Flight Safety Information March 28, 2013 - No. 065 In This Issue Ex-mechanic pleads guilty in airplane inspection fraud case Huntsville-based Stratolaunch opens giant hangar in California for world's biggest airplane Dreamliner Flaw Escaping FAA No Surprise in Certification Airline History's Loss PROS IOSA Audit Experts Airplane electronics interference myth or fact? World Record Holder Launches Paper Airplane Book Wheelchair Impostors Which is the safest seat on an aircraft? Ex-mechanic pleads guilty in airplane inspection fraud case An Elizabethtown man has admitted in federal court that he took part in an inspection fraud scheme at a former airplane mechanical repair business in Marietta. Joel Stout, 32, pleaded guilty Tuesday to seven counts of conspiracy and mail fraud charges. Stout was an airplane mechanic at Flying Tigers, Inc. and performed annual inspections on aircraft between October 2006 and October 2009, even though his inspection authority certification had expired on March 31, 2006, according to federal prosecutors. His father, Jay Stout, the president of Flying Tigers, and Howard Gunter, a retired FAA examiner, are also charged in the scheme. Prosecutors said Stout and his conspirators forged the signature of a certified mechanic as having performed inspections, and arranged for Gunter to sign off annual inspections despite the fact that he did not perform the inspections. The fraud also included billing customers for the inspections that were not properly certified, prosecutors said. Joel Stout faces a possible statutory sentence of 20 years in prison for each mail fraud count and five years in prison for the conspiracy, plus a fine of up to $1.75 million, when he is sentenced June 24. http://www.abc27.com/story/21806786/ex-mechanic-pleads-guilty-in-airplane- inspection-fraud Back to Top Huntsville-based Stratolaunch opens giant hangar in California for world's biggest airplane Stratolaunch Systems, the private aerospace company based in Huntsville and founded by Microsoft co-founder Paul G. Allen, opened a giant hangar here Wednesday, March 27, that will eventually house what it says will be the world's largest aircraft during assembly and testing. The 103,000-square-foot hangar is one of two Stratolaunch facilities at the Mojave Air and Space Port. The second is a fabrication facility where the aircraft is being developed. The aircraft, developed by Stratolaunch partner Scaled Composites, will take off like a plane and release a rocket once in flight. The plane will use six 747 engines, weigh 1.3 million pounds and have a wingspan of more than 380 feet, Stratolaunch says. The company's goal is "delivering a breakthrough air-launch system that provides safe, flexible and affordable access to space," Stratolaunch said in a news release. Allen's plans hit some turbulence late in 2012 when Stratolaunch and SpaceX scrapped plans to use a SpaceX booster to launch satellites from beneath the new airplane. But Allen said the company will regroup and meet its flight testing goal of 2016. Working with Allen in the effort is Huntsville's Dynetics Inc., which will provide the overall technical integration and the mating and integration system hardware join the rocket to the new airplane. http://www.al.com/business/index.ssf/2013/03/huntsville-based_stratolaunch.html Back to Top Dreamliner Flaw Escaping FAA No Surprise in Certification Failures to spot and anticipate safety flaws during certification of new aircraft have been linked to 70 percent of U.S. airline-crash deaths in the past 20 years, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Boeing Co. (BA)'s tests concluding the lithium-ion batteries in its 787 Dreamliner couldn't catch fire are renewing questions about whether complexity of new aircraft can outpace manufacturers' and regulators' ability to spot shortcomings during design and certification. "We don't know what we don't know," Bernard Loeb, who retired as head of the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board's aviation division in 2001, said in an interview. "We're still highly dependent on the knowledge and capability of the human being, and human beings are fallible." Improved certification standards have been one reason there hasn't been a fatal U.S. crash involving a major airline since 2001, NTSB Chairman Debbie Hersman said in an interview. "But there are occasions where those assumptions are incorrect or not conservative enough," she said. Hersman declined to comment on the current investigation. In the absence of regulations for planes and components using new technology, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration creates rules known as "special conditions," as it did in certifying the Dreamliner's batteries in 2007. That approval, which the NTSB will examine at a hearing next month, illustrates the need to modernize standards for approving new aircraft, Kevin Hiatt, president of the Alexandria, Virginia-based non-profit Flight Safety Foundation, said in an interview. Deadliest Crashes Boeing shares fell 4.3 percent in two weeks after the Dreamliner was grounded, closing Jan. 29 at $73.65, the low for this year. They closed March 26 at $86.62, the highest since May 2008 and 17.6 percent above the recent low, before falling 42 cents yesterday. The rise included increases of 2.1 percent on March 12, when Boeing's plan to redesign the batteries was approved by the FAA, and March 15, the day the company said it expected the 787 back in the air within weeks. The history of airline accidents since 1993 is dominated by cases in which manufacturers and aviation regulators didn't foresee how a plane might fail, according to NTSB accident findings and its 2006 report on the issue. Five such U.S. crashes occurred in that period, according to NTSB findings, including the three most deadly of the era: USAir Flight 427 on Sept. 8, 1994, killing 132; Trans World Airlines Inc. (TWAIQ) Flight 800 on July 17, 1996, killing 230; and American Airlines Inc. (AMR1) Flight 587 on Nov. 12, 2001, killing 265 people. Out of 1,123 deaths in the past 20 years on U.S. carriers investigated by the NTSB, 783 occurred in those five accidents, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. 