11 DEC 2009 _______________________________________ *Air France jet issued mayday alert close to where Flight AF447 disappeared *France Investigates Another Troubled Flight *FAA May Weigh Pilot Commute Limits to Avert Fatigue *FAA: Overshot Flight Was On Canadian Frequency *Beechcraft A100 King Air Accident (Canada) *Coalition fights to allow cellphone use on planes *How Safe Are International Airlines? *Alaska Air Completes Safety Audit *Ghana: Country Air Safety Rating Attracts New Airlines *ACSF Publishes Charter Safety Review *Spirit names former WestJet EVP COO *EASA orders check of Airbus ram air turbines *************************************** Air France jet issued mayday alert close to where Flight AF447 disappeared Investigators hope to shed light on June crash by examining why similar plane ran into difficulty last month on same route France's accident investigation agency has opened an inquiry into an Air France flight from Rio de Janeiro to Paris which ran into difficulties last month just miles from where another of its planes vanished in June with 228 people on board. In an attempt to "shed light" on the crash of Flight AF447, which went missing while flying over the Atlantic, the Bureau d'Enquêtes et d'Analyses (BEA) said it was looking into what triggered Flight AF445 to issue a mayday signal flying the same route on 29 November. "We cannot ignore such a coincidence," said a spokesman. The A330 airbus – the same model as the aeroplane which went down on 1 June – was four hours into its flight to the French capital when it hit heavy turbulence, an Air France statement said. "[The aircraft] performed a standard descent in order to avoid a zone of severe turbulence and get back to a less turbulent level of flight." The airline insists the emergency signal was not sent because the pilots believed they were in danger. But, according to French media reports, the jet descended by far more than 300 metres – which is the standard procedure for avoiding turbulence – causing panic on board. Le Figaro reported that the plane plunged from 11,000 metres to 9,300 metres and quoted one passenger as writing afterwards that the aircraft appeared to be "no longer under control". Air France today refused to comment, referring journalists to the BEA. The agency said it would need to interview the crew before reaching any conclusions. But it said the parallels between the two cases could yield "new information" about the June tragedy, the causes of which have so far eluded investigators. Flight AF445 encountered difficulties ten10 nautical miles (12 miles) from where AF447 is believed to have disappeared, prompting the media to speculate about a "black hole" of hostile flight conditions above the Atlantic. However other experts warned the comparison could only go so far. AF445 had nothing visibly wrong with its pitot tubes, speed sensors, believed to have been a factor in the June disaster. Eric Mas, a meteorologist, added that records showed significant differences between the conditions experienced by the two planes. Despite the recovery of bodies and pieces of wreckage, the black boxes of AF447 have not been found. An initial report in July concluded the aeroplane had plunged intact into the Atlantic. The BEA will give an update on its findings next week. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/10/air-france-plane-mayday-alert *************** France Investigates Another Troubled Flight PARIS — The French agency studying the cause of the fatal crash of an Air France jetliner six months ago confirmed Thursday that its investigators had opened an investigation into another incident involving an Air France jet of the same type under similar circumstances. Air France Flight 447The second plane was forced to abruptly descend after encountering extreme weather in the same area of the Atlantic Ocean where the doomed plane is believed to have gone down. A spokeswoman the French agency investigating the accident, BEA, said investigators had asked for access to the data from the onboard computers and were interviewing the crew of Air France Flight 445, an Airbus A330-200 that flew from Rio de Janiero to Paris on the night of Nov. 29-30. Air France Flight 447, also an Airbus A330-200, was flying through an area of strong thunderstorms when it went down on the night of May 30 to June 1, about 960 kilometers, or 600 miles, off northern Brazil, killing 228 people aboard. “There are a lot of striking similarities between the two flights — the route, the fact that it was at night, the difficult weather conditions,” said Martine Del Bono, an agency spokeswoman. “While we cannot know in advance whether this inquiry will provide complementary information about what happened to Flight 447, we cannot ignore such a coincidence.” According to Air France, the plane — carrying 203 