Flight Safety Information January 4, 2018 - No. 004 In This Issue Incident: British Airways A320 at Geneva on Jan 2nd 2018, smoke in cabin EVAS - Cockpit Smoke Protection Incident: Iran Aseman B734 at Tehran on Jan 2nd 2018, gear problem on departure Incident: Delta B764 at Atlanta on Jan 3rd 2018, sound like engine compressor stall Incident: Delta B763 near Goose Bay on Jan 2nd 2018, generator failure North American T-2E Buckeye Training Accident (Greece) Jet Airways grounds pilots after 'cockpit fight' Coast Guard searching for lost OKC plane in Gulf of Mexico NTSB Report: Pilot had plane towed to runway because of fog before crash that killed 5 in Bartow Air Malta flight makes 'precautionary landing' in Dusseldorf Hyundai's skyscraper faces hurdle over flight safety Airlines seek better fog prediction mechanism (India) PNG Final report into Dash-8 burst tyre during climb Global 7000 On Track, Questions Remain on 8000 Airlines Are Phasing Out Seat-Back Entertainment Screens Because We Bring Enough Screens With Us Mongolia delays launch of $500-million airport until 2019 MITRE - SMS Course - March 2018 Incident: British Airways A320 at Geneva on Jan 2nd 2018, smoke in cabin A British Airways Airbus A320-200, registration G-EUUY performing flight BA-738 from London Heathrow,EN (UK) to Geneva (Switzerland), was on final approach to Geneva's runway 23 just contacting tower when the crew declared PAN reporting smoke in the cabin, the controller advised the aircraft was number 2 for landing without acknowledging PAN. Tower cleared the flight to land in a routine communication, the crew read the landing clearance back, landed the aircraft, vacated the runway and was handed off to ground. A passenger reported there was some strong odour in the cabin, the flight attendants used their smoke hoods. The return flight BA-723 the following morning was cancelled. The occurrence aircraft remained on the ground for about 22:40 hours, then departed to position back to London as flight BA-9273. http://avherald.com/h?article=4b32b8f1&opt=0 Back to Top Back to Top Incident: Iran Aseman B734 at Tehran on Jan 2nd 2018, gear problem on departure An Iran Aseman Airlines Boeing 737-400, registration EP-APP performing flight EP-3710 from Tehran Mehrabad to Ardabil (Iran) with 127 people on board, was climbing out of Tehran when the crew stopped the climb reporting a problem with the landing gear. The aircraft returned to Tehran, performed a low approach to have the landing gear checked from the ground and landed safely back. http://avherald.com/h?article=4b32a2c5&opt=0 Back to Top Incident: Delta B764 at Atlanta on Jan 3rd 2018, sound like engine compressor stall A Delta Airlines Boeing 767-400, registration N828MH performing flight DL-284 (sched. dep Jan 2nd, actual dep Jan 3rd) from Atlanta,GA (USA) to London Heathrow,EN (UK) with 228 people on board, had replaced N830MH, which had returned earlier following an engine compressor stall, see Incident: Delta B764 near Atlanta on Jan 2nd 2018, engine compressor stall. The aircraft was climbing out of Atlanta's runway 09L when the crew stopped the climb at FL290 due to a loud bang similiar to an engine (CF6) compressor stall. The crew declared PAN, advised ATC of the sound similiar to an engine compressor stall but stated there had been no actual engine event. The aircraft returned to Atlanta for a safe landing on runway 09L about 80 minutes after departure. The airline reported the passengers were taken to hotels. Passengers reported both different crews on N830MH and N828MH told them there was nothing wrong with the aircraft, they were returning due to the loud bang heard. The occurrence aircraft is still on the ground 11 hours after landing back. https://flightaware.com/live/flight/DAL284/history/20180103/0020Z/KATL/EGLL http://avherald.com/h?article=4b329d64&opt=0 Back to Top Incident: Delta B763 near Goose Bay on Jan 2nd 2018, generator failure A Delta Boeing 767-300, registration N172DN performing flight DL-118 from Boston,MA (USA) to Paris Charles de Gaulle (France) with 197 people on board, was enroute at FL350 about 180nm south of Goose Bay,NL (Canada) when the crew decided to turn around and divert to New York JFK,NY (USA) due to a generator (engine PW4060) failure. The aircraft landed safely on JFK's runway 31L about 2:10 hours later. A replacement Boeing 767-300 registration N185DN departed New York about 2.5 hours after landing and reached Paris with a delay of about 6 hours. http://avherald.com/h?article=4b32a0c2&opt=0 Back to Top North American T-2E Buckeye Training Accident (Greece) Date: 03-JAN-2018 Time: 