Flight Safety Information September 5, 2012 - No. 180 In This Issue Airplane crash probe continues (Taiwan) NTSB Cites Water In Fuel Tanks, Pilot Training For Deadly Plane Crash ANA aborts Boeing Dreamliner take-off after pump leak Air rage incident forces Beijing-bound Swiss airliner to return to Zurich Fighter jet lands safely after bird strike Flying The Osprey Is Not Dangerous, Just Different: Veteran Pilots PRISM Certification Support Charges dropped in airport planter gun case NASA approves $100,000 for Sideways 'Ninja' supersonic plane Disabled Calif. boy not allowed to board airplane Airplane crash probe continues (Taiwan) AVIATION INVESTIGATION:Detailed computer data taken from the stricken plane as well as national radar systems are to be combined to ascertain why the craft went down The Aviation Safety Council yesterday said it would soon start decoding information recorded on the camera of the aircraft owned by ROC Aviation Corp that crashed last week, adding that the investigation into the accident would also include the cause of death of the three people aboard the aircraft. Rescuers found the airline's Britton-Norman BN-2 islander on Sunday following a three- day search. The damaged plane was found on a steep slope in a mountainous area between Hualien and Greater Kaohsiung. The three people on board - pilot Hsueh Chen-hao (???), co-pilot Chang Ming-ching ( ???) and aerial photographer Chien Yu-hsin (???) - were found dead at the crash scene. Prosecutor Tsai Pai-ta (???) of the Hualien Prosecutors' Office said a joint examination the office carried out with the coroner showed that the three died after severe loss of blood, adding that the crash impact was significant. Tsai said Hsueh had suffered numerous fractures to bones in his face and had suffered a fatal brain injury. Chang sustained fractures to his ribs and had several open wounds and contusions on the right side of his back. Chien suffered a fatal wound to his right lung, which had been penetrated by a sharp object. The council's managing director Thomas Wang (???) said its investigators had brought back some of the aircraft's photographic equipment and memory cards. "They [the equipment and the cards] are very damp from humidity and need to be dried out before any decoding can begin," Wang said. Wang said the council would send another group of investigators to the site on Saturday and bring back the engine, the dashboard and the rest of the photographic equipment the plane was carrying. Wang said council officials would calculate the impact of the crash based on the recorded speed of the aircraft and angle at which it hit the ground in order to determine the cause of the deaths of the three. Want added that it an examination carried out by the prosecutors' office would be used for reference. The council said its report should be released within three months. Many have raised questions about the nation's ability to rescue victims and specifically, the failure to speedily and accurately identify the point of rescue, which has been cited as the main reason rescue efforts were delayed. The Civil Aeronautics Administration said that the aircraft's position - as indicated by its radar systems - was different from the coordinates that had been generated by the emergency locator transmitter (ELT) due to blind spots caused by the high mountains where the craft went down. It also added that the aircraft had continued to fly in an area that cannot be tracked by its radar and this explained why the aircraft was found at a different location from the one registered through its radar systems. The administration also said that the ELT had transmitted signals using the 406MHz radio frequency and that these signals are first received by satellites and then decoded by its mission control center which indicates in which nation the aircraft is registered, its registration number and details on its owner. The accuracy of the information may also be affected by the number of satellites in operation as well, the administration said, adding that the mission control center provides only 10 sets of coordinates that have clear signals. Chang's widow, Mao Ming-hua (???), thanked the rescuers for helping to find her husband, but she also said tearfully that the rescue operation was very "disorganized" and "chaotic." She said she hoped her husband's death would help the government reform the rescue system and integrate resources in relevant government agencies. http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2012/09/05/2003542017/2 *********** Status: Preliminary Date: 30 AUG 2012 Time: ca 09:15 Type: Britten-Norman BN-2B-26 Islander Operator: Dapeng Airlines Registration: B-68801 C/n / msn: 2255 First flight: 1991 Engines: 2 Lycoming 0-540-E4C5 Crew: Fatalities: 3 / Occupants: 3 Passengers: Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 0 Total: Fatalities: 3 / Occupants: 3 Airplane damage: Destroyed Airplane fate: Written off (damaged beyond repair) Location: Hualien County (Taiwan) Phase: En route (ENR) Nature: Survey/research Departure airport: Taipei-Sung Shan Airport (TSA) (TSA/RCSS), Taiwan Destination airport: Taitung Airport (TTT) (TTT/RCFN), Taiwan Narrative: A Britten-Norman BN-2 Islander plane went missing during an aerial photography flight in eastern Taiwan. The airplane took off at 07:25 from Taipei-Sung Shan Airport (TSA) to Taitung