| | |

Volcanic Ash Manual Now Available from ICAO

Similar Posts

  • | |

    Hot Volcanoes Cool Air Travel

    Nabro

    Nabro volcano, Eritrea sends ash plume more than 13.5 kilometres into the sky and disrupting air traffic across eastern Africa.
    Nasa photo
    Volcano Nabro in Eritrea


    Volcano Nabro erupted today throwing ash clouds up to 13.5 kilometres.The Volcanic Ash Advisory Center (VAAC) said Monday that the 5,331 ft volcano has resulted in a large ash plume of up to 13.5 kilometres (8 miles) high. The scale of the eruption, compared to the ongoing eruption in Chile and 2010?s eruption at Eyjafjallajökull in Iceland, remains unclear. Ash is falling on the northern Ethiopian town of Mekele. The ash advisory issued by the VAAC (see below graphics) is predicting that the Ash plume will spread towards the Middle East Monday night.

    Puyehue

    Puyehue Volcano in Lago Ranco, Río Bueno and Puyehue Chile
    Puyehue Volcano in Lago Ranco, Río Bueno and Puyehue Chile
    The Puyehue Volcano in the Andes
    The Puyehue eruption began June 4th, 2011 when 3,500 people were evacuated. First the local airport was closed, then cancellation of hundreds of flights have continued this last week and a half. As of Friday, the cloud spread causing cancellations across South America towards Uruguay and into Brazil.

    *Eritrea, is a country in the Horn of Africa.

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

    When Lady Luck Turns Away

    Incidents and Accidents.

    Behind every accident, there are many incidents. Accidents may be defined as involving fatalities and incidents as those many smaller events seemingly unconnected from any others. The importance of incidents has gotten little respect but for two obscure references. The industry recognized Heinrich Pyramid says “…. for every accident that causes a major injury, there are 29 accidents that cause minor injuries and 300 accidents that cause no injuries.”

    A 2005 Rand Report drawing attention to NTSB databases said “…(there is) poor control of information, part of resolving more complex accidents depends upon a thorough knowledge of prior incidents, the number of major airline incidents the FAA reported in 1997 was ten times the number of major accidents, (there is) neither oversight nor an emphasis on accuracy in the collection and maintenance of NTSB records, as a result, the accuracy of most of the NTSB data sources was rated as “poor” and although the NTSB does examine a significant number of major incidents, only a small portion of the NTSB’s aviation resources are focused on incident events.”

    Rand report Link >
    http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/2005/MR1122.pdf

    See page 38 –40.

    Key Public Databases – NTSB and FAA. Gaps Compromising Safety Assessments.

    The NTSB’s most public source of records is the accident/incident database.

    It is cited in the FAA Accident/Incident Data System (AIDS), Airworthiness Directives (ADs), risk/analysis studies, and in DOT/GAO Reports to congress.

    In my various surveys along major safety issues (uncontained engine explosions, un-commanded rudder movements, shutdowns due to engine main bearing failures, or smoke/fire incidents, the NTSB data contains about 20 % of what is found in SDR data or other counterpart investigative agencies.

    Gaps in NTSB data are further compounded by similar gaps in SDR data. From
    1992 to 2002 four NTSB Safety Reccommendation Letters and the GAO had complained of such gaps. In 2010 and regarding data on windshield fires, an article said the “FAA said it was aware of 11 cases of fires in the planes over the past 20 years. However, Boeing has said it is aware of 29 incidents involving fire or smoke over the past eight years.’ Source link >
    http://www.news24.com/World/News/FAA-orders-Boeing-inspection-20100710 – bottom of article.

    1994. In 1994, The Department of Transportation Inspector General reported that between “46 and 98 percent of the data fields of inflight ‘service difficulty’ records are missing data.” From GAO/AIMD-95-27. 02/08/95. Data
    Problems Threaten FAA Strides on Safety Analysis
    Source Link >
    http://www.gao.gov/archive/1995/ai9527.pdf

