Flight Safety Information April 3, 2019 - No. 069 In This Issue Ethiopian Airlines pilots followed Boeing's emergency procedures before crash: report MIT Expert Highlights 'Divergent Condition' Caused By 737 MAX Engine Placement Ethiopian Airlines pilots initially used Boeing emergency procedures before crash: WSJ Faulty 737 Sensor From Lion Air Crash Linked to U.S. Repair Shop Incident: Lufthansa A388 enroute on Apr 2nd 2019, hydraulic fault Incident: S7 A319 at Moscow on Apr 2nd 2019, rejected takeoff due to flock of birds Incident: United A320 at Toronto on Mar 23rd 2019, loss of engine control Incident: Canada A321 at Ottawa on Mar 28th 2019, flock of birds causes engine and hydraulic failure Incident: Indigo A20N at Pune on Apr 2nd 2019, engine problem Incident: Jetstar B788 near Osaka on Mar 29th 2019, both engines temporarily rolled back China is 10 Years Away From Challenge Boeing, Airbus Duopoly of Aviation Industry Removing laptops, liquids at airport security may be ending Amazon And Alibaba Save The Boeing 757 Positions: Director of Audit Programs & Manager of Quality Control HOT-STOP 'L' Helps You Check All the Boxes Call for Nominations For 2019 Laura Taber Barbour Air Safety Award Certificate Courses in Slovenia from SCSI Ethiopian Airlines pilots followed Boeing's emergency procedures before crash: report Boeing 737 Max simulator flight (CNN)Pilots flying Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 initially followed emergency procedures that were laid out by Boeing before the plane nose-dived into the ground, according to preliminary findings reported in the Wall Street Journal. Citing unnamed sources familiar with the investigation, the WSJ reported that despite following the steps, which included turning off an automated flight-control system, pilots could not regain control of the Boeing 737 MAX 8. CNN has not been able to confirm details of the report. Earlier this month, the Federal Aviation Administration agency grounded all Boeing 737 Max planes, saying it had identified similarities between the Ethiopian Airlines crash and the Lion Air crash in Indonesia six months earlier. Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 crashed the morning of March 10 after taking off from Addis Ababa on its way to Nairobi, Kenya, killing all 157 people on board. Lion Air Flight 610 crashed into the Java Sea in Indonesia on October 29 after taking off from Jakarta. All 189 people on board died. Following the Lion Air crash, Boeing issued an "Operations Manual Bulletin" advising airline operators how to address incorrect cockpit readings. It pointed airlines "to existing flight crew procedures to address circumstances where there is erroneous input from an AOA (angle of attack) sensor," a Boeing statement said. If confirmed, the findings reported in the Wall Street Journal suggest that following emergency procedures in the Boeing handbook may not have been sufficient enough to prevent a crash. The reported findings come from a preliminary report that's required by the investigating authority to be produced within 30 days of an incident. The findings are not final and subject to change as the investigation continues. Other reported preliminary findings from data retrieved from the Ethiopian Airlines jet's black box suggest that the flight-control feature, called the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS), automatically activated before the crash. The MCAS is a system that automatically lowers the nose of the plane when it receives information from its external angle of attack (AOA) sensors that the aircraft is flying too slowly or steeply, and at risk of stalling. In the Lion Air crash, the MCAS forced the plane's nose down more than 24 times before it finally hit water, according to a preliminary investigation by Indonesia's National Transportation Safety Committee, which also found the system was responding to a faulty sensor. US pilots who fly the Boeing 737 Max have also registered complaints about the way the jet has performed in flight, according to a federal database accessed by CNN. Investigators have pointed to whether pilots had sufficient training with the system. According to Ethiopian Airlines CEO Tewolde GebreMariam, pilots transitioning to the Boeing 737 Max 8 aircraft from older 737 models were required only to undertake a short computer-based training program prescribed by Boeing and approved by the FAA. GebreMariam also said the flight simulator that pilots trained on to learn how to fly the Boeing 737 Max 8 plane did not replicate the MCAS automated feature that crash investigators are scrutinizing. Pilots' union spokesmen for Southwest and American said the self-administered course -- which one pilot told CNN he took on his iPad -- highlighted the differences between the Max 8 and older 737s, but did not explain the MCAS feature. Boeing has said it is working on a software fix for the 737 MAX jets but the FAA said on Monday that the company concluded "additional work" is needed. "The FAA expects to receive Boeing's final package of its software enhancement over the coming weeks for FAA approval," the agency said in a statement. "Time is needed for additional work by Boeing as the result of an ongoing review of the 737 Max Flight Control System to ensure that Boeing has identified and appropriately addressed all pertinent issues." On Tuesday, a new Senate investigation was launched after whistleblower reports raised questions about whether FAA inspectors who reviewed the Boeing 737 MAX for certification