Airport (TTT). The flight It conducted a survey in eastern Yilan and Hualien counties. There was no contact with the flight after 09:14. An ELT signal was detected shortly afterwards. A rescue helicopter located the wreckage in a mountainous area at an altitude of around 1,600 meters. www.aviation-safety.net Back to Top NTSB Cites Water In Fuel Tanks, Pilot Training For Deadly Plane Crash Water contamination of fuel and a pilot who could have been better trained are the two main reasons the National Transportation Safety Board gives for why a private plane crashed and killed five last year in Long Beach. At about 10:30 a.m., March 16, 2011, a Beech Super King Air 200 plane took off and promptly swung around and crashed back on Long Beach Municipal Airport grounds. The fiery accident killed Thomas Dean (Naples), Mark Bixby (Long Beach), Jeff Berger (Manhattan Beach), Bruce Krall (Ladera Ranch) and pilot Kenneth Cruz (Culver City). Firefighters were able to pull Long Beach resident Mike Jensen from the plane alive, and Jensen has survived his injuries. Since then, data from the crash has been combed over for about a year by multiple federal and state agencies, along with airplane and part manufacturers. The NTSB final report - which included multiple witness accounts - was adopted on Aug. 29. The report found the following causes to the accident: * The pilot's failure to maintain directional control of the airplane during momentary interruption of power from the left engine during the initial takeoff climb. * Contributing to the accident was the power interruption due to water contamination of the fuel, which was likely not drained from the fuel tanks by the pilot during preflight inspection as required in the POH (Pilot's Operating Handbook). Witnesses reported that the airplane's takeoff appeared to be normal, but shortly after it stopped climbing, the plane yawed left. They also said they heard several abnormal noises. Security camera feeds showed the airplane made it to the midpoint of the runway at 140 feet above ground and at a groundspeed of 130 knots before it began to yaw. A mechanic, who had experience with similar planes, was a witness to the accident. He said he heard a pop and attributed the noise and some smoke to one of the engines of the plane intermittently relighting and extinguishing. The investigation found no anomalies with the plane itself and there were no contaminants in the fuel. However, the investigation did find that the pilot's previous employer did not require him to drain the fuel tank sumps before every flight - instead a mechanic would do it at an unknown interval. "There were six fuel drains on each wing that the Pilot's Operating Handbook for the airplane dictated should be drained before every flight," the report says. Cruz was the only person who had flown the aircraft for its last 40 flights - there was no way to know definitively whether he did or did not drain the sumps. All the information gathered indicates that the left engine experienced momentary power interruption during the takeoff initial climb, which was consistent with a power interruption resulting from water contamination of the left engine's fuel supply. Also, investigators found that there was no documentation that the Cruz had ever received training in a full-motion King Air simulator. "Although simulator training was not required, if the pilot had received this type of training, it is likely that he would have been better prepared to maintain directional control in response to the left yaw from asymmetrical power," the report says. "Given that the airplane's airspeed was more than 40 knots above the minimum control speed of 86 knots when the left yaw began, the pilot should have been able to maintain directional control during the momentary power interruption." The preliminary report had mentioned that the plane was 650 pounds heavier than the maximum allowable gross takeoff weight of 12,500 pounds, but the final report said that shouldn't have affected the pilot's ability to regain control. http://www.gazettes.com/news/government/ntsb-cites-water-in-fuel-tanks-pilot- training-for-deadly/article_28d2993a-f6e3-11e1-89e0-001a4bcf887a.html Back to Top ANA aborts Boeing Dreamliner take-off after pump leak TOKYO, Sept 5 (Reuters) - Japan's All Nippon Airways , the launch customer for Boeing's 787 Dreamliner, said on Wednesday it had aborted the take-off of one of the new jets after a leaking hydraulic pump forced the taxiing aircraft to return to the terminal. Public broadcaster NHK showed images of white smoke spewing from the back of the aircraft, which was due to fly to Tokyo from Okayama, western Japan. None of the 88 passengers on board were hurt in the incident, ANA spokeswoman Masumi Oguchi said. The aircraft has been taken out of service awaiting inspection of pumps used in the wings and other parts of the plane, she added. Boeing is competing with European rival Airbus to equip the world's airlines. The U.S. planemaker says the 787 will give airlines a 20 percent fuel saving compared with its predecessor, the 767. The jet also boasts higher cabin pressure aimed at reducing jet lag, state-of-the-art lighting and the largest windows of any airliner in service. Boeing officials in Tokyo were not immediately available to comment on the 787's aborted take-off. Wednesday's incident comes after ANA, which has ordered 