Ice, a major killer in the air

The title is a little deceptive, as it's always on the ground that people die, as a result of a plane being unable to keep flying due to ice. But in my recent research on airline accidents, I've run across ice as a serious cause of airplane accidents. It turns out that there are at least three ways that ice can cause a plane to crash, all of them preventable, and mostly through designing--and correctly applying (that's the hardest part)--a mechanical solution to the problem.
1. Carb Ice: This is ice that builds up in the carburetor of a piston-powered small plane due to the cooling that air experiences as it passes through it. Just as water drips off the cooling coils of an air conditioner or freezer--becoming ice if things aren't working right--the wrong combination of humidity and altitude can easily cause a carburetor to ice up, starving the engine of air and causing it to lose power. Although this problem is easily prevented by applying heat to the air going into the carburetor, and all student pilots are rigourously drilled on the process, new pilots can become inattentive enough that carb ice continues to cause dozens of engineless landings a year, at least one or two of which, on average, are fatal.
This is not to be confused with the serious problem of water in the fuel entering and choking off a piston-driven engine, which also happened in the early days of aviation, resulting now in the highly pollutive regimen of drawing a sample of dyed aviation fuel from the low points of the fuel system and throwing it out on the tarmac after acertaining that it doesn't contain any water.
2. Rime Ice: This is ice that builds up on the leading edge of the wing, either from a plane sitting too long on the runway during an ice storm, or from flying through icing conditions in the air. Airline pilots are just as susceptible to rime ice as students pilots are--if not more so, as student pilots are warned to stay away from icing conditions, while airline pilots frequently fly through them anyway. But when they do, the results can be extremely deadly, resulting in a loss of lift that usually kills everyone on board--unless it happens on takeoff, especially if the plane comes down in a river, as did USAir Flight 405. Two methods have been developed to combat the buildup of rime ice: De-icer that is sprayed on the wings of planes awaiting takeoff in an ice storm, and either heaters or expanding rubber boots in the the wing that keep ice from being able to build up. In one case, that of American Eagle Flight 4184 (which was twice ordered to fly a holding pattern in icy conditions), the entire wing of that type had to be redesigned to avoid rime ice from coming loose and damaging the control surfaces on the tail.
3. Engine ice: This is the most insidious way that ice kills, and almost exclusively happens with airliners, because in order to get ice in the engine one either has to be flying a plane whose wings tend to shed huge slabs of rime ice into the rear-mounted engines, or flying a plane through a hailstorm, where the hail going into the engines is so heavy that they flame out, or even suffer catastrophic turbine failure. This can only happen, in the case of hail, when a pilot takes his plane into the heart of a thunderstorm, as did the pilot of Garuda Flight GA421.
Why, you wonder, would a pilot do this? Well, hopefully this will never happen again, given the dozens who have died so far, but in the early days of weather radar in airliners there was an unfortunate phenomenon in which the weather radar could only pick up rain--not hail--so on the radar what appeared to be a clear path through the thunderhead was in fact its most dangerous part, as any pilot who ever tried taking that "path through the storm" soon found out, when all his engines failed and his plane fell out of the sky. The most tragic example of this would be Southern Airways Flight 242, in which the powerless plane, minutes before crashing into a petrol station in a small town, glided right over an airport without realizing it (because neither pilot ever bothered to check their flight charts, and the passenger on board who knew about the airport didn't realize that the pilot was trying to make for a much more distant air base that he was familiar with).
This is not to be confused with a jet engine running rough due to flying through high-altitude ice crystals, which so far has't caused any crashes or fatalities, as there is plenty of time for the engines to recover as the plane falls below the ice layer.
One adage of aircraft accident investigations is that every crash makes flying safer. After the earliest pilots started getting killed by carb ice, carb heat was invented to prevent it from building up. After airliners started going down with rime ice, de-icing processes and procedures were invented to prevent it from building up--and redesigned after it did so anyway. And after the extensive investigations that were required to reconstruct the accidents in which engine ice killed (as it always did), weather radars were reprogrammed, and pilots trained, to keep planes from flying into the heart of a thunderstorm.
But there is one more way that ice can kill, although it's possible that it never will, because it's only caused a crash one time--and as a result of the extensive investigation into how it was able to happen, the system that allowed it to happen was redesigned. Here's how it went down: A Boeing 747 (British Airways Flight 38) crossing Siberia after departing Beijing developed frozen water vapor in its fuel tanks, which as long as the throttles were held steady was able to build up without being dislodged. As it came in to land in London, there was turbulence, so the pilot decided to allow the plane's computer to make the approach, as it was able to adust the power level more precisely than the pilot could. As a result, the autopilot demanded a surge of power which dislodged the ice and sent it crashing against the fuel heater at the end of the fuel line, clogging it and starving all four engines simutaneously, causing the plane to crash-land short of the runway--but, due to the extreme skill of the aircrew in making a landing that they had never trained for, without any fatalities.
What the investigators finally realized (and only after it happened again, but in a 747 that was still at altitude, so there was time to allow the ice to dissapate as it descended) was that tiny projections on the fuel line heater held the ice just short of where it could be melted; all that was required was redesigning the fuel line heater, which of course should have been made that way in the first place. And, since this has only ever happened in 747's--thus it was only their fuel systems that were redesigned--it's possible that any plane flying through extremely frigid and humid air may be the first of its type to experience it.

