Flight Safety Information April 19, 2018 - No. 079 In This Issue Incident: Flybe DH8D at Newquay on Apr 17th 2018, possible tail strike on landing Incident: CAA A321 at Mbuji-Mayi on Apr 16th 2018, nose gear steering failure during backtrack Incident: Southwest B737 at Nashville on Apr 18th 2018, engine issue Incident: Canada A320 near Orlando on Apr 14th 2018, unidentified thump sound during climb Incident: American A332 at Charlotte on Apr 16th 2018, bird strike Delta A330-302 Air Return smoke coming form #2 Engine (ATL) EVAS - Cockpit Smoke Protection Delta jet with blown tire lands at Palm Beach International Airport FAA to publish AD to require CFM56-7B engine inspections after uncontained failure on Southwest 1380 'Flight Deck LIBIK - Lithium-Ion Battery Incident Kit Air disaster proves what flight attendants fear: Many don't listen to safety speeches Australia says dropped phones on airplanes are a fire risk. Transport Canada does not Foreign Aircraft Registries Tout Benefits INFLIGHT FIRE...By Captain Shem Malmquist POSITION AVAILABLE: FOQA SPECIALIST Safety Operating Systems RESEARCH SURVEY - I RESEARCH SURVEY - II GRADUATE RESEARCH SURVEY - 1 GRADUATE RESEARCH SURVEY - 2 Incident: Flybe DH8D at Newquay on Apr 17th 2018, possible tail strike on landing A Flybe de Havilland Dash 8-400, registration G-JECX performing flight BE-353 from Manchester,EN to Newquay,EN (UK) with 56 passengers, aborted a first approach to Newquay's runway 12 due to weather conditions, repositioned for another approach and continued for a touch down. The aircraft rolled out without further incident and taxied to the apron. The aircraft was unable to depart for its return flight and is still on the ground in Newquay about 33 hours later. The airline reported they are investigating a possible tail strike on landing. All passengers disembarked safely. A passenger reported the crew advised prior to the first approach, that the landing would be "spicy", on a curry level jalfrezi, but then aborted the first approach and went around. The second approach ended in a very hard touchdown. Metars: EGHQ 171450Z 19018KT 4000 -RADZ BR OVC004 11/11 Q1016= EGHQ 171420Z 20015KT 3500 -RADZ BR OVC003 12/11 Q1016= EGHQ 171350Z 21018KT 4000 -RADZ BR BKN004 12/11 Q1016= EGHQ 171320Z 20022KT 3500 -RADZ BR BKN004 11/11 Q1016= EGHQ 171250Z 20017KT 3500 -RADZ BR BKN004 12/11 Q1015= EGHQ 171220Z 21016KT 3500 -RADZ BR BKN004 12/11 Q1015= EGHQ 171150Z 20018KT 3500 -RADZ BR BKN005 12/11 Q1015= EGHQ 171120Z 20019KT 3500 -RADZ BR BKN006 11/11 Q1014= EGHQ 171050Z 20022G33KT 3000 -RADZ BR BKN004 11/10 Q1014= EGHQ 171020Z 19022G33KT 4000 -RADZ BR BKN006 11/10 Q1014= http://avherald.com/h?article=4b77e4ff&opt=256 Back to Top Incident: CAA A321 at Mbuji-Mayi on Apr 16th 2018, nose gear steering failure during backtrack A CAA Compagnie Africaine Aviation Airbus A321-200, registration 9S-ASB performing flight BU-2311 from Mbuji-Mayi to Kinshasa (DR Congo), was backtracking runway 34 for departure when just before the crew attempted to turn the aircraft to line up runway 34 the nose gear steering system failed disabling the aircraft on the runway. The passengers disembarked via mobile stairs onto the runway. The aircraft was towed to the apron and is still on the ground in Mbuji-Mayi due to a computer failure causing the loss of nose wheel steering. 9S-ASB stuck on the runway: http://avherald.com/h?article=4b77e162&opt=256 Back to Top Incident: Southwest B737 at Nashville on Apr 18th 2018, engine issue A Southwest Airlines Boeing 737-700, registration N460WN performing flight WN-577 from Nashville,TN to Phoenix,AZ (USA) with 70 people on board, was in the initial climb out of Nashville's runway 20L when the crew requested to level off at 5000 feet reporting they had an engine (CFM56) issue later detailing they had high vibrations on the left hand engine. The aircraft levelled off at 5000 feet and returned to Nashville for a safe landing on runway 20L about 15 minutes after departure. A replacement Boeing 737-700 registration N937WN reached Phoenix with a delay of 2.5 hours. The airline reported the aircraft received a bird strike. https://flightaware.com/live/flight/SWA577/history/20180418/1015Z/KBNA/KPHX http://avherald.com/h?article=4b77d3dc&opt=256 Back to Top Incident: Canada A320 near Orlando on Apr 14th 2018, unidentified thump sound during climb An Air Canada Airbus A320-200, registration C-FTJR performing flight AC-1219 from Orlando,FL (USA) to Halifax,NS (Canada), was climbing through FL240 out of Orlando when the crew heard a thump from the belly of the aircraft and checked all indications without finding any anomaly. The crew decided to continue the flight to Halifax. On approach, when the crew selected the gear down, there was no response. The crew declared emergency, executed a missed approach and used alternate gear extension to lower the gear. The aircraft landed safely on Halifax's runway 32 and stopped on the runway due to lack of nose wheel steering. The aircraft was towed to the apron, where the passengers disembarked normally. The Canadian TSB reported that the operator's maintenance was called to tow the aircraft to the apron and detected that one of the left main tyres was flat, in addition there was damage to the landing gear doors. The tyre had blown during the climb causing the noise and the damage to the gear doors. The cause of the tyre damage is being investigated. https://flightaware.com/live/flight/ACA1219/history/20180414/1515Z/KMCO/CYHZ http://avherald.com/h?article=4b77cd19&opt=256 Back to Top Incident: American A332 at Charlotte on Apr 16th 2018, bird strike An American Airlines Airbus A330-200, registration N293AY performing flight AA-749 from Madrid,SP (Spain) to Charlotte,NC (USA), was on final aprpoach to Charlotte's runway 36R when a