Air Safety

Air Safety

  • |

    Emergency Airworthiness Directives issued by Transport Canada

    Inspection of Bombardier Q400 main landing gear has been ordered after line checks uncovered two cases of cam mechanism failure in the gear’s alternate extension system (AES). The cam mechanism operates the cable to open the main landing gear door and releases the MLG uplock in sequence. In cases where an operator must use the alternate extension system to deploy the MLG, the failure of the cam mechanism on one side will lead to an asymmetrical landing configuration.

    Bombardier (Boeing Canada/De Havilland) DHC-8 Series Aeroplanes


  • Flying Electronics 2011 and Beyond

    The extent of how harmful electronic devices are to aviation safety has been discussed time and again, and will continue to be brought to the forefront as new technologies are developed, and as additional companies join forces to find alternative ways to channel and network passenger devices in a way that is not detrimental to flight electronics.

    Officially risks are associated with electromagnetic interference from devices, the use of which is prohibited by the FAA at lower altitudes. As devices proliferate, frequent flyers are less and less willing to abandon use of their phones, blackberries, ipads and blueberries, even though their use, and especially their use in concert, (i.e. imagine the potential impact of 200 people aboard a leaky old jet all using their devices at the same time) has been deemed less than optimal, interfering with the plane’s avionics.

    So we can look forward to various accommodations: either passengers will have to stop using their devices on board altogether, to accommodate whatever stricter guidelines may eventually occur after the next big aviation tragedy is blamed on a rogue cell phone; or airlines will accommodate passengers electronic addictions, finding new, better, hopefully safer and doubtlessly more expensive ways to channel their devices while at 10,000 feet.

  • | |

    NTSB INVESTIGATING TODAY’S JETLINER RUNWAY EXCURSION IN WYOMING

    The National Transportation Safety Board has opened an investigation into an incident in which a passenger jetliner departed the runway while landing at Jackson Hole Airport in Wyoming.

    At about 11:38 am MT today, American Airlines flight 2253, a B-757 (N668AA) inbound from Chicago O’Hare International Airport, ran off the end of runway 19 while landing at Jackson Hole Airport. No injuries were reported among the 181 passengers and crew on board.

    The aircraft came to rest in hard packed snow about 350 feet beyond the runway overrun area. The weather was reported to be snowing at the time of the incident. No damage to the aircraft has been reported.

    Senior NTSB Air Safety Investigator Joseph Sedor has been designated as the Investigator-In-Charge.

    At this time, parties to the investigation are American Airlines, Boeing, the Allied Pilots Association, and the Federal Aviation Administration.

    Improving runway safety has been on the NTSB’s Most Wanted List of Safety Improvements since its inception in 1990: http://go.usa.gov/rTn

  • |

    Hot Air Balloon Emergency Landing

    microsoft clip art

    What: Hot Air Balloon near Recker and Queen roads (destination unknown)
    Where: Gilbert Arizona
    When: Fri Dec 23, 2010
    Who: 5 aboard
    Why: While flying over a neighborhood low enough for residents to hear the fire, a balloonist had trouble with negotiating the winds, and struck a tree. He made an emergency landing
    No injuries were reported.

  • | |

    American Traveling Public Says ‘There Has to Be a Better Way’ to Conduct Air Travel Security Screening

    Overwhelming Majority Support a Trusted Traveler Program That Could Help Spur $84.6 Billion in More Travel

    Blue Ribbon Panel of Experts Convened By U.S. Travel Association to Make Recommendations in Coming Weeks

    WASHINGTON, Dec. 21, 2010 — As airports begin welcoming passengers during one of the busiest air travel periods of the year, a new survey reveals three in four air travelers believe “there has to be a better way” to conduct air travel security screening. Eight in 10 support a trusted traveler program that would provide alternative screening measures for American citizens who submit to a background check and meet other risk criteria. Respondents would take an average of two to three more trips per year if the hassle involved in flying could be reduced without compromising security. Those additional trips would add $84.6 billion in travel spending and support 888,000 additional jobs, according to research from the U.S. Travel Association.

    “Americans are clamoring for a better way, and it should be a wake-up call for our leaders in Washington,” said Roger Dow, president and CEO of the U.S. Travel Association, which commissioned the survey. “An efficient air travel security screening system that streamlines the process for trusted travelers can strengthen our security and economy. Let’s get to work building the system Americans crave.”

    A majority of those surveyed believe Congress should make air travel security a top priority in the new term that begins in January.

    According to the Consensus Research Group, which conducted the survey, “Travelers’ frustration with the system is not limited to just one or two security measures. It is across the board and includes a range of issues.”
    Among the survey findings:

    The U.S. Travel Association has convened a Blue Ribbon Panel for Frictionless Aviation Security comprised of industry and security experts and former government officials. The panel will recommend how to improve air travel security in a way that maximizes security and minimizes the burden on travelers. The panel is expected to issue its report in early 2011.

    The survey was conducted online by Consensus Research Group on behalf of the U.S. Travel Association between November 29 and December 10. The survey includes a nationally representative sample of 1,000 business and leisure air travelers who have flown during the past two years, are aged 25 or older, and who reside in the U.S.