More on computers crashing planes

 I've continued to follow flight crash investigations, and I'm finding that flight computers are now always implicated in crashes--even in cases of mass murder by pilot, it's the flight computer that flies the aircraft into the ground--as if the suicidal pilot himself lacks the nerve to keep a hand on the controls all the way to impact. The response of the pilot when a computer starts to crash his plane is thus crucial; however, to date it doesn't appear that pilots are being trained to fight with their computers, and in one crash report after another I read of the confusion of the pilot as to why his control inputs aren't working. 

So definitely, pilot training needs to change. Flight simulators need to teach the problems of computer takeover, and, since I'm reviewing accident reports from years ago, this process may well have already been begun. But there's one more thing: when an engine begins to self-destruct, normal procedure is for the flight crew to try to re-start the engine. This is madness: they should be focused on finding the nearest safe place to land, engineless. All commercial aircraft should have backward-facing cameras with monitors in the cockpit that visually show each engine. Thus if an engine can be seen to be aflame, or flying apart, no attempt should be made to restart it. All attention should be focused on getting the plane down safely.

And, I suppose, given the inevitable continuation of takeover by computer, flight computers should be programmed to pull up the aircraft any time they are programmed to fly it into the ground--or at the least, unlock the cockpit door authomatically any time a terrain warning goes off.

Air Safety Advisory

 

I've been watching a lot of air crash videos lately, so I thought I'd make one more post on the topic, as air travel begins to heat back up again after the relaxation of travel restrictions. These are likely to be re-imposed, and re-eased, multiple times, so this post should remain relevant.

I've come to the conclusion is that by far the most dangerous commercial aircraft to fly in is one that is of a new design the pilots are not familiar with. This is because today's aircraft are so computerized that as often as not, now it's the computer that crashes the plane when it disregards what it regards as nonsense input from the pilot. A pilot not familiar with how to deal with this is likely to die along with his passengers, despite his best efforts to regain control. Although the recent 737 Max debacle showed, Boeing is not immune to this problem--but it affects Airbus planes more often, and with more deadly results, because Airbus planes are totally fly-by-wire, meaning that all control signals initiated by the pilot have to be approved by the computer before being passed on to the control surfaces.

If there's any comforting thought in all of this, it's that the airline safety business is extremely heuristic: whenever people die in a plane accident, the response is always two pronged: first to determine exactly what happened, and then to take whatever steps are necessary to keep it from happening again. If only the criminal justice business worked that way: it's real good at the former, but horrible at the latter.

Another life that wasn't wasted

 “Wally” Funk wanted to be an astronaut. But in the 1950's, when boys hoping to get a toy space helmet for Christmas were building imaginary spaceships out of cardboard boxes, girls weren't expected to have any such ambitions. It didn't matter that she was already a pilot, having taken her first lessons at the age of nine. Or that President Eisenhower himself had written her a letter congratulating her on her expert marksmanship; she was a girl, and girls couldn't march in the infantry, ride in the cavalry, OR fly o'er the enemy. And only military officers were being considered for the space program, so it just wasn't to be.

