Now that the location has been pinpointed–

Similar Posts

  • | |

    Fatigue or not-fatigue? That is the Question


    After the crash of the Colgan Air flight in Buffalo, the new fatigue regulations hold the promise of increased safety for commercial pilots now that they are scheduled travel time plus 8 hours of sleep time (ten hours) sandwiched between flights.

    But the fatigue regulations do not apply to cargo pilots.

    The discrepancy has to do with the expense of insurance covering the lives of hundreds of passengers vs. the lives of a couple of pilots on a cargo flight; but the NTSB isn’t buying it. Cargo pilots, many of whom fly at night, are just as likely to get fatigued as commercial pilots.

    Should cargo pilots, who fly largely at night and who don’t have to maintain the same kind of scheduling as commercial passenger airlines be entitled to the same kind of fatigue protections?

    What do you think?

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

    Luggage Strike Database Upcoming?

    George’s Point of View

    LAX! We set the standards for the world.

    This is getting embarrassing.

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

    Dana Air Returns to the Sky


    Dana Air is returning to “service” six months after killing 153 in the notorious crash on Sunday, 3 June 2012. Dana Air Flight 992 crashed into two Lagos buildings. Poor maintenance and bad aviation safety practices led that Dana Air MD-83 to a dual engine failure that killed 153 aboard, 10 on the ground and caused many other injuries (on the ground.)

    We might ask why Dana Air is returning to so-called service when it had the highest number of aviation fatalities in 2012 and the world’s highest McDonnell Douglas MD-83 death toll.

    Should they really be offering flights when they have not explained away the cause of the Dana Air Crash? Perhaps they will keep flying until their remaining five McDonnell Douglas MD-83 have crashed, people grow more sense than to choose Dana Air on flights between Lagos and Abuja or LENDERS and LEASEHOLDERS choose to write better safety controls in their contracts.

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

    Thoughts about the Boeing Battery

    It’s no surprise that the FAA has no crystal ball and can’t tell us when the 787 is flying again.

    Is Boeing going to switch out Battery systems? Are they wasting time trying to qualify the problematic lithium-ion system they have when they could switch to a different technology? Is it cost prohibitive to switch systems temporarily while Boeing works the kinks out of a system they seem to want to keep?

    Cessna confirms that it intends to requalify lithium-ion batteries. It means that they are going to keep using them–but we do agree with their determination to REQUALIFY them. Let us not forget that Cessna issued an emergency recall of the CJ4+ Citation Jet lithium-ion batteries when they suffered a fire in late 2011. Their airworthiness directive required CJ4+ operators to replace the lithium-ion batteries within 10 flight hours. The company that produced the Cessna batteries, A123 Systems, went out of business. Maybe Cessna should go talk to Boeing about their findings.

    The investigation of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner battery that caught fire in Boston is that two things have been found:

    thermal runaway (a cycle where temperature goes up causing it to go up more) If the electrolyte catches on fire it can self-sustain.

    short-circuit (unintended contact of components and consequent accidental diversion of the current)

    The Boston event battery suffered both.

    Now the question is which one is the chicken, and which one is the egg. Which came first? And they still haven’t figured out why. And did both failed batteries come from the same batch of batteries?

    The lithium cobalt oxide battery chemistry Boeing uses is considered less safe than lithium manganese oxide and lithium iron phosphate chemistry.

    Was the whole battery system a mistake? It was, according to whistleblower Michael Leon who we mentioned in Battery Buzz wrote a report (2006) saying that the battery technology was risky and that substitute battery technology should be used on the 787.

    Now the NTSB is going to point fingers at the FAA for certifying what may be a problem.

    Video

    And video from the whistleblower:

    To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.
  • Foreign Aviation Tragedies, Thoughts on Compensation

    Lives have value. It doesn’t matter if a man makes $10,000 a day, or 10 cents. If he dies in a plane crash, he’s irreplaceable. Maybe his boss can put a dollar figure on what it would cost him to lose that worker; maybe his banker can come up a specific value to subtract from the family’s credit rating.

