Flight Safety Information September 21, 2017 - No. 189 In This Issue Accident: Endeavor CRJ9 near New York on Sep 19th 2017, turbulence injures passenger Incident: Spirit A319 at Detroit on Sep 18th 2017, engine shut down in flight Incident: Envoy E175 at Bentonville on Sep 18th 2017, bird strike Boeing 737-500 Hydraulic Loss - Japan NTSB Reminds Pilots To Beware Of Carbon Monoxide Can America's air safety watchdogs police aviation fraud? Asiana crash: Santa Clara dentist fights airline over loss of practice in last unresolved claim Spirit Airlines flight out of Metro spews plane parts into yards; FAA investigating NordStar Airlines successfully passes IOSA audit Lloyd's of London wants to insure self-driving airplanes and ships China-Russia wide-body C929 jet to rely on western suppliers for systems Struggling GE is grounding its fleet of corporate jets to save money GRADUATE RESEARCH SURVEY. CHC Safety & Quality Summit - 2017 (September 27-29; Grapevine, TX) Accident: Endeavor CRJ9 near New York on Sep 19th 2017, turbulence injures passenger An Endeavor Air Canadair CRJ-900 on behalf of Delta Airlines, registration N925XJ performing flight 9E- 4147/DL-4147 from New York La Guardia,NY to Nashville,TN (USA), was climbing out of New York when the aircraft encountered turbulence causing injuries to a passenger. The aircraft continued the flight to Nashville, where the aircraft landed without further incident about 100 minutes after departure. The FAA reported a passenger received minor injuries when the aircraft encountered turbulence during the initial climb. http://flightaware.com/live/flight/EDV4147/history/20170919/1229Z/KLGA/KBNA http://avherald.com/h?article=4ae9d736&opt=0 Back to Top Incident: Spirit A319 at Detroit on Sep 18th 2017, engine shut down in flight A Spirit Airlines Airbus A319-100, registration N505NK performing flight NK-569 from Detroit,MI to Atlanta,GA (USA) with 135 people on board, departed runway 03L and was climbing through about 5000 feet when the crew declared emergency reporting they had "lost the second engine". The crew stopped the climb at 5000 feet, shut the right hand engine (V2524) down, requested the longest runway available, when told to expect the RNAV approach to runway 04R they changed their mind and opted for the ILS equipped runway 04L. The aircraft returned to Detroit for a safe landing on runway 04L. The crew requested emergency services to check the right hand side for any fire/burning stating they had a constant fire indication. Emergency services reporting seeing no trace of fire and no trace of leaks. The FAA reported metal debris was found in a number of backyards underneath the departure path of the aircraft. A passenger reported there was a huge bang and a fire ball followed by sparks from the right hand engine. http://avherald.com/h?article=4aea08ec&opt=0 Back to Top Incident: Envoy E175 at Bentonville on Sep 18th 2017, bird strike An Envoy Embraer ERJ-175 on behalf of American Airlines, registration N220NN performing flight MQ- 3823/AA-3823 from Washington Dulles,DC to Bentonville,AR (USA), was on final approach to Bentonville's runway 16 when a bird impacted the nose of the aircraft. The aircraft continued for a safe landing on runway 16 a few minutes later. The aircraft was unable to depart for the return flight however and remained on the ground for about 14 hours, then positioned to Dallas Ft. Worth,TX (USA), where the aircraft underwent maintenance for another 5 hours before returning to service. http://flightaware.com/live/flight/ENY3823/history/20170918/2340Z/KDCA/KXNA The bird impact: http://avherald.com/h?article=4aea0002&opt=0 Back to Top Boeing 737-500 Hydraulic Loss - Japan Date: 21-SEP-2017 Time: 08:35 LT Type: Boeing 737-5L9 Owner/operator: All Nippon Airways - ANA Registration: JA359K C/n / msn: 28128/2817 Fatalities: Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 121 Other fatalities: 0 Airplane damage: Minor Location: near Osaka International Airport/Itami (ITM/RJOO) - Japan Phase: Approach Nature: Domestic Scheduled Passenger Departure airport: Miyazaki Airport (KMI/RJFM) Destination airport: Osaka International Airport/Itami (ITM/RJOO) Narrative: A Boeing 737-500 operated as ANA/NH flight 502 from Miyazaki to Osaka/Itami was on the final approach when a hydraulic warning light illuminated in the cockpit. The approach was aborted. After trouble shooting, the Boeing made a safe landing at Itami. One third of the oil quantity of one of the three hydraulic systems had leaked out. https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=199857 Back to Top NTSB Reminds Pilots To Beware Of Carbon Monoxide The danger of carbon monoxide poisoning in aviation was the subject of two safety alerts released by the NTSB on Wednesday, one for pilots (PDF) and one for mechanics (PDF). The risk of CO poisoning is "generally overlooked and underestimated" by both pilots and mechanics, the safety board said. A defect or leak in the exhaust pipes or muffler can introduce CO into the cockpit, and exposure to the gas can lead to oxygen starvation and the onset of symptoms (headache, drowsiness, nausea, or shortness of breath). Fatal accidents have resulted when the pilot is incapacitated by the exposure. To avoid these dangers, the NTSB says pilots should install a carbon monoxide detector on the instrument panel of their aircraft. Detectors with aural alerts and a flash notification are more likely to draw a pilot's attention to the potentially lethal condition, the NTSB says. During preflight inspections, pilots should check the security and condition of the exhaust system, the NTSB says. During flight, if you believe you have been exposed to CO, don't hesitate to act. Open the windows, turn off the heat, land as soon as practical, and seek emergency medical attention. Pilots often overlook or dismiss the onset of symptoms and don't connect them with the possibility of exposure to CO, the NTSB said. Continued exposure increases the risks, including impaired judgment