Flight Safety Information December 13, 2019 - No. 256 In This Issue Southwest reaches partial compensation agreement with Boeing for MAX damages Incident: PIA A320 at Karachi on Dec 12th 2019, bird strike Incident: Nelson DH8C at Auckland on Dec 12th 2019, smoke indication Accident: Tiger A320 near Melbourne on Dec 12th 2019, fumes in cabin Incident: Canada Rouge A319 near Jacksonville on Dec 6th 2019, turbulence rolls engine back A Pilot's Inside View Of Boeing's MAX Response NTSB: Survival Flight pilots and crew pressured to take risky flights Chile finds wreckage, human remains believed to be from missing airplane Forum on aviation safety held in Beijing So That Aviation Can Prosper, Congress Must Fund NextGen Why Aviation Needs To Get Tough On Dangerous Lithium Batteries Delta plans to hire 1,300 pilots and 2,500 flight attendants next year NTSB Chairman Robert Sumwalt Confirmed Keynote at RTCA 2020 Symposium Delta to merge private-jet business with Wheels Up Airbus buys Seattle-area robotics supplier that built systems for Boeing jets Qantas selects Airbus over Boeing for world's longest flights Boeing's crew capsule declared ready for 1st space flight Call for Papers - ISASI 2020 Safety Management Systems Certificate Program from SCSI IATA Safety and Flight Ops Conference - Baku, Azerbaijan 31 March - 2 April, 2020 Southwest reaches partial compensation agreement with Boeing for MAX damages FILE PHOTO: A number of grounded Southwest Airlines Boeing 737 MAX 8 aircraft are shown parked at Victorville Airport in Victorville, California NEW YORK/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Southwest Airlines Co said on Thursday it had reached a confidential compensation agreement with Boeing Co for a portion of projected financial damages arising from the grounding of its 737 MAX aircraft. The airline, the world's largest 737 MAX operator, also said it would share with its employees proceeds of about $125 million from Boeing. Southwest said it continues to engage in talks with Boeing for further compensation related to the MAX grounding, adding that the details of the talks and the settlement were confidential. Boeing declined to make an immediate comment. Southwest, American Airlines Group Inc and United Airlines Holdings Inc are scheduling flights without use of the aircraft until early March 2020, nearly a year since the plane was grounded after crashes killed 346 people in Indonesia and Ethiopia. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) chief Steve Dickson confirmed Wednesday the agency will not unground the MAX before the end of 2019. Southwest Chief Executive Gary Kelly said Thursday that the March date was based on FAA approval in December and would "likely" need to be pushed back again. American and United both remain in discussions with Boeing about compensation. American has 24 MAX aircraft and had expected 40 by the end of 2019. American has said it expects to be compensated by Boeing. "The missed deadlines and extended grounding have hurt our customers, our team members and our shareholders," American spokesman Ross Feinstein said. "We are working to ensure that Boeing's shareholders bear the cost of Boeing's failures." United declined comment. With the MAX parked, Southwest has scaled back growth plans and canceled more than 100 daily flights, wiping $435 million from its earnings between January and September. Southwest has 34 MAX jets in its fleet, the most of any U.S. airline. The airline was supposed to receive 41 more MAX planes in 2019. In October, the Southwest Airlines Pilots Association filed a lawsuit against Boeing alleging the MAX grounding caused over $100 million in lost wages. The union said Thursday "this agreement doesn't get anywhere close to compensating the very real and significant losses SWAPA pilots and other employees have experienced." The union added it "will continue to pursue our legal action" and does not expect the plane's return to service until at least April. Federal officials told Reuters this week the FAA is not expected to authorize the plane to fly until January at the earliest, citing significant work. Some U.S. officials think it may not be until at least February that Dickson gives the green light. https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/southwest-reaches-partial-compensation-agreement-170354739.html Back to Top Incident: PIA A320 at Karachi on Dec 12th 2019, bird strike A PIA Pakistan International Airlines, registration AP-BLA performing flight PK-301 from Islamabad to Karachi (Pakistan), was on approach to Karachi's runway 07R when a bird impacted the right hand wing and embedded itself in the slats. The aircraft continued for a safe landing on runway 07R. The aircraft returned to service after about 5 hours on the ground. The right hand wing: http://avherald.com/h?article=4d082f75&opt=0 Back to Top Incident: Nelson DH8C at Auckland on Dec 12th 2019, smoke indication An Air Nelson de Havilland Dash 8-300 on behalf of Air New Zealand, registration ZK-NEH performing flight NZ-8109 from Auckland to Palmerston North (New Zealand), was climbing out of Auckland's runway 23L when the crew stopped the climb at 8000 feet due to a smoke indication and returned to Auckland for a safe landing on runway 23L about 22 minutes after departure. Passengers reported the captain announced they were returning to Auckland after a light with a false alarm illuminated in the cockpit. The airline reported the crew returned to Auckland after a smoke indicator light illuminated. The occurrence aircraft is still on the ground in Auckland about 24 hours after landing. http://avherald.com/h?article=4d0829e9&opt=0 Back to Top Accident: Tiger A320 near Melbourne on Dec 12th 2019, fumes in cabin A Tigerair Australia Airbus A320-200, registration VH-XUH performing flight TT-644 from Adelaide,SA to Sydney,NS (Australia), was enroute at FL380 about 170nm northnorthwest of Melbourne when passengers complained about fumes on board, a number of them also complained about ear pain. The crew decided to turn south and divert to Melbourne, where the aircraft landed about 35 minutes after leaving FL380. Two passengers were taken to a hospital. The airline reported the aircraft diverted as a precaution due to an unusual odour in the cabin. The passengers were rebooked onto other flights. http://avherald.com/h?article=4d080ff3&opt=0 Back to Top Back to Top Incident: Canada Rouge A319 near Jacksonville on Dec 6th 2019, turbulence rolls engine back An Air Canada Rouge Airbus A319-100, registration C-FYJE performing flight RV-1735 from Liberia (Costa Rica) to Toronto,ON (Canada) with 130 people on board, was enroute at FL350 about 45nm west of Jacksonville,FL (USA) when the aircraft encountered turbulence, the flight crew noticed the left hand engine's (CFM56) N1 decreased. The crew requested a lower level for a smoother flight, descended to FL310 and the left hand engine resumed normal operation for the remainder of the flight. The aircraft landed safely in Toronto about 2 hours after the encounter. The Canadian TSB reported maintenance inspected the engine and found the hydro mechanical unit (HMU) faulty. The HMU was replaced. https://flightaware.com/live/flight/ROU1735/history/20191206/1845Z/MRLB/CYYZ http://avherald.com/h?article=4d080cb5&opt=0 Back to Top A Pilot's Inside View Of Boeing's MAX Response "We were a little slow to take responsibility," said Dennis Muilenburg, President and CEO for Boeing, at a two-day meetup between Boeing's executives and a handful of industry influencers from across the globe I attended last week in Seattle. Aircraft crashes rarely create mass panic. As rare as they have become, we still