Flight Safety Information April 5, 2019 - No. 071 In This Issue Ethiopian crew followed procedures - first official crash report Ethiopia urges Boeing to review controls, backs pilots Ethiopian crash report highlights sensors, software, leaves questions Ethiopia crash raises questions over handling of faults on Boeing 737 MAX Incident: Croatia DH8D near Munich on Apr 4th 2019, APU fire indication Incident: Canada Rouge 763 at Montreal on Mar 29th 2019, gear disagrees 62 per cent of Canadians want independent review of aircraft safety: survey EU MOVES AGAINST SURGE IN UNRULY PASSENGERS NBAA: Some Countries Testing Bizav Crews For Alcohol UAE female pilot vying to head aviation council pledges neutrality in Qatar rift Purdue aviation technology learns from past accidents Ghana obtains Africa's highest score in Aviation Safety More Airlines Are Offering Free Wi-Fi EU delivers Cessna ISR aircraft to Mali PSA Airlines significantly sweetens pilot pay Russian cargo ship completes express flight to International Space Station Upcoming USC Aviation Safety & Security Program Courses MITRE - SMS Course - June 2019 HOT-STOP 'L' Helps You Check All the Boxes Certificate Courses in Slovenia from SCSI Ethiopian crew followed procedures - first official crash report ADDIS ABABA, April 4 (Reuters) - Ethiopian Airlines pilots followed proper procedures when their Boeing MAX 8 airplane repeatedly nosedived before a March 10 crash that killed 157 people, Ethiopia's minister of transport said on Thursday as she delivered the first official report on the disaster. "The crew performed all the procedures repeatedly provided by the manufacturer but was not able to control the aircraft," Dagmawit Moges told a news conference in the capital, Addis Ababa. In line with international rules on air accidents, the preliminary report did not attribute blame. Nor did it give a detailed analysis of the flight, which is expected to take several months before a final report due within a year. But in a clear indication of where Ethiopian investigators are focusing most of their attention, the report cleared the pilots of using incorrect procedures and issued two recommendations directed at planemaker Boeing and regulators. It suggested that Boeing review the aircraft control system and aviation authorities confirm the problem had been solved before allowing that model of plane back into the air. It was grounded globally following the crash, which was the second deadly accident in six months involving the new model after a Lion Air crash in Indonesia in October that killed 189 people. "Since repetitive uncommanded aircraft nose down conditions are noticed ... it is recommend that the aircraft control system shall be reviewed by the manufacturer," Moges said. Ethiopian Airlines said its crew had followed all the correct guidance to handle a difficult emergency. However, the report could spark a debate with Boeing about how crew responded to problems triggered by faulty data from an airflow sensor, particularly over whether they steadied the plane before turning key software off. Boeing said it would study the report. Families of the victims, regulators and travellers around the world are waiting for clues to the accident after the new Boeing jet crashed six minutes after take-off. The preliminary report into the Lion Air disaster said the pilots lost control after grappling with the plane's Manoeuvring Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) software, a new automated anti-stall feature that repeatedly lowered the nose of the aircraft based on faulty data from a sensor. Boeing said on Wednesday it had successfully tested an update of the MCAS software designed to reduce its authority and make it easer for pilots to handle. (Reporting by Jason Neely, Editing by Tim Hepher and Mark Potter) Back to Top Ethiopia urges Boeing to review controls, backs pilots ADDIS ABABA, April 4 (Reuters) - Ethiopian investigators urged Boeing BA.N to review its flight control system and said pilots of state carrier Ethiopian Airlines had carried out proper procedures in the first official findings on the crash of a 737 MAX jet that killed 157 people. The doomed flight repeatedly nosedived as the pilots battled to control the nearly full aircraft before it crashed six minutes after take-off from Addis Ababa in clear conditions, Ethiopian authorities said on Thursday. "The crew performed all the procedures repeatedly provided by the manufacturer but was not able to control the aircraft," Transport Minister Dagmawit Moges told a news conference ahead of the public release of a preliminary report, Investigators are not obliged to publish their 30-page preliminary report but said they expected to do so by Friday. Boeing's top-selling aircraft has been grounded worldwide since the March 10 disaster, which came just five months after a Lion Air 737 MAX crash in Indonesia that killed 189. An initial report into that accident also raised questions about the jet's software, as well as training and maintenance. Families of the victims, regulators and travellers around the world have been waiting for signs of whether the two crashes are linked, and the extent to which Boeing technology and the actions of the Ethiopian Airlines pilots played a role. Ethiopian investigators did not blame anyone for the crash, in line with international rules requiring civil probes to focus on technical recommendations for safer flight. Nor did they give a detailed analysis of the flight, which is expected to take several months before a final report due within a year. But in a clear indication of where Ethiopian investigators are directing the attention of regulators, they cleared the pilots of using incorrect procedures and issued two safety recommendations focused on the recently introduced aircraft. They suggested that Boeing review the flight control system and that aviation authorities confirm any changes before allowing that model of plane back into the air. "Since repetitive uncommanded aircraft nose down conditions are noticed ... it is recommend that the aircraft control system shall be reviewed by the manufacturer," Dagmawit said. The nose-down commands were issued by Boeing's so-called MCAS software. The preliminary report into the Lion Air disaster suggested pilots lost control after grappling with MCAS, a new automated anti-stall feature that repeatedly lowered the nose of the aircraft based on faulty data from a sensor. NO TENSIONS Ethiopian Airlines said its crew had followed all the correct guidance to handle a difficult emergency. However, the report could spark a debate with Boeing about how crew responded to problems triggered by faulty data from an airflow sensor, particularly