American Eagle 4184 & Safety

American Eagle 4184 & Safety

It has not been a smooth ride for the United States aviation industry. There have been airplane crashes caused by distinct factors. Some causes are unpreventable. However, there are some crashes triggered by design flaws and ignorance of air safety rules. Whatever the case, human life is at risk. American Eagle 4184 crash was horrible and defied logic. It took   several months for an investigative task force to conclude the cause of such a tragic accident that left the plane and human remains in thousands of pieces (Chester, 2000). The craters at the at the crash site were so remarkable that they could be mistaken for a meteorite strike.  This paper is a step-by- step analysis of the crash events with a focus on the accident causes and the preventive measures.

American Flight Eagle 4184, registration number N401AM was designed and built by ATR—a French-Italian Aircraft manufacturer. Simons Airlines operated the plane on behalf of American Eagle. Both captain and co-pilot were competent and experienced, with more than 5000 flight hours.

The Accident

The plane was scheduled on a flight from IIA (Indianapolis International Airport), Indiana to OIA (O’Hare International Airport), Illinois. However, Chicago’s bad weather conditions delayed the plane. As such, OIA air traffic control redirected the airplane to hold at LUCIT intersection. While on hold, freezing rain hit the plane. It led to a hazardous icing condition—super-cooled water droplets led to ice buildup on the airplane surface (Galison, 2000).

As the weather conditions improved, the plane was ordered to make a slight descent, approximately 8000 feet. A warning sound went off during the second descent. It signaled an over-speed because of the extended flaps.  This is the time when there was a commencement of a chain of events that resulted in the plane crash.

The pilot reacted professionally to the warning signal—he executed a command that retracted the hanging flaps. It was then that a strange sound was heard from the cockpit voice recorder. A roll excursion not commanded disengaged the autopilot mode. While the pilot regained the control of the plane after the first roll, a second roll occurred, resulting in a steep descent of the airplane. It took less than 30 seconds for the contact with the aircraft to be lost.  The authorities would later confirm the worst fears—68 souls were lost as the plane plunged into Soybean, Indiana.

The Cause of Plane Accident

The investigation team found out that the ATR planes manufacturer did not design them to operate in icy conditions. Stephen Fredrick ( ATR employee) revealed that the firm bypassed the safety measures, resulting in the fatal crash. In addition, the National Transport Safety Board blamed FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) for its failure in ensuring highest level of safety for air travelers.  The loss of aircraft control was due to an abrupt aileron hinge reversal due to ice accumulation (Lintern, 2000).

The hinge failure resulted in the rolling of the plane and the steep descent because autopilot procedures were unnecessary. However, ATR failed to incorporate an appropriate command for adoption in pilot manuals to ensure safety during such weather conditions.

The accident was preventable. FAA should have ensured that adequate pilot training on how to handle the ATR Aircraft during harsh weather conditions. Besides, it is FAA’s responsibility to make sure that all the planes released for public service pass all the air safety procedures. In this case, they failed. Most importantly, the manufacturers of the plane should have taken the necessary precautions in the design of the plane flaps. If they did, an aversion of such a deadly accident would be possible. 

References

Chester, M. (2000). Aftermath of the Airplane Accident: Recovery of Damages for Psychological Injuries Accompanied by Physical Injuries under the Warsaw Convention, The. Marq. L. Rev., 84, 227.

Galison, P. (2000). An accident of history. In Atmospheric Flight In The Twentieth Century (pp. 3-43). Springer Netherlands.

Lintern, G. (2000). An affordance-based perspective on human-machine interface design. Ecological Psychology, 12(1), 65-69.