55 Dreamliners, grounded five of the jets in July after tests revealed a risk of engine corrosion. The 787s returned to service after the airline fitted new parts. In November, soon after taking delivery of the first of the $194 million planes, the carrier reported a landing gear problem. Back to Top Air rage incident forces Beijing-bound Swiss airliner to return to Zurich An air rage incident aboard a Swiss International Airlines flight - in which one man hit another man who reclined his seat - forced the pilot to turn the flight around. An air rage incident aboard a Swiss International Airlines flight - in which one man hit another man who reclined his seat - forced the pilot to turn the flight around. The Beijing-bound Airbus A340, carrying 200 people, had been airborne around 4 hours before returning to Zurich after the fight between the two men spilled into the aisle, Agence France-Presse reported. "The way back to Zurich was shorter [than carrying on] to Beijing," Swiss spokesman Mehdi Guenin told Blick.ch, the online news website, which also carried video of the altercation taken on board the plane. The fight reportedly began when a 57-year-old Chinese man reacted to the passenger in front of him, aged 27 and also reportedly Chinese, who reclined his seat during the meal service. Blick quoted a tourist guide on the flight, Valerie Sprenger, as saying: "The older of the two felt disturbed during his dinner. When the younger did not respond to his protests, he hit him on the head with the flat of his hand. It was a real slap." The men began brawling and rolled into the plane's aisle, according to the Blick report. A crew member and a passenger restrained one of the men, binding his hands and placing him at the back of the plane, where he shouted for an hour. China.org.cn reported that both men were arrested by Zurich police and cited Zurich Cantonal Police spokesperson Werner Schaub as saying that alcohol had played a role in the brawl. According to AFP, at least one man went before a local magistrate who fined him an undisclosed amount. China.org.cn cited Swiss spokesperson Myriam Ziesack as saying the company was considering suing the pair to pay for the extra jet fuel used and the cost of accommodating passengers in Zurich for a night. According to a recent survey by UK TripAdvisor, cited by News.com.au, aggressive seat recliners were identified as the biggest irritant for 29 percent of passengers. http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/weird-wide- web/air-rage-swiss-airlines-beijing-zurich-free-alcohol Back to Top Fighter jet lands safely after bird strike A bird strike caused a fighter jet from the Ohio Air National Guard base at Toledo Express Airport to make a precautionary landing Tuesday afternoon, a base spokesman said. Maj. Gary Bentley, of the 180th Fighter Wing, said the jet's pilot circled the airport for about 40 minutes to burn off fuel after his aircraft's engine ingested the bird at about 2:25 p.m., then landed safely. There was no injury and no visible damage to the plane, but the engine will be inspected and repaired as necessary, the major said. http://www.toledoblade.com/local/2012/09/04/Fighter-jet-makes-unexpected-landing- at-Toledo-Express.html Back to Top Flying The Osprey Is Not Dangerous, Just Different: Veteran Pilots In the last few weeks the Air Force and the Marines have officially blamed pilot errors for two Osprey crashes. Given the plane's dark past and the continuing controversies about whether it's a safe aircraft I commissioned our regular contributor Richard Whittle, author of The Dream Machine: The Untold History of the Notorious V-22 Osprey," to interview as many experienced Osprey pilots as he could reach to see if they believe the Osprey is a flawed aircraft or not. His findings follow. The Editor An Air Force finding that the pilot caused the June 13 crash of a CV-22B Osprey at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., in which all five crew on board were injured, marks the second time within weeks a major accident involving the helicopter-airplane hybrid transport has been blamed on the human at the controls, not the machine. Some AOL Defense readers think they see a pattern there that points to a larger conclusion. "The Osprey is an inherently dangerous and unforgiving aircraft to fly," a reader who identified himself only as "Robert" declared in a comment posted after AOL Defense reported Aug. 16 that a Marine Corps pilot's errors caused an MV-22B to crash during an exercise in Morocco last April. Two crew chiefs died in that accident and both pilots were severely injured. Robert, whose view echoes those of other critics who have posted their opinions of the Osprey on AOL Defense, added that the V-22's "quirks are numerous and I feel pose an exceedingly dangerous risk when compared to other aircraft." Against the backdrop of the Morocco and Florida crashes, such comments raise a fair question, Osprey pilots interviewed by AOL Defense agreed: Does the V-22 being a tiltrotor make it dangerously tricky to fly? Nine out of 10 interviewed -- the notable exception being the test pilot who suffered the Osprey's first crash in 1991 - said the opposite is true. "The first thing I'd ask Robert is, what's his flight experience?" said Bill Leonard, who from 1993-2006 was principal Osprey test pilot for Bell Helicopter Textron Inc., which