over whether they steadied the plane before turning key software off. Lion Air has also clashed with Boeing. Questions on whether the pilots had levelled out the plane before disengaging MCAS and how many times the software activated were not answered in a news conference that lasted about 40 minutes. Boeing said it would study the report once it was released. Following a previous Ethiopian Airlines accident off Beirut in 2010, Addis Ababa authorities rejected the conclusions of a Lebanese investigation citing pilot error and suggested the aircraft had exploded in a possible act of sabotage. Officials denied reports of tensions between Ethiopian officials and U.S. and other foreign investigators accredited to the current probe. "We don't have any reservations from different stakeholders who were engaged in the investigations," chief investigator Amdye Ayalew Fanta said. Aviation safety analyst Paul Hayes said deeper investigation would delve into the role played by software and how pilots were able to respond, and said he hoped scars from the 2010 dispute would not get in the way of a comprehensive investigation. "Pilots shouldn't have to cope with such an emergency situation. We need to understand what are the factors that meant these two crews were overcome," said Hayes, safety director at UK-based consultancy Flight Ascend. "It is unusual for there to be a single cause," he added. Boeing said on Wednesday it had successfully tested an update of the MCAS software designed to make it easier to handle. (Reporting by Jason Neely, Editing by Tim Hepher and Mark Potter) Back to Top Ethiopian crash report highlights sensors, software, leaves questions • Captain called out "pull up" three times • Most wreckage buried in ground after six-minute flight • March accident followed Lion Air 737 MAX crash in October • Boeing recommended to review flight control systems • Final report could take a year Transport minister Dagmawit Moges addresses a news conference on the preliminary report on the crash ADDIS ABABA/SEATTLE, April 4 (Reuters) - Faulty sensor readings and multiple automatic commands to push down the nose of a Boeing plane contributed to last month's fatal crash in Ethiopia, leaving the crew struggling to regain control, according to a preliminary accident report. The first substantial account of the last minutes of Ethiopian Airlines flight 302 from Addis Ababa to Nairobi on March 10 described how the captain three times called out: "Pull up" and was acknowledged by the first officer, but to no avail. Boeing's top-selling aircraft, the 787 MAX, has been grounded worldwide since the March 10 disaster, which killed 157 people and came just five months after a Lion Air crash in Indonesia that killed 189 in a plane of the same model. Families of the victims, regulators and travellers around the world have been waiting for signs of whether the two crashes are linked, and the extent to which Boeing technology and the actions of the Ethiopian Airlines pilots played a role. The doomed flight crashed six minutes after take-off from Addis Ababa in clear conditions. "Most of the wreckage was found buried in the ground," said the report by the Ethiopian Civil Aviation Authority's Accident Prevention and Investigation Bureau published on Thursday. It recommended that Boeing review its flight-control systems and that regulators properly verify the review. Ethiopian Transport Minister Dagmawit Moges told a news conference in the Ethiopian capital the crew had performed all the procedures recommended by Boeing, but safety experts said this was likely to spark debate with U.S. regulators and Boeing. Boeing said its coming software fix for the anti-stall system that pushes down the plane's nose would give pilots the authority to always override the system if activated by faulty sensor data. "I'd like to reiterate our deepest sympathies are with the families and loved ones of those who lost their lives in the accident," said Boeing Commercial Airplanes President and Chief Executive Kevin McAllister. "We will carefully review the AIB's preliminary report, and will take any and all additional steps necessary to enhance the safety of our aircraft." QUESTIONS RAISED The report leaves unanswered questions, some experts said, such as why the plane's trajectory did not respond to pilot and automatic commands including two final nose up commands from the pilots about 30 seconds before the plane crashed. "Those should literally follow each other," said one U.S.-based expert, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter. "I think this is a more complex problem than what we initially thought." Questions have also been raised over whether crew followed guidance not to restore power to a troublesome anti-stall system following the sensor damage, possibly caused by a bird strike. The plane was also set to unusually high thrust, data suggested. A final report by Ethiopian authorities aided by air-safety experts from the United States and Europe is due to be published within a year. Some pilots expressed disquiet that following Boeing's checklist for the malfunction had not appeared to work. "If the preliminary report from the Ethiopian authorities is accurate, the pilots quickly identified the malfunction and applied the manufacturer's checklist. Following this checklist did not appear to allow the pilots to regain control of the aircraft," said Captain Jason Goldberg, spokesman for Allied Pilots Association, which represents American Airlines pilots. The Federal Aviation Administration, which has come under fire over the way it decided to certify the plane and its so-called MCAS anti-stall software, cautioned the investigation had not yet concluded. "We continue to work towards a full understanding of all aspects of this accident. As we learn more about the accident and findings become available, we will take appropriate action," the U.S. agency said in a statement. Southwest Airlines Co LUV.N and American Airlines Group Inc AAL.O, the two largest U.S. operators of the MAX with 34 and 24 jets respectively and dozens more on order, each said on Thursday that they continued to await guidance from U.S. regulators and Boeing on when the MAX could resume flying. Ethiopian investigators did not blame anyone for the crash, stressing the importance of international rules requiring civil probes to focus on recommendations for safer flight. Most accidents take months of analysis because of the need to trace backwards to find a root cause from tangled evidence. "There is a big difference between having the data and knowing the cause," a senior European investigator said. Officials denied reports of tensions between Ethiopian officials and U.S. and