passengers and 12 crew members — encountered “severe turbulence” roughly four hours into the flight and the pilots requested authorization from air traffic controllers to descend to a lower elevation. After failing to get a response, the pilots sent out an emergency “mayday” message via radio that they were changing altitude, a communication that was picked up by another Air France flight nearby. A French daily, Le Figaro, reported that Flight 445 descended from roughly 10,000 meters to 8,500 meters, or 33,000 feet to 28,000 feet — a drop of about 90 meters is normally called for by Air France procedures. Both Air France and the investigations office declined to comment on the report. “We are providing all of the information requested by the BEA and Air France is providing its full collaboration and support to the investigation,” Véronique Brachet, an Air France spokeswoman, said. According to Le Figaro, the Nov. 29 incident took place about 10 nautical miles from the area off the Brazilian coast where Flight 447 was when its computers sent out a series of automated messages — the plane’s last known communications — to a French maintenance center. The maintenance messages have been a focus of the investigation into Flight 447 in the absence of the plane’s “black boxes” — the flight data and cockpit voice recorders, which, along with the bulk of the plane’s wreckage, have not been found. Those messages indicated that the air-speed sensors on Flight 447 had malfunctioned and investigators have said that this fault may have contributed to the crash. In the latest incident, however, Le Figaro cited a person close to the investigation as saying that there was no sign that the air-speed indicators had failed. French investigators plan to publish a second interim report on the Flight 447 crash on Dec. 17. A preliminary report published in July said an examination of the floating debris indicated that the plane had hit the water intact, but offered few additional clues to the cause of the disaster.France is planning a renewed search for the black boxes of Flight 447 early next year, with the support of experts and specialized equipment from the United States, Britain, Brazil and Russia. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/11/world/europe/11iht-crash.html **************** FAA May Weigh Pilot Commute Limits to Avert Fatigue Dec. 10 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. regulators said they will gather information that could lead to restrictions on commuting by airline pilots, who often travel hundreds of miles to their jobs. The Federal Aviation Administration will seek comments on the matter and analyze the effect the commutes have on cockpit- crew fatigue, Randy Babbitt, the agency’s chief, told the Senate aviation subcommittee today in Washington. Babbitt said more information is needed because a number of causes may contribute to pilot weariness. “Reporting to work fit for duty is far more complex than drawing a circle around a hub and stating that the pilot must live within that area,” Babbitt told the panel, which convened a hearing on aviation safety. The FAA request reflects heightened attention to risks of inadequate sleep among pilots, some of whom live far away because their bases relocated and they can’t afford additional accommodations. The National Transportation Safety Board is examining whether crew commutes played a role in the Feb. 12 Colgan Air crash near Buffalo, New York, that killed all 49 on board. Rebecca Shaw, 24, the co-pilot, traveled all night on flights from Seattle to her job in Newark, New Jersey, the day of the accident, according to the NTSB. The captain, Marvin Renslow, 47, commuted from Tampa, Florida, to Newark on Feb. 9 to begin two days of flying, the board found. Colgan policy barred pilots from using the crew room for overnight rest, and there was no evidence either pilot had accommodations in Newark, the NTSB said at a May hearing. 400 Miles Away The NTSB presented evidence at the hearing showing 93 of 137 Newark-based pilots at Pinnacle Airlines Corp.’s Colgan unit commuted by air. More than half of those lived at least 400 miles away in places such as San Francisco and Portland, Oregon. Such commuting is “tiring, it’s exhausting,” Senator Mike Johanns, a Nebraska Republican, told Babbitt at today’s hearing. “That can’t be a good thing.” Long commutes have “got to affect their ability to be alert,” said Senator John Thune, a South Dakota Republican. Babbitt said he is more interested in ensuring pilots show up for work fit for duty rather than addressing individual causes of fatigue, which he said can include golfing or getting a 2 a.m. phone call before an assignment. “Who decides who commutes and who doesn’t?” Babbitt told the panel. “It’s very difficult.” An FAA advisory panel that met in July and August to