    But to his wife
    to his son
    to his daughter
    to his parents
    to his friends
    to all those his life touched daily—
    he’s irreplaceable.

    His loss leaves a hole in a family that money can never fill.

    And then the attorneys for insurance companies will “try” to get by with compensation offers that are equal amounts for each passenger, that in some cases, equal to “peanuts” — I don’t see that too much, but ‘they’ try, especially if the laws in the country have established maximum low-values for the loss of life in aviation accidents. Even with Warsaw and Montreal the compensation I’ve seen is seldom governed by the caps provided for in these treaties.

    Instead, the compensation is based on the profile of the decedent. Age, Occupation, Family, etc. With this said, each seat on that plane is occupied by an individual and the family of the victim should be compensated accordingly, and in addition, the family should be paid non-pecuniary damages for pain and suffering, etc. In a perfect case, that’s how it works.

    Whether he makes $10,000 a day, or 10 cents will not affect a man’s pain and suffering. In fact, his pain may be worse, knowing his ten cents is all that lies between his family and ruin.

    PEANUTS is not acceptable.

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

    21st Century Air Traffic Control: GAATS+ Technology

    New technologies in aviation come about to solve problems and make air travel safer. From this new technology, controllers will have increased situational awareness.

    Air traffic control relies on positive and procedural navigation: positive uses radar; procedural uses the radio-procedure of pilots reporting their position every few minutes.

    Gander Automated Air Traffic System Plus (GAATS+) is Canada’s new trans-oceanic flight control system developed especially to help deal with sixty percent (the percentage of jets equipped with GPS position-reporting and text-based communications avionics) of the thousand jets crossing the North Atlantic daily (just as Air France 447 did.) It reduces radio procedure by extending positive control via north coast radar feeds.

    The new technology is an advance in integration which automates ATC processes (taking advantage of the newest GPS technology, ADS-B and ADS-C) and is expected to save client airlines a million in fuel yearly. It is said that GAATS+ “provides significant enhancements to the original GAATS system, including electronic flight strips and increased automation of data exchange with other ATC facilities. GAATS+ also integrates automated flight plan processing, track generation, advanced conflict prediction and data-link communication for position reports.”

    Of course I can not help but have opinions on operational technology, even without a single tangible thing that qualifies me to have an opinion.

    The phrase that caught my eye is the statement that “GAATS allows reduced separation by lessening reliance solely on procedural control.”

    I am not now nor will I ever be working in a control room. I will have to take the word of Air Traffic Controllers on how this system will work at making flying safer.

    My opinion is only based on a layman’s experience and too much attention paid to aviation detail. I only see a few sticking points and they are broad ones:

    • The technology conundrum: Technology is good because it brings greater efficiency; but sometimes I wonder if a reliance on technology will allow skills to atrophy. Will a system like this ultimately result in less able controllers, the same way cockpit technology has resulted in less able pilots?
    • Separation conundrumI hear the phrase greater separation, and I think, “okay, these planes won’t impact each other; they’re safe from direct contact and wake turbulence.” So when I just see the GAATS literature talking about enabling “reduced separation,” what perceive a greater possibility for direct contact and/or wake turbulence. I know the idea of a 5 minute longitudinal separation as opposed to ten is intended to mean greater capacity for traffic. But increased technological accuracy and precision in tracking jets is a good thing only as long as we don’t use the precision in a way that is ultimately chancy.
    • New software conundrum Anyone who has ever had a system knows that the bugs in the system don’t show up right away. They are discovered at various points whenever parameters are stretched or unexpected /unanticipated/ extraordinary events occur. Even when software is not beta any longer, ( las GAATS+ is the latest incarnation of existing GAATS), it is still a developing work in progress, as new problems are revealed and are bridged. So we can only hope that any bugs that exist will not be fatal ones.
    To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.