Flight Safety Information July 31, 2020 - No. 154 In This Issue Incident: ANZ DH8C at Nelson on Jul 30th 2020, hydraulic failure Incident: United B78X at Paris on Jul 20th 2020, cleared to land on wrong runway Accident: British Airways A320 at London on Sep 23rd 2019, smoke in cabin Cessna 337 Skymaster - Fatal Accident (Montana) Air Tractor AT-802A - Mid-Air Collision (Nevada) British Airways pilot was overcome by 'sweaty socks' fumes in Airbus A320 cockpit PILOTS WHO FLEW WITH DISCREDITED EXAMINER FACE REEXAMINATION Ukraine Wants 'Maximum Compensation' For Downed Boeing Jet CIVIL AIR PATROL TEAMS WITH UNMANNED SAFETY INSTITUTE FAA SEEKS TO EXPAND PROPOSAL AFFECTING ROBINSON R66 Korean Air flight flew to Japan with mechanical damage: BAI Airlines pivot to cargo during pandemic How Dallas-Fort Worth Became the Busiest Airport in the World Airbus Received Just 8 Commercial Aircraft Orders Between April.& June. Airbus Aims to 'Significantly' Cull Aircraft Inventory by Year-End Jet Airways pays $13 million to acquire 6 Boeing aircraft, engines IRS NPRM To Clarify Aircraft Management Taxes Boom Supersonic enlists Rolls-Royce to help build the engines for world's fastest commercial aircraft United Airlines now planning for bigger pilot layoffs United to drop contract with ExpressJet, dealing fatal blow Starship SN5 completes engine test - short, low-altitude flight test to follow 'soon' says Elon Musk SCSI Slovenia Fall Course Series The USC Aviation Safety & Security Program Will Offer Online and In-Person Classes This Fall Urban Air Mobility and Single-Pilot/Autonomous Airline Operations Research Project Graduate Research Survey GRADUATE RESEARCH SURVEY Incident: ANZ DH8C at Nelson on Jul 30th 2020, hydraulic failure An ANZ Air New Zealand (former Air Nelson) de Havilland Dash 8-300, registration ZK-NEA performing flight NZ-8302 from Nelson to Wellington (New Zealand), was climbing out of Nelson's runway 02 when the crew stopped the climb at 8500 feet due to a hydraulic failure and decided to return to Nelson. The aircraft landed safely back on Nelson's runway 20 about 40 minutes after departure. The flight was cancelled. The airline reported the aircraft returned due to a hydraulic issue. The passengers were rebooked onto other services. http://avherald.com/h?article=4daa086e&opt=0 Back to Top Incident: United B78X at Paris on Jul 20th 2020, cleared to land on wrong runway, ATC error saved by Easyjet A United Boeing 787-10, registration N16009 performing flight UA-57 from Newark,NJ (USA) to Paris Charles de Gaulle (France), was on final approach to Paris' runway 09L when tower cleared the aircraft to land on runway 09R. The crew read back the clearance and performed a swing over to runway 09R. An Easyjet Europe Airbus A320-200, registration OE-IJF performing flight U2-3955 from Paris Charles de Gaulle (France) to Malaga,SP (Spain), had been cleared to line up runway 09R and wait, recognized the developing situation and reported the conflict on radio. The B78X initiated a go around from about 260 feet AGL (500 feet transponder altitude corrected to QNH 1018 and 367 feet ground elevation) resolving the conflict. The United B78X landed safely about 20 minutes later, the Easyjet A320 departed about 5 minutes later. The French BEA rated the occurrence a serious incident (landing clearance on an occupied runway) and opened an investigation. http://avherald.com/h?article=4da9fc9a&opt=0 Back to Top Accident: British Airways A320 at London on Sep 23rd 2019, smoke in cabin A British Airways Airbus A320-200, registration G-EUYB performing flight BA-709 from Zurich (Switzerland) to London Heathrow,EN (UK) with 139 passengers and 6 crew, was just established on the localizer Heathrow's runway 27L when the crew declared PAN PAN reporting smoke in the cabin. While ATC sent a number of aircraft already released from the holding patterns for approach back into the holding patterns, the aircraft continued for a safe landing on runway 27L about 4 minutes later, emergency services were in their stand by positions. The aircraft vacated the runway and stopped on the parallel taxiway for about an hour, emergency services boarded the aircraft through the forward right hand door via a mobile stair and examined the aircraft. The passengers disembarked via the stairs. A number of passengers and cabin crew required medical attention for smoke inhalation. Both pilots received minor injuries. A BA Lounge was cleared to accomodate the passengers of the aircraft and their families. The occurrence aircraft remained on the ground in London for about 5 days. On Oct 3rd 2019 the AAIB reported there were smoke and fumes on the flight deck, the first officer was taken to hospital after landing. The highest degree of injuries is unknown so far, the AAIB thus rated the occurrence a serious incident so far and opened an investigation. On Jul 30th 2020 the AAIB released their final report releasing the conclusions regarding this and five similiar events: While it has not been possible to positively identify the compound that was responsible for the fumes and odours experienced in G-EUYB, or any of the other recent events, a number of common factors have been identified. The majority of events occurred after the aircraft had been parked or operated in precipitation. The fumes become apparent during the later stages of the descent, sometimes preceded by a minor event during the climb phase. The generation of fumes appears to be transient; they dissipate rapidly and leave no detectable trace. No link between changes to engine power or changes in other system settings and the generation of fumes was identified. In some cases, the presence of fumes has resulted in physiological reactions which have interfered with a flight crew member's ability to carry out their normal duties. However, by following the smoke and fume checklist, and donning oxygen masks the flight crew were able to ensure the continued safety of the aircraft. The AAIB annotated: "Numerous other similar fume events have been reported to the AAIB and the CAA. This report reviews five other similar events which occurred with the same operator on the same aircraft type. It was not possible to identify the cause of these events, but, several common features have been identified." The AAIB reported the sequence of events: The incident crew reported for the return sector to Heathrow at 0345 hrs for a scheduled departure at 0510 hrs. Both flight crew reported that they were well rested. The initial departure from Zurich was uneventful. It was still raining during the departure and the aircraft entered cloud at approximately 1,000 ft agl and remained in cloud for the majority of the climb. Shortly after passing through FL100 the flight crew detected a slight odour on the flight deck. The commander initially thought the smell was coming from the galley ovens. The co-pilot described it as a "sweaty socks" smell; he reported that he had smelt similar smells on this type of aircraft before, but this was stronger than he had previously experienced. The commander was concerned that they were preconditioned to detect fumes because of their previous experience of fume events and their discussion the evening before. He proposed they waited 30 seconds prior to taking any action to see if the smell dissipated. After 30 seconds the smell had gone. The crew discussed further options and agreed to continue the flight. The flight crew's previous experience suggested that if the smell was going to reoccur it was most likely to occur when thrust was reduced for descent so, during the cruise, they discussed their actions if the smell returned and reviewed the SMOKE / FUMES / AVNCS SMOKE checklist. They briefed for the co-pilot to fly the descent and approach for the commander's landing. The initial descent into Heathrow was uneventful. There were clear skies throughout the descent. The aircraft held briefly at BIGGIN HILL and was then radar vectored for an ILS approach to Runway 27L. As the aircraft intercepted the localiser ATC requested the aircraft to reduce speed to 160 kt. The aircraft was slightly above the glideslope so the co-pilot used speed brake to intercept the glideslope from above and decelerate. Having intercepted the ILS, as the aircraft passed through 4,000 ft both flight crew detected a sudden, very strong smell. The commander described it as a "manure smell"; "like a field which had just been muck spread". He described the smell instantly "hitting him" in the back of the throat. There was no smoke and no obvious source of the smell. The co-pilot described it as a "strong sweaty socks" smell. He reported feeling itchy skin around his eyes and a scratchy throat. The commander took control and instructed the co-pilot to put on his oxygen mask. Once the co-pilot was on oxygen and communication was re-established the co-pilot took control whilst the commander donned his oxygen mask. The commander requested an early hand-over from the approach controller to the tower controller, which was granted. He then made a PAN call to Heathrow Tower; he reported that they had fumes on the flight deck and required a priority landing. The flight crew then selected the landing gear down and landing flap then decelerated to the final approach speed. ATC advised the two aircraft ahead of G-EUYB and one behind to expect a go-around and then instructed them to go-around in sequence. The flight crew discussed options and agreed the safest course of action was to continue the approach. The aircraft was stable at 1,000 ft agl. The commander elected to use Autoland. He advised ATC that they would vacate onto the parallel taxiway where they would require an inspection from the emergency services. The aircraft landed at 0644 hrs, vacated the runway at N6 and stopped on Taxiway A. Once the