Flight Safety Information March 2, 2020 - No. 044 In This Issue Incident: Interjet A21N at Mexico City on Feb 24th 2020, tail strike on landing Incident: American A332 near Santiago de Compostela on Feb 29th 2020, electrical problems Incident: Jazz CRJ9 at San Francisco on Mar 1st 2020, smoke on board Incident: Wizz A320 at Oslo on Feb 28th 2020, could not fully retract landing gear Incident: Rossiya B773 near Samara on Feb 28th 2020, cracked windshield ATSB issues update on fatal C-130 Hercules firefighting crash FAA tells Boeing more training for 737 Max pilots may be needed ROLLS-ROYCE EXPECTS FEWER AIRCRAFT TO BE GROUNDED BY TRENT 1000 PROBLEMS FAA's Remote ID for Drones is a 'giant middle finger to aviation hobbyists' Changes to GA pilot medical self-declarations What it Takes to be a Commercial Aviation Jet Engine Lubricant United postpones new pilot class and warns of additional flight cuts amid coronavirus outbreak SpaceX aims to launch 70 missions a year from Florida's Space Coast by 2023 Incident: Interjet A21N at Mexico City on Feb 24th 2020, tail strike on landing An Interjet Airbus A321-200N, registration XA-JOE performing flight 4O-2901 from Havana (Cuba) to Mexico City (Mexico), landed on Mexico City's runway 05R at 14:22L (20:22Z) but struck its tail onto the runway surface. The aircraft went around, positioned for another approach to runway 05R, landed without further incident and taxied to the apron. The aircraft was unable to continue its schedule. About 124 hours (5 days 4 hours) later the aircraft performed a test flight from Mexico City to Mexico City climbing to FL360, then on Mar 1st 2020 resumed service and departed for flight 4O-30 from Mexico City (Mexico) to Tucson,AZ (USA) about 135 hours after the tail strike. http://avherald.com/h?article=4d3fc2ce&opt=0 Back to Top Incident: American A332 near Santiago de Compostela on Feb 29th 2020, electrical problems An American Airlines Airbus A330-200, registration N293AY performing flight AA-741 from Madrid,SP (Spain) to Philadelphia,PA (USA), was enroute at FL350 about 45nm northwest of Santiago de Compostela,SP (Spain) when the crew decided to divert to Santiago de Compostela reported an electrical problem. The aircraft landed safely on Santiago's runway 17 about 15 minutes after leaving FL350. The passengers were bussed back to Madrid. The aircraft remained on the ground in Santiago de Compostela for about 20 hours, then positioned to Madrid as flight AA-9201. The aircraft departed Madrid for Philadelphia as flight AA-9200 about 25 hours after the first departure to Philadelphia on Feb 29th. https://flightaware.com/live/flight/AAL741/history/20200229/1210Z/LEMD/KPHL http://avherald.com/h?article=4d3fc614&opt=0 Back to Top Incident: Jazz CRJ9 at San Francisco on Mar 1st 2020, smoke on board A Jazz Canadair CRJ-900, registration C-FNJZ performing flight QK-8839 from San Francisco,CA (USA) to Vancouver,BC (Canada) with 71 people on board, was climbing out of San Francisco's runway 01R when the crew declared Mayday reporting smoke on board, stopped the climb at 2000 feet and positioned for an immediate return to runway 28R. The crew reported they were showing smoke in both lavatories and they did smell smoke in the cockpit. The aircraft landed on San Francisco's runway 28R about 6 minutes after departure, turned off the runway and stopped clear of the runway. The aircraft was evacuated. Ground instructed all aircraft on frequency to hold position advising of an indefinite delay, however, resumed normal operation about 10 minutes after the landing. https://flightaware.com/live/flight/JZA8839/history/20200301/1630Z/KSFO/CYVR http://avherald.com/h?article=4d3fcc4b&opt=0 Back to Top Back to Top Incident: Wizz A320 at Oslo on Feb 28th 2020, could not fully retract landing gear A Wizzair Airbus A320-200, registration HA-LPM performing flight W6-3216 from Oslo Torp (Norway) to Bucharest Otopeni (Romania), was climbing out of Torp's runway 18 when the crew could not fully retract the landing gear. The crew stopped the climb at 4000 feet and returned to Torp for a safe landing on runway 18 about 25 minutes after departure. The aircraft remained on the ground for about 5 hours, then departed again now with destination Vienna (Austria) climbing to a maximum of FL190 maintaining a maximum speed of 340 knots over ground and landed safely in Vienna about 2:45 hours after (second) departure. A replacement A320-200 registration HA-LYQ continued the flight to Bucharest and reached the destination with a delay of 8 hours. The occurrence aircraft is still on the ground in Vienna about 30 hours after landing in Vienna. http://avherald.com/h?article=4d3f1d3c&opt=0 Back to Top Incident: Rossiya B773 near Samara on Feb 28th 2020, cracked windshield A Rossiya Boeing 777-300 on behalf of Aeroflot, registration EI-GEU performing flight SU-6275 from Moscow Sheremetyevo (Russia) to Bangkok (Thailand) with 190 passengers and 14 crew, was enroute at FL360 about 540nm southeast of Moscow and 110nm south of Samara (Russia) when the crew decided to return to Moscow due to a cracked windshield. The aircraft initially descended to FL320, later FL280 and diverted to Moscow's Vnukovo Airport for a safe landing on runway 24 about 3.5 hours after departure. A replacement Boeing 747-400 registration EI-XLF departed Vnukovo Airport about 3.5 hours after EI-GEU had landed and reached Bangkok with a delay of 6.5 hours. The occurrence aircraft is still on the ground at Vnukovo Airport about 12.5 hours after landing. http://avherald.com/h?article=4d3e67d2&opt=0 Back to Top ATSB issues update on fatal C-130 Hercules firefighting crash Date: Thursday 23 January 2020 Time: 13:16 Type: Lockheed EC-130Q Hercules Operator: Coulson Aviation Registration: N134CG C/n / msn: 4904 First flight: 1981 Engines: 4 Allison T56-A-15 Crew: Fatalities: 3 / Occupants: 3 Passengers: Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 0 Total: Fatalities: 3 / Occupants: 3 Aircraft damage: Destroyed Aircraft fate: Written off (damaged beyond repair) Location: near Cooma, NSW ( Australia) Crash site elevation: 1048 m (3438 feet) amsl Phase: Maneuvering (MNV) Nature: Fire fighting Departure airport: Richmond RAAF Base, NSW (XRH/YSRI), Australia Destination airport: Richmond RAAF Base, NSW (XRH/YSRI), Australia