recommend changes to federal fatigue regulations decided commuting was “outside the boundaries” of their charge, Babbitt said. The FAA will seek additional comment on commuting within the proposed rules, due next year, he said. Pilot Training The February crash of the Bombardier Inc. Dash 8 Q400 in Clarence Center, New York, also killed one person on the ground. The flight from Newark for Continental Airlines Inc. lost airspeed on approach to Buffalo, setting off a cockpit warning for an aerodynamic stall from which the aircraft didn’t recover. In addition to looking at commuting, the safety board is examining issues such as training and distraction. The agency plans a hearing on the probable cause of the accident in February. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aFcmjl1Lc6vc&pos=9 *************** FAA: Overshot Flight Was On Canadian Frequency Two Northwest Airlines pilots have lost their licenses due to their behavior during a flight in which they overshot their destination by 150 miles. Now some lawmakers are calling for a ban on pilots using laptops in the cockpit. (File) CBS4 has learned the pilots of Northwest Airlines Flight 188 were first in touch with Canadian air traffic controllers after losing radio contact for more than an hour raising the possibility their cockpit radio had been tuned into the wrong frequency. The crew flew well beyond their destination of Minneapolis/St. Paul in October. The pilots indicated they were using their laptop computers to discuss company flight scheduling procedures. For more than an hour U.S. controllers tried without success to reach Northwest Flight 188. It was designated "nordo," which means "no radio." The plane flew from San Diego beyond its destination of Minneapolis as controllers tried unsuccessfully contact it numerous times. The final communication before the radio blackout was from the Denver air traffic control center in Longmont. It directed the Northwest flight to a radio frequency of 132.17. CBS4 has learned when contact was finally resumed the pilots were speaking with controllers in Winnipeg, Canada. One of the Winnipeg radio frequencies is similar to the one they were directed to tune to, 132.12. Aviation safety consultant Steve Cowell said it's common for pilots to tune to the wrong radio frequency. "Absolutely they could have dialed in the wrong frequency. They could have dialed in a seven for a two or vice versa in this circumstance," Cowell said. The Federal Aviation Administration released transcripts of the radio search for Northwest Flight 188, but no mention was made of any contact with Canadian air traffic control. Now FAA spokesperson Laura Brown has told CBS 4 News, "We found this out afterwards about Winnipeg. There was no way the controllers would know and did know how the pilots happened to come back up on that frequency." Brown said the matter remains under investigation. Northwest 188 finally spoke with Minneapolis air traffic control 77 minutes after the pilots' last contact with U.S. controllers. An air traffic controller asked the pilots what had happened. The reply stated, "Ah, Roger, we got distracted and we've overflown Minneapolis." The pilots' licenses were revoked by the FAA. They are appealing. The Canadian air traffic control operator Nav Canada would not comment on the contact with its Winnipeg center. http://cbs4denver.com/investigates/faa.norad.ntsb.2.1360871.html *************** Beechcraft A100 King Air Accident (Canada) Date: 09-DEC-2009 Time: 10:45pm LT Type: Beech A100 King Air Operator: Exact Air Inc. Registration: C- C/n / msn: B-... Fatalities: Fatalities: 2 / Occupants: 4 Airplane damage: Written off (damaged beyond repair) Location: Near Saint-Honore, Quebec - Canada Phase: En route Nature: Executive Departure airport: Val-d'Or Airport - CYVO Destination airport: Chicoutimi/St. -Honore - CYRC Narrative: Two people are reported dead when an aircraft crashed in a wooded area in the Saguenay region. (aviation-safety.net) *************** Coalition fights to allow cellphone use on planes A coalition of electronics manufacturers, phone service providers and consumer groups is trying to rally airline passengers this week to stop Congress from banning air-to-ground phone service. The group says that airline passengers in the USA should have the option of using technology that's available to them to talk while flying just as passengers in 72 other countries can. Most consumers "want the choice of being able to use this technology," says leader Carl Biersack, head of the Inflight Passenger Communication Coalition that's trying to rally passengers. Passengers, he says, should be able to "call home and say, 'I'm going to be an hour late,' to call the office and give some brief instructions, or to call and get the test results from an ill family member." Federal regulations