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

Ethiopia Airlines B737-8 (MAX) ET-AVJPreliminary Report is released


The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau of Ethiopia released the preliminary report on the crash Ethiopian Airlines flight 302, Boeing 737-8(MAX), ET-AVJ. The flight took off from Addis Ababa Bole Int. Airporten route for Nairobi, but the Angle of Attack sensor recorded value became erroneous. The crash resulted in 157 fatalities. The report is available here

LionAir Flight Updated


On the flight prior the LionAir accident flight on the Boeing Max registered as PK-LQP, an off-duty fully-qualified Boeing 737-MAX 8 pilot was traveling home on flight JT-43. The plane encountered problems similar to the next flight that crashed it (i.e. the LionAir accident flight from Denpasar to Jakarta.) The crew aboard the earlier flight managed to land the aircraft at the destination. Based on the crew’s entry in the AFML, the engineer at Jakarta flushed the left Pitot Air Data Module (ADM) and static ADM to rectify the reported IAS and ALT disagree and cleaned the electrical connector plug of the elevator feel computer. The aircraft was subsequently released to carry out flight JT610.(A different crew manned the fatal flight.) The pilot was interviewed by the Kantor Komite Nasional Keselamatan Transportasi–Ministry of Transportation of the Republic of Indonesia (KNKT). The KNKT committee is responsible for investigating and reporting air transportation system accidents, serious incidents and safety deficiencies involving air transportation system operations in Indonesia.

The KNKT estimates that the release of the final report for Lion B38M in August or September 2019.

The KNKT is cooperating with Ethiopian Authorities but will make no official comment. News media reports suggest that on the earlier LionAir flight, a third pilot had occupied the observer’s seat in the cockpit of flight JT-43 and that this pilot identified the automatic trim runaway issue at hand and initiated that the trim cut out switches be used.

The preliminary report on the LionAir crash is located HERE.


Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/airflight/www/www/wp-content/themes/fluida/includes/loop.php on line 270

FAA Statement on Boeing 737 Max

faa
faa

The FAA is ordering the temporary grounding of Boeing 737 MAX aircraft operated by U.S. airlines or in U.S. territory. See PDF grounding 737 MaxThe agency made this decision as a result of the data gathering process and new evidence collected at the site and analyzed today. This evidence, together with newly refined satellite data available to FAA this morning, led to this decision.
The grounding will remain in effect pending further investigation, including examination of information from the aircraft’s flight data recorders and cockpit voice recorders. An FAA team is in Ethiopia assisting the NTSB as parties to the investigation of the Flight 302 accident. The agency will continue to investigate.


Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/airflight/www/www/wp-content/themes/fluida/includes/loop.php on line 270

Updates of Flight JT 610, Route Soekarno-Hatta, Tangerang to Pangkalpinang Handling

Updates of Flight JT 610, Route Soekarno-Hatta, Tangerang to Pangkalpinang

Source: Lion Air Releases

#1

Information on Lion Air Flight JT-610 Route Soekarno-Hatta, Tangerang to Pangkalpinang

Oct 29, 2018, 13:31 PM by Lion Corporate
TANGERANG, BANTEN – 29 October 2018

Lion Air flight JT610 en-route to Pangkalpinang has crashed near Kerawang (S 5’49.052” E 107’ 06.628” ), 13 minutes after taking off from Jakarta Soekarno Hatta International Airport at 6:20 AM.

The flight carried 178 adults, 1 child and 2 infant, including 3 crew under training and 1 technician.

The aircraft is a Boeing 737 MAX 8 with registration number PK-LQP. It is made in 2018 and started its operation at Lion Air since 15 August 2018. The aircraft was declared operationally feasible.

The aircraft is commanded by Captain. Bhavye Suneja and co-pilot Harvino with six cabin crew Shintia Melina, Citra Noivita Anggelia, Alviani Hidayatul Solikha, Damayanti Simarmata, Mery Yulianda, and Deny Maula. The captain has 6,000 flight hours and the co-pilot has more than 5,000 flight hours.

Lion Air is concerned with the incident and will work with the relevant authorities and agencies on this matter.

The number to the crisis center is 021-8082000?1 and for customer information 021-80820002.

Information will be updated from time to time on our website.

UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE

Jakarta – 29 October 2018. Lion Air (flight code JT) member of Lion Air Group updated on 29 October that BASARAS (National Search & Rescue Body) has confirmed that there are 24 body bags.

The evacuation of all passengers, crew and flight JT610 that was crashed on 29 October in the sea of Karawang, West Jawa is on-going.

The airline is very concerned about the incident and will continue to render their co-operation to all parties concerned to provide firsthand information with relates to the status of affected passengers and crew. It is with the hope that the families of the passengers and crew will have the strength and fortitude to go through this challenging time and the Search and Rescue (SAR) officers’ operations to go smoothly.

Lion Air’s effort in handling JT610 has flown in 166 people of the affected families from Pangkalpinang, Bangka and 3 others from Medan, North Sumatera.

At the moment, the family members has arrived in Jakarta with accommodations provided in Hotel Ibis Cawang, East Jakarta to ease hassle of travelling to the post in Halim Perdanakusuma International Airport.

Lion Air has opened the crisis center phone line (021)-80820000 and Passengers Information phone line (021)-80820002 to support to incident.

Lion Air will continue to update accordingly.

NASA Flies Large Unmanned Aircraft in Public Airspace Without Chase Plane


Credits: NASA Photo / Carla Thomas
NASA’s remotely-piloted Ikhana aircraft, based at the agency’s Armstrong Flight Research Center in Edwards, California, successfully flew its first mission in the National Airspace System without a safety chase aircraft on Tuesday. This historic flight moves the United States one step closer to normalizing unmanned aircraft operations in the airspace used by commercial and private pilots.