other foreign investigators accredited to the probe. "We don't have any reservations from different stakeholders who were engaged in the investigations," chief investigator Amdye Ayalew Fanta said. Following a previous Ethiopian Airlines accident off Beirut in 2010, Addis Ababa authorities rejected the conclusions of a Lebanese investigation citing pilot error and suggested the aircraft had exploded in a possible act of sabotage. Aviation safety analyst Paul Hayes said deeper investigation would delve into the role played by software and how pilots were able to respond, and said he hoped scars from the 2010 dispute would not get in the way of a comprehensive investigation. "Pilots shouldn't have to cope with such an emergency situation. We need to understand what are the factors that meant these two crews were overcome," said Hayes, safety director at UK-based consultancy Flight Ascend. "It is unusual for there to be a single cause," he added. (Writing by Katharine Houreld, Tim Hepher and Georgina Prodhan; Additional reporting by Maggie Fick, Jamie Freed, David Shepardson, Alwyn Scott and Tracy Rucinski; Editing by Mark Potter) Back to Top Ethiopia crash raises questions over handling of faults on Boeing 737 MAX SINGAPORE, April 4 (Reuters) - Ethiopia's insistence that its pilots followed procedures when their Boeing Co BA.N 737 MAX nosedived before a deadly crash, and Boeing's recent declaration that a new software fix makes a "safe plane safer," have set the stage for a lengthy fight over the roles of technology and crew in recent 737 MAX crashes. After a deadly Lion Air crash in October, Boeing and the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration told airlines what to do in the event that an erroneous sensor reading fooled the jet into thinking it was in a stall and pushed the nose down. The Ethiopian Airlines pilots initially followed the advice to shut off the MCAS anti-stall system but later reversed the command counter to guidance at a time when they were travelling beyond maximum operating speeds, according to data contained in a preliminary report released on Thursday and experts on the jet. WHAT ARE THE PROPER PROCEDURES? If MCAS misfires, forcing the nose down in a manoeuvre similar to a condition that pilots know as runaway trim, pilots are supposed to hit two cut-out switches at the plane's centre console to turn off power to the electric trim system. Under normal circumstances, trim is used to keep an aircraft flying level, but the MCAS makes automated nose-down movements. Data from the Ethiopian Airlines flight indicates the aircraft was flying nose-heavy and not in a "neutral" attitude when pilots hit the stabilizer cutout switches to disable the MCAS system, the preliminary report showed. That would make the situation harder to manage, possibly accounting for their decision to turn the system back on. Boeing's checklist for pilots tells them to "control airplane pitch attitude manually with control column and main electric trim as needed" before hitting cut-out switches and turning to a rarely used manual wheel to keep the plane's nose in the proper position. It does not describe a specific trim setting for the pilots to achieve. WOULD THE PROCEDURES WORK? Experts are questioning whether the procedures outlined after the Lion Air crash were comprehensive enough to ensure pilots could recover from a real-life cockpit emergency with several distractions at a low altitude shortly after take-off rather than in a pre-planned simulator ride. A 737 MAX pilot said the resistance on the control yoke would be about four times normal and it could take a few dozen turns of the manual wheel to return the nose to the proper position, depending on the alignment when the switches were cut. The preliminary report indicates the pilots tried to move their wheels together but were unable to raise the nose much at all by doing so. "It appears the flight crew reactivated electric trim," former Boeing engineer Peter Lemme said. "But they only made a very small nose up adjustment - I would have expected them to immediately and without stopping move the stabilizer back into trim. The last MCAS command comes 5 seconds after their last manual trim command." WHY COULDN'T THEY RAISE THE NOSE MANUALLY? The proper response to MCAS emergencies, Leeham Co analyst Bjorn Fehrm said, is to correct the dangerous nose-down "trim" using electronic thumb switches, then turn off MCAS and trim manually with the wheel. But if the aircraft is going too fast, those electronic switches may not be effective, European regulators said in a 2016 memo. And failing to fully fix the trim before MCAS is deactivated can make it physically impossible for pilots to control the plane, Fehrm said. Under normal circumstances, trim is used to keep an aircraft flying level. At speeds up to 250 knots (288 mph) pilots can stabilise trim with the manual wheel. But when the speed rises towards 300 knots and higher, the wheel becomes impossible to turn as air rushing over control surfaces makes them harder to move, Fehrm said. At the time when both pilots were unable to move the wheel, they were travelling at over 340 knots, the maximum operating speed of the airplane and clacker alarms were sounding. By the end of the fatal flight they had reached 500 knots. WHY WAS THE ETHIOPIAN JET GOING SO FAST? The plane's engines were at 94 percent thrust on take-off and remained there for the rest of the flight. That is consistent with the pilots leaving the thrust setting in take-off mode throughout, aviation experts said. The 737's air data computer also uses angle-of-attack (AOA) information to adjust airspeed readings. If it mistakenly thinks the angle of attack is high, it can trigger pilot warnings that airspeed and altitude data are unreliable on one of the pilot's controls, according to former Boeing engineer Peter Lemme. That leads to an unreliable airspeed checklist which involves turning off the autothrottle as well as setting engine thrust to 75 percent. The runaway stabilizer checklist to shut off MCAS also says to turn off autothrottle. However, according to the flight data recorder, the pilots never reduced the thrust from 94 percent. "The report does not address information about unreliable airspeed procedures which should be considered because they had erratic airspeed," said Greg Feith, a former senior air safety investigator with the National Transportation Safety Board. (Reporting by Jamie Freed; additional reporting by Tim Hepher in Paris, Eric M. Johnson in Seattle and David Shepardson in Washington; Editing by Gerry Doyle and Alexandra Hudson) Back to Top Incident: Croatia DH8D near Munich on Apr 4th 2019, APU fire indication A Croatia