bird impacted the aircraft. The crew continued for a safe landing. The FAA reported the aircraft sustained damage as result of a bird strike on final approach to Charlotte. The aircraft returned to service after about 3.5 hours on the ground. https://flightaware.com/live/flight/AAL749/history/20180416/1030Z/LEMD/KCLT http://avherald.com/h?article=4b77a9cb&opt=256 Back to Top Delta A330-302 Air Return smoke coming form #2 Engine (ATL) Date: 18-APR-2018 Time: ca 18:15 Type: Airbus A330-302 Owner/operator: Delta Air Lines Registration: N822NW C/n / msn: 1627 Fatalities: Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 288 Other fatalities: 0 Airplane damage: Unknown Location: Atlanta-William B. Hartsfield International Airport, GA (ATL/KATL) - United States of America Phase: En route Nature: International Scheduled Passenger Departure airport: Atlanta-William B. Hartsfield International Airport, GA (ATL/KATL) Destination airport: London-Heathrow Airport (LHR/EGLL) Narrative: Delta Air Lines flight DL30 returned to land at Atlanta's William B. Hartsfield International Airport, Georgia, USA, following an issue with engine no.2. The aircraft, an Airbus A330-302, took off from runway 26L at 18:08 hours local time, en route to London, U.K. Shortly after departure, an issue with engine no.2 forced the crew to return to the airport. Ten minutes after takeoff, the climb was arrested at 7000 feet. The aircraft then turned back and landed safely on runway 27R at 18:34 hours. Smoke was observed coming from engine no.2. The aircraft was then stopped on the runway while ARFF services applied foam to the no.2 engine. At 19:05 the aircraft was moved to the gate. https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=209544 Back to Top Back to Top Delta jet with blown tire lands at Palm Beach International Airport A Delta Airlines jet with a blown rear tire landed safely Wednesday morning at Palm Beach International Airport. Delta Flight 1930 left Detroit Metro Airport at 8:30 a.m. and landed at PBIA at 11:04 a.m. There were no reports of injuries from the incident. Delta Flight 1930 left Detroit Metro Airport at 8:30 a.m. and landed at PBIA at 11:04 a.m. Video images showed the MD-90 jet making what appeared to be a smooth landing on the runway. The aircraft was followed by vehicles from Palm Beach County Fire Rescue and from the aviation operations area as it taxied on the runway. There were no reports of injuries from the incident. A statement from Delta Airlines said "one of the aircraft's tires deflated shortly after takeoff from Detroit." http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/palm-beach/fl-pn-delta-blown-tire-pbia-20180418-story.html Back to Top FAA to publish AD to require CFM56-7B engine inspections after uncontained failure on Southwest 1380 The FAA issued a statement, saying it is planning an AD to be published in the wake of the Southwest Boeing 737 uncontained engine failure accident on April 17. The Boeing 737-700, powered by CFM56-7B engines, diverted to Philadelphia when the no.2 engine suffered an uncontained failure while climbing through FL325. One passenger sustained fatal injuries after debris broke a window. The NTSB stated that fan blade no.13 was missing and that it had separated at the hub. Preliminary investigation results show there was evidence of metal fatigue in the area where the blade broke. This prompted the FAA to issue the following statement: "The FAA will issue an Airworthiness Directive (AD) within the next two weeks that will require inspections of certain CFM56-7B engines. The directive will require an ultrasonic inspection of fan blades when they reach a certain number of takeoffs and landings. Any blades that fail the inspection will have to be replaced." https://news.aviation-safety.net/2018/04/19/faa-to-publish-ad-to-require-cfm56-7b-engine-inspections-after-uncontained-failure-on-southwest-1380/ Back to Top Back to Top Air disaster proves what flight attendants fear: Many don't listen to safety speeches In this April 17, 2018, photo provided by Marty Martinez, Martinez, left, appears with other passengers after a jet engine blew out on the Southwest Airlines Boeing 737 plane he was flying in from New York to Dallas, resulting in the death of a woman who was nearly sucked from a window during the flight with 149 people aboard. Marty Martinez Courtesy Anyone who has flown on a commercial airline has heard it. "In the event of a decompression, an oxygen mask will automatically appear in front of you," the Federal Aviation Administration-required announcement goes. "To start the flow of oxygen, pull the mask towards you. Place it firmly over your nose and mouth, secure the elastic band behind your head, and breathe normally." This April 17, 2018, photo provided by Marty Martinez shows the window that was shattered after a jet engine of a Southwest Airlines airplane blew out. Marty Martinez Courtesy Judging by the passengers of Southwest Airlines flight 1380 which had to make an emergency landing in Philadelphia Tuesday after one of its engines failed, killing a passenger, few are paying attention. Debris from the engine hit a window, shattering it. The sudden decompression pulled a passenger partially out of the window. She died from her injuries. Video and photos taken inside the plane show passengers holding the masks over their mouths, but not their noses. Many, it appeared, were not using the elastic bands. It's no doubt chaotic and frightening during an in-air emergency. Some people may have other things on their minds. But the incident raises the question: Is anyone listening during those speeches? Flight crews also tell passengers to use their seat belts when seated even if the seat belt sign has been turned off. Yet, passengers are occasionally injured when