Flight Safety Information April 11, 2019 - No. 074 In This Issue Changes to Flight Software on 737 Max Escaped F.A.A. Scrutiny Secretary Chao grilled on aviation safety oversight following Boeing 737 Max crashes Incident: American A321 at Philadelphia on Apr 9th 2019, hydraulic failure Incident: SAA A346 at Johannesburg on Apr 6th 2019, could not retract left main gear Incident: TuiFly B738 over Montenegro on Apr 9th 2019, loss comm prompts intercept Bombardier CRJ-200ER - Four Tire Failures (Oregon) A pilot had to divert a red-eye flight because a passenger tried -- twice -- to light a cigarette American Airlines flight forced to return to New York airport after striking 'object' Hawaiian Airlines HNL-ITO Flight Loses Cabin Pressure Pilot's death in plane crash caused by his 70-pound dog in passenger seat JetBlue Announces London Flights Using Airbus A321LR Aircraft Union for pilots who fly for DHL, Amazon, plans protest near CVG Thursday Flyers stuck as Jet plane seized in Amsterdam before takeoff for Mumbai GRADUATE RESEARCH SURVEY Aircraft Cabin Air Conference Fly Safely | Fly With AvSax MITRE - SMS Course - June 2019 Call for Nominations For 2019 Laura Taber Barbour Air Safety Award Changes to Flight Software on 737 Max Escaped F.A.A. Scrutiny Boeing, which produces its 737 Max in Renton, Wash., decided to quadruple the degree to which an automated system would push down the nose of the plane. While it was designing its newest jet, Boeing decided to quadruple the power of an automated system that could push down the plane's nose - a movement that made it difficult for the pilots on two doomed flights to regain control. The company also expanded the use of the software to activate in more situations, as it did erroneously in the two deadly crashes involving the plane, the 737 Max, in recent months. None of those changes to the anti-stall system, known as MCAS, were fully examined by the Federal Aviation Administration. Although officials were aware of the changes, the modifications didn't require a new safety review, according to three people with knowledge of the process. It wasn't necessary under F.A.A. rules since the changes didn't affect what the agency considers an especially critical or risky phase of flight. A new review would have required F.A.A. officials to take a closer look at the system's effect on the overall safety of the plane, as well as to consider the potential consequences of a malfunction. Instead, the agency relied on an earlier assessment of the system, which was less powerful and activated in more limited circumstances. Ever since the crashes - in Indonesia last October and Ethiopia last month - investigators, prosecutors and lawmakers have scrutinized what went wrong, from the design and certification to the training and response. In both crashes, the authorities suspect that faulty sensor data triggered the anti-stall system, revealing a single point of failure on the plane. Pilots weren't informed about the system until after the Lion Air crash in Indonesia, and even then, Boeing didn't fully explain or understand the risks. The F.A.A. outsourced much of the certification to Boeing employees, creating a cozy relationship between the company and its regulator. But the omission by the F.A.A. exposes an embedded weakness in the approval process, providing new information about the failings that most likely contributed to the crashes in Indonesia and Ethiopia. The F.A.A. is supposed to be the gold standard in global aviation regulation, with the toughest and most stringent rules for certifying planes. But the miscalculation over MCAS undermines the government's oversight, raising further concerns about its ability to push back against the industry or root out design flaws. While it is unclear which officials were involved in the review of the anti-stall system, they followed a set of bureaucratic procedures, rather than taking a proactive approach. The result is that officials didn't fully understand the risks of the more robust anti-stall system, which could cause a crash in less than a minute. "The more we know, the more we realize what we don't know," said John Cox, an aviation safety consultant and former 737 pilot. The F.A.A. defended its certification process, saying it has consistently produced safe aircraft. An F.A.A. spokesman said agency employees collectively spent more than 110,000 hours reviewing the Max, including 297 test flights. The spokesman said F.A.A. employees were following agency rules when they didn't review the change. "The change to MCAS didn't trigger an additional safety assessment because it did not affect the most critical phase of flight, considered to be higher cruise speeds," an agency spokesman said. "At lower speeds, greater control movements are often necessary." A spokesman for Boeing said, "The F.A.A. considered the final configuration and operating parameters of MCAS during Max certification, and concluded that it met all certification and regulatory requirements." Some of the details of the evolving design of MCAS were earlier reported by The Seattle Times. MCAS was created to help make the 737 Max handle like