    • Having to remove shoes before going through a metal detector received a higher negative response from those surveyed than newly implemented pat-down body searches by Transportation Security Administration (TSA) personnel.
    • Nearly 9 in 10 respondents believe it is possible to achieve an air travel screening system that is both secure and efficient, while virtually the same number believe if we can put a man on the moon, we can create a passenger security system that doesn’t frighten or inconvenience travelers.
    • Three in four air travelers support recruiting more professional security personnel who are trained to use personal observation, dogs and sophisticated computer analyses that have proven to be effective screening techniques in the past.

    One page summary of the survey:

    Travelers Frustrated with National Air Security System Public Believes “There Has To Be a Better Way”
    Three in four American travelers (75%) believe there has to be a better way to provide air travel security than the procedures used today.
    • Two-thirds of air travelers (66%) believe air travel security is a complicated problem and will not accept heavy-handed procedures unless they are more effective and efficient – 72% of business travelers agree.
    • Eight in ten (82%) agree that if we can put a man on the moon, we can create a passenger screening system that doesn’t frighten or inconvenience air travel passengers.
    More travelers describe the current passenger screening process as “inconsistent,” “stressful,” or “embarrassing” than describe it as being “fair” or “effective.”
    •
    Top ten words air travelers use to describe today’s screening procedures:
    o Inconsistent 64% o Stressful 58% o Embarrassing 41% o Intimidating 40% o Intrusive 39%
    o Fair 30% o Ineffective 29% o Effective 23% o Rude 22% o Frightening 16%
    More would travel by air if the screening process was improved – and the economy would benefit.
    • Nearly two in every three air travelers (64%) said they would fly more if security procedures remained as effective but were less intrusive and less time-consuming.
    • Travelers would take an average of two to three more trips a year (2.48/year) if the hassle could be reduced without compromising security effectiveness. These additional trips could add $84.6 billion in spending and 888,000 more jobs.
    • 80% agree there should be alternative screening measures for American citizens who submit to a background check and meet other risk criteria. In fact, half (50%) of those who have traveled recently “strongly agree” with this.
    • Three in four air travelers (74%) support recruiting more professional security personnel who are trained to use personal observation, dogs and sophisticated computer analyses.
    • A majority of air travelers support common-sense measures such as creating a special security lane for frequent travelers (60%) and a special screening lane for families, infrequent travelers and people who need boarding assistance (58%).
    American travelers believe fixing air travel security should be a top priority in the 112th Congress.
    • A majority of air travelers (54%) believe Congress should make air travel security a top priority in the new term that begins in January.

  • Press Release – FAA Certifies Santa’s NextGen-Equipped Sleigh for Christmas Eve

    For Immediate Release
    December 20, 2010
    Contact: FAA Press Office
    Phone: 202-267-3883

    WASHINGTON – Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) safety inspectors at the North Pole certified Santa One, the reindeer-powered sleigh piloted by Santa Claus, for its Christmas Eve round-the-world delivery mission.

    Santa One, led by Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer, is outfitted with new satellite-based NextGen technology, which will allow Santa to deliver more toys to more children with improved safety and efficiency.

    “Children around the world will get their gifts on time, regardless of the weather, thanks to NextGen,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. “We’re proud to say NextGen is bringing Santa Claus to town.”

    Rudolph’s red nose has been outfitted with avionics that will broadcast Santa One’s position via satellites to air traffic controllers around the world with improved accuracy, integrity and reliability.

    “Santa’s cockpit display will help improve his situational awareness by showing him and his reindeer flight crew their precise location in relation to other aircraft, bad weather and terrain,” said FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt. “NextGen will help make this an extra-safe Christmas Eve.”

    The sleigh’s onboard systems have been upgraded with state-of-the-art, NextGen technology that will allow Santa One to maintain cruising altitude for as long as possible before making a continuous descent into cities and towns around the world. While maneuvering on rooftops, an advanced, onboard runway safety system will help reduce the risk of incursions between the sleigh and chimneys.

    Santa’s reindeer-powered sleigh is already energy-efficient, but the NextGen technologies will further reduce Santa One’s carbon hoofprint. The shorter, faster routings means that Rudolph and the other reindeer will consume less hay, resulting in fewer greenhouse gases.

    Unlike any other pilot, Santa has special permission from the FAA to fly thousands of domestic and international short-haul and long-range flights in one night. In keeping with the FAA’s science-based proposal to give pilots more rest, Santa will arrange his flight plan based on his circadian rhythm. Mrs. Claus also assured FAA safety inspectors that she’ll make sure he gets plenty of rest before the flight on Christmas Eve.

    Follow Santa’s progress on Christmas Eve at the NORAD Tracks Santa website: www.noradsanta.org

  • |

    FAA Safety Team | Safer Skies Through Education

    Safety Tip – Airport Surface Deviations
    Notice Number: NOTC2731
    Ground Operations
    As winter gets into full swing across the country we should be aware of its impact on our surface operations at the airport. Operating on a snow or ice covered surface — either in a ground vehicle or an aircraft — requires an extra degree of caution. Movement of ground equipment should be done in a manner that allows you to avoid sliding or skidding into other equipment or aircraft, or skidding across hold lines.

    Extreme caution also is needed when towing an aircraft due to the added weight and the fact that most of the time you are relying solely on the braking action of the tug to stop both the aircraft and the tug. On wet, slick or icy surfaces the aircraft in tow can suddenly jack knife out of control as you turn or attempt to stop.

