Connect with us

Alaska

Is air travel really the safest mode of transportation?

Published

on

Is air travel really the safest mode of transportation?


Last week, an Alaska Airlines Boeing 737 Max 9 aircraft was forced to make an emergency landing in Portland, the United States, when a cabin panel blew off in midair leaving a gaping hole in the aircraft’s fuselage. Just days before, a Japan Airways Airbus collided with a smaller coastguard plane, resulting in the Airbus catching fire.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has ordered an inquiry into the incident and several passengers filed a class action lawsuit against Boeing in Washington state on Thursday.

So, is it really safe to travel by air? Here is what we know about the Alaska Airlines incident and the general safety of aviation:

What happened to the Alaska Airlines flight?

On January 5, just moments after takeoff, a cabin door panel blew off in midair during an Alaska Airlines flight from Portland to Ontario, leaving one side of the aircraft’s body with a gaping hole, reducing cabin pressure and prompting an emergency landing. The blown-out door panel was later discovered by a Portland teacher, in his garden.

Advertisement

Federal officials in the US ordered the temporary grounding of all Boeing 737 Max 9 jetliners until they can be inspected.

The cabin panel that flew out was a “door plug” installed over an extra emergency exit door, which had been removed.

(Al Jazeera)

Thankfully, no one was seated next to the gaping hole. Additionally, the plane was only 16,000 feet (4,876 metres) above the ground. Planes typically fly more than 31,000 feet (9,448 metres) when they are at their highest. Had the aircraft been much higher, the pressure difference could have become large enough to suck passengers out of the aircraft, former FAA accident investigator Jeff Guzzetti told The Washington Post.

The aircraft, which had departed from Oregon and was heading for California, landed safely in Portland with all 174 passengers and six crew members mostly unharmed. Some passengers sustained minor injuries.

The aircraft is a new Boeing 737 Max 9 which had been delivered to Alaska Airlines in late October and certified as safe by the FAA in early November. It had been in service for just eight weeks.

Advertisement

London-based independent aviation expert John Strickland told Al Jazeera that the panel which flew off is supposed to be a secure part of the aircraft’s structure. “That’s why it’s more surprising and a matter of concern that this blowout happened,” he said.

London-based aviation analyst and consultant Alex Macheras agreed: “This should not be downplayed, that’s for sure. Because in modern commercial aviation, we do not see sections of an aircraft body, of fuselage, becoming separated from the rest of the aircraft, certainly not mid-flight.”

Has Boeing taken responsibility?

As more than 170 planes remained grounded last week, Boeing CEO Dave Calhoun acknowledged errors made by Boeing and provided reassurance. He told staff that the company would ensure an incident like the Alaska Airlines blowout could never happen again. It has not been confirmed what the actual fault in the aircraft was, although experts told Al Jazeera it is most likely down to a manufacturing flaw rather than a design flaw. There has also been speculation about parts coming loose after both Alaska Airlines and United Airlines reported incidents of needing to tighten loose hardware last Monday.

Earlier, the US chief accident investigator, The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), said it had received reports that warning lights had been triggered on brand-new Boeing 737 Max 9 crafts on three flights. Two of these alerts happened on consecutive days before the Alaska Airlines blowout.

Richard Aboulafia, aviation industry analyst and managing director of Washington-based AeroDynamic Advisory, told Al Jazeera that the warning lights were likely the result of a technical glitch. “They ignored it because, strangely, the pressure differential came on while it was on the ground, which means it was a glitch. There’s no pressure differential while you’re on the ground,” he explained. The cabin pressure can only vary when the aircraft is in the air, which is why it was acceptable to ignore the warning and fly the plane over land, he said.

Advertisement

The company stopped flying the aircraft over the Pacific Ocean to Hawaii due to the warnings, yet kept it flying over land, the NTSB said.

Who checks the safety of an aircraft?

Aboulafia explained that the FAA typically certifies an aircraft, approving its operations and production.