Narrative: A Lockheed C-130 Hercules firefighting aircraft impacted terrain and burst into flames near Cooma, north-east of the Snowy Mountains in Australia. All three crew members died in the accident. The aircraft, contracted to the New South Wales Rural Fire Service, departed Richmond RAAF Base, Australia at 12:05 local time. The crew had been tasked with a fire retardant drop over the 'Adaminaby Complex' bush fire. After approaching the Adaminaby complex fire, the drop was unable to be completed and the aircraft was diverted to a secondary tasking, to drop retardant on the 'Good Good' fire. Witnesses reported seeing the aircraft complete a number of circuits, prior to completing the retardant drop. The drop was conducted on a heading of about 190°, at about 200 ft above ground level, with a drop time of approximately 2 seconds. The crew released about 1,200 US gallons (4,500 L) of fire retardant during the drop. Witness videos taken of the aircraft leading up to the accident showed a number of passes conducted at varying heights prior to the retardant drop. Following the retardant drop, the aircraft was observed to bank left, before becoming obscured by smoke after about 5 seconds. A further 15 seconds after this, the aircraft was seen flying at a very low height above the ground, in a left wing down attitude. Shortly after, at about 13:16, the aircraft collided with terrain and a post-impact fuel-fed fire ensued. The three crew were fatally injured and the aircraft was destroyed. https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20200123-0 Back to Top FAA tells Boeing more training for 737 Max pilots may be needed Boeing has already reversed its long-held position that Max pilots who were certified to fly on earlier versions of the 737 didn't need extra simulator training. (Bloomberg) - U.S. regulators have told Boeing Co. that pilots may require additional training to properly respond to emergencies on the 737 Max after airline crews failed to perform proper procedures in simulator tests. In a Feb. 19 letter to Boeing reviewed by Bloomberg News, the Federal Aviation Administration detailed multiple missteps that airline crews had made in the December simulator sessions and said additional tests are needed. The simulations replicated failures similar to those in two fatal crashes. An analysis of the results by FAA and regulators in other nations reviewing revisions to the grounded jetliner may prompt "additional training requirements pertaining to the" aircraft, the letter said. As a result of the tests, Boeing had already reversed its long-held position that Max pilots who were certified to fly on earlier versions of the 737 didn't need extra simulator training. But the letter provides more detail about issues raised in the sessions and is the first indication that the government is also examining the need for more training requirements. It is the latest complication for Boeing's efforts to bring the 737 Max -- its best-selling jet -- back into service almost a year after it was grounded worldwide after the crashes. Decisions on training are important because they could delay the plane's return and be costly for airlines. "We have submitted an initial recommendation regarding simulator training on the 737 Max, but we will continue to work with airline customers and global regulators to assess and finalize the content of the training," Boeing said in an emailed statement. "Ultimately, it will be the regulators who determine the training requirements." Pilots from the three U.S. carriers that fly the Max, American Airlines Group Inc., United Airlines Holdings Inc. and Southwest Airlines Co., along with a crew from Grupo Aeromexico SAB were tested in December simulations of multiple emergency scenarios. The tests were conducted in a simulator running Boeing's updated flight-control system that was developed in the wake of the crashes. While none of the crews committed such egregious mistakes that they lost their planes, the errors were extensive, according to the FAA letter. The pilots, who had received additional training proposed by the company, failed to finish emergency checklists related to the automated system involved in both 737 Max crashes, known as Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System. In addition, they had difficulty with emergency procedures related to sensor failures, erroneous altitude and airspeed readings and the autopilot, among others, according to the letter. The tests also showed that some pilots were confused about how the autopilot behaved in some circumstances and their interactions with the plane's automated warning systems were distracting. The FAA said it had asked members of the Joint Operations Evaluation Board -- made up of pilot-training experts from the agency as well as Europe, Canada and Brazil -- to perform similar reviews. The tests are part of federal requirements that airliner systems must be relatively intuitive and average pilots can perform the procedures necessary to respond to failures and emergencies. The effort is part of a multi-step process of evaluating training requirements for the plane. The FAA is taking the lead, but regulators such as the European Aviation Safety Agency are working with the agency and performing their own assessments. "The agency is following a thorough, deliberate process to verify that all proposed modifications to the Boeing 737 Max meet the highest certification standards," the agency said in a statement. The FAA is working with aviation regulators in other nations and will take as much time as it required, the agency said. The crashes of two 737 Max jets -- in October 2018 near the coast of Indonesia and in March 2019 in Ethiopia -- killed 346 people, led to the prolonged grounding and prompted massive upheaval at Boeing. Boeing is already in the process of expanding training following its Jan. 7 announcement that it backed mandatory simulator sessions for pilots transitioning from the popular 737 Next-Generation models to the Max. The planemaker originally had sold the Max as an updated version of its 737 and so similar to earlier models that pilots only needed a short training course on an iPad. However, the pilots in the simulator sessions in December had been given a revised training course and