Flight Safety Information January 10, 2013 - No. 008 In This Issue NTSB TO ASSIST WITH INVESTIGATION OF HELICOPTER CRASH IN PERU FAA warns flight attendants about exploding coffee filters Helicopter Industry Struggles with 2016 Safety Goals Fake Parts In Hercules Aircraft Called A Genuine Risk Plane crash near French Alps kills 5 Boeing top engineer says he's confident 787 is safe PROS IOSA Audit Experts International System Safety Society - Conference "CALL FOR PAPERS" Cessna's Citation M2 light business jet under assembly Twelve Operational Pitfalls for Helicopter Pilots Launch of Professional Pilot's Union - UK U.S. spaceship ventures plan to send test pilots into orbit as early as 2015 NTSB TO ASSIST WITH INVESTIGATION OF HELICOPTER CRASH IN PERU WASHINGTON - The National Transportation Safety Board is sending a team of investigators to Pucallpa, Peru, to assist the Government of Peru with its investigation of yesterday's crash involving a Boeing helicopter. According to the U.S. Department of State, the accident claimed the lives of five American citizens. On Monday afternoon, in Pucallpa, Peru, a Boeing-Vertol 234 helicopter, operated by the U.S. operator Columbia Helicopters, crashed shortly after takeoff. The helicopter had departed from FAP Captain David Abenzur Rengifo International Airport, Pullcapa, Peru enroute to Tarapoto, Peru. It has been reported that all seven persons aboard the aircraft sustained fatal injuries. The NTSB has designated senior air safety investigator, Paul Cox, as the U.S. Accredited Representative. He will be accompanied by two NTSB investigators with expertise in helicopter systems and operations, a representative from the Federal Aviation Administration, and a representative from Columbia Helicopters. The team is expected to arrive in Peru tonight. The Comision de Investigacion de Accidentes de Aviacion (CIAA) Ministerio de Transportes y Comunicaciones - MTC of Peru will release all information concerning the investigation. They can be reached at: Tel: 51-1-6157488 (website: http://www.mtc.gob.pe) www.ntsb.gov Back to Top FAA warns flight attendants about exploding coffee filters Washington (CNN) -- When a flight attendant serves up a cup of coffee, fliers are unlikely aware of just how much risk the crew took to deliver them that cup of joe. According to a safety alert published on the Federal Aviation Administration's website, the prepackaged coffee filters many airlines use are susceptible to pressure buildup and can explode when an unsuspecting attendant lifts the coffee pot to pour a cup. Coffee makers on airplanes, similar to home drip-style coffee makers, have the filter and coffee grounds above the coffee pot. Many airlines use prepackaged coffee sealed within the coffee filter for convenience and ease of cleanup. When the filters are incorrectly placed in the coffee maker the water can become blocked from dripping into the coffee pot below and pressure builds up within the container holding the filter and coffee grounds. When an unsuspecting flight attendant removes the coffee pot, the clogged compartment above suddenly has much more room to expand and the filter can burst, with its hot contents and hot water possibly injuring passengers and crew. Several cases of bursting java filters have caused flight crew and passengers to suffer first- and second- degree burns, according to the FAA's warning. "The coffee filter containing the hot coffee grounds can burst causing burns to the face, neck, hands, arms and torso in varying degrees of severity," the FAA's safety alert said. The alert was issued to airlines and aircraft operators on January 3. A good indication that a coffee filter container is about to explode is water overflow and a hissing noise coming from the coffee maker, the FAA said. When it looks like the coffee filter package is about to blow, passengers and crew nearby should get out of the way and not touch the coffee pot. Power to the coffee maker should be disconnected, the FAA said. To further prevent accidents, the agency is warning flight crews to make sure the filter packages aren't folded and that they are installed correctly before starting the brew. The FAA is encouraging air carriers and operators to add their warnings to flight-attendant manuals, training manuals and by warning crew members of the dangers of making coffee incorrectly. Back to Top Helicopter Industry Struggles with 2016 Safety Goals Some countries, such as Spain and Sweden, are to regulate search and rescue operations. The goal of cutting helicopter accidents by 80 percent in 2016 will be missed but the industry keeps striving to improve safety with new rules, designs and equipment. Recently released numbers show that the global helicopter industry will be far short of its self-assigned, highly ambitious goal of cutting the number of accidents by 80 