understand that accidents happen. The Boeing 737 MAX crashes were different. Members of the industry and the public instinctively understood something was awry-same operational phase, same aircraft, same pre-accident path, and same outcome. To make matters worse, initial accident data revealed the treacherous role of a feature that was unknown to most before the first crash and barely explained before the second-MCAS, for Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System. Yet, Boeing and some authorities kept insisting that the aircraft was safe and should continue to fly until they got more data about what went wrong. Can you imagine the authorities waiting for additional data before grounding more than 4000 aircraft after the second airplane crashed into the New York World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001? Boeing and anyone else claiming "no problem" came across as out-of-touch with reality, deceitful and unconcerned with safety. The result is deep distrust. Cheng Chi, a 737 pilot for XiamenAir who traveled from China to attend, mentioned that 70 to 80 percent of new Chinese pilots would prefer to fly an Airbus, if given a choice. Henry Harteveldt, principal at the Atmosphere Research Group, said that his group conducted research showing that less than 20 percent of airline passengers would definitely fly on the aircraft within six months of its return to service. Boeing is aware and eager to tell its side of the MAX story but finds it hard to be heard after it lost much of its credibility. That is why its executives decided to reach out to us. Updating us on their efforts to improve the 737 MAX, return it to service, enhance its customer-care, reinvigorate its safety and quality culture, and regain public and industry's trust seemed less their goal during the event than listening to what we had to say and ask. As Muilenburg spoke, it became apparent that Boeing, as an organization, has a poignant sense of loss. When recalling his conversations with the family members of the deceased, he became visibly emotional, a far departure from his steely, stiff-upper-lip TV persona. "We take full responsibility," he repeated several times. "We are sorry." Putting actions to words, Boeing has spent the last nine months examining what went wrong at multiple levels and taken steps to address it. It recently created a new Product and Services Safety organization tasked to unify safety-related responsibilities currently managed by teams across several Boeing business and operating units. Furthermore, it is planning to expose its worldwide network of new and existing employees to the Everett-based Safety Promotion Center it set up a few years ago to foster a deep sense of awareness and responsibility among them. On the manufacturing side, employees have taken advantage of the reduced manufacturing workload to restructure and streamline the manufacturing processes. So here we are, at the nine-month mark since the global grounding of the 737 MAX fleet. Snow is beginning to fall on the newly manufactured aircraft sitting in Moses Lake, Washington. As I write this, the MAX e-cab simulator equipped with the revised MCAS software and new cockpit warnings is humming with pilot workload CS25.1302 evaluations required for certification. Recently revealed exchanges between officials suggested "no MCAS" as a way to return the aircraft to flight. That is not going to happen. Without MCAS, the 737 MAX cannot comply with Part 25 Certification Standards. More critically, without MCAS, the MAX is easier to stall inadvertently when the autopilot is off. Initially, Boeing test pilots noticed that the need for back pressure to increase the pitch lessened-or the pitching rate increased despite incremental back pressure input-when hand flying approaches to accelerated stalls with the flaps up, especially with aft CG loading. Upon further testing, they noticed that the aircraft displayed similar, although less prominent, tendencies during approaches to unaccelerated stalls. While this peculiar behavior observable on the pitch rate recording graph of the Boeing e-cab simulator points to a deteriorating lift-weight moment when approaching stalls, the aircraft continues to display positive longitudinal stability according to Craig Bomben, Boeing's chief pilot, and will not pitch up on its own. It simply becomes less resistant to pitching up when nearing the stall angle of attack in specific aircraft configurations. Part 25 regulations, not a need for feel similarity with the 737 NG, require a linear displacement for a given control force input to maintain handling predictability. For example, 10 pounds of back pressure yields 1 degree per minute of pitch change and 20 pounds yields 2. Thirty pounds for 3.5 or 30 pounds for 2.5 would disrupt the expectation and become unacceptable. The role of MCAS is to adjust the stabilator as needed to restore the missing control resistance. The amount of trim applied varied between 0 and 2.5 originally and will continue to do so in the revised version as it stands today. MCAS does serve a safety purpose. It helps pilots avoid over-controlling the aircraft into a full stall. That is why MCAS is here to stay and why flying the aircraft as it is currently built without MCAS would not be wise. For the accident aircraft though, MCAS became a liability. The maximum trim down option (2.5 or half scale) was supposed to apply only when the aircraft was nearing a stall at extremely high angle of attack and low speed. However, the accident aircraft were flying at normal speed for the phase of flight when MCAS activated due to faulty sensor readings rendering the MCAS trim correction aerodynamically significant. The ensuing MCAS corrections meant to address the potential for secondary stalls aggravated the initial event. Somehow, it seems that Boeing failed to consider this scenario in the original MCAS design-and nobody else caught it during the certification process. Most of the changes in the updated software version address the potential for erroneous MCAS triggers. The new MCAS software will compare the data from both sensors, a feature that would have prevented the Lion Air crash. It will ignore sudden and near instantaneous dramatic increases in angle-of-attack values, a feature that would have prevented the Ethiopian Airlines crash. It will serve only one correction per excessive angle-of-attack trigger event, a feature that would have allowed both crews more time to troubleshoot while flying level instead of being repeatedly challenged by additional erroneous MCAS corrections. Never fly the airplane with the trim. I am sure that every pilot remembers this basic pilot training mantra. Previous 737 design assumed that pilots would react to an unexpected pitch down moment the way they always had. They would pull back on the control column. Thus, all 737s, except for the 737 MAX, have a trim stop switch that interrupts a runaway trim event when pilots pull back the control column. MAX pilots should instead use electric trim to counter an undesired trim movement before shutting down the electric trim functionality, when appropriate. It should come as no surprise, then, that the Ethiopian Airlines crew choose to reestablish electrical trim functionality when they realized that they were unable to trim manually after shutting down the electric trim system as instructed in the Boeing procedure published after the Lion Air crash. "We do not blame the pilots," said Muilenburg. Nobody should. Given the scope of changes to the software, cockpit indications and training developed by Boeing in the aftermath, it is clear that erroneous MCAS activation was a