Flight Safety Information April 16, 2019 - No. 077 In This Issue Boeing's 737 Max: 1960s Design, 1990s Computing Power and Paper Manuals Boeing Has Called 737 Max 8 "Not Suitable' for Certain Airports Incident: China Southern A321 at Phuket and Penang on Apr 3rd 2019, fuel emergency, landed below minimum Incident: United B772 near Nagasaki on Apr 6th 2019, engine problem Incident: ANA Wings DH8D near Nagoya on Apr 14th 2019, cracked windshield Incident: Skywest CRJ2 at Erie on Apr 12th 2019, wing tip strike on landing Rockwell Sabreliner 65 - Fatal Accident (Mississippi) AsBAA Holds First China Safety Day Garamendi, Blumenthal introduce bill to protect commercial airline passengers from toxic jet fumes ICAO ACCEPTS 193RD MEMBER STATE ALPA supports safety information legislation Industry: FAA's Proposed Mechanic Training Rules Too Rigid United Airlines Returns To Africa With World's Only U.S. To Cape Town Flight Jet Airways extends international suspension China's Plans to Dominate Space GRADUATE RESEARCH SURVEY Aircraft Cabin Air Conference Call for Nominations For 2019 Laura Taber Barbour Air Safety Award Boeing's 737 Max: 1960s Design, 1990s Computing Power and Paper Manuals The Boeing 737, in 1968, the year after it was christened. Boeing pitched the plane as a smaller alternative to its larger jets, earning it the nickname the "Baby Boeing." Pilots start some new Boeing planes by turning a knob and flipping two switches. The Boeing 737 Max, the newest passenger jet on the market, works differently. Pilots follow roughly the same seven steps used on the first 737 nearly 52 years ago: Shut off the cabin's air-conditioning, redirect the air flow, switch on the engine, start the flow of fuel, revert the air flow, turn back on the air conditioning, and turn on a generator. The 737 Max is a legacy of its past, built on decades-old systems, many that date back to the original version. The strategy, to keep updating the plane rather than starting from scratch, offered competitive advantages. Pilots were comfortable flying it, while airlines didn't have to invest in costly new training for their pilots and mechanics. For Boeing, it was also faster and cheaper to redesign and recertify than starting anew. But the strategy has now left the company in crisis, following two deadly crashes in less than five months. The Max stretched the 737 design, creating a patchwork plane that left pilots without some safety features that could be important in a crisis - ones that have been offered for years on other planes. It is the only modern Boeing jet without an electronic alert system that explains what is malfunctioning and how to resolve it. Instead pilots have to check a manual. The Max also required makeshift solutions to keep the plane flying like its ancestors, workarounds that may have compromised safety. While the findings aren't final, investigators suspect that one workaround, an anti-stall system designed to compensate for the larger engines, was central to the crash last month in Ethiopia and an earlier one in Indonesia. The Max "ain't your father's Buick," said Dennis Tajer, a spokesman for the American Airlines pilots' union who has flown the 737 for a decade. He added that "it's not lost on us that the foundation of this aircraft is from the '60s." Dean Thornton, the president of Boeing, with an engine on the first 737-400 in 1988 in Seattle. The larger engines for Boeing's new Max line of jets prompted a number of design issues. The Max, Boeing's best-selling model, with more than 5,000 orders, is suddenly a reputational hazard. It could be weeks or months before regulators around the world lift their ban on the plane, after Boeing's expected software fix was delayed. Southwest Airlines and American Airlines have canceled some flights through May because of the Max grounding. The company has slowed production of the plane, putting pressure on its profits, and some buyers are reconsidering their orders. Shares of the company fell over 4 percent on Monday, and are down 11 percent since the Ethiopia crash. "It was state of the art at the time, but that was 50 years ago," said Rick Ludtke, a former Boeing engineer who helped design the Max's cockpit. "It's not a good airplane for the current environment." The 737 has long been a reliable aircraft, flying for decades with relatively few issues. Gordon Johndroe, a Boeing spokesman, defended the development of the Max, saying that airlines wanted an updated 737 over a new single-aisle plane and that pilots were involved in its design. "Listening to pilots is an important aspect of our work. Their experienced input is front- and-center in our mind when we develop airplanes," he said in a statement. "We share a common priority - safety - and we listen carefully to their feedback." He added that American regulators approved the plane under the same standards they used with previous aircraft. Boeing's chief executive, Dennis Muilenburg, said in a statement on Friday that the crashes in Indonesia and Ethiopia appeared to have been caused by the Max's new anti- stall system. "We have the responsibility to eliminate this risk, and we know how to do it," he said. At a factory near Seattle on Jan. 17, 1967, flight attendants christened the first Boeing 737, smashing champagne bottles over its wing. Boeing pitched the plane as a smaller alternative to its larger jets, earning it the nickname the "Baby Boeing." Early on, sales lagged Boeing's biggest competitor, McDonnell Douglas. In 1972, Boeing had delivered just 14 of the jets, and it considered selling the program to a Japanese manufacturer, said Peter Morton, the 737 marketing manager in the early 1970s. "We had to decide if we were going to end it, or invest in it," Mr. Morton said. Ultimately, Boeing invested. The 737 eventually began to sell, bolstered by airline deregulation in 1978. Six years later, Boeing updated the 737 with its "classic" series, followed by the "next generation" in 1997, and the Max in 2017. Now nearly one in every three domestic flights in the United States is on a 737, more than