aircraft had stopped the commander asked the co-pilot to complete the after landing procedure and the initial actions of the SMOKE / FUMES / AVNCS SMOKE checklist. The co-pilot made initial contact with 'Fire 1' and advised them that they had fumes on the flight deck and were completing some checklists. The commander made the Alert Call and gave the Senior Cabin Crew Member (SCCM) a NITS briefing via the interphone. The SCCM confirmed there was no smell in the cabin and the passengers were not aware of anything unusual. The commander then spoke to Fire 1 and made an announcement to the passengers to explain what was happening. The co-pilot removed his oxygen mask briefly to confirm if the fumes were still present. He confirmed the fumes were still present so the flight crew decided to shut down both engines and open the flight deck windows. At this stage the co-pilot started to feel nauseous. The Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) was started for electrical power and the engines were shutdown. The co-pilot then vomited out of the flight deck window. The commander initially planned for the aircraft to be towed to a parking stand but as it became apparent that the co-pilot needed urgent medical attention, he requested steps be brought to the aircraft. The co-pilot went to the aircraft toilet and continued to vomit. The SCCM came on to the flight deck to assist the commander. The SCCM reported that he smelt a "chemical smell", "a clean clinical smell" on the flight deck. He confirmed that there was no smell in the cabin. The fire service brought access steps to the aircraft. Communication between the fire service and the flight crew was challenging due to the wind noise with the flight deck windows open. The fire service initially thought the co-pilot was trying to exit the aircraft via the flight deck window so positioned the step adjacent to the window. However, after further discussion the steps were repositioned to Door 1 right. It took the fire service some time to position the steps at the door due to the turning circle of the vehicle, limited space on the taxiway and a concern that the vehicle would become stuck in soft grass at the side of the taxiway. The aircraft door was opened at approximately 0706 hrs and fire crews and paramedics entered the aircraft. The fire crew inspected the aircraft and reported that they could not detect any unusual smells or fumes. A member of the operator's engineering staff also boarded the aircraft after the event and did not detect any fumes or odours. The co-pilot and commander were assessed by the paramedics and both taken to hospital. The passengers subsequently disembarked via steps onto coaches and were transported to the terminal. None of the passengers or cabin crew reported any ill effects. The co-pilot and commander were released from hospital later the same day. The AAIB reported the commander had been involved in another fume event on Dec 21st 2018 on the flight from Heathrow to Geneva and required hospital treatment following the flight (The Aviation Herald was not able to report that one due to lack of sufficient evidence). The first officer had been involved in another smoke event in Valencia on Aug 5th 2019, see Accident: British Airways A321 at Valencia on Aug 5th 2019, smoke on board. The aircraft underwent several "work packages" following the landing in Heathrow for examination and determination of the causes of the smoke. The AAIB summarized the results: G-EUYB was withdrawn from service and all the work packages were completed. No fumes or abnormal odours manifested themselves during these tests and the aircraft was released to service. However, four further events were reported up to the end of December 2019. In each case no faults could be found during the troubleshooting. The AAIB analysed: This event was one of many very similar occurrences that had taken place with this operator and other operator's fleets of aircraft. These events had been reported via the operator's safety system and as MORs to the CAA. With the majority of these events, no immediate adverse effects on the flight crew were reported. It is not known if there are or will be any long-term health effects. The fumes and odours are usually not visible but have a similar characteristic pungent smell. In some cases, this has resulted in stinging eyes and the sensation of "catching in the throat". However, it does not have the same effect on every individual. In this case, G-EUYB, one of the flight crew was affected to the extent they were incapacitated by feelings of nausea. After removing their oxygen mask, they vomited and were eventually taken to hospital for checks. Regarding the wider issue, crew opinions vary; some individuals describe it as an irritation and as "an annoying" trait of the aircraft type, whereas others consider it a significant flight safety hazard and a cause for concern. Abnormal events in the cockpit, such as the presence of smoke and fumes, could be the first indication to the flight crew of a hazard which threatens the safety of the aircraft and requires an immediate response from the flight crew. The unique way individuals interpret smells, coupled with their unconscious response to a stressful situation can result in markedly different physiological reactions between flight crew members. The donning of oxygen masks as part of the flight crew actions when smoke or fumes are detected should isolate them from the source of the smoke and fumes. Outside influences In all the cases mentioned in this report, the possibility of influences from outside the aircraft has been considered, such as the use of aircraft washing fluids and detergents or anti-icing fluids. However, in most cases, washing or anti-icing operations had not been carried out prior to the flight in which the event occurred. Damp and rainy conditions were often reported during these events and so is considered a potential factor. It is not known specifically why this is the case but ambient humidity around or within the aircraft and its systems may be a contributory factor. Actions by the manufacturer The manufacturer has been investigating fume events based on reports and information received from operators. The nature of the unidentified fume events has meant there has been no residual physical evidence of the fumes which could be identified as the source and thereby lead to specific measures to address the causes of these events. The unpredictable nature of the events has also meant that it has not been possible to construct an experimental flight test schedule to capture more data. This has left the manufacturer reliant on reported data, making the issue difficult to resolve in practical terms. Technical cause It has not been possible to obtain a sample of these fumes for scientific analysis. However, there are a few features and characteristics which may be relevant. The evidence indicates that it is likely that these fumes are derivatives of contaminants entering the ECS. It may not be a single compound but a combination of compounds which react and then become airborne in the bleed air supplies passing through the ECS. The fumes may have similar traits to hydrocarbon compounds combined with water vapour in low concentration which are liberated as water vapour condenses when it enters cooler conditions, for example as it passes into the flight deck or cabin via ducts. The suggestion that aircraft operating in damp or rainy conditions are more susceptible to fume events may add some weight to this theory. This is supported by the manufacturer's observation that the fumes decrease, or in many cases disappear, when the humidity of the air in the cabin decreases at higher cabin altitudes. Consideration has also been given to whether the source may have been from plastic materials used within the ECS ducting, but this is thought less likely because the plastics tend to be used in the delivery of ECS air to the cabin rather than in production where hot and high energy air is used. The aircraft sub-variants, engine types and ages of the aircraft in which fume events occurred was also considered. This produced no conclusive evidence linking these events to a specific aircraft subset. The operator of G-EUYB had developed a post fume/odour and smoke event maintenance procedure to tackle the issue. Its development was based on experience and findings over several years and has been successful in identifying the source of many of the previous events. The procedure is based around looking for evidence within supplier and receiver systems. It directs maintenance staff to look for evidence to establish whether engine air/ oil seals have malfunctioned. However, in the most recent set of cases, the operator's post-fume check procedure has not been able to pinpoint faults or malfunctions which could have generated fumes. In all but one of these recent cases the engines have not been the source of the fume events The procedure for start-up and shutdown of the APU seems to have an effect. The operator has recently advised all flight crew to ensure the correct delay is applied between starting the APU and selecting bleed air and this seems to have reduced the number of events. The theory is that at APU start the generator and load compressor run-up from cold. It then takes a short amount of time for the bearings and seals to 'warm' up and stabilise to be effective. If bleed air from the load compressor is selected early, oil mist or residues can be released and drawn into the ECS airflow. It does not seem logical that the APU can be a source of these events particularly as they often occur on descent whilst the APU is not in use. However, it is possible that entrained contaminants generated on initial APU start may linger, either as vapours or condensate, upstream