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

News Alert-FAA Facing Cuts

Is this alarming? The Federal Aviation Administration may be facing a billion in mandatory cuts in January.

Consequences of the cuts would result in fewer ATC, customs and security personnel.

According to Aerospace Industries Association, the cuts will “cost up to 132,000 aviation jobs.”

Sequestration Video Below

You can read or download”Economic Impact of the Budget Control Act” here (23 pages):


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: FAA Issues Cape Wind Determination

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) today issued a “Does Not Exceed (DNE)” determination for the proposed construction of 130 wind turbines in Nantucket Sound.
The FAA completed an aeronautical study and has determined that the proposed construction of the 130 wind turbines, individually and as a group, has no effect on aeronautical operations. Therefore, the FAA concludes that the project, if constructed as proposed, poses no hazard to air navigation.
The FAA makes obstruction evaluations based on safety considerations and the available solutions to mitigate potential risks.

Form 7460-1 for ASN: 2012-WTE-322-OE


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 Fact Sheet – What is the Airport Privatization Pilot Program?

The airport privatization pilot program is designed to allow airports to generate access to sources of private capital for airport improvement and development. The 1996 Reauthorization Act, Title 49 United States Code §47134, authorized the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to establish the pilot program. The 2012 Reauthorization Act increased the number of airports that could participate in the program from five to 10. The same restrictions on participation apply. Only one large hub airport can participate in the program; one of the airports must be a general aviation airport. Commercial service airports can only be leased and general aviation airports can be sold or leased. The program now permits up to 10 public airport sponsors to sell or lease an airport with certain restrictions, and to exempt the sponsor from certain federal requirements that could otherwise make privatization impractical. Most commercial service airports in the United States are owned and operated by local or state governments. Public-use general aviation airports are both publicly and privately owned.
AIRPORTS IN THE PRIVATIZATION PROGRAM
Chicago Midway Airport (MDW)

Chicago Midway Airport (MDW), a large air carrier hub airport, owned and operated by the city of Chicago, handles more than 17 million passengers and 253,000 aircraft operations (calendar year 2008). The City also owns and operates Chicago O’Hare International Airport.
Status:The FAA expects to receive a revised preliminary application including a revised timetable and a distribution ready copy of a request for qualifications or interest from the city of Chicago by December 31, 2012.
Hendry County Airglades Airport (2IS)
Airglades Airport, a general aviation reliever airport in Clewiston, Florida, is located 80 miles from Miami International Airport. The airport is owned and operated by Hendry County. The airport has a 5,603-foot runway, a general aviation terminal and hangars. Hendry County’s preliminary application was approved by the FAA on October 18, 2010.
Status:The airport sponsor is negotiating an agreement with a private operator.
Luís Muñoz Marín International Airport (SJU)
Luís Muñoz Marín International Airport, a medium-hub airport is owned and operated by the Puerto Rico Ports Authority. In 2008, the airport had 4.6 million passenger boardings. The FAA approved the Authority’s preliminary application for the Luís Muñoz Marín International Airport on December 22, 2009.
Status: The airport sponsor published a Request for Qualifications in July 2011 and prequalified six potential bidders to submit proposals. On July 19, 2012, the Puerto Rico Ports Authority selected Aerostar Airport Holdings as the winner of a public bidding process to become the private operator of the Luis Munoz Marin International Airport.
AIRPORT INFORMATION IN THE DOCKET
To review information on the airports submitted to the docket go to: www.regulations.gov.
Chicago Midway, Docket Number FAA-2006-25867
Airglades, Docket Number FAA-2008-1168
Luís Muñoz Marín International, Docket Number FAA-2009-1144
AIRPORT PRIVATIZATION FACTS
What does FAA’s acceptance of the preliminary application mean?An airport sponsor who wants to participate in the airport privatization pilot program must receive preliminary FAA approval, through an application process, to reserve one of the five slots available under the program. Once the FAA approves the preliminary application, the sponsor can select a private operator to manage the airport, negotiate an agreement with the private operator, and prepare a final application for submittal to the FAA.
Application process. A public airport sponsor and the private operator selected to purchase or lease an airport may request participation in the pilot program by filing an application for exemption under Title 49 United States Code §47134(a).
A public sponsor may submit a preliminary application for FAA review and approval. It must contain summary narratives identifying the objectives of the privatization initiative, a description of the process and a realistic timetable for completing the program, current airport financial statements, and a distribution ready copy of the request for proposal. The FAA has 30 days to review the preliminary application.
When the FAA approves the preliminary application, the applicant is guaranteed one of the five slots in the program.
The airport sponsor may select a private operator, negotiate an agreement, and submit a final application to the FAA. There is no timeline for the FAA to complete its review of the final application.
After the FAA reviews and approves the final application and lease agreement, it publishes a notice in the Federal Register for a 60-day public review and comment period.
The FAA completes its review, prepares its Findings and Record of Decision (ROD), addresses the public comments in the ROD, and publishes the agency decision.
If the FAA approves the ROD, it monitors the legal settlement and transfer of the airport from public owner and sponsor to the new private operator and sponsor.
Number and category of airports. The legislation authorizes 10 airports to participate in the program. At least one must be a general aviation airport and no more than one large hub air carrier airport may participate. Under the pilot program, general aviation airports may be leased or sold, but an air carrier airport may only be leased.
Exemption from federal requirement. The 1996 Reauthorization Act permits the FAA to exempt an airport sponsor from certain requirements that could otherwise make privatization unattractive. First, the public airport sponsor may receive an exemption to use the lease or sale proceeds for non-airport purposes. Generally, all proceeds from the lease or sale of airport land must be used for the capital or operating costs of the airport. This exemption requires the approval of 65 percent of the air carriers at the airport (by number of carriers and by landed weight). The FAA also can exempt a public sponsor from an obligation to repay federal grants and return property acquired with federal assistance upon the lease or sale of the airport.
Conditions for granting exemptions. The FAA approval is based upon a number of conditions listed in Title 49 United States Code § 47134. These include the private operator’s ability to assume the public operator’s grant obligations, and ensure continued access to the airport on reasonable terms. The private operator must operate the airport safely, maintain and improve the airport, provide security, mitigate noise and environmental impacts, and abide by existing collective bargaining agreements. The public operator must provide a plan for continued operation of the airport in case of bankruptcy of the private operator.
Federal assistance. The private operator of an air carrier airport may receive Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grants, collect Passenger Facility Charges, and charge reasonable fees. Airport rates and charges that exceed the Consumer Price Index require approval of 65 percent of air carriers. Private operators of general aviation airports can receive AIP discretionary grants.
Federal oversight. Airports in the pilot program must comply with Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 139 and with Transportation Security Administration requirements for airport security.