makes the V-22 in a 50-50 partnership with Boeing Co. Leonard estimates he logged a bit more than 1,000 hours flying succeeding generations of the Osprey, from the 10 prototypes to the fourth-generation Block B. He added that in a 40-year career in which he was shot down four times as a UH-1 Huey helicopter pilot in the Vietnam War, continued to fly as an Army special operations aviator, then served as a military and commercial test pilot, he flew about 200 different types of aircraft, from Boeing 747 jumbo jets to gliders. "Every airplane has its quirks," said Leonard, now an independent contractor who teaches a two-day aerodynamics course to incoming Marine and Air Force Osprey pilots at Marine Corps Air Station New River, N.C. "The Osprey is no different from any other aircraft, whether it's an airplane, a helicopter, a glider, a balloon - whatever it is that goes up and gets away from the surly bonds of Earth," Leonard said. "If you misapply the controls, you'll have a problem." Leonard and other Osprey pilots generally agreed, though, that because the V-22 is a tiltrotor, it has peculiarities that require pilots to keep in mind they're flying a hybrid, not a conventional helicopter or fixed-wing airplane. "I don't believe the Osprey is inherently difficult to fly," said Tom Macdonald, who as a Boeing test pilot and later chief of the combined Bell-Boeing-military V-22 test pilot team logged more than 1,150 hours in the tiltrotor from 1991 until he left the program in 2007. Macdonald no longer flies the Osprey but in 2003 won an award from the Society of Experimental Test Pilots for flying dangerous tests to find out when a V-22's rotors might go into a treacherous aerodynamic condition called "vortex ring state," in which a rotor can suddenly lose lift. Vortex ring state was blamed for the Osprey's worst crash, in which 19 Marines died during an operational test at Marana, Ariz., on April 8, 2000. "There are handling characteristics in flying the Osprey that are starkly different from other aircraft, but those different characteristics are not necessarily bad, they're just different," Macdonald said. The chief reason the Osprey is different from other aircraft is that it can take off and land like a helicopter by pointing two large rotors housed in swiveling wingtip pods called "nacelles" straight up to 90 degrees or even backward to 97.5 degrees. Once airborne, and after gaining sufficient forward speed flying like a helicopter to produce lift with its wings, the pilot can turn the V-22 into a fixed-wing airplane by pushing a small thumbwheel on the throttle, or Thrust Control Lever (TCL), to tilt the nacelles and rotors forward to angles as low as zero degrees. The pilot can also stop the nacelles at angles between 60 and roughly 30 degrees above horizontal to make the Osprey fly neither like a pure airplane nor a pure helicopter but something in between. To accomplish all this, the Osprey has computerized flight controls - known as "fly by wire" - that make the pilot's manual controls - stick, TCL and pedals -- perform differently depending on the mode of flight. The flight control computer mixes helicopter and airplane controls in different proportions as the angles of the nacelles change: * When the Osprey is in helicopter mode, with its nacelles vertical or nearly so - 97.5 to 60 degrees -- and its rotors providing all lift, the pilot's stick, TCL and pedals perform the way helicopter controls do. Pushing the stick forward or pulling it back makes the aircraft move forward or backward. Pushing the stick to either side makes the aircraft move laterally. Adding or removing power with the TCL makes the Osprey gain or lose altitude by collectively changing the angle at which all three blades on each rotor meet the air as they rotate. Pushing the left or right pedal makes the aircraft turn in that direction by altering the angle of the rotor blades cyclically - higher on one side, lower on the other -- as they rotate through the arc they describe. * When the Osprey is flying like an airplane, with nacelles tilted forward between 30 and zero degrees and with the roughly 120 knots of forward airspeed needed to generate all lift from the wings in level flight, the stick, TCL and pedals perform as a fixed-wing aircraft's controls do. Pushing the stick forward or pulling it back will make the aircraft dive or climb by moving the control surface on the tail known as the "elevator." Adding or reducing power with the TCL will make the Osprey fly faster or slower. Pushing the stick sideways will move control surfaces on the wings called "flaperons" in opposite directions to roll or bank the aircraft, and pushing the foot pedals will move the tail rudder to make the Osprey turn. "The one difference between our aircraft and everybody else's aircraft is the changing controls," said Capt. Justin "Moon" McKinney, a 17-year Marine Corps veteran who flew in the Osprey's first combat deployment to Iraq in 2007 and recently completed two- and-a-half years as an MV-22 operational test pilot. McKinney, who recently rejoined an operational squadron, said that with the nacelles between 30 and 60 degrees, "If you hit power, you're going to go up and forward. All the controls do a little bit of everything." This is one reason McKinney says flying the Osprey can be a "thinking man's game." But the ability to combine helicopter and