Seconds to Disaster: US Edition (4 page)

On December 20 1995,
American Airlines flight 965 lay scattered on a mountainside near Cali,
Columbia. While bodies still lay on the ground, helicopters flying in rescuers took
away engine thrust reversers, cockpit avionics, even landing gear from the
Boeing 757. American Airlines were forced to publish the serial numbers of all
the missing items, revealing for the first time the extent of a dark industry;
black market aircraft parts.

Aircraft from the US routinely
fly to South America or Asia for heavy maintenance, and the cost savings can be
in the millions. Already highly successful unapproved parts dealers can take
further advantage of the outsourcing of maintenance by airlines to the
far-flung reaches of the world.

Nobody, it seems, is immune to
the problem. NASA’s Keppler spacecraft, now investigating the depths of our
solar system, was found to contain an unspecified counterfeit part; a nine
month launch delay ensued. NASA have been tackling this problem for years. “We often
find out late they are counterfeit parts,” says Christopher Scolese, who at the time was the space agency’s acting
administrator. “We find out about it while (the part is) sitting atop a rocket
or, worse, when the rocket is in space.”
[24]

The US military believe there
may be up to 80 percent infiltration of counterfeit parts in its inventory.
[25]
 Some have even found their way onto the United States President's own
aircraft, Air Force One.

If these United States’
institutions cannot contain the problem, what hope has a passenger aircraft
that may be sitting in an unsecured maintenance facility?

A simple, sturdy metal bolt may ordinarily cost a few dollars
or less. But if destined for use in an aircraft a specialized metal bolt may
cost a hundred times more; it will likely have to be manufactured to
exceptionally high tolerances, and be incredibly durable, able to tolerate
extremes of temperature and stress. The motive for those for involved in
illicitly manufacturing and supplying fake aircraft parts is simple: profit.
But often these parts fail, with catastrophic results.

September 8
^th
,
1989. Partnair Flight 394 was flying at 20,000 feet off the Danish coast.
Counterfeit bolts failed causing the tail section to tear off. All 55 people
onboard died.

Black market spares litter the
inventories of airlines and maintenance companies all over the world, but airlines
will often not discuss the issue in public. So no one knows the true scale of
the counterfeit—or unapproved parts
—
problem.

Outsourcing of aircraft
maintenance by airlines, on occasion to remote or unfamiliar facilities that
they have not previously used, has been known to sometimes increase the risk of
these counterfeit items finding their way onto planes. It can also impede the
ability of regulators to check the source of parts.

The unapproved, rehashed or
counterfeit spares are almost always accompanied by professionally produced
false paperwork and labels designed to fool maintenance staff.

Counterfeiters are becoming
increasingly sophisticated, often using laser etching of actual parts
themselves to create manufacturers markings and serial numbers. Because
aircraft spares are incredibly expensive, and in the case of older aircraft
hard to source, the black-market in aviation spares is highly profitable. One
head of a counterfeit parts ring said she had moved on from distributing drugs to
aircraft parts, simply because it was much more lucrative.

It is estimated the trade in suspected
unapproved parts, known as SUP’s, could be billions of dollars annually. The
FAA estimates 520,000 counterfeit parts are used each year. These parts do not
comply with quality controls, may likely not be within strict manufacturing
tolerances, and may not be up to the job. If they are used in a critical part
of the aircraft, they may likely kill.

On June 19
^th
, 1995
an engine exploded on a ValuJet DC-9. Shrapnel slashed through the aircraft, a
cabin fire ensued, and passengers and crew were injured.

Unapproved maintenance at a
Turkish facility was cited.
[26]

But aircraft parts are not the
only “fake” problem. Unskilled or untrained personnel are repairing and
servicing aircraft.

Resource stretched FAA
inspectors who did manage to inspect outsource facilities have discovered
insufficiently trained or unqualified personnel working on aircraft. Even pilot
licenses have been added to the counterfeit problem: in 2010 the Civil Aviation
Authority of the Philippines asked the National Bureau of Investigation to look
into the proliferation of fake licenses.
[27]

US airline companies are fined
every year for failing to carry out vital aircraft maintenance or for not
implementing safety recommendations. These practices put millions of lives in
mortal danger.

Pushing the limits of their aircraft
is one way for a cash strapped airline to save money. Swapping parts from one
plane to another to avoid replacement limits; disregarding maintenance
schedules and failing to adhere to regulators and manufacturers regulations are
other surreptitious ways of saving money.  Many airlines delay replacing faulty
parts until “the last possible date.”

In doing so it affects
aircraft safety.

Compromise seems to happen more
and more often in the aviation industry. As one seasoned contract aircraft mechanic
recently remarked: “I asked a new engineer to inspect an aircraft’s aileron. (A
critical control surface that affects the aircraft’s banking movement) He gave
me puzzled look and told me that he didn’t know what an aileron was.”
[28]

Aircraft maintenance used to
be carried out by fully qualified mechanics. Now it’s cheaper to have only one trained
aircraft mechanic designated as a supervisor, while the other maintenance staff
are trained to work on one system only such as landing gear, or hydraulic
systems, and are paid much less than their previously fully qualified
colleagues. Generally, one supervisor must check the work of up to a dozen or
more of these “specialists”.

Modern aircraft are
complicated pieces of equipment, and the irony is that the more automated they
become, the more interdependent all those systems become upon one another. When
a specialist does not fully understand the repercussions of one system on
another, this creates the chance for error.

Errors, even minor ones, are
found at the birthplace of all disasters.

An Alaska airlines MD80 fell
into the Pacific Ocean on January 31,
2000 after a large control surface at the rear of the jet flopped uselessly due
to lack of lubrication on a screw. 88 people died; poor maintenance at Alaska
Airlines was cited in the NTSB air Accident report.

In 1985, what remains as the
largest single aircraft fatal accident, occurred when Japan Airlines Flight 123
crashed due to poor maintenance—520 people died. Improper rear bulkhead repairs
were blamed.

Maintenance cost-cutting and
poor regulatory control puts passengers and crew at risk every day, and as
airlines fight to survive it becomes an increasing problem.

174 US Aircraft crashes and
incidents over a ten year period are attributed to counterfeit parts. Do cutbacks in maintenance and the shortcomings in
supervision allow this danger to grow?

AIA, the Aerospace Industries
Association, has a game plan which attempts to start tackling this issue, but
if governments are serious about this they first need to recognize how big a
problem it is.

James Frisbee was a quality control chief at Northwest
Airlines, “It's very, very hard to pin the cause of an accident on a part that
failed ... especially when the airplane is scattered over five acres.”

Commercial jets—designed
to withstand incredible stresses during flight caused by storms, wayward jet
streams or wake turbulence—have sometimes limped home having protected their
passengers through terrifying flight conditions.
[30]

From time to time, runway
excursions occur with the aircraft running into the dirt, slamming to a halt,
but staying intact and in doing so have safeguarded their occupants.

Secured to the floor of those
aircraft are the seats, designed to withstand severe movements and impacts
which could increase your weight by up to 16 times. Passengers are strapped in
by a lap belt that fastens them down using the sides of the pelvis as an anchor
to keep them safe and secure: unless you are an infant or a child.

Aircraft seats and their lap
belts are designed for adults; they offer no protection for children or
infants. In automobiles, children are not allowed to travel with just a lap
belt. Yet airlines are allowed to provide children with nothing. Why?

Let’s start with the child. Up
to about age 7, the pelvis, which the lap belt uses to secure you into your
seat, is not fully developed. “In the course of an accident, the belt slips
completely into the abdominal region which leads to severe internal injuries,”
says a report from TÜV,
[31]
a company specializing in seat belt testing for many decades.

They detail how the current
seat belt length is designed so the buckle sits in the middle of the adult
waist; on a child it sits to the side and often with the lap belt remaining
loose. “Due to the lateral position of the lift-lever buckle, a
life-threatening fracture can be caused.”

The report also tells how a loose
belt places additional loads on the child during a violent stop. Videos of
crash testing show the upper part of the child’s body jack-knifing forward, the
head striking the arms and legs before the forehead actually manages to hit the
front of the very seat the child is sitting on and striking its metal
structure. Infants fare even worse.

This poses a serious question:
is serious or fatal injury of a child or infant not only possible but likely in
the event of a survivable aircraft accident?

The situation is bad for
children worldwide. If you board an aircraft in Europe or Australia with a
child under 2 years old, you will be handed a loop belt. The infant sits on
your lap while you push your seatbelt through the small loop and you feel they
are safe. Airlines will insist you use it. You have no choice unless the airline
allows approved child seats.

The TÜV report describes what
happens to an infant secured with a loop belt in the event of a crash or
survivable accident. The loop belt is lethal—it doesn’t stop until it crushes
up against the spine of the infant. You can only imagine what has happened to
all those vital organs, all that soft tissue in the stomach.
[32]
TÜV explains: “the infant acts as an energy absorption element.” To be blunt, an
infant secured to the lap with a loop belt becomes a human airbag for the adult.

Some airlines allow you to
use an approved car seat, or the
Cares
system.
[33]

Some do not. It’s likely that
the flight attendants on your trip will be unsure about when and how they can
be used, and may argue that they may not be used at all. The whole system is a shameful,
dangerous mess, often perpetuated by airlines worldwide. Children and infants are
denied proper safety in flight for the sake of a few dollars in cost saving.

In common with pilots and
safety experts worldwide, Tim Van Beveren, aviation investigative journalist
for more than 20 years, cannot understand why this loop belt is still in use.
[34]
He asked Martin Sperber of TÜV the same question during the filming of a
documentary on airline passenger safety  (see still pictures, this chapter).
Sperber replied: “I don’t know… (the loop belt) is not an approved restraining
system for children, it was designed to prevent children from ‘missiling’
through the cabin and thereby injuring other passengers. Our test results are
known for more than a decade, yet they are simply ignored.”
[35]

These examples show you the
forces that are at work during an emergency, or even during severe turbulence.
So what if your child is not restrained at all?

On US or a US registered aircraft, the loop belt is
banned by the FAA.