prohibit travelers in the USA from placing cellphone calls while in flight. Nor are they supposed to make calls via Voice over Internet Protocol technology, or VoIP, that's now more available because more airlines have Wi-Fi Internet access aboard their planes. VoIP isn't specifically banned by federal regulation right now. It falls into a legal gray area because VoIP technology didn't exist when regulators set the current policy prohibiting in-flight cellphone calls. A measure in the House version of a bill to reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration goes further. It would outlaw talking via cellphone or over VoIP. The Senate version of the bill doesn't currently have the ban. And Biersack's group wants to keep it that way. The Senate isn't likely to act on the bill until early next year. Advocates of the ban, such as Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., say they want to protect fliers from the intrusion of phone calls in one of the last phone-free zones. DeFazio, who introduced the ban last year before it was incorporated in the reauthorization bill, says passengers shouldn't be subjected to fellow passengers' noisy conversations. He points to a survey of 3,000 frequent fliers done by the International Airline Passengers Association that found that 88% said air-to-ground calls would be "a source of great irritation." But Biersack says concerns about poor in-flight phone etiquette were overblown. "This service is now widely available in many other countries," he says. "We've not had one instance reported of air rage when one person was using a phone in flight and the person next to them got upset about it." http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2009-12-10-airplanephones10_ST_N.htm *************** How Safe Are International Airlines? It's Hard to Tell Without Standardized Ratings; No Consensus on Kazakhstan You can check fares, fees and flight schedules for just about any airline in the world with a few keystrokes or a single phone call. But checking the safety of an international airline is a much more complicated task. European and U.S. regulators evaluate aviation safety, and the airline industry itself has a world-wide safety-audit program, but it's difficult for travelers to check airline safety when buying tickets. There's no restaurant-inspector's score posted on the airplane door or government crash-test star rating printed on your ticket. That's unfortunate, since interest in airline safety is high. It's been a bad year for aviation fatalities, with more than 700 people killed in 16 crashes around the world so far in 2009. Many involved little-known airlines—some already on watch lists for safety concerns. "There's no perfect solution at the moment, but it's undoubtedly getting better," said Geoff Want, principal adviser on airline safety at Rio Tinto Group, a global mining company that has its own list of carriers approved for employee travel. Government regulators in Europe and the U.S. take different approaches to aviation safety. The European Union evaluates airlines and their planes and publishes a "blacklist'' of unacceptable carriers, most recently updated just two weeks ago. The EU blacklist is available on the Internet at ec.europa.eu/transport/ (click on "Air," then "List of airlines banned within the EU"). Be prepared, it's long and complex: 233 airlines are completely banned, and eight are allowed to operate under restrictions and conditions. Though its focus started as an airline-by-airline evaluation, the EU has moved more toward building the blacklist on evaluations of entire countries—all airlines from 15 countries have a blanket ban from the EU and are among the 233 cited. Evaluating Countries The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration evaluates countries, not carriers. U.S. inspectors decide if a country's aviation infrastructure is up to snuff by counting the number of inspectors watching over airlines, assessing air-traffic-control procedures and evaluating funding and legal authority of aviation regulators. The FAA evaluation is based largely on standards set by the International Civil Aviation Organization, a United Nations-chartered group. (U.S. airlines are required to meet or exceed international safety standards.) The FAA says 101 countries have been assessed; 79 have Category 1 status, meaning the U.S. believes the country meets international standards, and 22 fall into Category 2. Category 2 doesn't mean airlines from that country are banned, only that any new service and airline passenger-sharing ties are frozen. That can have economic impact on a country and its airlines, and the threat of a Category 2 downgrade can prompt improvement. India, for example, was notified it didn't meet standards and was given time to make changes. Earlier this year, after