airplane functions gives the Osprey unique capabilities, he noted, such as executing what pilots call an "80 Jump" takeoff by tilting the nacelles forward to 80 degrees and applying power. The 80 Jump "gets you out of the dust and gets wind over wings" in a hurry, McKinney said, allowing a quick departure from a landing zone that might come under hostile fire. In addition to such unique capabilities, the Osprey's large nacelles and rotors create special characteristics a pilot has to take into account, and which underlay the two recent crashes. The wingtip nacelles each contain an engine, rotor system, driveshafts, a gear box and other elements that weigh a total of about 5,500 lbs. and shift the aircraft's center of gravity as they move forward and back. Osprey pilots are taught in training that the aircraft's nose must be held level or pitched up when the nacelles are being tilted forward. Swinging that much weight forward can shift the aircraft's center of gravity so far the controls can't prevent it from diving. Failure to keep that in mind contributed to the April 11 Marine Corps crash in Morocco, which occurred when a pilot with 160 hours in the MV-22B lifted into a hover, turned to head in the other direction, let the nose pitch down as he did, then tilted the nacelles farther forward than allowed with less than 40 knots of airspeed, and with a tail wind impinging on the elevator. "Helicopters lower the nose and pull pitch to accelerate," observed retired Marine Lt. Col. Jim "Trigger" Schafer, who, as a member of a Marine Corps/Air Force Multiservice Operational Test Team (MOTT), flew operational tests of the Osprey in 1995-2000. "You can't fly the V-22 like a helicopter." Schafer, who lost close friends in the Osprey's crashes during development, added that the V-22 "is one of the easiest aircraft I've flown" in helicopter or airplane mode. However, he said, "All that conversion/transition stuff in between is a unique V-22 skill set that must be taught with repetition and building seat time." In Morocco, he said, "It appears the aircraft was flown beyond its capability. Take a perfectly good Cessna 172 and take off and pull back on the nose and not support the pitch attitude with airspeed, the aircraft will stall." Another Osprey characteristic is the powerful downwash of its rotors, a function of their size compared to the thrust they need to produce. Designed to fit on the deck of an amphibious assault ship, the Osprey's rotors are 38 feet in diameter -- about five feet less than would have been optimum for an aircraft designed to carry 24 Marines and take off vertically at a maximum gross weight of 52,600 lbs., according to engineers who helped design it. The V-22's rotor blades are also twisted far more than a helicopter's because they have to grab the air like propellers when flying in airplane mode. This combination of relatively small diameter and high twist creates the Osprey's strong downwash, a feature known as "high disk loading." The Osprey's rotor wash is powerful enough that pilots are instructed to keep at least 250 feet separation between their cockpit and that of a V-22 flying ahead when flying in formation and in helicopter mode so as to avoid the lead aircraft's rotor wake. Marine Corps and Air Force flight manuals also admonish pilots to avoid the lead aircraft's 5 to 7 o'clock position, fly at least 25 feet higher, and increase that separation to 50 feet when forced to cross the lead's wake. Failure to follow those rules runs the risk that the turbulence from the lead V-22's rotor wake will knock the lift out from under one of the trailing aircraft's rotors, causing a snap roll that may be unrecoverable - the cause of the June 13 CV-22B crash, the Air Force accident report found. The Air Force report on the accident, however, said that while the pilots failed to see that they were flying through another Osprey's wake, "CV-22 wake modeling is inadequate for a trailing aircraft to make accurate estimations of safe separation from the preceding aircraft." The high disk loading of the Osprey's rotors also causes a V-22 phenomenon called "lateral darting." When hovering 10 or 15 feet above the ground or over a ship's deck, the Osprey is subject to slipping quickly to one side or the other as turbulence created by its rotors disturbs the air beneath it. Numerous modifications to the flight control software over the years have helped with that problem, current Osprey pilots said, but lateral darting is one reason former V-22 test pilot Grady Wilson recalls the aircraft as "squirrely." "It puts out a gale force wind underneath it," Wilson said. "So you hover at 50 feet, because as you start to come down ... it wobbles around." Current Osprey pilots said the tactic used to avoid lateral darting is to "fly the aircraft to the deck" rather than hover at low levels. Wilson, who joined Boeing to fly the Osprey in late 1990 after flying Hueys in Vietnam and serving as an Army and NASA test pilot, added that the V-22 "was a tricky aircraft to fly from the time I got into it." Wilson was piloting Osprey prototype No. 5 at Greater Wilmington Airport in Delaware on June 11, 1991, when the aircraft went haywire at takeoff and pirouetted nose-first into a runway from low altitude. As it turned out, a worker had reverse-wired part of the flight controls, making them malfunction. Wilson and his copilot walked