12:02 Type: North American T-2E Buckeye Owner/operator: Hellenic AF Registration: 160086 * C/n / msn: Fatalities: Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 2 Other fatalities: 0 Airplane damage: Written off (damaged beyond repair) Location: Kalamata AFB (KLX/LGKL) - Greece Phase: Take off Nature: Military Departure airport: Kalamata AFB (KLX/LGKL) Destination airport: Kalamata AFB (KLX/LGKL) Narrative: The flight crew ejected after a malfunction of one of the two engines during takeoff. The aircraft belonged to the 120 Air Training Wing, 363 Squadron. https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=203728 Back to Top Jet Airways grounds pilots after 'cockpit fight' * The flight was carrying 324 guests, including two infants. Jet Airways has grounded two pilots following reports of a fight inside the cockpit of a flight from London to Mumbai. Jet Airways confirmed that a "misunderstanding" occurred between the cockpit crew on the New Year's Day flight. It added that the crew involved had been taken off their flight duties, pending an investigation. The flight, which was carrying 324 passengers, landed safely in Mumbai. According to Indian media reports, quoting witnesses, the incident occurred after one male pilot allegedly slapped a female pilot. The woman left the cockpit and only returned later. A spokesperson for Jet Airways confirmed to the BBC that an incident had occurred, but did not detail the exact events that took place. The airline added that the incident has been reported to the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), saying that it had "zero tolerance for any action of its employees that compromises safety". "At Jet Airways, safety of guests, crew and assets is of paramount importance," said the spokesperson. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-42562253 Back to Top Coast Guard searching for lost OKC plane in Gulf of Mexico GULF OF MEXICO - The FAA says a single-engine plane lost out of Oklahoma City was last tracked in the Gulf of Mexico; U.S. Coast Guard confirms it has sent out aircraft to do a search 150 nautical miles off the coast. The Coast Guard received a report of an unresponsive pilot from the plane, which had a tail number of N325JK. The plane, a model SR22T fixed winged single-engine, was scheduled to arrive at Georgetown Municipal Airport earlier Wednesday after taking off from Oklahoma City's Wiley Post Airport at 2:19 p.m. The Coast Guard said it is searching due south of the gulf coast town of Freeport, Texas, which is an hour south of Houston. The FAA reports that the plane, a five-seater, left Wiley Post on Wednesday afternoon and the pilot filed a flight plan to Georgetown, Texas. The pilot did not land in Georgetown, however, but continued on the same course. The pilot was unresponsive to traffic control instructions at this point, the FAA said. The lost aircraft was last observed on radar about 219 miles northwest of Cancun at 15,000 feet and heading into the Gulf of Mexico, according to the FAA report. The plane is registered to Abide Aviation LLC out of Edmond. https://www.kjrh.com/news/local-news/coast-guard-sending-out-search-and-rescue-aircraft-for- single-engine-plane-which-left-from-okc Back to Top NTSB Report: Pilot had plane towed to runway because of fog before crash that killed 5 in Bartow BARTOW, Fla. (WFLA) - A pilot who perished with four others in a crash at the Bartow Municipal Airport on Christmas Eve had requested that the plane be towed to the runway because of the fog, according to a preliminary report released by the NTSB on Wednesday. 70-year-old John Shannon was piloting the plane which carried his two daughters, 24-year-old Olivia Shannon and 26-year-old Victoria Shannon-Worthington, as well as 27-year-old Peter Worthington Jr. and 32-year-old Krista Clayton. All five occupants of the plane were pronounced dead at the scene shortly after the crash. The NTSB preliminary report said that the pilot had to fly without radar because of the foggy weather conditions and Shannon had filed an instrument flight plan. Shannon and his passengers were headed to Key West International Airport when their plane crashed at 7:17 a.m., shortly after taking off at the Bartow airport. Airport employees told investigators that around 6:30 a.m., Shannon requested that the airplane be towed from the pilot's hangar to the ramp. The pilot wanted a tow because he didn't want to taxi next to the other hangars with the reduced visibility due to the dense fog. The five occupants boarded the plane inside the hangar and remained inside the airplane during the tow. The