confusing, treacherous and serious challenge to be met with a unique, precise and timely set of actions to avoid excessive tail loading and related control issues. Proper knowledge and prior exposure in simulators equipped with MCAS functionality-something no commercial B737 Max simulators had at the time of the accidents-were essential to give 737 MAX pilots the tools they needed to handle erroneous MCAS activation. The accident crews did not have it. Boeing appears committed to provide extensive levels of information and support to its customers and the public prior to return to service. A fleet of Max simulators will be available. In addition, Boeing is aiming to adapt 737 NG simulators to simulate the MAX for airlines who already own 737 NG simulators and who are operating both types of aircraft. Back in March, I was halfway through my training to become an independent Air Canada 737 MAX instructor. I did complete all the ground-training modules, including the module about MCAS added after the Lion Air crash. The thoroughness and quality of the proposed MCAS training module Boeing allowed us to see this week is certainly far superior to the hurried and succinct details released in response to the first crash that left us with more questions than answers. During the initial certification process, Boeing and the certification authorities overlooked potential scenarios. Murphy 's Law applied. It is highly unlikely to happen the second time around. If the 737 MAX receives certification to fly again, it will be a sound aircraft and will come equipped with pilots trained to manage its caveats safely. Mireille Goyer is a passionate aviation enthusiast, an airline transport pilot, a training expert, an author and an award-winning diversity and inclusion advocate. She has been an active member of the global pilot community since 1990. https://www.avweb.com/insider/a-pilots-inside-view-of-boeings-max-response/ Back to Top NTSB: Survival Flight pilots and crew pressured to take risky flights Management at Survival Flight, which operated the January EMS flight that crashed in Ohio killing all three personnel aboard, pressured pilots and crews to fly in inclement weather, often insisting they take risky flights other operators had turned down, according to a National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) report on the human factors that led to the fatal accident. The report, dated Sept. 20, is based on interviews with current and former employees of Viking Aviation, which under the name Survival Flight operated the fatal Jan. 29 flight in Ohio. On that night, the Survival Flight pilot accepted a 69-mile flight between two hospitals that had previously been turned down by two other HEMS operators. About 20 minutes after takeoff, the Bell 407 crashed into hilly, forested terrain about four miles northeast of Zaleski, Ohio. The pilot, flight nurse and flight paramedic were killed. As outlined in the NTSB report, the helicopter wreckage was located on a tree-covered hill and exhibited significant fragmentation. The certificated commercial pilot, flight nurse, and flight paramedic were fatally injured in the crash. Ohio State Highway Patrol Photo The NTSB's Operational Factors and Human Performance report, published Sept. 20 and released when the FAA opened its docket on Nov. 19, details interviews with current and former pilots at Survival Flight, operated by Viking Aviation. The FAA's docket for the case includes 1,025 pages of interviews. Employees reported incidents of being cussed at by management and chief pilots at various bases for not accepting flights, pressure from non-aviation management to make unrealistic flight quotas and inability to take bases out of service because of wind, weather or maintenance concerns. Current Survival Flight employees, including pilots and medical staff have texted former employees that they are "scared to fly," according to the report. A flight nurse interviewed for the report said the company's aviation staff were generally risk averse and safety conscious but were pressured by management to make unsafe decisions on whether to accept flights. Employees describe a culture where pilots and crews were "cussed at," "berated" and threatened with firing for refusing flights because of legitimate safety reasons. Through a process dubbed "reverse helicopter shopping" managers and operations center employees at Survival Flight would seek flight requests that other operators had turned down as too risky, then passed them onto aviation staff and pressured them to accept, according to the report. Survival Flight, in written answers provided to Vertical, categorically disagreed with many of the statements former employees made to NTSB investigators. Specifically, the company denies "that crew members were yelled at for declining flights because of safety concerns," Survival Flight spokesman Ryan Stubenrauch told Vertical in an email. "To the contrary, we train, remind, and require each pilot and nurse in the crew that they have both the power and the responsibility to reject any flight if they feel something could go wrong," Stubenrauch wrote. "Every single flight request that we get can only take off if all three crew members and the operations control manager okay it. If any one of those four people have doubts, the flight doesn't take off." Interviews with NTSB investigators did shed light on some "human resources problems and communication issues between some employees," Stubenrauch said. "We investigated those issues when we became aware of them and required additional training in an effort to streamline and improve communication between staff." The NTSB's report is preliminary, yet HEMS personnel who spoke to Vertical were uniformly shocked at the lax safety culture it details and the FAA's failure to recognize the problem before it cost three people their lives. "I've heard from many of my colleagues . . . that reading that report is the worst thing they've ever read in terms of the operational culture of the program," Dr. Bill Hinckley, medical director and flight physician at the University of Cincinnati's Air Care and Mobile Care, told Vertical in an interview. "It is extremely frustrating and disheartening. We work so hard to maximize our aviation capability and our clinical capability. ... When these sorts of things happen, the majority of the lay public and, in fact, the majority of the medical public, believe that a helicopter is a helicopter and a HEMS program is a HEMS program and they're all the same." When considering flight requests, HEMS best practices typically include the rule "all to go, one to say no," meaning that the pilot, flight nurse and EMT or physician should all agree that a flight is safe and each has veto power. "Even if the pilot accepts a flight, I as the flight doc, have the right and responsibility if I'm not comfortable to say 'No,'" Hinckley said. "So does my partner the flight nurse and so does the communication specialist and so does the person sitting in the control center." Pictured is the accident aircraft, with registration number "N191SF." The helicopter was registered to and operated by Viking Aviation, doing business as Survival Flight, as a visual flight rules air medical flight under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations part 135 when the accident occurred. Jonathan Quilter Photo According to the NTSB report, at Survival Flight that system of redundant checks broke down when flight decisions were effectively ceded to non-aviation management. Dr. Craig Bates, medical director of Metro Life Flight and attending physician at MetroHealth Department of Emergency Medicine in