How many Plane Crashes have there been as a result of negligent maintenance procedures?

Question

I am doing a study so I can create a film and I need to know of as many instances as possible that you know of where an air disaster has been a direct result of neglected maintenance. Thanks in advance

Answer 1

Luke Regardless of types of aircraft it is all concerning the lack of maintaining the aiorcraft than it is to blame pilot error.Many of our old prop driven bombers and fighters had crashed due to simple lack of maintenance.Even our current fleet of jet bombers and fighters had crashes.A B-52 bomber had recently crashed in the island of guam it hit the water so hard that nearly all the crew was killed,it was doing a freedom flight day flyover,it possibly had a frayed control cable and it may have caused the crash.There you have it.

Answer 2

Most crashes are the result of pilot error or design flaw...

The FAA rep that I asked this question stated that only around 5% of crashes were related to maintenance in any way

Answer 3

Check the NTSB website.

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/aviation.ht...

They have statistical reports and individual accident reports that you can look at and use as examples in your film.

Now, when you say "negligent maintenance" and "neglected maintenance" these are different things. The first may be also called "improper" and the second is more like "lack of" or "failed to provide".

According to data from the NTSB, about half of accidents involve pilot error, while less than a third are related to other personnel, such as ramp and maintenance personnel.

As for some specific examples, here's some from a Human Factors in Maintenance course I attended.

Eastern Airlines Flight 855, May 5, 1983

American Airlines FLight 194, May 27, 1979

Answer 4

The best source of information isthe NTSB. They keep a record of aircraft accidents in a database

Go to www.ntsb.gov and aearch aircraft acidents.

As to accidents due to negligent maintenance procedures, that will be a very low number, unless you take into account aircraft that are improperly maintained by the owner or operatr.

Good luck with your film.

Answer 5

Just to add to the other answers, it's tricky to answer the way you have phrased it. An easier question to answer is how many crashes had negligent maintenance as a factor.

If negligent maintenance causes large parts to come off the airplane (say because a jackscrew wasn't oiled properly), negligent maintenance clearly caused the accident. However, if negligent maintenance increases crew workload and then the crew makes a mistake, negligent maintenance is a "but for" cause of the accident (if not for the negligent maintenance, there would have been no accident), but it will not be listed as the primary cause.

If you want hard numbers, you're going to have to more precisely defined what you mean by "as a result of".

You may also have to go into more detail about what's considered a maintenance procedure. For example, is determining the appropriate interval for different types of maintenance, when done by an airline, a maintenance procedure? What about when done by the airplane manufacturer?

Answer 6

Sure, you can research government statistics if that satisfies your goal.  However, keep in mind that pilots are blamed more often than not for accidents while many maintainers go on happily skipping through the rest of their lives with nary a thought.  Yes, pilots make mistakes and they fly perfectly good aircraft into the ground.  I'm about to get harsh on both pilots and maintainers so sack-up everyone.  It's just not as simple as your question about negligent maintenance.  Simply heed this example...

A common situation is part-x breaks loose, causes an in-flight emergency or some other catastrophe, and the pilot gets blamed for his reaction to the emergency.  Aircraft emergencies are highly dynamic and don't often fit like puzzle pieces into a set of known procedures.  That is why humans fly airplanes because people can use their judgment to adapt and overcome.  If his reactions in some way contribute to a [perceived] worsened outcome, he gets the focus of blame while the wrench-turner who farked the day away gets barely spoken to.  Never mind that the hydraulics failed because of maintenance errors and that losing the hydraulics was a key ingredient in the aircraft turning into a fireball.  Even pilots contribute to their own detriment because of their natural tendency to think that they should be able to conquer any problem.  How many pilots are old and retired by sheer luck and still swagger like they've somehow cheated death on their superior skills?...having never actually looked death in the face from an improperly maintained aircraft? – a lot.  Some pilots also seem to subconsciously define their own success through the failure of others and that doesn't help either; i.e. stand next to an ugly person and you'll look pretty.  I've seen it so many dmd times it's pathetic.  I'm so passionate about it because I've lived so closely to it for years.  Entire careers are ruined, lead astray, families hurt, and lives are lost because somebody visible has to catch the blame.  Even dead pilots get more blame than the mechanics who screwed the pooch.

Does anyone remember Kara Hultgreen?  As the first female qualifying to take the F-14 into combat, her jet suffered a compressor stall on final approach to the carrier (in the grove).  The engine stall was compounded by a poorly-maintained internal engine component that failed to increase engine stall performance margin.  The official report (leaked to the public) blamed both the engine and her for exceeding x-units AOA (stalling the wing) in the wave-off.  What pilots and the general public see is that a woman pilot failed to fly her jet and crashed.  Even pilots in the bar today say her name with a tone that says, "what a s***w-up" (none of whom have flown an F-14A with an engine stalling through the in-close position).  I'm not saying I know better, but I bring up this example because she is a celebrity as both a woman and as a fighter pilot and she gets crapped on to this day about her mistake – a mistake that wouldn't have occurred had the engine not failed.  If she didn't die in her seat, she might have committed suicide with the ensuing storm.  Who signed off on that engine's maintenance in the squadron or at the depot level?  I bet nobody knows his name around here, and I assure you he didn't stop working on airplanes like a pilot would be banned from flying them.

The point is that I've heard of rare instances where a maintainer took some actual punishment, but they are rare compared to a pilot taking the heat.  Usually it is not after a mishap, and instead is because of a procedural/rule violation that is there to prevent mishaps.  I've seen how the majority of quality assurance reps and wrench-turners walk away from mishaps with a "gee that sucks" and that's about it.  Sure, everyone in maintenance talks a good game of keeping the aircraft and crews safe, but when the rubber hits the road with an actual accident and everyone is ducking for cover in classic CYA fashion, the tale is much different.  From the big boss to the janitor, the streets run with deception and lies when people are faced with losing their jobs or credibility.  In a mishap investigation, a mechanic's signature is the only evidence of his existence relative to the problem, and it is buried in piles of paperwork, whereas the pilot is a face who is being investigated and probed inside and out.  Pilots are actually rogering up to a lot more than even they realize when they take an airplane flying.

btw...aircraft accident investigators and the FAA are probably the most ill-informed and delusional people to talk to on the subject as striking as that may seem – and they don't even know it.

Answer 7

I would guess almost all of them. (Major Airlines) The small aircraft I would guess a combination of both, negilgece, and pilot error.

Answer 8

I would say more are caused by poor maintenance than pilot error