17 MAR 2009 _______________________________________ *Bird Strike On Takeoff Returns Delta 757 To Nest *Cargo plane taxis off runway at Dutch airport *FAA: Memo About Denver Air Safety 'Alarming' *FAA Capitulates On Longer Crew Rest Guidelines *Concerns raised that FAA is shifting safety oversight to industry *Horizon: No impact from Q400 emergency AD *Industry analyst issues bleak forecast for Russian air transport *Good marks for Macau in aviation safety oversight audit *Lawyer-Pilots Bar Association (LPBA) *************************************** Bird Strike On Takeoff Returns Delta 757 To Nest All Safe After Landing At MSY Before the Hudson River ditching of US Airways Flight 1549 on January 15, the following news item probably wouldn't have made many headlines. A Delta Air Lines flight bound for Atlanta made a precautionary landing back at Louis Armstrong International Airport in New Orleans Monday morning, after striking a bird on climbout from MSY. The flight crew of Delta #1053 reported the bird strike while climbing through 4,000 feet, according to news reports and online flight tracking data. It's unclear where the bird struck the airliner, though it appears the plane suffered no severe damage. As a precautionary measure, the crew leveled off, and turned back to MSY. The 757 made an uneventful landing at around 8:20 am, MSY spokeswoman Michelle Wilcut told the New Orleans Times Picayune. Passengers were rerouted onto other flights to Atlanta. FMI: www.delta.com, www.faa.gov aero-news.net ***** Date: 16-MAR-2009 Time: 8:05 am Type: Boeing 757-200 Operator: Delta Airlines Registration: N644DL C/n / msn: 23998/207 Fatalities: Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 191 Airplane damage: Minor Location: New Orleans - United States of America Phase: Initial climb Nature: Domestic Scheduled Passenger Departure airport: New Orleans - MSY Destination airport: Atlanta - ATL Narrative: The flight DL-1053 encountered a bird strike during initial climb. The crew decided to level off at 4000 feet and returned to New Orleans for a safe landing. A post flight inspection revealed damage to the fan blades of the right hand engine and a hydraulics leak, although both engines continued to operate normally. The crew announced while in flight, that the airplane had hit sea gulls. The pilot reported seeing more than 10 birds. (aviation-safety.net) ************** Cargo plane taxis off runway at Dutch airport MAASTRICHT, Netherlands: (AP) A cargo plane's nose wheel got stuck in grass after going off Maastricht Aachen Airport's runway Tuesday, and all flights were canceled until the plane can be pulled free, officials said. Neither of the Cargolux Boeing 747-400's two-man crew was injured, said Jeannot Erpelding, a spokesman for the Luxembourg-based freight company. The plane was carrying flowers and vegetables from Nairobi, Kenya, Erpelding said. The cargo was being unloaded before attempts were made to free the plane, which appeared undamaged. "It's a minor incident from an operational point of view," Erpelding said. Airport spokesman Mark Keulers said the Cargolux plane landed normally, but its nose wheel ended up in grass next to the runway as the plane taxied to the terminal. Today in Europe Andalusians battling migrants for jobs they abandonedAustrian pleads guilty to incest as case opensE.U. continues to reach out to BelarusThe regional airport is 125 miles (200 kilometers) south of Amsterdam. At 10:35 a.m. (0935 GMT), its Web site showed seven flights canceled or delayed. Nearly three weeks ago, a Turkish Airlines plane crashed short of the runway at Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport, killing nine passengers and crew and injuring dozens more. ***** Date: 17-MAR-2009 Time: Type: Boeing 747-4R7F (SCD) Operator: Cargolux Registration: LX-GCV C/n / msn: 25867/1008 Fatalities: Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: Airplane damage: None Location: Maastricht Airport (EHBK) - Netherlands Phase: Taxi Nature: Cargo Departure airport: Destination airport: Narrative: Nosewheel departed the paved surface of the runway or taxiway. Airplane became stuck. (aviation-saety.net) **************** FAA: Memo About Denver Air Safety 'Alarming' FAA Rule Change Could Cause More Delays At DIA (2/21/2009) The Federal Aviation Administration says there are no problems with air safety over Denver, despite an internal FAA memo written in February and obtained by CBS4 that the agency now admits sounds "alarming." The February memo regarding Denver air safety "leaves a lot of questions out there" about what's going on in the skies above Denver, according to FAA administrator Kathryn Vernon. The Feb. 19 memo was written by Kevin Stark, the