Flight Safety Information November 17, 2010 - No. 237 In This Issue Qantas Airways plane returns to Johannesburg after striking birds Airlines Criticize Proposed Pilot-Fatigue Rules Israel Exempts E.U. Pilots From Security Program Deadline For Comments On Policy Clarifying Definition of ``Actively Engaged'' The Civil Aviation University Of China To Develop Training With Eurocopter Air India plane crash: 'Sleepy' pilot blamed Rolls-Royce Plunders A380 Production Line Qantas Airways plane returns to Johannesburg after striking birds A Qantas Airways Ltd. plane bound for Sydney returned to Johannesburg after striking birds, the Australian carrier's fifth report of a turned-around flight in the past two weeks. The Boeing Co. 747 with 171 passengers landed to Johannesburg on Nov. 16, about 80 minutes after takeoff, Thomas Woodward, a spokesman for the Sydney-based carrier, said today. The same aircraft had to turn back a day earlier during a flight from Sydney to Buenos Aires, he said, BusinessWeek reports. Aviation officials have identified an oil leak near a turbine as the flaw which caused a fire and the engine failure, and Qantas's six A380s - the world's largest passenger plane - remain grounded while the airline carries out checks and repairs. The other carriers using Trent 900s on their A380s, Singapore Airlines and Lufthansa, have returned their planes to service. Four Qantas flights have turned back to port since the A380 incident because of various faults and problems. The airline says none of them were as serious as the superjumbo problem, and the turnarounds were in line with Qantas's routine safety procedures, The Press Association reports. Source: http://english.pravda.ru/news/world/17-11-2010/115816-plane-0/ Back to Top Airlines Criticize Proposed Pilot-Fatigue Rules By ANDY PASZTOR (WSJ) The major U.S. airline industry association on Monday criticized efforts to revamp pilot-fatigue rules, calling the government's proposals overly restrictive, politically motivated and scientifically flawed. In formal comments filed with the FAA, the Air Transport Association, whose members account for 90% of the country's cargo and passenger traffic, said the proposals' core elements are "operationally onerous" and would "impose unprecedented costs" without providing significant safety benefits. The critical tone is bound to make it politically harder for the Federal Aviation Administration to push ahead with its current regulatory package. By opting to update decades-old rules controlling pilot work hours and rest periods, the agency sought to fashion a compromise proposal based on the latest sleep research while offering some attractive elements to both labor and management. But that balancing act appears to have failed. Pilot-union leaders are split over whether to support the FAA's proposal, with some arguing that it gives airlines too much leeway to schedule pilots for 10 hours of daily flying. Now, representatives of the nation's biggest carriers have come out squarely against the package for unduly restricting duty periods and mandating more stringent flight-time limits on those routes that tend to have delays. Facing Congressional pressure to move quickly, agency officials will take months to analyze and respond to the comments, before deciding what to do. Back to Top Israel Exempts E.U. Pilots From Security Program By CHRISTINE NEGRONI (NYT) An Israeli security program that requires commercial pilots on airlines from some countries, including the United States, to transmit special identification clearance codes before entering Israel's airspace will not be enforced on pilots with airlines based in the European Union, aviation officials say. The exemption granted to European Union airlines by Israel's civil aviation director, Giora Romm, comes as Israel is negotiating an air transport agreement with the European Union that could significantly expand air travel between Israel and Europe. Israeli officials have not announced the exemption publicly and have offered no explanation for what critics say amounts to a double standard on security clearances for European Union airline pilots versus others. The Israeli security program began last year as an experiment with some foreign carriers and was intended to eventually apply to all foreign carriers that fly to Israel. Airlines from the European Union have not been part of the program. It has become an irritating issue in the commercial aviation industry because of a few documented episodes in which pilots of incoming planes that transmitted the wrong codes were intercepted by Israeli warplanes or diverted. "No other country has a similar requirement," Giovanni Bisignani, the director general of the International Air Transport Association, an industry trade group, told reporters last week. "The logistics are complex and difficult to keep secure," he said in urging Israel to abolish the program. Israel, known for its extraordinarily strict security, is presumably worried that airliners could be used by its enemies as flying bombs, like those used by Al Qaeda in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Under the aviation security program, pilots from the three United States