Home > Free Essays > Tech & Engineering > Aviation > Airmanship: DHL Over Baghdad and Qantas Flight 32

Airmanship: DHL Over Baghdad and Qantas Flight 32 Case Study

Exclusively available on IvyPanda Available only on IvyPanda
Updated: Aug 2nd, 2021

DHL Accident in Bagdad

The root cause of the DHL A300-B4 accident in Bagdad on 22 November 2003 was a terrorist attack resulting in severe damage to the left-wing, complete loss of hydraulic plane control systems, fire causing more destruction, and the left fuel tank devastation (Mickolus and Simmons 12). The accident was preventable since the corresponding services warned the public regarding the possibility of a terrorist attack in this region (Mickolus and Simmons 13).

The major lessons learned from this accident are that CRM is the key preventive measure when it comes to flight safety and security promotion measures. It is only with the perfection of the team members that the pilot could land the plane and save the crew’s lives. This conclusion can be made because the plane completely lost its control due to the asymmetric destruction. Also, this case demonstrates that it is important to continue to increase flight safety in the world since terrorism movements continue to maintain a high level of preparedness to similar acts of terror. After 13 years since this accident, similar cases continue to take place in numerous areas around the globe. The calamity addresses the companies and countries that seem to be the leaders in the area of antiterrorist protection. A vivid illustration is the latest accident of the Russian plane in Egypt taking away the lives of over 300 innocent people returning home from vacation.

DHL accident suggested that CRM is an effective system for flight safety and security protection, and still, it needs to be more elaborated to ensure better outcomes (Wilkins 58). The examples of CRM in the case of this flight are the exemplary performances of the three people comprising the plane crew. The crewmembers demonstrated outstanding professionalism by landing the plane with the major damage to one of its wings, with only one engine working, total loss of hydraulic control, unsafe landing speed, and complex ground characteristics of the landing surface (Stewart 15).

Qantas Flight 32 Accident on the Way to Dubai

Qantas Airbus A380 flying at the height of 7,000 feet encountered a sudden engine rotor problem on 4 November 2010 (“A380 Engine Explodespar. 1). As a result, considerable structural damage was caused to the plane. With the exemplary actions from the flight crew, control over the plane’s system was returned, and the plane landed in Changi Airport (O’Sullivan 93).

The root cause of the accident was the technical issue in the construction of the plane. According to ATSB, “several issues [were identified] during the manufacture of Trent 900 HP/IP hub assemblies that resulted in their release into service with non-conforming oil feed stub pipes” (“A380 Engine Explodespar. 4). The conclusions made by ATSB regarding the accident cause made it clear that Qantas was guilty of flight security violations because it did not manage to diagnose a serious safety issue with their Airbus A380 model. The technical defect of the model could cause deaths of hundreds of passengers because Airbus A380 is very common in the company park.

The accident with Qantas Airbus A380 was preventable as found by ATSB (Zhong 64). The board of researchers made the following conclusion as to the impact of this case, “even though modern civil turbine engines are very reliable, and UERFs are very rare events, the resulting damage from such a failure can be significant and the potential effects catastrophic” (par. 4).

The recommendations provided by ATSB are fully appropriate because they are supported by the technical research findings and experts’ opinions. Moreover, the company producing Airbus A380 acknowledged the existing problem and introduced considerable changes to the model to eliminate the security issues (Zhong 67).

The major lessons learned from this case are (1) the necessity to increase the intensity of safety testing during the stage of a plane production and every time it is intended to serve a particular flight; and(2) the importance of excellent CRM because this strategy can help save hundreds of people’s lives even in the event of extreme danger. Qantas Airbus A380 case is another vivid illustration proving that millions of American dollars spent by airlines around the globe on CRM can be identified as the most effectively used funds.

CRM became the central power affecting the ultimate outcomes in the given case. Only because of perfection in the actions of the flight crew, the passengers were able to reach the land safely. Particular examples of CRM demonstrated by this case are an effective distribution of responsibilities and tasks among all the team members available, incorporating the efforts of support pilots present on the board to trace the plane’s systems work to modify the approach to flying the plane, and outstanding performance of flight crew in the area of passengers’ panic management (Zhong 69). Another noticeable example illustrating the importance of CRM is the ability of the major members in the crew to manage all resources available in the plane for the common purpose of enabling the vessel to reach the land safely.

Works Cited

A380 Engine Explodes On Qantas Flight 32. 2012. Web.

Mickolus, Edward F., and Susan L. Simmons. The 50 Worst Terrorist Attacks, New York, N.I.: ABC-CLIO, 2014. Print.

O’Sullivan, Matt. Mayday: The Inside Story of the Fall of Qantas, London: Penguin, 2015. Print.

Stewart, Scott. “The Continuing Threat of Libyan Missiles.” Security Weekly 3 (2012): 7-18. Print.

Wilkins, M. J. “Are Machines Better Than Humans in Crisis?.” SPE Intelligent Energy Conference & Exhibition. Society of Petroleum Engineers, (2014): 58-64. Print.

Zhong, Lunlong. Contribution to Fault Tolerant Flight Control under Actuator Failures, Toulouse: INSA de Toulouse, 2014. Print.

This case study on Airmanship: DHL Over Baghdad and Qantas Flight 32 was written and submitted by your fellow student. You are free to use it for research and reference purposes in order to write your own paper; however, you must cite it accordingly.
Removal Request
If you are the copyright owner of this paper and no longer wish to have your work published on IvyPanda.
Request the removal

Need a custom Case Study sample written from scratch by
professional specifically for you?

Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar

certified writers online

Cite This paper
Select a referencing style:

Reference

IvyPanda. (2021, August 2). Airmanship: DHL Over Baghdad and Qantas Flight 32. Retrieved from https://ivypanda.com/essays/airmanship-dhl-over-baghdad-and-qantas-flight-32/

Work Cited

"Airmanship: DHL Over Baghdad and Qantas Flight 32." IvyPanda, 2 Aug. 2021, ivypanda.com/essays/airmanship-dhl-over-baghdad-and-qantas-flight-32/.

1. IvyPanda. "Airmanship: DHL Over Baghdad and Qantas Flight 32." August 2, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/airmanship-dhl-over-baghdad-and-qantas-flight-32/.


Bibliography


IvyPanda. "Airmanship: DHL Over Baghdad and Qantas Flight 32." August 2, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/airmanship-dhl-over-baghdad-and-qantas-flight-32/.

References

IvyPanda. 2021. "Airmanship: DHL Over Baghdad and Qantas Flight 32." August 2, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/airmanship-dhl-over-baghdad-and-qantas-flight-32/.

References

IvyPanda. (2021) 'Airmanship: DHL Over Baghdad and Qantas Flight 32'. 2 August.

More related papers