rep
ort__02__AX001-1-2___C3_9Cberlingen__Report,templateId=raw,property=publicationFile.
pdf/Report_02_AX001-1-2_Überlingen_Report.pdf)
30. "Schleicher ASK 21 two seat glider, 17 April 1999 - GOV.UK" (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/public
ations/bulletins/december_1999/schleicher_500699.cfm). Retrieved 21 March 2018.
31. "FAA Advisory Circulars" (http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgA
dvisoryCircular.nsf/MainFrame?OpenFrameSet&CFID=11301165&). Retrieved 21 March
2018.
32. Hiding requirements = suspicion they're inadequate (http://www.nolan-law.com/hiding-requir
ements-suspicion-theyre-inadequate/), Nolan Law Group, January 18, 2010
33. A Proposed Addition to the Lightning Environment Standards Applicable to Aircraft (http://w
ww.lightningtech.com/pdfs/A_PROPOSED_ADDITION_TO_LIGHTNING_ENVIRONMENT_
STDS.pdf). J. Anderson Plumer. Lightning Technologies, Inc. published 2005-09-27.
34. Jason Paur (June 17, 2010). "Boeing 787 Withstands Lightning Strike" (https://www.wired.co
m/autopia/2010/06/boeing-787-withstands-lightning-strike/). Wired.
35. FAA Chapter 27 (http://fsims.faa.gov/WDocs/8900.1/V03%20Tech%20Admin/Chapter%202
7/03_027_001.htm)
36. "Comair EMB-120, Unheeded Warning, ATR-72 Icing, airline icing accidents, FAA, AMR
4184, Loss of control accidents, Turboprop airliners" (http://www.airlinesafety.com/letters/atr.
htm). www.airlinesafety.com. Retrieved 21 March 2018.
37. Yan, Holly (2 August 2018). " 'I fell from the sky and survived.' Passengers aboard
Aeromexico flight recount fiery crash" (https://edition.cnn.com/2018/08/02/americas/aerome
xico-plane-crash/index.html). CNN. Retrieved August 2, 2018.
38. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Langley Research Center (June 1992).
"Making the Skies Safer From Windshear" (https://web.archive.org/web/20100329221032/ht
tp://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Windshear.html). Archived from the original (http://oea.larc.nasa.
gov/PAIS/Windshear.html) on March 29, 2010. Retrieved 2012-11-16.
39. Smith, Paul; Cynthia Furse & Jacob Gunther (Dec 2005). "Analysis of Spread Spectrum
Time Domain Reflectometry for Wire Fault Location" (https://web.archive.org/web/20100501
195055/http://livewiretest.com/analysis-of-spread-spectrum-time-domain-reflectometry-for-w
ire-fault-location/). IEEE Sensors Journal. 5 (6). Archived from the original (http://livewiretest
.com/analysis-of-spread-spectrum-time-domain-reflectometry-for-wire-fault-location/) on
2010-05-01.
40. "Part33-Airworthiness standards-Aircraft Engines" section 33.76 Bird ingestion
40. "Part33-Airworthiness standards-Aircraft Engines" section 33.76 Bird ingestion

