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

Dassault Reaches Milestone With 100th Falcon 7X Delivery

LITTLE ROCK, Arkansas, — Dassault yesterday delivered the 100th Falcon 7X during a ceremony at its completion center in Little Rock, Arkansas. The aircraft was delivered to a Brazilian financial services company.

“We promised to design and build the most technically advanced and best flying aircraft in the industry and we’ve already achieved that 100 times,” said John Rosanvallon, President and CEO of Dassault Falcon. “During that time, feedback from pilots and passengers alike has been very positive. Pilots said they appreciate, in particular, the digital flight control system which makes the Falcon 7X so responsive and easy to maneuver. The superb cabin environment is praised by passengers for its smooth flying comfort and quietness.

To date, the 5,950 nm Falcon 7X fleet has accumulated more than 57,000 flight hours, operating in over 25 countries with orders coming from more than 40 countries. The fleet leader has logged more than 3,000 flight hours since its delivery mid 2007. “The high usage rate (higher than other Falcons) demonstrates that the Falcon 7X is a very active part of many flight departments,” said Jacques Chauvet, Senior Vice President of Customer Service. “Its versatility helps account for its popularity and having gathered over 200 orders”.

The Falcon 7X has received type certification from 16 aviation authorities and is the only long range business jet with EASA and FAA approvals to use the challenging London City airport.

7X Background
The Falcon 7X has the longest range of any Falcon business jet and is the most fuel efficient jet in its class. Since its entry into service in 2007, the 7X cabin has set a new standard for business jets. The cabin has 28 windows which are 10% bigger than previous Falcons. It also features a low in flight cabin altitude of 6,000 feet, even while cruising at an altitude of 51,000 ft, and an advanced temperature control system that maintains the environment to within one degree throughout the entire cabin. Internal sound level has been reduced to 52 dB which is the result of breakthroughs in design, materials and cushioned engine mounts.

First announced at the Paris Air Show in 2001, the Falcon 7X is the first business jet with a digital flight control system and was simultaneously certified by both the EASA and the FAA on April 27, 2007. It features the award-winning EASy Flight Deck and is powered by three Pratt & Whitney Canada PW307A engines. Its 5,950 nm range (eight passengers, M.80 with NBAA IFR reserves) can comfortably connect 95% of the commonly used business aviation city pairs.

About Dassault Falcon
Dassault Falcon is responsible for selling and supporting Falcon business jets throughout the world. It is part of Dassault Aviation, a leading aerospace company with a presence in over 70 countries across five continents. Dassault Aviation produces the Rafale fighter jet as well as the complete line of Falcon business jets. The company has assembly and production plants in both France and the United States and service facilities on multiple continents. It employs a total workforce of over 12,000. Since the rollout of the first Falcon 20 in 1963, 2,000 Falcon jets have been delivered to 67 countries worldwide. The family of Falcon jets currently in production includes the tri-jets-the Falcon 900DX, 900LX, and the 7X-as well as the twin-engine 2000LX.


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

Historic Plane Holds Key to a Safer Future in General Aviation

Piece of Aviation History Finds New Home in Turner, Maine

DURHAM, Maine, Nov. 16, 2010 /PRNewswire/ — Durham-resident and family physician Dr. Louis Hanson and his historic 1946 Stinson Voyager will be featured in an upcoming documentary film about Aviation Safety Resources (ASR) (www.aviationsafetyresources.com) a Long Island-based company founded by Dario Manfredi, the son of the Stinson’s original owner. The mini-documentary, being produced by veteran New York filmmaker Kai Simonsen, will highlight the history and promise of ASR’s patented life-saving technology and serve as the foundation of a larger feature planned for the future .

Manfredi’s father, also Dario, and his partner, Angelo Raiti, were years ahead of their time in the early 1960s when they began a quest to devise a system that would safely land a plane and its passengers in the event of a catastrophic in-flight emergency. They purchased the Stinson Model 108 Voyager 9 (Serial Number 13, Registration N39443). With the help of a parachute company and field engineers, they equipped it with special wing attachment pins, three parachutes and explosive devices that the pilot could activate to separate the fuel-bearing wings from the fuselage and bring each piece safely to earth under its own parachute.

They tested their system in an FAA-sanctioned test flight on November 9, 1967 at Lakehurst Navel Air Station in New Jersey. The system worked as planned, separating the wings and bringing the fuselage down safely with little or no damage.

Shortly after the test flight, Manfredi’s father was forced to sell his Stinson. He was in the process of retrofitting a second Stinson for further FAA tests and certification when a stroke took his life in 1984.
After many years in storage, the original Stinson was reassembled, reconditioned and purchased by Dr. Hanson in 2002. A passionate recreational pilot, Dr. Hanson now houses his plane in a small hanger at Twitchell’s Airport and Seaplane Base in Turner, where his flight instructor told him of the plane’s amazing history.

“When I Iearned about the plane’s history, I did some research and contacted Dario Manfredi to get acquainted and share my experience with the aircraft that inspired his father’s invention,” said Dr. Hanson. “I feel very fortunate to own this piece of aviation history and welcomed the opportunity to participate in the filming of the documentary.”

Dario Manfredi and his sister Savia Giarraffa have been on a ten-year mission to update their father’s original concept and have assembled a blue-ribbon team of test pilots, parachute and ballistics experts, and avionics engineers bring their father’s invention to market. ASR currently has two patents pending with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office – one for the TriChute Safe Landing System and another for a complementary sensor-based Smart Recovery System (SRS).

Applying sensor systems currently available in commercial and military aircraft to General Aviation (GA), the SRS 1.0 brings all systems in GA aircraft into one black box that constantly monitors fight, alerts the pilot to problems with any device or system, and outlines corrective action. The company’s more advanced SRS 2.0 alerts the pilot, but if the pilot does not respond, it also takes action to rectify the situation by automatically deploying the appropriate safety system or device available on the aircraft.

Dario, Savia and an ASR film team traveled from New York to Maine late last summer to meet Dr. Hanson, examine the Stinson, and fly in the plane inspired the company’s technology.
“Hearing from Dr. Hanson out of the blue and reconnecting with our father’s airplane has been significant on many levels,” Manfredi said. “First, the very fact that the original airframe is structurally sound and being flown safely 40 years after it was disassembled in flight proves the validity of our company’s underlying technology. Second, is the emotional impact of reconnecting with our father through the plane that was the love of his life. It’s hard to explain the emotions we felt when we first laid eyes on it and recalled time we spent with our father as he worked day and night to make his dream of safer general aviation a reality.”

Dr. Hanson calls the elder Manfredi’s efforts “inspired” and “courageous.”

“ASR’s system would add a layer of safety that’s hard to measure,” he said. “It would provide pilots like me with a new sense of confidence and calm knowing that, in the face of unanticipated weather or mechanical failures, the system would ensure that pilots and passengers can be brought down safely and unharmed. I will certainly consider retrofitting my Stinson with this system once it is commercially available.”

ASR screened a preview of the documentary for aircraft owners, pilots and aviation enthusiasts gathered at the AOPA Aviation Summit in Long Beach, CA, from November 9 – 11, 2010. The preview, produced by Simonsen and his production company Millennium HD, is posted at http://bit.ly/bC8AK5 and on the history page of the company’s website at www.aviationsafetyresources.com, where video of the Stinson’s original 1967 test flight also is available.

The company continues to seek investors who want to get in on the ground floor of its emerging technology. Individuals interested in more information about ASR’s technology and investment opportunities can call 908-771-9179 or email asrco@msn.com.


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

U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood Announces Funding Commitment for New O’Hare South Air Traffic Control Tower

For Immediate Release

New Facility To Oversee Operations to O’Hare’s New 10R/28L Runway

CHICAGO – U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood today announced that the Federal Aviation Administration will fund the design and construction of a new South Air Traffic Control Tower at Chicago’s O’Hare Airport, scheduled to be built as part of the O’Hare Modernization Program (OMP).

The agreement will allow Chicago to complete the construction of the tower in time for the successful commissioning of the new runway 10R/28L, which is scheduled for completion in early 2015.
“O’Hare is a critical transportation link for our country,” said Secretary LaHood. “This tower project will create jobs, spur economic development and help the airport improve efficiency for passengers.”

“The historic O’Hare Modernization Project has received more federal funding than any other airport reconstruction project in history, nearly $800 million,” said U.S. Senator Dick Durbin, a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee who fought to increase the funding set aside for airport improvement projects across the nation, including the air traffic control tower at O’Hare. “That remarkable federal investment fuels O’Hare’s position as the economic engine for the region, solidifies Chicago’s role as a global transportation hub and will pay dividends for our state and nation for years to come. The new state-of-the-art air traffic control tower will increase capacity, bringing more travelers to our world-class city, and will boost operations at O’Hare, improving safety while reducing delays. And, just as importantly, it means Illinoisans will have an opportunity to get back to work in good paying jobs that cannot be outsourced.”

“The building of a South Air Traffic Control tower is essential for the continued modernization of O’Hare which increases our ability to compete in the global economy,” said Mayor Richard M. Daley. “A modernized O’Hare will generate new jobs and additional economic activity for Chicago, the region and the state. During these challenging economic times, such economic stimulus is greatly needed.”

The FAA has committed $3.4 million for the design of the new facility, which will build on the O’Hare Modernization Program’s nationally-recognized program for “green” design and construction.


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

Release: Pilots: How to Handle Abnormal Situations

http://www.faa.gov/news/safety_briefing/
Now available online, the November/December 2010 issue of FAA Safety Briefing focuses on a subject fundamental to pilot safety: how to handle abnormal and emergency situations. The issue stresses the delicate art of planning for the unplanned and outlines several tools and resources pilots can draw upon to handle emergencies.
Articles provide tips on unusual attitude recovery, partial-power takeoffs, and knowing what to do when your aircraft’s electrical system fails. Also, this issue’s Hot Spots article highlights the work FAA has been doing to identify the leading causes of GA fatal accidents and lists the top 10 causes. The Vertically Speaking column lists the top 10 causes of helicopter accidents and highlights the regional safety seminars the FAA Safety Team is conducting with Helicopter Association International.

For Aviation Maintenance Technicians, the Nuts, Bolts, and Electrons article explains the Service Difficulty Reporting System and encourages AMTs to use it.


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 Airlines, Fort Worth Airpower Foundation Present Sky Ball Fundraiser for North Texas Military Families

Eighth Annual Gala Supports Families in Need, Pays Tribute to ‘Greatest Generation’ World War II Veterans

Actor Gary Sinise and the Lt. Dan Band to Headline Program

FORT WORTH, Texas, Oct. 18 — American Airlines and the Fort Worth Airpower Foundation (FWAPF) are once again partnering to present the eighth annual Sky Ball fundraiser in support of North Texas military families and to honor service members, veterans and their families.

