What: Saudi Arabian Airlines Airbus A300-600 en route from Riyadh (Saudi Arabia) to Khartoum
Where: Khartoum
When: Jul 7th 2009
Who: 310 passengers and 16 crew
Why: On approach, the crew reported problems with the braking system. The plane swerved while landing but no injuries or damage was reported.
What: Southwest Airlines Boeing 737-300 en route from Baltimore to Providence
Where: BWI Thurgood Marshall Airport
When: Jul 7th 2009
Who: 135 on board
Why: On takeoff, the plane flew into a flock of birds. About 40 small birds were found on the runway after the incident. The plane landed shortly after the bird strike. The plane was sent to be examined; and another plane was provided about 5 hours later to resume the flight.
George’s Point of View
The birds are at it again.
Pictured: Merpati Nusantara Airlines Boeing 737-400 registered as PK-MDM. (PK-MDO was the plane in the incident.)
Click to view full size photo at Airliners.net
Contact Photographer Biel Gomila
What: Merpati Nusantara Airlines Boeing 737-400 en route from Biak to Ujung Pandang, Indonesia
Where: Biak
When: Jul 6th 2009
Who: 110 passengers and 6 crew
Why: On take off, the left main wheel (rolled or fell? entire wheel or tire?) was lost. After takeoff, the plane burned off fuel and landed safely (even without the wheel), apparently without substantial damage, as the plane reportedly resumed the flight 24 hours later.
Click to view full size photo at Airliners.net
Contact Photographer Alasdair Mulhern
What: Qantas Airbus A380-800 en route from Singapore to London
Where: London Heathrow
When: Jul 4th 2009
Why: The first approach was aborted due to a nose gear issue. After landing, nose gear steering failed, and the plane was towed. However, repairs were made so that on the return flight, the delay was only about two hours.
Pictured: A Kingfisher Airlines Airbus
Click to view full size photo at Airliners.net
Contact Photographer Steve Brimley
What: Guwahati- Kolkata Kingfisher Airbus A320-200 en route from Guwahati to Kolkata
Where: NSC Bose International Airport (Kolkata Airport is also known as Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose International Airport)
When: Jul 7th 2009
Who: 117 passengers (alternately reported as 170)
Why: 125 km from landing at Kolkata, smoke was reported in the cabin coming from a galley. The plane landed safely and passengers debarked normally.
A newspaper report claims there was a false alarm from a cockpit indicator reporting a fire in the cargo belly. No plane registration number was given for either report, though, so it conceivably could have been sloppy reportage of two separate KingFisher Airbuses at the same airport.
Pictured: American Airlines MD-80
Click to view full size photo at Airliners.net
Contact Photographer Andy P. Jung
What: American Airlines MD-80 Flight 1243 en route from Ft. Lauderdale to Dallas
Where: Lafayette’s Regional Airport
When: 11:35 a.m. Monday
Who: 151 on board
Why: In the cabin, passengers experienced smoke and fumes en route; the pilot diverted to Lafayette because of a suspected electrical problem.
Passengers were provided three options: ticket-exchange, rent a car for the rest of their trip or wait for the replacement MD-80.
July 07, 2009
BOULDER—The National Center for Atmospheric Research is developing a prototype system to provide aircraft with updates about severe storms and turbulence as they fly across remote ocean regions. The system is designed to help guide pilots away from intense weather, such as the thunderstorms that Air France Flight 447 apparently encountered before crashing into the Atlantic Ocean on June 1.
The NCAR system, being developed with funding from NASA, combines satellite data and computer weather models with cutting-edge artificial intelligence techniques to identify and predict rapidly evolving storms and other potential areas of turbulence. The system is based on products that NCAR has developed to alert pilots and air traffic controllers about storms and turbulence over the continental United States.
“Pilots currently have little weather information as they fly over remote stretches of the ocean, which is where some of the worst turbulence encounters occur,” says NCAR scientist John Williams, one of the project leads. “Providing pilots with at least an approximate picture of developing storms could help guide them safely around areas of potentially severe turbulence.”
The component of the system that identifies major storms over the ocean is already available for aircraft use on an experimental basis.
The entire prototype system, which will identify areas of turbulence in clear air as well as within storms, is on track for testing next year. Pilots on selected transoceanic routes will receive real-time turbulence updates and then provide feedback on the system to NCAR. The researchers will adjust the system as needed.
