26 FEB 2009 _______________________________________ *4 passengers sue Boeing in Denver crash *Probe into deadly Amsterdam plane crash *Turkish 737-800 Crash Kills Nine *Flight recorders found at Dutch crash site *Turkish Air Crash Is Fourth Fatal Incident Since 1994 *Cebu Pacific Airplane Stuck On Manila Airport Runway *OSHA hits Southern Air with $400K order *UAE green light for aircraft deal worth billions is good news for U.S. firms *China aviation giant to recruit foreign execs *FAA Talks About Birdstrikes With House Committee **************************************** 4 passengers sue Boeing in Denver crash DENVER – Four passengers on a Continental Airlines jet that veered off a Denver runway in December have filed suit against the jet's maker. The lawsuits filed in federal court in Denver allege that Boeing Co. negligently designed and manufactured certain parts of the plane, including its "directional control mechanisms." The complaints contend the defective parts made it hard for the pilots to maintain runway heading while taking off in high crosswinds. Boeing did not immediately return a call seeking comment Wednesday night. On Dec. 20, the Houston-bound Boeing 737 veered sharply off the Denver International Airport runway and into a ravine, where it caught fire. The flight was carrying 110 passengers and five crew members; 38 people were injured. Gusts of up to 37 mph were reported at the airport on the day of the accident, and aviation safety experts have said strong crosswinds likely were a factor in the crash. The four passengers say they suffered emotional and physical injuries and loss of personal property in the wreck. They're seeking compensatory and other damages. At least eight other passengers on flight 1404 are suing Continental. They claim the airline failed to properly operate or control the aircraft as it veered off the runway. Continental has said it is prepared to defend the company's actions and those of the plane's crew. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090226/ap_on_re_us/airport_accident *************** Probe into deadly Amsterdam plane crash AMSTERDAM (AFP) — Dozens of investigators worked overnight probing the wreckage of the Turkish Airways jet that crashed at Schiphol Airport in Amsterdam, killing nine and injuring 86, officials said on Thursday. And one safety official said the death toll could easily have been much higher. "It is a real wreck," Fred Sanders, a spokesman for the Dutch Safety Board told AFP Thursday. "That so many people were able to walk out was truly remarkable. Some have called it a miracle." The Turkish Airways jet crashed into a muddy field as it came in to land at the airport Wednesday morning, in what survivors and witnesses likened to a brick falling from the sky. Witnesses described seeing the tail of the Boeing 737-800 hit the edge of a busy road in light fog and drag along the ground before the twin-engine airliner broke in three just short of the runway. Of the nine dead, three were crew members, said officials. And of the 86 injured, six were in a critical condition and 25 were serious. One saving grace had been the fact that the plane did not catch fire, said Sanders. "It may have something to do with the fact that it came down in a muddy field rather than on a concrete road or on a landing strip where sparks would have increased the chances of a fire." It appeared that the plane had fell at a very straight angle, he added. "This may indicate that the plane had lost its forward momentum, that there was no motor function." Sanders said the investigation at the crash scene would take a few days, after which the wreckage would be taken to a different spot for further probing. "We will have an official finding probably in about a year, but we should be able to give an interim finding within weeks." Accident investigators worked all night at the crash site looking for clues as to what went wrong, Rob Stenacker, a spokesman for the Schiphol police force told AFP. "They worked the whole night, without a break, some with only one cup of coffee, and will continue today," he said. About 40 investigators were taking part of the probe led by the Dutch Safety Board supported by local and airport police teams. "The cause of the crash is not yet known, and we have no hypothesis at this stage," said Stenacker. ***************** Turkish 737-800 Crash Kills Nine Accidents, Air Transport and Cargo A Turkish Airlines Boeing 737-800 crashed into a muddy field while on approach into Amsterdam Schiphol International Airport at around 10:30 a.m. local time February 25, killing at least nine of the 134 occupants and injuring dozens more. News cameras showed rescue crews surrounding the scene, where the airplane lay in three pieces alongside a highway, roughly a half mile from the intended runway threshold. Some survivors reportedly had escaped through fractures in the rear of the fuselage, where the most serious damage to the airframe appeared to occur. Others escaped through emergency exit doors above the wings, both of which remained intact. Both CFM56-7 engines, however, lay in the field, separate from the airframe. Turkish Airlines confirmed that Flight TK1951 carried 127 passengers and seven crewmembers. The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board said it is sending a team of investigators to Amsterdam to