Flight Safety Information September 9, 2013 - No. 186 In This Issue Thai Airways Jet Skids Off Runway in Bangkok DGCA under lens of US aviation regulator US aviation regulator to audit DGCA, filings by Jet, Air India 3 rescued from Alaska volcano after ice covered helicopter blades Ex-NTSB chief: FAA should rethink pilot fatigue rules after Ala. crash Private pilots chafe at surprise searches Pilot error behind 97% of crashes Airbus and China extend cooperation on safety into the future FAA Safety Briefing - September/October 2013 Embry-Riddle to Host Workshop on Aviation Safety Management Systems Think ARGUS PROS IFA - Technical Workshop and Forum 26 & 27th November - Hong Kong Mitsubishi Aircraft unveils Japan's first small passenger jet Aeroscraft begins flight testing following FAA certification Thai Airways Jet Skids Off Runway in Bangkok At Least 13 People Were Injured in the Flag Carrier's Most Serious Mishap in Over a Decade. Airport staff work around a Thai Airways plane that skidded off the runaway while landing at Bangkok's Suvarnabhumi Airport. Thai Airways Skids off Runway; 14 Passengers Hurt At least 13 people were injured after a Thai Airways International PCL airliner skidded off the runway as it landed at Bangkok's international airport late Sunday, in the flag carrier's most serious mishap in over a decade. The landing gear malfunctioned on the Airbus A330 jet, which carried 288 passengers and 14 crew members, when it landed at the Suvarnabhumi airport at 11:20 p.m. local time Sunday, the airline said in a statement. Thai Airways skids off runway; 14 passengers hurt Sparks were seen near the right landing gear after the aircraft came to a stop. The aircraft was operating as flight TG679 that originated from the southern Chinese metropolis of Guangzhou. Passengers were evacuated via emergency slides, the airline said. It said 13 passengers suffered minor injuries during the evacuation process, noting it is investigating the causes of the accident and said the airline's flights are operating normally. Thai Airways and Airports of Thailand AOT.TH +3.31% Public Co., which runs the country's airports, will host a joint news conference at 11 a.m. local time Monday. Thai Airways is seen by analysts as one of Southeast Asia's safest and best-run airlines, in a region that has experienced a proliferation of small low-cost carriers over the last decade. Many of the smaller airlines run older aircraft and have less experienced crews, raising concerns about aviation safety. Sunday's incident was Thai Airways' worst aircraft accident since March 2001, when fuel vapors in the central fuel tank of a Boeing 737 aircraft ignited to cause an explosion, as the jet was being serviced at the gate in Bangkok. One flight attendant died and six others were injured in the accident, according to the Aviation Safety Network. An Airbus spokesman in Singapore couldn't immediately be reached for comment. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324549004579063951436811442.html Back to Top DGCA under lens of US aviation regulator NEW DELHI: The Indian aviation safety regulator will come under the scanner of the American Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) from Monday. While the FAA is coming to examine the serious safety concerns raised earlier by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), the latter had last month withdrawn those fears. The Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) is wary of a downgrade as FAA had last year raised concerns on the regulator's ability to ensure oversight of aviation here. And these concerns remain largely unaddressed, except on paper, and the sword of a downgrade hangs on Indian aviation. The FAA had written a letter to DGCA chief Arun Mishra in July 2012, saying that it is "concerned that the aviation safety oversight provided by the government of India may no longer meet minimum international standards established by ICAO... extreme While the FAA - which can downgrade a country it finds is unable to ensure safety oversight on its airlines due to lack of resources like manpower - had expressed the fear a year ago, the situation is possibly worse now. The short-staffed DGCA is now headed for a prolonged headless phase as Mishra was given an extension as DG till the end of this month so that he could be around for the ICAO audit last month, as well as the week- long FAA checks that begin on Monday. "Mishra is being removed even as there is no IAS officer well versed in aviation to take his place. Many of the second-rung DGCA officers are facing different probes and are unlikely to be promoted as DG," said sources. FAA, in its July 2012 letter, had clearly told India that it had in 2009 agreed to keep the country's high safety ranking "dependent upon the government of India maintaining technical staffing and training requirements sufficient for effective aviation system safety oversight, with the understanding that the failure to meet these requirements would result in additional formal consultations". This process could lead to a downgrade of Indian aviation. Despite the clear warning, Indian aviation is at a crossroads where the apex safety body - DGCA - will be headless days after the FAA team leaves. Aviation industry insiders blame UPA for failing to strengthen DGCA even as the need for oversight grew with air traffic exploding since 2005, when low-cost carriers took to skies here. The government has got the Civil Aviation Authority bill passed by Parliament but this agency, loosely on the lines of FAA that will eventually replace DGCA, is unlikely to take a formal shape for at least a year or two. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/DGCA-under-lens-of-US- aviation-regulator/articleshow/22426027.cms Back to Top US aviation regulator to audit DGCA, filings by Jet, Air India If India is downgraded, it would mean no new flights by Indian airlines to US and additional checks on existing flights The United Nation's International Civil Aviation Organization had after an audit of the DGCA in December clubbed India among 13 nations with the worst air safety oversight. Photo: HT The US aviation regulator will on Monday begin a safety oversight audit of the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), the second such audit of the Indian regulator by an international body in two months. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) will also look into filings by Jet Airways (India) Ltd and Air India Ltd, which fly to the US. The United Nation's International Civil Aviation Organization (Icao) had after an audit of the DGCA in December clubbed India among 13 nations with the worst air safety oversight. It removed India from its blacklist only in August after a compliance audit of DGCA's mechanisms. "We are ready for the audit and we have been working overtime and on weekends to have everything up to date," said a DGCA official, who declined to be named. A second government official, who also asked not to be named, too said the regulator had been working most weekends for the past two months to prepare for the audits. The FAA audits are critical because if it downgrades India on finding any irregularities, that would mean no more new flights by Indian airlines to the US and additional checks on existing flights. It will brief the DGCA of its findings on Friday. The FAA may also audit the filings of Jet and Air India to DGCA to find out whether they match with the original documentation with the airlines, said the DGCA official quoted above. Air India flies non-stop to Chicago and New York, while Jet flies to New York via Brussels. A Jet Airways spokeswoman and Air India declined comment. Icao had in its December report identified a "significant safety concern with respect to the ability of this state (India) to properly oversee areas" under airworthiness and operations. The concern on airworthiness related to approval of major modifications and repairs carried out on foreign manufactured aircraft and registered in India. The concern on operations related to the procedure for grant of air operator permits to non-scheduled operators and the flight documentation systems of scheduled airlines. Icao had clubbed India with 12 other nations including Angola, Congo, Eritrea, Haiti, Kazakhstan and Lebanon as having the worst air safety oversight. That report resulted in Japan stalling Air India's plan to start flights to Osaka and prompted the FAA to seek an independent audit, Mint reported on 21 August. "We are in India at the request of their government," an FAA spokeswoman said. "The IASA (international aviation safety assessments) programme examines a government's civil aviation regulatory authority." India has been subjected to stern audits over past five years as its aviation industry has grown manifold in a decade the DGCA has not been overhauled to meet new requirements. Its staff remained lowly paid for the technicality required for the job and the number of staff required to oversee airlines and charters has shrunk as many qualified people retired or took jobs with private companies. The government recently introduced a draft law in Parliament to set up a Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) as an autonomous regulator that would replace the DGCA. But while a Bill for setting up Rajiv Gandhi Aviation University in Raebareli has been passed, the CAA Bill has been sent to a standing committee, aviation minister Ajit Singh informed the Lok Sabha on Friday. This could mean more delay in setting up the CAA. Both the Bills had been introduced in Parliament for debate and approving as law last month. An expert said the FAA will look more closely into the filings by Jet Airways and Air India as its focus is on the safety of American nationals. "After the Asiana crash, I doubt if FAA will ignore safety violations that stare in the face. Americans travel by air to several airfields in India which are positively unsafe and which do not conform to Icao standards," said Mohan Ranganathan, aviation analyst and member of the government-appointed Civil Aviation Safety Advisory Council. Asiana airlines flight 214 crashed at San Francisco International airport earlier this year, killing three people on a Boeing 777 aircraft. There have indeed been some concerns raised on oversight, according to John Goglia, an aviation science professor and former member of the US National Transportation Safety Board. "Safety of flights in India has received many negative comments in the press, including pilot qualifications and oversight by the Indian government," Goglia said. "This has certainly raised concerns in the international aviation community. The ICAO audit could well influence the FAA." http://www.livemint.com/Politics/ZtvPXtc4Yhl0gN30jkYUkL/US-aviation-regulator-to- audit-DGCA-filings-by-Jet-Air-Ind.html Back to Top 3 rescued from Alaska volcano after ice covered helicopter blades John Paskievitch aboard the stranded iced-over helicopter. Two researchers and their pilot were rescued Friday from an Alaska volcano after their helicopter's blades were covered in ice by freezing rain, stranding the trio. Alaska State Troopers spokeswoman Megan Peters told The Associated Press the three were rescued at about 5 p.m. Friday. The freezing rainstorm started Wednesday evening, and the bad weather prevented an earlier rescue. How the helicopter looked early on the second day. Pilot Sam Egli, United States Geological Survey geophysicist John Paskievitch and University of Alaska-Fairbanks researcher Taryn Lopez were unscathed. Asked how they passed the time for more than two days, Egli said they remained in the helicopter and "just yakked." "There wasn't anything to do," he told the AP. "We work together, we've got things in common, so we just talked about that." The researchers were working on recovering short-term volcano-monitoring equipment, the AP reported. When freezing rain iced over the helicopter's blades, the three became stranded. "We were unable to produce enough lift to take off at that point," Egli said, according to the AP. "The weather didn't clear up after that." A rescue helicopter airlifted the trio to safety Friday, but the iced-over chopper was left behind on Mount Mageik, the AP