Flying these large remotely-piloted aircraft over the United States opens the doors to all types of services, from monitoring and fighting forest fires, to providing new emergency search and rescue operations. The technology in this aircraft could, at some point, be scaled down for use in other general aviation aircraft.

“This is a huge milestone for our Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration in the National Airspace System project team,” said Ed Waggoner, NASA’s Integrated Aviation Systems Program director. “We worked closely with our Federal Aviation Administration colleagues for several months to ensure we met all their requirements to make this initial flight happen.”

Flights of large craft like Ikhana, have traditionally required a safety chase aircraft to follow the unmanned aircraft as it travels through the same airspace used by commercial aircraft. The Ikhana flew in accordance with the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Technical Standard Order 211 — Detect and Avoid Systems — and Technical Standard Order 212 — Air-to-Air Radar for Traffic Surveillance.

The FAA granted NASA special permission to conduct this flight under the authority of a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization on March 30. The certificate permitted Ikhana’s pilot to rely on the latest Detect and Avoid technology, enabling the remote pilot on the ground to see and avoid other aircraft during the flight.

NASA successfully worked with its industry partners to develop a standard for Detect and Avoid technologies, complied with the requirements of the FAA Technical Standard Orders, and garnered flight approval from the FAA.

The Ikhana aircraft was equipped with detect and avoid technologies, including an airborne radar developed by General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc., a Honeywell Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System, a Detect and Avoid Fusion Tracker, and an Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast capability – a surveillance technology where the aircraft determines its position via satellite navigation and periodically broadcasts this information so other aircraft can track it.

The flight took off from Edwards Air Force Base in California and entered controlled air space almost immediately. Ikhana flew into the Class-A airspace, where commercial airliners fly, just west of Edwards at an altitude of about 20,000 feet. The aircraft then turned north toward Fresno, requiring air traffic control to be transferred from the Los Angeles Air Route Traffic Control Center to the Oakland Air Route Traffic Control Center. On the return trip, the pilot headed south toward Victorville, California, requiring communication control to be transferred back to Los Angles.

During the return flight, the pilot began a gentle decent over the city of Tehachapi, California, into Class E airspace — about 10,000 feet — where general aviation pilots fly. The pilot initiated an approach into Victorville airport at 6,000 feet, coordinating in real time with air traffic controllers at the airport. After successfully executing all of these milestones, the aircraft exited the public airspace and returned to its base at Armstrong.

“We are flying with a suite of sophisticated technology that greatly enhances the safety capabilities of pilots flying large unmanned aircraft in the National Airspace System,” said Scott Howe, Armstrong test pilot. “We took the time to mitigate the risks and to ensure that we, as a program, were prepared for this flight.”

Tuesday’s flight was the first remotely-piloted aircraft to use airborne detect and avoid technology to meet the intent of the FAA’s “see and avoid” rules, with all test objectives successfully accomplished.


Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/airflight/www/www/wp-content/themes/fluida/includes/loop.php on line 270

2017 Airline Safety Performance

The International Air Transport Association (IATA) released data for the 2017 safety performance of the commercial airline industry showing continued strong improvements in safety.
IATA - IATA Releases 2017 Airline Safety Performance

New Mexico Students to Speak with NASA Astronaut on Space Station

Expedition 54-55 prime Scott Tingle of NASA.

Students from six schools in Alamogordo, New Mexico, will speak with a NASA astronaut living, working and doing research aboard the International Space Station at 11 a.m. EST Wednesday, Feb. 21. The 20-minute, Earth-to-space call will air live on NASA Television and the agency’s website.

Middle and high school students will travel to Alamogordo High School for the call to Expedition 54 astronaut Scott Tingle aboard the space station, posing questions about life aboard the orbital outpost, NASA’s deep space exploration plans, and doing science in space.

Tingle arrived Dec.19 and is scheduled to return to Earth in June.

The New Mexico Museum of Space History (NMMSH) has collaborated with the Alamogordo Public School and the New Mexico School for the Blind and Visually Impaired for this event. NMMSH is a state museum chartered to educate the people of New Mexico and visitors in the history, science and technology of space.

Students have been preparing for the event by forming teams to design and build simple apparatuses or experiments involving fluid management, combustion, or crystal growth to compare performance in a 1g vs simulated microgravity environment. Some 1,500 students and teachers are expected to be on-site at Alamogordo High School during the downlink with 4,000 more watching virtually in school auditoriums throughout Alamogordo Public Schools.


Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/airflight/www/www/wp-content/themes/fluida/includes/loop.php on line 270

FAA Proposes $54,000 Civil Penalty Against Interscience for Alleged Hazardous Materials Violations

fine owed the FAA
Press release

WASHINGTON, DC– The U.S Department of Transportation’s Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes a $54,000 civil penalty against Interscience of Saint-Nom-la-Breteche, France, for allegedly violating the Hazardous Materials Regulations.

The FAA alleges that on December 21, 2016, Interscience offered six plastic bottles of flammable liquid disinfectant spray to American Airlines for shipment by air from Blagnac, France, to Nuevo Leon, Mexico.

Workers at the American Airlines cargo facility at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport discovered the shipment.

The FAA alleges the package was not accompanied by a shipper’s declaration of dangerous goods and was not properly classed, described, packaged, marked, labeled or in the proper condition for shipment. The agency also alleges Interscience failed to ensure that each of its employees received required hazardous materials training, and failed to provide emergency response information with the shipment.

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

FAA Proposes $50,000 Civil Penalty Against DebMed USA for Alleged Hazardous Materials Violations

fine owed the FAA
Press release

WASHINGTON, DC–The U.S Department of Transportation’s Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes a $50,000 civil penalty against DebMed USA LLC, of Charlotte, North Carolina, for allegedly violating the Hazardous Materials Regulations.