its predecessors, part of Boeing's strategy to get the plane done more quickly and cheaply. The system was initially designed to engage only in rare circumstances, namely high-speed maneuvers, in order to make the plane handle more smoothly and predictably for pilots used to flying older 737s, according to two former Boeing employees who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the open investigations. The Dangerous Flaws in Boeing's Automated System Here's why a system designed to stabilize the 737 Max may have caused two deadly crashes in five months. For those situations, MCAS was limited to moving the stabilizer - the part of the plane that changes the vertical direction of the jet - about 0.6 degrees in about 10 seconds. It was around that design stage that the F.A.A. reviewed the initial MCAS design. The planes hadn't yet gone through their first test flights. After the test flights began in early 2016, Boeing pilots found that just before a stall at various speeds, the Max handled less predictably than they wanted. So they suggested using MCAS for those scenarios, too, according to one former employee with direct knowledge of the conversations. But the system needed more power to work in a broader range of situations. At higher speeds, flight controls are more sensitive and less movement is needed to steer the plane. Consider the effect of turning a car's steering wheel at 70 miles an hour versus 30 miles an hour. To prevent stalls at lower speeds, Boeing engineers decided that MCAS needed to move the stabilizer faster and by a larger amount. So Boeing engineers quadrupled the amount it could move the stabilizer in one cycle, to 2.5 degrees in less than 10 seconds. "That's a huge difference," said Dennis Tajer, a spokesman for the American Airlines pilots' union who has flown 737s for a decade. "That's the difference between controlled flight or not." Speed was a defining characteristic for the F.A.A. The agency's rules require an additional review only if the changes affect how the plane operates in riskier phases of flight: at high speeds and altitudes. Because the changes to the anti-stall system affected how it operated at lower speeds and altitudes, F.A.A. employees didn't need to take a closer look at them. The overall system represented a major departure from Boeing's design philosophy. Boeing has traditionally favored giving pilots control over their planes, rather than automated flight systems. "In creating MCAS, they violated a longstanding principle at Boeing to always have pilots ultimately in control of the aircraft," said Chesley B. Sullenberger III, the retired pilot who landed a jet in the Hudson River. "In mitigating one risk, they created another, greater risk." The missed risks, by the F.A.A. and Boeing, flowed to other decisions. A deep explanation of the system wasn't included in the plane manual. The F.A.A. didn't require training on it. Even Boeing test pilots weren't fully briefed on MCAS. "Therein lies the issue with the design change: Those pitch rates were never articulated to us," said one test pilot, Matthew Menza. Mr. Menza said he looked at documentation he still had and did not see mention of the rate of movement on MCAS. "So they certainly didn't mention anything about pitch rates to us," he said, "and I certainly would've loved to have known." The system's increased power was also compounded by its design: The software engaged repeatedly if the sensor suggested it was necessary to avoid a stall. In the Lion Air crash, data showed that the pilots, who weren't aware of MCAS, fought for control of the plane, as it pushed the nose back down each time they pulled it up. Few truly understood just how powerful the system would prove. It wasn't fully disclosed until after the Lion Air disaster, killing all 189 people on board. On the Ethiopian Airlines flight, the pilots struggled to regain control after MCAS engaged at least three times. Last month, during flight simulations recreating the problems with the Lion Air flight, American pilots were surprised at how strong MCAS was. They essentially had less than 40 seconds to manually override a system malfunction before a crash. Updates to the software by Boeing, which the F.A.A. will have to approve, will address some of the concerns with the anti-stall system. The changes will limit the system to engaging just once in most cases. And they will prevent MCAS from pushing the plane's nose down more than a pilot could counteract by pulling up on the controls. Boeing had hoped to deliver the software fix to the F.A.A. by now but it was delayed by several weeks. As a result, the grounding of the jet is expected to drag on. Southwest Airlines and American Airlines have already canceled some flights through May. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/11/business/boeing-faa-mcas.html Back to Top Secretary Chao grilled on aviation safety oversight following Boeing 737 Max crashes "I'm not here to defend anybody," Chao said during a Capitol Hill hearing where concerns about jet certification and proposed FAA budget cuts were raised. Southwest Airlines Boeing 737 Max aircraft are parked at the Southern California Logistics Airport in Victorville, Calif., on March 28. (Mark Ralston/AFP/Getty Images) Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao was grilled at a budget hearing Wednesday on her oversight of aviation safety, as multiple inquiries continue into two crashes of Boeing 737 Max planes. Citing a Trump administration proposal last month to cut $9 million from the Federal Aviation Administration's aviation safety office and other reductions, Rep. David E. Price (D-N.C.) said the Transportation Department's budget request "doesn't reflect the rhetoric we hear from the department about taking a safety-first approach." Price, chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies, also raised questions about the federal government's certification process for the 737 Max, which was involved in two crashes within five months - one in Indonesia and a second in Ethiopia - killing a total of 346 people. Those questions rest both with acting FAA administrator Daniel K. Elwell, and at Chao's level, Price said. After years of advocacy by Boeing and actions by Congress, the FAA has given the company a far-reaching role in overseeing its own compliance with federal safety standards. The certification system is known as the Organization Designation Authorization program, or ODA. Proponents of the system said that the FAA was understaffed and too slow to issue approvals, and argued that the ODA system tapped industry expertise in the highly technical realm. Critics inside and outside the FAA raised concerns about the dangers of eroding independent oversight. Chao said she had been anticipating questions on the delegation program and emphasized that "it's not a self-certification process." "This form of delegation has been part of the FAA since it was formed in 1958 and allows the FAA to focus on safety-critical issues," Chao told the panel. She noted that the FAA sets safety standards and "is involved when new, novel and high-risk design features are contemplated." "Having said all of that, we always need to improve," Chao added. "The FAA itself acknowledges that they need to improve. And we all have to learn." Chao said a special committee she set up to examine certification issues, and an audit by the Transportation Department's Office of Inspector General "will also address these questions." Price raised a broad range of questions about the program, saying, "No it's not self-certification. It requires vigorous oversight. It requires discerning judgment about what's delegated and what isn't, what is done in house. "And it requires critical judgment about how this is working right now - and the extent to which aircraft are not being subject to the most thoroughgoing kind of examination, even when there are major new components in the planes," Price said. And beneath all of that, Price asked, "Are there potentials for conflicts of interest, with respect to industry's role here? Are there possibilities that employees will be subject to pressures in carrying out this role? Many, many questions, which are, I would suggest, at the administrator's level and at the secretary's level." Chao responded, "These questions have been discussed, and we obviously don't have answers. I think we need to see what exactly - and I'm not here to defend anybody, no - I'm concerned about safety. That is the number one concern that I have. We want to get to the - we want to get answers. We want to understand fully what happened, and how do we prevent it from happening again." In addition to investigators and auditors from the Office of Inspector General, the Justice Department's criminal division is looking into the Boeing 737 Max. The House Transportation Committee has launched an investigation, as has the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. The Commerce Committee said it has received information from whistleblowers raising questions about whether a "potential lack of training and certification" among inspectors "may have led to an improper evaluation" of an automated feature that investigators say was a factor in last month's crash in Ethiopia and the Oct. 29 crash in Indonesia. Among the issues is whether those inspectors participated in an FAA Flight Standardization Board that was set up "to develop minimum training recommendations" for the plane and whether a lack of training would have affected their analysis. "This raises the question of whether a specific reference to the MCAS system should have been included" in the board's report. MCAS is the acronym for an anti-stall feature known as the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System. The multiple inquiries are seeking to determine how Boeing and the FAA came to certify the Max planes were safe, despite problems that have now been acknowledged about the aggressiveness of the MCAS system, which repeatedly pointed the nose of the planes down in the two crashes. Also at issue is whether Boeing and the FAA allowed training for pilots to fall short on 737 Max planes with the automated feature. Boeing is working on software fixes, and Rep. Peter A. DeFazio (D-Ore.), chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, has