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

PR: New International Aircraft Emissions Standard

July 18–The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) recently took another step to make aviation “greener” when it unanimously approved a metric that will be the basis for developing the first-ever carbon dioxide standard for commercial aircraft. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) played a key role in making progress toward a new international standard.

“A core element of the Obama Administration’s plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in aviation is to support development and integration of new, more fuel-efficient technologies,” said FAA Acting Administrator Michael Huerta. “This international agreement underscores our nation’s commitment and the commitment of other countries to make aviation as environmentally efficient as possible.”

The FAA is a member of ICAO’s Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP). Recently, the CAEP was charged with developing a new standard as more scientific evidence has found that CO2 contributes significantly to global warming. A team of technical experts from the FAA, together with experts from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), worked closely with experts from other ICAO member countries to develop this new CO2 metric for aircraft. The new metric, which is based on fuel-burn performance at three different cruise conditions and accounts for different aircraft sizes, now lays the groundwork for development of an internationally agreed upon CO2 aircraft standard.

The FAA has long been a leader in making aviation as environmentally friendly as possible. At the heart of the FAA’s work in developing the Next Generation of Air Transportation system, or NextGen, is the promise of more direct routes that will reduce fuel and emissions. In addition, the FAA has been working with its academic and industry partners to develop sustainable alternative fuels, as well as more efficient aircraft engine and body designs through the Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative (CAAFI) and the agency’s Continuous Lower Energy, and Emissions and Noise (CLEEN) programs.


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

PR: FAA Proposes $13.57 Million Civil Penality Against Boeing

SEATTLE – The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has proposed a civil penalty of $13.57 million against The Boeing Company for failing to meet a deadline to submit service instructions that would enable airlines to further reduce the risk of fuel tank explosions on more than 380 Boeing jetliners.

“We are committed to ensuring the safety of the flying public,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. “Manufacturers must provide the necessary instructions so the airlines can comply with this important safety regulation.”

“We take this matter very seriously,” said Acting FAA Administrator Michael Huerta. “We have issued hundreds of directives to eliminate fuel ignition sources over the past 16 years, and this step will add another layer of safety.”

Following the TWA 800 accident in July 1996, the FAA has issued 283 directives to prevent the ignition of vapors in and around commercial aircraft fuel tanks. On July 21, 2008, the FAA published the Fuel Tank Flammability Rule, which required manufacturers to develop design changes and service instructions for installing systems to further reduce fuel tank flammability.

The rule gave the two companies that design affected aircraft until Dec. 27, 2010, to submit service instructions for FAA approval. The FAA alleges that in January 2010, Boeing committed to provide the instructions by the deadline. The instructions were to explain how to install systems that would replace the oxygen in airplane fuel tanks with non-flammable nitrogen gas, reducing the risk of explosion.

Boeing missed the deadline for submitting service instructions for the 747s by 301 days, delivering them to the FAA on Oct. 24, 2011. The company was 406 days late in submitting service instructions for the 757s. In total, 383 U.S.-registered Boeing aircraft are affected by these delays.

Airbus, the other manufacturer required to develop instructions for retrofitting certain models of its airplanes, met the Dec. 27, 2010, deadline.

The Fuel Tank Flammability Rule requires airlines to retrofit half of its fleet by 2014, and complete the retrofit by 2017. An airline trade group has proposed an extension of those two dates because of the service instruction delay for certain Boeing aircraft.

The FAA expects that most, if not all, operators will meet both the 2014 and 2017 deadlines, even if they received service instructions later than anticipated. The FAA has advised the trade group that the agency is not considering any extensions to the 2017 deadline for completing the fleet retrofit. However, the agency will consider extending the 2014 deadline if necessary, based on the specific circumstances for a particular operator.

The total amount of the proposed civil penalty against Boeing is $13,574,400.


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

PR: FAA Proposes $185,750 Civil Penalty Against Kingfisher Air

ATLANTA – The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is proposing a civil penalty of $185,750 against Kingfisher Air Services Air Safari, Inc., of San Juan, P.R., for allegedly operating a Cessna 208B on 44 flights between June 2 and June 11, 2010, when it was not in compliance with Federal Aviation Regulations.

The FAA alleges that three pilots reported that the aircraft’s engine temperature exceeded the take-off limits before the carrier took the required maintenance action and had the engine repaired. The engine maintenance manual requires the operator to send the engine to an overhaul facility for a light overhaul when such problems are reported. The carrier failed to send the engine for overhaul after the first and second pilot reports.


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

PR: FAA Proposes $987,500 in Civil Penalties Against Delta Air Lines

ATLANTA – The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is proposing two civil penalties totaling $987,500 against Delta Air Lines of Atlanta, for allegedly operating an Airbus A320 and a Boeing 737-800 on flights when they were not in compliance with Federal Aviation Regulations.

