Aviation News, Headlines & Alerts
 
Category: <span>FAA</span>

Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/airflight/www/www/wp-content/themes/fluida/includes/loop.php on line 270

When Lady Luck Turns Away

Incidents and Accidents.

Behind every accident, there are many incidents. Accidents may be defined as involving fatalities and incidents as those many smaller events seemingly unconnected from any others. The importance of incidents has gotten little respect but for two obscure references. The industry recognized Heinrich Pyramid says “…. for every accident that causes a major injury, there are 29 accidents that cause minor injuries and 300 accidents that cause no injuries.”

A 2005 Rand Report drawing attention to NTSB databases said “…(there is) poor control of information, part of resolving more complex accidents depends upon a thorough knowledge of prior incidents, the number of major airline incidents the FAA reported in 1997 was ten times the number of major accidents, (there is) neither oversight nor an emphasis on accuracy in the collection and maintenance of NTSB records, as a result, the accuracy of most of the NTSB data sources was rated as “poor” and although the NTSB does examine a significant number of major incidents, only a small portion of the NTSB’s aviation resources are focused on incident events.”

Rand report Link >
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/2005/MR1122.pdf

See page 38 –40.

Key Public Databases – NTSB and FAA. Gaps Compromising Safety Assessments.

The NTSB’s most public source of records is the accident/incident database.

It is cited in the FAA Accident/Incident Data System (AIDS), Airworthiness Directives (ADs), risk/analysis studies, and in DOT/GAO Reports to congress.

In my various surveys along major safety issues (uncontained engine explosions, un-commanded rudder movements, shutdowns due to engine main bearing failures, or smoke/fire incidents, the NTSB data contains about 20 % of what is found in SDR data or other counterpart investigative agencies.

Gaps in NTSB data are further compounded by similar gaps in SDR data. From
1992 to 2002 four NTSB Safety Reccommendation Letters and the GAO had complained of such gaps. In 2010 and regarding data on windshield fires, an article said the “FAA said it was aware of 11 cases of fires in the planes over the past 20 years. However, Boeing has said it is aware of 29 incidents involving fire or smoke over the past eight years.’ Source link >
http://www.news24.com/World/News/FAA-orders-Boeing-inspection-20100710 – bottom of article.

1994. In 1994, The Department of Transportation Inspector General reported that between “46 and 98 percent of the data fields of inflight ‘service difficulty’ records are missing data.” From GAO/AIMD-95-27. 02/08/95. Data
Problems Threaten FAA Strides on Safety Analysis
Source Link >
http://www.gao.gov/archive/1995/ai9527.pdf

From the House Hearing Electrical Safety. (Ref report 106-112, Thursday, October 5, 2000, Testimony of Alexis M. Stefani, assistant IG for auditing), said; “Third, of most concern to us is the health of this SDR system, itself. While the new rule (coding for wire issues) was intended to improve the data in the system, FAA must also insure that the reports that are provided to it are timely, and follow the guidance. We found, however, that the SDR system is not robust, and over the years, it has suffered from budget cuts with staffing going from twelve full-time to three full-time people. Weakness in this system reduces the reliability and usefulness of the data, and can impact FAA’s ability to do trend analysis.”
Source Link >
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/Trans/hpw106-112.000/hpw106-112_1.HTM
Page 47

From a June 8, 2006 U.S./Europe International Aviation Safety Conference, FAA’s Flight Standards Service, Jim Ballough.spoke of “FAA’s growing concern over numerous reports of smoke/fumes in cockpit/cabin and that FAA data analysis indicates numerous events not being reported.” Source Link >
http://www.faa.gov/news/conferences/2006_us_europe_conference/ See ‘Presentation
’ by Jim Ballough.
650 Records Of “Smoke In The Cockpit” A Lack of Concern.

Gary Stoller at USA Today did a good piece on “smoke in the cockpit”
reports. Of some 650 records, the FAA/NTSB has but a fraction. The story highlights included; (that the) “issue happens roughly four times a month.

Some experts say the problem is under-reported. FAA says there is “no safety benefit” to requiring systems to remove cockpit smoke. Smoke in a plane’s cockpit from electrical or other failures is reported an average of four times each month, a USA TODAY analysis finds.” Further that “In-flight fires left unattended “may lead to catastrophic failure and have resulted in the complete loss of airplanes,” the FAA warned. A flight crew “may have as few as 15-20 minutes to get an aircraft on the ground if the crew allows a hidden fire to progress without intervention.” USA Today

Source http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/10/30/cockpit-smoke-airline-faa/3316429/

33 records Of Insulation Blankets Fires. – How They Start.

From my catalog of 78 Records of fire from 1983 to 2012 sourced from the NTSB, AAIB (Danish & UK), French BEA, FAA’s SDR databases, and a few media reports of records of accidents and incidents of fire. There is no central repository. There are 33 records where acoustic insulation (blankets) were specifically mentioned are listed. The issues of self-igniting and flammable wire insulations and of flammable blankets were now are co-mingled.

Three modes of ignition are seen here: wire shorting/arcing, molten metal sprayed from faulting electrical relays and heating tapes. Most reports lack necessary detail, but seven incidents were seen from wires shorting/arcing.
Some involved only a few wires; one powering coal closet lights. Molten Metal (spatter) comprised another 8. More importantly, within those reports were references to another 19 (but without details) and that the NTSB said; the relays involved were not “substantially different from the receptacles used on other transport-category airplanes.”

