Tag Archives: Aviation

TransAsia Plane Crashes into River in Taiwan

By Kim Smiley

On February 4, 2015, there were 53 passengers onboard TransAsia Airways Flight 235 when the plane crashed into the Keelung River shortly after taking off from the Taipei Shonshan Airport.  There were 15 survivors from this dramatic crash where the plane hit a bridge and taxi cab prior to turning upside down before hitting the river. (The crash was caught on video by dash cameras from a vehicle on the bridge and can be seen here.)

Investigators are still working to determine exactly what happened, but some early findings have been released.  The plane involved in this crash was a turboprop with two engines.  This model of plane can fly safely with only one engine, but both engines had issues immediately prior to the crash so the pilots were unable to control the plane.

Data from the flight recorder shows that the right engine idled 37 seconds after takeoff.  No details about what caused the problem with the right engine have been made available.  The initial investigation findings are that the left engine was likely manually shut down by the pilots.  It’s not clear why the functioning engine would have been intentionally shut down. Early speculation is that it was a mistake and that the pilots were attempting to restart the idled right engine when they hit the switch for the operating left engine.

The investigation into the crash is ongoing and the final report isn’t expected to be released for about a year, but based on the initial findings, a few solutions to help reduce the likelihood of future crashes have already been implemented.  TransAsia has grounded most of its turboprop aircraft pending additional pilot instruction and requalification because it is believed that pilot action may well have contributed to the deadly accident.  More than 100 domestic flights have been canceled as a result.  Additionally, Taiwan’s Civil Aeronautic Administration has announced that the carrier will be banned from adding new international routes for 12 months.  A previous crash in July 2014 had already tarnished TransAsia’s reputation and this latest disaster will certainly be scrutinized by the authorities.

An initial Cause Map, a visual root cause analysis, can be built to analyze the information that is available on this crash and to document where there are still open questions.  To view a Cause Map and Outline of this incident, click on “Download PDF” above.

Bad Weather Believed to Have Brought Down AirAsia Flight QZ8501

By ThinkReliability Staff

AirAsia flight QZ8501, and the 162 people on-board, was lost on December 28, 2014 while flying through high-altitude thunderstorms. Because of a delay in finding the plane and continuing bad weather in the area, the black box, which contains data that will give investigators more detail on why the plane went down, has not yet been recovered. Even without the black box’s data, experts believe that the terrible weather in the area was a likely cause of the crash.

“From our data it looks like the last location of the plane had very bad weather and it was the biggest factor in behind the crash. These icy conditions can stall the engines of the plane and freeze and damage the plane’s machinery,” says Edvin Aldrian, the head of Research at an Indonesian weather agency. Beyond the icing of engines, there are other theories on how weather-related issue may have brought down the plane.

Early speculation was that the plane was struck by lighting; while it may have been struck by lightning, experts say it’s unlikely it would have brought the plane down, because modern planes are fairly well-equipped to deal with direct lightning strikes. High levels of turbulence can also result in stalling due to a loss of airflow over the wings. There are also some who believe the plane (an Airbus A320) may have been pushed into a vertical climb past the limit for safe operation (to escape the weather) which resulted in a stall.

While the actual mechanism of how the weather (or an unrelated issue) brought the plane down is still to be determined, aviation safety organizations are already implementing some interventions to increase the safety of air travel in the area based on some specific areas of concern. (These areas of concern can be viewed visually in a Cause Map, or visual root cause analysis, by clicking on “Download PDF” above.)

AirAsia pilots relied on “self-briefings” regarding the weather. Pilots in other locations have expressed concern about the adequacy of weather information pilots obtain using this method. Direct pilot briefings with dispatchers based on detailed weather reporting are recommended to ensure that pilots have the information they need to safely traverse areas of poor weather (or stay out of them altogether).

Heavy air traffic in the area delayed approval to climb out of storm. At 6:12 local time the flight crew requested to climb to higher altitude to attempt to escape the storm. Air traffic control did not attempt to respond to the plane until 6:17, at which point it could no longer be contacted. Air traffic in the area was heavy, possibly because:

The plane did not have permission to fly the route it was on. AirAsia was licensed to fly the route it was taking at the time of the crash four days a week, but not the day of the crash. The takeoff airport used incorrect information in allowing the plane to take off in the first place (and the airline certainly used incorrect information in trying to fly the route as well). The selection of the route has been determined not to be a factor in the crash, but it certainly may have resulted in the overcrowding that led to the delayed response from air traffic control. It also resulted in the airline’s flights on that route being suspended.