still made multiple missteps, showing that more was needed. Boeing's January decision makes it almost certain that regulators in the U.S., Europe and elsewhere will mandate simulator training, though they haven't yet made a decision. https://www.chicagobusiness.com/manufacturing/faa-tells-boeing-more-training-737- max-pilots-may-be-needed Back to Top ROLLS-ROYCE EXPECTS FEWER AIRCRAFT TO BE GROUNDED BY TRENT 1000 PROBLEMS Rolls-Royce expects to cut the number of Boeing 787s grounded at any one time for Trent 1000 engine repairs to below 10 by the end of this year's second quarter. The number of aircraft on the ground (AOG) spiked to 42 in the second half of 2019 due to a decision to proactively fit a small number of remaining intermediate pressure turbine modules on an engine variant known as package B. It has since dropped to the mid-30s and Rolls-Royce said it had taken further positive steps to increase the availability of spare engines and further expand maintenance to reduce the AOG figure to 10 by the end of the second quarter. The issue, which is forecast to cost the company £2.4bn across 2017-2023, has seen disruptions to airlines globally and dented the reputation of the iconic British engine- maker. The Boeing 787 Dreamliner engines account for 13 percent of Rolls' widebody engine fleet and there have been multiple problems with components such as fan blades and compressors. The issues at various times have reduced the capability and availability of in-service aircraft and caused airlines significant inconvenience. This is not the first time Rolls has seen light at the end of the tunnel, only to have problems emerge with its later Package C and TEN variants of the engine. But comments in its full-year earnings release suggest a new level of confidence that it has the long-standing problem licked. Rolls-Royce chief executive Warren East conceded that Trent 1000 engines weighed heavily in 2019 in terms of the financial cost and the unacceptable disruption caused to customers. "As a result of the Trent 1000 and as announced in November, we are recognizing a net exceptional charge of £1,361m within our financials, contributing to a reported loss of £852m,'' he said. "We have fixes designed for all but one of the issues identified and are well advanced on certification and rolling them out into the fleet. "As the year drew to a close, we carried out a detailed technical re-evaluation of our progress on the final fix, a new high-pressure turbine blade for the Trent 1000 TEN. "Based upon that work and test activity, we reset our financial and operational expectations for the engine in November, based on a revised estimate of final blade durability, in order to provide certainty for customers and greater clarity for investors. "Since then, we have made good progress on the design of this blade and continue to expect certification of this component in the first half of 2021." In a run-down of its progress, Rolls said the intermediate pressure turbine fix was now fitted to almost 100 percent of in-service aircraft across all engine variants. A revised intermediate compressor was fitted to more than 50 percent of package C engines and had been certified for the Trent 1000 TEN variant with package B planned for the second half of 2020. A revised high-pressure turbine blade had been fitted in almost half of package B and C engines and design work for the TEN blades continued to progress well towards the 2021 certification. https://www.airlineratings.com/news/rolls-royce-expects-fewer-aircraft-grounded-by- trent-1000-problems/ Back to Top FAA's Remote ID for Drones is a 'giant middle finger to aviation hobbyists' The Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Remote ID for Drones is a 'giant middle finger to aviation hobbyists' is the title of this article from ARS Technica. And even though we (DroneDJ) are pro Remote ID for Drones, albeit not in the overreaching and expensive way the FAA is currently proposing, we do agree with ARS Technica wholeheartedly. The current proposed rules will likely destroy the model aircraft and drone hobby so many people enjoy. More than 34,000 people have deluged the Federal Aviation Administration with comments over a proposed regulation that would require almost every drone in the sky to broadcast its location over the Internet at all times. The comments are overwhelmingly negative, with thousands of hobbyists warning that the rules would impose huge new costs on those who simply wanted to continue flying model airplanes, home-built drones, or other personally owned devices. The new regulations probably wouldn't kill the hobby of flying radio-controlled airplanes outright, but it could do a lot of damage. Owners of existing drones and model airplanes would face new restrictions on when and where they could be used. The regulations could effectively destroy the market for kit aircraft and custom-designed drones by shifting large financial and paperwork burdens on the shoulders of consumers. The new rules are largely designed to address safety and security concerns raised by law enforcement agencies. They worry that drones flying too close to an airport could disrupt operations or even cause a crash. They also worry about terrorists using drones to deliver payloads to heavily populated areas. But critics say the rules impose massive costs on thousands of law-abiding Americans who have been quietly flying model airplanes, quad-copters, and other small unmanned aircraft for years-and, in many cases, decades. The rules require that the drone itself have an Internet connection. That will instantly render many existing drones obsolete, forcing hobbyists to upgrade or discard them. And it will also make it significantly more expensive to own a drone, since you'll need to sign up for a data plan. This do-it-yourself approach runs directly counter to the FAA's vision, in which every drone has a single manufacturer who takes care of regulatory compliance. https://dronedj.com/2020/03/01/faas-remote-id-for-drones-is-a-giant-middle-finger-to- aviation-hobbyists/ Back to Top Changes to GA pilot medical self-declarations The current exemption that allows General Aviation (GA) pilots to self-declare their medical fitness expires on Wednesday 8 April 2020, so