India increased the number of airline inspectors and made other changes, the FAA declared India met the requirements to remain in Category 1. The FAA won't discuss specific reasons for a Category 2 listing except to say all assessments are fact-based evaluations. In the case of Israel, which is Category 2, aviation-industry officials say U.S. concerns relate to air-traffic-control routings for passenger jets at some Israeli airports that don't meet international standards. An FAA spokeswoman says its International Aviation Safety Assessments list, available at www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/iasa, is "one tool a consumer can use to decide on air travel." There's surprisingly little overlap between the FAA and EU lists. Airlines from Angola, Benin, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Liberia, Gabon, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Afghanistan, Cambodia, Rwanda and Zambia are banned on the EU blacklist, but those countries aren't evaluated at all by the FAA. Both EU and U.S. regulators share concerns on Congo, Indonesia and Swaziland. The FAA rates Zimbabwe, Israel, the Philippines, Serbia and Montenegro plus several Latin American and Caribbean nations, including Belize, Haiti, Honduras and Nicaragua, in Category 2, but not the EU. Improvements in Safety Safety experts say both the European blacklist and the FAA's country categorizing have led to safety improvements. "Both are crude tools. They aren't perfect tools. But they have caused people to step up to safety," said William Voss, chief executive of the Flight Safety Foundation, an international nonprofit group that promotes aviation safety. The airline industry has come up with its own list of sorts, and it can be useful to travelers. The International Air Transport Association (IATA), the industry's world-wide trade group, began working on a standard auditing regimen nine years ago, and it has evolved into an extensive safety check now required of all airlines to be a member of IATA. Passing the audit became mandatory for membership earlier this year; 21 airlines didn't and were removed. The air-transport association put together a cocktail of standards to create the IATA Operational Safety Audit, or IOSA, borrowing from EU and U.S. requirements as well as ICAO, the UN organization. The association hires eight firms to check processes and procedures at airlines, and inspects some aircraft but not all. Guenther Matschnigg, the IATA's senior vice president for safety, operations and infrastructure, said the requirements include things that make indisputable sense, such as enhanced ground-proximity warning devices in cockpits, which sound an alarm for pilots when flying toward a mountain or other hazard. Those devices, required for U.S. airlines, are only recommended by ICAO standards. To comply with air-transport-association requirements, several airlines had to install the warning devices. "We put some teeth into it," Mr. Matschnigg said. IATA says 330 airlines around the world have passed its audit. Of those, 230 are IATA members—another 100 airlines wanted to be certified even if not IATA members. U.S. and EU regulators accept IOSA certification to meet requirements that airlines funneling passengers to each other through code-sharing agreements audit each other for safety issues. And a few countries—Egypt is one—require IOSA certification for any airline flying there. The list is available at www.iata.org/iosa. Lower Accident Rates IATA says certified airlines have a 30% to 40% lower accident rate than non-certified airlines. In 2008, noncertified airlines have had a "hull-loss" rate—aircraft damaged beyond repair—of 0.81 per million flights, while certified airlines had a hull-loss rate of 0.52 per million flights, 36% lower. At London-based Rio Tinto, Mr. Want, a former safety and operations executive at British Airways PLC, uses the IOSA-certification list to help compile his own list of airlines approved for company travel. Rio Tinto's list, which currently has 213 approved airlines, is updated monthly. Rio Tinto uses a second list of 30 airlines that can be booked only with Mr. Want's approval. (The lists are available only to Rio Tinto employees.) "We do that because it's best to keep a very close eye on them," he said of his second list. For travelers, safety experts like Mr. Voss and Mr. Want suggest the best advice is to check the IATA registry and make sure any airline you book has passed an audit. After that, check to see if the airline is part of an international alliance, Mr. Voss says. Being part of an alliance gives you some assurance that the carrier is stable and respected. Also check the FAA and the European blacklist. "If it's on the blacklist, obviously there's a problem," Mr. Voss said. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704240504574585861795181646.ht ml ************** Alaska Air Completes Safety Audit Alaska Airlines has successfully completed the International Air Transport Association (IATA) Operational Safety Audit (IOSA) and has been renewed on the IOSA Registry. The airline has been on the registry since 2006. The IOSA Registry is a key element of IATA's efforts to promote global airline operational safety. To achieve IOSA Registration, Alaska Airlines satisfied more than 900 standards in eight operational areas, including flight operations, operational control, flight dispatch, aircraft engineering and maintenance, cabin operations, aircraft ground handling, cargo operations and operational security. The IOSA program contributes to improved aviation safety worldwide in a cost-effective manner by establishing a universally accepted set of safety audit standards and reducing the airline industry's reliance on redundant audits with varying standards. Preparing for or completing IOSA Registration is a condition of membership in the IATA, which represents more than 94 percent of international airline passenger traffic. http://www.aviationtoday.com/asw/topstories/Alaska-Air-Completes-Safety-Audi t_64064.html *************** Ghana: Country Air Safety Rating Attracts New Airlines Ten more airlines are expected to begin operations in the country before the end of the year, made up of five foreign operators and five domestic companies, the Ghana Civil Aviation Authority (GCAA) has hinted. This development is propelled largely due to the country's safety airspace regulations, and the developments of civil aviation, which investors and airline operators find most attractive and conducive for business. Airlines set to commence operations next year include the United Airlines of the USA, which intends to start operations to Ghana in May 2010. Virgin Atlantic would also commence its Heathrow-Accra route in the summer of 2010. Delta Airlines also intends to open a new route between Accra and Atlanta, USA, in the first quarter of next year, together with Atlantic Eagle, which has also expressed an interest for inter-continental operations from the country. On the domestic front, Air Ghana, Gian Air and BF jet are undergoing certification to start executive charter operations, while Fly 540 and Star jet are also going through certification processes to commence both domestic and regional operations. All of these developments in the civil aviation authority, according to the Director General of the Ghana Civil Aviation Authority, Air Cdr Kwame Mamphey, would go a long way to strengthen the economic fortunes of the country, and improve tourism revenues. Speaking to The Chronicle shortly after a flagraising ceremony to mark the International Civil Aviation Organisation Day in Accra last Monday, Air Cdr Kwame Mamphey hinted that that beyond further decoupling of the aviation authority to fall in line with international aviation standards, his out fit had designed programmes to encourage general aviation and recreational flying in the country. He further said that the United States Trade and Development Agency granted Ghana $295,000 for a visibility study for the construction of a new Air Traffic Control Center. The studies would lead to the re-equipment and infrastructure upgrading of the Air Traffic Control Services Unit of the Ghana Civil Aviation Authority, and has been awarded to Robinson Aviation which is expected to commence work in January. On the short term strategic plan of the Authority, he said, "what is now on our minds is the further decoupling of the Air Traffic Control Services." He hinted that the GCAA had presented a post-decoupling report to the government, and was expecting a white paper on it soon, to give the authority further direction. He noted that the aviation authority was moving from ground-based navigation to satellite based systems, based on the global positioning systems. http://allafrica.com/stories/200912100631.html ************** ACSF Publishes Charter Safety Review Air Charter Safety Foundation December 10, 2009, Alexandria, VA - The Air Charter Safety Foundation (ACSF) has released its first safety review of the Part 135 on-demand air charter industry. The Part 135 Incident/Accident Review is a comprehensive look at the factors surrounding charter incidents and accidents between 2004 and 2008. In conducting the review, the ACSF analyzed each Part 135 on-demand event reported in the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) database and identified non-revenue flights flown under Part 91 that were under the control of a certificate holder. These include maintenance, ferry, positioning and instructional flights among others. Events on Part 91 flights under the operational control of an aircraft owner were not included. Several interesting data-points