of the ECS packs whilst the more predominant bleed air from the engines supplies the system. These contaminants are then entrained into the ECS system as air flow and temperature changes take place during descent. ECS system schematic diagrams are not able to show where and how this may take place. However, in practice the ECS consists of numerous straight, bent and curved ducts, leading to and from valves and conditioning components positioned and shaped alongside numerous other unrelated components. It is therefore possible that small amounts of contaminants could adhere to various internal surfaces or become trapped in 'pockets' within the system. http://avherald.com/h?article=4cd2de19&opt=0 Back to Top Back to Top Cessna 337 Skymaster - Fatal Accident (Montana) Date: 30-JUL-2020 Time: c. 11:00 Type: Cessna 337 Skymaster Owner/operator: Registration: C/n / msn: Fatalities: Fatalities: 1 / Occupants: 3 Other fatalities: 0 Aircraft damage: Unknown Location: Madison Mountain Range, Madison County, MT - United States of America Phase: En route Nature: Unknown Departure airport: Helena, MT Destination airport: Jackson, WY Narrative: The aircraft with three occupants onboard is presumed to have impacted mountainous terrain in the Madison Range of Montana. Airplane damage not reported, one reported fatality, and two occupants with unspecified injuries. https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/238861 Back to Top Air Tractor AT-802A - Mid-Air Collision (Nevada) Date: 30-JUL-2020 Time: Type: Air Tractor AT-802A Owner/operator: Registration: C/n / msn: Fatalities: Fatalities: 1 / Occupants: 1 Other fatalities: 1 Aircraft damage: Written off (damaged beyond repair) Category: Accident Location: Caliente, NV - United States of America Phase: Manoeuvring (airshow, firefighting, ag.ops.) Nature: Fire fighting Departure airport: Destination airport: Investigating agency: NTSB Narrative: The aircraft experienced an apparent mid-air collision during a fire fighting operation in Caliente, Nevada. Both airplanes were destroyed and the sole pilot on each aircraft was fatally injured. https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/238864 Back to Top British Airways pilot was overcome by 'sweaty socks' fumes in Airbus A320 cockpit and had to make emergency landing at Heathrow, report reveals • The stench forced pilot to release oxygen masks and make emergency landing • None of passengers or cabin crew on the British Airways flight were affected • Co-pilot complained of sore eyes and throat, nausea and vomited out window • BA reported 536 smell, smoke or fumes events to Civil Aviation Authority in 2019 • In last five years there were 3,166 reports of smell, smoke or fumes on planes A British Airways pilot was forced to make an emergency landing at Heathrow after he was overcome by fumes described as smelling like 'sweaty socks' and 'manure'. The Airbus A320 from Zurich had to make the emergency landing from 4,000ft when the stench made its way into the cockpit on September 23, last year. The pilots put down the oxygen masks after feeling unwell, especially the co-pilot who had sore eyes and throat, nausea and vomited out of the window upon landing. • The British Airways pilot made the emergency landing at Heathrow airport after he and his co-pilot began to feel unwell in September last year None of the 145 passengers or cabin crew reported feeling ill but, once they had safely landed, the pilot and co-pilot were taken to hospital and released the same day, reports The Times. In the Air Accidents Investigation Branch's (AAIB) report, released yesterday, it says the operator and the AAIB carried out an investigation but could not identify the source of the fumes. The report detailed five other similar incidents which occurred with the same operator on the same aircraft type. • In 2019, British Airways reported 398 smell, smoke and fumes events on the the Airbus A320 series aircraft Some common factors between each of the incidents included taking place on short-haul European inter-city flights and often in damp humid environments. A startling 3,166 reports of smell, smoke or fumes were reported to the AAIB in the last five years. Not the first time: Shocking number of 'fume events' reported The AAIB's report into British Airways's emergency landing at Heathrow revealed the shocking number of similar incidents which have been reported. • In 2019, British Airways reported 536 smell, smoke or fumes events to the Civil Aviation Authority • Of these, 398 involved the Airbus A320 series aircraft • 37 fume events from various commercial operators and aircraft types reported to AAIB in the past 12 months • As many as 107 fume events reported from various commercial operators and aircraft types in the last five years • 3,166 reports of smell, smoke or fumes reported to the CAA in the last five years • 674 of these reports were submitted in the last 12 months Of those recorded, a variety of causes were noted including an engine oil seal failure and another which chalked the cause of the smell down to a burnt pastry in a galley oven. The AAIB said despite numerous reports of similar incidents occurring 'sporadically' in recent years, to date all investigations have been unable to determine a cause in all but a few events. The government body said all the investigations had not identified a source of 'great concern'. The German Federal Bureau of Aircraft Accident Investigation (BFU)14 carried out a safety study which focussed on the potential health impairments of such events and, despite the wealth of data and evidence available, a common physical cause of these events could not be identified. The operator and aircraft manufacturer of the Zurich flight said they have taken action to try to reduce the number of events by introducing developed maintenance procedures to identify the source of fumes, changes to flight crew operating procedures and potential modifications to enhance cabin air recirculation. A BA spokesman told the The Times: 'We would never operate an aircraft if we believed it posed any health or safety risk to our customers or crew. 'Research commissioned by the European Aviation Safety Agency in 2017 concluded that the air quality on board aircraft was similar or better than in other indoor environments.' In January this year, similar to the incident in September last year, a BA captain sent a Mayday alert and wore an oxygen mask as he was forced to make an emergency landing at Heathrow after his co-pilot was overcome by suspected fumes while at the controls. The evening flight from Athens was four nautical miles from London when the first officer, who was flying the A320 jet, fell ill. As he could no longer function properly, the captain was forced to take over the four hour flight on January 2 and raise the alarm in the final stages of the flight. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8579561/British-Airways-pilot-overcome-sweaty-socks-fumes-make-emergency-landing-Heathrow.html Back to Top PILOTS WHO FLEW WITH DISCREDITED EXAMINER FACE REEXAMINATION The FAA plans to reexamine pilots and flight instructors who took practical tests between 2008 and 2019 from an FAA inspector and examiner whose work was called into question following an investigation. Several hundred pilots may be affected by the decision to reexamine airmen who took practical tests from Michael A. Puehler of Cincinnati. The FAA said the action was needed to "ensure that these individuals meet the standards" to hold their certificates and ratings. AOPA believes such action should only be required in the most egregious of cases, said Christopher Cooper, AOPA director of regulatory affairs. He noted that the case has surfaced at a time when the FAA's complete designated pilot examiner examining system has been undergoing a systemwide review. Some insights into the FAA's concerns about Puehler surfaced in a policy document the FAA sent to its aviation safety inspectors on July 15. The document included a draft letter to be sent from the FAA's flight standards district offices (FSDOs) to the pilots identified as subject to reexamination, notifying them of the Puehler inquiry and noting that "based on that investigation, the FAA has reason to believe that Mr. Puehler issued certificates and/or ratings to airmen when the airmen did not demonstrate the qualifications to hold the certificate and/or rating for which they were tested. Thus, the competence of the airmen tested by Mr. Puehler during that time period is in question, and reexamination of the airmen's qualifications to hold their certificates and/or ratings is necessary in the interest of safety." The letter requests that recipients "call or appear at this office or a Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) more conveniently located near [them] within 10 days of receipt of this letter, to make an appointment for a reexamination." Failure to respond to the letter would result in certificate suspension. Not all pilots who took a checkride from Puehler between October 2008 and December 2019 must be reexamined. According to the policy document, some exemptions apply in cases of pilots who, after having received certificates or ratings from Mr. Puehler, were "subsequently tested and received, from another Designated Pilot Examiner (DPE) or FAA inspector, a higher-level U.S. certificate or rating in the same category and class as that previously issued by Mr. Puehler." FAA reexamination requests are typically upheld as long as the FAA can demonstrate a "reasonable basis" for the request, but each case is unique. Pilots who have legal questions about a 709 reexmaination are encouraged to contact the AOPA Legal Services Plan or an experienced aviation attorney. The reexams are for real The FAA does not charge a fee for the