said. http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/07/20379880-3-rescued-from-alaska- volcano-after-ice-covered-helicopter-blades?lite Back to Top Ex-NTSB chief: FAA should rethink pilot fatigue rules after Ala. crash NTSB workers inspect the wreckage of a UPS cargo plane that crashed in a field outside of Birmingham-Shuttlesworth International Airport on Wednesday morning. The pilot and co-pilot were killed. Following the fatal crash of a UPS cargo plane Wednesday in Birmingham, Ala., a former National Transportation Safety Board chairman said that federal aviation officials should reconsider rules that set different fatigue standards for cargo flight pilots. "I hope the FAA will revisit their decision on the 'cargo cutout,'" Jim Hall told America Tonight, warning that other factors could also have been involved in Wednesday's crash. Hall, who served as NTSB chair from 1994 to 2001, was referring to rule changes the FAA announced in 2011 that cut the hours that passenger-plane pilots can fly if they're in the cockpit late at night or face multiple takeoffs and landings. Those new rules aren't set to take effect until 2014 and largely exclude cargo flights since the measures' benefits were focused on limiting potential loss of life. As Bloomberg reported in December, the estimated net costs in the first dozen years of cutting back the work hours of cargo-plane pilots spiked from $306 million to $550 million, according to the FAA's revised calculations. The Bloomberg report added that the FAA's projected benefits for cargo airlines would be somewhere between $20 million to almost $33 million. The cause of the Birmingham crash, which killed the pilot and the co-pilot, is still under investigation, but no severe weather was reported in the area and preliminary reports say that the pilots didn't radio a distress call to the tower. The Birmingham crash is the latest layer in the back-and-forth between the FAA and the pilots union that represents UPS over pilot-scheduling rules. In December 2011, FAA officials said that overhauling the rules for cargo-airline pilots would have cost $214 million in a decade, calling it too costly for the industry. In January 2012, the Independent Pilots Association, the union that represents UPS flight crews, had sued the FAA to have the same fatigue-prevention rules apply to cargo carriers as commercial airlines. In the lawsuit, IPA noted that it could not find justification for the FAA's cost estimate, which was ultimately the basis for granting an overhaul to the rules. In its January 2012 motion, IPA stated: "These errors are of sufficient amount that the FAA believes that it is prudent to review the portion of its cost-benefit analysis related to all-cargo operations and allow interested parties an opportunity to comment on that analysis." Hall, now a consultant on crisis management and a managing partner at Hall & Associates LLC in Washington, wants to see a single safety standard for passenger and cargo aircraft. Fatigue remains a major concern for cargo plane crews since so much of their work is done "back of the clock" -- reporting to work in the middle of the night and flying into the wee hours of the morning. Kevin Hiatt, CEO of the Flight Safety Foundation and a former commercial pilot, told America Tonight that cargo pilots have the same training, licenses, and ratings as commercial pilots, which involves many hours in flight simulators. Both UPS and FedEx have also been working with fatigue experts to keep crews alert safe. Hiatt said he agrees with Hall that "we should all subscribe to one level of safety ... whether flying passengers or cargo," but he'd like to see more research into improving safety in the final moments of flight. In 118 of the 250 fatal aircraft incidents worldwide that have occurred between 2002 and 2011, the accidents happened during the final approach, landing or aborted landing phases, Hiatt said. Those kinds of instances account for 47 percent of the accidents during that time period. He noted that the last three major U.S. incidents -- the Asiana Airlines crash in San Francisco, the Southwest Airlines plane with a nose gear problem in New York, and Wednesday's crash in Birmingham -- all occurred during this phase. http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/america-tonight/america-tonight- blog/2013/8/14/ex-ntsb-chief-faashouldrethinkpilotfatiguerulesafteralacrash.html Back to Top Private pilots chafe at surprise searches 4th-amendment concerns at heart of disagreement David Brodsky, of Columbia, Mo., is one of several general-aviation pilots who have complained about law enforcement searches of their airplanes. David Brodsky, of Columbia, Mo., is one of several general-aviation pilots who have complained about law enforcement searches of their airplanes. Texas businessman Danny Zimmerman was preparing to fly a private airplane from his home airport in San Antonio to Houston - and hoping to get out before bad weather moved in - when a plainclothes officer walked up to him and flashed a badge. "He asked to look around, checked in the baggage area," Mr. Zimmerman said, adding that the encounter became uncomfortable when the pilot advised the lawman that he was carrying a pistol as allowed by a concealed-carry license. "It was right after the Boston [Marathon] bombing, and the excuse was to check all the aircraft on the field," he said. The delay ended up being about 20 minutes. Mr. Zimmerman says he didn't think much of it at the time, but three months later, he was at Rockport, Texas, after a flight with his two young children, his brother, and a nephew when four police vehicles surrounded the plane after he parked it near a fixed- base operator - an airport business that sells fuel and other aviation services. The officers had been asked by Customs and Border Protection to intercept the plane and check it out, Mr. Zimmerman said, describing his own demeanor as "courteous, but still a little agitated." "They didn't draw any weapons, and they didn't seem to know what they were looking for," Mr. Zimmerman recalled. "It was probably only five or 10 minutes. They didn't ask to search the plane, and this time I