25 AUG 2009 _______________________________________ *Bulgaria Airplane Catches Fire at Sofia Airport *Russian ministry signs safety and training pact with Boeing *Helicopter Operations Hold Huge Potential For India *787 Fuselage-Join Anomalies Lead to Workarounds *Obama Renews Aviation Insurance For Commerce Carriers In US, International Operations *Boeing to release new 787 schedule "later this quarter" *New rules for aviation safety a flight plan to disaster, critics warn *Serious A319 electrical failure prompts call for broad changes **************************************** Bulgaria Airplane Catches Fire at Sofia Airport The accident posed no risk to the safety of the passengers, flying from Sofia to Varna. Photo by BGNES The engine of a plane of Bulgaria Air company, flying from the capital to the Black Sea town of Varna, has reportedly caught fire as it took off from Sofia airport. The fire broke out in the engine on the left-wing of the plane as it started going on the runway but was immediately put out, local media reports say. The plane was scheduled to take off at 7.45 pm. The passengers have been quickly evacuated and provided with another plane. "The plane crew has detected a decrease in the pressure of the oil in one of the engines, which is why they decided to postpone the flight," Bulgaria Air CEO Dimitar Pavlov commented Monday evening. He assured that the accident has posed no risk to the safety of the passengers. http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=107105 ***** Russian ministry signs safety and training pact with Boeing Russia's transport ministry has signed an agreement with Boeing aimed at improving air transport safety in the country. It follows a meeting between the two sides in June during which opportunities for joint training were discussed. Crew and maintenance training level have been under scrutiny, notably since the Aeroflot-Nord Boeing 737 accident in Perm last September. The newly-signed memorandum, says the ministry, identifies provision of training for flight crew and technical personnel and the development of training infrastructure as crucial areas for the co-operation. It adds that the Russian Government will provide Boeing with "support for the development of a business plan" to create this infrastructure, while Boeing will offer selected training schemes. Deputy Russian transport minister Valery Okulov says the agreement is "one of the most important steps" in the country's efforts to increase safety. Boeing and the transport ministry will also set up, by the end of this year, a working group to draw up a broader safety programme in line with the international 'Global Aviation Safety Road Map' scheme. Source: Air Transport Intelligence news *************** Helicopter Operations Hold Huge Potential For India The benefits of making full use of helicopters are lost in India, given the lack of policies and procedures, including routing and lack of awareness of air traffic controllers, which make operations inefficient and costly. The potential, however, is huge considering the vast landmass of the country. It is estimated that India's largest helicopter operator, government-owned Pawan Hans (PH) with a fleet of 36 helicopters, would require at least 20 more aircraft if it were to get into regular business of hotline washing of the power grid alone. Hotline Washing Last year for the first time in India, PH deployed one Bell 206L4 helicopter with experts from New Zealand for hotline washing of insulators of transmission lines in association with Power Grid Corp. Ltd. for five months until March 2009. The operations were done on 400 kV AC/ 500 kV transmission lines. Efficiency of the lines improved by about 20%. PH is considering buying seven Bell 206s, an official told The DAILY. India has yet to fully exploit and tap the benefits of helicopters in various civilian fields, such as Emergency Medical Services and taxi services. The cost of running an EMS is high because insurance costs are high. "We need more heliports, but there are no DGCA regulations on this," said an analyst. A change is expected to take place by November this year once the agreement on Rotorcraft Rulemaking, Capacity Assessment, Airspace Classification, and Airspace Design is signed. The agreement, supported by a $501,849 grant from the U.S. Trade Development Agency, was to have been signed Aug. 15 as part of the U.S.-India Aviation Cooperation Program with India's Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA). It is now expected to be signed by the end of August (DAILY Aug. 6). Bell Grant The grant will be matched in kind by Bell Helicopter Textron. Another agreement will be signed between Bell and DGCA on the terms of reference. Given that DGCA has few procedures, including routing outlined on helicopters, the grant partially funds a technical cooperation program for the DGCA to support the growth of the Indian helicopter market by providing practical helicopter solutions in the form of regulatory and airspace structure technical support. The project will also provide safety training for helicopter inspectors. "The ATC needs to be educated on helo operations, that they're