away from the crash, but Wilson quit the next year after another Boeing test pilot, three other company employees and three Marines were killed in Osprey prototype No. 4, which plunged into the Potomac River at Quantico Marine Base after a fire in its right nacelle crippled the engine and rotor on that side. "It's tricky because you have two opposing mindsets as a pilot to operate under," said Wilson, who flew the Osprey a bit less than 90 hours in all. "One is go fast; the other is hover and precision. They're counter to each other." Wilson added that, in his view, "You need a fairly experienced helicopter guy to handle this thing." Former test pilot and aerodynamics instructor Leonard said he respected Wilson's views but found them out of date. "One of the biggest problems we've had in the community is getting past the idea that it's a helicopter that flies fast," Leonard said. "It's not. It's an airplane that hovers. And if you fly the airplane like a helicopter, yes, it's very difficult to fly as a helicopter. And if you do that, you have a very good chance of having a problem with controllability because of the way the aircraft operates. If you fly it like an airplane and you are willing to take the time to understand the capabilities of it in helicopter, it's a very, very easy airplane to fly." One active duty V-22 pilot, speaking on condition of anonymity because he hadn't been authorized to comment, cited himself as a prime example of what Leonard meant. Originally a fighter jet pilot, this officer transferred to the Osprey, became an operational pilot and has flown combat missions in the V-22 without ever touching the controls of a helicopter - as have a small number of other current Osprey pilots. Helicopter experience has proven unnecessary, this pilot said, because today's Osprey has an Automated Flight Control System that has been refined so much since the prototypes Wilson flew that it makes it easy to hover the aircraft. "I still have never flown a helicopter, don't have a single minute of helicopter flying time, but if I can come from a (fighter jet) and have no problems hovering this airplane, then it's a pretty darn stable airplane," this pilot said. "Fixed wing pilots almost have an easier time coming in because in a helicopter you're always working, always working. This is all (helicopter pilots) know. We (fixed-wing pilots) actually hover (in the Osprey) better than a lot of helicopter pilots because the helicopter pilots have it ingrained in them, 'I'm in a hover; I've got to be making corrections.' So they're constantly moving the controls when they don't necessarily need to." Thanks to the automated flight controls, this pilot added, "I'll tell you this: if you ever get to the point where you're hovering and you're working too hard, let go of the controls, and that airplane will hover just fine - better than you, because it has an automatic flight control system that's constantly, every nanosecond, making inputs based on what the pilot's doing, based on what all the flight control computers and those airborne sensors outside are taking in." Arthur "Rex" Rivolo, an Air Force F-4 Phantom fighter jet pilot in Vietnam who later flew helicopters in the Air National Guard and in the 1990s monitored the Osprey's development program for a federally funded think tank said he remained convinced that, "The V-22 is indeed a slippery aircraft." "It is prone to small pilot errors and those small errors have catastrophic results," Rivolo said in an email. "The additional degree of freedom [nacelle angle], along with the side- by-side differential control for roll and yaw greatly increases the complexity of the 'decision space' for the pilot. The flight envelope is of a much higher dimensionality and much more complex that any conventional helo or a fixed-wing aircraft. Training does not address these issues well." Macdonald, who heatedly debated the V-22's merits with Rivolo more than a decade ago, when the Osprey was being redesigned and retested following two crashes in the year 2000, said he believed the aircraft's record since then simply hasn't borne out Rivolo's views. Since the Osprey's first flight in 1989, there have been six V-22 crashes, three during its development prior to 2000, in which four Boeing employees and 26 Marines perished, and three since it was redesigned and retested between 2001-2005, then put into service with the Marines and Air Force. In the three Osprey crashes since 2001, a total of six persons have died. Since Oct. 1, 2001, the U.S. military has lost 416 helicopters - mostly to accidents - at a cost of 623 American lives. Retired Air Force Col. Jim Shaffer, a former special operations helicopter pilot who from 1997-2000 commanded his service's contingent of the MOTT, agreed with Macdonald. "I flew (MH-53) Pave Low helicopters for a couple of decades," Shaffer emailed, "and as much as I love that machine [now in the boneyard], it tried to kill me many times." Shaffer added that a "quick look at the mishap rate" shows that the Osprey is "well above some other machines" in safety. Two of the three Osprey crashes since 2001 have been Air Force CV-22Bs, including one that made a hard landing while carrying Army Rangers on a night raid in Afghanistan in 2010, then flipped onto its back after its nose gear hit a ditch, killing four of 20 persons on board. After the recent crash