Continental Airlines Flight 1404 - Case Study Example

Continental Airlines Flight 1404: Research Paper (Add (Add (Add Continental Airlines Flight 1404: Research Paper Abstract Since the public demand for air travel has dramatically improved over the last two decades, the Federal Government and the aircraft manufacturing industry have given specific focus to accident survivability since 1990s. Earlier, nearly 90 percent of the aircraft accidents were grouped as survivable or technically survivable. As part of this initiative, a range of new features are integrated into aircraft at the design stage. The aircraft manufacturing industry collected details of several fatal air accident incidents and identified the key issues led to catastrophes. As a result of those extensive research practices, the air accident survival rate has significantly improved in the United States for the last two decades. This paper will discuss the case ‘Runway side excursion during attempted takeoff in strong and gusty crosswind conditions: Continental airlines flight 1404’. The paper will specifically point out why this air accident was survivable. The Mishap 250 The Continental Airlines Flight 1404 was a passenger carrier flight from Denver International Airport at Denver in Colorado to George Bush Intercontinental Airport at Huston in Texas. On 20th December 2008, at 1818 Mountain Standard Time, the Continental Airlines flight 1404 (a Boeing 737-500, N18611) skidded off the left side of the runway while taking off from the Denver International Airport. As an impact of the skidding, the flight crashed into 40 feet deep ravine which was several hundred yards away from the runway. During the course of the crash, the flight caught fire. As described in Aviation Safety Network (2008), although whereabouts of Flight 1404 were unknown at the initial stages, firefighters could immediately respond to the disaster because the plane came to rest beside one of the four fire houses of the airport. When firefighters reached the accident site, right side of the plane had been almost damaged by the fire. Passengers were being assisted by flight attendants to escape through the left side. There were 110 passengers in the flight. The captain and 5 of the passengers were severely injured whereas the first officer, 2 cabin crewmembers, and 38 passengers sustained minor injuries. Luckily, one cabin crewmember and rest of the passengers escaped unscathed. However, the flight was damaged substantially (Aviation Safety Network, 2008). Evidently, there were visual meteorological conditions at the time of the aircraft disaster. The plane followed an instrument flight rules flight plan. Investigation reports indicated that a faulty air traffic control system and improper crosswind training in the airline industry were the major causes of the disaster. Why the Accident was Survivable While analyzing this disaster case, it seems that flight attendants’ timely responsive actions significantly contributed to the survivability of this aircraft crash. Although the flight attendants could not communicate with the pilots immediately after the aircraft came to a halt, they timely ordered an evacuation at the moment they identified the danger or fire. Since the right side of the airplane was almost caught by fire, three exits on the plane’s left side including forward, aft, and overwing were used for the evacuation process. When the forward and aft exits were operated by flight attendants, a passenger operated the left overwing exit. During the evacuation, three flight attendants and two other flight crewmembers assisted passengers to escape through less congested exits and blocked access to right side exits. In the opinion of Leib (2009), the accident was survivable because only left side of the aircraft caught fire and therefore passengers could escape through right side exits. Post-accident interviews revealed that even though passengers seemed frightened, they were greatly responsive to instructions and hence the evacuation process progressed smoothly. The flight attendants and other crewmembers exited the flight only after all passengers were evacuated safely. In addition, the plane captain and the first officer did not leave their seats in the cockpit until the evacuation process completed. Hence, aircraft crew members’ courageous and professional actions notably played its role in making the accident survivable. Finally, the structure of the aircraft was another factor that contributed to the crash survivability. Aircraft Design Factors and Post Crash Factors Issues with the aircraft design contributed to the intensity of the crash. Reports indicate that both pilot seats were damaged during the accident sequence. The National Transportation Safety Board report explained that “both seat height adjustment mechanisms had failed in a downward direction, bottoming out during the impact sequence” (Accident report, National Transportation Safety Board, 2008). As a result of the issue, the pilot seats experienced excess crash forces and it caused both pilots to sustain back injuries. In addition, medical reports reflect that the captain sustained several “lumbar and thoracic spinal fractures” (National Transportation Safety Board, 2008). Similarly, flight attendant’s jumpseat was also damaged during the accident. Investigations showed that the aircraft’s left seat pan pivot plate crashed which caused