SlideShare une entreprise Scribd logo
1  sur  6
Télécharger pour lire hors ligne
TENERIFE AIRPORT DISASTER

                                                           M. Mustafin- Dpl-11
                                                            R.Anayatova-Supervisor
    The Tenerife airport disaster occurred on Sunday, March 27, 1977, when
two Boeing 747 passenger aircraft collided on the runway of Los Rodeos Airport
(now known as Tenerife North Airport) on the Spanish island of Tenerife, one of
the Canary Islands. With a total of 583 fatalities, the crash is the deadliest accident
in aviation history.
     After a bomb exploded at Gran Canaria Airport, many aircraft were diverted to
Tenerife. Among them were KLM Flight 4805 and PanAm Flight 1736 – the two
aircraft involved in the accident. The threat of a second bomb forced the authorities
to close the airport while a search was conducted, resulting in many airplanes
being diverted to the smaller Tenerife airport where air traffic controllers were
forced to park many of the airplanes on the taxiway, thereby blocking it. Further
complicating the situation, while authorities waited to reopen Gran Canaria, a
dense fog developed at Tenerife, greatly reducing visibility. When Gran Canaria
reopened, the parked aircraft blocking the taxiway at Tenerife required both of the
747s to taxi on the only runway in order to get in position for takeoff. Due to the
fog, neither aircraft could see the other, nor could the controller in the tower see
the runway or the two 747s on it. As the airport did not have ground radar, the only
means for the controller to identify the location of each airplane was via voice
reports over the radio. As a result of several misunderstandings in the ensuing
communication, the KLM flight attempted to take off while the Pan Am flight was
still on the runway. The resulting collision destroyed both aircraft, killing all 248
aboard the KLM flight and 335 of 396 aboard the Pan Am flight. Sixty-one people
aboard the Pan Am flight, including the pilots and flight engineer, survived the
disaster [1]. As the accident occurred in Spanish territory, that nation was
responsible for investigating the accident. Investigators from the Netherlands and
the United States also participated. The investigation revealed that the primary
cause of the accident was the captain of the KLM flight taking off without
clearance from Air Traffic Control (ATC). The investigation specified that the
captain did not intentionally take off without clearance; rather he fully believed he
had clearance to take off due to misunderstandings between his flight crew and
ATC. Dutch investigators placed a greater emphasis on this than their American
and Spanish counterparts, but ultimately KLM admitted their crew was responsible
for the accident, and the airline financially compensated the victims.
   Events on both planes had been routine until they approached the islands. Then,
at 1:15 pm, a bomb (planted by the separatist Fuerzas Armadas Guanches)
exploded in the terminal of Gran Canaria International Airport, injuring one person
[3]. It had been preceded by a phone call warning of the bomb, and soon after
another call came in claiming a second bomb was at the airport. The civil aviation
authorities closed that airport after the bomb detonated and diverted all of its
incoming flights to Los Rodeos, including the two Boeing 747 aircraft involved in
the disaster. Upon contacting Gran Canaria airport, the Pan Am flight was
informed of the temporary closure. Although the Pan Am crew indicated that they
would prefer to circle in a holding pattern until landing clearance was given, the
plane was ordered to divert to Los Rodeos, along with the KLM flight. This led to
the critical cramped aircraft conditions within the smaller airport.
      There were congestions at Los Rodeos. In all, at least five large aircraft were
diverted to, a regional airport that could not easily accommodate them. The airport
had only one runway and one major taxiway parallel to it, as well as several small
taxiways connecting the main taxiway and the runway. While waiting for Gran
Canaria airport to reopen, the diverted aircraft took up so much space that they
were parked on the long taxiway, meaning that it could not be used for taxiing.
Instead, departing aircraft would have to taxi along the runway to position
themselves for takeoff, a procedure known as a runway backtrack.
    After the threat at Gran Canaria International Airport had been contained,
authorities reopened the airport. The Pan Am aircraft was ready to depart, but the
KLM plane and a refueling vehicle obstructed the way to the active runway. The
Pan Am aircraft was unable to manoeuvre around the fueling KLM, reach the
runway and depart due to a lack of just 12 ft (3.7 m) of clearance. Captain
Veldhuyzen van Zanten had decided to fully refuel at Los Rodeos instead of Las
Palmas, apparently to save time. The refueling took about 35 minutes [2].
    Following the tower's instructions, the KLM aircraft was cleared to backtaxi
the full length of runway 30 and make a 180° turn to put the aircraft in takeoff
position. While KLM 4805 was backtaxiing on runway 30, the controller asked the
flight crew to report when it was ready to copy the ATC clearance. Because the
flight crew was performing the checklist, copying this clearance was postponed
until the aircraft was in takeoff position on Runway 30.
Shortly afterward, Pan Am 1736 was also instructed to backtaxi, to follow the
KLM aircraft down the same runway, to exit the runway by taking the third exit on
their left and then use the parallel taxiway. Initially, the crew was unclear as to
whether the controller had told them to take the first or third exit. The crew asked
for clarification and the controller responded emphatically by replying: "The third