different from fixed wing. Because of [accepted] procedures, we're just a flying machine and are not considered helicopter operations. In India, helicopters are made to wait in queue. If DGCA agrees and ATC is willing to cooperate, things will change soon," said an official. "Elections are great in India. One puts in so many hours, so the operator can be very successful," said Michael Kelly, chief pilot, Sky Express Aviation. For India's elections this year, he flew 60-70 hours a month, he added. "Now that business is slow, we are focusing on film production work." In the past few months, he has worked with nine different productions. "The Bell 206 is controllable, hands-on and being lower to the ground, is exciting," says Kelly. http://www.aviationweek.com **************** 787 Fuselage-Join Anomalies Lead to Workarounds Boeing says issues caused by a stringer trim machine at the Alenia 787 fuselage barrel production site in Grottaglie in Italy are forcing it to reinforce early units with patches and to add extra plies to future production barrels. The manufacturer does not yet have a schedule for the re-start of production of barrels, which was halted in late June following the discovery of "wrinkles" in the skin close to the join area between the Alenia-built Sections 44 and 46. The problem is linked to the improper size of the stringer edge steps, which are integrally bonded into the skin during the assembly process. These edges are slightly too large, causing undulations or wrinkles to appear in the skin plies around the fuselage adjacent to the passenger door close to the wing trailing edge. Boeing emphasizes that this latest glitch is not considered a safety-of-flight problem, and would not have impacted the revised first-flight schedule, expected to be announced around September. The fit discrepancy does not affect the first six flight-test aircraft, and is being treated in fuselage units seven to 29 with two add-on patches. Future production barrels will receive additional plies which "will allow us to accommodate the limitations of the stringer trim machine which cannot achieve the current specification for a step of 0.015 in.," says Boeing. "We were not seeing anything near the 0.040 in. that is noted as a significant concern. They were falling between those two numbers and can be accommodated with the patch or additional plies." Boeing's second 787, ZA002, meanwhile moved under its own power for the first time on Aug. 19 when it completed the initial taxi ground test. After a short ground-test program, ZA002 will be sidelined for side-of-body structural modification. Taxi tests completed onboard systems checks, and will likely mark the last movement of any of the 787 test fleet for several months until ZA001 re-emerges with the revised wing root changes. http://www.aviationweek.com ***************** Obama Renews Aviation Insurance For Commerce Carriers In US, International Operations WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)-President Barack Obama authorized the Department of Transportation on Friday to continue providing insurance to commercial air carriers used during government operations in the U.S. and abroad. In a memo to the secretary of Transportation, Obama approved "insurance or reinsurance to U.S. flag air carriers against loss or damage arising out of any risk from the operation of an aircraft" during such operations. http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=200908211851 dowjonesdjonline000534&title=obama-renews-aviation-insurance-for-commerce-ca rriers-in-usinternational-operations *************** Boeing to release new 787 schedule "later this quarter" Boeing plans to announce a new schedule "later this quarter" for the 787 Dreamliner, according to a company executive. "(O)ur focus is on developing and implementing a detailed plan for design, analysis, component tests, full-scale static testing and production modification," Randy Tinseth, vice president of marketing for Boeing Commercial Airplanes in Seattle, wrote Monday. "This takes time, resources and many organizations working together. We plan to announce the new program schedule later this quarter." Tinseth posted photos and video from the three days of taxi testing the second 787 performed last week at Paine Field. Over a series of laps, the 787 eventually reached speeds of about 100 knots (about 115 mph), Tinseth wrote. One test, on Wednesday, tested the braking system by using only the brakes, rather than the typical use of brakes with thrust reversers, he wrote. "The team tells me the airplane is performing well, and completing this testing now will be very helpful as we get closer to first flight on Airplane #1," he wrote. "Completing taxi testing on Airplane #2 puts us a step closer to being ready to fly after we complete the side-of-body modification on our flight test airplanes." Flight engineers now will review the data and do more ground testing, Tinseth wrote. In the meantime, we're maintaining flight-readiness status -- keeping our crews proficient and prepared to start flight testing. As we know and expect, issues will pop up -- in which case we'll knock them down. Our 787 team is