Flight Safety Information March 18, 2019 - No. 057 In This Issue Ethiopian Airlines black boxes show similarities to Lion Air crash-ministry Boeing crashes cast spotlight on US aviation regulator Transportation Department inspector general investigating FAA's approval of Boeing 737 Max Boeing Had Too Much Sway in Vetting Own Jets, FAA Was Told Incident: Braathens Regional RJ1H enroute on Mar 16th 2019, engine shut down in flight Incident: American A321 near Chicago on Mar 14th 2019, engine shut down in flight Incident: Alrosa B738 near Syktyvkar on Mar 15th 2019, electrical problems Incident: Condor A332 over Atlantic on Mar 15th 2019, indication of smoke on board EVAS - Cockpit Smoke Protection Cessna 421C Golden Eagle - Fatal Accident (Ohio) Boeing 747-281F(SCD) - Tipped on tail during loading (Qatar) Pilot suffering from hypoxia prompts emergency landing at Grant County International Airport Thursday Deadly ERAU plane crash: Father of student pilot sues Piper Aircraft, claims EASA's Data4Safety partnership programme provides European-wide aviation data exchange and analysis Atlas 767 crash probe strives to comprehend pitch upset UK's Global Aerospace Is Boeing's Lead Insurer Helicopter Services Company PHI Files for Bankruptcy Airplane Part Suppliers Feel the Pinch of Boeing's 737 Max Crash GRADUATE RESEARCH SURVEY RTCA Global Aviation Symposium Aircraft Cabin Air Conference Call for Papers - ISASI 2019...*** Deadline March 18th *** ISASI-Mid-Atlantic Regional Chapter (MARC) Dinner/Meeting--2 May 2019 Ethiopian Airlines black boxes show similarities to Lion Air crash-ministry By Maggie Fick and Tim Hepher ADDIS ABABA/PARIS, March 17 (Reuters) - Ethiopia said on Sunday the crash of an Ethiopian Airlines plane that killed 157 people had "clear similarities" with October's Lion Air crash, according to initial analysis of the black boxes recovered from the wreckage of the March 10 disaster. Both planes were Boeing BA.N 737 MAX 8s, and both crashed minutes after take-off after pilots reported flight control problems. Concern over the plane's safety caused aviation authorities worldwide to ground the model, wiping billions of dollars off Boeing's market value. Investigators are trying to determine why the aircraft plunged into a field shortly after take off from Addis Ababa, searching for possible similarities to an October Lion Air crash that killed 189 people. "It was the same case with the Indonesian (Lion Air) one. There were clear similarities between the two crashes so far," Ethiopian transport ministry spokesman Muse Yiheyis said. "The data was successfully recovered. Both the American team and our (Ethiopian) team validated it. The minister thanked the French government. We will let you know more after three or four days," he told Reuters. In Washington, however, U.S. officials told Reuters that the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration and U.S. National Transportation Safety Board have not validated the data yet. When investigators, after reviewing black box data, return to Addis Ababa and start conducting interpretive work, the NTSB and FAA will assist in verification and validation of the data, an official said. A second source said little information had been circulated between parties about the contents of data and voice recordings. It was not clear how many of the roughly 1,800 parameters of flight data and two hours of cockpit recordings, spanning the doomed 6-minute fight and earlier trips, had been taken into account as part of the preliminary Ethiopian analysis. It is not unknown for the broad reasons for a crash to be understood in the hours after data has been recovered, but experts say fuller analysis is usually needed too. The crash has generated one of the most widely watched and high-stakes probes for years, with the latest version of Boeing's profitable 737 workhorse depending on the outcome. Previous accident reports show that in such high-profile cases there can be disagreements among parties about the cause. In Paris, France's BEA air accident investigation agency said data from the jet's cockpit voice recorder had been successfully downloaded. The French agency said in a tweet it had not listened to the audio files and that the data had been transferred to Ethiopian investigators. In Addis Ababa, a source who has listened to the air traffic control recording of the plane's communications said flight 302 had an unusually high speed after take-off before the plane reported problems and asked permission to climb quickly. (Full Story) SAFETY ANALYSIS Under international rules, a preliminary report on the crash must be released within 30 days. The Seattle Times reported that Boeing's safety analysis of a new flight control system on 737 MAX jets had several crucial flaws. The analysis of the system called MCAS (Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System) understated the power of this system, the Seattle Times said, citing current and former engineers at the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The FAA also did not delve into any detailed inquiries and followed a standard certification process on the MAX, the Seattle Times reported citing an FAA spokesman. The FAA declined to comment on the report but referred to previous statements about the certification process. It has said the 737-MAX certification process followed the FAA's standard certification process. The report also said both Boeing and the FAA were informed of the specifics of this story and were asked for responses 11 days ago, before the crash of an Ethiopian Airlines 737 MAX last Sunday that killed all 157 people on board. The same model flown by Lion Air crashed off the coast of Indonesia in October, killing all 189 on board. Last Monday Boeing said it would deploy a software upgrade to the 737 MAX 8, a few hours after the FAA said it would mandate "design changes" in the aircraft by April. Boeing Chief Executive Dennis Muilenburg, in a statement on Sunday after the Ethiopian transport ministry's comments, said Boeing was finalising the sofware change and a training revision and would evaluate new information as it became available. A Boeing spokesman said 737 MAX was certified in accordance with the identical FAA requirements and processes that have governed certification of all previous new airplanes and derivatives. The spokesman said the FAA concluded that MCAS on 737 MAX met all certification and regulatory requirements. In Addis Ababa, aviation staff gathered at Bole International Airport to remember the two pilots and six crew, who perished along with the 149 passengers. Weeping women held single stems in their shaking hands. Banks of the white flowers, the traditional colour of mourning, were placed in front of a row of empty coffins at the ceremony. (Additional reporting by David Shepardson, Gaurika Juneja, Tim Hepher, Tracy Rucinski, Editing by William Maclean) Back to Top Boeing crashes cast spotlight on US aviation regulator In service since May 2017, the 737 MAX 8, one of several variants of the 737 MAX, has now experienced two deadly incidents, a scenario that is unprecedented for a new aircraft (AFP Photo/Jason Redmond) New York (AFP) - Was the United States complacent in its certification of the Boeing 737 MAX? That's a question everyone is asking after Addis Ababa said flight recorded data showed "clear similarities" between