one, sir; one, two, three; third, third one" [1]. The crew began the taxi and
proceeded to identify the unmarked taxiways using an airport diagram as they
reached them.
Based on the chronology of the cockpit voice recorder (CVR), the distances
between the taxiways, and the location of the aircraft at the time of the collision,
the crew successfully identified the first two taxiways (C-1 and C-2), but their
discussion in the cockpit never indicated that they had sighted the third taxiway (C-
3), which they had been instructed to use. There were no markings or signs to
identify the runway exits and they were in conditions of poor visibility. The Pan
Am crew appeared to remain unsure of their position on the runway until the
collision, which occurred near the intersection with the fourth taxiway (C-4).
The angle of the third taxiway would have required the plane to perform a turn of
approximately 148°, which would lead back toward the still-crowded main apron.
At the end of C-3, another 148° turn would have to be made, in order to continue
taxiing towards the start of the runway. Taxiway C-4 would have required two
turns of just 35°. A study carried out by the Air Line Pilots Association after the
accident concluded that making the second 148° turn at the end of taxiway C-3
would have been "a practical impossibility". Subsequent performance calculations
and taxi tests with a B747 turning off on an intersection comparable to the C-3 at
Tenerife, as part of the Dutch investigation, indicate that in all probability the turns
could have been made. The official report from the Spanish authorities did not
explain why the controller had instructed the Pan Am aircraft to use the third
taxiway, rather than the easier fourth taxiway.
     Tenerife / Los Rodeos airport is at 633 metres (2,077 feet) above sea level,
which accounts for cloud behaviour that differs from that at most other airports.
Clouds at 600 m (2,000 ft) above ground level at the nearby coast, are at ground
level at Los Rodeos / Tenerife North. Drifting clouds from different densities cause
wildly varying visibilities, from unhindered at one moment to below the minimums
the next. The collision took place in a high density cloud [2].
   The Pan Am Aircraft found themselves in poor and rapidly deteriorating
visibility almost as soon as they entered the runway. According to the ALPA
report, as the Pan Am Aircraft taxied to the runway, the visibility was about 500 m
(1,600 ft). Shortly after they turned onto the runway it decreased to less than 100 m
(330 ft). Meanwhile, the KLM aircraft was still in good visibility, but with clouds
blowing down the runway towards them. The KLM aircraft completed its 180
degree turn in relatively clear weather and lined up on Runway 30. The next cloud
was some 900 m (3,000 ft) down the runway and moving towards the aircraft at
about 12 knots (6 meters per second).
  Immediately after lining up, the KLM captain, the most senior pilot working for
KLM, advanced the throttles (a standard procedure known as "spool-up", to verify
that the engines are operating properly for takeoff) and the co-pilot advised the
captain that ATC clearance had not yet been given. Captain Veldhuyzen van
Zanten responded, "I know that. Go ahead, ask." Meurs then radioed the tower that
they were "ready for takeoff" and "waiting for our ATC clearance". The KLM
crew then received instructions which specified the route that the aircraft was to
follow after takeoff. The instructions used the word "takeoff," but did not include
an explicit statement that they were cleared for takeoff.
Meurs read the flight clearance back to the controller, completing the readback
with the statement: "We are now at takeoff." Captain Veldhuyzen van Zanten
interrupted the co-pilot's read-back with the comment, "We're going."
The controller, who could not see the runway due to the fog, initially responded
with "OK" (terminology which is nonstandard), which reinforced the KLM
captain's misinterpretation that they had takeoff clearance. The controller's
response of "OK" to the co-pilot's nonstandard statement that they were "now at
takeoff" was likely due to his misinterpretation that they were in takeoff position
and ready to begin the roll when takeoff clearance was received, but not in the
process of taking off. The controller then immediately added "stand by for takeoff,
I will call you," indicating that he had not intended the clearance to be interpreted
as a takeoff clearance. Here we see communication misunderstanding.
A simultaneous radio call from the Pan Am crew caused mutual interference on
the radio frequency, which was audible in the KLM cockpit as a three second long
whistling sound (or heterodyne). This made the crucial latter portion of the tower's
response audible only with difficulty by the KLM crew. The Pan Am crew's
transmission, which was also critical, was reporting, "We're still taxiing down the
runway, the Clipper 1736!" This message was also blocked by the interference and
inaudible to the KLM crew. Either message, if heard in the KLM cockpit, would
have given the KLM crew time to abort the takeoff attempt.
Due to the fog, neither crew was able to see the other plane on the runway ahead of
them. In addition, neither of the aircraft could be seen from the control tower, and
the airport was not equipped with ground radar. After the KLM plane had started
its takeoff roll, the tower instructed the Pan Am crew to "report when runway
clear." The Pan Am crew replied: "OK, we'll report when we're clear." On hearing
this, the KLM flight engineer expressed his concern about the Pan Am not being
clear of the runway by asking the pilots in his own cockpit, "Is he not clear, that
Pan American?" Veldhuyzen van Zanten emphatically replied "Oh, yes" and
continued with the takeoff.
 Look at the diagram of collision [3].