and decreased ability to control the airplane and, eventually, incapacitation and death. The safety board also encourages aircraft mechanics to inspect exhaust systems, air ducting, firewalls, and door and window seals thoroughly at every 100-hour or annual inspection. https://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/NTSB-Reminds-Pilots-To-Beware-Of-Carbon- Monoxide-229648-1.html Back to Top Can America's air safety watchdogs police aviation fraud? A tide of defective and possibly counterfeit airplane parts has been making its way into U.S. aircraft unreported and unchecked, according to senior aviation specialists and whistleblower attorneys. Earlier this spring, a government audit of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)-the agency responsible for ensuring airline safety-said the FAA had consistently failed to alert federal law enforcement authorities about suspect parts installed in U.S. airplanes. The scathing audit by the Department of Transportation's Office of the Inspector General (OIG)-the first one in 20 years-also charged the agency had closed investigations without ensuring that counterfeit and improperly manufactured parts (SUPs) were removed. The FAA has since pledged to comply with the audit recommendations. But interviews with former FAA inspectors and other experts raise questions about whether federal law enforcement authorities can cope with the threat posed by a global aviation parts manufacturing industry that has spread to emerging markets like China and India, where many of the fake or defective parts identified in investigations have originated. The safety threat posed by fraudulent parts is likely to increase unless federal authorities become more aggressive in combating it, the experts told The Crime Report. "We're outsourcing so much work into those regions (that) the propensity for risk increases exponentially," said Michael Dreikorn, a former FAA safety inspector who helped set up the agency's first Suspected Unapproved Parts (SUP) program in the 1990s. Some argue that an equally serious problem is a laissez-faire culture in which the agency effectively allows the commercial aviation industry to police itself. Whenever the FAA suspects fraud, under its own guidelines, it is required to refer the case to federal law enforcement authorities. Support TucsonSentinel.com today, because a smarter Tucson is a better Tucson. "However, the FAA is loathe to actually refer people for criminal enforcement," said Mary Schiavo, a former Inspector General of the Department of Transportation (DOT)."They just don't do it." Agency officials respond that the FAA's current oversight program assures the safety of the American flying public. "In rare instances where the FAA determines SUPs have entered the system, we issue corrective measures that mandate timely action by affected owners and operators," the FAA said in an emailed response to The Crime Report's questions. The trials of a whistleblower But a Crime Report investigation suggests that despite the sharp rebuke by the OIG earlier this year of FAA practices, ongoing attempts by a Chinese whistleblower to warn both authorities of a potential grave risk to the flying public continues to fall on deaf ears. In 2016, a supply chain manager at Moog, a U.S. aerospace company that supplies flight control systems to Boeing, alerted the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) that he had discovered a Chinese subcontractor was producing improperly manufactured parts. According to an FAA report obtained by The Crime Report, the agency investigated, but found no evidence of a violation. Unsatisfied, the whistleblower, Chaosheng Shi, asked for a re-investigation. During the second investigation, the regional FAA inspector found evidence that improperly manufactured parts had been installed in commercial Boeing 777s around the globe. The same subcontractor, according to the report, had outsourced other critical parts to an unapproved supplier. What's more, the subcontractor had fabricated production records. Under the FAA's own guidelines, when the agency finds evidence of "suspected unapproved parts" (SUPs), it is supposed to refer them to federal law enforcement agencies for a full examination. But that didn't happen. Instead, despite the evidence produced during the second investigation, the FAA concluded that "all corrective actions have been taken. No further action is required." 'Accounting error' Regarding Shi's suspicion that the subcontractor was using substitute, sub-standard raw materials, FAA accepted the company's explanation that it was an "accounting error." FAA's investigation relied entirely on Moog's internal probe into the suspected counterfeiting. But by the time Moog performed its inspection, claimed Shi, the parts that it tested were no longer representative of the batch that had been installed on aircraft a year earlier. These parts are still in the air today, installed in wing flaps that control descent and speed for safe landing. As if this weren't chilling enough, they are what's known in the industry as "single-point- of-failure" parts-meaning that if they fail, the whole system fails. According to Shi, as many as 500 commercial airplanes could be affected. The Moog case illustrates what some experts say is a worrying failure of oversight by the agency tasked with ensuring the safety of commercial airplanes in the U.S., as well as law enforcement agencies that investigate and prosecute unapproved parts fraud. Some experts cite a relationship between the airline industry, FAA, and congressional oversight committees that has grown too cozy. While people within the industry insist that manufacturers have a self-interest in keeping the flying public safe, veteran aviation experts are telling a different story-one in which unreported defective parts invade the supply chain unchecked, with no repercussions. While it is not the FAA's role to investigate criminal matters, the agency acts as a gatekeeper, deciding