were properly trained. https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/03/africa/ethiopian-airlines-emergency-procedures-intl/index.html Back to Top MIT Expert Highlights 'Divergent Condition' Caused By 737 MAX Engine Placement In this photo taken with a fish-eye lens, a Boeing 737 MAX 8 airplane sits on the assembly line during a brief media tour in Boeing's 737 assembly facility, Wednesday, March 27, 2019, in Renton, Wash. AP Photo/Ted S. Warren Boeing is making airlines nervous -- they're wondering whether it's rushing too fast to get regulatory agencies around the world to approve what it says is the fix to the problems with its 737 MAX -- two of which have crashed since last October -- claiming 346 lives. There are big bucks hanging on how well Boeing handles this challenge. Boeing has $50 billion worth of orders for the 737 MAX, according to the Wall Street Journal. But the global fleet was grounded last month with the FAA being the last of global airline regulators to conclude that the plane should not fly until the suspected cause of those crashes is identified and fixed. But an MIT expert I interviewed sounds confident that Boeing will do the right thing. (I have no financial interest in the securities mentioned in this post). As I wrote last month, the Journal reported that Boeing engineers found that under certain conditions the 737 MAX's engine -- which were larger and located higher and closer to the front -- boosted the chances that the aircraft would tilt upward too steeply -- causing the plane to stall. To offset that risk, Boeing engineers installed a Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) in the 737 MAX "to compensate for the extra pitch up produced by its larger engines at elevated angle-of-attack (AOA)," noted the Journal. If the AOA sensor detected too steep a pitch, the MCAS would elevate the horizontal stabilizer -- the little wings on the airplane's tail -- to push down the nose of the plane. The 737 MAX has two AOAs in its nose that measure air pressure to calculate its pitch. According to Newsy, in the original MCAS design, a signal from just one of the AOA sensors could trigger the MCAS to push down the nose repeatedly. If that AOA was faulty, the MCAS would push the nose down even though the 737 MAX was not actually stalling -- thus sending it into a nosedive. While there is no final conclusion about the cause, a preliminary probe found that this is why Lion Air 610 crashed last October killing all 189 people onboard. According to the Journal In the Lion Air crash, the stall-prevention system, based on erroneous sensor information, repeatedly pushed the plane's nose down. According to a preliminary accident probe, the pilot battled the flight controls while facing a cacophony of alarms before losing control and plunging into the Java Sea. An MIT expert raised a question in my mind of whether Boeing's fundamental design mistake was with the size and placement of the 737 MAX engine. That's because the potential for aerodynamic instability caused by its engine may be inappropriate for passenger aircraft. However, he does not think it is a bad design because the MCAS fixes the pitch up problem. As R. John Hansman, a professor of aeronautics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, told me in a March 28 interview, As I understand it, at high angles of attack the Nacelles -- which are the tube shaped structures around the fans -- create aerodynamic lift. Because the engines are further forward, the lift tends to push the nose up -- causing the angle of attack to increase further. This reinforces itself and results in a pitch-up tendency which if not corrected can result in a stall. This is called an unstable or divergent condition. It should be noted that many high performance aircraft have this tendency but it is not acceptable in transport category aircraft [emphasis mine] where there is a requirement that the aircraft is stable and returns to a steady condition if no forces are applied to the controls. In an April 2 interview Hansman emphasized that Boeing's installation of the MCAS system "fixes the pitch up problem. It is not a bad design." Boeing is proposing a fix to the MCAS which would require that both AOA sensors deliver similar readings -- they must be within 5.5 degrees -- before triggering the MCAS to tip down the nose. Boeing's fix will limit how sharply the MCAS can tip the nose down -- to no more than flight crew can counteract by pulling back on the control column in the cockpit. What's more, the fix would only allow the MCAS to tip down the nose once, rather than repeatedly -- as the current version does -- thus making it easier for pilots to recover, according to Newsy. Hansman suggested that AOA sensors could fail for many reasons including, "Electrical failures such as a short circuit, mechanical failures, a bird strike, icing, software, and/or a maintenance error." He pointed out that "triple redundancy" is standard safety practice for flight critical systems but the MCAS is exempt from this since it's not flight critical. As he explained [There is a fairly low risk that both AOA sensors would fail for the same reason. However,] one of the issues is if one has failed it can be difficult to determine which is correct. In flight critical applications where the airplane cannot fly without the sensor (not the case here as the airplane can continue to fly) it is standard practice to have triple redundancy. This is not always a third identical sensor but sometimes something that can