Emergency Airworthiness Directive for Rolls Royce Trent 900 engines

Similar Posts

  • |

    Helicopter Safety Questions and Answers

    Should cockpit voice recorders and flight data recorders be required for use in helicopters and light aircraft?

    Anyone following the rash of helicopter and light aircraft crash and forced landing reports would agree that greater safety rules should be put in place, as well as greater use of the technology which makes such things safer, as well as tracking causes. More rules and regulations may or may not make these crafts safer. After all, it is still up to the pilot’s judgement and the quality of the craft, as well as craft maintenance. But certainly, because the technology exists to keep track of flight data, it should certainly be required, even if it should be retrofitted.

    See the July press release below:

    For Immediate Release

    June 30, 2008 >
    Contact: Alison Duquette
    Phone: (202) 267-3883

    EMS Helicopter Safety

    Helicopter Emergency Medical Service (HEMS) operations are unique due to the emergency nature of the mission. In August 2004, the FAA initiated a new government and industry partnership to improve the safety culture at HEMS operators and recommend short-and long-term strategies for reducing accidents. While the FAA has not ruled out proposing new or changing existing rules, the agency has prompted significant short-term safety gains that do not require rulemaking. The FAA’s immediate focus is:

    • Encourage risk management training to flight crews so that they can make more analytical decisions about whether to launch on a mission.
    • Better training for night operations and responding to inadvertent flight into deteriorating weather conditions.
    • Promote technology such as night vision goggles, terrain awareness and warning systems and radar altimeters.
    • Provide airline-type FAA oversight for operators. Identify regional FAA HEMS operations and maintenance inspectors to help certificate new operators and review the operations of existing companies.

    Background

    There are approx. 750 emergency medical service helicopters operating today, most of which operate under Part 135 rules. HEMS operators may ferry or reposition helicopters (without passengers/patients) under Part 91.

    The number of accidents nearly doubled between the mid-1990s and the HEMS industry’s rapid growth period from 2000 to 2004. There were nine accidents in 1998, compared with 15 in 2004. There were a total of 83 accidents from 1998 through mid-2004. The main causes were controlled flight into terrain (CFIT), inadvertent operation into instrument meteorological conditions and pilot spatial disorientation/lack of situational awareness in night operations. Safety improvements were needed.

    FAA Oversight

    The FAA inspects HEMS operators, but is prompting changes beyond inspection and surveillance. Rather, the FAA is moving to a risk-based system that includes the initiatives outlined below which focus on the leading causes of the HEMS accidents.