wasn't going to give them permission." Mr. Zimmerman isn't the only private pilot who has reached that conclusion after being stopped unexpectedly and searched in recent months by law enforcement - searches conducted either by federal agents or by local officers whom the pilots believed to be working at the feds' direction. The Aircraft Owners' and Pilots' Association, which represents small-plane owners and operators across the United States, said it has received dozens of complaints from members "subjected to random searches" by Customs and Border Protection, local police, or both. "None of the stops resulted in anything being found," said Steve Hedges, a spokesman for the owners and pilots association. "In most cases, the pilots were stopped and held while their planes were searched. ... I'm told one pilot was asleep in a motel room with his wife when agents kicked the door down and took them back out to the airport to search his plane, only to find nothing there." Information sought The pilots' group has filed freedom-of-information requests for documentation about the searches, but Mr. Hedges said the association has been told it would take at least six months to get a response - if pertinent records even can be found. In a blog published last month by its editor, Robert Goyer, Flying magazine reported extensively on email and telephone conversations with an unnamed "law enforcement source ... who is knowledgeable about aviation matters" who described his 2009 training to participate in a federal drug interdiction program targeting private pilots. Flying's source said he was taught that pilots were to be treated as though they had no right to refuse the search. "What they taught law enforcement officers and agents was that all aircraft can be detained since they fall under the ... authority of the FAA [Federal Aviation Administration]," Mr. Goyer quoted the source. "This, in effect, gives them complete search authority of any aircraft." Instructors conceded, however, the searches' success rate was expected to be low but yield "a big bite" when they succeeded, the source told the magazine editor. Flying said neither Customs and Border Protection nor Homeland Security representatives had responded to its requests to confirm or comment on that account. In response to an inquiry from The Blade, Jenny L. Burke, branch chief of Customs' media relations division, issued a statement: "CBP's primary mission is to protect the American public while facilitating lawful travel and trade. This includes ensuring that all persons and cargo enter the U.S. legally and safely through official ports of entry, preventing the illegal entry into the U.S. of persons and contraband at and between POEs [points of entry], ensuring the safe and efficient flow of commerce into the United States, and enforcing trade and tariff laws and regulations. "We have deployed a multilayered, risk-based approach to enhance the security of our borders while facilitating lawful travel and trade." Ms. Burke did not respond to a follow-up request for explanation of how stopping and inspecting aircraft that have not crossed international borders is consistent with that mission. In a separate letter to the owners and pilots association, Thomas S. Winkowski, the acting commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, said the agency has authority "to inspect a pilot's operating certificate and related aircraft documents" on the basis of federal code governing the licensing of pilots and registration of aircraft. "In the course of conducting a pilot certificate inspection, facts may arise meriting further investigation or search to the extent authorized under the Constitution and consistent with federal law," Mr. Winkowski wrote. "Each interaction and event must be evaluated independently based on the facts present at the time of the encounter." Such searches, he continued, could include a "limited search" of a person if there is "reasonable suspicion" the person is armed and dangerous; a "protective sweep based on reasonable suspicion that a person is hidden who intends to impede or harm the law enforcement officer," or a search of the vehicle "based on probable cause that contraband or evidence is onboard the aircraft." Cause disputed The owners and pilots association said that all of the members who have made reports to it - 42 confirmed as of Friday - disputed that any probable cause or reasonable suspicion existed for the searches conducted on their planes. None of the pilots had crossed a U.S. border during a recent flight. Melissa Rudinger, the association's senior vice president of government affairs, said one search involved a law officer who removed an "inspection plate" from an aircraft in order to peer inside its structure. That, she said, is "something they're really not supposed to do," as those portals are intended only for access by qualified mechanics. Otherwise, she said, the searches did not include any teardown or dismantling of airplanes. The National Association of Business Aviation, which represents corporate aircraft operators and owners, said it had received no complaints from its members about improper searches. The owners and pilots association said it was not aware of any pilots from the Toledo area being involved in any protested searches. Staff at fixed-base operator companies at Toledo's airports also said they were not aware of any such searches involving local pilots. Scott Trumbull, the general manager at Suburban Aviation in Whiteford Township, said he believed some pilots there might be unhappy with federal law enforcement in general, but declined to refer any for comment and predicted none would speak for fear of retaliation. David Brodsky said he and an uncle flew in March in his uncle's plane from Concord, Calif., to Boonville, Mo., near Mr. Brodsky's home in Columbia, Mo. The trip included a fuel stop in Pueblo, Colo. Upon arrival in Boonville, he said, a police officer came over to the plane. "I didn't really think much of it," Mr. Brodsky recalled. "But all of a sudden, four unmarked cars came out of nowhere and surrounded the airplane." The local police