This year’s patriotic celebration, “A Tribute to the Greatest Generation: Remembering our Veterans from World War II,” will be held Saturday, Oct. 23, at American’s Alliance Airport Maintenance and Engineering Base in Fort Worth. Some 600 American Airlines and American Eagle employee volunteers will support the event, which will include a headline performance by award-winning actor and musician Gary Sinise and the Lt. Dan Band.

“We look forward to this event each year because it provides an opportunity for all of us at American and American Eagle Airlines to support two important long-standing commitments: Paying tribute to the brave men and women who defend our country, and giving back to our community,” said Bob Reding, American’s Executive Vice President – Operations. “The continued success of Sky Ball can be attributed to our dedicated employee volunteers, the generosity of this community, and our great relationship with the Fort Worth Airpower Foundation. We are so glad to be able to provide assistance to the many military families in North Texas that sacrifice so much for our country.”

A gourmet dinner that evening will be the work of renowned Executive Chef Heath Miles, Chef-in-Residence at Texas Motor Speedway, and ONEHOPE wines will provide its Yellow Ribbon Red Zinfandel at the event. ONEHOPE donates 50 percent of profits from Red Zinfandel sales to support our troops. American Airlines will proudly serve this wine inflight in premium cabins on transcontinental and Hawaii flights during November.

The Fort Worth Airpower Foundation is dedicated to supporting North Texas military families, and Sky Ball proceeds help provide financial assistance. Many of these families struggle to meet their financial obligations when their loved ones are called to active duty and, in many cases, for multiple tours overseas. Support comes in many forms, including financial aid for those with a family member who has been deployed; departure and welcome-home receptions; support for welfare and relief projects of the units based in North Texas; and care packages and gifts to soldiers wounded in battle who are recuperating at military hospitals.

“It is important to recognize that, while thousands of North Texans fight for our freedom overseas, many of their families fight to survive at home,” said Mike Snyder, Chairman of the Airpower Foundation and Co-chair of Sky Ball VIII. “American Airlines and the Fort Worth Airpower Foundation understand the importance of supporting these families, and we will continue to assist them as much as possible because they deserve nothing less.”

A number of World War II veterans will be welcomed as special guests, including U.S.S. Indianapolis survivor Cleatus Lebow, Tuskegee airmen Don Elder and Calvin Spann, and Glenn McDuffie, the sailor kissing a nurse in the iconic Life magazine cover photograph taken in Times Square on V-J Day in 1945. Odean “Deanie” Parrish, a courageous Women Airforce Service Pilot (WASP) will also be present at the gala. Photos of American Airlines employees’ family members who served in World War II will be on display throughout the hangar, and a special tribute slide show will be presented in their honor.

Additional celebrity guests appearing at Sky Ball VIII will include singer/songwriter Radney Foster, who will perform his song, “Angel Flight.” A special rendition of “Requiem for a Soldier,” made famous by the World War II HBO miniseries Band of Brothers, will be performed by Broadway star Laurie Gayle Stephenson. Renowned actress Jane Russell will also make a guest appearance at the event, and actor James McEachin will present a brief dramatic vignette, “Fallen Comrade.”

Other features at the gala will include:

A World War II static aircraft display
A portrait presentation by the American Fallen Soldiers Project to the family of a Normandy Beach casualty
The legendary military grog bowl ceremony, a tribute to the nation’s service members and veterans
A special swearing-in ceremony of 20 new recruits to various branches of the military

Another exciting attraction, B-25 bomber flights, will be available for purchase at the event, with all proceeds from the flights donated to History Flight and the Fort Worth Airpower Foundation. History Flight is a nonprofit organization that provides the public the opportunity to fly aboard World War II aircraft, with all proceeds funding History Flight’s recovery expeditions dedicated to bringing home the remains of service men Missing in Action in remote World War II battle sites. American is currently assisting History Flight with the search and recovery of MIA U.S. troops, notably Marines who fought at Tarawa in the Pacific Theater.

All Sky Ball proceeds directly benefit the Navy-Marine Corps, National Guard Relief Fund and families of those stationed at the Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base in Fort Worth. Last year’s event raised more than $600,000 for families of deployed troops.

Sponsorships and tables can be purchased on the Sky Ball VIII website, www.skyballviii.com.


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

Tarmac Delays in August Show Steep Drop

Tuesday, October 12, 2010 – The nation’s largest airlines reported only one flight in August with a tarmac
delay of more than three hours, compared to 66 flights in August 2009, with no
change in the rate of canceled flights, according to the Air Travel Consumer
Report released today by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).

Data filed with
the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) showed the only tarmac delay
longer than three hours reported in August by the 18 airlines that file on-time
performance with DOT involved a United Airlines flight departing the San Juan
airport on Aug. 5 that was diverted.  August was the fourth full month of
data since the new aviation consumer rule went into effect on April 29. 
There were only eight total tarmac delays of more than three hours from May
through August this year, compared to 529 during the same four-month period of
2009.  BTS is a part of DOT’s Research and Innovative Technology
Administration (RITA).

The largest
carriers canceled 1.0 percent of their scheduled domestic flights in August,
matching the 1.0 percent cancellation rate of August 2009.  They posted a
1.4 percent cancellation rate in July 2010.

See the DOT press release press release
for Secretary Ray LaHood’s statement.

The new tarmac
delay rule prohibits U.S. airlines operating domestic flights from permitting
an aircraft to remain on the tarmac for more than three hours without deplaning
passengers, with exceptions allowed only for safety or security or if air traffic
control advises the pilot in command that returning to the terminal would
disrupt airport operations.  The Department will investigate tarmac delays
that exceed this limit.

The monthly
report also includes data on on-time performance, chronically delayed flights,
flight cancellations and the causes of flight delays filed with the Department by
the reporting carriers.  In addition, it has information on airline
bumping, reports of mishandled baggage filed by consumers with the carriers,
and consumer service, disability and discrimination complaints received by
DOT’s Aviation Consumer Protection Division.  This report also includes
reports of incidents involving pets traveling by air, as required to be filed
by U.S. carriers.

On-time
Performance

The reporting carriers recorded an overall on-time arrival
rate of 81.7 percent in August, up from both the 79.7 percent on-time rate of August
2009 and July 2010’s 76.7 percent. 

Tarmac Delays

In August, the carriers filing
on-time performance data reported that .0400 percent of their scheduled flights
had tarmac delays of two hours or more, down from .1030 percent in July. 
There was one flight with a tarmac delay of more than three hours in August. 

Chronically Delayed Flights

At the end of August, there were four flights that were
chronically delayed – more than 30 minutes late more than 50 percent of the
time – for three consecutive months.  There were an additional 41 flights
that were chronically delayed for two consecutive months.  There were no
chronically delayed flights for four consecutive months or more.  A list
of flights that were chronically delayed for a single month is available from BTS (www.bts.gov).

Causes of Flight Delays

In August, the carriers filing
on-time performance data reported that 5.07 percent of their flights were
delayed by aviation system delays, compared to 6.21 percent in July; 6.42
percent by late-arriving aircraft, compared to 8.13 percent in July; 5.16 percent
by factors within the airline’s control, such as maintenance or crew problems, compared
to 6.37 percent in July; 0.46 percent by extreme weather, compared to 0.79
percent in July; and 0.04 percent for security reasons, compared to 0.05
percent in July. Weather is a factor in
both the extreme-weather category and the aviation-system category. This
includes delays due to the re-routing of flights by DOT’s Federal Aviation
Administration in consultation with the carriers involved. Weather is also a factor in delays attributed
to late-arriving aircraft, although airlines do not report specific causes in
that category.

Data
collected by BTS also shows the percentage of late flights delayed by weather,
including those reported in either the category of extreme weather or included
in National Aviation System delays. In August, 35.07 percent of late flights
were delayed by weather, down 10.70 percent from August 2009, when 39.27
percent of late flights were delayed by weather, and down 6.75 percent from
July when 37.61 percent of late flights were delayed by weather.

Detailed information on flight
delays and their causes is available on the BTS site on the World Wide Web at http://www.bts.gov.

Mishandled Baggage

The U.S.
carriers reporting flight delays and mishandled baggage data posted a
mishandled baggage rate of 3.50 reports per 1,000 passengers in August, an
improvement over both August 2009’s rate of 4.11 and July 2010’s 3.79 rate.

Incidents Involving
Pets

In August, carriers reported one incident
involving the loss, death or injury of pets while traveling by air, down from
both the three reports filed in August 2009 and eight in July 2010. August’s incident involved the injury of a
pet.

Complaints
About Airline Service

In August, the Department received 1,200
complaints about airline service from consumers, up 34.7 percent from the 891
complaints filed in August 2009 and up 9.7 percent from the 1,094 received in July
2010.

Complaints About Treatment of Disabled
Passengers

The report also
contains a tabulation of complaints filed with DOT in August against airlines
regarding the treatment of passengers with disabilities. The Department received a total of 71
disability-related complaints in August, up from the total of 50 filed in
August 2009 and the 56 complaints received in July 2010.

Complaints
About Discrimination

In
August, the Department received 17 complaints alleging discrimination by
airlines due to factors other than disability – such as race, religion,
national origin or sex – up from the total of 16 recorded in August 2009 and 12
recorded in July 2010.

Consumers may
file their complaints in writing with the Aviation Consumer Protection
Division, U.S. Department of Transportation, C-75, W96-432,


1200 New Jersey Ave. SE,

Washington,

DC

20590;
by voice mail at (202) 366-2220 or by TTY at (202) 366-0511; or on the web at http://airconsumer.dot.gov.

Consumers who
want on-time performance data for specific flights should call their airline’s reservation
number or their travel agent. This
information is available on the computerized reservation systems used by these
agents.

The Air Travel
Consumer Report can be found on DOT’s World Wide Web site at http://airconsumer.dot.gov. It is available in "pdf" and Microsoft Word
format.