relentless and I know they're doing everything in their power to get the job done. http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/archives/177254.asp *************** New rules for aviation safety a flight plan to disaster, critics warn VANCOUVER, B.C. - Proponents predict it will make air travel in Canada safer than ever. Critics call it a flight plan for disaster. A controversial new regulatory system that forces the aviation industry to enforce its own safety standards has some accusing Ottawa of abdicating responsibility for ensuring the safety of Canadian passengers, citing tragic experiences in Canada's rail industry as cautionary tales. For nearly a decade, rail safety in Canada has been governed by a so-called safety management system. Companies are responsible for devising their own safety plans according to regulatory standards and must ensure that their day-day operations conform. During that period, however, several accidents took place that were blamed on faulty rail-safety systems, including a runaway train in 2006 that killed two railway workers. "It's like the fox running the henhouse," said Virgil Moshansky, a former judge whose investigation into the deadly Air Ontario crash in 1989 in the northwestern Ontario town of Dryden, led to major changes in Canada's aviation industry. "It seems that Transport Canada, or the government, or both, need a major disaster to happen before they take action." Moshansky headed up the inquiry that probed the crash that killed 24 people when ice buildup on the wings sent the plane careening into the ground, where it burst into flames and broke apart. As part of the changes, a federal program to audit airline safety procedures has been cancelled and Transport Canada intends to stop regulating the frequency of inspections. Transport Canada inspectors won't enforce safety regulations for companies with their own safety management systems. They will simply inspect safety reports written by the companies themselves. Federal legislation that would have enshrined the changes into law - opposition parties aggressively opposed the bill - died when last year's federal election was called. The changes will instead be made through regulations, which do not require the approval of Parliament. That will leave it up to aviation companies to devise their own safety policies, identify risks and make employees aware of the need for safety. Proponents of the safety-management doctrine say that's the point. By requiring airlines to create and police their own safety systems, with regulatory authorities as the backup, safety measures are enhanced, rather than diminished, they argue. The International Civil Aviation Organization, a United Nations agency considered the international authority on civil aviation, notes that when such a system is working properly, it adds an extra layer of safety. The ICAO has developed safety-system guidelines for nearly 200 member countries, including Canada, which is considered one of the leaders in its implementation. Under the plan, operators, manufacturers, regulatory bodies and investigative agencies work together in a proactive, preventative system at all levels of an operation. In Canada, large airline operators, their maintenance companies, principal airports and air traffic controllers already operate that way, said Chris Day, press secretary for Transportation Minister John Baird. Small operators, their maintenance providers, flight training operations, companies that certify aircraft and aircraft makers will soon follow, with Transport Canada expecting the system to be fully implemented by 2015. "This is about promoting safety, limiting risk, preventing incidents before they happen," said Day. The regulations are being changed to match what's happening already, he added. But even as the airline industry grows, there are fewer and fewer government inspectors. "They (Transport Canada) have delegated the oversight function and enforcement function to the airlines themselves," Moshansky said. Critics agree that airlines and railways must take principal responsibility for making sure passengers and crew are safe. But they also need the support of Transport Canada inspections and audits, they say. The unions that represent Canada's inspectors say the system is being used as an excuse to reduce their numbers and to remain at arm's length from liability after accidents. Kerry Williams, national vice-president with the Union of Canadian Transportation Employees, said there are 130 inspector positions vacant in Canada. "This is one way to eliminate those vacancies in the stroke of a pen." The number of inspectors over the last few years has dropped by 15 per cent while the aviation industry has grown by 50 per cent, reducing the role of inspectors to little more than "box tickers," he added. Greg Holbrook, the chairman of the Canadian Federal Pilots Association, which represents pilot inspectors, said the government saw the system as a money-saver from the start. "Really, what (this) is all about is about getting Transport (Canada) off the hook," Holbrook said. "They haven't been able to do their job for a number of years because they don't