Airlines de Havilland Dash 8-400, registration 9A-CQF performing flight OU-4456 from Zagreb (Croatia) to Brussels (Belgium) with 31 people on board, was enroute at FL240 about 25nm south of Linz (Austria) when the crew received an APU Fire indication and decided to divert to Munich (Germany), about 110nm from their present position. On approach to Munich the crew advised that the fire indication had ceased. The aircraft landed safely on Munich'S runway 26L, vacated the runway and stopped for an inspection by emergency services, who did not find any evidence of fire, heat or smoke. The aircraft taxied to the apron. The aircraft is still on the ground in Munich about 5 hours after landing. http://avherald.com/h?article=4c643546&opt=0 Back to Top Incident: Canada Rouge 763 at Montreal on Mar 29th 2019, gear disagrees An Air Canada Rouge Boeing 767-300, registration C-FMWQ performing flight RV-1609 (dep Mar 28th) from Fort Lauderdale,FL (USA) to Montreal,QC (Canada) with 132 passengers and 8 crew, was on approach to Montreal's runway 24L when the crew selected the gear down but received "GEAR DISAGREE" and "TAILSKID" EICAS indications. The crew initiated a missed approach, worked the related checklists and declared PAN PAN. The aircraft landed safely on runway 24L about 15 minutes after the go around. The Canadian TSB reported maintenance identified relay 904 was faulty and replaced it. https://flightaware.com/live/flight/ROU1609/history/20190329/0135Z/KFLL/CYUL http://avherald.com/h?article=4c64337a&opt=0 Back to Top 62 per cent of Canadians want independent review of aircraft safety: survey Nearly two thirds of Canadians believe the country's aviation authority should conduct its own testing on passenger aircrafts instead of accepting the U.S. safety reports, according to a new survey. The findings, commissioned by CTV News and conducted by Nanos Research, randomly questioned 1,000 Canadians both online and over the phone and found 62 per cent of respondents believe the government should conduct its own independent safety reviews, compared to 30 per cent who believe Canada should continue to accept the U.S. inspections. This comes just weeks after the Canadian government said it would independently investigate the Boeing 737 Max 8 aircraft following a pair of deadly crashes involving the planes. An Air Canada Boeing 737 Max aircraft arriving from Toronto prepares to land at Vancouver International Airport in Richmond, B.C., on March 12, 2019. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Darryl Dyck On March 10, a Ethiopian Airlines Max 8 crashed shortly after takeoff from Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, killing all 157 people on board, including 18 Canadians. Five months earlier, a Lion Air Max 8 crashed into the Java Sea, killing 189 people. Under an international agreement, planes must be certified in the country in which they're built and other countries rarely question the results. Following the two crashes however, critics have raised concerns about the practice in part due to the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration's relationship with Boeing. Canada officially grounded the Max 8 planes on March 13 pending an investigation into the crashes. Air Canada has said it intends to keep the planes grounded until at least July 1. The majority of Canadians, according to the survey, have not lost trust in the Canadian regulatory process. Fifty-four per cent of respondents said their level of confidence in the products and vehicles that have been certified by the government has stayed the same compared to five years ago, while two per cent of respondents said their confidence increased. On the other hand, Canadian confidence in the Boeing Max 8 appears to be waning. Forty-two respondents said they would feel at least "somewhat uncomfortable" flying in the aircraft once it's fixed and 67 per cent of respondents are least somewhat likely to check the type of plane they will be flying when travelling. METHODOLOGY Nanos conducted an RDD dual frame (land-and cell-lines) hybrid telephone and online random survey of 1,000 Canadians, 18 years of age or older, between March 29 and April 1, 2019 as part of an omnibus survey. Participants were randomly recruited by telephone using live agents and administered a survey online. The sample included both land-and cell-lines across Canada. The results were statistically checked and weighted by age and gender using the latest Census information and the sample is geographically stratified to be representative of Canada. Individuals randomly called using random digit dialling with a maximum of five call backs. The margin of error for a random survey of 1,000 Canadians is ±3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20. This study was commissioned by CTV News and the research was conducted by Nanos Research. https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/62-per-cent-of-canadians-want-independent-review-of-aircraft-safety-survey-1.4366404 Back to Top EU MOVES AGAINST SURGE IN UNRULY PASSENGERS. Unruly passenger incidents in the European Union soared by 34 percent in 2018 to the point where the safety of a flight was threatened once every three hours. The European Union Aviation Safety Agency says one a month the situation escalates to the point where an aircraft has to make an emergency landing. More than 70 percent of all incidents involve physical aggression. Now it has launched a new campaign, #notonmyflight, to gather popular support against the trend. The campaign is being conducted in association with airlines and airports, including Ryanair, KLM and easyJet. "These incidents have a direct impact on both the safety of crew and of passengers," EASA said in launching the campaign. " Any kind of unruly or disruptive behavior whether related to intoxication, aggression or other factors introduces an unnecessary risk to the normal operation of a flight. "An intoxicated person will not be able to follow safety instructions when needed, aggressive behavior distracts the crew from their duties. "Physical violence results in injury and it's a traumatic experience for everybody on board and if a member of the crew gets injured, their capacity to act in case of an emergency is reduced." EASA says unruly behavior includes: • Excessive drinking during or before the flight • Use of drugs or mixing them with alcohol during or before the flight • Not complying with crew instructions • Being violent both verbally and physically • Distracting the cabin crew from their duties Even though the proportion of unruly passengers is small compared to the vast number of travelers, the safety agency says the rise in serious unruly passenger behavior