25 SEP 2009 _______________________________________ *Engine smoke seen before Airlink Jetstream crash *NTSB Says Evidence Missing In Helicopter Crash Investigation *Two French fighters crash, one pilot recovered *Japan government forms panel to study JAL restructuring *Alaska wants fleetwide Wi-Fi in 2010 *Pilot Job Fair, Safety Forum Scheduled Nov. 21 *New Airline Duty-Time Regulations, Tools Address Fatigue **************************************** Engine smoke seen before Airlink Jetstream crash Further evidence has emerged that an engine problem preceded today's Airlink British Aerospace Jetstream 41 crash in Durban. Other pilots, says the carrier, had communicated on the air-ground radio frequencies that smoke could be seen coming from one of the turboprop's engines. It is unclear whether the Jetstream crew heard the information as the aircraft departed on a ferry flight to Pietermaritzburg. The pilots, however, reported loss of engine power shortly after take-off. Both the flight-data and the cockpit-voice recorder have been retrieved from the wreckage and sent for analysis. Investigators have yet to clarify whether one, or both, engines on the turboprop were affected. "Pilots are specifically trained for engine power loss on take-off emergencies, and clearly this training has played its role," says Airlink. "It appears that the crew was executing a forced emergency landing. They had selected a small open field in the built-up area which was clearly not adequate for this purpose." The Jetstream came down about 400m from the airport, striking a concrete fence and breaking into several sections, coming to rest on a school sports field. The school was unattended because of a public holiday. Both pilots and a flight attendant were badly injured in the crash and are being treated in hospital. There were no passengers on board, but a person on the ground was also hurt. Airlink says the aircraft involved, which had been with the carrier for 14 years, had more than 30,000hr of service life remaining. Manufacturer BAE Systems has dispatched a team to assist with the inquiry. Source: Air Transport Intelligence news *************** NTSB Says Evidence Missing In Helicopter Crash Investigation "Iron 44" Aircraft Parts Not Shipped To NTSB The NTSB says possibly crucial engine parts were not included in a shipment of evidence from Columbia Helicopters, the company which maintained the Sikorsky S61N helicopter transporting firefighters in California involved in an accident in which 9 people were killed. The wreckage from the aircraft involved in the so-called "Iron 44" incident had been sent to Columbia Helicopters, where NTSB and FAA officials observed while technicians tore down the aircraft's engines. The NTSB subsequently asked that the engines be shipped to Washington, DC, but a footnote in the 500 page preliminary report indicates "upon opening the shipping containers, an inventory of the hardware revealed that the following components from the FCU (Fuel Control Unit) Number 1 were not present: Metal position adjusting cover, snap retainer ring, spring retainer cap, spring and bellows." The FCU's control the amount of fuel delivered to the engines. A review of the video recording of Columbia employees packing the shipping containers shows the parts were not among the items shipped. KDRV-TV reports that the general council for Columbia Helicopters said, while employees have searched "high and low" for the missing parts, they have been unable to locate them. The company says the FCU's may not be a focus of the investigation, and therefore may not be important. Greg Anderson, the attorney for William Coultas, the surviving pilot from the crash, as well as the family of one of those killed in the incident, told the station the omission of the parts from the shipment is "highly suspicious." Witnesses told the NTSB that the helicopter, which was operated by Carson Helicopters in Grants Pass, Oregon, appeared to hover just over the treeline before going down in a heavily wooded area while engaged in evacuation firefighters from a fire scene near Weaverville, California on August 5th, 2008. One witness said the aircraft did not seem to be fully powered when it went down. The NTSB is still completing its factual report on the incident. FMI: www.ntsb.gov aero-news.net **************** Two French fighters crash, one pilot recovered PARIS (AFP) — Two French Rafale fighter jets crashed into the Mediterranean Sea on Thursday as they were returning to their aircraft carrier after a test flight, the navy said. One of the pilots was rescued "safe and sound" after he ejected from his supersonic aircraft, navy spokesman Commander Bertrand Bonneau told AFP. A search was under way for the other aviator. "It is not known yet if there was a collision," Bonneau said. "All efforts now are directed at finding the second pilot." The Rafales -- similar to those used by the French military in Afghanistan, and which France hopes to sell to Brazil -- went down at 6:09 pm (1609 GMT) about 30 kilometres (20 miles) from Perpignan, southwest France. They were flying back to the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle after an unarmed test flight, Bonneau