Flight Safety Information February 10, 2020 - No. 029 In This Issue Incident: TAP A320 at Funchal on Feb 8th 2020, could not retract gear Incident: Swiss A319 at Zurich on Feb 9th 2020, strong chemical odour in cockpit Accident: UTAir B735 in Usinsk on Feb 9th 2020, landed short of runway, gear collapse Accident: Iceland B752 at Keflavik on Feb 7th 2020, main gear collapse on landing Cessna 501 Citation I/SP - Fatal Accident (Georgia) Malaysia says yet to decide on new search for MH370 FedEx allowing pilots to decline trips to China over the coronavirus outbreak Mitre, Singapore Plan for Future Capacity, Safety FAA chief defends reasoning to delay 737 Max grounding 8 Aircraft Lost Separation In Madrid Due To Wind Shear Spills Prompt Liquids AD On A350s FAA Issues Package Drone Certification NPRM Tech University of Munich Promotes Master's Program in Aerospace Pilatus biz jet certified for use on grass, muddy and snowy surfaces Trans-Atlantic flight reaches 821 mph with the help of intense jet stream The Air Force Is Eying a Newer, Faster SR-71 Blackbird Further problems with Boeing's Starliner Capsule Revealed Electronic Systems Investigation from SCSI Investigation Management from SCSI MITRE - SMS Course - March 2020 ACSF Safety Symposium Incident: TAP A320 at Funchal on Feb 8th 2020, could not retract gear A TAP Air Portugal Airbus A320-200, registration CS-TNK performing flight TP-1698 from Funchal to Lisbon (Portugal), was climbing out of Funchal's runway 23 when the crew stopped the climb at 5000 feet reporting they could not retract the landing gear. The aircraft returned to Funchal for a safe landing on runway 23 about 15 minutes after departure. The flight was cancelled, the passengers were rebooked onto the next flight. The aircraft returned to service after about 9 hours on the ground in Funchal. http://avherald.com/h?article=4d315310&opt=0 Back to Top Incident: Swiss A319 at Zurich on Feb 9th 2020, strong chemical odour in cockpit A Swiss Airbus A319-100, registration HB-IPT performing flight LX-1255 from Stockholm (Sweden) to Zurich (Switzerland), was on approach to Zurich's runway 28 maintaining 5000 feet when the crew declared emergency reporting a strong chemical odour in the cockpit. The aircraft landed safely on runway 28 about 4 minutes later and stopped briefly on the runway. The aircraft subsequently taxied to the apron with emergency services in trail. http://avherald.com/h?article=4d31507a&opt=0 Back to Top Back to Top Accident: UTAir B735 in Usinsk on Feb 9th 2020, landed short of runway, gear collapse and runway excursion on landing A UTAir Boeing 737-500, registration VQ-BPS performing flight UT-535 from Moscow Vnukovo to Usinsk (Russia) with 94 passengers and 6 crew, was on final approach to Usinsk's runway 13 at about 12:21L (09:21Z) but touched down hard about 15 meters ahead of paved surface of the runway and went through heaps of snow. Both main gear struts collapsed, the aircraft skidded on its nose gear and belly to a stand still off the runway causing damage to a wing resulting in a fuel spill. No fire broke out. The passengers evacuated via slides and overwing exits. The aircraft received substantial damage. There are claims of one or two injured passengers. The airline reported the ILS and approach lights were out of service. However, the approach to Usinsk was possible with the assistance by ATC. No Metars are available for Usinsk. According to local weather data the winds were blowing from 150 degrees at 6 m/s (11 knots) gusting 11 m/s (20 knots), temperature was -21 degrees C, dew point -23 degrees C, visibility 1100 meters, QNH 1063 hPa, RVR 1700, 1100 and 1400 meters, cloud ceiling 450 meters/1500 feet. According to NOTAMs both ILS and approach lights runway 13 were not operative. Пассажир случайно снял, как у его самолёта сломались шасси во время посадки http://avherald.com/h?article=4d3110c1&opt=0 Back to Top Accident: Iceland B752 at Keflavik on Feb 7th 2020, main gear collapse on landing An Icelandair Boeing 757-200, registration TF-FIA performing flight FI-529 from Berlin Tegel (Germany) to Keflavik (Iceland) with 166 people on board, landed on Keflavik's runway 10 at 15:46L (15:46Z) but suffered the collapse of the right main gear. The aircraft came to a stop on the runway resting on its nose gear, left main gear and right engine. The passengers disembarked onto the runway and were taken to the terminal. There were no injuries. Passengers reported the aircraft bounced on landing, on second touchdown the right main gear collapsed and the aircraft skidded on the engine releasing sparks and smoke from the engine. A passenger video off the left hand windows shows the aircraft touched down smoothly, the spoilers deployed, the aircraft bounced slightly (probably without the wheels becoming airborne again), smoothly came down a second time, then the right main gear collapsed and the spoilers retracted. Another passenger video, only available in time lapse so far, off the right hand windows shows the aircraft touched down smoothly, the right wing may have lifted a bit, the right main gear possibly became airborne for a bit, touched down again smoothly and the aircraft sank further on its right main engine now with sparks coming off the engine cowl (editor's note: user Ruan/Ruan60989131, if you read this, we'd be interested in the full normal time video including approach and roll/skid out, please contact me via the contact form below). On Feb 8th 2020 The Aviation Herald received information that the gear of the aircraft had been replaced mid January 2020. There was no damage to the right main gear, however, a bolt holding the gear mechanism together was missing (see photo below). On Nov 19th 2019 the aircraft had positioned to Kelowna,BC (Canada), remained on the ground in Kelowna until Jan 6th 2020, then positioned to Keflavik via Seattle,WA (USA). On Jan 9th 2020 the aircraft resumed service and had flown about 70 sectors since. Related NOTAMs: A0061/20 NOTAMR A0060/20 Q) BIRD/QMXLC/IV/M/A/000/999/ A) BIKF B) 2002071826 C) 2002081600 E) RWY 10-28 CLOSED DUE TO OBSTACLE ON RWY REF: BIKF AD 2.12 BIKF AD 2.24.1.2-1 A0060/20 NOTAMN Q) BIRD/QMXLC/IV/M/A/000/999/ A) BIKF B) 2002071635 C) 2002072200 E) RWY 10-28 CLOSED DUE TO OBSTACLE ON RWY REF: BIKF AD 2.12 