Ignition from faulting heating tapes/ribbons was seen in another 4 reports – but there were more. In a November 14, 2002 Letter to the FAA, the Canadian Transport Safety Board (TSB) advised that; “heater ribbons are used extensively in transport category aircraft, including Boeing 707, 727, 737, 747, 757 and 767 series and Boeing (Douglas) DC-9, DC-10, and MD-11 aircraft. ” From a TSB report of such fires on 747s and a 767, four other reports were disclosed. The TSB added; “The standard Boeing 767 incorporates 26 heater ribbons. Between June 1985 and June 2002, operators of Boeing aircraft made a total of 67 reports to Boeing of heater ribbon failures where thermal degradation was evident.” From one Delta MD-88 fire in 1999, the NTSB said; “DAL conducted a fleet wide examination of their MD-88/MD-90 fleet to ascertain the condition of their static port heaters. Eight heaters were found with evidence of thermal damage on their wires and or connectors.” There are 8 ADs, and 24 additional SDRs describing burn marks or fire damage. (ref King Survey ‘History Heater Blanket/Tape Fires’.)

In 2002, the FAA concluded that “in-flight Fires In Hidden Areas are a risk to aviation safety – most hidden fires are caused by electrical problems – non-compliance with Safety Regulations have been uncovered. Fire safety problems and improvements are in various stages of correction and study” and that “it is impossible to predict the relative risk of serious fires occurring in Hidden Areas or Locations”. Source Link >
http://www.caasd.org/atsrac/meeting_minutes/2002/2002_01_Fire-Safety-in-Hidden-Inaccessible-Areas.pdf

Dense, Continuous Smoke in the Cockpit.

In June 2013 a GAO Report to Congress cited but one record of ‘Dense, Continuous Smoke in the Cockpit’ (in 1973). The input came from the NTSB and the FAA. Contrary to that, a Specialist Paper by the Royal Aeronautical Society detailed seven. Only two were in the NTSB databases – but with no mention of ‘continuous smoke.’

Links > GAO-13-551R, Jun 4, 2013. FAA Oversight of Procedures and Technologies to Prevent and Mitigate the Effects of Dense, Continuous Smoke in the Cockpit.
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-551R

Link > Royal Aeronautical Society – Smoke, Fire and Fumes in Transport Aircraft. Second Edition 2013, Part 1, Past History, Current Risk, And Recommended Mitigations. A Specialist Paper prepared by the Flight
Operations Group of the Royal Aeronautical Society. March 2013

http://flightsafety.org/files/RAESSFF.pdf

In Lady Luck We Trust ? – Those ‘Lucky’ Ground Incidents.
Often heard whenever the safety of our air transportation system is questioned is that we have an enviable safety record due to the industry, the FAA and the NTSB’s efforts. That is true if only actual deaths are counted.

This boiler-plate response comes whenever issues of safety are raised, but something else is left unspoken: its conditional nature. It includes just the U.S. carriers, and is based on the records kept. However, there have been no less than 6 events where fires occurred on the ground and caused significant damage, or loss of the airframes. Fire departments intervened in five.

What if, instead, over 900 lives had been lost over the past 12 years ?
For example:

(1) Aug 8, 2000, AirTran DC-9-32 – fire and blistering of aircraft skin, 63 on board.

(2) Nov 29, 2000, a DC-9-32 by AirTran (97 on board).

(3) Same Day, Nov 29, 2000, a DC-9-82, American Airlines (66 on board) ,
blankets burned, emergency evacuation on taxiways – 97 on board”.

(4) June 28, 2008, ABX 767 freighter burned through the fuselage and was destroyed at the gate, (“The risk of an in-flight fire and the propagation of a fire in those areas is essentially the same whether the airplane is equipped to fly passengers or cargo” says the FAA). Approximate 767 capacity is 190 people.

(5) July 29 2011, Egypt Air 777, fire erupted and burned a cockpit-widow
sized hole through the fuselage. Emergency services put the fire out – 291 passengers were evacuated.

(6) On October 14, 2012, a Corendon Airlines 737-800 had “substantial damage” from fire in the cockpit on the gate. 196 on board were evacuated. Had these fires broken at altitude or during the trans-oceanic crossing, all on board may have been lost.

For the sum each of these fires found in the NTSB’s accident/incident database, over 900 lives were not lost. A more honest assessment and the credit for this remarkable safety record of no fatalities was not the FAA and industry abilities to manage and ‘mitigate risks’ – but rather the kindness of Lady Luck. But what can happen when lady Luck turns away ?


Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/airflight/www/www/wp-content/themes/fluida/includes/loop.php on line 270

FAA Proposes $547,500 Civil Penalty Against Hawaiian Airlines

The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is proposing a $547,500 Civil Penalty against Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. for operating a Boeing 767-300 that was not in compliance with Federal Aviation Regulations.

The FAA alleges Hawaiian operated the aircraft thousands of times when it was not in compliance with a July 2000 Airworthiness Directive (AD) that required inspections of certain engine thrust reverser components. The purpose of the AD was to prevent a portion of the thrust reverser from coming off in flight, which could cause a rapid decompression of the aircraft.

The AD required initial and repetitive inspections of the components to detect damage and wear, and corrective actions if necessary. It required replacement of the components with new and improved parts within four years of the AD taking effect.