'Failsafe' Design Investigators in those cases discovered a hidden flaw in a hydraulic device that could send a plane plunging out of control, explosive fuel tanks that were exposed to sparking electrical equipment during routine operation, and vulnerability to icing in a plane approved to fly in weather conditions conducive to ice formation. For almost two years after the crash near Pittsburgh of a Boeing 737-300 operated by USAir, now a part of US Airways Group Inc. (LCC), investigators couldn't explain why a functioning plane dove nose-first into the ground. Only then did they discover a hydraulic device that moved the plane's rudder, a vertical panel on the tail, could swing it in the direction opposite from what pilots intended. In the accident, the rudder had moved unexpectedly, making the plane uncontrollable, the NTSB ruled in 1999. The device was certified in the 1960s as failsafe. Rigorous Standards "We've seen it time and time again," Tom Haueter, who served as NTSB's chief accident investigator before retiring last year, said in an interview. "Certification has been a big issue in a number of accidents." The FAA, which announced a review of the 787's design on Jan. 11, "takes very seriously" its responsibility for overseeing new aircraft, the agency said in an e-mailed statement. "Some have asked the question whether the FAA has the expertise needed to oversee the Dreamliner's cutting edge technology," the agency said. "The answer is yes, we have the ability to establish rigorous safety standards and to make sure that aircraft meet them." More recently, the NTSB blamed an April 2, 2011, crash of a General Dynamics Corp. (GD)'s Gulfstream business jet on miscalculations of takeoff speeds during certification flights. The crash killed four Gulfstream employees. Airbus SAS last year was forced to make repairs that have cost $319 million (250 million euros) to its latest model, the double-decker A380, because the wings are prone to cracking, a condition missed during certification tests. 'Assumptions Kill' The FAA and aviation authorities in other nations can't match the engineering resources at companies like Boeing and Airbus, Haueter said. U.S. regulators must rely on Boeing employees for much of the certification testing, he said. Boeing's engineers signed off on most elements of the Dreamliner battery made by Kyoto-based GS Yuasa Corp (6674)., leaving final approval to the agency, according to the NTSB. No matter how honest those engineers are, they're subject to subtle conflicts of interest that could cloud their judgment, Haueter said. "It's the assumptions that kill you," Haueter said. "If things don't work out the way you planned, things can go very bad, very fast." Billion Hours Boeing's tests and analysis of the 787 batteries, outlined March 7 in NTSB preliminary reports, concluded the odds of a battery catching fire were one in a billion hours of flight, making it essentially impossible. The 787's batteries are mostly used for ground operations, such as starting auxiliary power units and providing brake power when the plane is in tow. A Japan Airlines (9201) 787's battery caught fire Jan. 7 in Boston after the plane had been in commercial service less than 52,000 hours. An internal short-circuit triggered the fire, according to preliminary findings. When a battery on an All Nippon (9202)flight in Japan overheated and smoked Jan. 16, the FAA grounded the plane. Customers of the 49 Dreamliner in service, including United Continental Holdings Inc., (UAL) Japan Airlines Co. and All Nippon Airways Co., were forced to juggle schedules and shift planes. Boeing, which has a backlog of more than 800 Dreamliners with a list price starting at about $207 million, has halted deliveries until commercial service resumes. The FAA gave initial approval for Boeing's proposed redesign of the battery system March 12, and the Chicago-based company has said it's confident tests needed to get the plane back in the air will be completed within weeks. Improving Safety So far, neither the NTSB nor the FAA has said whether the batteries failed the nine safety conditions imposed on them in 2007. Among the conditions was an assurance that the batteries must never have "self- sustaining, uncontrolled increases in temperature or pressure." The battery in Boston had "thermal runaway," a condition in which a cell increasingly overheats, and that spread to other cells, Hersman said Jan. 24. Boeing's 787 chief project engineer, Mike Sinnett, said March 14 that damage outside the batteries in both incidents was limited and "the airplane responded exactly as we had designed and intended." Not Perfect Boeing declined to discuss the battery's certification because it's part of the NTSB review, spokesman Miles Kotay said in an e-mail. Certification works well, as evidenced by the lack of airline accidents in the past decade, he said. The aircraft industry and the FAA have learned from earlier