Flight Safety Information July 31, 2019 - No. 153 In This Issue Regulators Found High Risk of Emergency After First Boeing MAX Crash Air Canada Pays 737 Max Pilots to Not Fly as Grounding Drags On FAA hopes global regulators simultaneously approve Boeing 737 MAX to fly again Incident: Hong Kong A359 at San Francisco on Jul 29th 2019, flaps problems Incident: KLM B738 at Amsterdam on Jul 24th 2019, engine shut down in flight Accident: THY B773 at Istanbul on Jul 30th 2019, flock of birds Incident: American A321 at New Orleans on Jul 30th 2019, bird strike Incident: Baltic BCS3 near Budapest on Jul 27th 2019, jammed aileron Avro RJ85 - Brake Failure - Ground Collision (Australia) WHAT'S GOING WITH ALL THESE KING AIR CRASHES? Delta pilot suspected of drinking arrested at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport U.S. officials warn airplane hackers could tamper with flight controls FAA Needs More Data To Predict When Planes' Brakes Are About To Fail Aerospace industry: 628 aircraft delivered in 2019 so far Are Offshore Aircraft-Repair Stations the New Normal? New technology requirement may ground more than 1 in 10 private jets in 2020 Air France-KLM buys smallest Airbus, retires largest NASA calls for more companies to join its commercial lunar lander program RESEARCH STUDY REQUEST Cabin Accident Investigation from SCSI Human Factors in Aviation Maintenance from SCSI ISASI - 2019 Upcoming USC Aviation Safety & Security Program Courses Regulators Found High Risk of Emergency After First Boeing MAX Crash An FAA analysis found it 'didn't take that much' for a malfunction like the one confronted by the plane's pilots Officials inspecting an engine recovered from the crash of a Boeing 737 MAX jet that plunged into the Java Sea last year. PHOTO: DONAL HUSNI/ZUMA PRESS By Andrew Tangel and Andy Pasztor An internal risk analysis after the first of two Boeing 737 MAX airliner crashes showed the likelihood was high of a similar cockpit emergency within months, according to a Federal Aviation Administration official familiar with the details and others briefed on the matter. The regulator's analysis, not previously reported, showed that it "didn't take that much" for a malfunction like the one confronted by the pilots of the Lion Air flight that crashed into the Java Sea last year to occur, one of the people briefed on the analysis said. Based on the findings, the regulator decided it was sufficient to inform pilots about the hazards of an onboard sensor malfunction that led to a flight-control system pushing down the plane's nose. The belief was that if pilots were aware of the risk and knew how to respond, it was acceptable to give Boeing and regulators time to design and approve a permanent software fix to MCAS, the flight-control system implicated in the crash, according to the agency official and people briefed on the findings. The FAA's early goal, one of these people added, was: "Get something out immediately and then mandate something more permanent." Specifically, the FAA's analysis suggested that a warning to pilots would be enough to provide Boeing about 10 months to design and implement changes to MCAS, according to a person close to the manufacturer. Boeing had been planning to complete the changes by April, within the 10-month period, this person said. Boeing and the FAA's risk projections faced a real-world crisis in less than five months. Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 went down on March 10 in a similar nosedive prompted by the same type of automated MCAS commands pilots couldn't overcome. The dual crashes took a total of 346 lives. Investigators quickly focused on the central role of MCAS, and regulators around the world grounded the aircraft. The FAA has said it doesn't have a deadline for approving the final package of fixes but won't allow the planes back in the air until all safety issues are resolved. A Boeing spokesman said: "Boeing and the FAA both agreed, based on the results of their respective rigorous safety processes, that the initial action of reinforcing existing pilot procedures...and then the development and fielding of a software update, were the appropriate actions." He added: "The safety of everyone flying our airplanes was paramount as the analysis was done and the actions were taken." The FAA's internal analysis, prepared in the days immediately following the Oct. 29 Lion Air crash, is called a TARAM, an acronym that stands for Transport Airplane Risk Assessment Methodology. It essentially involves a spreadsheet with formulas that consider a number of factors-such as fleet size, probability that sensors will fail, passenger counts-and aims to predict how many people could die over a certain period because of potential hazards, according to people familiar with the process. There is also a subjective analysis that, along with the TARAM's numerical forecasts, informs FAA managers and engineers about what types of actions to take and when-for major but also less-serious air-safety issues. "It's kind of a cold way of looking at it," the person briefed on the analysis said, adding: "It's not foolproof. It's a tool." The analysis determined that the underlying risks from the MCAS design were unacceptably high without at least some FAA action, that they exceeded internal FAA safety standards and that the likelihood of another emergency or even accident "was over our threshold," according to the FAA official. "We decided...it was not an acceptable situation," the official said. The directive to pilots essentially reiterated that cockpit crews should counteract and then disable an MCAS misfire by following long-established emergency procedures for a related flight-control problem that can similarly push down an aircraft's nose. When the FAA determines an aircraft poses an unacceptably high safety risk, it typically mandates targeted equipment changes, inspections or training to alleviate the hazard. It is unusual for the agency to conclude that reiterating cockpit emergency procedures or tweaking manuals will suffice. The FAA's Nov. 7 emergency directive, described as an "interim action," didn't mandate design or operational changes. Because it reminded pilots how to swiftly and correctly respond to such an MCAS malfunction, that approach "wasn't removing the risk," the FAA official said Tuesday, but rather "making it acceptable for a period based on the data we had." In a report shared with Boeing in late 2018, after the FAA's directive, the agency said its analysis found the "risk is sufficiently low...until the changes to the system are retrofitted," according to the person close to the manufacturer. Grounding wasn't seriously discussed but "that's always on the table" after a deadly crash, the person briefed on the analysis said. As FAA officials learned of MCAS's design issues, they also learned of other problems that could have contributed to the accident, including maintenance and pilot missteps, this person said. Boeing said it began working on changes to MCAS shortly after the Lion Air crash. The first software fix package was formally presented for FAA approval in December, but was still being tested and analyzed when the Ethiopian crash occurred in March. Between the two crashes, FAA engineering teams continued to assess data and fold details of the Lion Air probe into their safety assessments. "We continued asking questions," the FAA official said, adding that historical safety information from U.S. operators of the MAX indicated that "we weren't getting data" revealing pilots wouldn't react appropriately to MCAS emergencies. In the end, the