be the tiebreaker. Last week Boeing faced skepticism as its executives tried to calm things down. According to the Washington Post, "They tried to sell a skeptical community of pilots, regulators and airline representatives on the idea that the new software would allay their concerns related to the MCAS system - even as they emphasized that the causes of the two crashes had not yet been firmly established." Peter Lemme, a former Boeing engineer, told the Post that he was glad that Boeing plans to disengage MCAS if the sensors send different signals. While newer Boeing jets have three AOA sensors, Lemme pointed out, the 737 MAX only has two. "If one's wrong, you can't take the average of two, and you can't use the good one, because the computer doesn't know which one is right," Lemme told the Post. Hansman told the Post, "Right now, we know what we are worried about. One of the challenges though is, when you start messing around with software, you have to make sure you haven't created some other problem or failure." But Hansman told me that the problems will ultimately be fixed. There is a standard testing and software validation and verification process that all flight control software must go through. My understanding is that this is in progress. The 737 MAX crashes have not helped [Boeing's reputation] but this is always the case when there is an accident. This case is not dissimilar to the initial problems with the A320 when it initially entered service. Boeing must get the improved software and training material approved by the FAA, EASA and Canadians and get the airplane flying again. There is not a fundamental problem in the design of the aircraft. https://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2019/04/02/mit-expert-highlights-divergent-condition-caused-by-737-max-engine-placement/#1d52d4d940aa Back to Top Ethiopian Airlines pilots initially used Boeing emergency procedures before crash: WSJ SINGAPORE/ADDIS ABABA (Reuters) - The pilots of an Ethiopian Airlines 737 MAX jet that crashed last month had initially followed Boeing Co's emergency procedures but later deviated from them as they tried to regain control of the plane, the Wall Street Journal said on Wednesday. The crash killed all 157 people on board and led to a global grounding of 737 MAX jets and scrutiny of the certification process for the Boeing plane. Boeing had issued guidelines to pilots on how to disable an automated anti-stall system after a deadly crash in Indonesia in October, that were followed by an emergency airworthiness directive by the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The Journal report, citing unidentified people briefed on the matter, said the pilots had initially shut off the MCAS anti-stall system that was pushing the airplane's nose down shortly after it took off from Addis Ababa. The pilots then cranked a manual wheel in an attempt to stabilize the plane, the report said, but they eventually decided to restore power to the usual electric trim on their control yokes, likely because the manual attempt did not achieve the desired results. Reuters could not immediately verify the report. Boeing declined to comment. "We are not commenting on an active accident investigation per international protocols," a Boeing spokesman said. The planemaker said on Monday a proposed software enhancement package to MCAS would be submitted in the "coming weeks", having previously said it would deliver the fix for U.S. approval by last week. A 737 pilot told Reuters last week it was "not physically easy to make large trim changes to correct, say, an MCAS input" by using the wheel. "You - or more than likely the other pilot - have to flip out a little handle and wind, much like a boat winch," the pilot said. The Ethiopian Airlines pilots appeared to have restored power to the electric system to cope with a persistent steep nose-down angle, the paper said. Their actions reactivated MCAS and allowed it to continue its strong downward commands that they were unable to counteract using electric thumb switches, the paper said. The FAA directive after the Indonesian crash had instructed pilots to use cut-out switches in the center console to shut off the electric power to the system. The switches should remain off for the remainder of the flight, the FAA directive said. A preliminary report by Ethiopian investigators is due within 30 days of the March 10 disaster, according to international rules governing crash investigations. Ministry of Transport spokesman Musie Yehyies said there were no plans to publish the report on Wednesday. https://www.metro.us/news/the-big-stories/ethiopian-airlines-pilots-initially-used-boeing-emergency-procedures-crash-wsj Back to Top Faulty 737 Sensor From Lion Air Crash Linked to U.S. Repair Shop By Alan Levin and Harry Suhartono A faulty sensor on a Lion Air 737 Max that's been linked to the jetliner's deadly crash last October and a harrowing ride the previous day was repaired in a U.S. aircraft maintenance facility before the tragedy, according to investigative documents. Accident investigators in Indonesia, home of Lion Air, and the U.S., where Boeing Co., the plane's manufacturer, is based, have been examining the work that a Florida repair shop previously performed on the so-called angle-of-attack sensor, according to briefing documents prepared for Indonesia's parliament. Erroneous signals from that sensor triggered the repeated nose-down movements on the Oct. 29 flight that pilots struggled with until the jet plunged into the Java