However, since the Boeing 737 Max has had safety issues before, the FAA announced that it would inspect every single aircraft in the Max series under these unusual circumstances. The details about the exact checks that were carried out are not public.

Once the aircraft is in use by an airline, regular maintenance checks called A, B, C and D checks are carried out, Aboulafia explained. While an A check is typically a cursory investigation of a plane’s moving parts, exterior wear and tear and of oil and fuel, a D-check is rigorous and involves a teardown and detailed inspection of the aircraft.

These checks are carried out at dedicated intervals based on the number of years an aircraft has been in service or its number of flight hours. Some airlines have their own in-house capabilities to carry out these checks and while many airlines are able to do A or B checks, only certain airlines are able to do C or D checks themselves. Others use third-party services.

Advertisement

“This is an unprecedented production ramp and, clearly, there needs to be more resources provided for it, whether it’s at the manufacturing level or the inspections level,” Aboulafia added, referring to how aeroplanes are now manufactured in large numbers. He called for a greater number of people to be assigned more time for inspections.

Aboulafia added that it is imperative to identify where and how the Alaska aircraft passed its safety checks, and whether it was Boeing, Spirit Aerosystems or the FAA that cleared the jetliner without detailed inspection. There is no information about the level of detail of inspection that took place before the plane was cleared for flying.

At some or at multiple stages in the process, there needed to be more time allowed for workers or inspectors to “do their job”, however, Aboulafia said, adding: “We don’t know yet, but clearly, there was a gap in how things should have been done.”

Two investigators holding up the panel that blew out of an Alaskan Airlines plane midflight. They are standing in someone's garden. The panel has a window opening
A Portland resident found the blown-out door plug from Alaska Air Flight 1282 in his garden [Handout/NTSB via Reuters]

Have Boeing 737 aircraft had problems before?

Yes. The jets were grounded worldwide for about two years after a crash killed 189 people in Indonesia in October 2018 and another killed 157 in Ethiopia five months later.

In both instances, a design flaw was found in the automated flight control software, which activated erroneously. Boeing 737s were cleared to fly again once the aircraft had been revamped with an improved flight control system.

Aboulafia said the crashes in Indonesia and Ethiopia had been caused by design defects in the flight control system, while the recent incident was a defect in manufacturing, with loose hardware on aircraft, however.

Advertisement

United Airlines and Alaska Airlines have both reported loose hardware that needed additional tightening on multiple grounded Boeing 737 Max 9 aircraft on Monday, raising new concerns among industry experts about the manufacturing process.

If a design issue occurs, the design defect must be fixed on the aircraft before the plane model is cleared to fly again, he explained.

For manufacturing defects, “you have to identify where the mistakes were made, and then it’s an easy inspection, especially since it’s structural rather than software or anything like that”, he added.

Why is turbulence on the rise?

A June 2023 study by the UK’s Reading University showed that severe air turbulence had increased by 55 percent at an average point over the North Atlantic between 1979 and 2020.

The study concluded that turbulence will become worse with climate change, and the calculated rise is consistent with the expected effects of changes in climate. Hence, the rise in turbulence is not due to poor design or the manufacturing of aircraft.

Advertisement

Is air travel still the safest mode of transportation?

Harvard University research has found that the odds of being in a plane crash are one in 1.2 million, while the odds of dying in such a crash are one in 11 million. Meanwhile, the odds of dying in a car accident are significantly higher at one in 5,000.

“Is any form of transport always safe? No, but if you choose not to fly and instead take a car, that’s a far more dangerous way of travelling,” said Aboulafia.



Source link

Alaska

Youth hockey teams will represent Alaska at national championship tournaments

Published

on

Youth hockey teams will represent Alaska at national championship tournaments


The Team Alaska 16U Tier 1 Girls won the Regional Championship for the 2025-26 season. (Photo provided by Matt Thompson)

Earlier this year, a trio of Alaska youth hockey teams advanced to the 2026 Chipotle-USA Hockey National Championship tournament for their respective classifications, and this week they’ll take the ice with hopes of bringing home some more hardware.