at Eglin, said retired Maj. Paul Alexander, who between 2004-2009 was one of the Air Force's first four CV-22 instructors, the service is discussing whether to hire experienced hands such as himself to help train new pilots. The Army's 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (SOAR) uses such an arrangement with retired 160th SOAR pilots, Alexander said, which allows experienced active duty pilots to focus on operations. "The experience level in the Air Force in the Osprey community is starting to diminish because they picked, initially, many pilots who had the experience to help the program get off the ground, and many of those pilots have been promoted or have retired like myself and are moving on to other jobs," said Alexander, who flew MH-47 Chinooks for the 160th SOAR for 15 years before transferring to the Air Force to fly the Osprey. "This is an aircraft that, being rather new still, you don't have that experience depth or that base to work with." Heavy operational demand for AFSOC's two dozen CV-22Bs, meanwhile, has made it hard for Air Force Osprey pilots to get as much training time as they would like. AFSOC's Osprey pilots had been doing very little training in formation flying prior to the Eglin crash. After initial training with the Marines, incoming AFSOC pilots have been required to do only two formation flights in their Air Force CV-22B training, one in daytime and one at night, and they were given the option to waive the daytime flight. Since the Eglin crash, however, pilots are getting more copilot training hours, one AFSOC pilot said, and formation flying is getting new emphasis. AFSOC spokeswoman Capt. Kristen Duncan disputed the pilot's unauthorized description of CV-22B formation flight training. "Air Force aircrews learn formation skills in undergraduate pilot training, and much of that is transferrable to any aircraft type," Duncan said by email. "During CV-22 Mission Qualification training our aircrews have 10 formation flights. Continuation training requires four NVG (Night Vision Goggle) formation flights per semi- annual period. In reality, since Air Commandos train as they fight, a large percent of continuation training flights are scheduled as formation flights." Maj. Frank Lazzara, who as an Army warrant officer flew OH-58D Kiowa Warrior scout helicopters for seven years before transferring into the Air Force in 2005 to fly MH-53s and later CV-22s, said all AFSOC pilots would welcome more time to train. "Do all Osprey pilots in our squadrons get to fly enough? They certainly don't get the time that I got as a young 53 pilot or as an initial Osprey cadre guy," said Lazzara, who in addition to flying operational missions for AFSOC serves as a CV-22B instructor. "When people are not trained properly or don't follow their training," he added, "there is a vulnerability there. But that's true for any aircraft." Or, as former Osprey test pilot Bill Leonard put it, "What we do is risky." http://defense.aol.com/2012/09/05/flying-the-osprey-is-not-dangerous-just-different- veteran-pilo/ Back to Top Back to Top Charges dropped in airport planter gun case Portland Airport Charges have been dismissed against an Eagle Point man who hid a gun in a planter box at Portland International Airport earlier this summer. Soren Muir Johnson, 69, was at the airport preparing to travel to the Philippines on June 24 when he remembered he still had his loaded .22-caliber pistol with him. After being told by a Transportation Security Administration officer that he should declare the gun at a ticket counter with his other baggage, Johnson instead chose to bury the weapon in an airport planter box. He said he intended to dig it up after returning from his trip, according to a report from the Port of Portland police. When a TSA behavior detection officer spotted him, Johnson was arrested by police on a misdemeanor charge of reckless endangerment and taken to Multnomah County Jail. Johnson pleaded not guilty to the charge a day after being arrested, and was permitted to travel to the Philippines, where he said he was working to help out his family in the country. Charges were dismissed against Johnson on Aug. 28, and his gun was returned to him, court records show. "It's been dismissed, very happily," Johnson said Tuesday. "The police were just awesome. They were very nice to me." Johnson said he couldn't comment on the circumstances of the dismissal. A TSA spokeswoman said Tuesday the rules on guns are simple, but suggested TSA didn't consider Johnson's actions to be threatening. "We say just don't bring them to a checkpoint," Lorie Dankers of TSA said. "But people do forget." "This received a lot of attention," Dankers said of Johnson's case. "Always check (guns) legally before you travel." Dankers said more and more people are bringing guns to security checkpoints across the nation each year, either by mistake or because they're unaware of the rules. "Firearms, ammunition, parts and replicas are always prohibited," Dankers said. From January to July of 2012, more than 800 people nationwide attempted to bring a gun through a security checkpoint, Dankers said. In order to bring a firearm on a commercial airplane when traveling, the gun must be unloaded and in a locked, hard-sided container within checked baggage. When checking baggage, travelers must declare any firearms they have, and ammunition must