08 JAN 2010 _________________________________________ *FAA Faults Jet Makers on Data Recorders *FAA blasts plane-makers seeking to delay flight-recorder changes *AA331 crash probe rules out mechanical failure *Airlines open crash museums *US Airways explains fuel stops on Charlotte-Honolulu flights ***************************************** FAA Faults Jet Makers on Data Recorders By ANDY PASZTOR Federal aviation regulators criticized commercial-jet makers Thursday for resisting "any concerted effort" to upgrade onboard flight-data and cockpit-voice recorders on the latest models coming off assembly lines. The Federal Aviation Administration said it was "seriously disappointed" with what it contends has been 19 months of industry foot-dragging in implementing the safety enhancements. On Thursday, the FAA announced it was reluctantly proposing to extend the timetable for installing enhanced recorder equipment on newly manufactured planes after manufacturers complained they wouldn't be able to comply with previous deadlines. Plane makers are required to install more-robust recorders with independent power supplies, enhanced data-collection capabilities, systems for longer-duration voice recordings and other added features, all designed to make it easier for investigators to determine the probable causes of accidents and incidents. Over the years, crash investigators have been stymied by power failures and the limited capabilities of many older voice and data recorders. By retrieving detailed readouts from onboard safety hardware, investigators are more likely to come up with probable causes in future accidents and dangerous incidents. The National Transportation Safety Board, an independent federal safety watchdog, years ago urged such improvements. The FAA responded in the spring of 2008 by adopting a package of mandatory upgrades, some slated to go into effect as early as April 2010. But since those rules were first published, Boeing Co. and European manufacturer Airbus have asked the FAA to stretch out the deadlines, in some cases by two years. Regional-jet makers Bombardier Inc. of Canada and Brazil's Embraer Empresa Brasileira de Aeronaurica SA, as well as smaller business-jet and general-aviation plane makers, have also requested what amounts to extensions. The manufacturers have argued, among other things, that they can't finish the required design work and install the upgraded systems in time to meet existing deadlines. In its latest regulatory filing, published Thursday in the Federal Register, the FAA said that Boeing had argued that its widebody 777 models need extra time to comply because of their complex automation systems. A delay would allow Boeing to coordinate more closely with both U.S. and European regulations. Airbus cited some of the same problems with the current deadlines. And the General Aviation Manufacturers Association told the FAA that "supplier and company resources necessary to make these changes have been significantly diminished by the faltering economy." The FAA dismissed the industry claims as little more than sham arguments to put off the safety upgrades. The agency said the largest commercial-aircraft manufacturers around the globe had made a decision "some time ago" not to comply, but only presented their claims much later in the process. According to the FAA's latest document, some of the industry requests for delay use "the same justifications" and identical language. According to the agency, none of the requests indicate that manufacturers "had properly planned for regulatory compliance." Contending that the industry's actions have put regulators "in an untenable position," the FAA is now proposing to extend certain deadlines until the end of this year and others until April 2012. But the FAA said industry requests for delays "are not valid evidence that the industry is unable to comply, only that it has chosen not to." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126289564864520231.html?mod=WSJ_WSJ_US_News_ 5 ***************** FAA blasts plane-makers seeking to delay flight-recorder changes The Federal Aviation Administration Thursday lashed out at plane makers and airlines for dragging their feet on changes to flight recorders. "The FAA is seriously disappointed with the manufacturers and other facets of the industry," the regulator said in a notice published Thursday. Nonetheless, the agency has proposed extending deadlines for including mandated changes in new aircraft. The FAA first proposed the new requirements for upgrading aircraft digital flight data and cockpit voice recorders five years ago, based on recommendations from the National Transportation Safety Board. Two years ago, the FAA issued a final rule adopting the proposals, with many set to take effect on April 7, 2010. Of the 53 parties who responded to the proposed rule, just three included any comment about the proposed effective and compliance dates, and one of those, from the NTSB, said the FAA was taking too long to require the recording of datalink communications, the FAA noted Thursday. Then, in May 2009, the FAA began to receive requests for relief from the rules that would take effect in 2010. On May 1, 2009, Boeing petitioned the FAA on behalf of carriers that would be taking delivery of new Boeing 777 airplanes between the April 7, 2010, effective date of the rules and Dec. 21, 2013, seeking exemption from datalink communications recording requirements and certain digital flight data recorder changes. "(D)ue to the complexity and high level of integration of the underlying avionics systems, Boeing has determined that type certificate design changes, certification and implementation in production are not feasible" for the 777 by April 7, 2010, Boeing said, according to the FAA. Boeing followed that up with a July 16, 2009 petition for an exemption from datalink communications recording requirements, increased flight data recorder