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