pilot then very slowly taxied the airplane from the ramp to the end of runway 9L where the engine run-up was completed. According to the NTSB report, the employees then heard the airplane take off and proceed to the east. The airport employees could not see the airplane because of the dense fog and low visibility, but they heard an explosion on the east side of the airport. They drove to the explosion and found the main wreckage on fire and no occupants were immediately noticeable. According to the NTSB report, another witness, who is a helicopter pilot, observed the airplane taxiing to the runway and about 12 minutes later heard the airplane take off. He recorded a video of the airplane taxiing in the dense fog. During the takeoff, he heard a 'pop' and 3 seconds later heard the explosion near the end of runway 9L. He and a colleague drove to the accident site where they found the wreckage on fire and saw the airport employees nearby. The witness estimated that the runway visual range was 600 to 800 ft due to the fog. The responding Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspector stated that the main wreckage came to rest on the northeast side of runway 9L. At 7:15 a.m., the automated weather observation station at BOW recorded calm wind, visibility less than ¼ statue mile, fog, overcast cloud layer at 300 ft, temperature 56°F, altimeter setting 30.18 inches of mercury. The weather conditions had been the same since 6:35 a.m. The pilot filed an IFR flight plan on a Garmin GPS device and received an IFR clearance from Tampa Air Traffic Control Tower. The pilot did not request a weather briefing from Flight Service, according to the NTSB report. The air traffic control tower was closed at the time of the accident. http://wfla.com/2018/01/03/ntsb-report-pilot-had-plane-towed-to-runway-because-of-fog-before- crash-that-killed-5-in-bartow/ Back to Top Air Malta flight makes 'precautionary landing' in Dusseldorf An Air Malta aircraft operating flight KM352 from Malta to Dusseldorf performed a precautionary priority landing upon arrival at the airport. The aircraft landed normally, the airline said in a statement. The decision was taken by the captain and flying crew to assure the safety of all 125 passengers on board and to minimise any discomfort to the passengers. The aircraft was inspected in line with required procedures and a galley faulty oven fan was identified. The aircraft has been declared serviceable and is already on its way to Malta with the passengers of KM 353. http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2018-01-03/local-news/Air-Malta-flight-makes- precautionary-landing-in-Dusseldorf-6736183187 Back to Top Hyundai's skyscraper faces hurdle over flight safety The construction of Hyundai Motor's 596-meter Global Business Center in southern Seoul has run into a new problem with the Ministry of National Defense raising safety concerns. Talks between the Seoul Metropolitan Government and the Defense Ministry over whether to conduct flight safety and radio wave evaluations of the 105-story building took place earlier this week, the government said Thursday. The latest discussion was arranged by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport to address concerns raised by the Defense Ministry last month. "The capital of Seoul is the core of national defense. Examination of the impact the 105-floor building will have on air combat and radar masking is needed," said a post on the Land Ministry's website. A bird's-eye view of Hyundai Global Business Center (Hyundai Motor) Last month, the Land Ministry hosted a meeting to screen the use of land formerly held by Korea Electric Power Corp., which Hyundai bought to build the Global Business Center. Hyundai Motor bought the 560,611-square-meter plot of land for 10.5 trillion won ($9.9 billion) in 2014 to construct the building in Samseong-dong by 2022. Previously, it took 30 years for Lotte Group to build the 555-meter high Lotte World Tower due to concerns over national security and public safety. The site of the Global Business Center, which will be a neighbor to Lotte World Tower, is not categorized as an aircraft safety zone by law. "There are radar sites and Army units near Seoul, so we have decided there is a need to review the impact the new building has on radio wave signals," an official from the Air Force told reporters under the customary condition of anonymity. The latest safety concern raised by the Defense Ministry could push back construction of the Global Business Center, which was widely expected to start in the first half of this year. Seoul said it has