In the first case, the FAA alleges Delta failed to repair a chip in the nose radome, or nose cone, on the B-737 after an FAA inspector conducted a pre-flight inspection and informed Delta he had observed chip damage. Delta’s structural repair manual requires the airline to seal radome chip damage before further flight. The enroute inspection took place Feb. 25, 2010, and the airline operated the plane on 20 additional flights between that date and March 1 while the aircraft was not in compliance.

The FAA further alleges Delta again failed to repair the radome during layover inspections of the aircraft on Feb. 25 and 28. The proposed civil penalty is $687,500.

“Safety is our highest priority,” said FAA Acting Administrator Michael Huerta. “Operators must follow the proper procedures to maintain their aircraft.”

The FAA also proposes a civil penalty of $300,000 against Delta for allegedly operating an Airbus A320 on 884 flights between May 25, 2010 and Jan. 3, 2011, when it was not in compliance with FAA regulations.

The FAA alleges the carrier incorrectly deferred repair of a broken cockpit floodlight socket at the first officer’s position. Maintenance procedures allow the airline to defer repairs on a dome light for no more than 10 days before repairing or replacing it. The FAA discovered the alleged violation during a routine inspection.


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

PR: FAA Proposal of $206,550 Penalty Against Martinaire Aviation

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is proposing a $206,550 civil penalty against Martinaire Aviation, of Addison, Texas, for violating U.S. Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials Regulations.

The FAA conducted a comprehensive hazardous materials inspection at the company’s headquarters on July 8, 2011. As a result of that inspection, the FAA alleges the airline routinely failed to complete documents properly and comply with the requirements for notifying pilots in command about hazardous materials transported as cargo.

The allegations involve 17 shipments of hazardous materials Martinaire accepted for transportation by air on 12 flights between April 1 and June 22, 2011. Martinaire is a scheduled air cargo and cargo charter company. The flights operated between various cities across the country.

Martinaire has 30 days from the receipt of the FAA’s enforcement letter to respond to the Agency.


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

Engineered Material Arresting System Fact Sheet

Background

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires that commercial service airports, regulated under Part 139 safety rules and federally obligated, have a standard Runway Safety Area (RSA) where possible. The RSA is typically 500 feet wide and extends 1,000 feet beyond each end of the runway. The FAA has this requirement in the event that an aircraft overruns, undershoots, or veers off the side of the runway. Many airports were built before the 1,000-foot RSA length was adopted some 20 years ago, and it is not practicable to achieve the full standard RSA. This is due to obstacles such as bodies of water, highways, railroads, and populated areas or severe drop-off of terrain.

The FAA began conducting research in the 1990s to determine how to ensure maximum safety at airports where the full RSA cannot be obtained. Working in concert with the University of Dayton, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, and the Engineered Arresting Systems Corporation (ESCO) of Logan Township, NJ, a new technology emerged to safely arrest overrunning aircraft. EMAS uses crushable concrete placed at the end of a runway to stop an aircraft that overruns the runway. The tires of the aircraft sink into the lightweight concrete and the aircraft is decelerated as it rolls through the material.

Benefits of the EMAS Technology

The EMAS technology improves safety benefits in cases where land is not available, or not possible to have the standard 1,000-foot overrun. A standard EMAS installation extends 600 feet from the end of the runway. An EMAS arrestor bed can be installed to help slow or stop an aircraft that overruns the runway, even if less than 600 feet of land is available.

Current FAA Initiatives

The Office of Airports prepared an RSA improvement plan for the runways at approximately 575 commercial airports in 2005. This plan allows the agency to track the progress and to direct federal funds for making all practicable improvements, including the use of EMAS technology. Of the approximately 1,000 RSAs at these airports, an estimated 65 percent have been improved to full standards, and an estimated 90 percent have been improved to the extent practicable, not including the relocation of FAA-owned navigational equipment.

Presently, the EMAS system developed by ESCO using crushable concrete is the only system that meets the FAA standard. The FAA has conducted research through the Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) that examined a number of alternatives to the existing approved system. ACRP Report 29, Developing Improved Civil Aircraft Arresting Systems, is available at the Transportation Research Board.

Many of the EMAS beds installed prior to 2006 need periodic re-painting to maintain the integrity and functionality of the bed. The EMAS manufacturer has developed improved plastic seal coating for EMAS beds. This new coasting should eliminate the need for the periodic re-painting.

EMAS Arrestments

To date, there have been eight incidents where EMAS has safely stopped overrunning aircraft with a total of 235 crew and passengers aboard those flights.


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

Wyoming 757 RUNWAY EXCURSION Due to Mechanical Defects and Flawed Monitoring Procedure

Mechanical defects that prevented the automatic deployment of speedbrakes, which assist in slowing the plane after landing, and the captain’s failure to monitor and manually deploy them led to an overrun of a passenger jetliner off of a snowy runway in Wyoming. The incident was compounded by an anomaly with the thrust reversers.

On December 29, 2010, at about 11:38 a.m. MST, American Airlines flight 2253, a Boeing 757-200, ran off the departure end of runway 19 during light snow after landing at Wyoming’s Jackson Hole Airport (JAC). The airplane came to rest about 730 feet past the departure end of the runway in deep snow. None of the 179 passengers and six crewmembers were injured; the airplane sustained minor damage. The flight originated from Chicago O’Hare Airport.

“Through this investigation, all of us — the investigator, manufacturer, operator, and pilots, alike — all learned important safety lessons,” Hersman said. “The recommendations we issue today will make valuable contributions to improving aviation safety.”

The investigation found that the pilots, both of whom had flown into JAC on numerous occasions, were familiar with the challenging wintertime landing conditions there and had made thorough preparations for the approach and landing during what they described as an otherwise uneventful flight from Chicago.