carriers with flights to Israel - Delta, Continental and US Airways - must transmit a unique personal identification code to Israeli aviation authorities before they are cleared to enter Israeli airspace and land. The requirement also applies to pilots for Ethiopian Airlines and Air Canada. Two of the five airlines have experienced problems. In April 2009, a Delta flight was intercepted by an Israeli fighter jet, according to a letter from Delta's managing director of corporate security, Randy L. Harrison. This summer, an Ethiopian Airlines plane got a fighter jet escort after the pilot had difficulty in transmitting the security code. In his letter, Mr. Harrison said he had logistical and safety concerns about the system. None of the American carriers would comment publicly about the Israeli decision to exempt European airlines, out of concern that it would annoy the Israelis. But an executive of one of the affected airlines, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the issue's delicacy, said, "It does appear we're not being held to the standard of other carriers." Others expressed concern about the safety risks when a civilian airliner is intercepted by fighter jets. "A fighter on my tail is personal - I have problems with it," said an American airline security expert familiar with the program, who asked not to be identified. "Anything that could put a fighter on the tail of an airplane is not a good thing, not for the people and the crews on the airplane." According to one of the people present at the European Union-Israel aviation talks, European negotiators had made clear that the Israeli security program "could be a detriment to developing the market." Flight diversions like those experienced by Delta and others are expensive and could "jeopardize traffic between Europe and Israel," this person said. Back to Top Deadline For Comments On Policy Clarifying Definition of ``Actively Engaged'' for Purposes of Inspector Authorization [Federal Register Volume 75, Number 214 (Friday, November 5, 2010)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 68249-68251] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2010-27834] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 65 [Docket No.: FAA-2010-1060] Policy Clarifying Definition of ``Actively Engaged'' for Purposes of Inspector Authorization AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of Proposed Policy. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: This action proposes to clarify the term ``actively engaged'' for the purposes of application for and renewal of an inspection authorization. This proposal would amend the Flight Standards Management System Order 8900.1. DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 6, 2010. ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by docket number FAA-2010-1060 using any of the following methods: Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your comments electronically. Mail: Send Comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Hand Delivery: Take comments to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Fax: (202) 493-2251. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ed Hall, Aircraft Maintenance General Aviation Branch, AFS-350, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (804) 222-7494 ext. 240; e-mail: ed.hall@faa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited The FAA invites interested persons to submit written comments, data, or views concerning this proposal. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, please send only one copy of written comments, or if you are filing comments electronically, please submit your comments only one time. The FAA will file in the docket all comments received, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposal. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments received on or before the closing date for comments and any late-filed comments if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. The FAA may change this proposal in light of comments received. Availability of This Proposed Policy You can get an electronic copy using the Internet by-- (1) Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov); (2) Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or (3) Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html. You can also get a copy by sending a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, [[Page 68250]] ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Make sure to identify the docket number or notice number of this proposal. Background Section 65.91(c) of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations sets forth the eligibility requirements for obtaining an inspection authorization (IA). Among other requirements not related to this proposal, an applicant must ``have been actively engaged, for at least the two-year period before the date he applies, in maintaining aircraft certificated and maintained in accordance with [FAA regulations].'' Section 65.93(a) sets forth the eligibility requirements for renewing an IA and incorporates the requirements for obtaining one under Sec. 65.91(c)(1)-(4). Accordingly, an individual must be actively