any other line of aircraft. Each of the three redesigns came with a new engine, updates to the cabin and other changes. But Boeing avoided overhauling the jet in order to appease airlines, according to current and former Boeing executives, pilots and engineers, some of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the open investigations. Airlines wanted new 737s to match their predecessors so pilots could skip expensive training in flight simulators and easily transition to new jets. Boeing's strategy worked. The Federal Aviation Administration never required simulator training for pilots switching from one 737 to the next. "Airlines don't want Boeing to give them a fancy new product if it requires them to retrain their pilots," said Matthew Menza, a former 737 Max test pilot for Boeing. "So you iterate off a design that's 50 years old. The old adage is: If it's not broke, don't fix it." It did require engineering ingenuity, to ensure a decades-old jet handled mostly the same. In doing so, some of the jet's one-time selling points became challenges. For instance, in the early years of the 737, jet travel was rapidly expanding across the world. The plane's low-slung frame was a benefit for airlines and airports in developing countries. Workers there could load bags by hand without a conveyor belt and maintain the engines without a lift, Mr. Morton said. In the decades that followed, the low frame repeatedly complicated efforts to fit bigger engines under the wing. By 2011, Boeing executives were starting to question whether the 737 design had run its course. The company wanted to create an entirely new single-aisle jet. Then Boeing's rival Airbus added a new fuel-efficient engine to its line of single-aisle planes, the A320, and Boeing quickly decided to update the jet again. The 737 Max 8 at Boeing's plant in Renton, Wash. Nearly one in every three domestic flights in the United States is on a 737, more than any other line of aircraft. "We all rolled our eyes. The idea that, 'Here we go. The 737 again,'" said Mr. Ludtke, the former 737 Max cockpit designer who spent 19 years at Boeing. "Nobody was quite perhaps willing to say it was unsafe, but we really felt like the limits were being bumped up against," he added. Some engineers were frustrated they would have to again spend years updating the same jet, taking care to limit any changes, instead of starting fresh and incorporating significant technological advances, the current and former engineers and pilots said. The Max still has roughly the original layout of the cockpit and the hydraulic system of cables and pulleys to control the plane, which aren't used in modern designs. The flight- control computers have roughly the processing power of 1990s home computers. A Boeing spokesman said the aircraft was designed with an appropriate level of technology to ensure safety. When engineers did make changes, it sometimes created knock-on effects for how the plane handled, forcing Boeing to get creative. The company added a new system that moves plates on the wing in part to reduce stress on the plane from its added weight. Boeing recreated the decades-old physical gauges on digital screens. As Boeing pushed its engineers to figure out how to accommodate bigger, more fuel- efficient engines, height was again an issue. Simply lengthening the landing gear to make the plane taller could have violated rules for exiting the plane in an emergency. Boeing 737 engines at the company's factory in 2012. By 2011, Boeing executives were starting to question whether the 737 design had run its course. Instead, engineers were able to add just a few inches to the front landing gear and shift the engines farther forward on the wing. The engines fit, but the Max sat at a slightly uneven angle when parked. While that design solved one problem, it created another. The larger size and new location of the engines gave the Max the tendency to tilt up during certain flight maneuvers, potentially to a dangerous angle. To compensate, Boeing engineers created the automated anti-stall system, called MCAS, that pushed the jet's nose down if it was lifting too high. The software was intended to operate in the background so that the Max flew just like its predecessor. Boeing didn't mention the system in its training materials for the Max. Boeing also designed the system to rely on a single sensor - a rarity in aviation, where redundancy is common. Several former Boeing engineers who were not directly involved in the system's design said their colleagues most likely opted for such an approach since relying on two sensors could still create issues. If one of two sensors malfunctioned, the system could struggle to know which was right. Airbus addressed this potential problem on some of its planes by installing three or more such sensors. Former Max engineers, including one who worked on the sensors, said adding a third sensor to the Max was a nonstarter. Previous 737s, they said, had used two and managers wanted to limit changes. The angle of attack sensor, bottom, on a Boeing 737 Max 8. "They wanted to A, save money and B, to minimize the certification and flight-test costs," said Mike Renzelmann, an engineer who worked on the Max's flight controls. "Any changes are going to require recertification." Mr. Renzelmann was not involved in discussions about the sensors. The Max also lacked more modern safety features. Most new Boeing jets have electronic systems that take pilots through their preflight checklists, ensuring they don't skip a step and potentially miss a malfunctioning part. On the Max, pilots still complete those checklists manually in a book. A second electronic system found on other Boeing jets also alerts pilots to unusual or hazardous situations during flight and lays out recommended steps to resolve them. On 737s, a light typically indicates the problem and pilots have to flip through their paper manuals to find next steps. In the doomed Indonesia flight, as the Lion Air pilots struggled with MCAS for control, the pilots consulted the manual moments before