so-called 709 rides-a reference to the FAA's authority to reexamine pilots under Title 49 of the U.S. Code § 44709-but pilots may incur costs of providing "an appropriate, airworthy aircraft," which will be inspected prior to flight, and taking any flight instruction needed before undergoing the examination. "AOPA urges all pilots being reexamined to take this test seriously," Cooper said. "This is a full reexam of your piloting privileges. Be prepared, practice, study, because you will be expected to meet" ACS/PTS standards (airman certification standards/practical test standards). AOPA emailed Puehler to ask for his response to the FAA's action but has not received a reply. A LinkedIn profile for "Mike Puehler," which has since been taken down, listed extensive aviation experience as a flight instructor, as an assistant chief flight instructor for a Part 141 flight school, as a university aviation instructor, and as a collegiate flight team coach. The site lists FAA experience for Puehler including several years as a DPE and 11 years as a principal operations inspector for the Cincinnati FSDO's general aviation unit, where his duties were said to include conducting "oversight of Designated Pilot Examiners," investigating aircraft accidents, and ensuring compliance with the FARs. As the Puehler probe continues, AOPA takes the position that the FAA should only resort to widespread 709 reexaminations under the most egregious circumstances-and the current case is not the first instance of the agency embarking on such a course. In 2013 AOPA reported urging the FAA to justify ordering a large number of reexamination flights in an investigation of a complaint lodged against a DPE in the Northeast who the agency said was conducting practical tests contrary to the appropriate standards. The FAA also took action in a 2012 investigation involving the activities of a DPE operating in the Las Vegas area. https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2020/july/30/pilots-who-flew-with-discredited-examiner-face-reexamination Back to Top Ukraine Wants 'Maximum Compensation' For Downed Boeing Jet Ukraine's foreign minister has reiterated his country will make every effort to maximize compensation for a jet that was shot down by Iran in January. Talks between the two countries began on Thursday. However, the foreign minister has said these efforts will not be easy. "We have long worked for these negotiations to begin and I welcome the fact that they have finally started," stated Dmytro Kuleba. "I expect the process isn't going to be easy, but we are working to achieve the goal: to deliver justice." Iran has claimed it mistook the jet for a missile when it fired on the aircraft. Officials have also pointed out it was shot down at a time when tensions with the U.S. were high. All 176 passengers onboard the jet were killed. Ukraine's foreign ministry confirmed more details will be reported on Friday. https://www.oann.com/ukraine-wants-maximum-compensation-for-downed-boeing-jet/ Back to Top FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CIVIL AIR PATROL TEAMS WITH UNMANNED SAFETY INSTITUTE ON UAS SAFETY AND EDUCATION The shared objective is to educate, train and certify the elite in unmanned safety and to go beyond proficiency to create UAS industry leaders. ORLANDO, Fla. (July 28, 2020) - Unmanned Safety Institute (USI), the leading aviation-based safety training and industry certification provider for unmanned operations, has teamed with Civil Air Patrol (CAP) to address unmanned aerial systems (UAS) safety and education nationally. CAP and USI have agreed to cooperate on enhancing aviation and UAS safety and education at every level of both partnering organizations, including communications and coordination with other agencies and groups throughout the U.S. "Civil Air Patrol provides a valuable and important pathway for the pilots who will become a significant portion of the military and commercial workforce for both manned and unmanned aviation," said Josh Olds, USI president and co-founder. "USI is honored to work with CAP on the development of a lasting working relationship focused on exploring and developing opportunities for expanded aviation and UAS safety education to CAP and other USI members." CAP, the U.S. Air Force auxiliary, is committed to advancing safety in aviation and ensuring that the growing UAS sector benefits from aviation safety best practices. "As part of our mission is to support America's communities through emergency response, diverse aviation and ground services, youth development and promotion of air, space and cyber power, Civil Air Patrol recognizes the importance and significance of UAS in the future of our nation's aerospace system," said Maj. Gen. Mark Smith, CAP's national commander and CEO. "We also recognize USI's proven abilities and resources to provide the education and training needed for aviation and UAS safety across our national footprint, and are proud to partner with them." In response to the new agreement with CAP, USI is creating special offerings for students involved in CAP curricula in middle school and high school, as well as home school programs. "We recognize the hardships placed on both traditional and home-schooled academic providers as a result of COVID-19 and want to give these students virtual opportunities to begin their UAS training now," Olds said. About the Unmanned Safety Institute The Unmanned Safety Institute (USI) is the industry's most widely recognized leader in flight safety solutions for individuals, academia and organizations focused on integrating and operating UAS for civil or commercial purposes. The Unmanned Safety Institute provides UAS flight safety training and certification to operational standards based on the adoption and modification of time-honored aviation safety practices. With more than 170 instructors and over 10,000 customers around the world, including several Fortune 500 enterprises, USI is the global leader in UAS training and certification, delivering the most highly regarded training program of its kind. Programs include the Small UAS & Advanced Safety Certifications, Visual Line of Sight Systems Operations™ (VSO) and Professional Remote Operator™ (PRO) certifications and Unmanned Connect™ workforce development initiative. USI's training and certification programs are endorsed by major aviation insurance providers and incorporated into aviation association professional development programs, and have been evaluated and recommended for college credit by the American Council on Education. Discover more at www.UnmannedSafetyInstitute.org. About Civil Air Patrol Established in 1941, Civil Air Patrol is the official auxiliary of the U.S. Air Force and as such is a member of its Total Force. In its auxiliary role, CAP operates a fleet of 560 single-engine Cessna aircraft and 1,550 small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (sUAS) and performs about 90% of continental U.S. inland search and rescue missions as tasked by the Air Force Rescue Coordination Center. Often using innovative cellphone forensics and radar analysis software, CAP was credited by the AFRCC with saving 110 lives in fiscal 2019. CAP's 66,000 members also perform homeland security, disaster relief and drug interdiction missions at the request of federal, state and local agencies. As a nonprofit organization, CAP plays a leading role in aerospace education using national academic standards-based STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) education. Members also serve as mentors to over 28,000 young people participating in CAP's Cadet Programs. One of the premier public service organizations in America, CAP benefits the nation with an estimated economic impact of $209 million annually. Visit www.CAP.News or www.GoCivilAirPatrol.com for more information. Contact: USI - Alexis Creedy Alexis.Creedy@unmanned-safety.org Back to Top FAA SEEKS TO EXPAND PROPOSAL AFFECTING ROBINSON R66 The FAA on July 28 issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to expand the scope of a 2018 proposal to require the tail rotor (T/R) drive shaft yoke assembly be replaced and inspected for sealant on certain Robinson R66 helicopters. The 2018 notice of proposed rulemaking was prompted by reports of two failures of the T/R drive shaft forward hanger bearing because the bearing was "undersized for its housing," the proposal states. "Consequently, the bearing was spinning at a speed that caused excessive heating of the bearing during operation and led to the breakdown of the bearing's grease and ultimately seizure of the C647-16 bearing." Failure of the T/R drive shaft forward hanger bearing could lead to loss of helicopter control, the proposal states. The SNPRM proposes "either installing Robinson field kit P/N KI-235 or replacing an affected T/R drive shaft assembly with T/R drive shaft assembly P/N D224-4" and "prohibiting installing an affected T/R drive shaft assembly on any helicopter." The T/R drive shaft assembly would have to be replaced or the kit installed within 100 hours' time in service. The number of helicopters affected by the proposal has expanded from 249 helicopters to 290. The FAA estimates that it could cost about $1,460 or $4,835 per helicopter, depending on the method of compliance used. https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2020/july/30/faa-seeks-to-expand-proposal-affecting-robinson-r66 Back to Top Korean Air flight flew to Japan with mechanical damage: BAI Korean Air flew a damaged plane in 2018 without being aware of it until landing in Japan, and then falsely reported that the damage happened after the flight, an audit report said Friday. According to the report issued by the Board of Audit and Inspection, the South Korean flag carrier filed a false report to the