               Simplified map of runway, taxiways, and aircraft.
                   The red star indicates the location of impact.
    According to the CVR, Captain Grubbs, captain of the Pan Am plane, said,
"There he is", when he spotted the KLM's landing lights through the fog just as his
plane approached exit C-4. But he was mistaken. The KLM was coming towards
them at takeoff speed. The only way was to get off the RW as quick as possible!
The Pan Am crew applied full power to the throttles and took a sharp left turn
towards the grass in an attempt to avoid a collision. By the time Captain
Veldhuyzen van Zanten noticed the Pan Am on the runway ahead, his aircraft was
already traveling too fast to stop. In desperation he prematurely rotated his aircraft
and attempted to clear the Pan Am by climbing away, causing a tail strike for 20 m
(100 ft). The KLM was within 100 m (330 ft) of the Pan Am when it left the
ground. As it did so, its excessively steepangle of attack allowed the nose gear to
clear the Pan Am but the engines, lower fuselage and landing gears struck the
upper right side of the Pan Am's fuselage at approximately 140 knots (260 km/h;
160 mph), ripping apart the center of the Pan Am jet almost directly above the
wing. The right side engines crashed through the Pan Am's upper deck
immediately behind the cockpit.
     The KLM plane remained briefly airborne following the collision, but the
impact with the Pan Am had sheared off the #1 (outer left) engine, and the #2
(inner left) engine had ingested significant amounts of shredded materials from the
Pan Am. The KLM pilot quickly lost control, and the 747 went into a stall, rolled
sharply, and hit the ground at a point 150 m (500 ft) past the collision, sliding a
further 300 m (1,000 ft) down the runway. The full load of fuel, which had caused
the earlier delay, ignited immediately.
     A survivor of the Pan Am flight, John Coombs of Haleiwa, Hawaii, said that
sitting in the nose of the plane probably saved his life: "We all settled back, and the
next thing an explosion took place and the whole port side, left side of the plane,
was just torn wide open [3]."
    Both airplanes were destroyed. All 234 passengers and 14 crew members in the
KLM plane died, while 326 passengers and 9 crew members aboard the Pan Am
flight were killed, primarily due to the fire and explosions resulting from the fuel
spilled and ignited in the impact. The other 56 passengers and 5 crew members
aboard the Pan Am aircraft survived, including the pilots and flight engineer. Most
of the survivors on the Pan Am aircraft walked out onto the left wing, the side
away from the collision, through holes in the fuselage structure. The Pan Am's
engines were still running at takeoff power for a few minutes after the accident
despite First Officer Bragg's intention to turn them off. The top part of the cockpit,
where the engine switches were located, had been destroyed in the collision, and
all control lines were severed, leaving no method for the flight crew to control the
aircraft's systems. After a short time running at full power, the Pan-Am's engines
began to disintegrate, throwing engine parts at high speed that killed a flight
attendant who had escaped the burning plane. Survivors waited for rescue, but it
did not come promptly, as the firefighters were initially unaware that there were
two aircraft involved and were concentrating on the KLM wreck some distance
away in the thick fog. Eventually, most of the survivors on the wings dropped to
the ground below.
      In conclusion, the accident had a lasting influence on the industry,
particularly in the area of communication. An increased emphasis was placed on
using standardized phraseology in ATC communication by both controllers and
pilots alike, thereby reducing the chance for misunderstandings. As part of these
changes, the word "takeoff" was removed from general usage, and is only spoken
by ATC when actually clearing an aircraft to take off. Less experienced flight crew
members were encouraged to challenge their captains when they believed
something was not correct, and captains were instructed to listen to their crew and
evaluate all decisions in light of crew concerns. This concept would later be
expanded into what is known today as Crew Resource Management. CRM training
is now mandatory for all airline pilots.
      As a result of several misunderstandings in the ensuing communication, the
KLM flight attempted to take off while the Pan Am flight was still on the runway.
The resulting collision destroyed both aircraft, killing all 248 aboard the KLM
flight and 335 of 396 aboard the Pan Am flight, primarily due to the fire and
explosions resulting from the fuel spilled and ignited in the impact. The other 56
passengers and 5 crew members aboard the Pan Am aircraft survived, including the
pilots and flight engineer.
References

1.http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/27/newsid_2531000/2531
063.stm
2.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenerife_airport_disaster
3.http://ru.flightaware.com/squawks/view/1/7_days/popular/25567/35_years_ago_t
oday

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Jet Blue Syndicate Presentation
Jet Blue Syndicate PresentationJet Blue Syndicate Presentation
Jet Blue Syndicate PresentationMahammad Khadafi
 
Business plan presentation
Business plan presentationBusiness plan presentation
Business plan presentationHamed Jabbari
 
overview on airport operation
overview on airport operationoverview on airport operation
overview on airport operationAiDY
 
Airline Cost Route Profitability System
Airline Cost  Route Profitability SystemAirline Cost  Route Profitability System
Airline Cost Route Profitability Systemsamissac
 
Small Airline Company Business Plan
Small Airline Company Business PlanSmall Airline Company Business Plan
Small Airline Company Business PlanTerry Agee
 