percent over the 2006-2016 period, if current safety trends continue. Therefore, civil aviation authorities are striving to find new ways to reach out to pilots and operators, as well as manufacturers, to improve a relatively worrying situation. Means include new rules but also easy-to-read leaflets. Meanwhile, manufacturers are introducing new design processes and equipment to do their share of the effort, it appeared at the annual Rotorcraft Symposium the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) organized in December in Cologne, Germany. Bob Sheffield, a member of the International Helicopter Safety Team (IHST) and AgustaWestland's senior advisor for safety and fleet operational improvement, said that some regions are going the wrong way in terms of helicopter accident statistics. The global trend is a slightly declining number of accidents per 100,000 flight hours. At 5.7, it is still too high to leave room for reaching the target of 1.9 (accidents per 100,000 hours) in 2016 set by the IHST. These numbers are badly influenced by three regions-South America, Asia and Oceania. There, the trends are upward. Those regions where the accident trends are downward are Europe, North America (but both are still short of the reduction goal) and Africa. So was the 80 percent goal over-ambitious? "It was rather a federating aspiration, coinciding with the creation of the IHST," Michel Masson, EASA safety action coordinator, secretary of the European Helicopter Safety Team (EHEST) and co-chair of the European Helicopter Safety Analysis Team (EHSAT), told Rotor & Wing. He insisted the effort is likely to be carried on after 2016, especially if the goal is not attained. The EHSAT and the European Helicopter Safety Implementation Team (EHSIT) are part of the EHEST, itself the European chapter of the IHST. The causes of these not-so-good safety trends are hard to find. "Is the economic downturn an explanation for the hiccup we see on the graph from 2008?" asked John Steel, a representative of the Irish Aviation Authority and co-chair of the EHSIT. His team is still analyzing this possibility. Another possible explanation is a discrepancy between training and technology-a Robinson R66 is equipped with a glass cockpit and a Fadec, Steel underscored. "Helicopters are safe but some are not operated as safely as they could be; and we know how to make flying on a helicopter much safer," Sheffield stated. Some passengers may disagree with the first part of the statement. "Over the 1992-2009 period, 31 percent of offshore accident causes were technical," according to Olivier Claeys, head of aviation at Total. The oil company simply wants helicopter transport to be as safe as airlines. Not all types of operations appear the same way in safety statistics. For example, in the U.S., private, training and crop-dusting flights are the top three numbers of accidents. Several speakers, however, noted that collecting data is challenging. It has been impossible, for instance, for the EHEST to correlate crashes to numbers of landings. Dave Howson, a research project manager at the UK civil aviation administration (UK CAA), pointed at a cruel lack of contextual information. He was referring to annual flying hours by type of operation and aircraft type, flight time distribution by flight phase, as well as pilot flying experience and age. "If we had started collecting when the EHEST was launched in 2006, we would have five-plus years of good data by now!" he complained. Most accidents involve Part 27 (lighter) helicopters, Howson noted. Yet, Part 29 (heavier) helicopters are included in the statistics. "Do they cloud the picture?" Howson asked. Not a lot, it appears from his work. He studied Part 27-only accidents over the 2000-2010 period. The same two causes keep the top spots-pilot judgment and action, and safety management. The main difference is maintenance-as a cause, it appears five ranks higher in the Part 27 focus. http://www.aviationtoday.com/rw/training/specialty/Helicopter-Industry-Struggles-with-2016-Safety- Goals_78206.html Back to Top Fake Parts In Hercules Aircraft Called A Genuine Risk Despite repeated government denials, CBC News has confirmed that some of Canada's new Hercules military transport planes have counterfeit Chinese parts in their cockpits that could leave pilots with blank instrument panels in mid-flight. Documents show the Canadian military has known about the bogus electronic chips in the giant Hercules C-130J aircraft since at least July 2012, but continued to hide the fact during a CBC News investigation months later. The military continues to fly the new Hercs with the fake parts, and says it still has no immediate plans to replace them. A 14-month investigation by the powerful U.S. Senate armed services committee concluded last year that counterfeit parts in the Hercules transports and other American-made military equipment are prone to failure with potentially "catastrophic consequences." Failure of the parts could leave Canadian military pilots flying blind, potentially in a combat zone, with no information on altitude, speed, location, fuel supply, engine performance or warning messages. 