discussed the land use with the Air Force, and deemed additional discussion with the Defense Ministry was not necessary, but added it would do so if needed. "The South Korean Air Force will review aircraft safety and radar masking assessments. It will take about six weeks to settle discussions between the Ministry of Defense and Seoul City Government. If everything goes as scheduled, construction can begin in the first half of this year," said Seoul City Government. http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20180104000782 Back to Top Airlines seek better fog prediction mechanism (India) NEW DELHI: Airlines today sought better fog prediction mechanism for flight operations during the winter season in a meeting with Minister of State for Civil Aviation Jayant Sinha. Concerns were raised about additional costs involved for airlines due to diversions and cancellations in a meeting held to review standard operating procedures for flight operations during fog. Hundreds of flights were delayed at Indira Gandhi International airport earlier this week as the season's worst fog hit Delhi bringing down visibility to zero. Over 300 flights were affected on December 31 and more than 500 were hit on January 1. "Chaired a meeting with all aviation stakeholders to review and refine the standard operating procedures (SOPs) for fog-affected days. Many constructive suggestions received: more inputs welcome," Sinha tweeted today. A source present at the meeting said accuracy of prediction of fog was among the many issues raised at the meeting. Aviation sources have said that the fog on new year's eve was unforeseen and airlines could not deploy pilots trained to operate flights in low visibility. As a result, as many as 50 planes destined for Delhi had to be diverted to other airports. The IGI has advanced CAT III B technology which aides during landing in low visibility conditions. Airlines have to deploy pilots trained in CAT III B landing on the basis of weather prediction for the destination. Various steps to improve passenger convenience and to help reduce costs for airlines were also discussed. Vistara's Chief Strategy and Commercial officer Sanjiv Kapoor shared some of his concerns on Twitter on Tuesday. "Aircraft do not get assigned a departure sequence number until all aboard and doors closed. That is what needs to change. That is what leads to pax and crew being held on board for hours waiting for their turn to depart," he posted. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/transportation/airlines-/-aviation/airlines-seek- better-fog-prediction-mechanism/articleshow/62356927.cms Back to Top PNG Final report into Dash-8 burst tyre during climb Back to Top Global 7000 On Track, Questions Remain on 8000 Recent comments from Bombardier executives portray a clouded future for the company's Global 8000. Compounding this uncertainty is a still-undefined certification schedule, an apparent paucity of orders, and, according to industry analyst Rollie Vincent, "unclear" market requirements. (Photo: Bombardier Aerospace) While Bombardier remains on track to certify and deliver the first Global 7000s later this year, recent comments from company executives portray a clouded future for its truncated, longer- legged sibling-the Global 8000. Compounding this uncertainty is a still-undefined certification schedule, an apparent paucity of orders, and, according to industry analyst Rollie Vincent, "unclear" market requirements. During an investor day late last month, Bombardier Business Aircraft president David Coleal said the Global 8000 accounts for "a very, very small percentage of our backlog," implying that demand is lukewarm for a variant that trades nearly eight feet of cabin space for an extra 600 nm of range, to 7,900 nm. He avoided any kind of concrete schedule for the new jet, saying the Canadian aircraft manufacturer will "determine the right schedule for the 8000...probably sometime after" the Global 7000 enters service. Coleal also touched on the fact that the models might not have enough differentiation in the marketplace. "We're also going to look very closely at the performance of the 7000 in determination with the 8000 and understand the differences between the two." Recent remarks by Bombardier president and CEO Alain Bellemare that there has been an "overinvestment in aerospace" over the past few years cast doubt on whether the company would even invest more to differentiate the Global 8000 from the 7000. "My thought is that the Global 8000 is no longer on their radar, per se," said Vincent, the managing director at JetNet iQ. "I