The Team Alaska program is sending a couple of teams to nationals with the 16U Tier 1 girls squad heading to Buffalo, New York, to compete with the top 16 teams while the 18U Tier 1 boys team will be among the top 16 heading to Las Vegas, Nevada. Both tournaments got underway Tuesday and run through Sunday.

Both teams notched notable victories in their regional tournaments. The 16U girls team hoisted the trophy in the 2026 Girls Pacific District Regional Tournament last month, with games played at the Kelley Create Ice Center and Ben Boeke Ice Arena in Anchorage. With a 2-0 victory over the visiting Seattle Jr. Thunderbirds, they clinched the first Girls Tier 1 championship since the program formed three years ago.

Svea Dorman scored the first goal with 3:22 left in the second period off of assists from Ayla-Marie Sanders and Lilly Kettenacker. At the 13:15 mark in the third period, Kettenacker bagged an insurance goal thanks to assists from Dorman and Alexa Williams. Between the pipes, goaltender Madelynn Derleth recorded 19 saves to secure the shutout.

Advertisement

The Boys Tier 1 Pacific District Regional Tournament was held in San Jose, California, from Feb. 26 through March 1. All five Alaska teams advanced to the regional title games, marking the first time that had happened in the same season in state youth hockey history.

Team Alaska 18U Tier 1 became the first Alaskan 18U Tier 1 team to win the Regional Championship since 2013. (Photo provided by Matt Thompson)

The 18U Tier 1 team became the first Alaska squad to win the regional title in that division since the Alaska Jr. Aces in 2013. They faced off against the Anaheim Jr. Ducks and prevailed 4-3 in an overtime thriller that took a shootout to decide. After digging themselves out of an early 2-0 hole, Team Alaska rallied to tie the game at 3-3 with 36.8 seconds left in the third period.

Dawson Norene found the back of the net via the top corner for the game-tying goal off an assist by Reid Carlson. After a scoreless overtime period, the teams competed in a three-man shootout. Toby Jones scored the lone goal to give Team Alaska the win, and goaltender Keagon O’Bryan helped bring it home by denying all three of the Jr. Ducks’ attempts.

The 2025-2026 18U Tier 2 Alaska State Hockey Champion Alaska Oilers. (Photo provided by Alaska State Hockey Association)

Coming off being crowned the 2025-26 18U Tier 2 Alaska state hockey champions, the Alaska Oilers will travel to West Chester, Pennsylvania. They will be competing in the Youth Tier II 18U tourney on the Ice Line Quad Rinks with action running from Wednesday through Sunday.

On the Tier 2 girls side, the following teams will be competing in nationals as well from Wednesday through Sunday: Fairbanks Arctic Lions and Alaska All Stars in the 19U division in Rockland, Massachusetts, and the 16U Alaska All Stars in St. Louis, Missouri.





Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Alaska

Alaska accepts ballots that arrive after Election Day. This case could end that.

Published

on

Alaska accepts ballots that arrive after Election Day. This case could end that.


WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court appears poised to rule in favor of the Republican National Committee that all ballots must be received on Election Day to be counted.

In a case argued Monday, the RNC challenges a Mississipi law that allows ballots postmarked on or before Election Day to arrive up to five days later.

Alaska accepts postmarked ballots that arrive up to 10 days after Election Day – 15 days if mailed from overseas. And, for Alaska, the implications of the Supreme Court ruling could extend beyond mailed ballots.

The RNC case could be consequential for the midterm elections, when control of Congress is at stake. While people of both parties vote by mail, more permissive rules for it are perceived to help Democrats, especially since President Trump rails against the practice.

Advertisement

U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer argued that counting ballots that arrive late violates the federal law that sets the Tuesday following the first Monday of November as Election Day for the whole country.