BIKF AD 2.24.1.2-1 Metars: BIKF 071800Z 16025KT 4000 RA BR SCT006 BKN010 BKN031 05/04 Q0965= BIKF 071730Z 15031G46KT 4000 RA BR SCT006 BKN010 BKN031 05/04 Q0965= BIKF 071700Z 13042G58KT 6000 -RA BR SCT009 BKN013 BKN039 06/06 Q0965= BIKF 071630Z 13039G54KT 4000 -RA BR SCT009 OVC013 07/06 Q0965= BIKF 071600Z 13042G55KT 8000 BR OVC013 07/06 Q0966= BIKF 071530Z 13042G56KT 6000 BR OVC013 07/06 Q0967= BIKF 071500Z 13040G53KT 5000 -DZRA BR OVC010 07/06 Q0968= BIKF 071430Z 13040G54KT 3000 -DZRA BR BKN008 OVC012 07/06 Q0970= BIKF 071400Z 13040G54KT 3000 -DZRA BR BKN008 OVC012 07/06 Q0970= BIKF 071330Z 13031G43KT 4000 -DZRA BR BKN013 OVC040 07/05 Q0972= BIKF 071300Z 13029G45KT 4000 -DZRA BR BKN014 OVC040 07/05 Q0973= The right main landing gear in detail, a bolt is missing: http://avherald.com/h?article=4d2fd39b&opt=0 Back to Top Cessna 501 Citation I/SP - Fatal Accident (Georgia) Date: Saturday 8 February 2020 Time: 09:44 Type: Cessna 501 Citation I/SP Operator: Remonia Air Registration: N501RG C/n / msn: 501-0260 First flight: 1982 Crew: Fatalities: / Occupants: Passengers: Fatalities: / Occupants: Total: Fatalities: 4 / Occupants: 4 Aircraft damage: Destroyed Aircraft fate: Written off (damaged beyond repair) Location: near Fairmount, GA ( United States of America) Phase: En route (ENR) Nature: Unknown Departure airport: Atlanta-Peachtree City Falcon Field, GA (KFFC), United States of America Destination airport: Nashville-John C. Tune Airport, TN (KJWN), United States of America Narrative: A Cessna 501 Citation I/SP crashed in a remote wooded area near Fairmount, Georgia, USA. There were no survivors. The flight departed Atlanta-Peachtree City Falcon Field, Georgia, USA, at 09:49 local time, bound for Nashville. An air traffic control transmission captured by LiveATC.net contains a radio call from 'one romeo gulf' reporting problems with the left hand attitude indicator. The autopilot was disconnected and the aircraft was then flown manually from the right-hand seat. https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20200208-0 Back to Top Malaysia says yet to decide on new search for MH370 KUALA LUMPUR (Reuters) - Malaysia on Monday said it has yet to decide on launching a new search for Malaysia Airlines flight MH370, which went missing with 239 people on board nearly six years ago, following a report that a new effort to find the plane could be mounted. Malaysia's ministry of transport said it had not received any new credible evidence to initiate a new search. "However, the ministry will review any new evidence that it officially receives," the ministry said in a brief statement. On Sunday, Australia's News Corp reported that a new search could be mounted, possibly this year, based on new evidence that it said showed the plane could have ended up in an area adjacent to the previous search area in the Indian Ocean. News Corp reported that U.S. exploration firm Ocean Infinity was in discussions with the Malaysian government to mount a new search on a no find no fee basis. Ocean Infinity chief executive officer Oliver Plunkett said that "no new search is imminent", but the firm continues to engage with experts to identify where any new search might be launched. "The Malaysian Government, rightly in our view, set a high bar before they will engage in that discussion," Plunkett said in a brief emailed statement. "It was and remains our position that we hope to be able to offer our services to the Malaysian government again at some point in the future." Flight MH370 became one of the world's greatest aviation mysteries when it vanished on its way from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing on March 8, 2014. Malaysia, China, and Australia, called off a two-year, A$200 million ($130 million) underwater search in the southern Indian Ocean in January 2017 after finding no trace of the aircraft. A second three-month search, led by Ocean Infinity, ended similarly in May the following year. https://www.yahoo.com/news/malaysia-says-yet-decide-search-095909725.html Back to Top FedEx allowing pilots to decline trips to China over the coronavirus outbreak MEMPHIS, Tenn. - FedEx is allowing its pilots to opt out of trips to China while world health officials are working to contain the coronavirus. FedEx released a statement on the matter Saturday night: "The safety and well-being of our team members is always our top priority, and we continue to closely monitor developments related to the coronavirus. Throughout this situation, we have been in constant communication with our crew force regarding our flight operations in China. We can confirm that we have reached an agreement with our pilots that allows crew members to voluntarily decline trips into China." This is a result of an agreement between the Memphis-based shipping company and the Air Line Pilots Association on Saturday. The ALPA released the following statement in an e-mail to WREG: "Our pilots who feel they can't go for any reason now have the ability to opt-out of such flying and make that flying up in the future... We appreciate that FedEx Express has recognized the professionalism and commitment of its pilots to its continued success." A Chinese-American died in a Chinese hospital on Thursday from the virus. In a statement to CNN, the Chinese Foreign Ministry extended its condolences and described the patient as a "Chinese-American." The Chinese government had kept in contact with the patient's family in China, the statement said, and was working to assist the US and the family in "dealing with the aftermath." CNN is reporting 803 people have died in China from the virus. Two other deaths have been reporting in Hong Kong and the Philippines. http://wreg.com/2020/02/08/fedex-allowing-pilots-to-decline-trips-to-china-over-the-coronavirus-outbreak/ Back to Top Mitre, Singapore Plan for Future Capacity, Safety Mitre has had a longstanding partnership with the U.S. FAA to work on air traffic control efficiencies, and it will be bringing this experience to bear as it works with the CAAS. Photo: Adobe Stock Halfway into its first long-term, wide-encompassing contract with the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS), U.S.