Flight Safety Information March 8, 2012 - No. 048 In This Issue Continental Appeals 'Absurd' Concorde Verdict 'Turn Off All Electronic Devices:' And What Happens if You Don't Fuel leak diverts AirTran flight from Atlanta ARGUS PROS Global Auditing Boeing finishes testing for 787s with GE engines Airbus faces...105m repair bill for A380 superjumbos' cracked wings Fake drugs worth $700,000 seized at Los Angeles airport Continental Appeals 'Absurd' Concorde Verdict Continental Airlines Inc. will ask an appeals court near Paris to overturn its manslaughter conviction for the deaths of 113 people in the crash of Air France's Concorde supersonic jet almost 12 years ago. Now part of United Continental Holdings Inc. (UAL), the world's largest airline, Continental and a maintenance engineer dispute their December 2010 convictions and will show the court new evidence the deaths weren't their fault. "Neither the company nor its employees were responsible for the Concorde accident," Continental said in an e-mailed statement. "To blame the crash on a small strip of metal from another aircraft is absurd." The Concorde crashed soon after take-off on July 25, 2000, when a fireball was ignited after the jet ran over a metal strip that fell from a prior Continental flight, investigators said. The probe found the strip tore one of the plane's tires and sent debris into its fuel tanks. Continental has disputed that scenario, telling the court the fire began before the jet hit the strip. The airline said it will present new evidence to the Versailles appeals court to support its claim. "The court was mistaken" in holding Continental liable, the carrier's lawyer, Olivier Metzner, said before today's hearing began. "The plane was already on fire when it hit this metal strip -- the accident was unavoidable," he said, calling the Concorde a plane of "extreme fragility." Prosecution Appeal Prosecutors also appealed the 2010 verdict by the lower court, meaning four men who were cleared must again face manslaughter charges. One of them, a former official at France's civil aviation authority named Claude Frantzen, filed a constitutional challenge arguing they can't appeal a verdict that followed the trial prosecutor's recommendations. The court will need to consider his challenge "immediately," said his lawyer, Daniel Soulez-Lariviere. The lower court ordered Continental to pay 1.2 million euros ($1.6 million) in damages and fines and also held a mechanic named John Taylor responsible, saying he ignored the risk of using the wrong materials in maintenance. Taylor received a suspended sentence. The crash hastened the demise of the Concorde. Flights were grounded for 16 months afterwards and the plane went back into service just as demand for air travel fell after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The Concorde's last commercial flight was in 2003. Air France Response Air France, now part of Air France-KLM Group (AF), is participating in the appeals process "because Continental hasn't stopped arguing it was Air France's responsibility," said the carrier's lawyer, Fernand Garnault. "Air France wants to be there to be able to respond." Henri Perrier, another defendant cleared by the lower court, is too ill to attend and will also ask to postpone the appeal hearings, set to run through May, until he recovers. He worked at Aerospatiale, the Concorde's former French manufacturer that is now part of European Aeronautic, Defence & Space Co. (EAD)'s Airbus SAS. Garnault said Perrier was "essential" to the trial because of his historical knowledge of the aircraft and Metzner called his absence "obviously regrettable." EADS was held "civilly liable" with Continental and the mechanic, and ordered to pay victims 195,000 euros. The company has also appealed the civil liability finding. United Airlines parent UAL Corp. and Continental merged in 2010 to form Chicago-based United Continental Holdings. http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-03-07/continental-appeals-absurd-concorde- manslaughter-conviction Back to Top 'Turn Off All Electronic Devices:' And What Happens if You Don't It happens on just about every flight now, say flight attendants. The plane's door closes and it's time to turn off personal electronic devices. And there's always at least one person who keeps talking, texting, tweeting, playing, watching or emailing-and ignoring stern orders to power down. Scott McCartney on Lunch Break looks at the battles between passengers and flight attendants over electronic gadgets and why more passengers are refusing, at least initially, to follow regulations. On rare occasions, a confrontation erupts, such as actor Alec Baldwin's widely reported removal from an American Airlines plane in December. Although airlines say they don't keep track or won't disclose how many passengers get bounced off planes for refusing to switch off devices, flight attendants say it's now the No. 1 spark for unruly behavior. "People have become so wedded to these devices, and a lot of people really question whether they need to turn them off," says Southwest Airlines flight attendant Thom McDaniel. Travelers who "think 'it's no big deal' or 'the rule doesn't apply to me'-those are the hardest," says Kelly Skyles, an American Airlines flight attendant. "Most passenger misconduct cases now deal with noncompliance with electronic devices." .Airline rules backed by federal laws allow crews to turn a plane back to the gate and toss passengers off flights to prevent disputes in the air. In most cases, it isn't the initial issue that gets people kicked off planes, whether they've been told to pull up their saggy pants, clean up their language or stop