said, adding that both planes were "in the hands of very experienced pilots". A patrol boat from the French national maritime rescue service, four helicopters, a Hawkeye surveillance aircraft and an Atlantique 2 long-range patrol aircraft were mobilised. It was the first accident ever to involve the seagoing version of the Rafale, of which 17 have been deployed with the French navy. Defence Minister Herve Morin immediately ordered an investigation, the French military said in a statement, adding that he intended to go to the crash site as soon as possible. Built by French aircraft maker Dassault Aviation, the 50-million-euro (72-million-dollar) Rafale first rolled out of the production line in 1998. France plans to have a fleet of 294 Rafale jets, including 60 for its navy. So far 80 jets have been delivered to the air force and the navy. It has yet to find a foreign buyer, although Brazil recently expressed interest in buying 36 Rafales in a deal that would be worth several billion euros (dollars). The Rafale, which can fly as fast as Mach 1.8 -- 2,000 kilometers (1,200 miles) per hour, or nearly twice the speed of sound -- is designed for air-to-air combat, reconnaissance flights and nuclear bombing missions. It flies regularly in Afghan skies, dropping 250-kilogramme (550 pound), laser-guided US bombs to support NATO troops on the ground. For the nuclear-powered Charles de Gaulle, the flagship of the French navy and its only serving aircraft carrier, the crash is just the latest in a string of problems. For 15 months beginning in September 2007 it was out of service for nuclear refueling, then in March 2009 it was back in port after faulty parts were discovered in its propulsion system. It returned to sea three days ago for the "requalification" of its Rafale and Super Etendard pilots and the qualification of new aviators. The Charles de Gaulle sails with four Rafales, three Super Etendards and three helicopters -- two Dauphins and an Alouette III. The French air force suffered the first-ever loss of a Rafale in December 2007, in a crash in Correze, central France, blamed by the military on spatial disorientation on the part of the pilot, who was killed. **************** Japan government forms panel to study JAL restructuring Japan's transport ministry has formed its own panel to draw up Japan Airlines' restructuring plans as it is dissatisfied with the carrier's proposals. This five-member panel, which includes senior bureaucrats, will come up with a basic plan by end-October and finalise it a month later, says the ministry of land, infrastructure, transport and tourism. Japan Airlines (JAL) CEO Haruka Nishimatsu met transport minister Seiji Maehara on September 24 to ask for a government bailout to help the beleaguered carrier, which has debts of $15 billion and appears likely to post a second annual loss. The carrier has been working on its own medium-term business plan, but Nishimatsu's request and proposals have met a cool response. "I have doubts about the feasibility of JAL's restructuring plan. So I was not in the position to say yes about the request in the meeting," Maehara told reporters after the meeting, according to local media reports. JAL is reportedly seeking ¥250 billion ($2.74 billion) through a mixture of equity and debt to meet its financing needs for the year to 31 March 2010, but lenders have been hesitant to make the payment unless there is greater state involvement. In early July, Japan's former Liberal Democratic Party government guaranteed ¥100 billion in loans that the Oneworld alliance carrier obtained from five Japanese banks, including some government financial institutions. However, the LDP lost to Maehara's Democratic Party of Japan in elections earlier this month. The new government has indicated that it is hesitant to use public funds to help the airline, especially if it feels that the carrier does not have viable restructuring plans. JAL reported a ¥99 billion net loss in the three months to 30 June, up sharply from a loss of ¥3.4 billion a year before. Operating revenue fell 32% to ¥334.8 billion due to adverse international cargo and passenger traffic. The beleaguered carrier recently said that it would cut 6,800 jobs and cut routes. Source: Air Transport Intelligence news *************** Alaska wants fleetwide Wi-Fi in 2010 Alaska Airlines is aiming for fleet-wide Internet connectivity by year-end 2010 after debuting Wi-Fi access on a single Boeing 737-700 aircraft this year. Seattle-based Alaska will select an Internet solution this year and plans to equip its all-737 fleet by the end of next year, Alaska manager of product development and market research Chase Craig tells ATI. The carrier has been testing Row 44's broadband solution on revenue flights since February and is mulling Wi-Fi pricing. "Customers are very satisfied with the service," Craig says, adding they have demonstrated a willingness to pay for connectivity. The equipped aircraft has mostly operated on short-haul flights up and down the west coast, Craig explains, but the carrier has also tested Wi-Fi on flights to Alaska, Canada and Mexico. Virtually the only part of Alaska's route network that the Wi-Fi equipped