-based research and development organization Mitre Corp. is pushing forward on efforts to foster air traffic control efficiencies and safety-data collaboration in the region. Mitre, which has long assisted the U.S. FAA in air traffic, procurement, safety, and other major initiatives, five years ago signed an initial contract of up to 10 years with CAAS to assist in a range of initiatives as Asia remains one of the fastest-growing regions for Asia. Pointing to Mitre's mission to "fix big problems," Gregg Leone, v-p and director of the Mitre Center for Advanced Aviation System Development, said the agreement with CAAS is similar to what it has had in place with the FAA. With the growth over the past decades in the economies throughout the Asia Pacific (APAC) region, he added, "the aviation problems there are certainly as daunting as we have had in the U.S." Co-exhibiting with the CAAS (Chalets C23, CS12), the organizations will display one of the fruits of that partnership, a conflict resolution tool that is used for both safety and efficiency, helping aircraft to get to certain points at certain times. The research organization also has encouraged and attracted numerous aviation officials not only from Singapore but throughout the region to its laboratory built in Singapore, the first such Mitre facility outside the U.S. (Mitre Asia Pacific Singapore, or MAPS) to showcase and test various safety and air traffic concepts in preparation for the future. LOOKING AHEAD One of the more immediate projects ongoing is the expansion of commercial runway availability at Singapore Changi Airport. The airport is undergoing a runway rehabilitation project that would have three available runways for commercial operations (including one that would be for joint use), along with new terminal buildings and associated taxiway realignments. While not slated for completion for another five years or so, the work at Changi will set the stage for anticipated growth and enable triple simultaneous landings when the time comes for that need. But all of this requires procedures to safely accommodate such growth, Leone said. "When you spend the...huge investments on the surface, you want to spend the money to get the airspace and the tools and technologies to set up the flow and to build the procedures." This includes determining not only the inflow and outflow but which runways are more efficient at which times to bring the aircraft closest to the right terminal. In addition, considerations must be taken about procedures in case of a go-around on one runway and how that may affect others. These are important issues not just in Singapore, but throughout APAC as the region moves forward with the development of infrastructure at numerous locations. That is "really kind of the new thing" occurring across the region, Leone added. Singapore authorities have had a strong vision and desire to prepare for the future, Leone added. "It's critical that they're out in front of this capacity curve and they absolutely are way out in front," he said. "We're helping them try to figure out how do you prepare this? What are the systems you need in place? How do you do the monitoring of these things? When would you use them? These are not things you do overnight." As traffic increases in Singapore, it necessitates more coordination throughout the region. Mitre has reached out to regional authorities to help them consider "what's possible and what's coming," as well as support what the International Civil Aviation Organization believes is needed in the region. Regional authorities "have to work better together. They don't talk across borders," Leone said. It's routine for centers in the U.S. to coordinate on traffic, but in APAC, "We're trying to figure out how to show them to work better together collaboratively, and share data and information in new ways so that they can set up flows of traffic much farther out." The same holds true with safety data sharing, Leone said. Mitre is hoping to foster an environment that might lead to a full data sharing effort similar to the Aviation Safety Information Analysis and Sharing (ASIAS) program in the U.S. Aviation authorities in Singapore are working with others to build a collaborative effort on safety data. That initiative, the Asia Pacific Share, has the commitment of initial partners, among them China, Indonesia, and the Philippines. Others are expressing interest in participating. This effort is still in the early stages under which Mitre is examining global safety data and providing reports to them. "The first step is just to get willing participants to talk and share openly about what is perceived as safety issues." Eventually, the goal would be to have the regions participate in providing reports, furnishing their own data and metrics, as well as operator participation similar to that in the U.S. There are barriers to full transparency still, both cultural and political, and concerns about the criminalization of unintentional actions. But Leone called that initial partnership and important step forward because it demonstrates a commitment to moving forward on such collaboration. "When I say committed," Leone added, "they're actually funding this effort and they're committing their resources and people to participate in it. That's good progress." https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/air-transport/2020-02-09/mitre-singapore-plan-future-capacity-safety Back to Top FAA chief defends reasoning to delay 737 Max grounding US FAA chief Steve Dickson has defended the administration's decision to wait for empirical evidence to order the grounding of the Boeing 737 Max, rather than follow other authorities' precautionary approach. The FAA grounded the type on 13 March, three days after the loss of an Ethiopian Airlines aircraft - the second fatal Max accident - having held out against a wave of suspensions by other regulators, including the European Union Aviation Safety Agency. US regulators had originally insisted that there was no basis on which to order a grounding of the Max, despite concerns over similarities between the Ethiopian accident and that involving a Lion Air jet five months earlier. Speaking during a briefing in London on 6 February, Dickson acknowledged that regulatory alignment would have been preferable. But he also defended the FAA's decision to wait for data to