the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) is advising affected pilots to act now to be able to continue flying legally after that date. Currently pilots with a European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Light Aircraft Pilot's Licence (LAPL) or Private Pilot's Licence (PPL) can self-declare their medical fitness to fly aircraft certificated by EASA, rather than having to gain a LAPL Medical Certificate, a Class 2 medical with an Aero-Medical Examiner (AME) or a LAPL medical certificate with their NHS General Practitioner (subject to certain criteria). The exemption that allows this in the UK expires on Wednesday 8th April 2020. This can only be renewed if EASA extends its own derogation that permits National pilot licence holders to operate EASA certified aircraft. The UK decided that as a National pilot licence holder could operate an EASA certified aircraft on a pilot medical self-declaration a UK issued EASA pilot licence holder should be able to do the same. EASA has not yet published a decision on extending its derogation. The CAA is therefore advising pilots who are likely to be affected to consider booking and completing a LAPL or Class 2 medical to enable them to continue flying legally. Information about obtaining a GP-issued LAPL can be found here: https://www.caa.co.uk/General-aviation/Pilot- licences/Applications/Medical/Apply-for-a-LAPL-medical-certificate/. The UK cannot legally issue a further exemption at this time but, given the very short notice at which an EASA decision is expected, the CAA is working with the Department for Transport (DfT) to try to find an alternative approach. The CAA will immediately publish any update from EASA or the DfT. Pilots flying non-EASA certificated aircraft with a medical self-declaration in the UK are not affected. https://www.adsadvance.co.uk/changes-to-ga-pilot-medical-self-declarations.html Back to Top What it Takes to be a Commercial Aviation Jet Engine Lubricant Few lubricants are asked to do so much or endure such a rigorous approval process. Lubricants used in the aviation world are subject to significantly different performance demands than those in other industries. Those demands also change as the engine and airframe designs change. So, as aircraft equipment evolves, so do the lubricants. Also, the restrictive and regimented regulatory environment for aviation is like nothing else. The Tasks Lubricants handle many important functions in jet engines. The most important is absorbing and removing heat from bearings. Heat then gets passed from the lubricant to the fuel, heating the fuel and cooling the lubricant. This fuel-to-oil heat exchange is important as the fuel tanks on aircraft are routinely exposed to extremely cold temperatures at high altitudes. Lubricants also reduce friction between moving metal parts and are expected to do this despite a wide swing in outside temperatures. Turbine oils are expected to be fluid at low temperatures with pour points below 54°C (?65°F). (The pour point is the minimum temperature at which an oil can pour down out of a beaker.) They must also have low volatility at high temperatures because they will be exposed to temperatures of about 200°C and have flash points greater than 246°C (475°F). Aviation lubricants must also carry particulate debris to oil filters for removal. They should protect engine parts from corrosion and resist and prevent deposit formation. At the same time, they need to prevent elastomeric seals, O-rings, gaskets and other engine seals from breaking down, which can be particularly challenging based on the chemistry. Chemistries: Esters Performance from today's jet engine lubricants must go well beyond the capability of petroleum-based oils. That's why most of them are based on synthetic polyolesters, which provide the needed thermal stability. Esters are synthetic fluids formed by reacting fatty acids and alcohols, producing water as a byproduct, which is driven off with heat. One of the primary raw materials that serves as the source of fatty acids is palm kernel oil or coconut oil. Esters are polar molecules and very hygroscopic, having a natural affinity for water and readily absorbing it from the atmosphere. So, it is critical to keep ester-based lubricants away from water. Water contamination of ester fluids can cause hydrolysis, which may form acids, especially in sealed systems. This is a battle the aviation lubrication industry fights continuously. To keep lubricants safe from this threat, they are packaged in metal, which should always be kept sealed until use. Opened containers should be used quickly to protect it from absorbing water from the atmosphere. There are two basic types of esters in use today: diesters and polyolesters. Diesters are relatively simple molecules compared to the more complex polyester molecules. Diesters have slightly lower viscosities than polyolesters, and both have good fluidity at cold temperatures compared to other lubricants. This is important because they must routinely work in temperatures of ?50° C when aircraft are flying. Comparing esters and polyolesters. Diesters are prone to oxidation, and their kinematic viscosity can change significantly when they oxidize. Polyolesters are better at resisting oxidation, hence the trend toward polyolester-based lubricants as temperatures in engines and lubrication increase. Polyolesters are better at preventing deposit formation. Lastly, diesters are compatible with materials found in seals, base oil seals and additive packages in oils. Specs Over the years lubricants have had to meet changing specifications. For example, the earliest turbine engines relied on mineral oil-based lubricants to meet the now-obsolete mil spec MIL-PRF-6081. Although no manufacturers make products that meet the spec, it is still in effect for heritage and historical aircraft. Early jets flown in air shows still use 6081 spec fluids. In the 1950s, as the technology of the turbine engine advanced, chemical engineers under military guidance developed the first generation of synthetic Type I lubricants. The requirements became MIL-L (PRF)-7808 and it is administered by the U.S. Air Force. Although most are diester-based, some are polyolester-based. These Type I lubricants had improved thermal and oxidative stability and better