assist in the investigation. NTSB chairman Mark Rosenker has designated senior air safety investigator Joe Sedor as the U.S. accredited representative, who, with three other NTSB investigators, will accompany a team of technical advisors from the FAA, Boeing and General Electric, which partners with Snecma to build the CFM engines. http://www.ainonline.com/news/single-news-page/article/turkish-737-800-crash -kills-nine/ *************** Flight recorders found at Dutch crash site AMSTERDAM, Netherlands (CNN) -- Investigators are trying to determine what caused the crash of an airplane with a good safety record, flown by a well-respected airline, at one of the world's most modern airports. At least nine people were killed and 55 injured when the Turkish Airlines Boeing 737-800 crashed Wednesday in a field near Amsterdam's main airport, splitting into three parts, officials said. It is too early to determine the cause of the crash but the flight data and voice recorders have been recovered, said Michel Bezuijen, acting mayor of Haarlemmermeer municipality, which is home to Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport. He said investigators still need to determine what, if anything, the pilots said in the moments before the crash. The injured included both crew and passengers, he said. The names of the dead and injured will not be released before Thursday, Bezuijen said. "It will take more time. Probably tomorrow afternoon we can tell you about the identity of the victims, including the fatalities," he said. Another official said earlier that both pilots and an apprentice pilot are among the dead. "There are still three crew members in the cabin," said Bob Steensma of the Dutch Justice Department. "I'm sorry to say they are dead. We leave them there because we have to investigate the cockpit before we take the cockpit apart." Turkish Airlines said earlier the plane was carrying 134 people -- 127 passengers and seven crew members. Six people were critically injured, Ineke Van Der Zande of Amsterdam Emergency Services told reporters at a briefing. Watch aerials from the crash site » Twenty-five passengers were severely injured, she said, and 24 were lightly injured. Some 60 ambulances transported 84 people to 11 hospitals throughout the region, she said. There was no word on injuries to the others who were transported. Witnesses said they saw the nose of the plane pitch up suddenly before the crash, according to RTL journalist Greg Crouch. The plane broken into three pieces. One break was in front of the wing, splitting the "Turkish" logo in two, and a larger break was farther back along the fuselage. Most of the injured were seated toward the back of the plane, which sustained the most damage, a passenger on the plane told Turkish station NTV. Many of the passengers simply walked off the plane through the cracks in the fuselage, witnesses said. A passenger on the plane who spoke to Turkish network DHA said he saw injured people trapped and squeezed between the seats when he walked out. iReport: Send your videos, stories Flight 1951 was arriving at Schiphol from Istanbul, Turkey, when it went down around 10:40 a.m. (4:40 a.m. ET). It came to rest in a farmer's field about 500 yards short of the runway, near the major A9 highway. Crouch said the weather at the time was partly sunny with no wind or rain. No fire broke out after the crash, Bezuijen said. Watch how Twitter was first to report the crash » A bank manager who was a passenger on the plane told NTV that there were no emergency announcements. The crew's last word to the cabin was an announcement to fasten their seat belts and prepare for landing, the bank manager said. He said he felt the pilot giving more power to the engines before feeling "turbulence," then a sudden drop. He described the crash as similar to a sudden impact that was over in a matter of seconds. The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board said it was sending a team of investigators to Amsterdam to assist in the crash investigation. The Boeing 737-800 is a reliable aircraft that has been successful and safe in service, said aviation expert Kieran Daly of Air Transport Intelligence. "They really are pretty much state-of-the-art airlines with every imaginable technical benefit the industry has come up with over the years," Daly told CNN. "You would be optimistic that they would be quite survivable in an accident." Daly said Turkish Airlines, a national carrier, has a "very good record." Turkish Airlines said it has 52 Boeing 737-800s in its fleet. They can carry as many as 165 passengers each, it said. Before Wednesday, the airline's last accident was of a small commuter jet in 2003, Daly said. It was a fatal crash that happened at a remote airfield in southeastern Turkey, he said. "Their mainline operation is safe," Daly said. "Their pilots are well thought of." Worldwide, there have been two fatal commercial airline crashes this year. The last previous fatal incident at the Amsterdam airport happened in April 1994 when a KLM aircraft crashed as it tried to return to Schiphol shortly after takeoff. Three of the 24 passengers and crew members on board were killed. ************** Turkish Air Crash Is Fourth Fatal Incident Since 1994 Feb. 25 (Bloomberg) -- The crash involving a Turkish Airlines Boeing Co. 737 plane in Amsterdam today was the