'We don't have any particular concerns,' minister said In response to the damning U.S. investigation, Canada's then associate minister of defence Julian Fantino told CBC News last May that this country's new fleet of Hercules was not infected with the bogus parts. "At this point in time, other than continuing to be vigilant, we don't have any particular concerns in this country," the minister said. But weeks later, a memo from an official in Fantino's department stated: "Suspect counterfeit parts have been identified by the original equipment manufacturer Lockheed Martin, as being present on several aircraft in their worldwide fleet, including some of Canada's C-130J aircraft." The memo identifies the bogus parts as microchips located in the Hercules cockpit displays, and indicates the components would be replaced during future routine maintenance of the aircraft "at no cost to Canada." Months later, during extensive interviews on the issue with CBC News in October last year, National Defence made no mention of the memo or the existence of counterfeit parts in Canadian planes, much less any plans to replace the components. Missing 'checks and balances' The Harper government has consistently claimed it has sufficient "checks and balances" in place to guard against counterfeit parts getting into Canadian military planes and other equipment. Internal Defence Department emails from top officials show that, as of last fall, there was no such system in place. Confronted this week with the memo revealing fake parts in Canadian aircraft, the Harper government is publicly admitting their existence for the first time. But it has apparently scrapped earlier plans to replace the bogus parts during routine maintenance. In fact, Conservative MP Chris Alexander, parliamentary secretary to the minister of national defence, suggests the Harper government is content to go on using the counterfeit parts and hope they don't fail in mid-flight. In an interview this week, Alexander said the Canadian military "is satisfied the C-130Js are functioning properly, that any ...counterfeit parts that there may be in the displays of those aircraft are not affecting their performance. "If they need to be replaced, if they're unsafe, if they're not functioning, they will be replaced." 'We've been lucky' The former head of procurement at National Defence says he is stunned his former department and the government are still debating whether to replace the bogus parts. "Certainly, we should have reacted immediately," Alan Williams said in an interview. "If they haven't done it until now, steps should be taken immediately" to replace the parts. "We've been lucky so far. Let's not press our luck." NDP defence critic Matthew Kellway says forcing Canadian military personnel to fly on planes relying on Chinese knock-offs is "stunningly negligent behaviour on the part of this government." National Defence claims in a memo that the plane's manufacturer, U.S. Lockheed Martin, "has completed a full safety analysis ... and determined that there are no safety concerns." Some experts disagree. The original manufacturer of the parts in question, for one, says the altered versions installed on the Hercules cannot be trusted. Recycled, refurbished, remarked components The U.S. congressional investigation reported the fake Hercules microchips were originally made by the Korean electronics giant Samsung in the 1990s, and more than a decade later, had been recycled, refurbished and remarked to appear genuine by a company in China. Samsung told the investigation by the powerful U.S. Senate armed services committee "it is not possible to project the reliability" of the altered parts. The U.S. investigation reported that the problems on the Hercules first came to light in 2010 when the instrument panel failed on an aircraft during active duty. No other details of the incident have been made public. At the time, the supplier of the cockpit display systems, L-3 Communications, had the suspect counterfeit parts tested for authenticity and performance at a leading U.S. laboratory. The lab reported the parts were fakes, and that 27 per cent of them had failed during stress tests. 