Flight Safety Information August 20, 2010 - No. 169 In This Issue FAA set To Levy Fine on Airline PMA Conference Examines Safety Management Mechanisms... 'Fatigue' crack blamed for hole on Southwest jet in 2009 Claims over 2005 jet crash near Colo. city settled Airlines And Regional Air Carriers To Be Audited By OIG For Safety Pakistan Air Crash Blamed on Poor Visibilty, Pilot Error NTSB: No mechanical malfunctions found on Roush aircraft... FSI Advertising Help with SMS ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ FAA set To Levy Fine on Airline By ANDY PASZTOR Federal regulators are ready to propose a record penalty of $25 million or more against American Airlines for maintenance lapses that prompted widespread flight cancellations in the spring of 2008, said people familiar with the matter. The decision would come after more than two years of bad blood between the airline and regulators. It would cap months of internal government debate and extensive efforts by American to enhance its maintenance procedures and take other steps to head off such a penalty. High-level Federal Aviation Administration officials, these people said, seem determined to seek a civil penalty against American that could be nearly three times as large as any ever levied against a U.S. airline. The penalty appears intended to send a signal about the FAA's demand for strict maintenance compliance by airlines. No final decision has been made, American hasn't been officially informed about a punishment and last-minute changes could alter the amount. But since 2008 various outside experts have told American, a unit of AMR Corp., the FAA was bound to act. FAA lawyers and headquarters officials "definitely are focused on numbers in the ballpark of $25 million and up," said one industry official close to the talks, adding that an announcement is likely in the next few weeks. Other government and industry officials have said the total could be closer to $30 million. Some FAA managers initially considered a penalty of as much as $100 million, but that was rejected by senior FAA officials. American is likely to challenge the size of the penalty and, as with most other airlines in the past, attempt to negotiate a settlement for a lower amount. An FAA spokeswoman said "we can't comment on open enforcement cases." A spokesman for American, based in Fort Worth, Texas, said, "We haven't received any notification by the FAA about any pending action, nor do we believe any action is warranted." The statement added the company "has always maintained its aircraft to the highest standards." The anticipated penalty stems from improperly fixed electrical wiring around landing gear that prompted American to temporarily ground its entire fleet of 300 McDonnell Douglas MD-80 jets for several days in early April 2008, until it satisfied FAA safety mandates. Agency inspectors subsequently determined that more than 280 of the jets hadn't been in strict compliance, according to people familiar with the details, and that they had made a total of around 15,000 flights before all issues were corrected. Each flight may be considered a separate violation. In theory, the FAA can impose a $25,000 penalty for each violation, though typically that formula isn't rigidly applied. The wiring controversy created a furor among passengers and lawmakers because American, under pressure from the FAA, canceled thousands of flights. FAA officials publicly faulted the carrier for sloppy maintenance, with some arguing it could have led to fires or even fuel-tank explosions. American countered that the lapses were minor and didn't pose any risk to passengers. The airline has consistently maintained that the FAA overreacted. Still, American brought in consultants to help revamp quality controls over repairs, provided additional training for mechanics and brought in new senior maintenance and engineering officials. Airline Allegations Among the largest proposed FAA penalties for carriers: February 2010: $2.9 million against American Eagle for operating with allegedly improperly repaired landing-gear doors February 2010: $2.5 million against American Eagle for allegedly using incorrect takeoff weights on flights October 2009: $3.8 million against United for operating a Boeing 737 using towels, instead of protective caps, to prevent engine-oil leaks October 2009: $5.4 million against US Airways for operating aircraft that allegedly violated maintenance directives August 2008: $7.1 million against American for allegedly deferring maintenance and violating drug-testing rules March 2008: $10.2 million against Southwest for knowingly operating aircraft without performing mandatory structural inspections Source: FAA American has argued that the quality of its maintenance, performed