History For Aircraft Investigation Aviation

Flying is by and large a safe and fast method of transit, but accidents ever happen whether through human mistake, mechanical failure, or condemnable activity. Over the last two decennaries, there have been many fatal aircraft accidents per twelvemonth worldwide. These, and lesser accidents, have to be investigated scientifically in order to derive of import lessons about aircraft public presentation and safety.

The International Civil Aviation Organization ( ICAO ) requires that a civil aircraft accident be investigated by an independent organic structure belonging to the state where the accident took topographic point. Each state has its ain organisation taking duty for this: in the United States, it is theNational Transportation Safety Board ( NTSB ) ; in the United Kingdom, it is the Air Accidents Investigation Branch ( AAIB ) and in Malaysia it is the Department of Civil Aviation. The intent of the probe is to happen out why the accident happened and how similar events might be avoided in the hereafter, instead than to allocate incrimination. The constabulary will be involved in the probe if sabotage or some other signifier of condemnable activity is suspected, and the military by and large looks into accidents affecting service aircraft.

My research is about the air catastrophe probe process for Malaysia on the affair of the procedure measure, incident statistic, comparing between the Malaysian probe processs with other part.

History for aircraft probe

The processs for air accident probes were foremost laid down in 1928 by the US National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics. They required air accident research workers to see the immediate and implicit in factors of an accident in order to set up and apportion incrimination for its happening. A recognition system was put in topographic point that weighted causal factors harmonizing to their overall blameworthiness – for illustration, an accident could be regarded 70 % the consequence of pilot mistake and 30 % the consequence of environmental factors. ( New Zealand Air Line Pilots ‘ Association, 2009 )

In 1944 the Chicago Convention drafted a set of processs and procedures to regulate the burgeoning international civil air power industry. Included in these processs were regulations refering the duties of undertaking provinces in the event of an air power accident on their dirt. These criterions and recommended patterns were developed by the Accident Investigation Division between February 1946 and February 1947, and were subsequently designated as Annex 13 of the convention. The convention allowed provinces to bring forth their ain regulations for accident probe, so every bit long as the nucleus patterns of Annex 13 were incorporated and fact-finding patterns aligned with ICAO Doc 9620, the Manual of Aircraft Accident Investigation. ( New Zealand Air Line Pilots ‘ Association, 2009 )

The primary focal point of Annex 13 differed from that of the US National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics in 1928: it was no longer to happen mistake and apportion incrimination for an aircraft accident, but to supply a mechanism by which participants in the industry – pilots, aircraft makers and regulative bureaus – could larn from their errors. ( New Zealand Air Line Pilots ‘ Association, 2009 )

Accident Trend

In recent old ages, advancement and development in scientific discipline and engineering have made dramatic parts to human society. However, these same development hold given rise to many new type of dangers, and a monolithic addition in loses that would hold been in imaginable in the yesteryear. ( Masako Miyagi, 2005 )

This tendency is by no agencies an indicant of sloppiness on the portion of the persons involved: instead, it could be considered an indicant that the methods used to implement traditional safety steps in the yesteryear have reached a bound of effectivity. This is because the most basic safety steps taken in the yesteryear were limited to rebukes and penalties aiming the individual responsible for the accidents, and betterments to mechanical facets stemming from the consequence of accident probes. Such accident probes placed an accent on proficient analysis of events in accidents that had already occurred, and for this ground there is no inquiry that they contributed to a sharing of of import information sing the mechanical facets of these accidents, that this information was put to utilize in doing betterments, and that important consequences were archived through this procedure. ( Masako Miyagi, 2005 )

Human existences are able to develop and increase their abilities to some extent through instruction and preparation. The fact remain, nevertheless, that it is highly hard to obtain the information on human facets of accidents that would be required to implement such preparation, because the people most straight involved may hold been killed in the accident, or may be loath to come forward for fright of being held responsible. There are unequivocal restrictions to near described above even if all the relevant information in obtained ; viz. that when studied are made into accident bar steps based on accident probes, the probes can merely get down after the accident has occurred. Furthermore, the betterment step based on accident probes will merely be of value in forestalling the re-occurrence of accidents that are indistinguishable to those on which the steps were originally based. ( Masako Miyagi, 2005 )

Graf below showed that, by old ages to old ages, more accident happen because of human sloppiness instead than mechanical failure. By times go by the per centum being increasing.