Sea, killing all 189 people aboard, according to a preliminary accident report by Indonesian investigators. The Lion Air crash and a similar one about five months later involving an Ethiopian Airlines 737 Max together prompted the grounding of Boeing's best-selling jet March 13 and touched off a global rebellion against U.S. aviation regulators. Investigators have focused on the sensor's role in the two disasters. Documents obtained by Bloomberg show the repair station XTRA Aerospace Inc. in Miramar, Florida, had worked on the sensor. It was later installed on the Lion Air plane on Oct. 28 in Bali, after pilots had reported problems with instruments displaying speed and altitude. There's no indication the Florida shop did maintenance on the Ethiopian jet's device. The Indonesian National Transportation Safety Committee is seeking data "from repair station in Florida" where the unit was worked on, the investigative agency said in a briefing to parliament last November and contained in a presentation. "Our thoughts and condolences are with all those who have lost loved ones in the recent 737 Max 8 accidents," XTRA Aerospace, a unit of Wencor Group LLC, said in a written statement. The company, it said, "is fully committed to supporting any investigations into this matter." Nurcahyo Utomo, lead investigator at the Indonesia NTSC, said the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board was conducting a review of the work performed on the sensor, but hasn't yet reported back on its findings. The sensor was made by Rosemount Aerospace Inc., of Minnesota, a subsidiary of United Technologies Corp. United Technologies declined to comment, citing the investigation. The sensor involved in the crash wasn't working from the time it was installed, according to the NTSC's preliminary report on the accident. Angle-of-attack sensors, which operate like a wind vane on the side of a jet, are designed to show how air is flowing relative to where the nose is pointed and alert pilots of a too-steep climb that could result in an aerodynamic stall. In the case of the Lion Air flights, the left-side sensor was showing the nose pointed about 20 degrees higher than was actually the case. It was that erroneous reading that caused an anti-stall computer system to assume the plane was in danger of losing lift and to repeatedly try to push down the nose on the final flight and the one that preceded it, according to the preliminary report that cited information from the plane's crash-proof data recorder. XTRA Aerospace is certified by the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration to perform repairs on multiple Boeing and Airbus SE models, according to its website. U.S. teams assisting the Indonesian investigation reviewed the work by the company to ensure that there weren't additional angle-of-attack sensors in the supply chain with defects, said a person familiar with the work. They didn't find any evidence of systemic issues on other sensors the company may have worked on, said the person, who wasn't authorized to comment on the work and asked not to be identified. Representatives of the NTSB, which is assisting Indonesia and Ethiopia in their crash probes, and the FAA, which is also participating, said they couldn't comment on a foreign accident investigation. A spokesman for Lion Air didn't respond to a request for comment left after business hours. Much of the concern by regulators and lawmakers after the Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines crashes has focused on Boeing's design of the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System, or MCAS, which was programmed to push down a plane's nose to help prevent aerodynamic stalls in some situations. But the preliminary report by Indonesia on the Lion Air crash shows that maintenance and pilot actions are also being reviewed. Repair Stations It's common for licensed repair stations to overhaul older parts so they can be resold, said John Goglia, a former member of the NTSB who earlier worked as an airline mechanic. Airlines can save money buying used parts and U.S. regulations require that the parts meet legal standards, Goglia said. If the sensor was repaired at XTRA Aerospace, "it would have to go through what the manual says to overhaul it," he said. "That means all the steps." The Indonesian preliminary report doesn't say what went wrong with the device but indicates that the plane's maintenance is a subject of the investigation. Even if it was improperly repaired or damaged in transit, the procedure for installation on the plane should catch any problems with the device, according to Charles Horning, chairman of the Department of Aviation Maintenance Science at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Daytona Beach, Florida. "There would definitely be a return-to-service test to verify the installation," Horning said. "That would be the goal of the test, provided the test was done properly." When Goglia was a mechanic working on the 737 and other models, there was a procedure to move a new angle-of-attack sensor on the side of the plane and then check to see if readings in the cockpit were correct, he said. With today's electronic cockpits, mechanics would probably use a testing device that plugs into a computer system, he said. So far, it isn't clear why that required test didn't identify that the part wasn't functioning properly. The 737 Max that crashed in Ethiopia on March 10 also apparently had issues with the same type of sensor, which triggered a safety system