the jet plummeted into the Java Sea, killing all 189 people aboard. "Meanwhile, I'm flying the jet," said Mr. Tajer, the American Airlines 737 captain. "Versus, pop, it's on your screen. It tells you, This is the problem and here's the checklist that's recommended." Boeing decided against adding it to the Max because it could have prompted regulators to require new pilot training, according to two former Boeing employees involved in the decision. The Max also runs on a complex web of cables and pulleys that, when pilots pull back on the controls, transfer that movement to the tail. By comparison, Airbus jets and Boeing's more modern aircraft, such as the 777 and 787, are "fly-by-wire," meaning pilots' movement of the flight controls is fed to a computer that directs the plane. The design allows for far more automation, including systems that prevent the jet from entering dangerous situations, such as flying too fast or too low. Some 737 pilots said they preferred the cable-and-pulley system to fly-by-wire because they believed it gave them more control. In the recent crashes, investigators believe the MCAS malfunctioned and moved a tail flap called the stabilizer, tilting the plane toward the ground. On the doomed Ethiopian Airlines flight, the pilots tried to combat the system by cutting power to the stabilizer's motor, according to the preliminary crash report. Once the power was cut, the pilots tried to regain control manually by turning a wheel next to their seat. The 737 is the last modern Boeing jet that uses a manual wheel as its backup system. But Boeing has long known that turning the wheel is difficult at high speeds, and may have required two pilots to work together. In the final moments of the Ethiopian Airlines flight, the first officer said the method wasn't working, according to the preliminary crash report. About 1 minute and 49 seconds later, the plane crashed, killing 157 people. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/08/business/boeing-737-max-.html Back to Top Boeing Has Called 737 Max 8 "Not Suitable' for Certain Airports Before last month's crash of a flight that began in Ethiopia, Boeing Co. said in a legal document that large, upgraded 737s "cannot be used at what are referred to as 'high/hot' airports." At an elevation of 7,657 feet - or more than a mile high - Addis Ababa's Bole International Airport falls into that category. High elevations require longer runways and faster speeds for takeoff. The Ethiopian airport's altitude hasn't been cited as a factor in the downing of Flight 302 and likely didn't cause the crash. But it could have exacerbated the situation because an airplane's performance degrades at higher altitudes, said a 737 pilot who flies into high-elevation airports such as Denver and agreed to speak on background since he's not authorized to talk with the media. Data released last week from the Ethiopian Airlines flight indicated the pilots didn't cut the 737 Max 8 airplane's speed after takeoff when they should have. The preliminary report on the disaster said the plane's anti-stall system pushed the nose of the plane down less than two minutes into the flight because of a malfunctioning sensor. The pilots struggled to control the plane as it hurtled toward the ground at 575 miles per hour. "The faster the airplane is going, the more force of air there is on its wings and control surfaces which requires more force on the pilots' part to pull the control" column, said Robert Mark, a commercial pilot and senior editor with Flying Magazine. Boeing cited the performance of the 737 Max 8 in a case brought before the U.S. International Trade Commission in 2017. Boeing charged that unfair competition from Bombardier - which beat out Boeing for a large order from Delta Air Lines - threatened its 737-700 and Max 7, the smallest of its upgraded single-aisle jets. By pointing out the limitations of the Max 8, the planemaker sought to preserve market share for the 700 and Max 7. A Boeing spokesman said that Addis Ababa can handle large airplanes because it has long runways. 'Challenging Airports' Boeing stated in a brief filed in the trade case that the "737 Max 7 has greater performance capabilities at challenging airports. In particular, the 737 Max 7 can serve certain 'high/hot' airports and has a greater range operating out of constrained airfields." The brief then cites a number of such airports - the names of which are redacted - that the Max 7 can fly into that "the 8, 9 and 10 cannot." "Larger 737 variants cannot be used at what are referred to has 'high/hot' airports," the brief stated. Certain U.S. airports are unsuitable for the Max 8 "due to a combination of short runway lengths, elevation, temperature, humidity and other environmental conditions." Aviation consultant Bob Mann said airlines typically use a smaller, earlier version of Boeing's jet, the 737-700, at higher elevations because that plane usually gets a "better rate of climb" than the Max 8. Denver and Mexico City Documents in the trade case referred to at least 16 U.S. airports considered "high and hot" and therefore unsuitable for the Max 8, though the names of those facilities weren't made public. Asked during a trade commission hearing to specify which airports, an expert witness for Boeing replied that "sometimes Denver would qualify as that." The expert, Jerry Nickelsburg, an adjunct economics professor at UCLA, added that "Mexico City certainly qualifies as that." Both the Denver and Mexico City airports sit at lower elevations than Addis Ababa and have runways as long or longer than the Ethiopian airfield, where they extend more than 12,000 feet, or 3,700 meters. Denver's airport is more than 2,000 feet lower than Addis and has five runways that measure 12,000 feet and one that is 16,000 feet (or 4,800 meters). The airport in Mexico City is 300 feet lower than Addis and has four runways that are 13,000 feet (or about 4,000 meters) and two that are 15,000 feet (or about 4,600 meters). Aeromexico flies the Max 8 as part of its fleet. Hot airfields such as the Jakarta airport, from where the doomed Lion Air plane took off last October, produce similar air densities as high elevations, requiring faster takeoff speeds. Heat, air density and fast speed haven't been cited as factors in that accident. 