carrier’s fourth fatal incident in 15 years, according to the Ascend Online Fleets database. At least nine of 134 people reported to be aboard the 737- 800 shorthaul jetliner were killed when it came down short of the runway at Schiphol airport, Turkish Airlines Chairman Candan Karlitekin said today in televised comments from Istanbul. The carrier’s last fatal crash was on Jan. 8, 2003, when an RJ-100 built by BAE Systems Plc went down in fog, killing 70 passengers and five crew. In April 1999, six died when a Boeing 737-400 carrying only crew crashed shortly after takeoff, and in 1994 57 people were killed when another 737 hit terrain on its landing approach. All three accidents occurred in Turkey. “As modern airlines go, Turkish Airlines does not have a good accident record, having experienced two fatal crashes in the last ten years,” said David Learmount, a former Royal Air Force pilot and safety editor of Flight International. He said it’s possible the plane that crashed today may have suffered a power failure of some kind but declined to speculate further. Kieran Daly, another former RAF pilot and editor of Air Transport Intelligence, said the absence of an obvious debris trail on the ground suggests the plane’s descent was very rapid, indicating that little or no engine thrust was present. Extremely Steep “The damage to the airframe, broken into three parts, allied to the remarks of witnesses, is consistent with the aircraft descending on an extremely steep path for at least the last few seconds of flight,” Daly said. “ That, in turn, is consistent with the plane running out of energy on approach because the engines weren’t producing power.” No information was immediately disclosed by officials about the cause of the accident as an investigation got underway. Bob Steensma, public prosecutor for Haarlem, said at a press briefing that he couldn’t comment on speculation that the 737 may have run out of fuel. Airliners are normally required to have about a 10 percent margin of extra fuel in the event of a diversion before landing. The bodies of three crew members killed in the accident are still in the cockpit and will be left in the plane pending further investigations, the briefing was told. Boeing’s 737-800 model entered service in 1998 as the Chicago-based manufacturer introduced the so-called Next Generation of its best-selling plane. The aircraft is powered by two CFM56 engines from CFM International, a partnership of General Electric Co. and Safran SA of France. Investigation Team The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board said it would send a team of investigators to Amsterdam to assist the Dutch Safety Board in the crash probe. The team will include advisers from Boeing, GE and the Federal Aviation Administration. Flight International’s Learmont said the accident appears to bear similarities to the crash-landing of a British Airways Plc Boeing 777 at London Heathrow airport in January last year. In that instance frozen kerosene was found to have caused the crash and some 777 pilots have since been told to rev up their engines before landing to clear ice from fuel Lines. The BA plane with 152 passengers and crew came up short of the runway after the fuel-starved engines couldn’t provide enough thrust. No-one was killed. The plane involved in today’s accident was delivered in March 2002 and bore the registration number TC-JGE, according to Ascend, which said Turkish Airlines had operated it from new. The 737-800 model can carry between 162 and 189 passengers, depending on the seating plan. Still Growing Turkish Airlines, or Turk Hava Yollari Anonim Ortakligi, has been one of the few carriers to continue growing as the global recession prompts the industry to slash routes and ground aircraft. The passenger total rose 15 percent to 22.5 million last year, swollen by a leap in transit passengers after the Istanbul-based company joined the Star Alliance, led by UAL Corp.’s United Airlines unit and Deutsche Lufthansa AG. Before today, the last incident involving Turkish Airlines was non-fatal, according to Ascend, with an Airbus SAS A340 widebody plane suffering minor damage on landing in Bangkok on Aug. 21, 2005. Turkish Air’s worst period for crashes was the 1970s, when the carrier suffered five fatal accidents, including the worst in its history, in which 346 people died after a McDonnell- Douglas DC-10 came down in a forest near Paris while attempting to climb after takeoff. The incident was blamed on component or systems failure, the Ascend database says. *************** Cebu Pacific Airplane Stuck On Manila Airport Runway Manila, Philippines (AHN) - An airplane of Philippine budget carrier Cebu Pacific got stuck in the runway of the Ninoy Aquino International Airport Wednesday morning, delaying or cancelling domestic and international flights. Candice Lyog, spokesperson for Cebu Pacific, said the A320 aircraft was on its way to General Santos, in southern Philippines, when its rear left wheel sank about five-inches deep into a still soft asphalt portion of the runway. Lyog said the plane was scheduled to leave Manila at 7:00 am and was just waiting for its turn to take off at the time of the incident. At least 161 passengers bound for General Santos and 156 passengers bound for Manila will not be able to fly on Wednesday, as Iyog said the flight would be