The approach to the runway was normal and the airplane touched down about 600 feet beyond the approach threshold. The speedbrakes, which disrupt the airflow over the wings and greatly increase the wheel braking effectiveness, did not automatically deploy as designed. The CVR transcript showed that the captain, acting as the monitoring pilot, failed to identify the non-deployment and erroneously stated “deployed” shortly after touchdown. Immediately after this, the first officer, who was the pilot flying, tried to deploy the thrust reversers; when they did not initially deploy, the captain took over the thrust reverser controls and they deployed about 18 seconds after touchdown. Subsequently, the airplane continued off the departure end of the runway, coming to a stop in deep snow off the end of the paved surface.

American Airlines training and procedures require the pilot monitoring (in this case, the captain) to observe and call out the position of the speedbrake lever after landing; if the speedbrakes do not deploy automatically, the captain is to manually deploy them. Although the pilots could have manually deployed the speedbrakes at any time during the landing roll, neither pilot recognized that the speedbrakes had not automatically deployed because they were both trying to resolve the thrust reverser issue.

The landing performance analysis showed that under similar runway conditions, even without thrust reverser deployment, the airplane would have stopped about 4500 feet down the 6300-foot runway had the speedbrakes been promptly deployed.

The investigation revealed that the speedbrakes did not automatically deploy because of a latent assembly defect in one of the speedbrakes mechanisms. In addition, the NTSB determined that the thrust reversers did not initially deploy because of a rare mechanical/hydraulic interaction that occurred in the thrust reverser system as a result of an unloading event at the precise instant that the first officer commanded their deployment immediately after touchdown.

As a result of the investigation, the NTSB made the following new safety recommendations to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA): require that all transport category air carriers develop and incorporate training to address recognition of a situation in which the speedbrakes do not deploy as expected after landing; require all newly type-certificated air transport category airplanes to have an aural, or otherwise unique, alert that warns pilots that the speedbrakes have not deployed during the landing roll; and require Boeing to establish guidance for pilots of all relevant airplanes to follow when an unintended thrust reverser lockout occurs and to provide that guidance to all operators of those airplanes.


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

PR: FAA Proposes $395,850 Civil Penalty Against US Airways

NEW YORK—The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is proposing a $395,850 civil penalty against US Airways Inc., of Tempe, Ariz., for allegedly violating U.S. Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials Regulations.

The FAA conducted a periodic dangerous goods inspection of US Airways’ facilities at Hartford’s Bradley International Airport (BDL), May 10-18, 2010. As a result of the inspection, the FAA alleges the airline committed various violations between Feb. 26 and May 12, 2010. The alleged violations involve 12 flights to or from BDL.

In one instance, the Transportation Security Administration discovered, while inspecting passenger checked baggage, that US Airways had accepted an undeclared shipment containing ten disposable cigarette lighters filled with flammable gas. The FAA alleged the airline failed to notify the FAA of this discrepancy.

In another instance, US Airways offered an improperly packaged shipment containing wet cell batteries filled with alkali, a corrosive, for transportation by air on a US Airways passenger-carrying flight.

The FAA also alleged the airline failed to provide pilots with the required "accurate and legible written information" regarding 23 shipments of hazardous materials it accepted for transportation by air.

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


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

PR: Enforcement of Laser Penalties

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has directed its investigators and staff to pursue stiffer penalties for individuals who purposefully point laser devices at aircraft.

“Shining a laser at an airplane is not a laughing matter. It’s dangerous for both pilots and passengers, and we will not tolerate it,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. “We will pursue the toughest penalties against anyone caught putting the safety of the flying public at risk.”

The number of reported laser incidents nationwide rose from 2,836 in 2010, to 3,592 in 2011. Laser incident reports have increased steadily since the FAA created a formal reporting system in 2005 to collect information from pilots.

The FAA supports the Department of Justice in its efforts to seek stern punishment for anyone who intentionally points a laser device into the cockpit of an aircraft.

“We will continue to fine people who do this, and we applaud our colleagues at the Justice Department who have aggressively prosecuted laser incidents under a new law that makes this a specific federal crime,” said FAA Acting Administrator Michael Huerta.

The FAA has initiated enforcement action against 28 people charged with aiming a laser device at an aircraft since June 2011, and this week the agency directed FAA investigators and attorneys to pursue the stiffest possible sanctions for deliberate violations. The FAA has opened investigations in dozens of additional cases.

The FAA announced last June it would begin to impose civil penalties against individuals who point a laser device at an aircraft. The maximum penalty for one laser strike is $11,000, and the FAA has proposed civil penalties against individuals for multiple laser incidents, with $30,800 the highest penalty proposed to date. In many of these cases, pilots have reported temporary blindness or had to take evasive measures to avoid the intense laser light.

The guidance for FAA investigators and attorneys indicates laser violations should not be addressed through warning notices or counseling. It also directs moderately high civil penalties for inadvertent violations, but maximum penalties for deliberate violations. Violators who are pilots or mechanics face revocation of their FAA certificates, as well as civil penalties.

Local, state and federal prosecutors also have sentenced laser violators to jail time, community service, probation and additional financial penalties for court costs and restitution.


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

PR: FAA Partners with Aviation Community and Safety Advocates to Raise Awareness on Child Safety

WASHINGTON – As part of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s National Transportation Week and to kick off the summer travel season, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) today launched an education effort to help parents and caregivers make informed choices about their child’s safety when they fly.

“Millions of people will take to the skies this summer, and we are doing everything we can to keep air travelers as safe as possible,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. “We want to make sure parents and caregivers have the best information to keep their children safe when they travel.”

“It’s important to remind everyone that the safest place for a small child on an airplane is in an approved child safety seat, not on an adult’s lap,” said Acting FAA Administrator Michael Huerta.

The FAA has developed a new web site and online information toolkit with information about how to keep children safe when traveling by air. The site includes a downloadable tip sheet for parents and caregivers and a video demonstration on how to properly install a child safety seat on an airplane. The website also includes helpful details about FAA-approved child harness devices, and links to frequently asked questions.