which cases are referred to law enforcement. For cases involving commercial aircraft, the Department of Transportation's Inspector General gets involved, often working with special agents from the FBI. For military aircraft, the Department of Defense, and the Defense Criminal Investigative Service step in. Some say the FAA is, in effect, enabling an end-run around potential criminal investigations by withholding these types of allegations from investigators. "If the FAA is not sharing the information with law enforcement, [offenders] are not going to get indicted, because most of the time law enforcement is not going to know about it," said Ken Gardner, a retired FAA safety inspector who now teaches certification courses for the agency. Criminal prosecutions against airplane manufacturers are rare; instead, victims and their families have taken to civil courts to pursue false claims and wrongful death suits. Under federal regulations, installing counterfeit or improperly manufactured parts isn't a crime unless you've done it knowingly. The same goes for falsifying records. But experts allege that the FAA's lax attitudes allows the manufacturers to shrug away what little scrutiny they might face with a simple response: We didn't know. "Sadly, I've heard this many, many times," said Schiavo, the former DOT Inspector General. "There are so many whistleblowers out of Boeing. But the FAA says 'Boeing looked at it, and they found it not to be a problem,' and they pretty much rubber stamp [it]. "They don't make Boeing go and inspect all the planes. And I suppose a lot of these are out in the hands of end-users now. It's pretty typical." Like what you're reading? Support high-quality local journalism and help underwrite independent news without the spin. Dreikorn, the former FAA inspector, concurs. "The fact of the matter is, as a result of this whistleblower's actions, we know of 273 nonconforming parts installed in the spoilers of Boeing 777 aircraft," he said. "We are expected to rely on analysis and testing from the very companies that caused the problem. "Trust must be earned, and the FAA's aircraft certification office in Seattle has shown itself incompetent in ensuring the largest airplane manufacturer in the U.S. is capable of controlling its suppliers." Dreikorn added: "I rest no easier simply because the FAA says I should." Asked by The Crime Report to examine the FAA's report on Shi's complaint, another former safety inspector, who asked that his identity be withheld, said, "This investigation should have also involved the DOT Office of Inspector General for falsification of production records which are required documentation." The inspector was particularly concerned about the hundreds of critical parts that were installed in wing flaps that did not undergo stress relief or proper hydrogen relief treatment (baking). "Carbon embrittlement is a big concern due to the fact that turbulence can change the normal stress loads that can cause a catastrophic failure," he told The Crime Report. "The FAA should have followed up with Boeing to gain information of their notice to customers who had those parts installed on their aircraft." But the defective parts never even made it onto the FAA's Unapproved Parts Notification database, which issues warnings to aircraft owners, operators, manufacturers, maintenance organizations, and parts suppliers about potential risks. The notifications system is also accessible to the public. Boeing provided the following response to The Crime Report: The safety of the flying public is our primary concern, and any allegation related to safety is thoroughly investigated. In late 2016 the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration investigated several allegations related to Moog Aerospace and confirmed two were substantiated. Moog, working with Boeing, had already assessed these two issues and taken all necessary corrective actions. The FAA investigation confirmed that no further corrective action was required. Like what you're reading? Support high-quality local journalism and help underwrite independent news without the spin. The May 30 audit by the OIG found that the FAA had consistently violated a 2004 agreement with six federal law enforcement agencies to share reports and investigations about possible defective parts. "As a result," the OIG concluded after its two-year review of the agency, "the FAA cannot accurately account for the number of SUPs or track safety-related trends to share with senior FAA management and Federal law enforcement agencies about the risks posed by unapproved parts." In response to the audit, the FAA finally did share data with law enforcement authorities on allegedly substandard or counterfeit airplane parts- many of which are currently in use by commercial jetliners flying today. But the whistleblower's story also raises questions about whether federal law enforcement is sufficiently aggressive in monitoring possible counterfeiters. The OIG, which has the authority to conduct criminal investigations, confirmed to The Crime Report that it received Shi's complaint and had decided not to investigate. But it would not explain on what grounds his complaint was rejected. The FAA's defenders argue that the commercial aviation industry itself is better equipped to monitor suspected unapproved parts and remove them if necessary-a laissez-faire approach which they say ensures airline safety. "Certificate holders (FAA-approved aviation businesses) must protect themselves and their work with or without government help," said a spokesperson for the Aeronautical Repair Station Association (ARSA), a global trade association for the civil aviation maintenance industry. "This responsibility is what keeps flying the safest form of transportation." Meanwhile, in response to a request from The Crime Report, the FAA issued the following official statement: The FAA oversees the design and production of hundreds of millions of aviation products and parts each year. More