is a great concern to the aviation community and particularly to airlines. "Every passenger and cabin crew member has the right to a safe flight, free of violence and other behaviors that might put them at risk," it says. "Travelling should be an enjoyable experience where passengers treat each other and the cabin crew with the respect that they deserve." https://www.airlineratings.com/news/eu-moves-surge-unruly-passengers/ Back to Top NBAA: Some Countries Testing Bizav Crews For Alcohol Business aviation pilots and cabin crews are facing a new level of scrutiny in some countries as authorities begin testing them for alcohol consumption during ramp inspections at airports, according to NBAA. After meetings last week with EASA in Cologne, Germany, NBAA learned that officials in the Netherlands, Germany, and Japan have already begun the testing while officials in Singapore started on March 31 at Changi (SIN) and Seletar (XSP) airports. Brian Koester, NBAA senior manager of flight operations and regulations, told AIN on Wednesday that those countries are "ahead of the curve" on a new EASA requirement that takes effect in August 2020 calling for random alcohol testing of non-commercial flight and cabin crews during safety assessment of foreign aircraft (SAFA) inspections. Koester said 49 countries are signatory participants in the SAFA inspection program. "It sounds like anyone who is subject to a SAFA inspection is subject to this," he added. Testing stems in part from the 2015 Germanwings accident and other incidents that pointed to alcohol, drugs and mental health issues as contributing factors, Koester said. Crews will be tested by breathalyzer, and results that are more than 0.02g of alcohol per 210 liters of breath are considered positive. In the event of a positive breathalyzer, the crewmember will be relieved of duty and tested a second time. Two positive results will result in the notification of the aircraft operator and, potentially, local law enforcement, NBAA said. "The other thing that comes up here is sort of what happens if I just used mouthwash and there's a false positive of some sort?" Koester explained. "Most of these countries have a 0.02 threshold...and that accounts for that use of mouthwash, or if there's a medication that may indicate a false positive, or whatever else it may be, system error, calibration error, that sort of thing. Again, I don't think this is going to be an issue for most folks-hopefully all folks." It is Koester's understanding that the testing will be done in private. "They want to make sure it's not conducted in view of the public, in view of the passengers," he noted. "They don't want to cause alarm or damage the reputation of the pilot or the air carrier, so they're sensitive to that sort of thing." https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/business-aviation/2019-04-03/nbaa-some-countries-testing-bizav-crews-alcohol Back to Top UAE female pilot vying to head aviation council pledges neutrality in Qatar rift Captain Aysha Al Hamili ABU DHABI/MONTREAL (Reuters) - A United Arab Emirates female pilot running to head the U.N. aviation agency's governing council said she is capable of playing a "bridging role" in trying to resolve an air dispute between several Gulf states and Qatar. In 2017, the UAE, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Egypt cut political, economic and transport ties with Qatar, accusing it of supporting terrorism. Qatar denies the accusations. Last year, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) tried to facilitate talks between Qatar and its neighbors to defuse tensions over alleged airspace violations. The dispute is now before the International Court of Justice. Aysha al Hamili, the UAE's first female pilot and its representative at the ICAO, also said on Wednesday in Abu Dhabi that any president of the 36-member council should recuse himself or herself from a dispute if there were a hint of bias. "I will always try to play this bridging role and hope this dispute will end in the near future," she said of Qatar. Montreal-based ICAO cannot impose binding rules on governments, but wields clout through its safety and security standards which are approved by its 192 member states. Al Hamili's candidacy to become ICAO's first female council president has raised questions among some members on how a leader from the UAE would broker strained relations between Qatar and its Gulf neighbors, including her own country, a source familiar with the matter said. She is running against Salvatore Sciacchitano, the head of delegation for Italy at ICAO, a member of the agency's Italian mission in Montreal said. If elected president of the 36-member council during ICAO's assembly from Sept. 24 to Oct. 4, al Hamili said she would maintain neutrality with Qatar. "I expect a neutral president and as a council member If I see a bias I will right away ask the president to recuse himself," she said. "We should focus that whoever is in that seat, is a neutral person." Qatar's ICAO representative Essa Almalki said by email he welcomed al Hamili's comments, adding that Doha hopes "to find a quick solution" with the four countries and remove restrictions on Qatar-registered aircraft. However, Almalki added that Qatar has not "seen the slightest inclination" on the part of the UAE as represented by al Hamili toward resolving the dispute, "so we would be surprised if her election to the presidency of the ICAO Council would or could have a positive impact on the removal of the prohibitions." https://www.streetinsider.com/Reuters/ Back to Top Purdue aviation technology learns from past accidents Purdue will get a level D flight simulator soon, which will allow students to feel how a plane will respond to their commands without students having to leave the ground. On March 10, a months-old Boeing 737 MAX airplane flown by Ethiopian Airlines crashed shortly after takeoff, killing all those onboard. The crash occurred only five months after another new 737 MAX flown by Lion Air crashed under similar circumstances. An automated system used to prevent the 737 MAX from stalling, known as Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System, is largely suspected with causing both crashes. Both accidents have brought back concerns that pilots are now dependent on automated systems. So how does the Purdue professional flight program, one of the best aviation programs in the country, address this issue? As the aviation industry evolves in response to occurrences like the recent Boeing 737 incidents, so does Purdue Aviation. The professional flight program uses a combination of newer technologies, case studies, database research and new foundational