rescheduled on Thursday. http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7014209133 ************** OSHA hits Southern Air with $400K order The federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration has issued an order against Southern Air Inc., a cargo airline based in Norwalk, to pay more than $400,000 in lost wages, back pay, damages and legal fees to a flight crew member fired for raising safety concerns. The unidentified employee was terminated in April 2008 for raising safety concerns protected under the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century, according to OSHA, a unit of the federal Department of Labor. The firing came after the employee twice complained to management about inadequate rest breaks and being required to work hours in excess of those allowed under Federal Aviation Administration rules, OSHA reported in its findings. The employee then filed a whistle-blower complaint with OSHA's Boston regional office. The financial penalty breaks down into $300,000 for loss of career wages, $135,240 in compensatory damages, $7,395 in attorney fees and back pay of $1,485 per week, plus interest, from April 7, 2008, through the date of payment. Southern Air, which was bought in 2007 by Oak Hill Capital Partners and merged with Oak Hill's Cargo 360 Inc. operation, was ordered to post the FAA whistle-blower poster and an OSHA notice to employees about their whistle-blower rights. Oak Hill has its primary investment operation in Stamford. OSHA rules prohibit the release of whistle-blowers' names, OSHA spokesman Ted Fitzgerald said. "We cannot release the identity of complainants," he said, adding that making the name public would discourage other workers from notifying OSHA when they encounter workplace violations at their companies. In this matter, Fitzgerald said, OSHA has not required Southern Air to re-hire the former employee. "In some cases, employees don't want to go back. The goal is to make the employee whole," he said. Southern Air did not return telephone calls, and Oak Hill declined to comment on the matter, but Fitzgerald said the company has appealed the OSHA decision to Department of Labor's administrative law judge panel. Founded in 1999 by James Neff, Southern Air operates Boeing 747-200 freighter aircraft, as well as some Boeing 777 freighters, and has flight and maintenance bases around the world. One of its major customers is Korean Air Cargo. Oak Hill's aerospace investments include Primus International Inc., a global supplier of structural components, kits and assemblies; OH Aircraft Acquisition LLC, a new aircraft leasing company; and a portfolio of aircraft on lease to airlines around the world. It was founded as the family investment office for Texas billionaire Robert Bass. Employees are becoming more cognizant of OSHA workplace regulations and their protection, and as the agency has increased its daily penalty fees for violations, employers are more aware of workplace issues, said attorney Robert Brody, founder and a principal of Brody & Associates, a Stamford law firm that represents management in labor matters. "Over the last five to 10 years, OSHA has become a serious concern," he said, adding that retaliation against a company by an employee and whistle blowing are comparable, but there are some differences. "In a retaliation, an employee says my rights are being violated. A whistle blower says there's a law out there and someone is violating it." http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/norwalkadvocate/business/ci_11786157 **************** UAE green light for aircraft deal worth billions is good news for U.S. firms ABU DHABI — The United Arab Emirates plans to procure billions of dollars worth of aircraft from the United States despite global economic woes. ShareThis Officials said the UAE has agreed to purchase 16 air transports from Boeing and Lockheed Martin. They said Boeing would supply its C-17 while Lockheed Martin would deliver the C-130J. "These are final deals," UAE Maj. Gen. Obaid Al Ketbi said on Feb. 24. Al Ketbi, who represents both the UAE military as well as the IDEX-2009 defense exhibition, said the aircraft procurement totaled $2.9 billion, with Lockheed to supply 12 C-130Js and Boeing four C-17s. He said the C-130Js would cost $1.6 billion, and the C-17 deal would reach $1.3 billion. "The purchase of C-17 and C-130J transport aircraft is to meet the requirements of the UAE armed forces with regard to strategic and tactical air transport and to actively participate in rescue and humanitarian missions worldwide," Al Ketbi said. Al Ketbi said the UAE's Al Waha Capital would arrange financing for the air transport deals. He said that neither the global credit crisis nor the sharp drop in oil would block the latest UAE arms deals. So far, the UAE has announced deals at IDEX worth more than $4 billion. "I do not expect the purchase volumes to be impacted by the global economic crisis," Al Ketbi said. At the briefing, Lockheed Martin vice president Rick Groesch confirmed that his company was discussing the deal with Al Waha for the C-130Js. But Groesch, who appeared surprised by the UAE announcement, stressed that an agreement has not yet been signed. "No, we have not signed the deal," Groesch said. "We are in final discussions about the aircraft." This marked the first UAE procurement of