41. How the Pilot's Checklist Came About (http://www.atchistory.org/History/checklst.htm)
42. Baron, Robert (2014). "Barriers to Effective Communication: Implications for the Cockpit" (ht
tp://www.airlinesafety.com/editorials/BarriersToCommunication.htm). airline safety.com. The
Aviation Consulting Group. Retrieved October 7, 2015.
43. "Operation of Aircraft" (http://www.icao.int/safety/fatiguemanagement/FRMS%20Tools/Amen
dment%2037%20for%20FRMS%20SARPS%20(en).pdf) (PDF). International Standards
and Recommended Practices. February 25, 2013.
44. Caldwell, John; Mallis, Melissa (January 2009). "Fatigue Countermeasures in Aviation".
Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine. 80 (1): 29–59. doi:10.3357/asem.2435.2009 (
https://doi.org/10.3357%2Fasem.2435.2009).
45. Caldwell, John A.; Mallis, Melissa M.; Caldwell, J. Lynn (January 2009). "Fatigue
Countermeasures in Aviation". Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine. 80 (1): 29–59.
doi:10.3357/asem.2435.2009 (https://doi.org/10.3357%2Fasem.2435.2009).
46. "U.S. drops prosecution of allegedly tipsy pilots (second story)" (https://web.archive.org/web
/20160305141525/http://www.sptimes.com/2005/02/01/State/Court_blocks_doctors_.shtml).
Archived from the original (http://sptimes.com/2005/02/01/State/Court_blocks_doctors_.sht
ml) on 2016-03-05. Retrieved 21 March 2018.
47. "CFIT blamed for last year's crash of EGPWS-equipped King Air 200" (http://www.ainonline.
com/?q=aviation-news/aviation-international-news/2008-02-27/cfit-blamed-last-years-crash-
egpws-equipped-king-air-200). Retrieved 21 March 2018.
48. "Minimum Safe Altitude Warning (MSAW) - SKYbrary Aviation Safety" (http://www.skybrary.a
ero/index.php/Minimum_Safe_Altitude_Warning_(MSAW)). www.skybrary.aero. Retrieved
21 March 2018.
49. Ladkin, Peter B.; with colleagues (October 20, 1997). "Electromagnetic Interference with
Aircraft Systems: why worry?" (http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Incidents/DOCS/
Research/Rvs/Article/EMI.html). University of Bielefeld – Faculty of Technology. Retrieved
December 24, 2015.
50. Hsu, Jeremy (December 21, 2009). "The Real Reason Cell Phone Use Is Banned on
Airlines" (http://www.livescience.com/5947-real-reason-cell-phone-banned-airlines.html).
livescience.com. Retrieved December 24, 2015.
51. "National Transportation Safety Board – Aviation Accidents: SEA06LA033" (https://www.nts
b.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20051229X02026&key=1). National Transportation Safety
Board. 2006-08-29. Retrieved 2007-07-14.
52. Program, Volcano Hazards. "USGS: Volcano Hazards Program" (http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/
Hazards/Effects/Ash+Aircraft.html). volcanoes.usgs.gov. Retrieved 21 March 2018.
53. "Volcanic Ash - SKYbrary Aviation Safety" (http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Volcanic_As
h). www.skybrary.aero. Retrieved 21 March 2018.
54. Flightglobal archive Flight International 10 July 1982 p59
55. Marks, Paul (20 April 2010). "Can we fly safely through volcanic ash?" (https://www.newscie
ntist.com/article/dn18797-can-we-fly-safely-through-volcanic-ash/). New Scientist. Retrieved
2018-04-04.
56. "Volcanic Ash–Danger to Aircraft in the North Pacific, USGS Fact Sheet 030-97" (http://pubs
.usgs.gov/fs/fs030-97/). pubs.usgs.gov. Retrieved 21 March 2018.
57. https://www.bellingcat.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/mh17-3rd-anniversary-report.pdf
58. Abend, Les (2 August 2018). "Pilot: How a plane can crash and everyone survives" (https://
www.cnn.com/2018/08/02/opinions/pilot-how-everyone-can-survive-plane-crash-abend/inde
x.html). CNN. Retrieved August 3, 2018.
x.html). CNN. Retrieved August 3, 2018.

