12 MAR 2008 _______________________________________ *London bound flight from Calgary diverted to Toronto after blowing tire on takeoff *Delta flight makes emergency landing in Bozeman *AAIB releases final report of Airbus A320 hard landing at Bristol *SAS receives compensation after DHC-8-Q400 incidents *Desi billionaires line up to buy supersonic business jets *ON AIRLINE SAFETY, BEWARE OF TOO MUCH REGULATION *************************************** London bound flight from Calgary diverted to Toronto after blowing tire on takeoff TORONTO - An Air Canada flight from Calgary to London was diverted to Toronto after the aircraft blew a tire during takeoff, a spokesman for the airline said Wednesday. Flight 850 with 225 passengers and 13 crew members on board landed at Pearson International Airport shortly after 1:30 a.m. on Wednesday without incident, police and airport officials said. Air Canada spokesman Peter Fitzpatrick said the aircraft had left Calgary at 9:15 p.m. ET on Tuesday. After it blew a tire during takeoff authorities decided to divert it to Toronto for safety reasons, he said. "When the plane leaves Calgary it's loaded with enough fuel to fly to London so that's very heavy and you're not able to land a very heavy aircraft," Fitzpatrick told The Canadian Press. "So they left Calgary and they flew to Toronto so the plane would be lighter for landing," he said. The aircraft are designed to operate without a full complement of tires and the pilots are trained to fly and land a plane safely with a flat tire, Fitzpatrick said. He said the passengers will be put on another Air Canada plane to continue their voyage to England later this morning. http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5gktPI64QtZGi8ccG5xqIChZLNsow *************** Delta flight makes emergency landing in Bozeman A Delta Air Lines jet en route from Cincinnati to Seattle made an emergency landing in Bozeman because an engine was leaking fuel. Fire crews were standing by as the Boeing 737 came in for a landing at Gallatin Field at about 6 p.m. Monday. Delta spokesman Kip Smith in Atlanta said the plane carried 133 passengers and the landing was without incident. Smith said another airplane was sent to Bozeman to continue the flight to Seattle. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004274538_apmtemergencyland ing1stldwritethru.html **************** AAIB releases final report of Airbus A320 hard landing at Bristol The UK AAIB released the report of their investigation into an incident involving an A320 hard landing in November 2006. The Thomas Cook A320 diverted to to Manchester Airport on 16 November 2006. The diversion resulted from a landing gear malfunction after takeoff from Bristol Airport. Subsequent enquiries revealed that the landing gear had been damaged during the previous landing at Bristol on 15 November. The A320 aircraft had landed at Bristol Airport in a strong crosswind, with associated turbulence. During the shutdown procedure the crew were presented with an automatically generated aircraft warning indicating that certain parameters had been exceeded during the landing. The crew recorded the exceedence in the Technical Log. A type-qualified engineer met the aircraft on arrival and complied with his understanding of the technical checks required after the generation of such a warning. Substantial damage had occurred to the landing gear, but this damage was not detected before the aircraft was cleared for a further flight. On that flight the crew experienced landing gear problems after takeoff, together with other warnings, and diverted to Manchester Airport. Following further engineering activity, the aircraft was again released for flight without the damage being detected; this resulted in a repeat of the gear problems and other warnings after takeoff. The damage to the landing gear was eventually discovered after the subsequent landing at Manchester. The investigation identified the following contributory factors: 1. The A320 aircraft landed at Bristol Airport in a strong crosswind with associated turbulence; the landing was classified as 'hard' because specified parameters were exceeded at touchdown. 2. The autopilots were disconnected about 100 ft above the runway threshold. In the prevailing turbulent conditions, this allowed insufficient time to separate the piloting tasks of taking control of the aircraft and flaring the aircraft to land. 3 The engineers maintaining the aircraft at Bristol had not received adequate training in the use of the computer software supporting the operator's aircraft manuals. 4. The Airbus aircraft manuals did not differentiate, in their effectivity coding, how the implementation of Service Bulletins affected specific aircraft. 5. No connection was made between the previous LOAD <15> report and the subsequent 20GA sensor failure, indicating the internal damage to the landing gear. 6. Guidance provided in the aircraft manuals required to interpret the LOAD<15> report was unclear and differences existed between sections, particularly with regards to corrective action. (AAIB) (aviation-safety.net) ************** SAS receives compensation after DHC-8-Q400 incidents SAS has agreed a settlement with Bombardier and Goodrich regarding the incidents involving the Dash 8-Q400 aircraft in the autumn of 2007. The details of the agreement are confidential but SAS Group confirms the total financial compensation is slightly more than USD164 million in the form of a cash payment and credits for future firm and optional aircraft orders. As part of the agreement, the Board of Directors of SAS AB has approved an order for 27 aircraft, with an option for a further 24 aircraft. The new aircraft to be delivered by Bombardier will be jet aircraft of the type CRJ900 NextGen and turboprop aircraft of the type DHC-8-Q400 NextGen. (SAS) (aviation-safety.net) ************** Desi billionaires line up to buy supersonic business jets Mumbai: Mumbai to Dubai in just over an hour-and-a-half? Well, by 2014, some well-heeled Indian corporate honchos will be able to do just that by travelling at supersonic speed. US-based Aerion Corporation has indicated that it has secured orders for five of their Supersonic Business Jets (SBJ) from India. While the company has declined to name the businessmen who have ordered the jets, the market is abuzz with rumours about the usual suspects: the Ambanis, Vijay Mallya. At $80 million apiece (about Rs 325 crore), it's not a toy everyone can afford. But then not everyone needs to jet around at mach 1.6, or 1.6 times the speed of sound. Peter Smales, executive director, ExecuJet, the sales representatives for Aerion, said: "The first flight of the aircraft is scheduled for 2012 with deliveries starting in late 2014." "With time being as important as it is in business, a few hours could mean the