FAA's statistical predictions didn't anticipate another accident would happen as soon as it did. "Statistically, the calculations just didn't work out," said the person briefed on the analysis. "You can't predict randomness." It isn't clear why Boeing took longer to finish MCAS changes than some industry and FAA officials had expected. At a late March briefing in Renton, Wash., a Boeing official said the plane maker took care to fine-tune the revised software and test it. "We didn't rush it because rushing is the wrong thing to do in a situation like this," the Boeing official said. FAA engineers and safety experts prepared a separate TARAM risk analysis in the wake of the Ethiopian crash, according to the FAA official and others familiar with the matter. The full assessment was completed two days after the crash, the official recalled, and was presented to senior policy makers at headquarters the next day. That same morning, the FAA received new satellite data more directly implicating MCAS, prompting the agency to become the last major aviation regulator to ground the MAX fleet. Boeing has since experienced more delays amid subsequent company reviews, questions from the FAA and flight test results-including simulator sessions with FAA pilots-revealing a series of technical problems. https://www.wsj.com/articles/regulators-found-high-risk-of-emergency-after-first- boeing-max-crash-11564565521 Back to Top Air Canada Pays 737 Max Pilots to Not Fly as Grounding Drags On Think U.S. airlines have it tough with the Boeing 737 Max grounding? At least they can keep pilots busy during the lengthy grounding, since they can fly older versions of the same airplane. Air Canada has no such opportunity, as executives made clear Tuesday on their second quarter earnings call, and it's hampering the airline's ability to operate efficiently. At Southwest Airlines, United Airlines and American Airlines, 737 pilots can operate all versions of the airplane, including the 737NGs, or next-generation planes, that make up the bulk of their fleets. But Air Canada doesn't fly the NG, so it trained hundreds of pilots just to fly the Max. Now, it must pay them not to work, and those costs are adding up. "We have some 400-plus pilots that we're carrying, who are waiting for the Max to come back," Air Canada CEO Calin Rovinescu told analysts on Tuesday. "Obviously, not exactly the most efficient use of their talent and their skill." Unique Problem All Max operators face similar problems with grounded airplanes and reduced capacity, but the pilot issue is unique to Air Canada. The airline decided five years ago to reduce its reliance on Airbus narrow-body jets and go with the Boeing 737 instead. It trained pilots to fly the new jet, going so far as to install a Max simulator. Because training is labor intensive and expensive, airlines prefer to train pilots as little as possible, so for the most part, Air Canada has grounded its Max pilots rather than re- train them to fly another jet. For the second quarter, chief financial officer Michael Rousseau said, Air Canada paid C$14 million ($10.64 million U.S.) in wages, salaries and benefits to non-flying Max pilots. Most were flying the 24 Max aircraft Air Canada operated before the airplane was grounded earlier this year. Those pilots will be ready go soon after regulators clear the airplane, executives said. But Air Canada had an aggressive delivery schedule, with plans to ramp up to 50 aircraft by next summer. Executives said they're not sure about Boeing's delivery schedule, and how it will may change because of the manufacturer's software issues. But they told analysts they're no longer going to be able to spool up to 50 airplanes so fast, even if Boeing can deliver them quickly. "We have not hired pilots and cabin crews for the 12 aircraft not delivered in Q2 of 2019 nor are we planning to hire for the additional 14 scheduled to be delivered in the first half of 2020 until we have clarity," Rousseau said. "As a result of this and other operational factors, it will take up to a year from the time when the decision is made to reintegrate them into our fleet after the ungrounding for all 50 planes to fly." Effect on Schedule The pilot training issue is more of a long-term problem. In the short term, Air Canada's problems look at lot like those at other North American airlines; the carrier does not have enough aircraft to fly all of its scheduled capacity. By now, executives said, Air Canada was to have 36 Max jets, and they were to fly roughly 100 departures per day by the end of June, including on some of the airline's longest (and most premier) North American routes. Like most airlines, Air Canada is doing more with less, deferring non-essential maintenance, extending leases, taking other aircraft earlier than expected and using wet-leased aircraft. But there's only so much it could do. In the second quarter, it said it was able to cover about 97 percent of planned flying. This summer, executives said, the airline will fly about 95 percent of the planned schedule. Given the uncertainty over when the Max will fly again, executives said they want to take a prudent approach on future schedules. On Tuesday, Air Canada said it is canceling all Max flights until Jan. 8, 2020, longer than any other North American airline. Southwest is the only other operator to cancel its Max flights into next year, going as far as Jan. 5. Air Canada still reported a profit in the second quarter, reporting adjusted net income of C$240 million ($182.46 million) on operating revenues C$4.757 billion ($3.6 million). Unit costs for the quarter rose 5.2 percent, an increase the airline blamed mostly on the Max grounding. https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/air-canada-pays-737-max-203059350.html Back to Top FAA hopes global regulators simultaneously approve Boeing 737 MAX to fly again Grounded Boeing 737 MAX aircraft are seen parked at Boeing Field in Seattle WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration hopes civil aviation authorities around the world will decide at about the same time to allow the Boeing 737 MAX to resume flying, the agency told Congress on Tuesday in a letter seen by Reuters. The FAA and other regulators grounded the plane in March after two fatal crashes in five months killed 346 people. Acting FAA Administrator Dan Elwell said in letters to Senators Susan Collins and Jack Reed that the agency "hopes to achieve near simultaneous approval from the major civil aviation authorities around the world" but added that every regulator will make its own determination. "We are working with our colleagues from the European Union, Canada and Brazil to address their concerns," he wrote. Collins will chair a Senate Appropriations subcommittee hearing Wednesday that will feature four senior FAA officials, including Ali Bahrami, who oversees aviation safety. Boeing Co Chief Executive Dennis Muilenburg told analysts last week he was confident the MAX would be back in service as early as October after a certification flight in "the September time frame." Ryan Air Chief Executive Michael O'Leary said Monday that he had been told that flight would be delayed until October. Boeing on Tuesday reiterated Muilenburg's recent comments. Elwell said in his letter the FAA "will lift the 737 MAX grounding order only when it is safe to do so." The MAX's return has been delayed as Chicago-based Boeing works to win approval for reprogrammed stall-prevention software and related training materials. In late June, the FAA said it had identified a new risk as an agency pilot was running