planes hit turbulence so severe it throws them out of their seats. According to data from an airline training manual, rapid decompression at 30,000 feet - which flight 1380 was at - can deprive passengers of breathable air in 30 to 60 seconds. That makes it crucial that passengers immediately put on oxygen masks when the masks fall from the ceiling. Data from flightaware.com shows pilot Tammie Jo Shults put the plane into a rapid descent on Tuesday. She descended 20,000 feet in just over five minutes as a cabin pressure alarm blared in the cockpit. http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/nation-world/article209281134.html Back to Top Australia says dropped phones on airplanes are a fire risk. Transport Canada does not Concern centres on damaged lithium batteries that may catch fire during flight Some Canadian airlines are warning passengers on some flights to not attempt retrieving their cellphone if it falls between the seats. (Matt Slocum/Associated Press) It's been 16 months since Australia's Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) issued a warning to air passengers about the potential fire hazard of dropping their cell phones between airline seats, but so far Transport Canada has not followed suit. It was December 2016 when CASA cautioned that smartphones "can fall into aircraft seat mechanisms and be crushed when the seat is moved." It went on to say, "This can result in damage to the phone's lithium battery which can cause overheating and fire." • Plane makers seek ban on shipping lithium batteries on passenger jets • Airplanes now equipped with fire-proof bags in case smartphones burst into flames in flight Air Canada has recently started telling its customers during the pre-flight instructions that they should not try to retrieve dropped phones. "We started doing this based on what we saw other carriers doing, and the aim is to help customers so they don't damage their devices trying to retrieve them," Air Canada spokesperson Isabelle Arthur told CBC News in an email. She did not specify which other airlines or mention safety and fire concerns. 'The phones were getting crushed' Transport Canada says it has not issued any notices regarding this situation. However, it says Air Canada made the decision on its own to advise passengers to let flight attendants retrieve their phones. "Air Canada introduced this procedure since Executive Class passengers were dropping their cell phones into the seat structure and used the seats electrical controls in trying to retrieve them," Transport Canada spokesperson Marie-Anyk Cτtι wrote in an email, adding, "The phones were getting crushed, introducing the possibility of fire." CBC News contacted several Canadian airlines to ask whether they were issuing a similar warning. Air Transat simply said, "We are not issuing this kind of advisory." A Porter Airline spokesperson said they do not provide any such instructions to passengers and it is "not aware of any examples of this occurring." WestJet says it has always alerted passengers to this danger on certain types of its aircraft, saying it asks passengers to keep their seats stationary and let their cabin crew know if their personal electronic device falls between seats in the Plus section of their Boeing 747s. "The range of motion and powered aspect of these particular seats creates the possibility that the personal electronic device (PED) could get damaged, which could cause the battery to overheat if the seat gets moved," spokesperson Lauren Stewart said an an email. She said the same risk is not present on its other aircraft because the seats do not move in the same manner. 9 emergency events At the time it issued the warning, CASA said there was a growing number of smartphone-crushing incidents on aircraft, citing nine emergency events. It said airlines were briefing passengers not to move their seat if a phone is dropped or lost and aircraft manufacturers were looking at seat designs. Air Canada now has a pre-flight instruction to not attempt to retrieve cellphones that fall between seats. (Air Canada) It said the increasing number of crushed phones on aircraft was being caused by the slim design of smartphones, adding the risk of fire is higher due to more powerful batteries. It was such a concern that CASA named damaged and lost phones as the biggest dangerous goods safety risk in 2016. The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration has not issued any specific warning about personal electronic devices being crushed by airline seats, though it has published an information sheet that covers firefighting procedures for PEDs with lithium batteries. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/aircraft-travel-lithium-batteries-cell-phones-1.4625164 Back to Top Foreign Aircraft Registries Tout Benefits Over the past 10 to 15 years there has been a steady growth in the use of smaller aircraft registries by business aircraft owners and operators, with the registries being based all over the world-from Aruba to San Marino. ARUBA Located near the northwest corner of Venezuela, Aruba has been part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands since 1815 and obtained autonomous status in 1986. Along with its team in Aruba, the registry (Booth P212) also has a dozen employees at its headquarters in Miami and a global network of aircraft inspectors. Most new clients can get their aircraft inspected at their base location, according to chairman and founder Jorge Colindres. Colindres told AIN the strong legal system and good standing of Aruba ensure assets registered in the country, such as private jets and aircraft engines, maintain their value. The Registry of Aruba was the first offshore aircraft registry to ratify the ICAO Cape Town Convention (in 2010). It was Wayne