Graft 1.1 ( Masako Miyagi )

Boeing`s statistical sum-up

There are several dependable beginnings of accident informations. One of the most easy accessible accident databases is maintained by Boeing, which publishes an one-year Statistical Summary of commercial Jet Airplane Accident. Another good beginnings papers is the International Air Transport Association ( IATA ) Safety Board Record ( Jet ) , besides published yearly. ( Alexander T.Wells and Clarence C.Rodrigues, 2004 )

Hull losingss were besides analyzed harmonizing to the stage of flight in which they occurred ( Graft 1.2 ) . After the combined attack and cargo stages, the following greatest Numberss hull-loss accident occurred in the combined stages from set downing through initial ascent. Cruise, which accounts for about__ of flight clip in a 1.5 hr flight, occasioned merely 6 % of hull-loss accidents. ( Alexander T.Wells and Clarence C.Rodrigues, 2005 )

The sum-up besides considered primary cause factor for commercial operations hull-loss accidents for the period 1990-1999 ( Graft1.3 ) . For accidents with known causes, flight crew were considered the primary cause in most 67 % over the 10 old ages periods. ( Alexander T.Wells and Clarence C.Rodrigues, 2005 )

Graft 1.2 Phase of flight in hull-loss accident, all aircraft, world-wide commercial jet fleet

( 1990-1999 )( Boieng commercial aeroplanes Group )

Graft 1.3 Primary causes factors ( as determined by the investigating authorization ) in hull-loss accidents, all aircraft, world-wide commercial Jet fleet ( 1990-1999 ) ( Boeing Commercial Airplanes Group )

Chart below showed about accident categorizes by aeroplane coevals for the period 1990-1999 ( Table 1.1 ) . Most accidents occurred on landing, with 157 out of 385 for the 10-years period. Interestingly, most landing accident involved current coevals aircraft. ( Alexander T.Wells and Clarence C.Rodrigues, 2005 )

Table 1.1 Accident categorizes by aeroplane coevals for the period 1990-1999 ( Alexander T.Wells and Clarence C.Rodrigues,2005 )

( Alexander T.Wells and Clarence C.Rodrigues )

Graft 1.4 Accident categorizes by aeroplane coevals for the period 1990-1999 ( Alexander T.Wells and Clarence C.Rodrigues )

Table 1.2 Aircraft by coevals ( Alexander T.Wells and Clarence C.Rodrigues )

Graft 1.5 Accident Categories by aeroplane coevals, all accidents, worldwide commercial jet operations. ( 1990-1999 ) . ( Boeing Commercial Airplanes Group )

1.2 Problem definition

The job with the current state of affairs is, even thought so many safeguard have been make, but air catastrophe still go on. Is there any manner to forestall this catastrophe to go on? Each state had theirs ain probe squad. But after the probe, still have some aircraft that clang and affect a mass casualty.

This research will analyze about the restriction of the probe organic structure if there is an air clang or air catastrophes occur in or outside of the probe organic structure part.

1.3 Aims of research

The chief aims of this thesis are to do a research upon the probe process and type of accident happen in Malaysia and throughout the universe. These are several more aims of the undertaking:

1. Compare the probe process between America and Malaysia.
2. To understand the construct of how the air catastrophe probe process.
3. To turn out that aircraft probe can cut down air catastrophe.
4. Making a study about the consciousness of the probe processs.
5. To cognize the party that involved in board of probe regulations and ordinance in Malaya

1.4 Research range

This thesis will travel through the ICAO extension 13, Aircraft Investigation Procedure Manual and MCAR Part 12 to analyze the exact process of the Aircraft Investigation Procedures.