Southwest Airlines
Southwest AirlinesSouthwest Airlines
Southwest AirlinesDhananji Jay
 
Frankfinn aviation presentation powerpoint file
Frankfinn aviation presentation powerpoint fileFrankfinn aviation presentation powerpoint file
Frankfinn aviation presentation powerpoint fileVikas Pal
 
Jet Blue Airway: Case Analysis (Strategic Audit)
Jet Blue Airway: Case Analysis (Strategic Audit)Jet Blue Airway: Case Analysis (Strategic Audit)
Jet Blue Airway: Case Analysis (Strategic Audit)Anna Osmanay
 
Scheduling and Revenue Management
Scheduling and Revenue ManagementScheduling and Revenue Management
Scheduling and Revenue Managementnsihammou
 
JOHN F.KENNEDT INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
JOHN F.KENNEDT INTERNATIONAL AIRPORTJOHN F.KENNEDT INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
JOHN F.KENNEDT INTERNATIONAL AIRPORTmqasim786
 
Airline Business Models and Competitive Strategies - virtual simulation course
Airline Business Models and Competitive Strategies - virtual simulation courseAirline Business Models and Competitive Strategies - virtual simulation course
Airline Business Models and Competitive Strategies - virtual simulation courseIATA Training & Development Institute
 
Southwest Airlines: A Case Study
Southwest Airlines: A Case StudySouthwest Airlines: A Case Study
Southwest Airlines: A Case StudyAtulya Manuraj
 
SWA Case Study Presentation
SWA Case Study PresentationSWA Case Study Presentation
SWA Case Study PresentationReisha Bernard
 
Airline revenue management
Airline revenue managementAirline revenue management
Airline revenue managementElene Termokiva
 
Kingfisher airlines ppt
Kingfisher airlines pptKingfisher airlines ppt
Kingfisher airlines pptGaurav Patel
 

Tendances (20)

Jet Blue Syndicate Presentation
Jet Blue Syndicate PresentationJet Blue Syndicate Presentation
Jet Blue Syndicate Presentation
 
Business plan presentation
Business plan presentationBusiness plan presentation
Business plan presentation
 
overview on airport operation
overview on airport operationoverview on airport operation
overview on airport operation
 
Case 3 strategic management
Case 3 strategic managementCase 3 strategic management
Case 3 strategic management
 
Airline Cost Route Profitability System
Airline Cost  Route Profitability SystemAirline Cost  Route Profitability System
Airline Cost Route Profitability System
 
Small Airline Company Business Plan
Small Airline Company Business PlanSmall Airline Company Business Plan
Small Airline Company Business Plan
 
Southwest Airlines
Southwest AirlinesSouthwest Airlines
Southwest Airlines
 
Frankfinn aviation presentation powerpoint file
Frankfinn aviation presentation powerpoint fileFrankfinn aviation presentation powerpoint file
Frankfinn aviation presentation powerpoint file
 
Jet Blue Airway: Case Analysis (Strategic Audit)
Jet Blue Airway: Case Analysis (Strategic Audit)Jet Blue Airway: Case Analysis (Strategic Audit)
Jet Blue Airway: Case Analysis (Strategic Audit)
 
Scheduling and Revenue Management
Scheduling and Revenue ManagementScheduling and Revenue Management
Scheduling and Revenue Management
 
JOHN F.KENNEDT INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
JOHN F.KENNEDT INTERNATIONAL AIRPORTJOHN F.KENNEDT INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
JOHN F.KENNEDT INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
 
AIR ASIA PRESENTATION
AIR ASIA PRESENTATIONAIR ASIA PRESENTATION
AIR ASIA PRESENTATION
 
Airline Business Models and Competitive Strategies - virtual simulation course
Airline Business Models and Competitive Strategies - virtual simulation courseAirline Business Models and Competitive Strategies - virtual simulation course
Airline Business Models and Competitive Strategies - virtual simulation course
 
Southwest Airlines: A Case Study
Southwest Airlines: A Case StudySouthwest Airlines: A Case Study
Southwest Airlines: A Case Study
 
Emirates
EmiratesEmirates
Emirates
 
Southwest
SouthwestSouthwest
Southwest
 
top 10 air crashes
top 10 air crashestop 10 air crashes
top 10 air crashes
 
SWA Case Study Presentation
SWA Case Study PresentationSWA Case Study Presentation
SWA Case Study Presentation
 
Airline revenue management
Airline revenue managementAirline revenue management
Airline revenue management
 
Kingfisher airlines ppt
Kingfisher airlines pptKingfisher airlines ppt
Kingfisher airlines ppt
 

Similaire à The tenerife disaster окончательный вариант

Paranormal phenomena at Los Rodeos Airport Tenerife in 1977
Paranormal phenomena at Los Rodeos Airport Tenerife in 1977Paranormal phenomena at Los Rodeos Airport Tenerife in 1977
Paranormal phenomena at Los Rodeos Airport Tenerife in 1977Erasmus+
 