    The same cautions must also be adhered to when taxiing an aircraft in these conditions. When diminished braking action is present, aircraft can slide off taxiways and runways if one is not careful. When approaching hold lines and turns, be sure to use minimal speed to ensure your ability to come to a stop prior to the hold line or to avoid skidding off the taxiway during a turn.

    As with all ground operations, keep your eyes outside the cockpit while taxiing and adhere to all ATC instructions.

    Additional information about ground operations can be found in chapter 2 of the Airplane Flying Handbook, available at http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aircraft/airplane_handbook/

  • |

    Severe Weather Disrupting Travel

    George’s Point of View

    The weather in Los Angeles may be a gray, drizzly 56 degrees today, but much of Europe is suffering travel-suspending ice and snow. Snow on the forecast, snowplows on the runways, chains on the cars and weather delays on the calendar. And who is embroiled in all of this? Pilgrims and passengers, wayfarers, tourists and businessmen, travelers all.

    And these brave folk out going where many have gone before are complaining about “unnecessary” delays in their travel plans. They are getting all wound up.

    Listen, when you fly in winter, delays are going to happen. Need I say it is better to be safe than sorry? Believe me, I know. And my feet have been in your cold, wet, uncomfortable, transient shoes all too many times. But waiting is better than crashing.

    I understand firsthand the griping of the thousands of travelers stranded overnight in hundreds of airports all over the world. Truly, I feel your pain. But it reminds me of butter. No, it reminds me of chiffon. (Forgettable margarine. Memorable cosmos.)

    Remember that 1970’s commercial….

    If you’re going to try to fly when there’s five inches of snow on the runway at Heathrow, delays are going to happen. You’re going to get a message like “Due to the continuing bad weather, further flight delays and cancellations are likely over the coming days and beyond. We are operating a reduced schedule until 06:00 on Wednesday, 22 December.”

    If you’re going to take off from Charles de Gaulle Airport in December, delays will happen. Look at Rouen in the snow. (Livecam) Airports are chaotic enough around the holidays but when you throw this kind of weather in the mix, you’re relying on the airport who is relying on every contractor they can get their hands on to get runways clear in an uphill battle; and you’re relying on planes that don’t function at their best in freezing conditions; and you’re relying on an industry that is hamstrung by untenable weather.

    This weather will pass. Enjoy the scenery. Fly safe. I hope that there will be one less aviation-related accident for me to hear about.

    So where ever you are this holiday season, take your cup of cocoa with marshmallows, or coffee, or whatever is your cuppa tea, and cozy up somewhere warm. You can’t fool (with) Mother Nature. It’s going to be a long winter.

  • | |

    Delhi International Airport Partners with IBM to Create a Smarter Air Terminal

    NEW DELHI, Dec. 16, 2010 — Delhi International Airport (P) Limited (DIAL) has partnered with IBM (NYSE: IBM) India to establish a common-use infrastructure in New Delhi’s Passenger Terminal Building 3 that will automate its operations and improve customer satisfaction to give the airport a competitive edge through quality service. The unified network solution integrates all of the communications across Terminal 3 and its facilities so that airport operations, airlines and other tenants can better share and exchange key information across their related operations to more efficiently deploy their resources and meet the growing demands of the India aviation market.

    “IBM’s solution reflects the need of Delhi International Airport (P) Limited — a solution providing quality management of our internal systems and delivering greater service to the users of the airport while reducing issues pertaining to interoperability through this infrastructure,” said I. Prabhakara Rao, CEO Airport Project Development, DIAL. “We are happy to be working with IBM where they have placed us better in catering to our immediate business requirement.”

    DIAL chose IBM’s Managed Network Infrastructure (MNI) solution, which forms backbone for all the IT and non-IT systems in Terminal 3. It combines video, voice and data over a single network platform using Intelligent Cable Management System with high levels of redundancy and scalability. IBM designed and implemented this network to meet DIAL’s objective of achieving a world class common use IT infrastructure for its customers, thereby supporting and improving service quality levels due to its high available design. The MNI covers the length and breadth of Terminal 3 with wired and wireless network coverage providing common use but highly virtualized network services to airport core systems, IT and non-IT systems, corporate users, government offices, lounges and public facilities. All this has been done with well defined work methods statements, detailed working plans and test and integration plans.

    “DIAL wanted a partner who could understand the complexity of airport systems while being equipped with extensive experience in handling large-scale deployments at international airports,” said Sameer Batra, Vice President, Distribution Sector, IBM India/South Asia. “This project will help DIAL in addressing their requirement for a unified and secure solution that aims at improving the airport experience while positioning them for future growth.”

    With more than 50 years experience working with the world’s leading airlines and airports, IBM provides consulting services and information technology to top airlines and airports across the globe to enable them to deliver more highly differentiated customer experiences and improve their operational efficiency.

  • | | |

    Multiple Causes Lead to Crashes

    We have said this all along–that it takes more than one catastrophic coincidence to take down a plane. And here we are supported now by the latest Polish investigation into the crash of the Polish Presidential plane.

    In the case of that crash, the weather was bad. There was no possibility of safe landing. The investigation does not stop there. It goes on to cite a dozen mistakes, safety violations which led to the crash, including crew training, flight prep and rule violations.