establish a common thread, the behaviour of the Manoeuvring Characteristics Augmentation System, between the two Max accidents. "If you ground an airplane arbitrarily - if you're making any kind of safety decision arbitrarily - you really don't know when you've got to a point where the situation has been improved," he says. "These two accidents had different factors associated with them - two airlines, two groups of pilots - so they weren't the same scenario. "They did have a common thread of MCAS. But having the data from which to make those decisions certainly focuses your effort." Dickson says has a "big focus" on data at the FAA and believes the industry needs to "raise the bar" and ensure interested parties have the "same kind of availability of data". "I don't know on what basis EASA made their [grounding] decision," he says. But he believes that the FAA and Canadian regulators took data-based decisions. "I do know the agency was looking to identify a common thread, and it took getting the data to be able to make that decision. It was not available for a couple of days," says Dickson, adding that reinforcement of data provision around the world would contribute to moving from "forensic" to "pro-active" analysis. https://www.flightglobal.com/programmes/faa-chief-defends-reasoning-to-delay-737-max-grounding/136621.article Back to Top 8 Aircraft Lost Separation In Madrid Due To Wind Shear It's been almost two years since an eight-aircraft loss of separation incident occurred at Madrid Airport. However, the final report was finally released on 6 February 2020 by Spain's civil aviation investigation body - the CIAIAC (Comisión de Investigación de Accidentes e Incidentes de Aviación Civil). Here's what happened and why. Ryanair 737 A Ryanair jet was just one of the aircraft involved in the incident. Photo: Ryanair How did it start? According to The Aviation Herald, on 27 May 2018, Madrid Airport had been operating in a North Configuration (landings on runways 32L and 32R, departures on runways 36L and 36R). However, between 20:47 and 20:54 local time, seven arriving aircraft went around due to changing weather conditions which included wind shear (loss of speed). Responding to these changing conditions, the airport decided to change to the South configuration at 20:54. The meant that landings would take place on runways 18L and 18R, and departures on runways 14L and 14R. The result of this was a complex traffic scenario leading to a number of losses of separations involving eight aircraft. SKYbrary defines loss of separation as whenever the specified minimum separation distance between aircraft is breached. Minimum separation standards for airspace are specified by ATS authorities, based on ICAO standards and include both horizontal and vertical space. Needless to say, loss of separation can be very dangerous as it leads to potential collisions between aircraft. Air Europa Boeing 737 aircraft Air Europa was another airline involved in the incident. Photo: Air Europa. What happened? Below is a list of the losses of separation and the details in the aftermath of the go-arounds and switch of airport configuration: 1. Firstly, a loss of separation occurred around 21:36. The separation between two aircraft reduced 61m vertical and 1.48km horizontal. This involved a TAP Air Portugal Airbus A320-200 on final approach to runway 18R and an Air Nostrum Canadair CRJ-1000 (on behalf of Iberia) on final approach to runway 18L. 2. The second loss of separation occurred around 21:52. This time, the separation between two aircraft reduced to 99m vertical and 2.22km horizontal. This involved another Air Nostrum Canadair CRJ-1000 on behalf of Iberia, on final approach to runway 18L as well as a Ryanair Boeing 737-800 on final approach to runway 18R. 3. The third loss of separation occurred around 21:58. The separation between the aircraft reduced to 0 meters vertical and 1.67km horizontal. This involved an Iberia Airbus A320-200 on final approach to runway 18R and a Ryanair Boeing 737-800 on final approach to runway 18L. 4. Finally, the fourth loss of separation occurred at 22:03. Here, the separation between the two aircraft reduced to 122 meters vertical and 1.85km horizontal. An Air Europa Boeing 737-800 was on final approach to runway 18R while an Air Europa Airbus A330-200 was on final approach to runway 18L. How did it happen? According to the Spanish-only report, the conclusion is that the losses of separation were the result of a 'complex operational situation' in the Madrid control zone. There are a number of factors that led to this including: • The unavailability of weather information tools covering the entire Madrid control zone • A sudden change in weather conditions, particularly in intensity and wind direction • And the time needed to make the decision to switch runway configuration. The CIAIAC report states that Madrid ATC consulted with the weather forecaster who explained these were convective currents with variable directions which would last for about one hour. At 20:54 local time, the decision was made to switch the runway configuration. Switch of configuration was a large factor in the incident, which occurred in a critical situation. The report states that the switch takes about 10 minutes before normal operations are re-established. In the midst of this, sector assignment and some technical problems further complicated the switch. The report recommends improving the coordination of ATC services and weather forecasters as well as the weather observers at the aerodrome. In the end, six safety recommendations were issued by the CIAIAC to the ATC provider. Furthermore, two recommendations were made to the weather service provider. https://simpleflying.com/madrid-wind-shear-separation-loss/ Back to Top Spills Prompt Liquids AD On A350s Liquids have been banned from certain areas of the cockpits of A350 airliners after a couple of diversions caused by spills on the center panels. The European Aviation Safety Agency has issued an emergency AD banning liquids from areas of the cockpit where spillage might muck up the electronic works of the state-of-the-art aircraft since a spill in the right place could bring the aircraft down. The AD also includes tips on how to clean up the spill. The action