Cleveland, Ohio, was disturbed by aspects of the report such as the reverse helicopter shopping, but is concerned the alarming allegations will detract from opportunities presented by the report for HEMS operators to enhance their own safety. The NTSB and FAA should focus on the allegations while the HEMS community focuses on "extracting lessons" from the tragedy and what led to it. "This crash happened near our service area and people we care about are involved in the program. It's important to emphasize this release doesn't contain any conclusions, but rather interim information from NTSB's fact-finding process," Bates wrote in an email to Vertical. "While these documents don't determine blame for the specific crash, they are a great tool to help assess and improve the safety culture and processes in each of our own transport programs. There are always opportunities to improve." "The quest to optimize quality and safety - whether aviation or medical - is a constant team effort," Bates added. "This includes working even harder to reduce real or perceived pressures to initiate and/or complete transports and further reducing the risks inherent in weather shopping." 'Reverse Helicopter Shopping' Helicopter shopping is a practice in which a medical facility contacts multiple helicopter operators until one is found that will accept a flight request. Michael Benton, a HEMS pilot and aviation safety consultant, said it is not unusual for hospital staff to call multiple providers because their first priority is patient wellbeing. Air ambulance pilots and HEMS personnel, conversely, are expected to prioritize flight safety and risk assessment - previous flight turndowns included - instead of a patient's condition. "It's normal for them to call multiple providers," Benton said. "It becomes negative when you are not sharing the fact that you called two or three others and what the results were." On Jan. 29, Holzer Meigs Hospital first contacted MedFlight, its regular HEMS provider, but was refused due to weather concerns. Hospital personnel called at least one other HEMS provider, which also refused the flight, before Survival Flight accepted. While the hospital was shopping for a helicopter to transport a patient, Survival Flight was sometimes shopping for flights that other operators refused, a process called "reverse helicopter shopping," according to the report. Citing employee concerns, the NTSB indicates that personnel in the Survival Flight operational control center (OCC) were using the weatherturndown.com website to find helicopter air ambulance flight requests refused by rival operators due to weather concerns. "One pilot noted that anytime he received a flight request for a flight outside of their normal program area he suspected that OCC was using weatherturndown.com to find flights," the report says. "Another pilot expressed similar suspicions but noted that this practice by OCC would not affect how flight crews at his base would approach a flight request." Survival Flight denies it ever authorized or condoned reverse helicopter shopping, though the company's operations system pulls data from multiple sources, including weatherturndown.com, Stubenrauch said. Data from that website, however, was not used to schedule the Jan. 29 accident flight, he said. "Only a small handful of flights out of the thousands and thousands of flights in our company's history have ever come from data obtained through that website," Stubenrauch said. "On those rare few occasions, we knew that the other company purportedly turning down the flight for weather was really turning down the flight because of a maintenance issue." Prior to the crash, the Survival Flight helicopter was on its way from Mount Carmel Grove City Hospital to pick up a patient at another hospital. Survival Flight Photo Hinckley said he had never heard of reverse helicopter shopping in his entire career and that the tactic exists at all is a sign that major HEMS regulatory changes are due to incentivize safety over profit. "There needs to be universal condemnation of both helicopter shopping and, especially, reverse helicopter shopping," he said. Survival Flight has since prohibited its dispatchers from "anything similar to 'reverse helicopter shopping' even if we have information suggesting the flight was turned down for something other than weather," Stubenrauch said. Pressured to fly One Survival Flight pilot quoted in the NTSB report describes "an awful push to get numbers" in an "environment that felt like competition." The pilot told the NTSB that the company's vice president of EMS set a 150-flight per-month flight volume quota where the pilot's realistic estimate was between 30 and 35 flights per month. In another case, management promised bases a new massage chair if they flew 30 flights in one calendar month. "There were numerous company personnel who witnessed people in management, including the chief pilot, pressuring pilots to accept flights," the report says. Benton said the reported pressure Survival Flight management put on pilots to fly was "a big eye opener." "If it's true what they said about the chief [pilot] and those guys, it's pretty shocking," he said. One pilot described a situation where another pilot reported to the [operational control manager] that he was concerned he was too tired to take another flight after having flown three, but the chief pilot serving as the OCM at the time convinced the pilot to accept the flight. The pilot was told to "maybe drink a cup of coffee before you go ... and try to get it done," according to the report. Numerous pilots and medical personnel witnessed management being "reprimanded or challenged for declining a flight," according to the report. When some flights were declined, one medical crew told the NTSB, "the chief pilot of the company... would call within about 10 minutes and would cuss out our pilots and belittle them." Survival Flight outright denies that any pressure was placed on any of its flight crews to fly in unsafe conditions. Before any flight takes off, the company requires four people to give the go-ahead. "All three crew members and our operational control manager have the ability to turn down or cancel any flight at any time if they have a concern about fatigue, weather, or any other potential danger," Stubenrauch said. "Our bases go out of service for weather or maintenance every day," he added. "Each year, Survival Flight turns down thousands of flights for weather, maintenance, or other reasons. In fact, one out of every four flight requests we get are turned down for weather alone." Survival Flight's CEO Responds On Nov. 25, Survival Flight CEO Chris Millard sent a "Thanksgiving Message" to employees that amounted to a defense of the company against the NTSB report wrapped in a holiday missive. It created a firestorm when posted to a HEMS Facebook group's message board. "Please join me in remembering the fallen and keeping their families in our thoughts and prayers through this season," he writes before slamming the NTSB report as "largely opinion that was collected from former employees who, for one reason or another, were disgruntled when they left." "To show the points that the NSTB were trying to make, they largely used the comments of those who have left us to insert their own agenda and to try and hurt us," Millard wrote. Millard said the NTSB is reviewing information on the accident aircraft flight data recorder and is "confident that once they get a closer look at this information, the cause of the crash will be nothing related to weather or anything else that they have speculated on to date, and all of this noise that is out there