reported having received a call from the Border Patrol that "we were under suspicion of transporting large amounts of marijuana," he said. The only thing that could have remotely suggested the flight might be involved with drugs, Mr. Brodsky said, was that it originated in California. Mr. Brodsky said the police started asking what he considered to be "stupid questions," such as asking why anyone would have reported him if he weren't up to something. Having heard through owners and the pilots association about other pilots' experiences, Mr. Brodsky said he described those reports to the officers. The pilot said he asked if he was being formally detained, and the officers said he wasn't, so he told them he needed to put the plane away. No search was performed. "They think people are flying pot out of California," Mr. Brodsky said. "They're casting a wide net and hoping to catch something - and trampling people's civil rights in the process." Mr. Zimmerman said that during both of his police encounters, those officers, too, mentioned they suspected the plane "had been involved in drug trafficking." But the circumstances of his travels, he said, made that highly unlikely: Mr. Zimmerman flies from a major, controlled airport, never makes private flights out of the country, and habitually files flight plans from which he doesn't deviate. Air-traffic controllers "knew who I was and where I was going." The plane involved was on a "dry lease," with others having access to it, but its flight logs and engine hours were inconsistent with any unsavory activity, Mr. Zimmerman said. The pilot said he intends to "comply, be courteous" with future lawman requests, but won't consent to any searches. "At that point, I'll get legal counsel if they do," he said. "I don't think there's any reason why a U.S. citizen should be searched, or ask to search, unless they [law enforcement] have a warrant or probable cause," he said. Gabriel Silverstein, a national land developer from New York who also professes to fly on flight plans as standard procedure, said the Iowa state troopers who detained him in Iowa City this spring were more blatant. "It was, 'We are inspecting your plane,' not, 'May we search your plane?' " Mr. Silverstein said. Later in the two-hour encounter, he said, one of the lawmen advised him to confess to possessing "a little personal-use dope and it'll be all over and easy." Mr. Silverstein said he was hardly about to make such a confession, considering that he refrains from drinking coffee, much less anything illegal. The Iowa City stop was the second for him in four days. Mr. Silverstein also had been visited by two Customs agents in Hobart, Okla., during a fuel stop on the outbound leg of a business trip from New Jersey to California and back with his husband. They checked his paperwork and quickly inspected his baggage while he fueled the plane, he said. His flight home had included a fuel stop in Colorado before the stop in Iowa City. Mr. Silverstein said the Colorado stop seemed to be of particular interest to the agents because that state has recently liberalized its marijuana laws. Terror fight As a New Yorker, Mr. Silverstein said he believes in a strong counterterrorism effort, but in this instance the authorities have overstepped their bounds. It has now been nearly 12 years since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, he said, but law enforcement's attitude has become, "We're still going to use that to have unrestrained, undocumented authority to do whatever we want to." The searches, Mr. Silverstein said, were "a pretty clear and blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment," though he considers other pilots' experiences, about which he has since heard after publicizing his own, to be "far more disturbing." He likened the campaign to the "stop-and-frisk" tactics the New York Police Department has used during the past decade to check pedestrians for weapons or drugs - a practice a U.S. district court judge ruled earlier this month is unconstitutional, although city officials have vowed to appeal. "They're actually ruining their own case" against actual criminals by establishing a pattern of questionable behavior, Mr. Silverstein said. Mr. Brodsky said the airplane searches suggest to him a law-enforcement apparatus that is losing its bearings. "When they got all this Homeland Security money, well, there are only so many terrorists out there to fight," he said, so it was predictable that it "would be turned on our own citizens." http://www.toledoblade.com/business/2013/09/09/Private-pilots-chafe-at-surprise- searches.html#zvdtCA2UffFemkze.99 Back to Top Pilot error behind 97% of crashes Leading cause of flight deaths: pilots failing to abort landings Passengers were already Tweeting photos of the Asiana crash last month while the aircraft was still burning. A study has shown 97 per cent of pilots in the US have failed to perform 'go arounds' when circumstances indicated the landing should have been aborted. An Asian airline's wide-body slams into a sea wall. A 737 with 150 people aboard hits the runway so hard its nose gear buckles. A cargo plane barely misses houses before plowing into a hillside short of the runway. These recent accidents, marking the deadliest period for airlines in the US since 2009, have something in common: had the pilots aborted their landings at the first sign of trouble - a move known as a go-around - they might have avoided tragedy. "They'd all be walking, talking and alive if they went around," Patrick Veillette, a pilot who teaches and writes about aviation safety, said in an interview. The three US air crashes since July 6, which killed five people, spotlight the difficulty in getting pilots to abort touchdowns if they haven't made safe approaches to the runway. It's "the largest, lowest hanging piece of safety fruit" to make flying less hazardous, according to research sponsored by the US Flight Safety Foundation. Crashes that occur during approach or touchdown are the world's leading category of aviation mishaps and deaths, according to data compiled by Chicago-based manufacturer Boeing. The biggest