'Detective Story' The performance of all airplanes deteriorates in high heat or elevation, and all pilots account for that before taking off, said Steve Wallace, former director of the Federal Aviation Administration's accident investigation branch. Even airlines operating from Orange County, California, which is nearly at sea level, occasionally have to reduce weight on their planes because of high temperatures, Wallace said. Altitude and heat may well have played no role in either 737 Max 8 crash, but the wording from Boeing's 2017 trade case could still be seized upon by plaintiffs lawyers. "Even if it is BS, plaintiffs' lawyers will focus on the quote and put that back to the company to explain it," said long-time aviation attorney Roger Clark, who teaches aviation law as a visiting professor at Rutgers University in New Jersey. Chicago attorney Thomas Demetrio, who is leading a lawsuit against Boeing for the Lion Air crash, said he wouldn't include altitude or heat in a complaint unless investigators or one of his experts said those factors were a proximate cause. All the factors that contributed to the Ethiopian Airlines crash won't be known until sometime next year when the full investigative report is completed. "It's like a detective story right now," said Mark, the commercial pilot. "And we don't have all the data." https://www.claimsjournal.com/news/international/2019/04/15/290407.htm Back to Top Incident: China Southern A321 at Phuket and Penang on Apr 3rd 2019, fuel emergency, landed below minimum fuel reserve A China Southern Airbus A321-200, registration B-6683 performing flight CZ-6063 from Guangzhou (China) to Phuket (Thailand) with 189 people on board, was on final approach to Phuket's runway 27 when the crew needed to go around due to changing winds and an oncoming weather front. The aircraft positioned for another approach to runway 27 but again needed to go around due to weather. The aircraft now positioned for a VOR approach to runway 09, however, again needed to go around due to weather. The crew decided to divert to Penang about 45 minutes after the first go around, the aircraft subsequently climbed to FL250 and diverted to Penang (Malaysia) about 200nm southsoutheast of Phuket. The aircraft was on approach to Penang's runway 04 when the crew needed to go around due to weather, the aircraft entered a hold for about 20 minutes and performed another approach to runway 04, which was continued for a successful landing about 30 minutes after the go around in Penang. Chinese Officials reported the aircraft landed with 900kg of fuel remaining (about 700kg after taxi to the apron), the required minimum fuel reserve (30 minutes) was 1427kg of fuel. The weather at Penang had not been suitable for landing when the aircraft managed to touch down successfully. The aircraft remained on the ground for about 3 hours, then departed Penang and reached Phuket with a delay of 5.5 hours. http://avherald.com/h?article=4c6beb4c&opt=0 Back to Top Incident: United B772 near Nagasaki on Apr 6th 2019, engine problem A United Boeing 777-200, registration N78003 performing flight UA-87 from Shanghai Pudong (China) to Newark,NJ (USA), was enroute at FL290 about 390nm eastnortheast of Shanghai Pudong and about 60nm northwest of Nagasaki (Japan) in Japanese Airspace when the crew decided to return to Shanghai due to an engine (GE90) problem. The aircraft drifted down to FL200 for the return, dumped fuel and landed safely back in Shanghai about 1:15 hours after turning around and leaving FL290. The flight needed to be cancelled. The passengers were rebooked onto flight UA-2823 of Apr 7th. The aircraft reported the flight was cancelled due to prolonged engine maintenance. The occurrence aircraft is still on the ground in Shanghai more than 10 days after landing back. Passengers reported meal service was just in progress when flight attendants stopped the meal service and took away all meal trays that already been handed to passengers. The capain announced they had a problem with one of the engines and were dumping fuel returning to Shanghai. http://avherald.com/h?article=4c6be6f1&opt=0 Back to Top Incident: ANA Wings DH8D near Nagoya on Apr 14th 2019, cracked windshield An ANA Wings de Havilland Dash 8-400, registration JA850A performing flight NH-1651 from Osaka Itami to Akita (Japan) with 13 people on board, was enroute at FL230 about 40nm north of Nagoya's Chubu Airport when the crew decided to divert to Chubu Airport due to a left hand cracked windshield. The aircraft landed safely on Chubu's runway 18 about 30 minutes later. The passengers were rebooked onto another flight from Nagoya to Akita. http://avherald.com/h?article=4c6be198&opt=0 Back to Top Incident: Skywest CRJ2 at Erie on Apr 12th 2019, wing tip strike on landing A Skywest Canadair CRJ-200 on behalf of Delta, registration N439SW performing flight OO-3989/DL-3989 from Detroit,MI to Erie,PA (USA), landed on Erie's runway 24 at 10:51L (14:51Z) however struck a wing tip onto the ground. The aircraft rolled out without further incident and taxied to the apron. The FAA reported: "SKY WEST AIRLINES FLIGHT 3989 HIT ITS WING ON THE GROUND", the aircraft sustained unknown damage, there were unknown injuries, the occurrence was rated an incident. The aircraft was unable to perform the return flight and remained on the ground for about 77 hours, then returned to service as flight OO-4980/DL-4980. A replacement CRJ-200 registration N936SW performed the return flight reaching Detroit with a delay of 8:45 hours. http://avherald.com/h?article=4c6bddc5&opt=0 Back to Top Rockwell Sabreliner 65 - Fatal Accident (Mississippi) Date: Saturday 13 April 2019 Time: ca 15:25 Type: Rockwell Sabreliner 65 Operator: Classic Aviation Registration: N265DS C/n / msn: 465-45 First flight: 1980 Crew: Fatalities: 2 / Occupants: 2 Passengers: Fatalities: 1 / Occupants: 1 Total: Fatalities: 3 / Occupants: 3 Aircraft damage: Damaged beyond repair Location: near New Albany, MS ( United States of America) Phase: En route (ENR) Nature: Unknown Departure airport: Oxford-University Airport, MS (UOX/KUOX), United States of America Destination airport: Hamilton-Marion County Airport, AL (HAB/KHAB), United States of America Narrative: A Rockwell Sabreliner 65, N265DS, crashed in wooded terrain about 20 minutes after takeoff from Oxford-University Airport, Mississippi, USA. The aircraft was bound for Hamilton-Marion County Airport, Alabama. It is reported that the pilots were having electrical problems. A few minutes later radio contact was lost. https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20190413-0 Back to Top AsBAA Holds First China Safety Day The first AsBAA Safety Day to be held in China took place in Beijing on April 12. The Asian Business Aviation Association (AsBAA) held its first China Safety Day just before ABACE 2019, on April 12 at Sino Jet's facility in Beijing. It had previously held Safety Days in Singapore in 2017 and 2018, and in the Philippines last year, and will hold its inaugural Hong Kong (Greater Bay Area) event on September 12 this year. The next Singapore Safety Day is June 10, and the next Philippines day November 5. According to AsBAA, it hopes that once established in a sub-region, the local chapter will maintain its Safety Day as an annual event. Last Friday's focus was on how AsBAA can create a culture of best safety practices in China. The session was introduced by AsBAA chairperson Jenny Lau. Representatives from the CAAC, EASA, World Fuel Services, Embraer China, and International SOS were among the presenters. The main panel discussion focused on optimizing safety practices. Pictured L to R: Paul Desgrosseilliers of Execujet Haite; Jin Yongfa of CJet; Xiao Zhiyuan, vice president, AOPA China; and Michael Wang of Embraer China. https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/business-aviation/2019-04-15/asbaa-holds- first-china-safety-day Back to Top Garamendi, Blumenthal introduce bill to protect commercial airline passengers from toxic jet fumes Two members from two separate chambers of Congress came together Wednesday to put forth legislation aimed at protecting the health of commercial airline passengers. Rep. John Garamendi, D-Solano, and Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., introduced the bicameral Cabin Air Safety Act aimed at protecting passengers from toxic cabin air. Specifically, the legislation seeks to take aim at "toxic fume" events, which happen when air contaminated by engine exhaust, fuel fumes, de-icing fluids and ozone enters the cabin of the aircraft through jet engine air. "Exposure to even low levels of these contaminants can incapacitate passengers and crew, and long-term exposure could lead to serious, debilitating health issues," Garamendi's office wrote in a news release. The Cabin Air Safety Act would require all pilots, flight attendants, aircraft technicians and first responders to undergo training on identifying toxic fumes as well as symptoms and reporting incidents. It would also require the Federal Aviation Administration to record and monitor reports of fume events, ensure investigations take place after an incident occurs and install carbon monoxide sensors on aircrafts. "All Americans have the right to expect safe, clean air when traveling or reporting to work," Garamendi said in a statement. "I am deeply concerned by the documented cases where pilots, flight attendants, and other airline crewmembers have become sick and even hospitalized from toxic cabin air. The Cabin Air Safety Act takes commonsense steps to protect airline passengers and crew, including installing carbon monoxide detectors in commercial aircraft. I thank Senator Blumenthal for leading this bill last Congress and look forward to working with him to advance this critical legislation." Garamendi is a senior member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and Blumenthal is a senior member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. "This legislation would protect the flying public and airline crews by ensuring the cabin air they breathe during flights is safe - free from any hidden and toxic fumes," Blumenthal said in a statement. "Our bill would require the FAA and aircraft manufacturers to stop ignoring this horrific issue - mandating thorough investigation of dangerous cabin air quality reports, proper training and resources for pilots and flight attendants, and the installation of carbon monoxide sensors on commercial flights." https://www.thereporter.com/2019/04/10/garamendi-blumenthal-introduce-bill-to- protect-commercial-airline-passengers-from-toxic-jet-fumes/ Back to Top ICAO ACCEPTS 193RD MEMBER STATE The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) has grown to 193 member states after Caribbean state Dominica agreed to adhere to the Convention on International Civil Aviation. Dominica's membership became effective April 13 after it deposited its notification that it would adhere to the Chicago Convention a month earlier. The move is expected to benefit the tourism industry in the West Indies island country and allow it to tap into global growth in air services and tourism. ICAO said it was a first step to making aviation in the island compliant with ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPS) and allow it to access the organization's resources. "Dominica will now be able to access the global guidance and support ICAO delivers through our No Country Left Behind initiative,'' ICAO secretary general Fang Liu said. "It enables our member States to develop aviation policies, strategies, and capacity that are optimized in terms of unlocking the sustainable development benefits of international air connectivity. "We look forward to welcoming Dominica to events such as the upcoming ICAO World Aviation Forum, which provides States with unique opportunities to connect with the world's key aviation and finance stakeholders and