a flight simulator test seeking to intentionally activate the so-called MCAS stall-prevention system. Boeing has said it is working on a fix to address the problem. The FAA's Technical Advisory Board, made up of experts not involved in the original 737 MAX certification, is also reviewing the MCAS software update and training requirements. The European Aviation Safety Agency sent FAA and Boeing a list of concerns it wanted addressed before the MAX re-enters service, people familiar with the matter said. Since the crashes, federal prosecutors, the Transportation Department's inspector general, Congress and several blue-ribbon panels have been investigating how the FAA certifies new aircraft and its longstanding practice of delegating certification tasks to airplane manufacturers. Elwell noted in his letter that on March 5 he created a new Aviation Safety Organization office on delegating authority. That office is in the process of selecting staff and is developing procedures "to conduct this important mission. No substantive changes to the existing (delegation) program have been made as a result of standing up this office." https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/faa-hopes-global-regulators-simultaneously- 193113730.html Back to Top Incident: Hong Kong A359 at San Francisco on Jul 29th 2019, flaps problems A Hong Kong Airlines Airbus A350-900, registration B-LGA performing flight HX-61 from San Francisco,CA (USA) to Hong Kong (China), was climbing out of San Francisco's runway 28R already cleared to climb to FL190 when the crew requested to level off at 3000 feet and accepted the controller's 4000 feet. A few minutes later the crew advised they had a problem with the flaps and wanted to remain to close to the airport. The aircraft entered a hold at 6000 feet for about 4 hours to burn off fuel and returned to San Francisco for a safe landing on runway 28L at a normal speed about 4:40 hours after departure. https://flightaware.com/live/flight/CRK61/history/20190729/2010Z/KSFO/VHHH http://avherald.com/h?article=4cafbdff&opt=0 Back to Top Incident: KLM B738 at Amsterdam on Jul 24th 2019, engine shut down in flight A KLM Boeing 737-800, registration PH-HSD performing flight KL-1497 from Amsterdam (Netherlands) to Ibiza,SP (Spain), was climbing out of Amsterdam's runway 24 when the crew requested to stop the climb at FL080 advising they had a problem. The crew subsequently advised their right hand engine (CFM56) had shown repeated overheat indications, they needed to return to Amsterdam. The aircraft headed back to Amsterdam, the crew decided to shut the engine down. The aircraft landed safely on runway 18C about 30 minutes after departure. A passenger reported immediately after becoming airborne an unusual loud noise was heard from the right hand side. The aircraft remained low, about 15 minutes after departure it became obvious they were returning to Amsterdam. The captain subsequently announced that the right hand engine had frequently overheated and was shut down. After landing the captain opened the cockpit door and talked to passengers indicating that the situation had been more critical than just the right hand engine overheating, he never had experienced such an emergency before. A replacement Boeing 737-800 registration PH-BXM reached Ibiza with a delay of about 3 hours. The occurrence aircraft returned to service the following morning after about 18 hours on the ground. http://avherald.com/h?article=4cafbc1b&opt=0 Back to Top Accident: THY B773 at Istanbul on Jul 30th 2019, flock of birds A THY Turkish Airlines Boeing 777-300, registration TC-JJM performing flight TK-2313 from Izmir to Istanbul (Turkey), was on approach to Istanbul's runway 34L when the aircraft flew through a flock of birds and received multiple bird impacts on the left hand side. The aircraft continued for a safe landing and taxied to the apron. A post flight inspection revealed multiple bird impacts to the leanding edge of the left hand wing from wing root to wing tip, the position light at the wing tip was damaged, one bird had penetrated the underside of the left wing. The occurrence aircraft is still on the ground in Istanbul about 12 hours after landing and was unable to perform its assigned flight to Toronto,ON (Canada). http://avherald.com/h?article=4cafb711&opt=0 Back to Top Incident: American A321 at New Orleans on Jul 30th 2019, bird strike An American Airlines Airbus A321-200, registration N143AN performing flight AA-2607 from Dallas Ft. Worth,TX to New Orleans,LA (USA), departed Dallas Ft. Worth's runway 17R and landed on New Orleans' runway 29. At the gate a dent at the leading edge of the right hand wing as result of a bird strike was discovered. https://flightaware.com/live/flight/AAL2607/history/20190730/1530Z/KDFW/KMSY The dent seen at the gate: http://avherald.com/h?article=4cafb55d&opt=0 Back to Top Incident: Baltic BCS3 near Budapest on Jul 27th 2019, jammed aileron An Air Baltic Bombardier C-Series CS-300, registration YL-CSH performing flight BT-7792 from Chania (Greece) to Helsinki (Finland) with 149 passengers and 5 crew, was enroute at FL380 having just entered Hungarian Airspace when the crew requested to divert to Budapest due to a technical problem. On approach to Budapest the crew subsequently advised approach control that they did expect a normal landing, however, requested emergency services on stand by nonetheless. One of their ailerons had failed and was jammed in an unusual position, they'd be able to control the aircraft with the remaining flight controls however. The aircraft landed on Budapest's runway 31R about 35 minutes after leaving FL380. Hungary's KBSZ reported the aircraft (tail number provided with a typo as LY-CSH) diverted to Budapest due to techncial malfunction and was able to continue the journey the following day. The occurrence aircraft remained on the ground for about 37 hours, then on Jul 29th departed Budapest as flight BT-9804 to Riga (Latvia). http://avherald.com/h?article=4cafa10f&opt=0 Back to Top Avro RJ85 - Brake Failure - Ground Collision (Australia) Date: 30-JUL-2019 Time: 14:20 Type: Avro RJ85 Owner/operator: Cobham Aviation Registration: VH-NJW C/n / msn: E2329 Fatalities: Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 66 Other fatalities: 0 Aircraft damage: Minor Location: Perth Airport (PER/YPPH), WA - Australia Phase: Taxi Nature: Domestic Scheduled Passenger Departure airport: Perth Airport (PER/YPPH) Destination airport: Granny Smith Airport (YGRS) Narrative: While taxiing to depart on a FIFO charter to a gold mine, after an apparent brake failure, the aircraft impacted light pole and terminal building. https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/227734 Back to Top WHAT'S GOING WITH ALL THESE KING AIR CRASHES? Two deadly Beechcraft King Air accidents at the end of June helped propel business aviation safety into one of its darkest periods. The fact that both accidents occurred shortly after takeoff-and several recent similar events-might be cause for alarm for this popular twin turboprop. Combined, these two crashes-one in Hawaii, the other in Texas-accounted for 21 of the 57 business aviation fatalities during the first half of 2019. That's a sixfold increase from the same period last year. Since October 2014 there have been at least five King Air accidents during takeoff or initial climb. During each of these events, including the two most recent crashes, the pilot lost control of the aircraft shortly after takeoff. In four of these events, the aircraft wreckage hit structures on or near an airport. Earlier this month, the