than two decades ago, the agency developed an enhanced Suspected Unapproved Parts (SUP) program, which resulted in a marked decrease in SUP cases. In rare instances where the FAA determines SUPs have entered the system, we issue corrective measures that mandate timely action by affected owners and operators. FAA inspectors perform follow-up surveillance of all corrective actions that aircraft owners and operators, and aircraft manufacturers and parts manufacturers, take in response to SUP cases. In Shi's case, however, the FAA closed out the investigation without reporting the defective parts as 'suspect.' Vigilant in the 1990s Things weren't always so lax. The 1990s saw a more aggressive enforcement period following the 1989 crash of Partnair Flight 394, which killed all 55 people on board, and was blamed on defective counterfeit parts and substandard maintenance. During Mary Schiavo's six-year tenure as Inspector General, her office led investigations that resulted in over 150 convictions for fraudulent parts. "There are a few people still in jail as a result of that," said former FAA inspector Dreikorn, whose SUP team included several FBI agents who led raids on fabricators of unapproved parts. But the program was disbanded in 2007. Gardner, who teaches FAA certification courses (including unapproved parts training) at JDA Aviation Technology Solutions, there are fewer agents assigned to the OIG these days, and they are spread thin across all crimes involving transportation. "If it's something that's not going to draw a lot of attention, and it's not really a safety issue, they'll just kind of leave it up to the FAA to deal with it," added Gardner, who also trains law enforcement how to spot counterfeits and falsified records. But according to independent experts and whistleblowers, law enforcement lacks the expertise to determine what might be a safety threat, and instead has to rely on the industry itself. Gardner, like Dreikorn, says the risks have escalated in recent years as aviation manufacturers increasingly outsource to developing markets. "We know there's a lot of counterfeit parts coming out of China," he told The Crime Report. "There's a lot of Sikorsky [owned by Lockheed Martin] parts, and the problem is, they have the companies over here send all the data, the drawings and specifications and everything for the parts to be made at other facilities in China as a supplier. "But they don't stop there. Because they figure there's money in it, they can actually manufacture other parts and send them over here with false documentation." Shi's case adds a troubling new dimension to the problem of overseas quality control. Last month, a judge denied him U.S. whistleblower protection because he worked in Shanghai. Nevertheless, ARSA, the aeronautical repair group, argues that companies outside the U.S. have an equal interest in avoiding fake or fraudulent manufacturers. "A good repair station won't risk business on risky parts," the ARSA spokesperson told The Crime Report, noting that non-U.S. firms have access to the FAA's database, which "allows certificate holders to help 'police' the flow of parts with questionable origins or paperwork." Some aviation experts point out, however, that the current system fails to account for human nature. Mike Danko, a civil attorney and pilot who uncovered the role of an unapproved part in a deadly 2014 plane crash, cites what he says is the "well-known" example that "a pilot is never criminally prosecuted unless he is drunk-it doesn't matter how stupid, reckless he is, or how many people are injured-[and] because that's so well known, there's a small group of renegade pilots who say, 'this is easy-either I'm not going to get the license, or my license is revoked, I don't care. "I'm going to continue to fly because-what happens if I get caught?'" The audit's findings underline the charges by many of the outside experts interviewed for this article that the FAA itself is in need of an overhaul. Even if FAA inspectors were inclined to be more aggressive, they currently don't have the technical skills to perform physical examinations to determine if there is a safety risk. "The FAA really defers to Boeing expertise," said Mary Schiavo, noting that the agency even allows the company to self-certify its aircraft. "The FAA doesn't have the expertise to match talent with Boeing." (Boeing has contended in federal court that it is a "representative" of the FAA). "It's a paperwork chase," added Mike Danko, the former pilot. "It's not quality control, or quality assurance. As a general rule it's just a record-keeping inquiry." Are our planes safe? Has the FAA's current approach to counterfeit parts increased the safety risks for the thousands of passengers who fly U.S. jetliners every month? The FAA and its defenders say it hasn't. But last year, after compiling and analyzing National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) reports, the NBC Bay Area Investigative Unit found that "unapproved parts" had played a role in close to two dozen airplane crashes in the U.S. since 2010, resulting in seven fatalities and 18 injuries. The majority of the crashes either took place in U.S. airspace or involved U.S. aircraft under FAA jurisdiction, according to an NBC reporter, minus one or two overseas cases referred to the FAA that involved forged FAA tags. Independent aviation experts think this number may actually be much higher. However, the NTSB refuses to release information on its investigations of major catastrophes that have happened overseas, even when they involved a U.S. manufacturer. When Danko investigated the 2009 Cessna crash that killed Dr. Ken Gottlieb, he found that an unapproved part had jammed during takeoff, and that Gottlieb's mechanic had faked an inspection just days earlier. A civil jury awarded Gottlieb's family over $10 million dollars. Afterwards, said Danko, "I asked the FAA to investigate. They investigated and found basically no specific violation of any regulation. And