comes after two instances in which spilled beverages resulted in the shutdown of one of the aircraft's engines and the crews were unable to restart them. In a worst-case scenario, EASA reasons, one unfortunately placed spill could result in the irreversible silencing of both massive Rolls-Royce Trent XWB engines. The mishaps responsible for the liquids-free zone involved a Delta flight heading to Seoul from Detroit and an Asiana flight from Seoul to Singapore. On the Delta flight it was coffee while the Asiana flight's costly spill was tea but in both cases the liquid fell on the master engine controls right behind the throttles, which is also a handy flat spot between the pilot and FO seats. The coffee and tea shorted out the controls and the confusing commands from the panel caused the computer to cut off fuel to the affected engine. "Subsequent engine relight attempts were not successful," the AD says. The Delta flight had to divert to Fairbanks and the Asiana crew headed to Manila. So far, the AD applies to A350s owned by carriers from the European Union but other countries usually follow. https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/spills-prompt-liquids-ad-on-a350s/ Back to Top FAA Issues Package Drone Certification NPRM The FAA is proposing to issue type certificates for individual unmanned aircraft designs heavier than 55 pounds that will be used for package delivery. In a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) published last week, the agency says it wants to certify drones under the "special class" category that addresses aircraft "for which certification standards do not exist due to their unique, novel, or unusual design features." Drones would be subject to the same rigorous testing and standards of manned aircraft and this NPRM is designed for package-carrying drones. Standards for aircraft carrying people would follow. The agency is looking for public comment to help it figure out the new set of standards and warns that it's the beginning of what will certainly be a long and complex process toward integration of drones. Comments are being accepted until March 4 and it's urging commenters to be specific. "The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the policy, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data," the NPRM reads. https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/faa-issues-package-drone-certification-nprm/ Back to Top Tech University of Munich Promotes Master's Program in Aerospace The Technical University of Munich (TUM) hopes to attract highly motivated prospective aerospace engineers from Singapore during the airshow at Booth A13 on February 13 and 14. Founded in 1868 and now one of Europe's leading technical learning institutions, TUM established TUM Asia in 2002 as the first venture abroad by a German university. Its partnerships with top Asian universities and industry leaders combine German engineering prowess with Asian relevance to generate talent for companies and research institutions around the world. With the changing needs of the economy, the specialized master's program in aerospace engineering keeps pace with industry needs through an Asian-European perspective. Lecturers and professors hail from as far as Germany to lend students their knowledge and experience. More than 1,000 students have passed through the doors of TUM Asia and now ply their trades in top research institutions and companies around the world. https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/aerospace/2020-02-10/tech-university-munich-promotes-masters-program-aerospace Back to Top Pilatus biz jet certified for use on grass, muddy and snowy surfaces Swiss business aircraft maker Pilatus has obtained certification for its PC-24 jet to take-off and land on grass, wet earth and snow. The full rough field certification from EASA and the FAA for the PC-24 "Super Versatile" Jet comes after certification for operations on dry sand and gravel was achieved in 2018. A post-certification test campaign was conducted during 2019 to certify the PC-24 for operation on unpaved runways and in differing conditions and from this month, all PC-24s may now also be operated on wet and snow-covered unpaved runways. The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) requires tests for the certification of take-off and landing capability to be carried out on different runways. After careful evaluation of local conditions, tests were made at locations across America and Europe. A runway in Goodwood, UK was selected for the tests on dry grass. Further tests on grass runways were carried out at Kunovice in the Czech Republic, at Poitiers in France and at Duxford, UK. At Woodbridge, England, complex conditions were reproduced in part in order to meet all test specifications for take-offs and landings on wet dirt surfaces. The PC-24 was also flown in North America - tests on snow-covered gravel runways were performed at Kuujjuaq in Canada. The PC-24 was designed to operate on short and unpaved runways as well as conventional runways so it can be used in almost twice as many airports worldwide as other business jets on the market, said Pilatus. The Royal Flying Doctor Service of Australia and operators in North America or Africa already use rough field runways on a regular basis, proving just how unique the PC-24 is - that sort of capability is only available with the Pilatus Super Versatile Jet." The PC-24 is Pilatus's first jet-powered aircraft and uses a pair of Williams FJ44 engines. Testing of the aircraft, which can carry up to eight passengers and has a cruising speed of 815km/h, began in May 2015 and involved three test aircraft. https://www.aerospacetestinginternational.com/videos/pilatus-biz-jet-certified-to-use-on-grass-muddy-and-snowy-surfaces.html Back to Top Trans-Atlantic flight reaches 821 mph with the help of intense jet stream Flight arrived to destination more than an hour early ORLANDO, Fla.