Hilmer, then-chairman of Omni International, who urged Colindres to start the Registry of Aruba. The two met in Miami while Colindres was an attachι in service of the Honduran navy. At the time, there were only two other reputable aircraft registries, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands, catering to the VIP aircraft market. Colindres recounted, "He told me this: 'Remember, chief, everyone does what we're doing, but we have to do it better.'" This has been his motivation for every decision regarding the registry: running it like a private business, embracing technology, offering registration by domicile, etc. Aruba was one of the first to registries to incorporate digital tools into its workflow. Its Aircraft Registration Management System (ARMS) allows the registry to electronically manage all registered aircraft, operators, and documentation. Clients have access to their own ARMS portal and can easily view all current records, airspace approvals, and validations for each aircraft they manage. The registry's team is developing a mobile app for ARMS. BERMUDA The Bermuda Civil Aviation Authority (BCAA, Booth H1123) announced on the eve of ABACE 2018 plans to open a full-time office in Hong Kong in the coming months to make its services more available to the Asia market. "Opening an office in Hong Kong is part of an overall effort to ensure that we are putting our clients at the center of everything we do," said Thomas Dunstan, BCAA director general. "There are many offshore registries that offer some unique advantages, so it's our job to make Bermuda the more attractive option." Dunstan cited the "trusted relationship" with partners and "focus on making the process of registering aircraft easier and more efficient" as distinguishing characteristics of its offering. The planned Hong Kong office complements the registry's new UK office, relocated last September from London to Farnborough Airport. The relocation allows for additional airworthiness inspectors, according to BCAA, providing "excellent response times to clients in Europe, Middle East, Africa, and Asia." Located in Farnborough's main terminal building, the new office also enables short-notice aircraft inspections and certificate of airworthiness issue during a turnaround or layover. Since it was created in 1931, BCAA has registered close to 2,000 aircraft, with 800 on its current rolls. At the Corporate Jet Investor London conference earlier this year, BCAA suggested that there was a need in Asia for a private aircraft registry. CAYMAN ISLANDS Last September 2017 the Civil Aviation Authority of the Cayman Islands announced the government had backed the creation of the Cayman Maritime and Aviation Services Park to attract "specialist aviation companies from around the world." The reinvigorated zone within Cayman Enterprise City was launched at NBAA 2017 in Las Vegas last October. This includes a new option for offshore commercial air transport operations, including charter operations. Before that the Cayman Islands Aircraft Registry was limited to onshore commercial operations-Cayman Airways, Cayman Express, and Cayman Islands Helicopters-as well as onshore and offshore private aircraft. "Over the years the CAACI has established a credible and reputable aircraft registry for the jurisdiction, with the primary focus being private/corporate aircraft that are operated globally," CAACI said. "This development offers the opportunity for global commercial air transport operators [i.e., charter operators] to also be associated with a sound aircraft registry for regulatory oversight of its operations." ISLE OF MAN Although not exhibiting at ABACE this year, the Isle of Man Aircraft Registry will be exhibiting at EBACE in May. Director of civil aviation Simon Williams will be taking part in today's aforementioned panel discussion. The Registry and the island are reeling from having to handle a very poorly put together television documentary by the BBC's Panorama program last year-most in the industry AIN has spoken with expressed shock at the lack of research, with much of the information being misleading and "sensationalized." For example, the island is not home to hundreds of business jets, with M-registered aircraft being located all around the world-a deduction made by researchers for UK opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn and repeated in the UK Parliament by him. In addition, as Williams is keen to point out, the Registry has nothing to do with taxation but only safety oversight. On a visit to the island last month AIN visited Williams at the Registry's new offices at Ronaldsway, the island's airport. Williams continues to build on the work done by Brian Johnson in founding the registry in 2007. Incorporating all the requirements of ICAO Annex 6 Part 2 has placed the Isle of Man "ahead of a number of leading jurisdictions," according to the Registry, while Williams's team has almost completed a project to "repatriate" powers to create secondary legislation, from the UK. "The vision is for the Isle of Man to truly become a center for aviation excellence," he said, "at the forefront of aviation regulation and incorporating best practice from around the world." Williams professes to focus on quality of service, not quantity of aircraft on the register. The Registry, which has just become a member of AsBAA, recently completed its 1,000th registration-of an Asia-Pacific-based Gulfstream G650ER. with removals, that leaves some 430 on the register. 