engaged, for at least the prior two-year period, in maintaining aircraft to be eligible to either obtain or renew an IA. The FAA provides guidance concerning the issuance of IAs in the Flight Standards Information Management System (FSIMS), FAA Order 8900.1, Volume 5, Chapter 5, Sections 7 and 8. These sections assist aviation safety inspectors (ASIs) in evaluating an initial application for an IA or an application for renewing an IA as well as allow a prospective applicant to determine his or her eligibility. IAs are issued for two years and expire on March 31 of odd-numbered years. March 31, 2011, is the next expiration date. The definition of the term ``actively engaged'' has caused confusion among ASIs and aircraft maintenance personnel. The term is not defined in 14 CFR, and its definition in agency guidance materials has varied over time. Prior to 1988, the FAA considered persons exercising their mechanic certificate when employed full-time in aircraft maintenance to be actively engaged, and those employed on a part-time basis were individually evaluated by an FAA inspector. In 1988, the FAA issued new guidance tightening the definition of actively engaged to include only those individuals employed full time in inspecting, supervising, overhauling, repairing, preserving, or replacing parts on certificated aircraft. In April 2010, the FAA retracted the 1988 policy, largely because it had been applied inconsistently, and began the process of clarifying actively engaged through agency guidance. This proposal is the result of that process. Generally, amendments to the FSIMS are made directly by the FAA's Flight Standards Service. However, because of the widespread confusion and inconsistent interpretation of actively engaged, the FAA is publishing this proposed FSIMS amendment and inviting public comment on it. Discussion of the Proposal It is a longstanding FAA requirement that an applicant for an IA or for renewal of an IA be actively engaged (i.e., an active, working airframe and powerplant (A&P) mechanic exercising the privileges of the mechanic certificate). An applicant can demonstrate that he or she is an active, working A&P mechanic in a number of ways. An applicant who is employed full-time in inspecting, overhauling, repairing, preserving, or replacing parts on aircraft consistently has been considered actively engaged. An applicant who is employed parttime in those maintenance activities may be actively engaged. An applicant who participates in (regardless of employment status) those maintenance activities part time or occasionally may be actively engaged. Whether that part-time or occasional employment or participation constitutes actively engaged depends on the circumstances. For that reason, those determinations must be made by the ASI reviewing the application. To make the determination, the ASI should consider the type of maintenance activity performed, considering any special expertise required, and the quantity of maintenance activity. In some cases, such as a mechanic performing maintenance in geographical area that has limited access to some special expertise or a retired mechanic who occasionally performs maintenance as needed, the type of maintenance activity may be the determining factor even when its quantity is relatively insignificant. Because the ASI's determination is unique to each applicant, the ASI would use documentation or other evidence provided by the applicant detailing the maintenance activity. Accordingly, the FAA proposes to define in FAA Order 8900.1 the factors an ASI should consider when reviewing an application for an IA or for renewal of an IA. Additionally, FAA Order 8900.1 restricts the types of maintenance that ASIs can perform because of ethical concerns. The FAA does not intend for ASIs to lose their IAs because of these limitations. Accordingly, the FAA proposes a carve-out for ASIs who also hold an IA. The FAA intends this policy statement to clarify rather than change the definition of ``actively engaged'' and provide clear guidance to ASIs that can be applied consistently. The FAA intends for this clarification to be in effect for the next IA renewal cycle in March 2011. Proposed Amendment In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend FAA Order 8900.1, Volume 5, Chapter 5 as follows: 1. Amend Section 7, Paragraph 5-1279 by adding a Note after subparagraph A to read: 5-1279 ELIGIBILITY. The ASI must establish the applicant's eligibility before allowing the applicant to test. None of the requirements of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 65, Sec. 65.91 can be waived by the ASI. A. The applicant must hold a current mechanic's certificate, with both airframe and powerplant ratings, that has been in effect for at least 3 years. The applicant must have been actively engaged in maintaining certificated aircraft for at least the 2-year period before applying. Note: Actively engaged means exercising the privileges of an airframe and powerplant mechanic certificate in the maintenance of civil aircraft. Applicants who are employed full-time in inspecting, overhauling, repairing, preserving, or replacing parts on aircraft are considered to be actively