low-temperature viscosity compared to mineral oils. 7808 fluids are still used in auxiliary power units (APUs), the small turbine engines in the tail of most commercial airliners. They provide electrical power for the aircraft on the ground and in emergencies. Sometimes APUs need to start quickly at high altitudes in frigid temperatures, so the low-viscosity turbine oil is important. Second-generation (Type II) synthetic lubricants were concocted in the 1960s to keep pace with advancing engine technology that subjected lubricants to higher temperatures. The U.S. Navy wrote the MIL-L (PRF)-23699 specification as it searched for better performing lubricants. Type II lubricants are polyolester-based with much better thermal stability. They also have higher viscosity of 5 cSt at 100 C and better anti-wear protection and resistance to oxidation, meeting a higher set of demands than 7808 fluids. The 23699-specification continued to evolve, and in the early 1980s a new section was written, MIL-L (PRF)-23699 HTS, because the U.S. Navy wanted even better high- temperature thermal stability. Third-generation Type II-HTS lubricants offered enhanced performance over Type II oils for engines running at hotter temperatures and with higher lubricant temperatures. They were polyolester-based had the same viscosity at 5 cSt as at 100 C but additives improved thermal and oxidative stability. By the late 1990s, commercial manufacturers of engines and aircraft became dissatisfied with the MIL-PRF-23699 specification, and the fact that throughout most of the history of turbine lubricants the military made approval decisions. A civil specification emerged as OEMs also wanted a say in the approval process and how lubricants would perform in their hardware. Timeline of aviation lubricants. A civil, OEM-based specification was necessary because military and civil gas turbine engine designs and requirements diverged and were operated and maintained very differently. For example, the F/A-18 Hornet-primarily used by the U.S. Navy, but also the U.S. Marine Corps and others-has high good flight performance and a top speed of Mach 1.8 (1,381 mph), thanks to GE F404 engines . But they do not typically remain mounted on the airframe too long. They are removed, cleaned, disassembled and inspected, and parts are replaced after on the airframe and operating for a little under 2,000 hr. Maintenance on military engines is intensive, which is different for civil engines. For example, on a Boeing 737-800 with a top speed Mach 0.82 (629 mph), it's two CFM56- 7B engines are left on the airframe for over 20,000 hr without being removed. Maintenance is one while the engine is fastened to the airframe. Disassembly is only performed if necessary. Trying to keep the engines in civil service for long periods puts different demands on the lubricant than in the military. Therefore, OEMs decided they needed their own specification. Military and civil jet engine designs and requirements diverged, so two new industry standards for lubricants were needed. The modern jet oil specification, SAE AS5780, was written in the early 2000s to address next-generation engine requirements. Higher thermal stress in new engines demanded lubricants with better oxidative performance and load carrying without damaging seals and elastomers. SAE AS5780 is essentially a supplement to MIL-PRF-23699, which is still in effect, and will be widely used into the future. SAE AS5780 has additional test requirements that reflect the reality of commercial aviation applications, including long-term seal compatibility and deposition tests. AS5780 also creates two performance categories to qualify jet oils: standard performance and high-performance. Aviation Greases Grease is also used in commercial aviation in many airframe applications as a lubricant. For example, it lubricates drive screws in hydraulically powered actuators that move flight controls and landing gears, trackways for flaps, ailerons, leading-edge slats, and rudder and elevator linkages. Low-temperature performance is critical for aviation. At altitudes of 30,000 ft, the air temperatures can be ?40°F to ?94°F (?40°C to ?70°C.) Overall, Airframe grease must work has to function from ?73°C to 121°C (?94°F to 250°F). Airframe grease products must qualify against both military and OEM specifications if they are to be sold. Military specs include MIL-PRF-23827 and MIL-PRF-81322, and an example of an OEM spec is Boeing's BMS 3-33. Typically, aviation greases contain PAO and ester-based oils with lithium thickeners. There are some clay or synthetic clay thickeners, as well. All the greases have additives, and some specialized aviation greases use solid additives such as molybdenum disulfide. Most aviation greases have consistency ratings between NLGL 1 and 2, with most around 1.5 due to low temperatures. Generally, airframe greases must have low-base- oil viscosities for extremely low temperatures. Wheel bearing greases are put in sealed, tapered roller bearings on aircraft landing gear. There are two sets of bearings to handle axial loads in both directions. Because they're sealed, there is no re-greasing while in-service, but typically wheels are removed and overhauled on an accelerated schedule in commercial aircraft. Because of tire wear, wheels are removed every 100 to 200 landings. While the tires are off being inspected, refinished, retreaded or reused, the bearings also are removed, cleaned and inspected. Those deemed airworthy are repacked with grease and put back into service. The grease is completely removed and replaced each time there is maintenance. This can be often-every two to six months, depending on the aircraft's schedule. Short-haul carriers can make many landings per day, decreasing the service life of lubricants and components. Wheel bearing greases are exposed to conditions different from airframe greases. Wheel bearings see higher temperatures, ranging from (?64°F to 392°F (?54°C to 200°C), and are subject to higher loads. Base oil viscosity is also higher in wheel bearing grease than airframe grease. Wheel bearing grease products are qualified by military (MIL-PRF-81322) and wheel bearing and airframe OEM testing and specifications. A new specification (SAE AMS 3058) is currently in development. Approval Process