'If electronics fail, nothing works' Martine Simard-Normandin runs the Ottawa-based laboratories, MuAnalysis, one of Canada's leading test facilities for suspect counterfeit parts. CBC asked her to review the U.S. lab findings on the Hercules knock-offs. Her assessment was blunt. "I would not feel comfortable flying that aircraft, knowing they have used parts of essentially unknown traceability. "And I certainly wouldn't be comfortable recommending our men and women in uniform do so." She says that any time electronic components are altered, there is an inherent and significant safety risk. "Everything these days depends on electronics, and if electronics fail, nothing works." The problem of bogus Chinese parts in new Hercules transport planes first became public in the fall of 2011 during the U.S. congressional investigation hearings. Those hearings also revealed that Lockheed Martin had kept the U.S. military in the dark over the counterfeit Hercules parts for more than a year. In response to the congressional probe, the American military immediately undertook to "aggressively" replace the bogus parts in U.S. aircraft. It is a different story in this country. Today, six months after the government publicly confirmed there are counterfeit parts in the Hercules, no one has done anything to replace them. In a written response to CBC, the government's federal contracting authority states: "Discussions with Lockheed Martin remain ongoing on this issue." One of the big mysteries of this saga is how Canadian military and other government officials - if they haven't been lying to the public - could not have known there were bogus parts on Canada's new fleet of Hercs before last summer. The parts were first identified as fakes by the U.S. testing lab in the summer of 2010, just as Canada was taking delivery of its first of the 17 Hercs. More than a year later, in November 2011, the whole issue became front-page news in both the U.S. and Canada when the existence of Chinese parts in the American-made Hercules was revealed during extensive testimony before the congressional committee. It was also the first time the Harper government confidently proclaimed there were no knock-offs on the planes Canada had bought. Six months later, the U.S. Senate committee released its scathing report, saying it had found over a million bogus parts - mainly from China - in U.S. military equipment including the Hercules aircraft. In fact, it devoted an entire section of the report to the Hercs, and the potentially catastrophic consequences of a counterfeit part failing in mid-flight. It was in response to the investigation's findings that Canada's associate defence minister Fantino publicly shrugged it all off, claiming he had no knowledge of any counterfeits in Canadian military planes. Inside government, senior military officials made the same claim. Shortly after the release of the U.S. Senate report, Fantino's office sent an email to his top Defence Department officials. The tone was decidedly testy. "For clarity, kindly confirm whether, yes or no, counterfeit parts have ever been found/discovered/reported to be found on CF equipment or within the supply chain." A senior bureaucrat wrote back: "We do not have any information regarding counterfeit parts in CF equipment or in the supply chain." Only weeks later, Fantino's department was issuing the memo admitting for the first time its new fleet of Hercs is indeed infected with counterfeit parts. The memo was written in response to an inquiry from Halifax researcher Valerie Mansour, who was helping to prepare a documentary on international counterfeiting, airing Jan. 10 on the program DocZone. A copy of the note was provided to CBC News by the documentary team. We requested information and interviews with Hercules manufacturer Lockheed Martin, and electronics company L-3 Communications, which made the cockpit display systems. Neither has responded. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/01/09/hercules-fake-parts-planes-military- canada_n_2444165.html Back to Top Plane crash near French Alps kills 5 Firefighters and police officers work near the site of a small plane crash in Saint-Geoirs, on January 5, 2013. (CNN) -- A French-Moroccan family of five was killed Saturday when their plane crashed near the French Alps, authorities said. It was not immediately clear why the twin-engine plane went down. Everyone aboard died -- a man, his wife and their three children -- Virginie Favier, a local police captain, told reporters. The family had been returning to Morocco after spending their holiday in the French Alps, she said. Gilles Rabault, another police captain, told reporters that the plane disappeared off the radar and crashed shortly after takeoff from an airport near the southeastern city of Grenoble. Emergency workers responded after a resident reported the crash. "We felt a big shake. The crash happened just below my house. At the beginning, I did not know what it was. We found out after firemen came that it was a plane crash. We did not see the wreckage," a witness, identified only as Leo, told CNN affiliate M6. ************ Date: 05-JAN-2013 Time: 13:26 LT Type: Piper PA-34-220T Seneca V