Chapter 2: Literature Reappraisal

2.1 Introduction

The Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation established the International Civil Aviation Organization ( ICAO ) as a specialised air power section within the United Nations. ICAO Annex 13 defines and directs demands forAircraft Accident and Incident Investigationprocedures. As a consequence most states or pool of states have some signifier of air modulating organic structure which later contains an probe division.

Unfortunately non all bureaus are created every bit and national differences exist which influencefactual consequences in accident probe. Six countries have been presented as a hinderance to proper fact-finding techniques in a paper by Dr. Horacio A. Larrosa of the International Society of Air Safety Investigators ( ISASI ) Accident and Incident processs in Argentina MO4131.

• Expertness and Experience
• Fact-finding Budgets
• Political and Religious Influence and Beliefs
• Nepotism and Cronyism
• Dedication and Desire
• National Pride or Prejudice

2.2 Internationally Respected Players

2.2.1 National Transportation Safety Board ( NTSB )

The National Transportation Safety Board is an independent federal bureau charged with finding the likely cause of transit accidents and advancing transit safety, and helping victims of transit accidents and their households. The NTSB investigates accidents, behaviors safety surveies, evaluates the effectivity of other authorities bureaus ‘ plans for forestalling transit accidents, and reviews the entreaties of enforcement actions affecting air power and seaman certifications issued by the Federal Aviation Administration ( FAA ) and the U.S. Coast Guard ( USCG ) , every bit good as the entreaties of civil punishment actions taken by the FAA. ( NTSB,2002 )

To assist prevent accidents, the NTSB develops safety recommendations based on our probes and surveies. These are issued to federal, province, and local authorities bureaus and to industry and other organisations in a place to better transit safety. Recommendations are the focal point of the NTSB ‘s attempts to better the safety of the state ‘s transit system. ( NTSB,2002 )

NTSB Mission:

To advance transit safety by

• keeping our congressionally mandated independency and objectiveness ;
• carry oning nonsubjective, precise accident probes and safety surveies ;
• executing carnival and nonsubjective aviator and seaman enfranchisement entreaties ; and
• recommending and advancing safety recommendation. And
• to help victims of transit accidents and their households.

2.2.2 European Aviation Safety Agency ( EASA )

European Aviation Safety Agency has been the basis of the European Union ‘s air power safety plans for old ages ; nevertheless, accident probe has been the legal power of each single member province. In 2009 the EU outlinedthe requirementsto set up a “better and more unvarying quality of accident probes across the EU.” It will set up the regulations for accident probe for all provinces controlled by a cardinal EU organic structure in the close hereafter. ( EASA,2011 )

The EASA has become the competent Community Aviation Authority for the safety of air power underBasic Regulation 1592/2002 ; therefore, it may be the receiver of safety recommendations related to the countries of its duties. Furthermore, ICAO Annex 13 provides that the State of Design and the State of Manufacture shall each be entitled to name an commissioned representative because of the map that have been attributed to each of those States with regard to the airworthiness of aircraft under Annex 8. Therefore, as the EASA is now in charge of the airworthiness, is shall be represented in Safety probe in order to carry through its duty. ( EASA,2011 )

Under both, international and community jurisprudence, all safety recommendations must be taken into full consideration by the entity to which they are addressed. In add-on, in the preamble of theBasic Regulation 1592/2002it is stated that the consequences of the accident probes should be acted upon by the EASA, as a affair of urgency in peculiar when, they relate to defective aircraft design or operational affairs. ( EASA,2011 )

To successfully dispatch its duties in this country, the EASA has included in its organ gm an Accident Investigation Section. It is responsible for the followup of happenings where the Safety has been endangered. ( EASA,2011 )

Its chief devoted undertakings are:

• To follow the advancement of aircraft accidents and incidents probes,
• To be represented in probes and cod information related to happenings,
• To accomplish the processing of Safety Recommendations addressed to the Agency,
• To supply advancement studies and statistics on the Safety Recommendations processing,
• To keep a good coordination with European Accident Investigation Bodies,
• To place safety lacks and circulate related information.