the C-17 and C-130J. Qatar has ordered four C-130Js and plans to receive the first aircraft in 2011. Executives said Kuwait and Oman were also negotiating for the C-130J. The UAE has also been negotiating with Lockheed for the sale of its Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense system, estimated at $7 billion. Executives said the missile defense deal could be signed in 2010, with deliveries to begin after 2012. http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2009/me_gulf0165_02_25.asp *************** China aviation giant to recruit foreign execs BEIJING, Feb 26 (Reuters) - China's huge state aircraft maker, the Aviation Industry Corp of China (AVIC), said on Thursday it will reach beyond national borders to recruit foreign executives who can help it compete internationally. The unusual global recruitment effort comes just months after AVIC was formed by the merger of two state aircraft makers, focusing on big projects such as a locally developed regional jet to reduce China's reliance on Boeing (BA.N) and Airbus (EAD.PA). The move by the AVIC group, which consists of more than 200 enterprises and 21 listed companies, was out of the norm for a secretive company that also builds the aviation hardware for China's military. "Our goal is to become globally competitive," Gao Jianshe, the group's executive vice president, told reporters. "And to do that, we need executives with international experience." The group, which notched up 2008 sales of 166 billion yuan ($24.3 billion), compared with $60.1 billion for Boeing, aims to recruit 13 vice presidents to assist in a broad range of activities including research, asset management, business development and marketing. The recruitment move comes after Boeing posted an unexpected fourth-quarter loss and said it could cut 10,000 job this year, while expecting more plane order cancellations and uncertainty over the U.S. defense budget. AVIC's move towards globalisation is not confined to staff only. State media said last month that China welcomed investors to take a 30 percent stake in its newly incorporated jet engine company -- in which AVIC holds a 40 percent stake -- that supplies engines to the regional jet ARJ21. China has signed up a total of 208 orders for the ARJ21, unveiled in late 2007, but the vast majority are from domestic carriers. ($=6.84 yuan) ************** FAA Talks About Birdstrikes With House Committee The FAA has made a statement today before a House Committee that seems, at best, to be looking to gain a few more headlines in the wake of the successful USAir ditching in the Hudson River last month. The FAA sent its new FAA Admin For Aviation Safety, Peggy Gilligan, a career FAA bureaucrat with an interesting history of industry 'run-ins', who has replaced the recently retired (and highly respected) Nick Sabatini. Basking in the glow of the successful rescue of all aboard, the FAA took the time to recite a number of issues with the current dilemma over bird-strikes and gave the testimony attached below... Statement of Peggy Gilligan, Deputy Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety Before the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Aviation on US Airways Flight 1549 Chairman Costello, Ranking Member Petri, Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for inviting the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) here today to discuss the events surrounding the US Airways Flight 1549 emergency landing in the Hudson River on January 15, 2009. My name is Peggy Gilligan and I am the new Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety at the FAA. This was a truly extraordinary event in aviation history: a multiple bird ingestion that virtually simultaneously caused engine failure in both engines of a commercial airliner on takeoff, resulting in an emergency water landing with no loss of life. While the FAA does have aircraft standards and crew training and procedures in place to address these issues, the circumstances of US Airways Flight 1549 were simply unprecedented, and we, just as the rest of the world, are awed by the quick thinking and consummate professionalism of the entire crew of Flight 1549. Because the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is still investigating the matter, my testimony today will primarily address the FAA’s efforts in three areas: first, how the FAA works with airports to reduce the probability of bird strikes; second, what the FAA standards are for aircraft to increase survivability in crashes; and third, what the FAA requires in terms of flight crew training when encountering emergency situations such as this. I also want to note the role played by FAA air traffic controllers and flight managers whenever an aircraft emergency develops, whether due, as here, to bird strikes, or some other cause. Bird Strike Mitigation Since 1990, the FAA has collected over 100,000 voluntary wildlife strike reports and has maintained a bird strike database. The Wildlife Services Program of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) manages the database under terms of an interagency agreement with FAA. Strike reports are sent to Wildlife Services where they are edited and entered into the database. Embry-Riddle University maintains the public FAA website for bird strike data. Currently, the database has 106,604 records