It took almost three days to find the plane. The delay is renewing calls for universal tracking of aircraft or real-time streaming of flight data that were initially raised after the loss of Malaysia Airline flight MH370, which is still missing ten months after losing radar contact. (See our previous blog on the difficulties finding it.) Not only would this reduce the suffering of families while waiting to hear their loved ones’ fates, it would reduce resources required to find lost aircraft and, in cases where survival is possible, increase the chance of survival of those on the plane.


Dreamliner fire: firefighter injured when battery explodes

By ThinkReliability Staff

On January 7, 20 13, smoke was discovered on a recently deplaned Boeing 787 Dreamliner. The recently released National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigation found that an internal short circuit within a cell of the auxiliary power unit (APU) battery spread to adjacent cells and led to a thermal runway which released fire and smoke aboard the aircraft. A firefighter responding to the fire was injured when the battery exploded. Only 9 days later, an incident involving the main battery, which is the same model as that used for the APU, resulted in an emergency landing of another Boeing 787. As a result of these two incidents, the entire Dreamliner fleet was grounded for 3 months for the ensuing investigation and incorporation of modifications. (See our previous blog about the grounding.) Before the fleet was allowed to resume operations, certain protective modifications were required to be implemented.

The investigation determined that the internal short circuit, which provided the initial heat source for the fire within the battery cell, could not be definitively determined due to severe damage in the area, but was potentially related to defects discovered during the manufacturing process. (Defects that could result in this type of short circuit were found on similar components.) The investigation found issues within the manufacturing process and with the oversight of subcontractors by contractors, as opposed to the manufacturers themselves.

The high temperatures resulting from the battery fire allowed it to spread to adjacent cells. Localized high temperatures were found greater than allowable at times of maximum current discharge, such as the APU startup, which had recently occurred. The high temperatures were not detected by the monitoring system (the impact could have been minimized had the issue come to light sooner), because temperatures were not monitored at individual cells, but only on two cell bus bars.

The systems were not prepared to deal with a spreading fire as the design of the aircraft assumed that a short circuit internal to the cell would not propagate. The NTSB determined that the guidance provided to determine key assumptions was ineffective and that the validation of these assumptions had failed. Likely related to this assumption, the safety assessment and testing on the battery system was ineffective. The rate of occurrence of cell venting (the spreading of fire from cell to cell) was calculated by the manufacturer to be 1 in 10 million flight hours. The two occurrences that resulted in the grounding both involved cell venting and occurred while the 787 fleet had less than 52,000 flight hours.

Immediate actions that were required by the NTSB prior to a return to flight were to enclose the battery case, vent from the interior of the enclosure containing the battery to the exterior of the plane (keeping smoke out of the occupied spaces), and modify the battery to minimize the most severe effects from an internal short circuit. The NTSB also made multiple safety recommendations to the manufacturer, subcontractor and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

One of these recommendations was to ensure that assumptions are validated. According to the NTSB report, “Validation of assumptions related to failure conditions that can impact safety is a critical step in the development and certification of an aircraft. The validation process must employ a level of rigor that is consistent with the potential hazard to the aircraft in case an assumption is incorrect.” This statement is true for any object that’s manufactured. Just replace the word “aircraft” with whatever is being manufactured, such as “car” or “pacemaker”. (See another disaster that resulted from not validated assumptions: the collapse of the I-35 Bridge.)

Click on “Download PDF” above to view a high level Cause Map of this issue.

Fire at FAA Facility Sparks Flight Havoc

By Kim Smiley 

On Friday September 26, 2014, air traffic was grounded for hours in the Chicago region following a fire in a Federal Aviation Administration facility in Aurora, Illinois. The snarl of flight issues impacted thousands of travelers in the days following the fire as airports struggled to deal with the aftermath of more than 4,000 canceled flights and thousands more delayed.

A Cause Map, a format for performing a visual root cause analysis, can be used to analyze this issue.  To build a Cause Map, the first step is to define the problem by determining how the overall organizational goals are impacted.  In this example, there is a significant customer service impact because thousands of passengers had their travel plans disrupted. The flight cancelations and delays can be considered an impact to the production/schedule goal.  The amount of time and energy needed to address the flight disruptions along with the investigation into the issue would also be impacts to the labor goal.  Once the impacts to the goals are determined, the Cause Map is built by asking “why” questions and visually laying out the answers to show the cause-and-effect relationship.