Aircom presntation.pptx
Aircom presntation.pptxAircom presntation.pptx
Aircom presntation.pptxmianowais3
 
Helios 522 Hand Out
Helios 522 Hand OutHelios 522 Hand Out
Helios 522 Hand Outguest4f592b
 
Airline Accidents.pptx
Airline Accidents.pptxAirline Accidents.pptx
Airline Accidents.pptxRanaImam
 
Accident Investigation Report Of FlyDubai Flight 981 (FDB981)
Accident Investigation Report Of FlyDubai Flight 981 (FDB981)Accident Investigation Report Of FlyDubai Flight 981 (FDB981)
Accident Investigation Report Of FlyDubai Flight 981 (FDB981)Steven Wallach
 
Brand failure- Pan American Airline
Brand failure- Pan American AirlineBrand failure- Pan American Airline
Brand failure- Pan American Airlinedharamp100
 
Large Aircraft Essays
Large Aircraft EssaysLarge Aircraft Essays
Large Aircraft EssaysLisa Davidson
 
Air France Flight 4590 An Accident Investigation Report
Air France Flight 4590 An Accident Investigation ReportAir France Flight 4590 An Accident Investigation Report
Air France Flight 4590 An Accident Investigation ReportMartha Brown
 
Report and role play ELP
Report and role play ELPReport and role play ELP
Report and role play ELPMohd Mahfudz
 
AVIATION SECTOR.pptx
AVIATION SECTOR.pptxAVIATION SECTOR.pptx
AVIATION SECTOR.pptxSandipanMaji3
 
Airports Located In Extreme Parts Of The World
Airports Located In Extreme Parts Of The World	Airports Located In Extreme Parts Of The World
Airports Located In Extreme Parts Of The World igiairport
 
Top 10 ways your pilot might kill you
Top 10 ways your pilot might kill youTop 10 ways your pilot might kill you
Top 10 ways your pilot might kill youahmadalzain3
 
Human factors consideration in emergency evacuation for commercial aircaft
Human factors consideration in emergency evacuation for commercial aircaftHuman factors consideration in emergency evacuation for commercial aircaft
Human factors consideration in emergency evacuation for commercial aircaftLahiru Dilshan
 
Flight Instrument accident report
Flight Instrument accident reportFlight Instrument accident report
Flight Instrument accident reportROSHAN SAH
 
Nkwazi Manchester's DC-10 Classroom
Nkwazi   Manchester's DC-10 ClassroomNkwazi   Manchester's DC-10 Classroom
Nkwazi Manchester's DC-10 ClassroomStephen Clouston
 
B1 extra reading week 11
B1 extra reading week 11B1 extra reading week 11
B1 extra reading week 11hacersivil
 
Essay On Crew Resource Management (Aviation)
Essay On Crew Resource Management (Aviation)Essay On Crew Resource Management (Aviation)
Essay On Crew Resource Management (Aviation)Brooke Lord
 
The Supersonic Business Jet nears
The Supersonic Business Jet nears The Supersonic Business Jet nears
The Supersonic Business Jet nears 1BlueHorizon Group
 
National Transportation And Safety Board
National Transportation And Safety BoardNational Transportation And Safety Board
National Transportation And Safety BoardJill Turner
 

Similaire à The tenerife disaster окончательный вариант (20)

Paranormal phenomena at Los Rodeos Airport Tenerife in 1977
Paranormal phenomena at Los Rodeos Airport Tenerife in 1977Paranormal phenomena at Los Rodeos Airport Tenerife in 1977
Paranormal phenomena at Los Rodeos Airport Tenerife in 1977
 
Aircom presntation.pptx
Aircom presntation.pptxAircom presntation.pptx
Aircom presntation.pptx
 
Aircrash
AircrashAircrash
Aircrash
 
Helios 522 Hand Out
Helios 522 Hand OutHelios 522 Hand Out
Helios 522 Hand Out
 
Airline Accidents.pptx
Airline Accidents.pptxAirline Accidents.pptx
Airline Accidents.pptx
 
Accident Investigation Report Of FlyDubai Flight 981 (FDB981)
Accident Investigation Report Of FlyDubai Flight 981 (FDB981)Accident Investigation Report Of FlyDubai Flight 981 (FDB981)
Accident Investigation Report Of FlyDubai Flight 981 (FDB981)
 
Brand failure- Pan American Airline
Brand failure- Pan American AirlineBrand failure- Pan American Airline
Brand failure- Pan American Airline
 
Large Aircraft Essays
Large Aircraft EssaysLarge Aircraft Essays
Large Aircraft Essays
 
Air France Flight 4590 An Accident Investigation Report
Air France Flight 4590 An Accident Investigation ReportAir France Flight 4590 An Accident Investigation Report
Air France Flight 4590 An Accident Investigation Report
 
Report and role play ELP
Report and role play ELPReport and role play ELP
Report and role play ELP
 
AVIATION SECTOR.pptx
AVIATION SECTOR.pptxAVIATION SECTOR.pptx
AVIATION SECTOR.pptx
 