The FAA alleges that on June 22, 2016, DebMed offered 142 lithium metal batteries to American Airlines for transportation by air from Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport to San Francisco, CA, in the checked baggage of a DebMed employee.

Lithium metal batteries are prohibited as air cargo on passenger aircraft and are also prohibited in checked baggage. Airline passengers may only carry uninstalled, spare lithium batteries in carry-on baggage when the batteries are for personal use in portable electronic devices.

Airline baggage is not an authorized method for companies to move lithium batteries or other hazardous materials. The rules for carrying lithium batteries and lithium battery- powered devices as an airline passenger are available on the FAA website.

FAA Press Release: New Certification Rule for Small Airplanes Becomes Effective


New Certification Rule for Small Airplanes Becomes Effective

On August 30, the final rule overhauling airworthiness standards for general aviation airplanes published in December of 2016 officially went into effect. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) expects this rule will enable faster installation of innovative, safety-enhancing technologies into small airplanes, while reducing costs for the aviation industry.

With these performance-based standards, the FAA delivers on its promise to implement forward-looking, flexible rules that encourage innovation. Specifically, the new part 23 revolutionizes standards for airplanes weighing 19,000 pounds or less and with 19 or fewer passenger seats by replacing prescriptive requirements with performance-based standards coupled with consensus-based compliance methods for specific designs and technologies. The rule also adds new certification standards to address GA loss of control accidents and in-flight icing conditions.

This regulatory approach recognizes there is more than one way to deliver on safety. It offers a way for industry and the FAA to collaborate on new technologies and to keep pace with evolving aviation designs and concepts.

The new rule responds to Congressional mandates that direct the FAA to streamline approval of safety advancements for small GA airplanes. It also addresses recommendations from the FAA’s 2013 Part 23 Reorganization Aviation Rulemaking Committee, which suggested a more streamlined approval process for safety equipment on those airplanes.

The new part 23 also promotes regulatory harmonization among the FAA’s foreign partners, including the European Aviation Safety Agency, Transport Canada Civil Aviation, and Brazil’s National Civil Aviation Authority. Harmonization may help minimize certification costs for airplane and engine manufacturers, and operators of affected equipment, who want to certify their products for the global market.

This regulatory change is a leading example of how the FAA is transforming its Aircraft Certification Service into an agile organization that can support aviation industry innovation in the coming years. AIR Transformation improves the efficiency and effectiveness of the Aircraft Certification Safety System by focusing FAA resources on up-front planning, the use of performance based standards, and a robust risk-based systems oversight program, while leveraging Industry’s responsibility to comply with regulations.

Additional Resources:
FAA Press Conference: Part 23 Rule Announcement
Revitalizing General Aviation: The New Part 23 (video)
New Part 23 for Aircraft Certification Changes for Designees (video)

Update to “Cold Temperature Restricted Airports” list


Subject: Update to “Cold Temperature Restricted Airports” list located in Notice to Airmen Publication (NTAP) Graphic Notices. www/faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/notices.

Purpose: This publication provides operators with information related to cold temperature altitude restrictions. It contains the addition and subtraction of airports to the Cold Temperature Restricted Airports list located in the NTAP.

Background: In response to recognized safety concerns over cold weather altimetry errors, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) completed a risk analysis to determine if current Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 97 instrument approach procedures in the United States National Airspace System (NAS) are at risk during cold temperature operations. From this study the FAA published an NTAP providing pilots a list of airports, the affected segments and procedures needed to correct published altitudes at the restricted temperatures.

Discussion: Pilots may correct all altitudes from the initial approach fix (IAF) through the missed approach (MA) final holding altitude (All Segments Method). There will be a single temperature in Celsius (C) next to the snowflake ICON to indicate when this procedure will be required. Pilots wishing to use the All Segments Method and familiar with the NTAP procedure for applying a correction are not required to review the NTAP airport list for affected segments. Pilots wishing to continue correcting segment by segment must review the NTAP airports list for segment(s) affected (NTAP Segment(s) Method). The front matter in the FAA U.S Terminal Procedures Publication will also provide this information.

Added Airports

Idaho: Driggs-Reed Memorial (KDIJ) (-31C)

Maine: Greenville Muni (3B1) (-29C)

New Hampshire: Laconia Muni (KLCI) (-25C), Parlin Field (2B3) (-24C)

Pennsylvania: Washington County (KAFJ) (-27C)

South Dakota: Pine Ridge (KIEN) (-33C)

Washington: Richland (KRLD) (-19C)

Deleted Airports

Alaska: Perryville (PAPE), Togiak (PATG), Willow (PAUO), White Mountain (PAWM)

Colorado: Spanish Peaks Airfield (4V1), McElroy Airfield (20V), Walden-Jackson County (33V)

Maine: Eastern Slopes Rgnl (KIZG)

Maryland: Greater Cumberland Rgnl (KCBE)

Massachusetts: Walter J. Koladza (KGBR)

Minnesota: St Paul Downtown Holman Fld (KSTP), Tower Municipal (12D)

Montana: Cut Bank Intl (KCTB), Deer Lodge City County (38S)

Nevada: Carson (KCXP), Minden-Tahoe (KMEV)

New Hampshire: Dillant-Hopkins (KEEN)

New Mexico: Taos Rgnl (KSKX)

New York: Dansville (KDSV), Massena Intl-Richards Field (KMSS), Hamilton Muni (KVGC), Cortland County-Chase Field (N03), Randall (06N), Schenectady County (KSCH)

North Dakota: Watford City Muni (S25)

Oregon: Astoria Rgnl (KAST)

Pennsylvania: Seamans Field (9N3)

The current T-XX°C/XX°F icon will be changed to T-XX°C.