on the plane that was driving down the plane's nose, according to people familiar with the accident. In that case, investigators are still attempting to locate one of the sensors to help determine why it malfunctioned, the people said. A preliminary report on that crash has not yet been issued and it could not be learned if the sensors had been previously repaired. Ethiopian Airlines Chief Executive Officer Tewolde GebreMariam has said there were no indications of maintenance issues before the flight. https://www.claimsjournal.com/news/national/2019/04/03/290182.htm Back to Top Incident: Lufthansa A388 enroute on Apr 2nd 2019, hydraulic fault A Lufthansa Airbus A380-800, registration D-AIMK performing flight LH-760 from Frankfurt/Main (Germany) to Delhi (India) with 246 people on board, was enroute at FL390 about 140nm northwest of Tehran (Iran) when the crew decided to return to Frankfurt due to a hydraulic fault. The aircraft descended to FL380 and landed safely back in Frankfurt about 4:15 hours later. The airline reported the aircraft returned due to a technical issue, subsequently confirmed a hydraulic defect. http://avherald.com/h?article=4c62f4dc&opt=0 Back to Top Incident: S7 A319 at Moscow on Apr 2nd 2019, rejected takeoff due to flock of birds A S7 Sibir Airlines Airbus A319-100, registration VP-BTV performing flight S7-23 from Moscow Domodedovo to Saint Petersburg (Russia), was accelerating for takeoff from Domodeovo's runway 32R when the crew rejected takeoff at high speed (about 90 knots) due to a flock of birds ahead. The aircraft slowed safely and returned to the apron. Following inspection by maintenance and brakes cool down the aircraft was able to depart about 70 minutes after the rejected takeoff and reached Saint Petersburg with a delay of 55 minutes. http://avherald.com/h?article=4c62f010&opt=0 Back to Top Incident: United A320 at Toronto on Mar 23rd 2019, loss of engine control A United Airbus A320-200, registration N492UA performing flight UA-1799 from Toronto,ON (Canada) to Denver,CO (USA) with 71 passengers and 5 crew, was in the initial climb out of Toronto's runway 33R when the crew was unable to control the thrust on the left hand engine (V2527). The crew worked the related checklists, shut the engine down and returned to Toronto for a safe landing on runway 33R about 14 minutes after departure. The Canadian TSB reported maintenance replaced the fuel metering unit and the electronic engine control. https://flightaware.com/live/flight/UAL1799/history/20190323/1050Z/CYYZ/KDEN http://avherald.com/h?article=4c62ee64&opt=0 Back to Top Incident: Canada A321 at Ottawa on Mar 28th 2019, flock of birds causes engine and hydraulic failure An Air Canada Airbus A321-200, registration C-GJVX performing flight AC-342 (dep Mar 27th) from Vancouver,BC to Ottawa,ON (Canada) with 170 passengers and 6 crew, was on final approach to runway 32 when the aircraft flew through a flock of birds and suffered multiple impacts causing the number #1 engine (CFM56) to flame out and fail. The crew calmly declared Mayday and continued for a safe landing on runway 32 but became disabled on the runway due to the failure of the green hydraulic system. The aircraft was towed to the apron. The Canadian TSB reported the #1 engine ingested some of the birds, the crew received an "ENG FAIL" ECAM message followed by the flame out of the engine. The aircraft was towed to the apron due to the loss of the green hydraulic system. The occurrence aircraft returned to service after about 82 hours (more than 3 days) on the ground. https://flightaware.com/live/flight/ACA342/history/20190328/0025Z/CYVR/CYOW http://avherald.com/h?article=4c62ed71&opt=0 Back to Top Incident: Indigo A20N at Pune on Apr 2nd 2019, engine problem An Indigo Airbus A320-200N, registration VT-ITG performing flight 6E-134 from Pune to Nagpur (India), was climbing through FL180 when the crew received abnormal indications for one of the engines and decided to return to Pune. The aircraft landed safely back in Pune about 22 minutes after departure. Indigo reported a technical team is inspecting the aircraft following an engine caution message. http://avherald.com/h?article=4c62d72a&opt=0 Back to Top Incident: Jetstar B788 near Osaka on Mar 29th 2019, both engines temporarily rolled back A Jetstar Boeing 787-8, registration VH-VKJ performing flight JQ-15 from Cairns,QL (Australia) to Osaka Kansai (Japan), was descending towards Osaka when the leftt hand engine (GEnx) rolled back for a couple of seconds before recovering. Shortly afterwards the right hand engine rolled back for several tens of seconds and recovered, too. The aircraft continued for a safe landing on Kansai's runway 24R. The aircraft is still on the ground in Osaka on Apr 2nd 2019, about 103 hours after landing. On Apr 2nd 2019 Japan's Ministry of Transport reported the occurrence was rated a serious incident and is going to be investigated. Both engines temporarily lost thrust about 90km/50nm south of Oskala. The JTSB have dispatched three investigators on site and opened an investigation (editorial note: however, the JTSB has not yet published such information on their website, standing Apr 2nd 2019). According to ADS-B data the aircraft was descending through FL200 about 50nm south of Kansai Airport. http://avherald.com/h?article=4c62d4df&opt=0 Back to Top China is 10 Years Away From Challenge Boeing, Airbus Duopoly of Aviation Industry "I think it will take China one or two generations of airplanes to have a truly worldwide competitive product