regarding our operations will all be proven to be untrue and unrelated to the cause." He followed that up with another email to employees meant "to ensure that everyone once again understands our company's rules protecting our safety, including every member of our crew's ability and responsibility to turn down a flight." "From day one at Survival Flight, it has been an iron clad rule that everyone have the right to turn down a flight for any reason," Millard wrote. "I also expect and want you to turn down a flight if you feel it's the right thing to do." Survival Flight has denied "that crew members were yelled at for declining flights because of safety concerns." Sheldon Cohen Photo Stubenrauch emphasized that the NTSB's report is preliminary and does not make any official findings. He was hired to speak for the company as the investigation unfolds toward a final report. The company recently held a two-day safety stand down at its Ohio bases to emphasize safety. It also has hired an independent aviation expert to perform a "comprehensive evaluation of every policy, procedure and employee at our Ohio bases during that time and will implement any recommendations," Stubenrauch said. Outcomes and Opportunities The NTSB's investigation is not final and does not assign blame or name a cause for the accident. Neither has the FAA made any determination of what caused the accident, who is to blame or what new rules and regulations should result. Benton did not think major regulatory changes would result from the investigation, but said the accident has stirred up more passion for safety awareness since the fiery 2015 Flight for Life helicopter crash in Frisco, Colorado, that resulted in requirements that certain helicopters be outfitted with crash-resistant fuel systems. "I think one positive thing that's going to come from this ... I've never seen an accident report generate so much discussion," Benton said. "I don't think you're going to see regulation changes that come from just one accident, but it's definitely going to bring it to the forefront." Bates was more measured in his assessment of the report, but encouraged the NTSB and FAA to extract as many lessons as possible from the incident and subsequent investigation to boost HEMS safety. "A big reason why the NTSB releases these documents is because they are an invaluable tool in enhancing safety in our own programs," Bates said. "I sincerely hope that the FAA will incorporate any eventual NTSB findings into improved oversight procedures. This would ensure any lessons learned would benefit a broader population so future air medical crews and patients will be safer." https://www.verticalmag.com/news/ntsb-survival-flight-pilots-and-crew-pressured-to-take-risky-flights/ Back to Top Chile finds wreckage, human remains believed to be from missing airplane A graphic made by the Chile Air Force showing the search area for missing military aircraft Hercules C-130 on Wednesday. Photo by Chilean Air Force/EPA-EFE Dec. 12 (UPI) -- Chilean authorities said Wednesday they found what they believe to be parts of a C-130 Hercules military transport plane that crashed on its way to Antarctica on Monday, possibly killing all 38 people on board. The country's Air Force said a fishing vessel found foam from the plane's interior 19 miles from its last known position. The plane was traveling to Chile's President Eduardo Frei Montalva Antarctica Air Base on the Antarctic coast. Magallanes region Gov. Jose Fernandez said the Air Force confirmed to him that human remains were found with the discovered wreckage. "They told us that they had found other airplane debris as well as human remains from those on board," Fernandez said in Punta Arenas, where some family members had gathered while rescue efforts continued. Chilean authorities expanded the search area early Wednesday in hope of finding clues to what happened with the plane. Brazil's Navy assisted in rescue and recovery efforts and gathered some debris. "The parts of the plane and the objects were found approximately 280 nautical miles from Ushuaia in Argentina," Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro wrote on Twitter. "The Brazilian Navy ship remains in the search area in coordinated actions with the Chilean authorities and two boats from the ship continue collecting remains." The United States, Uruguay and Argentina assisted in the efforts with search vessels as well. Chile government spokeswoman Karla Rubilar said Wednesday the government did not have any additional information on the plane crash. https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2019/12/12/Chile-finds-wreckage-human-remains-believed-to-be-from-missing-airplane/7961576161687/ Back to Top Forum on aviation safety held in Beijing BEIJING, Dec. 13 (Xinhua) -- A forum on aviation safety was held in Beijing on Thursday, discussing aviation accident investigation and prevention to improve aviation safety. A total of 15 prestigious military and civilian experts shared the latest outcomes of aviation safety theories and practices in China. The experts also exchanged ideas on new technologies to improve airport safety, risk control on combat flights and big data applications in aviation safety. The forum, sponsored by the Chinese Society of Aeronautics and Astronautics, was attended by more than 200 scholars from the armed forces and civilian sectors. http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2019-12/13/c_138628801.htm Back to Top So That Aviation Can Prosper, Congress Must Fund NextGen Whether you are a frequent flier with unlimited upgrades or an occasional air traveler, you depend on the airlines, guided by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and its Air Traffic Organization (ATO) to get you to your destination safely and reasonably on schedule. Behind the scenes, a vast empire of technology, people, computers, radars, radios, and endless regulations work to support your air carrier and ensure your safe and prompt arrival. Today, the FAA guides over 2.7 million passengers on 44,000 flights each day and the International Air Transport Association (IATA) projects that number will double in 20 years. Improvements must be made now or the infrastructure behind the ATO is in danger of failing to meet these future demands. The FAA embarked on a plan to upgrade ATO services and equipment beginning way back in 1983. Today, that program is called the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen). Unfortunately it has been plagued by schedule delays and claims of mismanagement almost since the beginning. Over the past few years, Congress has exercised greater oversight of NextGen, requiring regular progress reports and IG investigations that have encouraged a more results-oriented effort on the part of the FAA. After creating a separate program office and establishing an Advisory Committee, NextGen appears to be in much better shape, but problems remain. NextGen is a very complicated upgrade consisting of several highly innovative and complex building blocks. All of these must be integrated seamlessly and error-free while keeping current systems operational. This presents unique challenges but also promising opportunities if executed properly. Several upgrades to IT systems that will automate aircraft operations are being implemented. From flight planning (Traffic Flow Management System), taxi and takeoff (Terminal Flight Data Manager), to en route (En Route Automation Modernization) and landing, these are sophisticated systems for sequencing flights, managing takeoffs and landings, terminal arrivals and departures. While these upgrades promise to allow tighter spacing between