risk factor for such accidents is failing to approach a runway at the proper speed, altitude and heading, known as an unstabilised approach. If safety regulators can persuade pilots to conduct more go-arounds, lives may be saved and costs to airlines in damaged equipment and liability may be lowered. Computerised flight-track records and a survey of 2340 pilots sponsored by the safety foundation found that crews have a long way to go to comply with airline requirements to abort landings if their approaches were unstable. Almost all pilots, or 97 per cent, continued to land in spite of the rules that they climb away from the runway and circle around to try again, according to the research. "That's a risk factor that we really need to work on," Rudy Quevedo, director of global programs at the foundation, said in an interview. The issue isn't simple or new, Quevedo and Veillette said. "There isn't a commercial pilot who can say, 'Shame on you. You should have gone around,"' Veillette said. "We've all been in situations where in retrospect, we should have gone around and didn't." In some cases, rules may be overly rigid, akin to imposing a highway speed limit that is so low drivers routinely exceed it, Quevedo said. Violating the rules has become so ingrained that airlines don't enforce them and pilots don't recognize when they are taking unnecessary risks, he said. Setting up a proper approach to a landing is critical to safety, according to the US Federal Aviation Administration, which regulates the aviation industry, and the United Nations' International Civil Aviation Organisation. "It's really all physics," Quevedo said. "You want to be centered on the runway on the correct trajectory, the correct descent rate and the right speed." If that happens, a plane will almost always cross the start of the runway at a height of about 15 metres, which is optimal for a safe landing, he said. Airlines typically require that a plane be stabilized at 1000 feet (305 metres) above the runway in poor visibility and at 500 feet in clear weather. Pilots must also have performed required checklists, extended landing gear and configured the plane for landing, according to the foundation. "If not - GO AROUND!" an FAA advisory to pilots and airlines says. While the National Transportation Safety Board hasn't said what caused the three recent crashes, information it has released shows evidence of the aircraft being unstable at points within a mile or two from the runway or of pilots perceiving they were off course. Pilots on an Asiana Airlines Boeing 777 that hit a seawall short of a San Francisco runway on July 6 said they had indications once they reached 500 feet altitude that they weren't properly set up to land, according to NTSB Chairman Deborah Hersman. The crash killed three passengers and injured dozens as the plane broke apart and slid to a stop. One pilot told investigators the Asiana plane was below its optimal glide path at 500 feet, Hersman said July 9. Shortly after, the plane veered off the runway centerline, Hersman said. The pilots told investigators they failed to notice other warning signs, including that their speed had slowed so much that the wings were in danger of losing lift. When they recognized what was happening, they attempted a go-around, adding power too late to avoid the accident, Hersman said. A Southwest Airlines plane landed nose-first at New York's LaGuardia Airport on July 22, breaking the landing gear and skidding across the runway. The NTSB hasn't said whether the Boeing 737-700 was on a stable approach. The captain took control of the plane from the first officer below 400 feet altitude, according to the NTSB. In previous NTSB cases, such shifts in control occurred after an emergency or because the captain thought the approach needed correcting. Nine people suffered minor injuries, according to the NTSB. The pilots of a United Parcel Service Inc. freighter that crashed in Birmingham, Ala., on Aug. 14 received a cockpit warning that they were descending too rapidly 7 seconds before they hit trees, NTSB member Robert Sumwalt said last month. Whether the pilots also knew they were too low for their approach, which should have triggered a go-around, hasn't been released. The Airbus SAS A300-600F hit a dark hillside before dawn and broke apart, killing both pilots. The NTSB has investigated at least 21 cases since 1999 in which pilots could have prevented accidents or incidents if they had aborted landings that ran afoul of airline rules, according to the agency's case files. In an attempt to discover why such accidents continue to occur, the Flight Safety Foundation hired Martin Smith, a former pilot and psychologist who operates Presage Group Inc. in Mississauga, Canada. Smith oversaw the survey of pilots that found many weren't following airline rules. The pilots who didn't go-around after an unstable approach tended to have a dulled sense of the risks and didn't communicate as much with fellow crew members, Smith said the survey showed. They also believed they wouldn't be reprimanded for attempting to land in those cases. A similar survey of airline managers is under way to determine why the rule is so widely overlooked, he said. At the same time, some pilots said the criteria for a stabilised approach weren't realistic, Smith said in an interview. Researchers are attempting to design new standards that require aborting landings only in dangerous situations, improving safety without unnecessarily boosting go-arounds, which can create their own dangers, Quevedo said. "We should expect that if we have a policy, the people should follow the policy," he said. "But that being said, we need to make sure that the policy is good before we make people follow it. I don't think we're there yet." http://www.theage.com.au/travel/travel-incidents/leading-cause-of-flight-deaths-pilots- failing-to-abort-landings-20130909-2tf13.html#ixzz2eOWj9oUP Back to Top Airbus and China extend cooperation on safety into the future Airbus and the Chinese Civil Aviation Authority (CAAC) have agreed to continue their cooperation in the field of aviation safety for another five