Flight Safety Information June 13, 2011 - No. 120 In This Issue Airlines Cancel Australasian Flights Due To Ash Report: Evidence Mounts that Electronic Interference May Affect Airplane Safety New York man tossed off flight for swearing Some Truths About SMS LightSquared Tests Confirm GPS Jamming FAA updates guidance for installing satellite voice to support ATS Wreckage of AF447 transferred as recovery effort ends FAA proposes new rule to mitigate airspeed indicator mismatch on CRJs EVA Air appoints new chairman Airlines Cancel Australasian Flights Due To Ash WELLINGTON (Dow Jones)--Volcanic ash from an eruption in Chile continues to disrupt flights in New Zealand, southern Australia and international flights out of the region as airlines cancel services on safety concerns. Qantas Airways (QAN.AU) has cancelled flights to and from Tasmania and to New Zealand but has now resumed flights to and from Melbourne. "Qantas will continue to monitor the movement of the ash cloud and assess its impact on flight operations as the situation," the airline said in a statement. Qantas has also canceled three international flights to Buenos Aires and Los Angeles because of the ash cloud, which drifted from South America after the Puyehue volcano in Chile erupted. After cancelling flights Sunday, Virgin Australia said it resumed some flights from 2100 GMT Sunday into and out of Melbourne, Tasmania and New Zealand. "Overnight we have been monitoring closely the situation and we now believe that conditions are safe to operate," Virgin Australia said in a statement. An Air New Zealand Ltd. (AIR.NZ) spokeswoman said the airline continued to operate flights by using alternative flight paths and had altered its cruising altitudes to avoid the ash, but hadn't had to delay or cancel any flights. "The extra distance involved required the use of 10% more fuel, but has meant customers were able to safely get to where they needed to go," said David Morgan, Air New Zealand's chief pilot and general manager for airline operations and safety. Argentina's two largest airports suspended flights again Sunday as they too were plagued by ash from the Chilean volcano. Back to Top Report: Evidence Mounts that Electronic Interference May Affect Airplane Safety In 75 instances between 2003 and 2009, electronic interference was cited as a possible cause of airplane dysfunction, according to a report by the International Air Transport Association (IATA). Seasoned travelers, and even travelers who fly more than once or twice a year, sometimes find themselves jaded by the rules of the air: required safety demonstrations, buckle your seatbelt whenever you're seated, and turn off electronic devices such as cell phones and smartphones. But the IATA report, obtained by ABC News, provides some evidence that heeding that last rule, about electronic devices, would be to everyone's benefit. According to the confidential study, in a survey spanning six years with respondents from 125 airlines, there were 75 documented incidents in which airline pilots and crew believed that possible electronic interference affected flight controls and navigation systems. In 26 of those instances, autopilot, autothrust and landing gear were disturbed, while 13 of the incidents produced electronic warnings, including "engine indications." In four out of ten of the events documented, the suspected cause was a cell phone. The report, according to ABC News, stresses that no direct correlation is being made between electronic interference from personal electronic devices and plane malfunctions. Instead it provides examples of narratives provided by airplane crew such as this: "Auto pilot was engaged." At about 4500 ft, the autopilot disengaged by itself and the associated warnings/indications came on. [Flight attendants] were immediately advised to look out for PAX [passengers] operating electronic devices. ... [Attendants] reported that there were 4 PAX operated electronic devices (1 handphone and 3 iPods)." When the flight attendants made the passengers shut off those electronic devices, the flight continued without further incident. Other descriptions detail how "a clock spun backwards and a GPS in the cabin read incorrectly while two laptops were being used nearby." And another flight altitude control readings increased rapidly before a flight attendant made an announcement for passengers to turn off any electronic devices. After the warning, the readings went back to normal. Some experts argue that these anecdotes are not enough to draw conclusions about how electronic devices affect planes. They say that the problem of interference could be more apparent on older planes, which sometimes lack the proper internal shields that protect highly sensitive electronic sensors hidden in the plane's passenger area. Boeing engineers working with ABC found that signals from electronic devices can, in fact, hit and disrupt these hidden sensors. http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/06/10/report-evidence-mounts-that-electronic-interference-may-affect-airplane- safety/#ixzz1P9u1UJ00 Back to Top New York man tossed off flight for swearing considers lawsuit A NEW York man kicked off a flight at Detroit Metro Airport for swearing was considering suing the airline today, The Detroit News reported. Robert Sayegh, 37, said that he and other passengers on the Atlantic Southeast Airlines flight to Newark were made to wait for 45 minutes at a gate before boarding the flight. Once he was on the flight, he said, a flight attendant overheard him saying to a passenger next to him, "What's taking so f****ng long to close the overheard compartments?" The plane taxied to the runway, but it soon returned to the terminal, where police boarded and escorted Sayegh off, the newspaper reported. "I'm like, 'Are they throwing me off the plane?'" Sayegh said, adding that he swore twice. "This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever been through in my life. It's embarrassing." He added, "It wasn't like I stood up like a crazy maniac and was screaming, 'Move the plane!'" said Sayegh. He added that he grew up in Brooklyn, where "we curse as adjectives." A spokeswoman for Atlantic Southeast Airlines said the airline was conducting an investigation of the incident. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/new-york-man-tossed-off-flight-for-swearing-considers-lawsuit/story- e6frf7jx-1226074536734 Back to Top Some Truths About SMS Don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger. By Robert Baron I have been reading a plethora of articles of late that have been presenting SMS in a candy-coated, cure-all solution to aviation's problems. While I agree that an operational SMS can be an effective brain center for the safe operation of an aviation service provider I think we also need to frame the realities of what could be a bumpy ride en route to the SMS destination for many companies. What follows is a brief list of some SMS realities and challenges that you are likely to face as SMS slowly becomes a reality for your aviation organization. Size and scope In these preliminary stages of SMS implementation in the United States there seems to be much ado concerning what a fully operational SMS should "look like." The so-called Four Pillars of Safety, the framework of SMS, are based on standards and recommended practices that have been developed and time-tested in some of the more proactive aviation safety cultures (i.e., United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada). Regardless, there have been wide variations of opinions regarding the size and scope of an SMS program. There appears to be much consternation among safety managers of both large and small companies as they try to ensure that their SMS is fitted properly to their operation. Large companies argue that an SMS will create the need for additional departments and human resources in order to manage the myriad of safety data that will need to be collected, analyzed, and acted upon. In turn, these companies may view SMS as an additional expenditure with difficulty selling the program to the CEO from an ROI perspective. On the other hand, small companies argue that most of the information available for SMS implementation is geared toward large operators and for the most part wholly inapplicable to a small flight department such as a one aircraft, two pilot Part 135 operation. In the case of the latter it's easy to understand this concern. However, it should be kept in mind that the SMS framework that is applicable to the large operator is still applicable to the small operator. The major difference is that there will be fewer people involved in fewer positions related to the SMS. There will also be a much more compact risk management system and data collection/analysis process. We already have an SMS I hear this all the time. Many companies claim they have an SMS by virtue of the fact that they have a flight operations manual, follow the regulations, provide training, etc. The logic makes sense and to a certain extent these companies do have a quasi-SMS. However, the difference between a quasi and a true SMS is that the latter, in addition to a few extra requirements, ties all of your safety components together to become your formal safety management system. Interface Issues with the FAA Have you ever experienced a situation where there was a difference of opinion between POIs, PMIs, PAIs, or even entire FSDOs regarding a safety or approval issue? An example would be your maintenance company moving from one FSDO jurisdiction to another. Your original FSDO had no problem with the way you conducted your Part 145 repair business yet the new FSDO finds many discrepancies in your paperwork and issues a temporary suspension of your certificate. Although this would raise a good fundamental question - was the old FSDO just too lax or is the new FSDO really sharp? - I'll save that topic for another article. The point is, just like the example above, companies appear to be experiencing interface issues with the FAA regarding their SMS. Invariably there will be different interpretations of SMS requirements across PMIs. In fact, there can be significant amount of variance. This lack of standardization can be frustrating but it likely will not get better any time soon. Venting your anger at your PMI or FSDO will not help to implement your SMS any quicker. You should work closely with your PMI to fully understand his or her requirements and expectations and develop your SMS as such. An SMS manual makes not an SMS Many operators appear to be developing the mindset that an SMS is simply a manual that sits on the shelf. In fact I recently saw an aviation association promoting its SMS manual template that just needs to have some blanks filled in and names inserted. This manual was being touted as "shelf ready and supported by the FAA." But this brings up another good fundamental question; is the industry insinuating that simply having an SMS manual is an actual SMS? It's not, but many