The aviation industry is highly regulated. Aviation lubricant specifications are quite regimented compared to lubricants used in other industries and have many requirements. They also contain compositional limitations, indicating exactly which chemistries can be used, and demanding that all additives be ashless. There is a long set of minimum physical and chemical properties which stipulate minimum performance requirements, thermal stability, and tribological and deposition properties. They also provide instructions on how to qualify products and make changes to approved materials if substitute materials are needed. For example, if an additive supplier goes out of business, it sets out how to use the same additive from another supplier and the need to get permission from regulatory authorities to do so. If a significant formulation change is made, it specifies the need to re-qualify the fluid, which takes many years of testing. Specifications also say how to products will be supplied to the U.S. government, detailing the authorized package types and labeling specifications. It provides instructions on how manufacturers are expected to certify the quality of their approved materials, by vetting and investigating its own facilities and suppliers. Qualifying a new product now takes a decade, for example. It starts with new product development in which performance goals and objectives are established, and research done to decide which base oils and formulation to use. Once the formula is chosen, qualification requires in-house testing and bench testing in rigs with regulatory agencies. Eventually qualification is performed against specifications, such as MIL-PRF- 23699F or SAE AS5780B. Airframe and component manufacturers must then approve the oil for their hardware. Ground testing and/or on-wing service evaluations are carried out with the companies that manufacture engines, components and anything the jet oil will touch. Their requirements vary. Some are happy with extensive ground testing in actual engines, but some require service evaluations on wings in actual aircraft. These can call for 5,000 hours in several different engines, which could include full engine removal and disassembly, and inspection of oil-wetted hardware, as well as oil and filter analysis. Maintenance manuals also must be updated. All data, documents and reports are submitted to either the Federal Aviation Administration or European Aviation Safety Administration. Once they endorse the results and conclusions, OEMs can issue final approval. Final approvals often come in the form of a document known as a Service Bulletin. This is an official communication to commercial airlines that an oil is approved for an application. Getting through all the requirements for all the engines and related hardware, done in parallel, takes 10 to 15 years. It is a daunting process to get new oils approved in the aviation industry. Performance Expectations New turbine oils must be backward compatible with existing lubricants because the preference in commercial aviation is for broad application. Managing several turbine oils for several engines becomes a significant challenge for airlines. So, using a single lubricant in as much of the hardware as possible is greatly desired, making universal approval highly desired. General trends in engine temperatures in terms of gas path continue to increase, which may translate into still-higher lubricant temperatures. Although alternative chemistries are being assessed, the high heat capacity of esters is one reason why they continue to be used over other chemistries. The materials in engines themselves also change. There are new alloys in bearings, gears and gear boxes, so new additives are developed. There's also a greater use of non-metallic components. So, oils must have wider compatibility with seals, paints and various composites. Additives are expected to have fewer volatile antioxidants and better anti-wear properties, while carrying more contaminants and degradation products would protect elastomer seals over long periods. The military sector is researching enhanced esters that carry more dirt and debris. There also are several exotic synthetic chemistries under consideration that have promise for turbine-engine use. New oil technologies in commercial aviation follow the military experience which has more latitude to take risks. The commercial aviation lubrication industry is extremely conservative and careful, which is why it takes 15 years for new products to get approved. It's all about safety and carrying paying civilians. A Short History of Aviation Lubricants In the early days of aviation, natural mineral or castor oils lubricated the piston engines that powered airplanes. These lubricants were used and improved through World War II. Mineral lubricants for piston aircraft were also acceptable for first turbine engines. The jet age began in the late 1940s and put new demands on lubricants. The fuel temperatures in turbines increased, and so too did temperate of the lubricants. More capable chemistries were needed, and found, changing the chemistries of lubricants. Over the years, aviation lubricants have changed to meet the rising temperatures in aircraft engines. By the 1970s, Pratt & Whitney's JT9D, one of the first high-bypass turbofan engines powering the Boeing 747, had turbine inlet temperatures of around 1,100°C. Technology continued to progress and temperatures increased. For example, the GE90- 115B, a Boeing 777 engine, had turbine inlet temperatures at around 1,500°C. As engine temperatures increased, the only lubricants that could meet the needs were synthetics. Diester synthetics appeared in the 1950s, and they are still used. In the 1970s, however, polyolester synthetics became the more popular choice. The newest engines have temperatures above 1,800°C, and some reach 2,000°C. These engines are constructed of ceramic matrix composites because titanium turbine components can no longer "take the heat." So, lubricants have been continually changed as engine temperatures have climbed. In the 1940s and 1950s, lubricant temperatures peaked at around 120°C. Today, they can handle up to about 200°C. Aviation lubricants continue to do their jobs as engineers continue to formulate synthetics that can