Operator: Private Registration: CN-DAY C/n / msn: 3449... Fatalities: Fatalities: 5 / Occupants: 5 Other fatalities: 0 Airplane damage: Written off (damaged beyond repair) Location: Saint-Pierre-de-Bressieux, French Alps - France Phase: Initial climb Nature: Private Departure airport: LFLS Destination airport: LERS Narrative: A Piper PA-34-220T Seneca V was climbing from Grenoble when the tower lost the contact with the aircraft. The plane was heading to Casablanca, Morocco, via Reus, Spain. A farmer saw the plane hitting a mountain near Saint-Pierre-de-Bressieux, French Alps. The pilot, his wife and their 3 children were killed. www.aviation-safety.net Back to Top Boeing top engineer says he's confident 787 is safe (Reuters) - Boeing Co rolled out the Dreamliner's chief engineer to try to quell concerns about the new jet following three mishaps in as many days, including an electrical fire that caused severe damage to a plane. At a news conference on Wednesday, the engineer, Mike Sinnett, defended the 787, the world's first plastic plane, and said its problem rates are at about the same level as Boeing's successful 777 jet. Relatively few technical problems prevent 787s from leaving a gate within 15 minutes of scheduled departure time, he said. "We're in the high 90 percents," he said. "We're right where the 777 program was" at this stage. The prevalence of more significant issues, such as a battery fire, is in the same order of magnitude as previous programs, he added. "There's no metrics that are screaming at me that we've got a problem." Sinnett explained in detail how the lithium ion battery system that burned on Monday was designed by his team to be safe and prevent smoke getting into the cabin in the event of a fire during a flight. "I am 100 percent convinced that the airplane is safe to fly," he said. Asked why smoke entered the cabin on Monday, Sinnett said the plane lacked cabin pressure to expel smoke because it was on the ground. In that scenario, "We expect that there would be sufficient time to evacuate the plane safely," Sinnett said. The battery fire, on a 787 jet operated by Japan Airlines, occurred in Boston on Monday while the empty plane was parked at a gate after passengers had deplaned. That was followed by a fuel leak on another JAL 787 on Tuesday, and by brake problems on an All Nippon Airways 787 that forced the airline to cancel the flight on Wednesday. These mishaps represent the most serious test of confidence in the Dreamliner since it began flying customers just over a year ago, following more than three years of delivery delays. The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration and the National Transportation Safety Board are looking into what caused the fire, which came just weeks after Boeing endured a string of other electrical problems that briefly grounded three of the planes. The new jet also has suffered an engine failure and fuel leaks in the 14 months it has been in service. Sinnett said the electrical faults that occurred in rapid succession in December were traced to a single lot of circuit boards manufactured at one time. He didn't name the supplier. Analysts said they did not think regulators would ground the 49 Dreamliner jets currently in service due to this week's incidents, but some expected days or weeks to pass before firm details about the mishaps emerge - making it difficult to assess the severity of the problem, and the cost to fix them. "It's clear through the conversation (from Sinnett) that it appeared to be manufacturing as opposed to design issues," said Jason Gursky, an analyst at Citigroup in San Francisco. "The fact that we've seen a multitude of small issues crop up and are not seeing the same issue time and time again would support that view." Further detail from regulators are likely to take more time. In July, regulators took three days to decide whether to launch an investigation of a General Electric engine that failed on a 787, and another week passed before they provided details. "We'd expect a similar timeline here," said Deutsche Bank analysts Myles Walton and Amit Mehrotra, in a note to clients Wednesday. Boeing declined to discuss any aspect of the investigation into the battery fire. Analysts said the company still faces an image problem over the build quality of its marquee plane. "There's no doubt in my mind that on the engineering side they are doing the right thing as far as dealing with these issues," said John Goglia, a former National Transportation Safety Board member and mechanic. "They need to really reach out strongly with information to the press corps to make sure they understand exactly what happened and exactly what they are doing about it." Boeing shares closed up 3.5 percent Wednesday, after losing more than 5 percent earlier this week. "TEETHING PROBLEMS" Of this week's incidents, the