expand their aviation sector through strategic partnerships. "A strong foundation for these partnerships will be provided by the ICAO strategic guidance, linked to our safety and security auditing, that Dominica will now be receiving." The new entrant will be supported by ICAO's North American, Central American and Caribbean Regional Office. The UN-backed organization was formed in 1944 to promote the safe and orderly development of global aviation. It sets standards and regulations that include aviation safety, security, efficiency, capacity and environmental protection. It also audits member states to check their adherence to its standards and safety practices. https://www.airlineratings.com/news/icao-accepts-193rd-member-state/ Back to Top ALPA supports safety information legislation The Air Line Pilots Association, Int'l (ALPA) recently released a statement in support of the Safety Is Not for Sale Act that has been introduced in the U.S. Senate. The bill would require aircraft manufacturers to either offer or provide nonrequired safety enhancing equipment on an aircraft without additional charge to airline carriers. Manufacturers would be required to comply no later than two years after the bill's enactment. "As the world's largest nongovernmental aviation safety organization, ALPA is deeply aware that aviation safety work must never be considered complete," Capt. Joe DePete, ALPA president, said. "To protect the passengers, crews, and cargo we fly, the U.S. airline industry must constantly enhance the equipment, processes, training, and procedures that have made commercial air transportation the safest mode of transportation in history. We urge Congress to swiftly pass this measure as the latest effort in the United States' never-ending commitment to making a safe air transportation system even safer." Safety-enhancing equipment includes equipment that provides additional occupant safety protection, information other than the aircraft primary system or warnings. It also includes equipment that increases overall situational awareness. Manufacturers would be required to submit to the Federal Aviation Administration annually a list of safety enhancing equipment they offer. https://transportationtodaynews.com/news/13441-alpa-supports-safety-information- legislation/ Back to Top Industry: FAA's Proposed Mechanic Training Rules Too Rigid FAA's proposed update to modernize the Part 147 maintenance school rule sticks with time-based, versus competency-based curriculum. WASHINGTON-FAA's proposed expansion of rules that aviation maintenance technician schools (AMTS) must follow to train mechanics will not please those in the industry who were hoping for more flexibility and less bureaucracy. FAA's supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM), set for publication Apr. 16, seeks to make Part 147, which AMT schools must follow, more modern. Approved in 1970 and modified little since, Part 147 is far behind modern aviation technology, such as composite repair. A 2015 draft rule based largely on a 2009 industry rulemaking advisory group report addressed many of the modernization concerns, such as updating core competencies that students should learn. But commenters identified two major issues: FAA's insistence on an hours-based curriculum, not a competency-based one, as well as the growing need to teach classes at remote locations, such as high schools, that were not FAA approved. The SNPRM adds both of these, but with caveats: FAA would approve competency-based curriculum on a case-by-case basis, and it also would require approval of so-called satellite locations. While encouraged by FAA's progress, the Aviation Technical Education Council (ATEC) is concerned that the expanded rule would add more red tape than benefits. "The agency's insistence that it approve a school's competency-based program is going to create nothing but bureaucratic roadblocks," ATEC Executive Director Crystal Maguire said. "The FAA oversees safety, not education. It needs to leave the education part to [the Department of Education], which these schools are already beholden to as part of being accredited educational institutions." ATEC also expressed concern about how FAA proposes handling remote instruction, such as programs that partner with local high schools to offer introductory AMTS courses. Exposing potential mechanics to the business is seen as key to ensure industry has enough technicians in the coming years-part of the reason that airlines, repair stations, and AMTSs are partnering with local schools. FAA's plan for AMTSs is to either certify so-called "satellite" locations as dependent or independent. Both would require registering with FAA, and an independent operation would have to apply for its own Part 147 certificate. "Both types of satellite training locations must use the curriculum and procedures of the parent AMTS," FAA explained in the updated draft rule's preamble. "The independent satellite training locations, however, may implement differences in the curriculum and procedures, provided those differences are documented and accepted or approved by the FAA, as applicable." ATEC suggested language that permitted remote operations so long as the AMTS "provides suitable facilities, equipment, and material" similar to what the rules require of certificated schools. "Adding [requirements] to the regulation on satellites that call for more government approval isn't the answer," Maguire said, expressing concern that existing high-school partners may pull back rather than seek FAA's blessing to keep hosting AMTS classes. The 170 active AMTSs produce about 60% of the 6,500 new aviation mechanics certified in the U.S. each year, with the rest coming from the military or other sources, such as industry-sponsored instruction. The new draft rule will be open for public comment through June 15. https://www.mro-network.com/maintenance-repair-overhaul/industry-faa-s-proposed- mechanic-training-rules-too-rigid Back to Top United Airlines Returns To Africa With World's Only U.S. To Cape Town Flight United Airlines 