last week's Ethiopian Airlines crash and that of Indonesia's Lion Air five months earlier. In service since May 2017, the 737 MAX 8, one of several variants of the 737 MAX, has now experienced two deadly tragedies, a scenario that is unprecedented for a new aircraft. The March 10 crash, south-east of the Ethiopian capital, claimed 157 lives, on top of the 189 who died when the Lion Air flight plunged into the Java Sea in October 2018. Investigations are ongoing but early evidence has pointed to a problem with the flight stabilization system designed to prevent stalling, the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System or MCAS. Ethiopian Transport Minister Dagmawit Moges said Sunday that a study of the flight data recorder retrieved from the Ethiopian plane had shown "clear similarities" to that of the Lion Air flight. While it may take months for definitive conclusions, experts are asking why the MCAS was green lit despite objections by American pilots who had voiced concerns with the system. - Boeing employees at the helm - The US Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) is in the line of fire because it authorizes the commissioning of airplanes. But for the past decade, it has outsourced the mission, entrusting the task to airplane manufacturers themselves and to external experts. Under this new program, known as the Organization Designation Authorization (ODA), employees of Boeing accredited by the FAA assist the regulator in approving the aircraft of their employer (from design, production, flight tests, maintenance and other systems) as well as signing off on the training procedures of pilots on new planes. The trend has accelerated due to budget cuts and the increasing volume of air travel, industry sources told AFP. In the case of the 737 MAX, Boeing expressed a case of urgency because of its medium-haul competition with the Airbus A320Neo that launched shortly before, the sources said. The original safety analysis that Boeing delivered to the FAA had "several crucial flaws", according to a report in the Seattle Times on Sunday. There were also strong differences of opinion between FAA staff in Seattle, where Boeing planes are built, and in the Washington D.C. headquarters, a government source told AFP. The agency defended itself Sunday, telling AFP in an email: "The 737 MAX certification program followed the FAA's standard certification process." Dennis Muilenburg, Boeing's CEO, said Sunday the company was finalizing a software update to the MCAS. Industry sources indicated to AFP it would be ready in about 10 days. - Public hearings? - Peter DeFazio, chairman of the House of Representatives' Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, is planning to launch an investigation into the 737 MAX's certification, Congressional sources said, adding that public hearings have not been ruled out. "The FAA's credibility is really on the line here, as is Boeing's. And, the global system of aircraft certification reciprocity is at risk too," said Richard Aboulafia, an aeronautical analyst at Teal Group. Following the Lion Air crash, the FAA asked Boeing to modify its flight manuals and pilot training so they could recognize and respond to unexpected maneuvers initiated by the MCAS. Pilots had notably underlined the need for information and training beyond what had initially been provided. The 737 MAX was certified as a variant program of the its predecessor, the 737 Next Generation, despite major differences in the engine and the MCAS, according to documents available on the FAA's website. In a nutshell, the plane was not examined in its entirety. https://www.yahoo.com/news/boeing-crashes-cast-spotlight-us-aviation-regulator- 092357596.html Back to Top Transportation Department inspector general investigating FAA's approval of Boeing 737 Max FAA's inspection program under scrutiny Washington (CNN)The Transportation Department's Inspector General has opened an investigation into the Federal Aviation Administration's approval of Boeing's 737 Max planes, the Wall Street Journal reported Sunday. The Journal's report of the inspector general's probe comes after the 737 Max planes were grounded for an indefinite period globally last week in the wake of two deadly accidents involving the aircraft model. The investigation will be focused on an automatic safety system implicated in the October crash involving Lion Air in Indonesia, the Journal reported, citing a government official. Answers to the pressing questions behind the FAA and the Boeing crash Answers to the pressing questions behind the FAA and the Boeing crash It is unknown if the Ethiopian Airlines flight that crashed a week ago will play any role in this investigation or not. The Journal reported, citing a source familiar with the matter, that a subpoena has been issued by a grand jury in Washington seeking "documents, includng correspondence, emails and other messages" from at least one person involved in the development of the 737 Max planes. CNN has not been able to independently verify that a subpoena was issued. CNN has reached out to the Transportation Department and the agency's inspector general's office for comment. The FAA referred questions on the reported inspector general probe to the Transportation Department. The agency said in a statement, however, that its "aircraft certification processes are well established and have consistently produced safe aircraft designs." Both crashes, which occurred five months apart, remain under investigation by the Indonesia and Ethiopia governments, respectively, with the assistance of the US and Boeing. The Ethiopian Minister of Transport said Sunday that preliminary data recovered from the black boxes showed "similarities" between the two incidents. A preliminary report of the Lion Air crash also showed that the pilots fought with the automatic safety system, known as the maneuvering characteristics augmentation system (MCAS), for control of the jet. Boeing announced Monday that it's working with the FAA to finalize a software update related to the MCAS system to make the planes safer. The company plans to have the update mandated no later than April. https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/17/politics/transportation-department-faa-boeing- investigation/index.html Back to Top Boeing Had Too Much Sway in Vetting Own Jets, FAA Was Told By Peter Robison and Alan Levin Company engineers cleared equipment at center of crash probe Shares drop as U.S. agency examines certification of 737 Max The FAA's approval of Boeing's 737 Max range is being investigated, according to the WSJ. Derek Wallbank reports. FAA employees warned as early as seven years ago that Boeing Co. had too much sway over safety approvals of new aircraft, prompting an investigation by Department of Transportation auditors who confirmed the agency hadn't done enough to "hold Boeing accountable." The 2012 investigation also found that discord over Boeing's treatment had created a "negative work environment" among Federal Aviation Administration employees who approve new and modified aircraft designs, with many of them saying they'd faced retaliation for speaking up. Their concerns pre-dated the 737 Max development. On Sunday night, a person familiar with the 737 Max said the Transportation Department's Inspector General was examining the plane's design