    FAA Actions

    • In August 2004, the FAA established a task force to review and guide government and industry efforts to reduce HEMS accidents.
    • On January 14, 2005, the FAA hosted a meeting with HEMS industry representatives to discuss safety issues and gain feedback. Representatives from the Association of Air Medical Services, Helicopter Association International, the National EMS Pilots Association and several operators attended.
    • Decision-making skills: On January 28, 2005, the FAA published a notice providing guidance for safety inspectors to help operators review pilot and mechanic decision-making skills, procedural adherence, and crew resource management practices. It includes both FAA and industry intervention strategies (Notice 8000.293 Helicopter Emergency Medical Service Operations). These principles were reinforced in the “Safety Alert for Operators” (SAFO) 06001 issued on January 28, 2006.
    • Risk assessment programs: On August 1, 2005, the FAA issued guidance to inspectors promoting improved risk assessment and risk management tools and training to all flight crews, including medical staff (Notice 8000.301 Operational Risk Assessment Programs for Helicopter Emergency Medical Services).
    • Air Medical Resource Management (AMRM): On September 22, 2005, the FAA issued guidance to HEMS operators establishing minimum guidelines for Air Medical Resource Management (AMRM) training. The training focuses on pilots, maintenance technicians, flight nurses, flight paramedics, flight physicians, medical directors, specialty team members (such as neonatal teams), communications specialists (dispatchers), program managers, maintenance staff, operational managers, support staff, and any other air medical team members identified by specific needs (AC No. 00-64 Air Medical Resource Management).
    • Special emphasis inspection program: On September 27, 2005, the FAA issued a revised standards for inspection and surveillance of HEMS operators, with special emphasis on operations control, risk assessment, facilities and training, especially at outer locations away from the certificated holder’s principal base on operations.
    • FAA establishes new office: In December 2005, the FAA’s Flight Standards Service’s Air Transportation Division established the new Commuter, On Demand, and Training Center Branch (AFS-250) to work Part 135 and Part 142 policy issues.
    • Loss of Control (LOC) and Controlled Flight Into Terrain (CFIT): On January 24, 2006 the FAA issued a handbook bulletin to inspectors describing acceptable models for LOC and CFIT avoidance Programs. The bulletin provides inspectors with information to provide to HEMS operators for developing LOC/CFIT accident avoidance programs and clarifies existing guidance (HBAT 06-02 Helicopter Emergency Medical Services (HEMS) Loss of Control (LOC) and Controlled Flight Into Terrain (CFIT) Accident Avoidance Programs).
    • HBAT 06-01 & OpSpec A021: On January 24, 2006 the FAA issued revised guidance to inspectors regarding HEMS OpSpecs, amending the Visual Flight Rule (VFR) weather requirements for HEMS operations, including consideration of the adverse affects of reduced ambient lighting at night and mountainous terrain (HBAT 06-01 Helicopter Emergency Services; OpSpec A021/A002 Revisions).
    • Guidance to Part 142 training centers: On February 24, 2006, the FAA issued a Notice to Training Center Program Managers assigned to oversee Part 142 training Centers advising them of recent changes to HEMS operations and training standards (Notice 8000.317, Operator Training Provided by Part 142 Training Centers for Helicopter Emergency Medical Services.)
    • Public HEMS operators: On March 2, 2006, the FAA issued guidance to inspectors on the surveillance and oversight of public aircraft operators for HEMS operations (Notice 8000.318 Public Helicopter Emergency Medical Services (HEMS) Operations).
    • Terrain Awareness and Warning Systems (TAWS): On June 27, 2006, at the FAA’s request, RTCA, Inc. established a Special Committee to develop Helicopter Terrain Awareness and Warning System (H-TAWS) standards. These standards will be used to develop FAA requirements for H-TAWS systems, installation and operations.
    • Aeronautical Information Manual: In August 2006, the FAA revised the Aeronautical Information manual (AIM) to provide guidance to pilots on assessing ambient lighting for night visual flight rule (VFR) operations and for off-airport/heliport landing zone operations.
    • Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC): The FAA is currently reviewing the 140 recommendations made by the Part 135/125 ARC. We have begun rulemaking on many issues which pertain to HEMS operations and training. Examples of the areas considered for change are: weather requirements for IFR flight, medical personnel as crew, IFR landing minimums, instrument flight competency, etc.
    • International Helicopter Safety Team (IHST): The helicopter industry has formed the IHST to gather data and draft strategies to reduce helicopter accidents globally by 80 percent by 2015. The effort is modeled on the Commercial Aviation Safety Team (CAST) which has achieved a significant reduction in the commercial fatal accident rate in the United States. Members include the FAA, European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), Transport Canada, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), and industry representatives.
    • Surveillance of large HEMS operators: The FAA’s Flight Standards Service established a task group to focus on the certification and surveillance requirements for large HEMS operators that support diverse medical programs throughout the United States. The group’s findings resulted in the increase in the cadre of inspectors assigned to HEMS operations.
    • Operational Control Centers: On May 5, 2008, the FAA’s Flight Standards Service issued an advisory circular (AC 120-96) highlighting the “best practices” for use by HEMS operators in establishing their control centers and training their specialists.

    Weather

    In March 2006, the FAA and the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research hosted a weather summit in Boulder, Colorado to identify the HEMS-specific issues related to weather products and services. Attendees explored possible regulatory improvements, weather product enhancements, and operational fixes specific to HEMS operations. Attendees included the National Weather Service, National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), Helicopter Association International, American Helicopter Society International, Association of Air Medical Services, National EMS Pilots Association, National Association of Air Medical Communications Specialists, manufacturers, and many operators.

    As a result, the FAA funded the development and implementation of a graphical flight planning tool for ceiling and visibility assessment along direct flights in areas with limited available surface observations capability. Its use improves the quality of go/no-go decisions for HEMS operators. The tool was fielded in November 2006. The response from the users continues to be very favorable (Notice 8000.333, HEMS use of the aviation digital data service experimental HEMS tool).

    Night Vision Goggles

    The FAA has a solid record of facilitating safety improvements and new technologies for EMS helicopters, including certification of Night Vision Goggles (NVGs). Since 1994, the FAA has worked 28 projects or design approvals called Supplemental Type Certificates (STCs) for installation of NVGs on helicopters. This number includes EMS, law enforcement and other types of helicopter operations. Of the 28 projects, the FAA has approved approx. 15 NVGs STC’s for EMS helicopters. The FAA initiated and wrote (in coordination with RTCA) the minimum standards for NVGs/cockpit lighting.

    Technical Standard Order (TSO) C164 was published on September 30, 2004 referencing RTCA document DO 275 Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS), published October 12, 2001. The FAA has hosted workshops to help applicants work with the FAA to obtain NVG certification. One set of NVGs costs approx. $7,000 and an operator must carry multiple sets per flight. Certification is just one step. The operator must also have an FAA-approved training program for using NVGs.