    Click to view full size photo at Airliners.net
    Contact photographer Martin Lidzba

    What: Polish Air Force Tupolev TU-154M
    Where: Smolensk
    When: Apr 10th 2010
    Who: 88 passengers and 8 crew
    Why: On approach to Smolensk North Airport in dense fog, the plane impacted a forest, coming to rest short of the runway. There are conflicting reports leading up to the decision to land at Smolensk (versus Minsk or Moscow), holding pattern, the number of approaches.

    Everyone aboard the flight was lost, including Polish President Lech Kaczynski, his wife Maria, the national bank president, deputy foreign minister, army chaplain, head of the National Security Office, deputy parliament speaker, Olympic Committee head, civil rights commissioner and at least two presidential aides and three lawmakers.

    Read More

  • | |

    NTSB KICKS OFF YEAR-LONG EFFORT ON CHILD PASSENGER SAFETY, DEBUTS EDUCATIONAL VIDEO

    National Transportation Safety Board
    Washington, DC 20594

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 9, 2010

    The National Transportation Safety Board today concluded its public forum, Child Passenger Safety in the Air and in Automobiles. NTSB Chairman Deborah A.P. Hersman announced in her opening remarks that the forum marked the beginning of a year-long effort by the Board to promote child passenger safety across all modes of transportation.

    “Safety for our smallest travelers should not be considered optional or a luxury,” said Chairman Hersman.

    As part of the NTSB’s safety advocacy efforts, a short video focusing on the importance of properly securing children in cars and on airplanes was debuted at the start of the forum. The full video is now at www.ntsb.gov/children, as well as two shorter versions – one focused on highway safety and one focused on aviation safety. All three versions soon will be available in Spanish.

    “The laws of physics don’t change, whether you are on an airplane or in an automobile,” said Chairman Hersman. “Children rely on their parents to know what is safest for them. The purpose of our forum was to make sure that parents have the information to do the right thing.”

    Chairman Hersman also noted that 18 other states, as well as American Samoa and Puerto Rico, should amend their existing booster seat laws to reflect the Safety Board’s longstanding recommendation.

  • |

    And a Little Dog Shall Lead Them…

    The dog was in his crate, and got anxious; his owner tried to comfort him, and let him out of the crate, accidentally or not. So the anxious, terrified dog bit a passenger and a flight attendant. And consequently the pilot of Newark-Phoenix U.S. Airways Flight 522 landed in Pittsburg, booted out the senior citizen and neurotic little Toto too, and flew the rest of the way to Phoenix.

    And the senior citizen and the little dog took another flight from Pittsburg to Phoenix. No word if it was on U.S. Airways or not.

    George’s Point of View

    If Solomon had been on that flight, what would he have done?

    Threaten to cut the eight pound dog in thirds? I can see it now, as he is posed with a plane-legal 10th century BC weapon, ready to divide the dog into thirds, to the horror of the dog’s owner. Given the mindset of most contemporary Americans, rather than being upset, the bitten attendant and passenger would likely both have their hand out, even after getting their share of dog. However, possibly not, since only a diehard dog lover would try to handle an angry chihuahua (or whatever the little canine is.) Let’s hope for the owner’s sake that the injured comrades-in-travel were forgiving dog lovers.

    And also, let’s hope that Fido, Rover, Toto (or whatever his name is) stays home instead of going on the next trip.

    The thing that I don’t understand these days is the suspension of common sense. How many thousands of dollars in fuel and expenses did that diversion to Pittsburg cost? Was it really essential to make an emergency landing to strand a senior citizen and pet in Pittsburg? How serious were the bites? There’s no mention of a medical emergency.

    Let’s hope no charges are filed.

  • | | | |

    Australia’s CAA Investigation Points to Baggage Handlers


    The April 9 emergency landing of Eagle Air/Air New Zealand Beech 1900D en route from Auckland to Whangarei, attributed to an open rear cargo door, has been blamed on untrained baggage handlers who did not lock cargo doors.

    The hatch flew open on takeoff. See the link to a photograph of the open door posted on the NZ Herald

    The doors tend to be left unlocked in case late bags come in; but that is not a good safety practice because a broken cargo door can smash the tail of the plane or worse.

  • Babies In Carriers

    Patricia Friend of the Association of Flight Attendants told the New York Times “Every single thing on that airplane down to the coffee pots are required to be properly restrained except children under the age of 2.”

    Babies are safer in carriers. That’s a fact. So why are we delaying?

    Below, see where the NTSB is discussing this issue on December 9th in an open forum: (See below) This issue should concern us all.

    NTSB PUBLISHES AGENDA FOR CHILD PASSENGER SAFETY IN THE AIR AND IN AUTOMOBILES FORUM SCHEDULED FOR DECEMBER 9TH

    The National Transportation Safety Board has published its agenda for the Child Passenger Safety in the Air and in Automobiles forum, which will begin at 9:00 a.m. on Thursday, December 9, 2010. The one-day forum will be chaired by NTSB Chairman Deborah A.P. Hersman and all five Board Members will participate.

    Three panels of invited experts from non-profits, academia, federal agencies, industry, and professional associations will address subjects including safety risks to children when flying in airplanes or riding in automobiles; best practices for protecting children when traveling; child seat, seat belt, and vehicle design improvements; and identification of effective interventions for increasing use of child seats and seat belts.

    Child seats and other products approved for securing children in the air and on the roads will be displayed. Certified child passenger safety technicians may earn continuing education units for attendance at this event.