FAA's Acting Air Traffic Manager at the Denver Air Route Traffic Control Center. Titled "Denver Traffic" and sent to "all personnel," the two-page memo discusses recent changes in air traffic flow into Denver International Airport. Stark writes that the control center that manages air traffic around Denver "has indicated that the loss of a large number of their experienced employees, the relative inexperience of many of their current controllers, and the increase in volume has created a situation they can no longer accept. They have indicated that the volume issues created by eight different routes flowing into their airspace routinely creates situations that put their controllers at risk, and they are unable to provide the level of service our customers deserve." "As the letter is written, I would agree with you it sounds alarming," said Kathryn Vernon, the FAAs Director of Western Terminal Operations. "And I understand the letter makes it look like we had a situation we had to get under control. I would disagree with that," said the FAA official. "There is not a safety issue in the Denver airspace and Colorado airspace." A CBS4 investigation reveals two recent "close calls" over Colorado, both in January, both involving major airlines, and in both incidents, collision avoidance systems were activated in the passenger jets, helping prevent mid-air collisions. "If the pilots have to use their . collision avoidance systems, the system has failed," said Bruce Lampert, a pilot and aviation attorney in Broomfield. Lampert says relying on cockpit collision avoidance systems is "the third layer of safety, the last safety net to prevent mid-air collision and death." On Jan. 23, a Frontier airlines flight from Seattle was approaching DIA. But an air traffic controller in Denver turned the Frontier flight south toward a SkyWest flight that was at the same altitude, 25,000 feet; and was also on approach to DIA. What's known as "resolution advisories" sounded in both cockpits. That's an automated voice telling each pilot what sort of evasive action they need to take to avoid a crash. The incident is listed as an "operational error" by the FAA with the planes being allowed to get closer to each other than air traffic standards allow. Same with a Jan. 29 incident. A United Airlines 757 from Sacramento was on approach to DIA. But a controller inadvertently turned the United jet toward a commuter aircraft also approaching DIA. The collision avoidance system was activated in the United cockpit and the pilot took evasive action, flying beneath the other plane to avoid a collision. Indications are the two planes came within about a mile of each other, and about 800 vertical feet. FAA standards call for at least three miles of horizontal separation in a situation like this. Lampert says this is "absolutely" a near miss. Lyle Burrington, president of the local air traffic controllers union and a 20-year air traffic control veteran says, "In order for the TCAS (Traffic alert and Collision Avoidance System) to go off, it has to be really close. It's a systemic problem that's worrisome." Controllers have long claimed that due to a wave of retirements, the FAA has too many inexperienced controllers, too few controllers overall and an air traffic system that's overburdened. The FAA has always rebuffed those claims. But the recently obtained memo from Kevin Stark of the FAA does suggest there is anxiety within the agency over the experience of its controllers, especially in Denver. DIA is listed as the 4th busiest airport in the U.S. by the FAA. "There is no reason for the public to lose confidence," said Vernon. "In looking at Mr. Stark's letter, I agree it leaves a lot of questions out there. But there is not a safety issue in the Denver airspace and Colorado airspace." Vernon points to FAA figures that show controller errors in Colorado declining in 2009 when compared to 2008. Those "operational errors" can lead to what's known as a "loss of separation" between aircraft -- planes being allowed to get closer together than FAA guidelines allow. The FAA says of the eight operational errors in 2009 in Colorado airspace, six came at the hands of "senior controllers." FAA figures do show the number of certified professional controllers in the Denver terminal radar approach control dropped from 37 in 2007 to 34 in 2009; and the number of controllers "in training" rose from 8 to 11, while the number of "developmental" controllers more than doubled -- from 10 in 2007 to 24 in 2009. ''They've created an unsafe situation where the inexperienced controllers are having trouble working the day-to-day airplanes," said Burrington. Vernon calls this a "transition" period. "Safety