    From the House Hearing Electrical Safety. (Ref report 106-112, Thursday, October 5, 2000, Testimony of Alexis M. Stefani, assistant IG for auditing), said; “Third, of most concern to us is the health of this SDR system, itself. While the new rule (coding for wire issues) was intended to improve the data in the system, FAA must also insure that the reports that are provided to it are timely, and follow the guidance. We found, however, that the SDR system is not robust, and over the years, it has suffered from budget cuts with staffing going from twelve full-time to three full-time people. Weakness in this system reduces the reliability and usefulness of the data, and can impact FAA’s ability to do trend analysis.”
    Source Link >
    http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/Trans/hpw106-112.000/hpw106-112_1.HTM
    Page 47

    From a June 8, 2006 U.S./Europe International Aviation Safety Conference, FAA’s Flight Standards Service, Jim Ballough.spoke of “FAA’s growing concern over numerous reports of smoke/fumes in cockpit/cabin and that FAA data analysis indicates numerous events not being reported.” Source Link >
    http://www.faa.gov/news/conferences/2006_us_europe_conference/ See ‘Presentation
    ’ by Jim Ballough.
    650 Records Of “Smoke In The Cockpit” A Lack of Concern.

    Gary Stoller at USA Today did a good piece on “smoke in the cockpit”
    reports. Of some 650 records, the FAA/NTSB has but a fraction. The story highlights included; (that the) “issue happens roughly four times a month.

    Some experts say the problem is under-reported. FAA says there is “no safety benefit” to requiring systems to remove cockpit smoke. Smoke in a plane’s cockpit from electrical or other failures is reported an average of four times each month, a USA TODAY analysis finds.” Further that “In-flight fires left unattended “may lead to catastrophic failure and have resulted in the complete loss of airplanes,” the FAA warned. A flight crew “may have as few as 15-20 minutes to get an aircraft on the ground if the crew allows a hidden fire to progress without intervention.” USA Today

    Source http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/10/30/cockpit-smoke-airline-faa/3316429/

    33 records Of Insulation Blankets Fires. – How They Start.

    From my catalog of 78 Records of fire from 1983 to 2012 sourced from the NTSB, AAIB (Danish & UK), French BEA, FAA’s SDR databases, and a few media reports of records of accidents and incidents of fire. There is no central repository. There are 33 records where acoustic insulation (blankets) were specifically mentioned are listed. The issues of self-igniting and flammable wire insulations and of flammable blankets were now are co-mingled.

    Three modes of ignition are seen here: wire shorting/arcing, molten metal sprayed from faulting electrical relays and heating tapes. Most reports lack necessary detail, but seven incidents were seen from wires shorting/arcing.
    Some involved only a few wires; one powering coal closet lights. Molten Metal (spatter) comprised another 8. More importantly, within those reports were references to another 19 (but without details) and that the NTSB said; the relays involved were not “substantially different from the receptacles used on other transport-category airplanes.”

    Ignition from faulting heating tapes/ribbons was seen in another 4 reports – but there were more. In a November 14, 2002 Letter to the FAA, the Canadian Transport Safety Board (TSB) advised that; “heater ribbons are used extensively in transport category aircraft, including Boeing 707, 727, 737, 747, 757 and 767 series and Boeing (Douglas) DC-9, DC-10, and MD-11 aircraft. ” From a TSB report of such fires on 747s and a 767, four other reports were disclosed. The TSB added; “The standard Boeing 767 incorporates 26 heater ribbons. Between June 1985 and June 2002, operators of Boeing aircraft made a total of 67 reports to Boeing of heater ribbon failures where thermal degradation was evident.” From one Delta MD-88 fire in 1999, the NTSB said; “DAL conducted a fleet wide examination of their MD-88/MD-90 fleet to ascertain the condition of their static port heaters. Eight heaters were found with evidence of thermal damage on their wires and or connectors.” There are 8 ADs, and 24 additional SDRs describing burn marks or fire damage. (ref King Survey ‘History Heater Blanket/Tape Fires’.)

    In 2002, the FAA concluded that “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” and that “it is impossible to predict the relative risk of serious fires occurring in Hidden Areas or Locations”. Source Link >
    http://www.caasd.org/atsrac/meeting_minutes/2002/2002_01_Fire-Safety-in-Hidden-Inaccessible-Areas.pdf

    Dense, Continuous Smoke in the Cockpit.

    In June 2013 a GAO Report to Congress cited but one record of ‘Dense, Continuous Smoke in the Cockpit’ (in 1973). The input came from the NTSB and the FAA. Contrary to that, a Specialist Paper by the Royal Aeronautical Society detailed seven. Only two were in the NTSB databases – but with no mention of ‘continuous smoke.’

    Links > GAO-13-551R, Jun 4, 2013. FAA Oversight of Procedures and Technologies to Prevent and Mitigate the Effects of Dense, Continuous Smoke in the Cockpit.
    http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-551R

    Link > Royal Aeronautical Society – Smoke, Fire and Fumes in Transport Aircraft. Second Edition 2013, Part 1, Past History, Current Risk, And Recommended Mitigations. A Specialist Paper prepared by the Flight
    Operations Group of the Royal Aeronautical Society. March 2013

    http://flightsafety.org/files/RAESSFF.pdf

    In Lady Luck We Trust ? – Those ‘Lucky’ Ground Incidents.
    Often heard whenever the safety of our air transportation system is questioned is that we have an enviable safety record due to the industry, the FAA and the NTSB’s efforts. That is true if only actual deaths are counted.

    This boiler-plate response comes whenever issues of safety are raised, but something else is left unspoken: its conditional nature. It includes just the U.S. carriers, and is based on the records kept. However, there have been no less than 6 events where fires occurred on the ground and caused significant damage, or loss of the airframes. Fire departments intervened in five.

    What if, instead, over 900 lives had been lost over the past 12 years ?
    For example:

    (1) Aug 8, 2000, AirTran DC-9-32 – fire and blistering of aircraft skin, 63 on board.

    (2) Nov 29, 2000, a DC-9-32 by AirTran (97 on board).

    (3) Same Day, Nov 29, 2000, a DC-9-82, American Airlines (66 on board) ,
    blankets burned, emergency evacuation on taxiways – 97 on board”.

    (4) June 28, 2008, ABX 767 freighter burned through the fuselage and was destroyed at the gate, (“The risk of an in-flight fire and the propagation of a fire in those areas is essentially the same whether the airplane is equipped to fly passengers or cargo” says the FAA). Approximate 767 capacity is 190 people.

    (5) July 29 2011, Egypt Air 777, fire erupted and burned a cockpit-widow
    sized hole through the fuselage. Emergency services put the fire out – 291 passengers were evacuated.

    (6) On October 14, 2012, a Corendon Airlines 737-800 had “substantial damage” from fire in the cockpit on the gate. 196 on board were evacuated. Had these fires broken at altitude or during the trans-oceanic crossing, all on board may have been lost.

    For the sum each of these fires found in the NTSB’s accident/incident database, over 900 lives were not lost. A more honest assessment and the credit for this remarkable safety record of no fatalities was not the FAA and industry abilities to manage and ‘mitigate risks’ – but rather the kindness of Lady Luck. But what can happen when lady Luck turns away ?

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

    Agricultural Accident-two cropdusters collide


    What: Miles Flying Service AT80 AIR TRACTOR AT-802A
    Where: Paragould Arkansas
    When: May 23, 2012, 11:35 a.m
    Who: 1 severe injury, 1 fatality
    Why: Two agricultural planes, a Beech Grove Grumman G164C and a Miles Flying Service AIR TRACTOR AT-802A collided in midair during an aerial application (crop-dusting) activity. The planes flew from Craighead and Greene county airstrips. One plane was flying S-N, the other was flying E-W. The planes turned into one another at the field’s corner and they impacted ground separated by 300 yards near County Road 322 and Highway 168 in Greene County.

    One person on the Gurmman was fatally injured; one person on the Air tractor had serious injuries. The accident occurred sixteen miles from Paragould arkansas. A medical helicopter evacuated the injured pilot.

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

    NTSB Safety Recommendations A-10-44 and -45

    The National Transportation Safety Board recommends that the
    Federal Aviation Administration:

    Require repetitive inspections for fatigue cracking of the
    nose landing gear actuator attachment foot areas on all
    Piper PA-46-310 and -350P engine mounts and require
    replacement, if necessary. (A-10-44)

    Require Piper to redesign the PA-46-310 and -350P engine
    mounts so that they are not susceptible to fatigue cracking
    in the attachment foot areas. (A-10-45)

    The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has investigated two accidents involving Piper PA-46-350P airplanes that resulted from fatigue cracking in the attachment between the nose landing gear (NLG) actuator and the engine mount. Such fatigue cracks can lead to the collapse of the NLG, which could cause a serious or catastrophic accident if the separation occurred at a critical point during takeoff or landing or if the aircraft collided with parked aircraft or aircraft waiting at taxiways.

    On August 16, 2009, about 1130 eastern daylight time,1 a Piper PA-46-350P, N548C, experienced an NLG collapse during landing at the Orlando-Sanford International Airport, Sanford, Florida.2 The private pilot and passenger were uninjured, and the airplane sustained substantial damage. No flight plan was filed for the 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 91 personal flight, nor was one required to be filed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Visual meteorological conditions (VMC) prevailed at the time of the accident.

    On May 19, 2007, about 1305, a Piper PA-46-350P, N411MD, experienced an NLG collapse during landing at the Indianapolis Metropolitan Airport near Fishers, Indiana.3 The pilot and passenger were uninjured, and the airplane sustained substantial damage. No flight plan was filed for the 14 CFR Part 91 personal flight, nor was one required to be filed by the FAA. VMC prevailed at the time of the accident.

    The NLG actuator on Piper PA-46-350P airplanes is bolted via two attachment feet to the lower aft engine mount, which is constructed of welded tubes (see figure 1). The NLG actuator extends down and forward from the attachment feet and attaches to the NLG. During taxi, takeoff, and landing, the attachment feet transmit loads from the NLG to the engine mount, thus creating repetitive tensile stress in the engine mount attachment feet areas and, in some cases, leading to fatigue cracking.

    Piper PA-46-310 and -350P airplanes have either an original engine mount or a redesigned engine mount (see figure 2).5 In the original design, each attachment foot is a two-piece part consisting of a metal disk welded to the end of a metal tube, which is then welded to the engine mount support tubes. In the redesigned engine mount, each attachment foot is a one-piece machined part made from a single piece of steel, eliminating the welding within the feet themselves. However, on both the original and redesigned engine mounts, the attachment feet are welded to the engine mount support tubes, which is where fatigue cracking has been identified by the NTSB.

    The airplane in the Sanford, Florida, accident was equipped with a redesigned engine mount that was installed at the time of manufacture. The NTSB’s postaccident examination of N548C revealed that the right attachment foot had fractured at the engine mount support tube. The NTSB materials laboratory’s examination of the fractured foot revealed a fatigue crack emanating from multiple origins at the exterior of the joint where the attachment foot was welded to the support tube. At the time of the accident, the airplane was 8 years old and had accumulated 711 flight hours with 878 cycles since new (CSN).

    The airplane in the Fishers, Indiana, accident had a redesigned engine mount that was installed on March 21, 2003. The airplane had accumulated 542 flight hours and an estimated 1,400 cycles since then. At the time of the accident, the airplane was 7 years old and had accumulated a total of 772 flight hours.6 The NTSB’s postaccident examination of N411MD revealed that the right attachment foot had separated from the rest of the engine mount due to fatigue cracking7 where the attachment foot was welded to the support tube.
    The NTSB also notes that a similar incident of fatigue cracking of an NLG attachment foot was found on September 29, 2009, during a routine inspection of a Piper PA-46-350P airplane. The airplane was 5 years old and had accumulated a total of 678 flight hours with 600 CSN and was equipped with the redesigned engine mount.

    On April 22, 2002, Piper issued mandatory Service Bulletin (SB) 1103, recommending that operators of PA-46-310P, -350P, and -500TP8 airplanes inspect the NLG actuator attachment foot area of the original engine mounts for evidence of fatigue cracking. The SB indicated that such cracking had been found in this area of some original engine mounts.

    The inspection included visual and liquid penetrant inspection at the next regular scheduled maintenance event and each 100 hours in service or at the annual inspection, whichever occurred first. If cracks were found, the original engine mounts were to be replaced with the redesigned engine mounts before returning to service. SB 1103 does not subject the airplanes with redesigned engine mounts to repetitive inspections, and replacing the original engine mount with the redesigned engine mount relieves the need for repetitive inspections. Piper issued several inspections.

    The NTSB is concerned that the redesigned engine mounts on Piper P
    A-46-310 and -350P model airplanes have attachment foot areas susceptible to fatigue cracking similar to the fatigue cracks identified by Piper on the original engine mounts. The NTSB concludes that the tensile stresses applied to the redesigned engine mounts could lead to fatigue fractures in the NLG actuator attachment foot areas. However, redesigned engine mounts are not currently subject to the inspection provisions of SB 1103, nor is compliance with SB 1103 required.10 Although the NTSB is not aware of incidents or accidents involving original engine mounts that have not been inspected, the NTSB believes that inspections of the original engine mounts should also be mandatory in order to detect fatigue cracking.

    Therefore, the NTSB recommends that the FAA require repetitive inspections for fatigue cracking of the NLG actuator attachment foot areas on all Piper PA-46-310 and -350P engine mounts and require replacement, if necessary.

    As previously noted, Piper redesigned the engine mounts on the PA-46-310 and -350P in an effort to prevent fatigue cracking at the attachment foot areas. However, based on the accidents discussed above, this redesign does not appear to have been successful since fatigue cracking has also occurred in the redesigned engine mounts. Therefore, the NTSB recommends that the FAA require Piper to redesign the PA-46-310 and -350P engine mounts so that they are not susceptible to fatigue cracking in the attachment foot areas.
    Therefore, the National Transportation Safety Board recommends that the Federal Aviation Administration:

    Require repetitive inspections for fatigue cracking of the nose landing gear actuator attachment foot areas on all Piper PA-46-310 and -350P engine mounts and require replacement, if necessary. (A-10-44)

    Require Piper to redesign the PA-46-310 and -350P engine mounts so that they are not susceptible to fatigue cracking in the attachment foot areas. (A-10-45)

    In response to the recommendations in this letter, please refer to Safety Recommendations A-10-44 and -45. If you would like to submit your response electronically rather than in hard copy, you may send it to the following e-mail address: correspondence@ntsb.gov.

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

    Fly Keystone Cops, no, I mean Fly India

    George’s Point of View

    Once upon a time, there were two runways: Runway 27 and Runway 14. They crossed each other. It didn’t matter that they crossed each other because the KING of the runway (Air Traffic Control) never allowed planes in a collision course. In Air Traffic Control school, they teach that a collision course would be a very bad thing.

    So one day, an Air India A310 was on Runway 27, and waiting for input from Air Traffic Control. And, simultaneously, a Jet Airways Boeing 737-800, flight was waiting on Runway 14.

    Somehow, both planes started to take-off.

    Air Traffic control recognized that the very bad thing was about to happen, and cancelled one of the take-offs.

    Fortunately both pilots were awake, saw the what was happening and both pilots rejected takeoff.

    (Fortunately, they teach that a collision course is a bad thing in Pilot school too. Nice juxtaposition, that.)

    It’s a good day when no one dies from the accident that could have happened.

    It’s not a happy ending yet, because it won’t be over until the investigation is over. No one died…but it remains to be seen if heads may still roll.

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

    MH17 Tragedy: US to Support Malaysia’s Resolution in ICAO Council

    Malaysia’s Transport Minister Datuk Seri Liow Tiong Lai has visited the U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx in Washington DC on October 24.

    In a statement released after the meeting, Liow thanked the US Government for supporting Malaysia in the aftermath of MH370 and MH17 tragedies. He announced that the US has promised to support a resolution to be put forward by Malaysia to the ICAO Council in the wake of MH17 disaster.

    “Specifically the ICAO Resolution strongly reaffirms the need for all states to comply with international law that prohibits acts of violence that pose a threat to the safety of international civil aviation and stresses the importance of all states assisting with the continuation and finalisation of a full, thorough and independent international investigation into the incident…In light of these tragedies, it is clear that the international community must collaborate closely and take greater steps towards improving safety and security in civil aviation,” he said.

    Liow will be attending the 203rd Session of the ICAO Council early next week in Montreal, Canada. Regarding the inputs to the ICAO Council, he said, “Malaysia intends to present its views and input to the ICAO Council, with a view towards seeking consensus on this matter…Among the matters I will put forward to the ICAO Council include the need to improve aircraft tracking by implementing real-time tracking as well as the need for sharing of information pertaining to flight risks.”

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