operators are trying to rationalize it that way. This myopic approach may due to a number of reasons such as: ·Lazy - Using the SMS manual as your SMS is an easy way out. Tempting, but that's just not going to work. ·Attitudinal - The safety manager's attitude toward SMS is one of "who needs this? or what's the point?" This attitude may be exacerbated by the manager viewing SMS as another (soon-to-be) regulatory requirement that will just tie up human and financial resources. Or, the perceived importance is diminished by other, seemingly more important issues. ·Lack of knowledge - The well-intentioned safety manager simply does not have all of the facts and information regarding the overarching framework and underlying components of a real SMS (as opposed to a paper SMS). In this case the manager may have the right attitude or mindset but simply does not have all the required information or guidance. When it comes to SMS, knowledge is definitely power. Whichever the case, we need to clearly understand that an SMS is not just a safety manual. The manual itself should be regarded as the main "go to" document where all of the components of the working SMS can be referenced. You cannot just buy a generic manual, fill in the blanks, and call it an SMS, regardless of the size of your company. The proper order of precedence is to conduct your GAP analysis first and then develop your SMS manual concurrently with your actual SMS. Doing it any other way may be putting the cart in front of the horse. Conclusion Hopefully this article shed some light on some of the less-discussed elements of SMS implementation. As you might imagine there are many other issues I could have discussed but space does not allow such inclusion. However, the issues that were mentioned seem to be some of the most problematic, at least at this point of SMS implementation in the United States. Oh, and remember, I am just the messenger! Dr. Robert Baron is the president and chief consultant of The Aviation Consulting Group. He has more than 23 years of experience in the aviation industry. As a consultant, he has assisted a multitude of aviation organizations in the development of their human factors, SMS, CRM, and LOSA training programs. Dr. Baron is also an adjunct professor at Embry-Riddle and Everglades Universities and teaches courses on aviation safety and human factors subjects. Dr. Baron can be contacted through his company's website at www.tacgworldwide.com. Now For the Quiz! Two Truths and a Lie About SMS Which of the following three statements regarding SMS is a lie? 1. Risk is measured in terms of severity and probability. 2. SMS is only proactive. A reactive approach to safety is an expired paradigm. 3. Even with an effective SMS, our company may see an increase in accidents and incidents. For the answers visit www.tacgworldwide.com/answers.htm http://www.amtonline.com/publication/article.jsp?pubId=1&id=13737 Back to Top LightSquared Tests Confirm GPS Jamming WASHINGTON - Initial testing of GPS receivers confirms aircraft navigation systems will experience significant jamming from thousands of broadband-wireless transmitters planned to be deployed across the U.S. The tests were conducted to determine the susceptibility of GPS receivers to interference from the high-power terrestrial transmitters LightSquared plans to deploy. All GPS receivers tested by the National Position, Navigation and Timing Engineering Forum (NPEF) were effected by the high- power transmissions, FAA's Deane Bunce, NPEF co-chair, told a meeting in Washington today. The testing indicates LightSquared's plans to deploy a terrestrial network of 40,000 base stations will result the degradation or loss of GPS function at distances from the transmitters ranging from a few kilometers to 300km for space-based receivers, he said. Simulations conducted by aviation standards developer RTCA for the FAA concluded "GPS is likely to be unavailable over the whole US East Coast", based on LightSquared's deployment plans, Robert Frazier, of the FAA's spectrum planning and international office, told the meeting. Potential mitigations identified by the NPEF include relocating LightSquared's transmissions to a different frequency band and retrofitting GPS receivers with filters. But redesiging receivers and re-equipping aircraft "will take a minimum of 7-8 years, and possibly up 15 years, and would not necessarily buy back the performance lost because of the filter," Bunce said. "There is now overwhelming evidence of interference, and no evidence of a mitigation solution in the results," Jim Kirkland, general counsel for GPS manufacturer Trimble Navigation, told the meeting. "It's time to stop this and look for alternative spectrum." "We believe we can deploy in a way that we can coexist with GPS," said Jeff Carlisle, executive vice president of regulatory affairs and public policy for LightSquared. "We always knew there would be interference. The hard question is how to mitigate it." Potential mitigations being proposed by LightSquared include using only the lower of its two frequency bands, the furthest away from GPS, to launch its service; reducing transmitter power; adjusting base station locations; and modifying the timnescale for full use of its frequency allocation. A working group led by LightSquared and the US GPS industry Council, representing manufacturers, has conducted receiver testing mandated by the US Federal Communications Commission. The results, including mitigation recommendations, will be submitted