engaged. Applicants who are employed or participate in inspecting, overhauling, repairing, preserving, or replacing parts on aircraft on a part-time or occasional basis will be evaluated by the ASI to determine whether the applicant is actively engaged. The ASI will evaluate the scope of part-time or occasional activity based on the type of maintenance activity, including any special expertise required, and the quantity of maintenance activity performed. To evaluate the scope of the parttime or occasional maintenance activity, the ASI will use evidence or documentation provided by the applicant showing inspection, overhauling, repairing, preserving, or replacing parts on aircraft. B. There must be a fixed base of operation at which the applicant can be located in person or by telephone. This base need not be the place where the applicant will exercise the inspection authority. C. The applicant must have available the equipment, facilities, and inspection data necessary to conduct proper inspection of airframes, powerplants, propellers, or any related part or appliance. This data must be current. D. The applicant must pass the IA knowledge test, testing the ability to inspect according to safety standards for approval for return to service of an aircraft, related part, or appliance after major repairs or major alterations, and annual or progressive inspections performed under part 43. There is no practical test required for an IA. Note: The ASI should see paragraph 5-1285 for instructions on determining an applicant's eligibility. 2. Amend Section 8, Paragraph 5-1309 by adding a Note after subparagraph (A)(1) to read: 5-1309 RENEWAL OF INSPECTION AUTHORIZATION. A. Application Requirements. Application for renewal may be required to comply with the following: (1) Show evidence the applicant still meets the requirements of Sec. 65.91(c)(1) through (4). Note: Refer to Paragraph 5-1279(A)-(C) of this document for information on meeting Sec. 65.91(c)(1) through (4) requirements. Because volume 1, chapter 3, section 2 of this Order limits the type of maintenance that ASIs can perform, an ASI may renew an IA regardless of volume of maintenance work performed. (2) Complete Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Form 8610-1, Mechanic's Application for Inspection Authorization, in duplicate. (3) Show evidence the applicant meets the requirements of Sec. 65.93(a) for both the first and second year in the form of an activity sheet or log, training certificates, and/or oral test results, as applicable. Issued in Washington, DC, on October 29, 2010. John McGraw, Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service. [FR Doc. 2010-27834 Filed 11-4-10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P Source: http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/contentStreamer?objectId=0900006480b814ba&disposition=attachment&contentType=html . Back to Top The Civil Aviation University Of China To Develop Training With Eurocopter Memorandum Of Understanding Signed For Cooperation In Training For New Pilots The Civil Aviation University of China (CAUC) will work with Eurocopter for ab-initio pilot training activities under a Memorandum of Understanding announced Tuesday. This agreement - which was unveiled at Airshow China 2010 in Zhuhai - will result in an intensification of training for future helicopter pilots, and will lead to the establishment of a working group to determine a timeline for different areas of cooperation. Ab-initio training involves the preparation of pilots from the start, utilizing students who have no previous helicopter flight experience. It enables a new generation of pilots to enter training that readies them for a professional helicopter aviation career. "This agreement will allow China to establish a resource of qualified helicopter pilots and consolidate the local infrastructure for rotary-wing operations," said Wu Tongshui, President of CAUC. "We are very honored to be part of this initiative, which constitutes a win-win solution for both our university and Eurocopter." CAUC is a Tianjin-based national university, and is one of the largest aviation training schools under the authority of the Civil Aviation Authority of China (CAAC). It was established in 1951 to provide civil aviation education and training for new pilots in China. "For Eurocopter, teaming up with a renowned university and established pilot school in China will enable us to discover high calibre students and future helicopter pilots," added Philippe Crespo, Eurocopter's Vice President of Training Services. "Identifying this talent from the start will help us better accompany local helicopter operators and contribute to the development of the Chinese aviation industry, while ensuring the highest levels of safety. Source: www.eurocopter.com Back to Top Air India plane crash: 'Sleepy' pilot blamed A dozing pilot was to blame for a plane crash in May in southern India which killed 158 people, an official investigation has reportedly found. According to details of the report leaked to media, the Air India Express plane approached Mangalore at the wrong height and angle. The Serbian pilot, Zlatko Glusica, was "disorientated" having been asleep for much of the three-hour flight. There was no immediate comment from the airline. Data recorders captured the sound of snoring, according to the Hindustan Times. Glusica is said to have been affected by "sleep inertia" after his nap. Co-pilot H S Ahluwalia was reportedly heard making repeated warnings to the Serb to abort landing and try again. 