    Organizations and individuals can submit materials for the NTSB’s public docket for this forum. Submissions should directly address one or more of the forum’s three topic areas (identified by the panel titles on the agenda) and should be submitted electronically as an attached document to childsafety@ntsb.gov. The deadline for receipt is December 23, 2010. A description of the forum and complete agenda are available at http://www.ntsb.gov/children.

    The forum is open to all and free to attend (there is no registration). It will be held at the NTSB’s Board Room and Conference Center, located at 429 L’Enfant Plaza, S.W., Washington, D.C.

    The event will also be webcast live on the NTSB’s website. Webcast details will be posted on the website when available. Webcast archives remain posted for three months after the event. After three months, the NTSB FOIA office can provide copies.

    Directions to the NTSB Board Room: Front door located on Lower 10th Street, directly below L’Enfant Plaza. From Metrorail, exit L’Enfant Plaza station at 9th and D Streets escalator, walk through the shopping mall, at CVS store (on the left), take escalator (on the right) down one level. The Board Room will be to your left.

  • |

    CASA Media Releases Direction for new A380 inspections

    Wednesday 2 December 2010

    The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has issued a direction to Qantas to conduct a further inspection of the Rolls-Royce Trent 900 engines on its A380 aircraft.

    This direction requires Qantas to inspect an oil filler tube that feeds oil to the engine’s high pressure/intermediate pressure bearing structure.

    The oil filler tube inspection must be carried out within two flight cycles.

    Under the direction, Qantas is required to conduct the inspections in accordance with detailed technical information contained in a service bulletin issued by the manufacturer Rolls-Royce this week.

    Inspections will be undertaken using specialist equipment known as a borescope, which is inserted into the oil tube and provides a view of the condition of the wall of the tube.

    Qantas engineers will be looking for any sign of the wall of the tube being out of tolerance and reduced in thickness, which could cause the tube to crack and leak oil.

    Evidence of a problem with the oil tube has been found during the investigation into the Qantas A380 engine failure near Singapore on 4 November 2010.

    The Australian Transport Safety Bureau has identified the condition of the tube as a safety issue and issued a safety recommendation to Rolls-Royce.

    CASA continues to liaise closely with Qantas, the European Aviation Safety Agency, Rolls-Royce, Airbus and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau. In monitoring developments CASA will take any further action that may be necessary in the interests of safety.

  • | | |

    Safety Alert for Operators: 14 CFR, parts 91, 133, and 137 and Helicopter hot fueling/loading

    U.S. Department of Transportation
    Federal Aviation Administration
    SAFO
    Safety Alert for Operators
    SAFO 10020

    Flight Standards Service Washington, DC

    A SAFO contains important safety information and may include recommended action. SAFO content should be especially valuable to air carriers in meeting their statutory duty to provide service with the highest possible degree of safety in the public interest. Besides the specific action recommended in a SAFO, an alternative action may be as effective in addressing the safety issue named in the SAFO.
    Subject: 14 CFR, parts 91, 133, and 137 and hot fueling/loading

    Purpose: This SAFO highlights current guidance and best-practices for Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) parts 91, 133, and 137 operators that conduct fueling or chemical loading with the engines running (hot fueling/loading).

    Background: On May 30, 2009, a Bell 47G-2 helicopter operating under part 137 was being refueled with the engine running (hot fueling) when the ground crew spilled fuel onto the engine while trying to untangle a kink in the hose. The helicopter quickly caught fire and the pilot sustained serious injuries as a result. Additionally, on September 9, 2008, a Bell 206-B helicopter, operating under part 137, sustained substantial damage while conducting hot fueling and chemical loading simultaneously. After fueling was complete, but with the chemical hose still attached, the ground crew mistakenly gave an “all clear” hand signal to the pilot. As the pilot ascended, the chemical hose caused the helicopter to pitch nose down and roll to the right, contacting the ground.

    Recommended Action: Hot fueling/loading can be extremely hazardous and is not recommended except when absolutely necessary due to the nature of the operation. Operators who conduct hot fueling/loading should develop standard operating procedures (SOP) for flight and ground crew personnel. The operator’s procedures should address the following guidelines:

    • The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recommends that hot fueling be conducted only by aircraft utilizing JET A or JET A-1 fuel types. If strict operating procedures are not followed, hot fueling of aircraft utilizing AvGas can be extremely hazardous due to its low flash point. Aircraft being fueled while an engine is operating should have all potential ignition sources located above the fuel inlet port(s) and above fuel vent or tank openings. Sources of ignition include, but are not limited to: engines, exhausts, auxiliary power units (APU), and combustion-type cabin heater exhausts. In accordance with 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) section 91.9, hot fueling is not permitted if the Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual contains an associated operating limitation.
    • An appropriately certificated and rated pilot should be at the flight controls during the entire hot fueling/loading process with controls appropriately adjusted to prevent aircraft movement. The pilot should unbuckle all restraints, and be prepared to immediately shut-down the engine and egress the aircraft, if necessary. The pilot should not conduct any extraneous duties during hot fueling/loading. Other personnel should not be on-board the aircraft during hot fueling/loading.
    • Only designated personnel, with proper training in hot fueling/loading operations, should operate fueling or chemical loading equipment. The operator’s written procedures should include: precautions for safe handling of the fuel or chemical, emergency shutoff procedures, fire extinguisher use, hand signal use, and precautions regarding moving propeller and rotor blades.
    • At least two ground personnel should be present during hot fueling/loading. One person conducts the fueling/loading, while the other stands by prepared to activate the fuel/chemical emergency shutoff and handle fire extinguishers if necessary. The aircraft should remain well clear of the fuel source, and at no time should the aircraft wing or helicopter blades extend over the fueling source
    • Before fueling, the aircraft must be bonded to the fuel source to equalize static electricity between the fuel source and the aircraft. Grounding of the aircraft and/or fuel truck is no longer recommended because it does not prevent sparks at the fuel source, and the grounding cable may not be sufficient to discharge the electrical current.
    • All doors, windows, and access points allowing entry to the interior of the aircraft that are adjacent to, or in the immediate vicinity of, the fuel inlet ports should be closed and should remain closed during fueling operations.
    • Fuel should be dispensed into an open port only from approved deadman-type nozzles, with a flow rate not to exceed 10 gallons per minute (38 liters per minute). Close port pressure fueling ports are preferable because the potential for spillage is reduced.
    • A fire extinguisher of an appropriate type and size for the fueling operation must be within easy reach of ground personnel at all times during hot fueling operations. Operators who conduct hot fueling should also equip the aircraft with a fire extinguisher in the cockpit, if possible.
    • When fueling/loading is complete, the pilot must ensure that the seatbelt and shoulder harness are properly re-secured as necessary prior to any aircraft movement.
    • Operators should include this SAFO in initial and recurrent training programs for pilots and ground personnel.

    References:

      ? Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) – Helicopter Rapid Refueling
      ? AC 00-34A, Aircraft Ground Handling and Servicing
      ? National Fire Prevention Association (NFPA) 407 Standard for Aircraft Fuel Servicing
      ? Include review of this SAFO in initial and recurrent training, and flight reviews.
  • | | | | |

    Air France, Airbus Playing “Hot Potato” with Responsibility

    Air France denies responsibility for the Air France Flight 447 crash, saying that they had raised concerns about the sensors before the crash.

    If they did so, it would seem the memorandum they presented indicates that they were aware of the problem, and therefore responsible. Though Air France “submitted a memorandum to show it had taken ‘all possible precautions” after a series of earlier sensor failures,’ ” it would seem the memorandum would indicate that they were aware of a problem, and should have cancelled flights until the problem was corrected. Certainly passengers were not made aware that there was a potentially serious issue.

    If Airbus had really been concerned, they would have installed the $50,000 backup system used by other carriers in the event of a multiple airspeed sensor failure.

    Watching Air France and Airbus (and Thales) shift blame for the crash back and forth is like watching a child’s game of “hot potato.” When they are finished passing the buck, who ever ends up officially responsible, the victims are still just as dead. Time for someone to “man up.”

    There are rumors that a request will be made to Transport Minister Thierry Mariani to continue the search for the black box. Three earlier searches failed, seeking the Airbus SAS A330, which crashed into the Atlantic on June 1, 2009, en route from Rio de Janeiro to Paris, killing all 228 people aboard. 6,700 square miles was searched for the acoustic pings, but the batteries are now dead, and searches changed to sonar imaging.

    The BEA claims that only the black boxes will tell the truth of what happened but drags its feet in continuing the search. On May 6th 2010, a French deputy minister told the public that the black boxes had been found (meaning, apparently, that their general location had been pinned down.) That report was withdrawn. That fact, combined with the BEA reluctance to continue searching, has led to persistent rumors of a cover-up.

    Private shareholders own 81.4% of Air France, 37% held by former Air France shareholders and 21% held by former KLM shareholders. The Government of France owns 18.6% of Air France—putting the BEA in the awkward position of heading an investigation where it has essentially owes 18.6% responsibility.

    Air France was fined €310 million this month for price fixing. Read about their response to the fine

  • |

    Wrongheaded Industry Reassessing Vulnerable Pitot Tubes vs Ice Procedures instead of Brainstorming Next Generation

    Pitot tubes use external air temperature and pressure to calculate changes in speed. Ice crystals that get caught in pitot tubes are considered a contributing factor in a dozen significant events, and the crash of Air France flight 447. As a result of ice crystal accumulation, air temp and pressure readings are false, autopilots shut off, pilots lose altitude readings and receive false warnings. In a fly by wire plane, this is disastrous. In Air France Flight 447, it killed everyone aboard the plane.

    Today’s news is full of aviation-safety experts looking for changes in procedures and more-precise checklists. There’s a lot of buzz out there about a new study. I hope that the study, as it has been explained, is not just about adapting to broken technology. I hope this is not the only study out there.

    Air France and Boeing are now examining how these ice crystals function (or more correctly, malfunction.) That seems wise.

    But one questions why the next step of the anti-icing drive will be to get consensus on how pilots should respond to pitot tube failure.

    George’s Point of View

    This is like figuring out the best way to drive on a flat tire, instead of making a tire that doesn’t go flat. Sure, pilots should have procedures, but shouldn’t a study be designed with the ultimate goal being to give the pilots a dependable speed sensor, not methods how to mitigate an oncoming disaster? Are designers afraid to trade a known quantity, even though it is flawed, for something unaffected by ice crystals? Even if it is cheaper for airlines to figure out how to muddle on with existing systems than to devise an alternative technology to pitot tubes, shouldn’t the focus of studies be on creating technology that is not disabled by ice crystals?