accidents, helping each generation of planes to be safer than the last, said John Cox, a former pilot who participated in the Pittsburgh accident investigation as a union representative. In response to NTSB recommendations and its own internal review of certification, the FAA made numerous improvements, such as focusing resources in certification on "safety critical" systems, it said in correspondence with the safety board. "When you look at the data, it shows the process is pretty sound," Cox said in an interview. "Is it perfect? No." http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-28/dreamliner-flaw-escaping-faa-no- surprise-in-certification.html Back to Top Airline History's Loss It may surprise some readers to learn that at least one airline had, until recently, a person with the title Corporate Historian on its staff. And given the focus on its company's culture, on a holistic basis, it may not surprise you to learn that the carrier is Southwest. The individual was Brian Lusk, who, after 18-plus years at Delta, in a variety of operational functions, came to Southwest in 1995. After stints in reservations and communications, he participated in Southwest's social media activities, including the popular "Flashback Fridays" blog, which focused on airline history, principally, although not entirely, Southwest's. Unfortunately, late in March, Brian passed away, suddenly. History could be considered as the Rodney Dangerfield (the comedian who's signature line was "I don't get no respect") function at a number of airlines. While a number of carriers do make use of acknowledging the past (American and Delta sponsor museums honoring their heritage; several carriers, including Alaska, American, Southwest, US Airways and United, as well as airlines outside the U.S., proudly fly current aircraft in historic liveries), history is often treated as a stepchild, if not ignored outright, and at the first sign of financial stress, is eliminated as a function. One former CEO apparently even suggested that the company archives be auctioned on Ebay. From a business culture standpoint, this is sad. Airlines are, after all, service businesses with huge numbers of customers. History, often proud and colorful, can be an effective tool to motivate a large, dispersed staff that often operates under stressful conditions. Southwest (they of the thirty-plus years of profitability) recognizes, and makes good use of this. A visit to their headquarters in Dallas provides palpable evidence of a company culture rooted in its history; not just airplanes and operations, but people and what they did, and how that led to where the company is now. Not just naming a conference room for the famous story of why Southwest had to resort to ten minute gate turns in its schedule, after needing to sell an aircraft in the early days, but telling the story visibly in the room, including what it meant and why it mattered. Brian, of course, was a master storyteller. Like many other airline enthusiasts, he also was interested in transportation in a broader sense. In his case, the other focus was railroads. In his company bio, he mentioned that he was born "just a couple of blocks from the Santa Fe Railway's main transcontinental line in Clovis, New Mexico to an airline father, so transportation (planes and trains) got in my blood at an early age." This multi-modal interest continued throughout his life; last year's vacation featured a trip across Canada on VIA Rail's "Canadian" streamliner. Fortunately, Brian does leave a legacy beyond his blog posts, and the many items of memorabilia that he collected and displayed, including in his office. In the weeks before his passing, he was working on putting together what became known as the Aviation Archivist Summit, to provide a forum where airline archivists and historians from both industry (airlines and manufacturers) and aviation museums with an airline/commercial aviation focus could get together and address items of mutual interest, and develop a support group among themselves. Southwest had agreed to host this group at the airline's headquarters, and graciously kept the commitment even in Brian's absence. This, at the least, is a significant part of his legacy. He was committed to airline and transportation history, and happened to be in a unique position to advance its cause. Brian Lusk didn't just study airline history; he lived it large, Texas-style. Those who knew him have already benefitted from his passion for the subject, and as a result of his efforts to form a community of kindred spirits, even those that will never have the opportunity to meet him in person will be able to benefit from his love of airline history, in particular. Let's let Brian sum it up, again, from his bio: "Then in 2011, I got my dream job as Southwest's Corporate Historian. I enjoy sharing and preserving Southwest's past with our Employees and the public at large." Your friends can only wish that you were here to guide and continue the process; thanks from all of us. http://atwonline.com/blog/airline-historys-loss Back to Top Back to Top Airplane electronics interference myth or fact? Do electronic devices really affect flights? Tablets, laptops, e-readers, smartphones. They keep us plugged in everywhere we go -- except when we're on a plane. Many travelers don't believe there is anything wrong with leaving their personal electronic devices on while in flight, but it's a no-no during takeoffs and landings. In August, the Federal Aviation Administration announced plans for a working group that would study the