years. BEIJING- The new Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed by Airbus and CAAC states that both partners will continue to work together on safety challenges, especially those arising from the rapid development of the civil aviation industry in China. The MoU was signed by Eric Chen, Airbus China President and Lu Erxue, Chief Inspector of CAAC. The MoU includes continuing the reinforced maintenance operation support programme, continuing projects in flight operations and aviation safety such as providing flight instructor refresh courses to CAAC and Chinese airlines, deploying Performance Based Navigation (PBN) / Required Navigation Performance (RNP) and other new technologies in China, organizing high level management training courses to senior level civil aviation officials and airline executives and strengthening information exchanges and communication between Airbus, CAAC and Chinese operators. "The success of the current and previous cooperation programme on safety gives us all reason to pursue the cooperation with Airbus," said Lu Erxue. "Safety is of paramount importance for civil aviation. The best practices and latest technologies introduced by Airbus in the course of the cooperation support us a lot in addressing safety challenges, especially those arising from the rapid development of the civil aviation industry in China," Lu added. "Hundreds of millions of people fly on Airbus aircraft every year around the world and the number of Airbus aircraft operated by Chinese airlines is increasing rapidly. Working closely with our industry partners to ensure the highest levels of safety is Airbus' top priority," said Eric Chen. "Here in China we are pleased to continue to work closely with the Chinese civil aviation regulators and operators to further enhance the safety standards in Chinese civil aviation. We are proud to share expertise between CAAC and Airbus," Chen added. The Airbus and CAAC's cooperation on safety started in 2002. Since then, both partners have already launched various initiatives which have contributed to improving the safety of aircraft operations through, for example, enhanced inspectors' training or improved maintenance. The second MoU signed in 2008 covered a cooperation programme in the areas of rules and regulations training for Chinese aviation authorities, maintenance operation support for airlines, air traffic management (ATM) technologies and concepts and a "train the trainer" program for Chinese aviation institutes and universities. http://www.traveldailynews.asia/news/article/53409/airbus-and-china-extend- cooperation Back to Top Click to Open! Back to Top 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 Back to Top Back to Top Mitsubishi Aircraft unveils Japan's first small passenger jet TOBISHIMA, Aichi Prefecture--After repeated production delays, Japan's first domestically produced small passenger jet was finally revealed for the first time to reporters on Sept. 7. Mitsubishi Aircraft Corp., a Nagoya-based subsidiary of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd., showed the nose and fuselage of its new aircraft, the Mitsubishi Regional Jet, measuring 35.8 meters long. According to Mitsubishi Aircraft officials, the surface of the aircraft's body, coated mainly with aluminum, is two to three millimeters thick. Skilled workers at MHI's Tobishima plant in Tobishima, Aichi Prefecture, succeeded in smoothening the surface of the body by making adjustments as small as a hundredth of a millimeter when joining sheets of metal, the officials said. "We have come all the way to this point," said Mitsubishi Aircraft President Teruaki Kawai. "But we will have to verify the safety (of the MRJ plane) from now. We're still a long way from being there, and will continue to do our best." The latest promotion tour, an effort to aggressively reveal developmental processes of the aircraft, was apparently aimed at dispelling growing distrust with the company among customers, evoked by repeated delays in the launch of the new aircraft. Mitsubishi Aircraft announced in August that it would delay both the delivery and the first flight of the MRJ aircraft by a year and a half, citing postponements of safety approval procedures and parts procurement from foreign enterprises. It was the third time that Mitsubishi Aircraft announced delays in producing the passenger jet. Mitsubishi Aircraft currently plans to carry out the first trial flight of the MRJ plane between April and June in 2015 at Nagoya Airport in Aichi Prefecture, and deliver its first MRJ aircraft to All Nippon Airways Co., one of its customers, between April and June in 2017. http://ajw.asahi.com/article/economy/business/AJ201309090073 Back to Top Aeroscraft begins flight testing following FAA certification Still attached to tethers, the Aeroscraft prototype lifts a short way into the sky as pre-flight testing continues on the ground-breaking airship After a 70-year absence, it appears that a new rigid frame airship will soon be taking to the skies over California. Aeros Corporation, a company based near San Diego, has received experimental airworthiness certification from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to begin flight testing the Aeroscraft airship, and it appears that the company has wasted no time getting started. The airship hovers near the ground during tethered flight testing on Saturday, September 7...The ground control team monitors progress as the Aeroscraft airship hovers nearby. Aeros has provided these photographs of the Aeroscraft airship outside undergoing tethered testing on Saturday, September 7, 2013, and they clearly show the airship off the ground and under control. The large bag structures under airship are landing pads, a type of inflated hovercraft skirt that allow the airship to rest on the ground - or water, or ice - without wheels. Speaking to Gizmag, company Communications Director John Kiehle says that the first untethered test flight will be "very soon - within a few weeks" and should see the airship fly around the airfield at a height of about 100 ft (33 m). First flights will not include operating