believe that they will consider a variant of the Global 7000 that will offer additional range at a higher gross weight. Whether they ultimately call it the 8000 is up to them. Furthermore, the timeline for any such development is unclear. The market requirement is unclear; Bombardier has been marketing this concept since 2010 and yet few orders have been taken." He also questioned trading cabin space for range in an ultra-long-range jet. "One of the challenges has been to ensure an adequate crew rest area in the shortened fuselage of the 8000-this has undoubtedly worked against the design," Vincent told AIN. "This is vital and valuable 'corner office' real estate." Still, a Bombardier Business Aircraft spokesman said the Global 8000 program is moving forward. "For the 8000, simply put, we don't communicate a target entry-into-service date at the moment, which will be determined later," he said. "Because a lot of work required for the Global 8000 is already happening on the Global 7000 from a development perspective [given the 8000 is a derivative of the same family], it's better for us to ensure all hands on deck to enter Global 7000 in service because of the stronger backlog, then shift resources to the 8000." He further explained Coleal's comment about Global 8000 backlog. "It is really related to near-term deliveries and our operational plan, meaning we do have more flexibility operationally speaking with regards to the 8000 versus the 7000, which was always billed as entry-into-service first," the spokesman said. https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/business-aviation/2018-01-03/global-7000-track- questions-remain-8000 Back to Top Airlines Are Phasing Out Seat-Back Entertainment Screens Because We Bring Enough Screens With Us The days of squeezing into an airplane and being greeted by the photo of an unnaturally happy flight attendant who never breaks a stare-instead of a real one, of course-could soon be over. The in-flight entertainment screens that taunt your face on almost every trip are on the way out at some airlines. Both United and American Airlines are beginning to phase out the screens on planes that make shorter flights, according to The New York Times. The Times didn't quote the airlines as giving any particular reasons for phasing them out, but did give some convincing reasons as to why they might: The screens are expensive, add weight to the aircraft, become out of date quickly, and, honestly, passengers bring enough of their own screens on board in the first place. Dan McKone, head of the travel and transportation practice at consulting firm L.E.K., told the Times the screens can cost $10,000 per seat, which makes them kind of a perplexing investment considering how many people turn them off or ignore them for other devices (or even, gasp, print materials and books!). United and American want to offer content that can be streamed to devices in place of in-flight entertainment screens, since analysts told the Times most U.S. passengers fly with at least one device. From the Times: "Some airlines are looking at this from the standpoint of cost savings by removing the hardware," [travel industry analyst Henry Harteveldt] said. "They reduce the weight of the aircraft, and they reduce the expense associated with maintaining that equipment." ... The decision on whether to update the screens, Mr. McKone said, is mainly economic. "I think you're going to continue to see increasing economic pressure not to replace I.F.E., particularly on the shorter-haul fleets," he said. Mr. McKone predicted that more domestic flights in the future would offer content streaming on a bring-your-own-device model. But as odd as it sounds, some airlines are using those screens to differentiate themselves from the companies that assume all of us want to use our laptops or smartphones to entertain us on flights. From the Times: In 2017, Delta rolled out free in-flight mobile messaging, and the airline is in the process of installing new screens and making more content available in-flight. "As we look at the way they live their life on the ground with more and more media at their fingertips, we're looking to replicate that up in the sky," said Andrew Wingrove, Delta's managing director for product strategy and customer experience. "We believe strongly in having that extra screen for customers in the seatback." ... JetBlue Airways, which has made in-flight entertainment a crucial part of its brand image since its debut, is investing in new entertainment systems for its A320 and A321 planes, said Mariya Stoyanova, the airline's director of