by its own mechanics, exceeds work other carriers generally outsource to independent facilities, many of them abroad. But the FAA greatly stepped up scrutiny and enforcement against American, involving issues from improperly overhauled Boeing 777 engine parts to defective pressure bulkheads on several aging MD-80 jets to fuselage scratches on some Boeing 737s that allegedly weren't reported promptly to the FAA. The clashes between the airline and agency became so pronounced that in one instance, American managers took the unusual step of ordering an FAA inspector off company property. FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt months ago even raised the issue of American's cooperation directly with American's chairman, Gerard Arpey, according to several people familiar with the meeting. In recent months, however, relations have improved as both sides tried to find a middle ground. With other enforcement cases pending, American could try to negotiate a settlement that would cover the 2008 wiring issues and other alleged lapses. That would take many months, and FAA officials may be unwilling to support the approach. The largest penalty ever imposed by the FAA was the $9.5 million Eastern Airlines agreed to pay in 1987 for nearly 72,000 alleged violations, including improperly deferred maintenance. Eastern went bankrupt before it paid most of that amount. In March 2008, the FAA proposed a $10.2 million penalty against Southwest Airlines for knowingly operating 46 Boeing 737s on 1,400 flights without performing mandatory structural inspections. The carrier negotiated and agreed to pay $7.5 million. American's tussles with the FAA have turned out to last longer and be more difficult. When the MD-80 wiring issues first popped up, American repeatedly assured agency inspectors the problems had been fixed. FAA managers lost faith in such assurances after spot inspections days later still revealed improperly repaired wiring on numerous aircraft. In late 2008, a blue-ribbon panel that examined the MD-80 wiring issues at the request of then-Transportation Secretary Mary Peters found that mistakes were made by both FAA and American managers. The panel faulted the FAA, though, for allowing huge variations in enforcement practices among local offices. The group also concluded that the FAA office directly in charge of Southwest oversight "was dysfunctional." The final report submitted by these experts determined that some FAA maintenance directives were confusing, and it dinged the agency for using "an uncommonly literal interpretation" that effectively forced American to temporarily ground aircraft. FAA chief Babbitt, who was then an industry consultant, was one of the group's members. Some FAA inspectors and managers have maintained that a rigid, by-the-book enforcement approach was necessary because American in the past generally wasn't forthcoming with timely information about potential safety hazards. In April 2009, FAA inspectors launched a special safety audit of American but didn't find any major systemic shortcomings, according to people familiar with the details. In recent months, FAA and American officials have clashed less and both sides agree the relationship has markedly improved. http://online.wsj.com/ [http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1103628892606&s=6053&e=001cO_3ikqPHVSyPMmf999jhoNi1xFhp5UL4Srei-Y2Up56xeJ_fFp8uF8RP0aBD9CedaeWz3f70Er1otb0vT32A1nMHyN5xvz6RlriZUg5pAjHjfcWQGJijQ==] Back to Top ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ PMA Conference Examines Safety Management Mechanisms Special Workshop Planned On Practical Implementation Of New Law Earlier this month, the President signed into law the Airline Safety and FAA Extension Act. A key element of this new law is a requirement for the FAA to publish a new law requiring Safety Management Systems (SMS) by 2012. The Modification and Replacement Parts Association (MARPA) announced Monday that its 2010 conference will feature a special workshop on practical implementation of Safety Management, as well as general session presentations on Safety Management Systems (SMS). A Safety Management System (SMS) is the formal process of using System Safety practices in an organization's everyday activities to control risk. It is like a quality assurance system that uses risk-based analysis to looks forward, predicts future needs, and permits a company to commit resources today to address the industry's future safety needs. SMS is an approach that can be used throughout the aviation industry to meet System Safety standards set by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). This year's MARPA Conference will feature several speakers addressing SMS concepts and implementation mechanisms. As a special