Airports Located In Extreme Parts Of The World
Airports Located In Extreme Parts Of The World	Airports Located In Extreme Parts Of The World
Airports Located In Extreme Parts Of The World
 
Top 10 ways your pilot might kill you
Top 10 ways your pilot might kill youTop 10 ways your pilot might kill you
Top 10 ways your pilot might kill you
 
Human factors consideration in emergency evacuation for commercial aircaft
Human factors consideration in emergency evacuation for commercial aircaftHuman factors consideration in emergency evacuation for commercial aircaft
Human factors consideration in emergency evacuation for commercial aircaft
 
Flight Instrument accident report
Flight Instrument accident reportFlight Instrument accident report
Flight Instrument accident report
 
Nkwazi Manchester's DC-10 Classroom
Nkwazi   Manchester's DC-10 ClassroomNkwazi   Manchester's DC-10 Classroom
Nkwazi Manchester's DC-10 Classroom
 
B1 extra reading week 11
B1 extra reading week 11B1 extra reading week 11
B1 extra reading week 11
 
Essay On Crew Resource Management (Aviation)
Essay On Crew Resource Management (Aviation)Essay On Crew Resource Management (Aviation)
Essay On Crew Resource Management (Aviation)
 
The Supersonic Business Jet nears
The Supersonic Business Jet nears The Supersonic Business Jet nears
The Supersonic Business Jet nears
 
National Transportation And Safety Board
National Transportation And Safety BoardNational Transportation And Safety Board
National Transportation And Safety Board
 