Thousands of flights were canceled because air traffic control was unable to support them.  Air traffic control couldn’t perform their usual function because there was a fire in a building that provided air traffic support for a large portion of the upper Midwest and it wasn’t possible to quickly provide air traffic support from another location. Focusing on the fire itself first, the fire appears to have been intentionally set by a contractor who worked in the building.  He was able to bring in flammable materials and start a fire without anyone stopping him.  Police are still investigating his motives, but he has been charged with a felony. The building was evacuated once the fire was discovered and employees obviously couldn’t perform their usual duties during that time.  Additionally, the fire damaged equipment so air traffic control functionality could not be quickly restored once the initial crisis was addressed and it was safe to return to the building.

The second portion of the issue is that there wasn’t a way to support air traffic once the building was evacuated.  Once the fire occurred, all flights were grounded because there wasn’t air traffic control support and it was not possible to quickly get air traffic moving again.

The final step in the Cause Mapping process is to develop and implement solutions to reduce the risk of a similar problem.  Law makers have called for an investigation into this issue to see if there is sufficient redundancy in the air traffic control system.  In an ideal situation, a fire or other crisis at any single location would not cripple US air traffic to the extent that this issue did.  The investigation is also looking into the fire and reviewing the security at the facility to see if there should be stricter restrictions put in place, such as ensuring that no employees work alone or searching bags as workers access the site.

This situation is also a strong reminder that organizations need to have a plan in place of what to do in case a failure occurs.  There was a previous fire scare at this same location earlier in 2014 when a smoking ceiling fan resulted in an evacuation and flight delays (see previous blog) that should have prompted some serious consideration of what the contingency plan should be if this facility was ever out of commission.

I was one of those people standing in line for hours at an airport on Friday morning after my flight was canceled.  And I for one would love to see the air traffic control system become more robust and better able to deal with the inevitable hiccups that occur.  It’s impossible to prevent every potential problem and another intentional fire in a FAA facility seems pretty farfetched, but it is possible to have a better plan in place to deal with issues that may arise.  The potential consequences of any single failure can be limited with a good plan and quick implementation of that plan.

Hundreds of Flights Disrupted After Air-Traffic Control System Confused by U-2 Spy Plane

By Kim Smiley

Hundreds of flights were disrupted in the Los Angeles area on April 30, 2014 when the air traffic control system En Route Automation Modernization system, known as ERAM, crashed.   It’s been reported that the presence of a U-2 spy plane played a role in the air traffic control issues.

This issue can be analyzed by building a Cause Map, a visual format for performing a root cause analysis.  A Cause Map intuitively lays out the cause-and-effect relationships so that the problem can be better understood and a wider range of solutions considered.  In order to build a Cause Map, the impacted goals are determined and “why” questions are asked to determine all the causes that contributed to the issue.

In this example, the schedule goal was clearly impacted because 50 flights were canceled and more than 400 were delayed.  Why did this occur?  The flight schedule was disrupted because planes were unable to land or depart safely because the air traffic control system used to monitor the landings was down.  The computer system crashed because it became overwhelmed when it tried to reroute a large number of flights in a short period of time.

The system attempted to reroute so many flights at once because the system’s calculations showed that there was a risk of plane collisions because the system misinterpreted the flight path, specifically the altitude, of a U-2 on a routine training mission in the area.  U-2s are designed for ultra-high altitude reconnaissance, and the plane is reported to have been flying above 60,000 feet, well above any commercial flights.  The system didn’t realize that the U-2 was thousands of feet above any other aircraft so it frantically worked to reroute planes so they wouldn’t be in unsafe proximity.

It took several hours to sort out the problem, but then the Federal Aviation Administration was able to implement a short term fix relatively quickly and get the ERAM system back online.  The ERAM system is being evaluated to ensure that no other fixes are needed to ensure that a similar problem doesn’t occur again.  It’s also worth noting that ERAM is a relatively new system (implementation began in 2002) that is replacing the obsolete 1970s-era hardware and software system that had been in place previously.  Hopefully there won’t be many more growing pains with the changeover to a new air traffic control system.