training techniques in order to further improve pilot training. Seniors complete a capstone project where they create new, more complex simulator lessons by examining case studies. Furthermore, the professional flight program will soon get a level D simulator. The level D categorization will allow students to feel how a plane will respond to their commands without students having to leave the ground. As part of the professional flight program's ongoing improvements, Curtis Taylor, a master's student in aviation technology, did an analysis on autopilot failures reported to the Aviation Safety Reporting System, a database of flight incidents that tracks anonymous, pilot-reported incidents. Taylor focused on general aviation flights, which exclude flights run by airlines and the military. He found that while autopilot failures are uncommon, they do occur. "We found that from January 2007 to December 2018, there were 161 total incidents that involved automation," Taylor said. In 73 of the incidents, the pilots reported autopilot dependency as the cause of the incident. Exactly 34 of the incidents were reported as an autopilot malfunction, 42 were attributed to air traffic control and 12 to lack of familiarity with the system. Even though this study excluded airline incidents, an Air France accident in June 2009 was a prime example of autopilot dependency in large commercial airlines. The Air France plane fell 38,000 feet, killing all 228 people onboard, after its autopilot unexpectedly disengaged. So how does the Purdue professional flight program prevent autopilot dependency? The program starts out by teaching students the fundamentals. "The first couple flights you're gonna learn the four fundamentals," said Logan Karsteter, a senior in professional flight. "You learn straight and level flight, and then your turns, your climbs, your descents. Just the basics of flying." Students are introduced to and tested on autopilot as sophomores during their instrument training class. "Once we get into what we call the instrument training, that's when we start introducing basic autopilot automation, whether it's lateral navigation or vertical navigation using autopilot," said Julius Keller, assistant professor in aviation technology. However, while the professional flight program teaches the fundamentals of flight and autopilot systems, a large part of the curriculum focuses on human-machine interaction and the human factors behind piloting. "What we have to do, as educators training pilots, is to let them know that you have to stay in the loop of automation because it's easy to get distracted," Keller said. "It's easy to become complacent, because you're trusting that the automation is doing what it's supposed to do. And the research shows that the more pilots stay within this loop of following the aircraft and knowing exactly what it's doing that if it were to fail or something wasn't programmed right, you can catch it in time and be able to make the necessary adjustments and continue the flight safely." Professional flight students must also learn to hand-fly the plane under a variety of airplane failures using simulators. "They will hand-fly an approach with engine failure, hand-fly an approach with systems failure," Keller said. "That's the way that we can get them into that decision-making process, get them comfortable with flying with inoperative equipment and making sure that they have the mental mind state to land the aircraft safely." This prevents students from becoming dependent on autopilot and makes it easier for them to respond to stressful situations. While incidents like the 737 MAX accidents are rare, the aviation industry is continuously evolving to prevent similar occurrences. "When incidences or accidents happen, as safety professionals in the industry, we try to understand these not only from a reactive standpoint and how to fix it, but being proactive," Keller said. "And it's an exciting place to be now that we've got all this data and bringing that all together. https://www.purdueexponent.org/campus/article_d67ada28-9e9b-532b-a80b-c6481c040bbd.html Back to Top Ghana obtains Africa's highest score in Aviation Safety Terminal 3 Kotoka International Airport Ghana recorded a substantial improvement across all eight Critical Elements Ghana obtained a provisional Effective Implementation (EI) rate of 89.89 percent, the highest by an African country, after the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) concluded its Coordinated Validation Mission (ICVM) in line with the United Nations aviation agency's Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme (USOAP). The rating comes after a nine-day follow-up onsite activity by a four-member team of experts from ICAO to validate corrective measures undertaken by Ghana following a USOAP audit in November 2006. The final rating will be communicated to Ghana within six-weeks after validation of the provisional score by ICAO. Recognizing this landmark achievement by Ghana, Minister for Aviation, Joseph Kofi Adda, stressed the need for the Ghana Civil Aviation Authority (GCAA) to immediately develop an action plan towards the implementation of corrective measures that have been recommended by the ICAO team. "Ghana's air transport industry enjoys strong government support, which is a crucial determinant for the aviation sector's ability to maintain an ICAO compliant regulatory framework and to achieve accelerated sustainable growth of the sector in the years ahead," declared Adda. The Minister further underscored that in line with President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo's vision of re-positioning Ghana as the sub-region's Aviation hub, Parliament recently passed the Ghana Civil Aviation (Amendment) Act, 2019 (Act 985) together with the Legislative Instrument on Aircraft Accident and Serious Incident Regulations,2019 (LI 2375) to ensure enhanced compliance with ICAO's Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPS). Speaking at a debriefing session on the ICVM, the Director-General of GCAA, Ing. Simon Allotey, reaffirmed the Minister's remarks, noting that "this enviable milestone is a reflection of the robustness of our safety oversight system which ultimately translates into improved safety of airline operations." "By adhering to ICAO's SARPS related to safety oversight, GCAA effectively ensures that aviation service providers and airline operators maintain an acceptable level of operational safety." The ICVM assessed Ghana's safety oversight system on all eight ICAO Critical Elements (CEs), namely: Primary Aviation Legislation; State Operating Regulations; State Civil Aviation System and Safety Oversight Functions; and