Transport Ministry after discovering that its plane leaving from Incheon to Kansai, Japan, in April of 2018 had been damaged near the cover of the its engine inlet before take-off. The airline had changed the location and the time of when the damage occurred in its report, the BAI said. The audit found that Kansai Airport had discovered the damage and reported it to the Incheon International Airport Corporation. IIAC then passed the information on to Korean Air but was found to have not reported the case directly to the Transport Ministry as of November last year. In response to the BAI report, Korean Air denied having falsely reported the case, explaining it filed the incident with the Transport Ministry within 72 hours, and that they had specified Kansai airport as the point of discovering the damage, as the details of the incident were not clarified at the time. The airline later received 400 million won in compensation from IIAC as the damage was deemed to have been caused by the airport crew. Meanwhile, the BAI said between 2017 and 2018, nine cases of accidents and negligence, were not reported to the ministry, including entering taxiways without due notice and a collision between a plane and a boarding bridge. http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20200731000700 Back to Top Airlines pivot to cargo during pandemic Passenger airlines devastated by the decline in air travel during the pandemic are making up some of their lost revenue by strapping cargo into passenger seats and overhead bins of planes that would otherwise be grounded. The big picture: It could be several years before passenger air traffic returns to normal, but the global demand for medical supplies, along with disruptions in manufacturing supply chains and increased e-commerce, means airlines have a chance, at least temporarily, to offset some of those losses by transporting more freight. What's happening: Since the pandemic began, some 150 airlines have been operating cargo-only "ghost flights," using passenger jets to transport freight, according to Logistics Management magazine. • Icelandair Group, for example, in a deal with logistics provider DB Schenker, removed the passenger seats from three B-767 aircraft to transport medical equipment from China to Europe and the U.S., even slapping Schenker's name on the side of its planes. • Emirates SkyCargo began loading cargo in the overhead bins and seats of its B777-300ER passenger aircraft in early May in response to growing customer demand. • Other airlines, including KLM, SWISS, Qantas, Air Canada and Cathay Pacific, have also modified some passenger aircraft to transport cargo. • Lufthansa even has a name for the converted planes: "preighters," per Logistics Management. "The cargo business is keeping aircraft, which would otherwise be parked, in the air and given us all more hope ... that we will come out of this." - Dominic Kennedy, Virgin Atlantic's head of cargo operations, told Logistics Management Zoom in: United Airlines said cargo revenue was a bright spot in an otherwise dismal second quarter. • Total revenue plunged 87% in April, May and June, but cargo revenue was up 36% as United flew 3,800 international cargo-only flights during the period. • "I mean, who would have ever thought we could do something like that?" CEO Scott Kirby said on an investor call, praising employees' resiliency. Background: Passenger airlines have always carried commercial cargo - along with luggage and occasional pets - inside the belly holds of their planes. But when passenger traffic collapsed in early March, that airfreight capacity disappeared. • Yet as the virus was spreading, demand soared for personal protective equipment like masks, gloves and gowns, most of which is made in China. • Travel restrictions also snarled international shipping, stranding cargo containers in ports worldwide. • And as people hunkered down, they did more online shopping, boosting demand for fast goods delivery. • "What COVID-19 caused was a huge backlog of shipments because the world stood still for awhile," Aditi Mehta, whose company, PROS, provides revenue management tools for airlines, tells Axios. For the record: The Federal Aviation Administration in April approved the use of overhead bins, storage closets and under-seat areas in the passenger portion of aircraft for lightweight pieces on cargo-only flights. • In May it expanded the rule to allow airlines to place cargo - with restrictions - in passenger seats when no passengers are on board. • What to watch: The cargo business is notoriously erratic - even more so now - and the head of the International Air Transport Association warned in a statement this week of continued turbulence ahead. The rush to get personal protective equipment (PPE) has subsided and the economic recovery remains slow. "Cargo is, by far, healthier than the passenger markets but doing business remains exceptionally challenging," said Alexandre de Juniac, IATA's Director General and CEO. https://www.axios.com/airlines-coronavirus-pandemic-cargo-650b9c5f-4956-4be8-86b2-05215b88c6dc.html Back to Top How Dallas-Fort Worth Became the Busiest Airport in the World The Texas airport is operating more flights than any other hub on the planet. While the air travel industry is facing numerous declines during the pandemic, one unexpected upturn has surfaced: a new busiest airport in the world. For the first time in recent memory, Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport is now operating more flights than any other on the planet. In fact, for three months in a row the Texas hub has had the most takeoffs and landings around the globe. Starting in May, the airport climbed to the top ranking, with 22,831 airline takeoffs and landings, according to data from the Federal Aviation Administration. That was enough to edge out some typically busier hubs in the U.S.-including Atlanta, Denver, Charlotte, and Chicago O'Hare-for the number one spot. DFW topped those same airports in June with 25,294 takeoffs and landings, according to the FAA's data. "I've connected through DFW a few times during the COVID outbreak," says Ryan Ewing, founder and president of Airline Geeks. "Early on, I found DFW to be noticeably busier than some other hub airports. Plenty of concessions were open. At one point in April, I had to wait for a few of the Skylink trains to go by before I could go on because they were so packed," he says. While social distancing might be difficult on a crowded airport tram, Ewing notes that the majority of travelers and staff at DFW have been adhering to the policies, such as wearing a mask. The airport made facial coverings mandatory on July 2, and staff have been taking additional precautions such as increased sanitizing by a so-called "Cleaning Strike Team," which is a group of 165 staff members that disinfect touchpoints in all five of the airport's terminals, in addition to its usual custodial contract workers. Dallas-Fort Worth's new top ranking revolves around airlines' recovery plans in the face of COVID-19, specifically new flight strategies from American Airlines, whose headquarters is at the hub. "American has nixed several of its nonstop flights and forced connections through DFW, which will of course make it busier," Ewing says. American is also routing more international flights through its home-base hub. The airline said earlier in July that it would be making Dallas-Fort Worth its "major trans-Pacific hub," as well as for certain flights to Western Europe. It's part of American's larger strategy to lean into its major hubs as travel demand continues to falter. "COVID-19 has forced us to reevaluate our network," Vasu Raja, the airline's chief revenue officer, said in a statement recently. "American will have a significantly smaller international network in the year ahead, but we are using this opportunity to hit reset and create a network using the strength of our strategic hubs that we can build and grow upon and be profitable on in this new environment." In addition to focusing trans-Pacific flights at DFW, the carrier is making Philadelphia its primary gateway to Europe and continuing to use Miami for most connections to Latin American and the Caribbean. The new flight strategy means that Dallas-Fort Worth will likely be the busiest airport once again in July. The airport's CEO Sean Donohue said earlier this month that he expected nearly 100 percent of the DFW's gates to be operational during peak hours. Although the statistics aren't yet finalized, early numbers show the hub on top once again. DFW had 18,098 arriving passenger flights from July 1 through July 28, according to data firm Cirium. So far, that's enough for the Texas hub to beat narrowly beat Atlanta's Hartfield-Jackson Airport-which usually processes the most passengers in the world each year-for the number one spot in July. Over the same period, 16,980 passenger flights arrived into Atlanta airport, according to Cirium, with Chicago O'Hare trailing in third place with 15,755 flights, followed by Denver airport in fourth place (14,040 arriving passenger flights), and China's Guangzhou airport clocking in at fifth place. Pre-pandemic, DFW typically ranked as the fourth busiest airport behind Atlanta, Los Angeles, and Chicago O'Hare. Even though it's the world's top airport for now, DFW is still only operating just a fraction of last year's flight schedule. "This is all relative," Ewing says. Even the current uptick "is a far cry from when American alone operated shy of 900 daily departures from the airport last summer," he says. In May, for instance, the hub saw nearly an 80 percent drop in overall passenger numbers and the number of commercial flights fell more than 57 percent compared to the year before. Passenger traffic found its nadir in April, with