aircraft has not operated is on transcontinental fights to the east coast, Craig says, adding Alaska has collected a lot of wi-fi data for flights shorter than 2.5 hours. Once Alaska chooses an Internet provider, the carrier will prioritise outfitting its 51 737-800s because that aircraft type operates throughout Alaska's network, including on transcontinental flights, Craig says. In hindsight the carrier probably should have outfitted a -800 instead of a -700 for the wi-fi trial because a -800 would have provided a healthy baseline for uptake rates on both long-haul and short-haul flights, he says. But the airline opted to test Wi-Fi on a -700 first because that aircraft's shorter airframe made certification more challenging due to the positioning of the radome, Craig explains. Alaska wanted to address any significant certification hurdles earlier rather than later, he adds. The airline is presently working with Row 44 on certification design for the -800. However, the airline appears to have decided against expanding its Wi-Fi trial to include a -800, a possibility mentioned during Alaska's 2009 second quarter earnings call. Alaska plans to continue testing just one aircraft, Craig says, adding the trial does not have a specific end date. Source: Air Transport Intelligence news ************** Pilot Job Fair, Safety Forum Scheduled Nov. 21 FltOps.com will hold a Pilot Safety Symposium and Job Fair 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m. Nov. 21 at the New York LaGuardia Marriott. Pilots are encouraged to bring their resumes. The forum also will offer safety presentations, company briefings and pilot supply/demand projections free of charge. Information on group hotel rates and shuttle buses can be found at fltOps.com/jobs http://www.aviationweek.com *************** New Airline Duty-Time Regulations, Tools Address Fatigue Airline industry fights growing threat with new duty-time rules and risk management tools “Go! Flight 1002, are you having an emergency?” For 18 min., concerned air traffic controllers radioed the pilots. No response. The crew had not acknowledged instructions to proceed to an intersection in preparation for descent to Hilo, Hawaii. Radar showed the aircraft traveling at 21,000 ft. past its destination toward open ocean. The 40 passengers were unaware that their flight crew had entered the Land of Nod halfway through the 51-min. flight on Feb. 13, 2008. “I just closed my eyes for a minute, enjoying the sunshine and dozed off,” the captain explained to NTSB investigators. The first officer said he had “entered a sleep-like state from which I could hear what was going on but could not comprehend or make it click.” Flight safety was compromised by both pilots’ falling asleep, which rendered them incapable of monitoring aircraft systems, communicating with ATC or scanning for potential conflicting traffic. The copilot awoke, roused the captain, and the flight proceeded to its destination without injury to passengers. Fortunately, the aircraft had reserve fuel on board—otherwise, it could have flown for only 22.5 min. longer before risking fuel starvation, notes the NTSB. Fatigue—defined as physical or mental weariness—is “ubiquitous and unavoidable” in aviation, human factors scientist and Flight Safety Foundation Fellow Curtis Graeber told Congress in June. And no aviation profession or operation is immune; pilots, flight attendants, mechanics and controllers all suffer from it (see pp. 46-48). Reducing fatigue-related accidents and incidents has been on the NTSB’s “Most Wanted List” of safety improvements since it was initiated in 1990. ln the last 15 years, fatigue has been associated with more than 250 fatalities in accidents investigated by the safety board. In addition, the NTSB has issued 117 fatigue-related recommendations in all modes of transportation, 34 of which relate to aviation. The NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System database indicates that in 1995-2007, there were at least 17 crew-reported incidents of one or more flight crew inadvertently falling sleep. In five incidents, both pilots were asleep at the same time. In a 1999 NASA survey of pilots at 26 regional airlines, 80% of them admitted to “nodding off” during flight, blaming multiple flight segments and scheduling as factors that contribute to fatigue. In a non-fatal Feb. 18, 2007, runway overrun at Cleveland, the captain of Shuttle America/Delta Connection Flight 6448 had had 1 hr. of sleep in the 32 hr. prior to the accident. Fatigue factored into another runway overrun at Traverse City, Mich., on Apr. 12, 2007. The Pinnacle Airlines Flight 4712 pilots had only a half-hour layover between flights. Insufficient crew rest is an issue under examination by the NTSB in its continuing probe of the Colgan Air/Continental Connection crash near Buffalo, N.Y., last Feb. 12 in which 50 people died. When fatigue strikes in most non-aviation situations, mitigating actions can be taken, such as stopping the activity and stretching or walking around. “Transportation employees have a higher duty—if a pilot, controller or mechanic is fatigued and makes a mistake, lives are at stake,” notes NTSB Chairman Deborah