But Wally Funk had a secret weapon: longevity. Having been trained as a backup for the Mercury mission, and then turned away when there turned out to be seven men with the Right Stuff, she lived through the entire US space program, observing the Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, and Shuttle Missions from afar, while racking up an impressive series of “firsts”: first in her class at Stephens College (graduating at age 19), first female Flight Instructor at a US military base, first female Field Examiner for the FAA, first female Air Safety Investigator for the National Transportation Safety Board. And first place finisher, in a field of 80, of the Pacific Air Race. By the time the Shuttle program finally opened up to women, she was no doubt qualified in every way except one: she was now too old! She was turned down three times. And it's a good thing, by the way, that Christa McAuliffe, rather than Wally, got the nod to be the first civilian in space: she never made it, as the Challenger exploded shortly after takeoff, killing all aboard.

As for Wally, she lived on. And she kept flying, serving as the Chief Pilot for five different aviation schools. But she never gave up her dream. When the first Shuttle flight to be commanded by a woman took off, she was an honored guest at the launch. Finally, as the 21st century dawned, it looked as if civilian space travel might finally become a possibility. Wally took the money she'd inherited from her art collector parents, and royalties from her books, to make a down payment of the first Virgin Galactic space tourism flight. By this time she was in her seventies, and space tourism was still a decade off. But when the first flight finally took off with paying passengers, it was competitor Blue Orbit rather than Virgin Galactic. Their maiden flight set two records: 18-year old Oliver Daemen became the youngest person in space, and Wally, at 82, the oldest by half a decade (and it was a good thing for the record books that she was on that first flight, as the second, just a few months later, carried 90-year-old William Shatner). She had somehow managed to outlast the entire span of the male-only U.S. space program, AND to outlive the age restriction. In that way she was reminiscent of the first woman in space, who was sent along on an early robotic flight purely as a token, but kept on training long enough to see the Soviet space program open up to women, and became a fully qualified cosmonaut.

I was inspired to write this post when I noticed that, like Linus Pauling, Mary Wallace Funk got tired of not being allowed to study what she wanted to in high school, so dropped out and entered college at age 16. With all the progress they have made in so many other areas, in this way America have regressed: it's no longer possible for a frustrated genius to get into college without first ticking off the box of a secondary school education. At the very most, he or she can take limited college classes concurrently while completing secondary school, or complete it early by correspondence; just dropping out is no longer an option for bright young students like Linus and Wally.

I imagine there are a few exceptions in subsequent generations, but I suspect none from the 21st century.

The Sad Fate of Flight Three Seventy

I've written before about airplanes that fly into the sea, and the various reasons why this might happen. Which brings us to what may well be my final post on the fate of Flight Three Seventy.

I just ran across one theory, which doesn't seem like it would hold much water: The Electronic Fog. I quote:

The first indication the airliner may have been in trouble is when the co-pilot signed off from Malaysian air traffic control. He said �all right good night 370.� Normally he would say something like �Malaysian 370 contacting Viet Nam at 128.4 thank you goodnight.� Maybe the electronic fog had just attached itself to the aircraft so he cut the procedure short. They never contacted Viet Nam airspace and strange things started happening immediately after that last call. The fog can disable the radios. The Boeing 777 has a glass panel cockpit. All the panels could have turned off and turned blank. The pilots would have no idea of their exact heading because even the whisky compass would be spinning. They would have to rely on their mechanical backup instruments to maintain control. They are the altimeter, the airspeed indicator and the attitude indicator.

They made about a 120 degree turn to the left, apparently trying to aim for the nearest airport. It appears they went up higher trying to get above the fog and down lower trying to get below the fog but it did not detach. When the time came to the point where they should be able to identify the airport there was no visibility. They made some more turns and that would have disoriented them to the point where they are not sure of their heading anymore. Many pilots that have been in the electronic fog that crashed, went through a series of turns then became spatially disoriented and ended up entering what is known as a graveyard spiral which always ends up in death.

They may have been able to control the autopilot but the heading would have to be controlled by their input. After going through a series of turns they would be becoming disoriented so they did something similar to Flight 19. They just continued until they ran out of fuel. Also like Flight 19 they unfortunately aimed for a remote location over the ocean where they may never be found.

I think a better supported theory is that of Marc Dugain:

Dugain, a well-respected French author, argues that the Boeing 777 carrying 239 people crashed near Diego Garcia, a British island in the middle of the Indian Ocean used as a strategic air force and intelligence base by the US military, in the six-page article in Paris Match.

The US has always officially denied that flight MH370 came anywhere near Diego Garcia.