has never been jeopardized," she said. http://cbs4denver.com/investigates/dia.faa.delays.2.960876.html *************** FAA Capitulates On Longer Crew Rest Guidelines Carriers Say Change Is Needed... But Process Must Be Followed In the face of considerable resistance and a threatened lawsuit from the airlines, the FAA has backed down on imposing new crew rest requirements for long-haul flights until a formal rulemaking process can be conducted. The FAA had drafted new requirements based on a voluntary plan adopted in 2006 by Delta after negotiations with its pilots. The change was intended to address new longer-range airliners, which have rendered decades-old rules about minimum crew rest requirements obsolete. But the airlines pushed back -- acknowledging there is scientific evidence the longer flights require changes to manage fatigue, but asserting the FAA needed to go through the formal process to gather the best available data on which to base a new rule set. The Wall Street Journal reports the initiative would have mandated longer layovers for pilots, and could have required some carriers to redesign cabins to provide additional sleeping areas for flight crews. Airlines also worried that doing an end-run around the formal rulemaking process could set a precedent allowing the FAA to bypass the process on other issues in the future. The National Transportation Safety Board has been after the FAA for years to impose tougher, wide-ranging fatigue-prevention rules. FMI: www.faa.gov aero-news.net *************** Concerns raised that FAA is shifting safety oversight to industry Concerns that the US FAA is increasingly shifting the burden of safety oversight onto airlines have started to be raised by industry players, as the agency's risk-based, data-driven Air Transportation Oversight System (ATOS) undergoes regulatory scrutiny. Launched in 1998 with the 10 largest US carriers in service at the time, ATOS represented a paradigm shift in the way the FAA conducted oversight of airlines. As of December 2007, all Part 121 operators have been brought under the system, which has a five-year implementation schedule. But while many government and industry stakeholders see ATOS as an improvement over the FAA's past safety oversight protocol, cracks in the system have arisen. This was underscored last year by the highly publicised breakdown in the FAA's oversight of Southwest Airlines, which resulted in several congressional hearings that highlighted weaknesses in ATOS. Some top legislators feared that the FAA had succumbed to excessively "cosy" relationships with carriers. Those fears have not been fully quelled. Following the hearings, an independent review team tasked by the transportation secretary with studying the FAA's approach to safety, found that ATOS "still needs further attention for it to live up to its promise". Additionally, the House of Representatives, in its latest mark-up of FAA reauthorisation legislation, directs the FAA to increase the number of aviation safety inspectors, create an independent "Aviation Safety Whistleblower Investigation Office" and mandate a two-year "post-service" cooling-off period after inspectors leave the FAA. If the legislation is passed, principal supervisory inspectors would be rotated between airline oversight offices every five years and monthly reviews of the ATOS database would be required "to ensure that trends in regulatory compliance are identified and appropriate corrective actions taken". The Department of Transportation's watchdog, the Office of the Inspector General, is also conducting audits to, among other things, examine the FAA's implementation of ATOS. Courtney Scott, public and legislative affairs specialist for the OIG office of legal, legislative and external affairs, says the OIG is "not in a position to discuss what we may or may not be finding or when we plan to issue a report". However, at least one former FAA inspector - who is not linked to the Southwest case - intends to alert regulators to what he believes is a serious misapplication of ATOS, specifically regarding the Safety Attribute Inspection (SAI) data collection tool. Unlike the Element Performance Inspection (EPI) portion of ATOS, which is designed to inspect the operational performance of a particular airline function, SAI is intended to focus on the design and documentation of various air carrier programmes. Once completed, the inspector enters the results of both EPI and SAI inspections in the ATOS database, which is used by the agency for predictive analysis in hopes of preventing future incidents and accidents. "The SAIs cover 106 air carrier programmes, resulting in approximately 10,000 inspection entries. Some of the SAIs