    Not being an engineer myself, I have no ideas on the subject—but somewhere there’s an aviation engineer with a brilliant idea of either a safe design of reconfigured pitot tubes or a completely different system. Let us hope that engineer is able to step up, and be recognized. But it may not be so simple. Apparently Airbus and Air France had been aware of chronic pitot tube problems for years and were content to continue using the same design anyway.

    Come on engineers. It’s time for a better mousetrap.

  • |

    EASA Airworthiness Directive 2010-0242-E (click to view full)

    This EASA Airworthiness Directive was released following an uncontained engine failure of a Trent 900 engine on the Qantas A388 flight near Singapore on Nov 4th 2010, an uncontained engine failure.

    2010-0242-E : Engine – High Pressure / Intermediate Pressure (HP/IP) Structure – Inspections
    Number 2010-0242-E
    Issued by Europe
    Issue date 2010-11-22
    Effective date 2010-11-23
    Contributor EASA Propulsion Section
    Approval Holder / Type Designation ROLLS-ROYCE PLC —RB211 TRENT 900
    Supersedure This AD supersedes EASA AD 2010-0236-E dated 10 November 2010.
    Related information Rolls-Royce RB211 Trent 900 Alert NMSB 72-AG590 Revision 2 dated 18 November 2010. The use of later approved revisions of this document is acceptable for compliance with the requirements of this AD.

  • | |

    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.”

  • |

    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.

  • |

    Regarding Boeings New Generation Take on Old (Persistent?) Problems. Maybe. Maybe not.

    George’s Point of View

    The 787: Dreamliner test flight suffered from extensive smoke, fire and structural damage originating in the P100′ electrical panel, a key component that distributes power from the left generator to power vital systems

    The 777: United electrical panel set the nearby insulation blankets on fire. This was initially reported as smoke. Thus no reason for the FAA to go there. And the full narrative said only “electrical fire” but did not elucidate beyond “electrical fire” to explain the electrical panel set the nearby insulation blankets on fire.

    The AAIB conclusions 4,5, and 6, were:

    • “The RGCB and Right Bus Tie Breaker (RBTB) suffered from severe internal arcing and short circuits which generated temperatures in excess of 1,000°C, and resulted in uncontained failures. The RGCB was probably the first to fail.”
    • “ Molten copper and silver droplets from the failed contactors dropped down through the open base of the P200 panel and ignited the insulation blankets below.”
    • “The insulation blanket fire spread underneath a floor panel to the opposite P205 power panel, causing heat and fire damage to structure, cooling ducts and wiring.”

    The three requirements for a fire: oxygen, ignition source and fuel.

    From 2000 to 2008, over 22 ADs are directed at insulation blankets that burn. Before that, from 1988 to 2010, 8 FAA Tech Center reports and 2 FAA Safety Conference Papers are directed at electrical induced fires or the insulation blankets that give fuel to the fire.

    When was the latest AD ?
    2008-23-09. REMOVE PET (AN-26). Boeing Model 727-200s, 737-200s, 737-300s, and 737-400, 747s, 757s, 767s Series Airplanes.from the fuselage. Such insulation blankets could ignite and propagate a fire that is the result of electrical arcing or sparking.
    DATES; Issued Oct 24, 2008 -effective Dec 15, 2008 – Comply by     2014. If you read the AD, you can note that the compliance date is actually set beyond the affected planes anticipated passenger service-life. Compliance is put off until the planes will likely be converted from passenger to cargo.

    2002 FAA ASTRAC Conference Conclusions

    • In-flight Fires In Hidden Areas are a risk to aviation safety.
    • Most hidden fires are caused by electrical problems.
    • Non-compliance with Safety Regulations have been uncovered.
    • Fire Safety Problems and Improvements are in various stages of correction and study.
    • It is impossible to predict the relative risk of serious fires occurring in Hidden Areas or Locations.

    Without being too critical or belaboring the obvious, I do have to say that the 2002 conclusions are overly obvious and simplistic. These same points will probably be as true in 2002 and 2011 as in 3011. Point by point? Consider this:

    • In-flight fires are a risk to safety, whether they’re hidden or not. Certainly if one doesn’t know where they are, they have more time to be destructive before they are found. And as for being predictable-there probably is a random statistical probability that can come pretty close; but translating theory back to real life situations perfectly only happens on tv.
    • Electrical problems are certainly a broad umbrella-one might even say the current problems with rogue batteries to be a form of electrical problem.
    • Non compliance regarding safety is hardly an issue when a plane is in the testing phase; in fact, that is when the manufacturer is are troubleshooting to get rid of potential safety issues. The 777 electrical panel issue may or may not have a common cause; and if it does have a common cause, then, isn’t that splendid for Boeing? The detective job (i.e. finding the cause) is half of the problem already solved. What luck! But in real life, are the causes that easy to find? And in practice, how many times are non-compliance with Safety Regulations due to poor operator maintenance versus to unsafe parts?
    • Fire Safety Improvements are an ongoing process. It’s the nature of the beast.