product development. ... The airlines rely on their in-flight media offerings not only to foster brand loyalty, but also to serve a more practical need: distracting tightly packed economy-class passengers. Stoyanova told the Times having live television in every seat was "unheard of" when JetBlue began flying in 2000. She called it part of the company's "brand commitment," which is understandable, but that was also two decades ago-the era of phones with 12-button keypads and Snake as their primary form of entertainment, not that there's anything wrong with that last part. You know what? Perhaps that's the next big thing for in-flight entertainment. Get rid of those dumb movies we can mostly access on our dumb smartphones. Put Snake on all of the screens. The world will be a better place. https://jalopnik.com/airlines-are-phasing-out-seat-back-entertainment-screen-1821749836 Back to Top Mongolia delays launch of $500-million airport until 2019 ULAANBAATAR (Reuters) - Mongolia has delayed until 2019 the completion of a long-awaited $500- million airport project, originally expected this year, the transport minister said, a setback in efforts to diversify a mining-dependent economy. To reduce its dependence on commodities such as coal and copper, Mongolia has ambitions to become an air freight hub for northern Asia and wants to develop tourism. But the new airport is unlikely to open this year as originally scheduled, Roads and Transportation Minister Jadamba Bat-Erdene said, as Mongolia negotiates a management contract with Japanese investors. "The airport was expected to be operational this year, but plans are for it to be operational within the next year, due to management issues," he said on the ministry's official website. "It is planned to set up a joint management team headed by Japan," he said in the statement, without elaborating. The new airport is intended to replace the Chinggis Khan (Genghis Khan) International Airport, and take the name of the country's 13th-century ruler, regarded as a national symbol. Mongolia will be able to receive 3 million passengers a year by 2024 at the new airport, about 50 km (31 miles) from Ulaanbaatar, the capital. Its predecessor, a one-way runway built near a mountain range, is prone to disruptions and flight cancellations. Japan's Mitsubishi Corp. and Chiyoda are leading construction, with Samsung C&T acting as a subcontractor. The Chinese Export-Import Bank is providing $140 million to finance a 32.2-km (20-mile) road to the airport. Now under construction, the road is set to be completed by October. The International Monetary Fund encouraged Mongolia to diversify away from mining as part of a $5.5-billion bailout agreed last year to stabilize its crisis-hit economy. Coal was the biggest driver of growth in 2017, but exports were hit by transport bottlenecks at the border with China, Mongolia's biggest customer. Although the airport could generate non-mining growth, its success could depend on Mongolia allowing more airlines into the market and ending favorable treatment for the state carrier, analysts have said. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mongolia-airport/mongolia-delays-launch-of-500-million- airport-until-2019-idUSKBN1ET0QH Back to Top Aircraft Accidents and Frozen Chickens By Stephen Carbone In 1987, when I took a DC-10 Maintenance class, the instructor showed a film of how they test aircraft windshields (wind-screens) for bird strikes: they launched grocery-bought chickens at the wind-screen using a 'chicken cannon' (real thing), which launches the long-expired bird at the test wind-screen at 200 miles per hour (MPH). Since wind-screens are engineered to be heated and reinforced internally to absorb and deflect a bird strike, this is the only way to test the product for integrity. The bird strikes the wind-screen, spatters at the high rate of speed and deflects away from the cockpit. The pilots and aircraft are protected. A wind-screen designer for high-speed locomotives used the same cannon to test locomotive wind- screens; they are designed to be just as strong. Using the chicken cannon, the tester launched the chicken at the locomotive wind-screen; the test chicken exploded through the wind-screen, created a gaping hole through the heavy metal control compartment back wall and lodged in the aft structure. Needless to say, the test was a failure; the locomotive wind-screen manufacturer asked the aircraft wind-screen manufacturer for hints as to make their product better. The aircraft wind-screen manufacturer replied ... and I quote, "Next time you test the cannon, defrost the