battery fire is of most concern. Lithium-ion batteries are heavily scrutinized by those who use them - not just airlines, but increasingly automakers as well. "We cool our batteries. We put them through tests like you wouldn't believe," General Motors Chief Executive Dan Akerson said during a roundtable event Wednesday. Shares of Japan's GS Yuasa Corp, which makes batteries for the 787, fell sharply for a second day on Wednesday. Before Wednesday, Boeing had said little about the problems, though some of its most critical customers, like the CEO of Qatar Airways, have come to its defense. Qatar Airways, the largest customer of the Dreamliner in the Middle East with an order for up to 60 of the aircraft, currently has five 787 jets. CEO Akbar al-Baker said the airline had no other issues since noting an electrical problem on one of its jets in December. "Of course there will be teething problems from time to time, but this is foreseen with any new aircraft program," Al-Baker told reporters at an event in Doha on Wednesday. Baker said he had no plans at the moment to cancel any plane orders with Boeing. "When we have to start grounding planes, then it becomes an issue and then they (Boeing) have to get their check book out," he said. Back to Top Back to Top International System Safety Society - Conference "CALL FOR PAPERS" The 31st ISSC will be held in Boston at the Marriott Copley Square August 12-16, 2013. This year's theme is "Safety for the Long Run." Deadlines for the technical program are: * Abstract Submission Deadline: March 29, 2012 * Tutorial, Workshop, and Panel/Roundtable Proposals: April 5, 2013 * Draft Paper Submission Deadline: May 10, 2013 * Final Paper Submission Deadline: June 28, 2013 * Technical Paper Presentation Slides: July 26, 2013 Any other information on the conference, including links for registration, can be found at our website: http://www.system-safety.org/issc2013/ Back to Top Cessna's Citation M2 light business jet under assembly Employees at Cessna's Independence Plant work on a Citation M2 light business jet, in front, in the back is a Citation Mustang. The front and aft cabin assemblies are built at Cessna's Wichita facility. (January 9, 2013) Employees at Cessna's Independence Plant work on a Citation M2 light business jet. The front and aft cabin assemblies are built at Cessna's Wichita facility. (January 9, 2013) Cessna Aircraft has started assembly of its Citation M2 light business jet at its plant in Independence. The first two M2 aircraft have started down the assembly line at the plant, which also assembles Cessna's single-engine line of aircraft and the Citation Mustang business jet. The forward and aft cabin assemblies and wings are built on Cessna's assembly line in Wichita, then delivered to the plant for final assembly. The planes will be painted, interiors installed, tested and delivered to customers from the site. The first M2 is expected to roll off the assembly line in April. The first delivery of the $4.395 million airplane is slated for third quarter of this year. It will be used as a demonstration airplane at Cessna. "Everything is clicking right on schedule, which is really nice as you start up a new program like that," said Brian Rohloff, business team leader for the M2 program and the Citation Mustang. "Working as a team has been really good." Independence was chosen for the work for several reasons, he said. For one, the plant already performs final assembly on the smaller Citation Mustang business jet. The M2 is a natural next step up for Mustang owners. "The M2 was born out of the Mustang customer base," Rohloff said, designed for those who want a bigger and faster airplane with more range. The company also looked at production capacity and costs. The biggest challenge was getting the site ready to take on the work, Rohloff said. It had to work on integrating the jet into the facility. It reconfigured the Mustang assembly to make space by leaning out the manufacturing process of the Mustang and combining assembly positions. The company also began a "team building" process so the same group of employees will be able to follow the airplane as it moves through several positions in the assembly process, said Dick Friesen, Cessna value stream manager for the Mustang and M2 in Independence. M2 and Mustang final assembly will move down the same line. And employees will be able to work on both models. The M2 has been well received, Rohloff said. "The response ... has been extremely good," he said. "We are sold out this year and most of next year." Design for the M2 was developed with customers' input, he said. The M2 will seat six passengers and two crew members. It will have a maximum cruise rate of 400 knots with a 1,300 nautical mile range. It will feature the Garmin G3000 avionics suite. Cessna's plant in Independence, which opened