787-900 UNITED AIRLINES This story has been corrected to say that United is not the first airline to fly non-stop between the U.S. and Cape Town. United Airlines says it will return to Africa this winter, when it will become the only airline to fly non-stop between the United States and Cape Town, South Africa. Starting Dec. 15, United will fly a Boeing 787-9 between its Newark hub and Cape Town, the second largest city in South Africa with a metropolitan area population of nearly 4 million and a location on the southern tip of the African continent. The route serves "a huge business market in South Africa and a high premium leisure market," said Patrick Quayle, United vice president of international network. United had thought it would become the first airline ever to fly non-stop between Cape Town and the United States. However, South African Airways flew Cape Town-Miami as recently as 1999 Cape Town is the largest city in Africa that lacks non-stop service from North America, Quayle said. Each day, about 350 people fly each way between the two destinations, utilizing routes with one or more stops. The next two cities on the list are Entebbe, Uganda, with 140 daily passengers each way and Abuja, Nigeria, with 130 daily passengers each way. Currently, all service from the United States to South Africa has Johannesburg as the destination, with flights from New York Kennedy and Washington Dulles (direct, one- stop) on South African Airways and daily service from Atlanta on Delta. South African is United's partner in the Star Alliance. Johannesburg, a difficult market for airlines to serve because of its high altitude (5,751 feet) and warm climate, makes nonstop trans-Atlantic flights difficult for the 787. Other carriers use a 777LR or four-engine aircraft for higher thrust on takeoff. United's Boeing 787-900 seats 252 passengers in three classes including premium economy. The eastbound flight takes 14 ½ hours while eastbound takes 15 hours and 50 minutes. The flight cover 7,817 miles. The service will initially be seasonal. However, the airline is open to extending the schedule if the demand builds. The carrier started San Francisco-Tahiti as a thrice- weekly, winter flight and now flies the route year-round. In its previous effort to serve Africa, United flew Houston to Lagos, Nigeria. The flight operated between 2011 and June 2016. In May 2016, United said it would end the service the following month. "The IAH-LOS route has been underperforming financially for several years," United said in a memo to employees. "Because of its importance to key Houston-based customers, we continued to invest in it; however, the recent downturn in the energy sector has caused these customers to spend less on travel." In the past two years, United has started 22 international destinations including Newark to Naples and Porto; Washington Dulles to Tel Aviv starting May 22, and San Francisco- Tahiti. "We are constantly look for ways to grow and add unique content," Quayle said. https://www.forbes.com/sites/tedreed/2019/04/15/united-airlines-returns-to-africa- with-worlds-first-u-s-to-cape-town-flight/#72d4b2d33705 Back to Top Jet Airways extends international suspension Jet Airways has extended its suspension of international services to 18 April, as uncertainty around an interim debt facility and potential bidders for a controlling stake in the ailing airline swirls. Jet confirmed that the suspension, originally scheduled to end on 15 April, has been extended but provided no further updates on the status of a R15 billion ($215 million) interim loan facility that it had announced on 25 March. The cash-strapped airline may be unable to sustain its scaled-back operations beyond the next week unless additional funding can be secured. Jet confirms that it is down to operating a fleet of seven aircraft on domestic flights but would not say which types are in service. At its peak, the airline operated a fleet of 120 aircraft, but a number of lessors have moved to deregister aircraft leased to Jet, as the first step in repossessing them and moving them to other operators. DAE Capital is the latest lessor to file requests to deregister six Boeing 737-800s operated by Jet Airways, records from the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) show. Cirium's Fleets Analyzer shows that the six jets are all around nine years old. The DGCA shows that there are 12 jets now pending deregistration, with 24 others now completed. Jet's bankers, which took control of the airline in late March, recently closed an expression of interest process seeking proposals for a new investor to take a controlling stake in the airline. The qualifying parties from that process are expected to be announced soon and will then have until 30 April to submit binding offers. https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/jet-airways-extends-international- suspension-457503/ Back to Top China's Plans to Dominate Space Since the days of Jiang Zemin, Chinese military-strategic guidelines have emphasised the requirement for the People's Liberation Army to focus on 'informatisation' as a key component of its modernisation efforts. The essential requirement for informatisation is not lost on Chinese President Xi Jinping, who is making a determined effort to ensure that PLA modernisation is complete by 2035 and that it results in a 'world-class' force capable of fighting and winning wars anywhere by 2050. Space capability and 'space power' are central components of PLA informatisation and China is developing sophisticated thinking and capability for waging war in space. The key document driving the modernisation agenda is China's 2015 defence white paper, which notes that: 'Outer space has become a commanding height in international strategic competition. Countries concerned are developing their space forces and instruments, and the first signs of weaponisation of outer space have appeared.' The 2015 white paper also resulted in the formation of the PLA Strategic Support Force, which was created as part of a major reorganisation of the