planes, allowing more takeoffs and landings at our busiest airports or after weather delays, they must be developed in parallel to ensure there is no disruption to current operations. The introduction of the Automatic Dependent /Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) system meanwhile, will reduce the dependence on costly ground-based radar systems relying instead on satellite navigation systems to report position, speed, altitude and other data to controllers. This requires a significant investment in updated equipment on the part of the airlines as well. The use of ADS-B will be required beginning in January of 2020, necessitating significant coordination between the airlines and the FAA. Also exciting is the NextGen Weather Processor (NWP), which replace stand-alone legacy weather systems, with a single, integrated network providing terminal and en route weather, wind shear alerts, weather radar information, and airport weather conditions. Given that in 2018 around 66% of all air traffic delays were attributed to weather, this upgrade is critical to safe and efficient flight operations. These are just a few examples of the high-stakes and complicated business of implementing NextGen. But we must not fail, given the impact of air travel as major driver of the US economy. The FAA has admirably upped its game in the management of NextGen, but improved management alone will not guarantee success. Much of the burden lies on the shoulders of Congress and its control of the "purse strings." In this task, they have failed. Since its inception the FAA has spent almost $10 Billion on NextGen, while the airlines have expended around $15 Billion to install NextGen compatible systems. The final costs are estimated to be over $20 Billion for the FAA and at least that much for the airlines. But while the airlines have done their part to make necessary investments, the FAA is now falling behind. Since 2000, Congress has not delivered a complete set of appropriations bills (currently 12 are required). That means the government must be funded by a Continuing Resolution (CR) to stay open. Under a CR, no new programs can be initiated, and existing ones must be funded at previous year levels, along with a host of additional restrictions. This directly impacts the ability of agencies to innovate. No wonder a program as complicated as NextGen has had problems. Even when money is eventually appropriated, Congress has cut NextGen funding. In 2019, the FAA budget was slashed $549 Million, some of which affected NextGen. For 2020, the FAA is asking for $1.374 billion for the NextGen program. Congress has already missed the mark for on-time appropriations in 2020, operating the government on a second CR until December 21, 2019. If and when they get around to passing a funding bill, it is vitally important that they sustain the NextGen funding proposed by the President. Only with regular and complete funding can a program responsible for protecting the lives of one billion passengers, employing 10 Million U.S. workers and delivering $1.7 Trillion annually to the U.S. economy keep pace with the sure and certain rapid growth in the U.S. aviation enterprise. It's time for Congress to wake up and check-in by fully funding NextGen now, so that aviation can prosper in the future. https://tinyurl.com/v9j2vpy Back to Top Why Aviation Needs To Get Tough On Dangerous Lithium Batteries The risk posed by rouge shipments of poorly made or uncertified lithium batteries is increasing year on year. As the market floods with dangerous products, shippers are finding new and clever ways to conceal the shipment of these fire-prone devices. IATA highlights the problem and announces a new campaign to tackle the issue. lithium battery Lithium batteries pose an increasing threat to aviation. Photo: Pixabay / Simple Flying Fire or explosion At yesterday's International Air Transport Association (IATA) Global Media Day event, Nick Careen, IATA's Senior Vice President, Airport, Passenger, Cargo and Security, raised the issue of lithium batteries on board aircraft. According to Mr. Careen, the market for lithium-ion batteries is growing by some 22% every year. Pretty much every passenger who gets on an aircraft will have a lithium-ion battery of some sort about their person, often several. Hand in hand with the rising demand for lithium-ion batteries comes an increase in the number of rogue shippers introducing fake or dangerous batteries to the marketplace. These batteries pose a dual threat to aviation. Firstly, they may be misdeclared or undeclared in cargo shipments. Batteries which are poorly manufactured or not subjected to mandatory safety testing have the potential to catch fire or even explode. When fake batteries are misdeclared as real ones, or potentially not declared at all, they could end up in the cargo hold of passenger aircraft. Secondly, as these batteries make their way into the consumer market, they continue to pose a threat to the safety of aviation. Housed in innocuous devices such as laptops, smartphones and cameras, fake batteries still carry a risk of fire or explosion. Lithium battery Poorly made batteries can overheat and eventually catch fire or explode. Photo: Mpt-matthew via Wikimedia Although much is being done to ensure all items with lithium batteries are kept in cabin baggage, where passengers and flight attendants are more likely to notice and be able to deal with any fire, the lack of screening for lithium batteries in hold baggage means there is still a risk they could end up in the hold. Why are fake batteries an issue? Lithium batteries are in big demand. So many products today require lithium batteries, from drones to cameras to medical equipment and more. As such, the market for manufacturing lithium batteries is also huge. Dave Brennan, IATA's Assistant Director of Cargo Safety and Standards commented on this, saying, "China is a massive manufacturer of lithium batteries, and a big shipper too. But they're not the only ones. Manufacture of rogue batteries happens here in Europe too. Where there's demand, there are people who will look to satisfy that and take shortcuts in the process." Brennan noted that there are two types of rogue shippers of batteries; those who don't know, and those who know but don't care. The first type is the shipper who is not a traditional shipper of dangerous goods. Perhaps they've launched a new product that contains a lithium battery, but are not aware of the regulations surrounding this type of material. The shipment gets misdeclared and batteries end up posing a threat. The other type is the one that knows the rules but, for whatever reason, chooses to conceal the shipment deliberately. Whatever the reason for the deception, the outcome is the same; a risk to aircraft and potentially to the passengers on board. A new IATA campaign In response to the rising threat of rogue lithium-ion batteries on board aircraft, IATA has launched a new campaign in an attempt to crack down on the problems of dangerous goods. The campaign includes three specific initiative: An incident reporting and alert system for airlines, allowing real time information about dangerous goods incidents to be shared within the industry. Awareness campaign, including seminars targeting regions where compliance has been challenging, as well as an awareness program for customs authorities. Facilitation of a joined up industry approach, with support from ICAO, to adopt a cross domain approach to tackling this problem. Nick Careen summed up the initiative saying, "Dangerous goods, including lithium batteries, are safe to transport if managed according to international regulations