This change will be done incrementally on airport approach plates. The icon indicates a cold temperature altitude correction will be required on an approach when the reported temperature is, “at or below” the temperature specified for that airport. During this process, pilots may see temperatures on the current approach plates that are different than the temperature listed in the NTAP. The NTAP temperature is the updated temperature. Pilots may use the temperature published in the current TPP to make corrections if warmer than the NTAP listed temperature.

Pilots must understand they will be responsible for applying altitude corrections and must advise Air Traffic Control (ATC) when these corrections are to be made on any segment other than the final segment. Air Traffic Control is not responsible for making any altitude corrections and/or advising pilots that an altitude correction is required at a restricted airport.

FAA and Singapore Sign Aviation Safety Agreement

FAA and Singapore Sign Aviation Safety Agreement

SINGAPORE—The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) signed a milestone Maintenance Agreement Guidance (MAG) yesterday with the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS). The agreement allows for mutual surveillance conducted on certified repair stations located abroad for each of the agreement partners.

It provides guidance for the implementation of the previously agreed-upon. In cases where there are sufficient certificated facilities in both partner countries, MIPs may reduce the number of surveillance activities, free up inspector resources for the authorities, and reduce the regulatory burden on industry. There are 58 FAA-approved repair stations located in Singapore.

The MAG furthers the Maintenance Implementation Procedures (MIP) agreement signed by FAA Administrator Michael Huerta and CAAS on February 16, 2016. That agreement was the first of its kind in Asia and reduces costs by allowing the reciprocal acceptance of Singapore and the United States’ surveillance of maintenance work.

The MIP and MAG permits reliance on each other’s surveillance systems to the greatest extent possible while maintaining safety. Agreements such as the MIP allow for greater efficiency and ultimately save valuable industry and authority resources. The FAA and the CAAS have agreed to conduct surveillance on each other’s behalf to ensure compliance with the respective regulatory requirements for maintenance and the applicable Special Conditions. Both agreements build on the 2004 U.S-Singapore Bilateral Safety Agreement (BASA) which has benefitted both countries by saving time and reducing costs in aircraft design and manufacturing.

FAA Assistant Administrator for NextGen James Eck and Executive Director for International Affairs Carey Fagan are participating in the World Civil Aviation Chief Executives Forum this week in Singapore as part of the agency’s continued collaboration with Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) member states.

As part of the strong U.S.-Singapore bilateral relationship, the FAA and the CAAS also partner under Singapore’s Air Traffic Management Center of Excellence to expand understanding and build Air Traffic Management capacity in the region.

Egyptair Flight MS804 Almost A Year Later

Elements of this image are furnished by NASA

Egyptair Flight MS804 (AKA EgyptAir Flight 804) was a Paris to Cairo flight that ended in the Mediterranean on May 19, 2016. Sixty-six people lost their lives: three security crew, fifty-six passengers, seven crew.

Egyptian authorities published a progress report on 28/06/16 that the BEA repaired the recorders. On 17/06 that the Technical Investigation Committee of the A320 accident studied FDR data as well as performing time correlation between FDR and CVR data and cockpit voice recordings before the occurrence of the accident where the existence of a “fire” was mentioned. That report did not determine the reason or location where that fire occurred. Smoke was reported during the flight in the bathroom and the avionics bay.

The investigation has been fraught with controversy. On 22 May, 2016, M6 (French TV) reported that a pilot told Cairo air traffic control about smoke in the cabin, and the pilot consequently made an emergency descent.

On May 20th 2016 The Aviation Herald received information from three independent channels, that ACARS (Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System) messages with following content were received from the aircraft:

  • 00:26Z 3044 ANTI ICE R WINDOW
  • 00:26Z 561200 R SLIDING WINDOW SENSOR
  • 00:26Z 2600 SMOKE LAVATORY SMOKE
  • 00:27Z 2600 AVIONICS SMOKE
  • 00:28Z 561100 R FIXED WINDOW SENSOR
  • 00:29Z 2200 AUTO FLT FCU 2 FAULT
  • 00:29Z 2700 F/CTL SEC 3 FAULT
  • no further ACARS messages were received.

No sooner did the report come out that the Egyptian Civil Aviation Ministry dismissed it as false.

One truism I have found in accident investigation is that it takes time to find the truth. Another is that facts can be misleading. Reportage from official sources moves slowly; reportage from commercial, so-called “news,” or social sources is frequently speculative, unsourced, or purely imaginary. Sometimes it is actually correct. It is difficult to tell the difference. Contradictions are a frequent finding, such as this:

  • Le Figaro reported that no explosives were found on Egyptair flight MS804 French victims’ bodies. The flight crashed in the Mediterranean in 2016.
  • On Dec 15th 2016 Egypt’s Civil Aviation Authority announced that forensic examination on behalf of the Accident Investigation Commission found traces of explosives with some of the human remains recovered. In accordance with Egypt law, the states prosecutor was informed, and a technical commission formed by the prosecution office opened their investigation into the crime.

How does a close reader respond to a statement that “traces of explosives were found WITH human remains?” A close reader finds more questions. With the remains is not ON the remains. But it could be either way since we are dealing with languages. In English, WITH the remains could mean a bomb was floating in the water near the bodies, or ashes, or gasoline or TNT residue. And what constitutes near? Inches? Miles? It all is relative. Or if the original report is loosely translated, did the original document use a preposition such as ON the remains? And then, there are the forensic questions. Were explosive remains washed off of bodies that were submerged in the ocean?

If the case goes to court, the court will want to know if something failed on the plane, and if so, what it was. Manufacturers of failed components are considered responsible parties. No matter what the cause, international treaty determines carrier responsibility to the victims of the crash.