certification before the second of two deadly crashes of the almost brand-new aircraft. Earlier Sunday, Ethiopia's transport minister said flight-data recorders show "clear similarities" between the crashes of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 on March 10 and Lion Air Flight 610 last October. Dennis MuilenburgPhotographer: Anna Moneymaker/Bloomberg Shares of the Chicago-based planemaker fell early Monday after Boeing Chief Executive Officer Dennis Muilenburg and FAA officials were forced to defend the quality of testing of the new aircraft, and the Wall Street Journal reported on a grand jury probe. The stock was trading at $371.99 in pre-market U.S. trading -- down 1.8 percent from Friday, and below any closing price since the Ethiopian Airlines disaster. A Seattle Times investigation found that the U.S. regulator delegated much of the safety assessment to Boeing and that the company in turn delivered an analysis with crucial flaws. Separately, a grand jury in Washington, D.C., issued a broad subpoena dated March 11 to at least one person involved in the development process of the 737 Max jets, the Wall Street Journal reported late Sunday. In recent years, the FAA has shifted more authority over the approval of new aircraft to the manufacturer itself, even allowing Boeing to choose many of the personnel who oversee tests and vouch for safety. Just in the past few months, Congress expanded the outsourcing arrangement even further. "It raises for me the question of whether the agency is properly funded, properly staffed and whether there has been enough independent oversight," said Jim Hall, who was chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board from 1994 to 2001 and is now an aviation-safety consultant. Outsourcing Safety At least a portion of the flight-control software suspected in the 737 Max crashes was certified by one or more Boeing employees who worked in the outsourcing arrangement, according to one person familiar with the work who wasn't authorized to speak about the matter. The Wall Street Journal first reported the inspector general's latest inquiry. The watchdog is trying to assess whether the FAA used appropriate design standards and engineering analysis in approving the 737 Max's anti-stall system, the newspaper said. Both Boeing and the Transportation Department declined to comment about that inquiry. In a statement on Sunday, the agency said its "aircraft certification processes are well established and have consistently produced safe aircraft designs," adding that the "737 Max certification program followed the FAA's standard certification process." ETHIOPIA-PLANE-CRASH Grieving relatives of the victims react as they arrive at the crash site on March 14.Photographer: Tony Karumba/AFP via Getty Images The Ethiopian Airlines plane crashed minutes after it took off from Addis Ababa, killing all 157 people on board. The accident prompted most of the world to ground Boeing's 737 Max 8 aircraft on safety concerns, coming on the heels of the October crash of a Max 8 operated by Indonesia's Lion Air that killed 189 people. Much of the attention focused on a flight-control system that can automatically push a plane into a catastrophic nose dive if it malfunctions and pilots don't react properly. In one of the most detailed descriptions yet of the relationship between Boeing and the FAA during the 737 Max's certification, the Seattle Times quoted unnamed engineers who said the planemaker had understated the power of the flight-control software in a System Safety Analysis submitted to the FAA. The newspaper said the analysis also failed to account for how the system could reset itself each time a pilot responded -- in essence, gradually ratcheting the horizontal stabilizer into a dive position. Boeing told the newspaper in a statement that the FAA had reviewed the company's data and concluded the aircraft "met all certification and regulatory requirements." The company, which is based in Chicago but designs and builds commercial jets in the Seattle area, said there are "some significant mischaracterizations" in the engineers' comments. In a separate statement Sunday, Muilenburg reiterated the company's sympathies for the affected families and support for the investigation into the flight-control system, known as the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System. "While investigators continue to work to establish definitive conclusions, Boeing is finalizing its development of a previously announced software update and pilot training revision that will address the MCAS flight-control law's behavior in response to erroneous sensor inputs," Muilenburg said. Airbus Group NV's Airbus A320 Neo Aircraft Makes Debut Flight Airbus A320neoPhotographer: Balint Porneczi/Bloomberg The newspaper also quoted unnamed FAA technical experts who said managers prodded them to speed up the certification process as development of the Max was nine months behind that of rival Airbus SE's A320neo. The FAA has let technical experts at aircraft makers act as its representatives to perform certain tests and approve some parts for decades. The FAA expanded the scope of that program in 2005 to address concerns about adequately keeping pace with its workload. Known as Organization Designation Authorization, or ODA, it let Boeing and other manufacturers choose the employees who approve design work on the agency's behalf. Previously, the FAA approved each appointment. Under the new approach, which was fully implemented in 2009, the ODA representatives are still under U.S. legal requirements and the FAA has the authority to oversee them and request that their management be changed. Anonymous Faxes In 2012, a special investigator of the Office of Inspector General at the Department of Transportation sent a memo to the FAA's audit chief warning him of concerns voiced by agency employees about the new process. Some allegations were made in anonymous faxes sent to the inspector general's office, and the office followed up by interviewing employees in the FAA's Transport Airplane Directorate. "Our investigation substantiated employee allegations that TAD and FAA headquarters managers have not always supported TAD employee efforts to hold Boeing accountable and this has created a negative atmosphere within the TAD," according to the June 22, 2012, report sent to the FAA. (The memo was made available later in a public records request and appears now on a website operated by governmentattic.org, which warehouses government documents. A spokesman for the inspector general's office confirmed its authenticity.) The employees told the investigators that managers had overturned a recommendation by staff to remove the administrator Boeing had chosen for the program and "had not adequately addressed employees' concerns" about potential conflicts of interest, the memo said. The employees, it said, viewed this as evidence of management having "too close a relationship with Boeing officials." Despite those concerns, as well as others raised in a subsequent report by the inspector general, Congress has embraced the program as a way to improve the FAA's efficiency. President Donald Trump signed into law a change on Oct. 5. It allows manufacturers to request that the FAA eliminate limitations on how company representatives certify "low and medium risk" items, giving them even more