- - The same system that brought nasty storms to Central Florida Thursday night helped slingshot a passenger plane across the Atlantic Friday night. The jet stream is one of the driving forces behind our weather. It is a fast-moving ribbon of air that resides up where jet aircraft fly, hence the name jet stream. It is the dividing line between warm and cold air and the pathway in which storms travel. The jet stream is fueled by temperature differences. The bigger the difference, the stronger the jet stream. This is why the jet stream is much stronger in winter than in the summer. Oftentimes in winter it can be in the 80s in Florida and well below zero in the Upper Midwest or Canada. Strong jet stream spanning the Atlantic Friday. The dark yellow and black colors on this map represents jet streaks, localized intense winds within the jet stream itself. Strong jet stream spanning the Atlantic Friday. The dark yellow and black colors on this map represents jet streaks, localized intense winds within the jet stream itself. In winter, the winds within the jet stream can be well over 200 mph, as was the case Friday night. The temperature and pressure gradient (difference) was extreme in between the Bermuda High and Icelandic Low fueling the intense winds at about 35,000 feet. The Flight: Flight plan for KLM 644 from flightaware.com KLM Flight 644 took off just before 9:30 p.m. Friday, Feb. 7 from New York's JFK airport en route to Amsterdam. A little more than an hour into the flight, the ground speed reached more than 800 mph! At 11:10 p.m. as the plane was flying over Newfoundland, the ground speed reached 821 mph. The filed speed for the flight was 564 mph. Data from flightaware.com shows the aircraft reaching a ground speed of 821 mph. It is important to note that ground speed is different than air speed. While technically the plane was moving faster than the speed of sound from a ground perspective, it is air speed that matters for breaking the sound barrier. The air speed, or how fast the plane was going on its own power, was about 500 mph, more than 250 mph less than the speed of sound. Think of ground speed as walking on an airport people mover. If you maintain the same walking speed as you enter the people mover, you yourself aren't moving any faster, but you are moving faster relative to the objects you pass by. With a filed aircraft speed of 564 mph, KLM Flight 644 would have been pushed along by a tailwind of 257mph! The flight arrived in Amsterdam 1 hour and 17 minutes EARLY! Data from a weather balloon launch Friday even in Stephenville, Newfoundland, near where the plane flew over, showed wind speeds of 235 mph at jet stream level. Circled below are the recorded wind speeds from the instruments on the weather below. The wind barbs, which show the wind direction and speed show winds out of the southwest and four triangles. Each triangle represents wind speeds of 50 knots. Since there are four triangles, you get 200 knots of wind. The raw data shows 205 knots of winds over Newfoundland equaling 235 mph. While definitely not always this extreme, pilots flying from west to east, the typical motion of the jet stream, locate the jet stream on a daily basis to help give them a boost. That is why oftentimes you may arrive early to your destination if you were flying from say St. Louis to New York. If you were flying from Orlando to Seattle, the flight time is typically a little longer since you are fighting the jet stream as a headwind. I can imagine the flight back from Amsterdam encountering that head wind took just a little bit longer. https://www.clickorlando.com/weather/2020/02/09/wow-trans-atlantic-flight-reaches-821-mph-with-the-help-of-intense-jet-stream/ Back to Top The Air Force Is Eying a Newer, Faster SR-71 Blackbird Hypersonics here we come. So why not build upon the already-tested SR-71 and make an SR-72? Like a bolt out of the blue, Lockheed Martin's renown Skunk Works publicly teased one of aviation's great snark hunts-revealing plans for a successor to the SR-71, the legendary Mach-3 reconnaissance plane designed with slide rules and retired when the millennials were born. That 59-year old aircraft, originally developed as an uber-interceptor, still holds the record for fastest sustained supersonic flight at 2,100 miles per hour-much faster than a .50-caliber bullet. But the new plane just announced, the SR-72, will fly twice as fast-so fast that at top speed the very air entering its engines will be moving as fast as an SR-71. Keeping combustion and thrust going under such conditions has been likened to lighting a cigar in a hurricane. The SR-72's planned ability to go from a standing start to Mach 6 and back again is a hat trick no one has been able to pull off. Yet, an SR-72 demonstrator reportedly first appeared in plain view in California in July 2017. According to Aviation Week, Skunk Works has developed a way to run turbojet engines at high temperatures and power levels, high enough to push the SR-72 to Mach 2.5. The ramjet-scramjet second stage requires speeds above Mach 3 or 3.5 to operate, a "thrust chasm" which Lockheed Martin says it's solved ... though it won't say how. Turbojet? Ramjet? Scramjet? A turbojet spins many blades to compress and heat incoming air before setting it on fire and riding the resulting plume of hot expanding gas. A ramjet moves so fast that the air entering the engine is already hot and compressed enough to ignite the fuel. A scramjet-short for "supersonic combustion ramjet"-is just that, a ramjet where the incoming air is moving at supersonic speeds. At hypersonic speeds there's no additional sonic boom, but the air piles up so fast along the aircraft's leading edges that they reach blast-furnace temperatures. The SR-71 heated up so much due to the friction of its flight that its body panels fit together loosely on the ground and expanded snugly in flight. But the breathtaking potential of hypersonic flight at Mach 5 and above has driven research forward for more than 70 years, in good times and bad, from Nazi wonder weapons to the Right Stuff and the Pacific pivot. Even before any man-made machine had reached supersonic speeds, the hypersonic domain enchanted some remarkable minds. Das Flug aus die Silbervogel: Eugene Saenger first tackled the concept of a multi-thousand-mile-per-hour aircraft in his 1933 doctoral thesis; breakthrough work on cooling rocket engines by re-circulating cryogenic fuel through their walls brought him to the attention of Hitler's regime. Like Wernher von Braun, Saenger was encouraged to apply his radical ideas to building the Reich's might. Von