The latest theory into the disappearance of Malaysian Airlines flight MH370 on March 9, 2014 has all the ingredients of a spy thriller and has grabbed the French public’s attention. The former boss of Proteus Airlines travelled to the neighbouring Maldives where residents told local media on March 9th that they had seen an airliner fly in the direction of Diego Garcia. Their claims were promptly dismissed by the authorities.

“I saw a huge plane fly over us at low altitude,” a fisherman on Kudahuvadhoo island told Dugain. “I saw red and blue stripes on a white background” – the colours of Malaysia Airlines. Other witnesses confirmed the sighting.

Dugain speculates – adding to the numerous other existing hypotheses about what happened to flight MH370 – that a modern aircraft such as Malaysia Airlines' Boeing 777 could have been hijacked by a hacker. “In 2006, Boeing patented a remote control system using a computer placed inside or outside the aircraft,” he noted. This technology lead Dugain to the idea of a “soft” remote hijacking. But the writer also suggests that a fire could have led the crew to deactivate electrical devices, including transmission systems.

Whatever the initial reasons for leaving its flight path, Dugain suspects that the plane then headed to Diego Garcia, where a number of scenarios may have played out – including the US Air Force shooting it down for fear of a September 11-style attack. Dugain met the mayor of neighbouring Baarah island, who showed him pictures of a strange device found on a beach two weeks after the plane had disappeared and before the Maldives military seized it. Two aviation experts and a local military officer concluded that the object was a Boeing fire extinguisher. Dugain points out that for the extinguisher to have floated, it must have been empty, having been automatically triggered by a fire. He adds that precedent exists in which fires on board aircraft caused all passengers and crew to die of asphyxiation, while the plane’s automated systems extinguished the blaze and kept it in the air.

Okay, so we have no direct evidence of an Electronic Fog, but we do have indirect evidence of a fire on board a Boeing aircraft--along with eyewitness testimony of just such an aircraft, bearing the Malaysian livery, being where it did not belong. We know that Diego Garcia is a strategically important air base, in the center of a very strictly enforced restricted zone. By the way, the rumour that Philip Wood was imprisoned there was a cruel hoax, and easily refuted. But no one, apparently, has tried to refute the eyewitness testimony and fire extinguisher, both of which place the airliner within shoot-down range of the Naval Air Facility.

This is what apparently happened: The US shot down the plane when it looked like it was on a suicide run toward the most important US base within a thousand miles. Unsure of what they had hit, government forces didn't say anything at first, but worked to misdirect the search effort long enough to make sure they had cleaned up the crash scene. Then, realizing they could sweep the whole operation under the rug, they kept up the cover-up to this day.

You can count on official disinformation whenever there is a cover-up, and here we have it. Taking a page from the Soviet's Flight 007 playbook, a US submersible faked a sonar ping from the airliner's black box, leading search efforts to concentrate thousands of miles from where the plane was actually shot down. Everything that came out of the US role in the 'search effort' was misinformation from that point on.

This still doesn't address the question of why Flight 370 was misdirected, but the fact that the pilot had practiced simulator landings on Diego Garcia, combined with his Islamic world view, shows a man with the method, means, and motivation to set back the US War on Terror for years to come.

If he really was targeting NAF DG, there's no reason why he shouldn't have been shot down; since 9/11, it is official USG policy to shoot down a passenger jet in such a scenario.  But why admit that they did, when it turned out to be so easy to leave everything a big mystery?

UPDATE FEBRUARY 2019:
Well, the search has been called off--critically, without EVER searching in what this 60 Minutes investigation says is the most likely final resting place of the plane.

An Old, Bold Pilot

There's a saying among aviators and aviatrixes that there are Bold Pilots, and there are Old Pilots, but there are no Old, Bold Pilots. I quoted this maxim to an active aviatrix in her 90's, who agreed that she was not one of the Bold Pilots. Well, that was debatable. Some people thought it was pretty bold of her to still be taking to the skies at her age, and were relieved when she finally died in her sleep, instead of behind the yoke.

Well, all maxims have their exceptions, and if anyone ever qualified, Douglas Corrigan was the exception to this rule--much more so than his hero Charles Lindbergh, whose plane he helped build in San Diego before Charles flew it across the country and on across the ocean. Corrigan aspired to follow in his wake, but couldn't afford a fancy custom-built plane like Lindbergh had, now that there was no prize money at stake for success.