the amount of fliers transiting through DFW down by about 92 percent year over year. Indeed, the airport's time as world's busiest might be coming to a close. Based on current flight schedules for August, Atlanta is projected to be the busiest airport globally with 23,006 flights scheduled to arrive into the Georgia airport next month, according to Cirium. And although flight schedules could change over the course of August, the predictions show DFW trailing closely behind in second place. https://www.cntraveler.com/story/how-dallas-forth-worth-became-the-busiest-airport-in-the-world Back to Top Airbus Received Just 8 Commercial Aircraft Orders Between April & June Airbus had a less-than-stellar Q2, with the aircraft manufacturer receiving orders for only eight planes. The European giant lost a massive €1.2 billion ($1.4 billion) this quarter, with revenues dropping by over half. With it now becoming clear that the aviation industry is unlikely to bounce back for a few years, Airbus is preparing to batten down the hatches. Eight new orders Airbus saw only eight new confirmed orders in the second quarter, where the effects of the coronavirus took hold globally. Starting the end of March, countries around the world began implementing lockdowns, and travel became essential-only. At this point, airlines began deferring deliveries, impacting Airbus' schedules. The eight new orders came from Irish-leasing firm Avolon, who ordered 8 A320neos and 1 A321neo aircraft. Avolon also canceled an order for an A330neo, bringing down the tally to eight for the quarter. Airbus deliveries picked up in June, with 36 planes delivered during the month, with a total of 74 planes during the quarter. While this might be a terribly small number for Airbus, it can take solace in Boeing's struggles with order cancelations. Airbus has been able to largely avoid widescale order cancelations, barring from airlines who have now shut down. Cancelations coming soon? As mentioned, Airbus has been able to stave off mass cancellations for any of its planes, unlike Boeing, which has seen hundreds of 737 MAX planes canceled. However, with a backlog of over 7,000 aircraft, Airbus runs the risk of seeing some airlines canceling their orders in the future, as they evaluate their fleets. In response to the slowing market, Airbus has cut production of its A350 to 5 aircraft a month. Widebodies have taken a hit during the pandemic, with long-haul flying restricted due to border closures and domestic markets recovering faster. Airbus' focus remains on producing the more popular A320 and A220 for now. Future looks unclear Airbus and Boeing's quarters were both expectedly disappointing, but more worryingly, it's unclear where the industry is headed. With losses of this size never seen in a notoriously volatile industry, some, including IATA, are predicting a years-long recovery. If this is true, airlines and manufacturers can expect turbulent times with fewer aircraft and lesser revenues. Boeing has had a rough quarter too, losing a shocking $2.4 billion and delaying the rollout of its flagship 777X. With the 737 MAX now expected to return in Q4, the manufacturer is hoping for an increase in demand as it tries to deliver hundreds of planes. More optimistically, some are predicting a surge in travel late next year after a vaccine becomes widely available. However, this is contingent on both a successful vaccine and quick production, both of which are far from guaranteed. The future of the industry has never looked more blurry in the short term. https://simpleflying.com/airbus-8-commercial-orders-april-june/ Back to Top Airbus Aims to 'Significantly' Cull Aircraft Inventory by Year-End Airbus is not providing a forecast for 2020 deliveries or produced aircraft that could remain undelivered to customers, but executives have expressed confidence that the company would clear most of the inventory by the end of the year. The European OEM on June 30 carried a stockpile of 145 commercial aircraft, unshipped because of the pandemic. Speaking during a first-half results call with analysts on Thursday morning, Airbus CEO Guillaume Faury said the company would "significantly" reduce the inventory by the end of the year thanks mainly to what he called the convergence of production and deliveries. "Our objective is to get rid of the vast majority of the inventory by the end of the year," he said. Faury declined to give guidance on the year-end number of undelivered aircraft because of uncertainty around Covid-19 and "the number of airlines with whom we keep adapting the situation to their needs and their own situation." The "very vast majority" of aircraft remain undelivered for just a couple of months, he added, "though there are a fewer number of cases where the situation is critical and where we are preparing ourselves to store the aircraft for a longer time." The airframer delivered 196 commercial aircraft in the first half-11 A220s, 157 A320 family aircraft, five A330s, and 23 A350s-resulting in a 50 percent drop from the year-ago period. To adapt for the Covid-19 market environment, Airbus in April cut its production rates by about a third, including to 40 A320 family aircraft per month from a peak of 60 in 2019; A330 rates dropped from some 3.25 per month to two per month and A350 rates fell from roughly 10 per month to six. Based on its projections that the widebody market will take longer to recover than the single-aisle segment, Airbus on Thursday announced it will again reduce the monthly output of its A350, from six aircraft to five. Conversely, it believes the rate of 40 A320s per month provides for the right balance between supply and demand. "There might be some small adjustment, but we will keep it for the second half of 2020 and entering into 2021," said Faury, adding that a production ramp-up of the single-aisle "potentially could start in the second half of 2021, and it is very likely it will happen in 2022." Faury said he believed aviation will remain a strong business long-term. "We will see again a very strong demand when demand recovers," he said, though he cautioned that air traffic won't likely return to its 2019 level until somewhere between 2023 and 2025. https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/air-transport/2020-07-30/airbus-aims-significantly-cull-aircraft-inventory-year-end Back to Top Jet Airways pays $13 million to acquire 6 Boeing aircraft, engines The airliner has faced a series of accusations of unpaid dues, even being dragged to the NCLT since it was grounded in April 2019 Troubled domestic carrier Jet Airways has acquired six Boeing aircraft and their engines against a lump sum payment of $13,000,000 - which it raised from the sale of its office building in the Bandra-Kurla Complex (BKC) business area of Mumbai. The lessor Fleet Ireland has held back the aircraft due to non-payment of dues, the Hindu BusinessLine reported. Moneycontrol could not independently verify the report. The airliner has faced a series of accusations of unpaid dues, even being dragged to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) since it was grounded in April 2019. Creditors have their eyes fixed on the resolution plan for the airline, submitted by two bidders - a consortium of Haryana-based Flight Simulation Technique Centre, Mumbai-based Big Charter and Abu Dhabi-based Imperial Capital Investments LLC; and a consortium of Kalrock Capital and a UAE-based entrepreneur Murari Lal Jalan. In its recent Q4FY19 results, the company said losses had "significantly increased" to Rs 5,535.75 crore in FY19 from Rs 766.13 crore in FY18. https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/business/jet-airways-pays-13-million-to-acquire-6-boeing-aircraft-engines-5624391.html Back to Top IRS NPRM To Clarify Aircraft Management Taxes The IRS has released a much-anticipated proposed rule designed to update and clarify the treatment of aviation excise taxes surrounding aircraft management services. The proposal follows a directive from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which essentially exempted certain management fees from the application of the commercial air transportation federal excise tax. While the Jobs Act measure was welcomed, subsequent IRS guidance left open many questions on the application of the taxes. Slated for publication in the July 31 Federal Register and open to comments for 60 days, the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) attempts to address the numerous requests for clarification and outlines definitions surrounding aircraft management as required by law. The NPRM focuses on questions surrounding five areas: use of a possession, command, and control test for amounts paid for aircraft management services; treatment of aircraft management services payments made by people closely related to the owner, but not the owner; the effect of the choice of flight rules (Part 91 versus Part 135); certain situations involving charter use; and the effects of how payment arrangements are made. The IRS outlines the legislative directive to exempt amounts paid by an aircraft owner for aircraft management services related to maintenance and support of the aircraft owner's aircraft or flights on the aircraft owner's aircraft. It further defined aircraft management services as those assisting the owner with administrative and support services, such as scheduling, flight planning, and weather forecasting; obtaining insurance; maintenance, storage, and fueling of aircraft; hiring, training, and provision of pilots and crew; establishing and complying with safety standards; and "such other services as are necessary to support flights operated by an aircraft owner." In addition, the tax agency outlines the legislative approach to fractional ownership and refers to the