NTSB released preliminary reports on the two most recent crashes. Each report provides information related to each event and signifies the beginning of an extensive investigation to determine probable cause; the more conclusive final reports are typically published within 12 months of an accident. In the first of the two fatal King Air accidents this year, a King Air A90 collided with terrain after takeoff from Dillingham Airfield in Mokuleia, Hawaii. A commercial-rated pilot and 10 passengers were killed on this local skydiving flight. According to the preliminary report, a witness (employed by the operator) stated he could hear "the engines during the initial ground roll and stated the engines sounded normal, consistent with the engines operating at high power." He then observed the aircraft at an altitude between 150 and 200 feet above ground level. It appeared to be turning and he could see the belly of the airplane and the cabin facing the ocean to the north. Shortly afterward, the aircraft "struck the ground in a nose-down attitude, and a fireball erupted." The report continued that a preliminary review of video from an airport surveillance camera revealed "that just before impact, the airplane was in an inverted 45-degree nose-down attitude." On June 30, nine days after the Hawaii crash, a King Air 350 collided with a hangar and terrain after takeoff from Addison Airport in Texas. Two pilots, one an ATP and the other commercial-rated, and eight passengers died. The Part 91 cross-country flight was planned to depart Addison and fly to St. Petersburg, Florida. The NTSB is investigating the June 31 tragedy, which killed eight passengers and two crewmembers. According to the preliminary report, the takeoff and departure of the airplane were captured by several video cameras and radar and observed by witnesses. One witness stated that as the aircraft went down the runway, "it seemed quieter than normal and sounded like it didn't have sufficient power to takeoff." After takeoff, witnesses observed the airplane drift to the left and then roll to the left before colliding with the hangar. The report added that several security cameras captured the drift to the left after takeoff and "one camera showed the airplane roll completely inverted before it collided with the hangar." The aircraft was equipped with a cockpit voice recorder. The report stated that eight seconds before the end of the recording, a crewmember commented on a problem with the left engine. Three seconds before the end of the recording, three automated "bank angle" aural alerts were recorded. Final reports have been published on the other three takeoff events involving King Airs- two in the U.S., the other in Australia. Examining each of these past events might provide some hints of what happened in the most recent events. Of interest: in each of these earlier cases, investigators cited pilot performance as an issue rather than aircraft performance. On Oct. 30, 2014, a King Air B200 crashed into a FlightSafety International (FSI) simulator building at Wichita Eisenhower Airport (KICT). The ATP-rated pilot was killed along with three people in the FSI facility; two others on the ground received serious injuries. This flight was planned as a Part 91 repositioning flight from KICT to Mena, Arkansas. During takeoff, the pilot declared an emergency and stated that the airplane "lost the left engine." According to the report, the aircraft climbed to about 120 feet above ground with its landing gear extended, continued a left turn, and descended into the building. Post-accident examination did not identify any anomalies with the airplane, engines, or propellers that would prevent normal operation. It was determined that the left engine was developing low to moderate power while the right engine was developing moderate to high power. Neither propeller was feathered. A "sideslip thrust and rudder study" completed by the NTSB determined that during the last second of flight, the airplane had a nose-left side slip of 29 degrees. The report concluded that the pilot likely applied substantial "inappropriate" left rudder input (remember the pilot reported a "lost" left engine) and failed to maintain lateral control of the airplane. Other contributing factors included the pilot's failure to follow emergency procedures-including feathering the propeller and retracting the landing gear-for an engine failure. On Jan. 23, 2017, a King Air 300 crashed shortly after takeoff in Tucson, Arizona. The ATP-rated pilot and a passenger were fatally injured. According to the NTSB final report, after takeoff the aircraft "reached an altitude of about 100 to 150 feet above the runway in a nose-high pitch attitude, the airplane rolled left to an inverted position as its nose dropped, and it descended to terrain impact on the airport (coming to rest against a concrete wall), consistent with an aerodynamic stall." Post-accident examination of the aircraft found no evidence of preexisting anomalies that would preclude normal operations. However, post-accident toxicology testing of the pilot revealed the use of multiple psychoactive substances that included over-the- counter, prescription, and illicit drugs. The NTSB determined probable cause as "the pilot's exceedance of the airplane's critical angle of attack during takeoff, which resulted in aerodynamic stall. Contributing to the accident was the pilot's impairment by the effects of a combination of psychoactive substances." On Feb. 21, 2017, a King Air B200 crashed into a shopping mall seconds after taking off from Essendon Airport in Melbourne, Australia. The charter flight was scheduled to carry four American passengers to King Island to play golf; all five people on board, including the Australian pilot, were killed in the crash. An investigation by the Australian Transport Safety Board (ATSB) determined that the accident was the result of a flight control trim tab being set incorrectly before takeoff. The ATSB could not identify any preexisting faults with the aircraft. Investigators determined that the mis-set rudder trim caused a longer takeoff roll and that once the airplane was airborne, this caused it to slip and yaw to the left. After takeoff, the pilot made two "mayday" calls and falsely identified the issue as an engine failure. During the investigation, the ATSB also determined that the aircraft was above its maximum allowable takeoff weight during the takeoff but did not cite this weight discrepancy as a contributing factor. Analysis of recent and past King Air accidents during takeoff and initial climb suggest that each event is unique. All three accidents examined that have a final report published identify specific pilot actions-use of the wrong rudder, loss of control due to impairment, or a mis-set trim-as probable causes and none identify any mechanical issues with the aircraft. These pilot actions (other than the impaired pilot) can be mitigated through better training or employing safeguards (such as checklists) to ensure that items such as the trim is properly set. Not mentioned in either of the final reports was the fact that these aircraft were flown single-pilot; of all the accidents-only the Addison one had a pilot in the right seat. A lack of familiarity or experience with an aircraft might have contributed to one recent (Addison) and two past accidents (Wichita and Tucson); those events involved either newly purchased aircraft or a "ferry" flight by a contract pilot. In the past, the insurance industry has served as the "de facto" regulator and has mandated minimum flight experience, recency, or proficiency in type. Following the most recent King Air accidents, there will be a lot of interest when the NTSB publishes the respective final reports. From this brief analysis, the airframe, engines, and propellers appear to be sound (7,500 examples have been flying since the 1960s), but more intense scrutiny on the operators and pilots (training, qualifications, and so on) might be in order. https://www.bjtonline.com/business-jet-news/whats-going-with-all-these-king-air- crashes Back to Top Delta pilot suspected of drinking arrested at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport Officers at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport smelled alcohol on his breath before his California-bound flight, according to a report. Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport and the downtown Minneapolis skyline, as seen in April. A Delta Air Lines pilot was arrested after officers at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport smelled alcohol on his breath before his California-bound flight Tuesday morning. The pilot was going through the Known Crewmember entrance and tried to leave the line when he saw additional screening, according to a report from airport police. The pilot was later found to be in possession of an "alcoholic container" and was suspected to be impaired, the report said. The Transportation Security Administration "routinely includes random changes in its processes as an added layer of security - it helps prevent people from gaming the security system," said airport spokesman Patrick Hogan. Hogan said the pilot had been scheduled to fly DL1728 to San Diego. The pilot, who lives in Rosemount, was arrested shortly after 11 a.m. in Terminal 1. He was released about three hours later, the report said, pending a formal complaint. The Star Tribune generally does not name suspects who have not been charged. "The case is still under investigation and we are awaiting final toxicology results, so a detailed report is not available at this time," Hogan said in an e-mail Tuesday evening. Minnesota has a 0.04% legal limit for pilots, according to Hogan. In addition, the Federal Aviation Administration also prohibits any pilot from flying within eight hours of drinking alcohol, what the agency calls "bottle to throttle." In a brochure aimed at pilots titled "Alcohol and Flying: A Deadly Combination," the agency touches several times on the perils of drinking the previous day or evening and then waking up and climbing in the cockpit, even if it has been more than eight hours since that last drink. One of the most notorious cases of drinking and flying occurred in 1990, when a Northwest Airlines captain, flight engineer and first officer were arrested when their flight from Fargo landed at the Twin Cities airport. A patron of a Fargo-area bar had tipped authorities that the crew had been drinking heavily there the night before. Federal regulations were tightened after that. http://www.startribune.com/delta-pilot-suspected-of-drinking-arrested-at-minneapolis- st-paul-international-airport/513417472/ Back to Top U.S. officials warn airplane hackers could tamper with flight controls An Embraer Praetor 600 business aircraft performs a demonstration flight on June 18 at the Paris Air Show in Le Bourget, France. File Photo by Eco Clement/UPI | License Photo July 30 (UPI) -- U.S. security officials issued a warning Tuesday that small airplanes are also vulnerable to hacking, and the openings might allow criminals to alter key instrument readings to produce false data in flight. The Homeland Security Department's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency issued a report that recommends aircraft owners restrict physical access to the planes and that aircraft manufacturers review the implementation of Controller Area Network bus systems. Government experts said in the report, however, such hacking could not be done remotely. "An attacker with physical access to the aircraft could attach a device to [flight equipment] that could be used to inject false data, resulting in incorrect readings in avionics equipment," the report states. The agency said that type of hack, though, could affect everything from engine telemetry readings, compass and altitude, speed and angle of attack -- all of which are critical flight elements that could lead to catastrophic failure. A pilot relying on instrument readings would not be able to tell between false and true instrument readings. One recommendation the department makes is to follow advances by automakers. "The automotive industry has made advancements in implementing safeguards that hinder similar physical attacks," it said. "[Those safeguards] should be evaluated by aircraft manufacturers." Expert Patrick Kiley said aviation technology now lags behind other technologies and part of the overall problem is a false sense of security due to the face most airplanes are stored in secure locations. "While physical restrictions are great, we really feel like avionics, in particular, need to implement defense in-depth," he said. https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2019/07/30/US-officials-warn-airplane-hackers- could-tamper-with-flight-controls/6821564501365/ Back to Top FAA Needs More Data To Predict When Planes' Brakes Are About To Fail With more data, FAA officials say they can build an algorithm to predict when conditions will lead to brake failure during landings. What if you could tell that a plane's brakes were about to fail based on the condition of the craft, age of the runway and current weather conditions? What if just such a plane was about to land at your airport? What if you could do something about it? The William J. Hughes Technical Center Airport Technology Research and Development division-an office under the Federal Aviation Administration-has been collecting data on this problem and plans to build a machine learning algorithm that can predict brake failures before they happen. But before the office can build that algorithm, it needs more data. The Airport Technology Research and Development office maintains a database of incidents that occurred at or around airport reported through five federal agencies: the Aviation Safety Reporting System, National Transportation Safety Board, FAA Runway Safety Office Runway Incursion Database, Pilot Deviation System, and Vehicle/Pedestrian Deviation System. But that data won't be sufficient for a workable predictive analysis, according to a market survey released Monday. In order to build a reliable algorithm, FAA will need "access to a large volume of "aircraft landing data and the associated external contributing factors." The survey seeks feedback on the types of data available on: * Raw aircraft data: Aircraft type, gross weight, flap position, touchdown ground speed, landing time and time zone, ICAO Airport Designator, and runway of landing. * Processed aircraft data: Braking friction calculated from aircraft raw data for each third of the landing. * External weather data: Precipitation type, precipitation intensity, air temperature, air pressure, humidity, pressure altitude, wind speed, and wind direction. FAA is looking for at least two years of landing data-going back to at least July 1, 2017- from a variety of global airline carriers, landing conditions and plane conditions, including normal and degraded brakes. Once the FAA has enough data, the agency intends to build an analytics engine to "identify clusters and branches of relationships between aircraft data and external contributing factors-i.e. weather and runway condition data-to