Flight Safety Information September 2, 2013 - No. 181 In This Issue Embry-Riddle to Host Workshop on Aviation Safety Management Systems U.K. Air-Safety Regulator Sees No 'Mechanical Problem' in Fatal North Sea Chopper Crash Plane carrying 12 lands hard in Colo., no one hurt An Automation "Trap" for Pilots? Did ICAO's Review Of India's Aviation Safety Go Far Enough? Think ARGUS PROS What Airplanes Look Like to Google Map Satellite Cameras Embry-Riddle to Host Workshop on Aviation Safety Management Systems Aug. 30, 2013 - Embry-Riddle's Professional Programs Office will offer a workshop on the Principles of Aviation Safety Management Systems (SMS) Nov. 19-21, 2013, at the Daytona Beach, Fla., campus. Taught by Embry-Riddle faculty, the course is tailored for aviation safety practitioners responsible for the formation, implementation or expansion of an SMS within their organizations. The workshop provides a solid foundation in basic SMS concepts while also covering safety risk management (hazards, risks and controls); human factors; reactive, proactive and predictive safety management tools and methods; positive safety culture; and SMS implementation overview. Those who complete the course will understand the theory, principles and application of an SMS as well as ICAO requirements for implementation and FAA guidance for operators and organizations. All participants will receive a signed copy of Safety Management Systems in Aviation, co-authored by Dr. Alan Stolzer, Associate Dean for Research and Graduate Studies in Embry-Riddle's College of Aviation. The course is $1,400 per person, or $1,300 for those who register before Sept. 30, 2013. For more information and to register, visit www.daytonabeach.erau.edu/sms , write to case@erau.edu or contact Sarah Ochs, Director of Professional Programs, at (386) 226-6928. Back to Top U.K. Air-Safety Regulator Sees No 'Mechanical Problem' in Fatal North Sea Chopper Crash By ANDY PASZTOR British air-safety regulators indicated the North Sea helicopter accident that killed four offshore oil workers earlier this month wasn't caused by a mechanical problem or other type of onboard defect. The U.K. Civil Aviation Authority's statement, which also expressed support for industry's prior decision to put the region's Eurocopter Super Puma helicopters back in the air, could provide a boost for operators seeking to allay safety concerns of oil-rig workers and their union leaders. After a six-day voluntary grounding, last week the helicopters were cleared to return to service. Thousands of individuals, however, have joined a social-media campaign aimed at removing the workhorse Super Puma models, including various versions, from ferrying oil rig workers in the North Sea. But since the CAA didn't identify what may have caused the Aug. 23 ditching two miles from an airport in the Shetland Islands, the statement isn't likely to eliminate the unusual grass-roots outcry. Based on information available so far, the CAA spokesman's statement said "we do not believe that the accident was caused by an airworthiness or technical problem." That means, in effect, that regulators feel the Eurocopter AS332 L2 variant with 18 people aboard was fit to operate that evening, before it started losing speed and altitude on approach to land at the field. The latest U.K. government statement appears to shift the focus of the probe toward some type of pilot slip- up, fuel issue, navigation problem or other hazard not directly stemming from an onboard malfunction. The CAA emphasized that its statement came after its experts "have been in close touch" with investigators. After starting to descend, the helicopter flew about a mile closer to the intended destination, according to investigators, and it was intact and upright when it entered the water. Both pilots survived. While lacking in details, the CAA spokesman's comments also appeared partly intended to persuade oil-rig workers and the broader public that the Super Pumas are safe to resume flights. "We would not allow a return to service unless we were satisfied that it was safe to do so," according to the four-paragraph statement posted on the CAA's website. An email requesting clarification from the CAA didn't get a response Saturday. Eurocopter, a unit of European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co., for months has been struggling to resolve a string of design, manufacturing and maintenance issues involving various of its helicopter models. The manufacturer's EC 225 model, for instance, was barred from flying over water for almost 10 months by U.K. regulators. Lifted in July, the ban came after two EC225 choppers ditched in the North Sea last year because of gearbox problems. Nobody was injured