2-REG The 2-Reg Aircraft Registry (Booth P813) started operations in December 2013. Based in Guernsey, a British Crown Dependency (similar to the status of the Isle of Man), it is thereby independent from the United Kingdom and outside the European Union. The 2-Reg Aircraft Registry offers a full scope of regulatory services to support all aircraft types for private, corporate, and commercial operations. With aircraft based anywhere in the world, 2-Reg is supported from permanent offices in Guernsey, Amsterdam, and Singapore. "Using the prefix 2-, followed by four letters, 2-Reg offers selected registration marks to customers," said the registry, "which enables the customer to personalise their aircraft." At last year's ABACE, 2-Reg surprised visitors by announcing Hongkong Jet would place Deer Jet's Boeing BBJ787-8 on its new Guernsey AOC, the aircraft being registered 2-DEER. https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/business-aviation/2018-04-17/foreign-aircraft-registries-tout-benefits Back to Top INFLIGHT FIRE By Captain Shem Malmquist • June 2, 1983, Air Canada flight 797 experienced an in-flight fire. The first hint of smoke odor occurred at 1900 CDT. The crew had thought they had extinguished the fire. At 1907 CDT the smell of smoke returned, and just two minutes later aircraft electrical systems began to fail. The flight crew was able to get the aircraft on the ground, landing just 13 minutes later. 90 seconds later the fire flashed over, killing 23 passengers. • February 7, 2006, a UPS DC-8 crew detected a faint odor that smelled like burning wood as they descended from FL330 enroute to Philadelphia. 25 minutes later they touched down on 27R at PHL. The crew stopped the aircraft and the cockpit filled with smoke. The crew evacuated and the aircraft subsequently became engulfed in flames. • September 5, 1996, a FedEx DC-10 crew responded to in-flight smoke. Landing just 18 minutes later inNewburgh, New York, the crew and jumpseaters evacuated the aircraft. The aircraft was destroyed by fire. • September 2, 1998, just barely over two years later, a Swissair MD-11 crashed less than 21 minutes after the pilots first noticed an unusual odor in the cockpit. • September 3, 2010, a UPS 747-400 crashed while attempting to land in Dubai, UAE. The flight was approximately 120 miles west of Dubai when the crew first declared an emergency. As with any other emergency, surviving an in-flight fire requires sound procedures and regular training to ensure we, the flight crew, follows those procedures. Unfortunately, a fire is one emergency that can kill you even if you do everything right, as the resources traditionally available to us have significant limitations. Pilots are paid to manage risk. The procedures flying a passenger aircraft are limited by such factors as passenger oxygen. Cargo aircraft have a different set of concerns. Regardless of whether you fly passenger or cargo aircraft, knowing what tools are out there is worthwhile. Consider, for example, the procedures to depressurize the aircraft to an altitude as determined by the manufacturer, a standard part of the checklist for cargo aircraft. FAA tested this procedure and found that: ... test results showed a reduced burn rate for all materials tested as the altitude increased (pressure decreased). The decreased burn rate was nearly linear, slightly greater than a reduced rate of 2% per 1000 feet. Testing of lithium metal and lithium ion batteries, a fire safety area of concern for all transportation modes, showed that altitude had little or no effect on the reaction. However, the time needed to heat the batteries to the point of reaction was increased, because of the reduced burn rate of the fuel supplying the heat, as altitude was increased (pressure reduced). ... test results showed that although depressurization reduced the initial burning, the fire intensity on decent was greatly accelerated. The highest depressurization altitude evaluated (25,000 feet) produced the best initial results but the largest fire on decent.[i] Absent a better solution, depressurization provides one of the best known methods to buy us time, but that must be balanced against the needs of passengers. This is a decision only you can make. Time is what we need to get on the ground. Knowledge of the research, however, might provide some clues as to how and when you might want to plan your descent in the event of a fire. Unfortunately, one of the greatest threats today is the carriage of Lithium batteries and current systems provide at best limited protection for Lithium fires. A study published by the Royal Aeronautical Society found that: On a typical flight, a single aisle jet carrying 100 passengers could have over 500 lithium batteries on board. These devices are not tested or certified nor are they necessarily maintained to manufacture's recommendations. Replacement batteries from questionable sources ('grey' market) can be contained within devices. ii While the fact that a fire might be caused by Lithium batteries does not change most of the recommendations, it can force a situation where the ONLY option is an immediate landing or ditching. It should also be noted that in certain circumstances the fire is associated with what is known as a "pressure pulse". Essentially, a rapid combustion in an enclosed compartment or container builds up pressure like a bomb and when the walls of that enclosure breach a pressure wave is generated. It is also possible to generate a pressure wave inside the aircraft just through a very rapid combustion. Either way, this pressure pulse can then lead to the failure of the aircraft compartment. As an example, if the fire is in a lower cargo compartment, the protection from the extinguishing agent is predicated on the walls of the compartment maintaining a relatively high concentration of the agent. If a pressure pulse is able to compromise the containment of the extinguishing agent then all of the assumptions for keeping the fire under control are no longer valid. Unfortunately, the cargo compartments were not