The FAA is working with Airlines for America, the Association of Flight Attendants, Consumers Union, and the American Academy of Pediatrics to share this safety information with parents and caregivers.

According to Consumers Union, “For years Consumer Reports has advocated that all passengers should be properly restrained onboard commercial aircraft, including children under 2. We support the Department of Transportation’s educational efforts, so that parents and caregivers can make informed decisions about using child restraint systems when flying. Consumer Reports also urges the airline industry to support these efforts by providing transparent information on child restraint system policies and compatibility.”

When purchasing airline tickets, parents and caregivers should contact the air carrier to see if there are any discounts available for children since buying a ticket for a child is the only way to guarantee that a child safety seat can be used during flight.

"The top priority of America’s airlines is the safety of our passengers and crew, and we are pleased to be a part of the important FAA educational awareness campaign, encouraging parents to help keep our smallest passengers safe with approved child safety seats," said Airlines for America President and CEO Nicholas E. Calio.

Before flying, parents and caregivers should check to make sure that their child restraint system is approved for use on an aircraft. This approval should be printed on the system’s information label or on the device itself.

“As first responders in the cabin, a Flight Attendant’s foremost responsibility is to help ensure the safety and security of all passengers. Children should have the same protection adults have in the airplane cabin and by using an approved child restraint device, even our most vulnerable passengers will have much-needed protection in the event of an emergency,” said Association of Flight Attendants International President Veda Shook.

The FAA recommends that a child weighing less than 20 pounds use a rear-facing child restraint system. A forward facing child safety seat should be used for children weighing between 20 and 40 pounds. The FAA has also approved one harness-type device for children weighing between 22 to 44 pounds.

"The AAP strongly recommends that children should always ride properly restrained on every trip, on the ground and in the air. For this reason, we are pleased to support the FAA’s efforts to educate parents on safe airplane travel,” said Robert W. Block, MD, FAAP, president, American Academy of Pediatrics. “The safest place for a child under two on an airplane is in a child safety seat, not on a parent’s lap. Whenever possible, parents should travel with a safety seat for use before, during and after a plane ride.”

In December 2010, a group of aviation stakeholders known as the Future of Aviation Advisory Committee (FAAC) delivered 23 recommendations to the Secretary and FAA Administrator on workforce development, competition and viability, financing of aviation systems, environmental concerns, and safety. Based on some of those recommendations, the FAA is stepping up efforts to educate parents about the importance of using a child restraint for air travel.

Today’s announcement is just one way the Department of Transportation is celebrating National Transportation Week (May 14th–20th). Over the next seven days, the Department is highlighting its commitment to ensuring the safety of America’s transportation systems this week and all 52 weeks of the year. Investment in our nation’s infrastructure is critical for maintaining and improving safety. Through TIGER grants, discretionary funds and other programs, DOT is working to enhance, expand and modernize American infrastructure, but Congress needs to act. A bipartisan long-term transportation bill is necessary to move our country into the future.


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

PR: FAA Taps ITT Corp. and GE’s Naverus to Develop NextGen

WASHINGTON – The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is awarding a contract to ITT Exelis and GE’s Naverus to help accelerate the development of satellite-based procedures that will allow aircraft to fly more directly to their destinations.

“NextGen will help deliver an environmentally friendly, more efficient traveling experience for the flying public,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.

Under the $2.77 million contract, ITT Exelis, the prime contractor, and GE’s Naverus, the sub-contractor, will develop Required Navigation Performance (RNP) approach procedures into five airports: Ted Stevens Anchorage International, James M. Cox Dayton International, Charles B. Wheeler Downtown Airport (Kansas City), General Mitchell International (Milwaukee) and Syracuse Hancock International. ITT Exelis and GE’s Naverus will be responsible for designing, implementing and maintaining a total of 10 procedures – two for each airport. The FAA will closely monitor the work to make sure all safety and environmental steps are conducted properly. This effort will supplement the FAA’s work to develop RNP procedures for airports across the country. The FAA has developed 305 RNP procedures.

“If you imagine highways in the sky, then these are high-speed off ramps,” said Acting FAA Administrator Michael Huerta. “Aircraft using RNP approaches make a more direct and efficient approach into the airport, also decreasing fuel burn.”

The FAA awarded the contract to ITT Exelis and GE’s Naverus through a competitive process under the System Engineering 2020 contract, a portfolio of work designed to help the agency roll out NextGen. Fiscal year 2012 appropriations included funding for a contractor to develop and deliver NextGen procedures, and the FAA reauthorization bill called for the agency to demonstrate the ability of a contractor to design, implement and maintain these procedures.

$445,125 Civil Penalty Against Horizon Air

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is proposing a $445,125 civil penalty against Horizon Air of Seattle for allegedly operating a Bombardier Dash-8-400 aircraft on 45 flights when it was not in compliance with Federal Aviation Regulations. The FAA alleges Horizon failed to comply with an airworthiness directive (AD) that required the airline to inspect for cracked or corroded engine nacelle fittings on its Dash-8-400 aircraft. The AD, with an effective date of March 17, 2011, ordered inspections of the nacelles every 300 operating hours, and repairs as needed.Between March 17 and 23, 2011, Horizon operated the aircraft on at least 45 revenue passenger flights when it had accumulated more than 300 hours of flight time since its last inspection.
Horizon has 30 days from the receipt of the FAA’s enforcement letter to respond to the agency.

$210,000 Civil Penalty Against Alaska Airlines

The Federal Aviation Administration is proposing a civil penalty of $210,000 against Alaska Airlines of Seattle for allegedly failing to properly document and tag deactivated systems and equipment before making repairs.
The FAA alleged that on 10 occasions between June 19, 2010, and January 13, 2011, Alaska performed maintenance on six of its Boeing 737 airplanes but failed to comply with the required alternative deactivation procedures. Specifically, the airline allegedly failed to document the alternative actions it took, and failed to install the appropriate danger tag. These requirements are safety measures designed to reduce hazards to technicians during maintenance and to prevent potential damage to the aircraft and onboard systems. Alaska Airlines has 30 days from receipt of the civil penalty letter to respond to the agency.