the collapse of seat pan. In addition, a manufacturing defect was detected in the right side pivot plate as well. Laboratory reports say that the fatigue cracks in the right and left side of the pivot plates extended when the aircraft impacted the ground and this condition led to damage of seat frame and failure of seat bottom. Hence, the fatigue cracks in the jumpseat that were not detected during the course of company’s routine inspections caused cabin crewmembers to sustain serious injuries. Investigators identified that one of the aft galley drawers was loose at the time of the accident. They also noted that the compartment latch plate had not been fixed to the galley using mechanical connectors. This issue did not lead to any fatality because there was one on the jumpseat when the accident happened. From an on-scene inspection of the aircraft, the nosewheel steering control cable was seemed broken due to overstress forces experienced on one of the worn regions of the cable. Boeing reports say that such a cable failure at this location would result in the rotation of nose gear to the left by nearly 7o. Later inspections reported that the crash substantially damaged the aircraft’s engine and hence the FDR could not record deviations in either engine’s power setting. In short, the crash directly impacted crew seats as a result of the flight’s structure. “The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of this accident was the captain’s cessation of rudder input, which was needed to maintain directional control of the airplane, about 4 seconds before the excursion, when the airplane encountered a strong and gusty crosswind that exceeded the captain’s training and experience” (Accident report, National Transportation Safety Board, 2008). Recommendations As discussed earlier, ineffective design of pilot seats caused both the pilots to receive back injuries. Hence, pilot safety would have notably improved if the aircraft seats had properly met crashworthiness standards or requirements of 14 CFR 25.562. Likewise, severity of injuries to crewmembers could have been lessened if manufacturing defects were detected properly. It is advisable for aircraft companies to improve their routine maintenance tasks and inspections. The NTSB report clearly says that the failure of jumpseat model, which is widely employed in the aircraft sector, increases the chances of injuries to cabin crewmembers in an emergency situation (Accident report, National Transportation Safety Board, 2008). It is obvious that a cabin crewmember has a number of critical safety duties to perform in the event of an emergency. Hence, operators have to conduct periodic inspections specifically for detecting cracks in the jumpseat structure and replacing them if dangerous cracks are detected. It is also better to conduct additional researches to develop effective and safer alternatives to the jumpseat model. In addition, the adhesive-only fastening system used in the airplane was not sufficient enough to secure galley drawers or other mass items since this method might fail over time. Hence, it is recommendable for airplanes to make the corrective action published in SB 25-30-0436 mandatory. Use of mechanical fasteners might be another effective strategy to improve the crash survivability of the aircraft. By researching and documenting information regarding mountain wave and downslope conditions near airports, the accident aircraft could have improved its crash survivability. Air traffic controllers at the Denver International Airport might use multiple sources of wind information for providing the pilots with better information regarding the condition of the flight. It is possible to improve the aircraft’s crash survivability or even avoid the disaster, if proper training is given to pilots to deal with intense crosswind conditions. Conclusion From the above discussion, it is clear that the crash of the Continental Airlines flight 1404 was a survivable accident. Since only one side of the flight caught fire, passengers and crew could escape through the other side, and this condition made the disaster survivable. In addition, crewmembers played a notable role in evacuating passengers from the crashed plane and this situation assisted the evacuation process to progress quickly and smoothly. Investigations indicated that failure of air control traffic system and thereby lack of wind information significantly contributed to this disaster. In addition, both the pilots were not adequately trained to deal with intense crosswind situations. As a result of the design inefficiencies of the aircraft, crew seats were substantially damaged during the disaster. The accident survivability could have been improved if the jumpseat’s manufacturing defect was timely detected and pilots were given proper crosswind training. In addition, recording detailed crosswind information at the airport might also improve the survivability. References Aviation Safety Network. (2008). Accident description. Retrieved from http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20081220-0 Leib, J. (2009). DIA crash probe hails heroes. Denverpost.com. Retrieved from http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_12916128 National Transportation Safety Board. (2008). Aviation accident report: Runway side excursion during attempted takeoff in strong and gusty crosswind conditions, 1-104. Read More