chicken." These are real methods and events; I didn't make them up; I saw the videos. I talk about them to emphasize the destructive difference between a bird at ambient temperature, whose structural strength matches your Thanksgiving turkey about to be carved; versus the frozen chicken with the pliability of a rock or brick. I noticed in the aviation news this week that a surge in Drone activity has resulted in the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) prompting 'emergency' action in regards to Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) use; an average of 250 safety incidents per month involving near misses between UAVs and aircraft of all kinds, e.g. airliners, private aircraft, helicopters, etc., have been reported. In addition, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is investigating a Staten Island, NY, incident involving an Army UH-60 helicopter striking a drone. Since the professional UAV industry is working tirelessly to acquire aviation industry credibility, let me just say this: Professional UAV industry, you are your own worst enemy. By allowing UAV lobbyists to confound the media by using adjectives like 'baloney' to describe UAV strike dangers; by allowing lawyers with no aviation background to try bullying the FAA; by allowing amateurs to cause FAA emergency actions with their irresponsible behavior; the FAA, the NTSB, Air Traffic Control, Airlines, the Airline Pilots Association (ALPA) and other mainstream aviation organizations will never recognize you as safe to use their airspace. They have built and occupied that airspace for over seventy years and you need to start playing by their rules. But, since UAV lobbyists have been misrepresenting the safety implications of a drone or UAV strike, I will defer back to my chicken cannon story to make a point about strength. I feel it is necessary to make the case for why a UAV hitting an aircraft - any aircraft - is more dangerous than people realize. And, by the way, the average UAV is represented by the frozen chicken. Let's start with the helicopter, particularly the UH-60 in the NTSB accident investigation. The Sikorsky UH-60 is popularly known as the Black Hawk, as in the 2001 movie, Black Hawk Down. It is indicative of the design of most helicopters - from the Bell 47 used in the M*A*S*H series to the Eurocopter AS350 employed by police and traffic news stations everywhere - in that it has a Main Rotor for vertical lift and horizontal maneuvering, while the Tail Rotor controls torque created by the main rotor. Both Rotors' blades are airfoils, meaning they do not have Leading Edges that are as sharp as a Ninja sword blade; they are rounded to create lift, exactly like an aircraft's wing. The blades cannot cut through concrete or metal, like so many action movies portray. Instead, when ANYTHING hits the Rotor blade's leading edge, the blade is forced backwards against the direction of rotation; the blade is also structurally compromised or destroyed by the impact. The Main Rotor turns at 258 rotations per minute (RPM); this means that the tip of the #1 Main Rotor blade passes the same spot in space 4.3 times per second ... that's 4.3 times PER SECOND. In this case, both the ambient temperature or the frozen chicken would destroy either fragile Rotor Assembly while it is operating. After the Rotor blade is destroyed from the strike, the Rotor is now out-of-balance; the helicopter is uncontrollable, it experiences incredible vibrational torque forces and the helicopter drops straight down on whatever ... or, whoever ... is below it, with absolutely no warning. That is the reality of a UAV strike against a helicopter ... any helicopter. These are not my opinions; these are facts supported by engineering data and accident investigations. If the UH- 60 in the NTSB investigation were struck in either Rotor, all occupants of the helicopter would have been killed ... period! The effects of a UAV strike on a propeller aircraft are similar, except the propeller rotates to provide forward motion; the propeller blades are small airfoils that, like a wing, provide a negative pressure (lift) in front of the propeller that pulls the aircraft forward. Again, the propeller is rotating at great speeds; when it hits the UAV, the catastrophic results will put the engine propeller shaft out of balance causing extreme torque forces on the aircraft and, in the case of a single engine aircraft, will turn the plane into a glider with enough forward momentum to bring the plane and its occupants to the crash site. To an airliner, there are multiple dangers. Any jet airliner