Technical Personnel Qualification and Training. The other CEs that were validated included Technical Guidance, Tools and the Provision of Safety-Critical Information; Licensing, Certification, Authorization and Approval Obligations; Surveillance Obligations; and Resolution of Safety Concerns. Ghana recorded a substantial improvement across all eight CEs, and the team from the UN specialised aviation agency identified no significant safety concerns (SSCs). "Our performance of 89.89% is world-class and places Ghana at the top spot in Africa in terms of safety oversight, considering that the average EI rate on the continent stands at 52 percent, which is lower than the global average of 66.5 percent and below ICAO's current minimum target of 60 percent," Ing. Allotey continued. The Director-General expressed gratitude to the Ministry of Aviation, Board of Directors, Management and staff of GCAA for the successful outcome of the ICVM, and to the members of the ICAO team for the professionalism, objectivity and cooperation exhibited throughout the process. https://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/business/Ghana-obtains-Africa-s-highest-score-in-Aviation-Safety-735983# Back to Top More Airlines Are Offering Free Wi-Fi Air New Zealand has become the latest airline to offer free, unlimited Wi-Fi to passengers onboard their aircraft. As airlines start to "unbundle" features like seat selection and free checked bags, more are adding free Wi-Fi - suggesting that staying connected is a non-negotiable for today's travelers. There are several different approaches to bringing Wi-Fi to passengers. Already, JetBlue offers free Wi-Fi for passengers. Delta's CEO made an announcement this month that the airline plans to offer free unlimited Wi-Fi to passengers within the next year or two. Southwest, Alaska and Delta already offer free messaging (on apps like iMessage, Whatsapp and Viber) via Wi-Fi, but passengers must pay for browsing capabilities. Other airlines like Qatar Airways and Philippine Airlines offer free Wi-Fi, but it can be limited by time or data usage. Other airlines like Turkish and Scandinavian Airlines keep free Wi-Fi reserved as a perk for frequent fliers. After a three-month test of free Wi-Fithis link opens in a new tab, Air New Zealand decided to expand the experiment. However, those flying with the airline may not have immediate free Wi-Fi access. It will be available on the airline's new Airbus A320neo and A321neo aircraft. But Air New Zealand said it could take through the rest of the year to install free Wi-Fi capabilities on its older aircraft. The switch to free Wi-Fi reflects a switch in an airline's business strategythis link opens in a new tab. Charging for Wi-Fi access means that airlines consider this service an add-on, that business travelers will pay any price for (likely because they are not footing the bill). But when an airline offers Wi-Fi for free, that means that consider it a "differentiator," or something that will draw passengers to choose their service rather than a rival airline's. And, with today's ever-connected travelers, it seems to be a winning strategy. https://www.travelandleisure.com/travel-news/air-new-zealand-more-airlines-adding-free-wifi Back to Top EU delivers Cessna ISR aircraft to Mali The Malian Air Force received a Cessna 208 Caravan aircraft configured for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) on 2 April, the European Union and Armed Forces of Mali (FAMa) announced. The Cessna 208 ISR aircraft handed over to Mali by the EU on 2 April 2019. (EUTF for Africa) The Cessna was donated to Mali by the EU as part of its ongoing Programme of Support for Enhanced Security in the Mopti and Gao Regions and for the Management of Border Areas (PARSEC Mopti-Gao). The EU valued the aircraft, its sensors, and personnel training programme at EUR5 million (USD5.6 million). It said it was handed over at Bamako Sιnou Air Base 101 but would operate from Mopti-Sιvarι airport, the location of the FAMa's Air Base 102. No information on the sensor suite was disclosed but photographs released by the EU showed the Cessna 208 fitted with an electro-optronic payload on the left side of its fuselage. While it presumably has an onboard control station, it is unclear if a ground control station has been delivered and whether the aircraft has a datalink for live transmission of imagery captured by its sensor. https://www.janes.com/article/87682/eu-delivers-cessna-isr-aircraft-to-mali Back to Top PSA Airlines significantly sweetens pilot pay PSA Airlines is a wholly-owned subsidiary of American Airlines. PSA Airlines, headquartered in Vandalia, Ohio, has taken the unusual step of raising wages for pilots in the middle of a contract that does not become amendable until 2023. PSA operates a number of regional flights for American Eagle, the regional arm of American Airlines (NASDAQ AAL), which has its third-largest hub at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport. PSA is wholly owned by AA. The revamped contract calls for up to $12-per-hour pay increases for all PSA pilots. First-year first officer pilots now will get $49.96 per hour, while fourth-year first officers will get $55.95 per hour. A new signing bonus of $18,000 paid out over two years is also part of the revamped contract. And all PSA pilots will receive premium pay if they fly more than 75 hours per month. Why the new deal mid-contract? PSA said it was necessary to "stay competitive in a rapidly-changing regional airline environment." The environment has especially changed at both American and arch-rival United Airlines (NASDAQ: UAL), which have been busy the past couple of years rapidly expanding their route networks across the United States. That expansion is mainly to second- and third-tier markets typically reached via flights operated by regional carriers such as PSA. As regional flight activity has increased, so has the demand for more pilots to fly regional aircraft. Hence PSA's need to sweeten the deal it offers to retain pilots. Noted Joe DePete, president of the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) that represents PSA pilots: "We applaud PSA pilots and management for working together to create a competitive salary structure that will help attract and retain highly-trained and qualified pilots. ALPA has long maintained that securing competitive wages, an adequate work/life balance, and career progression opportunities are key to attracting and maintaining a strong pipeline of pilots to the profession." Added Steven Toothe, chairman of the PSA ALPA master executive council: "Our first officers will see hourly wage rate increases of up to nearly 20 percent above the regional