authority over their own products. The agency doesn't have the budget to do every test, and "the use of designees is absolutely necessary," said Steve Wallace, the former head of accident investigations at the FAA. "For the most part, it works extremely well. There is a very high degree of integrity in the system." Dreamliner Fires But the program was also at issue in the FAA's 2013 grounding of Boeing's 787 Dreamliner after two fires of battery packs. Boeing's designated engineering representatives oversaw tests of the battery packs. Inside the Boeing Co. 787 Assembly Plant Workers assemble a Boeing 787 Dreamliner airplane at Boeing's Everett plant.Photographer: Patrick T. Fallon/Bloomberg A 2015 report by the Department of Transportation's inspector general, requested by U.S. Representative Peter DeFazio, found the FAA lacked "an effective staffing model" and "risk-based oversight process" over the ODA program. DeFazio, an Oregon Democrat, now heads the House transportation and infrastructure committee, and has said he will conduct a "rigorous investigation" to make sure the FAA is protecting safety. Hall, the former NTSB chairman, said the agency's move to shift power to the manufacturers contributed to the unusual situation in which two of Boeing's newly introduced aircraft were grounded in a period of six years. Before the Dreamliner, the FAA hadn't grounded a model since 1979. "When I was chairman of the NTSB, my single most important job was who we hired," Hall said. "Do we have in the federal government the level of funding and expertise we need? Are we attracting the kind of young, smart minds that continue to uphold our reputation in the aviation area?" As the investigation continues, mourners marched in the hundreds past the Library of Parliament in Addis Ababa to Selassie Cathedral for a funeral service Sunday, wearing black or the sea-green uniforms of Ethiopian Airlines and carrying photos of the dead. After a priest read the victims' names aloud, people carried empty coffins from the cathedral to a graveyard. All that was heard was sobbing, wailing and chanting. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-18/boeing-had-too-much-sway- checking-own-planes-faa-workers-warned Back to Top Incident: Braathens Regional RJ1H enroute on Mar 16th 2019, engine shut down in flight A Braathens Regional Avro RJ-100, registration SE-DSV performing flight TF-182 from Stockholm Bromma to Malmoe (Sweden) with 80 people on board, was enroute at FL210 when passengers noticed a flash from the outside and a loud bang followed by vibrations of their aircraft. The crew shut one of the engines (LF507) down and continued to Malmoe for a safe landing. The occurrence aircraft is still on the ground in Malmoe about 29 hours after landing. The airline reported something happened with one of the engines causing a loud bang and vibrations. The aircraft is being examined, the engine might be replaced. http://avherald.com/h?article=4c582d07&opt=0 Back to Top Incident: American A321 near Chicago on Mar 14th 2019, engine shut down in flight An American Airlines Airbus A321-200, registration N973UY performing flight AA-795 from Chicago O'Hare,IL to Boston,MA (USA), was climbing through FL290 out of Chicago when the right hand engine (V2533) emitted a loud bang prompting the crew to stop the climb, shut the engine down and return to Chicago for a safe landing on runway 28R about 45 minutes after departure. A replacement A321-200 registration N919US reached Boston with a delay of 5 hours. The occurrence aircraft is still on the ground in Chicago about 46.5 hours after landing back. https://flightaware.com/live/flight/AAL795/history/20190314/2106Z/KORD/KBOS http://avherald.com/h?article=4c5784c2&opt=0 Back to Top Incident: Alrosa B738 near Syktyvkar on Mar 15th 2019, electrical problems An Alrosa Boeing 737-800, registration EI-ECM performing flight 6R-597 from Mirnyi to Moscow Domodedovo (Russia) with 157 passengers and 6 crew, was enroute at FL360 about 100nm west of Syktyvkar when the crew decided to turn around and divert to Syktyvkar due to electrical problems on board (large voltage fluctuations). The aircraft landed safely in Syktyvkar about 45 minutes later. The aircraft remained on the ground for about 4 hours, then continued the flight and reached Moscow with a delay of 5 hours. http://avherald.com/h?article=4c56d20b&opt=0 Back to Top Incident: Condor A332 over Atlantic on Mar 15th 2019, indication of smoke on board A Condor Airbus A330-200, registration G-TCCI performing flight DE-2198 from Frankfurt/Main (Germany) to Varadero (Cuba), was enroute at FL360 over the Atlantic Ocean about 350nm northwest of Santiago de Compostela,SP (Spain) when the crew received a smoke indication on board and decided to turn around and divert to Santiago de Compostela. The aircraft descended to FL350 for the return and landed safely on Santiago's runway 35 about 45 minutes later. The passengers disembarked normally via stairs. The aircraft is currently being examined. G-TCCI after disembarkation, Emergency services still on guard (Photo: Controladores Aéreos): http://avherald.com/h?article=4c56d003&opt=0 Back to Top Back to Top Cessna 421C Golden Eagle - Fatal Accident (Ohio) Date: 17-MAR-2019 Time: 17:42 Type: Cessna 421C Golden Eagle Owner/operator: Classic Solutions Co Inc Registration: N424TW * C/n / msn: 421B0816 Fatalities: Fatalities: 1 / Occupants: 1 Other fatalities: 0 Aircraft damage: Written off (damaged beyond repair) Location: SW of Delaware Municipal Airport (KDLZ), Delaware, OH - United States of America Phase: Approach Nature: Unknown Departure airport: Dayton-James Cox Dayton International Airport, OH (DAY/KDAY) Destination airport: Delaware Municipal Airport, OH (KDLZ) Narrative: The aircraft impacted farm field terrain in Union County northeast of Plain City, Ohio. The airplane sustained substantial damage upon impact with the terrain and powerline supports. The sole pilot onboard the aircraft received fatal injuries. Weather may have been a factor to the incident. * Registration Unconfirmed: Radar data from FlightAware.com suggests the aircraft to be a Cessna 421C Golden Eagle, Registration N424TW, operating as FENIX01 from Dayton, Ohio, inbound to Delaware Municipal Airport/Jim Moore Field in Delaware, Ohio. https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=223173 Back to Top Boeing 747-281F(SCD) - Tipped on tail during loading (Qatar) Date: 17-MAR-2019 Time: Type: Boeing 747-281F(SCD) Owner/operator: Fars Air Qeshm Registration: EP-FAB C/n / msn: 25171 Fatalities: Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: Other fatalities: 0 Aircraft damage: Unknown Location: Doha Hamad ?nt'l Airport - Qatar Phase: Standing Nature: Cargo Departure airport: Yerevan Airport (EVN/UDYZ) Destination airport: Doha-Hamad International Airport (DOH/OTHH) Narrative: The aircraft tipped on its tail during unloading at Doha. https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=223163 Back to Top Pilot suffering from hypoxia prompts emergency landing at Grant County International Airport Thursday Navy EA-18G "Growler" MOSES LAKE - A Navy EA-18G Growler made an emergency landing at the Grant County International Airport Thursday morning due to one of the crew suffering from hypoxia, or lack of oxygen. The aircraft landed safely, according to Port Facilities Director Rich