have enough people and they don't have enough money to do it." A Transport Canada plan backs up that claim. Written eight years ago, the document says relying on companies for safety systems cuts costs and jobs and results in less "regulatory burden, Crown liability, oversight requirements." Said Moshansky: "It seems that safety always gives way to the bottom line with Transport Canada. There are countless examples of this." Baird himself wasn't available for an interview, but Transport Canada spokesman Brad McNulty said the agency is confident the program will only improve safety. "Transport Canada is confident (safety management systems) will help save lives by preventing accidents," he said in an email to The Canadian Press. That confidence isn't borne out by the experience of the rail industry. The Transportation Safety Board, which investigates rail, air and marine incidents, has cited several accidents that were a direct result of a breakdown in that industry's self-managed safety system. Tom Dodd and Don Falkner clung to a runaway CN train equipped with ineffective brakes as it plunged over a British Columbia cliff three years ago, taking them to their deaths. The safety board concluded earlier this year that the choice of an engine with brakes not meant for mountainous terrain was made for "financial reasons, rather than safety reasons," contrary to the railway's own policy. In August 2005, a defective rail set off an environmental disaster in Wabamun Lake west of Edmonton when 700,000 litres of thick crude oil spilled into the lake. The board criticized CN's rail maintenance and its dangerous goods emergency response plan in a report on the derailment. Just days later, a train derailed along the Cheakamus River near Squamish, B.C., spilling caustic soda into the river, killing hundreds of thousands of fish. Again, the board blamed violations of the safety management system. CN's policies were also cited as a factor in a fiery wreck in August 2007 in Prince George, B.C., and in a January 2007 derailment in Montmagny, Que., when four cars containing sulphuric acid derailed, but didn't spill. A review of the industry's safety management policy released in 2008 concluded that the implementation of the policy had been inconsistent across the country and said Transport Canada hadn't dedicated enough resources to oversee it. Federal auditor general Sheila Fraser also warned the government in a 2008 report that Transport Canada's transition to aviation safety management systems "had several weaknesses." Fraser said the department didn't forecast expected costs for the transition, document potential risks or suggest mitigating actions and had no plan in place to evaluate the impact. She also warned there was no strategy in place to hire specialized people with skills gained on the job. As a result of the recommendations in the rail safety review, McNulty said Transport Canada would be hiring 20 more inspectors for rail over the next three years. While there are only a few dozen rail companies operating in Canada, there are more than 2,300 air operators certified to fly here. Emilie Therien, past president of the Canada Safety Council, said the safety change in the airline industry will make Transport Canada a "toothless tiger" when it comes to enforcing safety. "The safety level established by the carrier - whether it's rail or air - may not be the same one that was established by Transport Canada before," he said in an interview. Hugh Danford, a former civil aviation inspector for the department, agreed, saying aviation travel is about profit and there's always a balance between money and safety. "And that's why the (safety management system) won't work because they're putting that balance in the hands of the people who profit." ***************** Serious A319 electrical failure prompts call for broad changes Investigators have made 14 recommendations for changes to equipment, engineering procedure and operational security in their final report on a serious EasyJet Airbus A319 in-flight electrical system failure. En route from Alicante to Bristol on 15 September 2006 the aircraft (G-EZAC) suffered a loss of electrical power that left the captain with no flight instruments, and the aircraft with no autopilot or autothrottle and no means of communication for the remainder of the flight, according to the UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch report. In addition, the loss of all transponder signals from G-EZAC for some 10min over northwestern France deprived Brest air traffic control of its ability to track the aircraft, and rendered traffic alert and collision avoidance systems ineffective. It has since been determined that this led to a serious loss of separation in this case. The captain elected to continue the flight to its destination because he had good weather reports for Bristol and feared that divergence from the flight-planned route with no communication might precipitate interception by military aircraft with potentially serious consequences - because, with curtailed aircraft capabilities, he might not be able to comply with intercept signals. The AAIB report says: "While in the