from January 1990 through August 2008. The increasing number of bird strikes is a combination of better reporting and increasing bird populations. The database is available to airport operators and safety analysts and is extremely useful for determining which species are most frequently involved in strikes, seasonal patterns, and extent and type of damage from strikes. Mandatory reporting of wildlife strikes is extremely difficult to enforce and may not necessarily increase accurate reporting. The success of the voluntary reporting system is proven by the increase in annual reports from only 1,900 reported strikes in 1990, to almost 8,000 reported strikes in 2007. Advances in wildlife strike reporting through web-based technology make it easier and faster to report strikes. Moreover, the FAA, in close partnership with the USDA, continues to educate and increase awareness through ongoing campaigns in concert with industry, conferences and participation on the national Bird Strike Committee. The FAA has an interagency agreement with the Smithsonian Institution to analyze bird remains at the Feather Identification Laboratory (National Museum of Natural History) to determine species identifications. In 2003, the FAA purchased a DNA sequencer to assist in building a DNA library and improve the identification capability of the laboratory. Airports can mail small remains from bird strikes to the feather laboratory at the Smithsonian. The laboratory then analyzes the remains and provides the species information to the airport and the FAA Wildlife Strike Database. Species information is vital for the airports and wildlife managers when considering appropriate mitigation measures. Additionally, engineers use the data provided on species weights to test new engine designs. The Feather Identification Lab identified over 700 cases for the FAA in 2008. Our statistics on bird strikes indicate that the closer the aircraft is to the runway, the higher the risk of a bird strike. Conversely, the risk of a substantial bird strike decreases significantly with altitude. High altitude strikes are not common, though they do occur. For instance, at 30,000 feet, there was only one reported bird strike, between 1990-2008. However, about 73% of all strikes occur within the airport environment up to 500 feet above ground. According to reports, Flight 1549 had reached an altitude of 3,200 feet when it encountered a flock of Canada geese that resulted in numerous bird strikes to the airframe and engines. Since the data indicate that the greatest risk of bird strikes occurs at the airport, the FAA has focused its bird strike mitigation efforts at airports. By regulation, the FAA requires commercial service airports to maintain a safe operation. This includes conducting Wildlife Hazard Assessments and preparing a Wildlife Hazard Management Plan, if necessary. Wildlife Assessment As noted, a Wildlife Assessment is required of all commercial airports and requires consideration of wildlife attractants within 10,000 feet of an airport. FAA also recommends consideration of wildlife attractants (food, water, and habitat) within five miles of the airport, if the attractant could cause hazardous wildlife movement into or across the approach or departure airspace. The assessment considers: An analysis of events prompting the assessment Identification of wildlife species observed and their numbers, locations, and local movements Identification of features on or near the airport that attract wildlife A description of the wildlife hazards to air carrier operations Recommended actions for reducing wildlife hazards to air carrier operations The Wildlife Assessment is submitted to the FAA. The agency then determines if the airport needs to develop a Wildlife Hazard Mitigation Plan. Wildlife Hazard Mitigation Plan Such a plan would: Provide measures to alleviate or eliminate wildlife hazards Identify persons who have authority for implementing the plan Identify priorities for needed habitat modification Identify resources for the plan Establish procedures to be followed during air carrier operations Outline wildlife control measures Typical wildlife mitigation techniques include habitat modification, including filling in ponds and water sources, if practicable, and controlling vegetation, e.g., cutting grass high or low depending upon bird species. Airports may also use wildlife harassment tools, such as air guns, lasers, dogs, wildlife patrols, trapping and removing the wildlife, and as a last resort, exterminating the wildlife with the appropriate permits. Ongoing research into wildlife mitigation techniques continues to be explored by the USDA Wildlife Services program through an interagency agreement with the FAA. Bird Radar Research Additionally, in 2000, the FAA began research to determine if low cost radars can reliably detect birds at or near (within three to possibly five miles of) airports and be used to develop an airport bird strike advisory system. These systems generally work by overlaying the radar data on an airport geographic information system. Bird detection radar may have the most promise as tools to help airport operators manage their wildlife control programs. However, as many airports routinely have birds in the area, we do not yet know if this system would be capable of providing alerts that would be operationally