Safety management is a vital element of the aviation industry since failure to follow the rules and guidelines can be fatal for many people on the aircraft, including passengers and the crew. Since airlines understand the risks, they try to practice appropriate safety measures. Unfortunately, accidents and crashes still occur when external and internal threats are not appropriately managed. For example, the flight that happened on January 25, 1990, on Avianca Airline’s jet crashed in the yard of one of the residents of Cove Neck, New York (National Transportation Safety Board [NTSB], 1991).
The flight was registered in Columbia, and the final destination was in Boston; however, because of poor weather conditions and the fact that the airplane ran out of fuel, the jet crashed (NTSB, 1991). Despite the crew’s efforts to land at Logan airport, which refused landing due to poor visibility, the circumstances with insufficient fuel were not manageable under that conditions. Hence, the savior operation of people who survived after the crash was conducted by and primarily depended on the collective efforts of citizens and emergency services.
Crisis resource management controls internal errors and prevents various external threats from harming an aircraft. As discussed during this course, the dangers can be external and internal, and mistakes can be procedural non-compliance, communication, proficiency, and operational decision issues. It is difficult to state that the crash of Avianca Flight 52 was entirely the crew members’ fault due to the inability to manage fuel. The external weather conditions and the failure of the Boston airport to approve landing could not be governed by the pilots. In fact, according to the crew, the main problem was that Boston-Logan refused the jet’s landing three times due to severe weather conditions and the over-crowdedness of the airport (NTSB, 1991).
However, the National Transportation Safety Board concluded that it was the flight crew’s failure to articulate the amount of fuel left before the crash became inevitable (NTSB, 1991). It seemed that 12,000 gallons of jet fuel were sufficient for the international flight, but the complication appeared before landing (Cannella, 2020). Although appropriate preparation for such a flight was done, the crew members did not recognize all possible threats and act accordingly.
As the report shows, the flight crew clearly communicated accurate readings of the speed of the craft, and other teammates calculated and provided the amount of fuel required for this flight. Indeed, the NTSB (1991) report showed that the pilots had professional communication with the airport of destination but were rejected landing three times. At the same time, the same report shows that an error was made in the calculations of the amount of fuel required. It is stated that there was a failure to anticipate various risks that the crew members had to consider knowing the unfavorable weather conditions in the northern American states (NTSB, 1991).
Moreover, the aircraft team continued reassuring that the jet contained enough fuel for a delayed landing despite the airport repeatedly asking if they had had enough of it (NTSB, 1991). However, during the final request, the airplane appeared unable to reach the closest airport due to inadequate fuel. It seems that supporting staff that prepared and evaluated Avianca’s Boeing-707 loaded less fuel than necessary, provided they were aware of the distance and had all weather reports.
The positive characteristics of the crew’s work are that they continued to request and wait for landing while maintaining transparent communication about some of the jet’s features. Still, there are some areas that the entire team could improve. Specifically, Avianca Airlines must have re-checked the reports about the jet fuel required for the international flight, considering all existing external factors. The safety committee discovered that there was a 1000-lb calculation error, possibly resulting in fuel insufficiency and the subsequent crash (NTSB, 1991). It will be better for this airline corporation considering that jets may need more fuel than just needed to cover a specific distance due to the risk of the appearance of various external predicted or unexpected threats. Another area of improvement is that the crew members should be trained to accurately assess the fuel required for landing at a particular airport. Additionally, pilots should always consider that they may need to lead the aircraft to a different destination. The crew members missed the risk that visibility will not improve soon and free runways may not appear; hence, such risks should be considered to discuss landing in other airports.
In conclusion, the crash of Avianca Airlines’ flight from Columbia to Boston was found to be primarily caused by the fact that the jet ran out of fuel. The crisis response committee discovered that even though there were external circumstances that crew members could not control, they seemed to fail to manage the preparedness of the airplane for potential threats. Specifically, the team working on calculating the amount of jet fuel necessary for the international flight was unable to consider bad climactic conditions despite the fact they had all weather reports for that period. Still, the positive aspect of the crew’s response to this event was that they maintained adequate communication with Logan airport. Still, the airline should consider better preparation of the pilots to consider different scenarios to make the most reasonable and safest decisions.
References
Cannella, G. (2020). After Avianca: Memories of 1990’s fateful flight 52. Web.
National Transportation Safety Board. (1991). Aircraft accident report: Avianca, the airline of Columbia, Boeing 707–321B, HK2016, fuel exhaustion. National Transportation Safety Board.