During a July 2012 inspection, the FAA discovered that some of Hawaiian’s records erroneously showed the AD did not apply to one of its Boeing 767 aircraft. The FAA alleges Hawaiian operated the aircraft more than 5,000 times – mostly on passenger carrying flights – between July 2004 and July 2012 when it was out of compliance with the AD. The FAA further alleges Hawaiian operated the aircraft on 14 passenger flights after the agency alerted the carrier that some of its records erroneously indicated that the AD did not apply to the aircraft.

Additionally, the FAA alleges Hawaiian failed to keep required records of the status of the AD for the aircraft in question.

Hawaiian has requested an informal conference with the FAA to discuss the matter.


Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/airflight/www/www/wp-content/themes/fluida/includes/loop.php on line 270

FAA Announces the Republic of the Philippines’ Aviation Safety Rating

The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) today announced that the Republic of the Philippines complies with international safety standards set by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and has been granted a Category 1 rating.

The country previously held a Category 1 rating until January 2008, when it was downgraded to a Category 2. A Category 2 rating means a country either lacks laws or regulations necessary to oversee air carriers in accordance with minimum international standards, or that its civil aviation authority – equivalent to the FAA for aviation safety matters – is deficient in one or more areas, such as technical expertise, trained personnel, record keeping or inspection procedures.

The return to Category 1 status is based on a March 2014 FAA review of the Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines. A Category 1 rating means the country’s civil aviation authority complies with ICAO standards. With the International Aviation Safety Assessment (IASA) Category 1 rating, the Republic of the Philippines’ air carriers can add flights and service to the United States and carry the code of U.S. carriers.

As part of the FAA’s IASA program, the agency assesses the civil aviation authorities of all countries with air carriers that have applied to fly to the United States, currently conduct operations to the United States or participate in code sharing arrangements with U.S. partner airlines and makes that information available to the public. The assessments determine whether or not foreign civil aviation authorities are meeting ICAO safety standards, not FAA regulations.

In order to maintain a Category 1 rating, a country must adhere to the safety standards of ICAO, the United Nations’ technical agency for aviation that establishes international standards and recommended practices for aircraft operations and maintenance.


Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/airflight/www/www/wp-content/themes/fluida/includes/loop.php on line 270

Press Release: FAA Installs Equipment for NextGen Aircraft Tracking System


The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Aviation Administration today announced the completion of a nationwide infrastructure upgrade that will enable air traffic controllers to track aircraft with greater accuracy and reliability, while giving pilots more information in the cockpit. This upgrade is a key improvement in the Next Generation Air Transportation System.

“This upgrade is an important step in laying the foundation for the NextGen system, which provides controllers a much more precise view of the airspace, gives pilots much more awareness and information, and as a result strengthens the safety and efficiency of our system,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx. “This state-of-the-art satellite system is already providing controllers with visibility in places not previously covered by radar.”

The nationwide installation of the Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) radio network supports a satellite-based surveillance system that tracks aircraft with the help of GPS. This provides more accurate aircraft location information than the current radar system.

NextGen refers to a set of initiatives being implemented by the FAA in collaboration with the aviation community to ensure that the United States has the safest, most efficient airspace possible for decades to come. In addition to ADS-B, NextGen improvements are already delivering benefits that include more efficient air traffic procedures that save time and fuel and reduce emissions.

“The installation of this radio network clears the way for air traffic controllers to begin using ADS-B to separate equipped aircraft nationwide,” FAA Administrator Michael Huerta said. “It will also provide pilots flying aircraft equipped with the proper avionics with traffic information, weather data and other flight information.”

Of the 230 air traffic facilities across the country, 100 are currently using this system to separate traffic. It is expected to be connected and operating at all 230 facilities by 2019. All aircraft operating in controlled airspace must be equipped with ADS-B Out avionics that broadcast the plane’s location, by Jan. 1, 2020.

With the upgraded surveillance and broadcast system and aircraft equipped with ADS-B Out transponders, aircraft positions on controller screens update almost continuously, compared to every 4.7 seconds or longer with radar.
ADS-B also enables more accurate tracking of airplanes and airport vehicles on runways and taxiways, increasing safety and efficiency. The new system significantly improves surveillance capability in areas with geographic challenges like mountains or over water. Airplanes equipped with ADS-B In, which is not currently mandated, will give pilots information through cockpit displays about location in relation to other aircraft, bad weather and terrain, and temporary flight restrictions.

In addition to the operational benefits of ADS-B, each one of the 634 ground stations installed by Exelis of McLean, Va., is substantially smaller than a radar installation – resulting in less impact to the environment and less cost to maintain.


Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/airflight/www/www/wp-content/themes/fluida/includes/loop.php on line 270

MCDonnell Douglas MD 11 Recommendations

    From the NTSB to the FAA to an MD-11 near you:

    • Work with Boeing to (1) assess the effectiveness of flare cueing systems to assist MD-11 pilots in making timely and appropriate inputs during the landing flare
    • (2) provide a formal report on the findings of the assessment, and
    • (3) if the assessment shows that flare cueing systems could be useful to MD-11 pilots, provide copies of the report to all US operators of MD-11 airplanes and encourage them to install such a system on these airplanes.
    • Work with Boeing to (4) assess methods for providing weight-on-wheels cueing to MD-11 pilots to enhance pilot awareness of bounced landings and facilitate proper pilot reaction and effective control inputs when bounced landings occur,
    • (5) provide a formal report on the findings of the assessment, and
    • (6) if the assessment shows that the weight-on-wheels cueing methods could be useful to MD-11 pilots, provide copies of the report to all US operators of MD-11 airplanes and encourage them to provide a means for weight-on-wheels cueing for these airplanes. (A-14-005)
    • Work with Boeing to (7) evaluate the effect of brief power increases on simulated MD-11 landing distances, adjust the values in published MD-11 landing distance tables accordingly, andprovide the adjusted values to MD-11 operators. (A-14-006)


Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/airflight/www/www/wp-content/themes/fluida/includes/loop.php on line 270

$325,000 Civil Penalty Against Alfa Chemistry

The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is proposing a $325,000 civil penalty against Alfa Chemistry of Stony Brook, New York, for allegedly violating U.S. Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials Regulations.