Air Travel Consumer Report August 2010
Key On-Time Performance and Flight Cancellation Statistics

Based on Data Filed with the Bureau of Transportation Statistics by the 18 Reporting Carriers

81.7 percent on-time arrivals

Highest On-Time
Arrival Rates

1. Hawaiian
Airlines – 95.6 percent

2. Alaska
Airlines – 88.7 percent

3. Continental
Airlines – 87.1 percent

Lowest On-Time
Arrival Rates

1. Comair
– 76.4 percent

2. JetBlue
Airways – 77.1 percent

3. Delta
Air Lines – 77.4 percent

Flights with Longest Tarmac
Delays

1. United
Airlines flight 700 from San Juan to Washington Dulles, 8/5/10 – delayed
on tarmac 200 minutes

(There was only one flight with a tarmac delay of more than
three hours in August)

Highest Rates of
Canceled Flights

1. Pinnacle
Airlines – 2.5 percent

2. Comair
– 2.1 percent

3. Delta
Air Lines – 1.6 percent

Lowest Rates of Canceled Flights

1. Hawaiian
Airlines – 0.1 percent

2. Frontier
Airlines – 0.1 percent

3. Continental
Airlines – 0.1 percent

SRC: http://www.bts.gov/press_releases/2010/dot186_10/html/dot186_10.html


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

For Immediate Release: Emas Fact Sheet


Background

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires that commercial airports, regulated under Part 139 safety rules and federally obligated, have a standard Runway Safety Area (RSA) where possible. At most commercial airports the RSA is 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. The most dangerous of these incidents are overruns, but since many airports were built before the 1,000-foot RSA length was adopted some 20 years ago, the area beyond the end of the runway is where many airports cannot 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 has a high-priority program to enhance safety by upgrading the RSAs at commercial airports and provide federal funding to support those upgrades. However, it still may not be practical for some airports to achieve the standard RSA. The FAA, knowing that it would be difficult to achieve a standard RSA at every airport, 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 provide an added measure of safety. An Engineered Materials Arresting System (EMAS) uses materials of closely controlled strength and density placed at the end of a runway to stop or greatly slow an aircraft that overruns the runway. The best material found to date is a lightweight, crushable concrete. When an aircraft rolls into an EMAS arrestor bed, the tires of the aircraft sink into the lightweight concrete and the aircraft is decelerated by having to roll through the material.

Benefits of the EMAS Technology

The EMAS technology provides safety benefits in cases where land is not available, where it would be very expensive for the airport sponsor to buy the land off the end of the runway, or where it is otherwise 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 still 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 60 percent have been improved to full standards, and an estimated 79 percent have been improved to the extent practicable.

Presently, the EMAS system developed by ESCO using crushable concrete is the only system that meets the FAA standard. However, 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, published in January 2010, provides the industry with the most up-to-date and complete resource on potentially viable materials that can be used in future arresting systems. More information on the project, including a free copy of the report, can be found at the Transportation Research Board web site at http://www.trb.org/ACRP/.

Many of the EMAS beds installed prior to 2006 need periodic re-painting to maintain the integrity and functionality of the bed. FAA is working with ESCO to develop a retrofit of the older beds with plastic lids that are used on newer installations. The lid should eliminate the need for the periodic re-painting. The FAA’s Technical Center and ESCO continue to conduct research that will further improve EMAS.

EMAS Arrestments

To date, there have been seven incidents where the technology has worked successfully to arrest aircraft which overrun the runway and in several cases has prevented injury to passengers and damage to the aircraft.

  • May 1999: A Saab 340 commuter aircraft overran the runway at JFK
  • May 2003: A Gemini Cargo MD-11overran the runway at JFK
  • January 2005: A Boeing 747 overran the runway at JFK
  • July 2006: A Mystere Falcon 900 overran the runway at Greenville Downtown Airport in South Carolina
  • July 2008: An Airbus A320 overran the runway at ORD
  • January 2010: A Bombardier CRJ-200 regional jet overran the runway at Yeager Airport in Charleston, WVA
  • October 2010: A G-4 Gulfstream overran the runway at TeterboroAirportinTeterboro, NJ.

EMAS Installations

Currently, EMAS is installed at 51 runway ends at 35 airports in the United States, with plans to install 8 EMAS systems at five additionalU.S.airports.

Airport Location # of Systems Installation Dates
JFK International Jamaica, NY 2 1996(1999)/2007
Minneapolis St. Paul Minneapolis, MN 1 1999(2008)
Little Rock Little Rock, AR 2 2000/2003
Rochester International Rochester, NY 1 2001
Burbank Burbank, CA 1 2002*
Baton Rouge Metropolitan Baton Rouge, LA 1 2002
Greater Binghamton Binghamton, NY 2 2002
Greenville Downtown Greenville, SC 1 20023**
Barnstable Municipal Hyannis, MA 1 2003
Roanoke Regional Roanoke, VA 1 2004
Fort Lauderdale International Fort Lauderdale, FL 2 2004
Dutchess County Poughkeepsie, NY 1 2004**
LaGuardia Flushing, NY 2 2005
Boston Logan Boston, MA 2 2005/2006
Laredo International Laredo, TX 1 2006
San Diego International San Diego, CA 1 2006
Teterboro Teterboro, NJ 1 2006+
Chicago Midway Chicago, IL 4 2006/2007
Merle K (Mudhole) Smith Cordova, AK 1 2007
Charleston Yeager Charleston, WV 1 2007
Manchester Manchester, NH 1 2007
Wilkes-Barre/Scranton Intl. Wilkes-Barre, PA 2 2008
San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo, CA 2 2008
Chicago-O’Hare Chicago, IL 2 2008
Newark Liberty International Newark, NJ 1 2008
Charlotte Douglas International Charlotte, NC 1 2008
St. Paul Downtown St. Paul, MN 2 2008+
Worcester Regional Worcester, MA 2 2008/2009**
Reading, Regional Reading, PA 1 2009**
Kansas City Downtown Kansas City, MO 2 2009+/2010
Smith Reynolds Winston-Salem, NC 1 2010
New Castle County Wilmington, DE 1 2010
Key West International Key West, FL 1 2010
Arcata-Eureka Arcata, CA 1 2010
Telluride Regional Telluride, CO 2 2010

( ) Bed replaced

* Widened in 2008

** General aviation airport

+ Reliever airport

Additional projects currently under contract

Location Number of Systems Expected Installation Date
Farmingdale, NY 1 2010
Stuart, FL 2 2011
Augusta State, ME 2 2011
Teterboro, NJ 1 2011
Groton-New London, CT 2 2011

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

Airworthiness Directive: Eurocopter France (Eurocopter) Model AS332C, L, L1, and L2 Helicopters

Published: 09/30/2010
Subject: Hydraulic pump
Effective: 10/15/2010
Summary: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the specified Eurocopter model helicopters. This action requires replacing each affected hydraulic pump with an airworthy hydraulic pump. This amendment is prompted by the loss of the proper functioning of a hydraulic pump because of the deterioration of the pump seals and the loss of hydraulic fluid caused by incorrect positioning of the piston liner. The actions specified in this AD are intended to prevent loss of hydraulic power and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Emergency AD No. 2010-0043R1-E, dated March 26, 2010, to correct an unsafe condition for the specified Eurocopter model helicopters. EASA advises of the loss of the right-hand (RH) hydraulic power system on an AS332L2 helicopter. The pilot saw the hydraulic system “low level” warning light come on during the approach phase. Investigation revealed a hydraulic fluid leak from the hydraulic pump casing due to deterioration of the pump seals resulting from an incorrectly positioned compensating piston liner. EASA states that this non- compliant repair process was used by the following repair stations: HELIKOPTER SERVICE, ASTEC HELICOPTER SERVICE, and HELI-ONE. They further state that if this condition occurs on both pumps of a helicopter, it could result in loss of the RH and left-hand (LH) hydraulic power systems and consequently may lead to the loss of helicopter controllability.

Related Service Information

Eurocopter has issued an Emergency Alert Service Bulletin (EASB) with two numbers (01.00.78 and 01.00.43), dated March 11, 2010. EASB No. 01.00.78 applies to United States type-certificated Model AS332C, L, L1, and L2 helicopters; civil Model AS332C1 not type-certificated in the United States; and military Model AS332B, B1, M, M1, and F1 helicopters that are not type-certificated in the United States. EASB No. 01.00.43 applies to military Model AS532A2, U2, UC, AC, UL, AL, SC, and UE helicopters that are not type-certificated in the United States. The EASB specifies identifying affected hydraulic pumps, prohibiting flights for all helicopters fitted with two of the affected hydraulic pumps until at least one of the affected pumps is replaced, replacing all affected hydraulic pumps with airworthy pumps within 10 months, and returning any affected hydraulic pump to have it checked and, where necessary, reconditioned.
EASA classified this EASB as mandatory and issued EASA Emergency AD No. 2010-0043R1-E, dated March 26, 2010, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these helicopters.

FAA’s Evaluation and Unsafe Condition Determination

These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of France and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with France, EASA, their technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the EASA AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same type designs.

Differences Between This AD and the EASA AD

We refer to flight hours as hours time-in-service (TIS). We require each affected hydraulic pump be replaced with an airworthy pump within 15 hours TIS. We do not use the calendar date used in the EASA AD because that date has already passed.


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: “Line Up and Wait” Training Now Available

“Line Up and Wait” Training Now Available
On Sept. 30, 2010, the familiar ATC instruction “taxi in position and hold” will become history. Instead, expect to hear “line up and wait” when ATC issues instruction for a pilot to taxi onto a departure runway and wait for takeoff clearance. Another procedure change that occurred on June 30, 2010, requires ATC to issue an explicit clearance to aircraft crossing any runway (active, inactive, and closed). To help pilots with these important procedure changes, FAA added an online training module to www.FAASafety.gov. The course is titled “Line Up and Wait: Taxi Authorization and Runway Clearance Guidance for Airmen,” and is listed in the Featured Courses portal on the FAASafety.gov home page.

The course provides a good review of safe taxi operations, ATC procedures and phraseology, and pilot responsibilities. It also reviews best practices for avoiding runway incursions, such as knowing and understanding the meaning of the runway hold markings. Some three-fourths of runway incursions result from a failure to comply with this marking.

Additional details on both procedure changes are available in the Aeronautical Informational Manual (AIM) and Pilot/Controller Glossary, located under the Air Traffic section of www.faa.gov. You can also reference more specific information on line up and wait with FAA Notice JO 7110.536.


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

NTSB Safety Recommendation

Mr. Patrick Goudou
Executive Director
European Aviation Safety Agency
Postfach 10 12 53
D-50452 Cologne, Germany

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is an independent U.S. Federal Government agency charged by the U.S. Congress with investigating transportation accidents, determining their probable cause, and making recommendations to prevent similar accidents from occurring. We are providing the following information in support of the safety recommendations in this letter. The NTSB is making these recommendations because they are designed to prevent accidents and save lives.

On November 12, 2001, about 0916 eastern standard time, an Airbus A300-605R,1 N14053, operated as American Airlines flight 587, crashed into a residential area of Belle Harbor, New York, shortly after takeoff from John F. Kennedy International Airport, Jamaica, New York.2 Following an encounter with wake turbulence from a preceding Boeing 747 (747), the first officer made a series of full alternating rudder pedal inputs before the airplane’s vertical stabilizer and rudder separated in flight; both were found in Jamaica Bay about 1 mile north of the main wreckage site.