Hersman. Traditionally, the industry has combated fatigue with flight- and duty-time hourly or daily limits. But the current consensus is that the rules do not take into account the contemporary science on sleep/rest requirements and fatigue management. Nor do they consider the long- and short-haul operational variables that cause fatigue (see table). On Nov. 19, the International Civil Aviation Organization’s (ICAO) amendment setting standards for flight- and duty-time regulations goes into effect. The amendment stipulates that standards must take into account the latest science on fatigue. The European Cockpit Assn. (ECA), representing 38,200 pilots in 36 countries, describes pilot fatigue as the biggest “hot potato” safety issue. According to the ECA, the European Aviation Safety Agency’s (EASA) current rules that allow a daily maximum flight/duty time of 13-14 hr. not only “exceed reasonable limits,” but are not in keeping with the body of scientific knowledge. The association notes that the Moebus Aviation study, “Scientific and Medical Evaluation of Flight Time Limitations”—conducted for EASA—determined that the agency’s rules are insufficient to protect against risks of fatigue. Fatigue is the Air Line Pilot’s Assn.’s top safety concern. ALPA, which represents 54,000 pilots in the U.S. and Canada, has long been pushing for updated science-based flight/duty-time rules. In testimony before Congress in June, ALPA President John Prater described the FAA’s rules as a “patchwork” of regulations that have not changed in 60 years, before jets came into use in the 1950s. Prater notes that pilots are routinely assigned duty days of up to 15 hr., during which they could expect to fly fewer than 8 hr., sometimes for several consecutive days. Prater also points out that pilots make critical landing decisions at the end of a duty day—and most fatal accidents occur in the landing phase of flight. A 1994 NTSB study determined that pilots who have been awake longer than 12 hr. make significantly more errors, such as failure to recognize an unstabilized approach, than those who have been awake for less time. In June, FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt, a former airline pilot, convened an Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) to review and modify current rules—and he demanded the committee present its recommendations to the agency by Sept. 1. The ARC delivered on time, and its proposals are undergoing the FAA vetting process. The FAA is aiming to issue proposed rulemaking for public comment by year-end. The FAA’s challenge is to forge revised regulations that are applicable to today’s operations—from the daily, multiple-leg flights of regional carriers to ultra-long-haul flights of majors. As of last week, the FAA was declining to discuss with Aviation Week matters related to fatigue, saying it was waiting until the committee’s recommendations are made public. The Flight Safety Foundation’s Graeber, who chairs ICAO’s flight- and duty-time panel, says the organization’s recommendations are the blueprints for the ARC. But rules alone are insufficient to minimize the risks of fatigue. The NTSB’s Hersman compares fatigue mitigation to house-building. Prescriptive flight- and duty-time rules serve as the strong foundation. To pass inspections, all the building components—such as airline scheduling policies and training—must be up to standard to avoid system failure. The Aerospace Medical Assn. position paper, “Fatigue Countermeasures in Aviation,” published in the January 2009 issue of Aviation Space and Environmental Medicine, is a compendium of recent scientific findings about the causes and effects of fatigue, as well as its effective management. According to the paper, long-haul-pilots are more susceptible to vigilance lapses in flight. And “micro-sleeps” (those several seconds of “blackout” such as one experiences while on a long drive), are nine times more likely to occur during night flights. Scientists have determined that circadian rhythm “lows” occur in predawn and midafternoon hours—when alertness levels are also at a low point. Scientists rank bunk rest as the most important inflight fatigue countermeasure. They strongly support scheduled naps in the cockpit, which are currently prohibited in the U.S. but approved in Europe and Canada. Another mitigation effort is to require crew and supervisors to receive fatigue education—training emphasizing that sleep is the best possible protection against on the job fatigue. Also of utmost importance is taking personal responsibility for obtaining quality sleep, rest, diet and exercise, stresses NTSB Senior Human Factors Investigator Malcolm Brenner. The effects of fatigue, like hypoxia, are insidious, and an individual cannot accurately assess his or her level of impairment. Individual response to fatigue also varies widely. Brenner’s advice is to be aware that you are impaired and to strictly follow standard operating procedures. Implementation of a Fatigue Risk Management System (FRMS) is considered one of the most effective countermeasures—and one that took center stage at the FAA’s June 2008 Aviation Fatigue Management Symposium in Washington, a