pro-rata share of taxes that are applied in cases involving charter, among other issues highlighted in the proposal. The National Air Transportation Association, which has worked with Congress and the IRS on the issue, said it was reviewing the rules and expects to provide further analysis. https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/business-aviation/2020-07-30/irs-nprm-clarify-aircraft-management-taxes Back to Top Boom Supersonic enlists Rolls-Royce to help build the engines for world's fastest commercial aircraft Boom Supersonic, the Colorado -based startup working on creating a supersonic passenger jet to continue and dramatically advance the legacy of the original Concorde, has signed on Rolls-Royce to build the propulsion system for its Overture commercial aircraft. Boom is getting very close to actually beginning to fly its XB-1, a subscale demonstrator aircraft that will test and prove out many of the technologies that will be used to bring Overture to life. This isn't the first time Boom and Rolls-Royce have worked together: The two companies have had a number of different collaborations on aspects of their development process to date, Boom notes. Rolls-Royce has a history of developing engines for civil aircraft applications dating all the way back to World War II and is the second-largest maker of aircraft engines in the world. Boom's relative newcomer status should benefit greatly from the long tradition Rolls-Royce has in creating aircraft propulsion systems - and it doesn't hurt that Rolls-Royce had a hand in creating the Olympus 593 turbojet that powered the original Concorde. The Overture aims to be the world's fastest passenger aircraft, with flights taking half the time they do on conventional commercial jets (New York to London in just three-and-a-half hours, for instance). The company aims to provide essentially dedicated business class service to a frequent business traveler clientele, and to do so sometime in the next five to 10 years. The XB-1 demonstrator jet has a set reveal date of October 7 this year, which is the first time we'll get a first-hand look at a fully functional aircraft that Boom really intends to fly. https://techcrunch.com/2020/07/30/boom-supersonic-enlists-rolls-royce-to-help-build-the-engines-for-worlds-fastest-commercial-aircraft/ Back to Top United Airlines now planning for bigger pilot layoffs • United Airlines warns of even deeper layoffs than previously discussed because of weakening demand due to the latest coronavirus spike New York (AFP) - United Airlines is now planning for even deeper furloughs of pilots following the latest weakening of air travel demand due to the coronavirus, a company official said Thursday. The big US carrier currently is planning for 3,900 pilots to be furloughed, up from 2,250 expected in early July before the latest spike in US coronavirus cases that has led to another deterioration in customer interest. "Because COVID-19 cases continue, and demand improvement remains very slow, we may need to furlough more pilots in 2020, and in 2021, than originally planned," Bryan Quigley, senior vice president for flight operations, said in a memo to staff. Quigley said total revenues for the airline are down about 85 percent. The company expects to end the third quarter with a daily cash burn of $25 million per day. "This is simply not sustainable for us," Quigley said. United has previously said it does not expect airline travel demand to get above 50 percent of pre-coronavirus levels until a vaccine is found and widely available. The company's chief executive Scott Kirby said last week that he is planning for this outcome until late 2021. Unions for airline workers are lobbying for additional funds from Congress to support jobs in the industry. Quigley pointed to those efforts, adding that the "only other way to mitigate furloughs is through a negotiated agreement with our unions to reduce the costs until we see a return of demand to our business." https://www.yahoo.com/news/united-airlines-now-planning-bigger-pilot-layoffs-182432597.html Back to Top United to drop contract with ExpressJet, dealing fatal blow CHICAGO (Reuters) - United Airlines said on Thursday it has decided to drop its contract with ExpressJet, and consolidate all of its outsourced flying on 50-seat planes with regional rival CommutAir. The decision is a fatal blow to ExpressJet, which will begin to wind down its operations, according to a memo from Chief Executive Subodh Karnik to employees reviewed by Reuters. Reuters reported United's choice between the two carriers on Monday, after reviewing a union letter to ExpressJet pilots warning that the choice could have a "dramatic impact" on the future of ExpressJet. In a statement on Thursday, United said CommutAir will become its sole operator of Embraer SA E145 50-seat planes, under a transition that will take a number of months. Chicago-based United has minority stakes in both ExpressJet and CommutAir, which bring passengers from smaller markets to destinations that United itself serves on larger jets. United was ExpressJet's sole client, which like other global airlines is suffering from the coronavirus pandemic that has decimated air travel deman ExpressJet could not immediately be reached for comment. https://www.yahoo.com/news/united-drop-contract-expressjet-dealing-003140137.html Back to Top Starship SN5 completes engine test - short, low-altitude flight test to follow 'soon' says Elon Musk The sixth full-scale testing prototype of SpaceX's Starship has successfully completed a key static fire test of its Raptor engines, according to SpaceX founder and CEO Elon Musk . The so-called "SN5" Starship prototype is now ready to move on to a 150m (nearly 500 feet) short-duration flight test, which would mark the furthest yet that one of these testing spacecraft has made it through SpaceX's planned development program. SpaceX has been building and testing Starship prototypes (which are designated by the "SN" followed by their number in sequence) since last year, after the company first built a sub-scale demonstrator that was made up of basically just the base of a Starship with a single Raptor engine mounted to demonstrate low-altitude flight and landing capabilities. Since then, SpaceX has been building full-scale demonstration prototypes to perform more test flights, initially seeking to go immediately into high-altitude testing. These were known as Mk1 and Mk2, and Mk1 was destroyed during pressure tank testing, while Mk2 was scrapped with the company turning its focus to Mk3 (renamed SN1, starting the new naming convention for the series). The prototypes that have been developed since have been built and tested rapidly, with SN3 and SN4 both suffering catastrophic failures during the testing process. SpaceX has successfully test-fired the SN5 prototype, however, as of today, and will now move on to the first low-altitude "hop" flight of full-scale prototype test vehicle. Ultimately, SpaceX hopes to replace all of its launch vehicles with Starship -- including Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy -- as well as to use it with its forthcoming Super Heavy booster to carry large loads of cargo to Mars for establishing a permanent human presence on the red planet. It obviously still has many tests, and many iterations, to go before it reaches that lofty goal, but Musk and SpaceX seem keen on a rapid pace of iteration and testing with a relatively public audience. The ample testing is pretty standard for space vehicle development, but doing it out in the open is novel, as is the speed with which SpaceX is building real test articles and then using the results to create new (and hopefully improved) versions. https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/starship-sn5-completes-engine-test-203146457.html Back to Top Back to Top TheUSC Aviation Safety & Security ProgramWill Offer Online Classes This Fall The following upcoming courses, including NEW Safety Performance Indicators course, will take place in our virtual Webex classrooms. Software Safety Philosophies and methods of developing software, analyzing software, and managing a software safety program. Online Course August 17-20, 2020 4 Days Tuition: $2250 SeMS Aviation Security Management Systems Managing and implementing aviation security measures at medium to small size aircraft operators, all airports, and Indirect Air Carriers, with emphasis on risk assessment and cyber security. Online Course August 17-21, 2020 4.5 Days Tuition: $2650 Accident/Incident Response Preparedness This course is designed for individuals who are involved in either preparing emergency response plans or responding to incidents and accidents as a representative of their organization. This updated course has been extended to four full days to integrate communications in the digital age. Online Course August 24-27, 2020 4 Days Tuition: $2250 Human Factors in Aviation Safety This course presents human factors in a manner that can be readily understood and applied by aviation practitioners in all phases of aviation operations. Emphasis is placed on identifying the causes of human error, predicting how human error can affect performance, and applying countermeasures to reduce or eliminate its effects. Online Course August 24-28, 2020 4.5 Days Tuition: $2650 Aviation Law & Aviation Dispute Resolution This course provides information on the legal risks inherent in aviation operations and an overview of the legal system as it relates to aviation safety. The course also provides an understanding of the various legal processes relating to aviation and discusses ways to engage aviation authorities in a responsible and successful manner. The judicial process, current litigation trends, legal definitions, and procedures are also