    The FAA has revised the NVG guidance in the Operations Inspectors Handbook, Order 8900.1. Produced using considerable industry input, the revision includes the establishment of a cadre of NVG national resource inspectors (Notice 8000.349, Night Vision Imaging Systems).

    Flight Data Recorders

    Flight Data Recorders (FDRs) are not required for HEMS operations. FDRs offer value in any accident investigation by providing information on aircraft system status, flight path and attitude. The weight and cost of FDR systems are factors. Research and development is required to determine the appropriate standards for FDR data and survivability in the helicopter environment, which typically involves substantially lower speeds and altitudes than airplanes. Funds are currently best invested in preventive training.

    However, the FAA is studying alternatives to expensive and heavy airliner-style FDRs, especially in light of the relatively low-impact forces in most helicopter accidents. By establishing a standard appropriate to the helicopter flight envelope, the FAA may be able to make meaningful future FDR rulemaking efforts.

    Terrain Awareness Warning Systems

    The FAA supports the voluntary implementation of Terrain Awareness Warning Systems (TAWS) and did consider the possibility of including rotorcraft in the TAWS rulemaking process. Through this process, however, the FAA concluded that there are a number of issues unique to VFR helicopter operations that must be resolved before the FAA considers mandating the use of TAWS in this area, such as modification of the standards used for these systems. For example, helicopters typically operate at lower altitudes so TAWS could potentially generate false alerts and “nuisance” warnings that could negatively impact the crew’s response to a valid alert. TAWS application to HEMS would require study of TAWS interoperability within the lower altitude HEMS environment, and possibly a modification of TAWS system standards.

    At the FAA’s request, RTCA, Inc. established a Special Committee (SC-212) to develop H-TAWS standards for use in future FAA rulemaking projects. The final report was delivered to RTCA in March 2008. Those standards are being reviewed by the FAA’s Aircraft Certification Service for the development of an HTAWS technical standards order.

    To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.
  • | |

    IATA Says Last year was the safest in aviation history

    In a speech at the AVSEC World in New York, the director of IATA, International Air Transport Association, Tony Tyler, said “The industry’s 2012 record safety performance was the best in history. Each day approximately 100,000 flights arrive safely at their destination.3 billion passengers flew in 2012. There were six crashes and 75 accidents, with the lowest accident rate on record in the west.”

    The rate is not the same all over the world, however.

    In S. Africa, a plane is ten times more likely to crash than in Latin America.

    The speech is located here: http://ht.ly/io0S4

    To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.
  • |

    777 landing-gear installation issue

    The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is investigating the improperly installed landing gear the new 777 jet which made a May emergency landing at Paine Field. Mechanics assembling the landing gear had left “about a quarter-inch of play.” A cockpit warning message told the pilots the left main landing gear was not locked into place. Following the landing, an inspection revealed a broken part (a cylindrical metal bearing called a bushing) in the landing gear. Since the incident, Boeing has—when necessary—been removing and replacing that part in new and existing777s.

    To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.
  • | | |

    Proposed Brazilian Airline Restrictions

    Defense Minister Nelson Jobim announced plans to for an escape area at the end of the notorious Congonhas runway and limits on operations in wet conditions.

    Proposed rules would restrict destinations to a 620-mile radius of the Congonhas airport; it would also bar connecting flights

    Plans include limiting the number of passengers, and restricting takeoffs/landings to 33 hourly, and cutting passenger capacity from 5,100 per hour to 4,700.

    Operations at Brazil’s busiest airport were reviewed after an airliner ran off the runway and crashed into a building on July 17, the deadliest air accident in the country’s history. The 620-mile limit would eliminate tourist destinations in the northeast. One wonders if they are deliberately targeting the American market.

    To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.
  • | | | | |

    Bomb Threat on American Airlines and…Air France?


    Click to view full size photo at Airliners.net
    Contact Photographer Daniel Werner

    What: American Airlines Boeing 757-200 en route from Miami to Boston
    Where: Miami
    When: Thurs September 17, 2009
    Who: 168 passengers and six crew
    Why: After take-off, a bomb threat note was found on board. The plane returned to Miami where it was investigated. No bomb or explosives were found.

    George’s Point of View

    Ladies and Gentlemen of the aviation world, please consider this and bear with me as I traipse off into the world of conjecture.

    It is a mere day after someone left a note in the bathroom of the above-mentioned plane, and already that fact has been picked up by all the news services. An unsigned, unattributed note that could have been written by anyone on board, for all we know on toilet paper written in lipstick, by anyone from someone hoping to miss a dental appointment, to employees wanting the flight cancelled so they could go take their fatigued selves home to bed. And the threat made the news.

    Even the whisper of bomb threats make the news.