sampling rates and an independent cockpit voice recorder power source on behalf of operators of all Boeing commercial aircraft made between April 7, 2010 and April 7, 2011. "Boeing stated that if relief is not granted, it will be unable to offer even the current level of (datalink communications) capability," the FAA noted. On June 11, 2009, Airbus petitioned the FAA on behalf of the operators of 15 Airbus airplanes to be made between April 7, 2010, and December 31, 2011, to operate without datalink communications recording capability. "Airbus cited the same justifications for its position as Boeing, some in identical language," the FAA noted. Bombardier, Gulfstream, Dassault Aviation, Embraer, the General Aviation Manufacturers Association, the Aerospace Industries Association and the Air Transport Association of America also asked for exemptions, rule changes or delays in implementation last year, the FAA noted. In a joint petition, the Aerospace Industries Association and the Air Transport Association of America said failure to change the regulations would result in a "one- to two-year halt in the deliveries of numerous new aircraft due to production issues" and a "one- to four-year suspension of datalink installations on new and in-service aircraft," the FAA noted. The FAA accused the plane makers Thursday of not really trying to meet the deadline. "The identicality and scope of the various petitions appears as a decision by industry not to comply with the April 2010 date, a decision that was made some time ago," it said. "Most glaringly, in none of the petitions do the airframe manufacturers indicate that they had properly planned for regulatory compliance and are petitioning now because they are unable to obtain timely delivery of the necessary equipment. Nor is there any evidence that the airframe manufacturers have pressed the suppliers for timely delivery of either design modifications or equipment. None of the petitions addresses the clear failure to plan for and implement a regulatory requirement that was first proposed in 2005." None of the petitions gave any indication of what, if any, efforts companies made in the 13 months between the publication of the final rule and the the first petition, the FAA said. "Nor is there any indication by the petitioners that they have accelerated any effort to comply in the time since they petitioned. It appears they have chosen to use that time to seek a change to the rule and to rely on the consequences of their inaction falling on the FAA. In at least one instance, it is clear that the manufacturer simply decided to stay with its original timing for a planned upgrade even though it is well after the compliance time mandated in the 2008 final rule." The requests would require granting exemptions individually for each of more than 400 airplanes and then follow up to ensure expensive and time consuming retrofits, the FAA said. "The FAA is unable to conclude from the information presented in the petitions that another two to three years is necessary to incorporate the changes in newly manufactured aircraft." The FAA denied all of the petitions, but proposed extending certain compliance dates to Dec. 6, 2010, or April 6, 2012, noting: "the parties that will suffer the effect of these failures are the purchasers of new airplanes." "These proposed changes to the compliance date are the only ones the FAA found to be potentially justified by the petitions submitted," it said. "If adopted, which is by no means certain, they would provide an additional eight months to two years to accomplish what should have been in the planning and implementation phases for the 19 months preceding this action." Manufacturers and operators who want more of a delay should provide "specific, realistic examples of equipment availability" that "include detailed information describing the reason for the lack of equipment availability, other options that have been considered and the efforts that have been taken to achieve compliance," the FAA said. "Generalized statements, such as the ones presented in the petitions, are not valid evidence that the industry is unable to comply, only that it has chosen not to." Boeing spokeswoman Liz Verdier and Airbus spokeswoman Mary Anne Greczyn declined to comment on the FAA's notice Thursday. http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/archives/190385.asp?from=blog_last3 ****************** AA331 crash probe rules out mechanical failure PRELIMINARY investigations have, for now, ruled out mechanical failure as a contributing factor to the December 22 crash of American Airlines flight 331 at the Norman Manley International Airport in Kingston. However, aviation technocrats are steering clear of pointing fingers at other possibilities, such as pilot error or problems associated with the airport's facility. "To this point in the investigation, no mechanical problems have been found with any aspect of the aircraft," Transport Minister Mike Henry said at yesterday's post-Cabinet press briefing at Jamaica House in Kingston. However, he confirmed that the pilots of the Boeing 737-800 were advised against landing on Runway 12. A total of 92 of the 154 persons on board AA flight 331 were injured when the aircraft overshot the runway in driving rain after 10:00 pm, busted through a perimeter fence, crossed the Port Royal road and ended up on the beach across from the airport. The aircraft broke into three. According to Henry, the crew had contacted the Jamaica Air Traffic Control to request the Instrument Landing System approach for Runway 12, the designated runway broadcasted by the Automatic Terminal Information Service for arrivals that night. They were, however, advised of tailwind conditions on Runway 12 and offered a circling approach (or missed approach) for landing on Runway 30. "The crew repeated their request for Runway 12 and were subsequently cleared to land on that runway with the