difference between deal or no deal. Many Indian companies are now running businesses which are quite global and this product should bring value to them." He added that the orders have been secured through payment of an advance of a quarter of a million dollars each. Over the past year, some of India's billionaires have built up fleets comparable to small airlines. Mukesh Ambani inducted an Airbus Corporate Jet last year and has also ordered a Boeing Business Jet. A Reliance spokesperson refused to comment on the SBJ. Not to be left behind, Anil Ambani too has ordered birds like the Gulfstream V and Falcon Jet, besides owning other aircraft, including a Bombardier Global Express. Vijay Mallya has been living the good life with four planes, including an Airbus Corporate Jet, Boeing 727, Gulfstream and Hawker. While Ratan Tata has been doing most of his flying in a Falcon 2000, the Tatas have not yet been as active in acquiring bigger aircraft. Aerion Corp estimates a market for around 300 to 400 SBJs globally. Of these 50-100 would be used by the militaries and governments around the world. The company is expecting further orders from India and plans to open an office in the country soon. The aircraft, which would touch speeds of up to mach 1.6, is still under development. Aerion will not manufacture the aircraft by itself and will announce a partner later this year. As most countries have regulations controlling the use of supersonic aircraft over land, aircraft like these will have to cruise at altitudes of 51,000 feet. The regulations are meant to protect structures from sonic booms - shocks caused by the supersonic flight - which generates enormous amounts of sound energy. http://sify.com/finance/fullstory.php?id=14620545 **************** ON AIRLINE SAFETY, BEWARE OF TOO MUCH REGULATION By MITCHELL SCHNURMANStar-Telegram Staff Writer James Oberstar Regulators are supposed to keep airlines safe. What about helping them stay solvent? For years, that idea nurtured a collaborative approach in Washington, and it's worked well. Air safety has been remarkable without overburdening the industry. Now a key lawmaker and others say the close ties went too far. He points to problems between Southwest Airlines and the Federal Aviation Administration and says the regulatory pendulum needs to swing in the other direction. But be careful; it's easy to turn safety into a political football. Somebody in Washington always wants to expand the role of government, especially in oversight. And workers in the airline industry often invoke safety when they're pushing for better contracts or more hires. Pilots at American Airlines and air-traffic controllers at Dallas/Fort Worth Airport have talked about safety in angling for better labor deals. The industry's safety record should reassure people, but the philosophy in Washington has shifted all the same. Democrats are asserting more power and taking on issues that Republicans had left alone. Last week, a House committee grilled CEOs about executive pay. And who can forget the Roger Clemens inquiry? It was a peculiar subject, at best, for Congress to jump into. So what's more worrisome: taking a Southwest flight or Washington overreaching? That doesn't mean things can't be improved. Whistle-blowers have painted an unsettling picture of Southwest and the local FAA office, and at a Washington news conference, Rep. James Oberstar, D-Minn., called the events "the most serious lapse in safety I have observed at the FAA in 23 years." The saving grace is that no one was hurt on the Southwest flights in question. No planes were damaged, and none had to make an emergency landing. To critics of the status quo, the happy ending means little because it's crazy to confuse good luck with good regulation. To defenders, the bottom line means everything -- all was fine, they'd argue, because the system is that sound. That split view explains how Oberstar can be so alarmed that he's scheduled public hearings on the FAA, and Southwest CEO Gary Kelly can insist, "We're safer today than we've ever been." Passengers deserve a full airing of the issues, as Oberstar plans, because we take airline safety for granted. Air travel has been so safe for so long that it's easy to assume the industry and regulators must be doing something right. At the heart of the system is redundancy -- an overlapping schedule of inspections and maintenance programs that catch problems as they occur and correct them. And a key element is a collaborative, consensual approach in which companies often self-report their problems. In this business, both sides want the same thing -- safe skies -- and failure would be devastating to everyone. So together, they figure out how to find breakdowns, fix them and keep the aircraft flying, if possible. Southwest, for instance, found the hole in its inspections and reported it to the FAA, along with a plan to handle it. When the local office gave its assent, the company proceeded without disrupting its commercial schedule. Apparently, that was a mistake. Southwest should have grounded the planes or secured formal approval from FAA headquarters for a waiver or time extension. Because Southwest used the planes before they had been inspected, the FAA proposed a $10.2 million fine. Allowing "rolling inspections," Oberstar said, "puts safety at the margin." Was it vital to public safety that Southwest's aircraft be grounded for the inspection period? A public hearing might flesh out that question, as well as other ways the agency works with airlines. Stuart Klaskin, an industry consultant in Coral Gables, Fla., says that airlines regularly get inspections delayed and deferred -- without penalty and without compromising safety. In most cases, it's akin to being a month or two late on a car safety inspection. That may not be ideal, but the car doesn't have to impounded. We should hear whether Southwest's approach is decidedly different than other airlines'. Or is the primary complaint that local inspectors got too close to the company? That's not a big deal as long as safety problems are properly addressed. But it's alarming if Southwest uses those relationships to avoid doing the right thing. A year ago, JetBlue hired Russell Chew as its chief operating officer after Chew had held the same position at the FAA for four years. Does a company hire a person with those credentials so it can skirt the rules? I don't think so, but Oberstar says he may try to restrict FAA employees from joining the carriers without waiting for a time. The leader of the inspectors union said last week that the FAA is more concerned with keeping the airlines solvent than safe, but the record of the past few decades doesn't support that. Regulators have managed to help on both scores. http://www.star-telegram.com/business/story/525522.html *****************