designed to withstand even a fairly small pressure pulse. It is not clear whether the flight crew would be aware of such an occurrence, although it is possible. Each situation is different, and only the flight crew will be able to determine the best course of action. With that stated, following are offered for your consideration. Are you prepared should you encounter a fire? There are things that we, as pilots, can do that will significantly improve our odds of surviving an in-flight fire. The first thing to remember is that it is essential that you follow our training as closely as possible. It is particularly vital that you become familiar with and follow the checklists in your aircraft as closely as possible. A real fire is not the time to be fumbling with the checklist due to unfamiliarity. Following all the procedures is great, but that does not mean that we cannot learn additional things to make the most of our procedures, such as the lesson above from the FAA studies of the effects of depressurization on fire. Remember the procedures are based on assumptions that are only valid if the assumptions are true. Reading through the brief synopsis list above, a common theme is how little time we have to respond to an in-flight fire. A Canadian Transport Safety Board study found that your chances of surviving an in-flight fire decrease significantly after about 20 minutes, dropping to a very low probability after 35 minutes. The following chart depicts the time that various crews had from the first indication of the presence of a hidden fire, to the time that fire became catastrophically uncontrollable[iii]: DATE LOCATION AIRCRAFT TYPE TIME TO BECOME NON-SURVIVABLE (MINUTES) 07-26-1969 BISKRA, ALGERIA CARAVELLE 26 07-11-1973 PARIS,FRANCE B-707 7 11-03-1973 BOSTON, USA B-707 35 11-26-1979 JEDDAH,SAUDIA ARABIA B-707 17 06-02-1983 CINCINATTI,USA DC-9 19 11-28-1987 MAURITIUS,INDIAN OCEAN B-747 19 09-02-1998 NOVA SCOTIA,CANADA MD-11 16 A fire onboard an aircraft creates numerous hazards. Here are some things to consider: • At the first indication of a fire, it is vital that we don our full-face mask. What is the first indication? Often it is just the smell of smoke or fumes. • Every situation is different, but when reading the accident reports, the risk of waiting for a secondary indication is clear. If you smell fumes, you do not have to wait for visual confirmation or any warning systems. In the event of a fire onboard an aircraft there is not much time. SR111 lost a few minutes trying to confirm the indications before initiating a divert. Did those minutes cost them their lives? • Can you get the oxygen mask on within 4 seconds with your eyes closed? Ensure that your mask is clear of fumes? This may require using the Emergency position of the oxygen mask long enough that there is no doubt that it is clear. Fumes can cause vision problems. Fumes can be toxic and may affect our neurological functioning. Both are, obviously, very bad news when you are trying to fly an airplane. • Do you know where the Emergency knob for your oxygen mask is? Can you find that knob and operate it blind while wearing the mask? While the location of the control is obvious when you are holding the mask in your hand, finding it with the mask on is a different story. The location (with the mask donned) might surprise you the first time. You do not want that "surprise" when you need to find it in a real emergency. • If you have fumes or smoke, your vision may be impaired. Smoke in the eyes can make your eyes close. It is not voluntary. You cannot open them, no matter how hard you try. Being able to don your mask and turning it to the Emergency position completely blind could mean the difference between life and death. When was the last time you tried it? Your next flight might be a good opportunity to try it once or twice. • Does your aircraft have a HUD? Studies have shown that it is possible to see the HUD display even with thick smoke in the cockpit. Are you one of those that has resisted using it on a normal basis? A fire would not be the best time to first become accustomed to using a HUD/EFVS. • Review the Smoke and Fumes checklist for your aircraft. Could you run the checklist quickly? If you are a Captain, would it work out better if you are PF or PM? Who should be working the radios? Remember that you will be using the intercom to communicate on the flight deck. That adds more work than you might expect. Just like anything else we do, thinking about the scenario in advance can make a big difference. • What about the emergency equipment? Can you reach it from your seated position? What if you slide your seat back? What if you get out of your seat, will the oxygen mask hose be long enough to reach the walk-around bottle/mask, fire extinguishers and crash axe? Can you think of scenarios where it might be important to reach these items, or at least know what you can and cannot do in each of these examples? The onboard fire on the UPS B-747 in Dubai burned through oxygen lines leading to the crew oxygen system. • Do you know where your pack switches are? Can you find them blindfolded? Do you know how to configure them to keep smoke out of the cockpit if you cannot read a checklist due to smoke? How fast can you pull together the information you need to divert? • As indicated in the FAA study, there is a significant advantage to depressurizing and staying high, and fast, until fairly close to the airport. Not only does that take advantage of the depressurized state slowing the fire, it also reduces the amount of time for the fire to flare as you start down. Additionally, your fastest ground speeds are usually available around FL250 to 280. In a freighter this is a no-brainer, but for a passenger aircraft does the risk to the passengers of