The tenerife disaster окончательный вариант

  • 1. TENERIFE AIRPORT DISASTER M. Mustafin- Dpl-11 R.Anayatova-Supervisor The Tenerife airport disaster occurred on Sunday, March 27, 1977, when two Boeing 747 passenger aircraft collided on the runway of Los Rodeos Airport (now known as Tenerife North Airport) on the Spanish island of Tenerife, one of the Canary Islands. With a total of 583 fatalities, the crash is the deadliest accident in aviation history. After a bomb exploded at Gran Canaria Airport, many aircraft were diverted to Tenerife. Among them were KLM Flight 4805 and PanAm Flight 1736 – the two aircraft involved in the accident. The threat of a second bomb forced the authorities to close the airport while a search was conducted, resulting in many airplanes being diverted to the smaller Tenerife airport where air traffic controllers were forced to park many of the airplanes on the taxiway, thereby blocking it. Further complicating the situation, while authorities waited to reopen Gran Canaria, a dense fog developed at Tenerife, greatly reducing visibility. When Gran Canaria reopened, the parked aircraft blocking the taxiway at Tenerife required both of the 747s to taxi on the only runway in order to get in position for takeoff. Due to the fog, neither aircraft could see the other, nor could the controller in the tower see the runway or the two 747s on it. As the airport did not have ground radar, the only means for the controller to identify the location of each airplane was via voice reports over the radio. As a result of several misunderstandings in the ensuing communication, the KLM flight attempted to take off while the Pan Am flight was still on the runway. The resulting collision destroyed both aircraft, killing all 248 aboard the KLM flight and 335 of 396 aboard the Pan Am flight. Sixty-one people aboard the Pan Am flight, including the pilots and flight engineer, survived the disaster [1]. As the accident occurred in Spanish territory, that nation was responsible for investigating the accident. Investigators from the Netherlands and the United States also participated. The investigation revealed that the primary cause of the accident was the captain of the KLM flight taking off without clearance from Air Traffic Control (ATC). The investigation specified that the captain did not intentionally take off without clearance; rather he fully believed he had clearance to take off due to misunderstandings between his flight crew and ATC. Dutch investigators placed a greater emphasis on this than their American and Spanish counterparts, but ultimately KLM admitted their crew was responsible for the accident, and the airline financially compensated the victims. Events on both planes had been routine until they approached the islands. Then, at 1:15 pm, a bomb (planted by the separatist Fuerzas Armadas Guanches) exploded in the terminal of Gran Canaria International Airport, injuring one person [3]. It had been preceded by a phone call warning of the bomb, and soon after another call came in claiming a second bomb was at the airport. The civil aviation authorities closed that airport after the bomb detonated and diverted all of its incoming flights to Los Rodeos, including the two Boeing 747 aircraft involved in the disaster. Upon contacting Gran Canaria airport, the Pan Am flight was
  • 2. informed of the temporary closure. Although the Pan Am crew indicated that they would prefer to circle in a holding pattern until landing clearance was given, the plane was ordered to divert to Los Rodeos, along with the KLM flight. This led to the critical cramped aircraft conditions within the smaller airport. There were congestions at Los Rodeos. In all, at least five large aircraft were diverted to, a regional airport that could not easily accommodate them. The airport had only one runway and one major taxiway parallel to it, as well as several small taxiways connecting the main taxiway and the runway. While waiting for Gran Canaria airport to reopen, the diverted aircraft took up so much space that they were parked on the long taxiway, meaning that it could not be used for taxiing. Instead, departing aircraft would have to taxi along the runway to position themselves for takeoff, a procedure known as a runway backtrack. After the threat at Gran Canaria International Airport had been contained, authorities reopened the airport. The Pan Am aircraft was ready to depart, but the KLM plane and a refueling vehicle obstructed the way to the active runway. The Pan Am aircraft was unable to manoeuvre around the fueling KLM, reach the runway and depart due to a lack of just 12 ft (3.7 m) of clearance. Captain Veldhuyzen van Zanten had decided to fully refuel at Los Rodeos instead of Las Palmas, apparently to save time. The refueling took about 35 minutes [2]. Following the tower's instructions, the KLM aircraft was cleared to backtaxi the full length of runway 30 and make a 180° turn to put the aircraft in takeoff position. While KLM 4805 was backtaxiing on runway 30, the controller asked the flight crew to report when it was ready to copy the ATC clearance. Because the flight crew was performing the checklist, copying this clearance was postponed until the aircraft was in takeoff position on Runway 30. Shortly afterward, Pan Am 1736 was also instructed to backtaxi, to follow the KLM aircraft down the same runway, to exit the runway by taking the third exit on their left and then use the parallel taxiway. Initially, the crew was unclear as to whether the controller had told them to take the first or third exit. The crew asked for clarification and the controller responded emphatically by replying: "The third one, sir; one, two, three; third, third one" [1]. The crew began the taxi and proceeded to identify the unmarked taxiways using an airport diagram as they reached them. Based on the chronology of the cockpit voice recorder (CVR), the distances between the taxiways, and the location of the aircraft at the time of the collision, the crew successfully identified the first two taxiways (C-1 and C-2), but their discussion in the cockpit never indicated that they had sighted the third taxiway (C- 3), which they had been instructed to use. There were no markings or signs to identify the runway exits and they were in conditions of poor visibility. The Pan Am crew appeared to remain unsure of their position on the runway until the collision, which occurred near the intersection with the fourth taxiway (C-4). The angle of the third taxiway would have required the plane to perform a turn of approximately 148°, which would lead back toward the still-crowded main apron. At the end of C-3, another 148° turn would have to be made, in order to continue taxiing towards the start of the runway. Taxiway C-4 would have required two
  • 3. turns of just 35°. A study carried out by the Air Line Pilots Association after the accident concluded that making the second 148° turn at the end of taxiway C-3 would have been "a practical impossibility". Subsequent performance calculations and taxi tests with a B747 turning off on an intersection comparable to the C-3 at Tenerife, as part of the Dutch investigation, indicate that in all probability the turns could have been made. The official report from the Spanish authorities did not explain why the controller had instructed the Pan Am aircraft to use the third taxiway, rather than the easier fourth taxiway. Tenerife / Los Rodeos airport is at 633 metres (2,077 feet) above sea level, which accounts for cloud behaviour that differs from that at most other airports. Clouds at 600 m (2,000 ft) above ground level at the nearby coast, are at ground level at Los Rodeos / Tenerife North. Drifting clouds from different densities cause wildly varying visibilities, from unhindered at one moment to below the minimums the next. The collision took place in a high density cloud [2]. The Pan Am Aircraft found themselves in poor and rapidly deteriorating visibility almost as soon as they entered the runway. According to the ALPA report, as the Pan Am Aircraft taxied to the runway, the visibility was about 500 m (1,600 ft). Shortly after they turned