Mueller. Both pilots were checked out by paramedics, who determined the pilots were in good health. "The plane will stay until all systems are confirmed operational and then they will fly it back to NASWI," Mueller stated. "They exited the aircraft as per normal and were smiling and talking to the ground crew so neither looked like they were having any problems." When asked if there was an indication what caused the oxygen malfunction, Mueller said there wasn't any. The Navy continues to struggle with finding out exactly what's causing persistent reports of "hypoxia-like" symptoms across the F/A-18 Hornet, F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, and Growler fleets. In February of 2018, a U.S. Navy EA-18G Growler recently made it back to base after suffering a terrifying mid-air incident, which caused its two-person crew to fly blind and frostbitten after the aircraft's environment control system failed in part because of a pair of high-tech wrist watches. The incident occurred approximately 60 miles south of Seattle. The EA-18G, assigned to Air Test and Evaluation Squadron Nine (VX-9), was flying at approximately 25,000 feet on a mission from Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, between Seattle and Vancouver, B.C. http://www.ifiberone.com/columbia_basin/pilot-suffering-from-hypoxia-prompts- emergency-landing-at-grant-county/article_4e502552-4929-11e9-9ac1- 172cc58f0398.html Back to Top Deadly ERAU plane crash: Father of student pilot sues Piper Aircraft, claims DAYTONA BEACH - The family of an Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University student killed in a plane crash along with a federal examiner last year when a wing detached from the airplane is suing Piper Aircraft alleging it knew of structural failures in that model since 1987 but failed to warn pilots and owners, or require testing that could have saved lives. Zack Capra, a 25-year-old Navy veteran who was taking his commercial pilot license exam, and Federal Aviation Administration pilot examiner John S. Azma, a father of four, were killed on April 4, 2018, when the left wing came off the Piper PA-28 as they flew west of Daytona Beach International Airport. An ERAU spokeswoman said last week that the university has stopped flying the Piper PA-28. In the April crash, the plane had climbed to 900 feet when radar contact was lost. It crashed in a cow pasture along Tomoka Farms Road near the Daytona Flea & Farmer's Market. "The horror and fear of impending death for pilots from an in-flight breakup of their aircraft cannot be overstated as it is a pilot's worst nightmare come true," according to the wrongful death lawsuit filed by Capra's father, John Charles Capra, who is administrator of his son's estate. John Capra had posted on his Facebook page recent tattoos in honor of his son. One showed an eagle with a scroll with the words "Tailwinds of hope." The other tattoo was a drawing of the blue and white Piper his son was flying compete with its registration, N106ER. Above the plane were the letters "RIP ZMC JSA" and below it were a latitude and longitude. Investigators found cracks consistent with metal fatigue beginning at or near an attachment bolt hole on the left wing spar, a metal piece that bears the load of the wing, according to the National Transportation Safety Board's preliminary report. The right wing also had fatigue cracks at the same location. After the crash the investigators found another Piper PA-28 at the university with a similar crack to the one in the deadly crash. The second plane had just over 7,600 hours of flight time. FAA records showed the plane was registered to the university. The college grounded its fleet of about a half-dozen Piper PA-28s. Jacqueline Carlon, spokeswoman for Vero Beach-based Piper, said the company had just received the lawsuit and declined to comment when reached on Wednesday. "This is a pending lawsuit, we can't respond," Carlon adding it would be addressed the "normal litigation channels." The Piper in the deadly crash had been built in 2007 and also had more than 7,600 hours. It was used exclusively for flight training and had undergone its annual inspection on March 21, 2018, two weeks before the crash. The Piper was being used in a demanding training environment in Florida which is known for rapid development of cumulus clouds that can create turbulence for planes, the lawsuit states, which makes inspections of the planes all the more important. The Piper had endured "no less than seven separate 'hard landing' reports," each requiring a Piper-specified inspection, the lawsuit states, and each time the plane was inspected. But the types of inspections needed to detect the crack in the Piper's wing spar were not done. Such tests were not required despite Piper knowing about the flaw, said Arthur Alan Wolk, of the Wolk Law Firm in Philadelphia which specializes in representing plaintiffs in aircraft crashes, in a phone interview. Wolk is the lead attorney in the case while Jeffrey Bigman is the local counsel. He said Piper models PA-32, a single-engine type like the PA-28, and the PA-34, a twin- engine, also have similar problems. Wolk said that the problem was identified in 1987 but Piper asked the FAA to withdraw an airworthiness directive requiring an inspection to detect the problem without fixing the flaw in the plane. "Well, if nobody does the inspection then nobody finds the problem," Wolk said. "If nobody finds the problem then somebody else is going to die." He added that there were several non-destructive tests that Piper could have required to catch the problem before a wing fell off and pilots and passengers got killed. "For years prior to 1987, Piper knew that more than a hundred PA-28 aircraft had suffered in-flight structural failures resulting in the loss of life of hundreds of occupants," according to the lawsuit. Piper spokeswoman Carlon declined also to respond to the allegations that hundreds had died. Wolk said that the NTSB and Piper about two weeks ago again inspected the wreckage of the Piper in the ERAU crash. He said he hopes that will lead to a new FAA directive to address the problem. The FAA in December published in the federal registry a notice about a proposed air worthiness directive for inspections of the main wing spar on some Piper models "to address the unsafe condition on these products." The deadline for comments was last month and the FAA is reviewing them to determine the next step, wrote FAA spokeswoman Kathleen Bergen. The inspections would be based on service hours and cover PA-28 and PA-32 aircraft. The lawsuit accuses Piper of negligence, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, negligent failure to warn and other violations. The company lobbied the FAA to withdraw the directive for expensive inspections of the plane, the lawsuit states. By doing so, Piper ignored continuing in-flight failures and "it decided unilaterally that some people would have to die if the inspections were not made especially in high time aircraft operated in harsh environments," the lawsuit states. Piper was aware of the crash in 1987 in which the wing fell of a plane doing pipeline patrol, killing the pilot, the lawsuit states. That crash was caused by a crack emanating from a bolt in the wing attachment fitting in a plane with about 7,500 flight hours, the lawsuit stated. The FAA then