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 Asks for Public Input on UAS Test Site

WASHINGTON– The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) today asked for public input on the agency’s selection process for six unmanned aircraft system (UAS) test sites. Once the pilot program is established, the agency expects it will provide valuable data to help the FAA safely and efficiently integrate UAS into the same airspace with manned airplanes.

“Unmanned aircraft can help us meet a number of challenges, from spotting wildfires to assessing natural disasters,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. “But these test sites will help us ensure that our high safety standards are maintained as the use of these aircraft becomes more widespread.”

Through the National Defense Authorization Act and the 2012 FAA Reauthorization bill, Congress mandated that the FAA establish UAS test sites. In order to ensure that all factors are taken into consideration when choosing the six sites, the FAA has asked for comments from the UAS user community and the public at large. Specifically, the request for comment asks for input on several important questions, such as public versus private management of the sites, research activities and capabilities of the test areas, the requirements for test site operators, and the geographic and climate factors that should influence site selection.

The feedback obtained through this transparent process will help the FAA develop UAS test site requirements, designation standards and oversight activity. This will help the FAA design the process and criteria prior to issuing a request for proposals to select UAS test areas that will allow integration of these innovative aircraft into the National Airspace System by 2015. The FAA will accept comments for the next 60 days.

“The FAA has a proven track record of safely introducing new technology and aircraft into the NAS, and I am confident we will successfully meet the challenges posed by UAS technology,” said FAA Acting Administrator Michael Huerta.
The UAS pilot program mandates the FAA select six test sites to do the following:
Safely designate airspace for integrated manned and unmanned flight operations in the national airspace system

  • Develop certification standards and air traffic requirements for unmanned flight operations at test ranges
  • Coordinate with and leverage the resources of the NASA and the Department of Defense
  • Address both civil and public unmanned aircraft systems
  • Ensure that the program is coordinated with the Next Generation Air Transportation System
  • Ensure the safety of unmanned aircraft systems and related navigation procedures before they are integrated into the national airspace system.

As part of the process, the FAA will consult with the Defense Department and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), which already operate their own test ranges. The Defense and FAA reauthorizations do not provide any funding for these test sites.

Since 2005, the FAA has completed more than 50 research studies on UAS. The agency has access to hands-on experience with the various types of UAS and has partnerships with other government agencies, industry, and academia.

The FAA is working toward publication of a proposed rule on small UAS this year. The agency also has convened an Aviation Rulemaking Committee that includes a number of aviation and industry experts studying a wide range of UAS integration issues.

The request for comments, including instructions for filing comments, will be published in the Federal Register on Friday, March 9.


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 Funding Goes to the Senate

The FAA has been funded by 23 short-term funding extensions in the last eight years. Today the Senate is expected to vote on long term FAA funding. (Friday, legislation funding the FAA till 2015 passed the House of Representatives).

A labor compromise stuck in the bill says that no less than 50 percent of airline workers must favor a vote on unionization before that vote can take place. Essentially it repeals a National Mediation Board ruling that absentee votes in union elections are not counted as votes against forming a union.

The House bill cut FAA funding to FY 2008 levels. The compromise bill keeps funding at FY 2011 levels.

No one is saying the bill is perfect, but the extensions are expensive.


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 Fatigue

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Acting Administrator Michael Huerta today announced a sweeping final rule that overhauls commercial passenger airline pilot scheduling to ensure pilots have a longer opportunity for rest before they enter the cockpit.

“This is a major safety achievement,” said Secretary LaHood. “We made a promise to the traveling public that we would do everything possible to make sure pilots are rested when they get in the cockpit. This new rule raises the safety bar to prevent fatigue.”
“Every pilot has a personal responsibility to arrive at work fit for duty. This new rule gives pilots enough time to get the rest they really need to safely get passengers to their destinations,” said FAA Acting Administrator Huerta.

The Department of Transportation identified the issue of pilot fatigue as a top priority during a 2009 airline Safety Call to Action following the crash of Colgan Air flight 3407. The FAA launched an aggressive effort to take advantage of the latest research on fatigue to create a new pilot flight, duty and rest proposal, which the agency issued on September 10, 2010.

Key components of this final rule for commercial passenger flights include:
Varying flight and duty requirements based on what time the pilot’s day begins. The new rule incorporates the latest fatigue science to set different requirements for pilot flight time, duty period and rest based on the time of day pilots begin their first flight, the number of scheduled flight segments and the number of time zones they cross. The previous rules included different rest requirements for domestic, international and unscheduled flights. Those differences were not necessarily consistent across different types of passenger flights, and did not take into account factors such as start time and time zone crossings.

Flight duty period. The allowable length of a flight duty period depends on when the pilot’s day begins and the number of flight segments he or she is expected to fly, and ranges from 9-14 hours for single crew operations. The flight duty period begins when a flightcrew member is required to report for duty, with the intention of conducting a flight and ends when the aircraft is parked after the last flight. It includes the period of time before a flight or between flights that a pilot is working without an intervening rest period. Flight duty includes deadhead transportation, training in an aircraft or flight simulator, and airport standby or reserve duty if these tasks occur before a flight or between flights without an intervening required rest period.
Flight time limits of eight or nine hours. The FAA limits flight time – when the plane is moving under its own power before, during or after flight – to eight or nine hours depending on the start time of the pilot’s entire flight duty period.

10-hour minimum rest period.The rule sets a 10-hour minimum rest period prior to the flight duty period, a two-hour increase over the old rules. The new rule also mandates that a pilot must have an opportunity for eight hours of uninterrupted sleep within the 10-hour rest period.