but it's a logical evolution, provided the market size of the country." In the wake of two Boeing 737 MAX crashes in the last five months, increased attention has turned to Comac, the Chinese state-owned aircraft manufacturer also formally known as the Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China. The Ethiopian Airlines crash in March compelled several countries, including China, to ground the Boeing 737 MAX shortly after the plane crashed while en route from Addis Ababa to Kenya's capital Nairobi. However, a recent interview by an aviation industry expert suggested China is ten years away from contending with Boeing and Airbus. Comac's Maiden Voyage in 2017 China's intention to build and fly its own jetliners does not come as a surprise, as the country's first-built passenger airplane C-919 marked its maiden flight in 2017. However, that aircraft will not be able to fly commercially until 2021 due to the length of the process to obtain proper safety certifications. Comac started building the airplane in 2008 and initially postponed its flight debut several times. The Shanghai-based firm partnered with United Aircraft Corp to also develop a wide-body 250-to-320-seat aircraft CR929 for long-distance flights, such as the Beijing-New York route. Currently, Comac's two jetliners the C-919 and ARJ21 are both small size planes. In 2015, the company said it had sent its first ARJ21 plane to a domestic low-cost air carrier. The first C919 is expected to be exported in 2021. It Will Take Time for China's Comac to Compete With Boeing and Airbus The airline industry has long been dominated by manufacturers Boeing and Airbus, but China's inherent market size means Comac could move to one day be a valid competitor. One veteran of the airline industry told CNBC's Martin Soong at the Boao Forum in China that China will need more than a decade to reach the same level as the world's other air carrier giants. "I think it will take China one or two generations of airplanes to have a truly worldwide competitive product but it's a logical evolution, provided the market size of the country," said Bernard Charles, vice chairman and CEO of Dassault Systemes, which sells software to aviation manufacturers. Charles added that aerospace is a vastly complex industry, and even well-established companies need time to gather knowledge to manufacture reliable commercial airplanes. While China is manufacturing its own planes, it still relies on imported airplane components. The country buys aircraft engines from CFM International, a U.S.-French joint venture company. Comac has so far received 500 purchase orders from 23 companies, with China Eastern Airlines as its primary customer. The price of the C-919 aircraft is $50 million, half the price of the Airbus 320 and Boeing 737. However, how safe Comac's jetliners are in comparison to Boeing or Airbus is unknown. It is too early to predict whether China's grounding of the Boeing 737 MAX will benefit the Chinese-manufactured planes. "China has evinced an aggressive reaction to the 737 Max incidents, but a possible Boeing stumble still may not present much of an opportunity for China's nascent aviation industry," explained Brock Silvers, managing director of Kaiyuan Capital. Boeing vs. Airbus: Who Sells More Planes? Boeing booked 690 plane purchase orders from January to November 2018, thanks to its new model 737 MAX, before the Ethiopian Airlines accident. France's Airbus, however, received only 380 requests. Airbus sold 303 units in the first semester of 2018, down one percent compared to the same period in 2017. Last year was Boeing's best, as the company booked more than $100 billion in sales, the first in 102 years. Also, Boeing's shares jumped 31 percent throughout 2018, making it the best performer at Dow Jones. But will the Lion Air's and the Ethiopian Airlines' crashes harm Boeing's business given its long history and dominance of the market? Some analysts predict that two air accidents in the last five months involving the Boeing 737 MAX will not necessarily damage the Chicago-based aircraft maker's business, as Richard Aboulafia, an aviation analyst at Teal Group, told the New York Times. "I've learned from bitter experience not to look at the stock prices in the aftermath of a crash," he said. "It's just all over the place." In regards to the size of the problem at Boeing, Aboulafia added, "If they have to implement a very rapid series of any kind of modification or training procedures, A) they have the resources and B) relative to their revenue base, it's not going to be a disaster." Ethiopian Airlines also said it will continue its partnership with Boeing, despite the worldwide grounding. Before the accident, the air carrier had a positive safety record. https://citizentruth.org/china-is-10-years-away-from-challenge-boeing-airbus-duopoly-of-aviation-industry/ Back to Top Removing laptops, liquids at airport security may be ending The TSA is buying some new scanners that it's been testing the past couple of years. You're a step closer to being able to keep your laptop and liquids in your bag while going through airport security thanks to technology improvements. That could mean faster lines in the not-too-distant future. Bloomberg Government reports the Transportation Security Administration signed a contract last week for 300 new computed tomography (CT) machines which will be placed at airports that have yet to be disclosed. The new machines will cost $97 million. The scanners, which have been tested at a handful of