called on the FAA to bring in third-party experts to examine the changes and help provide confidence they will be good enough. To address such concerns, the FAA created an international technical review team chaired by former National Transportation Safety Board chairman Christopher Hart. NASA will take part. Representatives from civil aviation authorities in Ethiopia, Indonesia, the European Union, Brazil, Canada, China and Singapore have also been invited to participate. Chao said Elwell was in Singapore on Wednesday explaining the FAA's approach. He is at the World Civil Aviation Chief Executives Forum at the Singapore Aviation Academy. "We both invite and welcome scrutiny as a necessary element of continuous improvement. Our recent and planned outreach efforts are a demonstration of this commitment to enhance the safety of the flying public," an FAA spokesman said. Price also pushed Chao on why the FAA had been the last major civil aviation safety agency to ground the 737 Max aircraft. Chao noted that the FAA "is independent. It is a very technical organization. It's data-driven." Officials there did not believe they had the needed evidence until they saw new satellite data and learned of physical evidence found at the Ethiopian crash site, she said. "The more basic issue is, if we cannot specify how these planes were grounded - what were the reasons for grounding these 737 Max [planes]? - what would be the reason for un-grounding them?" Chao said. Chao's "special committee" looking into the certification of the 737 Max will be led, on an interim basis, by retired Air Force Gen. Darren W. McDew, former head of the U.S. Transportation Command, and Capt. Lee Moak, former president of the Air Line Pilots Association, according to the Department of Transportation. Chao did not address questions Wednesday from Price and Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Nita M. Lowey (D-N.Y.) about the proposed budget cuts to the FAA's Aviation Safety organization, which is responsible for the certification of aircraft and pilots and developing regulations, among other duties. A Transportation Department spokesman said that the 2020 budget proposal was drafted before the fiscal 2019 appropriations bill was enacted in February. The spokesman said the fiscal 2020 proposal represented an increase of more than $17 million from what was enacted for fiscal 2018. The budget for Aviation Safety, or AVS, was $1.310 billion in 2018; $1.337 billion in 2019; and $1.328 billion in the Trump administration's proposal for 2020. The office has responsibility over eight broad areas: flight safety standards and inspections; aircraft certification; accident investigation and prevention; air traffic safety oversight; rulemaking; aerospace medicine; unmanned aircraft systems integration; and a division that includes management support, planning and other services. Its approximately 7,200 employees certify planes, pilots, mechanics and others, conduct oversight over the aviation industry broadly, and set safety standards "for every product, person, and organization that manufactures and operates aircraft" in the United States, according to an administration budget document. https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2019/04/11/secretary-chao-grilled-aviation-safety-oversight-following-boeing-max-crashes/?utm_term=.1a06bae8bd9d Back to Top Incident: American A321 at Philadelphia on Apr 9th 2019, hydraulic failure An American Airlines Airbus A321-200, registration N519UW performing flight AA-589 from Philadelphia,PA to Las Vegas,NV (USA) with 197 people on board, was climbing out of Philadelphia's runway 27L when the crew requested to stop the climb at 8000 feet advising of a maintenance issue they needed to follow up, subsequently advising they needed to return due to a hydraulic failure. The aircraft landed safely back on runway 27L about 45 minutes after departure. A replacement A321-200 registration N556UW reached Las Vegas with a delay of 3:10 hours. https://flightaware.com/live/flight/AAL589/history/20190409/2245Z/KPHL/KLAS http://avherald.com/h?article=4c684d7f&opt=0 Back to Top Incident: SAA A346 at Johannesburg on Apr 6th 2019, could not retract left main gear A SAA South African Airways Airbus A340-600, registration ZS-SNG performing flight SA-260 from Johannesburg (South Africa) to Frankfurt/Main (Germany) with 287 passengers, was climbing out of Johannesburg's runway 03L when upon retraction of the landing gear the left main gear did not indicate up and locked. The crew stopped the climb at FL150, dumped fuel and returned to Johannesburg. The crew performed an alternate gear extension resulting in a safe gear indication and landed safely on Johannesburg's runway 03L about one hour after departure. A replacement A340-600 registration ZS-SNH reached Frankfurt with a delay of about 3:20 hours. According to information The Aviation Herald received the left main gear's shortening mechanism had failed preventing the left main gear strut to fully retract. The occurrence aircraft is still on the ground in Johannesburg about 98 hours after landing