suitable for making specific time-critical decisions on landing or takeoff. The research is continuing to address these operational type issues. We are conducting radar evaluations currently with two Bird Radar systems at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, two Bird Radar systems at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island in Oak Harbor, WA, and one portable research radar unit that is owned/leased by the University of Illinois, currently finishing a brief deployment at YVR (Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada). We are planning additional testing at Chicago O’Hare, Dallas-Ft. Worth, and John F. Kennedy International Airports, starting later this year. The FAA plans to collaborate with the USDA Wildlife Services program during these additional radar testing phases to determine operational suitability of this technology at airports. Aircraft Certification and “Survivability” In addition to our bird strike mitigation efforts, the FAA certifies all civil aircraft to meet a series of minimum standards. To receive FAA approval, an aircraft must be airworthy – that is, be designed and built to fly safely — as well as survive situations in which internal or external factors may interfere with safe operations of the aircraft. When the FAA certificated the Airbus A320, the design requirements and operating procedures took into account numerous exigencies, including: flight into a flock of birds, emergency landings on land, loss of engine power, and emergency landings in water. Engine Bird Ingestion The A320 involved in Flight 1549 was powered by two CFM56-5B4/P engines, which were certified to meet these requirements: Flocking Birds — the engine was able to ingest a flock of birds (seven 1.5 lb. birds), not lose more than ¼ of its power and continue to run for five minutes at its takeoff power setting. Single Bird — the engine was able to ingest a single large bird (4 lbs.) and be able to shut down safely. When a large bird is ingested, no continued operation is required – essentially, the engine is designed to shut down, e.g., with no hazardous debris or fire. Airplane Flotation Even though landing in water is an extremely rare occurrence, all transport category airplanes must float long enough to permit all the occupants to escape. In addition, the A320 was certified for “ditching” — that is, a prepared emergency landing in water, meeting the following requirements: The airplane must float in such a way that there are sufficient exits above water. The plane must be able to land in water and float under reasonable conditions long enough to allow evacuation of passengers into life rafts. Structural damage that might occur as a result of landing in water must be considered when determining the flotation characteristics. The airplane must carry special equipment, such as rafts, life vests and survival kits. Certification for ditching occurs when an airplane is intended to be operated extensively on routes that are over water. Seats The seats on this airplane were designed to withstand 9 times the force of gravity, as are the overhead stowage compartments and other interior features. There are later standards that require dynamic testing of seats up to 16 times the force of gravity — commonly known as “16g seats;” however, these standards are not applicable to the A320. What occurred to Flight 1549 indicates that all these standards were met. Current evidence points to engine bird ingestion of multiple Canada geese weighing on average between 6-10 lbs. each, far beyond the parameters of the birds for which the engine was designed to handle. Nonetheless, the engines reacted exactly as was intended; after the birds were ingested, they remained intact and did not shed any parts that might have damaged the aircraft fuselage; and they remained on the wing — allowing the crew to maintain flight. Preliminary evidence indicates that the seats and all the interior structure performed very well in this accident, with minimal injuries to passengers as a direct result of the crash. Moreover, the aircraft did float — exits remained available and there was sufficient time for the successful evacuation of everyone on board. Crew Training In addition to our requirements for aircraft certification, Federal Aviation Regulations require all airlines to develop specific ditching procedures appropriate to their operations. Many airlines, including US Airways, tailor their training to their specific operations, with emphasis on areas of high risk. Airlines must submit these curricula to the FAA for review and approval before conducting any flight operations. Even though an airline may not spend extensive portions of its operations over water, it still has to have basic ditching training for its flight and cabin crews. Actual ditching training differs from airline to airline, based on the amount of their overwater operations. The training is scenario based, meaning it includes a detailed dissection of an actual accident or incident and how the incident can be handled successfully. The crew is trained on all emergency procedures developed by the manufacturer, and this includes ditching. Training on handling emergencies — crew resource management, decision making, workload management, crisis response, and situational awareness — would be applicable to ditching