airports for the past two years, create a 3D image of what's in your bag, according to Bloomberg. That means they can be programmed to look for those items you've had to remove since 9/11. The plan is to have more than 2,000 scanners set up in the next eight years, Bloomberg reports. https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/nation-world/removing-laptops-liquids-at-airport-security-may-be-ending/65-cabca3e6-260a-414c-ab33-3d1b3470f7eb Back to Top Amazon And Alibaba Save The Boeing 757 As the mainstream press sizzled with hype and speculation about the cause of the most recent Boeing 737 Max-8 crash, a nostalgic meme circulated in the pilot community: an image of a McDonnell Douglas MD-80 with the tagline, "Miss me yet?" The timing was poignant, since the low-tech MD-80s, once the backbone of the U.S. short-haul fleet, are slated to complete their phased retirement by the end of this year. They are equipped with simple cable-and-pulley-operated controls that have served over 45 million safe flights over the life of the fleet. Most of the sturdy MD-80s will settle into parking lots in the desert, unlikely to re-emerge in one piece. At the same time though, another legacy aircraft, first flown less than three years after the MD-80's first flight, is enjoying a healthy second life. And ironically, it is largely due to the advancing technology of Amazon and Alibaba. One of Amazon cargo delivery fleet parked at an airport on a cloud day. GETTY Boeing's 757 is a large narrowbody that typically seats over 200 passengers and flies almost 4,000 miles at full payload - the traditional middle-of-the market aircraft. Originally launched for the medium-haul routes that made up Eastern Airlines' north-south network and British Airways' intra-European schedule, the aircraft came to be appreciated for its ability to carry just the right number of passengers on longer-haul routes. It was the aircraft that enabled United Airlines to launch its premium transcontinental service out of New York, for example, as well as the aircraft that allowed Continental to open up transatlantic routes to secondary European cities, such as Edinburgh or Hamburg. Now entering their golden years, many of the remaining 640-or-so 757-200s are finding new homes as freighter aircraft. A production freighter version of the 757 proved itself in the UPS fleet starting in 1987, but only 80 OEM freighters were ultimately delivered (mostly to UPS). Since then, several companies have offered conversion programs for the passenger variants. Precision Aircraft Solutions has been converting about 20 aircraft per year for the past several years. FedEx alone took 120 converted freighters, making up just over 25% of its active fleet, while DHL Air operates 25 aircraft. Leipzig Boeing 757-2Q8(PCF) at LPPT, Lisbon airport GETTY More recent 757 freighter conversions have gone to Chinese express carriers. SF Airlines now operates 27 and China Postal Airlines six. These and other Chinese package haulers have continued to add to their fleets. Based on ICF estimates, demand for additional 757 conversions will top 100 units by 2025, meaning that close to half of the entire 757 passenger fleet will ultimately be converted to freighters. With the possible exception of the short-lived MD-11 program, there is virtually no historical precedent for so much of one fleet to be converted from passenger to freighter. Underpinning this demand is a tectonic shift in the global package delivery environment. Last year, global e-commerce retail sales grew by more than 20% to $2.8 trillion As gargantuan as that sounds, e-commerce still makes up only 12% of global retail sales, but is growing fast. In their race to own the consumer, Amazon and Alibaba have each committed to build a global infrastructure capable of delivering packages across the globe in 24-to-72 hours. Popular and industry press has focused on Amazon's investment in a fleet of widebody cargo aircraft called Amazon Air, currently operated under contract by Atlas and ATSG, in which Amazon has taken a 19% stake. There has also been ample coverage of Amazon's proposed new $1.5 billion global hub investment at Cincinnati Airport, and a smaller investment in a regional hub at Fort Worth Alliance Airport, in order to build package sorting and logistics centers that will rival FedEx's famed world hub in Memphis. Now the impact of e-commerce on global logistics is rippling farther across the air cargo ecosystem. Traditionally, air freight has focused on moving cargo from airport to airport in large, consolidated shipments, whether in widebody freighters or the bellies of passenger aircraft. Shippers may pay for speed, but most traditional airfreight enjoys a little wiggle room on timing - a day or two trans-shipment along the way is often acceptable. By contrast, e-commerce demands door-to-door speed from the shipper directly to the ultimate consignee. It must arrive quickly, often without time to build up consolidated pallets. And it demands reliability and transparency at every step. These characteristics favor large networks of narrowbody freighters, much like those operated by FedEx, UPS and SF Airlines. Indeed, just last week it was announced that Amazon Air has contracted for at least five and up to 20 narrowbody freighters, to be operated by the Southern Air subsidiary of Atlas. To be clear, e-commerce also drives demand for consolidated air freight. Amazon Air already counts almost 40 widebodies, with another ten on the way. Through its Caino logistics