PLA. The PLASSF focuses on the roles of space, cyberspace and the electromagnetic spectrum in Chinese military operations, and highlights doing more in space as a priority for the PLA. It is the PLASSF that leads development of Chinese military space doctrine, including PLA counterspace doctrine, while the PLA Rocket Force controls operationally deployed anti-satellite weapons (ASATs). China's testing of ASATs-including, notably, the January 2007 test that destroyed a defunct Chinese satellite in low-earth orbit (LEO)-has transformed the nature of the space domain. No longer a peaceful sanctuary that sits above terrestrial geopolitical rivalries, space is fast becoming a contested warfighting domain. China has conducted numerous tests of counterspace capabilities over the past few years, including both direct-ascent delivery systems for kinetic-kill ASATs, potentially out to geostationary orbit, and more sophisticated co-orbital capabilities suitable for 'soft kill' systems and intelligence gathering. Other nations are responding to China's actions. The 2008 US 'Burnt Frost' demonstration of an ASAT capability and, more recently, the Trump administration's decision to establish a US space force are driven by Chinese (and Russian) counterspace capabilities. Indiatested its own ASAT last month, primarily as a response to the threat posed by Chinese capabilities. China hasn't formally released a space warfighting doctrine and instead repeats boilerplate foreign affairs rhetoric claiming that it 'always adheres to the principle of use of outer space for peaceful purposes and opposes the weaponisation of or an arms race in outer space'. This bland statement contrasts with the thinking on space warfare coming out of Chinese military institutions and academies. A recent assessment of global counterspace capabilities by the Secure World Foundation cites primary sources inside China's space policy community that consistently emphasise the need for the PLA to control space and deny access to adversaries. The report suggests that China has a requirement to achieve space superiority, defined as 'ensuring one's ability to fully use space while at the same time limiting, weakening, and destroying an adversary's space forces'. They note that Chinese thinkers argue that 'whoever controls space will control the Earth'. The analysis gives us an insight into what Chinese military analysts thinks space warfare might be like. China would 'strive to attack first at the campaign and tactical levels in order to maintain the space battlefield initiative'. The military's intent should be to 'conceal the concentration of its forces and make a decisive large-scale first strike'. That sounds like the classical concept of a 'space Pearl Harbor' that's designed to eliminate US and allied space-based C4ISR (command, control, communications, computer, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance) satellites, leaving their terrestrial forces deaf, dumb and blind, and unable to undertake joint and integrated information-based operations. China pursues a dual-track approach of building successive generations of more capable satellites to support the PLA in achieving informatisation and developing a suite of counterspace capabilities to shut out its opponents. Space is vital to the PLA's ability to conduct anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) operations at long range against US and allied forces. Without Chinese satellites for long-range communications, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, and precision navigation and timing, its A2/AD capabilities simply won't be effective. At the same time, counterspace capabilities can function as part of A2/AD by threatening vital Western C4ISR capabilities prior to, or at the outset of, a major military conflict. China's 2007 ASAT test generated a massive cloud of space debris that drew international opprobrium. Since then, Beijing has focused on exploring the potential of more sophisticated co-orbital and soft-kill technologies. A report prepared in 2015 for the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission points to an increased emphasis in China's ASAT and counterspace efforts on directed-energy weapons, electronic warfare, jamming and dazzling, as well as cyberattack methods such as spoofing, rather than physical destruction. That assessment is reinforced by both the Secure World Foundation analysis and the Center for Strategic and International Studies' 2019 space threat assessment. China continues to develop co-orbital systems that could fulfil an on-orbit servicing or space- based space situational awareness role. They could also potentially be applied to an ASAT role using soft-kill mechanisms such as jamming. The PLA's military space capability is likely to be supported by increasingly sophisticated and capable satellite networks-including, notably, the broader application of the Beidouglobal navigation system, which China is rapidly completing. This will offer the PLA an alternative to US GPS in support of joint warfare and precision strike, and better support power projection by the PLA Navy and PLA Air Force in far-flung operations, such as in the Indian Ocean region. China's space access will continue to rest on a government-run space program led by the PLA and the China National Space Administration. However, a Chinese commercial space sector seems to be on the horizon, which could see China emulate the 'Space 2.0' approach that has led to the likes of SpaceX. That could mean the development of spaceplane technology and, potentially, reusable rocket systems which would make it easier for China to access and use space more quickly. Chinese counterspace capabilities would benefit from the dual-role application of ballistic missile defence and the potential for co-orbital systems capable of rendezvous and proximity operations. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/chinas-plans-dominate-space-52562 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 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