in 1996, employs nearly 500 people. It also assembles the single-engine line of aircraft, including the Cessna 172, 182, 206 and Corvalis TTX. http://www.kansas.com/2013/01/10/2630693/cessnas-citation-m2-light-business.html#storylink=cpy Back to Top Twelve Operational Pitfalls for Helicopter Pilots Pilots, particularly those with considerable experience, try to complete a flight as planned, please passengers, meet schedules and generally demonstrate the "right stuff." This basic drive can have an adverse effect on safety and can impose an unrealistic assessment of piloting skills under stressful situations. Even worse, repetitive patterns of behavior based on unrealistic assessments can produce piloting practices that are dangerous, often illegal, and will ultimately lead to mishaps. Here are 12 of these possibly dangerous tendencies or behavior patterns: . Responding to Peer Pressure - This is poor decision-making based upon emotional responses to peers rather than evaluating a situation objectively. . Mental Expectancy - The inability to recognize and cope with changes in a situation different from those anticipated or planned. Visual illusions and similar aural sounds occurring at the "wrong" time often lead to such miscues. . Get-There-Itis - This "disease", common among pilots, clouds the vision and impairs judgment by causing a fixation on the original goal or destination combined with a total disregard for any alternative courses of action. . Duck-Under Syndrome - The tendency to "sneak a peek" by descending below minimums during an approach. Based on a belief that there is always a built in "fudge" factor that can be used or on an unwillingness to admit defeat and shoot a missed approach. . Scud Running - Pushing the capabilities of the pilot and the aircraft to the limits by trying to maintain visual contact with the terrain while trying to avoid physical contact with it. . Continuing Visual Flight Rules into Instrument Conditions - The all-too-often result of the above mentioned practice of scud running when this becomes the only alternative to flying into the ground. It is even more dangerous if the pilot is not instrument qualified or is unwilling to believe what the gauges are indicating. . Getting Behind the Aircraft -- Allowing events or the situation to control your actions rather than the other way around. This is characterized by a constant state of surprise at what happens next. Loss of Positional/Situational Awareness - Another case of "getting behind the aircraft" which results in not knowing where you are, and an inability to recognize deteriorating circumstances and/or the misjudgment of the rate of deterioration. Operating Without Adequate Fuel Reserves - Ignoring minimum fuel reserve requirements under either Visual Flight Rules or Instrument Flight Rules. This is generally the result of overconfidence, a lack of flight planning, or deliberately ignoring the regulations. . Descent Below the Minimum En Route Altitude - The duck-under syndrome (mentioned earlier) manifesting itself during the en route portion of an Instrument Flight Rules operation. . Flying Outside the Envelope - Unjustified reliance on the (usually mistaken) belief that the aircraft's high performance capabilities meet the demands imposed by the pilot's (usually overestimated) high performance flying skills. Neglect of Flight Planning, Preflight Inspections, Checklists, Etc. - Unjustified reliance on the pilot's (usually overestimated) short- and long-term memory of regular flying skills, of repetitive and familiar routes, etc. All experienced pilots have fallen prey to, or have been tempted by, one or more of these 12 dangerous tendencies at some time in their flying careers. Hopefully, they are natural mistakes that can be easily recognized for what they are and quickly avoided. . The International Helicopter Safety Team (IHST) promotes safety and works to reduce accidents. The organization was formed in 2005 to lead a government and industry cooperative effort to address factors that were affecting an unacceptable helicopter accident rate. The group's mission is to reduce the international civil helicopter accident rate by 80 percent by 2016. More information about the IHST, its reports, its safety tools, and presentations from its 2011 safety symposium can be obtained at its web site at www.IHST.org and its Facebook page at http://www.facebook.com/pages/International-Helicopter-Safety-Team- IHST/150529738351608 Back to Top Back to Top U.S. spaceship ventures plan to send test pilots into orbit as early as 2015 Among the spaceship projects receiving NASA support are Boeing Co.'s CST-100 capsule (left), Sierra Nevada Corp.'s Dream Chaser space plane (middle) and SpaceX's Dragon capsule (right). By Alan Boyle Americans could be flying into orbit on U.S.