that mechanic still has his license." As for any criminal investigation, "law enforcement is virtually never interested," said Danko. That holds true in Shi's whistleblower case. For the past two years, his dogged attempts to alert the OIG, both directly, and through the fraud hotline, have come to nothing. The OIG's official reply: "We Anticipate No Further Action From Our Office Regarding This Matter And Thank You For Bringing This Information To Our Attention." New HongJi, the Chinese company that was found to have produced defective parts and falsified records, continues to manufacture Moog parts for installation onto Boeing military and commercial aircraft. Aircraft Group of Moog, Inc, holds the certificate for these parts- meaning the case falls within U.S. jurisdiction. "You can explain away an accounting error," said former FAA inspector Dreikorn. "But when you have that coupled with forged documents- it means there is no reliability in the system, and then everything that comes out of the system is as far as I'm concerned, suspect." Appeal to an irrelevant authority An FAA investigation-which the OIG audit shows to be unreliable-can also make or break a fraud case. Take the 11-year, $4.8 billion false claims suit against Boeing and Ducommun for defrauding the U.S. government, which was thrown out on appeal in 2016. The lawsuit claimed that Boeing used off-spec parts in 737 Next Generation aircraft that it sold to the U.S. military (P-8 Poseidon), and then produced false documentation to cover it up. The judge made his determination based on the fact that Boeing and the FAA both disagreed with the whistleblowers as to how the manufacturing specifications could be interpreted. Because of this wiggle room, intent could not be proven. "We know it was willful, because after they 'discovered' it, they then went back to the company that was making the defective parts, or the non-conforming parts, and they cut a side-deal with them authorizing them to continue doing it in exchange for some price concessions," William Skepnek, a whistleblower attorney who worked on the case for over a decade, told The Crime Report. But, he added: "Because the FAA didn't make a finding, then I guess reasonable minds can differ, and if reasonable minds can differ, well than you can't prove intent.... which is of course not the law." "I don't think there ever was a criminal investigation. There was a DCIS investigator who was assigned to the case. And the DCIS investigator simply handed it off to FAA, and accepted what FAA did, and did no investigation on his own." Skepnek's team started digging into the case, and "we found that the DCIS investigator had no knowledge of aircraft parts." "So there literally was no independent criminal investigation." The FAA, in turn, accepted Boeing's own internal investigation into the matter, said Skepnek. According to Dreikorn, who was engaged as an expert witness by the whistleblowers: "I was able to independently determine that, yeah, Boeing had done some wrongdoing, they had covered it up, and the FAA at the local level was in cahoots. "And I took it all the way up to the Associate Administrator, and she killed it." Skepnek continued: "Ultimately, the federal judge in Wichita determined that because the FAA hadn't done anything about it, then that meant that the FAA found it was all good." The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals also sided with the opinion of Boeing engineers and the FAA. It might be surprising to the average person that the agency tasked with aviation safety doesn't perform physical inspections and investigations itself. But according to Dreikorn, most judges are unaware of the fact . "They think that the FAA is infallible. I've stood in front of many state and federal judges, and told them that the FAA system is flawed, and they wouldn't accept it," he said. "And as a lone expert, how can I stand up to the FAA?" At least 3 or 4 crashes ...should have been tolerated, but the fuselage came apart. The two aviation experts, an engineer, and a former NTSB crash investigator working with Skepnek on the whistleblower case believe that several Boeing 737 Next Generation crashes remain unexplained. "What our guys said was, and we actually submitted this to the FAA, the real weak spots were in front of and behind the wings. And there are at least 3 or 4 crashes, hard landings, that should have been tolerated, but the fuselage came apart- with some deaths. And there were a couple of airplanes that came apart in the sky, and nobody lived through that. These were all Next Generations," said Skepnek. Dreikorn said he's been pushing for the National Transportation Safety Board to look into secondary failures for years, which are often more fatal than the primary cause for the accident. "You can't always prevent the causing event- but make the survivability better." "There needs to be more transparency in the industry with these investigations, because they get put under a federal order of stealth- nobody gets to see what's going on. And even afterwards, it's under protective order." Dreikorn's FOIA requests to the NTSB for information on crash investigations in Jamaica, Colombia, Kenya, and Ethiopia were all rejected. "And the reality is, this is taxpayer money, these are our products, the taxpayers', they should have a right to see what's going on and be able to get [data]- whether they're from the media or academia- to look at this stuff so we can understand what's going on. "Are our employees, our government employees, working in the best interest of the taxpayers?" Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon), ranking member of the House Transportation Committee, who requested the original OIG audit, told The Crime Report that he was concerned that FAA's Suspected Unapproved Parts Program "had not been reviewed in more than 20 years." "Eliminating the serious risk posed by unapproved aircraft parts is a critical safety matter that must be dealt with," he said, adding that the Inspector General's findings "confirm the need for improved tracking of suspected parts by the FAA and continued congressional oversight of the SUPs program." Weakening federal regulation That task may now get harder under an administration determined to reduce federal regulation. DeFazio has been leading a fight in the House against a bill that would privatize the agency's air traffic control system and remove over 30,000 federal employees from the federal payroll. The bill was rejected by the Senate on Tuesday, and must go to a floor vote before the September 30 deadline for FAA reauthorization. In the meantime, the FAA Rulemaking Advisory Committee has recommended rolling back several aviation safety standards earlier this month, including those governing pilot training. Dreikorn believes that change has to begin with the agency's leadership, noting that the FAA's new Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety, Ali Bahrami, was plucked straight from an aviation industry lobbying position in June. He was director of the Aerospace Industry Association, and prior to that, he worked at Boeing. "Until there's a decision within the organization to behave differently, until the leadership holds the entire organization accountable to perform as they should for public safety, nothing's going to happen," he said. http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/nationworld/report/092017_aviation_fraud/can-americas- air-safety-watchdogs-police-aviation-fraud/ Back to Top Asiana crash: Santa Clara dentist fights airline over loss of practice in last unresolved claim SAN FRANCISCO, CA - JULY 06: A Boeing 777 airplane lies burned on the runway after it crash landed at San Francisco International Airport July 6, 2013 in San Francisco, California. An Asiana Airlines passenger aircraft coming from Seoul, South Korea crashed while landing. There has been at least two casualties reported. (Photo by Ezra Shaw/Getty Images) A Santa Clara dental surgeon will go to trial Friday in the first Asiana Airlines crash claim to reach the courtroom. All other known lawsuits stemming from the deadly July 6, 2013 crash at SFO airport have been resolved. (Photo by Ezra Shaw/Getty Images) OAKLAND - More than four years after the deadly Asiana crash at SFO airport, the only unresolved passenger claim against the airline is heading to trial as a Santa Clara dental surgeon claims she can no longer work due to her injuries. Dr. Kyung Rhan Rha, a Santa Clara surgical dentist, has sued Asiana Airlines for injuries suffered in the 2013 crash at SFO. (Courtesy of Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman, PC) Dr. Kyung Rhan Rha, a Santa Clara specialty dentist, sued the airline that crashed at SFO on July 6, 2013, killing four people and seriously injuring 49 of the 307 people on board. She's asking for monetary damages, claiming an injury to her right arm precludes her from grasping the tools she needs as a prosthodontist, a surgical dentist who handles facial and dental problems that involve restoring missing tooth and jaw structures. The airline is challenging the severity of Rha's injury. The trial, which begins Friday with jury selection, is only to determine damages since Asiana has admitted liability for the crash. All other known claims by the 307 people on board the aircraft have settled out of court. This is the first and only one that will go to trial. The Boeing 777 was finishing a transpacific flight from Incheon International Airport near Seoul, South Korea when Flight 214's tail and landing gear struck a SFO sea wall and cartwheeled onto the runway. Federal investigators concluded the air crew was at fault. Dozens of claims have been resolved in the four years since the crash, most with confidential settlement amounts. Last year, the city of San Francisco settled with the airline for $3.45 million. A representative for Rha's attorneys said the lawyers and plaintiff declined to comment on the case. http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/09/20/asiana-crash-santa-clara-dentist-fights- airline-over-loss-of-practice-in-last-unresolved-claim/ Back to Top Spirit Airlines flight out of Metro spews plane parts into yards; FAA investigating The Federal Aviation Administration is investigating a Spirit Airlines flight that resulted in plane pieces landing in the yards of metro Detroit residents. On Monday evening, a Spirit Airlines flight from Detroit to Atlanta had to return to Detroit Metro Airport after experiencing engine failure, according to the FAA. The flight was able to land without any incidents, however, in the process, some pieces from the plane landed in the yards of nearby residents. The FAA sent investigators to look into what went awry the following day. Part of their investigation will include looking at pieces that landed in the yards. "It's hard to speculate, we will determine the cause of the incident," said Tony Molinaro a FAA spokesperson based out of Chicago. Molinaro said the investigation should be concluded in the coming weeks. One Spirit passenger on the flight that had to be re-routed Monday told the Free Press in an e-mail that the flight was "about 5,000" feet in the air when there was "a large bang and the plane started to shake and shudder." The passenger said the right engine was on fire, sparking and losing metal. http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/wayne/2017/09/20/detroit-spirit- airlines-engine-failure-faa/685880001/ Back to Top NordStar Airlines successfully passes IOSA audit NordStar operates ATR 42-500 turboprops and Boeing 737s The carrier is now eligible to join IATA but has not yet voiced its intention to do so (Helmy oved / Wikimedia) Russia's NordStar Airlines has successfully undergone an IATA Operational Safety Audit (IOSA) confirming its compliance with more than 1,000 internationally approved aviation safety standards, the carrier reports. NordStar's IOSA certificate is valid through August 2018. Annual audit is required