approaching an airport travels between 140 to 200 MPH, according to what stage of the landing phase they are in. Studies have been done that shows UAVs are impossible for pilots to see, because: The airliner is traveling too fast to sight a UAV, especially at night. The UAV is almost invisible to the naked eye, even when one is looking for it; The landing phase of flight is very busy. Pilots are lowering flaps, talking with air traffic, lowering the gear, monitoring instruments, e.g. airspeed, altitude; they are too busy to look out the window for UAVs that shouldn't be there. Let's look at the dangers of impact. First, as demonstrated by the chicken cannon, the UAV can - and will - penetrate the wind-screen; the pilots will either be seriously injured or killed causing all passengers to be killed as a result. As mentioned in an earlier article, a gull tore through the radome of a B727, went through the metal bulkhead behind it and knocked the Captain unconscious when it exploded in his lap; I know this because I helped repair the damage. The B727 was moving at about 140 MPH and all three pilots never saw the bird or the flock it belonged to. And, what about the engines. Since US Airways, flight 1549, the 'Miracle On The Hudson', stands as the landmark example of why bird strikes are survivable, let's look a bit closer. An airliner's engine Fan rotates at around 3600 RPM. Think about that ... each Fan blade hits the same point in the engine inlet sixty times per second ... SIXTY TIMES PER SECOND. Can you imagine the kinetic energy that is generated? I spoke about the consistency of an ambient temperature chicken - or in US Air 1549's case, a Canadian Goose - is that of a cooked turkey. A bird's bones are hollow; like with the cannon, the carcass splatters against an unforgiving object. However, in the case of the B727, the carcass of a smaller bird penetrated metal and landed in the cockpit; so, with enough force, even a bird can cause catastrophic damage to metal at 140 MPH. The flock of Canadian Geese did catastrophic damage to both of US Air 1549's engines. Imagine a solid metal-and-plastic object, like a UAV, striking the engines' blades that are spinning at 60 rotations per second. Result: DISASTER. And, US Air 1549 was over water. The argument about UAVs in the national airspace has to be one of facts, not opinions or sarcasm. These are dangerous forces, dangerous results and dangerous amateurs. When even a bird as simple as a chicken can cause catastrophic damage, perhaps we need to be more selective as to how we approach greater threats to safety and lives. Stephen Carbone - Author Stephen Carbone is the author of Jet Blast and, the soon to be released, Thermal Runaway. These two novels are aviation thrillers; the first and second of a trilogy that concludes in the novel: Flameout. These three novels follow the investigatory exploits of Daniel Tenace (pronounced Ten-ah- chey), a National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) aircraft maintenance major accident investigator. Tenace must overcome many hurdles, both technical and bureaucratic, to discover dangers that the aviation industry faces today. Stephen Carbone is a former aircraft mechanic; his experience includes working for a major airline for nineteen years. During this time he acquired his Undergraduate and Graduate degrees in Aviation Safety. He left the industry to take a position with the NTSB as the only airframe and powerplant certificated major accident investigator for aircraft maintenance. During those years he investigated ten accidents, both domestic and international. He designed courses and taught accident investigation techniques at the NTSB Academy and acted as a liaison to the international accident investigation community. He left the NTSB to work at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) where he was involved in investigating major airlines, conducting safety audits and writing regulations and guidance. He remained involved with accident investigation for both Headquarters and the Eastern Region. He finished his career at the FAA designing safety courses, managing instruction and teaching at the FAA Academy. Today he writes for aviation technical magazines and is working on his third novel. Stephen Carbone uses the experience cultivated during his years in investigations, as well as the store of knowledge he has working on the latest technology aircraft. His knowledge of the airline industry gives him a first-hand perspective in his writing, using the experience born of years of working closely to the industry he loves. Curt Lewis