When the system is finalized in about two years, it will provide pilots and ground-based controllers with text-based maps and graphical displays showing likely regions of turbulence and of storms.
In addition to NCAR, other organizations taking part in the research include the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Lincoln Laboratory, the Naval Research Laboratory, and the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Flying with little information
Pinpointing turbulence over the oceans is far more challenging than over land because of sparse observations. Weather satellites are often the only source of information over these remote regions. But the satellites provide images less frequently in general than over land, which can make it difficult to capture fast-changing conditions, and they do not directly measure turbulence.
Pilots of transoceanic flights currently get preflight briefings and, in certain cases involving especially intense storms, in-flight weather updates every four hours. They also have onboard radar.
All this information, however, is of limited value. Thunderstorms may develop quickly and move rapidly, rendering the briefings and weather updates obsolete. Onboard radars are designed to detect clouds and precipitation, but turbulence is often located far from the most intense precipitation. As a result, pilots often must choose between detouring hundreds of miles around potentially stormy areas or taking a chance and flying directly through a region that may or may not contain intense weather.
In contrast, NCAR provides real-time maps of turbulence at various altitudes over the continental United States. Such a system, had it encompassed remote ocean regions, could have alerted the pilots of the doomed Air France flight to the stormy conditions along their flight path. The cause of that disaster has not been determined, and it is impossible to know whether the system could have prevented it.
“It seems likely that the information provided by a real-time uplink of weather conditions ahead would have, at a minimum, improved the pilots’ situational awareness,” Williams says.
Pinpointing the turbulence
Williams and his colleagues have recently completed two critical steps in identifying turbulence over the oceans:
The team has created global maps of clear air turbulence based on global computer weather models that include winds and other instabilities in the atmosphere. Clear air turbulence consists of erratic movements of air masses that occur in the absence of clouds and that sometimes buffet aircraft.
Drawing on satellite images of storms, the scientists have created global views of the tops of storm clouds. Higher cloud tops are often correlated with intense storms, although not necessarily with turbulence.
The next step is to identify areas of possible turbulence within and around intense storms. To do so, the team will study correlations between storms and turbulence over the continental United States where weather is more closely observed. The scientists will then infer the likelihood of turbulence associated with storms over the oceans, keying in on satellite indicators such as rapidly expanding clouds or places where the tops of storm clouds are cooling quickly.
They will also develop mathematical equations to account for differences in cloud systems over the United States compared to over the oceans, including the tropics.
Artificial intelligence at work
In addition to providing aircraft and ground controllers with up-to-the-minute maps of turbulence, the NCAR team is turning to an artificial intelligence technique, known as “random forests,” to provide short-term forecasts of turbulence. The random forests, which have proven useful for forecasting thunderstorms over land, consist of many decision trees that each cast a yes-or-no “vote” on crucial elements of a storm at future points in time and space. This enables scientists to forecast the movement and strength of the storm over the next few hours.
“Our goal is to give pilots a regularly updated picture of the likely storms ahead as they fly over the ocean so they can take action to minimize turbulence and keep their aircraft out of danger,” explains NCAR scientist Cathy Kessinger, a project team member. “Even over the middle of the ocean, where we don’t have land-based radars or other tools to observe storms in detail, we can still inform pilots about the potential for violent downdrafts, turbulence, and possibly lightning.”
source:
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2009/ocean-air-turbulence.jsp#
©2009, UCAR
Now that the beacons have been heard, French Navy Divers at Comoros have begun following up the search. On the 12th, their search will be assisted by underwater robotic technology.
Only one survivor was found, 12 year old Bahia Bakari; and she has gone back to France to her father. Her mother was killed in the crash, and Bahia sustained a broken collarbone.
The entire island is in mourning; plus there is some local disquiet because the plane that crash had been considered unfit to fly in French and European airspace, but was still allowed to fly to Comoros. (Even though the average income is $300 a year, they are not second class citizens.)
View Geplak in a larger map
Pictured: Indonesian C-130 Hercules licensed as A-1326. The plane in the crash was registered as A-1325.
Click to view full size photo at Airliners.net
Contact photographer Peter de Jong
What: Indonesian Air Force civilian Lockheed L-100-30(P) Hercules, en route from Jakarta to Madiun’s Iswahyudi Airport [WIAR] (Indonesia) (The Lockheed L-100 is the civilian version of a C-130 Hercules)
Where: Magetan, East Java. Geplak 325 miles east of Jakarta.
When: May 19 6:20am local time
Who: 98 passengers (troops and their families) and 11 crew. On May 22nd, aviation authorities reported recovering 101 bodies. 15 survivors were taken to local hospitals. The exact number aboard is unclear. The flight manifest is reportedly inaccurate. (Some overlap with passengers and crew numbers. The reports range from 99 to 113 passengers and 13 or 14 crew members.) Ten children were on board the flight. Two were killed on the ground..
Why: The plane was about to land at Iswahyudi military airbase. Witnesses claim the plane split apart in the air, (one of the wings fell off when the plane was still in the air) and exploded.
The plane skidded through a rice paddy, a stand of trees and into four houses in Geplak. 9 people were in the houses, of whom two are reported dead.
Pictured: Lufthansa A330
Click to view full size photo at Airliners.net
Contact Photographer Gerhard F. Schmidt
What: Lufthansa A 330 en route from Frankfurt to Addis Ababa
Where: Frankfurt International Airport
When: Friday July 3
Who: not available
Why: After some technical fault was experienced, the plane made an emergency landing at Frankfurt; however on landing, the plane’s nose gear tires burst and caught on fire.
The incident was reported by News Yemen and since we only have one reference on this event, we are awaiting corroboration to verify that the incident is not being confused with the (July 3) Monarch Airlines Airbus A320-200 that was diverted to Munich after smoke was detected in the cabin, or the (July 2) Air One Airbus A320-200, flight AZ-2970 from Milan to Palermo that returned to Milan when smoke filled the cabin or the (July 2) Air Arabia Airbus A320-200 flight from Bangladesh to the United Arab Emirates that diverted to Kolkata with engine failure.
George’s Point of View
The latest in the Comorian aviation rumor mill is that sweet and gentle albeit elderly and perfectly innocent Yemenia Airbus 310 was shot down with a dastardly missile by the French Navy vessels performing maneuvers in the area of the accident a day before the plane crash. Nevermind that the plane was positively geriatric in plane years. Nevermind that it was already disallowed to fly in Europe. Nevermind that it was flying in weather so bad that rough winds had already fouled up the plane’s first pass at the runway.
One tends to doubt that the French Navy was performing maneuvers in the area in the kind of weather that doomed the landing of the Yemenia airbus. Maybe the “missile” was suspended in the air for a whole day while waiting for the Airbus. (Does the French Navy normally fire at Mitsamouli, Djomani, Ouemani or Ouela?)
Maybe if we focus our eyes on the French navy, no one will notice the state of Comorian aviation, airports, aviation safety measures and rescue procedures.
George’s Point of View
Twice now, within a month, Airbus equipment has failed in bad weather, for whatever reason.
That is not supposed to happen. Planes aren’t supposed to fail. There is something wrong with the design of that plane, even my pool of expert pilots of Airbus quietly tell me this.
And the fact-gathering news is still grim. The Air France flight 447 black boxes have not been found, and neither have the Yemenia Air black boxes. They have been “heard” — but the same thing was rumored about the Air France boxes, but that didn’t pan out.
View Comoros in a larger map
But Yemenia is suspending all flights from Marseille to Moroni. 61 of the victims were from Marseille.Yemenia Flight 626 crashed 1,800 miles (2,900 kilometers) south of Yemen, between Africa’s southeastern coast and the island of Madagascar. but the black boxes have been by a searching submarine.
Some online opinions state that on the second pass attempting to land, the pilot simply flew into the sea while trying to negotiate the bad weather. There is apparently no radar at the airport where they were attempting to land.
French and US ships are looking for debris and bodies; the BEA and Airbus are investigating.
ILS Approach Runway 02 (Graphics: AIS ASECNA):
Pictured: One of Shaheen Air’s 12 Boeing 737s
Click to view full size photo at Airliners.net
Contact Photographer Steve Brimley
What: Shaheen Airlines Boeing 737-200 en route to Karachi
Where: Benazir Bhutto Shaheed International Airport
When: Saturday
Who: not available
Why: A bird strike right after take-off caused the pilots to request an emergency landing. No one was injured, and the flight took off after a delay of four hours.
Pictured: Airbus similar to the one in the incident
Click to view full size photo at Airliners.net
Contact Photographer Ruud Brinks
What: Air France Airbus A320-200 en route from Paris Orly to Toulouse
Where: Paris
When: Jul 3rd 2009
Who: not available
Why: Prior to takeoff, during engine acceleration, the left engine failed. The flight was cancelled, and a replacement aircraft was required.
No more details were available.
George’s Point of View
At least THIS one wasn’t the Pitot tubes.
What: Aero Vodochody L-29
Where: near the Tehachapi, California airport 110 miles north of Los Angeles
When: 1:30 p.m. July 4
Who: 2 on board were killed
Why: No reason was given yet for the crash according to the aviation accident investigators with the National Transportation Safety Board
Boeing owned by Venezolana similar to the one in the reported incident
Click to view full size photo at Airliners.net
Contact Photographer Art Brett
What: Venezolana Rutas Aéreas de Venezuela RAV Boeing 737-200 en route from Maracaibo Venezuela to Aruba
Where: Maracaibo
When: Jul 2nd 2009
Who: 54 passengers and 4 crew
Why: After takeoff, the flight experienced the failure of the left hand engine, initiated by an “explosion” or backfire. The flight returned to Maracaibo, and landed safely.
View from an airbus similar to the one in the incident
Click to view full size photo at Airliners.net
Contact Photographer Nitin Sarin
What: Air India Airbus A321-200 en route from Kochi to New Delhi
Where: Nagpur
When: Jul 3rd 2009
Who: 151 passengers and 6 crew
Why: When the engine shut down amid-flight, the plane diverted to Nagpur where it made an emergency landing without any known injuries. Technical details regarding the engine problem have not been released.
What: Air Arabia flight from Chittagong to Sharjah
Where: emergency landing at the Kolkata airport
When: 10.20 pm
Who: 159 passengers and eight crew
Why: When one of the plane’s two engines quit, the crew requested an emergency landing at Kolkata.
No injuries were reported.
Bahia Bakari of Airbus A310 flight, ejected from the aircraft, clung to the Airbus 310 debris for more than 13 hours before she was rescued.
Bahia boarded a Yemenia Airlines flight in France, but then she and her fellow Comoros-bound passengers were
Bahia is the only survivor.
Commission updates the list of airlines banned from European airspace
The European Commission adopted yesterday evening the eleventh update of the Community’s list of airlines banned in the European Union which comprises those of two additional countries. With this update the ban imposed upon five airlines is lifted given satisfactory improvements in safety.
“We cannot afford any compromises in air safety, we have to remain vigilant; citizens have the right to fly safely every where in the world” said Commission Vice-President Antonio Tajani and concluded that “we will not accept that airlines fly at different standards when they operate inside and outside Europe – it is high time that the international community rethinks its safety policy; those airlines which are unsafe should not be allowed to fly anywhere. This list has greatly contributed to making Europe’s skies safer. We should gradually move towards an international strategy based on cooperation between countries around the world”.
The new list replaces the previous one and can already be consulted on the Commission’s website[1].
The key conclusions to be drawn from this latest update of the list are twofold: a) the list acts a strong incentive to remedy safety deficiencies; withdrawal from the list is indeed possible, when the parties concerned put effectively in place sound corrective action to comply with all relevant safety standards; b) the concept of a Community list is increasingly proving to serve as a preventive rather than punitive instrument for safeguarding aviation safety. This is illustrated by the numerous instances where the Community has successfully addressed potential safety threats well ahead of resorting to the drastic measure of imposing restrictions.
Significant improvements and accomplishments of the Indonesian civil aviation authority are recognised in the area of safety. Since the imposition of the ban in July 2007, four air carriers – Garuda Indonesia, Airfast Indonesia, Mandala Airlines and Premiair can be taken off the list, because their authority ensures that they respect the international safety standards. The Thai carrier One Two Go has been removed from the list as its certificate has been revoked by the Thai aviation authorities. Progress made by the civil aviation authority of Angola and the air carrier TAAG Angola Airlines to resolve progressively any safety deficiencies are recognised. In that context, the cooperation and assistance agreement signed between the civil aviation authorities of Angola and of Portugal allowed the airline to operate again into Portugal only with certain aircraft and under very strict conditions.
This update also highlights the continuous dialogue with certain States regarding the safety of their carriers. In this respect, following evidence of improvements in the safety standards, the performance of various Russian air carriers on which the Russian authorities have imposed operating restrictions will be closely monitored.
It also acknowledges the efforts made by the civil aviation authorities of Indonesia, Gabon, Ukraine and Angola to enhance the exercise of their oversight responsibilities with a view to improving safety and cooperate closely to that end with the Commission.
Safety deficiencies identified in the system of oversight by the aviation authorities of Zambia and Kazakhstan, led to an operating ban on all carriers from these two countries, with the exception of the Kazakh air carrier Air Astana, whose operations into the Community are frozen under strict restrictions.
Nonetheless, all carriers covered by this and previous updates continue to be subject to prioritised ramp inspections at Community airports in order to ensure their consistent adherence to the relevant safety standards.
Hence, today, the Community’s list has 9 individual carriers whose operations are fully banned in the European Union – Air Koryo from the Democratic People Republic of Korea (DPRK), Air West from Sudan, Ariana Afghan Airlines from Afghanistan, Siem reap Airways International from Cambodia, Silverback Cargo Freighters from Rwanda, Motor Sich, Ukraine Cargo Airways, Ukrainian Mediterranean Airlines and Volare from Ukraine; all carriers (246) from 12 countries – Angola, Benin, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, (with the exception of three carriers which operate under restrictions and conditions), Indonesia, Kazakhstan (with the exception of one carrier which operates under restrictions and conditions), the Kyrgyz Republic, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Swaziland and Zambia; 7 air carriers which are allowed to operate under restrictions and conditions – TAAG Angola Airlines, Air Astana from Kazakhstan, Gabon Airlines, Afrijet and SN2AG from Gabon, Air Bangladesh and Air Service Comores.
The safety audits of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) constitute a pillar and one of the common criteria which are used to impose an operating ban. Enhancing the cooperation in this area with ICAO is therefore essential. This was the key subject at a meeting on 9 July between Vice President Tajani and the President of ICAO’s Council, Mr. Kobeh. A report later this year on the functioning of the rules wiill also contain proposals to strengthen the international dimension.
IF the European Aviation Safety Agency is going to uphold its own mission “to promote the highest common standards of safety and environmental protection in civil aviation,” it must take strong action when it receives the French Accident Investigators first results.
There’s so much speculation out there regarding what this account will be that it just seems better to wait and see what it says before second-guessing it. Regardless of the details, you know the report is going to talk about 1. lightning and weather 2. pitot tubes; they may also talk about computer issues, composites and the stabilizer/tail fin/rudder also. I doubt they’ll tackle Airbus’s fly-by-wire technology.
The only thing I don’t understand is why Airbus 330’s have not already been grounded pending the results of the investigation. With several recorded incidents of Airbus 330’s suffering near-disasterous incidents and generating data similar to what was received from the AF447 flight, it makes more sense to ground these planes now before another accident occurs. Why are they letting people fly around in a plane that is an accident waiting to happen?
Or are paying passengers the world over just guinea pigs for Airbus to test their craft on until they get it right?
Click to view full size photo at Airliners.net
Contact Photographer Art Brett
What: FREEDOM AIR FLIGHT 274 EMBRAER 145LR en route from Norfolk to Covington KY
Where: Covington KY
When: 6/30/2009
Who: 50 passengers 3 crew
Why: FREEDOM AIR FLIGHT 274 EMBRAER 145LR AIRCRAFT LANDED AND BLEW A TIRE, DAMAGE REPORTED TO BE MINOR, NO INJURIES, COVINGTON, Ky
Airworthiness Directive
Federal Register Information
Header Information
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA-2009-0121; Directorate Identifier 2008-NE-36-AD;
Amendment 39-15958; AD 2009-14-08]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company (GE) CF6- 80C2B5F Turbofan Engines
Preamble Information
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for GE CF6-80C2B5F turbofan engines. This AD requires removing certain part number (P/N) high-pressure compressor rotor (HPCR) stages 11-14 spool/ shafts before they exceed a new, reduced life limit. This AD results from an internal GE audit that compared the life limited parts certification documentation to the airworthiness limitations section (ALS) of the instructions for continuing airworthiness (ICA). We are issuing this AD to prevent HPCR stages 11-14 spool/shaft fatigue cracks caused by exceeding the life limit, which could result in a possible uncontained failure of the HPCR spool/shaft and damage to the airplane.
DATES: This AD becomes effective August 5, 2009.
ADDRESSES: The Docket Operations office is located at Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590- 0001.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Green, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Part, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail: robert.green@faa.gov; telephone (781) 238-7754; fax (781) 238-7199.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with a proposed AD. The proposed AD applies to GE CF6-80C2B5F turbofan engines. We published the proposed AD in the Federal Register on February 20, 2009 (74 FR 7831). That action proposed to require removing certain P/N HPCR stages 11-14 spool/shafts before they exceed a new, reduced life limit.
Examining the AD Docket
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http:// www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is provided in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.
Comments
We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comment received. The commenter supports the proposal.
Conclusion
We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.
Costs of Compliance
We estimate that this AD will affect one engine installed on an airplane of U.S. registry. We also estimate that the actions would require no work-hours per engine. No parts are required. Based on these figures, we estimate there is no cost of this AD to U.S. operators.
Authority for This Rulemaking
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA’s authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency’s authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
Regulatory Findings
We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a summary of the costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary at the address listed under ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
PART 39–AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends Sec. 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive:
Regulatory Information
2009-14-08 General Electric Company: Amendment 39-15958. Docket No. FAA-2009-0121; Directorate Identifier 2008-NE-36-AD.
Effective Date
(a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective August 5, 2009.
Affected ADs
(b) None.
Applicability
(c) This AD applies to General Electric Company (GE) CF6-80C2B5F turbofan engines with a high-pressure compressor rotor (HPCR) stages 11-14 spool/shaft, part number (P/N) 1703M74G03, installed. These engines are installed on, but not limited to, Boeing 747 series airplanes.
Unsafe Condition
(d) This AD results from an internal GE audit that compared the life limited parts certification documentation to the airworthiness limitations section (ALS) of the instructions for continuing airworthiness (ICA). We are issuing this AD to prevent HPCR stages 11-14 spool/shaft fatigue cracks caused by exceeding the life limit, which could result in a possible uncontained failure of the HPCR spool/shaft and damage to the airplane.
Compliance
(e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified unless the actions have already been done.
New Reduced Life Limit for the HPCR Stages 11-14 Spool/Shaft
(f) Remove any CF6-80C2B5F turbofan engine that has an HPCR stages 11-14 spool/shaft, P/N 1703M74G03, before the spool/shaft meets or exceeds the new, reduced life cycle limit of 19,500 cycles.
Installation Prohibition
(g) After the effective date of this AD, do not install any CF6- 80C2B5F turbofan engine that has an HPCR stages 11-14 spool/shaft, P/N 1703M74G03, that meets or exceeds 19,500 cycles.
Alternative Methods of Compliance
(h) The Manager, Engine Certification Office, has the authority to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
Special Flight Permits
(i) Under 14 CFR part 39.23, we are prohibiting special flight permits for this AD.
Related Information
(j) Robert Green, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Part, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail: robert.green@faa.gov; telephone (781) 238-7754; fax (781) 238-7199.
Material Incorporated by Reference
(k) None.
Footer Information
Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on June 25, 2009.
Peter A. White,
Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E9-15513 Filed 6-30-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
What: Hawaiian Airlines Boeing 767-300 en route from Los Angeles,CA to Honolulu
Where: Hilo Hawaii
When: Jun 30th 2009
Who: 237 passengers
Why: En route to Hawaii, an engine indicator light indicated a problem with an engine oil filter. After the engine was “idled” down, the plane diverted to Hilo and made a low speed approach, landing safely at 11:30 am.
Passengers were flown to Oahu on alternate transportation.
According to Hawaiin Airlines public report, examination of the plane revealed that the indicator was faulty.
New plane safety requirements: Plane seats will be required to stay in place when subjected to stresses up to 16 times the force of gravity.
John and Jane Q Crash dummy will need to scoot over now, to let in some new blood.
And airbags are coming. In first class, anyway. Maybe those not in first class will just have to die.
Two new mandates are on order: sturdier seats and airbags.
Date of compliance is Oct. 27 for new airplanes certified prior to 1988. Older planes with an older seat style aren’t required to be compliant, under the assumption that age will naturally phase them out.
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2005/05-13093.htm
