September 2007 Aircraft Accidents/Incidents

Hi Readers: Its time to review the September Accident/Incidents as reported by NTSB. There were 98 accidents and 2 incidents (7 non-U.S. accidents) of which 36 were fatal accidents accounting for 134 fatalities.
One incident was a Part 121 Air Carrier DC-9 engine fire warning in flight, and the other was a night VFR incident in which the Tower Controller instructed a Part 135 Lear Jet pilot to taxi into position and hold on R19R at Potomac airport in Washington D.C. Runway 19R was actually closed and the runway lights were off. The runway closure was advertised on ATIS and the closure was placed on the ground radar display in the Tower. The Tower Controller then cleared the pilot for takeoff. The FAA classified the incident as an operational error.
The September accidents, particularly the fatal accidents, show a conglomeration of accident types and indicated probable causes. There were 8 takeoff accidents (3 engine failures, 5 stalls or failure to clear trees and terrain); 9 loss of control and/or maneuvering at low altitude, including spin-ins; a collision of 2 airplanes, and a loss of control of one airplane, during the Reno, Nevada Air Races; one inflight collision with mountains; one flying into a thunderstorm and a crash shedding airplane parts; one formation-demonstration crash; 3 unknowns; one helicopter tail boom and rotor failure inflight; one where the passenger walked into the main rotor; and the accident involving Steve Fossett (never found). There was one GPS approach accident - a second attempt in a 100 ft overcast, with 1/4 mile visibility, and a zero temperature-dewpoint spread, resulting in 3 fatalities.
One fatality, and one serious injury, U.S. Customs accident, practising touch-an-go maneuvers, attempting a full-flap, short field landing, involved dropping the airplane in to the runway (10-12 ft.) and a bounce airborne, then a drift to the right of the runway centerline. The pilot applied power, resulting in a 30 to 40 ft pitchup and stall, further resulting in impact with terrain in a nose-low attitude and following fire. ( A typical example of how not to land an airplane)
One accident indicated an overload of the airplane on takeoff, resulting in 5 fatalities.
In general, we must conclude that the sum total of the accidents reflect carelessness, failure to follow the rules, poor decisions, and poor judgment. These accidents show deviation from safety of flight, and the type of accidents we would like to prevent. Also, unfortuneately, the type of accidents most likely to result in fatalities.
The poor judgment accidents continue for lack of knowledge and training. The poor planning and poor decision accidents we can correct, particularly those accidents involving X-C flight and weather. The carelessness and recklessness - Pilots must follow the rules.
We can attack the safety aspects of flying by separations, such as: 1. Local and X-C flight; 2. Pilot experience - flight hours, certificates, and proficiency issues; 3. Pilot - aircraft type certification; 4. VFR - IFR flying; 5.Rules and Regulations; 6. Aeronautical knowledge.
Supposedly we are doing this now - so what are we doing wrong?
Thanks for listening. R.S.

Near - Miss Incident of Jets at LAX

Now that everybody has heard about the near-miss incident of Westjet B-737 and Northwest Airlines Airbus A320 in daylight at Los Angeles airport on 8-16-07, let's take a quick look and see what did happen and why. NTSB is investigating and the factual report will be forthcoming as usual.
A runway incursion or a near-miss? Some, including NTSB are calling it a runway incursion. However, so far the facts reported show that an incursion did not occur. It was definitely an incident, one that could have been disastrous for all. As a pilot I shudder to think what could have happened, and I'm sure the pilots involved have already relived the incident several times since. The passengers - how lucky they were that a collision did not occur. From the nose of the Westjet B-737 to the wingtip of the Northwest Airbus there was all of 37 ft.
So let's sort out the facts (or the reported facts) at this point. The Airbus was cleared for takeoff on Runway 24 L. The Westjet B-737 had just landed on Runway 24R and was positioned on Taxiway Y, wanting to cross Runway 24 L. Reportedly, he was cleared by Ground Control to cross Runway 24L. The Airbus has started takeoff and reached about 155 knots, probably ready to rotate. The B-737 managed to remain clear - we don't know exactly where on Taxiway Y - reportedly crossing the hold short line but not entering Runway 24, either moving or stopped.
The Westjet B-737 had arived from Calgary, Canada carrying 136 passengers and the Northwest Airlines Airbus was taking off with 150 passengers. At this point it appears that the PIC of the Airbus was properly cleared for takeoff by the Tower Controller. ( I do wonder if the PIC observed the the Westjet movements, which would have been ahead of him.)
The PIC of the Westjet would have to been cleared by the Tower Controller to cross Runway 24L - he or the Ist Officer switched to Ground Control without authorization from the Tower Controller during exit on Taxiway Y. The Ground Controller apparently assumed that the Tower Controller had instructed the Westjet to cross Runway24L.
It appears that almost all of the blame lies with the Westjet Captain and the Ground and Tower Controllers. In takeoff and landing operations there is no room for assumptions. The coordination betwen Controllers in the Tower appears lacking and the misunderstanding between the Ground Controller and the Westjet, particularly on the part of the Ground Controller, was primary to the incident. I wonder too, if the ground airport radar in the Tower was functioning for a reference.
In most respects, the misunderstandings shown in the incident remain inexcusable - but they do happen. In fact, they are happening quite frequently over the continental U.S. We'll see what the NTSB Investigators have to say. Thanks for listening. R.S.