“All ballots have to be received and the ballot box has to close on Election Day,” he said.

In Alaska’s last general election, more than 50,000 ballots arrived by mail. The Division of Elections couldn’t immediately say how many of those arrived in the 10 days after Election Day but it appears to be many thousand.

Sometimes, even Alaska ballots cast in person on Election Day aren’t received the same day. The village of Atqasuk , on the North Slope, tried to phone in its 2024 election results but couldn’t get through to the Division of Elections. The mailed ballots arrived nine days later.

Alaska Attorney General Stephen Cox cited the Atqasuk episode in a friend-of-court brief he filed in the Mississippi case.

Advertisement

“Alaska asks this Court to consider how its rule here will apply in all States—including Alaska, where ‘receiving’ a ballot isn’t always as simple as walking to a precinct or driving a few hours to pick up a ballot box,” he wrote.

Pat Redmond, co-president of the Alaska League of Women Voters, said Alaska has a secure process for mailed ballots. She believes the current deadline is fair and allows remote places necessary time to deliver their ballots.

“Not every place has electronic transmission,” said Redmond, who has also served as an election worker. If all ballots have to be in on Election Day “then those people, their ballots don’t count, and that’s disenfranchising people.”

Attorney Scott Stewart, defending Mississippi’s ballot deadline, told the justices that it’s wrong for the Trump administration to suggest that late-arriving ballots are subject to fraud.

“Obviously, they’ve sounded the anti-fraud theme,” Stewart said. “They haven’t cited a single example of fraud from post-Election Day ballot receipts.”

Advertisement

Late-counted ballots have swung several statewide contests in Alaska.

•The 2020 ballot measure creating Alaska’s ranked choice voting system and open primaries was losing on election night but ultimately won.

•Post-Election Day counts gave Sen. Lisa Murkowski the lead over challenger Kelly Tshibaka in 2022, and Murkowski’s lead grew further after second- and third-choice votes were tallied.

•In 2024, a measure to repeal ranked choice voting was ahead on election night but narrowly lost in later counts.

Late-counted ballots typically include an unknown number of ballots that arrived before Election Day, too. Still, despite no evidence of wrongdoing, supporters of the losing campaign have sometimes alleged fraud.

Advertisement

The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling in the Mississippi case this summer. An attorney for the Republican National Committee told the justices a June ruling would allow states to change their ballot rules in time for the November election.



Source link

Continue Reading

Alaska

Polar bear undergoes root canal at Alaska Zoo

Published

on

Polar bear undergoes root canal at Alaska Zoo


ANCHORAGE, Alaska (InvestigateTV) — Staff at the Alaska Zoo performed a root canal on one of its polar bears after the bear broke a canine tooth.

Kova, 4, shares an enclosure with another polar bear named Cranbeary. The two have toys, treats and a large pool where Kova likes to take her morning swim.

Curator Sam Lavin noticed something was wrong when Kova’s behavior changed.

“Kova is a very interactive and busy bear and she just seemed kind of off. She was pawing at her mouth a little bit,” Lavin said.

Advertisement

Lavin suspected a tooth issue and asked Kova to open her mouth for a closer look.

“We could see that she had broken one of her canines and there’s any number of ways she could have done that,” Lavin said.

An X-ray confirmed the diagnosis. Zoo staff consulted with a veterinary specialist outside Alaska, sent the X-rays and received advice on how to proceed.

“We went with a local doctor to do the work,” Lavin said.

An endodontist who normally operates on humans was part of the large team that performed the root canal on the fully sedated 450-pound bear.

Advertisement

“Everybody knew ahead of time what their role was and what to do and where to be and it was so well planned out and everybody worked so well together,” Lavin said.

The procedure went smoothly.

“She feels so much better,” Lavin said.

The zoo said Kova quickly recovered and is back with her playmate Cranbeary.

Read more here.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending