23 OCT 2007 _______________________________________ *NASA refuses to disclose air safety survey Story Highlights *NATCA Responds To FAA's Claimed Hiring Numbers *Planes Collide On Downwind To NY Airport *Winner Aviation Cited By OSHA In Hangar Door Death *Whoops! NTSB Says Citation Took Off From MEM Taxiway *US air taxi community mystified over AMI Jet Charter's operating certificate *Stowaway's body found near Moscow's airport *FAA to Allow Fuel Cells on Flights *************************************** NASA refuses to disclose air safety survey Story Highlights Official said revealing findings could damage public confidence in airlines Survey's purpose was to develop a new way to track safety trends, problems FAA is confident it can identify safety problems before they lead to accidents Anxious to avoid upsetting air travelers, NASA is withholding results from an unprecedented national survey of pilots that found safety problems like near collisions and runway interference occur far more frequently than the government previously recognized. Pilots reported at least twice as many bird strikes, near mid-air collisions and runway incursions as other government monitoring systems show, according to a person familiar with the results. NASA gathered the information under an $8.5 million safety project, through telephone interviews with roughly 24,000 commercial and general aviation pilots over nearly four years. Since ending the interviews at the beginning of 2005 and shutting down the project completely more than one year ago, the space agency has refused to divulge the results publicly. Just last week, NASA ordered the contractor that conducted the survey to purge all related data from its computers. The Associated Press learned about the NASA results from one person familiar with the survey who spoke on condition of anonymity because this person was not authorized to discuss them. A senior NASA official, associate administrator Thomas S. Luedtke, said revealing the findings could damage the public's confidence in airlines and affect airline profits. Luedtke acknowledged that the survey results "present a comprehensive picture of certain aspects of the U.S. commercial aviation industry." The AP sought to obtain the survey data over 14 months under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act. "Release of the requested data, which are sensitive and safety-related, could materially affect the public confidence in, and the commercial welfare of, the air carriers and general aviation companies whose pilots participated in the survey," Luedtke wrote in a final denial letter to the AP. NASA also cited pilot confidentiality as a reason, although no airlines were identified in the survey, nor were the identities of pilots, all of whom were promised anonymity. Among other results, the pilots reported at least twice as many bird strikes, near mid-air collisions and runway incursions as other government monitoring systems show, according to a person familiar with the results who was not authorized to discuss them publicly. The survey also revealed higher-than-expected numbers of pilots who experienced "in-close approach changes" -- potentially dangerous, last-minute instructions to alter landing plans. Officials at the NASA Ames Research Center in California have said they want to publish their own report on the project by year's end. Although to most people NASA is associated with spaceflight, the agency has a long and storied history of aviation safety research. Its experts study atmospheric science and airplane materials and design, among other areas. "If the airlines aren't safe I want to know about it," said Rep. Brad Miller, D-North Carolina, chairman of the House Science and Technology investigations and oversight subcommittee. "I would rather not feel a false sense of security because they don't tell us." Discussing NASA's decision not to release the survey data, the congressman said: "There is a faint odor about it all." Miller asked NASA last week to provide his oversight committee with information on the survey and the decision to withhold data. "The data appears to have great value to aviation safety, but not on a shelf at NASA," he wrote to NASA's administrator Michael Griffin. The survey's purpose was to develop a new way of tracking safety trends and problems the airline industry could address. The project was shelved when NASA cut its budget as emphasis shifted to send astronauts to the moon and Mars. NASA said nothing it discovered in the survey warranted notifying the Federal Aviation Administration immediately. Its data showed improvements in some areas, the person who was familiar with the survey said. Survey managers occasionally briefed the FAA during the project. At a briefing in April 2003, FAA officials expressed concerns about the high numbers of incidents being described by pilots because the NASA results were dramatically different from what FAA was getting from its own monitoring systems. An FAA spokeswoman, Laura Brown, said the agency questioned NASA's methodology. The FAA is confident it can identify safety problems before they lead to accidents, she said. In its space program, NASA has a deadly history of playing down safety issues. Investigators blamed the 1986 and 2003 shuttle disasters on poor decision making, budget cuts and improperly minimizing risks. NASA decided to go ahead with a 2006 shuttle launch and is moving ahead with one this week despite safety concerns by NASA engineers in both cases. Aviation experts said NASA's pilot survey results could be a valuable resource in an industry where they believe many safety problems are underreported, even while deaths from commercial air crashes are rare and the number of deadly crashes has dropped in recent years. "It gives us an awareness of not just the extent of the problems, but probably in some cases that the problems are there at all," said William Waldock, a safety science professor at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Prescott, Arizona. "If their intent is to just let it sit there, that's just a waste." Officials involved in the survey touted the unusually high response rate among pilots, 80 percent, and said they believe it is more reliable than other reporting systems that rely on pilots to voluntarily report incidents. "The data is strong," said Robert Dodd, an aviation safety expert hired by NASA to manage the survey. "Our process was very meticulously designed and very thorough. It was very scientific." Pilot interviews lasted about 30 minutes, with standardized questions about how frequently they encountered equipment problems, smoke or fire, engine failure, passenger disturbances, severe turbulence, collisions with birds or inadequate tower communication, according to documents obtained by the AP. Pilots also were asked about last-minute changes in landing instructions, flying too close to other planes, near collisions with ground vehicles or buildings, overweight takeoffs or occasions when pilots left the cockpit. The survey, known officially as the National Aviation Operations Monitoring Service, started after a White House commission in 1997 proposed reducing fatal air crashes by 80 percent as of this year. Crashes have dropped 65 percent, with a rate of about 1 fatality in about 4.5 million departures. NASA had begun to interview general aviation pilots and initially planned to interview flight attendants, air traffic controllers and mechanics before the survey was halted. In earlier interviews that helped researchers design the NASA survey, pilots said airlines were unaware how frequently safety incidents occurred that could lead to serious problems or even crashes, said Jon Krosnick, a survey expert at Stanford University who helped NASA create the questionnaire. Krosnick also led a Stanford team that paid for a joint AP-Stanford poll on the environment. "There are little things going on everyday that rarely lead to an accident but they increase the chances of an accident," said Krosnick. "It's the little things beneath the surface that cause the very infrequent crashes. You have to tackle those." NASA directed its contractor Battelle Memorial Institute, along with subcontractors, on Thursday to return any project information and then purge it from their computers before October 30. http://www.cnn.com/2007/TRAVEL/10/22/nasa.air.safety.ap/index.html *************** NATCA Responds To FAA's Claimed Hiring Numbers Notes Number Of Experienced Controllers At 15-Year Low You knew this was coming. Hot on the heels of the FAA's announcement last week the agency had exceeded its air traffic controller staffing targets for Fiscal Year 2007, the National Air Traffic Controllers Association notes it's not the number of new hires that should concern the FAA, and air travelers... but rather the dearth of experienced controllers at the helm. "A record number of air traffic controller retirements and total attrition in fiscal year 2007, fueled by outrage over the lack of a contract, soared past Federal Aviation Administration projections by 30 percent and has left the country with both a 15-year low in the number of fully certified controllers on the job and a glut of new hires -- many with no air traffic control experience or education -- that the FAA is failing to train either effectively or efficiently," NATCA tells ANN. The union -- locked in a bitter fight with the FAA over the contract imposed on controllers by the agency last year, which NATCA considers invalid -- says there were 856 retirements in FY2007 -- representing 7.4 percent of the total experienced controller workforce. Only 16 of those were mandatory, the union says. NATCA claims that's the fourth straight year the FAA fell short of accurately predicting retirements; the agency missed its FY2007 target by 33 percent, the union says. "There are 11,256 fully trained and certified controllers working at the FAA’s 314 facilities," the union says. "That’s a four percent decline from one year ago and the lowest total of experienced controllers since 1992 (10,696)." NATCA President Patrick Forrey calls the situation "a problem entirely of the FAA's making." "It didn’t have to happen. We do not have a contract and that is taking a very serious toll on the controller workforce and the nation’s aviation system," Forrey said. "Only once in our nation’s history have we seen conditions in our air traffic control facilities that are as acrimonious, overworked, overstressed, demoralized and angry as we do today and that was in the period leading up to the 1981 PATCO strike. There is only one possible solution to this crisis: We must have a contract." NATCA also notes total controller attrition in FY07 was 1,558 -- which the union says nearly wipes out any net gains from the FAA's reported number of new hires. As ANN reported, the FAA claims "over 1,800" new controller hires for FY2007. In a Monday news conference, NATCA also noted 201 resignations, 126 removals, 10 deaths... and a surprising 365 promotions to FAA supervisory positions in FY '07. The promotions exceeded FAA projections by nearly double... which NATCA says provides additional proof the lack of a contract fueled the attrition surge, as becoming an FAA supervisor is the only way a fully certified controller can earn a pay raise, and receive cash bonuses and other benefits under the current, imposed contract. FMI: www.natca.org/mediacenter/FY2007staffing.msp aero-news.net ************** Planes Collide On Downwind To NY Airport; No Injuries Aircraft Land Safely Following Sunday Collision Two single-engine aircraft on approach to Republic Airport (FRG) in Farmingdale, NY collided about five miles from the runway Sunday night, but both aircraft were able to land safely, and no injuries were reported. Airport Director Michael Geiger told Newsday a Cessna 152 and Piper PA32 Saratoga (file photos of types shown above, below) collided at about 1815 EDT Sunday. The impact took the outboard 12 inches off a wing of the Piper, and punctured a wing tank, according to news reports. The Cessna suffered damage to its windscreen and wing, added airport spokesman Gary Lewi. A landing light from one of the aircraft was found in the front yard of a home under construction in nearby Dix Hills. FAA spokeswoman Arlene Salac said both planes were operating under VFR rules, and were returning to FRG when the accident occurred. Geiger did not know if either plane was in contact with the control tower at Republic. The Piper was flown by Sidhu Karmendra, and had one additional passenger onboard. The lone pilot of the C152 was not identified. IDENTIFICATION Regis#: 4672M Make/Model: C152 Description: 152, A152, Aerobat Date: 10/21/2007 Time: 2204 Event Type: Accident Highest Injury: None Mid Air: Y Missing: N Damage: Substantial LOCATION City: FARMINGDALE State: NY Country: US DESCRIPTION N4672M, A CESSNA C152 AIRCRAFT, AND N43450, A PIPER PA32 AIRCRAFT, WHILE ON DOWNWIND COLLIDED MIDAIR AT 1100 FEET, BOTH AIRCRAFT LANDED WITHOUT FURTHER INCIDENT, NO INJURIES REPORTED, THE CESSNA RECEIVED SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE AND THE PIPER RECEIVED MINOR DAMAGE, FARMINDALE, NY INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 0 # Crew: 1 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Ink: # Pass: 0 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Ink: # Grad: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Ink: WEATHER: NOT REPORTED OTHER DATA Activity: Unknown Phase: Unknown Operation: OTHER FAA FSDO: FARMINGDALE, NY (EA11) Entry date: 10/22/2007 FMI: www.faa.gov, www.republicairport.net/ aero-news.net *************** Winner Aviation Cited By OSHA In Hangar Door Death Safety Switch Bypassed With A Nail A fixed-base operator at the Youngstown-Warren Regional Airport (YNG) has been cited for a bypass to a safety switch on a hangar door that killed one of its employees. Winner Aviation Corp. was cited by the Occupation Health and Safety Administration for a bypass on a hangar door that allowed the door to close on Paul Wiscott, 71, of Youngstown. The Trumbull County coroner ruled the death of Wiscott, who had worked at the airport 40-years, an accident, saying he died of head trauma according to Vindy.com. The Western Reserve Port Authority operates the airport; Winner was leasing the hangar from the group. Winner was fined $2,000. Rob Medlock, OSHA area director in Cleveland, OH, noted Winner didn't install the bypass on the safety switch. Medlock says that it can't be determined which previous tenant installed it, or when. Winner Aviation general manager Mark Gisler declined to comment. Steve Bowser, airport's director of aviation, said the bypass has been fixed and declined to answer any other questions due to the possibility of litigation over the death. According to Medlock, the 30-foot-high door closes in a cascade fashion. The door switch is designed to only operate the door when it is depressed. A large nail hanging next to the switch was used to hold it down, to bypass the safety feature. "You can't bypass electrical equipment," Medlock said. The bypass enabled Wiscott to reach between the door and the hangar wall and hold down the switch to open the door. Wiscott apparently took his finger off the switch while going into the hangar, when the door closed on him. Medlock could not remember seeing an accident like this in his 15 years as area director. "Most people use the main door to get into a hangar," he said. FMI: www.yngairport.com, www.osha.gov aero-news.net *************** Whoops! NTSB Says Citation Took Off From MEM Taxiway Flew Low Over Waiting RJ (Editor's Note: Below is the unedited Preliminary Report issued recently by the National Transportation Safety Board, regarding an October 11 incident at Memphis International Airport. The report says it all...) NTSB Identification: OPS08IA001 14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation Incident occurred Thursday, October 11, 2007 in Memphis, TN Aircraft: Cessna C 525, registration: N241EP Injuries: 2 Uninjured. This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed. On October 11, 2007, at approximately 7:40 pm Central daylight time, N241EP, a Cessna Citation 525, departed on taxiway M at Memphis International Airport, Memphis, Tennessee during night visual meteorological conditions. The tower controller cleared the flight for takeoff on runway 36L when the airplane was on taxiway N. The crew acknowledged the clearance, turned right, and began takeoff roll on taxiway M. The tower controller made two transmissions to advise that the crew that they were departing on a taxiway. The crew of N241EP acknowledged the advisory just after lifting off taxiway M. Holding on taxiway M at taxiway M6 was Pinnacle Airlines (FLG) flight 5905, a CRJ2. The initial report from the Federal Aviation Administration stated that N241EP over flew FLG5905 by 400 to 500 feet. The FAA classified the incident as a pilot deviation. FMI: www.ntsb.gov aero-news.net ************** US air taxi community mystified over AMI Jet Charter's operating certificate One of the USA's biggest and longest-established business jet charter operators and brokerages AMI Jet Charter has become the victim of a complex Federal Aviation Administration campaign to force greater transparency on the chartering business. The Part 135 business charter and air taxi industry in the USA is mystified, however, about both the choice of operator and the FAA's timing, because no-one, including the FAA, can explain why the action - revocation of this organisation's operator's certificate - has taken place now. AMI is 49% owned by TAG Aviation USA, a subsidiary of Geneva, Switzerland-based TAG Holdings, and the foreign ownership aspect of this issue is regarded as relevant. One of the reasons for licence revocation is the FAA's allegation that TAG, not AMI, was exercising operational control of flights, which would mean it was, says the FAA, "under active control of foreign interests". But Robert Wells, chief executive of TAG Aviation, has told Flight International: "We were surprised by the FAA's haste to issue a revocation of AMI Jet Charter's certificate. There was no basis for it from a safety perspective, and the relationship between AMI and TAG Aviation USA was approved by the FAA itself almost a decade ago. At this point we are considering options that will be in the best interest of clients and employees." Industry commentators are speculating that the FAA action is based upon a reinterpretation of regulations applying to Part 135 operator charters. In a National Transportation Safety Board board member statement appended to the agency's report on the 28 November 2004 crash of an Air Castle Challenger 601 at Montrose, Colorado, in which three died, it was stated that US Part 135 operators had been left without proper FAA safety oversight for nine years. The NTSB has explained: "In the mid-1990s, the FAA dissolved its Part 135 branch in the flight standards department. FAA reinstated the branch last year [2005], but that segment of the industry went without significant FAA headquarters' oversight for nine years, coincidentally during a time of steady growth in the industry." http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/10/22/218730/us-air-taxi-community -mystified-over-ami-jet-charters-operating.html **************** Indonesian police may bring crash pilots to trial By Indonesia correspondent Geoff Thompson Posted 8 hours 19 minutes ago Updated 8 hours 15 minutes ago Five Australians were among the 21 people killed when Garuda flight 200 crash-landed in March. (File photo) (Reuters: Dwi Oblo) Audio: Garuda pilot error not formally at fault: report (PM) Indonesia's police say they may pursue the prosecutions of two pilots criticised in the final report on the crash of a Garuda airliner in Yogyakarta in March. The report on the crash of the Garuda jet which killed 21 people, including five Australians, has found that there was only one review of Garuda's safety records by airline regulators in the past nine years. The report is critical of Indonesia's Civil Aviation Directorate for failing to ensure Garuda's safety standards were adequate. While the report is also scathing about the pilot and co-pilot's performance, National Transportation Safety Committee Chairman Tatang Kuniardi stopped short of recommending prosecution. "The investigation determined the flight crews' compliance with procedures was not at the level to ensure the safe operation of the aircraft. That's enough," he said. Indonesia's police say they are considering their own investigation which will not have access to the committee's evidence. Damning report The final report on the crash strongly condemned the pilot in charge for flying too fast for the plane's wing-flaps to be operated properly. He was also criticised for not aborting the landing and going around when alerts sounded 15 times, as well as the copilot screaming to the chief pilot to go around when the aircraft first bounced off the runway. The copilot was also criticised for not taking control of the aircraft when it was clear the landing conditions were unsafe. Rescue and firefighting services at Yogyakarta Airport are also criticised in the report for not being able to access the crash site and not having the appropriate fire suppressant when they got there. The delay in extinguishing the fire and the lack of appropriate fire suppressant agents may have significantly reduced the passengers' chances of surviving the crash, the report says. http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/22/2066820.htm?section=justin *************** Air Force Says F-16 Crashes Are Up By SCOTT LINDLAW – 1 hour ago The dreaded BANG! came from deep within the F-16's lone engine, shaking the warplane as it made passes over an Arizona bombing range last December. Then came the alarming loss of thrust. Two attempts to restart the engine failed. Having exhausted their options, the pilot and his student bailed out, parachuting to safety before the plane slammed into the Sonoran Desert, a $21 million loss for taxpayers. Not all F-16 pilots have been so lucky recently. The accident rate for this workhorse fighter has risen over the past few years, and two pilots have died in the past year, according to an Associated Press review of Air Force documents. In the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, there were 10 "Class A" F-16 accidents — crashes that resulted in death, loss of the aircraft or damage of more than $1 million. (An 11th F-16 crash was counted separately as a combat loss by the military because the pilot was strafing enemy trucks at the time.) The total was up from nine the previous year, five the year before that and just two the year before that. The number of crashes has gone up even though the total number of hours flown has dropped steadily over the past five years. An Air Force official said that one factor appears to be human error, and that pilots and maintenance crews must stay on guard against complacency. Pilot error was blamed for three accidents and the Iraq combat crash last year. "I liken the problem to a really good football team that drops its guard," said Col. Willie Brandt, the chief of the Aviation Safety Division at the Air Force Safety Center and an F-16 pilot now flying combat missions in Iraq. "We started well this year and were on track, but have slipped a little. If I have a concern it is in the trend I see there." The rate of Class A accidents this year — 3.18 per 100,000 hours flown — was the highest since 2001, when it was 3.85 because of a rash of engine failures. The Class A accidents last fiscal year include crashes that happened during training in the United States and Italy. The total also includes several crashes that happened during sorties in Iraq while the pilots were not engaging the enemy. One expert said that it may be that as the Iraq war drags on, the stress of combat is taking a toll on the 1,300 F-16s in the U.S. fleet, and their pilots. "That might be putting wear and tear on the planes," said John Pike, director of the Washington-based military think tank Globalsecurity.org. "It might be putting wear and tear on crews." The F-16 is known in Air Force circles as the "lawn dart" for its tendency to plunge back to Earth when its single engine flames out, and in most years, engine failure causes more accidents than any other factor. But pilot error was responsible for about the same number of F-16 accidents as engine failure in the past year. An Air Force-wide increase last fiscal year in destroyed aircraft has spurred the service to redouble its efforts to confront human error, Brandt said. The Air Force Safety Center housed at Kirtland Air Force Base in New Mexico now has a full-time flight surgeon, an aviation physiologist, a life-support specialist and two aviation psychologists on the staff, Brandt said. "They are constantly immersed in trying to find ways to improve the human side of aviation," he said. One problem safety experts are on guard against is exhaustion amid the day-and-night sorties F-16 pilots are flying in Iraq. Ohio Air National Guard Maj. Kevin Sonnenberg, 42, died in June when his F-16 crashed shortly after takeoff from an air base in Iraq. Investigators found he became disoriented while flying in a dust storm at night. Before taking off at 12:25 a.m., Sonnenberg had complained to his roommate that he was having trouble sleeping, according to an investigation. His squadron mates also said Sonnenberg appeared "slightly fatigued," but investigators found no proof fatigue was responsible for his misjudgments. Despite the heavy flying responsibilities in the war zone, pilot fatigue is not a widespread problem, Brandt said. The Air Force has strict guidelines governing rest for its pilots, he said. Pilots must take at least 12 hours off before showing up for duty, and duty on a flying day is limited to 12 hours, or 10 hours at night. The F-16s damaged or destroyed in fiscal 2006 were worth about $112 million altogether. The current crash rate remains lower than that seen during the 1980s and 1990s. In the late 1990s and the early part of this decade, engine problems caused the number of F-16 Class A crashes to spike to as many as 18 in one year. Experts pinpointed the problem, fixed it and brought the accident rate down. There is no indication of such a problem today, Brandt said. "If I thought there was an issue with the age or safety of the aircraft, I wouldn't fly it, and neither would most of my friends," he said in an e-mail. A constant challenge, Brandt said, is squeezing the human-error factor out of the crash equation. "We have aircraft piloted by human beings, designed by human beings, and maintained by human beings," said Brandt. "We are the most combat-tested, combat-experienced force on the planet, and we learn more about ourselves and our business every day. But still we are human and make mistakes." http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jkj3JXfmwx4cl6F7q_VzpESC4VFA *************** Stowaway's body found near Moscow's airport Asian teenager appears to have fallen from plane, dies of hypothermia MOSCOW - The body of an unidentified young man that appeared to have fallen from a plane was found near an airport outside the Russian capital, officials said Monday. Forensic experts found that damage to the body indicated it had fallen from a high altitude, Igor Nedelin, a regional prosecutor, told The Associated Press. Nedelin said that experts had determined that the man, aged between 15 and 17, had died of hypothermia before his body hit the ground. He said the body was found last Friday near the Domodedovo airport east of Moscow. The man, who appeared to be Asian, carried some small change but no identification or other documents showing who he was, Nedelin said. The Domodedovo airport handles numerous flights from the former Soviet nations in Central Asia. Some Russian news reports speculated that the man could have been a migrant from the region who lacked money for a ticket and hid somewhere inside a plane to get into Russia. A similar case occurred last month, when a young man from the city of Perm in Russia's Ural Mountains flew into Moscow in an airliner's landing gear niche. He survived the flight but was hospitalized with severe hypothermia. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21421980/ *************** Laptop-Users Rejoice: FAA to Allow Fuel Cells on Flights Email The digital logjam aloft has been broken. The Federal Aviation Administration has decided to draw up rules that will encourage the development of devices that air travelers can use in flight to power mobile devices for longer trips. The devices—battery-like fuel cells for laptops and cell phones—don't exist now, at least partly because the FAA (nervous about flammable fuel) had banned them, requiring travelers to lug bulky batteries that take forever to recharge and offer limited power compared to fuel cells. "There was no point in making fuel cells for mobile devices if the FAA would not allow them, since most of them would end up being used in airplanes," said Rob Enderle, industry analyst and head of the Enderle Group in San Jose, Calif. Fuel cells turn reactions between chemicals directly into electricity, like batteries, and are potentially just as small, except that they are open systems, so you can replenish the fuel. Many are fueled by flammable methanol (or wood alcohol, as in anti-freeze). Batteries rely on less finicky elements such as nickel, zinc, manganese or lithium, and store energy in a closed system. Battery replacements by 2010? It will still a while before consumers see fuel cells for sale for their mobile devices. "The FAA move removes an impediment, but I don’t expect any near-term stampede toward fuel cells," Enderle told LiveScience. "In fact, I could not expect to see much in the way of new products until the end of 2010. But by the end of the next decade I expect that we will be using fuel cells for many of the things that we use batteries for today." Meanwhile, FAA regulations have not been the only impediment to the proliferation of mobile fuel cells, said Sara Bradford, research director at Frost & Sullivan, a national consulting firm. There is no standard fuel for the cells, no standard cartridge, and fuel cells remain larger than batteries, she said. Indeed, because of their size, in the near term they will be used to recharge batteries in the field, rather than replace them, Bradford said. The first fuel cells for specific cell phones or laptops will probably wrap around the units rather than fit inside them, she said. Fuel cell advantages The length of time that fuel cells will be able to power mobile devices will not be one of the problems, Bradford added, as she expects that portable fuel cells now in field testing will offer three or four times the running times achievable with lithium-ion batteries. Also, fuel cells probably will not wear out with use or deteriorate with age, as batteries do, Enderle said. A laptop battery is a candidate for replacement after two years or 200 charge-depletion cycles, but with a fuel cell you can just keep adding fuel, he said, and there's no long wait for recharging. The only emission for most fuel cells is water, which simply evaporates. If worse comes to worst, the fuel in the cells burns at comparatively low, easily extinguishable temperatures, whereas batteries, once ignited, burn like flares, he said. The regulation details The new FAA rules are not yet final—they must first go through a public comment phase, ending Nov. 19. But the proposed rule allows passengers and crew members to carry fuel cells in carry-on bags, not in checked luggage. The cells can contain methanol, formic acid, butane and a family of chemicals called borohydrides. The rule envisions cells with detachable fuel cartridges carrying no more than 200 milliliters (about 7 ounces) of liquid or butane, or 120 milliliters (about 4 ounces) for detachable non-metallic cartridges carrying butane. However, the 3-ounce limit for liquid containers currently imposed by airport security would take precedent. No more than two spare fuel cartridges would be allowed per person. The cartridges themselves would have to be leak-proof, designed to strict standards and marked "APPROVED FOR CARRIAGE IN AIRCRAFT CABIN ONLY" by the maker. Refilling the fuel cartridge from another container, such as with a syringe, would not be allowed. The only thing fuel-cell users could really do onboard would be to install a spare cartridge containing a new charge of fuel. http://www.livescience.com/technology/071022-fuel-cells.html ******************* Curt Lewis, PE, CSP WEB: www.fsinfo.org