The FAA alleges that on two separate FedEx cargo flights, Alfa Chemistry shipped undeclared hazardous material that DOT regulations prohibit from being transported on passenger and cargo aircraft. The company allegedly shipped approximately one pint of Acrolein on April 19, 2013 and three additional pints of it on May 23, 2013. Acrolein can become explosive when combined with air and is classified as a toxic/poisonous material and flammable liquid under DOT Hazardous Materials Regulations.

On May 24, 2013, FAA and FedEx personnel tried to inspect the second shipment of Acrolein at the FedEx sort facility in Peabody, Massachusetts, after it began emitting a strong, pungent odor. However, they were unable to examine it because they began to experience coughing fits and extreme eye, nose and throat irritation due to the severity of the odor and vapors coming from the shipment. A FedEx employee had to put on a protective suit to inspect the shipment.

The FAA determined that neither shipment had required shipping papers or emergency response information. The FAA also determined that the May 23, 2013 shipment was not marked, labeled, or packaged as required by the Hazardous Materials Regulations.

Additionally, the FAA determined Alfa Chemistry failed to properly train and test the employees who packaged the Acrolein.

Alfa Chemistry has 30 days from the receipt of the FAA’s enforcement letter to respond to the agency.

$51,651 Civil Penalty Proposed Against AAA Services


The Department of Transportation’s Federal Aviation Administration’s proposes a penalty of $51,651 against All American Aviation Services, LLC for FAA drug and alcohol testing regulation violations. All American allowed eight employees in sensitive positions without securing their drug and alcohol testing records, and failed to abide by follow-up testing procedures on two marijuana-positive testees.

One employee who tested positive was excluded from the random testing program, and one employee who failed a test failed to provide the return to duty test result.

The discrepancies came to light during a March 2013 inspection where the company’s antidrug and alcohol misuse prevention program was audited.

Father Dies, Daughter and Schoolmate Injured in Round Lake Plane Crash

single engine

A single-engine small plane en-route from Chicago to St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport crashed on March 22, near McMullen Booth Road and Enterprise Road in Clearwater, Florida.

The 53-year-old pilot, Jeffrey Bronken, was killed in the crash. Katherine Bronken, Jeffrey Bronken’s daughter, and Keyana Linbo, her classmate, both 15-year-olds from Round Lake were injured.

Drivers are advised to avoid the area of McMullen Booth Road and Enterprise Road. The investigation by the Sheriff’s deputies and the FAA is underway.

Single Engine Plane Crashes Near Montrose

Reservoir

Five people are feared dead after a single engine plane crashed in Ridgeway Reservoir Colorado.

The incident happened in the south of Montrose at 1:50 pm on March 22, 2014. The plane was on its way to Montrose regional airport from Oklahoma. Investigators believe that none of the five passengers survived, although no victims have been found yet.

Rescue and search efforts are still in progress, whereas a team of divers is recovering the parts of plane from water. NTSB and FAA will be investigating the incident.


Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/airflight/www/www/wp-content/themes/fluida/includes/loop.php on line 270

Turbulence Fact sheet


Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/airflight/www/www/wp-content/themes/fluida/includes/loop.php on line 270

FAA Issues Final Rule to Improve Helicopter Safety

The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) today issued a final rule that requires helicopter operators, including air ambulances, to have stricter flight rules and procedures, improved communications, training, and additional on-board safety equipment. The rule represents the most significant improvements to helicopter safety in decades and responds to government’s and industry’s concern over continued risk in helicopter operations.

“This is a landmark rule for helicopter safety,” said Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx. “These improvements will better prepare pilots and better equip helicopters, ensuring a higher level of safety for passengers and crew.”

All U.S. helicopter operators, including air ambulances, are required to use stricter flying procedures in bad weather. This will provide a greater margin of safety by reducing the probability of collisions with terrain, obstacles or other aircraft.

Within 60 days, all operators will be required to use enhanced procedures for flying in challenging weather, at night, and when landing in remote locations. Within three years, helicopter air ambulances must use the latest on-board technology and equipment to avoid terrain and obstacles, and within four years, they must be equipped with flight data monitoring systems.

“This rule is a significant advancement in helicopter safety,” said FAA Administrator Michael Huerta. “This rule will help reduce risk and help pilots make good safety decisions through the use of better training, procedures, and equipment.”

Under the new rule, all Part 135 helicopter operators are required to:

  • Equip their helicopters with radio altimeters.
  • Have occupants wear life preservers and equip helicopters with a 406 MHz Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT) when a helicopter is operated beyond power-off glide distance from the shore.
  • Use higher weather minimums when identifying an alternate airport in a flight plan.
  • Require that pilots are tested to handle flat-light, whiteout, and brownout conditions and demonstrate competency in recovery from an inadvertent encounter with instrument meteorological conditions.