in June 15. http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=busav&id=news/awx/2011/06/09/awx_06_09_2011_p0 -334122.xml&headline=LightSquared%20Tests%20Confirm%20GPS%20Jamming Back to Top FAA updates guidance for installing satellite voice to support ATS The US FAA has issued a draft update of an advisory circular (AC) that provides guidance on airworthiness approval for designers, manufacturers, and installers of satellite voice equipment supporting air traffic service (ATS). Due to frequency congestion and ionospheric/solar conditions in oceanic and remote flight operations, aircraft operators requested the use of satellite voice equipment as one of their two long range communication systems, explained the FAA in its AC. It noted that certain implementations of the satellite voice system ground network utilize the public switched telephone network for flight safety communication, but have the potential for network congestion and audio level variability. "Until these issues are addressed, air traffic control (ATC) use of the satellite voice system will be predicated upon having an alternate means of communication available appropriate for the airspace equipage requirements. For the foreseeable future, the availability of HF radio services will be required and satellite voice will coexist with high frequency (HF) radio," said the FAA. In the AC, which is not mandatory, the agency describes an acceptable means - but not the only means - to gain airworthiness approval for satellite voice equipment. Protocol includes meeting minimum performance standards, and ensuring software and hardware comply with various RTCA documents, as well as meeting various other safety requirements. Satellite voice is considered voice communication for the purpose of the operating rules pertaining to CVR. As such, a means should be provided to record all flight crew satellite voice communications in crash survivable memory, if a cockpit voice recorder is required, according to the FAA. A means should also be provided to interface with the existing audio management system, it said. Flight tests for certification should evaluate the integration of the satellite voice system with other systems, and evaluate other systems as necessary to show the satellite voice system does not interfere with their operation. Specific attention should be given to other "L" band equipment, said the FAA, particularly the global positioning system (GPS) equipment. "Intermodulation effects are possible between multiple channel satcom installations and GPS," it added. Source: Air Transport Intelligence news Back to Top Wreckage of AF447 transferred as recovery effort ends Wreckage from the crashed Air France Airbus A330 is to be transferred to Toulouse next week after the salvage operation formally concluded. The recovery vessel for the search, Ile de Sein, ended its work on 3 June and the ship is being demobilised in the Canary Islands. French investigation agency Bureau d'Enquetes et d'Analyses said the vessel would transfer to Bayonne, a port on the south- western coast, and parts from flight AF447 would be moved to a hangar in Toulouse. The wreckage would be examined by the French defence ministry's technical aeronautical division. The recovery effort also retrieved several victims of the crash and these will be taken for forensic assessment. Source: Air Transport Intelligence news Back to Top FAA proposes new rule to mitigate airspeed indicator mismatch on CRJs The US FAA has proposed a new airworthiness directive for certain Bombardier CRJ models to reduce airspeed mismatches between the pilot and co-pilot's airspeed indicators. FAA opted to issue the rule after several in-service reports emerged of airspeed mismatches between the two airspeed indicators used by the crew. Citing information released by Canadian authorities, FAA explained it was discovered during or after heavy rain, the pitot- static tubing may become partially or completely blocked by water, which fails to enter drain bottles. Further investigation showed drain bottles used in the primary pitot-static system include check valves that impede the entry of water into the bottles. "This condition, if not corrected, may result in erroneous airspeed and altitude indications," warned FAA. Transport Canada issued is own AD in October 2010 to address the drainage issues, and Bombardier released a revised service bulletin in March of this year providing further guidance. FAA plans to require compliance with the rulemaking nine months after the AD's effective date, the agency said. Complying with the rule would entail replacing certain water assemblies with specific part numbers. FAA estimates the proposed rulemaking would affect roughly 1,041 US-registered CRJ-200s/700s/900s for a total cost of $1.4 million or approximately $1,370 per product. However, the agency explained some parties could incur higher costs depending on warranty coverage of the parts being replaced. Source: Air Transport Intelligence news Back to Top EVA Air appoints new chairman Taiwan's EVA Air has appointed vice-chairman James Jeng as its new chairman. He succeeds Lin Bou-Shiu, who is also vice-president of EVA's parent, the Evergreen Group, said an EVA spokeswoman. Lin will retain his vice-president role at Evergreen. Jeng took over as EVA's chairman on 10 June. The airline has yet to appoint a new vice-chairman to replace Jeng, said the spokeswoman. Source: Air Transport Intelligence news Curt Lewis, P.E., CSP CURT LEWIS & ASSOCIATES, LLC