Braun's V-2 ballistic missile rammed home the frightful speed and power of supersonic weapons; the citizens of London and Antwerp got no warning of the huge missiles which fell three times faster than the sound they made. Saenger and colleague Irene Bredt's design, the Silbervogel, or "Silverbird" in English, might have brought stealthy death to New York and Chicago from halfway around the world. The Silverbird, also known as the Antipodal Bomber, combined so many crazy ideas in one slick package that it's easy to understand its hold on imaginations so many years later, and why the Reich Air Ministry passed on building a prototype. The Nazi space plane's final design was a 91-foot-long plank-bellied lifting body sporting stubby wings, a monster 100-ton-thrust rocket motor and the fuel and liquid oxygen tanks to feed it. Mounted on a giant rocket sled traveling down a two-mile-long monorail, the single pilot and his single (big) bomb would be hurled into the sky at nearly Mach 2 before the Silverbird's own rocket took it 70 miles up at Mach 19. Seem familiar? It's because the system inspired a certain 1950s science-fiction movie. As if the launch and boost phase weren't enough, this dieselpunk spaceplane's flight phase, the "skip-glide" technique, became a strategic warfighter's dream. Get an aerospace vehicle going high and fast enough, then drop it back into the atmosphere just so, and it will skip off the denser air like a tossed stone skipping off a quiet lake. The skip then carries the vehicle back into space, friction slowing the vehicle with every skip. Saenger and Bredt calculated that the Silverbird could achieve a range of over 14,000 miles, nearly halfway to the Antipodes, by skip-gliding around the world from an initial boost in Germany. Alas, later calculations revealed that the Silverbird would more than likely have suffered the fate of the Space Shuttle Columbia sometime during the flight. Despite its magnificent technical sweetness, the Silverbird's mission was a mix of strategic bombing and pure terror. A four-ton bomb can do a lot of damage and the psychological impact of a continental American city being bombed out of the blue would have been tremendous. Planned strategic targets included aluminum smelters and aircraft plants. Goering's air ministry dismissed the Saenger-Bredt concept and pursued other methods of attacking the United States. Joseph Stalin, however, took the concept seriously enough that after the war he ordered the NKVD to (unsuccessfuly) kidnap Saenger and Bredt from France. Like many other aerospace rivalries, hypersonic research took off in both Cold War superpowers from its start under Hitler. The Right Stuff: In the United States, flight at Mach 5-plus was fitted into the ongoing national effort that took Maj. Chuck Yeager through the sound barrier. By the mid 1950s, the X-15 program had focused on designs, materials and protocols for hypersonic flight, and by the early 1960's X-15 pilots sporting astronauts' wings were routinely flying into space at Mach 6 from Edwards Air Force Base in California. As Tom Wolfe lyrically recounted in his classic work The Right Stuff, the X-15's winged, piloted approach soon gave way to the rounded capsules of Mercury, Gemini and Apollo. The Air Force nearly achieved hypersonic flight half a century ago with the X-20 DynaSoar, the great might-have-been link between the Silverbird, the Space Shuttle and the SR-72. Designed to soar into space atop a Titan missile, orbit like a space capsule and land like a fighter plane, the X-20 fulfilled the Silverbird dream only to be killed off by Defense Secretary Robert McNamara. Space Shuttle engineers in the 1970s relied on X-20 research in designing their spaceship. Today the recently-retired Space Shuttle is perhaps the most familiar hypersonic vehicle in the world. The Space Shuttles soared into space at Mach 23 before leaving the atmosphere-and flew "like bricks with wings" at hypersonic speeds during their fiery descents. The tremendous heat experienced by the Shuttle during re-entry gives us a glimpse of the challenges facing the SR-72-the slightest crack in the surface can let in blowtorch heat and wind. And could destroy the vehicle and crew. All successful hypersonic vehicles to date have been hurled forward by rocket power, from the WAC Corporal in 1949 to the X-51 Waverider this spring. Most recent U.S. hypersonic research has been focused on developing prompt long-range strike weapons in the form of air, sea and sub-launched payloads boosted up to cruise speed by rocket power. Indeed, SpaceX's Falcon 1 rocket was funded in part to create a booster for hypersonic payloads. And that's what makes the SR-72 really amazing. If Lockheed Martin and its partners call pull it off, flight will never be the same. Aerojet-Rocketdyne has a long distinguished pedigree in the propulsion field, ranging from 21-foot-wide solid fuel boosters and nuclear rockets to the Saturn V and Space Shuttle main engines. An aircraft that can take off and land on standard runways, fly faster than a speeding bullet-and do so affordably-would quickly find its technology spreading throughout the aviation industry. The V-22 Osprey shrunk Iraq to the size of Rhode Island. The SR-72 and its kin could shrink the Indo-Pacific to the size of California. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/air-force-eying-newer-faster-sr-71-blackbird-121556 Back to Top Further problems with Boeing's Starliner Capsule Revealed Boeing's space division seems to have made yet another blunder in relation to its Starliner capsule. Even though the capsule's first mission (the Orbital Flight Test, or OFT) was already a failure due to a timer failure, another error has been found in the capsule's software which could have destroyed the Starliner vehicle altogether. This has brought much more serious repercussions as it, if not discovered, could have resulted in the deaths of every astronaut onboard a future Starliner. The OFT was supposed to be one of the last steps in Boeing's development of the CST-100 'Starliner', a new capsule developed under the Commercial Crew Development (otherwise known as CCDev) contract. This contract, issued by NASA, is aimed to minimize development costs through private investment and