issued an air worthiness directive for the planes based on conditions which could likely result in structural failure and death. Inspections were conducted on 500 Piper aircraft and the cracks were found on two additional planes. Afterward, Piper lobbied the FAA to withdraw its directive which the FAA did, the lawsuit states. Piper also withdrew its own service bulletin. The lawsuit accuses Piper of knowing pilots were being killed due to problems with the plane. The lawsuit said the fatigue crack in the crash of the ERAU PA-28, also known as Piper Arrows, emanated from the same bolt and location as in the 1987 crash. The lawsuit accuses Piper of "hiding the truth behind wing failures in the PA-28 aircraft" from pilots, owners and operators by requiring confidentiality in litigation. It also accuses the company of violating the public trust by being dishonest about the structural integrity of its aircraft. Had the appropriate effective inspections been recommended by Piper and followed the crack would have been located and he wing repaired and replaced, the lawsuit states. ERAU spokeswoman Ginger Pinholster said the college no longer flies the Pipers. The Pipers were used because they were considered "complex" type aircraft to train on retractable landing gear. But three weeks after the crash, the FAA said pilots need not need to fly a complex type plane for their initial commercial pilot's license. "Last year, the FAA changed its pilot certification standards, which had previously required flight students to work with two particular classes of aircraft. The FAA rule change to the commercial pilot airman certification standards allowed us to remove the "complex" type of aircraft from our curriculum and streamline our overall fleet," she wrote. The FAA notice dated April 24, 2018, does not refer to the crash but it states that requiring a complex type aircraft, a class that includes retractable landing gears and other features, had become cost prohibitive for flight schools. ERAU has 82 aircraft at its campuses in Daytona Beach and Arizona with 66 of those planes being Cessnas. The other planes are Diamonds and American Champion Decathlons. Pinholster said there are no Piper aircraft in the fleet. https://www.news-journalonline.com/news/20190315/deadly-erau-plane-crash-father- of-student-pilot-sues-piper-aircraft-claims Back to Top EASA's Data4Safety partnership programme provides European-wide aviation data exchange and analysis to improve safety EASA, along with key European aviation stakeholders, is running a very innovative safety programme in Europe named Data4Safety. It makes use of the most advanced technologies, such as Big Data & Data Mining, to collect, aggregate and analyse safety data in one platform. This allows to identify and assess systemic safety risks in Europe's aviation. Erick Ferrandez reports. What is the Data4Safety programme? Data4Safety (also known as D4S) is a data collection and analysis programme that will ensure the highest common level of safety and environmental protection for the European aviation system. The programme aims at collecting and gathering all data that may support the management of safety risks at European level. This includes safety reports (or occurrences), flight data (i.e. data generated by the aircraft via the Flight Data Recorders), surveillance data (air traffic data), weather data - but those are only a few from a much longer list. As for the analysis, the programme's ultimate goal is to help to "know where to look" and to "see it coming". In other words, it will support the Performance-based Environment and set up a more predictive system. More specifically, the programme will allow to better know where the risks are (safety risk identification), determine the nature of these risks (risk assessment) and verify if the safety actions are delivering the needed level of safety (performance measurement). It aims to develop the capability to discover vulnerabilities in the system across terabytes of data. A voluntary partnership for aviation safety Highly innovative and ambitious, this programme is not an initiative that EASA contemplates doing alone. As of day one, the idea is to implement an EU-wide partnership with EASA's safety partners. First and foremost, aviation organisations will be fully members of the programme. They are the usual safety partners from the European Aviation Community, namely Airlines, Manufacturers, Air Navigation Service Providers (ANSP), National Aviation Authorities (NAA), Pilots, Airports, Maintenance Organisations, etc. Such a programme is meant to be run with them as they have both the safety data and - as important, the required expertise to analyse and properly interpret the outputs. Ultimately, we all share the same objectives of enhancing safety. EASA's safety partners are meant to be programme members and will be part of the D4S governance. As data owners, they need a system of checks and balances to ensure that their data will be used in an appropriate manner. The Agency has also associate partners from universities and research centres that have developed expertise and savoir-faire on how to use the Big Data and other leading-edge IT technologies/data science methodologies (such as text mining/natural language processing) when applied to aviation data. There is a need to include a considerable amount of research efforts in the programme, but we also rely as much as possible on what has already been done and is available. Taking data collection and analysis to another level Collecting and analysing data is not new in aviation. A number of regulations oblige the different organisations involved in aviation safety to report, collect, analyse safety data such as occurrences or flight data, and act on it. However, each organisation is collecting only a sample of the overall data set available. If you collect a part of the data you will only get a part of the picture. The main innovation with D4S is that, for the first time in Europe, a programme has the ambition to provide the full and complete picture. D4S aims to organise the collection of all the safety data that is currently scattered and fragmented all over the different organisations in Europe. The data will then be integrated into a Big Data platform. Thanks to powerful algorithms and adapted coordination of the experts' work, D4S will permit to efficiently process the data and extract high added-value knowledge nuggets. However, just amassing data could be quite a futile exercise if you are not able to analyse it. Therefore, another novelty is the creation of an analysis platform that will gather aviation experts from all domains and organisations in a way we have never seen before in Europe. The aviation experts will be supported by Data Scientists who analyse and interpret complex digital data and develop the famous algorithms. D4S organisation in practice EASA launched the initial phase called the "Proof of Concept" (PoC) in 2017. The objective is to build a prototype with a limited number of partners and a limited scope (limited set of analytics) to test and demonstrate technical and organisational solutions to successfully run such a programme before launching the operational phase planned for late 2020. The programme Founding Members agreed on a first set of Use Cases (the "outputs") to be implemented during the PoC: a set of Metrics (Safety Performance Indicators) computed based on all aggregated data available i.e. at systemic level, blind- benchmarking visualisations that will provide organisations with the capacity to assess their level of safety performance compared to peer-organisations and two Directed Studies (deep dive "360°" analysis) focusing (1) on the management of Go-Around manoeuvres and (2) on Adverse Weather phenomena and their impacts on the safety of Air Operations. When the next communities of aviation stakeholders will be on-boarded on the programme as it will progressively transition to its operational phase, new potential Use Cases will be discussed and collaboratively selected and specified with them. In particular, for airports, these Use Cases will focus on safety and environmental matters linked to the air operations in departing and arrival areas. Measures of success There are three elements that will be closely monitored and will be good measures of this programme's success. First, our ability to build trust. If the safety partners (and data owners) do not trust that their data are in good hands with D4S - not only secured technically, contractually and legally - but also that the programme will use them for the sole purpose of safety, they will simply not share them. Delivering trust is therefore a priority. On this point, the fact that the founding members have signed the programme charter is already a milestone achievement (i). Second, the programme will have to live up to the expectations of technical delivery. No one will care if we are capable to amass terabytes of data on an IT platform. The measure of success will be assessed by our ability to develop the algorithms that will infer intelligence and knowledge out of the data. Ultimately, this means our ability to discover the vulnerabilities of the aviation system through this programme. Last but not least, this programme must be fully integrated into the European safety system. Indeed, Data4Safety is an enabler, not an objective in itself. The outputs (again, "know where to look" and "see it coming") will be useless if they do not support the processes to decide and implement the relevant safety actions. For instance, D4S must become the main feeder for the EPAS (European Plan for Aviation Safety). Beyond Europe, D4S must also be connected to similar international initiatives. The cooperation with the US counterpart programme (ASIAS) has already been formally established, and we are also in discussion with IATA and others. Erick Ferrandez is Head of Safety Intelligence and Performance Department & Data4Safety Programme Manager at EASA. http://www.airport-business.com/2019/03/easas-data4safety-partnership-programme- provides-european-wide-aviation-data-exchange-analysis-improve-safety/ Back to Top Atlas 767 crash probe strives to comprehend pitch upset US investigators probing the Atlas Air Boeing 767-300 freighter crash have yet to explain fully the initiating circumstances behind the elevator deflection which pushed the aircraft into a fatal dive on approach to Houston. Crucially the National Transportation Safety Board has shifted its immediate emphasis, through the unusual decision to amend its phrasing while detailing preliminary findings. While the NTSB had initially stated that the aircraft had pitched down "in response to column input", it subsequently revised this, saying the downward pitch was the result of "nose-down elevator deflection" - an amendment designed to avoid premature conclusions being drawn over the relation, if any, between actions in the cockpit and the unusual attitude of the aircraft. Although the initial use of the term "column input" might suggest there was a nose- down command of some degree, the NTSB has not clarified the extent of any pressure placed on the yoke - or the reason - nor whether the elevator deflection was in line with the command. Weather radar images indicate that the 767 would have encountered the edges of a band of precipitation as the jet headed west over the north-eastern shore of Trinity Bay. The inquiry says the aircraft, which was being vectored to avoid the heaviest of the weather, appeared to enter a region of turbulence as it briefly levelled at around 6,200ft. Investigators then found that the aircraft, for reasons still unclear, then experienced an increase in engine power to maximum thrust, even though the airspeed was steady at 230kt. The jet pitched upwards, to around 4°, although the NTSB has not specified whether this was a natural consequence of the increased power. There is no evidence of a stall - the stick-shaker was not activated - and the NTSB has not explained whether the subsequent nose-down manoeuvre was a reaction to the pitch-up attitude, an input to continue an expedited descent to 3,000ft previously advised by air traffic control, or attributable to other factors. But the extraordinary transition to a 49° nose-down pitch, which took place over 18s, is central to the inquiry. The NTSB has not specified whether the aircraft was in cloud at the time of the transition, but it had clearly emerged from the cloud base into good visibility during the last few seconds of its descent. With investigators yet to establish conclusively whether there is a connection between control column movements and the aircraft's excessive nose-down attitude, the possibility of a mechanical reason for the elevator deflection is yet to be ruled out. The 767 has previously been the subject of airworthiness directives including measures to prevent corrosion of ballscrew components in the drive mechanism for the horizontal stabiliser, which could potentially lead to loss of stabiliser control. Elevator power control actuators have also been a previous focus of 767 directives; a 2014 bulletin ordered checks to ensure aircraft were not operating with failed shear rivets in the actuator mechanism and to prevent jamming and a possible elevator hardover - which could result in a significant pitch upset. The NTSB has not disclosed any information on the position of the horizontal stabiliser or the condition of the drive mechanism and the elevators' mechanical linkages. But it does indicate that the severity of the dive had lessened as the aircraft descended towards Trinity Bay, with the pitch reducing by some 30°, to around 20° nose-down, before impact. The inquiry has not stated, however, whether this was the result of recovery actions - including column input - in the cockpit, movements of the elevator or stabiliser, or other aerodynamic effects. https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/atlas-767-crash-probe-strives-to- comprehend-pitch-up-456702/ Back to Top UK's Global Aerospace Is Boeing's Lead Insurer Britain's Global Aerospace is the lead insurer for the world's biggest plane maker Boeing Co, the insurer's top boss said on Monday. "I can confirm that Global Aerospace leads Boeing, and also Lion Air," Chief Executive Officer Nick Brown said in an email. He did not give any financial details of the policy. An Ethiopian Airlines passenger jet bound for Nairobi crashed minutes after take-off on Sunday, killing all 157 people on board, raising questions about the safety of the Boeing 737 MAX 8, a new model that also crashed in Indonesia in October. Lion Air was the airline operating the plane involved in the Indonesian crash. Insurers typically form a consortium to share the risks of large claims, with the lead insurer taking a larger proportion of the risk. Willis Towers Watson was the broker for Ethiopian Airlines, while Chubb was the lead insurer, a Willis spokeswoman said earlier on Monday. A Chubb spokesman declined to comment. https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/international/2019/03/11/520157.htm Back to Top Helicopter Services Company PHI Files for Bankruptcy In a widely anticipated move, helicopter offshore services company PHI filed for Chapter 11 protection in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas yesterday. PHI's move was triggered by its failure to repay $500 million worth of unsecured 5.25 percent senior notes due this month. PHI telegraphed a likely bankruptcy filing as early as last October when it terminated a previously announced cash tender offer for the repurchase of those notes and had been under pressure from creditors and investors to sell off its profitable air medical division to satisfy that obligation. PHI said it would continue to operate normally during bankruptcy restructuring with its existing cash and $70 million from a new Wall Street investment firm, Blue Torch Capital. Blue Torch operates a $750 million "Capital Credit Opportunities Fund" that specializes in making high-interest loans to "companies in transition." PHI said the bankruptcy filing includes only its principal U.S. entities and excludes foreign entities in Mexico, Canada, Trinidad & Tobago, Cyprus, Ghana, Israel, Saudi Arabia, the Philippines, Australia, and New Zealand. PHI said it remained in discussion with the holders of its $500 million worth of unsecured notes "to consider alternatives to address PHI's outstanding debt obligations." PHI also is in discussions with various helicopter lessors "to address certain of its above-market lease obligations." The company said it is working on a reorganization plan and hopes to emerge from bankruptcy this summer. PHI operates a fleet of 240 aircraft from 70 locations and employs 2,200 worldwide. PHI's bankruptcy is the third among major helicopter service companies in recent years. CHC Helicopters and Erickson both filed bankruptcy in 2016. Helicopter leasing company Waypoint, which had a large exposure to offshore helicopter services companies, filed bankruptcy last November. Waypoint's assets were later acquired by Australia's Macquarie Group at a steep discount, for $650 million, in a deal announced late last year and that closed this month. https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/general-aviation/2019-03-15/helicopter- services-company-phi-files-bankruptcy Back to Top Airplane Part Suppliers Feel the Pinch of Boeing's 737 Max Crash Part suppliers' shares plunge The Boeing Company isn't the only stock that's feeling the pinch of the March 10 Ethiopian Airlines crash. Airplane part suppliers' shares have also been beaten down in the market in the last two trading sessions. Airplane Part Suppliers Feel the Pinch of Boeing's 737 Max Crash Shares of Spirit AeroSystems (SPR) and Triumph Group (TGI) have fallen 4.7% and 4.4%, respectively, in the last two days. Spirit AeroSystems and Triumph provide aerostructure design and components to Boeing. Shares of Boeing's major jet engine suppliers (XLI), General Electric (GE) and United Technologies (UTX), fell just over 1% yesterday. United Technologies manufactures jet engines through its wholly-owned subsidiary Pratt & Whitney. What's causing this decline? Shares of airplane part suppliers are facing the fallout after governments of several countries banned Boeing's 737 Max 8 plane from entering their airspaces in the wake of the Ethiopian Airlines crash, in which all 157 passengers onboard lost their lives. This crash was the second fatal crash of the same jet model in five months. Before this, a similar model plane operated by Lion Air crashed in the Java Sea on October 29, 2018, killing all 189 people onboard. Both accidents bore some similarities, as the planes crashed soon after takeoff. Therefore, various countries, including China, Australia, Singapore, Indonesia, the European Union, and India, have issued orders for airline operators to keep their fleets of 737 Max 8 jets grounded until further notice. According to a Wall Street Journal report, ~40% of 737 Max 8 planes will stay grounded due to countries banning the model from flying. The Ethiopian Airlines crash may negatively affect Boeing's sales and orders in the near term. On March 12, Bloomberg reported that Lion Air was planning to scrap its $22 billion order for 200 of such aircraft and to make a switch to Airbus. A decline in orders and sales in Boeing's aircraft could negatively affect the financial performances of its key component suppliers, which generate a substantial part of their revenues through their business with the company. https://articles.marketrealist.com/2019/03/airplane-part-suppliers-feel-the-pinch-of- boeings-737-max-crash/?utm_source=yahoo&utm_medium=feed&yptr=yahoo Back to Top GRADUATE RESEARCH SURVEY Participants for a 5-minute survey regarding hypoxia and high altitude chamber training are being sought for a study assessing hypoxia perceptions and experiences related to hypoxia awareness training. To be eligible for participation, you must have previously completed high altitude chamber training. All responses are anonymous and no identifying information will be collected. The study is being conducted by Kasey Stevenson, a graduate student studying Aviation Management and Human Factors at Arizona State University. Kasey's research is being conducted at the Del E. Webb High Altitude Chamber; previously the Williams Air Force Base High Altitude Chamber. The research is being completed with the goal of improving hypoxia awareness and training methods, in an effort to reduce hypoxia-related incidents and accidents. The survey can be accessed at: https://asu.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_ealbH4xwJRL8P2J Back to Top Back to Top Back to Top Call for Papers - ISASI 2019 *** Deadline March 18th *** Future Safety: has the past become irrelevant? The Hague Marriott Hotel & World Forum The Hague September 3 - 5, 2019 Suggested topics for presentations to support the theme may include: * Recent accidents/incidents investigations of particular interest. * Novel investigation techniques for aircraft, helicopter and drone accidents. * Human factors investigation methods, techniques and future developments. * Data investigation methods, techniques and future developments. * Airport investigation methods, techniques and future developments. * Investigator selection, training and future needs. * Lessons learned and potential future developments in recommendations. Presentations must be in English and should be 25 minutes long. There will be an additional 5 minutes for questions at the end of each presentation. If you who would like to submit an abstract, please download and use the ISASI 2019 abstract template, which can be found at: www.ISASI2019.org. Important dates: March 18, 2019 - Last date for receipt of abstracts May 8, 2019 - Presenters informed of acceptance May 22, 2019 - The 2018 Seminar Technical Program will be published July 9, 2019 - Last date for receipt of completed paper and PowerPoint presentations. For questions related to the program: program@isasi2019.org Curt Lewis