on those flights. Eurocopter worked with European safety regulators to develop short-term and long-term fixes, including phased-in installation of new parts. Last week the U.K. Air Accidents Investigation Branch, which is leading the probe of the Aug. 23 accident, said it recovered the so-called black box recorder from the wreckage. But investigators haven't said what caused the accident. In addition to safety issues with its Super Pumas-which have suffered four other accidents over U.K. waters in the last few years-Eurocopter has been working to fix serious hazards affecting other models. In August, the European Aviation Safety Agency issued an emergency directive calling for accelerated inspections to detect potential corrosion of certain engine controls on AS350 and ECC130 models. The directive also warned operators that previous modification instructions for the same parts were incorrect. In recent years, pilot mistakes were cited as the cause of one EC225 Super Puma accident in the North Sea. Pilot confusion and failure to properly monitor flight instruments were major factors in a February 2009 crash during a low-visibility, nighttime landing approach to a platform. The helicopter hit the water short of the platform, and everyone aboard was rescued. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324009304579047482020626594.html Back to Top Plane carrying 12 lands hard in Colo., no one hurt TELLURIDE, Colo. (AP) - A plane carrying 12 people, including team members of a project about famed author J.D. Salinger, landed hard at Telluride airport after its landing gear collapsed, but officials said no one was injured. The twin-engine Beechcraft 1900 skidded to a stop just after 1 p.m. Sunday and sustained damage to the left engine propellers and wing, the San Miguel County Sheriff's Office said. Members of the team behind an upcoming book and documentary on the writer were among the 10 passengers and two crew members aboard, according to "Salinger" author Shane Salerno. But it was not clear exactly how many people connected to the project were on board. "I am extremely grateful that everyone is okay," Salerno, who was not on board, told The Associated Press in an email. Before the plane landed, firefighters arrived at the scene to await its arrival after receiving advance notice that a light on the aircraft had shown its landing gear was not locked down. There was no fire or smoke after the hard landing, but authorities said the aircraft suffered damage to the left engine propellers and the left wing. FAA spokesman Allen Kenitzer said the aircraft was arriving from Denver when the left main landing gear collapsed. The Los Angeles Times reported the team traveled to Colorado on Sunday to promote the Salinger documentary at the Telluride Film Festival. The book about the author of the acclaimed novel "The Catcher In the Rye" is scheduled to be published this week and the film will air on PBS in January. Sgt. Michael Westcott of San Miguel County said deputies gave the passengers a ride to the terminal building, where they retrieved their luggage and left the airport. The National Transportation Safety Board will be investigating the incident. ************* Status: Preliminary Date: 01 SEP 2013 Time: ca 13:00 Type: Beechcraft 1900D Operator: Great Lakes Airlines Registration: N169GL C/n / msn: UE-169 First flight: 1995 Engines: 2 Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A-67D Crew: Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: Passengers: Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: Total: Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: Airplane damage: Unknown Location: Telluride Airport, CO (TEX) (United States of America) Phase: Landing (LDG) Nature: Domestic Scheduled Passenger Departure airport: Denver International Airport, CO (DEN/KDEN), United States of America Destination airport: Telluride Airport, CO (TEX/KTEX), United States of America Flightnumber: 7125 Narrative: A Beechcraft 1900D passenger plane operating as flight GLA-7125 from Denver International Airport, CO (DEN) to Telluride Airport, CO (TEX) was damaged in a landing accident on runway 09/27. The airplane came to rest with the left wing on the runway. It is currently unclear if the left hand undercarriage failed to extend prior to landing or if it failed on landing. Weather reported about the time of the accident (ca 13:00 LT / 19:00 UTC): KTEX 011915Z AUTO 09003KT 10SM TS SCT065 OVC100 21/07 A3043 RMK AO2 LTG DSNT N KTEX 011855Z AUTO 26009G16KT 10SM BKN065 BKN090 OVC110 20/08 A3043 RMK AO2 LTG DSNT N NE AND S KTEX 011835Z AUTO 27011G16KT 10SM SCT065 BKN090 22/08 A3043 RMK AO2 LTG DSNT E SE AND W www.aviation-safety.net Back to Top An Automation "Trap" for Pilots? The