predict braking performance." "The ultimate goal is to determine and recommend actions that prevent or mitigate incidents and accidents in advance of their occurrence," the notice states. Depending on feedback from the survey, FAA plans to issue a one-time solicitation to acquire the data from a third-party source. Responses to the survey are due by Aug. 5. https://www.nextgov.com/analytics-data/2019/07/faa-needs-more-data-predict-when- planes-brakes-are-about-fail/158799/ Back to Top Aerospace industry: 628 aircraft delivered in 2019 so far Widebody aircraft deliveries reached a new record in the first half of 2019: 200 were delivered, helping the value to UK industry of 628 deliveries overall by the global aerospace industry remain strong at up to £14.5 billion. Challenges in the global aerospace industry have seen deliveries fall behind the pace set in a record 2018, while orders also fell as the backlog of aircraft orders fell to 13,866. Taking account of the headwinds facing the global aerospace industry for the remainder of 2019, ADS Group has revised down its forecast for 2019 aircraft deliveries by 300 to 1,489 aircraft. Engines orders remain strong as the backlog increased in the first half of 2019 to 26,578, following a 50% increase in single-aisle engines chosen for single-aisle aircraft in the backlog. ADS chief executive Paul Everitt said: "The Global aerospace industry continues to set new records, with 200 widebody deliveries during the first 6 months of 2019. This is positive news for UK industry, helping to push the value of global aircraft deliveries to the UK to £14.5 billion. "The outlook for the second half of the year has been revised down to reflect some specific market conditions and wider concerns about international trade economic disruption. "Aerospace is a UK success and a strong partnership between industry and Government will be essential to maximise the industrial opportunities from meeting the environmental challenges associated with the global growth in aviation demand." https://www.aero-mag.com/aerospace-industry-628-aircraft-delivered-in-2019-so-far/ Back to Top Are Offshore Aircraft-Repair Stations the New Normal? A Boeing 787 with a cracked high-pressure duct was serviced in Chile, then arrived in Chicago with the duct held together by tape and wire. A trend toward the offshore repair of commercial airliners has caused alarm among some experts in the flight industry. (Photo: Nick-D) Somewhere on the ground in São Paulo, Brazil, an aircraft technician needed help. He was a man of about 40, posting a friendly inquiry onto LinkedIn this year with pictures of a metal sphere he didn't recognize deep inside an American Airlines jet. He had no idea what it was. "Hi everyone. This component is located on the Engine Rolls Royce Trent 800," wrote the mechanic, in broken English, smiling in his profile picture next to an AA passenger plane. "Does someone could give me a technical information...? What is the function of that component ....? I searched long about it, and I did not find..." This earnest message, sent by a technician proudly identifying himself as an American Airlines employee in Brazil, was received with alarm by his colleagues in the United States. If this foreign worker was unable to even identify the equipment in front of him, located on a Boeing 777 jet, how was he supposed to fix it? It was more evidence of risks to passengers and crew as domestic air carriers increasingly use offshore repair centers in South America and Asia, where standards can be lower in crucial areas of safety, training and worker competence. Crowd-sourcing technical knowledge falls far short of what is required to keep these exceedingly complicated airplanes flying safely. "It's a disaster waiting to happen," John Samuelsen, president of the 150,000-member Transport Workers Union, told Capital & Main. In 2003, according to TWU, only seven percent of repair work was being done overseas. Now it is 30 percent. There are more than 900 foreign repair stations currently certified by the Federal Aviation Administration-including a new $100 million aircraft maintenance facility in São Paulo. American Airlines alone employs about 400 technicians on foreign soil. "In South America or in China, the workers that they hire are not required to go through the same rigorous testing and certification," said Samuelsen. "No criminal background checks, no random drug testing, no certification requirements that exist with the airline carriers in America." Samuelsen provided Capital & Main with TWU photographs, reports and emails that document instances of what he described as unsound repairs, faulty wiring and other stopgap measures that would never be allowed at a U.S. facility. According to a 2018 memo from TWU vice-president Gary Peterson, a Boeing 787 with a cracked high- pressure duct was serviced in Chile, then arrived in Chicago with the duct held together by tape and wire. "This is a high-pressure duct that operates a valve critical for the safety of engine operations, which could have caused a catastrophic in-flight event," the TWU email warned. "This type of item is no longer the exception but more the norm." A 2018 report prepared for TWU by the risk management firm Ridge Global (led by former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge) found that offshore repair stations regularly fall short of U.S. standards on "levels of oversight, cultural views of safety and security, staffing practices and issuance and possession of FAA certifications for mechanics and technicians." Budget constraints also limit the number of overseas inspections conducted by the FAA. At the July 17 House aviation subcommittee hearing on safety in air travel, Capt. Joe DePete, president of the Air Line Pilots Association, said: "Whenever we've had an aircraft come back from a foreign maintenance station, we're always taking a good look. ... They typically go to the lowest bidder, and I've always said this: Skilled labor's not cheap, cheap labor's not skilled. And you end up getting what you pay for." A new sense of urgency is pushing the airline safety issue in the aftermath of two crashes of Boeing 737 Max passenger jets in 2018 and 2019, killing more than 300 passengers and crew. The first panel of witnesses to address the committee were family members of those killed in the crashes, including Paul Njoroge, who lost his wife, children and mother-in-law. The day before the hearing, Boeing released another statement of apology and committed to "help with the healing process," but Njoroge noted that while the company "apologized to the families in front of cameras," the family members in need of healing had yet to hear those regrets in person. A serious congressional response may be required as pressures increase at carriers to avoid drawing attention to the lapses. Rather than address safety issues, technicians have been warned "if they write up aircraft, the work will be moved outside the U.S. and the TWU stations will be nothing more than gas and gos," according to an email circulated to union reps from TWU's Peterson. Airlines looking to increase profits aren't the only forces aligned against the demands over safety issues. Nations that are home to lower-cost repair centers make up the largest lobbying group fighting aviation unions in Washington, D.C., said Greg Regan, secretary-treasurer at the Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO. "They just don't want to see any hindrance to their ability to get more work," he added. "Frankly, if basic safety is a hindrance for them to get more work, then I don't know that we should have our work being done there." Labor unions have succeeded in lobbying for the passage of federal laws to "level the playing field" with uniform requirements both here and abroad, Regan added, including background checks and drug and alcohol testing (on the books since 2012). But to their dismay, both the Obama and Trump administrations failed to act on enforcing these congressional mandates overseas. "We think that's just unconscionable and something that is a real safety risk for a heavy maintenance aircraft," said Regan. TTD was one of four unions to sign a letter to U.S. Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao urging the current administration to act on congressionally mandated rules on "drug and alcohol testing, security screening for safety-sensitive personnel, and risk-based oversight at foreign aircraft repair stations." They are also looking for annual inspections at foreign repair stations to be done without advance notice. Currently, Regan said, repair stations are given up to 30 days' warning before inspectors show up, allowing facilities to cover up any violations. "That's not a real inspection," Regan argued. "If that was the way food inspections worked in this country, we'd be outraged." A decade ago, the FAA still had inspectors based overseas to deal with certified foreign repair stations used by American carriers. After budget issues led the last of those international field offices to close in 2015, overseas inspections were limited to once a year, even as the number of foreign air technicians increase. "That's our biggest concern," said Mike Perrone, president of Professional Aviation Safety Specialists. "We've been trying for a long time to get more than one yearly inspection, and we get shot down every year." For Perrone, air safety at home and abroad is a fixation that never fades, even as his wife asks why he keeps watching so many documentaries and grim news reports about passenger plane crashes from over the decades. "Our job is safety number one, making sure everything works," said Perrone, whose union represents 11,000 FAA safety inspectors, systems specialists and others. "I don't want to ever wake up and read a newspaper or see on TV the folks that I represent caused the problem because we didn't speak up. That's probably the biggest thing: Our folks are pretty vocal." https://capitalandmain.com/are-offshore-aircraft-repair-stations-the-new-normal-0730 Back to Top New technology requirement may ground more than 1 in 10 private jets in 2020 It can cost up to $200,000 to outfit planes with ADS-B Out surveillance technology as mandated beginning next year by regulators in U.S., Europe and elsewhere A private jet at ACM Aviation in San Jose, Calif. ycoons of the world could see their private jets grounded beginning next year due to costly new technology and concerns over refinancing. From 2020, private aircraft must be fitted with ADS-B Out surveillance technology, which, depending on the plane, could cost up to $200,000. Aviation finance specialist Shearwater Aero Capital has also warned that mainstream lenders are shying away from older aircraft in favor of shiny new private jets. Private jets are typically financed through loans or leases, with owners renting out their plans to generate revenue. The lending expert said up to 3,500 older private jets could struggle to secure new financing when their existing loans and leases expire, leaving a $10 billion funding gap. According to aircraft broker Colibri, private-jet owners face a "dilemma" as the cost of installing the technology and subsequent maintenance inspections and overhauls could come close to an aircraft's total market value. The aircraft broker predicted that 11% of Europe's private-jet fleet would be permanently grounded once the new regulations begin in June 2020 - the deadline in the U.S. is Jan. 1. Managing director Oliver Stone told MarketWatch the new rules, enabling air-traffic controllers to monitor jets, would particularly harm the value of aircraft older than 10 years. In a separate note, the broker said: "Aircraft valued under one million dollars will have an interesting dilemma with the cost of ADS-B Out and any cost of upcoming maintenance inspections or overhauls resulting in a bill higher than or almost as high as the aircraft's market value once they are completed. "The combined costs of these events could push owners to decide that the cost of these upgrades when combined with due maintenance is beyond economic reason and write off their aircraft all together." It added that the prices of individual parts were declining, making it harder to recoup value. Shearwater Aero Capital's survey of business-aviation professionals revealed that 67% found it difficult to secure financing for private jets over 10 years old. Shearwater managing partner Chris Miller said companies could end up paying more to use new corporate jets for executives. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/new-technology-requirement-may-ground-more- than-1-in-10-private-jets-in-2020-2019-07-13 Back to Top Air France-KLM buys smallest Airbus, retires largest FILE PHOTO: An Airbus A220 passenger jet stands in the final assembly line PARIS (Reuters) - Air France-KLM agreed to order 60 of Airbus's new A220 jets on Tuesday while announcing the retirement of the planemaker's A380 superjumbo from its fleet, as the Franco-Dutch airline group moves to improve fuel efficiency and costs. In a boost for the A220 programme acquired by Airbus from Bombardier last year, Air France-KLM's board approved 30 options and 30 purchase rights in addition to the firm orders worth an estimated $5.5 billion at 2018 list prices. Airbus no longer publishes prices. The order was first reported by French daily La Tribune. The company said the 150-seater A220 would "improve Air France's environmental footprint" as it gradually replaces its older A318 and A319 models at the smaller end of its fleet, starting in 2021. Air France-KLM will also drop the A380 superjumbo entirely by the following year, the company said, adding that the current competitive environment "limits the markets on which the A380 can be operated profitably". Air France had previous disclosed plans to retire three of its 10 superjumbos. The move comes five months after Airbus announced it was scrapping production of the world's largest airliner in response to lacklustre sales. With two decks of spacious cabins and room for 544 people in standard layout, the A380 was designed to challenge Boeing's legendary 747 but failed to take hold as airlines backed a new generation of smaller, more nimble jets. Air France-KLM will "examine the possible options for the replacement of these planes with new-generation aircraft now available on the market," the company said. Following the A380's demise, Airbus's arch-rival Boeing is hoping its new twin-aisle 777X jet may scoop up more orders as it prepares to enter service next year. https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/air-france-klm-buys-smallest-165935619.html Back to Top NASA calls for more companies to join its commercial lunar lander program NASA has opened up a call for companies to join the ranks of its nine existing Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) providers, a group it chose in November after a similar solicitation for proposals. With the CLPS program, NASA is buying space aboard future commercial lunar landers to deliver to the surface of the Moon its future research, science and demonstration projects, and it's looking for more providers to sign up