covered. Online Course August 31-September 3, 2020 4 Days Tuition: $2250 Safety Management for Aviation Maintenance This course provides supervisors with aviation safety principles and practices needed to manage the problems associated with aircraft maintenance operations. In addition, it prepares attendees to assume safety responsibilities in their areas of operation. Online Course August 31-September 4, 2020 4.5 Days Tuition: $2650 Threat and Error Managment This course provides students with sufficient knowledge to develop a TEM program and a LOSA program within their organizations. Online Course September 9-11, 2020 2.5 Days Tuition: $1375 Aviation Safety Management Systems Providing the skills and practical methods to plan, manage, and maintain an effective Aviation Safety Management System. Special emphasis for safety managers, training, flight department and maintenance managers and supervisors, pilots, air traffic controllers, dispatchers, and schedulers. Online Course September 14-25, 2020 9.5 Days Tuition: $3750 Hazard Effects and Control Strategies This course focuses on underlying physical, chemical, and biological characteristics and effects, and hazard control strategies. The following hazards are specifically addressed: electrical hazards, electrostatic discharge, toxicity, kinetic hazards, ionizing and non-ionizing radiation, thermal hazards, noise, fire and explosion, high pressure, etc. Online Course September 14-15, 2020 2 Days Tuition: $1200 Damage Assessment for System Safety Sophisticated mathematical models and methods have been developed to estimate the level of impact of a hazardous condition. This course provides an overall understanding of these methods to help managers and system safety analysis reviewers understand the analysis conducted and results obtained by the experts in the field. Specifically, methods for modeling the impact of fire and explosion, debris distribution from an explosion, and toxic gas dispersion are discussed. Online Course September 16-18, 2020 3 Days Tuition: $1625 Safety Management Systems for Ground Operation Safety This course provides airport, air carrier and ground service company supervisors and managers with practices that will reduce ground operation mishaps to personnel and equipment. It provides an understanding of how ground operations safety management is an essential part or an airport's or air carrier's SMS. Online Course September 21-23, 2020 2.5 Days Tuition: $1375 Safety Performance Indicators This course teaches how SPI's are developed, monitored, analyzed and modified in order for an organization to correctly know its safety performance. The course utilizes guidance provided in ICAO Annex 19 and the ICAO Safety Management Manual Doc. 9859. Online Course September 24-25, 2020 2 Days Tuition: $1200 Earn Credit for FlightSafety International Master Technician-Management Program Students taking the following USC courses will earn elective credits towards FlightSafety International's Master Technician-Management Program • Human Factors in Aviation Safety • Gas Turbine Accident Investigation • Helicopter Accident Investigation • Safety Management for Aviation Maintenance • Safety Management for Ground Operations Safety • Accident/Incident Response Preparedness Earn Credit for National Business Aviation Association Certified Aviation Manager Exam Students taking the following USC courses will earn two points toward completing the application for the National Business Aviation Association Certified Aviation Manager Exam. • Aviation Safety Management Systems • Accident/Incident Response Preparedness • Human Factors in Aviation Safety • Aircraft Accident Investigation • SeMS Aviation Security Management Systems For further details, please visit our website or use the contact information below. Email: aviation@usc.edu Telephone: +1 (310) 342-1345 Photo Credit: PFC Brendan King, USMC Back to Top As part of our Swinburne Bachelor of Aviation undergraduate research project, we have constructed a survey for members of the aviation industry and those who have not worked in aviation to provide feedback on their attitudes and opinions about Urban Air Mobility and single-pilot and/or autonomous airline operations. If you are an active participant in the aviation industry as a passenger or through employment, we invite you to take part in this survey to help give the industry a better understanding of the general sentiment towards these emerging technologies and operational concepts. To participate please follow the link below to our online survey: https://swinuw.au1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9zRhPPbCfnsHH3T It should take approximately 20 minutes to complete. Participants who complete the survey will be eligible to enter the draw to WIN AN iPad. Thank you very much for your time. This research project is being supervised by Peter Renshaw at the Department of Aviation, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia. If you have any questions, please contact Peter at prenshaw@swin.edu.au Back to Top Graduate Research Survey Critical Evaluation of the Gaps in SMS Debriefing Tools and Development of Potential Solutions I am inviting you to take part in a study of Feedback within Aviation Safety Management Systems. An airline/organisation Safety Management System (SMS) relies on pilot safety reports (ASAP or ASR) or data (FOQA, FDM) to discover hazards and threats in the operation. In return, the pilots depend on up to date information from the airline's safety department to make sound decisions regarding safety. The safety department can accomplish that by debriefing or giving feedback on the safety reports or data. A literature review of safety report feedback/debrief within Safety Management Systems showed that safety reports are not fully debriefed. This survey aims to gather data regarding pilots' perspective of safety report/safety data debriefing. In addition, the survey also aims to find out the opinions of a potential solution. This study is undertaken as part of a thesis for an Air Safety Management Master of Science degree at City, University of London. https://cityunilondon.eu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_8eadW14UUZYaurj Bengt Jansson Back to Top TO ALL PROFESSIONAL PILOTS, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS, members of their Management, Regulators and related organizations (airplane, helicopter, civil or military) WE REQUEST YOUR SUPPORT FOR A JOINT AVIATION SAFETY SURVEY (JASS) ON: "AERONAUTICAL DECISION-MAKING, INCL. MONITORING & INTERVENTION IN PRACTICE" Dear aviation colleague, you are invited to participate in a research project conducted by the department of Psychology at City, University of London, which aims to elicit your views and thoughts on Aeronautical Decision-Making, including Monitoring and Intervention in normal operation,by which we mean routine line flights without any incidents or technical malfunctions. The questions deal with teamwork and decision-making issues in various Pilot-roles, e.g. the role of the Pilot Monitoring (PM), Pilot Flying (PF), Pilot in Command (PIC) and Co-Pilot, and respectively in the Air Traffic Controller (ATCO)-roles of the coordinating and radioing/radar ATCO as well as pilot's and controller's training and occupational picture. This survey is completely anonymous - no identifying information will be requested or collected - and all responses will be treated as strictly confidential. The survey is approved by City's research and ethics committee (Approval Code: ETH 1920-1414). The introductory section of the survey will provide you with further information and the informed consent. Please click here to access the survey or copy the survey-link below into your browser. https://cityunilondon.eu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_6n7cxeunMyfy0fz By completing the questionnaire, you can - in addition to supporting aviation safety research - even do more good as we will donate a minimum of €2 for the first 1000 fully completed responses to the UNICEF COVID-19 Solidarity Response Fund which helps to care for vulnerable children and communities all over the world. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us via email: aviationsafety@city.ac.uk or tom.becker.1@city.ac.uk or via phone: +49 172 7178780. We thank you very much in advance. Your support is truly appreciated. Best regards, Capt. Tom Becker Prof. Peter Ayton Back to Top GRADUATE RESEARCH SURVEY Dear Participants, You are being asked to participate in a research study of your opinions and attitudes about stress and mental health. This research started almost two years ago. The purpose of this study is to examine mental health issues in aviation, specifically Part 121 airline pilots. During this study, you will be asked to complete a brief online survey about your opinions on various life circumstances, stress, and mental health topics. This study is expected to take approximately 15 minutes of your time. In order to participate, you must possess an FAA issued Airline Transport Certificate (ATP) and you must also be currently working as a pilot for a Part 121 air carrier that is headquartered within the United States. Participation in this study is voluntary and data will be collected anonymously, stored confidentially, and you may choose to opt out of the study at any time. We sincerely appreciate your consideration and time to complete our study, as it is another small but important step towards increasing safety in aviation. Please click on the link below to complete the survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/7ZG6M6L For more information, please contact: Tanya Gatlin - Student Researcher Gatlint1@my.erau.edu 281-924-1336 Dr. Scott Winter - Faculty Advisor winte25e@erau.edu 386-226-6491 Curt Lewis