onto the runway it decreased to less than 100 m (330 ft). Meanwhile, the KLM aircraft was still in good visibility, but with clouds blowing down the runway towards them. The KLM aircraft completed its 180 degree turn in relatively clear weather and lined up on Runway 30. The next cloud was some 900 m (3,000 ft) down the runway and moving towards the aircraft at about 12 knots (6 meters per second). Immediately after lining up, the KLM captain, the most senior pilot working for KLM, advanced the throttles (a standard procedure known as "spool-up", to verify that the engines are operating properly for takeoff) and the co-pilot advised the captain that ATC clearance had not yet been given. Captain Veldhuyzen van Zanten responded, "I know that. Go ahead, ask." Meurs then radioed the tower that they were "ready for takeoff" and "waiting for our ATC clearance". The KLM crew then received instructions which specified the route that the aircraft was to follow after takeoff. The instructions used the word "takeoff," but did not include an explicit statement that they were cleared for takeoff. Meurs read the flight clearance back to the controller, completing the readback with the statement: "We are now at takeoff." Captain Veldhuyzen van Zanten interrupted the co-pilot's read-back with the comment, "We're going." The controller, who could not see the runway due to the fog, initially responded with "OK" (terminology which is nonstandard), which reinforced the KLM captain's misinterpretation that they had takeoff clearance. The controller's response of "OK" to the co-pilot's nonstandard statement that they were "now at takeoff" was likely due to his misinterpretation that they were in takeoff position and ready to begin the roll when takeoff clearance was received, but not in the process of taking off. The controller then immediately added "stand by for takeoff, I will call you," indicating that he had not intended the clearance to be interpreted as a takeoff clearance. Here we see communication misunderstanding.
  • 4. A simultaneous radio call from the Pan Am crew caused mutual interference on the radio frequency, which was audible in the KLM cockpit as a three second long whistling sound (or heterodyne). This made the crucial latter portion of the tower's response audible only with difficulty by the KLM crew. The Pan Am crew's transmission, which was also critical, was reporting, "We're still taxiing down the runway, the Clipper 1736!" This message was also blocked by the interference and inaudible to the KLM crew. Either message, if heard in the KLM cockpit, would have given the KLM crew time to abort the takeoff attempt. Due to the fog, neither crew was able to see the other plane on the runway ahead of them. In addition, neither of the aircraft could be seen from the control tower, and the airport was not equipped with ground radar. After the KLM plane had started its takeoff roll, the tower instructed the Pan Am crew to "report when runway clear." The Pan Am crew replied: "OK, we'll report when we're clear." On hearing this, the KLM flight engineer expressed his concern about the Pan Am not being clear of the runway by asking the pilots in his own cockpit, "Is he not clear, that Pan American?" Veldhuyzen van Zanten emphatically replied "Oh, yes" and continued with the takeoff. Look at the diagram of collision [3]. Simplified map of runway, taxiways, and aircraft. The red star indicates the location of impact. According to the CVR, Captain Grubbs, captain of the Pan Am plane, said, "There he is", when he spotted the KLM's landing lights through the fog just as his plane approached exit C-4. But he was mistaken. The KLM was coming towards them at takeoff speed. The only way was to get off the RW as quick as possible! The Pan Am crew applied full power to the throttles and took a sharp left turn towards the grass in an attempt to avoid a collision. By the time Captain Veldhuyzen van Zanten noticed the Pan Am on the runway ahead, his aircraft was already traveling too fast to stop. In desperation he prematurely rotated his aircraft and attempted to clear the Pan Am by climbing away, causing a tail strike for 20 m (100 ft). The KLM was within 100 m (330 ft) of the Pan Am when it left the ground. As it did so, its excessively steepangle of attack allowed the nose gear to clear the Pan Am but the engines, lower fuselage and landing gears struck the upper right side of the Pan Am's fuselage at approximately 140 knots (260 km/h; 160 mph), ripping apart the center of the Pan Am jet almost directly above the wing. The right side engines crashed through the Pan Am's upper deck immediately behind the cockpit. The KLM plane remained briefly airborne following the collision, but the impact with the Pan Am had sheared off the #1 (outer left) engine, and the #2
  • 5. (inner left) engine had ingested significant amounts of shredded materials from the Pan Am. The KLM pilot quickly lost control, and the 747 went into a stall, rolled sharply, and hit the ground at a point 150 m (500 ft) past the collision, sliding a further 300 m (1,000 ft) down the runway. The full load of fuel, which had caused the earlier delay, ignited immediately. A survivor of the Pan Am flight, John Coombs of Haleiwa, Hawaii, said that sitting in the nose of the plane probably saved his life: "We all settled back, and the next thing an explosion took place and the whole port side, left side of the plane, was just torn wide open [3]." Both airplanes were destroyed. All 234 passengers and 14 crew members in the KLM plane died, while 326 passengers and 9 crew members aboard the Pan Am flight were killed, primarily due to the fire and explosions resulting from the fuel spilled and ignited in the impact. The other 56 passengers and 5 crew members aboard the Pan Am aircraft survived, including the pilots and flight engineer. Most of the survivors on the Pan Am aircraft walked out onto the left wing, the side away from the collision, through holes in the fuselage structure. The Pan Am's engines were still running at takeoff power for a few minutes after the accident despite First Officer Bragg's intention to turn them off. The top part of the cockpit, where the engine switches were located, had been destroyed in the collision, and all control lines were severed, leaving no method for the flight crew to control the aircraft's systems. After a short time running at full power, the Pan-Am's engines began to disintegrate, throwing engine parts at high speed that killed a flight attendant who had escaped the burning plane. Survivors waited for rescue, but it did not come promptly, as the firefighters were initially unaware that there were two aircraft involved and were concentrating on the KLM wreck some distance away in the thick fog. Eventually, most of the survivors on the wings dropped to the ground below. In conclusion, the accident had a lasting influence on the industry, particularly in the area of communication. An increased emphasis was placed on using standardized phraseology in ATC communication by both controllers and pilots alike, thereby reducing the chance for misunderstandings. As part of these changes, the word "takeoff" was removed from general usage, and is only spoken by ATC when actually clearing an aircraft to take off. Less experienced flight crew members were encouraged to challenge their captains when they believed something was not correct, and captains were instructed to listen to their crew and evaluate all decisions in light of crew concerns. This concept would later be expanded into what is known today as Crew Resource Management. CRM training is now mandatory for all airline pilots. As a result of several misunderstandings in the ensuing communication, the KLM flight attempted to take off while the Pan Am flight was still on the runway. The resulting collision destroyed both aircraft, killing all 248 aboard the KLM flight and 335 of 396 aboard the Pan Am flight, primarily due to the fire and explosions resulting from the fuel spilled and ignited in the impact. The other 56 passengers and 5 crew members aboard the Pan Am aircraft survived, including the pilots and flight engineer.