|

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.

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

Similar Posts

  • | |

    Latin Airports Plagued with Problems

    Brazilian officials have yet to agree on exactly what caused a TAM airliner to skid off the rain-slicked runway at Congonhas on July 17, killing all 187 aboard and 12 on the ground. Critics claim the runway is too short and lacks grooves to prevent skidding during wet weather.

    Mountains increase the risks at airports in Tegucigalpa, Honduras and Quito, Ecuador.

    Birds pose problems at airports in Panama City; Guayaquil, Ecuador; and Barranquilla, Colombia. A single bird sucked into an engine can down a plane.

    Six hundred vultures have closed Barranquilla’s airport for two hours daily since June 19, Illegal dumping by squatters around the airport attracts the birds.

    Peter Cerda, a Miami-based specialist in air safety said, ”We don’t have any airport in the region that we consider to be unsafe, including Congonhas,”

    Mexico City already has modernized approach and departure procedures, allowing airliners to shave a few minutes off flights, and it is getting a new terminal later this year that will increase gates from 33 to 59. But air traffic there will remain congested because the airport’s two runways are too close together to permit simultaneous use.

    A similar plan in Brazil has yet to get under way.

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

    Wildlife Outreach by FAA

    The FAA recently launched a wildlife poster outreach campaign for the general aviation (GA) community — pilots, airport sponsors, mechanics, engine manufacturers, students at aviation schools, and aviation organizations — to increase wildlife strike reporting among this important segment of aviation. For the last 50 years, the FAA has worked to reduce wildlife strikes at airports and periodically conducts studies to gauge the effectiveness of its program. The latest study shows that the general aviation population accounts for only six percent of the total strikes reported, which is more than 100,000 reports. Through increased and concentrated educational outreach, the FAA hopes to close the reporting gap between the more than 2,000 GA airports and certificated airports that operate with an increased level of safety and oversight.
    This year’s poster “Report Wildlife Strikes” depicts a caution sign with a bird inside and the simple message to report wildlife strikes. Copies of the poster have been delivered to the general aviation community and are designed to be placed in highly-used areas such as training rooms and break rooms.
    The FAA wants to hear from airport sponsors why reporting is low and encourage them to work with the FAA to increase reporting and reduce wildlife strikes. The strike information will tell the airport sponsors and the FAA what types of wildlife are involved, the amount of damage to the aircraft, and how many strikes occur at general aviation airports annually. This information will allow the FAA to help airport sponsors develop wildlife mitigation plans to reduce wildlife strikes.
    In addition to the poster outreach, the FAA encourages GA airports to conduct a wildlife hazard assessment to help airport sponsors understand and determine the wildlife hazards on their airports. The FAA may support GA airports by making Airport Improvement Program grants available to conduct an assessment.

    The Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Wildlife Hazard Mitigation Program

    Background
    The FAA’s wildlife hazardmanagement program has been in place for more than 50 years and focuses on mitigating wildlife hazards on or near airports through habitat modification, harassment technology, and research.
    FAA Wildlife Hazard Mitigation Efforts
    The FAA has a number of initiatives underway.
    Wildlife Strike Awareness Posters
    Toencourage and increase wildlife strike reporting in the general aviation (GA) community, the FAA’s Office of Airports developed a “Report Wildlife Strikes” awareness poster 2011. As part of the outreach effort, the FAA printed and distributed approximately 12,000 posters to general aviation airports, aviation schools, other organizations and associations, and Part 139 certificated airports that receive an operating certificate from the FAA because they operate with an increased level of oversight and safety.
    Wildlife Hazards at General Aviation Airports
    As an additional part of the outreach effort, the Office of Airports encourages GA airports to conduct Wildlife Hazard Assessments to determine what, if any, wildlife mitigation is needed. The FAA may support GA airports by making Airport Improvement Program grants available to conduct an assessment.
    Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) Reports
    The FAA provided funding and expertise for two Airport Cooperative Research Program reports, Bird Harassment, Repellent, and Deterrent Techniques for Use on and Near Airports (2011) and Guidebook for Addressing Aircraft/Wildlife Hazards at General Aviation Airports (2010). The reports are available on http://wildlife.faa.gov.
    National Wildlife Strike Database Goes Public
    On April 24, 2009, the FAA made its entire bird strike database available to the public. Over the last three years the FAA has received, 27,979 strike reports – 10,735 in 2009; 10,890 in 2010; and 6,354 through August 2011.
    Wildlife Hazard Assessments
    The FAA initiated rulemaking in June 2009 to make assessments mandatory whether or not an airport has had a triggering event. The FAA will publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking later this year for certificated airports.
    Level of Reporting and Mandatory Reporting
    Dr. Richard Dolbeer, wildlife hazard mitigation expert and former USDA National Coordinator for the Airport Wildlife Hazards Program, conducted a study on behalf of the FAA and issued a report in December 2009 that estimated that the number of reported strikes has increased from 20 percent during the period from 1990-1994 to 39 percent from 2004-2008 at certificated airports. Although the number of reports has increased, the number of damaging strikes has not. Dolbeer attributed this to the implementation of professionally-run wildlife hazard programs. Dolbeer determined the current level of reporting (39 percent) is statistically valid and is sufficient for the FAA to develop national trends and mitigation policies, making mandatory reporting unnecessary. However, Dolbeer noted that there is a reporting gap among GA airports. The FAA is working with the GA community, through educational outreach, to emphasize the importance of reporting strikes and to close the reporting gap.
    Redesigned Web Site
    The FAA redesigned the wildlife hazard web site to make it more user-friendly and to allow more advanced data mining. The site, http://wildlife.faa.gov, has search fields that enable users to find data on specific airports.
    Online Strike Reporting
    The FAA developed mobile application software to make strike reporting easier. The FAA also placed a Quick Response (QR) code scanner on the bottom of the 2011 “Report Wildlife Strikes” for smart phone users who have the QR application. Now, anyone can report a wildlife strike via the web or their personal data device.
    Continuing Wildlife Hazard Efforts
    Avian or Bird Radar Technology
    In 2006, the FAA tasked the Center of Excellence for Airport Technology (CEAT) at the University of Illinois to develop and execute a performance assessment for commercially available avian radar. The FAA deployed the initial avian radar systems at Seattle-Tacoma and Whidbey Island Naval Station in 2007, Chicago O’Hare in 2009, and John F. Kennedy and Dallas-Fort Worth in 2010. The performance assessments will continue at these airports over the next two years. A new research effort will begin at the end of 2011 to examine the feasibility and practicality of pilots and air traffic controllers using bird radar data. The FAA published Advisory Circular 150/5220-25 Airport Avian Radar Systems in November 2010 as a performance specification that airports can use to competitively purchase bird radar systems.
    FAA-Smithsonian Interagency Agreement
    The Smithsonian identifies the bird species from remains after a strike. Bird identification helps airfield personnel implement habitat management programs and provides information so aircraft manufacturers can better design engines and aircraft to withstand the impact of likely bird collisions. The FAA provides financial support to the Smithsonian to identify bird remains from civil aviation bird strikes as a free-of-charge service to any U.S. registered aircraft, regardless of where the strike occurred, and foreign carriers if the strike occurred at a U.S. airport.
    United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
    The FAA and the USDA collaborate on research to make airports safer by reducing the risks of aircraft-wildlife collisions. The research efforts include:
    Methods for making airport habitats less attractive to species that are the most dangerous in terms of aircraft collisions.
    Technologies for harassing and deterring hazardous species.
    Ongoing research projects include the compatibility of growing biofuel crops on airport property, assessing the movement behavior of large birds using satellite telemetry, studying the response of geese to approaching objects, and reviewing deterrent technology such as loud acoustical devices to deter birds.
    FAA Partnerships and Outreach
    Bird Strike Committee USA
    The FAA co-sponsors the Bird Strike Committee-USA as part of its continued public outreach and education effort to increase awareness within the aviation community about wildlife hazards.

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

    Sao Paulo Crash Sunday Nov 4

    Reali Taxi Aero’s small executive Learjet 35 took off in the rain at 14:10 local from Campo de Marte Airport in Sao Paulo and crashed into a house in the Casa Verde neighborhood half a kilometre from the runway after taking off. Eight people died; the bodies of four men, three women and a baby were found in the plane wreckage.

    Three others were rescued, including Claudia Lima Fernandes, 30,who was badly burned, and an 11 year old girl.

    Other neighborhood houses had to be evacuated and are being evaluated for safety.

    Witnesses said that the jet, which took off from Campo de Marte for Rio de Janeiro, ploughed nose first into the houses when it seemed to attempt a return to the airport.

    This was Sao Paulo’s second large air tragedy this year. On July 17, a TAM Airbus crashed while landing at the Congonhas airport, killing 199 people.

    São Paulo is known for its large helicopter fleet. Businessmen often fly the vast city by helicopter to avoid traffic and security threats .However last Monday three helicopters crashed in Sao Paulo in two hours.

    Three people died. Five days earlier, after having mechanical problems, an air force plane crashed north of Sao Paulo, There were no casualties.

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

    Remembering Air Blue Flight 202: July 28


    In George’s Point of View


    Sometimes all we do is listen. We listen to the families speak of their loved ones, listen to the little ones cry, the child who loves snowflakes because that is what her father called her. The wife and children with no means of support and feeding themselves with empty spoons. Knowing that no matter what we do, we cannot bring them back, nor fill that empty place. Still we do what we can on behalf of the families.

    This will be the first July 28 in history when these 152 people will not be living on this earth. We want to remember these people who lost their lives in such a tragic and unnecessary way. They deserve to be remembered.

    Some remember those who are no longer with us by using symbols. Memorials like the one promised. There are other symbols, like the bird in flight that symbolizes a soul, or a chain with a broken link.

    There is a tradition dating back to ancient times of placing rosemary by the graves of loved ones. “There’s rosemary, that’s for remembrance; pray, love, remember;” Hamlet, (V.iv.124)

    I was going to talk about more ways that people remember, but I must pause here. In ancient times they put rosemary by the graves of loved ones. Some people still do. But we cannot lay sprigs of rosemary for remembrance at the feet of our loved ones, because there are families still waiting for a memorial promised before the first anniversary of the crash. Waiting a year to lay their flowers and their grief.

    Instead of a bouquet of flowers, we have a bouquet of broken promises. Shall we count them?

    A broken promise to share the final investigative report.
    A broken promise over the Monument at the crash site (they want it elsewhere); and a broken promise over the 72 unmarked graves.
    A broken promise over Airblue being grounded for negligence, malpractice, manslaughter.
    A broken promise to assist the families.
    Or maybe we can call this a pending promise, as we wait for an independent inquiry board and a pending promise of greater safety in the skies over Pakistan.
    We have our Rosemary for remembrance, but it is bittersweet.

    CDA is constructing a memorial for the Air Blue Flight 202 just a few miles from Damn-e-Koh, Islamabad
    CDA is constructing a memorial for the Air Blue Flight 202 just a few miles from Damn-e-Koh, Islamabad
    To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.

  • Erosion of Safety or Common Sense?

    Last year I was in a plane seat for about 230k miles. The year before, at least that many or more. I believe in being safe up there. Personally, I have no personal problem with body scans. I liked that movie, Modern Problems. I might not mind glowing in the dark. Maybe it would save on electricity.

    Let’s think for a minute about the irony of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) mandate, the government agency whose job it is to protect the nation’s transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce. These Heightened Security Measures are an intrusion on what we expect of what would still like to call a free country.

    Are we naive to believe that we deserve safety measure options which do not insult our privacy? Let me ask all of you out there. Shouldn’t there be an option for people who want to opt out?

    If you’ve forgotten the situation, just google the phrase “Express Jet pilot Michael Roberts” and you will find plenty of news about this pilot who may become the poster child or figurehead of a grassroots backlash against airport screening technology.

    He’s the pilot who flew through Memphis International Airport for years until the TSA told him he could not fly if he did not go through the new scans and be subjected to a full body pat down.

    See that charming graphic sample above? It is not Michael Roberts. But whoever it is, it is certainly an intrusion.

    (The image is not supposed to be recorded, according to the TSA) yet the scanners do have that capability. Minors in the UK are protected from these scans because of fears of child pornography. Adults do not have that protection. Seems like they should.

    And purely in an emotional sense, the eerie images themselves look as if the subject were bathed in radiation, which would jump start all kinds of cancers, make ones hair fall out and have assorted negative health effects, especially over time. Which type of health effects would depend on whether an X-ray backscatter vs millimeter wave were used. In 78 US airports, 247 so-called backscatter machines are installed made by Rapiscan Systems which expose a person to about 0.0025 millirem of radiation (239 are the other type of machine so I can’t tell about those.) What if they malfunction? What if Rapiscan or components goof. People are flawed, we make mistakes. What if like the Cedars Sinai radiation cases, they put out 7-8 times the radiation they are supposed to? TSA agents will get the worst of it. And pilots and airport personnel who have to undergo these scans, sometimes daily. So what if it is not like the immediate disaster in Japan; long term regular exposure—like 4 years worth of weekly scans—could be just as bad, or worse, maybe 50 years down the road like Mesothelioma.

    So one of these scanners was installed at the Memphis International airport and in this (supposedly) free country, when a well-respected pilot objected, he was prevented from going to his job. Rather than my going off on living in a totalitarian state, let me here paste the link to his blog.

    And here are Michael’s own words on the subject:

    Michael Roberts:

    We just filed an amendment to our complaint with the District Court in D.C. – nothing earth shattering, but it’s got us back in the news a little bit recently. I also gave testimony to a Texas state legislature committee yesterday regarding a series of bills they’re looking at to outlaw TSA’s shenanigans at the state level. The fight goes on, whether the major media care to acknowledge it or not.

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

    Aviation Safety Action Program

    Because of management issues, labor vs management issues, and the question of how much protection should pilots/crew have when they make a mistake, a number of big carriers have dropped the Aviation Safety Action Program. THe official goal of the Aviation Safety Action Program (ASAP) is “to enhance aviation safety through the prevention of accidents and incidents. Its focus is to encourage voluntary reporting of safety issues and events that come to the attention of employees of certain certificate holders.”

    But pilots are being punished for their honesty.

    The program that is being dropped allows pilots and other airline workers to report mistakes they’ve made and safety issues.

    This enables carriers to spot trends before they become safety issues.

    So..why have Delta, American, U. S. Airways and Com Air dropped the program?

    Should we even FLY these carriers if they are not following ASAP?

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