back. http://avherald.com/h?article=4c684797&opt=0 Back to Top Incident: TuiFly B738 over Montenegro on Apr 9th 2019, loss comm prompts intercept A TuiFly Boeing 737-800, registration D-ATYI performing flight X3-6102 from Frankfurt/Main (Germany) to Hurghada (Egypt), was enroute at FL350 near Podgorica (Montenegro) when NATO command launched two Italian fighter aircraft (Eurofighters) to intercept and identify the aircraft, that was not in contact with ATC at that time. The fighter aircraft intercept the Boeing, identified the aircraft, the Boeing crew was able to restore contact with ATC after which the fighter aircraft returned to their base. The Boeing continued to Hurghada for a safe landing about 2:40 hours later. Italy's Air Force reported they were dispatched by NATO Command to intercept a TuiFly Boeing over Montenegro, which had lost radio contact with ATC. The TuiFly Boeing seen by the second Eurofighter (Photo: Italy's Air Force): http://avherald.com/h?article=4c682389&opt=0 Back to Top Bombardier CRJ-200ER - Four Tire Failures (Oregon) Date: 10-APR-2019 Time: c. 10:00 PST Type: Bombardier CRJ-200ER Owner/operator: SkyWest opf United Express Registration: N472CA C/n / msn: 7667 Fatalities: Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: Other fatalities: 0 Aircraft damage: Unknown Location: Robert's Field, Redmond, OR - United States of America Phase: Landing Nature: Domestic Scheduled Passenger Departure airport: San Francisco International Airport, CA (SFO/KSFO) Destination airport: Redmond-Roberts Field, OR (RDM/KRDM) Narrative: A Bombardier CRJ-200 operating as United Express flight 5879 blew out all four tires on it's main landing gear upon landing at Robert's Field, in Redmond, Oregon. There were no injuries to the 23 passengers aboard. The return flight to San Francisco was delayed. https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=223867 Back to Top A pilot had to divert a red-eye flight because a passenger tried -- twice -- to light a cigarette An Alaska Airlines flight from San Francisco to Philadelphia was forced to divert, all thanks to a belligerent passenger who tried twice to light up inside the cabin. Passengers boarding Alaska Airlines' red-eye flight 1138 in San Francisco were in for quite a surprise. Over halfway through the flight, they had to divert to Chicago. One of their fellow passengers tried to break one of the cardinal rules of modern air travel: do not smoke on airplanes. Then the passenger refused to comply with flight crew instructions by trying to light up a cigarette -- again. About an hour before they were supposed to land in Philadelphia, pilots were forced to divert to O'Hare International Airport. "Due to a disruptive passenger onboard and out of an abundance of caution, the flight was diverted to Chicago and landed at 4:22 a.m. local time," Alaska Airlines told CNN. Chicago Police say they were asked to meet the plane because of the cigarette-lighting passenger, who "was somewhat belligerent." While the individual was escorted off the plane without incident, the diversion added an hour onto the other passengers' red-eye flight, since the plane needed refueling. It's unclear if the passenger will face any punishment for their actions. The FAA, which enforces the regulations the passenger violated, told CNN the incident is under investigation. Chicago Police say they did not make an arrest. The FBI and US Marshals tell CNN they did not make any arrest either. According to the agency's own recommendations, a flight attendant or pilot in charge should be filing a noncompliance report. CNN has asked Alaska Airlines if the crew from the flight has filed a report but has not yet received a response. https://www.kgun9.com/news/national/a-pilot-had-to-divert-a-red-eye-flight-because-a-passenger-tried-twice-to-light-a-cigarette Back to Top American Airlines flight forced to return to New York airport after striking 'object' FILE - A New York-Los Angeles American Airlines flight struck an object shortly after departure and was forced to return to New York Wednesday night, officials said. (Reuters) A Los Angeles-bound American Airlines flight was forced to return to New York after the aircraft struck an "object" upon its departure late Wednesday, officials said. There were 101 passengers and eight crew members aboard Flight 300 out of John F. Kennedy Airport (JFK). No injuries were reported, American Airlines said in a statement. Officials didn't elaborate on what exactly the "object" was that the aircraft struck. When Fox News reached out for comment, the airline said it had "no further comment on the object at this time." The flight, destined for Los Angeles International Airport, took off from JFK at 8:40 p.m. local time and landed safely back in New York at 9:09 p.m., taxiing to the gate. The airline apologized to passengers and said they would be boarding a new aircraft to continue their travel plans. The aircraft, an Airbus 321, was being inspected and the incident is under review, American Airlines said. https://www.foxnews.com/travel/american-airlines-flight-forced-to-return-to-new-york-airport-after-striking-object Back to