depressurizing outweigh the risk of the fire or ditching? This is something that only the crew can decide based on the specific circumstances, and, unfortunately, no matter what you decide there will be people who get to spend months discussing and analyzing your choices and how you got it wrong - never mind the fact that you only had seconds to make that decision. • Once you are diverting, how close to the airport can you maintain maximum forward speed? There are documented cases where crews slowed to 250 kts approaching 10,000 feet, with an in-flight fire. Those habits die hard. A common debrief item in the simulator exercise is that the crew could have stayed faster, longer. How much longer? • In the simulator, find out how long you can maintain Vmo before you need to slow down to make the landing. Obviously the "stable gates" are not a limitation, but you definitely don't want to have to go-around or go off the end of the runway. Consider using the gear and speed brakes to slow down. Landing gear and doors are pretty tough, and in most jet aircraft, the speed brakes are approved to be used even at maximum operating speeds. They are a lot stronger than flaps or slats. Further, the latter tend to add lift and not all that much drag, and hence are not intended to be used to slow the aircraft, just to allow the aircraft to fly slower. • While on the topic of flight controls, there are aspects of modern flight control systems you may not have considered. One of the factors in the UPS B-747 accident in Dubai was that the fire had not only compromised the oxygen system, but also had burned through the barrier protecting the cables that led from the control column to the elevators. On that model B-747 the autopilot is actually fly-by-wire (FBW), so the autopilot still had full authority. There are other types of aircraft that have a similar architecture, or might have separate computers, e.g., flight control computers for a FBW system from the pilot controls are different than the computers that the autopilot uses. Know your airplane, and above just what might be contemplated in your manuals. • What about the FMS? Envelope protection features? Will your FMS slow you to 250 kts passing 10,000 feet or some other restriction? Do you know how to bypass that to keep your speed up? What about envelope protection features, can there be a scenario where the system slows you down where it is not absolutely necessary when an active fire is the big risk? Again, know your aircraft! • Staying on the topic of knowing your aircraft, how many miles does it take to get from Vmo to approach speed on a 3 degree glideslope? How long from 250 kts to approach speed on the glideslope? How about at maximum takeoff gross weight? You are more likely to encounter many of these fires early in the flight than late, so the probability that you will be doing this at maximum takeoff gross weight is significant. Heavy weights will change the numbers quite a bit. • Consider the winds. A little tailwind will make it a lot harder to slow down due to the increase in energy, so be aware! Perhaps, the next time you find yourself with some extra simulator time, it might be worthwhile to try for yourself to see what you can do and still feel safe. Try it with the oxygen mask on. • Sorting out that flow when you experience it for real the first time is not conducive to surviving the situation. Consider giving the oxygen mask and intercom a try sometime enroute. Working out the details during a routine cruise flight can provide a significant leg up in the event of a real emergency. • What kind of "Smoke Barriers" does your aircraft have? The cockpit door is one such barrier. On cargo aircraft a smoke curtain is another, as is a rigid barrier. When it comes to stopping the smoke, utilize all the barriers you can. One of successes of the FedEx Express Flight 1406 flight crew was attributed to their ability to keep a smoke barrier (cockpit door closed) in place and, consequently, their flight deck relatively free from smoke until after landing. Passengers utilizing a mixed flow of oxygen have few options, another factor to consider. • When you get settled in your seat, take a moment to close your eyes and locate the things you need, in order to exit the aircraft: window latch, crank, inertia reel door, etc. When the UPS flight into PHL touched down, inertia forced the smoke into the front of the aircraft, and the flight crew was blinded by the smoke. UPS Capt. Jess Grigg, at that time a First Officer and pilot flying, said that he was focused on getting out of the aircraft, and eliminating things that might impede him, so he released his seat belt and tore off his oxygen mask, then couldn't find the door for the escape reel. He managed to open his window, and stuck his head out to get some air, but still couldn't find his escape reel. They were able to escape the aircraft when the S/O found the 1L door, and was able to open it. He now advises crewmembers to check the location with their eyes closed. Captain Grigg recalled that when doing "smoke in the cockpit" training in the simulator, he found that the exercise always ended when they landed the plane. In real life, he said, landing was nowhere near the end of the deal. He said that when the smoke alarms went off, it was like "somebody threw an angry bobcat into the cockpit." He also said that when he hit the brakes, it was "as though someone had dumped a pail of hot ashes down my collar." If you assume an RTO on every takeoff, and a missed approach prior to every landing, you are more prepared in the event those options become reality. Shouldn't you apply the same proactive approach to a smoke/fire/fumes event? Of all the non-normal events a pilot might face in his/her career, a smoke/fire/fumes event is the least forgiving. Your actions have to be correct the first time. [i] FAA Fire Safety Highlights [ii] Royal Aeronautical Society. SMOKE, FIRE AND FUMES IN TRANSPORT AIRCRAFT. Available from: http://aerosociety.com/Assets/Docs/Publications/SpecialistPapers/SAFITA__2013.pdf [iii] AC 120-80 Appendix 3 Back to Top POSITION AVAILABLE: FOQA SPECIALIST Processes day-to-day Flight Operational Quality Assurance (FOQA) data using the Ground Data Replay Analysis System (GDRAS) and performs routine data analysis. Creates weekly and monthly deliverables in addition to working with Gatekeepers and other members of Safety and FOQA Management Team (FMT). 