as lunar lander providers. Contracts could prove out to $2.6 billion and extend through 2028. The list of nine providers chosen in November 2018 includes Astrobotic Technology, Deep Space Systems, Draper, Firefly Aerospace, Intuitive Machines, Lockheed Martin, Masten Space Systems, Moon Express and OrbitBeyond. NASA is looking to these companies, and any new firms added to the list as a result of this second call for submissions, to deliver both small and mid-size lunar landers, with the aim of delivering anything from rovers, to batteries, to payloads specific to future Artemis missions with the aim of helping establish a more permanent human presence on the Moon. NASA's goal in building out a stable of providers helps its Moon ambitions in a few different ways, including providing redundancy, and also offering a competitive field so they can open up bids for specific payloads and gain price advantages. At the end of May, NASA announced the award of more than $250 million in contracts for specific payload delivery missions that were intended to take place by 2021. The three companies chosen from its list of nine providers were Astrobotic, Intuitive Machines and OrbitBeyond, although OrbitBeyond told the agency just yesterday that it would not be able to fulfill the contract awarded due to "internal corporate challenges," and backed out of the contract with NASA's permission. Given how quickly one of their providers exited one of the few contracts already awarded, and the likely significant demand there will be for commercial lander services should NASA's Artemis ambitions even match up somewhat closely to the vision, it's probably a good idea for the agency to build out that stable of service providers. https://techcrunch.com/2019/07/30/nasa-calls-for-more-companies-to-join-its- commercial-lunar-lander-program/ Back to Top RESEARCH STUDY REQUEST Participants Needed for Pilot Simulator Experiment Iowa State University is conducting a study to examine pilot performance while using an enhanced flight vision system for approach and landing phases. The study is being led by Dr. Michael Dorneich and is funded by the Federal Aviation Administration. We are looking for pilots to participate in the study. As a participant of this study, you'll be asked to use flight simulator to complete tasks, and to answer questions. To participate this study, you must be over 18 years old, have at least 10- hour flight experience. You will be compensated $50 for about 2 hours of your time. The study is being conducted in Ames, IA. If you are interested, please contact Ramanathan Annamalai at P24experiment@iastate.edu . Back to Top Back to Top Back to Top ISASI 2019 Future Safety: has the past become irrelevant? The Hague Marriott Hotel & World Forum The Hague September 3 - 5, 2019 *** Early Bird registration ending soon *** ISASI 2019 is pleased to announce that the Preliminary Program is now available. The Seminar's agenda includes a wide range of topics including accident case studies, airport and airline operations, human factors and commercial space accident investigations. Presentations will be given by industry experts, accident investigators, manufacturers and academics. To find out more about the program and how to register, please visit the seminar website at - www.ISASI2019.org Questions about registration can be sent to Barb Dunn at avsafe@shaw.ca As a reminder - Early Bird registration ends at midnight on July 28, 2019 MST (GMT-7). In order to receive the seminar rate at the hotel, reservations must be made by July 28. On Monday 2nd September, the day before the start of the ISASI Seminar, there is also a choice of three Tutorials: Monday (Tutorial) program: Tutorial 1 - Hosted by the Dutch Safety Board A. Aviation Safety versus Medical Confidentiality (morning) B. Communications with Victims and Relatives (afternoon) Tutorial 2 - Military accident investigation. Hosted by the Military Air Safety Investigators (MASI) - a subset of ISASI - this tutorial is the forum for International Military Accident Investigators to share knowledge on their respective capabilities, experiences, processes and procedures with a view to the development of future relationships and common practices. ****************** Fellow ISASI members: The dnata Haarlemmermeer Run will be held on Sunday September 1 in the community of Hooffddorp near Amsterdam and Schiphol. Three distances are offered; five and 10 kilometers and half marathon. Entry fee is between 11 and 17 Euros. Race shirts are available as well. This is a timed run. The race starts and ends at the Hoofddorp Pioneers Baseball Stadium. Attendees of ISASI and their companions who want to arrive early in order to participate in the race can contact me at christine.negroni@gmail.com and I will coordinate a group entry. Registration closes on August 19th. Christine Negroni author of The Crash Detectives Investigating the World's Most Mysterious Air Disasters Published by Penguin Books ================================================ 203 637-8441 landline 203 952-8441 mobile christine.negroni - skype @cnegroni - Twitter christinenegroni - Instagram Back to Top Photo Credit: Glen Grossman, Los Angeles Police Department Air Support Division Upcoming USC Aviation Safety & Security Program Courses Safety Management for Aviation Maintenance Safety principles and practices needed to manage the problems associated with aircraft maintenance operations. August 5-9, 2019 4.5 Days Tuition: $2575 Data for Safety Management Collection and analysis of flight data to contribute to safety management and improve safety performance. August 5-9, 2019 4.5 Days Tuition: $2575 Aviation Law & Dispute Resolution Legal processes, trends, and practices affecting aviation safety, accident investigation, and aviation regulation. This is the successor to the previous Legal Aspects of Aviation Safety & Role of the Technical Witness in Litigation courses. August 19-22, 2019 4 Days Tuition: $2125 Safety Management Systems for Ground Operation Safety Practices and methodologies for the identification and mitigation of hazards in all phases of airport ground operations. August 19-21, 2019 2.5 Days Tuition: $1300 Accident/Incident Response Preparedness Planning for the complex, challenging, and stressful investigation, legal, family response, and communcations situations after an accident. August 26-29, 2019 4 Days Tuition: $2125 Human Factors in Aviation Safety Theoretical and practical knowledge of Human Factors in aviation operations. August 26-30, 2019 4.5 Days Tuition: $2575 Earn Credit for FlightSafety Master Technician- Management Program Students taking the following USC courses will earn elective credits towards FlightSafety International's Master Technician-Management Program * Human Factors in Aviation Maintenance * Human Factors in Aviation Safety * Gas Turbine Accident Investigation * Helicopter Accident Investigation * Safety Management for Aviation Maintenance * Safety Management for Ground Operations Safety * Accident/Incident Response Preparedness Earn Points Toward NBAA Certified Aviation Manager Program Students taking the following USC courses will earn two points toward completing the application for the National Business Aviation Certified Aviation Manager Exam. * Aviation Safety Management Systems * Accident/Incident Response Preparedness * Human Factors in Aviation Safety * Aircraft Accident Investigation * SeMS Aviation Security Management Systems For further details, please visit our website or use the contact information below. Email: aviation@usc.edu Telephone: +1 (310) 342-1345 Curt Lewis