The NTSB determined that the probable cause of the American Airlines flight 587 accident was the in-flight separation of the vertical stabilizer as a result of the loads beyond ultimate design3
that were created by the first officer’s unnecessary and excessive rudder pedal inputs. Contributing to these rudder pedal inputs were characteristics of the Airbus A300-600
rudder system design and elements of the American Airlines Advanced Aircraft Maneuvering Program (AAMP).4
1 The Airbus A300-605R is one of several variants of the A300-600 series airplane. The “5” refers to the type of engine installed on the airplane, and the “R” refers to the airplane’s ability to carry fuel in the horizontal stabilizer.
2 For more information, see In-Flight Separation of Vertical Stabilizer, American Airlines Flight 587, Airbus Industrie A300-605R, N14053, Belle Harbor, New York, November 12, 2001, Aircraft Accident Report NTSB/AAR-04/04 (Washington, DC: National Transportation Safety Board, 2004).
3 The ultimate design load is the maximum load to be expected in service multiplied by a safety factor of 1.5.
4 According to American Airlines, AAMP was “advanced training for experienced aviators involving upsets in aircraft attitude” that consisted of ground school and simulator flight training.
5 The leading 747, United Airlines flight 896, was en route from Hong Kong to Chicago O’Hare International Airport. The 747 was eastbound at FL370. At the time of the upset, both flights were under Seattle Air Route Traffic Control Center control, and when Air Canada flight 190 was cleared from FL350 to FL370, the 747 was ahead of and above Air Canada flight 190. The Transportation Safety Board of Canada calculated that, at the time of the upset, United Airlines flight 896 was 10.7 nautical miles ahead of Air Canada flight 190. According to postaccident interviews and cockpit voice recorder data, although the flight crewmembers of Air Canada flight 190 knew they were following a 747, they were unaware of their trailing distance to United Airlines flight 896.
6 Encounter with Wake Turbulence, Air Canada Airbus A319-114 C-Gbhz, Washington State, United States, 10 January 2008, Aviation Investigation Report A08W0007 (Gatineau, Quebec, Canada: Transportation Safety Board of Canada, 2010). .
7 In the Airbus A319, a side-stick controller is used to control pitch and roll.
8 The vertical stabilizer is attached to the airplane’s aft fuselage. The vertical stabilizer provides supporting structure for the rudder, which is an aerodynamic control surface that is used to make the airplane yaw, or rotate, about its vertical axis. An airplane cannot be flown without its vertical stabilizer.
9 According to 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 25.301(a), the limit load is the highest load that the airplane structure is expected to experience while in service. According to 14 CFR 25.305(a), the airplane must be designed to withstand this load without detrimental permanent deformation, and the deformation may not interfere with safe operation.
10 For more information, see table 4 of NTSB/AAR-04/04.
11 APC excursions occur when the dynamics of the airplane and the dynamics of the pilot combine to produce an unstable system. For more information, see National Research Council, Aviation Safety and Pilot Control—Understanding and Preventing Unfavorable Pilot-Vehicle Interactions (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1997).
12 This change in pedal sensitivity is not characteristic of a variable ratio control system, such as employed on other airplanes, which retains a relatively uniform aircraft response throughout the airspeed envelope.
13 On September 13, 2005, the NTSB acknowledged that, on behalf of France, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) would perform the functions and tasks of the State of Design with respect to International Civil Aviation Organization Annex 8 in the field of airworthiness; therefore, EASA would be responsible for responding to Safety Recommendation A-04-63.

The circumstances of the American Airlines flight 587 accident are similar to a more recent accident involving an Airbus model A319. On January 10, 2008, about 0848 central standard time, an Airbus Industrie A319, Canadian registration C-GBHZ, operated as Air Canada flight 190, experienced an in-flight upset after encountering wake turbulence from a 747 while climbing from flight level (FL) 360 to FL370.5 The flight crew declared an emergency and diverted the flight to Calgary, where it landed uneventfully. Of the 5 crewmembers and 83 passengers on board, 2 crewmembers and 8 passengers sustained minor injuries, and 3 passengers sustained serious injuries. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and an instrument flight rules flight plan was filed for the scheduled domestic passenger flight from Victoria International Airport, British Columbia, Canada, to Toronto Pearson International Airport, Ontario, Canada. The Transportation Safety Board of Canada investigated this accident;6 the NTSB and Bureau d’Enquêtes et d’Analyses provided accredited representatives and technical advisors to the investigati

Data from the flight data recorder (FDR) indicate that, during the upset, the airplane experienced several roll and vertical load factor oscillations and lost about 1,000 feet of altitude. Although the autopilot was engaged during the start of the wake vortex encounter, after about 3 seconds, the autopilot was disengaged, and there was a series of large oscillatory inputs on the left side-stick controller.7 In addition, the FDR recorded a series of three to four alternating rudder pedal inputs (right pedal, then left pedal) over the next 15 seconds. During these inputs, the airplane continued to oscillate in roll, reaching a maximum roll of 55º. At the same time, the recorded acceleration was also oscillating, with peaks of -0.46 G to +0.49 G of lateral load factor and peaks of -0.76 G to +1.57 G of vertical load factor.

Because of the severity of the upset, following the emergency landing at Calgary, the airplane was grounded pending an inspection by Airbus engineers. During an extensive inspection, the vertical stabilizer8 was removed from the airplane and scanned ultrasonically to inspect for damage to the stabilizer’s composite components. No damage was found, and the stabilizer was reattached and the airplane returned to service.
Although no damage to the stabilizer was found, an analysis of the accident performed by Airbus indicated that the rear vertical stabilizer attachment fitting sustained loads 29 percent above its design limit load.9 Simulation work performed by Airbus revealed that these high loads were primarily the result of the flight crew’s series of alternating rudder pedal inputs and were not the result of the wake turbulence. Information and animations provided by Airbus showed that if the pilots had not made any control inputs after the wake encounter, the airplane would have righted itself with minimum altitude loss and g-loading.

Prevention of High Loads Resulting From Pilot Rudder Pedal Inputs

The rudder system design for the Airbus A320 airplane family, which includes the A319, is functionally similar to the design for the Airbus A300/A310 airplane family. Both families use a variable-stop rudder travel limiter, which mechanically limits available rudder pedal deflection as airspeed increases. Consequently, at high airspeeds, these systems require lighter pedal forces and smaller pedal displacements to obtain maximum available rudder than at low airspeeds.10 Investigation of the American Airlines flight 587 accident revealed that variable-stop systems produce dramatically larger aircraft responses to the same rudder input at higher airspeeds than at lower airspeeds, which can surprise a pilot and serve as a trigger for an aircraft-pilot coupling (APC)11 event.12

As a result of findings from the American Airlines flight 587 investigation, the NTSB issued Safety Recommendation A-04-63, which asked the French Direction Générale de l’Aviation Civile13 to do the following:

Review the options for modifying the Airbus A300-600 and the Airbus A310 to provide increased protection from potentially hazardous rudder pedal inputs at high airspeeds and, on the basis of this review, require modifications to the A300-600 and A310 to provide increased protection from potentially hazardous rudder pedal inputs at high airspeeds.

In the same report, the NTSB issued a companion recommendation, A-04-58, to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). On September 13, 2005, the NTSB classified Safety
Recommendation A-04-63 “Open—Acceptable Response.” On April 6, 2009, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) responded that Airbus had analyzed several modifications, and a reduced pedal travel limiting unit (PTLU) was identified as the most promising solution to address this recommendation. On March 19, 2010, EASA further indicated that “its previously held position on the pilot training out as being an efficient and sufficient measure to avoid any new hazardous situations has to be reconsidered following more recent service experience which confirms that crew use of rudder pedal inputs in upset encounters cannot be ‘trained out.’” EASA therefore indicated that it plans to require the PTLU on Airbus A310 and A300-600 aircraft models. The NTSB will consider how the proposed changes are responsive to Safety Recommendation A-04-63 when EASA provides further details about the PTLU. In the meantime, the NTSB still believes that the changes called for in this recommendation are necessary. Therefore, the NTSB reiterates Safety Recommendation A-04-63.

Yaw Axis Certification and Rudder Pedal Sensitivity

The similarities between the Air Canada flight 190 and American Airlines flight 587 crewmembers’ responses to wake encounters indicate that the Airbus A320 family is also susceptible to potentially hazardous rudder pedal inputs at higher airspeeds. In both events, the vertical stabilizer limit loads were exceeded by a large margin as a result of the alternating rudder inputs. In the American Airlines flight 587 accident, the pilot applied four full alternating rudder inputs; after the fourth input, the aerodynamic loads on the vertical stabilizer exceeded the vertical stabilizer’s ultimate design load (at about twice the maximum load), and it separated from the airplane. In the Air Canada flight 190 accident, the pilot applied three alternating rudder inputs and exceeded the limit load by 29 percent.

Rudder control systems with a variable ratio rudder travel limiter may provide better protection against high loads from sustained rudder pedal inputs at high airspeeds than systems with a variable-stop rudder travel limiter because variable ratio rudder travel limiter systems retain a relatively uniform aircraft response throughout the airspeed envelope and require more physical effort from a pilot (in terms of force and displacement) to produce cyclic full rudder inputs at high speeds. There is no certification standard regarding rudder pedal sensitivity or any requirement for the sensitivity to remain constant at all airspeeds. As discussed above, the Airbus A320 rudder control system design characteristics are comparatively similar to those of the Airbus A300-600 and A310 and may serve as a trigger for an APC event at high airspeeds. The NTSB concludes that, as demonstrated by the American Airlines flight 587 and Air Canada flight 190 accidents, certification standards for transport-category aircraft regarding yaw sensitivity to rudder pedal inputs must ensure that airplane designs minimize the potential for APC susceptibility and better protect against high loads in the event of large rudder inputs.

As a result of the American Airlines flight 587 accident investigation, the NTSB issued Safety Recommendations A-04-56 and -57, which asked the FAA to do the following:

Modify 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 25 to include a certification standard that will ensure safe handling qualities in the yaw axis throughout the flight envelope, including limits for rudder pedal sensitivity. (A-04-56)

After the yaw axis certification standard recommended in Safety Recommendation A-04-56 has been established, review the designs of existing airplanes to determine if they meet the standard. For existing airplane designs that do not meet the standard, the FAA should determine if the airplanes would be adequately protected from the adverse effects of a potential [APC] after rudder inputs at all airspeeds. If adequate protection does not exist, the FAA should require modifications, as necessary, to provide the airplanes with increased protection from the adverse effects of a potential APC after rudder inputs at high airspeeds. (A-04-57)

On March 1, 2005, the FAA indicated that the current standards governing the performance and design of yaw control systems may need to be redefined. The FAA added that it was evaluating the existing standards and conducting a study to identify critical rudder control system parameters and human interaction with those controls. The FAA further indicated that, based on the results of the study, it would determine whether the current standards need to be updated and would work with industry to develop rudder control standards. On August 3, 2005, the NTSB classified Safety Recommendations A-04-56 and -57 “Open—Acceptable Response.” As a result of the investigation of the Air Canada flight 190 accident, the NTSB reiterated Safety Recommendations A-04-56 and -57. The NTSB concludes that the yaw axis handling qualities standards envisioned in Safety Recommendations A-04-56 and -57 would increase the safety of all aircraft, not just those whose initial airworthiness certificate is issued by the FAA. Therefore, the NTSB recommends that EASA modify EASA Certification Specifications for Large Aeroplanes CS-25 to ensure safe handling qualities in the yaw axis throughout the flight envelope, including limits for rudder pedal sensitivity. Further, the NTSB recommends that, after the yaw axis certification standard recommended in Safety Recommendation A-10-119 has been established, EASA review the designs of existing airplanes to determine if they meet the standard. For existing airplane designs that do not meet the standard, EASA should determine if the airplanes would be adequately protected from the adverse effects of a potential APC after rudder inputs at all airspeeds. If adequate protection does not exist, EASA should require modifications, as necessary, to provide the airplanes with increased protection from the adverse effects of a potential APC after rudder inputs at high airspeeds.