'No runway left' Seconds before the plane erupted into a fireball, voice recordings picked up the co-pilot saying: "We don't have runway left". The Boeing 737 overshot, plunged into a steep gorge and burst into flames. Only eight people survived. Most of the passengers on the low-cost flight from Dubai to Mangalore were Indian migrant workers returning from the Gulf. India's Civil Aviation Minister Praful Patel told reporters his ministry had received the report on Tuesday and the government would study it before taking any action. A government official who did not want to be named told the Associated Press news agency that Indian media reports about the findings were accurate. But the investigation would only be made public once it had been presented to parliament. Mr Glusica was said in the aftermath of the tragedy to have had 10,000 hours of flying time, including experience of Mangalore's airport. The civil aviation minister noted at the time that Mangalore had a short landing strip which meant that there was limited space to accommodate planes that overshot. The airliner missed its landing threshold by about 2,000ft (600m). In June 2008, Air India denied reports that two of its pilots had been caught napping on the job. A flight from Dubai allegedly passed its destination of Mumbai because both pilots were fast asleep in the cockpit. Mumbai air traffic controllers had to use a special buzzer to rouse the pair, but by then the flight was halfway to Goa, according to the Times of India newspaper. Once awakened, the pilots turned the aircraft around and made a safe landing. India's air safety record has been good in the past decade, despite a rapid increase in the number of private airlines and air travel in the country. The tragedy was the country's first major air crash since one in the eastern city of Patna killed at least 50 people in July 2000. Mangalore's disaster was the deadliest since a mid-air collision in November 1996 between a Saudi airliner and a Kazakh cargo plane near Delhi, in which 349 people died. Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-11772562 Back to Top Rolls-Royce Plunders A380 Production Line Rolls-Royce will pull Trent 900s from the Airbus A380 production facilities to replace engines that are being removed from the in- service fleet in the wake of the Qantas flight QF32 uncontained failure. The supply of spare Trent 900s is limited, and Airbus says that any production line engine swaps will be undertaken in such a way as to limit the disruption to delivery schedules. However, Rolls declines comment. "Every situation is being handled on a case-by-case basis and, if a replacement engine is needed, we will choose one from an aircraft in production with a delivery date that is as far ahead as possible in order to minimize the impact on the schedule," says Airbus. The A380 is assembled in Toulouse and flown to Hamburg for cabin furnishing, which means that engines are needed relatively early in the production process to undertake the ferry flight between the two sites. However, once on the ground in Hamburg, the engines may not be needed until the delivery nears. All six of Qantas's A380s have been grounded since the Nov. 4 inflight incident, while engines changes at the other two Trent 900 operators Lufthansa and Singapore Airlines have also affected the availability of their A380s. Lufthansa has changed an engine on one of its four A380s, while Singapore Airlines has swapped a power unit on three of its 11 aircraft. Three of the four A380s that remain to be delivered this year are Rolls powered. Next year, when A380 output is set to rise toward three a month from the current two, about half of the deliveries are due to be equipped with Rolls engines, and the remainder powered by the rival Engine Alliance GP7200. Meanwhile the Australian Transport Safety Bureau's (ATSB) investigation into the QF32 incident has suffered a blow after it discovered some of the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) data had been lost. Although over two hours of audio has been recovered, much of period relevant to the investigation has been lost, it says. "Due to the failure of the No. 1 engine to shut down [after the emergency landing] in Singapore, which therefore continued power supply to the recorder, the audio at the time of the engine failure well over 2 hr. before the No. 1 engine could be shut down, was overwritten." However, on a positive note, the ATSB says that the flight data recorder has provided extensive flight and engine data, including data from the entire flight. That data has been sent to the aircraft and engine manufacturers. Source: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=comm&id=news/avd/2010/11/17/02.xml&headline=Rolls- Royce%20Plunders%20A380%20Production%20Line Curt Lewis, P.E., CSP CURT LEWIS & ASSOCIATES, LLC