2.2.3 The European Three ( E3 )

The European Three are combination of the safety agency in Europe, there are the Air Accidents Investigation Branch ( AAIB ) of England, French Air Accident Investigation Bureau ( BEA France ) and Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau ( AAIB Switzerland ) are recognized as universe leaders in several accident probe countries. Not merely do they aid states of the EU in probes but besides non EU states that have accidents affecting aircraft manufactured in Europe, European registered aircraft, accidents happening in any state that was a settlement of one of the EU member provinces and any states bespeaking aid.

2.2.4 Australian Transport Safety Bureau ( ATSB )

Australian Transport Safety Bureau has gained a repute as Oceana and Asia ‘s air accident look intoing organic structure. They are research workers in most of the little island states of the South and Central Pacific or whenever requested by other states. Australia ‘s development as a state through the 20th century was closely linked to the development of the air power industry. This industry has helped us get the better of huge internal distances and geographical isolation from the remainder of the universe. ( ATSB, 2011 )

The ATSB is responsible for the independent probe of accidents and incidents affecting civil aircraft in Australia. The ATSB ‘s primary focal point for its probes is fare-paying rider operations. However, all accidents and incidents related to flight safety in Australia or affecting Australian registered aircraft overseas must be reported to the ATSB. While the ATSB does non look into all of these, it still needs to be notified so that the informations can be recorded for possible future safety research and analysis. ( ATSB,2011 )

2.2.5 Transportation Safety Board of Canada

The Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board ( TSB ) has emerged as the leader in South and Central America. Similar to Australia the little population state that is place to ICAO, works in close coordination with the larger NTSB in the USA. However, viewed as an option to Washington many Latin American states work straight with Canada out of desire, security or necessity. ( TSB, 2010 )

Summaries

Most states have the needed ICAO fact-finding bureaus but the fluctuations between states are still really strong. The positive factor for international accident probe is that many research workers within these states are willing to name upon each other and help their work. Working together in the huge bulk of air accidents, the populace has a good opportunity of obtaining the truth about accidents within their boundary lines.

2.3 Definition:

Before traveling through a small farther, these are some definition that being usage in the probe for any accident or incident that happen. All definition are taken from ICAO, 2001, Annex 13, MCAR portion 12 and NTSB 2002, Aircraft accident Investigation Manual.

2.3.1 Aircraft Accident

An happening associated with the operation of an aircraft which takes topographic point between the clip any individual boards the aircraft with the purpose of flight until such clip as all such individuals have disembarked, in which a individual is fatally or earnestly injured as a consequence of being in the aircraft or direct contact with any portion of the aircraft, including parts which have become detached from the aircraft, or direct exposure to gush blast.

The aircraft sustains harm or structural failure which is adversely affects the structural strength, public presentation or flight features of the aircraft, or the aircraft is losing or is wholly unaccessible.

2.3.2 Aircraft Incident

An happening, other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft which affects or could impact the safety of operation.

Serious incident – An incident affecting fortunes bespeaking that an accident about occurred.

2.3.3 Probe

A procedure conducted for the intent of accident bar which includes the assemblage and analysis of information, the drawing of decisions, including the finding of causes and, when appropriate, the devising of safety recommendations.

2.3.4 Investigator in charge

A individual charged, on the footing of his or her makings, with the duty for the organisation, behavior and control of an probe.

2.3.5 Chief Inspector

The Chief inspector of Air Accidents and includes any deputy main inspector ;

2.3.6 Inspector

Aperson appointed as an Inspector of Air Accidents

2.3.7 Field Investigation

An probe which is non intended to be the topic of a study by an Inspector to the Minister.