50%: Supports the FOQA Program Manager with daily administration of the FOQA efforts to ensure analysis of flight data for improved flight safety including validation of FOQA events, identification of events for Gatekeeper contacts and identification of events for Maintenance reporting 20%: Performs data analysis, root cause analysis and determines corrective actions of digital flight data to determine adverse events, trends in flight and maintenance operations. Coordinates and validates aircraft specific event definitions. Maintains and identifies new FOQA events, and manages documentation supporting these functions. 20%: Prepares flight operations trending analysis charts and reports. Compiles and presents FOQA data summaries to enhance training, maintenance, flight operations. Performs specialized studies and fulfills special data requests. Assists in the creation of safety and FOQA department publications. Prepares reports, presentations, and statistical data required to identify trends for safety enhancement. 10%: Oversees data collection process of aircraft fleet in conjunction with Maintenance MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS: Education Level: Bachelor's Degree Course of Study/Major: Aviation, flight technology, engineering, statistics or related area or a combination of education and experience. Related Work Experience: 0-2 years Required • Basic computer programming and statistical methods experience. • Strong work ethic, ability to work in a fast-paced environment and a positive attitude toward teamwork. • Previous experience maintaining and enhancing corporate safety standards and safe operation practices. • Extensive working knowledge of Microsoft Office Programs, including spreadsheet and database applications. • Travel up to 10% of the time, including overnight stays. Preferred • FAA Commercial Pilot License or higher • Prior experience with Austin Digital or equivalent GDRAS platforms • Knowledge of aircraft flight data recorders • Previous work experience, preferably in 14 CFR Part 121 or 135 air carrier operations; quality control, maintenance, operations, safety or a combination of these areas. **TO APPLY: please visit our career page at: https://www.netjets.com, requisition #1890** Back to Top Back to Top RESEARCH SURVEY - I Dear Participants, I would like to have some help with a questionnaire I created (only 8 questions) aiming to find it if Aviation Industry understands Safety as an organizational or corporate value. I would be grateful if you could disseminate the surveymonkey link SURVEY LINK: Is Safety an Organisational Value? Survey (https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/65MM65D) The Survey ends on April the 22nd and I will create and report with the findings and my opinion at May the 15th.I could send you also the report when is ready. Thank you in advance for your assistance Kind Regards Dimitrios Soukeras,MBA(ER) Lieutenant Colonel HAA(Ret.)-Helicopter Pilot SJSU Faculty Member Office:+302661054690 Mobile:+306947006664 Email: d.soukeras@yahoo.com P.O. BOX 391, 49100 CORFU , GREECE Back to Top RESEARCH SURVEY - II Dear Participants, You are being asked to participate in a research study of your experience on retaining your manual flying skills during flight. This survey study is expected to take approximately 5 minutes of your time. In order to participate, you must be at least 18 years old and currently employed as an airline transport 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/R8NCDGC For more information, please contact: Gajapriya Tamilselvan: gtamilselvan2014@my.fit.edu Or Dr. Scott Winter: winte25e@erau.edu We appreciate your interest and participation! Back to Top GRADUATE RESEARCH SURVEY - 1 Dear Participant: Graduate students at Lewis University have invited you to participate in a research project entitled: Evaluating, Attitudes, and Opinions on the Cyber Threat Vulnerabilities of Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast. The purpose of this survey is to collect survey data from the aviation communities on beliefs of current ADS-B security and its present issues. This study has been approved by Lewis University's Institutional Review Board (IRB). The survey is anonymous. Participation in this research is completely voluntary and you may refuse to participate without consequence. The survey will take approximately ten minutes to complete. If you would like to know the results of this research, contact faculty advisor Dr. Erik Baker at bakerer@lewisu.edu. Thank you for your consideration. Your help is greatly appreciated. Survey link: https://goo.gl/forms/MP1833a6acHXBLGn2 Back to Top GRADUATE RESEARCH SURVEY - 2 Dear Participant: Hello my name is DEREK HAYNES and I am an MSc student at City University of London and a Captain on the B787. However would you kindly please spare me a few minutes of your valuable time to complete my Air Transport Management MSc Jet Airline Pilot Survey - preferably by 30th April 2018, (it is anonymous). It takes <10 mins. Thanks a million, Derek. The survey can be completed here: https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/TWKHCFK Curt Lewis