arm, Alibaba has likewise made arrangements for 747s and other large-capacity lift, with Silkway and Volga-Dnepr. At a time when the U.S. trade deficit has reached nearly $1 trillion, it is not surprising that large cargo airlines like Atlas have taken delivery of new 747-8F freighters. But the e-commerce effect on express cargo is only accelerating. That is why the 757 can enjoy such a successful second life as a narrowbody freighter. In fact, the 757's success as a freighter may ultimately be its own limitation. As demand for conversion feedstock - or, retiring passenger jets - has risen in recent years, so have their prices. Recent deals for used 757 passenger aircraft have topped $9 million - before accounting for the $5 million conversion cost. Knowing that the need for more narrowbody freighters is not going away, several shops have developed new programs for the Boeing 737-700 and -800, and are in the process of developing conversion programs for other narrowbody aircraft, including the Airbus A320 and A321. Max-8 Freighter anyone? https://www.forbes.com/sites/samuelengel1/2019/04/02/amazon-and-alibaba-have-saved-a-legacy-boeing-aircraft-before-will-it-happen-again/#38927b6e5f37 Back to Top Apply Now! - mba is seeking the following candidates: Director of Audit Programs mba is seeking an experienced individual to manage its audit programs with respect to IATA's (International Air Transport Association) IOSA* (IATA Operational Safety Audit) program. The candidate must meet the following requirements, be a self-starter and a leader within the organization. • Must have airline operational and safety experience and be familiar with the IOSA Program. • Be willing to travel globally without restriction to perform audits and attend meetings. • Manage and lead a team of experienced individuals in the performance of aviation safety focused audits. • Manage and develop new opportunities for mba in areas of auditing globally. Manager of Quality Control mba is seeking an experienced mid-career individual to manage its Quality Control function with respect to IOSA* (IATA Operational Safety Audit). The candidate must meet the following requirements, be a self-starter and a leader within the organization. • Must have airline quality control, operational and/or safety experience and be familiar with the IOSA Program. • Be familiar with Quality Control processes and methodology. • Manage and lead a team of experienced individuals in the performance of aviation safety focused audits. APPLY HERE *IOSA is a registered trademark of the International Air Transport Association (IATA). Back to Top Back to Top Call for Nominations For 2019 Laura Taber Barbour Air Safety Award ALEXANDRIA, Va. -- The Laura Taber Barbour Air Safety Foundation is now accepting nominations for the 2019 Laura Taber Barbour Air Safety Award, honoring a leader in global aviation safety. The Award will be presented during the 72nd Annual International Air Safety Summit, taking place Nov 4-6 in Taipei, Taiwan. Presented since 1956, the Laura Taber Barbour Air Safety Award recognizes notable achievement in the field of civil or military aviation safety in method, design, invention, study or other improvement. The Award's recipient is selected for a "significant individual or group effort contributing to improving aviation safety, with emphasis on original contributions," and a "significant individual or group effort performed above and beyond normal responsibilities." Mechanics, engineers and others outside of top administrative or research positions should be especially considered. The contribution need not be recent, especially if the nominee has not received adequate recognition. Nominations that were not selected as past winners of the Award can be submitted one additional time for consideration. Please note that self-nominations will not be considered. The Laura Taber Barbour Air Safety Award's story dates back 74 years. On April 14, 1945, after visiting family in Pittsburgh, Laura Taber Barbour was aboard a Pennsylvania Central Airlines DC-3 when it crashed into the rugged terrain of Cheat Mountain near Morgantown, West Virginia. All passengers and crew were killed. In the years following, her husband, Dr. Clifford E. Barbour and son, Clifford E. Barbour, Jr., established the Laura Taber Barbour Air Safety Award in her honor. The Award Board, composed of leaders in the field of aviation, meets each year to conduct a final review of nominees and selection of the current year's recipient. Please help us honor this year's most deserving recipient. Nominations, including a 1-2-page narrative, can be submitted via the Laura Taber Barbour Foundation website at http://ltbaward.org/the-award/nomination-form/. Nominations will be accepted until May 10, 2019. For more information, including a complete history of Award recipients, see www.ltbaward.org. ABOUT THE LAURA TABER BARBOUR AIR SAFETY AWARD: The Award was established in 1956 through early association with the Flight Safety Foundation and from its founding has enjoyed a rich history of Award Board members, nominees and Award recipients. In 2013, the non-profit Laura Taber Barbour Air Safety Foundation was formed from members of the Award Board, the aviation community and the Barbour family. As the foundation plans to broaden the scope of its intent, with great purpose, the Laura Taber Barbour Air Safety Award will continue to spotlight those champions who pioneer breakthroughs in flight safety. CONTACT: Philip Barbour, 205-939-1700, 205-617-9007 Curt Lewis