2.3.8 Formal Probe

An probe which is intended tobe the topic of a study by an Inspector to the Minister.

2.3.9 Serious Injury

An hurt which is sustained by a individual in a reportable accident and which:

1. Requires his stay in infirmary for more than 48 hours get downing within seven yearss from the day of the month on which the hurt is received
2. consequences in a break of any bone except simple breaks of fingers, toes or olfactory organ.
3. involves lacerations which cause terrible nervus, musculus or sinew harm
4. involves injury to any internal organ ; or involves 2nd or 3rd degree Burnss or any Burnss impacting more than five per centum of the surface of the organic structure.

2.3.10 Aircraft.

Any machine that can deduce support in the ambiance from the reactions of the air other than the reactions of the air against the Earth ‘s surface.

2.3.11 Causes.

Actions, skips, events, conditions, or a combination thereof, which led to the accident or incident.

2.3.12 Flight recording equipment.

Any type of recording equipment installed in the aircraft for the intent of complementing accident/incident probe.

2.3.13 Maximal mass.

Maximum certificated take-off mass.

2.3.14 Operator.

A individual, organisation or endeavor engaged in or offering to prosecute in an aircraft operation

2.3.15 Preliminary Report.

The communicating used for the prompt airing of informations obtained during the early phases of the probe.

2.3.16 Safety recommendation.

A proposal of the accident probe authorization of the State carry oning the probe, based on information derived from the probe, made with the purpose of forestalling accidents or incidents.

2.3.17 State of Design.

The State holding legal power over the organisation responsible for the type design

2.3.18 State of Manufacture.

The State holding legal power over the organisation responsible for the concluding assembly of the aircraft

2.3.19 State of Occurrence.

The State in the district of which an accident or incident occurs.

2.3.20 State of the Operator.

The State in which the operator ‘s chief topographic point of concern is located or, if there is no such topographic point of concern, the operator ‘s lasting abode.

2.3.21 State of Registry.

The State on whose registry the aircraft is entered.

2.4 Investigation Responsibility for Instituting and Conducting the probe. ( ICAO, 2001 )

2.4.1 Accidents or incidents in the district of a catching province.

State of Happening

The State of Occurrence shall establish an probe into the fortunes of the accident and be responsible for the behavior of the probe, but it may depute the whole or any portion of the conducting of such probe to another State by common agreement and consent. In any event the State of Occurrence shall utilize every agency to ease the probe.

Recommendation.— The State of Occurrence should establish an probe into the fortunes of a serious incident. Such a State may depute the whole or any portion of the conducting of such probe to another State by common agreement and consent. In any event the State of Occurrence should utilize every agency to ease the probe.

2.4.2 Accidents or incidents in the district of a non-contracting province.

State of Register

When the accident or the serious incident has occurred in the district of a non-Contracting State which does non mean to carry on an probe in conformity with Annex 13, the State of Registry or, neglecting that, the State of the Operator, the State of Design or the State of Manufacture should endeavor to establish and carry on an probe in cooperation with the State of Occurrence but, neglecting such cooperation, should itself carry on an probe with such information as is available.

2.4.3 Accidents or incidents outside the district of any province.

State of Register

When the location of the accident or the serious incident can non decidedly be established as being in the district of any State, the State of Registry shall establish and carry on any necessary probe of the accident or serious incident. However, it may depute the whole or any portion of the probe to another State by common agreement and consent.

States nearest the scene of an accident in international Waterss shall supply such aid as they are able and shall, similarly, respond to petitions by the State of Registry.

If the State of Registry is a non-Contracting State which does non mean to carry on an probe in conformity with Annex 13, the State of the Operator or, neglecting that, the State of Design or the State of Manufacture should endeavor to establish and carry on an probe. However, such a State may depute the whole or any portion of the probe to another State by common agreement and consent.