to renew the approval. Successful completion of the safety checks makes the airline eligible for joining IATA. However, in its official statement NordStar gave no notion of its intention to do so. Eleven Russian airlines are currently members of the international association. Theser are Aeroflot and its subsidiary Rossiya Airlines, Nordavia, Nordwind Airlines, Pegas Fly, S7 Airlines, Ural Airlines, UTair Aviation, Vim Airlines, and also two cargo carriers: Volga- Dnepr and its subsidiary AirBridgeCargo. NordStar Airlines, part of the Russian mining and smelting corporation MMC Norilsk Nickel, is Russia's 15th carrier by passenger traffic. Between January and July 2017 it carried 783,800 passengers, up 9.9% on the same period last year. Its seat load factor increased 5 percentage points to 77.5%. The airline sees its primary mission in providing air services between Krasnoyarsk Region in Siberia and major cities elsewhere in Russia. The airline operates a fleet of five ATR 42-500 regional turboprops, a Boeing 737-300, and nine 737-800s. http://www.rusaviainsider.com/nordstar-airlines-successfully-passes-iosa-audit/ Back to Top Lloyd's of London wants to insure self-driving airplanes and ships. Regulators (and the public) won't let them This is why we can't have autonomous things. Inga Beale, CEO of Lloyds, says the insurance giant has been ready to insure autonomous vehicles such as self-flying planes for two decades. Regulators have proven unwilling to green-light the technology, while the public remains wary of completely handing over the cockpit to computers. "We're all set [to issue] insurance for autonomous planes," Beale told Quartz. "The regulators just haven't pressed the button even though the technology has been around for 20 years." Civil aviation agencies around the world have done an extraordinary job of keeping people safe. The International Air Transport Association reported no passenger jetliner accident fatalities anywhere in the world, excluding criminal acts, in 2015. But the technology to make the skies even safer by eliminating human error, and handing the keys completely over to computers, has been around for a long, long time. It's just not being used. Computers are already behind the stick for most of a commercial flight. During a 2.5 hour domestic trip, 95% of the work is handled by autopilots and flight-management systems, reports The Atlantic (pilots only handle takeoff and landing, although computers can do this job just as well). "Fly-by-wire" systems, where electronics manage the plane's controls rather than the pilot's physical movements, have taken over most functions once performed by humans. That's been the case for case for decades. The US Air Force started landing autonomous F-18s on aircraft carriers as early as 1994. "With respect to a commercial airplane, there is no doubt in our minds that we can solve the problem of autonomous flight," John Tracy, Boeing's chief technology officer, said in 2015. "It's a question of certification procedures, regulatory requirements and, even more significantly, public perception." It's not that there aren't things that might flummox an autopilot. Humans have pulled off incredible feats such as Captain Chesley Sullenberger's landing of a crippled Airbus A320 in the Hudson River in 2009, and while it's possible a remote connection might been able to bring the plane down safely, replicating the "feel" of an aircraft for remote pilots in an emergency has yet to be tested. Hacking airliners' system also remains a concern. But most concerns overlook the fact that, overall, autonomy has made vehicles safer. It's hard to resist the image of terrorists in Die Hard 2 commandeering an airplane's autopilot to slam it into the ground, despite its implausibility. A 2014 survey (pdf) found that Americans and Indians were extremely uncomfortable with either autonomous or remotely-controlled commercial airlines compared to those with pilots in the cockpit. Today, the the US Federal Aviation Administration still requires all commercial flights to have certified pilots in the cockpit. The only two unmanned aircraft systems that have been FAA certified, Boeing's ScanEagle and Aerovironment's Puma, fly in the Arctic- remote applications with no risk of commercial incident. The FAA has made some moves towards embracing more autonomous planes-the first large, fixed-wing unmanned aircraft to fly at an FAA-approved site was tested in 2015, reports CNN-but no approvals seem imminent. Next up is oceanic shipping. "Drone ships," or self-driving ocean vessels, are already in use by the military. Rolls Royce among others are planning for self-driving ships to move freight across the oceans. But when it comes to setting sail, it's not the way that is lacking, it's the will. "Autonomous shipping will be here in two years," said Beale. "But I doubt it will implemented. You won't have regulation and international law agreeing it will be safe. Often the technology is way ahead of the ability of our society to accept it." https://qz.com/1081423/lloyds-of-london-wants-to-insure-self-driving-airplanes-and- ships-regulators-and-the-public-wont-let-them/ Back to Top China-Russia wide-body C929 jet to rely on western suppliers for systems BEIJING (Reuters) - China's planned wide-body jet joint venture with Russia will see a higher proportion of work from Chinese suppliers, though for key systems like avionics it will still rely mostly on western manufacturers, the jet's chief designer said. China has been plowing billions of dollars into developing jets to raise its profile in global aviation and to disrupt the current Boeing Co (BA.N) and Airbus SE (AIR.PA) duopoly, most recently with its C919 narrrowbody aircraft. It has also been vocal about wanting to support local industry. "Western suppliers need not be too worried," said Chen Yingchun, the Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China's (COMAC's) chief designer for the C929 wide-body program with Russia's United Aircraft