1. Introduction:
This assignment involves researching and studying about the facts of Crossair flight 3597’s crash at Zurich Airport on 24 November 2001, capturing the valuable lessons learned and expressing my views on the operational, both safety and cost perspective, during the approach phrase. The objective of this report is to find out and learn more about the facts and contributing factors behind the Crossair flight 3597’s crash. As well as to get a hold of how aircraft accidents can occur and know the importance of safety management and other factors, and what I can do to prevent such accidents from happening again. To start off this assignment, I will be talking about the facts of Crossair flight 3597 Crash, followed by three contributing factors involved within a flight operations context, and lastly the conclusion and references.
2. Facts of Crossair flight 3597 Crash:
Crossair flight 3597 is scheduled to leave Berlin Tegel Airport at 21:01 CET, to Zurich airport. It carries 28 passengers and 5 crew members, which include Hans Ulrich Lutz, a 57 year old Captain, and Stefan Loehrer, a 25 year old First Officer. Upon approaching Zurich at 20:58:50 UTC, Crossair Flight 3597 received clearance from air traffic controller to land on runway 28 in poor visibility conditions due to low clouds instead of runway 14. As runway 28 is not equipped with ILS, the pilots have to make a VOR/DME approach where there is a lack of glideslope/localiser information. The Commander’s originally planned approach on runway 14 was cast aside due to the sudden change of approach runway. Thus, the Commander required the First officer to seek for another approach for runway 28 by referring to the Jeppesen charts. A new set of parameters was foun...
... middle of paper ...
...acency of the commander, his decision to violate the MDA, the lack of situational awareness in him and the lack of prevention action by the first officer. It was facilitated by Crossair’s oversight of the captain’s flying ability and navigation skills. If all these mistakes/errors have not been omitted, the chances of flight 3597’s crash would have been reduced to the minimum. However, through all the research and findings that I have done, some factors that might lead to aircraft accidents are unpredictable, all we can do is to maintain the high standards of safety and flying to try our best to prevent such accidents from happening again.
Works Cited
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossair_Flight_3597
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1FG8gOKMoo
http://aviationknowledge.wikidot.com/asi:crossair-flight-3597
http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/989.pdf
On November 28, 2004 at about 10:00 a.m. mountain standard time, a Canadair (now Bombardier) CL-600-2A12 (Challenger 600), tail number N873G, crashed into the ground during takeoff at Montrose Regional Airport (MJT), Montrose, Colorado. The aircraft was registered to Hop-a-Jet, Inc., and operated by Air Castle Corporation doing business as Global Aviation. (Insert Here)The flight was operating under Part 135 Code of Federal Regulations. The captain filed the flight under an IFR Flight plan. Of the six passengers on board, three died from fatal injuries and the other three sustained major injuries. The aircraft was totaled due to the impact with the ground and a post-crash fire.
Handling and operating an airplane comes with great risk, but these risks that are present are handled with very different attitudes and dealt with in different ways depending on the environment the pilots are in.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of this accident was the failure of the flightcrew to monitor the flight instrument during the final 4 minutes of flight, and to detect an unexpected descent soon enough to prevent impact with the ground. Preoccupation with a malfunction of the nose landing gear position indicating system distracted the crew's attention from the instruments and allowed the descent to go unnoticed.
The investigation was also one of the largest international law enforcement endeavors of its time (Birkland, 2004). This tragedy, like most devastating events, changed the course of history and is a directly affected aviation safety as we know it today. The forensic findings during the investigation also helped change aviation safety policy and procedures. The result was improvement in training for airport security personnel, examination of quality control issues and heightened aviation security regulations (Birkland,
The next level is Precondition for Unsafe Acts. Precondition begins at level two and it is dividing into environmental factors, condition of operator, and personnel factors. In regards to Flight 3407, the environmental factors would be the weather condition. Icing was a factor when occurred on the wings. Both pilots were experiencing fatigue during their flight. They have pushed their body to limits where as their reaction times were not fully functional. Furthermore, due to fatigues and not adequate situational awareness, the crew did not perform to their best optimal on the job.