bonus, though, John Hunter (Chairman of the MARPA Continued Operational Safety (COS) Committee) will present a workshop that will analyze case studies of how companies have used the MARPA COS standard to establish a SMS with positive safety benefits. MARPA is the non-profit trade association that represents the aircraft parts manufacturing industry (PMA parts manufacturers). MARPA works closely with the FAA to help develop safety standards and tools that enable manufacturers to meet those safety standards. In addition to the Annual Conference focus on SMS, MARPA also serves on the FAA's Aviation Rulemaking Committee for SMS and has published a COS standard that is available for free to any PMA company. The MARPA Annual Conference will take place October 27-29, 2010 at the Law Vegas Renaissance Hotel. FMI: www.pmaparts.org/conference Back to Top ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 'Fatigue' crack blamed for hole on Southwest jet in 2009 A football-size hole that opened up on a Southwest Airlinesjet in the summer of 2009 was apparently the result of a fatigue crack nearly 14 inches long. The National Transportation Safety Board , in a "findings report" on the incident, said the crack had been growing under the aluminum skin of the Boeing737 aircraft before the hole opened during the flight from Nashville, Tenn., to Baltimore on July 13, 2009. The hole depressurized the main cabin and forced the plane to make an emergency landing in Charleston, W.Va. No one was injured. The report didn't conclude how the crack started or why it suddenly opened. It said that a technical service bulletin issued by Boeing and a subsequent airworthiness directive issued by the Federal Aviation Administrationboth recommended more frequent inspections of the area covered in the incident. The NTSB report also didn't say whether subsequent inspections by either the regulator or Southwest revealed other aircraft with the same problem. The aircraft in question had been in service with Southwest since 1994, accumulating 50,500 hours of service. Dallas-based Southwest said in a posting on its blog that it's learned from the incident and has taken more maintenance precautions. "We've taken aggressive measures to incorporate additional maintenance inspections, additive to existing programs, in response to what was learned from Flight 2294," Southwest said in its posting. "Immediately after the accident, we increased our ongoing maintenance inspections in the impacted area to include recurring detailed visual inspections and nondestructive tests - with a goal to not only meet but exceed known safety standards." Southwest spokeswoman Brandy King said the airline didn't have anything to add beyond its posted statement. The carrier, the largest low-cost airline, has had run-ins with regulators in the past three years and paid $7.5 million in fines in 2009 for flying planes without required inspections. It reached an agreement with the FAA in September related to parts for some of its 737s that didn't meet FAA standards. http://www.dallasnews.com/ [http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1103628892606&s=6053&e=001cO_3ikqPHVQ5XM4mscZ6mdMrpPfTl16pB8yByDOepWjXUEUx9koOciBv46E0jEaAffBSmFs_dtpDWFKlsk87YbgiFEHxosIDrfGNH2fpDiBKTimf0eEe7w==] Back to Top ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Claims over 2005 jet crash near Colo. city settled DENVER (AP) - Court records say family members who sued over a fatal Colorado crash of a jet owned by Circuit City Stores Inc. have reached settlements of their lawsuits. A document filed Thursday in federal court in Denver didn't disclose terms. The crash in February 2005 killed the jet's two pilots and six passengers. The National Transportation Safety Board ruled the pilots were dealing with ice on the wings and a runway change as they approached the Pueblo airport and didn't notice the plane had slowed to an unsafe speed. Some of the victims' survivors sued Cessna Aircraft Co., federal government agencies, and Martinair Inc., alleging they also were partly to blame. The defendants disputed the claims. Back to Top ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Airlines And Regional Air Carriers To Be Audited By OIG For Safety August 20, 2010 - The Office of Inspector General (OIG) plans to audit domestic code share agreements between mainline and regional air carriers. These agreements allow mainline and regional carriers to coordinate their flight schedules so that the regional carriers marketed under the name of the mainline carrier can provide passengers with connections from cities that cannot support major airline jet service to larger hub cities served by major air carriers. As code share agreements become a more integral part of the aviation system, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Department of Transportation (DOT) have made it a top priority to ensure the safety of passengers who depend on those flights. OIG will be conducting this audit at the request of the Chairmen of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Subcommittee on Aviation.The audit objectives will be (1) examine DOT and FAA legal authority to review agreements between mainline air carriers and their regional partners, (2) assess policies and procedures between mainline air carriers and their regional partners to ensure one level of safety, and (3) determine whether passengers have adequate information to make informed decisions when purchasing an airline ticket. February 2009, Colgan Air Flight 3407 was operating as a Continental flight under a code share agreement crashed killing all 49 onboard a Bombardier Dash 8-Q400. The NTSB ruled that the pilots lacked the required skills and Colgan Air failed to provide adequate training. There have been several accidents in the past in which the NTSB investigators reported pilot error due lack of training provided by the regional carriers and the pilots lacked sufficient flight time. (See NTSB Symposium Airline Code Sharing It's Role On Aviation Safety). On August 1st Congress passed the Airline Safety And Pilot Training Improvement Act in order to improved pilot training and screening. There are more than 13,000 regional airline flights every day and approximately 160 million passengers travelling on regional aircraft each year. Regional air carriers use smaller aircraft to connect cities that cannot support major airline jet service to larger hub cities served by major air carriers. To do so, the mainline and regional carrier create a joint marketing agreement, known as code sharing, which allows them to coordinate flight schedules in order to interchange passengers. Under these agreements, the mainline carrier allows the regional airline to (1) use the mainline carrier's reservation system and flight designator code to identify flights and fares in computer reservation systems; (2) utilize the mainline carrier's paint scheme, logos, service marks, and uniforms and (3) participate in joint promotion and advertising. As a result, passengers receive lower fares and more seamless travel, regional carriers benefit from the recognition connected to the mainline carrier selling the tickets, and mainline carriers gain access to additional and smaller aircraft with no ownership stake for bringing passengers to their hub. Given these benefits, airlines are increasingly using code share agreements. As these agreements become a more integral part of the aviation system, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Department of Transportation (DOT) have made it a top priority to ensure the safety of passengers who depend on those flights. This is particularly critical given that seven of the last nine domestic, commercial airline crashes have involved regional air carriers flying under code share agreements. On February 3, 2010, James L. Oberstar, Chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and Jerry F. Costello, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation, requested that we review domestic code share relationships. OIG will begin the audit later this month and the audit will include visits to FAA Headquarters and regional offices as well as Flight Standards Service field offices. http://avstop.com/ [http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1103628892606&s=6053&e=001cO_3ikqPHVTX4XN5Fh9b41dSj0BRNlHc3HwsZTCXKaCDFfcD83_WcGTyJw3rUJBkSAYdMSgnwa_fY5e4aME5Z-r6M9CkCS4--v2Pd7hi3XY=] Back to Top [http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1103628892606&s=6053&e=001cO_3ikqPHVQOL44Fxspncwz34NLxdrLe7Z6zxfU0rJgvTn2E7SmJDn5TYYQdDvvrtqsqKHxfMW6b5tc8zQ9OO9Za46Vr93-b] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Pakistan Air Crash Blamed on Poor Visibilty, Pilot Error By ANDY PASZTOR An international team of safety experts believes poor visibility and pilot navigation slipups likely caused last month's crash of a Pakistani airliner that killed 152 people on approach to Islamabad, aviation-industry officials said. The Airbus A321 operated by Airblue Ltd. was en route from Karachi when it flew into heavily forested hills as it was circling to land at the Islamabad airport in fog and rain. Preliminary information retrieved from the plane's flight-data recorder, according to officials familiar with the details, indicates that its engines, flight-control systems and other onboard equipment operated normally before impact. Readouts of the recovered "black box," these officials said, also indicate that the cockpit crew at the last moment may have realized the jetliner was on a collision course