-built spaceships again as early as 2015 - but the first fliers won't be NASA astronauts or millionaire space tourists. Instead, they'll be commercial test pilots, employed by the Boeing Co., Sierra Nevada Corp., SpaceX or maybe even a dark-horse company like Blue Origin, the venture funded by Amazon.com billionaire Jeff Bezos. Those four companies provided updates on their efforts to build new spaceships capable of carrying astronauts to and from the International Space Station during a Wednesday news briefing at NASA's Kennedy Space Center. One of the companies, Blue Origin, is wrapping up its work for NASA and is no longer receiving money through the Commercial Crew Program, or CCP. But SpaceX, Boeing and Sierra Nevada are splitting more than $1 billion that's to be paid out through 2014. NASA's manager for the Commercial Crew Program, Ed Mango, said the agency and its commercial partners are already talking about "Phase 2" for the program. The certification requirements and timetable for Phase 2 are expected to be set this year, with contracts awarded by May 2014, Mango said. "We believe that there'll be more than one, probably two, three, maybe others, that will be ready to compete for Phase 2," he said. That phase would move the program forward to 2017, by which time NASA expects to be flying its astronauts on U.S. launch vehicles for the first time since the shuttle fleet was retired in 2011. In the meantime, NASA will be paying the Russians more than $60 million per seat for round trips to the space station. "Our target was to repatriate that industry back to the United States, and that's what we're doing," said Mark Sirangelo, chairman of SNC Space Systems at Sierra Nevada. Here's how the companies' plans are shaping up: SpaceX: Former NASA astronaut Garrett Reisman, SpaceX's commercial crew project manager, said his company is working toward a launch pad abort test by the end of the year at Kennedy Space Center. An in-flight test that would demonstrate the ability to abort a launch safely during ascent, "at the worst possible moment," is planned for April 2014, he said. If SpaceX sticks to its schedule, it would use its Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon capsule for a manned test flight in mid-2015, and would send test pilots to the space station by the end of 2015. "We're not selling tickets. Don't call our toll-free number," Reisman joked. Sierra Nevada Corp.: Sirangelo said his company was planning to drop its Dream Chaser mini-shuttle from a carrier airplane for its first autonomous, free-flying glide test in the first quarter of this year. That would be followed by a series of autonomous and crewed aerodynamic test flights, similar to the tests conducted by NASA using the prototype shuttle Enterprise in the late 1970s. Then Sierra Nevada's team would launch the Dream Chaser into space - first on suborbital test flights, and eventually into orbit. Last year, the company said manned orbital flights could begin in 2016. The Boeing Co.: John Mulholland, vice president and program manager for Boeing's commercial crew program, said his company proposed conducting a three-day orbital spaceflight with a Boeing crew in 2016. The head of Boeing's flight test program is former NASA astronaut Chris Ferguson, who commanded Atlantis' crew during the final flight of the shuttle program. "He is defining crew requirements," Mulholland said. Before the test pilots fly, Boeing will conduct an unmanned orbital trial of its CST-100 space capsule, plus an altitude abort test. NASA / Blue Origin An artist's conception shows Blue Origin's orbital space vehicle. Blue Origin: The company that Bezos founded in 2000 is not receiving NASA funding during the current phase of the agency's spaceship development program - but Blue Origin's president and program manager, Rob Meyerson, said he's still doing business with the space agency. "We're working with NASA to extend our Space Act Agreement in an unfunded manner," Meyerson said. The company is continuing to test its BE-3 rocket engine and work on its next prototype propulsion vehicle. Eventually, Blue Origin aims to launch crews on suborbital as well as orbital spaceflights. The plans for future flights are dependent on continued NASA support - and Phil McAlister, NASA's commercial spaceflight development director, acknowledged that "the budget is going to be an extremely challenging topic." If NASA's funding is reduced, Reisman said his company would continue to move toward manned flights, but at a slower pace. "Human spaceflight is our reason for being. We are in this for the long haul," Reisman said. "There will be impacts to cost and schedule, should funding dry up. But we're going to get there eventually." http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/09/16434738-us-spaceship-ventures-plan-to-send-test- pilots-into-orbit-as-early-as-2015?lite Curt Lewis