gathering of regulatory, airline, safety and science leaders. In early 2006, ICAO formed a panel to develop an international regulatory framework for a using the model developed by the Flight Safety Foundation in June 2001 for ultra-long-haul flights. And last month, ICAO formed a task force to develop an international standard for implementation of an FRMS. The task force’s findings are to be presented to ICAO within one year, according to Graeber, who leads the group. An FRMS represents a “paradigm shift” in the way we manage the risks of fatigue, says Graeber. Such a system would be part of an airline’s Safety Management System, requiring a “just culture” environment and the full commitment of management. To gather data, an airline would choose a computer model, which it would validate in the field using subjective tools (such as questionnaires) and objective tools to measure sleep quality and alertness levels of crews. The data are then used to identify fatigue risk areas, adjust scheduling to avoid those areas and formulate mitigation plans. An FRMS can work in harmony with regulations. Air New Zealand successfully launched an FRMS 15 years ago, with the involvement of its aviation authority. Europe’s EasyJet also adopted an FRMS and, working with the U.K. Civil Aviation Authority, was able to make scheduling changes to minimize fatigue. In 2006, the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore changed its 12-hr. flight-rule limits so that Singapore Airlines (SIA) could operate long-haul flights. Currently, Delta Air Lines and Continental and American Airlines are developing an FRMS for ultra-long-haul operations. When Delta decided to fly non-stop service from New York JFK to Mumbai, India, it found duty-time guidance was not clear, says Jim Mangie, Delta lead line check pilot for 757s/767s and manager for fatigue issues in the Flight Operations Dept. Mangie also co-chaired the FAA’s flight/duty-time rulemaking committee. The airline devised a plan, got approval from the FAA and formed an FRMS team in the summer of 2006. At the end of 2007, Delta, partnering with the FAA’s Civil Aerospace Medical Institute, conducted initial evaluations with pilots and flight attendants. Delta also enlisted scientific aid from researcher Philippa Gander of Massey University at Wellington, New Zealand, and the carrier plans to start collecting ultra-long-haul inflight data by the end of this month. Continental, which put an FRMS team together three years ago, also plans to launch two 2-3-month-long data-gathering sessions, one at the end of September and one in winter. Testing will involve crewmember volunteers operating Boeing 777 flights, most of which will last longer than 16 hr. “We are not saying these [ultra-long-haul] flights are unsafe,” says Continental Senior Director for Safety and Regulatory Compliance Don Gunther. “We are trying to find out how to reduce risk in the operation.” Continental worked with Gregory Belenky, research professor at Washington State University at Spokane, to adopt the Safte-Fast model (Sleep Activity, Fatigue and Task Effectiveness simulation and Fatigue Avoidance Scheduling Tool). The model, developed by scientist Steven R. Hursh, has been validated for U.S. railroad workers, but not for aviation. One challenge, says Gunther, is that no current model accounts for “time on task”—high-task areas of flight, such as descent to landing. “We’re interested in protecting the critical areas of flight. I would like my crews to have the highest alertness levels that can be maintained going into those critical areas of flight.” To gather data, crews will use portable digital devices to obtain objective data on their sleep patterns and alertness levels. The Actiwatch device measures the amount of sleep obtained prior to a flight, during layover and post-return flight. The Psychomotor Vigilance Task (PVT) monitor measures response time—that is, alertness levels—to patterns appearing on the screen. Crews would take a 3-min. PVT test prior to a critical phase of flight, such as descent for landing. The airlines are hoping that Flight Operational Quality Assurance program data—true performance data—will eventually be included in an FRMS, which will aid in pinpointing fatigue risk areas. Both Continental and Delta are planning to expand testing to include cabin crew. Once data are validated, an airline can adjust scheduling to avoid risk areas while at same time gaining operational flexibility. An FRMS presents challenges. While research exists for ultra-long-haul flights, little has been gathered for short-haul flights, where the cockpit is always busy and there is not much opportunity to collect PVT data. Application of an FRMS is another question. Graeber says current thinking is to implement the system only in risk areas and not across an entire operation. Sounding a sober note, he says that science alone is limited as to what it can do. “While the ARC is trying to accommodate science as best it can, you can’t engineer a solution to this [fatigue] problem across the operational world and get it right every time.” http://www.aviationweek.com *************** Curt Lewis, P.E., CSP CURT LEWIS & ASSOCIATES, LLC