New cumulative flight duty and flight time limits.The new rule addresses potential cumulative fatigue by placing weekly and 28-day limits on the amount of time a pilot may be assigned any type of flight duty. The rule also places 28-day and annual limits on actual flight time. It also requires that pilots have at least 30 consecutive hours free from duty on a weekly basis, a 25 percent increase over the old rules.
Fitness for duty. The FAA expects pilots and airlines to take joint responsibility when considering if a pilot is fit for duty, including fatigue resulting from pre-duty activities such as commuting. At the beginning of each flight segment, a pilot is required to affirmatively state his or her fitness for duty. If a pilot reports he or she is fatigued and unfit for duty, the airline must remove that pilot from duty immediately.

Fatigue Risk Management System. An airline may develop an alternative way of mitigating fatigue based on science and using data that must be validated by the FAA and continuously monitored.

In 2010, Congress mandated a Fatigue Risk Management Plan (FRMP) for all airlines and they have developed these plans based on FAA guidance materials. An FRMP provides education for pilots and airlines to help address the effects of fatigue which can be caused by overwork, commuting, or other activities. Airlines will be required to train pilots about the potential effects of commuting.
Required training updates every two years will include fatigue mitigation measures, sleep fundamentals and the impact to a pilot’s performance. The training will also address how fatigue is influenced by lifestyle – including nutrition, exercise, and family life – as well as by sleep disorders and the impact of commuting.
The estimated cost of this rule to the aviation industry is $297 million but the benefits are estimated between $247- $470 million. Covering cargo operators under the new rule would be too costly compared to the benefits generated in this portion of the industry. Some cargo airlines already have improved rest facilities for pilots to use while cargo is loaded and unloaded during night time operations. The FAA encourages cargo operators to opt into the new rule voluntarily, which would require them to comply with all of its provisions.

The final rule has been sent to the Federal Register for display and publication. It is currently available

at:http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/recently_published/media/2120-AJ58-FinalRule.pdf, and will take effect in two years to allow commercial passenger airline operators time to transition.

A fact sheet with additional information is at http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/.


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

American Eagle Airlines Fined $900,000 for Tarmac Delay

For violating the three hours limit for tarmac delays, American Eagle Airlines has been fined $900,000.

On May 29, American Eagle has became the first airline to earn the fine by leaving 608 passengers on the Chicago O’Hare International Airport for 225 minutes. Passengers were not provided the ability to deplane. Jet Blue which left 100 passengers on board for seven hours may be next in line for the fine.


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

Diversion forum

Press Release:

In preparation for the upcoming winter storm season, U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt are convening a Forum on Wednesday, November 30 to find better ways to manage aircraft diversions. Participants in the forum will review a series of proposed steps to improve travel for passengers who are diverted from their destination because of bad weather.

“During severe weather situations, we want to do everything we can to make sure passengers are flown to airports that are ready and prepared and where passengers can get off the plane quickly,” said Secretary LaHood.

The forum will take place in Department of Transportation headquarters in Washington, D.C. and will include air traffic controllers, pilots, aircraft dispatchers, airport operators, and officials from other government agencies and the aviation community.

The participants will discuss all of the factors that influence diversion decisions and airport capacity in bad weather situations, including the status of navigation equipment, aircraft parking and gate availability, Customs capacity, refueling and de-icing assets, jetway and air stair access and general ramp operations and security.

“We can’t control the weather, but we can improve the way diversions are handled,” said FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt.

The FAA is asking forum participants to bring ideas and best practices to the discussion. The FAA is proposing a new, web-based airport status tool that would present real-time information about each airport during a severe weather event to help airlines make fully informed decisions about where to divert. The FAA is also proposing including more airports in daily strategic planning conference calls during severe weather events to improve the information flow about which airports can accommodate diversions and would encourage airport contingency plans.


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

Wildlife Outreach by FAA

The FAA recently launched a wildlife poster outreach campaign for the general aviation (GA) community — pilots, airport sponsors, mechanics, engine manufacturers, students at aviation schools, and aviation organizations — to increase wildlife strike reporting among this important segment of aviation. For the last 50 years, the FAA has worked to reduce wildlife strikes at airports and periodically conducts studies to gauge the effectiveness of its program. The latest study shows that the general aviation population accounts for only six percent of the total strikes reported, which is more than 100,000 reports. Through increased and concentrated educational outreach, the FAA hopes to close the reporting gap between the more than 2,000 GA airports and certificated airports that operate with an increased level of safety and oversight.
This year’s poster “Report Wildlife Strikes” depicts a caution sign with a bird inside and the simple message to report wildlife strikes. Copies of the poster have been delivered to the general aviation community and are designed to be placed in highly-used areas such as training rooms and break rooms.
The FAA wants to hear from airport sponsors why reporting is low and encourage them to work with the FAA to increase reporting and reduce wildlife strikes. The strike information will tell the airport sponsors and the FAA what types of wildlife are involved, the amount of damage to the aircraft, and how many strikes occur at general aviation airports annually. This information will allow the FAA to help airport sponsors develop wildlife mitigation plans to reduce wildlife strikes.
In addition to the poster outreach, the FAA encourages GA airports to conduct a wildlife hazard assessment to help airport sponsors understand and determine the wildlife hazards on their airports. The FAA may support GA airports by making Airport Improvement Program grants available to conduct an assessment.

The Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Wildlife Hazard Mitigation Program

Background
The FAA’s wildlife hazardmanagement program has been in place for more than 50 years and focuses on mitigating wildlife hazards on or near airports through habitat modification, harassment technology, and research.
FAA Wildlife Hazard Mitigation Efforts
The FAA has a number of initiatives underway.
Wildlife Strike Awareness Posters
Toencourage and increase wildlife strike reporting in the general aviation (GA) community, the FAA’s Office of Airports developed a “Report Wildlife Strikes” awareness poster 2011. As part of the outreach effort, the FAA printed and distributed approximately 12,000 posters to general aviation airports, aviation schools, other organizations and associations, and Part 139 certificated airports that receive an operating certificate from the FAA because they operate with an increased level of oversight and safety.
Wildlife Hazards at General Aviation Airports
As an additional part of the outreach effort, the Office of Airports encourages GA airports to conduct Wildlife Hazard Assessments to determine what, if any, wildlife mitigation is needed. The FAA may support GA airports by making Airport Improvement Program grants available to conduct an assessment.
Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) Reports
The FAA provided funding and expertise for two Airport Cooperative Research Program reports, Bird Harassment, Repellent, and Deterrent Techniques for Use on and Near Airports (2011) and Guidebook for Addressing Aircraft/Wildlife Hazards at General Aviation Airports (2010). The reports are available on http://wildlife.faa.gov.
National Wildlife Strike Database Goes Public
On April 24, 2009, the FAA made its entire bird strike database available to the public. Over the last three years the FAA has received, 27,979 strike reports – 10,735 in 2009; 10,890 in 2010; and 6,354 through August 2011.
Wildlife Hazard Assessments
The FAA initiated rulemaking in June 2009 to make assessments mandatory whether or not an airport has had a triggering event. The FAA will publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking later this year for certificated airports.
Level of Reporting and Mandatory Reporting
Dr. Richard Dolbeer, wildlife hazard mitigation expert and former USDA National Coordinator for the Airport Wildlife Hazards Program, conducted a study on behalf of the FAA and issued a report in December 2009 that estimated that the number of reported strikes has increased from 20 percent during the period from 1990-1994 to 39 percent from 2004-2008 at certificated airports. Although the number of reports has increased, the number of damaging strikes has not. Dolbeer attributed this to the implementation of professionally-run wildlife hazard programs. Dolbeer determined the current level of reporting (39 percent) is statistically valid and is sufficient for the FAA to develop national trends and mitigation policies, making mandatory reporting unnecessary. However, Dolbeer noted that there is a reporting gap among GA airports. The FAA is working with the GA community, through educational outreach, to emphasize the importance of reporting strikes and to close the reporting gap.
Redesigned Web Site
The FAA redesigned the wildlife hazard web site to make it more user-friendly and to allow more advanced data mining. The site, http://wildlife.faa.gov, has search fields that enable users to find data on specific airports.
Online Strike Reporting
The FAA developed mobile application software to make strike reporting easier. The FAA also placed a Quick Response (QR) code scanner on the bottom of the 2011 “Report Wildlife Strikes” for smart phone users who have the QR application. Now, anyone can report a wildlife strike via the web or their personal data device.
Continuing Wildlife Hazard Efforts
Avian or Bird Radar Technology

In 2006, the FAA tasked the Center of Excellence for Airport Technology (CEAT) at the University of Illinois to develop and execute a performance assessment for commercially available avian radar. The FAA deployed the initial avian radar systems at Seattle-Tacoma and Whidbey Island Naval Station in 2007, Chicago O’Hare in 2009, and John F. Kennedy and Dallas-Fort Worth in 2010. The performance assessments will continue at these airports over the next two years. A new research effort will begin at the end of 2011 to examine the feasibility and practicality of pilots and air traffic controllers using bird radar data. The FAA published Advisory Circular 150/5220-25 Airport Avian Radar Systems in November 2010 as a performance specification that airports can use to competitively purchase bird radar systems.
FAA-Smithsonian Interagency Agreement
The Smithsonian identifies the bird species from remains after a strike. Bird identification helps airfield personnel implement habitat management programs and provides information so aircraft manufacturers can better design engines and aircraft to withstand the impact of likely bird collisions. The FAA provides financial support to the Smithsonian to identify bird remains from civil aviation bird strikes as a free-of-charge service to any U.S. registered aircraft, regardless of where the strike occurred, and foreign carriers if the strike occurred at a U.S. airport.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
The FAA and the USDA collaborate on research to make airports safer by reducing the risks of aircraft-wildlife collisions. The research efforts include:
Methods for making airport habitats less attractive to species that are the most dangerous in terms of aircraft collisions.
Technologies for harassing and deterring hazardous species.
Ongoing research projects include the compatibility of growing biofuel crops on airport property, assessing the movement behavior of large birds using satellite telemetry, studying the response of geese to approaching objects, and reviewing deterrent technology such as loud acoustical devices to deter birds.
FAA Partnerships and Outreach
Bird Strike Committee USA

The FAA co-sponsors the Bird Strike Committee-USA as part of its continued public outreach and education effort to increase awareness within the aviation community about wildlife hazards.


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

Non-Compliance Results in FAA Fines

$160,000 in penalties may be levied against SkyWest Airlines.

Four passenger flights failed to follow cargo and baggage documentation procedures, resulting in weight, balance, cargo and baggage load data errors.

Four flights went out without a load manifest that accurately reflected the weight of the cargo and baggage, when the total weight of the aircraft was not computed under approved procedures, and when the aircraft were not loaded according to an approved load schedule.

SkyWest has paid civil penalties in eight similar previous cases.


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

$2 Million Environmental Grant from FAA

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has awarded a $2 million grant to San Diego International Airport to reduce the use of conventional fuels at the airport to improve air quality.

The grant through the FAA’s Voluntary Airport Low Emission (VALE) program is part of a major airport improvement project at San DiegoInternational Airport called “The Green Build.” The grant will enable the airport to install a land-side power unit and pre-conditioned air unit at each of 10 new aircraft gates, as well as seven air units at existing gates. The units will allow aircraft arriving at the gates to shut off their auxiliary power units and connect to a cleaner central heating and cooling system, saving fuel and reducing aircraft emissions on the ground.

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

Site Credits