through skill transfer, and that can be checked in a simulator. This scenario-based training and checking allows airlines to focus on events that are more likely to happen in actual, real-world operations. Required ditching training includes emergency training with respect to each airplane type, model, and configuration for each required crewmember and each kind of operation that the airline proposes. All airline crewmembers must receive ditching training during their initial training and at recurrent intervals consistent with the airline’s approved training program. US Airways flight attendants receive initial and recurrent training in ditching procedures, including: Cabin preparations Raft drills Passenger preparations Evacuations US Airways pilots receive ditching training at their initial indoctrination with the airline using a case study of a 1970 ditching by a DC-9, then later receive A320-specific instruction during recurrent training. Areas covered include: Aircraft “clean-up” (configuration for ditching) Communications with air traffic control and cabin crewmembers Crew resource management Ditching direction, based on wind or calm, swell direction Post-ditching procedures, e.g., signaling, survival, first-aid The ditching procedures are broken into segments above 10,000 feet and below 10,000 feet. Crewmembers are trained on both procedures. The above-10,000 feet procedures are focused on troubleshooting and engine restart. The below-10,000 feet procedures focus on “cleaning up” the aircraft, preparing the cabin crew for a water evacuation, setting all the equipment and switches for ditching, and communicating with air traffic control. The crew is trained to use the applicable procedure. Flight 1549 While the FAA has been working for decades on bird strike mitigation, improving aircraft to increase passenger survivability, and training pilots and crew for emergencies, none of that should take away from the extraordinary acts of this incredible crew. From Captain Chesley Sullenberger’s strong background as a pilot and safety expert, which enabled him to control the aircraft so skillfully, to First Officer Jeffrey Skiles’ efforts to restart the engines and initiate the emergency landing checklist, to the incredible professionalism of the flight attendants, Donna Dent, Doreen Welsh, and Sheila Dail, in instructing and guiding the passengers to safety, there will probably be no more storied, heroic aviation crew in history. The fact remains that for all the training and technological advances we might make, the human element is where it can all fail, or where it can astonish us all. Every aviator from the onset of his or her aviation training is taught these priorities in order: “aviate, navigate, communicate” — to fly the airplane, first and foremost; to navigate to a suitable emergency landing area; and to communicate with air traffic control the nature of the emergency so rescue can occur. Captain Sullenberger and his crew responded admirably to their training and their instincts and aviated, navigated, and communicated to a successful conclusion. At this juncture, I want to make sure that I point out the equally admirable work of, Patrick Harten, the air traffic controller who communicated with Captain Sullenberger during those harrowing moments. From clearing airspace and runways for an emergency landing, to calling upon other aircraft to be additional eyes, to alerting his colleagues of the impending emergency, Mr. Harten was without doubt a crucial part of this incredible story. I also want to commend Michael Guarnieri, the air traffic controller at Teterboro, who instantly made a runway available at that airport in the event Flight 1549 was able to land there, and Robert Schmid, also at Teterboro, who did a great job of coordinating the emergency response notifications. Our controllers are trained to respond to intense and stressful situations, as a matter of course. They have to be able to gather information from multiple sources, have constant situational awareness, and make instantaneous decisions. Every part of their training is designed to enhance each of these skills. It does not at all surprise the FAA that these controllers were so calm and professional in what was undoubtedly an incredibly pressurized situation, but once again, we are impressed with the high level of skill that these gentlemen displayed. The incredible timeliness and efforts of the personnel on the commercial water vessels and other first responders who helped rescue the passengers and crew of Flight 1549 from the Hudson River that day was also extraordinary. From the ferries and tug boat crews to the New York City Fire and Police Departments, the combined efforts and quick thinking of all involved in getting the passengers and crew safely to shore were amazing and moving to see. Finally, I must note that as we celebrate the outcome of Flight 1549, we also mourn the tragic loss of life on Colgan Air 3407 in Buffalo, New York. I know that the Members of this Committee will want to discuss this as soon as possible. We are fully supportive of the ongoing NTSB investigation in that case and I want to assure you that we will always strive to provide you with the timeliest information possible. FMI: www.house.gov, www.faa.gov aero-news.net ************** Curt Lewis, P.E., CSP CURT LEWIS & ASSOCIATES, LLC