The determination of failed components provides additional responsible parties. The discovery of a bomb would make airport security one of the potential responsible parties. In addition, international treaty provides guidelines for what carriers owe to the families. (Which treaty is involved depends on which treaty/treaties the involved country/countries are signatory to. If it sounds like it can get complicated, you are correct.)

It has been nearly a year since the accident, and though some things may be believed in the court of public opinion to be one way or another, questions remain unanswered. How grievous and how difficult for the families that must wait so long to find out what brought about this tragedy that took their loved ones.

NTSB reports on Clear Air Turbulence



Scheduled 14 CFR Part 121: Air Carrier operation of UNITED AIR LINES INC
Accident occurred Friday, February 19, 2010 in Anchorage, AK
Probable Cause Approval Date: 02/23/2017
Aircraft: BOEING 747, registration: N173UA
Injuries: 1 Serious, 25 Minor, 236 Uninjured.
NTSB investigators used data provided by various entities, including, but not limited to, the Federal Aviation Administration and/or the operator and did not travel in support of this investigation to prepare this aircraft accident report.

On February 19, 2010, about 1452 Alaska standard time (AKST) (2352 UTC), United Airlines flight 897, a Boeing 747-400, N173UA, encountered severe turbulence during cruise descent between FL310 and FL300 about 100 miles west of Anchorage, Alaska. Of the 243 passengers and 19 crew members on board, 17 passengers and eight flight attendants (FA) received minor injuries and one FA received a serious injury. The airplane received minor damaged. The flight was operating under 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 121 as a regularly scheduled international passenger flight from Dulles International Airport (IAD), Washington, DC, to Narita International Airport (NRT), Narita, Japan.

Prior to the turbulence encounter, the flight crew received pilot reports (PIREPs) of moderate to severe turbulence above FL340 and that it was less at FL300. According to the flight crew, about one hour late, the flight began to encounter a few “light bumps” or intermittent light “chop.” The sky conditions were clear with good visibility. The captain turned on the “fasten seat belt” sign and made a public address (PA) announcement to fasten seat belts. The flight crew requested a descent to FL300 and began to encounter moderate turbulence after starting the descent. The first officer then made a PA announcement directing the flight attendants to “take your seats.” The autopilot remained engaged throughout the turbulence encounter, which lasted less than one minute.

After encountering the turbulence, the crew assessed airplane damage and checked the number and severity of injuries to passengers and crew. The crew was assisted in assessing passenger and crew injuries by a U.S. Army Special Forces medic who stated that all of the injuries were considered minor. All the FAs indicated that they were able to perform their required emergency duties for the remainder of the flight.

After discussing the injuries and the available diversion airports with the FAs, company dispatch and the medic, the flight crew decided to continue on to NRT since there were sufficient diversion airports along the route if the situation worsened.

Upon arrival in NRT, 16 passengers and one FA were transported to hospitals for medical evaluation. All were released with only minor injuries, however, the FA was re-evaluated by her personal physician when she returned home with the further diagnosis of a fractured rib.

FAA and Santa Monica Settlement

IATA: SMO ICAO: KSMO FAA LID: SMO
2006 USGS airphoto

WASHINGTON–The Federal Aviation Administration and Santa Monica, California agreed on the future of Santa Monica Airport.The city agrees to maintain continuous and stable operation of the airport until December 31, 2028. After that date, Santa Monica has the right to close the airport.Santa Monica can shorten the airport’s single runway from 4,973 to 3,500 feet and is obligated to enter into leases with private aeronautical service providers to ensure continuity of service, until it decides to provide services on its own.

Aviation Industry: Time for a Black Box Upgrade

Woodland Hills, CA — (ReleaseWire) — 07/07/2016 –No one is saying that aircraft tracking doesn’t need an overhaul. It does. Examination of plane crash events demands it.

Aviation experts have been asking for pinger battery improvements since a month after the crash of Air France 447 on 1 June 2009, when the pinger battery ran down in July. Air France 447 was not recovered from the ocean floor until May 2011, nearly two years after it was lost. Debris from the accident was recovered in the interim, but if the pinger had been louder, or the battery designed to last longer, then there’s a good chance that the plane would have been discovered sooner. One of the outcomes of this terrible event was a determination to design a pinger system with longer lasting batteries. EASA amended requirements for flight recorders and underwater locating devices in its 2013-26 amendment(RMT.0400 & RMT.0401 (OPS.090(A) & OPS.090(B)) — 20.12.2013) but implementing these requirements takes a prohibitively long time.

Aviation experts have been asking for better tracking technology since Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 disappeared on 8 March 2014 while flying from Kuala Lumpur International Airport, Malaysia, to Beijing Capital International Airport in China. Because this plane departed from its planned route, finding where it came down has been a unique challenge. Inmarsat’s satellite communications network concluded that the flight continued until at least 08:19 and flew south into the southern Indian Ocean. Triangulation of Inmarsat’s satellite communications has been the only credible source searchers depend on to develop the search area.

Aviation experts have been suggesting the blackbox be water-activated (or have water-activated duplicates) with flotation of some kind so the blackbox can be found faster. More recently, aviation experts have wondered about EgyptAir Flight 804 which crashed into the Mediterranean Sea on 19 May 2016. It was known fairly precisely where it came down, and yet salvage and rescue units were unable to be on the scene in time to help any survivors—if survivors there had been. We will never know because no one was there. And while tracking the location of the blackbox fell within the thirty day battery limit, if the technology had more power, it could have been located sooner. Finding the wreckage sooner means less money spent on the search, and a shorter time for the families agonizing over their losses.

So here is what is new: Inmarsat provides SwiftBroadband service for plane’s inflight Wi-Fi on many aircraft. Immarsat is developing a streaming system described as a “blackbox in the cloud.” This streaming system they are working on will allow crucial data to be streamed off a plane on the occasion of specified trigger events like a course deviation or disappearance from radar.

