Complain about a product or service

Airline Safety in a Bad Economy

Cost-saving and safety always don't go together

By Penny McCracken

August 2, 2009

You would think that any airline would, especially now, be very careful about doing proper maintenance, assuring passenger safety as their first priority. Sadly, that is not always the case.

In fact, the first thing that some airlines put off is scheduled maintenance. The maintenance is required by safety regulators but there is always the opportunity to stretch deadlines. After all, the airline's accountants want airplanes as full as possible, as often as possible. An airplane spending a week or so in the hangar is not generating revenue.

To save even more money, many airlines have fobbed off their routine maintenance to "vendors" who have facilities at the airports or very close by. Major maintenance may be carried out in Central America or other low-cost regions. Maintenance personnel may maintain a 747 one day, an Airbus the next, a Boeing 727 after that, and an MD-80 series jet tomorrow.

What's scary about vendors doing maintenance? Well, in in some cases, a new mechanic’s background may not have been checked carefully enough. Or there may be language difficulties that can turn out to be significant. As far back as 2005, federal safety officials questioned the practice but not much has been done.

While most airline crashes are officially blamed on pilot error, poor maintenance and bad management practices are often secondary factors. Design and manufacturing flaws do occur but not as often as one might think.

DC-10

The DC-10 -- later called the MD-11 -- was associated in many passengers' minds with critical safety flaws and, certainly, several tragic accidents seemed to support that attitude. But in fact, the last DC-10 crash which involved the manufacturer was Turkish Airlines Flight 981 where a baggage handler could not read the new instruction stickers for safely locking the cargo bay door.

The baggage handler closed the door without using the proper procedures. As the airplane reached altitude and pressurized, the cargo bay door blew off causing explosive decompression, the fuselage collapsed and crushed much of the baggage compartment. That, in turn, crushed the control cables running through the aircraft to the tail controls. The plane became impossible to control and the resulting crash took 346 lives.

This was traced back to a two-fold responsibility: Convair (Now General Dynamics) built the rear fuselage for the DC-10. The door latch was a known problem, and was not addressed soon enough. After this second cargo door explosion, the door was completely re-designed. (American Airlines had earlier experienced the same problem, but the AA airliner was safely brought back down.) Fault lay with both Convair and McDonnell Douglas. But a subsequent redesign by both manufacturers solved the problem. . No more crashes could be attributed to either company after that.

Other interesting cases include:

• A 747 crashed in Japan, with over 500 lives lost. The plane in question had suffered a "tail dragging" incident at takeoff, only a few months earlier. It had been flown back to the Boeing factory in Washington and repaired. But later, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) found that when the wrinkled portion of the tail had been repaired, the aft bulkhead needed 14 more bolts. Had those bolts been installed, the accident most likely would not have happened.

But without those bolts, the bulkhead imploded into the tail compartment, and crushed the control cables rendering the plane unflyable. A valiant crew kept the plane in the air for 30 minutes, by using only thrust from the engines for steering, trying to return to the airport. But it could not get above a mountain right in its path. There were only 4 survivors. In this case, fault lay with the manufacturer.

• The DC-10 crash at Chicago in May 1979, on the other hand, was definitely not the fault of the manufacturer. McDonnell Douglas had created a hydraulic "cradle" for the express purpose of taking an airplane engine down, in minute increments, using hydraulic pressure. The cradle could take the engine’s weight, the wing bolts could then be unscrewed, and the truck (it looked like the flat trucks you may have seen at airports, designed to fit under the wings) would then drive it safely off for routine maintenance.

The procedure would be exactly reversed after the maintenance had been accomplished.

But the airline permitted that engine to be jacked back on with a skiploader. The operator inadvertently shoved the engine upward too hard, causing cracks in the huge bolts which hold the engine to the wings. They were able to hold, but only on the ground. The aircraft looked quite safe. But under the huge stresses of any airplane at takeoff, the bolts broke, the left engine fell off the wing, and 273 people were killed.

Not lack of maintenance, but certainly lack of safe procedures.

• In another spectacular accident, an Alaskan Airlines MD-80 series aircraft had just taken off from Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) and had almost reached its cruising altitude when a pilot pulled gently back on the yoke. There was a huge sound from the rear of the plane, and suddenly, the controls for the tail ceased to function. As hard and as valiantly as the pilots fought to save the aircraft, they could not.

It inverted and arrowed in upside down into the sea, far below. All on board were killed.

Later, the NTSB found that the huge "jack screw" in the vertical "T-tail" broke. After recovery operations were completed, and much of the aircraft recovered by divers, it was discovered that the jack screw had not been greased or maintained in any way, for months. No routine lubrication. Not at the scheduled interval, not at all. Perhaps someone had made the decision to cut costs on maintenance. And people died. Not the fault of the aircraft.

• An MD-80 series jet crashed in Detroit several years ago. The plane ticked a light standard on the right wing on takeoff, and then crashed under an overpass on the nearby highway. It was found the maintenance people had disconnected the ‘flaps’ warning, and the pilots had not done the full checklist. The flaps were not set properly, and a recorded female voice did not yell ‘Flaps! Flaps!” on takeoff. Had the warning been heard, it is probable the pilots could have deployed the flaps in time and made a normal takeoff. Hardly the fault of the aircraft or its builders.