Therefore, the National Transportation Safety Board recommends that the European Aviation Safety Agency:
Modify European Aviation Safety Agency Certification Specifications for Large Aeroplanes CS-25 to ensure safe handling qualities in the yaw axis throughout the flight envelope, including limits for rudder pedal sensitivity. (A-10-119)
After the yaw axis certification standard recommended in Safety Recommendation A-10-119 has been established, review the designs of existing airplanes to determine if they meet the standard. For existing airplane designs that do not meet the standard, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) should determine if the airplanes would be adequately protected from the adverse effects of a potential aircraft-pilot coupling (APC) after rudder inputs at all airspeeds. If adequate protection does not exist, EASA should require modifications, as
necessary, to provide the airplanes with increased protection from the adverse effects of a potential APC after rudder inputs at high airspeeds. (A-10-120)
In addition, the National Transportation Safety Board reiterates the following recommendation to the European Aviation Safety Agency:
Review the options for modifying the Airbus A300-600 and the Airbus A310 to provide increased protection from potentially hazardous rudder pedal inputs at high airspeeds and, on the basis of this review, require modifications to the A300-600 and A310 to provide increased protection from potentially hazardous rudder pedal inputs at high airspeeds. (A-04-63)

The National Transportation Safety Board reiterated three safety recommendations (A-04-56 through -58) and reiterated and reclassified one safety recommendation (A-02-01) to the Federal Aviation Administration.

In response to the recommendations in this letter, please refer to Safety Recommendations A-10-119 and -120 and A-04-63. If you would like to submit your response electronically rather than in hard copy, you may send it to the following e-mail address: correspondence@ntsb.gov. If your response includes attachments that exceed 5 megabytes, please e-mail us asking for instructions on how to use our secure mailbox. To avoid confusion, please use only one method of submission (that is, do not submit both an electronic copy and a hard copy of the same response letter).

Chairman HERSMAN, Vice Chairman HART, and Members SUMWALT, ROSEKIND, and WEENER concurred with these recommendations.

By: Deborah A.P. Hersman
Chairman


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: Testimony – Statement of Peggy Gilligan

September 16, 2010
Statement of Peggy Gilligan, Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety Before the House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Aviation on Pilot Fatigue

Chairman Costello, Congressman Petri, Members of the Subcommittee:

Thank you for inviting me to appear before you this morning to discuss the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) efforts to mitigate the impacts of pilot fatigue to enhance aviation safety. Updating FAA’s regulatory requirements on pilot fatigue has been a high priority for Secretary LaHood and Administrator Babbitt. As you know, Administrator Babbitt was formerly a commercial pilot, so his interest in and insights about pilot fatigue have been longstanding, and were helpful in making rulemaking on this matter an Administration priority. Their assistance and guidance on this matter have been invaluable. I am pleased that their focus has enabled the FAA to publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on September 14, 2010, that proposes changes to the current flight duty and rest regulations. The NPRM represents a comprehensive proposal that is the result of extensive outreach to the aviation industry, labor and the scientific community. Unlike the existing requirements, the proposal would establish a single, scientifically-based regulatory approach for all Part 121 operators, including domestic and international passenger and cargo operations, as well as supplemental carriers.

While the publication of this NPRM is a huge step forward, I want to stress that it is the latest step in a long history of FAA efforts to mitigate fatigue. We held symposia on fatigue and worked with aviation industry and the scientific community to gather data to meet the scheduling demands of the industry (including ultra long-range flights), without compromising safety. As the science of fatigue matured, we worked to educate the industry to mitigate risks as they were identified. The new proposal reflects our drive to reach consensus across different facets of the aviation industry.

In the past, I have said something that is worth repeating now: regardless of what regulatory framework is in place, mitigating the effects of fatigue is a shared responsibility. The FAA has the responsibility to put the framework in place. The air carrier has the responsibility to schedule its flight crews responsibly and in accordance with that framework. The pilot has the ultimate responsibility to use the hours set aside for rest to actually rest, to report for duty in a fit condition, and to notify the airline when he or she is too fatigued or otherwise not fit for duty. Nothing about the latest proposal changes those basic responsibilities.

In the aftermath of the Colgan Air Flight 3407 accident in February 2009, the FAA placed great emphasis on all safety factors that either were, or could have been, a contributing cause to the accident. Secretary LaHood and Administrator Babbitt issued an Airline Safety Call to Action for the foremost aviation safety experts to discuss the best ways to make an already safe industry even safer. Fatigue was clearly a factor of some concern, given that one member of the Colgan flight crew commuted from the West Coast prior to reporting for duty and the evidence suggested that she may not have had sufficient rest.

In addition to the Call to Action, Administrator Babbitt convened an Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) comprised of representatives from airline management and pilot labor unions to review fatigue-related issues and to make specific scientifically-based recommendations that could be the basis of rulemaking. The ARC delivered its report and recommendations in September 2009. The report and recommendations reflected consensus on many issues, but there were a handful of issues where the ARC did not reach consensus. In addition, the ARC was not charged with performing any type of economic analysis, which the FAA must provide in any rulemaking initiative.

The NPRM utilizes accepted assumptions as to what causes fatigue and creates a framework that addresses those risks. For example, it is generally accepted that higher levels of activity cause more fatigue and that most people need eight hours of sleep in a 24 hour period in order to perform effectively and remain alert. It is also acknowledged that an average person needs in excess of nine hours of sleep in order to recover from accumulated sleep deprivation and the quality of the sleep an individual gets is usually affected by the time of day in which it occurs, with nighttime sleeping being more restorative.

Using these assumptions as a basis, the NPRM focuses on the nature of the operation. During a duty period, how many take-offs and landings does the pilot fly? Do the operations involved cross time zones and, if so, how many? Are the operations during the day or at night? The proposal recognizes that basing hourly restrictions solely on the total number of hours of duty time or flight time does not have as much meaning as factoring in what kind of operations were being flown during that period. Different operations result in different fatigue levels and that reality must be recognized in any new regulatory framework.

The NPRM would impose requirements for rest, flight time, and duty time. There is a proposed nine hour rest requirement prior to flying related duty. In addition, flight time restrictions include limits for every 28-day period, as well as annual limits. The flight time restrictions also reflect all operations flown for the carrier by the pilot, even if some of those flights are ferrying operations or other flights not flown under Part 121. Finally, both the flight time and duty time restrictions proposed would reflect differences in the types of operations flown as well as when they are flown, and require shorter duty periods for certain times of day and quantities of takeoffs and landings.

The proposal would also gives carriers the option of integrating a Fatigue Risk Management System (FRMS) into their scheduling systems. FRMS is a carrier-specific method of evaluating how best to mitigate fatigue, based on active monitoring and evaluation by the carrier and flightcrew members. In this case, the carrier would model its schedules to determine where there may be risk from fatigue. The carrier would develop mitigation strategies to eliminate or mitigate that risk. The FAA will determine that the FRMS provides an equivalent level of protection as afforded by the rule and approve the carrier’s system. FRMS were strongly supported by both labor and management in the ARC, because it ensures that each schedule is analyzed and proper mitigation is implemented.

This approach has the potential to provide a cooperative and flexible means of monitoring and mitigating fatigue during operations when the prescriptive approach is not optimal. We are seeking public comments about how best to realize that potential. An FRMS requires a carrier to develop numerous processes and structures within an operation. These measures lead to effective management and mitigation of fatigue on the part of both the carrier and its employees that might affect the operation.

One area that I know is of great interest to this Committee is pilot commuting, which our NPRM discusses in the preamble. The ARC made no recommendation on commuting. However, the ARC did point out that pilots are required to report to work fit for duty; and that means rested. Although our proposal does not include specific restrictions on commuting, it does make some modifications to ensure that all pilots, including those who commute, are meeting the existing requirements to report fit for duty.

As I noted at the beginning of this statement, pilot personal responsibility is critical to whatever fatigue rule is ultimately adopted, whether or not commuting restrictions are imposed. Pilots must commute responsibly, but this proposal broadens that responsibility to include the air carrier, who must be aware of how pilots are commuting to work and must make a determination that each pilot is fit for duty. It is unreasonable to assume that a pilot is resting while commuting, either locally or long distance, and our proposal requires air carriers to consider the commuting times pilots needs to reach their home base while still receiving the required opportunity for rest. It also calls on co-workers – other crew members, dispatchers, etc. – to determine that pilots they’re working with are fit for duty. We believe mandating this shared responsibility will address the risks posed by a pilot failing to identify that he or she is not sufficiently rested – and therefore not fit for duty.

Finally, one of the most challenging issues we have had to resolve in order to move forward with a new fatigue regulatory proposal is that of the costs associated with a new rule compared with the benefits that are expected to accrue from a new requirement. All of us in government and industry associated with aviation are dedicated to enhancing aviation safety. This is what we work for day in and day out. At the same time, we seek to ensure that rules do not impose excessive, unjustified, or unnecessary costs on airlines, airline employees, and consumers. We are required to provide the public with information about the projected costs and benefits associated with any regulatory proposal. Reducing fatigue, through whatever means, may result in the carriers having to add more pilots to comply with new standards, thus adding costs. We believe, however, that carriers will optimize their crew schedules within any new regulatory requirements to continue to be as efficient as possible.

While we prefer and seek out regulatory options that result in net benefits, there is no absolute requirement that monetary benefits of regulatory proposals outweigh monetary costs. But the benefits, both quantifiable and nonquantifiable, must justify the associated costs. While we have explicitly sought public comments about possible improvements in the proposed rule, we believe it meets that standard. It is important to understand that increasing airline safety creates a number of important social benefits, some of which are hard to quantify.

