Hazards
Hazards are defined as conditions, activities, or objects with the potential of causing injuries to personnel, damage to equipment or structures, loss of materials, or reduction of ability to perform prescribed functions. Hazards often cause accidents when they are a chain of them. However, these accidents can be prevented if the hazard chain is broken down into the core cause. In flying planes, for instance, many accidents have been witnessed and reported over the years, caused by a string of hazards. All these accidents had a cause as they do not just happen with no reason. The paper will look at the case about the Scandinavian SAS MD 80 airplane that crashed on October 8th, 2001, and killed 118 people. It will focus on the parties involved in causing the accident, the significant hazards involved in the accident, and some of the contributing factors to the accident. It will also look at the consequences of the accident and how it could have been avoided.
The parties involved in the Milan Linate Accident were the air traffic controllers. The plane crashed on taking off by hitting a private Cessna Citation aircraft before plowing into the baggage-handling wing of the airport. The main issue was poor communication from the control room by the traffic controllers on the landing and departure information for the two planes. The accident was caused by a chain of hazards caused by the miscommunication that led to the sudden, unavoidable collision between the two planes. First, the aerodrome standard about the runways did not comply with ICAO. The rules state that only one plane takes off at a time. In this case, the two jets were confirmed for take-off by the ATC, thus leading to the accident. The poor communication was said to have been caused by the high workload for ATC as they monitor each plane movement in the airport, thus missed the movement of the Citation plane.
There were also low visibility aerodrome ops that were not conformed to ICAO. The ground controllers issued taxi clearance to the MD-80 lane as the taxiway s4 did not flag up error. The air traffic controllers lacked ground movement radar as they did not notice the Citation aircraft taking the wrong taxiway. They also did not check the qualifications of the Citation crew before allowing them to take-off. The radiotelephony (RT) used was both in Italian and English and not standard as it is supposed to be used, thus led to misinformation for the flight crew of the two planes. The AIP Italy and Jeppesen were not accurate for both aircraft in terms of their take-off. Eventually, the nature of flight exerted pressure on the Citation crew, causing it to use the wrong taxiway and entered the runway without clearance. As that happened, and due to the poor visibility, the MD-80 crew was cleared for take-off, thus causing it to hit the Citation aircraft at the mid-runway and plowing into the baggage-handling wing of the airport.
Apart from the chain of hazards described above, some other contributing factors led to the accident. Since the main issue was with the ATC, the crew at the station might have been fatigued, thus passed out the wrong information to the teams of the two planes. The staffs at these stations have the most challenging task at the airport as they are monitor and direct the movement of aircraft on the ground and in the air and control all ground traffic at airport runways and taxiways. They also issue landing and take-offs instructions to pilots and inform them whether runway closures and other critical information. Therefore, their work is tedious, which means they get tired due to all-day work. The miscommunication provided by the ATC might have been due to external pressure upon them due to the workload. As mentioned above, these personnel work under a lot of weight, thus gave the wrong information to the Citation crew on which route to take.
Hazards lead to accidents which have consequences, which are the potential outcomes of the danger. The Milan Linate accident had a lot of effects on both the company and the public. First and foremost, the disaster claimed 118 lives, including 106 passengers, eight crew, and four ground personnel when the plane plowed into the baggage-handling wing of the airport. This was a significant loss to the families of the deceased. The airline also underwent a substantial loss due to the damage caused by the crush on the airport. The baggage-handling wing was utterly destroyed, and the renovation caused the company a lot. The plane was also damaged, thus caused the company more to purchase another flight. The most significant consequence of the accident was the social influence and public perception after the accident happened. The airline lost a lot of customers as the public feared for their lives and did not believe in the airline that much. The mistrust led to the loss of customers, which caused the company a significant decline in revenue and income. When an accident happens, the media always exaggerates the consequences, and people worry about airline safety management, which results in loss of passengers and social panic.
The accident can be avoided if the right measures are followed to the latter. The ICAO standards of airport safety, for instance, should be considered with precautions as they were put in place to avoid such accidents. The accident, for example, one of the hazards that led to the accident was the aerodrome standard did not comply with ICAO; if it had, the accident could have been avoided. Enough rest to all the personnel working at the airport should be mandatory as fatigue is one of the major causes of these accidents. Lastly, communication is essential among the crews working at the airport as their coordination leads to swift movement of planes in and out of the airport. Swift working leads to no accidents, thus avoidance.
In conclusion, hazards are caused by a chain of events that leads to accidents. These events are caused by factors like fatigue, poor visibility, and external pressure, among others, as described above. Hazards have consequences, and so do the accidents caused by them. However, these accidents can be avoided, and it’s all about being cautious and following the standards places for airline safety to the latter, as discussed above.
References
Casadevall, T.J. (2015). Volcanic Hazards and aviation Safety: Lessons of the Past Decade. Pp. 1-12.
Fyhri, A., Backer-Grondahl, A. (2012). Personality and risk perception of transport.
Accident Analysis and Prevention, 49, 470-475.
Guffanti, M & Tupper A. (2015). Volcanic Ash Hazards and Aviation Risk. Volcanic Hazards, Risks, and Disasters, 4, pp. 87-108.
Walker, T.J., Thiengtham, D.J., Lin, M.Y. (2005) On the Performance of Airlines and
Airplane Manufacturers Following Aviation Disasters. Canadian Journal of
Administrative Sciences, 22(1), 21-34.
Walker, T.J., Walker, M.G., Thiengtham, D.N., Pukthuanthong, K. (2014). The role of
Aviation laws and legal liability in aviation disasters: A financial market perspective.
International Review of Law and Economics, 37, 51-65.