NBC Bay Area Investigative Unit explores how automation can sometimes lead pilots into a "trap," where they can be misled into thinking the airplane will do one thing, but because of the specific mode of automation, it doesn't do what pilots expect. Veteran pilots say the recent crash of Asiana Flight 214 might have involved pilots falling victim to what insiders call Flight Level Change Trap. The trap that can catch even long-time pilots by surprise if it's not closely monitored on an airplane's final approach raises the question: Is automation meant to improve safety in the cockpit instead sometimes putting safety at risk? Pilots who have flown using FLCH settings on an airplane's auto-pilot system say the "trap" can mislead them into thinking the plane's auto-throttle is giving power to a plane's engines, when actually, the engines are idle. If the wrong settings are entered into a plane's computer, the FLCH trap can also make it impossible to increase speed when a pilot needs it. NBC Bay Area's Investigative Unit has been examining the growing concern of what one researcher calls "Automation Addiction" in the aviation community: pilots over-relying on auto-pilot, auto-throttle and other forms of automation in the cockpit. To view the Investigative Unit's original report, click here. It's the issue the FAA acknowledged in a Safety Alert for Operators put out earlier this year. NTSB chairman Deborah Hersman has publicly acknowledged that investigators are exploring the relationship between automation and the pilots in Asiana Flight 214 which crashed landed at San Francisco International Airport back in July. NTSB investigators want to know what role, if any, automation may have played in the inputs and reactions by the three pilots in the cockpit during final approach to runway 28L. And it's an issue the NTSB and NASA are both researching in order to find solutions in cockpits to prevent pilots from losing control in flight. NASA has funded a $1.2 million study of the relationship between pilots and automation in the cockpit at the University of Iowa's Operator Performance Laboratoy (OPL.) NTSB investigators have also said publicly they are looking into confusion over automation that the black boxes showed occurring in the cockpit of Asiana Flight 214 when it crashed. Asiana pilots told NTSB investigators they thought the auto-pilot was engaged at the time of the crash. The plane's black boxes show the airplane dropped below the minimum speed for a safe landing and stayed there for 26 seconds before the pilots started to react, which proved too late to save it from crash landing NBC Bay Area put veteran commercial airline pilot, Doug Rice, at the controls of a 737 simulator at Flightdeck in Anaheim to show how he thinks auto pilot and automatic computer functions on airplanes can at times be more harmful than helpful. Rice also demonstrated other instances of how auto pilot and automatic computer functions on airplanes can at times be more harmful than helpful. "Sometimes the airplane will literally lie to you," said Rice, a pilot with 35 years of experience. "It's automation overload but it's also become an automation trust," Rice said. He emphasized pilots can trust the autopilot, as long as they know how to verify it is accurate. An example of this problem with automation is the FLCH trap. You can see a graphic of how it works to the right. The green line is the typical glide path most airplanes take in to land. The black line shows planes lowering then moving forward in a stair step motion typical of FLCH. Pilots set a certain altitude into the computer for the plane to hit. As the plane drops to that altitude, the engines will be automatically put in idle by the computer meaning the engines have no power, to descend. The trap occurs when pilots don't realize the plane is in FLCH, not autopilot and they try to engage engines, but since they are in idle, they get no power and cannot increase speed, which can lead to a crash. Rice demonstrated this in the 737 simulator. He showed that if pilots try to increase the speed while in FLCH, they can't because the engines remain in idle. Rice even pulled up on the autothrottle to get power to the engines but unless the pilots over-ride the computers, the auto-throttle will give the plane no power. "As the pilot pulls back on the yolk, expecting the throttles to come up, they don't. Speed decreases and he runs out of air speed," Rice explains. No power, idle engines, a pilot cannot increase the speed in FLCH. Trying to do this too close to land can end in a crash. "That is the bottom of the trap," Rice said. Data shows the Asiana 214 flight started its final approach to land high of the typical final approach glide