With all of the airplane wrecks that happen...?

Question

Why do they still take off with when there are ocassions that there is a peice of equipment not working properly? Like in the Brazil crash they only had one working rutter. Which they say is no big deal...obviously it would have helped! I feel you should NOT go up in the air unless EVERYTHING is working properly, don't you?

Answer 1

You will find that it is fairly rare for EVERYTHING to be fully functional on an aeroplane in service. There will often be defects that are considered acceptable for deferral to be fixed at a later date. Most operators will have guidelines and regulations that dictate what is acceptable from a safety point of view, and what is not. Generally, aircraft have high levels of redundancy (backups) which ensure safe operation even with certain components / systems that aren't fully functional.

Back to the main point though, nowadays - because of the high levels of back up, strict regulations on training, safety and maintenance, aeroplane crashes happen because of 2 main reasons.

The first, pilot error - even though it is very rare and is generally more associated with smaller, private aircraft with less experienced pilots.

The second is a combination of a number of factors which all contribute to an aeroplane crash. Pilot error, engineer/technician error, bad weather, aircraft component failure, poor maintenance practices, poor management practices, bad luck, etc. One or all of these, and their effects and knock-on effects - may be unforseen, unpredicatable and unpreventable.

Generally it is in the event of this type of disaster, that we learn and modify our methods to prevent them happening again. Unfortunately, that is generally the way that aviation has advanced over time.

With respect to the Brazillian disaster - it is impossible to speculate on the cause until all the facts are divulged. Yes, one of the thrust reversers may have been inoperative - and to me that might as well mean that both are not working as you would end up with asymmetric braking. However thrust reversal is not always necessary - and we wont know the true causes of the crash until the findings are made public.

Answer 2

A thrust reverser only reduces the landing run by 150-200 ft on an A320 ON A GOOD DAY. On such conditions maybe it would have of reduced the landing roll by 100ft.

Like it or not, an airplane has hundreds of systems. One of them is bound to fail. The FAA issues a MEL(Minimum Equipment list) for every aircraft. This list contains items that may be inoperative. There is no compromise to safety made by following the MEL.

I don't expect everything to be working properly. Common MEL items are Thrust reversers, APU's.

At this stage it is to early even for investigate to say what hapend. Only when the report comes out will we know the Truth. The rest to me is pure speculation.

But relax. No pilot that I know of light the fires and heat the tires if a major component is not working.

EDIT: This might interest you. Part of the A320 MEL
30-01 Thrust Reverser Systems

C ¦ 2 ¦ 1 ¦ (M)(O)One may be inoperative ¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ provided: ¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ a) Inoperative reverser is de- ¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ activated and secured in the ¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ stowed position, and no ¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ operations or procedures ¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ require its use, ¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ b) All stow and deploy switches ¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ on the inoperative reverser ¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ operate normally (CFM only), ¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ c) REV PRESSURIZED caution is ¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ not present on ECAM, ¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ d) Wheel brake tachometers ¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ operate normally, and ¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ e) Main wheel braking system ¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ operates normally.

Interestingly enough, withs ome items non operative, like an aircondition pack, you cant climb above 25,000ft.

Answer 3

I bet you get in your car with low tire pressure, poorly maintained wipers, and maybe a burned out bulb everyday. But you still drive your car. This is NOT an excuse, but there is quite a lot of redundancy built into commercial aircraft. You can have a disabled component ( a BUNCH of disabled components, actually) and still fly the aircraft safely. This single rutter (rudder?) you are talking about - there is ONLY ONE rudder on the aircraft type they were flying. The problem seemed to be that the pilot landed long on a VERY short and wet runway, and tried to abort the landing too late, and did not have enough airspeed to get off the ground again safely.

The only reason you hear about aircraft accidents is because of the RARITY with which they happen. The accident ratios between airplanes and road vehicles are ASTRONOMICAL to say the least. If you take into account the sheer number of road vehicle accidents, world-wide, versus the number or aircraft accidents, on any given day, you will find that about 15-20 people died in airplanes, and THOUSANDS, possibly tens of thousands, have died in various road vehicle accidents.

The most dangerous part of flying? Driving to and from the airport...

Answer 4

The USA has much stricter guidelines regarding airline safety than other countries, Brazil, for example. In the USA there is a list of all of the components on a plane. When the Pilot does a pre-flight check, if any components are not working properly they check them against the list. If it is minor and is not associated with the actual operation of the plane, flight attendant call button for instance, the plane is allowed to takeoff. Something like a rudder would be a major problem and the plane, in the USA, would be grounded. Most of Europe works on the same basic rules that the USA does.

Answer 5

Apparently you didn't read the news very carefully. If you had, you would know the piece equipment not working was a thrust reverser. It was deemed by the airline and the aircraft manufacturer that the aircraft could function without a thrust reverser. Proof of this is: not all aircraft are fitted with thrust reversers.
Every one always looks for something to blame, in this case a defective aircraft, because the person is dead who is resposible and can't pay.
I think when it all comes out it will be ruled pilot error. The reason I think this is: 1. The pilots had landed there before and knew the runway was short. 2.
They knew they only had one thrust reverser. 3. They landed long. 4. The runway was wet.
The pilot in command is the boss of all flights. If he makes the decision to land under adverse circumstances and makes it, he gets no hero's welcome or any accolades. It is just part of his job. If he doesn't make it, he, like his passengers is dead, and every one knows about it before the sun sets on another day.

Answer 6

What's a rutter?

Essentially, there are certain things that EVERY aircraft need for every flight. Now, larger airplanes have backups to backups for systems.

These aircraft have a MEL (minimum equipment list). This is just a list which shows what equipement can be U/S for the flight. If it is not required, then the airplane is still flyable. Obviously the equipment that failed in this case was not required. I mean, it wouldn't hurt, but wasn't essential.

Answer 7

I am sure that no airline company would let a plane without a functioning rudder take-off. The rudder is a MAJOR part in the flight safety.

Also, all commercial liners (to my knowledge) have one rudder.

One more thing if they did land properly (which they did) the rudder would have down nothing to slow the plane down, which was the problem here.

Answer 8

I don't know all the details but,the runway is short at Sao Paulo.It was also raining very hard.Bad decision to try to land on a short wet runway (hydoplaning).One person said thrust reverser that would also be a problem to address.I think these factors will come into play.

Answer 9

Everything is so incredibly over engineered and redundantly backed up, that management decisions to keep cash flowing outweigh the cost of so many lives. It's a simple dollars and "lack of sense" equation. And YOU always lose.

Answer 10

do many planes have more than 1 rutter?