development, and actually includes two space transportation vehicles; the first is the previously mentioned Starliner, while the other is SpaceX's Crew Dragon. By doing this, NASA hoped to provide redundancy both in regards to development and flight operations. A image from SpaceX's completely successful (and pretty explosive) In-Flight Abort Demonstration (Credit to SpaceX) SpaceX has recently achieved enormous success with both a stunningly successful orbital flight test (known as Demo-1, but essentially the same as the Starliner's OFT) and in-flight abort test, which has proved that the vehicle is safe and able to fly. However, Crew Dragon was delayed by an explosive ground test failure, which resulted in the obliteration of the capsule used for Demo-1. Thankfully, no-one was injured, but SpaceX still had to make an official investigation into the failure and fix the underlying issue (a leaky valve). However, Starliner has run into similar issues with little success. Its abort test, while successful, still had a parachute fail on its descent. A test of the capsule's service module resulted in a leak of the module's toxic fuel, delaying the OFT by months. Last, a Mission Elapsed Timer failure on the OFT itself led to a planned rendezvous with the ISS becoming impossible, thereby failing the mission. But all these mistakes and accidents were without people at serious risk, or at least could have posed little risk to the lives of astronauts. (Boeing previously claimed that astronauts could have prevented the OFT's failure, and allowed for an ISS rendezvous.) This latest blunder is far more serious, as is displayed by NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine's actions, which were to hold a media teleconference detailing some of the Starliner's issues before NASA and Boeing's investigative review team had finished their assessment of the flight. Bridenstine explained his actions by saying that he hosted the conference in the "interest of transparency", thanks to the OFT having "lots of anomalies". However, it seems that NASA is more concerned about the culture of Boeing's software development, as Doug Loverro, the head of NASA's human spaceflight section, stated that the software anomalies were "likely only symptoms...we had numerous process escapes in the design, development, [and] test cycle for software...We have a more fundamental problem..." This is highly worrying, especially when considering Boeing's disastrous software failures with the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) system on the Boeing 737, which have claimed 346 lives on two separate flights. Clearly, this is also at the top of NASA's mind. A diagram of the CST-100 Starliner (Credit to Boeing) The anomaly in question pertains to the Starliner's Service Module disposal sequence, which requires that it fire several thrusters to move away from the crew module just before reentry. However, during the OFT, a software check was performed following the Starliner's malfunction during orbital insertion. This check discovered that the service module's code was sub-par, and could have led to it colliding with the crew module. The reason as to why the code was sub-par apparently lies in the difference of whether the crew module was attached to the service module or not. The differences would require a "different valve mapping", however, there were no differences between the scenarios. Basically, the service module's thruster firings would have acted as if the crew module was still there. These improper thruster firings could have been dangerous, as said by Boeing's Senior Vice President, Jim Chilton; "It can't be good when two spacecraft are going to contact." In fact, in the words of NASA's Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel member Paul Hill, the anomaly had "the potential for catastrophic spacecraft failure". This should be taken incredibly seriously, as such an anomaly could kill every person onboard the spacecraft through either damage to the heatshield or structural damage to the capsule. Another problem encountered was with the space-to-ground communications. During the initial stages of the flight, communications with the capsule were spotty, which had an immediate impact on the ground control team's ability to fix Starliner's failure during orbital insertion. This was apparently due to a "high [radio] noise floor", which prevented the ground from contacting NASA's Tracking Data and Relay Satellites (TDRS), which would then contact Starliner. This 'high noise floor' has been attributed to nearby cell phone towers. As a result of these extensive failures, NASA has ordered an Organizational Safety Assessment of Boeing's work on the CCDev contract, similar to that which SpaceX went under following its CEO, Elon Musk, smoking marijuana during an interview. NASA had previously ordered a more limited review of Boeing, but they are obviously determined to avoid any future issues. This investigation is more focused on how the numerous software issues managing to slip their way through safety checks that "should or could have uncovered the defects". However, NASA has also shouldered some of the blame, with Loverro stating that "Our NASA oversight was insufficient. That's obvious. We recognize that. I think that's good learning for us." It is encouraging to see that NASA is clearly thinking about its role in the Starliner OFT's failure, but this comes at the tail end of a series of failures by Boeing. Its reputation in air and space, while previously unchallenged, has fallen drastically thanks to the numerous accidents or mishaps with CCDev, the 737 Max and SLS. Boeing's actions have resulted in widespread outrage, and other companies are rapidly exploiting the lack of trust or goodwill remaining for the brand. Boeing will have to tread carefully in the following weeks, as both they and NASA decide what to do following this latest failure. Crew Dragon on the left, Starliner on the right (Credit to NASA) It remains to be seen whether the next test will be crewed, or if it will just be a repeat of the failed OFT. However, SpaceX has almost certainly won the race to develop NASA's next spaceflight system. https://aeronauticsonline.com/further-problems-with-boeings-starliner-capsule-revealed/ Curt Lewis