have 200-300 pages of questions and they are so specific that the inspector must have an in-depth familiarity with the carrier's programme. Each SAI inspection question must be answered by 'yes' or 'no' and be followed by a specific manual reference(s) from one or more of the air carrier's manuals," explains Ladd Lewis, who spent 20 years at the FAA, including almost five years for the ATOS Program Office. Now head of a consulting company specialising in regulatory and safety programme support for small airlines, Lewis claims some FAA offices have begun to shift the responsibility of SAI completion on to the carriers. He likens the practice to the following scenario. "Remember the recent peanut factory fiasco, where salmonella was discovered? Imagine the public's outrage if it was the practice of the Department of Agriculture to send the inspection forms to the factory, have them fill them out and send them back, and then the department would load that information into their computer." Lewis says that when he retired from the FAA and became a contractor, he was astounded "at the response I got from the FAA when I pointed out that their guidance said the SAIs are not a list of questions to be given to the carriers to respond to. "And yet, they are," he claims, "and if the carrier questions it, they [local FAA offices] tell the carriers it will delay the programme, such as adding a new aircraft or flight programme, etc. Therefore, carriers do not want to speak out against the process." Lewis is not alone in his concerns. The Professional Aviation Safety Specialists (PASS) union, which represents 11,000 FAA and Department of Defense employees, has made known its fear that the FAA has allowed ATOS to be used as a way to shift the burden of oversight from the agency to the industry. "I think ATOS is a useful tool for an inspector, and then he or she can prioritise their duties in accordance with the data they analyse. The problem is that it is being used to essentially replace inspectors. The agency has relied on the industry for data to put into ATOS, and if the data is coming from the people you oversee, it's going to be hard to find too many faults," says PASS president Tom Brantley. In short, says Brantley, the FAA "is relying too much on the industry to police itself". When asked if some offices are shifting the burden of ATOS responsibility to airlines, the FAA says: "The burden of carrying out ATOS functions falls entirely on FAA inspectors, unless air carriers voluntarily agree to participate in certain types of ATOS inspections. ATOS is designed to provide an independent assessment of a carrier's compliance with the regulations and of its capacity to operate safely." The FAA says data provided by an airline during a collaboratively conducted design assessment "must be validated by FAA inspectors" before entering the ATOS database. It also says carriers are not required to use ATOS data collection tools to provide information when they apply to expand their scope. "Such use of ATOS data collection tools is voluntary. An air carrier that feels threatened, unfairly treated, or who objects to ATOS in general, is encouraged to use FAA's Consistency and Standardization Initiative to elevate its complaint to higher levels in the FAA." Former FAA associate administrator for aviation safety Nicholas Sabatini further emphasises the point. He says: "What has got to be understood is this - it is the air carrier's responsibility to comply with the regulations and to always be able to demonstrate compliance. In a safety system, what gives FAA great confidence in the air carrier is knowing that we have a certified entity that is proactive in their safety risk management." He adds: "Air carriers must have in place their own auditing system. So it should not be a burden on them. They are expected to ascertain system performance. They should be using the same tools the FAA uses." Before development of ATOS, the FAA used a less comprehensive reporting format known as the Program Tracking and Reporting System (PTRS) to report inspection findings. A former long-time FAA inspector, Gary Perkins, now heads the Aviation Safety Oversight Group, one of several consulting firms qualified by the FAA to assist carrier applicants in preparing for Part 121 certification. He believes ATOS is invaluable in assisting carriers with the start-up process. "I was there [at the FAA] during a time when we certificated airlines and all we expected them to do was to have compliance with the regulations in their manuals. But you've got to understand that a lot of that compliance was purely policy. It didn't tell people how to do the job, it was just policy, and even the biggest