withstand the temperatures and stresses put on them in modern jet engines. https://www.machinedesign.com/mechanical-motion-systems/article/21124388/what- it-takes-to-be-a-commercial-aviation-jet-engine-lubricant Back to Top United postpones new pilot class and warns of additional flight cuts amid coronavirus outbreak * United has also allowed some widebody pilots to take a month off at reduced pay. * The carrier has reduced service throughout Asia because of the coronavirus outbreak. * U.S. airlines have suspended flights to mainland China and Hong Kong. * San Antonio International Airport A United Airlines Boeing 737 passenger jet takes off at San Antonio International Airport in Texas. United Airlines is postponing start dates for some new pilots this month and warned about further flight reductions, the carrier confirmed Sunday. A 23-person class of pilots that was supposed to start training this week has been postponed. CNBC had reported the schedule change earlier on Sunday. The delay comes as the COVID-19 outbreak spreads, prompting United and its competitors to scale back some international routes. Pilot training can take several months before aviators start flying for the airline. The coronavirus is a new challenge for airlines that have been dealing with slower-than- expected growth because of the nearly yearlong grounding of the Boeing 737 Max after two fatal crashes. In a note to employees sent Saturday, United CEO Oscar Munoz praised employees for how they've handled the abrupt changes and outlined additional materials, such as gloves and cleaning materials, sent to crews and vendors in areas that have been hit with the outbreak. "I am confident that our deeply embedded safety practices and commitment to health and safety puts us a step ahead in terms of keeping our aircraft and workspaces clean and sanitary," wrote Munoz, who is handing the reins over to United's president, Scott Kirby, in May. Munoz told employees that "we are strategically managing our Atlantic and domestic service, mindful of travel directives from the federal government, fluctuating demand and of course, the advice of public health experts," Munoz wrote. "Based on current trends, it is likely that additional schedule reductions will be necessary." United is also offering some pilots who fly the widebody aircraft used on trans-Pacific routes a month off at reduced pay after the airline cut some of its Asia flights, according to a memo sent Friday by the United pilots' union. United has "worked with our union partners to offer pilots associated with those changes the opportunity to voluntarily adjust their near-term schedules, as we do whenever business needs allow," a spokeswoman said. "Moving forward, we will continue to evaluate the impact of COVID- 19 and work closely with our labor partners to help manage our business to minimize the operational and financial disruption of the outbreak." Airlines have ramped up their pilot hiring in recent years as they faced increasing demand and more pilots near the federally mandated retirement age of 65. Earlier this month, United announced the purchase of a flight-training academy, which is called the United Aviate Academy, to train its future pilots. "We are on track to open the United Aviate Academy later this year and our plan to hire more than 10,000 pilots by 2029 remains unchanged," the United spokeswoman said. Airlines around the world have been reassessing their routes as the new coronavirus spreads beyond China, where most of the more than 87,000 cases have been reported. A series of new travel advisories and restrictions and the spread of the virus itself to other countries, including South Korea and Italy, has driven down demand to those destinations. On Sunday, Delta Air Lines said it will suspend this week its service between New York and Milan until early May. The move came hours after American Airlines said it would suspend its flights from New York and Miami to Milan until April 25. "American continues to review the airline's flight schedule to ensure that customers' needs are accommodated and will make additional refinements as necessary," the airline said in a statement. United on Friday reduced its service throughout Asia. Delta Air Lines took a similar step, cutting its weekly flights to South Korea to 15 a week from 28. U.S. airlines have all suspended their flights to Hong Kong and mainland China. United on Friday announced it would postpone its investor day, which was scheduled for next Thursday because it "does not believe it is practical to expect that it can have a productive conversation focused on its long-term strategy next week." U.S. airline stocks tumbled more sharply than the broader market's rout as investors fretted about a broad drop in travel demand. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/01/united-postpones-new-pilot-class-amid- coronavirus-outbreak.html Back to Top SpaceX aims to launch 70 missions a year from Florida's Space Coast by 2023 They'll build a massive Mobile Service Tower for rockets, too An illustration of SpaceX's planned mobile service tower at Launch Complex 39A of NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral, Florida. The tower will allow vertical integration of U.S. national security payloads. SpaceX is planning a huge boost to the number of rocket launches from its Florida launch sites in the next few years as the company builds its Starlink satellite megaconstellation while meeting flight demands from its customers, according to a federal environmental report. The missions for SpaceX's Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy rockets will also have more options than in the past, according to the report, which was first reported by SpaceNews. One change will be a new mobile service tower allowing some missions to be assembled vertically, rather than horizontally. Another will be the capability to launch to polar orbits - quite the feat, since Florida is located close to the equator and better optimized for missions that operate close to the equator. SpaceX also plans to test recovering payload fairings as the company pushes for greater mission reusability. By 2023, the company wants to launch 70 missions a year from its two Florida launch sites at the Kennedy Space Center and