playing "Words With Friends" on their iPhones. Instead, it's the ensuing argument. Flight attendants at American reported 1,306 incidents of customer misconduct to their union, the Association of Professional Flight Attendants, in 2011, up slightly from 1,248 in 2010. Most didn't escalate into confrontations or get reported to law enforcement. The numbers have been going up for three years, with most of the increase related to electronic devices, flight attendants say. Refusal to cover bare feet can be grounds for grounding on several airlines. Airlines can refuse to transport passengers who appear to be drunk or on drugs. Ms. Skyles, who is the APFA's safety and security coordinator, attributes attitudes toward electronics to "speed limit" psychology-everyone knows there's a speed limit and yet every driver at one time or another will exceed it. Lots of passengers are skeptical of the danger of leaving devices on-one call or text message or game isn't going to bring down the plane, they figure. And who hasn't left on their BlackBerry and lived to tell? Indeed, there's no firm scientific evidence that having gadgets powered up for takeoff and landing would cause a problem, only that there's the potential for a problem. The Federal Aviation Administration allows pilots to use iPads and other electronic devices to replace charts and manuals in the cockpit, powered up during takeoff and landing. But the FAA says it can't test all the different gadgets passengers may bring on board. The agency worries a multitude of devices could pose more danger than a single iPad for pilots. Crews have anecdotally reported numerous issues linked to computers or devices on board, such as erroneous warnings on collision-avoidance systems, heavy static on radio frequencies and false readings on instrument landing systems, according to NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System, a database to which crews submit voluntary incident reports. In some instances, crews caught passengers talking on a phone or using a computer when they weren't supposed to. The crews were able to end interference by shutting down the device. Turning it back on recreated the problem, suggesting a possible link. (Even if you are far from the cockpit, you may be sitting near an antenna.) But attempts to duplicate interference with cockpit gear in laboratories failed. .In a study published in 2006, researchers at Carnegie Mellon University who rode 37 airline flights with a radio-frequency measuring device found emissions from cellphones that could interfere with global-positioning satellite systems. And the nonprofit RTCA Inc., which advises the FAA on technical issues, said in a lengthy study in 2008 that emissions from transmitting personal electronic devices, or T-PEDS, could interfere with critical aircraft systems. Regulators believe there is a chance that electronic emissions from passenger devices could interfere with navigation instruments, and if even the remotest possibility of disaster exists, it's better to turn them off for takeoff and landing. That rule is backed by a sweeping federal law. Passengers must comply with crew instructions on board commercial airplanes, or face potential fines and jail time. And it involves an often-overlooked safety concern: Passengers must be able to hear flight attendants in an emergency, so no headphones are allowed during takeoff or landing. "The problem is taking flight attendants away from their jobs, and they have to be ready for an emergency," says FAA spokeswoman Alison Duquette. Cellphones are banned during entire flights-not just during takeoff and landing-because they can interfere with ground-based antenna capacity. The Federal Communications Commission, along with the FAA, bans in-flight use because a phone flying at more than 500 miles per hour, six miles above the ground, connects with lots of cell towers, hogging bandwidth. Connecting at that speed and altitude also takes lots of power from the phone, yielding stronger emissions that could interfere with instruments. There is a technical solution to the cellphone problem. Small cell antennas on airplanes could link to onboard phones and transmit between the ground and the plane safely. These are similar to the small antennas on airplanes that provide Wi-Fi service. Several international airlines said they would offer cellular service in-flight; Emirates Airline and Etihad Airways have planes in service equipped for cell connectivity. U.S. passengers complained loudly to the FCC when it considered lifting its ban in 2007-they didn't want to have to listen to calls on airplanes. Flight attendants say one or two people on almost every flight don't seem to think the device ban applies to them. "There's a lack of awareness of what the rules are, why the rules are there and what the flight attendant's role is," says Veda Shook, an Alaska Airlines flight attendant and president of the Association of Flight Attendants. Airlines say they train flight attendants in methods to calm confrontations. They also give pilots and attendants leeway to judge whether a passenger should be removed and put on another flight. Last year, Southwest saw tempers flare with summer's scorching temperatures. The company is currently working on a plan to keep cabins cooler during short airport stops. "If we keep the air cool, hopefully we'll keep tempers and discomfort as cool as possible, as well," says Mr. McDaniel, president of the Transport Workers Union local that represents Southwest flight attendants. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204781804577267304080904804.html Back to Top Fuel leak diverts AirTran flight from Atlanta KENNER, La. - An AirTran Airways flight from Atlanta to Houston was diverted Wednesday to Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport because of a fuel leak. Southwest Airlines Co. spokesman Chris Mainz said Flight 295, which left Atlanta at 8:45 a.m., landed at the Kenner airport without incident after the pilot saw that he was low on fuel. Mainz said a fuel leak was found in one of the engines of the Boeing 717, which was carrying 74 passengers and five crew members. There was no fire as the result of the leak. Passengers were transferred to another plane and arrived at Houston Hobby Airport at 1:45 p.m. Southwest recently purchased AirTran and is merging its system into Southwest's. http://www.ajc.com/news/fuel-leak-diverts-airtran-1376696.html Back to Top Back to Top Boeing finishes testing for 787s with GE engines Once the FAA signs off, the first GE-powered Dreamliners can be delivered to Japan Airlines, probably later this month. Boeing said Wednesday it has completed all flight and ground testing needed to certify the initial version of the 787 Dreamliner with GE engines. The final flight tests were completed late last month by Dreamliner No. 35, including one 19-hour endurance flight that - just for fun - crisscrossed 10 states to trace in the sky the numbers 787 and the Boeing corporate logo. The Federal Aviation Administration must inspect the data gathered in the final flights and sign off on the paperwork before the GE-engined airplane receives its certifcation to carry passengers. Once that's done, the first GE-powered Dreamliners can be delivered to Japan Airlines, probably later this month. Certification of the 787 with Rolls-Royce engines was completed in August 2011 and five of those have already been delivered. The flight test program began with the 787's first flight in December 2009. Since then, more than 2,000 test flights have been flown for a total of more than 6,000 hours in the air. Mike Sinnett, vice president and 787 chief project engineer, called it "the most robust, thorough flight test program in our history." Boeing said further testing will continue as needed on improvements to the 787 engine and airframe. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2017692765_boeing08.html Back to Top Airbus faces €105m repair bill for A380 superjumbos' cracked wings Airbus's parent, European aerospace and defence group EADS, reveals cost of cracks as it announces 87% rise in profits Airbus faces a repair bill of €105m (£87m) to fix cracks in the wings of its global fleet of A380 superjumbos. Airbus's parent, the European aerospace and defence group EADS, revealed the cost at its annual results in Paris on Thursday morning, a month after safety checks for the state-of-the-art aircraft were extended to all 67 in service. The European Aviation Safety Agency has warned that if they are not detected the cracks inside the wings "may lead to reduction of the structural integrity of the aeroplane". The EASA directives apply to two types of crack. The most serious defect, located in a specific area of the A380 wings, relates to brackets that attach the A380's wing ribs - the elongated, oval-shaped frames that run along the width of the wing - to the wing's metal skin. The cracks were caused by the stress generated when the brackets were fastened to the skin - a strain that was exacerbated by the flexing of the wings during flight. A380 wings are built at the Airbus factory in Broughton, Wales, but it is understood that the most serious cracks are a design fault. The main Airbus wing design facility is at Filton near Bristol although the brackets at the centre of the safety scare were not made there. So far 18 planes have been checked for the most serious defect, dubbed a "type two" crack, and every plane must be checked before it reaches 1,300 flights in service. Aviation sources said that type two cracks had not been discovered in every inspection to date, although they had been found in some checks. The A380's biggest customer is Dubai-based airline Emirates, which operates 20 of the 525-seater jets, followed by Singapore Airlines with 15, Qantas with 12, Lufthansa eight, Air France six, Korean Air five and China Southern two. The repair bill includes covering the cost of the checks and, if necessary, replacing cracked parts with new fittings. If serious cracks are detected, the flawed part is cut out and replaced by engineers. EADS revealed on Thursday that 2011 sales rose 7% to €49.1bn from €45.7bn the year before, beating analysts' expectations of around €47.9bn. Full-year profit at the group, where Airbus is the biggest unit, grew 87% to just over €1bn. * This article was amended on 8 March 2012. The original referred to a compensation bill instead of a repair bill. This has been corrected. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/mar/08/airbus-compensation-a380-cracked- wings?newsfeed=true Back to Top Fake drugs worth $700,000 seized at Los Angeles airport A 71-year-old man has been arrested in Los Angeles, USA, after almost 40,000 counterfeit erectile dysfunction pills worth an estimated $700,000 were discovered in his bag by customs officers. Kil Jun Lee, who is reported to be an ex law enforcement officer from South Korea, was intercepted at Los Angeles International Airport by Homeland Security. His bag contained around 30,000 counterfeit copies of Pfizer's Viagra (sildenafil), along with 9,000 pills mimicking Eli Lilly's Cialis (tadalafil) pills and 800 copies of Bayer/GlaxoSmithKline's Levitra (vardenafil) tablets. http://www.securingpharma.com/fake-drugs-worth-700-000-seized-at-los-angeles- airport/s40/a1195/ Curt Lewis, P.E., CSP, FRAeS, FISASI CURT LEWIS & ASSOCIATES, LLC