59. How to Escape Down an Airplane Slide – and Still Make Your Connection! (http://www.time.
com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1706188,00.html) Amanda Ripley. TIME. January 23, 2008.
60. "Terminal Doppler Weather Radar Information" (http://www.erh.noaa.gov/gsp/tdwr/info/specs
.html). National Weather Service. Retrieved 4 August 2009.
61. Annex 19. Safety Management (https://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/2422.pdf)
(PDF). Montreal: ICAO. 2013. p. 44. ISBN 978-92-9249-232-8.
62. "IATA wants new airline tracking equipment" (http://www.malaysiasun.com/news/222727817/
iata-wants-new-airline-tracking-equipment). Malaysia Sun. 9 June 2014.
63. Eric Auxier (May 10, 2016). "Robot is My Co-Pilot: What could go wrong?—click! Go
Wrong?" (https://airwaysmag.com/best-of-airways/robot-co-pilot-go-wrong-click-go-wrong/).
Airways international.
64. "Active Home Page" (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/history/pastprojects/Active/index.
html). Past Research Projects. NASA. Retrieved June 1, 2006.
65. Jon Beatty, president and CEO of Flight Safety Foundation (Nov 20, 2017). "Opinion: How
To Keep Accidents Low As Air Traffic Increases" (http://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviati
on/opinion-how-keep-accidents-low-air-traffic-increases). Aviation Week & Space
Technology.
External links
10 Plane Crashes That Changed Aviation (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/av
iation/crashes/10-airplane-crashes-that-changed-aviation#slide-1)
Air Safety (https://curlie.org/Science/Technology/Aerospace/Aeronautics/Safety_of_Aviation/
) at Curlie
Safety Behaviours, a guide for pilots (comprehensive human factors information) (http://ww
w.skybrary.aero/index.php/Portal:Safety_Behaviours_-_Guide_for_Pilots)
NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) (http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/)
Latest Aviation Safety Occurrences at the Aviation Safety Network (http://aviation-safety.net/
)
Aviation Safety: Advancements Being Pursued to Improve Airliner Cabin Occupant Safety
and Health, 2003 (http://www.gao.gov/atext/d0433.txt)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aviation_safety&oldid=935562128"
This page was last edited on 13 January 2020, at 09:42 (UTC).
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using
this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

Aviation Safety - Wikipedia

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aviation Safety - Wikipedia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aviation safety - Wikipedia 19/01/2020, 4)19 PM

From 310 million passengers in 1970, air transport had

In 2017 there were 10 fatal airliner accidents, resulting in 44

Deaths per billion

Bus 4.3 11.1 0.4

Car 40 130 3.1

Foot 40 220 54.2

Pedal cycle 170 550 44.6

Skydiving 7500[11] 75000[12]

Space Shuttle[13] 17000000 70000 6.6

WWII and later

Following the development of Radar in World War II, it was

A number of ground-based Weather radar systems can

A modern Honeywell Intuvue weather system visualizes An airborne pulse-Doppler radar

Aviation safety hazards

Foreign object debris

Misleading information and lack of information

Ice and snow

An accumulation of ice during flight can be catastrophic, as

Airlines and airports ensure that aircraft are properly de-

Wind shear or microburst

Strong outflow from

In a multi-engine aircraft, failure of a single engine usually results in a precautionary landing

Structural failure of the aircraft

Crashes caused by a full stall of the airfoils include:

British European Airways Flight 548 (1972)

Piloting while intoxicated

Other human factors

Controlled flight into terrain

An example problem was the depressurization incident on

runway (e.g., Tenerife airport disaster).

Deliberate aircrew action

In 1955, Bulgaria shot down El Al Flight 402.

Emergency airplane evacuations

Aircraft materials and design

Radar and wind shear detection systems

Accidents and incidents

National investigation organizations

Air safety investigators

Safety improvement initiatives

Commercial Aviation Safety Team (CAST) (http://www.cast-safety.org/) in the US. The

Civil Aviation Authority (United Kingdom)

5. Safety Report (https://www.icao.int/safety/Documents/ICAO_SR_2017_18072017.pdf)

40. "Part33-Airworthiness standards-Aircraft Engines" section 33.76 Bird ingestion

x.html). CNN. Retrieved August 3, 2018.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aviation_safety&oldid=935562128"

This page was last edited on 13 January 2020, at 09:42 (UTC).

You might also like