To see a high level Cause Map of this problem, click on “Download PDF” above.

Boeing 747 “Dreamlifter” Cargo Jet Lands At Wrong Airport

By Kim Smiley

On November 21, 2013, a massive Boeing 747 Dreamlifter cargo jet made national headlines after it landed at the wrong airport near Wichita, Kansas.  For a time, the Dreamlifter looked to be stuck at the small airport with a relatively short runway, but it was able to take off safely the next day after some quick calculations and a little help turning around.

At the time of the airport mix-up, the Dreamlifter was on its way to the McConnell Air Force base to retrieve Dreamliner nose sections made by nearby Spirit Aerosystems.   Dreamlifters are notably large because they are modified jumbo jets designed to haul pieces of Dreamliners between the different facilities that manufacture parts for aircraft.

So how does an airplane land at the wrong airport?  It’s not entirely clear yet how a mistake of this magnitude was made.  The Federal Aviation Administration is planning to investigate the incident to determine what happened and to see whether any regulations were violated.  What is known is that the airports have some similarities in layout that can be confusing from the air.  First off, there are three airports in fairly close proximity in the region.  The intended destination was the McConnell Air Force base, which has a runway configuration similar to Jabara airfield where the Dreamlifter landed by mistake.  Both runways run north-south and  are nearly parallel.  It can also be difficult to determine how long a runway is from the airport so the shorter length isn’t necessarily easy to see.  Beyond the airport similarities, the details of how the plane landed at the wrong airport haven’t been released yet.

What is known can be captured by building an initial Cause Map, a visual format for performing a root cause analysis.  One of the advantages of Cause Maps is they can be easily expanded to incorporate more information as it becomes available.  The first step in Cause Mapping is to fill in an Outline with the basic background information and to list how the issue impacts the overall goals.  There are a number of goals impacted in this example.  The potential for a plane crash means that there was an impact to both the safety and property goal because of the possibility of fatalities and damage to the jet.  The effort needed to ensure that the jet could safely take off on a shorter runway is an impact to the labor goal and the delay was an impact to the schedule goal.  The negative publicity surrounding this incident can also be considered an impact to the  customer service goal.

Once the Outline is completed, the Cause Map is built by asking “why” questions and intuitively laying out the answers until all the causes that contributed to the issue are documented.  Click on “Download PDF” above to see an Outline and initial Cause Map of this issue.

Good luck with any air travel planned for this busy holiday week.  And if your plane makes it to the right airport (even if it’s a little late), take a moment to be thankful because it’s apparently not the given I’ve generally assumed.

Pilot Response to Turbulence Leads to Crash

By ThinkReliability Staff

All 260 people onboard Flight 587, plus 5 on the ground, were killed when the plane crashed into a residential area on November 12, 2001.  Flight 587 took off shortly after another large aircraft.  The plane experienced turbulence.  According to the NTSB, the pilot’s overuse of the rudder mechanism, which had been redesigned and as a result was unusually sensitive, resulted in such high stress that that vertical stabilizer separated from the body of the plane.

This event is an example of an Aircraft Pilot Coupling (APC) event.  According to the National Research Council, “APC events are collaborations between the pilot and the aircraft in that they occur only when the pilot attempts to control what the aircraft does.  For this reason, pilot error is often listed as the cause of accidents and incidents that include an APC event.  However, the [NRC] committee believes that the most severe APC events attributed to pilot error are the result of the adverse APC that misleads the pilot into taking actions that contribute to the severity of the event.  In these situations, it is often possible, after the fact, to analyze the event carefully and identify a sequence of actions the pilot could have taken to overcome the aircraft design deficiencies and avoid the event.  However, it is typically not feasible for the pilot to identify and execute the required actions in real time.”

This crash is a case where it is tempting to chalk up the accident to pilot error and move on.  However, a more thorough investigation of causes identifies multiple issues that contributed to the accident and, most importantly, multiple opportunities to increase safety for future pilots and passengers.  The impacts to the goals, causes of these impacts, and possible solutions can be organized visually in cause-and-effect relationships by using a Cause Map.  To view the Outline and Cause Map, please click “Download PDF” above.