controller further advising the crew that the runway was wet," Henry said. Henry said the pilots reported that after descending through the cloud cover they made visual contact with the runway at between 1,000 feet and 700 feet above ground level. The Flight Data Recorder (FDR) recorded that the aircraft was travelling at the Vref (landing) airspeed of 148 knots, with ground speed of 162 knots, ie with a tailwind component of 14 knots, when the wheels made initial contact at about 4,000 feet down the 8,900 foot runway. American Airlines operations manual indicates that the maximum permitted tailwind for landing Boeing 737s is 15 knots. "The FDR further indicated that the aircraft bounced once, then settled onto the runway," Henry said, adding that during the landing rollout the aircraft veered to the left of centreline and departed the end of the runway at a ground speed of 63 knots. "The FDR did not indicate any anomalies or malfunctions with the operation of the brakes, spoilers or thrust reversers," Henry said, adding that it also indicated that the rate of deceleration appeared normal for a wet runway. The flight plan designated Grand Cayman as the alternate airport for landing and the report indicated the aircraft had sufficient fuel to reach that destination. Meanwhile, lead Jamaica Civil Aviation Authority (JCAA) investigator, Inspector Raleigh Bickford, said the decision on which runway to use rests with the pilot. Pressed on how the pilot could have ended up landing 4,000 feet down the runway without recognising there was a problem, Bickford said this is expected to be the subject of a great degree of focus. "So far there are no indications regarding the pilot or co-pilot having any concerns about the approach," Bickford said. "Seems like it was just a normal everyday approach with no particular alarming factors." He also said that the NMIA runway will be examined with special equipment to determine what role if any the wetness of the surface may have played. Bickford also would not reveal what the FDR and the cockpit voice recorders have revealed so far, noting that there are limitations on what information can be released. http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/AA331-crash-probe-jan-1--2010_7308074 ****************** Airlines open crash museums The wreckage of a Japan Airlines (JAL) Boeing 747 that crashed in 1985 on display at the Japan Airlines Safety Promotion Centre in Tokyo. (AFP: Roland de Courson) As attractions go they are not exactly uplifting experiences, but Japan's two major airlines have opened museums to commemorate their worst air crashes. Some of the videos on show are confronting and upsetting, filled with images of mangled wreckage and people grieving over plywood coffins. They brought one woman visitor to tears. But the exhibits at the All Nippon Airways (ANA) Crash Museum are not meant to shock but rather to help save lives. "The purpose of this place is to make all ANA employees and the general public understand the importance of air safety," museum curator Nuburo Osano says. "We have to learn from the serious accidents from the past to ensure similar disasters don't happen in the future." ANA has had its fair share of air disasters, and at the museum visitors can see the results for themselves. It displays torn fuselages, mangled seats, even copies of letters scrawled in air sickness bags by doomed passengers. The museum is not a place for those with a fear of flying. The wreckage all comes from an ANA jet that crashed in 1971, with the loss of 162 lives. Japan Airlines (JAL), the country's largest carrier, has also dedicated a museum to the world's worst air disaster involving a single plane. Visitors can see torn pieces of fuselage as well as the pens, glasses and other personal effects of passengers of JAL Flight 123, which crashed into a mountain north-west of Tokyo in 1985, killing 520 people. Meanwhile, ANA staff are required to make a mandatory visit to their airline's museum. Mr Osano says it is designed to show staff the impact of human error, which is the cause of 55 per cent of all air disasters. "When staff come here they feel great shock," Mr Osano said. "They look at the body of the plane that actually crashed. "They've heard about safety in words, but here they can understand it in their heart by actually looking at the wreckage." ANA and JAL are regarded as two of the world's safest carriers. They are hoping the unique and confronting crash museums will help keep it that way. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/07/2787282.htm?section=world **************** US Airways explains fuel stops on Charlotte-Honolulu flights Despite the need for occasional fuel stops on its recently-minted Charlotte-Honolulu flights, US Airways still maintains its Airbus A330s have too many seats for the market, and believes the Boeing 767 is right aircraft for the route. The carrier launched the route on 16 December, and a fuel stop on the inaugural 767 flight was necessary due to headwinds reaching near maximum levels, says US Airways in its regular employee update. "With loads heavy, we opted to make a fuel stop at Los Angeles or Phoenix and carry a full load of passengers and cargo rather than fly a partial load non-stop," the carrier explains. On 18 December severe weather forced a large number of cancellations in Charlotte, which triggered numerous customers remaining at the airport due to misconnects. "We again opted for a fuel stop rather than denying passengers boarding when conditions required," the airline says. The carrier stresses: "In all but the most extreme circumstances the flight will operate non-stop with a full passenger, bag and cargo load." US Airways believes the A330s are better suited for European markets "where we can satisfy the greater demand for higher fares". Source: Air Transport Intelligence news *************** Curt Lewis, P.E., CSP CURT LEWIS & ASSOCIATES, LLC