and standards. But we are seeing an increase in the number of incidents in which rogue shippers are not complying. The industry is uniting to raise awareness of the need to comply. This includes the launching of an incident reporting tool so that information on rogue shippers is shared. And we are asking governments to get much tougher with fines and penalties," Of course, it's not just IATA who are working to drive down the dangers posed by lithium batteries. In fact, back in 2016, IATA tasked SAE Aerospace with establishing a standard test for lithium batteries. However, this has proven challenging, and no result likely before the end of 2020. In addition to this, a UN Subcommittee of Experts are developing a hazard-based approach to the classification of lithium batteries. IATA says there is a lot of testing being undertaken to identify the volatility of different types of batteries. However, this is unlikely to be ready until 2023. https://simpleflying.com/why-aviation-needs-to-get-tough-on-dangerous-lithium-batteries/ Back to Top Delta plans to hire 1,300 pilots and 2,500 flight attendants next year Delta Air Lines plans to hire more than 1,300 pilots in 2020, which the company said is its largest round of hiring in a single year in more than two decades. Atlanta-based Delta said it will be hiring pilots for crew bases in Atlanta, New York, Minneapolis, Detroit, Seattle and elsewhere.The airline said it's part of a broader effort to hire more than 8,000 pilots over the next decade as pilots retire, and as the company grows with a record number of customers. Delta also plans to hire at least 2,500 flight attendants in 2020, the highest in the airline's 95-year history. https://www.ajc.com/blog/airport/delta-plans-hire-300-pilots-and-500-flight-attendants-next-year/p70fXa5bxYvWUXS14dVHhK/ Back to Top NTSB Chairman Robert Sumwalt Confirmed Keynote at RTCA 2020 Symposium Washington, D.C., December 12, 2019 - RTCA, Inc. invites the aviation industry to attend the 2020 RTCA Symposium June 16-17, 2020 to hear from the Honorable Robert L. Sumwalt, Chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, and other safety leaders. "Chairman Sumwalt is a highly accomplished aviator and safety leader. We're looking forward to hearing his perspectives on the current state of aviation safety," says RTCA President and CEO Terry McVenes. "Chairman Sumwalt's leadership of the NTSB has accelerated and continued the outstanding work of the organization. Without the research, analysis and reporting the NTSB provides, aviation would be in a different place today. This session will be important and engaging for Symposium attendees." Chairman Sumwalt, a former airline pilot and inductee into the South Carolina Aviation Hall of Fame, has co-authored a book on aircraft accidents and published more than 100 articles on transportation safety. Other topics at this year's Symposium include: • Digital Transformation of ATC • Human Factors Ergonomics in the Certification Process • UAS Concept of Operations • Counter UAS Measures - Standards Development • Challenges with Spectrum • Standards Development Organizations for New Entrants into the NAS About RTCA, Inc. RTCA is a private, not-for-profit association founded in 1935 as the Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics. The mission of RTCA is to inspire the creation and implementation of integrated performance standards that meet changing global aviation environment and ensure the safety, security, and overall health of the aviation ecosystem. For further information please visit the RTCA website at www.rtca.org. Back to Top Delta to merge private-jet business with Wheels Up Delta Air Lines has agreed to merge its private-jet business with private-aviation company Wheels Up to create one of the world's largest owned and managed fleets of private aircraft. Terms where not disclosed, although the companies said in a Thursday announcement that the deal gives Delta an equity stake in Wheels Up, which will take over Delta's private-jet business. Wheels Up announced the completion of a funding round in August that valued it at $1.1 billion. After the Delta deal's expected close early next year, Wheels Up's fleet will expand to more than 190 private planes from 115. Membership in the New York-based company - founded in 2013 by CEO Kenny Dichter with backing from Delta - will increase to 8,000 from 6,000. "This groundbreaking partnership will democratize private aviation, making the convenience of private jet travel accessible to more consumers," Delta CEO Ed Bastian said in a statement. Dichter added the merger would "make private flying and the private flying lifestyle accessible to significantly more individuals and businesses." The acquisition of Delta Private Jets gives Wheels Up gives enough heft to enter the competition - along with Directional Aviation and Vista Global - to challenge private-aviation behemoth NetJets. Founded in 1964, Columbus, Ohio-based NetJets invented the concept of "fractional" airplane ownership while growing its fleet to 700 aircraft. Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway acquired NetJets in 1998. Delta's Wheels Up deal advances a diversification strategy that already has the airline investing in overseas carriers and acquiring a jet-fuel refinery. This strategy has helped Delta shares record a 10 percent gain this year, outpacing the performance of competitors American Airlines and United Airlines. But so has the absence of the Boeing Co. 737 MAX in Delta's fleet. The troubled passenger airliner - used by both American and United - was grounded in March after it crashed twice within five months. https://nypost.com/2019/12/12/delta-to-merge-private-jet-business-with-wheels-up/ Back to Top Airbus buys Seattle-area robotics supplier that built systems for Boeing jets European jet maker Airbus acquired Mukilteo-based MTM Robotics, a small aerospace supplier with 40 employees that has made portable robotic systems and tools for three different Boeing aircraft programs. Neither MTM, founded in 2003 by engineer Mike Woogerd, nor the French-German jet maker disclosed terms of their deal, which was announced Thursday. "We are pleased and excited to become a part of the Airbus family and look forward to further integrating our products and approaches into the Airbus industrialization chain," Woogerd said in a news release. MTM is also a supplier to Airbus A320 and A330 aircraft programs and is a Lockheed Martin aerospace supplier. MTM has made 14 different industrial manufacturing systems for Boeing widebody jets since 2012, including the 787 Dreamliner, the 777 and the 747 Freighter programs, all manufactured in Everett. Airbus said its decision to buy MTM came after a decade-long contractual relationship blossomed, adding it highlights the company's commitment to expanding advanced robotics capabilities within its manufacturing operations. The companies announced a multiyear deal in 2016 for MTM to supply its systems. MTM Robotics designs and manufactures automated drilling, fastening and inspection machines. Airbus Head of Industrial Technologies Patrick Vigié said MTM "perfectly fits" the jet maker's plans to adopt and deploy more innovative engineering and manufacturing solutions. "Airbus and MTM Robotics each believe that tomorrow's automation in aircraft manufacturing can and must be lighter, more portable and less capital intensive," Vigié said in the news release. "By joining our efforts and skills, we are well positioned to establish industrywide standards for the factory of tomorrow." Airbus said MTM's business will retain its leadership and 40-person staff, including MTM President