Case Analysis

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 6

CASE ANALYSIS: THE DE HAVILLAND COMET 1

Case Analysis: Explain why the de Havilland Comet was


grounded after only a couple of years of service
CASE ANALYSIS: THE DE HAVILLAND COMET 2

Abstract

The de Havilland Comet I commenced its service in 1952. As it was the first aircraft to fly

higher than the usual cruising altitude, pressurization cabins would be essential. During the

couple of years of service, it was involved in four accidents causing it to be grounded twice.

Minor flaws were rectified, but the primary cause was not determined. Although the full

investigation was completed in 1958, it did not help to put the Comet I in service again. This

was because it was already overtaken by other American manufacturers.

Keywords: pressurization, accident, fatigue, airworthiness


CASE ANALYSIS: THE DE HAVILLAND COMET 3

4.7 - Case Analysis: The de Havilland Comet

I. Summary

The de Havilland Comet I was the first commercial jet powered by jet engines. It

started service on 2 may 1952, on the British Overseas Airways Corporation route. The

aircraft was designed to cruise at 40,000 feet which was twice the cruise height of any

commercial airline during that era (Withey, 1997). Cruising at such high altitude, engineers

decided to produce pressurized cabin as that would allow the passengers to breathe as

comfortably as they were at 8000 feet (Withey, 1997). During the construction of the aircraft,

a mixture of old and new techniques were applied to assemble the aircraft (Withey, 1997).

The Comet I was involved in four accidents during its short duration of service. The fourth

accident happened on 10 January 1954 over the Mediterranean Sea. This resulted in the first

grounding of all the seven Comet models. A team was formed to study the accident and

recommendations of 50 fixes were made to improve the aircraft, resuming service after the

rectification (Lawrence, 2008). While the Comet I was still under investigation, another

comet disappeared on 8 April 1954 while flying from Rome to Cairo (Lawrence, 2008).

Once again, all Comet aircrafts were grounded and thorough investigation was made to find

out the cause of the accidents.

II. Problem

One of the accidents happened during take-off on 3 March 1953. It was attributed to

the pilots who were unfamiliarity with the new aircraft (Lawrence, 2008). Due to the small

number of aircrafts manufactured, training was deficient for the pilots. The accident

investigation team was not ready at that time to perform any study on the cause of the crash.

Main design flaw which caused the mid-air break up of Comet was placed aside to protect the

image of the British aircraft industry.


CASE ANALYSIS: THE DE HAVILLAND COMET 4

III. Significance of problem

Being the pioneers to go into this field, the de Havilland Aircraft Company was not able

to detect the problems of the aircraft properly. Although the de Havilland conducted many

tests on their side to ensure the integrity of the cabin, these tests might not be sufficient as the

team only estimated the stressed average over a large area (Withey, 1997). This issues had

never been present because the pioneering designs of aircraft required a much lower cabin

pressure. As the test method was engineered to confirm the metal fatigue when placed under

pressurization and depressurization cycles, results shown was rate 40 times faster than the

older aircraft (Lawrence, 2008).

IV. Development of Alternative Actions

Alternative Action 1. With new design introduced, all aircraft should go through stringent

testing and detailed experimental procedures to ensure the safety of all civil aircraft. All new

designs including advanced construction methods should be sent to the federal authorities to

check for aircraft airworthiness such as design must adhere to the standards, instead of

conducting testing solely by the manufacturer. After which the design or the type of

production would be issued a certificate to state its airworthiness. As maintenance personnel

or engineers were crucial in their duties performing checks on the aircraft, rigorous education

of the different parts and component of the aircraft should be done. As some methods were

unique to a certain type of aircraft, maintenance personnel must be aware of this.

Maintenance personnel should also acquire their training certificates to ensure that they were

complying with the correct operating procedures.

Advantage. With proper examination of the aircraft, any fatigue crack on the airframe

during the airworthiness check could be detected. Future design would go through similar

tests such as water tank pressurization test to prevent other similar accidents from happening
CASE ANALYSIS: THE DE HAVILLAND COMET 5

(Higham, 2013). The maintenance personnel or engineers would be the first to detect any

airframe fatigue when they were on a constant check on the aircraft.

Disadvantage. Due to the new trend of technology use, not all maintenance staff are

adequately educated with this modernized technology. Hence, more time was needed before

the aircraft could be certified airworthiness. During that era when manufacturers were

competing to be the first to launch a new design, time would be a huge factor for them.

Alternative Action 2. An investigation team should be set up and on standby. In the event

of a crash or incident, the investigators can reach the crash site quickly.

Advantage. The evidence lost would be minimised and probable causes of the crash

could be reported and rectify by the respective manufacturers and authorities immediately.

Disadvantage. Due to limited human resources during that era, these knowledge were

hard to get or known by the investigator. Thus experience was the key factor which is scarce

and in high demand.

V. Recommendation

A department to govern the promotion of the safety standards should be formed. This

department would then enforce the safety law and regulations on airmen, aircraft and air

carriers to enhance the safe operation of aviation. A certification of airworthiness would be

awarded to the aircraft only when all the safety standards are met.

The investigating team should have the highest priority to investigate the probable cause of

the accident, to make recommendations based on their findings so as to prevent similar

accident in future. They would also follow the federal regulations and make notification

reports of the regulations they had complied. If possible, they could also provide disaster

assistance to the family.


CASE ANALYSIS: THE DE HAVILLAND COMET 6

References

Lawrence, H. (2008). Aviation and the role of government. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt

Pub. Co.

Higham, R. (2013). Speedbird: The complete history of BOAC (1st ed.). London: I.B. Tauris.

Withey, P. A. (1997). Fatigue failure of the de havilland comet I. Engineering Failure

Analysis, 4(2), 147-154. 10.1016/S1350-6307(97)00005-8

You might also like