September 11, a turning point in the United States history. This event caused various negative impacts on the aviation industry. It changed the way airports and airlines organized themselves completely. The effect was so strong that it caused bankruptcies, people to lose their jobs, changes in how flights were made and flew, and security checking’s. This day also created fear and psychological issues on individuals concerning anything to do with flying on an airplane. In other words, this day was a catastrophe in the aviation industry in the US.
As a conclusion, I hope these previous paragraphs have given you the knowledge that everyone dealing with physics or airplanes should possess. These factors may not show all that physics has to contribute in the flight of an aircraft but they do show the major contributions. After reading these paragraphs, you should now have greater respect for physics, not just in airplanes, but in the world, because it is all around you and nothing can exist or work without it.
The blame for both accidents lies with NASA culture. NASA does not give enough credit to the concerns of more junior engineers, and they continue to allow a chilled work environment to exist since no one stands up to the unreasonable demands of politicians or upper management. NASA also needs to take a serious objective look at what it considers “normal and acceptable,” and improve those questionable items (e.g. conducting the launch on a cold
On 24th November 2001, Crossair flight 3597 departed in the dark from runway 26L from Berlin – Tegel Airport at 20:01 UTC to Zurich Airport. 24 out of 33 people on board are killed. During the flight, the visibility was low due to overcast with light snowfall. It was further reported by the previous aircraft that the runway can only be seen from 1.3 miles. However, the commander did not find it serious, and continued with the approach.
A.P. HERSMAN, CHRISTOPHER A. HART, and ROBERT L. SUMWALT. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), 6 May 2010. Web. 19 July 2010. .
Safety in the ethics and industry of aerospace technology is of prime importance for preventing tragic malfunctions and crashes. Opposed to automobiles for example, if an airplane breaks down while in mid-flight, it has nowhere to go but down. And sadly it will often go down “hard” and with a high probability of killing people. The Engineering Code of Ethics states first and foremost that, “Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public.” In the aerospace industry, this as well holds very true, both in manufacturing and in air safety itself. Airline safety has recently become a much-debated topic, although arguments over air safety and travel have been going ...
It was the afternoon of July 25, 2000. One hundred passengers, most of them German, boarded the Concorde Air France Flight 4590. This was a trip of a lifetime for many people, as Concorde was restricted to the wealthy class of people. The excitement in people was cut short by the unfortunate delay in flight, because of maintenance in one of its engines. The passengers boarded the plane a couple of hours after the scheduled time. Finally, it was cleared for taxi on runway 26-Right. The pilots lined the aircraft parallel to the runway. A tragic accident, however, was about to befall.
... problem are under constant development and analysis, in a hope to avoid these situations. The civilian industry continues to lead in development due to commercialization, with the military not far behind. The only real deficiency in CRM program development seems to be the area of general aviation as described earlier. Until this problem is addressed, there will still be a glaring weakness in the general area of aviation safety. However, with the rate of technology increase and cheaper methods of instruction, we should begin to see this problem addressed in the near future. Until then, aviation will rely on civil commercial aviation the military to continue research and program development for the years to come, hopefully resulting in an increasingly safe method of travel and recreation.
On March 8th 2014, worldwide news occurred making international history. This day marks the day that the Malaysian Airlines (MAS) lost contact with one of their planes. It has been missing since. According the CNN news, the flight that went missing, also known as Flight 370, was carrying two hundred and thirty-nine passengers including crewmembers. It left from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia airport and was intended to arrive in Beijing, China. An hour after take-off, the plane lost communication connection with air traffic control. After the plan...
5. Into Thin Air: The Mysterious Story Of Flight 19. (2012). Retrieved 29 March, 2014, from http://surviving-history.blogspot.com/2012/07/into-thin-air-mysterious-story-of.html