Top Hawaiian Airlines HNL-ITO Flight Loses Cabin Pressure A Hawai'i Island resident contacted BigIslandNow.com with a story of what he described as a harrowing flight from O'ahu to Hilo, Monday, April 8, 2019. Big Island resident Jim Wyban relayed that Hawaiian Airlines Flight HA 552 took off from O'ahu at about 8:30, and along the way, "took a radical nosedive towards the sea." About midway in the flight, Wyban said the cabin got really cold (less than 60°F, he estimated). "The plane began losing altitude-like I have never experienced on a plane and I've flown hundreds of commercial flights all over the world," Wyban said. "The plane was noticeably headed downward as the cabin was seriously tilted towards the front." The oxygen masks dropped and the flight attendants said to put them on and remain seated, Wyban said. "People were a little freaking out," he said. "When the oxygen masks dropped, I believed we were headed for an ocean crash." Although he said he is not an alarmist and a good swimmer, he was certain they were going down. "After about five to eight minutes of this rapid decent-ears popping-the pilot leveled the plane," Wyban. Shortly thereafter, Wyban said the plane landed in Hilo without ever regaining elevation. When they landed on the runway, they were surrounded by fire engines, he said. "The Hilo Airport runway was lined with fire trucks in full alert and red lights whirling," he said. "The plane sat on the runway for about 10 to 15 minutes as firemen inspected all around the plane. We eventually went to the gate where we deplaned with no explanation about what happened." "It was a frightening experience and what news was released last night was inaccurate," Wyban said. "Their report really understates the severity of the event and a more substantial investigation should be required." "They said it was a 'loss of pressure event.'" Wyban said. "It was much more than that." There were about 10 passengers aboard, all traumatized, Wyban said. He said it was similar to the crashes of Boeing's new planes that he has read about recently. "It seemed like we were experiencing what has been described for the MAX 8 crashes-the nose was headed down and couldn't be corrected," said Wyban. "People should be aware of this incident, Wyban said. "It's a public safety issue. Hawaiian needs to explain and be held accountable." Tim Sakahara, State of Hawaii Department of Transportation public information officer, confirmed with Big Island Now this morning that "Hawaiian Airlines Flight 552 from HNL landed safely with no injuries at ITO on Monday, April 8. HDOT Airport Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) and the Hawai'i County Fire Department responded as a precaution." He told Big Island Now to refer to the airline for additional details regarding the flight. Hawaiian Airlines Senior Manager of External Communications Alex Da Silva said in an email that he was investigating the incident and would contact Big Island Now this morning with official information about the cause of the incident. At 10:30 a.m. today, Da Silva issued a statement regarding the flight. "HA552, carrying 46 passengers and five crewmembers, departed Honolulu's Daniel K. Inouye International Airport at 7:43 p.m. on Monday with service to Hilo International Airport (ITO). Approximately 20 minutes before landing, a component that affects cabin pressure malfunctioned, causing passengers' oxygen masks to automatically deploy. "Following standard operating procedure during depressurization events, the captain began a controlled descent to a lower altitude, while declaring an emergency to coordinate priority handling as the flight continued to ITO, where the Boeing 717 aircraft landed without incident at 8:17 p.m." Da Silva continued. "The safety of our passengers is our priority, and we sincerely apologize for this event," Da Silva said. "We understand this was a very uncomfortable experience, but our pilot's swift actions were necessary to quickly stabilize cabin pressure. "Following Monday's incident, we ferried the aircraft to Honolulu, where we conducted a thorough inspection and resolved the issue," Da Silva said. http://bigislandnow.com/2019/04/10/hawaiian-airlines-hnl-ito-flight-loses-cabin-pressure/ Back to Top Pilot's death in plane crash caused by his 70-pound dog in passenger seat The dog that caused the deadly crash survived, and was treated by a local veterinarian for minor injuries after the deadly crash. A 90-year-old pilot's death in a small plane crash in 2017 was likely caused by his decision to allow his large dog to fly in the passenger's seat, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) determined in a report released Monday. Jerry Naylor, a former commercial pilot who was flying the single-engine airplane, crashed into a cornfield, 50 yards away from the runway at Monticello Regional Airport in Iowa where he meant to land. While the late pilot's son said his father routinely flew with his 70 pound dog, NTSB officials report the deadly crash in which Naylor lost control of the airplane was caused by the "dog's likely contact with the flight controls during landing." Officials say Naylor died from "multiple blunt-force injuries sustained during the accident." The NTSB found no evidence of mechanical malfunctions or failures in the small plane, which led them to zero in on the dog as the cause of the crash. The dog, whose name and breed were not identified by the NTSB, survived the deadly crash. A witness at Monticello Airport at the time of the crash saw the dog running out of the cornfield after the crash. "First responders were able to catch the dog, who was treated for minor injuries by a local veterinarian," the NTSB said. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/pilot-s-death-plane-crash-cause-his-70-pound-dog-n993306 Back to Top JetBlue Announces London Flights Using Airbus A321LR Aircraft We all have heard the rumors that JetBlue is planning on starting service to Europe. Well, today, the airline announced that it will start service to London using Airbus A321LR aircraft in 2021. Transatlantic trips on JetBlue are coming. Photo: JetBlue What are the details? Simple Flying reported last month that JetBlue had invited crew members to an all-hands meeting on April 10th. The background of the meeting invitation featured two famous London landmarks, the London Eye and the Shard. The meeting was held at New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport for all local staff members. Employees from many of the airline's other main bases were able to join viewing parties to follow the meeting. During the meeting today, JetBlue announced that it will offer daily service from New York (JFK) and Boston (BOS) to London starting in 2021. The airline will operate the transatlantic flights on Airbus A321LR aircraft. The aircraft will feature an improved and expanded JetBlue Mint. The airline's Mint class was rated Best Regional Business Class in North America by Trip Advisor in 2019. JetBlue is planning on charging lower fares than the legacy airlines on the transatlantic flights. At the same time, the airline will offer premium service in the Mint class. All in all, passengers can expect comfort and convenience at a lower price. According to JetBlue, "London is the largest market not served by the airline from the Northeast." Apparently, this will change in the not too distant future. The airline served a pretty cool cake to celebrate the occasion. As you can see below, the cake is shaped like a suitcase with a JetBlue luggage tag and stickers featuring the U.S. flag, the British flag, the logo of the London Underground, and the Eiffel Tower. Even though the airline only announced flights to London during today's meeting, could JetBlue flights to other destinations in Europe become a reality soon as well? The Airbus A321LR Let's take a closer look at the aircraft JetBlue will use for its flights to Europe. The Airbus A321LR is a long-range version of the Airbus A321neo. It can carry up to 206 passengers and has a range of up to 4,000 nm. Furthermore, it is fuel efficient and features the latest technology. Accordingly, it is the perfect aircraft for transatlantic routes. Due to its long range, the aircraft opens new opportunities for airlines operating narrow-body aircraft. It definitely looks like JetBlue is going to take full advantage of these new opportunities. The airline announced today that it will convert 13 of its open orders for Airbus A321 aircraft to orders for A321LRs. We definitely can't wait until JetBlue launches its flights to London. Are you looking forward to JetBlue's flights to Europe? Let us know in the comments! https://simpleflying.com/jetblue-london-flights-announcement/ Back to Top Union for pilots who fly for DHL, Amazon, plans protest near CVG Thursday Amazon's Prime Air cargo hub at CVG will be the size of 31 Cincinnati Reds ballparks. There will be room for 100 parked planes. FLORENCE - Some pilots who fly Amazon Prime Air and DHL cargo jets plan to protest poor working conditions April 11 outside an airline headquarters near the airport. Low pay, inexperienced pilots and stalled contract negotiations were reasons cited by pilots as areas of concern in a March 21 Business Insider article. Pilots from three carriers who fly for Amazon Prime Air and DHL will be at Thursday's protest near Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport, according to a news release from Airline Professionals Association (APA), Teamsters Local 1224. Pilots will gather from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. Thursday outside the offices of Atlas Air/Southern Air at 7310 Turfway Road, Florence. The pilots protesting will be from Atlas Air, Southern Air and ABX Air Inc., according to the release. Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings purchased the Florence-based Southern Air for $110 million, according to a Cincinnati.com article. Southern Air signed a 10-year partnership with DHL in 2014. A Prime Air jet sits at DHL's cargo hub at CVG on April 3, 2019. The March 21 Business Insider article also highlighted how an Amazon Prime Air cargo plane from Atlas Air crashed in Texas Feb. 23. The three people onboard the plane were killed. Amazon Prime Air has started work on a new $1.4 billion air cargo hub at CVG on 920 acres this spring. The new hub, with room to park 100 airplanes and a 3 million-square-foot e-commerce processing center is scheduled to open in 2021. The online retail giant already operates a minimum of 15 flights per day out of DHL's existing cargo hub at CVG. https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/local/boone-county/2019/04/10/pilots-union-announces-protest-near-cvg-over-amazon-dhl-conditions/3423477002/ Back to Top Flyers stuck as Jet plane seized in Amsterdam before takeoff for Mumbai Jet Airways' troubles seem to have caught up with its passengers at Schiphol airport, 6,374 km away. Passengers travelling on Jet flight 9W321 from Amsterdam to Mumbai were in for a shock when their flight was cancelled just as boarding was about to begin. A European cargo services provider seized one of Jet's planes at Amsterdam's Schiphol airport for non-payment of dues, leaving hundreds of passengers stranded. "The cargo agent seized Boeing 777-300 ER (VT-JEW) of Jet Airways at the Amsterdam airport as the airline could not clear his dues," the airline source said. Back home, Indian Oil stopped fuel supply to Jet for the third time this week across India for several hours. The twin moves left passengers stranded both at Amsterdam and airports across India. However, there is hope for the embattled airline yet as five companies are said to have submitted expressions of interest (Eo-Is) in picking up stakes in Jet, said two people The end of Five-Year Plans: All you need to know aware of the matter. However, the lenders have extended the Wednesday deadline by two days, in the hope that Etihad Airways, which hasn't submitted an EoI, will show interest. The airline has had to ground more than three-fourths of its fleet due to non-payment of lessors' rentals and is operating with just 25 planes out of its original 123. Due to cash crunch, the airline has been paying only part salaries to its 16,000 employees, which forced pilots to send a legal notice to the management, which is currently being headed by the lenders led by State Bank of India, on Tuesday. The airline is likely to reduce operations even further from Thursday with about 15 planes being flown-down from current about 25. This may lead to more cancellations. Once the fleet falls below 20, Jet's eligibility to fly international will also be reviewed. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/transportation/airlines-/-aviation/flyers-stuck-as-jet-plane-seized-in-amsterdam-before-take-off-for-mumbai/articleshow/68826663.cms Back to Top GRADUATE RESEARCH SURVEY Dear Aviation Colleague, My name is Catherine Troyer, and I am a graduate student in aviation management working with graduate student Alyssa Harvey and Professor Brian Dillman at the School of Aviation and Transportation Technology at Purdue University. We are seeking your input on reference usage for studying flight maneuvers in this survey. Loss of control in flight is one of the main causes of aviation accidents. This survey is part of a research project which explores the connection between the flight training process and preventing loss of control accidents. We expect that the results obtained from this study will be used to advise the FAA of possible changes to the Commercial Airmen Certification Standards and other training resources and improve the safety of general aviation for future generations. The first part of the survey asks demographic questions, most of which are optional. The second part of the survey asks questions pertaining to the use of references when learning or teaching flight maneuvers. Please consider taking this survey if you are working towards or have already obtained your FAA Commercial Pilot's Certificate, are a Certified Flight Instructor of commercial students under the Federal Aviation Administration, develop training resources for a flight school, or help write government publications. The survey should take under 15 minutes to complete and consists of 12 to 15 questions. Once you begin the survey, you can stop at any point and continue where you left off later. We will report results in aggregate. This survey is part of a Partnership to Enhance General Aviation Safety, Accessibility, and Sustainability (PEGASAS) Center of Excellence research project evaluating resources for flight certification preparation. You are under no obligation to participate in this survey. If you do participate you may stop at any time and for any reason. Your answers on the survey are anonymous and cannot be used in any way for identification. Any results we report will be in aggregate. You must be at least 18 years old to participate in this survey. Thank you for your time and cooperation. Your responses are greatly appreciated and will help contribute to general aviation safety. If you have any questions regarding the survey, feel free to contact the researchers troyer5@purdue.edu, amharvey@purdue.edu, or dillman@purdue.edu. Survey Link: https://purdue.ca1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_a3qMKc22QbSnWHH Back to Top Back to Top 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