    So here is the problem as it should possibly be stated:

    -We need compliance now because people are on these planes now, not at some random future date. Pushing back solutions puts more people are at risk. We need feasible compliance that doesn’t put good companies out of business but still maintains the highest possible safety standards NOT the lowest possible cost. Putting off compliance over a combustible insulation blanket until 2014? Really? How is this safe?

    -The lowest common denominator should not be lowest possible cost-to-the- industry. It should be the highest possible safety for the passenger. These things are not always mutually exclusive.

    -If the root problem is less than ideal materials used across many manufacturer and model applications, then quit pussyfooting around.
    If the boy is going to cry wolf, let it be for a real wolf. If the wolf is real, then act. If inadequate materials, composites, etc are the problem, then don’t point the finger and do nothing. Questionable materials have no place in an industry that lives under guidelines advocating and promoting safety over all.

    Like Yoda said, “Do or do not. There is no try.”

    Raise the standards.

  • | |

    Qantas A380 Engine Disintegration Far More Serious

    Rolls said in a statement that the failure was confined to a specific component in the turbine area of the engine. This caused an oil fire. The British company added that it would replace the faulty part. Safety continues to be Rolls-Royce’s highest priority. See their statement

    Qantas is grounding its Airbus A380 superjumbos until further notice, and Singapore Airlines is grounding 3 of its A380s. EASA is calling for inspections. See the directive.

    What Happened
    The cause of the Rolls Royce engine failure has been pinned down to a faulty bearing box, the underlying cause of the oil leak. The bearings allow the drive shaft to move. The leaking bearing box dripped oil into the QANTAS A380 whose engine exploded (uncontained) into the wing, and dropping its turbine onto a house in Batam. The wing damage included electrical cables and hydraulic lines inside the wing, so that pilots were dealing with hydraulic damage (inability to close the landing gear doors), and electrical damage (trouble shutting down the engine beside the damaged one.)

    The Qantas meltdown is one of at least five documented A380 engine malfunctions.

    • Qantas A388 near Singapore on Nov 4th 2010
    • Lufthansa A388 near Frankfurt on Aug 6th 2010, engine shut down in flight
    • Emirates A388 near Zurich on Jul 13th 2010, engine shut down in flight
    • Singapore A388 near Krakow on Sep 27th 2009, engine shut down in flight
    • Singapore A388 near London on May 25th 2009, engine failure

    Newer Trent 900 engines have a different bearing box. Although the new box promises to eliminate the problem, newer models also have system software to shut down the engine before the leak causes a meltdown similar to the QANTAS A380 event over Singapore.

    George’s Point of View

    Although one might say that regulators did not adequately check the engine before approving it for commercial use, I think of Boeing’s response to its recent 787 test flight, and I point out that no one made Boeing step back and pull the 787 back on to the drawing board for more tests and adjustments. Boeing did that, because such remediation is what testing is all about. It is part and parcel of the paradigm of safety in design. It is up to each manufacturer that every item off of their assembly lines be as well designed and as safe as humanly possible. This includes fixing design flaws as soon as they are known. So I wonder, if newer Trent 900 engines have an improved bearing box, this of course begs the question why the older ones were not replaced.

  • | |

    Press Release – FAA Adopts “Comprehensive Solution” to Widespread Fatigue on Aging Aircraft


    For Immediate Release
    November 12, 2010

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – In a continuing effort to address aging aircraft issues, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has finalized a rule designed to protect most of today’s commercial planes and those designed in the future from structural damage as they age.

    The new rule seeks to prevent “widespread fatigue damage” (WFD) by requiring aircraft manufacturers and certification applicants to establish a number of flight cycles or hours a plane can operate and be free from WFD without additional inspections for fatigue. Manufacturers have between 18 and 60 months to comply depending on the particular aircraft type.

    Once manufacturers establish these limits, operators of affected aircraft must incorporate them into their maintenance programs within 30 to 72 months, depending on the model of aircraft. After the limit is in the maintenance program, operators cannot fly the aircraft beyond that point unless the FAA approves an extension of the limit.

    “Safety is our highest priority. This rule provides a comprehensive approach to the problem of widespread fatigue in aging aircraft,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. “Requiring carriers to regularly inspect their aircraft for possible fatigue is essential to ensuring the highest levels of safety.”

    “We’ve addressed the problem of aging aircraft with numerous targeted regulations and 100 airworthiness directives over the years,” said FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt. “This rule is a comprehensive solution to ensure the structural safety of today’s airliners and the airplanes of tomorrow.”

    An airplane’s metallic structures are stressed and can develop cracks when they experience repeated loads such as the pressurization and depressurization that happens on every flight. While airlines regularly inspect aircraft for cracks exceeding a certain size, WFD involves aircraft developing numerous tiny cracks, none of which would have raised concerns individually but which together run the risk of joining up and impairing the structural integrity of the plane.

    The new regulation applies to airliners with a takeoff weight of 75,000 lbs. and heavier. It also applies to all transport designs certificated in the future.

    The affected models, totaling 4,198 U.S.-registered airplanes, are listed in the rule.

    The FAA is working closely with the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and other national authorities to harmonize this rule with their regulations as much as possible. EASA is now developing rulemaking to address WFD, and the FAA participates in that process.
    The final rule is on display today at the Federal Register: http://www.ofr.gov/OFRUpload/OFRData/2010-28363_PI.pdf . It will be published in the Register Monday, November 15 at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/.
    ###