industry average. Our captains will see wage rate increases of up to 12 percent above the regional industry average." https://www.bizjournals.com/chicago/news/2019/04/04/psa-airlines-significantly-sweetens-pilot-pay.html Back to Top Russian cargo ship completes express flight to International Space Station A Russian Progress cargo ship carrying 3.7 tons of supplies and equipment blasted off from Kazakhstan Thursday and executed a flawless two-orbit dash to the International Space Station, the second test of a fast-track rendezvous procedure that may eventually be used for piloted Soyuz flights. The Soyuz 2.1a rocket carrying the Progress MS-11/72P spacecraft roared to life at 7:01 a.m. EDT (GMT-4; 5:01 p.m. local time) and quickly thundered away from the Baikonur Cosmodrome to kick off the abbreviated three-hour rendezvous. The Progress MS-11/72P cargo ship moves in for docking at the International Space Station's Pirs module, passing just behind the Soyuz MS-12 spacecraft that carried Alexey Ovchinin, Nick Hague and Christina Koch to the outpost in March. The Progress delivered 3.7 tons of supplies and equipment. NASA At the moment of liftoff, the space station was 316 miles from the cosmodrome, approaching the base on a southwest-to-northeast trajectory. The Progress launching was precisely timed to allow the cargo ship to climb directly into the plane of the station's orbit, a requirement for all rendezvous missions. The space station, moving at some 17,000 mph, passed directly over Baikonur about 38 seconds after the Progress took off and quickly moved ahead of its pursuer. At the end of the cargo ship's eight-minute 45-second climb to space, the station was 1,049 miles in front of the Progress. Starting about a half hour after launch, the supply ship carried out a series of rendezvous rocket firings to catch up with its quarry after just two trips around the planet, smoothly moving in for a gentle docking at the Russian Pirs module at 10:22 a.m. as the two spacecraft were passing above central China. On board: 3,375 pounds of propellant for use adjusting the station's altitude; 104 pounds of oxygen and air; 926 pounds of water; and 3,117 pounds of dry cargo. Reaching the station in just two orbits requires precise timing and a complex mix of launch-day specific conditions for both the launcher and the lab complex. Thursday's flight was just the second to get off within those constraints. Climbing away through a clear afternoon sky, the Progress cargo ship accelerated smoothly to orbit in eight minutes and 45 seconds. It then set off after the International Space Station. ROSCOSMOS Up until 2012, Soyuz ferry ships and Progress cargo craft took two days, or 34 orbits, to reach the station. Then, keeping the two-day profile available as a backup, the Russians implemented a four-orbit rendezvous, shortening the time crews had to spend cooped up in the cramped Soyuz to just six hours or so. The new technique would shave another two hours off that, but it's not yet known when the Russians might attempt the speedier rendezvous with a Soyuz crew. The Progress MS-11/72P launch was the first of three planned space station supply runs in April. A Northrop Grumman Cygnus cargo ship is scheduled for launch from the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport - MARS - on Virginia's east coast on April 19, following by a SpaceX Dragon flight from Cape Canaveral on April 25. The next two resupply flights after that, one by a SpaceX Dragon and the other by a Progress, are planned for July. Cargo resupply ship docks with the ISS https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russian-cargo-ship-launched-on-express-flight-to-space-station/ Back to Top Upcoming USC Aviation Safety & Security Program Courses Threat and Error Management Development Integrating Threat and Error Management into a Safety Management System April 15-17, 2019 2.5 Days Tuition: $1250 Incident Investigation/Analysis Concepts and practical knowledge for incident investigation and analysis. April 23-26, 2019 4 Days Tuition: $1750 Human Error Analysis for System Safety Methods and theory for estimating human error probabilities, with discussion of human factors. April 29-30, 2019 2 Days Tuition: $1125 Gas Turbine Accident Investigation Skills and knowledge to examine the involvement of turbine engines in aircraft accidents, with lessons at USC Aircraft Accident Investigation and metallurgy laboratories. May 6-10, 2019 4.5 Days Tuition: $2500 SeMS Aviation Security Management Systems Applying SMS fundamentals to aviation security and cyber security. May 13-17, 2019 4.5 Days Tuition: $2500 Software Safety Identifying, understanding, and preventing software hazards and their root causes, and lessons on methods to create and document a software safety case. May 13-17, 2019 4.5 Days Tuition: $2125 Advanced Software Safety Proposing, assessing, and analyzing safety critical software systems. Includes creating a safety argument from the analysis of NASA aerial autonomous system software. May 20-23, 2019 4 Days Tuition: $2125 Legal Aspects of Aviation Safety Legal processes and trends affecting aviation safety, accident investigation, and aviation regulation. May 20-21, 2019 2 Days Tuition: $1125 Role of the Technical Witness in Litigation Instruction and demonstration in the skills and techniques needed by technical consultants and witnesses. May 22-23, 2019 2 Days Tuition: $1125 Advanced System Safety Analysis Advanced topics in system safety analysis and issues. June 3-7, 2019 4.5 Days Tuition: $2500 Human Factors in Aviation Safety Theoretical and practical knowledge of Human Factors in aviation operations. June 17-21, 2019 4.5 Days Tuition: $2500 Earn Credit for FlightSafety Master Technician-Management Program Students taking the following USC courses will earn elective credits towards FlightSafety International's Master Technician-Management Program • Human Factors in Aviation Safety • Gas Turbine Accident Investigation • Helicopter Accident Investigation • Safety Management for Aviation Maintenance • Safety Management for Ground Operations Safety • Accident/Incident Response Preparedness Earn Points Toward NBAA Certified Aviation Manager Program Students taking the following USC courses will earn two points toward completing the application for the National Business Aviation Certified Aviation Manager Exam. • Aviation Safety Management Systems • Accident/Incident Response Preparedness • Human Factors in Aviation Safety • Aircraft Accident Investigation • SeMS Aviation Security Management Systems For further details, please visit our website or use the contact information below. Email: aviation@usc.edu Telephone: +1 (310) 342-1345 Curt Lewis