So he built his own plane out of, for want of a better term, scrap. That's the opinion the government had, and they refused to give him permission to make the flight. All his plane could get clearance for was flight over ground--so he proceeded to fly it from San Diego to New York. Time was running out as his plane limped from one airfield to another, and he reached New York too late in the summer a for safe flight over the North Atlantic. So maybe Corrigan wasn't such a bold pilot after all: he turned around and flew all the way back. Being a summer soldier when it came to transatlantic flight, he named his aircraft Sunshine.

Next year, Corrigan tried again. But this time the Bureau of Air Commerce refused to renew certification on his flying junk heap, so he applied for experimental certification instead. He got it, but only for flight to New York--and, if the aircraft was still flying, another flight back.

Sunshine made the flight in record time--only 27 hours coast to coast. He knew if he could keep it aloft for one more leg, he'd make it to Ireland. But as he approached New York, he was nearly overcome by gasoline fumes from a leaking auxiliary fuel tank behind the engine.

There wasn't time to fix the leak if he was to make it to Ireland in good weather, so Douglas Corrigan entered full Bold Pilot Mode and took off with gasoline trickling out the leak and onto the floor of Sunshine's cockpit.

But he didn't take off toward the west, as stipulated by the limitations on his certification. Somehow his compass didn't seem to be working right, and with no other instruments by which to navigate, "Wrong-Way Corrigan" soon found himself over the ocean. He later professed to have been surprised that it took a whole 28 hours for land to appear under his wing once again; he claimed he'd been distracted by the fuel leak, which he routed through a hole he punched in the cockpit floor on the opposite side of the plane from its hot exhaust pipe.

Sunshine landed safely in Ireland, but it never flew again. There was no prize for it but his own life, but "Wrong-Way Corrigan" was the first pilot to fly an unairworthy plane across the Atlantic--and probably the last. And he did it alone; not that he could have found anyone so foolish--or should we say bold--to join him. Irish officials took 600 words to list the regulations broken by his flight in a telegram back to New York. As punishment, his pilot's license was suspended; the suspension, however, ran out on his (and the disassembled Sunshine's) ship ride back to New York, where he was treated to a bigger ticker-tape parade than had been Lindbergh, eleven years earlier.

He got another chance to sit behind the yoke of Sunshine fifty years later, when his plane was reassembled for the golden anniversary of his flight. Guards were posted this time, though, to make sure he didn't yield to the temptation of repeating his famous flight.

Douglas Corrigan died in peace at the age of eighty-eight--an Old, Bold, Pilot. But he steadfastly held out to the end that his arrival in Irish skies was purely due to faulty navigation. Without any hard evidence to the contrary, he was never convicted otherwise.

Now if you ever hear the term "Wrong-Way Corrigan," you'll know the story behind the term. And remember that every maxim has its exceptions.

Even this one.

Life Imitates Art: The assasination of JFK Jr.

When I heard of two hijacked airplanes being flown into commercial buildings in New York City, and another into the Pentagon, my first thought was that events foreshadowed in Tom Clancy's novel Debt of Honor were actually coming to pass. Imagine my surprise when the U.S. National Security Advisor assured the press that there had been no way whatsoever for the US intelligence apparatus to foresee an airline jet being flown into a building! As it turns out, this was a bald lie, as the subsequently released Memo of August 6 showed.

In an interesting turn of events, Clancy emerged in the aftermath as a defender of Islamic polity, but neither for this, nor for allegedly inciting the murderous airline attack on the Pentagon through his fictitious depiction, were Clancy or his ex-wife subject to a heavy-handed investigation by the BATFX [UPDATE Dec. 2014: but he did die under suspicious circumstances in 2013].

In Act of Treason, writer Vince Flynn depicts a scenario in which the vice-presidential candidate arranges for an attack on the campaign motorcade, resulting in the deaths of several Secret Service agents, along with the future First Lady, an event which propels his running-mate into the presidency on a sympathy vote.

Now, why is it that so many readers will find this plot line perfectly believable, but be unwilling to entertain the possibility that presidential candidate George W. Bush was instrumental in the 2000 assassination of JFK Jr. ?

That's apparently part of the scenario depicted in a new book announced today: Pilot Error or Political Terror? by an anonymous Texan aviation expert.

Oh, by the way--it's not fiction.

Update Cinco de Mayo, Twenty Ten: The book was apparently never published, but the story is far from dead; it's just been hard to keep an active link on this post. Click on the title for the latest one.