In addition, under the new rule, all air ambulance operators are required to:

  • Equip with Helicopter Terrain Awareness and Warning Systems (HTAWS).
  • Equip with a flight data monitoring system within four years.
  • Establish operations control centers if they are certificate holders with 10 or more helicopter air ambulances.
  • Institute pre-flight risk-analysis programs.
  • Ensure their pilots in command hold an instrument rating.
  • Ensure pilots identify and document the highest obstacle along the planned route before departure.
  • Comply with Visual Flight Rules (VFR) weather minimums, Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at airports/heliports without weather reporting, procedures for VFR approaches, and VFR flight planning.
  • Conduct the flight using Part 135 weather requirements and flight crew time limitation and rest requirements when medical personnel are on board.
  • Conduct safety briefings or training for medical personnel.

Since August 2004, the FAA has promoted initiatives to reduce risk for helicopter air ambulance operations (See FAA Fact Sheet). While accidents did decline in the years following that effort, 2008 proved to be the deadliest year on record with five accidents that claimed 21 lives. The FAA examined helicopter air ambulance accidents from 1991 through 2010 and determined 62 accidents that claimed 125 lives could have been mitigated by today’s rule. While developing the rule, the FAA considered 20 commercial helicopter accidents from 1991 through 2010 (excluding air ambulances) that resulted in 39 fatalities. From 2011 through 2013, there were seven air ambulance accidents resulting in 19 fatalities and seven commercial helicopter accidents that claimed 20 lives.

The estimated cost of the final rule in present value for the air ambulance industry is $224 million with a total benefit of $347 million over 10 years. The cost for other commercial operators is $19 million with a total benefit of $83 million over 10 years. There is no cost for any operators to use new Class G airspace weather minimums for visual flying but the benefit is $147 million over 10 years.

The rule responds to the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 and National Transportation Safety Board recommendations.

The final rule is on display at the Federal Register.


Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/airflight/www/www/wp-content/themes/fluida/includes/loop.php on line 270

Revised Safety Rating for India

India’s Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) has been notified that the US is downgrading its aviation safety ranking, based on failure to meet the standards of the ICAO. The International Civil Aviation Organization regulates technical, training, inspection, records, airworthiness, and operations standards. The safety downgrade is partially due to a September FAA audit which found 33 DGCA deficiencies including too few experts, maintenance deficits and poor documentation.

India’s being lowered to safety category II means that there will be consequences affecting Air India and Jet Airways Indian flights.

See the release below:

Press release: FAA Announces Revised Safety Rating for India
The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) today announced that India has been assigned a Category 2 rating under its International Aviation Safety Assessment (IASA) program, based on a recent reassessment of the country’s civil aviation authority. This signifies that India’s civil aviation safety oversight regime does not currently comply with the international safety standards set by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO); however, the United States will continue to work with India’s Directorate General for Civil Aviation (DGCA) to identify the remaining steps necessary to regain Category 1 status for India. With a Category 2 rating, India’s carriers can continue existing service to the United States, but will not be allowed to establish new service to the United States.

India achieved a Category 1 rating, signifying compliance with ICAO standards, in August 1997. A December 2012 ICAO audit identified deficiencies in the ICAO-set global standards for oversight of aviation safety by India’s Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA). Subsequently, the FAA began a reassessment of India’s compliance with ICAO standards under the FAA’s IASA program, which monitors adherence to international safety standards and practices. The FAA has consulted extensively with the DCGA and other relevant Indian government ministries during its evaluation, including consultations in India in September and early December, and meetings this week in Delhi.

“U.S. and Indian aviation officials have developed an important working relationship as our countries work to meet the challenges of ensuring international aviation safety. The FAA is available to work with the Directorate General of Civil Aviation to help India regain its Category 1 rating,” said FAA Administrator Michael Huerta.

The Government of India has made significant progress towards addressing issues identified during the September 2013 IASA assessment. On January 20, the Government of India took further steps to resolve outstanding issues when the Indian Cabinet approved the hiring of 75 additional full-time inspectors. The United States Government commends the Indian government for taking these important actions, and looks forward to continued progress by Indian authorities to comply with internationally mandated aviation safety oversight standards.

Additional Background on the FAA’s IASA Program:

As part of the FAA’s IASA program, the agency assesses on a uniform basis the civil aviation authorities of all countries with air carriers that operate or have applied to operate to the United States and makes that information available to the public. The assessments determine whether or not foreign civil aviation authorities are meeting ICAO safety standards, not FAA regulations.

A Category 2 rating means a country either lacks laws or regulations necessary to oversee air carriers in accordance with minimum international standards, or that its civil aviation authority – equivalent to the FAA for aviation safety matters – is deficient in one or more areas, such as technical expertise, trained personnel, record-keeping or inspection procedures.

Countries with air carriers that fly to the United States must adhere to the safety standards of ICAO, the United Nations’ technical agency for aviation that establishes international standards and recommended practices for aircraft operations and maintenance.


Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/airflight/www/www/wp-content/themes/fluida/includes/loop.php on line 270

Mishaps of the day

Some events that happened today:

  • December 16, 2013, on JetBlue Flight 836#N661JB, the Airbus A320 arrived at the gate at JFK airport, New York, and the left wing struck the jet bridge. There was only minor damage and no injuries reported.
  • In Farmington NY on December 17, 2013, a Piper PA28#N43080 engine caught fire when the plane started up. The fire was extinguished, with unknown damage.
  • December 16, 2013, a Lancair/235#N15TG landing at John’s Island Charleston SC, when the nose gear collapsed. Minor damage was reported.
  • December 16, 2013, a Cessna/172 #N421ER was taxiing when the wing struck a light pole. The accident occurred in Wickenburg Arizona. Minor damage was reported.
  • December 16, 2013, an experimental plane, a Zenith 601#N581SL crashed in Leakey Texas under unknown conditions.

Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/airflight/www/www/wp-content/themes/fluida/includes/loop.php on line 270

Training! Training! Training!

The NTSB was discussing safety measures in late October, especially pilot training before stalls. The new rule has been a long time coming. Earl Weener, a member of the National Transportation Safety Board, talked about the serious history of pilots wrongly pulling the plane’s nose up till the plane fell to the ground. If training is part of the problem, then at least that is a lack that can be amended.

Only twenty-six percent of pilots train for high altitude stalls, but according to a NASA study, twenty-eight percent of stalls are high altitude stalls. Seventy-one percent of stalls happen while autopilot is on.

In early November we heard how the FAA unveiled a rule about pilot training to avoid stalling airliners. It came about because of four crashes: Those crashes were Colgan 3407 in 2009, Air France 447 in June 2009, Pinnacle Airlines 3701 in October 2004 and USAir 427 in September 1994. (Too bad there have to be stall issues before stall training came to the attention of officials.) In the February 2009 crash of Colgan Air, it was determined that the pilots–as in the three other flights–in the midst of a blizzard in Buffalo pulled up on the nose of the plane, causing the crash. A meeting of air safety leaders in late November has jump-started the plans. Though something that has taken so long in the works can hardly said to be jump—started.

The powers that be sound positive about the new rule.

The FAA speculates training will save nearly seven million because of prevention—at a program cost of $274 million. Within five years this will mean:

  • Better ground and flight recovery training
  • Better pilot flight monitoring each other
  • Better runway safety protocols
  • Better crosswind training.

I have been beating a drum for a long time about obvious solutions to obvious problems. Yes, things may fail, but why not implement preventative measures where available? So now rather than my usual battle-cry: Maintenance! Maintenance! Maintenance! Maybe I will be saying Training! Training! Training! I am looking forward to increased safety brought about by this new rule.


Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/airflight/www/www/wp-content/themes/fluida/includes/loop.php on line 270

FAA Proposes $304,000 Civil Penalty Against Great Lakes Aviation


The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is proposing a $304,000 civil penalty against Great Lakes Aviation of Cheyenne, Wyo., for allegedly conducting 19 flights with aircraft that were not in compliance with Federal Aviation Regulations.

Great Lakes operated the aircraft in conditions in which the carrier could reasonably expect frost, snow or ice to adhere to the planes, the FAA alleges. The FAA maintains that Great Lakes flew Beech 1900 aircraft out of Hays, Kan., in January 2011 with deicing fluid that exceeded the maximum temperature of 180 degrees Fahrenheit. The Great Lakes deicing manual states that fluid heated to more than 180 degrees could damage the aircraft or the deicer.


Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/airflight/www/www/wp-content/themes/fluida/includes/loop.php on line 270

FAA Proposes $325,000 Civil Penalty Against Southwest Airlines


The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is proposing a $325,000 civil penalty against Dallas-based Southwest Airlines for allegedly operating an aircraft that had been improperly modified, violating Federal Aviation Regulations.

On Aug. 29, 2011, maintenance personnel improperly installed a switch that enables flight crews to test the windshield heating system on a Boeing 717 that AirTran Airways Inc. was operating. Southwest is in the process of merging with AirTran.

Proper installation of the switch would have allowed personnel to isolate the windshield anti-ice system that was causing a warning that the windshield heater was failing. Instead, the center and left windshield warning systems were reversed. The right windshield warning system continued to operate properly. The aircraft was operated on 1,140 passenger flights before the problem was corrected.


Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/airflight/www/www/wp-content/themes/fluida/includes/loop.php on line 270

FAA Pilot Training

In George’s Point of View

The Federal Aviation Administration’s new pilot training rule has been a long time coming, like the recommendation for simulator training for pilots in using TCAS that dates back to 1993, remedial training from 2005 for pilots with bad track records and training in aerodynamic stall recovery from the Colgan accident, and pilot monitoring. Just read FAA Administrator Michael Huerta’s discussion of the new Pilot training rule.

I look forward to safer skies from the implementation of this additional training. Hopefully operators in foreign countries will follow the FAA’s suit and ramp up their pilot training. It will be interesting to hear what pilots think of the new pilot training rule.


Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/airflight/www/www/wp-content/themes/fluida/includes/loop.php on line 270

FAA Issues Final Rule on Pilot Training


As part of its ongoing efforts to enhance safety and put the best qualified and trained pilots in the flight decks of U.S. airplanes, the Department of Transportation’s Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) today issued a final rule that will significantly advance the way commercial air carrier pilots are trained.

In addition, FAA Administrator Michael Huerta is inviting the nation’s commercial aviation safety leaders to Washington, D.C. on November 21, to discuss additional voluntary steps that can be taken to further boost safety during airline operations, including pilot training.

“Today’s rule is a significant advancement for aviation safety and U.S. pilot training,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx. “One of my first meetings as Transportation Secretary was with the Colgan Flight 3407 families, and today, I am proud to announce that with their help, the FAA has now added improved pilot training to its many other efforts to strengthen aviation safety.”

