Letters to the Editor
Subject: Swissair 111 accident
From: Victor Herkoian lv812@webtv.net
As an ATP pilot, do you think if the MD-11 aircraft had been a three-member
cockpit crew, the outcome would have been different? It is my opinion that all
commercial heavy airliners should have a 3-member crew as a cushion for safety,
in case of an emergency.
EDITOR’S REPLY:
No. I cannot see, in light of the limited knowledge we now have, that a
third pilot/engineer would have made any difference. It didn't help in eight of
those past in-flight fire accidents recently posted (Inflight
Fires), that had three-pilot crews. To the contrary, four of those which had only
two-pilot crews managed to land safely (the Air Canada DC-9 had fatalities after
landing). When an in-flight fire is so bad that it will burn thru critical
controls/structures or asphyxiate the crew, the thing that counts is how fast
you can get it on the ground. The plane can descend as fast with two pilots as
it can with three. Historically, the accident rate has continued to decline
despite the transition from 3-pilot to 2-pilot crews. That makes it very
difficult to argue that costs associated with a 3rd pilot/engineer
would be a wise expenditure.
As to workload in an emergency, it does get pretty high. However, the state
of technology and automation has made it much less than it was in the old DC-6
days. I think my workload was much higher, with 3 pilots on a DC-6, than it is
today with two on a B-777 or B-747, because so many former tasks are now
automated.
Example:
The B-777 has one key on its FMC/CDU labeled "alternate." If you
punch that key, it will show you the four closest alternate airports, what time
you would arrive at each and how much fuel will be left (without dumping). Then,
when you select one, it will put in a direct course and the autopilot will take
you there.
We used to have to put a lot of time into controlling the pressurization
system. Now, it is fully automated. The computer knows the altitude of whatever
airport you select and will automatically program and control the cabin rate of
descent to arrive at the right altitude and at the right time. You don't have to
touch anything other than to set a new destination.
Safety Dollars
The amount of dollars that can be spent on improving safety is limited and
finite. To make significant improvements in airlines safety, it is imperative
that those finite expenditures be made in areas that will produce the most
"bang for the buck," i. e., the most lives saved per dollar spent.
Currently, the airlines are spending hundreds of millions for the installation
of enhanced ground proximity warning systems (EGPWS) and improved wind shear
warning systems, that give better notice than in the past. Those two
improvements address the year-after-year cause of the majority of worldwide
airline fatalities and, in my opinion, will save the most lives per dollar
spent.
If we were to spend enormous sums on a third cockpit crewmember
(pilot/engineer – additional salary, fringe benefits and retirement costs),
because it may provide a slight potential increase in safety, we
would be doing so at the expense of other safety improvements that we know
will save many lives.
October, 1998
Robert J. Boser
Editor-in-Chief
AirlineSafety.Com
Return to the Letters to the Editor page.
|