The wake turbulence that initially affected the flight was due to the small separation distance between the flight and a large plane that took off 2 minutes prior (the required separation distance by the FAA).  This led to a recommendation to re-evaluate the separation standards, especially for extremely large planes.  In the investigation, the NTSB found that the training provided to pilots on this particular type of aircraft was inadequate, especially because changes to the aircraft’s flight control system rendered the rudder control system extremely sensitive.  This combination is believed to be what led to the overuse of the rudder system, leading to stress on the vertical stabilizer that resulted in its detachment from the plane.  Specific formal training for pilots based on the flight control system for this particular plane was incorporated, as was evaluation of changes to the flight control system and requirements of handling evaluations when design changes are made to flight control systems for   previously certified aircraft. A caution box related to rudder sensitivity was incorporated on these planes, as was a detailed inspection to verify stabilizer to fuselage and rudder to stabilizer attachments.  An additional inspection was required for planes that experience extreme in-flight lateral loading events.  Lastly, the airplane upset recovery training aid was revised to assist pilots in recovering from upsets such as from this event.

Had this investigation been limited to a discussion of pilot error, revised training may have been developed, but it’s likely that a discussion of the causes that led to the other solutions that were recommended and/or implemented as a result of this accident would not have been incorporated.  It’s important to ensure that incident investigations address all the causes, so that as many solutions as possible can be considered.

Rules on Inflight Electronics May be Changing Soon

By Kim Smiley

In welcome news to many airline passengers, it looks like the FAA may soon allow the use of personal electronic devices during the entire duration of flights, including takeoff and landing.  The current restrictions on the use of personal electronics are being reviewed following a recent recommendation by an aviation advisory committee made of up pilots, mechanics, engineers and other aviation experts.

A Cause Map, a visual format for performing a root cause analysis, can be used to analyze this issue.  A Cause Map is built by asking “why” questions and intuitively laying out the many causes that contributed to an issue to show the cause-and-effect relationships.  The first step in the Cause Mapping process is to document the basic background information as well as list how the issue impacts the goals in the an Outline.

One of the major impacts for this example is that there is concern that use of personal electronic devices onboard aircraft may be dangerous and increase the risk of a plane crash.  Currently, the use of personal electronics is allowed once a plane is above 10,000 feet, which is basically the whole flight except landing and takeoff which are considered the most critical portions of the flight.   These restrictions are in place because pilots depend on electronic systems, such as navigation and communications systems, to safely do their job and there is concern about the potential for interference with these vital systems.

How likely it is that dangerous interference could be an actual issue is debated.  There were 75 reports by pilots of suspected electronic device interference between 2003 and 2009, according to the International Air Transport Association.  However, it’s difficult to reproduce interference and it has never been cited as a cause in any airplane accident.  The current ban on the use of electronics also seems to be loosely enforced, raising questions about its necessity and effectiveness.  (A survey by the Consumer Electronics Association also found that nearly a third of airplane passengers said they left on a portable electronic device on a flight during the previous year.)  There seems to be a general consensus that this is low risk issue, but the potentially high consequences if it occurs has made some reluctant to reduce the restrictions.

There are also some non-technical issues that need to be considered with the onboard use of electronics.  There is concern that passengers enthralled with their devices will be distracted and miss important information during preflight safety briefs.  There is also a concern that larger devices, such as laptops, could become a missile hazard and hurt passengers if the plane moves unexpectedly.

If the new recommendations are approved, passengers will be able to use any device that doesn’t transfer data the entire flight, including takeoff and landing.  Passengers would be able to leave all devices turned on, but they would need to set them to airplane mode so that no data is transmitted.  So you won’t be able to make calls on your smartphone or stream video, but you would be able to rock out to music already downloaded or read a book on a kindle.  Larger devices will still need to be stowed during takeoff and landing because nobody wants to be hit with a laptop, but smaller gadgets will be fair game if the new recommendations are adopted.

To see a Cause Map of this issue, click on “Download PDF” above.




Deadly Plane Crash at San Francisco Airport

By Kim Smiley

On July 6, 2013, Asiana Airlines Flight 214 crashed while attempting to land at the San Francisco International Airport. Three people have died as a result of the crash and around 180 others were injured, 13 critically. The cause of the crash is currently under investigation, but there were no obvious mechanical issues and the weather was near perfect.