One only need consider a few factors to realize that a cloud-based system is a crucial development that current technology can easily handle. We need only to look at the cost of the search for a missing plane. According to France and Brazil, those two countries spent more than $40 million over two years to recover the black boxes from Air France Flight 447. Bloomberg reported the recovery cost of Air France 447 was $100 million. According to the South China Post, the cost of the (as yet unfound) MH370 will be as much as ten times more than AF447. Like the expense of MH370’s search, the cost of finding EgyptAir Flight 804 is still ongoing.

Even when Inmarsat’s streaming system will be available, the aviation industry is going to be resistant, mostly because it is going to be costly. Is this a cost that we must afford? I think it is.

Let me know your thoughts on this crucial topic at https://twitter.com/GeorgeHatcher

Nasa Begins the ACT-America campaign

Nasaphoto

WASHINGTON, July 6, 2016— NASA’s airborne experiment to improve scientists’ understanding of the sources of two powerful greenhouse gases and how they cycle into and out of the atmosphere begins now.The Atmospheric Carbon and Transport–America, or ACT-America campaign will measure concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane in relation to weather systems. The study will gather real-time measurements from research aircraft and ground stations.

“Carbon dioxide and methane are the two most important long-lived greenhouse gases in the atmosphere,” said Ken Davis, ACT-America principal investigator from Pennsylvania State University, University Park. “We have a very difficult time inferring important sources and sinks of these gases, including uptake of carbon dioxide by the biosphere, and emission of methane from a variety of human and biological sources. We hope to improve our ability to measure those sources and sinks today, which should enable improvements in the management and simulation of future climate.””

ACT-America employs new gen data analysis systems to convert regional observations of greenhouse gas concentrations and the meteorological conditions. The information will help scientists interpret long-term greenhouse gas observations.

The ACT-America campaign will bridge the gap between satellite and ground observations, look how weather patterns contribute the sources and sinks of greenhouse gases. The campaign team includes researchers and flight crews collecting data in the air, and scientists on the ground synthesizing that information into computer models. The first flights will be based out of NASA’s Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia, and Wallops Flight Facility, Wallops Island, Virginia. Subsequent flights this summer will be based in Lincoln, Nebraska, and Shreveport, Louisiana.

ACT-America team members and the two NASA research aircraft will be available to the media at an event at Langley on Friday, July 15, from 9 to 11 a.m. EDT. This summer’s flights are the first of five field campaigns planned during the study. NASA collects data from space, air, land and sea to increase our understanding of our home planet, improve lives and safeguard our future.
For more information about ACT-America, go to: http://act-america.larc.nasa.gov

Remembering Air India Express Flight 812

Memory

On May 22nd, I took a few moments to remember Air India Express Flight 812.

I remembered when I went to Mangelore, where I’d walked the path the Boeing had taken when it overshot its landing. I tried not to revisit the tragedy of it all. I tried not to remember that if that cockpit had not been the site of the crew resource management issues, I might have had no disaster to remember. Hindsight vision is always sadly perfect.

There were eight survivors of that flight, and a hundred and fifty-eight fatalities. The plane ploughed through all barriers, arrestor beds and an antennae, and catapulted over the edge of the runway down a hill. Afterwards a support group was formed for the families, but all the emotional support in the world can never replace missing loved ones. I can only hope they visited you in your dreams.

All I want to say to the lost family members and the survivors is to treasure your memories. The cords of memories weave together the threads that make our lives, stretching from every point living and dead, and every heart we touch. As long as we remember the ones we love, that is how long they will stay with us.

Mozambique Plane Crash Final Report


On Jan 9th 2014 Namibia’s Accident Investigation Commission released the preliminary report of the LAM E190 crash over Botswana/Namibia on Nov 29th 2013. The conclusion at that time was that the captain intentionally crashed the aircraft. On November 29, 2013, there were 28 passengers and 6 crew aboard the Embraer ERJ-190 flown by LAM Linhas Aereas de Mocambique, and it was enroute at FL380 over northern Botswana when the flight descended and radio contact was lost. The burned out wreckage was located by villagers in Bwabwata National Park (Sambesi Region) on Nov 30. A news article on April 15 2016 indicated that the final report was released, although we have not verified it.

The captain in charge of the aircraft, Herminio dos Santos Fernandes, was alone in the cockpit at the time of the crash. The copilot had left for the lavatory.

The unverified article says that the final report was compiled by Theo Shilongo, deputy director of the directorate of aircraft accident investigations, who was the investigator in charge, and Hafeni Mweshixwa as the co-investigator. It was signed off by works and transport minister Alpheus Naruseb. When it is available to the public, it should be available at the Directorate of Aircraft Accident Investigations Namibia (DAAI).

An interim report of the accident is below. The interim report indicates “The DAAI will provide updates on the investigation and safety recommendations as they become available until completion of the final report” in accordance with the provisions of ICAO Annex 13.

2965

MAK says the FlyDubai Pilots got into a fatal nosedive and couldn’t get out

rostovblackbox
The Interstate Aviation Committee investigation of the Boeing 737-800 registered A6-FDN operated by FlyDubai has updated their report. The information below is directly from that report.

Mak indicated in a press release that two dimensional aircraft mockups and selected assemblies and units were examined to check the longitudinal control system operability. The units were delivered to the Interstate Aviation Committee, their condition assessed. Operation reports of weather, wreckage, Air Traffic Control, avionics, powerplants, structures and systems were prepared and reviewed.

Airport Weather

The weather information examination has revealed that the actual weather at Rostov-on-Don Airport at the time of the accident was consistent with the weather forecast. The weather measuring equipment used for weather observations at Rostov-on-Don Airport was calibrated, operable and functional. The weather information service provided to the FlyDubai Boeing 737-800 registered A6-FDN conducting Flight FDB981 Dubai – Rostov-on-Don – Dubai that crashed while landing at Rostov-on-Don Airport was in compliance with the applicable regulations and manuals.