Though producing this NPRM did take longer than we expected, we believe we have a solid starting point for a new and better way forward in this area. While this is not the last step in this process, I am extremely proud of the FAA team for this achievement. I would like to thank the many, many members of the Administration, the aviation and labor community, and the scientific community for their tireless efforts to assist Secretary LaHood and Administrator Babbitt in moving forward with the proposed fatigue NRPM. I would also like to acknowledge the support of Congress and the families of victims of the Colgan accident and other family groups in this area.

There is work to be done in order to make the NPRM ultimately into a final rule, but I am confident that this comprehensive proposal is a step forward and I look forward to receiving public comments and to working with all interested parties, including this Committee, to finalize improved flight duty and rest standards that will enhance safety because that is our shared ultimate goal.

Thank you for this opportunity to appear before you. I would be happy to answer any questions at this time.


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 Release: Speech – “Respect and Consideration”

“Respect and Consideration”
Michael Huerta, Indianapolis, IN
September 15, 2010

National Black Coalition of FAA Employees National Convention

Good morning, and thanks for inviting me.

You’re holding this conference at an important juncture for our society. And you’re holding it in a place that’s been a lightning rod for the very things that are perplexing our nation at this time.

I’m going to raise some hot button issues today, and I by no means am poising myself as the One Who Holds the Answer. But what I am doing – and what I’m hoping that you’ll do alongside me – is to discuss these issues – the ones that are turning up the heat on the kettle we call America.

As everybody knows, all last week there was a horrendous display of religious, ethical and cultural intolerance in Florida. No one can say that terrorism is the answer. But burning a holy book – a book held near and dear by millions of Americans – well, that did nothing to bring about healing, much less win an argument. Pouring salt into an open wound is not, in my opinion, the springboard to intelligent discourse.

Instead of raising a concern, they raised the temperature – put fuel to the fire – agitated – whatever you want to call it.

And in New York City, we have another situation of equal tension. The plans to build a mosque near Ground Zero have both sides in an uproar.

So here’s my question to you: we are indeed the land of the free and the home of the brave. We are a land of religious tolerance. We’re a land where equality is supposed to be the law of the land.

So if all this is true, why is it that we’re having the same argument over and over and over again?

It comes down to respect. And by “respect,” I mean consideration – thinking about something from someone else’s point of view.

As far as both of those issues are concerned, I must say that just because you have a right doesn’t make you right; that just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.

If you remember the movie, you know that this is what caused the problem in Jurassic Park. One of the more memorable lines from the movie was delivered by an eccentric mathematician who thought cloning dinosaurs was a bad idea. He said, “You were so busy wondering whether or not you could create these things that you never stopped to wonder if you should.” In the haste to make a buck – or a statement – they plowed ahead without thinking about long-term consequences. Or maybe even short-term consequences.

That’s a fictional example, but it fits. We’re talking about something that is scary, and has really, really big teeth. Both sides on these issues – the books and the mosque, not the dinosaurs – are raising points that are at the very core of our freedoms.

But, and this is unfortunate for us, there’s more time spent slinging mud than there is building a bridge.

You can build a bridge with brick and mortar, with concrete and steel.

But the bridge between opposing sides must be built with respect. You must be considerate of what the other person has to say.

Everyone here who’s faced discrimination of any kind knows this to be true. Screaming an epithet at someone who just screamed one at you is not the answer. But it’s our nature to say, You hurt me, I hurt you. An eye for an eye. A tooth for a tooth.

All of which leaves you with a bunch of one-eyed guys trying to gum each other to death.

At the agency, we’re not necessarily facing things that are quite that blatant, but we are indeed in an era of change – not just for our work place, but for the entire NAS. The things that we’ve grown comfortable with, like ground-based radar – well, they’re changing as new technology comes along. We’re obligated to change along with them. We’re obligated to see things from a different perspective.

There was a time, I’m sure, that the idea of horseless carriages seemed pretty strange. And cable TV? Why on earth would anyone pay for cable when you can get TV for free with an antenna? I’ve heard more than once about moms and grandmas who said, “Don’t even take that microwave oven out of the box. I don’t need it, and I won’t use it. And you shouldn’t either.”

Those examples make us smile, but there are others in our workplace that grate against the grain. For those of you who are used to filling out the paperwork with an actual piece of paper, you’re butting heads with a new generation that can’t figure out why anyone would use paper when you can do it on-line.

And what about tracking systems that are leading us to cost accounting? We never had to do that before, why should we do it now? Don’t you trust me? Don’t you think I’m doing my job?

Those are just a couple of things rolling our way. As we know, in an era where the budget isn’t getting any bigger and the work we’re being asked to do isn’t getting any smaller, well, change is upon us.

It’s a NextGen workplace, and I’m not just talking about satellites. Randy says, “Be ready for Destination 2025,” and he’s right. It’s time for us to recognize that we must adapt to new scenarios, even ones that make us a little uncomfortable – maybe a lot uncomfortable. If we’re going to provide safe, efficient, secure, environmentally friendly service, there’s no other way. We know that the approach we’ve taken has worked so far, but it is indeed time for a change.

And just like the larger social issues I raised at the beginning, some of the changes we’ll agree with and some we won’t. Some we’ll like and some we might even despise. But at the core of this must be respect – consideration for co-workers, colleagues, friends, supervisors, managers, even – even someone who works for a different line of business. We laugh at that one, but we’re not going to get to Destination 2025 unless and until we learn to work across organizational boundaries.

I’m looking to you for the support that will make it happen. The kind of support that ripples through an organization and energizes it. Raising the level of those around you is one of the strong themes I see at this conference, and that is definitely the right way to go, definitely the right thing to do.

So let me close with this. I know where I stand on these issues, but where I stand is not as important right now as it is for us to remember that what makes us great is that we allow differing opinions, differing views, differences of race and creed; and that while we might not respect the opinion on the other side of the argument, we still have respect for that person.

This is a time for us to show ourselves for what it is we are supposed to be: the land of the free, and a land big enough to have room for ideas with which we disagree, even ideas that we despise with the very essence of our being.

Let me close again by saying thank you for the invitation. Thank you for holding a conference where important ideas can be raised. You have my respect and my best wishes for success. Thank you.


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: Phraseology Change

Line Up and Wait Phraseology Change
Notice Number: NOTC2554

Beginning September 30, 2010 , the words “Line Up and Wait” will replace the words “Position and Hold” to instruct a pilot to enter the runway to await take-off clearance. Under the new “Line Up and Wait” phraseology, the controller will:

– State your call-sign;
– State the departure runway;
– State “Line Up and Wait”.

· Exercise Caution. Be aware the phrase “Traffic Holding in Position” will continue to be used to advise other aircraft that traffic has been authorized to “Line Up and Wait” on an active runway.

· REMEMBER: Never cross a hold line without explicit ATC instructions. You may not enter a runway unless you have been:

– Instructed to cross or taxi onto that specific runway
– Cleared to take off from that runway, or
– Instructed to “Line Up and Wait” on that specific runway.

Please visit: www.faa.gov/go/runwaysafety/ for more details on the change as well as to view an instructional animation explaining the new phraseology.

If in doubt ASK!


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: September/October 2010 issue of FAA Safety Briefing,


Come Fly with Me

September 14–The September/October 2010 issue of FAA Safety Briefing, which focuses on proficiency and its absolute importance for pilots and aviation maintenance technicians, also includes a must-read article for pilots. FAA’s Paul Greer writes about the complicated subject of receiving compensation for your flying. He says, “Flying and getting paid for it has been a dream that most pilots have had at one time or another. It’s been done by generations of pilots, but it’s also an area ripe with opportunities for new (and even older) pilots to run afoul of the regulations.” Read all about it on page 12 of the September/October 2010 issue.


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

Statement of Henry Krakowski, Chief Operating Officer, Air Traffic Organization

Before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation, Subcommittee on Aviation Operations, Safety, & Security on Field Hearing on the Integration of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) Into the National Airspace System (NAS): Fulfilling Imminent Operational and Training Requirements


Chairman Dorgan, Senator Conrad, Congressman Pomeroy:

Thank you for inviting the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to this hearing. Accompanying me today is John Allen, Director of the Flight Standards Service in the Office of Aviation Safety at the FAA. Together, we have distinct yet related duties in carrying out the FAA’s mission to ensure the safety and efficiency of the National Airspace System (NAS). Mr. Allen’s organization is charged with setting and enforcing the safety standards for aircraft operators and airmen. My role as the head of the Air Traffic Organization is to oversee the nation’s air traffic control system, to move flights safely and efficiently, while also overseeing the capital programs and the modernization of the system.

As the most complex airspace in the world, the NAS encompasses an average of over 100,000 aviation operations per day, including commercial air traffic, cargo operations, business jets, etc. Additionally, there are over 238,000 general aviation aircraft that represent a wide range of sophistication and capabilities that may enter the system at any time. There are over 500 air traffic control facilities, more than 12,000 air navigation facilities, and over 19,000 airports, not to mention the thousands of other communications, surveillance, weather reporting, and other aviation support facilities. With this volume of traffic and high degree of complexity, the FAA maintains an extremely safe airspace through diligent oversight and the strong commitment to our safety mission.

With regard to unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), the FAA sets the parameters for where a UAS may be operated and how those operations may be conducted safely in the NAS. Our main focus when evaluating UAS operations in the NAS is to avoid any situations in which a UAS would endanger other users of the NAS or compromise the safety of persons or property on the ground. The FAA acknowledges the great potential of UASs in national defense and homeland security, and as such, we strive to accommodate the needs of the Department of Defense (DoD) and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for UAS operations, always with safety as our top priority.

When new aviation technology becomes available, we must determine if the technology itself is safe and that it can be operated safely. Whether the technology is to be used by pilots, operators or air traffic controllers, we determine the risks associated with putting that technology into the NAS. Once the known risks are mitigated, we move forward with integration in stages, assessing safety at each incremental step along the way. Unforeseen developments, changing needs, technological improvements, and human factors all play a role in allowing operations within the civil airspace system.

The FAA is using this same methodology to manage the integration of the new UAS technology into the NAS. While UASs offer a promising new technology, the limited safety and operational data available to date does not yet support expedited or full integration into the NAS. Because current available data is insufficient to allow unfettered integration of UASs into the NAS—where the public travels every day—the FAA must continue to move forward deliberately and cautiously, in accordance with our safety mandate.

Because the airspace is a finite resource, and in order for us to carry out our safety mission, the FAA has developed a few avenues through which UAS operators may gain access to the NAS. First, the FAA has a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA) process. This is the avenue by which public users (government agencies, including Federal, state, and local law enforcement, as well as state universities) that wish to fly a UAS can gain access to the NAS, provided that the risks of flying the unmanned aircraft in the civil airspace can be appropriately mitigated. Risk mitigations required to grant a COA frequently include special provisions unique to the requested type of operation. For example, the applicant may be restricted to a defined airspace and/or operating during certain times of the day. The UAS may be required to have a transponder if it is to be flown in a certain type of airspace. A ground observer or accompanying “chase” aircraft may be required to act as the “eyes” of the UAS. Other safety enhancements may be required, depending on the nature of the proposed operation.