2.5 Organization and behavior of the probe. ( ICAO, 2001 )

2.5.1 Duty of the province carry oning the probe.

General

The accident probe authorization shall hold independency in the behavior of the probe and have unrestricted authorization over its behavior, consistent with the commissariats of this Annex. The probe shall include:

1. the assemblage, entering and analysis of all available information on that accident or incident ;
2. if appropriate, the issue of safety recommendations ;
3. if possible, the finding of the causes ; and
4. the completion of the concluding study.

If possible, the scene of the accident shall be visited, the wreckage examined and statements taken from informants.

Recommendation.— Any judicial or administrative proceedings to allocate incrimination or liability should be separate from any probe conducted under the commissariats of this Annex.

Investigator-in-charge — Designation

The State carry oning the probe shall denominate the investigator-in-charge of the probe and shall originate the probe instantly.

Investigator-in-charge — Access and control

The investigator-in-charge shall hold unhindered entree to the wreckage and all relevant stuff, including flight recording equipments and ATS records, and shall hold unrestricted control over it to guarantee that a elaborate scrutiny can be made without hold by authorised forces take parting in the probe.

Flight recording equipments — Accidents and incidents

Effective usage shall be made of flight recording equipments in the probe of an accident or an incident. The State carry oning the probe shall set up for the readout of the flight recording equipments without hold.

In the event that the State carry oning the probe of an accident or an incident does non hold equal installations to read out the flight recording equipments, it should utilize the installations made available to it by other States, giving consideration to the followers:

1. the capablenesss of the read-out installation ;
2. the seasonableness of the readout ; and
3. the location of the read-out installation.

Autopsy scrutinies

The State carry oning the probe into a fatal accident shall set up for complete autopsy scrutiny of fatally injured flight crew and, capable to the peculiar fortunes, of fatally injured riders and cabin attenders, by a diagnostician, sooner experienced in accident probe. These scrutinies shall be expeditious and complete.

Medical scrutinies

When appropriate, the State carry oning the probe should set up for medical scrutiny of the crew, riders and involved air power forces, by a doctor, sooner experienced in accident probe. These scrutinies should be expeditious.

Coordination — Judicial governments

The State carry oning the probe shall acknowledge the demand for coordination between the investigator-in-charge and the judicial governments. Particular attending shall be given to grounds which requires prompt recording and analysis for the probe to be successful, such as the scrutiny and designation of victims and readouts of flight recording equipment recordings.

Informing air power security governments

If, in the class of an probe it becomes known, or it is suspected, that an act of improper intervention was involved, the investigator-in-charge shall instantly originate action to guarantee that the air power security governments of the State ( s ) concerned are so informed.

Non-disclosure of records

The State carry oning the probe of an accident or incident shall non do the followers records available for intents other than accident or incident probe, unless the appropriate authorization for the disposal of justness in that State determines that their revelation outweighs the inauspicious domestic and international impact such action may hold on that or any future probes:

1. all statements taken from individuals by the probe governments in the class of their probe ;
2. all communications between individuals holding been involved in the operation of the aircraft ;
3. medical or private information sing individuals involved in the accident or incident ;
4. cockpit voice recordings and transcripts from such recordings ; and
5. sentiments expressed in the analysis of information, including flight recording equipment information

These records shall be included in the concluding study or its appendices merely when pertinent to the analysis of the accident or incident. Partss of the records non relevant to the analysis shall non be disclosed.

Re-opening of probe

If, after the probe has been closed, new and important grounds becomes available, the State which conducted the probe shall re-open it. However, when the State which conducted the probe did non establish it, that State shall foremost obtain the consent of the State which instituted the probe.

Information — Accidents and incidents

Any State shall, on petition from the State carry oning the probe of an accident or an incident, provide that State with all the relevant information available to it.

Any State, the installations or services of which have been, or would usually hold been, used by an aircraft prior to an accident or an incident, and which has information pertinent to the probe, shall supply such information to the State carry oning the probe.

2.5.3 Duty of the province of register and the province of the operator.

Flight recording equipments — Accidents and serious incidents

When an aircraft involved in an accident or a serious incident lands in a State other than the State of Occurrence, the State of Registry or the State of the Operator shall, on petition from the State carry oning the probe, supply the latter State with the flight recording equipment records and, if necessary, the associated flight recording equipments.

Organizational information

The State of Registry and the State of the Operator, on petition from the State carry oning the probe, shall supply pertinent information on any organisation whose activities may hold straight or indirectly influenced the operation of the aircraft.

2.6 Engagement In The Investigation. ( ICAO, 2001 )

2.6.1 Engagement of The State of Registry, The State of The Operator, The State of Design and The State of Industry

Rights

The State of Registry, the State of the Operator, the State of Design and the State of Manufacture shall each be entitled to name an commissioned representative to take part in the probe.

The State of Registry or the State of the Operator shall name one or more advisors, proposed by the operator, to help its commissioned representative.

When neither the State of Registry, nor the State of the Operator appoint an commissioned representative, the State carry oning the probe should ask for the operator to take part, capable to the processs of the State carry oning the probe.

The State of Design and the State of Manufacture shall be entitled to name one or more advisors, proposed by the organisations responsible for the type design and the concluding assembly of the aircraft, to help their commissioned representatives.

When neither the State of Design nor the State of Manufacture appoint an commissioned representative, the State carry oning the probe should ask for the organisations responsible for the type design and the concluding assembly of the aircraft to take part, capable to the processs of the State carry oning the probe.

Duties

When the State carry oning an probe of an accident to an aircraft of a maximal mass of over 2 250 kilograms specifically petitions engagement by the State of Registry, the State of the Operator, the State of Design or the State of Manufacture, the State ( s ) concerned shall each appoint an commissioned representative.

2.6.2 Engagement of other provinces.

Rights

Any State which on petition provides information, installations or experts to the State carry oning the probe shall be entitled to name an commissioned representative to take part in the probe.

Any State that provides an operational base for field probes or is involved in hunt and deliverance or wreckage recovery operations may besides be entitled to name an commissioned representative to take part in the probe.

2.6.3 Entitlement of commissioned representatives

Advisers

A State entitled to name an commissioned representative shall besides be entitled to name one or more advisors to help the commissioned representative in the probe.

Advisers helping commissioned representatives shall be permitted, under the commissioned representatives ‘ supervising, to take part in the probe to the extent necessary to enable the commissioned representatives to do their engagement effectual.

Engagement

Engagement in the probe shall confabulate entitlement to take part in all facets of the probe, under the control of the investigator-in-change, in peculiar to:

1. visit the scene of the accident ;
2. analyze the wreckage ;
3. obtain witness information and suggest countries of inquiring ;
4. have full entree to all relevant grounds every bit shortly as possible ;
5. receive transcripts of all pertinent paperss ;
6. take part in readouts of recorded media ;
7. take part in off-scene fact-finding activities such as component scrutinies, proficient briefings, trials and simulations ;
8. participate in probe advancement meetings including deliberations related to analysis, findings, causes and safety recommendations ; and
9. do entries in regard of the assorted elements of the probe.

However, engagement of States other than the State of Registry, the State of the Operator, the State of Design and the State of Manufacture may be limited to those affairs which entitled such States to participation under 5.23.

Duties

Accredited representatives and their advisors:

1. shall supply the State carry oning the probe with all relevant information available to them ; and
2. shall non unwrap information on the advancement and the findings of the probe without the express consent of the State carry oning the probe.