Preliminary Flight Data Analysis

Preliminary flight data analysis indicates the crew was approaching to land manually with autopilot disconnected, in difficult weather conditions; cloud base was at 630 meters, wind 230 degrees 13 meters per second maximum 18 meters per second, light shower rain, mist, severe turbulence on straight-on and moderate windshear.

On the initial approach at 22:42 UTC at a height of 340 meters, after getting a windshear alert, the crew decided to go around, and then continued on holding pattern waiting for improved weather conditions.

On a second, manual approach, the crew decided to go around again at a height of 220 meters 4 km before the runway, and initiated climb setting the engine to takeoff thrust. At a height of 900 m there was a simultaneous control column nose down input and stabilizer 5-degree nose down deflection, resulting in abrupt descent with negative vertical acceleration of -1g. The following crew actions to recover did not allow to avoid an impact with the ground. The impact occurred with a speed of over 600 km/h over 50 degrees nose down.

The IAC is in the process of reproducing the circumstances of the accident. Airline pilots and test-pilots from the Russian Federation, the USA and the UAE have been engaged in the investigation to assess the status and actions of the crew. The involved pilots were holding valid pilot licenses and other pertinent papers, had undergone required training and had sufficient flight experience.

Transcript of two hours of cockpit voice recorder data is being completed. The investigative team is planning to engage investigators from the UAE, the USA and Spain to proceed at the IAC laboratory with clarifying the content of the CVR transcript, translating it from English and Spanish and identifying the speakers.

Trigana Air Flight 267 Crash: Black Box to be Sent to France after Unsuccessful Data Retrieval Attempts

Trigana AirAccording to a preliminary report released by Indonesia’s National Transportation Safety Committee (NTSC), the black box from Trigana Air jet that crashed in August will be sent to France for data retrieval.

The flight TGN267 crashed after it lost contact with the ATC during a flight from Sentani airport, Jayapura, to Oksibi, Papua. There were 54 people aboard at the time; all of them were killed.

The report released on October 7 said, “The downloading process to retrieve data from the FDR was unsuccessful. For further examination, the FDR data will be downloaded at BEA facility in Paris, France.”

The report further said that the cockpit voice recorder had a 2-hour recording but it did not give any clue as to what caused the crash.

#Malaysia Airlines Confidential report of MH17 handed over to Australians in June

grab3
Details from the confidential MH17 report that was handed over to Australian experts on June 2nd have not been revealed. The report questions if the flight path should have routed the passenger jet over a known war zone. The report is based on conclusions drawn by experts from Australia, Malaysia, the Ukraine, the US, Russia, the UK and the Netherlands, but those conclusions have not been revealed to the public. The Australian Transport Safety Bureau, which had experts on the committee, has not made a public statement. The final report is expected in October 2015.

grab2
Two hundred and ninety-eight people died aboard Malaysia Airlines flight MH17, which was shot down over the Ukraine on July 17 2014.

grab1

Report of Investigators Blocked from Investigating


MH-17: The Untold Story, a video examining the downing of MH17


Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/airflight/www/www/wp-content/themes/fluida/includes/loop.php on line 270

BEA on SwiftAir Air Algeria (Burkina Faso to Algiers) Crash July 2014

Accident 24 July 2014 in Gossi, Mali to the MD-83 registered EC-LTV operated by Swiftair S.A.

Press release from the BEA and the Commission d’Enquêtes Accidents et Incidents de l’Aviation civile (Mali)

Following the publication of the Interim Report on 20 September 2014 in Bamako (Mali), investigative work has continued, based on the analysis of the accident flight parameters. Progress made in this work has led the Republic of Mali Commission of Inquiry and the BEA to communicate jointly the following information.

On 24 July 2014, the MD-83 registered EC-LTV was performing scheduled night flight AH 5017 from Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso) to Algiers (Algeria). Takeoff occurred at 01h15, the climb towards the cruise altitude took place without any significant events, and the crew made several heading changes in order to fly around a storm cell. The autopilot and the autothrottle were engaged. The aeroplane reached the cruise altitude of 31,000 ft, that’s to say about 9,500 m. The autopilot then switched to the mode that maintains the altitude and the autothrottle to the mode that maintains the speed (Mach).

About two minutes after levelling off at an altitude of 31,000 ft, calculations performed by the manufacturer and validated by the investigation team indicate that the recorded EPR , the main parameter for engine power management, became erroneous on the right engine and then about 55 seconds later on the left engine. This was likely due to icing of the pressure sensors located on the engine nose cones. If the engine anti-ice protection system is activated, these pressure sensors are heated by hot air.

Analysis of the available data indicates that the crew likely did not activate the system during climb and cruise.

As a result of the icing of the pressure sensors, the erroneous information transmitted to the autothrottle meant that the latter limited the thrust delivered by the engines. Under these conditions, the thrust was insufficient to maintain cruise speed and the aeroplane slowed down. The autopilot then commanded an increase in the aeroplane’s pitch attitude in order to maintain the altitude in spite of this loss of speed.

This explains how, from the beginning of the error in measuring the EPR values, the aeroplane’s speed dropped from 290 kt to 200 kt in about 5 minutes and 35 seconds and the angle of attack increased until the aeroplane stalled.

About 20 seconds after the beginning of the aeroplane stall, the autopilot was disengaged. The aeroplane rolled suddenly to the left until it reached a bank angle of 140°, and a nose-down pitch
of 80°

The recorded parameters indicate that there were no stall recovery manœuvres by
the crew.

However, in the moments following the aeroplane stall, the flight control surfaces remained deflected nose-up and in a right roll.