nearby Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, using Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy rockets. This rate is a seven-fold increase from the 11 missions SpaceX put into orbit in 2019, and almost double the 38 planned launches in 2020. That information comes from a draft environmental assessment published Thursday (Feb. 27) by the Federal Aviation Administration's Office of Commercial Space Transportation. "This launch schedule is based on SpaceX's anticipated need to support NASA and DoD [Department of Defense] missions, as well as commercial customers," the assessment reads in part. "In addition to its typical launch trajectories, SpaceX is proposing ... to include a new Falcon 9 southern launch trajectory to support missions with payloads requiring polar orbits. SpaceX estimates approximately 10 percent of its annual Falcon 9 launches would fly this new southern launch trajectory." SpaceX has two launch sites in Florida. One is at the historic Launch Complex 39A (LC- 39A) of NASA's Kennedy Space Center and the other is located Space Launch Complex 40 of the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. The company also has two rocket landing pads at the Air Force Station. Its drone ship "Of Course I Still Love You," used for rocket landings at sea, is based in Cape Canaveral, as are two payload fairing recovery ships and a Dragon spacecraft recovery ship. The Hawthorne, California-based company also has a West Coast launchpad at California's Vandenberg Air Force Base, with a second drone ship available for offshore landings. SpaceX's first rocket, the Falcon 1, launched from Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands of the Pacific Ocean. Polar launches and a Mobile Service Tower This SpaceX diagram shows how the company's planned mobile service tower will look in launch position (left) and integrated position for launches from Pad 39A of NASA's Kennedy Space Center. The new polar trajectory would require missions to fly alongside the Florida coast to reach the correct orbit, which could generate sonic booms. The SpaceNews report, citing a March 2019 assessment by Blue Ridge and Consulting included as an appendix to the FAA's document, says there would be a "low probability of structure damage (to glass, plaster, roofs, and ceilings) for well-maintained structures" in that area, assuming a peak overpressure of 4.6 pounds per square foot under typical flight trajectory and atmospheric conditions. The mobile service tower would be used for a variety of launches, including security missions from the United States Air Force. The FAA states it will be built on SpaceX's existing launch pad at LC-39A at the Kennedy Space Center, standing about 284 feet (86 meters) tall and 118 feet (35 meters) wide on its longest side. Any lighting for the tower would be constructed to comply with local environmental regulations concerning sky glow, the FAA added. SpaceX plans to recover payload fairings, in which satellites are stored during launch, "using power boats to 'chase and catch' the chutes and the fairings," FAA said. SpaceX caught half of a fairing on June 25, 2019 after a Falcon Heavy launch, and it hopes to recover three payload fairings a month between 2020 and 2025. This could lead to an environmental problem. "During these six years, SpaceX anticipates up to 432 drogue parachutes and up to 432 parafoils would land in the ocean," the FAA stated. "SpaceX would attempt to recover all parafoils over this time period, but it is possible some of the parafoils would not be recovered due to sea or weather conditions at the time of recovery." There is a backup available if the power boats fail, which is using a salvage ship that could track down the fairing using GPS data and strobe lights located on the fairing data recorders. That said, recovery could be impossible "if sea or weather conditions are poor," the FAA said. Of note, the report covers activities from Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches and makes few mentions of Starship, which is SpaceX's forthcoming larger rocket system that could take on even heavier launches. The FAA noted, however, that "as Starship/Super Heavy launches gradually increase over time to 24 launches per year, the number of Falcon launches would decrease." FAA issued the report because "SpaceX's launch manifest includes more annual Falcon launches and Dragon reentries than were considered in previous ... analyses," the FAA stated in the executive summary. This launch activity could affect both humans and animals in the region - which is relevant since part of the downrange launch zone is a protected area filled with marine mammals, sea turtles, and sharks, the FAA said. That said, the report does not contain a detailed list of which missions would be launched under the accelerated launch schedule. While few details are available about SpaceX's plans, in general the company has made announcements that do point to far more launch activity in the coming years. SpaceX is in the midst of building out its Starlink constellation, which could include as many as 42,000 individual satellites. The satellites are being launched into space at a rate of one launch every few weeks. The company is also planning to launch humans from Florida's Space Coast for the first time when its Dragon spacecraft is certified under NASA's Commercial Crew program, which could happen as early as this year. No astronauts have been launched from this area since the end of the space shuttle program in 2011. That said, the normal pace of International Space Station flights from Kazakhstan (the only spot that sends humans to space right now) is about four launches a year, which is an appreciably lower rate than the Starlink lauches. FAA proposes to modify or issue new launch licenses to SpaceX for Falcon rocket launches, and to issue new licenses for Dragon spacecraft reentry operations. The report is open to public comment until March 20, and the FAA urges all commenters to make their remarks "as specific as possible, and address the analysis of potential environmental impacts and the adequacy of the proposed action or merits of alternatives, and any mitigation being considered." https://www.space.com/spacex-rocket-launch-rate-boost-mobile-service-tower.html Curt Lewis