path. The NTSB also said the plane was unstable on final approach. Data publicly released shows Asiana's engines remained in idle most of the way down the glide path and that as the plane loss airspeed it dropped below the line of a typical final approach. NTSB investigators are still piecing together all this data to arrive at a official determination about what happened. That official determination about what factors played a role in the crash is expected to be released within the next 12 to 18 months. http://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/An-Automation-Trap-for-Pilots-221875391.html Back to Top Did ICAO's Review Of India's Aviation Safety Go Far Enough? Significant Questions Remain For FAA Audit. By John Goglia While the official report has not yet been released by the International Civil Aviation Organization, Indian government officials reported that they were told by the UN aviation safety agency that it had satisfactorily addressed ICAO's air safety concerns. ICAO does not audit a country's airlines but rather its civil aviation authority (its FAA equivalent) to determine whether the government has the appropriate rules and practices in place to oversee the country's airlines. For the last two years, ICAO audits have raised safety concerns with the Indian government's ability to oversee airline safety. This has had ramifications for Indian airlines, including, for example, Japan's refusal to allow additional Air India flights and led to the FAA's audit planned for September. A permanent downgrading of India's safety oversight would have had significant consequences for Indian airlines, including banning or limiting international flights. According to media reports, ICAO's audit considered airworthiness and operations issues related to the Indian Directorate General of Aviation (India's FAA). The safety areas reviewed by ICAO reportedly related to approval of major maintenance work performed on foreign manufactured aircraft registered in India and procedures for granting air carrier certificates to non-scheduled airlines and review of airline documentation. But what about pilot pay? And I don't mean how much pilots are paid, but whether they get a pay check at all. One of the major safety issues I have been following for the last year and a half is repeated reports of airline pilots - including pilots for Air India, a government-run airline - not being paid for months at a time. What first caught my attention was a New York Time's article in India Ink, its section on all things Indian, headlined "Is Your Pilot Getting Paid?" As incredible as it seemed at the time, pilots at major Indian airlines were not getting a regular paycheck. At Air India, pilots went months without pay. As recently as April of this year, Indian media reported issues with pilots not regularly being paid. This is a significant safety issue for two main reasons. The first is cockpit distractions. We have known for years that among the major causes of airline accidents and incidents are pilot distractions while performing critical flight duties. Personal issues, including those related to finances, are among those potential distractions. Not getting paid - and certainly not getting paid for months - could well be a major distraction for pilots, especially when there have been repeated strikes in India over the years related to pilot pay. The other major safety issue for me is, if the pilots are not being paid, who else isn't getting paid? If an airline can't afford to pay its pilots, where else are these airlines skimping? Maintenance is usually an area where financially-strapped airlines cut corners. Since ICAO did not look at the issue of pilot pay, especially at the government-run Air India, it's hard to imagine that it looked at all the ramifications of not paying them, including on maintenance and other safety critical areas. As the FAA prepares for its audit, I'm hoping that it takes a broader look at India's aviation safety oversight. A lot of passengers fly Air India and other airlines in and out of US airports. They deserve to have these issues reviewed and addressed. http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoglia/2013/08/31/did-icaos-review-of-indias-aviation-safety-go-far- enough-significant-questions-remain-for-faa-audit/ Back to Top Back to Top What Airplanes Look Like to Google Map Satellite Cameras Apparently airplanes travel a little too fast for the satellites that provide photos for Google Maps. It happened to capture this plane shooting across the sky over Hyde Park in Chicago, but separated the plane into a phantom plane and three RGB shadows. http://petapixel.com/2010/12/09/what-airplanes-look-like-to-google-map-satellite-cameras/ Curt Lewis