Human Factors in Aerospace: Crashing of an Air Canada A320

HUMAN FACTORS IN AEROSPACE
By (Name)
Course Name
Professor’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
City/State
Date of Submission
Human Factors in Aerospace
Q1. Crashing of an Air Canada A320
On March 29, 2015, a few minutes past midnight, flight 624 (Airbus 320) that had come from Toronto arrived at Halifax airport. There were massive snowfall and gusty winds at that time. The Airbus, carrying 133 passengers and the other five members of the crew accidentally hit some power lines before it landed. It slammed into the ground from a height of 200 meters to the runway. It then bounced back into the air, causing it to tear through the navigation antenna. When it landed the runway the second time from a height of 70 meters, one of its engines and landing gears were torn off. It lost balance and skidded along the runway, generating sparks along the way (Barreveld 2015).
According to the investigation report, the flight crew had activated the autopilot to fly the plane at what they termed as “appropriate constant descent flight path angle." The crew then failed to notice the changes in the wind since the procedure did not require them to continually monitor the plane’s distance from the runway and its altitude in the air. This is what caused the plane to jet and further back from the normal flight path (Barreveld 2015).
The investigators also found out that runway lights had not been tuned to their maximum setting despite the crew’s prior request. At the time, the tower controllers were arguably preoccupied, removing the snow plows which had been deposited on the runway and also in the nearby aircraft located on the taxiway. When the plane approached the runway, the crew saw lights at the airport, and they immediately assumed it was the runway, having asked that the runway lights be set to maximum (Avrenli & Dempsey 2015). More than twenty people were injured in the crash.
There were three errors made by the crew. First, they set the plan to autopilot though the weather was not good. There were winds and snow that required human navigation. Secondly, they assumed that the light at the airport indicated the presence of the runway. They could have circulated the area to verify before landing (Avrenli & Dempsey 2015).
After the crash, a number of safety recommendations have been put in place. Pilots have been provided with visual references for landing approaches (Jenkins 2015). They have also been limited to the usage of the auto-piloting tool. Pilots are now required to monitor all instruments in all approaches, especially when they are below the lowest descent altitude. Halifax airport improved their approach lighting system along the runways, particularly on the location of the accident. The same has also been done in other airports in Canada.
Halifax airport reviewed its emergency response team and plan. They have made adjustments by acquiring more emergency assets like backup power. They have also trained and hired more personnel to help in the emergency situation. The airport authority went ahead and published a satellite view of the runway 05 with the aim that it gives both vertical and lateral guidance to the pilots (Jenkins 2015).
Q2. Environmental Performance Factor...