Woogerd. The company will also keep MTM's 10,000 square foot design and manufacturing facility in Mukilteo. Asked if MTM will continue to build systems for Boeing now that Airbus owns it, Airbus spokesman Bart Greer said: "Our approach is for MTM to retain and serve existing clients and operate as they do already to ensure MTM retains its agility. I can't speak to Boeing's reaction, but we won't try to encourage MTM to drop existing customers." Boeing spokesman Paul Bergman declined to comment. https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2019/12/12/airbus-buys-seattle-area-robotics-supplier-that.html?ana=yahoo&yptr=yahoo Back to Top Qantas selects Airbus over Boeing for world's longest flights FILE PHOTO: A passenger stands in front of a window where Qantas planes are parked at Melbourne Airport, Australia SYDNEY (Reuters) - Australia's Qantas Airways picked Airbus SE over Boeing Co as the preferred supplier for jets capable of the world's longest commercial flights from Sydney to London, dealing the U.S. planemaker its latest setback this year. The choice of up to 12 A350-1000 planes fitted with an extra fuel tank for flights of up to 21 hours cements Airbus as the leader in ultra-long haul flying globally at a time when Boeing is battling delays on its rival 777X programme and a broader corporate crisis following two deadly 737 MAX crashes. The Qantas flights would begin in the first half of 2023, but remain subject to the airline reaching a pay deal with pilots, who would need to extend their duty times to around 23 hours to account for potential delays and switch between flying the A350 and the airline's current A330 fleet. A final decision on an order is expected in March, the airline said on Friday. Qantas Chief Executive Alan Joyce said the airline "had a lot of confidence" in the market for non-stop services from Sydney to London and to New York based on two years of flying non-stop from Perth to London, where it has achieved a 30% fare premium over one-stop rivals in premium classes. "The A350 is a fantastic aircraft and the deal on the table with Airbus gives us the best possible combination of commercial terms, fuel efficiency, operating cost and customer experience," he said. Singapore Airlines Ltd operates the world's current longest flight, nearly 19 hours from Singapore to New York, using an ultra-long range version of the smaller A350-900. Airbus Chief Commercial Officer Christian Scherer thanked Qantas for its selection in a statement, while a Boeing spokesman said it was disappointed with the decision but looked forward to continuing its longstanding partnership with the airline. Rico Merkert, a transport professor at the University of Sydney Business School, said the A350-1000 fit the Qantas brief well and was "a much safer bet", given Boeing has recently reported problems such as the grounding of the 737 MAX, structural cracks in 737 NGs and a fuselage split in a stress test of its 777-9. Airbus no longer provides list prices for aircraft, but based on its 2018 price list, the Qantas order could be worth up to $4.4 billion before heavy discounts that are standard for airline customers. Citi estimated on Friday the planes would cost A$3 billion (1.6 billion pounds) to $3.5 billion, with the investment likely to be phased over three years. Mark Sedgwick, president of the Australian and International Pilots Association, said the pilot union was looking for a win-win deal that benefited the company and pilots, but so far the negotiations had not struck that balance. "We continue to discuss matters with Qantas," he said. The selection of the A350-1000 will add to growing doubts over Boeing's plans to produce the 777-8 that it had proposed to Qantas for the mission. Boeing had already said the entry into service for the plane, a smaller, longer-range version of the 777-9, would be delayed beyond 2022 but has declined to give a new date, saying it would be based on customer demand. Customers Emirates and Qatar Airways have indicated they could switch orders for the 777-8 to the 777-9. https://www.yahoo.com/news/qantas-selects-airbus-preferred-supplier-223153099.html Back to Top Boeing's crew capsule declared ready for 1st space flight CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) - Boeing's Starliner crew capsule finally has a launch date for its first test flight to the International Space Station. After an intensive review Thursday, NASA and Boeing managers agreed to a Dec. 20 liftoff. "Hopefully, we should all be getting an early Christmas present this year," said Phil McAlister, director of NASA's commercial spaceflight development. Just a few technical issues remain to be completed, he noted. No one will be aboard, just a mannequin named Rosie. Three astronauts will strap in for the second test flight of a Starliner sometime next year. SpaceX also plans to launch astronauts for NASA next year. The company conducted a test flight without a crew back in March. NASA turned to the two private companies in 2014 to ferry astronauts to and from the space station. Whether Boeing or SpaceX, it will be the first time U.S. astronauts rocket to orbit from home soil in nearly nine years. The longer-than-anticipated hiatus stretches back to NASA's last space shuttle flight in July 2011. NASA astronauts have been stuck riding Russian rockets in the interim. United Launch Alliance's Atlas V rocket will provide the Starliner's lift from Cape Canaveral, a little before sunrise. The capsule will parachute into New Mexico on Dec. 28 to close out the flight. https://www.yahoo.com/news/boeings-crew-capsule-declared-ready-210300863.html Back to Top Call for Papers - ISASI 2020 Montreal Sheraton, Montreal PQ September 1 - 3, 2020 With "20/20 Vision for the Future" as our theme, the ISASI 2020 Committee is inviting interested individuals to submit abstracts for papers that address the future of aircraft accident investigation. Presentation topics that support the theme may include, but are not limited to: • Recent accident/incident investigations of interest. • Novel investigation techniques for aircraft, helicopter, and drone accidents. • Data investigation methods, techniques and future developments. • Airport investigation methods and techniques • Future investigator selection criteria and training needs. • Future of aircraft data capture and retrieval and protection of safety information. • Future developments in underwater wreckage recovery. • Future evolution of Family Assistance. We are also interested in papers that address the challenges surrounding the recent 737 Max accidents. While it is not our intent to discuss the accidents themselves, we are hoping to generate thought and discussion on the impact the accidents have had on to the industry as a whole and how it has affected the travelling public. Presentations must be in English and should be 25 minutes long. There will be an additional 5 minutes for questions at the end of each presentation. Abstracts should include the author's current CV [1 page only please] and be sent to isasi2020papers@shaw.ca Important dates: March 20th, 2020 - Last date for receipt of abstracts. May 8th, 2020 - Presenters informed of acceptance and provided with additional instructions. May 22nd, 2020 - Draft program for the 2019 Seminar Technical Program will be published. July 10th, 2020 - Last date for receipt of completed paper and PowerPoint presentation. Any papers not received by this date will be removed from the program and replaced by another speaker. If you have questions related to the paper topics or any other inquiries about the program, please contact the ISASI 2020 Program Chair at avsafe@shaw.ca Curt Lewis