be carried in a separate box or packaging specifically designed to carry ammunition. Johnson said in July that he had buried the gun carefully and was certain no one would have accidently dug it up. He said the mistake to bring the gun to the airport was "stupid" and he would never bring a firearm with him on future trips. http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120905/NEWS/209050323 Back to Top NASA approves $100,000 for Sideways 'Ninja' supersonic plane 'Ninja style' plane that spins 90 degrees in air for supersonic flight gets NASA aid for development. NASA launches Atlas VA new type of 'Ninja style' aircraft that spins 90 degrees in air for efficient faster-than-sound flight and 'virtually zero sonic boom' has been granted USD 100,000 by NASA for further development. The plane is created in a way that will allow it to take off from the ground, and then turn on its side once it reaches supersonic atmospheric levels so that it can continue its flight into the uppermost parts of space. The plane looks something like a four-cornered ninja throwing star with two sides that are extended out while the other two sides are far shorter, the Daily Mail reported. As the plane takes off from the ground, it has to have the longer wings on either side, making the plane appear shorter in length and longer in width, according to 'Engadget'. Normal commercial airplanes have such significant wings because they need to use that wingspan to gain enough momentum to get off of the ground. While the large wingspan is needed to take off, it creates too much drag for the plane when it reaches supersonic speeds. As a result, once it reaches the supersonic atmosphere, the plane will then rotate 90 degrees so that it is longer and thinner than when it took off. The new technology pioneered by Dr Gecheng Zha of University of Miami can overcome these problems. The school has an animated video of the plane in flight- equipped with the University's logo on the wings- to give a fuller idea of the shift and at what point that would happen during the flight. 'Engadget' reports that the recently-approved award from NASA will allow the Professor and his aides to continue their research and refine it using simulations and wind tunnel testing. While the funding will give the research an obvious boost, it is still expected to take decades before any form of said plane becomes a reality. http://www.deccanchronicle.com/node/154266 Back to Top Disabled Calif. boy not allowed to board airplane FRESNO, Calif. - A California family that was not allowed to board a cross-country flight says they believe they were discriminated against because their son has Down syndrome. Robert Vanderhorst, his wife Joan and 16-year-old son Bede, who is disabled, were booked to fly on an American Airlines flight from Newark to Los Angeles on Sunday when the boy and his parents were not allowed on the plane. The family from Porterville had upgraded to first class tickets at an airport kiosk, and asked the airline to seat the boy and one of his parents together - a request the airline granted - Vanderhorst said Tuesday. When the family was ready to board, they were stopped by airline personnel, told their son was a "security risk" and would not be allowed on the flight, he said. The parents protested, and later were rebooked to fly coach with another airline. American Airlines spokesman Matt Miller said the disabled boy was agitated and running around the gate area prior to boarding, which his parents dispute. The airplane's pilot observed the boy, Miller said, and made the call based on his behavior. "He was not ready to fly, that was our perspective," Miller said. "We rebooked the family out of concern for the young man's safety and that of other passengers as well." But Vanderhorst said his son did not run at any time, did not make any loud noises and didn't display any other offensive behaviors. The boy walked around with him or sat quietly in the gate area, Vanderhorst said. A cell phone video captured by the boy's mother shows Bede sitting and quietly playing with a baseball cap. Vanderhorst said Bede, a freshman at Granite Hills High School in Porterville, about 70 miles from Fresno, is very charming in contact with other people. The family has flown more than two dozen times with him, without any difficulties. "Usually my son gets his snack and falls asleep, just like most people," Vanderhorst said. "The problem is this pilot thought my son might not be like most people. He didn't want a disabled person disturbing other passengers in first class." The family says the pilot might have also been affected by the disabled boy's size - Bede is 5'1 and weighs 160 lbs. On the second airplane, the family was placed in the last row and no passengers were allowed to sit within two rows of them, Vanderhorst said. He hoped that airlines would change their mentality when dealing with the disabled. "It's ridiculous and groundless to claim that this kid created a security risk," he said. "It was the pilot's insecurity. I paid for those seats and there was nothing that should have prevented us from taking that flight." American Airlines' Miller said the company will reimburse the family for the upgrade fees. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20120905/us-airplane-boarding-disability/ Curt Lewis, P.E., CSP, FRAeS, FISASI CURT LEWIS & ASSOCIATES, LLC