issue of portable electronics on flights and make suggestions for changes. The committee is due to report its findings this summer. Advocates say it's time for a change. "It certainly appears that using an electronic device to read a magazine, to read a newspaper is not a safety factor," John Walls, vice president of public affairs for CTIA- The Wireless Association, said. Using personal electronic devices below 10,000 feet is banned on most airlines. Electronic health devices such as hearing aids and pacemakers are allowed at all times. Anyone who flies could tell you how often the rule is ignored, but it's announced before every flight. While many airlines now offer Wi-Fi access via portable electronic devices from laptops to smartphones, cellular voice and data services on domestic airlines fall under that Federal Communications Commission ban. There hasn't been any conclusive proof that devices such as tablets and e-readers are a danger, but a study released in 2011 found 75 instances of interference that may have been related to personal electronic devices, However, it is difficult to verify pilots' suspicions because of the difficulty replicating incidents. The FAA has said it does not know of any aviation accidents linked to interference from personal electronic devices. Flight attendants say it's a matter of getting your attention during the most sensitive parts of the flight. "If someone is listening to their music or they're watching a video, and they've got their beats on or their noise-canceling headphones, we want to make sure that, if there is a situation that passengers need to hear and understand, that they will be able to do so," said Veda Shook, president of the Association of Flight Attendants. The National Association of Airline Passengers agrees that unplugging for a few minutes is a small price to pay for safety. "So we do not as passengers want to do anything that will interfere or distract the pilots at this critical time of the flight," said Douglas Kidd, the organization's executive director. The pressure is to bring the rules up to date with the proliferation of electronic devices. Even the FCC recommended the increased use of some electronic devices. "I write to urge the FAA to enable greater use of tablets, e-readers, and other portable electronic devices during flight, consistent with public safety," FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said in an August letter. Delta Air Lines is also on record urging the FAA to expand the use of electronic devices in flight but to limit cell phone calls to the ground only. There is congressional pressure for change as well. Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri says the restrictions threaten to undermine public confidence in the FAA. The agency already allows pilots to use electronic tablets in the cockpit. The group will not discuss cell phone use in the air, which is banned by the FCC because of the potential for interference with wireless networks on the ground. The ban has been in place for more than 20 years. Read more: http://www.wptv.com/dpp/money/consumer/airplane-electronics- interference-myth-or-fact-do-electronic-devices-really-affect-flights#ixzz2OpiHgD16 Back to Top World Record Holder Launches Paper Airplane Book The creator of the world's most efficient paper airplane, John Collins, has launched The New World Champion Paper Airplane Book, a guide that explains how to make his record-breaking design, which he named "Susanne" after his wife, and 23 other "masterpieces of precision and aerodynamics." While "Susanne" was designed for distance by maximizing lift and glide, some of the other paper airplane designs in the book are made to stay aloft for prolonged periods, in some cases for several minutes. The degree of difficulty in recreating Collins' paper airplanes may vary, but he makes it as easy as possible for the reader to construct them by including step-by-step photographic explanations. And for those who are digitally challenged, there are 16 tear- out airplanes made of durable paper that the reader can start throwing around as soon as he or she can pull them out. "Susanne" set a new Guinness World Record on February 26, 2012, when former California Golden Bears quarterback Joe Ayoob threw the paper airplane a distance of 226 feet and 10 inches inside a hangar at McClellan Air Force Base near Sacramento, California. The space restriction of the hangar shortened the run-up-to-throw distance, but regardless of the limitation, Ayoob's throw broke the standing record by nearly 20 feet. This is the first time a paper airplane record has been broken by a thrower/designer team. "Susanne" is also the first paper airplane design to use changing airspeed to enhance performance. http://www.flyingmag.com/pilots-places/pilots-adventures-more/world-record-holder- launches-paper-airplane-book Back to Top Wheelchair Impostors I've seen them, and if you're frequently in an airport, you probably have, too - apparently able-bodied people being wheeled through the airport for their own convenience. Wall Street Journal "Middle Seat" columnist Scott McCartney recently spotlighted these wheelchair impostors. They're called "miracles," according to one wheelchair attendant McCartney interviewed. A traveler requests a wheelchair, gets pushed to the front of the security line and then, "'They just start running with their heavy carry-ons.'" The problem, says McCartney, is that this vital service - which makes travel feasible for the elderly and people with disabilities - is available to anyone who asks for it, according to the 1986 Air Carrier Access Act. No documentation required. Even if a wheelchair is waiting by the terminal door for a passenger with a reservation, he writes, "Sometimes arriving passengers see wheelchairs waiting on the jet bridge and think, 'What a good idea!'" The truly disabled person, then, is left waiting for another wheelchair because, "by law, it's all first-come, first served." Los Angeles International Airport reported that airlines and companies that provide wheelchair services estimate that 15 percent of all requests are bogus - as many as 300 requests per day. Seattle-Tacoma International Airport has reported an increase in wheelchair cheating, and Orlando International Airport has worked with staff and skycaps to dissuade use unless they're reserved in advance, McCartney says. The costs to an airline can reach more than $40 per wheelchair run because an attendant may spend more than an hour on each passenger, and the cheating can add 20 minutes to the wait for a wheelchair for some disabled passengers. Blame it on long TSA screening lines, increasingly crowded conditions at the airport, or maddening immigration lines, but the bottom line is that feigning disability to cut in front of other passengers is just plain dishonest. On the other hand, requiring every mobility- impaired person to deliver proof of his or her disability doesn't seem fair or responsible either (not to mention humiliating). http://responsibility-project.libertymutual.com/blog/wheelchair-impostors?src=cm-ddis- brd-out130310005-95404654#fbid=FyN4pAIGZXE&src=cm-ddis-brd-out130310005- 95404654 Back to Top Which is the safest seat on an aircraft? Although some claim that seats over the wing of an aircraft are best (because the plane is "strongest" there), popular opinion has it that, in the event of a plane crash, the rear of an aircraft is the safest place to be. This theory is supported by several studies, including a recent one featured on a Channel 4 documentary. The producers of the documentary, The Crash, arranged for a Boeing 727 carrying cameras, sensors and crash test dummies with breakable "bones" to be deliberately crashed into the Sonoran Desert in Mexico. After hitting the ground, the front of the plane and the first 11 rows of seats - usually reserved for first-class, business-class or premium-economy passengers - were ripped off. A force of 12G was recorded in this section of the aircraft. Further back, the force fell to around 6G. Experts concluded that none of the plane's first-class passengers would have survived, but 78 per cent of the other passengers would have, with the chance of survival increasing the closer they were sitting to the rear of the aircraft. According to a survey by sunshine.co.uk, the results of the study led to a sharp fall in the number of enquiries for first-class seats. Though an analysis of a single crash is hardly decisive, its findings did support a study by Popular Mechanics, carried out in 2007. The magazine analysed all crashes since 1971 and found that those in rear seats (behind the wing's trailing edge) were safest - survival rates were 69 per cent as opposed to 56 per cent over the wing and 49 per cent for those at the front of the plane. Despite such research, the world's two biggest aircraft manufacturers insist that no conclusive evidence is available. "One seat is as safe as another," said a spokesman for Boeing. "Especially if you stay buckled up." That is an important point. Last year's study in Mexico also saw three dummies placed in the same row, but in different positions, one in the brace position and wearing a seatbelt, one buckled up but sat normally, and one sat normally but minus the belt. The unfastened traveller would have been the only one to perish, experts claimed. And as we pointed out in this column last week, the most common cause of injury on an aircraft is when a plane is jolted by turbulence and passengers are wandering around the cabin, or not wearing a seatbelt. To avoid injuries from falling luggage or out-of-control dining carts, then surely a window seat is best? Airbus said much the same as its rival, adding dryly that: "the safest aircraft is one that doesn't crash and is well maintained". Quite. It cited certification processes and evacuation testing - adding that the world's biggest aircraft, the A380, can be emptied of 850 passengers, in pitch darkness with half the doors closed, in under 90 seconds. This evacuation issue is also key. Contrary to popular belief, the majority of plane crashes are survivable. One US government analysis of all 568 plane crashes in the US between 1993 and 2000, involving 53,487 passengers and crew, found that 51,207 - or over 90 per cent - survived. Even on the 26 crashes deemed the worst, more than half walked away. So surely a seat close to an exit would be safest? That theory is supported by a University of Greenwich study, commissioned by the CAA. Researchers checked the accounts of 2,000 survivors in 105 accidents around the world. Those sat more than six rows from an exit were found to be far less likely to survive, though the difference between window and aisle seat was "marginal". Conclusion Flying is very safe. The odds of being killed on a single flight are 1 in 4.7 million, according to the website planecrashinfo.com. But you might raise that figure slightly by sitting in economy class, with your seat belt fastened, by the window, within a few rows of an emergency exit. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/9957319/Which-is-the-safest-seat-on-an- aircraft.html Curt Lewis