• Another MD-80 crash occurred in Denver during winter in heavy winds and on an icy runway. The plane crashed on take-off. All aboard were killed. Later, it was found that the captain let the first officer do the take-off. The first officer had less than 30 hours in that model of airplane. Lack of good judgment. Not the fault of the aircraft.

• We all remember the terrible accident in Washington D.C., where the Air Florida aircraft could not gain altitude, and the plane, heavily laden with ice, hit a bridge over the Potomac, killing people in cars on that bridge, and then all but a few who were rescued from the icy waters. The plane had not received the necessary de-icing procedure. It had been de-iced but was held on the ground for too long before takeoff. Investigators found the plane should have had at least two more de-icings, given the length of time it waited on the ground. Poor judgment and perhaps lack of training on the crew's part. Not the fault of the aircraft.

Fly by wire

And now a new factor has been introduced. Airlines and airplane manufacturers have gone to the "glass cockpit" technology that was first seen on military aircraft and later adopted by Airbus.

On the day that the very first Airbus was introduced by Air France, the airline staged a a big presentation -- complete with a viewing stand and invited guests aboard the first flight. The airliner came down for a "low fly-by" so dignitaries could see this beautiful marvel up close.

The plane came down low, swept past the stands, and then the pilot began pulling up. Nothing happened. Nothing the pilot did would make that plane pull up. It went on by the viewing stand, sank majestically out of sight and crashed and burned in a nearby forest. Three of the guest passengers were killed.

The only reason investigators know what happened, is that somehow, the pilots survived. They told the investigators that no matter how hard they pulled back on the yokes, the plane kept sinking. The glass cockpit was blamed.

With a glass cockpit, there is no longer any physical contact between the pilot and the aircraft controls -- the flaps, rudders and other mechanical devices which control the movement of the aircraft and the cables that in turn make those devices move.

There are transmitters in the cockpit, and receivers on the controls. No physical backup. This was done to save weight. And in order for the aircraft to fly, the computerized controls have to function perfectly, every single time. Think of your own home computers. Do they operate flawlessly, 100% of the time?

All new airliners, regardless of who builds them, now operate with the glass cockpit concept, also referred to as "fly by wire." There is no physical touch between the pilots and the airplane's physical controls.

Air France flight

A more recent crash involved the Air France Airbus that disappeared on a flight from Brazil to Paris, killing all aboard. Although the cause has not been officially determined, speculation has centered on the "pitot tubes" which give the pilots their airspeed. They have been known to ice over, resulting in incorrect readings. Air France had been replacing the tubes prior to the accident, but at a leisurely pace.

Even more recently, a Southwest Airlines 737 developed a football-sized hole in its upper fuselage, causing rapid decompression in the cabin. In this case, oxygen masks dropped down, the pilot rapidly took the plane down to 10,000 feet so the air would be breathable, and then brought the plane in for an emergency landing. No passengers or crew were injured. But that hole developed right where the NTSB had warned it might.

There have been fatigue cracks in the skins of older Boeing 737 aircraft. The one in question was 15 years old. And explosive decompression has brought down airliners before. The FAA had alleged earlier that Southwest had not adequately checked its fleet for metal-fatigue cracks and proposed a $10 million fine.

Still safest

Flying by commercial aircraft remains the safest way to travel. Per hundred thousand miles traveled, many more drivers die in accidents than passengers in planes. But statistics don't mean much if you're unlucky enough to be on the wrong airplane at the wrong time. Safety can always be improved.

The problem is that the airline business isn't exactly a gold mine. In good times and bad, airlines lose money or make the slimmest of profits.

Or, as Virgin Atlantic founder Richard Branson has been quoted as saying: Want to be a millionaire? All you have to do is be a billionaire who starts an airline.

This chronic hand-to-mouth existence can lead to shortcuts, and shortcuts can lead to disaster. There's not much the average consumer can do about any of this. But it's worth taking a few steps to improve your odds in the very unlikely event of an accident:

• Try to get a seat in an exit row. The place you want to be after a crash or bollixed-up landing is outside.

• Read the safety card and watch the safety demonstration. When the plane's sinking or burning you won't have time.

• Stay sober. Drinking alcohol in flight can dehydrate you and, more importantly, impair your ability to react swiftly if things go awry.

• More suggestions for a safe flight.

---

Penny McCracken is a free lance writer in Fallon, Nevada. She spent 34 years in the aerospace, oil and nuclear power industries.

Report Your Experience
If you've had a bad experience -- or a good one -- with a consumer product or service, we'd like to hear about it. All complaints are reviewed by class action attorneys and are considered for publication on our site. Knowledge is power! Help spread the word. File your consumer report now.

Follow us on Twitter.

Back to the top |

Terms of Use Your use of this site constitutes acceptance of the Terms of Use

Advertisements on this site are placed and controlled by outside advertising networks. ConsumerAffairs.com does not evaluate or endorse the products and services advertised. See the FAQ for more information.

Company Response Welcome If complaints about your company appear on our site, we welcome your response. Please see the Response Form for more information.

For more information, see the FAQ and privacy policy. The information on this Web site is general in nature and is not intended as a substitute for competent legal advice.  ConsumerAffairs.com Inc. makes no representation as to the accuracy of the information herein provided and assumes no liability for any damages or loss arising from the use thereof. 

Copyright © 2010 ConsumerAffairs.com Inc.  All Rights Reserved.    The contents of this site may not be republished, reprinted, rewritten or recirculated without written permission.