Corp. There will be more Chinese contribution to the C929 project, compared with the C919, "but all systems, like signaling, won't be affected", Chen said on the sidelines of an aviation conference in Beijing on Wednesday. Overseas suppliers like Honeywell International Inc (HON.N) and Safran SA (SAF.PA) were instrumental in the making of China's C919 jet. The plane took its maiden flight in May and 730 orders have been placed to date, mostly by Chinese parties. In the same month, the C929 wide-body joint venture (JV) was set up with am aim to eventually take 10 percent of the global market dominated by the Boeing 787 and Airbus A350. The JV partners are currently in the "joint concept design" stage for the C929 and are figuring out how to balance the work share, Chen said. China, at present, is responsible for the plane's body and tail, he added. The project is on track to seek bids for the engine by year-end, he said. Rolls Royce (RR.L) and General Electric (GE.N), who also supply wide-body jets, are expected to be contenders, but China is also trying to develop its own version with Russia. Chen also said the JV was looking to build half of the C929 using composite materials, versus C919's 10 percent, and that talks were underway with European, U.S. and Chinese suppliers who were willing to set up facilities close to COMAC's Shanghai headquarters to do so. The JV partners aim to complete the C929's maiden flight and first delivery over 2025- 2028. COMAC's first two passenger plane projects, the ARJ21 and C919, were, however, far behind schedule with the ARJ21 entering service last year, eight years after it took its first flight. A spokesman for COMAC told Reuters the C919 would take its second flight by the end of this year. China is the world's fastest growing aviation market. U.S. planemaker Boeing expects Chinese airlines to buy more than 7,000 jets worth $1.1 trillion over 20 years as they grow their fleets to meet robust demand for travel. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-aviation-comac/china-russia-wide-body-c929- jet-to-rely-on-western-suppliers-for-systems-idUSKCN1BV1BC?il=0 Back to Top Struggling GE is grounding its fleet of corporate jets to save money Jeff Immelt steps down as CEO of General Electric General Electric execs are losing access to a coveted perk: traveling on corporate jets. Instead of flying around the world on GE's luxurious fleet, the struggling company's bigwigs will be forced to charter flights. Some execs will presumably have to fly regular old commercial. GE (GE) will keep some small planes and helicopters, but the days of fancy corporate jets are mostly over, a person familiar with the matter told CNNMoney. In a statement, GE said the decision was driven by the iconic company's efforts to slash about $2 billion in costs by the end of next year. News of the move was previously reported by The Wall Street Journal. It underscores the enormous pressure on GE to fix the conglomerate's poor performance. GE is the worst Dow stock this year, off by 23%. That's not a new trend. GE was the worst performer on the Dow during the 16-year tenure of Jeff Immelt, who stepped down as CEO on August 1. Some of GE's largest shareholders are voicing frustration. Asked at a conference last week about GE's poor performance, Trian Partners Chief Investment Officer Ed Garden said: "We have billions invested. It's not lost on me." Garden said he's "optimistic" new GE CEO John Flannery will turn things around, but urged management to reduce expenses. Flannery told employees in a memo on his first day that investors on Wall Street expect him to cut costs and hold people accountable for results. "I heard them loud and clear," Flannery wrote. It's not clear precisely how much money GE will save from winding down its corporate jet program and selling the planes. GE, which has had a corporate flight department for decades, declined to specify how many jets it owns. The FAA lists at least a dozen aircraft that are registered to GE, including multiple helicopters and jets made by Gulfstream and Bombardier. GE Aviation owns a Boeing (BA) 747 for testing purposes, but that jet won't be impacted by the new policy. As CEO, Immelt racked up over $250,000 worth of personal GE aircraft usage last year, according to filings from March. The filings said "for security purposes" GE requires its CEO to use company aircraft for all personal and business air travel. The GE board has updated its policy to allow the CEO to fly on charter and even commercial flights, according to a person familiar with the matter. GE has sought to remake itself in recent years by narrowing its focus to areas it can lead like health care, wind turbines, jet engines and trains. Along the way, the company has sold off once-prized assets like NBC Universal and GE Capital. GE even announced plans in June to unload its iconic light bulb business. One thing GE isn't getting rid of: the division that makes jet engines, including some used to fly corporate jets. http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/20/investing/general-electric-corporate-jets/index.html Back to Top GRADUATE RESEARCH SURVEY Dear Participants, You are being requested to participate in a research study of your information on factors contributing to the decision to quit flying from Part 121 commercial aviation. This study is expected to take approximately 8 minutes of your time. In order to participate, you must be at least 18 years old and currently employed as a Part 121 pilot in the United States. Participation in this study is voluntary, and you may choose to opt out of the study at any time. If you choose to opt out, your data will be destroyed. We appreciate your consideration and time to complete our study. Please click on or copy and paste the URL below: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/8FNJBHZ For more information, please contact: Gajapriya Tamilselvan gtamilselvan2014@my.fit.edu We appreciate your interest and participation! Curt Lewis