cruise at FL320 in visual meteorological conditions, the aircraft suffered severe disruption of the electrical power system, causing multiple aircraft systems either to cease operating or to become degraded, significantly increasing the flight crew's workload. "All means of radio communications became inoperative and remained so because they all relied on a single busbar which de-energised and was unavailable for the remainder of the flight. The loss of all means of radio communications caused the crew considerable concern and delayed their continuation of the [electronic centralised aircraft monitor] actions." The causes of the incident, according to the AAIB, included an "intermittent fault" in the number one generator control unit (GCU), which caused the loss of the left electrical network, and points out that the electrical system design required manual reconfiguration of the electrical feed to the AC Essential (ESS) busbar in the event of de-energisation of the number one AC busbar, leading to the loss or degradation of multiple aircraft systems, until the electrical system is reconfigured. The AAIB says the "inability of the flight crew to reconfigure the electrical system, for reasons which could not be established" also contributed to the event. The aircraft had been dispatched from Alicante under a minimum equipment list provision despite the number one main generator being declared unserviceable on the inbound flight, powering the left system with the auxiliary power unit generator which was operated throughout. The faulty Hamilton Sundstrand GCU had been returned to service several times with no fault found. The AAIB clearly did not approve, commenting: "Recurrence of the GCU 1 fault during the incident flight probably caused the de-energisation of AC BUS 1 and the consequent severe electrical system disruption. The GCU 1 had repeatedly been rejected from service prior to the incident, possibly because of recurrence of the same intermittent fault, and returned to service without the fault having been found, but still present." Of the incident in general, the AAIB states: "A serious electrical system disruption on an aircraft that is heavily reliant on electronics for most aircraft systems, such as the A320-series aircraft, will inevitably have serious and widespread effects on many of the systems. "The A320 electrical power generation system design was considered acceptable because, in the event of loss of the AC ESS busbar, most of the affected systems would be restored by manually selecting the alternate feed, which Airbus considered would typically take around one minute. In-service experience has shown that on some occasions the changeover may take longer, or not be achieved at all, as in G-EZAC's case." The investigators remark that, this case, the aircraft was stable in the cruise in visual meteorological conditions but the failure could equally have occurred in instrument conditions and at low level in a critical phase of flight. For these and other reasons, says the AAIB, "the potential hazard of loss of the AC BUS 1, AC ESS and DC ESS busbars was more serious than the airworthiness authorities had assessed". The AAIB, after a previous A320 series electrical incident, recommended on 13 December 2006 that Airbus to introduce a modification to automate the transfer of the electrical feed to the AC ESS busbar in the event of the loss of the AC BUS 1 busbar. Airbus issued a service bulletin to enable this in 2007, and the AAIB's G-EZAC report repeats the call for this change to be implemented. The European Aviation Safety Agency has told the AAIB it will make this modification compulsory. The report observes: "The reasons why the AC ESS electrical supply changeover did not occur with G-EZAC could not be established, but with a trained and experienced crew and relatively benign flight conditions, this was the case." Concerned that, in an extensive system failure, push-button selectors do not make clear the switch actuation status, the AAIB has recommended that EASA and the US FAA introduce certification requirements aimed at ensuring that flight deck control selectors are designed "such that an immediate and unmistakable indication of the selected position is always provided to the flight crew". It adds that EASA should require the modification of affected A320-series aircraft so that the loss of a single busbar does not result in the complete loss of radio telephony communications. EASA, it says, should also require Airbus to review the A320-series master minimum equipment list (MMEL) provision that an aircraft may be dispatched with an integrated drive generator inoperative because an intermittent fault in a GCU can cause a serious system failure. Hamilton Sundstrand should modify its repair and overhaul procedures to ensure that a unit with an excessive service rejection rate or a recurrent fault is not repeatedly released back to service, the report adds, while EASA and the FAA should formally recategorise incidents involving total communications loss from 'serious' to 'hazardous'. Source: Air Transport Intelligence news *************** Curt Lewis, P.E., CSP CURT LEWIS & ASSOCIATES, LLC