The FAA may also set aside airspace for an operator’s exclusive use to segregate the dangerous activity or protect something on the ground, when needed. Some of these exclusive use areas are known as Restricted, Warning or Prohibited Areas. The DoD conducts most of its training in such airspace. In order to set aside Restricted or Prohibited Area airspace, the FAA would need to undertake rulemaking to define the parameters of that airspace. This is typically a time-consuming process that would also include environmental reviews that could impact the proposed airspace.

Civil UAS operators must apply for a Special Airworthiness Certificate – Experimental Category to gain access to the NAS. This avenue allows the civil users to operate UAS for research and development, demonstrations, and crew training. The Special Airworthiness Certificate – Experimental Category does not permit carriage of persons or property for compensation or hire. Thus, commercial UAS operations in the U.S. are not permitted at this time.

We are working with our partners in government and the private sector to advance the development of UAS and the ultimate integration into the NAS. First, in accordance with Section 1036 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2009, Public Law 110-417, the DoD and FAA have formed an Executive Committee (ExCom) to focus on conflict resolution and identification of the range of policy, technical, and procedural concerns arising from the integration of UASs into the NAS. Other ExCom members include DHS and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to capture more broadly other Federal agency efforts and equities in the ExCom. The mission of this multi-agency UAS ExCom is to increase, and ultimately enable routine, access of Federal public UAS operations in the NAS to support the operational, training, developmental, and research requirements of the member agencies. All of these partner agencies are working to ensure that each department and agency is putting the proper focus and resources to continue to lead the world in the integration of UAS.

The ExCom’s work has also facilitated the work of the Red River Task Force (RRTF), the interagency working group that was established to work on issues regarding the basing of UAS at Grand Forks Air Force Base (RDR). With the ExCom’s work and the RRTF’s work running in parallel, the FAA is able to support more easily and fully the DoD’s needs at RDR. One of the RRTF’s first tasks was to establish two separate tracks for DoD’s goals at RDR: one would be an aeronautical proposal that would involve establishment of a new restricted area(s), while the other would be a broader menu of operational options that could be used either as a stand-alone solution or as a layered approach for the operation of UASs at RDR. We have done this in numerous places and continue to streamline the approval process.

Currently, the FAA is working with the DoD to determine and evaluate the scope and details of its operational needs at RDR. In addition, the RRTF has examined 18 option sets that can provide short, mid- and long-term solutions to UAS NAS access at RDR. The FAA continues to be committed to working with the DoD on matters relating to UAS operations at RDR in a manner consistent with our safety mission.

Unmanned aircraft systems are a promising new technology, but one that was originally and primarily designed for military purposes. Although the technology incorporated into UASs has advanced, their safety record warrants caution. As we attempt to integrate these aircraft into the NAS, we will continue to look at any risks that UASs pose to the traveling public as well as the risk to persons or property on the ground. As the agency charged with overseeing the safety of our skies, the FAA seeks to balance our partner agencies’ security, defense, and other public needs with the safety of the NAS. We look forward to continuing our work with our partners and the Congress to do just that.

Chairman Dorgan, Senator Conrad, Congressman Pomeroy, this concludes our prepared remarks. We would be pleased to answer any questions you might have.


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 Revokes Phoenix Heliparts Certificate

For Immediate Release
September 9, 2010
Contact: Ian Gregor
Phone: (310) 725-3580

LOS ANGELES — The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has revoked the air agency certificate of Phoenix Heliparts, Inc., (PHI) of Mesa, Ariz., for allegedly performing improper repairs and deliberately falsifying maintenance records. PHI must surrender its certificate to the FAA, as required under the terms of the emergency revocation.
The FAA alleges that PHI mechanics failed to follow its repair station and/or quality control manuals when repairing aircraft, and used incorrect parts. The FAA also alleges that on at least four occasions, the company made intentionally false entries in the aircraft maintenance records.

“Safety is not optional for aviation companies. Whether repairing airplanes or helicopters, repair stations are required to follow maintenance rules and procedures,” said FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt.

Inspectors from the FAA’s Scottsdale Flight Service District Office inspected PHI Aug. 27, 2008, and found a variety of violations of the Federal Aviation Regulations. They included unauthorized use of an electronic recordkeeping system, failure to operate the maintenance shop according to its approved repair station and quality control manuals, and using unqualified people to perform the work.

FAA inspectors reinspected PHI’s facility on Sept. 15 and 16, 2008, and discovered hundreds of additional discrepancies. These included identifying unserviceable parts as serviceable and retaining them for reuse; failure to document maintenance work and inspections; and failure to have and use approved data to guide major repairs and alterations.

PHI performed major restoration work on a damaged Hughes 369 helicopter for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, but the department retained another company to inspect the helicopter before it returned to service. That inspection turned up more than 30 airworthiness discrepancies. The FAA also alleges company employees deliberately falsified maintenance forms, including a return-to-service authorization, when more than 100 items had not been inspected according to the company’s quality control manual.

The FAA offered PHI numerous opportunities to correct its problems after the Aug. 27, 2008 inspection, but PHI was unable to bring the company into compliance.
PHI can appeal the emergency nature of the revocation to the National Transportation Safety Board.


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

Symposium Announced: Airline Code-Sharing Arrangements and Their Role in Aviation Safety


Date and Location:
October 26 – 27, 2010
NTSB Conference Center

Short Description:
The goals of the symposium are to (1) elicit information on the structures, practices, and oversight of domestic and international code-sharing arrangements; (2) gain insight into best practices regarding the sharing of safety information between airlines and their code-sharing partners; and (3) to explore the role that a major airline would have in the family disaster assistance response for an accident involving a code-sharing partner. These areas will be explored through presentations from major and regional airlines, industry organizations, and representatives of the traveling public.


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

Increased number of security related temporary flight restrictions (TFRs) across the country expected.

Notice Number: NOTC2516

Increased number of security related temporary flight restrictions (TFRs) across the country expected.

All pilots and aircraft operators should be aware that there will be an increase in the number of security related temporary flight restrictions (TFRs) across the country.
Reviewing NOTAMs prior to each flight is critical to flight safety.

Pilots and aircraft operators should make every effort to familiarize themselves with TFRs that may impact their route of flight.


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

NASA TO ANNOUNCE LATEST FINDINGS BY KEPLER SPACECRAFT

Aug. 23, 2010

J.D. Harrington
Headquarters, Washington

WASHINGTON — NASA will hold a media teleconference Thursday, Aug. 26, at 1 p.m. EDT to discuss the Kepler spacecraft’s latest discovery about an intriguing planetary system.

Kepler, a space observatory, looks for the data signatures of planets by measuring tiny decreases in the brightness of stars when planets cross in front of, or transit, them. In June, mission scientists announced the mission has identified more than 700 planet candidates, including five candidate systems that appear to have more than one
transiting planet.

Participating telecon panelists are:
— Jon Morse, director, Science Mission Directorate Astrophysics
Division, NASA Headquarters, Washington
— William Borucki, Kepler Mission science principal investigator,
NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif.
— Matthew Holman, associate director, Theoretical Astrophysics
Division, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge,
Mass.
— Alycia Weinberger, astronomer, Department of Terrestrial Magnetism,
Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington

To participate in the teleconference, reporters should e-mail J.D. Harrington at j.d.harrington@nasa.gov by 11 a.m. EDT, Thursday, Aug. 26. Journalists must include their name, media affiliation and telephone number. Supporting information for the briefing will be posted at: http://www.nasa.gov/kepler when the telecon begins.

Audio of the teleconference will be streamed live at:
http://www.nasa.gov/newsaudio


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

NTSB BRIEFING TODAY AT 4:00 PM (ADT) ON AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT IN ALASKA

The National Transportation Safety Board will hold a press
briefing on its investigation into last night’s airplane
crash near Dillingham, Alaska.

The briefing will take place today at 4:00 p.m. Alaska
Daylight Time (ADT) at the Signature Flight Support
Building, 2nd floor conference room, 6231 South Airpark
Place, Anchorage, Alaska.

NTSB Chairman Deborah A.P. Hersman will conduct the
briefing.


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

Mangalore Public Notification

COURT OF INQUIRY INTO THE CAUSE OF ACCIDENT TO B737-800 AIRCRAFT VT-AXV ON 22.05.2010 AT MANGALORE AIRPORT

An Air India Express Boeing 737-800 aircraft VT-AXV met with an accident at Bajpe Airport, Mangalore on 22nd May 2010, while operating a scheduled flight IX-812 from Dubai to Mangalore, resulting in tragic death of 152 passengers and 6 crew members.

A Court of Inquiry has been ordered by the Government of India, vide Notification No AV.15013/02/2010-DG dated 3rd June, 2010. As per the notification, the Headquarters of the Court of Inquiry will be at New Delhi. The court is required to submit its report by 31st August, 2010.

Constitution of the Court of Inquiry: –

The court consists of the following: –

(a) Air Marshal (Retd) BN Gokhale : Chairman
(b) Capt Ron Nagar : Assessor
(c) Shri SS Nat : Assessor
(d) Shri Babu Peter : Assessor
(e) Shri Gurcharan Bhatura : Assessor
(f) Shri SN Dwivedi :Secretary to the Court

A brief Bio-data of each member of the Court of Inquiry is given below: –

Air Marshal BN Gokhale

Air Marshal BN Gokhale PVSM AVSM VM (Retd) was commissioned into the Indian Air Force in June 1968. He has flown over 3500 hours on various fighter and trainer aircraft and has taken active part in 1971 operations. He is a Qualified Flying Instructor and a Fighter Combat Leader from the prestigious Tactics and Combat Development Establishment. During his illustrious career, he has held several operational and staff appointments, He has commanded a frontline
fighter squadron during the Siachen Operations. He has been Chief Operations Officer of an operational base and has also commanded a premier air base. Air Marshal Gokhale has been an Instructor at the Defence Services Staff College and Inspector at Directorate of Air Staff Inspection. He has had assignments abroad which include Flying Instructor in Iraq and Indian Defence Advisor in Embassy of India, Cairo. Apart from being a graduate of the Defence Services Staff College, he is an Alumnus of Air War College, USA and a Fellow of Aeronautical Society of India.

He has served as Air Advisor to the Chief of Air Staff, Assistant Chief of Air Staff (Operations) and Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief of IAF Training Command, Bengaluru, prior to taking over as the Vice Chief of Air Staff. On retirement as the VCAS in Dec 2007 he has been appointed as Scientific Consultant to the Principal Scientific Advisor to Govt of India. He is also appointed as Consultant to DRDO and National Security Council.