CORRECTIVE ACTIONS

At least two similar events occurred, in June 2002 and in June 2014, with no serious consequences.

The event in June 2002 was the subject of an NTSB investigation report. On 4 June 2002, the McDonnell Douglas MD-82, registered N823NK performing Spirit Airlines flight 970, suffered a loss of thrust on both engines, in cruise at an altitude of 33,000 ft, that is about 10,000 m. The two pressure sensors, located on the engine nose bullets, were blocked by ice crystals, leading to incorrect indications and over-estimation of the EPR. The crew noticed the drop in speed and the precursor indications of a stall just before disengagement of the autopilot and putting the aeroplane into a descent. They had not activated the engine anti-ice systems. This event occurred during the day, outside the clouds.

On 8 June 2014, the MD83 registered EC-JUG belonging to Swiftair, which was performing a passenger transport flight at flight level FL 330, suffered a drop in speed while it was flying during the daytime above the cloud layer. The crew detected the problem, put the aeroplane into a descent and activated the engine anti-ice systems without reaching a stall situation, then continued the flight.

This background, as well as the data on the accident to flight AH5017, was shared with the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and through EASA with the American authorities (FAA); they should serve as the basis for future publication of corrective measures aimed at assisting crews in identifying and responding to similar situations to those encountered at the time of this accident.

NEXT STEPS

The investigative work is continuing, in particular on the analysis of:

the flight parameters to complete the scenario described above,
possible crew reactions, despite the absence of Cockpit Voice Recorder data from the accident flight, which remain unusable to this day,
the training and follow-up of Swiftair crews,
previous events and the follow-up undertaken.

The publication of the final report is planned before the end of December 2015.

Download Interim below:

https://airflightdisaster.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/ec-v140724.e1.en_.pdf

The Ironic Tragedy of Germanwings Flight 9525

mountain

Cockpit door designed to lock trouble out locks in Suicidal Pilot

Pasadena, CA — (ReleaseWire) — 04/02/2015 — As an advocate (not a lawyer) of fair compensation for the victims of plane crashes, I have been closely following the story behind the crash of Germanwings Flight 9525 and the now notorious 27-year-old co-pilot, Andreas Lubitz. As is always the case, a team of expert investigators will dig out the facts to determine the most likely scenario behind the crash. That careful investigation will take a year at the very least. In this Germanwings accident, the one factor that stands out already is the role played by the pilot’s state of mind in what appears now to be his deliberate collision course with the French Alps. It is now common knowledge that the plane disintegrated on impact with the Massif des Trois-Évêchés. Imagine how horrified the families were when the transcript of the CVR (Cockpit Voice Recorder) was quickly leaked by tabloids. Journalists have been shouldering each other out of the way to get to the front of the line, “scooping” each with another “leaked” nugget. A girlfriend’s interview. A medical report here. A video there. TV commentators and newspapers from CNN and the venerable New York Times to the most scurrilous tabloids are spouting “the facts” faster than investigators can have gotten to the information. Tweeting the news as I do results in loads of source-checking, and plenty of on-going head-scratching moments while weeding out wild supposition masquerading as news in sources one would normally consider impeccable. When one source says “the plane is blue,” another says “the plane is red.” Sometimes I can determine which is the truth, but sometimes I have to leave it to readers to puzzle out.

I have been working Wrongful Death cases for some forty-seven years now. I am a consultant to attorneys across the globe who represent the families of Wrongful Death victims. Each investigation is exactly the same in terms of the emotional impact of the accident. Devastating. Whether the case may or may not end up in court, whether or not the accident catches the media’s attention, every aspect is always impossibly difficult for the families. Some accidents seem similar because they share a factor, whether it be similar weather conditions, mechanical difficulties, or a particular flaw in a particular model of plane.

Some aviation accidents personify extremes. Consider that while there is always some degree of speculation as to an accident’s cause, MH370 brought as many conspiracy theorists out of the woodwork in this past twelve months as Amelia Earhart’s disappearance has in the past 87 years. Everything seems plausible when people are desperate for an explanation. Because in this age of cell phones and satellites, there is simply no explanation for a plane to vanish, MH370 has become the “poster child” for speculation. I expect MH370 will continue to spawn new theories and will endure as a mystery until, at some point, the wreckage will be found and examined.

If I were comparing MH370 and Germanwings 9525, I could write a whole piece examining the conflict of government transparency vs. individual confidentiality, but that was not my intent today. I was just thinking of aviation safety, and how 9/11 became the catalyst for upgraded multifaceted flight deck security. One outcome of 9/11 is the impregnable, indestructible cockpit door, the brain child of countless engineering hours, security and scientific research. Passengers since 9/11 have flown safe in the knowledge that no intruder could again gain entry to the cockpit and overpower the pilot thanks to redundant enhanced security precautions and a door designed to keep the dangerous people out. Now there’s a cockpit voice recording that appears to show that same safe cockpit door is the barrier that kept the PIC from being able to save everyone aboard. Captain Patrick Sondenheimer died trying to get that door open.

The impregnable cockpit door, the terrible irony of Germanwings Flight 9525.

About Air Crash Consultants

A division of Wrongful Death Consultants, Air Crash Consultants was established to network between lawyers and their clients, bridging the gaps, especially in regard to International clients, freeing and enabling the lawyer to concentrate on higher priority commitments. Air Crash Consultant services might also be designated as an umbrella, because the company’s functions encompass a variety of problem-solving areas in support of the lawyer-client relationship as needed. Services are not limited to finding experts, developing translation teams, client support, document handling, drafting demand letters, client interviews, etc. Visit the company websites at”
http://aircrashconsultants.com
http://wrongfuldeathnews.com
http://wrongfuldeathconsultants.com

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

Site Credits