You will be refused carriage on the flight and perhaps
arrested if you refuse to put on your seatbelt as it’s required by law as
stated by the FAA – “To keep you and your family as safe as possible
during flight, FAA regulations require passengers to be seated with their seat
belts fastened:

• When the airplane leaves the gate and as it
  climbs after take-off.
  
• During landing and taxi.
  
• Whenever the seat belt sign is illuminated during
  flight.”
  

Yet they only “recommend” children are restrained,
leaving it up to the parents and the airline to figure it out.
[36]
Most airlines don’t bother to provide safe transport and yet still charge you
to hold a child on your lap where they are unsecured and completely vulnerable
to danger.

“A safety seat is the safest
place for your child—and the way you can be sure to hold on to her for a
lifetime,”
[37]
says an FAA radio advertisement encouraging
parents
to provide safe air
travel for their child, something they are reluctant to force the airlines to
do while absolving themselves of all responsibility.

For over 30 years, the NTSB
[38]
has investigated aircraft accidents involving unrestrained children and has
issued safety recommendations that have been ignored. “We all see it regularly
when we travel, parents putting their children in child safety seats when they
drive to the airport and checking the car seat in with their luggage and then
holding their child on their lap during the flight, even when everyone else on
the plane is required to be buckled in. Once at their destination, they pick up
their seat at the baggage claim and then they secure their child again on the
car trip from the airport.”
[39]

Your children may mean
everything to you, but as chilling and callous as it sounds, “children not
allocated their own seat do not appear in listed victim numbers in airline
crash statistics.”
[40]

TÜV believe the use of Child
Restraint Systems in aircraft causes additional costs to the airlines. Is this simple
cost why regulators are failing our children?

It’s an argument airlines
often used against installing terrain warning equipment, weather radar or
traffic avoidance systems on board aircraft. These now mandatory enhancements have
since saved countless lives.

Child safety-seats designed
and approved for aircraft are available and in use by government bodies on VIP
and military transport. Innovint Aircraft Interior’s in Hamburg, Germany,
showed us their “SkyKids child seat”, easy to use, quick to fit and can be rear
or forward facing. The seat has been taken up a handful of airlines. Hainan — China,
Tam — Brazil and Air Mauritius.

In the words of Manfred
Gröning, CEO of Innovint: “911 was a tragedy in so many ways, but one victim
was child safety in aviation. The issue was coming to a head and it seemed
vital changes were about to take place. Then 911 happened and child safety
priority was chopped.”

The
Swiss Air-Ambulance service uses this seat to properly
secure children on its Challenger jets. Maintanance manager Werner Schmid says:
“We felt we needed to secure children on
our aircraft. This seat does it.”

Virgin
Atlantic does have a seat and this is puts in place
for you when you book a child fare, “While your children enjoy their dedicated
inflight entertainment, they’ll be comfy and
safe
in our seats designed
just for them.”
[41]

Concerned parents of child
passengers can go to the end of this book to find out what steps you can take
when flying to make traveling in an aircraft safer for your child.

Meanwhile, safety advice and
guidelines are all that the regulatory authorities the world over provide to an
aviation industry whose primary aim is to make money. Each and every airline is
left to decide what is best for our children’s safety, and the result should
leave the public in no doubt that safety is
not
the main priority of
many airlines. If it was, every child would have a safe and secure seat.

Airlines and their regulators
ignore children’s safety by willful neglect.

Jan Brown was a flight attendant onboard United
Airlines Flight 232 on July 19, 1989, when her DC-10 crashed in Sioux City. The
cabin was prepared, with everything secured for the emergency, but not the
infants who were either held in their parent’s arms or were placed on the
floor. 22-month-old Evan was one of those infants. He died. Jan has since
battled for child safety. “At the time that was all we had, but it was far from
what we should have had for the protection of those children. No parent should
find out in this way that holding a child on a lap is unsafe.”

More than 2 decades later,
there is still no regulation forcing airlines to provide safe seating for
infants and children. Jan Brown adds: “When preparing the cabin for an
emergency, flight attendants should not have to look a parent in the eye and
instruct them to continue to hold the lap child when we know there is a very
real possibility that child may not survive without proper restraints.”

Is there evidence that
children held on their parent’s lap or placed on the floor are safe? No, but is
there evidence that children are at risk? Yes. This has been known as far back
as Sept 1996, when three lap babies torn from parent’s arms during turbulence
were hospitalized on a Lufthansa flight over Texas. In December 1996 turbulence
on an American Airlines flight saw a three-month-old baby hospitalized. No
organization  keeps track of how many children are injured or killed on
flights.

“The fact that the FAA refuses
to be bothered with rule-making remains egregious and totally
irresponsible...focusing on airline profits rather than safety,” says
Brown, now a long term advocate of airline child safety.

Mary Schiavo, former Inspector
General of the US Dept. of Transportation- “One FAA spokesperson is reported to
have stated, ‘There haven’t been enough infants killed on airlines to justify
changing, (the law ).’”
[42]

Until regulators force the
airlines to simply raise the safety level of infants and children to
the
level enjoyed by adults
, most airlines will take the cheaper and most cost
effective route, leaving your child’s safety in the lap of the gods.