The final rule stems in part from the tragic crash of Colgan Air 3407 in February 2009, and addresses a Congressional mandate in the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010 to ensure enhanced pilot training. Today’s rule is one of several rulemakings required by the Act, including the requirements to prevent pilot fatigue that were finalized in December 2011, and the increased qualification requirements for first officers who fly U.S. passenger and cargo planes that were issued in July 2013.

The final rule requires:

  • ground and flight training that enables pilots to prevent and recover from aircraft stalls and upsets. These new training standards will impact future simulator standards as well;
  • air carriers to use data to track remedial training for pilots with performance deficiencies, such as failing a proficiency check or unsatisfactory performance during flight training;
  • training for more effective pilot monitoring;
  • enhanced runway safety procedures; and
  • expanded crosswind training, including training for wind gusts.

“This pivotal rule will give our nation’s pilots the most advanced training available,” said FAA Administrator Michael Huerta. “While the rule marks a major step toward addressing the greatest known risk areas in pilot training, I’m also calling on the commercial aviation industry to continue to move forward with voluntary initiatives to make air carrier training programs as robust as possible.”

The FAA is focusing on pilot training for events that, although rare, are often catastrophic. Focusing on these events will provide the greatest safety benefit to the flying public. The recent rule to boost pilot qualifications for first officers has raised the baseline knowledge and skill set of pilots entering air carrier operations. Many air carriers have also voluntarily begun developing safety management systems (SMS), which will help air carriers identify and mitigate risks unique to their own operating environments.

The FAA proposed to revise the training rules for pilots in 2009, one month prior to the Colgan Flight 3407 accident. The FAA issued a supplemental proposal on May 20, 2011, to address many of the NTSB’s recommendations resulting from the accident, and incorporate congressional mandates for stick pusher, stall recovery and remedial training. A stick pusher is a safety system that applies downward elevator pressure to prevent an airplane from exceeding a predetermined angle of attack in order to avoid, identify, or assist in the recovery of a stall.

On Aug. 6, 2012, the FAA issued Advisory Circular (AC) Stall and Stick Pusher Training to provide best practices and guidance for training, testing, and checking for pilots to ensure correct and consistent responses to unexpected stall events and stick pusher activations. A copy of the AC is available at online.

Air carriers will have five years to comply with the rule’s new pilot training provisions, which will allow time for the necessary software updates to be made in flight simulation technology. The cost of the rule to the aviation industry is estimated to be $274.1 to $353.7 million. The estimated benefit is nearly double the cost at $689.2 million. The final rule is available online.


Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/airflight/www/www/wp-content/themes/fluida/includes/loop.php on line 270

Furlough Fallout

One-third of the Federal Aviation Administration’s 46,000 employees are on furlough but eight hundred are being recalled this week allowing plane certification, 600 who oversee airline operations, and 25 doctors who oversee drug and alcohol testing.

However, aviation registration can not be performed, and the lack has stopped aviation deliveries.

The manpower shortage may lead to maintenance problems and consequential safety issues.


Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/airflight/www/www/wp-content/themes/fluida/includes/loop.php on line 270

Respond now to NTSB ISSUING FINAL RULE IN RESPONSE TO PILOT’S BILL OF RIGHTS

The National Transportation Safety Board announced today that it has issued a Final Rule to implement several changes to its Rules of Practice applicable to aviation certificate enforcement appeals. This final rule responds to public comments received by the NTSB as a result of an interim final rule (IFR) it issued last October. The NTSB issued the IFR after the enactment of the Pilot’s Bill of Rights legislation and it became effective upon its publication in the Federal Register on October 16, 2012.

Under the Pilot’s Bill of Rights: (1) the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) must disclose its enforcement investigative report (EIR) to the FAA certificate holder in an aviation certificate enforcement case; (2) NTSB administrative law judges must apply the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Federal Rules of Evidence in enforcement cases; and (3) litigants now have the option of appealing the NTSB’s final orders to either a Federal district court or a Federal court of appeals. The IFR implemented these Pilot’s Bill of Rights requirements. Under the IFR, an FAA certificate holder is permitted to submit a motion to dismiss an FAA complaint if the FAA fails to disclose releasable portions of its EIR. The NTSB received 10 comments in response to the IFR. The Final Rule describes these comments in detail, as most of the comments provided substantive feedback and suggestions.

In considering the IFR comments, the NTSB determined it should include a proposal to extend the EIR availability requirement in the Pilot’s Bill of Rights to emergency enforcement cases. As a result, the NTSB is also publishing a new Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in conjunction with publication of the Final Rule in the Federal Register.


Both the Final Rule and NPRM are available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-19/pdf/2013-22634.pdf (Final Rule) and http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-19/pdf/2013-22633.pdf (NPRM). The public may submit comments to the NPRM, concerning the proposal to require the FAA to make available the EIR in emergency enforcement cases, via www.regulations.gov, Docket No. NTSB-GC-2011-0001, or via postal mail or facsimile, addressed to the NTSB Office of General Counsel. Comments should be submitted no later than October 21, 2013. The Final Rule is immediately effective.

See the bill below

In George’s Point of View

Time to take note of the final rule. The public can submit their opinion at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. NTSB-GC-2011-0001, or via postal mail or facsimile, addressed to the NTSB Office of General Counsel.


Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/airflight/www/www/wp-content/themes/fluida/includes/loop.php on line 270

FAA Orders Inspections of Honeywell Emergency Locator Transmitters


The FAA is issuing an Airworthiness Directive (AD) identical to the August 26 Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA) directive which requires airlines to inspect Honeywell emergency locator transmitters (ELTs) by January 14, 2014 to prevent an electrical short and possible ignition source. The FAA AD has the same deadline for the U.S. fleet and will impact approximately 4,000 airplanes at a total cost of approximately $325,720. The investigation of the July 12, 2013 Ethiopian Airlines Boeing 787 fire at Heathrow Airport continues under the leadership of the United Kingdom Air Accident Investigation Branch (AAIB).

In George’s Point of View

Good for Transport Canada Civil Aviation beating us to the punch. Too bad that the deadline is January 14, 2014. Seems like they could behave with a bit more urgency with a potential fire hazard. Does this mean that–if one of these Honeywell emergency locator transmitters happens to cause a fire between now and January 14, 2014, the TCCA and the FAA are responsible? By setting a date months away, aren’t these agencies downplaying the hazard potential?


Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/airflight/www/www/wp-content/themes/fluida/includes/loop.php on line 270

FAA Innovations

The job of a controller is to keep planes at a safe distance from each other. The FAA has a new electronic air traffic control monitoring system that tracks controller error.

The new system has revealed serious errors made by controllers have been underestimated. The new system is augmented by electronic surveillance and controller self-reportage.

Controllers made 41 high risk errors out of a total 4,394 errors last year. That is two times the errors in 2010 and three times those in 2009.

We should consider that of 132 million flights handled, 41 serious errors is a small percentage of error. Of course, it is only a good thing that the FAA is working on reducing errors.


Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/airflight/www/www/wp-content/themes/fluida/includes/loop.php on line 270

Rx for Safe Flying


Smart general aviation pilots won’t fly if they are taking a prescription that says Do not drive or operate machinery while taking this medication. But sometimes it’s not that clear cut. Other prescription drugs and even some over-the-counter medicines can affect a pilot’s performance.

That’s why Administrator Huerta and the heads of 11 aviation associations today sent a letter to all U.S.-registered pilots urging them to be more aware of the effect both prescribed medicines and non-prescription drugs containing antihistamines can have on their skills and judgment.

The letter tells pilots to read prescription labels carefully, talk with their doctors, and then decide if the drugs they’re taking could impair their performance in the cockpit. It also advises pilots to use a personal “IM SAFE” checklist to ensure they are not impaired by Illness, Medication, Stress, Alcohol, Fatigue or Emotion – any of which could affect their flying abilities. The letter counsels pilots who have recovered from an illness and have taken a medication with impairing side effects not to fly until at least five maximum dosage intervals have passed.

While the FAA works closely with many aviation advocacy groups, the letter represents an unprecedented joint effort. “In all of my years of practicing aerospace medicine, I am not aware of any time in which so many aviation organizations have collaborated to get out the same message at the same time,” said Dr. James Fraser, the FAA’s Deputy Federal Air Surgeon. “We hope this collaborative educational effort will put a dent in pilots’ usage of impairing medications and help lower the general aviation fatal accident rate.

Besides Administrator Huerta, signatories to the letter include executives from the Aircraft Electronics Association, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, Experimental Aircraft Association, American Bonanza Association, General Aviation Manufacturers Association, Helicopter Association International, National Association of Flight Instructors, National Air Transport Association, National Business Aviation Association, Society of Aviation Flight Educators and the U.S. Parachute Association.


Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/airflight/www/www/wp-content/themes/fluida/includes/loop.php on line 270

Plane Crash Investigation Reveals Cause

On April 29, we reported the National Air Cargo flight that crashed when it’s load shifted and the plane stalled. Federal investigators and Boeing experts went to Afghanistan to to assist in the investigation.

On Jun 2nd 2013, the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation of Afghanistan investigation announced officially that it was the weight of three armored vehicles and two mine sweepers 80 tons––of shifting cargo that caused the plane to crash.

The wiring in the back of the plane was cut by impact with the cargo, leaving the pilots helpless to control the plane.

There were no survivors.

As a result of the April Crash, on May 17, 2013 Boeing issued the following SAFO:


Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/airflight/www/www/wp-content/themes/fluida/includes/loop.php on line 270

International Progress on Environmental Standards


Earlier this year, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP) advanced two important goals to make air travel cleaner and quieter worldwide. As a member of CAEP, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) played a crucial role.

“Air transportation continues to grow within and amongst nations,” said FAA Administrator Michael Huerta. “These new environmental standards and procedures recognize that we can work together internationally to achieve positive advancements in making aviation as environmentally efficient as possible.”

Relating to aircraft noise, CAEP has recommended a new international standard for newly designed aircraft that would reduce noise by 7 decibels relative to the current noise standard. The new requirement would become effective in 2017 for large aircraft and in 2020 for smaller models.

To address global warming greenhouse gases produced in air travel, CAEP has agreed to new international certification procedures for aircraft relating to carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. At previous CAEP meetings, the committee had agreed on how to measure CO2. These new certification procedures now open the door for CAEP discussions on how stringent the standard should be set and whether the standard should only be applied to newly designed aircraft or some application to in-production aircraft. These discussions are expected to be completed by 2015.

Content not attributed to or linked to original, is the property of AirFlightDisaster.com; all rights reserved.

Site Credits