airlines had that policy. From 1980 until 1998 [when ATOS was introduced], you could still find new airlines starting up with old Braniff and Pan Am manuals," says Perkins. Perkins questions why a carrier would see ATOS as a burden. "You should be self-auditing already. The burden you are seeing is that they do not want to go back and look at systems that were not set up well to see if they can identify latent failures that are risk items." Bill Bottoms, executive vice-president and one of the principals at aviation consultancy Team SAI, agrees with Perkins. "ATOS is the creation of a system safety approach. That is what it's called and what it is. It forces the operator to look at the interfaces that take place throughout all aspects of their operation and make sure those interfaces are compatible and complementary and, as such, lead to the most optimum safe environment for the carrier. "With that said, the intent of pushing the carrier toward more ATOS standards is to push them deep into their systems to make their safety process a compatible system. So I think that placing the burden of compliance on the carrier, and the burden of satisfying the requirements, is indeed appropriate." Lewis agrees carriers have an obligation to conduct their operations within the regulations, and that includes auditing their own processes and developing their own changes. But, he says: "The FAA has a statutory obligation to conduct inspections to insure the carrier is doing that and not use carrier-furnished inspection data to meet this obligation." He warns: "Unless the FAA takes back their SAI inspection responsibility, they may find themselves explaining to Congress why it's such a good idea to have the air carrier furnish inspection data." Source: Air Transport Intelligence news ************** Horizon: No impact from Q400 emergency AD Horizon Air, the largest operator of Bombardier Q400s in the US, says all 20 of the carrier's 37 Q400s targeted by a Canadian emergency airworthiness directive (AD) issued Friday were back on line by Saturday night. A Horizon spokeswoman says no passenger disruptions had occurred in part because Horizon was to redeploy spare aircraft during the inspections. Transport Canada issued the directive after receiving "several" reports of failures of the aft hinge of the main landing gear forward stabilizer brace due to fatigue cracks. "Failure of the stabilizer brace could result in the collapse of the landing gear," the AD states. Operators were required to perform non-destructive inspections within 50 landings on aircraft with stabilizer braces that had accumulated 12,000 or more landings. Aircraft with fewer cycles were given more time to fulfill the requirements. According to Flight's ACAS database, there are 208 Q400s flying worldwide, with Flybe the largest operator and Horizon the second largest. Horizon, a US-based carrier, would not have been required to perform the latest AD as the US FAA has not issued a similar directive. "We're always following developments on our type of aircraft," says the Horizon spokeswoman. "We became aware of the Transport Canada AD and began to inspect our aircraft." The FAA in October proposed an AD for the Q400 based on several instances of the aircraft's landing gear failing to retract after takeoff, a problem traced to an electrical harness. The agency has not yet issued a directive based on the new Canadian emergency AD. Source: Air Transport Intelligence news **************** Industry analyst issues bleak forecast for Russian air transport Russia's prospects for seeing its air transport industry prosper have dimmed in the face of a struggling economy that has produced dramatic declines in passenger traffic. Noted industry analyst Adam Pilarski said today at the ISTAT conference in Phoenix that Russia has dropped out of the grouping once considered "the great hope of aviation". That group includes Brazil, India and China. "Right now we'll be lucky if Russia's traffic drops only 15%," says Pilarski. Asked by an ISTAT attendee if the assessment is too harsh in light of Russia's re-fleeting needs, Pilarski says most industry analysts are predicting 10-15% traffic declines, while the most pessimistic predictions are upwards of 40%. "I hope that they and I are wrong," says Pilarski, noting, however, that January traffic alone dropped 19% in Russia. He agrees that re-fleeting needs to take place and will be implemented by Russian operators. "But when traffic drops 19%, that can't be wonderful." Source: Air Transport Intelligence news *************** Good marks for Macau in aviation safety oversight audit The Universal Safety Oversight Audit Program (USOAP) of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) was