Tag Archives: Safety Forecasting and Planning

Grim Safety Forecast for Air France

The recommendation is contained in the latest BEA accident report investigating the loss of the Air France Flight 447, a document that outlines 10 new safety recommendations, including improved pilot stall-awareness training, the inclusion of cockpit cameras, and adding angle-of-attack readouts in the cockpit.
But it’s the inclusion of a call for mandatory data streaming technology that is sure to raise the biggest objections with airlines, who will have to pay for it.

This is a grim future for Air France if these are the BEA’s main plan to prevent this event from reoccurring.
I can agree with the angle of attack recommendation. I can agree with the stall awareness training.
But did not having the cameras cause the mishap? Of course not; this is just someone trying to get the camera in the cockpit nnd using thes dead people to do it.
Did not having data streaming from the acft cause the mishap? No, in fact it was not having weather data streaming TO THE AIRCRAFT that was in great part responsible for the mishap.

So, it is my opinion that AF will have a string of these mishaps, more of the same!

Does FAA even do safety correctly?

Why does the FAA not take immediate and rapid action on safety issues when a flight crew member, the NTSB or anyone else for that matter brings the issue and a solution to their attention? Quite a simple answer really: the FAA is run by lawyers and not safety professionals. Lawyers deny that there is a problem of their own origin, because to “admit a problem” ( lawyerspeak, not safetyspeak) would be to admit fault and therefore legal liability in a tort court.
Instead of safety resolutions, the FAA maintains deniablity until pressure from the press and the public is so great that they cannot deny “something has to be changed!”, usually the result of a press grabbing major air disaster, such as Continental/Colgan 3407.
A safety professional, on the otherhand, would have been looking at the problem, in this case, flight crew training, as soon as the first evidence of a problem was revealed.
The sad part about the lawyer approach of the FAA is that hundreds of innocent people have to die and grab headlines in order for a change to be made.
If the FAA were instead run by safety professionals, changes would occur without a lot of needless loss of life.
As far as comments such as, “Regulation created in a knee jerk reaction can do more damage to the commercial air industry than the industry (or passengers) can afford. Is it worthwhile to ground perfectly safe aircraft and aircraft operations on the basis that if there are no aircraft flying or no-one can afford to travel by air no crashes can happen…” frankly, I do not even know where to categorize this illogical line of reasoning.

As far as I know, there has never been a recommendation by a safety professional that said no aircraft should be flying or make flying so expensive that no one can travel. These kind of statements are known as “make up an outlandish course of action, pretend that a safety professional said it, and see how many people you can fool,” type of statement, also know as “red herrings.”
Safety on the other hand is good for business.

Paul