emerged in the review: • Approximately 65% of all revenue flight accidents, and 62% of non-revenue, occurred in visual meteorological conditions (VMC). • Non-revenue (i.e. Part 91) fatal accidents accounted for 28% of all non-revenue accidents while 25% of all revenue flights were fatal accidents. • Revenue accident flights involving transportation to/from oil rigs represent, on average for the five year period, 18% of all accidents. The ACSF refrains from drawing specific conclusions about these figures as the means to place them into proper context is dependent upon an accurate reporting of flight hours in each category. Such data is not collected by either the FAA or NTSB. "ACSF believes that our study provides an insight into the areas of our industry that deserve deeper evaluation to identify where higher risks actually lie. Without better data on how many hours are flown by aircraft type and mission both government and industry are unable to make informed choices regarding interventions," explained ACSF executive director Jacqueline Rosser. For example, during the five year period examined, cargo flights accounted for 112 accidents and there were 128 passenger flight accidents. Without having accurate flight hours for each type of mission, it is impossible to determine whether these accidents represent a frequency proportional or disproportional to their actual exposure. Commenting on the inclusion of non-revenue flights in the review, Rosser explained, "Early on we made the decision to include Part 91 flights that were under the certificate holder's control. ACSF members have stated that the safety impact and risks for these flights are not well known within the industry. The charter operator is just as responsible for the safety of these flights as for those operated for-hire. It is imperative that we better understand the frequency and severity of these types of accidents so that we can endeavor improve operational safety overall, not just when passengers or cargo are on-board." The Part 135 Incident/Accident Review will be updated annually as new information becomes available. Copies of the report are being delivered to every ACSF member. Non-members may order a copy of the publication for $25. Call ACSF at 888-723-3135 to place an order. http://www.amtonline.com/article/article.jsp?siteSection=1&id=9959&pageNum=2 *************** Spirit names former WestJet EVP COO Spirit Airlines has hired former WestJet executive Ken McKenzie as its COO, while Chris Grazel has been appointed vice president of flight operations for the low-cost carrier. McKenzie most recently was executive vice president of operations at WestJet. Before joining the Canadian low cost carrier, he was chief pilot and in regulatory affairs at Air Canada regional partner Jazz. Grazel joins Spirit from now-defunct Skybus Airlines, where he was vice president of operations. Grazel previously served as chief pilot at Skybus, where he was one of the founding employees. Before joining that startup, Grazel was assistant chief pilot at US Airways. He also held several other pilot positions during his 19-year career at the legacy carrier. Source: Air Transport Intelligence news *************** EASA orders check of Airbus ram air turbines The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) has mandated that operators of a large variety of Airbus aircraft fitted with Hamilton Sundstrand ram air turbines (RATs) perform inspections and part replacement on the backup devices. The action comes after Hamilton Sundstrand, a subsidiary of United Technologies, reported a failure during a wind tunnel test of a balance weight fastening screw on a RAT turbine cover, according to an EASA airworthiness directive issued today. "After investigation, it has been discovered that a batch of screws, which are used to attach the balance washers of the Hamilton Sundstrand RAT turbine assembly, have not been subject to the correct heat treatment and are consequently exposed to potential fracture," EASA states. If the screws fracture and release the balance weights, EASA says the RAT vibrations can increase and possibly cause "detachment of RAT parts and consequent loss of RAT functionality". In the worst case, the problem could leave pilots with no control over an aircraft if all engines were to flame out, says EASA. Airbus uses RATs to power the aircraft's essential systems in the absence of engine power. The directive, which becomes effective on 24 December, applies to the A300-600, A310, A320, A330 and A340 families of aircraft. Operators must identify the suspect RAT turbine assemblies and replace defective parts at the next RAT spin test or within a specified number of flight hours or months, whichever comes first. Source: Air Transport Intelligence news ************** Curt Lewis, P.E., CSP CURT LEWIS & ASSOCIATES, LLC