2.6.4 Engagement of provinces holding suffered human deaths or serious hurts to its citizens.

Rights and entitlement

A State which has a particular involvement in an accident by virtuousness of human deaths or serious hurts to its citizens shall, upon doing a petition to make so, be permitted by the State carry oning the probe to name an expert who shall be entitled to:

1. visit the scene of the accident ;
2. hold entree to the relevant factual information ;
3. participate in the designation of the victims ;
4. aid in oppugning lasting riders who are citizens of the expert ‘s State ; and
5. have a transcript of the Final Report

2.7 List of illustrations of serious Incidents ( ICAO, 2001 )

1. The term “serious incident” is defined in Chapter 1 as follows:

1. Serious incident. An incident affecting fortunes bespeaking that an accident about occurred.
2. The incidents listed are typical illustrations of incidents that are likely to be serious incidents. The list is non thorough and lone serves as counsel to the definition of serious incident.
3. Near hits necessitating an turning away tactic to avoid a hit or an insecure state of affairs or when an turning away action would hold been appropriate.
4. Controlled flight into terrain merely marginally avoided.
5. Aborted take-offs on a closed or engaged track.
6. Take-offs from a closed or engaged track with fringy separation from obstruction ( s ) .
7. Landings or attempted landings on a closed or engaged track.
8. Gross failures to accomplish predicted public presentation during take-off or initial ascent.
9. Fires and fume in the rider compartment, in lading compartments or engine fires, even though such fires were extinguished by the usage of snuff outing agents.
10. Events necessitating the exigency usage of O by the flight crew.
11. Aircraft structural failures or engine decompositions non classified as an accident.
12. Multiple malfunctions of one or more aircraft systems earnestly impacting the operation of the aircraft.
13. Flight crew incapacitation in flight.
14. Fuel measure necessitating the declaration of an exigency by the pilot.
15. Take-off or landing incidents. Incidents such as under-shooting, infesting or running off the side of tracks.
16. System failures, conditions phenomena, operations outside the sanctioned flight envelope or other happenings which could hold caused troubles commanding the aircraft.
17. Failures of more than one system in a redundancy system compulsory for flight counsel and pilotage.

2.8 Right and duties of the province of the operator in regard of accidents and incidents affecting leased, chartered or interchanged aircraft. ( ICAO, 2001 )

The Standards and Recommended Practices of Annex 13 — Aircraft Accident and Incident Investigation were developed when the State of Registry and the State of the Operator usually were the same. In recent old ages, nevertheless, inter-national aircraft leasing and substituting agreements have developed so that in many cases the State of the Operator is different from the State of Registry.

Renting or interchange agreements sometimes include the proviso of flight crews from the State of Registry. However, more frequently, flight crews are provided by the State of the Operator and the aircraft operated under national statute law of the State of the Operator. Similarly, a assortment of agreements for airworthiness can emerge from these agreements.

Airworthiness duty may rest, entirely or partially, with the State of the Operator or State of Registry. Sometimes the operator, in conformance with an airworthiness control system specified by the State of Registry, carries out care and keeps records.

In the event of an accident or an incident, it is of import that any State which has assumed duty for the safety of an aircraft has the right to take part in an probe, at least in regard of that duty. It is besides of import that the State carry oning the probe should hold rapid entree to all paperss and other information relevant to that probe.

When the location of an accident or an incident can non decidedly be established as being in the district of another State, the State of the Operator, after audience with the State of Registry, should accept full or partial duty for the behavior of the probe.

Chapter 3 ; Methodology ( Draft For following semester advancement )

MCAR

Go through Part 12 of Malaysian Civil Aviation Regulation. Study the processs of probe, the individual that responsible in the probe, what organic structure that involve in the probe. What type of accident that the Department of Civil Aviation ( Malaysia ) affect? Are at that place a different between company probe and DCA probe? What is the process for Military probe? Is DCA besides involved in the probe or the DCA merely affect in civil aircraft merely.

NTSB

Go through the Aircraft Investigation Procedure that being publish by NTSB.Learn about the process, the adult male in-charge for the probe. What type of aircraft involve? Each type of aircraft have different attack for start the probe.

Survey

Make a study at MAS, Airasia or Westar about the consciousness in probe process in Malaya