with the slope and apparently tried to climb out of danger. The plane impacted near a ridge of the Margalla Hills. Early reports indicated that many flights into Islamabad had been cancelled or diverted that morning due to poor visibility, but some eyewitnesses said the weather improved somewhat before the Airblue plane's approach. It was the second crash of a Pakistani airliner in four years, prompting renewed concerns about the country's aviation safety amid rapid airline industry expansion. Started in 2004 by Pakistani businessman and politician Shahid Khaqan Abbasi, Airblue has quickly grown into the nation's No. 2 carrier behind state-owned Pakistani International Airlines Corp. While the Islamabad probe is far from finished and no determination s have been made, Airbus last week gave the strongest signal yet that it essentially has ruled out aircraft malfunction as a probable cause of the crash In a message to all A321 operators around the world, said a person familiar with the details, Airbus said information uncovered so far about the Islamabad accident provides "no basis for any recommendations" related to airplane systems or performance. Among aviation-safety experts, such a message is tantamount to saying investigators strongly believe mistakes by the cockpit crew, rather than any airplane malfunctions, most likely were responsible for the crash. The message was cleared by Pakistani investigators, further indicating that the team of international experts agrees that the accident didn't stem from any airplane problems. A spokesman for Airbus, a unit of European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co., said the company is working with Airblue and the investigating authorities, but gave no further details. A spokesman for Airblue said the investigation "is still not completed, so we cannot say anything at the moment about the causes." In another sign that investigators are focusing on navigational errors, one safety expert said the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board opted against sending a team to Pakistan once engine issues effectively were ruled out as possible primary or contributing causes. Nevertheless, the board is participating in the investigation from its offices in Washington. A Pakistani International Airlines jet crashed in June 2006 after taking off from the city of Multan, killing all 45 people on board. Following the crash, the European Union partially banned Pakistani International Airlines from EU airspace, but the ban was lifted in 2007 after the carrier made safety improvements. http://online.wsj.com/ [http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1103628892606&s=6053&e=001cO_3ikqPHVSyPMmf999jhoNi1xFhp5UL4Srei-Y2Up56xeJ_fFp8uF8RP0aBD9CedaeWz3f70Er1otb0vT32A1nMHyN5xvz6RlriZUg5pAjHjfcWQGJijQ==] Back to Top ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ NTSB: No mechanical malfunctions found on Roush aircraft A preliminary report from the National Transportation Safety Board found no mechanical problems with the Hawker Beechcraft model 390 business jet NACAR team owner Jack Roush crashed as he landed at Wittman Regional Airport July 27. Roush was flying westbound north of the airport when he turned south to make his approach to land at Runway 18R at 6:16 p.m. July 27. Spectator videos that NTSB investigators reviewed show Roush overshot the runway centerline during his turn and then attempted to correct his approach. The report says the airplane banked slightly right and the airplane's nose pitched up, then turned left toward the runway and descended to land. The report indicates the airplane's pitch increased more as he landed. The jet entered a right bank and struck the grass area west of the runway with the nose down. Roush and a passenger sustained serious injuries in the crash, according to the NTSB report, though the passenger was treated at a local hospital and released. Equipment recovered from the aircraft was sent back to Washington, D.C., for examination. The NTSB's final report is not expected for at least several months. http://www.thenorthwestern.com/ [http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1103628892606&s=6053&e=001cO_3ikqPHVQrlx9ZyJPRhc0Jbsud0Fem4dWxvfhDA2_WBUYqwIZhL1jSzwrYI-hZ-hEfwzC6dLEtl1HXeJGEAV9g5-enFqf61gbthpxEjXRbS-bc12i0P4WRuqMRIPDp] Back to Top ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Back to Top ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Puzzle [http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1103628892606&s=6053&e=001cO_3ikqPHVQElhgIXHBTSej6ObH4v8L_VLS3sExIT-YL-MkGv3D-qcCpazHBKHVX4p2PG7qTXpBT_HXbx45mDA-2SYo58wrF5K713hJj8zS0jPOPhCFXLQ==] Back to Top ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Curt Lewis, P.E., CSP CURT LEWIS & ASSOCIATES, LLC