carried out in Macau for the first time between March 9 and 16. The program's objective is to ensure international aviation safety, and the ICAO has condducted the audits since 1995 on its 190 member states using a comprehensive systems approach. The opening session of the audit was held on March 9 and was attended by the Macau Civil Aviation Authority's (AACM) audit coordination group, representatives from local aviation operators and related government bodies, and ICAO's five-member audit team, which was split up into sub-groups to check the implementation of 16 safety-related criteria. These included legislation and regulation, organisation and safety oversight functions, personnel licensing, aircraft operations, airworthiness of aircraft, air navigation services, aerodromes, accident and incident investigation, all based on the eight critical elements of a State's safety oversight system as defined in ICAO's Safety Oversight Manual. To determine Macau's capability for safety oversight, the audit team also paid visits to local aviation operators, including Air Macau Company and VIVA Macau, as well as the airport fire station, the air traffic control tower and the flight information dispatch office of Macau International Airport. Secretary for Transport and Public Works Lau Si Io attended the program's closing session was held yesterday. The ICAO audit team provided a brief explanation of the preliminary audit results which indicate a "satisfactory mark" for Macau's overall capability. The audit team praised Macau for its legislation and regulation in safety oversight, and recognised AACM's oversight work on airline operations and maintenance of aircraft in compliance with ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices. They also gave recommendations for improving the legislation related to accident investigation, aerodrome certification and the creation of a State Safety Program. Other recommendations were on the improvement of the safety oversight of certain air navigation services and the training of technical personnel. The interim audit report will be completed and sent to AACM in three months. Upon receiving the interim report, AACM will be given a period of two months to submit explanations or a corrective action plan to ICAO on those items that have been marked as "ineffective implementation." ICAO will then analyse the information and work on the draft final report which will also be sent to AACM for final comments. After receiving the final comments from AACM, ICAO will conclude the final report which will be published on ICAO's intranet in December this year. http://www.macaudailytimesnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id =24264&Itemid=28 **************** Lawyer-Pilots Bar Association (LPBA) Dear Aviation Enthusiast: I would like to introduce you to the Lawyer-Pilots Bar Association. I am very pleased to be a member of the Lawyer-Pilots Bar Association as it celebrates its 50th anniversary this year. We currently have three primary activities: 1) A superb website describing the LPBA and its meetings; 2) The LPBA Journal, which is an excellent aviation law resource; and 3) Fun-filled, entertaining and rewarding Summer and Winter Continuing Legal Education meetings. One of the most interesting aspects of the LPBA is that you do not need to be a lawyer or a pilot to join; you just need to have an interest in aviation, would like ready access to excellent aviation law resources, and would like to have some great aviation and legal fellowship and camaraderie. Our motto notes that we are ADedicated to aviation safety, the just administration of the law and continuing legal education,@ and some of our recent meetings have taken us to great venues such as Freeport, The Bahamas, Sun River, Oregon at the beautiful Sun River Resort, and Whistler, British Columbia at the breathtaking Fairmont Chateau Whistler. Our upcoming Summer meeting will be on Mackinac Island, Michigan at the truly Grand Hotel. Please consider this communication as a cordial invitation for you and your colleagues to join the LPBA and participate in our LPBA activities, including our upcoming meetings, even if you are already a member but have not had a recent opportunity to participate. Please take just a moment to look at our website at www.lpba.org and you will see exactly what I mean about our superb organization. If I can provide you with any additional information, please do not hesitate to give me a call. Thank you, Charles R. Barnett, III Of Counsel, Nolan Law Group 20 North Clark Street 30th Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Tel 312-630-4000 Fax 312-630-4011 Toll Free In U.S. 888-630-9340 ***************