Even though the investigation is still in its infancy, an initial Cause Map can be built to document what is known now about the accident and it can easily be expanded later as more information becomes available. A Cause Map is a visual format for performing a root cause analysis that intuitively lays out the different causes for an accident. The first step in the Cause Mapping process is to fill in an Outline with the basic background information for an issue. On the bottom half of the Outline there is space to document how the problem impacts the overall goals. This is useful because it helps everyone involved in the process understand the big picture and the issues with the more significant impacts can be prioritized first.

There is also space on the Outline to list anything that was different or unusual at the time the problem occurred. It’s important to note any differences because they are usually worth exploring during an investigation because they may have played a role in the accident. In this specific example, this was the first time the pilots had worked together and the two main pilots were both in unfamiliar roles. The pilot landing the plane had limited experience with Boeing 777s even though he was an experienced pilot and this was his first time landing this type of aircraft at the San Francisco airport. There was another pilot instructing him, but it was his first flight as an instructor.

Once the Outline is completed, the next step is to ask “why” question and add the answers to the Cause Map. In this example, we know that the airplane was coming in too low and too slow to land safely, but it isn’t known why that happened. The NTSB has initiated an investigation and the results will reported when the analysis is complete. Some of the early speculation is that there may have been an equipment failure, mismanagement of automated systems or ineffective communication in the cockpit. The fact that this crew was different than the typical staffing has been a focus of investigators, but it isn’t known what role they may have played in the crash.

Another piece of this puzzle is that one of the passengers who died at the crash scene appears to have been killed when she was run over by a fire engine. She was covered in foam on the ground and the firefighters were unaware of her location. Emergency response procedures will need to be reviewed as part of the investigation into this accident to ensure that first responders can do their jobs in the safest way possible.

To view an initial Cause Map of this issue, click on “Download PDF” above.


Seat Belts: A Simple Solution That is Still Underused

By ThinkReliability Staff

One of the most frequent questions we get is “What’s the root cause?”  The problem with that question is that there is never just one, root cause.  Rather, the ‘root cause” should be thought of as a system of causes, much like the roots of most plants are a system.  But the idea of a root cause is attractive – only one thing to find, analyze and solve.  There are a few, rare situations that are almost one, root cause.  One of them is the use of seat belts.

Not wearing a seat belt can cause all kinds of problems, in any kind of vehicle.  In passenger vehicles, seat belts saved more than 75,000 lives from 2004 to 2008, according to the National highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).  Over that same period, more than 26,000 more lives WOULD have been saved if everyone wore a seat belt.  Unfortunately, not everyone does.  According to the National Safety Council (NSC), seat belt use varies by the type of vehicle but is around 80%.

It’s not just cars that are at issue.  On March 29, 2013, a man was thrown from an experimental plane and killed when the canopy came off.  He wasn’t wearing a seat belt, which would have almost certainly kept him from being ejected – and killed.  Although the FAA requires that safety belts be fastened while crewmembers are at their duty  stations, the pilot, who was killed, had unfastened his safety belt to troubleshoot problems with the battery and apparently did not successfully re-fasten the belt.   (The instructor was not ejected and was able to safely land the plane.)

Although states are trying with mandatory seat belt laws, you can’t force everyone to wear a seat belt all the time.  However, there are many actions being taken to try and increase seat belt use.  As previously mentioned, states are increasing laws and enforcement of requiring seat belt use for all passengers.  Car manufacturers have added warning systems that encourage seat belt use for drivers, and front seat passengers.

Seat belt use (percentage-wise) is lowest among those who have just gotten their license.  As a parent, requiring use of a seat belt every time, every trip, for every passenger can help reduce the risk to your child and his or her passengers.  As an employer, vehicle crashes can have a serious impact to your organization. According to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), motor vehicle accidents are a leading cause of death and injury and cost employers $60 billion annually.  All employers should have a driver safety program.   (Tips on establishing a driver safety program can be found here.)

There is no question that deaths from traffic accidents are a major concern – to everyone.  According to the NHTSA, “seat belts are the most effective traffic safety device for preventing death and injury.”  Because of the effectiveness of seat belts, the  risk of deaths from vehicle accidents, it’s no stretch to say that buckling your seat belt – and getting everyone in your vehicle, family, and organization to do the same – may well be the most important thing you do today.

To view the Outline and Cause Map for the plane ejection, please click “Download PDF” above.  If you’re curious why school buses do not have seat belts, read our previous blog.  Or click here to  read more:

This incident