Captain Ron Nagar

Capt Ron Nagar is the Senior Vice President (Flight Operations and Training) with King Fisher Airlines Pvt. Ltd.

He is an accomplished pilot with 37 years of experience in Flight Operations wherein he has been Executive Director (Safety) and Chief Executive (Training) at Indian Airlines. He has been a Training Captain for 30 years, a TRE (Examiner) on Boeing 737,Airbus A320 family and HS 748.

He has participated in several international seminars and training courses, related Human Factors, Aviation Security, IOSA awareness, Aircraft accident prevention, Emergency Response and Crisis communication. He was also a Simulator instructor and has evaluated Simulators.
Shri SS Nat

Shri SS Nat, Deputy Director General of Civil Aviation, India (Retd) is a Type-rated Aircraft Maintenance Engineer Licence holder with rich experience in Civil Aviation. He has successfully completed DGCA approved Maintenance Training on Heavy Aircraft and Jet Engines.

He has worked for about 30 years in the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), India in various capacities and retired as Deputy Director General in 2006. He was Head of Airworthiness Wing of DGCA from 1996 to 2004. He has been associated in the formation of various Civil Aviation Requirements during his tenure with DGCA.

He has also carried out Audits, Surveillance inspections and Surprise Checks on Scheduled, Charter and General Aviation operators during his tenure with DGCA to ensure compliance of regulatory requirements.

He was a member of the initial stage accident investigation Team for the crash of Alliance Air’s Boeing 737 aircraft at Patna on 17 July 2000.
Shri Babu Peter

He is a graduate of Electrical Engineering from Regional Engineering College Calicut, Kerala. He joined Air India as a Graduate Engineer in 1971, and has worked as a Licensed Aircraft Maintenance
Engineer over 25 years. He holds valid licenses on several Boeing and Airbus aircraft and their Engines.

He was the Director of Engineering Air India from 2002 to 2004 and the Director of Engine Overhaul in Air India from 2004 to 2005. He later moved over to Indian Airlines as Functional Director and Board Member and retired from Indian Airlines in 2006.

He is presently working as Executive Vice President Engineering in GoAir. He is also a Fellow of Aeronautical Society of India and was the Chairman of Academic Committee in the year 2008-09. In the past he has also been Assessor to the Court of Inquiry in to two aircraft accidents in the past. Boeing 737 accident at Palam, in 1995 and Dornier 228 accident in Kochi.

Shri Gurcharan Bhatura

Shri Gurcharan Bhatura specializes in Air Traffic Management and Airport Operations. After completing the ab-initio programme for Air Traffic Controller, he started his career at Delhi airport and acquired all the possible ratings. Director General Civil Aviation appreciated his services when he saved a Boeing 747 aircraft from landing on a wrong runway at Delhi Airport. Subsequently he specialised in airport operations and held the position of Airport Director at Chennai, Kolkata and Mumbai airports. He is also recognized for his analytical abilities and management skills. Prior to his retirement in 2005, he was Executive Director in AAI.

A fellow of the Aeronautical Society of India and Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport, he is presently Director General of Foundation for Aviation and Sustainable Tourism – a think tank in Civil Aviation. With 42 year long association with Civil Aviation Industry, he has written several well-researched articles on related subjects.
Shri SN Dwivedi

Shri S N Dwivedi is Graduate in Electrical Engineering and Post Graduate in Management. Presently, he is working as Director of Airworthiness at DGCA Hqrs., New Delhi and has vast experience in Civil Aviation Department since 1986 till date. During his service in Civil Aviation Department, he has completed the various professional and technical courses covering Heavy Aircraft and Jet Engines including Boeing 737 and Airbus A – 320 aircraft.

Shri S N Dwivedi has been involved in Court of Inquiries for investigation of the following aircraft accidents:

? Indian Airlines Boeing 737-200 Aircraft VT-ECS accident on 2nd December, 1995 at IGI Airport, Palam, New Delhi, headed by Air Marshal (Retd.) JK Seth, PVSM, AVSM, VM.

? Archana Airways LET – 410 Aircraft VTC accident on 11th July, 1996 at Kullu, headed by Air Marshal (Retd.) S Ramdas, PVSM, AVSM, VM.

? High level inquiry committee into escalator accident on 13th December, 1999 at IGI Airport, Palam, New Delhi, headed by Shri RC Jain, IAS (Retd.)

? Alliance Air Boeing 737-200 Aircraft VT-EGD accident on 17th July, 2000 at Patna Airport, headed by Air Marshal P Rajkumar, PVSM, AVSM, VM.

Convening of the Court:

On the very next day of the Government Notification, the court convened on 4th June, 2010. The Court took stock of the situation and available information. The Chairman along with all the members met the officials of the Ministry of Civil Aviation regarding some of the administrative arrangements.

Investigation Process:

In an accident of such a nature, the DGCA appoints an Inspector of Accident immediately. This is done to take stock of all the activities relating to accident till the Court of Inquiry is instituted by the Government of India. The Inspector of Accident is required to submit his reports giving his observations / findings to the Court of Inquiry constituted by the Government of India. Thereafter, the Court of Inquiry takes over the charge of accident investigation.

Senior officers of DGCA reached Mangalore on 22nd May, 2010 itself for a first hand appraisal. The search for Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) and Digital Flight Data Recorder (DFDR) known as ‘Black Box’ was initiated. CVR records the conversation of the flight crew among themselves and with ATC including any sound in the cockpit. DFDR records various parameters of the aircraft, engines and their systems. CVR and DFDR were recovered from the wreckage with the outer casing damaged due to heavy fire and impact during accident. However, the data storage module appeared to be intact. Since suitable facility to retrieve the data from partially damaged CVR and DFDR do not exist in our country, the Court of Inquiry decided to carry out decoding of these recorders at the facility of M/s National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), Washington DC, USA.

Visit to the Accident Site:

The members of the Court of Inquiry visited Mangalore airport and the accident site from 7th to 9th June, 2010. The members of the court observed two minutes silence to pray for the departed souls at the crash site.

The members of the Court of Inquiry met with Emergency Response Team which took part in the post crash Search and Rescue (SAR) operation; and heard their observations of the fateful day. The court visited ATC Tower, Area Control, Fire Station, and Meteorological Office and met the personnel who were on duty on the day of the accident. The court also met and interacted with the officials of District
Civil Administration, City Police, City Fire Service, District Health Administration and Air India Express personnel at the airport, who were involved in the post accident search and rescue operation.

The Court also visited the city hospitals where two of the eight survivors are undergoing treatment. The Court interacted with the team of doctors treating them in the hospitals. The survivors narrated their experiences to the Court.

Interaction with Key personnel of M/s Air India Express:

The Court visited the facilities of M/s Air India Express at Mumbai and met its key officials in the evening of 9th June, 2010. The Air India Express officials made presentations regarding their Organisational Structure, Flight Operations, Maintenance and other facilities including Emergency Response Plans.

Brief of Boeing 737-800 aircraft:

Boeing 737-800 aircraft is an upgraded version of Boeing 737 aircraft family. The passenger seating capacity of this aircraft is 186 and is manned by 2 operating and 4 cabin crew. Its maximum take off weight is 77110 Kg. The aircraft is powered with two CFM-56 Jet Engines. The Manufacturer’s Serial Number (MSN) of the ill-fated aircraft is 36333, Line No. 2481 and it was manufactured during the year 2008. This Boeing 737-800 aircraft was delivered to Air India Express during January, 2008. This aircraft had accumulated 7189 Flight Hours and 2829 Landings, till the date of accident.

Brief of the Crew-members:

The Commander of the ill-fated aircraft was Capt Glusica Zlatko , of Serbian origin and British Nationality paired with First Officer HS Ahluwalia, an Indian National, as co-pilot. There were four cabin crew members namely Miss Sujata Survase, Miss Tejal Anil Kumar Kamulkar, Mr Yugantar Rana and Mr Mohammad Ali.

Capt Glusica Zlatko had a total experience of about 10,200 Flying Hours, out of which, he had total Command Experience of about 7630 Flying Hours. He had flown about 2770 Flying Hours as Pilot-in-Command (PIC) on Boeing 737 aircraft. He was examined by the DGCA and issued with authorization called Foreign Aircrew Temporary Authorization (FATA) to operate Indian registered aircraft.

First Officer HS Ahluwalia had a total flying experience of about 3650 hours. He had flown about 3350 hours as Co-pilot on Boeing 737 aircraft and operated 66 flights to Mangalore Airport.

Synopsis of the accident:

Air India Express Boeing 737-800 aircraft VT-AXV was operating scheduled Flight No IX-812 from Dubai to Mangalore on 22nd May, 2010 with 160 passengers and 6 crew members on board. This aircraft was given clearance to land on runway 24 by the Mangalore Air Traffic Control (ATC) Tower. However, during landing, the aircraft departed the paved surface including the Runway End Safety Area (RESA). The right wing impacted the localizer structure at the end of the RESA. Thereafter, the aircraft hit the boundary fence, fell into the gorge and caught fire. Due to impact and fire, the aircraft was destroyed. In this tragic accident, 152 passengers and 6 crew members lost their lives. Seven passengers sustained serious injuries and one person escaped with minor bruises.

Rescue Operations:

The rescue operation was initiated by the officials of Airport Authority of India (AAI). AAI and Air India Express were assisted by the officials of District Administration. Local population was involved in the rescue operation In full force and their involvement was appreciated by all concerned. The survivors were rushed to nearby hospitals for treatment. Thereafter, Volunteers of Air India Emergency Response Team, commonly known as Air India Angels, worked tirelessly to provide succour to the injured and to the bereaved families.

Analysis of CVR and DFDR:

A team consisting of three members of the Court of Inquiry left for Washington DC, USA from 21st to 25th June, 2010 for analysis and decoding of the CVR and DFDR at the facilities of M/s National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), Government of United States of America. All the activities were carried out under strict supervision of the Court of Inquiry.

The data recovered from these Recorders is being analysed by the Court along with other material evidence.

Notification:

A notification is being published in the News Papers inviting any information or evidence on this accident. Such information should reach the court by 20th July 2010 by Post, Fax or e-mail as per the details given below:

Shri SN Dwivedi
The Secretary to the Court of Inquiry – Boeing 737-800 aircraft VT- AXV accident at Mangalore
Office of DGCA, Technical Centre,
Opposite Safdarjung Airport,
New Delhi 110003

Tel. 011 24611357

Fax. 011 24692374

e-mail coi.voml@gmail.com
coivoml.moca@nic.in
sndwivedi@hotmail.com

Public Hearing:

The Court also plans to hold Public Hearings at Mangalore and Delhi for the convenience of those who wish to participate in the deliberations. Dates and Venue of these Public Hearings will be notified at a later date.

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

Site Credits