the Aeroscraft's trademark variable buoyancy system, but that system has been successfully tested inside the large hangar where the airship was built at Tustin, California. President of Aeros Corporation, Igor Pasternak, announced the FAA approval on September 5: "I'd like to personally thank the Aviation Safety Inspectors Cindy Napolitano and Kurt Krumlauf at the FAA for their professionalism and effective collaboration with Aeros over these many months." The company also announced the flight test crew for first flights of the airship. Chief test pilot will be 40-year airship veteran Corky Belanger, who has flown just about every airship available. The co-pilot is retired four-star General Raymond Johns, former head of the Air Force Mobility Command. Also on the flight will be someone with a personal stake in the operation - Aeros CEO Igor Pasternak will take on the duties of Flight Engineer. The Aeroscraft has been under development since 2006, and the US Government has contributed some $35M for research, along with expertise in aerodynamics and control systems from NASA. The impressive Aeroscraft prototype is 266 ft (79 m) long and 97 ft (29.5m) wide and nearly fills a football field or soccer pitch. It is powered by three swiveling engines - two on the sides and one in the back - that provide both lift and thrust to lift the airship into the air and propel it forward. The rear engine gives control at low airspeeds by pushing the tail around, side to side or up and down. Two sets of wing-like control surfaces are mounted fore and aft, and two large rudders push up vertically from the tail end. These aerodynamic surfaces are used at higher speeds (above 20 mph / 30 kph). As big as this airship is, it is still a one-half scale prototype - the final design is expected to be more than 400 feet (121m) long and be able to lift a cargo weight of 66 tons. The Aeroscraft is a fully rigid airship, of the type that has not been seen in the air since 1940 when the highly successful airship Graf Zeppelin was retired after flying over one million safe air miles and making 144 trips across the ocean. A rigid airship has a stiff outer frame that maintains its aerodynamic shape regardless of the amount of helium inside the ship. This is different from the more common blimp, where the shape of the airship must be maintained by the internal pressure of the gases inside the envelope. As with all modern airships, the lifting gas inside the large hull is helium, an inert element that cannot burn. The Aeroscraft airship was designed from the start to haul cargo, and it needed to solve a problem that has prevented airships to be used for cargo in the past: the problem of ballast. Airships are basically balloons with motors and steering, and like balloons, the helium gas inside provides a fixed amount of lift all of the time. If you picked up 10 tons in an airship and delivered it to a remote location, before the 10 tons could be removed from the airship, 10 tons of other weight must be added in order to prevent the airship from rocketing skyward from the extra 10 tons of lift. You could dump a lot of helium overboard, but that gets very costly, as helium is an expensive, non-renewable resource that is found under the ground in natural gas wells. What the engineers at Aeroscraft have done to compensate for this problem is to take a lesson from submarines. The Aeroscraft airship can compress a certain amount of its lifting gas and put it into fabric tanks, under pressure. The density of the compressed gas is higher so that it is no longer lighter than air, and therefore this airship, unlike any of its predecessors, can change its buoyancy. The company calls this system COSH, an acronym for "Control of Static Heaviness." This ability adds another benefit: reducing the ground crew. Since blimps and other airships are always close to neutrally buoyant, they are in fact always flying. To land an airship, a large ground crew comes out to catch ropes and hold it down until it can be attached to something - usually a mast anchored in the ground or connected to a very heavy truck. This ballet of ground handling can take a crew of up to 20 people for even a small airship ... and the Aeros is not small. With the Aeroscraft, the crew starts up a pumping system as it nears landing, which begins to compress the gas in the gas cells, making the craft heavier. The engines on either side power up to compensate, and by the time the vehicle touches down, it is quite a bit heavier than air and will stay in place on its own. The pumps continue to compress helium as cargo is removed and the craft remains heavy as long as it's on the ground. When it is once again time for takeoff, a proper amount of helium is released from the tanks back into the gas cells, meaning the airship becomes lighter and the engines can easily lift it off the ground in a vertical take-off. Blimps contain smaller gas bags inside their main envelope, called ballonets (French for "little balloons") that are filled with air, and the crew can adjust the pressure in the envelope as the airship climbs and descends. As an airship climbs, the outside air pressure reduces, and the helium inside expands. The crew releases air from the ballonets to maintain the shape of the blimp. Rigid airships do not have ballonets. Instead they have a series of gas cells inside the rigid frame that can expand and contract independently, and thus have more volume of helium to work with. The frame itself has weight, however, and must be balanced by more helium, which is why airships like the Aeroscraft are so large. The rationale for bringing back this type of airship relates to its ability to deliver heavy, outsized cargo to remote locations without needing an airport to land at. Communities in locations like Alaska, the north of Canada, Africa, and the Australian outback are rich in minerals but lacking in infrastructure. It is the vision of Pasternak and his crew that the Aeroscraft will transform the delivery of cargo to mines, wind farms and oil fields in remote areas like these. http://www.gizmag.com/aeros-gets-faa-approval-for-testing/28970/ Curt Lewis