    So when I read now, months after the fact that there was an Air France bomb threat on a completely untraceable and unverifiable phone call on May 27 prior to the Air France flight 447 crash, I hear with very skeptical ears.

    If you followed the coverage after the crash, you’ll be aware of how many ears were pinned to the ground, listening for every hint of possible news. The media hounds pretty much sniffed out every findable trace of even faintly related information and posted it repeatedly, echoing across the internet and print media like (if you will pardon the cliché) ripples in a pond. So this leaves me two choices of thought regarding how to consider the tidbit of a so-called Air France bomb threat.
    1. It’s not true.
    2. It’s true but somehow remained unbroadcast in spite of the ravenous appetite for news coverage of everything Air France/Air France flight 447 related.

    1 is the end of the line for that thought process.
    2…well, we can think about a little. If it is true, where has that little nugget of information been? Why hasn’t a bomb threat listed in an obscure Indian blog in June become big news regarding the Air France crash?

    THis brings me to two more conclusions:
    1. it was true and that fact was suppressed.
    2. it is a rumor.

    1. If it is true and the fact was suppressed, then that’s a very bad thing; the only ones who would suppress such a news item would be someone who would be hurt by Air France’s business being damaged, namely Air France.

    If it is a rumor, then why would anyone spread such a rumor? Who would profit from the rumor? I only think of maybe two or three possibilities offhand. Any party fearing to be held responsible for the crash could float just such a rumor. OR any unscrupulous journalist, or media glutton with an appetite for attention of any kind. A paranoiac (or a writer) who sees plots or the possibilities of plots, without regard to reality. Or anyone in a competitive travel industry who might get a couple of extra travelers if a few borderline fliers turned their back on the convenience of air travel.

    Now I am not saying any of this is true; I am just saying that I am skeptical about the rumors of a threat to a different flight BEFORE the Air France Flight 447 crash coming out as a new development in news months after the crash.

    I’m just saying.

    To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.
  • | |

    Flyers Rights Joins with Legendary Consumer Advocate Ralph Nader and Aviation Consumer Action Project to Demand ‘Voice’ in On-going Security Debate

    Group also refutes certain “Poll” data as being inaccurate and/or out of date

    NAPA, Calif., Nov. 21, 2010 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Flyers Rights (www.flyersrights.org) the largest non-profit Airline passenger rights group in the world, has joined Consumer Advocate Ralph Nader and Paul Hudson from the Aviation Consumer Action Project (ACAP) (acapaviation@yahoo.com) to demand meetings with DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, DOT Secretary Ray LaHood and Administrator John Pistole (TSA) to discuss the continuing issues regarding Whole Body Scanners & “Enhanced” Pat Downs by TSA Personal. That letter is shown here: http://strandedpassengers.blogspot.com/2010/11/letter-to-dhs-secretary.html

    “Airline Passengers have so far been ignored in this process,” said Kate Hanni, Director of Flyers Rights. “Thus far, Secretary Napolitano and Administrator Pistole have taken meetings with Airline Executives, Hotels, Pilots Unions, and Flight Attendant Unions- but Not a Single Meeting with the people who pay the money to Fly. How is that possible or right?”

    “Mr. Nader, Mr. Hudson and Flyers Rights represent the passengers that DHS and TSA claim to be trying to protect. DHS or TSA needs to listen to what those passengers have to say,” continued Hanni.

    The groups also want to ensure that the public understands the illogic of current polls being used to defend these security measures.

    “Some Polling Data that has been reprinted in the media is either out of date, was improperly administered, or has been taken out of context,” said Kate.

    Specifically:

    • A Poll recently published by USA Today was from January 2010 BEFORE any scanners and “Enhanced” Pat Downs were enabled.
    • A Poll by CBS only offered people the choices of Yes/No on Body Scanners, and did not give people another choice except “I don’t understand.”

      More accurate polling can be found if the Right questions are asked:

    • An MSNBC poll asked “Do you support 1) Body Scanners, 2) Pat Downs or 3) “I won’t fly if these measures are in place.” 48% said they would not fly if Body Scanners or Pat Downs were the option – This poll that had 80,000 respondents.
    • A Reuters Poll that had 90,000 respondents indicated that 96% would find Alternative means of transportation or Not Fly if given the choice of Body Scanners or Pat Downs.

    “What is a fact is that the more the public knows about these processes, the more they don’t want them affecting their lives. There comes a time when More Security isn’t Better Security- More Security is Just More,” added Hanni.

    Noted Paul Hudson, long time advocate for stronger aviation security, “We are requesting the use of Full Body Scanners and Enhanced Pat Down Process be reduced or suspended pending a public comment period, public hearings, and a full review by outside experts. TSA needs to answer serious questions of intrusiveness, safety, and effectiveness, before subjecting hundreds of millions of airline passengers to such extreme measures.”

    To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.